Tag: International

English language requirements under the microscope: Do you have what it takes to meet your university’s English language entry requirements for international students?
- By Tamsin Thomas, Senior Strategic Engagement Manager, Duolingo English Test.
The English language proficiency of international students is once again under the microscope. Heightened scrutiny is being driven by media coverage of international admissions, including The Times and BBC Radio 4’s File on 4, as well as the new immigration white paper. The Home Office is currently tendering for an English test for immigration purposes and has also undertaken a review of university English testing arrangements.

There are growing questions about how UK universities assess English proficiency, which tests are accepted, and what governance arrangements are in place to ensure that students have the level of English they need to succeed. These are valid and necessary discussions.

But it’s also true that much of the debate is happening without lived experience. Most contributors to this conversation — from media commentators to admissions professionals and policymakers — have never sat a high-stakes English language test themselves, certainly not as an entry requirement for studying in another country. That gap matters.

How Do International Students Currently Meet English Language Requirements?

UK universities have built robust and nuanced systems for assessing English proficiency, shaped by decades of global engagement. These typically fall into three broad categories:
- Secondary school qualifications: Many countries offer high school-level English that meets UK university entry standards. For example, iGCSEs, the IB, Hong Kong’s HKDSE, or Germany’s Abitur are often accepted without additional testing.
- Standardised English proficiency tests: Many international students – especially those from countries where English is not the primary language of instruction – take tests like IELTS, TOEFL, or the Duolingo English Test (DET) in addition to their school diplomas.
- Evidence of prior study in English: If a student has completed at least three years of education in English at the tertiary level, this can meet requirements under a “Medium of Instruction” policy.
In countries like India and Nigeria, the situation is more complex. Both operate parallel education systems – some in English, others in regional languages. Students with strong English scores in the Indian Standard XII (CBSE, ISC) or the West African WAEC are often accepted without further testing. Graduates of other boards may need to take a test.

These frameworks are diverse by design – reflecting the deep, often country-specific, relationships and expertise UK universities have developed over time.

While the media sometimes focuses on the small minority of international students whose English may fall short, it’s worth remembering that perfection is not the benchmark. Most international students meet entry requirements – and universities have systems in place to support language development throughout the degree. After all, only a small percentage of UK students get a Grade 9 in GCSE English, and developing academic English skills is part of what universities train students to do. Language proficiency exists on a spectrum – the question isn’t whether students are fluent on entry, but whether they have the foundation to succeed.

What Happens When a New Test Enters the Market?

As a relatively new entrant to this space, the Duolingo English Test – now accepted by over 40 UK universities – has seen firsthand how institutions evaluate and onboard new tests.

Typically, the process reflects a practical need to expand the range of tests, paired with a careful scrutiny process – usually via committee:
- Recruitment teams identify a test that meets student demand or addresses market access barriers.
- Admissions teams assess delivery method, validity, and the external evidence base.
- English-language colleagues evaluate whether the test provides evidence that students can succeed academically on campus.
- Compliance teams consider immigration implications and policy compatibility – is the test secure?
Tests are often accepted provisionally, with performance tracked for one to two years, however long it takes to build up enough data to make an informed decision. Institutions benchmark outcomes against long-accepted credentials: Do the score thresholds align, and are there heightened compliance risks?

The process is rarely quick, but it is thorough.

What Does Good Governance Look Like?

While most UK universities use similar criteria for test evaluation, governance structures vary. In some institutions, decisions sit with dedicated English policy working groups; in others, with international admissions committees. Sometimes responsibility is split between professional services and academics. In others, it’s entirely devolved to professional services.

This variation isn’t necessarily a problem but it does mean there’s no single ‘sector-wide’ process for evaluating or monitoring English tests.

As an online test provider, one gap that has always seemed under-discussed is the practical reality of actually taking a test. If you’re a student in Afghanistan, where crossing borders is difficult and test centres don’t operate, how are you supposed to prove your English proficiency? If you’re a mobility-impaired test taker in a country without inclusive building regulations, how do you sit a test at all? The global distribution of test centres is far from comprehensive.

Join the Conversation — Enter the DET University Challenge

Here’s the challenge: put yourself in an international student’s shoes. Could you meet your own university’s English language entry requirements?

The DET University Challenge 2025 invites UK university staff – whether English is their first language or not – to sit an English proficiency test similar to those taken by millions of international students each year.

The Challenge offers a practical, engaging way for staff to experience a process usually reserved for students. It’s a prompt for reflection – and yes, maybe a little fun along the way.

At a time when English requirements are under increasing public, political, and policy scrutiny, there’s real value in taking a closer look at the systems we rely on – and at how they feel from the other side.

So: do you have what it takes to meet your university’s English language entry requirements?

The DET University Challenge is open until 31 May 2025 with participants able to win up to £5,000 in prize money for their university or a designated Higher Education access charity. Terms and conditions apply.
Source link
May 22, 2025
Globally Competitive? What International Students Are Really Experiencing in the UK
In recent years and months, the UK has seen considerable debate over immigration policy, with proposed changes that could make studying here less attractive for prospective students.

The Government’s new Immigration White Paper includes plans to cut the post-study Graduate Route visa to 18 months and impose new levies on universities. Against this backdrop, the Russell Group Students’ Unions (RGSU), in partnership with the UK Council for International Student Affairs (UKCISA) and with support from the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for International Students, launched Globally Competitive: A Report on the International Student Experience at a Parliamentary event on 14 May 2025. The report draws on surveys from nearly 5,000 international students at Russell Group universities (about 40% of the UK total), making it one of the most comprehensive studies of its kind.

A mixed picture of success and struggle

The report’s findings present a striking varied picture. On one hand, it reaffirms the UK’s position as a leading global study destination, with one in seven respondents stating the UK’s high-quality education and globally recognised universities were their main motivations for studying here. For three in four students, the UK was their first-choice destination. Students are also attracted by the shorter course lengths, multicultural environments and post-study work opportunities offered through the Graduate Route.

Alongside this positive narrative, the report reveals a deeply challenging reality for many students once they arrive. Half of the international students we surveyed reported struggling with poor mental health during their time here, a statistic that will resonate with academic and professional services staff who see students day in, day out.

Living costs are also having a direct impact on student wellbeing, with monthly expenses (excluding tuition fees) averaging £1,402 and rising to £1,635 for students in London. For many, studying in the UK means short- and medium-term financial hardship and consignment to long-term debt. Over 30 per cent of postgraduate taught students rely on bank loans or credit cards. One in five worries about money all the time. Those most affected by financial stress are also more likely to report poor mental health.

Despite these pressures, current visa rules prevent international students from pursuing freelance work or self-employment, even in areas where their skills are in high demand. These restrictions are not only impractical but risk undermining both the student experience and the UK’s wider economic priorities.

Barriers to belonging

Just as concerning are the social barriers many students face. One in three international students reported they had experienced racism while in the UK. While 94% reported feeling safe and welcome on campus, that sense of belonging often didn’t extend to the wider community, with only 73% stating they feel safe and welcome in the UK more generally. These experiences can leave lasting impacts and send the wrong message to future students weighing up their study options against other international destinations.

Ultimately, these findings highlight a simple reality: the UK remains a top choice, but we cannot take that status for granted. Negative public rhetoric, which sometimes labels international students as a ‘problem’, ignores evidence that they contribute billions to our economy, volunteer in our local communities and improve our universities’ teaching and contribute to our world-leading research. International students are our peers, colleagues and future leaders. Therefore, it’s important we balance any concerns about immigration with the fact that international students are part of our future.

A roadmap for reform

This report centres students’ experience of studying here and sets out a roadmap for meaningful change. At a national level, we are calling on the Government to:
- Freeze visa application fees and the Immigration Health Surcharge;
- Allow greater flexibility in term-time work and permit self-employment and freelance work during study; and
- Conduct a cross-departmental impact assessment on how immigration policies and public messaging affect the international student experience.
These policies are essential if we want to keep the UK globally competitive.

Shared responsibility across the sector

But change cannot come from Westminster alone. Universities and higher education sector bodies must also act. We’re asking universities to consider:
- Fixing international students’ tuition fees at the point of entry;
- Providing equitable access to hardship funds with clear eligibility criteria;
- Delivering culturally competent mental health support that truly meets students’ needs;
- Call on employers and careers services to better understand the Graduate Route and provide more tailored advice and job opportunities for international students; and
- Adopt UKCISA’s #WeAreInternational Student Charter as a framework to improve the international student experience.
Working together for a welcoming UK

Our report is a call to action. We invite government ministers, MPs and Peers, and university leaders to work with their students’ unions to engage with the report’s findings and work collaboratively on solutions. The APPG for International Students and UKCISA have helped amplify the student voice; now we ask on all stakeholders to join the conversation and implement evidence-based policies.
Source link
May 20, 2025
International education in Australia needs an urgent rethink – Campus Review

The federal government’s recent decision to again raise the international student visa application fee to $2,000 has reignited concerns about the country’s approach to international education.

Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

Membership Login

Source link

May 19, 2025
How to design an international student tuition fee levy

“The Government will explore introducing a levy on higher education provider income from international students, to be reinvested into the higher education and skills system. Further details will be set out in the Autumn Budget.”

35 words that have put the sector into a spin, spun out tens of thousands of words of analysis and rebuttal, and set into motion a shared panic that the government is not only going to reduce the number of international students but tax the students that universities manage to recruit.

Design

The only things that we know about the levy is that the government has used a six per cent tax on international fees as an “illustrative example” in its technical annex, the government assumes this cost would be passed on to international students, and that passing on these costs will depress international student numbers by around 7,000. In terms of the levy design there is the promise that the money will be ringfenced for higher education and skills but which parts and how is not defined. It is of course also not guaranteed.

The sector’s response has been to point out that reducing the number of international students and devaluing the unit of resource they bring with them will put additional financial pressure on universities. The impact will also be uneven with the largest recruiters of international students paying the highest levy.

The government has made a hugely consequential policy signal with no details, scant impact assessment, and no analysis of the consequences. However, if a levy of some form is going to happen the sector should think carefully about which kinds of levy they believe would be preferable. Not all levies are built equally.

Australia

The idea for a levy seems to have come from the Australian Universities Accord. The UK government does not seem to have noticed that the idea was heavily edited and caveated in the final report but in the interim report it was noted that:

The Review notes various submissions support establishing a specific fund that could be used for future infrastructure needs, as well other national priorities. This could include consideration of a levy on international student fee income. The use of this revenue for sectoral-wide priorities could reflect the collaborative nature of the sector in building a strong and enduring system. The Review notes further examination is required, including consideration of some level of co-investment from governments.

There is a little bit more detail here but not much. Like the UK version the fund would be hypothecated toward higher education and used to fund things on a system wide basis. The politics on the face of it appear progressive that the institutions that benefit most from private capital, the flow of international students, pay a proportion of it back to fund public goods in the wider higher education system. The less progressive element is that international students pay once to their institution, they would then pay a levy which their provider would pass on to them in increased fees, and they then prop up an education system of a nation in which they are not permanently resident.

The University of Melbourne did some follow up work looking at the implications of such a levy. Some of the issues they picked up are whether this would be a levy on all international students in all kinds of education, whether it is reasonable to distribute funding from high income to low income institutions, whether the idea of a levy in and of itself would dampen demand, and whether the impact of taxing income from individual providers is more harmful than the collective benefits they may receive from a shared fund.

Depending how the government chooses to apply its levy we would expect to see very different results. An Australian model which redistributes funding from the wealthiest institution to the least wealthy would have a very different set of consequences to a levy which took a six per cent flat tax and put it into a general fund for infrastructure. It feels odd within a market based higher education system to make one provider dependent on the success of another. It also feels odd to make international students who are studying at a specific institution responsible for the health of the wider sector.

Some would see an intra-university levy as a recognition that the success of the system is the success of each provider. Some would see it as an unjustifiable tax on the most financially successful institutions.

New Zealand

Australia’s Antipodean partner already has a form of student levy.

New Zealand’s Export Education Levy is charged as a proportion of the fee international fee-paying students pay to their providers. Depending on the kind of institution this is charged at between .5 per cent and .89 per cent of tuition fees.

The levy has a direct relationship between funders and beneficiaries. Although it is a tax on learners, and by extension a tax on providers, the funding is used for the development of the export education sector, a recovery scheme should a provider be unable to continue teaching, the administration of the international element of The Education (Pastoral Care of Tertiary and InternationalLearners) Code of Practice 2021 (this includes a range of safety, wellbeing and advice support), and the funding of the International Student Contract Dispute Resolution Scheme (a scheme for students to resolve disputes with their providers on contracts and financial issues.)

This system has been in place with some variations and the occasional suspension since 2002. The international education system is much smaller in New Zealand than the UK and the amount of funding the levy raises is modest at close to three million dollars in 2022/23. The model in operation here is a relatively small tax to fund things which providers have a shared interest in. It’s not a direct cash transfer between providers but a collective pot to reinvest into the economic commodity of international education. The scheme was suspended during COVID-19 as a measure to support the sector, so its financial impacts are clearly not negligible, but post COVID-19 international enrolments are recovering strongly. Whether they would have recovered even more strongly without a levy is impossible to know.

This is a light-touch, shared endeavour, we all should have some investment in international education, kind of a levy and it is not the only levy New Zealand has.

The Student Service Levy is a fee applied to all student fees to fund non-academic services. The University of Auckland surveys students every year on what they would like their fees to be spent on and in 2024, in descending order by amount, funding was spent on sports, recreation and cultural activities, counselling services and pastoral care, health services, child care services, clubs and societies, careers advice, legal advice, financial advice, and media.

This is a general levy but the principle has broader applications. It would be entirely possible to levy international student fees to pay for non-academic services. For example, university access budgets are effectively paid for by a levy on fees. This system seems fairer in some ways than a general levy. The place where a student studies is the primary beneficiary of their fees. From a policy perspective it would allow the government to move institutional behaviour toward things they care about by stipulating what the fee could be spent on. However, given that international student fees subsidy much of university work already it would again feel like they are paying twice. Additionally, if providers didn’t have to redistribute their funding on a national basis the providers with the most international students would be able to spend the most on non-academic elements.

Where else

It is also worth stating the government’s proposed levy would not function like the Apprenticeship Levy. The Apprenticeship Levy is a tax on employer’s payroll but employers are able to access the funds they contribute to spend on apprenticeships with any underspend clawed back by the government. Plainly, if government allowed providers to access the fees they contribute to the levy for the education of their own students there would be no point in having a levy in the first place beyond giving universities the political coverage to raise fees. Presumably, not an outcome the government is intending.

The argument against a levy of international student fees will dominate the sector for months to come. Should a levy come to pass universities would be well disposed to think of which kinds of levy they might prefer. A model which redistributes funding across providers and if so which providers and for what projects. A model which internally redistributes funding toward student support. Or, likely the least popular, a model which allows the government to reinvest the funding broadly and perhaps outside of higher education.

In making the case of the harm a levy could cause the sector may also win over more sympathy if it can explain which kinds of levies in which places have what kinds of effects depending on how they are applied. A levy may generally be a bad idea but some versions are much more harmful than others.

Source link

May 18, 2025
Plotting the impact of an international fee levy

There’s not many in the higher education sector that would have welcomed any part of the recent immigration white paper.

The reduction in the graduate route time limit would have been difficult enough. The BCA changes to duties on providers in order to sponsor international students will cause many problems. The possibility of financial penalties linked to asylum claims for those on student visas was as unexpected as it is problematic.

But it is the levy that has really attracted the ire of UK higher education.

The best form of defence

On one level it is simply a tax – on the income from international student fees, which is one of a vanishingly few places from which universities can cross-subsidise loss-making activity like research and teaching UK-domiciled students.

Yes, the funds raised are promised variously to “skills and higher education” or just “skills”, and the suggestion seems to be that the costs will be passed on entirely to international students via rises in tuition fees. There’s not any real information on the assumptions underpinning this position, or credible calculations by which the proportion of students that may be deterred by these rises and other measures has been estimated.

But details are still scant – the government has, after all, only promised to “explore” the introduction of a levy – and used the idea of a six per cent levy on international tuition fees as an “illustrative example”. We have to look forward to the Autumn statement (not even the skills white paper – remember joined-up, mission-led, government?) for more – and do recall that the white paper is a consultation and responses need to be made in order to finesse the policy.

Thinking about impact

There’s no reliable way to assess the impact of this policy with so little information, but we do know a lot about the exposure of each university to the international market.

For starters here’s a summary of provider income from overseas fees since 2016–17 – both for individual providers and (via the filters) for the sector as a whole.

[Full screen]

The story has been one of growth pretty much anywhere you care to look – with only limited evidence of a cooling off in the most recent year of data. Some institutions have trebled their income from this source over the eight years of available data, with particular growth in postgraduate taught provision.

In considering the financial impact of a potential levy I have used the most recent (2023–24) year of financial data – showing the total non-UK fee income on the vertical axis and the proportion of total income represented by the value of the levy on the horizontal. By default I have modelled a levy of six per cent (you can use the filter to consider other levels).

[Full screen]

Who’s up, who’s down?

In the majority of large universities the cost of levy is equivalent to around two per cent of total income. In the main it is the Russell Group that sees substantial income from international fees – the small number of exceptions (most notably the University of Hertfordshire and the University of the Arts London) would see a levy impact of closer to three per cent of total income.

What we can’t realistically model is university pricing behavior and the impact on recruitment. Universities generally charge what the market will stand for international courses – and this value is generally higher for providers that are better known from popular league tables.

Subject areas and qualifications also have an impact (the cost of an MBA, for example, may be higher than a taught creative arts masters – a year of postgraduate study may cost more than a year of an undergraduate course), as does the country from which students are arriving (China may be charged more than India, for example).

Some better off universities in the middle of the market may choose to swallow more of the cost of the levy in order to increase their competitiveness for applicants making decisions on price – this would put pressure on the currently cheaper end of the market to follow suit as well as direct competitors, and may lower the overall floor price for particular providers (though, to be fair, private providers are still better positioned to undercut should they have access to funds from investment or other parts of the business).

There is an obvious impact on the quality of the provision if providers do cut the amount of fee income – and this as well could have an impact on the attractiveness of the whole sector. For more hands-on courses in technical or creative subjects, provision may become unviable overall – surrendering the soft power of influence in these fields.

A starting point

It’s not often that we see a policy proposal on university funding launched with so little information. Generations of politicians have learned that university funding policy changes are the equivalent of poking a wasps nest with a sharp stick – it may be something that needs doing but the short term pain and noise is massive.

It could be that it is a deliberate policy to let the sector (and associated commentariat) go crazy for a month or so while a plan is developed to avoid the less desirable (for ministers) consequences. But the idea that international students will gladly pay more to support an underfunded sector is one that has been at the heart of university activity for decades – the only real change here is that the government feels it can put some of the profits to better use than some of our larger and better-known providers.

In all of this there appears to have been little consideration of the fairness of putting extra costs onto the fees of international students – particularly where they personally don’t see any value from their additional spend. But this has been an issue for a good few years, and it seems to have taken the possibility of a tariff (which could be considered unfair to cash-strapped universities too) to drive this problem further up the sector’s agenda.

Source link

May 18, 2025
ICE Warns International Students of More SEVIS Terminations

Immigration officials sent letters to international students on short-term work visas Thursday night, threatening to terminate their legal status in the Student Exchange and Visitor Information System and remove them from the country. The number of affected students is still unknown, but Inside Higher Ed can confirm at least 35.

It’s the first sign that the Trump administration is resuming its campaign to deport student visa holders, weeks after restoring the statuses of thousands of students. ICE recently released an updated policy that significantly expands the agency’s authority to terminate students’ SEVIS status and pave the way for deportation proceedings.

This time, they’re targeting students on Optional Practical Training visas, or OPTs, which allow international postgraduates the opportunity to work in a field relevant to their study on a short-term extension. Students on OPT are allowed a total of 90 days of unemployment every 12 months before falling out of compliance. It’s still not known whether any of the affected students were on a special visa extension known as OPT for STEM, awarded to graduates in high-demand technology, science and engineering fields.

One international student adviser, who spoke with Inside Higher Ed on the condition of anonymity, said 28 of his institution’s students on OPT received the letter in the past day, and he expects that number will grow.

In a copy of one letter received by an international student and obtained by Inside Higher Ed, Immigration and Customs Enforcement warned those who have not reported employment status within 90 days of starting their OPT visa that they must do so in 15 days. If they don’t, the Student Exchange and Visitor Program “will set your SEVIS record to ‘terminated,’” the letter reads, which “may result in the initiation of immigration proceedings to remove you from the United States.”

The letter is nearly identical to those sent by officials during the first Trump administration in 2020. The only difference: Back then, the Student Exchange and Visitor Program was the letter’s sole signatory. This time, ICE and the Department of Homeland Security are also named.

The 2020 letters were sent two years after officials issued an update to designated school officials informing them that the administration had begun a review of OPT students’ employment status to find noncompliant visa holders. But that notice also said SEVP would not automatically terminate students’ SEVIS status for going over the 90-day unemployment limit before notifying students.

It’s not clear whether immigration officials engaged in a review process before beginning to notify students of potential SEVIS terminations this week. Spokespeople for ICE and DHS did not respond to questions in time for publication.

It was also not immediately clear if OPT students’ SEVIS terminations would result in subsequent visa revocations, which are the purview of the State Department. A spokesperson for the State Department wrote in an email that they “cannot preview future visa-related decisions, which are made on a case-by-case basis, based on the individual facts relevant to the case,” and deferred other questions sent by Inside Higher Ed to DHS.

In an internal communication sent to international student advisers and support specialists, NAFSA, an organization of international educators, urged college officials to regularly check the SEVIS database for notices of OPT students’ compliance with “accrued unemployment days” and to reach out to any students who are over the 90-day limit as soon as possible.

Immigration officials began systematically terminating thousands of students’ SEVIS statuses along with their visas in late March, an unprecedented move that threw international student support offices into chaos and left students scrambling to avoid deportation.

Last month, immigration officials restored the SEVIS statuses of more than 5,000 international students after losing dozens of court cases challenging the legality of efforts to revoke foreign students’ legal residency at a breakneck pace.

The anonymous international student adviser said students on OPT often forget to report their employment details before the 90-day deadline. Many are distracted by graduations and finals well after they receive approval for the visa and forget, he said; in other cases, the lapse can be due to technical issues within SEVIS.

Because of that, they’re often given some leeway, and he said he’s never seen or heard of a student having their SEVIS status terminated for not reporting employment details on time, including the last time these letters were sent in 2020. Then again, much of the Trump administration’s treatment of student visa holders is unprecedented, and he’s worried this could be a real danger for them.

“There’s a lot of panic and uncertainty as our students are waiting to see what will happen, and we’re waiting to see if they’ll really go through with it,” he said. “I think this is the real deal.”

Source link

May 16, 2025
Belfast hip-hop group Kneecap at the center of international firestorm
Last year, FIRE launched the Free Speech Dispatch, a regular series covering new and continuing censorship trends and challenges around the world. Our goal is to help readers better understand the global context of free expression. Want to make sure you don’t miss an update? Sign up for our newsletter.

Kneecap spurs controversy in the U.S. and investigation in the UK as narcocorridos controversy roils Mexico

Belfast trio Kneecap’s public statements at Coachella and earlier concerts have caused an international stir, and now even the UK’s counter-terrorism police are involved.

The band, already no stranger to controversy, provoked it once again during its Coachella performances by displaying the message, “Israel is committing genocide … enabled by the US,” adding, “Fuck Israel. Free Palestine.”

In the following days, they were uninvited from music festivals in Germany as well as split with their booking agency in the U.S., meaning that the band is likely to face work-visa issues in its upcoming American tour. (And, given the Trump administration’s current track record on the subject, it would not be surprising to see them face visa challenges on the basis of their expression.)

In addition to the Coachella dustup, the group’s past comments have stirred new threats of legal action in the UK, specifically an “Up Hamas, up Hezbollah” chant at a 2024 gig and a band member’s comment at a show the year prior: “The only good Tory is a dead Tory. Kill your local MP.”

Metropolitan police said videos of both comments “were referred to the Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit for assessment by specialist officers, who have determined there are grounds for further investigation into potential offences linked to both videos.” A UK government spokesperson also said that authorities will “work with the police and parliament to do everything in our power to crack down on threats to elected officials.” (In the U.S., these comments would not meet either the incitement standard or qualify as material support for terrorism, and would be protected by the First Amendment.) And British politicians have made calls including for their disinvitation from Glastonbury as well as prosecution for the “Kill your local MP” remark.

A group of artists including Massive Attack and Pulp issued a statement against what they called a “clear, concerted attempt to censor and ultimately deplatform the band Kneecap.” The band also objected to what it calls a “smear campaign” to “manufacture moral hysteria” but asserted they “do not, and have never, supported Hamas or Hezbollah” and would not “seek to incite violence against any MP or individual. Ever.”

Some similar questions are at play in Mexico over narcocorridos, ballads about drug trafficking. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum says her “position is that it should not be banned, but that other music should be promoted.” In recent weeks, though, some Mexican states have taken action against the genre.

And last month, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau announced on X that the State Department revoked the visas of a band who “portrayed images glorifying drug kingpin ‘El Mencho’” at a concert in Mexico. “I’m a firm believer in freedom of expression,” Landau wrote, “but that doesn’t mean that expression should be free of consequences.”

The band, Los Alegres del Barranco, may also be facing criminal charges in Mexico “for allegedly promoting criminal activity.”

The UK’s blasphemy debate is still going

Kneecap’s political commentary isn’t the only free expression controversy in the UK. As I’ve discussed in previous dispatches, UK-based activists have set off global controversies in recent months with public Quran burnings resulting in criminal charges.

The Crown Prosecution Service received well-deserved criticism over its decision to charge a man who burned a Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London with intent to cause “harassment, alarm or distress” against “the religious institution of Islam.” There is no other way to put it: protecting a religious institution from “distress” is a blatant blasphemy law.

In response to critics, the CPS admitted the charge was “incorrectly applied” and has substituted a different charge, a public order offense “on the basis that his actions caused harassment, alarm or distress — which is a criminal offence — and that this was motivated by hostility towards a religious or racial group.”

This prosecution, however, remains a serious threat to free expression and the public debate around it suggests this matter is far from settled. In an exchange on X, one member of parliament chastised another for “invest[ing] so much energy into advocating for the right to offend a minority community” and warned that free expression “comes with limitations and protections.”

From Xi’s critics to Israeli protests, political speech is under attack
- In a recent episode of his HBO show “The Rehearsal,” Nathan Fielder reveals Paramount+ removed an older “Nathan for You” episode from streaming everywhere after Paramount+ Germany became “uncomfortable with what they called anything that touches on antisemitism in the aftermath of the Israel/Hamas attacks.” That episode focused on Fielder’s satirical pitch for a winter coat company to compete with a real life brand affiliated with a Holocaust denier. (From the stunt, Fielder “likely raised millions of dollars toward Holocaust awareness.”)
- Israeli police temporarily warned organizers of a Tel Aviv protest that demonstrators could not use images of Palestinian children and terms like “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” in protest signs.
- A new Human Rights Watch report finds that Vietnam is ramping up enforcement of its law targeting expression “infringing of state interests.” Now “authorities have enlarged the scope and application of article 331 so that it reaches much further into society, beyond human rights and democracy dissidents — most of whom are now in prison — to all those publicly voicing grievances.”
- A Thai appeals court sentenced a democracy activist to two years in prison for violating the country’s harsh lese-majeste law. In 2022, she posted on Facebook, “The government is shit, the institution is shit.”
- Paul Chambers, the American academic charged with lese-majeste in Thailand, received good news but he’s not out of the woods yet. Prosecutors announced they declined to pursue the charges against him but that decision will face further review.
- At April’s Semafor World Economy Summit, Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos shared that the company previously attempted to build a presence in China but “in three years, not a single episode of a single Netflix show cleared the censorship board.”
- China has disappeared another “Bridge Man.” In an incident similar to one that set off a global protest movement in 2022, an activist hung banners calling for political reform over a bridge outside Chengdu last month and was quickly detained — and his whereabouts are now unknown.
- An investigation of China’s transnational repression methods from the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists found that during “at least seven of Xi’s 31 international trips between 2019 and 2024, local law enforcement infringed on dozens of protesters’ rights in order to shield the Chinese president from dissent, detaining or arresting activists, often for spurious reasons.”
- Last month, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that, at the DOJ’s request, Serbian law enforcement arrested two men alleged to have “coordinated and directed a conspiracy to harass, intimidate, and threaten” a Los Angeles-based critic of Xi Jinping.
- Hong Kong’s national security police arrested family members of the U.S.-based activist Anna Kwok, who is wanted under the city’s national security law, for handling her “funds or other financial assets.”
Conflict with Pakistan brings spike in India’s censorship

India’s censorship, especially on the internet, is a persistent threat to free expression, and the country’s recent flare-up with Pakistan has worsened the situation. Dozens have been arrested for “anti-India comments” on social media and “content supporting Pakistan.”

In a May 8 notice, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting advised all social media sites and streaming services to “discontinue” content “having its origins in Pakistan with immediate effect.”

At the government’s request, Meta blocked the 6.7 million follower Instagram account @Muslim, one of “the most followed Muslim news sources on Instagram.” X, too, announced it received orders to block over 8,000 users in the country, including “accounts belonging to international news organizations and prominent X users.” X complied and said “due to legal restrictions, we are unable to publish the executive orders at this time” but is exploring avenues to respond.

YouTube, too, is a target. Officials blocked over a dozen Pakistani YoutTube channels for “disseminating provocative and communally sensitive content, false and misleading narratives and misinformation against India.” India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology also restricted access to The Wire, an independent news site, throughout the country.

The latest wins, losses, and challenges for free speech in tech
- It’s not all bad news for free expression in India. This month, India’s Supreme Court reversed a ruling from the Delhi High Court ordering Wikipedia to take down a Wiki page amidst Asian News International’s lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation.
- The Wikimedia Foundation is also taking on the UK’s Online Safety Act. The foundation is specifically challenging the act’s Categorisation Regulations, which “are written broadly enough that they could place Wikipedia as a ‘Category 1 service’ — a platform posing the highest possible level of risk to the public.” Among Wikimedia’s objections are the risks this classification poses to its users’ privacy and anonymity.
- Meta secured a significant victory against Israeli spyware company NSO Group, with a jury awarding $168 million in damages. The NSO Group was accused of exploiting Meta’s WhatsApp to install its Pegasus spyware program, which has been used in high profile hacks of lawyers, journalists, and activists, into over a thousand phones.
- X, a regular target of Turkish censorship orders, complied with an order to block the account of imprisoned Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu, a rival of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. X says it is challenging the order.
- Bluesky has complied with Turkish orders, too. The platform restricted access to dozens of accounts in the country on “national security and public order” grounds.
- Russia restricted internet access in regions of the country ahead of its “Victory Day” celebrations on May 9. “We want the glorious Victory Day to be celebrated at the appropriate level,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said of the shutdowns.
U.S. embassy warns Stockholm against ‘promoting DEI’

Stockholm announced this month that it was surprised to receive a “bizarre” letter from the U.S. embassy in the city. The letter, copies of which went to contractors abroad who work with the federal government, told Stockholm’s planning office to “certify that they do not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable anti-discrimination laws.” Companies in Europe have reported receiving these letters, but Stockholm’s planning office is the first government agency known to have received one. Officials conveyed that they would not be complying.

Embassies’ efforts to interfere with expression abroad are an issue I discuss at length in my forthcoming book, Authoritarians in the Academy. In 2021, for example, the Chinese embassy unsuccessfully pressured the Italian city of Brescia to cancel an art exhibition it claimed would “endanger the friendly relations between Italy and China” because it was “full of anti-Chinese lies.”

How press freedom is faring today
- Argentine President Javier Milei is suing three journalists for defamation for their criticism of him, including a column comparing current events with the rise of Nazism and comments calling him an “authoritarian” and a “despot.”
- Swedish journalist Joakim Medin was hit with an 11-month suspended sentence for insulting the Turkish president and is awaiting a trial on terrorism charges. Medin says he was not even in the country when the alleged conduct took place.
- Israel’s Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara warned government agencies that their boycott of the media outlet Hareetz over its coverage of the Israel-Hamas war “was conducted through an improper process that cannot be upheld legally.”
- Former Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams’ libel suit against the BBC over reporting that he sanctioned a killing in 2006 is underway. BBC says the reporting followed its editorial standards.
- Two reporters were detained in Macau, a special administrative region of China, for allegedly “disrupting the operations” of authorities after trying to report on a legislative debate.
- Four Russian journalists accused of having ties to Alexey Navalny were sentenced to over five years in a prison colony last month.
- Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas reversed the ban on Al Jazeera, permitting it to resume reporting, after it banned the outlet in January on incitement allegations.
Finally, some good news for a victim of blasphemy laws

Mubarak Bala, a Nigerian humanist initially sentenced to 24 years in prison, is finally tasting freedom upon being released after spending over four years in prison. Mubarak still feared mob violence after his release, and was forced to live in a safe house due to threats.

But Bala has now arrived in Germany, where he is set to begin a residency at Humanistische Vereinigung. “No longer do I dread the routine sounds of the locks, nor the dark, certainly not the extreme weather, too hot or too cold, no longer ill, no longer hungry, no longer lonely, and no longer dreading that the marauders are coming across the fence, to drag me out and behead me,” Bala said in a statement.

The Community Court of the Economic Community of West African States, a high court governing 12 African nations including Nigeria, found last month that a blasphemy statute used to prosecute Bala must be struck down. The Kano State government, however, defended its blasphemy laws and said it “will not allow religious liberty to be weaponized as a cover for sacrilege, insult, and provocation.”
Source link
May 15, 2025
New international education focus in Albanese ministry – Campus Review

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has announced a new role overseeing international education with the appointment of Julian Hill as International Education Assistant Minister. Mr Hill will retain his previous Customs and Multicultural Affairs Assistant Minister role.

Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

Membership Login

Source link

May 14, 2025
‘What the hell just happened?’ Australia’s flirtation with a levy on international students – By Professor Andrew Norton
- This blog has been kindly written for HEPI by Andrew Norton, Professor of Higher Education Policy at Monash Business School, Monash University.
- The thoughts of Nick Hillman, HEPI’s Director, on the levy can be read on the Research Professional News website here.
For an Australian reader the UK immigration white paper’s proposal for a levy on international student fee revenue sounds familiar. In mid-2023 just such a levy was suggested for Australia by the interim report of a major higher education policy review. Like its UK version, the idea was to reinvest levy revenue in education. While the interim report lacked white paper status, education minister Jason Clare liked the idea enough to mention it in his report launch speech.

But now the levy has vanished from the Australian policy agenda. When the Universities Accord final report was released in February 2024 the levy idea was there but postponed, shunted off until after other major funding reforms that will start in 2027 at the earliest. So far as I can find, the Minister – newly reappointed this week after Labor’s election victory on 3 May – has not mentioned the idea in public for 18 months.

So what happened? Predictably, the universities that stood to lose the most from the levy opposed it. But the bigger reason was that between mid-2023 and late 2023 the politics of international education in Australia were turned upside down. In a few months international education went from a valuable export industry to a cause of Australia’s housing shortages. International student numbers had to be cut.

As originally proposed in Australia the international student levy was not linked to migration policy. Some reduction in student demand was predicted, as levy costs were passed on through higher fees. But this was a policy side-effect, not its goal. If too many international students were deterred the levy would not raise enough money to achieve its domestic objectives. The Government needed more effective ways of bringing international student numbers back down.

Between October 2023 and July 2024 the Australian Government introduced, on my count, nine measures to block or discourage would-be international students.

Among the Government’s nine measures was one that delivered it international student revenue much more quickly than the proposed levy. The Government more than doubled student visa application fees from A$710 (~£330) to A$1,600 (~£745), claiming that the money would be spent on policies benefiting domestic students. During the 2025 election campaign Labor said it would increase visa fees again, to A$2,000 (~£930). The UK’s £524 fee looks cheap by comparison.

Higher visa fees and other migration measures had two big advantages over the once-proposed levy from the perspective of the Australian Government – legal ease and speed in delivering on migration goals. In Australia, many migration changes can be made by ministerial determination without parliamentary review. The levy required legislation. Australia’s system of sending controversial legislation to often-bruising Senate inquiries increases political costs, even when the bill ultimately passes.

What visa fees lack is the Robin Hood element of the Australian levy as proposed. In 2023 the University of Sydney alone earned 14% of all university international student fee revenue. The top six universities received more than half of the total. Levy advocates argue that these gains are built on past taxpayer subsidies and prime real estate. Profits built on these foundations can legitimately be taxed for the wider benefit of Australian higher education.

In Australia generally, and under Labor governments especially, an egalitarian political culture gives these levy arguments some resonance. But for the foreseeable future migration is a bigger issue than university funding, and visa policies a more straightforward way of bringing down international student numbers than levies. Perhaps the levy idea will return, but the government’s long silence on the subject suggests that this will not happen anytime soon.
Source link
May 13, 2025
Is data infrastructure the missing backbone of UK international HE?

IHEC‘s report,Towards a Future UK International Higher Education Strategy: Resilience, Purpose and Precision, released in April 2025, describes accurate data and timely insights as “the lifeblood” of an effective international education strategy.

The Commission is calling on the government develop a digital data portal for international student information, accessible to universities and relevant public bodies.

Its vision is a significant leap from the fragmented systems the sector currently relies on – where data is outdated and siloed across agencies.

Stakeholders frequently point out that UK policy often trails real-world data by nearly two years.

The Commission envisions a secure portal compiling data from various sources – Home Office visa issuance, HESA enrolments, accommodation, and health service usage – tracking, almost in real time, where international students are coming from and enrolling.

Imagine a world where universities can instantly access up-to-date visa grant statistics by country, and local councils can anticipate the number of international students arriving in their area.

With real-time insights at their fingertips, IHEC suggests that institutions, policymakers, and stakeholders could plan proactively – enhancing housing, support services, and infrastructure.

“A system like this is entirely within our competence to establish,” according to IHEC.

This isn’t the only tool the Commission has in its sights. As part of its ambitions, it also advocates for a market intelligence platform that would equip the UK with the insights needed to stay ahead of global competitors.

“Via a public-private partnership (perhaps a tender to specialist data firms), we could build a system that aggregates data on international education demand worldwide – including demographics, economic indicators, competitor country trends, search engine, and agent application data – to predict future demand patterns,” outlined the report.

Via a public-private partnership (perhaps a tender to specialist data firms), we could build a system that aggregates data on international education demand worldwide
_^IHEC

The platform would answer key questions like: “Which emerging markets are gaining interest?” or “What’s the projected demand for STEM Masters over the next five years?”

“The sector must have access to better and more timely data about what is happening in international recruitment markets, as well as how this is playing out
at institutional and sector levels, to more effectively address challenges and opportunities,” asserted Chris Skidmore, IHEC chair and former UK universities minister.

With this intelligence, the Commission hopes the UK can spot opportunities early and respond to risks before they grow. It should also include an open-source competitor tracker – comparing performance across countries on things like visa wait times, tuition fees, and scholarship availability – so the UK can see how it stacks up and stay competitive.

To steer these efforts, the Commission recommends establishing a public-private sector International Education Data and Insight Taskforce, made up of statisticians and analysts from various government departments, as well as industry experts and leaders from the growing number of private sector companies that provide sophisticated data about current and potential future trends.

The Commission names Enroly, Studyportals, IDP and QS as key players doing valuable work in this area.

IHEC’s full report ‘Towards a Future UK International Higher Education Strategy: Resilience, Purpose and Precision’ is available here.

Source link

May 9, 2025