Professional Documents
Culture Documents
EPW
he dissemination of academic
knowledge at the higher education
level is necessarily structured according to governmental and institutional
strictures. However, the principles and
rationales of such knowledge are not
conditional on governmental and institutional agendas these principles and
rationales are very much wider, and are
consistent in all contexts where academic
knowledge is cultivated. Such knowledge
is answerable to the peoples of the world,
is in the international public interest,
and may well be compromised if curtailed by governmental and institutional
agendas. So, when new governmental
and institutional strictures are promulgated with an effect on the dissemination
of academic knowledge anywhere, it is
of interest everywhere and needs to be
carefully examined to ascertain whether
core academic principles and rationales
are thereby being compromised.
The University Grants Commissions
(UGC) formulation of a professional code
of ethics for university/college teachers
(1989),1 when Yash Pal was the chairman, is thus of interest not just in India,
but for academia and the public internationally. Further, when this code is
adopted to the letter by the executive
council of the Delhi University (DU)2
in March 2014, that move is of interest
not merely in that institution, but more
widely in India and internationally.
This is especially the case since the
code in DU is effectively adopted as
coercively enforceable, contravention of
which could lead to punishment for
teachers in DU colleges and faculties;
ergo, it should not be regarded as a code
of good practice which encourages selfregulation (a soft instrument of control), but as a set of rules which can
be enforced by threat of punishment
(a hard instrument of control). The mode
of adoption of the code in DU sets a precedent for a publicly-funded universitys
vol xlIX no 20
And also,
The code should contain a section on the
rights of the teachers (quoted in Rao and
Shantaram 1999: 3).
COMMENTARY
In general, first recourse to internal procedures for amending rules in institutions is obviously desirable and seems
morally acceptable; but understood as a
rule, this point draws a line that offers
no direction beyond internal procedures
and possibly affects academic freedom
and reasonable freedom of expression.
So, for example, suppose a teacher finds
the enforcement of this code in DU is detrimental to professional interests, and
appeals against it through the mechanisms available within DU and other
official bodies (such as the relevant
government ministry or court). Suppose
further that for whatever reasons these
recourses have no result and fail to dispel the detrimental effect. Then, say, the
teacher exercises her academic freedom
to analyse why the enforcement of this
code is detrimental to academic principles and rationalities and dissemination
of knowledge, and publishes her analysis in a publicly accessible journal or
newspaper (much as I am doing here in
relative safety) effectively, a recourse
to transparent public debate.
Could DU then take that recourse as a
contravention of this point in the code,
and an actionable offence (going outside
her own institution to seek change)?
Would DUs doing so be an undermining
of academic freedom, which is enjoined
on this profession? For this point in the
code to work as a rule, a great deal more
clarity is needed on what is internal
procedure, and how it gels (is regulated
and policed itself) with broader academic principles and rationales and
public interests.
Some teachers may justifiably feel uneasy about Section I, point (ii): [Teachers should] Manage their private affairs
in a manner consistent with the dignity of
the profession as a moral principle this
might be okay, as an institutional rule it
gives unlimited licence to institutional
vol xlIX no 20
EPW
COMMENTARY
EPW
VII (v) Refrain from taking part in or subscribing to or assisting in any way activities
which tend to promote feeling of hatred or
enmity among different communities, regions and linguistic groups but actively work
for National Integration.
vol xlIX no 20
An ethical code relevant to higher education teaching and learning now has
to be devoted to equipping students to
engage critically with such conundrums,
to exercise rational judgment, not to predetermine the precedence of the national
interest and some monolithic notion of
community. To do the latter is to possibly
open the door to majoritarianism, disempower minorities, dumb down rational
dissent and protest. This is especially so
when the code is used as a hard instrument of control within institutions
which brings us to the particular case of
DUs adoption thereof.
DUs Adoption of the Code
The vagueness of the phrasing of the
code on various points, and its anachronistic ideological thrust, render it of
doubtful value as an ethical guidance
document in any context and apt to
arouse considerable misgivings as a
set of institutional rules in a university.
The vagueness of phrasing means that
how it is interpreted, policed, and therefore, acted upon as a set of rules in
an institution becomes of vital interest.
It is effectively a set of rules that are
open to abuse by the administrative
authorities in an institution, if those
authorities so desire.
The code was adopted by the DU executive committee (EC) in a meeting of
6 March 2014 chaired by the vice chancellor (VC) Dinesh Singh incidentally,
that meeting also amended the terms of
VC appointments so that a holder can
seek reappointment. In the EC meeting
reportedly the code was championed by
a strong majority: only four of the 23 EC
members opposed it (The Statesman
2014). The spirit of its adoption was
clear in the supplementary agenda
of the EC meeting of 6 March, which
ratified the following amendments in
DU Ordinances XI and XII:
Clause 1-A: The teacher shall comply with
the Code of Professional Ethics at Appendix
A. Failure to comply with the said Code of
Professional Ethics will also be construed as
misconduct on the part of the teacher and
he/she shall be liable to face action as may
be deemed necessary by the Vice-Chancellor
and the Executive Council.
Clause 1-B: The teacher shall comply with the
Code of Professional Ethics at Appendix A.
33
COMMENTARY
Failure to comply with the said Code of
Professional Ethics will also be construed as
misconduct on the part of the teacher and
he/she shall be liable to face action as may
be deemed necessary by the Governing Body
of the College.
Provided further, if the circumstances so warrant, the Vice Chancellor may direct the Governing Body of the College to initiate action
against a teacher on the ground of misconduct, failing which the Vice-Chancellor may
take such action as provided for in the Act,
Statute and Ordinances of the University.
References
Nuland, Shirley van and B P Khandelwal, ed.
(2006): Ethics in Education: The Role of Teacher
Codes, Canada and South Asia (Paris: International Institute of Education Planning/
UNESCO); available at: http://www.iiep.
unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Research_
Highlights_Corruption/pdf/teachercodes.pdf
Rao, I V Subba and M V Shantaram (1999): Ethics
and Values in Higher Education Indian
Thought and Current Scenario, paper presented in the International Conference of University Presidents at Kyung Hee University, Seoul,
Korea, 10-13 October; available at: http://
krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/bitstream/1/2025213/
1/G16667.pdf
Singh, Amrik (2003): Academic Standards in
Indian Universities: Ravages of Affiliation,
Economic & Political Weekly, 26 July, 38:30,
pp 3200-08.
The Statesman (2014): EC Okays Second Term for
VC, The Statesman, 7 March; available at:
http://www.thestatesman.net/news/43108-ecokays-second-term-for-vc.html
UGC (2010): UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges
and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, The Gazette of India,
18 September, http://www.ugc.ac.in/oldpdf/
regulations/englishgazette.pdf; http://www.
ugc.ac.in/oldpdf/regulations/revised_final
ugcregulationfinal10.pdf
available at
Delhi Magazine Distributors Pvt Ltd
110, Bangla Sahib Marg
New Delhi 110 001
Ph: 41561062/63
vol xlIX no 20
EPW