Karan Sangwan, the educator formerly associated with Unacademy, is speaking out after being let go by the online learning platform for urging his students to support educated candidates. Sangwan alleges that Unacademy did not make an effort to defend him against the allegations stemming from his viral video.

Unacademy’s decision to terminate Sangwan’s contract was based on the company’s policy that discourages the expression of personal opinions and viewpoints within its educational spaces.

Advertisement

The incident occurred on August 12th, when Sangwan posted a video on his private YouTube channel, Legal Pathshala.

In this video, he critiqued three new criminal law bills introduced by the central government during the recently concluded monsoon session of Parliament – namely, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill, 2023, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Bill, 2023, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Sanhita, 2023. In addition, he encouraged his students to vote for “an educated person” in the upcoming elections.

Sangwan’s dismissal was primarily attributed to his statement, “Elect someone who is educated, who understands things. Don’t elect someone who only knows changing names. Make your decision properly.”

Karan Sangwan’s academic background includes studying at National Law University, Shimla, and teaching at C. R. Law College in Hisar for nearly a year. In February 2020, he joined Unacademy as an educator and built a substantial following of 14,000 students on the platform.

Furthermore, Sangwan operates a YouTube channel, Legal Pathshala, which boasts over 45,000 subscribers. Holding an LL.M in Criminal Laws, he has also conducted numerous courses related to judiciary entrance examinations.

Read more about Karan Sangwan here.

At the request of his employers, Sangwan promptly removed the video on the same day. However, by that time, portions of the video had already circulated on social media platforms, accompanied by the hashtag #BoycottUnacademy.

This incident raises questions about the delicate balance between academic freedom and corporate policies in the realm of online education. Sangwan’s case highlights the potential consequences for educators who express personal opinions in the digital age, and it underscores the broader debate surrounding the role of educators in shaping the political views of their students.

Unacademy, which has been a prominent player in the e-learning industry, has yet to comment on Sangwan’s allegations. The situation has ignited discussions about the responsibility of educational platforms in protecting the freedom of expression of their educators while ensuring that the educational environment remains free from undue bias and influence.