Principles must be reaffirmed at the University of Guyana UG

Dear Editor,
Reference is made to a published letter in the newspaper entitled “I think UG VC’s Appointment should be reaffirmed” by Dr Vibert Cambridge (Sep 4).
Dr Paloma Mohamed-Martin’s appointment as the Vice Chancellor of the University of Guyana (UG) violates long-established rules on caretaker status of a Government – and an illegal one at that – (having lost the No-Confidence Motion in Parliament), and one which sought to retain office through electoral fraud.
Caretaker Administrations do not make permanent appointments. As an academic at an American university, Dr Cambridge knows the rule. He is Chair of the African Studies Department. He would know that if an interim President of his university were to appoint him as Head, it would be for an interim period, and must resign when the substantive President takes office for a permanent appointment.
On this principle alone, Mohamed’s appointment ought to be revoked.
Vibert Cambridge’s relationship with Paloma Mohamed
I note that Dr Cambridge is the Head of the African Studies Department at Ohio State University.
In his letter, he reveals his relationship with Mohamed. They both write on Afrocentric issues. To his credit, unlike Mohamed, Cambridge gave Indians a squeeze in his writings on music, art and culture.
Mohamed excludes Indians altogether. But Indians want equity, not a squeeze and tokenism.
When a group is squeezed in, it can also be squeezed out at any time as happened during the APNU regime. The way Indians are treated (to make short shrift of them and being condescending) is deeply resented by Indians.
One must not be paternalistic towards Indians and define what is Indo-Caribbean culture like what happened at Carifestas and Mashraminis. Indo-Caribbeans must be allowed to define their own culture. There must not be forced participation in cultural values that are not theirs.
I am not critical of or opposed to Dr Paloma Mohamed Martin’s or Dr Cambridge’s Afrocentricity. I applaud her fascination for Afrocentric values and her work on Afrocentric issues and on Afrocentric writers. Being an Afrocentric must never disqualify anyone from a job.
But there must be balance. Afrocentric appointments must be balanced with appointments from other ethnicities, especially Indians and Amerindians in our divided nation.

The controversial
tenure of Vice-Chancellor Professor Ivelaw Griffith
One must be sensitive to these appointments. Mohamed’s first act of appointment is to promote Afrocentrist Dr Melissa Ifill. Six months later, there are no Indian or Amerindian appointments. Does Cambridge find such an action in good taste, fair and balanced? Why didn’t he call her out for this lapse?
It would have been nice if Mohamed had done some writings on Indian issues and on Indian writers like VS Naipaul, Shiva Naipaul, Ken Ramchand, Cheddi Jagan, among others, instead of only on Marcus Garvey. I wish there were Indian or Amerindian writers who are as gung-ho about their ethnicity as Mohamed is of Afrocentricity.
Cambridge saluted Mohamed for leadership at UG. I wouldn’t expect less from Dr Cambridge. Mohamed is his protége. He trained her to look at things in a certain way. He must defend and recommend her.
As he noted, Mohamed was promoted from Dean to Deputy VC by Ivelaw Griffith whose tenure was shrouded in reports of financial irregularities. The UG Council forced him out. The leadership at UG – when Mohamed was promoted to Deputy VC – was disgraceful.
Every scholar, and a majority of the Council, condemned his leadership. How could Cambridge praise that leadership? Was he not reading the goings-on at UG during the tenure of Griffith and Mohamed?
He states that “she was deployed as Deputy VC in charge of philanthropy, alumni and community engagement. Her performance and productivity revealed a solid scorecard, especially the metrics of resources mobilised for UG”. Wrong!
It was precisely in those areas that questions were raised about the Griffith/Mohamed leadership at UG. I direct Cambridge to read the countless articles written by Freddie Kissoon on abuses at UG.
People flew first-class to and from the diaspora with UG funds and stayed in five-star hotels. Many had their hotels paid for at Marriott, Ramada and Pegasus. Mohamed never dissociated herself from those scandals.

Why was Dr Cambridge
silent on Granger’s illegality?
At a reception for the Diaspora Engagement Conference at Ramada in 2017, there was a cultural programme in the ballroom. I thought I was in Africa. The programme was devoid of any Indian or Amerindian-related cultural presentation. One would have concluded that Guyana has only one race. How could Mohamed – who was in charge of community engagement – not be sensitive to culturally-ethnic biases?
Separately, I must call out Dr Cambridge for his silence during the period of violation of democratic norms between Dec 21, 2018, and August 1, 2020.  It is incredible that Cambridge who, as Head of an African Studies Programme, was in a position to provide moral guidance to the Government of Guyana to respect democratic conventions, but he suffered from lockjaw.
What is Cambridge’s view of David Granger not honouring the No-Confidence Motion of December 21, 2018? Why did he not call on Granger to resign and hold elections?
I also noticed that Cambridge has “AA” behind his name. He was honoured with the “Arrow of Achievement” by the Granger Administration. For what? Many Indians who have made contributions to the nation have not been honoured. Why weren’t an equitable number of distinguished Indian, Portuguese, Chinese and Amerindian scholars also honoured?

Ethnic imbalance in
honourees by Granger
I did an analysis of honours given by the Granger Administration from May 2015 to February 2020. There were a total of 452 honourees – 58 in 2015, 86 in 2016, 69 in 2017, 96 in 2018, 77 in 2019, and 66 in 2020. Of these, less than 10 per cent went to Indians, less than 6 per cent went to Amerindians. Some 80 per cent went to only one ethnicity that accounts for 40 per cent of the population.
Indians account for some 45 per cent of the population and Amerindians some 11 per cent for a total of about 56 per cent of the population, but together they comprise only 16 per cent of the awardees during the APNU-led Government.
How does Cambridge feel about the ethnic distribution of honours? Ivelaw Griffith and Mohamed (to be verified) were also honoured by Granger. Griffith was a friend of David Granger. They were comrades in the PNC youth group, YSM. Both held leadership positions in the PNC youth group under Burnham. Is that how appointments should be made? Read Freddie Kissoon on the Granger-Griffith connection!
All I am advocating for at UG is respect for democratic conventions, adhere to the rules of academic integrity in appointments (including of VC), and have ethnic balance.
Why can’t we re-affirm those principles instead of re-affirming a person?

Sincerely,
Sherry Hosein Singh