Does Study Rhyme with Money?

source

Higher education. University. Prestige. Ambition. Future security.

How did we feel when applying to university?

We were told that going to university was the only way to succeed. Depending on where and by whom we were raised, our ideas on university may vary, but our thought process was probably similar if we find ourselves enrolled in a higher education institution. Go to university. Go to a good one. Guarantee yourself a future. This viewpoint is very much a reality of our generation which results in a new emphasis on the university applications and university choices which occupy great part of our minds as we approach the end of high school. Prestigious universities and higher education institutions know our thought process very well. Regardless of your background, there is a high chance you’ve heard of some prestigious worldwide universities, whether it was on social media or tv shows. You may have thought “I will go there”, “that is my dream” or just rejected the idea as a far off possibility that would never materialize. Or anything in between. Yet your reactions would have been part of understanding a broader, bigger question of who gets into these dreamy universities.

As you may have understood by now, this article is about elitism in universities, especially prestigious universities, and how it feeds in a cycle of inequality that reduces social mobility and reinforces socio-economic inequalities. It is a complex topic to explore, and so many arguments and counterarguments to be made. And to make sense of it, I will start with why I am writing about this.

Sciences Po – the French Harvard?

I decided to write this article after seeing on campus students from the UNI student syndicate petition against the removal of the written exam in the French admission process to Sciences Po. As an international student, I know little on the topic. As a matter of fact, I was unaware that French students had a different and more elaborate procedure from international students. So the fact that Frederic Mion, the Sciences Po Paris director, had decided to drastically change the program for admission of French students at Sciences Po came as a surprise to me.

For reference, so far the French admission procedure was made up of three phases, including three written exams and the changes recently proposed would remove the three written exams and put more emphasis on the student dossier and the grades received in school to compensate for such absence.

The primary reason for the changes is the need for Sciences Po, along with all French universities, to be integrated into the Parcoursup system of French university admission, that requires a change in timing and structure compared to what Sciences Po currently follows. The second reason Sciences Po is inclusivity. In the past, the written exam had been strongly criticized because it had led to the creation of a business for exam preparation that favoured students from higher-income families that could afford it. Thus, the removal of the exam would mean a fairer admission procedure. The students from the UNI syndicate have their reservations about this new policy because of the importance that the student dossier would have on the admission decision. The organization claims that not even Sciences Po would be able to discern the differences and imbalances in different schools in France and the weight put into extracurriculars would mark a discriminant on different backgrounds and accessibility to non-academic activities. Thus, UNI students suggest that the written exam should remain in place, but that Sciences Po itself should offer a preparatory, free platform to study for them. Realistically, that may be an unaffordable expense. But it highlights a great imbalance in the French system of opportunities both within academia and not for people of different incomes.For instance, OECD’s latest research proves that France’s education system is greatly unequal when it comes to local differences. Living in one neighborhood compared to another, based on economic factors, is reflected in exam results and learning skills the students develop, leaving the poorest disadvantaged. Economic inequality is also palpable in the choice and availability of extracurriculars that would look great on a CV: playing an instrument or being part of a sports team have a price that some households simply cannot afford.

Sciences Po is one of the most important institutions in France, a symbol of the political elite and a milestone for anyone who wants to pursue a political career in France. As a matter of fact, most of the French presidents and prime ministers in French history have attended. So if the admission procedure is unbalanced and favours a socio-economic reality that is not representative of France as a whole this possibly leads to a cycle of political elites that, just like the university where they were formed, is incapable of putting different social classes on the spectrum of needs in France.

Oxbridge – Ancient Institutions and Discriminatory Past (or present?)

The history of Oxbridge with discrimination is ancient and not a hidden one. Oxford and Cambridge are England’s oldest universities, representing excellence alongside competitiveness and ambition in the UK and the world. The university count as alumni some of the most brilliant scientists, and famous writers, among others, and all of them tend to have one feature in common: they are white males.

The two universities didn’t even grant degrees to women until the 20th century and the first black student to have graduated from Oxford is reported to have gotten his degree in the 1870s.

So, it is no doubt that the two universities have a history of sexism and racism, that in modern days can still be seen in the elitist admission procedure. For instance, in the years between 2015 to 2017, one-quarter of Oxford colleges did not admit a single black student. And Cambridge is not better: between 2012 and 2016 at least one college did not accept a single black student.

This is linked to university elitism because of the deep imbalances present among social classes and ethnicities in Britain still today, and in the rest of Europe. The topic of racism and how it affects class problems will not be covered in this article but is definitely something to think of when looking at elitism in the Western world. Elitism is predominantly white. We must acknowledge it to be better.

To dig a bit deeper in the elitist admission procedure of the two most loved British university one must look at the differences in admission percentages in public and private school students, starting with Eton, school that send 60 to 100 students to Oxbridge each year out of 260 approximately in a graduating class, while the percentage of admission for Oxbridge is usually around 16%.

This is just an example, but it shows a pattern: private schools have the resources that public schools do not have to hire a teacher who studied at Oxbridge, or have preparatory classes for interviews and applications.

This disproportionality feeds into an unhealthy cycle. Oxford and Cambridge are the richest universities in the UK, the ones with the highest amount of resources. They admit an overwhelming majority of students who come from expensive private schools, who most likely have families supporting them financially and end up becoming some of Britain’s high paid elite in the future, thus creating a circle of money that once more, gives power to the rich. In these factors, it is easy to compare Sciences Po and Oxbridge. They are both shaping elites, both deciding the future of their countries, but doing so in a way that favours those who are already in power.

Ivy Leagues – Scandals and Facts

The United States was recently hit by a great scandal: the American College Admission University Scandal, which revealed that some parents were literally paying for their kids to get into good universities. The fees to do so were not lower than $15,000 and went as high as $6.5 million, proving that in this complicated scheme of fraud, money can literally buy admission in college.

The scheme itself is proves how easily it is to cheat into a system that was thought to be impenetrable, and on which many kids rely on their hopes of being admitted to Ivy Leagues or generally prestigious universities in the USA. More interestingly, however, this scandal proved that a backdoor into university admission does exist, and it seems to be legal.

According to many of the parents convicted in the College Admission Scandal itself, they were not aware of doing something illegal. They were led to believe that the money went as a donation to a specific university, making their action legal.

As a matter of fact, it is well documented that it is common for the 1% of the world, to make huge donations to Ivy Leagues right before their children start the application process: an encouragement to make the admission office review their case more carefully and possibly confirming less to the general procedure. An example is Jared Kushner, Trump’s son in law, admitted to Harvard after his father made a 2.5 million dollar donation to the school.

Deans of universities have preference lists with candidates who are children of alumni who have given large donations to the universities, just before their kids applied. In a way, the reality of this strategy in itself is an admission scandal.

Yet, this is not the only problematic part of the application.

Although being deemed holistic, the admission to university, especially high ranking ones like Ivy Leagues, highly rely on one factor: SATs.

To generalize, there are two types of people in this world: those who think SATs are fair and those who think they aren’t. I am going to start discussing the latter idea.

SATs have a history of racism and classism. It has to do with the way they are formulated and appeal and relate to a middle-class, white audience. It has to do with the history of institutionalized racism in America, for which black students are on average more likely to find themselves in schools that offer less support, or neighbourhoods that are less funded and that overall send a message that “their education is worth less”. But once more, it has to do with money.

The SAT and standardized test preparation industry is huge. For preparatory classes, students can pay over 2000 dollars, demonstrating the clear links between wealth and having a good SAT score, which overall links back to the likeability of going into a prestigious university.

Nonetheless, some say that by removing SATs, like some universities have been doing in recent years, discrimination and elitism will prevail even more. By removing the SATs, students from private schools and more funds, or those who were able to show participation in very expensive extracurriculars, will prevail over someone with great academic strength and interest, yet less opportunities. In short, just like it appeared in the French discussion around Sciences Po written exam, without SATs the only way to discriminate between admissions is by looking at official academic records and extracurricular activities, facts that can discriminatory based on where you live, what school you attend and the means and times you can dedicate to these factors, rather than working, or helping your parents in their day to day life.

In short, university admission to Ivy Leagues is problematic, because it highly relies on money, family legacies and being of the upper-middle class.

When I first started talking about writing this article, one of the responses I got was “but is elitism that bad?”

It is often claimed that it is so that university can maintain their prestige.

But I believe there is a need to redefine prestige, and what it means and implies. I have given you the example of three elites, three countries. In all three, students that come out of these institutions, Sciences Po, Oxbridge, Ivy Leagues, will likely become the new political, social, cultural and economic elites of the western world and, thanks to globalization, beyond that. Surely, that is the reason why so many people are willing to pay so much to see their children attend these institutions: to know they will have a clear, strong voice in their future. Surely, that is why many students without the same means dream of the same. But if out of the two categories, those who dream and those whose parents facilitate the admission, one is overwhelmingly more likely to be accepted into the pool of elite universities, then prestige will always look the same to us. It will always look white and upper-middleclass.

I think this is why I am writing this article. I am white and middle class. In my life, I dreamt of applying to prestigious universities and now I am a student of Sciences Po. This may be due to my luck to get a scholarship to go to a great high school that offered me great opportunities (UWC Atlantic College). Still, it is undeniably also because of my privilege and the way the system is broken, at least partially, to get people like me into universities like this. And this is not to say that people like me didn’t earn it, but rather that, in a world full of potential and amazing people, there are often similar people who get the opportunity to show their potential to the fullest. And exceptions may be increasing, but not by enough.

If it is not people from the inside who talk about it and try to create a fairer application process, in university and in many other things in life, than who will?

And I guess it makes sense that some people don’t want to change. I can’t impose my opinion on you, but I hope to have been able to portray the facts as they appear evident to me: elitism exists and favours a minority that is already in power, condemning us to a cycle of elite that will progressively alienate people from different classes, countries and racial backgrounds and perpetuate injustice, discrimination and ultimately, hate.

The Three Day Train Journey

Alaya recounts the long journey of a Nepalese immigrant from India back home.

It takes me around nine hours of flying to reach New Delhi from Paris if it is a direct flight. If I were to take a flight to Kathmandu from Delhi, it would probably take me an hour and a half.

Meet Mandira, I’ve known her ever since I could walk and like hundreds of thousands of Nepalis that find work in India, she travels back home every year by train to visit her family. Her journey takes her three days to complete, the alternative is an expensive 90 minutes flight to the capital, Kathmandu.

pic

Going back home isn’t an impromptu decision where you sit on your laptop scrolling different flight prices. For her, it is a planned selection that needs to be decided four months in advance in order to get a seat confirmation on the train from New Delhi to Nepal. Her train leaves from Old Delhi and makes it way to Bihar (an Indian state bordering Nepal) before entering the Terai region of Nepal.

Before she books her tickets, she always finds someone that she knows to travel with. She says “safal akele karna bohut mushkil hota hein” which translates to “travelling alone is difficult.” “There needs to be someone who you can trust enough to leave your stuff with every time you walk away from your seat. There are thieves everywhere, my daughter had her phone stolen and I can’t bear for my anxiousness of getting back home to be burdened further with fear.”

So how do you spend three days on a train journey? Mandira books herself on the sleeper coach where she gets a sleeper bunk bed to herself at night but during the day she has to share her seat with other passengers. For food, she is not a big fan of the food that’s served on the train and the repetitiveness of the meals makes the journey longer for her. “I always pack food with me, food that will last for three days, be it junk food or apples. I always carry it with me.” Interacting with passengers on the train is how she deals with making time pass by. It’s not deep conversations that they usually engage in but small talk about their destination and where they are from, and everyone shares the food that they packed with each other. Mandira’s food is usually gone on the second day and she then buys more on the train and relies on the fruit served on the train.

I asked her about the places where the train stops and if she’s ever wondered about how life is in such places. “When I cross places, I know their names but their names have no meaning to me. I don’t know them for their must-visit attractions, cuisines, or sights,I only know them by how far away from my destination is from that place, she said. She knows when the train crosses into Nepal. She said it’s an innate connectedness you experience with meri desh ki mitti – the soil of my land – there might not be any difference in how the land looks once you’ve crossed the border of Bihar to enter Nepal but to her, it means she’s home, even if home is still an eight-hour journey away. The soil represents not familiarity but ownness, and an assurance that the tiresome long journey is almost at an end.

After reaching the final train station, Mandira’s journey is not over. She still has to take a bus that takes about eight hours to reach a place thirty minutes from her home. She then takes her another bus that doesn’t take her all the way home but leaves her on a big ring-road close to her village. Finally, from there she takes a three-wheeled auto rickshaw that takes her to her destination.

But, it’s all worth it for her. She’s anxious, impatient, restless, tired, and fatigued after travelling for three days to reach her home. “When I reach home, I leave all my luggage on the ground floor. We have a two-story house and my husband puts my suitcases upstairs. The first thing I do is go to my farm,there is no other place I’d rather be. That moment when you walk on to your land, your feet touch the fresh-cut grass, and you examine the ripeness of the vegetables. I feel at peace like nothing else exists besides the earth and my soul. I can finally tell myself that I am home.” She talks about home with a smile on her face, a smile that makes you feel at home, and then the journey doesn’t matter that much.

A Step Backwards

By Joaquín Gosálvez Castillo

Joaquín Gosálvez Castillo writes about the political climate in his country.

José Saramago, a Portuguese writer awarded in 1998 with the Nobel Prize of Literature, said: “We must recover, preserve and transmit historical memory, because when we start with oblivion, we end up with indifference”. I have been thinking about the way in which events in the political arena in my country, Spain, have been taking place in 2019 and that this political legislature may be the most polarized and angry in our recent democracy. Today, more than ever, we need to defend historical memory.

Sometimes we would like to believe that things are not as they are, to forget the harshness of an incredibly unbearable reality: we are taking steps backwards. I am writing now because I feel overcome by the harshness of this reality, because I see that we have wanted to take away the freedom to be brave and to be lucid, and therefore we want to be unable to move forward. I need to talk about the collapse of truth, the collapse of historical memory and, what is worse, the collapse of human rights that we are witnessing. It would be obvious and no less important to talk about how badly things work in the world, about the enormous inequalities that exist, about the abuses committed against women simply because they are women, about an immense poverty that we cannot or do not want to eradicate, about an enormous climate crisis that is no more than a secondary issue in our daily lives. However it is more useful to reflect by going back to the basics. That is why I will talk about how our societies have decided to turn their backs on the truth and what that entails, and in particular I will talk about a situation that I think I know well: the situation in Spain.

Between the two legislative elections held in Spain in 2019, the extreme right-wing party Vox progressed by 47% to win the vote of 15.1% of the electorate, that is, just over 3,600,000 voters. But what does Vox propose? To sum up, they want to dismantle the system of autonomies in Spain and return to a political centralism, expel immigrants en masse, repeal the Gender Violence Law, lower taxes for the richest classes, abolish the Historical Memory Law, greatly limit abortion, abolish the Climate Change Law…and more. How did we even get to this point?

In 1948 everything was clear ; humanity had gone through two bloody and atrocious World Wars, we had learned from our mistakes with pain and suffering, and hatred could not be a way to move our societies forward. In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was written, and soon after, a large majority of countries ratified it. Humanity’s greatest historical milestone was achieved: to agree on a consensual and common basis of ethical and just values that we had an obligation to defend; it was the victory of a common human conscience freed from the burden of a history of violence and blood, from which lessons had been learned for the future.

Today, however, it seems that all that has been called into question in the minds of many people. What seemed to be evidence, today is no longer evident. What we had decided would be our common basis for building a decent and better world for all, is today called into question by more and more societies that vote with conviction for the extreme right.

It breaks my heart, when people vote for a party that wants to repeal a law that has allowed to protect women victims of gender violence in Spain and which has had a very positive effect on thousands and thousands of people. It breaks my heart when, in Andalusia, a party asks in an intimidating way for the names of the professionals who attend to the victims of gender violence. It breaks my heart, when people vote for a revisionist party that opposes the Historical Memory that, in Spain, must serve us to learn lessons from the past and to be able to avoid repeating the dark times of Franco’s repressive dictatorship and to help those families whose relatives, victims of repression, are today buried in ditches and have disappeared. It breaks my heart, when people vote for a party that shows no humanity by proposing to abandon Spain’s participation in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the most consensual convention that has ever existed at an international level, with the aim of expelling unaccompanied immigrant minors from national territory. It breaks my heart, when people vote for a party that says that the biggest challenge of our era, climate change, does not exist and that it is a lie, and they mess with Greta Thunberg instead of tackling the real environmental problems.

But perhaps that is not the worst thing, because at the end of the day we are all free to vote for whomever we want and to think what we want. Yet, that freedom also demands a great deal of responsibility. The freedom to vote requires responsibility for the opinions, approaches and, above all, actions of the parties we vote for. Not exercising this responsibility means not being free in the practice of voting. If Vox is clearly a party that has approaches that are opposed to human rights, which can be verified objectively, how is it possible that there are people – and they are often people I know personally – who say that Vox is not opposed to human rights? If there are people who vote for Vox, they have to assume that this party has certain approaches that are opposed to human rights. You cannot vote for Vox and be a fervent defender of human rights at the same time if you want to be consistent. The problem that arises is therefore the following: either there are people who vote for Vox and lie, or there are people who vote for Vox who are blinded by excessive irrationality. The first case is reprehensible and unworthy for those of us who defend the truth, especially if we consider the philosopher William James’ theory of the usefulness and practical effectiveness of truth. The second case is worrying, because it teaches us that there are people who have not wanted to reason enough to arrive at an objective truth, and that these people are slaves of a blind faith that they profess towards the politicians of Vox. It is even more so when you demonstrate to Vox voters, and I suppose something similar will happen with many extreme right-wing voters in other countries, that the party they support has proposals that are incompatible with human rights – this is an objective truth – they are not capable of assuming it and with hesitation and resentment they say that this is not true but they are not able of demonstrating it rationally.

The problem we have with far-right parties is a problem of telling the truth. Of course, there are extreme right-wing voters who know very well what their parties are about, but I think there is a large majority who is persuaded by fallacies, lies and fake news, therefore believing such a party represents their ideals whereas actually not. And we are faced with a wall of inconsistency: we know that without the immigrant workers, the pensioners could not have had such high pensions in Spain during the Great Recession (according to data from the National Institute of Statistics, INE). Yet Vox says that we are facing an invasion and that immigrants cost Spaniards a lot. Then some of us are afraid and want to believe that Vox is right, even if we know that Vox has approaches that are contrary to Human Rights. However a high percentage of Vox voters may have have a high regard for Human Rights, then they say that Vox respects Human Rights because they could not bear emotionally that this was not the case. In the same vein, we know that climate change is real and a huge threat to life, since according to the European Environment Agency, in Europe alone, there are already 400000 deaths a year from pollution, but then Vox says that climate change does not exist and so its voters think that there are other issues that Vox defends that are more important than climate change. The problem of Vox and its voters is one of truth and consistency.

I appeal to anyone who reads this to consider who they are voting for and whether they really represent their ideals. To those who are Vox voters I say: if you vote for Vox, it is because you think there are other things more important than human rights; if you vote for Vox, you have to assume that there are things more important to you than climate change; if you vote for Vox, it is because there are things more important to you than saving lives, particularly the lives of migrants and refugees who die every year at sea trying to cross the Mediterranean. If you are prepared to face up to the reality of what Vox and the extreme right are, then you will be truly free to vote. But if, on the contrary, you defend the truth above all, if you defend above all that action must be taken to resolve climate change as shown by science, if you defend Human Rights above all, if you defend life unconditionally, and if you want to be coherent with what you defend ; then you cannot vote for Vox because, in that case, you would not be assuming your values coherently and you would be acting against your own ideals and yourself, slaves to an excessive feeling of hate, illusion or nostalgia that would not let you see what reality is like. Each of us also has that responsibility to argue to show the truth, because the truth should be the basis of any reasoning we do, especially knowing what politics is like in these times. How can we expect politics to be useful to everyone, if we are not able to understand reality?

To appeal to reflection, I would like to conclude with two famous quotes. The first one was written by a great thinker and a lucid mind whose 60th anniversary of death corresponds to this year, Albert Camus: “Il n’est pas une vérité qui ne porte avec elle son amertume”. The second one is from Gloria Steinem, mother of the second wave of feminism in the United States who had the courage to say “The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off!”.

What’s different about 2020?

Farheen Nahvi writes about the unnecessary pressures a new year brings.

I started 2019 in a place so different than where I find myself now that it’s making me wonder whether it’s any use at all to have a new plan for a new year. It was supposed to be a radically different year, but what I failed to realise then was that my absolutes aren’t how other people live, and my life isn’t in isolation from the world. But not all benefits are materially harvested; sometimes the best things to happen to us are lessons. So this is what I’ve learned, and what I hope might be just the thing you need today.

The significance of a new year in the human psyche is apparent in the way we think of it as a new start. We all excitedly wait for a terrible year to be over, so we can start afresh and break the cycle of misfortune-only to fall into the same pattern of dwindling hope and a descent into despair. If only the first day of the year had gone right; if only I had started on the right foot this year; if only, if only…

We place so much weight on the first of January every year to be the most perfect day in existence, that if it isn’t, we condemn our whole year to misery. We set up resolutions towards our betterment for a new year, and then feel terrible when we cannot immediately follow a completely new routine. We make promises about accepting that we are the masters of our own emotions, and then sink into despair of our own making when we cannot switch to being happy at the drop of a hat. We expect so much from a new calendar, that we seal the disappointment that’s delivered a few days later.

So what will be different about 2020? Perhaps we can all start with taking a deep breath, absorbing the freshness of January, and smiling; we got to a new day. There is nothing wrong with having resolutions and wanting to improve yourself, but the pressure of starting immediately, and thinking that if any old habits you want to get rid of surface in the new year is just a disaster- that’s what makes us spiral back into the pit we wished to climb out of in the first place. New habits take a while to stick, and starting slow is the only way we can make sure that we continue; not because of new year adrenaline, but because we want to develop a long-lasting ethic.

If you miss the January 1st deadline, the entire year is still ahead of you. What we need to remember, is that every day is a new day, and if we’re so determined on the first of January, we can be determined any other day of the year as well. As the grand scheme of epiphanies go, I did not reach this conclusion out of abstraction, but when I tried to make a positive change in my life last January, and again in June, and then again this holiday season, when I picked up writing again- it wasn’t impossible after all.

Maybe what we all need to really work for this new year is to stop feeling bad for ourselves, and stop evaluating our worth through somebody else’s eyes. We do not owe anyone our perfection, and any changes we want should be for us alone. Even if it is what helps our relationships, we should be able to start the ‘reform’ on our own. Nothing anyone ever says will make you want to change your circumstances and improve if you do not believe it yourself; I had heard this several times in the previous years (coming from well-meaning places), but never really wanted to move away from the comfort that comes with the consistency of self-destruction, not until I really wanted to, and I’m still working my way out. When we start doing things for ourselves, we do it at our pace, and we do it right; working according to someone else’s timeline will bring us nothing but despair.

I could not have imagined I would have the year that I had, and as we are wont to do, when the first major thing went wrong, I labeled the entire year ‘bad’. But it wasn’t just bad; there was always a penny where I lost a dollar, and the silver linings are the memories I want to take into this year.

So have a happy, better, kinder new year, and let’s try to make every day of 2020 a new day for the new beginning we all want.

Photo: author

Mr. Red Sky

Joyce Fang writes a scything indictment on her government’s environmental failures of the decade as we move into 2020 with the heat of the Australian bushfire disaster.

Mr. Red Sky please tell us why/

You had to hide away for so long (so long)/


Where did we go wrong?/

This festive period has sat unwell in the minds of millions of Australians. As we have been celebrating Christmas and welcoming a new year, the back of our throats has been filled with literal smoke that stings with the sour taste of betrayal from a negligent government.

This bushfire season in Australia has been worse than any ever experienced before. The situation has been worsening since the fires began in July, 3 months earlier than usual. 5.9 million hectares of land have been burnt with the flames spreading more day by day. That’s the equivalent of over half of Europe being burnt. From red skies, gas explosions, cities blanketed in smoke and ash falling like rain, the scenes coming out of the country belong to a dystopian film. There have been colossal impacts across the eastern and southern states, with the horrific destruction of properties, and the loss of wild and human life. The fires are even creating their own weather systems, with phenomena such as fire tornadoes and dry lightning (which are as terrifying as they sound). Many scientists have emphasised the influence of climate change in facilitating record breaking temperatures, extended drought and strong winds which have provided ideal conditions for the large exacerbation of the fires.

My social media feed is an uninterrupted stream of videos and reports of the fires, and although staying in Europe these holidays can be viewed as a welcome respite, the new year begs reflection and attention to the situation in the country I have grown up in, and the one so many of my loved ones still live in.

As we farewell 2019, we say farewell also to perhaps the worst decade in Australian political history. A decade marked by an incredibly unstable coalition government from the get-go that has seen half a dozen prime ministers. A decade of ignorance and denial and an absolute failure of our leadership to rise up in the face of our changing climate, the most significant challenge of our time and one that is exacerbating the fires. From the Liberal front bench tear down of the Labor carbon price (the only policy in Australian history to have ever reduced carbon emissions), to then-treasurer Scott Morrison brandishing a piece of coal in parliament, to underfunding the CSIRO, cancelling the Climate Commission, to approving the Adani coal mine and countless other feats contrary to global goals to reduce emissions; the failures of the decade of Australian governance surrounding climate change are exposed now more than ever in the face of a national catastrophe. We have not just taken a few steps backwards; we are now facing and walking in the other direction.

Australia ranks amongst countries with the worst climate policy in the world. Despite MPs stressing we have one of the lowest national percentages of carbon emissions at 1.3%, they forget to mention we have one of the highest per capita. As one of the world’s largest exporters of fossil fuels, the country’s abundance of coal means the individuals and organisations that have profited from it currently have a tight grip on the government. Fires have long been a focus for Australian scientists, with countless reports warning of the dangers rising temperatures could have on our vulnerable country. Our failure to develop any sort of significant countering policy or develop a sufficient capacity to respond has raised much anger towards the cabinet’s decisions. The inadequacy of the response can be described as passivity. PM Scott Morrison has turned his back on the terror the country is currently experiencing, with criminal negligence to the gutting situation by continuing to deny the links between climate change and the fires. His holiday to Hawaii, and his NYE party in Kirribilli whilst Australia was up in flames perfectly symbolises his unprincipled attitudes and absence in leadership for a country that so desperately needs it. We are so disillusioned in the fight that even partisan bickering amongst Labor and the Greens on the left has also been blocking the united front of pragmatism that is required, as infighting has become a trademark of Australian politics this decade.

I feel ill reading the news. I am overcome with a sense of hopelessness that makes my skin crawl. It is now, more than ever, that Australian resilience is so necessary yet insufficient in a time of disaster. Put yourself in the shoes of those in Mallacoota, hugging the shore and being told to get into the water for safety, as the fire front knocked at their door. Imagine finding the dead bodies of a father and son attempting to defend their property from the fires. Imagine being the pregnant wife of one of those men. Think of those that have lost homes, livelihoods and loved ones from these fires.

To our coalition government, shame on you. Morrison, Angus Taylor, David Elliott, Michael McCormack, and Barnaby Joyce, shame on you. To the Murdoch media, shame on you. To those who continue to deny climate change for corporate and political gain- shame. on. you. You are a disgrace, Australia is outraged and disgusted and the world is noticing.

Looking ahead, the situation is far from over yet. With the fire season expected to continue for a few more months, dwindling water supplies and the questionable sustainability of our underfunded, mostly volunteer-run, fire service, the ferocity of the fires will continue to be a huge challenge as we enter the new decade. And so, the critics will continue to ask our PM and government: where the bloody hell are you?

photos