Public criticism of the UGC Equity Regulations Bill provisions has centered on concerns about exclusion and bias towards general category students, vague definitions of caste discrimination, the risk of false complaints, and the possibility of creating a culture of fear and divide within universities. These arguments, however, emerge from an abstract understanding of higher education as a neutral space where power is evenly distributed and grievance systems already function fairly.

My field research across central universities like EFLU, NALSAR, and HCU reveals a very different institutional reality. Caste discrimination in higher education operates through power networks, compromised redressal bodies, symbolic marking, academic gatekeeping, and institutional silencing. When read in this light, the equity provisions are not excessive regulation but a necessary attempt to address long-standing institutional failure.

Why critiques of bias and vagueness miss the reality

Critics argue that definitions of caste discrimination are biased because they centre SC/ST/OBC students and vague because they include concepts like implicit bias and impact-based discrimination. Both criticisms rest on the same mistaken assumption: that discrimination is neutral, symmetrical, and only real when it is explicit. Field evidence shows the opposite. Caste discrimination in universities operates through everyday academic interactions that quietly question competence, legitimacy, and belonging, and this vulnerability is not evenly distributed across caste groups.

One respondent recalled worrying about whether his fourth-semester marks met Ph.D. eligibility criteria. An upper-caste classmate laughed and said, “Are you foolish? Eligibility doesn’t matter for your people. Just applying is enough.”

No rule was broken, no official action occurred. Yet the statement performed institutional work. It dismissed formal academic criteria, assumed reservation replaces merit, and reduced the student from an individual candidate to a stereotype. This is a stigma functioning socially: identity overshadows achievement. The laughter that followed signaled normalisation, not deviance. Such moments shape how marginalised students are seen long before any formal evaluation happens.

A similar pattern appears in faculty–student interactions. An M.Sc. Mathematics student struggling with a computer-based assignment was told by a professor, “You were selected under reservation, right? It’s my mistake to expect a correct output from you.” Another student, a gold medalist educated in English-medium institutions, presenting in a law classroom was repeatedly interrupted with “Pardon?” and later told only to “improve language,” shifting focus from substance to presumed deficiency. No slurs. No overt hostility. Yet expectations were lowered and competence reinterpreted through caste-coded assumptions.

These cases reveal a common mechanism. Academic performance is filtered through social perception before it is evaluated on merit. The harm lies not in open insult but in subtle delegitimisation, being pre-marked as less capable, less deserving, or artificially present. This shapes confidence, faculty engagement, peer trust, and evaluation trajectories. If definitions of discrimination required explicit abuse or intent, these........

© The News Minute