A group of about 215 academics, including some current and former vice-chancellors of Indian universities, recently published an open letter challenging a parliamentary intervention made by an MP. Their letter names a person who was the likely target of the MP’s remarks, even though he was not named explicitly. The MP’s reference to a “cow urine expert” is widely understood to mean Professor V Kamakoti, the current Director of IIT Madras. Kamakoti is a computer scientist and academic who is well-known for his leadership of several major national computing initiatives.There is one aspect of the open letter that merits some thought. When vice-chancellors unite on such matters, do they represent their institutions or do they speak in an individual capacity? And how would we know the difference?AdvertisementAlso Read | At Jantar Mantar, the story isn’t just the demands — it’s people finally showing upAs those who write for the public while also serving an institution know, their bylines are usually required to carry an explicit statement of the broad form, “The views expressed here do not represent those of their institution”. A scholarly article in a journal might not be required to carry such a statement. But then the affiliation listed would be an academic one, not an administrative one, implying no control over any institutional policies.So, when vice-chancellors speak or write for public consumption, barring an explicit statement to the contrary, one must assume they speak for their institutions, not for themselves. Indeed, this is why institutional heads parse their public statements carefully.Here are some statistics that should concern anyone in Indian higher education: In India, the more educated you are, the likelier you are to be unemployed. PLFS data shows a graded pattern where postgraduates face higher unemployment than graduates, who face higher unemployment than those with secondary education. The devaluation of degrees apart, the state of funding of public universities remains dismal, and attacks on freedom of expression continue apace. The scandal surrounding NEET and the travails of the NTA reflect far larger problems.AdvertisementOne might reasonably expect that vice-chancellors of Indian institutions would be similarly concerned about such issues. They intersect the employability of their students, corruption in the examinations which qualified them to enter in the first place, the decline in quality of teaching and research at many public universities and difficulties with NEP implementation.Sadly, there seems to be no similar open letter from any group of vice-chancellors that addresses such questions, even though this one says, “Our scientists, scholars and educators deserve to know that they can participate in public debate without fear of being reduced to dismissive labels.”Last year, during its annual meeting, the international board of the International Olympiad on Astronomy and Astrophysics (IOAA) discussed the issue of the participation of Israel. Several scientists, including a number of Indians who were among its sponsors, sought Israel’s suspension citing scholasticide in Gaza as a reason, while also pointing out that Israel had forcibly prevented Palestine from fielding a full team for the Olympiad. The board passed a resolution barring the Israeli state from official representation until it complied with international law.Surprisingly, in response, nearly 300 academics, including several vice-chancellors who are signatories to the current letter, wrote publicly to the Prime Minister, asking him to act against those Indians who had initiated the IOAA resolution. They were named explicitly in the letter, in a vindictive step. Their letter said that their actions had the capacity of embarrassing India diplomatically, going on to say “ … many faculty in central government institutions are strongly committed to an older political line that has long since given way to a new paradigm that sees our country as a new, aspirational, and progressive Bharat”.The wording they chose presents a request made to an independent international body, the IOAA, by scientists interested in upholding that body’s own founding principles, as an attack on India’s foreign policy.Interestingly, some of the same vice-chancellors who authored the current open letter did not consider “vested interest” to be a “dismissive label” at that time.you may likeIn a vibrant democracy, everyone, whether a vice-chancellor or lowly academic, an unemployed citizen or a student, would be able to critique both the government and the actions and words of the opposition. What the recent protests have highlighted is the impatience of the young with the pervasive hypocrisy they see around them, one deeply embedded in the status quo. This must be addressed urgently for the sake of higher education in India.For vice-chancellors to constructively examine the genuine problems of higher education in their open letters, rather than to simply demonstrate an allegiance to the government of the day, would be an excellent start.The writer is a professor at Ashoka University. The views expressed here are his own and do not represent those of his institution