In order to fill an academic position at a University usually a pane! Of experts is selected. This panel (appointment committee), acting under University guide lines, decides the specific qualifications for the position, advertises the position, invites candidates to present seminars, interviews them, and usually submits a short list of qualified candidates from ‘which a final selection is made. This pane! Naturally consists of scholars who have a record of research in the subject area and are usually from that university. This creates another problem which will become evident with time. Since there are very few scholars of Sikhism based at North American Universities, these few are likely to be on the selection committees for any future appointments, since many of them are highly controversial within the mainstream Sikh community, neither they nor those whom they select are likely to find easy acceptance within the Sikh community. And ultimately it is the Sikh community that provides much of the financial or moral support for Sikh Chairs or Programs.
- The Role of the University,
It needs to be recognized that a University will not preach any religion including Sikhism to expect otherwise is to be on ‘a confrontational course destined for failure. The University can and should conduct research on any aspect of Sikhs and Sikhism, teach courses in it, but neither preaches Sikhism nor degrades it or its adherents. ‘Ais a University’s prerogative to determine the policies for hiring, promotion, tenure, firing etc. It is the University ~that determines who to hire or for that matter whether the hired person is a Sikh or not before funding is established, some negotiation may be possible in defining the general guidelines for the proposed faculty position but the specifics have to remain the University’s bailiwick. ‘tall Universities promotion and tenure for a faculty member depend upon an ‘evaluation of his or her contributions to teething, research and administration or community service, The precise expectations in each of these three areas depend ‘upon the nature of the appointment and are determined by each university or department. Universities generally have rules and regulations on these matters which are fairly well spelled out and must be observed. Besides the usual expectation of honest and unbiased research what can be expected from a University scholar of Sikhism? TIA. Nature of research to be conducted: The University primarily the scholar usually decides what research to conduct. If for instance a scholar wishes to research the personal life of Chandu, one may not ‘object that the question is trivial. This is a ‘matter to be determined by the scholar or in other cases, the student, his advisor and an academic committee, Furthermore, usually the researcher decides where to publish his or her research, There are peer reviewed journals and others that are not. IIB, Other Expectations:
‘We think it fair to expect that the scholar, particularly if funded by the community, will speak out on areas that concern the life of the Sikh community.
‘As an example, in 1994 Spellman raised the issue of the turban for the Sikhs, McLeod also responded on the same issue at the time of the hearings on the matter of recruitment of Sikhs into the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Surprisingly however, the three scholars currently funded in party by the community at the University of British Columbia, University of Michigan and Columbia University did not join the debate. In our opinion their “conspicuous and defining silence was an embarrassment to their scholarly positions as well as to the Sikh community. By their silence they left the matter to amateurs to respond as best as they could. By his posture of “no comment” we think they abandoned and abdicated their scholarly responsibility, leaving aside any obligation to the community.
It would be fair to expect that the scholar would maintain some contact with Sikh institution’s, including religious and political, in order to keep his/her finger on the pulse of the Sikh community. Only then can here main an active scholar. This ‘emphatically does not mean that he must ‘maintain the ‘politically correct” opinion ‘on Sikh issues such as Khalistan but it does mean that he/she should be able to speak from an informed base.
TIC. Controversies in Research need not be squelched.
‘On matters of research it has to be recognized by the community as well as by the academicians that controversy in research is neither new nor undesirable. In fact, disagreements in interpretations often spark new and innovative research.
‘The cure for bad idea or sloppy re~ search is not censorship but the fresh air of more research in the free market place of ideas, Human history from Socrates and Buddha to Galileo, Nanak and Spinoza tells us that censorship never killed an idea. The lives of the Sikh Gurus are testimony to the power and immortality of ideas. Any attempt to deny an idea by ‘ensuring it goes against the idea of academic freedom and also negates the basic teachings of Sikhism.
Does this mean that a scholar may write what he will and refuse to explain his position or that the community has no recourse? Certainly not.
If a society, community or an organization funds a scholar, it has the right to know what use the funds are put to. This is not a novel concept. For purpose of illustration let us look at how the National Institute of Health (NIH) of the United States functions, The NIH supports much of the sponsored research in the health sciences in this country. IID. Specific Areas of Scholarly Accountability: In some matters scholarly accountability may seem like an infringement of academic freedom, in other matters it is essential, based on sound practice and a rich! Worldwide academic tradition.
‘The NIH and most of the other supporting agencies expect accountability in the form of a) periodic (quarterly or annual) report, b) publications in refereed journal’s, c) presentations alt national and international meetings. Failure to show adequate yearly progress almost always results in nonrenewal of funding. III.NIH as a Model for Research Management:
In case of the NIH, scientists submit applications for research grants. The supplications describe the proposed research ‘as well as an appropriate budget. Considerable detail is provided by the applicant for objectives of the research, methods and procedures by which research will be conducted, and most importantly, the significance of the proposed research.
‘The applications are sent to special study groups of scientists and scholars drawn from across the nation’ institutes of higher me earning. They evaluate the applications and rate them. Unapproved research projects are not funded.
‘Approved research projects are rated and funded depending upon availability of funds and their rating, The budget lists the financial support provided by the University as well as funds requested from the granting agency. Often the budget lists travel needs, funds for research assistants, full or part salary of the major scholar, consultant fees, equipment and publication costs etc., Unpaid consultants and collaborative arrangements with scholars at other universities are also listed. Some negotiations on the budget often occur resulting in some give and take.
This basic model is used not only by the NIH but also by other governmental or private funding agencies and foundations such as the National Science Foundation or the March of Dimes. Sometimes, instead of entertaining proposals on open projects, granting agencies invite proposals on specific areas of research, “The budget of the NIH is debated and approved in the Congress. So some give and take is inevitable. Boondoggles are occasionally exposed and granting agencies such as the NIH become responsive in some measure to the concerns of the elected representatives of the people by ear masking research projects which arc clearly in the nation’s interest or consciousness, ‘To be Continued…
Article extracted from this publication >> February 21, 1996
