Equal competition or special privilege?

• Dhaka University admission

Dr. Mahruf Chowdhury

A nation’s future does not depend only on natural resources. It depends on how well a nation develops its talent. History shows that nations built social and institutional systems where merit, hard work, and ability formed the basis for progress. These nations led the world in science, arts, business, economy, politics, and culture.

Societies that let privilege, social status, or class position influence competition faced a different outcome. Talent could not grow properly in these places. The overall strength of the state suffered as a result.

British sociologist and left leaning politician Mr. Michael Young (1915 to 2002) warned about the dangers of a merit based system in his famous book The Rise of the Meritocracy (1958). Still, he agreed with a basic principle of modern democratic states. The state must build a system where opportunity stays open to everyone and the rules of competition remain the same for all.

Merit becomes real social power only when it earns recognition through open competition. This question has gained new importance in Bangladesh’s recent political reality after the fall of authoritarian rule. The July uprising of 2024 carried a strong message against inequality and a demand for equal opportunity.

In this context, the discussion about separate question papers for English medium students at Dhaka University admission tests raises a bigger issue. This is not simply an administrative decision. It touches the state’s sense of justice, the philosophy of higher education, and the historical role of Dhaka University.

Dhaka University holds a special place in Bangladesh’s state structure. People see it as a kind of social contract. Understanding this history helps explain why the university means more than just a place of learning.

The university was born during colonial rule as a result of a historical agreement between the state and the people of East Bengal. After the partition of Bengal in 1905, the people of East Bengal demanded better representation and access to higher education. When the partition was reversed in 1911, political unrest followed.

The founding of Dhaka University served partly as a remedy for that unrest. The idea of social justice remained tied to the university from its very beginning. The university was built not for the privileged but for those who had historically been left behind in education.

In this sense, Dhaka University became an institution of social mobility. For more than a century, it gave children of farmers, fishermen, laborers, small traders, and lower middle class families a path to higher education and social progress. Given this history, a question naturally arises.

Should an institution founded to reduce inequality now adopt a policy that creates a new kind of inequality? After the uprising, the debate between equal opportunity and special privilege has become central to public discussion. Modern political philosophy draws a clear line between these two ideas.

Equal opportunity means the door to competition stays open for everyone, and success depends on merit. Special privilege means giving extra advantage to a group because of its identity or background. The idea of separate question papers at Dhaka University admission tests raises concern for this reason.

This plan divides applicants not by merit but by their medium of education. A university should see every applicant simply as a candidate for admission. It should not matter whether a student comes from an English medium, Bangla medium, mainstream, technical, or madrasa background, including Aliya or Qawmi madrasas.

The only thing that should matter is who is most prepared, most capable, and best suited for higher study in their chosen field. German philosopher Mr. Immanuel Kant (1724 to 1804) said that justice requires applying the same standard in similar situations. If a university sets different standards for different groups for the same admission process, this basic principle of justice comes under threat.

American philosopher Mr. John Rawls (1921 to 2002) argued in his book A Theory of Justice that inequality becomes acceptable only when it benefits the least advantaged people in society. In Bangladesh’s context, this raises a real question. Do English medium students belong to a group that needs special support?

Data shows that English medium education, both local and foreign curriculum types, remains the most expensive and elite form of schooling in the country. Students in this system usually enjoy stronger language skills, international curricula, better technology, and wider global exposure. Exceptions exist, but policy should reflect the overall pattern, not the exceptions.

Viewed through the lens of social justice, special support should go to marginalized and underprivileged students. It should not go to a group that already enjoys strong economic, political, cultural, and educational advantages. French sociologist Mr. Pierre Bourdieu (1930 to 2002) showed that education does more than transfer knowledge.

It also reproduces social power. Language skills, social networks, cultural confidence, and international exposure passed down through families create what Mr. Bourdieu called cultural capital. This cultural capital gives certain students a head start in university admissions and job competitions.

In Bangladesh, this connection between English medium education and cultural capital is hard to deny. Creating separate advantages at a public university for a group that already holds more cultural capital makes the question of social justice even more complicated. The state’s job is to level the playing field, not to push those already ahead even further forward.

The most common argument for separate question papers is preventing brain drain. This argument mostly serves as a public relations move. It wrongly links the brain drain problem to a lack of admission opportunities in higher education.

The real goal behind giving special treatment to English medium students appears to be expanding the market for this type of education. Another goal seems to be securing political control over higher education through student and teacher politics tied to political parties, using special privilege for children of the so called elite class. Giving special admission advantages to English medium students for these political and class interests would be a harmful and mistaken step.

We must understand that brain drain is fundamentally a structural problem. Its roots lie in political and administrative irregularities, corruption, and lack of accountability across all sectors. Limited research infrastructure, lack of international standard research opportunities, corruption and favoritism in the domestic job market, politicization of education and administration, the global job market, better living standards, and economic opportunities all push talented people abroad.

The format of a university’s admission question paper does not drive the flow of international student migration. If Bangladesh truly wants to reduce brain drain, it should focus on hiring talented people as teachers, increasing investment in research, expanding international cooperation, creating a favorable environment for researchers, and improving academic standards at universities.

Giving special admission arrangements to students of a particular stream has become a moral question for post July Bangladesh. We must not forget that the July uprising of 2024 was not only about a change in political power. It was a question of justice, dignity, and equal opportunity.

The core message of that movement was that the state does not belong to any privileged group. The state belongs to all citizens. The same principle must apply to higher education in order to ensure equal opportunity for admission to the country’s top universities.

A public university keeps its moral standing only when it applies the same rules of competition to everyone. It must treat merit, not any other identity, as the sole basis for admission. Dhaka University authorities now face a question about the ethics of this social contract.

This decision will carry consequences that shape history. Dhaka University is more than a university. It is part of Bangladesh’s social imagination and part of the machinery of the state. Its history is the history of ordinary people.

Its success reflects the success of social mobility. Its moral strength lies in its commitment to merit. English medium students should certainly study at Dhaka University. They should compete with students from all other streams and succeed.

But that success should come through equal competition, not through special privilege. In a democratic state, a university’s main duty goes beyond selecting students. It must send society a moral message.

The message should say that admission opportunity remains equal for students of every stream. Recognition, however, must come only through one’s own merit, hard work, and ability. Today, Dhaka University faces one clear question.

Will it protect the founding vision of its hundred year history and its tradition of social justice as a university of the people? Or will it set a precedent of giving special privilege to a particular stream of students, at the cost of the country’s mainstream students in higher education?

The writer is a visiting faculty member at the University of Roehampton, United Kingdom.