Editorial
In an institution as insular as Oxford University, it is not surprising that emotive cases such as that of Azim Ansari can seem so clear cut. He came to the UK in 2001 seeking asylum, without being able to read or write in English. He has managed not only to get himself into an engineering degree at St. John's College, but also to excel at his studies. Now that the appeals of Azim and his brother have been rejected the threat of their deportation seems like a gross injustice.
However, if you were to take the most unsympathetic stance, it would not be hard to argue the fact that Afghanistan has now been pronounced as 'stable' by the Home Office and therefore Azim should be treated the same way as any other individual in terms of the law - if he cannot support himself financially, then he must apply as an international student from Afghanistan.
The question is, however, on what basis this proclamation of the 'stability' of Afghanistan was made. In an article in The Oxford Student on the 18th November 2004, Tom Siddiqui suggested the possibility that this was purely an act of propaganda - a product of the need to justify the 'war on terror' and appease the volatile nature of the asylum debate in the UK. The reality is that it is very difficult for us to know either way.
Amnesty International has stated that Afghanistan is not safe for asylum seekers to return, the Home Office says it is. We have no concrete evidence from either side which can enable us to objectively accept one argument or the other, all we have is sentiment, and sympathy - but that is not going to save Azim from deportation.
The 'Keep Azim in Oxford' campaign cannot be faulted for the enthusiasm and determination with which they have jumped to Azim's side. Yet there is little that they can do whilst Azim himself is being told by lawyers not to speak to the press or assist the campaign.
It is a situation which is all the more difficult to look at from a rational standpoint due to the emotional trappings that surround it. We are all students at Oxford. We can all relate to Azim in that way, which is not the case for our more general perceptions of the asylum debate. It is an undeniable truth that the idea of Azim being forced to return to the country from which he fled without finishing his degree is tragic. But the law does not, and in and many respects cannot, operate through a process of double standards between individuals. Azim is lucky that he has a group of his peers that are prepared to join ranks around him, but this is not the case for his brother. Nor is it necessarily the case for other asylum seekers who did not have the support that Azim has had, who are today sitting on a plane due to be deported.
Oxford seems to be suffering somewhat from an inferiority complex. It looks on jealously at the halo of the awed Ivy Leaguers across the pond and plots its ascent.
Every part of the green paper concerning the future of the institution is a response to the "deeply problematic funding environment." The government is doing little to help with the introduction of top-up fees in 2006 only making a 'small dent' in the deficit. The focus on the financial management of Oxford is necessary if it wishes to count itself as one of the world's leading academic institutions. However, if this University does intend to enter the education market, it must be prepared to accept the consequences of this. In a competitive environment where students are paying extortionate amounts, this University must expect that those students may make demands about the standard of their purchase.
The current situation suggests that Oxford is arrogant enough to expect its students to be grateful to be here above all else. If undergraduates, graduates, home and foreign students alike are paying more, it is inevitable that they will expect more from their experience , academic or otherwise.
27th Jan 2005