Two senior academics- one of whom is French and thus may know no better- write in the Indian Express-
What Ashoka University controversy says about the failures of private institutions
Unlike Public Institutions, Private Institutions can't pick the pockets of the tax payer- unless, like Fagin, they train their kids to go out and do so on their behalf. However, tax payers revolt against their pockets being picked. Thus- long term, by 'Ricardian Equivalence'- 'failures' of private and Public institutions come down to the same things.
Greater push towards privatisation has implications for academic freedom and diversity in education institutions.
Privatization means transferring something from the Public to the Private Sector. Do the two cretins who wrote this really not understand this?
For a more just, equal educational system, the state must have a role
The State does have a role. Most Universities are Public though if the r.o.i on Education is high enough, there is likely to be a flourishing Private Sector competing with which the State too has to up its game. But the r.o.i on most Academic subjects is low or negative. Sadly, rent-seeking means that useful subjects, like Medicine- where there are currently more private students- can't burgeon properly, thus displacing the sort of shite courses taught by the sort of people who write this drivel.
Written by Kiran Bhatty , Christophe Jaffrelot |
The resignations of Pratap Bhanu Mehta and Arvind Subramanian from Ashoka University have created ripples in the world of academia, not just in India but across the globe.
Which shows that the 'world of academia' is a stinking sewer of an entirely parochial sort.
While the immediate cause for the resignation is not known,
Yes, it is. The donors were rude to Mehta because he has been writing Ram Guha level retarded shite. He resigned, leaving his students in the lurch. If the cunt gets a gig at Ivy League out of this, then good luck to him. He knows which side his bread is buttered on. If not, we will remark the continual decline in his academic trajectory. The guy could have been the next Ashutosh Varshney! Or perhaps he was the last Ashutosh Varshney.
it is surmised that Mehta’s outspoken views on the ruling establishment might have a lot to do with it.
Fuck that. The guy says 'God is belittled' if you say 'Jai Shri Ram' or build a Temple. How about 'Allahu Akbar' or if you build a mosque?
Mehta's job was to attack the Government for its leaden footed pace of land and labor reform. He was supposed to be smart and to have his ear to the ground. Instead he started recycling sophomore tropes about how God don't need no Churches coz God is everywhere right? and how's about my bit of God going up your bit of God? Fascist! Did you have to slap my face so hard?
It is undeniable that this government has shown itself to be particularly thin-skinned to criticism.
There is a wide difference between criticism and cretinism.
But the resignations raise equally pertinent questions about the ability of the private managements of educational institutions to withstand such pressure
That's easily done. Don't let cretins like Mehta talk to grown-ups unless there's a senior member of faculty present to hold his hand and kiss away any booboos inflicted on his delicate little ego.
and fundamental questions about education and its primary objectives.
These guys get paid to do a bit of educating. They are so shit at doing it that they are still faced with 'fundamental questions' re. the objective of what they are supposed to be doing.
What are the implications of the privatisation of higher education for academic freedom?
Academic freedom, like every other sort of freedom, is a function of transfer earnings and the law of the land. If a thing is legal and you can make almost as much money in another job, then you are free to do it no matter by whom you are employed. Mehta could move to a Private University in a non-BJP State.
On paper, it seemed that private universities would be in a better position to ensure intellectual independence.
Who would believe Mehta if Ashoka had been located in Chandigarh or Kolkata?
Certainly, public institutions have been targeted by the government, as is evident from recent policies regarding JNU.
In other words, the BJP did what previous regimes had done with Central Universities.
In 2016, the Modi government appointed as vice-chancellor Mamidala Jagadesh Kumar. His tenure has seen drastic budget cuts
Academic spending has come down as a proportion of the budget- from about eight percent to maybe 5 percent- because spending on security has gone up. Spending on research activities has fallen very steeply. Why? People think that a shithole which gives PhDs to Kanhaiya Kumars isn't capable of 'research'. It can only teach people to beat other people unless security guards beat them with vim and vigor. This has led to a
a decline in student recruitment, while the office of the VC has been tangled in several face-offs with student unions and faculty opposed to the Hindu nationalist movement on a host of issues, from contested promotions and faculty appointments to violations of university procedures.
This is merely Sayre's Law in operation- "Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low."
But no full-time faculty, to our knowledge, was forced to resign because (s)he was a “political liability” — to use Pratap Bhanu Mehta’s words — a clear indication of the protection teachers continue to enjoy in the public system.
G.N Saibaba, a Professor at Delhi University, was arrested under the previous regime. He is still in jail having been convicted of belonging to an unlawful political organization. His sentence is that of life imprisonment.
In contrast, faculty members appear more vulnerable in private universities, as academics are dependent upon the policies of owners and donors.
So, all that matters in the private sector, is that different political views are reflected amongst 'owners' and 'donors'. If academics of a particular stripe care about a particular type of freedom, they are welcome to solicit funds and set up a College of their own.
Sometimes, one man creates a university in his name, sometimes — like in the case of Ashoka University — the institution is founded by a larger group.
Jafflrelot teaches in a City where A.C. Grayling and a few other academics set up their own College. Why are Indian academics too lazy to do anything similar?
Most of these financiers are businessmen, who are dependent on the government to protect and enhance their business interests.
But if the Government at the Center is against them, then the Opposition ruled States will welcome them.
They are far more likely to bend to state pressure when it comes to shutting out dissenting voices of public intellectuals — or agree not to hire them.
Apparently, the Times of India group owns a University. Perhaps the Goenckas of the Indian Express own one too. Why shouldn't they hire a Professor who writes shite about the Government in their newspapers?
It is important to remember that historian Ramachandra Guha had to decline to join Ahmedabad University after protests over his appointment by Hindu nationalist groups.
Yup, he bottled it sho nuff. Patrick French is the Dean of the relevant faculty. I hope Ram Guha didn't have explosive, fear induced, diarrhea all over a writer greatly his superior.
Academic freedom is not a part of the culture of the owners of most private universities.
But it is of these two losers? Guys with lots of money have every type of freedom. People who depend on a pay check- not so much.
Vice-chancellors are better on that count, but they are not necessarily part of the decision-making process,
Why not? Surely, if the thing is a non-profit Trust, then the V.C is the responsible party. Donors are irrelevant.
and may fail to persuade founders that there is probably nothing more important than academic freedom for establishing the credibility of an educational institution.
Excellence establishes credibility. Freedom doesn't. I am free to make sweet sweet love to super-models. But I'm not excellent at it. Indeed, after a couple of minutes, what I'd prefer is a nice cup of cocoa. That is why my claim to be a super-stud gigolo for hire is not considered credible.
Even if they do, for owners, protecting their business is often more important.
Often? No. All the time. That's why few want to be known to be donating- or even knowing about- my X rated 'How to Be a Super-Stud Gigolo' Internet University College of Academic top-notchness'.
This has implications beyond academic freedom. A recent report on private participation in schooling brought out by the Central Square Foundation (run by Ashish Dhawan, chair of Ashoka University’s board of trustees) argues for the profit motive in education.
Which already exists- though, it appears, these two egg-heads haven't noticed.
In the section called “Five pillars of Reform”, it says: “Review the non-profit mandate for the education sector and existing fee regulations to attract investment and enable easy access to credit for schools. The government could also explore opening corporate governance structures to private schools to drive greater transparency and accountability. Classifying private schools as micro, small, or medium enterprises could enable higher credit availability for the sector.”
Wow, is that ignorant and illiterate! Can these two shitheads do worse? Of course-
India has always had space for private, mostly philanthropist, involvement in education, albeit with restrictions. The fear was that educational institutions geared towards profit could exacerbate inequalities in society. Indeed, the “elite” private schools are unaffordable for a large section of the Indian population, creating a sharp class divide in the education system. The divide also includes gender and caste dimensions, as boys and students from upper-caste backgrounds are overwhelmingly represented in private institutions relative to public ones. Many “low fee” private schools that seek to bridge this divide and attract students from less-advantaged backgrounds also tend to be low-cost schools, with often less than basic infrastructure and poorly qualified, underpaid teachers. They do, however, promise better exam “results”, in addition to English-medium teaching, and have attracted scores of less-privileged families. In fact, better results in tests have become the primary marker of quality in education. All other aspects, like equity, have been put on the backburner. Hence, when low-cost schools turn out to be fly-by-night operations leaving children stranded or forcing them to fall off the education map, it does not raise eyebrows.
Why? Coz India is as poor as shit. It would be poorer yet if 'equity' wasn't on the backburner.
Neither is there a great concern
coz India is as poor as shit
for the complete lack of diversity, indeed equality, in private educational institutions.
Legislation doesn't fix that because enforcement is expensive and did I mention India is as poor as shit?
Increasing diversity in private schools, which was sought through the RTE Act by reserving 25 per cent of incoming seats for underprivileged children, was fought tooth and nail by private school associations, which continue to do so. Indeed, restricting admissions to those who are likely to shine in test scores is a privilege accorded only to private schools, enabling them to create a reputation for “performance” that often has less to do with the institution and more with the students enrolled and their family backgrounds (including private tuitions).
No. Privileged private schools have that privilege coz it was fucking earned by their long history of taking smart kids and getting those smart kids to rise above other smart kids who went to schools which weren't as good at edumicating kids.
The fact that government schools have to admit every child
no they don't. They can be selective- like the Navodaya Vidyalays.
and struggle to educate first-generation learners, with little or no home support, is never listed as a positive attribute of the public system.
But also true of the low cost private system as well as those run in tribal areas by Missionaries or the RSS or whatever.
Be it in respect to academic freedom or the social role of education, it is necessary to rehabilitate the role of the state in the university and school systems in India today.
To 'rehabilitate' the role of the State in Education, you have to deny academics the freedom to be shit at their jobs. The problem is that if the r.o.i on education is low or negative then free competition can do little. This is why there is no large industry reprocessing sow's ears into silk purses.
No comments:
Post a Comment