We Thought That Women Wanted To Be Treated Equally

Oxford University increases math, computer science exam times so women can get better grades

6 hours

Oxford University added 15 minutes to math and computer science exam times last summer to give women a chance at higher grades. But the Telegraph said male students continue to receive more first-class degrees than female students in math and computer science. (Image source: YouTube screenshot)

91Follow

Dave Urbanski

Article GoalINFORM

• SHARE
• TWEET

World-renowned Oxford University added 15 minutes to math and computer science exam times last summer to give women a chance at higher grades, the Telegraph reported.

Oxford officials ruled that “female candidates might be more likely to be adversely affected by time pressure,” the paper reported, adding that the number of questions and difficulty of questions were unchanged.

Special: 17 cent cryptocurrency to overpower Bitcoin?

The Telegraph said the move was a first.

Historically, the percentage of male students awarded first-class degrees was double the percentage of women, the paper reported, and the board of examiners last year suggested the department make changes to improve women’s grades.

But the Telegraph said male students continue to receive more first-class degrees than female students in math and computer science despite the exam time increase.

What did the college have to say?

A university spokesman told the paper the changes are “academically demanding and fair” and that even though 39 percent of female math students got first-class degrees compared to 47 percent of male students, the women’s scores had improved.

What did a female computer science student have to say?

“I am uneasy about schemes to favor one gender over another,” Antonia Siu, undergraduate representative of Oxford Women in Computer Science, told the Telegraph. “But I am happy when people see gaps between groups of people who should not reasonably have such gaps — such as between genders, races or class[es] — and take that as a starting point to think about the kinds of people they unintentionally are leaving behind.”

British Anti-Semitism Is Spreading Quickly

• ABOUT US
• EVENTS
• EXPERTS
• AUTHORS
• ARCHIVES
• GATESTONE IN THE MEDIA
• DONATE
• CONTACT

Hmm, Where Could All This Hatred Be Coming From? Wrong-Headed Cures for the Prejudice Problem by Douglas Murray March 20, 2016 at 5:00 am http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7646/uk-labour-anti-semitism 72 Comment As with the Labour party students at Oxford, it is hard to argue that party members should have zero-tolerance towards anti-Semites when the party's current leader has spent his whole career happily tolerating them. As many on the so-called left have earlier shown, their sinister idea of "re-education" for their opponents supposes that their own ideas on "education" are correct. "Anti-Semitism isn't just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it's routine and commonplace. Any Muslims reading this article -- if they are honest with themselves -- will know instantly what I am referring to. It's our dirty little secret." — Mehdi Hassan, The New Statesman. Is it not possible that anti-Muslim feeling, if it exists, might be in part propelled by the discovery that anti-Semitism and other forms of prejudice (against women and gay people to name just two other "minorities") are also "routine and commonplace" among British Muslims? Not a month goes by in Britain without some left-wing proponent of anti-Jewish racism exposing themselves. Last month it was the Oxford University Labour Club (OULC) that was found to be harbouring anti-Semites among its members. In recent weeks there have been a number of adult members of the Labour party who have been readmitted to the party or promoted within it while holding extreme anti-Jewish views. The most recent case revolves around one Vicki Kirby, a Labour parliamentary candidate before the last general election, when she was suspended from the party for tweeting about Jews having "big noses," Adolf Hitler being the "Zionist god" and other ramblings. Naturally, Ms. Kirby's suspension has since been lifted. As with the Labour party students at Oxford, it is very hard to argue that party members should have zero-tolerance towards anti-Semites when the party's current leader has spent his whole career happily tolerating them. Last week it came to public attention that Ms. Kirby had now become the vice-chair of her local party chapter. The story was broken on right-of-centre websites, which ordinarily means that left-of-centre activists dismiss them as "smears." But these stories are now coming in so thick and fast that an increasing number of people on the left are starting to admit they might have a problem. At least they are choosing to throw the more minor anti-Semites under the bus while preserving those at the top of their ranks. Had the charges aimed at Ms. Kirby been aimed at Mr Corbyn, we would still be being told that these were "rumours," "innuendo" and the like. Nevertheless, some Corbyn loyalists have decided that Ms. Kirby may indeed be a bit much, and realized that it is probably time to address the problem. Unfortunately, having failed to recognize the virus earlier, the remedies these people are now suggesting for cure are predictably wrong-headed. Take for example the Guardian-published Corbyn activist, Owen Jones. Last week, ignoring his own history of stirring up lies against the Jewish state, he responded to his party's latest embarrassment by arguing that Labour's rules should be changed so that "anyone found guilty of anti-Semitism -- or any other form of racism -- is expelled from the party." He went on to say that, "Their readmission should only happen when they have demonstrably been shown to have been re-educated." There is the start of the problem. As so often with those on the Corbyn-ite wing of politics, the answer to problems of the heart or mind is "re-education." The only problem -- as the left many have earlier shown in a range of twentieth-century initiatives ranging from Stalin to Mao -- is that their sinister idea of "re-education" for their opponents supposes that their own ideas on "education" are correct. As Jones goes on to show, this is rarely the case. For his second prevarication for dealing with Labour's anti-Semitism problem, Jones wrote that the party should: "... set up two commissions: one on antisemitism, the other on anti-Muslim prejudice, respectively headed by a leading Jewish and a Muslim figure. Both forms of bigotry are on the rise in Britain, and both exist within progressive circles and the Labour party. The commissions could issue a series of recommendations, both for dealing with it when it arises within Labour, and also in wider society." As everyone involved in politics knows, there are two ways truly to ignore a problem: the first is just to ignore it; the second is to "set up a commission." But there are several perhaps unwittingly interesting things about this flaccid suggestion. The first is the reflexive and unthinking demonstration among many these days that they cannot possibly deal with anti-Semitism unless they also throw Muslims into the mix. To deal with anti-Semitism on its own might throw up too many problems and raise too many communal problems. But let us say that two such commissions were set up. And let us pretend for a moment that they were indeed headed by people who were not merely "leading" but also honest figures. The head of the commission to look into anti-Semitic prejudice, might find a number of startling things. He or she might find, for instance, that the dominant strand of anti-Semitism in British life in 2016 comes not from Ms. Kirby's ilk, but from the British Muslim community. The commission head would not have to go far to learn this. One only has to pick up a copy of the British left's in-house magazine, The New Statesman, and read an article from just three years ago by the British-born Al-Jazeera broadcaster, Mehdi Hassan. In an unusually honest piece entitled, "The sorry truth is that the virus of anti-Semitism has infected the British Muslim community," the author explains that: "Anti-Semitism isn't just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it's routine and commonplace. Any Muslims reading this article -- if they are honest with themselves -- will know instantly what I am referring to. It's our dirty little secret." So as Hassan has reminded us, the sorry truth is that if a commission into anti-Semitism were set up, it would have to finger the majority of British Muslims as at least a very large part of the problem. Meanwhile, let us say that the second commission were set up -- the one that gives cover to the anti-Semitism commission which is looking at "anti-Muslim" feeling. This commission might come to an equally problematic conclusion. This commission might conclude, for instance, that to the extent that any "anti-Muslim" feeling might be said to exist in the UK, it comes from a number of factors quite separate from innate and unalterable prejudice in the hearts of the British people. It might come, for instance, from a dislike of suicide-bombings, assassinations, beheadings and other varieties of terrorism carried out while discussing the greatness of Allah. Although most British people will remain perfectly capable of understanding the difference between the actions of the extremists and the behaviour of the vast majority of British Muslims, they may be concerned about the amount of deflection and denial that they see even from leaders of very mainstream Muslim organizations. Indeed, is it not possible that anti-Muslim feeling, if it exists, might not also be in part propelled by the discovery that anti-Semitism and other forms of prejudice (against women and gay people to name just two "minorities") are also "routine and commonplace" among British Muslims? Perhaps after all it would be best if the Corbyn-ite element of the Labour party does not attempt this process of "re-education"? The path to wisdom must include some self-understanding. Yet the Labour party's anti-Semitism problem comes from people who propel the very hatred they profess to despise. As such, they remain in no position to "re-educate" anyone, as they so stubbornly refuse to educate themselves. Douglas Murray, a British political analyst and commentator, is based in London. Follow Douglas Murray on Twitter © 2016 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

When Free Speech Is No Longer Free, All Freedoms Disappear! Universities Lead The Way!

Top British Universities Flunk Free Speech

by Peter Martino
April 14, 2015 at 5:00 am

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5556/uk-universities-free-speech

25

Comment

The universities were ranked using a traffic-light system: red for universities that ban and actively censor certain ideas on campus; amber for universities that chill free speech, and green for universities that have a hands-off approach to free speech.
The results of the Free Speech University Rankings were staggering. Forty-seven universities were marked red, including Oxford and the London School of Economics; 45 were marked amber, including Cambridge, and a mere 25 were marked green. Results indicate that 80% of British universities censor free speech.
Stifling free speech on campus is no longer restricted to Britain; it can be seen all over the world, including in the U.S.
"Campus censorship is something which can no longer be laughed off. Free thought itself is under attack." — Tom Slater, assistant editor at Spiked Online, Daily Telegraph.
"Supporting Israel is now labeled an act of 'racism' by some professors and certain campus organizations." — Daniel Mael, Senior, Brandeis University, U.S.
Freedom of speech is one of the fundamental values of our Judeo-Christian civilization. The day we give away free speech -- or Israel, which embodies it -- is the day we cease to exist.

At Manchester University in April of 2010, Israel's deputy ambassador to the UK, Talya Lador-Fresher, was violently attacked. Demonstrators climbed the hood of her car and attempted to smash the windscreen before the police were able to escort her to safety.
Again, in February of 2013, this time at the University of Essex in Colchester, Britain, during a debate on the situation in the Middle East, authorities ordered the evacuation from campus of her successor, Israel's deputy ambassador to the UK, Alon Roth-Snir. A group of hostile students disrupted the debate; university authorities said they could not protect his safety.
The British website Spiked Online, known for its staunch defense of freedom of speech, recently published its first "Free Speech University Rankings" (FSUR). Spiked surveyed 115 British universities and examined the policies, regarding freedom of speech, of both the university administrations and the students' unions. The universities were then ranked using a traffic-light system. The color red was given to universities that ban and actively censor certain ideas on campus; amber was given to universities that chill free speech through intervention; and green for universities with a hands-off approach to free speech.

Image source: Spiked Online

Spiked did not negatively assess university policies or actions aimed at restricting unlawful speech. America has a First Amendment, but Europe does not. There are countless restrictions on speech under UK law, including harassment, incitement to violence or discrimination. However, if a university or students' union expands legal definitions of speech offenses in order to limit legitimate, lawful speech, this was taken into account.
The results of the FSUR were staggering. Forty-seven universities were marked red, including renowned institutions such as Oxford University and the London School of Economics; 45 universities were marked amber, including Cambridge University; and a mere 23 universities were marked green. The results indicate that 80% of British universities censor speech.
Essex University, from where Israeli diplomat Roth-Snir was evacuated, was marked red, both for its official policies and for those of its students' union. The university guidelines state that it is forbidden to "cause needless offence, concern or annoyance to others." Essex Professor Thomas Scotto complained to the media that he asked the university to re-invite an Israeli spokesman, but he was told to "let it go."
The University of Manchester was marked amber. The university itself received a green ranking, because it places no limits on speech and expression. However, the Manchesterstudent's union forbids what it calls the "promotion of extremist causes." Defending the policies of Israel seems to be one of these "extremist causes."
Spiked's FSUR shows that censoring pro-Israeli views belongs to the five most popular bans at British universities. "Campus censorship is something which no longer can be laughed off. Free thought itself is under attack," Tom Slater, assistant editor at Spiked, wrote in the Daily Telegraph. "Pro-life groups have been banned at four universities. Pro-Israel students are lucky if they can even get events approved."
Last month, students and staff at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London voted toboycott Israel and sever all links with Israeli academic institutions. 75% of the students, 60% of the academic staff and 90% of the non-teaching staff, such as cleaners, favored the Israeli boycott.
The spectacle of stifling free speech on campus is not restricted to Britain; it can be seen all over the world, including in the U.S.
In America, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has published a guide-to-free-speech-on-campus, which rates colleges and universities in a similar fashion as Spiked. The case of Daniel Mael springs to mind, a 22-year old student who is being lambasted at Brandeis University for expressing pro-Israeli views. "Supporting Israel is now labeled an act of 'racism' by some professors and certain campus organizations," Mael writes.
It is no coincidence that the fight to preserve freedom of speech coincides with the right to defend Israel. Freedom of speech is one of the fundamental values of our Judeo-Christian civilization. The day we give away free speech -- or Israel, which embodies it -- is the day we cease to exist.