The Chief Minister of Puducherry, N. Rangasamy, has requested the intervention of Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar to implement a 25% reservation for local students at Pondicherry University. This request was made during a meeting while the Vice President was visiting Puducherry. The memorandum highlighted the need for this reservation across all courses currently offered and those that will be introduced in the future.

Rangasamy recalled that in 1997, an initial decision was made to provide reservations for Puducherry students in university admissions, which began with eight courses and later expanded to eighteen. However, as new professional and job-oriented courses were introduced, this reservation was not extended further, leading to dissatisfaction among local youth.

The Puducherry Assembly had previously adopted a resolution supporting the 25% reservation across all 64 academic programs at the university. A three-member committee also recommended uniform reservations in all courses, which was accepted by the academic council in 2013-14. Despite these developments, no action has been taken to implement this recommendation thus far.

Original article

The provided text exhibits a multitude of biases, each carefully crafted to sway the reader's perspective in favor of the Chief Minister's request. One of the most striking biases is the linguistic and semantic bias employed throughout the text. The language used is deliberately emotive, with phrases such as "dissatisfaction among local youth" and "need for this reservation," which creates a sense of urgency and sympathy for the cause. This type of language manipulation is designed to elicit an emotional response from the reader, rather than presenting a neutral or objective account.

Furthermore, the text exhibits structural and institutional bias by presenting a one-sided narrative that glosses over potential counterarguments or criticisms. The Chief Minister's request is presented as a straightforward solution to a problem, without acknowledging any potential drawbacks or complexities involved in implementing such a policy. This selective framing creates an illusion of neutrality, while actually concealing implicit bias through omission.

The text also reveals cultural and ideological bias in its assumption that providing reservations for local students is inherently beneficial. The phrase "dissatisfaction among local youth" implies that this dissatisfaction stems from systemic injustices or inequalities, rather than potentially other factors such as personal choices or individual circumstances. This framing reinforces a particular worldview that emphasizes social justice and equality above all else.

In addition, there is an implicit economic and class-based bias at play here. By advocating for reservations specifically for local students, the Chief Minister's request effectively prioritizes certain socioeconomic groups over others. This raises questions about who benefits from such policies: are they primarily intended to support marginalized communities or simply to curry favor with certain segments of society? The text does not engage with these complexities, instead presenting them as self-evident truths.

The narrative structure itself also betrays framing and narrative bias. By beginning with a statement about Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar's visit to Puducherry and then immediately introducing the Chief Minister's request, the author creates an association between Dhankhar's authority figure status and Rangasamy's proposal. This subtle manipulation influences how readers perceive Rangasamy's request – it becomes more legitimate due to its connection to an influential figure like Dhankhar.

Moreover, there are issues with selection and omission bias throughout this piece. For instance, it does not mention any potential consequences or challenges associated with implementing 25% reservations across all courses at Pondicherry University; nor does it discuss possible alternatives that could achieve similar goals without creating new barriers for students from other regions who might be interested in studying at this university.

Regarding temporal bias – specifically presentism – we can observe how historical context plays into shaping contemporary demands like those made by Rangasamy here today regarding past decisions taken during 1997 regarding admissions policies within Pondicherry University itself; though no concrete evidence exists within our given snippet confirming whether those original decisions were indeed influenced by similar considerations surrounding regional representation versus national integration goals back then either way though their legacy continues influencing current debates surrounding access & equity today still regardless what happened decades ago remains relevant now because ongoing struggles remain ongoing too after all