Education without character By Niyi Akinnaso

Education can do no more than reflect society

—Emile Dukheim

This penetrating observation by Emile Dukheim, the foremost French sociologist, over a century ago, has far-reaching ramifications for contemporary Nigerian society and the sorry state of its educational system. So does Mahatma Gandhi’s observation that education without character does no society any good. When the leaders of a society lack character, their followers often follow suit. In no time, the entire society and its institutions lack character. Consequently, the ills of the society are reflected in the educational system.

As the society and its institutions plummet, it is not only the educational system that goes down with it. Gandhi’s seven deadly sins are all manifested, namely, (1) Politics without principles; (2) Education without character; (3) Religion without sacrifice; (4) Commerce without morality: (5) Pleasure without conscience; (6) Science without humanity; and (7) Wealth without work.

No one to date has embarked on the huge project of devoting a book-length study to each of these sins as they apply to the Nigerian situation but  Dr. Adetolu Ademujimi, MB.Ch.B, Medical Director of Hope Healthcare Services, Ltd. Under the series titled, “7 Demoters of Nigeria’s Destiny”, Ademujimi has completed two books, namely, Politics Without Principles (2010) and Education Without Character (2013). The remaining five are to follow.

The title of the present essay is derived from the title of the second book in the series, published by Hopewell. The book was launched at the Afe Babalola University on Friday, October 18, 2013, as part of the first convocation ceremonies of the university. The 180-page book consists of 10 chapters; a Forward by Ifedayo Adedipe (SAN); and two preliminary sections by the author, one on the seven demoters of Nigeria’s destiny, based on Gandhi’s seven sins, and the other on the justification for the book and a preview of the key terms, education and character.

In what follows, I reflect on the book, my review of it during the launch, and the state of Nigerian education, focusing on university education. My reflections are also informed by the inspiring lecture given on that occasion by Prof. Pat Utomi, who fed the audience with anecdotes about the damage done to Nigeria’s image at home and abroad by leaders who lack character.

Early in Chapter 1, Ademujimi provides a brief survey of our educational system, why it is substandard today, and who is responsible. His historical stance that the military rulers battered the educational system for nearly 30 years by infusing it with bad character is instructive. However, as I argued in my review, it is important not to conflate historical and contemporaneous causation. Until we begin to own our problems, we will continue to pass the buck. So, we must ask: What has the PDP-led Federal Government done in 14 years to reverse the downward trend?

In Chapter 4, Ademujimi defines character in terms of six co-existent features, namely, trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. Good character is said to exist where the six features are positively manifested, and bad character where they are negatively manifested. From the military era, Ademujimi argues  bad character has been the lot of the Nigerian educational system, as vividly illustrated by the plight of university education today.

When the negative manifestations of character are applied to all the institutions and agents associated with public education, especially universities, in Nigeria, we discover a complete lack of good character. Chapter 5 demonstrates how this applies to the proprietors of public education, university administrators, parents, lecturers, students, and other stakeholders.

Ademujimi’s observations are corroborated by the Report of the Needs Assessment Committee on Nigerian Universities, which details the deficiencies in physical facilities, environmental ambience, administrative practices, teaching and learning processes, and value orientation in public universities. Whether directly or indirectly, no one escapes blame in the Report for the rot in university education today. So bad is the situation that the committee had to make no less than 189 recommendations aimed at addressing the shortcomings.

The book and the Report throw more light on who is to blame for the prolonged strike by the Academic Staff Union of Universities. True, university teachers, parents, and even students have their own share of the blame, but the Federal Government is triply culpable (1) for shirking its responsibility as the sole proprietor of federal universities, partly for underfunding the universities, while corruptly diverting funds to unworthy causes and into personal coffers, and partly by usurping or eroding established university practices; (2) for  reneging on the 2009 agreement with ASUU; and (3) for playing games with the committee’s Report, which has been in the government’s hands for nearly a year.

It is bad enough that another committee was set up to study an evidence-based report with comprehensive recommendations. It is even worse that the Federal Government has been hoarding the reports of both the original and secondary committees. If University Governing Councils and Vice-Chancellors, who participated in providing data for the reports, do not have copies, how will they be able to initiate necessary change on their campuses? And how could they move forward when even the partial sum promised by the government has not been released?

It is invidious on the part of the government to keep asking ASUU to call off the strike when it has repeatedly failed to keep its part of the bargain.

Given the pervasiveness of the problems besetting public universities and the inability of the key participants to reach agreement on how to move forward, what hope is there for public university education in this country? Ademujimi recommends the teaching of character education across the board (Chapters 5-10), including the adoption of the Yoruba Omoluabi model (Chapter 8). It is only then, he concludes, that we will able to avoid the pitfall of what Gandhi termed “knowledge without character”, that is, “a lack of connection between what we know to be in everyone’s long-range best interest and our ability to act on that knowledge (page 164).

There are two problems with this solution. First, the institutions and agents normally responsible for character education are the same ones currently responsible for the erosion of values and character debasement. How do they get out of the present conundrum to become agents of change? Second, can character education alone solve the range of problems as identified in the Needs Assessment Report?

To be sure, a change in attitude and values is necessary, and Ademujimi provided useful guidelines for accomplishing such change. But equally necessary is adequate funding, which could bring about change in infrastructure, teacher education, teaching aids, and curricular improvements. These are critical to improvements in teaching and learning processes. Adequate funding is also critical to the services provided by administrative and technical staff of universities.

Indeed, it is not unreasonable to argue that “good character”, which once existed in the public universities, turned into “bad character” when the universities began to face financial strangulation. In the ensuing struggle for survival, lecturers, students, and parents began to explore shortcuts, leading to where we are today.

It is against this background that ASUU’s demand for more funding should be understood. To reduce its demand to mere allowances, as some critics have implied, is to misunderstand its plight and the extent of the rot in the universities.