Women in Sri Lankan State Universities – III

An adapted version of the keynote
delivered by Prof. Dinesha Samararatne
at the International Women’s Day celebration
organised by the Centre for Gender Equity and Equality for the University Grants Commission,
15 March, 2024.

(The second part this article appeared on 27 March, 2024)

Substantive equality means equality of opportunity, not only equality of access. In our context, having access to higher education is equality of access and being able to make informed and free choices based on your university education about your life and being able to enjoy the opportunities that come with such qualifications, would be substantive equality. I would like to make 3 specific points about substantive equality here. They relate to inclusion and progress for women within university, beyond university and in relation to our different disciplines.

On substantive representation within universities, consider the participation of women in student union activities in different faculties. I do not have the overall data for this but common experience suggests that this is an area that tends to be dominated by male undergraduates at the leadership level. At my own Faculty, men are approximately 10-12% in the student body but are more than 90% in the student union and it has been this way for more than two decades.

On substantive representation beyond university CHART 9 reminds us of the notable gap not just between men and women in the labour force, but how the data seems to change overall when we compare the number of women within university with women in the labour force. As we know, if we look at women in politics, the problem is much more serious. In my own field, law, this issue is quite pressing.

Women far outnumber men as law students but are rare to find in positions of leadership in the profession or in the judiciary. The data on enrolment to the legal profession in CHART 10n show that women enter in much greater numbers. However, research has shown that women become less and less visible in positions of leadership and authority.

On having a substantive impact within a discipline, let me draw examples from my own discipline. One of the notable gains made in the last few years is that the Sri Lankan Supreme Court has recognised that sexual harassment in the workplace violates a woman’s right to equality (Manohari Pelaketiya v Secretary, Ministry of Education SC/FR 76/2012, SC Minutes 28 Sept 2016 and Corea v Sri Lankan Airlines SC Appeal No 91/2017, SC Minutes 2 Feb 2024).

It is interesting to note that even though Sri Lanka accepted CEDAW in 1981, it is only in 2016 that our Supreme Court relied on CEDAW to interpret our right to be free from discrimination. In contrast, academic research, policy intervention and state appointed committees have, for a while, revealed the need to reform Sri Lanka’s personal laws, vagrancy laws and other aspects of criminal law, public law, land law and family law to ensure that the law protects women’s substantive equality. However, that research and evidence-based call has not yet resulted in substantive law reform. Although proposals have been made for over two decades, to date, we do not have an enabling law to give effect to CEDAW in our domestic law.

The reasons for some these gaps are not unknown. Surveys and studies have shown that perceptions about gendered expectations in the family is a key factor that influences women to stay away from certain types of work or to stay away from work altogether. But what are the factors that prevent women from enjoying substantive equality within university and how can we advance the opportunities to advance substantive equality within our disciplines? It is time that these questions concern all of us and we work towards addressing the problem in a more systematic way.

If we take the view that respect for human dignity is essential and that society must be committed to advancing human flourishing, we have to respect the right of all persons to enjoy substantive equality and ensure that higher education in Sri Lanka offers substantive equality in terms of opportunity. Of course, such commitment must be accompanied with the openness to critically reflect and question these concepts. It is only when we engage with the question of substantive opportunity in this way, that we can consider the question of substantive equality of outcomes.

The commitment to realising substantive equality is essential for thinking about investment and accelerated progress for women in higher education. Today we concern ourselves with women, but this obligation extends to any person or group that is being left behind, is excluded or is being discriminated against, intentionally or unintentionally.

Let me turn finally to what we can do to address this grand puzzle. I would like to suggest that if we are to think about Investment and Accelerated Progress during Crises for women in Sri Lankan universities, we cannot but prioritise the substantive inclusion of women in higher education. I will speak to four areas that could concern us.

These four areas require the adoption of an orientation of respect for human dignity, commitment to human flourishing and therefore to the substantive inclusion of women. You may note here that cultivating this dispensation is not a question about allocation or availability of funds, but rather about the value commitments that we chose to make as a community.

Administrators can review and revise their day-to-day practices and policies on this basis so that decisions, whether they relate to student admission, infrastructure development or policies on workplace conduct, will be undertaken on the basis of this commitment. Here, I think it is time to systematically review the policy on admission of undergraduates with disabilities to our streams of study. As per the UGC Handbook students with disabilities are admitted to state universities to study Arts, Commerce, Biological Science and Physical Science under special provisions.

The number of students admitted under this scheme 2010 to 2022 is provided in CHART 11. But for streams such as Law, Medicine or Engineering students with disabilities are required to compete along with everyone else for admission. I cannot go into this today but I do think there is a strong link between ensuring inclusion for persons with disabilities to these Faculties on a special basis and about ensuring representation of the lived experience and needs of persons with disabilities in these fields.

We know that even ensuring physical access for persons with disabilities to built environments in Sri Lanka has been a serious challenge. But when we remind ourselves that students with disabilities are not present in places where we study engineering or architecture, we perhaps begin to see why this is such a challenge.

Therefore, I do think that it is past time we revisit this policy and engage in a robust review, taking all views and needs into consideration along with Sri Lanka’s responsibilities to respect the dignity and rights of persons with disabilities. Let me note here that Sri Lanka has ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and that our Supreme Court, in 2011 and in 2019 strongly affirmed the obligation on state actors to ensure respect for the rights of persons with disabilities.

Sexual harassment in higher education whether in the classroom, canteen or in the staff common room is another area in which we have made some progress, but where we still have a long way to go. Our energies should focus both on prevention of sexual harassment and on offering meaningful remedies and closure for victims of sexual harassment among us.

Academics can reflect their commitment to investment and accelerated progress for women in several ways. If we agree with the approach to investment and accelerated progress that I laid out today, it should affect our disciplinary engagements. How will the way we teach plant science or forensic medicine or history or Artificial Intelligence change if we consider women and women’s lived experiences as substantive and significant? In my own field, taking account of lived experiences of women led to significant changes in the law.

One example is the recognition of a battered woman’s syndrome in criminal law and another is the compulsory legal provision of maternity leave. However, there is much more work to be done at the normative, doctrinal levels and at the level of practice in advancing substantive equality for women in my own discipline. In my view, respect for human dignity, commitment to human flourishing are substantive concerns and should not be seen as limited to ‘soft skills’ or confined to the diversity and inclusion push that we see in many parts of the world today.

Academics and administrators should further utilise engagement as means for advancing the university’s commitment to investment and accelerated progress for women. Over the years and across the disciplines we have had inspiring examples of robust engagement by academics with communities including with communities of practice. In the legal field, Emeritus Prof Savitri Goonesekere easily comes to mind as a law academic who was able to bring together legal norms and doctrine in conversation with lived experiences of women to routinely offer robust critiques of the law – nationally but also at the international level.

Emeritus Prof Kumari Jayawardena is a similar example from Political Science. Her academic work is steeped in practice and lived experience all the while paying close attention to the politics of positionality and the academic disciplinary demands of objectivity. Dr Rajini Thiranagama is an example of an academic who paid the highest prize for living the life of a public intellectual, fearlessly critiquing those who abused power.

There are many other similar examples. It is through this synthesis of firm commitment to one’s discipline that is matched with openness to and engagement with different communities within and outside the university, that we can meaningfully think about investment and accelerated progress, particularly in a society where crises are normalised. I think we should avoid the trap of limiting engagement to partnerships and collaborations with other institutions, private sector, professional bodies etc and think more broadly about the university as an open space for engagement across the spectrum of society – from the CEO to the farmer to the unemployed and the homeless.

Time does not permit me to go into detail about the general conditions that are necessary for the approach that I have advocated thus far. If we are to meaningfully consider investment and accelerated progress for women in higher education, I think respect for academic freedom and institutional autonomy is a prerequisite. The right to dissent must be respected in the classroom and all levels of decision making in higher education. A journey towards the truth cannot be made, if we cannot question the status quo, whether it be in relation to teaching, research, administration or engagement.

Let me conclude by revisiting the individual stories I shared with you at the beginning. How would the lives of these women have changed if they could benefit from the kind of vision that I have suggested for investment and accelerated growth? Recall that in each of those stories, the women had access to higher education and completed their studies. Let me suggest some alternative outcomes for them, if they had the opportunity to enjoy substantive equality. Geetha who had an illegal abortion, would have had access to health care services in a society which did not criminalize abortion.

Sarala who was born with a physical disability and acquired more disabilities due to the war would have thrived at university because it was an accessible environment and she would have found suitable employment beyond university. Savitri who left academia in Sri Lanka – may have remained and persevered because she felt supported by institutional policies and governance.

Jeya, who regrets not being able to ensure accountability for the sexual harassment she experienced would have been able to seek remedies for the same and had closure. Jayani would have flourished in her work as a cleaner at university and enjoyed dignity of labour. Rani would feel supported at university to continue her studies and not feel guilt about not conforming to gender stereotypes about motherhood.

The alternative life outcomes I have suggested reminds us that for meaningful investment choices and for planning for inclusive accelerated progress for women in Sri Lanka’s universities, there is a fair amount of work yet to be done.

I acknowledge feedback I received from some of my colleagues on a draft of this talk and thank Ishan Kuruwita Arachchi for assistance in collating the data. The charts were developed for the limited purpose of presenting overall trends. The views expressed are solely of the author.

Dinesha Samararatne, Professor, Department of Public & International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka.