In the wake of recent suspensions and disciplinary measures taken against several academics at Dhaka University, there is a pressing concern that extends beyond individual cases. These actions prompt a larger inquiry for Bangladesh: what type of university do we aspire to construct post the July 2024 uprising? Are we aiming for institutions that reinforce political authority and reward compliance, or institutions that uphold critical thinking, dissent, and intellectual independence?
These incidents cannot be viewed in isolation from the context of the July uprising. They need to be situated within the broader historical framework of political interference in Bangladesh’s higher education system.
In our publication, “The Privatisation of Higher Education in Postcolonial Bangladesh: The Politics of Control and Intervention,” we argue that Bangladesh’s higher education landscape has evolved amidst a significant paradox. On one hand, neoliberal policies have promoted privatization and market-driven approaches. On the other hand, universities have been susceptible to political and administrative interventions, inheriting institutional structures where authority, hierarchy, and political power exert significant influence on academic life. Consequently, there has been a gradual erosion of university autonomy, impacting the autonomy and security of academics.
Turning to the specific case at Dhaka University, on July 30, 2026, the institution announced the temporary suspension of three faculty members, including Professors Sadeka Halim, Md Shafiqul Islam, and Afroza Shelley, while other academics were relieved of their academic and administrative duties. Moreover, the recommendation for the permanent dismissal of Professor Halim was forwarded to the University Tribunal.
The language used in the allegations warrants scrutiny. Professor Halim’s suspension was based on charges of “conduct unbecoming of a teacher” both on and off-campus and “offenses involving moral turpitude.” Notably, according to Article 56(3) of the Dhaka University Order, 1973, dismissal is permissible only on grounds of moral turpitude or inefficiency. Furthermore, Article 56(2) is particularly noteworthy as it stipulates that the terms of service should not impede a teacher’s freedom to hold political opinions or associate with lawful organizations external to the university. This provision explicitly safeguards political viewpoints, necessitating that political conduct be redefined as moral transgression before any action can be taken.
These categories are antiquated and flexible. “Moral turpitude” entered legal discourse via 19th-century immigration laws without a precise definition, focusing on conduct that violates justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. “Conduct unbecoming” originated from military codes, evaluating individuals based on whether their behavior aligns with the expectations of their position rather than specific actions. Notably, the Dhaka University framework extends beyond academic settings into private life, a realm historically used to assess women’s respectability, contrasting with the scrutiny of men’s competence.
Additionally, the university has instituted procedures to identify teachers accused of taking stances against students during the July uprising. Reports indicate that a list of 231 teachers submitted by the Anti-Fascist Teachers of Dhaka University, a teachers’ platform, is under review.
It is our firm belief that universities should not be realms where professional obligations are suspended simply due to one’s role as a teacher. While accountability is essential, it should not be conflated with political retribution. The pivotal issue is whether allegations are investigated through transparent, equitable, and independent mechanisms, ensuring due process and uniform standards for all. The Dhaka University Teachers’ Association has echoed this sentiment on legal grounds, emphasizing that the 1973 Order mandates the establishment of an inquiry committee and tribunal prior to imposing any penalties, with the suspended teachers being deprived of the opportunity to defend themselves.
Cases involving female academics warrant heightened attention. Women educators operate within frameworks shaped by historical patriarchal norms, where political vulnerability intersects with gendered expectations surrounding authority, conduct, speech, and professionalism. While men are subject to similar provisions, vague moral standards grant authorities broad discretion, potentially reinforcing existing gender biases in institutions guided by patriarchal norms.
The primary concern transcends the individuals currently facing disciplinary actions; it revolves around the potential chilling effect on other academics. If educators begin to fear that expressing dissenting political views, critiquing authority, or taking public stances could jeopardize their professional standing, they may understandably become more cautious. For female academics, this apprehension is compounded, as a charge of inefficiency necessitates tangible evidence, whereas an allegation of moral turpitude can remain ambiguous, disproportionately affecting women who speak out or hold positions of authority.
Bangladesh has a complex history entwined with politics within universities. While acknowledging legitimate apprehensions regarding partisan politics, political influence, and the politicization of academic appointments, this history should prompt a deeper reflection: is the remedy replacing one form of political control with another? We posit that this is not the solution. A critical distinction must be drawn between politically engaged academics and politically manipulated universities. Academics are citizens with political beliefs and civic engagements
