WHAT’S THE POINT OF HAVING A DEBATE WHEN THE PEOPLE WITH AUTHORITY TURN UP WITH A CLOSED MIND?
There was a meeting today to discuss whether there should be marks for attendance and whether deemed attendance can be given for extra curricular activities. What happened at the end of it all? Nothing. Status quo. We, the students barely got to speak. Sorry, barely is the wrong word, DID NOT!
To answer the first question:
1. Whether marks should be given for attendance?
Yes, it should be. But let’s make sure it is an incentive only and let it not degenerate into a priority. Prof. X, who spoke said that marks are an incentive, a reward for those who turn up regularly in class. It only shows that he isn’t aware of the ground reality. Every professor I know has made it a priority. If you turn up to the class 5 minutes late, you are told that you wont get the marks for attendance, so you need not enter the class. What is the basis of this? Why are you throwing out a student when he has done no wrong? Let’s assume this student did stay in the class, listen to the lecture and take notes. There is another student who turned up on time and is sleeping right next to him. Who would get the attendance? The person sleeping. Not the other who took notes.
Another example: last week in a class of 20 (total strength: 42, wonder why the rest of them didn’t turn up, beats me!), there was a case presentation going on. Total jargon, went way above our heads. We were asked questions about it. Couldn’t answer. What were we made to do? Give presentations to get that days attendance. End result: 15 have to give presentations, 5 left out)
2. Whether there should be deemed for extra curricular activities?
I have to at this point admire the idiocy of another student speaker's logic. He said that deemed attendance should be given for debates, essays and elocutions, as these have a direct bearing on our development as lawyers. Sports have no impact whatever, no bearing on our CVs. This is nonsense of the highest order. It was said by the moderator, that there would be decency in language, that it would be a parliamentary debate. A lot of us were denied the opportunity to speak. The higher ups walked off after speaking. Why didn’t they wait for us to question their arguments?
To answer the question that sports don’t have a bearing on our CV’s, the speaker needs to get the facts straight. Why has our university not produced a Rhodes Scholar? Do you know to whom this scholarship is awarded? One of the many examples (meet me, if you want to know about others who have got the same, will gladly oblige!):
Sean A. Genis, Sharon, is a senior at the United States Naval Academy where he is currently first in his class, majoring in Physics and minoring in Spanish. A Trident Scholar, he is doing research on techniques for the acoustic detection of landmines. Sean is a regimental commander, and a member of the glee club and the Academy cycling team. He plans to read Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford.[1]
This is ample proof enough that a GPA or as you said debating will not suffice alone. We all know how prestigious the Rhodes Scholarship is. In the notice put up by our very own academic committee, we marveled at how a couple of our fifth years got shortlisted for the same. We were hopeful that after NLS (produces one or two every year), NALSAR and NUJS we would be the only other law university in the country to produce a Rhodes scholar.
Prof. X then went on to say that as law students our first priority would be academic: to study and achieve something in the legal field. While he was accurate about the exactness of time, his arguments were round about and in all due respects illogical. He cited the example of a student (who incidentally is an avid cricketer!) and a few others, of how they got selected for the Henry Dunant international round. He said that if sports are your priority you can go ahead but don’t ask the university to support you in this regard. Is he saying that we can’t balance the two? Who says that by going to Spiritus, sports become our priority. In last year’s edition of the annual inter law sports fest, there were among others 'A' (nicknamed ten pointer, for his flawless grades), 'B' (junior Palkhiwala, a.k.a God, for the sheer reason that he is omnipresent, does everything and excels in every aspect[2]), 'C' ( football forward, he won the Miami moot competition, which we keep patting our backs for) and as such a host of others. So, professor what makes you think we don’t know our priorities as students in this university? What makes you think we cant balance our interests and recognise our Laxman rekha?
So finally all I would like to say is that if the authorities have already made up thier minds, why turn up for the discussion in the place? It seems the university will continue treating us as Guinea pigs[3] in experiments for the interminable future.
Say goodbye to the Rhodes, and reason too!!
Gopalakrishnan R.
Roll no: 457 Semester II.
BA.LLB (Hons.)
