Your Letters
The author of the best letter in each issue will receive a pair of free tickets to see the film of their choice at the Phoenix.
FOR HAVING THE BALLS TO ASK... Dear David and Martin (if I can be so familiar),
I am not known for my paranoia, but when there have been 2 articles in the OxStu regarding balls which have both failed to mention our ball I begin to think this may be personal. As the paper produced by OUSU you should, surely, represent all colleges equally. Therefore I would ask that you please print the attached letter in your next issue, and, perhaps, offer us free advert space, to atone, in part for such an oversight.
I look forward to your reply Bridget (if we can be so familiar) Publicity Manager
Bridget, we're truly sorry for our oversight which we would like to assure you was by no means intentional. As way of recompense, we are pleased to print your letter so that all of our readers are now aware of the existence of your ball. Further to this, we'd like to encourage all of our readers to attend. I am afraid that we are unable to offer any free adverts further to this, but we hope a pair of tickets to the Phoenix will make up for this.
LABOURING A POINT Dear Sirs,
Your editorial comment on the Labour Club's plans for a "Red Ball" (Having a ball, May 3) is not entirely fair. Whatever the merits of the event in question, the Labour Club has an honourable record of left-wing political activism. With regards to the current government, however, your analysis is entirely correct: it consistently supports the demands of business over the rights of working people.
Yours for socialism, Antonia Bance and Sacha Ismail, Somerville SPEAKEASY? Dear OxStu,
The article in your most recent edition entitled 'Speakeasy?' by Miriam Quick requires some clarification. Miriam Quick argues that 'liberal views based on universal tolerance are in fact completely intolerant of those who are themselves intolerant' and that 'being in breach of the new PC dogma is an offence punished not by ducking, hanging or crucifixion but by being ostracised, alienated and ignored'.
The writer's opinion as to the meaning of 'freedom of speech' is evidently misconceived. Freedom of speech does not grant citizens an unmitigated right to say whatever they want. The right to freedom of speech exists only in conjunction with other, equally important rights, which are embodied in our collective societal morality. To argue that freedom of speech means the right to say anything would be to argue that other fundamental rights, such as the right not to be discriminated against, or the right not to be harassed, are of less value and should not be protected.
When we condemn racists, fascists, homophobes - all those who audaciously argue that it is their right to express their offensive views - we are in no way being intolerant; such condemnation is, in fact, entirely the antithesis of intolerance. The condemnation of racism is essential to the upholding of the rights of the many whom are hurt and offended by racist views. This, contrary to the writer's incorrect assertion, does not mean upholding 'the new PC dogma'. What it means is upholding the rights of those whom are subject to racism. This, I suggest, is of prime importance, even if it does provoke feelings among the few that their freedom of speech is being constrained.
The political correctness movement is merely a device with which to mark out the boundaries of freedom of speech. It is a flexible concept, readily adaptable to changing social values. While its protagonists could, at times, be accused of pedantry, it functions as a vital mechanism in our attempts to eliminate racism and promote acceptance, equality and multi-culturalism in our society.
Yours, Stephen Glasper, New College
Miriam Quick responds: "I agree. However, my aim was simply to suggest that we should be more aware of flaws and limitations in our ideals. As you said, tolerance and freedom of speech are both rights requiring practical qualification and are defined in 'collective societal morality' not universal norms. I also wished to condemn the self-righteousness of those extremists who cannot see the limitations of their own so-called tolerance and suggest that unless we learn to question received knowledge on sensitive issues, then we are no better than the dogmatic extremists of either the left or the right".
17th May 2001