Opening the Door Is Not Enough
Through my two years as an equal access activist, I have seen how we often celebrate equal access to education as if it were the final victory.
A scholarship is offered.
An admission letter sent.
A door opened.
But opening the door is not enough when it is dark inside, and no one has thought about how you will find your way.
In conversations about equal access to education, we tend to focus on entry points. Who gets in? Who is admitted? Who is granted a place?
Yet access without structural visibility can quietly become another form of exclusion, because sometimes the issue is not only that the room is dark. Sometimes the process itself was never designed to see you.
Admissions systems, entry requirements, funding criteria, definitions of merit, and institutional protocols are often built around an imagined “standard” student: white, stable, documented, secure, and culturally aligned with institutional norms. Many of us were never part of that imagination.
====
During my master’s graduation ceremony, in the brochure next to my name, it said: England.
As a sanctuary scholar, I was classified as a home student. There was nothing inaccurate about it administratively, but nothing acknowledged the borders, the waiting, the uncertainty that shaped my path to that stage.
So I carried the Syrian flag as I walked across the stage.
I was told there was a rule: no political symbols at the ceremony.
I explained that my flag was not a political statement, nor a protest. It was my identity, my way to celebrate, after 14 years of war, the simple act of holding the Syrian flag again, a symbol of a home long missed.
There were five minutes of discussion backstage. A brief pause during the live ceremony, where I had to justify visibility and explain that identity is not politics. Five minutes that felt far longer than they were, as I feared they might tell me to step down, that I would no longer be allowed on stage.
In the end, they agreed. I walked across the stage with the Syrian flag on my shoulders, the sound of applause in my ears.
If every other student’s country could sit comfortably beside their name in the brochure, then mine deserved to exist, too, and if the system had unintentionally erased it, I would carry it myself.
Afterwards, several members of staff apologised. The ceremony lead thanked me and said, “You stood your ground, thank you. We will take that as a lesson learned for the coming years. In the future, we will check with the sanctuary team and include the sanctuary students’ countries of origin.” Later, the Dean sent an apology alongside my course director.
It was handled with care in the end. I was heard. I was respected. And I remain deeply grateful for that within my university community.
====
Equal access is not simply about opening the door. It cannot mean identical treatment when students do not begin from identical realities. It should mean designing systems that assume our presence from the beginning, not as exceptions, not as afterthoughts, not as corrections to be made once someone speaks up.
To not expect a perfect record or a polished story, because educational journeys are rarely linear. To recognise the complexity of our path, and to commit to reading every application with that understanding, and to assess it with an awareness of individual context and lived experience
And this is where advocacy becomes complicated, because systems rarely shift on intention alone. They shift because someone interrupts them. Too often, that someone is the person most affected.
When institutions are not built with our realities in mind, we become the ones who must explain them. We disclose parts of our stories so that policies can evolve. We make ourselves visible so that future students do not have to fight the same fight.
We speak so we can be seen, but visibility carries a cost.
To stand your ground in those moments requires vulnerability. It requires calm while triggered. It requires educating while exhausted.
This is the hidden labour behind “widening participation.”
====
There is a harder truth we rarely say out loud. Sometimes the rejection does not happen at the door, It happens after you have already been invited into the process.
After you have gathered documents that were never easy to access. After you have translated trauma into “personal statement”, after you have made yourself legible to a system that was not built in your language, nor your context.
And then you are told you did not “meet the criteria.”
But whose criteria? And what criteria?
Criteria built around uninterrupted education, high-quality education, financial privilege, and cultural fluency?
When selection lacks transparency, when there is no consistency in how context is weighed, when the unspoken reference remains white, stable, and uninterrupted, rejection becomes structural.
And that is where the burden multiplies, because you do not just leave disappointed. You leave questioning whether you were ever truly meant to succeed, wondering whether “equal access” was an invitation or a performance.
And the most ironic part? That, in principle, the opportunity is “open”
Equal access cannot mean equal paperwork with unequal evaluation.
If institutions are serious about equal access, then the criteria must be interrogated, and evaluation must be contextual.
True equal access will exist when our presence is anticipated rather than negotiated, and our identities are acknowledged, rather than defended.
When we no longer have to make ourselves vulnerable to be visible. Because access alone is not the achievement worth celebrating.
====
Yes, advocacy matters, and I’ll continue to speak, because change often begins with discomfort. But educational institutions must also ask themselves a harder question:
Why are the most vulnerable students carrying the responsibility of redesigning the system?
====
Part of the migrant experience is living between two contradictions: communities that see you, sometimes even placing you on a pedestal, treating you as exceptional, inspirational. And communities that do not see you at all, where the unspoken default remains looks nothing like you.
The solution, as always, lies in balance.
In building policies that concern us with our own hands, shifting from being objects of inclusion to co-creators and co-producers of the systems.
In being included not only as beneficiaries of decisions, but as decision-makers.
Because “nothing about us, without us“
====
شارك ما قرأت
الرسالة الثالثة