Intelligent cause for academic freedom

This has reference to the express editorial titled “Closed openings – HC underlines the gag in education” (TNIE; 13.02.08). It is true that innovative programs are either unrecognized or are in the process of being de-recognized. While UGC has been mandated to promote education systems for handling the challenges of inclusive growth, ironically the very same regulators (such as AICTE) who have been constituted to enforce quality tie its own hands. Our regulators comprise of faculty members and scientists belonging to elite institutions, which have often enjoyed greater autonomy and large government grants. Their recommendations for growth in education infrastructure have always supported models that promoted the “trickle down effect”. Naturally, therefore, most non-elite institutions governed by the UGC were kept languishing for government grants (a scarce resource). Nor were they given the freedom to develop their own capabilities outside the government’s purview.

One remembers how UGC’s move to launch new courses in astrology was vehemently resisted by some of these elite institutions. One of their arguments was that government funds are meant for “scientific pursuits” only. As we know, “practice without theory is blind and theory without practice is lame”. Yet we fail to encourage new ventures being adopted by some institutes interested in understanding (or perhaps rediscovering) the theoretical base governing some ongoing practices and rituals. We are contented to label them as “blind faith”. It is more disheartening when we see the same educated elite vigorously supporting programs on Artificial Intelligence in the name of scientific discovery. Yet, as they must know, sciences of the artificial are due to our deeper understanding of the natural. Should not we encourage efforts aimed at developing theories and methodologies for re-discovering our past?

Recently, when Harvard University embarked on a research project to uncover the origins of life, proponents of alternative theories cited that initiative as proof that science has yet to disprove alternative theories. One alternative, the Intelligent Design Theory, suggests that nature is so complex that it could not have occurred by random natural selection as held by Darwin in 1859. The proponents hold that our existence is perhaps the result of an “Intelligent cause” and would like this to be taught in schools along with Darwin’s theory of evolution. While this is just one example of where the globe is headed, I hope our elitist regulators will pick up some lessons for creating an enabling environment for greater academic freedom.

Today, while IITs may be embarking on an online project with Carnegie Mellon, the UGC is faced with the uphill task of ramping up its infrastructure to meet the competitive challenges spurred by the recommendations of the National Knowledge Commission. Instead of gagging higher education, it would be heartening to see the regulators (the educated elite in particular) lending greater support to UGC for adopting bolder and innovative models using technology for reaching out to educate the masses. That also includes giving recognition to various learner-centric programs promoted by the Open University system or, for that matter, by the Foreign Education Providers.
Comments (if any) may be mailed to kaushiksahu@gmail.com