By Dr. Kumar Mahabir
May 11th, 2021 marks the 3rd anniversary of our wrongful, unfair, and unjust retrenchment by UTT.
Schools, colleges, and universities worldwide have been closed since March 11, 2020, when COVID-19 was declared by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a global pandemic. But for 69 lecturers of the University of Trinidad and Tobago (UTT), the door was shut against them since May 11, 2018 – three years ago. As the outbreak of COVID-19, there was no warning. These lecturers were ambushed with retrenchment letters in the middle of the semester while teaching students in class.
Follow NewsGram on Twitter to stay updated about the World news.
The dismissal letters gave them seven days to take their personal property and vacate the premises. They were caught off-guard with mortgages, loans, rent, and bills to pay as well as families to feed. They were suddenly without a job and medical insurance. The stay-at-home retrenchment order was triggered by these “surplus” lecturers who had become “redundant” in the university’s “restructuring exercise.” Was their forced quarantine justified? Let’s look at the facts and revelations, using my situation as a case study.
My teaching load was higher
In all its internal and external releases, UTT has declared that lecturers’ teaching load (as opposed to workload, which would have included research and service) was the main criterion used to select teaching staff for retrenchment.
UTT’s disclosure to my Freedom of Information (FOIA) application, after I was dismissed, states that I was carrying a teaching load of 70.8%, excluding Practicum. However, there were other Assistant Professors who had considerably lower teaching load percentages but were not selected for retrenchment.
Some of them had scored as low as 15%, 28%, 35%, 38%, etc. In fact, of the 20 Assistant Professors who were retained, only two (2) or 10% had higher teaching load percentages than mine. Although my teaching load percentage (70.8%) was higher than most of my former colleagues, who were retained, I should have earned yet a higher teaching score had it not been for an error and contradiction on the part of UTT.
UTT’s disclosure to me, after I was fired, reveals that the PRACTICUM courses I taught were not counted as part of my teaching load. However, the same PRACTICUM Term 2 courses (PRAC 1002 and PRAC 2002) were counted for my colleagues, Additionally, a PRACTICUM Term 3 course (PRAC 2001) was counted for others, but not for me. These errors and contradictions by UTT are important to note because the university has declared that lecturers’ teaching load was the main criterion used to select teaching staff for retrenchment.
These errors and contradictions in computing the teaching load scores for me constitute bias, inequality, unfairness, and injustice in selecting me for retrenchment. These mistakes and paradoxes resulted in my dismissal which has caused me grave humiliation, pain, suffering, stress, trauma, and rejection as well as loss of income, status, dignity, pride, and institutional affiliation.
Was this Programme really being phased out?
In many of its releases and correspondences, UTT has stated that I and other lecturers were retrenched because the Secondary School Specialisation courses which we taught were being phased out as part of the university’s restructuring exercise. At the dismissal meeting at the Centre for Education Programmes (CEP) at UTT, administrator Dr. Judy Rocke also told the assembled lecturers that all Secondary School Specialisation courses were being phased out, resulting in us being “redundant” in the university’s “restructuring exercise.” The following facts reveal that this statement is not true.
These same courses were timetabled for a NEW cohort of students during the new semester which began on September 3, 2018. These Secondary School Specialisation courses are taught from Year 2. One of these courses which were not phased out for the new Year 2 student-intake was ANTH 2001- Caribbean Cultural Anthropology, which I taught. After my retrenchment, I was replaced by a lecturer who was not qualified to teach ANTH 2001.
Substitute lecturers not qualified
The Accreditation Council of Trinidad and Tobago (ACTT) made the following written disclosures to me, dated August 23, 2019. Its Executive Director, Dr. Eduardo Ali, stated that my substitute lecturer was “not qualified to teach” ANTH 2001. Additionally, Dr. Ali stated that another substitute lecturer teaching the course TVOC 2003: Job Task Analysis in Semester 1 during the Academic Year 2018-2019 at CEP was also “not qualified to teach the said course”.
I began my tenure at UTT as an Assistant Professor in January 2007 – longer than most of my former colleagues, who held Ph.D. degrees in CEP. My latest Performance Management and Appraisal Process (PMAP) appraisal score, dated October 3, 2017, was 95 out of 100. This score was given, approved, and endorsed by my immediate supervisor, Dr. Judy Rocke, who paradoxically selected me for dismissal.
My skills and qualifications are more diverse than those of most of my former teaching colleagues. My M.Phil. degree is in the Humanities (Literatures in English) and my Ph.D. is in the Social Sciences (Anthropology).