Source By Ti Lian Ker

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia: When Solehah (Yaacob) made extraordinary claims, she was celebrated. When she became an embarrassment, she was tolerated. Only when her shortcomings as an academic became impossible to ignore was she finally removed.

The more important question is not why she was removed, but why she was hired, retained and tolerated for so long.

This is the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM/UIAM), an institution whose name invokes both international scholarship and Islamic intellectual integrity. How, then, did her alleged shortcomings go unnoticed? Were they genuinely missed, or were they accommodated by those in authority?

One uncomfortable possibility is that her public appeal made her useful. Like the "penglipur lara" (traditional storyteller), she could captivate audiences through confidence, drama and colourful narratives. But a university is not a theatre, and scholarship is not performance.

Institutions must distinguish entertainment from scholarship, confidence from competence, and rhetoric from evidence. Did UIAM mistake popularity for intellectual authority?

The delay also raises questions about selective standards. Why are some people disciplined swiftly while others receive years of latitude? Is the explanation political convenience, cultural protection, personal connections or reluctance to confront someone who has become too popular or useful to challenge?

Academic standards cannot depend on race, religion, popularity or whether someone says what a community wants to hear. Otherwise, what is being protected is not academic freedom but institutional convenience.

Perhaps the system did not merely tolerate Solehah; perhaps it needed her. In debates over race, identity and communal pride, there is a temptation to celebrate those who speak confidently “for the community,” even when substance and accuracy become secondary. The question shifts from “Is she correct?” to “Is she speaking for us?”

That is precisely where a university must draw the line. A university should produce knowledge and intellectually honest citizens, not manufacture communal pride. If an argument is weak, race does not strengthen it. If a claim is unsupported, loyalty does not make it academic. Correcting error, rather than protecting it, is what truly honours a community.

Solehah’s removal should trigger an institutional audit, not merely end the controversy. UIAM should publish clear appointment and promotion criteria, require independent peer review of academic work, conduct regular performance evaluations, and establish a transparent complaints process with fixed timelines.

Any allegation of misconduct or scholarly incompetence should be investigated by an independent panel, with findings and sanctions reported publicly where legally permissible.

Accountability must extend beyond the individual. Those who approved appointments, ignored documented concerns or shielded misconduct should face formal review, with conflicts of interest disclosed and disciplinary consequences applied consistently.

External oversight, whistleblower protection and periodic audits by independent academic bodies should ensure that no staff member is protected by popularity, identity or institutional connections.

The real danger is not that there was one Solehah, but that others may still be tolerated behind closed doors. UIAM and Malaysian higher education must choose between rewarding performance and rewarding the appearance of authority.

Without transparent standards, independent review and consequences for both misconduct and institutional negligence, claims of academic integrity are merely slogans.

The test is simple: universities must produce scholars, not celebrities with titles and they must be accountable when they fail.