THE concern about autonomy of the university and academic freedom has been an ongoing one, often forming the basis of public discussion in India. However, much of the debate has focused on the external interference in the functioning of the university – the political onslaught on academic freedom; governmental monitoring, financial controls, and similar other interventions from outside the university system. However, there is another angle to autonomy which is less deliberated upon – the internal constraints on academic freedom impacting the autonomy and dignity of teachers.

The internal constraints on the autonomy of teachers are most severely felt at the state level universities. Though it is no one’s argument that central universities provide a perfect setting in this context, yet in comparison they provide a better environment for teachers to pursue their academic activities with more freedom and greater dignity. The state level universities, in contrast, are far more bureaucratized and controlled and therefore insensitive to the autonomy and dignity of teachers.

These issues are linked to the way a university defines itself through its day-to-day practices. Far too often there exists a vast gap between what a ‘university’ is supposed to stand for and what gets reflected in its routine practices. Many such practices contradict the very core and spirit of the university system.

The essence of a university lies in intellectual discovery and development of ideas. Promoting and sustaining the spirit of free enquiry thus remains the central logic of the institution. It is this demand for intellectual creativity that justifies the autonomy of the university and academic freedom. The autonomy and dignity of the teacher therefore lies at the core of the university system. The concept also emanates from the emphasis placed on the notions of ‘equality’ and ‘empowerment’ in the very definition of the ‘university’. The university is supposed to provide an enabling environment where a scholar can engage in teaching and research without unnecessary constraint or control.

The notion of autonomy and dignity of teachers flows from two fundamentals of the university system – first, teaching and research are defined as the basic activity of the university and the teacher-researcher is seen as the focal point of all university affairs and, second, an absence of hierarchical control from above. The structuring of power and authority in the university takes place in a manner where the teacher is not placed under the direct control of a superior. It is not a bureaucratic order where the teacher is to operate under a boss. The head of department/chairperson, rather than being the administrative boss is more of a facilitator and an academic leader. Even the vice chancellor is a distant administrator and should not be seen as controlling the academic life of teachers. The only control that should be exercised on the teacher is an academic one – in the class by students and outside it by a peer group of researchers.

However, this is not the case with most state universities. There is a power context which not only devalues the role of teaching and research but also makes the teacher feel ineffective and peripheral to the system, thereby undercutting the notion of autonomy and dignity of the teacher.

 

Due to the bureaucratization of the university structure, the power balance in state universities is grossly tilted in favour of the administration. It is this aspect that most clearly distinguishes the state level from the central universities. In the central universities, the administration, despite its obstructionist approach, is still seen as a structure meant to facilitate and support the teacher. In state universities, it has a status that smacks of power. It is not only the top level administrator, but even the babus and lower rank officers who exercise enormous power. What further distinguishes them from the teachers are the privileges that they may enjoy – better furnished rooms, air conditioners, official cars, personal assistants, among others.

The lopsided power balance creates a strong feeling of dependency among teachers. The need to approach the administration for everything ranging from the routine to more urgent matters, implies that the teacher often feels humiliated and degraded. Many teachers find it difficult to cope with the power of administrators and thus resort to developing interpersonal relations with them, in the process only empowering them further.

 

So devalued do teachers feel vis-à-vis the administration that many of them start aspiring for administrative positions. It is common for teachers in state universities to opt for administrative positions such as registrars, finance officers, controllers of examination, etc. From a purist point of view this is disconcerting because teachers are supposed to be passionately involved in academic pursuits with little interest in seeking administrative positions, if not have contempt for these. But we have now come to a situation where teachers feel that being a mere teacher is not sufficient and hence prefer an administrative tag.

This would not only give them proximity to the administration but also a taste of power, a great attraction. This is unfortunate because the ‘teacher’ with a sense of pride in being one (and only a teacher) is becoming a rarity.

The ‘power’ syndrome that leads to the devaluation of the ‘teacher’ within state universities has another dimension – the centralization of power in the office of the vice chancellor. So disproportionate is the influence and power of this office in the state universities that it virtually eclipses the institution. More often than not, the institution gets identified with the person of the vice chancellor and his personal authority substitutes institutional power. This has enormous implications for the autonomy of the institution as well as of the teacher.

 

First, the decentralized structures of authority are rendered ineffective. Rather than contributing to democratic decision-making and working as a check on the singular authority of the vice chancellor, these structures become the basis of justifying his power. Whether it is a case of an arbitrary exercise of power, or use of discretion or bypassing the university statutes or norms, the vice chancellor is able to smoothly negotiate these structures. In many cases those who man these structures work as his personal nominees, displaying no self-worth for their own autonomy or appreciation for the autonomy of the institution (least of all for the autonomy and dignity of the teachers).

Second, the principle of collegiality is totally negated. Instead of collective decision-making, ‘control’ in the hands of the vice chancellor becomes the driving logic within universities. Not only are academic decisions ‘controlled’, so is the entire academic life, including that of the teachers. In a situation where the vice chancellor enjoys tremendous arbitrary power, (s)he acquires a position comparable to that of an emperor. Seen as the distributor of benefits and favours, be it positions or promotions, everything seems to be bestowed as a personal favour such that even the most deserving teachers are obliged and expected to feel grateful. As a consequence, personal loyalty to the VC is seen to be more rewarding than an institutional and professional approach. Loyalty to the person of the VC is expected, demanded and rewarded. It has become the basis for large scale and brazen sycophancy that prevails in the state university system.

Third, the augmentation of the dependency develops an attitude of acquiescence among teachers who accept and submit to authority as a matter of habit and convenience. Hierarchy gets ingrained in the mind and attitude, and even those holding the most important positions feel and act like subordinates to the vice chancellor.

Fourth, there develops an intolerance to criticism, opposition and dissent. Instead of intellectual debate as an appropriate response to criticism and dissent, teachers experience the use of power and threats, veiled and open. Those who raise issues of principle and show concern for the institution suffer the most. This has inimical implications for the university because open debate is not possible. Since questioning authority is seen in a negative light and invites retribution, no one wants to take inconvenient positions. With self-censorship there develops a culture of conformism and silence.

 

This has serious implications for the vision of institutional growth. Intrinsic to such a vision is debate and internal discussion about every aspect relating to the institution. Without intellectual debate about the way a university functions and the direction it takes, decision-making within the university deteriorates. Rather than evolving out of academic needs and operative contexts, it acquires an extraneous rationale.

On the whole, it is the existing feudal culture within state universities that goes against the very soul and spirit of the university system. The feudal mindset recognizes only personal power, loyalty and dependency of the client-patron kind and notions of ‘equality’ and ‘empowerment’ find no place.

However, far more worrisome today is the new corporate culture increasingly being introduced in the state universities, creating an interesting mix and match between the feudal and the corporate. The superimposition of corporatization on the existing feudal set-up has grave implications for the survival of an open, democratic, non-hierarchical and teacher-centric university system.

 

The corporatization of university culture is visible from many trends evident in the universities: a managerial approach to running university affairs with its top-down model of decision-making; the vice chancellor seen to be operating as the CEO rather than an academic leader; managers replacing teacher-scholars in academic decision-making (many universities appoint consultants and advisors for specialized university jobs) and so on. Far too many state universities are now headed by IAS officers and worse, policemen.

The managerial approach of running the university is contrary to collegial principles and not merely belittles the role of the teacher-scholar in academic decision-making, but changes its basic orientation. Traditionally, decision-making in the universities was through the wider participation and involvement of the academic community at various levels, drawing upon the varied experience of faculty members. Now there is neither the patience to go through various levels of decision-making nor hear multiple voices. There is a growing tendency to take decisions through fast channels, even doing away with existing institutional mechanisms. In order to short circuit decision-making, well-established healthy practices are ignored, norms violated and parallel and extra-constitutional power structures created (some of which are super-imposed on already existing ones).

 

For those running a university with this new approach, it ceases to be an academic institution with certain basic principles that distinguish it from other organizations. It is seen as any other existing organization where the latest management techniques can be used, howsoever contradictory these may be to the essence and purpose of the university.

With marketing assuming a central role, much of the energy and resources of the university are used for its sales promotion. Packaging, therefore, assumes greater importance than academic content. Much emphasis is placed on buzzwords like ‘world class university’, ‘state of art’, and ‘centre of excellence’. Everything that has a marketing value is used – glossy magazines, festivities and cultural shows. Public relations is seriously pursued and media is propped up. Special care is taken to seek appreciation through media and to suppress any kind of criticism.

Since the process of developing an academic culture is not amenable for marketing purposes, attention is paid to those aspects that can be marketed like infrastructure. The creation of infrastructure, in many such universities, develops a logic of its own with university officials upfronting it (rather than its academic achievements) to demonstrate the successful functioning of the university.

One implication of the corporatization of the university is an increase in the stature and power of the vice chancellor. Apart from control over decision-making, there are huge resources, as well as patronage, available at his disposal, a largesse for creating influence in society and to garner support within the university. New jobs are created and distributed to the right kinds of people – the political class, media, and opinion makers. Such patronage and distribution of resources as well as favours, end up being used for personal promotion rather than for the larger benefit of the university.

 

Whether it be the feudal culture, the bureaucratization of power structures or their corporatization, the teacher ceases to be the central point of the university system and loses not only the will to fight for the preservation of dignity and autonomy but also the spirit. This is mainly due to the extreme individualization of the teacher.

One aspect that is most striking on entering a university campus is the non-existence of a sense of solidarity among the teachers and an almost total loss of the sense of being a collective. Rather than being a part of the same community fighting similar problems, teachers view each other through a zero sum lens and fight among themselves rather than confront the power-wielding administrators. Professional rivalries take disproportionate time and energy of the teacher. Almost every teacher has an ‘identified’ adversary who is invariably another teacher, most likely a colleague in the same department.

It is a sort of dependency that the university system creates in the psyche of the teacher that leads to the process of extreme individualization. With the power context hegemonizing university life and faced with various kinds of direct and indirect controls, the life of a teacher is reduced to looking for ways and means to sail smoothly through these turbulent waters. So intimidating and antagonistic is the work environment that most teachers yearn merely to be left alone to work in peace.

The collective activity of teachers could have provided relief. But the teachers associations are no longer effective in pursuing the collective interests of the teacher. More often than not, the associations are co-opted by the administration and operate more as ‘his master’s voice’ than fight for the dignity and autonomy of the teacher. With little capacity to match the increasing power of administration, the faculty associations have become a tool for self-serving teachers who use it for gaining access to the power wielders and serving their individual interests.

 

In the absence of support from the collective, individual teachers feel so powerless, dependent and vulnerable that all their energies become focused in trying to protect their minimal interests. It has virtually become a struggle for self-preservation. In a situation marked by favouritism and arbitrariness , the life of the teacher is full of uncertainty, often leaving little choice except to seek the patronage of those who exercise power.

What gets lost in the process is the institutional approach or vision. With the single-minded attention of teachers focused on the preservation of their self-interest, they cannot rise above their mundane interests to think about the institution. The personal takes over the institutional. Are we surprised that our academic institutions are in disarray?