spinofflive
(Image: chameleonseye/Getty)
(Image: chameleonseye/Getty)

OPINIONPoliticsFebruary 27, 2020

The Covid-19 travel ban is racist and disastrous for international students

(Image: chameleonseye/Getty)
(Image: chameleonseye/Getty)

New Zealand’s travel ban on China has been extended another week. The president of the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations argues for a student exemption.

The loss of lives and poor health caused by coronavirus is devastating. We must acknowledge the families, across the globe, who have lost loved ones or who are supporting relatives in poor health. But the Covid-19 travel ban imposed by the government on Sunday 2 February and continued on Monday 24 February is disastrous to the students, educators and staff across New Zealand’s tertiary sector.

The travel ban feeds racism. The travel ban targeted at any foreigner coming through or from China has fuelled the hysteria and misinformation that Covid-19 is a “Chinese” disease. We recognise the need to prioritise public health and safety, however, an unempathetic and unreasonable Covid-19 travel ban does not, in and of itself, mitigate the public health risks facing New Zealand. Coronavirus is a global health crisis, with confirmed cases of the virus in over 25 countries where people are not banned from travelling to New Zealand. Covid-19 cannot simply be attributed to one country and one race.

Domestically, the travel ban is responsible for spreading xenophobic and anti-Chinese sentiment towards our Chinese international and domestic students, and has uncovered deeply rooted racism such as some landlords telling Chinese students to find alternative accommodation.

The racist undertones of this travel ban were predicted by the World Health Organisation. WHO has maintained that travel bans perpetuate hostility and fear, and is therefore against their widespread use. Why has the government not listened to their recommendation?

The travel ban undermines the wellbeing of international students and staff travelling from China. Imposing a travel ban mere weeks before the academic year begins has left students and tertiary providers with the burdens and impacts of the government’s decision. The eight-day extension of the travel ban on Monday 24 February only exacerbated this uncertainty and continued to cause uncertainty for those locked out of New Zealand.

The wellbeing of students and staff has already taken a hit. International students have been left in the lurch as to whether the travel ban will affect their ability to continue their studies in New Zealand. Current students who have already invested significant time, effort and finances into their education are afraid they will be unable to continue or complete their studies. First-year students are equally concerned that they will not be able to fulfil their tertiary education goals, despite already investing in fees, accommodation and visas for 2020.

Photo: Getty Images

On top of this, the travel ban will cripple our tertiary education sector. New Zealand tertiary education is supposedly publicly funded, but the travel ban has revealed the severe underfunding of the sector, and how reliant tertiary providers have become on international students to cover the financial shortfall. In 2019, it was estimated that the cumulative underfunding for universities, polytechnics, institutes of technology and wānanga was $3.7 billion. Collectively, international students provide $4.8 billion per year to counterbalance their lack of government funding.

The potential $1.5 million loss announced by Te Whare Wānanga o Murihiku, Southern Institute of Technology, and the millions of dollars of financial loss that other tertiary institutions, will have significant consequences for all members of the tertiary education community. Courses will likely be cut and staff may lose their jobs. The student experience, that which all students (domestic and international) pay thousands of dollars for each year, will be undermined.

As a result of our concerns with the Covid-19 travel ban, we are calling on the government to lift the travel ban or, at a minimum, implement a tertiary student exemption. This will allow international students from China with already issued visas to begin or continue their tertiary studies in New Zealand. International students arriving from China will be still required to undergo a health check before travelling and will be met by tertiary institution staff at the airport. They will follow the Ministry of Health self-isolation for 14 days, where they will receive a daily medical check-up and a final examination at the end of the fortnight.

Lifting the travel ban or introducing a tertiary student exemption would require proactive anti-racist communications across all tertiary campuses. There is no room for racism and xenophobia within our community and on our campuses.

The government must also provide additional financial support, an investment into targeted pastoral care for these students, and an investment in academic support. This includes making course materials and course information available electronically, relaxing enrolment and assessment deadlines, and implementing alternative arrangements for students to meet mandatory course requirements. Although the e-learning provisions are necessary, they should not be the only alternative for international students arriving back in New Zealand. The internet restrictions in China rule out the possibility that international students in China could remain at home until the virus subsides.

International students coming from China are not tourists. They are not coming here to travel, they are coming here to study and learn. These students chose to study in New Zealand because they wanted to benefit from the learning that takes place in our classroom environments, and they should not be prevented from doing so.

The government needs to act on the advice of public health experts and the World Health Organisation. They need to lift the travel ban and stop feeding the panic.

Keep going!
New Critic Te Arohi editor Sinead Gill
New Critic Te Arohi editor Sinead Gill

PoliticsFebruary 27, 2020

‘Fuck the 2020 election’: Critic editor on student mag’s party politics stance

New Critic Te Arohi editor Sinead Gill
New Critic Te Arohi editor Sinead Gill

The first issue of the Otago student magazine for 2020 had barely hit campus before it was making headlines in the wider media. The cover was censored by Facebook, and a furious editorial denounced party politics, promising to give them a miss. Josie Adams speaks to editor Sinead Gill about a sparkling, sweary start to the year.

Every incoming editor of Critic – Te Arohi has a long line of censorships and celebrations to live up to. One or two of them in years past have made some questionable choices, but few have provoked such controversy as swiftly as Sinead Gill. Her debut issue features an editorial that some people are finding even more offensive than its cover, a bare ass clutching 50 cigarettes in its cleft.

The editorial’s headline, “Fuck the 2020 election and fuck anyone who wants me to cover it”, was a succinct summary of Gill’s stance. In a general election year, the publication of the Otago University Students’ Association won’t be covering party politics. This pissed some people off.

The Spinoff: There are lots of responses to your editorial, but I can’t see many from Otago students. How do your readers feel about it?

Sinead Gill: Most students responded more to the butt on the cover, so it’s kind of a weird experience to have an issue with my editorial from people who aren’t its audience. The whole point of it was to tell students, who are my audience, that I’m not going to let politicians use my magazine to peddle their messages because they can’t be bothered coming to Dunedin.

What motivated your no-party-politics policy?

I hosted interviews with a couple of politicians that were in Dunedin for O-Week. I reached out to every single political party asking if they were here, but my position was that if you’re not actually coming to campus and talking to our students, I’m not going to do your job for you. 

I’m being paid by these students. I’m writing for them. I need to not pander to people who are going to have a problem with it. So that’s why I wrote [the editorial] the way it was, because I wanted students to know that Critic covers issues that are important to them. So much of it gets lost in the haze of politicians throwing shit at each other to see what sticks.

Students know that if something is in the magazine they shouldn’t just glaze over it, like in previous election years. I want them to take notice [of what’s in the magazine], because it’s important.

Sorry, let me know if I go on a rant.

You’re good. What’s your guide for what’s important and relevant to Otago students?

A few of my staff members have science backgrounds, so they’ve learned about methodology and data collection. We want to do a kind of Colmar-Brunton-style poll tailor-made for Otago University students, and find out exactly what they’re thinking about, because I don’t want to make that call.

That’s an unusually evidence-based strategy for a Critic editor. With that guiding you, how do feel about being told to “grow the fuck up and stop being a crybaby”?

I’d ask these people if they actually read the editorial, because what a lot of them have an issue with is young people communicating the way young people do. I did have a stalk of [the Twitter user who posted that], and the others, and they said I was being edgy. I think they just don’t like me using the “fuck” word. They seemed shocked that I’m vulgar, and also shocked at what I’m saying. It’s not even a hot take! It’s something everyone says: party politics is a cesspit!

I’m very privileged in my position as editor of a student magazine, because I can make that call [to not write about party politics]. I could make the life of my news editor much easier, because we could have two pages a week of random bullshit happening. I find that lazy.

So is this a policy you came up with before hiring staff? Did your news editor know this would happen?

Joel McManus was editor in 2018, and that was when I started writing for Critic. His first rule was: if it’s not happening on campus, why are we writing about it? And Charlie [O’Mannin, 2019 editor] absolutely reinforced that. Now, I am.

Even if people aren’t spending hours of their day poring over political hot takes in their news feed, there’s going to be plenty of messages about what’s going on.

Critic isn’t single-handedly turning people off politics. People are off politics. We’re saying what people are already thinking.

What do you think is the role of student media?

Our job is to keep our student union accountable, and the university – because there’s always something shady happening there – and, from there, the wider community.

All student media is located on different campuses, so to me our number one priority is reporting on things happening on the Otago campus.

Critic is really lucky. It’s really popular. In an OUSA survey something like 95% of students read us, so there is a lot of power and responsibility that comes with that. But mostly, Critic should be something students can see themselves in.

What if a party politician like Clare Curran offered a student-specific, campus-specific interview – would you take it?

I interviewed David Clark, and he wasn’t responding to any questions about tertiary policy. He was like, “you’ll have to ask Chris Hipkins about that”. Mate, you’re the MP for Dunedin North. Your people are students. If he or Clare want to give me an insight, I’d love that. But I doubt they will.

Are you going to accept Clare’s challenge to debate?

Is that a line politicians use? Are they afraid people are going to say, “oh, of course I won’t debate you, that’s scary!” Well, I’ve decided that if she brings the merlot, then the Critic office is 640 Cumberland Street.

In 1996, a young Paula Bennett said “fees suck and fee increases piss me off … don’t vote for fuck wits”. It strikes me as a similar sentiment to your editorial. Will you, too, one day embrace that which you despise: central government?

Fuck no. Obviously politics is important and everyday, but I don’t see the priority of politicians being everyday politics.

OK, this is the real goss, and I’m ready for the backlash: in 2018 I ran for postgrad rep, and lost by two votes. I felt obligated to do it, which I’m sure every politician says, but there is a moment where I thought, “I really want things to change, maybe I should be productive about it.”

I’ve felt far more productive working for Critic, in terms of accomplishing things for students, then I ever would have on the OUSA exec.

You’ve been censored on Facebook, you’ve pissed off Twitter, what’s in the second issue?

A letdown.

Politics