BUET teachers

Sir. Let me correct the factual error contained In the letter "Au revoir, Architecture" by Munirul Haque (The Daily Star. May_3).

The BUET authority did not act on the basis of joint letter of resignation submitted by 15 teachers of the Architecture Deptt.. on March 15. The said joint letter of resignation was placed in the Syndicate meeting (immediate) on 16.3.98 and the Syndicate after proper deliberation passed a resolution to the effect that letters may be Issued to the resigning teachers individually asking them to let the university know by 25.3.98 as to whether the resigning teacher wanted to resign from the services of the university Wthout duress and voluntarily, nly Iwo Teachers, in compliance with the resolution of the university syndicate indicated in separate letters addressed to the Registrar and Secretary to the Syndicate that the Joint resignation letter that contained nis name and signature' was not voluntary. But the rest 13 teachers in the name of withdrawal of their resignation brought about a long list of ac cusatlons and allegations against their own colleagues and the university authority. There was hardly a word of withdrawal in that long letter (5 pages) termed as "withdrawal letter" by them.

In absence of any clear indication from them that they really wanted to retain their Job. the university Syndicate in its meeting on 26.4.1998 accepted the resignation of 13 teachers with profound regret. Could Mr Munirul Haque explain to the readers as to how better the university Syndicate distinguish between these two groups: one law abiding and the other non law abiding? Could one who knows the developments remind him that it is a gross lie and distortion of facts that resignation of these 13 teachers was accepted before the Syndi-

cate meeting. 1 can't fathom how Mr Haque could discover some childlsn logic and blatant double standard when the BUET authorities went by rules and regulations. There

is no scope to interpret it as a punitive measure. If that was so. then two teachers who were Estaying in the camp of these ag-eved 15 teachers would not ve been allowed to withdraw their resignation and restored In service. They can be taken back in service as and when the university advertises for the vacant posts. Instances are there that in the past some teachers of BUET who in defiance of the University Syndicate order overstayed in some countries outside Bangladesh were removed from the services of BUET. Subsequently when the University advertised for teaching posts and when these teachers applied they were taken back In service and some of them even became Vice-Chancellor. Even if they feel that the action has been malafide and unjust, they can go to court for redress of their grievances.

Sohel Ahmed

Banant. Dhaka

Unholy Alliance ?

Sir. on 27.4.98. the BUET Syndicate in an unprecedented and one-sided move accepted en masse resignation of 13 architecture teachers when the reason for their resignation was already removed due to an intercession by the Hon'ble PM and the Chancellor. The issue was amicably resolved in the presence of the Education Minister, Principal Secretary, Edu cation Secretary, members of the Syndicate and President of the BUET Teachers Association on 23.3.98. In light of this settlement. the 13 teachers unconditionally and categorically withdrew their decision to resign according to the instructions given to them by the Syn-

dlcate (which never asked them to submit withdrawal individually). Subsequently they reaffirmed their withdrawal once by post, twice more in writing and also verbally by meeting the VC twice, and some other syndicate members. Therefore, it came as a shock to the 13 teachers as how could a decision be based on a letter which no more existed as it was withdrawn four recorded times before the decision makers met (more than a month after the original withdrawal letter). Justifiably, the Chancellor was taken aback too by seeing that her goodwill and initiatives, and the view on the very cause, were also ignored. While most newspapers correctly and timely reflected the situation for their readers, the DS failed to cover the news on the 27th, while on 28th it published a news which concealed the above facts.

On the 29th. a photograph was published on DS front page whose caption read that it was in support of Syndicate decision about the 13 teachers. This was a partial fact as the procession was also condemning the Chancellor's request to the VC to reconsider the issue in light of the above facts. I could clearly see some of the faces that were present while the said accord of the 23rd was reached, not what the banner hidden in the picture read. In fact the Teachers Association (TA), which is supposed to serve the Interest of all its members, had already taken side without investigating or discussing the issue with tne affected parties despite repeated requests.

The architecture teachers aligning with the authority are fighting each other in the court, and have records of both academic and non-academic misdoing.

1 hope DS coverage in future would be based on facts.

A Victim

House II, Road 4, Dhanmondt RA, Dhaka 1205