If social media chatter and LI threads are an indication, the majority of Gen Z law students hold these views:
- Socialism and welfarism are superior forms of economic governance
- Communism is bae, Marx is bae, Stiglitz is bae, Amartya Sen is bae. Capitalism is evil, Friedman, Bhagwati Reagan, Thatcher and Ayn Rand are evil.
- Identity-based reservation (over pure merit) is a good thing. That the recent SCOTUS decision in Students for Fair Admission v Harvard is wrong and should not be followed in India
- Palestine is good, Israel is evil.
- Fast-tracking citizenship for persecuted non-Muslim minorities in Muslim countries, via the CAA, is evil
- Article 370 should not have been revoked
- Modi is evil
- The farm protestors demands are justified
IMO these views arise because of the echo chamber students are exposed to: their curriculum, their faculty and social media algorithms. It's high time we introduce ideological diversity at NLUs. We need to focus on curriculum reforms, hiring faculty with centre-right views, having student clubs and reading groups that promote centre-right thought (in contrast to the Safdar Hashmi Circle at Jindal).
Let's begin with a simple example. How many law schools include the following in their first year syllabus?
- Bhagwati and Friedman's writings on free markets
- Eric Sowell's vast body of work on libertarian economics and opposition to identity politics
- Nani Palkhivala's critique of Indra Sawhney
- Nani Palkhivala's various critiques of the licence raj
- Arun Shourie's critiques of Marxist historiography
- Arghya Sengupta's book on the the colonial constitution and article on the Hindu Mahasabha's Constitution on Hindustan Free State
We have lost Gen Z. Let's at least save Gen Alpha?
I'm way older than Gen Z. I consider myself heavily left-leaning, despite strongly benefiting from capitalism over the years. There are a few points where I disagree with you.
But first- where I do agree with you is that students should be exposed to more centre-right or RW thought. I am in favour of letting students understand where the counter arguments are coming from, and letting them make up their own minds.
Now, coming to your post. To begin with, you are falling into the classic right-wing trap of seeing the world in beautiful, simple binaries. "Left Bad, Right Good".
The real world is messy. Left-wing thought recognizes that, and understands that there is a tremendous amount of nuance and ... grey, everywhere.
No serious person goes around saying "capitalism is evil" or "Palestine is good, Israel is evil". (though you have a point about left-wing echo chambers and performative activism, which is sadly a thing).
Everyone on the left knows that there are good things about capitalism, that Palestine (or their leaders) have been at fault a lot, and that Israel has made genuine efforts to reconcile.
The point about having an opinion (or picking a wing) is that you weigh the opposing arguments, see which resonates more strongly with you, and then choose an ideology. Lets take one example. If someone claims to be left-wing, and supports identity-based reservations over merit-based reservations, I would expect them to, at the least, be able to explain:
- What problem is identity-based reservation trying to solve? - Why can't merit-based admission solve that problem? - Is there a balance to be struck? [In fact, our present admission system IS a balance between Merit and Identity]. - What are the problems with identity-based reservation? - How can you address those problems? - If you cannot address those problems, is that an acceptable flaw in the way you design the program? Will the benefits accrued by keeping that "flaw" outweigh the disadvantages that people will face if you remove that "flaw"?
As you will see, you need a solid grasp of RW arguments, in order to effectively build an LW case here.
Which brings me to my second point. I attended a Bangalore institute that has a very high opinion of itself. We covered many of the "left wing" topics that you have an issue with- socialism, welfare state, reservations, identity, and a lot more. In every one of those classes, these topics were heavily discussed, debated and challenged. There are flaws with every one of these topics, but what we did was learn the history of these concepts, why they evolved the way they did, what the alternatives were, what were the places that had tried these alternatives, and how a lot of these ideologies were the best available options, given that the others were worse.
There were people who advocated for what would be called a RW position. They were asked to defend their positions- and to explain the social and/ or economic costs of those, and how their positions would mitigate or exacerbate inequalities.
There were also people who took extreme left positions- and they were also challenged and debated. Some of these were faculty members, and the majority of the class openly disagreed with them, but with sound intellectual arguments.
Now, coming to your point about the RW not getting exposure. All that I can say is.. are you serious?
Palkhivala, Bhagwati and Friedman are all read and critiqued. I don't think anyone can argue that they are shut out or silenced. If they are, then I stand corrected, and agree that they should be part of the syllabus. Also, who told you that license raj and reservations are swept under the carpet? These are among the most debated topics during one's 5 years in college.
Libertarianism is one of those topics that should definitely be taught in colleges, because anyone who academically engages with it can identify it for the shallow lack of empathy it promotes. This way, we'll have less wannabe Twitter intellectuals proudly flaunting their libertarian cred.
Lets call it for what it is- no one is suppressing RW or CR ideology. Students get a healthy dose of all sides, and then decide to become LW or Centre-Left. In time, they may become law firm partners or GCs, but they remain anti-RW.
Majority of students in India are not law students. So, chill. Third tier COMEDK me bhi 60,000 bacche exam date hai. And how many give CLAT btw?
Toh lawyer hoke kam se kam word play pe toh command rakhiye. And, no, these NLU/Law grads will also not give leadership to India. Neither they are in the majority in the Civil Services exam, nor in politics, nor in startups. Even Labour law advisor on Instagram is from IIT B.
Toh law superiority bubble se bahar nikal jao, bhala hoga.
- Socialism and welfarism are superior forms of economic governance
- Communism is bae, Marx is bae, Stiglitz is bae, Amartya Sen is bae. Capitalism is evil, Friedman, Bhagwati Reagan, Thatcher and Ayn Rand are evil.
- Identity-based reservation (over pure merit) is a good thing. That the recent SCOTUS decision in Students for Fair Admission v Harvard is wrong and should not be followed in India
- Palestine is good, Israel is evil.
- Fast-tracking citizenship for persecuted non-Muslim minorities in Muslim countries, via the CAA, is evil
- Article 370 should not have been revoked
- Modi is evil
- The farm protestors demands are justified
IMO these views arise because of the echo chamber students are exposed to: their curriculum, their faculty and social media algorithms. It's high time we introduce ideological diversity at NLUs. We need to focus on curriculum reforms, hiring faculty with centre-right views, having student clubs and reading groups that promote centre-right thought (in contrast to the Safdar Hashmi Circle at Jindal).
Let's begin with a simple example. How many law schools include the following in their first year syllabus?
- Bhagwati and Friedman's writings on free markets
- Eric Sowell's vast body of work on libertarian economics and opposition to identity politics
- Nani Palkhivala's critique of Indra Sawhney
- Nani Palkhivala's various critiques of the licence raj
- Arun Shourie's critiques of Marxist historiography
- Arghya Sengupta's book on the the colonial constitution and article on the Hindu Mahasabha's Constitution on Hindustan Free State
We have lost Gen Z. Let's at least save Gen Alpha?
But first- where I do agree with you is that students should be exposed to more centre-right or RW thought. I am in favour of letting students understand where the counter arguments are coming from, and letting them make up their own minds.
Now, coming to your post. To begin with, you are falling into the classic right-wing trap of seeing the world in beautiful, simple binaries. "Left Bad, Right Good".
The real world is messy. Left-wing thought recognizes that, and understands that there is a tremendous amount of nuance and ... grey, everywhere.
No serious person goes around saying "capitalism is evil" or "Palestine is good, Israel is evil". (though you have a point about left-wing echo chambers and performative activism, which is sadly a thing).
Everyone on the left knows that there are good things about capitalism, that Palestine (or their leaders) have been at fault a lot, and that Israel has made genuine efforts to reconcile.
The point about having an opinion (or picking a wing) is that you weigh the opposing arguments, see which resonates more strongly with you, and then choose an ideology. Lets take one example. If someone claims to be left-wing, and supports identity-based reservations over merit-based reservations, I would expect them to, at the least, be able to explain:
- What problem is identity-based reservation trying to solve?
- Why can't merit-based admission solve that problem?
- Is there a balance to be struck? [In fact, our present admission system IS a balance between Merit and Identity].
- What are the problems with identity-based reservation?
- How can you address those problems?
- If you cannot address those problems, is that an acceptable flaw in the way you design the program? Will the benefits accrued by keeping that "flaw" outweigh the disadvantages that people will face if you remove that "flaw"?
As you will see, you need a solid grasp of RW arguments, in order to effectively build an LW case here.
Which brings me to my second point. I attended a Bangalore institute that has a very high opinion of itself. We covered many of the "left wing" topics that you have an issue with- socialism, welfare state, reservations, identity, and a lot more. In every one of those classes, these topics were heavily discussed, debated and challenged. There are flaws with every one of these topics, but what we did was learn the history of these concepts, why they evolved the way they did, what the alternatives were, what were the places that had tried these alternatives, and how a lot of these ideologies were the best available options, given that the others were worse.
There were people who advocated for what would be called a RW position. They were asked to defend their positions- and to explain the social and/ or economic costs of those, and how their positions would mitigate or exacerbate inequalities.
There were also people who took extreme left positions- and they were also challenged and debated. Some of these were faculty members, and the majority of the class openly disagreed with them, but with sound intellectual arguments.
Now, coming to your point about the RW not getting exposure. All that I can say is.. are you serious?
Palkhivala, Bhagwati and Friedman are all read and critiqued. I don't think anyone can argue that they are shut out or silenced. If they are, then I stand corrected, and agree that they should be part of the syllabus. Also, who told you that license raj and reservations are swept under the carpet? These are among the most debated topics during one's 5 years in college.
Libertarianism is one of those topics that should definitely be taught in colleges, because anyone who academically engages with it can identify it for the shallow lack of empathy it promotes. This way, we'll have less wannabe Twitter intellectuals proudly flaunting their libertarian cred.
Lets call it for what it is- no one is suppressing RW or CR ideology. Students get a healthy dose of all sides, and then decide to become LW or Centre-Left. In time, they may become law firm partners or GCs, but they remain anti-RW.
Toh lawyer hoke kam se kam word play pe toh command rakhiye. And, no, these NLU/Law grads will also not give leadership to India. Neither they are in the majority in the Civil Services exam, nor in politics, nor in startups. Even Labour law advisor on Instagram is from IIT B.
Toh law superiority bubble se bahar nikal jao, bhala hoga.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/64-selected-upsc-civil-servants-were-engineers-reveals-government-data/articleshow/105837647.cms?from=mdr