<p>The proposal to impose a code of conduct on the faculty of the Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Calcutta, is a retrograde move which will hurt the autonomy of the institute and curtail the academic freedom of the teachers. The draft code is a comprehensive list of don’ts. It bans faculty members from criticising the government or the institution, joining protests that disturb ‘’public order’’, signing joint petitions, speaking to the press and approaching higher authorities on a matter till the time a decision is taken on it by the appropriate authority. Politics is a no-go area. The code was actually unveiled by the then director of the institute Anju Seth two months ago. There was a conflict between her and the faculty over her highhandedness which eventually led to her resignation. If the code was in place the faculty would not have been able to protest against her conduct.</p>.<p>The code is similar to the code of conduct for government servants under the Central Civil Services rules. But it is wrong to transpose government servants’ service rules to academic institutions. In a ruling in 2013, the Supreme Court had made this clear by making a distinction between government employees and college and university teachers. An Allahabad High Court judgment of 2015 also said that university professors are “neither members of a service nor do they hold a civil post under the Union nor they are in the service of local or other authority”. Teachers also resisted a University Grants Commission (UGC) attempt in 2018 to impose Central service rules on teachers in universities. Universities are different from government departments because they impart knowledge. Dissemination and development of knowledge is possible only when there is scope for questioning, and for debate and criticism. That is why rules that constrain criticism should have no place in institutions of learning. </p>.<p>This is as true about IIMs as about any institution of higher learning. The implications of the code of conduct may well be imagined. Many members of the IIM faculty take part in debates on the policies and decisions of governments in areas such as finance, environment and management. They help in improving society’s understanding of those issues. They also write in journals and other publications. They will not be able to air criticism of government policies if the proposed code comes into force. They will not be able to develop their own critical faculties and society will not be able to benefit from their expertise. There is the possibility of the code of conduct being extended to other IIMs. The IIM Act of 2017 had assured the IIMs of independence and autonomy. The draft code violates it. </p>
<p>The proposal to impose a code of conduct on the faculty of the Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Calcutta, is a retrograde move which will hurt the autonomy of the institute and curtail the academic freedom of the teachers. The draft code is a comprehensive list of don’ts. It bans faculty members from criticising the government or the institution, joining protests that disturb ‘’public order’’, signing joint petitions, speaking to the press and approaching higher authorities on a matter till the time a decision is taken on it by the appropriate authority. Politics is a no-go area. The code was actually unveiled by the then director of the institute Anju Seth two months ago. There was a conflict between her and the faculty over her highhandedness which eventually led to her resignation. If the code was in place the faculty would not have been able to protest against her conduct.</p>.<p>The code is similar to the code of conduct for government servants under the Central Civil Services rules. But it is wrong to transpose government servants’ service rules to academic institutions. In a ruling in 2013, the Supreme Court had made this clear by making a distinction between government employees and college and university teachers. An Allahabad High Court judgment of 2015 also said that university professors are “neither members of a service nor do they hold a civil post under the Union nor they are in the service of local or other authority”. Teachers also resisted a University Grants Commission (UGC) attempt in 2018 to impose Central service rules on teachers in universities. Universities are different from government departments because they impart knowledge. Dissemination and development of knowledge is possible only when there is scope for questioning, and for debate and criticism. That is why rules that constrain criticism should have no place in institutions of learning. </p>.<p>This is as true about IIMs as about any institution of higher learning. The implications of the code of conduct may well be imagined. Many members of the IIM faculty take part in debates on the policies and decisions of governments in areas such as finance, environment and management. They help in improving society’s understanding of those issues. They also write in journals and other publications. They will not be able to air criticism of government policies if the proposed code comes into force. They will not be able to develop their own critical faculties and society will not be able to benefit from their expertise. There is the possibility of the code of conduct being extended to other IIMs. The IIM Act of 2017 had assured the IIMs of independence and autonomy. The draft code violates it. </p>
