Lakh of Money The UG Fee Hike
Akanksha Manghrani, Anmol Gupta, Chintan Savla, Deep Tavker, Rajat Maheshwari, Rishabh Israni
On the 8th of April 2016, the Ministry of Human Resource Development hiked the tuition fees of all IITs from Rs. 90,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 per year. It was later clarified that the fee hike would be applicable for new admissions from the 2016-17 session and not applicable to students already enrolled.
FEE HIKE
DETAILS OF THE HIKE The press release stated, “The rationale arises from the fact that the cost of maintenance of the IITs is to be met largely from the student fee. On an average, the Government is spending about Rs 6 lakh per year on each student in the IITs.” The recommendations originally were for a hike up to Rs. 3,00,000 but the government considered hiking the fees to Rs. 2,00,000 (a 2.2 times increase from Rs. 90,000), with riders. The hike comes on the heels of an increase in the annual tuition fees from Rs 25,000 to Rs 90,000 (about a 3.6 times increase) in two steps- once in 2008 and then again in 2013. The recommendation for the fee hike came from the Kakodkar Committee- headed by the eponymous Chairman of the Board of Governors of IIT-B and composed mostly of IIT alumni. All students would also be able to avail interest free loans under the Vidyalakshmi Scheme of the Government. So what mandated this fee hike? How substantial would it be in serving its purpose? And what would be the consequences of a 2.2 times increase in Tuition Fees? We take a closer look. BUDGET CRUNCH Let’s first look at the reasons that could have driven this Fee Hike: Lack of funds with the IITs in recent times has been an open secret. It’s common knowledge that the budgets of all Councils and Departments of our Institute were recently slashed. A recent Insight article on Infrastructure also brought to light the infrastructural woes of the Institute. A dearth of money has ensured that this situation will not change, if
the status quo is maintained. It’s interesting to note that all IITs have been asked to use the increased influx of cash for infrastructure development so that the increased fee directly translates into better infrastructure for the students. PLATEAUING GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY The MHRD has mandated that it wants the cost of the maintenance of the IITs to be met largely from the fee paid by the students and not from the subsidy that it provides. The Dean of Academic Affairs (DoSA), in an interview to Insight, revealed that the grants from the government have plateaued in recent years.
flow in perspective. A quick calculation reveals that the Hike would cause an annual additional inflow of approximately Rupees 10 crore. On the other hand, in the financial year 2014-15 the Institute had a budget deficit of about Rs. 143 crores, with expenditures exceeding Rs. 659 crores. While IIT Bombay received a grant exceeding Rs. 431 crores from the Government of India in the same year, the receipts from Student Fees were just a little over 29 crore. The argument that this Fee Hike would substantially reduce the money crunch that the Institute is facing, clearly rings hollow. The DoSA is also of the opinion that the new cash corpus would get completely exhausted after doling out money to the cash strapped bodies at the Institute and Department levels. IMPACT AND REPERCUSSIONS With the rationale behind the hike and the cash inflow being put in perspective, an analysis of the impact of this policy decision is necessary.
ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW IITs Within the past few years the number of IITs have balloonedfrom 7 in 2007 to 23 in 2016. The DoSA conjectured that the plateauing government subsidy could be due to money being diverted to the newer IITs- blossoming institutes that need more economic investments than established ones. AUTONOMY OF IITs Being largely funded by the Government, the IITs are subjected to government regulations and audits. The Government has expressed a desire to make the IITs more autonomous- financially and administratively- so that they evolve into Institutions of global excellence. This can only be ensured when the IITs can themselves meet their financial needs substantially. NUMBER-CRUNCHING The Hike feels like a magical solution to a lot of problems affecting the IITs. Let’s then put the cash in-
CONTRACTING TALENT POOL A concern that has been voiced is related to the case of the financially weaker prospective students. Someone who just passed school and cleared JEE would likely be unaware of the existing loan opportunities. The possibility of him/ her enrolling in a different college just because (s)he would have to pay less fees, is cause for concern as it would lead to the IITs losing out on a significant talent pool. SOCIAL DIVIDE A nuanced yet highly important repercussion of the disproportionate- across various “categories” of students- increase in the fees could be an increment in the social divide on campus. Intentionally or otherwise, the topic of fee hike would creep into everyday conversations and might lead to awkward situations, since some students have been exempted from the fee hike while others have not. Any casual remark could lead to long term feelings of discontent and alienation, damaging the very fabric of the Institute.
INCREASED INCLINATION TOWARDS LUCRATIVE JOBS Acknowledging the fact that most of the students at IIT come from middle class families, students with the potential to make an impact on various spheres of research, might end up darting for lucrative jobs because of a plump loan to pay off after graduation. For instance- a student after graduation might be inclined towards working in the core sector, or going for academic research- but on the contrary, a non-core job offering a juicy package might just get the better of him/her. The fee hike can drive the students to be more job-centric. This could result in an intellectual loss to the community.
INCUBATION OF NEWER IITs The newer IITs that have been mushrooming over the past couple of years can be subject to substantial growth with the amount of money kicking in on account of the fee hike. If they are able to replicate the pedagogy of the “older” IITs with the cash inflow, more campuses would naturally translate into better opportunities and access to education for everyone.
IMPROVEMENT IN RESEARCH The fact that none of the IITs feature in the top 150 of the QS World rankings has been a source of constant annoyance and befuddlement for the general public. The IITs have incentives to improve their rankings, which depend to a large extent on the research output. With an increase in the funds of the institutes, combined with a chunk of them being directed towards research, it’s a safe bet to assume that the rankings of the Institutes would eventually improve. CLUB ACTIVITIES IITs have always been renowned for their robust student culture. With a wide spectrum of extra-curricular activities, students’ clubs at IITs have benchmarked themselves as one of the best in the country. On the monetary front, while the money crunch of the Institute slashed budgets of all bodies, the fee hike has a potential to aggrandize- or at least maintain- the activities carried out by the student clubs. INFRASTRUCTURE BOOM One of the visible impacts of the fee hike could be bolstered up infrastructure, especially since the Government asked the IITs to focus on strengthening their infrastructure. However, with the DoSA stating that the cash inflow would go towards the budget of Institute Councils and Departments- infrastructure, at least at IIT-B, does not seem to be geared up for an overhaul anytime soon.
CONCLUSION It is evident that the Fee Hike, in effect from this academic year, will have multidimensional consequences. The Hike, in its current form incorporates the waiver of fees for the economically backward, preserves a meritorious student’s right to quality high education but fails to account for the impact of the steep hike on the majority of students coming from the middle class families. The impact of this Hike on the Institute will soon start to manifest itself, but it is clear that the concept of providing world class facilities at an extremely subsidised price, to a very small section of students is now over. SCHOLARSHIP FACILITIES AVAILABLE TO IIT-B STUDENTS • Merit Cum Means Scholarship Available to all undergraduates. There is a provision of Free Tuition Free along with a per month scholarship to students with gross parental income less than 4.5 lakhs. • Named Scholarships from the Dean ACR Office Include both merit and means criterion for provision of scholarships, with the CPI of students and the gross parental income respectively being the factors of importance. • Central Sector Scholarship Schemes of Top Class Education for SCs & STs Includes reimbursement of fees, lodging charges, books, stationery and computer costs. Available to applicants with parental income less than 4.5 lakhs per annum For more details, visit the Academic Area in the Main Building.
interest free loans under the
VIDYALAKSHMI SCHEME On 15 August, 2015, the “Vidya Lakshmi Portal Education Loan Scheme” was launched by the Finance ministry. This portal imparts a single window to students applying for loans or scholarship who now need to fill only one form. It also provides 22 different education loan schemes offered by 13 banks. The students have the advantage of applying to three banks at a time. For more info, go to: www.vidyalakshmi.co.in
This Just In: Recent developments indicate that the Government is likely to review the tuition fee hike, amid concerns expressed by some IITs that the revised structure may actually lead to a fall in revenue from fees. The IITs assert that the exemptions, coupled with the system of interest free loans, will further burden them. The HRD Ministry, in a note circulated to the IITs on 7th September, acknowledged the difficulties faced by IITs in view of the large number of exemptions given from payment of fees. It appears that there could be more changes in store for this batch of students soon.
2
3
Akash Padmane, Deep Tavker, Himani Mehta, Imaad Ansari, Ishan Rakshit, Tejas Srinivasan Dinesh Startupwaala has spent the better part of a year in IIT-B building a state-of-the-art windscreen wiper, using a novel technology he created called “Middle Out Wiping”. Realizing that he has struck gold in the wiper industry, Dinesh is ready to take his product to market with his own startup, Wide Wiper. But wait! Turns out, Wide Wiper can’t go to market because Dinesh doesn’t own the IP to “Middle Out Wiping”... which he created. Which begs the question...
Yeh IP Kya Cheez Hai? Intellectual Property (IP) broadly refers to intellectual creations, for which protection rights are designated to its creators (in the form of trademarks, patents & copyrights). These intellectual creations include inventions, industrial designs, artistic works. Why do we need IP Rights? IP protection is essential to promote technological progress and economic growth; when individuals know that their creative work will be protected and that they can benefit from
their labour, they are more likely to innovate. Why should you care? Understanding your IP rights is important because all major research related activities are directly linked to them. So if a student improves an existing industrial process in an institute lab or designs a better machine part using the institute’s infrastructure, the resultant protection would be decided by the institute’s IP policy (which you had signed).
IIT-B’s IP Policy IIT-B owns all the Intellectual Property that is produced by all IIT-B personnel (staff, students, research scholars and postdoctoral fellows). Wait, so Dinesh doesn’t own the IP of the technology he created? According to the institute’s IP Policy that Dinesh signed, usage of significant institute resources will result in IIT-B getting full ownership of any IP generated. What constitutes significant resources? Usage of reseach infrastrucutre and institute funds is significant enough- using library facilities and institute LAN is not. IIT-B can always use the IP for academic and research purposes without soliciting the creator’s permission, irrespective of any license granted. Dinesh’s “Middle Out Wiping” technology is a breakthrough, not only for commercial wipers, but also for academic research in wiper design. IIT-B can use this wiping tech for research purposes without his explicit permission for the same, thereby advancing research in wipers by several years. Before licensing to third-party groups, IIT-B will always consult the creator of the IP. When it comes to commercializing, although IIT-B owns the IP, the ball is very much in the creator’s court. Mooli, the global leader in windscreen wiper manufacturing, wants to use Dinesh’s “Middle Out Wiping” for their new line of wipers. However, before licensing Dinesh’s tech to Mooli, IIT-B would first need permission from Dinesh. So, even though IIT-B claims ownership of the IP, Dinesh has considerable maneuvering power over his creation. The type of license provided will depend on the nature of the innovation. IIT-B encourages non exclusive licensing. A non exclusive license essentially means that the licensor (IIT-B, in this case) not only grants the license to the licensee (our hero, Startupwaala), but can also do so to any other licensees. For instance, if Wide Wiper is granted a non-exclusive license, then IIT-B can choose to license Dinesh’s IP to their competitors, Mooli, who want to use “Middle Out Wiping” for their wipers as well. Under certain exceptions, IIT-B might consider exclusive licensing. Dinesh obviously doesn’t want Mooli, which has a monopoly on the wipers market, to use “Middle Out” for their own profit. IIT-B could grant Wide Wiper an exclusive license, which doesn’t allow anyone else to exploit the IP. However, Dinesh would need to do due diligence (including a proper business model and IP usage plan) in order to obtain an exclusive license.
Revenues earned will be shared with the inventor(s) in a 70:30 ratio. If the license is granted to a third party like Mooli, 70% of the institute’s revenue from the royalties would go to the inventor (i.e. Dinesh). In case of multiple inventors, the 70% due to the IP inventors will be distributed as per the agreement entered into between the inventors. On the other hand, if Wide Wiper is granted the license to “Middle Out Wiping”, the royalty due to the institute will be mutually agreed upon (usually 3-5%). March-In Rights: IIT-B can approach the licensee and terminate the exclusive license, and license it to someone else instead. A year after Wide Wiper received the exclusive license to “Middle Out Wiping”, Dinesh’s new chain of wipers has failed to gain traction in the market, and VCs are not looking to invest in Wide Wiper. If IIT-B feels that the licensed IP hasn’t been used to its full capacity after a sufficient period of time, it could terminate the exclusive license (and instead license it to Mooli).
OPINIONS Ashray Malhotra Co-Founder at SoundRex, IIT-B Alumnus The current IIT-B IP Policy is extremely student-friendly in terms of royalty charges, revenue distribution, exclusive licensing and IP protection. Filing a patent on your own costs a truckload of money and time. Fighting an infringement even more so. Keeping all of this in mind, the existing policy is a very good option for students. Pritam Baral Former CTO at SoundRex, IIT-B Student Overall, the institute IP policy is a reasonable one. The only annoyance is the time it takes to patent anything - something you’ll have to face anywhere. If you wish to work around the IP policy, the only way to do so is to not use the institute’s resources when creating IP. You cannot fight the institute on the legal battlefield, and no sensible investor would even fund you if they think you’re infringing on IP owned by the institute.
Comparison with Other Institutes
On comparing the IP policies of other institutes with IIT-B, a few differences and similarities stand out. ● Royalty sharing models■ In IIT-B and IIT-K, the share depends on revenue generated by the IP. a) Upto INR 100 lakhs, IIT-B gives 70% and IIT-K gives 65% of the royalty charges to the inventors. b) For the next 100 lakhs the institutes give 50% and 45% respectively. c) For revenues more than 200 lakhs the inventors only get 30% and 25% of the royalty. ■ IIT-D and MIT award roughly 60% and 30% of the royalties to inventors respectively ■ In IIT-D and IIT-K, a fixed 10% of the revenue from royalties is directed towards promotion and upgradation of the invention, IP protection (which involves registrations, litigation and arbitration charges if required) and promotion of commercialization. ● Most institutes, including the IITs and MIT are on the same page when it comes to what IP is owned by them and what constitutes as significant use of their resources. Library facilities, internet and commonly used office equipment do not fall under those. ● There is complete agreement regarding who owns the copyright of the thesis - the student who has authored it. The institute will have a royalty-free license to distribute and use the thesis for academic and research purposes and any other IP within the thesis will be owned by the institute. ● All the IITs explicitly state that inventors will continue receiving their share of the royalties in the future, regardless of their association with the IIT. ● For any creative work like novels or musical compositions, the ownership rests completely with the authors/composers.
4
5
Gaurav Waratkar, Jay Mardia, Mihir Bhosale, Rishabh Israni, Shrey Gadiya The Course Feedback System is something most of us don’t really pay much attention to; for many of us, it is simply a few clicks of the button “No”, part of an unfathomable bureaucratic requirement to give feedback at the end of the semester. This system in its current form seems ineffectual to a large part of the student body. What we aim to do here is to talk about the problems, remedial solutions, and the establishment’s take on the process. In true Insight fashion, we decided to gauge the problems plaguing the methodology of students staring at their laptops and opining by, wait for it, asking students to stare at their laptops and opine. Our online survey that posed pertinent questions to feel the pulse of the Institute received 529 responses.
Drawbacks of the current feedback form: The length of the form is an issue.
The questions seem repetitive.
88% of respondents felt that the form was inordinately lengthy, and was almost as bad as someone using “inordinately lengthy” to signify “too long”. In fact, the questions towards the end on “classroom infrastructure” make little sense to the students filling the form, since this seems like information that the instructor can do little with. Such questions could plausibly be culled without any loss of information. A consequence of this length is that students don’t end up filling forms for all their courses (they exercise their right to click “No”), and even those that they do fill are not always an honest reflection of their thoughts as much as a treatise on “Least pixels travelled by mouse while filling feedback form”. Only 36% of the respondents to our survey said they filled feedback for more than four-fifths of their courses honestly.
66% of our sample (Which means ~ 66*(529/100) = 350 respondents) testified to perceiving redundancy in the questions. For example: Q: Textbooks and/or other reference/resource materials were easily available. Q: The textbooks and/or other reference/resource materials were relevant. While a logician would agree with the necessity of both these questions, when a student pressed for time is trying to fill in all her feedback forms before the deadline that is 15 minutes away, (s)he only wonders what use it would be for the Instructor to know that irrelevant textbooks and reference material were easily available. Is that not always true anyway? Insight suggests clubbing these two questions together (as can be done with several others). In fact, this can be done while enlarging the scope that this question can address by having an optional comment box next to each “multiple choice type” rating. What this does is enable any student with relevant feedback on a topic tangentially connected to the question to get their opinion into the system. One problem here is that it makes interpreting the data a marginally tougher task for the Instructor.
No feedback for labs One aspect in which the current feedback system is sorely lacking is a way to provide feedback to lab instructors. There is so much to be said about so many labs in terms of effort to credit ratio and about how useful or dull the lab was. There is also a case to be made that this ratio is highly variable across departments and also across time within the same department. Every incoming batch of freshmen is faced with a grueling initiation to life at IIT-Bombay in the guise of Engineering Drawing without any avenue to voice their opinions. A mechanism to take in feedback for Labs, though, is a double-edged sword. It would make what is already a long and seemingly unrewarding feedback process even longer. When asked to comment on this matter, Abhishek Khadiya (GSAA UG) said this problem was being tackled and that a concise feedback form for labs would be floated at the end of each semester from the current semester onwards.
There is the same form for each course. No personalization towards a particular course It seems reasonable that if each instructor populates the feedback form with questions that are relevant and pertinent to their particular course, more useful information can be extracted from the students. An unintended (but no less significant) benefit of this move would be to make filling out different forms much less monotonous for the students. Monotony is a strong factor in students filling out a few feedback forms diligently and then clicking on “No” for the rest with a lazy “Ditch rahega”.
“Kya hoga mere feedback ka?” As it stands, the feedback process is akin to a blind man speaking in a public square with, ironically, no feedback on whether his opinions are being heeded or even heard. Students do not know if Professors have to face the music for consistently poor feedback, or if Professors even deign to glance at the feedback they submit. In the absence of visible outcomes, there is no incentive for students to eke out 10 minutes for each course and sincerely fill the feedback form. When asked to comment, the Dean of Academic Programmes assured Insight that individual faculty do read the feedback, especially the comments section, very carefully and try to improve matters. To address the concerns implicit in the factoid that only 2% respondents feel their feedback makes a sizeable difference in how the course is run the next time, he was of the opinion that feedback was always accepted by professional academics; improvements would only happen over a period of time. But. But. Things aren’t as bleak as students perceive. It turns out that one place where student feedback does matter is in deciding the recipients of the Excellence in Teaching awards. And more pertinently for the student body, during faculty evaluations on the basis of teaching, the main criterion considered is the feedback by students. This is discussed with faculty who perform poorly and in extreme
cases, where warranted, the Head of Department, the Director, and other institute functionaries have the power to examine teaching records with due authorization and take necessary action. Khadiya also said that there is a plan in the offing to help spread awareness among the student community about how their feedback does not go to waste. This should help bridge the gap between the two stakeholders in the feedback process. In cases where a course is taught by 2 or more instructors (BB101, HS 101) students have to fill the form twice or more times for one course. In such cases, when at times each instructor has taught for only close to 4 weeks, the cost benefit analysis carried out by the student responding makes it clear that spending 30 minutes on just one course is not worth the effort. More often than not, students end up filling up the form for just one instructor, who is picked by the slightly unscientific criterion called “I really really liked (or hated) this professor”. In fact, 52% of the respondents to our survey used the criterion of strong feelings for or against the Professor to help whittle down the list of Instructors whose feedback form they will fill out, and only 30% said they fill out all forms seriously and painstakingly.
Suggestions to the Institute: There is definitely a case to be made that course feedback form should be revamped. While Insight does not necessarily endorse the suggestions listed below, we certainly believe these have enough merit to warrant a discussion on their pros and cons. Having both Half Sem and End Sem evaluation All questions on the existing feedback could be categorized into two sets- questions on the course structure, evaluation of quizzes, ambience, course coverage could be asked in the first half and questions on how the Professor taught, handling of queries and other questions centred on the Professor’s teaching style could be asked in the End Sem evaluation. The idea is that some parameters can be gauged very quickly while others require time. Having such an evaluation would ensure that the form is short & would encourage more responses. 77% of respondents think that an evaluation after the midsem would incentivise honest feedback by ensuring that their effort would benefit themselves too.
Making the feedback public Putting the feedback out in the public domain will put the onus on the faculty to take corrective action. Once such an action is taken, it will act as a motivator for students to fill feedback, as they would see tangible results arising from what they submitted. However, students can be quite vitriolic while filling out the subjective section of the feedback form. Unnecessarily harsh and unfairly vindictive comments would not further the cause of submitting feedback, but rather antagonise the professors. A way out could be to make the feedback public but omit the subjective part. Also, only the final numerical score- calculated on the basis of responses to individual questions- could be provided, and not the
question-by-question summary of the feedback. Such a tradeoff would appease the professors while ensuring corrective action can be taken. When this point was taken up with Khadiya, he said that this has been brought up in the UGPC meetings, has been rejected by Professors since it will discourage faculty and highlight egregious cases unduly. Reducing each student’s effort For large class sizes of say 150 people, groups of 3 could be arbitrarily formed. Each group could be assigned a particular set of questions to fill up. This would solve the problem of both the lengthy nature of the feedback form and the redundancy of questions in the form, in one go. An argument could be made, however, questioning the unbiased nature of responses from a group of (just) 50 people.
6
Conclusion: There is no argument that the the current feedback mechanism is inadequate in serving its purpose. Riddled with irrelevant questions, the lengthy format dissuades students from filling it up. The number of questions need to be reduced and
the format overhauled to ensure more students fill the feedback form honestly and after giving it sufficient thought. The current system, since it does not provide tangible carrots, but only tangible sticks (not getting your grade), does not incentivize students to go the extra mile.
7
We would like to end by noting that 23% of respondents also said that they fill their feedback forms “right before the deadline”. This, in contrast to an option that stated “1-2 days before the deadline”. One can only think that as students we must meet the authorities halfway and ensure we fill in the forms with ample time to ensure thoughtful and meaningful feedback reaches the Professors. One can take a horse to Powai Lake, but the horse must drink the water itself. Notions which Insight would love to hear your opinion on are whether it is a good idea to have some sort of mechanism to provide feedback to TAs. The quality of TAs (especially for freshmen courses) is highly variable across divisions and across time. Thoughts on mechanisms for or unintended consequences of such a move are welcome.
●
Abhishek Andasu, Aparajeya Dash, Apurv Tiwari, Devyani Verma, Mihir Bhosale, Rishabh Israni, Shubham Singhal Homosexuality has only in recent years begun to shed its hushhush image with discussions happening a lot more freely in the mainstream. While this has led to a deeper understanding of the struggles of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) community, it has also exacerbated prevalent misconceptions – feeding off of the preconceived notions most of us have of the LGBTQ.
My views on this subject don’t matter
A significant minority of our institute identifies itself as a part of the LGBTQ community. This article aims to explore the various facets of opinion about this community among the residents, making an attempt to gauge the amount of acceptance the LGBTQ have in the campus. On Religion and Culture As divisive as religions in India often are, it is striking that most
share the ideology of ostracism and blatant hatred against the LGBTQ. The students of our institute, on the contrary, seem very open to accepting the LGBTQ community in our campus. In an online survey- of over 600 respondents- conducted among the student community of the Institute, 79% said that they were comfortable with an open LGBTQ culture. However, 37% also believed it is against our religion. The typical opinions of the surveyed students on the LGBT community, are what we have interspersed throughout the article. On Privacy in the Bedroom Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code penalizes, among others, certain sexual acts between individuals of the same sex - even if they are consensual and private. Incidents like the one involving Ramchandra Siras - a professor of Aligarh Muslim University who was caught having intercourse with a rickshaw
driver, highlight the unjust nature of this law. Siras was suspended by the University based on the testimony of people who forced their way into his house and invaded his privacy. A staggering 93% of the respondents, on the other hand, don’t mind what the members of the LGBTQ community do in the privacy of their bedrooms. To a large extent, the young students on the campus are liberal and allow for freedom in one’s personal space.
LGBTQ people should not ‘celebrate’ their sexuality openly On the LGBTQ as Parents and Teachers There seems to exist a disturbing belief in society that having LGBTQ parents is not good for children. One train of thought is that kids of gay parents are more likely to be bullied. Then there is a notion that when a child is witness to a homo-
sexual atmosphere, it will somehow automatically get “induced” in him/her, or that (s)he might get psychologically disturbed regarding matters related to his/ her sexuality. However, recent studies in Canada and the US have found that the children raised by gay parents are psychologically equally healthy and fit as compared to those raised by heterosexuals. The fact also remains that heterosexual parents do have homosexual children.
Their sexuality is their choice anyway When asked whether the LGBTQ can be good parents, 71% of the respondents agreed. The question of whether exposure to LGBTQ people could affect a child’s sexuality showed an equally mixed response, with 52% agreeing to the fact. While most remained neutral, many strongly disagreed. Interestingly, 39% of the students said they don’t want their children to be taught by LGBTQ teachers. No teacher would, in general, discuss their sexual matters in class. As it were, people of the LGBTQ community shouldn’t have any influence on the sexuality of the children they teach. On Medication to treat the ‘disease’ of Homosexuality Many medical organizations, including the WHO, agree that homosexuality is not a disorder, but a form of sexual expression. The notion that many politicians, psychiatrists and preachers of ‘alternate medicine’ have adopted - that homosexuality is something that can be cured by meditation, castration or electroshock therapy seems to be just that - a misguided notion with no scientific backing that preys on the homophobic minds of people. Vitriolic comments such as these lead not only to a burst of institutions providing dubious treatments, but also to an increase in paranoia and LGBTQ-phobia in the country. While there was widespread acceptance of the LGBTQ populace inside IIT Bombay, 38% of the respondents advised a remedy. While the majority strongly disagreed; even in institutions of science and technology, people- although not many- still believe in this medication theory.
It is all a mental disorder
9
On Using Sexuality to become Famous For the LGBTQ, coming out of the closet is indisputably an act of courage and boldness. However, some people think that a few members of the LGBTQ community have exploited their sexuality to rise to fame - that coming out of the closet is just another publicity stunt. Examples of some Indian celebrities in Bollywood and regional Indian films, who grabbed headlines on account of controversies revolving around their sexuality, have been frequent. The number of such cases borders on the scanty if we juxtapose it with the ones who face a plethora of struggles to come out. The responses to whether members of the LGBTQ community have used its sexuality to become famous, were surprising. While 39% of the students gave a neutral response to this question, a significant 23% agreed. This depicts the still significantly thriving negative beliefs of people towards the LGBTQ community. On Voicing Out Support for the LGBTQ Being openly gay comes with its own set of trials. The onus seems to be on society as a whole to make the LGBTQ community feel included. This can be achieved through something as trivial as calling out ‘gay jokes’ as offensive to something larger like actively fighting for LGBTQ rights. When asked if the LGBTQ community needs support to fight against the difficulties they face, a sizeable 48% of the respondents strongly agreed with the proposition. An overwhelming 92% of our respondents were on the positive or the neutral side, which is heartening on the face of it. However, when asked to raise their voice against individuals showing anti-LGBTQ attitudes, the responses received weren’t as rosy as the previous ones. 59% of the responses, albeit still in the positive region, weren’t as forceful. Almost 30% of the respondents were actually neutral to this question.
I don’t care
This shift in opinions is quite similar to the hypocritical stance most of us assume when concerned with anything remotely associated as LGBTQ. On one hand, a majority of people feel that the LGBTQ must fight for their rights and recognize the fact that basic rights have been denied to them. However, when the turn comes for them to help the LGBTQ, they would rather remain ‘neutral’ - and do just about nothing to change the status quo.
We must respect these individuals for coming out. On LGBT Roommates To understand how much they were ready to accept the LGBTQ community in their life, we asked our respondents how comfortable they would be in having a roommate who was not straight. Close to 46% - almost half of our respondents- said that they would actually be strongly uncomfortable having LGBTQ individuals as their room-mates. Only 21% said they would be fine with this proposition. The very psychology that goes behind this response is quite interesting. While most of us are clearly empathetic of the LGBTQ movement and individuals in general, we aren’t yet as comfortable with the concept that we can share a room with a person of a different sexual orientation. The Road Ahead The results of the survey conducted reaffirm the fact that the Institute, on the face of it, is quite open to a LGBTQ culture. Most of us have a “Live and let live” attitude towards this community, and while this manifests positively on issues of marriage and sex, this very stance presents a roadblock to the LGBTQ community at large. Though people may empathize with the LGBTQ community, they are loath to actually go and help the afflicted community fight for their rights. We don’t care what the LGBTQ do in their bedrooms, but are unwilling to share the same room with them. We might not feel that homosexuality is against our culture,
but still feel that the LGBTQ community should take corrective medicines. This dichotomous behaviour is perhaps why the LGBTQ community feels that it does not belong in our society. Unless we cut the sugarcoating and actually take active steps to make LGBTQ people feel included, no long-lasting change can take place. Given the fact that the survey was carried out in this institute - which boasts of housing the most progressive individuals from the country, the results obtained are reflective of Indian society at best - and disturbing at worst.
Saathi, IIT-B’s LGBTQ Resource Group: IIT Bombay is also home to an LGBTQ resource group called Saathi. It is a group of LGBTQ people and their allies who aim to create a safe space in campus and spread awareness about LGBTQ issues. With members including both gay and straight residents, Saathi aims to provide an accepting and nurturing environment to people from the LGBTQ community and instil in them a feeling of belonging and togetherness.
101 on Section 377: Chapter XVI, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, dating back to 1860, criminalises sexual activities “against the order of nature”. The law has made consent and age of the person irrelevant by imposing a blanket prohibition on all penile-non-vaginal sexual acts under the vague rubric of ‘unnatural offences’. Though applicable to heterosexuals and homosexuals, Section 377 acts as a complete prohibition on the penetrative sexual acts engaged in by homosexuals, thereby criminalising their sexual expression and identity. The section was decriminalized with respect to sex between consenting adults by the High Court of Delhi on July 2009. That judgement was overturned by the Supreme Court of India in 2013.