Flourishing academic apartheid in Indian medical Academia
In the field of medical education, it is common practice for clinical subjects to be taught exclusively by medical teachers with medical qualifications, while the non-clinical basic medical sciences are taught by both medical and non-medical teachers. As non-clinical doctors are restricted to teaching, they do not contribute to patient healthcare in society. To mitigate this anomaly in many countries, the role of non-clinical teaching is often assigned to non-medical teachers.
The appointment of non-medical teachers as Heads of Departments (HOD) in medical colleges has been a subject of debate for a long time. However, the allegations that non-medical teachers are not qualified or competent to serve as HODs in medical colleges are baseless and unfounded.
It is important to note that the appointment of non-medical HODs made prior to the notification of TEQ Regulations, 2022, should not be affected in any manner whatsoever. However, this isn't the case as there have been instances where the incumbent HODs with non-medical backgrounds have been removed from their positions and replaced by juniors or someone from the allied departments much to their embarrassment and humiliation.
The Medical Council of India's 1998 Teachers Eligibility and Qualification guidelines state that non-medical individuals may be appointed as HOD in non-clinical departments if there is a shortage of qualified medical teachers available for the position. However, there have been various attempts to change this provision and deny non-medical teachers the opportunity to become HODs.
Despite their different backgrounds, both medical and non-medical teachers perform similar roles in a medical college. The nature of both medical M.Sc and MD degrees are comparable, and both degrees are suitable for academic roles. Therefore, non-medical teachers are not handicapped in any way when it comes to fulfilling academic duties. The role of HOD is to administer the department, which anyone who has worked in the department for at least ten years would be familiar with.
There is no formal training for faculty members on how to become a HOD, and it is not a position that someone is born with the skills to undertake. Instead, individuals learn how to administer a department through interactions with their peers and senior colleagues over several years. As such, anyone who has served as a professor for a significant amount of time is capable of fulfilling the duties of a HOD.
In a department, the highest post is that of a Professor, and HODship is an additional responsibility that a Professor can undertake. If a non-medical person can be appointed as a professor, they cannot be considered unfit for the role of a HOD.
The role of the HOD is not a dictatorial one, and decisions are made in consultation with all members of the department. HODs can seek advice from their peers or superiors when making important decisions, and they can discuss matters with the college dean or management if they are unsure about what course of action to take. The role of HOD is purely administrative, and anyone who holds the position of professor is capable of undertaking it.
Interacting with other non-clinical or clinical departments is not an issue for HODs with non-medical backgrounds. Anyone who is well-versed in their subject area can provide necessary inputs to other departments. While it is true that medical graduates are better equipped to deal with issues related to the health and well-being of patients, the role of a HOD goes beyond that. HODs are responsible for the overall management and administration of the department, including academic programs, research, and collaborations with other departments. A non-medical HOD with experience in management and administration can bring valuable skills to the department.
Non-medical HODs have been working in several medical colleges for many decades without any issues. The success of a HOD comes down to the individual's wisdom, attitude, and behavior, not their background degree. The only underlying issue here is that of prejudice, where doctors who consider themselves superior to non-doctors are unwilling to take orders from a non-medical HOD. This is purely a practice of academic apartheid, and there is no rational basis for denying non-medical teachers the opportunity to become HODs.
The argument that non-medical persons cannot claim parity/equivalence with persons possessing an MD degree is flawed. This is because parity or equivalence is not solely based on qualifications but also on the skills, knowledge, and experience of the individual. A non-medical teacher with relevant experience and expertise can bring a unique perspective to the department and contribute positively to the growth of the institution.
Clinical departments may seek expert opinions from pre-clinical departments for coordination, but it is not necessary that the head of department (HOD) be consulted. Non-medical professors possess similar levels of awareness regarding the latest developments in medicine as their non-clinical medical counterparts. They have also been a part of the department for over a decade, and participate in various meetings, such as journal clubs, CMEs, mortality meetings, and clinicopathological meetings, all of which contribute to their knowledge base. HODs can always consult their peers or colleagues before providing their expert opinions.
The Medical Council of India and the National Medical Commission are both dominated by doctors, who often side with their own interests in cases of conflict. As a result, the rules and regulations surrounding non-medical teachers have been continuously altered to put them at a disadvantage. The people running these bodies often have a pathological hatred towards non-medical teachers, which is akin to the discrimination faced by minority populations in other contexts. The NMC has demonstrated bias against non-medical personnel, resulting in decisions that are often unfavorable to them. Rules have been revised to put non-medical teachers at a disadvantage. Merely because the NMC holds a statutory position does not guarantee that its decisions are always impartial and just.
Denying non-medical teachers the opportunity to become HOD is purely discriminatory and has no other rational basis. This is purely an Indian thing, as such discriminatory denials are not practiced in the West. There, the faculties with non-medical backgrounds are routinely made heads of the departments. NMC must shed this apartheid and make medical education more inclusive.
The appointment of a HOD is an administrative position and not a practicing profession. Therefore, the qualifications required for appointment to the position should not be limited to medical qualifications. NMC must restrict itself to prescribing a minimum designation of a Professor for the role of a HOD but it must ultimately be left to the college management to select the deserving person for this role.
Finally, the allegation that the scope of judicial review is limited in matters concerning academic/educational policies is not applicable in this case. The appointment of a HOD is an administrative position, and any appointment that does not adhere to the principles of meritocracy and fair play can be challenged in court.
