Politics pages

Politics

Student Division in plain sight: rising international student fees

Emerson Shams

Discussion of tuition fees arises every year, typically focused on the £9,250 fees that home students (and, until this year, EU students) pay being unfair. These arguments typically come with students feeling that they are not receiving a proper education for this large cost. However, the discussion typically leaves out the largest group which educational institutions make money from: international students. Anyone who has spoken to an international student knows that, at Durham University, their tuition fees are at least double those of home fees.

Mark Steed wrote in Britain in Hong Kong that education is “Britain’s most valuable export”. While that is debatable, it definitely is one of the country’s main exports, whether that is through the use of GSCEs and A-levels in international schools around the world or through the high number of spaces for international students to attend university in the UK every year. In fact, in 2019, the Department of Education showed £19.9 billion earned through educational exports as a whole.

Regarding how this works at a university level, international students are enticed by Britain’s fame for higher education institutions, which in comparison to America are available for a steal. But, as the Government subsidises local students, it uses the fees from international students to fund other university needs, which is how they explain the drastic increase in price.

One of the biggest issues at the moment though is how much the price increases every year for international students. While the tuition fees for home students have consistently been £9,250 per annum, international fees have gone up around £5,000 over a five year period. An evaluation of tuition fees at Durham since 2018 in the table below shows just how much they have changed.

These fees are quickly becoming unmanageable. The stereotype that all international students are extremely rich is incorrect, with most being from similar backgrounds to a majority of Durham students. Often, what happens is that a student’s family will save up for them to study abroad in the hope that it will help their future career paths, but their families have to work overtime or take out loans to pay for the tuition. And most when getting here either get part time work or live meagrely to get by and finish their education. Thus, this increase will further cause these situations to happen, in addition to getting to the point that only the most elite can study abroad. However, this inhibits universities’ ability to grow positively from the interactions with an international community. One thing is clear though: international students are a commodity. They are told that the increase of fees is to cover what the British government subsidises for home students, but this argument falls apart once one compares the options available for home and international students. Firstly, access to university disability support is limited to home students because they get monetary support from the government for this. The disabilities department in Durham does not have the financial means to provide resources for international students. This is an ableist problem as it stops disabled international students from receiving the same support as their peers. And though fees are meant to cover what is provided for home students, this important factor is left out.

Furthermore, with the Covid-19 situation, the gap in support for

Teaching Year Law Humanities STEM

Social Sciences

Durham University international student tuition fees

Business 2018/2019 £18,300 £18,300 £23,100 £18,300 £18,300 2019/2020 £19,250 £19,250 £24,300 £19,250 £20,250 2020/2021 £20,500 £20,500 £25,800 £20,500 £21,500 2021/2022 £21,730 £21,730 £27,350 £21,500 £22,900 2022/2023 £23,000 £22,900 £28,500 £23,100 £24,500 international and home students widened. In addition to the traditional arguments as to why online education was not worth the standard tuition fees any student pays, many international students ended up being stuck in their home countries over the last academic year which led to paying exorbitant tuition fees for many resources that they had absolutely zero access to. For example, the library became a shipping service for books to allow students to access literature over lockdown. However this service did not extend overseas, leaving international students without the full extent of the library.

In conclusion, international students have been treated as little more than a commodity to exploit through rising tuition fees on the basis that universities need the extra money. However, the fairness of these fees has hardly been discussed, mainly due to a negative stereotype that all international students come from extremely wealthy backgrounds. It is important to involve international students in the conversations about how tuition fees impact us all: they need to be treated in the same manner as home students.

Critical Race Theory: an educational battleground

Lorna Petty

Critical Race Theory (CRT) is a term denoting the controversial movement of US civil rights scholars and activists who advocate a theory-focussed teaching of race and inequality at the centre of the US curriculum. A prominent doctrine of CRT is that disparities in racial outcomes are the response of a complex system of racism and institutional dynamics, rather than deliberate individual prejudices. CRT scholars view white supremacy as an intersectional construct that promotes the interests of whiteness and white people at the expense of non-white persons.

In the aftermath of the Black Lives Matter movement, education on these concepts has advanced – whilst not sufficiently – significantly. Many are familiar with the idea of systemic racism and micro-aggressions that contribute to an unequal society in which we see people of colour being continually disadvantaged. But CRT produces a debate between academic critics, some of whom argue that it relies on social constructionism, promotes storytelling above evidence, rejects truth, and opposes liberalism. This debate has seen conservative US lawmakers restrict CRT instruction and other anti-racism programs under the argument that they teach ‘unAmerican’ values of division and racism.

The campaign against CRT was taken up confidently by Donald Trump in the run-up to and aftermath of the 2020 US presidential election. But it is not just America that agonises over this issue; in October 2020 the Conservative MP and Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch made the following comments on the teaching of CRT in UK schools: “We do not want to see teachers teaching their pupils about white privilege and inherited racial guilt ... any school which teaches these elements of critical race theory, or which promotes partisan political views such as defunding the police without offering a balanced treatment of opposing views, is breaking the law.”

After these comments and subsequent accusations by Badenoch that certain writers of popular, black-authored books “wanted a segregated society”, the MP was denounced by the Black Writers Guild in an open letter that indicated Badenoch’s comments had been “not only false but dangerous” and asked that “the government ensure that ministers […] uphold democratic values such as freedom of speech and act with a duty of care.” But as Badenoch is a black-British woman herself, it is clear this debate is not simply racial, but political and ethical beyond colour.

For too long the history of white supremacy has been omitted by education authorities

For supporters, CRT is a crucial framework for understanding the way that systemic inequalities and institutional racism can propagate discrimination and disadvantage. But for opponents, it is a seditious plan to indoctrinate young white people to reject their history, whilst encouraging young people of colour to view themselves as helpless victims unable to overcome the racism of an unfair society. Christopher Rufo, an antiCRT activist in the US has warned against the “elites” who “seek to reengineer the foundation of human psychology and social institutions through the new politics of race”. Rufo’s comments on Tucker in September 2020 saw Trump take his advice and issue an executive order directing agencies of the US federal government to withdraw funding for programs that mention ‘white privilege’ or ‘critical race theory’.

Whilst comments on the divisiveness of CRT are understandable, perhaps they simply reflect the discomfort of acknowledging the scale of white privilege and systemic racism in 2021. At least 30 schools across the US have recommended that students should read ‘Not my Idea’, a children’s book by author Anastasia Higginbotham, who has labelled her theories as CRT and argues that “any place where there are white people has violent white supremacy embedded into it”. Comments like these are certainly hard to hear, but also of great importance and interest. Listening to the voices of those who are marginalised by white privilege and bringing depth to debates on racial inequality is the first step in tackling systemic racism.

If paired with a projection of hope and possibility for a better future if change is enacted, then the teachings of CRT could help turn the tide on racism in the US and UK today. Teaching young white children about their inherent participation in a racist system is complex and should be done with care to ensure that doom and impotence do not overtake the desire for action. But for too long the history of white supremacy has been omitted by the education authorities, and it is important for both people of colour and for white children to understand the atrocities that formed the systemic racism and white privilege of the modern world. CRT, whilst controversial, is one method through which we can reach an understanding of these forces; and the censoring of discussion around it is at best ignorant, at worst an attempt to silence discussions that would begin anti-racist action toward bettering the system for persons of colour in both the UK and the USA.

IDEA FOR AN ARTICLE?

Send your thoughts to politics@palatinate.org.uk

Politics

Domestic Systemic police negligence in protecting women and girls is an abject moral failure

The Brazilian national was Anna Noble repeatedly shot in the head at a train station in July 2005, having Can we trust the police? been mistaken for a suicide

Recent scandals, allegations bomber. He was innocent: a case of police brutality, and the of mistaken identity. Ms Dick was revelation that fifteen serving or the senior officer responsible former police officers have been for authorising a shoot-to-kill convicted of murdering women command. since 2009 have cast doubt in These issues are not new, with the public mind over the police’s the Met having a long history propriety. of misconduct allegations. The

The Met under the leadership Daniel Morgan report released of Cressida Dick has been earlier this year went further in condemned for failing on multiple its criticism of the Met, finding occasions. Security breaches at that the organisation was the European Championship “institutionally corrupt”. Daniel Final in June and high profile stop Morgan was a private detective and search failures, including who was found dead with an axe the British Olympian Bianca embedded into his neck in 1987. Williams, have damaged the The investigation was highly organisation’s credibility. This flawed and failed to properly was then exacerbated by the investigate the murder, resulting disturbing incident that saw in no prosecutions. Police officers two Met police officers arrested were also accused of selling after taking selfies with the information to The News of the bodies of two murdered women World for private financial gain. in Wembley Park. Their mother, The ruling echoed the findings Mina Smallman, heavily criticised into the Stephen Lawrence case the Met over the incident saying in 1999 which found that the Met “if ever we needed an example of was “institutionally racist” in how how toxic it has become, those it handled the investigation. police officers felt so safe, so untouchable, that they felt they could take photographs of dead black girls and send them on. It “ ... those police officers felt so safe ... that they felt they speaks volumes of the ethos that could take photographs of runs through the Metropolitan Police.” dead black girls and send them on” The murder of Sarah Everard The rape and murder has brought the Met’s of Durham alumna propriety once again to the Sarah Everard has forefront of the national brought the Met’s propriety once again conversation to the forefront of the national

Questions have also been conversation. raised about the suitability of Ms Everard was Cressida Dick to remain as the kidnapped, raped Met Commissioner. Ms Dick is and murdered by no stranger to controversy. Her a serving member initial appointment to the Met of the Metropolitan was met with backlash, many Police force. Wayne citing her involvement in the Couzens falsely used case of Jean Charles de Menezes. his authority as an officer to arrest Ms Everard in (Anna Kuptsova) front of witnesses, citing alleged ‘breaches of Covid-19 laws’. The Met have subsequently faced accusations from across the political spectrum of chronic failings after it emerged that Ms Everard’s killer had been accused of indecent exposure three times, the first being in 2015 and the most recent just two weeks prior to her murder. It also emerged that he made female coworkers s o uncomfortable that he was nicknamed ‘the rapist’. Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, has launched an inquiry into the failings of the Met, and how Ms Everard’s killer was allowed to remain as a police officer. Sarah Everard’s murder has brought the Met’s propriety to the forefront of the national conversation The force also faced intense backlash and allegations of brutality for their heavyhanded approach in shutting down a vigil for Sarah Everard. In addition, The Evening Standard reports allegations accusing officers approaching those arrested at the vigil on dating apps such as Tinder. They were later cleared of wrongdoing, but this has done nothing to help the Met’s public image. The ‘one bad apple’ argument often touted in support of the Met rings hollow when incidents of violence have become so commonplace. A former ex-chief superintendent at the Met, Parm Sandhu criticised the culture within the Met and British policing in general, claiming that female officers fear reporting their male colleagues for misconduct because of potential retaliation, such as being left to “get kicked in” if they call for help whilst on duty. Public criticism of the Met is mounting, with cross-party agreement that there are systemic flaws that need to be stamped out. The ‘one bad apple’ argument often touted in support of the Met rings hollow when incidents of violence have become so commonplace The Met has always had significant PR issues, due to the nature of policing, but the Sarah Everard case is perhaps a watershed for police reform. These reforms must be not only cultural, but institutional – from top to bottom, change is needed. The attitude of the police towards women and girls therefore needs to be the organisation’s top focus. Domestic violence and rape, two crimes of which most victims are female, have seen prosecution rates plummet. On a basic issue of women’s safety, if the police are seen to not be doing enough, public trust will melt away. The government has committed itself to increasing the prosecution rate for rape allegations – this will be a key watermark of confidence. There are clear systemic failings within the police. A fearless approach to reform needs to be adopted by Ms Dick and ministers – if the Met needs to be shook to its core, so be it. (Anna Kuptsova)

From the editors: Cressida Dick must go so real reform can happen

Cressida Dick must resign for the Met to conduct any credible reform.

Ms Dick’s delay in resignation, and acceptance of the extension of her contract until 2024, speaks to the half-hearted attempts at reform that the Met has undertaken following Sarah Everard’s death and the institutional failings that have come before.

Ms Dick skirts between fight and flight, now more so than ever. She fights for her position whilst fleeing from the responsibility for countless failings within the institution she runs. This materialises itself in stressing that women have a degree of onus when dealing with a police officer, or denying blame for numerous botched investigations.

It is simply not right that she stay on to command the Met in the coming years, given her total lack of credibility. Ms Dick has had a record-breaking track record. Her appointment saw a woman lead the Met for the first time in its 192year history. She is the first openly gay Met Commissioner.

However, these feats cannot overshadow the numbers that have followed. Despite proclamations of an interest in stemming youth violence, this year looks to be the highest since 2008 for teenage murders in London. The Met’s survival depends upon a degree of public confidence, however shallow it may be. Women’s confidence has been shaken profoundly. So too has the confidence of Black, Asian, and Muslim men, who have been subject to a disproportionate amount of stop-and-searches.

Any reform whilst Ms Dick continues to call the shots simply will not have public confidence.

The year 2029 will mark 200 years since the establishment of the Met. For it to be an anniversary remotely worth celebrating, major change is needed. The abuse of power and lack of accountability running rampant require radical intervention. Preceding this, its beleaguered Commissioner needs to make way for someone with a scintilla of credibility.

International

Politics Corruption claims and chaos in Czech elections

Flo Clifford

Released recently, the Pandora Papers are the latest cache of documents to reveal the use of offshore financial systems by the rich and powerful, resulting in widespread outrage and calls for action to combat allegations of corruption and money laundering. The political ramifications of this leak became apparent on Saturday, when the ruling party of Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš, ANO 2011, lost the parliamentary elections, potentially spelling the end of his time in power.

Babiš, who initially ran a campaign promising to fight corruption, has been implicated in financial scandals and claims of conflicts of interest in the past, with this week’s leak only adding to the pressure facing him. The papers reveal how in 2009, prior to his entry into politics, Babiš passed loans through a complex structure of three overseas companies to finance the purchase of a £13m mansion in France. Neither the property nor the companies were reported to the Czech ministry of justice, which Czech tax experts see as a concerted effort to hide his ownership. Babiš denies any wrongdoing.

The timing of the leak, and the resulting pressure on Babiš, has proved less than ideal for his ruling party. The ‘Stork’s Head’ scandal of 2018, which accused Babiš of misappropriating €2m of EU funds to build a luxury hotel complex, resulted in the biggest protests the country has seen since the 1989 Velvet Revolution, and continues to cause problems for him today: Czech police requested to indict him for fraud in June of this year. While Babiš has dismissed all accusations as “politically motivated,” the revelation from the Pandora Papers has brought an unwelcome spotlight on the long line of his alleged offences, and may have been the final straw for some Czech voters.

Despite a narrow lead in opinion polls prior to the election, ANO 2011 lost by 0.7% to Together, a coalition of three liberal parties spanning the political spectrum. A second liberal coalition finished third behind ANO, granting the two coalitions the opportunity to form a majority government, in a major blow to Babiš’ populism and a shock to the Czech political scene. Analysts have been taken by surprise at Babiš’ loss, making this election the most recent of many, across Europe and worldwide, where opinion polls have dramatically failed to predict the actual outcome.

In another highly unexpected twist, on Sunday night Miloš Zeman, the Czech president and a key ally of Babiš’, was taken to an intensive care unit in an ambulance. Zeman has previously referred to the coalitions as a “fraud” and has promised to do whatever he can to keep Babiš in power, promising to invite the leader of the single party with the most votes to form a government — in this case, ANO. However, his recent ill health and the uncertainty this hospital stay has created in Czech politics could now result in a power vacuum.

Ahead of meetings this week with Zeman, Babiš conceded defeat but said he would “see what the president will say,” leaving the imminent impact of the election uncertain. With Zeman now — at least temporarily — unable to fulfil his constitutional duty of inviting a new prime minister to form a government, analysts foresee Babiš attempting to maintain his grip on Czech politics. This latest development in these already surprising elections could trigger a political crisis.

Babiš has dismissed all accusations as “politically motivated”

As for the result itself, Czech political analysts see it as marking a significant shift in national politics, possibly spelling the end of Babiš’ decade in political prominence and a turning point for liberal democracy in the country. Babiš’ populist government ran on an antiEU and anti-immigrant ticket, suggesting that this sentiment does not hold as much force over Czech voters as it has previously done, although he remains fairly popular. The Czech Republic pulling out of the EU now seems more unlikely, as the policies of the five opposition parties comprising the two coalitions are considerably more proEurope.

Could this mark a change in the region’s general attitude to the EU, and the role of populism in Eastern Europe more broadly? Babiš brought Hungary’s far-right prime minister, Viktor Orban, on the campaign trail with him to visit his constituency, but this alliance appears to have done little to benefit him in the eyes of Czech voters.

With president Zeman’s health in doubt and a possible political vacuum opening up, the events of this election are far from over, but the scandals which have plagued the prime minister throughout his tenure, especially this latest revelation from the Pandora

Papers, could have brought about the end of his time in power.

(ALDE Party via Flickr)

Militants clash in streets of Beirut amid port explosion inquiry

Oisin McIlroy

The streets of Beirut last Thursday were filled with sectarian militias exchanging heavy fire with one another, further destabilising a nation that has suffered economic devastation, political turmoil, and national tragedy all within the last two years.

A series of sporadic firefights began just before midday, as unidentified snipers opened fire on demonstrators from two Shia Muslim parties — Hezbollah, a militant group backed by Iran, and the Amal Movement — whilst they were protesting for the removal of the judge charged with investigating last year’s Beirut port explosion, which killed more than 200 people.

Immediately after the initial sniper fire, protesters briefly withdrew to retrieve Kalashnikovs and RPG launchers, which they then used to open fire on the high-rises, where the snipers in question appeared to be situated. Hundreds of civilians were caught up in much of the violence which ensued, the majority of whom retreated. But many remained, taking cover behind cars and in side streets, encouraging the Hezbollah and Amal fighters with chants of “Shia, Shia, Shia”. Four hours of violence were gradually brought to an end once the Lebanese army was deployed and militants began to withdraw, leaving at least seven dead, 30 wounded, and no more than nine arrested from both sides. According to unsubstantiated claims made by Hezbollah officials, the snipers which allegedly began Thursday’s violence were members of the Lebanese Forces — a rightwing Christian political party that frequently clashes with Hezbollah.

That evening Lebanon’s president, Michel Aoun, delivered a televised address in which he reaffirmed the government’s commitment to the port explosion investigation and called for stability. “Our country needs calm dialogue, and calm solutions and the respect for our institutions,” he said.

Tensions between these two fighting groups are considerably higher than they were several years ago due to Lebanon’s many recent crises. Since September 2019, Lebanon’s currency, the Lebanese pound, has been plummeting to a level where it is now worth 90% less than it was pre-downturn.

The World Bank has stated that the nation’s economic collapse could rank among the three worst the world has seen since the midnineteenth century. Prolonged fuel shortages and frequent power outages have resulted in worries that even hospitals’ emergency generators might fail.

Such economic devastation has resulted in an added intensity to Lebanese politics, primarily centring around last year’s port blast. Many commentators have pointed out that if Lebanon fails to deliver justice, and trial the culprits of one of the biggest industrial accidents in modern history, then surely it must rank as a failed state.

Delivering justice, however, has proved to be no mean feat, due to the explosion being increasingly politicised. The resignation of the former prime minister, Hassan Diab, and the rest of his cabinet soon after the explosion might have appeased the outraged Lebanese public, but it also entangled the investigation in political wrongdoing and corruption from the very beginning.

Hezbollah’s militia is arguably as strong as Lebanon’s army, and possibly stronger

Hezbollah and Amal have been extremely vocal in attempting to tarnish the inquiry’s legitimacy. The former’s leader Hassan Nasrallah accused the lead judge of “politically targeting” officials, inflaming tensions which lead to Thursday’s protests. This staunch opposition to the inquiry has led most involved to presume Hezbollah were somehow responsible for the explosion; as of yet, however, these are merely popular rumours.

David Gardner at The Financial Times has gone as far as to regard the investigation as not only the make-or-break moment for Lebanon as a functional democracy, but even as a sovereign nation, arguing that if Hezbollah succeeds in derailing it, the country ‘will be well on the way to becoming an Iranian protectorate on the Mediterranean.’

Such an idea is not especially outlandish. Hezbollah’s militia is arguably as strong as Lebanon’s army, and possibly stronger, given its arsenal of 100,000 artillery rockets, and approximately as many fighters who have decades of experience in combat across the Middle East, such as in Yemen and Iraq.

This inquiry, therefore, is about far more than hundreds of victims’ families or resolving government corruption, given that its outcome could drastically shift the power balance in Lebanon and the Middle East, potentially adding another civil war to the region’s already plentiful list of the last decade.