We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
People, you do know that this is how good universities work? Or is this also such a newsflash? (I suspect not, as there are clear indications of bias in the OP's comment - "one thing he was doing right".) Faculty come and go (some on research leave, some for parental leave/other extenuating reasons, others (in the Indian context in particular) who haven't obtained doctorates to go and obtain them, some for careers elsewhere, either at other universities or even in other sectors). And you do know that moving institutions in established Higher Education sectors (e.g., UK) is considered to be a good thing? Don't believe me? Look at the criteria of the Leverhulme Trust for Early Career Researchers and other academics in Britain. Those criteria clearly say that they view moving institutions (unless certain specific exceptions apply) as a good thing.
It is the job of a good university to attract new and equally good (if not better) faculty than the ones who have gone (either temporarily or permanently).
God, anything for a hitjob on Sudhir. Even if the guy leaves the country and returns to Oxford, Buckingham or Columbia (or goes to some other non-Indian institution), the trolls of Legally India won't have done with him. Sudhir, oh Sudhir, why did you go back?
Yes people leave and move universities all the time. And yes people are leaving to do other things. But many are making the choice to move on instead of going on leave very much because of the place NLS is.
Just because some people over-criticise Sudhir on this website doesn't mean all criticism of him is misplaced.
And early career folks who have just joined who want research leaves? It's quite silly the ask itself. You do need to invest in an institution somewhat before asking the institution invest in you. And even when these research breaks are granted no real research comes out of it. Everyone comes back to India with a foreign degree and puts on airs of being a great researcher- few of them are.
I will concede the last: I do not think administrators who haven't taught a day in their life should have many jobs at the university. Most of the university should be run by faculty; hiring management people and administrators leads to fee inflation and it leads to jobs where people aren't really contributing as much as they take away.
I know why Sudhir went this way, because asking faculty to take on administrative work makes them unhappy and they will use it as an excuse not to research or write. But there is a balance to be struck there. Maybe not every job should be done by faculty- maybe someone running your Twitter/ website should be an administrator. But student welfare officers and wardens and people engaged in disseminating research should be academics and preferably professors. I also doubt that university needs the HR/ people and function department. senior faculty should hire other faculty and you need one person to do the paperwork basically- that person can just be the registrar or his assistant. NLS doesn't need some admissions team doing advertisements and such. They have a decent reputation anyway, the registrar's office on its own can handle most of that stuff. There is fat to be trimmed there.
And I think Sudhir might have gone down the American law school model uncritically on this without thinking through what happens to universities when administrators come in between students and faculty. And how they might be incentivised to keep tensions going so they keep their job. And how this role might cause distrust both among faculty and students.
Who is whining that they should be allowed to come and go as they please without doing their work? The leaves policy does not even cover such things. Faculty are only asking that study leave for PhD and sabbatical leave for research, which ugc itself provides for and other universities also provide for, should be restored.I agree with the administrators point with you and OP, but I see you are silent on his behaviour towards colleagues. That's very telling. You are either OK with being treated that way or you don't face the brunt of that kind of behaviour becuase you are his buddy. I have seen him shout at a former Vice Chancellor over a disagreement on policy. I have seen him berate colleagues because they voiced an opinion he did not like. The one good thing is that he is indiscriminate about his bad behaviour because he treats students, staff, senior and junior faculty equally badly.....
Oh but of course, the complaints redressal forums are also involved in the huge conspiracy! The Chancellor is Sudhir's... what? Tennis playing buddy? Drinking buddy? Sorry, I am confused about what the exact nuts-and-bolts of the conspiracy are, forgive my vagueness. Oh, how like Trump and the MAGA rioters of January 6 you sound!
How you ever got the opportunity to teach at the country's best law school is, as a P.G. Wodehouse character beautifully says, a matter into which "we shall not enquire".
Sabbaticals and research leaves are earned. Sudhir needs to explain to the EC why he is keeping people on the payroll who aren't turning up to teach and he needs to convince them that they are a worthy investment for the university. He doesn't shy away from doing that- but if you have only been teaching at the university for less than two years- that is a very difficult sell.
I also don't find the faculty whinging about research leave credible because NLS places the least amount of teaching load on faculty across universities in India. You have to do one a term, Jindal makes you do two- or two sections, all other NLUs make you do at least two courses maybe more if they have a need. In contrast, NLS faculty are teaching half the time. And they produce so little good research despite all that. Where is all of that extra time going? are people even producing a paper a year? If you don't build that reputation and show that you're sincere about research in that way, I wouldn't fault Sudhir for not going to bat for them.
I don't really care that Sudhir doesn't walk around handing out sweets and hugs. Part of being an adult with a job is to sometimes have confrontational conversations with your colleagues and being able to handle being challenged. Is he berating people for having an opinion? or is he arguing with them about a difference of opinion? those are different things. I have had disagreements with my boss, and that doesn't cause me to be traumatised or want to paint myself as a victim. I have often won arguments with my boss and he isnt victimised by that either. Thats just how working in organisations goes- you will disagree with other people and you will have arguments. If you cannot handle the heat you should probably get out of the kitchen.
Believe me, I have had experience of a British law school, and there's no 'American law school' pathway about this. That place is full of admins, a number of whom don't need to be there. I think Sudhir's way of thinking at this point (because of the way law schools in other countries have done it) is that if Britain and U.S. law schools have made it in the competition for the international rankings to where they are now (whether that competition is worth it is a very important debate, but too large to be within the scope of this discussion), then the best in India should also go down that pathway.
At the same time, just two points about faculty workload/administrators:
1. I am a bit surprised, honestly, that you would suggest an SWO kind of a job for a faculty. Wouldn't it be better for someone who has received perhaps training in mental health crisis management or mediation or whatever to do that job? It just seems like an unnecessary addition to the workload to me. Faculty's job is to teach students and contribute to the knowledge in their field by producing original research. It just looks like a weird thing to have in the job description. Seems to me like it would reduce the faculty's ability to do all parts of their job properly. I would also say that as things become more equitable with, for example, more disabled students accessing higher education than ever before, you need to respond appropriately with staff who are trained and experienced in handling their adjustments. A professor would know about equality law, maybe, but would she be able to read a Specific Learning Difficulty diagnosis (or have the bandwidth/scope to assist a student through the minefield of getting one) and say whether 15% or 25% extra time on exams was appropriate for a dyslexic student?
2. NLS is trying to admit foreign students. Don't you think they may need to do some outreach work for that?
I don't think universities have the competency or legitimacy to help students having mental health crises. When universities get involved in that things only get worse. I think the best that universities can do is offer time off for students suffering from severe mental health problems and allow them to return after they've recovered after they've had care by proper mental health professionals and with their families. University just isn't a hospital. And it fails at being one when you make it one.
Think of it like physical illness. You can go to the university nurse for help with a cold or a scraped knee or something small. But would you really take your diabetes or cancer problem or your PCOS to her and then be upset when she isn't able to take care of it? Wouldn't your health problem get worse because you're entrusting it to someone who doesn't have the resources training or competency to deal with your illness? I think the best thing universities can do is have immediate response on campus and tie up with existing hospitals for insurance and direct any students experiencing mental or physical illness to those hospitals.
Even for disabled students. When an administrator makes the judgment call about how much extra time or other kinds of accommodations need to be made- they only consider the needs of the student independent of how the course or evaluations are structured. And they might not even do that- they might just be looking for easy fixes that would appease students and avoid further complaints. They mostly just hand out extra time right? And that's a terrible one size fits all approach. A wheelchair user doesn't need extra time they need to be able to get into the classroom. A blind student doesn't need extra time, they need audio software and they need course materials to be in accessible formats. A student with time blindness or ADHD doesn't usually need extra time- what they might need help with is better planning their work and more check ins holding them accountable in the research process ( for term papers for example). An administrator is incentivised to just resolve these matters with extra time because they aren't invested in the student's long-term success, nor are they interested in course objectives being met. I have heard of instances in other universities where professors were asked to hand over notes to students as disability accommodation when there was an open-book examination. The whole idea is ridiculous.
I think faculty should do the job because they have a real relationship with the student that is not based on clientelism. They are invested in the students succeeding long term and are invested in courses being taught well. They are able to work with students to make sure disabled students meet course objectives rather than lowering standards. And allowing faculty to work with students on these problems brings about more trust and transparency in the university than appointing a manager, which undermines trust and, authority, and transparency. I think there could maybe be a committee of students and faculty to handle tougher cases, and there should be some sort of appellate process, but by and large, I don't think administrators who don't teach and haven't taught have a role to play here. I think by appointing administrators, faculty are washing their hands of the difficulties of teaching students with diverse needs, and students are incentivised to seek as much leniency as they can get without worrying about what might be fair and what might allow them to learn. The administrators first priority will be to keep their job. thats what managerial classes do.
I think it is completely fair to pay faculty doing these administrative things a higher salary and training them to do it well. But I think its vital that the person/ persons who play the SWO role be an academic teaching at the university.