Grey zones in classroom conflicts

The recent flurry of social media comments on two incidents in Bengaluru’s universities has prompted the usual indignation, both within and beyond academia. One involved a professor proposing to a student in the classroom; the other, a visiting professor who reportedly used a communal slur to refer to a student. Both are indiscretions that warrant institutional action. However, the speed with which public opinion has crystallised around the events also points to something else: a growing inability to handle complexity where it is needed.

The response has largely been “name, shame, move on”. But appearances can be deceptive. In the case of the proposal, the professor was reportedly punched by multiple students. While the original action may constitute professional misconduct, the retribution cannot be justified. In a democratic society, can citizens—especially students—take matters into their own hands? Indignation, however understandable, cannot be justified.

Technology, too, is a factor. In the second instance, students recorded a video of the professor. The profanity in the professor’s comments does not justify their circulation. Privacy and consent are not optional. The presence of recording devices in classrooms, and the speed at which such content is shared, point to a surveillance society at odds with the idea of the classroom as a pedagogically safe space.

Let us also consider the question of context. Viral videos rarely present a complete picture. They are fragments—edited, condensed and often decontextualised. In a digital culture that rewards speed, such fragments are treated as evidence. What follows is a form of trial by media, where reputations are made or destroyed within hours, often without institutional intervention. Institutions themselves have not been exemplary in such crises. Their responses—suspensions, apologies, and statements—signal responsiveness but not necessarily fairness. Are review procedures in place? Is there an effort to understand the incident in full? A response can appear reactive when it is made public.

More generally, these incidents point to a cultural change within classrooms. Established customs and norms governing student-teacher interactions are being disrupted. Reports of students recording lecturers, taking pictures or videos, or causing mischief for fun are becoming more frequent. Instructors are often left to manage these behaviours alone. This results in unequal regulation of one party and not the other, breeding unease and, at times, antagonism.

At present, regulation is only partially effective and skewed. The University Grants Commission (UGC) mandates the formation of anti-ragging committees and redressals. Accreditation bodies, such as NAAC, emphasise ethical compliance and institutional accountability. These mostly deal with staff misconduct. There is less attention to clarifying student expectations in the areas of online behaviour, consent and nonviolent grievance redressal. This should be no longer acceptable. To create a learning environment, behaviour standards must be set for all stakeholders. Students must be trained in dealing with conflict, discomfort and injustice, rather than strike when they feel the unwarranted urge to do so. This means understanding the limits of acceptable behaviour, on and off the internet.

Social media makes these problems worse. It assigns privilege to short-form communication and to going “viral”. It negates the time-intensive process of learning. We are being conditioned as consumers of these media to react to half-truths, to rapidly align ourselves with stories that feed our prejudices. When this environment is imported into the classroom, it is contrary to the purpose of higher education, which is to foster critical judgment.

The solution is not to take sides but to re-establish equilibrium. Universities must not focus on firefighting; they need to build their defences: codes of conduct, sensitisation workshops, and avenues for redressal. Similarly, there must be an understanding that teachers and students can be both authoritative and accountable; they work within certain moral boundaries. 

Ignoring these grey areas will have far-reaching consequences. The classroom may cease to exist as a physical space for debate and critical thinking. We may become a reactive society that falls back on virtual or AI-driven education. The idea of mentoring students in person may lose credibility. To reclaim the classrooms of higher education institutions (HEIs), we must not only address the issue of misconduct but also recover the conditions of education: deliberation, moderation and rational judgment.

(The writer is an assistant professor in the Department of English, St Joseph’s College of Commerce [Autonomous], Bengaluru)