Wolfson College has been accused of a “disgraceful” suppression of free speech after cancelling a talk from a prominent anti-Zionist at the last minute.

Dr Taj Hargey, the chairman of MECO (Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford), had organised a talk from Rabbi Ahron Cohen. The title of the talk was “Zionism is not Judaism-Anti-Israelism is not Anti-Semitism”.

According to Dr Hargey the talk was organised months ago, but was only cancelled by officials at Wolfson College on Wednesday evening, less than 24 hours before the event was scheduled to take place.

The talk was quickly reorganised however, eventually taking place at St. Edwards School on Woodstock Road.
Rabbi Cohen is a member of the Neturei Kart, an ultra-Hasidic sect of Judaism which is deeply opposed to Zionism. Dr Hargey points that he is not necessarily anti-Zionist, but believes in the power of free speech.
“This man with views that are contrary to the conventional popular view should be given a hearing.”

“This is a disgraceful episode in the history of Oxford University, when we allow a group of people to say ‘no, you can’t come’.”

Hargey claimed the talk was cancelled on “the pretext that MECO hadn’t given advanced identity of the speaker”.

However, MECO have a long history of holding talks at Wolfson, and have had a number of prominent speakers at the college over the past 5 years. MECO claims to have followed exactly the same protocol that they have used in the past.
A spokesman for Wolfson College defended the decision, saying that “the booking was not made transparently.”

“Wolfson supports free speech, and is happy to host speakers of all opinions. However, where a speaker is likely to be controversial or provocative, or has the potential to cause offence to college members, it is the college’s policy to discuss among the Governing Body whether and how to hold the event, including whether opposing voices should be included in the event.”

He added, “As this speaker was booked under the identity of a college member who knew nothing about the booking and the real identity of the speaker became apparent only yesterday, there was no opportunity to hold these discussions.”

Israeli Cultural Society President James Fox said he didn’t feel that Wolfson’s actions had violated freedom of speech.
“It seems that calling it a suppression of free speech might be a convenient excuse for MECO’s lack of compliance with Wolfson College’s own procedures. “

The talk went ahead at St Edwards School on Thursday evening. The location of the talk, which was attended by more than 60 people, was kept secret until a few hours before the debate.

Dr Hargey has recently won a 3 year libel court case after being branded a heretic. He wants to bring reforms to the Muslim society, and often encourages females and males to pray together. He also brought a female imam to Oxford to lead prayers on one occasion.

He commented that the cancellation of the talk was the day that “free speech lost and censorship won.”

A mystery member of Exeter College has been ripping The Sun’s notorious Page 3 from the MCR’s copy of the newspaper.

The vandalism went on “daily, diligently” until a warning message sent to MCR members put a stop to the defacement last week.

The page, which features a photo of a scantily clad female, was torn out each morning, preventing others from reading stories on the other side.

Sahana Ghosh, the vice-president of the MCR, told members of the college, “Tearing a page out is NOT an acceptable way of showing enjoyment or disapproval-the paper is meant for all members of the MCR and this does not please members who find an unreadable story because the first half is gone every single morning.”

The motive behind the incidents is still unknown, but several members of the college have suggested the move was a political statement. One MCR member said, “My inkling is that it was a religious or feminist protest rather than a Page 3 collector.”

One first year History and Politics student commented, “I think that person should be applauded, as it is disgusting that we are still degrading women in what is the biggest selling paper in the country.”

But whatever the motive, the MCR is determined to put a stop to it. Ghosh warned graduates, “We have ways and means of finding out who is doing this and so there are suspects. In other words, you are being watched, so please stop.”
Ghosh added, “The newspapers are delivered to the MCR and kept in everyone’s view-the person(s) would definitely have been seen doing it had s/he/they been doing it in the presence of anyone in the MCR.”

She told students, “The MCR pays good money for its newspapers and will not tolerate vandalism of its property.” The culprit may also face disciplinary action, she warned.

Anyone objecting to the page for moral reasons should bring the issue up through official channels. She said, “If it irks you so much, bring it up and we can assure you a fair hearing.”

Derek Walcott has been targeted this week by a vicious and systematic smear campaign against his candidacy for Oxford’s Professor of Poetry. Authors, academics and journalists internationally have received anonymous letters alluding to Walcott’s history of sexual harassment.

The accusations refer to incidents while Walcott held professorial posts at Boston and Harvard Universities.

Between 50 and 100 anonymous envelopes were sent to female fellows and female heads of colleges and departments in Oxford. These contained photocopied pages from The Lecherous Professor, a book recounting allegations made by a student at Harvard against the Nobel Prize-winning poet. The book, written by Linda Weiner and Billie Wright, examines incidents of sexual harassment on college campuses. In the photocopied six-page extract, it describes how Walcott, then a lecturer at Harvard, made inappropriate proposals to a student during a discussion of her work.

Authors across the world also received an anonymous note from a “group of women students at Oxford University” requesting that a letter be written to The Guardian and the University Press Office in objection to Walcott’s nomination.

The hand-written envelopes were mailed from Mount Pleasant in London.

Ankhi Mukherjee, a fellow of Wadham college and senior lecturer at the faculty of English described how she received her package on April 29.

“I was one of the first people to receive it,” she said. “I don’t think this is what should we be looking for as Professor of Poetry. I’m very much against these statements. We should be reading him and we should not meet him.”

The editors of Cherwell Newspaper also received two copies of these anonymous letters. Hand-written notes were attached, encouraging the editors to look at the photocopied pages.

The first note said, “Gini, what do we think of Hermione Lee running the campaign for this guy to come to Oxford as the Poetry Professor. Worth a piece? Sandra + Jane.” The other note read, “Derek, sent Gini a note about this as well. I really think Hermione Lee is mad to try to bring this guy in. What say you? Sandra + Jane.”

Cherwell conducted an interview with Ruth Padel on April 29. Following the interview, Emily Paddon, a doctoral student at St Antony’s college and a friend of Ruth Padel, contacted Cherwell and raised the issue of Walcott’s history.

“The only thing I did was to send an e-mail to colleagues and friends about the issue,” she commented. “I’ve been reading about this in the newspapers. I was concerned that the university has not publicised this issue. The emails were very factual–no judgment, no opinion.” Paddon condemned the smear campaign and denied any involvement.

Seth Abramson, a published poet and former staff attorney at the New Hampshire Public Defender described how a note was posted on his blog from an unknown source at Oxford University.

The note read, “We are a group of women students at Oxford University and find [Walcott’s history] shocking and insulting. We would welcome your help, in demonstrating to the University and the British public, that Walcott’s sexual harassment and blackmail of women students are not mere ‘allegations,’ as the British press assert, but a matter of record, with deeply offensive transcripts available in books and online.

“Quite the opposite of Professor Lee’s assertion, we feel that electing a proven campus sexual predator, who is on record as admitting harassment in at least two cases, would shame not honour Oxford. The post is voted for by teachers at Oxford University. We feel the English Faculty is suppressing Walcott’s record. No one in Oxford or Britain knows or believes it. We find it scandalous, almost unbelievable, that it is a woman educator who is Walcott’s chief supporter in Oxford and in public.”

The letter went on to ask the public to write e-mails to the Guardian newspaper and a press officer at Oxford University.

The note had several signatures, but Abramson later received an e-mail from one of the named persons, saying that they had not been involved with the post and asking to have their names removed.

Abramson expressed a belief that Walcott was an inadequate candidate. “If might be different–only might–if Walcott had, at a minimum, apologized profusely for his actions and sought some sort of training in the appropriate instruction of adolescents, but as near as I can tell that’s never happened.”

Walcott won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1992 and he has also won the Queen’s Gold Medal for Poetry and the WH Smith Literary Award in recent years.

In 1992, an anonymous student in a creative writing class taught by Walcott at Harvard claimed that the poet had propositioned her ten years earlier during a discussion of her work. When she refused his advances, he gave her a “C” grade.

According to the Harvard Crimson, the University’s newspaper, Walcott did not deny the student’s testimony. His teaching style was “deliberately personal and intense,” he alleged.

The Crimson published a letter by the student containing an account of the conversation. The student claimed that, after she sent the letter, Walcott was “cold and distant”, showed “no concern for my education” and “did not fully evaluate my work as he did with other students of the class.” Harvard University has officially reprimanded Walcott.

In 1995, the poet was accused of sexually harassing a student in a class he taught at Boston University. The student claimed that he had propositioned her. After she declined, he threatened to fail her and refused to produce her play. She later pressed for compensation and punitive damages.

Professor Hermione Lee, a campaigner for Derek Walcott, was disgusted by the smear campaign. “I am shocked and astonished that someone has been using these sorts of anonymous tactics,” she said. “Why are these tactics being used? It is a conceited campaign, to put things into an envelope with no name.”

“These allegations are from 25 years ago and we should have an argument in a proper manner. It’s a very complicated, ethical question and it should be properly debated.”

She added, “You might ask yourself as a student body whether you wanted Byron or Shelley as a professor of poetry, neither of whom had personal lives free from criticism.”

Lee expressed concern that the letters were sent by Walcott’s competitors. “I can only assume that they were send by Ruth Padel’s campaigners. I would like to disassociate myself from such behaviour.”

Professor Pedro Ferreira, Ruth Padel’s campaigner, disputed the claim. “I haven’t heard anything about this. I know and have heard of the book, but I haven’t heard that the book has been sent out to people.”

He added, “I know there are people who are angry about this but I completely deny Ruth Padel’s involvement with such a campaign. We have nothing to do with this and we condemn it.”

Students have expressed concern about the allegations made against Walcott. Katy Theobald, president of Oxford Women in Politics commented, “If the sexual harassment claims were separate from Walcott’s public work then these claims would be irrelevant. If he were to be elected for the post, there would be concerns that these issues would once more affect his work.”

Hannah Cusworth, Oxford University Labour Club’s Women’s Officer and a member of Women’s Campaign said, “I can’t condone sexual harassment. I just want a fantastic poet as opposed to someone who would upset people if he was elected.”

Oxford University’s plans to raise more than a billion pounds are faltering after it was revealed that the rate of donations to the high-profile fundraising drive have slowed dramatically.

The University’s Oxford Thinking campaign has so far achieved almost half of its ambitious £1.25bn target, raising more than £104m since its high profile launch last May.

Approximately £75m of this sum was, however, donated in the first three months following the launch, with a mere £29m accumulated by the University in the following nine.

The measley figure means that the total for this financial year, which runs from July to August, looks set to fall well below the previous years of the campaign. The University amassed more than £100m in the previous financial year, a total the campaign seems unlikely to match in just three months.

The general slowing of the campaign would appear to be supported by the donation figures published on University’s campaign website. There, the University publishes its largest named donations, but the pages only report £2.45m large named donations to the institution since July 2008—a mere 0.195% of the campaign’s ambitious aim.

Official pledges and new gifts from August 2004 – July 2008 amount to £624m, although the cash actually received was £311m. This means that the University is almost halfway towards its aim of £1.25bn, with pledged donations included.

This news comes as Oxford’s Vice-Chancellor John Hood praised Oxford Thinking in a termly letter to staff this week, particularly commending philanthropist James Martin’s pledge of $50m in matched funding.
The Oxford Thinking fundraising crusade was first launched in 2004, with the drive operating in a “quiet phase” before a global launch in May of last year, amid much fanfare.

In his letter, Hood also urging them to maximise efficiency and exercise “care and restraint” around the University in light of the current economic situation. He called for a review of investments and announced a new recruitment protocol. As part of it the creation of new posts will need to have very strong justification and the refiling of vacant posts will be subject to a process of careful review. No redundancies are currently planned.

“Amid all the current economic travails, we must not lose sight of the need to safeguard a future for the generations that follow us,” said Hood. “We must maintain our cash position in the short term and return to building surplus budgets in the future.

“This will inevitably present challenges for all of us” he added. “I would like to thank colleagues in advance for their help in meeting these challenges.”

Staff across Oxford acknowledged that the institution would have to tighten its belt in light of the credit crunch and dwindling flow of donations.

One University employee confirmed that everybody has been “tighter financially”. They said, “That’s the situation and we will have to deal with it.”

Meanwhile a spokesman for Oxford University added, “It is also fair to say that everyone in the University is alert to the potential impact of the global financial downturn on fundraising.”

Tabassum Rasheed, a first year PPE student, commented that she is not sure how University’s financial problems will affect her life as a student.
“I’m not sure how this obvious drop in funding will translate to students. Government decides on fees and in terms of accommodation it is college based,” she said. “I really hope that Oxford will continue to provide excellent services it provides. But right now, I have no idea how the drop in funding will affect me and I find that really scary.”