SOAS defends curriculum review, says leaked document has been withdrawn

The School for Oriental and African Studies University (SOAS) has responded to a piece written by Firstpost columnist Hasan Suroor titled ‘ Britain's JNU may lose its specialism: Indian languages, yoga studies face the axe at SOAS ’ on 15 October. We’ve publishing their response as well as the author’s rejoinder to it. SOAS says : We are extremely disappointed at the article published on Firstpost on 15 October carrying assertions about SOAS University of London that are without foundation. We are very surprised that the journalist Hasan Suroor failed to contact SOAS to corroborate the assertions he makes and instead merely re-quotes a SOAS student from a piece by The Observer. That article was based on a leaked document should never have been circulated and has been withdrawn.  Professor Nirmala Rao, Pro-Director (Teaching and Learning), who is leading SOAS Curriculum Review, said: “Every university reviews its curriculum on a regular basis. It is matter of good practice and is undertaken to ensure that our programmes remain relevant, attractive and intellectually rigorous, making best use of research and teaching expertise of our academics. The last such review was undertaken in 2009. The current curriculum review process is at a very early stage and consultation with faculties has only just begun, so the time-frame will be communicated in due course. “SOAS is rightly proud of our teaching and especially the multiple perspectives we bring to our arts, humanities, language, law and social science programmes. The review will enable us to protect our distinctive offering, particularly in the fast-moving and extremely competitive higher education environment. The recent launch of SOAS’ prestigious South Asia Institute is a mark of the School’s commitment to its specialisms in South Asian languages and cultures as we approach our centenary celebrations in 2016.” The author responds:  The article clearly states that the document was “leaked” and that the director Baroness Amos denied ever having sent it. It also quotes her saying that it was “only the start of a ‘curriculum review’; and no decision had been taken”. This is precisely what Professor Nirmala Rao, pro-director (teaching and learning) says in the rejoinder: “The current curriculum is at a very early stage and consultation with faculties has only begun, so a time-frame will be communicated in due course.” Neither Baroness Amos nor Prof Rao deny the existence of the document; nor do they say that it has been withdrawn. The document which I have seen and from which I quoted extensively is very much there. The director’s office declined to comment for the article and referred me to her statement reported in the British media including The Observer. Baroness Amos in an email to students and staff acknowledged that the university was expected to make between £3 to £5 million savings over the next three years and that the changes to higher education environment proposed by the government were “deeply worrying”. All through my article I have referred to the changes as “proposed” –and never claimed that a decision has been taken. The photograph confirms that the protests are still on. If there was no controversy why would there be protests?