Features
Working with dignity: Reflections from within academia
Considering the range of experiences academics encounter in university environments, from collegiality to subtle hostility, it is worth asking whether higher education institutions genuinely allow their junior members to work with dignity. Do our academic environments foster fairness, respect and recognition they truly deserve, or do they continue to erode these very principles? We speak often about ragging and sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) as issues that harm students, yet we rarely acknowledge their lasting impact on academic staff. The same tolerance of intimidation, silence and retaliation that sustain ragging and SGBV also shapes how academics experience their workplaces. I have realised, over the years, that these reflections are not mine alone. They echo the silent struggles of many academics across our universities.
From my point of view, dignity at work is not a luxury. It is the right to be treated with fairness, respect and to be recognised for one’s contribution. It means being able to perform one’s duties without humiliation, exploitation, or fear. In academia, dignity also means the freedom to think, teach and speak, without intimidation or silencing. As the UNESCO recommendation concerning the Status of Higher Education Teaching Personnel (1997) reminds us, teachers must enjoy “freedom of teaching and discussion” and a “fair and equitable workload” that permits them “to carry out their duties in teaching, scholarship and research.” When those conditions disappear, dignity erodes. The same can be said of how our universities respond to deeper forms of violence, within our own walls. When intimidation, fear and silence are tolerated in one sphere of the university, they inevitably seep into others, shaping how both students and academics experience their right to safety and respect at work.
The Weight of Work
Within academia, exhaustion seems to have become a badge of honour. Many early and mid-career academics, particularly those leading departments with limited staffing, carry an unsustainable combination of teaching, research, and administrative work, leaving little space for rest and reflection.
The beauty of university life lies in scholarship and mentorship, yet these are the very things we risk losing under the weight of administrative and teaching overload. When cadre shortages persist for years and academics are forced to shoulder triple workloads, the human cost is extensive. Time for rest, reflection and research disappears. Burnout becomes normalised and the narrative of “sacrifice for the institution” often disguises systemic neglect. Research confirms this pattern. A 2023 study on burnout among higher education faculty found that excessive teaching and administrative loads, coupled with limited autonomy, are key drivers of emotional exhaustion and disengagement (Koster et al., 2023). The study concluded that when academics lack control over their workload and receive little institutional support both their well-being and the quality of their teaching decline.
When exhaustion replaces intellectual joy, our work becomes mechanical. And when overwork is glorified as dedication, dignity quietly slips away. To work with dignity, one must have the space to think, to create and, of course, to breathe, regardless of one’s rank or position.
In the Shadow of Hierarchy and Tradition
Academic bullying often hides behind civility at our universities. It appears in the raised eyebrow during a meeting, the public correction meant to humiliate, or the quiet exclusion from decisions. Young academics who demonstrate expertise or confidence can trigger insecurity among some who believe that titles, grades and age alone should confer authority. Instead of mentorship, they offer superiority/ condescension.
A 2024 scoping review of 140 cross-national studies on workplace bullying and harassment in higher education confirms that this behaviour is systemic and not incidental (Hodgins et al., 2024). The review identifies hierarchy, power, dependence and institutional silence as key enablers of bullying. Similarly, Tay (2023) notes that bullying in academia cannot be separated from “the structural power distances within the institution.” For junior academics, this hierarchy dictates every interaction. They must constantly prove their worth, seek approvals, and avoid offending those who hold power over their promotions and confirmations. Fear of being labelled “disrespectful” or “problematic” ensures compliance, while institutions respond to criticism with defensiveness rather than introspection. Such silence is not neutral. It is corrosive. It teaches conformity over courage and survival over scholarship. Every time the system chooses silence over justice, it erodes the collective dignity of the academic community.
Those who take principled stances against abusive “traditions” sometimes face professional exclusion or silent hostility. An academic friend of mine, a drama director, shared her story with me. As an undergraduate, she was outspokenly against ragging. Years later, despite her artistic achievements, her dramas are never invited to major university festivals because student unions remember her as an “anti-ragger.” When institutional cultures reward conformity and punish courage, the idea of working with dignity becomes a distant dream.
Brushed Under the Rug
I have written about this before, but it bears repeating. SGBV still thrives in our universities. Even though policies and committees exist, victims rarely feel safe to speak. The fear of retaliation, loss of reputation and career stagnation keep many silent.
Quite often, individuals who speak out against SGBV continue to experience subtle forms of retaliation. Those who make complaints or attempt to hold perpetrators accountable are often labelled as troublemakers. When concerns about institutional tolerance of misconduct are voiced, they are frequently met with defensiveness, with some insisting that public discussion of such issues would tarnish the good name of the institution. As Hodgins et al. (2024) describe, this pattern constitutes a form of institutional violence where silence and inaction perpetuate harm. Dignity at work requires both physical and emotional safety. Without it, no academic can thrive.
Towards a Culture of Dignity
To restore dignity in academia, we must begin by naming indignities. Overwork is not dedication, harassment is not tradition and hierarchy is not wisdom. Universities must create structures that protect those who speak up. In, recent years, Sri Lanka has tried to make progress with addressing ragging and SGBV through University policies, UGC circulars, and even a Supreme Court directive that offers detailed guidelines for prevention of ragging. These are important steps forward. Yet dignity at work extends beyond preventing overt violence. It also requires tackling the everyday forms of academic bullying; the exclusion, belittling and power misuse that corrode morale and integrity.
It is time for universities to go further and adopt clear anti-bullying policies, similar to those recommended in other higher education systems (Hodgins et al.,2024). Such policies should define unacceptable conduct, ensure confidential reporting mechanisms and establish impartial inquiry procedures. They should protect complainants and witnesses from retaliation and hold perpetrators accountable, regardless of rank or title.
While cultural and procedural reforms are vital, they cannot fully succeed without addressing the material realities of academic work. The reality of inadequate staffing, the freeze on recruitment and declining state investment in higher education drive academic exhaustion. UNESCO’s 1997 recommendation emphasises that teaching personnel are entitled to fair and equitable workload. However, this cannot be achieved in institutions struggling with structural shortages. Dignity at work cannot exist without the capacity to do our work well. Therefore, the government must support universities to pair cultural change with structural reforms; that is by reviving recruitment as was before, ensuring equitable distribution of staff and restoring public funding to sustainable levels. Otherwise, the call for dignity risks becoming symbolic rather than transformative.
Genuine well-being among academics depends on autonomy and institutional support, not endless endurance. Dignity cannot thrive where fear rules. It flourishes only where respect is mutual and justice is visible.
(Udari Abeyasinghe is attached to the Department of Oral Pathology at the University of Peradeniya)
Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.
by Udari Abeyasinghe
Features
Recruiting academics to state universities – beset by archaic selection processes?
Time has, by and large, stood still in the business of academic staff recruitment to state universities. Qualifications have proliferated and evolved to be more interdisciplinary, but our selection processes and evaluation criteria are unchanged since at least the late 1990s. But before I delve into the problems, I will describe the existing processes and schemes of recruitment. The discussion is limited to UGC-governed state universities (and does not include recruitment to medical and engineering sectors) though the problems may be relevant to other higher education institutions (HEIs).
How recruitment happens currently in SL state universities
Academic ranks in Sri Lankan state universities can be divided into three tiers (subdivisions are not discussed).
* Lecturer (Probationary)
– recruited with a four-year undergraduate degree. A tiny step higher is the Lecturer (Unconfirmed), recruited with a postgraduate degree but no teaching experience.
* A Senior Lecturer can be recruited with certain postgraduate qualifications and some number of years of teaching and research.
* Above this is the professor (of four types), which can be left out of this discussion since only one of those (Chair Professor) is by application.
State universities cannot hire permanent academic staff as and when they wish. Prior to advertising a vacancy, approval to recruit is obtained through a mind-numbing and time-consuming process (months!) ending at the Department of Management Services. The call for applications must list all ranks up to Senior Lecturer. All eligible candidates for Probationary to Senior Lecturer are interviewed, e.g., if a Department wants someone with a doctoral degree, they must still advertise for and interview candidates for all ranks, not only candidates with a doctoral degree. In the evaluation criteria, the first degree is more important than the doctoral degree (more on this strange phenomenon later). All of this is only possible when universities are not under a ‘hiring freeze’, which governments declare regularly and generally lasts several years.
Problem type 1
– Archaic processes and evaluation criteria
Twenty-five years ago, as a probationary lecturer with a first degree, I was a typical hire. We would be recruited, work some years and obtain postgraduate degrees (ideally using the privilege of paid study leave to attend a reputed university in the first world). State universities are primarily undergraduate teaching spaces, and when doctoral degrees were scarce, hiring probationary lecturers may have been a practical solution. The path to a higher degree was through the academic job. Now, due to availability of candidates with postgraduate qualifications and the problems of retaining academics who find foreign postgraduate opportunities, preference for candidates applying with a postgraduate qualification is growing. The evaluation scheme, however, prioritises the first degree over the candidate’s postgraduate education. Were I to apply to a Faculty of Education, despite a PhD on language teaching and research in education, I may not even be interviewed since my undergraduate degree is not in education. The ‘first degree first’ phenomenon shows that universities essentially ignore the intellectual development of a person beyond their early twenties. It also ignores the breadth of disciplines and their overlap with other fields.
This can be helped (not solved) by a simple fix, which can also reduce brain drain: give precedence to the doctoral degree in the required field, regardless of the candidate’s first degree, effected by a UGC circular. The suggestion is not fool-proof. It is a first step, and offered with the understanding that any selection process, however well the evaluation criteria are articulated, will be beset by multiple issues, including that of bias. Like other Sri Lankan institutions, universities, too, have tribal tendencies, surfacing in the form of a preference for one’s own alumni. Nevertheless, there are other problems that are, arguably, more pressing as I discuss next. In relation to the evaluation criteria, a problem is the narrow interpretation of any regulation, e.g., deciding the degree’s suitability based on the title rather than considering courses in the transcript. Despite rhetoric promoting internationalising and inter-disciplinarity, decision-making administrative and academic bodies have very literal expectations of candidates’ qualifications, e.g., a candidate with knowledge of digital literacy should show this through the title of the degree!
Problem type 2 – The mess of badly regulated higher education
A direct consequence of the contemporary expansion of higher education is a large number of applicants with myriad qualifications. The diversity of degree programmes cited makes the responsibility of selecting a suitable candidate for the job a challenging but very important one. After all, the job is for life – it is very difficult to fire a permanent employer in the state sector.
Widely varying undergraduate degree programmes.
At present, Sri Lankan undergraduates bring qualifications (at times more than one) from multiple types of higher education institutions: a degree from a UGC-affiliated state university, a state university external to the UGC, a state institution that is not a university, a foreign university, or a private HEI aka ‘private university’. It could be a degree received by attending on-site, in Sri Lanka or abroad. It could be from a private HEI’s affiliated foreign university or an external degree from a state university or an online only degree from a private HEI that is ‘UGC-approved’ or ‘Ministry of Education approved’, i.e., never studied in a university setting. Needless to say, the diversity (and their differences in quality) are dizzying. Unfortunately, under the evaluation scheme all degrees ‘recognised’ by the UGC are assigned the same marks. The same goes for the candidates’ merits or distinctions, first classes, etc., regardless of how difficult or easy the degree programme may be and even when capabilities, exposure, input, etc are obviously different.
Similar issues are faced when we consider postgraduate qualifications, though to a lesser degree. In my discipline(s), at least, a postgraduate degree obtained on-site from a first-world university is preferable to one from a local university (which usually have weekend or evening classes similar to part-time study) or online from a foreign university. Elitist this may be, but even the best local postgraduate degrees cannot provide the experience and intellectual growth gained by being in a university that gives you access to six million books and teaching and supervision by internationally-recognised scholars. Unfortunately, in the evaluation schemes for recruitment, the worst postgraduate qualification you know of will receive the same marks as one from NUS, Harvard or Leiden.
The problem is clear but what about a solution?
Recruitment to state universities needs to change to meet contemporary needs. We need evaluation criteria that allows us to get rid of the dross as well as a more sophisticated institutional understanding of using them. Recruitment is key if we want our institutions (and our country) to progress. I reiterate here the recommendations proposed in ‘Considerations for Higher Education Reform’ circulated previously by Kuppi Collective:
* Change bond regulations to be more just, in order to retain better qualified academics.
* Update the schemes of recruitment to reflect present-day realities of inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary training in order to recruit suitably qualified candidates.
* Ensure recruitment processes are made transparent by university administrations.
Kaushalya Perera is a senior lecturer 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.)
Features
Talento … oozing with talent
This week, too, the spotlight is on an outfit that has gained popularity, mainly through social media.
Last week we had MISTER Band in our scene, and on 10th February, Yellow Beatz – both social media favourites.
Talento is a seven-piece band that plays all types of music, from the ‘60s to the modern tracks of today.
The band has reached many heights, since its inception in 2012, and has gained recognition as a leading wedding and dance band in the scene here.
The members that makeup the outfit have a solid musical background, which comes through years of hard work and dedication
Their portfolio of music contains a mix of both western and eastern songs and are carefully selected, they say, to match the requirements of the intended audience, occasion, or event.
Although the baila is a specialty, which is inherent to this group, that originates from Moratuwa, their repertoire is made up of a vast collection of love, classic, oldies and modern-day hits.
The musicians, who make up Talento, are:
Prabuddha Geetharuchi:
(Vocalist/ Frontman). He is an avid music enthusiast and was mentored by a lot of famous musicians, and trainers, since he was a child. Growing up with them influenced him to take on western songs, as well as other music styles. A Peterite, he is the main man behind the band Talento and is a versatile singer/entertainer who never fails to get the crowd going.
Geilee Fonseka (Vocals):
A dynamic and charismatic vocalist whose vibrant stage presence, and powerful voice, bring a fresh spark to every performance. Young, energetic, and musically refined, she is an artiste who effortlessly blends passion with precision – captivating audiences from the very first note. Blessed with an immense vocal range, Geilee is a truly versatile singer, confidently delivering Western and Eastern music across multiple languages and genres.
Chandana Perera (Drummer):
His expertise and exceptional skills have earned him recognition as one of the finest acoustic drummers in Sri Lanka. With over 40 tours under his belt, Chandana has demonstrated his dedication and passion for music, embodying the essential role of a drummer as the heartbeat of any band.
Harsha Soysa:
(Bassist/Vocalist). He a chorister of the western choir of St. Sebastian’s College, Moratuwa, who began his musical education under famous voice trainers, as well as bass guitar trainers in Sri Lanka. He has also performed at events overseas. He acts as the second singer of the band
Udara Jayakody:
(Keyboardist). He is also a qualified pianist, adding technical flavour to Talento’s music. His singing and harmonising skills are an extra asset to the band. From his childhood he has been a part of a number of orchestras as a pianist. He has also previously performed with several famous western bands.
Aruna Madushanka:
(Saxophonist). His proficiciency in playing various instruments, including the saxophone, soprano saxophone, and western flute, showcases his versatility as a musician, and his musical repertoire is further enhanced by his remarkable singing ability.
Prashan Pramuditha:
(Lead guitar). He has the ability to play different styles, both oriental and western music, and he also creates unique tones and patterns with the guitar..
Features
Special milestone for JJ Twins
The JJ Twins, the Sri Lankan musical duo, performing in the Maldives, and known for blending R&B, Hip Hop, and Sri Lankan rhythms, thereby creating a unique sound, have come out with a brand-new single ‘Me Mawathe.’
In fact, it’s a very special milestone for the twin brothers, Julian and Jason Prins, as ‘Me Mawathe’ is their first ever Sinhala song!
‘Me Mawathe’ showcases a fresh new sound, while staying true to the signature harmony and emotion that their fans love.
This heartfelt track captures the beauty of love, journey, and connection, brought to life through powerful vocals and captivating melodies.
It marks an exciting new chapter for the JJ Twins as they expand their musical journey and connect with audiences in a whole new way.
Their recent album, ‘CONCLUDED,’ explores themes of love, heartbreak, and healing, and include hits like ‘Can’t Get You Off My Mind’ and ‘You Left Me Here to Die’ which showcase their emotional intensity.
Readers could stay connected and follow JJ Twins on social media for exclusive updates, behind-the-scenes moments, and upcoming releases:
Instagram: http://instagram.com/jjtwinsofficial
TikTok: http://tiktok.com/@jjtwinsmusic
Facebook: http://facebook.com/jjtwinssingers
YouTube: http://youtube.com/jjtwins
-
Opinion5 days agoJamming and re-setting the world: What is the role of Donald Trump?
-
Features5 days agoAn innocent bystander or a passive onlooker?
-
Features6 days agoRatmalana Airport: The Truth, The Whole Truth, And Nothing But The Truth
-
Features7 days agoBuilding on Sand: The Indian market trap
-
Business7 days agoDialog partners with Xiaomi to introduce Redmi Note 15 5G Series in Sri Lanka
-
Opinion7 days agoFuture must be won
-
Business6 days agoIRCSL transforms Sri Lanka’s insurance industry with first-ever Centralized Insurance Data Repository
-
Opinion2 days agoSri Lanka – world’s worst facilities for cricket fans



