Paul's Blog

To quote Forrest Gump: “Life is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you’re gonna get.” Research published in the Oxford Student hints that Oxford University bears a closer resemblance to a box of chocolates than you might originally think.  But why, and what should be done about it?

Imagine Oxford as very expensive chocolate box.  Each college would be contained within the box. They should all be ‘champagne truffles’, so whichever college you chose, you would have the majority of your tutorials given by senior academics.  In effect, higher education’s ‘champagne truffle’ equivalent.

But variety in a chocolate box can be a good thing.  Imagine not just ‘champagne truffles’, but ‘Chocolat Riche’ and ‘Sicilian Lemon Mousse’.  All excellent; all providing reasonable expectations of a taste sensation.  The same with colleges where their different characters can add value to the University.  This though assumes that all colleges meet reasonable expectations about the numbers of tutorials provided by senior academics.

Finally, imagine an occasional Cadbury’s Heroes or Mars Celebrations slipped into your very expensive chocolate box.  Admittedly, still tasty (I’m personally a large fan of Malteasers).  But not what you expect from an expensive chocolate box.  Applied to Oxford University, you don’t expect a considerable bulk of your tutorials to be provided by graduates.

It is therefore worrying that there is so much variance between colleges.  There is nothing wrong with graduate tutors: many are fantastic teachers at the cutting edge of current research.  But students apply to Oxford University and graduate from Oxford University.  They are entitled to a reasonable expectation that whatever their college, they will receive the same excellent standard of education from the collegiate University. The research suggests that this isn’t always the case.

There are a number of colleges that buck this general trend of bigger endowment equals more contact with senior academics.  This is an important point because it suggests you don’t need a big budget to afford a ‘champagne truffle’.  I hope that these ‘champagne’ colleges will begin sharing their recipes for success. 

This time last week I promised a blog entry on Tuesday about how I thought OUSU's welfare structures could be improved.  Since then silence.  Apart from being one of the world's worst bloggers (though still streets ahead of my OUSU colleagues), it has been a ridiculously busy week, with the Student Advice Service indicative poll taking up more time than I suspected.  This post is therefore a little later than originally anticipated. 

So, what would I do to improve the Student Advice Service?  What changes to the status quo of VP Welfare and Equal Opportunities, VP Graduates, VP Women, and my own job, VP Access and Academic Affairs would improve OUSU's welfare support, representation and campaigning?  I'll remind you first of the problems with the current structure as I see them, and then outline the solutions, and leave you to judge how good the solutions are.

The two key problems as I see them are the burden of casework and division of responsibilities between the Student Advice Service sabbaticals.  This burden has always been focused on the VP Welfare, VP Graduates and VP Access and Academic Affairs, as the Student Advice Service is visited predominantly by students who are having academic difficulties with their department or college.   This burden of casework affects important aspects of our other responsibilities to represent other students and support campaigning work to improve the student experience.  For example, the VP Welfare is responsible for all our Equal Opportunity work, with the exception of women (in summary, LGBTQ Council, the Anti-Racism Campaign and Students with Disabilities).  The time they can spend supporting these campaigns is largely dictated by their casework burdens, and is generally very low to non-existent.  The VP Graduates is 'nominally responsible' for international students and mature students.  OUSU currently has no support for mature students simply because the VP Graduates does not have time to organise even the seeds of a campaign.  An active international students campaign has only started this year due to the superhuman efforts of Ingrid Frater, the current VP Graduates.  Within my role, Access is best described as a hobby, where I try and do some work whenever I am not snowed under with University meetings or casework.  Target Schools has been so quiet and largely ineffective for a little while now because my predecssors and I do not have time in our already extended days to organise anything.  There is finally an accountability problem, where students who are currently represented by a sabbatical, for example undergraduate international and mature students, or male student parents do not get to vote in the election of their representative.

And the solution?  In an ideal world, we would have the money to create new posts so every single group of students could receive full time help and support.  But it's not an ideal world, and OUSU is barely breaking even at the moment: money for more sabbatical posts is simply not feasible. 

Instead a restructuring of responsibilities is necessary.  My job should be trimmed to become VP Education, responsible for education policy, to support campaigns for further improvements to the educational experience of students at Oxford and be on hand for academic related casework.  VP Graduates should be just that: there are approaching 8000 graduates now, and a lot of work needed to bring the quality of their experience up to the standard expected.  VP Welfare should also be just that.  They should lead the Student Advice Service, provide training for welfare officers across the University and campaign on welfare issues that affect all students. 

We then need a VP Access and Equal Opportunities.  They will be responsible for the still important women's campaigning that is occuring.  But they will also be able to dedicate time towards currently unsupported work on Anti-Racism, Students with Disability, LGBTQ, International Students, Mature Students and Access.  Each of these groups have their own campaigns, which other student volunteers from these groups can lead.  The key change from this proposal is that these groups will have more support from the sabbatical structure in OUSU.  Casework will also be more evenly distributed between the sabbatials, with the VP Access and Equal Opportunities able to support a much greater cohort of student than the VP Women can currently do because of the restrictions of her democratic mandate.   Access fits naturally with all of this: it is about equal opportunities to admissions.  Work with raising admissions from underrepresented groups to the University is likely to have substantial benefits in the long run as students work in a more diverse environment, reflective of the population at large, and underrepresented groups become represented groups.  Finally, every student will be able to vote for their representative.  We will no longer be in a situation where male student parents and undergraduate international and mature students are essentially disenfranchised from their sabbitical representative.

In summary, this proposal would increase the amount of support OUSU offers underrepresented groups.  It will balance out workloads within the Student Advice Service allowing improvements in the quality of welfare support, as sabbitical officers will be less overburdened.  Finally, it will improve democratic accountability so that all students get to vote for their representatives.  As a current Student Advice Service member, I believe this is the best option to improve welfare and support for all students in Oxford.  I hope you agree with me.

Everyday I'm sent an email with all the Oxford University stories in the media summarised.  I tend to check through this and, when necessary (say the Sutton Trust reports in September) write letters or work with the University on responses.  This service is not provided for the two student papers, OxStu and Cherwell, so I sit down each week and scan through for any relevant stories that may require a response or threaten to affect my week.

I mention this by way of introduction, as in last week's Cherwell, there is a comment piece by Liv Bailey about a 'knot' into which OUSU has got itself.  The crux of this knot is how do we provide more welfare without any more resources?  Tomorrow, there is an extraordinary meeting of OUSU Council where representatives will decide which of the answers to this question are going forward to an indicative poll in 6th week.  'We' is no longer OUSU Sabs.  'We' is now all Oxford students, and your view on how you want your OUSU welfare services to work is what matters.

A bit of background may be a good place to start out.  There are currently four ex-officio members of the Student Advice Service.  In layman terms, the ex-officio posts of VP Access and Academic Affairs, VP Graduates, VP Welfare and Equal Opportunities and VP Women provide OUSU's welfare services.  These focus on a confidential listening service, and since starting office in June, we have had about 60 different students visit us for information on a huge array of subjects, from accommodation to exam regulations.  There have been many more quick queries as well.  The SAS (us, not the special armed forces) do our best to support students through listening, advising when we can, advocating on a student's behalf when necessary or referring to better sources of support whenever we are not the best people to help.

Why are we in a knot?  The four sabbatical positions were not designed as a cohesive structure, and have had different bits and pieces tagged onto their job descriptions over recent years to create a mess of competing responsibilities, incoherent portfolios and overburdened workloads.  I will only speak from personal experience of my own role of Access and Academic Affairs.  It is the 'and', and only the 'and' in the job title that essentially unites two very distinct portfolios.  Access is a campaigning role, organising events and projects to encourage greater applications to Oxford from all backgrounds.  Academic Affairs is half representation, mastering complicated issues to represent students views effectively on the highest levels of the University committee structure, and half casework, often dealing with nuanced interpretations of a colleges standing orders that can make the difference between a student staying or being sent down from Oxford.  Part of the recent problems with the Target Schools campaign is that VP Access and Academic Affairs become so overburdened with casework and University meetings which they must attend, something has to budge.  This something was OUSU's access work.  A similar story applies to the VP Welfare and Equal Opportunities, where there is little time for anything but Welfare, leading to a weakness in Equal Opportunity campaign support within the sabbatical team.  Finally, VP Graduates has responsibility for International and Mature students, but this responsibility has rarely resulted in action such is the overburdened portfolio of our VP Graduates.

The Student Advice Service review process has been designed as a white sheet approach, with no pre-set conditions or millstones.  I believe a reallocation of responsibilities can lead to a more cohesive and effective approach in OUSU's welfare and campaigning.  I also believe we will provide more welfare with the same resources in the future by encouraging economies of scale in our workloads, so that future sabbaticals can specialise in their area, and not feel torn between competing responsibilities.  The indicative poll will allow you to have your say, but not a final say.  Based on the results, a referrendum for a yes or no option will be presented in Hilary term.   Along with Ingrid Frater (VP Graduates) an amended structure is being proposed, more details of which, I will discuss tomorrow.

I'm going to start off with a confession.  During the three years of my degree studying PPE, I never visited the Bodleian Library once.  Nor did I ever go inside the Radcliffe Camera.  This is not something I have told Sarah Thomas, Head of the Bodleian Library, since I've taken up my post, and it has been rectified over the past few months and dramatically yesterday (more on that in a second).

Why did I never visit the Bod?  Two reasons.  The first is that between the Social Sciences Library and Merton College library, I always had access to the books I needed.  I never needed to go into the Rad Cam or the PPE Reading Room, and I was quite happy working in my room, or at my spot in OWL Library at Merton (where I left a little placque commemerating the seats importance, which has reportedly survived the summer cleaning*).  The second reason, embarrasingly, was that I was scared to admit I didn't know what to do or where any of the books were.  I had never received a tour, or instructions how to stack request anything to the Rad Cam, and was too proud to ask.  So until this summer, unlike thousands upon thousands of other students, tutors and visitors, I had avoided stepping foot into the magnificent buildings off Broad Street.

Yesterday, along with some other OUSU Sabs and Common Room Presidents, I was treated to a behind the scenes tour.  We saw some fascinating things: the Gladstone bookshelves, designed by the Prime Minister to reduce the amount of space needed to browse books, and still in use today.  The conveyor belt running under Broad Street from the New to the Old Bod.  Built 70 years ago, it has needed one major service since then, and has a very basic programming system for delivering books to the right location that makes it one of the earliest computers.  I missed it on my tour, but hear that some students were shown the original letters that became the Wind in the Willows.  Shakespeare's first portfolio, the five copies of the Magna Carta the Bod owns, and other priceless treasures were hidden away safely.  I didn't count them all, but there were almost a million books under the Rad Cam, and a further four or five million in the New Bod.

And here is the crux of the problem, and the point of yesterday's tour.  The Bod has run out of space.  It receives 5000 items a week, which works out at 3 miles of shelving space a year.  With no where for it to be stored, the University is currently renting space in abandoned salt mines in Cheshire at the cost of £300,000+ a year.  The reason why it can take up to 3 days to stack request a book is they have to go up to the mines to find it.  The books still in the Bod are not stored safely, and God forbid it ever happens, but a fire on the bottom floor of the New Bod would rip through the building, destroying millions of books dating back hundreds of years (we were assured  that the really priceless stuff is in a fireproof safe).  With much of the books underground, the Bod is also relying (and has successfully been relying for many years) on an elaborate membrame and pumping system that keeps water away.

Something needs to be done, and needs to be done urgently.  There is a solution as well, and a very good solution at that.  On a site just outside of Oxford, the University is waiting for planning permission to build a depository.  It will be a huge warehouse, with capacity for around 8m volumes, all collected by robots.  The depository will be able to store the millions of books efficiently, close to Oxford reducing stack requests to an average of three hours, and in an environment that will preserve the books for hundreds of years to come.  It will be protected from flooding so that it can survive a one in five thousand year flood, even assuming global warming.  To put this in perspective, this summer's floods wouldn't have reached the floor level of the building (and contrary to some rumours, the proposed site did not flood this summer).   A flood of that magnitude would leave the whole of Oxford under water, London under-the-sea rather than upon-the-Thames and the depository as the only place of safety.  If you see a flood coming, head for this Depository because the books are going to be safer than we are.

So why hasn't it been built already?  There have been objections to the effect on the skyline and views of our dreaming spires.  The exhibition in the entrance to Divinity Schools has a number of photos which show a before and (digitally altered) after shot.  I was never much good at Where's Wally, and these photos help by giving a big sign about where it would be.  But I still can't see its effect on the view, and our spires look like they'll remain as dreamy as ever.

Action on this depository is urgent and vital.  The University is on a written warning from the National Archives to make dramatic improvements, or lose its status to recieve special collections.  Our worldwide academic leadership is at threat, because without these collections, and with the current levels of service, professors, researchers and students will go elsewhere.  A motion is being brought to the 5th week OUSU Council offering the student bodies full support for the depository, as a vital resource for our overall educational experience.  I hope you will encourage your Common Room President to back the motion.  I hope you will also consider getting in touch with your City Councillors and letting them know your thoughts on the depository.  The Libraries are central to the success of our University, and they are in need of our support.   We should put down our books, and start doing what we can.

--

* If anyone in Merton Development Office is reading this blog, the size of any donation I make to the library in years to come will be related to the amount of time this placque survives.

“‘Too few’ state pupils at Oxford”.  “Oxford faces fresh criticism over selections”.  Or so scream recent newspaper articles on admissions to Oxford.  Currently, 54% of students at Oxford are from a state-school background, when 93% of the nation’s pupils are educated by government-funded schools.  Is there a bias against state schools hidden amongst our dreaming spires?  Or is it not Oxford’s fault at all?

I do not believe there is bias against a student’s background within the admissions system.  Oxford goes to considerable lengths to develop as full an understanding of each applicant’s academic potential as possible. It is debatable whether the extra hurdles of interviews and admission tests, designed to give everyone a fair and detailed appraisal, suffer from a tyranny of good intentions by putting off state-school pupils from applying in the first place.  But I don’t believe in any conspiracy to keep out ‘undesirables’ within the University admissions process.

So whose fault is it?  Just because Oxford has no bias, does not mean it should not share some blame.  Myths and urban legends about Oxford are frequently cited as why students don’t apply.  Are these the fault of the media who keeps repeating them?  Not completely.  As with all myths, there was at one time a grain of truth in them.  The University has changed dramatically since its Bridesheadesque days, and should be working hard to tell everyone that.  This is fundamentally what access work is about: making sure every student’s decision to apply is based on fact and not fiction.  Many students (and the University) work hard to correct the misconceptions through school visits, open days and alternative prospectuses.  This work should continue and expand so no school or student is overlooked.

However, students are not applying just because of misconceptions about Oxford.  Another culprit exists, but it usually escapes the now regular public-flogging Oxford gets for ‘not doing enough’.  It is the poorer state-schools, and ultimately bad government policies. It is a tragedy that some of the most naturally gifted students are failed by a lack of resources in their schools, and bad advice from their teachers.  This lack of resources can take away what little flexibility there is in the A Level system so a student is forced by timetable considerations to make life-determining choices aged 16.  This lack of resources can mean that individual science GCSEs are not offered, compromising a student’s chance on demanding science A-Levels.  Bad teaching, and bad advice, fails to help a student prepare for interviews; fails to advise them on challenging subjects that help develop academic potential; and at worst, fails to encourage a student’s aspirations, for fear of the student failing.

Oxford can only take those who apply.  It is working hard to end the myths and encourage more applications.  Its job would be made easier if the worst state schools and government policies improved, better supporting and encouraging gifted students.  Oxford University cannot solve a problem it not create, but its future strategy should try and alleviate this problem, by working directly with teachers and giving extra support to naturally bright students let down by failing schools.

Target Schools is now 25 years old.  Its alumni include cabinet ministers such as Ed Miliband (I have a letter signed by him on my wall from when he was a co-chair) and it got widening participation (or access as we call it in Oxford) on the University's agenda.  The University now invests millions of pounds a year reaching out to students from all backgrounds to encourage them to consider applying to Oxford.

Target Schools still has a role though as a student led organisation.  Hundreds of students volunteer every year to help out, with open days, writing the alternative prospectus and visiting their local schools.  At Council on Friday, a new program for Target Schools was decided.  This program: summer visiting scheme, open days for Women, Black, Minority and Ethnic Students and Students with Disabilities, the Alternative Prospectus, Mentoring Scheme with local schools, new interview support website and supporting the work of Common Room Reps, seeks to use our key resource - you.  A student going back to a school, or meeting prospective applicants to tell them exactly what Oxford is like, is probably the most powerful tool any access scheme has.  There will be more information about how to get involved over the course of the year, but if you are interested, please do email me (Access@ousu.org).

I feel bad as one of those 'bloggers' who starts keen, but then fails to post for a few days.  No one yet has made any comments, so I am assuming I am not disapponting any regular readers just yet.  I will try and post daily though just in case this blog has a readership greater than my mother.

Today, a quick update on a project to improve how your voice is heard within academic departments and divisions.  Currently there are a patchy mix of effective and ill-functioning Junior Consulative Committees (JCCs) who are supposed to represent your views on your programme of study and educational experience to the fellows and tutors running the show.  The University's four divisions (MPLS, Humanities, Medicine, Social Sciences) all have Divisional Boards that have student observers.  In the past, these Divisional Board representatives have not always been effective at communicating with the JCC Reps or with myself or the VP Graduates.  As no one really seems to be talking to each other, good ideas are not shared, and your views are not being effectively communicated.

This morning Ingrid and I had a very successful meeting with Richard Hughes, head of Academic Policy within the University.  Richard is one of the friendliest people you will ever meet, did not mind that I was five minutes late because I am not particularly effective at functioning in the morning and knows just about everything there is to know on University academic policy.  With Dr Brian Gasser, who is Clerk to the Proctors, we think he keeps the University running.  God forbid that these two should ever be in a car accident together.

Anyhow, our plans are to revamp the largely unattended OUSU Academic Affairs committee into the more snappily named OUSU Education Committee.  This should be attended by all the Divisional Board Reps, some college AcAff reps and scrutinise the big issues in University academic policy to raise the quality of representation.  We will also host meetings for JCC Reps within a division so they can talk to each other and to us, but most importantly elected a Divisional Board rep from among their own number.  This should keep the Divisional Board reps communicative and accountable, rather than them being parachuted above JCCs via a vote in OUSU Council.

As with all change in the University, this is likely to be difficult.  Much of it is internal OUSU Housekeeping, and we hope with greater support to students representing your views to the University, the quality of this representation more generally will rise.  Our meeting this morning was to work towards getting the Education Policy and Standards Committee (EPSC), which is the most important academic committee in the University, seal of approval, thereby encouraging divisions to adopt the proposals as best practice.  The long time goals are ambitious though: consistently elected JCC Reps, fully functioning student contact with tutors communicated back to the students they represent.  As far as I am concerned, the more democracy the better.  Though this all might sound quite dry, the potential for student driven change within the University will be huge.  And you heard it first here...

The interior of Wadham Refectory. A darkened room with a very conspiratorial atmosphere. Martin McCluskey, Ingrid  Frater and Claire Addison are seated at a table at one end of the room. An anti-OUSU activist (perhaps from Oriel or Trinity), dressed in Activist gear — black lycra and a red sash around his head — is standing by a plan on the wall. He is addressing an audience of about eight JCR Presidents. Their faces are partially hidden.
 

Anti-OUSU: They've bled us white, the bastards. They've taken everything we had, not just from us, from our common rooms and from our common room's common room. And what have they ever given us in return?

Martin: University wide representation.

Ingrid: Oh yeah, yeah they gave us that. Yeah. That's true.

Claire: And the Student Advice Service!

Martin: Oh yes... the Student Advice Service, you remember what university welfare used to be like.

Anti-OUSU: All right, I'll grant you that the University wide representation and the student advice service are two things that OUSU have done...

Ingrid: And Zoo...

Anti-OUSU: (sharply) Well, yes obviously, Zoo... Zoo goes without saying. But apart from University wide representation, the student advice service and Zoo...

Another JCR President: Oxford and Cambridge Careers Guide...

Other JCR Presidents: OxStu... Oxide... Night Bus...

Anti-OUSU: Yes... all right, fair enough...

JCR President Near Front: And Freshers Fair...

Martin: Oh yes! True!

Ingrid: Yeah. That's something we'd really miss if OUSU left.

Masked JCR President at Back: RAG!

Claire: And it's safe to get the Night Bus home after a night out now.

Martin: Yes, they certainly know how to campaign across the University... (general nodding)... let's face it, they're the only ones who could in a place like this.

   (more general murmurs of agreement)

Anti-OUSU: All right... all right... but apart from university wide representation and the student advice service and Zoo and RAG and campaigns and the Night Bus and a Careers Guide and the Ox Stu and Freshers Fair and Oxide... what have OUSU done for us?

Claire: Supplied Condoms!

Anti-OUSU: (very angry, he's not having a good meeting at all) What!? Oh... (scornfully) Condoms, yes... shut up!

The Oxford interview process has a terrifying reputation.  Every student I've ever spoken to in Oxford remembers at least some of their questions, and though they've come out ok, it certaintly makes an impression.  Perhaps this is why it can have such negative effects on access work, where the interview can be perceived, I believe incorrectly, as benefitting a certain type of population.  Oxford seeks to choose students of greatest academic potential, and I think that the interview, in allowing tutors to meet the students and stretch their thinking, contributes to this process.  However, the myths and perceptions over the interview mean that the media, for example the recent storm over the Sutton Trust on admissions, tend to build the interview up into an unforsakeable obstacle for state school students.

I said I don't believe the interview disadvantages students.  I trust tutors to see through any coaching, and as they are testing how students think, rather than what they know, prepared answers will never be of any use.  However, in an attempt to demythtisfy the process Target Schools, OUSU's Access Campaign, with the help of the Oxford University Film Foundation, is producing a new website with videos of mock interviews.  We will be filming first years for an authentic experience and hope to replicate as best as possible what an interview may look like.  There will be a number of videos, covering a wide range of the biggest subjects to give students from all backgrounds an insight into how interviews work, and what makes a good interview performance.  It is hoped this will be a really useful resource, especially in schools who do not support students in preparing for Oxford.

Any project like this needs volunteers.  If you are a first year and are interested in helping out, please email me at access@ousu.org.

Quick blog posting as I'm about to head off to a Champagne Reception at Merton (life is thankfully not all work!).  I spent today at freshers' fair, and had a really good time.  It was my job to be at the front welcome everyone who arrived (though it only became my job about 11am so I may have missed a few people), so I spent my day shaking hands.  For the West Wing fans out there, it felt like I was campaigning for a primary in New Hampshire, but I enjoyed meeting so many people.  The sabbatical team at OUSU this year is very keen to engage with students, and avoiding barricading ourselves into 'ivory towers'.  Shaking and welcoming everyone's hands as they arrive at OUSU's freshers' fair I think is a symbolic start to this plan.  Thanks to everyone who said hello, putting up with my greeting and not crunching my hand.  Someone should be there tomorrow, perhaps me, but I look forward to seeing other freshers' at the fair tomorrow, and everyone else at Refresh on Friday. 

Quick plug for my stall - if anyone would like to sign up to help with any of the access work happening across the University, from the occasional open day to mentoring to helping out on conferences to residential summer schools, then visit the Access desks at the back of South Schools, or email me at access@ousu.org to be put on the mailing list.

The manic activities of freshers' week were interrupted today by the Vice Chancellor's Oration.  The VC, Dr John Hood, gave a summary of achievements in the University over the past year and thoughts on future policy and University initatives.  There was a lot of ground covered, and I'll be posting on some of the topics in future blogs.  For now, you can read the news report on the Oration here.

For now, a few thoughts on academic freedom, which Dr Hood concentrated on at the beginning of his oration.  Academic freedom, by which I understand it as the freedom to research, publish and expresses ideas and theories, just as long as they stand up for academic scruitiny, is something I've always considered a no-brainer.  In the pursuit of the 'big truth' (I'll avoid philosophical discussions about its existence, and just assume there is ultimately a right answer to which research and study moves us towards), some ideas may at first seem unpalatable.  The world is round; earth is not the centre of the Universe; gravity suspends the planet and we are not balanced on the back of a giant turtle.  These aren't very serious, but there have been many ideas, in all fields that have gone against orthodoxy at the time, and are now as accepted as 2+2=4.  If scholars are not free to express their ideas, for example Soviet Russian requirements to conform with the doctrines of Marxism, then your research and evidence will derive from the conclusions, not the other way round.  This to me does not resemble any scheme that will advance a progression in knowledge.

Dr Hood concentrated on more recent examples: the proposed boycott of Israeli Universities; the Oxford animal lab; and suggestions that there should be policing on campus to prevent Islamic extremism being promoted.  Academic freedom requires that the ideas and theories which put forward can withstand scrutiny by peers.  They must be ideas that can be tested and their logic and evidence accepted, even if there is disagreement about their relative importance of the theories, evidence or factors.  I do not believe that the distortions of Islam used as the ideology of extremist groups (I like the West Wing analogy, that Islamic Extremism is to Islam is what the KKK is to Christianity) hold up to this standard.  Those who put forward such distortions should be opposed.  But should campuses be policed to prevent the spread of ideas?  And will policing make any difference?

To these answers I am not yet sure (and feel free to post your own thoughts on the comments section).  Opposition to these ideas requires that the flaws and contradictions in the proponents arguments should be exposed.  Rhetoric is no substitute for logic;  half-truths are never a substitute for evidence.  I don't know whether this means that you should be arrested for being 'wrong' though.  And where does being 'wrong' start and stop?  There are other extremist groups whose distortions and lies and no less abhorent than Islamic extremism, if only slightly less topical.  Should we police campuses against their ideas as well?  Who is to judge the quality of evidence and logic that supports an idea is also an issue?  And what of ideas that stand up to scrutiny, but still provoke significant offence to all but a tiny majority? That it can be decided an idea has sufficient merit, supporting logic and evidence to be published is a central assumption to my argument that such groups can be opposed, rather than be considered far sighted individuals opposing the current orthodoxy.

A debate on these issues is important, and it is also important that students become involved.  We, after all, are the recepients of these ideas, and our educational experience is only improved by wide exposure to a vast array of theories.  We should oppose schemes that unreasonably leave others to decide what is right or wrong to expose to others.  Dr Hood is right that academic freedom should be protected.  However, for now, I am wondering who decides how wide this freedom should be.

I have never blogged before, so this is all new, but I'll be trying to keep it regularly updated and respond to any comments.  If you have suggestions of things you'd like to see more (or less) of then let me know.

Firstly: introductions.  I am James Lamming, Vice President (Access and Academic Affairs), recently graduated PPE student from Merton College.  During the three years I've had so far at Oxford I have been JCR President, Access Rep, Social Sciences Divisional Board Rep, a some-time rower (the highlight being Merton 2nd VIII in Trinity 2006 when we get spoons), a some-time bass in the Chapel Choir and a regular Guinness drinker.

Secondly: my job.  Access and Academic Affairs requires me to wear four different hats.  The first hat, Access, covers the widening participation work done by the Student Union, typically coordinated by Target Schools, and representation for students to the University on Admission issues.  My second hat, Academic Affairs, covers representation on many of the major University committees from University Council right through to individual working party groups.  The Student Advice Service is my third hat, and I am available  to listen and help any student on a confidential basis should you ever have any welfare or academic issues in Oxford.  Finally, I am also a Vice President of OUSU so chip in helping ensure the student union runs successfully.  The last part really isn't glamorous, really meaning box shifting.

Finally: the blog.  I hope to keep this blog updated with posts on different aspects of my job, proposals or schemes I or the University is working on, discussions on controversial ideas or plans, life working in OUSU towers and anything else that may seem particularly relevant.  This though might change as the blog progresses, and once again, please feel free to contact me with any ideas or suggestions for posts.