Login
When professors keep mum over matters of public concern — Mustafa K Anuar
MAY 13 — Former minister Khairy Jamaluddin’s recent remark about what he termed as “cowardly” historians prompted swift reactions, particularly from academics who are concerned about the state of local academia.
In a snippet from his podcast “Keluar Sekejap” (Step Out), Khairy lamented that local historians could not muster the courage to correct misinformation regarding our country’s history.
He was referring to a certain professor whose take on local history left much to be desired, and he rightly felt that such historical distortion ought to be rectified by professors worth their salt.
To be clear, there are other academics, apart from historians, who had also kept silent in the past when their expert opinions were very much needed to enlighten members of the public.
Academics in the areas of sociology, political science, economics, communications, law, geography, town planning, Islamic studies, medicine and environmental science, to name but a few, have an important role to play for the betterment of society.
When there’s an environmental degradation arising from hill-slope development, for instance, we would expect the environmentalists to not only raise a red flag, but also publicly offer explanations and solutions.
Or, when an economic policy results in the marginalisation or exploitation of a segment of society, an economist, sociologist, political scientist or Islamic scholar should be well placed to offer the public an informed opinion in the pursuit of social justice and progress.
That is why keeping mum, when confronted with societal challenges, is tantamount to a dereliction of duty.
To be clear, as already argued by certain observers pertaining to this matter, the silence among academics is more than just a personal fear or choice. It’s also structural.
Academics, like anybody else, clearly do not function in a social vacuum.
The rules and regulations – the spirit of which emanates from the Universities and University Colleges Act – set by a university administration would largely determine the boundaries within which academics operate in terms of teaching, research, intellectual expression and public engagement.
Given the prescribed borders, certain academics are likely to stay silent for fear of disciplinary action, blocked career pathways, political pressure, surveillance, peer sarcasm and even public uneasiness.
If anecdotes are informative, there are stories that suggest fear can be real for some, but ludicrous for others.
For instance, an academic once pointed out to his students that he could not be critical of the government that paid his salary.
This indicates that he’s oblivious to the fact that his pay basically came from taxpayers, apart from his poor understanding of academic freedom.
Another example: a departmental head warned her students not to be “political” during their academic pursuit. They should join political parties if they still insisted on being “political”, she stressed, as if politics was the preserve of politicians only.
Besides, almost everything else in life is “political”, which involves a critical stance towards the powers-that-be.
Such an environment can make life difficult and frustrating, especially for academics who believe that they indeed have something beneficial to offer to the public.
Against this backdrop, a culture of self-censorship can take on a life of its own, which is harmful to serious scholarship that often demands a challenge against conventions and, to borrow a cliche, to think outside the box.
There are, of course, those who consciously choose silence over public engagement because their mindset primarily aligns with a certain narrative pushed by the university as well as the government.
Additionally, some of them gladly opt for the supposedly elegant silence as they envisage that this approach promises a smooth climb up the occupational ladder.
Public engagement not only entails academics reaching out to the public through writings or conversations in public domain, but also engagement with the general public on campus for meaningful and civil exchanges.
In this scenario, outside speakers are invited to give talks or partake in panel discussions on important issues of the day. This is part of a life-long education for interested parties.
Therein lies the rub. Inviting speakers from outside campus, particularly those who are considered controversial or hold contrarian views, can be arduous as it normally involves a strict vetting procedure of the university management.
This can dampen the spirit among certain academics who relish holding and participating in talks or seminars, involving educated and critical-minded members of the public.
Enterprising students endured similar hardships when organising talks or forums meant for the intellectual benefit of both the campus community and the general public.
The long arm of the students’ affairs department of a university, in particular, will see to it that its stamp of approval is obligatory before any activity can happen.
If past incidents are instructive, we had a case of an influential and controversial politician who was initially barred from entering Universiti Malaya’s heavy metal gates in 2014.
It was unfortunate that his planned speech at his alma mater had to be cancelled eventually as the electricity supply to the venue of the talk was reportedly cut off that evening.
Such obstacles would only enhance the impression that the university feared unimpeded conversations and inconvenient truths.
This partly explains why certain intellectually stimulating talks and forums instead find a “conducive home” in places like think-tanks and bookshops such as Gerakbudaya.
A university is as good as its deep connection with the larger society.
*This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
