UGC draft rules limit academic autonomy

The Ministry of Education and its many organisations are working overtime to reform education. These 'reforms' are the byproduct of the belief expounded in the NEP 2020 — that whatever exists is not appropriate and must be replaced (or at least re-named) with more centrally controllable procedures. Every day, a new document/draft of revamped guidelines or recommendations is issued. The latest UGC's draft for minimum qualification for recruitment and promotion of teachers and academic staff in colleges and universities is 'seeking' suggestions and feedback on the UGC portal.

The regulations on minimum qualifications for the recruitment and promotion of university and college teachers is a recipe for the collapse of quality of teaching-learning in higher education institutions. It is an inept effort to nitpick the existing procedures and further control the teaching community. The guidelines are riddled with obscurities, inconsistencies and indifference for the intricacies of academic life.

By prioritising research publications and patents over teaching and service, the regulations propagate a toxic ethos of academic exclusiveness, where faculty members are required to roil out run-of-the-mill research to mollify the supremacies that be rather than emphasise on providing worthwhile education to their learners.

The regulations' stress on "Indian knowledge systems" is an oblique endeavour to enforce a constricted, nationalist pogrom on the academic world, stifling critical thinking and intellectual multiplicity. Wide-ranging expressions like "recognised contributions" and "Indian knowledge systems" are imprecise; making it problematic to decide what constitutes an effective contribution.

The lack of clear delineations gives way for misadventure, leaving scope for misapprehension, and allures indiscriminate decision-making and crass cronyism.

The draft regulation seeks to shift the focus from objectivity in selection to discretion and subjectivity. While the extant regulation requires the selection committee to assess a candidate for their research and publication, domain knowledge and presentation along with articulation, the proposed version requires the committees to base their decision on nine notable contributions. They include "innovative teaching contributions; research or teaching lab development; consultancy/sponsored research funding; teaching contributions in Indian languages; teaching-learning and research in Indian knowledge system; student internship/ project supervision; digital content creation for MOOCs; community engagement and service; and startup."

The regulations prioritise research, patents and publications over teaching and service, potentially leading to an imbalance in academic responsibilities. It overlooks other valuable academic contributions like curriculum development and mentoring.

It has been also left to the selection committee's discretion to decide whether the research publications are in peer-reviewed journals, whether the chapters are in books published by reputed publishers and whether a candidate's contributions in the nine areas are notable.

The regulations do not provide adequate resources or support for faculty development, particularly for early-career researchers. The emphasis on research and publications assumes that faculty members already possess the necessary skills. This is a callous disregard for the well-being of academic staff, who are already overworked and underpaid.

The recruitment for the post of vice-chancellor includes persons with 10 years of experience at a senior level in industry, public administration, public policy and/or public sector undertakings and who have a proven track record of significant academic or scholarly contributions. The search-cum-selection committee would now be constituted by the visitor/chancellor. It shall include a nominee each of the visitor/chancellor, the UGC chairman and the apex authority of the university. The VC would also be appointed by the visitor/chancellor.

And, the regulations do not specify whether the chancellor decides with the aid and advice of the council of ministers. This is not only a poser for the federal structure of the republic but also an attempt to remote-control all educational institutions, regardless of education being a subject matter on the Concurrent List. Also, the states together outlay more money on education as against 2.5 per cent of GDP allocation by the union government in this year's Budget.

The centralisation of power and limitation of institutional autonomy are a reminder of the UGC's disdain for academic freedom and its determination to strangle the life out of universities. The regulations impose excessive bureaucratic controls, limiting institutional autonomy and flexibility.

The draft focuses on the one-size-fits-all approach and fails to account for diverse institutional contexts, needs and priorities. Higher education is on the Concurrent List, with both the Central and state governments vested with powers to legislate on education matters. The coordination and maintenance of standards are in the Union List, but the spirit of the Constitution is coordination and consensus rather than imposition.

Moreover, the regulations' tokenistic gestures towards multiplicity and inclusion are an affront to the very people they purport to oblige. The prerequisite for representation in selection committees is a muffled assurance, bereft of any meaningful binder to address the systemic disparities that have long beleaguered India's academe.

The importance on research publications and patents may short shrift applicants from marginalised communities, who might not have had the same access to resources and opportunities. The obligation for representation in selection committees from SC/ST/OBC/ minority/ women/ persons with disabilities categories is inadequate as it does not guarantee meaningful involvement or decision-making clout.

The regulations' silence on caste-based discrimination, sexual harassment and disability rights is resounding, pointing to UGC's connivance in preserving the status quo.

The draft regulations are a poorly drafted, exceedingly doctrinaire and potentially prejudiced set of guidelines. They must be vetoed in their totality and be changed with a more nuanced, all-encompassing and representative framework that prioritises academic freedom, intellectual diversity and the well-being of students and faculty alike. A systematic amendment is essential to address these forebodings and craft a more inclusive, impartial and effective framework for higher education in India.