The GBM and its After-Math?

I attended the DUTA GBM yesterday because  well over a month had elapsed  since we received the  evaluation boycott call from the DUTA executive.  Serious evaluation requires us to examine  a  limited number of answer sheets over a reasonable period of time, and since I for example,  can  optimally  examine around  seventeen honours answer scripts in a day,  I was anxious to participate in a discussion which could review the evaluation blockade. Of course, if we are going to do eleventh hour evaluations, maybe we could formulate a"everyone will pass formula" or a "everyone gets  distinction methodology." Perhaps we could even take an aggregate of the previous two years and give our third year students  permanent provisional certificates, because I don't see how we will be able  to do justice to the evaluation process at this rate.

What is disturbing is that the moment this is voiced as work-related anxiety, one immediately becomes a fake warrior of  a particular political group. This was the response conveyed on my College Whatsapp group with accusations that  teachers who had participated in the evaluation boycott were being thrown to the wolves. This is astounding, because if we must  use such bizarre metaphors, students waiting to receive their  results are the people we are  actually throwing  under the bus. ( The fact of the matter is, wolves are really pretty noble creatures, so please let us stop  crying wolf ) 

I also don't think that because some farmers have trashed their crop and a few milkmen have emptied milk cans  on the streets, it becomes necessary for us to jettison our students. Yes, we mentor students and help them grow, but I don't think students should be equated with perishable goods. Also, I don't see how damaging student interest,  and saying that  harming only one batch  in the hope of  salvaging the futures of  generations of students becomes an  acceptable procedure. "The end justifies the means," is a terrible example to fall back on, especially when vulnerable, young people are involved.

The system of examinations we have in place is extremely problematic. So also is the system of evaluation and if recent results are anything to go by, we are now on par with CBSE , since  a combination of  the semester evaluation  and internal assessment  systems has succeeded in churning out  batches of outstanding students.

This aspect of our evaluation process, which has been reduced to a mockery, needs to be seriously examined. All of us are unhappy with the semester system, but as an academic body we have been unable to bring back the Annual Mode and put in checks and measures to make internal assessment a gold standard. To our chagrin, Himachal University, the newspapers tell us, has reverted to conducting its examinations in the  Annual Mode. Delhi University, meanwhile continues to shuffle its feet over very clumsily aligned and envisioned  syllabi, and  teaches and evaluates in Semester Mode. None of this is being discussed on platforms that matter.  

Yesterday's GBM was an eyeopener. After a few long drawn out speeches, one member proposed an out of turn closure motion. The President of the DUTA, for reasons best known to him (perhaps it was the excruciating hot weather) put it to mock-vote. This was followed  by considerable mayhem. Many teachers, who did not have any political affiliations never got a chance to speak. The closure motion became real and  absolutely no discussion  was allowed.

I was told by many people that the executive had decided the boycott  and not consulted the staff Associations. The executive had again voted and won 11:8 on the question of continuing the boycott.  When I asked about letters from over 25 Staff Associations  suggesting that the boycott be withdrawn, this was dismissed as not relevant, because had those members been really serious, they would have turned up for the GBM!

So I  understood a  few things from yesterday's GBM which i would like to place  on record: 

Certain procedures are irreversible, for a trade union movement to be successful. 

 I. If the DUTA executive takes a decision, then the decision must never be reviewed. ( trade unions follow the logic that  battles must be fought unto death)

II.  If the executive takes a decision on behalf of Staff Associations and does not consult them in the first place, then the Executive can never  ever  go back to the Staff Associations and ask for a resolution. Clause (1) comes into play.

 III . Students and must be  viewed as collateral damage.(as in the context of war, refer clause I) 

IV. Factoring in adequate time to carry out the evaluation process or drawing attention to it 

 is not a logical thought process. It is evidence of taking the high moral ground and reprehensible  because whenever there is a war zero-time comes into play. In such situations  trade unionists must not behave like educators because to do so is tantamount to  betrayal.( to the situation of war)

V. In a GBM, taking a stand as a teacher is both counterproductive and irrelevant. We must always take a position  that echoes the wishes of  one  political party that we  must compulsorily espouse. Although those who vociferously supported the  the four year program, now support  the evaluation boycott, they've probably got it  right this time.

VI. Speakers must hurl accusations and invective  at others. Without this modus operandi,  obfuscation  will not occur and the issue at hand cannot  be deflected.

 VII If there are other suggestions, like going back to evaluating scripts , and gheraoing the Vice Chancellor,  and garnering public opinion  at the ground level, these do not merit a discussion.

I hesitate to storm into the Exam Centre and begin the evaluation process, although I do sympathize with colleagues who are possibly doing so. It would be in the academic nterests of  the the DU  2018 Calendar, if the DUTA leadership would resolve this  post-haste instead of continuing the stale-mate.