Phone snatchers often use e-bikes or mopeds to make off at speed
The Metropolitan Police’s newly appointed lead on phone theft says its work in tackling the crime has not been “good enough”.
Just over 1% of phone thefts in London result in a charge or conviction, according to the force’s data, compared with 11% for robberies.
London Assembly member Neil Garratt urged more to be done to tackle the issue of phone theft, which he compared to an “epidemic” in the city.
Appointed two months ago to focus on phone theft at the Met, Cdr Andy Featherstone said the force’s revised strategy, which involves targeting organised crime, was making a difference.
Cdr Andy Featherstone said involvement of the serious crime directorate signalled how “seriously” phone theft was now being taken
Cdr Featherstone said the issue of phone thefts had been an “outlier” for the Met.
“But the bottom line is that isn’t good enough,” he said. “The public deserve better.”
Earlier this month the force made 18 arrests and seized 2,000 handsets in what the Met claimed to be the UK’s largest-ever operation targeting phone thefts.
“We think they are responsible for approximately 40% of all phone thefts in London,” Cdr Featherstone said.
“Our serious crime directorate has been involved in these operations, which they wouldn’t normally be. They would normally be involved in firearms offences, drug importation, et cetera.”
He said the involvement of the directorate signalled how “seriously” phone theft was now being taken, adding: “We’re putting our very best resources and assets pointed at this crime type.”
Christian D’ippolito lost tens of thousands of pounds as a result of having his phone stolen
Christian D’ippolito, was in Hackney when he had his phone stolen by a group of four men while it was unlocked.
“I couldn’t believe it,” Mr D’ippolito said. “I could not believe that had just happened.
“You see, never in a million years did I expect this to happen to me,” said Mr D’ippolito, who is founder of the Spartan Project, a charity supporting vulnerable young people.
Earlier this month the force made 18 arrests and seized 2,000 handsets in what the Met claimed to be the UK’s largest-ever operation targeting phone thefts
He said his digital wallet, PayPal account and business banking details were compromised and the thieves even tried to take out loans in his name.
“It’s quite incredible, actually, to see how, when given the opportunity, individuals can literally clear you out for everything you have in a very relentless way,” he said.
He lost tens of thousands of pounds as a result.
Mr D’ippolito added: “The general public tends to view phone theft as the loss of a valuable piece of hardware, whereas the criminal mind would take that for granted and view what lies beyond the value of the phone as the real opportunity.”
The Met Police said organised crime groups have pivoted to dealing in stolen phones because of how lucrative it can be.
The force said a phone-snatcher could make up to £400 per stolen phone, with devices fetching up to £4,000 when sold in China, given they are internet-enabled and therefore attractive to those trying to bypass censorship.
According to Met Police figures, 117,211 phones were stolen during 2024, up 25% on the 2019 figure of 91,481.
Neil Garratt, who represents Croydon and Sutton on the London Assembly, has repeatedly called for more action to deal with the rising numbers of mobile phone thefts in the city.
“I challenged the mayor (Sir Sadiq Khan) to show leadership last year, but he refused,” Mr Garratt, a Conservative group member, said.
“So I produced a report showing how to tackle phone theft without breaking the bank.”
That report, published in February, recommended targeting a “small group” of criminals which was “committing the most crime”.
“News that more will be done by the Met is extremely welcome,” Mr Garratt told the BBC. “But I am disappointed that the mayor has yet to take political leadership on this issue and has abdicated responsibility to an overstretched and underfunded police force.
“If Khan had pulled his finger out, how many thousands of phones may have not been stolen since?”
In response, a spokesperson for the Sir Sadiq said: “Nothing is more important to the mayor than keeping Londoners safe and Sadiq is supporting the Met to double down on every level of mobile phone crime, with operations to tackle street robbers as well as the handlers and organised criminal groups driving criminality in our communities.
“Last month the mayor backed the biggest-ever Met campaign to tackle mobile phone crime, successfully disrupting an international major criminal network linked to 40% of all phones stolen in London.
“This work is happening in tandem with record funding from City Hall boosting visible neighbourhood policing and deploying specialist operations in hotspot areas like Westminster and the West End.
“But the police can’t defeat this on their own.
“The mayor has long been clear we need decisive and co-ordinated action to halt the global trade of stolen phones and he will continue to push the mobile phone industry to go much further in preventing stolen phones being used, sold and repurposed, to build a safer London for all.”
Welcome back to the Times of Troy newsletter, where after one last rain-soaked showdown in South Bend, we pour one out for one of the great rivalries in the history of college football. After a century of meeting on the football field, USC and Notre Dame are not currently scheduled to meet again. This, by all accounts, is a terrible shame.
Outside of L.A., the college football world has placed the blame for the rivalry’s demise squarely on USC’s shoulders. Notre Dame made sure that was the case when its athletic director, Pete Bevacqua, ran to Sports Illustrated last spring, immediately after USC made an offer to renew the series for one year.
Fight on! Are you a true Trojans fan?
As PR moves go, it was a smart one: By firing the first missive, Bevacqua knew that Notre Dame could shape the narrative around negotiations. And ever since, as Bevacqua hoped, Notre Dame has been cast by much of the national media as valiantly attempting to save the rivalry at any cost, while USC looks like its running scared away from it.
Which is really quite ironic, if you know the recent history of how Notre Dame has handled its rivalries.
Thirteen years ago, minutes before the two schools were set to face off in South Bend, former Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick famously handed then-Michigan athletic director Dave Brandon a letter as notice that Notre Dame intended to cancel the remainder of their rivalry series. It was as passive aggressive as scheduling changes get. Brandon didn’t even read the letter until after the game.
These two teams went way back, before USC even first fielded a football team. The two Midwest rivals first faced off back in 1887, when Michigan literally taught Notre Dame how to play football. (Not kidding.) Not to mention it was actually a Detroit Free Press columnist who first called Notre Dame the “Fighting Irish.” (Imagine the royalties!)
But in 2012, Notre Dame declared without any further conversation that it was backing out of the game. The reason? As part of its move to the Atlantic Coast Conference in every other sport, the Irish football program agreed to play five games against ACC schools every year.
No one at Notre Dame seemed all that concerned about history and tradition then. Swarbrick, at the time, called canceling the series “a necessary precaution,” given the future uncertainty surrounding its schedule.
Sound familiar?
Except, in this case, Notre Dame kept Purdue on its future schedule. And Michigan State. It chose to maintain its series with Navy, which had beaten the Irish just three times in the previous half-century, as well as Stanford. I wonder why.
Months later, then-Michigan coach Brady Hoke told a crowd at a booster luncheon that Notre Dame was “chickening out” of the rivalry. And he was right.
A dozen years later, Notre Dame is floating the same accusations about USC.
Except, in this case, USC has made efforts to maintain the series after moving to a much less flexible and more difficult schedule in the Big Ten. It has tried to keep the game going despite being locked into nine conference games — and with far less incentive to add strong non-conference opponents than there was in 2012. USC even amended its initial offer to extend the rivalry for multiple years, instead of just one, as a compromise.
Look, USC isn’t blameless in all of this. But no one seems to have acknowledged yet that Notre Dame hasn’t exactly helped negotiations along. It doesn’t want to move the game from October or November to September, as USC has asked — not because of tradition, as has been suggested, but purely because it’s much more convenient to Notre Dame to keep USC later in the season, when no other top programs want a team such as Notre Dame smack dab in the middle of its conference slate.
Who cares about the tradition of when the game is played, if the other option is it’s not played at all? If the Irish are so concerned about maintaining the USC rivalry, why didn’t they insist that Clemson — a team it has much less history with — play their newly signed 12-season series in mid-October?
Because Notre Dame is used to dictating the terms of engagement and getting its way. It has the flexibility of being without a conference. And it also knows it has the narrative firmly on its side. So why bother budging when the pitchforks are already pointed toward USC?
I don’t expect that to change any time soon, even as both athletic directors say they’re “optimistic” an agreement can be reached. Not unless USC is ready to capitulate. Until then, the public pressure will remain on the Trojans alone, while Notre Dame points across the bargaining table and cries chicken. Irony, be damned.
Yes … technically.
If USC wins each of its next five games to finish 10-2, you can count on the Trojans being in the 12-team field. But anything less than that, and they’re going to have a tough time making a case.
Let’s say USC only loses on the road to No. 6 Oregon from this point on. That would put the Trojans at 9-3, with just two Big Ten losses — and three overall. That’s a good season! But no team with three losses has ever made it into the Playoff, and while there’s a legitimate argument that this year will be the first, USC presumably wouldn’t have enough marquee wins to move the needle with the committee.
Michigan is currently USC’s only win over a team above .500. Nebraska, Iowa and Northwestern are all 5-2, but only one of the three has a top 25 win this season — the Huskers won their opener against No. 21 Cincinnati. The toughest test left aside from Oregon could very well be UCLA, which has won three in a row after starting 0-4.
Perhaps there’s a world where USC, with one conference loss, could end up in the Big Ten title game. But in addition to beating the Ducks, that would also require moving past either Ohio State or Indiana, neither of which have looked particularly vulnerable of late.
However you try to spin it, getting USC into the Playoff requires serious finesse. By losing to Notre Dame, the Trojans closed off the easiest path to a postseason run.
More than likely, USC’s hopes now hinge on running the table. But nothing I’ve seen recently suggests that’s a likely option. Instead, with each passing week, my 8-4 prediction is feeling just about right.
Jayden Maiava throws a pass under pressure in the second quarter against Notre Dame.
(Justin Casterline / Getty Images)
—Stop asking if Lincoln Riley is going to give up playcalling. It ain’t happening. It wasn’t that long ago that Riley’s playcalling was the main reason for his historic rise through the coaching ranks. That felt like ancient history on Saturday night, as Riley dialed up a failed trick play to star wideout Makai Lemon that ended in a game-altering fumble. Riley admitted after the game that it was “a stupid call,” which is the closest he’s come to accountability in that department. He added later that his two failed fourth-and-short calls weren’t very good either. “I’ve gotta be way better for our guys,” he said after. It’s good that he recognizes his shortcomings in this situation, but how we’ve gotten to this point, with Riley’s playcalling having a clear negative affect, I can’t quite explain. Riley has had impressive moments calling plays this season, which are easy to forget after such a bad performance. But the fact that he seems to be at his worst in the biggest moments is not the best sign for turning things around in the future. All that said, it would presumably take an intervention from one of his bosses to hand off those duties to Luke Huard. The ego hit would simply be too significant for Riley to initiate that change otherwise.
—USC struggled to protect Jayden Maiava, and it paid the price. The Trojans’ front allowed a season-high 17 pressures to Notre Dame, and Maiava completed a meager 31% of his passes and threw both of his interceptions when under pressure Saturday. The good news is that reinforcements are on the way. Starting left tackle Elijah Paige dressed for Saturday’s game, but was only available in case of emergency. Center Kilian O’Connor, meanwhile, was surprisingly listed as questionable against Notre Dame. Both should be good to go when USC takes on Nebraska in two weeks.
—USC has lost 11 straight on the road to top 25 teams, six of which came under Riley. The last win USC had against a ranked opponent on the road came in November … of 2016! And USC’s last chance this season to rectify this terrible streak will likely be in Eugene next month — a game the Trojans are, as of now, unlikely to win. That means we’re staring down the barrel of an entire decade without a win over a ranked team on the road, which is totally unacceptable for a team that sees itself as a blue blood of college football.
—After having zero rim protection a year ago, USC might have one of the best rim protectors in the Big Ten this season. Just take a look at the statline for new 7-foot-5 center Gabe Dynes from USC’s exhibition against Loyola Marymount. Dynes had six blocks, three of which came in his first 10 minutes of the game. Dynes also had nine points, eight rebounds and even three assists, as the USC took care of business in a 60-51 win. The Trojans shot just 33%, but showed that their defense can be a strength by holding Loyola Marymount to just 28% from the field. Dynes will be an important part of that equation and if he can contribute on offense, well … the sky could be the limit for the 7-footer.
Olympic sports spotlight
After losing four of six to start its Big Ten slate, USC’s women’s volleyball team bounced back in a big way over the past weekend, winning two critical matches on the road. The highlight of the weekend was a 3-1 win over No. 9 Wisconsin, USC’s best win yet of this season.
Redshirt freshman outside hitter London Wijay had a career performance in the win over Wisconsin, tying a career-high with 24 kills, while freshman libero Taylor Deckert tallied back-to-back 20-dig performances over the weekend. USC also handled Iowa in four sets, to bring its Big Ten record to 4-4 on the season.
Jason Bateman as Vince, Jude Law as Jake in “Black Rabbit.”
(Courtesy of Netflix)
The last time Jason Bateman got in with the wrong crowd on a Netflix show, one of the best shows of the last decade was born. I didn’t want to place “Ozark”-level expectations on “Black Rabbit,” Bateman’s new show on Netflix with Jude Law, but after watching the first two episodes, I can say with confidence that it’s off to just as strong of a start.
Law stars as a New York restaurateur whose life is upended when his estranged brother, played by Bateman, suddenly comes back into his life and drags him unwillingly into New York’s criminal underworld. The show’s tone is about as tense as it gets — think “The Bear” meets “Uncut Gems” — but if you’re in the mood for a thrill ride, then this show is worth your time.
Until next time …
That concludes today’s newsletter. If you have any feedback, ideas for improvement or things you’d like to see, email me at [email protected], and follow me on X at @Ryan_Kartje. To get this newsletter in your inbox, click here.
NELLY Patel will be a cast member for the tenth series of Married at First Sight.
She has taken a bold step into embarking on the reality TV show, having been single for the past year.
2
Neelima (Nelly) Patel is appearing on the show get everything she deserves after a year singleCredit: Matt Monfredi / Channel 4
Who is Nelly from Married at First Sight UK 2025?
Nelly is a 30-year-old cosmetic dentist from Manchester.
In a teaser trailer for the new series, she is shown having one of the most dramatic entrances ever seen on the show.
She advances down the aisle in a Bollywood-style outfit on a dolly covered with brightly coloured flowers in an extraordinary spectacle.
The 30-year-old narrates the video by portraying her nervousness about the reaction of her soon-to-be husband.
She says: “If he doesn’t react well to my entrance, I’d be devastated…
“I’m putting my heart on the line and I just really really hope it doesn’t get squished to little pieces because I don’t know how I’m going to come back from it if it does…”
Described as “Outspoken, confident, and warm”, Nelly has been single for over a year and is now ready to search for true love.
She “knows what she deserves” and is looking for a man who is “strong, emotionally intelligent, and not intimidated by a woman who knows exactly who she is.”
For the first time ever, new episodes will be running from Sunday to Wednesday rather then from Monday to Thursday.
The show is on E4 and will be available to stream on demand via Channel 4.
2
The show will start on Sunday, September 21Credit: Matt Monfredi / Channel 4
Who are the other Married at First Sight UK 2025 contestants?
Expert Paul has claimed that the new series will be “one of the most memorable” in the reality show’s history.
Another show source said: “For the first time in MAFS UK history, there will be two gay weddings in the same series.
“In the upcoming run, which hits screens later this month, viewers will see a gay male pair and a lesbian twosome meet for the first time at the altar.”
The 18 participants are listed in full below:
ANITA, 54, Durham, Operations Manager
GRACE, 31, Norwich, Midwife in mental health services
JULIA-RUTH, 29, New Zealand, Professional Dancer
LEAH, 35, Liverpool, business owner
LEIGH, 30, Romford, NHS Clinical Coder
MAEVE, 29, Newcastle, Aesthetics Practitioner
NEELIMA (NELLY), 30, Manchester, Cosmetic Dentist
REBECCA, 32, Liverpool, Aesthetics Nurse and clinic owner
BRYAN ROBSON has told Manchester United chiefs to back Ruben Amorim for the long haul and slammed the club’s recent history of signing flops.
The United legend says the revolving door of managers since Sir Alex Ferguson’s retirement in 2013 has wrecked any chance of stability, and insists under-fire former Sporting Lisbon boss must be given at least THREE years to fix the mess.
4
Robson moved to United for a British record transfer fee of £1.5 million in 1981Credit: Getty
4
Robson has backed Amorim to get things right at UnitedCredit: AFP
4
Manchester United stars are under-performing despite Amorim being in charge for the last eight monthsCredit: Shutterstock Editorial
Speaking to The Telegraph, Robson said: “We’ve changed managers that many times since 2013.
“I feel you have to stick and say, ‘No, we are not sacking the manager. We are not blaming.’
“When you have a little bit of money and the club are going to allow you to change your squad, you need three years to get the team right.
“For me, three years at Manchester United should be enough.”
Amorim, 40, has had a disastrous start to life as United boss, winning just eight of his first 31 games.
But Robson is urging the board to give him more time, despite fans on social media calling for his sacking.
Robson didn’t hold back when reflecting on the transfer blunders of the Ed Woodward era, suggesting too many signings simply weren’t up to scratch.
He fumed: “Look at the money we spend. It’s up to you to go around the world and get top players who are going to improve you.”
“I think five years ago some of the players we bought were just not good enough to be Manchester United players. It’s an accumulation of that.”
And Robbo, who captained United through some of their most hard-fought years, believes the club lost its way by ignoring experienced Premier League stars in favour of flashy foreign names.
How Arsenal can beat Man City by exposing Rodri issue
“The other thing I think we went away from is getting good, experienced Premier League players.
“So when they get to 28, you bring them on board if you can. There have been loads of players who have left clubs.”
And his message to United’s decision-makers couldn’t be clearer.
He added: “When I was in management, I believed that if you bought average players, you got an average team.”
Get exclusive awards season news, in-depth interviews and columnist Glenn Whipp’s must-read analysis straight to your inbox.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
Madigan’s diabolical turn deserves a champion
Julia Garner and Josh Brolin in “Weapons.”
(Quantrell Colbert / Warner Bros. Pictures)
I’m going to tread lightly when it comes to spoilers for Zach Cregger’s horror movie “Weapons,” currently the No. 1 movie at the box office.
But I’m also of the mind that you should see “Weapons” knowing as little as possible about it. So anything I write could be considered a spoiler, though I should also note that I’m someone who never watches movie trailers and will go so far as to close my eyes and cover my ears in a theater to avoid them. Sometimes I think the only reason I’m still writing about movies is that the job allows me to see films in advance and not have them ruined. I love flying blind.
You probably know that “Weapons” follows what happens in an American town after 17 children disappear one night, all of them simultaneously running out the front doors of their homes, arms outstretched, at precisely 2:17 a.m. Cregger unravels the mystery from multiple, often overlapping points of view, calling to mind Paul Thomas Anderson’s audacious epic “Magnolia,” right down to the presence of a clumsy, mustachioed cop.
Well into the movie, we meet Madigan’s Aunt Gladys in a principal’s office at the school that the missing kids attended. All of the children were in the same class. Gladys says she is the aunt of the one child from the class who didn’t run off into night. There’s some understandable curiosity and concern over this boy, Alex (Cary Christopher, another standout in a very good year for child actors), and Gladys is here to reassure everyone that Alex — and his parents — are doing just fine.
Gladys is perhaps not the most reliable messenger. She is wearing a bright-red wig and multiple layers of makeup, a presentation that suggests she has spent a lifetime watching Bette Davis in “What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?” Something is off, and, hoo boy, are we about to find out what that something is.
Madigan is excellent, disarming and adept at concealing, to a point, the hidden core of good ol’ Aunt Gladys. Again, I’m treading lightly. If you’ve seen it, as I’m sure many of you have, you know just how delightfully insane her work in the movie is.
Critics groups love to reward the delightfully insane. They also love to champion genres, like horror, that tend to be marginalized at the Oscars.
So I’d expect some group — perhaps New York, maybe L.A. — could be eager to plant a flag for Madigan as a much-deserved, out-of-the-box supporting actress choice. She’s 74, has enjoyed a fine career on stage and screen and, along with her husband, Ed Harris, made a principled stand (or sit) at the 1999 Academy Awards, refusing to applaud when Elia Kazan took the stage to receive an honorary Oscar.
It’s easy to get swept up in the success of “Weapons” and the countless stories sifting through its ending and themes. Once the film leaves theaters and the fall festival awards contenders start dropping, Madigan will need a champion or two to put her back into the conversation.
History might be on her side, though: Davis earned a lead actress Oscar nomination for “Baby Jane.” And Ruth Gordon won the supporting actress Oscar for “Rosemary’s Baby” for the same kind of deliciously diabolical turn that Madigan gives in “Weapons.”
On June 4, the United States Department of Education notified the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) accrediting agency that its member institution Columbia University deserves to have its accreditation pulled. It accused the university of ostensibly being “in violation of federal antidiscrimination laws” for supposedly failing “to meaningfully protect Jewish students against severe and pervasive harassment”.
This claim is, of course, wrong. It is a blatant mischaracterisation of the events that have taken place on campus over the last 19 months.
Yet, it is also true that during that time Columbia violated the terms of its accreditation: by violently abrogating the academic freedom and viewpoint diversity of antigenocide protesters via institutional sanction and the deployment of police on campus. In this sense, Columbia does deserve to lose its accreditation.
MSCHE’s accreditation policy, which is standard across the industry, states that an “accredited institution” must possess and demonstrate both “a commitment to academic freedom, intellectual freedom, freedom of expression” and “a climate that fosters respect among students, faculty, staff, and administration from a range of diverse backgrounds, ideas, and perspectives”.
It is stunningly evident that since October 7, 2023, Columbia University has egregiously and repeatedly failed to satisfy the MSCHE’s fundamental requirements due to its response to antigenocide protests on campus concerning Gaza and Palestine. The violent removal, suspension, and arrest of peaceful student protesters and faculty critics should be understood to constitute a violation of the institution’s obligation to protect freedom of expression and academic freedom.
On November 10, 2023, Columbia suspended Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP) after they organised a peaceful protest for Palestinian rights. The administration justified the suspension by claiming the groups used “threatening rhetoric and intimidation”.
However, media reports, witnesses and university insiders revealed that the suspension was based on an incident involving an unaffiliated individual whose actions were condemned by the organisers and that no formal disciplinary process or appeals process was allowed by the university.
It was later uncovered that Columbia administrators had unilaterally altered language in its official policies on student groups just before suspending the SJP and JVP.
In January, Katherine Franke, a tenured law professor, retired and said she was “effectively terminated” by Columbia after facing public and congressional criticism for a media interview criticising students who formerly served in the Israeli army.
Similarly, the university has recently acknowledged doling out “multi-year suspensions, temporary degree revocation and expulsions” to dozens of students who participated in 2024 antigenocide protests. One of those expelled, Jewish PhD student Grant Miner, president of the Student Workers of Columbia, noted that all of the students censured by the university “had been cleared of any criminal wrongdoing”.
Perhaps worst of all, Columbia has, on repeated occasions, invited the New York Police Department (NYPD) onto campus to intervene against student expression. On April 30, 2024, according to the university’s own report, the NYPD arrested 44 students and individuals with apparent associations with the university.
Likewise, in early May this year, about 70 students were arrested after participating in an “occupation” of the university’s library. The NYPD explicitly acknowledged that the presence of its officers on campus was “at the direct request of Columbia University”.
There is little question each of these incidents constitutes blatant stifling of academic freedom and viewpoint diversity. The disproportionate targeting of Arab, Muslim, Palestinian and Jewish students and allies can be viewed as discriminatory, undermining the institution’s commitment to equitable treatment and inclusive learning environments, in clear violation of MSCHE’s guiding principles on equity, diversity and inclusion.
These decisions to suppress protests were made unilaterally by senior administration at Columbia – without input from faculty, students or shared governance bodies – clearly signalling a lack of adherence to MSCHE’s accreditation policy standard on governance, leadership and administration. By failing to show “a commitment to shared governance” with “administrative decision-making that reflects fairness and transparency”, Columbia has failed to meet the standards of accreditation outlined by the MSCHE.
But Columbia University is not alone in failing to abide by guiding principles of its accreditation. At Muhlenberg College in Pennsylvania, Jewish Associate Professor Maura Finkelstein was summarily fired for engaging in social media critiques of Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
Similarly, at Northwestern University, Assistant Professor Steven Thrasher was subjected to multiple investigations in relation to his support of the student antigenocide encampment on campus and was ultimately denied tenure in a decision he characterised as an effort designed to not just silence him but also to bully him so that “students, journalists, faculty, staff and activists across campus and throughout the country [may be intimidated] into silencing themselves”.
Students too have faced repression across the United States. Indeed, it has been estimated that by July 2024, at least 3,100 students had been arrested for participation in campus antigenocide protests. On November 6, 2023, Brandeis University became the first private university in the US to ban its student chapter of the SJP, for “conduct that supports Hamas”. In April 2024, Cornell University suspended several students involved in pro-Palestinian encampment protests, citing violations of campus policies.
Then in May, police brutalised students with pepper spray at George Washington University while arresting 33 people in the violent clearing-out of its student encampment. At Vanderbilt University, students were arrested and expelled for occupying an administration building.
In the most recent news, it has become clear that the University of Michigan has spent at least $800,000 hiring dozens of private investigators to surveil antigenocide student protesters on and off campus in Ann Arbor.
These examples are merely a small sample of what has occurred across the US, Canada and Europe since long before October 7, 2023. This is a broader existential crisis in higher education in which the free expression of students is being suppressed at the cost of the values these universities purport to espouse.
Despite appearances, this crisis has very little to do with the heavy-handed Trump administration. It is, rather, the self-inflicted consequence of the decisions of university administrators whose allegiances are now first and foremost to donors and corporate stakeholders rather than to their educational missions.
If universities are to exist in any plausible and practical sense as institutions devoted to genuine knowledge production and pedagogical development, it is essential that they robustly fulfil accreditation requirements for academic and intellectual freedom, diversity, and fair and transparent administration and governance.
There can be no Palestine exception to that.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
BBC
