“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.
Denmark’s LD pension fund reported an investment return of 8.7% for 2014, and said strong returns on Danish shares and US investments in general had pushed profits higher.The return compares with 8.8% for the previous year.LD director Dorrit Vanglo said: “This is a really good result that we are very pleased with — seen both in the light of modest growth in the economy and the very low level of inflation.”While rising prices on the Danish equities market helped drive overall investment returns higher, the fall in interest rates over the year had increased profits on both general bonds and corporate bonds, LD said. “We have had positive returns in all funds, and when we look outside the country’s borders, it was particularly investments in the US that gave good results,” said Vanglo.She predicted that it would be the US that pulled the world economy forward in 2015 as well.At the same time, the stronger dollar meant goods produced in Europe would be relatively cheaper, thus making European business more competitive, she said.Assets under management rose by DKK1.2bn (€161m) in 2014 to end the year at DKK54.6bn, after payments made to members of DKK2.5bn.LD is a non-contributory pension scheme based on cost-of-living allowances granted to workers in 1980, and as such it receives no new contribution inflows.Vanglo said LD’s costs were being kept to an absolute minimum.“There are just 15 staff at LD and we have tight control over our suppliers, under which costs fall when overall assets and the number of members fall,” she said.For more on LD’s investment startegy, see investment editor Martin Steward’s interview with Dorrit Vanglo