When we were university students, we respected our teachers, and dreamed of becoming as knowledgeable and wise as them. We looked up to certain lecturers because of their deep knowledge of a subject, their teaching ability, and their open-mindedness. The way they discussed ideas provoked us and got us thinking.
We all had our favourites among the university lecturers. We liked them when they were approachable and “cool”, but we also had tremendous regard for the less “cool” but conscientious, conventional, “saree-wearing” teacher.
We also liked lecturers who were different from the others – innovative in their teaching, creative in their thinking, original in their dress, or eccentric in their ways. We knew and admired those who had published in renowned journals or written books that were recognised internationally.
The most popular lecturers tended to be those who were passionate about their work and research and got involved in activities outside the university. Their lectures were usually more interesting and thought-provoking.
Whenever we walked past the University Faculty Club, we would hear laughter, arguments (mostly about the state of the country), and jokes about politicians. Often these same lecturers would represent the university at local and overseas conferences. They spoke openly to the media, and fearlessly critiqued the government. The university provided a space for diversity, pluralism, debate, and even dissent.
Sadly, the university world is not quite the same today. Teaching has to some extent been affected. Certain universities have discontinued popular courses, or modified them because of “sensitive” issues, or put some programmes on hold.
In universities today, lecturers who initiate or teach such courses or programmes, or who collaborate with overseas universities, are victimised, directly or indirectly. Some are not considered for promotions, some are ridiculed, and many are forced to resign, give up positions of power, take sabbatical leave, or simply lie low. Visiting scholars are perceived as spies working for the international community.
Research commissioned by outside institutions is perceived as either money-making or suspect – collaborations with dubious international agencies. Their research is not seen as benefiting the university or the students. Certain areas of research (such as conflict, rehabilitation, violence, internally displaced persons) are considered threatening or critical of the government.
In the good old days, academics could survive on their salary. Today, inadequately remunerated lecturers are compelled to turn to consultancies.
True, university lecturers are better off than many others, but the fact is their salaries have remained more or less the same for at least five or six years (a senior lecturer’s monthly take-home salary is Rs. 52,000). After paying rent (Rs. 10,000), bills (Rs 17,000), the children’s school fees (2x Rs. 6,000), petrol (Rs. 10,000), gas (Rs. 500) and food (Rs. 15,000), there is little left for medical expenses, books, extra-curricular activities for the children, outings, gifts or clothes.
Today’s lecturers who make an additional income through consultancies and research are perceived as neglecting their university duties. They are perceived as working on the sly, when in fact such extra-campus work ultimately benefits the university and the students.
One consolation is that my university does not award PhDs to politicians. It may be only a matter of time before all universities do this.
Obviously, I wish to remain anonymous. That is the only way to stay employed – or even stay alive. Lecturers are silenced if they dare to voice an opinion or dissent.
I miss the days when teachers could say, do and wear just about anything, and were respected for their ideas and their intellect.
I shall remember those days with great nostalgia.
Disillusioned Academic |
E-mail