The colour of controversy

Oxford University's Rhodes Scholarship has been forced to cut its number of places because of the rising cost of a British university education and losses during the dot.com investment crash.

"Ask any man what nationality he would prefer to be, and 99 out of 100 will tell you that they would prefer to be Englishmen."

So believed Cecil John Rhodes. The English businessman and founder of the Rhodes Scholarship at Oxford University was a firm believer in colonial doctrine and structured the funding priorities of his scholarship accordingly.

Whether these views are considered patriotic or racist paternalism, they are reflected in the stipulations of this prestigious scholarship - one that is now facing immense controversy based on these ideas.

When Cecil Rhodes died in 1902, he stipulated in his will that most of his fortune be used to establish a scholarship fund. But in accordance with his beliefs, he also specified that a minimum of 32 places be maintained for Americans.

Since then, the number of scholarships has increased from the original 50 to about 90 each year, enabling outstanding students from several countries to obtain a high-class education at Oxford University.

However, in the face of a financial crisis, officials managing the Rhodes Trust have announced that the scholarship will have to reduce its seats.

But here's where the debate stems from: following the clause in Rhodes' will, trustees have declared that the cuts will affect countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan and Uganda, while all 32 of the American scholarships must remain intact.

Inevitably, this has generated mixed reactions among academicians and students. While some note that the move is understandable in the light of economic problems, others argue that continuing to provide Americans with 32 seats at the cost of other deprived nations is hardly justifiable.

In an interview with Notes, Ali Abbas, a Rhodes scholar currently doing his PhD in economics at Oxford, said he was not surprised "given the financial crisis facing the trust".

The 30-year-old Pakistani explained that the trust "committed to the Mandela-Rhodes South African initiative just before the UK stock market took a tumble. Unable to roll back the new initiative … the guillotine fell on the existing set up".

He added that although he understood the anger among scholars due to this decision, he also appreciated "the constraints within which the trust must operate".

His views were endorsed by Dr Peter Mitias, Director of Graduate Programmes of the Business School at the American University of Sharjah (AUS), who said he could "totally understand what the trust is trying to do".

He noted that the trust has expanded to other countries over time, and hence people have begun to view the "unexpected benefits" as "entitlements".

Dr Mitias, who is also an associate professor of economics at AUS, explained that this was analogous to when members of society begin to consider welfare benefits as a given after some time, and added that this was a "dangerous" attitude to have.

Decision unjustified

"Dangerous" is also the word Deena Hussain used to describe the move taken by the Trust.

The 21-year-old said it was so "because the institution which claims to promote world peace and educate influential leaders is playing a game of power politics by controlling the dissemination of knowledge and who gets access to it".

Deena, a senior at AUS, added: "If ‘knowledge is power' then Third World countries have little chance to be represented or heard in the global political arena if their students cannot receive education equal to their white counterparts in developed countries."

A previous Rhodes scholar now employed as an academic researcher in the US, who wished to remain anonymous, said of the cuts: "I think it is a real shame and certainly do not agree that US spaces should continue to be ‘privileged' in the manner indicated."

She added, however, that since "the United States has had a disproportionate share of the proceeds of the Trust for the entire time that the scholarship has been in existence … it will take some effort to undo the ‘status quo' … [but] I am hopeful that the Trust will eventually do the right thing".

Legal constraints?

In the light of changing times and needs, one may contend that private grants and scholarships should be open to assessment and alteration. In defence of their decision, however, trustees note that they are bound legally by Rhodes' will. But are they?

In fact, provisions of the will have been changed at different points in time, as Dr Fareed Ohan, Director of Sharjah Higher Colleges of Technology (HCT), pointed out.

"[The] first was the denial of the award to Germany during the First and Second World Wars. And second was the modification of the terms and conditions of the will in 1977 to include women. It did take an Act of the British Parliament to do this, but it was done," he said.

Ali observed the same, and said: "There was never any justification for continuing with the 32 American scholarships after the creation of dozens of new nation-states in the mid-1900s.

"If legislation could be introduced to allow women and other ethnic communities to hold the scholarship, and to rename the Trust ‘Mandela-Rhodes Foundation' (something that Rhodes himself would have deemed quite intolerable), then why hold on religiously to his demand for 32 American scholarships?"

Deena agreed, saying that it "is illogical to assume that rules which worked well a 100 years ago would still apply today".

Indeed, most respondents said they believed that the terms of private awards should be open to evaluation, and hence the provision in question can be altered despite legal obstacles.

Asked the same question, however, Dr Mitias replied: "Absolutely not."

He pointed out that the key word was "private", and the state should not interfere in a matter of tastes and preferences. "If this is done, at what point will it stop?" he asked.

His argument was supported by A.S., a 20-year-old student in the UAE, who told Notes: "If Rhodes believed that the white man was to rule the world and wrote his will accordingly, that's his choice. It was, after all, his money."

She added: "If I had a fortune and wished that it be used primarily for the progress of Arabs or Muslims, I wouldn't want that changed regardless of how wealthy and powerful they became after a century."

Effect on image

But will this impact upon the reputation of such a prominent scholarship and institution? And what, if anything, does this say about racism in academia? Ali said it was important to first put things in perspective.

"There is a legal and financial conundrum that the trustees face, and that they are not ‘happy' about slashing the number of scholarships and exposing themselves to criticism, so the allegation of racism is a bit unjust."

He added that as long as the selection process continued to operate efficiently and fairly, "the scholarship will not lose its prestige".

Dr Mitias upheld this view, noting that the cuts were being implemented merely due to an economic setback and would have no effect on the status of the scholarship or institution.

On the other hand, Deena said the decision "does leave some doubt in my mind about the kind of idea