‘We don’t need semesterisation, all we need is education’.

(Slogan on T-shirt)

 

OVER the last two years, the teachers of Delhi University (DU) have demonstrated, struck work, taken open-air classes, sat on dharnas and tried to reach out to the press. Teachers, many of whom had never actively participated in teacher politics earlier, have generated an agitation, with and autonomously of the Delhi University Teachers’ Association (DUTA) leadership, that has touched this university with practices of deep democracy and spawned some of the most radical ideas and writing (slogans, banners, songs, poems, posters, satires), general body and public meetings to have come out of any teachers’ movement in recent memory.

This essay, which doubles up as an appeal, hopes to enable readers to look past the language of ‘semester or annual system’ in which the struggle that is (re)shaping DU is being fought, and understand that teachers are fighting because they are anxious about the fate of higher education and the changing orientation of academic and intellectual life.

Venerable Delhi University, eighty-nine years old and among the country’s premier public institutions of higher learning – with its 300,000+ students, 80+ constituent and affiliated colleges, and 8000+ teachers – is being twisted and beaten out of shape with such rapid force that it will not survive without help. Semesterisation, driven by the needs of Capital and State, is the ‘reform’ through which this is being done, ironically by the very administration entrusted with ensuring the university’s well-being.

Academic reforms are welcome. Worthwhile academic reforms, however, need to be grounded in substantive academic, intellectual and democratic processes that guarantee autonomy and seek to make life at universities more inclusive, the experience richer. By these criteria, there is hardly anything academic about ‘reforms’ at DU. They are not even rooted in a critique of the existing system or a definition of and meaningful rationale for the changes to be undertaken. Further, the university administration which should have initiated its ‘reform’ agenda in the form of a proposal put up for discussion by teachers and other members of the university community before arriving at a decision on whether this needs to be introduced, presented its proposal as a conclusion, a decision already taken. This is the meaning of their refrain since 2008-09 that only the modalities of the implementation of the semester system are up for discussion.

A true concern with academic reforms cannot be wedded to absolute truths. It must demand debate and remain open to the possibility that this might lead to conclusions that are different from the initial proposals. Teachers questioning the wisdom of semesterisation have been asking for dialogue so that concerns may be aired and conclusions arrived at open-mindedly and democratically, being the considered opinions of the many rather than the impoverished truths of a few. The administration’s stubborn refusal to debate ‘change’ and ram it through at gunpoint instead, is among the most troubling aspects of this process.

This refusal is doubly problematic because it comes in the midst of a raging international debate on the relative merits of semestered and annual systems of education, and ignores the serious academic and pedagogic questions raised by teachers and students at DU over the past two years.

 

Substantive reports from universities at Botswana, Calicut, Dublin, Glasgow, New Zealand, Portsmouth and Zimbabwe, to mention just a few, make it clear that years of thought and effort had gone into putting semester modes in place. Even so, there is no conclusive evidence that semestered education is superior to the annual system. On the contrary, reflections on some international experiences point to serious problems with semestered education.

A survey conducted at a new British university found that students in semesterised arts and science courses exhibited higher levels of test anxiety than did their counterparts in conventional annual courses. In Zimbabwe, according to R. B. Gaidzwana, ‘The semesterisation of the university paved the way for delivering "fast education" in much the same way that fast food systems deliver cheap and poor quality,’ apart from stifling the growth of creativity and enthusiasm among students and teachers, triggering exodus of staff and increasing the work burden of those remaining. In New Zealand, semesterisation and the introduction of modules have resulted in, according to Jonathan Barrett, students increasingly opting for courses that are thought to provide quick returns, jeopardizing the potential for self-discovery and growth toward autonomy.

 

A rigorous empirical evaluation of semesterisation at the University of Portsmouth by the Academic Staff Association of the university recommended switching over to the annual system of education since the semestered system had led to (a) less effective use of teaching time; (b) greater demands on the supporting staff; (c) decline in work satisfaction; and (d) negative effects on depth of knowledge and skills of graduating students.

The enthusiasm which accompanied the recent shift to the semester mode at the University of Calicut stands dampened as students and teachers begin to confront problems that are adversely impacting teaching and learning. Similarly, Paula Ensor, questioning the global spread of semesterisation, quotes Madeleine Green to suggest that reactions to this process have been mixed. In the UK, for instance, ‘many academics fear that this could eventually erode the integrity of the British first degree, and lead to a "pick ‘n mix" degree where students move among universities and departments, doing a wide array of course work and with possibly little depth in the Major.’

 

The questions DU teachers have been asking fall into three broad categories: (i) the academic worth of the semester system at the undergraduate (UG) level; (ii) its desirability and workability in the specific conditions of DU; and (iii) two crucial general concerns regarding this process. These unanswered questions are windows into the anti-intellectual heart of the semester project, and encounters with the seeds of rebellion that it has generated. They deserve the attention of all citizens.

1. Is the semester system with its promise of a basket of courses to choose from and its compressed timeframe for teaching and learning desirable at the UG level, especially in situations where school education is unevenly structured and experienced? Are not courses such as the Honours at DU, together with the extended rhythms of an annual mode of teaching and evaluation, more suited to the intellectual, cultural and emotional explorations, self-discovery and growth, deep-learning, lyricism, travel, and training in critical thought and analysis that new entrants to university need to be initiated into? Is continuous evaluation in such situations necessarily a good practice? Surely teachers also need to be encouraged to value slow time in order to be able to teach in ways that enable students to ask questions, internalize ideas and arrive at their own conclusions.

Given the demands on teachers that flow from the requirements of this kind of education/initiation rolled into one, would not the semester system with its frenetic pace militate against good teaching? Would it not tend to make research possible only at the expense of teaching? Would the rationalization of time and its constant measurement, inherent in the semester system not imply that teachers start focusing on achievements that can be more easily measured and rewarded, leading to the death of precious face to face knowing and teaching?

 

Is the kind of interdisciplinarity offered by the semester system, defined by student mobility across universities and between departments through the operation of a system of credit transfers, the only possible and really worthwhile interdisciplinarity? Is it not advisable to keep finding ways of creatively expanding interdisciplinary possibilities within the annual system? Surely, interdisciplinarity comes equally, if not more, for instance, from the bearing that various disciplines come to have on the study of a specific discipline, while student mobility is not just a function of credit transfers in a semester system!

Do we not need to think beyond questions of mobility, credit transfers, modularity and rapidly changing syllabi in a context where these elements, while seeming to increase the choice on offer do not take into account that the social sciences and humanities will tend to fall away in a market driven economy; that all students have not had the kind of schooling that allows them to think and choose wisely; and that increased choice may in fact end up being useless if all we do is create robots, which we will unless immediate attention is focused on what we teach and how, and structures refashioned accordingly rather than the other way around?

Is it unfair to expect universities, whichever mode they adopt, to address each of these concerns so that the systems they put in place stand on sound academic and intellectual foundations?

2. Given the sheer size and numbers involved in the case of DU and the fact that it is a large affiliating university with an extremely diverse and socially uneven student intake, would these concerns not acquire added urgency? Is there any blueprint proposed and suitably discussed that would show us how semesterisation is supposed to work in a large affiliating university, any road map detailing all the changes that will need to be made in the university calendar and otherwise? Are these changes at all possible, leave alone desirable? How exactly will DU ensure that course content, teacher-student ratios, workload norms, inter-disciplinarity, extracurricular activities, evaluation, social inclusiveness and the federal structure of the university are not adversely impacted?

 

Is there any evidence to indicate that due thought has been given and the requisite effort put in to design new courses of study, create the vast basket of courses that students may choose from, prepare bibliographies and put together necessary reading materials? Has an enabling structure been created to synergize this exercise within and between departments and colleges across the university? Would the richest basket of courses on offer be anything more than free-floating atoms in the absence of an overall structure?

How is the university planning to implement any meaningful teaching and continuous evaluation of students concentrated in large numbers in each class, pursuing the same courses in different colleges, over six month slots, or for that matter, to handle two full-scale examinations in one year when the conduct of one requires almost four months to complete? Will this not mean, among other things, extending examinations into peak summer time, overlapping them with new admissions and cutting down on vacations, all of which are likely to adversely impact the intellectual well-being of all concerned? Could this represent perhaps a lurking desire among people in power to Taylorise academic rhythms, transform them into the minutely measured mechanical rhythms of industrial production and productivity? Is this not cause for worry?

 

Given the lack of availability of reading materials in different languages and unequal access to the same because students are differently abled and come from varied and uneven social and educational backgrounds, how are we going to ensure that they can cope with the demands made by continuous intensive evaluation and six-monthly final examinations? The more leisurely pace of the annual system allows for this, even as it makes possible a more reflective, philosophical educational experience for all. Will this be possible in UG semesters without seriously dumbing down course content and methods of evaluation unless we are looking at the rapid exclusion of the less privileged from higher education or the emergence of different standards of education for different classes of students? How will semesterisation impact teachers and the thousands of students enrolled with the School of Open Learning?

Given the scale of things, how are we going to ensure that the rhythms of university life do not come to be governed by marks and examinations at a huge cost to the quality of teaching and learning, or are we in fact going to see the break-up of the university into ‘manageable’ autonomous units or clusters of colleges? If this happens, what will become of the DU degree and the public funding of colleges?

 

Could this kind of break-up be the first step towards the privatization of DU colleges, many falling behind in the race to attract finances, others hiking their fees, denying thousands the possibility of continuing education, certainly at standards that being part of DU guarantees, and all of us the richness that comes from interactions between colleges during syllabus making, festivals, seminars and meetings? How will this fragmentation impact employment and working conditions of teachers and non-teaching staff, and collective politics at the university? Is it acceptable that public funds be used to debase academics for the ‘public’, weaken public institutions of higher learning and ease the entry of private interests into this domain?

3. What explains the obsession with pegging the complex question of academic reform to the single issue of semesterisation, when over the years students and teachers have tried hard to draw the attention of the university bureaucracy to many long-term problems ailing the university, none of which semesterisation engages with, yet some of which it is supposed to magically solve? Finally, why has there been this rush to catapult DU into the semester age as if there is no option, as if we are at war rather than dealing with ideas and the intellectual intricacies and nuances of educational reform that will touch the lives of generations to come?

A genuine concern with academic reform would have demanded that the issues thrown up by the global debate around semesterisation and by the teachers of DU be acknowledged and their implications for the quality of academic life seriously considered before taking a decision on whether to make the changeover from the annual system in the first place. The truth is that fundamental concerns remain unaddressed, but semesterisation, with no preparatory groundwork done, has been pushed along regardless, rendering the entire project academically and intellectually unsound.

 

Structures are being improvised, for example, and teachers forced to truncate existing courses or cobble together new ones overnight. Patient brainstorming and the ‘epic battles’ in department general bodies that have given us meaningful syllabi are being sidelined. If the experience of forced semesterisation in the 13 science courses is anything to go by, the prospect of a university-wide rapid debasement of the substance of teaching and learning at the DU stares us in the face, perhaps even the break-up and the end of this university as a public institution.

The cobalt-60 tragedy and the irresponsible handling of its aftermath by the university authorities, the handing over of the university to the grossly exploitative machine of the CWG, the order late last year that the university centre, an exceptional academic and intellectual hub on North Campus, be shut down in order to make way for university offices, and much else that we have been witness to at DU in the recent past, only strengthen our fears that academia is in peril and semesterisation is endangering it even more.

It is equally worrying that semesterisation at DU has been as much about undoing the structures, practices and cultures of democracy and freedom, including unions, as about devaluing academic and intellectual life. It cannot succeed in its Delhi University avatar as long as large-scale teacher participation, unionization, dissent, protest and the spirit and scaffolding of democratic functioning is alive.

The conscious and aggressive exclusion by the DU administration of most members of the university community from the processes of academic ‘reform’, the violation of democratic procedures or at best the reduction of these to legal niceties by the very administration entrusted with the task of upholding them, the intensifying attack on dissenters, and the silencing of the DUTA augur ill for the future of freedom, rights, autonomy and the rule of law, so central to energizing intellectual exchange and generating new ideas at universities. When the frequent use or threat of use of emergency powers by the administration, and the relentless intimidation and harassment of teachers become the movers of change at universities, then clearly, shrouded in fear, the university is being stood on its head.

Unfortunately, even the Delhi HC, reserving judgement on the issue, has, in a series of partisan orders since November 2010, allowed the DU administration to go ahead with semesterisation while increasingly curbing the rights of teachers to dissent and protest.

 

The semesterisation at DU is part of a global thrust in these neo-liberal times to commodify higher education. The Bologna Process in European higher education and the UK’s Browne Report are pointers in this direction. States, servants to capital today more than ever before, are driving this initiative to liberalize trade in higher educational services. The pressure to do this has increased enormously since the crisis of 2008. This explains to a large extent the current massive thrust towards introducing the semester system at the DU and the drafting of education related bills that seek to enable the freer entry and operation of Capital in the educational sector. Semesterisation at DU and at other universities, represents the sacrifice of the very best in our visions and practices of public higher education, elaborated in the Radhakrishnan and Kothari Commission reports for example, at the altar of profit-making which urgently demands:

a) the rapid creation of homogeneous structural conditions – semesters and a market in short courses – for Capital to move freely across universities, increased student mobility being the necessary alibi. This may take the form of collaborations with existing universities, takeovers following the break-up of large affiliating institutions into smaller, autonomous entities, or the creation of new ‘Innovation’ universities;

b) teachers, alienated, insecure and overworked, producing consumers, ‘bricks in the wall’ rather than independent-minded citizens who value dissent, empathy and solidarity, can criticize exploitation, inequality and injustice, and are able to imagine better worlds; and,

c) the negation of politics and notions of academic autonomy, the dismantling of democratic practices and procedures of participatory functioning, and the exorcism of unions, dissent and the discourse of rights and affirmative action.

Seen through this lens, the undue haste to semesterise higher education nationwide, perverse consequences notwithstanding, begins to make sense.

 

The citizens of India have much to lose from a semeterisation that threatens to negate DU. The negation of this negation through critiques, resistance and noncooperation in various forms, including strike actions, that DU teachers have been engaging in over the last two years is affirmative and necessary conscientious objection. We would be failing in our duties as teachers and citizens were we to remain silent at this moment of existential crisis for higher education and democracy and allow these invaluable, hard-won rights to wither. Respect for the judiciary and the rule of law cannot translate into going along uncritically with everything that the courts ‘command’. In situations where courts are in contempt of rights, it is for citizens to uphold democracy and face up to the consequences of wrongfully threatened ‘contempt’ proceedings.

Delhi University teachers need help and solidarity as much as we need answers to the questions raised. If this struggle can become everyone’s fight we may be able to compel power more forcefully than now to be answerable to truth.

 

References:

Jonathan Barrett, ‘Neither Consumers Nor Instruments: Re-imaging Students as Citizens’, (mimeo), Open Polytechnic, New Zealand, 2007.

A. Esgate, Z. Whittington and K. Silber, ‘Test Anxiety Among Students Taking Semesterised and Traditional Courses’, Journal of Further and Higher Education 20(3), 1996.

Paula Ensor, ‘The Impact of Globalisation on Higher Education Curriculum Reform: Literature Survey’, 2001.

Rudo B. Gaidzanwa, ‘Alienation, Gender and the Institutional Culture at the University of Zimbabwe’, Feminist Africa, 2007.

Madeleine F. Green, ‘Transforming British Higher Education’, Higher Education 29, 1995.

Abdul Latheef Naha, ‘Education/College and University: A Pyrrhic Victory for the University’, The Hindu, 1 December 2009.