Senator Phillip Shoul has issued a detailed response to opposition Senator Malaka Parker’s criticism of a proposal to temporarily hold University of the West Indies Five Islands Campus law classes at People’s Place, the headquarters of the Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party.

Parker argued in a published commentary that the arrangement would undermine UWI’s independence and expose law students to an inappropriate partisan environment.

“The reported proposal to conduct University of the West Indies law classes at the Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party headquarters must be rejected clearly, immediately and without qualification,” Parker wrote.

While acknowledging that a local law programme could reduce the cost of legal education for Antiguans and Barbudans, Parker said the benefits would not justify using a political party’s headquarters as a teaching facility.

According to Parker, the issue is not whether the building is large enough, suitably equipped, conveniently located or being offered without charge. She contended that its association with the governing party makes it institutionally unsuitable.

“A political party headquarters does not become an appropriate university campus simply because space is available,” she said.

Parker argued that students could be surrounded by political symbols, personalities and activities, potentially raising concerns about influence, recruitment, indoctrination and the treatment of students who support another political party or no party.

“No student should ever feel that access to legal education requires entering the political home of the governing party,” she said.

She also questioned whether UWI would be equally comfortable operating classes from the headquarters of the United Progressive Party.

Parker said the concerns were particularly serious because the students would be studying law and could later become attorneys, prosecutors, magistrates, judges and legislators. She argued that their training should promote independence, ethical judgement and respect for the rule of law.

She further placed the proposed arrangement within what she described as a wider concern about “state capture” and the concentration of public opportunities and institutions around the governing party.

Parker called on UWI to publicly reject the venue, explain how the proposal arose and identify a politically neutral alternative, such as a government building, educational institution, conference centre or temporary modular facility.

Shoul, however, dismissed her position as unsupported speculation and accused the UPP of attempting to undermine the university.

He also referred to previous criticism of the establishment of the Five Islands Campus by UPP Chairperson Gisele Isaac, claiming the opposition party has consistently sought opportunities to discredit the institution.

“There is a big difference between using available space for classes and surrendering UWI’s academic independence to a political party,” Shoul said.

He challenged Parker to present evidence that the ABLP played any role in selecting students or would interfere with the programme.

“Holding classes in a particular building does not mean students are being recruited, indoctrinated, politically screened or required to support the organization associated with that building,” he said.

Shoul argued that Parker had provided no proof that the party would control UWI, interfere with lecturers, influence students, display partisan material in teaching areas, discriminate against anyone or make access dependent on political affiliation.

“If there is evidence that the political party would exercise control over UWI, interfere with lecturers, influence students, display partisan material in teaching areas, discriminate against students, or condition access on political affiliation, then that evidence should be produced and the arrangement should absolutely be challenged,” he said.

He maintained that merely describing the proposal as “state capture,” “indoctrination” or a threat to institutional independence does not establish that those claims are true.

Shoul was particularly critical of Parker’s comparison between the ABLP headquarters and buildings used for prostitution, gambling or gang activity. He accused her of using places associated with illegal activity to belittle both UWI and People’s Place.

He said her comments could wrongly cause readers to associate the party’s headquarters with criminal or disreputable activities and described the comparison as damaging and inflammatory.

Shoul said the more relevant questions were whether UWI would retain complete control of its programme, whether every student would have equal and unrestricted access, whether the classrooms would remain politically neutral and whether lecturers and students would be protected from political interference.

“If the answers are yes, then the argument should be based on facts rather than fear and political rhetoric,” he said.

Shoul acknowledged that there could be a legitimate debate over whether People’s Place is the ideal venue. However, he said disagreement over the location should not be presented as proof of corruption or political interference.

“We can debate whether the venue is ideal,” Shoul said. “But saying that UWI has ‘no regard for institutions, ethics or the people’ merely because it considered using the facility is an accusation based on envy, and not evidence.”

He also rejected the suggestion that law students would automatically become politically compromised simply by attending classes in the building.

Shoul questioned whether any students had raised concerns or reported negative experiences and again challenged Parker to produce evidence supporting her position.

“Disagree with the location if you wish, but disagreement should not be dressed up as proof of corruption,” he said.

This article was originally published by Antigua News Room. Read the original article here: Senator Phillip Shoul Rebuts Malaka Parker’s Criticism of UWI Law Classes at ABLP Headquarters.