Features
Ethical drugs, unethical practices

by Geewananda Gunawardana, Ph.D.
Ensuring the quality, safety, and efficacy of pharmaceuticals requires a high level of constant vigilance. A good example is the four deaths caused by contaminated eye drops in the USA last May despite the well-regulated and best prepared monitoring of the drug supply by the US Food and Drug Administration. Unfortunately, the consumers in places where regulations as well as their implementations fall short of ideals can fall victims much more frequently: A World health Organization (WHO) report finds that about 10% of the world’s drug supply is either subpar or fake. Global deaths among children alone due to subpar drugs is over 150 thousand annually while the economic cost is estimated to be about US $ 200 billion.
While loss of life is a tragedy, the failure to ensure the quality of medicinal products can have far reaching and long-lasting consequences of much larger magnitude. The emergence of drug resistant infections and parasitic diseases and genetic disorders due to subpar drugs will only come to light in the long run.
To get some idea about the vulnerability of pharmaceuticals, it is important to know the way the regulatory process works. Almost 90% of the new drug development takes place in North America and Europe. The rest is divided among Japan and Israel. India and China, leaders in generic drug manufacture, are only beginning to enter this field through collaboration with American and European pharmaceutical companies. When a drug is invented, the inventor obtains a patent, which is an exclusive right to market it for 20 years. However, a patent only keeps the competition away, and it does not give the authority to market the drug, which must be obtained from the regulatory agency of the respective country.
To get the marketing authority, a vast amount of data must be produced showing efficacy, safety, and manufacturability of the drug. This process takes 10 to 12 years on average and over US $ 1.5 billion in R&D costs. As the development takes up to 8 to 10 years, the actual patent life left when it goes to market is reduced to 10 to 12 years, during which time the company must recoup all the costs and make a profit. A drug marketed under patent is known as a brand name drug. These initial R&D costs make the brand name drugs expensive.
The manufacturer of the brand name drug must follow all the current good manufacturing practices (cGMP) as specified by the regulatory agency of the marketed countries. The International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) has standardised these guidelines and are followed by the major pharmaceutical manufacturing countries. Adherence to the cGMP regulations assures the identity, strength, quality, and purity of drug products by requiring that manufacturers of medications adequately control manufacturing operations.
The consequences of failing to meet guidance can be harsh. For example, the UK based Glaxo Smith Kline was fined US$ 3 billion in 2012, the highest in history for cGMP violations. The brand name drug manufacturers avoid taking any risks as the stakes are very high. There are some companies that were forced to shut down for failing to follow cGMP. A common problem with brand name drugs is the manufacture of counterfeit drugs sold in small markets despite the best efforts of the patent owner to avoid such piracy. The commitment to quality and the stringent regulatory vigilance makes brand name drugs less susceptible for quality issues.
Once the patent expires, anyone with the right capabilities can manufacture the drug and seek marketing authorisation in selected countries. These drugs are referred to as generic drugs. Since the generic manufacturers do not have to bear the billion-dollar R&D costs, they can afford to lower the price. The competition for market share also drastically reduces the cost of generic drugs, often by over 80% of the original price. The costs can be further reduced by moving the manufacturing into places where the labor and operating costs are lower and occupational safety and environmental regulations are lax or lacking altogether. The affordability and wide availability are the beneficial outcomes of generic drugs. For example, 91% of the drugs prescribed in the USA in 2022 were generic drugs. Except for a rare event, the US drug supply remains safe and reliable, mainly thanks to the diligence of the US Food and Drug Administration.
The bulk of these cost-effective generic drugs are destined for low- and middle-income countries. Unfortunately, that is where the troubles begin. The WHO has formulated international regulatory standards to ensure the safety and efficacy of the drugs in places where ICH guidance is not implemented. They also have a program for pre-qualification of drug manufacturing facilities when requested. While international organisations require WHO prequalification for drug purchases, individual governments can follow their own regulations. Knowing the presence of potential buyers who are willing to forgo cGMP requirements, some manufacturers tend to ignore the need for costly qualification or certification programms. This practice is also encouraged by the premise on the buyers’ side that testing alone can ensure the quality of drugs. However, the truth is that failing to follow cGMP can lead to unintended release of subpar drugs to markets even if the standard testing procedures are followed.
Two processes where this can happen easily are sterilisation and achieving content uniformity. Failure to ensure that every single unit of the drug, be it a pill or a vial of many thousands manufactured, is compliant could result in subpar drugs reaching the market. In the case of uneven sterilisation, microbial contamination can occur as was seen with eye drops. Failure to ensure uniformity can result in drug units containing either higher or lower doses than shown on the label.
Most of the generic drugs are manufactured in Asia. Drug manufacturing is a multistep process conducted in multiple locations under varying levels of regulatory control. A routine drug manufacture can have the following basic steps: procurement of raw materials, synthesis of starting materials and/or intermediates, synthesis of the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), procurement of excipients, and formulation of the API into the drug product – capsule, tablet, syrup etc. This can vary for biologics such as vaccines and recombinant proteins etc., which make up only about 2% of all drugs used. In either case, at every step, the product must be stored in proper containers under the right conditions as determined based on its stability to prevent degradation and contamination.
Except for biologics, almost all drugs are produced by chemical synthesis. A small portion are either plant or microbial origin. The generic drug manufacturers come up with alternate synthetic routes that are cost effective. This creates a major problem: Any synthetic process generates impurities or side products in addition to the desired product. These impurities could have unknown properties, including toxicity, and must be removed or kept to a minimum using various purification steps. The processes and analytical methods used for this purpose by the brand name manufacturer are optimized to monitor and control any impurities specific to the raw materials, starting materials, and excipients they used. However, if the generic manufacturers introduce any changes, the standard quality control methods may not work, and undesired impurities will end up in the drug causing potential adverse events. Another potential problem, particularly in the warm and humid tropics, is microbial contamination, as happened with eye drops when handling and storage conditions are deviated.
With complicated supply chains, it is very difficult for the drug purchaser to track if all processes used in the manufacture of the drug were conducted under cGMP. Either they do not have the wherewithal or have no impetus altogether as happens when questionable drug procurement methods are followed. There are other ways the purity of drugs can be compromised. All drugs have a limited lifetime as specified by the expiration date. The expiration date is set assuming the storage of the drug under certain conditions and in designated containers. Any deviation, which can happen easily when transported between tropical locations, the drug can degrade reducing the potency or efficacy and introducing impurities. Without proper cGMP, it is not possible to know if such deviations have occurred.
If the drug is degraded, the desired therapeutic effect may not be achieved. In addition to that, in the case of antimicrobial and antiparasitic drugs, the administration of lower doses can lead to the development of drug resistant varieties. Infections caused by resistant organisms can be difficult, and sometimes impossible, to treat. Antimicrobial resistance is an urgent global public health threat that killed around 1.27 million people worldwide in 2019. If not controlled, this could render the current anti-infective drugs virtually useless and makes it one of the world’s most urgent public health problems.
The impurities or contaminants in drugs can have numerous undesired results including death. The deaths of 66 children in Gambia last year caused by taking contaminated cough syrup, imported from India, is just one example. A serious problem is contamination with genotoxic compounds. If not detected promptly, the consequences would not be known for many generations. The genotoxic impurities can be harmful when present in as low as parts per million amounts in the drug. The analytical techniques for detecting such low amounts require specific instruments not readily available in most laboratories. Recently, a whole family of hypertension drugs were found to contain genotoxic impurities and were withdrawn from the US markets.
These are the problems that can arise under normal operating procedures, and fortunately, the ones that can be eliminated if proper cGMP are observed. To worsen things, there are added problems that go beyond manufacture and cGMP. Unscrupulous drug companies and corrupt administrations contribute to the problem by knowingly allowing substandard drugs into healthcare systems with total disregard for life and limb. Pharmaceutical industry is notorious for its “gift” system for buying or prescribing their drugs. In one reported incident, a company sold 45 years’ worth of antibiotics to a developing country when the shelf life of the drug is only 2 years. Unloading drugs that are nearing expiration or not suitable for their own countries into low-income countries is a common practice.
The subpar drug related adverse events are predictable but also preventable. Generic drugs in general are safe and effective as international organizations have provided the means to ensure their safety and efficacy. Every step from the supply of starting materials to the dispensing of the drug to the patient must be controlled according to the guidance to receive the full benefits of drugs and avoid adversities. Sri Lanka has incorporated most of those rules and regulations to their own. However, their complete implementation remains questionable. Purchasing drugs without knowing its complete history is inviting trouble. Neglecting to do so puts future generations at risk in addition to wasting hard-earned foreign exchange.
Features
Leadership, Ethics & Non-compromise – I

Navigating the Winds of Change:
(Keynote address delivered at the first Award Ceremony of the ‘The Bandaranaike Academy for Leadership & Public Policy on 15 February 2025 at Mihilama Medura, BMICH, Colombo)
I have been made to understand, today marks the awards ceremony of the first cohort of students at the ‘The Bandaranaike Academy for Leadership & Public Policy.’ So, it is a happy day for all those graduating in a world where immediate work and life circumstances are not generally marked by happiness.
I apologize for starting on a seemingly morose note, but we are in more dire straits – as a nation and as citizens – than we have ever been since Independence. And much of this unhappiness stems directly from decisions taken by people we have considered leaders. In many cases, we have also elected them – repeatedly. But I am not talking only of public leaders who are often visible, but also of people away from the public eye, in leadership positions, such as in public and business organizations, kin networks, schools and formal and informal groups, who also take decisions that affect others – and often in life-changing ways.
The founders of this academy must certainly have had a sense that local and global structures of leadership are in relative disarray when they decided that the vision of the academy is to ‘create the next generation of ethical, effective and socially responsible leaders.’ From my vantage point, I would summarize these expectations in three words: Leadership, Ethics & Non-compromise’. These are the ideas I want to talk about today against the backdrop of our country’s vastly transformed political landscape and societal mood.
Let me lay it out there: leadership and its congruent qualities, such as ethics and non-compromise, do not simply emanate from a course or a syllabus. Certainly, conceptual and theoretical aspects of leadership, what ethics mean, when and when not to compromise in an abstract sense can be ‘taught’ through forms of formal instruction. I see that your postgraduate diploma courses such as ‘Strategic Leadership’ and ‘Politics & Governance’ emphasize some of these aspects. Similarly, the course, ‘Executive Credential on Leadership & Public Policy’ appears to emphasize some core concepts that would have to feature in any discussion on leadership, such as ‘Ethical Leadership and Social Responsibility’, ‘Leadership Strategies for a Changing World’, ‘Visionary Leadership’ and ‘Moral Leadership’ which have all been flagged either as course outcomes or focus areas.
But beyond this kind of abstraction in a classroom, leadership and its affiliated characteristics must necessarily come from life and how we deal with its multiple layers in society. A classroom, or a course, is essentially a controlled environment while society is not. The latter, by virtue of its composition, is messy and unpredictable. Leadership, in such situations, is one thing that theory and bookish knowledge alone cannot inculcate in a person beyond a certain point.
It is this, I want to elaborate in my talk today. It has become extremely clear to me that in our immediate living environment, and particularly in politics, across the board, leadership along with qualities like ethics and non-compromise, is woefully lacking. This absence stems from the relentless abuse of the key attributes of leadership which have been buried in the corrupt political system and compromised societal mores we have inherited.
So, let me take you beyond the classroom today and give you a glimpse of situations I have had to encounter. I suggest, you juxtapose these experiences and perspectives against what you have learned in the academy, your schools, your universities, from your parents and elders and your lives in general, and then proceed to fine-tune these or even unlearn your instructions, if needed. I have always found common ground in what American essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson once noted about leadership. He said, “do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.” What he is essentially talking about is the necessity of a vision to be able to lead.
But, more importantly, we must have the commonsense and the political will to distinguish between vision and hallucination, however popular and rhetorically similar both can be. Adolf Hitler had a hallucination of globally disastrous proportions while Nelson Mandela and Mohandas Gandhi had emancipatory visions whose long-term influence far exceeded the geographic and political boundaries of their countries. All three had a large number of followers, with very different consequences. And all of them were leaders, too.
What I want to say at the outset is that mere popularity of a person at a given moment is not an indication of leadership unless it is enhanced and enriched by ethics and the non-compromise of those standards. That is, leadership with morals as opposed to being devoid of them.
In my last professional incarnation, the core idea was to establish a university where none existed, an entity called South Asian University that belonged to the eight nation states of South Asia. It was intended to be a place where no one nation, political or ideological position would dominate; a university where existing conflicts between nation states would not percolate into the classroom. This was a grand vision spawned by a group of people who could lead when it came to ideas of equality in an unequal world.
Interestingly, in the initial years of its existence, it was possible to adhere to these principles and visions as long as there was leadership at important levels of the administration and academic decision-making where these principles were upheld and put into practice. For instance, Indian and Pakistani Independence Days were celebrated within minutes of each other, albeit amidst some tension, but essentially without violence or confrontation. The university did not get involved in any of these, but provided a safe environment. Today, only 14 years later, one cannot see a single Pakistani student on campus.
The iconic lecture series that I helped initiate, ‘Contributions to Contemporary Knowledge,’ which has now been discontinued, was kicked off by a highly successful and well-attended lecture by Gananath Obeyesekere. The Sri Lankan scholar was not invited because of our common nationality, but solely for his reputation reaching across national boundaries and hence was demanded by my Indian colleagues. My job, as a leader, was to make it happen. That is, all these events in the first 10 years of the university’s life established its identity as a South Asian socio-political as well as cultural-knowledge space and not an Indian socio-cultural enclave, though physically located in New Delhi. This was possible because of leadership and clarity of vision at different levels.
Even when crude nationalistic ventures were initiated at the apex of the administration or among students, some of us had the sense and authority to not let them proceed. Similarly, when events were organized which were considered anti-Indian by some misguided people, we had the moral and ethical wherewithal and strength to continue nevertheless, on the conviction of our ideas and the correctness of our decisions.
One such instance was the celebration of the work of the Pakistani poet Faiz Ahmad Faiz in 2015, when some Indian students complained we were turning the university into a Pakistani enclave. Yet the event was not cancelled, was again well attended and was very positively reported, including even in the Indian mass media. This is also where the notion of non-compromise played a pivotal role. That is, there was never any expectation of compromise in my mind and those others who helped organize it when we knew quite well this kind of rhetoric might emerge.
Continuing further, the point I want to stress is, leadership cannot and should not be merely based on individual popularity or on narrow personal interests. We see both tendencies when it comes to political leadership in Sri Lanka, our immediate geographic neighborhood, and elsewhere in the world. This is how political dynasties have emerged where families seem to believe that to be in leadership positions is a birthright passed down through divine authority. This misplaced thinking is to the detriment of the rest of us as a direct result of dubious forms of leadership that dynastic politics usually generate.
How can we expect a person to lead a nation or even an electorate in any degree of seriousness, when they fabricate their educational qualifications, when their professional backgrounds are works of fiction, when they have never worked a single day in the real world or when their achievements are in the realms of criminality. We have such leaders right here on our own soil whose political survival we have ensured through our vote and our very pronounced lack of reflective criticality. Our collective tolerance of such ‘leadership’ is shameful and says much about our own intelligence, ethics and apathy.
(To be continued)
Features
USAID and NGOS under siege

by Jehan Perera
The virtually overnight suspension of the U.S. government’s multibillion dollar foreign aid programme channeled through USAID has been headline news in the U.S. and in other parts of the world where this aid has been very important. In the U.S. itself the suspension of USAID programmes has been accompanied by large scale loss of jobs in the aid sector without due notice. In areas of the world where U.S. aid was playing an important role, such as in mitigating conditions of famine or war, the impact is life threatening to large numbers of hapless people. In Sri Lanka, however, the suspension of U.S. aid has made the headlines for an entirely different reason.
U.S. government authorities have been asserting that the reason for the suspension of the foreign aid programme is due to various reasons, including inefficiency and misuse that goes against the present government’s policy and is not in the U.S. national interest. This has enabled politicians in Sri Lanka who played leading roles in previous governments, but are now under investigation for misdeeds associated with their periods of governance, to divert attention from themselves. These former leaders of government are alleging that they were forced out of office prematurely due to the machination of NGOs that had been funded by USAID and not because of the misgovernance and corruption they were accused of.
In the early months of 2022, hundreds of thousands of people poured out onto the streets of Sri Lanka in all parts of the country demanding the exit of the then government. The Aragalaya protests became an unstoppable movement due the unprecedented economic hardships that the general population was being subjected to at that time. The protestors believed that those in the government had stolen the country’s wealth. The onset of economic bankruptcy meant that the government did not have foreign exchange (dollars) to pay for essential imports, including fuel, food and medicine. People died of exhaustion after waiting hours and even days in queues for petrol and in hospitals due to lack of medicine.
PROBING NGOS
There have been demands by some of the former government leaders who are currently under investigation that USAID funding to Sri Lanka should be probed. The new NPP government has responded to this demand by delegating the task to the government’s National NGO Secretariat. This is the state institution that is tasked with collecting information from the NGOs registered with it about their quantum and sources of funding and what they do with it for the betterment of the people. Public Security Minister Ananda Wijepala has said he would deal with allegations over USAID funding in Sri Lanka, and for that he had sought a report from the NGO Secretariat which is operating under his Ministry.
Most donor agencies operating in Sri Lanka, including USAID, have rigorous processes which they follow in disbursing funds to NGOs. Usually, the donor agency will issue a call for proposals which specify their areas of interest. NGOs have to compete to obtain these funds, stating what they will do with it in considerable detail, and the impact it will have. Once the grant is awarded, the NGOs are required to submit regular reports of work they have done. The donor agencies generally insist that reputed audit firms, preferably with international reputations, perform regular annual or even six-monthly audits of funds provided. They may even send independent external monitors to evaluate the impact of the projects they have supported.
The value of work done by NGOs is that they often take on unpopular and difficult tasks that do not have mass appeal but are essential for a more just and inclusive society. Mahatma Gandhi who started the Sarvodaya (meaning, the wellbeing of all) Movement in India was inspired by the English philosopher John Ruskin who wrote in 1860 that a good society was one that would care for the very last member in it. The ideal that many NGOs strive for, whether in child care, sanitation, economic development or peacebuilding is that everyone is included and no one is excluded from society’s protection, in which the government necessarily plays a lead role.
SELF-INTEREST
Ironically, those who now demand that USAID funds and those organisations that obtained such funds be investigated were themselves in government when USAID was providing such funds. The National NGO Secretariat was in existence doing its work of monitoring the activities of NGOs then. Donor agencies, such as USAID, have stringent policies that prevent funds they provide being used for partisan political purposes. This accounts for the fact that when NGOs invite politicians to attend their events, they make it a point to invite those from both the government and opposition, so that their work is not seen as being narrowly politically partisan.
The present situation is a very difficult one for NGOs in Sri Lanka and worldwide. USAID was the biggest donor agency by far, and the sudden suspension of its funds has meant that many NGOs have had to retrench staff, stop much of their work and some have even closed down. It appears that the international world order is becoming more openly based on self-interest, where national interests take precedence over global interests, and the interests of the wealthy segments of society take precedence over the interests of the people in general. This is not a healthy situation for human beings or for civilisation as the founders of the world religions knew with their consistent message that the interests of others, of the neighbour, of all living beings be prioritised.
In 1968, when the liberal ideas of universal rights were more dominant in the international system, Garrett Hardin, an evolutionary biologist, wrote a paper called “The Tragedy of the Commons”. Hardin used an example of sheep grazing land when describing the adverse effects of overpopulation. He referred to a situation where individuals, acting in their own self-interest, overexploit a shared resource, like a pasture or fishery, leading to its depletion and eventual destruction, even though it is detrimental to everyone in the long run; essentially, the freedom to use a common resource without regulation can lead to its ruin for all users. The world appears to be heading in that direction. In these circumstances, the work of those, who seek the wellbeing of all, needs to be strengthened and not undermined.
Features
Dealing with sexual-and gender-based violence in universities

Out of the Shadows:
By Nicola Perera
Despite policy interventions at the University Grants Commission (UGC), university, and faculty levels, sexual- and gender-based violence (SGBV) is so entrenched in the system that victim-survivors seeking justice are more likely to experience concerted pushback than the empathetic solidarity of their peers. Colleagues and friends will often close ranks, rallying to protect the accused under misguided notions of safeguarding the reputation of, not merely the assumed perpetrator, but the institution. While gender and sexual inequalities, inflected by class, ethnicity, religion, region, and other characteristics, shape the identities of the perpetrator and victim and the situation of abuse, the hyper-hierarchised nature of the university space itself enables and conceals such violence. It’s also important to note that women are not the exclusive victims of violence; boys and men are caught in violent dynamics, too.
Similar to intimate partner violence in the private confines of home and family, violence attributed to the sex and gender of abusers and victims in our universities goes heavily underreported. The numerous power imbalances structuring the university – between staff and students; academic staff versus non-academic staff; senior academic professionals as opposed to junior academics; or, senior students in contrast to younger students – also prevent survivors from seeking redress for fear of professional and personal repercussions. Research by the UGC in 2015 in collaboration with the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations (FUTA) and CARE International Sri Lanka, and more recently with UNICEF in 2021, revealed discomfiting truths about the university as places of work and education. In naming oneself as a survivor-victim, even within whatever degree of confidentiality that current grievance mechanisms offer, the individual may also represent (to some members of the university community, if not to the establishment itself) a threat to the system.
Conversely, an accused is liable to not just disciplinary action by their university-employer, but to criminal prosecution by the state. Via the Penal Code, the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (2005), etc., the law recognises SGBV as an offence that can take place across many contexts in the private and public spheres. (The criminalisation of SGBV is in line with state commitments to ensuring the existence, safety, and dignity of women and girls under a host of international agreements, such as the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Vienna Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women, the Sustainable Development Goals, International Labour Organisation conventions regarding non-discrimination in employment, etc.). Specific to the university, the so-called anti-ragging act (the Prohibition of Ragging and Other Forms of Violence in Education Institutes Act of 1998, in addition to UGC circular no. 919 of 2010, etc.) deems SGBV as a punishable offence. The rag is one site where SGBV often finds fluent articulation, but it is hardly the only one: this is not a problem with just our students.
As the apex body governing higher education in the country, the UGC has not remained insensible to the fact that SGBV harms the lives, rights, and work of students, staff, (and other parties) in university spaces. The Centre for Gender Equity/Equality sits at the UGC level, along with gender cells/committees in individual universities. Universities and faculties have elaborated their own policies and bylaws to address sexual- or gender-based harassment and sexual violence. Although variously articulated, these policies touch on issues of consent; discrimination against a person, or creation of a hostile environment, on the basis of their gender or sexuality; the spectrum of actions that may constitute harassment/violence (including through the use of technology); coerced or voluntary sexual favours as a quid-pro-quo for academic or professional benefits; procedures for making and investigating SGBV complaints; protection of witnesses to an investigation; the irrelevance of the complainant’s sexual history to the complaint at hand. And here begins the inevitable tale of distance between policy, practice, and effect.
Different faculties of the same university may or may not include SGBV awareness/ training in the annual orientation for new students. The faculty’s SGBV policy may or may not appear in all three languages and Braille in student handbooks. Staff Development Centres training new recruits in outcome-based education and intended learning outcomes may or may not look at (or even realise) the politics of education, nor include an SGBV component in its Human Resources modules. Universities may or may not dedicate increasingly stretched resources to training workshops on SGBV for staff, or cover everyone from academics, to administrative staff, to the marshals, to maintenance staff, to hostel wardens.
Workshops may in any case only draw a core of participants, mostly young, mostly women. Instead, groups of male academics (aided sometimes by women colleagues) will actively organise against any gender policy which they construe as a personal affront to their professional stature. Instead, the outspoken women academic is painted as a troublemaker. Existing policy fails to address such discourse, and other normalised microaggressions and subtle harassment which create a difficult environment for gender and sexual minorities. In fact, the implementation of gender policy at all may rest on the critical presence of an individual (inevitably a woman) in a position of power. Gender equality in the university at any point appears to rest on the convictions and labour of a handful of (mostly women) staff or officials.
The effect is the tediously heteropatriarchal spaces that staff and students inhabit, spaces which whether we acknowledge them as such or not, are imbued with the potential, the threat of violence for those on the margins. The effect, as Ramya Kumar writing earlier in this column states, is the inability of our LGBTQI students and staff to be their authentic selves, except to a few confidantes. Since the absence/rarity of SGBV complaints is no evidence that the phenomenon does not exist, perhaps a truer indication of how gender-sensitised our institutions and personnel are, comes back again to the reception of such complaints. Thus, a woman accuser is frequently portrayed as the archetypal scorned woman: abuse is rewritten not just as consent, but a premeditated transaction of sexual relations in exchange for better grades, a secured promotion, and so on. A situation of abuse becomes inscribed as one of seduction, where the accuser basically changes their tune and cries harassment or rape when the expected gains fail to materialise. Especially with the global backlash to MeToo, society is preoccupied with the ‘false accusation,’ even though there is plenty of evidence that few incidents of SGBV are reported, and fewer still are successfully prosecuted. These misogynist tropes of women and women’s sexuality matter in relation to SGBV in university, because Faculty Boards, investigative committees, Senates, and Councils will be as equally susceptible to them as any citizen or juror in a court of law. They matter in placing the burden of documenting abuse/harassment as it takes place on the victim-survivor, to accumulate evidence that will pass muster before a ‘neutral,’ ‘objective’ observer.
At the end of the day, when appointments to gender committees may be handpicked to not rock the boat, or any university Council may dismiss a proven case of SGBV on a technicality, the strongest policies, the most robust mechanisms and procedures are rendered ineffective, unless those who hold power in everyday dealings with students and persons in subordinate positions at the university also change.
(Nicola Perera teaches English as a second language at the University of Colombo.)
Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.
-
News7 days ago
Oracle Corporation pledges support for Sri Lanka’s digitalization
-
Sports4 days ago
Remarkable turnaround for Sri Lanka’s ODI team
-
Editorial7 days ago
Groping in the dark
-
Opinion7 days ago
The passing of Sarjana Karunakaran
-
Opinion7 days ago
Shortage of medicines: Senaka Bibile Policy is the solution
-
News5 days ago
Speaker agrees to probe allegations of ‘unethical funding’ by USAID
-
Business4 days ago
UN Global Compact Network Sri Lanka: Empowering Businesses to Lead Sustainability in 2025 & Beyond
-
Features4 days ago
Scammed and Stranded: The Dark Side of Sri Lanka’s Migration Industry