Is There a Difference: Rule Making

Does the hostel experience at IIT Delhi vary for male and female students? The rule-making process affects this considerably, given that these rules are what define the boundaries that residents must live their lives within.

Upon receiving complaints from girls' hostel residents about the nature of these regulations, the behaviour of guards and the movement of mail staff, we took this project up. In the first part of this 3-part series, we explore rule-making and enforcement dynamics within Kailash and Himadri, laying out all stakeholders and the elaborate power structure of these hostels.

We started with surveys and interviews of Kailash and Himadri residents over this matter, followed by several interviews with POR holders from both hostels, the security office head, guards, and the Kailash warden.

Through further investigation, we realised how these rules are closely linked to broader guard behaviour and the presence of male staff, which are further explored in the subsequent parts of this project.

Residential Surveying and Interviewing:

Through extensive surveying and interviews with interested residents, we gauged the perceptions of girls' hostel residents regarding the presence and extent of gendered differences in how they are treated in their hostels. 93 out of the 100 respondents cited a negative impact, expressing feelings of restriction, judgment, and over-surveillance.

Lack of Transparency

88 of 100 respondents felt that there is a lack of communication between residents and the administration regarding the rules and regulations imposed on them in the interest of safety, with some even describing it as a top-down approach to situation handling with no transparency. Frequent changes to the rules, with no prior notice, lead to confusion and further drive this narrative.

While we cannot infer that this lack of transparency is unique to the girls' hostels, or even verify it purely from resident interviews, this perception is certainly a contributing factor to their lack of trust in the administration.

Restricted Mobility for Hostel Residents

The surveyees also complained about tighter monitoring, with intense entry and exit recordings after 11 PM, and some said that even this time is made subjective by the guards. They described the guards as being distrustful and hostile to them during this process.

(This is further explored in subsequent parts of this project)

VR Rules

Finally, the residents highlighted the ambiguity in the VR rules, describing instances of moral policing and judgment by guards. The residents added that there have been incidents in which they and their male counterparts have been arbitrarily restricted from using the VR without prior intimation.

A note on our survey results-

As we present these findings, we also clarify their significance. We acknowledge that our survey only had 100 responses, which is a small number compared to that of the hostel populations.

That being said, while we do not claim that these concerns/issues are ubiquitous, we do believe that even a hundred people feeling a lack of communication with hostel power-holders is a valid topic worth discussing.

Interviews of POR-holders

We interviewed POR holders from both Kailash and Himadri hostels to understand how rules are formulated, enforced and addressed in girls’ hostels.

Rules specific to the girls’ hostel

PoR holders acknowledged the presence of gender-specific rules in girls' hostels, though their explanations for rules (such as the post-11 PM logging requirement) varied. 

Some validated these rules as stemming from safety concerns, while others suggested miscommunication at certain administrative levels or guards informally enforcing rules based on traditional beliefs. 

PoR holders reported that parents' concerns and past incidents have also influenced certain rule-making, specifically in the girls' hostel. PoR holders did not object to the post-11 PM logging rule itself; however, they strongly criticised its implementation.

How issues are raised by POR holders

Among residents, PoR holders serve as the primary PoC for resolving issues, as they foster trust, and there is no formal mechanism to raise issues. Minor issues are usually taken to the caretaker and, if unresolved, forwarded to the warden. Hostel concerns are discussed in House Working Committee (HWC) meetings, composed of the warden, caretaker, PoR holders, and senior students, and the committee tries to resolve them based on its best judgment. For urgent matters, PoR holders may contact the warden directly, who forwards reforms to the authorities.

Interview of Warden

The warden of Kailash House shared her perspective on the formation of rules and explained the justification for the differences in regulations between the boys' and girls' hostels.

Formation of Rules and Complaint Handling

The warden explained that rule-making and complaint handling are handled by the House Working Committee (HWC), which holds regular meetings and often involves relevant stakeholders. 

She explained that the entire responsibility for the process lies with the students who are parties to these meetings, including 

(i) communication of decisions taken to students (the minutes are available with the caretaker as well), and

(ii) reporting of relevant issues faced by residents to the committee

Any issue that is reported to the hostel management team is suitably deliberated. Faculty and staff administration intervene only when the students ask for it or whenever deemed fit 

Even in such instances, the discussion remains amicable, and all decisions are made only after mutual agreement is achieved. 

The warden clarified that they are constrained by certain infrastructural challenges at the hostel level, and any concern reported by parents is also given due weightage. She urges the residents to respect the rules established in response to this, which were already agreed upon by the entire HWC. She emphasised that the rules formalised are communicated to the House Secretary for further dissemination and also pointed out the crucial role that the various position holders have in understanding the real issues at the hostel level, contributing constructively in finding solutions and aiding the information dissemination process. 

Regarding the Difference in Rules

The warden believes that the rules regarding the recording of student entry and exit are safety precautions and are justified.  She does not see them as restrictions. Rather, they are the security measures that should also be followed in all students’ residential spaces. She understands how the implementation is not foolproof, but believes that with gradual effort, the students will understand the relevant reasons, purpose and appreciate these rules. and 

She emphasised the efforts put into communicating the essence of the message and sensitising the guards on the implementation aspects. She appreciated the support given by the guards and understands that more effort needs to be put in this direction. In her opinion, students should appreciate the reasoning behind such rules and respect the procedures in place to ensure their implementation.

Conclusion

Based on our analysis, a disconnect exists between hostel residents and the administration regarding how rules are formed, perceived, and communicated. Residents overwhelmingly experience hostel rules as top-down impositions lacking clear explanations, breeding disharmony toward the administration.

While we have established that the House Working Committee (HWC) as the primary rule-making body, there does seem to be a disconnect between POR-holders and administration.

Difference in Rules and House Working Committee

The differences in rules between boys and girls hostels, such as intensive sign-in and sign-out procedures, are explained by the warden as institute-mandated Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). She maintains that all these precautions are justified by safety concerns, especially parental expectations, arguing that students should respect the underlying intent.

She also adds that if a rule is approved by the HWC, it should be respected by the students. The responsibility for raising issues here does lie with POR holders.

POR holders did not bring up any issues with the functioning of the HWC. We did not raise the topic in our interviews with them, either, as its significance was mostly communicated to us through the warden, who we interviewed after the POR holders.

Reporting Channels

On the matter of urgent issues, POR holders report them to the caretaker, and if they aren’t resolved, they approach the warden. They cited that while they do report issues to the warden, seeing her as an advocate for student issues, the process following the reporting could be more transparent. 

The warden, meanwhile, maintained that she wants issues to be reported to her by the house secretary and POR-holders. POR holders also did not cite the HWC as a primary/major channel for reporting issues.

Taking all this into consideration, our conclusions for paving a cleaner path going forward are:

(i) Greater involvement of both POR-holders and residents in HWC meetings, given the importance given to them by the warden and the administration,

(ii) A more structured process following reporting of urgent issues to the warden, keeping POR-holders in the loop over updates, and

(iii) A stronger look into the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and their relevance by the institute, considering larger student opinions as well as parents' concerns in an objective fashion.

As we dig into guard behaviour and movement of male staff in the following parts of this project, we will see how rule-making dynamics and perceptions take relevance into other hostel issues. Stay on the lookout for part #2!

Journalists: Dhairya Kucchal, Olivia, Sidharth Valsan