The ethics deficit in higher education

To be frank, the Galgotias Chinese robot fiasco and the memes and trolls that followed didn’t surprise many seasoned academics. In truth, what happened at the Global AI summit was only to be expected; misrepresentation and inflated claims disproportionate to real-life achievements have become so integral to many institutions in this highly competitive educational landscape.

Honest academics would readily admit to a strong presence of the malaise of exaggerated claims, a poor research culture, and aggressive market-driven academic and institutional branding in most campuses. It is not about one institution, but it is a rot that the entire academic space is suffering from.

It is easy to shift the blame to regulatory bodies that continually demand quantifiable data, research papers, patents, and citations, thereby compelling institutions to deliver quick, tangible outcomes. But what about ethics, integrity, and academic honesty, which are the pillars of academic research? Aren’t individual institutions responsible and accountable?

Sadly, even as we discuss this, the University Grants Commission (UGC) has listed 32 universities in India as fake. Such universities are only increasing by the day, so much for our individual and collective sense of responsibility and accountability.

Following ethics

Against this backdrop, what must colleges and universities do to safeguard not only their reputations but also the futures of thousands of graduating students? Well, for one, they must implement stringent guidelines. The institution’s credibility, once dented, is difficult to reclaim. Here are a few tips institutions could follow.

The foremost is strengthening academic ethics and intellectual honesty among students, faculty, and institutional leadership. For instance, presenting existing technology as an original invention cannot be a communication lapse. Simply put, it’s an ethical breach. It is common knowledge that hundreds of research papers by Indian academics are retracted for plagiarism and other fraudulent practices.

Undoubtedly, India’s research culture lacks adequate research integrity. Emphasis must be placed on familiarising all participants in the education system with intellectual property ethics, attribution norms, and related practices. Unfortunately, in the race to achieve excellence in technical training, integrity training is relegated to the margins.

Many institutions believe that spectacle-driven marketing and advertising have also become crucial to institutional survival. For instance, grand education fairs, exhibitions, and summits are regularly held, and, ironically, what’s on display in many cases is performative innovation. If such displays are really required, then institutions must implement the following: technical validation committees, fact sheets for the exhibits, and protocols for the spokespersons. No credible research institution allows anything to be showcased without documentation clearance.

When excellence becomes cliché

Perhaps institutions must also stop harping on the cliché of excellence. There are hundreds of institutions calling themselves centres of excellence. Additionally, they claim to house many such centres on their campuses. Of course, such labels may help in rankings, admissions, and investment attraction. But, how many of these centres really deserve the label?

Often, institutions resort to unfair means to establish these centres without meeting the required criteria. Today, redefining centres of excellence is the need. Focus must not be just on publications, but also on the quality and impact of research, patents, and the outcomes visible on the ground in MoUs and collaborations. Right now, numbers determine quality, not the impact. 

A critical weakness among many educational leaders is the aspiration to reach the top overnight, despite the inherent local and structural constraints they must grapple with. Fixated on that unrealistic goal, in which aspiration exceeds capacity and ambition is not aligned with capability, integrity takes a severe beating. Imitation is inevitably disguised as innovation.

Leaders must realise that just as not all students can be rank holders, not all institutions can be number one. Each is unique, and everyone must focus on achieving quality in their own context rather than competing with Ivy League universities. That reality check is imperative for leaders.

Investing on faculty

Amidst these misgivings and misplaced priorities on external factors, the core quality indicator of higher educational institutions, which is the faculty strength, is easily forgotten. Buildings can come up in months. But faculty quality takes longer to build and is harder to showcase. In today’s glitzy, grandiose narratives constructed by institutions, quality teachers, effective teaching, and impactful research are sidelined.

Instead, institutions must invest generously in full-time faculty, provide adequate support for research and professional development, and stick to realistic teaching loads. Students, let us not forget that they evaluate institutions primarily through classroom experience. Quality faculty is the true differentiator. No doubt, regulatory compliance is required. However, they should be substantive and not cosmetic. The focus must shift from episodic compliance to sustaining standards, with internal quality assurance mechanisms.  

The Galgotias episode has revealed one important truth. Institutional reputation cannot be manufactured. It has to be earned. That is possible only when institutions learn to align claims with capacity, promise only what is deliverable, and exercise authority with accountability. 

(The author is a former professor and dean of a Bengaluru university)