Our first day in Kathmandu each Fulbrighter was handed a packet that included, amongst tips about earthquake preparedness and the best bars in town, a note about the academic freedom of scholars on grant. Naturally, the conversation we had that day, and previously at the Fulbright conference this past summer, settled more on the lack of standards here than what our freedoms are. Without doing anything to stupid or daring – funny how they were lumped into the same group – it was assumed we would be fine. After the meeting, I was not the only one curious about the repercussions for approaching daring, leaving stupid for the birds.
At home the first night here, I thumbed through the Fulbright reader, which detailed the responsibilities of students and the U.S. government. Another memo outlined the right of Fulbright grantees to criticize the U.S. government, as many Fulbrighters have after our decision to invade Iraq. Today, for the most part, I understand my academic relationship with the United States government and home academic institutions. The product of a state research university, it seems to become engrained over four years. No big deal, right? Yet I ask, what could come of deserved criticism of the Nepalese government? What about the Chinese-Tibetan policy here? Many other non-citizens have ended up in jail. I plan to pose these questions at our next grant meeting (internet searches just don’t cut it here), given I might not want to remain silent about some of the unreported injustices. Living a stone’s throw from the Chinese Embassy, news flows fast and easy to those interested. China pulls a lot of sway in Kathmandu, and the capitals of other regional neighbors. It was recently reported that China recalled their recent ambassador to Nepal because he wasn’t effective enough at preventing Tibetan anti-China protests. It is no coincidence the UN is rather quiet about offenses here against freedom of speech/certain minority rights. While I’ve moved more into the sphere of free speech, the spheres inevitably overlap. I don’t want to see China, as it has done in some spheres of free speech, strong arm Nepal into creating an academic environment like the one they have at home.
Here, I have to make a note that China does have some excellent universities that have produced individuals that actively speak out against the government. Peking (Beijing) University is a great example. Nepal definitely has individuals that take an active stance of dissent against the poorer practices of the government. Further, individuals have warned me against imposing western models of education when they have their own problems. I agree completely, and need to take more time to reflect on the matter. For now, I post this while continuing to learn.
As part of Fulbright, we shuffled to an IRB (Institutional Review Board) review course held by Cornell study abroad. The class focused on us conducting research in a responsible way, unlike some of the stuff we were warned we’d see. After reading a few papers, speaking with a few academics, I’ve learned that it is true – academic standards in Nepal are on par with those today in Russia. I’m not certain about Russia (please fill us in Alec), but here IRB and basic research standards do not exist. Leaving research aside, at the university level I know many students that skip class, get a job to pay for that class, and only show up to take the test, which is usually easily passed. Prime Minister Prachanda recently suggested that former rebel soldiers receive university diplomas for the experience they received for fighting in the war. This rightly disgusted many hardworking academics and students. Too many people already hold positions that do not match their educational qualifications. Nov. 23, the Chronicle of Higher Education discussed an official, with Nepal’s regulatory agency for universities, who spoke out against the corrupt practices and nepotism in the Nepalese university system. Kathmandu University, one of the largest in Nepal, last week was singled out by local press for lacking a viable process for promotion or demotion of faculty. I’m not saying that academics in Nepal are not bright. Some are brilliant. Every one I have come across has been informative and helpful. But there are worse ones lurking out there. The students I’ve met do wish things would be fixed.
What prompted this post was Stanely Fish’s opinion column in the New York Times yesterday, An Authoritative Word on Academic Freedom. For quite some time he has been arguing, “…that [academic freedom] was not an absolute right or a hallowed principle, but a practical and limited response to the particular nature of intellectual work.” He goes on to discuss a forthcoming book about the topic For the Common Good: Principles of American Academic Freedom, which tows his line. I pre-ordered it today (should take no less than six weeks to get here, once shipped), and plan to read more on the interesting topic I know little about. The article is worth the read, if you’re interested in the university, or for that matter what the greater state’s role should be. The book seems good too. As Fish hints,
And you just have to love a book — O.K., I just have to love a book — that declares that while faculty must “respect students as persons,” they are under no obligation to respect the “ideas held by students.” Way to go!
With the new constitution being drafted, no time seems better than to spark the debate about academic freedom in Nepal. Yet, who can think about the philosophical nuances of academic freedom when the current education system is one of the worst in the world? The teachers’ unions are not happy with funding policies. They recently called strike over rather stupid mandates. Worse, in villages across Nepal young women do not attend school simply because bathrooms do not exist. They have good reasons. Many of the women elected to the Constituent Assembly, who will draft the constitution, are near illiterate. I recently discussed the above topic with a Nepali friend who said there are so many more important things to do here than make sure research goes through an IRB. He works to pay for his sisters’ schooling. I argued that a certain level of academic standard is needed to drive a state’s productivity, to produce sound research that can even be used to fix that state’s education system. He concurred. We eventually agreed that all sides of the problem need to be tackled from their appropriate angles. From top down, bottom up, Nepal needs to erect schools and institutional review policies that can ensure academic freedom, and the freedom to have an education, philosophically and practically.
NGOs have helped to correct some injustices, but in many places direct donation, not capacity building, has taken place. Nearly half of Nepal’s budget comes from aid, reform reflects this, but change must become internal and sustainable if Nepal is to ever be weaned from long term direct aid, which is harmful.
To end, I’m glad to have studied at UW, a place where academic freedom is taken seriously. From the Kevin Barrett blow up, to my own scrapes with an eccentric TA, there was always healthy debate. I hope someday the people of Nepal will have the same rigor and spirit that exists in other education systems around the world. I promise less length, but more on the topic, as I dig deeper into specifics.
