Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Sunday, April 23, 2017

Sanitizing Harassment, Abuse & Intimidation In The Name Of ‘Ragging’

Colombo Telegraph
By Ruvan Weerasinghe –April 24, 2017 
Dr. Ruvan Weerasinghe
“The limits of my language mean the limits of my world” – Wittgenstein
All cultures have a concept of a boundary and so, a place of demarcation between adjacent spaces. It follows that the related concept of a place where one enters such a space is common across cultures. However, it is the word gate (or indeed one of its translations) that allow us to abstract it from the particular instance of it, and so make the description of the world possible. This is why Wittgenstein famously stated that it is language that creates the world.
In other words, a new user of a language is actually introduced to the world through words.
Words and ideas also evolve. In some cases, the meaning of a word itself evolves over time, but more commonly, the ideas and concepts surrounding a certain phenomenon evolve. If one is to believe in human progress, this leads to ever more civilized usages of words and concepts to define anew existing phenomena.
For instance, what probably used to be teasing, fun and humour, may now be sexism, harassment and verbal abuse. One particular practice that has so far successfully defied such evolution to civility is that referred to as ragging. This refusal to let itself evolve is politically engineered. In other words, it is in the interest of certain parties that the meaning of this word remain to be a synonym of teasing, fun and humour.
In reality, what has actually happened is almost the opposite: the phenomenon has firstly evolved from its very physical nature to a form that is crafted carefully to lie below the physical radar, but then also evolved fairly aggressively to a very psychological activity.
This sanitizing of harassment has many stakeholders. At the top of the pyramid are the authorities: yes, the VCs, Deans, Heads of Departments and academics who themselves primarily fall into two categories: those who feel it is not their responsibility since they have more important things to do, and those who turn a blind eye since they actually indirectly justify the need for at the least, some of it. Only a relatively smaller group of them consider it a shame to live in this environment of intimidation, and can only take limited personal action against it, in the absence of a clear overall policy in the university system against it. This however, will be the subject of a future post.
Another stakeholder is the student community. By and large they fall into three broad camps: those who espouse it wholesale as a necessary part of being initiated into any people (social) grouping, those who oppose it as a practice that is designed by those who are mostly ‘jealous’ of them, and a third group that treat it as a nuisance to be avoided as far as possible.
A rather more passive stakeholder is the parent community. Though many of them are concerned about this phenomenon when their child enters university, soon they give up involving themselves with the issue either because their children stop worrying them about it, or because the pressures of life and taking care of their other children leave them no time to engage with the issue. The few who do, soon realize the futility of the endeavor owing to lack of support from the other two stakeholder groups.
This piece is written with a view to engage the main stakeholder of any kind of education reform in the country: civil society. That is, you and me – the man on the street and the tax payer. Yes, we are in fact the chief stakeholder of all of education – not just university education. And yet, university education being the pinnacle of this system, our attention must be focused on whatever ails this highest virtue of our value system.
We too can take the same stance as the authorities: live and let live, or face it for what it is and take it on. Assuming that we are not content with the former stance, I venture out to say why and what we can do.
To start with, we need to get our vocabulary right. We need to de-sanitize the term ragging from the innocent fun (boys-will-be-boys) connotation that it has. We need to call a spade a spade.
In any other context, such as at work, the behavior that passes under the label ragging in the university context would be termed, physical, mental and emotional abuse, clearly within the meaning of the term, harassment. If we now use this more civil word for such activity, what we have been tolerating in universities is plain and simply termed, harassment. Harassment of physical and psychological form, with some of it also sexual.
Once we have the terminology clarified, let us no longer refer to this less-civilized activity as harassment or abuse. We also need to ask ourselves what the short and long term effects of such harassment and abuse is, on graduating students and through them, society at large.