Sunday, June 14, 2009

Does my privilege look big in this?
It's not about you, either, it's about the facts

[UPDATE: PJ has some comments from a different perspective in the comments]

 Laurie Penny, who wrote this fantastic article, has a post up defending Rowenna Davis' string of untruths that I discussed last week. I do not find it persuasive. She writes:

Dear white, straight guys: it’s not about you.


No, really, listen up. I have been stunned this week by the cybersquall that has erupted over Rowenna Davis’ Guardian article, entitled – although not by her – ‘Stupid White Heterosexual Male’. The article was well written, reasonable, and managed to make points about equality without getting personal, which is unsurprising, as Rowenna Davis is at the tender age of 24 one of the finest and most ethical journalists I’ve ever had the privilege to meet. But the piece got almost as many negative comments as Charlie Brooker’s denouncement of the BNP in the same paper got supportive ones – all because Davis had the temerity to suggest that perhaps white, heterosexual males might not actually need their own anti-discrimination officer at Oxford University of all places (45% private school students, almost entirely white and with a tenacious male bias in finals marks), especially not when Andrew Lowe’s policies included ‘to replace St Anne's college crèche with a finishing school, ban women from the library and save money by getting female students to serve food in halls instead of kitchen staff.’ - [source]
 
You can, and should, read the whole thing here. I was particularly impressed by the claim:

No, really. You might not think that you personally, sitting behind your computer, reading this rant and getting pissy, are part of the problem -but you are. The people who attacked Rowenna Davis’ on-the-money article with such bile and vitriol are part of the problem, even though many of those are the very same hands-up-harries who were the first to condemn the BNP.

Because there is a heartbeat’s space between the blind stupid rage of otherwise sensible people who felt hard done by reading that article and the creeping influence of right-wing policymakers in parliament. There is a heartbeat’s space between the growing tide of otherwise non-idiotic white male resentment in this country and the breathtakingly idiotic racist, homophobic and misogynistic logic with which we have just sent two far-right representatives to the European Parliament. And if you are not prepared to step up, own your privilege and be part of the solution, then, my darlings, you are going to become part of the problem.


Of course, I would have been more impressed to see some actual evidence for the claim - which brings us to the problem with both Davis' article and Penny's defense. 


My objection to Davis article is not "because Davis had the temerity to suggest that perhaps white, heterosexual males might not actually need their own anti-discrimination officer at Oxford University of all places", but because Davis makes a number of statements that are untrue. 

1) Davis claimed that Oxford admitted 5 black students last year. This is untrue. An underestimate by a factor of 9, the correct figure can be found in the document "Undergraduate Admissions Statistics 2008", page 5, table 5, [source]. Happily, Davis has corrected this claim, although the fact she thought it was remotely plausible raises profound, not to say disturbing, questions about her own privilege.  

2) Davis claims that "The only thing harder than spotting the black kid in my college photo was trying to find a woman on my reading list.". This is untrue. You can  readily falsify this for yourself by reading the politics department PPE reading list, as I thought - clearly rather optimistically - that Davis would have done. [In Davis 2007 article (about institutional sexism  at Oxford) in the Times Higher Education supplement she claimed "trying to find a woman on my reading list was analogous to playing "Where's Wally"?" - [source]]

3) Davis claims "Class: Despite over 90% of the country being state educated, just 55% of Oxbridge students come from state schools. New figures suggest that these class divides are getting worse, not better. ". This is untrue. As I wrote in my original comments on Davis article, "it is instructive to compare the results from 2006(2007) ([source], page 3 table 1), when 47.1%(46.8%) came from state schools. Certainly in the short term, things seem to be improving. " . I also wrote "But 98.4% of candidates who are offered pre-qualification places achieve AAA ("Undergraduate admissions statistics 2008"  page 4, table 3). As 28.6% of A grades are awarded to pupils at Independent Schools [source] and  33.8% of Oxford applicants come from Independent schools  ("Undergraduate admissions statistics 2008",page 2, table 1), perhaps the over-representation is not entirely Oxford's fault.".  I hope all numerate readers will appreciate why this is relevant.

These are matters of fact, rather that "privilege". The statements Davis has made do not correspond to reality. They are untrue. It matters not at all how white, male, privileged, disadvantaged or publicly-schooled the person who makes these statements is: they are untrue. 

I move to statements who are not untrue, but are simply peculiar. They display a mixture of petty bigotry and misunderstanding of a university.

4a) Davis complains of "competitive tutorials". The whole reason/excuse for the college fee - the 3000 pounds a year extra that is lavished on Oxbridge students - is the tutorials system. Every other university in the country can't afford to provide two-to-one or one-on-one tuition , although some try by cannibalising their research budget. If Davis was so unsuited to the tutorial system - and I agree it is not for everyone, and I am agnostic on the question of whether it is the "best" system - there are 107 universities she could have attended.   It is unfortunate to attend Oxford for 3 years and not realize that "competitive tutorials" are the nominal reason the taxpayer stumps up the additional three grand. Doubly so, to enter a privilege-ridden profession like journalism, where they'll be plenty of  competition. No walk of life is a Caucus-race, and academics would be doing a disservice to their students by allowing them to believe that all must have prizes. Again, this is not unique to Oxford, or even university.

4b)  I thought the statement "arrogant public schoolboys" was bigoted (try replacing the noun in that sentence and you'll see what I mean. Moreover, if the public schoolboy(s) in question were such idiots, thickos who glided into Oxford on the back of the privilege-fairy, they can't have been that hard to out-compete. 
Can they?


I do not believe I have met Davis, but Penny describes her as "one of the finest and most ethical journalists I’ve ever had the privilege to meet". Accordingly, I am certain she will correct the untrue claims she has made on the website of a national newspaper. It is, of course, embarrasing to admit messing up, all the more so when 5 minutes on google combined with numeracy could have avoided the matter, but it is the honest and ethical thing to do. I am delighted to see see has made a step towards this by correcting the ludicrous error in point 1 above. 

Point 4 is more tricky - it is not about facts, but opinions. I am aware that I must be viewing the situation with privilege-tinted spectacles. That said, so must Davis, Penny, and everyone else in the world.

There are two possibilities: either
(a) privilege obscures our view of the world so severely as to prevent us from make true judgements about it; or,

(b) privilege does not obscure our view of the world so severely as to prevent us making true judgements about it.

Suppose (a) is true: my inability to make judgements about the world must also preclude me from accepting the claim that my privilege obscures my view of the world : after all, that's what "being unable to make true judgements about the world" means. This applies not only to me, but Davis, Penny, and everybody else. 

If we are not to lapse into solipsism, therefore, we must accept (b), that we can make statements about the world that are not obscured with privilege.

My initial response to Davis, in the form of an open letter, is here.

[Editted fur spolling]

8 comments:

pj said...

When I attended Oxbridge (admittedly a distance in time now measured in decades) some of those accusations were true.

There were only around 5-7 black Britons in my year (none in my college), still no parity of the sexes, people from public schools and grammar schools were over represented, and the place operated with something of an assumption of public school attendance (I was even told by a - well meaning - tutor that it must be 'very difficult' for someone with my 'background' coping at Oxford). And there was some pretty vitriolic abuse I received from some sectors of the public school clique at my college, and even very recently some mor eold fashioned members of staff have been known to lament moves to admit more 'rif raff' from the lower classes.

On the other hand, tutorials and the intellectual environment are the Oxbridge raison d'être. You may not like them but I don't think they're symptoms of the 'patriarchy', and, while I personally think the emphasis on trite and unreferenced 'novelty' in finals, which favours men, is silly, it is more of a symptom of the environment itself than a systematic discrimination against women (favoured my ex-girlfriend and disadvantaged me for instance), and alternative systems could equally be considered to systematically favour men. I do have some doubts about Oxbridge insistence that tutorials cost them so much money, particularly if you ever have the chance to peruse a College budget to see exactly where that money goes, I also don't think research funding is being redirected to subsidise teaching - rather all funding ends up running what can only be described as a welfare system for the under-skilled administrative class of Oxford and Cambridge.

The last time I looked at Oxbridge admission figures there wasn't convincing evidence of large scale discrimination against state school pupils except for those from non-traditional institutions (e.g. 6th form colleges) nor of racial bias except for certain groups (e.g. those of Bangladeshi ethnic background) but I do think there is a problem encouraging those from state school backgrounds to apply - 'informal' contacts between private school tutors and admissions tutors at Oxbridge colleges still exist (along with those letters that accompany the applications that begin 'Dear Clive, how are you old chap,...') which boosts numbers from private institutions. There is also likely to - unconsciously - be a tendency to admit those who are similar to ourselves, which will tend to perpetuate imbalances, and subjects like Medicine are particularly prone to this (and it is a wider phenomenon than just Oxbridge).

'Bops' are an absolute disgrace, but certainly not because they are sexualised, rather the reverse, they're like school discos from my early teens, with the music to match.

I have some sympathy with the claim that, on average, some lower quality public schoolboys (and with the existence of the all girl colleges: schoolgirls) get through to Oxbridge, and I'd tend to favour some of the systems currently being introduced to take into account background in admissions, but you'd be hard pressed to claim that the majority of Oxbridge students were not really very bright, public school or not.

pj said...

As you've pointed out, in terms of reading lists there were plenty of women in my subjects (biology, philosophy, psychology and others) and any imbalance was likely to reflect imbalances in the gender balance in the field rather than overt discrimination (and the gender balance of academia is a whole different debate).

I hadn't realised this whole story was based on a single JCR where something like 60-80 students out of a few hundred in the college can, and do, vote for all kinds of stupid and offensive things. Always have done, and likely always will do. Just as Oxbridge obsessed journalists (very many of whom are, of course, Oxbridge graduates) will continue to create little storms in teacups about the goings on there by leaked or stolen stories from the student press.

Political Scientist said...

Hello PJ,

I think we broadly agree.

“I hadn't realised this whole story was based on a single JCR where something like 60-80 students out of a few hundred in the college can, and do, vote for all kinds of stupid and offensive things. Always have done, and likely always will do. ”

Yes, I thought it was a rather weak thread to hang an entire Guardian article on, and it was that combined with the untruths that I’ve listed above that wound me up. I wouldn’t have seen it, but a couple of mates forwarded it. I think you’d be lucky to get 60+ members at a JCR meeting these days tho’ - we’d get 100+ in the late 1990s, but that was at a right-on college at the time of the introduction of tuition fees.

“I personally think the emphasis on trite and unreferenced 'novelty' in finals, which favours men, is silly, it is more of a symptom of the environment itself than a systematic discrimination against women (favoured my ex-girlfriend and disadvantaged me for instance), and alternative systems could equally be considered to systematically favour men.”

I didn’t think of this at the time of writing, but I wonder if the 6% “finals gap” is averaged over men and women in all subjects, and if it’s a difference in marks, or a difference in the fraction who get firsts (a more sensible benchmark, as the degree certificate states the degree class rather than the mark breakdown).
I’d expect the exam requirements to vary widely from course: we physicists had to do quite structured problems which didn’t leave much scope for originality, whereas an essay subject basically demands originality. Perhaps the gaps in a subject like english is >6%.

(BTW, I’m guessing you read PPP at Oxford?)

“do have some doubts about Oxbridge insistence that tutorials cost them so much money, particularly if you ever have the chance to peruse a College budget to see exactly where that money goes”

“I also don't think research funding is being redirected to subsidise teaching - rather all funding ends up running what can only be described as a welfare system for the under-skilled administrative class of Oxford and Cambridge.”

Ah, I was referring to the university I’m based at now - by expecting each postdoc to teach for several hours a week in term-time, which is effectively a tax on research. [In fact, there are issues with non-uniformity between workload of post-docs, but that’s another blog-post]. The college system does produce quite a broad range of administrative ability (I’ve not had much interaction with Wellington Square, so I don’t know what it’s like at university level), tho’ at least Oxbridge has managed to aviod the ridiculous “registration” system that my PG uni had.

Political Scientist said...

“'Bops' are an absolute disgrace, but certainly not because they are sexualised, rather the reverse, they're like school discos from my early teens, with the music to match.”

Now, now, Dr. Cummugeon, everybody likes Cheese, even the those who don’t yet realise who much they like Cheese. I was really surprised by the complaint about “oversexualised bops” - maybe they have changed so much in the last few years. Maybe.

“ Just as Oxbridge obsessed journalists (very many of whom are, of course, Oxbridge graduates) will continue to create little storms in teacups about the goings on there by leaked or stolen stories from the student media”

Yes, I think this is a big problem. Oxbridge account for a tiny minority of students and the coverage is completely disproportionate.Also, there’s more to education that tertiary education, not that you’d know that from the media. Relevant to both of us as anonymous bloggers at the moment, the little sod who outed Nightjack is ex-Oxford Student hack.

“As you've pointed out, in terms of reading lists there were plenty of women in my subjects (biology, philosophy, psychology and others) and any imbalance was likely to reflect imbalances in the gender balance in the field rather than overt discrimination (and the gender balance of academia is a whole different debate).”

Exactly. Also, imbalances in the primary literature may reflect historical imbalances, and there is nothing that can be done about it. [Moreover, I thought it was quite a disingenous argument - what %age of women on a reading list ]

However, I am very sorry to hear that “ there was some pretty vitriolic abuse I received from some sectors of the public school clique at my college, and even very recently some mor eold fashioned members of staff have been known to lament moves to admit more 'rif raff' from the lower classes.”
As they say on that badscience forum, what a bunch of twunts! Do you think this is specific to medicine, or a broader problem?

pj said...

"Do you think this is specific to medicine, or a broader problem?"

Broader, in that I wasn't talking about medicine specifically. But it could well have been a fairly isolated problem although the fusty academics are still found in all subjects. Oxford has changed a bit since 'my day' e.g. there's a lot more women, but medicine still has a problem with being noticeably more middle class and private school educated than even other Oxbridge courses.

pj said...

"Relevant to both of us as anonymous bloggers at the moment, the little sod who outed Nightjack is ex-Oxford Student hack."

This story is quite troubling. It seems perfectly compatible with the personality of an Oxford student hack, and the story about him posting a film of people having sex online that he secretly filmed is the icing on the cake.

What is worrying is not really the ruling from Eady, since I don't think anyone can really expect the courts to intervene on their behalf to protect their blogging anonymity - it is more the actions of journalist Patrick Foster and the Times itself. The argument that there is a public interest in NightJack's identity is pretty weak (perhaps if he had not, in fact, been a policeman there might have been a story) and the fact that he was breaking disciplinary codes is fairly irrelevant for a public interest defence - the chilling effect on whistle blowers is obvious.

But what really rankles in the hypocrisy. Journalists use a number of illegal activities to find out details about people to write these stories, often these activities are justified in the public interest, but never do newspapers or other media seek to discipline, out, or report these journalists to the authorities. In this case it seems that the Times has taken great joy in reporting essentially a non-story which solely has the effect of getting this guy in trouble, with no actual public benefit. The rationale is in fact highly redolent of the sort of juvenile 'gotchas' you find in the student press.

In fact it exposes a rather wider failing of the press a preoccupation with fucking up the lives of nobodies by writing sensationalised stories about them (think the Dunblane survivors Facebook story). Unlike the rich and famous (think Max Mosley) such nobodies have little opportunity to use the courts to defend themselves.

Political Scientist said...

I was alarmed by the outing, as there was clearly no public interest in The Times doing so. I agree Eady's logic seems sound, I'm not sure there is or could be a "right" to anonymity. NightJack made me think of "Theodore Dalrymple", the pseudonym of a right-wing prison doctor who used to appear in the Torygraph and the spectator. In both cases, they wrote about their - lightly fictionalised - experiences. Many pseudonymous bloggers tend to write about e.g. analysis of data, and our real-life work doesn't enter into it. Still, I think someone was calling for times editorials to be signed. Perhaps someone with good textual analysis software skilz could start identifying who wrote which? Name and shame!

The interesting thing about the Foster/sex tape thing is the degree to which Oxford students have been protected from the real world. The perpertrator was rusticated from a year, which he clearly thinks was unfair (!) from his comments, and Foster was banned from the Lincoln bar. These are, frankly, ridiculously light punishments - I would have thought a real-world conviction for voyeurism would lead to a spell in the Big House and/or having to sign the sex offenders register.

In addition, a bloke from Oxford named Patrick Foster who edited the OxStu was proctorised for hacking the university network, which the linked story claims included "viewing closed circuit" TV! Could they be related?

pj said...

Apparently they are indeed related - I think he wrote a story about the hacking in the student press, which is why he was caught - and, naturally, the story found its way to the national press (students journalists can actually make a fair bit of money selling stories and/or photos to the national press, it gets them valuable contacts too).

The Oxbridge isolation from the real world point actually relates back to the OP. Although I am a big advocate of feminism, and feel that Oxbridge has serious shortcomings in its approach to access issues, sometimes you read the whinings of a particular brand of white middle class female student and wonder what they'd do if they came across real oppression. Oxbridge is filled with these special interest groups jostling with each other (in my college it was usually a conflict between LGBT, ethnic minority groups, and religious groups). While they usually have a point they also tend to revel in a certain victim mentality (that may be perpetuated by it being an institution where, generally speaking, few people have experienced true adversity).

The sexual voyeurism is very worrying, particularly that apparently the first reaction of a bunch of middle/upper class British 20-21yr olds when they catch a glimpse of someone they know having sex (while peering through their window) is to film it and then post it online!

The problem with seeking to 'out' op-eds and pseudonymous newspaper columns is that, ultimately, you can't prove it. So while it is widely thought that Nick Cohen writes Ratbiter in the Eye, and that Catherine Bennett wrote as Norman Johnson in the Guardian, it cannot be established that this is the case because the media organisation jealously protect the anonymity of their sources and writers. Similarly, it is pretty easy to quickly get a reasonable idea of who a particular pseudonymous blogger might be, and if you know that person in real life it can be very easy indeed, I've tracked down a few people or recognised people I know like that. But you can't usually prove someone is who you think they are (although it sounds like, in this case, that was possible, due to unwise social networking use).

Conversely, when their journalists use their 'deduction and detective work' they either publish their claims without caveats, or confirm them using methods not widely available to the public and often illegal in nature. Rather than closing ranks to protect the blogger, since these are often insider whistle-blowing type blogs, they instead institute disciplinary procedures. Have you ever heard of a newspaper disciplining its journalists?

A disappointing story all round - but, if you reflect on what student journalists are like, and that most mainstream media journalists started out that way, it is not massively surprising.