IS ACADEMIC SOPHISTICATION BECOMING A EUPHEMISM FOR GATEKEEPING?

Camouflaging is cardinal to cages, secondary only to its function of restriction – that’s what makes them harder to break. They escape detection by distorting themselves into something that can be perceived as utterly non-problematic. One such seemingly fashionable trap that I see in higher academic spaces is the so called ‘academic elitism’ or ‘intellectual sophistication’. 

As a disclaimer, let me clarify that this piece is not against genuine scholastic and academic experiences, rather against elitist, inaccessible structures that are purposefully packaging inaccessibility as an indicator of intellect or academic merit. While I appreciate and acknowledge the volume and levels of research that goes into creating intricate notions, I am disturbed by the unwanted complexity their description often assumes.

Why is the tendency to use fancy language a form of exclusion? As somebody who has been a student of both posh, well-known schools as well as schools with underdeveloped infrastructure, I understand the difference schooling (and the privilege to access private schools) can create when it comes to comprehending fancy language. The equalising of this language to merit, then becomes part of a larger structural issue.

This difference becomes strikingly apparent in many public institutions that offer admissions solely based on marks, irrespective of the kind of schooling received prior to it. When the students from rural areas or the ones who weren’t privileged enough go to private schools struggle to understand this supposedly sophisticated language, they are often termed stupid or lazy – and even the academic merit that allowed them to be there is questioned. Statements like “students from XYZ boards are given marks so easily- they did not have to earn it”, comes from this place of privilege and as a CBSE student, I too have been guilty of perpetuating it.

Surely the problem is systemic and to be corrected at the base level. But not acknowledging it as systemic and conflating the tendency to use unnecessarily fancy language with higher intellect is problematic and downright shameful for higher educational institutions that pride themselves for their ‘inclusive academic spaces’.

I have personally witnessed kids who were slow to understand complicated readings being dismissed as ‘not doing enough work’, without recognising the disparity in the amount of effort that’s being asked of them. Use of phrases like ‘dumb it down’ to refer to breaking down complex language to simpler versions further drives the idea that complicated language equals intelligence.

Academia has been quick to point out that restricting the learning of Sanskrit to Brahmins and the division of Latin as pure and vulgate (twisted forms of linguistic purism), are often measures of gatekeeping. Why then, is the tendency to create an ‘academic version’ of the most commonly used language not viewed in the same way? Is it because we are not completely closing it off and giving the ‘learned ones’ a chance to ‘dumb it down’?

Once the consideration of this fake sophistication as equivalent to intellect is normalised, it would extremely difficult to go back. As there is nothing inherently problematic in having a rich vocabulary – this tendency is hard to correct. For those familiar with the Harry Potter Universe, Hufflepuff is often marketed as the lower wrung of the school of magic. The founders of the other houses picked bravery, ambition and intelligence as the requirement to be in their houses whereas Hufflepuff was willing to admit everyone else (while formally maintaining loyalty and hard work as their main requirement). Courage, ambition and popular understanding of intelligence is more often than not, the product of structures of privilege. But the founder of Hufflepuff had the right idea – education should be accessible to all those who are willing to learn and hence the house becomes a beacon for acceptance and inclusivity.

If fictional magical universes are not a strong enough source to validate my claim, I will take the help of world-renowned genius Albert Einstein who famously said – “If you can’t explain it to a six-year-old, you don’t understand it yourself”. Knowledge was always intended to be parted; that is how it increases and gains strength. Any attempt at gate-keeping it is not only elitist but also a disservice to humanity in general.

Am I against learning the extent of expression a language has to offer? Absolutely not. Am I against using it as an indicator of intelligence when it’s clearly a product of structural privilege? 100% yes. In a country where such structures are made even more inaccessible with intersection of caste, class and gender, exercising restraint is important. The fact that I had to re-read this peace 3 times to edit out pretentious language shows that it’s high time we change this trend.