The infrastructure crisis at state universities

The infrastructure crisis plaguing state universities in Sri Lanka is a significant issue that cannot be overlooked. The classrooms, laboratories, libraries, auditoriums, board rooms, study halls, halls of residence, parking space, and sanitary facilities are all crucial components of a university's built infrastructure. Without proper maintenance and upgrades, these spaces fail to provide the conducive environment required for meaningful, inclusive, and democratic education.

At the Faculty of Arts, University of Jaffna, where the reporter teaches, inadequate classrooms lead to classes being conducted in auditoriums meant for public meetings. With increasing enrollment, students are sometimes forced to take classes in their offices or via Zoom, even under normal circumstances. The hostel facilities for undergraduates are also insufficient, pushing students to seek private boarding options. The sanitary facilities also require better maintenance.

The primary reason for the infrastructure crisis is the lack of state funding for education. Despite the demand for 6% of the GDP to be allocated to education, it remains an unmet goal even under a left-leaning government. The neoliberal logic that guides Sri Lanka's economic decisions plays a significant role in this. IMF programs have instilled the belief among the political establishment that increased funding on social goods like education is undesirable and that privatization is the way forward.

The ongoing austerity measures imposed under the current IMF-driven Extended Fund Facility arrangement leave no room for rejuvenating the education system, including its physical infrastructure.

The rapid increase in student admissions to state universities over the past few decades has also contributed to the infrastructure crisis. While free education is a crucial democratizing measure, it cannot be achieved without a simultaneous increase in physical and human resources. The Ministry of Education and the University Grants Commission should engage in proper deliberations and planning, along with university administrations, to increase student intake and infrastructure expansion.

These consultative processes should be genuinely participatory and democratic, rather than mere name-dropping exercises.

Another factor contributing to the crisis is thoughtless academic and curriculum planning by universities and faculties. To gain recognition or score points for promotions, academics sometimes rush to create new academic programs without considering the available physical infrastructure and human resources. Donor agencies, such as the World Bank, push universities to offer too many superficial courses in soft skills without assessing their usefulness to students and the wider community.

Curricula committees, Faculty Boards, and Senates fail to realize that the curriculum cannot exist in isolation from the material conditions of the university and the availability of finances and resources.

To address the infrastructure crisis, infrastructure concerns must be a central discussion point in planning, prioritizing, and revising academic programs and courses. It is essential to recognize that universities are hierarchized spaces with hierarchies of disciplines and social relations based on gender, ethnicity, and disability.

A common tendency among decision-makers is to prioritize science and technology subjects over humanities and social sciences when allocating financial resources for infrastructure facilities. However, humanities and social sciences should not be neglected, as they are equally important in providing a well-rounded education.