YES

Alice King

The very role of Access Officer exists in order to ensure that someone’s socio-economic background should have no influence on their time as a student. Regardless of heritage, family income, the quality of their secondary school education or the desirability of their postcode, Access Officers strive to place all students on as equal a footing as possible when they apply to university. It can generally be agreed upon that their work is invaluable in fighting institutionalised prejudice. Not only that, but Access Officers also combat the widely accepted stereotypes of what the typical Oxford student should be. They are there, fundamentally, to facilitate access to the University itself for those who are challenged by institutional discrimination.

Why then should we tolerate prejudice against potential Access Officers on the very grounds that they are there to combat? For me, a large and extremely positive part of my experience at Oxford has been erasing the inverted snobbery I had cultivated before arriving. The idea that some people are ‘too posh’ can all too easily establish an ‘us-and-them’ mentality amongst students. It doesn’t take much for, let’s say, a student from a poorly performing state school to fi nd certain aspects of Oxford life intimidating and even unpleasant. To reinforce this by saying that a privileged student can’t qualify as a proactive supporter of access at this University could fortify divides and create new ones.

It’s embarrassing to admit that I had such an attitude of inverted snobbery when I first came to Oxford, one which was neither justifi ed nor helpful, and did nothing to add to my experience as a student.

After overcoming this mindset, I was told by friends from more privileged backgrounds (for want of a better word) that they too were aware of this perceived division and were equally intimidated by it at times. If anything, this proves that we need even more support for and involvement in access programmes from all students – to prove that we’re all in this together, instead of in separate teams working only for our respective sides.

We are, or should be, unified as students together at the same University, and it’s time to start acting like it. What better way to do this than to stop drawing unnecessary divisions between ourselves?

Admittedly, it is hard to deny that a disproportionately large number of the Oxford student body are from privileged backgrounds. This disproportion is not just visible in the past education of students – it’s also remarkable when it comes to race, region and socio-economic background. But does a student’s privilege make them any less academically talented, any less interesting, any less of a good person?

Ultimately, Access Officers work on levelling the playing field, not in trying to strip privileged applicants of their merits, but in giving less privileged applicants the chance to perform and achieve unfettered by institutional prejudice. As such, being an Access Officer should be an option open, like that of studying at Oxford, to anyone willing and able to fulfi l the necessary criteria.

To imply that privileged individuals in any respect could or should not have such a role makes the role of Access Officer in itself a privilege. Implying an individual should or could not achieve as well as another because of something as unchangeable asof their background goes against everything access programmes stand for.

NO

Tjoa Shze Hui

At first, I found this debate a difficult one to come down on with any measure of decisiveness. Just two days ago, I was certain that I wanted to write an argument for the ‘yes’ side, detailing why privilege shouldn’t stop anyone from speaking out on issues of importance, or from trying to make the University a better place for everyone here. For it seemed to me that the opposite would prove fatally enervating when taken to its logical conclusion. If one were not allowed to take action on any problem falling outside the realms of personal experience, then wouldn’t a huge chunk of student advocacy here at Oxford become discredited? Wouldn’t many campaigners march about without any recourse to public support, and most transnational activism fall flat on its face?

It was only later, when I tested these abstract arguments against my friends, that I came to see them as dire pronouncements trumpeted from the tail end of a slippery slope, sexy but irrelevant to the specific situation of access and Access Officers in Oxford. The point of debate here is not on whether students from privileged backgrounds can or should speak out on issues of justice and access; like everyone else, they certainly have some measure of freedom to advocate for things that are good.

The real question is whether serving as Access Officers is the most effective way for these students to accomplish their desired end, and make a positive impact on university life. My answer to that specific question must be a firm and resounding no.

At the most basic level, this has to do with the scope of the Access Officer’s job, which revolves around the delicate art of persuasion. At outreach events, Access Officers have to paint their colleges as friendly and welcoming to students who have never met an Oxonian before in the flesh, let alone thought about graduating as one. Arguably, their persuasive techniques would seem vastly more convincing if they were able to embody their own claims about accessibility, and not merely dole out success stories in vague and theoretical terms.

Truth be told, any Access Officer who urges terrifying leaps of faith without having personally taken one themselves is likely to come across as insincere, difficult to relate to, and sweetly insulated from the realities of state school life; at worst, they might even perpetuate the impression that Oxford is only for ‘posh people’ like themselves, and unwittingly leave fence-sitters persuaded in the wrong direction.

In my opinion, electing a privileged Access Officer would only be justified if more suitable candidates were lacking, unwilling to speak up, or rendered voiceless by some other means. But in Oxford none of these situations holds true. Plenty of successful applicants come in each year from non-traditional feeder schools and, typically, each round of elections sees at least one candidate highlighting the relevance of their own experiences in a bid for the job. In this situation, then, to let the more privileged speak up in the name of an ‘oppressed minority’ would be akin to talking over said minority voices, while willfully ignoring the fact their own voices are still in good working order.

The issue at stake here is that of suitability for a collegiate position in limited supply. Since only one, two or at most a handful of people get to call themselves Access Officers each year, it’s of vital importance that this role goes to the people who have the most relevant experience, and are thus likely to do the better job.

Combibos in Gloucester Green, the downstairs of Caffé Nero on the High Street, Christ Church Meadow. All of these places feel eerily quiet at the moment. And it’s terrifying me. You see, at this time of year, you shouldn’t be able to catch a whiff of roasted Arabica without spotting a secretive liaison between two aspiring OUSU sabbatical officers. Strolls along the Isis should be greeted with a subtle chorus of blackbirds and wannabe NUS delegates, and an early morning apricot danish is always best appreciated whilst overhearing a candidate for OUSU President persuade a JCR Officer to run for Student Trustee. But not this year. Silence.

6th Week of Michaelmas marks the annual elections of the Student Union, OUSU, and usually by this time in term, there are a plethora of candidates for the varied positions, out there hacking to build the best slate (a team of candidates). But as I’ve mentioned above, the usual haunts of this seasonal visitor are devoid of their customary democratic discussions. And this is bad for all of us.

The fewer candidates there are for the top jobs in OUSU, the less competition there is, which results in less pressure on the candidates to go out and build strong electoral teams. This leads to fewer new people becoming actively involved in OUSU, and future leaders never being discovered. Smaller slates means less active outreach during the election, which leads to lower turnouts and higher rates of apathy towards OUSU. Shoddy policies remain unchallenged, and candidates with views unrepresentative of the wider student population become more likely to gain office. And so the body that is meant to represent us all to the University becomes ever more distant to the ordinary student members.

Some of you, at this point, are wondering why you should care about OUSU in the slightest. I understand where you’re coming from – I didn’t care much for OUSU as a fresher; my Common Room was always there for me when I
needed it, and I couldn’t understand why some of the people in OUSU seemed to be more focused on condemning the latest international goings-on rather than on discussing educational issues.

Commons Rooms are great, but they can’t do everything. We, as students, have been granted a seat at the top tables of the top university in the world – we should be sending the very best to fight our corner. And it does matter. A few years ago, OUSU secured the best fee-waiver and bursary package of any English University, something we need to continue to defend and protect for future generations of students. Your choice over the next few weeks, through the OUSU elections, has the potential to define what student life in Oxford will be like for years to come. But first we need there to be a choice.

So to the waverers and fence-sitters, umming and ahhing over whether to run in the upcoming election – give it a go. There are too many good people sitting this one out, and leaving it to someone else. We need you all to run, to put forward your vision of OUSU in a post-Trup age, and to allow students the option to engage with a set of ideas that appeals to them.

To those who haven’t even considered being a student representative, but have a passion for anything from academic issues to graduate welfare, then there’s a place for you too. Nominations open on Thursday of 3rd Week and close a week later. And don’t think that you need to have a big team to win -plenty of independent candidates triumph in these elections.

Finally, to those who have no interest in running for office: at least make your voice heard – vote. Even if this plea for more people to announce their candidature doesn’t work, you will still have a choice. For there is always the opportunity to vote for RON, which stands for Re-Open Nominations. Consider their proposals, watch them hust, and if they’re not good enough, then vote RON. You deserve the best.

It should be said that there are a few who have quietly mentioned they are going to run, but we shall only see the best of these people if there is competition, and they have to fight for every vote.

In the meantime, the future of our Student Union is in intensive care, and desperately needs a transfusion of fresh blood and ideas. It is time, therefore, that we start donating.