The Dutch government is facing calls to pay compensation after it emerged that students with foreign-sounding surnames聽were disproportionately likely to be checked for grant fraud.

In a , the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW) admitted that students living in 鈥渘eighbourhoods with a high number of residents with a migration background鈥� as well as those with a 鈥渢raditionally non-Dutch-sounding surname鈥� were more likely to receive home visits to ensure they lived at their stated addresses. To qualify for a non-resident grant, students must live away from their family homes.

To select students for checks, the Education Executive Agency (DUO) employed an algorithm聽that assigned them a 鈥渞isk score鈥�. While the algorithm did not directly employ data on migration background, it did attribute higher risk to associated characteristics. For instance, grant recipients who lived closer to their parents were more likely to be chosen for checks, while data from Statistics Netherlands indicated that students with migration backgrounds tended to live closer to home, the ministry said.

Robbert Dijkgraaf, the education minister, said that the 鈥渋ndirect discrimination鈥� should 鈥渘ot have happened鈥� and issued an apology. But G眉ls眉m 脟eki莽, a lawyer who represented several students, told聽探花视频 that the government should go further.

探花视频

鈥淗opefully [the government] will compensate the students for the damage they have caused,鈥� Ms 脟eki莽 said. 鈥淔or now they have only said sorry.鈥�

The discriminatory checks聽affected students 鈥渋mmensely鈥�, said Elisa Weehuizen, chair of the National Student Union (LSVb). 鈥淭hey feel like the government is not there for them; that they鈥檙e not supporting them as students; that they鈥檙e not part of the norm that they want in education; that what makes them different in a cultural sense isn鈥檛 appreciated. It leads to a very big sense of not being able to lean on the education system or the government,鈥� she said.

探花视频

Details of DUO鈥檚 approach were who surveyed more than 80 lawyers and determined that, in 97 per cent of cases, the students accused of fraud came from migrant backgrounds.

Dr Dijkgraaf subsequently suspended DUO鈥檚 use of the algorithm, with home visits now determined at random.聽After an investigation conducted by the consultancy PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), the ministry also admitted that it, along with DUO, had failed to address earlier 鈥渟ignals indicating that prejudice was a risk鈥�.

The PwC investigation did not assess individual cases in which students were accused of fraud. But Ms 脟eki莽 said that many of her clients had faced significant financial strain after having to pay back their grants, plus fines.

Asked whether it would pay compensation where students had been wrongly targeted, a government spokesperson said it would 鈥渆ngage in dialogue with the group concerned in such situations. Not acting hastily, but first discussing what has happened and what the experiences and needs of the students are.鈥�

探花视频

Gwen van Eijk, a researcher and policy officer at Amnesty Netherlands, said DUO鈥檚 algorithm was developed 鈥渨ithout any checks on possible discriminatory effects. There was no proper evaluation, no oversight.鈥�

Dr van Eijk pointed to a recent聽聽that saw 鈥渄ual nationality鈥� and 鈥渇oreign-sounding names鈥� used as markers of fraud.

鈥淭here is a lack of transparency and accountability,鈥� she said. 鈥淲e don鈥檛 really know how governmental organisations in the Netherlands are checking people, whether they use algorithms, whether they use risk profiles, what they do to prevent discrimination.鈥�

emily.dixon@timeshighereducation.com