Attendance is not optional in JNU

Compulsory classroom attendance is a prerequisite to maintaining a work ethic, to rectify the system of deliberate absenteeism, and to meet academic goals. Students and teachers at JNU must cooperate

At the close of the winter break on the last day of the old year, new year in Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) brought a new policy of attendance, which has been endorsed by most students. It has been opposed only by a small group of students sparsely spread across the university under the guidance of an even smaller coterie of teachers. Dropouts among the undergraduates and absenteeism in the graduate programmes had made their ways to the last academic council meeting. At the same time, the university had been mulling over reports about a good number of research scholars illegally using hostel facilities as mere free accommodations in south Delhi, while doing jobs in the city, which, of course, is the reason why such students always submit their dissertations very late. One may disagree over the percentage of such students in the campus but that these students do exist is a harsh truth that the administration could ignore only at its peril.

As a corrective measure, after the issue was discussed at length in the academic council and the executive council, the university administration decided to make attendance mandatory at all levels. Globally, universities have adopted stricter adherence to attendance requirements to improve academic performance of the students. For example, the University of Texas at Austin in the US states that “regular attendance at all class meetings is expected. Instructors are responsible for implementing attendance policy and must notify students of any special attendance requirements.”

In a circular dated January 17, 2018, the JNU administration asked the teachers in various schools, centres and special centres to record class attendance for BA/MA/MSC/MPhil/MTech courses. The MPhil/PhD students have to mark their daily attendance in a register kept in the centre office for that purpose.

It doesn’t surprise anyone that a particular group of teachers with a shared inclination to force the functioning of the university to its whims and worldviews, and, therefore, unconditionally opposed to the administration, sees an opportunity in this move to flare-up another atmosphere of distrust between the students and the administration. Their rejection of this much-needed initiative has emboldened the student representatives to start a campaign aimed at boycotting attendance.

One wonders what a student loses if he/she marks attendance in the class. The answer doing rounds in the campus is “freedom to choose whether or not to attend the class,” which comes from the mouth of these teachers. If a lecture is boring, why not do something else rather than being forced to sit in the class. Interesting argument. But by this logic, they are actually making strong the grounds for implementing attendance by accepting that the problem lies elsewhere. Not in the marking of attendance but in the attending of classes, which is precisely the reason why the administration wants to ensure recording of attendance.

As for the boring lectures, a student feedback system would definitely help. One would like to believe that these teachers want all classes in the university to be of a quality that all students attend them. Therefore, they should have been strongly advocating mandatory attendance and a student feedback system.

Another argument in the air is that most students attend classes in any case. Given this logic, should the university abdicate its responsibility towards those students who suffer from a casual attitude to their academics? While it is true that even without mandatory attendance, JNU students have achieved academic feats, should the university be a silent spectator to a good number of them who have taken the system for a ride?

On the pretext of freedom of choice, the intention is to find an excuse for a want of work ethics and to create a systemic cover-up of deliberate absenteeism and habits, such as late entry into the class and even examination halls, late submissions among others. What the students should accept, on the contrary, is that once you become a part of an institution, you have to abide by certain rules and conventions, whether your whims allow it or not.

A minuscule of teachers have rejected the attendance system as “unproductive” and “meaningless” form of bureaucratic work for teachers. Well, one would have expected these teachers to volunteer even for some bureaucratic work in the larger interests of the students. One does not doubt that most students in the university are serious about their futures and do attend classes on their own. How will a system, that ensures that the erring students attend classes, prove to be “unproductive” and “meaningless?” There is an argument put forth that critical thinking is the objective of education not obedience. How does marking attendance obstruct critical thinking?

These teachers say that they want students to learn and not just be present in the class. Well, students can learn by not attending the classes in an open learning system, which is also being spearheaded by JNU, but that’s a different system of learning. Once a student clears the entrance examination and becomes a part of a residential university like JNU, it’s his/her responsibility to attend classes not only to secure for his/her academic goals, but also for the benefit of his/her peers, as classes in the university are of interactive nature. He/she owes a great deal to the society and the nation as a whole. The dominant political narrative in JNU, ironically, is that of absolute individualism of thought. Whereas a student should evolve as a conscious member of the society. And if a student thinks that the university should run on his/her caprice, there is indeed a problem that needs to be fixed.

The anti-attendance group in the university is even more vehement in their criticism of attendance for research students. They find it illogical that research scholars should report every day, as their research may take them to different parts of the city. Well, there is already a system in place whereby, the research scholars can go on field trip with permission of the supervisors and the chairperson and even avail mess rebates during the period. But what about the malpractices committed by some in the name of freedom in the university?

Some students may and do take up jobs in the city and even outside Delhi immediately after the completion of their coursework. They are seen only once in the whole semester at the time of registration.  In view of these emergent situations, therefore, it is critical that the students and teachers of the university work towards making mandatory attendance a success.

(The writer is Professor, Centre for English Studies, at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi)