{
  "id": 8911859,
  "title": "For well-being at IITs, we must ask: What do we owe students beyond teaching and testing?",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/09/21/for-well-being-at-iits-we-must-ask-what-do-we-owe-students-beyond",
  "topic": "world",
  "section": "World",
  "published": "2026-09-21T11:46:24.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "The Indian Express",
    "slug": "the-indian-express",
    "url": "https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/for-well-being-at-iits-we-must-ask-what-do-we-owe-students-beyond-teaching-and-testing-10887676/"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "The recent deaths of students at IIT Delhi and IIT Bombay have reignited the conversation surrounding student well-being and what, if anything, educational institutions owe to their students beyond teaching and evaluation. It is a question that educational institutions have been hesitant to confront, but the discourse is now gaining momentum.\n\nWhile the notion of well-being is fundamental, it has remained an ideal rather than a reality on campus. Educational experiences continue to be influenced by strict hierarchies and disciplinary norms, with dissent often met with labels of indiscipline, political activism, or disrespect. The call for change in institutional practices and support for student well-being is growing, but it is often relegated to the domain of counsellors and therapists, who are seen as experts in managing psychological issues.\n\nIIT Delhi has established an external inquiry committee, while IIT Bombay's director has announced the formation of a committee to examine the student deaths and their concerns regarding representation and support services. The crucial question is: what does this support entail? While professional care can save lives during a crisis, the problem arises when these services become the primary measure of well-being. Distress is then viewed as an individual problem, while the university itself is portrayed as a neutral background, which it is not.\n\nRules, hierarchies, classrooms, hostels, evaluation systems, and grievance procedures all contribute to shaping individuals' experiences on campus. The question is not just about how to assist a distressed person, but also whether we are willing to challenge and alter the institutional framework that frequently generates fear, humiliation, uncertainty, or loss of agency.\n\nMental health care requires trained professionals and, when necessary, medication. However, the medical analogy falls short when considered as a comprehensive theory of well-being. Although medicine addresses biological processes, the surrounding social circumstances remain unchanged. Campus life is structured differently, with students juggling academic pressure, discrimination, poor hostel facilities, career anxieties, and unresponsive administration. While counselling may help students navigate these challenges, it cannot eliminate them.\n\nThe World Health Organization (WHO) emphasizes that mental health is embedded within social, economic, and physical environments and advocates for preventive measures that address individual, social, and structural determinants. India's National Task Force on Student Mental Health and Suicide Prevention highlights the connection between student well-being, academic pressure, discrimination, financial hardship, institutional culture, distrust, and faculty preparedness in its 2026 interim report.\n\nHowever, well-being is frequently presented as a personal skill that students are expected to develop through time management, emotional regulation, sufficient sleep, exercise, and building resilience. While these capacities hold value, they have limitations. Time management cannot solve an overwhelming workload; mindfulness cannot transform an opaque grading system into a transparent one; positive thinking cannot ensure a trustworthy grievance process. These factors are influenced by everyday institutional decisions.\n\nThe issue becomes more pronounced when universities adopt a paternalistic approach, treating students as adults in terms of fees, performance, and responsibility, yet as children when it comes to autonomy, voice, and due process. Harshness is often justified as character-building, and obedience is equated with respect. This paternalistic model can be damaging, as students may feel compelled to conform rather than question or express dissent.\n\nThe language of care often emanates from outside the classroom, suggesting that teaching and evaluation do not significantly impact students' well-being. However, universities must recognize that their governance, teaching methods, and campus life design play a crucial role in shaping students' overall well-being. This change need not involve a comprehensive policy package; instead, focusing on a few key principles is more effective.\n\nStudents should be treated as rights-bearing adults and actively involved in institutional governance, rather than being relegated to sentimental or ornamental roles. Alumni and students should have representation on the governing board. Faculty and student affairs teams must receive role-specific training, emphasizing that differences of opinion are fundamental rights of students. They should be equipped to recognize and handle potential conflicts and challenges.\n\nUltimately, wellbeing is not solely a personal responsibility; it is also a collective endeavor that requires universities to rethink their structures, practices, and policies. By empowering students to voice their opinions, address grievances, and participate in decision-making, institutions can create safer and more supportive environments for students to thrive.",
  "summary": null,
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}