Blog Page 1680
How secure is your college?
A Cherwell investigation has revealed worryingly low levels of security across the University. As the majority of Oxford colleges leave their entrances open during daylight hours, break-ins are not uncommon for most, with some colleges reporting as many as 15 security breaches in the last three years.
Cherwell also investigated how easy it is for a member of the public to enter an Oxford college. Of the 22 colleges observed, 22 colleges left their main doors open, and though one college had a porter on the door, they did not prevent access to the premises. Half of the colleges surveyed had pidge rooms that were easily accessible. In 21 colleges doors around the quad were left open, with only one college requiring a fob to enter.
Somerville had the highest number of break-ins of the colleges who disclosed the number of security infringements to Cherwell, with 15 incidents reported. These included vandalism, graffiti and theft, which may or may not have involved culprits from outside college. Hertford were close behind with 10 instances of security failures, including five bike thefts, three other thefts, and two counts of damaged property.
However, colleges including Christ Church, Jesus and St Peter’s had no security breaches recorded over the past three years. New College also had no recorded incidents, despite the robbery of the JCR’s PlayStation3 by two members of the public in February of this year.
One female undergraduate commented, “The problem with security in many colleges is that if you live in some of the older, in-college accommodation, a lot of the entrances to staircases are big stone archways without any doors. So of course it’s incredibly easy to walk in off the street, especially if you look the right age, and just walk into staircases where people live.”
She added, “A friend of mine who lives in a staircase like this left her room unlocked for the whole of Michaelmas and most of Hilary until something went missing and she realised how accessible her room was. Students should treat their rooms like they would treat their own homes and keep them locked at all times – you can’t blame it all on colleges.”
Cassie Davies, a first year English student at Lincoln, said, “I can’t remember any serious intrusions, but we do get a lot of tourists wandering around in college. This term we even had a tourist walk straight in on a class in our tutor’s room, which is where he lives not just where he works. It’s pretty disconcerting to think people will happily walk around opening private doors – I always lock my door now!”
St John’s PPEist Nupur Takwale told Cherwell, “I do have concerns with security as my own room was broken into, but luckily all my valuables were with me and the only thing they took was some vodka. There is a CCTV camera outside which supposedly points towards my bedroom window, but I was later told by college it was in fact not turned on. Also my bike was taken from outside my house and my friend had the wheel from his bike (also locked outside the house) stolen too.”
One anonymous student from Jesus, which had one of the lowest break-in rates with no recorded security breaches in the last three years, said, “College security at Jesus is pretty tight as the only way in without a key is through the porters’ lodge. Last term the police did an exercise trying to break in and tailgate, but they didn’t manage to without getting reported. It’s a bit less secure on the off-site accommodation though and recently we have had a few bike thefts, but new doors have been installed on the sheds as a result.”
Stolen bikes are a particular problem across Oxford, with bike theft rates in the city reportedly reaching over one per day earlier this year. One student commented, “It’s really frustrating. I left my bike locked outside Worcester for a couple of hours and came back to find it had been stolen. I went to the porters’ lodge, and they told me it happens all the time. Some of my friends have had their bikes nicked too. I’ve got a better lock now, but I really can’t afford to lose this one.”
As well as bike thefts, laptop thefts were surprisingly common, with St Catherine’s recording four occasions where computers were taken from rooms. St Antony’s similarly saw three computers stolen since 2009. Cherwell reported in October last year on the theft of two laptops from St Hugh’s, and in March another attempt to steal a laptop from St Hugh’s was foiled by a don who chased the thief as he fled the college.
One student from Wadham, which reported six security incidents since 2009, had items stolen from his locked bedroom. He disagreed that the problem lay only with students and was critical of college security, suggesting that “a little bit of maintenance needs to be done” to improve it.
However, another Wadham student suggested that members of the college were too trusting as “people will often hold the door open for people they don’t know”. He added, “The other day I gave a staircase code to someone I’d never met before – they looked like a student but in retrospect it was a silly thing to do.”
Although Cherwell’s observations also showed that 12 colleges restricted access to student accommodation, many of these were protected by codes on the doors to the staircase.
Many students have expressed concern over this system. One second year student commented, “Although having staircase codes appears very safe, my college only changes their code once a year and if you ask the porters for a code to a building and look like a student, they’ll often comply.
“Not to mention that my friends and I store the codes on our phones – if they were lost or stolen then someone would have access to not only their possessions but everyone else in the building.”
However, Brasenose student Amy Rollason said, “We had some break-ins in the library last year which was a bit worrying, but generally I feel really safe in Brasenose, especially as the porters are on site 24/7. The only major security breach was from one sly fox. Literally. But other than wandering wildlife we’ve had no other real intruders that I know of.”
One Mansfield student, who wished to remain anonymous, agreed. He said, “Although Mansfield’s security cameras are pretty obvious you can walk right into college without having to go through the porters’ lodge. You need fobs to enter student accommodation but it would be pretty easy to slip in if the cleaners have propped a door open or (more likely) if one of the doors hasn’t clicked shut.
“Lots of students don’t lock their room’s windows or doors either, which is especially stupid of those on the ground floor. Overall I don’t think college can do much more about security, but students should be more responsible.”
A Cherwell investigation has revealed worryingly low levels of security across the University. As the majority of Oxford colleges leave their entrances open during daylight hours, break-ins are not uncommon for most, with some colleges reporting as many as 15 security breaches in the last three years.
Cherwell investigated how easy it is for a member of the public to enter an Oxford college. Of the 22 colleges observed, 22 colleges left their main doors open, and though one college had a porter on the door, they did not prevent access to the premises. Half of the colleges surveyed had pidge rooms that were easily accessible. In 21 colleges doors around the quad were left open, with only one college requiring a fob to enter.
Somerville had the highest number of break-ins of the colleges who disclosed the number of security infringements to Cherwell, with 15 incidents reported. These included vandalism, graffiti and theft, which may or may not have involved culprits from outside college. Hertford were close behind with 10 instances of security failures, including five bike thefts, three other thefts, and two counts of damaged property. However, colleges including Christ Church, Jesus and St Peter’s had no security breaches recorded over the past three years. New College also had no recorded incidents, despite the robbery of the JCR’s PlayStation3 by two members of the public in February of this year.
[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%5549%%[/mm-hide-text]
One female undergraduate commented, “The problem with security in many colleges is that if you live in some of the older, in-college accommodation, a lot of the entrances to staircases are big stone archways without any doors. So of course it’s incredibly easy to walk in off the street, especially if you look the right age, and just walk into staircases where people live.”
She added, “A friend of mine who lives in a staircase like this left her room unlocked for the whole of Michaelmas and most of Hilary until something went missing and she realised how accessible her room was. Students should treat their rooms like they would treat their own homes and keep them locked at all times – you can’t blame it all on colleges.”
Cassie Davies, a first year English student at Lincoln, said, “I can’t remember any serious intrusions, but we do get a lot of tourists wandering around in college. This term we even had a tourist walk straight in on a class in our tutor’s room, which is where he lives not just where he works. It’s pretty disconcerting to think people will happily walk around opening private doors – I always lock my door now!”
St John’s PPEist Nupur Takwale told Cherwell, “I do have concerns with security as my own room was broken into, but luckily all my valuables were with me and the only thing they took was some vodka. There is a CCTV camera outside which supposedly points towards my bedroom window, but I was later told by college it was in fact not turned on. Also my bike was taken from outside my house and my friend had the wheel from his bike (also locked outside the house) stolen too.”
One anonymous student from Jesus, which had one of the lowest break-in rates with no recorded security breaches in the last three years, said, “College security at Jesus is pretty tight as the only way in without a key is through the porters’ lodge. Last term the police did an exercise trying to break in and tailgate, but they didn’t manage to without getting reported. It’s a bit less secure on the off-site accommodation though and recently we have had a few bike thefts, but new doors have been installed on the sheds as a result.”
Stolen bikes are a particular problem across Oxford, with bike theft rates in the city reportedly reaching over one per day earlier this year. One student commented, “It’s really frustrating. I left my bike locked outside Worcester for a couple of hours and came back to find it had been stolen. I went to the porters’ lodge, and they told me it happens all the time. Some of my friends have had their bikes nicked too. I’ve got a better lock now, but I really can’t afford to lose this one.”
As well as bike thefts, laptop thefts were surprisingly common, with St Catherine’s recording four occasions where computers were taken from rooms. St Antony’s similarly saw three computers stolen since 2009. Cherwell reported in October last year on the theft of two laptops from St Hugh’s, and in March another attempt to steal a laptop from St Hugh’s was foiled by a don who chased the thief as he fled the college.
One student from Wadham, which reported six security incidents since 2009, had items stolen from his locked bedroom. He disagreed that the problem lay only with students and was critical of college security, suggesting that “a little bit of maintenance needs to be done” to improve it.However, another Wadham student suggested that members of the college were too trusting as “people will often hold the door open for people they don’t know”. He added, “The other day I gave a staircase code to someone I’d never met before – they looked like a student but in retrospect it was a silly thing to do.”
Although Cherwell’s observations also showed that 12 colleges restricted access to student accommodation, many of these were protected by codes on the doors to the staircase.Many students have expressed concern over this system. One second year student commented, “Although having staircase codes appears very safe, my college only changes their code once a year and if you ask the porters for a code to a building and look like a student, they’ll often comply.“Not to mention that my friends and I store the codes on our phones – if they were lost or stolen then someone would have access to not only their possessions but everyone else in the building.”
However, Brasenose student Amy Rollason said, “We had some break-ins in the library last year which was a bit worrying, but generally I feel really safe in Brasenose, especially as the porters are on site 24/7. The only major security breach was from one sly fox. Literally. But other than wandering wildlife we’ve had no other real intruders that I know of.”
One Mansfield student, who wished to remain anonymous, agreed. He said, “Although Mansfield’s security cameras are pretty obvious you can walk right into college without having to go through the porters’ lodge. You need fobs to enter student accommodation but it would be pretty easy to slip in if the cleaners have propped a door open or (more likely) if one of the doors hasn’t clicked shut.
“Lots of students don’t lock their room’s windows or doors either, which is especially stupid of those on the ground floor. Overall I don’t think college can do much more about security, but students should be more responsible.”
Academics’ pay rises as budgets fall
A report released by the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts last month attacked the increasing income of Russell Group academics, of whom Oxford’s Vice Chancellor, Andrew Hamilton, received the highest income in 2011, £424,000. This sum is closely followed by the Vice Chancellor at University of Birmingham’s salary of £419,000 and the Vice Chancellor of University College London, who received £365,000 last year. These accounts show that Russell Group universities have spent an average of around £318,000 on Vice Chancellors’ salaries, benefits and pensions over the last year.
The NCAFC report was written by Edward Bauer, a student and Vice-President of Education at Birmingham University, in collaboration with Michael Chessum, member of NUS and organizer for NCAFC; it also expresses concern at the rate at which these incomes are increasing. According to the report, the income of the Vice Chancellors of the University College London and University of Birmingham increased by £27, 345 and £27,000 respectively between 2010 and 2011, whilst the Vice Chancellor of Nottingham followed with an increase of £9,057 over the past year. These figures are supported by each university’s annual finances report.
This report also reveals that the rise is not limited to Vice Chancellors, alledging that there has been an increasing amount of universitys’ incomes spent on jobs paid a salary of over £100,000 a year. It claims that the percentage of the Russell Group’s total income that was spent on high paid jobs has increased by over 2%, from 1.832% in 2003/2004 to 3.849% in 2011/2012.
Furthermore, this increase is not limited to the Russell Group. A Telegraph report claimed that more than 950 university staff, including Vice Chancellors, were paid more than the Prime Minister in 2010 and that last year Liverpool Hope University announced intentions to cut up to 110 jobs whilst increasing Vice-Chancellor Gerald Pillay’s salary by 20.6% to £199,077.
With the total cuts to universities for 2012/2013 standing at around 3.4% and the typical teaching academic being paid £42,263 on average, Bauer’s and Chessum’s ‘University High Pay Report: One Alternative to Cuts’ states, “it is worrying that UK universities are now spending 2% more on increasing the wages of their very richest employees”.
This claim is supported by the Times Higher Education survey and by university financial statements. Analysis of these statements, conducted by accountancy firm Grant Thornton, shows that whilst total income packages dropped by by 1.21% in 2009-2010, the average spending by universities on salaries in isolation rose by 0.6%. A government-commissioned review of public-sector pay by the Work Foundation discovered that the pay-gap between the highest and lowest paid staff was greatest within the higher education sector.
Students have expressed concern at these increases when education in the UK is facing stringent cuts this year. According to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), core teaching funding is being reduced from £3.6bn in 2011/2012 to £2.4bn in 2012/2013 (a 34% decrease). And, despite the counteractive action of raising tuition fees, recent statistics show that the number of available courses over the past six years has been reduced by 27% and there will be around 11,000 fewer places for first year undergraduates available at universities next year.
Emma Wilson-Black, a second year student at Mansfield College, said, “At a time of cuts and austerity I would consider it deeply wrong and socially divisive to pay Russell Group university VCs massive salaries. I consider lecturers crucial to the education system rather than the few individuals at the top of the system who gain ridiculously inflated salaries.”
She continued, “The government is already facing criticism that its ‘education reforms’ will create a two-tier system where poorer students find it even harder to access top universities. This presents a vision of education where elitism dominates.”
The Times survey of Vice Chancellors across the UK also revealed that 26% of VC’s went to state schools, 39% to grammars and 20% to private schools (there was no data available on the remaining percentage). However, amongst the chancellors of the Russell-Group, 35% were private-schooled, in contrast with only 7% of privately schooled Vice Chancellors in the Million+ research intensive institutions, (Million+ is a ‘think-tank’ of post-1992 institutions, formerly known as the Campaign for Mainstream Universities.)
Somerville student and president of the Oxford Socialist Worker Student Society, Fraser Anderson, agreed with Wilson-Black. He said, “Revelations about the increases in Vice Chancellors’ salaries at a time of unprecedented attacks on higher education are yet another confirmation that we’re not all in it together. This is what Stefan Collini called the ‘world of McKinsey’, where education policy is shaped by people like former BP boss, Lord Browne, and the chief of McKinsey’s Global Education Practice, Sir Michael Barber. In their world it’s huge salaries for top executives – higher fees and cuts to jobs, pay and libraries for the rest of us.”
However, not all Vice Chancellors pay packets have experienced an increase. For instance, the London School of Economics reduced their Vice Chancellor’s pay by £67,000 between 2010 and 2011 to £218,000 a year whilst Sheffield reduced their Vice Chancellor’s salary by £17,000 to £294,000 per annum.
One student commented, “I think its important to remember that whilst education is facing cuts, the Russell Group contains some of the best universities in the world. Places like Oxbridge still manage to compete globally despite the huge financial advantages that institutions such as the Ivy League can offer students.”
He added, “I believe that the money within higher education should be more evenly spread between the VC’s and the average academic staff member if the University wishes to attract a larger proportion of high-calibre teachers. What’s the point in competitively paying for brilliant leadership if we can only afford to pay competively for a moderate workforce?”
Oxford University said that the pay for the Vice Chancellor reflected the calibre of the University itself. A spokesperson said, “It is certainly one of the two best universities in the UK and among the handful of best universities in the world.”
She added that the influence of Oxford on the UK also accounts for the high salary. She stated, “It makes a major contribution to the economic prosperity of the UK and the UK’s position in the world, as well as to tackling global challenges through its research. Its research output is vast, it has an almost billion-pound-a-year turnover not including the colleges and OUP, and it has great institutional complexity. Its Vice Chancellor’s salary reflects that.”
A report released by the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts last month attacked the increasing income of Russell Group academics, of whom Oxford’s Vice Chancellor, Andrew Hamilton, received the highest income in 2011, £424,000. This sum is closely followed by the Vice Chancellor at University of Birmingham’s salary of £419,000 and the Vice Chancellor of University College London, who received £365,000 last year.
These accounts show that Russell Group universities have spent an average of around £318,000 on Vice Chancellors’ salaries, benefits and pensions over the last year.The NCAFC report was written by Edward Bauer, a student and Vice-President of Education at Birmingham University, in collaboration with Michael Chessum, member of NUS and organizer for NCAFC; it also expresses concern at the rate at which these incomes are increasing.
According to the report, the income of the Vice Chancellors of the University College London and University of Birmingham increased by £27, 345 and £27,000 respectively between 2010 and 2011, whilst the Vice Chancellor of Nottingham followed with an increase of £9,057 over the past year. These figures are supported by each university’s annual finances report.
This report also reveals that the rise is not limited to Vice Chancellors, alledging that there has been an increasing amount of universitys’ incomes spent on jobs paid a salary of over £100,000 a year. It claims that the percentage of the Russell Group’s total income that was spent on high paid jobs has increased by over 2%, from 1.832% in 2003/2004 to 3.849% in 2011/2012.
Furthermore, this increase is not limited to the Russell Group. A Telegraph report claimed that more than 950 university staff, including Vice Chancellors, were paid more than the Prime Minister in 2010 and that last year Liverpool Hope University announced intentions to cut up to 110 jobs whilst increasing Vice-Chancellor Gerald Pillay’s salary by 20.6% to £199,077.
With the total cuts to universities for 2012/2013 standing at around 3.4% and the typical teaching academic being paid £42,263 on average, Bauer’s and Chessum’s ‘University High Pay Report: One Alternative to Cuts’ states, “it is worrying that UK universities are now spending 2% more on increasing the wages of their very richest employees”. This claim is supported by the Times Higher Education survey and by university financial statements. Analysis of these statements, conducted by accountancy firm Grant Thornton, shows that whilst total income packages dropped by by 1.21% in 2009-2010, the average spending by universities on salaries in isolation rose by 0.6%. A government-commissioned review of public-sector pay by the Work Foundation discovered that the pay-gap between the highest and lowest paid staff was greatest within the higher education sector.
[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%5548%%[/mm-hide-text]
Students have expressed concern at these increases when education in the UK is facing stringent cuts this year. According to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), core teaching funding is being reduced from £3.6bn in 2011/2012 to £2.4bn in 2012/2013 (a 34% decrease). And, despite the counteractive action of raising tuition fees, recent statistics show that the number of available courses over the past six years has been reduced by 27% and there will be around 11,000 fewer places for first year undergraduates available at universities next year.
Emma Wilson-Black, a second year student at Mansfield College, said, “At a time of cuts and austerity I would consider it deeply wrong and socially divisive to pay Russell Group university VCs massive salaries. I consider lecturers crucial to the education system rather than the few individuals at the top of the system who gain ridiculously inflated salaries.”She continued, “The government is already facing criticism that its ‘education reforms’ will create a two-tier system where poorer students find it even harder to access top universities. This presents a vision of education where elitism dominates.”
The Times survey of Vice Chancellors across the UK also revealed that 26% of VC’s went to state schools, 39% to grammars and 20% to private schools (there was no data available on the remaining percentage). However, amongst the chancellors of the Russell-Group, 35% were private-schooled, in contrast with only 7% of privately schooled Vice Chancellors in the Million+ research intensive institutions, (Million+ is a ‘think-tank’ of post-1992 institutions, formerly known as the Campaign for Mainstream Universities.)
Somerville student and president of the Oxford Socialist Worker Student Society, Fraser Anderson, agreed with Wilson-Black. He said, “Revelations about the increases in Vice Chancellors’ salaries at a time of unprecedented attacks on higher education are yet another confirmation that we’re not all in it together. This is what Stefan Collini called the ‘world of McKinsey’, where education policy is shaped by people like former BP boss, Lord Browne, and the chief of McKinsey’s Global Education Practice, Sir Michael Barber. In their world it’s huge salaries for top executives – higher fees and cuts to jobs, pay and libraries for the rest of us.”
However, not all Vice Chancellors pay packets have experienced an increase. For instance, the London School of Economics reduced their Vice Chancellor’s pay by £67,000 between 2010 and 2011 to £218,000 a year whilst Sheffield reduced their Vice Chancellor’s salary by £17,000 to £294,000 per annum. One student commented, “I think its important to remember that whilst education is facing cuts, the Russell Group contains some of the best universities in the world. Places like Oxbridge still manage to compete globally despite the huge financial advantages that institutions such as the Ivy League can offer students.”
He added, “I believe that the money within higher education should be more evenly spread between the VC’s and the average academic staff member if the University wishes to attract a larger proportion of high-calibre teachers. What’s the point in competitively paying for brilliant leadership if we can only afford to pay competively for a moderate workforce?”
Oxford University said that the pay for the Vice Chancellor reflected the calibre of the University itself. A spokesperson said, “It is certainly one of the two best universities in the UK and among the handful of best universities in the world.”She added that the influence of Oxford on the UK also accounts for the high salary. She stated, “It makes a major contribution to the economic prosperity of the UK and the UK’s position in the world, as well as to tackling global challenges through its research. Its research output is vast, it has an almost billion-pound-a-year turnover not including the colleges and OUP, and it has great institutional complexity. Its Vice Chancellor’s salary reflects that.”
‘Smart drugs’ on offer to students
Drugs designed to enhance academic performance and concentration are readily available to Oxford students, a Cherwell investigation has found.
A survey carried out by Cherwell found that while seven per cent of students who responded had taken a ‘smart drug’, 28% would consider taking these drugs, while over half would deem it cheating. However, only 32% thought academic drugs should be made illegal.
The drugs most common among Oxford students are Modafinil and Ritalin, with students at the same colleges tending to flock towards the same drugs. Whereas Modafinil is not listed under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act and is available without legal restrictions in the UK, Ritalin, which is prescribed to children who suffer from Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD), is a Class B drug. Possession without a prescription can therefore lead to a five-year prison sentence, or an unlimited fine.
One fourth year finalist, ‘Charlotte’, admitted to taking Modafinil “mainly because I had heard about other people using it and wanted to see whether it would make a big difference to how I worked.”
Student users stressed the benefits of these drugs over caffeinated products such as coffee and Red Bull. Charlotte commented, “Personally, I found it really good. It didn’t really affect my behaviour or how I felt at all; it just meant that when I was reading I concentrated hard instead of going on Facebook every ten minutes.”
‘Peter’, another user of Modafinil, agreed, “I took Modafinil a few days each week last year for a period of about three or four months. It worked well for me, and in a different way to coffee, as unlike with coffee you don’t get jittery. Rather, it increases your ability to focus over a period of time.”
The unpredictable side effects of Modafinil made students unsure as to whether they would recommend it to others. Charlotte said, “One of my friends tried it at the same time and had a totally different reaction: he found it kept him awake all night and made him twitchy, as though he’d drunk twenty cups of coffee. So it doesn’t affect everyone in the same way.”
The survey also reflected the varying effects of Modafinil. Whilst one student was confident that he would “unreservedly” recommend Modafinil, another commented that Modafinil was only useful for combating tiredness. “[It was] much better than coffee for keeping [me] awake, but the sleep debt does exist and it’s horrendous. Also it didn’t help my concentration at all.” Another anonymous user was hesitant as to whether [s]he would recommend it, commenting that like many other drugs, it caused dehydration.
Weight loss appears to be another possible side effect of the various ‘smart drugs’. ‘Patrick’, a regular user of Modafinil, explained that when taking the drug he became so focused on his work that he simply forgot to eat. Ritalin user ‘Rachel’ also commented that it worked as an appetite suppressant.
The ease with which the drugs can be purchased also seems to be a factor in students’ casual attitude towards them. Peter obtained his Modafinil through the internet and remarked that they were “embarrassingly easy to get hold of.”
Charlotte obtained her pills through a friend, who had got them from another acquaintance to whom they had been medically prescribed. However, she also commented upon the ease with which the drugs could be bought without a prescription. She claimed, “There are people in some of the colleges that sell [these drugs]. It’s not hard to get hold of, and if you try hard enough you can get a doctor to prescribe it.”
Furthermore, there are various websites on which customers can ‘shop’ for smart drugs. Cramshop.com, a partner company to studycram.com, promotes the selling of smart drugs under the slogan, “A pill a day = straight A’s.” They also claim that the drugs on their site are “generally safer than taking aspirin – unlike borrowing Adderall or Provigil from your buddy.” Under a section entitled “famous smart drug users”, they include Albert Einstein as taking nicotine, Lewis Carroll as taking mushrooms, and The Beatles as taking LSD.
When asked how they would defend the accusation of cheating levelled at them by over half of students surveyed, the drugs users all responded in a similar way. Charlotte argued, “It’s not like taking steroids in the Olympics, as steroids make you better at sport. These drugs don’t make you any cleverer, they just make you work harder. Loads of people are prescribed sleeping pills during the exam period to help them work better during the day, and I’m not sure it’s very different from that.”
Peter said, “Cheating is when you’ve got something that nobody else can get hold of. Given how easy it is to get hold of, I wouldn’t consider it cheating – the only thing to stop someone else taking it is a personal decision.”
Rachel agreed, saying, “Ritalin doesn’t make you smarter, it just allows you to fulfil your potential. I don’t see any reason why it shouldn’t be available to the wider public.”
However, not all those surveyed were equally open-minded towards ‘smart drugs’. One first year classicist disagreed with the claims above, arguing, “It is not that these drugs are inherently bad, nor am I saying that they make you ‘cleverer’ – rather, the point is that since they are not all legal, and can affect people in different ways, the level playing field of academic success is destabilised by the minority of users.
“Just as in the East German Olympics of 1976, where some East German female swimmers used anabolic steroids [which mimic the effects of testosterone and dihydrotestosterone in the body and can affect fertility], here we have a group of people taking a risk that, however readily available the drugs are, not everyone is wiling to take. Just as the Olympics ought to be a test of what the human body can achieve, so should academic pursuits be a test of what the mind can do without chemical enhancement.”
Another student said, “I have no problem with it from an ethical point of view, but if you really feel you can’t cope, then you probably shouldn’t be here.”
Despite their prevalence and the unconcerned attitude of the majority of students regarding the use of ‘smart drugs’, most colleges do not yet seem to have developed a clear policy regarding their usage. Catherine Paxton, Senior Tutor at Merton College, said, “Merton is aware of ‘smart drugs’ and has begun considering the welfare and other issues which they raise. We follow the Proctors’ guidelines on dealing with drug misuse and these would apply if the ‘academic’ drugs were procured illegally. We have no other documented policy currently.”
A spokesperson for the University of Oxford voiced anxieties concerning the use of ‘smart drugs’. She said, “We would strongly advise students against the practise of taking drugs that have not been specifically prescribed to them, as this is dangerous and can be illegal. We would also urge that they report anyone trying to sell them drugs to the police.”
She continued, “Students who are struggling to cope personally or academically, or who have any kind of drug problem, will find a range of support at Oxford. They should talk to their tutors, their college welfare officers, OUSU, their GP, or the University Counselling Service.”
All names have been changed to protect the privacy of sources.
A survey carried out by Cherwell found that while seven per cent of students who responded had taken a ‘smart drug’, 28% would consider taking these drugs, while over half would deem it cheating. However, only 32% thought academic drugs should be made illegal.
The drugs most common among Oxford students are Modafinil and Ritalin, with students at the same colleges tending to flock towards the same drugs. Whereas Modafinil is not listed under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act and is available without legal restrictions in the UK, Ritalin, which is prescribed to children who suffer from Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD), is a Class B drug. Possession without a prescription can therefore lead to a five-year prison sentence, or an unlimited fine. One fourth year finalist, ‘Charlotte’, admitted to taking Modafinil “mainly because I had heard about other people using it and wanted to see whether it would make a big difference to how I worked.”
Student users stressed the benefits of these drugs over caffeinated products such as coffee and Red Bull. Charlotte commented, “Personally, I found it really good. It didn’t really affect my behaviour or how I felt at all; it just meant that when I was reading I concentrated hard instead of going on Facebook every ten minutes.” ‘Peter’, another user of Modafinil, agreed, “I took Modafinil a few days each week last year for a period of about three or four months. It worked well for me, and in a different way to coffee, as unlike with coffee you don’t get jittery. Rather, it increases your ability to focus over a period of time.”
The unpredictable side effects of Modafinil made students unsure as to whether they would recommend it to others. Charlotte said, “One of my friends tried it at the same time and had a totally different reaction: he found it kept him awake all night and made him twitchy, as though he’d drunk twenty cups of coffee. So it doesn’t affect everyone in the same way.” The survey also reflected the varying effects of Modafinil. Whilst one student was confident that he would “unreservedly” recommend Modafinil, another commented that Modafinil was only useful for combating tiredness. “[It was] much better than coffee for keeping [me] awake, but the sleep debt does exist and it’s horrendous. Also it didn’t help my concentration at all.” Another anonymous user was hesitant as to whether [s]he would recommend it, commenting that like many other drugs, it caused dehydration.
Weight loss appears to be another possible side effect of the various ‘smart drugs’. ‘Patrick’, a regular user of Modafinil, explained that when taking the drug he became so focused on his work that he simply forgot to eat. Ritalin user ‘Rachel’ also commented that it worked as an appetite suppressant. The ease with which the drugs can be purchased also seems to be a factor in students’ casual attitude towards them. Peter obtained his Modafinil through the internet and remarked that they were “embarrassingly easy to get hold of.”
Charlotte obtained her pills through a friend, who had got them from another acquaintance to whom they had been medically prescribed. However, she also commented upon the ease with which the drugs could be bought without a prescription. She claimed, “There are people in some of the colleges that sell [these drugs]. It’s not hard to get hold of, and if you try hard enough you can get a doctor to prescribe it.”
Furthermore, there are various websites on which customers can ‘shop’ for smart drugs. Cramshop.com, a partner company to studycram.com, promotes the selling of smart drugs under the slogan, “A pill a day = straight A’s.” They also claim that the drugs on their site are “generally safer than taking aspirin – unlike borrowing Adderall or Provigil from your buddy.” Under a section entitled “famous smart drug users”, they include Albert Einstein as taking nicotine, Lewis Carroll as taking mushrooms, and The Beatles as taking LSD.
[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%5547%%[/mm-hide-text]
When asked how they would defend the accusation of cheating levelled at them by over half of students surveyed, the drugs users all responded in a similar way. Charlotte argued, “It’s not like taking steroids in the Olympics, as steroids make you better at sport. These drugs don’t make you any cleverer, they just make you work harder. Loads of people are prescribed sleeping pills during the exam period to help them work better during the day, and I’m not sure it’s very different from that.” Peter said, “Cheating is when you’ve got something that nobody else can get hold of. Given how easy it is to get hold of, I wouldn’t consider it cheating – the only thing to stop someone else taking it is a personal decision.” Rachel agreed, saying, “Ritalin doesn’t make you smarter, it just allows you to fulfil your potential. I don’t see any reason why it shouldn’t be available to the wider public.” However, not all those surveyed were equally open-minded towards ‘smart drugs’.
One first year classicist disagreed with the claims above, arguing, “It is not that these drugs are inherently bad, nor am I saying that they make you ‘cleverer’ – rather, the point is that since they are not all legal, and can affect people in different ways, the level playing field of academic success is destabilised by the minority of users.“Just as in the East German Olympics of 1976, where some East German female swimmers used anabolic steroids [which mimic the effects of testosterone and dihydrotestosterone in the body and can affect fertility], here we have a group of people taking a risk that, however readily available the drugs are, not everyone is willing to take them. Just as the Olympics ought to be a test of what the human body can achieve, so should academic pursuits be a test of what the mind can do without chemical enhancement.”
Another student said, “I have no problem with it from an ethical point of view, but if you really feel you can’t cope, then you probably shouldn’t be here.”Despite their prevalence and the unconcerned attitude of the majority of students regarding the use of ‘smart drugs’, most colleges do not yet seem to have developed a clear policy regarding their usage. Catherine Paxton, Senior Tutor at Merton College, said, “Merton is aware of ‘smart drugs’ and has begun considering the welfare and other issues which they raise. We follow the Proctors’ guidelines on dealing with drug misuse and these would apply if the ‘academic’ drugs were procured illegally. We have no other documented policy currently.”
A spokesperson for the University of Oxford voiced anxieties concerning the use of ‘smart drugs’. She said, “We would strongly advise students against the practise of taking drugs that have not been specifically prescribed to them, as this is dangerous and can be illegal. We would also urge that they report anyone trying to sell them drugs to the police.” She continued, “Students who are struggling to cope personally or academically, or who have any kind of drug problem, will find a range of support at Oxford. They should talk to their tutors, their college welfare officers, OUSU, their GP, or the University Counselling Service.”
All names have been changed to protect the privacy of sources.
Investigation: “Human rights abuses” at Campsfield
Video Report by Alishba Khaliq
Amnesty International have accused Campsfield of contravening international human rights. A spokesperson for Oxford University Amnesty International said, “OUAI strongly believes that seeking asylum is not a crime and people who are seeking asylum should not, therefore, be detained under immigration laws. The people detained within Campsfield House are suffering human rights abuses, and the detention centre should be closed down.”
Campsfield is one of 12 detention centres in the UK, which the UK Border Force has stated are “used for temporary detention in situations where people have no legal right to be in the UK but have refused to leave voluntarily.”
Target of a 19 year campaign to shut it down, Campsfield House has witnessed over 200 protests since its conversion from a youth detention centre in 1993. Its closure has been requested by local trade unions and the Oxford and District Trades Union Council, in addition to student, faith and human rights groups.
Local government bodies have added their voices in support of this movement, with the Cherwell District Council, the Oxford City Council and the Oxfordshire County Council also calling for Campsfield House to be closed or, at the very least, for it not to be expanded.
David Blunkett described Campsfield House as “outdated” and announced its closure in 2002. However, owing to a fire at another detention centre, Yarl’s Wood, there was an “unplanned reduction in detention places” according to the Campaign to Close Campsfield website. This allegedly resulted in the decision to close Campsfield to be reversed.
Campsfield has a history of suicides and hunger strikes. A 35 year old male hanged himself in the toilet block last year when he learnt that he was to be deported. A fellow detainee who wished to remain anonymous told the Guardian, “He was normally a very quiet person … but the pressure is too much for people in here.”
In 2009, staff allegedly ignored suicide threats from Brice Mabonga, who apparently attempted to kill himself with a sharpened plastic knife. Manzambi Birindwa, fellow detainee said, “He told me one day in his home country they killed his father, his mother and brothers so he lost everything. If they send him back, he says the Government will kill him, so it’s better for him to die here. He told the guards he wanted to kill himself here, but nobody said nothing. They don’t care.”
In 2005 Ramazan Kumluca became the youngest asylum seeker to commit suicide after learning his application had failed. Another inmate, Abdulwase Kamali, told the Independent, “Ramazan said he had been told by immigration he would be sent back to Italy, and he said if he was sent back to Italy he would be used in sex films. He said he would slash himself or hang himself.” Kumluca was found hanging to the closing mechanism of his door on the morning June 27th when other detainees tried to wake him for prayers.
Later, in 2010 around 147 of the 216 detainees went on hunger strike. They released a statement that said, “Some of us detainees have been detained for over three years with no prospect of removal or any evidence of future release. There is no justification whatsoever for detaining us for such a period of time. Our lives, incidentally, have been stalled without any hope of living a life, having a family or any future.”
Wadham student Emmeline Plews, member of Oxford University Amnesty International, stated that the prison-like atmosphere made it “really psychologically difficult” for those inside. She said, “These people are being kept here without charge. Campsfield is the equivalent of a high-category prison, yet they haven’t been charged. They’ve been locked up for an indefinite amount of time without being told anything or being given reasons, which is incredibly cruel and gives them an awful loss of control.”
Oxford students have been partaking in the monthly protests with the Close Campsfield Campaign and visiting the centre to talk with inmates. Rebecca Sparrow, a third year Classics and English student, visits an inmate weekly. She said that this was mainly an “act of solidarity” to show the detainees “that they had not been forgotten.”
Plews added that the security at Campsfield makes it difficult to visit. She claimed, “Like a prison, they are very tight on the security. You have to obtain the person’s name and number and ring them before you’re given permission to go. And this means it’s often quite hard to make contact and get established as a group, but hopefully we will do so soon.”
The UK Border Association website states, “Visitors attending the centre will need to book 24 hours in advance and provide photographic ID…and a utility bill on arrival. Visitors will be subject to search procedures and fingerprinting. They will also have their photograph taken.”
Further concerns have been expressed since Campsfield House was taken over by private company MITIE, described by their website as a “strategic outsourcing and energy services company”. Bill Mackeith, joint organiser of the Close Campsfield Campaign said, “Detainees and their supporters do not accept MITIE making private profit out of causing misery and injustice by imprisoning people without charge or conviction for an indefinite period without proper judicial oversight.”
MITIE has been accused of making vast profits from enterprises such as Campsfield, paid for by the taxpayer. It costs £45,000 to hold one inmate at a centre like Campsfield for a year. Mackeith supported this accusation, saying, “Like other outsourcing companies, MITIE specialise in taking over a service and then squeezing it for profit, finding more ways to exploit staff or cut corners. In our case, a juicy ‘corner’ could be to exploit further the migrants wrongfully imprisoned in Campsfield, who provide more or less forced or virtual slave labour for just £5 a day.”
He continued, “MITIE’s chief executive Ruby McGregor-Smith was one of the 35 bosses who signed a letter to the Daily Telegraph last October, backing the government’s public spending cuts in the interests of “a healthier and more stable economy” and commenting on the “significant opportunities for the outsourcing market” that will result.
MITIE refused to comment on any allegations, directing all questions to the Home Office, who told Cherwell, “Immigration removal centres like Campsfield are vital in helping us to remove those with no right to be in the country. Detention is a last resort after all attempts to return someone voluntarily have failed. HMI Prisons confirmed last year that Campsfield continues to be a particularly well-operated centre, and that it provides a safe and secure environment for staff and detainees.”
The Home Office did not comment on the allegations that Campsfield breaches human rights, including claims that detainees are deported without being given long enough to appeal nor to the hunger strikes and suicides that have been reported at the centre over the past decade.
The report of the unannounced inspection of Campsfield by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons in May last year revealed, “Health care staff received no training in recognising symptoms of torture and trauma. Detainees with low-level anxiety had no counselling services and there was little structured support for detainees with significant mental distress.” There was also “no mental health awareness training for custody staff” and detainees claimed that there was “disrespectful behaviour on the part of some of the nurses”.
It also stated that there was a greater need for translation and interpretation services within the centre. It concluded, “Too little progress had been made in remedying areas that we had previously identified as requiring improvement, and we had particular concerns about the lack of progress in health care.”
Out of the 36 recommendations that had been made upon safety, only seven had been achieved by May 2011. 19 of the 41 recommendations regarding respect at the centre had not been achieved, and only two of the 24 recommendations made in the areas of purposeful activity and preparation for release were fully achieved.
HMI Prisons declined to state when they were planning another inspection of Campsfield. A spokesperson for HMI Prisons told Cherwell, “We routinely inspect all centres and will certainly reinspect Campsfield in due course.” They also refused to comment on Amnesty’s allegations of human rights contraventions.
Alistair Johnson, member of Oxford University Amnesty International and attendee of the latest protest stressed the danger of running an institution such as Campsfield for profit. He said, “We believe that the failure to implement recommendations calling for the improvement of conditions within Campsfield represents the danger of privatizing detention centres. Campsfield House represents human rights abuses that are happening virtually on Oxford’s doorstep, and it’s therefore really important for Oxford students to get involved.”
Students have joined protests calling for the closure of Campsfield House, an immigration centre near Oxford where detainees are accommodated pending their case resolutions and subsequent removal from the United Kingdom.
Amnesty International have accused Campsfield of contravening international human rights. A spokesperson for Oxford University Amnesty International said, “OUAI strongly believes that seeking asylum is not a crime and people who are seeking asylum should not, therefore, be detained under immigration laws. The people detained within Campsfield House are suffering human rights abuses, and the detention centre should be closed down.”
Campsfield is one of 12 detention centres in the UK, which the UK Border Force has stated are “used for temporary detention in situations where people have no legal right to be in the UK but have refused to leave voluntarily.”
Target of a 19 year campaign to shut it down, Campsfield House has witnessed over 200 protests since its conversion from a youth detention centre in 1993. Its closure has been requested by local trade unions and the Oxford and District Trades Union Council, in addition to student, faith and human rights groups.
Local government bodies have added their voices in support of this movement, with the Cherwell District Council, the Oxford City Council and the Oxfordshire County Council also calling for Campsfield House to be closed or, at the very least, for it not to be expanded. David Blunkett described Campsfield House as “outdated” and announced its closure in 2002. However, owing to a fire at another detention centre, Yarl’s Wood, there was an “unplanned reduction in detention places” according to the Campaign to Close Campsfield website. This allegedly resulted in the decision to close Campsfield to be reversed.Campsfield has a history of suicides and hunger strikes.
A 35 year old male hanged himself in the toilet block last year when he learnt that he was to be deported. A fellow detainee who wished to remain anonymous told the Guardian, “He was normally a very quiet person … but the pressure is too much for people in here.” In 2009, staff allegedly ignored suicide threats from Brice Mabonga, who apparently attempted to kill himself with a sharpened plastic knife.
Manzambi Birindwa, fellow detainee said, “He told me one day in his home country they killed his father, his mother and brothers so he lost everything. If they send him back, he says the Government will kill him, so it’s better for him to die here. He told the guards he wanted to kill himself here, but nobody said nothing. They don’t care.”
In 2005 Ramazan Kumluca became the youngest asylum seeker to commit suicide after learning his application had failed. Another inmate, Abdulwase Kamali, told the Independent, “Ramazan said he had been told by immigration he would be sent back to Italy, and he said if he was sent back to Italy he would be used in sex films. He said he would slash himself or hang himself.”
Kumluca was found hanging to the closing mechanism of his door on the morning June 27th when other detainees tried to wake him for prayers. Later, in 2010 around 147 of the 216 detainees went on hunger strike. They released a statement that said, “Some of us detainees have been detained for over three years with no prospect of removal or any evidence of future release. There is no justification whatsoever for detaining us for such a period of time. Our lives, incidentally, have been stalled without any hope of living a life, having a family or any future.”
[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%5546%%[/mm-hide-text]
Wadham student Emmeline Plews, member of Oxford University Amnesty International, stated that the prison-like atmosphere made it “really psychologically difficult” for those inside. She said, “These people are being kept here without charge. Campsfield is the equivalent of a high-category prison, yet they haven’t been charged. They’ve been locked up for an indefinite amount of time without being told anything or being given reasons, which is incredibly cruel and gives them an awful loss of control.
Oxford students have been partaking in the monthly protests with the Close Campsfield Campaign and visiting the centre to talk with inmates. Rebecca Sparrow, a third year Classics and English student, visits an inmate weekly. She said that this was mainly an “act of solidarity” to show the detainees “that they had not been forgotten.”
Plews added that the security at Campsfield makes it difficult to visit. She claimed, “Like a prison, they are very tight on the security. You have to obtain the person’s name and number and ring them before you’re given permission to go. And this means it’s often quite hard to make contact and get established as a group, but hopefully we will do so soon.”
The UK Border Association website states, “Visitors attending the centre will need to book 24 hours in advance and provide photographic ID…and a utility bill on arrival. Visitors will be subject to search procedures and fingerprinting. They will also have their photograph taken.”
Further concerns have been expressed since Campsfield House was taken over by private company MITIE, described by their website as a “strategic outsourcing and energy services company”. Bill Mackeith, joint organiser of the Close Campsfield Campaign said, “Detainees and their supporters do not accept MITIE making private profit out of causing misery and injustice by imprisoning people without charge or conviction for an indefinite period without proper judicial oversight.”
MITIE has been accused of making vast profits from enterprises such as Campsfield, paid for by the taxpayer. It costs £45,000 to hold one inmate at a centre like Campsfield for a year. Mackeith supported this accusation, saying, “Like other outsourcing companies, MITIE specialise in taking over a service and then squeezing it for profit, finding more ways to exploit staff or cut corners. In our case, a juicy ‘corner’ could be to exploit further the migrants wrongfully imprisoned in Campsfield, who provide more or less forced or virtual slave labour for just £5 a day.”
He continued, “MITIE’s chief executive Ruby McGregor-Smith was one of the 35 bosses who signed a letter to the Daily Telegraph last October, backing the government’s public spending cuts in the interests of “a healthier and more stable economy” and commenting on the “significant opportunities for the outsourcing market” that will result.
MITIE refused to comment on any allegations, directing all questions to the Home Office, who told Cherwell, “Immigration removal centres like Campsfield are vital in helping us to remove those with no right to be in the country. Detention is a last resort after all attempts to return someone voluntarily have failed. HMI Prisons confirmed last year that Campsfield continues to be a particularly well-operated centre, and that it provides a safe and secure environment for staff and detainees.”
The Home Office did not comment on the allegations that Campsfield breaches human rights, including claims that detainees are deported without being given long enough to appeal nor to the hunger strikes and suicides that have been reported at the centre over the past decade
The report of the unannounced inspection of Campsfield by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons in May last year revealed, “Health care staff received no training in recognising symptoms of torture and trauma. Detainees with low-level anxiety had no counselling services and there was little structured support for detainees with significant mental distress.” There was also “no mental health awareness training for custody staff” and detainees claimed that there was “disrespectful behaviour on the part of some of the nurses”.
It also stated that there was a greater need for translation and interpretation services within the centre. It concluded, “Too little progress had been made in remedying areas that we had previously identified as requiring improvement, and we had particular concerns about the lack of progress in health care.”
Out of the 36 recommendations that had been made upon safety, only seven had been achieved by May 2011. 19 of the 41 recommendations regarding respect at the centre had not been achieved, and only two of the 24 recommendations made in the areas of purposeful activity and preparation for release were fully achieved.
HMI Prisons declined to state when they were planning another inspection of Campsfield. A spokesperson for HMI Prisons told Cherwell, “We routinely inspect all centres and will certainly reinspect Campsfield in due course.” They also refused to comment on Amnesty’s allegations of human rights contraventions.
Alistair Johnson, member of Oxford University Amnesty International and attendee of the latest protest stressed the danger of running an institution such as Campsfield for profit. He said, “We believe that the failure to implement recommendations calling for the improvement of conditions within Campsfield represents the danger of privatizing detention centres. Campsfield House represents human rights abuses that are happening virtually on Oxford’s doorstep, and it’s therefore really important for Oxford students to get involved.”
Preview: Love’s Labour’s Lost, Christ Church Cathedral
It is hard to imagine a more appropriate production for Trinity Term than Tommo Fowler’s Love’s Labour’s Lost. The play itself, famously Shakespeare’s ‘most intellectual’, focuses on the King of Navarre’s decision to cut off his court to devote ‘three years’ to Academia. The three men are tempted away from their studies by the lure of three young ladies in the fields surrounding the court. Sounding familiar? Fowler’s production pushes the comparison even further, giving his cast Brideshead-style costumes and introducing croquet and academic gowns in the first scene. The adaptation is a good one, making sense of the play’s content rather than standing in opposition to it. We understand the arguments characters have about the importance of intellectualism in the context of the struggle of being young and full of energy, but forced to study hard.
The segment of the show I saw was lighthearted and full of physical comedy- a notable moment being when Armado (played flamboyantly and amusingly by Michael Beale) carries his servant Moth (Zoe Bullock) on his back to demonstrate Hercules’ strength. John Mark Philo, who played the wayward Biron, contributed most to the physical comedy- bouncing around the stage and using an enormous range of comical and exaggerated (occasionally over-exaggerated) facial expressions. Chris Bland and Morritz Borrmann were good foils for his exuberance, and Bland had his own moment of comedy, hiding from Borrman’s Dumain in a brilliantly choreographed scene which brought to the fore the farcical aspects of Shakespeare’s convoluted plot.
Fowler has changed Holofernes from a male schoolmaster at the court to a female ‘spinster’ (despite the slight discrepancy this causes in a plot where the men make an oath that they may ‘not even talk with a woman’): played by Ellie Wade, the wordy lines are well-handed, and the performance is an extremely funny one. The Princess and her two ladies, played by Katherine Skinglsey, Claire Parry and Georgia Waters, were effective in their charming of the three gentlemen but lacked something in their bearing and attitude–even in the 20th century, the meeting of two royal families would surely contain a little more formality than Waters’ fiery characterisation allows. There were a few other problems: some lines were not very clear, as Shakespeare’s long-winded speeches ran away with the actors, and some of the onstage mirth occasionally descended into corpsing. Yet these issues will, I am sure, be negated by the time the play opens on Wednesday. Christ Church Cathedral gardens will be an ideal location for this funny and fresh adaptation of one of Shakespeare’s more difficult comedies.
FOUR STARS
5 Minute Tute – Greek Debt Crisis
Why is the Greek debt crisis so extreme?
There are three crises in the Euro at the moment. Firstly, a competitiveness crisis: many countries allowed inflation to exceed German levels from 2000 to 2007, making them pretty uncompetitive. Next, a banking crisis: the private sector in several countries borrowed too much before the recession. This led to housing and construction bubbles, and helped cause the competitiveness problem. Finally, a government debt crisis, where governments borrowed too much. In fact, only one country started the recession with a serious government debt problem – Greece. The fiscal problems in Ireland and Spain are the result of the public sector bailing out the banks following the banking crisis. So the crisis is so extreme for Greece because its the only country that has all three problems at once. In addition, they reinforce each other. Because it is uncompetitive, Greece can’t solve its debt problem through growth. A partial default on its government’s debt has worsened the position of Greek banks, which owned part of this debt.
How beneficial have the successive austerity packages been for the Greek economy?
There is a strong argument that they have not been beneficial at all. Some austerity in Greece was clearly required, but pushed too far too soon and there was a danger that the economy would collapse, and the electorate would revolt. That is exactly what has happened.
How likely is a Greek exit from the Eurozone now?
It’s certainly possible. There is a game of chicken going on between Greece and the rest of the Eurozone, and Germany in particular. Both have a lot to fear if Greece is forced to exit, so each side is hoping the other will back down first. The problem with such games is that if neither side gives enough, the outcome is worse for everyone. If Greece leaves, could contagion spread to other countries? With great difficulty. Although Greece is the worst case country, the same conditions could easily arise elsewhere. The key to preventing contagion is the European Central Bank. Eurozone national governments cannot print their own currency, and so are at much greater risk of default on their debt. The ECB needs to start acting as though it were each country’s central bank, underwriting government debt so that investors continue to lend to periphery countries. It should also strengthen the vulnerable economies by raising German inflation targets relative to the rest of the Eurozone. This will make the peripheral countries more competitive, enhancing their growth prospects.
For the rest of Europe, would it be better for Greece to stay or leave?
If Greece was forced out of the Euro, it would default on its remaining debt, which is largely owned by Euro economies. Exit would also increase the risks of contagion. Banks in some periphery countries would be particularly vulnerable. Probably the only positive thing would be that the threat of contagion might finally force the ECB to underwrite the fiscal positions of the periphery countries, and for the Eurozone to develop a banking union to deal with insolvent banks. The benefits of Greece leaving are far less clear. Some say that using additional funds to support Greece within the Euro is throwing more money at an intractable problem, but that does not make much economic sense. There are certainly serious structural problems in Greece, but it is better to change these with a combination of carrot and stick, rather than with overwhelming austerity.
Sides of the story – eurozone crisis
The British have never been quite sure what to make of Europe and tend to flit between contempt and envy. But since the Eurozone began its descent towards accidental suicide, the tabloids have shifted to a weirder mix of delight at having been proved right that Britain never should have got involved in the first place, and outrage that we may be dragged with the rest of the continent anyway. Now, the focus is on Greece’s slide towards failed-statehood, and on Germany’s new found place as Europe’s political kingmaker, deposing governments in Spain and Italy at will and calling the new French President Francois Hollande to Angela Merkel’s knee barely a few hours after he took office.
While the right-wing side of the British press gloats and rants, the hacks who supported the European project from the beginning have been left with really very little to write about beyond depressing post-mortem analyses of the near-lifeless economies of southern Europe. The elephant in the room seems to be what the UK should actually do to try to stop complete euro-meltdown, or at least how it might save itself. No one seems to know.
Victoria Hislop falls back on omens as the only hope Greece has left, and tells of how the clouds parted to allow a rainbow to fall on Athens during her last visit, mixing Greek and apparently Irish myth to express her hope that ‘Greece can find its pot of gold’. Peter Hitchens geared himself up for overdrive though, calling Germany an empire in all but name and accusing it of colonial exploitation of Europe’s weaker southern states. Much of the rest of his Daily Mail column reads like an attempt to clear out all the insults for the EU he has saved up over the years and now needs to get rid of. He calls the EU a ‘stupid empire’, and at that a poor substitute for the USSR’s evil empire, with a weird mix of paranoid outrage and sarcasm. The EU is apparently also a mad hospital, and once hapless member states are incarcerated within, ‘the best thing to do is leave. If you can’t get out, you will probably die’.
Andrew Rawnsley points out the absurdity of Cameron now joining in with Obama, Hollande, and just about the rest of the world to convince Germany of the insanity of the very same austerity drive that he is now defending to the UK electorate. He has gambled, apparently correctly, that the British public will be so delighted to watch the Euro fall apart that they will not even notice the contradiction.
Paul Seabright reminds us in the Guardian that however ludicrous the amounts of money wasted by the Greeks, both the money they spent and the things they bought came from the rest of Europe. Who the hell in Germany thought that Greece needed to be the 4th biggest arms importer in the world? The rest of Europe was sucked into the credit boom just as much as Greece. Everyone else reaped just as much money as they did, and now we deserve to take our share of pain as well.
Debate: do we really need OUSU?
Proposition:
Part of the reason OUSU exists is to work alongside common rooms. This year we have worked hard to ensure that our undertakings are complementary to their work: we have focused on providing common rooms with tailored support, information, and advice. This has included an intensive programme of officer training, multiple information sessions, regular consultation, and one-to-one welfare support.
In order to avoid duplication we have also worked to facilitate campaigns that are necessarily centralised, whilst ensuring that they are relevant to students and shaped by the priorities communicated to us through common rooms and OUSU Council. The main policy areas this year have been: supporting graduate students, student teaching awards, mental health awareness, campaigning for a living wage, improving the conditions of student residents, and raising academic standards.
Furthermore, in spite of the devolved nature of the University many decisions are still made centrally. OUSU can focus at a University level, providing representation and a strong student voice after consultation with students. All of this helps us to support effective student representation in Oxford, enhancing and supporting the work already carried out by common rooms.
A criticism oft levied at OUSU is that we do not take enough time to consult students; this year OUSU has made it a priority. We conducted the final review of reports focussing on teaching and consulted hundreds of students; using this to set OUSU’s academic priorities. We have also tried to give controversial motions a full airing: the White Paper Response was debated in multiple Common Rooms before it was taken to Council and several drafts were sent round the whole student body for input. The full-time officers have visited over sixty common rooms this year and met one-to-one with hundreds of students. We have also made the Council agenda extremely public. OUSU is working to make sure we are a more representative and accountable union.
As affiliation fees have been abolished the only change brought by disaffiliation is the removal of a common room’s voting rights. Since February last year a host of MCRs have re-affiliated to OUSU and graduate issues have become one of OUSU’s priorities. With the support of these MCRs, we have repeatedly won on graduate issues. Affiliation gives common rooms direct influence over OUSU’s policies and actions, thus keeping us accountable. It also gives the student union collective, unified bargaining power so that we can win on the issues you really care about.
Opposition:
The nitty-gritty business of student politics happens in the JCR. Facilities, welfare, and academic issues are all handled in college. With the day-today concerns of students managed so close to home, it is hard to justify a further, more distant organisation in a collegiate university.
That is not to say that we don’t need some kind of representation for the student body as a whole, but the real question is not ‘what does OUSU do?’ but ‘what does OUSU do that could not be done, in some way, through JCRs?’ A straw poll of students in hall this morning revealed nobody felt particularly strongly about OUSU, and several didn’t know what it was. Whether you put it down to bad PR or just lack of effect, this isn’t the hallmark of a successful students’ union.
Just look at the elections that are, after all, OUSU’s justification for representing us at all. The most I remember of the last one is the over-blown centrespreads in the OxStu and the occasional poster on Turl Street. Short on policy, short on personality. No student I know actually felt like it would make a difference to them. The entire process left us disengaged: even with internet voting the turn-out was 19%. Hardly a democratic mandate. The ‘hackocracy’ criticism is an easy one to level, but it contains a grain of truth: it is hard to see how OUSU is not run for hacks, by hacks.
Compare that to the local democracy of the JCR. Presidential elections are hard-fought and engaging: Corpus even managed enough interest in the process to have a plant both run and be murdered. More importantly, if I vote in a JCR election, or even in a JCR meeting, I know my voice is being heard on an issue that matters to me as I represent a good couple of percent of the electorate. That gives a sense of empowerment that OUSU completely fails to provide. The organisation receives £200,000 from the university each year, but surely that money would be best spent by those closest to the students they stand for. OUSU is the European Parliament of university democracy: distant and inscrutable, disengaged, and – according to most of the electorate – pretty much irrelevant.
The real powerhouses of university politics are the JCRs, their committees and presidents. They are transparent, approachable, and we can see them making a real difference in our day-to-day lives. Surely these truly democratically elected people should be the ones we trust to communicate with the University and the outside world, without the expense and bureaucracy (and, dare I say it, hackocracy) that comes with an external organisation.
Harry Potter Charity Hall
Students fundraising for Travel Aid’s China project, held a Harry Potter themed hall at St Catz in order to raise money to go to China to teach English over the summer. The hall was also open to members of other colleges.
