Dr. Amitadi (Dr. Chatterjee) Professor, Philosophy Department, Jadavpur University. Kolkata. (Ex Vice Chancellor of Presidency University). Dear Dr. Chatterjee, Good Morning to you from New Mexico, USA. First of all, thank you for standing by the students of Jadavpur University (JU) at a crucial time and thank for your stance that the Vice Chancellor of JU, Dr. Abhijit Chakravarty, ought to submit his resignation at this time. I cannot but take this opportunity to share a small person note for all who are reading this letter. You have been one of the best teachers and a strong ally in my academic life. And, as usual you sat in the front row during my lecture on “Feminist Methodology’ in Jadavpur School of Women Studies in 2013 summer lending a strong moral support to me; this is what, I thought, a Socratic teacher is, he or she is a lifelong ally. Now, I wish to make several points arguing why I support the resignation of Dr. Abhijit Chakravarty as the Vice Chancellor of JU. I shall start with the Aristotelian notion of a virtuous human being. Virtue, according to Aristotle, is not a natural thing like passion, but a state of character that one acquires through hard work in a flourishing polis. According to Aristotle, we are born with passions, for example, anger, but we acquire virtue, that is, we learn how to control anger and how much anger to show at the right moment in the right amount. Further, according to Aristotle, a virtuous human being is one who knows the mean between the two extremes, excess and deficiency; for example, while rashness is an excess and foolishness is a deficiency, bravery is a “mean” and hence a virtue, for Aristotle. The excellence of a human being is for Aristotle to be a virtuous human being and this is a quality that all leader must possess in order to lead the polis or any institution. Now, let me apply this to the case of the present Vice Chancellor of JU and I shall show he has exhibited behavior that is not virtuous and has hence lost the moral standing to be the leader of a institution. I do not know Dr. Chakravarty personally and hence I cannot make a comment on him as a person or as a human being. Instead, I shall make some arguments to show that he has not acted virtuouly and is hence no longer qualified for the position of a leader in an institution. First, as I was not present in all the incidents of that led to the events of students protests and subsequent police attack after the midnight of September 16-17, 2014, so I may be missing some details; nonetheless, empirical knowledge gathered from all kinds of media and oral stories and using some deductive logic I can say with high probability that usually students do not act (and I am assuming that we all act according to our self interest, even if Adam Smith is not fully correct) in such manner or take such extreme measures unless the situation is really aggravating; probably, had there been a dialogue prior to this date, this would not have reached this point. The process of dialogue and rational negotiation has to be started with the leader by including the “other” (whether it is citizens or students in this case). This is the first point where the leadership of Dr. Chakravarty seems to me to be unvirtuous, for by cutting off dialogue he acted in deficiency and hence unvirtuously. Second,, following from the first, the problem started when students’ grievances were not taken very seriously and a dialogue was not initiated by the leader of the institution. To avoid or ignore requests from students is to engage in a virtuous act. The leader of a polis, an institution, or a nation has the same moral duty as a physician, whose primary interest is the best interest of the patient. I am reminded of Socrates who would say that the leader and teacher is the physician of the psyche (loosely translated as “soul”) who leads the students (or the masses) out of ignorance (the metaphor of disease or illness can be evoked here) to light (Plato’s Allegory of the Cave). Third, a virtuous leader most of all shows patients and the courage to understand the “other.” The incident after the midnight of September 16-17, 2014 shows that Dr. Chakravarty acted in excess by bringing in the police force instead of trying a sustained dialogue with them. Fourth, a virtuous leader must, at all time, exhibit restraint and the humility to acknowledge error. Dr. Chakravarty did neither nor did he write any reflective piece anywhere explaining his actions or his excesses. Considering that Dr. Chakravarty acted both in deficiency and in excess, I would conclude that he acted unvirtuously and hence has lost the moral standing to lead an institution. I support you Dr. Chatterjee in your demand and stand by the protesting students and would request Dr. Chakravarty to reflect on his actions for the past month and step down with dignity. Thanking You, Sincerely, Rinita Mazumdar, Ph.D Central New Mexico Community College, Philosophy & Culture Studies. Affiliate Professor, Women Studies, University of New Mexico.
Posted on: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 05:06:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015