THE state chapters of the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) in state-owned universities in the South-East embarked on an industrial action on July 22, 2010 over the non-implementation of the Federal Government and national ASUU 2009 agreement by state governments in the zone. They complained that the 2009 agreement was reached to address issues of dismal working conditions, poor funding and dilapidated facilities and should therefore be implemented in the state universities. For them, the Federal Government/national ASUU 2009 agreement should be a basis for funding the universities by the state governments. The reference to a Federal Government agreement has however not gone down well with the chief executives of the states. The strike has therefore continued without any sign that it will end soon. Several attempts to deal with the issues by dialogue and negotiations have faltered. The academic staff have carried out public demonstrations in some state capitals even as the strike continued to take its toll on the educational system in the zone. THE strike has spread to nearby states. Indeed, Governor Chibuike Amaechi of Rivers State has threatened to drag the Rivers State University of Science and Technology chapter of ASUU to court for embarking on a strike over an agreement reached with the Federal Government by its national body. The governor insisted that there was no basis for the university’s chapter to go on strike. “They should know they are employees of the state government and not the Federal Government” the governor maintained. The governor also joined issues with the ASUU chapters in the state’s universities over their proclivity to support or sympathise with federal workers without regard for the effects on students. Interestingly, the national ASUU called academic staff of all Nigerian universities to observe a three-day sympathy strike from October 11 to 13, 2010, in solidarity with the chapters in the South-East zone. THESE developments have grave consequences for university education in the eastern part of the country and beyond. Indeed, many state governments have not adopted the terms and conditions negotiated with the Federal Government in 2009. This is understandable given the country’s federal system. But it is our view that the protracted negotiation process that culminated in the 2009 agreement dealt with many issues, one of which is status and relevance of the agreement for state-owned universities as distinct from the Federal Government owned universities. The states were not part of the negotiation and were not obliged to implement the agreements. However, the states were witnesses to the protracted strike that led to that agreement. Some states have been proactive in responding to the development by negotiating with the unions in their own universities, hence some states have been able to ward off the kind of crisis and instability that have now paralysed universities in the eastern part of the country. FURTHERMORE, ASUU chapters in state universities must recognise the difference in the ability to pay between the Federal Government and the states and among the states. It should be recalled that national ASUU argued during the negotiations that the agreement sought to set benchmark which every university must satisfy in order to be part of the public university system with a sense of confidence. This is meaningful because the FG has always set the benchmark for university standards through the National Universities Commission. Besides, the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission has set benchmarks for the emoluments of political office holders throughout the federation. While it is our view that there is need for further devolution of powers and resources to the states and reflection of federalism in funding and management of public universities, it must be recognised that the foundation of the negotiations was the need to reform the universities to make them globally competitive and foster academic excellence. We believe these goals are shared by ASUU, the Federal Government and the state governments. WE call on the education committees of the state houses of assembly, and other bodies and individuals to prevail on both ASUU and the governments of the affected states to return to the negotiation table. To use coercion on members of ASUU to return to the classroom will be counterproductive in terms of the future of the university system. Both parties must sheath their swords and bury their ego for the greater good of the educational system. It is not sufficient for the state governors to raise the issue of federalism without showing positive concern about the state of the universities in their states. WE also call on members of ASUU chapters in the states to exercise restraint and patience as fundamental stakeholders in the university system and to consider the fate of their students. They must explore other avenues to resolve the disputes. Strike should be embarked upon only as a last resort. Moderation, negotiation and dialogue are key values of democratic rule. These must be brought to bear in the relations between ASUU and the state governments.