When the Costa Rica-based University for Peace (UPeace) launched the Dual Campus Master Programme on International Peace Studies in the Philippines in 2007, there were 30 students from 11 Asian countries who made it to the Programme. Being the first batch of students under the new Dual Campus Programme, the students experienced the complexity of decision-making under the set-up of dual campus. While the center of decision-making remains at Costa Rica, there are two personnel of UPeace who have delegated authority to attend and respond to some issues raised by the students. One particular issue that was strongly raised by many students was about the decision of UPeace to arrange the accommodation of all students using their stipend without the students’ participation in the decision-making process. The students felt that any decision-making that concerns them should include their participation in the process.
Like any other organizations in a free and democratic society, a university adopts a certain decision-making mechanism that governs and affects its faculty, staff, students, and other members. The students, being a significant part of a university, should play an active part in the decision-making process that affects them. There is a “generally accepted political proposition that in free societies all those affected by a social policy have an inalienable right to a voice in its formulation” (McGrath 1970, 51). However, a university operates within and is embedded in a power structure that defines mostly its decisions. Morison (1970, 25) describes the “reality of power structure in the university that implies the acceptance of an administrative diagram which shows power-flowing down from the trustees, through the president to the faculty, with nothing left for distribution to the lowly students.” He continues that “the university is perceived to be virtually beyond the reach of the influence of students. It is this perception which lies behind much of the clamor about student powerlessness and the demand to be allowed to make decisions affecting the student’s own life” (Ibid, 51).
Acceptability of an effective decision hinges on the kind of participation given by the people concerned and involved (Prescott, 1980). In a university, some students are passive recipients of decisions but many students refuse to be just on the receiving end. The more the decision excludes participation of students, the more they will likely reject the decision and clamor for inclusion in the decision-making. For the students, a decision can be more effective if they take part in the decision-making process. This proposition will expectedly face objections from university administrators and educators.
McGrath (1970) enumerates five objections to student participation in the decision-making. First, due to their large numbers, students will dominate decision-making bodies in universities. Second, due to limited life experiences, students’ immaturity will reflect in their decision-making. Third, due to limited number of years in a university, students will miss to look at the larger and longer picture. Fourth, students have yet to gain specialized abilities and professional values. And finally, being part of decision-making will interfere with the students’ studies and gainful employment. It would be pointed out that these objections do not hold ground for the following reasons. Let us take them one by one. The apprehension that the students will dominate in the decision-making bodies is very unlikely to happen since members of these bodies are representatives of various groups that are proportionately represented. Both the immaturity of students and lack of professional values will be better dealt with by the challenges and lessons to be handled and learned at the interactive discussions of these decision-making bodies in which the students participate. The students are not supposed and expected to ponder the larger and longer picture of the issues because this is the work of administrators who shall balance the present and future needs and goals. The students are expected to give opinions and concrete examples on the issues based on their experiences and perspectives. The concern that students’ participation in the decision-making will interfere in their studies and gainful employment undermines the motivation of students towards their studies and employment. These objections to the students’ participation rest on a shallow ground to merit attention on their arguments.
On the other hand, there are six justifications for students’ participation (Ibid, 1970). First, with the sophistication of students and their serious and informed interests, it will be good and instructive to listen to students’ interesting voices and ideas. Second, in preparation for the students to be good citizens, they should be educated and exposed to democratic exercises like school elections and participating in decision-making activities. Third, through their experiences, students can improve higher education in general. Fourth, by treating them as maturing adults, students can help abolish the doctrine of In Loco Parentis (in place or position of a parent) in universities. Fifth, of course in the teaching-learning environment, students can have a hand in the improvement of instruction. Sixth and finally, students are recognized voice and presence in the universities, and that they should not be ignored or excluded. These justifications underscore the significance of students’ participation in the decision-making.
There are four core values in the participatory decision-making that a university can adopt (Kaner 1996, 24). First is the encouragement of full participation of all members. Second is the mutual understanding of the legitimacy of each other. Third is the inclusive solution from which various perspectives and needs are considered. The last core value is the shared responsibility of the task. This is to highlight that the task of decision-making is not on the officers, managers, and administrators alone but is shared by everybody who has a stake on the decision to be made.
Kaner (1996, 29) also presents the benefits of participatory values in decision-making. These benefits are personal learning of those who participate in the decision-making, development of effective groups, and sustainable agreements. Of particular interest here are the sustainable agreements that are netted by participatory decision-making. If students are included in the decision-making processes in universities, there will be less restlessness and clamor among students to be transparent and accountable in the decision-making process since they are part and privy of the process.
Should universities then share their power on decision-making with their students? Or should they restrain power in themselves? The quality and effectiveness of a decision lie in the openness of the universities for participatory decision-making since they traditionally hold the key for this kind of decision-making. Obviously, the benefits of participatory decision-making are there to reap. The students are there to be tapped for their sea of potentials. The universities are there to facilitate these potentials into fruition. Thus, whatever the tasks and functions of universities, they are always seen as shared responsibility, with the community, parents, local officials, government, and especially students who care for their education, have a stake as anyone else, and want to seize the opportunity to take command of their actions and future as responsible members of society.
References:
Kaner, Sam. “Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-making.” British Columbia: New Society Publishers, 1996.
McGrath, Earl. “Should Students Share the Power?: A Study of their Role in College and University Governance.” Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1970.
Morison, Robert. “Students and Decision making.” Washington: Public Affairs Press, 1970.
Prescott, Bryan. “Effective Decision-making: A Self-development Programme.” Hampshire: Gower Publishing Company Limited, 1980.
Posts
