Adebayo Lamikanra

By Adebayo Lamikanra

It is very often said that nature abhors a vacuum. But, much more than this, nature abhors orderliness. And so, all natural institutions and systems always tend to gravitate towards situations in which they have the lowest energy, this being the position of greatest disorderliness. It is immediately obvious that from the point of view of society, this is undesirable since progress and disorder are mutually exclusive of survival, let alone development. In chemical terms, a great deal of energy is expended in the effort to push a reaction away from thermodynamically predictable pathways leading to disorderliness and the production of useless, if not harmful substances.

The mechanisms by which the chemist controls reactions usually involve the expenditure of tremendous amounts of various forms of energy, which in material terms is translated into money. This is the simple reason why the products of chemical industry are in the main, expensive and sometimes very much so. The price we have to pay for these products is simply the cost of the discipline, which needs to be imposed on the process of chemical synthesis.

This principle can indeed be extended to cover all forms of industrial and creative activity. In all cases, the failure of discipline is dangerous as this may lead to explosions, escape of noxious gasses, leakage of deadly radiations and grievous financial loss. As it is with chemical reactions and industrial processes, so it is with human institutions like armies, trading companies, empires, colonies and universities, all of which are infected with the seeds of disorder and ultimate disintegration right from their moment of inception. In the case of universities and indeed all the institutions mentioned above, perhaps, the most important ingredient for development is discipline as this is the form of energy required for overcoming the natural propensity for disorder.

There is in fact, no definable limit to what the individual can learn within its walls. The university is primarily a training ground but it is by necessity a vast and complex organisation within which a large number of intricate reactions are going on. All these must be linked together if the university is to have a chance of succeeding in its onerous task of building minds. The thread, which makes this linkage possible, is discipline.

Discipline, in human terms, is defined as a training of the mind and character leading to self-control. In the university, students are exposed to instruction in various areas of human knowledge, in an attempt to produce an individual with the ability to use his mind and skills to solve problems within his community. This in essence, is an oversimplified description of the role of universities since there is in fact, no definable limit to what the individual can learn within its walls. The university is primarily a training ground but it is by necessity a vast and complex organisation within which a large number of intricate reactions are going on. All these must be linked together if the university is to have a chance of succeeding in its onerous task of building minds. The thread, which makes this linkage possible, is discipline.

The forerunner to the modern university is the monastery, within which, during the early days of Christianity in Europe and right down to the Renaissance, monks and nuns tried in various ways to find God. There are no indications to show that they were successful in this regard but there is no doubt that they served the important functions of being the repository and custodians of knowledge. To facilitate their devotion to ecclesiastical matters, the monks shut themselves away from the world. They renounced all their ties to a world, which in their consideration was bubbling with sin and gave themselves up to the contemplation of the joys of heaven. They were the faithful successors to the Stoic tradition of enduring extreme and self-imposed physical discomfort in the process of developing the mind. Iron discipline was the order of the day in the monastery, this being regarded as the first step on the road to self-discovery. To enhance discipline and emphasise their remoteness to human affairs, monks were not only subjected to rules but were obliged to take oaths of silence or some other form of control over what most other people regarded as being part and parcel of normal human existence. Furthermore, in some orders, the monks were required to inflict pain, through self-flagellation, exposure to cold, wearing of uncomfortable apparel, fasting and deep meditation for interminable periods.

The forerunner to the modern university is the monastery, within which, during the early days of Christianity in Europe and right down to the Renaissance, monks and nuns tried in various ways to find God. There are no indications to show that they were successful in this regard but there is no doubt that they served the important functions of being the repository and custodians of knowledge. To facilitate their devotion to ecclesiastical matters, the monks shut themselves away from the world. They renounced all their ties to a world, which in their consideration was bubbling with sin and gave themselves up to the contemplation of the joys of heaven. They were the faithful successors to the Stoic tradition of enduring extreme and self-imposed physical discomfort in the process of developing the mind.

Unfortunately however, the monasteries were not geared towards making direct and positive contributions to the affairs of world from which they appeared to be completely isolated. Another factor, which made the continued existence of monasteries untenable, was the fact that their relations with the external world were often quite negative. The monasteries were frequently very rich, powerful and grasping, aligning themselves quite enthusiastically with the corrupt agents of the state apparatus. The subsequent demise of monasticism was therefore inevitable showing that discipline cannot be an end in itself. It must be geared towards the achievement of clearly defined goals, as is the case with the university.

From the brief description of the monastery given above, it is easily apparent that freedom, whether of the mind or of action did not command a high premium within them. The monks simply did what they were told to do without any questions asked. In the university however, the guiding principle is academic freedom. There is freedom to choose what is to be done and how it is to be done. This freedom has to be handled with great diligence since it is perhaps the most important ingredient of disorderliness. Freedom without discipline is nothing but license to create disorder and terminal disintegration. Apart from the issue of freedom, the university is further put at a disadvantage by the fact that unlike almost all institutions, such as the army, civil service and private sector organisations, there is no command structure within the university system. In other words, authority is not derived from the system but from individuals within it and this is either from sheer force of personality or from a combination of ability and achievement. In other words, people in positions of authority within the university system must arrive at those positions on the strength of no other consideration but merit.

The question of merit is fundamental to the issue of discipline in the university where respect from those in nominally subordinate positions cannot be taken for granted. Leadership in academia can only be successful when the leader is demonstrably disciplined. This issue is of course closely linked to that of de facto university autonomy with regard to the appointment of the vice-chancellor or chief executive, hence the intensity of the struggle over this point during ASUU strike. Government favourites have, for far too long been foisted upon Nigerian universities and this has been to the detriment of discipline on the various campuses. The current struggle for genuine democracy and accountability in some of our universities is also a pointer to the determination of lecturers to inject a hefty dose of discipline into the system. Government appointed vice-chancellors have not been perceived to be sufficiently alive to their responsibility to their constituency and this has been to the severe detriment of maintaining an acceptable degree of discipline in Nigerian universities.

Unfortunately however, the monasteries were not geared towards making direct and positive contributions to the affairs of world from which they appeared to be completely isolated. Another factor, which made the continued existence of monasteries untenable, was the fact that their relations with the external world were often quite negative. The monasteries were frequently very rich, powerful and grasping, aligning themselves quite enthusiastically with the corrupt agents of the state apparatus. The subsequent demise of monasticism was therefore inevitable showing that discipline cannot be an end in itself. It must be geared towards the achievement of clearly defined goals, as is the case with the university.

The position of vice-chancellor is clearly an important one within the university. But, the university is not run by him alone, even though he sets the tone. The committee system is at least in principle responsible for most of the decisions taken in the university and so the membership of these committees is of crucial importance to the determination of the status of discipline in the university. There is a large preponderance of professors on university committees and this being the case the process of appointing professors is of crucial importance to discipline. The appointment of professors is supposed to be strictly on merit, but there have been cases of vice-chancellors, who for utterly selfish reasons have found it expedient to promote the interest of candidates who from all indications of objective criteria, are not qualified to be professors. Such people not only fail to give effective leadership, but in reality, damage morale and undermine discipline, thereby catalysing the process of achieving disorderliness and, making it impossible to achieve the stated objectives of the university.

Universities are set up for teaching and research activities but there are many that say that in fact, the more important function is teaching and that students are the real reason why we have universities. I am in unequivocal support of this position and will go on to add that not only is the university lecturer an instructor, but also is, or at least must be, a strongly positive role model. The students must be able to admire certain traits in the lecturer, for the lecturer to be adjured competent. The very process of learning demands that the student be disciplined. It requires a great measure of self-control and denial for the simple reason that the state of idleness or unbridled enjoyment of the good things of life is more disorderly and therefore more natural than trying to find the way through the problems posed by application of the laws of Thermodynamics, Linguistics or Philosophy. University lecturers who are required not only to be very knowledgeable in various esoteric fields, but also to have actually contributed to knowledge in their different fields must be expected to have arrived at their exalted positions only after rigorous study, a situation demanding great personal sacrifice and immense discipline. It is to be expected that the discipline acquired during their long and rigorous course of studies will be manifest in the various aspects of social intercourse. Their interaction with students must follow directly from this.

Fresh university students are not required to have little more than an appreciation of rules. This is because discipline in the secondary school is regarded as being just the application of school rules and regulations. This may not do more than encourage the development of habits that are consistent with social responsibility and therefore a strong platform on which to build the edifice of discipline. Whilst it is true that positive reflexes are built into the student in the secondary school, it in the university that these reflexes are put to the test. This is because; unlike in the secondary school where all activities are regulated, there is no compulsion in the university. The student who does not realise that the apparently unlimited freedom in the university is a mirage will find it difficult to cope with the problems which freedom creates for individuals and institutions. Passing through the university is therefore more than just picking up a degree. It is, or at least should be, a process of training the mind and character.

Not only is the university lecturer an instructor, but also is, or at least must be, a strongly positive role model. The students must be able to admire certain traits in the lecturer, for the lecturer to be adjured competent. The very process of learning demands that the student be disciplined. It requires a great measure of self-control and denial for the simple reason that the state of idleness or unbridled enjoyment of the good things of life is more disorderly and therefore more natural than trying to find the way through the problems posed by application of the laws of Thermodynamics, Linguistics or Philosophy.

A disciplined society is one in which there are law, order and justice. It is one in which all the laws that regulate conduct within it are applied to all and sundry, irrespective of position or any other consideration. As with all institutions, all members of a university community are subject to rules and regulations. There is no university in which there is no code of conduct to act as a guide for all forms of social intercourse and an essential component of discipline is the enforcement of these rules in the event of any contravention. The vice-chancellor has the authority to investigate all cases of misconduct in the university. The use or as the case may be, the misuse of this authority by the vice-chancellor is an important determining factor in the level of discipline in the university. A subjective application of disciplinary measures is rapidly fatal to the status of discipline within the university. Here at the Obafemi Awolowo University, it has been perceived by a large majority of students that the children of staff involved in acts of indiscipline have been treated with kid gloves by the university authorities. Students have been unduly sensitised by this observation and it has contributed in no small measure to the attendant difficulties in maintaining an acceptable standard of discipline on the university campus.

Universities are the products of the society in which they are situated and even if they are sequestered in the ‘ivory tower’, away from the distractions of the larger society, they cannot be completely isolated from external influences. In many instances such influences are distractions which furthermore, contribute to the possibility of disorderliness. The degree to which these distractions are allowed to disrupt academic activities in a given institution will depend significantly on the level of discipline within it. In other words, those institutions with a strongly developed tradition for discipline will be best able to resist external pressures. But, it must be stressed that the ability of academia to resist unsavoury external influence depends on the level of corruption or degeneration within the larger society.

As at now, the level of corruption and disorderliness within the larger Nigerian society is so great that universities find it very difficult to resist the massive assault on their traditions. This being the case, it should not be surprising that the level of discipline in Nigerian universities is not consistent with what is desired for the fulfillment of their objectives.

The struggle going on within the Nigerian university system must, in the light of this, be seen as a struggle for the future of our nation. The fight against corruption and other negative social factors must have their roots in the universities, which are in the position to have a strongly positive effect on society. The universities can only perform this function when it becomes apparent that lecturers, students and university functionaries subject themselves to discipline of a high order. From university administrators, there is a pressing need for them to show scrupulous financial discipline and accountability. Lecturers must be alive to their responsibility as the moulders of those destined to be the next generation of rulers. The students, on their part must show a healthy appreciation of the importance of subjecting their minds and bodies to the rigours of discipline. Universities are a very expensive investment in terms of money but without a concomitant investment in discipline, there is little doubt that society will reap very little reward from its financial sacrifices.

Lamikanra, a professor of Pharmacy at Obafemi Awolowo University, Ife sent this 1993 piece because of its relevance to 2016 Nigeria