ESPLENDORES DEL POTOSÍ: EL CICLO DE LA PLATA

understood as the key safety issues for international students. At one end of the spectrum, the understanding was that ‘there is not a problem’ and that the issues of reported violence are blown out of proportion by the media. The other extreme is the view that international students are highly vulnerable to violence and exploitation as an outcome either of socio-economic disadvantage and situational vulnerability, or of racism that is deeply embedded in the broader political economy. Views expressed were highly dependent on the situation of the various groups who contributed to the research and one of the most striking features was the clear division between locals – both stakeholders and students – compared with international students. The dominant perspective of stakeholders, in particular, was that international students are no more or less at risk than domestic students (with the exception of the police stakeholders, a majority of whom tended to feel that international students were slightly less safe for reasons discussed in Section 5 above) and that issues of violence can be largely explained by international student behaviours that placed them at risk (again with the exception of the police, who in addition to this added offender considerations into the mix). In contrast, international students widely report not feeling safe in a range of circumstances, that Melbourne is not as safe as they expected and that they go to great lengths, to the extent that institutional constraints allow, to protect their safety, minimise their visibility in public and put in place a range of self-protection strategies – in particular the avoidance of travelling on public transport at night.

While not all international students feel unsafe, evidence from the student survey and interviews suggest that most students have either directly experienced issues ranging from verbal abuse to violence either directly or were close to someone who has experienced this. Certainly, all students identify international students, particularly Indians and Asians, as less safe than locals. While we have documented numerous accounts of incidents that were clearly serious threats to physical safety, more generally, international students have experiences that they claimed were not serious enough to report, but were nonetheless identified as a threat to safety. Moreover, international students were much less likely to report incidents that threaten safety than domestic students because they didn’t think they would be taken seriously, they didn’t know whom to report the incident to or they didn’t think that anything could be done

about it. Comments from both the survey and the international student interviews also documented cases where students didn’t feel they had the right to complain to authorities as non-citizens, and that they felt unable to assess dangerous situations as they were unsure about cultural norms of behaviour. This was particularly the case when alcohol was involved in the situation. There were also cases where students reported feeling unable to ‘name’ the issue or have the language to ask for help. This was not necessarily related to English language competence but rather feeling ill-equipped and unconfident at a time of stress to name the issue or ask for help.

These views and experiences were clearly unaligned with the majority of stakeholders who were of the view that most international students have a good experience in Melbourne, that Melbourne is as safe as can be expected for a big cosmopolitan city, and that with some notable exceptions, issues relating to international student safety could largely be solved by a change in behaviour on the part of the students themselves. Disturbingly, a number of stakeholders expressed views that suggested bemusement that international students should be surprised that they experienced threats to their safety. One comment was that, ‘… Australians have always picked on new arrivals…’ Similarly, another suggested that Indian students should ‘…hit the gym’, and likened international students to vulnerable animals ‘… in the jungle.’ The inference of such comments is that as newcomers, they should expect to be, at best, ‘picked on’ and at worst, devoured, unless they defend themselves by immediately adapting to the norms of the prevailing culture. The police, however, were consistent in their refusal to blame students themselves for their victimisation, although they shared the view that international students should take some responsibility for their own safety and could develop better strategies around situational awareness to reduce the likelihood of becoming the victim of crimes against the person. Nevertheless, the police view in general was that the community as a whole shares a collective responsibility for community safety across governments, education providers, police, local communities and international students themselves.

This ‘disconnect’ between those responsible for policy, planning and the delivery of educational services, and those who are reliant on the systems and structures in which they study, is perhaps the most striking of the findings and of particular concern in terms of developing better responses to improving the safety of international students. This research suggests that those who are in positions of power to affect the conditions of international students, are out of touch with the daily lived experiences of international students, and are unaware of the need to identify problems of safety as experienced by international students. This gap in interpretation is resonant of the kind of racialisation processes that are discussed in Section Two, where unequal divisions between ethnic and racial groups are perpetuated as much, if not more, by institutional inaction as they are by directly discriminatory practices. International students are saying, by their actions and accounts of their experiences that, at minimum, they feel less safe than they expected to be in Melbourne, if not living in fear. This is largely unacknowledged at least by the stakeholders interviewed for this study. This finding suggests the need for more research and monitoring of the international student experience, and greater opportunities for dialogue and communication

between international students and those who provide the services. Despite this obvious difference in understanding about the nature and magnitude of safety issues, there is clear agreement across the findings about where and when international students are most at risk. These include first and foremost, on public transport. Other factors that are both in themselves important but usually combine to created unsafe conditions include the night time in Melbourne and particularly in places known to be less safe than others - most notably the CBD, Footscray and St Albans. The wide use of drugs and alcohol – but alcohol use in particular, was widely identified as an important risk factor in creating unsafe situations. While these issues were often identified as a risk to community safety for all Melbournians and visitors to Melbourne, it was also acknowledged that international students are positioned as more vulnerable to these risks due to a range of socio-economic factors. These include a lack of private transport options, the relative absence of family and social networks and a shortage of affordable accommodations in areas of Melbourne considered safe. This vulnerability was borne out by the student survey and interviews in various ways. For example, a key response of international students to safety issues was to avoid going out at night – often at great inconvenience and stress.

There was also general acknowledgement that safety risks increase in line with ethnic and racial differences. The most common view expressed through the student survey was that Indians and Chinese were the student groups that are least safe although there was some wide recognition that safety risks overlapped with gender and religious issues. Those who wore clothing and symbols signalling that identified individuals as being Muslim and dark skin colour was also widely identified as a risk factor. Essentially, those who least resemble Anglo- Celtic norm were identified as at risk. This was a view shared by both stakeholders and students.

Finally, it was also broadly agreed by all of the groups canvassed for this study that the issues relating to community safety are complex. The international student body is highly diverse and each individual is situated differently according to a range of factors including country of origin, appearance, religion, gender, financial circumstances, course of study, friendship networks, age, language skills and even sheer physical fitness. Similarly, the community safety context is complex. Melbourne is a big city by any standards and education providers vary widely in terms of resources, student service infrastructure and conditions. Equally complex is the extent to which educational providers can influence the broader safety conditions for students. While educational institutions clearly are major stakeholders in relation to international student safety, they are only one player amongst many who influence the broader community safety landscape. As one stakeholder said in relation to the role of education institutions in community safety,

…we’ve got a responsibility to deliver a high quality education but also a rewarding social and cultural experience and a safe experience but we can only do the things within our charge. (Educational) Institutions … can’t make trains safe. Can’t alleviate housing shortages, but we’re certainly prepared to do the things we can do in partnership with others.

As such, one-dimensional responses to issues of international student safety are unhelpful in the context of this complexity and a coordinated response by all players is essential. Perceptions about the nature of community safety issues, however, overlapped with data about the perceived causes of violence against international students. We discuss this in the following section.