taz.de
Trump's Policies Create Hostile Climate for International Students in US
The Trump administration's policies are creating a hostile climate for international students and researchers in the US, impacting universities' funding, and potentially shifting global academic prominence towards other countries.
- What are the immediate consequences of the US government's actions on international students and researchers?
- Freunde von mir haben schon LinkedIn- und Instagram-Posts gelöscht, in denen sie sich scheinbar Trump-kritisch geäußert haben", says Felix Fellner, an international student at Harvard Kennedy School. His friend's phone was checked at US entry, with Whatsapp opened and searched for "Trump." Many international students feel a hostile climate from administrative sides, leading some to return home after graduation.
- What are the long-term implications of these policies for international scientific collaboration and the global competitiveness of US universities?
- The US government's policies are deterring international students and researchers. A visa freeze and entry bans affect numerous individuals, including those from Germany. While the DAAD encourages continued participation, the US's appeal as a research destination is waning, potentially benefiting countries like Germany which are experiencing increased inquiries about academic opportunities.
- How does the conflict between Trump's administration and universities like Harvard and Columbia illustrate broader concerns about academic freedom and political influence?
- Trump's administration is implementing significant cuts in the education sector, including job cuts and funding reductions. This impacts universities and students, exemplified by the conflict between Trump and Harvard, where the government attempted to ban foreign students. Columbia University, unlike Harvard, complied with Trump's demands, resulting in a major infringement on academic freedom.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing consistently portrays Trump's policies as negative and detrimental to the academic community. The headline, while not explicitly stated in the provided text, would likely emphasize the negative impact on international students and researchers. The use of words like "massive Kürzungen" (massive cuts), "feindselig" (hostile), and "Repression" reinforces this negative framing. The article prioritizes the concerns of international students and faculty, emphasizing their anxieties and the potential brain drain, thereby implicitly supporting their perspective. This might unintentionally minimize the potential justifications or aims behind the policies.
Language Bias
The article employs loaded language to describe Trump's actions, using terms such as "massive cuts," "hostile climate," "Repression," and describing the policies as a "Feldzug" (campaign) and a "Krieg" (war). These words carry strong negative connotations and frame Trump's actions in a highly critical light. More neutral alternatives could include phrases like "significant budget reductions," "uncertain climate," "stricter regulations," "policy changes," and "controversial actions." The repeated use of the term "Trump" without any direct quotes from him further shapes the reader's perception.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the experiences of international students and professors, particularly those from Germany. While it mentions the impact on US citizens, it doesn't delve into the specifics of how these policies affect different demographic groups within the US. The economic impact on US universities beyond tuition revenue is also not explored. Furthermore, alternative perspectives from the Trump administration or those who support the policies are absent, limiting a full understanding of the motivations and justifications behind the changes.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic dichotomy between Trump's administration and the academic community. While it acknowledges some criticism of the policies, it doesn't fully explore the nuances of opinions within the academic community itself or the potential for differing interpretations of the policies' effects. The framing suggests a clear conflict with little room for middle ground or alternative perspectives on the value of the policies themselves.
Gender Bias
The article uses gender-neutral language ("Wissenschaftler:innen") throughout, demonstrating an awareness of gender inclusivity. However, it does focus heavily on the experiences of male students and professors (Felix Fellner, Todd Wolfson), while female voices (Patricia Stokes) are less prominent. There's an opportunity to balance the perspectives more equitably, offering similar detailed accounts of how the policies affect women in academia.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights Trump's policies that negatively impact higher education in the US, including funding cuts, restrictions on international students, and threats to academic freedom. These actions directly hinder the provision of quality education and access to it for both domestic and international students. The disruption of research funding also impacts the quality of education.