The recent controversies involving a medical student at Mumbai’s KEM Hospital and a corporate employee from Gurugram have triggered animated debates about free speech, humour and professional conduct. The discussion has largely centred on whether institutions should discipline individuals for remarks made outside the classroom or workplace. An equally important question has received far less attention: what do these incidents reveal about our education system?
Every year, universities and professional colleges celebrate the number of graduates they produce and the jobs they secure. The emphasis is on employability, technical competence and industry readiness. Worthy goals, indeed. But they leave little room for another equally important responsibility in education: helping students develop ethical judgement, empathy and an understanding of their professional and civic responsibilities.
When graduates fail to recognise why certain remarks diminish human dignity, the problem cannot be reduced to simply a moment of poor judgement. It raises important questions about what they have learned over years of education.
Let us consider the controversy surrounding the Mumbai student first. Critics argued that remarks about cadavers made during a stand-up comedy performance showed a lack of respect for people who had donated their bodies to medical science. Cadavers are, indeed, remains of individuals whose final act was one of generosity. And respect for human dignity is one of medical profession’s ethical foundations.
The institution’s concern is therefore understandable. Society places enormous trust in doctors. Patients expect medical professionals to combine knowledge with compassion and technical skill with ethical responsibility. Professional education cannot ignore these expectations.
The larger question, however, is also why conversations about professional values often begin only after a controversy erupts. Institutions often respond with disciplinary action once public criticism gathers momentum. Worryingly, our educational system appears far less interested in sustained conversations about ethics before such incidents occur.
This reflects a wider problem. Professional courses are increasingly focused on technical knowledge only. It’s the most essential component, for sure. But that focus leaves little space for ethical reasoning in the curriculum.
Students may attend a few lectures on professional ethics or sign codes of conduct during orientation. Such exercises rarely shape attitudes or habits. Ethical judgement develops only through continuous engagement with real situations, difficult conversations and thoughtful reflection. That process requires time and institutional commitment.
The digital world has made this educational gap even more visible. Every public remark can now be shared and judged by millions within hours. Students enter professions where their public conduct increasingly shapes public trust. Professional identity no longer ends after working hours. Universities know this reality. But very few prepare students for it.
Digital citizenship is an essential life skill. Students need to understand the permanence of online communication, consequences of public speech and responsibilities that accompany professional identity. They also need opportunities to discuss the boundaries between humour, criticism, disagreement and disrespect.
The Gurugram incident also demonstrates the same challenge in a different setting. A comment made during an audience interaction eventually cost an employee his job. The incident again raised questions about where professional accountability should end and personal freedom begin.
It must be noted that institutions have a responsibility to uphold professional standards. They also have a responsibility to act fairly. There is an important difference between poor judgement, ethical misconduct and criminal behaviour. Responsible institutions must recognise those distinctions rather than responding only to public outrage.
Here’s where education plays an important role again. Students should understand that freedom of expression carries responsibilities. They should also understand that institutions must respect due process and proportionality when dealing with alleged misconduct. These ideas strengthen both democratic values and professional integrity.
Interestingly, many universities proudly describe themselves as centres for ‘holistic education’. The phrase appears in mission statements, accreditation reports and admission brochures. Holistic education requires institutions to engage seriously with questions of ethics, public responsibility, digital behaviour and human dignity throughout a student’s educational journey. This responsibility extends beyond professional colleges. Schools also have a role in developing respectful communication, empathy and responsible citizenship, too. These values cannot be introduced during a professional ethics lecture in the final year of university.
The challenge is to strengthen the moral and civic dimensions of Indian education. Technical excellence alone cannot sustain public trust in professions that serve society. The recent controversies should become an opportunity for reflection rather than merely punishment.
Let us remember: professional accountability begins in the classroom. Universities can only produce professionals worthy of public trust if they treat ethics, empathy and responsible citizenship as seriously as technical training. This may be one of India’s most urgent educational reforms today.
John J Kennedy | Former Professor and Dean, Christ (Deemed) University, Bengaluru
(Views are personal)