|
| Agitation against the intellectual corruption in nepal:rethinking of its purview |
 PRINTABLE VERSION |
Teachers at a university have a responsibility not only to teach knowledge already produced but also to produce new knowledge. Those teachers who are not capable of producing new knowledge have no moral right to occupy the most challenging and sensitive position of a university teacher without doing the most important thing they are expected to do-the production of knowledge. Most university teachers in Nepal have not proved to the intellectually conscious people that they produced new knowledge and also that they are likely to produce. If they had not been allowed to occupy the position they are holding now, and those who are capable of producing new knowledge had been appointed in stead of them through the competition proper, as opposed to what I call “the so-called competition”, perhaps there might not have been the knowledge gap we see now, or at least, the knowledge gap we see now might not have been as big as it is now.
They do not teach knowledge already produced in a way that is as complete as “practically possible”. The nature of knowledge they are required to teach is, in general, so comprehensive, and deep that it is impossible to teach it within the period of time fixed in the course of study in such a way that there will be nothing left to be taught. What is left after their teaching is still comprehensive and deep. Teaching “in a way that is as complete as practically possible” means teaching seriously as much as it is practically possible within the period of time specified.
They explain their inadequate teaching by saying that it is the responsibility of an ideal student to lean what is left after they finish teaching without taking help from their teachers. By the “inadequate teaching”, I mean the teaching in which they teach less than it is practically possible within the period of time fixed in the course of the study.
They do not want to account for their inadequate teaching by saying the reason why they teach in a way that is “deliberately inadequate”. They argue for the inadequacy in their teaching by putting forward the ostensible reason behind this in such a way that implicitly implies that it is not necessary for them to teach in a way that is “practically adequate”. Why do they ostensibly explain the “deliberate inadequacy in their teaching? They want to explain this by saying what they do not really think because they are fastidious about proving to others that they are an ideal teacher. It would not be an exaggeration to say that their ostensible explanation for the inadequacy for their teaching is an endeavor to distract our attention from what may be called “intellectual corruption”. Their false explanation is an effort to take our attention away from the kind of a university teacher envisioned by great statistician Karl Pearson. As Egon S. Pearson puts it,
“Karl Pearson used to say that he believed that a university teacher ought to give every year one new course on a subject which he had not prepared for lecturing before; only so would he prevent himself from becoming stale and talk with a freshness of approach (Pearson, 1978, preface)”.
They do not teach students even the old course-the course that has yet to be updated - in a way that is as complete as practically possible. What I call “the deliberate inadequacy” in their teaching is a precondition for their being able to give time on other remunerative activities other than teaching, and also on teaching at many private colleges to the detriment of the students studying at the university or the college where they work as a permanent, or “so-called” full-time teacher. What made me think that it is appropriate to use the adjective “so-called” before the phrase “full-time teacher” is that they take fewer classes even than part-time teachers. Teaching in a way that is deliberately inadequate, and being the kind of a university teacher Karl Pearson envisioned are obstacles to their desire to benefit from the intellectual corruption.
There are many cases in which those teachers who have an authority to appoint new university teachers made unfair appointment decision. What underlies behind the intellectual corruption in such a form? One of the reasons is that they want to ensure that they produce university teachers as their heirs who share with them a tendency to be silent adherents of the intellectual corruption. Producing the heirs who do not share with them this tendency is great threat to their existence as a university teacher. It is only through the so-called competition that they can produce teachers with a desire to perpetuate the culture of the intellectual corruption” for personal aggrandizement.
University teachers in Nepal do no more than teach a very insignificant portion of the subject they are required to teach. Generally, it is true to say that they do not get involved in the process involved in the production of genuine future scholars. Teaching a very insignificant portion of the subject without doing any other thing is not what an ideal university teacher does. They neither think themselves nor cause the students to think. I have used the term “think” in its strictest sense, or in the sense of what is called “reflective thinking”, or in the sense implicitly implied in the following statements:
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
Ajit Rai
I take a deep interest in development and underdevelopment as well as in politics, especially in its relation to economics. Currently, I am undertaking systematic research, and intend to theorize about Nepalese development and underdevelopment from a socio-philosophical approach.
|
Comments
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
