Learning In Times Of COVID-19: Busting myths about the success of e-schooling

Bhavya Kumar

“Today is the first day of the rest of your life.” – Charles Dederich

The above quote, used to describe a child’s first day at school, has been prolifically used in the past to impress upon its reader, the value attached to the act of ‘going to school’. It is associated with a certain sentiment, rooted in substantial individual experiences of anyone who has ever taken this journey from their houses to schools. Sociologically, schools have been studied as socialising agents, as sites of social, cultural and political indoctrination (McLarren, Giroux, Thappan et al.) In common lore; schools are viewed as near ‘sacred spaces’, that dispense knowledge and culture, attending which is an essential rite of passage for children born in the modern, democratic world. It is believed to emancipate and liberate masses, which for ages have languished under tyranny of societal evils. In totality, schools have historically been deemed as one of the key institutions of society, essential to the perpetuation of the ‘social-collective conscience’.

Enter COVID-19; a pandemic that has caused countless casualties. The social institution of Schooling is one of the greatest. According to the report of UNESCO, COVID-19 had affected more than 90% of the world’s student population by mid April 2020. In India alone, more than 320 million students have been affected by COVID-19 school closures, and though the government quickly recommended shifting to “online teaching,” ignoring India’s immense digital divide—with enmeshed gender, caste and class divides.

As the situation worsened due to COVID-19, the government suggested online schooling. Many private educational-technology firms have tried to leverage the occasion by offering free online classes or attractive discounts on e-learning modules. It is believed, these measures have been met with overwhelming response by students. Remote seems a viable solution to students during this time as they offer convenient, on -the- go and affordable access to lessons. E-learning also comes as an interesting and interactive alternative as compared to classroom teaching. While these seemed to be the obvious quick fix for the pandemic, the pressing question, that we as citizens of a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural society must ask are; whether this model of online education is a sustainable one? The ambient excitement and anticipation around this novel shift in method of teaching and learning has now lifted and has exposed associated lacunae. Deep structural concerns regarding accessibility, quality of education, sustainability and affectivity of online schooling have emerged to the front.

Given the context, I would like to highlight two parallel concerns that would bust the myth of online schooling in India:

1. Inequitable access to resources required for successful and effective online learning
2. A-scientific relegation of schooling (a specialised social, cultural and political act) from active interactive spaces (classrooms) to mobile and laptop screens.

INEQUITABLE ACCESS

India is multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-lingual country, nations within nation. It is further stratified on the basis of caste, class, gender and tribe. Educational outcomes of students have varied over these categories. Sociological works by the likes of Geetha Nambisan, Virginius Kaka etc have highlighted issues of exclusion, cultural alienation, unequal access to capital while studying low educational achievement amongst Linguistic minorities and tribal communities respectively. Sociologists like Ranu Jain, Arshad Alam, Tanveer Fazal have highlighted the same for religious minorities. In the light of scientific evidence it seems that a blanket shift to online, digital education is probably the last item in the long list of amends our government has to implement, in order to evenly and justly educate its masses. It is quite likely; the rapid, unplanned and sudden digitalisation of schooling in India has only reproduced pre existing inequalities.

The 2017-18 National Sample Survey states that only 23.8 percent of Indian households had internet access. In rural households (66 percent of the population of India), only 14.9 percent had access, and in the remaining urban households only 42 percent had access. male heads of households are the primary users, while only 16 percent of women had access to mobile internet, compared to 36 percent of men. Young adults’ access is even less: A recent news report stated only 12.5 percent of students had access to smart-phones. Furthermore, most teachers are ill-equipped for online teaching.  The facts lie before us and the questions associated with them are plain and simple, yet loud and clear: What is the purpose of implementing a system of education which calls for utilisation of hyper-digitised and sophisticated modes of communication, when in the first place the masses are not equipped with the capital (social, cultural or economic) to engage with it? What were the State’s mechanisms to ensure a certain degree of ease in this transformation? Would a migrant labour class family (the most vehemently effected social category in the time of COVID-19), driven out of their work places, prioritise education over the more pressing issues like survival, access to food, water and a safe passage home? How would they gear up for this transition? Do government schools of all rungs have the required infrastructure to execute this digitalisation? The implicit support of the State, in simply ‘letting’ these developments take place and simultaneously assuming the role of a mute spectator, reeks of a premeditated conspiracy at the behest of a capitalist, fascist forces.

The result of this forced transformation to e-learning has been near disastrous. According to recent findings in an five-state interview by Oxfam India, more than 80% of parents with children studying in government schools reported that education was ‘not delivered’ during the lockdown. In Bihar, 100% of the parents interviewed voiced this view. Only 15% of India’s rural households have access to internet and these numbers are fewer among marginalised groups social groups such as Dalits, Adivasis and Muslims, as per government data.

TRANSITION TO E-LEARNING

Furthermore, there is the issue of ‘apathy’. Apathy of state towards the differing cultures that students of an average Indian school belong to, adding to the circus that e-schooling has become. The practise of e-learning makes a blanket assumption regarding the culture of families students belong to and the nature social-economic resources they have access to.  The assumption that students will be ‘able’ to ensure a successful transition to e-schooling, from the ‘safety’ of their homes is pre-mature and ignorant. Upper middle households might be able to secure separate systems (laptops, smartphones) for their wards, whether that translates into effective learning and socialisation is another debate altogether! However, it is the working class families, blue collared labour (majority of which belong to marginal groups, socially and economically backwards castes) that are caught in doldrums. There are two possibilities here: If such a family has one smartphone within themselves, they will have to ensure a careful division of the single screen amongst four to five family members. In another possibility (which is equally common place), they may not have access to a smart phone or laptop or internet to begin with. The chain of access gets nipped in the bud. These students struggle to network with teachers and other students, gradually falling off the grid. In cases where they do secure access, comes the issue of ‘space’. An average working class family lives in a 10 by 10ft tenement (in locations like Mumbai suburbs). Where is the scope for separation of space so as to engage in the act of learning? One of the biggest and most underrated consequences of ‘school’ as a separate entity from family (and home) has been the luxury it provides in terms of movement into a separate social, physical, cultural and psycho-social space. A space which is more suited for academic learning, socialisation, interactions etc. I call it a luxury, particularly from the point of view of children who belong to working class families and attend municipal schools or aided private schools. Since, their time outside of school is mired with the burdens and responsibilities like taking care of younger sibling, adding to family income, domestic violence, parental abuse etc. in such a situation one could probably just aspire to continue their education, but would they be capable of operationalising this aspiration in lieu of the mentioned handicaps?

Truth be told, the major casualty in the times of COVID-19 should be measured less in terms of lives lost and more in terms of the death of hopes and aspirations of the millions of school going children. For, it takes generations to get families to send their children to school and then to ensure that their children somehow gain the courage to dream and to aspire to ‘achieve’. In my opinion the insidious silence of the government with respect to school education, regarding the supposed backlog caused due to COVID-19 and their mechanisms to tackle the same are disturbing. The act of online-schooling can at best be treated as a temporary substitute and a viable vision for the future but not a permanent change in current times.

The tradition of incriminating of Muslims in India goes back decades

Sananda Dasgupta

“The National Investigation Agency (NIA) said on Saturday that it has busted an al Qaeda module and arrested nine people who were allegedly planning to carry out major terror strikes in India at the direction of their Pakistan-based handler.”

The news hit headlines of all major dailies in India last week. Six of these suspects were apprehended from the district of Murshidabad in West Bengal and three others were arrested from Ernakulam, Kerala. The latter three are also from Murshidabad, the district with the highest Muslim population (4.7 million in 2011) in the country and went to Kerala to work as laborers. Further reports revealed some of the arrestees were students, others worked as migrant labor, contractual worker, and tailor. Ananda Bazar Patrika, the leading Bengali daily reports the articles that were seized from the suspected Al Qaeda terrorists include fire-crackers, two sockets, metal plates for making bombs, one country-made firearm, and one locally made body armor. The seizure list published on Ananda Bazar Patrika says that the seized articles from some of them only included their android phones, sim cards, and identity cards.

For the time being let us ignore the absurdity of the claim that these people were planning to launch multiple explosions in the National capital with firecrackers and country-made pistol or they were planning to go to Sri Nagar that is under siege for more than a year, to collect arms.

This is not the first time when NIA or some similar agency arrested Muslim youths and declared them to be the deadliest terrorists. If we look at the past, we can see a number of young Muslim men had been arrested, spent decades in prison only to be acquitted by the court. Many are still struggling without any access to a fair justice system and wasting their youthful days behind the bars.

Some stories from the past

Nisar-ud-din Ahmad was arrested by the Hyderabad police in 1994 for his alleged involvement in the previous year’s serial bomb blast in Mumbai. At the time of the arrest, he was a student at a Pharmacy college in Karnataka. When he was acquitted by the Supreme Court of India, he was 43. Ahmad spent 23 years in prison before the highest court overturned his conviction. Ahmad’s elder brother Zahir-ud-din Ahmad was also arrested and implicated in the same case and spent 14 years in jail before he got lung cancer and the court granted him bail.

Around the same time in 1994, police in Bhusawal in Maharashtra, arrested nine Muslim men for their alleged involvement in planning an attack to avenge the Babri Masjid demolition. The police claimed they had received a tip-off that Jamil Ahmad Khan, a member of the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) along with eight others received training in the nearby forest to bomb government offices and attack Hindus.

This “tip-off” ruined the lives of 11 young men and snatched away the best years from their lives. Along with Jamil Ahmad Khan, eight others were arrested in Bhusawal and three more were arrested in Mumbai, one of them turned approved. All of them were charged under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act. Major Indian news outlets carried the headlines how the highly educated Muslim youths were being radicalized, as among the arrestees there were a Ph.D. holder, three doctors, an engineer, and a six-time municipal councilor.

It took ages to file the charge-sheet and initiate the trial and finally, the case was taken up in 2018 on orders of Supreme Court. Within a year, all 11 of them were declared innocent by the court.

After their release in 2019, while talking to a reporter Maulana Abdul Qadir Habib said, “The early 90s were a difficult phase for the Muslim community in India. We were all socially conscious individuals who were raising their voices against the injustices of that time. I guess that is one reason why we were targeted. Imagine, I was attending a protest march against TADA in Mumbai with the late BSP chief Kanshi Ram and days later I was arrested under the Act”.

Mohammad Aamir Khan was 18 when he was arrested by the Delhi police in 1998. In his memoir Khan wrote, in 1997 he planned to go to Pakistan to visit his elder sister who was living with her husband in Karachi. After Khan received the travel documents, he was approached by someone who introduced himself as an Intelligence Officer and asked him to work as a spy for the country. Then he was and assigned to complete some works in Pakistan during his scheduled visit. Khan however got too nervous and couldn’t complete the task. A few days later he found himself in police custody charged in 19 cases, for crimes including murder, terrorism, and waging war against the nation. Police claimed Khan to be the mastermind of the 17 low-intensity bomb blasts that occurred in Delhi and neighboring states between December 1996 and December 1997. It took him 14 years to prove his innocence and finally he was acquitted by the court and was released in 2012.

Syed Maqbool Shah from Srinagar was arrested for his alleged involvement in a blast that took place in Delhi’s Lajpat Nagar in May 1996. Shah was only 15 at the time of his arrest. Shah was visiting his elder brother in Delhi while he was apprehended by the police and was declared as a JKLF operative. Khan was acquitted after 14 years as the police couldn’t provide any evidence to prove their claim.

Abdul Wahid Shaikh was working as a schoolteacher before he was framed as a terrorist and arrested by the Mumbai police in 2006. Mumbai police arrested 13 people including Shaikh for their alleged involvement in the local train bomb blast occurred in November that year. Police claimed Shaikh sheltered Pakistani terrorists who carried out the blasts. Shaikh was declared innocent by the court in 2015 while the other 12 were convicted. However, Shaikh claimed all 13 of them were framed but the rest couldn’t prove their innocence due to their circumstances.

Maulana Shabbir Gangawali Nadvi from Bhatkal Karnataka was arrested from a mosque in Pune in 2008 for possessing counterfeit currencies. Police claimed he has a connection with the terrorist organization Indian Mujahideen and later he was named as an accused in a blast case that took place in 2010 when he was already in prison. Nadvi was released from jail after more than 8 years as the court pronounced him innocent.

Ahmad, Khan, Shah, Shaikh are some of the very few who survived to tell their stories. Stories of brutal torture, hatred and injustice. There are thousands more who are rotting inside the prison cells just because they do not have the means to fight a fair legal battle.

The Hindu Nationalist Fascist force which is currently in power in India is notorious for their hatred towards the Muslim community, but we must remember BJP is not the only political force that nurtures Islamophobia. Muslims in this country have been incriminated for their religious identity for ages; no matter which political party is in power. Mainstream political parties across the spectrum have fostered the deep-seated anti-minority sentiment to achieve political milestones; the current government has just intensified to progress their agenda of establishing a Hindu nation.

Metropolitan Opera announces cancellation of entire 2020–2021 season

Fred Mazelis

The New York Metropolitan Opera’s announcement that it is cancelling its entire 2020–2021 season is the latest and most dramatic indication of the devastating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on live opera and concert performance.

The Met, with an annual budget of more than $300 million, is the largest performing arts organization of any kind in the United States. If it has seen the need for this drastic measure, it is very likely that other major venues and organizations will soon announce similar cutbacks or cancellations.

The Met’s move means that the opera house, located at New York’s Lincoln Center, will remain dark for at least another 12 months. The current house, with its 3,800 seats and widely praised acoustics, is only the second home of the opera company, which was founded in 1883.

With this historically unprecedented shutdown, the management of the Met is acknowledging that the vast majority of its audience will not return under present conditions. Even though coronavirus infection rates have remained relatively low in New York over the summer, they are still totaling about 500 new cases daily. In addition, colder weather is coming, and a renewed wave of illness and death is forecast. It is being fueled by the policy of “herd immunity” that the ruling elite and its political representatives have been pushing—even if not calling it by that name—as demonstrated above all by the drive to force teachers and students to resume in-school classes.

The mortal danger of the back-to-school drive is indirectly highlighted by the very different approach of the Met. The older audience at the Met is quite aware of the dangers, but the de Blasio city administration continues to demand that students return to their classes, exposing themselves, their teachers and their older relatives to the danger that Met audiences wisely resist.

The pandemic’s impact on the classical music world has been relentless. Less than a month ago, Columbia Artists Management, the international music talent agency which has managed the careers of such eminent past figures as Leontyne Price, Paul Robeson, Jussi Bjorling, Vladimir Horowitz, Van Cliburn and many others, as well as current performers like conductor Valery Gergiev and pianist Maurizio Pollini, announced that it was shutting down.

Carnegie Hall’s website still includes a reference to the coming season on its website, but it is considering its next steps, according to a report in the New York Times. The New York Philharmonic, also at Lincoln Center, continues to list an abbreviated season, beginning next January with a concert featuring Prokofiev’s Fifth Symphony, but the Philharmonic has said that it expects to announce its future plans sometime in the next two weeks.

In Europe, there have been some live performances, with “socially distanced” and therefore smaller audiences at such London locations as Wigmore and Cadogan Halls, the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic and the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra. The Berlin Festspiele included a series of eight extraordinary live performances of the full cycle of 32 Beethoven piano sonatas by pianist Igor Levit, which were also streamed online. Two of the most famous opera houses in the world, Milan’s La Scala and the Vienna State Opera, have also opened for socially distanced audiences.

The situation in Europe, however, is not expected to last, even with various precautions against the virus. New COVID-19 cases have been multiplying in Britain, Spain, Germany and elsewhere.

Meanwhile major opera companies and orchestras in the US and internationally are attempting to retain an audience online. The Met is about to begin week 29 of its consecutive nightly presentations of past recorded performances, most of them in HD format. The coming week will be devoted to Mozart operas, to be followed a week later by seven nights of Wagner.

In addition, the Met has begun pay-per-view online recitals. These have begun with sopranos Lise Davidsen and Renee Fleming and mezzo-soprano Joyce di Donato. Upcoming recitals will feature such stars as Jonas Kaufmann, Anna Netrebko, Joseph Calleja, Angel Blue and others. Carnegie Hall, meanwhile, is presenting a free “Digital Online Opening Night Gala” on October 7 with performers from popular, jazz and classical music, including Rhiannon Giddens, Gustavo Dudamel, Michael Feinstein, Wynton Marsalis and many others.

The online options are a boon for listeners, but they are no substitute for live performance. Just as important, the musicians, singers and staff have already gone six months without regular income. The Met has put 1,000 staff on unpaid furlough since March. The soloists, including those with a global reputation who are generally well-compensated, only get paid for performances and have also been without income, although some have continued to teach or have appeared online.

Broadway theaters and other large venues also remain closed and have no immediate plans to reopen. Museums, where social distancing is possible, have been the only exception to the ongoing shutdown involving culture and the performing arts. In New York City, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Whitney Museum of American Art, the Museum of Modern Art and other, smaller institutions have all opened their doors in the past month, requiring everyone to wear masks, and with timed admission to ensure social distancing inside.

It must be stressed that, even where museums are reopening, among artists, as among musicians and actors, there has been no revival. The Met Orchestra and the New York Philharmonic are the most well-known organizations, but in smaller cities everywhere the same shutdowns and lost income are the rule.

A recent report from Americans for the Arts, a non-profit advocacy group, details some of the devastation. Sixty-three percent of artists reported being fully unemployed. Not high-income to begin with, this layer of the working population reported an average of $22,000 in lost income during the pandemic thus far. Seventy-eight percent had no post-pandemic recovery plan. The top three needs of these unemployed are reported as unemployment insurance, food and housing assistance, and forgivable business loans.

Of some 24,000 responses to a survey, 96 percent of arts organizations had cancelled performances. Ninety percent had been forced to announce closings, only 15 percent had since reopened, and 48 percent had no target date for reopening. An estimate of the jobs no longer supported because of these cuts was 725,000.

And now management at the Met is preparing to present to the laid-off musicians and staff a deal that amounts to huge concessions on pay and benefits, in exchange for a still vague suggestion that it may begin paying some salary in the coming year. No details have been reported, but some other companies appear to have led the way with concessions agreements under the present crisis conditions. Unquestionably, managements in various fields look upon the pandemic as a godsend, an opportunity to tear up existing conditions and/or eliminate staff.

The Boston Symphony Orchestra and the San Francisco Opera have signed three-year giveback deals with their musicians: a 37 percent pay cut in the first year in Boston, and 50 percent in San Francisco. Pay will increase when audiences return, but that apparently is conditional.

Met general manager Peter Gelb is combining his attack on the Met musicians and staff with an appeal to supporters of identity politics. The Met announced its 2021-22 season a year in advance, highlighting, as part of a total of six new productions and including three contemporary operas, its opening night presentation of “Fire Shut Up in My Bones,” a new opera by Terrence Blanchard, based on the memoir by New York Times columnist Charles Blow. The opera, which was staged last year by the Opera Theatre of St. Louis, will be the first by a black composer at the Met.

The new opera may be well worth seeing, but not for the reasons put forward by the Met and its multimillionaire board of trustees. Gelb’s statement, with its typical corporate platitudes, declared, “We’re trying to send a signal that the Met wants to meet the times in which we live head on. Given all the calls for greater social justice and diversity, we think it’s appropriate, after being off for a year, to come back in a way that demonstrates the Met’s social responsibility.”

The unions representing Met musicians and choristers have responded to the concessions demands with pro forma objections. “Simply stating that labor costs must be cut is not a solution or plan for the future, especially in light of the fact that no labor costs have been paid by the Met over the last six months,” according to a statement issued by the committee representing the musicians, as reported on the ClassicFM website.

“Great artistic institutions cannot cut their way to success,” the orchestra continued. “This leadership approach only further jeopardizes the Met’s credibility and artistic integrity with our audiences. With the Met at risk of artistic failure, we will insist on a contract that preserves the world-class status of the Met Orchestra so that when we are able to reopen, our audiences will be able to experience performances at the level that they expect and deserve.”

The unions have no intention of fighting the concessions, however. That would require a political struggle, exposing the incompetence and callous indifference of the entire political establishment, including the Democrats. Instead, the union is appealing for the Met to find a way to “adapt” to the pandemic while engaging the orchestra in some way.

The responsibility for the devastation of cultural institutions and individual artists’ lives, and the resulting, objective damage being done to popular awareness and consciousness, lies entirely with the ruling class, whose blindness, greed for profit and indifference have created the present disastrous conditions. The conflict between the artist and “the various social forms which are hostile to him” (in the words of the “Manifesto for an Independent Revolutionary Art,” 1938) is assuming an unconcealed and universal character. The more thoughtful artists need to begin drawing conclusions about the capitalist system and the struggle against it.

Australian government boosts bank profits as social misery deepens

Mike Head

Bank share prices soared yesterday and money lenders and property developers celebrated after the Australian government announced it would wind back “responsible lending obligations” introduced after the global financial crisis (GFC) of 2008–09.

In a bid to satisfy the appetites of the financial elite in the midst of the most severe economic crash since the 1930s Great Depression, the changes would see a return to the predatory lending policies that fed into the GFC and led to the impoverishment of thousands of households, small businesses and family farmers.

The queue outside a Sydney unemployment office earlier this year [Credit: World Socialist Web Site]

The Australian Financial Review reported today: “The Morrison government’s pledge to roll back responsible lending regulations and red tape sparked a monster rally in bank shares on Friday as major institutions, fintech challengers and mortgage brokers united to welcome the landmark reforms.”

On this front, as with massive income tax cuts for the rich and workplace “reforms” to gut workers’ jobs, wages and conditions, the ruling class is seizing on the social misery created by the profit-driven official response to the COVID-19 pandemic to restructure economic and class relations even further in favour of the wealthy.

The proposals would allow the banks and other lenders to legally rely on the credit and income information supplied by mortgage and small business loan applicants, replacing the current rule of “lender beware” with a “borrower responsibility” principle.

In other words, those who face financial ruin as a result of being enticed or pressured into taking out loans that they then cannot repay, due to unemployment, wage cuts or small business failure, will have no recourse from the finance houses responsible for their plight.

This is under conditions where more than 1.5 million households are under mortgage stress, with rising mortgage arrears and defaults. Despite record low interest rates, more than 102,000 households are at risk of losing their homes in coming months.

That is because governments and banks are ending pandemic repayment moratoriums, at the same time as the government is slashing JobKeeper wage subsidies and expanded JobSeeker dole payments that have allowed at least five million households to barely survive the mass unemployment since March.

Data from Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) shows that by August, the mortgage stress rate had risen to 40.1 percent of borrowers, or 1.5 million households. DFA defines mortgage stress as when household cash flows are negative.

DFA, a company that tracks housing stress levels, also reported that rental stress was widespread, with over 41 percent of renters (1.7 million households) struggling to afford their rent. Young growing families and urban households were the most impacted, with 74 percent of young families under rental stress.

Moratoriums on rental evictions are also starting to end, state-by-state, from the end of this month, so large-scale evictions are likely, as in the 1930s.

The planned lending changes will overturn the very first recommendation of the 2017–19 federal banking and financial services royal commission, which was that the government should not amend the National Consumer Credit Protection Act’s obligation on corporate lenders to assess applicants’ capacity to repay loans.

The Liberal-National Coalition government only initiated the royal commission in November 2017 after years of outrage over the rampant profit-gouging by the banks and financial institutions. The resulting report was largely a whitewash that put none of the guilty on trial, and shored up the capitalist profit system itself. Nevertheless, among the practices exposed by the inquiry were:

• Lending to distressed small businesses and farmers and then driving them into bankruptcy and seizing their assets.

• Residential mortgages, personal loans and credit cards being extended to people who could not afford to realistically repay them without enduring severe hardship.

Well before the pandemic accelerated the social crisis, soaring housing prices and declining real wages had seen household debt-to-income levels double since the early 2000s to an unprecedented 200 percent, among the highest in the world.

True to its pro-big business program, the Labor Party opposition quickly signaled its readiness to back the lending legislation. Labor’s Treasury spokesman Jim Chalmers said his party would wait to see the bill before deciding on its support, while covering himself by saying Labor wanted to make sure “people don’t get in over their heads.”

As consumer groups explained, however, that is exactly what will happen. Financial Counselling Australia chief executive Fiona Guthrie said “removing responsible lending obligations will free banks up to aggressively push credit onto their customers.”

“As we learnt to our cost during the GFC, weaker lending standards mean people will be loaded up with as much debt as possible. There is significant profit to be made in pushing borrowers to the edge.”

The banks, represented by Australian Banking Association CEO Anna Bligh, a former Queensland state Labor premier, echoed the government’s propaganda, saying the changes would reduce the “burden of regulation,” “cut red tape” for consumers, make loan approval times faster, and assist lending to small businesses.

Yesterday’s editorial in the Murdoch media’s Australian newspaper was more blunt. It hailed the proposals, saying “responsible lending laws imposed during the global financial crisis will be jettisoned to inject an ‘adrenaline shot’ into the economy.”

In fact, the government’s announcement sent a wider signal of the ruling establishment’s intent to give the financial aristocracy further “adrenaline shots,” on top of the more than $400 billion in subsidies, tax concessions and cheap loans already made available to business since March.

Earlier in the week, Reserve Bank of Australia deputy governor Guy Debelle said the central bank was ready to cut its record low cash rate of 0.25 percent, and escalate its “quantitative easing” bond buying, in order to pump money into the financial markets.

Just a day before unveiling the lending measures, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg also announced “the most significant reforms to Australia’s insolvency framework in 30 years.”

These would “draw on key features from Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States” to allow businesses with liabilities of up to $1 million an extra 20 days to attempt to either restructure their debts or “wind down their operations in an orderly manner.”

Since March, businesses have been permitted to keep trading while insolvent but that provision will end on December 31, along with another cut in JobKeeper subsidies. This is likely to trigger waves of liquidations by small businesses and sole traders.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics this week shed further light on the Depression-levels of unemployment and underemployment that workers will continue to face. It revealed there were 843,900 people with a manufacturing job in August—the lowest on record since World War II and a 50,000 drop since the eruption of the coronavirus pandemic.

Manufacturing now accounts for just 6.7 percent of all jobs in the country. In 1984, as the Hawke Labor government began pro-market restructuring in partnership with the trade unions, almost 17 percent of people worked in manufacturing.

Only the retail, hospitality and professional services sectors have suffered larger falls in employment since the start of the pandemic, although these sectors have seen partial increases since May, mainly due to rising exploitation of part-time and casual workers.

In the looming October 6 federal budget, Frydenberg is expected to reveal a 2020–21 deficit of more than $200 billion, on top of an $85.3 billion deficit in 2019–20. This vast deficit—more than four times than that produced after the GFC—will be used by the corporate, media and political establishment to demand more austerity measures on top of the cuts to JobKeeper and JobSeeker, setting the stage for explosive working class struggles.

Canadian PM Trudeau provides political cover for criminal back-to-work drive

Roger Jordan

The Liberal government’s Sept. 23 Throne Speech and the “address to the nation” Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau delivered that evening were aimed, above all, at providing political cover for the capitalist ruling elite’s reckless back-to-work, back-to-school drive.

Behind cynical promises of “social justice” and “building back better,” the Trudeau government made clear no matter how many people are infected or die from COVID-19, its principal concern is ensuring that nothing impedes corporate Canada’s profit-making.

In his 15-minute address, Trudeau acknowledged Canada now finds itself in a “second wave” of the pandemic, with daily new infections averaging well over 1,000 per day for the past week and a half. “We’re on the brink of a fall that could be much worse than the spring,” Trudeau added, indicating that the ruling class expects the current death toll of 9,250 to rise dramatically.

The reality is that big business and the political establishment considers thousands more deaths to be the cost that must be paid to “revive the economy” and ensure that Canadian capitalism remains “competitive.”

The Throne Speech stated explicitly that any shutdowns to check the virus’ spread would be “short-term” and limited to the “local” level. In what amounted to an implicit threat to health care authorities not to be “overzealous” in fighting the pandemic, the government declared that “as members of the communities they protect,” local health officials “know the devastating economic impact a lockdown order can have.” Underscoring that the government is determined to restrict lockdowns to individual businesses or institutions where there are documented COVID-19 outbreaks, the speech pledged to “target additional financial support directly to businesses which have to temporarily shut down.”

That the policy of letting the virus rip is endorsed by all levels of government was illustrated by a CBC report published the same day on the “Fall Pandemic Preparedness Plan” drafted by Ontario’s hard-right Conservative government. The plan, which was leaked to the CBC, discussed three possible scenarios for the pandemic’s second wave: small, medium or large. But in all three cases it stipulated that any public health response should be limited to “targeted action” at the local level: “The return to an earlier stage of provincial reopening, or even regional approaches to tightening would be avoided in favour of organization-specific or localized change.” (Emphasis added)

In other words, even if the pandemic surges province-wide, infecting tens of thousands, no serious measures will be taken to protect working people and their families from the deadly disease, so as to ensure that the process of extracting profit from the labour of working people can continue unimpeded.

Well aware that a frank annunciation of this “herd immunity” policy would trigger mass opposition, the Trudeau government sought to conceal it behind its customary “progressive” rhetoric. The government, the Throne Speech declared, would ensure a “feminist, intersectional response to this pandemic and recovery,” and even consider taxing “extreme wealth inequality.”

Who do Trudeau and his speech writers think they are kidding? The Liberal government has claimed to be carrying out a “feminist foreign policy” over the past three years, during which time it has initiated a more than 70 percent increase in military spending, ensured that more women are recruited into the army to fight wars on behalf of Canadian imperialism, and stepped up Canada’s involvement in US-led military aggression around the world.

As for wealth inequality, the Liberals, supported by their trade union and New Democratic Party allies, organized an unprecedented transfer of public funds into the hands of big business and the banks at the beginning of the pandemic. In March, the Trudeau government, the Bank of Canada, and various other state agencies funnelled more than $650 billion into bailing out the financial oligarchy, while laid-off workers were placed on rations of just $2,000 per month under the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB). The unions, led by the Canadian Labour Congress, helped the ruling class perpetrate this massive public heist by both trumpeting the government’s meagre social assistance as an act of generosity and keeping silent about the vast funds being poured into bailing out the rich and super-rich.

As a result of this financial bonanza, Canada’s richest 20 billionaires have seen their combined wealth shoot up by $37 billion since the onset of the pandemic.

The Liberals now plan to transition the estimated 2.8 million workers still receiving the CERB to Employment Insurance and several new makeshift, time-limited assistance programs. This move, which the unions have praised to the skies, will subject workers to stepped-up pressure from the state to “actively seek” and return to work, even as the pandemic returns with a vengeance.

Several Liberal initiatives, lauded by the unions and a myriad of middle-class NGOs as “progressive victories,” are, as closer inspection demonstrates, in reality aimed at boosting the “competitive” position of Canadian capitalism. For example, the Throne Speech recycled a longstanding Liberal pledge to establish a national child care program. But this was presented not as an essential measure to alleviate the social crisis confronting families and offer children improved care in small groups with highly-trained and well-paid pedagogical experts, but as necessary to improve “women’s participation in the workforce.” In other words, working-class women will be encouraged to place their children in poorly-funded, overcrowded, privately-run government-subsidized child care facilities so that they can work for a pittance trying to make ends meet.

Even in the long-term care sector, where decades of austerity and privatization had such devastating consequences in the initial stage of the pandemic, resulting in the deaths of thousands of residents, the government proposed no fundamental changes. No additional funding was announced for the chronically underfunded publicly-run long-term care facilities, or any limits on the operations of private for-profit companies. All the government would commit to is drafting new “national standards” for long-term care in conjunction with the provinces. The only other measure promised in the speech was legislation providing for the criminal prosecution of those who “neglect seniors under their care.” Needless to say, this will not be applied retroactively to the politicians and corporate bosses who slashed funding for long-term health care and profiteered off housing seniors in barrack-style residences.

Along with emphasizing the government’s commitment to pressing forward with “reopening” the economy, the Throne Speech included a raft of policy commitments and measures tailored to the demands of big business.

These include promoting internal “free trade” by pressing for the removal of provincial regulatory barriers to the free movement of goods and services. This has been a longstanding demand of the most powerful sections of Canadian capital, who view such barriers as impediments to creating “globally competitive” Canadian companies and attracting more foreign investment.

The government also announced the extension of its corporate-designed wage subsidy program, which funds workers’ wages up to a maximum of $873 per week, until next summer.

The speech stressed that government would “preserve Canada’s fiscal advantage”—that is lower debt levels than its G-7 rivals—and remain committed to fiscal “sustainability and prudence.” The pursuit of these “austerity” principles” by Liberal, Conservative, New Democrat and Parti Quebecois federal and provincial governments alike has devastated public services. Indeed, among the 37 member-states of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Canada has one of the lowest rates of social spending as a percentage of GDP. The 17.3 percent of GDP allocated by Canada’s governments to social spending is lower than that of even the United States, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia

Many of the “economic recovery” initiatives promised in the Throne Speech were tied to the government’s plans, in the name of fighting climate change, to make Canada a leader in Green capitalism. The speech commits the government to creating 1 million jobs over the next year through building public infrastructure, subsidizing the retrofitting of energy efficient homes and businesses and promoting Green enterprises. “Global consumers and investors are demanding and awarding climate action,” noted the speech, and Canada cannot afford to pass up this “global market opportunity.” To this end, the government will establish a new fund to attract investment in the production of “zero” carbon emissions products, slash the corporate tax rate in half for “clean technology” businesses and “ensure Canada is the most competitive jurisdiction in the world for clean technology companies.”

A central role in crafting this strategy to promote Green capitalism is being played by the trade unions, which were intimately involved in consultations with the government in the lead-up to the speech. In a series of corporatist meetings with leading representatives of big business and the government since April, union leaders like Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) President Hassan Yussuff and Unifor’s Jerry Dias have been advocating for “national strategies” on everything from auto manufacturing to battery production.

At the same time, these meetings were used to orchestrate the back-to-work drive, which has led directly to the current sharp increase in COVID-19 infections. In recent weeks, the unions have systematically suppressed working class opposition to the drive to reopen schools, which the Trudeau government and the ruling elite as a whole view as essential, as it “frees” the parents of school-age children to return to work.

Predictably, the unions have celebrated the Throne Speech. “The government is making it clear that it is listening to the concerns of workers and their families by recognizing that investments are the only way to get us through this pandemic,” gushed the CLC’s Yussuff. “It’s time to roll up our sleeves. We’re going to have to keep working closely with the government to ensure that they get the details on these programs and initiatives right.”

Earlier this month, Yussuff publicly declared that the NDP has an “obligation” to continue propping up the minority Liberal government in Parliament.

NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, who publicly appealed for the Liberals to accept the NDP as junior partners in a coalition government both before and after last October’s federal election, signaled Thursday that a backroom deal to secure NDP support for the Throne Speech has all but been secured.

For their part, both the Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois were quick to announce they would vote “non-confidence” in the government. The former attacked the government for failing to announce a plan to reduce Canada’s budget deficit in the coming years and ignoring the crisis facing the Alberta-based oil industry. The BQ accused the Liberals of intruding into provincial affairs and denounced them for rejecting the call of Quebec’s pro-austerity CAQ government for increased federal health care transfers.

Western US wildfires point to worsening trends of global warming

Alexa Castro

The western United States remains ablaze, as wildfires continue to spread throughout the region, exacerbating the COVID-19 pandemic, the homelessness crisis and dire economic conditions as residents throughout the region remain displaced.

Since the beginning of 2020, California has seen approximately 3.6 million acres burn—a testament to the growing climate crisis. Currently, there are still 26 major wildfires wreaking havoc throughout California. Some 6,700 structures have been destroyed and 26 fatalities recorded since August 15, according to Cal Fire.

Meanwhile, the National Interagency Fire Center reports that Washington has seen over 600,000 acres burn and continues to face seven active wildfires. Oregon has seen the destruction of over one million acres since the start of 2020, and is currently battling nine active fires, according to the Oregon Department of Forestry.

The alarming prevalence of record-breaking wildfires in the past few years comes as no surprise, given its direct link to climate change. Warming temperatures have brought on arid conditions, making the dry vegetation a perfect catalyst for fires.

More specifically, in California, the Santa Ana winds bring dry air into Southern California and, according to a 2015 study conducted by IOP Science, spread fires three times faster not only due to the drying of vegetation, but because these winds assist in spreading embers, potentially sparking additional fires.

In fact, according to a 2019 study conducted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU), since the early 1970s, California has seen yearly wildfires increase fivefold, with a sharp increase in destruction especially during the 2017 and 2018 fires seasons. The study found the increase to be attributed to warming temperatures and drying fuels, directly connected to man-made climate change.

Furthermore, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) produced data that demonstrates how California’s average temperature taken during September has increased by roughly four degrees in the past 100 years. According to NOAA, the Northern Hemisphere had its warmest summer thus far, with August 2020 recorded as the second hottest August on record.

These conditions will only worsen in the coming years, due to the political establishment’s lack of effective solutions to address the crisis.

Additionally, not only have these wildfires shown a spotlight on the growing climate catastrophe, they have also brought an added layer of health concerns to those affected.

Wildfires have contributed to dangerously poor air quality in cities throughout Washington, Oregon and California. The onslaught of smoke created by the fires has exacerbated conditions throughout the western region, having an especially hazardous effect on older residents, children and those with preexisting conditions, such as asthma and heart disease.

The World Health Organization reports that roughly 7 million people die annually due to air pollution. Hazardous air quality has also been found to significantly decrease life expectancy to those affected.

This is because the particulate matter in smoke can deeply penetrate the lungs and enter the bloodstream. Moreover, not only do wildfires affect the respiratory health of individuals while active; they have been found to have long-term health effects, according to a recent study published by the journal Toxics .

The study analyzed a group of 95 adults in Seeley Lake, Montana who had lived through summer wildfires in 2017. The study concluded that even one and two years after the wildfires, the number of people with below-normal lung function was significantly higher.

The devastating fire season intersects with the COVID-19 pandemic, which is already responsible for over 200,000 deaths and more than 7 million cases in the United States. With tens of thousands becoming infected and many dying weekly, the virus has continued to rapidly spread thanks to the vastly irresponsible reopening of schools and workplaces enforced by Democratic and Republican state leaders.

Now, its vast spread can only be exacerbated as people continue to populate evacuation centers and shelters in significant numbers due to the destruction brought on by the wildfires in the west. Evacuees of the fires face the ultimate Catch-22: remain without shelter, or risk infection in crowded centers.

Also, as hospitals continue to be overwhelmed by the deluge of COVID-19 patients, the wildfires and their debilitating health effects have led to an increase in hospitalizations, adding stress to the medical infrastructure, and the need for necessary medical attention.

According to the Guardian, Northern California has seen a stark 12 percent increase in hospitalizations, with a 43 percent increase in cerebrovascular conditions, like strokes, which can be largely attributed to inflammation caused by air pollution.

In light of these conditions, rather than focusing on burning issues directly affecting the entire working class, such as the pandemic, climate change or the wildfires, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and Republican President Donald Trump have deliberately avoided all the basic issues confronting the vast majority of the population during the 2020 campaign.

For Trump’s part, it took weeks for him to even speak about the wildfires. When he finally did feign concern and flew to California on September 14 for a quick photo-op, he dismissed experts’ conclusion that climate change is a factor in the vast spread of wildfires throughout the region.

In fact, when pressed by Wade Crowfoot, head of California’s Natural Resources Agency, to acknowledge the link between climate change and the wildfires, Trump completely dismissed the notion, instead stating that climate will eventually get “cooler” and placing the majority of the blame on forest management.

These statements, however, should come as no shock to those familiar with Trump’s track record on climate change, or lack thereof.

Openly anti-science, Trump has publicly stated that he does not believe in climate science and its findings, despite the fact that his administration published the National Climate Assessment back in 2018. The report expressed the significance of climate change and gave a dire warning that “more frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-related events, as well as changes in average climate conditions, are expected to continue to damage infrastructure, ecosystems, and social systems that provide essential benefits to communities.”

After its release, Trump completely dismissed the report, instead expressing skepticism on the findings.

He stated, “One of the problems that a lot of people like myself, we have very high levels of intelligence but we’re not necessarily such believers. As to whether or not [climate change is] man-made and whether or not the effects ... are there, I don’t see it.”

For his part, Biden has deceitfully painted himself to be a champion of climate advocacy, trying to differentiate himself from Trump by calling the president a “climate arsonist” and promising constituents that he will prioritize confronting climate change and its effects if elected to office.

When speaking to supporters in Delaware recently, Biden stated, “We need a president who respects science [and] who understands that the damage from climate change is already here. Unless we take urgent action, it’ll soon be more catastrophic.”

And what are Biden’s proposed revolutionary solutions to the climate catastrophe? A $2 trillion climate plan over four years that promises to drastically cut fossil fuel emissions and increase the use of clean energy.

Biden’s campaign website alone is full of idealistic platitudes, promising to “stand up to the abuse of power by polluters who disproportionately harm communities of color and low-income communities” and to “build a strong, more resilient nation.”

Biden has also been an open supporter of the supposedly “progressive” Green New Deal, with his website citing it as a “crucial framework” to take on the climate crisis. In reality though, the Green New Deal is a nonbinding resolution that makes those who endorse it come across as an advocate for green energy but relieving them of the burden to actually pursue any tangible solutions to combat the problem.

Biden’s outspoken advocacy for combating climate change is a calculated, strategic effort to attract and capture working-class youth, a key demographic whose support he is struggling to gain. In reality though, his platform seeks to draw constituents in and buy into his false promises, while trying to cover up his record in supporting big business and Wall Street.

What is most preposterous about both candidates is that whatever specific strategy they support, their full commitment to nationalism and the capitalist system will inevitably fail to address an international issue such as climate change. Only the working class, united under a genuine socialist program, can pave the way to a viable future on the basis of a scientific plan that seeks to organize and utilize all human and natural resources for a healthy society.

White House nears antitrust lawsuit against Google while advancing new censorship rules for social media

Kevin Reed

The US Justice Department (DoJ) is expected to file an antitrust lawsuit within days against the internet search monopoly Google that would be “a landmark case against the tech giant,” according to the New York Times.

The Times report on Monday said that, according to four people familiar with the DoJ plans who did not want to be identified, the case would focus on “whether the company used its dominant search position to block rivals and harm consumers.”

The emphasis on Google’s control of online search, the Times said, indicates that DoJ’s investigation into the company’s practices in the “ad tech market” are not “fully developed” and will not be included in the lawsuit. Actually, it is impossible to separate Google’s domination of the search market from its advertising business. It is the nine out of every 10 online searches that make its advertising solutions so attractive.

Google is by far the most dominant internet and World Wide Web search engine. According to a 2020 report by Oberlo, approximately 92 percent of online search traffic goes through Google and the remaining 8 percent is divided among other very small providers: Bing (2.55 percent), Yahoo (1.66 percent), Baidu (1.44 percent) and Yandex (0.52 percent). This is the textbook definition of monopolistic domination.

The Washington Post also reported on Monday that the DoJ is briefing Republican state attorneys general this week about plans to file the antitrust lawsuit against Google. The Post report said, “The timeline puts federal competition watchdogs on track to file a case against Google potentially next week, capping off a wide-ranging inquiry into the tech giant and the extent to which its sprawling corporate footprint harms rivals and consumers.”

Attorney General William Barr listens as President Trump speaks at a meeting with Republican state attorneys general about social media companies, in the White House, September 23, 2020 [Credit: AP Photo/Evan Vucci]

As reported by the World Socialist Web Site previously, Attorney General William Barr has considered the case against Google as a “top priority.” In an interview with the Wall Street Journal last May, Barr stated his intention to bring the case “to fruition” by early summer.

However, any antitrust action against Google by the US government, whether it is focused on the search or advertising aspects of the tech firm’s business, has nothing to do with stopping anticompetitive practices or protecting the rights of consumers.

The report that the DoJ began briefing state attorneys general on Wednesday has heightened expectations of an imminent announcement of a lawsuit against Google. According to the Post, the need to meet with the AGs arose when states “embarked on their own bipartisan probe last summer” and threatened to derail Trump and Barr’s campaign against Google.

While there is unanimity between the Trump administration and the state AGs about the need for legal action against Google, the Post report says, “It remains unclear which states may ultimately join the Justice Department in any lawsuit it files in the coming days, or whether they could file their own additional complaints. Some Democratic attorneys general also have signaled they may want to wait until after the 2020 presidential election before deciding their next steps.”

There no question but that the DoJ pressure to proceed with the antitrust case against Google is driven by the election calendar. This has been borne out by reports that career lawyers at the DoJ have expressed concerns about the “fast-track timeline” of the case. As the Post report says, “The timeline illustrates the extent to which Barr has sought to mount one of the most high-profile assaults against big tech by the Trump administration.”

The rush to move forward with the antitrust case against Google is also being followed up by a White House offensive against the dominant social media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. On Wednesday, speaking in the White House Cabinet Room, Trump said that “a small group of powerful technology platforms” have “tightened their grip over commerce and communications in America.”

Speaking alongside Attorney General Barr on Wednesday, Trump claimed that the tech giants have been, “at the urging of the radical left,” limiting the reach of conservative users, including himself. Jumbling phony antitrust concerns with unsubstantiated claims of online favoritism to the “radical left,” Trump said, “They’ve used this power to engage in unscrupulous business practices while simultaneously waging war on free enterprise and free expression.”

AG Barr then said that the Justice Department had sent to Congress “proposed legislation to reform Section 230” of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, and “that legislation addresses concerns about online censorship by requiring greater transparency and accountability when platforms remove lawful speech.”

Section 230 protects online services from prosecution for illegal exchanges and posts by users on their platforms. The “reforms” proposed by the DoJ would remove such protections from online services such as social media platforms that are determined “publishers” by the White House because they censored content deemed “legal” by the President.

Barr also said that the federal government does not “prevent the states from using their own state laws against platforms that are engaged in defrauding or misleading users.”

The new round of attacks on Google and the social media platforms by the White House—far from fighting anti-competitive practices or defending freedom of speech and stopping online censorship—is connected to the ongoing conflict within the ruling establishment that erupted in the aftermath of the election of Donald Trump in 2016 in the form of purported but never proven “Russian interference.”

While the Democrats and sections of the intelligence community are seeking to implement Internet censorship by working directly with the tech giants and social media monopolies—as in the case of Facebook’s plans for “exceptional measures” during the 2020 elections—the Trump administration is using the courts and the Republican Party majority in the Senate to ensure that its extreme right-wing and fascistic agenda is maintained online.

In this regard, the imminent antitrust lawsuit against Google and the changes to the Section 230 legal protections must be seen within the context of the preparations by Donald Trump to ignore the results of the 2020 elections, overthrow the US Constitution and impose a Presidential dictatorship in the US.

Regardless of the differences between them, the Democrats and Republicans and the intelligence community all agree that the flow of online information and the use of social media platforms by masses of people must not be allowed to develop outside of the capitalist two-party system and toward revolutionary socialist politics. It is for this reason that the entire capitalist establishment is unified in its effort to censor the World Socialist Web Site.

Pennsylvania nursing students demand refunds, financial support due to COVID policies

Alex Johnson

A collective of nursing students at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing (SON) have published an open letter expressing opposition to the failure of university administrators to provide adequate financial support to dozens of struggling students and sufficient clinical training for confronting the coronavirus pandemic.

As of early this month, the letter had been signed by 125 nursing students and is a damning exposure of the willful neglect and callous disregard on the part of university officials toward students and young health care workers in waging its reckless school reopening drive.

The letter was released August 24 and published on a WordPress page to express the outrage growing among students in the SON toward UPenn’s COVID-19 policies. In particular, it points to the refusal to grant students refunds for the enormous drop-off in education quality due to the transition to remote learning.

While Penn Nursing has been named one of the premier nursing schools in the world, the letter’s authors say that their repeated efforts to demand adequate support and transparency, quality education, reduced costs and licensing accommodations have been met with indifference and even hostility from university administrators.

UPenn nursing students are advancing a number of demands of the university to meet its commitment to students, including the following:

• an itemized bill for summer and fall 2020 delineating the costs of clinical experiences and the general fee;

• a retroactive refund for all clinical-related costs for summer 2020 and a retroactive 10 percent reduction of the summer 2020 general fee commensurate with the reduction students received for fall 2020;

• the formation of a nursing student working group to meet biweekly with SON administrators to discuss the impact of COVID-19 on students’ education and ways in which the school can provide more adequate financial and academic support.

Since the shutdown of the UPenn campus on March 17, nursing students in the latter half of the spring and entirety of the summer semesters were largely cut off from accessing vital resources and instruction. Students are claiming that even standard and basic training for nursing experiences, such as in-person simulation lab and clinical training, have not been adequately delivered to the vast majority of nursing students in the program.

Nursing students across UPenn SON programs first began voicing their anger in mid-April to the nursing school dean and dean for academic programs, as well as other Penn administration officials. Their concerns highlighted the significant drop-off of education quality following the campus-wide shutdown and the refusal of the university to alleviate the financial burdens being placed on students.

On August 11 the university announced a paltry 10 percent fee reduction to the school’s $2,677 per semester general fee and other minor cost changes meant to “address the financial challenges” of students. This also included a cancellation of a tuition hike that was planned for the 2020-2021 school year.

The nursing students’ letter notes that this meager support barely equals the loss of resources due to the impact of the pandemic. The authors state that the UPenn administration “claims it is supporting students by offering a fee refund of less than $300 and canceling a tuition increase that never should have been implemented in the first place.”

On April 17, SON Dean Antonia Villarruel sent an email to students promising that education during the pandemic would be “no different” in character or quality. In fact, the transition to remote learning has been marked by decline in quality and poorly implemented coursework. Many students have pointed to the inadequacy of the online program “iHuman,” which was adopted for students to complete clinical trials and physical assessments virtually. Villarruel claimed that the initiative had been “thoroughly vetted” and has an “evidence-base affirming the outcomes and values” of the program.

The student letter notes, however, that the computerized nature of the application did not have any real value and does not sufficiently teach students to prepare for and apply physical assessment skills in an actual health care setting. In addition, students are forced to replace conversation and interaction with patients with artificial dropdown menu sentences which fail to reflect actual nurse-to-patient interactions.

During the summer semester, the so-called “clinical experience” students received consisted of only 30 hours of a variety of videos and podcasts that are available in the public domain for free. The new online format also did little to nothing to address the needs of students with disabilities.

In spite of all these glaring problems, the administration maintained that reduction of tuition and fees for the spring, summer and fall semesters was “off the table.” When asked in a meeting on May 7 whether the administration would consider the ways in which nursing students have struggled, Dean Villarruel refused to even address the question.

Administration officials also failed to fulfill their promises of creating work-study position referrals or other employment programs, which weren’t put in place until Aug. 10, four months after the start of the pandemic, despite the massive loss of income following the campus closure.

As far as financial assistance, the university directed students to an emergency funding webpage source called “Emergency and Opportunity Funding.” While the webpage claims students may receive a one-time grant of up to $1,000, actual funding is of a highly limited and restrictive character and cannot be used to pay for living expenses such as rent or utilities, expenses during the summer semester or to cover university tuition and fees.

SON students claimed in the letter that “this funding is inadequate and not meant to address the needs we have repeatedly outlined.” Emphasizing the deplorable economic conditions students face, the letter notes, “many of us rely on Medicaid and EBT (food stamps). EBT qualification depends on proof of work-study, so cutting off work-study opportunities has serious implications for students.”

In response to this, the university has since referred students to the Office of Financial Aid, which has encouraged students to take out more student loans, something that will certainly exacerbate already astronomical debt. Dean Villarruel responded to a question about COVID relief funding at a public meeting on August 3 with the insulting suggestion that students share the contact information of their “rich aunts or uncles” so the school could request funding from them. The dean also said students should make fruitless attempts to contact their congresspeople to enact legislation providing financial relief.

UPenn is one of many institutions of higher learning that have witnessed student opposition to exorbitant tuition and fee costs despite the inaccessibility of student services during the pandemic. In April, students at two colleges, Drexel University and the University of Miami, filed class-action lawsuits in South Carolina federal court against their schools in the hopes of receiving some form of reimbursements.

All over the country, anger is brewing over the high cost of undergraduate and graduate instruction on college campuses amidst the swift turn to online remote learning. At Rutgers University in New Jersey, more than 30,000 students have signed a petition started in July calling for an elimination of unnecessary fees associated with on-campus activity and a 20 percent tuition cut. In the University of North Carolina system, more than 40,000 have signed a demand for a refund of housing charges to students in the event of another COVID-19-related shutdown, which occurred in March after the virus forced the closure of campuses.

Universities have responded to the economic fallout due to the pandemic with savage austerity measures to offset shrinking revenues. At Chapman University in Southern California, President Daniele Struppa has described “brutal” spending cuts that have included a hiring freeze, slashing expenses and ending the retirement match for new employees.

At Temple University, the founder of the campus relief agency Hope Center for College, Community and Justice told the New York Times that the organization has been “bombarded” with pleas for help from students who can’t cover their rent and are unable to apply for food stamp benefits.