07 Apr 14 | News and features, Venezuela, Young Writers / Artists Programme
(Image: Sergio Alvarez/Demotix)
Like other countries, Venezuela’s young are eager to explore the world. Every opportunity to learn becomes important in the formation of the young mind. In Venezuela, a crippled education system prevents normal development. While the well-born go to private schools and have access to every benefit, the mass of Venezuela’s students confront an educational system that tells them: “You can’t but you tried.”
The most embarrassing and painful thing about the deplorable state of the country’s schools is the level of the government’s indifference. Though the government of Nicolás Maduro offers programmes like “Simoncito”, “Mision Ribas” and “Mision Robinson” these is basic education that doesn’t adequately prepare students to pursue higher studies. The programmes seem to condemn the disadvantaged among Venezuela’s population to a remedial existence. If some of these children make it to higher education, the odds are stacked against them and their families.
In the end, it all comes down to money. Venezuela needs to spend more to let students be students. But with foreign reserves short, all but national priorities are left off the funding list. Every area of science instruction needs improvement. Budgets are not even close to covering the costs of labs, let alone providing learning aids or even actual textbooks. A prize-winning robotics team at Caracas’ Universidad Simon Bolivar works with outdated electronics that are often patched together. When the team wanted to take part in an international competition, they were denied assistance — meaning just a few of the team could do it because that was all they could afford to pay out of their own pockets. Another group, which took part in the Latin American conference of the model UN, found themselves staying in primitive conditions in Mexico because they were denied dollars, the currency they needed to pay bills. Despite the discomfort, the group won six awards.
Even with the obvious deficiencies in education, Venezuela has a large population of well-prepared professionals across a wide spectrum of expertise. But based on political affiliations, these people cannot work for the development of the nation. No wonder Venezuelans have begun to leave the country in search of a better future for themselves and their families. This exodus is manifesting itself worst of all among teachers. The ramshackle education system can ill afford this brain drain. But, again, it’s understandable when even those with advanced degrees from internationally respected institutions earn less than approximately £40 per month. When the government’s own basic food basket is priced at nearly £200 per month, it’s impossible to support a family without second or third jobs. Under strict rules, teachers are not allowed to apply for the loans that could support home or car ownership. In effect, teachers are sentenced to live with relatives for life. Yet they continue to teach out of love for the craft with the hope they they can raise a new generation of Venezuelans who can think for themselves and question dogma. Without them, the youth of Venezuela would be lost.
In recent interviews, the educational minister Hector Rodriguez said: “We are not going to take you out of poverty for you to go and become opposites.” His statement meant that Venezuela’s students should understand that their wings are already clipped and any dream of progress or improvement is invalid.
The government’s approach to education aims to make Venezuelans think it has the absolute truth and will decide what’s right for students. The lower classes won’t have any choice but to believe what they are told.
After 15 years Venezuelans have become accustomed to waiting for the government to wave a magic wand to provide what they need. The sense of personal responsibility now seems lost. Effort doesn’t deliver results, so Venezuelans don’t try. It’s an indirect way for the government to choose a person’s destiny.
At the same time, scarcity – and not just in an educational sense – is the new normal. Everyday basics like toilet paper, coffee or cooking oil are the subjects of long hunts that lead to the back of an equally long queue. Hospitals cancel operations for lack of supplies and cancer patients miss treatment for lack of medicine. And even though the government’s late March devaluation of the bolivar will fill the shelves in the shops, the average Venezuelan will be unable to afford the supplies.
For the government, scarcity is just a glitch — just like the blackouts when “iguanas eat the cables” – and not because the energy minister is not doing his job.
It’s impossible to walk down streets without being paranoid — one eye on the road and the other keeping watch of everything around you. On average 48 people are murdered in the country every day. Venezuelans can be beaten and robbed with no recourse to justice because the police and the criminals are often in partnership.
The Bolivarian Revolution was supposed to bring improvements, but the lack of daily essentials and a robust education system leads one to the conclusion: The basement has a bottom.
This article was posted on April 7, 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
26 Feb 14 | Academic Freedom, Comment, Guest Post, Religion and Culture, United Kingdom
Robin Thicke’s Blurred Lines song has been banned in at least 20 student unions after it was released in March 2013. (Image: George Weinstein/Demotix)
I consider myself to be privileged to have the job that I have-I am a university lecturer who teaches Popular Music Culture to undergraduates and post-graduates. This is a subject that is popular among students because the majority of them like music and have an opinion on it. What I love most about my job is the range of interesting conversations my students and I have around popular music and its impact on culture, politics and society.
Music is ubiquitous and it touches people of all cultures, classes and creeds in a multitude of ways. What comes out of the discussions I have highlights both the joy and the anger it can evoke. Some of those discussions can bring forward some sensitive, awkward and challenging opinions and issues but what they do succeed in doing is highlighting issues that we as adults can explore, discuss, argue, rationalise and at time agree to differ on-but in a mature and accepting way, appreciating that we are all different.
So during my lecture on popular music and gender back in November 2013 I opened up a discussion around Robin Thicke’s summer release “Blurred Lines”. I feel no real need to go into any great detail about the fastest selling digital song in history and biggest single hit of 2013. Why? Because the controversy surrounding this song, such as misogynistic positioning with “rapey” lyrics that excuse rape and promote non-consensual sex and, among many other accusations, the promotion of “lad culture”, is abundant on the internet.
My students’ views on this song, and accompanying video mixed with both females and males defending the song and Thicke’s counter argument of it – promoting feminism, it being tongue in cheek and a disposable pop song – to those who, again both male and female, just wanted to castrate him for putting women’s rights and equality back into the dark ages.
Now the scene in the lecture theatre had been set I wanted to garner from them views on what I considered to be equally, if not more important – the issue that over 20 university student unions in the UK had banned the song from being played in their student union bars and union promoted events. This includes the prevention of in-house and visiting DJs playing it on student union premises and ,in some cases, the song not being aired on student union radio and TV stations’ playlists. In their defence the majority of these universities decided to ban after complaints from some of their students, but I am yet to determine whether all these universities reached this decision after an open and democratic process of consensus through voting or otherwise.
What I did find interesting among the many statements from presidents and vice-presidents of the student unions was one given to the New Musical Express, in November 2013, by Kirsty Haigh, the vice president of Edinburgh University Student Association.
The decision to ban ‘Blurred Lines’ from our venues has been taken as it promotes an unhealthy attitude towards sex and consent. EUSA has a policy on zero tolerance towards sexual harassment, a policy to end lad culture on campus and a safe space policy-all of which this song violates”.
However what Haigh does not go on to explain is exactly how this song does that. I am also intrigued by the comment about a policy to end ”lad culture” as Haigh does not allude to a clearly defined set of parameters specifying what counts as ”lad culture/banter”. One might ask if identifying a specific gender (lad) is this not targeting and discriminating against that gender?
I am struggling to find what constitutes ”lad culture” as opinions differ, however the National Union of Students’ That’s What She Said report published in March 2013 defines it as: “a group or ‘pack’ mentality residing in activities such as sport and heavy alcohol consumption and ‘banter’ which was often sexist, misogynistic, or homophobic”. But does lad culture equate to sexual harassment-is there a connection or is this creating guilt by association? Some critics claim that ”lad culture” was a postmodern transformation of masculinity, an ironic response to ”girl power” that had developed during the noughties.
Allie Renison’s article Blurred lines: Why can’t women dance provocatively and still be empowered?, published in The Telegraph in July 2013, states that “Teenage girls and grown women spend countless hours confiding in each other about the finer details of physical intimacy, and I can safely say that even without a sex-obsessed pop culture this would still be the case.”
This has to some degree been confirmed by one of my students who is a member of the university girls’ hockey team and girls’ football team. She says that they go out as a group, taking part in activities such as sport and heavy alcohol consumption and banter which is often sexist and misandry and involves intimate commentary on the male anatomy and men’s sexual prowess.
So would that then constitute “ladette” culture or “girl power” culture? Do EUSA have a policy to end ladette culture on their campus?
But this isn’t really the core issue here; the issue is around censorship on campus, what constitutes a fair and balanced approach to these issues and where you draw the lines. Thirty years ago student unions were complaining about, and rallying against, censorship-now they are the ones doing the censoring. So where does this leave the issue of censorship?
Starting with music, has Blurred Lines been singled out or do those twenty university student unions have a clear policy on banning songs that might include Prodigy’s Smack My Bitch Up, Jimi Hendrix’s Hey Joe (condoning the shooting of women who cheat on their men), Robert Palmer’s Addicted To Love (the lyrics could be seen to suggest date rape), Rolling Stones’ Under My Thumb, or Britney Spear’s Hit Me Baby One More Time? The list could go on and on, including songs that incite violence, racism or revolution. Do student unions around the country have concise and definitive lists of songs that should be banned or censored or is it a matter for a small group of elected people? And when you leave a group of people to act as moral arbiters then how do you control their decision making power?
Did we not collectively settle this matter in the 90s? Didn’t we conclude that outrage over pop music is a music marketer’s dream and inevitably increases sales for the artist? Aren’t popular music lyrics supposed to be challenging, full of danger and ambiguity? And do we only stop at popular music?
It could be argued that Mozart’s Don Giovanni revels in the actions of a rapist as does Britten’s Rape of Lucretia, and what of literature, do we ban Nabokov’s Lolita, Oscar Wilde’s Salome? Shouldn’t student unions be picketing concert halls, storming the libraries and art collections of universities and start demanding the removal of offensive material or at worst the burning of books and paintings in homage to a misguided Ray Bradbury envisioned cultural pogrom? If you are going to start banning or censoring cultural artefacts then please at least have some sort of consistency otherwise you leave yourself open to criticism.
So is this censorship? I would argue it is. If policy prevents a visiting DJ from playing a particular song at a student union bar, because some people do not approve of it, then that is censorship. I myself do not disagree with the criticism of the lyrical content of Blurred Lines, or condone them, though one could argue about their potential polysemic interpretation. What this highlights is perhaps an inconsistency in the processes of censorship by the student union.
Working in a university, I strongly believe that one of the core purposes of the academy is to create a space to allow young adults, on their journey of personal development, to explore their own opinions and prejudices, while considering those of others. A space where they can hear a multitude of views and draw their own conclusions from them; engage in constructive debate, work these issues through. Universities, of all places, should foster a culture of free speech and free expression wherever reasonably expected. Yes, there are always going to be challenges to what is appropriate and acceptable, whatever those challenges are the banning or censoring of material always has to be done within the law. That is how we develop as individuals and a society.
This article was published on February 26, 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
24 Feb 14 | Europe and Central Asia, Greece, News and features
Students protesting outside the offices of Piraeus Public Prosecutor (Image: Nikolas Georgiou/Demotix)
Between 200 – 250 students last week staged a demonstration outside the offices of the Piraeus’ Public Prosecutor against police interference in school protests, following high school students being taken in for police questioning.
Joined by the Secondary Teacher Union of Piraeus and the Parent Association of Keratsini the students shouted slogans like “we won’t be terrorised” and “money for education”. The protest came after students were interrogated by police over an occupation of Keratsini’s 2nd High School in October, in protest at the murder of rapper Pavlos Fyssas by a member of the far right Golden Dawn.
Students were asked about their own and their teachers’ political preferences, especially those who had been striking against public job cuts and forced transfers. There were also media reports that students were questioned about their parents’ voting preferences. A high school student who participated in the protest said they were asked “to give as many names as possible”, adding that they were threatened with having a criminal record if they refused.
Greek police has said it was obliged to conduct an investigation into the matter. It did so on the basis of a legislative act from 2000 punishing by imprisonment attempted occupations or disruption of the “smooth functioning” of a school. The act remained inactive until 2011 when school protests against government plans on privatisation of education, prompted a Supreme Court order for investigations in schools.
Maria Delli, board member of the Parent Federation in Attica District told Index on Censorship: “It is not an unprecedented incident, we have been experiencing police interference and student profiling in recent years. The government is trying to criminalise the common struggles of students and teachers for education. Students complain about the obvious: Not having teachers, not having heating infrastructures and having to pay for their books during the economic crisis.” She added that there was no damage to the school.
Nikos Peritoyannis, president of Parent Association of Keratsini commented to Index on Censorship: “It is a positive outcome. It can be definitely seen as a result of the pressure from the protest actions undertaken by students, teachers and other social groups. However, it does not mean that similar cases will cease to exist. As the struggle against the privatization of education goes on, the government will have to intensify monitoring and suppressing policies.”
On Monday 20 February, Piraeus’ Public Prosecutor finally decided to temporarily withdraw the case as there was no criminal offence for which to prosecute the students. Apart from the incident in Keratsini, Athens’ Attica General Police Directorate (GADA) has also issued a document informing police stations to conduct meetings with school directors in order to disclose “any immediate problems schools are facing”. On 13 February, a similar document reached the director of a kindergarden in New Psychiko, Athens. There was public outcry from teachers’ associations in the media.
This article was posted on 24 February 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
19 Feb 14 | Africa, Kenya, News and features
(Image: Semmick Photo/Shutterstock)
The Kenyan government’s directive to schools to use tribal mother tongues as the main language of instruction in junior school classes has elicited mixed reactions among the country’s education stakeholders. Teacher’s unions and sections of Kenyan society fear it will promote ethnic division, and separate children along tribal lines.
The unions have come out guns blazing against the directive. The Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT) has labelled the directive completely “analogue”, and Secretary General Mr. Wilssion Sossion said they were not consulted before it was issued. He added that the unions cannot be overlooked in these cases, and urged the Ministry of Education to suspend the directive and initiate wider consultations.
Omboko Milemba, the chairman of the Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers (KUPPET), argues that directing teachers to teach in mother tongue at the lower level — class one to three, which come after nursery school and kindergarten — will serve to increase the tribalism that is already rampant in the country.
Teaching in vernacular can only work in rural areas where people from one tribe largely reside in the same place. In urban areas, however, where people from various tribes mingle, as pupils and teachers come from different tribal settings and backgrounds, it will be a challenge to enforce the directive.
Another point being raised is whether there are even enough teachers to implement the plan. According to KNUT the country needs close to 80,000 additional teachers to boost the education sector. There is a further problem in the case of smaller tribes, like the Elmolos and Ogieks, as it will be difficult to get enough teacher who can teach in their languages.
John Wesonga, from the Kakamega County Kenya National Union of Teachers says the government is confusing Kenyans with a lot of poorly planned programmes and directives. He insists they should concentrate on the promise by President Uhuru Kenyatta to give class one pupils laptops, instead of coming up with a new proposal to make Kenyans forget this earlier pledge.
Busia County KNUT branch Executive Secretary Mark Oseno, added that the directive will cause a lot of confusion in the curriculum development if implemented, as it will be applied selectively. “If the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, then it is not advisable to reintroduce mother tongue in lower classes,” he said.
A few of those in support of the plans say exposing children to their mother tongue will help them cope faster with learning a subsequent second language. Those against, however, stress the need for the government to consult education stakeholders across Kenya’s 47 counties, to prevent a plan that will divide pupils along tribal lines.
This article was published on 19 February 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
