The decision by Lincoln University to withdraw an honorary degree associated with Ghana’s current President, John Mahama, has stirred conversation both locally and internationally. While some view the move as a principled stand for human rights, others see it as an overreach into Ghana’s cultural and political space.

At the heart of this issue lies a difficult question: Should global institutions impose their values, or respect national differences?

What an Honorary Degree Really Means

An honorary degree is not a right—it is a privilege. Universities award it to individuals they believe represent their ideals and vision.

This also means institutions can withdraw such recognition when they feel those ideals are no longer aligned. In that sense, Lincoln University’s action is not illegal or punitive. It is symbolic—a reflection of what the institution stands for.

Why the University Acted

Globally, many universities strongly support diversity and inclusion. LGBTQ+ rights, in particular, are widely considered part of modern human rights frameworks in many Western institutions.

From this perspective, honoring a political figure linked to policies perceived as restrictive toward LGBTQ+ communities could appear inconsistent. By withdrawing the degree, the university is effectively saying: “We cannot celebrate what we believe contradicts our core values.”

To supporters, this is not discrimination—it is consistency.

The Ghanaian Perspective

However, the story looks very different from within Ghana.

Issues surrounding LGBTQ+ rights are deeply connected to religion, culture, and societal norms. For many Ghanaians, these are not just political matters but moral and cultural concerns.

Critics of the university’s decision argue that: • It ignores Ghana’s sovereign right to shape its own laws • It reflects a lack of understanding of local context • It may come across as external pressure or moral imposition

This raises a key concern: Can global institutions fairly judge local realities without fully engaging them?

Is This Disenfranchisement?

Some have described the move as unfair or even as limiting the president’s rights. However, this is not accurate.

Disenfranchisement involves taking away legal rights—such as voting or holding office. That is not what has happened here.

President Mahama remains fully empowered in his role. The university has only withdrawn a symbolic honor, not any constitutional or political right.

A Growing Global Divide

This situation highlights a broader global tension. On one side are institutions promoting universal human rights standards. On the other are nations holding firmly to cultural identity and independence.

As the world becomes more connected, these clashes are becoming more frequent—and more visible.

Universities, once seen as neutral academic spaces, are now active participants in global value debates. At the same time, countries like Ghana are increasingly asserting their right to define their own social and legal frameworks.

Conclusion

So, was Lincoln University right or wrong?

The answer depends on perspective. To some, it was a necessary stand for human rights. To others, it was an unfair intrusion into Ghana’s cultural and political space.

What is clear, however, is that this issue goes far beyond one honorary degree. It reflects a changing world where values, identity, and power are constantly being negotiated across borders.