By Joe Rukin
Oxford University Students Union president, Will Straw, has hit back with claims of media misrepresentation from the BBC & Educationet, when both reported that he supported a graduate tax which 'goes on forever'. Son of the Foreign Secretary, Straw has become the most high-profile student in the country as far as the national media is concerned, and on the day of the national demonstration was accepted by them as the voice of students. The claims of misrepresentation surround a letter to their vice chancellor in response to his article in the Gazette, in which Straw said;
"A graduate tax is therefore a much more suitable way to ask for an individual contribution as it is based on earnings and not potential earnings or parent's means,"
These comments, contained in three paragraphs which graduate tax seemed to be endorsed in, were taken as a personal support for graduate tax over other options by both educationet and the BBC, who reported in Students warm to graduate tax
"This could signal grounds for an agreement between student leaders and the government after the controversy over the possible introduction of top-up fees. And it could suggest the emergence of a consensus over student fees, in advance of next month's announcement of the government's review into higher education funding."
However Will claims this was unfair, telling educationet;
'Your quote of my response to Oxford's VC failed to include the crucial last sentence which outlines OUSU's position: "Nonetheless we believe on a point of principle that the state should solely fund Higher Education as part of the welfare state through progressive taxation or non-welfare state spending cuts."'
He went further;
"You also tell a straightforward lie by suggesting that I want "a separate tax for graduates which will go on for their whole life" - when have I ever said that?"
Currently there are two proposals for a graduate tax system. Firstly is the 'endowment' system as used in Scotland which asks for repayment of a fixed fee through the tax system, Secondly is a flat rate tax which graduates will pay forever. Even under the first system there will be graduates who will either through age on graduation or a lifetime of low income mean that those debts never go away. In his response to the VC he states two options for student funding;"There are other systems that include an individual contribution but avoid the access problems. Progressive taxation and the graduate tax (although not a graduate repayment scheme) are two such examples."
Previously, Straw complained to the Oxford Student that he had not made comments about Ultra-Vires law as they had reported at a meeting in St. Hilda's College JCR and the accusations of him "not supporting the Chair in third week Council when he attempted to dismiss somebody for disruptive behaviour." A week later he admitted that he had made a statement outside of union policy; "campaigning against ultra vires laws is fruitless", saying that his statements at St. Hilda's were taken out of context and did not reflect his own opinion.
Both the letter of complaint and the original reply to the Oxford VC appear below, after news of another complaint!
Imran Khan, former president at Birkbeck College has hit back saying he was unfairly hounded out last month and that what was reported as 'blatant electioneering' by those behind his downfall was merely him filling his manifesto promises.
"The truth of the matter is that I was elected by almost two thirds of the vote
When I campaigned in the election, I made it clear in my manifesto that I attend NUS National conference and Black students conferences and I believe in it's tone made it clear
that I consider involvement in NUS democracy to be of great value to students in terms of representation at a national level. Others within the union decided to have a union council meeting on the day of national council and refused to move it by one day, and refused to allow me to go to Black students conference because they felt the union could
not afford one delegate to go. This decision was only overturned after I approached the registrar of the university, who agreed with me that it was extremely important to attend. Union Council has said to me on many occasions that they felt NUS was not something Birkbeck students should get too involved in."
"Your article
refers to 'blatant electioneering'. This is simply not
the case. I have been involved with NUS national
council because I think that it is one more mechanism
by which mature student representation can be
increased. And I think you will well appreciate that
membership of national council does not really
increase your opportunity to take up a national
position. Anyone who has been to national council will
know that hardly any of them have the profile needed
to become a national officer. In addition, my
council's suggestion that these activities take up so
much of my time that I neglected Birkbeck students is
ridiculous. National council is a one day event. These
are my honest opinions and I believe that you readers
will see these claims for what they are. The EGM
which removed me was held at 21.00 hrs made it
inconvenient for many people to attend, it was only
just quorate. I will stand for President again in a couple of weeks
time and allow the students to make up their own
minds."
Letter to educationet from Will Straw
Dear Joe,
I was a bit disappointed that you chose to misrepresent me in the same way that the BBC did. Your quote of my response to Oxford's VC failed to include the crucial last sentence which outlines OUSU's position: "Nonetheless we believe on a point of principle that the state should solely fund Higher Education as part of the welfare state through progressive taxation or non-welfare state spending cuts." You also tell a straightforward lie by suggesting that I want "a separate tax for graduates which will go on for their whole life" - when have I ever said that?
Instead of trying to create factions within the student movement we would all do better to concentrate our energies on the next battle - avoiding a Graduate Repayment Scheme, which would allow differential fees to be deferred, would damage access in the same way as up front top-up fees and would also discriminate against graduates who go into low paid jobs.
Of course, I am opposed a graduate tax precisely because it makes students pay twice. However, I believe that a lot of the literature on the issue has failed to differentiate between a graduate tax and a graduate repayment scheme. Given the popularity of a graduate tax with many in the media this has made our job far more difficult. It is for this reason alone that I am trying to draw a distinction between two different forms of graduate repayment and publicly attacking the more damaging of the two.
If I say that losing 5-0 is preferable to losing 10-0 that does mean that I want to lose 5-0. Oxford students are resolute in their support for Higher Education funded out of the welfare state. That is what I want. Not a graduate tax or any other hybrid system - but I will continue to point out the differing flaws of differing policies.
Yours sincerely,
Will Straw
OUSU, Letter to Vice Chancellor in response to his article in the Gazette
Dear Vice Chancellor,
We share your concern about the under funding of higher education. It is critical, and it threatens the quality of the student experience. The status quo is not an option. We are well aware that the University can only reduce expenditure to a certain extent without damaging teaching and research. But there are a few points in your Gazette article (Thursday, 21 November 2002) that concern us.
You contend that the extension of fees is likely to have a cap. We cannot but fear that one extension of fees will lead to another, and that any extension of the current tuition fee will lead the way to fees of the size "bandied around the press".
As you point out, the key issue with up front fees is their effect on access. We all believe that access to this University should be based on merit and not on any consideration of cost. You assure us that "There is no reason to suppose that Oxford would modify that position." However, we simply cannot see how the bursary schemes in place, even if they were extended, could actually ensure we continue to have an entirely meritocratic system. A means-blind application process would be necessary if top up fees were introduced, but would Oxford really be able to pay for all those who could not afford it? We admit that those who are both poor and very bright would, in all likelihood, have their tuition paid for. However, the problem would arise for the bulk of students who are not from the lowest income bracket but would still struggle financially. These "grey area" students would be in serious difficulties and if the University cannot pay for their tuition, those who are richer - but less intelligent - would fill the gap. This undermines the principles on which this University is founded.
There has been much talk about the excellence of the American system recently. Our knowledge of this is limited, but it seems to us that although the American universities are excellent at research, to suggest that their student intake is entirely meritocratic is ludicrous. The Ivy League, despite having a much greater endowment from which to provide bursaries, is elitist. The proportion of applications from the lowest socio-economic groups and from people from Afro-Caribbean or Hispanic backgrounds is pitiful.
The mere existence of fees does deter people from applying to university for even with Bursary schemes in place they act as a perceived financial barrier. There is no need to introduce top up fees to observe this effect as we are already seeing this with tuition fees. The number of applicants from the lowest income brackets has dropped by 9.5 per cent since the introduction of tuition fees in 1998. You contend that it is the responsibility of the government and the universities to campaign for a better understanding. But you may agree with us that this is very hard to combat, and higher fees are likely to have side effects on access that we cannot entirely counteract. The idea that Higher Education is an investment in the future is a very middle class notion. Studies suggest that those from the lowest socio-economic groups are both the most risk averse - and therefore unlikely to want to incur debt - and have access to the least perfect information. A university or Government campaign cannot teach delayed gratification.
There are other systems that include an individual contribution but avoid the access problems. Progressive taxation and the graduate tax (although not a graduate repayment scheme) are two such examples. You argue in favour of the graduate tax by saying that "deferring payment by individuals until they have adequate income to support it and calibrating payment to a level that indicates the real financial benefit of university education to each individual." There is a further point in their favour. Contribution through a graduate tax is based entirely on the individual's income, not on their parental income or potential income. One of the greatest difficulties with (means tested) fees is that parents may well have the income to support their children, but may not have the desire to do so. To evaluate a young adult on his/her parent's income is to encounter a whole host of difficulties that have to do, amongst other things, with whether the family thinks Higher Education is worthwhile. The DfES Income and Expenditure Survey shows that one in five students' parents do not pay what they are assessed to pay. These students have to fund their own fees and living costs. A graduate tax would eliminate these problems.
You present two arguments against the graduate tax. Firstly, you suggest that "The lead time for realistic income form a graduate tax is long and therefore universities would essentially be asking for a direct increased allocation now against deferred income to the public purse." That is not necessarily the only solution. Another possible solution would be to involve an insurance company in the initial outlays. In other words, a third party would take on the risk related to the future income of graduates. There are ways to get around the lead-time on a graduate tax. Secondly, you say that "one hypothecated tax validates others. It therefore undermines the principle of general taxation and presages an impossible fragmentation of the tax regime." However, very few goods provided by the state have the problematic mix of private and social returns that makes the funding of higher education particularly difficult. Arguably, a contribution system like that of the graduate tax is not applicable to any other state provided good.
You also suggest at the end of your article that a number of combinations are possible, and as an example: "a premium of up-front payment against a more expensive option of deferred payment." This epitomises the very problem with up front fees - it gives an advantage to those whose parents have the money to pay for university tuition, forcing those who cannot pay to incur a greater debt later. The Government has made it clear that students and/or their parents must make some contribution to the cost of Higher Education. At a time when only these options are being considered, it is our responsibility to make a case for that which we think is best for students and for this University. A graduate tax is therefore a much more suitable way to ask for an individual contribution as it is based on earnings and not potential earnings or parent's means. Nonetheless we believe on a point of principle that the state should solely fund Higher Education as part of the welfare state through progressive taxation or non-welfare state spending cuts.
Yours sincerely,
Helena Puig Larrauri, Co-Chair
Will Straw, President
BBC, Students warm to graduate tax
Educationet, NUS demo report and funding update
Oxford Student, Straw 'disgusting' says Ali
