Cameron is Wrong About Oxford

Politicians are never more dangerous than when they think they know more about something than those who are experts at it. Enter Prime Minister David Cameron.

This week, Mr Cameron – a Prime Minister who should know better – picked up on an (incorrect) statistic that only one black person got into Oxford last year. Then at one of his “PM Direct” meetings, he drew attention to this “statistic” and described Oxford University’s behaviour as “disgraceful.” Uh-oh.


The first problem with Mr Cameron’s argument is that it isn’t true. The figure in question referred to the fact that only one black Caribbean person was accepted into Oxford University last year. In 2009-10 nearly 17,000 Oxford students disclosed their ethnic identity, and it was discovered that almost a quarter were from ethnic minority backgrounds, and 1.5% of students were black. Considering the Census of 2001 revealed that black people make up 2% of the population, the number is a little low, but not as far off as the Prime Minister would have his audience believe.


Yet that is beside the point. It is not the job of Oxford University to pick candidates that make the University representative of the population at large. Neither is it Oxford’s responsibility to have an equal number of the sexes, a set number from state and private schools, a correct percentage of students from the north rather than south, nor whatever it is that a politician has decided it will be politically expedient to be outraged by.


It is the job of Oxford University to be the best university it can be, and to attract the best students that it can. It appears to do this well – it does not gain the exceptional reputation that it has by being poorly run, or by picking average candidates over good ones. Although Oxford has vague guidelines, such as high demands for A-levels and a general correlation between excellence and acceptance, its success comes from being able to spot a good candidate from the crowd, one who will be able to thrive in the unique atmosphere that Oxford has, and one who will ultimately go on to be a testimony to the Oxford education he/she received, and therefore attract prestige (and donations) to the university.

So, when Oxford decides to take on fewer from a specified group, whether it be people of a particular race, economic background or type of schooling, we can safely say that it is not because Oxford selection is stupid or snobby or racist. If this were the case, the quality of entrants would decrease, and Oxford would no longer be one of the best in the world.


Instead, what Mr Cameron should be asking is why the standard of excellence is not being met by those groups. If politicians want to know why fewer people from state schools are being accepted, then perhaps they should look at the wretched state of so many of those schools, instead of running off to the nearest microphone to accuse Oxford of snobbery and elitism. This applies also to the issue of race. If Mr Cameron wants to describe something as “disgraceful”, then instead of moaning about Oxford, perhaps he should note that in 2009 29,000 white students got the requisite grades (AAA excluding general studies) for Oxford, compared to just 452 black students. To what extent this can be blamed on schools, ghettoisation, various cultural influences etc is a debate for another time, but what is clear is that it is not the fault of Oxford University.


Politicians are not entirely wrong to point out the fact that the lower numbers of ethnic minorities and people from state schools going to Oxford is “disgraceful.” Yet this is the fault of our over-politicised schools, our growing left-wing culture of encouraging mediocrity and snorting at success, the bigotry of low expectations aimed at children from ethnic minorities, and a whole host of other problems too exhaustive to list.


Mr Cameron has identified a problem, but by blaming Oxford, all he has done is to attempt to treat the symptoms, not the cause. As a result, he might get a smattering of applause from surprised trendy lefties, but he won’t be solving the problem he has identified – in fact, he might even be making it worse.

The NAACP and Diane Abbott

Well, well, well - things aren't going particularly well for the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP) this week!  Their accusation that the vastly popular Tea Party movement has "racist elements" has backfired spectacularly, with even Joe "Plugs" Biden throwing them under the bus.

With no real evidence to support them, the NAACP's condemnation has been shown for what it is - a partisan example of race-baiting from a group not afraid to play the race card whenever it suits their liberal needs.  We have seen this plenty of times in the Obama administration, the most notable example was when Obama played the race card against the "stupid" Officer Crowley who dared to arrest Skip Gates (who was dragged away screaming racism).  It turned out that Crowley was 100% right to do what he did, the President was embarrassed and had to concoct the infamous "Beer Summit."

People are sick of the race card being played, and recognise that it is against everything the Civil Rights movement stood for - that one would be judged by one's character not by one's skin colour.  Therefore there has been a significant backlash against the NAACP, and the spotlight has been shone on this movement.  This in turn has led to the discovery of this little clip of a speech by Shirley Sherrod (Georgia Director of Rural Development), who openly admits to discriminating against a farmer because he was white.

It isn't just that she discriminated against a farmer that is offensive - it is how she sees the world.  Not only does she talk about "rich versus poor" as if they are enemies (who implicitly can't change sides), but also talks in a "them versus us" mentality about white people.  So, she talks about sending the "white" farmer to a "white" lawyer as sending him "to his own kind" - those are her words.

This language is disgusting, make no mistake.  It is not just "Ohh well, if a white person said it then they would be accused of racism."  If a white person said this, it would be racist just as it is racist when Shirley Sherrod says it.  This is genuine, real racism, and this woman should be fired and condemned by both the federal government, and by the NAACP.  Yet it taps into a mentality.  This isn't a blog post, this is a speech at an NAACP event that is met by applause and laughter.  How many at the NAACP agree with her?

We are seeing this in Britain too.  Labour leadership candidate Diane Abbott has a long history of playing the race card. She has made a big deal of being the only black candidate for Labour, talking about how people could never have imagined a black person becoming President of the USA. Therefore it shows that maybe "People can change here in Britain too."  The implication is clear, Abbott doesn't get in, then it's because Britian is racist.  Sound familiar America?

This baiting goes back all the way to 1996 when she expressed concern at "blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls" who were unsuitable to be nurses as they "may have never met a black person before" and for saying that "West Indian mothers will go to the wall for the children", a comment which she has been challenged on recently by BBC's Andrew Neil - the clip is here.

It is time on both sides of the Atlantic that we fight this new form of racism.  There are a lot of vested interests who have a lot to gain from keeping the race business open.  Abbott for instance is a left wing nutcase with very few achievements, and must now that playing the race and female card is the only way she has a chance of a sniff at the leadership.  But such behaviour by Abbott and by members of the NAACP is not just offensive, it is damaging to society.  To pit people against one another, whether it be rich versus poor or black versus white is low and shameful, and it is for those of us who want to move past the issue of race to fight against such low tricks.