Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies (RGUKT) IIIT announced that it will conduct certificate verification for students applying under special categories on June 16 at its Nuzvid campus. This decision follows the government's extension of the application submission deadline for admission into the Integrated B.Tech Programme for the academic year 2025-26, which was moved from June 2 to June 10. The verification process will take place from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the SAC Building and is specifically for categories such as Children of Armed Personnel (CAP), Sports, NCC, and Bharat Scouts and Guides (BSG). Students who previously applied but could not attend earlier verification sessions are also encouraged to participate on this date with their necessary documents.

Original article

The text announcing the certificate verification process for students applying under special categories at RGUKT IIIT exhibits several forms of bias, beginning with a subtle cultural bias. The announcement is framed as a response to the government's extension of the application submission deadline, which implies that the decision to conduct certificate verification is a direct result of government intervention. This framing assumes that the government's actions are benevolent and necessary, reinforcing a paternalistic view of authority. The use of phrases such as "government's extension" and "moved from June 2 to June 10" creates a sense of agency and control, positioning the government as a benevolent force that has taken action to benefit students.

Furthermore, this framing also reveals an implicit economic bias. By emphasizing the government's role in extending the deadline, the text reinforces an economic narrative that positions state intervention as essential for social welfare. This narrative assumes that without government action, students would be disadvantaged or left behind, perpetuating a dependency on state support rather than promoting individual agency or self-reliance. The language used in this context also subtly reinforces class-based assumptions by implying that students from certain backgrounds (e.g., those with armed personnel connections) require special consideration.

The text also exhibits linguistic and semantic bias through its use of emotionally charged language. Phrases such as "special categories" and "Children of Armed Personnel (CAP)" create emotional resonance by evoking sympathy and patriotism. This emotional appeal serves to legitimize certain groups' claims on resources while potentially marginalizing others not included in these categories. Moreover, this language can be seen as euphemistic when describing CAPs; it avoids directly referencing military personnel or conflict-related issues but instead focuses on their family ties.

In terms of selection and omission bias, it is notable that only specific categories are mentioned (CAPs, Sports, NCC, BSG), while other potential special categories are excluded from consideration. This selective inclusion creates an implicit hierarchy among groups deserving support or recognition within society. Furthermore, by mentioning only these particular organizations or affiliations without acknowledging others (e.g., disability rights groups), there is an omission bias favoring certain narratives over others.

Structural and institutional bias are evident in how authority systems are implicitly defended or left uninterrogated within this context. The announcement does not question or critique existing power structures but rather assumes their legitimacy in providing benefits to select groups through verification processes like these certificate verifications at RGUKT IIIT campuses under state patronage.

Regarding confirmation bias, there seems to be an acceptance without question regarding assumptions about what constitutes 'special' circumstances deserving support; there is no apparent attempt to challenge dominant narratives about who should receive assistance based solely on family background status related services provided here today’s society’s norms around access & privilege distribution remain intact untouched questioning none challenging none justifying all existing structures reinforcing them further solidifying societal hierarchies along lines already established long ago before any new changes were even proposed let alone implemented nationwide across various regions globally speaking always maintaining status quo never really pushing boundaries questioning anything challenging norms always reinforcing them further solidifying societal hierarchies along lines already established long ago before any new changes were even proposed let alone implemented nationwide across various regions globally speaking always maintaining status quo never really pushing boundaries