Letters
The NUS and yourselves (Editorial of 30th October, 'If We Tolerate This...') have a nerve to presume that all students should automatically agree with your stance on top-up fees. For a start, I thought you were meant to be representative bodies - expressing the views of all students - but when it comes to student funding, only the 'gimme, gimme, gimme' opinion is voiced (or should I say, imposed from above).
Frankly, as a current student, I couldn't give a shit about future students - whereas the NUS and The OxStu seem to represent the undergrads of 2006 more than those of 2003. However, I'm sure I'm not the only current student who fundamentally believes in the principles behind top-up fees - and regard them as good government policy. Once students are of adult-age, as we are almost exclusively at Uni, we should be prepared to take self-responsibility rather than selfishly & pathetically expect (what are effectively) handouts from taxpayers' money (for a degree which is all too often irrelevant & second-rate). Obviously, I'm glad that I don't have to pay such fees myself - but that doesn't mean to say that I don't believe in them at an ideological level.
Therefore, when your editorial raises the question as to why "there seems to be so much apathy amongst the student body over the issue", you are mistaking apathy for downright disagreement on account of many. It is unbelievably arrogant for you to assume student consensus with yourselves against the proposals. After all, we are not defined purely and generically by our status as students. Anyway, why should we current students be campaigning when I didn't see too many 15 year olds (who will be directly affected) rallying on the streets of London - yet (if anyone's) this is their cause - not mine!
Neil Wolfson Mansfield College
Sir,
I refer to your article regarding the suspension of Andrew Wilkie on the grounds of discrimination. I fail to see where the necessary anti-Semitism comes in his statement, and his argument is politically, rather than racially or religiously based.
In my mind, the application of the 'discrimination' label simply reflects gross political correctness, and it remains arguable that the Israeli Army is a highly questionable organisation, simply working with the sanction of an internationally recognised government.
Would a professor who refused to take on a former member of the IRA be accused of discrimination and anti-Catholicism I wonder?
Yours
John Heaton-Armstrong St. Benet's Hall
Sir,
In reporting the suspension, I attempted to state a more accurate version of events; whilst the national press claimed that he "rejected a student for being Israeli", he in fact dismissed a student's interest in his doctorate group for serving in his country's army.
However, it ought to have been emphasised that Duvshani's involvement in the army was part of Israel's mandatory national service. As for questioning terminology adopted such as 'anti-Semitism', more of Wilkie's infamous email ought to have been highlighted, such as: "I have a huge problem with the way that the Israelis take the moral high ground from their appalling treatment in the Holocaust".
It is acknowledged however that Wilkie's position as an 'anti-Semitic' or a victim of 'anti anti-Semitics' remains open to debate.
Yours,
Anjool Malde Deputy News Editor, The OxStu
30th Oct 2003