The title of this piece is similar to what a lot of potential students will be hearing shortly, as universities get set to reject the highest number of applicants ever.
This unfortunate circumstance is certainly a product of the highly inclusive and open system the United Kingdom currently has – but with limited resources, can we really keep blaming ourselves for the inability to offer universal higher education?
There were about 660,000 applications this year for university courses, nearly 200,000 more than just four years ago. At this rate of expansion, it’s clear to see how universities struggle to keep up in terms of providing quality education within the current fees limitations, all the while providing residences, bars, extra-curricular activities and investing in capital projects to keep up with the times.
Lecturers union, the UCU, fears up to 170,000 people could be disappointed, as a cap on places is enforced.
It’s often remarked upon that a university degree is an absolutely ‘must’ when entering the job market, and even that won’t guarantee you a position – but that being said, what price are we now paying in our attempts to have a more educated workforce – and isn’t competition for places a good thing to force up standards?
No doubt our sincerest condolences go out to those who have been unable to make it through this year – perseverance is no doubt crucial in an ever more competitive environment. The question we ask of our readers on this, is how would you change the system, if you would at all? Think about it – comments are welcome.
Today, Business Secretary Vince Cable announced a rethink on university funding, seemingly favouring a ‘graduate tax’ – an idea long championed by the National Union of Students.
But it’s not popular with everyone and could lead to students ‘paying back’ far more over their careers. The University and College Union called the scheme ‘unfair’ with repayments tied to earnings.
The UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt, said: “If the government thinks it can get the public to swallow higher fees as some sort of graduate tax it is living in a dream world. We need a proper debate on how to fund our universities, not an exercise in rebranding.”
A crucial stumbling block of such a policy is of course the time lags associated. There would be a transition period between how universities currently receive funding and the income generated from a graduate tax.
Further to this, Mr. Cable has spoken of two-year degrees, which would involve classes during the traditional long summer vacation, and would also see extra hours of tuition in term time. Dr Terence Kealey, vice-chancellor of the private Buckingham University, which offers a standard two-year academic degree, said: “Many more people are suited to two-year courses than realise it.
However again, Sally Hunt at the UCU has commented, “Two-year degrees may sound great on paper but are in effect education on the cheap. They would be incredibly teacher-intensive and would stop staff from carrying out vital research and pastoral duties. Our universities are places of learning, not academic sweatshops, and we need to get away from the idea that more can be delivered for less.”
Whichever side of the fence you sit on, it’s certain that the new government is determined to implement a radical shake up in the education sector – whether or not these measures will be as unpopular as Tony Blair’s top-up fees remains to be seen.
In the past few months, we’ve witnessed a dramatic change in global rhetoric vis a vis public spending. Even the stalwart socialist types across the globe are lately arguing for deficit reduction in lieu of the out of favour ’stimulus’ packages that seem consigned to Brown-era government. It’s interesting to note that meanwhile, there are still those calling for huge and untenable public investment in universities.
Certainly, investment in higher education can yield economic results for years to come- but this is not an absolute principle and we must not allow for this idea to force our hands in distressing economic conditions.
There are plenty of factors to consider. What kind of degrees are students obtaining? How will they benefit the UK economy in decades to come? What is the current public outlay per student, per degree, per lecturer, per module? It’s not purely as simple as offering a one-liner about ‘the right to higher education’.
While lowering barriers to entry is a desirable and achievable goal – it’s no use if we’re producing 50,000+ more photography graduates per year. There simply aren’t the jobs for them post-graduation. More so, there are diminishing returns involved in terms of how much public money can be employed juxtaposed with potential future gains.
Pam Tatlow, of ‘Universities Think Tank – Million+’ has recently stated why she believes the coalition government should be promoting universities as ‘a source of long-term returns to the national exchequer’. This is a false dichotomy founded on the ’stimulus’ principle which even the most socially driven politicans are steering away from.
Trying to explain to repossesed families or struggling businesses that they should be taxed more, or that they should benefit less from any tax cuts due to an investment in higher education is surely a kick in the teeth for those who have worked hard and paid taxes all their lives. The argument falls short when you consider the opportunity cost of creating greater public debt for speculative future gains.
And that’s not all. Recently, the Association of Graduate Recruiters (AGR) has shown research that displays how 78 per cent of top employers are now filtering out any job applicants with less than a first or a 2:1 – thereby cementing the idea that a degree should not be viewed as a prerequiste to a right of employment. In fact, they go as far to offer employment advice along the lines of ’shelf-stacking’ and ‘burger-flipping’ for those on 2:2s.
The point in this article, therefore?
Prospective students, current students and indeed graduates must not allow themselves to fall into the trap of assuming the right to higher education at a cost to the general public, nor assume the right to employment post-degree. Education is an endeavour for knowledge, understanding and crucially in these times – a salary. But let’s not fool ourselves into believing it is owed to us. Your ‘rights’ stop where your ingenuity and tenacity does.
For all those on this path – best of luck, and keep on at it.
This is a guest post for Student Rights by Natalie Wold. Views expressed in this piece do not constitute Student Rights’ views or opinions on the matter discussed.
Sunday, while meeting a friend for lunch near Whitehall I had the privilege of witnessing the hundreds of protesters who took the streets of London in protest for and against Sharia Law. Group one, Muslims Against The Crusades purportedly by Al-Muhajiroun chanted their views against democracy and their favour for Sharia law by holding signs such as “Democracy is the cancer, Sharia is the Answer”. While the other peaceful group was lead by One Law for All and Iran Solidarity to mark the anniversary of the killing of protester Neda Agha-Soltan in Iran last year. I’ve always heard of the remarks made by groups such as Muslims Against The Crusades on the television but this was the first time I have ever seen it up and personal. It was a scene so striking that anyone who passed the chanting of “Sharia will dominate the world” and isn’t worried about the future of the Western world has a lot to wake up to. After watching from a distance I became so captivated I made my way over to the front lines of the protestors and immersed myself in the group. What caught my eye the most was the group of boys around the age of twelve or thirteen holding signs reading, “UK watch your Back, Islam is Coming Back” and “Man Made Law go to Hell” as well as another boy violently waving a flag while debating a spectator saying how he could kill her with his wooden flag pole. While listening to all of this, I began a discussion with a member and spokesperson of Muslims Against The Crusades and asked him about the demonstration. He made it clear that they were only there to spread the work of Sharia and express unfairness the media has placed upon them. The only thought that was racing through my mind was the radicalisation and brainwashing of those young boys who were waving their flags and holding their signs, shouting out “Death to democracy”. I can only imagine how far those young boys will go in the movement of taking down democracy in the world and how manipulative and violent they with become in order to obtain Sharia.
‘Coming to the UK is a privilege not a right, and I am not willing to allow those who might not be conducive to the public good to enter the UK.’
The words of Home Secretary Teresa May resonate around the counter-terror and counter-radicalisation blogs this morning as ‘hate preacher’ Zakir Naik is halted in his attempt to enter the UK for a series of speeches.
On June 1st, Student Rights submitted an ‘Open Letter to David Cameron’ alongside a petition which gained 68 signatures.
Since then, the Home Office has been working to explore Naik’s previous speeches, including one now infamous incident where Naik stated of Osama Bin Laden, “If he is terrorising the terrorists, if he is terrorising America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, every Muslim should be a terrorist.”
Student Rights spokesman Raheem Kassam has stated, “It’s a promising precedent that this government is alert to the dangers of radicalisation. Speakers such as Naik are touring the UK and we must expose and impede them to stop them spreading hate across the country.”
The video below shows Zakir Naik speaking in late 2006…
There’s been a lot of talk recently about university funding cuts and the implications for students, jobs, and the future of higher education in the United Kingdom. Cambridge University has begun employing a quasi-American model to fix this problem – donors… lots and lots of donors.
In 2005 (in an act of prescience, no doubt) Cambridge University began their largescale fundraising drive, calling upon alumni and friends to donate to keeping the institution a, ‘world leader in teaching and research’. And my has it paid off.
Since the beginning of the campaign (which marks Cambridge’s 800th anniversary), the university has raised over £1bnand is the first institution outside of the United States to have done so. More than 45,000 alumni have contributed to raising the funds, with many making regular financial gifts.
But there are other factors to consider. While commercialisation and gifts can help to pull universities out of some inevitable funding problems, Cambridge attracts a lot of international attention and high-earning alumni. They also distinctly outspend other organisations. From what we can tell from their recent Annual Reports, this level of funding is equal to the net expenditure for the organisation for just one year… and it took 5 years to obtai
A new Student Rights report has revealed growing support for tough action against extremism and radicalisation in the UK, specifically on university campuses.
We surveyed 164 parliamentary candidates during the general election campaign period, revealing that over 90% of prospective parliamentarians are aware and greatly concerned about extremism in the UK.
Raheem Kassam, Director of Student Rights comments: “It is greatly encouraging that such a majority of potential lawmakers in this country are aware that radicalisation is a growing problem. What we would like to see now is staunch action alongside university and police authorities in tackling extremism and the recruitment that is occurring on campuses UK-wide. It must start with proscribing the Islamist group ‘Hizb-ut-Tahrir’ immediately.”
- The report asked ten questions of candidates standing for Parliament and revealed that most candidates and re-standing MPs are cognisant of extremism issues, however felt that they were underinformed on some issues, especially pertaining to university matters and radical group ‘Hizb-ut-Tahrir’.
- A majority of candidates endorsed Special Branch action on campuses, while maintaining that university authorities also need to be pushing a lot harder against radicalisation on campuses – actively tackling issues when they arise.
- Freedom of speech is maintained as an ideal by the findings of the survey, however in the face of security concerns, 68% of candidates responded that threats must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Only 4.9% endorsed absolute freedom of speech, even in the case of hate-speech or threats.
- Conservative Party candidates appeared the most attuned to these matters, with 100% being ‘concerned greatly’, with 90.6% of Lib Dems responding in the same manner and 87.5% for Labour.
FitFinder, the popular social networking website for UK students, has been temporarily taken down due to pressure from universities over the perceived distraction to students, confirms the site’s creator and University College London student, Rich Martell.
Rich has been fined £300 by the University College London for ‘bringing the college into disrepute’ as his flirtacious website aimed at rating the attractiveness of students has apparently caused an ‘unwelcome distraction’ on campuses across the UK.
Fitfinder has been a phenomenon, attracting millions of visitors and serious interest from advertisers and investors. However, at the beginning of May, one week after launch, the Joint Academic NETwork (JANET), the UK’s education and research network blocked FitFinder from UK university networks over issues with the perceived level of distraction offered by the site. However, the ban was lifted within 24 hours following floods of complaints from students across the country.
Creator Martell has insisted, “It’s flattering to think that FitFinder is perceived as a threat to study time. But are students spending any more time on FitFinder that they would on, say, Facebook or Twitter? Not a chance.”
It’s interesting to note that you can access Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and all other forms of ‘distracting’ social networking sites from on campuses, which would mean perhaps it’s not just the distraction that’s the issue for UCL and JANET here. It looks like the institutions are taking issue with the nature of the website itself, which asks members to rate the attractiveness of fellow students.
Student Rights note, “It’s not right for universities to be blocking websites like this and/or fining students for entreprenurship – even if the site did start off as a joke. It’s clearly turned into something of a web phenonmenon albeit locally thus far and UCL and JANET should take a step back and focus on more serious issues on campuses across the country.”
A petition has garnered over 6000 signatures so far and can be signed by clicking here.
It was reported this weekend that ‘preacher of hate’ Zakir Naik will begin a tour of the UK unless immediate action is taken by the UK Home Office to stop his entry into Britain.
In response to this, Student Rights Director Raheem Kassam has written an open letter to Prime Minister David Cameron, urging Naik to be banned from entry into the UK. A petition can be signed here and a video of Mr. Naik is available underneath the text.
Dear Prime Minister,
It has been brought to my attention that the Home Office is currently assessing the situation regarding Zakir Naik, who has been described as an ‘Islamist hate-preacher and truth-twister’.
I am writing to express my deep concern that this individual may be allowed entry to the UK in order to promote and glorify acts of terrorism — causing far reaching implications within the already divided Muslim community in the United Kingdom.
A few examples of Mr. Naik’s preaching reveal him to be a sympathiser with Osama Bin Laden. He stated, “If [Osama Bin Laden] is terrorising Americans… then I am with him,” while also asserting that “Every Muslim should be a terrorist.”
Given your previous stated desire in combatting this form of extremism and your voting record regarding opposition to incitement to terror in the United Kingdom, I urge you to act immediately and decisively to set a precedent. It must be made clear that the UK will not tolerate extremism and that we will do our utmost to promote plurality and peace in a modern, multi-ethnic Britain.
Yours sincerely,
Raheem Kassam
National Director
The video below shows Zakir Naik speaking in late 2006…
In this age of cuts, we would do well to accept that there are indeed areas where universities should be able to make savings and yet keep delivering and improving upon the standards of education. It can happen, but it requires a firm hand. Where I’d like to start is by asking you, do your Vice Chancellors earn an appropriate amount of money?
Recently, Douglas Murray from the Centre for Social Cohesion outlined in an article for the Telegraph how much University College London Provost Malcolm Grant earns. Between 2008 and 2009, it appears that Malcolm Grant earned a whopping £376,190. So much for the old adage, “Those who can’t… teach.”
Furthermore, it would appear as outlined by The Times Online, that ‘bidding wars’ have emerged at universities for the ‘best’ lecturers and managers – a private sector, market-based practice which should effectively have no sway in the public sector – which universities very much still are. About £200m has just yesterday been cut from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills budget for universities.
An analysis of university accounts has shown that in 2008-9 the number of employees on six-figure pay increased by 17% and the pay of vice-chancellors went up nearly 11% to an average of £219,000. The highest paid included Malcolm Grant, provost of University College London, who received £376,190.
While Bristol University serves as an example by tightening their belts and freezing the pay of lecturers and Vice Chancellors, other universities blame 2006 agreements for the pay rises. So we ask you, are your lecturers, middle-managers and Vice Chancellors really worth six-figure salaries. Even if you agree, at a cost to the taxpayer and the fee-paying student – where on Earth does it stop?
In Pakistan, some cultural practices are being denounced as ‘haram’ by extremists. In a country with such a rich history of music and poetry, one man stands at the forefront of a battle against this perversion of Islamic history. That man will be joining the Quilliam Foundation touring UK universities and helping the fight against extremism on campuses. That man is Salman Ahmad, one of South Asia’s most successful rock musicians.
The Led Zeppelin inspired front man of Junoon will be playing this week at Oxford, Imperial and the London School of Economics in what he describes as ‘telling the truth through the power of a guitar’. Salman is dedicated to the counter-radicalisation cause and has himself, ’seen at first hand young Muslims being radicalised by the distorted message of Islam.’
Ahmad is a practicing Muslim who lectures part-time on Islamic music and poetry in New York. His aim, he states is to prevent students being brainwashed by “murderous thugs masquerading as holy men”.
We think the idea of promoting the true cultural values and history of Islam is inspired and deserving of great praise. The more brave, talented and educated people we have standing up to pernicious extremists; the safer and more culturally rich and cohesive our society becomes.
Click the image below for the Facebook event where Salman will be playing at the Imperial College London this Thursday, 20th May 2010.
There’s a video that’s being circulated around the United States and I think it’s worthwhile that it gets seen in this country. What’s happening at university campuses over there is very similar to the issues we face in terms of radicalisation and extremism. The video shows us precisely what runs through the mind of a Muslim Students Association (MSA-US) member at the University of California San Diego.
No matter what your opinion of the speaker, David Horowitz is – it should be glaringly obvious that the girl’s response to his question in this clip is a call to genocide, plainly and simply. She states that she fears being arrested by Homeland Security for supporting Hamas (as any glorification of terror is illegal) and flippantly dismisses Horowitz’s referral to Israel Apartheid Week as ‘Hitler Youth Week’. This may seem divisive from him at first, but when you see her answer to his last question; it’s more than a justified definition of what extremists are promoting on campuses.
Furthermore, while she asks about the accusation of links between the MSA and ‘jihad terrorist networks’ – she answers her own question with her response to the title of this blog post. Watch and see the full transcript below.
We face the same radicalisation issues here in the United Kingdom. Student Rights work to expose and counter the extremist threat on UK University campuses and we run entirely off private donations. If you are able to support us, please contact info@studentrights.org.uk or click here to donate via PayPal.
TRANSCRIBED (via Atlas Shrugs)
MSA member: Good evening, I just wanted to say thank you for coming to campus tonight and presenting your point of view, its always important to have to sets of, ah, views going on at the same time. Um, very useful. My name is [Jimena Imad Musa Ahmal Bahiri](sp) and I’m a student here at UCSD. Ah I was reading your literature, I found that much more interesting than your talk, and I found some interesting things about the MSA, which is an organization that is very active on campus and is hosting our annual “Hitler Youth” week, you should come out to those events. [DS: Horowitz had referred to the MSA's week as a Hitler Youth week.] Um, if you could clarify the connection between the MSA and Jihad terrorist networks, because last time I checked, we had to do our own fundraising, and we never get help from anyone. So if you could clarify the connection between UCSD’s MSA or if you don’t have such information, if you could connect other MSA’s on UC’s, because the connection wasn’t to clear in the pamphlet, just if you could clarify.
Horowitz: Okay. Will you condemn Hamas, here and now?
MSA member: I’m sorry, what?
Horowitz: Will you condemn Hamas?
MSA member: Would I condemn Hamas?
Horowitz: As a terrorist organization. Genocidal organization.
MSA member: Are you asking me to put myself on a cross?
Horowitz: So you won’t. I have actually had this experience many times. You didn’t actually read the pamphlet, because the pamphlet is chapter and verse. The main connection is that the MSA is part of the Muslim Brotherhood Network as revealed…
MSA member: I don’t think you understood what I meant by that. I meant if I say something, I am sure that I will be arrested, for reasons of homeland security. So if you could please just answer my question.
Horowitz: If you condemn Hamas, Homeland Security will arrest you?
MSA member: If I support Hamas, because your question forces me to condemn Hamas. If I support Hamas, I look really bad.
Horowitz: If you don’t condemn Hamas, obviously you support it. Case closed. I have had this experience at UC Santa Barbara, where there were 50 members of the Muslim Students Association sitting right in the rows there. And throughout my hour talk I kept asking them, will you condemn Hizbollah and Hamas. And none of them would. And then when the question period came, the president of the Muslim Students Association was the first person to ask a question. And I said, ‘Before you start, will you condemn Hizbollah?’ And he said, ‘Well, that question is too complicated for a yes or no answer.’ So I said, ‘Okay, I’ll put it to you this way. I am a Jew. The head of Hizbollah has said that he hopes that we will gather in Israel so he doesn’t have to hunt us down globally. For or Against it?
FRANCE has declared the full Islamic face veil an affront to French values – presumably it is against the values of liberté, égalité and fraternité.
Sorry, but where is the equality, the égalité, in targeting a tiny group of Muslim women? Where is their liberty in not being able to choose what they want to wear?
France pretends it is a bastion of equality. This shows it is anything but.
To show it is not targeting poor Muslim women on sink estates, France exclaims it will also pick on the super-rich Muslim women who flock to designer shops.
Oh, good. So not prejudiced against poor Muslims, just ALL Muslims. That makes me feel better. Personally, I’m not a fan of the burka. No one in my family has worn one and I associate it with the women in villages back home who want to escape the prying eyes of lustful men.
But that’s back home. I agree that when I see women on the streets in Bradford in full black, flowing gowns I am taken aback.
I believe it probably doesn’t even have Islamic roots but was worn in the desert to keep the sand out of people’s eyes.
I can see why mainstream Brits find them offensive but, to be honest, I feel equally uncomfortable when I see people bearing neck-to-ankle tattoos or body piercings.
Or people who do the unthinkable… and wear socks with sandals.
Those who wear the burka don’t criticise me for wearing mismatched clothes, and I don’t criticise them for their interpretation of Islam. Of course, if there is a security issue, then that comes first. Veiled women understand that and are happy to show their faces when they need to.
I just think constant appraisal of Islamic dress exacerbated the problem. No one really cared before about what Muslim women wore but suddenly it became a big issue.
The more it became an issue, the more women decided to wear it.
And where it is banned, what are you going to do? Physically rip it off women as they walk down the street? Doesn’t sound very civilised.
Some women truly and honestly believe they are obeying God by covering their faces. They aren’t going to listen to anyone else.
And the more we make a song and dance about it, the more women will want to don the burka to show solidarity with their oppressed sisters.
Of course, they could always move to Japan. On a recent trip there I was struck by how many people – women and men – wore the face veil. Except it was white and they called it a “pollution mask”.
France has made its position clear – liberté, égalite, fraternité… so long as you’re not Muslim.
Student Rights welcomes responses and replies to this post. We value the opinions of our readers and would invite greater discussion on this subject matter. Please contact info@studentrights.org.uk if you are interested in writing an opinion piece for us, or have general comments.
No doubt the past week has been both incredibly busy and halted a lot of work that has gone on as the UK elections took centre stage. Post May 6th, however we find ourselves in a situation without a government but where we all need to get back to work. One of the things I’d like to address that may have been missed over this period is Azaam Tamimi’s piece in the Guardian Comment is Free section, on Tuesday 4th May.
What Tamimi attempts to express in this article is that:
1. He is not an extremist and is willing to sit down and have discussions with Jewish leaders in order to facilitate a greater culture of peace of campus – and yet he has endorsed suicide bombings against Israel?
2. He has been the subject of a campaign to stop him speaking at UK universities - as if he has not been complicit in causing campus divisions and repeatedly targeting areas to cause disruption
3. That there is a further conspiracy at work against him which travels to the Prime Minister’s office - although his delusions of grandeur are palpable he may be correct in assuming that our Parliament is concerned about extremists
This is of course, Tamimi’s attempt to whitewash his record, but it’s all too apparent what he’s doing. If he really wants to fly the straight and narrow from here on out, he’ll have to do a lot better than a defensive article in the Guardian in an attempt to garner sympathy.
If it wasn’t already clear by now what our issue with Tamimi is, you can find the details here, here and here. This man needs to do a lot more if he wants to start engaging against extremism on campuses and the first step is a complete and utter denouncement of suicide bombings and martyrdom tactics that he has espoused in the past. Secondly, Tamimi needs to distance himself from Hamas and prove that he in no way endorses these people’s approach to ‘democracy’ and ‘war’. The man so far as done neither of these things but wishes to be treated as a ‘moderate’.
As long as he stands by his comments on BBC HardTalk and an interview with a Spanish newspaper where Tamimi claimed that “everyone” in the Arab world celebrated the 9/11 attacks, he will continue to be viewed as a divisive and dangerous extremist.
So what is he trying to do when writing for the Guardian, claiming he is the subject of some kind of gagging attempt? Anyone who has bothered to research a little bit into this man sees the glaring hypocrisy in his attempts to exercise absolute freedom of speech, while those who he ’sympathises’ with would never allow this. Hamas would never allow this.
Two days ago, Student Rights warned of an upcoming demonstration against Talya Lador-Fresher, the Deputy Israeli Ambassador. Sure enough, violent scenes followed as Mrs. Lador-Fresher attempted to leave the event. The demonstration was orchestrated by ‘Action Palestine’ who accosted Mrs. Lador-Fresher outside the event as a manned police vehicle attempted to drive her away.
Director of Student Rights Raheem Kassam has commented, “Two days ago we warned of this kind of behaviour – however there was no action taken and as a result, Ms. Lador-Fresher was subject to abuse and attacks as she attempted to leave a speaking engagement at Manchester University. As you can see from the images captured – this was no ‘peaceful’ demonstration. Those who cry out for freedom of speech and peace should take a good hard look at what some of these divisive and violent activists on campus are doing.”
Israeli Ambassador HE Ron Prosor commented, “What is going on at British taxpayer-funded universities is shocking. Extremism is not just running through these places of education – it is galloping.”
This week sees tensions refreshed as Deputy Ambassador for Israel Talya Lador-Fresher encounters new protests against her attendance and consequent speaking engagement at the University of Manchester.
No stranger to controversy, Ms. Lador-Fresher was forced into cancelling the last engagement in February amidsts threats and resulting security concerns. Hypocrisy rears it’s ugly head once again as Dr. Azzam Tamimi, a figure who’s most cited quotations include those pertaining to the endorsement of suicide bombings on the BBC Hard Talk programme in 2004 has been hosted by the University, despite the concerns of academics, students and pressure groups.
Director of Student Rights Raheem Kassam has commented, “To see a protest seems rich considering the recent Tamimi appearance on campus in Manchester. Some might say the argument goes both ways but juxtaposing Tamimi who has endorsed suicide bombings with Lador-Fresher isn’t appropriate. ‘Knee-jerk activism’ and tit-for-tat retaliatory events do nothing to build bridges on campuses. If we’re serious about fostering debate and creating a campus culture of peace – both groups must learn that it’s crucial to work together.”
While the Deputy Ambassador for Israel has called for an end to indiscriminate violence against civilians, Tamimi has endorsed suicide-bombing tactics as self-defence and upon being asked as to whether or not he would become a martyr has stated, “If I can go to Palestine and sacrifice myself I would do it. Why not?” This nihilistic, destructive and irrational kind of incitement crosses the line of campus debate.
Lador-Fresher has been criticised for her government’s actions during the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict and threats of violence caused a cancellation of a previous speaking engagement at Manchester University. However, Ms. Lador-Fresher has also been praised for professing her hope for a peaceful two-state solution, argued at the ‘Yes to Peace’ rally in Manchester last year.
'Yes to Peace' Rally, Manchester
Student Rights have argued consistently for hate-speech to be exposed on UK campuses in order to further constructive discussion and ensure graduates and future leaders are not marginalised by highly emotional world issues.
This week, the National Union of Students held its conference in Gateshead, Tyne and Wear. One of the more exciting debates to be had was the radicalisation discussion taking place between the Union of Jewish Students’ Adam Pike, the NUS head Wes Streeting, Centre for Social Cohesion’s Douglas Murray, Rashad Ali from the Counter Extremism Consultancy for Training Research & Interventions (CENTRI); and Jamie Bartlett of DEMOS.
Last week, Mr. Murray was informed that FOSIS (Federation of Student Islamic Societies) would also be sitting on the panel, a move by the event organisers to bring one of the more highly criticised organisations to the table. FOSIS have been accused of bringing radical Islamists to campus in the form of Azaam Tamimi and hosting Anwar al-Awlaki (now on the run in Yemen) as ‘distinguished guests’. No less the decision was made to invite them- one which Student Rights is in favour of, were it not for the caveat enforced by the event organisers – namely, removing Douglas Murray from the panel.
It’s noted by Mr. Murray in an article for the Telegraph today that he was informed by UJS that FOSIS would only attend if he did not speak. Given Murray’s expertise and the Centre for Social Cohesion’s record of work on the subject area, Student Rights views this as an unfavourable option and probably did great favours to FOSIS – an organisation that has had speakers state of Jews:
“They’re all the same. They’ve monopolised everything: the Holocaust, God, money, interest, usury, the world economy, the media, political institutions… they monopolised tyranny and oppression as well. And injustice. A Jew is generally allowed to kill a non-Jew without fear of punishment.”
But that’s not the only point. Director of Student Rights Raheem Kassam has said, “I feel sorry that an expert like Douglas Murray was not present at this otherwise great and packed out discussion. All people at this table have had attacks on them from somewhere regarding their views, but for Murray not to be there in favour of FOSIS is an indictment of FOSIS’ commitment to the ‘freedom of speech’ code that is so readily bandied about when people critique their ’special guest’ speakers on campuses.”
Progress was made at this discussion, with a ‘conclusion among the speakers that radical persons should only be allowed to speak on campuses if there can be an opposing voice. Jamie Bartlett insisted that one of the best ways to counter extremism was to aspire to truth through balanced and rational debate.’ [Source: http://www.instmed.org/standforpeace/2010/04/douglas-murray-fosis-and-the-nus.html]
Douglas Murray
The UJS have said it was not appeasement, nor a ban on Mr. Murray but rather that it was more beneficial to have FOSIS on the panel than Douglas Murray. Their website reads:
Let us be clear: The decision to cancel Douglas Murray was not taken to appease FOSIS, nor did we cancel him under the illusion that FOSIS would do the same in times to come. He was cancelled with our membership in mind; when given the option for our students to challenge FOSIS on the issues that are affecting them most, the decision was clear.
The refusal of FOSIS to share a platform with Douglas Murray was conspicuous and showed that their commitment to freedom of expression stretches only to those who preach hatred.
Let’s hope this means that the debates and discussions that occur here on out are not blocked to people because of their previous encounters with each other. This goes wholly against the campus culture of peace and tolerance that is trying to be (re)created on UK campuses. I’ve no doubt the decisions were taken for good reason and with due consideration – but we have to be very careful in using appeasement tactics – and that’s a fact
This is a cross-post from the Canadian National Post website. Author Adam Daifallah reports on the ‘bitter campus divide’ and recent events around Carleton University, in the capital of Ottawa.
Henceforth it will be inaccurate to call the ongoing campus battle over Israel and Palestine a war of words. A new weapon has been introduced into the conflict: a machete.
Early Sunday morning, two Carleton University students — Nick Bergamini and his Israeli roommate, Mark Klibanov–were leaving an Ottawa-area bar when a group of men began verbally accosting them. The men yelled at them, in Arabic, for being Zionists. Bergamini, a known campus conservative activist of Italian heritage, was hit in the back of the head. He took refuge with some bouncers and left soon after.
The two roommates were walking home when the same men reappeared, this time in a car. According to Bergamini, one of them rolled down the window and said, “I’m the one who hit you, you f—ing Jew.”
The trunk of the car opened. One of the men reached inside and pulled out a machete. “F—ing Jew,” he said again. Bergamini and Klibanov ran for their lives and escaped unscathed, although Klibanov claims the machete came within a foot of his friend’s head. Bergamini says he recognized one of the men as a fellow Carleton student. Police are investigating.
Of course, we have to tread carefully here. Stories like this are often embellished or even made up. Two Jewish students at York recently claimed to have been assaulted at a pro-Israel event, but camera footage later showed no physical contact took place. Nonetheless, I have met Bergamini a few times and I have no reason to believe he would lie about this. He claims there were witnesses to the machete incident.
If you’re shocked about the alleged assault, don’t be. This is the point we’ve reached at several university campuses across the country. Bitter fighting between supporters of Israel and those who oppose the Jewish state used to be mainly confined to Concordia and York. Now it is spreading at breakneck speed to other schools like Carleton.
The Israel-Palestine issue has increasingly become an important part of student politics. At one time the debate was confined to campus organizations that exist to support one side or the other, such as Hillel. Now student governments themselves are right in the thick of it. Also in contrast to past generations, a clear bright line has developed between supporters of both sides: Israel supporters are becoming more and more associated with conservatism and the Conservative party, and many aren’t even Jewish. Those who oppose Israel are nearly unanimously of the left.
Why? Stephen Harper’s Tories have worked hard to bring Jewish voters and supporters of Israel into the party fold. But it is also because support for Israel has become virtually inseparable from other conservative stances such as strong opposition to radical Islam and support for the war on terror.
The debate on campuses now pits one group–supporters of Israel and Western values such free speech, democracy and tolerance — against another which opposes Israel’s right to exist and believes that controversialists like Ann Coulter have no right to speak and that America and the use of military force are evil.
This debate has always been a difficult one for me. My paternal heritage is Palestinian, and I want justice for the people inhabiting Palestinian lands. However, one can support Palestinians without approving of their leaders or Arab regimes. Khaled Abu Toameh, an Arab Israeli journalist, said it best at a recent talk at McGill when he described himself as both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine at the same time. To be truly pro-Palestinian is to oppose the murderous kleptocrats running the Palestinian Authority and to oppose the use of violent intimidation in the campus debate.
Unfortunately, that is not a view shared by most Palestinian activists. The younger generation is more radicalized. Nary a day goes by without a new outrage. As Barbara Kay noted here yesterday, young Muslim men attending a speech by a notorious anti-Semitic speaker were captured on video yelling appalling things at pro-Israel protesters outside Palestine House in Mississauga, Ont. Among the phrases captured on video were “We need another Holocaust” and “We love jihad! We love killing you!”
Last week, we heard David Lammy, Minister for Higher Education discuss the introduction of a charter of ’student rights’ which should be created for each university across the country.
Student Rights certainly welcome such a move, which will seek to clarify the level of support that should be expected from tutors, maximum lecture sizes, feedback on coursework and standards of accommodation. Director Raheem Kassam has commented, “Finally it seems that universities are coming to the realisation that it is the core student issues that matter. Forget all the grandiose politiking – these are the bread and butter issues of education requirements in the UK.”
On Thursday, David Lammy, the Higher Education Minister, said charters would be drawn up by each university to give students and lecturers a clearer grasp of what they can expect from their fees. Mr Lammy said: “Since the introduction of variable fees, students have rightly become more focused on the return they get from their own investment in their future.”
Each institution will have a charter by September 2011 and we look forward to following this issue closely.
Students at Box Hill Institute of TAFE in Melbourne's east will soon be able to pick up their own Student Rights card on campus.
Students will?be able to pick up their card from the SARC offices on Elgar Rd campus (465 Elgar Rd. Box Hill) and Whitehorse campus (1000 Whitehorse Rd. Box Hill).
Student Rights looks forward to working with the team at SARC and featuring some of their great work. For those in the know SARC produces the student magazine 'The Box' and the annual student diary, but also run OWeek and general events for students. SARC also produce a TV show which we'll soon review.
We've had heaps of emails from Victorian based students saying they missed out on the special student subscription deal to the Herald-Sun.
Good news - it's not too late. Go to our Amazing Offers tab above and click on Herald-Sun or go to www.heraldsun.com.au/unioffer?and order your subscription.
Voted our fave holiday destination in-house at the Student Rights office, it became a fight as to who was going to get to run the promotion.
It happens of Wednesday 18 March at Univ of Tasmania in Hobart.
We'll have our promo staff with us, armed with Student Rights cards to give out and also show bags. We'll also try bring with us the $5 vouchers to Chaos Music.
We've already been to Queensland campuses, but we're coming back again. Some campuses missed out on show bags but this time we're making them available for everyone.
See you at:
QUT - Tuesday 24 March
Griffith Gold Coast - Wednesday 25 March
Griffith Nathan - Thursday 26 March
On the days you can grab your own Student Rights card and also the show bag. We also expect to have available the $5 vouchers for Chaos Music purchases.
Want to get your music into Major and Indie Australian record stores plus worldwide digital stores including iTunes?
Student Rights welcomes The Can as a national sponsor.
The Can was established in 2000 and offers distribution for unsigned artists.
As part of a very special offer for Student Rights, your act will receive a 10% discount off its subscription.
More details will be announced shortly, but students who request a Student Rights card online through the post, will receive a?voucher. Vouchers will also be provided in remaining show bags.
Student Rights.com.au wishes to thank The Can for their sponsorship and their on-going support of unsigned artists.
Australia's leading and oldest independent online music retailer Chaos.com has just confirmed they believe! YES - they agree that we need to fight for student's right to paaaarty!
To you and me this means special offers on DVD's, music, books, games, t shirts, posters and more!
Check out www.chaos.com.au
More details will be revealed soon, however we can confirm a $5 voucher is being made available with the remaining Student Rights show bags being given out free on campuses. These vouchers will also be included in the?mail when?you request your card?from our web site. For a few lucky universities you will also receive a voucher when you pick up your Student Rights card on campus.
With this voucher exclusive to Student Rights.com.au you will be entitled to a $5 discount off your next purchase - including DVD's, books, music and more.
More details of special benefits for Student Rights card holders will be announced shortly.
We all welcome Chaos on board and thank them for their sponsorship and friendship!
?
Eckersley's is one of the largest fine art, craft and design supplies retailers in Australia.
For students they have become the trusted supplier for all their student supplies.
We're very proud to announce that Eckersley's have become the support sponsor for all the Student Rights design based?competitions and events. With this they will be providing prizes for the winners in events including 3 Mobile's National Art Prize and Ansell's T Shirt and Slogan?competition.
Visit one of their 22 storesfor acrylic, watercolour and oil paints and accessories, drawing tools, visual diaries, canvases, pads, graphic design tools, printmaking supplies, folios and presentation materials, reference books, papercraft tools and supplies, kids? art items, and much more! You?ll also find a range of custom services at selected Eckersley?s stores, such as picture framing, easel hire, canvas stretching, as well as art and craft classes.
This is Australia's new social, educational and commercial network for students only.
The touch point is this web site, which provides local and international students with a portal of information, resources and communication.
For those lucky students that pick up an exclusive Student Rights card, they have the added benefits of Australia's first and only student prepaid Visa and member card. The Student Rights ANZ prepaid Visa card offers students the ability to load and reload funds for purchases anywhere Visa is accepted world-wide. It also doubles as a special member card which you can use for special access and to redeem discounts and special offers.
Over the coming weeks we'll be opening more and more features on this web site, including:
Careers and Employment
Student Accommodation
Events & Competitions
Buy-Sell-Exchange
and announcing details on how you can activate your Student Rights prepaid Visa card!
A quick round of applause to our major sponsors too:
Nando's
3 Mobile
The Herald-Sun, The Daily Telegraph and The Australian newspapers
Late last night, Student Rights learned that Reza Pankhurst, the member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir who was stopped from speaking at Queen Mary University last month is currently teaching at the London School of Economics.
The Times has reported the issue on this morning’s page 3, with students from the LSE commenting that “Only last week he was talking about the Detroit bomber and saying the guy was not radicalised in London and it was all to do with foreign policy.”
Reza, jailed in Egypt for five years is now listed as a teacher on the course “States, Nations and Empires”. [pictured left]
Student Rights National Director Raheem Kassam has said, “We are trying to establish what vetting procedures exist at the LSE when hiring staff. Further to our work last month, we are of the view that Hizb-ut-Tahrir should not be allow a platform on campus following their comments regarding forceful imposition of th groups ideology.”
UUK to establish working group following arrest of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab
Yesterday, Universities UK, the organisation that represents the executive members of University management across the United Kingdom announced it will be launching a ‘working group’ looking into the issues of Freedom of Expression and Extremism on University campuses.
This follows the attempted bombing on Christmas Day and subsequent arrest of former UCL Student Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
What is clear to Student Rights is that whenever and wherever extremism, incitement to violence and infringement of student’s safety occurs, the speakers that perpetuate such things should be made clearly unwelcome on univeristy campuses.
Professor Steve Smith, President of Universities UK, said “It is essential that as a society we respond rationally to the issue of extremism. Universities UK therefore is fully supportive of the measured and effective response of UCL following the arrest of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
Student Rights will be monitoring the situation across the UK very closely in the hope of ensuring safety for students, as well as a healthy academic debating environment. What certainly has no place is the kind of ideological thinking that caused Umar Farouk to engage in terrorism. British universities are establishments in which to learn, to make friends and to further one’s course in life. We should be able to be proud and safe in their walls. Recently however, we have not been.
Over the Christmas and New Year break, we’ve all seen the story of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab unfold. We know he was educated at a British University, we know he was the head of the Islamic Society at UCL and we know he attempted to destroy Flight 253 to Detroit on Christmas Day.
Student Rights of course have campaigned strongly against radical and extremist speech on university campuses over the past 7 months, and our successes though numerous, pale in comparison to this terrifying reminder of why we exist.
Faisal Hanra, a spokesman for the Federation of Student Islamic Societies has commented, “This raises a number of concerns, and we are making efforts to contact as many members of the society from the time as we can.”
Many have voiced opinions over the scrutiny applied to speakers in British universities, with National Director of Student Rights Raheem Kassam commenting that, “Incidents like this are not to be ignored, nor dismissed as isolated or freak occurrences. Radicalisation in all forms, across the political and religious spectrum is occuring on university campuses in the UK and it has no place there. Student Rights will work tirelessly to end this culture of division and segregation across the board.”
It’s clear that complacency on campuses will lead to more abhorrent occurrences of this nature, and that action must be taken. University Vice Chancellors and lecturers can no longer afford to ignore the advice as presented to them in 2006 by an All-Party Parliamentary Commission on Anti-Semitism:
It calls upon:
· University Vice Chancellors and student unions to be more vigilant and more proscriptive against this extremism and antisemitism. Vice Chancellors must have regard to their duties under the Race Relations Amendment Act, the Racial and Religious Hatred Act, the Protection against Harrassment Act and the Public Order Act. ‘Free speech’ is only possible with appropriate boundaries.
Student Rights Advisory Board member and Member of Parliament Denis MacShane commented to The Times on the 31st December 2009;
“Sir, In 2006 an all-party parliamentary commission I chaired reported on rising anti-Semitism on university campuses and the support for Islamist ideology, including appeals to jihad, which are widespread in students circles. University vice-chancellors and the university lecturers’ union pooh-poohed our concerns. Might they now have the intellectual honesty to admit that this is a serious problem, or do we have to wait until some student radicalised by campus Islamism succeeds in killing hundreds before our university elites realise what is incubating on British campuses?”
Posts
