A group of York students has won the opportunity to have their very own I-phone application developed after winning The App Challenge final, held at the Ron Cooke Hub on Wednesday, January 18.
YUSU Welfare officer Bob Hughes has warned students to be vigilant after a student loans phishing scam has been revealed.
Her Majesty the Queen will be visiting York on Maundy Thursday, 5th April, as part of the 800th anniversary of York’s Charter for the traditional “Royal Maundy” ceremony.
A flood caused by a heating system “failure” forced the university IT services to shut down many essential systems on Sunday night, causing problems for many students on the eve of their exams and assignment due-dates.
The article, posted on Friday 13th February, reported that harassment advisor for students Andrew Collingwood posted photographs taken of a protest in York criticising the war in Gaza.
The photograph in question was a placard of Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni, wearing a witch’s hat and holding a wand with the Star of David on top. Livni is saying "Anti-Semitic! Anti-Semitic! Anti-Semitic!" but thinking "Oh ****! They no longer fear the magic word!"
Chair of the Jewish Society Simon Winkler commented that the picture was "Fundamentally racist and definitely perpetrating race hate". Winkler had the support of several members of his society and the rabbi for Yorkshire’s universities, Rabbi Alan Garber.
However in a letter to Nouse, which was posted on their website, Collingwood criticised the newspaper. He said he "was deeply offended and upset by the accusation that I was a racist".
He also said he "would not have posted the picture if it had occurred to me that it would cause offence" and stressed that he removed the picture as soon as it was clear it had done so.
Nouse editor Henry James Foy, who wrote the article, told The Yorker: "I am disappointed if Andrew Collingwood feels that he has been accused or made the victim of a campaign by Nouse. All statements of opinion in the article were provided by quotes from individuals or groups."
Foy added: "Mr Collingwood chose not to respond to the claims of racism, even though he was given ample opportunity to do so before the article was published. When Mr Collingwood provided Nouse with a response to these accusations, it was published immediately."
Winkler further dismissed claims that the article wasn’t fair, saying: "I feel that Nouse accurately represented the scenario. They commented on official statements and expressed no opinion for or against these claims. They simply commented on the facts."
Winkler also criticised Collingwood’s letter, adding: "Throughout his response, there is no direct apology. He does not appear genuinely apologetic for his actions."
Winkler did agree, to an extent, with one commenter on the site, who argued: "This is somebody’s career, and it should have been dealt with a little more considerately." Winkler said: "I do not feel that it has been blown out of proportion, the amount of interest from individuals shows just how emotive these pictures are. I do feel though that this case could have been dealt with in an easier way."
Several comments on the article defended Collingwood. One commenter said: "I don’t think I have ever read such a biased article."
The same commenter added that, "perhaps Winkler and Co do not get it – people are against the deplorable actions of Israel in Gaza, but this has got nothing to do with being Jewish, but Israel is very fond of pushing this line as a way of stifling debate."
Another commenter went as far as to question the legality of the article, saying: "If Mr. Collingwood is reading this, I would strongly advise him to take legal action against Nouse for this shameless libel. There’s simply no way he’d lose."
Other commenters disagreed, with one reader saying: "There might have been a valid point, but, if so, it’s counteracted by the total excess of the witch image; the specifics of the political context become less relevant."
A commenter in agreement added: "For anyone to claim that anti-semitism is a myth, or promote this view, is appalling regardless of political stance. It totally undermines the suffering of innocent Jews worldwide who have absolutely nothing to do with the situation in the Middle East."
Nouse later took the decision to close comments on the article. However in the five days comments were allowed, more than 60 readers responded. A blogger for the Daily Telegraph, Damian Thompson, also picked up on the story, posting a blog about it on the Telegraph website.
Is it not ironic that the photo that caused so much controversy and offence is now published on the Nouse and The Yorker websites, as well as in Vision's print edition today?
Interesting that JSoc aren't campaigning Nouse/Vision/The Yorker to get the offensive picture removed.
The cartoon is obviously not racist, and it is obviously political. The only thing we can tell from that story is that Nouse is nosediving in quality.
Which is hardly news really, as this by no means the first time this happens.
Something really needs to be done about this, it could have cost someone's career, and it certainly damaged his reputation. Some responsibility from our soi-disant 'journalists' is an absolute necessity in these cases.
Finally, YUSU should really think twice before it makes statements casually condemning the right to freedom of speech and political expression.
Being politically correct is one thing, stifling one's view is another.
what does soi-disant mean?
it means self-styled or self claimed. quite defamatory in the way it was used.
I love that campus reporters are not only 'soi-disant' (so-called, sself-proclaimed) journalists, but they are quote-on-quote 'journalists.' What a loaded comment. Oh how the campus media weeps at this (soi-disant?) 'attack'.
People's (my) opposition to the cartoon isn't so much its content (though I happen to think political criticisms like this hide wider prejudices against Israel/Jews). I think all religions should be able to take humour slightly better than they seem to do. This is why the debate should come away from its political nature.
Instead, people should be concerned about Collingwood's position. He is an individual that students are meant to see if they feel harassed, and thus, he has if you like, a duty to be more guarded in what he says/partakes in because of that position.
If, as a result of the cartoon and its link with Collingwood, certain minority students feel unable or uncomfortable speaking to Collingwood on an issue of harassment, then purely his position as harassment officer is untenable.
He should resign from this position because some students will inevitably feel uncomfortable seeing him- rightly or wrongly. By all means, he should retain his position in the Biology department (I think that is where it is) but his ability to conduct his duties as a harassment officer is severely compromised by this episode.
Considering he's one of about 20 advisers, no-one has to see him if they don't want to.
comment deleted by the author What a surprise; Dan Taylor campaigning for the resignation of someone who is very good at their job again!
This is nothing but another example of campus media making a moutain out of a molehill. If anything, the story should be how Henry James Foy and his team of writers can claim to have any journalistic intregrity given this story, and the way in which they have sensationalised other stories in the past year in the cause of making a name for themselves.
Andrew Collingwood posting this picture on his Facebook page does not make him a racist. From what I believe, it was one of a number of photos he posted up from a public rally that was staged recently. All he has done is post a photo of something that was at that rally. That does not mean he neccessarily agrees with what was contained within the picture. As has been previously said, The Yorker, Nouse and Vision have also re-printed this photo and haven't been accused of being racist publications.
Not only does he not necessarily agree with what was contained, he specifically said he did not, and took the picture down when people said they were offended; more than nouse or the telegraph did. Those (or that one unfortunately vocal person) calling for Andrew's resignation seem to be ignoring this.
He took a ton of photos and one of them was dubiously anti-Zionist. It was also a joke and an intelligent poster and I would have taken the same photo. Granted I never bother to upload to facebook but it shouldn't be that which defines whether I keep my job or not. That entire discussion is silly.
Dubiously anti-Zionist? It's bordering on anti-Semitic. Jason, if someone mocked the phrase 'Islamaphobia' in the same context as 'Anti-Semitism' is used in the picture, you would without doubt have a different take on the story because ultimately, this isn't about what you believe is right in this case. It's about a wider political point just as Mr. Collingwood was also trying to make.
It is simply not right that a harassment officer for the university is publishes such polarising pictures. He holds an added responsibility because of his position and he has not fulfilled that.
If ONE student feels unable to talk to him because of what has happened then his position is untenable.
To be fair Dan, why is this bordering on anti-Semitism? Is it using any racial slur? Any racial stereotypes? Any racial or even religious criticism? It doesn't. As you said yourself, it's a political point. You may agree or disagree with it, but no matter how strongly you feel about it, calling someone racist is a pretty heavy accusation. And in this case, it is based on nothing.
That person took this photo in a demonstration, and he soon deleted it after realising that it was causing some offense; how is he to blame anyway? Is it not obvious that some people are trying to get to him because of his political affiliations? Does this not qualify as an attempt to intimidate a university employee?
"If ONE student feels unable to talk to him because of what has happened then his position is untenable."
Well can you really not see the consequences of that? Simply disagreeing with someone would be enough reason to get him fired. Which is what is really attempted here.
#12: "If ONE student feels unable to talk to him because of what has happened then his position is untenable."
You could apply that argument to virtually anybody if you knew enough about them and their past. Its impossible to please everybody.
Anyone can ask for another person in his position if they feel that he isn't appropriate for them. If ONE student feels that they CAN talk to him then that makes it worth keeping him since it enables him to keep doing his job.
Anyway, the comic is saying that people just spout anti-Semitic at the drop of a hat and the irony is that you are calling the poster anti-Semitic. Are you not aware of how stupid that is? THINK.
Jason, you claim that the criticisms of this poster are ironic. Is it not ironic that a harassment officer, is intimidating others.
Intimidating others by having a perfectly legitimate political opinion? Isn't that their fault?
Jason, that is absolute nonsense. How could his position be tenable if only one person found him suitable? So if the 9999 found him completely unsuitable, but one person thinks he is fine in his position, then he should be kept on? For someone that likes to lord his supposed intelligence, it is a bit ironic that you throw the word "THINK" around when you are, once more, dead wrong.
Additionally, are you dense? Are you actually dense? The poster does not show "people" just spout anti-Semitic, it is one targeted religious group of people, stereotyped in the poster. Whether he meant to offend, or if he withdrew the picture, the poster was in poor taste. Don't run your mouth calling people stupid quite so quickly.
Actually, that's a bit ironic. I've called Jason dense and said people shouldn't be called stupid quite so quickly.
I think it's more ironic that a harassment adviser basically said in his letter to Nouse that he was being harassed for his involvement in the Palestinian campaign.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report