Professor Venkat Rao has been reelected as NLSIU Bangalore vice chancellor (VC) for another term of five years.
He was voted in for a second term around noon today by the college’s executive committee of 19, confirmed committee member Rahul Singh.
“I feel this is a God given opportunity to me to serve this institution,” Rao told Legally India. “I will strive of course to justify the confidence reposed in me and take the law school to new heights.”
He said that with the 25 year anniversary of the first national law school’s founding, he hoped to keep moving forward. “Any achievement becomes meaningless once you achieve it and people who don’t have any present would like to bank on the past.”
Rao noted that NLSIU could not afford to “let down” all the stakeholders, including alumni, and he would do everything to fulfil their “increasing expectation”.
When he was first elected into the post in 2009, Rao vowed to internationally expand the law school, which he dubbed the “Harvard of the East”, under a new advisory board of prominent corporate lawyers.
In March of last year an alumnus and temporary faculty member, Chauhan, who is now at Nalsar Hyderabad, claimed that he had been dismissed without having been given reasons after criticising Rao, and in an open letter called for a “leadership change” because of slipping academic standards.
Comments
As for the EC's decision, it just goes to show the serious defects in the governance structures of the autonomous law schools. Sitting justices and BCI members who hardly have the time and inclination to understand the inner working of the institution can easily become the rubber stamp of the incumbent VC. So now these appointments are being made on the basis of who can commission more construction and spend more money on events, while at the same time neglecting what happens inside the classroom. A sizeable section of the student body has been bought by grade-inflation and irrational spending on co-curricular activities. As an alumnus, I am really worried about the learning and prospects of current students.
Hmm.
Hmm.[/quote]
And he has the audacity to call this the "Harvard" of the East. Has this man ever visited Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong and China?
Best wishes,
Kian
Best wishes,
Kian[/quote]
an apology for a misspelling??? Are you serious Kian?
Why don't you inform us of the cozy relationship you have with Siddharth so that your news reporting can be seen in perspective.
Kian, there are often glaring lapses in your news content and often erroneous legal positions cited both by you/your team as well as people who write articles which you publish (like that research associate's piece on the Naz judgment). You dont seem to apologise for that stuff which is downright misleading but here you are jumping to say sorry for a spelling mistake.
Also, I dont like the administration in these law schools any more than you do but your reporting is manifestly biased. you publish semi-defamatory comments by the likes of Siddharth chauhan, etc. but never ask a college for their view. My guess is you're relying on the reluctance of a law school to press defamation charges against you. Would you do this if a recently-sacked associate of AMSS complained that Cyril was nepotistic, tyrannical, whimsical, rewarded suck-ups and conspired to end his career?
Didnt think so. Than why have a double standard for the law schools. Is it because Prof Venkat Rao is a little less cool than Cyril or Zia or because its more 'popular' to hate him? or because writing slanderous articles about him or allowing slanderous comments about him to be posted has little consequence for LI.
Hope to get an answer.
Here are some gems from actual facts
AMSS: For not doing enough small talk with the Shroffs at a pretentious dinner party
AZB: For not picking up Zia's calls at 3 am in the night
JSA: For parking a car in a spot "reserved" for a partner
Do let us know about anything like that in future (anonymously if you wish via the "send us a tip" button on the top right.
As for your previous comment.
1. Nice job in sneaking in your bit of Amarchand bashing.
2. I was under the impression - and law firm partners certainly are - that there are plenty of critical opinion comments, which they would and have claimed are libellous, and I don't think we censor those.
3. We do ask college VCs for their comment, but most of them are terribly media shy or, without naming names, when they do decide to comment, they just shout at us.
4. Apologising for a spelling error in someone's name is a completely different kettle of fish, unrelated to what you wrote.
Best wishes,
Kian
Your inability to see beyond a public/private ownership is as bad as your spelling, my friend
Here's a special tribute:
K Kant
T Talk
S Sense
And, ya, I am working on my spellings. But, please avoid erupting if I politely seek to correct them.
Here's a special tribute:
K Kant
T Talk
S Sense
And, ya, I am working on my spellings. But, please avoid erupting if I politely seek to correct them.[/quote]
You have many more reasons to be ashamed than my "appreciation of interface of public - private ownership" - whatever that mouthful means (which you must have very proudly come up with). I find it amusing when someone takes pride in bad spelling ..........but that's your lookout.
"The way Sidharth Chauhan was treated"
How would you treat an employee who went about circulating rebellious emails to one and all, openly instigated other employees against you, challenged your authority as boss and went above your head? Give him a promotion with a bonus or sack him?
I am not disputing with you whether or not there was a practice or malpractice about grade increase in revaluation. My simple question is whether it is fair to involve the students publicly simply because you do not agree with the practice (or malpractice). At the end of the day, it is the VC who has done what he has done, it is not your decision and you have no responsibility.
In short the boss took a call. You did not and the students did not.
Now you dont like the call for n number of reasons such as it is unfair, it goes against tradition, etc. What can you do? You can speak to the VC, officially lodge a complaint with him, and lodge a complaint to the governing council. If that also fails you can file a writ petition since it is a govt. institution (not possible if it was a private university). That is what you can do and ought to do. If all this fails resign in a dignified manner.
But why bring the students into this by circulating email to all? As far as I know students have no power over the VC or the council. Then what purpose is achieved?? And why keep publicising the issue by writing blog posts and comments on LI. Only you come across as looking bad.
As for the EC, a recent development will put things in perspective. I had the opportunity to meet a sitting SC justice who has chaired the NLSIU EC over the last two years. His explanation of my termination was that the act of criticizing a superior in 'writing' puts me on the wrong side of law and 'morality', irrespective of the contents of my criticisms. Since you seem to partly share that attitude, I can only suggest a closer reading of the Hart-Fuller debate on those ideas as well as an essay by John Rawls that emphasizes the communicative value of disobedience. Some of us don't theorize the world in binary terms or even in terms of favourable outcomes in the short-run. I might be on the losing side this time, but my position will be vindicated in the long-run.
As for the EC, a recent development will put things in perspective. I had the opportunity to meet a sitting SC justice who has chaired the NLSIU EC over the last two years. His explanation of my termination was that the act of criticizing a superior in 'writing' puts me on the wrong side of law and 'morality', irrespective of the contents of my criticisms. Since you seem to partly share that attitude, I can only suggest a closer reading of the Hart-Fuller debate on those ideas as well as an essay by John Rawls that emphasizes the communicative value of disobedience. Some of us don't theorize the world in binary terms or even in terms of favourable outcomes in the short-run. I might be on the losing side this time, but my position will be vindicated in the long-run.[/quote]
Dear Sidharth, you are obviously familiar with Hart-Fuller debate which I confess I am not. However I have over 15 years of working for various types of organisations including the government (which you do not) and now in a position of some degree of management, I can assure you that your approach was that of a bull-in-a-china-shop. It would make any boss see red instantly regardless of merits.
Students are adults, so are employees. Which successful organisation decides policies going by what employees think is best? Actually students are even more immature than employees. Just an observation from life which can tell you whether your view is right.
Also, you say you feel "duty-bound to question opaque decision-making". Where is that duty coming from? Decision to revaluate or increases marks may be a bad decision but how is it an opaque decision? Any why do you feel you have to question any decision that you do not agree with.
As long as students are aware that it is the VC who took the call and such-and-such was your view, your position is clear.
Involving students is tantamount to airing dirty laundry in public and best avoided. There is a way to criticise and that must be done with tact and through proper channels. By doing what you did you pretty much forced the VC (or any head) to terminate your services and it is the students who suffered. On the other hand the VC has got an extension so your effort did not further your cause.
My criticism of opaque decision-making was not confined to the abuse of the re-evaluation rule, which by itself is a serious dilution of academic integrity. There are other concerns about faculty attrition, the doing away of faculty meetings and improper allocation of teaching responsibilities (i.e. teachers being asked to teach subjects in which they have no background, even when alternatives were available) which mark a regression. I would urge you to get in touch with some present faculty members and students who can give you a more informed and independent view on these matters.
If possible, please return to NLS as a member of the faculty. The "collateral damage" caused by your campaign has been an irreplaceable loss of a good teacher.
Is all this really worth it? Your time will also come. Perhaps 20 years later you would be the Vice Chancellor; you should implement your entire vision when you get an opportunity.
All the best!