dw.com
Caste Discrimination Persists in Elite Indian Institutes of Technology
A 2019-20 study at IIT Delhi found that 75% of students from historically disadvantaged caste groups faced discrimination, while 59% of general category students either agreed with or were indifferent to caste-based remarks; this, coupled with a lack of faculty diversity and inadequate institutional response, highlights a systemic problem of caste discrimination in IITs.
- How do the attitudes and actions of upper-caste students and faculty contribute to the perpetuation of caste discrimination in IITs?
- The persistence of caste-based discrimination in IITs, despite affirmative action policies, highlights a systemic issue. The social hierarchy ingrained in Indian society extends into these elite institutions, where upper-caste students create exclusive social groups and marginalize those from historically disadvantaged groups. This is exacerbated by a lack of sufficient faculty representation from reserved categories.
- What is the extent of caste-based discrimination experienced by students from historically disadvantaged groups at IITs, and what are the immediate consequences?
- A 2019-20 study at IIT Delhi revealed that 75% of students from historically disadvantaged caste groups faced discrimination. This discrimination included caste-based remarks, creating a hostile learning environment and impacting students' well-being. The study also showed that 59% of students from the "General Category" either agreed with or were indifferent to these remarks.
- What systemic changes are needed within IITs to effectively address caste discrimination and foster truly inclusive environments, and what are the potential long-term impacts of inaction?
- The lack of diverse faculty representation in IITs perpetuates caste discrimination. While some IITs have established SC/ST cells and implemented awareness courses, these efforts are insufficient to address the root causes. A fundamental shift in institutional culture and leadership commitment is needed to create truly inclusive environments. Furthermore, the insufficient filling of reserved faculty positions, despite government mandates, indicates a need for stronger enforcement and accountability mechanisms.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's framing centers heavily on the negative experiences of students from historically disadvantaged castes, providing numerous anecdotes and data points supporting their claims of discrimination. While this perspective is crucial, the framing could benefit from a more balanced presentation by giving equal weight to the perspectives of upper-caste students and faculty, and exploring the potential challenges faced by all parties involved in implementing affirmative action policies. The headline and introduction set a tone focusing on negative experiences, which shapes reader perception.
Language Bias
The article uses fairly neutral language, but certain word choices could be refined. For example, phrases like "ingrained casteism" and "reservation kids" carry negative connotations. More neutral alternatives might include "caste-based discrimination" and "students admitted through affirmative action policies." The repeated use of terms like "upper caste" could be toned down to "historically privileged castes" for broader inclusivity.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on student experiences of caste discrimination but offers limited details on the university's efforts to address the issue beyond mentioning SC/ST cells, awareness courses, and faculty hiring initiatives. The article also omits discussion of potential systemic issues beyond individual actions or attitudes. While acknowledging limitations of space, a deeper exploration of institutional responses and their effectiveness would enhance the article's comprehensiveness. The omission of specific examples of institutional failures to act on reported discrimination is a significant shortcoming.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic dichotomy between meritocracy and affirmative action, representing the viewpoints of those who see reservations as undermining merit and those who see them as necessary for social justice. While it acknowledges the complexity of the issue by quoting Professor Jodhka, the overall framing still risks reinforcing this binary opposition, potentially neglecting the nuances of a more multifaceted discussion.
Gender Bias
The article does not exhibit overt gender bias. While it features mostly male interviewees, this may reflect the nature of the issue and those willing to speak out publicly. However, the article would benefit from exploring the intersection of caste and gender discrimination to provide a more complete picture.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the pervasive caste-based discrimination faced by students from historically disadvantaged groups in IITs, hindering their academic progress and well-being. This directly contradicts the SDG target of reducing inequalities within and among countries, specifically focusing on access to quality education and social inclusion. The existence of caste-based remarks, social segregation, and the lack of faculty diversity in reserved categories all demonstrate a failure to achieve this goal. The suicide of a student allegedly due to caste-based discrimination further underscores the severe negative impact.