When the government attacks London Met, you can't ignore race
There are more black students at London Metropolitan University than at all of the Russell Group universities combined. In 2010, one in eight of UK born black students went to just two universities – one of them was London Met (the University of East London). I mention this because, this week, London Met has had its status as a “highly trusted sponsor” revoked by the UK Border Agency. I mention it because it’s always important to look not just at abstract injustices, but at whom an injustice is being done to: it is important to look for trends.
The ability of a university to vouch for a student from outside the EU is crucial to its survival. However much we wish that universities didn’t overcharge international students, they have been told that the global market is where they must make up for the income the government has sliced from their block grants. They have planned their coming years on the basis of this cash. London Met, we are told, didn’t monitor its visa recipients closely enough. If this language sounds a little Orwellian, that’s because it is: if my university had tried to monitor me, I’d have made damn sure that they would have equally failed to do so ‘closely enough’.
Much of the media coverage of this story has rightly focussed on the impact on those immediately effected – international students at London Met. But what this means for those students who get to stay at the university shouldn’t be underestimated. As the Financial Times explain:
“The decision will have serious ramifications for the university: in 2010-11, £27m of London Met’s £157m income came from foreign students. That year, it ran an operating surplus of £3.9m, and had net assets of £112m.”
It is not unreasonable to assume that the university will plug the gap with cuts to teaching, to student support. It is not unreasonable to assume that this decision will ruin the higher education of those students who don’t require a special document permitting them to learn in Britain as well as those who do.
Now, anyone who has worked in anywhere darkened by the shadow of the Higher Education sector knows that there is a little more history than this: London Met got into serious deep water in 2009 when it turned out that theyhad been lying to the Higher Education Funding Council about the number of students they had. But to choose a measure which hammers students in order to indirectly punish those responsible? This was certainly not the only option.
Is it coincidence that this has happened to a university so key to the education of the UK’s black community? I don’t think so.
Let me put it another way. Can you imagine what would happen if Oxford university had its right to accept international students suspended by a bureaucrat? Can you imagine the list of MPs offices the Vice Chancellor could drop in to? The number of arms he could twist? Or the number of journalists who would put the story on the front page?
Oxford, you might argue, is but for Cambridge, an exception. But I would argue the same is true to some extent of any of the predominantly white universities in the country: it’s not what you know, it’s who you know. It’s not what you’ve done, it’s your reputation. If Britain operates on an old boys network, then it is much easier to assault those you don’t know. And if the people you don’t know are black, then you will assault black people.
The point is this: the bureaucrat who made the decision to pick on an institution which educates so many black people probably wouldn’t think of themselves as racist. There was certainly no criterion on the tick box form they will have filled out which encouraged them to pick on a university with more propensity to educate black students. But unless we also take into account the relative power that institutions have, in every way, because of the contexts in which they exist, then such decisions are liable to perpetuate injustices: they are likely to be another dot on a graph which adds up to structural racism. And, for a student at London Met having their course cut, is that really much better than a verbal slur?
Hey I know this is off topic but I was wondering if you knew of any widgets I could add to my blog that automatically tweet my
newest twitter updates. I’ve been looking for a plug-in like this for quite some time and was hoping
maybe you would have some experience with something like this.
Please let me know if you run into anything. I truly enjoy reading your blog and I look forward to your new updates.
Great weblog right here! Additionally your site lots up very fast!
What host are you using? Can I am getting your affiliate hyperlink on your host?
I desire my web site loaded up as fast as
Don’t have a valid argument?
Want to stick your oar in anyway?
Why not shout RACISM! 100% guaranteed to shut down any rational debate.
Whatever the argument, it isn’t advanced by making false claims and shoddy journalism.
Yes, the percentage of black (home) students at UK universities is lower than everyone would like, but this isn’t down to Universities admission policies, it’s because black (home) students get lower A level scores than white students. There’s not much point admitting black students with lower grades if they end up failing the course. Then Universities would be accused of getting rid of a disproprtionate percentage of black students.
Lower A level grades may be because on average black students come from lower income families, have less opportunities, poorer access to secondary education and so on. The problem goes very deep and is a complex issue, as acknowledged by the report which is sadly misrepresented in the article.
Fundamentally London Met wasn’t targetted because it has a high proportion of black students. It was “targetted” because it has major institutional administrative problems including failing to know how many students it has on the books and lying about student data in the past. Frankly, it’s not a very good university and doesn’t inspire confidence. I wouldn’t want my kids to go there!
Of course Oxford wouldn’t be treated like this, but that’s because Oxford has a competent administration system, as do most other UK Universities; it’s nothing to do with reputation or race. And saying that Oxford would get special treatment is an easy thing to say but there’s absolutely no evidence to back up such a shallow claim.
Also, comparing a not very good post-1992 “University” against the leading Universities in the UK isn’t helpful. It’s a bit like saying that students graduating from former polytechnics earn less than students graduating from Oxbridge. Why not compare London Met with other ex-polys?
And note that the argument here isn’t about colour or race as such – the figures concentrate on British students – what about black students from outside of the UK? Ethicity is a slippery eel.
Sorry, but shoddy journalism makes me cross!
But surely all Adam’s main points remain valid. It is still true that (a) the Russell group universities admit a shockingly small percentage of black students and (b) the Home Office is targeting a university with a particularly high proportion of black students – it would not get away with targeting Oxford in this way, because the (mainly white, upper class, etc.) old boys’ network would kick in.
…and since when was 6,115 almost as many 7,815? Good old NUT!
Thanks Keshav. So, the opening statement, “There are more black students at London Metropolitan University than at all of the Russell Group universities combined.” isn’t true, or at least it wasn’t true in 2007/8.
The statement “In 2010, one in eight of UK born black students went to just two universities” can be traced back here, http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce1/pubs/hefce/2010/1013/10_13.pdf which uses data from 2002/3, although the report was published in 2010.
It’s an interesting article, but I’m afraid that the numbers just don’t add up.
Mike, the source for the London Met/Russell Group statistic seems to be this NUT press release:
“London Metropolitan University accepted 6,115 Black Minority & Ethnic (BME) students in 2007/08; almost as many as the 7,815 BME students spread between the 20 universities of the Russell Group.”
Hmm. Interesting article, but I’m not convinced by a number of claims. For a start, the University only has 28,000 students, so I’d be amazed if there were more black students at London Met than at all of the Russell Group Universities combined.
Also, it has some very notable alumni including Peter Tatchell, Kate Hoey, Charlie Whelan. The wikipedia page on the Uni makes interesting reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Metropolitan_University