Just-out-of-college graduate throws brownie points jar into garbage dumpster on his first actual day in the real world
Extremely excited with crossing his best milestone yet, Junaid did something that has been widely 'ooooooooed'. A day after his graduation ceremony, during which he seemed to have a rather cheery, upbeat disposition, at least more than one person noticed him discarding a strange, fancy jar into a garbage bin right opposite his college main gate. Courtesy all the din of celebration, the event remained unnoticed to many. However, as fate would have it, the next day was garbage clearing day, and lo and behold, there was the jar.
The cleaning lady who found it reported it to management as "something of curious nature". They were all clearly astounded, enough to decide that an inquiry was in order. All these events unfolded before the story got mainstream news mileage. Strange to the story's development, Junaid himself hasn't, mostly, remained in the picture. Visits to his known address didn't yield much till we found him volunteering in a children's home on the edge of town.
While he, himself, didn't shed too much light on the subject, the investigation from the college authorities went on. On noting the development as "grievous", they insisted that it be further investigated. One of the points that stood out from the quasi-ruling was that the "reputation" of the institution and the education system was positively tarnished. The chairman, Mr. Alfred Rodriguez, said, "No reputed educational institution will tolerate the heinous actions of the young man in question. It mars decades of effort to build credibility of educational processes. People must trust the process." On being asked about its flaws, he sheepishly asked, "What flaws?"
When the reporter clearly asked him if Junaid's perspective was valid, he fumed, "You highbrow presumptuous folk, everywhere I hear dissidence from people who gained from the system that built you. What right do you even have to ask this question? If you don't want to allow the system to work for you, how will it? Despite that it has! Look at your cushy jobs and the money you make. With all of this, you even have the audacity to question the system that gives some, if not any, semblance to the foundation of modern, civilised, thoughtful society?!"
The reporter wanted to further probe the actual meaning of his response but he was in no mood. "Ingrates!", he screamed, clearly changing the tone of the press conference. After the tension in the air finally snapped, after much silence of we-don't-know-what-to-do-so-let's-just-zip-it, he walked straight out of the room handing the rest of his brief over to his secretary. Then, in a rare instance, the reporter, who started the furore, became the subject of the remaining of the press conference. He shrugged of the newly-emerged controversy as basic journalism-questioning etiquette.
He questioned the shunned legitimacy of the student's views when he was the eventual benefactor from the system. He also raised the issue of the oh-so-important "credibility" of the system which, he said, has been over run by gross dissatisfaction from such benefactors. "You simply cannot ignore them," he said, before going on to add that their concerns, however whimsical, ridiculous and clearly impulsive, were perfectly legitimate given their primary benefactorial status in the system. He specifically referred to "old people who are being self-protective lest the rug is pulled form under their feet" and "a system where the whole precedent built, over decades, will have to fall apart completely in the event of a true, wholesome, complete and immediately necessary revamp". His tone was timbred with less rage when he admitted that it was an inevitable issue of cultural precedence - in his words, "a stubborn old people thing that is difficult to avoid unless gone about intentionally".
The secretary's brief was completely ignored, to her complete dismay.
The cleaning lady who found it reported it to management as "something of curious nature". They were all clearly astounded, enough to decide that an inquiry was in order. All these events unfolded before the story got mainstream news mileage. Strange to the story's development, Junaid himself hasn't, mostly, remained in the picture. Visits to his known address didn't yield much till we found him volunteering in a children's home on the edge of town.
While he, himself, didn't shed too much light on the subject, the investigation from the college authorities went on. On noting the development as "grievous", they insisted that it be further investigated. One of the points that stood out from the quasi-ruling was that the "reputation" of the institution and the education system was positively tarnished. The chairman, Mr. Alfred Rodriguez, said, "No reputed educational institution will tolerate the heinous actions of the young man in question. It mars decades of effort to build credibility of educational processes. People must trust the process." On being asked about its flaws, he sheepishly asked, "What flaws?"
When the reporter clearly asked him if Junaid's perspective was valid, he fumed, "You highbrow presumptuous folk, everywhere I hear dissidence from people who gained from the system that built you. What right do you even have to ask this question? If you don't want to allow the system to work for you, how will it? Despite that it has! Look at your cushy jobs and the money you make. With all of this, you even have the audacity to question the system that gives some, if not any, semblance to the foundation of modern, civilised, thoughtful society?!"
The reporter wanted to further probe the actual meaning of his response but he was in no mood. "Ingrates!", he screamed, clearly changing the tone of the press conference. After the tension in the air finally snapped, after much silence of we-don't-know-what-to-do-so-let's-just-zip-it, he walked straight out of the room handing the rest of his brief over to his secretary. Then, in a rare instance, the reporter, who started the furore, became the subject of the remaining of the press conference. He shrugged of the newly-emerged controversy as basic journalism-questioning etiquette.
He questioned the shunned legitimacy of the student's views when he was the eventual benefactor from the system. He also raised the issue of the oh-so-important "credibility" of the system which, he said, has been over run by gross dissatisfaction from such benefactors. "You simply cannot ignore them," he said, before going on to add that their concerns, however whimsical, ridiculous and clearly impulsive, were perfectly legitimate given their primary benefactorial status in the system. He specifically referred to "old people who are being self-protective lest the rug is pulled form under their feet" and "a system where the whole precedent built, over decades, will have to fall apart completely in the event of a true, wholesome, complete and immediately necessary revamp". His tone was timbred with less rage when he admitted that it was an inevitable issue of cultural precedence - in his words, "a stubborn old people thing that is difficult to avoid unless gone about intentionally".
The secretary's brief was completely ignored, to her complete dismay.
Comments
Post a Comment