We were once resident students at the University of Dhaka. During those years, we witnessed repeated student demands for extended hall gate hours – often driven by practical necessities, such as studying late at the public library, attending academic activities, or working part-time to support their education. But the present frustration goes far beyond the question of a few extra hours. At its core, it raises fundamental questions about equality, opportunity, autonomy, and the way institutions. Even the state defines boundaries that disproportionately restrict women.
Female students have passed the same admission tests, met the same academic standards, and earned the same right to study as their male counterparts. Yet, their freedom of movement is still subjected to additional restrictions in the name of safety. The question, therefore, is not whether women need protection, but why protection so often comes at the cost of their freedom and equality.
Students at the University of Dhaka enter the institution through the same competitive admission process. They study under the same academic system, meet comparable academic demands and, in many cases, share similar professional and financial responsibilities. Once they have earned their places, it is reasonable to question why their freedom of movement should be governed by substantially different rules simply because of their gender. The issue, however, is not whether every student needs to remain outside the residential hall after 10 pm. The more fundamental concern is the principle behind the rule – if a male student is permitted to remain outside after 10 pm for academic, professional or personal reasons, why should a female student with the same responsibilities automatically face greater restrictions? Universities have both the authority and responsibility to maintain discipline and protect students. But safety measures should not become a justification for unequal treatment. If being outside after 10 pm is considered unsafe or inappropriate for students, the same principle should apply to everyone.
University life extends far beyond classrooms, libraries and examinations. Many students work part-time, tutor schoolchildren, undertake internships, assist with research or engage in other professional activities alongside their studies. For many, these are not optional pursuits but important sources of income and experience. Parents often prefer university students to tutor their children in the evening, with sessions beginning in the evenings and sometimes ending later. Given Dhaka’s traffic, a student finishing an evening tutoring session may struggle to return by 10 pm.
This reality applies equally to male and female students. Yet a gender-specific curfew can produce unequal consequences. A male student who is permitted to return after 10 pm may accept an evening assignment, while a female student facing a strict deadline may have to reject the same opportunity, shorten her working hours or choose work based solely on the hall’s timetable. What appears to be an administrative rule can therefore have significant economic and professional consequences. For students who rely on tutoring or part-time work to finance their education, such restrictions may affect their income, experience and opportunities for independence.
Perhaps the most important question in this debate is whether restricting women’s mobility actually makes them safer. In Bangladesh, the familiar response to concerns about women’s safety after dark has been to tell women to return home early, avoid certain places or remain indoors. But this approach protects women by restricting them rather than addressing the conditions that make public spaces unsafe.
The University of Dhaka is more than an educational institution. It occupies a powerful symbolic position in Bangladesh’s social and intellectual life. The practices it normalises can influence how society understands education, citizenship, gender, and public space. If the university effectively communicates that female students should not be outside after a certain hour, it can unintentionally reinforce a broader social belief that women should not remain outside after dark. That belief does not stop at the university gates. The idea that ‘girls should be home at night’ is already deeply embedded in many parts of society. When educational institutions reproduce the same assumption, they risk legitimising it rather than challenging it.
If a restriction is genuinely necessary for all students, it should be considered for all students. If the concern is specifically about women’s safety, then the institutional response should focus on creating safer conditions for women rather than simply reducing their freedom of movement. For some students, returning to a hall by 10 pm may be a matter of convenience. For others, it can determine whether they can accept a tutoring job, complete a part-time shift or pursue a professional opportunity.
The easiest way to ensure women’s safety may be to keep women indoors. But the responsibility of a university, and of society, should be to create a world where women do not have to sacrifice their freedom to be safe.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the authors’
Dilshad Hossain Dodul is the Senior Lecturer, Media and Communication, Independent University Bangladesh. Lutfun Naher Jolly is the Lecturer, English, New Model Degree College
