The controversy surrounding Tasneem Siraj Mahboob, an associate professor in the English Department at Dhaka University, and a student wearing a niqab points to a pathology of digital outrage. It shows how swiftly social media platforms can turn an incomplete account of a campus incident into a definitive moral verdict.
Before the facts are established or verified, the public assigns rigid roles. One participant is cast as the victim, the other as the villain, and subsequent information is interpreted to reinforce the chosen narrative.
The most troubling aspect of the episode is the speed with which the educator was condemned and the reluctance of commentators to reconsider their conclusions when contradictory evidence emerged. An audio recording of the exchange began circulating, suggesting a more complicated reality than the initial viral outrage indicated.
The recording suggests that the dialogue touched upon clothing and bodily covering, competing religious interpretations of modesty, and expressions of mutual discomfort and disrespect. This complexity contrasts with the polarised accounts that dominated social media.
The recording does not establish that the professor instructed the student to remove her niqab or leave the classroom. Associate Professor Tasneem has denied making such demands. She explained that she struggled to see the student's eyes during class interaction, raising questions about identification and effective communication, and argued that her remarks were misrepresented.
She has also indicated a willingness to explain her actions and address any genuine hurt caused by the exchange.
None of this proves that the professor handled a delicate situation appropriately. Nor should the absence of an explicit instruction to remove the niqab absolve her of responsibility for the manner in which she addressed the student. A teacher can make a student feel unwelcome without issuing a formal order. And this matters, particularly in a classroom where the imbalance of authority is evident.
A university teacher must be held accountable for her words and the manner in which she exercises institutional authority. If Professor Tasneem's remarks were inappropriate or humiliating, those concerns deserve examination. Accountability, however, requires establishing what happened rather than responding to the intensity of public anger.
There is also a question of whether the professor allowed her personal prejudices about religious clothing to intrude upon her professional responsibilities. A university classroom is not an appropriate place for an educator to impose her preferred interpretation of religious modesty. Whether a woman should cover her face, hands or feet is not a matter for an English professor to adjudicate while exercising authority over students.
The student's perspective deserves greater consideration. She entered a classroom to pursue an education, not to defend her clothing before her teacher and approximately 130 classmates. Even if Tasneem intended to raise a pedagogical concern, the student could reasonably have experienced the public discussion of her niqab as intrusive and embarrassing.
The right to religious expression includes the right not to have one's personal choices subjected to unsolicited scrutiny by someone responsible for evaluating one's academic performance.
There is a difference between discussing religious practices as an academic subject and singling out a student because of her appearance. The former is part of intellectual inquiry; the latter risks turning institutional authority into an instrument of personal bigotry and prejudice. If the professor considered facial visibility essential to classroom participation, she could have raised the matter privately, explained the academic necessity and explored reasonable alternatives.
Students should not have to choose between their religious convictions and their sense of belonging at a public university. Nor should teachers be denied the opportunity to explain legitimate classroom requirements. Both principles can coexist, provided professional boundaries are respected.
The university administration's decision to relieve her of teaching duties following student complaints and protests makes it imperative that any subsequent administrative action rests upon a fair assessment of evidence rather than institutional capitulation to popular pressure.
There is a broader problem in Bangladesh regarding how controversies involving women's clothing are publicly debated.
The niqab has become a symbol onto which society projects competing anxieties about religion, personal freedom, patriarchy and modernity. Some critics interpret any questioning of the garment as an assault on religious liberty, while some secular observers view facial covering as a challenge to institutional transparency and academic engagement.
Both positions can overlook the individual woman at the centre of the dispute. Defending a student's right to wear a niqab does not require endorsing the religious interpretation behind it. Equally, defending academic freedom does not mean granting professors unrestricted authority to express personal hostility towards students' religious practices.
Universities are supposed to be spaces where difficult conversations about identity and social norms can occur without descending into institutional panic or digital mob rule. If Dhaka University allows viral outrage alone to dictate its disciplinary measures, it risks compromising its educational mission. But if it dismisses the student's complaint merely because the professor disputes the allegations, it risks sending an equally troubling message about accountability.
A fair inquiry must examine both the teacher's conduct and the context of the classroom without predetermining the outcome. It should consider not only whether an explicit instruction was issued but also whether the student's dignity was respected and whether the professor's comments served any legitimate educational purpose.
Beyond the immediate administrative dilemma, this episode reveals the fragility of public institutions in Bangladesh when confronted with social media pressure. When an incident occurs within a lecture hall, the internet often demands immediate condemnation rather than careful examination.
The politicisation of attire in public spaces also forces individuals into rigid ideological camps. Women who choose to wear the niqab find themselves caught between secular suspicion and religious instrumentalisation. Rather than treating religious expression and personal choice as individual rights, the broader political culture turns women's clothing into a battleground.
To break this cycle, universities must strengthen their internal conflict-resolution mechanisms. Disputes should be handled through transparent and impartial processes that protect students from discrimination while ensuring that teachers receive fair hearings.
Justice cannot be administered by popular acclaim, nor can truth be determined by the volume of digital amplification. But due process must not become a convenient defence for educators who use their classrooms to reproduce personal prejudices. Academic freedom protects intellectual inquiry, not the humiliation of students under the cover of pedagogical authority.
Until institutions learn to uphold both principles, the work of education will remain vulnerable to the competing pressures of ideological prejudice and online outrage.
—
Adiba Hayat heads the Life & Arts section of Daily Waadaa