According to a press report the Dhaka University is thinking of taking legal action to get more than Tk. 4.38 crore back from 60 former teachers who owe the amount to the university. The teachers had taken loans from the university to get higher education abroad but neither returned the money nor joined their jobs afterwards. This contemplation of Dhaka University against recalcitrant teachers abroad is welcoming and will hopefully keep other such malefactors at bay.
A source said that 110 teachers since 1971 did not return to their jobs after the expiry of their four years long studies leave. All of them either resigned or were sacked by the university. Only eight repaid the loan of around Tk 16.1 4 lakh. There are all the ethical as well as professional issues which arise as a result of the teachers’ long absence abroad. It is simply undesirable that university teachers, who have in most cases been able to travel abroad for higher studies because they are part of Dhaka University and have been granted leave of absence to pursue their studies abroad, will see nothing wrong in not coming back home. When they do not return, it is their students who suffer, for the simple and good reason that these teachers are responsible for handling significant parts of the syllabus. Indeed, during their absence, generally no new teachers are employed by the University authorities. Teachers going abroad remain on the faculty and in fact remain entitled to salaries. When they do not come back or when they do not inform the university that they do not plan to come back, the university incurs financial losses as well. A particularly disturbing fact is that sometimes some teachers, at some universities, have come back, collected their accumulated salaries and then gone back abroad. Such behaviour demeans not just the teachers themselves but society as a whole because from our teachers we expect the highest degree of integrity.
The question should be asked why after so many years the DU authority is thinking of identifying the defaulters and punishing them. And collecting money they took as loan cannot be enough for absence in teaching. Vice-Chancellor himself cannot avoid being blamed of negligence. When the Vice-Chancellors are political activists of party in power, they are not free to act for the best of the universities. They are acting to serve political interests of party in power.
The government universities are losing discipline and polluting the academic atmosphere because political activists are Vice-Chancellors. For their prestige and honour, the Vice-Chancellors of public universities must resign as party activists.
