Abstract: In 1964 Haile Sellassie I University (now Addis Ababa University) introduced a one-year required student service program, the Ethiopian University Service, to be conducted primarily in the rural areas of the country. Once hailed as "an inspiration of genius" and "a remarkable success," the program was discontinued almost abruptly in 1974 after over 3800 students served in about 146 centres. What explains the demise of a program that was appealing and effective initially? Precedents in student community service, concordance of the program with government interests of the time, consultations among the concerned, the program's relatively low cost and its responsiveness to community needs help explain the program's success. Reasons for the program's discontinuation include: departure from the original objectives, worsening administrative problems, competing priorities in the University, and a new government that saw it as anachronistic or threatening. The study provides an insight into the trials of indigenous innovations that seek to advance a symbiotic relationship between higher education and community service in a least developed country.
The Ethiopian University Service (EUS) was a program of one-year student service launched by the Haile Sellassie I University (now Addis Ababa University) in 1964. EUS was a requirement for graduation for regular Ethiopian students of the University. The participants in the EUS program provided community service as teachers in government schools, particularly at the secondary school level. They also took part in a variety of other development activities - including health education, agricultural demonstrations, school construction and establishment of self-help associations. However, the program was discontinued in 1974 with the advent of the a new military regime (the Dergue), without any comprehensive evaluation. Thus the program that was recognised as "an inspiration of genius" (Ashby, 1966) came to an unceremonious halt.
EUS has generally been considered an innovative idea not simply because it included community service in a university's educational program but mainly because (a) it was a requirement for graduation for regular students of the University (b) its duration was relatively long, and (c) it was based on strong motivation for community service by a substantial proportion of university students1. As a result of its originality, EUS had drawn the attention not only of the local public but also of the international community. For instance, the University of Zambia sent a team to study EUS and to identify its implications in the Zambian context (HSIU, 1973). The International Secretariat for Voluntary Service found it worthy of assessment - an assessment which summed up EUS as a success story. (Quarmby & Quarmby, 1969). In addition, recognising is contributions, the Ford Foundation gave technical assistance (Quarmby & Quarmby, 1969). What accounts for this high regard of the program, and what explains its discontinuation? The present paper seeks an answer to these questions.
The paper begins by providing a brief description of the program in terms of its origins, objectives, organisation and administration, activities, and overall performance (based on assessments by different observers). It then identifies background factors that facilitated EUS. That will be followed by an analysis of the factors that had a debilitating influence on the program. Lastly, implications of the EUS experience are identified.
In 1961, a senior academic staff member of the Haile Sellassie I University (HSIU) submitted a written proposal to the President of the University concerning a one-year deployment of university students to rural areas for community service (Mesfin, 1973). Revealingly and quite sensibly, this staff member had discussed the matter with a few students before writing the proposal (Mesfin, 1973). The major objectives of the proposed program were: dissemination of information and skills to rural communities, identification of the major problems of rural communities, and collection of data from different localities for analysis in the University. The proposal further suggested that a team of 10-13 students be stationed in selected communities to engage in a "comprehensive" development program. Rather ambitiously, the proposal also made a "reasonable" prediction: "...within a period of five years, university students will transform rural Ethiopia." (Mesfin, 1973).
A series of consultations and committee work ensued within HSIU once the written proposal had been submitted. In this regard, the President of the University assigned three committees successively to examine the academic meaningfulness of the proposal, and to produce recommendations concerning its specific objectives, and its organisation and administration. (Haile Sellassie, 1967).
In the meantime heated discussions concerning the proposal were being held among students in the University (UCAA, 1963, 1964a; Quarmby & Quarmby, 1969). Students who supported the idea argued that it would be useful, among other things, to demonstrate their constructive contributions to rural communities, test their academic knowledge, eradicate illiteracy, introduce innovative ideas, and do research (Quarmby & Quarmby, 1969). Students who opposed the proposal advanced two major counter-arguments, namely, that the program might have resulted in strengthening the negative perception rural communities allegedly had about university students, and that the program could have caused unrest and conflict in the countryside in case the participants (students) became engaged in political activities or in radical attempts to overhaul conservative ways of life.
The committee deliberations and student debates regarding the issue culminated in the 1964 resolution by the Faculty Council (the highest decision-making body in the University) to institute the EUS. The resolution rea "The Council believes that a program wherein University students spend one academic year using their university training to provide a service to local communities will be beneficial not only to the national welfare but also to the students in an educational sense..." (Haile Sellassie, 1967:1). The Council also specified the various dimensions of the program - including its objectives, and its organisation and administration.
According to the decision of the Faculty Council, the core objectives of EUS were: to contribute to the development of "essentially rural communities", and to promote students' appreciation of community problems. (Quarmby & Quarmby, 1969). In addition, students were to be assigned for the service in the "middle" of their university studies so that they would have some university education to contribute to rural communities and at the same time have further opportunities to reflect on their experience, in the university setting upon return.2
EUS had a standing University committee which co-ordinated all activities. The committee was responsible to the Faculty Council, and it included the President of the University, the Director of EUS Office, the Dean of Students and deans of the relevant colleges or faculties. The Committee determined rules and regulations. It also decided on exemptions and rectified participant postings.
The EUS office, headed by a director, was responsible for running the day-to-day activities of the program. Its budget was fixed and it amounted to 40,000 US or about 100,000 Birr a year (Schenk, 1971). This amount covered the salaries of the staff of the EUS office, expenses for publications and running costs in general.
The main tasks of the EUS office were arranging orientation for prospective participants (students), co-ordinating supervision of students by academic staff of the University, follow-up of participants' activities through visits and keeping them informed about developments within the University, collecting bi-annual reports from participants, distributing supplies (such as basic furniture) to participants assisting them in solving difficult problems. Client or employing organisations, on their part, paid an allowance of US 70 (i.e. 175 Birr) to each participant per month for a ten-month service period. The organisations were also responsible for the transportation of the participants to and from the service sites.
Two major types of EUS centers3 existed, namely, teaching and non-teaching centres. Outside the schools, the participants served in the ministries of Public Health, Interior, Justice, Agriculture, National Community Development and Social Affairs, as well as in power stations, banks, transport agencies, and other places.
Generally the number of such centres showed an increase from year to year. For example, in 1964-66, there were 73 teaching and 8 non-teaching centres (Haile Sellassie, 1967). By 1970/71, the number of teaching centres had risen to 114 while the non-teaching centres had increased to 32 (Seyoum G. S., 1971). Furthermore, the distribution of centres reflected greater spread over the years although at the same time there was more and more bias towards urban centres. For instance in 1964/65 the EUS centres did not include the three urban centres, namely Addis Ababa, Asmara and Assab.4 (Haile Sellassie, 1967). However, in later years (e.g. in 1970/71), some participants were also assigned in Addis Ababa and Asmara.
Most of the participants, particularly those from the Faculty of Education, were assigned (jointly by the EUS office and the Ministry of Education) to teach in schools. The rest were allocated to client organisations or centres mainly upon the request of the organisations that indicated the number and the field of study of the participants they needed. Generally, participants were assigned to EUS centres by lot. Exemption from the service was given to students of medicine, to students who were sponsored by the military, and to students who had given five or more years of public service before joining the University (Kebebew, 1973).
Before the participants left for their respective sites, they were expected to attend an orientation program that dealt primarily with the objectives of EUS, the rules and regulations concerning the program, problems of social change in rural Ethiopia, classroom teaching methods, methods of social adjustment, and personal health care. Initially the orientation lasted twenty hours, but after 1969 it rose to 28 hours. Participants were also provided with a handbook which, among other things, admonished them to observe the laws of the nation. (HSIU, 1966).
Regarding the number of participants in the various centres, the total for the period 1964/65 - 1973/74 was 3726. Out of this total, 2724 (or 73.1%) served as teachers in government schools. The rest assumed non-teaching jobs. The number of participants grew from year to year until 1969/70, the high days of student unrest, but it was erratic after that. A considerable proportion of participants (31.%) came from the Faculty of Education (as a result of the relative size of the faculties at that time), but there were also a substantial number of participants from the Building and Technology Colleges (13%) and from the Alemaya College of Agriculture (also 13%).5
In terms of supervision, each participant was going to be directed and evaluated by the EUS office and by academic staff members of the University. In addition, client organisations were expected to file an overall assessment of each participant at the end of the service year. The participant was also required to submit bi-annual reports.
Statistical data concerning the activities and achievements of EUS participants are not sufficiently available, but the following account provides and adequate indication of the breadth of their engagements and achievements. The following activities were undertaken:6
EUS participants taught from elementary to senior secondary school level but mainly in grades 7 and 8 (Quarmby & Quarmby, 1969; Balsvik, 1969). Altogether during the period 1964/65-1973/74, 2724 participants conducted classes in schools (Teshome, 1990). Their individual teaching load went up to 32 periods per week with an average of 28 (Seyoum G. S., 1971; Seyoum G.E. et al., 1971). The participants also held tutorials or supplementary classes for academically weak students, for school dropouts, as well as for eighth grade students (to prepare them better for the Grade 8 National Examination) (Seyoum G.E. et al., 1971). Moreover, they conducted evening classes for teachers and lawyers (HSIU, 1973; Balsvik, 1979).
Participants further organised evening literacy classes in almost all EUS centres, and they shared teaching assignments (HSIU, 1973). According to Korten & Korten (1965), almost 90% of the 1964/65 participants were involved in the literacy campaign. Information about the total coverage of the literacy programs is hard to obtain, but it was apparently large. For example, in 1969, 500 adults and children were taught reading and writing in one town alone (HSIU, 1973). In addition to the literacy campaign, participants supervised day care centres for pre-school children (Seyoum G. S., 1971).
The services of the participants regarding health included inspecting public eating and drinking places, building water supply and sanitary mechanisms (including latrines), providing general health education, orienting mothers about child care, nutrition7 and home management, and serving as pharmacists and social workers in hospitals. (Quarmby & Quarmby, 1969; Seyoum G. S., 1971; Kebebew, 1973). Concerning agriculture, the contributions of the participants involved demonstrating related techniques, organising campaigns against pests, assisting in field experiments, conducting cattle surveys, helping farmers establish marketing co-operatives, and setting up accounting systems for village co-operatives (Korten & Korten, 1965; Quarmby & Quarmby, 1969; Balsvik, 1979).
Participants built schools by themselves or assisted in the task. A case in point is a `school' built by a participant alone in a place which an observer described as "the most inaccessible place in the whole of Ethiopia" (HSIU, 1973: 146). In addition, participants collaborated with the Swedish Volunteer Service in building primary schools (Gillette, 1967) and built small reading rooms themselves (HSIU, 1973). Moreover, the participants helped in the construction of roads and bridges, as in the case of a 45-kilometer road between two southern towns (HSIU, 1973). Equally illustrative is the fund-raising activity of participants for the construction of a bridge connecting the two sections of an important commercial centre (Seyoum G. S. 1971).
These included co-ordination of the establishment of student clubs and associations, welfare clubs for needy students, teachers' associations, and self-help women's associations (Quarmby & Quarmby, 1969; Balsvik, 1979). Participants also assisted in raising funds for schools, in organising and stocking reading rooms,8 and in arranging leisure-time activities for youth (Seyoum G. S., 1971). Moreover, they served in census activities and in similar fact-finding missions (Seyoum, G. S. 1971; Kebebew, 1973). The participants further helped in resettling nomads and farmers in fertile areas along one of the major rivers of the country, namely the Awash River. (HSIU, 1973).
Assessments of the EUS, which were partly based on field visits and oral communications and partly on surveys of the views of participants and client (employing) organisations, focused on EUS' achievement of its objectives, and the effectiveness of its administration.
In relation to its objectives, on the basis of the kinds of evidence indicated above (Section IV), EUS was believed to have contributed substantially in terms of running regular classes (in school), literacy programs, and basic health education. Unfortunately, available documents are essentially silent on the impact of the EUS teaching corps on the academic standard of schools. On reflection, however, the effect may be presumed to have been enhancing in as much as the EUS group had an edge over the regular teachers in terms of both academic and pedagogical training. More specifically, in the 1960's only 26% of the regular teachers in junior secondary schools (i.e., grades 7 and 8) had some college education, and although a similar proportion of the two groups (about 40%) had didactic training, the regular ones received the training at pre-college level, while the EUS teaching force did so at college level (in the Faculty of Education) (Balsvik, 1985; Teshome, 1990).
EUS was also considered effective in co-ordinating co-curricular activities in schools, in establishing welfare clubs, and in data gathering about local communities, but its contribution concerning the dissemination of new skills among regular workers is less clearly understood. Regarding co-curricular activities, for example, participants tutored academically weak students, established reading rooms, co-ordinated horticultural teams, and organised subject-oriented student clubs (Gillette, 1967; Quarmby and Quarmby, 1969; Seyoum G. S., 1971; Teshome, 1990). Concerning the diffusion of innovations among co-workers and others, however, observes acknowledged only in global and sometimes impressionistic terms the participants' influence in imparting "new ideas" (Quarmby and Quarmby, 1969: 209) and in introducing a "novel approach to tackling" social problems (Teshome 1990: 201). The said contributions presumably include the dissemination of basic scientific ideas in areas such as agriculture and health among the community in general, but it is difficult to make similar conjectures about the kinds of technical know-how the participants shared with work associates in particular.
The assessments further suggested that EUS participants benefited from the program with respect to testing the relevance of their studies for solving practical community problems, understanding the traditions9 and problems of the country better, exercising responsibility, and appreciating the satisfaction that results from helping others in need. (Korten and Korten, 1965; Haile Sellassie, 1967; Quarmby and Quarmby, 1969). Interestingly, observations emanating from the University and from EUS centres corroborated these evaluations. For instance, it was noted that the University faculty found the EUS returnees "more realistic" than before (Quarmby and Quarmby, 1969:204), and that employers and immediate supervisors lauded the participants' "initiative" and "cooperativeness" (HSIU, 1973).
There were on the other hand, more pointed, though controversial and mostly unsubstantiated, criticisms against the participants. It was alleged that they were hasty in their condemnations, sluggish in generating solutions, and arrogant in their organisational behaviour (Alemu, 1970; Seyoum G. S., 1971)10 Some participants also seemed nonchalant about community activities although the associated evidence rests on isolated cases (Seyoum G. E., et al., 1971-English Section).
The research activity of the participants (including their senior essay11 projects) that was initially deemed important for promoting an understanding of local realities and aspirations, faltered on end. The trouble was spotted as early as the initial years (Ashby, 1966), and a field report five years later (Seyoum, G. E., et al., 1971) capped it all by registering participant complaints - some of which were quite bitter - about the lack of guidance and time to engage in the task. Indeed the inadequacies in handling senior essay projects and field supervision in general were so noticeable that they rudely curtailed the very positive impact the experiences might have had on the university teaching/learning processes on the whole, and prompted even the friendliest of critics to observe that the University seemed disinterested in exploiting the EUS experience for improving its instruction and the curricula (Ashby, 1966).
The assessments concerning the administration of EUS (by the EUS office in the University and by the employing organisations) also turned out to be essentially negative. The most predominant findings and observations included dissatisfaction of participants with poorly focused orientation and biased placements, improper or excessive work assignments, frequent delay in the supply of the monthly allowance, failure of the EUS office to directly involve participants in decision making, inadequate arrangements for medical services, and insufficient supervision (Quarmby & Quarmby, 1969; Schenk, 1971; Seyoum G. S., 1971; Seyoum G. E., et al. 1971; Kebebew, 1973).
Actually, though not singled out by the assessments, the administrative over-weight of the program that was supposed to be restricted to the EUS Office culminated in over-exertion for the University as a whole. For instance, the wrangling and negotiations with participants and external (non-university) parties over a variety of issues, including the delicately political, involved not just the EUS Office but also higher echelons in the University and hand-picked trouble-shooters among its staff (Alemu, 1970). In addition, the co-ordination of field supervisors, who apparently were not enthusiastic about their trot-and-fix mission, put stress on deans and department heads (Seyoum, G. E., et al., 1971). Untowardly, a 1969 grandiose resolution by the University to deal with these and other types of tensions, including the difficulty of networking with the clienteles to adequately accommodate their interest (Schenk, 1971), ended up only in self-mockery since the problems persisted until the final days of the program (Kebebew, 1973).
The information provided hitherto sets the stage for a consideration of the factors which facilitated the birth of EUS, the conditions that hastened its discontinuation, and the implications of the EUS experience as a whole.
The factors discussed in this respect include precedents in the participation of university students in community services, appeal of EUS to community needs, government interest in the program, and substantial consolations among the concerned.
The take-off in the EUS was facilitated by precedents in community service given by the students of the University College of Addis Ababa (UCAA),12 which later expanded to become the Haile Sellassie I University, and by other means of contact between UCAA and the general public. The community service rendered by the students included educational programs, welfare project and modest construction work. In addition, UCAA students regularly published a student paper (News and Views), organised a Campus Day annually, and held occasional (student) demonstrations - all focusing on the community needs of the time.
In terms of educational programs, UCAA students (both male and female) were active in literacy campaign programs in Addis Ababa.13 For instance in 1958 the students launched the Basic Education Project in which they conducted a literacy program in Addis Ababa. In 1961, the students started a mobile school program, although the program was short-lived. Moreover, in 1962/63, the Young Women's Christian Association in the University committed itself a literacy campaign among adult women.
UCAA students also provided social (welfare) service in community development centres. For instance, in 1958/59 they taught handicraft in such centres. Furthermore, in 1958, female UCAA students established a Social Service Society which distributed milk, clothes and stationery to needy students using donations obtained from the World University Service of West Germany. In addition groups of university students regularly visited an orphanage in Addis Ababa to provide services. Quite tellingly, UCCA students, who were boarding students, were also sharing their food with poor elementary and secondary school students in the neighbourhood of the campus.
What is more, students of UCAA and other college students provided service in a variety of construction work (Haile Sellassie, 1967; Balsvik, 1985). UCAA students assisted in building elementary schools in different parts of the country either alone or in collaboration with college students from the USA and Canada (on the "Cross Roaders" team). Building College students also participated in constructing classrooms in Addis Ababa. On their part, students of the Alemaya College of Agriculture built health and agricultural facilities (including a clinic and grain storage) in rural areas.
Students' contact with the community was further promoted by News and Views - which included articles on community problems, and communications urging university students to actively engage in community service.14 Also, the poetry reading and the drama shows, which were often part of the Campus Day events, were usually tinged with political commentaries and lamented the poverty and agony of the rural people. Furthermore, student demonstrations frequently involved the slogan "Land to the Tiller!".
Generally, EUS may in a way be viewed as an outgrowth of ideas and activities that had gained momentum among students in the preceding years. Unlike the earlier activities, however, EUS was a required service anywhere in the country, and it smacked of an imposition. That perhaps explains why some students were opposed to the idea at the beginning of the program.
EUS appealed to the needs of the rural community in many ways. EUS participants were expected to teach in schools. That was evidently a positive gesture from the point of view of parents, their children and school administrators who were worried about shortage of teachers. The fact that UCAA students had already rendered community services in different ways also acted as a leverage for the good reception of the EUS by the general public.
The initial positive attitude of the general public towards EUS was probably reinforced by the impressive performance of EUS participants in the first few years of the program, (Korten and Korten, 1965b; Haile Sellassie, 1967). The fact that some of the first group of participants were assigned community activities outside teaching that were closely related to the every day life of the people (such as agricultural activities and health education) also probably enhanced the image of the EUS as a down-to-earth program. EUS participants further cemented their psychological affiliation with secondary school students through concrete support including the provision of food and shelter to the needy ones and activation of self-support schemes (Seyoum G. E., et al., 1971; Balsvik, 1979).
In sum, both in principle and in practice, EUS addressed the needs and aspirations of most of the rural communities at some level, and as a result it was well embraced.
In the eyes of the Government, the proposal for EUS had considerable merits. First, at that time the Government faced a serious shortage of indigenous teachers especially for its junior secondary schools. Recruiting teachers from foreign countries posed a number of problems: the cost was high, school children found it difficult to interact sufficiently with expatriates because of the language problem, and many expatriates were unwilling to go to rural areas.
Second, EUS cost relatively little. Each EUS participant was paid only 70 US dollars per month for ten months while a regular employee with a similar qualification required a salary of 140 US dollars per month. According to one estimate (Quarmby & Quarmby, 1969), which considered expenses for transport, medical services and operating budget in general, the annual cost per EUS participant was 900 US dollars. Compared to the average cost for expatriate volunteers (which was 2,000-7,000 US dollars a year), the cost of EUS was highly favourable.
Thirdly, the Government of the time probably thought that EUS could temper the student movement that was growing unabated in the University. Before the EUS, political agitation against the incumbent government was evident in student demonstrations and papers (Balsvik, 1979). Usually student demonstrations were led by activists at the sophomore level or above. Sending out such students for service to rural areas for a whole year was probably considered helpful in weakening student protests and, at the same time, in meeting some other pressing problems of the Government - particularly the shortage of teachers.
Relevant individuals and officials, including students, the academic staff and government officials generally had substantial consultations about the launching of EUS. In this regard, the first written proposal for EUS was submitted by a nember of an academic staff of considerable stature, who had apparently pre-tested the idea with some university students before writing his proposal. Then there were three ad hoc committees appointed by the University President to examine the proposal and submit recommendations. The report of the third committee, which was headed by the Vice-President of the University, again a person accorded high respect for his academic vision, was seriously and extensively discussed in the Faculty Council before the final EUS statute was drawn up. In addition, the Ministry of Education, which was expected to absorb most of the students, was consulted, and it warmly accepted the idea.
Furthermore students of the University conducted a number of discussions about the proposal for EUS, particularly in the student paper News and Views. It is true, however, that senior law school students filed a case in the High Court against the Faculty Council's decision to institute EUS (Haile Sellassie, 1967). Considering their small number, however, that may simply be taken as an indication of how much students were involved in the deliberations concerning the establishment of EUS.15
Generally, although there were reservations about EUS among some University students, supporters of EUS were able to emphatically enunciate both the academic and social justifications of the program. That justification had an institutional, professional and moral ring to it and served as a rallying point for the University community.
Four major factors contributed to the demise of EUS. These included departure of EUS from its original objectives, administrative problems, competing priorities in the University, and a change of attitude towards EUS by the Government.
EUS was deemed to be a program essentially for rural communities. Through the years, however, that changed and many of the participants were assigned in provincial capital cities or towns. In fact some of the participants (such as law students) were allocated only to major towns apparently because of high demand for them in those places. Distressed by the situation, the EUS office discreetly lamente "... it has been a bit difficult to stick to the original policy of nation-wide distribution" (HSIU, 1973: 149-150). The author of the seminal paper on EUS, close at heel, also expressed his dismay at the increasing tendency to assign participants to towns instead of to rural areas, as originally determined (Mesfin, 1968).
Furthermore, although the participants were initially expected to serve in a work area directly related to their field of study in the University, actual practice indicated the contrary in the case of a substantial number of participants (Schenk, 1971; Seyoum, G. E., et al., 1971). Simultaneously (and perhaps consequently) the activities of the participants in terms of teaching technical skills, and their engagements in other community development programs also decreased in the latter half of EUS's existence. In this regard, it was noted that the involvement of participants in initiating or assisting self-help programs "was an exception rather than the rule" (Seyoum, G. S., 1971:51).
At some points, it even appeared that those participants who were assigned outside schools were unclear about their roles (Quarmby & Quarmby, 1969). This problem became increasingly serious as the number of participants grew through the years, and as more and more client organisations wanted to `study' the participants before assigning them jobs (Quarmby & Quarmby, 1969).
Perhaps the most important factor in the transformation of EUS was the audaciously explicit agenda jointly pursued by EUS participants, other university students, and high school youth in what appeared to be a new phase of compatriotism.16 The agenda was funnelled by student associations, and it proposed that EUS participants should be instrumental in promoting the emergence of a new social order - an objective that was clearly outside their legislated mission. An early bugle call for the purpose was sounded from the cradle itself when the National Union of Ethiopian University Students (NUEUS) extended "militant and fraternal greetings" to EUS participants and called on them to activate or invigorate the "progressive student movement" among secondary school students (USUAA, 1967: 12).
Subsequent events demonstrated that the near-spontaneous rapport between the participants and high school students as expressed in their orchestrated political activism, was too powerful for containment. This was evidenced, for instance, in the student unrest of 1969 in which, according to Balsvik (1979), EUS participants instigated the action among high school students through pamphlets. Following the unrest, prospective EUS participants who were attending orientation (before deployment) gave an ultimatum to the effect that they would not go to their places of assignment unless the government met a series of demands, including the release of high school and university students who had been imprisoned in connection with the preceding unrest (Balsvik, 1979). The Government succumbed to the demands, but no doubt it found the event both embarrassing and exasperating.
Succeeding years witnessed an increase in the loyalty and militancy of the participants in relation to the new mission, and the corollary, a greater shift from the original one. Indeed in the early seventies, participants believed that their most weighty task was "raising the aspirations of the Ethiopian masses", "changing the political attitude of the people" and making them aware that "they can choose their own destiny" (Seyoum G. S., 1971:91/92). In a futile attempt to counter-act this self-imposed mission, the EUS office "no longer encouraged service students to engage themselves outside their assignments" (Balsvik, 1971:263). Evidently EUS has been derailed or re-vitalised, depending on one's outlook.
A variety of administrative problems cropped up once EUS was launched. One such problem related to allocation of participants to work sites. Initially places of work were generally determined by lot, but gradually other options became available. These included allowing prospective participants to identify client organisations that expressed interest in them, or to indicate site preferences with a view to expedite senior essay research (Schenk, 1971; Kebebew, 1973). The candidates used or abused the options with the result that most of them became concentrated in their own home towns or in major towns. That was contrary to the spirit of EUS which adoringly espoused the widening of the knowledge of the participants about rural areas.
Another problem related to supervision. In this regard, it was first planned to send out (at least twice a year) appropriate academic staff from the University to visit each EUS centre for consultation, guidance and evaluation purposes. However, that proved to be difficult because academic staff could not spare more than a few days for supervision due to their teaching assignments in the University. In addition the EUS office had the problem of finding enough vehicles to dispatch the supervisors to all centres. Proposals to improve supervision and related matters were adopted by the Faculty Council in 1969, but they were not implemented probably for financial reasons (Schenk, 1971).
The EUS Office itself was also expected to maintain regular contact with participants in the field through visits and a newsletter, but the visits were limited, presumably because of shortage of vehicles, and the promised newsletter did not appear at all. (Quarmby and Quarmby, 1969). As was to be expected, the problem was vehemently articulated by EUS participants and their employers in a 1969/70 evaluation of the program (Schenk, 1971), but to no avail. Having watched the scene helplessly, the EUS Office could only observe in 1973 that participants got the "hardest rub" as a result of being "cut off" from the University (HSIU, 1973:157).
Other administrative problems added to the frustration of the participants and to the diminishing credibility of the EUS. The teaching-aid kit that was supposed to be supplied to participants serving as teachers in schools was never provided.17 The group health insurance scheme for participants was apparently ineffectual at least in some sites (Quarmby & Quarmby, 1969; Seyoum G. E., et al., 1971). The frequent delays in the payment of allowances to participants by client organisations sent tremors among the former (Kebebew, 1973), and only served to strengthen the evolving opposition to the Government.
Generally, around the 70's, the administration of EUS was shackled both by resource limitations and managerial weaknesses emanating from half commitments. Indeed, an observer went as far as asserting that the University regarded EUS as a "liability" and that the situation "could cause the EUS program to be discontinued." (Schenk, 1971:17).
Once considered an excellent idea by the Government, EUS fell into disfavour as the years went by. The major reason for this estrangement was the increasingly alarming political agitation conducted by EUS participants. As indicated earlier, university students vocalised the needs of the poor even when they were limited to their campus. When the students were deployed for EUS, the activists among them wanted to take advantage of the program to strengthen their political agitation.
Local government officials felt threatened by participants or "disruptive elements" (Kebebew, 1973) who fed radical ideas to youth and adults alike. The threat was felt so much that in some localities high school students were actually discouraged from associating with the participants. In addition, local officials tried to demoralise the participants and to arrest their political activities using various methods. The methods included delaying the payment of the participants' allowance, limiting their community activities, arresting those involved in student strikes and demonstrations, and overloading them with work (Balsvik, 1979).
Unhappily for the Government, the participants gained even more room for political activity when in 1969 a large number of American Peace Corps volunteers and Indian teachers left the country, and a greater number of EUS participants were required to fill the gap. A series of political activities that involved clandestine propaganda pamphlets, student rallies, demonstrations and boycotting of classes characterised the years 1969-1973 (Kiflu, 1993). To make things worse, the student slogans of the irritated the Government. They include "Land to the Tiller! and "Down with the Oppressive Government!".
A significant indicator of the Government's view of university students and the EUS participants as a threat was the removal of three university staff members from their posts. The three professors were closely associated with the launching and administration of EUS. One of them was the author of the first written proposal for EUS, and the other two were directors of the EUS office at different periods (Balsvik, 1979).
The revolution of 1974 resulted in the formation of the Provisional Military Administrative Council (commonly known as the Dergue). Before the revolution, University students and the military showed solidarity in opposing the previous regime, but things took a curious twist following the outbreak of the revolution. The major disagreement between the students and the Dergue was the fact that while student activists called for the establishment of the Provisional Peoples Government right away, the Dergue had no such predisposition (Beyene, 1977; WPE, 1982; MING, 1976, 1977). In addition, among student activists, there were sympathisers for regional and ethnic self-determination - an idea which the Dergue vehemently opposed. To make their voices heard, University students opposed the Zemecha, a development campaign that was proclaimed by the government soon after the take-over and that involved University students and lecturers. But students had to succumb to the popular support the Zemecha had, and they were deployed for a two-year service in the countryside under the supervision of military personnel.
Adamantly enough, University students and others on the Zemecha persisted in their political campaigns for a people's government (Kiflu, 1993). They also attempted to establish local peoples' governments. In addition, they boycotted the Zemecha en masse. These and other events were so threatening to the infant government that even after the students returned from the Zemecha, it entertained no illusions about EUS. Seen from the point of view of the Government, it was simply too risky to let loose hardened political agitators of the opposition from the University in rural Ethiopia when pockets of "counter revolutionaries" were very evident in the country. To the new Government, university students had over-reached themselves and EUS had become unsavoury.
The 1974 socialist revolution in the country resulted in a new set of priorities for the University (which was renamed Addis Ababa University - AAU). Following directives from the Provisional Military Government, and from other higher authorities the University had to revamp its curriculum to remove all remnants of "bourgeois education" and to give it a socialist orientation. Furthermore faculties had to be re-organised by closing down undesirable departments and instituting desirable ones. The legislation of the University and attendant regulations had to be revised to ensure that student selection, staff recruitment, and similar matters were conducted along socialist lines.18
In addition, in a bid to produce graduates faster, the University adventurously cut down the duration of study at the undergraduate level by one year. That required a significant workload in curriculum adjustment, which was half-reputably marked by a scurry to secure or generate teaching materials that were seemingly tuned to the interests of the masses. Ideological orientation and quasi-orientation for academic staff was given high priority, and this was fashionably and devotedly organised both locally and abroad, particularly in the defunct U.S.S.R and German Democratic Republic.
The above-mentioned and other similar changes and priorities kept the University officials and academic staff on their toes. The EUS office was quietly dismantled. The "inspiration of genius", emaciated by mishandling in the hands of conflicting groups, and deprived of basic means of sustenance, simply withered away.
In general a university is recognised not just by its chronological age or by the size of its student population but also by its quality of engagement and by the character of its traditions. EUS is a tradition - a spark of imagination that precipitated waves of ideas and passions, and despite its destinations and week spots, affords a reference point, or even an inducement for new initiatives.
The tradition of EUS also drew attention to the importance of idea-sharing mechanisms or forums among staff and students of the university - ideas not ordinarily available in the hum drum atmosphere of the lecture halls. During the EUS period, it happened that students published their own papers, including News and Views and Struggle. The staff also produced a journal named Dialogue. It is these kinds of publications that provided the platform for the heated (and occasionally vociferous) debates on EUS following Mesfin's potent initiative. More generally, it is these kinds of media that provoke, enlighten and animate the otherwise religiously syllabus-bound student. Evidently, student and staff publications, including newsletters and publications of professional societies, should receive serious and tangible support as forums of learning, intellectual animation and university-community link.
From the vantage point of the reach-out function of the university, EUS affirmed the importance of establishing meaningful, productive and sustainable interaction with the community at the grass roots level to promote worthwhile change in their thinking and derive veritable lessons from the experience. But EUS also demonstrated the cost associated with such an endeavour, especially in conditions where the relevant physical and bureaucratic infrastructure is unpropitious. For a university contemplating such a mission therefore, it is imperative to strike a proper balance between the ideal and the practical through a relentless appraisal of its resources vis-à-vis the demands of its objectives. In an answer to the call, it is worth considering, for example, the formation of a limited number of community contact points or centres for modest collaborative activities in field studies and idea-sharing.
Related to the above observation is the delicate relationship between education and politics, and the predicament which well-meaning academics may face proposing initiatives with political overtones. The fact that three senior university staff members closely associated with EUS were transferred to other posts under the guise of appointment is a case in point. This is the sort of eternal challenge that the university, almost by definition, faces, and its resolution hinges on the tenor of its relationship with the establishment.
EUS further indicated a limited and perhaps guarded relationship with external donors. Only the Ford Foundation played a significant role in its implementation. This condition probably emanated from a local desire to own the program completely, to have free reins in its implementation, and to derive self-respect and pride from its success. It is not easy to determine how much external donors knew about EUS or to what extent they wished to collaborate, but it seems evident that in development programs internal conditions set limits to contributions foreign sources might make to local initiatives, for whatever the contributions are worth.
Still more, EUS is a demonstration of the susceptibility of youth to high social ideals, and to their potential for meaningful participation in the attainment of those ideals. Ironically, the same tendency that renders them receptive to one novel idea can, with comparable force, make them amend it, or impose on it a new dimension to fit yet another attractive notion. The bottom line is that a youth service program is as dynamic as the effervescent personality of the central actors themselves, and the administration of such a program calls for sensitivity and vitality of a special order.
From the point of view of program follow-up, EUS accentuates the importance of systematic and continuous assessment, documentation and reporting in academic and para-academic programs. A fair amount of material exists on the EUS, but in some instances (as in the case of the program's contribution to the change in the attitudes of the community and that of the participants) available sources generally afford only scrappy patches of information. Also, a synthesis of the bi-annual reports of the participants is apparently missing. Moreover, evaluation of the program with the direct involvement of the participants was planned but never implemented (Quarmby & Quarmby, 1969).
The above kinds of limitations make it almost prohibitive to analyse the long-term impact of the program as a whole, or its specific dimensions. They also indicate that programs like the EUS can vanish without sufficient evaluation. No doubt a practical scheme of information management and project assessment is essential in programs such as the EUS. Hence it is imperative for the University to install an efficient internal documentation system not just in its libraries, but also in its academic and administrative departments, including those that relate to extension and link programs.
In terms of its outcomes, EUS points to the importance of considering not just the predominant results of wide-spread programs but also the exceptions and the anomalies thereof. In this respect, the intellectual-cum-nationalistic character of EUS and its youthful profile may blind observers to some revealing details. Illustrative findings include the low importance participants attached to knowledge about the rural area (Seyoum G. S., 1971), and the serious estrangement between the participants and the community in some localities (Seyoum G. E., et al., 1971).19 It is partly the study of these nooks of experience that enlighten the practitioner about the relative failure or success of a program. Evidently, for a university aspiring at self-rectification, clinically executed impact studies can reveal incongruities, gaps and ineptitudes even in what may have been simplistically (and perhaps defensively) regarded as successful programs.
The Ethiopian University Service was an innovative program for rural community service not only because it was a special device to integrate higher education with rural community development, but also because it made student service mandatory for graduation. EUS was an indigenous idea, which grew out of earlier voluntary service by university students. It was an idea that combined the enthusiasm of youth for community service and the professional concerns of academics to adapt higher education to local needs.
Despite the limitation in statistical data about the program, generally EUS has made quite a few contributions. It has helped to meet the shortage of teachers. It has assisted in introducing new skills and ideas into rural communities. It has also enhanced university students' awareness of the hardships of rural life, and the difficulty of achieving change in such communities. Furthermore EUS has divulged to the rural communities the views, commitments as well as temperaments of university students and their tutors. Above all, however, EUS had demonstrated the significance of new ideas in development, and the susceptibility of such ideas to political waves.
Yet EUS had problems from the beginning. To wit, some university students regarded the mandatory service as an imposition, and took the matter to court. The budget of the EUS office was limited. Supervisors had little time to do the supervision. Regular workers in the client organisations were not all sympathetic to the idea - often considering participants as rivals. Around the 70's the client organisations even tried to keep the participants at a distance because of their political activities.
Administratively, EUS was an ambitious program. Although it was relatively inexpensive, the total budget of the University was limited and did not provide adequately for the requirements of EUS. Furthermore, on the part of the University, the program needed co-ordination of a large number of client organisations, and frequent supervision of participants all over the country - tasks which proved to be exacting for the University. These matters raise the question of instituting a community service program in a university system, which, by design, focuses on academic pursuit. Perhaps more importantly, they remind one about the perennial issue of the discrepancy between goals and means of a development program.
EUS attests to the fact that community service programs of its kind can simply vanish without sufficient evaluation. More fundamentally EUS was a program that heavily relied on the government's predisposition and endorsement. It was therefore highly susceptible to the political climate of the country, and this very fact contributed to its undoing, or rather, to its mutation.
EUS has a number of implications for the University. Perhaps the most vibrant one is that, for vitality and character, the university should have visions of its own within the context of its overall mission.
Similar programs were in operation in USA colleges, but they were voluntary. Indonesia also had a service requirement for students but that was only for a six-month period, and it involved only agriculture students (Quarmby and Quarmby, 1969). Tanzania, too, attempted to introduce a national service by university graduates in 1966. However, the idea was strongly opposed by students (Balsvik, 1979).
2 In practice, the service year was mostly one year before the student's graduation.
3 "EUS centre" refers to schools or organisations where one or more of the participants were assigned to serve.
4 Asmara (Eritrea) and Assab were part of Ethiopia at that time.
5 The number of EUS participants for the period 1964/65 - 1973/74 was as follows.
|
Year |
Teaching |
Non-Teaching |
Year |
Teaching |
Non-Teaching |
1964/65 |
110 |
19 |
69/70 |
469 |
129 |
65/66 |
143 |
46 |
70/71 |
344 |
128 |
66/67 |
186 |
75 |
71/72 |
420 |
141 |
67/67 |
261 |
88 |
72/73 |
223 |
80 |
68/69 |
226 |
132 |
73/74 |
306 |
164 |
Sources: HSIU, 1973, pp.25-27, & Teshome, 1990, p. 193.
6 For more details see particularly Korten & Korten, 1965a & 1965b; Seyoum G. S., 1971; Seyoum G. E.., et al., 1971; & Kebebew, 1973).
7 An illustration is the contribution of a participant from the Alemaya College of Agriculture who encouraged the consumption of vegetables in a northern town (Wukro) where the community presumably regarded vegetables as a proper diet for goats, but not for human beings (Seyoum G. E., et al., 1971).
8 In its issue of 2.1.68, (USUAA, 1968), for example, Struggle published an appeal from Berhane Meskel Reda, a participant stationed in an underprivileged locality (Assosa) calling for a donation of books for a "modest library".
9 In 1971, for example, participants in a northern town (Dabat) who brought up a disciplinary case that led to the dismissal of a student got their roof-tops blasted by gunfire allegedly coming from the relatives of the dismissed student. The incident reportedly elicited from the participants the acute observation "ÃCO ~E E_" (literally "so such a thing exists!") (Seyoum G. E.., et al., p. 22).
10 A case in point is the conflict between a school director and teachers (including EUS participants) in a southern town (Shashemene) that was apparently aggravated (or perhaps instigated) by the participants (Alemu, 1970). Schenk (1971) has also reported a similar problem, although not so precisely. Other evidence (USAAA, 2.1.68) indicates a more politically-oriented clash between participants and the bureaucracy.
11 The senior essay was a research paper required of degree-level graduating students in many but not all departments of the university.
12 An institution established in 1950. In the initial period, it consisted of the Faculty of Science, Law School, and Arts Faculty, together with extension and adult education units. (Teshome, 1990:76).
13 The information about the community activities of UCAA students during the pre-EUS period was assembled from Haile Sellassie (1967) and Balsvik (1979).
14 In a student newssheet the author once wrote that the college student should be "more than just an additional blood-sucker of the nation" (News and Views, October 27, 1964; i.e., 1964b).
15 This court case died a slow death. The High Court ruled against the Faculty Council's decision. Upon appeal by the University, the supreme court deferred the case for quite some time (apparently taking heed of the government's interest in the EUS) and allowed time for the University to launch the program without waiting for its decision.
16 During the same period, there was a parallel, if not complementary, bustle of activity among the academic staff of the University who were trying to come to grips with the role of a university in backward or under-developed countries. See, for instance, EUTA, 1968.
17 In 1968/69 the Ford Foundation gave some technical assistance (including US 10,000.- roughly 25,000 Birr) for the purpose (Quarmby & Quarmby, 1969), but it appears that the assistance did not cover the cost of the kits.
18 To cite examples of the changes, the Theology School in the University was closed while the Philosophy Department was strengthened along Marxist-Leninist lines. Also, a quota system was introduced, to give special privileges to students who applied for admission to the University from "oppressed" regions.
19 There is on record, for example, the case of participant-community conflict which led to the beating of the former (Seyoum G. E., et al., 1971, p. 3 - English Text).
Alemu Wolde Hanna. "Student Unrest and the School Director", Senior Paper in Education, Haile Sellassie I University, 1970.
Ashby, Eric. Universities: British, Indian. African. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966.
Balsvik, R. "Haile Sellassie's Students - rise of Social and Political Consciousness," Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tronso (Norway), 1979.
________, Haile Sellassie's Students: The Intellectual and Social Background to Revolution 1952-1977. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1985.
Beyene Negewo. "The Impact of University Education on the Formation of Political Attitudes of Ethiopian University Students", Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University, 1977.
Ethiopian University Teachers' Association (EUTA). Dialogue, Vol.1 (2) April 1968.
Gillette, A. "The Ethiopian University Service: A Novel Approach to Student Development Work". In Haile Sellassie I University, Miscellanea 1, 1967, pp. 19-21.
Haile Sellassie Gebre Kidan. "A Study of the Ethiopian University Service Program", B.A. Thesis, Haile Sellassie I University, 1967.
Haile Sellassie I University (HSIU). Consolidated Legislation of the Faculty Council, 1967.
_______. EUS Handbook, 1966.
_______. The Ethiopian University Service, 1973.
Kebebew Daka. "A Survey on the Attitude of EUS Participants Towards the Programme and Related Problems", Haile Sellassie I University, Addis Ababa, Mimeo., 1973.
Kiflu Abate. The Generation. Silver Spring. M Independent Publishers, 1973.
Korten, F. Korten D. (a). "A Novel Educational Program for Development: Ethiopia's Use of National University Students in a Year of Rural Service" January 1965. In D. Korten, Miscellanea 1.
____________ (b). "Ethiopia's Use of National University Students in a Year of Rural Service." December 1995. In D. Korten, Miscellanea 1.
Mesfin Wolde Marian. "The Conception of EUS". In The Ethiopian University Service - An Inspiration of Genius, Haile Sellassie I University, 1973.
Ministry of Information and National Guidance (MING). Addis Zemen (Amharic Newspaper). Miazia 22, 1968 & Tir 14, 1969 Eth. Calender (April 1976 & January 1977).
________. "The Rural-Urban Split in Ethiopia", Dialogue, EUTA, Vol. 2 (1), December 1968.
Quarmby, A. & D. Quarmby, The Ethiopian University Service. Washington D.C.: International Secretariat for Volunteer Service, 1969.
Schenk, Q. P. "The Ethiopian University Service Program of HSIU: An Experiment in the Merging of Higher Education With National Youth Service." Haile Sellassie University, Mimeo., 1971.
Seyoum Gabre Sellassie. "The Contribution of EUS to National Development", Mimeo., Haile Sellassie I University, 1971.
Seyoum Gebre-Egziabher, M. Norris, and P. Koehn, "Preliminary Report of Three Faculty Member EUS Field Supervision and Profile of Municipal Administration in Five Northern Provinces" Mimeo., Department of Public Administration, Haile Sellassie I University, 1971.
Teshome G. Wagaw. The Development of Higher Education and Social Change - An Ethiopian Experience. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1990.
University College of Addis Ababa Student Union (UCAA). News and Views, December 27, 1963.
_______. News and Views, March 5, 1964(a).
_______. News and Views, October 27, 1964(b).
University Students Union of Addis Ababa (USUAA). Struggle, December 14, 1967.
________. Struggle, January 2, 1968.
Workers Party of Ethiopia (WPE). Meskerem, A Marxist-Leninist Theoretical Journal, Vol. II, No. 11, December 1982.