Is said to be most excellent for the skin. We are here today, however, to discuss quite another kind of mud.
Strange things have been afoot in the land of JUDE. Strange and, unfortunately, extremely unfortunate. JUDE is, as is widely acknowledged, a most wonderful place of intellectual stimulation, uncensored thought processes and, need we even say it, academic excellence. And yet, yet, the one thing that really stands out – indeed, visitors never fail to notice it, often wistfully – is the warm camaraderie between faculty and students. The Peep writes beautifully and with characteristic zest about it. Which is why, at first, some really unfunny things seem like a bad practical joke someone dreamed up. If only.
Now that the matter has been reported in both the print and electronic media, we feel a certain responsibility towards events as we saw them happen, and hence this post. And before we start, I would like to make it very clear that the honorific of the lecturer in question is Mister. Not Doctor.
1. Early last November (it really started in October), a lecturer of the department accused two female undergraduates in their first year (UG I) of sexually harassing him. The matter apparently stemmed from a tutorial essay on the poetry of William Blake: the lecturer believed that a particular quotation from an assigned text, ('Oh rose thou art sick') used to answer a question about that assigned text, was actually an implied slur at him.
A few days later, he said that it wasn't simply the quotation; other students had scribbled messages--in unrecognisable block capitals--in the margins and within the body of their answerscripts. A further few days later, he went on to claim that one of the accused had written a letter to his wife claiming that she (the student, not the wife) was having an affair with him, and that the wife should visit and talk to the head of the department (who is mentioned by name) about it.
When this letter was produced, it turned out to be a text documented that had been printed out, making identification via handwriting impossible. Did it arrive in an envelope? Was it attached to an email? None of it was discussed at all. Instead, the lecturer held up this letter to the TV camera, summarised its contents on a chat show, and disclosed the student's name to the enormous viewing audience. The channel advertised the show as "Sex Scandal at JU!"
We will not detail the reactions of the students in question, who are fresh out of school and were at that point not even one full semester old in the department.
The matter caused a certain amount of complete shock in the department. It came out that the lecturer had forced the girl in question to scribble a note of apology to him, which was now being used as further proof of her actions.
Further, the lecturer extracted a promise from all students in his optional courses:
a. not to contact him outside class, even for academic reasons
b. not to discuss him with anybody.
If any of his students found the second demand arbitary, unreasonable and an imposition on the right to free speech, they did not voice it. So it was doubly galling to later see TV commentators label these students as rebellious, disrespectful, and disruptive.
2. At the beginning of the second semester (which began on the 2nd of January), the concerned lecturer put up a notice on one of the department's notice boards, stating that a large number of answerscripts from the previous semester's end-semester examinations were 'disputed'. Should the students concerned want to know what this meant, they should contact the Registrar. The proper channel of a complaint being always through the head of the department, this baffled students, as did the word 'disputed'. However, the lecturer, after having precipitated the situation, categorically refused to explain the reason behind the 'dispute', or comment further on the matter.
3. The students, upon meeting the Registrar, discovered that the lecturer had complained to the Vice Chancellor about them scribbling explicit messages to him in their answerscripts (the tally was 16 out of 19 students). He had formally complained about being sexually harassed on a mass-scale by the overwhelming majority of his students. The department was abuzz with this allegation, and students began wondering if this was a novel way of victimising young women from someone in a position of power. Within days of this speculation gaining ground, the lecturer delcared that he 'missed' certain scribblings on three more answerscripts. All of these answerscripts turned out to have been written by male students.
This may be irrelevant to those outside the department, for it is our subjective opinion formed over four years of close interaction, but most of the students in question were quiet, introverted individuals--quite the opposite of the Jadavpur Arts stereotype. This will be relevant later.
4. An investigation was carried out by the Registrar, in which the lecturer and all students mentioned were interrogated. The students denied the accusation of harassment. Some of them pointed out that scribbled messages within the body of their answerscripts was the surest way to get into trouble, and maybe even be disqualified. Why would they--all of them with decent grades so far--take such an insane risk?
The lecturer, on the other hand, has refused to hand in the 'disputed' answerscripts to the enquiry commission. The enquiry commission's report has been deferred for almost three weeks now because the evidence of the answerscripts is not accessible to it. All he had furnished the Registrar with are photocopies of a few of them. Although he denied it on TV, the university had in fact asked him to submit the answerscripts, but he didn't responded to that request. Finally, after 5 months of stagnation, the Vice Chancellor has formally written to him on Monday, the 12th of March 2007, asking him to return withheld university property.
In the meanwhile results of nearly 130 postgraduate students have been held up indefinitely, half of whom complete the degree in approximately three months time. Their careers--academically or otherwise--are similiarly indefinitely on hold. Had they been guilty of misconduct, this punishment might have been deserved, but the very person who had levelled allegations against them is the one now blocking the investigation. It's all rather confusing. Also, since the lecturer has been recused from conducting examinations till the investigation is concluded, the course that he has offered this semester are floundering without a coordinator, leaving even more students in a quandry.
This, in a nutshell, is what has been happening at the department for the last five months. Now on the 11th of March, Hindustan Times carried one version of the story (with a glaring error: the Registrar did not direct the Sexual Harassment Cell to start an enquiry. The students were obliged to lodge a complaint themselves), and Tara News, Star Anondo, Zee News and India TV arrived on the campus on Monday the 12th. Tara TV conducted a long live session with the lecturer and his wife in the studio and a team on campus. Here are some comments I would like to make in my personal capacity on the show:
1. Journalistic ethics is a much debated issue and is indeed in a state of flux to accomodate constantly changing situations. However to conceal from those about to be interviewed that the lecturer was present at the studio and would be interacting with the students (the anchor Sayan explictly says this was Tara's aim) and lying outright about beaming disputed answerscripts live is not exactly ethically exalted. And the repeated employment of the term 'sex scandal exclusive' to convince viewers not to change the channel is, for lack of a more exopressive phrase, extremely cheap.
2. The ethics of some of the other people involved can, I think, be freely questioned. I personally feel it is utterly distasteful--if not illegal, for the matter is currently sub-judice--for a lecturer to present photocopies of answerscripts he has been entrusted with and which is confidential university property on live television, and repeatedly ask the crew to zoom in and show the sexually explicit, if inane, messages scribbled on them. I quote the gentleman: "[It] exceeds all limits of decency, I cannot say it... aapnara dekhate parle bhalo hoy (it would be good if you could broadcast this)."
I hope I'm not the only one who gets the irony and hypocrisy in this statement. Besides which he showed no hesistancy at all in naming the student who allegedly wrote his wife an explicit letter, with no regard for the fact that this is merely an allegation unsupported by any proof whatsoever and which has been categorically denied by the student in question. However he is very quick to point out that the charges brought against him by 16 PG students is 'only allegations' and can therefore not be referred to in an argument.
3. Some of the reactions to the show--aptly called a natok (drama) by the anchor, albeit it appeared to be a slip of tongue--were frankly terrifying. One woman took very strong exception to the students occasionally speaking in English (although the lecturer's use of the language were fine by her)--this despite them belonging to an English department--and expressed a deep desire to punish them physically. She also expressed astonishment at the nerve of the students to defend themselves when accused by a faculty member, and blamed their parents for raising 'rebels'. A man derided the Registrar for being 'too lenient'. He heartily approved of the beating the engineering faculty students took from the police sometime back, and recommended that course of action for these students as well.
The general consensus about JU students seemed to be that they are a morally decadent and sexually depraved lot, that corrupt society with their English-speaking elitism. This has been repeated often in the media in these last few days. The point, however, is this: should a group that is perceived as 'elitist' be subjected to hypothetical beatings by the police, or the very real (and illegal) withholding of their answerscripts, and therefore degrees, by an adult in charge of their education? Using prejudice to justify misconduct against a targetted body of people--isn't that what civil society stands against? Slightly tangential to the issue, but the whole 'They deserved it, those drug-addicted English-speaking leftists!' rather reminds me of the 'She asked for it!' rhetoric, so frequently employed against victims of rape and molestation.
4. And finally, we have the SC/ST question once again. All of a sudden, a question of sexual misconduct and breach of trust between a teacher and his or her students becomes overshadowed by the caste issue. Mrs. Lecturer took special pains to point out her husband's status as a 'quota recruit' should be noted for future reference because the sexual harassment he was facing, the legal trouble he was in for not returning the answerscripts, and the travails he shall doubtless face in the future, are all because of his caste. Now, given India's history--and indeed, the current environment--automatically assigning a degree of truth to such accusations seems reasonable, for the probablity of it being true is exceptionally high. Except that in this case, there are studeents in hat class who come from similar social backgrounds. So here's a question for those who wish to align themselves with the lecturer on the basis of his caste alone: now that the caste angle is a level playing field--in that both teacher and student are similarly marginalised, would you continue to support him because of his caste identity? The choice is between a man in the position of power, acting illegally to withhold several careers because his accusations were unfounded; and 130 students whose only demand is that he act according to university rules, and turn in their marks. Choose silently, if you must, for social censure can be corrosive; but choose with your conscience.
******
NOTE: certain details have been left out of this account because undoubtedly important and influential though those details are, we do not as yet have either permission or tangible proof to publish them. These include biographical detail of people concerned. Although a few of these have been mentioned on television already, I would appreciate if those reading and kind enough to leave comments desist from mentioning them, as well as the confidential updates, here. Thank you.
Strange things have been afoot in the land of JUDE. Strange and, unfortunately, extremely unfortunate. JUDE is, as is widely acknowledged, a most wonderful place of intellectual stimulation, uncensored thought processes and, need we even say it, academic excellence. And yet, yet, the one thing that really stands out – indeed, visitors never fail to notice it, often wistfully – is the warm camaraderie between faculty and students. The Peep writes beautifully and with characteristic zest about it. Which is why, at first, some really unfunny things seem like a bad practical joke someone dreamed up. If only.
Now that the matter has been reported in both the print and electronic media, we feel a certain responsibility towards events as we saw them happen, and hence this post. And before we start, I would like to make it very clear that the honorific of the lecturer in question is Mister. Not Doctor.
1. Early last November (it really started in October), a lecturer of the department accused two female undergraduates in their first year (UG I) of sexually harassing him. The matter apparently stemmed from a tutorial essay on the poetry of William Blake: the lecturer believed that a particular quotation from an assigned text, ('Oh rose thou art sick') used to answer a question about that assigned text, was actually an implied slur at him.
A few days later, he said that it wasn't simply the quotation; other students had scribbled messages--in unrecognisable block capitals--in the margins and within the body of their answerscripts. A further few days later, he went on to claim that one of the accused had written a letter to his wife claiming that she (the student, not the wife) was having an affair with him, and that the wife should visit and talk to the head of the department (who is mentioned by name) about it.
When this letter was produced, it turned out to be a text documented that had been printed out, making identification via handwriting impossible. Did it arrive in an envelope? Was it attached to an email? None of it was discussed at all. Instead, the lecturer held up this letter to the TV camera, summarised its contents on a chat show, and disclosed the student's name to the enormous viewing audience. The channel advertised the show as "Sex Scandal at JU!"
We will not detail the reactions of the students in question, who are fresh out of school and were at that point not even one full semester old in the department.
The matter caused a certain amount of complete shock in the department. It came out that the lecturer had forced the girl in question to scribble a note of apology to him, which was now being used as further proof of her actions.
Further, the lecturer extracted a promise from all students in his optional courses:
a. not to contact him outside class, even for academic reasons
b. not to discuss him with anybody.
If any of his students found the second demand arbitary, unreasonable and an imposition on the right to free speech, they did not voice it. So it was doubly galling to later see TV commentators label these students as rebellious, disrespectful, and disruptive.
2. At the beginning of the second semester (which began on the 2nd of January), the concerned lecturer put up a notice on one of the department's notice boards, stating that a large number of answerscripts from the previous semester's end-semester examinations were 'disputed'. Should the students concerned want to know what this meant, they should contact the Registrar. The proper channel of a complaint being always through the head of the department, this baffled students, as did the word 'disputed'. However, the lecturer, after having precipitated the situation, categorically refused to explain the reason behind the 'dispute', or comment further on the matter.
3. The students, upon meeting the Registrar, discovered that the lecturer had complained to the Vice Chancellor about them scribbling explicit messages to him in their answerscripts (the tally was 16 out of 19 students). He had formally complained about being sexually harassed on a mass-scale by the overwhelming majority of his students. The department was abuzz with this allegation, and students began wondering if this was a novel way of victimising young women from someone in a position of power. Within days of this speculation gaining ground, the lecturer delcared that he 'missed' certain scribblings on three more answerscripts. All of these answerscripts turned out to have been written by male students.
This may be irrelevant to those outside the department, for it is our subjective opinion formed over four years of close interaction, but most of the students in question were quiet, introverted individuals--quite the opposite of the Jadavpur Arts stereotype. This will be relevant later.
4. An investigation was carried out by the Registrar, in which the lecturer and all students mentioned were interrogated. The students denied the accusation of harassment. Some of them pointed out that scribbled messages within the body of their answerscripts was the surest way to get into trouble, and maybe even be disqualified. Why would they--all of them with decent grades so far--take such an insane risk?
The lecturer, on the other hand, has refused to hand in the 'disputed' answerscripts to the enquiry commission. The enquiry commission's report has been deferred for almost three weeks now because the evidence of the answerscripts is not accessible to it. All he had furnished the Registrar with are photocopies of a few of them. Although he denied it on TV, the university had in fact asked him to submit the answerscripts, but he didn't responded to that request. Finally, after 5 months of stagnation, the Vice Chancellor has formally written to him on Monday, the 12th of March 2007, asking him to return withheld university property.
In the meanwhile results of nearly 130 postgraduate students have been held up indefinitely, half of whom complete the degree in approximately three months time. Their careers--academically or otherwise--are similiarly indefinitely on hold. Had they been guilty of misconduct, this punishment might have been deserved, but the very person who had levelled allegations against them is the one now blocking the investigation. It's all rather confusing. Also, since the lecturer has been recused from conducting examinations till the investigation is concluded, the course that he has offered this semester are floundering without a coordinator, leaving even more students in a quandry.
This, in a nutshell, is what has been happening at the department for the last five months. Now on the 11th of March, Hindustan Times carried one version of the story (with a glaring error: the Registrar did not direct the Sexual Harassment Cell to start an enquiry. The students were obliged to lodge a complaint themselves), and Tara News, Star Anondo, Zee News and India TV arrived on the campus on Monday the 12th. Tara TV conducted a long live session with the lecturer and his wife in the studio and a team on campus. Here are some comments I would like to make in my personal capacity on the show:
1. Journalistic ethics is a much debated issue and is indeed in a state of flux to accomodate constantly changing situations. However to conceal from those about to be interviewed that the lecturer was present at the studio and would be interacting with the students (the anchor Sayan explictly says this was Tara's aim) and lying outright about beaming disputed answerscripts live is not exactly ethically exalted. And the repeated employment of the term 'sex scandal exclusive' to convince viewers not to change the channel is, for lack of a more exopressive phrase, extremely cheap.
2. The ethics of some of the other people involved can, I think, be freely questioned. I personally feel it is utterly distasteful--if not illegal, for the matter is currently sub-judice--for a lecturer to present photocopies of answerscripts he has been entrusted with and which is confidential university property on live television, and repeatedly ask the crew to zoom in and show the sexually explicit, if inane, messages scribbled on them. I quote the gentleman: "[It] exceeds all limits of decency, I cannot say it... aapnara dekhate parle bhalo hoy (it would be good if you could broadcast this)."
I hope I'm not the only one who gets the irony and hypocrisy in this statement. Besides which he showed no hesistancy at all in naming the student who allegedly wrote his wife an explicit letter, with no regard for the fact that this is merely an allegation unsupported by any proof whatsoever and which has been categorically denied by the student in question. However he is very quick to point out that the charges brought against him by 16 PG students is 'only allegations' and can therefore not be referred to in an argument.
3. Some of the reactions to the show--aptly called a natok (drama) by the anchor, albeit it appeared to be a slip of tongue--were frankly terrifying. One woman took very strong exception to the students occasionally speaking in English (although the lecturer's use of the language were fine by her)--this despite them belonging to an English department--and expressed a deep desire to punish them physically. She also expressed astonishment at the nerve of the students to defend themselves when accused by a faculty member, and blamed their parents for raising 'rebels'. A man derided the Registrar for being 'too lenient'. He heartily approved of the beating the engineering faculty students took from the police sometime back, and recommended that course of action for these students as well.
The general consensus about JU students seemed to be that they are a morally decadent and sexually depraved lot, that corrupt society with their English-speaking elitism. This has been repeated often in the media in these last few days. The point, however, is this: should a group that is perceived as 'elitist' be subjected to hypothetical beatings by the police, or the very real (and illegal) withholding of their answerscripts, and therefore degrees, by an adult in charge of their education? Using prejudice to justify misconduct against a targetted body of people--isn't that what civil society stands against? Slightly tangential to the issue, but the whole 'They deserved it, those drug-addicted English-speaking leftists!' rather reminds me of the 'She asked for it!' rhetoric, so frequently employed against victims of rape and molestation.
4. And finally, we have the SC/ST question once again. All of a sudden, a question of sexual misconduct and breach of trust between a teacher and his or her students becomes overshadowed by the caste issue. Mrs. Lecturer took special pains to point out her husband's status as a 'quota recruit' should be noted for future reference because the sexual harassment he was facing, the legal trouble he was in for not returning the answerscripts, and the travails he shall doubtless face in the future, are all because of his caste. Now, given India's history--and indeed, the current environment--automatically assigning a degree of truth to such accusations seems reasonable, for the probablity of it being true is exceptionally high. Except that in this case, there are studeents in hat class who come from similar social backgrounds. So here's a question for those who wish to align themselves with the lecturer on the basis of his caste alone: now that the caste angle is a level playing field--in that both teacher and student are similarly marginalised, would you continue to support him because of his caste identity? The choice is between a man in the position of power, acting illegally to withhold several careers because his accusations were unfounded; and 130 students whose only demand is that he act according to university rules, and turn in their marks. Choose silently, if you must, for social censure can be corrosive; but choose with your conscience.
******
NOTE: certain details have been left out of this account because undoubtedly important and influential though those details are, we do not as yet have either permission or tangible proof to publish them. These include biographical detail of people concerned. Although a few of these have been mentioned on television already, I would appreciate if those reading and kind enough to leave comments desist from mentioning them, as well as the confidential updates, here. Thank you.
