I have used the same title as the article written in the online magazine, Vox Populi, of the students of IIT Kanpur.
As per this report and several other posts on the social media, it appears that Hall 2 presented a skit in which they made fun of two specific girls in a way that they could be identified, and they felt harassed by the same. They lodged a complaint to Women's Cell who investigated and forwarded their report to Senate's Students Affairs Committee (SSAC), the committee which investigates matters of student indiscipline and recommend punishments for the same. The recommendations were sent to Chairman, Senate. However, there was something very strange about the recommendations. They were not arrived at by consensus, which is usually the case, but by voting. And it was the closest voting that one could think of, 5-4. The other four decided to put in their notes of dissent. Now, it is unusual for even one member to write a note of dissent. Here, we are seeing all four dissenting. Considering the unusual nature of the recommendations, Chairman, Senate (Director) decided to take the matter to Senate. And Senate decided to impose stricter punishment than what the majority of SSAC had recommended.
Five students have been suspended for one semester, and one student has been suspended for two semesters.
The article in Vox does not deny that something wrong happened during the skit, nor does Students Senate. All the comments and postings on social media are also only about the degree of punishment and not about the event per se. And yet, there is no statement that we see in any official student forum which categorically criticizes the skit. It is giving me an impression that they want to really argue that boys will be boys, and why punish boys for being boys.
If there is no denying the event, and the issue is only about the quantum of punishment, then Students Senate should applaud the courage shown by two girls in formally complaining about the event, and take steps to ensure that the girls are not harassed by the predominantly male student body, while they keep putting pressure on the Institute to reduce the punishment.
While I do not have all the information to make an informed opinion on whether the SSAC recommendation were justified and the Senate decision of enhancing the punishment is harsh, this whole process does raise an issue which has been raised again and again in the past, that is of variety of punishments on a campus. The viewpoint of students has been that anything other than a quiet warning is far too serious a punishment for any wrongdoing. If you make that warning public, you are humiliating the student which should not be the intent of the punishment. If you ask him to do public service, say in mess, you are humiliating the student. If you put a fine on the student, you are really putting a penalty on the parents, and this is also much more serious punishment for poor students than rich students. If you deny him facilities like placement, you are affecting his career. If you suspend him for a semester, then of course, heavens will fall on him. (Of course, there are many bleeding heart liberals in the faculty who will parrot the same statements.)
Based on such arguments, we have not been punishing students (other than warning) for almost a decade, barring some rare exceptions. And any time, one were to give a punishment which is more than a warning, after having tolerated, ignored, and even encouraged wrongdoings for so long, it is only understandable that there will be a backlash from the student body.
It is absolutely childish to claim that a semester drop will destroy a career. I know of a CEO of a big company, who had a semester drop because of illness. I know of a CSE graduate who was suspended for a semester on a rather trivial complaint, who is having a great career today. Half the graduates of IITK had spent an extra year preparing for JEE. That loss of year does not seem to be affecting anyone's career. A large number of our MTech students spent a year at home after BTech to prepare for GATE. Life is long, and a few months here and there do not impact careers. And in any case, if one has committed a serious crime then s/he has to face the consequences of the same, even if they are serious. (Again, I am not commenting on this particular case whether the punishment is commensurate with the crime in this case.)
It is also childish to claim that monetary fines are fines to the parents. If Rs. 50,000 fine is fine on the parent, a semester drop will actually mean an extra cost of Rs. 75,000 (one more semester's fee, mess, and other miscellaneous expenses) on the parents. In addition, it also means wage loss for six months which could be a few lakhs as well. So opposing a 50,000 rupee fine and then slapping a semester drop which essentially means 75,000 rupee fine and several lakhs of wage loss is so stupid that I am really shocked every time a faculty member or a student says it.
Unless, we agree to a liberal use of monetary fines, we will keep having such arguments after every case. A warning is just not enough as a punishment, it neither deters nor reforms. And a semester drop may be too much in many cases (again, I am not commenting on this case), and if we keep denying monetary fines, we will keep vacillating between warning and semester drops, both being inappropriate in many cases.
There is also a demand that educational institutes must focus more on reform than on deterrence. But a focus on reform means that we may give lesser punishments or just warning for initial wrongdoings in the hope that going through the process would have convinced him/her of what is right and what is wrong, and that parents too would put in some efforts in ensuring that the student does not repeat those offenses. But if there is a repetition, then the penalty would be harsh. One way to do this in many mature countries is to have a concept of suspended punishment. One gives a small punishment (say, a warning) at the beginning, and suspends the serious part of the punishment for a defined period of time. If there is any other wrongdoing in this suspension period, the previous punishment also applies in addition to the penalty for the new wrongdoing. If there is no wrongdoing for the period of suspension, then the punishment is completely removed.
Very strangely, there is opposition to suspended punishments too at IITK. It seems to put the student under stress. Of course, it does. But having committed a crime, shouldn't the student feel even a bit of stress, if not the actual punishment. And it seems to punish the student for two crimes when s/he commits one crime (the second one). But that is only because his punishment for the past crime has been delayed. I am surprised by the arguments.
If we deny everything between a warning and a semester drop for some reason or the other, then every such incident will be a fight between bleeding heart liberals and the harsh disciplinarians. Every such decision will be criticized by others. Every decision will lead to heartburns, which is not good for the campus. We must find inter-mediate punishments and start implementing them.