It would be wonderful if we could, just once, have a conversation about something happening outside the US without bringing in US culture war talking points.
The current president of a verbal debate club representing Oxford cheering political violence against someone he just debated is actually quite relevant.
The society leaders decided it’s okay for him to do that because of racism based on their most recent response.
As somebody that's not from the UK and not from the US, knowing this guy cheered the murder of Charlie Kirk gives me a strong hint about the kind of person it's being talked about.
So yes, in that sense it's an useful piece of information.
> gives me a strong hint about the kind of person it's being talked about.
There was no person being talked about, though. This is a discussion about Oxford's university ranking. The GP brought up a person entirely irrelevant to that discussion and informed us of his views on a topic that's also irrelevant to the discussion.
My objection was not the student in question being mentioned. It was why he was mentioned: his views on Charlie Kirk, a US culture war topic that has nothing to do with the discussion and nothing to do with the student’s admission grades.
Oxfords name is currently being trashed globally because of this though. It sucks, but it must be dealt with. Celebrating violence against free speech doesn’t make sense for Oxford’s name to stand behind.
Given the violence Kirk paved the way and how he shrugged off gun related deaths as necessary evil for the 2nd amendment, I see no great difference in unsympathetic behavior of both.
Publicly cheering Kirk's murder is what made Abaraonye notable. I provided a citation for the ABB grades, which is relevant to the comment I replied to.
> I provided a citation for the ABB grades, which is relevant to the comment I replied to.
An extremely tenuous connection. Abaraonye (and even less his words on Kirk) had absolutely no relevance to the criteria by which the Times assesses universities, thus had no impact on Oxfords placement, thus has no relevance to the conversation.
> To get in, you need 4 A* from an independent schools, or just 3 As from state schools.
In reply, I provided a recently prominent example of someone recently admitted to Oxford with lower than 3 A grades on the A-Levels. I only mentioned Kirk's murder as context because, as I keep repeating, the person a) only became prominent because b) he publicly cheered said murder c) after debating Kirk in person. I don't know what else you can ask for here.
Perhaps a demonstration of any kind of connection between his grades and his views on Kirk? The implication in what you're saying is that an ABB student is saying bad things than a 4 A* student would never say. I'd love to see anything backing that up. There are plenty of ABB students who said nothing of that nature and I'd wager you could find 4 A* students (albeit with a lower profile) who did.
Absent that connection it just looks very much like you're using the person's grades as a tenuous excuse to bring them up.
I believe you're being purposefully dense here. I get it, and probably do the same sometimes, but the connection is pretty obvious: someone gets in (allegedly) due to ideological fit instead of merit, and then becomes one of the most prominent voices for that ideology at the campus. It shows "wokism" has finally solved the reproduction crisis, and for people opposed to certain aspects (like affirmative action), that's pretty worrying.
Anyone logical knows it’s relevant, but people putting their head in the sand about the most significant political assassination in over 50 years isn’t a surprise.
Where is his reaction different to Kirk‘s statement that some gun deaths are a necessary evil for the „god given right“ of the 2nd amendment? Both seem to have lost basic human empathy.
Shall we ask the parents of the victims of the school shootings?
BTW why is a god given right not mentioned in the bible?
> To the one who is victorious and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations—that one 'will rule them with an iron scepter and will dash them to pieces like pottery'—just as I have received authority from my Father. (Revelation 2:26–27)
Any good Sanctuarian[^1] would know this refers to the AR-15, and Americans' right to bear arms.
Sometimes colleges make deliberately easy offers for students they like, or they later accept students who did not meet the criteria that were set (if you set offers such that fewer students pass than you have places for, it is much easier to control class sizes – look at the chaos with Covid grade inflation). So I think it’s wrong to assume that the offer made to someone being high is a particularly strong signal for how clever they are.
Clearly this PPE student has some talent for politics to be elected president of one of the more prestigious societies, so it seems right for him to have been given a place.