A Trinity of Questions
Philip Keevil is angry because his son did not get into Oxford, despite his attempts to smooth the path with donations large enough to soothe the Bodleian's losses. He then gripes that his son did not receive special treatment - he got the same rejection letter as thousands of other students up and down the country, despite his father's fundraising activities. Is this finally good news for the Oxford admissions process? Proof that all applicants, whether they come from one stereotypical extreme, a Northern comprehensive, or the other, a Home Counties public school, stand an equal chance of getting a place here? Well, maybe. It's certainly a 'good news' story. It makes Trinity look good. By extension it makes Oxford look good. It's not going to solve our PR problem, but it's a start.
However, three important questions must be answered. In an interview with this paper, Michael Beloff QC, Trinity's President, argued that Keevil had a "legitimate point of view". Is it not disturbing that an Oxford Head of House could even entertain such a thought? It is not in any way legitimate to expect to be able to buy your children a place at Oxford, or even to be able to buy them special treatment - why is Beloff pretending otherwise?
And who can explain why information about one candidate entered the public domain? It can only have caused the candidate extra distress.
More worrying still is the fact that we can safely assume that Keevil is an intelligent, worldly wise man. So why did he start throwing his money and effort behind Trinity? He seems to have honestly believed that there would be some pay off, that it would give his son the edge. Trinity, and all other Oxford colleges, needs not only to be absolutely fair in the way they treat students, but also to make it quite clear to potential donors that they will do this. Any other approach is profoundly dishonest and dangerous for Oxford's already beleaguered reputation.
10th Jan 2002