Matthew Arnold once said, “journalism is literature in a hurry”. I have not comprehended this statement until today when I got this amazing opportunity to read a news report, ‘Lost job, academic reputation’ — how DU’s recruitment drive left ad hoc teachers in the cold, by Soniya Agarwal on The Print. Donald Bradman used to say that one should keep a diary so that they don’t get their facts wrong when writing an autobiography. I think the principle can be applied to any discipline so that people don’t get their facts wrong.
The article starts with sweeping comments and ends like a propaganda pamphlet of political parties sitting in opposition. It is good to criticise, but a sin to lie.
The article starts by quoting the case of Preeti Gupta, who, according to the report, had taught Mathematics as an ad-hoc Assistant Professor at Deshbandhu College of the University of Delhi (DU) for five years and was ‘wrongfully not selected’ after interviews were held for the permanent positions at the same college earlier in September this year. The story starts with a trope we Indians hold very dearly, i.e., to blame the system. So, right from the very start, the story has the potential of creating a sensation.
Does it matter that the story is largely based upon assumptions and hearsay?
After quoting Ms Gupta, the report declares, “Since recruitment began in September, teachers claim, over 50 ad hoc professors have been dismissed from DU colleges like Hansraj, Lakshmibai, Daulat Ram, Deshbandhu and Ramjas. And many more are likely to face the axe.” It might be the case that this was really told by ‘teachers’ but a responsible journalist always cross-checks and verifies the statements before writing a story.
Interestingly, out of these Hansraj, Ramjas, and Lakshmibai have not declared any results of interviews for the post of Assistant Professors. Only Deshbandhu and Daulat Ram have declared results of two and three departments each. Actually, these colleges are still taking interviews with the candidates. Daulat Ram has declared results for Biochemistry (6 posts) and Physics (7 posts) while Deshbandhu has declared results for Punjabi (1 post), Biochemistry (5 posts) and Mathematics (20 posts). This amounts to a total declaration of 39 posts, out of which, according to the report, 50 were wrongfully filled by ‘undeserving’ candidates.
The report is constructed on a premise that ad hoc teachers are being discriminated against. Preeti Gupta is the only one, among the victims, quoted with identity. The report says, “Many of the ad hoc professors ThePrint spoke to alleged that the recruitment process was being conducted in an unfair manner and that ad hoc teachers were being cast aside in favour of ‘outsiders’ from other universities for reasons ranging from nepotism to their political alignment.”
Let us now look at the foundational argument here. Preeti Gupta was teaching Mathematics as ad-hoc at Deshbandhu, which declared a list of 20 people to join as Assistant Professors of Mathematics on 8 September. Out of these 20, 8 come from UR, 7 from OBC, 3 from SC, 1 from ST and 1 from EWS categories.
In the UR list, the first name is Mukesh Aggarwal, who has been teaching at DU from 2007 and for the last 10 years at Deshbandhu as ad hoc. Next, 6 out of 7 in the UR list were ad hoc teachers at Deshbandhu while the 7th one was also teaching as ad hoc at another college of DU. So, among UR each one of the selected was teaching ad hoc at DU.
Among OBC candidates, 5 out of 7 selected have been teaching at Deshbandhu as ad hoc. The two people selected from outside the ad hoc pool also have experience of teaching somewhere else.
Each of the three SC candidates selected was teaching ad hoc. So, no non ad hoc was selected among SC candidates.
The lone ST candidate was also teaching as ad hoc at the same college of DU while the EWS candidate selected had earlier taught at DU as ad hoc and was now teaching at VIT – AP University.
So, the crux of the matter is that out of the 20 appointments made at the mathematics department of Deshbandhu, 18 had an experience of teaching at DU as ad hoc and 16 were currently teaching as ad hoc at the same college. Only, two out of these 20 were ‘outsiders’. So, what does the reporter want? It already seems like an interview intended for ad hoc teachers only. If even 10% of appointments out of the pool of ad hocs draw such criticism then University should be told to have intra-departmental interviews and stop wasting the time and energy of thousands who are travelling to Delhi to appear in these interviews at DU.
In the same college, in the Biochemistry Department, 5 appointments were made. Out of these each of the 3 UR appointments was ad hoc teachers at the college. And, 1 out of 2 SC appointments was teaching ad hoc for more than 8 years while the other so-called ‘outsider’ comes with good research credentials on his CV.
Now, let us analyse Daulat Ram College. Here, 6 appointments were made at the Biochemistry Department, of which 5 were UR and 1 SC. Out of these only 1 was an ‘outsider’ while 5 others were selected from the pool of ad hocs. Indeed, such discrimination against the ad hocs and ‘favouritism’. 16.66% of appointments to the ‘outsiders’ should be resisted by all.
For all this information, the reporter need not go to the offices and look into files at these colleges. Like me, she could have gathered the information from the websites of these colleges. I believe that the reporter has been told this version by the people who could not be selected but as a journalist, one cannot write verbatim personal views as reports. If one tells you that it is raining outside and the other says that it is not, as a journalist you don’t copy both statements but open the window and check if it is raining or not.
The report does not shy from targeting the government as it says, “Some professors alleged that more “right-leaning” faculty members were deliberately being brought in from institutes like the University of Allahabad and Banaras Hindu University. Prof Abha Dev, a former Executive Council member of Delhi University, claimed that this was being done to change the “direction and thought process” of the university.”
Isn’t it cute to first report a matter in a skewed manner and then construct a political narrative over those lies? When there is no proof of appointments of ‘outsiders’, from where does this narrative of ideological appointments come?
In fact, as a responsible journalist, the reporter should ask why on earth people from outside Delhi are being called ‘outsiders’. It should be asked, who gave professors like Prof. Abha Dev the right to stereotype certain institutes by calling, “faculty members were deliberately being brought in from institutes like the University of Allahabad and Banaras Hindu University”. What on earth do they mean by “institutes like”, are non-DU or non-JNU students less human?