In the academic year 2016-17, I was enrolled as a student at Dhaka University (DU). Despite being a non-resident student, I felt a strong connection to a residential hall where I observed the strict adherence of my female friends and peers to the hall curfew. They would often cut short their activities or avoid them altogether to comply with the curfew regulations.
These memories resurfaced as I came across recent reports concerning the regulations in public university halls. One particular incident stood out for its stark contrast and insensitivity. A mother traveled over 300 kilometers from Dinajpur to surprise her daughter, a DU student, with a home-cooked meal. Despite reaching Rukayyah Hall at 10:58 pm, she was denied entry, and her daughter was not permitted to meet her outside. Simultaneously, a male student from a nearby hall was freely able to go for a walk, highlighting the disparity between male and female students’ freedoms within university premises.
The discrepancy in rules between male and female students across public universities goes beyond mere discipline, bordering on discrimination. Female residents at DU, for instance, are required to return to their halls by 10:00 pm, with some slight flexibility until around 11:00 pm. In other universities, deadlines can be even earlier, ranging from 8:00 pm to 9:00 pm. Interviews with over 20 female students from various universities revealed the widespread enforcement of these rules, placing more restrictions on female students compared to their male counterparts.
The impact of these regulations extends beyond inconvenience, affecting female students’ ability to engage in private tutoring and part-time work which are crucial for their financial sustainability. The restrictions limit their access to opportunities that often extend beyond regular class hours, such as tutoring sessions and job opportunities that may end late in the evening. This disparity in freedom of movement and access hinders women’s empowerment and perpetuates financial barriers.
Moreover, the restrictions imposed by curfews and limited access prevent female students from fully experiencing university life, including participation in extracurricular activities, club meetings, debates, seminars, and social interactions. These restrictions not only isolate female students but also hinder their personal and professional growth on campus.
While safety concerns are often cited as the reason behind these restrictions, the approach of restricting women’s movement instead of enhancing institutional safety measures raises questions about the underlying motives. By prioritizing restrictions over enhancing safety protocols and infrastructure, universities inadvertently perpetuate a culture of control and obedience rather than empowerment and safety for female students.
The reported incidents at DU underscore the arbitrary and unjust enforcement of rules, with female students being denied entry based on verbal instructions that lack formal documentation. Token gestures such as special events or temporary relaxations do not address the underlying structural issues that limit female students’ freedom and dignity on campus.
Female students’ demands for practical changes, such as flexible gate timings, ID-based entry, accommodation for work commitments and emergencies, and an end to moral policing, reflect a reasonable expectation for equal treatment and respect. Upholding dignity and ensuring equal opportunities for all students, regardless of gender, should be a fundamental principle in any educational institution.
In conclusion, public universities should strive to foster an environment that promotes equality, respect, and freedom for all students, irrespective of their gender. By dismantling discriminatory practices and prioritizing the safety and empowerment of female students, universities can truly fulfill their role in shaping a more inclusive and progressive society.
