Editor,
The recent spate of letters which appeared in your esteemed daily, with the sole objective of maligning the Principal and teachers of a reputed Institution that has done pioneering service to uplift the women of Meghalaya and North-East as a whole, is in very poor taste and may have been incited by people with vested interests. Beyond doubt, the College has been rendering valuable service in educating and moulding the minds and personalities of the young women of the region. That is one of the few colleges that does not demand high cut-off percentages for students to gain admission in this and also gives special provisions to the students from economically challenged and regionally backward backgrounds. In this respect, it is unfair to attempt to drag the good name of such College to the mud for trivial reasons. In 2011, this College was Reaccredited with an A grade by National Assessment and Accreditation Council, Bangalore. This feat could not have been achieved if not for the selfless dedication and commitment of the Principal, Teachers and Non-teaching staff of the College. Therefore, to vehemently insinuate that the College has failed in performing its duties and responsibilities is absolutely false and fabricated. Moreover, such letters can have drastic effects on the future and well- being of the women of the region as this College has been playing a prominent role in the field of education since its inception.
It may be mentioned here that the Principal of this College initiated and organized a Parent-Teacher- Head Meeting at the start of every academic session with all classes of all streams being offered by the College. The Principal had never stayed away from such meetings. Obviously the aggrieved parent had not attended the meeting. Apart from this, the Principal has been playing a key role in a host of productive activities of the College. Also, the silence of the teachers may be explained by the fact that they never had difficulty as far as accessibility to the Principal is concerned. To believe otherwise is therefore very regretful. Possibly, it may have been sheer coincidence that the parent failed to meet the Principal because she was attending to duties that was required of her to leave the premises.
Yours etc.,
Aiom Phyrnai
Via email
II
Editor,
Apropos the letters dated 3rd and 4th August on St Mary’s college, as a senior faculty member, I feel the need to respond to the problems faced by the “unlucky parents” who do not know the manner in which an institute functions or in simple words, the inner intricacies. Paradoxically they noticed the ‘invisibility’ of the Principal but failed to notice the ‘visibility’ of two Vice- Principals, conscientiously discharging their duties and attending to issues of the college. If the Principal is not working, how is the college functioning? If they do not know about the procedure of approaching the college office say by writing an application or by fixing an appointment then they can sleep in their ‘tent’ outside the office for months together without any result. It is ridiculous that for three years the parents could not manage to meet the Principal.
Such complaints usually come from those students and parents who look for extra favours for e.g., coming after due date or something is very much wrong with their daughter’s performance, and are not entertained by the Vice- Principals who strictly follow college rules. Most of such parents keep a last hope to desperately meet the Principal if she could be convinced. Possibly those are the parents who missed principal-teacher-parent meet citing excuses and remain ignorant about rules and regulations. Every authentic case is taken up seriously and effectively discharged. There are persons who want to be entertained any time of the year when door of other colleges are closed for them .Why and how St. Mary’s should entertain such cases?
So far as teachers are concerned, S Dasgupta has wrongly justified the points. As teachers, our primary duty is academic welfare of students and self. A Board of management deals with administrative matters. Our contact with Principal directly or through Vice-Principals is cordial, functional and strictly in accordance to the prescribed official norms. Please do not teach us our duty and also do not attempt to instigate the teachers who very well understand when to remain silent and when to act upon. Lastly, we have a doubt yet to be proved as evidence that the letters were not written by parents but someone in disguise with vested interest.
Yours etc.,
Dr Saifun Nessa
HOD Sociology,
St Mary’s College