Sasanka Perera
(This essay was initially published in The Island on 19 December 2025: https://island.lk/poltergeist-of-universities-act/)
The Universities Act is back in the news – this time with the present government’s attempt to reform it through a proposed amendment (November 2025) presented by theMinister of Education, Higher Education and Vocational Education, Harini Amarasuriya, who herself is a former academic and trade unionist. The first reading of the proposed amendment has already taken place with little debate and without much attention either from the public or the university community. By all counts, the parliament and powers across political divisions seem nonchalant about the relative silence in which this amendment is making its way through the process, indicative of how low higher education has fallen among its stakeholders.
The Universities Act No. 16 of 1978 under which Sri Lankan universities are managed has generated debate, though not always loud, ever since its empowerment. Increasing politicization of decision making in and about universities due to the deterioration of the conduct of the University Grants Commission (UGC) has been a central concern of those within the university system and without. This politicization has been particularly acute in recent decades either as a direct result of some of the provisions in the Universities Act or the problematic interpretation of these. There has never been any doubt that the Act needs serious reform – if not a complete overhaul – to make universities more open, reflective, and productive spaces while also becoming the conscience of the nation rather than timid wastelands typified by the state of some universities and some programs.
But given the Minister’s background in what is often called progressive politics in Sri Lanka, why are many colleagues in the university system, including her own former colleagues and friends, so agitated by the present proposed amendment? The anxiety expressed by academics stem from two sources. The first concern is the presentation of the proposed amendment to parliament with no prior consultative process with academics or representative bodies on its content, and the possible urgency with which it will get pushed through parliament (if a second reading takes place as per the regular procedure) in the midst of a national crisis. The second is the content itself.
Appointment of Deans
Let me take the second point first. When it comes to the selection of deans, the existing Act states that a dean will be selected from among a faculty’s own who are heads of department. The provision was crafted this way based on the logic that a serving head of department would have administrative experience and connections that would help run a faculty in an efficient manner. Irrespective of how this worked in practice, the idea behind has merit.
By contrast, the proposed amendment suggests that a dean will be elected by the faculty from among its senior professors, professors, associate professors and senior lecturers (Grade I). In other words, a person no longer needs to be a head of department to be considered for election as a dean. While in a sense, this marks a more democratized approach to the selection, it also allows people lacking in experience to be elected by manoeuvring the electoral process within faculties.
In the existing Act, this appointment is made by the vice chancellor once a dean is elected by a given faculty. In the proposed amendment, this responsibility will shift to the university’s governing council. In the existing Act, if a dean is indisposed for a number of reasons, the vice chancellor can appoint an existing head of department to act for the necessary period of time, following on the logic outlined earlier. The new amendment would empower the vice chancellor to appoint another senior professor, professor, associate professor or senior lecturer (Grade I) from the concerned faculty in an acting capacity. Again, this appears to be a positive development.
Appointing Heads of Department
Under the current Act heads of department have been appointed from among professors, associate professors, senior lecturers or lecturers appointed by the Council upon the recommendation of the vice chancellor. The proposed amendment states the head of department should be a senior professor appointed by the Council upon the recommendation of the vice chancellor, and in the absence of a senior professor, other members of the department are to be considered. In the proposed scheme, a head of department can be removed by the Council. According to the existing Act, an acting head of department appointment can be made by the vice chancellor, while the proposed amendment shifts this responsibility to the Council, based upon the recommendation of the vice chancellor.
The amendment further states that no person should be appointed as the head of the same department for more than one term unless all other eligible people have already completed their responsibilities as heads of department. This is actually a positive development given that some individuals have managed to hang on to the head of department post for years, thereby depriving opportunities to other competent colleagues to serve in the post.
Process of amending the Universities Act
The question is, if some of the contents of the proposed amendment are positive developments, as they appear to be, why are academics anxious about its passing in parliament? This brings me to my first point, that is the way in which this amendment is being rushed through by the government. This has been clearly articulated by the Arts Faculty Teachers Association of University of Colombo. In a letter to the Minister of Education dated 9 December 2025, the Association makes two points, which have merit. First, “the bill has been drafted and tabled in Parliament for first reading without a consultative process with academics in state universities, who are this bill’s main stakeholders. We note that while the academic community may agree with its contents, the process is flawed because it is undemocratic and not transparent. There has not been adequate time for deliberation and discussion of details that may make the amendment stronger, especially in the face of the disaster situation of the country.”
Second, “AFTA’s membership also questions the urgency with which the bill is tabled in Parliament, and the subsequent unethical conduct of the UGC in requesting the postponement of dean selections and heads of department appointments in state universities in expectation of the bill’s passing in Parliament.”
These are serious concerns. No one would question the fact that the Universities Act needs to be amended. However, this must necessarily be based on a comprehensive review process. The haste to change only sections pertaining to the selection of deans and heads of department is strange, to say the least, and that too in the midst of dealing with the worst natural calamity the country has faced in living memory. To compound matters, the process also has been fast-tracked thereby compromising on the time made available to academics to make their views be known.
Similarly, the issuing of a letter by the UGC freezing all appointments of deans and heads of department, even though elections and other formalities have been carried out, is a telling instance of the government’s problematic haste and patently undemocratic process. Notably, this action comes from a government whose members, including the Education Minister herself, have stood steadfastly for sensible university reforms, before coming to power. The present process is manoeuvred in such a manner, that the proposed amendment would soon become law in the way the government requires, including all future appointments being made under this new law. Hence, the attempt to halt appointments, which were already in the pipeline, in the interim period.
It is evident that rather than undertake serious university sector reforms, the government is aiming to control universities and thereby their further politicization amenable to the present dispensation. The ostensible democratization of the qualified pool of applicants for deanships opens up the possibilities for people lacking experience, but are proximate to the present powers that be, to hold influential positions within the university. The transfer of appointing powers to the Councils indicates the same trend. After all, Councils are partly made up of outsiders to the university, and such individuals, without exception, are political appointees. The likelihood of them adhering to the interests of the government would be very similar to the manner in which some vice chancellors appointed by the President of the country feel obligated to act.
All things considered, particularly the rushed and non-transparent process adopted thus far by the government does not show sincerity towards genuine and much needed university sector reforms. By contrast, it shows a crude intent to control universities at any cost. It is extremely regrettable that the universities in general have not taken a more proactive and principled position towards the content and the process of the proposed amendment. As I have said many times before, whatever ills that have befallen universities so far is the disastrous fallout of compromises of those within made for personal gain and greed, or the abject silence and disinterest of those within. These culprits have abandoned broader institutional development. This appears to be yet another instance of that sad process.
In this context, I have admiration for my former colleagues in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Colombo for having the ethical courage to indicate clearly the fault lines of the proposed amendment and the problems of its process. What they have asked is a postponement of the process giving them time to engage. In this context, it is indeed disappointing to see the needlessly conciliatory tone of the letter to the Education Minister by the Federation of University Teachers Association dated December 5, 2025, which sends the wrong signal.
If this government still believes it is a people’s government, the least it can do is give these academics time to engage with the proposed amendment. After all, many within the academic community helped bring the government to power. If not and if this amendment is rushed through parliament in needless haste, it will create a precedent that signals the way in which the government intends to do business in the future, abusing its parliamentary majority and denting its credibility for good.