Prof Pfukwa head-to-head with MM on Radio
PROFESSOR Charles Pfukwa (CP), also editor of The Patriot, is the executive dean-Social Sciences and Humanities (Social work, Peace and Governance, Languages and Communication Skills, Culture and Heritage Studies) at Bindura University of Science Education. Recently he was in Mutare and was kind enough to give MM an interview on his education programme-Head-To-Head.
MM: Professor Pfukwa, you hold a colossal position of responsibility at Bindura University . . . Executive Dean. Do you want to describe your function at an institution like this?
CP: The function of an executive dean is to superintend over a number of departments in a faculty . . . in a group of learning disciplines.
MM: Clear Prof . . . very clear indeed! Tell us, what is a good university? What is the purpose of university education? I have a strong suspicion, Prof, that a lot of parents, young women and men think it is best to have a university degree because it is a symbol of emancipation . . . a symbol of personal glory. It is all about personal glory . . . nothing more. Prof, what is the best perception of university education?
CP: That’s a very difficult question . . . MM: I know . . . need I apologise?
CP: No, no, no . . .You don’t need to apologise for asking a difficult question. MM: Thank you Prof.
CP: Your difficult questions set us thinking. They let us take a hard look at ourselves . . . let us think where are coming from and where are we going. First of all it is important for us to look at this from a backdrop of a colonial education. That is very important to bear in mind. Looking at the academic cultures that we set up in these universities! We must bear in mind that these intellectual cultures and traditions we set up are deeply steeped in Western traditions. Our yardsticks are Cambridge, Massachusetts University of Technology, Harvard, Yale, Berkely. But is it the proper yardstick? Whatever we do in our own universities, do we need to measure ourselves against those foreign or international standards?
MM: Search me Prof. Is that a polite way of saying we are copy-cating foreign systems of education? A polite admission of guilt! CP: The very fact that we are conducting this discussion in English is a problem on its own. This has been argued extensively by Ngugi waThiongo and other scholars. If we were in Japan we would be conducting this debate in Japanese. If we were in China, in Chinese . . . and so forth and so on! That is a big statement about how we are still living in a tradition where we do not own our systems of knowledge . . . the way we package . . . we conceptualise our knowledges . . . the way we deploy this knowledge in society.
MM: There is nothing home grown about
it . . . you think?
CP: Not at all! That’s one of the greatest difficulties . . . because this knowledge we are packaging . . . we are manufacturing . . . is designed by a culture and tradition that has nothing to do with the Zimbabwean man or woman in the street, or in the rural community struggling with his field where he or she is growing, may be ‘‘mutsine’’ or some little crop. It’s irrelevant because it has never been of value to the western world. But you and I know that ‘‘mutsine’’ or ‘‘nyevhe’’ must end up in the laboratory . . .
MM: . . . because these are vegetables with very high medical and nutritional value!
CP: Exactly! And this is where we must begin our scholarship . . . this is where we must begin to shape our processes of learning and take them as far as University. Because these answer our own issues . . . our own problems. This illustrates our needs.
MM: And some may not even know ‘‘mutsine’’ is black jack.
CP: Exactly why I keep insisting on ‘‘mutsine’’ because ‘‘black jack’’ is a misnomer that was brought by people with a derogatory language that adulterated our cultural values and dignity. We conceive . . . articulate, express ourselves . . . our total conceptual frame in a language that denigrates us.
MM: Are universities seriously cognisant of what you are saying Prof or they are only too happy to run along with a colonial . . . imperialist system of education? CP: I am not alone in this problem . . . I am sure. The solutions may still be far, but the education system is slowly shifting towards the right direction. The setting up of institutions that are Science-based, Agricultural based, Technological based, instead of churning out thousands of a humanities crop of personnel . . . teachers, nurses versus very few doctors and engineers and geologists, is a step towards the solution of those problems we inherited from a colonial past. MM: In short and in simple language Prof, what is the role of a university in national development and is that what you do, namely assist in national development . . . in national building? Or what you are good at is decorating graduates with colourful degrees that neither improve the holder nor better the nation!
CP: What is the role of university, first? University is the highest stage of intellectual enquiry . . . and a good institution should solve the problems of society. An ideal university must produce human resources needed for the growth of the nation. And the answers must guide policy makers. Let me give an example of a strange disease . . . maybe it is a plant virus that is attacking the baobab trees in and around Chipinge leaving it with a tree-leprosy kind of black spots. Is it a climate problem? Whatever it is, if the baobab tree becomes extinct, we have lost the fruits, the shade and the very environment. Yet we cannot take the problem of a dying baobab to the University of London . . . Glasgow or New York. They don’t know anything about the baobab. But what do we do? We still worry a lot and talk a lot about the pine tree, the cypress . . . the gum and sycamore tree.
MM: Professor, your definition of a good university is palatable to the ear . . . on this programme? But is that what is happening in the universities, including Bindura where you are executive dean? I am sure you can now guess why I invited you to this programme. Is what you are impressively articulating here what you are doing at Bindura? What problems are you solving? What problems are other universities solving being centres of the highest intellectual enquiry as you said? If you are solving these problems why do we still have so many problems around us: unemployment rate of 80 percent plus, an almost permanently stagnant national pass rate of between 30 and 35 percent in schools? Clearly it is more appropriate to talk about a failure rate . . . not a pass rate in Zimbabwe because year-in-year-out 65 to 70 percent of candidates in schools fails examinations. That is a worrisome phenomenon, is it not? We have a whole litany of problems haunting Zimbabweans every day and every night. Where are the universities? Where is the executive dean? . . . Where are the executive deans of universities? Have they forgotten to superintend over their academic programmes?
CP: Allow me to use the example of NGOs in Zimbabwe. They are here year-in-yearout. Most of them purport to be here to alleviate poverty? Why are we still with poverty around?
MM: Very simple professor! Most of these NGOs have dismally failed to engender equitable answers to the problem of poverty. Hand-outs for example solve the problem of poverty for today . . . probably tomorrow, but certainly not a permanent answer to poverty. That is a relief measure . . . not a permanent solution to poverty.
They perpetuate poverty deliberately or by default because they thrive on the problems of poor Africans. Of course not all of them . . . but most of them create problems for Africans so that they continue to be seen to be helping them. Meanwhile enriching themselves in the business of assisting poor Africans! It’s that simple.
CP: Back to the dying baobab tree in the Sabi Valley. Big institutions in New York . . . in London . . . in whatever big city in the world will never fund a research programme to save the African baobab in the Sabi Valley. If they do, they will attach strings attached to the research programmes: human rights and political issues attached. Are they really interested in finding a solution to the dying baobab when they do that? Or they want to glorify themselves or furthering their own interests . . . and making money. If a research of this nature is funded, it is conducted in those countries and ends up benefiting them, not us.
MM: Meanwhile what are you busy doing
in our universities Prof?
CP: If you want to research on improving soya-bean yields, you don’t get the funding. Yet, soya-bean farming on more than one hectare of land demands mechanisation! What with the costs involved? Can a poor peasant farmer afford the costs? Surely there is need for research on cheaper and better farming methods. The same with Gold mining! There are gold deposits almost everywhere in Zimbabwe. How does the local player . . . the korokoza become a genuine small scale miner legally and legitimately earning a living for him or herself?
MM: My question still stands Prof. What are you doing in those universities . . . to make the lives of ordinary people better? You said Uniz are centres of problem solving. What problems are they solving? If anything, ironically these are gradually becoming centres of all sorts of problems . . . hubs of drug taking and pushing, havens of student prostitution, HIV and AIDS conduits . . . well, that is a topic of discussion and debate for another day.
CP: Today we talk about Education 5.0 This means going beyond the basic research, teaching and common service. This now talks about innovation in education . . . training people to be problem solving. And beyond innovation . . . there is the need for creation of our own wealth . . . to patent it and link it with entrepreneurship . . . with industry . . . with financiers . . . put together a package . . . machinery to work towards better, cheaper, effective extraction of gold versus the huge gold companies. You want to localise the benefits of the local player or peasant. (to be continued.)