http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/5581420.cms
NEW DELHI: The imbroglio over reservation in faculty in JNU continues. Now Executive Council members are seeing red on the minutes of the last EC meeting of January 12 and have accused the administration of "misrepresenting" that there was a "unanimity" on referring the reservation issue to Academic Council. The university administration has also sent a circular saying the reservation in higher faculty -- except the entry point of assistant professor -- be first discussed by all schools/centres before the AC meets. EC member P Sainath has written to JNU vice-chancellor BB Bhattacharya pointing out that in the EC meeting more than one member questioned the purpose of referring the matter to AC. "I also dismissed the idea of EC rescinding its earlier resolutions. It is outrageous to find the minutes saying the EC `unanimously desired...." He also objected to the circular and said "implementation of government policy on reservation was an executive and administrative matter, not academic". Sainath demanded another EC meeting to discuss withholding of information from EC. He said EC was not told about JNU being a party to the case in Supreme Court filed by Citizens for Equality challenging UGC guidelines on reservation. In an earlier letter to the VC, Sainath had said opposition to reservation in higher faculty is a "peculiar marriage of class arrogance and caste animosity, no matter how eminent its authors. The disadvantaged can only be served if the well-to-do remain. Is this an academic trickle-down theory," he asked. Meanwhile on February 14, Aditya Mukherjee, professor in history, circulated a letter arguing that reservation should not be given at the level of higher faculty like associate professor and professor. To bolster his point of view, he said UGC guidelines are not mandatory for JNU. Mukherjee also quoted former JNU VCs and emeritus professors saying that reservation of faculty positions at highest levels will render disadvantaged groups into chief victims. With hundreds of teachers already supporting reservation at all faculty levels, another letter has been issued as a response to Mukherjee's. It points out that Mukherjee's letter is "full of lies and distortions". Teachers have asked that if there was widespread support against reservation why was the matter raised under the head of `any other matter' by EC. They said, "Twice born castes in academia is under serious threat of losing its monopoly? Why raise the fallacious argument of merit, quality and efficiency." Post a comment<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/5581420.cms#write> Email this article <javascript:void()> Print this article<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/5581420.cms?prtpage=1> Save this article <javascript:void();> My saved articles [image: Login] [image: regis...@indiatimes] <http://r1.indiatimes.com/signin.aspx> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
