Letters@oxfordstudent.com
Dear Sir and Madam
I found your coverage of the Bullingdon club's antics (News, 13th January) amusing. You claimed, rightly, that they believe that their money entitles them 'to act as [they] please'. Why should it not? Unless one were an utter chancer, one would not enter a restaurant and order a dinner for which one could not pay.
Why should causing damage be any different? Surely your moral campaign should rather be directed against those, and I include myself in that number, who cause damage for which they cannot pay. I have wrought havoc throughout Oxford and its colleges for three years now and, through astute knowledge of when to run, got away with it, and sans publicity.
The Bullingdon Club, at least, takes its activities out of the city, with the result that the 'stereotype of Oxford' is only reinforced by sensationalist reports in publications such as your own.
Harry Flashman Christ Church
Dear Sir and Madam
Reading last week's cover story and Harry Mount's comment about this Dan Dare 'masonic'-style drinking club for privileged students suggests to me that Modern Man hasn't really evolved at all and that social change cannot be genetically engineered.
I understand that this group's bad behaviour was not related to excessive drinking but some inauguration challenge to prove themselves worthy of membership or in this case the applicant paying for the groups outrageous antics.
Ancient central American kings used to perform blood-letting ceremonies to the Sun god to assert their power and the Sundance Indians used to hang themselves from their nipples to 'come of age' as warriors. There's a lot of belonging and getting on there but where do these people want to fit in? Is it with their own wealthy class or the 'ordinary folks' whose image the University prefers to project?
Now there is something to aspire to - the binge drinking modern youths who smash up pubs, other people, themselves, break bottles and vomit on the streets, vandalize public amenities and parks, the swastika-wearing football hooligans, the Fear Factor and Reality TV candidates. All sounds very familiar - maybe the publicans in St Andrews should lock up their pool cues.
I realize the White Hart episode was not directly drink-related but there is a serious drinking and bad behaviour problem in this country and the police don't seem to do anything about that either. The government should reconsider their plan to introduce 24 hour drinking because regulating the supply of any drug does not work.
The heart of the matter lies in the demand. Why do people need to drink so much? Is it because they feel that what they see round about them does not 'fit in' with whom they are deep down inside?
Perhaps it is not the growing hole in the ozone layer society should be worrying about but the growing hole in the human 'heart' where anything of any beauty seems to pass right through.
Alison McKay Oxford
Dear Sir and Madam
On reading Rowenna Davis's circuitous exploration of RAG's principles (Features, 13th January), it became immediately clear that we and those involved with RAG for the previous 124 years had been utterly misguided. Shocked were we to read that the £60,000 we raise for charities each year "is negligible" and that what we achieve is "meaningless".
In addition, we are deeply saddened that despite thousands of termcards (detailing our charities) sent out to every student and a comprehensive website, no one "knows what happens to the money that we donate".
Given that RAG's central body comprises of elected or co-opted college reps who only hold office for a year or less, consensus over political ideology - and thus, a centrally organised campaign - is virtually impossible. Standing on a pedestal and making a lot of noise is substantially easier than getting people to part with their money.
Raise And Give's part in OUSU allows for groups such as the Ethics, Fairtrade and Environment Committees to operate in the political spectrum alongside our fundraising activities.
Politics in RAG would duplicate other efforts in OUSU and restrict our ability to raise vital funds for deserving charities. A non-political stance makes us as inclusive as possible. Awareness is a good thing, but we see it best done by the charities which Oxford supports.
RAG will never reform a government nor remove world debt, as flattered as we are by Miss Davis's belief in us as Oxford students. As for "shagging for Sudan": a) it's tasteless and b) it won't raise enough money.
Ian King Student Union Vice President for Charities and Community, Oxford RAG Executive
20th Jan 2005