Press Release: 14 May 2019

                                                                                                                                           
The DUTA condemns the Principal of St. Stephen’s College for his arbitrary and vindictive conduct to silence criticism of wholly undesirable non-academic intrusion in the matter of selecting candidates for admission to the college. He has issued formal letters of warning to three teachers, who are also teacher representatives in the college Governing Body. He has threatened further action if they persisted with expressing their critical views. The three teachers are Abhishek Singh (Dept. of Economics), N. P. Ashley (Dept. of English) and Nandita Narain (Dept. of Mathematics), who is a former President of the DUTA. These letters were issued today, 14 May 2019 in response to public outcry following a press statement yesterday (13 May 2019) that communicated serious academic and legal objections raised by teachers in the meeting of the Staff Council (the Staff Council is a statutory body consisting of all teachers of the college with the Principal as the Chairperson) held yesterday. They had questioned the academic wisdom and legal validity of the announcement in the meeting by the Principal that the interview panel for selection of students for admission to the College will include a member of the Supreme Council.

The objections were that the Supreme Council being a subset of the Governing Body has specific powers granted to it under the College Constitution that does not extend to the power to judge the merit of candidates to be admitted to the college. In fact, the powers of the Supreme Council are specific: moral and religious instruction of students, matters affecting the religious character of the college and the appointment of Principals. It can lay down policies, but ought not and cannot take up the role of evaluating candidates or students’ merit. Inclusion of a non-academic member of the Supreme Council in the Interview Panel for selection of students has no academic basis. Further, it exposes the entire process to be vitiated by considerations other than academic. The Interview panels for this purpose used to be two teachers of the department and the Principal. A few years back a questionable change was pushed through to expand the interview panel to include one more teacher not necessarily from the department to be nominated by the Principal. The proposed move reduces teachers of the department into a minority.

Given that the Supreme Council appoints the Principal and decides about renewal of his appointment and the Principal nominates one teacher, the character of the Interview Panel comes under a cloud. That is unacceptable in any university and in a public educational institution of repute like the St. Stephen’s college.

The vindictive step to silence dissent, criticism and expression of views has no place in a university and is antithetical to the very idea of a university. Nothing but a guilty mind faced with public outcry over a serious step that it cannot defend by offering credible arguments can explain such arbitrary and authoritarian action. Actions which affect the character of a public institution will be questioned by teachers, students, alumni and public at large. If the Principal is convinced of the wisdom underlying inclusion of a member of the Supreme Council, he must elaborate on it. If considerations other than the good of the institution have not affected his action, he should reconsider what could be potentially disastrous step for the institution.

The grounds on which the Principal has issued the letters sound so silly that the prestige of the college is at stake. He claims that the Supreme Council and not he had made the decision and that the decision was communicated to in a Governing Meeting on 14 March 2019. It is already two months since that meeting and its minutes haven’t been circulated! Even if we are to accept that the Principal is right, is he seeking a change in their statement that not he but the Supreme Council was unwise. What is his role as the academic head of the institution? The matter at hand is grave and such use of laughable arguments only points to the possibility of sinister, and not merely ignorant, considerations at play.

The DUTA sees the letters of warning as a threat to the academic character of the institution and the purpose behind the warning is clearly to threaten all teachers against expressing their opinion freely and fearlessly. It demands withdrawal of the letters and will not hesitate from strong protest actions if the Principal fails to to so. The DUTA also demands a reversal of the decision to include a member of the Supreme Council in the interview panel. Notwithstanding who – the Principal. the Supreme Council or the Governing Body – has taken the decision, it is not in the interest of an academic institution.