The Senate conducted a meeting on May 23, 2020, to discuss the conclusion of the ongoing academic year. The President and General Secretary of the Student Union (SU) sent an email on May 26 providing a comprehensive set of updates regarding the outcome of the meeting. One of those outcomes involved the setting up of a six-member committee which would make recommendations to the Vice-Chancellor, the chairperson of the Senate. The English Press Club reached out to Abishek Balaji, the General Secretary of the SU, for his views on the issue.

On the current scenario and proceedings

According to the mail sent on May 26, the results of the SU form made it clear that very few students want online comprehensive exams. The Institute has formed a committee to look into possible outcomes. However, the committee has no student members. What are your views regarding student representation in that committee?

I do feel that the committee should have student representation considering the gravity of this situation. At least one of the Student Senators could have been part of this committee. However, it has been ensured that the students’ views have been exhaustively presented to them.

How did this committee solicit the SU’s information and opinion? Did they hold meetings/discussions with the SU?

I think that the members of the committee have gone through the documents and letters that we sent. The SU was not able to have a meeting or discussion with the entire committee. We were only able to have two meetings: one with the Director, and one with the Dean, AUGSD.

Some students are dissatisfied with the Institute’s silence and lack of transparency. What are your views regarding institute-student communication on this matter?

I believe that an email should have been sent by the administration on the day the Senate meeting was over. When the administration sent out a mail on May 17 that a Senate meeting will be held on the 23rd to decide the future of the semester, it built expectations of a resolution not just among students, but among their parents as well.

What role does the SU play in interactions with the Senate, Director, and Institute? In this specific scenario, what has the SU been doing to address the situation?

Ideally, the role that the SU plays with regards to the Senate is that the President and the General Secretary are part of a panel that interviews Student Senator candidates and shortlists two of them in order of priority. However, since this was no ordinary situation and considering how any decisions taken here would strongly impact the lives of all students, the SU was involved from the moment the Senate meet was announced.

We were in constant touch with the Dean, AUGSD who was open to hear our views. We also compiled and sent Senate documents from meetings held by other institutes such as IIIT-H, IIT-B, IIT-K, and IIT-BHU for their reference.

It also really helps that the Director and other members of the administration have known the SU representatives for some time now, which helped us get in touch with them quickly. The SU and the Student Senator were always on the same page for all matters, which helped.

M.E. students apparently did not get any communication regarding the survey. Can you shed some light on that matter?

It is true that M.E. students did not get the link for the first survey. There was a small confusion regarding this matter at that time. We were informed earlier that there would be one higher degree student and one PhD student from each campus sitting in on the meet held on May 23. We were only told later that these students were only invited to the Senate meeting as observers (they could not speak or vote on matters). Since then, we have been sending all communications to higher degree students as well. We have sent them the clarification mail as well as the new survey link.

The Institute sent a mail saying that they were exploring alternatives on May 17. The SU survey form was circulated on the 22nd and the Senate meeting was held on the 23rd. In the interim, there was rampant speculation regarding the state of evaluatives. What was the SU doing in that period? Why did it take so long for the SU to send a follow-up mail?

From May 17 to May 23: As mentioned before, we were communicating constantly and sending over Senate meeting documents of other colleges to the administration. 

May 23 (Saturday): The Senate meet started at 11 AM and went on till late afternoon. The only information was that there has been no conclusion and a committee has been formed. 

May 24 (Sunday): Being a holiday, it was hard to contact the administration. 

May 25 (Monday): It was not possible to gauge what the committee was planning or heading towards. This was because the committee formed just started having meets and were only in the initial stages, trying to look at all possibilities.

May 26 (Tuesday): We made it very clear to the committee via email, letter, and voice calls that students are not in favour of online comprehensive exams. We set up a meeting with the Director, who is the chairman of the Committee, and emphasised the same with additional points and alternatives suggested. The mail sent on the night of Tuesday was an effort to put a stop to all the rumours and give clarity to all students.

The Student Senator is generally confirmed in February. Why was he confirmed so late this time around? 

The Senate interviews were done by December 3, with two names being given to the SWD according to their priority. The SWD then sent it to the Registrar, who sent it to the Director, and then to the VC by the middle/end of January as usual. It was then sent to the Chancellor’s office, where it somehow got stuck, with none of the campuses receiving an update despite attempts at a follow-up. This status-quo prevailed until midsems, after which the lockdown was initiated. After receiving the announcement mail for the Senate meeting, we immediately sent a mail addressed to the VC and the Registrar (the Chairperson and the Secretary of the Senate respectively) to let them know that student representation at these meetings was important. We only got confirmation about the appointment of the Senator on the afternoon of May 21.

On the data from the first survey

If the information is not to be made public, could you provide us with a summary of the data collected? 

Because there was a lot of confusion amongst students about grading and online exams, we decided to create one more survey, the results of which will be made public soon. However, as I had mentioned in the email that we had sent earlier, the first survey did not in any way indicate that students wanted online comprehensive exams.

How was this data used by the Senate and Institute? What impact has it had on their decisions, if any?

The data was the main thing that the SU and the Senator were going to use to back our arguments concerning online comprehensive exams. Plus, it was beneficial for the Senators to have the data on hand when going into the meeting so that appropriate responses could be given by them on the matter at the meeting. We even sent it to the committee and administration for their reference, so that they can cross-check the same. 

On the way forward

The mail sent by the SU emphasised that the Director had acknowledged the students’ concerns. Can you elaborate a bit on his response? Given that he now acknowledges the students’ opinion, do you think he will advise the committee against online exams?

When the SU and the Senator got on a call with the Director, we further emphasised the students’ opposition to online comprehensive exams. To this, he said that he understood that the majority of students were not in favour of online exams. Additionally, the members of the committee have also been receiving a lot of emails from students and parents regarding their thoughts about online comprehensive exams. Therefore, the notion that the majority of students do not want online comprehensive exams is collectively known.

Screenshots being circulated on WhatsApp showed that there were Google Meets being conducted by various faculty members for the demonstration of online proctoring software, lab evaluations, and the way forward after the easing of travel restrictions. Do you have any information on this?

I do not know how they started to circulate. The UGC has asked colleges to conduct online exams if it were possible for them, as a result, a lot of colleges made an attempt to conduct the same and our college could have just been trying that as well.

Given that the President and General Secretary of the Student Union are not a part of the Senate, how does the SU plan to communicate the opinions/interests of the majority of students to the concerned authorities?

We usually communicate with them using an email or letter for formal communication and also set up a meeting with them over call or Google Meet and explain factors like the ground reality of how students are feeling.

On BITS’s Senate System

How does student-Senate representation in BITS compare with other universities, such as IITs?

IIT-KGP has four student Senate members, one of whom is the Vice President of the college, which is an analogous post to President, SU. So their student union does get to sit in Senate meetings which does not happen in BITS. I feel that that is a good option to have because the SU is in touch with students more frequently than any other student body.

IIT KGP also has an internal student Senate which consists of two students from each hostel who discuss with the four student Senate members before a Senate meeting.

Miscellaneous

What does the SU think of the general unrest? How far do you think students’ vitriol against the Institute is justified?

It is understandable that the students be stressed out with all the rumours floating around, considering how there has been no communication from the Institute regarding the veracity of the same.