Disciplinary Action Against 231 Dhaka University Teachers Draws Concern from a Canada-Based Human Rights Organization

❐ BD Digest Desk

Canada-based human rights organization Global Justice Network Foundation has expressed deep concern over the initiative to take disciplinary action against 231 teachers of Dhaka University recommended by the syndicate. In a statement, the organization said that the initiative may violate the fundamental principles of academic freedom, freedom of expression and fair trial.

According to the statement, a group of pro-government teachers recently submitted a list of 231 teachers to the Dhaka University Syndicate, accusing them of supporting the former government and harboring anti-July sentiments, recommending disciplinary action against them.

A four-member committee has been formed to investigate these allegations, led by Vice-Chancellor Professor Niaz Ahmed Khan, which also includes Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Administration) Professor Saima Haque Bidisha, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) Professor Mamun Ahmed, and Syndicate Member Professor Morshed Hasan Khan.

The Global Justice Network Foundation notes that all four members are widely believed to be associated with the current ruling class.

According to the organization, this could raise fundamental questions about the impartiality and procedural fairness of the committee. The statement said that when allegations are raised by a specific political or ideological group and the investigation is entrusted to a committee consisting of people associated with the same political ideology, then questions naturally arise about gaining the trust of all parties involved.

The organization says, “Justice must not only be done, it must also be visible that it has been done.”

The statement further said that Dhaka University is governed by the Dhaka University Ordinance 1973, which guarantees teachers academic freedom, freedom of expression, and the right to hold and practice different political beliefs—even the right to participate in active political activities.

In light of this legal and institutional framework, supporting a particular political party or government, or disagreeing with a particular political movement, cannot in itself be considered misconduct. Such beliefs and affiliations are protected as long as they are not associated with a violation of law, breach of university rules, or demonstrable harm to others.

The organization says that the majority of the 231 teachers listed have not yet been publicly charged with any proven criminal charges or specific institutional misconduct. Rather, allegations of behavior “contrary to the spirit of July” appear to rely on broad and vague descriptions, without clear legal or disciplinary definitions.

The statement warned that using such vague and subjective criteria as the basis for disciplinary action risks undermining the principles of due process, legal certainty, and natural justice.

The Global Justice Network Foundation emphasizes that any disciplinary process must be based on clearly defined offenses, credible evidence, and strong procedural safeguards, including the right to full defense and representation of the individuals involved. Otherwise, there is a risk of setting a precedent where academics face institutional punishment not for misconduct but for holding a different political ideology than those in power.

The organization also notes that beyond the legal and procedural concerns, the consequences for affected teachers are serious. Leaving individuals exposed to prolonged investigation, public scrutiny, and fear of punishment in the absence of specific and demonstrable wrongdoing can cause significant damage to their reputation, professional standing, mental health, and finances.

The organization said such an outcome is extremely worrying for a university community committed to intellectual pluralism and academic freedom.

In the final part of the statement, the Global Justice Network Foundation says that this issue is not primarily a matter of support or opposition to any particular government, political movement, or ideology. Rather, it is a question of protecting the essential principles of a democratic university, such as academic freedom, freedom of expression, institutional impartiality, due process, and equal protection under the law.

The organization warned that deviations from these principles risk weakening the foundations of an independent and free university.