In receiving the Sunday Times Award for Literary Excellence, Ian McEwan, author of Atonement and Saturday, has joined the ranks of Margaret Atwood, Ted Hughes, Tom Stoppard, Muriel Spark and Seamus Heaney.
McEwan describes his own style as ‘vaguely unprepossessing’, but you can sense he thinks more of it than that. Yet who could blame him? Here is a man who is frequently described as perhaps the greatest living writer of modern fiction. A little smugness is therefore at least permissible. McEwan exhibits no false modesty, nor claims it when he says that in the 1970s, his ‘intellectual maturation’ represented ‘an explosion in [his] mind’.
He is, however, at least thoughtful, and his status as a fiction giant whose literature revolves around the macabre sides of ‘psychological and social phenomena’ was bound to induce some form of pretension.
The upside of this is that he can spin a good-sounding yarn. The downside shows itself in his apparent characterisation of his fellow students at Sussex as ‘intellectually infantile’ compared to his ambitious dreams and cerebral pursuits — he dismisses his classmates with the casual remark that they were ‘filled with rather different ideas about how to spend their time.’
Starting out in North Africa, McEwan describes his first recollection of being fascinated by a book, the children’s novel ‘The Gauntlet’, in which a young hero slips on an old glove and is hurled back in time to the middle ages. His description of this odd experience as a catalyst for his love of fiction appears to stem more from a desire to create a neat and tidy chain of events than from a genuine desire to present the truth. But it chimes well with McEwan’s self-confessed obsession with the bizarre coincidences that appear to hold such potency in the lives of every ordinary and extraordinary man.
More likely his discovery at a precociously young age of Iris Murdoch, and his childhood upbringing which included considerable familiarity with a North African Library, kindled an imagination that has never left him.
All this was realised in his degrees, his BA in English Literature from Sussex and his MA in Creative Writing from the University of East Anglia. Oxford boasts of its tutorial system of one tutor to only one or two students, but in his MA course, he was the sole student on a course with two tutors; a remarkably privileged education.
Otherwise, McEwan was quite reticent about influences on his writing and reading of his own work. He claimed that the filming of Atonement had absolutely no impact at all. When asked about the influence of Oxford (he lived in the North of Oxford for many years), he first denied any connection and then, when pressed, decided that it is at least, ‘a nice place to work’.
He didn’t seem to be able to identify any non-literary sources of influence on his work, or the creative processes of his mind. The only one that he did let on was when he mentioned that ‘happiness doesn’t sell books’; it is easy to forget that even literary giants have bank accounts that exert a very real influence on their writing style.
Meeting McEwan gave the impression that he puts a lot of himself into his work: a sense of confidence bordering on arrogance on the one hand, but also an obsession with, and a perceptive affinity for, psychological analysis. Self-important, thoughtful and even slightly cynical would go well to describe both the man and his writings, which he is set to expand shortly with a book about ‘a short, fat man who was possessed of a disposition that was utterly irresistible to women. At least, that’s what he thought, and thinking seemed to make it so’. Given his excitement for the project, I have no doubt it will constitute an important addition to his canon, and further justify McEwan’s selection for this prestigious accolade.
Interview: Ian McEwen
Hostage to the Law
It was the morning of the G20 protest, and the capital was poised for action. The words ‘this day will go down in history’ were on everyone’s lips. Little did we know that the day would be remembered for the actions of the riot police, rather than the agenda of the activists. Headlines following the demonstration called it a bloody battle between ‘good coppers’ and ‘violent anarchists’. Until the release of videos began, telling a different story.
I was among the thousands drawn to the epicenter of London’s business playground on 1st April. Some came out of curiosity, others out of a conviction for change, and a very few to incite chaos. I joined the ‘green’ arm of the protest, which left Liverpool Street at 11am. There would be the odd blurting out of ‘Make love not money!’ from a hippy bunch, and sporadic calls of ‘Shame!’ from others, but most ‘rioters’ rambled on peacefully, holding banners and mock monster heads high. A girl next to me even passed out homemade cupcakes, with a cheerful ‘no protest is complete without cake’.
By the time we reached the RBS HQ, a florescent bulk of riot police had formed a ring around us, sending a tangible wave of resentment through the crowd. People around me had reacted to the bankers with some contempt, but that was nothing compared to the anger felt towards police. Chants of ‘Right to march!’ grew louder as the procession came to a halt at a wall of riot officers. Pressure grew, as those keen to be in on the action shoved past me to the front line. I stood next to a tiny, white-haired lady, looking positively terrified. Clutching packed lunch in hand, she had come because she believed that ‘authority should start at the bottom’. ‘Will this make a difference?’ I ask. ‘I hope so’. Her reply was automatic, distracted by a police helmet sent soaring over our heads.
As far as I could make out, police had become an uneasy representative of authority, the real cause of resentment. I chatted to a chap behind me, who became nervous at the sight of the fluorescent army. He seemed peaceable enough, despite the intimidating black scarf obscuring his features. When I asked him why he felt the need to cover his face he replied, ‘they’ve got me on record’ he said, ‘like all of us’, before disappearing into the pulsing crowd. Although this may seem paranoid, it seems he has reason to be worried. Recent investigations have revealed that police hold thousands of legal campaigners’ details on record. Names, political associations and photographs can be kept on the system for at least 7 years.
For a moment, when all four contingents of the march met at Bishops Gate, the menacing atmosphere caused by the over-heavy police presence was momentarily forgotten, and a carnival began. Some plonked down stereos and spontaneously started boogying; others simply sat back and enjoyed the sun, munching on sandwiches. Wandering through the now more dissipated crowd, I crossed the line from hysteria to hilarity. A couple of mums had collared their kids to take part in a role play of the ‘banker’s family’, and, complete with plastic champagne glasses and feather boas, were loudly (and ironically) championing banker’s bonuses. A group of excitable youngsters in black performed a ritualistic ‘hanging’ of a puppet banker on a traffic light, while others beat at the puppet vigorously with skateboards. Another sinister-looking trio meandered through the masses, two dressed as austere bankers, wheeling a barrow of fake money, the other a grinning cop with ‘vigilance control’ plastered on his uniform. But these were only gestures. With no knowledge of crowd control I could have picked out the real fire starters, those throwing themselves into the fray, apparently hell-bent on inciting chaos. These were a tiny minority of hooligans in an otherwise harmless crowd. Why then, in the name of ‘security’, did the police blanket-target us all?
They call it ‘Kettling’: jargon for keeping protesters penned in so violence is ‘contained’. This tactic contradicts Article 5 of the Human Rights Act, which sets out the right not to be deprived of liberty apart from in five well-defined, highly exceptional circumstances. There is certainly no mention of shouting and waving banners in the street.
The carnival mood soon turned sour as it became clear that we were prisoners. The situation was ludicrous. There we were, with little in common apart from a desire to make our voices heard, coralled like misbehaving cattle. Campaigners who had behaved peacefully up until that point became increasingly agitated by the onerous atmosphere, exacerbated by monosyllabic officers. The confined space suddenly became oppressive and, in the absence of a toilet, there were rivulets of pee in the street. ‘We’ll let you know when you’ll be released’, was all I got from one burly officer when I asked him what was going on. Another two young cops shifted nervously in their riot gear, as bemused by their orders as we were. Cries were heard of ‘I need to pick up my kids’, ‘I’m going to miss my train’; all met with the same embarrassed shrug of refusal. The lack of information added to the crowd’s frustration, turning into panic as violence broke out in one corner of the square.
The obscuring of information around the G20 protests has cast a cloud of doubt over police authenticity. It has now become clear that Ian Tomlinson’s death was due to internal bleeding caused by being hit by a policeman. The contradictions surrounding this fatality, which was initially alleged to have been ‘caused by a heart attack’ are worrying. Why didn’t the outcome of the initial post mortem mention any signs of having been hit?
In desperation to be free protesters piled up against the lines of police, pushing. These were the same people who an hour earlier had been happy to do their bit and leave. Now they felt compelled to take the law into their own hands. As soon as the barricade was broken a mass of people made a run for it, and I joined the fray. As police blockades closed behind me, I felt like I was fleeing a crime scene. Those who had not managed to make a run for it were faced with another seven hours in captivity. When they were finally allowed to leave it was only on the condition that they gave their names and addresses and had their picture taken.
The men drafted in to police the G20 protests are no different to the rest of us, and shouldn’t be given specialist treatment. If a protester had attacked a passerby unprovoked he would have been handcuffed on the spot. Why has it taken irrefutable evidence for the police to finally face up to their faults?
Interview: Vince Cable
Telling my friends that I was going to interview Vince Cable I was met with an almost comical scope of reactions. From the politically apathetic “who?” to the wide eyed adoration of the PPE student; “wow, that absolutely amazing, that man’s a genius you know, ask him about… (cue long gabbled list.)”
However, one thing that most people asked me was, “How on earth did you manage to get an interview with him?” They have a point. Shadow chancellor for the liberal democrats, and deputy leader of the party – or acting leader when I spoke to him, as Nick Clegg was on paternity leave. On top of this formal list of credentials he is one of the most respected politicians of our age. His predictions about the recession have been nothing short of prophetic; he made the nation laugh by comparing Brown to Mr Bean; and I am yet to watch an episode of Question Time where any debate about the financial situation hasn’t included a comment along the lines of “maybe we should all just listen to Vince cable”.
So, how did I get the interview? Well, Vince Cable happens to be my local MP, and one of the things you learn as a constituent of Richmond and Twickenham is that Vince Cable doesn’t say no. He is one of those rare, high profile politicians who would bend over backwards for his local constituents and he is vastly popular. In today’s world of expenses scandals and backhanded tactics, where far too often politicians abjectly fail to connect with those who they are representing, what is it about Mr Cable that his sustained his popularity?
“His air when talking about his student experience is endearingly down to earth.”
A brief glance at Vince Cable’s background doesn’t separate him a huge amount from his peers in the House of Commons. A degree in Natural Sciences and Economics from Cambridge and a stint as president of the Cambridge Union seem enough to paint him with the ‘just another elitist politician’ brush. Yet his air when talking about his student experience is endearingly down to earth. When I ask why he chose Cambridge, he smiles, “Well, it was actually one of the few places that would have me. I applied to a number of the Oxford colleges and was rejected by them all, so I ended up at Fitzwilliam College Cambridge.” (He certainly knows how to charm an Oxford student).
Similarly, when quizzed about the Union he doesn’t mention any famous speakers, but instead focuses on his contemporaries. “I was lucky enough to be with a very competent group of individuals… One of the biggest influences on me was a friend who didn’t go on to become anyone famous. He became a humorist and taught me a great deal about the importance of humour in politics.”
It was not until later in his life that Cable was elected into a political office. “I spent quite a while trying to get in. People don’t generally know that I failed a few times first.” He had however been politically active from early on, both at university and after. From 1971-74, he was a labour councillor in Glasgow: “There was a lot of poverty and important issues there at the time.” His enthusiasm for active involvement has not only characterised his career but comes through in everything he talks about.
He has a huge amount of praise for student activism and student politics in general. “I was lucky enough to be a student at a time when student politics was very active – there were some particularly emotive issues, such as the apartheid, in those days. When both of my children were at university they said that most people were quite politically apathetic. It’s good to hear that students are becoming interested again.” And does parliament take notice of student politics? “Of course, students are the future of politics”.
It has been in the last five or so years that Cable has become more of a household name. In the past twelve months especially, the depth of his economic understanding has thrust him into the political limelight.
“Gordon Brown lost his respect a long time ago”
He is refreshingly ‘matter of fact’ about the newfound media interest. “It’d not that bad really, I don’t object too much. I suppose I’ve had a more interesting private life as far as the media is concerned than other politicians.” He is talking about the loss of his first wife to breast cancer in 2001. He has since remarried but still wears the wedding rings from both of his marriages. There’s something endearing about him when he discusses it; when I ask him what issues he’s dealt with which he has been the most passionate about, the first thing he mentions is his push for more regular cancer screening.
Whereas all around him politicians have such volatile relationships with the media, Cable’s approach to the attention was straight forward. “You ask for it when you sign up to the job. A politician who complains about the media is like a fisherman who complains about the sea”.
Aside from his honesty with the press and his sophisticated economic understanding, Cable is known for his fierce loyalty to the Liberal Democrats. When I broach the subject of rumours that Brown has been asking him to leave the Lib Dems and work as an economic advisor in the current recession, he closes up, leans back in his chair and crosses his arms, “I have made it quite clear that I’m not interested in any proposal of that kind”. Do partisan loyalties ever hinder the course of best government? “British politics does have a tendency to be very tribal for sure, but the party in government can’t just pick off individuals from other places as they please.” Talking about the Brown administration he seems weary, describing it as “exhausted”.
“They quite simply have no idea how to get themselves out of this terrible mess. The thing is that it’s not as if the Conservatives would do any better.”
“Gordon Brown lost his respect a long time ago. There’s just no direction”
Vince Cable is likeable in a very surprising way. He couldn’t contrast more startlingly with slimy spin-masters like Blair or Cameron: there was none of the rhetoric, none of the fake smiles; he is in fact quite serious, to the point, and focused. There are moments when he really seems to relax, particularly when I ask about non political subjects; the fact that he is an accomplished ballroom dancer, for example (“Accomplished? Those are your words not mine”), and when I quiz him about his chosen ‘luxury item’ during his feature on Radio Four’s dessert island disks. “I like speed” he answers with that wry smile of his. “I said if it was a very large island equipped with petrol pumps I’d have an Aston Martin- But I’ve been somewhat criticised by my more environmentally conscious colleagues”.
He is, all in all, an extremely genuine man, and this seems to me the most obvious explanation as to why he has maintained his popularity in a climate where few others have. Being good at your job is no longer enough for politicians in today’s world. People want honesty, focus and engagement.
Vince Cable’s book ‘Storm: The World Economic Crisis and What it Means’ is available from Atlantic Books for £14.99
He will be speaking to the International Relations Society in Oxford on Thursday 30th April, 7.45 in the Oriel Lecture room
Five minute tute: Ending the M.A.D.ness
Is the goal of non-proliferation preventing the spread of weapons or destoying thsoe already in existence?
The ultimate goal of nuclear nonproliferation is to prevent additional states from acquiring nuclear weapons. The key number that must be avoided here is one. Nuclear nonproliferation efforts must prevent even a single nuclear weapon from being acquired by a nonweapons state. To achieve this, nuclear nonproliferation efforts try to prevent states from acquiring any nuclear materials, technology or equipment that could help them acquire nuclear arms without setting off alarm bells well before any bomb is actually built. Nuclear arms control, on the other hand, is about freezing or reducing the number of existing nuclear weapons that states possess. The key number here is some number above zero. Finally, nuclear disarmament is about eliminating all nuclear weapons holdings. The key number here is zero.
What steps are taken to achieve this aim?
The key steps include exports controls and interdiction of any nuclear materials, equipment or technology that is designed specifically to make nuclear weapons, such as nuclear weapons design information and nuclear weapons grade plutonium or highly enriched uranium. They also include international nuclear inspections designed to prevent diversion of civilian nuclear equipment and materials to make bombs. The latter are only effective if they can detect a diversion early enough to allow outside authorities sufficient time to intervene to prevent nuclear bombs from being built.
What incentive is there for countries to disarm while the US retains its weapons?
Despite the US and other countries possessing nuclear weapons, there are still reasons to avoid them. A key incentive for non-weapon states not to acquire nuclear weapons is to reassure their neighbors that they don’t have to acquire nuclear weapons either, avoiding a frightening, expensive nuclear arms competition.
Would adding Israel, India and Pakistan to the list of declared nuclear states further non-proliferation?
Adding Israel to the list definitely would complicate matters since it would probably goad its neighbors Egypt and Syria into openly acquiring nuclear weapons as well. It would be far better for Israel to stop producing nuclear fissile material for bombs and eventually to disarm quietly on the basis of nuclear restraints being placed on its neighbors as well. As for Pakistan and India, they are already declared nuclear weapons states, but not considered nuclear weapon states under the NPT. Doing so, however, would reward them for acquiring nuclear weapons by giving them access to controlled civilian nuclear goods, thus acting as an incentive for nother non-weapon states to follow. This is why the US-Indian nuclear cooperative agreement was so controversial. Strictly speaking, this deal is not supposed to help India acquire any more nuclear weapons per year than it was making prior to the deal. If it does (and it might since the deal allows India to import more nuclear fuel for its power reactors that could free up more domestic Indian ore for making nuclear bombs), it would be a violation of Article I of the NPT, which prohibits nuclear weapons states (e.g., Russia, the U.S. and France) from doing anything to help any nation that did not have nuclear weapons prior to 1967 to acquire or make more nuclear weapons).
Are the recent proposals by President Obama regarding a fuel bank and talks with Russia likely to have much of an impact on non-proliferation?
No. The proposed nuclear fuel bank would only provide a diplomatic talking point for those who fear that their supply of fuel for nuclear power reactors may be cut off. This, however, has only been done in the rare instance, e.g. Iran and India, when the country in question violated clear nuclear rules and was toying with acquiring nuclear weapons.
As for Mr. Obama’s other proposals to ratify a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), these too are mostly symbolic since the US, France, the UK, Russia and China are not generally suspected of still producing fissile for bombs or of nuclear testing. Neither of these treatoies are ever likely to be brought into force since countries like Pakistan, India, and Egypt will refuse to ratify them until there is general nuclear disarmament
Race is a laughing matter – so why are we still constrained by colour?
Sophie Duker
French & English
Wadham College
What do you call a black man who flies a plane?
A pilot, you racist. So what do you call a black girl who goes to Oxford University? Statistically unlikely.
In 1969, Nina Simone sang Weldon Irvine’s immortal lyrics:
“In the whole world you know/There are a billion boys and girls/Who are young, gifted and black/And that’s a fact!”
These lines are inspiring. But they don’t change a fact I recently discovered; namely, that out of over 3,000 undergraduates admitted to Oxford in 2008, only I and 23 others identified as black African. Admittedly, there could be a few who chose not to identify themselves, but I doubt anyone bothered. You see, the thing about being black African, or Caribbean, for that matter, is that you’re fairly easy to identify, whether or not you ticked a box on your personal statement. You can’t hide your ethnicity by buying a polo shirt from ‘Fabulously British’ Jack Wills or by adopting the word ‘yah’ into your vocabulary-if you’re the only black girl in your lecture, you will stick out like a little cocoa-coloured anomaly. Interestingly, it seems to be a slightly different experience for black boys than for black girls. It’s largely due to The Obama Effect, mixed up with reminisces of Save the Last Dance. If you are a black boy who isn’t a rude-i.e. no ear piercings, good diction, good grades, a belt and no sharp pointy bits of metal about your person – you are automatically a young Barack. You are the future, you are breaking down barriers, you are setting an example. And everybody fancies you. None of this, by the way, is intended as a dig at either Iwu or Chigbo (current and elect presidents of Oxford & Cambridge student unions, respectively) who are both so accomplished and good-looking that comparisons to the American president are wholly unsurprising. One might think that at Oxford, an institution which prides itself on being a meritocracy, ethnic minority students would naturally not make their background an issue. Au contraire. As Yosola Olorunshola, a fresher studying French and History at Jesus College points out, “Quite a few of the other black students I’ve met from Oxbridge seem to embrace being ‘the only black in the village’-it’s a way of inverting your insecurity about it.” She continues, “If you’re going to stand out, it might as well be on your own terms.” Banter, which has alternately been translated to mean ‘ignorant bigotry’ and ‘witticisms between friends’, is a touchy subject, but something I believe it’s possible to defend. Just for clarification: a rugby team ‘blacking up’ is not banter. I doubt anyone would dare to do it in Acton-for fear of getting lynched-and it is definitely both alienating and offensive. Being able to have a conversation with someone who’s relaxed enough to joke around with you and isn’t afraid to be politically incorrect is liberating. What’s not is being around people made uncomfortable when you play the race card. Humour is one of the gentlest and nicest ways of educating people about their prejudices. It does much more to challenge people’s assumptions than just about anything else. Blending into the background, while obviously a literal impossibility, can be achieved to a certain extent though sheer bloody-mindedness-a refusal to acknowledge the colour of your skin, whether positively or negatively. But forsaking such a blatant part of your identity leads to identity crisis, whether or not you feel, or want to feel, a part of a greater black community. Some might think it’s unhealthy to fixate on difference. But it’s equally unhealthy to live in denial. Out of Simone’s ‘billion boys and girls’, only about 30 actually made it here, to one of the most respected academic institutions in the world. I see more black faces in one place behind the Sainsbury’s counter on the alcohol run than I ever have in my JCR. So, what can we do? (By ‘we’, I here mean everyone in the university, regardless of pigmentation.) Well, what anyone would hope we were going to do anyway. Laugh at each other, learn about each other, lovingly trade insults. Have a sense of humour without being insensitive. I don’t want to be constantly reminded about being black. But neither do I ever want to or will I ever be able to forget it. Africa bops are a great idea… but if someone can’t muster up enough imagination to come as something other than a blacked-up savage straight out of Heart of Darkness, it just shows they haven’t had enough exposure to the thirty or so black individuals who joined Oxford’s ranks of young and gifted last year.
Ravi Thambapillai
Founding President
International Relations Soc
You can have your British Prime Minister in any colour- as long as its not black. Or indeed any colour other than white. Yet, in America, that seems to no longer be the case. With the election of the first (half) black leader of the United States of America, the inevitable question has to be raised; why hasn’t it happened here?
Trevor Phillips has famously said that institutional racism in key governmental organisations, including, for example, the Labour Party, would prevent a young, intelligent but non-white candidate from rising to the top. Ironically, there are systemic constraints on ethnic minorities, but they are not institutional in the way that Trevor Phillips thinks. When we ask whether a black person could become Prime minister, we are really asking can an outsider become Prime Minister. Many educated people feel there is no important race relations question to be addressed here in Britain; saying its just a proxy for class. This is false and missing the point. Many affluent ethnic minorities put ethnic under-representation down to a question of class, that really the colour of your skin isn’t the main factor, but your socio-economic background. And it just so happens that, through no fault of the current British system or population, many more minority citizens hail from a lower socio economic background than their white counterparts. No doubt this plays a part, but it is not the only factor. In poorer regions, but particularly in the north in cities like Bradford, intra-class ethnic tension, segregation and conflict reaches levels that urbane Oxonian-Londoners could not begin to understand. However, even the wealthy southern institutions have worryingly white compositions.
Oxbridge is disappointingly un-colourful. There is a real problem regarding the ethnic composition of applications that come in the Oxbridge’s direction.
A discerning eye would see that the most likely explanation is that not enough ethnic students are applying. But while state school application ratios are now (at last) rising (too slowly), a recent Times article states applications from Indian and Chinese UK students are falling.
Yet the even more interesting issue is how insidious ‘tribalism’ is in our society. Even in the enlightened, educated land of Oxford, the Chinese students have a disproportionate number of Chinese friends, and the ‘brown’ students have a disproportionate number of brown friends. The ‘brown’ vote is even considered a demographic bloc in Union politicking. It shapes unconscious networks in Oxford, and outside in poorer regions it segregates people and breeds ignorance and contempt. It also shapes careers. Is it a total coincidence that the highest concentration of black faces in central Oxford are behind the counters on Cornmarket’s fast-food restaurants?
Even the hugely talented have race based influences on their careers. For integrated families, who have experienced success in a variety of different fields, medicine is one of the most respectable and impressive career choices. For many isolated Indian ones, it is the sole or preeminent pinnacle of achievement.
Reading Obama’s autobiography, ‘Dreams from my father’ provides an interesting contrast to UK ethnic minorities. The route that Obama finally takes to discover his Americanism is one that simply isn’t open to the British. Obama finds his patriotism and American identity by feeling the resonance of quintessentially American rhetoric about ‘the land of opportunity’ and ‘the audacity of hope’, looking in himself and finding his mindset to be, powerfully American.
No such mindset exists in the British people. There are few tangibly British qualities that ethnic groups can attach themselves to and really identify with. What does exist holds much less potency than its American version. Instead, if those who feel dislocated look inward in the search for their own national identity, they often find shared features with those of their skin colour, like the experience of battling a distinctly exotic cultural upbringing in the (generally unsuccessful) attempt to be part of the ‘cool group’ at school. These problems beset Obama as much as any UK Asian – but for him the solution was to be found in the distinct American identity. That solution simply does not exist on this side of the pond, leaving many British Asians to identify themselves, deep down, as Asian British.
It’s a popular opinion that racism in the UK is a thing of the past. It’s a popular opinion that is wrong. While overt and intentional discrimination is now fairly rare, a subtle insidious racism is an ever-present part of society. How many Asians have been pressured, albeit subtly, by members of their extended family, to prefer an Asian girlfriend or boyfriend? How many also, whilst dating white partners, have experienced monumental cultural ignorance or even some badly concealed discomfort at the hands of the families who shudder that a black ram might be tupping their white ewe?
Such notions are at once comical and tragic. Attitudes are changing, as a more intermingled population matures. Those like Lammy and Iwu will, without doubt, go on to be very successful black politicians. But they will still be very successful black politicians.
Mathematical formula predicts whether love will last
An Oxford University professor has constructed a formula that can calculate whether newly-married couples will divorce.
James Murray, Professor in Mathematical Biology, recorded newly-weds having a 15 minute phone conversation about a difficult topic, such as money. Positive or negative points were awarded based upon the couple’s interactions, and the scores fed into his formula.
The 700 couples were then re-contacted in yearly intervals over the next 12 years. The formula’s prediction of whether the couples would get divorced turned out to be correct 94% of the time.
Commenting on the results, Prof. Murray said “Some couples may as well get divorced right away”.
Parliamentary visit raises student hackles
Students have expressed frustration over the questions and comments of a parliamentary committee toured Oxford over the Easter vacation.
The Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills (IUSS) select committee visited Said Business School and Oxford Brookes on 30th March. While there they grilled a number of students, senior tutors and staff from the two Oxford Universities, including the head of admissions at Oxford, Mike Nicholson.
Much of the questioning focused on Oxford’s admissions policy, and there were questions about Oxford employing targets for state school or ethnic minority admissions.
Students later criticised the committee, with some saying they seemed to have ‘out-dated’ ideas about Oxford.
Jim O’Connell commented: “The MPs seemed quite irritated as, although access schemes were talked about, there isn’t any form of targets or quotas built into the admissions system itself. It definitely sounded as though the MPs were pushing an agenda in this respect, and trying to make out that Oxford isn’t doing enough in terms of access.”
Oxford’s official line on quotas is that the University will not use positive discrimination; all candidates who apply are assessed on their academic merit.
One student said, “It seemed that they had they had come with an intent of writing a story about an Oxford they experienced 20-30 years ago.”
University sources denied that there had been any misunderstanding or controversy at the question sessions. A press Officer said “the government is clear that no University is expected to apply quotas, and Oxford is very clear (in the way that we publish our statistics) about our record”.
Laurence Mills, Magdalen JCR President, said the committee did seem to “take on board” what the students said. Yet while the committee accepted their evidence, the students were frustrated that they had arrived at Oxford with such biased views: “It is an example of a wider perception problem at Oxford.”
The IUSS committee was formed in 2007 to examine the administration, expenditure and policy of the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. They have been conducting an inquiry into higher education since October. The inquiry covers admissions, the balance between teaching and research, degree completion and classification, and mechanisms of student support and engagement.
Amongst the MPs on the committee was Dr Evan Harris MP, Liberal Democrat, of Oxford West and Abingdon.
Controversy also broke out when the committee toured Oxford Brookes. The relationship between Oxford’s two universities was discussed, and one student expressed anger over a rumour that Oxford students refer to Brookes as the ELC – Early Learning Centre.
None of the committee were available for comment and the result of their inquiry is yet to be published.
Professor Hawking to recover from infection
Professor Stephen Hawking, an Oxford-educated scientist, is expected to safely recover from chest infection.
The physicist, who has motor neuron disease, has been rushed in an ambulance to a hospital earlier this week. This is because the infection he has had for two weeks has worsened. His state was described as “very ill”.
However, he is now expected to fully recover.
Cambridge University’s spokesperson said, “Professor Hawking remains in hospital. But he is in a comfortable condition and is expected to make a full recovery.”
Professor Hawking fell ill on a speaking tour of the United States. His condition has not improved since he returned home.
The scientist had been scheduled to speak at Oxford Union this term, but has since pulled out.
New position in the Union
Oxford Union introduced on Monday a new yearly elected position in order to bring long-term planning to the society.
The Guest Liaison Officer will take care of speaker arrangements, oversee the old members’ programme, coordinate office handovers and esnure debate hospitality.
The ratification will take place next week in the Chamber.
Corey Dixon, the president of the Union said, “The Guest Liaison Officer will serve for one year allowing for long term planning. The role will help us in securing even better speakers for the Oxford Union. The role will allow us to continue to build on past successes.”
A member of the Union commented, “This is a good idea, as long as the person elected will actually want to be there to improve the Union rather than hack – they will be there for one year, so it will be harder to keep them accountable.”
Why the GOP is on a bridge to nowhere
They lost the vote only a little over five months ago. They lost power only three months ago. But the current state of the Republican Party is such that it’s hard to see them rebounding for quite some time.
That’s not how they’d see it. They’d tell you that’s where they were a month ago. Now, they argue, they’re back. First, they say, Obama is proving to be the great divider. Poll numbers out this week say quite clearly that now, almost more than ever before, Americans absolutely love or fervently hate the President based on whether or not they identify themselves as Democrats or Republicans. In other words, say the GOP, the President, unlike either Bush, or Reagan, or even Bill Clinton, fails to appeal whatsoever to those who support the opposite party.
(The pollsters say that’s only half the story. What has actually happened is that GOP support has shrunk so much, with so few identifying themselves as Republicans, that the new polls only show what we already knew: that the few hardened believers who are still proud Republicans don’t very much like Obama. The real story is that so many people who used to identify themselves as Republicans now do not.)
Next, they argue that they’ve grasped back the agenda. Some Republicans believe that with all their crowing about the plan to close Guantanamo Bay, with their loud opposition to basic equality for homosexuals, with their odd arguments that Obama is a socialist and, most recently (and ridiculously), that he is a fascist (brilliantly ripped into here), that they are really getting through to people.
Of course these arguments are getting through to some people. It’s just that “some people” only includes the most hardened neocons and the most extreme of the social conservatives. Or, to put it another way, the very few Americans who agreed with what they’re saying in the first place.
Here’s the point. They lost the election because what they said and the way they said it (the weird, anti-intellectual quasi-populism of the Joe the Plumber/Sarah Palin variety) increasingly didn’t chime with the American people, only with the Republican base. And yet their post-election strategy has been only to intensify that trend.
By playing to the most fractious, extreme elements of conservative support — those who watch and agree with Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly — they only alienate the rest. And to continue to do so, I think, would be their route to oblivion. As they play more and more to these sorts of opinions, the more they alienate (rather than persuade) the majority, and the less they look like serious people who could be trusted to run the country.
There are many Republicans who recognise that their current path is the wrong one. The problem is that without real leadership in opposition (a consequence, partly, of the American system), it is those who shout the loudest who have the most influence over the direction of the GOP. It is they, not the many moderates within the party, whom the public associate with the Republican brand. It is they who might bring it down.
Senior Congressional Republicans should muster the intelligence as well as the humility to work together to create an alternative picture for the public of what the Republican party is and stands for. And this vision must not be more of the same: The Republican party must change to reflect the changing nature of Americans’ attitudes and needs. Or else, by continuing in the manner of the past few months, it will cease to matter in US politics.