nos.nl
Indonesian Students Sue Dutch University for Exploitation
Fifteen Indonesian nursing students are suing Avans+ University in Breda, Netherlands, for misrepresentation and exploitation within a work-study program, demanding €7750 in unpaid relocation costs; Avans+ ended the program in November 2023.
- What are the immediate consequences of this lawsuit for Avans+ University and the Indonesian students involved?
- Fifteen Indonesian nursing students are suing Avans+ University of Applied Sciences in Breda, Netherlands, for alleged deception, negligence, abuse of power, and economic exploitation. The students, who came to the Netherlands in 2021 through a program with Avans+ and Your Medical Matchmaker, were promised a €7750 relocation allowance, which they never received. Avans+ claims this was due to tax regulations.
- What systemic issues within the Dutch educational system and immigration policies contributed to this situation?
- The lawsuit highlights issues within international student recruitment programs. Students worked far beyond their visa allowance (16 hours/week) and were unpaid for some work. The university's program was ultimately discontinued due to these issues, underscoring the need for better oversight and protection for international students.
- What long-term impacts might this case have on international student recruitment practices in the Netherlands and the protection of student rights?
- This case could set a precedent for future legal action against educational institutions exploiting international students. It also underscores systemic weaknesses in the Dutch system for managing international student recruitment and work visas, especially considering that over 200 students participated in the program before its closure. The potential for future similar lawsuits requires systemic reform.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and opening paragraphs emphasize the students' allegations of "misleiding, nalatigheid, machtsmisbruik en economische uitbuiting." This framing immediately positions the reader to sympathize with the students' plight. While Avans+'s response is included, it's presented later and is less prominent. The sequencing of information favors the students' narrative.
Language Bias
The article uses strong words like "misleiding" (deception), "nalatigheid" (negligence), "machtsmisbruik" (abuse of power), and "economische uitbuiting" (economic exploitation) to describe the students' claims. While accurately reflecting the students' accusations, these terms are emotionally charged and could influence the reader's perception. More neutral language could be used to ensure objectivity, for example, describing the students' claims as "allegations of deception," etc. The repeated use of the phrase "verplicht" (obligatory) regarding work and internships also adds to the negative perception of Avans+'s actions.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the students' perspective and their complaints against Avans+ and Yomema. While Avans+ provides a response, it lacks perspectives from Yomema representatives or other stakeholders involved in the program. The article also omits details about the specific nature of the "misunderstandings" in the initial phase of the project, which were mentioned by Avans+. This omission limits a comprehensive understanding of the situation.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplified view of the conflict, primarily framing it as students versus the institution. The complexities of international student programs, differing legal interpretations, and the challenges faced by all parties are not fully explored. This might lead readers to a simplistic "good guys vs. bad guys" interpretation.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the exploitation of Indonesian nursing students in the Netherlands. Students were promised a monthly stipend and relocation costs but did not receive the full amount. They were also forced to work excessive hours, violating their visa conditions and labor laws. This directly impacts SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) by showcasing unfair labor practices, low wages, and the violation of workers' rights. The case demonstrates a failure to ensure decent work conditions and economic opportunities for migrant workers, hindering progress towards SDG 8.