Oxford Students Investigated Over Drinking Club's 'Female Fresher Fit List'

Lady Margaret Hall

Huffington Post UK   First Posted: 08/12/11 11:04 GMT Updated: 08/12/11 11:05 GMT

Oxford University undergraduates that joked about luring a "fit list" of female freshers to a party "with no witnesses" are being investigated after the email chain was leaked to a student paper.

Emails between members of the notorious “Honey Badgers” drinking club at Lady Margaret Hall were prompted by Junior Common Room president and member George Barnes who asked his fellow drinking chums which female freshers they thought were attractive enough to target and put on "the fit list."

He suggested the other men "get to know the Freshers a little better in the coming week or so".

The Classical Archaeology and Ancient History student’s recommendation was joined in whole heartedly by another undergrad, William Hoole who suggested that one girl should be invited "alone" with "no witnesses".

Barnes has also come under fire for dismissing one girl off the list because she was “properly dull.”

Defending himself, Barnes told student paper Cherwell: “What happened is that at the start of this year, our drinking society thought it might be good fun to crew date some of the freshers, especially as this seems to be a common thing throughout Oxford.”

Hoole told the student newspaper that his remark was a "private joke amongst friends."

He said: "My comment was a private joke amongst friends and should not be read or interpreted at face value."

Oxford University Dean Dr Michael Monoyios said he was 'investigating the matter thoroughly and fairly" but despite this the leaked emails have prompted outrage. One undergraduate said:

“I find it abhorrent not only that these individuals found it appropriate to circulate such a list, but also that the issue was dismissed offhand with no explanation or apology from the involved parties."

Ann Widdecombe, who attended the college herself, condemned the student exchange, saying such a "fit list" objectified women.

Past members of the college also included Nigella Lawson, Education Secretary Michael Gove, and Tony Blair's son Nicky.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK UNIVERSITIES & EDUCATION

Oxford University undergraduates that joked about luring a "fit list" of female freshers to a party "with no witnesses" are being investigated after the email chain was leaked to a student paper. ...
Oxford University undergraduates that joked about luring a "fit list" of female freshers to a party "with no witnesses" are being investigated after the email chain was leaked to a student paper. ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 11
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
stevesheff
11:40 PM on 12/12/2011
Despite claims that this story will do untold damage to the college, the fact that the comments on this page are mostly from LMH undergraduates says everything. NO-ONE CARES about your juvenile behaviour - most boys have outgrown by the time they leave their comprehensive schools. On a positive note, you're to be congratulated on the standard of grammar and punctuation.
11:28 PM on 12/08/2011
In reference to my comments below, may I state that the original offenders were in fact, the Oxford Student newspaper, and not the Cherwell.

http://oxfordstudent.com/2011/11/24/anger-over-lmh-fit-list/

The Cherwell have since piled on in characteristic fashion, however.
10:07 PM on 12/08/2011
PART 1 of 4

I am currently an undergraduate at Lady Margaret Hall and I am sickened and dismayed by the farce surrounding this story, as well as the collateral damage to our College and the University.

Here is some context, for those readers who do not prefer to be spoon-fed yet another piece of Oxford-bashing drivel.

Not too long ago a story appeared in a student newspaper, the Cherwell (known for its frequently fact-free "reporting") containing outlandish claims about a so-called "fit-list".

It indicted male members of the college on trumped up charges of misogyny, whilst providing no transcript of the offending conversation. It seems a few anonymous quotes from those with an axe to grind are enough to convict young men in the court of public opinion, or at least in the eyes of an amateurish Editorial team.

I am no lawyer, but I thought the article did enough reputational damage to merit a libel claim. I sincerely hope the individuals targeted have considered a legal remedy.

(However, they should have taken this ridiculous and spiteful charade more seriously, before it escalated. The reputational damage has now been magnified many times.)

I presume that the same individuals who shopped the story to the gutter press are those that proceeded to deliver a photocopy of the offending conversation to every undergraduate in the college, as part of what seems to be a poorly disguised smear campaign against George Barnes in particular.
10:07 PM on 12/08/2011
PART 2 of 4

The overwhelming number of people who read the email conversation thread, which may or may not have been doctored, realised that the conversation in no way approximated the male chauvinist rant that is being whined about by rags like the Cherwell, and pseudo-broadsheets the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail.

I have since disposed of the copy mailed to me, but its contents were along the lines of: which young fresher ladies should we invite on a crew date? (Essentially, a crew date is a sometimes rowdy meal/drinks, often organised between college sports-teams) Other men mailed on the list then proceeded to offer names of female freshers they would like to invite, implicitly, it seemed, based on those they had met before during "fresher's week". As far as I could tell, at no point was the physical appearance of any young lady openly discussed on this private email thread, although you might read that between the lines. George Barnes did agree that one lady should not be invited on the basis that she was "proper dull". Poor syntax, but certainly not a statement relating to her appearance, rather her personality, in his opinion. One distasteful, though in context clearly sardonic, comment was made about being left in a room, alone with one particular fresher. I clearly remember that, according to the copy of the email thread I viewed, this comment was not made by George Barnes.
10:07 PM on 12/08/2011
PART 3 of 4

Whether readers like it or not, this type of conversation is openly had every day among groups of men (and women), across the University, across the country, and around the world. In fact, many of my female friends were most shocked by how tame the contents of the conversation appeared to be.

To my mind the real questions readers should ask are:

(1) Who are the anonymous individuals driving this process of faux-outrage (not to mention faux-feminism)? Why do they continue to provide anonymous, sensationalist quotes to the gutter press?

(2) Why do they care so little for the reputation of our college? They seem content to drag our college and the University through the mud by insinuation and slander in the pursuit of, it appears, personal vendettas. Lady Margaret Hall has played a key part in the venerable history of female emancipation in Britain. They see fit to tarnish that reputation through cowardice and pettiness.

(3) When will the hacks at the Cherwell realise that they are feeding a destructive cycle of Oxford-bashing among online tabloids like the Daily Mail and Telegraph? In their attempts to ingratiate themselves with these unscrupulous publications they make a mockery of the concept of journalistic integrity. They should be ashamed by the damage wrought by their opportunism. These stories feed wildly inaccurate stereotypes about the University and its students.
10:06 PM on 12/08/2011
PART 4 of 4

(4) Why are publications like the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph so eager to seize upon and exaggerate the transgressions of an unrepresentative minority of Oxford students? We are continually the target for pathetic and malicious articles designed to tarnish the reputation of the University. The apparent appetite for this tabloid gossip is one of the reasons why I refuse to comment on the websites of these publications.

(5) Why do I care? I care because I am a proud member of Lady Margaret Hall, and I am keenly aware of the ongoing struggles of oppressed women around the world today, especially in the Middle East. This kind of self-interested posturing is not only offensive to those who really struggle in the pursuit of female liberation, but also to the other members of the college, who are sick and tired of ignorant press attacks on an institution that, with all its imperfections, they hold very dear.
12:53 AM on 12/09/2011
part 1
I agree with your point about the eagerness of tabloids to pick up on stories about oxbridge students misbehaving in an attempt to fuel stereotypes and prejudices about the kind of people that attend these institutions. However, I find your argument that the 'self interested posturing' of certain individuals is 'offensive' to' the ongoing struggles of oppressed women around the world today, especially in the Middle East' itself rather offensive..
It's easy to talk about women who are oppressed in so visible and obvious a sense, but it is simply not an argument to say 'ignore whatever is going on here! in the middle east women have it much worse so you can't complain'. In attempting to sound feminist , you are actually being rather underhand. Your opinion is symptomatic of an attitude that thinks that feminism is no longer necessary and there are no more problems for women in the west, that those with opinions are 'faux-feminists' (think that term may be more applicable to yourself) ... this is simply not true.
Anyway, men and women are always going to discuss each other in terms of physical appearance, but the boys made a mistake in committing their opinions to writing and making them publicly available. They were also clearly not very discreet about it..
09:46 AM on 12/09/2011
PART A

First of all, I am glad that you engaged with my argument. We both agree that the involvement of national media is unhelpful.

Secondly, to clarify the facts. I do not believe that the email thread was 'publicly available'. It appeared to be a set of private comments, which have since been made public. I don't believe the men involved were that foolish.

Thirdly, I am not ignoring what went on. I think the tone was unsavoury, but I would not be outlandish enough to deny ever passing similarly superficial judgement among friends (male and female).

When you say that "the boys made a mistake in committing their opinions to writing" you seem to acknowledge that their comments are not particularly eye-brow raising. I fail to see how I view the comments as any more "meaningless" than you do? I am merely asking, why so much overkill?

The claims of faux-feminism are backed up by the bandying about of the word "misogyny" so regularly by anonymous individuals keen to provide scathing quotes to the gutter press.

It gives me the distinct sense that they have no idea what the word "misogyny" even means, and that they do not want to be associated with their own comments.
09:47 AM on 12/09/2011
PART B

Considering that the original claims were based on complete rumour, and have now caused serious harm to the reputation of particular individuals, I believe that their 'underhand' efforts were heavily disproportionate to the concerns raised. A concern with what were originally believed to be seriously unseemly discussions involving members of the JCR, when not backed up by hard evidence, were escalated to the level of character assassination. This disproportionality is what I believe is offensive when placed against the struggles of sincere feminists across the world.

If you think that I have attempted to 'ignore' this episode, then you would perhaps be correct in labelling my opinion 'symptomatic of an attitude that thinks that feminism is no longer necessary'. But I haven't ignored it, and I don't think that. I am merely unhappy at the way that feminism is being used as a shield for what appear to be personal, and very bitter attacks. It rings hollow, and it won't change the nature of conversations which you accept are virtually inevitable.
12:55 AM on 12/09/2011
part 2
The fact that one of them was JCR president and another also on the exec makes it worse - they are in positions of responsibility and have a duty to represent the college in the best possible light.. participating in compiling lists like these is not the right way to do that. It's clear that it was a list of girls deemed attractive, for obvious reasons. I find the idea of 2nd year boys crew dating fresher girls unpleasant to begin with, it has never happened in previous years at LMH and it seems predatory, if they really wanted to have a friendly mixer it could have included both sexes from each year..
This email thread continues a distasteful tradition at LMH that requires boys in initiations and even hustings, with most of the JCR as audience, to name a girl in college who they think is the 'fittest'. Why should girls be made to feel so conscious of their appearances and their attractiveness in the eyes of their male counterparts? Why should they feel constantly judged and assessed? I think the emails were inappropriate and it was enough that the boys understood where many people in college stood on the issue, the dean had already voiced his disapproval.
I do think it is ridiculous that this story made national newspapers although it was perhaps inevitable that the student newspapers picked up on it. However, don't be so quick to dismiss the exchange itself as meaningless...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mjredder
12:11 PM on 12/08/2011
"Crew date", is that some kind of code for gang rape?