Twenty Representatives and a Ramp
The Student Council of a secondary school in Kolhapur has Rs 25,000 left from its annual fund-raiser. Twenty elected class representatives must decide how to spend it. Three proposals are on the table. (1) A water cooler for the third floor, supported by a petition of 210 students who climb 60 steps between periods in summer. (2) A ramp and handrails at the science block entrance, needed by Nikhil, a Class 8 student who uses a wheelchair and is currently carried up the steps by two friends every practical period. (3) New cricket and kabaddi kits, because the existing ones are shared with the primary section and are worn out. The principal has told the council, 'The ramp is a government job, not a school job; spend the money on something everyone can use.' Nikhil's class representative has collected 90 signatures for the ramp. The council must vote by secret ballot tomorrow after one 40-minute discussion.
1. The principal frames the ramp as charity and the cooler as a common good. Explain the error in that framing using the distinction between a preference and a right.
Read the worked answer
A preference is something a person wants and can reasonably be asked to trade off against other people's wants. A right, or entitlement, is a claim that does not depend on winning a majority: it sets a floor below which a decision cannot go. The cooler and the kits are preferences; the ramp is a rights claim. Equal access to education is a legal entitlement, and current disability law requires schools to provide accessible infrastructure and reasonable accommodation, not to wait for a government grant.
So the three proposals are not competing on one scale. A council cannot vote away a minority's access, any more than it could vote that a student may be excluded from the laboratory. The correct procedure is two-stage: first establish the floor (what must be done whatever the vote), then deliberate on how to distribute the remainder.
The principal's phrase 'something everyone can use' is also factually wrong. A ramp serves visitors, delivery trolleys, students on crutches, and anyone injured; that is the standard argument for universal design. The cooler is genuinely useful and should not be dismissed; but it is useful, not required.
The practical error in the principal's framing is that it treats a legal duty as a generous option, which then makes the council's vote look like a judgement about Nikhil's worth rather than about money.
2. Design the 40-minute discussion and the ballot so that a minority claim is not simply outvoted. What should happen if Rs 25,000 does not cover the ramp?
Read the worked answer
Sequence the 40 minutes deliberately. Five minutes for facts, including an actual vendor quotation for each item, because cost estimates invented in the room will drive the vote. Ten minutes for each proposer to make the case, including Nikhil or a representative of his choosing. Ten minutes open. Five minutes to agree the wording of the questions before voting.
Split the vote into two questions rather than one. First: 'Is access to the science block a requirement the council must meet?' This is answered by reasons, not by numbers. Second: 'How should the remaining money be allocated?' This is answered by numbers. A single three-way vote forces students to weigh a ramp against a cooler, which is the confusion the principal introduced.
Protect the small classes procedurally: secret ballot, minutes recorded, and a rule that a representative may state a minority view without it being voted down as a motion. Do not make Nikhil stand up and be looked at; ask him privately what he wants.
If Rs 25,000 is not enough, phase the work: build the ground-floor access ramp and handrails now, obtain a written quotation for the rest, and have the council request the school management committee and the education officer to fund the balance. Students can escalate a duty; they cannot substitute for the body that owes it.
3. A representative argues, 'Nikhil is one student; the cooler helps 210. The numbers are obvious.' Respond to the argument, and identify what is true in it.
Read the worked answer
What is true: numbers matter for distributing benefits, and 210 students climbing 60 steps in summer is a real, measurable burden. A council that ignored that would be careless. The petition also tells us the demand is broad, not one loud person's complaint.
What is wrong: counting votes is the right method for sharing out benefits among equals; it is the wrong method for deciding whether a barrier that only some people face may stay in place. The bridge analogy is exact: a majority does not acquire the right to decide that a minority may not cross. If it did, every small group would be permanently exposed, and the school would be teaching that access is a popularity contest.
There is also a factual error hidden in 'one student'. The number of people currently affected by a barrier is not the measure of the barrier's importance; the number of people who will be affected over the life of the building is, and that includes future students, staff and visitors.
Practically, the two proposals are not mutually exclusive. Fixing taps, raising the balance, and seeking a part donation can fund both; the council's real job is to find out whether 'either-or' is a fact or an assumption. If it is genuinely either-or, the floor comes first and the remainder goes to the most valuable preference.