Thou shalt not

Abstract

Government has done well to underline IIM’s autonomy. So why a conduct code for faculty? It should go. Aproposed code of conduct for faculty at the Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta, reflects a prickliness to criticism and protest that has become a depressing feature of institutes of higher learning. If it comes into effect, the code will bar faculty members from any criticism of the institute or government, from joining protests that hurt “public order”, from signing petitions as a collective, put in place restrictions in speaking to the press — and bind them to a promise of “no politics”. It would also make it difficult for faculty members to organise, as they recently did, against the alleged high-handedness of the IIM-Calcutta director, which eventually resulted in her exit. Faculty members have, rightfully, pointed out that this is an attempt to sneak in directives similar to the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, the code that binds government servants and bureaucrats, into an academic institution. This is a fundamental error. A 2013 Supreme Court judgment had upheld the distinction between government employees and college teachers. Teachers, unlike mandarins tasked with implementing government orders, should not be burdened by a demand of obedience. They are involved in the creation and dissemination of knowledge, which entails contestations and debate, dissent and critical thinking that cannot be concerned about the sensitivities of those in power. In 2018, teachers had pushed back against a similar directive from the University Grants Commission to impose CCS rules on universities, arguing that it amounted to a gag order and encroachment on their autonomy.