The disciplinary action taken by the University of Science and Technology Academic Board on July 15, 1980 must indeed sadden the hearts of many parents. 

According to reports 22 students have been dismissed effective from May 9 this year for complicity in disturbances that recently rocked the peace of the University and the nation in general. Four other students have been suspended with retrospective effect and are therefore to resit the examination in June 1981 as external candidates, while 11 other suspended students have had the results of their examinations withheld until July 9, 1980. 

It is regrettable that what began as a simple and usual students’ form of agitation, at least from the students’ point of view, should get out of hand and degenerate into a near crisis the solution of which was the “high-handed” response of the University Administration. At any rate it may be useful to recap the episode for the benefit of those similarly disposed to plead clemency for the dismissed students. 

On March 19, 1980, the general student body of the Queen Elizabeth Hall resolved among other things at their Junior Common Hall meeting that both the Senior and Assistant Domestic Bursars be removed for being the cause of what the students considered as “inefficient and ineffective” catering services at the Hall. 

The Students in their usual impatient manner backed their demand up with a demonstration on April 1, 1980 and indeed got the Director of Students and Academic Affairs to the Hall to see things for himself. 

On April 4, 1980, the students in question obviously took the law into their own hands by “kidnapping” the wife of the Director of Academic and Student Affairs. 

From the students’ point of view, this extremist behaviour resulted in the University authorities “conceding a large part of what the students were demanding.”

A week later the University Authorities appointed a fact-finding committee into the “kidnapping” incident before which students cheekily resolved not to appear because of its so called “biased composition.” 

The lecturers of the University joined in the drama and decided to boycott lectures unless the erring student body was punished for the misbehaviours. Indeed, are a rustication order followed later after the committee’s report which compounded the issue: Students of Queen’s Hall refused to comply initially; and after compliance the general student body of the University in sympathy decided to enforce their own self-imposed boycott of classes resulting in the taunting of fellow students wishing to break the boycott. 

On May 3, 1980, the rustication ended but with three more committees being appointed among which were the investigation of the kidnapped wife of the Director of Academic and Students Affairs as well as molestation of students by students. 

Considering the general incidence of indiscipline in Educational Institutions here in Ghana, there is justification in the punishment which the University authorities have meted out to the students at least from the point of view that students will draw a lesson regarding their legitimate bounds in respect of behaviour toward lawful authority and certain demands. 

But while looking at the fate of the students from the principle of punishment, we plead mercy from the point of view of severity. It is the considered opinion of the STANDARD that the punishment handed out was a clear case of “operation overkill.” The remedy appears to us worse than the disease.

Now that emotions have settled down, we appeal to the University authorities to temper justice with mercy and reconsider the fate of the affected students, many of whom we suspect may be the future bread-winners of their extended families. In so pleading, we would wish to recall the original cause which led to the students’ misbehaviour, namely allegations of inefficiency and maladministration against certain members of the kitchen staff some of which were reportedly true. We also like to mention that somewhere along the line the students themselves resolved to take a collective responsibility for their action. And one would therefore have thought that the 3 week rustication affecting all the students of the Hall in question was an admission by the University authorities of the collective responsibility of the students’ actions. 

It will, indeed, be unfortunate and a false start for the coming academic year if students through this punishment should come to regard themselves as scapegoats of what they consider as the failure or shortcomings in high places. 

To the extent that the University is charged with the responsibility of moulding the character of students and building discipline into them, the STANDARD thinks, the authorities are justified in prescribing condign and corrective punishment. Our only plea again is that the severity of the punishment in its long term consequence tends to do more damage and harm than the problem it sets out to solve. 

Considering the history of relations between faculty and students, and of crime and punishment in UST in particular, the present prescription for a return to sanity in the institutions appear to us to be more punitive in inspiration than corrective. Redolent more of “I’ll show you where power lies” than of “Son, Come but sin no more.” To the MISERERE NOBIS MAGISTRIS of the errant students the University authorities have responded with “Ve victis!” 

Although not as a matter of right, we hope the UST Authorities will heed our call and save the affected students and many parents from anguish, especially so after the students have already apologised to the authorities.

 

More from U.S.T

• 1973: U.S.T. students Demonstration
• 1973: Copy Of Report To Investigate The Cause Of U.S.T. Demonstrations
• 1973: March Demonstration By U.S.T.
• 1968: Students Demonstration at U.G. And U.S.T.
• 1973: Damage To property By U.S.T. Students
• 1980: We Were Not Part Of NUGS Conference
• 1978: Students, Police Clash
• 1980: U.S.T. Students Kidnap Wife Of Director