Letters to the Editor
Letter of the week: ‘Ow’ SU
Dear Sir,
We are writing to express our disappointment at the unbalanced reporting in the article ‘OUSU President and Councillor in email controversy’ last week. The last three paragraphs contained a false and libellous quote from Richard Huzzey, to which we were given not right of reply. Huzzey’s claim that we ‘used our office to interfere in the conduct of a public election’ is without substantiation.
The email we sent was never intended to be public, it was only sent to Richard Huzzey and Councillor Tony Brett. The confusion arose from us signing the email, which was clearly from a private email account, with our official OUSU roles in brackets. We did this to identify ourselves as we had met with Councillor Brett in an official capacity before.
We accept that we should have made it clear that we were writing in a personal capacity, but as soon as we received Huzzey’s email that mistakenly accused OUSU of getting involved, we assured him that we were not writing on behalf of the Student Union. We take ssue with Huzzey’s claim that he ‘contacted representatives of the press to warn them against printing [the email]’.
As we never made this correspondence public, and made quite clear that we had no intention of doing so, Huzzey had no reason to contact the student press. This is why his claim that our letter was ‘libellous’ is also erroneous, as we never wanted to involve a third party.
We are not prepared to be publicly accused of attempting to influence, and subsequently undermine, the democratic process of elections, and we would urge The Oxford Student to take more care to avoid printing false accusations in the future. Yours,
Emma Norris
Hannah Stoddart
Miss Ogyny
Dear Sir, Last week the namesakes of ‘names withheld’ wrote to you in a tone whose pomposity was matched only by the idiocy of their argument.
The article in question (concerning trophy wives) may have being intended to be tongue in cheek, but as one of our anonymous champions of the feminist cause pointed out, many a true word is spoken in jest. As a cost, benefit ratio, marring for money/power/influence is as old as the hills, and compared to this new fangled ‘love’ preached by the later romantics is a poor substitute. So girls remember, don’t marry for money, but go where the money is.
Robert Grant
Brasenose College
Animal Jesting
Dear Sir,
What should have been one of the most intellectual public debates about animal testing in years, turned out to be a deeply disappointing mockery of the serious concerns of the animal protection movement by the opposition (in favour of animal testing) at the Oxford Union on 27th April.
The students were too narrow- minded, prejudiced and disrespectful to seriously listen to the side against testing, despite the compelling evidence supporting it. Dr Langley quoted a staggering USDA figure of 92% of drugs that failed to pass human clinical trials after passing testing on animals.
Dr Knight mentioned 13 systematic studies published or soon to be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals demonstrating prolonged animal suffering during routine laboratory procedures; very poor predictivity of animal toxicity testing for human health; primate research that has not contributed to human therapeutic or diagnostic methods; and investigations of successful non-animal alternatives.
If only this debate was set in an animal lab, instead of the Union, the animals would have spoken for themselves, and nobody would have laughed.
Jasmijn de Boo BSc. (Hons), MSc., DipEd.
London SE11 4NR.
If you want to express any thoughts you have that have been inspired by the Oxford Student then send in your views to letters@oxfordstudent.com. the author of the best letter each week will receive a free diary in their pigeon hole. The editors reserve the right to cut letters for length and clarity. The views expressed in the letters do not necessarily reflect the views of The Oxford Student.
4th May 2006