Connect with us

Features

Buddhism is an ideal practice and potent tool for balancing the left and right hemispheres of the human brain

Published

on

Iain McGilchrist

Connecting the Brain’s Missing Links: My Talk with Iain McGilchrist

by Nilantha Ilangamuwa

In this interview with Dr. Iain McGilchrist, a distinguished authority in neuroscience, we explore the nuances of contemporary society, education, and the profound implications of technological advancement, particularly artificial intelligence (AI). Dr. McGilchrist, renowned for his extensive scholarship on hemispheric specialization within the human brain, provides insights into the imbalance between mechanistic thinking and holistic understanding, advocating a critical reassessment of educational paradigms.

The interview begins with Dr. McGilchrist elucidating the dominance of left hemisphere thinking in modern Western society, drawing from his seminal work, “The Master and His Emissary.” He metaphorically portrays the right hemisphere as the true master, embodying intuitive wisdom and holistic perception, while the left hemisphere assumes the persona of an arrogant emissary, overestimating its capabilities and disregarding broader contextual understanding.

Renowned for his diverse expertise and insights, Dr. McGilchrist is a distinguished former Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, and an associate Fellow of Green Templeton College, Oxford. With a background spanning the fields of psychiatry, neuroscience, and literature, his scholarly contributions have left an indelible mark on our understanding of the human mind and its intricate relationship within broader cultural and societal contexts. His extensive clinical experience, coupled with his scholarly pursuits, has culminated in groundbreaking research on neuroimaging, schizophrenia, and the mind-body relationship.

The Master and His Emissaryhas won widespread acclaim for its exploration of the divided brain and its implications for Western civilization. His latest publication, “The Matter with Things,” serves as a critique of reductive materialism, inviting readers to contemplate existential questions concerning the nature of humanity, consciousness and the divine. As a prolific author, lecturer, and consultant, he continues to inspire audiences worldwide, igniting conversations that bridge the gap between science, philosophy, and the humanities.

Excerpts;

Question: Did specific childhood events or influences spark your interest in understanding the brain and its functions, shaping your interest towards becoming a neuroscientist and a writer later on?

Answer:Indeed. My family background, with doctors for both father and grandfather, sparked my curiosity in medicine early on. My maternal grandfather, a scientist, introduced me to the complexities of the brain when I was young, igniting my fascination. Philosophical inquiries in my teenage years also shaped my interest, alongside the nurturing environment of natural landscapes and Christian traditions at school. While initially drawn to philosophy or priesthood, I gravitated towards medicine to explore the mind-body problem empirically. With the guidance of educators who recognized my potential, I pursued neuroscience, ultimately influenced more by teachers and philosophical inquiry than familial ties.

Q: Why is it important to study the complexities of the brain, and what are the compelling reasons for individuals to explore its mysteries? What potential benefits do you foresee from understanding its workings?

A:Understanding the brain offers insights into how we perceive the world and process information, rather than just grasping mechanical details. While hemisphere differences are significant for understanding mental conflicts, previous misconceptions about them have been debunked. Both hemispheres play unique roles, challenging the notion of one being rational and the other creative. Instead, they contribute differently to our experiences, akin to two individuals reacting to the same stimuli.

For instance, hemisphere differences illuminate the diverse ways in which we attend to and interpret the world around us. Rather than viewing the brain as a mere processing unit, understanding these differences can shed light on the richness and complexity of human experience. Previous misconceptions about hemisphere functions have been challenged, revealing that both hemispheres play unique and nuanced roles in shaping our perceptions and behaviour.

Contrary to past beliefs, the left hemisphere is not solely rational and dependable, nor is the right hemisphere solely responsible for creativity and emotion. Instead, both hemispheres are intricately involved in all aspects of cognition and behaviour, albeit in different ways. For example, while the left hemisphere may be less dependable in certain contexts and susceptible to emotions like anger, it does not encompass the entirety of rationality or emotionality.

By recognizing the distinct contributions of each hemisphere, we gain a deeper understanding of how our brains construct subjective experiences. This understanding goes beyond simplistic dichotomies and reveals the multifaceted nature of human cognition. Ultimately, such insights not only advance scientific knowledge but also have practical implications for fields ranging from education to mental health.

In essence, studying the brain offers a pathway to unravelling the mysteries of human consciousness and behaviour, with far-reaching implications for enhancing our understanding of ourselves and the world we inhabit.

Q: Is it accurate to claim that the brain is the most misunderstood organ in human civilisation?

A:Without a doubt, yes. The brain remains remarkably enigmatic, despite ongoing advancements in neuroscience. While our understanding of it has expanded considerably, there is still much to unravel about its complexities and functions.

Q: Can you provide an abstract on the missing links in our understanding of the brain?

A:Certainly. One significant area of inquiry revolves around the relationship between the brain and consciousness. Despite being intricately involved in our conscious experience, the brain’s role as the originator of consciousness remains contentious. Explaining how subjective experience emerges from the physical brain challenges conventional notions of matter and consciousness.

Moreover, the sheer complexity of the brain’s neuronal connections, often cited as the basis for consciousness, does not fully account for the emergence of consciousness. The disproportionate distribution of neurons between the cerebrum and the cerebellum raises further questions about the neural basis of consciousness, especially considering the cerebellum’s vast interconnectedness.

Furthermore, our understanding of neurochemistry in the brain is still in its infancy. While empirical evidence demonstrates the impact of neurotransmitters on mood and behaviour, the underlying mechanisms remain elusive. Describing the brain’s wiring and neural activity is one thing, but comprehending the processes that underpin consciousness and neurochemical interactions poses a formidable challenge.

Additionally, the brain’s remarkable ability to compensate for damage and adapt to changing circumstances raises intriguing questions about its self-awareness and functional reorganization. Understanding how the brain maintains essential functions in the face of damage underscores the complexity of neural networks and cognitive processes.

In essence, unravelling these missing links requires a multidisciplinary approach that integrates neuroscience, philosophy, and consciousness studies. Addressing these questions not only deepens our understanding of the brain but also sheds light on the nature of consciousness and human cognition.

Q: What sparked your interest in the differences between the left and right hemispheres of the brain, as discussed in your book “The Master and His Emissary”? What inspired you to delve deep into this topic?

A:My fascination with hemisphere differences stemmed from philosophical inquiries into the nature of interpretation and the reductionist tendencies in academic literary studies. I was struck by how dissecting literary works in seminars often stripped them of their unique power and emotional resonance, reducing them to mere paraphrases devoid of their original essence. This realization prompted me to explore how intellectual analysis can overlook implicit meaning and embodied experiences, leading me to question the role of the brain in shaping our understanding of the world.

My interest in hemisphere differences was further piqued during my medical training at the Maudsley Hospital in London, where I encountered a colleague’s lecture on the right hemisphere. Despite minimal emphasis on the right hemisphere in medical education, his insights into the distinct functions of each hemisphere, gleaned from studying patients with brain injuries, captivated me. His observations about the left hemisphere’s tendency to categorize and prioritize explicit over implicit meaning resonated with my philosophical musings about the limitations of intellectual analysis. This encounter sparked a profound curiosity about the neural underpinnings of consciousness and cognition, inspiring me to embark on a journey of interdisciplinary research into hemisphere differences.

Despite scepticism from some senior colleagues and the dismissal of hemisphere differences as pop psychology, I remained steadfast in my pursuit of understanding the brain’s complexities. Over the years, I have endeavoured to challenge misconceptions and offer nuanced insights into hemisphere functions, despite encountering resistance from those unwilling to reconsider their preconceived notions. While frustration arose from encountering scepticism, the growing interest in my work has affirmed the importance of continued exploration and dialogue in unravelling the mysteries of the human brain.

Q: Were you ever disappointed while explaining hemisphere differences and their workings in the brain?

A:Yes, there were moments of frustration. Some individuals dismissed my ideas without engaging with them, which could be disheartening. However, I’ve learned to accept that not everyone will be open to new perspectives. While encountering scepticism, I’ve remained encouraged by the increasing interest in my work, which outweighs any disappointment.

Q: Your work often touches on hemisphere imbalances and their impact on modern society. How do you perceive this imbalance manifesting in various aspects of our culture and daily life?

A:The imbalance between the left and right hemispheres is reflected in our cultural and societal norms, with the left hemisphere often dominating in modern contexts. The left hemisphere’s inclination to fragment information and seek certainty leads to a reductionist approach, where complex issues are oversimplified into black-and-white perspectives. This desire for definitive answers disregards the nuanced understanding offered by the right hemisphere, which embraces complexity and uncertainty.

In contemporary society, we witness a proliferation of proceduralization and bureaucratization, favouring mechanistic thinking over holistic perspectives. This mechanistic mindset, characteristic of the left hemisphere, prioritizes control and efficiency at the expense of intuition, imagination, and holistic understanding. As a result, we risk losing touch with the rich tapestry of human experience and ethical values, succumbing to a narrow focus on productivity and material gain.

To counteract this trend, it is essential to re-engage with practices that nourish the holistic functioning of the brain, such as spiritual contemplation, connecting with nature, and embracing silence. By fostering a balance between the left and right hemispheres, we can cultivate a deeper understanding of ourselves and the world around us, transcending mechanistic thinking to embrace the profound complexities of human existence.

Q: How do you envision your research extending beyond neuroscience into various fields such as philosophy, psychology, and education, and what contributions do you hope it will make?

A: My hope is that my research will serve as a catalyst for interdisciplinary dialogue and insight across diverse fields. While I can offer insights, ultimately, it’s up to individuals in those fields to engage with the research and apply it as they see fit. I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the reception of my work among politicians, economists, legal professionals, philosophers, psychologists, and neuroscientists, who have found relevance and value in its implications for their respective areas. Through ongoing dialogue and collaboration, I aim to foster a deeper understanding and application of the insights gleaned from neuroscience in various domains.

Q: How do you reconcile scientific understanding of the brain with personal experiences of consciousness, and what insights does your work offer?

A: My latest book, “The Matter with Things,” endeavours to progress from neuroscience through philosophy towards a comprehensive understanding of existence. It’s essential to recognize that no human mind can comprehend everything, yet we must discern what we consider to be more truthful than others. While the brain’s complexity is intriguing, it should never lead to the reduction of human beings merely to their brains.

We are far more than our neurological functions. Fundamental questions about human existence and purpose remain paramount, and my work aims to shed light on these issues, urging individuals to contemplate beyond mechanistic views. Additionally, I advocate a balanced educational approach that values both analytical thinking and holistic understanding. While analytical rigour is crucial, it must coexist with an appreciation for the profound and unexplainable aspects of human experience. Encouraging philosophical inquiry and teaching empathetic listening skills can foster a more respectful and intellectually vibrant society, enriching our collective understanding of existence and consciousness.

Q: In your exploration of the divided brain and its implications for society, you have stressed the significance of mindfulness, which has deep roots in the Buddhist tradition. How do you envision the teachings and practices of Buddhism aiding in our comprehension and cultivation of mindfulness in today’s society? Additionally, how might the integration of ancient wisdom from Buddhism and insights from modern neuroscience inform our approaches to education, mental health, and societal well-being?

A: One aspect that brings me great satisfaction is the convergence I’ve observed between the insights gleaned from neuroscience and the wisdom traditions of the East, such as Buddhism. I’ve found that the discoveries of modern science, including those in biology, physics, and philosophy, align harmoniously with ancient teachings. Despite differences in emphasis, core principles like patience, compassion, and presence are shared across traditions, fostering understanding and unity among diverse beliefs.

While I don’t claim expertise in Buddhism, I’ve been heartened by its practitioners’ recognition of parallels between my work and their tradition. This intersection between ancient wisdom and contemporary science offers invaluable insights into human consciousness and well-being. Mindfulness, deeply rooted in Buddhist practice, serves as a potent tool for rebalancing the dominance of the left hemisphere in our minds. By fostering a more equitable distribution of brain activity, mindfulness practices hold promise for enhancing mental health and promoting holistic well-being in modern society.

Q: With advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning, there’s a growing interest in exploring how these technologies interact with and mimic human cognition. Considering our understanding of the brain’s hemisphere specializations, how do you anticipate AI impacting our comprehension of human intelligence and consciousness?

A:AI’s impact on our understanding of human intelligence and consciousness is likely to be detrimental. While machines can mimic left hemisphere thinking, replicating sequential and linear processes, they struggle with the uncertainties that characterize right hemisphere cognition, which is non-computable and grounded in human experience. The increasing dominance of mechanistic thinking amplified by AI poses significant risks, as it perpetuates biases and limitations inherent in its programming, without the moral compass and depth of understanding found in human consciousness.

Moreover, the self-referential nature of left hemisphere thinking, coupled with AI’s reliance on machine-generated content, creates a closed loop of information that lacks the critical perspective and insight derived from human experience. This trend raises concerns about the erosion of truth, manipulation of public opinion, and the loss of genuine human creativity and wisdom in a world increasingly shaped by mechanical thinking. As AI continues to evolve, it is crucial to recognize its limitations and safeguard against the potential consequences for future generations’ well-being and autonomy.

Q: If this trend of creation continues, there may come a moment where we forget the essence of humanity, prompting humans to question their own identity. Do you agree?

A: Yes, AI will be programmed to provide insights into human nature, although not all of it may be inaccurate. However, true understanding of humanity comes from living life rather than fixating on screens, allowing for a broader perspective of the world. While the left hemisphere facilitates acquiring material possessions, the right hemisphere comprehends the bigger picture, including awareness of surroundings and relationships. Unfortunately, contemporary society often prioritizes material gain and control, neglecting the appreciation for nuances beyond human control. This imbalance, favouring left hemisphere dominance, leads to a lack of humility and awareness of our limitations, contributing to societal arrogance and misunderstandings. Moreover, the Dunning-Kruger effect illustrates how overconfidence correlates with limited knowledge, highlighting the importance of recognizing the extent of our understanding and the dangers of assuming omniscience.

Q: Your concept of the emissary underscores the prevailing dominance of the left hemisphere in contemporary Western society. How do you suggest we reinstate a more harmonious equilibrium between the two hemispheres, both at the individual and collective levels?

A: In “The Master and His Emissary,” the metaphorical representation suggests that the right hemisphere embodies wisdom as the true master, while the left hemisphere acts as an arrogant emissary, overly reliant on its limited understanding. Restoring balance between these cognitive domains requires acknowledging this imbalance, akin to a patient realizing the need for personal transformation in therapy. The first step is raising awareness of this disparity, as insight often precedes meaningful change. Individuals must recognize the dominance of left-hemisphere thinking in contemporary society and its detrimental effects on collective well-being.

Moreover, addressing this issue extends beyond individual awareness to systemic reform, particularly within education. The current education system, marked by its mechanistic approach and emphasis on STEM (Science, Technology, Education, Mathematics) subjects, neglects the humanities essential for cultivating empathy, critical thinking, and a deeper understanding of human experience. Restoring balance entails reintegrating humanities into the curriculum, inspiring students to engage with literature, history, philosophy, and the arts. Such reforms aim not to diminish rigour but to foster a holistic approach to learning that nurtures curiosity and intellectual growth.

Furthermore, restoring balance requires re-evaluating professional structures, such as the medical field, where bureaucratic control undermines the autonomy and expertise of practitioners. Doctors, for instance, should reclaim their role as trusted healers rather than being dictated by profit-driven agendas. This broader societal shift involves recognizing the intrinsic value of professions beyond mere economic utility, acknowledging the importance of wisdom, compassion, and ethical integrity in guiding human endeavours. By embracing a more holistic perspective that transcends mechanistic paradigms, society can cultivate a deeper appreciation for the complexities of human existence and the pursuit of genuine well-being.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Coping with Batalanda’s emergence to centre stage

Published

on

Bimal Ratnayake tabling the Batalanda report in Parliament recently.

by Jehan Perera

The Batalanda Commission report which goes into details of what happened during the JVP insurrection of 1987-89 has become the centre of public attention. The controversy has long been a point of contention and a reminder of the country’s troubled past and entrenched divisions that still exist. The events that occurred at Batalanda during the violent suppression of the JVP-led insurgency, remain a raw wound, as seen in the sudden resurfacing of the issue. The scars of violence and war still run deep. At a time when the country is grappling with pressing challenges ranging from economic recovery to social stability, there is a need to keep in focus the broader goal of unity for long-term peace and prosperity. But the ghosts of the past need also to be put to rest without continuing to haunt the present and future.

Grisly accounts of what transpired at Batalanda now fill the social media even in the Tamil media, though Tamils were not specifically targeted at that time. There was then a ceasefire between the government and LTTE. The Indo-Lanka Accord had just been signed and the LTTE were fighting the Indian peacekeeping army. The videos that are now circulating on social media would show the Tamil people that they were not the only ones at the receiving end of counter-terrorist measures. The Sinhalese were in danger then, as it was a rebellion of Sinhalese against the state. Sinhalese youth had to be especially careful.

It appears that former president Ranil Wickremesinghe was caught unprepared by the questions from a team from Al Jazeera television. The answers he gave, in which he downplayed the significance of the Batalanda Commission report have been viewed differently, depending on the perspective of the observer. He has also made a statement in which he has rejected the report. The report, which demands introspection, referred to events that had taken place 37 years earlier. But the ghosts of the past have returned. After the issue has come to the fore, there are many relatives and acquaintances of the victims from different backgrounds who are demanding justice and offering to come forward to give evidence of what they had witnessed. They need closure after so many years.

MORE POLARISATION

The public reaction to the airing of the Al Jazeera television programme is a reminder that atrocities that have taken place cannot be easily buried. The government has tabled the Batalanda Commission report in parliament and hold a two-day debate on it. The two days were to be consecutive but now the government has decided to space them out over two months. There is reason to be concerned about what transpires in the debate. The atrocities that took place during the JVP insurrection involved multiple parties. Batalanda was not the only interrogation site or the only torture chamber. There were many others. Former president Ranil Wickremesinghe was not the only prominent protagonist in the events that transpired at that time.

The atrocities of the late 1980s were not confined to one location, nor were they the responsibility of a single individual or group. The JVP engaged in many atrocities and human rights violations. In addition to members of the former government and military who engaged in counter-terrorism operations there were also other groups that engaged both in self-defence and mayhem. These included members of left political parties who were targeted by the JVP and who formed their own para-military groups. Some of the leaders went on to become ministers in succeeding governments and even represented Sri Lanka at international human rights forums. Even members of the present government will not be able to escape the fallout of the debate over the Batalanda Commission report.

If the debate becomes a battleground for assigning blame rather than seeking solutions, it could have far-reaching consequences for Sri Lanka’s social and political stability. Economic recovery, governance reform, and development require stability and cooperation. The present storm caused by the Batalanda Commission report, and the prospects for increased polarisation and hatred do not bode well for the country. Rather than engaging in potentially divisive debates that could lead to further entrenchment of opposing narratives, Sri Lanka would be better served by a structured and impartial approach to truth-seeking and reconciliation.

NATIONAL HEALING

Earlier this month at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, the government rejected the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights assertion that the external evidence gathering unit would continue to collect evidence on human rights violations in Sri Lanka. This evidence gathering unit has a mandate to collect information on a wide range of human rights violations including intimidation and killings of journalists but with a focus on the human rights violations and war crimes during the course of the LTTE war and especially at its end. The government’s position has been that it is determined to deal with human rights challenges including reconciliation through domestic processes.

Addressing the High-Level Segment of the 58th Regular Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva in February this year, Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath said: “The contours of a truth and reconciliation framework, will be further discussed with the broadest possible cross section of stakeholders, before operationalisation to ensure a process that has the trust of all Sri Lankans. Our aim is to make the domestic mechanisms credible and sound within the constitutional framework. This will include strengthening the work towards a truth and reconciliation commission empowered to investigate acts of violence caused by racism and religious extremism that give rise to tensions within Sri Lankan society.”

The concept of a truth and reconciliation commission was first broached in 2015 by then prime minister Ranil Wickremesinghe’s government. In 2019 after winning the presidential elections, former president Gotabaya Rajapaksa too saw merit in the idea, but neither of these two leaders had the commitment to ensure that the process was completed. Promoting reconciliation in Sri Lanka among divergent political actors with violent political pasts requires a multi-faceted approach that blends political, social, and psychological strategies.

Given the country’s complex history of armed conflict, ethnic tensions, and political polarisation, the process must be carefully designed to build trust, address grievances, and create a shared vision for the future. A truth and reconciliation process as outlined in Geneva by the government, which has teeth in it for both punishment and amnesty, can give the country the time and space in which to uncover the painful truths and the path to national healing.

Continue Reading

Features

Challenging hierarchy? Student grievance mechanisms at state universities

Published

on

Our universities are characterized by hierarchies. They manifest in formal and informal ways, reinforcing power asymmetries based on class, ethnicity and gender, and placing inordinate authority in those with higher status. In medicine, a ‘hidden curriculum’ orients undergraduates to hierarchies from their early days in training, placing professors over lecturers, ‘clinical’ over ‘non-clinical’ teachers, consultants over medical officers, and so on. While hierarchies are needed at universities (and hospitals) to streamline decision-making, dysfunctional hierarchies create unhealthy learning environments and a culture of fear that discourages students from asking questions and voicing concerns. They also legitimize mistreatment, humiliation, bullying, and other abuses of power. A few months ago, when I invited a medical student to participate in a session on ragging and harassment for incoming students, she asked me (quoted with permission), “What’s the point of doing a programme like that if ragging happens in official level by teachers with everyone knowing, Madam?” Her question led me to explore the avenues available at state universities for undergraduates to counter abuses of power by teachers and university administrations.

What can undergrads do?

The University Grants Commission (UGC) and all state universities have established mechanisms for reporting complaints of ragging and sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV). The UGC’s online portal entertains complaints on “all forms of ragging; sexual harassment; sexual or gender based violence; threats and intimidation; bullying; and harassment.” Complaint procedures for ragging and SGBV are described in detail on the websites of each university, as well as the websites of some faculties. Students may also take any complaints directly to the Dean, student counsellors, academic advisors/mentors, and teachers. In addition, many faculties have portals to submit online complaints on ragging and harassment, while others rely on informal mechanisms, like complaint boxes, to protect anonymity. While these systems are used by students to some extent, rarely do they function as checks and balances against abuses of power by teachers and others at the pinnacle of the university hierarchy.

Anyone who works at a state university would know that students (and the university community more broadly) have very little confidence in existing complaint and grievance procedures. While the minority of incidents that get reported may make it to the inquiry stage, the complaints are often withdrawn under threat and intimidation from the authorities or simply brushed under the carpet. More recently, certain universities and faculties have worked towards establishing formal student grievance procedures outside the SGBV/ragging reporting systems.

Newer grievance mechanisms

Sabaragamuwa University appears to be the only university with a university-wide policy for grievance redressal. The protocol described in the standard operating procedure (SOP) requires that students submit their complaint in writing to the Dean or Deputy Senior Student Counsellor of the relevant faculty. On receiving a complaint, a Committee will be set up by the Dean/Deputy Senior Student Counsellor to conduct an inquiry. The Committee will comprise five senior staff members, including “two independent members (one representing another department, and one may represent the Gender Equity and Equality Cell of the Faculty where relevant)…” The SOP further states that “any student can oppose to have his/her mentor and/or any faculty member to be in the five-person team handling his/her issue.” However, this information is available only to the discerning student who is able to navigate the university’s complex website, hit the Centre for Quality Assurance tab, view the list of documents and click ‘best practices’.

Several faculties of medicine appear to have introduced grievance mechanisms. The Grievance Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Colombo, considers complaints regarding “a decision or action that is perceived to adversely affect the grievant in her or his professional academic capacity.” The procedure requires that students submit the grievance in writing to the Dean. The Committee comprises “persons who are not current employees of the Faculty of Medicine” and the complainant may request the presence of a member of the Medical Students’ Welfare Society. The Faculty of Medicine, Ruhuna, implements a grievance policy that is more expansive in scope, covering concerns related to “organizational changes in the teaching and learning environment, decisions by academic staff members affecting individuals or groups of students, changes in the content or structure of academic programmes, changes in the nature and quality of teaching and assessment, supervision of students undertaking research projects, authorship and intellectual property, [and the] quality of student services and access to university facilities and resources.” While the policy notes that incidents related to harassment, discrimination and bullying, come under the jurisdiction of the university’s SGBV policy, it does not entertain complaints about examinations. The medical faculty of the University of Sri Jayewardenepura (SJP), has an online grievance system that investigates complaints related to “any physical, psychological, academic or any other problem related to the University life”. The system commits to maintaining confidentiality, pledging that “information will not be divulged to members outside the Student Grievances Committee without the student’s permission.”

Gaps in existing systems

The university-wide SGBV/ragging reporting system could be used to address harassment and intimidation of all kinds. Sadly, however, undergraduates appear to be unaware of these possibilities or reluctant to use them. It is unclear as to whether the newer grievance mechanisms at universities and faculties have managed to achieve the desired outcome. Are they used by students and do they lead to constructive changes in the learning environment or do they simply exist to tick the check box of quality assurance? None of the websites report on the number of cases investigated or the kinds of redressal measures taken. If these mechanisms are to be used by students, they must fulfill certain basic requirements.

First and foremost, all students and staff must be made aware of existing grievance mechanisms. Policies and procedures cannot simply be included under a tab buried in the faculty/university website, but need to be placed front and centre. Students should know what steps the institution will take to ensure confidentiality and how those who come forward, including witnesses, will be protected. They should be confident that swift action will be taken when any breaches of confidentiality occur. Inquiries need to be conducted without delay and complainants kept informed of the actions taken. All in all, universities and/or faculties must commit to ensuring integrity and fairness in the grievance process.

Second, the independence of inquiries must be guaranteed. Some universities/faculties have SOPs that require the inclusion of ‘independent’ members in grievance committees—members who are currently non-faculty, academics from other faculties and/or student representatives. Whether the inclusion of non-faculty members would be sufficient to safeguard independence is questionable in fields like medicine where there is a tendency to cover up professional misconduct at all levels. Permitting complainants to have a say in the makeup of the inquiry committee may help to increase confidence in the system. It may be advisable for inquiries to be handled by ombudspersons or others who do not have a stake in the outcome, rather than by academic staff who are part of the university hierarchy.

Third, grievance mechanisms must address the very real possibility of retaliation from university administrations and teachers. The TOR of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Ruhuna, states that the Committee must ensure “students do not suffer any victimization or discrimination as a result of raising complaints or grievances,” but provides no guidance on how this might be accomplished. Any grievance mechanism must address what recourse to action complainants (and witnesses) have in the event of retaliation. At present, there are no regulations in place to ensure that persons alleged of misconduct are not involved in examination procedures. Neither do universities provide any guarantee that complainants’ academic/employment prospects will not be compromised by coming forward. This is especially concerning in medicine where practical assessments of clinical skills and interview-based examinations (viva) are common, and those at higher rank are usually trainers at the postgraduate level.

Going forward

Student grievance mechanisms provide a structured process for students to voice concerns and seek redress when they feel they have been treated unfairly or unjustly by university staff or policies. The mechanisms currently in place at state universities appear to be weak and insufficient. The UGC could call for universities to participate in a consultative process aimed at developing a policy on handling student grievances in ways that promote fairness in academic matters, faculty conduct, and administration at state universities. While such a policy could foster supportive learning environments, build trust between university administrations and students, and protect students from bullying, intimidation and harassment, it must be accompanied by efforts to address and undo dysfunctional hierarchies within our universities.

(Ramya Kumar is attached to the Department of Community and Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Jaffna.)

Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.

By Ramya Kumar

Continue Reading

Features

Big scene for Suzi… at oktoberfest

Published

on

Colombo…Suzi with a fan, from Australia (L) / With bassist Benjy who checked out Suzi’s performance at a five-star venue in Colombo (R)

The months literally keep flying and, before long, we will be celebrating Oktoberfest.

In our scene, Oktoberfest is looked forward to by many and the five-star venues, especially, create the ideal kind of atmosphere for the celebration of this event, held in late September and early October.

Suzi Croner, who was in town last month (February), is already contracted to do the Oktoberfest scene at a popular five-star venue, in the city.

She says she will be performing six consecutive nights, from 23rd to 28th September, along with a band from Germany.

Suzi’s scene in Switzerland

According to Suzi, the organisers have indicated that they are looking forward to welcoming around 1,500 Oktoberfest enthusiasts on all six days the festivities are held.

“I’m really looking forward to doing the needful, especially with a German band, and I know, for sure, it’s going to be awesome.”

In fact, Suzi, of the band Friends’ fame, and now based in Switzerland, indicated that she never expected to come to her land of birth for the second time, this year.

“After my trip to Sri Lanka, in February, I thought I would check things out again next year, but I’m so happy that I don’t have to wait that long to see my fans, music lovers and friends for the second time, in 2025.”

Suzi spent 11 amazing days in Sri Lanka, in February, performing six nights at a five-star venue in Colombo, in addition to doing the ‘Country & Western Nite’ scene, at the Ramada, and an unscheduled performance, as well.

Suzi Croner: Colombo here I come…in September

Her next much-looked-forward to event is ‘Country Night,’ Down Under.

It will be her second appearance at this ‘Country Night’ dance and music lovers, in Melbourne, in particular, are waiting eagerly to give Suzi a rousing welcome.

Suzi’s bubbly personality has made her a hit wherever she performs.

In her hometown of Spreitenbach, in Switzerland, she is a big draw-card at many local events.

Suzi was the frontline vocalist for the group Friends, decades ago, and this outfit, too, had a huge following in the local scene, with a fan club that had over 1,500 members.

The band was based abroad and travelled to Sri Lanka, during the festive season, to keep their fans entertained, and it was, invariably, a full house for all their performances in the scene here.

Continue Reading

Trending