People's Democracy(Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) |
Vol. XXXIV
No.
25 June 20, 2010 |
SEMESTER
SYSTEM
IN DU
Grave
Danger to Public Funded Higher Education
Sanjaya
Kumar Bohidar
A
DELEGATION of
teachers of Delhi University (DU) accompanied by Sitaram Yechury met
the
President of India on June 3, 2010. Sitaram Yechury pleaded her
intervention in
her capacity as the Visitor of DU to stem the grave crisis caused by
the
arbitrary actions of its vice chancellor (VC) threatening the future of
a
premier university that has immensely contributed to the academic
sphere and to
nation building. The delegation included Aditya Narayan Mishra (DUTA
president), Vinay Kumar Singh (DUTA secretary), Vijender Sharma (former
DUTA
president), Abha Dev Habib (member, academic council) and Sanjaya Kumar
Bohidar
(former DUTA treasurer).
Earlier,
on May 18,
2010, Sitaram Yechury had also written a letter to the president of
India
informing her about the major structural changes that the VC was
forcing in DU,
pleading pressure from the MHRD. Yechury pointed out that the arbitrary
actions
by the VC over the last year and a half, in pushing major structural
change
without proper discussion among its highly qualified faculty or in the
academic
council (AC), has been in gross violation of the authority and powers
vested in
various bodies consequent upon the provisions of the act of parliament
establishing the university. He also forwarded an appeal from Abha Dev
Habib,
an AC member belonging to the Democratic Teachers’ Front, seeking the
president’s intervention so that the content and quality of education
in this
premier university is not compromised with.
Sitaram
Yechury's
intervention is in the context of the current agitation led by the
Delhi
University Teachers’ Association (DUTA) against the unilateral and
arbitrary
imposition of the semester system in DU. The UGC had written to the VCs
of all
universities in January 2008 to switch to semester system within two
years. The
DU VC placed this proposal in the AC in October 2008. After some
discussion
over the issue it was evident that given the structure of DU and other
constraints,
the switch to semester system at the undergraduate level would
adversely affect
the quality of teaching. It was clear that in such a large university
with more
than 70 colleges and a plethora of courses and options conducted
through
college-wise admission and teaching and a common annual examinations
external
to the teaching units, it would be practically impossible to implement
the
semester system without compromising on quality and content of the
courses.
Unreasonable rigid limits on the number of teachers per subject and
lack of
physical infrastructure, which has become more acute after the 54 per
cent
expansion in intake of students following OBC reservations, are some of
the
other constraints. Elected teacher members insisted that the matter be
placed
for an informed debate and discussion. The AC concurred. But, the VC
acted in
bad faith. Instead of organising seminars or workshops to critically
and
dispassionately examine all aspects, he circulated a letter praising
the
semester system and seeking feedback in quick time.
OPINION
MISREPRESENTED
Despite
this, the
academic community painstakingly put together the various problems that
render
semester system infeasible and unsuitable for quality accessible
education at
the undergraduate level in the University. The VC misrepresented the
opinion of
the teaching community through a letter in May 2009. He did not engage
in any
discussion with teachers during this long period save a scheduled AC
meeting in
March 2009 which he adjourned when the elected AC members demanded that
the
feedback he had received be circulated and discussed. In June 2009, he
held
another AC meeting where he again refused to discuss the concerns and
find
answers and adjourned the meeting amidst protests. He claimed that the
AC had
approved implementation of semester system in all undergraduate courses
from
the academic year 2010-2011.
Though
barely a
year was left for the new framework and syllabi to be worked out, he
constituted a committee only in October 2009 which by November
circulated a
common framework and asked all departments to get their syllabi ready
within
three months. Though the framework affects the standards of the
academic
programmes and had to be placed in the AC for its consideration and
decision,
he refused to convene any AC meeting. Most departments which
scrutinised the
framework with the participation of teachers pointed out that the
restrictive
framework would dilute the Honours Programme which is DU’s flagship
programme
and would adversely affect quality. The VC got the framework modified
by the
nominated committee further restricting the choices for students,
diluting the
system of tutorials through which closer interaction between students
and
teachers takes place and took away the right of students to seek
revaluation of
answer scripts.
At
the behest of
the VC, a few heads of departments without the necessary expertise
bypassed all
due processes and without the involvement of teachers patched together
syllabi
for certain courses. There were instances of temporary teachers and
others in
vulnerable situations made to approve specific syllabi. Under
instructions from
the administration, some annual courses were fitted into semester frame
showing
complete ignorance of academic requirements. Some of these heads also
chose to
misrepresent the decisions of the departments to falsely claim that the
syllabi
were approved.
The
VC convened an
AC meeting on May 13, 2010 and placed the syllabi of 12 undergraduate
science
courses for its consideration. He refused to entertain any discussion
on the
framework into which these courses had been fitted. He refused even to
consider
the incomplete nature of the syllabi since the English and mathematics
components had not been approved by the respective departments. He also
refused
to take cognisance of the gross procedural irregularities and
violations
through which these courses had come from departments to the AC. Amidst
protest
by the elected members in the AC, he declared those as passed.
Even
when the
courses are duly approved by the AC, there is a legal requirement for
these to
be approved by the executive council (EC) which is also obliged to
frame
ordinances without which the courses are not valid. These ordinances,
in turn,
can be annulled by the university court or the visitor. The VC,
therefore,
chose to bypass the executive council by not convening it, cancelled a
scheduled meeting of the university court and even deprived the visitor
of
taking a view of the courses through gross misuse of a provision in the
rules
of emergency power. As per an existing directive from the visitor, the
VC is
not allowed to use emergency power in routine matters and in policy
matters. He
is not allowed to undermine and marginalise the authorities of the
university
such as the AC, EC, university court and the visitor. The VC is only an
important officer of the university, albeit an important one. He cares little for its authorities because
he wishes to claim success in implementing the government agenda. He
cares
little about the adverse academic outcome for the university. Without
any
compunction he pushes through syllabi during the vacation knowing full
well
that teachers who are supposed to teach these have not seen the
contents let
alone be prepared for teaching.
MOVE TO BENEFIT
FOERIGN UNIVERSITIES
In
fact, the
government is pushing through semester system (which became a part of
the
ministry of human resource development’s 100-day agenda in UPA-2
government)
without considering the specific structures and constraints and without
the
willingness to provide for the per-requisites for such a change
becoming
feasible. It is not concerned about quality of education in public
funded
universities. It is driven merely by the desire to impose a common
calendar so
that private and foreign universities can find cost minimising ways of
expanding through some exchanges (mobility) with the public funded
ones. DU has
semester system at post-graduate level but does not allow students of
one
department to pursue courses in another. Private institutions can use
the
possibility of mobility provided by a common calendar to get their
fee-paying
students to avail some courses in the public institutions in return for
a small
sum since the public institutions are starved of funds. Foreign
universities
will get the wealthier students enrolled in public universities for
short term
courses on payment of hefty fees while these private players can sell
high
priced degrees with little investment.
The
policy of
privatiSation and commercialiSation of higher education chosen by the
government of India is being ruthlessly pursued by the MHRD. Through
the UGC,
pliant VCs and outright arm-twisting, it wants all institutions without
any
regard for their concrete conditions and constraints to shift to
semester system.
It is one thing to insist that every institution takes considered steps
to
improve standards and quite another to trample upon academic autonomy
and
informed debate by insisting that a shift to semester system would
automatically improve quality. The questions raised by the academia in
DU
concerns public funded higher education as a whole. It has been argued
that
misplaced implantation of a semester system can lower standards and the
specific framework imposed by the DU VC bears it out. There is no
shortcut to
finding answers and initiatives to improve education. Hallowed slogans
like
academic reforms should not be used to smuggle in the agenda of
privatisation
and commercialisation. The public funded universities and higher
education thus
face grave danger and have to be defended against meeting the fate of
the
government school system.