The recent news report regarding a professor named Md. Irfan Alam of Satyawati College (Morning), University of Delhi, allegedly clicking photographs of a female student wearing a backless dress in an examination hall is deeply disturbing. The matter is currently under investigation, and the facts will ultimately be established by the competent authorities. Nevertheless, the incident raises important questions about professional ethics, teachers' conduct, and the larger responsibilities associated with the teaching profession. As a teacher myself, the news compelled me to reflect not only on the conduct of an individual but also on the broader culture of higher education and the role we play in shaping the lives of young people.
It has been more than nine years since I entered the teaching profession. I joined Shyam Lal College, University of Delhi, initially as an ad-hoc faculty member and have been serving as a permanent faculty member since 2023. As in most cases, teaching was never part of my original career plan. I came to Delhi and joined Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) with the sole purpose of preparing for the Civil Services Examination. Like many young aspirants from different parts of the country, I saw Delhi as a destination for pursuing a dream of joining the civil services. However, life often takes us in directions we do not anticipate. My association with Delhi University gradually introduced me to the world of teaching, and over the years, I have developed a deep affection and respect for this profession. Today, I consider teaching not merely a means of livelihood but a vocation that carries immense social responsibility.
This responsibility becomes particularly significant because most colleges of Delhi University cater primarily to undergraduate students. In the Indian higher education system, undergraduate education remains the broadest level of academic participation. Almost every student who enters higher education begins with an undergraduate degree. As one moves to postgraduate studies, the numbers begin to decline, and at the level of doctoral research, only a small fraction of students remain. Consequently, undergraduate classrooms represent the most important site of intellectual and social formation in higher education. Those of us who teach at this level, therefore, shoulder a unique responsibility. Although we are university teachers by designation, in many respects our role resembles that of senior school teachers because we engage with students who are still in the formative stages of their personal and intellectual development.
Most undergraduate students have only recently completed their schooling and entered college life. They stand at the threshold between adolescence and adulthood. This phase is characterised by enthusiasm, curiosity, emotional fluctuations, experimentation, aspirations, and a strong desire to establish one's identity. Young students often believe they know more than they actually do. They may attempt to impress their peers, attract the attention of the opposite gender, challenge authority, or occasionally test the patience of their teachers. Such behaviour is not unusual. Indeed, most of us who are teachers today have passed through similar phases in our own youth. Recognising this reality is essential if we are to become effective educators.
For this reason, I have always believed that a teacher must carry within themselves the heart of both a mother and a father. In most families, one parent is often perceived as stricter while the other is more nurturing and affectionate. Both roles are necessary for healthy growth. Similarly, teachers must know when to be firm and when to be compassionate. There are moments when discipline is necessary and moments when empathy is more important. The art of teaching lies in maintaining a delicate balance between authority and affection. A teacher must guide without intimidating, discipline without humiliating, and correct without alienating. Unfortunately, in the incident referred to above, what appears troubling is that the teacher himself seems to have behaved in a manner more befitting an immature undergraduate than a responsible educator. If such allegations are proven, it becomes a matter of serious concern because it undermines the trust that forms the foundation of the teacher-student relationship.
The incident also compels us to revisit a larger and often neglected question: who educates the educators? In India, considerable attention is devoted to the training of school teachers. Those who aspire to teach at the primary and middle school levels undergo specialised programmes such as D.El.Ed. or equivalent teacher-training courses. High school teachers are generally expected to complete a Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) degree before entering the profession. These programmes are designed not merely to impart subject knowledge but also to provide training in pedagogy, classroom management, educational psychology, ethics, and student engagement.
However, when it comes to higher education, the situation is markedly different. A person completes a postgraduate degree, qualifies for the National Eligibility Test (NET), appears before a selection committee, and becomes eligible for appointment as an Assistant Professor. Subject expertise is undoubtedly important, but teaching requires much more than disciplinary knowledge. It demands emotional intelligence, ethical awareness, mentoring abilities, communication skills, and a deep understanding of student psychology. One may be an outstanding scholar and yet not necessarily an effective teacher. This distinction is often overlooked in discussions about faculty recruitment and professional development.
Therefore, I believe we need to seriously deliberate on the existing framework of teacher preparation in higher education. The one-month Faculty Induction Programmes (FIPs), Faculty Development Programmes (FDPs), Orientation Programmes, and Refresher Courses conducted through online platforms certainly have their utility. However, in many cases, they have become procedural requirements to be completed for career advancement rather than transformative exercises in professional development. The challenge is not merely to provide certification but to cultivate professional values and pedagogical competence.
Perhaps a more rigorous and structured system should be introduced during the probation period of newly recruited Assistant Professors. The first year of service could include intensive training in pedagogy, ethics, classroom management, counselling skills, gender sensitivity, student engagement, and institutional responsibilities. Such training would not only strengthen professional competence but also help inculcate the values expected from educators entrusted with shaping future generations.
The question of recruitment also deserves serious consideration. At the school level, teacher recruitment is subject to multiple layers of evaluation. Candidates often complete D.El.Ed. or B.Ed. programmes, qualify for Teacher Eligibility Tests (TET) or Central Teacher Eligibility Tests (CTET), and subsequently appear in competitive recruitment examinations conducted by state governments or educational boards. In contrast, recruitment to higher education institutions largely revolves around postgraduate qualifications, NET, and interviews. While the existing system has produced many outstanding teachers, there is certainly scope for exploring more robust and transparent mechanisms of selection.
In this context, one may consider the possibility of establishing a National Education Service on the lines of the Civil Services Examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission. Such a system could bring greater transparency, standardisation, and accountability to faculty recruitment while also elevating the social prestige of the teaching profession. The objective would not be to create additional bureaucratic hurdles but to ensure that those entrusted with educating future generations possess both academic competence and professional aptitude.
Another aspect that often prompts reflection is the issue of professional appearance and conduct. Sometimes I observe the manner in which certain teachers present themselves and wonder whether they see themselves primarily as educators or as participants in a fashion exhibition. While every individual enjoys personal freedom, teachers must remain conscious of the influence they exert upon students. Education is not confined to lectures and textbooks. Students observe how we speak, dress, behave, and interact with others. Every aspect of a teacher's personality communicates values.
I firmly believe that the way I present myself leaves an impression on the formative minds of students. Professionalism in appearance and behaviour reinforces professionalism in the classroom. When teachers conduct themselves with dignity and restraint, students are more likely to respond with respect and seriousness. Professional conduct, therefore, is not a matter of personal vanity but an essential component of educational responsibility.
At the same time, discipline should never be confused with punishment. Every teacher encounters students who are careless, inattentive, irregular, or struggling with personal challenges. Correcting such behaviour is undoubtedly part of our duty. We may occasionally need to scold students or adopt a firm stance. However, there must always be limits. Education is fundamentally an act of guidance rather than domination.
The experiences students gain during their college years remain with them throughout their lives. Long after they have forgotten specific lectures or examination questions, they often remember how their teachers treated them. They remember the teacher who encouraged them when they lacked confidence, who offered support during difficult times, and who believed in their potential. Conversely, they may also remember experiences that caused humiliation, fear, or resentment.
As teachers, we therefore possess an extraordinary opportunity to influence society indirectly through our students. If we treat them with affection, empathy, fairness, and respect, they are likely to carry those values into their professional and personal lives. If we misuse our authority or fail to uphold the ethical standards expected of us, we risk creating lasting damage not only to individual students but also to the credibility of the teaching profession itself.
The recent incident should therefore be viewed not merely as an isolated controversy involving one individual but as an occasion for collective introspection within the academic community. It reminds us that teaching is not simply about transmitting knowledge. It is about nurturing character, inspiring confidence, and creating an environment in which young people can flourish. The future of society is shaped not only in legislatures, courts, and government offices but also in classrooms. Teachers occupy a privileged position in that process. With that privilege comes responsibility, accountability, and the obligation to uphold the highest standards of professional conduct.
The question before us is simple yet profound: are we merely teaching subjects, or are we shaping human beings? The answer to that question will determine the future of our educational institutions and, ultimately, the future of our society.
