EDUKATION REVIEW

Last Friday, the AFR ran an unusual, in-depth feature (“A Radical Education”) on Pakistan’s madrasas (or “terror schools”). (I think the article was first published in the New York Review of Books). Now it’s really difficult to find an article (and such an outstanding read) that looks at Islam’s education system so thoroughly in a way that exposes media misrepresentation.

Again and again we are told by the media that Islam’s education system is to blame for terrorism, or in Bush’s most famous words, the “axis of evil”. Donald Rumsfeld’s memo on the War on Terror made it clear:

Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?

There is no doubt that ultra-conservative institutions carrying the banner of terrorism exist. The problem, however, is when generalizations are made that lead to an automatic stereotype of entire Islam. The issue was re-appraised during the aftermath of the London bombings as some of the British Muslim suicide bombers were educated in Pakistan’s madrasas. And because Pakistan’s President, Musharraf, was under (I suspect) enormous political pressure, he banned teaching and literature that “promotes militancy, sectarianism and religious hatred”.

So are madrasas terrorist factories or legitimate learning environments? According to the media, it’s always the former:

The British press has been quick to follow the US lines on madrasas, with the Sunday Telegraph helpfully translating the Arabic word madrasa as terrorist “training school” (it actually means merely “place of education”), which the Daily Telegraph confidently asserted over a double-page spread that the three bombers had all enrolled at Pakistani “Terror Schools”.

According to sources at the prime minister’s offices at Downing Street there is in fact no evidence that any madrasa was visited by any members of the cell at any point on their journey. Still less is there any proof that madrasas were responsible for “brainwashing” the trio, as the British press assumed after the bombings.

Apparently, attention seems to be centered on Islamic ideology and its propagation of ‘anti-Western hatred’ in madrasas. This whole issue is intertwined with the media’s reporting on the War on Terror alongside its creation of the ‘Other’. Whether in the US, Britain, or Australia, no one can dispute the fact that the enemy here is terrorism. So the matter transcends the political influence of the media, as Entman defines it (in the reader), and simultaneously jumps on a moral pedestal, defined by cultural/ sociological indicators (as dicussed by Cottle). And the problem when it comes to these implicit and seemingly objective moral dilemmas is that the media will always carry a monopoly of creating a world through its own eyes and accordingly discount Islamic accounts to ultimately maintain the status quo (geez, that sounds so neo-Marxist).

In it is then interesting to contemplate on how the media reports on certain issues from the other side. This has ultimately been made possible through the Al-Jazeera Network. An article, found on their website, for example, drives out dominant myths spread by the Western media (“Islamic schools’ threat ‘exaggerated’”):

Media exaggeration

It said figures reported by international newspapers such as the Washington Post, saying there were 10% enrolment in madrasas.

“It is troubling that none of the reports and articles reviewed based their analysis on publicly available data or established statistical methodologies,” it said.

The research, conducted by Jishu Das of the World Bank, Asim Ijaz Khawaja and Tristan Zajonc of Harvard University and Tahir Andrabil of Pomona College, said “madrasas account for less than 1% of all enrolment in the country”.

“The educational landscape in Pakistan has changed substantially in the last decade,” it said. “But this is due to an explosion of private schools, an important fact that has been left out of the debate on Pakistani education.”

Pakistani officials have maintained that very few madrasas are involved in activities that promote militancy, but Musharraf urged his nation on Saturday to curb misuse of schools.

And media exaggeration seems to be only half the story. Of greater concern are the fine points suppressed by the media. The United States, for example, funded some “notably bloodthirsty madrasa textbooks”. These books, according to the Washington Post (“From US, the ABC’s of Jihad”), are “filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings”. Other details shed a positive light on the schools, with some great US academics being madrasa graduates or the promotion women’s empowerment as part of their educational agenda.

I will stop here, but more will soon follow.

Looks like The Age is exhausting its investigative tool-kit at the moment: leaks, anonymous sources, FOI requests, and a nice little table and profile on suspicion and alleged corruption of La Tobe’s Vice- Chancellor. Now that typifies the whole doctrine of precedent in “real” journalism - disclosure over enclosure, confidence over secrecy, and publicity over censorship.

Yet at second glace, it’s strategic rhetorical provocation. It’s not merely about connecting the dots, but boasting the exclusiveness of your story and objectifying the whole recipe for investigative journalism. The feature wouldn’t shout “SCANDAL” or “EXCLUSIVE” without journalistic buzz and brag.

”… yesterday provided travel details to The Age”

”A stinging resignation email sent to colleagues, and leaked to The Age…”

”Several senior staff, who spoke to The Age on condition on anonymity…”

”The Age believes the university is about…”

“Mr Gibbons told The Age… after the university rejected a freedom of information request last year.”

Long live the (stuck-up) watchdog.

Today VSU was passed. As one Senator put it: “Today is Freaky Friday in the Senate”.

Anyone who read the papers yesterday or this morning was left in no doubt that VSU couldn’t manage a passing mark this year. Fair enough. First, it was too much of a fluke that such a contentious bill could pass in the final week of Parliament, let alone in the very last 30 minutes of the final sitting this year. Secondly, a number of alternative means set for next year had already been proposed to an extent that the standard process of passing legislation through two houses suddenly seemed extraordinary and unconventional.

This morning, at 10:22 am, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age had a clear and confident take on the issue: “VSU bill misses Christmas deadline”.

Voluntary student unionism laws will not go through parliament this year, Prime Minister John Howard concedes.

After failing to woo Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce or Family First senator Steve Fielding to support the bill, the government does not have enough votes to get it through the Senate.

The Senate sits for the last time in 2005 today, with Senator Joyce insisting on an amendment which would allow universities to charge an amenities fee to protect non-political activities on campus.

A few hours later, headlines took a 180 degree turn: “Student union fees bill is passed”.

Family First senator Steve Fielding delivered the government a long-sought win over student unions without cutting a deal, in a heated final day of parliament.

Their fortune-cookies were off beam, but that’s forgivable. Yet taking a long hard look at the circumstances wasn’t a matter of crystal-ball gazing. VSU has had an on- and off-relationship with the media. Initially there’s been much about the nature of the law and its impact. Then, apathy followed. In the past weeks, scoops on the issue were straightforward and dry, lacking analysis and commentary despite a plethora of developments and alternatives in getting the bill through. The media had a ‘no comment’ outlook on the referendum for example, except for the ABC. We were left in the dark.

Nelson’s last chance to secure VSU by this year went down the drain today. The Senate wants to see amendments to its current state and cross-flooring Superman, Barnaby Joyce, remains unsympathetic. But should both continue to block Nelson’s ideological pathway, an alternative vision is already in place: the referendum.

Let’s recap on Australia’s recent history of referenda. The last referendum in 1999 dealt with turning Australia’s Constitutional Monarchy into a Republic. Before that, the 1988 referendum put parliamentary elections and local government to question. Obviously, referenda (generally!) take their form when constitutional matters arise.

So how does VSU fit into the picture? It doesn’t, really. On the one hand, a referendum is simply the last resort that could render VSU a reality. But on the other, student campaigns have been driven by an overarching theme that VSU would silence dissent if implemented. Along similar lines, Nelson has particularly voiced his opinion against the allocation of funds to political activities.

The primary motivation seems clear: the former Liberal student politicians in the Cabinet want to settle old scores with the Trots, Marxists and Maoists of the Labour Club who used to control the student representative councils’ purse-strings and vote themselves trips to North Vietnam.

Cabinet could ban SRCs from spending compulsory fee money on external political activities or it could make membership of the SRC voluntary, but it’s insisting on going a lot further and disturbing all student union activity - sporting, cultural and welfare - along with the political.

As this conflict rests on the crucial impact of VSU on academic freedom and free speech – a critical point most reported about - a referendum doesn’t seem to be the bizarre twist in the story after all.

But the media has avoided the topic. The idea of a referendum is either too romantic at this point or academics and lawyers are taking considerably long in drafting their opinions.