Dimensions of academic dishonesty
About 18 years ago, facing an interview for a junior academic
position in a university in Sri Lanka, I was asked to describe what I
thought were the key differences between the US and Sri Lankan systems
of higher education. Among the differences I pointed out was a relative
lack of classroom democracy in our universities. There was, I argued, a
perceivable distance between teacher and student. The interview board,
comprising the Vice Chancellor of the University, the Head of the
Department that had advertised the post and some other academics, asked
what I thought might help bridge this gap.
I said, 'students should be given their answer scripts back'. This
was the logic of my answer: 'If the teacher has the prerogative of
giving a mark, then he or she should be able to defend it as well.'
There were howls of protest. Someone said that there are too many
students for a single teacher to handle; that he or she can't be
responding to each and every grade contestation. I observed, with what I
thought was due respect, that there have been enough and more cases of
teachers allowing personal grudges, envy, friendship and even love to
influence the grading process to warrant such a mechanism. I didn't get
the job, but probably not on account of this little exchange.
If any academic in any of our universities claims that academic
dishonesty and sloth are non-existent or are insignificant, it would be
a bare faced lie. It is not just in how teachers treat students. For
example, the criteria for a person to be eligible to apply for a
professorship has been watered down to such a level that even newspaper
articles on subjects totally unrelated to the particular candidate's
area of specialization including obituaries and appreciations are
considered legitimate examples of 'scholarship'.
I remember one Dr. Kumara Kaluarachchi challenging the redoubtable
Prof. Carlo Fonseka to mention even a single refereed article he had
authored and was published by respectable academic journals since 1967
(the year Kaluarachchi was born). I believe that stumped the good
professor. I am not claiming that all professors are undeserving of
title and lacking in research-weight (shall we say?), analytical rigour
and so on. The system is made for slacking and rewarding ineptitude and
sloth, but there are those who rise despite the sophomoric culture.
Still, it was not 'in passing' that Prof Sasanka Perera, Sociologist,
speaking on this subject at a felicitation for Siri Gunasinghe said that
there was a new phenomenon in Sri Lanka Universities: 'New Marksism'.
Yes, it had nothing to do with Karl Marx, but was about a flawed point
system that had been instituted to ascertain professor-worthiness.
Sometimes, the system and its guardian angels (un-winged for the most
part), operate with the acumen that is sadly lacking in their academic
pursuits (non-existent) to reward themselves and/or sideline the real
article. Recently, a 'College' of clinicians based in Colombo refused to
award a fellowship to one of the island's most distinguished scientists
(the only FRS and internationally recognized expert on flu) because he
was considered 'too young'. The London Royal College of Physicians
however awarded the man a fellowship. Not that things London are
necessarily better of course, but age is only one and not the only
criteria for volume of knowledge/skill that a person may have acquired.
Citing age as factor is telling. Telling of misplaced arrogance. Sloth
and lack of integrity manifests itself in other ways too. Suppose, for
example, that Mr. X is tasked to revamp the teaching of a particular
subject. Common sense suggests that the person should consult those who
could be expected to know something about the subject, if Mr X is
himself from another field. He could avoid those who might call to
question his qualifications to direct such a project or who he might
fear might cause embarrassment by pointing out ineptitude. He can
surround himself with people he could lord over using language skill,
political weight and age.
He can also take refuge behind the convenient shield, 'this
initiative was the brainchild of Mr. THIS BIG MAN or Ms. THAT BIG LADY'
as the case may be. It would all be trivial and worth a few laughs. On
the other hand, what if the project is a serious exercise that envisages
giving important life skills which, arguably, could help erase lots of
privilege conferring distinctions in society?
What if the person, contrary to all norms and ethics associated with
academic pursuits deliberately squashes dissenting opinion by doing the
equivalent of 'running to the head master' (who may very well be
ignorant about the particular subject) and spiking written objections?
There is a certain shamelessness in the way some 'academics' operate,
abusing inter alia on the cultured ways of those who would not stoop
down to their level and would spurn their ways of being and 'becoming'.
On the other hand, the silence of 'the thus cultured' can help encourage
the mediocre and mediocrity, we should not forget.
I remember speaking with Dr. S.B. De Silva, Economist whose
perfectionism and not sloth has stopped him from producing anything that
complements his doctoral work, 'The political economy of
underdevelopment' about 15 years ago. This was in the Senior Common Room
of the Arts Faculty, University of Peradeniya. The time was around 3.30
pm. The place was empty. I asked him why.
'They are all in tuition classes'. They may have been in classes or
at home reading/writing of course. But I think he was correct. One
hardly ever sees lecturers in the Peradeniya library. Some write. The
vast majority do not. They get along from BA to Masters to Doctorate,
Professorship, retirement and death without too much of a fuss. I am
sure others will know if things are different in other faculties, other
universities and other institutions devoted to research and other
academic work. My sense is that there is no reason for anyone to be
thrilled at this point.
This is the era of currying favour with the powers that be, wherever
they may be. That's the preferred path to career advancement. Nothing
wrong in furthering career of course, but it is astounding that many of
these people who do 'advance' are unaware of or ignore the fact that
good and solid work is not necessary an impediment.
I am no academic. I am hopeful however that this prompts those who
are academics and who have some integrity and are no slothful to respond
so that the full dimensions of the problem can be ascertained and
remedial measures instituted by those mandated to do so. Or else, if
that be the case, assure me that things are all lovely and worthy of
mindless celebration.
Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer who can be reached at
[email protected] |