Knowledge & inconvenience

University administrators need to make a strong case to all of us that engagement in inconvenient debates

Drew Faust, the president of Harvard, in her essay “The University’s Crisis of Purpose” wrote: “Universities are meant to be producers not just of knowledge but also of (often inconvenient) doubt. They are creative and unruly places, homes to a polyphony of voices. But at this moment in our history, universities might well ask if they have in fact done enough to raise the deep and unsettling questions necessary to any society.” The current and not-so-distant debate in Pakistan about what can and cannot be discussed at the university, and who gets to decide that, is a reminder that debates, and even the most civilised ones at institutions of higher learning, lead to inconvenient questions, many of which have no clear answers.

At this time in our history, where democracy is nascent and intolerance is expanding, our universities have to create space in themselves for a better Pakistan. A space, that on the one hand builds trust in the quality of education and scholarship, and on the other makes society at large proud of these institutions. The burden today lies unfortunately, on the university to create a value proposition to the government and society, as to why its autonomy and its independence is not only critical to its mission, it is also its most potent tool to build a better nation.

A modern Pakistani university has to do more to engage society. It has to build bridges over the gulf of mistrust. It has to make a convincing case that engaging in complex and sometimes controversial research and debates is meant to build a more harmonious society, to break the barriers that are holding us back and to seek answers for our social, economic, political, scientific and technological problems. We need to be reminded that research is inherently messy. It leads to discovery of inconvenient truths that may challenge our central dogmas. However, done with the purity of intentions and most rigorous of methods, it transforms the future. University administrators need to make a strong case to all of us that engagement in inconvenient (but always civilised) debates and activities is necessary for society to identify its ills, be they social, economic or technological. The vice-chancellors, deans and other administrators have to remind us all that the university owes these conversations to society.

On the other hand, universities also have to do more to break barriers within. The inconvenience of knowledge and its pursuit requires that universities challenge the status quo within their own structures. Universities in Pakistan unfortunately show immense myopia and continue to sacrifice humanities and social sciences in favour of short-term gains in science and technology. Faculty in humanities and social sciences are often treated with less respect, and growth at a university, by and large, means growth in the applied sciences. Even pure sciences are not on the same pedestal as technology and applied sciences. Similarly, archaic boundaries make it impossible for most students or faculty in fine arts, humanities and social sciences to pursue joint endeavours with those in the natural sciences or engineering. The governance structure at the universities in Pakistan is almost exclusively dominated by male faculty, with environment that is often hostile for the growth of female colleagues.

While the breakdown of these barriers may be inconvenient, the fundamental promise of a university lies in fairness and freedom. The argument for fairness and freedom cannot begin and end with a cherry-picked question; it must extend to complex problems within the institution as well. A more transparent institution, determined to correct the enshrined unfair processes within itself, will be more likely to be accepted by the outside as it starts to breach the taboo subjects that need to be studied and analysed for a better society.

In the end, there should not be any doubt that Pakistan needs robust and strong institutions ready to address the myriad of problems we face today. The question should not be whether we can afford to have strong institutions that seek knowledge and in doing so ask inconvenient questions; it is whether we can afford not to.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 14^th,  2015.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.