I can still remember the first time I got drunk. I was around 13 years old. A friend had stolen some of his dad’s whisky, and we got through half a bottle together. The experience wasn’t particularly extraordinary, apart from one thing: even then I was astonished, terrified, by just how much I enjoyed being drunk. The rush, the feeling of the alcohol coursing through my veins, the way it made my worries and anxieties dissipate for a few blissful hours. I subconsciously realised something that, years later, I would spend countless hours grappling with; whatever joys I could experience sober, they would be even better with a bottle in hand.
The next few years went by relatively normally. The lack of independence borne from still living at home meant my alcohol use was kept in check. All that happened was that every week or two when me and my friends were out drinking, I’d always end up getting absolutely shitfaced – far more than anyone else.
Then I arrived at Oxford University. It only took a few weeks for my alcohol use to absolutely soar. I was 18 at this point, and without my parents breathing down my back, I was free to drink as much as I pleased. In the Michaelmas and Hilary just gone, I drank an average of around 100 to 150 units a week. I drank virtually every day – and I mean drank, enough that almost every night ended with me stumbling up the stairs to my accommodation and collapsing in bed, drunk out of my mind. I spent well over a thousand pounds on alcohol, leaving less than half of my money for other expenses.
There are probably very few environments worse for would-be alcoholics than Oxford University. The atmosphere of constant stress, the omnipresent ‘work hard, play hard’ undertone, the fact that almost every society runs countless boozy events, combined with virtually every college having a cheap and accessible bar, meant that I stood little chance. It’s true that, regardless of where I went, alcohol problems would have probably arisen. Of the three factors often leading to alcoholism – a family history of alcohol abuse, beginning drinking at a young age, and past mental health problems – I tick every one.
But Oxford undoubtedly exacerbated my issues. It doesn’t have much of a drug culture (in my experience, at least), but it has one hell of a drinking culture. Very few people seemed to notice how out of hand my drinking was getting. In a society where getting drunk regularly is a common occurrence, it’s hard to differentiate between someone who likes to drink and someone who needs to drink. When I finally began the long and painful process of seeking sobriety, the lack of support provided by the university was shocking. My addiction advisor suggested I seek out alcoholic support groups within the University. As far as I can tell, no such group presently exists.
The solution isn’t, however, some sort of puritanical clamp down on drinking among students. The vast majority of you reading this article will be perfectly capable of drinking healthily and in moderation – and I am deeply envious of you. College bars and drinking events provide most with a hugely enjoyable social space. Some alcohol free alternatives would be nice, but that’s all. Instead, the University needs to do more to assist those students who are struggling; and we all need to be more ready to look out for the warning signs of alcohol dependency. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to drink; but when we start noticing that ourselves, or others, need to drink, alarm bells should be raised.
The writing of this article marks the two month anniversary of my sobriety. These past few weeks have been tough, much tougher than I could have ever expected. But they’ve also been incredibly rewarding. Getting over an addiction requires a complete life reset; it requires reconnecting with the friends and passions that you lost to booze. The constant urge to drink still hasn’t left me, if it ever will. Knowing that you can’t under any circumstances do the thing you want to do more than anything else is torture. But finally, for the first time in many months, I’m able to appreciate the beauty of our world, the simple joys of friendship, without the distorting lens of the bottle – and that makes it all worth it.
But if there’s one piece of advice I want anyone who relates to this article to take to heart, it’s this: don’t go cold turkey. Alcohol is one of the few drugs whose withdrawal can be fatal. For me, it was so bad that I was rushed to the John Radcliffe emergency unit, suffering from delirium tremens – a condition arising from alcohol withdrawal with symptoms like tremors, delirium, hallucinations, and even seizures which could potentially lead to death. Talk to your doctor, or any other NHS resources, so you can withdraw with the help of medications to protect you.
Drinking in moderation can be great fun, but if you notice yourself or anyone else unable to put down the bottle, becoming dependent on alcohol to get through the day, it’s time to take a break. And if that’s too hard, speak to a pastoral adviser or counsellor. Alcohol nearly ruined my life. For many years to come, I think, I’ll still be grappling with its consequences. I don’t want it to ruin yours.
During exams, my friends and I formed a study group. While it took us three years to realise that studying might be important even for a History degree, the dread for our upcoming exams eventually sunk in. Amidst the panicked conversations about misogynistic late-Roman chroniclers (looking at you, Procopius) were the study breaks at some point in the day to visit a café. A European-style working day with a long lunch break was essential to feeling like a real humanities student, and spending on coffee or cake proved to be an excellent means of coping with exam stress.
Now that exams are long gone, I have found time to consider what I could write about that would allow me to reflect on my experience of Oxford as a city, and I was torn between pubs and cafés. However, having been teetotal for the first year of my degree, in lockdown for the second and a finalist for my third, my pubbing credentials are well below par. Being a sugar-addict, however, my café CV is brimming with relevant experience, and I felt the need to pay some kind of tribute to the coffee shop scene here.
Bored witless by the Law Library, I applied for a loyalty card at the adjacent coffee shop, Missing Bean, and I also occasionally resorted to the suspiciously cheap coffee in college, where the exciting catch is that the oat milk is off and the coffee tastes burnt. As Exeter’s Cohen Quad is in Jericho, Tree Artisan, located on Little Clarendon Street, became our most-visited café. To find out what coffee shop life is like in Oxford from the point of view of the owners, I decided to interview Tree Artisan’s founder and owner, Graziella Ascensao.
Tree Artisan Café now feels like a fixture of the Oxford coffee scene, but it faced challenges from the very start. Graziella moved to Oxford from Brazil at 18, and later worked in the service sector, as both a barista and a waitress, and began to save up until she could afford to open her own café. It seemed as if fate had conspired against her when the COVID-19 pandemic hit as soon as she had secured the lease for the premises.
However, consistent with the rest of her attitude connected to her work, Graziella approached the challenge with a positive mindset and turned it into an opportunity. ‘At that time, I saw it was the time to open,’ she says. ‘When people were in front of their computer all day, they wanted to pick up a coffee and go to the park’. While, due to COVID-19 restrictions, she found it harder to cultivate the atmosphere she wanted within the physical space, she managed to generate a small community of regular customers who appreciated the friendliness and good coffee on offer. ‘I found positivity in that. I am always trying to be a warm person’.
This attitude is Graziella’s main take on the difference between the culture of chain cafés and that of independent ones. She takes pride in buying everything from independent suppliers, from bread to coffee beans, not wanting to compromise the culture of a small local enterprise. ‘There is more love, more passion. With chains, whoever you are, you are a number. The staff are a number, the customers are a number, everybody is a number. It is completely different to when you have a focus on the people’.
This focus is arguably what makes Tree Artisan Café unique. After exams, my friend and I worked there one afternoon, while the café was quiet. As we worked, we noticed that the staff recognised and talked to almost every customer who walked through the door. For a generation that appreciates the personal experience afforded by food vendors, this kind of human interaction sets Tree Artisan Café apart from chain cafés, where the staff often seem stressed and keen to hurry along to the next customer. The feeling that you’re part of a community is a huge appeal, and one that makes sitting in Tree Artisan much more appealing than, for example, sitting in Café Nero.
While the independent café market in Oxford is crowded and competitive, Graziella does not feel this is a hostile environment, and rather sees a market where independent outlets do not have to try and beat each other down to stay in business. ‘Honestly, I respect all of them, because I believe in this world there is space for all of them. Tree Artisan has my biometric, it is different from all the others. It is my personal imprint on them. It is like my baby. I am not comparing to others; I love it because it is mine’.
This ‘personal imprint’ is a huge part of independent coffee outlets in Oxford, and Graziella’s experiences definitely shape how Tree Artisan operates. Having been vegan for three years, she ensures there are multiple dairy-free, gluten-free and vegan options on the menu. As a lifelong member of the allergy club myself, it is welcome to have actual choices, especially when they’re genuinely delicious and likely to even be bought by someone who isn’t allergic to the other options. The menu is also rotated regularly, according to which options prove most popular, which allows Tree Artisan to be customer-driven, rather than constantly supplying the same, bulk-bought generic options available at a chain.
Graziella’s enthusiasm talking about running her own café is infectious. ‘It is hard work,’ she tells me at the end of our interview. ‘I’m here at 4:30 in the morning every day, and I have gratitude to be here. It is my passion, I am happy to be here’. It is this highly personal desire to create a positive experience for every customer that sets Oxford’s independent outlets apart from their corporate competition, and Tree Artisan Café is the perfect example of this alternative, people-focused approach to growing as a café in Oxford.
Friday 2nd September is creeping ever closer and with a government that seems to be set on inaction until then in the midst of the biggest cost of living crisis in decades, for millions it can’t come soon enough. Before then though, 0.3% of the population will decide who the next Prime Minister is and all signs now seem to suggest that that person will be Liz Truss.
Personally, I see it as a tragedy on several levels but, above all, I cannot cease to be totally baffled by the polls that show Truss will win by such a landslide. Not only is it now with seeming daily regularity that a new independent report, financial expert, or ‘Tory grandee’ points out her economic plans are both unfundable and inadequate. More than anything, the Conservative Party Members seem set to condemn themselves to losing the next election by electing a leader and resulting cabinet that is beyond impalpable for the general population.
I suppose the first step in trying to get inside the mind of Tory members is understanding who they really are, something that is notoriously difficult and explains why opinion polls in leadership contests vary so much in comparison with those of general elections. Although the information is not officially published, Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University, concluded nearly ten years of study on this and told the FT last month that “There hasn’t been much change in the demographics of the Tory grassroots since we began our research on party members back in 2013.” The research found that, rather unsurprisingly, that members are disproportionately older men. 63% were male (compared to roughly half of the UK population), their median age is 57 (the national average is 40), and 80% fall in the so-called ABC1 category of the most highly-paid demographic group (this makes up 53% of the country). They also match the classic stereotype of being white and right-leaning on issues, with 76% voting for Brexit and 95% identifying as White British in a country where that makes up just 83% of the population. Now, that is a lot of numbers, but the fact that those voting on our next leader come from such a small and narrow segment of society is not only plainly a crazy and scarcely believable part of our democratic system but goes some way to explaining how and why they have leaned so heavily on Truss over Sunak. They have rewarded her ludicrous attempts to evoke Thatcherite policies which don’t fit the current economic climate and, much like the Foreign Secretary’s desperate efforts to emulate Thatcher’s personality and dress sense, are outdated.
Despite this, in fact for this very reason, one would think that the constant comments from some of the Tory party’s oldest, most successful, and most well-respected names, about just how baseless much of Truss’ economic policies are, would have swayed more of the base towards Sunak. Kenneth Clark has described her approach as “nonsense and simplistic” and related it to techniques that might be used by a Venezuelan government. Former leaders Michael Howard and William Hague, as well as well-respected current MPs such as Dominic Raab, Jeremy Hunt, and Michael Gove, have all taken to the airwaves and newspapers in the past few days to speak against the idea that tax cuts can resolve the crisis. Even Lord Lamont, Treasurer in the Thatcher government remembered so fondly by much of the conservative party base, has publicly backed Sunak over the holes in Truss’ plans. It isn’t only individuals who think that her plans are misguided either: the IFS joined countless other economists last week in pointing out that her current ideas are simply unfundable unless they are accompanied by spending cuts.
What makes all of this even more crazy and difficult for me to get my head around is that the members seem blissfully unaware of just how unelectable Truss is for the electorate as a whole. With a general election looming in 2024 you would think that there would be an appetite for a relatively inoffensive leader who appeals to as broad a base as possible. Whereas Sunak has at least shown his ability to appeal to a large spectrum in the past, earning himself the nickname ‘Dishy Rishi’ during his Eat Out to Help Out glory days, Truss has never shied away from bulldozing ahead with unpopular policies and divisive comments. Whether that is upsetting Scots by saying that the best way to deal with their democratically elected leader is “to ignore her” or regular workers by telling them to put in some more “graft”, Truss trails Keir Starmer and rival Sunak in every poll of the general population. And if recent leaks of her planned cabinet are to be believed, placing Jacob Rees-Mogg as Levelling-up Secretary, she hardly appears to be planning a change of course on this front.
So – why? What is it that appeals? It might well be a case of Johnson continuity – indeed in surveys, many have said that they feel Sunak betrayed their leader by resigning and becoming one of the major catalysts for the Prime Minister’s downfall. In reality though, I think it is more of a case of the members being genuinely detached from the real world themselves. For whatever reason they don’t seem able to see their impending decision risks disaster for millions of people across the country by worsening current financial pressures as well as putting them in a catastrophic position ahead of the next general election. Two years is a long time in politics, but right now I struggle to see why on earth the turkeys are voting for Christmas.
CW : mention of disordered eating, fat phobia, body dysmorphia
Have you ever wept in a toilet stall—maybe during a particularly rough school day, maybe during a night out that went wrong—thinking that you were completely insulated from the world outside, only to realise that there’s a giant gap in the door – so whoever is walking past can definitely see you, all puffy-faced? Grace Olusola’s Vessel spoke directly to my teenage self and my current self alike, as I found myself in that exact situation after the show: watching the play felt like having my private, internal feelings about my body and food externalised and projected onto the stage at the Old Fire Station this Trinity. I felt seen.
Last summer I vented my frustrations at feeling like the only fat person at Oxford on Twitter, and my notifications pinged more than normal for a little while. Initially, I worried that a play seeking to address themes of bodies and food in the Oxford community would centre the experiences of people who are afraid of looking like me. While I do not seek to invalidate the experience of people who are insecure and conventionally attractive, there’s a difference between being insecure about having rolls when you slouch and, as the Comedienne comments, “the world decid[ing] whether you’re ugly or not for you”.
Yet Olusola and her team of six other directors have taken the wide-ranging diversity of such relationships with body image into close consideration. Vessel is made up of twelve discrete episodes, each drawing inspiration from student survey responses on questions around bodies and food. The episodes differed significantly in tone, managing to tackle these issues with sensitivity and humour, and reminded me of scrolling through TikTok: we see a spoof of 2000s fatphobic TV shows, titled ‘Formerly Grotesque Fat People Bake On Blind Dates While We Watch’, and a monologue on different kinds of Reese’s peanut butter cups, among others. In ‘Not Like other Girls’we even see a girl sniffling in the school toilets, not unlike me after the show.
The episodic structure and use of several directors is certainly a strength of the show, reflecting how our relationships with food and our bodies has as much to do with class, race, gender and sexuality as with what we see when we look in the mirror. I particularly enjoyed how the show played around with form and structure to reflect this: in ‘Femi’, Tariro Tinwaro sings of a best friend with an eating disorder “outrunning bodies like mine”, while in ‘The Comedienne’ we see Chloe Ralph hilariously enact the awkwardness of mediocre standup about her friend group and conclude “with friends this fucked up, this may be one of the few situations in life where being the fat one is actually the best status in the group.”
Olusola cites her experience as a welfare officer at St. Catherine’s College, as well as her own body image struggles, as a catalyst for Vessel: this certainly shows throughout the production, albeit not in a way that feels patronising, didactic or reductive. At the beginning we hear a voiceover announce the show’s trigger warnings, and that if at any point an audience member needs to leave and take a break, they are welcome to do so. Likewise, at the end the crew offered pens and index cards to audience members as a chance to reflect on what they had just seen.
While I did sometimes find myself wishing for more cohesion between the writing of the episodes, I enjoyed the way that each episode was announced by the pinning of a poster or a graphic with its title to a board at the back of the stage, creating a sense of collaginess and accumulation. This imagery of food wrappers and containers was neatly alluded to in ‘Motherhood’, an episode where a woman tidying the house for a date discovers her daughter’s binge-eating stash concealed between stage blocks. During the interval, a friend remarked that the episodic nature reminded her of opening a door at a house party and accidentally walking in on a conversation between strangers that you were not meant to overhear, as alluded to perfectly in a scene where we watch the awkward reconnecting between old friends gradually tip over into a painful conservation about responsibility when one is mentally ill. Olusola’s skilful writing shines through in lines like “I had a brain that betrayed me–you were the collateral”, and “sorry, force of habit, when you’re at death’s door [so often] you start leaving a key under the doormat.”
The presence of fat actors and explicitly working-class characters, albeit only a handful, on a student stage was particularly refreshing to see, although I did find myself wishing for more than a few of the twelve episodes in a show about bodies to centre their experiences.
Overall, Vessel’s careful balancing of sensitivity and humour in its treatment of the subject matter of body image and food made it an important and worthwhile watch; I can only hope that we see more stories and actors with these experiences on the Oxford student stage in the future.
Where do we go from here? Reflections on a day of unprecedented chaos in Downing Street…
The past few years in British politics have repeatedly defied belief but Thursday 7th July will go down in history as the most chaotic, bizarre, and extraordinary day that our country has seen in decades. This morning, it was barely possible to make a cup of tea before returning to the television to learn of another ministerial resignation or letter from newly appointed cabinet ministers calling for the Prime Minister to go. Chris Mason taking the phone call from Downing Street to confirm Boris Johnson’s resignation live on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme perhaps perfectly summed up the incredulous nature of the morning’s proceedings. The big question now though is what on earth happens next? Where do the Conservative party and the country go from here? As it stands, the PM insists that he will stay on until a new leader is announced, but is that really feasible? Who is best positioned to succeed him? One thing is certain, the turmoil is far from over…
Who Next? The Runners and the Riders
The main reason why Johnson has survived in post for so long in spite of countless scandals that would’ve buried leaders of the past has been the lack of an apparent successor. Now the Conservative party is facing a leadership election with contenders from across the political spectrum, as it tries to decide its future.
Liz Truss
Bookies odds – 7/1
Long-time favourite of old-time party members but counting many enemies among fellow MPs, the outspoken Truss has never been afraid to make her leadership ambitions clear. Much like Johnson, she has been happy to bend her political beliefs to fit with her rise to power after backing remain in 2016 only to become one of the biggest supporters for a hard Brexit in recent years. Brash and brazen with political stances branded by many as ‘Thatcherism on steroids’, she certainly wouldn’t offer the dramatic change in tone and direction needed if her party is to stand any chance of rescuing themselves at any approaching election. She may also struggle in early stages of the leadership race, with several MPs declaring privately that they wouldn’t back her.
Nadim Zahawi
Bookies odds – 8/1
Zahawi was centre stage in the political chaos of the last 48 hours after being appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday night, doing the media rounds defending the Prime Minister on Wednesday morning, and then calling for his resignation on Thursday. His political stock rose substantially as vaccines minister during the pandemic and, popular amongst his colleagues, he now appears to be one of the favourites to succeed Johnson. The only thing standing against him may turn out to be his relative inexperience in government.
Rishi Sunak
Bookies odds – 4/1
There are few men in history who have had such a dramatic rise to fame and fall from grace as Rishi Sunak. An unknown among the public when appointed as Chancellor he attracted fans throughout the pandemic with generous furlough and ‘Eat Out to Help Out’ schemes before becoming embroiled in the Partygate scandal and brought down by questions over his wife’s non-dom tax status. There’s a chance that his shock resignation on Tuesday night might just have saved his chances and he is sure to be a front runner if he can convince MPs of his credentials. Equally, his resignation letter suggested that his could be ‘his last ministerial job’ and a return to pre-political life could certainly prove to be an attractive proposition for the former banker.
Sajid Javid
Bookies odds – 7/1
Having already failed twice in leadership elections could it be third time lucky for the man who initiated the final chapter of Johnson’s prime ministerial career? Although his dramatic move and speech after PMQ’s will appeal to some, few can really doubt his own personal motivations for moving against the PM when he did and that kind of ‘snakery’ as Number 10 likes to call it has been enough to see others named Michal Gove get the sack. Javid would offer something different in terms of a political direction and would appeal as a more stable set of hands but his flip-flopping hasn’t won him many fans amongst MPs and party members.
Penny Mourdant
Bookies odds – 5/1
Who? I hear you ask. The bookmakers’ favourite that’s who! Mourdant finds herself in the bizzare position where not having any experience working in recent cabinets will be seen as one of her biggest strengths. If you are in search of a metaphor for the dire state of the Tory party then this is it. Being a long-time Brexit backer makes her palpable to the right of the party and the ERG but her membership of the liberal Conservative ‘One Nation’ caucus means that she has a fairly wide reach. She has perhaps the fewest enemies of any of the obvious contenders. Then again that is inevitable when you consider that she has never held a post of significance within government.
Tom Tugenhadt
Bookies odds – 14/1
‘The rebels’ choice’, Tugenhadt is one of the few likely runners who has spoken out against Johnson from the start. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee slammed him for his performance as Foreign Secretary and has remained critical ever since. His rhetoric always focuses on a renewal of traditional conservative values, the meaningful substance of that rhetoric unsurprisingly remains in the dark.
Jeremy Hunt
Bookies odds – 11/1
Hunt will undoubtedly frame himself as the man who stood up to ‘Johnson the bully’ and never served in his cabinet. In reality, insiders suggest that his close relationship with Theresa May meant that he was never invited to – a quite extraordinary thing when you consider the amount of ministers Johnson went through. Hardly a superstar as health secretary Hunt would represent a return to the more traditional style of government of Theresa May and although that be unexciting to some MPs, large swathes of party members could be convinced by a reassuring return to relative normality.
Ben Wallace
Bookies odds – 5/1
The defence secretary never resigned from the cabinet but did just about manage to squeeze in a letter calling for Johnson to go before the final decision was announced. The former soldier is broadly seen as reliable and undramatic, both potentially very attractive characteristics at the moment. He has won international acclaim for his dealing with the Ukraine crisis and the general public would be sure to back him on that but he is notable for his lack of experience in all other areas of government. Despite his popularity, he has also previously stated his desire to take on the role of UN Secretary-General in the future and that may yet prove to be his next step.
So, in conclusion, the race remains very much open. Dozens are sure to declare their leadership bids over the coming days and countless campaign websites will no doubt be launched within hours but the stark reality is that none of the options are pretty for the Conservatives. The party is in a mess, politics is in a mess. Opposition parties insist that Johnson cannot remain PM whilst the process continues and any caretaker would get the chance to audition their potential on the biggest stage. It still remains to be seen how long the elected leader will stay in post. Can any of those listed above really stake a claim to Johnson’s record-breaking mandate from 2019? A general election may very well be on the cards and, if that is the case, then the calculations change all over again for the MPs with the fate of the nation in their hands…
Your Thoughts
We asked you to sum up your thoughts about our departing Prime Minister’s time in office and departure itself – it’s safe to safe that the responses were mixed and I am happy to report that you didn’t hold back!
Charlie Aslet on the nature of Johnson’s departure:
“Boris Johnson’s resignation had as much dignity as a streaker at a football game. He clung to power until even his unkempt reflection was telling him it was time to pack it in. Some people would have thought it honourable to jump before being pushed. Not Boris. He was beaten up by all his closest friends and colleagues, his trousers hoisted around his ankles and then given a mighty boot up the buttocks before stumbling over the cliff. His only consolation as he tumbled down that rockface was that he managed to give Michael Gove a final slap in the face before he fell, giving him the sack when everyone else was resigning. In a way, I feel a bit sorry for Boris. His resignation was like the assassination of Julius Caesar, except this time it felt like he also managed to stab himself a few times before he died. But, then again, the man seems incapable of telling the truth. Even when he says he’s leaving it’s difficult to believe it will actually happen. When he says he’s actually staying, that’s when I’ll be ready to believe he’s really going for good.”
We then asked you for reflections on Johnson’s premiership:
“Good riddance babes”
“One word – joke”
And your predictions for the future:
“Same circus different clown”
“There is an unfortunate possibility that the Tories may be redeemed in the public eye”
“No chance anyone else will have anywhere near the decision-making prowess of Boris – prepare yourselves for an era of catastrophic indecision”
“I’m just sad for the people of Ukraine. Their future is now in doubt more than ever.”
“Someone equally bad or worse will become Prime Minister, there is no winning!”
UPDATE: On the 29th June, The UK Government announced a new round of sanctions on several high profile Russian figures including Potanin, with the aim of “hitting Putin’s inner circle”. A government statement read: “Potanin continues to amass wealth as he supports Putin’s regime, acquiring Rosbank, and shares in Tinkoff Bank in the period since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”
As the Western world moves to sanction overseas Russian money, Cherwell has found that St Edmund Hall and the Saïd Business School accepted donations from Vladimir Potanin, the oligarch and metals tycoon who is the second richest man in Russia.
Potanin, 61, has a net worth of $27 billion, as estimated by Forbes. In 2020, he was included on the US Treasury’s list of 210 Russian oligarchs, businessmen and politicians under considerations for sanctions, dubbed ‘Putin’s List’. He is widely known for regularly playing ice hockey with Putin. Potanin’s fortune fell by $3 billion on the day that Russia invaded Ukraine. Potanin also served as the Deputy Prime Minister for 7 months between 1996 and 1997.
In 1999, Potanin founded the Vladimir Potanin Foundation to “implement large-scale humanitarian programs” in the fields of “culture, higher education, social sport and philanthropy development”. The foundation donated £3 million to St Edmund Hall in 2018 to endow a research fund for Earth Sciences, and to jointly establish the Vladimir Potanin Associate Professor and Tutorial Fellow in Earth Sciences with the University of Oxford. The endowment also funded the three-year Vladimir Potanin Tutorial Fellow of Russian Literature and Modern Languages.
The foundation also granted $150,000 to the Saïd Business School in 2017 for a fellowship scheme for the Oxford Social Finance Programme. The school selected 15 Russian charity workers to attend this programme between 2017 and 2019.
The collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s allowed well-connected individuals to profit from the bloc’s transition to a market economy by gaining control over newly privatized state assets. Many of these deals were done privately, without competition. While in office, Potanin proposed the controversial ‘loans for shares’ scheme, which is seen as having furthered the rise of the oligarch class. This scheme effectively caused the consolidation of oligarchs’ control over the Russian economy. ‘Loans for shares’ encouraged wealthy businessmen to loan money to the Yeltsin government in exchange for state-owned shares in companies, many of which extracted and processed Russia’s abundant natural resources.
Of the programme, he told The Financial Times: “It is the biggest PR tragedy of my career. Of course, the privatisation process has to be transparent. And in our case it was not. My plan was different. I wanted to privatise the companies with banks and qualified people, raise their value, and then sell them.”
Through this scheme, Potanin and his long-term business partner Mikhail Prokhorov acquired a 54% share in Norilsk Nickel (Nornickel). The two businessmen separated their assets in 2007, leaving Potanin with 34.6% of the shares in Norilsk Nickel. The company’s total assets amounted to $20.7 billion in 2020.
On top of being the world’s largest producer of nickel, Norilsk Nickel is one of the world’s largest industrial polluters. In 2020, the company produced 1.9% of total global sulphur dioxide emissions. The company has announced that it intends to reduce suphur dioxides from its plants in the heavily polluted Norilsk region by 90% by 2025 from a 2015 baseline.
Potanin is the only Russian to have signed The Giving Pledge, in which the super-rich pledge to give a majority of their wealth to philanthropic causes. Other signatories include Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerber, and George Lucas. He said his decision was motivated by a belief that “wealth should work for public good”, and as a way to “protect [his] children from the burden of extreme wealth”.
A spokesperson for St Edmund Hall told Cherwell that the gift was accepted “in good faith and at a time when relations with Russia were in a substantially better place. This was a one-off donation and the College does not anticipate any further funding from The Potanin Foundation.
“The College is deeply concerned at the events happening in Ukraine and sincerely hopes that a peaceful outcome will soon be reached,” they added.
The Saïd Business School told Cherwell: “The grant went through the University’s robust approval process and the partnership ended in 2019. The focus of the programme is to improve the social impact and philanthropic work of charities and non-government organisations (NGOs) across the world. As a global business school with students and alumni from across the world, we have been deeply saddened at events happening in the Ukraine and hope a peaceful outcome is soon reached.”
The University of Oxford, Interros, and The Vladimir Potanin Foundation were approached for comment.
A couple of hours before watching Track 2, I saw a friend’s Instagram story pointing out the comments on a post from the official 10 Downing Street account. The post celebrated the ‘extraordinary contribution of LGBT’ people to Britain, but the comments were full of the kind of vitriolic homophobia that it’s hard to believe still exists in public spaces. It is this kind of hate, as well as the prevalence of outright racism, especially in online spheres, that makes projects like the Black Lives Playlist essential.
Track 2 is, primarily, a monologue about the experience of being Black and gay. It centres around The Speaker’s complex inner turmoil between shame and pride in his sexuality. Whilst we may now fortunately live in a world where homosexuality is far more accepted, this play serves as an important reminder that prejudice still very much exists in our society,and that microagressions can have serious consequences especially where marginalised identities intersect.
In spite of this, Track 2 never feels like a PSA about homophobia or racism. Instead, its character-driven nature is relatable to anyone who has ever felt out of place at a family party; anyone who’s questioned what they really want from life; anyone who’s kissed someone they didn’t really like and regretted it; anyone who’s looked at themself in the mirror mid-breakdown and thought, actually, they look kind of hot. This is the play’s greatest strength: writer Sam Spencer manages to both convey a very specific life experience and connect with universal feelings of anxiety and difference.
The Speaker tells us about a day spent visiting his sister’s boyfriend’s family for the first time – an experience that sparks complex emotions and difficult memories. This central narrative introduces us to the story of his ex-boyfriend, and a rendez-vous with a man from the gay hook-up app Grindr who asks The Speaker some difficult questions. Each of these narrative strands ties together cohesively. Credit must go to Spencer for creating a plot that plays out in such a satisfying manner, and to director James Newbery and assistant-director Grace Olusola for translating it onto the stage so effortlessly.
The different visions of the show’s team work flawlessly together. With one-person shows, especially those performed and directed by different people, it’s easy for conflicting creative visions to come across in the finished product, but no such issue exists here. The use of music adds to the piece brilliantly, and the colourful lighting accentuates the vivid narrative, although the lighting could perhaps have been used to accentuate key moments to a greater extent, and mark transitions between time periods more clearly. Yet, the collaborative nature of the project translates into a show that knows what it wants to be, and executes this vision immaculately.
The greatest strength of the direction is its simplicity: the story is allowed to speak for itself, which is essential to its success. Spencer’s script never tries to be overly clever or conceptual, instead relying on its innately heartfelt character development and engaging humour. He has a talent for visceral description, making both messy hookups and family dinners crystal clear in audiences’ minds, despite the minimalist staging: The Speaker remains sat alone in a dark space throughout. The script is structured very cleverly, with the hook-up acting as a frame that gains new meaning at the end, and the sister’s boyfriend storyline leading us craftily to an emotional climax. In addition to this, Spencer’s mixing of personal anecdotes with general thoughts on the likes of Stonewall statistics and making out with girls helps the writing sit so perfectly on the line between specific and universal. If I were to be especially fussy, it could be said that the script becomes slightly repetitive at times. Some elements, such as the use of the Grindr sound effect, could do with verbal clarification for audiences less familiar with the app, and the ideas around religion could have been fleshed out further. It remains, however, a remarkable piece of writing.
Spencer also performs his writing with a real honesty, transitioning smoothly between a public-facing cheekiness and moments of serious emotional depth – there are points where we feel genuine concern for him. The only things subtracting from the performance are some issues with awkward cuts and poor sound quality – the choppy switches between cuts takes us out of a few important moments, and dialogue with the off-screen voice in the first scene is at times hard to make out. These flaws can be easily forgiven, though; the show would work seamlessly in person, but we are unfortunately still gradually exiting the age of online theatre.
Like every other theatre fan, I’ve watched a lot of filmed monologues over the last year and a half. The influence of the likes of Fleabag can be felt within this piece (what would a review of a monologue be without a reference to Phoebe Waller-Bridge or Michaela Coel?), but it’s clear that the team have taken into consideration the limits and possibilities of the form and made it work for them. With its cohesive structure, engaging character and unfaltering honesty, Track 2 takes its place as one of the best examples of what has become an era-defining genre.
As the editors of Russell Group student newspapers, we are writing collectively to request a reversal of the Russell Group’s statement, 7 January 2020, ‘on ensuring fair assessment and protecting the integrity of degrees.’
As editors, not only are we students or recent students ourselves but we are also in constant contact with the students at our respective universities, as part of the function of our extracurricular roles. Apart from sharing in their collective experiences, we have a unique insight into their attitudes, viewpoints and beliefs. We speak and listen to them every day – and every day since the beginning of this academic year, we have heard students calling for more understanding, cooperation and empathy from university management.
The statement shared by the Russell Group on 7 January showed the inconsistencies between what they and we understand to be adequate teaching. Whilst we enormously appreciate the hard work of teaching staff under these challenging circumstances and understand the complications ‘blended learning’ has presented, students have repeatedly said they have not been adequately supported throughout this pandemic. This is by no means to disregard the tremendous efforts of university staff, but it is simply a consequence of the realities of a year like none other in living memory.
The lack of a ‘no detriment’ or ‘safety net’ policy has been a miscalculation by the Russell Group. Students across the UK have been left feeling abandoned by both the government, devolved administrations and universities themselves.
As the editors of 28 student papers, we pick up and record the views of our students on a regular basis. What many are telling us, as a result of personal and shared difficulties, is that they do require the support a clearer ‘no detriment’ policy would deliver.
We object to the assumption made by the Russell Group that ‘emergency measures’ are no longer ‘necessary’ or ‘appropriate’. We are living through what are undeniably unprecedented times – this is a global emergency. The Prime Minister has labelled these weeks of the third lockdown as the critical point in the UK’s fight against the pandemic – death tolls are high, hospitals have reached capacity, we are still just in the early days of administering vaccines. Students, locked down in various levels of economic and social stability across the nation, are facing some of the most important exams we have sat in our lives to date – under some of the most difficult circumstances many will have faced. International students, too, have been working all term from various time zones around the globe, detached from the support of their student communities.
If anything, this point in the pandemic is perhaps the most urgent. We are now facing a mental health crisis amongst young people. Figures by WONKHE and Trendence have shown that more students feel lonely and isolated on a daily basis as a result of the pandemic. Additionally, surveys of undergraduates by various higher education policy advisers have found that over 50 per cent of students say their mental health has significantly deteriorated during the course of the pandemic.
Students are attempting to sit assessments with a lack of resources, varying internet connections and mixed home environments. There are students without desks, who share bedrooms with siblings, who have caring responsibilities when they’re at home. Across the country, there are students from wide and varied backgrounds who are struggling to study for their final year assessments, many also affected by illness and bereavement owing to COVID-19. Students from lower income families as well as estranged students are disproportionately affected in their learning experiences this year and less able to receive the traditional means of support. They do not deserve to be dismissed.
Yet, no one from the Russell Group denied the emergency of the situation when metal fences were erected around halls at Manchester. Universities even went as far as to declare their own local emergencies by locking down individual residences during outbreaks amongst first years. There was no denial of ‘emergency’ when students were being blamed in the media for spikes in national COVID-19 cases.
A-level and GCSE exams have been adjusted to as if this were an emergency – so why aren’t the Russell Group responding in the same way for university students?
It should also be noted the UK government have voided themselves of much of the responsibility for the problems students face. On January 15, the Minister of State for Universities Michelle Donelan tweeted that ‘if universities want to continue charging full fees, they are expected to maintain the quality, quantity and accessibility of tuition’. A government who demands this from its universities should put support systems in place to enable it.
You have explained to our respective Student Unions that it is more appropriate for universities to provide ‘a range of policies and tools’ to ensure fair assessment for students. Whilst we agree some universities will need to adapt their policy on an individual basis, the Russell Group’s collective position against ‘no detriment’ or ‘safety net’ policy does not match the reality of what many students have faced, and are continuing to face, this year.
In principle, a ‘no detriment’ or ‘safety net’ policy should ensure a student’s grade is not worsened as a result of the pandemic. Currently, many of your universities’ mitigatory policies amount to simply offering more time for assessments. Frankly, a matter of extra days or a week is not sufficient for the challenges that we have outlined above, which students are facing in real time.
We understand that an algorithmic approach is not entirely viable due to the lack of benchmark data for many students at this stage of the 2020/21 academic year – that’s a mathematical given. But it is by no means impossible to support an alternative ‘no detriment’ policy built for the circumstances. The University of York, for instance, is implementing a comprehensive policy, attempting to take into account the unique challenges posed by this pandemic, as opposed to reshuffling and extending existing policies.
By readjusting the weightings of each year towards a student’s overall degree and choosing the better of the two for penultimate- and final-year undergraduates, as well as allowing first-years to re-sit up to 90 failed credits in exams, the University of York have worked to try and introduce an appropriate and fair policy. Postgraduates, who should not be forgotten in any such policy, have also been offered an assured ‘safety net’. Overall, it is certainly not perfect but it at least strives to fulfill on the principle of ‘no detriment’, allowing students to simply focus on their studies, with some confidence they will not be impacted by COVID-19, whilst preserving the value of their degrees to employers.
We urge all Russell Group universities to introduce similarly comprehensive policies.
Whilst we understand that every subject, university and student is different, showing the understanding and empathy to their students embodied in York’s approach should be a basic requirement.
Presently, there are a small number of universities, such as Cardiff, that have recently implemented similar policies. Yet their commitment to this editorial is on the basis that students from all Russell Group universities should have the same level of assurance.
Overall, many students will of course respect and largely agree with your desire to maintain degree standards comparative to other years and to ensure, as you say, that they still ‘command the confidence of employers and professional bodies’. However, where other aspects of society have shifted or seen unprecedented measures introduced over the course of the last year, we believe a reweighting or rescaling of degrees is certainly possible. The students we write for and hear from daily are not asking for a policy that allows them to stop working or learning, but one that simply acknowledges the reality of the pandemic and its wide-ranging impact.
Ultimately, you claim you want to uphold the integrity of our degrees. Yet a university’s first responsibility is to its students and acting with integrity ought to mean upholding this responsibility. Many students across the country have not received the ‘blended’ or ‘hybrid’ learning experience they were promised; many are now separated from their campuses, with its facilities and libraries, due to a third national lockdown brought about largely by an unforeseen variant; many are facing personal, long-term hardship as a result of the virus, and/or extreme difficulties at home.
The integrity of a degree, too – students would hope – should encompass a focus on the opportunity to learn and study as well as a focus on rankings and outcomes. The integrity of university institutions should entail safeguarding the mental wellbeing of its students. Under the current plans laid out by most Russell Group universities, students are reporting to us loudly that neither of these are currently in line.
Students have not been quiet about their concerns. With exams fast approaching, and some already underway, now is the time for Russell Groups universities to act compassionately and responsibly.
It is an understatement to say that we are living in extraordinary times. Last March, the UK, along with the rest of the world, came to a grinding halt at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic as we tried to cope with a crisis that was entirely without precedent. The Prime Minister told us then that “things are going to get worse before they get better” – but the reality of this warning has only now been fully realised.
Ten months later, the UK has entered the worst stage of its crisis so far: tragically, cases and deaths have soared and, once again, students have been asked to study from home with Hilary term teaching moved online. However, many are highly concerned about the limited and restrained adjustments recently made by the University of Oxford to account for the deterioration of the coronavirus crisis and its impact on the upcoming term and students’ education as a whole.
It is not unreasonable to expect that students should not be disadvantaged by circumstances wholly beyond their control. That is why the editorial boards of The Oxford Blue, The Oxford Student and Cherwell are calling on the University of Oxford to introduce a fair ‘no-detriment’ policy for finalists.
While the scale of this tragedy has been devastating in terms of loss of life, the quality of students’ education has also suffered enormously. Students have raised serious concerns in recent days and weeks about issues at home: different time zones to Oxford in their home location; a lack of space; noise; and an absence of essential work tools including a desk, books, a computer and a stable, high-speed internet connection. Furthermore, international students are faced with additional (and unpredictable) challenges, such as having to make travel plans, negotiating complex and changeable immigration policies, undergoing mandatory periods of quarantine (either in private accomodation or specialist facilities) and/or firewalled internet access. Students who are materially more privileged than others in these areas are thus at a significant advantage compared to their peers.
Many students have also felt lonely, confused and anxious throughout the pandemic. Like the rest of the population, students have had to contend with self-isolation and the emotional impact of being unable to socialise normally with friends, family and partners. Some students have been ill with COVID-19 themselves or had to care for sick household members and loved ones whilst keeping up with the famously rigorous, unrelenting pace of an Oxford degree. The pandemic’s asymmetric demands on students means that a one-size-fits-all approach cannot be feasible and a ‘no-detriment’ policy is crucial for student success.
In such extraordinary circumstances – and ten months into the UK’s COVID-19 crisis – students deserve better than inflexibility and an insistence that it is possible to study as normal in such tough conditions. It is crucial to recognise the circumstances that led to the establishment of the ‘no-detriment policy’ last spring have only been prolonged and exacerbated over the course of recent months. If students are to pay full tuition fees for a severely diminished university education, it is right that the University at least intervenes to accommodate the impact of COVID-19 on our learning experience and academic attainment.
Last year, in light of the rapid spread and impact of COVID-19, the University listened to student feedback and implemented what they called a no-detriment policy, designed to ensure that finalists did not suffer from the consequences of a global issue outside of their control. Whilst by no means perfect, this policy was executed well in many respects. The optionality from last year should be continued further given the nature of the ongoing crisis. Imposing any one formula on the entire student body will unfairly disadvantage a significant number of its members. If we prioritise simplicity, we may unintentionally neglect the nuances of the situation which we face. Decentralising choice to students means that assessment will consider principles of fairness and equity, and ensure that each student can face the challenges we all find ourselves facing on their own terms, in a way that is right for them. That is what a no-detriment policy must guarantee.
There is undoubtedly a shared interest amongst the entire staff-student body in not wanting the value of an Oxford degree to be diluted, and everyone understands the importance of ‘academic rigour’; it is why many students apply to study here. However, it is unavoidable that students will be affected to varying degrees by the pandemic. Some will feel unable to be examined at the end of this calendar year if, for example, they or a close family member fall ill and/or they have been struggling with mental health issues. Others may be able to undertake exams, but will have to do so in extremely difficult conditions. More still will need to fulfil academic conditions to begin postgraduate courses but may or may not be able to be assessed next term. It suffices to say that no one solution can accommodate all students in a satisfactory manner and, therefore, a solution similar to last year must be implemented.
Yesterday’s email from the University, however, is not only a disappointment but an insult to the entire student body. By refusing to implement a clear ‘safety net’ policy, the University is downplaying the real-world impact that the pandemic has had on students’ learning – both in terms of access to teaching and resources, and of the effect of this crisis on students’ mental health. Some individual departments have also introduced policies that represent a ‘business as usual’ approach to exams and assessments, despite students’ loss of library access, resources and study spaces. A reliance on examiners’ personal acknowledgement of the past year’s unique circumstances cannot replace a formal framework that can evaluate and mitigate inequalities in learning and attainment.
The University has said that it will announce “additional measures” to ensure fair degree outcomes in “the middle of Hilary term”. The only way to ensure fairness is for the University – in conjunction with departments and faculties – to commit, as soon as possible, to a no-detriment policy for all those taking exams and submitting other assessments, Such measures can ensure that no individual Oxford student is unjustly disadvantaged by the effect of the pandemic on their learning in the last year and during the next.
Oxford’s Student Union, which serves as a voice for a student body of over 22,000, has said that the University should “recognise the academic challenges by reassessing workloads and assessment practices”, calling for a “fair outcome policy” defined as “a system of policies put in place to mitigate the detrimental effects of the pandemic on students with exams and coursework this year”. This will involve the re-scaling and re-weighting of exams and coursework to reflect the impact of the pandemic on the whole cohort. At an individual level, the Student Union has called for students to be able to file for mitigating circumstances and deadline extensions – without needing to prove that the pandemic has affected their studies – and to access better financial, academic and mental health support. We wholeheartedly endorse these demands and encourage students to find out more about the Student Union’s campaign and services and attend the online workshop taking place this evening (13 January), which will address these issues.
Other universities in the Russell Group, such the University of York, have also started to implement similar ‘safety net’ policies, and the Universities of Leeds, Lancaster and Bristol are considering similar approaches. A petition by Oxford students to the Vice Chancellor to implement “fair safety nets” has already attracted almost 800 signatures at the time of writing.
On Tuesday, the University ruled out the possibility of a ‘blanket safety net’, but given the disruption caused to the last two terms – which will likely endure even beyond Hilary term – it must now act to introduce a fair no-detriment policy which will also reflect the impact of the pandemic on assessments, just as last year’s safety net did. To fail to do so will present an entirely unfair disadvantage to Oxford students, directly undermining the University’s commitment to student welfare and academic success.
The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on a whole generation of students can not even begin to be graphed on a curve. This crisis is, as we are so often reminded, ‘unprecedented’ – but extraordinary times surely call for equally extraordinary measures.
A fair, robust no-detriment policy is one of those measures – and it must be implemented now.
Editors-in-Chief and Managing Director, Cherwell, The Oxford Blue, and The Oxford Student
Come Christmas, what’s on your table? Are there bowls overflowing with cranberry sauce? Plates filled with pigs in blankets? A prize bird gleaming on its platter? Traditions differ, but some dishes find their feature every year.
For most, the star of the Christmas feast is the turkey: the plump, golden-skinned bird that takes pride of place. But different birds have had their place; peacocks, pheasants and ducks all had their time on the table and before Victorian times, a goose was the typical centrepiece of the Christmas meal.
Henry VIII, a man then synonymous with decadence, may have been the first in England to try a turkey, but it did not come into fashion until Charles Dickens chose to emphasise the immense philanthropy of Scrooge’s gift to the Cratchits by swapping their traditional goose for turkey. No expense would be spared, and thus the Christmas turkey fell into vogue. Isabella Beeton, author of Mrs Beeton’s Book of Household Management, and the Victorian authority on all things to do with housekeeping, bolstered this new trend by proclaiming that Christmas for the middle class “would scarcely be a Christmas dinner without its turkey”.
Two of the more controversial members of a Christmas dinner, Yorkshire puddings and Bread Sauce, both find their origins in leftovers. Although many would argue Yorkshire puddings should only be eaten with roast beef, they actually originated from the drippings of fat off mutton as it roasted. As dripping fell into a pan filled with a batter, a Yorkshire pudding – enormous by today’s standards – would grow. Anyone with a food-strict upbringing similar to my own would never imagine a Yorkshire pudding on their plate come Christmas, yet this favourite continues to divide the country. It takes just a quick google search to discover the years of articles that have piled up from yuletides arguing pro-YP or against!
Yorkshire puddings’ more traditional, but stranger cousin is bread sauce. The beige, lumpy, liquid-like substance is not much more than gloop to those who haven’t been brought up with it. But to a fan, it’s a haven of stodgy delight. Bread sauce also originates from leftovers. In the Medieval period, soups were thickened with leftover bread, rather than flour as used today. These soups were prepared for Christmas feasts and evolved into the bay/nutmeg/clove flavoured slop (can you tell I wasn’t raised on it?) that so many will douse their turkey with this week.
As with anything that has its roots in the dinners of yore, the veg on our plates at Christmas have been shaped simply by whatever our ancestors managed to grow. Brussel sprouts found their way to the UK from Belgium, being the only cold-hardy green around. Parsnips, the preferred partner to sprouts, are harvested in the winter. Their first frost causes sugars to be released from their starch stores, giving them their characteristic sweetness (you won’t find that fun fact in your cracker).
Christmas desserts may be the most reliably underwhelming part of the day. Dessert has the opportunity to hold such creativity and glee, and yet the dry, misshapen lumps turned out year after year hold nothing but an unbelievable amount of fruit. They also hold a considerable serving of history.
The myth of each of the thirteen fillings of Christmas cake representing the 12 apostles and Jesus is a fun tale, but the most interesting story is with mince pies. First, let’s clear it up – yes, mincemeat did once contain real meat. Dating back to the crusades when meat/spiced/fruit pies found their way back to Europe, mince pies evolved from rectangular “coffins” to round Christmas Pyes that were often found at bountiful Christmas feasts. They were famously held in disdain by Cromwell’s Puritan government because of the ‘more-gluttony-less-Jesus’ they seemed to represent. By the Victorian period, mincemeat was being prepared and jarred earlier and earlier in the year to allow flavours to mature, and hence, meat was left at the wayside – thankfully for us.
These Victorian mince pies largely look like those we have today – buttery pastry, spiced fruit (and suet) filling, decoration with festive designs on top. Though their status as a delicious treat may be divisive, mince pies, with their undeniably Christmassy aroma, remind you it’s a special time of the year, and for that they fulfil their role as a Christmas food tradition.
Whether you guzzle gravy or put away potatoes, your food has been through a lot to make it onto your table – so forget the Queen’s speech and tune into your food come Friday.
Some colleges are reducing the availability of residence for students over the Michaelmas vacation. Oxford SU is lobbying to ensure international students are guaranteed accommodation for those who wish to remain, and has criticised the impact on care leavers, estranged students, and independent students.
Oxford SU passed a motion in 3rd week resolving to ask the University to guarantee all international student residence in Oxford over the vacation. The SU also resolves to push for vacation residence to be offered at 15% of usual vacation rent.
College policies do not currently fulfil Oxford SU’s requests. St John’s College has said that their vacation residence and grant scheme “will not operate as usual” during this vacation. All students have to leave, except international students whose home borders are closed and students with extended terms for their subjects.
St John’s told students that this was to ensure staff get a break from a difficult term, and students get a break to spend some time in a “different environment” before next year.
Queen’s College emailed students saying they “strongly urge” and “expect” all UK-domiciled students to return, noting that for students with welfare concerns, the welfare services would be closed for a period over the vacation.
They also told international students that the requirement to quarantine in their home country and in the UK is “unlikely” to be a “compelling reason” to be granted vacation residence. Queen’s said that, if borders for students’ home countries are closed, students should consider asking friends to stay at their homes. Queen’s reminded students that “there is no automatic right to stay in College”.
Oxford SU Class Act Campaign told Cherwell: “This is an issue not only for international students, but also for care leavers, estranged students, and independent students. Colleges consistently fail to provide these students with security, instead leaving individuals to negotiate with them for the right to have somewhere to stay. This is a difficult situation for everyone, but many students call Oxford their home, and must not be forgotten in this pandemic.”
One anonymous student told Cherwell: “The vacation residence policy email I received from my college was a disappointing read that placed unnecessary anxiety upon estranged students. For some of us, home life is not safe: it does not matter if this has always been the case, or if this is recent. Trinity Term lockdown was hard enough to suffer because students from other colleges were able to return – hopefully we can stay this time.
“I, like many other students, am incredibly grateful for my time at Oxford because of the freedom it gives me. It is also one of the reasons students take advantage of the vacation residence system: escape. To put it plainly, studying in college is better than working at home. We already try so hard to learn to live independently, study efficiently and strike that balance needed to be happy that if we are forced back into our older unhealthy environments no good will come of it.”
Oxford SU will further ask the University to ensure students who are required to quarantine upon return to Oxford get free accommodation, and receive food at the average price of their college’s home food.
Students who were required to quarantine upon arrival at the beginning of Michaelmas faced very varied college policies. Oxford SU’s motion stated that students were “in some cases charged extortionate rates for their accommodation”. Cherwell reported at the beginning of the term that Oriel College charged self-isolating international students over £700, including a nearly £30 per day food bill. Some colleges, including Hertford, Magdalen, Queen’s, and Worcester College, made accommodation free.
Freedom of Information requests submitted by Cherwell have revealed that Oxford University accepted at least £726,706 from the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), the designer and producer of the UK’s nuclear warheads, during the years 2017-19 alone.
The majority of this money was awarded to the Oxford Centre for High Energy Density Science (OxCHEDS), which advertises AWE as one of its “national partners” on its website.
AWE’s funding is mostly used by OxCHEDS to fund individual research projects and studentships, with a substantial portion (£82,863 in 2019) funding the department’s William Penney Fellowship, named after the head of the British delegation for the Manhattan Project and ‘father of the British atomic bomb’. According to the AWE website, William Penney Fellows “act as ambassadors for AWE in the scientific and technical communities in which they operate”.
This fellowship is currently shared by two professors, Justin Wark and Peter Norreys, both of whom collaborate closely with US state laboratories that develop nuclear weapons, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
AWE donations have also funded projects at the University’s Departments of Chemistry, Engineering, and Physics, a number of which are directly linked to the design of nuclear weapons. One AWE-funded paper, published in 2019, investigated fusion yield production, a vital way of testing the destructive power of a warhead prior to manufacturing, whilst another project researched methods used by nuclear weapons designers for simulating the interior of a detonating warhead.
This research also has civilian applications, and does not in itself point towards the development of nuclear weapons. A spokesperson from Oxford University stated: “Oxford University research is academically driven, with the ultimate aim of enhancing openly available scholarship and knowledge. All research projects with defence sector funding advance general scientific understanding, with a wide range of subsequent civilian applications, as well as potential application by the sector.”
However, AWE is not a civilian organisation. As Andrew Smith of Campaign Against the Arms Trade told Cherwell, “the AWE exists to promote the deadliest weaponry possible. It is not funding these projects because it cares about education, but because it wants to benefit from the research and association that goes with it”. Mr. Smith concluded: “Oxford University should be leading by example, not providing research and cheap labour for the arms industry”.
Responding to Cherwell’s findings, Dr Stuart Parkinson, Director of Scientists for Global Responsibility, described Oxford University’s ties with AWE as “shocking” and called for the work to be “terminated immediately”. He said that the findings “point very clearly to Oxford University researchers being involved in the development of weapons of mass destruction”.
In the face of this criticism, the University spokesperson claimed: “All research funders must first pass ethical scrutiny and be approved by the University’s Committee to Review Donations and Research Funding. This is a robust, independent system, which takes legal, ethical and reputational issues into consideration.”
However, there are growing concerns over the ethics and efficacy of this process, which has seen controversial donations from the Sackler family, Wafic Saïd, and Stephen Schwarzman given the green light despite internal and public protests. The committee’s deliberations are frequently subject to Non-Disclosure Agreements, meaning that they are not accountable to members of the University and to the wider public. Moreover, Freedom of Information requests submitted earlier this year revealed that the committee accepts over 95% of the funding it considers, with congregation members describing the committee as a “smokescreen” and a “fig leaf”.
In recent years, the University has faced increased opposition from student groups such as the Oxford Climate Justice Campaign and Oxford Against Schwarzman over the companies Oxford chooses to affiliate itself with through investments and donations. From this term onwards, a newly formed student group, Disarm Oxford, will be campaigning against the University’s numerous ties with the arms industry. Oxford Amnesty International is working with Disarm Oxford on the global Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, and to strive for the disarmament of the University more broadly.
Dr Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury and Chair of the Trustees of the Council for the Defence of British Universities, told Cherwell: “The recent publicity around university divestment from fossil fuels has highlighted the need for university bodies to be transparent about the ethical standards they apply to their funding, and it is encouraging to see this crucial question being raised also in the context of armaments-related funds and research.”
The combination of Brexit and the coronavirus pandemic has created a particularly difficult time for university research finances. In a marketised higher education system, seeking and welcoming money from industry partnerships seems like an inevitability. However, while some industries rely on academic research to save lives, others are predicated on taking them. With the UK confirmed this year as the world’s second biggest exporter of arms, the University’s significant ties to the development of weaponry has an alarming global significance which is now beginning to be called into question.
A trial led by Oxford University has discovered that
dexamethasone, a cheap steroid, can help reduce deaths in seriously ill COVID-19
patients.
The drug reduced the risk of death by one-third for patients
on ventilators and by one-fifth for patients on oxygen.
Oxford University says: “Based on these results, 1 death would be prevented by treatment of around 8 ventilated patients or around 25 patients requiring oxygen alone.”
Chief Medical Officer Professor Chris Whitty has described it as “the most important trial result for COVID-19 so far”.
The British government has immediately authorised use of the drug in the NHS, saying “thousands of lives will be saved”. The government has secured supplies of dexamethasone in the UK, meaning there is already treatment for over 200,000 people.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said this is “a remarkable British scientific achievement” and that the government “have taken steps to ensure we have enough supplies, even in the event of a second peak”.
It was discovered as part of the RECOVERY trial, the Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy, which has involved over 11,500 patients at over 175 NHS hospitals in the UK.
About 2000 hospital patients were given 6mg of dexamethasone
per day and compared with more than 4,000 who were not.
For patients on ventilators, it cut the risk of death from 41%
to 28%. For patients needing oxygen, it cut the risk of death from 25% to 20%.
The drug costs £5.40 per day and treatment takes up to 10 days. Professor Martin Landray, one of the Chief Investigators, has said: “So essentially it costs £35 to save a life.”
Chief investigator Peter Horby has said: “This is
the only drug so far that has been shown to reduce mortality – and it reduces
it significantly. It’s a major breakthrough.”
The UK Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, said:“This is tremendous news today from the RECOVERY trial showing that dexamethasone is the first drug to reduce mortality from COVID-19. It is particularly exciting as this is an inexpensive widely available medicine. This is a ground-breaking development in our fight against the disease, and the speed at which researchers have progressed finding an effective treatment is truly remarkable. It shows the importance of doing high quality clinical trials and basing decisions on the results of those trials.”
Peter Horby, Professor of Emerging Infectious Diseases
in the Nuffield Department of Medicine and one of the Chief Investigators for
the trial, said: “Dexamethasone is the first drug to be shown to improve survival
in COVID-19. This is an extremely welcome result. The survival benefit is
clear and large in those patients who are sick enough to require oxygen
treatment, so dexamethasone should now become standard of care in these
patients. Dexamethasone is inexpensive, on the shelf, and can be used
immediately to save lives worldwide.”
Martin Landray, Professor of Medicine and Epidemiology at the Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, one of the Chief Investigators, said: “Since the appearance of COVID-19 six months ago, the search has been on for treatments that can improve survival, particularly in the sickest patients. These preliminary results from the RECOVERY trial are very clear – dexamethasone reduces the risk of death among patients with severe respiratory complications. COVID-19 is a global disease – it is fantastic that the first treatment demonstrated to reduce mortality is one that is instantly available and affordable worldwide.”
Public Health England (PHE) has confirmed that a student at the University of Oxford has tested positive for coronavirus (Covid-19) after returning home from a specified country.
The university has said that “Our immediate concerns are for the affected student and their family, along with the health and wellbeing of our university staff, students and visitors. The student is being offered all necessary support.”
The university has established that the affected student did not attend any university or college events after they felt ill, when they subsequently self-isolated.
PHE has advised that the risk to other students and staff is very low and that university and college activities can continue as normal. They have also advised that the university and colleges do not need to take any additional public health actions in the light of this specific case.
A university spokesperson has said “We have worked with PHE to make sure that anyone who was in contact with the student after they fell ill have been notified and that they are able to access support and information as needed. PHE do not consider individuals infectious until they develop symptoms.”
The university is providing support for students, staff, and the wider community.
Oxford University has announced that more than 69% of undergraduate offers have been made to students attending state schools. The increase of 4.6% is the “best percentage increase the University has ever seen.”
30.9% of offers were made to students from independent schools; this is over 12% higher than the 18% of students who attend independent sixth forms, according to the Sutton Trust (2018), and dramatically higher than the 7% of all UK students attending independent schools.
78% of offers were made to UK applicants, 7% to EU applicants and 15% to Overseas applicants. The University specifies that ‘UK applicants are more likely to receive an offer.’
The University was unable to provide a breakdown of the split between Grammar, Comprehensive, Academy and other forms of state schools as they do not currently collect that data. The data on the inter-state school split is not published in the University’s annual data report either, however the May 2019 access report published by the University highlighted that ‘In 2018, 11.3% of UK students admitted to Oxford came from the two most socioeconomically disadvantaged groups (ACORN categories 4 and 56).’
Oxford’s successful UNIQ programme has led to 250 students being made offers this year. The offer rate to students who attended UNIQ programmes is 33.6%, in contrast to the offer rate of 21.5% across UK applicants. The increase in offers to UNIQ participants comes after the expansion of the scheme last year, which saw more than 1,350 pupils take part in the programme – an increase of 50%. This is the largest number of UNIQ participants to receive offers in the programme’s history, thanks to the dramatic development in 2019.
This year, Students from POLAR4 quintile 1 accounted for 6.4% of UK offers – up by 1.4%. These students represent the areas with the lowest progression to higher education.
Dr Samina Khan, Director of Undergraduate Admissions and Outreach at Oxford, said: “We are delighted by this record number of offers to state school students, and to students from under-represented backgrounds. This creates a strong foundation for what we aim to achieve. We know that students from some backgrounds are not as well-represented at Oxford as they should be, and we are determined that this should change. Having taught in state schools during my career, I know the wealth of talent that lies there. We wish the students every success in their studies, and hope they flourish at Oxford.”
The number of offers made to young people from areas with the lowest progression rates to higher education have increased. Students from POLAR4 quintile 1 accounted for 6.4% of UK offers – up by 1.4% from 2019 offers.
In 2015 the University made 56.7% of their offers to students from state schools. Across the past five years, there has been an increase of 12.4% in state school offers. This comes after pioneering Oxford schemes have taken place, from the UNIQ programmes to Lady Margaret Hall’s Foundation Year and University College’s bridging scheme. It also coincides with the University’s formation of the Foundation Oxford and Opportunity Oxford schemes.
Opportunity Oxford launched at the end of the previous academic year, and this week more than 100 candidates from under-represented backgrounds received offers to study as a part of the scheme. Dr Andrew Bell, Coordinator of Oppertunity Oxford and University College Senior Tutor, has stated:
“Opportunity Oxford is a major new initiative to increase the number of offers made to UK students from under-represented backgrounds, and to provide academic support to those students to ensure that they have the best possible start to their university careers. This year, more than 100 offers have been made under the scheme across 28 colleges. We anticipate making 200 offers per year under the scheme from 2022 onwards. We’re really excited to have launched Opportunity Oxford, and we very much look forward to welcoming our first cohort to Oxford later this year.”
This article was updated at 20:02 15.1.20 to clarify POLAR.
Further clarification was made at 00:11, 16.1.19 concerning Opportunity Oxford.
White curtains quiver in the non-existent breeze that haunts
the clinical interior of the Hayward gallery. With that slight movement, too,
the image projected onto the curtain sways – Victoria Sin’s wide eyes flicker
involuntarily as the camera slowly zooms into their face. In sparkling lingerie and full drag inspired
by Cantonese opera, the model, laid out demurely across
a satin curtain, stares back at the starers; sometimes sultry, sometimes vulnerable,
always, somehow, piercing.
“Look. Look. Look – At her.”
Victoria Sin’s A View from Elsewhere, Act 1, and She Postures in Context, three film-art pieces projected onto a curtain-enclosure, embody the spirit of the Hayward’s latest exhibition Kiss My Genders. The exhibition, made up of over a hundred artworks by thirty different international artists, centres around gender identity and fluidity. Physically enclosing their viewers in the wavering medium of cloth and projection, Sin appears to comment on the insubstantiality of gender boundaries, but in subverting perspective and viewing experience, also draws attention to the role of performance, presentation and spectatorship in all elements of identity. Hayward claims the exhibition focuses on “content and forms that challenge accepted or stable definitions of gender.” Paintings of hunter-gatherer tribes with drag elements question the West’s suppression of third-gender narratives, while sculptures made of artificial oestrogen and testosterone break down, biologically, what it means to be “male” or “female”.
But more than just gender identity, the exhibits are an expression of the individuality and the internal or cultural conflicts of the artists. Amrou Al-Kadhi teams up with Holly Falconer to explore what he describes as the “disorienting” experience of being drag as a person of Muslim heritage by modelling as drag persona Glamrou wrapped in a Persian carpet. Cloned in different poses through triple exposure to express the incongruence of these disparate cultures, Al-Kadhi demonstrates their successful unification in the persona of Glamrou. Meanwhile Juliana Huxtable’s photographic self-portraits deflect identity-labels entirely; using makeup, costumes and fantasy backgrounds, she deflects the reductive categorizations ascribed to her as a “black intersex artist” by creating personalized embodiments of mythology, sci-fi and super-heroes. Kiss My Genders thereby becomes an exploration not only of the boundaries perceived in gender – but of individuals’ cultural identity experiences.
With this exhibition, an art assistant explains, the Hayward is attempting to break the mould of LGBTQ+ and gender-related exhibitions, which often focus on the violence and oppression experienced by these communities. Instead they want to celebrate different identities. Nonetheless, the exhibition is palpably political: Zanele Muholi explores black lesbian and transgender experiences in South Africa through photography – and acts of violence are still an all too present component of that. In her series Crime Scenes she stages the aftermath of brutal murders, photographing the upturned feet of model corpses buried in sheets of plastic and litter. Paintings like YESSIR! Back off! Tell me who I am, again? combine illustration and collage to satirize the way gender transition is spoken about. The artist, Flo Brooks, depicts a fictional cleaning company scrubbing away at a therapist’s room, reflecting his experience of the “hygienic spaces” he experienced while transitioning; “spaces designed to clean, conceal and correct” things socially considered “dirty, abnormal or other” – but also addresses the way transgender issues are generalised and “sterilized” through neat clinical terms. Artists in Kiss My Genders marry the intensely personal with the social, emotional with the playful, and at the same time evoke all the contrasting feelings of pride, comfort, fear, frustration, belonging and exclusion.
The exhibition succeeds in its “celebration” and “expression” of identities – but the presentation, at times, is confusing. The works of some artists are split across multiple floors, the labelling unclear, and it is generally worth asking the art assistants to talk you through the rooms – difficult, when the gallery is at its busiest and a shame for an exhibition set on “opening doors.” Perhaps this is all the more noticeable as the exhibition appears to be catered towards an audience that identifies with binary genders – many of the artworks require the context of the theme or artist in order to be appreciated. Often, however, this is used in a positive way; many of the exhibits are truly thought provoking.
Most strikingly, Something for the Boys takes us through a spiral of ruched curtains in metallic pink – as if we are walking into a private adult show, yet at the same time, as if we were walking onto a stage. In the centre of the spiral we find ourselves in a circular womb-like room with a screen. Cutting between various LGBTQ+ spaces in Blackpool, the projected film shows an increasing disconnect between sound and image; a drag queen mouthing to “I am who I am” off-sync, interjected with a club-dance choreography, stills of gay clubs, the camera panning over pornographic videos and fetish-wear, and back to the drag queen – except this time she just mouths, and all we can hear is industrial sounds – once again connecting gender-identity and sexuality to cultural identity as a whole. But there is also something intimately performative about the display – the gesticulations and dances, unhinged from their appropriate music, seem to point to a theme of performance and spectatorship at large. And suddenly, that circular room no longer feels like a private theatre. It starts to feel like a stage, and the question crosses our minds – who is really the performer here, the drag act, or us, playing up to our female/male expectations? Just as Victoria Sin’s insistent murmurs, Kiss My Genders seduces its audience into truly looking – and becoming aware of the instability of their perspective in the process.
The National Union of Student’s annual conference took place between Tuesday and Friday of this week. Five of Oxford’s seven elected delegates were present and voting in Glasgow, with two not voting on any motions.
The voting records of all delegates are available for viewing online, whilst a list of the motions discussed over the three day event can be found here.
This conference saw the election of Zamzam Ibrahim as NUS President. Ibrahim, the former president of the Salford University students’ union, vowed in her manifesto to hold a National Student Strike, calling for free education, an improved student maintenance allowance and the return of the post-study work visa for overseas students.
Among the motions discussed, Oxford SU delegates voted to support the Mental Health Charter. This would seek to improve standards of mental health provision and funding across universities, acknowledging alarming rates of student suicide and the ongoing “mental health crisis”.
All Oxford delegates voted against the motion to revoke gender quotas within the SU. The proposer highlighted the now-increased presence of women in the organisation, since the rule’s creation in 2014, as well as the potential harm to non- binary individuals that a 50% female quota poses. The last 5 NUS presidents have identified as female, with racial discrimination featuring more often than gender inequality in this year’s manifestoes.
The conference itself was marked from the outset by sitting president Shakira Martin’s admission of the NUS’s financial trouble. Telling the conference that “we should have run out of cash”, Martin stated: “We are having problems that we need to sort out”.
This follows the November announcement that the NUS was unable to pay off a £3m deficit, cutting half of its jobs as a result. However, all Oxford delegates voted against a review of the NUS’s finances.
Closer to home, Oxford SU is continuing the hunt
for a VP for Charities and Community, a position unfilled by Hilary term’s
election. President Joe Inwood also penned a letter this month, calling for the
university to revoke the honorary degree given to the Sultan of Brunei.
Oxford SU has been contacted for comment on the proceedings.
It is a Sunday and some weeks since Tracey Emin’s latest London solo show at White Cube Bermondsey first opened to the public. Yet the people of south-east London have emerged in droves, so that at lunchtime the gallery is still milling with visitors – the fullest I have ever seen it. It is testament to the magnetism and celebrity of an artist like Emin that people continue to flock so dutifully to the austere, white-lit and grey-walled gallery to see a show entitled A Fortnight of Tears, when outside it is one of the sunniest days of the year so far. Outside, the faint hum of pop music floats down from the nearby park, while a yellow Labrador lolls out into the sunshine on the corner opposite. The scenes inside Emin’s exhibition, however, tell a starkly different story.
Emin’s show is a broadly autobiographical survey of love and loss. It is a tour de force in sculpture, neon, painting, film, photography, and drawing. The artist’s uncanny ability to stage life’s ordinary tragedies, and to be entirely candid about the experience of female pain, is on display as masterfully as ever in the demanding spaces of the White Cube. Decades of dirty laundry are paraded through the gallery; the horrors of a 1990 botched abortion, rape, and the death of her mother are the dominant topics of expression. Though much of the language and subject matter has been a constant throughout her career, it is evident that Emin has come some way from her days as a party-girl enfant terrible of contemporary British art. There is a discernible grown-upness about this exhibition; familiar, ugly subjects are returned to with a new seriousness and sensitivity, though the bite is doubtless still there.
The South Gallery I houses ‘Insomnia Room Installation’. Huge Gilcée print iPhone selfies of the artist reveal a tormented Emin in various states of physical and mental injury over four years of sleepless nights. The pictures are double hung almost up to the ceiling in a manner that falls somewhere between a teenage girl’s bedroom and a French salon. Unframed and pinned in each corner, they lift off the wall slightly, a pencil signature just visible on each bottom-right corner. We are invited to share the unhappy bed. As the first room of the show this sets the tone for the rest: sad, intimate, and earnest.
Alongside the ‘finished’ works further on in the gallery, four cases containing sketches and writings on paper, maquettes, and memorabilia are exhibited from the artist’s archive. These sketches – some on notepad pages branded with the names of hotels – are reminiscent of those doodles we draw out on paper absent-mindedly, while taking a phone call or sitting in a lecture. They have a day-to-day feel about them. The cabinets are organised thematically under the topics of love, sex, death, and fear. Indeed, these are the subjects to which the artist returns obsessively, and which percolate through every room of the gallery, bleeding into each other at the edges.
Paintings around the cabinets line the wall like the Stations of the Cross. But Emin’s protagonist keeps falling down, stumbling with her proverbial cross with little sense of any eventual redemption. We are inclined to believe that these are self-portraits, though the women’s faces are almost always obscured. Emin’s girls have soft, protruding (pregnant?) bellies, clubbed feet and hands, blurry faces, and masses of dark pubic hair. The viewer is struck by the way that the swollen nipples, breasts, and genitals always seem to be most in focus.
‘I Watched You Disappear. Pink Ghost’ is the first picture in a brilliant triptych of portraits in the Ashes Room. Blurred as if captured through tears, steam, or the fogging lens of memory, a soft rosy body floats behind the canvas, which itself perhaps imitates a shower curtain. To the right a painting about the death of Emin’s mother, ‘I Was Too Young to be Carrying Your Ashes’ ruptures any impression of shy, warm womanhood that might have been offered by that tipsy pink. Thick red paint then erupts through the curtain-canvas; with a sudden and regrettable violence, this is the moment the Hitchcockian knife wielder plunges his weapon. The picture is an open wound, a bloody, weeping sore. ‘You Were Still There’ then resuscitates a dissected body. The womb is darkened with movement like the impact of a punch. The colours shift throughout from the pink-red blushes of the Madonna to the grey blackish-blue bruised body of Christ. A punishing and merciless life-cycle is acted out.
Emin proves herself here as a painter and a sculptor of bodies, rather than figures; her subjects are not idealised forms that exist outside of the self, but those that are an extension of it. In the best of these works, the intimate understanding of the body and of a personal psychology comes out beautifully raw. They are positioned firmly within the artist’s own identity, and in the bodily violence that is the source of so much of her trauma. The bodies that Emin paints are much better than the large sculptures that dominate the space because they still feel alive – trapped between soft and hard lines, pushed and pulled and beaten out on canvas and paper. Corporeal suffering is not only acted onto the body, but oozes out from within it into art.
Love, desire, and violence are intimately linked in Emin’s world. The interactions between bodies in the paintings are like the kiss in Giotto’s frescoes, where two faces collide into one, eyes open; somehow unromantic, while still wholly passionate. The word ‘longing’ seems to have come up in titles and prose again and again throughout the exhibition. In her 1996 film How It Feels – a fitting endnote to the show – Emin comments on her abortion: “I will never really get over it”. This sits at the core of all the artwork – the wanting, the not getting, and the not getting over.
“What this whole show is about is releasing myself from shame. I’ve killed my shame, I’ve hung it on the walls,” Emin claims. Women wracked with grief and desire, aching and desperate, contort themselves with it, she seems to be saying. Everything is deeply felt and then neatly hung up. The exhibition is entitled A Fortnight of Tears because, Emin claims, that is the longest she has ever cried. For all its wailing and thrashing, this grieving process has produced an exhibition of staggering emotional complexity.
An Oxford University professor has come under public scrutiny after contributing to a front page story in the Times criticising the use of hormone blockers on young people as “an unregulated live experiment on children.”
Professor Carl Heneghan, a fellow at Kellogg College and the director of the Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine, provided a comment piece to the newspaper as a supplement to an investigation into the Gender Identity Development Service Clinic, which the Times described as “the only NHS gender clinic for children”.
Professor Heneghan’s appeal was made on the basis of medical skepticism over the practice, writing that: “the majority of drugs in use are frequently supported by low-quality evidence about their use beyond the usual age for puberty, or in many cases no evidence at all”.
The piece to which Professor Heneghan contributed sparked a significant outrage, with prominent figures criticising the Times for its coverage. MP for Cardiff South Stephen Doughty tweeted: “It’s not just the shocking 1980s style headline – @thetimes @TimesLucy have given us a bumper edition of prejudice against the #Trans community today. Do they have *any* idea or even care about the harm this risks causing?”.
Speaking to Cherwell, Professor Heneghan stood by his comments, saying: “the development of these interventions should occur in the context of research. Treatments for under 18 gender dysphoric children and adolescents remain largely experimental.
“There are a large number of unanswered questions that include the age at start, reversibility; adverse events, long term effects on mental health, quality of life, bone mineral density, osteoporosis in later life and cognition.”
Responding to the issue for Cherwell, transgender campaigner Fox Fisher wrote: “The University of Oxford has a responsibility to make sure all students feel safe to attend the school – behaviour of this sort should never be tolerated and jeopardises the well-being of students and the integrity of the institution.
“Look at any modern research in anthropology, sociology, biology, psychology or psychiatry – all indicates that trans children benefit massively from being allowed to express themselves.”
In a public statement regarding the article, the Oxford Student Union LGBTQ+ Campaign condemned the article and urged both members of the LGBTQ+ Community and its allies to launch official complaints to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (ISPO).
The statement read: “Transphobic, fear-mongering articles being given priority in national news is unacceptable. Although the article includes information and statements from the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) that refutes its own main line of argument, emphasis is still placed upon unsupported and dangerous viewpoints.
“The prominence of this article within the issue of The Times clearly means to stir up misinformation which will exacerbate the difficulties transgender and gender nonconforming children and teenagers face in the UK.
“The article additionally relies on a statement from Carl Heneghan, who is a senior tutor at Kellogg College. His words attempt to give credibility to a transphobic rhetoric which is harmful to transgender people both within and outside of the University. It is deeply concerning that Dr Heneghan’s attempt to sow confusion about the treatment of trans children by conflating different treatment methods and rejecting information from the GIDS itself is being legitimised by the name of the University in this way.
“Conspicuously absent from both pieces are the voices of transgender people who have used the services provided by GIDS. Ignoring the perspective of the people who matter most in this issue, transgender children, is entirely unbalanced reporting.
“As such, both pieces fail to contribute to any kind of representative discussion on gender dysphoria, perpetuating only a transphobic editorial line.”
This article will be updated as we receive more information.
On a sunny but very windy afternoon on Sunday 10th March, the Women’s Football Blues faced Cambridge in their annual Varsity match at the Hive Stadium in Barnet. The stakes were high – with their BUCS season drawing to a close, this game was the climax the team had been preparing for all season. Perhaps the fact that Oxford had already faced Cambridge twice in their BUCS run this season made the competition even fiercer; a 0-0 draw between the two sides in late January demonstrated that Varsity was either team’s for the taking.
Both teams got out of the
blocks fast at the start of the game, making for an exciting first half.
Although Cambridge did seem threatening at times and were putting Oxford under
a lot of pressure by playing a particularly high line, the Dark Blues were able
to keep them at bay and captain Lucy Harper led her defence well to snuff out any
hope of glory for the Cambridge attack.
Oxford were equally keen
to apply the pressure in the Cambridge half and wingers Erin Robinson and Katie
Plummer made some great runs down the pitch which were difficult for the Light
Blues cut out. However, with the Oxford forwards often being found offside, it
was hard for them to break the deadlock and consequently the teams went into
halftime with the score still at 0-0.
However, early in the second half, Cambridge were able to break Oxford’s resolve, and after a fumble in the box the ball came out to the edge of the area for Cambridge’s Ashcroft to propel a shot into the top right of the goal and put the Light Blues ahead. Two minutes later, the Tabs extended their lead after a corner that was not cleared up by the Oxford defence.
Despite this, Oxford did
not let their heads go down and the next ten minutes of the game were extremely
tense, with the Dark Blues desperately trying to close the gap between the two
teams. Eventually, first-year duo Taiye Lawal and Rani Wermes were able to link
up in Cambridge’s box, before Wermes went down from a foul and earned Oxford a
penalty. Substitute Monique Pedroza stood up to the plate and smashed the ball
high into the net to put Oxford level, much to the delight of the Dark Blue
crowd.
Unfortunately for the Oxford
team, as the match drew on they were unable to find any more luck in the
Cambridge half, and at the other end of the pitch, Cambridge were awarded a
penalty from a rather dubious handball and were able to make it 3-1,
effectively sealing the deal and winning the game.
As the final whistle blew, Oxford were clearly filled with despair over their loss. However, such a valiant performance gave them much to be proud of, and the Dark Blues will be hoping to work harder than ever next season to claim back the trophy.
Despite this loss, the
Women’s Reserves (the Furies) were able to find success against Cambridge
Reserves (the Eagles) on home turf at Iffley on Saturday of 7th Week.
The Furies found themselves 1-0 up after a through ball from Jasmine Savage
reached the feet of captain Rebecca North who slotted the ball firmly in the
back of the Cambridge net. However shortly after, Cambridge managed to breach
Oxford’s defence, and after a two on one situation with Oxford’s last woman,
were able to equalise with a short range shot on goal.
Going into the break the
score remained 1-1, but neither team had any luck in the second half either,
meaning at the end of the 90 minutes, the game went straight to penalties. The
tension in the stadium was riding high, but Oxford kept their cool. After four
goals from four Furies and three goals and a miss from Cambridge, the final Eagles
penalty taker was hoping to keep her team in the game. However it was not to
be, and an admittedly easy save from goalkeeper Emmie Halfpenny saw the Furies
win Varsity for the second time in a row.
As the whole of the Oxford team sprinted from halfway to celebrate with their keeper, it was easy to see just how much this Varsity win meant for the Furies, who had worked so hard throughout the season for this moment.
With one cup spending a year at The Other Place, and the other cup held firmly in Oxford’s hands, all we can do now is wait until next year to see if OUWAFC are able to do the double over Cambridge.
The
co-chairs of Oxford University Labour Club have issued a statement to committee
members demanding that all contact with the student press be approved by the
executive, Cherwell can reveal.
Aiming to centralise the executive’s control over the club’s relationship with student media, the co-chairs recently claimed that committee members were constitutionally required to consult the co-chairs on statements to the press.
In a
message sent to members of the club’s committee, co-chair Grace Davies said: “If
any of you guys are approached by OxStu or Cherwell please please [sic] let us
know.
“We’re
keen to have a say in all communication going to the media and the constitution
says that you should consult the co-chairs – I’ll be quite sad if I see peoples
quotes in papers and me and Arya didn’t know about it first.”
Despite Davies’ claims that it is a constitutional requirement for members to consult the co-chairs before approaching the press, Cherwell could find no evidence of such a rule in the club’s constitution.
The club’s co-chairs responded to a request for comment by claiming “The comment regarding consulting co-chairs was intended to extend to, but only to, members of the club speaking on behalf of the club. The position of co-chair is the only position which has the mandate and official capacity to speak on behalf of the club.
“There was no intention to limit comments to press when speaking on individuals’ own behalf and in a personal capacity, and the intention was instead that any comments made officially by the club were decided by the entire committee, with both co-chairs being able to gauge the position of the entire club.
“Individual members of the OULC executive making comments on behalf of the club, does not follow the convention of the Labour Club, and can lead to confusion about the official position of the club.”
“We’re upset that a member of the club felt it was an attempt to censor their personal expressions of their views and would reassure them that this in no way our intention.”
“The publicity officer is elected to manage media and communications, and as such their role is to oversee comments made to the press, working alongside the co-chairs.
“This is a well established convention. Whenever possible, we try to reach agreement about statements to the press within the OULC committee so that the entire committee has a say in our official position, rather than individuals who do not have the mandate to decide OULC’s official position to the press.
“The established interpretation of the constitution and other documents referred to in the constitution, is that only co-chairs can be ultimately responsible for any pronouncements made on behalf of the club.”
Despite this claim, no mention is made of members speaking on the club’s behalf in the original message.
One OULC member, speaking anonymously, told Cherwell that: “Though of course I understand why the Labour chairs want to centralise a lot of communication to the press, to act as though it is a formal rule is misleading and unfair.
“Moreover,
on certain issues the ability to voice dissent via the press is valuable, and
the Labour club will ultimately be weaker for the absence of honest
disagreement with the party line.”
Oxford University Boat Club (OUBC) and Women’s Boat Club (OUWBC) this morning confirmed their crews at the City Hall, London for next month’s Boat Races.
The Men’s boat is
identical to the crew that was named for last weekend’s fixture against Oxford
Brookes, a race that was postponed due to high winds.
The crew weighs in at 719.6kg, 19.6 kilos lighter than the 2018 crew but nonetheless a shade heavier than their Cambridge counterparts, who weighed in at 718.3kg.
OUWBC will head into
the race with 2 returning members of last year’s defeated crew, naming both
Beth Bridgman of St Hugh’s and Keble’s Renée Koolschijn, although both have
shifted position in the boat, with Bridgman moving from Stroke to position 6,
and Koolschijn from Bow to position 3.
The situation is
mirrored in the Men’s boat as OUBC president Felix Drinkall and Christ Church
student Benedict Aldous – who last year replaced Joshua Bugajski at the
eleventh hour in a decision shrouded by illness – are the only survivors in a
youthful-looking crew.
The average age of the
Oxford Men’s boat is 21.8 years-old, a historically low figure accentuated by the
presence of four undergraduate scientists in the aforementioned duo of Drinkall
and Aldous, as well as Charlie Pearson and Tobias Schroder.
This is in stark contrast with the CUBC crew, who sport an average age of 26.3, after the decision to include two-time Olympic gold medallist James Cracknell in the boat. Cracknell qualifies for selection as he is studying for an MPhil in Human Evolutionary Studies at Peterhouse College, floating the idea on Twitter as early as July 2018 alongside the hashtag “#NeverTooOld”.
The OUWBC crew have an
average age of 23.9 years-old, slightly younger than the 24.3 years-old of the
Cambridge Women’s crew.
The Light Blues
comprehensively swept all 4 races last year, including a first victory in eight
years for the Cambridge reserve boat Goldie over Isis, a dominance hitherto
unseen since the move to stage each race on the same tideway in 2015.
Cambridge now lead the
standings in the Men’s race 83-80, whilst they boast a greater advantage in the
Women’s race, notching 43 to Oxford’s 30.
This year’s Boat Races take place on Sunday 7th April, with the Women’s race commencing at 2:15pm, followed by the Men’s race an hour later at 3:15pm.
The bookmaker William Hill has priced up the Men’s Race on their website, rating it a closely-fought affair, going 8/11 about Oxford and evens for Cambridge, with the possibility of a dead heat rated a 50/1 chance.
Corpus Christi College’s JCR Executive Committee has sent an open letter to the Vice-Chancellor objecting to the proposals for a new postgraduate college. The letter argued the University had failed to engage sufficiently with University members regarding the proposals, and suggested that “this college has no goal other than increasing student numbers.”
Parks College, a new postgraduate college proposed by the
University to begin accepting undergraduates in 2020, aims to “draw together
researchers from different disciplines to explore some of the big scientific
questions of our time.”
The new college will use the Radcliffe Science Library site as part of the library’s redevelopment. The college will also aim to provide accommodation elsewhere. The Corpus Christi Executive Committee believe that “The “co-location” of Parks College and the Radcliffe Science Library will undermine both. Every space is temporary: a room will one day be a library, the next, a seminar room, the day after, a public exhibition.
“How can academia flourish without a permanent space? The students and fellows of Parks College will instead remain confined to their respective Departments, defeating the ideal of interdisciplinary studies.”
Students also
raised concerns about their opportunities to engage with the University on the
Parks College proposals. During a JCR meeting about the letter, its author, Ed
Hart, said: “I think it’s important to push against the lack of communication. It
is a huge project and was pushed through within three months.”
In the letter, the committee wrote: “The proposal has been made with little to no attempt to engage with University members. The proposal was first mooted in August, in the provisional 2018–23 strategic plan, and it was presumed the creation of any college would be closer to 2023 than today.
“The plan was confirmed after the end of Michaelmas term 2018, after the publication of the final Gazette of the year, preventing serious discussion of it.
“Now, it is to be rushed through Congregation, with plans to hire fellows in just three months’ time. Meanwhile, student and faculty publications fume incredulously and faculties have been left expressing surprise that an important laboratory may become a dining hall.
“We find it concerning that such a monumental decision has been made without adequate consultation of the students you claim to represent.”
The committee also raised concerns about the purpose of the college, since it does not have an overtly outreach focus.
They said: “The proposed college fails to embrace Oxford’s long history of founding colleges to include those from marginalised backgrounds and to improve the lives of those outside the College system. Consider the foundation of the women’s colleges, the foundation of Mansfield College for non-conformist Christians and the foundation of St Catherine’s and St Cross for those without college affiliation.
“Parks College fails on both counts, its website paying lip service to “[embracing] internationalism and diversity” and the benefits of college life.”
“120 years ago, Ruskin College, Oxford, was founded to expand education access to adults with few or no qualifications. It embodies many of the qualities admired in the University’s own colleges. Parks College has none of them.
“The University offers nothing – a half-hearted college, cynically preying on outsiders’ unfamiliarity with Oxford – in return for self-aggrandisement and tuition fees. This proposal demeans the University and the Colleges. It must be reconsidered.”
Responding to the letter, Professor Lionel Tarassenko, Senior Responsible Owner for the Parks College Project, said: “Parks College addresses one of the key education priorities in the University’s Strategic Plan, which is to increase the intake of graduate students across all four divisions by up to 850 a year by 2023, while maintaining quality.
“It will enable the University to grow the number of graduate students, but without upsetting the balance between undergraduate and postgraduate student numbers in mixed colleges or imposing unrealistic targets for growth in the existing graduate colleges.
“The proposed new graduate college will actively promote interdisciplinary exchanges between researchers from across the four academic divisions. It will offer graduate students a rich and stimulating intellectual and social experience, on a par with that at the other graduate colleges.
“And, as with other graduate colleges at Oxford, it will have an outward-looking and inclusive ethos, which embraces internationalism and diversity. As with St Cross College when it was founded, the Fellows of the college will be University professors and researchers who do not currently have a college affiliation.
“Far from leading to a loss of library facilities, the Parks College project presents an exciting opportunity to redevelop the science library and its services to align more closely with the needs of scientists in the 21st century – students, researchers and other academics.
“The proposals for the new college have been discussed with graduate student representatives, the staff of the Radcliffe Science Library, and at meetings of numerous University committees, including the Curators of the University Libraries, Education Committee, Conference of Colleges Graduate Committee, Conference of Colleges, Finance Committee, Personnel Committee and Council. Throughout this consultation process, the plans have been gradually evolving to take on new ideas and to ensure that concerns raised are understood and addressed.
“The
plans for the new college and the allocation of space were approved by Council
on 11 March, and will now be put before Congregation in early Trinity term. The
OUSU VP for Graduates is a member of the Programme Board which is responsible
for the development of the plans.
“We are actively encouraging students
to participate in the planning for the new college. We have been running
Q&A events for students in partnership with OUSU, and we are inviting
students to help shape the academic blueprint of the college at a series of
focus groups, which will take place in late April and early May.”
In the motion for the JCR Committee to sign the letter, the Corpus JCR President Rhiannon Ogden-Jones was also mandated to discuss the issue with other JCR presidents and the Corpus MCR to seek their support. The motion was passed with 13 votes for and 2 against.
Cherwell can reveal that Nigel Farage is expected to speak at the Oxford Union on Thursday’s eighth week debate on Brexit.
The announcement of Farage’s appearance had not yet been made by the Oxford Union, but instead was pre-empted by Labour peer and People’s Vote supporter Andrew Adonis, who this morning tweeted: “I’m debating Nigel Farage at the Oxford Union on Friday. Can’t wait”. Given that Oxford Union debates are, under normal circumstances, held every Thursday of term, and that the Union’s term card places the Brexit debate on Thursday 7th March, it is not known whether the date announced by Lord Adonis is correct.
The specific motion that will be debated at the upcoming Brexit debate and which speakers would be attending has been kept a secret from the Union’s members throughout the term. The Oxford Union’s website has for weeks read “speakers to be announced”.
Cherwell has contacted representatives of Nigel Farage, Andrew Adonis, and the Oxford Union for comment.
It is not yet known which other speakers from the student body or elsewhere have been confirmed to speak at the event.
Along with the Union debate, Adonis also announced on Twitter he would be speaking at Leeds, Eddisbury, Oxford, Llanelli, Swansea, and Wrexham in the upcoming week.
The Oxford Union organised a now-famous debate on Britain’s membership of a European community in 1975, two days before the referendum which saw Britain’s voters consent to membership of the EEC. Speakers in proposition included Edward Heath and Jeremy Thorpe, while Barbara Castle and Peter Shaw spoke in opposition.
There has been significant disagreement between staff at Queen’s College over the decision of the college to fly an LGBTQ+ rainbow flag in recognition of LGBTQ+ History Month, after the college Provost, Professor Paul Madden, opposed the move.
In a meeting on the 13th February, which was attended by representatives from the JCR and MCR and a number of college fellows, the Governing Body passed the unreserved motion to raise the flag for the remainder of the month with a vote of 18-3.
The vote came after the Provost had excused himself from debate on the matter.
However, Cherwell understands from sources present at the meeting that, following the vote, the Provost ruled against the majority, instructing that the flag not be raised for more than the originally planned one week.
No statement has yet been given to explain this decision.
Upon the Provost’s overruling of the vote, Cherwell understands that a fellow left the session in protest at the decision, not returning for the duration of the meeting.
A few days later, an email was sent to the JCR President and Vice President by the Dean, informing them of a change of college policy, stating that the flag would fly for the month as a whole.
When contacted for comment, the Provost did not offer any explanation of his decision. Both the Senior Tutor and Dean also declined to comment personally.
Speaking to Cherwell, a spokesperson for the college said: “As has been customary for a number of years, instruction was given by the Provost to fly the rainbow Flag in the first week of February.
“After it was taken down, the Provost received representations that, in view of the observation that it had become customary among the colleges for the flag to be flown throughout February, the College’s position seemed anomalous.
“He therefore reviewed the decision and gave the instruction that the flag should fly for the whole month and it was remounted on the morning of Thursday 14th February.”
The decision stands in the context of the fact that all other colleges on the high street have flown the rainbow flag for at least a week in February, with many flying it for the whole month.
The disagreement comes just a couple of weeks after Cherwell’s revelation that more than 100 serving Oxford clergy have signed a petition opposing a call by local bishops for “an attitude of inclusion and respect for LGBTQ+ people,” with staff from two Oxford colleges among the signatories.
Responding to the issue, Queen’s JCR President Ebrubaoghene Abel-Unokan said: “The original decision not to fly the LGBTQ+ flag for the entirety of LGBTQ+ history month was, in my opinion, an oversight by the College. It was an anachronism from the College’s past that does not reflect our varied and inclusive community of students and staff or acknowledge and value the contributions they make to the life of the College.
“It is a de facto tradition for the LGBTQ+ rep of our JCR to request that the College fly the flag for the entire month, and I’m incredibly pleased to see that this year Florence Darwen was successful in lobbying the College to change its policy.
“I’d also to thank the Senior Tutor, Nicholas Owen, and the Dean, Chris O’Callaghan for the roles they played in securing the change.
“The JCR has always championed progressive political beliefs, and I would like to think that this is but one step in the consolidation of those views into the College’s practices.
“I have little doubt that this will continue as Queen’s welcomes Dr Claire Craig CBE later this year, who will be the first woman in the College’s history to hold the position of Provost.”
Oxford University LGBTQ+ Society told Cherwell: “While we haven’t been contacted directly by Queen’s students regarding this issue, and are therefore uncertain about the nuances of this particular situation, we as a Society strongly encourage colleges to fly the LGBTQ+ Flag for the duration of pride month.
“It is an important symbol of tolerance and acceptance, which promotes the wellbeing of LGBTQ+ students.
“It is extremely disappointing when college officials do not understand the value of celebrating their LGBTQ+ students and sending a welcoming message to potential applicants.
“We run a campaign service to help students enact change in their colleges, and would strongly encourage Queen’s students to get in touch with us, with the aim of improving provisions for LGBTQ+ students by rectifying this issue.”
Brendan McGrath will be Union President next Michaelmas after receiving 84 more first preferences than rival James Lamming.
Candidates on McGrath’s ‘Together’ slate also secured the positions of Librarian-Elect (Mahi Joshi), Treasurer-Elect (Shining Zhao), and Secretary (Amelia Harvey).
Three out of the four Standing Committee candidates nominated by the ‘Together’ slate also won election, compared to two of Lamming’s six candidates for the ‘Engage’ slate.
Two independents, Mo Iman and ex-Logistics Officer Nikhil Shah, complete the seven-member standing committee.
However, ‘Engage’ had some success in the election, as the most popular candidates in both the Standing Committee election (Spencer Cohen) and Secretary’s Committee election (Chengkai Xie) were from the slate.
Speaking to Cherwell about the result, James Lamming said: “Whilst this obviously was not the result the Engage team had hoped for, I can without any doubt say that Brendan will put together a fantastic term card, as one of the most diligent and dedicated members of Union committee I have ever worked with during my time at Oxford.
“I am immensely proud of the team myself and my officers put together.”
The election of Brendan McGrath as president of the Oxford Union comes after a turbulent term for the current Librarian, after members saw a motion for impeachment being filed against him, and his first candidate for Treasurer, Lee Chin Wee, being disqualified from running for the position.
McGrath declined to comment to Cherwellon the election result.
Those members elected will be expected to follow through with the pledges made in their manifestos. The ‘Together’ slate claimed that it would introduce member-speaker roundtable events, make the Union’s financial accounts transparent by publishing a fully audited account online, and implement a strict ‘zero tolerance’ policy on bullying. The ‘Engage’ slate’s pledges included a bar happy hour with pints costing £1, livestreaming events on the Oxford Union app, and holding more female-led debate events.
McGrath, Joshi and Zhao will serve their terms as officers in Michaelmas Term 2019, while Secretary-elect Amelia Harvey will assume her post next term in Trinity.
New data shows that 8.7% of female postgraduates suspended their studies in 2016/17, one-third higher than the rate for men (6.5%). The gender discrepancy was mirrored in withdrawal rates, which were 1.37% for men compared to 1.64% for women.
The data, obtained from the University by Cherwell, reveals a consistent gender disparity in suspension and withdrawal rates over the previous 8 years.
Suspensions are when a single student pauses their study during a given year, with one student potentially accruing multiple suspension ‘counts’, in the rare event that they do so more than once.
Withdrawals are when a student completely withdraws from their programme of study. This does not include those that have been transferred to a different programme of study.
A spokesperson for the University told Cherwell: “These numbers are relatively low so we should be careful about drawing conclusions from them without understanding the context. We offer high levels of academic and pastoral support to our graduate students through their departments, colleges and central University services.
“There are many reasons why a student’s status might be suspended, including health, maternity or paternity, personal circumstances, academic difficulties and disciplinary matters. Suspension is often a voluntary decision by a student, and in most cases students return from periods of suspension to successfully complete their course.”
A History Masters student at St Catherine’s, Hannah Grange-Sales, told Cherwell: “Women are conditioned to believe they are less intelligent than men, therefore there is both a real and imagined need to work harder to be considered men’s intellectual equals.
“Girls and women are also taught from an early age to internalise ‘unbecoming’ emotions, such as anger, frustration and hopelessness.
“Considering the historic argument against women’s right to education that they do not hold the mental rigour to undertake study, there is a double pressure to overcome this stigma and maintain a facade of capability when, for a variety of personal reasons not linked to their intellect, this may not be the case.
“The increased pressure for women to prove themselves intellectually coupled with the internalisation of emotion can surely be considered a factor in the higher rate of mental health issues amongst female students.”
The overall suspension rate for all postgraduate students has also increased year on year from 2013/14 to 2016/17 from 5.98% to 7.93%, although there was a slight decrease last year to 7.5%.
The withdrawal rate has remained consistent at about 1.5%, peaking in 2013/14 at 1.82%.
There was also a marked contrast between those on research and taught postgraduate degrees, with the former having consistently higher levels of suspension and withdrawal. In 2016/17 just under 10% of research graduates suspended their studies compared to 6% of taught graduates. This figure decreased slightly to 9% last year.
Cherwell understands that the disparity in the figures could be due to the length of postgraduate research degree, which are typically three years. Taught degrees can be as short as 9 months, meaning that there is less opportunity for students to suspend or withdraw from their studies. Just under 52% of enrolments in 2017/18 were in taught degrees.
Oxford SU VP for Graduates, Alison D’Ambrosia told Cherwell: “It is a ticking time bomb the issue of graduate student welfare. With a huge increase in graduate numbers over the past several years, we have seen minimal investment in their welfare provision and support.
“From a counselling service that is only open during term time to students been pushed from college to department to seek help, more needs to be done to properly support the graduate student body. It seems that the first call of action is for students to suspend rather than tackle the causes of suspension and offer proper support for students.”
According to the SU’s recently published counselling report, postgraduate students were proportionally less likely to seek help than undergraduates, with 10.8% of postgraduate researchers and 9.2% of taught students receiving counselling to 12.3% of undergraduates.
The report added that the lower take up of provision could be due to cultural differences. In 2016/17, 64% of graduates were non-UK students.
The University has released advice for EU staff and students
in preparation for a no deal Brexit.
The new website explains that the University is now “making
preparations” for the possibility that Britain leaves the EU without a deal,
which will go ahead if no withdrawal agreement is in place by March 29th.
A no deal Brexit would be likely to include EU citizens
entering the UK being treated as third country nationals, no longer subject to
EEA immigration rules and requirements. This would mean EU students would pay
higher tuition fees than they do now and may need new visas to conform with new
immigration laws.
Research staff may lose the opportuning to access EU
research funding, which totalled £78 million in the academic year 2017/18. The University
may also lose the opportunity to participate in pan-European collaborations.
Given the growing uncertainty, the University is now advising
EU students to ensure they have all relevant paperwork up to date.
The University stresses that EU citizens will still be able
to apply to study at Oxford, and that “all Oxford University staff from the EU
will have the same right to work in the UK whether a withdrawal deal is agreed
or not.”
A spokesperson for the University said to Cherwell: “Given the ongoing uncertainty
about the implications of the UK leaving the EU, the University is working hard
to understand and manage the impact on our staff and students.
“Dedicated web pages with the latest information about the
implications of Brexit have been set up for staff and students and these will
be updated regularly. The pages consider all possible outcomes of the current
negotiations, including the possibility of the UK leaving without a deal.
‘Whatever the outcome of current negotiations, the
University of Oxford is, and intends to remain, a thriving, cosmopolitan
community of scholars and students united in our commitment to education and
research.
“The departure from the EU will not change this; our staff
and students from all across the world are as warmly welcome as ever.”
The Students’ Union reaffirmed the need for advice, stating:
“Students need guidance as soon as possible. If a no deal Brexit does happen,
students want the University to quickly provide information about the impact
it’s going to have on them.
“Graduate students from the EU could face serious
disruption, particularly those studying for 1-year masters programmes. There
are major issues outstanding, especially around the future of the Erasmus
programme and future prospects for research students. The only way to avoid
this mess is a People’s Vote with the option to remain.”
With just over six weeks left until the Brexit deadline, the
University will continue to update their page with more information as it is
available, and individual colleges may be providing specific information
directly to students before the end of Hilary Term.
For more information, or to keep up to date on the
University’s advice, visit the University’s Brexit advice page for students
and for staff.
Brendan McGrath, against whom a motion for impeachment was filed on Thursday 7th, has won his vote not to be impeached by 400 votes to 189.
A notice has been pinned on the Oxford Union noticeboard that reads “The Librarian remains in office. The Motion of Impeachment is unsuccessful”.
The 68% vote in favour of McGrath comes after the 12 hours of deliberation that an impeachment motion in the Oxford Union entails. On the day of the vote supporters and allies of McGrath mobilised a “Vote No” campaign on Facebook, posting social statuses that presented McGrath’s potential impeachment as symptomatic of ‘toxic politics’.
A greater proportion of women and those from BME backgrounds hold fixed-term contracts at the University.
In 2018, the proportion of women in fixed-term contracts was consistently higher across the academic divisions, with the sharpest disparities in the Social Sciences where 56% of women were in fixed-term contracts compared with just 45% of men.
In the Medical Sciences Division, 85% of those from BME backgrounds were found to hold fixed-term contracts in 2018 in comparison to just 68% of those who identify as white.
For Social Sciences the respective figures were 66% to 45%, and in the Maths, Physical, and Life Sciences, the figures were 74% to 43%.
Overall, the proportion of all those of fixed-term contracts has increased significantly from 2008 across all divisions apart from Medical, with the Humanities Division seeing the biggest increase in the use of fixed-term contracts, from 23% to 32%.
In 2018, just under 50% of staff from the Maths, Physical, and Life Sciences, Social Sciences, Medical, and Humanities divisions, were on fixed-term contracts.
The University’s policy on ending fixed-term contracts requires dismissal to be “fair and transparent.”
Employees are informed three months before the end of their contract is “at risk”. When it is not possible to extend or renew the contract, an employee will be informed of the fact a month before its termination.
A University spokesman told Cherwell: “Oxford is the UK’s most successful University in attracting external funding to support our world-leading research. The funding packages support jobs for researchers at every career stage, including fixed-term posts. The larger number of fixed-term contracts results from this increased funding success, opening more opportunities for the next generations of world-class researchers. We have had particular success in attracting talented women to progress their careers with us, including those areas of the sciences where they have been traditionally under-represented.
“We do recognise that fixed-term work can create uncertainties and practical difficulties. We make extensive efforts to support staff on these contracts, including through personal and career development opportunities.
“All staff at Oxford, whether on permanent, open-ended or fixed-term contracts, benefit from our generous employment packages and support for future development. We are also working hard on moving staff onto open-ended and permanent contracts wherever possible. A growing proportion of these contracts are held by women, while the proportion of all staff on open-ended contracts in the sciences is now growing faster than those in fixed-term posts.”
The University’s policy is to ensure departments are “keeping contracts under active review and transferring staff to permanent or open-ended contracts wherever funding permits.”
The proportion of staff working on open-ended contracts in the sciences is now growing faster than those on fixed-term contracts. For example, in 2008, 75% of staff in Medical Sciences were on fixed-term contracts and 4% on open-ended contracts; By 2018, fixed-term contracts had fallen to 72% and open-ended contracts risen to 8%.
The proportions of women in permanent and open-ended positions has increased in some sectors. In Medical Sciences in 2008, 45% of permanent contracts and 53% of open-ended contracts were held by women. By 2018, women held 52% of permanent and 57% of open-ended contracts.
However, in a 2016 report the UCU also included open-ended contracts within their definition of insecure contracts, because their “employment is dependent on short-term funding.”
Their report read: “Employers like to emphasise the degree of choice and agency available to workers on casual or as they like to call them ‘flexible’ contracts, but it is obvious that your enjoyment of choice and flexibility will be shaped by which category you are in.
“It’s simply impossible to imagine that a workforce of this magnitude is comprised entirely, or even largely of the people who conform to the employers’ caricature of the jobbing professional who relishes the flexibility.”
Oxford UCU representative Patricia Thornton told Cherwell: ”Regardless of whether the University wishes to accept the UCU’s calculation of the HESA data on precarious contracts or not, it’s clear that in many divisions, the numbers of staff on casualised contracts have been rising.
“It’s important to note here that “open-ended externally funded contract” staff, whilst sometimes not counted as casualised, effectively face the same level insecurity: their employment is terminated if and when the external source of the funding is withdrawn. The key difference here is that, whereas a fixed-term contract employee is given an end date at the point of hire, the staff member on an open-ended externally funded contract is not; which is arguably even less secure for the member of staff, whose employment can come to an end suddenly and without sufficient warning if the funding is withdrawn.”
Just under 5% of staff in the Medical, Maths, Physical and Life Sciences, Social Sciences, and Humanities cumulatively are in open-ended or externally funded contracts in 2018. The figure was just 2.3% in 2008.
Thornton continued: “Casualised contracts not only create a two-tier workforce within the university, with casualised members of staff effectively carrying out many, if not all, of the same duties as their permanent counterparts on a day-to-day basis, paid lower salaries and afforded a greatly reduced level of protection (and fewer benefits), but they also magnify pre-existing inequalities within the workforce, like the gender pay gap and the persistent underpayment of minority ethnic staff.
“There is a significantly higher proportions of women than men in fixed-term contracts across the divisions, and, disappointingly, that proportion has actually increased marginally since 2008 in the Social Science and MPLS Divisions, and increased significantly in the Humanities Division.
“Equally disturbing is that, despite Oxford UCU’s persistently raising this issue with the administration, and despite various commitments that have been verbalised across the university, the percentages of staff on fixed term term contracts have instead risen since 2008.”
One representative of the ‘Academic Precariat’ group, pointed out that these figures fail to account for those that have already left the sector due to casualisation.
They told Cherwell: “There are plenty of us around, but very little data or interest in us. I left the sector for a range of reasons, but most of them related directly to insecure employment and its consequences: a two-tier system in which casual teaching and research staff undertake work that mainly just enables senior academics to bring in big money projects, lack of respect for intellectual ownership of teaching/research materials produced on these contracts, feeling and being utterly disposable, lack of investment and interest in supporting career progression (why should they, when to offer us more secure employment would be to remove the props fora system which values REF and big grant money above all else?).
“Another big factor in my decision to leave after my short-term postdoc was the minimal prospect of ever being able to secure a contract long enough to actually qualify for maternity pay in the near future.”
Oxford’s historic charm is being reshaped. Not by the hands of time, but by the relentless expansion of its own University. For decades, Colleges have played a cutthroat game of Monopoly, gobbling up properties, bulldozing community spaces, and transforming neighbourhoods into sterile academic annexes. Students, just passing through this ancient city, barely notice the metamorphosis. But beyond the libraries and quads, a quieter crisis unfolds: Oxford’s soul is being hollowed out. Independent shops shutter, beloved venues vanish, and rents skyrocket to absurd heights, ignored as collateral damage in the University’s imperial march for growth. This isn’t mere NIMBY whining; it’s a slow suffocation of our city’s heartbeat.
A quick glance at any local Facebook page will tell you a very consistent story. Locals are fed up with us for what seems to be the University’s expansion into their neighbourhoods. What once were community spaces are now cut-and-paste accommodation and offices, which in turn makes Oxford less liveable for someone who has no need for either.
The thing is, as a student here, I’d like to dismiss this as NIMBYism, but it’s the truth. Does anybody here remember the Warehouse nightclub? It was before my time, personally. It sat on 42 Parkend Street. On the off-chance that the Nuffield College administration reads the Cherwell, they’d recognise it as their administrative offices, and a few rooms for the sociology department. The rest of us, however, wouldn’t recognise it. Why would we? What was once for everyone, is now a building for a few dozen people.
On Cornmarket Street, businesses have come and gone, shutting within mere years of opening. Burger King disappeared in 2020, LEON in 2024 – the list goes on.. Naturally, we should not shed a tear for multi-million-pound fast food chains. However, Burger King explicitly pointed to Jesus College’s rent prices as the reason for their closure, and similar rumours surfaced on LEON’s closure. How high the rent must be, that a billion-dollar company can be priced out, boggles the mind.
Worse still is Magdalen College’s property empire. They own the Oxford Science Park, which is a business park outside of town. This is, in itself, harmless – more business here is probably a good thing. What very much is not, is their decision, using this clout, to close the Hollywood Bowl and Vue cinema, also just outside of town. The plan is to replace them with more science labs. Magdalen College is one of the richest in Oxford, and yet their primary solution to not having enough science labs, is to sacrifice the city’s communal spaces, and not to build elsewhere. But I take it, that because students don’t frequent there, nobody will notice them gone, right?
Enough examples – you’ve got the picture. Many of us have seen our own high streets and social areas at home die off in the wake of COVID, and the same thing is happening to Oxford five years later, courtesy of the University. Their rationale seems to be as follows. The more people who get the chance to study in Oxford, the better, and the more resources Colleges have at their disposal, the better. This sounds good; after all, life here is so good, you’d want to share it with as many people as possible, right? The logic falls apart rather quickly, however. Oxford is what it is, not because of office blocks, but because of the spaces both Town and Gown may enjoy. Clubs, restaurants, cafes, simply cannot exist if colleges continue their rent-hike tirades and aggressive acquisitions.
A final thought. It feels downright evil to close spaces students probably won’t have heard of to expand the University’s resources, when its impact directly harms the roughly 160,000 people already living here. Most of us students will live in Oxford for three years, then pay it an occasional visit following graduation. We don’t have to treat it like our forever-home, and so we have no regard for places we’d have no need for. This makes us complacent, whilst the University’s colleges rid the city of the few social spaces for both Town and Gown still here. We should be living together with Oxford’s residents, not separated and locked in a war for control over the city.
Have an opinion on the points raised in this article? Send us your 150-word letter to [email protected] to see your response in print or online.
Student theatre has always thrived on experimentation, collaboration, and the courage to speak up. So Far, So Good, a new piece of original writing by Melissa Chetata-Brooks, undoubtedly embraces all three. From its very first moment, a stark countdown projected onto a television screen, the play situates itself as a work with something urgent to say.
Drawing inspiration from the cult French film La Haine, it promises an unflinching look at grief, community, and the cycles of violence, with a particular focus on the impact of knife crime in the UK. The production’s heart is also in the right place, raising awareness for the Ben Kinsella Trust, a charity that works against violent crimes through education, and showcasing a richly diverse cast and creative team.
What makes So Far, So Good compelling in concept is its desire to break traditional boundaries, not just thematically, but in its form. The play integrates music, photography, and video into the storytelling. A raised bedroom set cleverly evokes adolescence, while the live DJ, who scores scene transitions, provides moments of atmospheric immersion that sometimes outshine the dramatic action itself. At times, the soundtrack is so arresting that it momentarily pulls the audience out of the plot, leaving one almost tempted to ask for the DJ’s playlist rather than follow the next twist of the story.
The performances are spirited, and several cast members bring a striking presence to the stage. Alexa (Damola Arin) is especially strong as the voice of reason among a group of teenagers caught in cycles of violence and mistrust. Arin delivers her lines with a grounded conviction that offers the audience an anchor in a narrative full of instability. Her moments of lightness are just as impactful as her serious ones, as when she deadpans “This isn’t the 1950s” during a conversation about leaving an abusive partner, eliciting a much-needed burst of laughter from the audience amidst the play’s heavier moments.
Other standout scenes include a heart-wrenching exchange between Josh (Kwame Appafram) and the mother of Isaiah, who was killed before the beginning of the play, and Sheila (Arya Coban), which offers a rare pause for grief to be processed rather than performed. Joseph Beckett as Cain brings an unsettling authenticity to the role of Kia’s (Carla Mukasa) abusive boyfriend. So much so that when he calmly microwaved a lasagna mid-argument, I was gripped by an overwhelming urge to leap onstage and fling it straight into his smug face, ideally while it was still scalding-hot from the microwave.
But So Far, So Good also grapples with a recurring issue in student-written theatre: how to match strong themes with a coherent script. There are frequent moments of poetic ambition – Kayla’s monologue near the end is delivered with emotional force by Nyla Thomas – but the writing at times feels rushed or under-explored. Motives shift quickly, and characters occasionally serve the demands of the plot over psychological depth. For example, Kayla’s sister, Kia’s, relationship with Cain is clearly central to the story, yet the nature of her dependence on him remains vague. Given that she seems to live with her siblings and has other forms of support, her continued attachment to him is underwritten, making her eventual tragic fate feel more like a narrative necessity than a character-driven outcome.
The play’s most symbolic device – a gun that passes from hand to hand, eventually resulting in Kia’s accidental death – raises further questions. While a direct nod to La Haine’s motif of circular violence, its presence in this setting strains plausibility. The characters are teenagers in Oxfordshire, involved in low-level drug activity at most. The ease with which a gun is obtained and how casually it is passed between characters feels more like a borrowed cinematic trope than an organically integrated plot point. It gestures toward the gravity of systemic violence but lacks the infrastructural context that would make it believable.
Some narrative choices are similarly discordant. At one point, Alexa offers Kia £20 to leave town and pursue her dreams of becoming an actress. The gesture is sweet, but also jarringly unrealistic, especially in an economic climate where £20 barely covers a train ticket, let alone a new life. Other lines, like Kayla’s sudden insistence that she’s the one holding everything together and taking care of everyone, are delivered with power but lack sufficient buildup provided that no indication of this had been given before, creating emotional beats that don’t always feel entirely earned.
That said, the production’s sincerity and ambition are undeniable. The use of multimedia, the focus on inclusivity, and the determination to tell stories about marginalised experiences are all crucial contributions to Oxford’s theatrical landscape. Chetata-Brooks speaks with great clarity in her interview about the need for student theatre to evolve into a space where multiple art forms intersect and where new voices are embraced on their own terms, without being reduced to labels like “diverse” or treated as a “niche” interest. Her work is a direct manifestation of that vision.
So Far, So Good may not be polished, and some moments feel less fully realised, but it’s a production that deserves attention and respect for what it sets out to do. It asks its audience to engage with uncomfortable truths, and even when its storytelling falters, its underlying message comes through: these characters, these stories, and these conversations matter. For a debut play, it shows remarkable promise, and more importantly, it opens the door for others to step forward and try, fail, or succeed on their own terms. In student theatre, that is something to be encouraged, and should never be critiqued out of existence.
Tucked away in a room at Worcester College, I sat in on a rehearsal of Ella Hickson’s The Writer (2018), which Fennec Fox Productions is bringing to the Michael Pilch theatre this term. My immediate thought? Anyone even remotely interested in theatre has to see The Writer.
Even from the few scenes I watched, it is clear that this is not an ‘easy play’. The play begins with a seemingly straightforward encounter between a young female writer (Rose Martin) and an older male director (Christina Hutchings), yet this is quickly revealed to be part of her script-in-progres. What follows is a series of layered, at times surreal scenes, which uncover more about the writer’s life and artistic project. The cast have the difficult task of moving between multiple roles and navigating various layers of reality. It is knotty and difficult, challenging traditional theatrical form while exposing the power structures embedded within it. The production team are leaning into this tension by staging the entire play on the diagonal. In other words, the Pilch will literally be tilting off its axis.
Director Joshua Robey told me about the first time he saw the play in 2018: “I was really drawn to it because it’s got some quite scathing things to say about theatre as an industry in general.” But it’s not just about ‘Theatre’ with a capital T. First performed in 2018, Hickson’s play spoke to a range of pressing issues, from #MeToo to Trump – all issues which remain alive today. Theatre becomes an extension of the broader social arena, foregrounding questions of who gets to be heard, and who is expected to stay silent.
“This is not going to be like anything anyone’s seen in Oxford before,” Robey assured me. “There is a radical argument running through the play which is balanced by a sort of pragmatism and realism. We are letting the play speak for itself.”
With such complex material, it can be tempting to fall into analysis before even starting to rehearse. Robey explained how the production team had been cautious not to get bogged down in questions of meaning or interpretation. Instead, his approach was to take each scene on its own terms – making it as visceral and immediate as possible. Rather than getting caught up in questions about whether you were a character or a character within a character, the cast were challenged with simply committing to the reality they were currently performing; or in the audience’s case, watching.
Watching Robey led the actors through a scene, this scene-by-scene approach became especially clear. They would pause and discuss, “What is happening here? What is my character thinking?” Each scene is investigated in itself, prioritising the character’s immediate emotional stakes over how the broader, complex narrative might be interpreted.
The rehearsal atmosphere was intense, but deeply collaborative. All the actors told me how fulfilling this process has been. Gabriella Ofo, playing the character of ‘Female actor/ girlfriend’, said: “In order to act them, you have to really understand who these characters are, what they want or what they need.”
The cast also highlighted the challenges of switching between characters and emotional states without much transitional material. Susie Weidmann, who is playing both ‘Male Actor’ and ‘Boyfriend’, told me: “It’s weird playing this doubling throughout. The director’s take on characters I am also playing may be weird and strange. It’s really fun.”
You will have seen posters for The Writer everywhere: Rose submerged in the river, framed as Millais’ Ophelia. While the specific Shakespearean reference may be tangential, this marketing foregrounds the play’s discussion about how women are represented in art. There is intimacy in The Writer, but Robey was keen to point out how Hickson had written it very deliberately in order to escape the pitfalls of representing intimacy on stage. “She is very aware that just by being on a stage, a woman becomes visible in certain ways. While the intimacy may be more extreme than you might expect, the material avoids the pitfalls of women being objectified.”
On another note, Robey also told me: “The Writer is also about money. It is a timeless story about selling out, and what you’re willing to give up in order to make profit.” This emphasis on artistic compromise speaks directly to the realities of student theatre in Oxford, and why this production, in particular, feels pointed. Unlike a lot of universities, Oxford uses a production company system, where students are encouraged to set up a company and run it like a business. Inevitably, people are incentivised to do shows that will sell really well, making as much money as possible.
Robey explained: “A lot of people are really deterred from the £500 that you need to do a show with rights, so we are seeing a lot less contemporary drama than you get in a lot of other universities.” This is one of the reasons he wanted to do this play, a play which is all about “that frustration with an economic model that makes theatre less exciting than it should be.” With that in mind, staging The Writer in Oxford, where budgets are tight and expectations are even tighter, become a central part of the play’s urgency and relevance.
When asked about his hopes for the play, Robey explained that he just wanted audiences to come away with the same thrill he had in 2018, watching experimental theatre which refused to play by the rules. With the energy and talent of this cast and crew, it seems likely that The Writer will do exactly that.
“All art is quite useless,” declared Oscar Wilde in the preface to The Picture of Dorian Grey. It’s a provocative claim, inviting us to reconsider how we view the portraits which line Oxford’s dining halls, libraries, and examination rooms. Taking Wilde’s comment in all seriousness, can we learn to appreciate these paintings not simply for who is depicted, but instead, for how they are painted? In essence: can we attempt to separate the art from the subject? I believe that, with some adjustments, we can do so.
While sitting down in a formal hall in most Oxford colleges, students often find themselves under the watchful gaze of painted benefactors and alumni from long ago, robed in tradition and surrounded by crests. In Examination Schools, where portraits loom large above rows of anxious undergraduates, one might look up in search of inspiration (or distraction) and meet a face from centuries past.
These portraits have, perhaps unsurprisingly, become the subject of intense debate. Who deserves to be hanging on Oxford’s walls? Who no longer belongs? Do these figures reflect the values we seek to uphold today? These are essential questions, but not ones I seek to answer here. Instead, I want to question something more aesthetic than political: can we momentarily set aside the subject and simply appreciate the portrait as art?
To be clear, these works do reflect the hierarchies, values, and exclusions of their time. A portrait which was deemed suitable in the 17th Century might not pass the same test today. Even so, there remains a case for preservation, not as an endorsement, but as a record of change. In fact, it’s fun to consider who from today’s cohort would be immortalised in oil. Cherwell BNOCs, top-class academics, Blues athletes, Union hacks, thespians? Perhaps such a list would best elucidate how our standards and symbols of success have shifted. In any case, I believe it’s important to preserve historical portraits; it reflects the evolution of an institution.
But perhaps we’ve become over-accustomed to viewing this art predominantly through a political or institutional lens when it’s also about aesthetics. Could we adopt a different approach? That is, could we momentarily focus on Oxford’s portraits not for who they represent, but for how – the brushwork, light, colour, and form?
This is the approach of aesthetic formalism: a way of seeing which values composition over content. Could portraits be appreciated purely as a study in tone, mood, or technique?
Some argue no. They maintain an art’s subject is intrinsically linked to its essence. In his work Art and Illusion, art historian Sir Ernst Gombrich suggested that our appreciation of art is deeply rooted in psychological and cultural context. When viewing a painting, we bring knowledge and expectations with us. Extrapolating from this theory, understanding who the sitter is and what they represent is inseparable from how we experience the work.
Yet is this truly the case? In Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Judgement, he emphasises the idea that beauty can be experienced disinterestedly, without needing to understand the subject. In this sense, perhaps a portrait could be appreciated in the same way we admire a flower. Not because we know its history or symbolism, but due to its visual appearance. When we look at a flower, we do not necessarily appreciate the beauty in it due to its complex biological makeup. It is simply… beautiful.
In the same way, could Oxford’s art not simply be… art? We can appreciate the portraiture for its artistic merit and what it tells us about the evolution of portraiture itself. L’art pour l’art – art for art’s sake.
Yet, a flower is not a former benefactor. Portraits, unlike flowers, were made to honour individuals with particular legacies. So, while formalism does offer one valuable method of seeing, it cannot be the only one.
I do agree with the viewpoint that new art can be valuable to the current collections. In particular, I value the importance of representing a diverse range of what success can look like. Above all, one notes the underrepresentation of women and ethnic minorities on college walls when compared with today’s student composition. Juxtaposing old portraits with more modern ones can be beneficial to showcase current, or more recent, leadership, benefactors, or prominent alumnae. Such contributions can deepen – not dilute – Oxford’s traditions. This combination does not offer erasure, but dialogue. Contextualisation, where necessary, can help viewers reckon with history without discarding it.
Ultimately, then, perhaps it is not a question of choosing between the who and the how. Rather, it is about learning to see both. But sometimes, just sometimes, we might let ourselves forget the biography and focus on the brushstrokes.
Oxford’s political societies cultivated generations of MPs and PMs. In an era of rising populism, a tour of their drinking events finds a drifting elite with few ideas.
It’s a well-worn cliché that Oxford is the place where future politicians are made. The student party societies here are where Prime Ministers-to-be from Margaret Thatcher to Liz Truss first cut their teeth. But as the size of party memberships continue to fall and a populist surge increases the currency of being an ‘outsider’, what is the role of Oxford’s political societies in shaping British politics? Are these societies ready to grapple with modern politics or are they just another antiquated Oxford tradition? To find out, I spent four evenings this Trinity term drinking with the University’s wannabe politicians.
Beer and Bickering – Oxford Labour Club (OLC)
On a Saturday evening in early May I walked into St Anne’s JCR to a gathering of no more than 20 people. I’m starting with the party in power as I want to see how they react to the numerous announcements from the government over the Easter vacation. From the decision to slash Universal Benefit rates to Keir Starmer’s new conviction that trans women are not women – coinciding with recent interpretation of the Equalities Act by the Supreme Court – are student Labourites joining the government as it shifts to the right?
One quick notice is made before we get going. The welfare secretary stands up and implores us to avoid discussions of controversial ‘foreign affairs’ (translation: for the love of God don’t start talking about Israel-Palestine). One can understand why they are apprehensive, given Labour’s history of antisemitism controversies. But it also establishes that there will be strict parameters on tonight’s conversation.
“There’s clearly a lot of discontent with the Starmerite project, but OLC’s only response is apparently to gather once a week to collectively agree on uncontroversial principles.
There is a distinctly dour mood this evening and the cause becomes clear once the discussion of the first motion (‘this house would deprioritize economic growth’) gets going. Speaker after speaker gets up and expresses their despair with the economic policy of Starmer and Co. From the obsession with growth (“or whatever it is we’re doing,” as one man puts it), to the scrapping of the winter fuel payment (since reversed), Starmer’s decisions have distinctly dampened the excitement OLC members no doubt had this time last year.
As for what they would do differently? It’s less clear, but the need to rein in inequality and tax wealth are met with nods of approval. During the break I point out to one member that the arguments made sound a lot like the Greens’ positions, and ask why he doesn’t support them instead? “Ah well, I’m in too deep for that now,” he tells me.
During the discussion of the second motion, I’m less taken by the content of the arguments (the consensus is pretty clear that there shouldn’t be ‘a national religion’) than by who is doing the arguing. The speakers are almost all men; at one point I count eight in a row. I point this out to a member, and he grimaces, explaining that it’s long been an issue for OLC. Although the social secretary and both co-chairs this Trinity are women, he tells me that Beer and Bickering remains “a sausage-fest”.
The rest of the evening passes uneventfully. The final motion (‘this house, as the Labour Party, would encourage strikes’) was again met with consensus: strikes are an essential tool but a last resort. As I walk home past drunken May Ball goers, I can’t help feeling that the lack of discord is somewhat by design. There’s clearly a lot of discontent with the Starmerite project, but OLC’s only response is apparently to gather once a week to collectively agree on uncontroversial principles. A lack of imagination, or more likely an eye on an internship in the party, seems to nip in the bud any interesting and (God forbid) controversial discussion of real policy alternatives.
Port and Policy – Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA)
A week later, I made an uncertain attempt at putting together a ‘lounge suit’ as per the Oxford University Conservative Association’s dress code. This feels like an unnecessary extravagance, given the venue: a dilapidated scout hut in New Marston.
I’m greeted by an American post-grad in an expensive looking three-piece suit who proudly explains that he will be ‘speaker of the house’ for tonight’s discussion and promptly returns to doing his ‘vocal warm ups’ (“BA – BA- BA!”). I shuffle over to the side of the room, picking up a flimsy plastic port glass as I go, and watch as the OUCA regulars trickle in. The men are all strikingly similar: under 6 foot tall, dressed in chinos, blazers and trainers and with precisely combed hair. More interesting, though, is the fact that they don’t dominate the makeup of attendees: the room is far more diverse in gender and ethnicity than OLC. It’s also substantially better attended, which is impressive for a party with the worst national polling in its history, and given how far out of the town centre we are.
I get to chatting with attendees. They quickly suss out that I’m new and I have bought membership (as I will for all the societies I visit) which lands me on the receiving end of some concerted networking efforts. Whereas with Beer and Bickering the conversation was pretty laid back, here I’m constantly asked for what my Instagram handle is and whether they’ve seen me before at the Oxford Union (they haven’t). It’s like everyone has just finished How to Win Friends and Influence People and is keen to put it into practice: “So tell me, Stanley, what EXACTLY is it that makes the food at Teddy Hall so great?”
I’m relieved, then, when the ‘speaker’ bellows out that the first motion of the night will begin. I look around, waiting for the room to fall quiet, but the conversation continues as if nothing had happened. Instead, the participants in the debate begin screaming their arguments at the top of their lungs to a room which is evidently not listening. I move closer, trying to make out what they are saying, but I can’t for the noise of conversation. The three debaters resemble the street preachers on Cornmarket Street, shouting at distinctly uninterested passersby.
“What I witnessed was a small elite jostling for an inheritance that’s long been spent.
Unable to glean anything from the participants, I begin asking questions of those around me. How do they feel about the recent local elections, in which the Conservatives lost 674 councillors? “I don’t think people here realise that Reform is an existential threat,” one member tells me once it’s just the two of us. It’s hard not to agree with his assessment. In all the conversations I have, the national party – or indeed politics – is hardly mentioned. When I ask people why they are here, they often appear a bit sheepish. They claim that they just fell into it, that it’s quite addictive, that it’s for the social side of things. Even at OUCA, being a Tory isn’t particularly cool.
This is with the exception of one man, who points proudly to his tie displaying the emblem of the Heritage Foundation – the think tank central to Donald Trump’s election victories and behind the controversial Project 2025. I ask how he feels about the current ‘DOGE’ federal spending slashes, in particular on USAID. He has mixed feelings, there are some things he wishes they’d keep, “but others I’m happy to see go, like trying to get rid of HIV”. I wonder if I misheard him over all the shouting: “sorry, did you say you don’t want them to fund AIDs treatment?” He gives me a confused look: “Of course”.
Before I have time to ask further questions, the debate, occurring primarily between two blokes (one of whom is brandishing a large stick that makes him resemble a Tory Gandalf) finishes. The members gather for a rendition of ‘God Save the King’ (they all know the second verse), followed by an equally boisterous recital of ‘Jerusalem’, and leave to clamber into Ubers.
I walk back to Cowley, lost as to what to make of the evening. I would comment on the motions chosen, the arguments made, but I couldn’t hear a word of it. If the voters went to the polls tomorrow, all evidence suggests that the Tories, already much reduced, would be decimated and it seems that the OUCA members wouldn’t bat an eye. Instead, the whole thing is just another fixture in the Oxford Union social scene: a rite of passage for ambitious Christ Church freshers and a place for forming useful connections. The state of the Conservative Party, currently barrelling towards irrelevancy, is merely an afterthought.
Rum and Revolution – The October Club
The following Friday I join my proletarian brothers (it’s all men) at a gathering of the communist October Club hosted in Magdalen, one of Oxford’s richest colleges. The stately Oscar Wilde Room is quite the contrast from the rundown scout hut where the Conservatives mustered. I’m handed a Guiness (I’m enjoying the communal spirit already) and we get cracking with the first motion: ‘do we have freedom of speech in modern Britain?’
The formula, in which we chat first in little ‘breakout groups’ before sharing our thoughts with everyone, works well. There’s none of the showmanship that comes with addressing a large crowd, so we’re actually able to have a normal conversation. We discuss incitement to violence, no-platforming on campuses, Kathleen Stock and the recent terror charges against a member of the Irish hip hop group Kneecap.
Image Credit: Stanley Smith (for Cherwell)
Next up, ‘what would education look like under communism?’. At this point, it quickly becomes clear that there are very few actual communists in attendance. In our group is myself, an OLC committee member, and several Australian post-grads with distinctly liberal politics. The one actual October Club regular gets us started by voicing his objection to the “authoritarian power of the teacher” and advocating for a decentralised, communal approach to education: although he declines to flesh out what this would actually look like. The conversation is quickly steered to more ‘realistic’ aims, such as reducing the cost of higher education. During the whole group discussion, the faces of the committee members become increasingly downcast as they realise they are playing host to what is essentially left-leaning liberal chit chat, rather than real talk of revolution.
This divide comes to the forefront with the self referential motion ‘is Rum and Revolution counter-revolutionary?’ The Aussies, pretty inebriated at this point, are full of praise for the evening: “this is what we need, coming together to find common ground!” The communists are unimpressed, pointing out that sitting around talking placates us from taking real action. We might have affirmed our lefty values, but will we take part in any protests? Will we go down to the pro-Palestine encampment set up in the Angel and Greyhound Meadow? The fact that the room is entirely white and entirely male is raised, something that everyone agrees is a problem, but no one is quite sure how to address. The evening ends with this tension unresolved.
Out of all the parties I visit, the society most anxious to stop talking and start doing, through its lack of careerism and its well-structured format, is actually the best conduit for a good discourse. Unfortunately for the organisers, the conversation doesn’t always go in the direction they would like.
Liquor and Liberalism – Oxford Students Liberal Association
The following Wednesday, I stand outside of the venue in New College. I pause before entering, mentally preparing for another evening of endlessly introducing myself. When I walk in, however, I realise I won’t have to. Inside is every white man from Port and Policy, and one or two from Beer and Bickering as well.
The setup is two long tables positioned so that, when we sit down, the sides are facing each other. This gives the room a distinctly House of Commons feel, a vibe that is bolstered by the conduct of the members. As the ‘speaker’ for the evening walks to the centre there are cheers, banging of tables, and shouts of ‘resign!’
The first motion? ‘This house believes that Britain was ‘“freest” between 1832 and 1918’. A man I recognise from OLC kicks off proceedings by pointing out the obvious: no, Britain wasn’t “freest” when women and working-class men couldn’t vote. “Point of information” interrupts the guy sitting next to him, with a big grin on his face. “Wouldn’t you say that everything was just so much better then?” Roars of laughter.
I realise now what I’m in for. Each speaker offers their own brand of edgy humour (Get the kids back in the mines! Rebuild the British Empire!) “It’s basically just a stand up comedy club,” the bloke I’m sitting next to takes it upon himself to explain. This isn’t eminently apparent to me as we endure a five minute speech given in all sincerity about how the decimation of the “British officer class” during World War I put Britain on a path of terminal decline. As for the ‘comedy’, many of the speakers don’t quite have the charisma to pull it off, nervously looking around the room and stumbling over their words as they quote a brain rot meme from TikTok.
“Across the board, these gatherings are not even pretending to have carefully-considered solutions to the very serious public policy issues facing the British people.
During the second motion (‘this house would cut the foreign aid budget’), there are a few more serious speakers. An ex-president gives an impassioned defence of foreign aid, while a committee member rails against it as an enormous waste before she is informed that we have, in fact, already slashed our spending. One member goes on a jingoistic tirade declaring that bombs, not nappies and bandages, are the way to assert Britain’s power on the world stage. I’m sitting next to her, so I can see the faces of the guys opposite as they light up with admiration.
The evening continues in this manner, three silly speeches for every serious one. I feel increasingly awkward being there in my capacity ‘as a journalist’. This doesn’t feel like a public political meeting of people brought together by shared values, certainly not by a commitment to the Liberal Democrats. Instead, I’m observing the goings on of a small friend group which just so happens to revolve around the Oxford political scene. In the same way I wouldn’t sit on the sofa with a group of friends I don’t know and stick everything they say in Cherwell, my presence feels like an unwanted intrusion.
Oxford politics: an increasing irrelevancy?
As with the national level, politics in Oxford seems more fixated with personality than party. Both Port and Policy and Liquor and Liberalism feel like another forum for aspiring BNOCs to mingle, rather than groupings with any sense of party identity. Beer and Bickering, on the other hand, seems to be suffering from the opposite problem. It’s so hamstrung by its commitment to the national party that it dares not voice alternatives to the policies of a government it’s clearly thoroughly disappointed in. Across the board, these gatherings are not even pretending to have carefully-considered solutions to the very serious public policy issues facing the British people.
So what about the alternative parties? If you’re looking for a good discussion, I’m tempted to recommend the October Club, but they’re not always so welcoming to those less enlightened than themselves. There are also clear gaps in the political landscape. Both of the insurgent parties, Greens and Reform, have next to no presence, although many members of OUCA expressed their belief that it won’t be long before a ‘Stella and Stop the Boats’ is created.
Ultimately, the innovation which will shape tomorrow’s politics isn’t happening in Oxford anymore. British politics is no longer dominated by the friendships made by undergrads ready to take the reigns of powerful party machines. What I witnessed was a small elite jostling for an inheritance that’s long been spent. Far more important in the politics of today are social media algorithms, fury at living standards that haven’t improved since 2008, and a popular hatred of politicians. Wherever the politics of the future is, it’s surely very far from here.
Whether you love them, hate them, or have no idea who they are, these are the names that people are talking about. If the past is any indication, some may go on to be the movers and shakers of our generation. Of course, a dictionary-definition BNOC usually operates in a few realms of student politics. But this list also has actors, DJs, writers, athletes, social media personalities, and even frogs. We hope that we have captured something of Oxford in all its strange, brilliant, sometimes chaotic variety. You can see more commentary from us below, but without further ado, here are Oxford’s most famous – and infamous – characters of 2025.
1. Shermar Pryce
3rd Year, Univ
In last year’s list, he told us “here for at least another year – watch this space”. That prediction turned out to be correct for the admin of some prominent Instagram accounts, SU President (or wait…?), and professional Malta-trip-hater.
2. Anita Okunde
3rd Year, Magdalen
Union president this Trinity, Anita describes herself as “full-time wokerati” thanks to The Telegraph and additional reporting by a certain someone. She also enjoys photographing “Oxford’s coolest events”.
3. Israr Khan
DPhil, Regent’s Park
Israr admits he’s probably a BNOC (because we weren’t sure) as he’s done “everything at Oxford” except his DPhil. That includes being Union President in Hilary.
4. Oxford Kermit
MSt, Wolfson
Also known as Josh Nguyen, Oxford Kermit runs an incredibly successful Instagram page. He shares relatable updates of his daily life around Oxford, seemingly never free of his situationship.
5. George Abaraonye
2nd Year, Univ
Described by one voter as “the only genuine hack”, George is probably best known for ACS, HipHopsoc, and the Union. You might also recongnise him as ‘headphone guy’.
6. Catty Claire
2nd Year, Christ Church
Known for her many OUDS appearances, Catty has made it her mission to be in as many plays as possible until they kick her out of her degree. You may know her from Dangerous Liaisons, Closer, or just the show posters pinned up everywhere around Oxford.
7. Moosa Harraj
MPhil, Balliol
Moosa was elected to be the next president of the Union, but with the current chaos at Frewin Court he might be there sooner than expected. We can only hope that he will be a #bridge to fiscal solvency.
8. Anya Trofimova
2nd Year, St John’s
Current Union Librarian (vice president, vice president!) and a competitive debater who’s also been involved in student media, one nomination said that Anya “follows everyone, including on LinkedIn. Congrats on the training contract btw”.
9. Samyul Ashik
1st Year, Balliol
Samyul claims to be well-known for running the freshers group chat, but our sources tell us that he is primarily known for spamming that chat asking people to nominate him for this list. Fair play, Samyul, BNOC behaviour indeed.
10. NightSchool
2nd years, Worcester
Ethan Penny and Nahom Lemma have taken the Oxford music scene by storm, and can be found DJing bops, club nights, and events all over the city. In their own words: ‘We just put on great nights at Bully’
11. Harry Aldridge
1st Year, New
One nominator called him a “working class hero” for his work as the president of the 93% Club. You’ll probably know him for being everywhere, including on right-wing television.
12. Selina Chen
2nd Year, Corpus Christi
A former Cherwell editor who knows too many OUCA people, Selina has been the driving force behind the paper’s recent success. We also felt obliged to put her on here as she did the illustration for this article.
13. Reuben Meller
2nd Year, LMH
Most recently seen doing a backflip off a bridge (we’re not quite clear why), AI aficionado Reuben is the man behind the notoriously humble Presidents Summit. He also claims to own the film rights for Peter Mandelson’s Chancellor campaign. We know that ended well.
14. Susie Weidmann
3rd Year, Brasenose
Susie is best known for her OUDS appearances and student journalism. Although, she told us that her biggest achievement was winning ‘Most BDE’ at Finalist Drinks.
15. Brayden Lee
1st Year, Christ Church
First elected member of TSC in his first year, Brayden is surely a Union rising star. One source tells us that while he is a hack, he also “sends weirdly intimate voice notes instead of messages”. Hot.
16. Benedict Masters
2nd Year, New
One nominator called him a “socially acceptable Boris Johnson [sic]”. We’re not quite sure on his views of Balkan geopolitics, but whatever they are, they are held with great conviction. We hope to see more from a classic Tory BNOC.
17. Chris Collins
4th Year, Corpus Christi
OUCA pres last term, Chris has also featured in Union presidential elections. A finalist, we just wonder where he finds the time, and wish him the best of luck with his Classics exams.
18. Darcey McAllister
1st Year, St Hilda’s
Darcey is best known as president of Oxford’s LGBTQ+ Society. “More importantly” (her words, not ours), she’ll be running the Hilda’s bar. She made us promise we’d mention that she will be found with a double pink gin in said bar, never in a lecture hall.
19. Chloe Pomfret
2nd Year, St Catz
Chloe is perhaps best known for her TikTok, where she discusses her Oxford experience as a working class and care experienced student. She has also been involved in cheerleading, Class Act, and the 93% club.
20. Edmund Smith
2nd Year, Corpus Christi
Corpus organ scholar and OUCA guy, Edmund told us: “people have probably met me at P&P or the Union bar and then received a very nice message from me later in the term”. With the number of views on that Lord Dominic Johnston Instagram reel, he’s one of the most famous on the list.
21. Olivia Cho
3rd Year, Keble
Olivia is a photographer, probably best known for hiding in the corner of balls, society events, and launches getting amazing pics.
22. Connie Hilton
2nd Year, Keble
Connie is a Park End rep, meaning you probably will see her sporting their massive sunglasses, waving their infamous flag, or all over their Instagram page.
23. Bee Barnett
2nd Year, St Hilda’s
Bee Barnett is known for their alternative fashion videos and Oxford content, amassing a massive 693.4k followers on TikTok (@bumblephii). Bee has also written for various student publications, and religiously attends Oxford’s goth and emo nights.
24. Luca Burgess
3rd Year, LMH
Luca is best known for Martian Moves, the largest student-run electronic music night, Oxford’s very own ‘Intergalactic Boogie Service’. He has also launched a career in graphic design, photography, and DJing.
25. Ella Bolland
3rd Year, Trinity
Ella is the ex-entz rep for Trinity, fondly known as ‘loud American’. You can always spot this short queen with her 6’8 boyfriend.
26. Roxana Rusu
2nd Year, St Anne’s
JCR president, keen rower, and RoSOC VP, Roxi sent in her submission late due to “rent negotiations” and “dj-ing latin party at Bridge”. Adhering to a self-described “intense” lifestyle, she told Cherwell: “in the words of Shakira, TRY EVERYTHING”.
27. Michael Leslie
2nd Year, Corpus Christi
A self-described “washed OUCA and Union hack searching for a grade above a 2.2” and Corpus JCR pres, Michael is just trying to live a quiet life with his lover Edmund Smith (see 20).
28. Matchbox Productions
4th Years, Exeter
Sonya Luchanskaya and Vasco Faria have set a new bar for OUDS productions. Staging 6 sell out shows, they continuously foreground fresh student writing and experimental techniques. Outside of theatre, Sonya spends her time DJing. Vasco also acts, and finds time to be a double rugby blue.
29. Cherwell Editors-in-Chief
2nd Years, Balliol and St John’s
Taking Cherwell by storm, Phoebe and Laurence have brought unprecedented success to the paper. In their own words, “Cherwell has never had it so good”. In the words of their underling, “Well, BNOChood is all about tooting your own horn, isn’t it?”
30. The Isis Editors-in-Chief
2nd Years, Balliol and New
Bound together unwillingly by our parent company, we present our awkward artsy cousin, The Isis. We’re sure with their obsession with being “cool and indie”, Joseph and Lina are outraged at being included. But, as we all know, there is nothing The Isis loves more than attention.
Some humble conclusions
Behold, the highest fliers of our generation
Allen Ginsberg worried that the best minds of his generation were ruined by madness. If anything, Gen Z might have the opposite problem. Many of our most ambitious people cluster in a couple of societies, and then a couple of industries, that may not make as much of a difference to the world as we think. Of course, any ranking of BNOCs at Oxford that contains a kernel of truth will have lots of people from the most high-profile societies. I am pleased, though, that there is some diversity among this year’s BNOCs: writers and rowers; entz reps who aspire to better parties, and those who aspire to lead political parties.
As with all high-fliers, the line between their sincere commitments and their personal ambitions can be blurry. Their impenetrably complex Union fights and sometimes eye-roll-inducing Instagram stories might seem silly now, but the great and the good listed here will have real power as taste-setters and change-makers. In a recently published article, I reflect more on Gen Z’s top talent, and how the privilege of education conveys responsibility to use it for the public good. May all of us – BNOC or not – use our time and talents well.
–Satchel Walton, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Features
Actors, photographers, frogs
Before the responses started to flow in, I was ready to grit my teeth and include masses of Union hacks, who have undoubtedly been dreaming about BNOChood since the day their offer came in. It is true that, as ever, the hacks make up a large section of the list. In fairness, they are some of the most well-known people in Oxford. However, what’s exciting is how many names made the final list for reasons far beyond student politics. There are actors, DJs, writers, athletes, social media personalities, and even frogs. Yes, frogs. Sifting through nearly 2,500 nominations, I quickly realised how few people in Oxford I actually know (turns out spending all my time editing Cherwell hasn’t done wonders for my wider social life). Still, we hope that this list captures something of Oxford in all its strange, brilliant, sometimes chaotic variety.
–Phoebe Davies, Editor-in-Chief
Let’s talk logistics
Above all, the BNOC list is actually a tiring logistical operation. A huge amount of longlisting emails were sent, numbers were crunched, more ‘serious’ editorial responsibilities ignored, until we arrived here. Whether you agree or disagree with this year’s ordering, just know that we’ve basically been guided by two principles: i). democracy (the more nominations, the higher you placed) and ii). not making the list entirely Union people. With 23% of nominations coming in for people whose main claim to fame was the Union, and a further 28% from the ‘Other’ category (which seems to have been used for ‘Union + other things’), we’ve tried to reflect the profile of nominations as accurately as possible in our final list.
It isn’t easy, though, especially when you have to sift real nominations from spam. Spam entries were present in most of the top ten, so it’s safe to assume either they themselves were desperate to be on the list, or they have very enthusiastic friends.
Last night the Oxford Union passed the motion “This House believes that no one can be illegal on stolen land”, with 98 members voting in favour and 82 members voting against.
It was preceded by the emergency debate on the motion “This House believes that nothing ever happens”. With a close split, the chamber decided that something sometimes does happen.
Opening for the proposition was the President of the Union, Anita Okunde. She argued that “every single border was drawn with nothing…but blood”, pointing to examples ranging from New Zealand and Palestine to the US and African countries. This, she contended, means that borders and citizenships are arbitrary. She also maintained that “the global war on migrants” is a continuation of the colonial legacy and entails a “war on indigenous people”. Speaking of the opposition speakers the President noted an interesting coincidence: all of them were white men.
The first opposition speaker was Victor Marroquin-Merino, a standing committee member. He was surprised to see the President arguing for the motion, considering she passed the motion banning the ex-president from the Union premises. Marroquin-Merino argued that the motion is a “slogan” and the propositions’ argument is unrealistic. He called the motion a luxury belief, “idea that signals virtue without any of the costs” and “crashes and burns” when faced with reality. He noted that by this logic no law on stolen land would hold, causing “the state of nature”. “The questions of legitimacy cannot depend on questions of origins”, he concluded.
Then, Yeji Kim, Director of Media and a scholar of forced migration, spoke arguing that historical justice demands “visas as reparations”. She argued that colonial powers bear responsibility for the consequences of them creating artificial borders, and without it they would commit “moral betrayal”. To exemplify this, she spoke of cases like those of Chagos Islands, Hong Kong, and Gaza, where colonial rule triggered displacement of the indigenous people, who then did not receive consideration for visas in the UK. “Justice is…a passport in a pocket”, Kim concluded.
Up next was Andrew Arthur, resident fellow in Law and Policy for the Centre for Immigration Studies. He argued that people hardly ever lived on land that was not stolen. He asserted that the current system is “generous”, but “you gotta [sic.] play by the rules”. He argued that unfiltered immigration would make the assimilation of migrants in society impossible and have a negative impact on social services and working conditions. He ended the speech by saying, “if you support immigration as I do…you must be against this motion.”
He was followed by Aviva Chomsky, an American professor specialising in Latin history and immigration. Her first claim was that the “term illegal is illegitimate when applied to human beings” and this “colonial term” is used to justify exclusion and legal inequality. Further, she argued that defining immigrant workers, whom Western economies depend on, as illegal justifies their exploitation and a refusal to grant them citizenship. She also maintained that many immigrants are indigenous people who have been forced to migrate, so colonial history must be reckoned with.
The next speaker, RJ Hauman, President of the National Immigration Centre for Enforcement (which eerily abbreviates to NICE), said the motion was personal to him considering years of “advising the White House”. He spoke of how abandoning tight immigration control causes the exploitation of social benefits, the destruction of patriotism, and many other detrimental effects. “The virus then consumes its host”, as he put it. Hauman then declared that “Western people are under siege” and face displacement by illegal immigrants that “wanna possess [sic]” the US. He then said that even if the land was taken in a “harsh way”, the dwellers of it should not bear the consequences. Hauman spoke out against Biden’s administration saying that under their rule “borders became suggestions”. “My duty is to preserve, not to apologise to oblivion”, he rounded up.
The final speaker for the proposition, Senator Mehreen Faruqi, the first Muslim woman in Australian Parliament, paid respect to the aboriginal land that is Australia and lamented its “grievous immigration regime”. She argued that instead of acknowledging the colonial legacy and injustices against the indigenous people, Australia “doubled down”. Senator Farqui contended that the system is still racist and colonial, and is used to maintain white nationalism, of which she remarked that “the speaker before me made the case better than I could have” (Hauman seemed to have a very intense internal monologue at these words). She concluded by calling for racial justice, which can only be achieved by the motion.
The debate was concluded by Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand David Seymour. He made a few concessions to the proposition, agreeing that every border is drawn in blood. However, he believes that drawing a line in history of where the “stealing” began would be arbitrary and would only “reinforce prejudices”. Seymour claimed that improving the state is only possible if the state is able to set their own laws. He concluded by saying that the opposition also wants to improve the well-being of citizens, but “[w]e just have a more critical, not idealistic way of doing it”.
Emma Nihill Alcorta is the director of a new adaptation of the Spanish masterpiece Blood Wedding, running at the Oxford Playhouse.
With flamenco rhythms and Spanish soul, our passionate ensemble and live, onstage band are bringing a bold new adaptation of Federico García Lorca’s Spanish tragedy, Blood Wedding (Bodas de Sangre), to the Oxford Playhouse.
We started with a fresh translation of the text. There are many beautiful translations of Blood Wedding, but I was determined to develop something tailor-made which celebrated the melding of twentieth-century Andalucía with twenty-first century Oxford, preserving sections of Lorca’s original Spanish poetry (accompanied by surtitles), whilst radically reimagining certain characters and sections of dialogue. I was also resolved to make the English text sing on its own terms with its own voice.
Alongside this translation, Elsa Vass-de-Zomba has created a transcendent, flamenco-inspired score. Combined with fiery choreography by Carlos Araujo and Lucy Williams, we’ve made a Blood Wedding that dives into the rich sound and movement of Lorca’s Andalucía. As much about joy as it is about tragedy, our production is a celebration of cultural exchange. Blending radically adapted, contemporary English dialogue with Spanish folklore, song, and flashes of Lorca’s verse, our band and 22-strong ensemble delve into the endlessly relevant themes of love in the face of hate, and courage in the face of violence; they speak as urgently to us as they did to Federico García Lorca.
As a half-Spanish, half-Australian actor, I’ve been thrilled by the amount of enthusiasm I’ve encountered for bilingual, cross-cultural theatre here in Oxford. When I hear English and Spanish intermingling in rehearsals and meetings, or listen to drafts of Elsa’s score, I’m overjoyed that this kind of storytelling is not only possible, but emphatically welcomed by so many people. Our ensemble and creative team represent an incredible blend of Hispanophone and Anglophone perspectives that have combined to make this production powerful and truly beautiful.
A 20th century Romeo and Juliet, Lorca’s masterpiece asks what it means to love dangerously and deeply, and what it takes to defy tradition. Presented with lyricism and love, this is a production for our times:
Andalucía. Summer. 1932.
Under the burning Andalusian sun, a woman is set to marry a man she does not love. Tables are laid, vows are spoken, and the woman condemns herself to a traditional life walled inside a house of stone. But another man has been riding to her window in the dead of night, calling her name on the wind, and she begins to wonder if the burden of tradition might be too heavy to bear. If passion drove you mad, would you risk it all?
Written in the summer of 1932, Lorca’s acclaimed rural tragedy is a story of arid land and tough people, where societal expectations are rigidly defined and hidden yearnings simmer under the surface of convention. From the pen of an internationally revered Spanish playwright, Blood Wedding is a masterpiece of exquisite poetry and raw human longing.
Our brand-new companyFull Moon Theatre is shaking things up with a razor-sharp adaptation of a Spanish masterpiece that demands to be staged again and again.
Come join the dance. We’ll see you at the Playhouse!
The final performances of Blood Weddingwill be at 14:30 and 19:30 on Saturday 7th June at the Oxford Playhouse.
You don’t think it will happen to you until it does. In fact, you don’t think of it at all, because you aren’t one of the men who are losing their hair. Then, one day, suddenly, you are. It’s the summer vac and you’re sitting on the sofa with the sun shining in. Your girlfriend comes in and says something to you about lunch. As you reply, you notice her looking at you with a frown that turns into a grimace. She points to a small area near your left temple where the sun is reflecting off your head in a way she swears it’s never done before. You tell her she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. But she comes closer and starts inspecting your head like if she was looking for lice. I think you’re losing your hair, she says. You’re going mad, you say. I’ve only just finished prelims – I’m in the prime of my life! Go and look in the mirror, she says.
From that day on, you can’t walk past a mirror without stopping and inspecting your head. You borrow your mum’s handheld mirror and hold it at different angles above your head whilst standing in front of the bathroom mirror, trying to get a direct look at that one little spot of thinning. Sometimes, during these mirror sessions, you convince yourself that it’s not true – your girlfriend made a mistake, it was just a trick of the light, or maybe it’s grown back. But in the end you always find that one angle that shows you it definitely is true. There’s no two ways about it: you are a man who is losing his hair.
Eventually you take the plunge and start googling hair loss. Quickly you find out it has a name: male pattern baldness. Instead of reassuring you, this only makes you feel worse. Male. Pattern. Baldness. You officially have a condition.
Google research leads you to a plethora of hair-loss clinics, which do transplants. You spend some time looking at these. Some of them have websites that look like they were designed by small children, with weird fonts and spelling mistakes. Others look shiny and professional, with pictures of smiling male doctors wearing lab coats and holding clipboards as they talk to hopeful-looking men without a hair on their head. You go to a part of the house where nobody can hear you, and dial the number. A woman with a kind voice picks up. You introduce yourself and blurt out, sounding way more upset than you intended, that you’re losing your hair. In her now-sympathetic voice the woman says she’s sorry to hear that, and asks if she can take some details before talking you through possible treatments. But there is something about the word treatments that makes you recoil. Hang on a minute, you say, treatments? But I’m not ill – in fact I hardly have a problem at all — it was only a tiny spot on the side of my head, it’ll probably just grow back. You tell the woman about the boy at school who had large clumps of his hair fall out only for it all to grow back a few months later. I understand, the woman says, unable to mask her scepticism. Why don’t I just send you our brochure and you can have a think about it? You hang up.
Denial fully sets in. One evening, you go upstairs and scour the internet, looking for the perfect hairstyle that, you’ve decided, will mark a new beginning in your life. Eventually you come across a picture of Ryan Gosling. Here is Ryan, standing on the beach, his muscular torso exposed, his thick blonde-brown hair swept over in a stylish side-parting. This one is perfect, you say. You print the image, fold it up, and put it in your wallet, ready for your appointment at the hairdressers the next day.
The hairdresser welcomes you with her usual smiles and friendliness. She sits you in the chair and drapes the apron over you. You take out the photo of Ryan and give it to her. She looks at it, smiles oddly, looks back at you, then back at the photo. You see her face falling. That’s not going to be possible, she says. She shakes her head as if to say it’s not worth protesting. No point denying it anymore.
When Michaelmas begins, you have a shaved head. Better to cut it off than to let it fall off, you tell yourself. You’re nervous about the comments, but, to your surprise, people are complimentary. A shaved head suits you, they say, you have the right head shape for it – maybe even you look better without hair than with. These all make you feel somewhat better. Still, you miss having hair.
And so the denial creeps back in. One day, you decide to start growing it back again. Maybe it wasn’t really that bad – after all, it was only a tiny spot that was pretty much invisible unless the sun was shining directly on your head. You let it grow. Three weeks later, you have what looks like patches of moss growing over your head. It’s not a good look. People start frowning. Why don’t you shave it all off again, someone says. Or why don’t you go to Turkey, somebody else says, I hear they do good hair transplants. Laughing it off, you tell them no, you’d rather accept your condition than fight it: there are only two types of men in this world, those who accept their hair loss and those who don’t. You shave your hair off again. Life goes on. But every couple of weeks or so, you look at flights to Turkey.
.jpg){kind=link}