The professor, his testicles and how to pay for them

You might not know it, but professors are beggars. Every academic at every university is constantly embroiled in a not very pretty scrap for a limited amount of funding. Applications for grants are an incessant, but horribly necessary, hurdle for academics to overcome.

So how do they decide who gets the dosh? It's not a case of names in a hat, but rather a very complicated system of 'peer-review'. A professor's proposal must be vetted by his or her colleagues as to its merit.

The problem is that this process has become a bit of a back-slapping fest and standards aren't as watertight as before. This means that, with everyone having such sparkling reviews, getting funding – a bit like getting into good universities – has become as much down to luck as anything else.

But Sheffield's Prof. Tim Birkhead has a solution. Writing in the THES, Prof. Birkhead suggested that rather than relying on the peer review and the individual merits of the proposal, funding should be based on previous performance.

Prof. Birkhead's logic seems sound. If a researcher has struck academic gold before, he's likely to do so again. However, the problem with this thinking is fundamental: it stifles the new and original.

Under such a system, academics such as Prof. Birkhead, who has had a long, distinguished career (including the quite fantastic 'Testes size in birds: quality vs quantity'), would waltz off with vast amounts of swag from research councils – but the twenty-something post-doc with a big idea would be left skint.

Just because a researcher has been successful, this doesn't necessarily make his or her research worthy of cash. Research councils must continue to give funding on the merit of the proposal, less they become 'old-boys' networks and blinkered to new ideas.

But, think about it, Professor. If you had not received a break when you were younger the world would know far less about birds' testes – and we would all be poorer for it.

Yanks and students

Ask any student on campus what they like about the USA and they'll generally give you a blank look before saying "The Simpsons". Ask them what they hate and you'll probably get covered in a mixture of rhetoric and spittle as they launch into a raging list of all that is wrong with the USA: Bush, McDonalds, Iraq, fat people, pollution, Guantanamo Bay and Bush (again).

Hating America is definitely in vogue right now - whether it's a beardy terrorist flying a jet plane into a tower, or a beardy leftie holding forth on all that is wrong with our neighbour across the pond, people are queuing up to bash Uncle Sam.

Some may think that this criticism is fair - that it is the consequence of imperialist American behaviour - others may not. It's not a clear issue. What is clear, however, is that criticism of the USA can easily, and often does, deteriorate into xenophobia and borderline racism. Even here at Sheffield, American students are picked on simply because of their nationality.

Sheffield Steel asked Aditya Balachander, vice-president of the American Society, about this problem. "I know British people who say 'I just can't make friends with Americans. I mean they're just so ignorant, small minded and boorish'. I know American kids who stay in their rooms all the time, afraid to leave. They call back home 'Mum, these people hate me, I want to go home.'"

"There is a sort of snobbery: a view that all Americans are uneducated hicks; that somehow they must be civilised. It used to be the white man's burden; now it's the European man's burden to civilise those stupid rednecks in America."

An example of this attitude is provided by a 2004 campaign by The Guardian, whereby the newspaper implored its readers to write to residents of Clark County, Ohio – a crucial swing state in the 2004 US election – urging them not to vote for Bush. The recipients of the letters did not take kindly to this. (Sample response: "KEEP YOUR FUCKIN' LIMEY HANDS OFF OUR ELECTION. HEY, SHITHEADS, REMEMBER THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR?")

"You guys don't really understand our country," continued Aditya. "English people think Republican is bad, Democrat is good. But there are far worse leaders [than Bush] around the world, right now, who are making things far worse for the majorities of their populations."

And it's true. People are quick to criticise Bush, calling him a mass-murdering, war-monger, while Kim Jong-Il of North Korea is seen as a harmless joke, despite causing massive famine in his country. Robert Mugabe has managed to starve what was once one of Africa's most prosperous nations to its knees, and yet receives less ire from the student body than Bush. Is this fair? More importantly, is this right?

Along with this double standard, often there is a shocking level of ambivalence amongst students when talking about American tragedies. Aditya pointed out the massacre at Virginia Tech as an example: "One of my friends made a joke that 'Hanging out with Americans would make anyone crazy and want to shoot everyone.'" Some may think the joke in poor taste, but not really offensive. Replace the word "Americans" with "Pakistanis", however, and the joke would rightly be condemned as racist. It seems that we Brits can have a bit of a racial blind spot when it comes to our Atlantic neighbours.

Practically no-one reading this would say that they are racist against Americans, even if many would admit to disliking the USA's politics. To criticise another countries government is not to be racist or xenophobic. Many, however, would admit to thinking that the average American is some Bush-loving-gun-toting-McDonalds-scoffing-redneck. It's time that we realised the extent of this latent racism and tried to remove it from our society.

Trouble at the tower

The Arts Tower is a problem. Student opinion of the building seems split. Some love it, others find it an eyesore. Those who use it everyday find that the tower's saving grace – the novelty of the paternoster – soon wears off. A process accelerated by the regular fifteen minute queues to get on it at busy times.

The building, completed in 1965, requires a £20 million face lift to hide the cracks of middle age. It also requires major alterations to increase its energy effectiveness and to reduce chronic congestion.

The vast sum required for these improvements has led many to question whether it is worth repairing. Were it not for it being a Grade II listed building, much of the student population would be happy to see it go, and the money spent else where. How did it come to this?

When the tower was built in 1965 it was a beacon of modernity. The slender, 22-storey building was a bold and innovative design, built during the whirlwind of university expansion in the 1960s. A time when, as if over night, university buildings popped up all over the country like funghi.

Sheffield, however, wanted to go further than other universities. There was no desire for the building to be merely functional – it was to be a statement of the University's ambition. The University thus chose the architects Gollins Melvin & Ward's adventurous plans for the tower and adjacent library, one of 99 entries in a nation-wide search for a design.

The Arts Tower should stand today as a symbol of the University's visions and aspirations as well as its desire for innovation. Instead the tower stands bleak and unloved. How did it come to this?

Its critics are right, the design has dated. The adage that 'nothing dates so quickly as visions of the future' certainly rings true. Indeed, the Modern Movement as a whole has become increasingly unpopular in recent times. Just look at the popular backlash at attempts to list the particularly bleak Robin Hood Gardens in London.

But this is common for all architectural styles, as Prof. Blundell Jones of the University's School of Architecture points out: 'There is a kind of trough of despair that architecture falls into around 30 years old when its style is vilified, before it is properly investigated and understood'.

But this is by no means a modern phenomena, nor one associated only with Modern architecture, the professor continues: 'Remember the gross prejudice against Victorian and Edwardian Architecture that was rife in the 1960s when the Arts Tower was built?'

'We knocked down dozens of good Victorian buildings. We'd be keeping them now, had they survived'. The Arts Tower was listed to protect against this folly.

What the Arts Tower needs, then, is care and attention. There is no point in leaving the building to rot in its current state. As it stands the Arts Tower is shameful. The lifts break down regularly, it's filthy and there are cracks in the plaster of practically every classroom. What impression does this give to an A- level student on an open day?

Like it or not, the Arts Tower is a symbol for the university. It cannot fail to be, it's the tallest building on campus and dominates Sheffield's skyline. If the tower continues to stand as it does today – grimly – then it reflects extremely poorly on the university as a whole, no matter how shiny and new the IC or the Humanities building are.

The choice was a simple one. The University could have either left its most recognised building to rot, its functionality spoilt by problems of overcrowding and general deterioration, or it could have done something to improve the situation for generations of students to come. The fact it chose the latter shows the university is prepared to look to the future, without abandoning its past.

Bashing the Bishop

As the Archbishop of Canterbury recently found out talking about Sharia law in Britain isn't so much a potential banana skin as a fully-fledged booby trap. You can imagine his PR people the next day smacking their heads on the desk as the right wing press went for the jugular.

Beneath the hysteria, however, Dr. Rowan Williams' point was a fair one: why shouldn't aspects of Sharia law be allowed in a civil capacity? He wasn't talking about introducing an Islamic penal code to Britain, nor was he suggesting that there should be a complete plurality – British law would still take precedent.

The fact is that there are already exemptions, on religious grounds, from certain aspects of the law. Sikhs can ride motorcycles without helmets. Halal meat is legal despite objections of potential cruelty. Why not, then, allow aspects of Sharia law in marriage and divorce proceedings – such as with the Jewish civil divorce courts based upon Beth Din?

But there is a line – a line which has been crossed by students at the University of Sheffield. It is not my business whether someone elects to not wear a helmet, or whether they choose to eat meat slaughtered in a particular way. These issues are internal for each community and – quite simply – don't affect me. When, however, the religious convictions of one person begins to impinge upon those outside of that community then it becomes a problem. The refusal of some Muslim medical students at Sheffield to roll-up their sleeves is a perfect example of this.

New hygiene regulations introduced at the start of this year state that when in contact with patients, staff must be bare beneath the elbows, to help stop the spread of hospital bugs. This demand, however, has met with opposition as some students have refused to do so on religious grounds. To do so, they point out, is forbidden in the Qu'ran. Hygiene, however, is not a matter of religious conscience and preference. Religion cannot be allowed to interfere with what is in the patient's best interests. Whether or not it is religiously permissible does not affect the spread of hospital bugs, such as MRSA.

I do not – let me be clear – want to live in a society where there is no sensitivity towards people's faiths, but nor do I want to live in a society which jeopardises people's health in the name of religion. It is a balancing act and there will always be an element of trading off when rules and religion clash.

The reaction to the Archbishop's comments show just how sensitive this issue is. Living by one's own faith is, of course, a fundamental human right. But an individual's health should not be risked due to another's personal conviction.