“The whiteboard comments were individual to each person and related to their personal experience of Oxford’s inclusivity. This of course leads to a wider discussion of access for all types of minorities at Oxford.“We are simply painting a more balanced picture of the university and highlighting to people that it is ignorant individuals, and not the University of Oxford, that expresses these views.“We all stand by our response and really hope that people will take the time to read the explanation at the beginning of our Tumblr page as we feel this accurately expresses our intentions.”Chiara Giovanni, who was involved in the “I, Too, Am Oxford” campaign, said, “While I thoguht it was funny, well-timed and aptly named, I think a quick explanation of why WAAO is silencing, hurtful and belittling to the PoC who took part in the original project would have been useful. It’s a shame tha this isn’t immediately obvious but clearly it’s necessary to explain that (a) parrotting access expenditure does not equate to dedicated combatting of institutional racism while students are here and (b) white people telling the PoC who participated that they, in effect, should sit downa nd stop worrying because everything’s dine and ‘diversity’ is being celebrated.”“Some of the comments were irrelevant, but I do think that the fact this exists, along with the huge backlash to WAAO on Tiwtter at #wearealloxford demosntrates how hurtful and insulting this project is, and how it’s actually having a terrible impact on the University’s image (the opposite than intended!), which ought to be taken very seriously.”Many have reacted negatively to “We Are All Oxford” on Twitter. One tweet reads, “Oxford University outreach spend: £5.6 million. Oxford University annual endowment: £3.8 billion #wearealloxford”. Another reads, “#wearealloxford is exactly why #ITooAmOxford is needed. I cannot believe that @ousunews thought it was a good idea. Really sad.”However, others have defended the campaign. A recent tweet reads, “#wearealloxford has been woefully misunderstood. Its ONLY argument is that the original campaign is unrepresentative. Not denying it.” A new Tumblr account purporting to be, “A concise description of what’s wrong with “We Are All Oxford” has added to the controversy surrounding the “I, Too, Am Oxford” compaign.“We Are All Awful”, published earlier today, posts pictures from “We Are All Oxford” alongside captions that mock the original content.In one post, a “troll” face is superimposed onto that of a woman holding the sign, “We enjoyed celebrating diversity at the OUSU International Fair”, alongisde the caption, “This white person who ‘enjoys’ celebrating ‘diversity’”.Other features, including the fact that one person appears twice in “We Are All Oxford”, holding a different sign in each picture, are also mocked.“We Are All Oxford” was published earlier this week by Alexandra Jaye Wilson in protest on what it considered an unfair representation of the treatment of race in the university by the “I, Too, Am Oxford” campaign.She commented, “We are appalled that someone has reduced the efforts of our response to a patronising and immature parody blog. We have emphasised repeatedly that we have no intention to undermine the original campaign as it raises very important issues about people’s prejudices and misguided perceptions, which need to be challenged!“It seems as though the social media reaction is claiming that we are saying that racism does not exist, which is not the case at all. We are not naive and we are horrified that people think we are trying to suggest that these negative experiences do not matter, as many of us have faced them ourselves.“In addition to this, there has been a lot of criticism about white people featuring in the campaign. We think it is extremely important that everyone has an opportunity to express their opinion and people who are white should not feel that they are excluded from this discussion. For clarification some of the white people pictured are not White British and are in fact ethnic minorities.
The government’s baseline scenario is for economic growth to reach 2.3 percent this year with 2.9 million people losing their jobs. Under a worst-case scenario, however, the government believes the economy could contract by 0.4 percent while 5 million people lose their jobs.“With this kind of crisis, the government must share the burden,” said Febrio, who was previously macroeconomy and trade research head at the University of Indonesia’s Institute for Economic and Social Research (LPEM-UI) before his BKF appointment early this month.He called on banks and businesses to take aggressive action by rolling out funds to combat the meltdown.The government expects the pandemic to peak in the second quarter of this year, with economic growth contracting. Meanwhile, first quarter gross domestic product (GDP) growth is projected at 1.1 percent, he added. “This projection may be wrong if the pandemic lasts longer,” Febrio said. “We will try to contain the virus and lessen the impact but the burden must be shared because the government will not be able to do this alone.”The government has set aside Rp 436.1 trillion for the stimulus, equivalent to 2.5 percent of the country’s GDP, for healthcare spending, social safety nets and business recovery programs so far focusing on manufacturing and tourism.The government will set aside Rp 150 trillion from the stimulus package to support small and medium firms affected by the COVID-19. Febrio did not provide further details as the government was currently formulating the stimulus.The government will also grant larger tax breaks to cover 11 business sectors similar to the incentives designed to allow manufacturing companies to weather the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, including individual income tax exemptions, import tax deferrals and 30 percent corporate tax discounts.The 11 sectors are food, trade, electricity, oil and gas, mining and coal, forestry, tourism and the creative economy, telecommunications, logistics, transportation and construction, Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati said on Friday.“From an economic standpoint, the COVID-19 shock could damage businesses and cause widespread bankruptcies,” Sri Mulyani said. “We are trying to focus our stimulus to lessen the COVID-19 economic shock on citizens.”Meanwhile, chief economist at private lender Bank Central Asia (BCA) David Sumual said the government’s stimulus package was relatively small compared with other countries including neighboring Singapore and Malaysia, with stimulus packages reaching 12 percent and 17 percent of GDP, respectively.“We are hoping that the government can provide greater stimulus packages for small businesses and low-income households,” David told reporters during the same press briefing. “However, the government’s stimulus needs to be welcomed despite limited fiscal power.”Topics : The Finance Ministry’s fiscal policy agency (BKF) has voiced concerns that the government’s Rp 436.1 trillion (US$28.14 billion) stimulus may be insufficient to prevent economic meltdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.BKF head Febrio Nathan Kacaribu said on Monday that the government was considering whether to boost its stimulus spending as the existing stimulus packages may not be enough to counter the severe economic impacts of the pandemic.“We have doubts that the stimulus packages will be enough,” Febrio told reporters during a teleconferenced press briefing. “The government will anticipate this because there are some discouraging signs.”