A History Of Violence
JORDAN BUSINESS MAGAZINE
May, 2013
Verbal and physical violence on university campuses has now become a regular part of our lives in Jordan. In this exclusive op-ed, HE Professor Walid Maani looks at the reasons underlying this new phenomenon and ponders some of the solutions being proposed.
Hundreds of pages were written, numerous studies were compiled, but the problem remains unsolved. Violence is not new to our universities; the causes differed and the magnitude changed. In the 1980s, we observed the political type of violence in Yarmouk, while in the 1990s, during the incidents that took place at the University of Jordan, the reasons were sectarian. Since then, a lot of water has passed under the bridge. In a major study financed by the Ministry of Higher Education in 2010, as in a similar report commissioned by the Social and Economic Council in that same year, it was evident that one cannot separate violence in the universities from that in society at large. Both studies alluded to a general mood of unease due to social, political and economic reasons that led to an increase in the recuerent incidence of these riots. One can feel and observe that clearly, especially in the past two years.
Both studies listed issues that contributed in a major way to the frequency of these incidences. Of these, outdated curricula and teaching methods, together with the absence of faculty mentoring to students and lack of purpose among many of the apprentices, ranked high. The powerful emotions accompanying student elections, which is nothing but a reflection of what happens in parliamentary elections at large, and the culture of refusal to accept defeat in a democratic process, were among the other reasons for the nature of many of the major riots that have plagued some of our universities as of late. At the same time, the lack of proper selection of newly appointed staff, combined with the low quality of preparation of most faculty members in the fundamentals of teaching and mentoring, kept a big gulf between staff and students.
Both studies went on in length to talk about the quality of students admitted to universities and that many were not selected properly. Those students formed a big portion of those involved in riots.
The universities’ administrations were at fault, too, for being unwilling to apply the proper regulations guiding student behavior inside universities. They succumbed to pressure from society, and even officials, to forgo punishment issued by universities.
The gradual change of universities from melting pots for all components of society to ones catering for students from local geographical regions, combined with the tendency (due to societal pressure) to appoint staff from the same area of that university, changed universities into institutions for local students and staff, bringing with them all the differences of the local society and inhabitants, and allowing any feuds to spill over into the university.
The general public mood and the economic hardships felt by many led to ugly behavior that culminated in the destruction of public property, including that of universities. One cannot rule out that some of these quarrels were started on purpose to give the impression of a university’s administrative inability or to indicate societal instability.
All studies, as do all governments committees established to look into this phenomenon, agree that proper selection of students and staff, reform of university administration, introduction of new curricula, including those dealing with debate and democracy, will form the backbone of any solution. Meanwhile, students must engage in community work and abide by and respect university regulations. When disciplinary measures are taken against transgressors, they should be carried out without interference from anybody; and students dismissed from a university for being part of violence should not be allowed to enroll in any other university.
