Abstract
Global higher education, including that of Asia, has been facing many challenges, notably declining government funding and simultaneously increased influences of neoliberalism on its outlook, aspirations, policies and practices. This reality has put the role and purpose of higher education (HE) under testament, particularly in unprecedented crisis-induced situations such as natural catastrophes and pandemics. This article, while focussing on an Asian context, is situated in the larger picture of HE’s responses to crises and what transformations that may be enabled in the process. In unprecedented crisis-induced challenges, how does HE serve the interests of the public and society? Likewise, in this context, how can HE maintain equity and social justice as part of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) agenda? These very questions are critical for many societies and invite serious scholarly examination. Engaged with the literature on HE as a public/private good, HE and neoliberalism, and HE in times of crisis, this article discusses the case of the University of Dhaka – the leading university in Bangladesh – in its responses to the COVID-19 crisis (2020–2022). We show how HE as a public good is utmost important as governments everywhere are finding ways to incorporate the SDGs into every aspect of their HE systems. We also posit that the COVID-induced transformations of higher education in the case of the University of Dhaka have proved HE as a public good to be a robust and resilient pillar for fulfilling various stakeholders' needs and aspirations. Such transformations have affirmed the values of humanity, access and equity in HE, and these values are here to stay.
Keywords
Introduction
Over the past three decades, Asian higher education (HE) has been exponentially developed and transformed (Irham and Wahyudi, 2023; Leve, 2021; Oleksiyenko et al., 2021; Phan, 2017; Pongsin et al., 2023). As it has benefited from many opportunities, Asian HE has also faced significant challenges due to the vast tidal wave of globalisation, commercialisation, neoliberalisation, as well as the recent COVID-19 crisis, all of which have found their way into all levels of policy and operation (Phan and Fry, 2021). In this changing global economy condition, neoliberalism has evolved into much more than an economic strategy, which has pushed HE to become both a public and private good to maintain the welfare of the people and society, which is increasingly linked with sustainable development (De Neve and Sachs, 2020; Mikulčić et al., 2016). Though neoliberalism is a slippery concept, it commonly refers to ‘the philosophy of economic and social transformation taking place according to the logic of free market doctrines that dictate the way economies and societies function’ (Barnawi, 2018: p. 1). It is a dominant political-economic ideology and a discourse (Wolf and Bonanno, 2014), model or paradigm (Giroux, 2002; Steger and Roy, 2010) of many governments in developed and developing countries and international agencies that came into being in the 20th century. A comprehensive and well-cited definition of neoliberalism is given by Harvey (2005) in his book entitled Brief History of Neoliberalism where he mentioned that neoliberalism is a ‘theory of political-economic practices that proposes that human wellbeing can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade’ (p. 2).
Despite the concept’s contested nature, academics are mostly in agreement on its ideological dimensions that neoliberalism emphasises trade liberalisation/free trade, deregulation of markets/economy, individual empowerment, self-interests, competitiveness, decentralisation, less state intervention, massive privatisation of state-owned enterprises, increasing competitiveness, decreased public/government expenditure and funding: tax reform/cuts, a slash of social services and welfare program; compensating welfare with the workforce (Barnawi, 2018; Kabir and Chowdhury, 2021; Peck and Tickell, 2002; Steger and Roy, 2010). Some scholars claim that neoliberal policies generally have resulted in a loss of equality, economic and social justice, democracy and democratic accountability, and critical thought (Harvey, 2005; Hill and Rosskam, 2009). However, the above quotation by Harvey (2005) indicates that in neoliberalism ideologies, human welfare is served better when services are offered as a private good rather than a public good by taking out of the state from welfare policies (Harvey, 2007). This conviction has put the inquiry of the role and implications of HE as public/private goods in response to crisis-induced challenges, new developments and transformations in HE for the betterment of humanity and society.
Higher education is frequently regarded as serving the public good, mainly when supported directly by the government and because of potential societal benefits such as reduced inequality and increased social mobility (Hazelkorn and Gibson, 2019). However, due to commercialism and the advent of neoliberalism, higher education is increasingly seen as a private benefit rather than a public good (Harkavy, 2021). How HE as a public/private good responds to and serves the welfare of the people in crisis-induced challenges, new development and transformation in HE (interface of neoliberal ideologies) is a contextually burning question because, whilst neoliberalism is a global phenomenon evident within every state, its implementation and ramifications are not uniform, implying that national and institutional settings matter (Glenna et al., 2015). It is essential to understand the role of HE in crisis response against the backdrop of neoliberal political-economic conditions, where ensuring human welfare – he critical focus of sustainable development goals (SDGs) – is increasingly a crucial agenda in contemporary HE. This paper examines this burning area of research on the role and response of HE in crisis-induced challenges, new development and transformation, particularly the COVID-19 emergency response to maintain human welfare, from two lenses: public/private goods as a neoliberal discourse, and access, equity and social justice as sustainable development goals, which these days play a considerable role in global higher education ranking.
Higher education in crisis response
Previous studies documented how HE plays a role in crisis response. Streitwieser and Brück (2018) examined the cultural, political and economic dynamics in Germany in 2015–16, with particular attention to the response of Germany’s HE sector to integrating refugees and assisting them in transitioning to full participation in German society by providing access to the knowledge, skills and opportunities that education can provide. Likewise, in another paper, Streitwieser et al. (2017) looked into HE measures in reacting to refugee crises in general and the Syrian refugee crisis in Europe in 2015 in particular. Their research demonstrates how governments, HE as a sector and individual universities may all benefit from the presence of significant numbers of refugees. Sjarifah and Setyawan (2016) discuss emergency preparedness and disaster response education in Indonesia, particularly in Surakarta. The research suggests that emergency response education can be implemented through catastrophe socialisation, evacuation training and simulation in the event of a disaster. Brunner and Brown (2008) examined Auburn University’s struggles with diversity as a crisis response in the context of HE in the United States. Their case study looked into how Auburn University managed its diversity efforts regarding publicly declared goals and how these goals may not have represented the pursued events and aims. The crises mentioned in the existing literature are relatively common in different states where HE plays a significant role in the contexts.
Unlike other crises, the COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented global health crisis that has caused tremendous turmoil in educational systems worldwide. Higher education institutions (HEIs), students, teachers and associated communities are adversely affected. Nearly 1.5 billion HE students (89.4% of total enrolled students) in 185 countries have disrupted their regular learning activities
In the midst of the huge challenges and difficulties faced by global HE, scholars and the public have commended the new development of good practices from some governments and their HEIs toward students (e.g. Keasberry, et al., 2021). Approaches and practices that are equitable, just and humanistic have been brought to the central stage, while the roles and purposes of HE as a public good to their internal and external communities have been called into question (Watermeyer et al., 2021) from its origin and implicit theoretical framework perspective. While HE is a useful rhetorical tool for emphasising the importance of meeting public needs or interests as public goods and ensuring access, equity and social justice for all as human rights, it fails to account for concerns arising from contextual realities and structural inequalities within the HE system in many Asian countries during the pandemic. Some scholars argued that the inappropriate responses to the crisis had exacerbated inequalities (Watermeyer et al., 2021: p. 3). Universities have not implemented adequate redistributive policies in many contexts in the COVID-induced newly emerged situation and have not removed institutional mechanisms discriminating against low-income, vulnerable and marginalised communities. Instead, in many universities globally, the pandemic manifested itself as neoliberal governance, market reform and catastrophe capitalism, all of which pay scant attention to human wellbeing (Watermeyer et al., 2021; Sultana et al., 2022). Conversely, it is believed that institutional integrity and accountability and acknowledging the value of HE in furthering social equity will be crucial aspects of a successful COVID-19 crisis response (Blankenberger and Williams, 2020). Hence, to ensure HE services as a public good, HEIs must focus on becoming proactive, comprehensive, flexible, inclusive and humanistic to meet the public’s demand for their crying needs. However, at the interface of neoliberal ideologies, in the framework of HE as a public good, there is little documentation about how public HEIs become comprehensive and proactive in addressing the needs of various stakeholders of a nation to respond to COVID-19 crisis-induced challenges, new developments and changes in HE while maintaining human welfare, particularly equality in access, equity, social justice and integrity in HE.
Against this backdrop, we contribute to the debate about HE as a public or private good during the pandemic and examine the ways in which HE serves as a unique beacon of hope and aspiration for a nation in times of crisis-induced challenges, new development and transformation in HE (Phan and Fry, 2021). Specifically, analysing journalistic, media and scholarly discourses about COVID-19 issues in HE, we investigate how a developing country’s prime, flagship public university with limited capacity and resources has comprehensively, proactively, centrally and peripherally responded to COVID-19 crisis-induced challenges, new developments, and changes to fulfil the desires, aspirations and hopes of various stakeholders, including the mass community, government, students, teachers and staff, through maintaining equal access, equity and social justice. We also look into the discursive challenges and dilemmas faced by the university and how it has managed to satisfy each group of stakeholders during this crisis period. We do so via the case of the University of Dhaka, also known as Dhaka University (DU), a public university in Bangladesh. DU has been chosen because of its historical and contemporary national significance in Bangladesh in several crisis responses and because of its regional importance in South Asia. It is the country’s prime and flagship university (Douglass, 2016) and enjoys 100 years of glorious history in Bangladesh and the Indian subcontinent. This history is linked to political, social, cultural, academic, philosophical and intellectual contributions, as elaborated later. Specifically, the paper seeks answers to the following research questions: 1. How has Dhaka University, as a flagship public university and a public good, responded with its limited capacity and resources to the pandemic-induced challenges, new development and transformation in HE to fulfil various stakeholders' desires, aspirations and hopes? 2. In response to the pandemic-induced challenges, new development and transformation in HE, how has Dhaka University shown and affirmed the values of humanity, equity and social justice in HE and society and the importance of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals for HE?
The above two research questions have been based on the assumption that norms for how HEIs respond to fellow citizens during COVID-19-induced challenges, new developments, and changes in HE are not yet universal because HEIs are not a homogeneous set of organisations (Agasisti and Berbegal-Mirabent, 2021). HEIs can be classified into three groups: world-class (top in academic reputation and international ranking), flagship (research-intensive, broadly accessible, engaged in national economic development and public service, and sufficiently publicly funded) and regional/local universities (the primary mission of serving the needs of the territory in which they operate) (Agasisti and Berbegal-Mirabent, 2021). This heterogeneity is accepted as a newly developed paradigm (Huisman et al., 2007). Importantly, educational policy and actions, research and innovation, and social, psychological, behavioural, and economic responses to coping with the new normal are not well-developed and instead are contextually dissimilar, which is closely associated with a political, social and cultural background such as government policy, socioeconomic structures, capacity, tradition, operation and autonomy of HEIs. The response of HEIs to the pandemic thus provides a unique opportunity to understand the contextual picture as a case study by examining the role of a flagship HEI as a public good in the neoliberal economy.
Higher education as public/private good(s)
Higher education (HE) is often considered either a public good or a private good, or both (Marginson, 2011a; Marginson and Yang, 2021), even as a common good (Marginson, 2018) or a local/national/global public good (Kaul and Mendoza, 2003). The term ‘public’ refers to the social and political consequences of HE. While public institutions are more receptive to democratic policy action and more inclined to pursue a common goal (Marginson, 2011a), they do not necessarily demonstrate public goods. Some of these shared goals can be realised in privately held organisations, and some private benefits can be provided in state-controlled institutions.
From the lens of neoclassical economic theory, Samuelson (1954) defined a public good (or service) as something that is neither rivalrous (in consumption) nor excludable (in benefit). That means its consumption by one individual does not detract from that of another individual, and it is non-excludable so that no individual can exclude another from enjoying it (Carnoy et al., 2014; Kaul and Mendoza, 2003; Marginson, 2011a, 2016a, 2018). On the other hand, the more normative definition of ‘public good’ (singular) emphasises collaborative or group actions and benefits (Marginson, 2011a). If goods have non-excludable advantages, nonrival benefits, or both, they have a distinctive potential to be public (Kaul and Mendoza, 2003) or produce positive externalities (e.g. greater social benefits) (Tilak, 2008). In this paper, ‘public good’ (singular) refers to a collection of public goods (plural) (see Marginson, 2018), and we refer to both the public good and public goods interchangeably.
The idea of HE as a private and/or public good is becoming increasingly ambiguous, and there is no consensus, though the concept of the public good has played a significant role in (re)locating HE in recent years (Hazelkorn and Gibson, 2019). Following Samuelson’s concept of private or public goods, HE is predominantly considered a public good in various national and international contexts when it is supported and controlled directly by the state and has potential societal benefits (Hazelkorn and Gibson, 2019; Marginson, 2007). Others, however, have historically considered it to be both public and private goods, leaving funding issues to political debate (Carnoy et al., 2014). In their consideration, education inherently serves both private and public interests (Marginson 2007; Carnoy et al., 2014; Tilak 2008) because, on the one hand, HE enhances the capacity of individuals to gain economic and social benefits; on the other hand, it increases others' productivity to embrace the fundamental tenets of a tolerant, democratic society that benefits all citizens (Carnoy et al., 2014). According to Marginson (2011a, 2011b), HEIs are more or less ‘public’ and ‘private’ in terms of the policies and financial structures that were chosen for them.
Marginson (2016a) recognises various reasons for the lack of clarity about the public/private distinction in HE and elsewhere and associates those reasons with the location of activities, the source of funding, the nature of activities, political culture and socioeconomic standing. Also, he argues that there are advantages and disadvantages to each of the significant definitions of ‘public’ and ‘private’. Giving examples, he noted that individual-level goods benefit more from the economic approach to the ‘public’ than communal goods or common goods. Common goods encompass public goods and common pool resources (Tosun et al., 2016) that are shared and beneficial to all or the majority of members of a community who are socially embedded with a common interest and require collective participation (Tian and Liu, 2019). Common goods are non-excludable and rivalrous (Marginson, 2016b), for example, clean water, forests and fish stocks. UNESCO (2015) proposed replacing the narrow concept of ‘public good’ with the broad concept of ‘(global) common good’. Likewise, some scholars argue that common goods in higher education are more comprehensive and inclusive than public goods (Tian and Liu, 2019). The political approach that focuses on the state/non-state divide is superior when it comes to collective public goods. In this circumstance, Marginson (2016a) proposes that the public component of HE be clarified by combining the two definitions while giving each equal weight and maintaining the distinction between them. Although the non-market/market dual and the state/non-state dual are distinct, each offers vital reflexivity for probing the other.
Advancing further, Marginson and Yang (2021) and Marginson (2011a, 2011b; 2016a) argue that providing people with equity, equal access and equality of opportunity to education is a public good so as to see how socially inclusive HEIs are. The shared and universal welfare, that is, the larger public purpose of universities, such as preparing graduates for all social responsibilities, not only for the market, is a definition of the ‘public good’. Similarly, Tilak (2008) asserted that HE as a public good is meant to deliver public social benefits when HE is considered a significant tool of equity, functioning as an essential method of access and social mobility for underprivileged populations. In fact, equity is built into public education. Hence, it can be said that traditional economic assumptions regarding public and private goods are gradually shifting from the market/state concept to human welfare, human rights and equity in education, which UNESCO has reaffirmed in its third World Higher Education Conference 2022 (see Shama, 2022).
Likewise, new public goods theorists challenge traditional economic assumptions regarding public and private goods (for instance, Bozeman 2002; Desai 2003; Khoo 2013). They doubt that the market is the most efficient way of evaluating and providing commodities to people. Public goods are goods that are valuable in and of themselves, regardless of their link to markets and the private sector (Glenna et al., 2015). Khoo (2013) associated public goods with human rights, equity and sustainability. According to Khoo (2013), ‘publicness’ is an essential feature of public goods, and adopting Kaul (2001), she presented three prominent faces of the publicness of public goods. These are as follows: a) democratic publicness of decision-making, involving accountability and active participation; b) fairness and equity, reflected in system-wide availability and accessibility without discrimination; and c) publicness of benefits, guaranteeing safety, acceptability and quality of services with sustainability. In fact, the new public goods theory demonstrates how society’s wellbeing is dependent on getting systems and institutions to deal with a wide range of present and unanticipated crises that require scientific research and innovations to solve the crisis (Glenna et al., 2015) along with closely monitoring the crisis and taking equitable steps to play the role of the university as a public good.
As earlier mentioned, Samuelson’s assumptions about public/private goods suggest that one of the key assumptions was that social wellbeing is contingent on the provision of both public and private goods. Universities as a public sector are for generating public goods (Dasgupta and David 1994). On the other hand, neoliberalism is based on the belief that public goods are worthless unless they are privatised (Glenna et al., 2015). In fact, neoliberalism promotes the private sector and private goods above the public sector and public goods. (Glenna et al., 2007a). Hence, the neoliberal project has made a point of privatising previously public goods (Harvey 2005). Although neoliberalism is a worldwide phenomenon, there is evidence that its manifestations and implications differ between countries (Glenna et al., 2015; Pechlaner and Otero, 2008; Dibden et al., 2009; Moore et al., 2011). In this paper, we analyse and contribute to the current debates on neoliberal discourse on how HE education as a public good rather than a private good at Dhaka University played a role in the COVID-19 crisis response by maintaining the welfare of the people in the country in terms of access, equity and social justice – as SDGs.
The United Nations’ sustainable development goals
The above discussions on public and private goods concerning HE are closely associated with the United Nations’ (UN) concept of sustainable development, which is a broad and easily misunderstood concept (Hopwood, Mellor and O'Brien, 2005). However, it is widely defined as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs’ by the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, known as the Brundtland Report or Our Common Future (United Nations Environment Programme - UNEP, 1987: p. 43). It is a means of protecting the environment for all humanity (Mikulčić et al., 2016) and making the world more equalitarian, healthy and fair (Grano and Prieto, 2020), increasingly drawing the attention of many HEIs. To achieve this Global Development Agenda by 2030, the 17 SDGs approved by all UN member states in 2015 address a wide range of socioeconomic, environmental and technological challenges. HEIs play a critical role in assisting local, state, and national governments and communities to achieve these goals through teaching, research and community engagement (Grano and Prieto, 2020). Achieving the SDG agenda has been considered a recent criterion for global university rankings. For example, the Times Higher Education Impact Rankings evaluate a university’s social impact based on its contributions to the SDGs.
In recent years, HE has been paying particular attention to concerns including access, equity, social justice and other SDG priorities (see Brennan, 2008; Singh, 2011) that can be defined and interpreted in various ways. Regular attendance, achievement aligned with national curriculum norms, adequate access to education options and more equal learning opportunities are all examples of access (Lewin, 2007). Equity refers to ensuring equal treatment for all (Fiske and Ladd, 2004), ‘fairness in distribution’ (Unterhalter, 2009: p. 416) or inclusion (OECD, 2012). In tertiary education, this usually ensures that all students have equal access to educational opportunities (OECD, 2008). This concept is entangled with distribution, recognition and agency (Rawls, 1971; Sen, 2010). The quest for social justice can be viewed as the striving for a fair (but not necessarily equal) distribution of what is good and valuable in a society and what is burdensome (Singh, 2011).
The above-mentioned SDG agenda is seen as a crucial issue for HE in the neoliberal political economy (Bhopal and Shain, 2017; Hager et al., 2018) and its relation to public and private goods debates. Wals (2014) states that HEIs began to make systemic reforms by reorienting education, research, operations and community outreach. How HE plays a role in facilitating and promoting access, equity and social justice has been documented in various academic literature in different developed and developing countries (for example, Rizvi and Lingard, 2011; Marginson, 2011b, in Australia; Molla, 2014, in Ethiopia; Nieuwenhuis and Sehoole, 2013; Harper et al., 2009, in South Africa), with a growing body of work dedicated to exploring HE systems’ responses to the recent COVID crisis (Czerniewicz et al., 2020; Roshid et al., 2022; Yang and Huang, 2021). This paper, hence, contributes to this novel body of work by investigating how and to what extent HE, as a public/private good with a quest for SDGs, could transform itself in the current neoliberalism-oriented environment, following its diverse responses to the unprecedented COVID-19 crisis since 2020. Specifically, this paper focuses on how HE in Bangladesh as a public good responded to COVID-19-induced challenges, new developments and changes in HE to build its capacity in this increasingly internationalised yet neoliberalised HE landscape.
Neoliberalism and SDG in higher education in Bangladesh
The HE in Bangladesh is greatly influenced by neoliberal policy and the SDGs. Kabir and Chowdhury (2021) identified a major neoliberal policy shift in HE in Bangladesh. Some of those policy shifts are associated with only the private university sector, while others are associated with both the public and private university sectors (see details on p.
Simultaneously with the expansion of HE in the country, the government desires to provide quality education to meet local and global needs because Bangladesh, a South Asian developing country, is committed to implementing and achieving the UN SDGs. The country’s seventh Five-Year Plan already includes several SDGs targets and metrics. Meeting the SDGs targets would be a huge step forward for Bangladesh and the rest of the globe. Keeping this in mind, the government has taken several policy reform initiatives in HE, such as setting up an Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC) in each university under the HEQEP project, which is funded jointly by the World Bank and the Bangladesh government. In addition, more universities than ever before are serious about institutional policies to progress in world university rankings, which has educational impacts. These policy shifts indicate that HE in Bangladesh serves both public and private interests or goods, as Marginson (2011a, 2011b) defined them, and that these functions do not neatly match ownership or funding sources (Kabir and Webb, 2018).
Based on the conceptualising of public/private goods as a neoliberal discourse and SDGs lens, particularly access, equity and social justice, this paper investigates the roles of the University of Dhaka as a public flagship university and public goods (non-market goods or state-determined goods) for public interests/welfare in response to the COVID-19 pandemic crisis-induced challenges, new developments and changes in HE where access, equity and social justice are considered paramount.
The University of Dhaka: The ‘Oxford of the East’
Higher education in Bangladesh has evolved over the past hundred years, and there are complex socio-cultural politics behind it. In 1921, the University of Dhaka (DU) began the journey of HE in Bangladesh (then East Bengal). It is the first and oldest public university in Bangladesh, born out of a struggle by the people of eastern Bengal to assert their regional identity. It started its academic journey during British colonisation to prolong its dominance (Kabir, 2010). The year 2021 commemorated its first century by stepping into its past glory. British colonial history has left indelible fingerprints on the fabric of Bangladesh’s modern higher education system. Consequently, Western-based higher education in Bangladesh became a British political effort to build an elite class to do the colonialists' bidding. When Bangladesh gained independence in 1971, this elite class adopted the role of post-independence Bangladesh’s nouveau elite class, which desired power and used the colonial organisational setting to construct ideas for leading the country (Kabir and Chowdhury, 2021).
DU is considered the number one and flagship university in the country. As of 2021, it has roughly 37,018 students enrolled, taught by 1992 professors. The university’s administrative, academic and residential management is modelled after Oxford University. According to Kamal (2021, July 1), the university is a perfect blend of the ancient Paris model (i.e. Oxford and Cambridge) and the current Paris model (European and American universities). The university has 13 colleges, 83 departments, 13 institutions, 20 residential dorms, 3 hostels, 56 research centres and bureaus, and a medical centre. Moreover, the university has 105 constituent colleges and institutes, where a total of 45,374 students study there.
In its history as a HE institution, DU is/was also regarded as ‘the Oxford of the East’, a reputation that has been contested. On the one hand, scholars have warned against the glorification of the colonial legacy embedded in this highly problematic pride seen in the analogy – a mentality that points to how the ‘coloniality of power’ is still working in postcolonial countries like Bangladesh (Kabir and Chowdhury, 2021) or Singapore and Malaysia (Phan, 2017). On the other hand, it is argued that once, there were similarities between Oxford University and Dhaka University. For example, both universities followed a residential model where the students lived on campus in halls. However, most of the students are non-residents ‘attached’ to residence halls. Furthermore, both universities previously used a 3-year honours system. Additionally, the DU has replicated the Oxford tutorial system alongside the lecture method of teaching (Hashmi, 2015). Dhaka University no longer offers a 3-year honours degree; it is no longer a residential university; the tutorial instruction system is nearly extinct; and, last but not least, house tutors at this university are merely administrators who assist the hall administration. In terms of standard and excellence, among others, according to the global university rankings league tables, Dhaka University’s rank (for example, Times Higher Education ranked it 800–1000 in 2022) is no comparison to Oxford University (which is ranked first by Times Higher Education). Hence, there is little ground to suppose that Dhaka University is or ever was the ‘Oxford of the East’. Instead, it is a myth that neither compensates for nor conceals reality (Hashmi, 2015). Additionally, in recent years, the University of Dhaka, as the Oxford of the East, and its traditions have been historically transformed into neoliberalism, which has taken many forms, including privatising (forcing the university to rely more on private funding sources than government funding), commercialising (forcing it to compete for funding and resources by offering market-oriented fee-paying evening courses), and managerialism (e.g. emphasising student evaluations and research output) (Kabir, 2010).
Despite the above transformation of Dhaka University and its current rank and allegedly modest educational standards by the measures of rankings, its magnificent heritage must not be discounted. The university has played a significant part in the entire educational, intellectual, political, social and cultural mass movements throughout its history, including the creation of the Bengali Muslim middle class in East Bengal, which played a decisive role in the creation of Pakistan in 1947, the Language Movement in 1952, the Liberation War in 1971 (Hashmi, 2015) and the restoration of democracy in the 1990s. The Language Movement of 1952 recognised Bangla as the country’s official language. Based on this language movement in 1952, later in 2008, UNESCO proclaimed ‘International Mother Language Day’ to promote the preservation and protection of all languages used by the world’s peoples. Likewise, the brains behind the birth of Bangladesh as a new country in 1971 dared to raise the Bangladesh flag first on campus. Hundreds of university students, teachers and staff members sacrificed their lives in the liberation war for the country’s independence from Pakistan. DU remains the only HEI in the world that gave birth to a country and a nation.
DU has strived for academic excellence since its foundation. This university has produced several presidents, prime ministers, ministers and the finest intellectuals (e.g. Satyen Bose), researchers, academics, philosophers, artists, journalists, business people and Bangladesh’s sole Nobel Prize recipient. DU is the country’s prime university that promotes students' and the country’s transformation processes through its educational and research facilities.
The university is governed by the University of Dhaka Order 1973, whereby democratic norms and autonomy become integral features of the institution. The president of the country is the chancellor of the university. However, the Vice-Chancellor (VC), Pro-Vice-Chancellors, Syndicate, Senate, and Academic Council are other vital governing bodies of the university. According to the law, though the university is an ‘autonomous’ body, it is run in practice considering governmental party politics. The VC is appointed according to government choice. Other posts are also filled by teachers who support the party that forms the government.
Despite having received criticisms about the recent academic performance of the university shown in the World University rankings (801–1000 in QS 2023 and THE in 2022), DU still remains at the top of the country in terms of the number of its publications and global ranking (Howladar, 2021; July 1). The public hopes DU will play an even more prominent role in transforming Bangladeshi society into a learned society and assisting the country’s economic renaissance as an innovative and knowledge-driven economic powerhouse (Chakma, 2021).
Because of DU’s stature in Bangladesh, all prominent national newspapers in the country have stationed their news reporters on campus to cover any news, policies, events and reports related to the university. These news reporters work closely with the university administration, students, teachers and staff to cover news and opinions both online and in print.
Methodology
Newspapers play an essential role in academic publishing, expanding their popularity (Meyer, 2018) as a data source (Wolbring, 2016). This paper has been developed mainly based on a textual analysis of online coverage of DU’s responses to the COVID-19 pandemic published in national newspapers in both English and Bangla from March 2020 to October 2021. The reason for choosing online newspapers is that all university policy decisions are usually covered instantly by the online newspapers, along with their print counterparts, considering the national importance of the university sociopolitically and historically.
The first author of this paper searched for news reports on Google using keywords such as ‘University of Dhaka COVID-19 response’, ‘Dhaka University COVID-19 responses’ and ‘DU and COVID-19’. The same Bangla equivalent of the aforementioned search keywords was used for Bangla newspapers. Because most newspapers had both an English and a Bangla version, it was easy to find news using English and Bangla keywords. However, mostly English keywords were used for searching. When it was necessary to check the Bangla version of newspapers, the Bangla equivalent of the keywords was used for searching. The first author cautiously explored various news reports related to the University of Dhaka’s response to COVID-19. Moreover, there were several follow-up stories at the university related to COVID-19 (e.g. COVID testing on campus, resuming the face-to-face class, vaccination of students, etc.) that were also covered in this paper.
In order to maintain further diligence in not missing important news related to DU and its COVID responses, the first author sought the help of a campus reporter of a renowned national newspaper who reports all news about the university in his daily. As the first author found one reporter enough for cross-referencing with data saturation, an additional reporter was not engaged in this regard. Using Facebook Messenger, the news reporter sent this author all the news links published not only in his newspaper but also in other newspapers. As the same news was published in different media and the authors explored all important news portals with data saturation, there was little chance of missing any important news related to the DU responses to COVID-19.
After collecting news reports, the authors analysed those reports following thematic content analysis, which is a descriptive presentation of qualitative data that includes video, image and other forms of data that may accompany textural data (Roberts and Pettigrew, 2007; Smith et al., 1992). The author read all the news texts line-by-line with the collected online news reports and identified DU’s responses to COVID-19. The texts related to the university’s responses to COVID were summarised, paraphrased, saved and organised thematically in a Word document. The authors found that several online newspapers covered the same news, and thus they decided to choose only one individual newspaper for the same news that covered the news comprehensively. In addition, in order to maintain the reliability, validity and overall trustworthiness of the data used in this article, all newspaper information has been cross-checked and compared with at least one additional newspaper source. When it was found that the information reported in the newspapers was authentic and reliable, it was used in this study. Moreover, where necessary, the authenticity of the news and time of decision was verified by the above-mentioned campus reporter and compared with the university meeting minutes taken in the Academic Council, Academic Committee and Syndicate that are relevant for the news and received by one of the authors, who is a faculty member of the university. He officially received most of the decision information as meeting minutes from the university because of his membership in some decision-making bodies. No discrepancy in authenticity was found between the published online news and the university meeting minutes. This potentially helps the authors make sure that the reports published in the newspapers were not just media politicking by the University of Dhaka but rather an authentic process of policy implementation on the ground.
The sources of data and the frequency of news.
Among the online news items, 24 were published in 2020, and 21 were published in 2021. Among the news reports, 27 were published in English, and 18 were published in Bangla. The identified key themes are as follows: supporting the mass of people (n = 14), reopening campus (n = 10), online classes (n = 8), assessment (n = 7), closing campus (n = 3), session jam (n = 3), financial support (n = 1), emotional support (n = 1) and student supporting student (n = 1). All the above themes have been presented in the next section under the umbrella of five key themes.
The Dhaka University in crisis response
In response to COVID-19 pandemic-induced challenges, developments, and changes in HE, the university took a series of measures, including cancelling classes and exams, closing residential halls, organising a coronavirus response coordination committee for the institution, imposing on-campus travel restrictions for teachers and staff, working from home, and maintaining campus security during holidays. Apart from the initial responses, the university also took several other unique actions to adjust to the new normal induced by the pandemic, as presented thematically below.
Research-led and health-based measures to support the mass community
As the prime and flagship public university, Dhaka University (DU) has always tried to fulfil the nation’s aspirations during any crisis in the country, as mentioned above. From the beginning of the pandemic in Bangladesh, faculty members and researchers from different departments took several health measures for the mass community to meet their private and public interests. Four departments, including pharmacy and biotechnology, started making hand sanitisers and surgical masks for free distribution to students and teachers when surgical masks and hand sanitisers were almost disappearing from the market (Ullah, 2020, March 14). Besides, telemedicine services were launched with the help of 50 specialist doctors and the support of the medical faculty. The steps were taken to create a negative pressure canopy under the Department of Biomedical Physics, which also made ventilators (The Campus Desk, 2020a, 7 May (a)). Moreover, the university took the initiative to work on the genome sequencing of the coronavirus (University Correspondent, 2020, May 15) and also desired to develop a coronavirus testing kit (The Campus Desk, 2020b, May 7b).
In addition to taking the above steps to respond to the pandemic, the university was eager to do more for the public and the nation. Psychologists in the Department of Counseling offered online counselling services to offer mental health care to homeless people during the holidays. Similar immediate steps were taken for emotionally affected students in different departments when the university observed that some students had made threats on social media to commit suicide because of mental stress and anxiety induced by the pandemic (DU Representative, 2020, April 23). Also, DU provided its students with health insurance amid the ongoing pandemic (Shovon, 2020, June 2).
Moreover, DU launched a coronavirus testing lab on campus at the beginning of the pandemic with its own funding. The setup of this lab was to support the nation with a collaborative response where universities, researchers, faculty members, the government, alumni and society were voluntarily and actively engaged (Start Online Report, 2020b; May 5). Furthermore, Dhaka University’s Centre for Advanced Research in Sciences (CARS) and AFC-Agro-Biotech Ltd. signed a Memorandum of Understanding to jointly develop and produce the vaccine (Prothom Alo English Desk, 2021c, October 25). Likewise, using RT-LAMP equipment, a DU lab detected COVID-19 in 40 min (Dhaka University Correspondent, 2020, June 7). The university’s health response motivated the DU administration to build an international-standard ‘Biological Hazard and Health Research Lab’ on campus, which would conduct academic and research activities on biological hazards and health-related topics (Prothom Alo English Desk, 2020, August 19). All the above measures, steps, motivations and actions suggest that, as a public university, public benefits and interests have been the university’s first priority in its health research activities.
However, before taking the above responses, DU faced widespread criticism that it had failed to play an influential role in determining the proper responses so as to address economic, social, cultural and educational issues related to this pandemic and the country’s challenges (Hasan, 2020a, April 24). The criticism pinpointed a lack of research funding and coordination among academic and political factions, and it went viral as soon as DU decided to discontinue its coronavirus testing lab because of the financial crisis (The DU Representative, 2020, June 1). This decision sparked dissatisfaction from different corners of society. Some community members treated the decision as evidence of DU’s poor planning and insensitivity, poor leadership and poor management. They argued that DU could have avoided stopping the test by better-managing government and non-government funding and resources (Ahmed, 2020, June 15). However, after appealing it, DU did not receive any financial support from any sources, including the government. DU found itself amid competing public opinions about the nation’s flagship HEI.
Switching to online classes: Dilemmas and concerns about access and equity
With the pandemic outbreak, the university shut down the campus and suspended its campus-based teaching and learning in March 2020 (Bangla Tribune Desk, 2020, March 19). Despite this, the university was in a dilemma regarding whether they would opt for online remote teaching or face-to-face teaching to resume academic activities because the pandemic wave was unstable, and not all students had smartphones, and Internet access or could afford to pay for internet data. Considering these challenges that affect access and equity issues for all students, regardless of their financial condition and geographical distance, the university administration decided not to go for online classes (Star Online Report, 2020a; May 11). However, this policy decision received intense criticism from students, parents, society and the media. Stakeholders consider that DU is the flagship and prime university in the country and needs to be proactive to resolve the educational crisis and ensure access to all its students without any discrimination. Moreover, it could be a model for other public and private universities in the country. Despite its autonomy, which has historically ensured knowledge production without governmental intrusion (Kabir, 2010), the university was waiting for instructions from the government or the University Grants Commission (UGC) – the highest regulatory organisation of all universities in the country, to combat the crisis. This kind of policy action dependency and waiting for directions from the UGC suggests that the autonomy of this public university is threatened (Kabir, 2010), and the government regulates it through power delegation to the UGC.
Consequently, when the UGC provided the guidelines on behalf of the government, following the UGC’s directions, DU eventually decided to begin online classes to enable students to adjust to the new normal (Shovon, 2020, June 2). To prepare for this, DU provided teachers and students with training on using Zoom for online remote teaching and learning. UGC also supported DU through its Bangladesh Research and Education Network (BdREN) (Rahman et al., 2020, August 10). Despite receiving the training, many students remained unable to regularly attend online classes due to a lack of access to smartphones and internet connections (Hasan, 2020b, December 12). The university, with the support of UGC, hence, decided to give an interest-free soft loan to purchase mobile phones to financially disadvantaged students (The DU Correspondent, 2021, June 7) so that all students may get access to university education without facing any device-related discrimination and inequality because of their socioeconomic disadvantages. Providing a loan to public HE students is a relatively new HE policy in Bangladesh. On the one hand, it helped many students access online education; on the other hand, it also reduced the government’s direct financial burden, a neoliberal policy suggested by SPHE to reduce public expenditure on HE (Kabir, 2010).
In addition to ensuring access to online classes, to make the administrative system flexible and accessible for all students, teachers and staff, DU gradually introduced online-based administrative activities and services, including publishing results online, collecting tuition fees online, offering online internal re-admission, online registration for examinations, hosting virtual academic meetings and so on (Prothom Alo English Desk, 2021b, June 19). These online responses of this public university to different stakeholders by maintaining hygiene and social distance are considered relatively effective alternative welfare measures during this health crisis (Begum, 2021). Nevertheless, many of the students were not fully satisfied with these online HE policy reforms in response to the crisis because of the limitations of the online protocol or their unfamiliarity with the newly adopted system.
Financial and social support for DU students in need
One of the vital responses of the university to the pandemic is to provide survival support to needy and socially vulnerable students and their families (Hasan, 2021, June 20). Many students and students’ families are severely affected financially due to the pandemic because of job losses or reduced income, which raises questions about their survival. Hence, the university as a community, regardless of administrative authority, teachers, students, and their clubs and societies, stands beside the needy students and supports them in many ways. This community of the university can be classified into two groups: one is the university administration, and the other is human society, such as the Dhaka University Teachers Association (DUTA), individual departments and institutes, individual teachers and students, and student forums. Both groups are independent in many ways in the university, and they support students in their own ways based on their own capacities. For example, the university teachers' association arranged a central hotline system to financially support its current students with their basic needs. Many students received this financial support from the university teachers' association. However, students who missed this central support could apply to their departments for financial aid. It was reported that almost all departments provided financial support to their students from departmental funds. Moreover, several teachers individually supported their needy students.
Along with support from the individual teachers, teachers' association and individual departments, several financially solvent students also individually extended their cooperative hands to their needy friends and juniors at the university with finance and food. Besides, various alumni/student-led university-based social organisations also helped socially and financially vulnerable students. For example, the ‘DU Security Forum’ provided socially assaulted students in any part of the country with legal and financial assistance and counselling (Hasan, 2021, June 20). Apart from that, being more humanistic towards students, the university administration waived the residential hall fees, transport fees and admission delay fees for the students (Prothom Alo English Desk, 2021b, June 19). This finding indicates that human society, for example, an initiative by the DUTA or an individual academic or a group of academics or any department/institute or student response to crisis management (Oleksiyenko et al., 2022), promotes the public good, despite the fact that the university strictly operated under neoliberal conditions. That is why the university did not receive any direct government funding for needy students. Instead, the university’s students donated money allocated for Bengali New Year celebrations to the Prime Minister’s relief fund to be used for the welfare of the wider community. Likewise, the university’s faculty members donated the same amount from their 2-day salary to the prime minister’s relief fund (The DU Correspondent, 2020a, April 8). Though the donated amount was modest compared to the need for the country’s health emergency, it shows that the DU human community as a public HEI is always there for the public’s welfare at all levels.
HE finances in developing nations have been seen through the prism of neoliberal economic and cultural globalisation (Marginson and Ordorika 2010), where university finance transitioned away from central and regional government support to private tuition paid by students and their families (see Carnoy et al., 2014; Tilak 2008). Unlike many universities, including private universities in the country, that heavily rely on students’ tuition fees to make a profit, considering HE as a commodity (Alam and Khalifa, 2009), DU, however, primarily and historically relies on state/government funding rather than on students’ tuition to ease the financial burden on students and their families. During the pandemic, DU displayed its humanistic and wellbeing spirit further by waiving tuition and other costs for students, which is an outcome of the autonomy of the university and ensures HE at DU is a public good for public welfare rather than a business good driven by the market and corporate ethics and culture where an individual is treated as a commodity of the market (Lipman, 2007; Roshid and Shaila, 2023).
In-person versus online exams: A debate about equity, integrity, access and safety
HEIs in many countries, including private universities in Bangladesh, have opted for online examinations during this pandemic. DU was initially not interested in this option because it was concerned about the unavailability of credible software for virtual exams (The Dhaka Tribune, 2020; October 4). This decision could cause a session jam, and it triggered a rise in frustration and suicide attempts among DU students (UNB News, 2021, January 1).
Consequently, to resolve the problem, and under the UGC guidelines, DU decided to let students take exams in person on a priority basis while maintaining hygiene and social distance on campus. However, the university did not open the student dormitory halls during the examination until students were vaccinated (Start Digital Report, 2021a, June 1). The authority’s decision made many students angry and upset because most of the students at this university come from remote areas of the country and do not have safe accommodation options outside their dormitory halls. Numerous students and student leaders treated this decision as ‘wrong’ and ‘unrealistic’ and protested against it (Hasan, 2020a, 2020b, December 12).
In these circumstances, in light of the university guidelines, students and teachers decided to mutually solve the accommodation issue for examinees. Several approaches were used, including renting accommodation in the city for students outside and students with accommodation capacity in Dhaka giving shelter to their friends. Also, teachers offered their residence to students who could not find accommodation during the examination.
Though the above collaborative efforts were highly appreciated by teachers, students, and the general public, departments at DU faced considerable difficulties in ensuring every student’s attendance in the exams. Hence, DU established an online assessment system that allows students to complete their semesters without physically visiting the university campus. The university also decided to conduct the final examinations online if the coronavirus continued to worsen (Star Digital Report, 2021b, June 26). All teachers, students and staff received online workshops and video tutorials to prepare for accomplishing this decision.
Initially, according to a survey conducted by the university, many students were not interested in taking online examinations because of concerns about access to the internet and devices (The DU Correspondent, 2021b, July 19). However, many others considered it the only alternative option to complete or continue their studies during this prolonged and uncertain health crisis. In this circumstance, 87.4% of the students expressed their desire to fulfil assessments through assignments (The DU Correspondent, 2021b, July 19). Accordingly, showing respect for the students’ voices and democracy, the university advised its departments to conduct internal assessments (e.g. mid-terms) through assignments and final examinations online and keep aside practical assessments until the university could start face-to-face campus-based academic activities.
Moreover, the university took and executed some student-centric flexible policy decisions for examinations. Among these are shortening the examination duration, reducing the syllabus and number of questions, uploading answer scripts to Google Classroom, and publishing results quickly so that outgoing students can enter the job market quickly and new students can begin their semester right away. In addition, to maintain the integrity of examinations, the university administration provided some guidelines to students, such as always keeping the camera on during the test, sitting for paper-pencil tests, asking for a security sign on each page of the answer script, and having one invigilator for a maximum of 25 students. These examination responses were collaborative and supported by departments, the examination controller office, teachers, students and staff. This new education policy in crisis response and collaborative exam initiatives successfully helped the university minimise session jams in its transformed HE environment.
Though the university offered online exams to its regular students, it continued to hold face-to-face admissions tests for new recruitment at the undergraduate level. However, to reduce travel inconveniences, costs, time and the risk of COVID-19 infections, DU conducted admission tests for the first time in eight big cities across the country. This decentralised admission test initiative represents a flexible, humanistic and student-centred academic metric that brings a sigh of comfort to many students and their parents (The Dhaka Tribune, 2021, October 1).
Simultaneously, to ensure a quality intake based on academic merit and/or equity as public goods (Marginson, 2011b), DU also updated the assessment system for admission aspirants who received an auto-pass in their HSC exam due to the pandemic. In doing so, the university placed a greater focus on admission test scores than on prior academic accomplishments.
Hence, merit-based admission maintained equity and social justice in education at DU. However, according to Astin and Oseguera (2004), merit-based access, including HE entrance exams, favours students from households with higher socioeconomic status. Therefore, Carnoy et al. (2014) suggested that when discussing HE as a public benefit with merit-based access, we must consider each learner’s circumstances, equity, academic freedom, autonomy and other issues concerning institutions. DU undertook all of these issues for both enrolled and newly enrolled students and ensured social justice as a public university. However, the government lacks the resources to organise and monitor university equity policies and practices, as seen in some other counties (see Molla, 2014; in the case of Ethiopia).
Preparing and reopening the campus: Bringing the rhythm back
According to a Dhaka University Research Songsod (DURS) study, only 2.7% of DU students reported satisfaction with online learning (The DU Correspondence, 2021b, July 19). As a result, many students, teachers and parents demanded the earliest possible return of face-to-face teaching and learning on campus. Hence, when the government announced the resumption of activities in other educational institutions, as part of the preparations, on the one hand, the university administration started the vaccination process for its students, staff and teachers; on the other hand, it stepped up renovation work in dormitories required because the university dormitories remained closed since the pandemic outbreak in March 2020. DU negotiated with the government to vaccinate its students, teachers and staff on a priority-based schedule (Prothom Alo English Desk, 2021a, July 15) and set up a temporary vaccination centre on campus, where DU students, teachers and staff received the vaccine with little hassle within a short time (Star Digital Report, 2021c, October 4). As DU was renovating the residential halls, it faced financial challenges and had to apply to the UGC and the government for additional funding support to fill the deficit budget (Rubel, 2021a, September 17).
In addition to renovation works, the university finalised a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in light of the World Health Organization and national policies to ensure safety and hygiene in students’ living halls (The DU Correspondent, 2021c, September 6). After confirming the first vaccination dose, the university reopened the dormitory halls for students in different phases. Initially, students in their master’s and bachelor’s final years were prioritised (Rubel, 2021b, October 6), followed by all residential students (Star Digital Report, 2021d, October 10).
Also, the university administration resumed face-to-face classes in mid-October 2021 after nearly 18 months of COVID-forced closure, following the guidelines approved in an academic council meeting for on-campus face-to-face courses and exams. These guidelines include showing proof of receiving at least one dose of vaccine, dividing a large class into sections, and following a blended approach to teaching (UNB, 2021, October 17). Moreover, to reduce session congestion and students' academic losses due to the widespread pandemic-related closure of campuses, DU took several steps, such as shortening the semester, decreasing holidays and holding extra classes even on weekends (The Financial Express, 2020, October 30).
Reopening residential halls and resuming campus-based face-to-face academic activities have brought life and rhythm back to the campus. These student-centric measures were possible due to the relentless collaborative efforts and support of all stakeholders, including the government, the university administration, teachers and students.
Further discussion and conclusion
Thus far, it is richly evident that Dhaka University has adjusted its responses and thoughtfully considered public interests from the beginning of the pandemic to the present time. Most of the responses were taken for the benefit of the public, including students, teachers, staff and the wider community. Historically, Dhaka University has primarily fulfilled the public’s desires, dreams and interests over the last 100 years, even during several sociopolitical crises. Hence, when COVID-19 hit the country, the public expected that DU would show the light of hope through its research and intellectual and engaging activities. We argue that DU has demonstrated the highest possible volume of public goods and has been leading by example in this unprecedented crisis, despite many financial restrictions and the pressure to satisfy all parties’ wishes and their varied projections of the nation’s premier publicly funded university.
Research as a public good but may not always get support from the government
There are valid reasons for improving the societal benefits of university research. Universities are very much in charge of doing scientific research that results in public goods (Glenna et al., 2015). In many countries, (e.g. Anglo-American), basic research is seen as a public economic good, so it needs government funding (Marginson, 2018; Marginson and Yang, 2021). This view promotes the assumption of a new neoclassical theory that assumes public goods are valuable and that the state needs to invest in them (Glenna et al., 2015). However, the findings of this paper reveal that Bangladesh’s flagship public university has been in a funding crisis for research and innovation to counter the pandemic in particular and other times in general. Despite its efforts to serve its community and the public, the university has failed to receive the necessary research and lab funding from the government/state to respond to the pandemic. On the one hand, the policy decisions and actions of this public university (e.g. campus shutdown, reopening the campus) are hugely influenced by the state/government guidelines that promote the political meaning of public goods. The government/state intervened in the COVID-19 issue as a matter of public concern or effect.
On the other hand, the university’s policy decisions and actions associated with finance were not adequately supported by the state/government during this pandemic, even though DU’s research outcomes have positive social impacts and are produced for shared and collective benefits on a universal basis without distinctions of value (Marginson, 2011a; Marginson and Yang, 2021) and meet public interests and benefits. This tension between the political and economic values of HE as public goods poses questions about the accountability of the government in the context of Bangladesh, particularly during an unprecedented crisis response. The reason might be that HE, in the eyes of the Bangladeshi government, is not a popular political sell in the face of conflicting demands from other sectors of society (e.g. early childhood education, health and social services), as seen in many societies (Hazelkorn and Gibson, 2019). It also demonstrates the government’s political-economic mentality to a large extent, which is influenced by a neoliberal ideology where reducing financial support by the state/government is expected.
This interpretation is aligned with the work of Kabir (2013), who argued that the government of Bangladesh had gradually lowered the money for public universities along with increasing government representations in the Syndicate of Universities to control public universities. It is worthwhile to be noted that according to the World Bank, Bangladesh’s government spending on tertiary education is very low, and it was 0.4564% of its GDP in 2019, which is the lowest compared to other developing countries such as Pakistan (0.6411%), Indonesia (0.5662%) and Malaysia (0.9466%) (see, Trading Economics, 2019 for details). Even though HE has been overlooked in the national annual budget allocation throughout the pandemic, in order to alleviate their financial burden, public universities, including DU, have been forced to take a variety of initiatives over the last 2 years, such as offering fee-earning evening courses for professionals, consulting services and leasing market space. These money-making reformed policies may give the people the perception that universities in Bangladesh, including DU, are transforming themselves into profit-making business corporations rather than knowledge-generating HEIs (see Kabir, 2010 for details).
Hence, the government’s lack of interest in funding scientific research rejects the neoclassical assumptions about the value of public goods (Glenna et al., 2015) and shows agreement with some scholars who say that university research is increasingly being viewed as beneficial only in terms of its contribution to the production of private goods (Glenna et al., 2007a). In reality, a defining characteristic of the neoliberal approach has been the privatisation of previously public goods (Harvey 2005: 159). In recent years, to reduce government expenditure and mitigate universities’ own financial needs, and with suggestions from SPHE that promote a neoliberal agenda in countries, the government of Bangladesh urges public universities to take different income-generating measures, including increasing tuition fees and hall fees and looking for private funding through university-industry partnerships for their research and innovation (The World Bank, 2019; Kabir, 2010; University Grant Commission, 2006). Recent publications also suggest that collaborations between the corporate and public sectors and commercialisation of university research can facilitate the exchange of new information, technologies and techniques (Levidow et al., 2002; Glenna et al., 2007b; Glenna et al., 2015). Etzkowitz’s (2003) ‘triple helix’ approach, which argues for merging university, government and industry research to improve the knowledge economy, is one notable neoliberal perspective. In that view, as seen earlier, the DU took several research initiatives in collaboration with several organisations and stakeholders. On the one hand, these initiatives show the influence of neoliberalism on HE in Bangladesh. On the other hand, it promotes the UN’s sustainable development goals (goal 17: partnerships for the goals) to benefit the public and society. However, it is necessary to balance public and private findings to best use research findings to improve social welfare.
To maintain equity in HE as a public good
It is commonly accepted that providing people with equitable opportunities in HE is a public good (Marginson, 2011b, 2016a). This is a core advantage of public goods (Marginson, 2016a). We have shown that DU’s responses to the pandemic, on many occasions, reflect its commitments to maintaining social equity in HE, which included providing financial support to needy students, waiving fees and minimising a digital divide among poor and affluent students via various provisions and measures.
The efforts to maintain equity in HE resulted from the DU administration’s conscious decisions and from the standpoint of HE as a public good. In Bangladeshi HE, particularly in public HE, many students come from lower-income families who potentially face financial, technological or other impediments to pursuing HE. Maintaining equity for this socioeconomically disadvantaged group is vital (Carnoy et al., 2014). On the other hand, scholars show that neoliberal economic policies and concomitant educational reforms in HE have impacted equity as a policy instrument in HE in many developing nations. Molla (2014), for example, explains how the reformed neoliberal policy agendas affect equitable policy provisions and practises in Ethiopian HE and asserts that social fairness in Ethiopian HE has been hampered in two fundamental ways. One of them is to portray inequality as a type of lack of access and a disadvantage in the nation’s human capital building. To avoid jeopardising social equity induced by neoliberal globalisation, the author finally suggested that the government play an active distribution role in developing countries where people have an economic divide. Otherwise, charging tuition may create financial hurdles for students from low-income households, who may perceive it as intrinsically unjust (Carnoy et al., 2014). In Bangladesh, maintaining equity has been a critical priority in almost all of DU’s responses to the pandemic, including the redistribution of resources such as fee reduction support to disadvantaged people during this pandemic that promoted their HE. According to Molla (2014), resolving educational disadvantages in terms of access and participation, and building a socially representative HE system, are all goals of social equity in HE. By providing students with equity and equal access to HE during this pandemic, DU has proved that it is socially inclusive as a public university and a public good (Marginson and Yang, 2021). Simultaneously, the above-reported efforts of DU can be seen as a means to ensure social justice, solidarity, tolerance, fairness and human rights in HE (Marginson, 2018) in Bangladesh. In doing so, humanity was at the centre of the equity policy of DU and its translation into action (see Molla, 2014).
Social democracy as a public good
Social democracy in different forms, including public opinion, openness, transparency, popular sovereignty and grassroots agency, is associated with public goods or common public goods (Marginson, 2011a). Democracies, as opposed to dictatorships, provide public goods at various levels, including grassroots levels (Deacon, 2003). On the one hand, the university administration’s sole decision to ask students to take examinations on campus without opening the residential halls in 2020 seems to reflect the practice of non-inclusivity, autocracy and dictatorship that does not reflect the interests of all citizens or students. On the other hand, students’ protests against this decision appear to reflect their democratic rights and agency, which the university recognised and accommodated.
In Bangladesh, universities are seen as emblems of liberty and a platform for repressed people to speak out. DU is regarded as the epicentre of every popular democracy movement (Quddus and Rashid, 2000). DU has made many decisions in negotiating with students and in responding to students’ concerns about access, safety and security during the pandemic, which can also be seen as a social-democratic practice involving inclusive social relations and open communication across the university. DU as a public good in the decision-making process seems better practised at the lower, or grassroots, administration level than at the university’s top administration level. It is also evident that DU’s decisions that were relatively less inclusive (autocratic) tend to supply fewer public consumption goods than those that were more inclusive (democratic) (Deacon, 2003).
The argument can be extended to make higher education as a whole a human right (Shama, 2022), situating it entirely in the public space and making it available for all at public expense (Carnoy et al., 2014). As DU is run with public funds, the decision about arranging exams without opening residential halls or ensuring safe and secure accommodation for its students could be seen as a violation of human rights, which has effects on students' mental health and wellbeing.
Endorsing HE as a public good in times of crisis
Dhaka University has made significant contributions to the nation, society and country from the past to the present. It has given birth to Bangladesh and established its mother tongue as the national language. It is the symbol of all the democratic, intellectual, political and cultural aspirations of the nation. Despite its massive contributions to the state, society, government and sub-Indian region, its global HE ranking may not be seen by the public as being remarkable and on par with its national and regional stature (between 800 and 1000 in Times Higher Education in 2022). We argue that such a reputation-driven ranking exercise overlooks critical dimensions of HE, particularly its public goods. In times of crisis, the significant role played by public HEIs like Dhaka University ought to be applauded and recognised more widely, beyond its national borders. This action-driven reputation ought to be acknowledged, as it is by no means less important than a mere research-focused reputation.
Specifically, since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, DU has proactively reformed a specific set of policy options and translations to establish and maintain the integrity of the online assessment and delivery of teaching and learning to ensure quality assurance, social justice and public good issues are taken into account. It is argued that formal HE assessments are seen as an essential aspect of neoliberal HE governance (Singh, 2011). In many nations where social justice campaigns against various types of inequality are waged, quality assurance is a part of HE governance systems and regulatory frameworks (Singh, 2011). The above policy reformation in HE of DU and translation helped reduce the concerns about inequality and discrimination. It also demonstrates the importance of accountability, quality and quality assurance in its educational policy pursuit of alternative socio-political and normative frames of reference (Singh, 2011).
Likewise, it has been exercising leadership in serving its immediate and wider communities via research, public health initiatives, donations and partnerships. It has also sought support from public and private sources to maximise resources for research and teaching purposes that promote collaborative partnerships focused on SDG 17.
Its concerns about student learning outcomes, equity, contributions to society and civic engagement stand above all forms of superficial reputation rankings. These very meaningful contributions are clear manifestations of public goods that serve society and the public. According to Marginson (2007), the worldwide ranking system acts as a reputation shaper, instilling competitiveness for distinction. Rankings based on reputation are the worst since they produce the fewest public goods and the most public bad. The ranking is only a public good if it serves the public and benefits everyone.
Not losing sight of HE as public goods when the public treats DU as a public tale
In many other sectors, HE in Bangladesh is undoubtedly influenced by the neoliberal economic policy that has been reflected more or less in different policy actions in the case of DU in its crisis responses during the pandemic. All in all, during this devastating pandemic, DU, as a public university in a developing country, has played a remarkable role in bringing its different stakeholders together through research, engagement and collaborations for a common cause. This paper has identified several types of partnerships at DU to respond to the pandemic. While some partnerships were between two stakeholders (e.g. teachers and students), most of the partnerships were formed among multiple stakeholders, such as the university, government, alumni and community, which is a new development of HE in Bangladesh, also seen in other Asian countries (Kumpoh et al., 2021; Oleksiyenko et al., 2021). These various partnerships together have immensely helped address many challenges caused by the pandemic so as to enable the campus to resume its on-campus operations for the 2021–2022 academic year. Importantly, the humanitarian activities taken by DU students for other students indicate that education is the common good being exercised. The public good purpose of DU as a public prime flagship university has been noted, whereby DU has evidently prepared its students for active citizenship and created a broad and advanced knowledge base through stimulating research and innovation (Harkavy, 2021).
Being the nation’s premier public and flagship HEI, the university has also been the public’s tale, as it is often under the public’s strict judgements, while its students also keep a close eye on its every move, as evident in the findings presented above. Regardless of its efforts to serve and its many actions to help counter the consequences of the pandemic for public interests, the public, particularly general people and, to some extent, students, were not sufficiently happy with those measures for a variety of reasons, including considering those measures inadequate (e.g. not focused on developing vaccines, stopping the in-house COVID test lab and delayed measures (e.g. late starts of online classes and examinations)).
Indeed, the policy decisions and execution of DU’s responses to the pandemic and to its stakeholders and the public at large were quite complex and challenging in Bangladesh’s existing sociopolitical and economic contexts, where, like the ‘daughter-in-law of a hundred families’ (borrowing a metaphor from Phan, 2008: p. 2), the university has had to negotiate with, reach out to, and please many stakeholders in the process. Like in the Liberation War in 1971, the university has again shown its public good role in bringing everyone together as one that has come forward to support students, education, community and humanity amidst tremendous difficulties and obstacles caused by the pandemic. Hence, as a public university in the country, DU is a valuable public good for public benefits and welfare in the neoliberal hegemony. It is not necessary to be privatised to serve the best. The case of the DU to response crisis could be a model for many other HEIs in many countries in this neoliberal economy.
Footnotes
Author’s Note
I state that this manuscript is original and is not under consideration or published elsewhere.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
