IN search of explanations as to why the UWI Selection Committee would come to the conclusion that Sir Hilary Beckles — champion of what I see as an impossible claim for reparations for slavery — was the right person to the lead the University of the West Indies at this time, I posed several questions to two US-based, Caribbean-born political economists, Trevor A Campbell (Jamaica) and Hilbourne A Watson (Barbados).

Campbell and Watson are part of a team of scholars, associated with the online forum Caribbean Dialogues, who are actively engaged in the study of the political economy of 21st century globalised capitalism, including the institutions and organisations that serve to facilitate the functioning of this economic system.

MW: In appointing Sir Hilary, what do you gentlemen believe was the general mindset of the committee?

TC & HW: It is hard to figure out what was their mindset as we are not privy to the composition of the committee, apart from the name of the chairperson, Dr Marshall Hall; the pool of candidates that they had to draw from; the final three that made the shortlist; the questions that were put to the candidates; and the responses the candidates gave to the questions.

It would be beneficial for this information to be made available to the general public, given that the UWI is a public institution, and the issue of funding tertiary education throughout the region and elsewhere is a major topic of discussion at this time. Public access to this information in “democratic societies” makes it possible to develop a clear sense of the type of assets the members of the committee were looking for.

In the absence of this information we suggest that one of the basic requirements for being a successful university president (vice chancellor in this case) is a demonstrated ability to raise a significant amount of money from wealthy donors throughout the world, without which a modern university cannot function, and its students and faculty will be at a serious competitive disadvantage in a globally integrated capitalist economy in which criteria for determining relevant education, skills, and productivity are determined by global standards.

In other words, if the members of the search committee are not very clear about what they were looking for at this particular historical moment of globalised capitalist production, which is characterised by unrelenting technical innovations driven by robotics and information technology and the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands – the people with the bulk of the financial assets that they should be targeting – it is very unlikely that they will be successful in accomplishing the mission of bringing major resources into the institution.

MW: Do you see Sir Hilary offering anything new to the university’s development and direction?

TC and HW: To the best of our knowledge, neither the UWI nor Sir Hilary has, to date, provided any statement outlining his vision for the institution in the age of globalised capitalist production. Our sense is that such a document should include a section on how he and his team are going to mobilise the resources to accomplish the things that they would like to see implemented.

However, irrespective of whatever lofty vision Sir Hilary may be thinking about, here are some of the stubborn objective realities that he and his team will have to deal with, whether or not they are fully aware of these realities and what they imply for an institution such as UWI which, like many other tertiary institutions in North America, Europe, and beyond, is struggling to remain relevant and financially viable in the modern world.

Public tertiary institutions are caught in the vortex of austerity that is imposed from above by the transnational capitalist interests that are working diligently to integrate the world into a single global capitalist economy. The austerity policies in effect are designed to soften up governments, economies, and societies to make them more amenable to the dictates of global integration. This contradictory development is expressed as the fiscal crisis of the state, with governments routinely cutting back on social spending, leaving public health, education, and other areas of social development underfunded or even unfunded.

MW: Let’s cut to the chase. Who has the funds and how can it be tapped into?

TC and HW: That leads us to the other side of this equation where the global wealthy have stashed away between $23 and $52 trillion in tax havens (in keeping with laws enacted by governments), depriving national governments of tax revenues to finance infrastructure programmes across the spectrum of the political economy.

By this measure, the so-called fiscal crisis of the state is an invention for waging class struggle from above on the denizens of people who must work for a living to reproduce themselves. This is how the wealthy and the governments that support them hide behind free-market rhetoric to force the working classes to pay for the problems that are caused by those that live off the unpaid labour produced by the working classes.

Let us be clear on the following: It is quite unlikely that UWI will ever become a world-class research institution comparable to counterparts in North America, Europe and beyond. In order to become a truly competitive world-class research institution the UWI would have to be able to mobilise the billions of dollars required to purchase highly advanced tools and to hire the highest quality faculty that can train and prepare scientists and technologists who are tied to modern global industries.

The primary function of top quality research universities and research institutes is to collect the funds from the corporate forces to train and produce the talent and expertise to run business and the world. See for instance, the following announcement, ‘Harvard gets largest-ever donation: Hong Kong-born investor gives $350 million to his alma mater’.

In contrast, working-class tertiary institutions, like UWI and numerous others around the world, are there to reproduce the working class to serve capital, the state and others.

We sincerely hope that Sir Hillary and his team are not labouring under any illusions that the so-called reparations movement is going to do the trick of bringing this type of capital to UWI, as that would be a pipe dream. Furthermore, the more time that they spend on these distractions the less time they will have to spend on researching the areas where they might be able to prepare some sections of the working class students that populate UWI to sell their labour power in the global capitalist marketplace.

MW: So, in what areas can an institution such as UWI carve out a realistic niche? And what would Beckles and his team have to do to mobilise the resources to finance this development?

TC and HW: From what we can gather, during his tenure as principal at the Cave Hill Campus, Sir Hilary was able to raise a sizeable amount of funding from the Barbados business community, along with normal public (government) funding. Most of the private capital went into the construction of several buildings that saw a dramatic expansion of the physical facilities of the campus. This seems to have been a part of Sir Hilary’s dream to have at least one UWI graduate in every household in Barbados by 2020, we believe.

It is not clear, however, that this aspect of Sir Hilary’s vision was based on a careful consideration of the real needs of the modern capitalist economy. Sir Hilary’s dream has been upended by events associated with the declining competitiveness of the Barbadian economy. As we know, tertiary education at Cave Hill is no longer free, and from what we have heard, the enrolment at the university declined dramatically.

You ought to pose the following questions to the vice chancellor-elect: What is the purpose and future of the brick-and-mortar university in this rapidly changing global environment that is being transformed by the digital revolution? Do Sir Hilary and his team have a clue of the implications for an institution such as UWI? Are they aware of the rapid global expansion of massive online open courses (MOOCs) that are transforming access to online education in competition with established institutions and at dramatically reduced cost?

The fact is that leading institutions in the US, the World Bank, and other private sponsors of MOOCs have bought into this alternative for the expressed purpose of reducing the cost of producing labour power for capital. A growing number of states across the US have begun to require that state universities put all course syllabi online, free of charge. This should give UWI pause for concern.

MW: Are you getting a sense that the youngsters leading the student body understand and appreciate these changes and their implications?

TC and HW: Plainly, no. It is apparent that the folks at UWI do not seem to be paying attention to the global conversation about the forces that are transforming the world of education and training for the working class. This was demonstrated by Lerone Laing, president of the Guild at Mona, in a recent article he wrote ‘Time to explore alternative funding for tertiary education’ (Jamaica Observer 19/8/14).

He appears oblivious to the far-reaching impact that the ongoing digital revolution is having and will continue to have on the push to reduce the cost of a university degree and the students’ debt load, as well as the time it takes to complete a degree. In addition, tertiary institutions, particularly in the US and Europe are being compelled to more sharply focus on students acquiring the skills that are more closely aligned with the demands of modern industry.

It would be interesting to know if Sir Hilary and the finalists for the VC position were asked by the committee how they would go about transforming the culture at UWI and restructure the priorities to bring it closer to what is becoming a generalised process of preparing a global proletariat for globalised capital.

Mark, how is Sir Hilary going to deal with the reality that over 65 per cent of the students at Mona are enrolled in social science and humanities fields for which very few jobs exist, or if jobs exist, they are in the rapidly dwindling public sector?

Over to you, Sir Hilary and Mr Laing.

observemark@gmail.com