“Good actions give strength to ourselves and inspire good actions in others.” Plato.

The reports that the authorities of the University of Mines and Technology at Tarkwa refused to allow Dr Mahamudu Bawumia to interact with the students of the institution on the campus constitute a sad commentary and reflection of academic and intellectual freedom in our country.

Students in our tertiary institutions are matured enough to determine for themselves who they should invite to address them in as far as what they seek to do does not undermine any law in the country and is, thus, not a criminal activity.

While authorities of any of our educational institutions have the obligation to nurture their students, we have to distinguish between basic, secondary and tertiary educational institutions such that the levels and measures of controls would be appropriate to the institution.

Some of us have observed with concern how some heads of institutions, in a seeming posture of being apolitical, have undermined democracy and diversity of thought. However we see it, for as long as we, as a country, have opted for multi-party democracy, it means that people of different political backgrounds and persuasions would have to interact with students from time to time. What we need to do is not to allow partisanship to destroy the orderly conduct of academic life. We cannot stop politics from the university campuses; what we can do is to use the diversity of political activities to strengthen our unity in diversity.

When school authorities, especially heads of tertiary educational institutions, act unfavourably towards political pluralism and diversity, they undermine the very ethos of university education, academic freedom, and freedom of conscience. It is at the university level that our thoughts and philosophies of life blossom and mature. Universities are for research and researchers have to be free from any kinds of biases that could influence the outcomes of their searches.

The idea of frustrating such engagements does not enure to the benefit of anybody. After all, the university campuses are not security or restricted zones. They are primarily public places where scholarship is to be shared and knowledge disseminated openly. It is thus shameful, for whatever reason, that after all arrangements have been concluded, the authorities despotically turn round to deny a citizen legitimate access to students of the institution to discuss issues of national importance.

Unless the authorities hold the view that the mere presence of Dr Bawumia on the campus could disturb the peace of the institution and cause mayhem, they did not have any fundamental basis to have disallowed him from interacting with the students. Students of the university have minds of their own. They are not dunces who could be hoodwinked by a day’s lecture or interaction with a politician. If for nothing, there would have been some among the audience who hold different political philosophies and who could have asked Dr Bawumia intelligent questions to push the boundaries of academic freedom forward.

If Dr Bawumia has interacted with students in Colleges of Education and other universities without any let or hindrance, what was so different from UMaT that the authorities deemed it necessary to deny him the opportunity of interacting with the students. For as long as student bodies of political parties exist on our university campuses, such denial of the privilege for the students to interact with their political mentors could be a source of conflict between students and university authorities.

Indeed, it is the fundamental right of the students to invite prominent persons, including academics, politicians, and notable citizens, to share their thoughts with them from time to time and it would be dysfunctional for the authorities to clog the processes, especially so when they appear to be politically motivated.

Ours is a multi-party constitutional democracy. Parliament has no right to legislate for a one-party system. It will be absurd for authorities of tertiary educational institutions to decide to derail the processes of students inviting people of diverse political backgrounds to interact with them and share with them their political or economic thoughts.

Let the authorities of the UMaT explain why they did what they did and whether they have a justification for not allowing the event to take place. They should be the first to promote pluralism and political tolerance. The issue of academic freedom cannot be negotiated and it is in our collective interest that we encourage all shades of political opinions, ideologies, and thoughts to be shared with our students.

What is imperative is to inculcate in the students the spirit of independent thinking and informed decision making; as Mahatma Gandhi argues that “I will not stuff my windows but allow the wind to blow all over, but I refuse to be moved by the wind.”