Labour MP Lammy in ‘bitter’ spat with Oxford on diversity
University retweets barb at politician who led admissions data campaign
DAVID LAMMY, the Labour MP, has become embroiled in a spat with the University of Oxford after the institution shared a Twitter post labelling him “bitter” following the release of its diversity data.
The figures show white students are twice as likely to gain a place as their black counterparts. It was also revealed that those who grow up in the south are much more likely to get in than their northern counterparts.
More than one in four of its colleges failed to admit a single black British student each year between 2015 and 2017, and eight colleges are less than 1 per cent black.
Mr Lammy, who studied at SOAS in London then became the first black Briton to go to Harvard Law School, claimed he had to “force” the university to publish the figures by submitting Freedom of Information requests.
Seemingly in response, the official University of Oxford Twitter account retweeted a post by a Twitter user called Liam Beadle which read: “As a member of the university from innercity northern England, I think Mr Lammy’s constant bitter criticism of Oxford is bang out of order.”
A spokesman for Mr Lammy said: “The response from Oxford University speaks for itself. It is good news that the university has now committed to transparency and is publishing this admissions data.
“It is a matter of public record that this is only happening because David forced the University of Oxford to publish this data under Freedom of Information last year.
“It would be helpful if the university focused on dealing with their own institutional failures instead of sharing posts calling David ‘bitter’ for simply publishing the university’s own data. The data speaks for itself.”
Ceri Thomas, Oxford’s director of public affairs, apologised for the retweet, writing: “Apologies: it was my call … But we agree with you that Oxford needs to do more and criticism of us is no sign of bitterness. There’s been progress, but work to do.”
The university faced criticism for its response to the diversity data. Yvette Cooper, the Labour MP, said Oxford was making “too many lame excuses” for its “dismal performance” on diversity. Robert Peston, the ITV broadcaster, said he was “embarrassed” to have attended the university.
Sam Gyimah, the Universities Minister, said elite institutions needed a “game changer” to improve diversity. He wrote on Twitter: “Good to see Oxford admit the serious problem of access for disadvantaged young people – not just BME! This problem has gone on for far too long. We need a game changer. Elite Unis must start engaging early – primary level.”
Samira Khan, Oxford’s director of undergraduate admissions, defended the university on BBC’S Radio 4 Today programme. She said: “We truly do believe we want a diverse university, we are transparent about the data, that’s why we have published it all.”
Oxford University should stand up for itself against Left-wing bullies and their war on excellence. David Lammy MP claims Oxford is “failing badly” when it comes to ethnic and class diversity, and it is true, indeed embarrassing, that eight of its colleges accepted fewer than three Uk-domiciled black applicants each over three years. But is that one metric proof of institutional prejudice? Hardly.
The last UK census found that 18.3 per cent of those aged 17-24 are black and minority ethnic – and the figure at Oxford in 2017 was an almost identical 17.9 per cent. The proportion of places Oxford gave to black applicants also nearly matched the proportion of black school pupils who achieve three As or better at A-level (based on results from 2015) at other universities. As for class, from 2015-2017, roughly 28 per cent of students who applied from the North-east were offered a place, compared with 24 per cent of Londoners. Of course, the difference between those cohorts is in their numbers: just 733 people applied from the North-east compared with 9,194 from the capital.
The real problem facing Oxford isn’t the lack of diversity in its offers but the lack of diversity in its applicants. Not enough students from poorer or non-white backgrounds apply, and while this is obviously troubling, it’s not wholly the fault of the institution (which insists it is doing outreach). Some teachers actually put their pupils off applying. This anti-aspiration culture, prevalent in state education, is reinforced by populists such as Mr Lammy, who perpetuate the idea that Oxford is a place of medieval privilege – even though the odd formal hall dinner doesn’t seem to have discouraged many Labour MPS from studying there.
What is Mr Lammy’s end game? Surely the implication that Oxford discriminates against the disadvantaged would justify, in some minds, positive discrimination backed by law? In which case, any student who made it to Oxford on sheer talent would question their own abilities: are they there because they deserve to be or to make up the numbers? And in the rush to social equality, Oxford would lose what makes it distinctive and world leading: an almost Darwinian focus on talent. Ultimately, universities are intended to help individuals reach their full potential, not to correct the failings of state schools or encourage socialism. Oxford should be proud of its results – and of the talented students who achieve them.