Where Were You Last Night?
Written on May 19th, 2018 by {"login"=>"jcbitshyd", "email"=>"journal@hyderabad.bits-pilani.ac.in", "display_name"=>"Journal Club, BPHC", "first_name"=>"", "last_name"=>""}Two hours after midnight every day, BITS campus reverberates with the
sound of the hostel chowkidars’ whistle, signaling to all the nocturnal
wanderers that it’s time to tuck in for the night. Girls and boys head
back to their respective hostels before the Bhawan gates close, lest
they’re left to fend for themselves in the cold, dark night outside.
Before going to their rooms however, the girls give proof of their
return to the hostel through a biometric scanner. The system of
biometric attendance is a wonderful safety measure, a way to monitor and
ensure that the student is present and healthy.
Every time a student doesn’t give biometric, it is registered in the
hostel supervisor’s records. The next day when the chowkidar sees the
student on her way in or out of the hostel, she is made to sign an
undertaking citing her reasons for not giving biometric attendance. But,
if the student is not seen by the chowkidar outside her room, the
assistant supervisor goes to the student’s room to check if she’s in her
room and is ok, following which she is made to sign the undertaking.
Considering most of us at BITS are allotted single rooms, this protocol
of checking up on the students makes certain that the student is not in
any peril due to ill health or any other reason for that matter.
Then why is such an important safekeeping measure only restricted to
the girls? Does the administration not care enough about the safety of
its male students? Why isn’t a similar system of checks implemented for
the boys?
Unless of course the biometric system is used less as a means of
safekeeping and more as a means to police our movements as is evident by
the undertaking. If the intention is safety then one signature the next
day as proof of well being should be enough. Instead, the undertaking
demands that we give one of 3 options reason for not marking attendance:
- I was outside campus without taking prior permission and outstation form.
- I was on campus but did not return back to my hostel room.
- I was inside the hostel but didn’t give attendance due to negligence.
If a student is well and normal the next day, why is she made to
declare her whereabouts? What purpose does this serve? For the past week
or so, the hostel assistants are even going door-to-door to note down
which rooms are locked after 2 AM to correspond with the reason the
student gives in her undertaking. When a student doesn’t give biometric
attendance for many days, she is made to go and talk to the warden.
Often students have even been asked to call their parents. These
consequences of not giving biometric however seem to be arbitrary and
subjective, completely based on the biases and discretion of the
supervisors. While some girls were left scot-free even after foregoing
biometric for a number of days, some were made to call their parents
just after two days even though the undertaking was signed on both days.
Boys, on the other hand, do not have any system to check their
whereabouts despite having a 2 AM cutoff. As long as they are not caught
outside during the night they are basically left alone and face no
consequences whatsoever. This means that they can also go out of the
campus and remain outside without an outstation form, while girls have
to get their parents to call the supervisor and take prior permission,
grown-up Ph.D. students included.
You might wonder what is the problem in declaring one’s whereabouts
if she hasn’t done anything wrong? Why is the student reluctant to call
her parents if she knows she’s on the right?
Well, it is a matter of principle. Why should an adult over the age
of 18, capable of making her own decisions be put through these
situations?
One would then argue that this is a college with its own rules to
enforce discipline, that the students need to adhere to by virtue of
being a part of this community.
But why then are these rules imposed only on a section of the population and not on all individuals?
If the sole motive of biometric attendance was safety then there are
better methods to implement it. Calls can and should be made to parents
if the whereabouts of the students are not known to the administration
and if they believe the student’s well being is somehow threatened. But
the way it is done now seems unfair, prejudiced and is an extremely
convenient way to shame girls for what their male counterparts do not
have to think twice about.
While every system has pros and cons, this one certainly can be used in a more proper way.
Article by Aishwarya Rebelly. Originally published on SWD BITS Chronicles.