Letters
The Editors reserve the right to edit letters for length and clarity. The views expressed on this page do not necessarily reflect the views of The Oxford Student. Email letters [a] oxfordstudent [.] com.
Democratic rights
★ Dear Sir and Madam,
It is a surprise to me that Charlesrendon (17th February) is unable understand why a democratic Iraq will inevitably spread the same ideal to neighbouring areas. Quite simply, it is our belief that, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, the “inalienable” right to “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” can only be secured if “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”.
In contrast to Mr Brendon's pessimism, democracy does bring about a new era of tolerance, equality, and enlightened government. The United States, having followed the democratic course for longer than any other nation, is streets ahead in political debate, political equality, and informed governance.
While Ukraine and Georgia have had setbacks, the protests of last year prove the decisive victory of the desire for self governance, and dismiss Mr Brendon's bizarre notion that it is somehow a purely “American ideal”. The mass turnout in the Iraqi election strikes down the false assumption that the Abu Ghraib scandal has tempered desire for political representation.
The result is clear – those of us who do feel that electoral success in Iraq justifies the means are in no way downhearted, or in fear of the caution expressed in articles such as Mr Brendon's. The Bush doctrine is not one that “cannot be attained by peaceful means”, as the President's inaugural address highlights. The goal is supporting democracy using all possible power; up to and including democratic ones. Commitment to such a policy will ensure that the Iraq case does prove to be “inspirational”, and the growing calls for democracy from within Iran show that such a policy is working.
Timothy Stafford St Anne's College
Over dramatic
Dear Sir and Madam,
In the last issue, Tom Littler's play Quartet was given four stars, a large picture and the longest review in the drama section. By contrast, the Cherwell decided to lead with new writing at the Old Fire Station Theatre.
On the surface, Cherwell's decision was more justified: plays at the OFS are higher profile and need more publicity because of the much higher costs of putting a show on there.
In and of itself, this is unremarkable. But because Tom Littler is the drama editor for the Oxford Student, there is a conflict of interest that is both perceived and real. Last week's decision is just the latest example of how editorial decisions made by someone so involved in the Oxford drama scene has compromised the integrity of The Oxford Student's drama reporting. Whether or not his own shows deserve the recognition received on his page, a certain amount of suspicion inevitably accompanies it.
For I have no doubt that Littler probably has intended to be as impartial as possible but the fact is that no one can be impartial about activities that we are so fully immersed in. Whether or not the content or placement of any drama reviews was consciously biased or changed, it is unreasonable to expect Littler to have been objective, for there are few people more involved in Oxford drama than him.
We can only hope that The Oxford Student will choose to re-establish its journalistic integrity and appoint future editors readers can trust. The paper has a responsibility to go out of its way to let readers know that the reviewed piece was directed or written by the editor himself. To do otherwise is just misleading.
Oliver Morrison New College
Counselling crisis?
Dear Sir and Madam,
I'm writing in regard to the article entitled ‘Counselling in crisis' (17th February). I would like to draw to the attention of The Oxford Student's readers that the comment: “the counselling service runs the training for the college peer support programme, but does not oversee the implementation of the programme itself” is somewhat wide of the mark.
It is true that OUCS is not directive in how the peer support groups of the various colleges operate their system, but it is not true to say that OUCS does not play any supervisory role. Indeed, as part of the acceptance of a place on the peer support training course, the trainees within the colleges accept that they will undertake a ‘supervision' session with their representative at OUCS, which usually takes place fortnightly, once their formal training is complete.
The fact that OUCS does not direct peer support within colleges allows a great deal of flexibility that is needed given the widely varying welfare provisions of each college. A ‘one-size-fits-all' policy simply would not do.
The ‘supervision' sessions enable peer supporters to discuss any problems that they themselves are having, and furthermore allow an opportunity to reflect and consider how best the peer support programme might be run within their college with the help of OUCS.
Finally, I think it is only right and proper to emphasise the truly fantastic work that OUCS does in providing welfare to the students of this university. They are a hugely dedicated organisation, determined to uphold their aims, and I hope that The Oxford Student will continue to support the work OUCS does.
Peter Chapman St Edmund Hall
24th Feb 2005