Submit your Article

ChatGPT has taken the world, particularly academia, by storm. Technological advances have constantly impacted the field of education, and the popularization of ChatGPT, an artificial language model, has occupied a significant space in discussions within academia. Teachers have argued for and against using this latest technological advancement within academic institutions. In this brief write-up, I explore both sides of the argument based on my personal engagements with ChaptGPT as a teacher and a rapid review of the experiences of other academicians. A prominent argument against ChatGPT in education is that it will challenge teaching and learning as it is currently practiced. This tool has access to large volumes of information and can provide instant responses to educational queries: It can swiftly answer questions that might take considerable time and effort using a traditional approach of going through available materials. ChaptGPT can write coherent and flawless essays within the given world limit; it can help students prepare for exams or conduct research. This feature provides the base for teachers’ fear concerning ChaptGPT. They fear that since the app is readily available and user-friendly, students might not put in the effort to work on assignments, given that it can work for them. They fear that undue reliance on ChatGPT could severely limit students’ abilities to look for, organize, analyze, and present relevant information and think critically or creatively. This loss of non-negotiable skills in education can be a significant educational challenge we cannot overlook. For example, ChatGPT can write personalized codes in a few seconds that traditionally require significant training and practice, profoundly changing how people work. Hence, workplaces and employees cannot function as they did until recently. From this example in the IT field, it is clear that training employees to work with ChatGPT to produce better outcomes will be more helpful than banning it. This indicates similar challenges for many other disciplines. I have experienced significant changes in student engagement and evaluation of teaching and learning over a decade as a higher education faculty. When I started teaching in 2010, my students were happy to be handed over notes or linked to guidebooks and guess papers that would prepare them for the final examinations; they had minimal expectations from teachers. However, today, students often complain that a teacher does not provide enough stimulation in the classroom, does not provide access to adequate study materials, including reference books and articles, and does not use inclusive languages and behaviors, to name a few. Students’ expectations have significantly changed. However, teachers have to rely largely upon materials from the past that might not be as relevant in the current context as they were a decade back or might not be sensitive to diverse students. For example, as a student of ‘community organization’ in 2010, I only learned about communities of geography and communities of interest. However, as a teacher of community organization in 2023, I cannot overlook the emerging communities of identities; for example, the sexual and gender minorities community. The textbooks and reference materials that were current and adequate a decade ago need significant revisions and additions today. ChaptGPT can support teachers with current and wide-ranging resources in this fast-changing context. ChatGPT can be an advantageous tool for greater accessibility and inclusion in education. The Nepali education system disproportionately focuses on content and largely evaluates student performance based on their written responses in the final exams. Academic programs and institutions that practice continued assessments or assign internal grades also largely rely on written performances from students in the form of assignments or examinations. However, we know students have diverse aptitudes and learning abilities, including visual, auditory, reading and writing, or kinesthetic learners. ChatGPT could help diversify the content to cater to each kind of learner, thus creating opportunities for all learners. Weimer (2002) underscores that although we are all in favor of learning, just as we all aspire to be thin, we have not changed what we cook and serve students. My view is that working with ChatGPT can push us to rethink learning: To change what we cook and serve students, and ChatGPT can provide recipes for that. However, teachers need to take ChaptGPT’s contents with a grain of salt since the app “is more confident that it is competent” (Hardman, 2023). In its own words, a concern with ChatGPT “is the potential for bias and inaccuracies in the information provided by ChatGPT. While the technology is designed to be as accurate and unbiased as possible, it is not infallible, and there is always the possibility of errors or inaccuracies creeping in.” To conclude this brief discussion, I believe that education should aim at teaching students to think, reflect and form opinions and not merely store information so that they prepare themselves for life and not just examinations. And this thinking and reflecting could include what ChatGPT—the state-of-the-art language processing model—brings forth. Hence, rather than looking at ChatGPT as a challenge in education or shying away from it, teachers could benefit from integrating it into their educational engagements, including research, curriculum development, and crafting diverse assignments catering to diverse students. The author is a social work faculty at Thames International College, Kathmandu, pursuing a PhD in Social Work at Boston College, USA. He can be contacted at [email protected]

Shaming of students by teachers in Nepal is prevalent from kindergarten to higher education. The oldest memories of school shaming that I have is of our English teacher in kindergarten making us cover our faces with our palms while our female classmates lifted their skirts for not putting on underwear! I remember my English teacher in grade five pasting ‘donkey’ on my friend’s back and making him walk around the school for not memorizing tense structures correctly; I was trembling with the fear of shaming in case I could not regurgitate it accurately. Twenty-eight years later, my friend—bedridden due to some sickness—contemplates dropping an MPhil course instead of submitting an assignment dreading that his course teacher might shame him among his colleagues for work not done well, like in an earlier instance. The forms and intensity of shaming might have changed, but shaming within classrooms has been ongoing in educational institutions in our country. In this brief piece, I look at this practice of shaming within academic institutions and its ill impacts. Shaming within academic institutions comes in different forms; examples include keeping the students outside of the class; scolding a student in front of the class; announcing students’ grades publicly and congratulating the higher scorers while denouncing the ‘low achievers’; scapegoating; rusticating; suspending; mocking and ridiculing. Teasing students because they cannot speak fluent or ‘correct’ Nepali is widespread in Nepali academic institutions; most students with a first language other than Nepali are victims of such shaming. Ranking students’ academic performance and public announcement of ranks and grades are such normalized practices in Nepal’s educational institutions that we seldom reflect on their negative psychological impacts. We should consider that rewarding a few students for their academic performance could disempower many students. Another common but overlooked shaming practice within academic institutions in Nepal is categorizing students based on their grades; this is particularly prevalent in schools with multiple sections at the same grade level. Students are assigned to a particular section depending on their grades. Furthermore, students are moved from one section to another, depending on their academic performance. This ‘upgrading’ or ‘downgrading’ profoundly impacts student performance; a notable phenomenon might be the bullying of a downgraded student by their classmates. This ‘downgrading’ might instigate a negative downward spiral in the student involving absenteeism from school, withdrawal from classroom engagement, self-isolation and detachment from peers, and loss of self-confidence, among others. Furthermore, shaming could cultivate pessimistic mindsets in students regarding the possibility of their success and the belief that failure is inevitable, causing them to give up before they begin (Bayers and Camfield, 2018). Shaming and corporal punishment were normalized everyday experiences of students, who went to school two decades ago. Whereas corporal punishment is shunned in schools today, shaming is persistent. Both shaming and punishing are based on the idea that they can effectively change students for the better. A colleague recently shared with me that his four-year-old repeatedly said she would keep her parents in the ‘naughty chair’ for not paying attention to her or not attending to her demands. Intrigued, he went to her daughter’s Montessori school to find out that students, who ‘misbehaved’ in the classroom were temporarily put in the naughty chair. Kindergartens, where a few facilitators deal with many students, generally come up with some form of ‘othering’ a ‘difficult child’ to ‘manage’ the classroom. Since this was a treatment that he was unfamiliar with and worked well  (according to the school administrators), he was unsure how to respond. The ‘naughty chair’ used in this instance represents negative reinforcement by labeling, marking, or branding. The student in the naughty chair was used as an example or symbol of who not to be and therefore separated from the others in the classroom. Shaming is the worst method of teaching because it manipulates kids’ fear of alienation and stigma; it involves giving up on teaching students and leaves them with only those lessons that can be learned from adult-sanctioned ridicule and mockery (Perry, 2019). Schools are sensitive spaces since children spend the formative years of their lives there; instances of shaming, particularly during the formative years, can have long-lasting negative impacts. Hence, schools must be careful of their methods to encourage or discourage student behavior, including shaming. Brene Brown, a shame and vulnerability researcher, contends that shame is an intensely painful feeling or experience of believing one is flawed and therefore unworthy of love. This feeling of unworthiness can be detrimental for children and adults alike. Furthermore, Brown flags that shame does not have prosocial effects, and researchers do not show shame to have any positive outcomes. Brown’s findings indicate that shaming does not work the way schools think it does. Concluding this piece, I contend that shaming within academic institutions must stop. The author is a faculty of social work at Thames International College, Kathmandu. [email protected]

Holding the door, offering a ride, giving directions, and giving your seat to someone more in need are acts we can all do in daily life. Such behaviors are commonly known as altruism. Dictionary.com defines altruism as “the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others” and Merriam-Webster dictionary as “feelings and behavior that show a desire to help other people and a lack of selfishness.” Both these definitions stress unselfishness and helping others. The help people receive from altruists is tangible and prominent, but the benefits these Samaritans receive are often overlooked and under-discussed. In this piece, I will share the benefits this unselfish help extended to others can bring to the doer. To begin with, reaching out to others without expecting anything in return has positive effect on our bodies. Studies have shown that the part of the brain responsible for feelings of reward is triggered when people donate, and the brain releases feel-good chemicals, often referred to as ‘helper’s high’; the famous Salman Khan movie ‘kick’ revolves around this. The most common understanding of altruism is volunteering, and various studies have shown that volunteers enjoy incredible health benefits and increased well-being. Altruists also receive the benefits of ‘The Happiness Effect’—feeling good for the action immediately and developing a more positive self-image and self-confidence in the long run. Happy and smiling people are also seen as more approachable, and thus they are likely to develop more social relations. In this era of networking and knowing people, they are also naturally likely to benefit from these social connections. Apart from the feel-good factors of altruism, there are many other benefits. Many universities give academic credits for volunteer service; some even make it mandatory, realizing its profound positive impact on the participants. As a teacher, my experience of engaging students in community service activities has shown tremendous positive changes in them: volunteering fostered positive self-esteem, added to their willingness to accept and support others, forged stronger friendships, developed optimistic attitudes, nourished humility, and an increased sense of appreciation and gratitude in most of the participants. Many academic institutions recognize these values in volunteers and prioritize applicants with volunteering experiences. Working with people outside friends and family also allows one to know the self better. More often than not, we live up to the images of the self as constructed by people around us. People change with time, but we still stick to a particular construct of self while living in the same surroundings. So, finding one’s true self, the present self is necessary, and volunteering can help in this quest. Mahatma Gandhi suggested, “To find yourself, lose yourself in the service of others.” Volunteering is also an opportunity for career choice and advancement. Getting different kinds of volunteer experiences helps explore career opportunities. Many of us do not know what career options are available and where we want to build our careers, and volunteering might facilitate developing clarity. Volunteer service or internship at an organization of choice is an intelligent way of making a way through as it gives the volunteers an opportunity to know the organization well and see if it is what they are looking for. At the same time, it provides a platform to bring the knowledge, attitude, and skills required in the organization, turning the volunteers into good employees. Volunteering also provides opportunities to learn job-related skills transferable to other agencies. Most organizations are open to volunteers because they get free help and additions to the resource pool for future recruitments.  While volunteering has many perceived benefits, it is also important not to be too ambitious with volunteering commitments. It is crucial to reach out to others without feeling burdened. Volunteering opportunities are everywhere around us. They say charity begins at home: we can start by helping our family members with things outside our regular commitments; this has similar physical and mental benefits to volunteering elsewhere. Many social organizations offer volunteering opportunities, like the Rotary, Rotaract and Interact Clubs, Lions and Leo Clubs, the Red Cross Societies, Reiyukai Clubs, and member organizations of the JCI are some organizations working locally, nationally, and internationally. These can provide avenues for community service, professional development, and network building. To reiterate my point, altruism impacts everyone significantly: helping others brings joy not just to the person receiving help but also to the one extending it and the larger community. I urge all the readers to reach out to people in need in their respective capacities. Help is neither measured in monetary value nor time commitment; it has the same positive effects regardless of the type of help extended. Most importantly, by helping people around us even in minor ways, we all will be living in a much better world. The author is a faculty of Social Work at Thames International College, Kathmandu. He can be contacted at [email protected]  

How do you respond to the child on the street in New Road who is begging for money? What do you do when he clings to your legs, drags himself, and embarrasses you until you offer money? This is a situation familiar to us. We know many children on the street use cigarette, alcohol or sniff dendrite. If we give them money, they might use it on these harmful substances. So by giving money, we might be doing more harm than good to these children.

But we are charitable and want to help. Also, it is embarrassing when a child clings to your feet and so many people are making faces at you. When I find myself in such a situation, I ask the child what they need the money for and almost unfailingly, they respond ‘for food’. And I offer to buy them food instead of giving money. Some appreciate the gesture and accept food, while some curse me and leave. I accept the curses believing that I did the right thing by preventing my charity from doing harm to this child.

“Charity is a tricky thing. I don’t always know when to offer it and when not,” my wife says. Many others have shared similar confusion. In this opinion piece, I discuss the tricky issue of charity with my current view, and while doing so I also present my earlier views.

Growing up, I had learnt from my parents to be kind and charitable to the poor and needy. Although I don’t recall the reasons they gave me, I believe they were based on the idea of daan leading to punya. And I used to give money to people on the streets who appeared needy and were seeking help. But this changed when I joined Social Work education. I now came across a view where charity wasn’t encouraged.

This view laid out that giving money to the poor encourages begging and makes them depend on others for a living. So I stopped giving money to those on the streets, although I found it difficult to say no to their requests. My training in social work taught me that giving skills, instead of money, was the right thing to do to help the poor. This was in accordance with the perspective that focuses on empowering the marginalized and the vulnerable by providing skills so that they can take care of themselves. The most commonly used example in professional social work is that if you give fish to a hungry person, they will survive for a day but if you teach them how to fish, they will survive every day of their lives. This was what I believed in then.

Relevant in the discussion about ‘to give or not to give charity to the poor’ is the individual vs structural view of poverty. The individual view contends that people are poor because of their laziness or unwillingness to work, whereas the second view highlights that people are poor because of structural issues, for example the socio-economic arrangements. The individual view blames the person for their poverty and thus discourages charity whereas the structural view holds the larger system accountable for the poverty of an individual. After being exposed to this individual vs structural view on poverty, I resumed giving to people in need but with a newer understanding of poverty and charity.

My understanding of charity expanded from giving money to the poor to providing support to the needy and poor including materials, skills, and networks. This understanding corresponds to the Merriam-Webster dictionary’s definition of charity as “generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering”. My understanding of the poor as helpless and needy expanded to view them as victims of the larger socio-economic system, which needs to be changed in order to address the root causes of poverty. I learnt that each of us can intervene or contribute to bring about change in the system to lift people up from poverty. What we can do depends on where we are and what we are capable of.

There can be various levels and natures of interventions to address poverty, namely, micro, meso, and macro. At a micro level, an individual can help poor people by providing them with basic necessities of life or with skill development. At meso level, too, groups of individuals and organizations can extend similar help. And at the macro level, governments (local, states and central) can provide welfare to the poor through cash transfers, unemployment allowances, subsidized housing, skills development opportunities, employment generation, affirmative action, to name a few.

No matter where we are in the level of intervention, providing charity should be a thoughtful act of helping the poor or needy and not merely an expression of compassion or a daan. Charity should not be limited to acts carried out to feel good but aimed at empowering the poor and needy so that they are not dependent on charitable individuals and organizations. And acts of charity must bring no further harm to those helped.

Evidence of the increasing resistance that formal education institutions and teachers face these days, including in Nepal, is aplenty. The song “Teachers leave them kids alone” plays frequently and t-shirts flash: “I was born intelligent but education ruined me”. This development of resistance, particularly in higher education, forces educators to revisit the purpose of education and the relation between teachers and students.

Times have changed. Students no longer have to rely solely on the teacher for the course content. They have similar, if not the same, access to textbooks and online materials as teachers. So teaching as dissemination of information is gradually turning into an obsolete phenomenon. Teachers can no longer remain the ‘sage on the stage’ who transfer knowledge from their buckets to the vessels that students are thought to be.

This is particularly prominent in higher education where the students come with a broad range of academic and non-academic experiences and do not identify with empty vessels waiting to be filled. Neither do they appreciate the old-school teacher-student hierarchal relationship devoid of spaces to question the content and methods used in education.

The goal of education should be to help students learn; hence the focus should be on learning rather than teaching. Goldstein (2001) explains, “A Teaching Model is didactic, deductive, top-down—the typical classroom experience. A Learning Model … is an experience that involves one’s total self—mind and body, intellect and emotion, memory and foresight. It is an active and interactive process one experiences and engages in learning”.

A cursory look at the prominent higher education institutions in Nepal provides ample evidence that they largely follow the teaching instead of the learning model. Universities (in practice, a handful of people) design the curriculum without an active engagement of key stakeholders (the teachers and the students), conduct all or larger portions of student evaluation, and exercise authority over ‘monitoring’ education. Teachers have little or no space to engage students beyond this most often ‘content heavy’ curriculum or to even provide a deeper engagement, and students are largely passive recipients of education that lopsidedly happens within the physical classrooms. I believe that higher education in Nepal will benefit by shifting from the prevalent teaching model to a learning model—the sooner the better.

Although this shift throughout the nation would require policy changes (another top-down process area!) consuming a lot of time and other resources, higher education institutions and teachers can immediately benefit by incorporating elements of learner-centered education. Maryellen Weimer (2002) in Learner Centered Teaching points to five things that change when teaching is learner-centered: the balance of power, the function of content, the role of the teacher, the responsibility for learning, and the purpose and process of evaluation.

Weimer contends that faculty controlled learning diminish student motivation and results in dependent learners. She recommends a responsible power sharing with students to positively influence their motivation and learning. She believes excessive focus on covering the content (a ubiquitous phenomenon in Nepal) restricts the development of learning skills needed to function effectively on the job and in society. This might explain why many of our graduates lack the skills and struggle to perform at workplace despite having a ‘degree’ and good grades.

A learner-centered teaching focuses on using instead of covering the content to establish a knowledge foundation and develop learning skills. Such engagements might have implications on how much content can be covered in a course. Therefore curriculum developers in Nepal should aim at designing content that can provide deep engagement, with the focus on skill development rather than controlling students through expansive content.

In learner centered teaching, Weimer explains, teachers are guides, facilitators, and designers of learning experiences and not the ‘main performers’. Students are the focus of this approach and teachers are involved in careful design of experiences, activities and assignments through which students engage with the content. Learner centered teaching encourages students to understand and accept the responsibilities for learning, including coming to class—not because of the attendance policy but because they see the activities and events of class time making important contribution to their learning. Finally, Weimer advises using evaluation to promote learning and not merely to generate grades, and to encourage student involvement through self-evaluation and peer evaluation.

So teachers should stop teaching with the view that they are the experts and students are mere recipients of knowledge. They should critically revisit the idea that learning happens with transfer of information. To borrow Sir Ken Robinson’s words from his TED Talk “How to escape education’s death valley”, teachers should also mentor, stimulate, provoke, and engage.

The author is a PhD Scholar in the School of Social Work, Boston College, MA, USA

As the constant stream of Covid-19 news is getting increasingly overwhelming and stressful, parents who find their kids at home because of the closed schools have two important tasks: communicating about the virus with their children, and engaging them productively at home.

Children are hearing about the coronavirus cases from media and people around them as much as the adults are, and they see parents in distress and confusion about dealing with this unprecedented situation. Because of this, children may find their heads full of questions related to the virus and the outbreak. And with no one else in their immediate surrounding, they frequently turn to their parents to clear up these queries. In a situation like this one, it is important for the parents to answer their questions and address their worries.

The Harvard Health blog suggests that parents should provide just enough information about the virus, should model calmness, and limit news exposure on the coronavirus. Parents should take care to answer the questions children have, but not give too much information as it may add to their anxiety. Children can imagine elaborately and it is important to keep the information they receive clear, concise, and presented in a way they understand.

Several websites and blogs offer help in communicating with children, according to age groups. Some of the most important suggestions include:

• When a person sneezes or coughs, the virus can come out of their body into the air and enter other people’s body. So it is necessary to maintain a distance of six feet with people other than your family members.
• You should sneeze or cough into your handkerchief, tissue, or into your elbow. If everyone does this, then the virus from sick people cannot get into other person’s body.
• It is important to sanitize your hands or wash them with soap and water regularly to stop the virus from entering your body. You can sing ‘Sayaun thunga phoolka haami’ or ‘Happy Birthday to you’ (or any of your favorite song for at least 20 seconds) while washing hands with soap and water.
• Don’t worry! Virus cannot enter your body if you practice good health behaviors (discussed above) and so it cannot harm you.

Besides answering children’s questions appropriately, parents should remain calm themselves as children model them. Children also imitate adult response to issues so parents should avoid reading the news on corona when children are around to avoid anxious encounters. If a child is repeatedly asking questions about coronavirus, it might be an indication of anxiety and reassurance seeking behavior. Parents should calmly listen to their questions, no matter how many times, and could repeat the above responses in their own words. Seeking help from therapists, when available, can be helpful.

Besides keeping children safe and aware of the situation regarding corona, it is also important to engage them at home, particularly when going out is not an option. Children want to be useful and they love being involved in chores, so giving them responsibility for things they can do is a great way not just to keep them engaged but also to make them feel valued and useful. For example, parents can ask children to invite family members for food, help in preparing and serving food, doing dishes, cleaning and decorating the house, and help in gardening (e.g. carrying things, watering plants). Parents with access to internet can also locate online engagement opportunities like story-telling sessions, art sessions, music lessons, to name a few I have come across through social media.

Playing games can be a great option not only to engage children but also adults. Neuroscience research shows that when individuals, regardless of age, engage in play their bodies release ‘feel good’ hormones like endorphins, oxytocin, dopamine, and serotonin. These hormones are linked to reduced stress and improved mood, which can help everyone cope with this pandemic better.

Spending time with children (through play or involvement in doing chores) also has long-term benefits. Research shows that when parents and children spend time together, children build self-esteem, cultivate positive behaviors, develop comfort around parents to share any problems they might be facing, and increase help seeking behavior. Spending time together also strengthens family bonds and facilitates communication.

Hence not all is grim about the current state of affairs caused by Covid-19; it can be an opportunity to take a break from the fast paced lives we lead, breath deeply, and foster family relationships; engaging with children can create ample opportunities for the same.

The author is a PhD Scholar in Social Work at Boston College, USA. He holds a Masters in Social Work with Families and Children

Growing up in Kathmandu, Buddha’s two eyes were ubiquitous—on shrines, shops, and shirts. I later learned they represent wisdom and compassion. I began to understand the meaning of these concepts much later, through my training in social work and through my wider exposure.

The Cambridge English Dictionary defines compassion as ‘a strong feeling of sympathy and sadness for other people’s suffering or back luck and a desire to help’. According to the Greater Good Science Center at UC Berkeley, compassion literally means ‘to suffer together’, and emotion researchers define it as the feeling that arises when you are confronted with another’s suffering and feel motivated to relieve it.

Many movements in the world are based on compassion. Vegetarianism is one that we encounter in day-to-day life. This movement has compassion at its core and argues that vegetarianism is a way to support the inward growth of compassion in people and its outward extension to all animals. A keen observation reveals that all religions of the world have compassion at their heart.

Extending compassion to others uplifts you. “Adding a dose of compassion to someone else’s day not only uplifts their spirits, but makes you feel happier, too,” says Sara Schairer, the Founder and Executive Director of ‘Compassion It’. She adds that even the smallest, most simple gesture can brighten someone’s day and make you feel more connected to others. But J. Krishnamurti, in his book ‘The Whole Movement of Life Is Learning’, argues that compassion is not the doing of charitable acts or social reform; it is rather a freedom from from sentiment, romanticism and emotional enthusiasm. He contends that no new culture or society can come into being without compassion, and it is the essence of wholeness of life.

These highlights on compassion and their importance also raise some important questions: how does compassion work? Are we born with it? Can we grow it? Brene Brown, the famous compassion and vulnerability researcher and author of international bestsellers, says, “Compassion is not a virtue—it is a commitment. It’s not something we have or don’t have—it’s something we choose to practice.” In this pretext, I share my own experience of learning to practice compassion.

In 2015 I had a chance to sit in a Compassion Cultivation Training (CCT) developed at The Center for Compassion and Altruism Research and Education at Stanford University School of Medicine. The training was being provided under the guidance of Prof Lewis Wall, the founder of the Worldwide Fistula Fund. He has voluntarily and compassionately carried out many successful surgeries on fistula patients in African countries. CCT brings together traditional contemplative understanding and practice of compassion (e.g. Buddhist meditation) and contemporary psychology and scientific research on compassion to help practitioners improve resilience and connection with others, ultimately improving overall wellbeing.

Based on my learning in this training, reading books in the wider area, and teaching and practicing social work, I suggest a few basic, quick and effective tips on cultivating compassion.

Find 20 minutes of interruption-free time each day and focus on two things—breathing and thinking compassionately about people. The mere acts of focusing on breathing (observing the inward and outward flow of air through the nostrils) and thinking compassionately (remembering a happy moment we lived and thanking the people involved, and saying words of compassion to people we love) can help cultivate compassion.

As we continue practicing, we can add more people into our sphere of love and compassion. Cultivating compassion is easy if we begin with people we love and gradually include those we have a neutral opinion about. After some practice we may even forgive the people we think have wronged us and feel compassion for them.

At this point in the write-up, I am conscious of my own standpoint and reflective of my own practicing/not practicing compassion in life. I am acutely aware that I might have knowingly or unknowingly failed to be compassionate. But I believe that cultivating compassion is necessary in our move towards social justice, and thus remind myself to practice compassion. And I urge the readers of this piece to pause, take deep breaths, and extend compassion to the people around.

In the end, I invite you to reflect on this quote by the Dalai Lama: “Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them, humanity cannot survive.”

The author is a PhD Scholar in Social Work at Boston College, USA

During the selection of students for various undergraduate programs at Thames International College, a student on a wheelchair applied. Although she was on the wheelchair temporarily to recover from an accident, it was my first experience, as an administrator, with an applicant with disability. It made me reflect on various ways of accommodating her in our college. This encounter with a potential student jolted me into exploring the issue of inclusion within educational spaces in Nepal.

We live and work in a society that comprises of people with disabilities. So, knowing the ways to live and work with them in harmony is good for everyone involved and the only way towards a just society. In an educational context, being inclusive of persons with disabilities could involve accepting them as an integral part of the classroom as a student, a colleague, as facilitators and as administrators and supporting them when and where needed.

Building inclusive classrooms can be an important step towards educational integration of persons with disabilities, yet there are several other challenges which need to be addressed for them to access such inclusive classrooms. One prominent challenge, among many, is commuting to these classrooms. Reflecting merely on this aspect gives us an idea of the myriad challenges persons with disabilities face in everyday lives.

Persons with disability and with means might be brought to educational spaces and taken back home by others, yet they have limited mobility and are dependent on the others for their commute. Those who can afford disability-friendly vehicles also struggle with many public spaces. I recall an incident in the recent past where wheelchair users demolished a new pavement in Jorpati, close to the office of the Nepal Disability Association, for not being disability-friendly.

Those relying on public transport might be the most marginalized group in terms of mobility. Several surveys note that persons with disability experienced feeling unwelcome and even harassed in public transport. Such difficult experiences intensify the struggles of people with disabilities to even reach educational spaces. Although Nepal has several policies and legislations on ensuring that persons with disabilities have access to transport, these intended policies have not been able to significantly help people in everyday lives. Like many other well-intended policies, they suffer from inadequate implementation, enforcement and failure of the state-machinery to follow up with plans.

Providing access to and including persons with disabilities in classrooms are representative of the numerous steps that need to be taken to support them in their everyday lives. The larger question is: how can we integrate people with disability in everyday lives in Nepal?

The first and an important response that we can as individuals and a society offer is to not overlook their abilities because of their disability, or generalize their abilities based on their disability, or discriminate them for their disability in all spheres of life. The next step could involve being inclusive of persons with disabilities in public and private spaces. For example, helping them in public transport, asking if you can help them—but not unilaterally deciding that they need help and jumping in to help, which could be disempowering for them—would facilitate their integration in public spaces.

At a macro level, ensuring the implementation of inclusive policies and affirmative action for people with disabilities would be necessary. Many countries have worked towards such inclusive societies and Norway has exemplified inclusive classrooms where students with different abilities are integrated in regular classrooms and not in isolated ‘special’ ones. They have proven such inclusion adds value to learning in general by promoting sensitivity towards others and building everyone’s capacity to work amid diversity in classroom as well as at work—a skill highly desired in spheres of education and employment.

It is necessary and it is high time for educational policies to explicitly prioritize, discuss and guide inclusion of persons with disability. In November 2019, a new National Education Policy was approved by the Council of Ministers. This policy envisions educated, civilized, healthy and capable human resource, social justice, transformation and prosperity and promises each citizen’s access to compulsory and free basic education. Inclusive policies are a good start towards an inclusive education and only time will show how the nation traverses this long journey of uptake of the policy into making inclusive classrooms a shared reality. 

The author worked as a faculty and administrator at Thames International College, Kathmandu from 2010-18. He is currently pursuing a PhD in Social Work at Boston College, USA