Let’s begin with the facts. Larry Flint came to speak at the Oxford Union last term – past speakers have included Jenna Jameson and Ron Jeremy. Is it just me, or is that pretty much a who’s who of the pornworld? No, it’s not just me. But there’s more. It is also possible to find back issues of Playboy in the Bodelian. Check on OLIS if you don’t believe me. I’ll go on A couple of terms ago Rock Oxford organized that infamous naked KY jelly wrestling travesty at Kukui, and showcased a topless woman carrying an albino python. But despite an alleged police investigation and some pedestrian statements of outrage from feminist groups, they all seem to have gotten away with it. What I’m trying to say is that Oxford seems to be down with porn in the mainstream. Or at any rate that it is tolerated, just like everywhere else. Because it is legal, of course, provided you are 18. So unless you’re some kind of prepubescent child prodigy with pushy parents, chances are that if you’ve matriculated, you are allowed to look at porn. And why not? Even take part in some. There, I said it.

But hold your horses, what about looking at porn online? Now we’re entering Oxford’s twilight zone of IT regulations, college bylaws and Proctorial disciplinary procedures. I asked the Proctors what they thought about this and they pointed me to the statutes and regulations- although they did say “obviously if students are living in private housing with their own internet connection and accessing porn there, that’s up to them and it wouldn’t be a disciplinary matter”. The University’s Policy on Offensive Electronic Material reads as follows: “The University provides computing equipment and access to networks for the furtherance of the academic work of staff and students. It is a misuse of those facilities, and may in certain cases be illegal, for a user to receive, transmit, display or store offensive or pornographic material using University equipment for other than bona fide academic purposes, and such misuse may result in action being taken against those responsible” (this policy was adopted by the IT Committee in November 1995). So the simple answer is that no, Oxford University isn’t down with the porn.

But let’s get to the bottom of this. But what do they mean by “misuse”? Isn’t looking through someone’s 1300 pictures on facey-b equally a misuse of network resources? And isn’t using Twitter a general “misuse” of everyone’s time? I believe it is. So my feeling is that this is not really what is at issue.

What actually happens when you look at porn online? I decided to investigate. So I went on the interwebs and looked at some porn. And nothing happened. What do these regulations actually mean in real terms? I was interested to know whether anyone had ever got done for this kind of stuff. Does anyone actually care what students get up to in the privacy of their bedrooms?
I talked to the IT officer at my college. He said “there are no grey hidden agendas, we are obliged by law to take an interest in what you do. When it comes to porn, there are two things that concern us: a) whether it is legal and b) whether it is copyrighted”. Yes my friends, the law is the law, and apparently there were once some copyright issues concerning a film called “Cockpit Cowboys” starring one Alex Stevens. Then I asked him whether he knew how much porn people look at on the college network. It transpires that last month Redtube was ninth most visited website in college, accounting for just under 2% of all internet traffic at St Anne’s, dwarfed by Facebook at 12% and Googlevideo at 24%. The figure for all pornsites combined was estimated to be below 4%. This struck me as rather tame, considering 37% of the intertubes are choked with porn. What emerged from our conversation is that as far as the IT department is concerned, bandwidth (how much internet you’re using up) trumps content. “What I’m interested in is volume” he said. They are clearly more bothered about students streaming endless seasons of Sex and the City then about them watching two randomers having Sex on the Settee.

The freedom to surf isn’t enjoyed everywhere in Oxford, however. At Wycliffe Hall, for example, you are only allowed to go on godtube.com. Ok, this may not be true. In Somerville there is a traffic monitoring device called WebSense which prevents users from accessing certain websites. What do students make of this? I asked the obvious candidate, OUSU’s VP for Women Rachel Cummings who replied rather sensibly that “colleges have a right to prevent networks from viruses, but not to be our moral guardians. They shouldn’t be deciding what students are allowed to view; attempts to do so in the past have clumsily prevented people doing legitimate research”.

Of course, some content is downright depraved and probably shouldn’t be looked at by anyone. Videos involving a 2:1 ratio of girls and cups come to mind, for example. Moreover, some porn isn’t legal here or anywhere else. In the UK, as of 26 January 2009, it is illegal to possess extreme pornography (roughly defined as that which is grossly offensive, involving corpses, animals, serious violence and/or genital mutilation) carrying up to a three year prison sentence.

The morals of this tale are several fold. First off, it seems that IT officers have better ways to spend their afternoons than to sift through what you’ve been up to online. So chill, chances are you are not being watched by anyone – unless, of course, you are breaking copyright law or eating up all the bandwidth. Second, we are neither at school nor at home, so the university should take it easy with the whole loco parentis thing at least be consistent across colleges. Why am I allowed to surf porn when Somerville isn’t? And how come that kid down at Wycliffe has never even heard of porn? Third, if you’re going to look at porn, at least try to make sure you’re looking at something legal (underage (obviously), extreme or copyrighted stuff is off limits). Fourth, try getting laid a bit more and give that hand a rest.

It is beginning to appear inevitable. A dark cloud is gathering on the horizon. Tuition fees are going up. A BBC survey conducted in march found that two-thirds of university Vice Chancellors across England and Wales are in favour of increases, with some suggesting that the upper limit be increased as high as £20,000 per year. The Daily Telegraph is now reporting that, pending a review of limits on tuition fees, Oxford is considering charging as much as £11,000 per year. John Hood has denied the reports, but it seems fairly clear which way the wind is blowing. Students in general are, obviously, unhappy about it – but is our discontent really anything more than self-interest? No doubt, there are many who decry increases in fees, indeed, the existence of fees at all, as an inegalitarian affront to an individual’s ‘right’ to education. This view is ill-founded.

Firstly, it is empirically ignorant. Going to University has never been more expensive than it is now, yet attendance numbers have never been higher. The fact of the matter is that money is not the only obstacle to gaining a University level education – a significant factor that seems to be widely ignored is the number of places. If we don’t charge, we will have to reduce places, and exclude people, presumably based on intelligence, as we have done historically. Whether you are born ill funded, or born dim witted, it’s still unfair. If we charge, at least the government can intervene to ensure that everyone is able to pay.

Students also have to accept that claims of a ‘right’ to higher education are largely fabrications. Many who object to fees are ignoring the ugly fact that their education is being financed by individuals who did not have the same opportunities they enjoy today. There is a clear justification for the partial subsidisation of education – the overall benefit of the nation. A builder who has never benefitted directly from a University education still has an obvious interest in contributing to the education of doctors, scientists, even politicians and, dare we say it, journalists. However, it seems somewhat of a stretch to demand that he or she fund our ‘right’ to the host of Media Studies-esque degrees that have proliferated in British universities. In fact, many of the degrees offered at Oxford are somewhat questionable in this respect. How much does our builder stand to gain from putting the average undergraduate through a degree in Classics? Anthropology? Even English? The obvious response is that these are subjects that are worth studying. Which they are. However, one struggles to see why anyone has a God given right to study them, let alone to demand that people who never had the same opportunities pay for it. If these things are so worthwhile, we should be prepared to pay for them. There is clearly a balance to be reached – one that reflects the benefit to all that higher education provides, but that also recognises that students, as individuals, stand to benefit personally from their education and should be willing to contribute within reason.

Evidently, a situation in which these experiences are only open to the rich is not acceptable, but we need to admit to ourselves that an increase in tuition fees is not necessarily a death knell for equality of opportunity. There are many ways of redressing inequalities, ranging from grants to the cancellation of students’ debts should they opt for a low income career. Many of these options are currently being considered by those advocating increases in tuition fees. Regardless of whether he intends to raise fees or not, Vice Chancellor Hood has himself reiterated his commitment to a “needs-blind” admission system. That is the first step – the next is ensuring that noone who really wants to is discouraged from applying for financial reasons. These are the battles we should be fighting: We should be pressing politicians and university officials to put appropriate measures in place to ensure that no one is excluded. If we stick our heads in the sand and object to increases carte blanche on the basis of some mythical ‘right’, we risk leaving the disadvantaged far more vulnerable when higher fees eventually arrive.