Oxford is wrong to refuse deaf girl

The young aspiring mathematician Anastasia Fedotova has brought Oxford University's admission procedures into the headlines once again. Anastasia was born profoundly deaf. She lipreads and learned to speak only when she had reached the age of seven - added to which, English is not her first language. Undoubtedly her deafness is near-total, and she must have an immensely supportive family as well as an innate determination to succeed.

Oxford's admission process is said to have taken her deep disability into account at practical examination level by giving her the opportunity of communicating in writing and not verbally. Anastasia entered the Oxford competition with an outstanding commendation from teachers at her Manchester-based technology college, who placed her among their star performers of all times, as well as coming with excellent AS grades and a forecast of high A-level grades. She failed to pass her Oxford examination in December - but now she can show six superb A-levels completed successfully at grade A, the highest level attainable.

No reasons have been given by the college for her rejection. That is within the college's rights. But thanks to a European Union data protection directive - on which I worked personally - Anastasia herself now has the right of access to her own scholastic records.

Yet, without knowing the full reasons for rejection, I believe Oxford University should think again about this case. I believe that the admissions panel failed in at least two critical areas of judgment when assessing Anastasia's potential performance as an Oxford undergraduate and her subsequent possibility of high achievement.

First, the failure is at the practical level of understanding the mechanisms by which Anastasia learns. Unless one does that, one cannot make a sound and informed judgment on her case. It has been reported that, in justification of rejecting her, a Brasenose College spokesman declared that Oxford's tutorial system must be deployed on those students who would benefit from it the most. The unspoken second sentence would probably have read "... and a deaf student cannot access knowledge through the tutorial system".

How wrong that is. Like myself, and in common with most UK educated deaf people, Anastasia lip-reads and backs it up, I would anticipate, by intensive reading and study. Oxford's famous tutorial system is about teaching in small groups - often no more than one or two students - with continuing discussion and challenge. As such, the tutorial, smallgroup system is tailor-made for the deaf student. Far from being a system that Anastasia could not use, Oxford's teaching system is probably the only way in which she can learn.

Deaf students fail in Britain's grossly overcrowded public sector classrooms. I visited a primary school recently where the head asked me to advise him and his colleagues on how to help a little deaf girl who was failingto thrive. I pointed out that a class of 45 children and a teacher with a beard and a moustache obscuring his mouth were factors which tended to weigh against a deaf child learning. He placed her in the front subsequently - and the teacher shaved off his beard to help her.

Secondly, academic outcomes, in common with most human achievements, are heavily dependent upon personal motivation. Here I speak from a lifetime of experience. Like Anastasia, I was born extremely deaf. In my case, I was born minus 80 per cent of normal hearing, which was compounded by acute and permanent problems with my eyesight.

The Royal Academy of Music's admissions examining board gave me a place two years early at 16 years old and marked me at scholarship grade. Under their brilliant tuition I developed my musical gifts to the furthest extent, considerably further than would generally have been thought justifiable with my acute inborn handicaps.

Finally, I qualified at both the Royal Academy of Music and the Royal College of Music before the concrete ceiling of minimal sensory perception stopped further development in that field. I went sideways to work in computer software - but many of the learning skills and confidence I had gained went with me. Four years of singing lessons also taught me to speak clearly - one of the greatest difficulties for those with severe hearing problems. My career has been the result of my access to the high standard of general education I was given.

So I know that highly skilled tutoring, intense and continuous hard work, combined with a natural affinity for the subject and complete personal commitment can sweep aside nature's irritations. Strength and mental flexibility can achieve the seemingly impossible. It's not easy; and we deaf people develop deep reservoirs of patience as well as a high degree of tolerance to the problems thrown up by the hearing world. We have to - our disability is the invisible one.

The inborn deaf are as inquisitive as any other youngsters. To catch up and be treated as normal we learn to pick up information from all sources and by all methods, often achieving a quicker and more thorough understanding of a subject than our hearing peers. That is another reason why a pupil of Anastasia's talents should be given a chance - not because she needs excuses, but because I am sure she has so much more to gain from Oxford.

I urge Brasenose to think again. The college should recall Anastasia and invite her to resit the exam. Her motivation far outweighs that of the hearing applicants and she should be given a second chance immediately to make up for the unwitting discrimination that she has suffered.

I would have wished Brasenose to have marked her exam result last December "keep this one open and review on A-level results". I know that is not the normal process, but Anastasia is no normal applicant. Oxford's constant search is for the best; I would suggest in this case there is time and reason to have another look.

Emma Nicholson is Oxford MEP and vice president of the Mary Hare Grammar School for the Deaf.