Oxford's oldest student newspaper

Independent since 1920

Blog Page 1951

Oxford Literary Festival: Patti Smith

I should probably start by explaining that I can’t claim to be a massive Patti Smith fan. I know who she is of course, I can hum a couple of songs, but I wouldn’t jump through fire to go and see her, if you get what I mean. Fortunately for me then, there was a complementary Cherwell ticket going spare, and the event was five minutes from my room. No excuse.

Smith was at the Literary Festival to promote her new book, Just Kids, about her relationship with famous photographer Robert Mapplethorpe. The pair met in New York in the 70s when Smith was just twenty, and remained firm friends until he died in ’89. The book is, Smith explained, the fulfilment of the last promise she made to him: to put their story into writing.

During her interview with David Freeman, Smith described how she met Mapplethorpe several times before he rescued her from an awkward park bench scenario with a bearded science-fiction writer by pretending to be her boyfriend (I know – we’ve all been there, right?). Smith then proceeded to regale the audience with tales of their time living at the Chelsea Hotel, hanging out with Janice Joplin and avoiding drugs in the late sixties.

Smith revealed that the iconic image on the front of Horses (Smith’s first album) had taken Mapplethorpe only eight shots to perfect. Mapplethorpe needed no assistants and requested only that Smith “didn’t get spaghetti stains on my shirt”, she added that “for Robert, taking pictures was no big deal.”

During the talk Smith had a tendency to slide towards that brand of slightly-bullshitty-artsy-indulgence: her first song was “a young person’s declaration of existence”, while Mapplethorpe “was not rebelling against anything, he was himself, he was his own vision”. I’m not entirely sure what that means.

The heights of silly were not reached, however, until the audience put their frankly bizarre questions to Smith, ranging from: “Who is the coolest person you have ever met?” to “Do you have any advice for a 13 year old?” (To which Smith’s answer was: “Take care of your teeth”). Enlightening indeed.

The high point of the event followed the question everyone was hoping someone would ask: “will you sing for us?” Smith whipped out her guitar and sang two songs for the audience – the second was about William Blake (“whenever I start to feel sorry for myself I think of William Blake”). I emerged from the marquee into the rain with a smile on my face; Smith’s wit, modesty and extraordinary voice (talking and singing) made the event a thoroughly well-spent hour of my life. I even enjoyed the artsy-bull if I’m honest. Patti Smith is almost certainly the coolest person the Sunday Times literary festival has seen for some time. I’m sure the book is a good read.

The Budget: ‘It’s Politics, stupid’

As Budgets go, Wednesday’s was one of the most unexciting and uneventful of recent times. There were no ‘rabbits out of the hat’ that Brown performed as Chancellor, or nothing like the excitement of Budgets by Healey, Lawson and Ken Clarke. This was a budget thin of economics and big on politics.

The only real significant changes that were announced in the budget was the abolition of stamp duty for houses below £250,000, This change was paid for by the introduction of stamp duty at 5% on homes worth more than £1million. This got the Labour benches cheering and put the Tories in another sticky situation.

During the budget the Chancellor is allowed to have a tipple of his choice – Ken Clarke chose sherry and Lawson, whisky, but Darling and Brown only ever have mineral water. It was good that Darling did not choose cider which will saw its duty increase by 10%.

What the budget did not do was greater than what it did. It did not announce the quantitative measures to restore the budget balances. There were no radical decisions made on spending or on taxation that the markets were calling for in the build up to the budget. The Red Book does include some measures that will reduce spending in some departments. But these measures, such as cutting £555m from the department of Health ‘through reducing staff sickness’, do not represent a credible long term strategy for restoring the government deficit.

This budget, economically at least, may not have happened as it did not actually do anything. All of the decisions that it did not take will be taken either immediately after the General Election or at the Comprehensive Spending Review.

Politically this budget has several ramifications. It was a sensible budget and has done much to shore up Alistair Darling’s status as a sensible, if sober, Chancellor. It put the ball firmly in the court of the Conservatives and their plans, which are, in the words of David Cameron, ‘to get the economy moving’. It is clear that although the Tories must have this plan, they are not yet putting it in the public domain.

The Conservatives have been the main losers of this budget. It was a neutral budget, presenting Cameron with a problem. What to cut, how to do so and, most importantly when to inform the electorate of his party’s intentions. His response to the Budget was a good parliamentary performance, while Clegg’s speech was not; the Chamber got less and less populated during the Lib Dem leader’s speech. However in post-Budget appearences, Cameron has appeared agitated and not comfortable when answering questions on economic issues.

Another thing to notice about this budget, from a Tory viewpoint, is the conspicuous absence of George Osbourne. One would have expected a possible future Chancellor to lead the Conservative response to the announcements. Osbourne has only appeared in front of a few media outlets, and those that he has graced with his presence have only seen him toe the party line that they had before the Budget statement. Is Osbourne now become a political liability? Clarke’s own label of him as inexperienced, his previous membership of the Bullingdon and his trips to Russian magnate’s yachts have seen him grow into a political liability. If the Tories win, will he be the next Chancellor?

This political budget leaves the Tories with all the work to do. It is they who have been most affected by the Budget and the way that they respond will be of crucial importance to their electoral fortunes. Even the Belize tax agreement (remember a certain Lord Ashcroft?) caused yet greater embarrassment for them. Who is the second biggest loser? Those enjoy a nice pint of Cider and are about to buy a one million pound house. 

A funny thing happened on the way to the tattoo parlour

It takes about ninety minutes to get from Oxford train station to the Brixton tube station in Southwest London. This means that if you want to be first in the queue at Sacred Ink Tattoo Studio, which opens at 11AM and takes walk-ins only on Saturdays, you need to catch the 9AM train at the latest because you never know what’s happening with the tube at the weekend. With the Olympics just around the corner the construction can be horrendous, it turns out the entire Jubilee line is shut but that’s OK because Sacred Ink is nearly a straight shot from Paddington Station, take the Bakerloo line down to Oxford Circus and then boomerang around on the Victoria line to Brixton, the last stop on this train, everyone please exit the train.

Sacred Ink is run by Martin Morrissey, who has been tattooing for over thirteen years on three continents. He’s originally from Brixton, a fact which I learn from Pat, the only other person who has braved the weather and the early hour to arrive before the opening of the studio. Pat has known Martin for years, they both grew up in the neighbourhood, and after trying a number of places around London Pat can honestly say that Martin is the best, to be entrusted on this day to inscribe the name of Pat’s second child on the inside of his right bicep, “Luice” (pronounced “Lucy”). This is Pat’s sixth tattoo so I feel good about his endorsement: even if he has known Martin for ages, surely he wouldn’t let just anyone carve something permanent into his body, at least not twice? Pat is actually the second person who has told me to expect great things from Martin. The other person is my friend Kilian, whom I met on a boat in Turkey two years ago and who has many, many elaborate tattoos. When Google returned 44,800 results for “London Tattoo Parlours” I cut to Facebook and checked with Kilian: “Wow you asked the right guy! I have a really good friend named Martin Morrissey who does great work out in London…”

The walk from Brixton tube station to Sacred Ink is along a busy road called Acre Lane, lined with shops selling affordable consumables, layaway furniture and used tyres, franchised fast food everywhere. I pass an off-license selling espresso, cappuccinos and popcorn out of a newly built window in its store front; why not, everybody is diversifying during the recession. I arrive a few minutes before eleven, standing outside in the rain, counting the white people that walk by on one hand. It’s a good thing I wore my tweed (collar popped!) and skinny jeans so I would look especially ironic huddled under my dandy pink and blue umbrella, eating cous cous that I brought from home because I’m giving up being skinny for Lent to pursue the even greater vanity of bigger muscles; if you don’t eat you can’t grow.

This would be the time to mention what I have come all this way to have inscribed onto the middle of the right half of my back: Senza tema d’infamia ti rispondo (“Without fear of infamy I answer thee”), from Dante’s Inferno and also the last line of the epigraph to T.S. Eliot’s The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. I have it typed out in just the font and size I want, on a little piece of paper just for Martin, absolutely no room for error.

How many Oxford students does it take to screw-in a light bulb?

Pat has brought his wife and young Luice, still in her pram, except no prams (or bikes, or loud music) are allowed in the studio, so he settles down to wait by himself while I go first. Martin is running late, “stuck in traffic” says his assistant, who busies herself getting me signed-in, cash in advance, sign this waiver, I hand her my design, “Where do you want this?”.

“On my back, under my right shoulder blade.”

“Is this your first tattoo?”

“Yes.”

She smiles, I think impressed, “Well, it’s not the least painful place you could have picked…”

Martin arrives, traffic was terrible, he checks my design and approves, “Let’s tattoo!” The studio is very neat, very clean and very small. The waiting area is a square of gray carpet with no chairs, just a bench along the plate glass storefront on which Pat has perched, declining my offer of a newspaper while he waits. The tattooing happens on the other side of the high counter, a little square of white tile where everything that can be is sterilized. Martin dons latex gloves, unwraps a new needle, pours fresh ink into a disposable plastic thimble, washes my back with alcohol and disinfectant, smears Vaseline over the first letters in the design now stenciled on my back and steps on the foot pedal: dip, buzz, cut, wipe; dip, buzz, cut, wipe. This is the rhythm of the next ninety minutes of my life. The telephone rings periodically, Martin’s assistant issues the same refrain each time: “Hello, Sacred Ink? We’re open 11-6 today. No we don’t take appointments on Saturdays, it’s first-come, first-served. No, we can’t give you a quote over the phone, you’ll have to come down. We’re open 11-6 today. Thanks.” My arms, stretched above my head to keep the skin on my back taught, fall asleep.

In the end I am not nearly so counter-culture as I thought. (Perhaps the pink and blue umbrella should have tipped me off?) There isn’t even any real pain to brag about, although the letters along the spine do make my eyes water. When we’re all finished, Martin covers his work with cling film which I am to keep on for the entire afternoon. He wraps scotch tape around my chest and I feel momentarily vindicated: this is going to hurt like crazy when it comes off, ripping out a huge strip of chest hair. Martin hands me a card with after care instructions. “Twice a day you need to put this cream on your tattoo until it heals, called Bepthanol.”

“Will do. Can I get this at any chemist?”

“Yeah, just go to the baby aisle. It’s nappy rash cream.”

Of course it is. Story of my life.

Moore-ishly good

Revered as one of the great sculptors of the twentieth century, a wide-ranging collection of sculptures, drawings and sketches by Henry Moore has been brought together at the Tate Britain. Works span his entire career from the 1920s to the early 1960s.

Moore emerged on the art scene with the concerted intention to place himself apart from classical sculptural tradition and its restrictions of academic modelling. Maintaining the integrity of the materials he worked with – stone, plaster, bronze and wood – he engaged in direct carving.

His sculptures are all at once beautifully simple and complex. There is a duality about them. On the one hand, their fluid forms seamlessly punctuate the gallery spaces, but on the other hand, they are evidently the culmination of meticulous anxiety-ridden workings at the hands of Moore, who explores themes of apprehension, claustrophobia and the violated in much of his work. Bryan Robertson, the exhibition’s curator has commented, “His work is grim, and on occasion tragic. There is no easy reassurance in it. It is anything but gentle.”

Whilst I do not wholly agree with this as a generalized statement of all the work on display, it is true that some pieces are imbued with a great sense of the agonizing processes undertaken to nurture the sculptures to completion. His forms are sinewy and very deliberate.

The exhibition’s breadth means that we see how Moore’s artistic processes change and develop. The works in the first two rooms are figurative and cement his principle and enduring interest in the human form. This is revisited at the end of the exhibition with a focus on the reclining female figure. In the interim, Moore’s work departs in a Modernist direction, and two rooms are dedicated to work that reflects a concern for the abstract, the allusive and the suggestive. Sculptures in this phase of his career have sensuously undulating surfaces and subtle protuberances. They are sexy and evocative.

What follows is Moore’s lesser-known work. The outbreak of the war marked a switch in Moore’s medium of choice from sculpture to drawing. Using a combination of pencil, wax crayon, watercolour washes and ink, Moore produced an array of drawings, diversifying his artistic repertoire. His ‘Shelter Drawings’ depict the hostile environment faced by the masses as they huddled in the London Underground, away from the full force of the bomb attacks above ground. Moore also made drawings of coalmine workers and like his official ‘war art’, these reflect the artist’s tremendous sensitivity towards his subject matter.

The exhibition ends on a high with a room of Moore’s sculptures made out of  elmwood. The recumbent female forms are complemented by the use of the warm, smooth wood. Moore once said, “Trunks of trees are very human… To me they have a connection with human life.” These sculptures bear associations with sexuality and fecundity. They have an all-encompassing presence that pervades the whole room and the viewer is drawn into the admiring their every curve.

I’d be hard pressed to say what I liked most about this exhibition. Moore’s early figurative work is executed with such great tenderness particularly those sculptures that reference his ‘Mother and Child’ motif, whilst his wartime drawings are wonderfully nuanced and reveal the artist’s affinity with political and intellectual issues of his time.

His works are profoundly resonant, and though it’s a shame that there is a limited display of his larger scale work (which admittedly are often placed outdoors), I shall be going back to see more of Moore before the exhibitions closes in the summer.

Four stars.

This exhibition runs until 8th August.
Admission is £11 for students. Full price tickets cost £12.50.

Image: Henry Moore – Reclining Figure (1939), Detroit Institute of Arts © Reproduced by permission of The Henry Moore Foundation

 

Oxford Literary Festival: Robert Winston

The Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival takes place in and around Oxford until Sunday, hosting talks by some of the biggest names in literature, science and the media. Read regular reviews from Cherwell‘s correspondents here on cherwell.org

Robert Winston is one of the foremost scientific voices in political debate in this country at the moment. Less abrasive than figures like Richard Dawkins yet well-recognised outside the scientific community for his media appearances, he is not only a highly respected medical scientist with hundreds of published papers and pioneering research under his belt, but a life peer. As a speaker he is eminently calm and sensible while never dull; even when one disagrees with him, one cannot help but respect him.

His introduction, however, as a controversial man who turns your understanding of the world on its head, was frustrating and far from the case, for, engaging as he is when explaining early man’s stone tools or modern experiments with lasers, very little of what he says is controversial. Winston has countless historical anecdotes and snippets of scientific research about the fat content of brains or the development of swine flu, but his warnings over the dangers of battery farming or global warming are eloquent examples of points broadly accepted by scientists which need to be better communicated to the public, rather than surprising revelations.

After all, his latest book, Bad Ideas?: An Arresting History of Our Inventions, is part of his more general mission in his other books and media appearances to improve the public’s understanding and relationship with science. Its particular purpose is to look into a history of human invention and argue that every significant invention has had both good and bad consequences. We must learn our lessons from the sort of dangerous inventions of the past which have led us to destruction of the environment, new diseases and the threat of nuclear war.

His talk, sadly, seemed to lack many specific lessons; he preferred rather to ramble through various examples of human invention which, while interesting, made the experience seem rather like reading Aesop’s fables and skipping the morals.Even when he did come to a point he went into little detail. For example, he was eager to stress the importance of research with no foreseeable positive benefits for humanity, for expanding human knowledge itself is a wonderful thing which may well unexpectedly lead to discoveries of vast benefit. However, with the distribution of research funding such a big debate in the scientific community and amongst politicians, he failed to address how it should be dished out if not in light of foreseeable outcomes.

Indeed, one of the best moments of his speech was when he discussed how the Genome Project, often described, not least by the scientists involved in it, as one of the most significant steps forward in our knowledge of genes in decades, has so far led to no practical outcomes of any use to humanity. He seemed oddly pleased by the notion, despite the sort of media distortion the project has obtained being opposed to his fundamental beliefs about the way the public should engage with science.

Winston has warmed up the book festival’s science audience: Simon Singh and Ben Goldacre are revisiting Oxford to discuss their books later this week. Though I doubt they will be quite as agreeable figures, or as authoritative representatives of science in national political debate, their talks will hopefully do a better job of turning the world around you on its head.

 

Bad Ideas?: An Arresting History of Our Inventions by Robert Winston was released by Bantam Press on 18 Feb 2010 Simon Singh ( event 681) will be speaking at on Thursday 25th March at 6pm. Ben Goldacre (event 843) will be speaking on Saturday 27th March at 2pm. More information about the festival can be found at www.oxfordliteraryfestival.com 

Scenic View: Taipei

Prior to the start of my one month Southeast Asia trip, I had researched many of the places I would be visiting to figure out what sort of surprises, cultural and otherwise, that I would need to be cognizant of. One recurring theme was the air pollution. As I stumbled on to the humid Taipei International Airport tarmac, I knew that I would have to brace myself for thick smog and eye-burning pollutants. After all, The People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China are home to sixteen of the world’s twenty most polluted cities.

But I wasn’t ready for it. Having spent many of my formative years in sparsely populated areas of Canada, I’ve grown quite accustomed to clear blue skies and clean mountain air. In a recent controversial (and censored) report, the World Bank estimated that over 750,000 people die prematurely every year from pollution-related disease. Upon alighting from the plane, I was certain that I would become number 750,001. It is painfully apparent to all visitors that rapid economic development comes with a serious price tag.

After spending a day recovering from jet lag and smog-induced coughing, I took to the chaotic city streets. Taipei has the most efficient subway system that I have ever seen, with enormous numbers of people shuttled to dozens of points around the city at most hours of the day and night. Fares for tourists amount to about 40p for mid-range distances – hardly excessive, especially given the convenience and rapidness of the trains. Plus, handy visitor cards, similar to the ubiquitous London Tube Oyster cards, are also available.

My first stop was the famous Taipei 101 tower, a 106 floor behemoth that looms large over the Taipei skyline. Until it was unseated by the ridiculously enormous Burj Khalifa in Dubai, Taipei 101 held the crown for the highest building in the world with occupied floors. Visitors to the downstairs cafeteria can find a startling array of different food choices, ranging from the tasty (revolving Japanese sushi buffets) to the obvious (McDonald’s) to the slightly unusual (whole birds boiled before your eyes, anyone?). The yuppie crowd will enjoy the ultra-modern shopping store, with organic Japanese Fuji apples and specialty vegetables.

The next stop was the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall. Dedicated to the memory of the famous first President of the Republic of China, it boasts a colossal central plaza surrounded by themed buildings, designed in the traditional Chinese architectural style. Although feelings in Taiwan towards Kai-shek remained mixed, one cannot help but be impressed by the grandiosity of this tribute to his legacy. The area also holds some neat statues, libraries, and museums, and Taipei is full of richly adorned temples and museums, most of which are also accessible via the metro system.

I concluded my day with a stopover at one of the many famous night markets. The biggest one is Shilin, where one can pick up virtually anything – that is, if you are not overwhelmed by the cornucopia of different smells that emanate from every corner of the place. Dog lovers will be particularly interested in the puppy section, while food aficionados will be taken with the assortment of vegetables, fruits, and sweet breads. My friends and I even tried our hand at some of the Chinese fair games, with mixed results.

Taipei still feels like a land of opportunity. Its future, however, remains unclear. The increasingly powerful People Republic of China insists that Taiwan is part of the bigger mainland and Taiwan’s international status remains ambiguous. However, at the moment it is a prosperous and safe nation, blessed with some of the friendliest people I have ever met. Plus, for the (many) budget-conscious travelers out there, the major city of Taipei has the benefit of being reasonably priced and accessible. Despite my gripes about air pollution, it is still a fascinating and immersive place.

Abuse of our attention

It was during a recent attempt attempt to watch Glee or old Peep Show episodes on 4OD that I was confronted by a rather exciting-sounding advert for a ‘dream boyfriend’. My curiosity was sustained for a while, as what appeared was a live video of a guy in his bedroom, asking you to give him orders to obey. I suggested ‘play air guitar’, made him ‘jump’ and ‘strip’; I asked him to ‘run’ and he got really angry. Then the fun stopped. A  depiction of an abusive attack followed, and I came to the speedy realisation that this was not a fun, if not slightly perverse, distraction from the joys of streamed online television, but rather a government campaign to raise awareness of abuse. I asked myself, not for the first time, are these campaigns reaching the youngest generation of adults in Britain? And even if they are, do they have any effect?

To answer this question I first turned to friends, asking them what they thought about dreamboyfriend.co.uk. Some found it ‘hilarious’, some ‘too horrible to be funny’, some ‘wildly inappropriate’. In short, whilst the reviews were mixed, nobody seemed to say that it made them contemplate abuse or their role in identifying or preventing it.

Other campaigns aimed at minors and/or young adults include DrinkAware and various anti-smoking initiatives. Again, there seems to be an emphasis on either ‘new’ (Twitter et.al.) or visual campaign modes which inevitably tackle these delicate subjects in an embarassingly inadequate way. DrinkAware publishes a ‘Fresher Perspective’ blog where ‘Sophie will be giving a frank portrayal of university life and the role alcohol plays in it’. This week we find out the dark side of drinking on consecutive nights in a row, as Sophie confesses ‘I ran out of wick by Sunday morning, spending the next couple of days disorientated from lack of sleep’. Hardly surprising stuff; the kind of thing you could read in an actual student blog as opposed to one written by someone who is effectively employed by the Government to pretend to be a drunken teenager.

Presumably the reasoning behind these campaigns is not ‘let’s patronise these kids’ but rather an attempt at addressing crucial issues in a form both familiar and easily accessible to an increasingly unimpressionable generation. But this is missing the point: the fact that the current generation of teenagers and young adults is the first to grow up using the Internet, and consequently communicates information faster and in greater quantities than ever before, does not mean that merely communicating to them via the same medium will equate a message well received. The immeasurable increase in information to which this generation is exposed also means a heightened cynicism which results in a dormant sense of social responsibility where we laugh at abuse, binge drink – and more – at apparently unprecedented levels. This is not because the youth of today is unaware of the risks of drinking or the existence of abuse in a statistical sense, but rather because we have been over exposed to it via the mediums above described.

A society which is less naive as a result of the heightened possibility of communication must also acknowledge the effect this will have on the most naive members: its youth. If the government wants to reach our generation it needs to stop trying to involve us in a superficial interaction the way the entertainment industry (rightly) attempts. They need to provide facts in a stern and dry fashion, because the realities of abuse or binge drinking etc. are similarly stern and dry.

The statistics may seem ‘readily available’ since they are published online, but realistically our generation needs a pop-up advert you can’t ‘skip’ before Glee for our attention to be successfully maintained for longer than three seconds – and this is the one thing current campaigns have grasped about our generation: we need to be surprised into attention.

The campaign itself, however, need not be sensationalist once our attention has been grasped. Two women a week are killed by a current or former partner: there’s no need to be sensationalist or ‘approachable’ about it. It’s a reality which many more than we think will have experienced first-hand; it thus needs to be communicated in the most straightforward way possible, lest it not be understood as the straightforward atrocity that it is.

 

Students to blame for Oxford’s housing crisis?

Oxford is failing to provide enough affordable housing, a study by the charity Shelter revealed this week.

The housing charity claims that Oxford city council is only meeting 12% of the demand for affordable new housing.

Shelter’s Housing League Table was published this week. It shows that Oxford is ranked 226 out of 323 English local authorities, and has a shortfall of 1,547 new homes per year.

Shelter told Cherwell that the effects of the student population on the lack of affordable housing in Oxford is something which they would like to know more about. They feel that this would be an issue for the council to investigate, as Shelter does not hold data on privately rented housing.

Evidence from studies in other cities shows that short-term rental contracts, such as those usually leased by students, can inflate market rent prices.

There are currently over 30,000 students from both Oxford and Brookes universities living in private accommodation in Oxford.

Finding reasonably priced accommodation is also an issue for students who live out. The average rent for students in Cowley is £70 per week, close to the national average, but accommodation in Jericho can cost as much as £110 per week.

St. Anne’s undergraduate Vanessa Carr said, “looking for a property close to your college is unnecessarily stressful. The deposits are large and some estate agents’ queuing processes are unfair.”

This January some students camped outside North Oxford Property Services for two nights in snow and rain because of worries over the increasing demand for housing in the area.

 

CORRECTION:It was previously stated in this article that Shelter would urge the council to investigate the impact of the transient student pupulation on availability of affordable housing for locals. This is in fact untrue, as Shelter has no evidence of any effect, and was thus unable to comment on the matter. Cherwell would like to apologise to Shelter and to its readers for any confusion this may have caused.

 

Chancellor backs removal of Tuition Fee cap

The Chancellor of Oxford University, Lord Patten, has called for the cap on tuition fees to be scrapped.

In a speech at the Independent Schools’ Council annual conference in London, Patten said the current limit was “preposterous”. Removing the current cap for British students’ fees (£3,225 per year) would, he said, help meet the cost of teaching students, and help to maintain the world-class status of universities such as Oxford.

Patten remarked, “Speaking entirely for myself…I would be prepared to cap the present funding of our teaching grant if we were able as a result to set whatever tuition fee we wanted, provided that we could demonstrate that we were still guaranteeing needs-blind access with generous bursaries.”

Patten noted that teaching an undergraduate at Oxford costs approximately £16,000, about half of which is currently met by publicly funded teaching grants and tuition fees.

International students’ fees are not subject to a cap. For example, a student from overseas reading humanities or social sciences will have to pay £12,200 per year for 2010-11, as well as college fees. For sciences, the cost of tuition rises to £14,000 per year.

Removing the cap on tuition fees for home undergraduates would create a system in the UK similar to that which exists in the USA. For the current academic year, Harvard is charging $33,696 in tuition fees. Princeton is charging $35,340 for the same period.

Student reaction to Patten’s proposals has been mixed. Olly Richards, a second-year History student, reacted angrily. “I think it is a preposterous idea. The university is continually lambasted for not accepting enough state school students and this is a move which will further alienate this potential student base.”

Ellie Taylor, a second-year Modern Languages student, disagrees. “We still pay very little relative to the actual cost of university education, and if it means that I receive the highest possible quality education, I would be prepared to pay more, provided those who genuinely could not afford the increase were protected.”

An Oxford University spokesperson was keen to emphasise that Lord Patten’s views were not shared by the University, commenting, “The Chancellor was speaking in his own personal capacity. The University does not yet have a settled position on the fees question.

“Our initial submission to the Browne Review made clear that the University is faced with significant underfunding of undergraduate teaching. We are clear, however, that the gap cannot be addressed by fees alone. We are also clear that whatever happens with fees, access must be regardless of finances. Any increase in fees would have to be matched by bursaries serving to protect the principle of needs blind access for all students.”

Jonny Medland, OUSU VP (Access & Academic Affairs) commented, “We’re used to Lord Patten calling for the cap to come off fees but his ideas remain dangerous and irresponsible. An open market between universities risks deterring students from applying to the best institutions and undermining decades of work which Oxford has put into expanding access to the university.

“The students of Oxford have voted in support of a progressive graduate contribution to higher education – this should be based on the ability of graduates to pay, rather than on the risk that they’re willing to take aged 18. Both Oxford’s local MPs agreed to our agenda on funding within 24 hours of the Browne Review being announced.”

The Chancellor’s speech came in the same week as higher education institutions were told by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce) of the extent of cuts to their budgets. Oxford’s income will be reduced in real terms by 1 per cent from 2010-11.

David Lammy, the Higher Education Minister, said, “These changes come after years of sustained investment. Higher education funding is up by 25% in real terms since 1997. Like everyone in the current financial climate, institutions have to do their fair share of belt-tightening.”

Dr Steve Goddard, a University lecturer and Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate for Oxford East, reacted critically, commenting, “These cuts are a serious setback. Hugely important research may be hit and teaching budgets cut.”

 

Barred Oxford Professor to speak in New York

An Oxford Professor accused of donating money to Hamas is making his first visit to America since his visa was revoked.

On the 8th of April, Professor Tariq Ramadan will speak at the Cooper Union in New York City, on the subject of “Secularism, Islam and Democracy: Muslims in Europe and the West”. This will be his first visit to America since 2004 when he was barred from visiting the country under the Patriot Act.

Professor Ramadan was accused of donating $1,300 to a charity that funnelled money to Hamas, which is viewed as a terrorist organisation in the United States. At the time he was working at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana.

Following this accusation, Ramadan’s American visa was revoked by the Department of Homeland Security. He subsequently resigned from his post at Notre Dame.

The Professor maintained that he did not realise where or to whom the money was going and sued for the reinstatement of his visa. In July 2009, a Federal Appeals Court reversed the ruling against him. In January 2010, the restriction against Ramadan was lifted, so that he could reapply for a visa.

Professor Ramadan is currently the Professor of Contemporary Islamic Studies at the Oriental Institute at St Antony’s College, Oxford. He was employed by one of Oxford’s academic departments in 2005, one year after being was barred from the United States.

The University Press Office declined to comment on the issue, stating “It is a matter for Professor Ramadan.”