Written evidence from UsforThem (CIL1477)
Submitted by Mrs Arabella Hastie, Member (organising committee submissions), UsforThem
UsforThem is a lobby group of parents and others who believe that children's interests should be put first in any decision impacting them. Children and young people have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic response. This paper addressed the questions asked of the impact of lockdown on university students, have interferences with students' right to liberty and right to private and family life been proportionate and have the fixed penalty notices issued to students been proportionate? This paper has been compiled by UsforThemUniveristy members.
- Liberty and right to private and family life:
Strict rules were imposed on students across campuses where they could go, who they could mix with and what they could do. At the beginning of the term, when students should have been getting to know each other, they were simply not allowed to mix. 80% said that this made it hard for them to make friends. [1]Some universities did not even allow them to sit at a table with five other students to eat their meals. Instead, they were forced to eat alone at a single desk 2 metres away from each other or take their meal to their room. This was not proportionate to the risk to young people.
Any groups were broken up, and students seemed to resort to organising themselves into a 'group of six' and sticking with the group, thereby really limiting themselves in those early weeks. Given most students were completely online, and there were no clubs/societies, students will not have been able to make friends easily. For young people away from home for the first time, this was isolating. With the continued lockdown and the fact that campuses are now 'closed' to most students, this is not going to improve. Many 1st year students left campus at the beginning of the November lockdown and have not been back since. They will not return before February at the earliest. Students in Durham have been told not to return until after the Easter Break (end of April). Students' liberty was curtailed to the point that there was a 'travel window' when they could return home for Christmas. Students are now not 'allowed' to return to their campuses unless they are doing a small number of courses e.g. Medicine, Healthcare and Vet Medicine. They are still libel for their accommodation and tuition fees despite not being on campus and not getting the educational facilities they were expecting.
Restrictions included:
- Inability to move and socialise within a single accommodation block
- Inability to meet with peers to facilitate course work or study
- Security guards and wardens on patrol around campuses. This was more extreme than the general public.
- Requests to remain on campus and not visit local town
- Requests to stay on campus and not return to families
- Requests to stay with families and not return to University
- Access to libraries was limited or shut (this should be an essential place of work)
These movement restrictions were stricter than those for the general public who are allowed movement for work purposes even in full lockdown. Students have been fearful of leaving homes and campuses for fear of fines and retributions, whilst members of the public have been free to visit shops, supermarkets and other community spaces.
- Impact on Mental Health
Students were actively discouraged from returning home for some respite or support. Typically, this option is available to students who go to University and away from home for the first time. Taking this option away from them was reckless of their mental health and risked significant ramifications for dropouts, depression and at the most extreme suicide. Others were afraid to go home, especially if they had elderly or vulnerable parents/grandparents/family living in the home. They had to stay at University and endure the rules, regulations and isolation, which many found difficult. It is to be expected that drop out are higher than average, but the data is not available yet.
Mind UK research found that 73% of University students said their health had declined during the lockdown.[2] Those ages 18-25 reported worse mental health decline during lockdown than all other age groups.
Given the vulnerabilities of this age group, we find that the rules and restrictions applied have been disproportionately harsh with the likelihood of long-term negative consequences. There were 11 suicides on campuses last term[3] - Michael Kitson directly attributes his son’s suicide to the impact of these restrictions.
At UsforThemUniversity we heard the following examples of the strain students were under:
“SD is back home now and starting anti-depressants tomorrow. He’s been struggling with lack of meaningful friendships at Uni. He’s considering dropping out now.”
“I live alone in a small studio flat. The covid restrictions have left me unable to reach out to others and engage with university life. I have not met any other students on my course. My only face to face contact with teaching staff is for 1hr every 2 weeks. I feel trapped and isolated and my stress levels are through the roof. I feel unable to continue with my course as it would have a detrimental effect on my mental health. “
University students have received limited in-person teaching Their restricted bubbles was smaller, limited often to a flat or house of 5-6, and university students have had no access to extra-curricular clubs and societies and limited or no sports and exercise facilities.
Students have had more restrictions than society as a whole and less education than schools.
- Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN) and Policing:
Students were penalised by police and also by their universities.
Many campuses were policed more heavily than the general public. This included police dogs being deployed, police issued fines regularly and even insisted on entering student homes to 'check' how many people there were. Reports of this were widely shared on the media from Newcastle, Leeds and Manchester, Nottingham.[5]
According to the Guardian (FOI requests), students were fined £170,000 in the first few weeks of term alone.[6] These came from the Universities themselves and do not include police fines which were regularly issued ranging between £60-£200. It was reported that Nottinghamshire police fined four students £10,000 each for holding a party. Universities also give 'strikes' for breaching Covid restrictions which have implications for their futures at that University.
It is not fair or reasonable to issue £200 fines to students, who have no income. We feel that students have been unfairly targeted compared to the general public.
Despite some media reports showing the isolated student protests, many Universities have indicated that in general students have behaved extremely well and observed campus rules. Therefore, it is unreasonable for them to have been restricted in terms of their education and movement and fined more than the general public considering their reasonable behaviour and observation of rules overall. The reactions in terms of restrictions imposed and fines have been unduly harsh.
Some of the examples UsforThem heard included:
"I walked into the common room where other students were present and was warned if I did it again, I would be expelled from my course. I had only arrived and this really worried me."
Emily, 20, a first-year student at St Andrews University, received two £60 fines from the University and two strikes on her non-academic register, meaning she can no longer do things such as apply for a year abroad.
Oxford Brookes imposed the highest number of Covid-related fines – 326, totalling £18,950
- Students followed restrictions better than the general public
Students were treated more harshly than the general public, but according to the ONS[7] students were more compliant than the general public. They avoided guests and avoided going out.
Conclusion
Students were not offered a full educational experience but were expected to pay for it. Students suffered harsher restrictions and penalties than the rest of the population. Students were left in an isolated situation which detrimentally impacted their mental health. The restrictions were not in proportion to the risk to themselves or their interaction with vulnerable people.
11/01/2021