Crossing the Channel Tunnel from the United Kingdom to France in February meant turning my clock forward by an hour. Yet, in China, as far as I travelled across the whole country, the time zone remained the same, at GMT +8. And now, as I turn my clock forward once again for daylight savings on 29 March, one question stuck with me: are time zones more than just geographical boundaries and circumstances?
Time zones are often treated as a neutral and technical solution to the problem of how to standardise time across a rotating planet. Sailors had always needed a chronometer and accurate timing to calculate longitude. Moreover, before the 19th century, time zones were local since cities and towns set their clocks using local sundials, creating a patchwork of times even within relatively small regions. This system functioned well enough until the expansion of railways and telecommunication demanded coordination across long distances. The need for synchronization — particularly to prevent train collisions and scheduling chaos — led to the creation of standardised time zones.
The establishment of global time zones was formalized at the International Meridian Conference of 1884, where world powers agreed to adopt a prime meridian in Greenwich, England with Greenwich Mean Time (GMT). Meanwhile, France, which wanted the meridian to run through the Paris Observatory, continued using the Paris Meridian until 1911. This is because France had its own strong scientific tradition and hence, having the meridian was partly about national prestige and influence. After all, by centering global time on the GMT, Britain had effectively inscribed its influence into the temporal order of the modern world.
Today, time zones continue to mirror political authority rather than geographic logic. De jure, time zones should follow longitudinal lines, roughly fifteen degrees apart. Yet, de facto, they zigzag across maps, bending to accommodate national borders, economic ties and cultural affiliations. For one, China is the largest sovereign nation in the world that officially only observes the time zone of GMT +8. Despite being almost as wide as the continental United States, a single time zone has been maintained because of the legacy of the Chinese Communist Party’s desire for unified control. This results in practical inconveniences, such as for cities where the sun does not come up until 10am or later, to restaurants staying open for dinner until the wee hours past midnight.
Daylight saving time (DST) introduces another layer of politics, as while originally promoted as a way to conserve energy and make better use of daylight, it has become a contentious issue in many countries. Governments must weigh competing interests: businesses that benefit from extended evening daylight, farmers who often oppose clock changes, and citizens concerned about health and sleep disruption. In 2018, the European Commission proposed abolishing DST since public consultations showed that 84% of 4.6 million respondents across the bloc supported scrapping it. Nonetheless, despite strong public support, the European Union has failed to reach consensus on this issue. It has been said that studies will be prepared to support decision-making but this has mostly been a farce on the EU’s part. The main arguments against eliminating DST is that allowing each country to choose its own permanent time could disrupt the synchronization of the single market, which is considered essential for avoiding significant economic losses.
In some cases, time zones have become flashpoints for domestic political debate, especially when official clock times create disruptions in daily life or differ from the schedules of key economic partners. The Department of Transportation in the United States sets time zones, taking into account the “convenience of commerce” when deciding where to draw lines. This means that regions are often grouped together based on economic ties rather than longitudinal position, producing irregular boundaries that sometimes split states or closely connected communities.
For example, for many years in Indiana, timekeeping practices have been historically fragmented, with different counties observing different combinations of time zones and daylight saving time. This made things confusing for people who lived in one time zone but worked in another, because they had to keep changing their schedules and making sure they knew when meetings were. The situation became politically contentious and led to a statewide reform in 2005 that standardized the observance of DST. However, even after this change, some counties continued to petition for shifts between Eastern and Central Time, and communities continue to lobby to have time zone boundaries redrawn. This illustrates how strongly local communities feel about aligning their clocks with their economic and social networks, which can be hard for governments to balance given competing priorities.
Time zones, in this sense, are not just measured, they are lived, and changes to it can feel deeply personal. And this is perhaps why humankind has sought to use it not just as a means of maintaining power, but also as a way to promote cooperation and connectivity in the world that we live in.
On Nov. 20, 1975, Francisco Franco, Spain’s dictator since 1939, died comfortably in the “La Paz” Hospital in Madrid. While his death, announced on national television by a teary PM Carlos Arias Navarro, brought joy and relief to many; it was also mourned by thousands across the nation. Following the end of the fascist regime, Spain underwent an astonishingly peaceful and swift democratic transition, and is today one of the most socially advanced countries in the Western world in terms of democracy, human rights and social liberties. Nevertheless, following the trend of rising far-right discourse and representation in most of the European continent, what makes this upsurge in Spain different to those in Germany, Italy or Portugal?
Unlike in these countries, Spain’s dictator didn’t fall. Franco’s regime wasn’t uprooted by a popular uprising nor was it put to trial. Franco was never caught trying to leave the country through the Pyrenees with his wife and strung up in the town square to be beaten up by the people. Unlike Hitler, Mussolini or Salazar, Franco died in a hospital bed, receiving quality medical treatment, after having lived a long life. The end of his regime wasn’t the result of popular dissent or the people’s desire to live more freely; the dictatorship in Spain ended purely because Franco, after 36 years in power, died.
Spain’s transition to a democracy over the years that followed Franco’s death was a feat in and of itself, but it cannot be ignored that this move away from totalitarianism, unlike in the other countries mentioned above, was not born out of a general longing for democracy.
When observing the end of fascist regimes in other European nations and the immediate aftermath, Spain stands out. In Germany, the end of the Nazi regime was followed by the Nuremberg trials, and Nazi symbology remains illegal in modern-day Germany. In Italy, Mussolini’s downfall was followed by a popular vote which resulted in a new republican state that outlawed the reorganization of the Fascist Party in any form and glorification of fascist leaders in 1952. In Portugal, the Carnation Revolution ultimately resulted in the adoption of the 1976 constitution, which prohibits fascist ideology in Article 46(4). In all these cases, there has been a clear acknowledgment of the pain and atrocities committed during each country’s respective fascist regime.
Spain, however, took a different path. While the transitions mentioned above were carried out by outsiders of the regimes that preceded them, the Transición in Spain was led by the very heirs of Franco’s regime. King Juan Carlos I was Franco’s successor, appointed and trained personally by him, who intended for him to continue his legacy. The move towards a democratic regime was purely strategic; a result of international pressure, fear of isolation and panic that a similar revolution to Portugal’s would show the fragility of the regime. Adolfo Suárez, who successfully led a peaceful transition after being appointed as head of government by the king, and is today celebrated in Spain as a champion of democracy, had previously held important political positions under Franco. Moreover, legal penalization of Franco-era apology and symbolism (such as the regime’s flag) was not immediately adopted. It wasn’t until 2007 when the first Historical Memory Law was passed, followed by the Democratic Memory Law in 2022, which recognized victims of the Civil War and dictatorship, explicitly condemned the 1936 coup and the Franco regime and strengthened reparative measures. Both laws caused turmoil among right-wing and far-right groups alike. Thus, one thing is clear: although Spain did eventually criminalize Franco apologism, this was not done immediately after the fall of the regime, and cannot be understood as a direct or inherent outcome of the regime’s collapse.
All these differences are what make the rise of far-right political parties in Spain, such as Vox, all the more worrying. While most of their voters are just your standard radical citizens in areas such as immigration or family, a decent chunk are more than just that; they are nostalgic for the dictatorship. And why wouldn’t they be?
The Spanish educational system has—for the longest time—only vaguely condemned Franco’s totalitarian regime, with limited legal persecution for public expression of fascist ideology aligned with francoist ideals. Moreover, Franco’s mausoleum in the Valley of the Fallen, built using slave labor from political prisoners, remains open to the public, not as a reminder of what the dictatorship was, but as a site where people mourn the dictator who died aged 82 after living a full, long life. And how could people not openly express their nostalgia for the regime when Vox deputies in parliament make claims such as: “the period following the Civil War was not a dark period, […] but a period of reconstruction, progress and reconciliation.”
For all these reasons, the recent electoral popularity of Vox cannot be classified as purely contingent like the rise of AfD, Chega, or Fratelli d’Italia in Germany, Portugal and Italy respectively. How could we not expect a resurgence of the far-right when Franco’s dictatorship simply died down with him and wasn’t followed by its systemic rejection? In Spain, this rise isn’t just a political shift; it is a normalization of fascism that is being increasingly accepted by society—alarmingly so—rendering it an outlier case among comparable cases and significantly more concerning.
Frank Herbert’s magnum opus Dune presented itself as not only an allegory regarding the power of religious belief, but also as a warning to when actors—in pursuit of resources— ignore their quests’ impact on the environment and people. Just like how the extraction of spice in Arrakis comes at the detriment of the environment and the Fremen, the extraction of critical raw materials may further put pressure on an already drained planet Earth. The question of critical raw materials was always at the back of my mind throughout the 2026 Warwick Economic Summit, as many guest speakers spoke of the possibility of strategic economic growth and diversification that is environmentally sustainable. Indeed, the extraction of critical raw materials, according to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, “are essential for digitalization, for renewable energy technologies, and for the further deployment of electric vehicles.”However, environmentally sustainable growth and economic diversification presents many ethical considerations; weighing in questions of mining practices, indigenous rights and geopolitical power balances.
Critical raw materials are essential to the environmental transition. Since the technology necessary for building sustainable energy infrastructure (such as solar panels or wind turbines) requires critical raw materials, they have become crucial for states’ ambitions of reaching a net-zero emissions goal. With demand for these resources expected to increase in the following decades due to increasing demand for renewable energy, the question of critical raw materials’ sourcing has become more relevant. Indeed, the mining of these materials has raised many questions on the ethics behind their use. As raw materials extraction has been offshored to countries of the global south (such as Chile, Brazil, Guinea, and the Democratic Republic of Congo), there has been a perpetuation of socio-environmental inequality in these regions. For example, according to a report made by PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, the open pit mining of copper in Chile is mainly concentrated in the arid regions of the state, thus demanding significant water resources. This leaves water scarcity as a major issue for these regions. With water pollution caused by copper mining, the discharge and extraction of these metals has caused threats to the ecosystem and local populations’ health.
Furthermore, the extraction of critical raw materials has been at the detriment of indigenous populations. According to a report by Friends of the Earth Europe and other organizations, 80% of lithium mining projects and more than half of nickel, copper and zinc projects are in the territories of indigenous peoples. Therefore, the environmental pollution caused by these extraction operations disproportionally impacts indigenous populations. According to indigenous activist Claudia Andrea Huircan, the extraction of critical raw materials in Chile ignores the indigenous populations’ rights and displaces them, leaving them with low-paid work or even forced labor. We can therefore observe this socio-environmental paradox associated with critical raw materials. Whilst, according to Global Energy Lead at the WWF and WES guest speaker Dean Cooper, one “needs a source of Critical Raw Materials”, when it comes to the sustainable energy transition, questions on these materials’ extraction must be raised, as they further unethical mining practices and violate human rights.
The extraction processes also risk exacerbating post-colonial geopolitical relations. Indeed, the EU’s emphasis on diversification of critical raw materials’ supply, according to scholar Sanja Bogojević, may “perpetuate colonial legacies” both on an international stage (as it encourages extractive colonial practices in the global south for the economic betterment of European states) and on an EU domestic level (with the extraction of resources in the Sámi territories in northern Sweden). In addition, the significant presence of China as a major refiner of critical raw materials, despite being labelled by British economist Shanker Singham as just market supply distortions, also reflects larger geopolitical dynamics. This further highlights China’s increasing control over the supply and production of European states’ security and sustainable energy infrastructure, leaving them vulnerable to supply-side shocks. As British economist Vicky Pryce stated in the WES protectionism debate panel, governments are “using trade as a weapon” and China’s supply distortion of refined critical minerals reflect continuing shifts in global geopolitical power dynamics.
Overall, there is a paradox found in the extraction of critical raw materials. As Dean Cooper highlighted, whilst the material is necessary in the environmental transition of energy supplies, the unethical sourcing of critical raw materials must be addressed.
Bogojević, Sanja. “The European Green Deal, the Rush for Critical Raw Materials, and Colonialism.” Transnational Legal Theory, vol. 15, no. 4, 16 Sept. 2024, pp. 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1080/20414005.2024.2399408.
De Haes, Sabine, et al. SOCIAL IMPACTS of MINING CRITICAL RAW MATERIALS Challenges and Entry Points for Governance Social Impacts of Mining Critical Raw Materials. Challenges and Entry Points for Governance. Corresponding Authors Author(S). 2025.
Wuisan, Lindsey, et al. Strategic Projects under the Critical Raw Materials Act: The Socio-Environmental Risks of Fast-Tracking Mining Projects. Dec. 2024.
On the evening of March 22, the results came in from Le Havre. Much more than a local competition, the municipal race functioned as a de facto U.S.-style primary for the French presidency. Édouard Philippe had said so himself: Win here, else he shouldn’t bother running for president.
Candidates
The candidate landscape in 2026 was consolidated to three primary blocs:
The centre-right incumbent majority “Le Havre!” led by Édouard Philippe.
“Le Havre!” emphasised the professional competence and pragmatic policymaking with a balanced list of political veterans and civil society figures. Furthermore, it leveraged Philippe’s incumbency and former roles as Prime Minister and president of Horizons, and his stated condition for running in the 2027 presidential election.
The unified left “Mieux Vivre Ensemble au Havre” led by Jean-Paul Lecoq.
“Mieux Vivre Ensemble au Havre” (Living better together in Le Havre) was the main contender to the incumbent. The party integrated the French Communist Party (PCF), the Socialist Party (PS), the Ecologists (EELV) and citizen lists. Its main promise was built on a critique of the “Philippe Model” that heavily prioritises urban attractiveness and economic growth, calling instead for more social justice, ecological sustainability and social protection.
The far-right alliance “LE HAVRE D’ABORD” led by Franck Keller.
“LE HAVRE D’ABORD” (Le Havre First) was the far-right coalition of the Union des Droites pour la République (UDR) and the Rassemblement National (RN). They emphasised socially conservative values, having called for tighter security and immigration policies.
In addition, several fringe parties failed to cross the threshold required to advance to the second round, namely:
The standalone left “Le Havre Insoumis” led by Charlotte Boulogne, and
The participatory citizens’ collective “La Ville est à Vous” led by Marie Le Cieux.
National Significance
A unique feature of the 2026 Le Havre elections was that the central debate, rather than focusing strictly on local municipal governance, revolved around Édouard Philippe’s candidacy for president in 2027. In political science, municipal elections are frequently theorized as “second-order elections,” contests in which the stakes are lower than national ballots, and where voters often utilize their vote to express dissatisfaction with the central government. Yet, the 2026 Le Havre election effectively inverted this model.
On Dec. 8, 2025, Édouard Philippe declared on the channel La Chaîne Info (LCI), “Si j’échouais à convaincre les Havrais […], je ne serais pas dans une bonne position pour espérer convaincre les Français” (If I failed to convince the people of Le Havre […], I would not be in a good position to hope to convince the French people.) In effect, Édouard Philippe had elevated his re-election to a “condition sine qua non” (essential condition) for his 2027 presidential ambitions. Consequently, the local contest was nationalized by the media and all the candidates themselves, as coverage of the Le Havre elections was seen on major national media, including both Le Monde and CNews.
It is clear that, as a significant presidential contender, the March 2026 municipal victory would be crucial for Édouard Philippe. Indeed, it will provide a twelve-month ramp to launch a national campaign with the administrative and political resources of a major city at his disposal. Furthermore, the municipal seat serves as a territorial anchor that will guard against accusations of being disconnected from the realities of the ground, a great concern that the French public has of politicians.
Outcomes
In the first round, the results were as follows:
List
Mayor Candidate
% Votes Received
% of Registered Voters
Le Havre!
Édouard Philippe
43.76
22.47
Mieux Vivre Ensemble au Havre
Jean-Paul Lecoq
33.25
17.07
LE HAVRE D’ABORD
Franck Keller
15.30
7.86
Le Havre Insoumis
Charlotte Boulogne
4.00
2.05
La Ville est à Vous
Marie Le Cieux
1.98
1.02
Abstention Rate (% of registered voters who did not vote) = 47.58%Blank Ballot Rate (% of registered voters who cast a blank vote) = 1.07%
Table 1: Round 1 Election Results
“Le Havre Insoumis” and “La Ville est à Vous,” among other small lists, received less than 5% of votes, and were therefore not allowed to form coalitions or progress to round 2.
In the second round, the results were as follows:
List
Mayor Candidate
% Votes Received
% of Registered Voters
Le Havre!
Édouard Philippe
47.71
25.16
Mieux Vivre Ensemble au Havre
Jean-Paul Lecoq
41.17
21.71
LE HAVRE D’ABORD
Franck Keller
11.12
5.86
Abstention Rate (% of registered voters who did not vote) = 46.28%Blank Ballot Rate (% of registered voters who cast a blank vote) = 0.99%
Table 2: Round 2 Election Results
Although “Le Havre!” did not receive an absolute majority, it prevailed in the second round with a relative majority. Yet, the low voter turnout and the failure to achieve an absolute majority reflects the underlying scepticism toward the incumbent administration.
Below is the final seat distribution in the city council:
List
Mayor Candidate
Number of Seats
% of Seats
Le Havre!
Édouard Philippe
44
74.57
Mieux Vivre Ensemble au Havre
Jean-Paul Lecoq
12
20.34
LE HAVRE D’ABORD
Franck Keller
3
5.08
Total Number of Seats = 59
Table 3: City Council Seat Distribution Outcome
Thanks to the prime majoritaire (majority bonus) system that automatically gives the winning party 50% of seats, the “Le Havre!” list got the vast majority of seats.
Conclusion
Ultimately, Philippe won the “primaries,” and got the rewards: 12 months, a major city’s resources and the visible legitimacy he wanted. Yet, whether Le Havre’s voters — nearly three-quarters of whom did not cast a ballot for him — see it quite the same way is another question.
“Being President of Sciences Po is much more difficult than whatever I did in the past,” Sciences Po President Luis Vassy stated as part of his introductory remarks to an open discussion session with students of the Le Havre campus on April 16. President Vassy was joined by Dean of the Undergraduate College Jeanne Lazarus and later by President of Region Normandy Hervé Morin.
As stated by Campus Director Michael Hauchecorne’s email to students on April 13, the conference was intended to provide a “genuine opportunity for exchanging with the Director” as well as to commemorate the inauguration of the campus cafeteria and student association room. The event involved two Q&A sessions: one open to all students in the grand amphitheatre and the second limited to association delegates and year representatives in the library. In between, two artistic performances by BDA offered respite, as well as the official unveiling of a plaque in the common room with President Morin.
[image of plaque + short description] The construction of the campus cafeteria and student association room was “significantly supported” by the Normandy Region of up to €160,000, according to Director Hauchecorne.
This was the second time President Vassy visited the Le Havre campus since his appointment to the position in 2024. During his tenure, Sciences Po’s institutional policies have faced criticisms from some students. Direct mobilisations took place across multiple branch campuses, particularly to contest Sciences Po partnerships with Israeli universities. According to Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), these Israeli universities are “participating in the genocide, colonisation and occupation in Palestine”. Continued ties with such institutions make Sciences Po complicit in such oppression, they say.
To further heighten tensions, two days prior to the conference on April 14 “approximately fifty students” faced judicial consequences for occupying the Boutmy amphitheatre on the Paris campus, according to an email sent by President Vassy on the same day. The students were mobilizing alongside other universities in protest of the proposed “Loi Yadan”, which has since been withdrawn on April 16.
These concerns came to a head during the Q&A sessions, with students voicing their thoughts on a wide range of topics, including academics, student life and support and freedom of student expression at Sciences Po.
Continue reading to find Le Dragon Dechaine’s recap of the day’s events, including interviews with key figures.
Summary of the Open Q&A Session Between Director Vassy, Dean Lazarus and the Student Body
By 11:00 a.m., the grand amphitheatre was nearly filled to the brim with students — many of whom were brought in by their foreign language teachers during what would have otherwise been their regularly scheduled morning classes. Nonetheless, an air of anticipation hung over the audience as Director Hauchecorne took the stage.
In his opening speech, Director Hauchecorne emphasized the collective nature of the day’s events and thanked all involved groups for making the necessary preparations. The campus band LHarmony was welcomed to the stage to represent the distinct musical identity of Le Havre.
[image of LHarmony + description]. LHarmony members Felix Franco-Rogelio (saxophone), Minbi Roux (flute), Camille Platon (violin) and Angelia Faye (piano) received roaring applause for their performance.
After President Vassy and Dean Lazarus took their seats on the center stage, the Year Representatives began a brief presentation to introduce the rest of Le Havre’s unique campus culture. 1A Year Representative Tallulah McEnroe noted that more than 60% of students at the Le Havre branch are international students, the highest proportion across all Sciences Po campuses. Also noted was the growing popularity of the campus and its Asia-Pacific minor, with 30 more students in the current 1A cohort in comparison to the current 2A cohort. After an overview of the several student associations shaping student life on campus, the proud and close-knit campus spirit was demonstrated with a rousing cheer of “Ici c’est Le Havre!”
Next to speak was 2A Year Representative Benjamin Henderson who outlined the structure and rules of the moderated discussion. After conducting surveys on several topics, the decision was made to implement a one-minute question, two-minutes response system in order to facilitate a smooth flow across the wide range of issues expected to be covered. After the time runs out, a quick poll by means of thumbs-up, thumbs-down or thumbs to the side will allow the year reps to know if a certain topic necessitates further discussion via email or other modes of communication.
“I think my goal, and the goal of the other Year Reps today, was to try to create the most favorable conditions for a productive conversation,” Henderson said in an interview with LDD after the event. “And I think in that endeavor, we succeeded.”
The topics of conversation were as follows: Topic 1: Academics, Topic 2: Student Life and Support, Topic 3: Freedom of Expression.
Before moving to the open Q&A session, President Vassy was given the opportunity to make his own introductory speech. President Vassy briefly touched upon his background as a career diplomat working in the United States and the Netherlands before joining the administration of Sciences Po over a year and a half ago. As this was his second visit to the Le Havre campus during his tenure, President Vassy claimed that our campus and Sciences Po as a whole has undergone a small evolution. The reputation and impact of the Sciences Po brand name has grown stronger overseas, particularly in the United States and in China. Vassy credits this stellar reputation to the quality of students entering Sciences Po in addition to the unique practice and teaching provided by the curriculum. Since the past year, Le Havre now has a 33% increase in international applications overall with the most significant increases being made in Indian, American and Chinese applications. Food access has also improved with the construction of the cafeteria over the previous summer. Thus, Vassy concludes, it is his goal to continue utilizing this strategy of “excellence and openness” to expand internationally and socially.
“Sometimes of course like any human endeavour we are not perfect but we should sometimes notice what we do well,” President Vassy said.
Topic 1: Academics
The first question was in regards to the variation in teaching quality on campus, asking what the criteria for teachers is when hiring. President Vassy responded that the administration holds a clear line in trying to attain the maximum quality of teaching for students, through the use of evaluations and outside faculty. President Vassy also added that on the train to Le Havre, he and Dean Lazarus were looking at the student evaluations of teachers, promising to bring consequences next year. Finally, he noted that lecturers should be provided academic freedom so the criteria most consequential for him would be work and intensity of preparation, in addition to their pedagogy and ability to teach. The student then indicated with thumbs up that the issue felt resolved.
Next, a question was raised if changes to the current curriculum — which was criticized for being either too Euro-centric or East-Asian centered — would focus on other countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Dean Lazarus responded by explaining how the new curriculum would include more spots for the minor as opposed to being between other courses, providing more opportunities for broader courses. At the same time she did state some limitations in being able to offer lectures on specific countries and specific issues due to the campus focus being on three quarters of the world. She briefly concluded by thanking the student for the reminder, with the student indicating they would prefer continuation and follow up on this topic. Director Hauchecorne also briefly noted that two new lectures will be added to the geographical minor in the second year, with Dean Lazarus again stating that the goal of the bachelor level courses is to provide a broad exploration of the region as opposed to precise locational study (which is more reserved for the masters level).
The third question was more particular to the law courses offered, with a student first stating that the current legal classes are more oriented towards legal positivism without as much diversity of views as other fields, before asking if there are any plans to improve the diversity of law classes. President Vassy stated in brief that the reform of the bachelor curriculum would result in more freedom of course choice. He also stated that the course “Thinking Like A Lawyer” is meant to be positivist as it is based on a book written by professor Sebastian Clement, though the faculty of the Sciences Po law school has greater representation of critical legal studies.
As the time ran up for this topic, Year Representative Benjamin clarified that those who gave a thumbs down will be sent an email to further discuss their questions.
Topic 2: Student Life and Support
2A Year Representative Anh Nguyen began the discussion on this topic by presenting statistics from a poll of 75 students out of the 300+ students on campus.
The first question in this section focused on why arts clubs are not provided credits while sports clubs are, despite the similar hours of dedication required. Dean Lazarus explained that in the coming reform all credits such as sports credits will be “completely optional” meaning that they will not count for graduation requirements to enter the second and third years.
“I’m not sure if it’s an answer that will please you, but in fact everybody’s going to be equal on that,” Dean Lazarus said.
Year Representative Benjamin followed up to ask what the point of putting the credit on a transcript would be if the credits did not count. Dean Lazarus stated that if it was up to her there would not be any credits allocated for these reasons as she believed students could still participate in sports and arts clubs regardless of whether or not credits were recognized.
The next question asked was also on this topic asking if the administration did not wish for student and artistic life to be recognized — resulting in applause from the student body. President Vassy simply said that their work is recognized, just not through credits. Director Hauchecorne stated that a possible alternative would be the degree supplement which could list the activities, commitments and participation of students on campus even without credits.
“I can guarantee to you in just one sentence, and I understand the question, but I can guarantee to you that I have recruited lots of people in my life,” President Vassy said. “It’s not really the number of credits that will count… Knowing that you have one or two credits I don’t think has a huge impact on the way people will view your engagement in these activities.”
A student then asked why the administration had made the decision to pull and redistribute profits from vending machines from all campuses rather than directly from just each campus individually, especially without consulting students of the Le Havre campus. After applause from students, President Vassy stated that he had not been aware of that decision and gave a more general answer saying that trade offs are difficult. He also suggested students interested in the vision he has for Sciences Po, including participatory budgets for students, to read the 10 page program he proposed for the university when elected president.
The last question asked for this topic was if a specific time in the schedule could be made to allow for clubs and associations to host events such as interviews with external speakers as students in Le Havre may be unable to visit Paris each time a noteworthy guest such as Ukrainian President Zelensky visited Sciences Po. President Vassy said that he could not specifically answer about the scheduling of external interventions but was proud of collectively being able to be a university that has the capacity to invite such important speakers. He also said while the seven campus organization was a constraint, when external speakers came to Paris it was transmitted and broadcasted to other campuses. Director Hauchecorne said that it was disappointing when only a few people could attend events hosted by organizations in the past year and said that a dedicated slot would have to come with the exchange of more dedicated commitment from the part of students.
Topic 3: Freedom of Expression
This discussion began with a question regarding the occupation of the Boutmy amphitheater, asking why the administration decided on punishments for protestors involving the use of police, fines and reporting on judicial records, instead of open dialogue. After roaring applause from students, President Vassy answered, speaking for more than the allotted time, by emphasising that in Sciences Po any legal view can be expressed. In the case of the Boutmy amphitheater blockade, he said, this was not an act of free speech but rather paralysed the institution, without any space of discussion. Vassy explained that attempts to speak to the protestors were rejected, leading him to take the decision to ask external police to interfere. He said that no sanctions were brought by administration on involved students, but that the punishments mentioned were given by the police, who Sciences Po has no control over. Vassy concluded saying that he will continue to make sure that Sciences Po is a space for everyone, highlighting how many students feel their own freedom of expression is hampered by only one view point being pushed forward by protestors. Many students gave him a thumbs down to this response.
Nathan, a member of SJP, later reflects on this answer, saying in an LDD interview, “I feel unsatisfied with all of the answers that Luis Vassy provided because we asked a lot of questions and he never answered. His points were always outside the questions so it was a bit deceptive for us.”
Such sentiments were reflected in a next question, directly asking President Vassy if the police pushing students during the Boutmy blockade seemed like a proportionate action to the peaceful protest. President Vassy answered by saying that he is not a policeman, and that he doesn’t know the methods behind moving people who don’t want to be moved. He continued, explaining that no one is happy to see police on campus, but that there was simply no other option in this situation, having already tried other ways in previous blockades.
The same student then asked him why Sciences Po doesn’t stop its partnerships with Israeli universities, again accompanied by student applause. President Vassy replied by saying that unlike with the case of Russia, no sanctions have been placed on Israel, and that therefore, Sciences Po has no legal obligation to cut its ties. The purpose of universities is to have ideas circulate within a legal framework, Vassy explained. Another student continued this discussion, asking if Sciences Po would accept an investigation group in the ties between Israeli universities and the occupation of Palestine. President Vassy answered by repeating that Sciences Po is about openness. He said that policies like cutting ties and investigation groups are extreme, asking “where do we draw the line?” as he cited the example of the alleged links between universities in the United States of America and the American defense government. A third student however pushed Vassy on this issue, specifically asking Sciences Po to cut ties with the Hebrew University in East Jerusalem, which the student said is internationally recognised as having illegally occupied Palestinian land. President Vassy emphasised that any actions by Sciences Po doesn’t equate to endorsement of Israeli foreign policy, and that as a former diplomat he is well aware of what is considered legal and illegal. Vassy concluded by saying that Sciences Po is just a university and not an instrument of foreign policy, with the sole mission of education and research.
Discussions related to this topic produced the most reactions among the student body, as well as the longest questions and answers, reflecting tensions at Sciences Po. Director Hauchecorne reflects on these exchanges related to Israel and freedom of expression in a later interview with LDD, saying “I hope that students will have appreciate that and they tried to put some point across to some of the guests, and they’ve challenged them to some extent, but still, it’s good to say something when you disagree and what you want to put your point across, but it’s good also to listen to the answers and to see why sometimes not everyone is seeing in the same lenses as you.”
The Q&A session was closed by a final musical performance by Lora Zaiss and Thibaud Brilland, before leaving the stage for President Morin.
Summary of the Closed Q&A Between Director Vassy, Dean Lazarus and Student Leaders
President Vassy’s visit continued with a smaller and unmoderated Q&A session in the library with student association and year representatives. Accompanied by Dean Lazarus and Director Hauchecorne, all sitting comfortably on blue sofa chairs, the three answered questions on various topics, and learned about campus life in Le Havre. Indeed, the session began with a short presentation by Téa Fayet and Anis Loghmari, the Co-Presidents of the Comite d’Organisation des Collegiades (COC), the organising committee of the inter-campus art and sports competition hosted in Le Havre this year. They emphasised the importance of such events for bringing campuses closer together and for creating ties with local partnerships in the city. Yet, the majority of the session focused on the frustrations and lack of accountability felt by student representatives regarding the Sciences Po administration. Below we present the three key topics that were discussed the longest.
Topic 1: The Importance of Academic Workload Versus Campus Life
The Q&A session started with Director Vassy asking student representatives if they were feeling overall happy with their studies and experience in Le Havre. He spoke on how Sciences Po is known for its high academic standards, mentioning how many exchange students have told him they feel more academically challenged here than in their home universities. 2A Year Representative Anh Nguyen echoed such sentiments, saying that data from a poll collected by year representatives shows that many students find it difficult to strike a balance between their studies and personal lives. She however emphasised the importance of campus spirit for mental and social health, an almost unanimous result in the poll.
A Bureau Des Arts (BDA) representative delved further into this topic, saying that the importance given to campus life often places a lot of pressure on student leaders, who organise many events, but struggle to keep up with all their school work. They said that because of this, the lack of recognition from administration can be frustrating, particularly regarding the arts in comparison to sports, with the latter at least receiving some credits. Student life makes Le Havre liveable, they repeated, arguing that students mostly find connections in the campus community rather than in the city. Dean Lazarus took the lead in answering them, saying that real recognition comes from the student body and from what student leaders create, not from credits. She continued to explain how the new reforms arriving to Sciences Po will ensure that academic life comes first. This discussion garnered many reactions from listeners, with President Vassy barely containing a grin as he commented that Dean Lazarus is a very strict academic dean.
Topic 2: The Lack of Dialogue on the Relationship Between Sciences Po and Israel
A recurring topic in recent years, a member of SJP directly asked President Vassy on the lack of action by Sciences Po administration on the genocide in Palestine. Particularly, they questioned why President Vassy was against true discussion with students, saying that this lack of dialogue is one of the reasons student activists feel the need for stronger actions in search for reactions from administration. In response, President Vassy said that the administration is unable to fulfill all of the demands made by student activists, as Sciences Po has a wider, academic mission, involving not just students but also stakeholders. He further explained that the student protest on the Paris campus that week had clearly refused any attempts of discussion. He concluded by saying that he has been facing an unprecedented level of personal hatred, reflecting on how this broader trend of personalising issues to target individuals is a part of a modern unhealthy political culture.
Topic 3: The Heavy Responsibility of SGBV (VSS) Prevention on Associations
A third major topic was sparked with a BDA representative’s reflections on the pressures created by the complete delegation of SGBV (sexual and gender based-violence) or in French, VSS (violences sexuelles et sexistes), prevention on association representatives. While they say that Sciences Po has greatly helped with the training of such student leaders, they feel that ultimately it is left up to association representatives to act as the police, which is a heavy burden to carry. President Vassy responded to these concerns, stating that Sciences Po can always improve and highly prioritises the issue of VSS prevention with a zero tolerance policy. He repeated that the current structure of having student leaders act as VSS referents, as well as training first-years, was created in collaboration with Sciences Po’s feminist clubs, forming one of France’s most comprehensive VSS prevention programs. Director Hauchecorne chimed in, saying that having student leaders as VSS referents during events has been very effective.
The issue was taken up again towards the end of the Q&A by a Bureau Des Elèves (BDE) representative, who thanked the administration for their help in creating training programs, but asked if it was possible for more sessions. They explained that association members are often the first responders, and that therefore they feel that more sessions focusing on practical advice would be useful. Again, President Vassy highlighted his willingness for improvements and adjustments. The discussion concluded with Dean Lazarus stating that student leaders should not feel in charge of VSS prevention, but rather as a bridge between victims and experts.
Conclusion
In sum, this was an eventual day of discussions, covering a wide variety of topics. While in some cases inconclusive, it provided a chance for students to voice their concerns directly to President Vassy. In turn, he had the opportunity to get to know the Le Havre campus better.
