Besides the big issues like contamination and death, in this devastating situation which is presenting before us dynamic and almost ungovernable dimensions in the job sectors as well, if any decision of any particular group in a large institution goes at odds (not against) with the collective understanding of passive cooperation, and if by that unconsulted and therefore uncoordinated implementation of the decision the group knowingly creates divisions among the other groups without thinking of the consequences that might befall on the institution because of the ensuing disharmony, then I believe it is nothing but a desperate attempt from the group's (or any individual's) end to prove itself as "outstanding" and advertise a stunt that has no ethical foundation or logical ground.
The orchestra has to be perfect. Specially now. Anyone blowing their trumpet too hard will not get any extra credit, rather will simply pollute the achievable melody with noise and nothing else.
With no solid hope in the horizons and when everything has come to a standstill for an indefinite period of time, in this trying time, there is actually no alternative to opting for the alternatives, but all these attempts have to be tested by a body of experts (local or national) who will analyze the situation, the routes to its possible solution, the decisions to be taken, the manners of implementation and their possible effects on the overall structure of the institution which too functions in a larger structure within the state mechanism with already established links to other institutions.
All similar types of institutions, and within them the different groups/sections, need to have coordination in their typical nature of functionality, and all their alternative courses of action must at least be structurally synchronized, otherwise the uncorrectable discords rising silently out of politically incorrect and naïve decisions taken by a powerful (and insincere) few will be another micro-issue in the economic and organizational disaster which will be too much for us even to fathom, let alone resolve.
There is a situation of shared liability and accountability, and any one group (or one person) that, even with all the good intentions, under the refuge of an official credential violates it with "apparently discountable" shortsightedness, must be held solely responsible for any possible adverse reaction the institution or the entire sector might have to suffer in the future either from the public, from the prospective clients, or more importantly from the existing clients who might feel mistreated because of the differential treatment offered by one particular section of the institution.
Unlike any department (not necessarily academic) in a public place that can thrive individually and therefore enjoy credits, or suffer discredits, mostly by itself, in a private institution where different groups work together mainly for the goodwill of the entire institution and of the sector at large, any decision of any step that has the potentiality to affect the entire organization differently than anticipated in a special situation like this, must be placed to the governing body first for careful scrutiny. If it does not comply with the general consensus, then it must be avoided.
The stagnant situation in some special sectors right now does call for measures to be taken without delay. But the measures cannot be drastic or elitist, serving only a few clients who can afford to avail the special offers in this special time. This creates a serious disparity, an unacceptable and unmanageable mismatch specially in a liberal institution (for example academic institutions) where clients fall into categorical structure and as a result cannot (or are not allowed to) crash and escape any given line of general direction.
In spite of this, when an untested measure is implemented anyway on a large scale, some clients later might find it difficult, if not entirely impossible, to cope up with the pace already achieved or the points already received by the privileged group of clients (again in some situations the damage can be unrepairable). The use of ATM booth and the closure of banks can be one such scenario where only the privileged (educated) group can easily avail the facility of withdrawing money. Others just plainly have to suffer for it.
There is no professional or moral defense for this unfair contest or this undue treatment that might occasion an imbalance in the fine constitution of mutual rapport, and that is why it must be confronted with honest criticism or if possible, with outright denial from the authority's end.
A non-statistical argument might try to bring the issue of reluctance from the clients' part, that they do not really care or that they will somehow manage, but in the professional world, nothing can be decided and implemented based on mere speculations and gross generalization, especially when that particular professional sector has a well laid out design to offer services suitable for all and at the same time meet the expectations of the ideal clients. Only the best, well thought-out plan has to be brought upon the table, even if it takes a toll on so many by forcing them to compromise the chance of a personal profit.
It is high time the members of the steering committees from different institutions sat together either to come up with a solution, or surrender to the situation. Keeping some of the clients in the dark and some in the light in the same institution/sector is never going to bring any good. No, not just for that one institution, or that one group or that one person! The ripple effect is bound to bring a flood, of chaos and criticism, of an upset setup that will constantly disparage all the big future efforts to solve a situation gone haywire. Authorities must realize that as early as possible, otherwise we all will become the authors of a problem that we have not even intended to write in the first place.
The author is an Assistant Professor of English, Varendra University