Sixth of 8 weekly articles documenting bias in “The Cambridge Student”: Lent 2009 Issue 6.
Protesters have accused Cambridge University of “turning a blind eye” to Ethical Investment and “continually not engaging with CUSU Ethical affairs” on the topic, at a student demonstration on Monday.
A rather strange article this week, about so-called “ethical investment”. The university is attacked by protesters for holding investments which are claimed to be unethical. The TCS article is essentially a plug for “CUSU Ethical Affairs” (who we’ve covered before) — it doesn’t consider the possibility that opponents of the campaign exist. Never mind the more general problem that a campaigning body for “ethics” cannot represent the diverse ethical beliefs of the various students in Cambridge (and why is their website URL www.green.cusu.cam.ac.uk ?). Indeed, only “Roughly 200 students” attended the protest, a number much lower than the 337 people who said they would go and the 538 people who said they might go on the facebook event, and far lower than those “Not Attending” (1,431) or “Awaiting Reply” (1,127).
More important (therefore) is the uncritical nature of the article.
several Colleges, such as Trinity and St. John’s, have investments in the arms manufacturers BAE Systems and QuinetiQ, as well as in Rolls Royce; companies condemned by Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) as unethical.
Note the use of a quote to condemn these companies, rather than doing so outright. There’s no attempt to justify it, merely the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.
“It would not be tolerated if Cambridge University publicly endorsed companies which violate International Human Rights Law or damage the University’s educational mission. It should not be tolerated that the University can financially support these companies through its investments,” reads a statement on the campaign website. “The University needs an investment policy that reflects its commitment to human rights, education, and sustainability.”
Indeed it would not be tolerated if Cambridge University publicly endorsed companies which violate International Human Rights Law. But the website gives no examples of any companies endorsed or invested in by the University that do. There are plenty things that “it would not be tolerated” if Cambridge University endorsed, and which they don’t.
At the end is a rather sinister quote from someone from the NUS.
“Educational institutions are publicly funded beacons of the community which help us to form an understanding of the wider world, so it is important that they have Ethical Investment Policies,” she told TCS.
“Universities have a duty to reflect the values of the students and staff themselves and should not be contributing indirectly to groups that are destructive to human rights.”
This idea that universities should promote a very specific worldview, rather than simply teach departmental subjects and provide an environment for general learning, discussion and debate, is insidious.
TCS should not so report “CUSU Ethical Affairs” so uncritically.
Page 7: “Universities around the country at risk for bankruptcy…” “A spokesman at the Department told reporters that: ‘Universities are not going bankrupt…’”
Page 8: “he tried to correct [sic] inequalities of wealth”.
On page three there is a splendid example of editorial bias, marring a mainly good article.
The article is entitled “University pay review shows men still better off”. The article itself is balanced, which accurately reports a review by the University’s Equal Pay Review Group. The review “revealed that the average stipend for female employees is £28,247, while for men it is £37,157; a difference of some 31.54%.” The reporter explains: “These figures reflect the imbalance in the gender distribution within the overall staff profile, that is proportionately more women are employed on lower grades and more men on higher grades; and within grades more men appear at the high end of the pay scale as they have longer service with the University.” And “we receive fewer applications from women than from men for such senior positions.” And the TCS article also mentions “In grade six, which concerns clerical staff, women out-number men and their average pay is about 2.51% higher. Moreover, in grades 5,7, and 9, that is, non-clinical research staff, the report found ‘very low differences in pay.’”
So there appears to be no problem.
Now, a few words in the article display the author’s unconscious assumptions: the use of the word “revealed” (twice) rather than “showed” indicates, I think, that we are supposed to read the revelation as slightly shocking, as if the university would wish to keep the fact secret. The word “some” could be cut: it would normally be used to indicate approximateness, yet the figure given is very accurate; the word’s only purpose is to indicate disapproving shock at the size of the figure. Another quibble concerns the recommendations of the so-called “Equality and Human Rights Commission”, which advises that “A difference of 3-5% should be ‘regularly monitored’, while ‘action is needed to address the issue and close the gap’ if male and female pay differs by over 5%.” How is this rendered in the article? “Male and female wages mostly differentiated by 3% or less within grades, which means that the University is not required to act.” Well, that’s not true. The University is not required to act anyway. The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s recommendations are only recommendations, without legal force.
But this close analysis is relatively trifling, revealing though it is. More extreme is the editorial bias. The headline is “University pay review shows men still better off”. Note the word “still”, as if it is a problem that needs to be rectified. Then note that the headline is simply not true — it is contradicted by the article.
Then note the pull-quote: “Action is needed to address the issue and close the gap”! This clearly distorts the article, taking a quote completely out of context to make a point contradicted by the article. Shame.