Ducsu’s mandate is student representation, not administration

The one-year tenure of the Dhaka University’s apex student body, the Dhaka University Central Student Union (Ducsu), has come to an end, and the office bearers have shown eagerness to hand over power to their successors through an election. Their readiness is evident in the list of activities they published, in which they claimed to bring in sponsorship and donations, both local and overseas, worth Tk 40 crore against the official allocation of Tk 35 lakh. In any normal circumstances, the efforts they put in to develop the campus would have been laudable. However, their actions remain questionable as they tried to create a parallel system where they went beyond their mandates to launch a website for teacher evaluation, install a memorial without taking permission from the university authorities, and bring in external funding without routing it through the university’s official accounts.

As a student body, Ducsu has every right to voice student demands and insist on transparency and accountability. But the ordinance under which the organisation operates, with the vice-chancellor as its president, does not allow them to become an alternative administration within the university.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

This is why we cannot view the teacher evaluation portal sponsored by Ducsu in isolation. Evaluation of teachers by their students is a standard practice. Since teachers assess students through assignments, examinations and presentations, students should also be able to comment on course design, classroom engagement, assessment practices, and academic support. Different DU administrations over the years have piloted the teacher evaluation system but could not make it functional. The failure has caused understandable frustration among students. The current administration promised that they would employ an approved institutional evaluation mechanism from the 2026-27 academic year. Ducsu leaders couldn’t wait and launched the “DU Teachers’ Evaluation” portal as if to expose the university’s failure. Of course, the delay in incorporating student evaluation as a quality assurance tool deserves criticism. Per the OBE curriculum, which DU is in the process of implementing, evaluation is an integral part. But this administrative failure does not transfer authority to Ducsu.

A professional evaluation must maintain institutional protocols, and it requires an approved policy, authenticated academic data, confidentiality, and a mechanism for improvement. Students entered the portal using their university-issued emails and evaluated teachers in their departments. But the system was not connected to course registration records or the university’s learning management system. Thus, there was no guarantee that the endorsers had been taught by teachers they were evaluating. Such a system creates opportunities for organised rating, personal retaliation, and ideological mobilisation.

Academic evaluation should identify strengths and areas for improvement. The public ranking exercise should not expose teachers to ridicule, harassment, or factional targeting. No doubt, I have seen private group messages where teachers are talking about publicising student viva performances or error-ridden exam scripts in response to the unauthorised evaluation.

Unfortunately, the DU’s moral authority is compromised by its failure to launch its evaluation system in time. This is a poor reflection on the efficiency of our public system as many private universities in the country have integrated evaluation into their academic administration decades ago. There is an established LMS for students to evaluate only the courses and sections in which they are registered. Evaluation usually takes place before the final exams, and teachers receive the performance indicators after they have submitted the results. Individual ratings are not published as public scorecards. Department heads, deans, academic affairs offices, quality assurance units, and teaching-learning centres review the findings to decide whether certain teachers need counselling, classroom observation, mentoring, training or revision of course design. Repeated concerns can lead to administrative actions. The system is developmental before it becomes disciplinary.

The academic culture verifies any bias within the system. Ducsu’s evaluation does not have any such safeguards. The initiative is criticised because it lacks verified course enrolment, confidentiality, professional interpretation, and a defined pathway for improvement. I am bringing in the private university comparison to highlight that evaluation works when it is embedded within university governance. A disconnected portal can gather opinions, or maybe even gain some cookie points for Ducsu. But it cannot ensure academic quality assurance.

The portal would have caused a limited dispute had Ducsu not used it as a parallel benchmark to challenge the DU authorities, as is evident in their other activities. The university administration has objected to the installation of the “Nirbhik July” memorial in addition to the official monument. More significant questions have arisen over Ducsu’s involvement in infrastructure development. Ducsu leaders have claimed that while the university provided approximately Tk 35 lakh, projects undertaken during their term involved around Tk 40 crore, much of it received as external support. These funds were spent for the renovations to the university medical centre and mosques, air conditioners for hall reading rooms, a women’s gymnasium, repairs to residential halls and sports infrastructure.

On paper, they are socially beneficial projects. However, the one-off donations that funded these projects don’t have provisions for recurrent expenditure. Questions also remain over the source of funding, procurement scrutiny, financial recording, asset registration, and engineering approval. Ducsu leaders were reportedly unable to provide a complete breakdown of the claimed Tk 40 crore fund. Ducsu treasurer said he lacked information about much of the external support and did not possess details of the donors, the value of donated products, or the items supplied. Some sponsors allegedly bought and installed equipment directly, meaning that money did not pass through Ducsu’s official accounts.

There is nothing inherently improper about receiving support from local or foreign agencies, development organisations or diplomatic missions. Universities across the world depend on such partnerships. The issue is whether it was received through a legally recognised, transparent and auditable process. We have seen reports of assistance coming from the Chinese, Turkish and American governments. Since Dhaka University is a state-run university funded by the taxpayers, the public has every right to ask which institutions provided such assistance. Was it given in cash, equipment, construction services, or technical support? Were formal agreements signed with DU? Which university office approved those agreements? If donors implemented projects directly, who selected and supervised the contractors? Who will pay the operating and maintenance costs?

These are questions of public accountability, not allegations of criminal wrongdoing. Student bodies are training grounds for the real world. Our student leaders, once they graduate, will have to join the workforce, where they cannot simply repeat what they have done here.

Ducsu occupies an important place in Bangladesh’s political history. It should remain a powerful platform for student representation, democratic debate, cultural life, and resistance to administrative indifference. Reducing it to ceremonial activities would be a mistake. Ducsu must work alongside the university administration to ensure better food, safer halls, improved transport, protection from harassment, responsive medical services, and accountable teaching for the student body. It may mobilise students when the authorities fail to act. What it should not do is create an alternative chain of command.

The danger of dual administration is not simply bureaucratic confusion. It obscures responsibility. If there’s fire from a faulty AC installed without authority or proper inventory, who will take responsibility? There is also a political danger. Student leaders understandably want visible achievements during their short tenure. The temptation to demonstrate that Ducsu can act faster and more decisively than the administration can turn governance into a contest of political performance. A university cannot function through such competitive populism.

The response from DU must be swift and decisive without engaging in a battle for prestige. Simply prohibiting Ducsu initiatives will not resolve the administrative failures that allowed them to emerge. The university should introduce its approved teacher evaluation system without any delay. It should also establish a transparent approval framework for externally supported student projects. A joint DU-Ducsu coordination committee should be formed to distinguish advocacy, consultation and oversight from executive administration. Finally, both sides must accept their corresponding responsibilities. A strong Ducsu is better for a strong DU. The first must complement the second, not compete for public attention.

Dr Shamsad Mortuza is vice-chancellor at the University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh (ULAB).

Views expressed in this article are the author's own. 

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.