Nishant is a socially sensitive, socialist, intellectual and professor. Through his articles, speeches and media, he raises the voices of labourers, minorities, downtroddens, women and tribals. A party keeps him in its think tank. In this sequence once he calls the members of civil society, intellectuals, politicians and officers to get their children admitted in the government schools. In the season of admissions, the elite schools are highly criticised for their criteria and its impact on education and Nishant also joins in these criticism; meanwhile it comes out that Nishant himself is trying to get his child admitted in an elite school. People condemn this attitude of Nishant and say that his 'action and words are mismatched'. Question therefore is 1) Should Nishant get his child admitted in the government school? 2) Should Nishant leave his intellectual discourses? 3) Should he call his party followers in his favour? 4) Or should he try to get the admission of his child in the elite school? Discuss.

Points to Remember:

Nishant’s hypocrisy: The core issue is the discrepancy between Nishant’s public advocacy for government schools and his private pursuit of elite school admission for his child.
Ethical considerations: The question explores the ethics of public figures, consistency between words and actions, and the impact of hypocrisy on credibility.
Societal impact: Nishant’s actions influence public perception of social justice advocates and the credibility of their message.
Options and consequences: The question analyzes the potential consequences of each of Nishant’s choices.

Introduction:

Nishant, a prominent social justice advocate, faces a crisis of credibility. His public pronouncements championing government schools and criticizing elite institutions clash sharply with his private attempt to secure an elite school placement for his own child. This situation highlights a common dilemma: the tension between personal choices and public advocacy, particularly for individuals in positions of influence. The question probes the ethical implications of Nishant’s actions and explores the best course of action for maintaining his integrity and effectiveness as a social justice advocate.

Body:

1. Should Nishant get his child admitted in the government school?

Arguments for: This would demonstrate genuine commitment to his publicly espoused beliefs, enhancing his credibility and reinforcing his message. It would also provide a powerful example of leading by example, inspiring others to support government schools.
Arguments against: This might be perceived as imposing his personal beliefs on his child, potentially limiting their opportunities. The quality of government schools varies significantly, and choosing a sub-par school could disadvantage his child.

2. Should Nishant leave his intellectual discourses?

Arguments for: His hypocrisy undermines his credibility, rendering his advocacy less effective. Stepping back might allow him to reflect on his actions and rebuild trust.
Arguments against: Silence would be a disservice to the causes he champions. He could use this experience as a learning opportunity, addressing his hypocrisy directly and using it to strengthen his arguments for educational reform.

3. Should he call his party followers in his favour?

Arguments for: This could secure his child’s admission, but it would be highly unethical and would further damage his reputation. It would also demonstrate the very abuse of power he criticizes in others.
Arguments against: This action would be a blatant misuse of influence and a betrayal of the principles he espouses. It would likely lead to severe backlash and the erosion of public trust.

4. Should he try to get the admission of his child in the elite school?

Arguments for: Parents naturally want the best for their children, and pursuing elite education is a common aspiration. This option, however, is directly contradictory to his public stance.
Arguments against: This would confirm the perception of hypocrisy and severely damage his credibility. It would undermine his advocacy for educational equity and the reform of the education system.

Conclusion:

Nishant’s situation presents a critical ethical dilemma. While parental desires for their children’s well-being are understandable, his actions directly contradict his public pronouncements. The most ethically sound course of action is for Nishant to admit his mistake publicly, apologize for the hypocrisy, and enroll his child in a government school. This would demonstrate genuine commitment to his beliefs and provide a powerful example of accountability. He should continue his intellectual discourses, using this experience to strengthen his arguments for educational reform and advocate for improved government schools. He should unequivocally reject any attempts to use his influence or connections to secure his child’s admission to an elite school. By embracing transparency and accountability, Nishant can rebuild his credibility and continue to be an effective advocate for social justice. This approach aligns with the principles of ethical leadership and promotes a more equitable and just society.

UPPCS Notes brings Prelims and Mains programs for UPPCS Prelims and UPPCS Mains Exam preparation. Various Programs initiated by UPPCS Notes are as follows:-

For any doubt, Just leave us a Chat or Fill us a querry––