From strict discipline to change: The evolution of gender segregation at Sathyabama University – The Hindu

Report on Gender Segregation Practices at Sathyabama University and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction

This report examines the long-standing policies of gender segregation at Sathyabama University, a deemed-to-be university in Tamil Nadu, India. A recent anonymous complaint filed with the Lokpal regarding these practices has brought renewed attention to the institution’s rules and their impact on student well-being and development. The university’s policies are analyzed in the context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with a particular focus on SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being).

2.0 Institutional History and Policy Origins

The institutional culture of strict gender segregation was established under its founder-chancellor, Jesuadimai Pangu Raj (Jeppiaar). The policies were framed as a measure of “strict discipline” and were enforced through comprehensive surveillance across the campus. These historical practices created significant barriers to achieving gender equality and fostering an inclusive educational environment.

2.1 Historical Policies Under the Founder-Chancellor

• Complete segregation in all university spaces, including classrooms, corridors, canteens, and transportation.
• Penalties for any form of interaction between students of different genders, including greetings.
• Constant monitoring by designated staff on each floor and block to enforce segregation.
• Involvement of parents to enforce compliance, often leading to suspensions or public humiliation for rule violations.

These foundational rules directly contravened the principles of SDG 5: Gender Equality by institutionalizing discrimination and limiting opportunities for collaborative learning and social development.

3.0 Current Policies and Evolving Campus Norms

Following a change in leadership in 2016, some of the stricter regulations have been relaxed. Students report that interactions in common areas like canteens and corridors are now permissible. However, key segregationist policies remain in effect, indicating that the institution has not fully aligned with the objectives of providing an inclusive learning environment as outlined in SDG 4: Quality Education.

3.1 Persisting Segregation Practices

1. Classroom Seating: A mandatory segregated seating arrangement is enforced, with female students required to sit in the front columns and male students in the columns behind them.
2. University Transportation: Gender segregation is mandatory on university buses, where students of different genders are not permitted to sit together, even if seats are available.
3. Informal Discouragement: Students report that teaching and non-teaching staff sometimes question or discourage prolonged conversations between male and female students.

While some students have normalized these rules, others express that they create discomfort and discourage academic interaction, thereby failing to meet the standards of an effective and inclusive learning environment (SDG Target 4.a).

4.0 Socio-Psychological Impact and Expert Analysis

The enforcement of rigid gender norms has significant long-term social and psychological consequences for students, impacting their well-being and future professional readiness. These impacts undermine progress towards several SDGs.

4.1 Expert Findings on Gender Segregation

• Reinforcement of Gender Bias: According to Dr. Pragya Rashmi, a Senior Consultant Psychologist, such policies reinforce gender bias rather than ensuring safety. This is a direct obstacle to SDG 5: Gender Equality.
• Hindrance to Professional Development: Students educated in segregated environments often experience discomfort and hesitation when collaborating across genders in their professional careers. This lack of “soft skills” can impede their ability to secure decent work and contribute to economic growth (SDG 8).
• Negative Impact on Mental Health: The complaint of “mental distress” and the general awkwardness reported by students highlight a negative impact on student well-being, which is contrary to the goals of SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being.
• Failure to Develop Empathy: A lack of meaningful interaction prevents students from developing empathy and a genuine understanding of different perspectives, which is crucial for building peaceful and inclusive societies (SDG 16).

5.0 Conclusion: Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

The policies at Sathyabama University, both past and present, demonstrate a significant misalignment with the core principles of the Sustainable Development Goals. While some progress has been made, the persistence of gender segregation in key areas poses a direct challenge to the achievement of a holistic and equitable educational model.

• SDG 5 (Gender Equality): The policies constitute a form of institutionalized gender discrimination, preventing the full and equal participation of all students in academic and social life.
• SDG 4 (Quality Education): The segregation in classrooms and buses fails to provide an inclusive and effective learning environment, hindering the development of essential social and collaborative skills.
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): The reported mental distress and social discomfort resulting from these rules are detrimental to student well-being.
• SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The practice perpetuates and institutionalizes inequality between genders within an educational setting.

To align with global standards for higher education and contribute positively to the SDGs, it is imperative that the university administration re-evaluates and dismantles its remaining gender segregation policies to foster a truly inclusive, equitable, and supportive environment for all students.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • The article focuses on Sathyabama University, an educational institution. It discusses how policies of gender segregation and surveillance impact the learning environment and the social development of students, which are crucial aspects of a quality education that extends beyond academics.

2. SDG 5: Gender Equality

   • The central theme of the article is gender segregation, a practice that reinforces gender stereotypes and limits equal opportunities for social interaction and development. The article explicitly states that such policies “reinforce gender bias, not safety” and create “hostility between genders,” directly connecting to the goal of achieving gender equality.

3. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • The article mentions that a student filed a complaint alleging “mental distress” resulting from the gender segregation policies. This directly links the university’s environment to the mental well-being of its students, which is a key component of SDG 3.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 4: Quality Education

   • Target 4.7: “ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including… gender equality.” The article highlights how segregation prevents students from developing essential social skills for collaboration. An alumnus notes, “we lost a bit of individuality because we were not used to interacting with the opposite gender.” A psychologist adds that without interaction, students “do not learn to understand or empathise,” which are skills necessary for promoting gender equality.
   • Target 4.a: “Build and upgrade education facilities that are… gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.” The article describes an environment that is the opposite of inclusive, with “rigid gender segregation in classrooms, corridors, staircases, canteens and even on university buses.” A student mentions that this segregation “has created discomfort between male and female students,” indicating it is not an effective or inclusive learning environment.

2. Under SDG 5: Gender Equality

   • Target 5.1: “End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.” The policy of gender segregation is a form of discrimination that institutionalizes separation based on gender. The article details how students could be “penalised for a greeting, a handshake, let alone forming friendships across gender lines,” which is a discriminatory practice limiting personal freedom and social development.

3. Under SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • Target 3.4: “promote mental health and well-being.” The article directly connects the university’s policies to this target by citing an anonymous complaint from a student to the Lokpal, “alleging gender segregation in classrooms and resulting mental distress.” This shows a direct negative impact on the mental well-being of students.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicators for SDG 4 (Quality Education)

   • Existence of gender-segregated spaces and policies: The article provides a clear indicator by describing the rules for “separate seating arrangements” in classrooms and on buses. Progress could be measured by the reduction or elimination of these rules, as seen in the easing of restrictions in “canteens, corridors and stairways.”
   • Student perception of the learning environment: The article implies this indicator through student testimonials. One student states the segregation “makes classroom interaction feel awkward and discouraged,” while another sees no problem. Tracking student opinions on inclusivity and comfort would measure the effectiveness of the learning environment.

2. Indicators for SDG 5 (Gender Equality)

   • Prevalence of institutional rules that discriminate based on gender: The core issue discussed—the enforcement of rules preventing inter-gender interaction—serves as a direct indicator. The article notes that while some rules have eased since 2016, others, like classroom seating, remain. The number and strictness of such rules are measurable indicators.
   • Reported ability of students to collaborate across genders: The article implies this through an alumnus’s reflection: “When I went on to work in other universities, I realised what we had missed… boys and girls sit together, discuss, work as a team.” The ability of current students to engage in academic and cultural programmes together, as mentioned by a final-year student, can be seen as an indicator of progress.

3. Indicators for SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being)

   • Reports of mental distress linked to campus policies: The complaint filed with the Lokpal citing “mental distress” is a direct, albeit qualitative, indicator. The frequency of such complaints or feedback from students regarding their mental well-being in relation to campus rules could be used to measure progress.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: thehindu.com