The Erosion of Intellectual Autonomy in Academic Spaces

A university offers unbound space to observe and explore the empirical world and form opinions. It is a platform for promoting critical thinking and engendering intellectual curiosity without any ideological, social and religious prejudices. However, the sanctity of this space is violated when there is constant surveillance, imposition of a particular ideology and intervention is made in its academic freedom.

Recently, the Delhi University’s executive council approved a slew of changes to the syllabi of several departments on the basis of the recommendations made by its standing committee on academic affairs. Several elected members expressed objections to them and raised concerns over the dilution of academic autonomy.

For instance, in Psychology, topics such as the Kashmir issue, Israel-Palestine conflict, dating apps, and minority stress theory were removed. According to professor Monami Sinha, member of the varsity’s academic council and also of the standing committee on academic matters, the Psychology syllabus came under intense scrutiny.

The professor mentioned that the Kashmir issue and Israel-Palestine conflict was eliminated citing that the Kashmir issue has already been resolved, and therefore, there is no need to teach these subjects. Instead, it was proposed to include Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita to understand the Psychology of peace.

“The head of the department raised objection to the removal of the dating apps topic, citing the importance of understanding the psychology of social media and dating apps, particularly in the light of recent tragic incidents, such as suicides linked to dating app use,” the professor said.

“However, the objections were rejected, claiming that keeping in view the Indian family system, the arrange marriage practices and the low divorce rate, there is no need to copy everything from the West,” she added.

Topics related to caste, gender, and systemic discrimination were either removed or heavily scissored under the pretext that they promote "negativity." Professors, who are concerned over the way in which these topics are being removed without any discussion, emphasise that in a diverse and complex society like India, understanding the psychology of caste-based discrimination, misogyny and prejudices is essential.

“The basic essence of higher education is that it should work as an open platform for exchange of ideas. It should be open to debates and critical analysis. If these things are not part of the university education system, then how will our country better the existing social, economic and political scenarios?

The crippling of academic freedom will not lead to anything,” said Rajesh Jha, a professor at the university.

“If you are snatching away the right to question from students, then how will it enhance his or her knowledge,” the professor says.  “The government is planning to conduct a caste census, and, ironically, it itself does not want the university to teach caste and gender issues,” he said.

Similarly, the university authorities directed that a reading by Prem Chaudhary on honour killings and topics related to caste discrimination be removed from the Sociology syllabus. The head of the sociology department says that it is a preconceived notion to examine the sociology of science through the lenses of caste and gender.

In the Agrarian Sociology syllabus, objections were raised to the inclusion of peasant resistance and agrarian movements, while in the Sociology of Childhood, it was suggested that topics such as child abuse be avoided in favour of a more positive portrayal of childhood experiences.

Apart from Psychology and Sociology, subjects such as English, Philosophy, and History have also gone through overhauling. Several professors have condemned this move by the university, saying that these are “arbitrary changes based on ideological considerations, not no academic rationale”. 

They have also criticised the undue interference by the university officials who have no expertise in these disciplines. The proposed changes are part of the university’s decision to revamp its fourth-year undergraduate curriculum in alignment with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 framework.

University professors are also furious at the manner the meetings of the standing committee on academic matters were conducted.  A dissent note signed by several professors say that the Standing Committee on Academic Matters has university officials, the deans of the faculties, the heads of the departments and elected representatives from across the political spectrum as members. It is a heterogeneous group of teachers.

The head of departments along with elected members from the same discipline have the expertise to present and argue about their curriculum, and the standing committee cannot direct departments to make changes in the contents of a syllabus as that is strictly within the domain of the departments concerned and their committees of courses, the aggrieved professors highlighted in the note.

These professors repeatedly pressed the issue of reducing the autonomy of the departments and how the university officials, especially those who have no expertise in the disciplines concerned, direct the HoDs to make changes in syllabii.

Under the National Education Policy (NEP 2024), the curriculum of universities and institutions are undergoing transformation, but under the guise of this revamping the government is trying to curtail the autonomy to the universities.

Professors are concerned over the unreasonable chopping of topics in the syllabii and an uncalled-for interference into the academic affairs by those in the university who have no knowledge about the topics concerned.

They fear that this kind of approach can reduce the standard and the value that a central university, specially, Delhi University, holds.

Since it emphasises that its duty is to provide the best higher education to students from across the country with a globally competitive syllabus which can be at par with the best in the world, it will fail to do it if its autonomy is thrown to the wind. A syllabus is designed by keeping in mind students’ needs, faculty expertise but when this right is crippled and there is an imposition of a particular ideology, then the university starts losing its essence.

Whether clampdown on protests on campuses or interference in academic affairs across the world is shrinking the autonomy? Of course. The tug of war between the Donald Trump administration and Harvard University is an example of it.

Harvard University is trying to protect its academic freedom by challenging his decisions. Trump is going after every university in the United States where protests have been held in support of Palestine, criticising the policies of the Trump administration.

The purpose of the university is to promote inclusivity, influx of ideas and, most importantly, to maintain peace and harmony on campuses.  Once it starts leaning towards a particular ideology, it loses the liveliness it is meant to be and known for.