Agatha Christie called herself a “perfect sausage machine”, but her approach to murder was positively schizophrenic compared to the tabloids’ formulaic techniques.
The perfect tabloid story drips in pathos and outrage. In the case of Lucy Braham’s murder, pathos was easily achieved by juxtaposing the contorted image of William Jaggs with the beaming smile of his innocent victim. Outrage, meanwhile, relies on the sound bites of relatives, particularly those comments that apportion blame.
So Harrow School came in for the greatest criticism when Braham’s father noted that “despite visible, spoken and written warnings about Jaggs’ behaviour…no action was ever taken”.
But Jason Braham also pointed the finger at the “despicable drugs fraternity at Oxford University”. The red tops ignored this, though, since drugs at university is as mundane a topic as pills in a pharmacy (until you reach the Cabinet, at least, and Jacqui Smith’s experiences with cannabis in Oxford were only really of public interest because her surname rhymes with “spliff”).
Those few columnists that didn’t ignore the “drugs fraternity” remark merely noted in passing that Oxford might somehow have failed Jaggs.
Uncharacteristically, they didn’t dig their teeth in because the lines are too blurred: a university is clearly more than a glorified boarding school, and yet for undergraduates it is far from a nine-to-five workplace. Nor is it a halfway house between school and work.
All but a handful of Oxford undergraduates have reached the age of majority and are legally responsible for their actions. But the moral responsibility of parents towards children does not end at the stroke of midnight on their eighteenth birthday. Which is lucky, because most workplaces do not feel the need to provide for the personal welfare needs of workers under the age of 22.
Why should the University or its colleges act any differently? Why should they worry about anything other than our academic welfare? It’s easy to argue that the intensity of an Oxford course (living and working in the same place) warrants greater provision of personal care.
But far from being helpful, the immaturity of this argument does none of us any favours. It ignores the unspeakable truth: that in many cases, students bring their academic difficulties upon themselves with excessive partying, drinking and drug use. And no college is going to make provision for these personal problems without wanting to tackle their origins. After all, prevention is better than cure… and more cost-effective.
Unfortunately, prevention means protective parenting as well as Orwellian measures unworthy of a fifteen-year-old. “Your essay this week was weak… and I notice that on Monday you returned to College thirteen minutes after the 9pm curfew.”
The consequences of a parental college run deeper: could we honestly expect the powers-that-be to take the views of a JCR seriously with such an asymmetric relationship in place? Scouts and gardeners would be more influential than undergraduates. They would have the power of employment law behind them; we would be subject to that curious law that makes parents always right.
Of course it is commendable that the door is left open for students who have genuine difficulty with their work; indeed, that even students such as Jaggs have a place held for them is reassuring. We are all human and the luxury of a second chance is very welcome.
However, we should resist colleges ever supervising the rehabilitation of those who have gone wrong for personal reasons; even acting in an advisory capacity, colleges must be kept in check. In crude terms, a college is generous to say “come back when you’ve sorted yourself out”, but it is taking liberties (quite literally) when it tries to do the “sorting” itself.
In this respect, Oriel’s tutors acted perfectly with Jaggs. But it is still possible to provide a reasonable level of care to students without compromising the relationship between college and student. This is where the role of the student union lies. Colleges and JCR welfare teams should be able to confidently refer beleaguered students to OUSU, whether for lack of publicity or effectiveness, this has not been the case.Effective student union welfare provision wouldn’t stop another Jaggs, but it would keep overzealous colleges at bay.
OUSU doesn’t need a fresh start: it needs to regain students’ support
Last term wasn’t the best for OUSU: disaffiliations, an (arguably) botched referendum campaign and a general feeling of dissatisfaction in many quarters of the student body led many to question the Student Union’s very existence.
But let’s get things in perspective.
The last year also saw a number of refreshing changes: a profit in our budget (reversing a financial crisis from the year before), greater engagement in our campaigns, and a restructuring that made the union more accessible and efficient.
OUSU has gone through its fair share of ‘crises’ in its 43-year history; those of Trinity 2007 weren’t the first and they probably won’t be the last. While Trinity can teach us one lesson – that talk of “change” and “reform” can only go on for so long – OUSU’s history teaches us that we are most strong when we engage with common rooms, support students, and deliver real results.
I was asked to write about how I hoped to make a “fresh start” in OUSU this year. In many ways, it’s not about a fresh start: organisations that constantly try to reinvent themselves don’t get that much done. It’s more about building on the good things that have been done over the recent years and learning from the mistakes we’ve made.
To start off we’ll be launching a major publicity campaign, beginning at Freshers’ Fair this week and carrying on through the term, that won’t just be talking about OUSU’s structures, policies or Council, but about the things we’ve been campaigning on and the real results we’ve delivered for students.
We’ll be talking about the fact that the Safety Bus is back for the first time in two years, making sure that students get home safely from our ZOO club nights (and any other nights, for that matter!).
We’ll be talking about our Student Advice Service and how we’re continuing to provide a free, impartial and confidential listening service to support Oxford Students; providing advice when things don’t go quite as planned.
And we’ll be talking about our successful campaign, which will hopefully come to fruition this year, to persuade the University to adopt a Socially Responsible Investment policy and make sure that the money used to fund our education is invested ethically.
But this can’t be a one-way conversation. Fundamentally, we want to be talking about the issues and concerns that matter most to you. You can email us on [email protected] and let us know what your top priorities are.
It’s important to remember that this is your Union. The policies we adopt, the views we represent and the issues we campaign on are all driven by JCRs, MCRs, SUs and students from across the University. In Sixth Week, we’ll be electing not only the full time officers for next year, but also the 13 member OUSU Executive who begin their term of office in Hilary Term; current students who run the Student Union and play a major part in shaping the priorities and direction of the organisation. We want as many people as possible to get involved to lead our campaigns and to represent students. Recently, I heard one JCR President say that participation is the key to invigorating colleges and Common Rooms. He couldn’t be more right and the same goes for OUSU and the University. The next year is going to be an exciting and important one but only with your energy, enthusiasm and involvement.