Defending Damien Shannon, continued.

I missed this post at Practical Ethics the other week. Owen Schaefer offers an equally committed but much more thorough defence of Damien’s decision to sue St. Hugh’s than I did:

The requirement is not only imprudent but unfair insofar as it ends up excluding some students of lesser means, and imposing unfair burdens on others. Shannon’s case is a good example of someone so excluded. An unfunded master’s degree is already unfortunately exclusionary. But given that fact, the university should do its utmost to minimize further exclusionary factors. The excessive living expenses are one such factor – it only allows students willing and able to support a more abundant lifestyle to study at Oxford. This is not to say that there should be no requirement for living expenses, but there is at least a strong prima facie case for it being much lower.

Damien emailed me yesterday saying that the hearing is on Friday, so we will know if this thing is going forward soon. I have no doubts that justice is on his side. I’m in no position to judge whether the law is too. But the law at least ought to reflect what is just, so all we can do now is hope that it does.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s