The standoff over the appointment of the vice-chancellor (VC) of Chittagong University of Engineering and Technology (CUET) has become more than an administrative dispute. It raises serious questions about the authority of university administrations, the dignity of academics, the limits of student protest, and the present government’s ability to implement its decisions.
If a VC is prevented from entering his workplace for weeks, and if reports that his electricity and water connections were cut are substantiated, the matter goes beyond ordinary campus dissent.
A university cannot function properly if administrative decisions are challenged through prolonged blockades rather than transparent institutional procedures.
The allegations deserve scrutiny, and the university community deserves a clear account of what has happened.
Dr Sheikh Shariful Islam was appointed VC by an order issued in the name of the president and went to CUET to assume his responsibilities. He is also a former student of the university. His appointment can be questioned, and students have every right to demand transparency.
However, if there are specific allegations against him, they should be made public and examined through appropriate procedures. Preventing an administrator from entering his workplace is not a substitute for evidence, due process, or accountability.
One of the most striking aspects of the controversy is that the previous VC, Dr Sayem, whose reinstatement is reportedly being demanded by protesters, was also appointed by the BNP government.
Why, then, is one appointment accepted while the other has triggered such prolonged resistance?
The difference may have an explanation, but it should be stated clearly and supported by evidence.
If the objection concerns administrative performance, protesters should identify the specific failures. If it concerns irregularities in the appointment process, evidence should be presented.
If the dispute is rooted in political affiliations or rival interests on campus, that too should be examined openly. Questions have been raised about the former VC’s political associations and alleged closeness to a particular political group.
Such claims should be investigated impartially, not treated as established facts. The same standards must apply to both the former and current administrations.
There is also a broader concern: Whether any political group is using the banner of ordinary students to advance its own interests.
That is a legitimate question in a politically-contested campus environment, but it cannot be answered by speculation or labels. Credible evidence is needed.
Student movements can be genuine expressions of grievance while also being vulnerable to political influence. Recognizing that possibility should lead to scrutiny, not assumptions about every participant.
The reported length of the standoff raises another difficult question. Why has a VC who reportedly served for only 56 days become the focus of such an intense confrontation?
What specific grievances have made a prolonged blockade necessary, and why have those grievances not been resolved through a transparent process?
The number of days served does not, by itself, prove that the protest is unjustified. It does, however, make a clear explanation of the dispute all the more important.
The government should not dismiss student concerns simply because an appointment was made under its authority. Nor should it allow pressure alone to determine whether an appointed official can perform his duties.
These principles are compatible: Investigate credible complaints, publish findings where appropriate, protect peaceful protest, and ensure that campus administration can function under established rules.
This is why CUET has become a political test for the government. If prolonged blockades are allowed to become an effective way of forcing administrative decisions, similar confrontations could emerge at other public universities.
The risk is not that every campus will repeat the same events, but that groups elsewhere may conclude that sustained pressure is more effective than formal complaints and institutional procedures.
The government’s responsibility is therefore twofold. It must provide students with a fair and credible channel to raise concerns, while also protecting the right of university officials to carry out their lawful responsibilities.
If the appointment process was flawed, the government should address that through the proper process. If allegations against the VC are not substantiated, it should explain why the appointment stands and take lawful steps to restore normal university operations. Neither force without scrutiny nor concession without evidence will resolve the underlying problem.
Universities should not be controlled by any political party, and no administration should be immune from criticism. But neither should a group be able to claim a veto over institutional decisions by keeping a campus in deadlock.
Academic freedom includes the freedom to question authority; it also depends on rules that protect students, teachers, and administrators from coercion.
The CUET controversy is about more than one appointment. It asks whether public universities in Bangladesh will be governed through evidence, institutional rules, and accountability, or whether administrative decisions will increasingly be shaped by blockades and organized pressure. The government’s response will help determine which precedent is set.
A credible investigation, transparent communication, and a lawful resolution are the way forward. The government must demonstrate that it can uphold institutional rules without suppressing legitimate dissent.
That is the real test. Not whether the government can win a confrontation, but whether it can ensure that universities remain places where disputes are resolved through evidence and due process rather than intimidation.
SK Arman Hossain is a policy analyst and a graduate student of public policy at the University of Erfurt, Germany. Views expressed are the writer’s own.