Universities can't just stand by while their lecturers turn TV debates into shouting matches—this crisis is eroding the very foundation of higher education!
Imagine a world where the experts we're supposed to trust for thoughtful insights are instead hurling insults on live television. That's the alarming reality Professor Stephen Kwaku Azar, a respected legal scholar, is highlighting in his recent call to action. On November 16, 2025, he posted a powerful message on Facebook, urging universities to step up and tackle the rising trend of academics getting into heated, unproductive clashes on radio and TV shows. These outbursts, he warns, aren't just embarrassing—they're damaging the reputation and integrity of our educational institutions, potentially turning public discourse into a free-for-all of noise over substance.
Prof Azar points out a broader cultural issue in our society: politics and debates have become dominated by quick insults that spread like wildfire, often outpacing meaningful ideas. Academics, trained to value clarity, evidence-based reasoning, and disciplined discussion, are meant to be the beacons that lift conversations to a higher level. Instead, when they dive into ugly altercations on live broadcasts, it sets a terrible example and drags public debate down. 'When lecturers abandon the values of clarity, evidence, and discipline and instead engage in ugly altercations on live television, universities cannot pretend it is 'not our business.' It is very much their business,' he emphatically states. It's a wake-up call for institutions to recognize that their staff's media appearances reflect directly on them—especially when those scholars are introduced with the university's name under their titles.
But here's where it gets controversial: How do we balance academic freedom—the right for scholars to speak their minds without fear—with the need for responsible behavior in public? Prof Azar argues that universities have a duty to enforce civility and professionalism, but some might say this smacks of censorship or stifles open dialogue. What if demanding 'restraint' limits passionate debates on critical issues? It's a tension worth unpacking, as it touches on the core of what universities stand for.
Delving deeper, Prof Azar outlines ten compelling reasons why universities should be deeply concerned about these incidents. First, there's the obvious reputational harm: an institution's brand suffers when its professors are seen brawling like reality TV stars, making it harder to attract top talent, students, or funding. For beginners in higher education, think of it like this—reputation is everything in academia; a stellar school might lose its shine if linked to scandal, much like a trusted brand damaged by a product recall.
Second, it erodes public trust in universities as neutral spaces for learning and discovery. When academics prioritize personal vendettas over facts, it undermines the public's faith that these institutions are places of unbiased knowledge. Third, it politicizes academic environments, turning classrooms and research halls into battlegrounds rather than havens for exploration. Fourth, these behaviors set a poor example for students, who might mimic this lack of decorum in their own lives—imagine young minds learning that shouting wins arguments instead of logic.
Fifth, it exposes weaknesses in institutional governance, revealing gaps in codes of conduct that should guide staff interactions. Sixth, such confrontations can deepen polarization among faculty, creating divisions that hinder collaboration and innovation. Seventh, they discourage thoughtful scholars from participating in media, fearing backlash or embarrassment, which silences valuable voices. Eighth, it signals a broader loss of 'moral and intellectual anchors' in society, where restraint and professionalism are fading. Ninth, without action, it risks worsening the overall deterioration of public discourse in the country. And tenth, it challenges universities to uphold their role as stewards of quality conversation, not contributors to a culture of insults.
To illustrate this, Prof Azar references a notorious example: the ugly on-air fight between Prof. Gyampo and Dr. Domfeh on national television (watch it here: https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/Watch-the-ugly-fight-between-Prof-Gyampo-Dr-Domfeh-on-national-television-2009673). This incident, he says, epitomizes the problem—raw emotion overtaking reasoned exchange, and it's not unique, as similar clashes pop up regularly.
Interestingly, this ties into broader political debates, like the recent exchange between Ato Forson and Amin Adam (read about it here: https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/If-it-was-that-simple-why-didn-t-you-do-it-Ato-Forson-hits-back-at-Amin-Adam-2009674), where quick retorts overshadowed substantive discussion. Prof Azar uses this to emphasize that academics must rise above such pettiness to model better standards.
And this is the part most people miss: While he champions academic freedom, Prof Azar insists universities must also promote responsibility. Institutions should create clear frameworks for public engagement—think detailed guidelines on maintaining civility, accuracy, and professionalism, complete with consequences for violations. For instance, universities could require media training for staff or establish review boards to oversee appearances, helping protect both individual scholars from backlash and the universities' credibility. This proactive approach, he believes, would foster a healthier media landscape, encouraging academics to contribute positively without fear of institutional abandonment.
In wrapping up, Prof Azar reminds us that the academy's true mission is to elevate national conversations, not fuel the cycle of insults. By taking charge, universities can reclaim their role as pillars of informed dialogue.
What do you think? Does demanding professionalism from academics infringe on their free speech rights, or is it a necessary safeguard for society's well-being? Do you agree that universities should intervene, or are these personal matters? Share your thoughts in the comments—let's debate this and explore how we can better balance passion with respect in public discourse!
