Sweet girl graduates Sir: Yet another round of rhetoric (Letters,
30 May) from my persecutors! (Surely some of your readers must agree with me?) As Mr Wilde was mostly preoccupied with justifying his rather petty criticisms of an incidental comment, which I made in par- enthesis some five weeks ago, I will not waste your space with a reply.
Mr Geoffrey May, however, suggests that I spent too long thinking about my choice of vocabulary—a fault of which he is quite obviously not guilty. He then sounds the clarion call of relevance, dis- misses Plato's Republic in half a sentence, and offers his own considered opinion: 'Whilst in some sectors co-education would be most unwise, it is often very beneficial.' What penetrating analysis! But then, alas, he shirks the issue; he declines to offer a universal solution, but still prides himself on having pointed out my 'total lack of appreciation for the problem.' Surely such argument is unworthy of even an Oxford undergraduate?
I am not advocating universal co-educa- tion. I have simply suggested that some Oxbridge colleges would benefit from such an innovation.
The sixth former could then apply to a mixed or single-sexed college according to his preferences. As for Mr May's refer- ence to the taxpayer's concern for student morals, may I quote to him the one intelli- gent comment in Mr Wilde's letter: 'Men and women will sleep together whatever anyone says about it; that is the one in- eluctable fact in all this genial diversion.' In other words co-education will not rad- ically affect student morality.
Perhaps my two assailants would care to fight this out amongst themselves?
Previous page
