On Monday the Tab weighed in on the controversy over an alleged incident of homophobia at Wahoo with an article entitled “An accusation should be treated as just that: An accusation”. I really wish they hadn’t bothered.

I don’t want to comment on what happened at Wahoo (the CCTV is still under review) but rather on the treatment of accusations of homophobia in this article. Dufton’s article seemed mainly concerned with attacking the two people involved for raising the issue of whether their treatment in the club was homophobic. Apart from anything else it was inaccurate, portraying them as being “willing to take the business to court, put its license at risk, and request relevant good will charity”, when in fact these were all suggestions or offers made by other members of the Student Union in support.

It seems obvious to me that the matter would be investigated with the club before any of these possibilities would be tried, which is indeed what happened. Similarly, the two students didn’t deal with the issue “through the student press”; rather it was picked up on and reported on by those involved in student journalism. All they did was share what seemed like a reasonable assumption (given the continuing problem of homophobia and accounts of witnesses) of a problematic incident with the student community in an online forum.

While one of them admitted subsequently to having unclear memories of the night, we all know that intoxication can complicate matters, and it doesn’t seem like there was any malicious intent on either of their parts. Dufton himself acknowledged that “in fairness, all parties concur that the pair were unfortunately not informed exactly as to why they were ejected”.  It wasn’t unfair, therefore, to think that this might have been due to attitudes to same-sex kissing.

Inaccuracies aside, my real problem with this article was the vitriol Dufton directed towards those willing to challenge potential incidences of homophobia and discrimination and those willing to offer support and help, misunderstanding or no misunderstanding. He called the willingness to question the issue “frankly disgusting”, called the students “culprits”, accused them of having “cried wolf”, and painted the club involved as a vulnerable victim of accusations. This is poisonous. Businesses like Wahoo are not the vulnerable parties in matters like this; individuals who might be at risk of prejudice and discrimination are. Neither the club nor the bouncer would ever have faced legal action unless there was proof of the allegation, and it is perfectly within the right of anyone unhappy with their treatment to challenge it. As far as I can tell from walking past Wahoo every night, their popularity doesn’t seem to have taken a hit either.

I’m fiercely proud that the student community at Wadham was so outraged by an *apparent* case of homophobia, so supportive and so willing to take action should it have emerged to be the case. The real result of all this, whatever actually happened, is not that Wahoo have suffered. Instead, it has been made clear to many people that homophobia won’t be tolerated by students here. The Tab article, on the other hand, discouraged people from calling out institutions and authority figures on potential homophobia. Anyone who read the Tab piece might think twice about challenging what seemed to be discrimination, if this is the kind of attack you might get in a public forum for possibly being mistaken. The message of this article was “sit down and shut up”, and it is that, not the behaviour of those it attacked, that was “frankly disgusting”.

It was standing room only at this year’s Oxford Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW), the ninth to be held at Oxford University. Since the first Oxford IAW in 2005 – when Oxford students and academics initiated the first IAW in Europe – Oxford has been one of the most active contributors to a series of events now taking place across the globe. Hosted by the Oxford University Arab Cultural Society, Israeli Apartheid Week has brought together people of all backgrounds for a clear purpose: to further the analysis of Israel as an apartheid state and build support for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel until it complies with its obligations under international law.

Where Israel was once able to commit its crimes against the Palestinians with impunity – hidden away from world’s media and defended by the world’s most powerful states – it now faces a broad and growing international movement demanding that it be held accountable for its actions. The basic analysis advanced by IAW is that Israel’s well-documented crimes: routine killings, house demolitions, forced population transfer and other violations of human rights are core elements of Israel’s system of institutionalized racial discrimination. The distinction in Israeli law between individuals based on their ethnicity is the basic legal means by which the rights of Palestinians – those in the West Bank and Gaza, those in forced exile and Palestinian citizens of Israel – are denied and abused.

Institutionalized racial discrimination of this type is defined as the crime of Apartheid in international customary law. The definition comes from the 1973 Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, later incorporated into the Rome Statute – the founding document of the International Criminal Court.

In recent years, the view that Israel is guilty of practicing Apartheid has gained increasing unanimity across legal and academic communities. Both the current UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights to the Occupied Palestinian Territories Professor Richard Falk and his predecessor in the post, Professor John Dugard, have provided legal analyses detailing how this Apartheid system functions. Many other prominent figures, including former US President Jimmy Carter have also brought attention to this. And this past December, the faculty members of the American Studies Association in the US voted to support the academic boycott of Israeli institutions.

Few have been more outspoken in their condemnation of Israeli Apartheid than South Africans themselves. Once fraternal allies with the Palestinians in the struggle for liberation, today South Africans are leading solidarity in the movement against Israeli apartheid. This week IAW was held in fifteen South African cities and campuses. Two years ago, the ANC passed a resolution declaring its support for the BDS movement. ANC Chair and former Deputy President of South Africa Baleka Mbete echoed similar comments made by Desmond Tutu and other prominent South Africans; that the situation in Palestine is not only comparable to Apartheid South Africa, but having witnessed it herself, she declared, it was ‘far worse’.

This year’s IAW approached these questions from a number of vantage points. Professor Ilan Pappé from the University of Exeter, in a session chaired by fellow Israeli historian, Professor Avi Shlaim (St Antony’s), addressed the continuing struggle of the Palestinian people. His lecture focused on the need for concepts like apartheid, settler colonialism, and ethnic cleansing, in order to illuminate the reality on the ground in historical Palestine.

Dr Abdel Razzaq Takriti from Sheffield University pointed to the particular responsibilities that Britain carries for building and sustaining Israeli Apartheid, and identified the meaning and importance of international solidarity to those struggling against colonialism and Apartheid. Dr Paul Kelemen from Manchester University, chaired by Dr Sudhir Hazareesingh (Balliol) described the enthusiastic role of the British left, for much of the 20th century, in supporting Zionist expulsion of Palestinians from their country. Referring to the left’s ‘history of a divorce’ with Zionism, Dr Keleman gave a further indication of the growing support for Palestinian rights in Britain.

While the racist logic of Israeli apartheid in essence is simple, its victims are diverse. Sami Adwan from Yarmouk refugee camp in Syria spoke of the precarious existence of Palestinian refugees living in exile and denied their legal and moral right to return to their homeland. On Tuesday Haneen Maikey, co-founder and director of al Qaws for Sexual and Gender Diversity in Palestinian society and Palestinian Queers for BDS described the experience of being queer under apartheid. She described the resistance of Palestinian queers to Israeli attempts at ‘pinkwashing’ and how the Palestinian LGBTQ movement has been working to mobilize across historic Palestine despite the range of legal and military obstacles.

The reality of Israeli apartheid described this week denies our common humanity, the Palestinian struggle for freedom and equality appeals to simple but noble ideals for which people have always fought. The call from Palestinian civil society for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel until it complies with international law, went out to all people of conscience and it is now time for it to be answered. This week, in the year of his passing, Oxford students once again renewed our commitment to the late Nelson Mandela’s statement that ‘our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians’.

Yes

In a tongue-in-cheek guide for the newly-moneyed and ambitious arriviste, The Economist suggested approaching a London-based university to endow a centre or professorial chair in one’s name, as a potentially good way step up the ladder of respectability. “Oxford and Cambridge, being richer, are also choosier about whom they take their money from,” it explained sniffily. But in this age of austerity, such blithe certainties have vanished. 

Oxford is yet to face as much criticism for its financial arrangements as the LSE was by the revelations that it was receiving donations from the Gaddafi regime. But that does not mean we should not be troubled. The University benefits from its charitable status, and college development offices eagerly use the language of charity in their campaigns. But it’s worth remembering that, especially in the case of big donations, association with Oxford comes with a level of prestige beyond many other charities.

The University and colleges should take into account that many donations are offered in the hope of establishing the donor as a pillar of society, and that this opportunity will often attract the unsavoury. The current controversy is over a £5 million donation to St Peter’s from two senior officers of the Perenco, which is an oil and gas company. Of course, in the perpetual moral twilight of global capitalism, it’s hard for any source of revenue to emerge spotless from full scrutiny, but some industries are just too close to flagrant exploitation for us to be comfortable with. Oil companies like Perenco fall squarely within this category. Perenco is accused of causing environmental destruction and trampling indigenous rights in South America. Despite these accusations, oil company bosses still have the opportunity to lead prosperous lives in the capitals of the West, and the ability to seek the satisfaction of being prominent citizens. What we need to question is the role of our supposedly high-minded and progressive institutions, such as Oxford, in this.

Oxford has long benefited from money of ethically dubious origin. Merton’s first endowment came in the form of capital from manors worked by serfs, and the de Balliols would today be classified as warlords. Arguably, this money has been put to good use, but nevertheless we remain the beneficiaries of systematic exploitation – just as LSE students became beneficiaries of the impoverishment and oppression of Libya. Perhaps Saif Gaddafi would not have been allowed to donate to Oxford, but not taking money from brutal dictators is the bare minimum of a principled stand.

The University should recognise that its ethical responsibilities go beyond being able to sleep soundly, because a connection with Oxford confers considerable legitimacy on anyone.

Students should absolutely take part in that discourse, as many in the St Peter’s JCR have done, because if we seriously believe this university can make the world a better place, we need to start by deciding who exactly we want in our corner.

Conor Dinan

No

Donations to colleges from ethically dubious companies, directly or indirectly, are always going to be contentious. As in the case of the recent donation to St Peter’s by two senior employees of the oil company Perenco. However, any moral intuition that might lead us to believe that the simple acceptance of a donation of £5 million from two employees of Perenco is wrong is misguided.

There is a significant difference, between taking money from an organisation itself, such as Perenco, and appeasing an organisation by becoming less vocal about its wrongdoings, or granting it special privileges to promote itself within an institution. This is where the real moral quandary lies. But this risk can be managed by making sure college practice does not become distorted as a consequence of receiving money – not by flatly refusing the money in the first place.

Of course, some will say that there is something inherently wrong with taking money, and that this in itself legitimises the donating organisation’s activities. But if the college remains just as critical about the donating organisation’s activities as before, and there is no subsequent change to any of its dealings with that company, such as promoting its graduate schemes within college, it is difficult to see where the problem lies.

There are also practical issues with making colleges selective about whom they receive donations from. For a start, how could a college objectively lay out the parameters for who it takes donations from, such that it didn’t take sides in contentious political issues? For example, does it refuse donations from Israeli companies? If so, this aligns it with Palestine, which would potentially leave Israeli students feeling ostracised. Making moral judgements like this has the potential to make colleges less inclusive places for students. Furthermore, where should the line be drawn between an ethical company and unethical one? Almost every multinational corporation has been involved in some sort of ethically questionable practise, and so drawing a line on practises, such as tax evasion or the selling of fast food, leaves the risk of not being able to accept donations from anybody.

Lastly, it could be argued that to refuse donations puts colleges in danger of being far too idealistic in the face of financial reality. The money from the Perenco employees’ donation, for example, will go towards the renovation of the quads and facilities of the college. To argue against accepting such a donation on the grounds that it means the college tacitly accepts the company’s practice is subjecting it to a moral standard that comes at the expense of real solutions to urgent problems.

Of course being morally high-minded is not a bad thing, but there are more salient and pressing issues which colleges would be better getting involved with, that do not interfere with student well-being. Refusing donations may on the surface appear a good idea, but on closer examination proves problematic.

Samuel Rutishauser-Mills