The retort's claim that "entitlement is an important and valuable tool" is a bit of an exaggeration. Entitlement is one-dimensionally interpreted as unjustified arrogance, when in reality it can be seen as a potential asset. As the original essay argues, a sense of entitlement can lead to self-confidence and ambition, which are necessary traits to have in order to succeed. The sentiment that business schools are fighting against this sentiment is incorrect; the original essay's point was that they are simply teaching students that they are capable of greatness, which goes hand-in-hand with having a sense of entitlement.
Entitlement doesn't just mean demanding what you believe you're owed; it also means believing you're worthy of respect and feeling powerful enough to make a difference in this world. This is an idea that shouldn’t be discouraged. It's true that entitlement can lead to arrogance and selfishness, but this only happens when it is abused and taken to extremes.
The retort's stance that entitlement should be embraced is a noble one, but it misses the mark as to why Nikhil's original essay was so powerful. The essay didn’t just speak to the value of entitlement in terms of ambition and success; it also pointed out how entitlement can make a difference in the bigger picture. As Nikhil pointed out, having a sense of entitlement can lead to making a positive contribution to society, not just for yourself but for others.
In conclusion, the retort’s criticism was misguided, and the original essay by Nikhil remains true in its premise and conclusion. Having a sense of entitlement doesn’t have to be seen as bad or something to be discouraged; it can be used positively to make a difference in the world. UrRong if you think otherwise!