COMMENTARY

Economic & Political Weekly EPW may 17, 2014 vol xlIX no 20 31

Code of Professional Ethics and Delhi University

Suman Gupta

Against the backdrop of the adoption of the University Grants Commission’s professional code of ethics for university/college teachers by the Delhi University executive committee in March 2014, this article explores how the code is interpreted and policed, and, therefore, acted upon as a set of rules in an institution. It also examines the implications of the UGC-recommended code for the integrity of academic knowledge dissemination and the academic profession.

The dissemination of academic knowledge at the higher education level is necessarily structured ac-

cording to governmental and institutional strictures. However, the principles and rationales of such knowledge are not conditional on governmental and insti-tutional agendas – these principles and rationales are very much wider, and are consistent in all contexts where academic knowledge is cultivated. Such knowledge is answerable to the peoples of the world, is in the international public interest, and may well be compromised if cur-tailed by governmental and institutional agendas. So, when new governmental and institutional strictures are promul-gated with an effect on the dissemination of academic knowledge anywhere, it is of interest everywhere and needs to be carefully examined to ascertain whether core academic principles and rationales are thereby being compromised.

The University Grants Commission’s (UGC) formulation of a professional code of ethics for university/college teachers (1989),1 when Yash Pal was the chair-man, is thus of interest not just in India, but for academia and the public interna-tionally. Further, when this code is adopted to the letter by the executive council of the Delhi University (DU)2 in March 2014, that move is of interest not merely in that institution, but more widely in India and internationally. This is especially the case since the code in DU is effectively adopted as coercively enforceable, contravention of which could lead to punishment for teachers in DU colleges and faculties; ergo, it should not be regarded as a code of good practice which encourages self-regulation (a soft instrument of con-trol), but as a set of rules which can be enforced by threat of punishment (a hard instrument of control). The mode of adoption of the code in DU sets a pre-cedent for a publicly-funded university’s

management of academic work in India and more widely.

Two lines of enquiry arise from these considerations. First, it is expedient now to explore the implications of the UGC-recommended code for the inte grity of academic knowledge dissemination and the academic profession. Second, it is necessary to consider the implications of DU’s particular way of adopting that code.

Content of the UGC Code

By way of background, such a code was initially proposed by the All India Federa-tion of University and College Teachers’ Organisations (AIFUCTO) in 1976. In this regard the statement at the time i nterest-ingly observed

The code should be broad enough to serve as the source of constant reference for teach-ers themselves. Though its prescriptions may not be legally enforceable, it should be morally binding on the teaching community to follow the code.

And also,

The code should contain a section on the rights of the teachers (quoted in Rao and Shantaram 1999: 3).

Evidently it was initially conceived as guidance for good practice, with some concern for teachers’ rights. The UGC thereafter set up a 14-member task force, with participants from AIFUCTO, to come up with such a code, and it duly did formulate the code in question to be adopted by the UGC in December 1988. This did not have an adequate section on teachers’ rights, but did have a preamble with a brief statement:

Teachers should enjoy full civic and political rights of our democratic country. Teachers have a right to adequate emoluments, social position, just conditions of service, profes-sional independence and adequate social insurance.

Doubts about the pragmatics of imple-menting and regulating adherence to the code meant that it was not taken up at the institutional level till DU did so with such fi rmness 25 years after being adopted by the UGC. In adopting the UGC code, DU deleted the preamble with the statement of teachers’ rights. Arguably, however, it is not just pragmatics which calls for pause; the principles espoused in the content of the code should also do so.

Suman Gupta (Suman.Gupta@open.ac.uk) is with the English Department, Department of Literature and Cultural History, The Open University, United Kingdom.

COMMENTARY

may 17, 2014 vol xlIX no 20 EPW Economic & Political Weekly32

Such a code of professional ethics for higher education teachers, particularly as a hard instrument of control within a publicly-funded university, is extremely rare – I am not aware of any other cur-rent example – and hence all the more noteworthy. Such codes are common in various countries for schoolteachers (see van Nuland and Khandelwal 2006), where the knowledge area in question is more grounded in consensus than at the higher education level. These kinds of codes are also enjoined (occasionally in legally binding ways) on various aca-demic practitioner groups insofar as practice goes (lawyers, medical workers, engineers, etc) and as the disciplinary standard guidelines for particular areas of academic work (e g, for researchers with human informants, authors of scholarly papers).

By and large, they work as good prac-tice reference points, formulated by pro-fessional bodies for professional training/education and self-regulation by teachers and academics. Universities in various countries also have codes of ethics for students, or contracts between institu-tions and students. Generally such codes become expedient in institutions when there are doubts about professional accountability and quality and in geo-politically-defi ned territories when there is a desire to have uniform professional standards across a sector.

Vagueness of Phrasing

If the UGC Code were read as guidance for good practice for a broad sector, some of its content might puzzle but it would not cause much concern. However, if it were read as a set of institutional rules, contravention of which would be policed and could lead to punitive meas-ures, then its content comes across quite differently. With DU’s example in mind the latter kind of reading is now inevita-ble, and that is the spirit in which the code is approached here.

Let me begin with a professional mis-direction in the code seen thus. Section II (Teachers and Students), Point (iv) reads: [Teachers should] “Make themselves available to the students even beyond their class hours and help and guide students without any remuneration or

r eward.” As a moral norm this seems a cceptable; as an institutional rule it u ndermines fundamental tenets of em-ployment. The Indian Labour Law stipu-lates a standard work day, requirement for rest during work, and limits of over-time work. University/college teachers’ work is covered by labour law, but this statement in the code obscures the fact that there is a maximum limit of teach-ers’ work time, and, moreover, obscures the remunerative rights of overtime.

The UGC (2010) sets some minimum teaching workload norms for teachers (not less than 40 hours a week for 30 working weeks in an academic year and at least fi ve hours daily in the university/college), but no maximum. Typically, in universities/colleges this minimum is accepted in principle, and the maximum is negotiated by teachers/departments within the norms of employment law along a chain of command (the line-management). University/college employ-ment contracts, in fact, often tend to be cagey about specifying the maximum. Taking DU as a case in point, college/faculty contracts (DU Ordinance XI, annexure for University Teacher’s con-tract; and Ordinance XII, annexure for College Teacher’s contract) stipulate “The teacher shall devote his whole time to the service of the University/College” – whereby it is presumably un-derstood that this is the “whole time” that is remunerated by the institution.

The quoted point in the code is apt to suggest that teachers should do unremunerated work, or, at any rate, a student would be entitled to think so by reading it, and given the vague-ness about the maximum work time in contracts so may teachers themselves – which would obviously contradict their employment rights. Perhaps this point was meant to suggest that teachers should expect no remuneration or re-wards from students, which is covered in any case in the Code in IV, (ii) and specifi cally in teachers’ employment contracts, so that it seems superero-gatory for that end. But the point is, the code does not say so; presented as a rule this point in the code seems to suggest that teachers should do unremunerated work.

Along not dissimilar lines, Section IV (Teachers and Authorities), point (i) says:

[Teachers should] Discharge their profes-sional responsibilities according to the ex-isting rules and adhere to procedures and methods consistent with their profession in initiating steps through their own institu-tional bodies and/or pro fessional organisa-tions for change of any such rule detrimental to the professional interest.

In general, fi rst recourse to internal pro-cedures for amending rules in institu-tions is obviously desirable and seems morally acceptable; but understood as a rule, this point draws a line that offers no direction beyond internal procedures and possibly affects academic freedom and reasonable freedom of expression. So, for example, suppose a teacher fi nds the enforcement of this code in DU is det-rimental to professional interests, and appeals against it through the mecha-nisms available within DU and other offi cial bodies (such as the relevant government ministry or court). Suppose further that for whatever reasons these recourses have no result and fail to dis-pel the detrimental effect. Then, say, the teacher exercises her academic freedom to analyse why the enforcement of this code is detrimental to academic princi-ples and rationalities and dissemination of knowledge, and publishes her analy-sis in a publicly accessible journal or newspaper (much as I am doing here in relative safety) – effectively, a recourse to transparent public debate.

Could DU then take that recourse as a contravention of this point in the code, and an actionable offence (going outside her own institution to seek change)? Would DU’s doing so be an undermining of academic freedom, which is enjoined on this profession? For this point in the code to work as a rule, a great deal more clarity is needed on what is internal procedure, and how it gels (is regulated and policed itself) with broader aca-demic principles and rationales and public interests.

Some teachers may justifi ably feel un-easy about Section I, point (ii): [Teach-ers should] “Manage their private affairs in a manner consistent with the dignity of the profession” – as a moral principle this might be okay, as an institutional rule it gives unlimited licence to institutional

COMMENTARY

Economic & Political Weekly EPW may 17, 2014 vol xlIX no 20 33

authorities to blur the boundaries of the professional and the private. Much would depend here on how “dignity of the profession” is defi ned, and since there is no defi nition it becomes open to the quirks of interpretation by institu-tional authorities. It could be used, for in-stance, by institutions to p olice teachers’ sexual practices, domestic arrange-ments, ideological subscriptions outside the institution, tastes, and so on. Stated as a rule in the code, this point could test the boundaries of privacy ensconced in Indian law and the Universal Declara-tion of Human Rights.

In brief, the points picked up so far (and others can be picked in a similar vein) present a vagueness of phrasing and openness to deleterious interpretation which may pass muster as loose directions towards moral self-assessment, but are unacceptable as rules which could lead to punitive measures if contravened.

Broader Ideological Qualms

Beyond specifi c points, there are broader ideological qualms which might be felt in contemplating the code. The UGC Code was a document of its time, the late 1980s, when the notion of emanci-pative postcolonial nationalism seemed obviously worthy and the potential of majoritarian fundamentalist nationalism was perhaps yet to be widely registered in India (arguably the latter kind of nationalism was already making its presence felt then). This was also a period when the domestic economy seemed of more moment than the com-plicated interpenetrations of the inter-national/global economic system. On the nationalist front, however, circum-spection would not have gone amiss even in that decade with both contem-porary Indian circumstances and the history of ultra-nationalisms in Europe and elsewhere in view. The code enjoins strong subscription to nationalist values on teachers:

[Teachers should] II (ix), ‘Aid students to de-velop an understanding of our national her-itage and national goals’; VII (iii) ‘Be aware of social problems and take part in such activities as would be con-ducive to the progress of society and hence the country as a whole’;

VII (v) ‘Refrain from taking part in or sub-scribing to or assisting in any way activities which tend to promote feeling of hatred or enmity among different communities, re-gions and linguistic groups but actively work for National Integration’.

As loose statements of moral principle these sound possibly acceptable. How-ever, the insistent confi ning of higher learning to the boundaries of nation and country is, in academic terms, limiting – the principles and rationales of academ-ic knowledge, as observed at the begin-ning, are very much wider and suffer by such delimitation. Some gesture to-wards larger than national interest – say, the interests of humanity in general – would not have gone amiss as a moral principle when this code was formulat-ed; now it seems more than necessary. Hypothetically, if an ethical principle of international import seems to contradict one that is putatively of national import, should the latter be given precedence over the former in teaching students? For example, if a principle of sharing natural resources across nations appears to be against the national interest, or if a security measure taken in the national interest appears to contradict a universal human right, should the teacher neces-sarily have to defend the national and should the student compulsorily sub-scribe to the national?

And certainly, the suggestion that “national heritage” and “national goals” and the “progress of society and hence the country” and “national integration” can necessarily be unitarily described, in monologically defi nite ways, now seems very doubtful indeed – possibly deleterious. Assuming that now appears to be as much a denial of diversity in and beyond India, as the singular “community” seems in the opening point of the code: [Teachers should] “Adhere to a responsible pattern of conduct and demeanour expected of them by the community”. Much would depend on who defi nes the nation and its heritage and goals, who takes it upon themselves to speak on behalf of the community. If that defi ning authority goes in a majoritarian direction that is not ethi-cally desirable, it cannot engender con-sensus with moral justifi cation.

An ethical code relevant to higher ed-ucation teaching and learning now has to be devoted to equipping students to engage critically with such conundrums, to exercise rational judgment, not to pre-determine the precedence of the national interest and some monolithic notion of community. To do the latter is to possibly open the door to majoritarianism, dis-empower minorities, dumb down r ational dissent and protest. This is especially so when the code is used as a hard instru-ment of control within institutions – which brings us to the particular case of DU’s adoption thereof.

DU’s Adoption of the Code

The vagueness of the phrasing of the code on various points, and its anachro-nistic ideological thrust, render it of doubtful value as an ethical guidance document in any context and apt to arouse considerable misgivings as a set of institutional rules in a university. The vagueness of phrasing means that how it is interpreted, policed, and there-fore, acted upon as a set of rules in an institution becomes of vital interest. It is effectively a set of rules that are open to abuse by the administrative authorities in an institution, if those authorities so desire.

The code was adopted by the DU exec-utive committee (EC) in a meeting of 6 March 2014 chaired by the vice chan-cellor (VC) Dinesh Singh – incidentally, that meeting also amended the terms of VC appointments so that a holder can seek reappointment. In the EC meeting reportedly the code was championed by a strong majority: only four of the 23 EC members opposed it (The Statesman 2014). The spirit of its adoption was clear in the supplementary agenda of the EC meeting of 6 March, which ratifi ed the following amendments in DU Ordinances XI and XII:

Clause 1-A: The teacher shall comply with the Code of Professional Ethics at Appendix A. Failure to comply with the said Code of Professional Ethics will also be construed as misconduct on the part of the teacher and he/she shall be liable to face action as may be deemed necessary by the Vice-Chancellor and the Executive Council. Clause 1-B: The teacher shall comply with the Code of Professional Ethics at Appendix A.

COMMENTARY

may 17, 2014 vol xlIX no 20 EPW Economic & Political Weekly34

Failure to comply with the said Code of Professional Ethics will also be construed as misconduct on the part of the teacher and he/she shall be liable to face action as may be deemed necessary by the Governing Body of the College.Provided further, if the circumstances so war-rant, the Vice Chancellor may direct the Gov-erning Body of the College to initiate action against a teacher on the ground of miscon-duct, failing which the Vice-Chancellor may take such action as provided for in the Act, Statute and Ordinances of the University.

These stipulations strengthened pre-rogatives on disciplining power in favour of DU administration at the expense of the administrations of affi liated colleges (the kind of relationship which has a larger signifi cance in Indian higher edu-cation (Singh 2003)). Disciplining pow-ers within DU colleges have convention-ally been formally vested in the govern-ing body (GB) of that college led by its principal; whereas those within DU faculties and institutes and centres were vested in the EC led by the VC, who also had ultimate oversight on college principals.

Effectively, in this instance disciplin-ing power has been inordinately shifted to the judgment of one person, the VC. This does not mean that the VC has a completely free hand (that would be un-constitutional), but that the VC as an individual has a broad licence to act on the basis of the code and according to his interpretation of the code, without consequences detrimental to himself, so as to do considerable damage to accused teachers’ careers and prospects even if not to actually have them formally pun-ished. I do not point this out as a matter to do with a particular VC’s outlook and judgment; the case is that the DU system in this regard has now been set up so that its coercive mechanisms can be in-stantiated at the whim of any VC in offi ce by allowing him or her to exploit the interpretive ambivalences of the code described above. This is a position that undermines the democratic credentials of a university in principle and for as long as the position obtains, and not simply as a practical possibility at this given juncture and with the particular administration in place now.

The DU Ordinance XI Annexure 6 (1-4)/7 lays out the process of how a VC

and EC will deal with misconduct: in brief, the VC fi rst suspends the teacher, then i nforms the EC which is responsible for investigating the allegations (giving the accused three weeks to respond), possibly by appointing a committee, and the EC then determines the out-come (in case of termination of service, with three months’ notice). This process opens a small window for due process and re presentation to a teacher accused of m isconduct, depending on the integ-rity and independence of the EC from the VC’s decision.

There is inevitably a confl ict of inter-est where the body that formally prom-ulgates rules is also the fi nal arbitrator for challenges to those rules. The point, however, is not whether a punishment will formally be meted out or not, but the possibility of the VC suspending a teacher on the basis of misconduct. For a teacher’s career, and indeed, personal well-being, that step is itself seriously detrimental. So, the grounds on which a VC can suspend a teacher pending inves-tigation by the EC are of crucial interest. These grounds have to be clearly defi ned and be at least potentially substantiable to justify suspension. The UGC code as adopted by DU could now be regarded as describing the grounds which the VC can cite to justify suspending a teacher for misconduct pending investigation.

The move of adopting the UGC Code thus in DU has taken place at a fraught juncture in that institution. A series of unpopular restructurings – especially the shift from a three to four year under-graduate programme structure – has been in the news for a considerable period, with evidence of unrest among both students and teachers. Understandably, the adoption of the code was immediately seen as a measure by DU management to shackle teachers at this juncture.

My interest here is in the broader ideo logical contours of the code itself, and the broader ideological implications of adopting it in the manner of DU – in terms of the wider principles and ration-ales at stake which are of consequence to academics in all contexts. My interest is also in the fact that the issues described above set a precedent for understanding the relationship between higher education

institutional management and academic work in a general way.

From that perspective, it is diffi cult to come to any other conclusion other than that the UGC code itself, and its mode of adoption as a set of institutional rules in DU, militate against the “dignity of the profession” of university/college teach-ers wherever academic work is pursued and taken seriously. It not only compro-mises the principles and rationales of academic work in the broad sense, it also seeks in a malevolent manner to fi x those who disseminate academic knowledge – university/college teachers – as weak and untrustworthy moral agents.

Notes

1 University Grants Commission (UGC) (1989): Report of the Task Force on Code of Professional Ethics for University and College Teachers (New Delhi: UGC); available at: http://www.ugc.ac.in/oldpdf/pub/report/5.pdf

2 Delhi University, Rules, Policies and Ordinances http://www.du.ac.in/index.php?id=28

References

Nuland, Shirley van and B P Khandelwal, ed. (2006): Ethics in Education: The Role of Teacher Codes, Canada and South Asia (Paris: Inter-national Institute of Education Planning/UNESCO); available at: http://www.iiep.unesco.org/fi leadmin/user_upload/Research_Highlights_Corruption/pdf/teachercodes.pdf

Rao, I V Subba and M V Shantaram (1999): “Ethics and Values in Higher Education – Indian Thought and Current Scenario”, paper present-ed in the International Conference of Universi-ty Presidents at Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea, 10-13 October; available at: http://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/bitstream/1/2025213/ 1/G16667.pdf

Singh, Amrik (2003): “Academic Standards in I ndian Universities: Ravages of Affi liation”, Economic & Political Weekly, 26 July, 38:30, pp 3200-08.

The Statesman (2014): “EC Okays Second Term for VC”, The Statesman, 7 March; available at: http://www.thestatesman.net/news/43108-ec- okays-second-term-for-vc.html

UGC (2010): “UGC Regulations on Minimum Quali-fi cations for Appointment of Teachers and Oth-er Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Stand-ards in Higher Education”, The Gazette of India, 18 September, http://www.ugc.ac.in/oldpdf/regulations/englishgazette.pdf; http://www.ugc.ac.in/oldpdf/regulations/revised_fi nal ugcregulationfi nal10.pdf

available at

Delhi Magazine Distributors Pvt Ltd110, Bangla Sahib Marg

New Delhi 110 001Ph: 41561062/63