A new Tumblr account purporting to be, “A concise description of what’s wrong with “We Are All Oxford” has added to the controversy surrounding the “I, Too, Am Oxford” compaign.

“We Are All Awful”, published earlier today, posts pictures from “We Are All Oxford” alongside captions that mock the original content.

In one post, a “troll” face is superimposed onto that of a woman holding the sign, “We enjoyed celebrating diversity at the OUSU International Fair”, alongisde the caption, “This white person who ‘enjoys’ celebrating ‘diversity’”.

Other features, including the fact that one person appears twice in “We Are All Oxford”, holding a different sign in each picture, are also mocked.

“We Are All Oxford” was published earlier this week by Alexandra Jaye Wilson in protest on what it considered an unfair representation of the treatment of race in the university by the “I, Too, Am Oxford” campaign.

She commented, “We are appalled that someone has reduced the efforts of our response to a patronising and immature parody blog. We have emphasised repeatedly that we have no intention to undermine the original campaign as it raises very important issues about people’s prejudices and misguided perceptions, which need to be challenged!

“It seems as though the social media reaction is claiming that we are saying that racism does not exist, which is not the case at all. We are not naive and we are horrified that people think we are trying to suggest that these negative experiences do not matter, as many of us have faced them ourselves.

“In addition to this, there has been a lot of criticism about white people featuring in the campaign. We think it is extremely important that everyone has an opportunity to express their opinion and people who are white should not feel that they are excluded from this discussion. For clarification some of the white people pictured are not White British and are in fact ethnic minorities.

“The whiteboard comments were individual to each person and related to their personal experience of Oxford’s inclusivity. This of course leads to a wider discussion of access for all types of minorities at Oxford.

“We are simply painting a more balanced picture of the university and highlighting to people that it is ignorant individuals, and not the University of Oxford, that expresses these views.

“We all stand by our response and really hope that people will take the time to read the explanation at the beginning of our Tumblr page as we feel this accurately expresses our intentions.”

Chiara Giovanni, who was involved in the “I, Too, Am Oxford” campaign, said, “While I thoguht it was funny, well-timed and aptly named, I think a quick explanation of why WAAO is silencing, hurtful and belittling to the PoC who took part in the original project would have been useful. It’s a shame tha this isn’t immediately obvious but clearly it’s necessary to explain that (a) parrotting access expenditure does not equate to dedicated combatting of institutional racism while students are here and (b) white people telling the PoC who participated that they, in effect, should sit downa nd stop worrying because everything’s dine and ‘diversity’ is being celebrated.”

“Some of the comments were irrelevant, but I do think that the fact this exists, along with the huge backlash to WAAO on Tiwtter at #wearealloxford demosntrates how hurtful and insulting this project is, and how it’s actually having a terrible impact on the University’s image (the opposite than intended!), which ought to be taken very seriously.”

Many have reacted negatively to “We Are All Oxford” on Twitter. One tweet reads, “Oxford University outreach spend: £5.6 million. Oxford University annual endowment: £3.8 billion #wearealloxford”. Another reads, “#wearealloxford is exactly why #ITooAmOxford is needed. I cannot believe that @ousunews thought it was a good idea. Really sad.”

However, others have defended the campaign. A recent tweet reads, “#wearealloxford has been woefully misunderstood. Its ONLY argument is that the original campaign is unrepresentative. Not denying it.”

Critical responses to the now-viral, ‘I, Too, Am Oxford’ campaign have triggered controversy across the university.

The Tumblr campaign, in which BME Oxford students are pictured holding whiteboards quoting racial prejudice which they have experienced, was inspired by the similar, ‘I, Too, Am Harvard’ campaign.

Comments include, “All the post-colonial and other critical theories you study does NOT entitle you to speak for me or over me,” and, “No, I’m not on a scholarship from Africa”.

The blog has received widespread media attention, and was covered by Buzzfeed, the Guardian, the Huffington Post and New Statesman.

The initiative has attracted criticism within Oxford for failing to represent fairly the treatment of race within the university. Luke Buckley, a graduate student at Wadham, challenged the campaign on the Facebook group “Skin Deep”, an Oxford student forum for the discussion of race issues. 

He told Cherwell, “In soliciting views from ‘people of colour’ the campaign scores a tragic own goal insofar as it reinforces the idea that there is something essential or unique about being of a particular skin colour. Furthermore, it necessarily proposes that having a certain skin colour entitles you to rights that are denied to other people on this basis. This is rank hypocrisy.” 

He added, “More gravely, it reinforces the very phenomena that it tries to ameliorate. It necessarily implies that there is something common to the condition of “being of colour” which ironically excludes not only people who aren’t “of colour”  but also those who are “of colour” but who don’t identify with a similar set of experiences or perhaps feel uncomfortable with the divisive terminology. 

“Oppression functions upon precisely this principle: the exclusion of people on the basis of an arbitrary characteristic from meaningful participation in the demos. To suggest a common voice is to suggest a yoke to which all must submit or be excluded. Surely the point should be to move beyond these sanctimonious and self serving campaigns which presuppose and thereby reproduce the very division they try to move beyond —to forgo the squalid comfort of identity and forge the possibility of relations that transcend it.”

An alternative Tumblr blog, ‘We Are All Oxford’ has since been set up. The introduction to the blog states, “We, as a mixed group of students from the University of Oxford, believe that Oxford has been misrepresented in the media following the ‘I, Too, Am Oxford’ Campaign. We are concerned that the negative portrayal of an ethnic minority student’s experience at the university will discourage prospective ethnic minority students from applying.”

Similar in format to ‘I, Too, Am Oxford’, the students pictured hold signs describing their positive experiences, including, “Half of my year of PPE at Univ are ETHNIC MINORITIES!” and, “We spend £5.6 million on outreach each year”.

‘We Are All Oxford’ does stress that it is not working against the earlier campaign, with its tumblr page also stressing that, “We would like to emphasise that we do not aim to undermine the original campaign and we are not working against them. We acknowledge that racism exists at the University of Oxford and it needs to be challenged, but we believe that the university is working hard to tackle these prejudices and misguided perceptions.”

Some students have opted to be involved in both campaigns, one even using ‘We Are All Oxford’ to explain that, “My statement was not meant to represent my entire experience, but to highlight some issues. My overall experience is very positive.”

Members of the ‘I, Too, Am Oxford’ Facebook group have defended the initial campaign. Risham Nadeem said, “It’s amazing how positive the response has been to the photos we’ve released. Having said this, the fact that there are some people who are undermining the project and claiming that racism isn’t a problem in Oxford is upsetting. You can’t look at these photos and think there isn’t a problem with the way students of colour are treated.This photo series highlights why, in this day and age, we still need to talk about race.”

Amy Bickersteth, also a member of the group, said, “Firstly, I think it’s important to acknowledge the students and general readers who understand and appreciate the premise of the project, and its result. I can’t help but feel disappointed, however, in comments that belittle the project by arguing that the incidents cited on the blog are “petty” or “exaggerated”, that everyone suffers from prejudice and so BME students can’t “complain”, or that prejudice exists everywhere, and so Oxford students in particular do not have the right to say anything.”

Students contacted from outside the campaign have expressed mixed reactions. Elle Tait, a first-year lawyer, said, “While it’s good to encourage discussion and an image campaign can have a very striking impact, it’s prone to be taken out of context and people can draw extreme conclusions that they wouldn’t do from speaking to the people in the pictures.”

Samuel Kim, a first-year medic, said, “One of the biggest race-related problems facing Oxford is access. I’m worried that this campaign could reinforce negative stereotypes and discourage BME students from applying.

Correction: The original article mistakedly cited Luke Buckley as the initiator of the “We are all Oxford” blog. We apologise for the mistake and for any discomfort caused. 

St Hilda’s has recently elected its first ever male Principal, sparking controversy amongst former and present students. 

The college, which was all-female until 2008, has elected Sir Gordon Duff, an Oxford graduate and Lord Florey professor in Molecular Medicine at the University of Sheffield, to serve as the eleventh Principal.

In an email sent to students to announce his election, it was stated that, “He is married to Lady Duff, an alumna of St Hilda’s college.”

This resulted in some twitter posts from students and alumni disappointed that the once all-female college has chosen to elect a male Principal, as well as the implication that his marriage to an alumna justifies his election. 

Helena Dollimore, a History and Politics student and former OULC co-chair, tweeted, “Pretty disappointed that my college, which was all women until 2008, has just appointed a male president. We’ve got enough of them in world.”

Wadham SU President, Anya Metzer, tweeted in response, “possible unfortunate implication that as soon as a man is eligible he is preferable”.

However the biggest reaction against the appointment has come from college alumni.

Ruth Hunt, CEO of Stonewall and former JCR president at St. Hilda’s, tweeted, “I can’t help but feel a little disappointed that the new principal of St Hilda’s is a man. Such important role models for me when I was 18.”

She also referred to the appointment as the “End of an era” and wrote that, “the reference to his wife in the release just epitomises how they have completely missed the point. Which is more disappointing”.

Val McDermid, a writer and broadcaster who attended St Hilda’s before it became mixed, also tweeted about the reference to his wife in the press release, “His wife knows our little ways, so it’ll all be ok. Yeah, right. Mary Bennett must be birling in her grave.”

Historically, five Oxford colleges were established as all-female institutions. These were Somerville, St Anne’s, Lady Margaret Hall, St Hughs, and St Hilda’s. Of these, St. Hilda’s was the last to go mixed and accept male members, and today still retains a majority of female fellows.  

The Vice-Principals Dr Katherine Clarke and Dr Selina Todd, who chaired the election process said that, “Sir Gordon Duff’s record of leadership and academic achievement and his outstanding contributions to public policy make him the ideal candidate to lead St Hilda’s as we approach our 125th anniversary in 2018.”

The college’s Equal Opportunity Policy, which can be found on its website, states that, “Subject to statutory provisions, no applicant or member of staff will be treated less favourably than another because of his or her sex, marital status, sexual orientation, racial group, or disability.”

Dr Todd further commented, “We are very proud of our history as a college that have pioneered equality of access to higher education.”

The English Faculty have revised provisions for the new course only days after it was initially announced in the face of widespread student objections.

Current second years are the first year to study the new English course, but after students complained that the balloting system for ‘Paper 6’ options didn’t fully account for their choices the Faculty have announced a restructuring.

Under the previous system students would complete a ‘Special Author’ paper in Michaelmas of third year, choosing from a list of up to thirty different canonical authors selected by the faculty. The course has now been changed so that students study a centrally taught ‘Special Topic’ instead, with a similarly extensive list of options available.

However, students expressed discontent at the way these options were balloted for. In previous years, college tutors would find staff to teach students the ‘Special Author’ paper on an ad hoc basis, with a large number of students being taught one-on-one or in small tutorial groups. The new system, as it was originally proposed, asked students to list five ‘Special Topics’ that they were willing to study, one of which they would be allocated.

The Faculty originally declined to let students indicate which of the five topics they were most interested in, or rank their choices in any preferential order. An email from Kate Gear, the Faculty’s academic officer, said, “It’s clear from the majority of correspondents that students and tutors both understand that popular options may be oversubscribed, but they still want an opportunity to indicate options in order of preference.”

Thw incident has been resolved by introducing a preferencing system where students rate five options which are then balloted accordingly. Despite this resolution there have been some wider concerns expressed over the nature of the course change. Students are worried that the new system has been designed to reduce the amount of time students spend with tutors. Special Topics will be taught in seminar-style classes rather than tutorials, an arrangement that has upset some.

Matthew Main, a second year at New College, commented, “It is a real kick in the teeth: it consists of five one-hour classes (which are essentially taught as sign-up lectures, as far as anyone can tell) and two quarter-of-an-hour ‘tutorials’/consultations, replacing five one-on-one tutorials. Another aspect which seems to have been overlooked is that tutors are now both setting, teaching, and examining papers which cater entirely to their own professional/academic interests, or more troublingly ‘tastes’: this raises some very obvious concerns about whether the courses really will reward forthright thinking and research or whether they really represent the students being asked to further research already being undertaken by the professors in charge of each course.”

Tiffany Stern, Chair of Examiners for the old system and fellow of University College, responded to these criticisms, “The idea was to allow faculty members to teach courses of their own choice, tied in with their research. Hitherto we have largely taught as ‘GPs’ rather than as specialists (tutes are seldom what we’re working on). Paper 6 was to allow us, and our students, to be involved in research as it happens… The Faculty and College ‘stint’ (the hours per week that post holders teach) remains unchanged.”

The introduction of the Special Topic paper comes alongside broader changes to the course. As well as some final exams being replaced by coursework, students will now study one fewer paper than in previous years.

Current third years will sit an exam on Shakespeare, and four period papers that cover the years 1100-1830 with an additional commentary paper on assigned Middle English texts. Under the new system, students will be examined on Shakespeare via a portfolio of coursework and the commentary paper has been discontinued entirely. Current third years also submitted a portfolio of work in Trinity of second year that focused on English language rather than literature, an aspect of the course that is now entirely absent from Finals.

Overall, English students will now sit only four three-hour exams in their final year, all on topics that they studied in second year. One finalist commented, “The new system as it stands serves to minimise the work-load, intentionally or otherwise, of English students and the staff that teach them. It’s frustrating that I will earn the same degree as someone graduating a year later despite the fact I will have sat seventeen hours of exams to the twelve they will sit whilst their coursework is essentially the same. It’s not like English degrees are exceptionally hard work anyway!”

Magdalen has cancelled its historic Commemoration Ball, planned for June 2015, after the Governing Body received too few student applications for the Ball Committee.

This afternoon, Magdalen JCR and MCR presidents sent out mass-emails announcing the ball’s cancellation.

According to reports, the Magdalen Governing Body cancelled the ball due to insufficient student applications for the Ball Committee by the time of the deadline.

Both the JCR and MCR presidents today proposed a two-week extension of the Ball Committee application deadline after encouraging more students to participate and negotiating with college administrators. However, the Magdalen college Governing Body did not accept these proposals and went ahead with cancelling the event.

In an email to the JCR mailing list, Magdalen JCR President Fabian Apel told students that “the selection panel received an insufficient number of applications at the closing of the original deadline. After encouraging some more people to apply, the senior members of the panel were still unsatisfied with the low number of applications.

“The MCR President and myself asked the Governing Body to extend the deadline until the beginning of next term, a proposal which did not find the support of either the Deans of Arts or the Home Bursar. Unfortunately, we did not manage to convince Governing Body of the merits of our case.”

The Magdalen Home Bursar could not be reached for comment when contacted this afternoon.

Magdalen holds a white tie commemoration ball once every three years according to a traditional cycle shared with Christ Church and New. Even amongst Oxford events, the Magdalen Ball is considered particularly prestigious and was recently voted a Times Social Event of the Year. Previous acts at Magdalen’s Commemoration Ball include the Rolling Stones, Pharrell, and Feeder.

An anonymous Magdalen student told Cherwell, “I’m really disappointed by this decision, especially when it seems as though it could just be rectified by getting more people involved. I personally didn’t hear anything about a committee being organised and would’ve joined if it meant guaranteeing a Ball for everyone. As a fresher, I’ll now be missing out on experiencing my own college ball even after hearing a lot about it before coming to Oxford.”

2015 will be the first time in over two decades that Magdalen has not held a triennial ball. The possibility of a smaller 2015 event or a 2016 Commemoration Ball will be discussed at upcoming Magdalen JCR and MCR meetings.