Philanthropy-based universities | New temples of learning?

A new breed of philanthropy-based institutions of higher learning are making their presence felt on the educational landscape of India. Some prominent ones are Azim Premji University, OP Jindal Global University, Ahmedabad University, Ashoka University, BML Munjal University, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, Shiv Nadar University, and Foundation for Liberal and Management Education (FLAME), Pune. They represent an innovation in higher education in our country and seem to be in sync with the aspirations of modern India and the needs of the 21st century.

It needs to be noted, however, that in the absence of detailed and reliable information in the public domain, it may not be easy to differentiate between ‘for profit’ and ‘not-for profit’ institutions. The track record of sponsors in social sector, reasonable fee structure, nature of programmes on offer, scholarships to meritorious students from disadvantaged sections of society, and promotion of scholarship on long-term social issues may be the true markers of philanthropic nature of an institution. Belief in the Gandhian idea of “trusteeship” may hold the key to doing philanthropy in higher education. In this context, it is heartening to note that Azim Premji, sponsor of Azim Premji University, has recently affirmed his faith in the theory of “trusteeship.”

While they have immense promise, they may not find it easy to attain their many laudable goals. But before reflecting on their promises and perils, it seems pertinent to say a few words about the overall context within which they have to function. Whereas lack of clarity and vacillation characterise public policy with respect to private initiatives in education, the government’s position has clearly tilted in favour of the market. In the changed circumstances, even the judiciary seems to have yielded to the view that education can also be an occupation for profit.

Sadly, academic governance in our country remains bound up with the ideology of the government of the day, and regulatory bodies like the University Grants Commission (UGC) have proved to be more stumbling blocks to institutional autonomy and academic freedom than facilitators. The flip side of the context is that, unlike in the past, there is now wider acceptability of private sector participation in education among academics.

These new institutions have potential to create a culture of understanding and care, and of nurturing and collaboration. They can create an enabling environment that encourages experimentation with respect to academic programmes and courses, wherein one learns from one’s mistakes. These new institutions have potential to create a space on their campuses that is open and fair, and free from the structures of patronage and the manoeuvres of entrenched interests that characterise the majority of our provincial public universities.

Philanthropy-based universities can make the process of recruitment open, fair, meaningful and dignified. Further, while creating an atmosphere conducive to engagement with all kinds of ideas, a culture of vigorous debate and discussion, and dissent, they are in a position to safeguard their space from being hijacked by ideologies representing political parties or movements, another pernicious trend that crippled teaching and learning and the pursuit of scholarship in some of our leading public universities, thereby closing the Indian mind.

While it may be easy to start universities with philanthropic initiatives, they may not find it easy to stay independent of control from the board so steeped in business. The sponsors may betray ignorance about the specificity of a university being a social organisation, different from all other institutions and organisations of society, and try to run it like any other business entity. They may be reluctant to let go of their hold over power and try to influence the internal functioning of the institutions. They may prefer to entrust leadership into the hands of academics who, instead of feeling accountable to the academic community of the institution, feel beholden to the board and act at their behest. Still worse, they may act in a manner that undermines the position of the academic head of the institution.

Such an approach will sooner or later put off talented academics and bring disrepute to an institution. Universities started with philanthropic initiatives may tend to prefer programmes and courses that have market value and neglect programmes that are basic in nature, aimed at promoting independent thinking; a healthy combination of the two is needed.

While these institutions may be overenthusiastic about quality of teaching and merit, they may show complete indifference to the objectives of “inclusion” and accommodation of “diversity”. Further, the academic leadership in these institutions, instead of focusing on building relations within, may adopt a techno-managerial approach that privileges technicalities over substance and tries to quantify teaching, learning, evaluation, performance, etc. This approach will almost certainly kill the joy of learning and result in instrumentalisation of education.

The biggest challenge that philanthropy-based universities in our country face is of creating bonds of trust amongst different stakeholders. The success of these institutions hinges on the nature of relationship between philanthropists and the academia.

Are our great industrialists, while doing philanthropy, willing to let go of their hold over institutions and entrust their day-to-day running to the academic community? Or, they are looking for a community of pliant academics who can be lured into executing an agenda set by them? The latter will destroy the academic atmosphere in our institutions.

And, are some of our great teachers willing to play the role of mediator between philanthropists and the academia and provide leadership to institutions started with philanthropic initiatives? A great deal will depend on the credibility, integrity and independence of our teachers. What is at stake is the quality and reach of education being provided in these institutions.

(The writer teaches courses in Basic Spanish and Political Science at FLAME University, Pune)