Summary
- In 2013, SOAS announced a donation of £15 million from Chicago’s Alphawood Foundation, to establish a 5-year programme to advance the study and preservation of Southeast Asian Buddhist and Hindu art
- Given its size, the programme has the potential to impact research, education, archaeology, museums and public policy for generations to come
- However, problems of ethics, accountability and transparency at the highest levels of SOAS have marred the management of the programme
- Academic oversight has also been diluted, impeding the programme’s progress
- After more than 3 years, SOAS administration has been unable to present a substantive vision for the programme
- With under 2 years left, it is not too late to right the ship – but reform must begin immediately
Origins of the Southeast Asian Art Academic Programme
In November 2013, the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London, announced it had received one of the largest private donations ever given to a UK university: a gift of £20 million over five years from a Chicago-based charity, the Alphawood Foundation. Of the total, Alphawood dedicated £15 million “to advance the study and preservation of Buddhist and Hindu art in Southeast Asia.” This is probably the largest ever private gift made to the field of Southeast Asian art. It will have the potential to impact research, pedagogy, archaeological excavation, museums, and public policy for generations to come in the region. To administer the donation, SOAS established the Southeast Asian Art Academic Programme (SAAAP).
Unethical Conduct by SOAS Officials in the Alphawood Scholarships Programme
The management of SAAAP has been marked by problems of ethics, accountability and transparency. Dishonourable conduct by SAAAP officials has been revealed by the testimony of students and by emails and documents obtained through the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. SOAS administration has so far failed to account for these abuses and to prevent their recurrence.
One of the main activities of SAAAP has been to run the Alphawood Scholarships programme, slated to provide a total of about 80 bursaries over the course of five years for students from Southeast Asia to undertake certificate and degree courses at SOAS. This generous programme presents one of the very few sources of funding for Southeast Asian students wishing to study in the United Kingdom. In the calls for applications issued in 2014 and 2015, the Alphawood Scholarships programme invited students to apply for scholarships to study Southeast Asian Buddhist and Hindu art, with no restriction on historic period; among the list of eligible courses was the MA in Contemporary Art of Asia and Africa.
In late 2015, however, senior administrators at SOAS apparently decided to limit the programme to art “in antiquity.” This was an unexpected and sudden decision, which has not yet been convincingly explained by SOAS. Those officials managing the Alphawood Scholarships made no public announcement about the change at that time but nonetheless decided to immediately and secretly implement the restriction of the programme to “antiquity” on a retroactive basis against Southeast Asian applicants.
First, in February 2016, two postgraduate students who had previously been awarded Alphawood Scholarships were pressured by SOAS staff, including Prof. Anna Contadini, the Chair of the Scholarships Committee, to change their research topics to fit the new restriction to “antiquity.” The two students had been awarded scholarships for study in 2015 but had chosen to defer their enrolment due to work commitments. As they had been given scholarships on the basis of their plans to research modern and contemporary art, they were surprised by the sudden pressure from Prof. Contadini, one of SOAS’s most senior administrators, to change to “antiquity.” The students, both of whom had specific career requirements behind their choice of research area, expressed their anxiety over the possibility of losing their scholarships. After learning of this on social media, I raised this unfair treatment with the Director of SOAS, and the next day, she confirmed that the two students would be awarded replacement scholarships of equivalent value. However, the Director offered no apology to the students for the distress caused to them.
Subsequently, emails and other data obtained by the SOAS Students’ Union through the Freedom of Information Act revealed the unethical activity by which SOAS rigged the scholarships review process. In January 2016, Prof. Contadini emailed members of the Scholarships Committee that “scholarships on contemporary art should not be awarded” – even though applicants had been invited to apply for contemporary art study, and no applicants had been informed of the new limitation of the programme to “antiquity.” Dr. Peter Sharrock, one of the Committee members, wrote in an email how he would jigger the process to ensure that no contemporary art applicants would be accepted: “There are 10 contemporary art applicants in the 51 MAs. I’m marking all 10 low because they do not fit the Alphawood restriction to classical Hindu-Buddhist art. I hope we will contain them appropriately.” Other emails show Dr. Sharrock’s efforts to collude with another Scholarships Committee member and to promote evaluation criteria that would disadvantage modern and contemporary art candidates. Unsurprisingly, all of the 17 applicants with backgrounds or interest in modern/contemporary art were rejected for scholarships.
Had SOAS officials established new scholarship criteria and publicly announced that these would be applied to the review of future applications, that would be proper and fair. However, what actually occurred is that new evaluation criteria were secretly put in place and retroactively applied against already-filed applications. The SAAAP officials also tried to cover up their unfair actions. In a description of the scholarship award process they provided later to an external reviewer, they claimed that the contemporary art applicants were rejected because none of them were “of sufficient quality.” This is a lie that has now been exposed.
SOAS administration has never apologised to the applicants nor has it disciplined staff for their shameful conduct.
SOAS Protects Staff Member Careers Instead of Rights of Students
Valerie Amos, the Director of SOAS, not only failed to punish Prof. Anna Contadini and Dr. Peter Sharrock but surprisingly rewarded them. Amos allows Prof. Contadini to continue as the Chair of the Scholarships Committee. She also appointed Contadini as Chair of the SAAAP Outreach Committee and a Member of the Board governing the entire SAAAP programme. Contadini, a person with absolutely no expertise in Southeast Asia and a clear record of unethical activity, is the only individual holding so many positions in the management of the Alphawood donation: why? Amos also permitted Dr. Sharrock to retain both his place on the Scholarships Committee and his position as SAAAP Outreach Manager, ignoring his callous treatment of students. It is notable that an external reviewer who assessed the Alphawood programme in March 2016 specifically noted the conflict of interest in Sharrock’s position and the problem of personal friendships with the donor interfering with decision-making. But Valerie Amos apparently allows these problems to continue to fester.
Lack of Clarity in Programme’s Remit Also Disadvantages Scholarship Applicants
There is also the question of what definition of art of “antiquity” was used by the Scholarships Committee members in evaluating applications. The external review of March 2016 took place several weeks after the scholarship award process. The reviewer remarked of her interviews with SAAAP officials, “In probing the question of what ‘antiquity’ actually meant in the SE Asian context, I got several different answers.” Separately, information obtained through FOI revealed that the Deed of Gift, the fundamental document governing the donation, was not amended until September 2016, nine months after the decision to restrict to “antiquity.” Despite the lack of either a clear definition or a documentary basis – or ethical consideration of retroactivity – the Scholarships Committee applied this vague remit against applicants.
On 15 April 2016, without announcement, SOAS made live the webpage for the 2017-’18 Alphawood Scholarships. It called applicants to “demonstrate your interest in ancient to pre-modern Buddhist and/or Hindu Southeast Asian art.” But this wording fails to provide the needed clarity. What “pre-modern” means in the context of Southeast Asia is highly debatable, as there is no common understanding of when the modern period began in different Southeast Asian cultures; it cannot be merely equated to the beginning of colonialism.
The very premise of limiting the programme to early historic periods is troubling in several ways. It unfortunately echoes a colonialist paradigm of Southeast Asian societies as civilisations whose glories are long gone. It also raises a question which goes to the heart of SAAAP: can “ancient to pre-modern” art be understood without constant awareness and critical engagement with the material of the past as interpreted in the present? Museology and the study of heritage – emphasised by SAAAP as target areas for support – focus precisely on present-day engagement with the art of the past. Much contemporary Southeast Asian art also grapples with the region’s art historical heritage. Moreover, given the traditions of renovation and re-use of Buddhist and Hindu art and architecture, the line between “ancient” and “modern” is not necessarily clear.
Without a clear, public statement from SAAAP as to what “ancient to pre-modern” means, scholarship applicants are simply taking a shot in the dark as to what SAAAP expects. The Scholarship Committee members, under Prof. Contadini’s chairmanship, can use this vague criteria as a fog behind which they may judge applications any way they like, as they did previously. This sadly evokes a power play, in which a wealthy British institution takes advantage of Southeast Asian students’ need for funding.
Where Is the Vision?
After over three years, SOAS has yet to present a substantive vision or set of defined long-term objectives for the Alphawood donation. Thus far, three new academic staff members have been hired, including a Hiram W. Woodward Chair in Southeast Asian Art, and scholarships have been awarded to dozens of Southeast Asian students. These actions are indeed very significant and praiseworthy. But it is surprising that SAAAP has yet to produce any landmark or long-term projects which would evidence the kind of substantial, ambitious vision one would expect of a £15 million programme.
In December 2015, SOAS announced that it was in the final stage of a scoping project to establish a long-term programme including a field school and conservation at Cambodia’s Banteay Chhmar temple. An agreement to collaborate with Cambodia’s Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts was signed in a ceremony presided over by the Cambodian Minister and the British Ambassador to Cambodia. This project was prominently featured in SAAAP’s 2015 Annual Report. But there has been no further announcement on this project in more than a year. What is its status now? Has it fallen victim to the unresolved political and structural issues which have obstructed the progress of SAAAP?
The management of SAAAP has been plagued by turmoil, as is known from the external review undertaken in March 2016. The external reviewer wrote in her report of “a failure of leadership at several levels,” along with “confusion of governance,” “factionalism,” deficiencies in accountability, transparency and communication – and a number of other problems. Unfortunately, the response to the report by Valerie Amos, Director of SOAS, was to ignore some of its key findings and to restructure SAAAP to significantly curtail Southeast Asianists’ oversight of the programme.
What should have been central to the reform of SAAAP was consideration of how to more effectively deploy SOAS’s expert resources – its academics – towards achieving the donor’s goal of improving the understanding and preservation of Southeast Asia’s Buddhist and Hindu arts. As it stands now under Amos’ restructuring, SAAAP is an administrator-led apparatus that accommodates vested personal and administrative interests at SOAS at the expense of the Southeast Asian region’s needs in art and archaeology, needs which can only be adequately identified and served by engaging SOAS’s impressive Southeast Asia expertise.
With one and a half years left, SAAAP may yet be reformed – though action must begin immediately. The Director of SOAS should:
- Apologise to the two postgraduate students who were unfairly pressured to change their research and to the 2016-‘17 Alphawood Scholarships applicants for SOAS’s secret rigging of the evaluation process
- Clarify the vague meaning of “ancient to premodern” art for future applicants and guarantee that applications will be evaluated according to publicly stated criteria
- Remove Prof. Anna Contadini and Dr. Peter Sharrock from SAAAP in view of their evidenced unethical activity and the lying to conceal it
- Restructure SAAAP management to give authority and scope to Southeast Asianist academics to identify, develop and run projects consistent with the donor’s objectives and beneficial to the cultural areas of the region
SOAS has staff and students with the intellectual power, creativity and energy to realise the potential of the Alphawood Foundation’s magnanimous gift. The Director must act now to enable that potential to be achieved.
