English Language Questions for CLAT | QB Set 24

Last October, at the University of Delhi (DU), a student union leader, accompanied by a group of supporters, slapped a teacher in the presence of the police, fellow teachers, and students. In a similar way, last year’s student union leader reportedly went around several colleges, creating a ruckus and misbehaving with teachers, including a physically challenged teacher, and even with principals. Interestingly, these incidents are not outbursts of anger but calculated displays of power. There seems to be, perhaps, a competition of sorts to gain cheap publicity.

However, the purpose of this article is not to deliver moral sermons or indulge in emotional rhetoric such as “a society that disrespects teachers cannot progress” nor to recall Sant Kabir’s dictum – “Without a teacher, knowledge does not arise.” Instead, it seeks to reflect on what such incidents do to the process of teaching-learning, and most importantly, to the students who remain silent, thinking it is not their concern.

The focus here is certainly on DU, which, being one of the finest institutions in the country, has been relatively less affected by such acts of violence. Elsewhere, however, teachers have been killed, thrashed, or even had their hands chopped off for stopping harassment, preventing cheating in examinations, or setting questions deemed unacceptable by fundamentalists, respectively.

Implications of attacks on teachers

Those in the teaching profession know that teaching is not a mechanical process one can switch on at will. It is a deep human exchange, sustained by trust, curiosity, and respect. More than the content, the quality of a lecture depends on the teacher’s enthusiasm, which in turn rests on many delicate factors that often seem trivial to outside professions, such as whether the students present in the class today were present in the last class or not.

However, when a teacher’s dignity is attacked, the teacher may continue to take classes, but without the same warmth, creativity, or emotional investment, and the act of teaching will turn into a mechanical exercise, performed merely because it is part of the job.

The second casualty is the fairness of student evaluation, which is one of the most crucial aspects of learning. Just as the judiciary cannot deliver justice under threat, teachers cannot assess students objectively when they fear public humiliation. To avoid confrontation, many begin grading leniently, blurring the line between effort and indifference, merit and mediocrity.

This trend dates back to the early 2000s, when Delhi University introduced a 30% internal assessment component (now about 43.75%) to promote continuous evaluation and reduce reliance on final examinations. Unlike final exams, which ensure anonymity between students and evaluators, internal assessment allows students to see their marked scripts, often leading to unnecessary comparisons and demands for justification. To avoid frequent confrontations and disputes over marks, many teachers began awarding higher grades. The outcome was clear: average scores rose across undergraduate courses.

When marks lose credibility, employers lose faith in degrees, and students lose faith in the very value of learning.

The third casualty, the safety of students. Teachers are often the first people students turn to when something goes wrong. They listen, intervene, and try to protect. But the moment teachers themselves begin to feel unsafe, they naturally hesitate to get involved and start referring every issue to the police, and we all know how police administration usually functions. The exposure of young students to such an unjust system at an early age can have lasting consequences.

Fourth, history offers grim lessons, as seen in the exodus of students that follow when campuses turn violent. Once this culture seeps into educational institutions, it can take decades, sometimes generations, and at times irreversibly, to undo the damage. For instance, universities in West Bengal, Bihar, eastern Uttar Pradesh, and until recently in Kerala, were once among India’s most reputed centres of learning. Today, many students from these very regions migrate elsewhere, even to less reputed institutions, because of the decline caused by violent politicisation of campuses.

Are teachers themselves to blame?

It is often argued that students’ disrespect toward teachers stems from a decline in teachers’ values and quality. But this view overlooks a larger truth: corruption has corroded almost every institution in the country, i.e. the bureaucracy, police, judiciary, politics, and media. Everywhere, officials seize every opportunity to extract money from the public. And yet, public educational institutions have largely held their moral ground. Had the teaching community at DU been similarly corrupt, it could have monetised admissions or internal assessment marks; yet not a single incident supports such a charge. Despite holding immense power over students’ futures, teachers have largely continued to uphold integrity and moral responsibility.

Who bears the burden most

Once a culture of violence takes root and teachers are forced to kneel, it is not the teachers who suffer most. They learn to adapt and survive, as seen in many state universities, while continuing to draw their salaries. The real victims will be the students and their parents, who will pay the ultimate price through poor-quality education, unsafe campuses, and the need to migrate elsewhere. However, given the increasingly hostile environment abroad, even that escape may no longer be available.

Even alumni who remain indifferent to what happens in their alma mater must realise that when a reputed institution loses its standing, the respect and credibility they command for having studied there also fade. Society judges individuals not by the past glory of their institutions, but by their present reputation and worth.

(Source: The Hindu)

Question 1

The author mentions incidents of teachers being assaulted primarily to highlight:

A. The growing culture of power display and intimidation within university campuses
B. The failure of police authorities to protect educators
C. The decline of student union politics in universities
D. The personal hardships faced by teachers in public institutions

Correct Answer: A

Question 2

According to the passage, why does teaching lose its effectiveness when teachers’ dignity is attacked?

A. Teachers reduce their syllabus to avoid controversy
B. Students stop attending classes regularly
C. Teaching turns into a mechanical activity lacking emotional engagement
D. Teachers are legally barred from evaluating students

Correct Answer: C

Question 3

What was one unintended consequence of introducing internal assessment at Delhi University, as discussed in the passage?

A. Improved transparency in student evaluation
B. Reduced dependence on end-term examinations
C. A decline in student attendance
D. Inflation of grades due to fear of confrontation

Correct Answer: D

Question

Why does the author argue that students’ safety becomes a casualty when teachers feel threatened?

A. Teachers become indifferent to campus discipline
B. Teachers hesitate to intervene and refer issues to the police
C. Students start resolving disputes violently
D. Administrative authorities withdraw from campuses

Correct Answer: B

Question 5

What is the author’s central conclusion about who ultimately suffers the most from violence against teachers?

A. University administrators
B. Students and their parents
C. Alumni of the institution
D. Teachers in state universities

Correct Answer: B