Friday 29th May 2026
Blog

Alcoholism at Oxford University: A Perspective

Anonymous
-
0
Alcoholism at Oxford University: A Perspective

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.

‘Personal imprint’: an interview with the founder of Tree Artisan Café

Kenny Cota
-
0
‘Personal imprint’: an interview with the founder of Tree Artisan Café

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.

Image credit: Emily Perkins.

What are Conservative Party Members thinking?

Oliver Hall
-
0
What are Conservative Party Members thinking?

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.  

Image: CC 2.0 – UK Government via Flickr.  

Vessel : A Review

Cia Mangat
-
0
Vessel : A Review

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 chaos in Downing Street

Oliver Hall
-
0
Where do we go from here?  Reflections on a day of chaos in Downing Street

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!”

Image: CC:2.0 (BY-NC-ND 2.0 via FLKR)

Putin’s ‘hockey buddy’ funded Teddy Hall and Saïd Business School

Charlie Hancock and Maurício Alencar
-
0
Putin’s ‘hockey buddy’ funded Teddy Hall and Saïd Business School

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.

Image credit: Kremlin.ru/CC BY 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Review: “Black Lives Playlist: Track 2” by Sam Spencer

Katie Kirkpatrick
-
0
Review: “Black Lives Playlist: Track 2” by Sam Spencer

CW: homophobia, racism

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.

Image Credit: Pete Miller.

Editorial: Russell Group Student Newspapers for No-Detriment Policy

Russell Group University Newspapers
-
0
Editorial: Russell Group Student Newspapers for No-Detriment Policy

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.

Editorial: Oxford must adopt a no-detriment policy for this year’s finalists

Cherwell Editors
-
0
Editorial: Oxford must adopt a no-detriment policy for this year’s finalists

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

All I Want for Christmas is Food!

Katie Hollands
-
0
All I Want for Christmas is Food!

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. 

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons.

SU criticises colleges’ reduction of vacation residence

Imogen Duke
-
0
SU criticises colleges’ reduction of vacation residence

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.

Image credit: Simononly/ Wikimedia Commons

Oxford University’s ties to nuclear weapons industry revealed

Ben Jacob
-
0
Oxford University’s ties to nuclear weapons industry revealed

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.

Oxford University leads ‘breakthrough’ in coronavirus treatment

Imogen Duke
-
0
Oxford University leads ‘breakthrough’ in coronavirus treatment

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.”

Image credit to Pixabay.

Self-isolated student diagnosed with Covid-19

Imogen Harter-Jones
-
0
Self-isolated student diagnosed with Covid-19

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.

The University is sharing further updates on the current infection at  www.ox.ac.uk/coronavirus-advice.

BREAKING: Oxford announces record state school offers

Molly Innes
-
0
BREAKING: Oxford announces record state school offers

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.

Kiss My Genders – Celebrating identity with the Hayward Gallery

Charlotte Hall
-
0
Kiss My Genders – Celebrating identity with the Hayward Gallery

“Look.” A voice whispers – slowly, sensually.

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.

This year’s NUS conference – how your delegates voted

Sam Millward
-
0
This year’s NUS conference – how your delegates voted

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.

Tracey Emin’s A Fortnight of Tears: an unflinching study of the haunting power of trauma

Beth Simcock
-
0
Tracey Emin’s A Fortnight of Tears: an unflinching study of the haunting power of trauma

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.

Oxford Professor criticises use of gender hormones as “unregulated live experiment on children”

Christopher Sinnott
-
0
Oxford Professor criticises use of gender hormones as “unregulated live experiment on children”

Content warning: transphobia

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.

OUWAFC take on the Tabs

Cerys Baines
-
0
OUWAFC take on the Tabs

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.

OULC chairs accused of ‘misleading and unfair’ conduct over attempt to control club’s relationship with the media

Angus Brown
-
0
OULC chairs accused of ‘misleading and unfair’ conduct over attempt to control club’s relationship with the media

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 Boat Clubs announce crews for April’s race

Cal Flintoff
-
0
Oxford Boat Clubs announce crews for April’s race

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.

In the Women’s boat Oxford will concede roughly a 10kg swing, with the boat tipping the scales at 568.8kg compared to the 578.3kg of the CUWBC.

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.

OUBC Crew:

Bow: Achim Harzeim, Oriel, 26yo, 88kg

2: Ben Landis, Lincoln, 24yo, 82kg

3: Patrick Sullivan, Wadham, 23yo, 92kg

4: Benedict Aldous, Christ Church, 21yo, 94kg

5: Tobias Schroder, Magdalen, 19yo, 94kg

6: Felix Drinkall, LMH, 19yo, 84kg

7: Charlie Pearson, Trinity, 20yo, 82kg

Stroke: Augustin Wambersie, Catz, 23yo, 89kg

Cox: Anna Carbery, Pembroke, 21yo, 54kg

OUWBC Crew:

Bow: Issy Dodds, Hertford, 69kg

2: Anna Murgatroyd, ChCh, 68kg

3: Renée Koolschijn, Keble, 73.8kg

4: Lizzie Polgreen, Linacre, 60.7kg

5: Tina Christmann, Worcester, 72.2kg

6: Beth Bridgman, St Hugh’s, 70.4kg

7: Liv Pryer, Teddy Hall, 77.3kg

Stroke: Amelia Standing, St Anne’s, 74kg

Cox: Eleanor Shearer, Nuffield

Corpus Christi JCR calls for Parks College plans to be stopped

Charlotte Moberly
-
0
Corpus Christi JCR calls for Parks College plans to be stopped

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.

The University have been contacted for comment.

Lord Adonis: I “can’t wait” to debate Nigel Farage at the Oxford Union

Christopher Sinnott
-
0
Lord Adonis: I “can’t wait” to debate Nigel Farage at the Oxford Union

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.

More on this story is expected to follow.

Controversy over Pride flag at Queen’s College

Sam Millward
-
0
Controversy over Pride flag at Queen’s College

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.”

McGrath and ‘Together’ slate sweep Michaelmas 2019 Union election

Christopher Sinnott
-
0
McGrath and ‘Together’ slate sweep Michaelmas 2019 Union election

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 Cherwell on 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 reveals suspension gender gap among postgrads

Libby Cherry
-
0
New data reveals suspension gender gap among postgrads

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.

University offers no deal Brexit advice for EU students

Ayesha Seghal
-
0
University offers no deal Brexit advice for EU 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.

Union Librarian Brendan McGrath avoids impeachment

Christopher Sinnott
-
0
Union Librarian Brendan McGrath avoids impeachment

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’.

More on this story is expected to follow.

Fixed-term contracts disproportionately held by women and minority groups

Editor
-
0
Fixed-term contracts disproportionately held by women and minority groups

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 and Ohio Universities receive £9.24 million in funding for research into rare blood cancers

Melissa Eddon
-
0
Oxford and Ohio Universities receive £9.24 million in funding for research into rare blood cancers

The Oxford-Harrington Rare Disease Centre has received a share of a £9.24 million investment for their research into chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL). The donation, split with the University of Ohio’s Seidman Cancer Centre, was given by philanthropists Susan ‘Dee’ Haslam, who was diagnosed with CLL in 2021, and her husband, Jimmy Haslam. 

The Oxford-Harrington Rare Disease Centre functions as a transatlantic collaboration between the University of Oxford and the Harrington Disease Institute, one of the University of Ohio’s teaching and research hospitals. The centre focuses on formulating treatments and cures for rare diseases, and has devised 214 medicines since 2012. 

In a statement, Ms Haslam said, “We hope to increase knowledge of CLL, generate new treatments and give others the confidence and information they need to navigate the disease”. 

David Cameron, former British Prime Minister and Chair of the Oxford-Harrington Rare Disease Centre Advisory Council, said in a statement: “I am delighted to see this generous support, which can help unlock meaningful advances in areas long overlooked and urgently in need of attention. This investment highlights the importance of international collaboration in accelerating progress for people affected by rare conditions.” 

A rare type of blood cancer, CLL is a slow-moving disease that typically impacts blood and bone marrow. Abnormal white blood cells develop within the marrow, impacting its ability to make healthy blood cells. Often these abnormal cells move into the blood stream, and build up in the lymph nodes and spleen. 

There are around 10 cases of CLL diagnosed in the UK every day, and around 60 a day in the US. 

Scientists are uncertain as to the cause of the cancer, but many have theorised that there is some hereditary element. Whilst there is currently no cure, symptoms can be managed through treatments such as chemotherapy, targeted medicines, radiotherapy, and sometimes surgery.  The donation will provide the funding to push new therapeutics into clinical trials. 

Sexual harassment more widespread at selective universities

Barnaby Carter
-
0
Sexual harassment more widespread at selective universities

Research recently published as part of the 2025 Office for Students (OFS) sexual misconduct survey has found that sexual harassment is nearly twice as common at more selective universities. The survey found that sexual harassment was reported by 35% of students at ‘high tariff’ universities, in comparison to 17% at ‘low tariff’ universities.‘Tariffs’ are measures of how selective a university’s admissions process is, with Russell Group universities making up most of the ‘high tariff’ institutions – including Oxford and Cambridge. 

The study found that, across all universities, nearly a quarter of students have experienced sexual harassment, with sexually suggestive staring and unwanted sexual comments being the most commonly reported. Female students also reported substantially higher levels of sexual harassment and sexual violence than male students across all universities. LGBTQIA+ students also reported a higher prevalence of sexual harassment and violence, along with less confidence in the reporting and support systems available. 

Over 42% of students with a mental health condition also reported having experienced harassment. Students studying certain subjects were also found to have experienced harassment at a level disproportionate to the average, with 42.4% of language and area students reporting some form of sexual harassment, along with 41.3% of veterinary studies and 40.3% of medicine and dentistry students. 

The survey also found that 14.1% of the overall student body had experienced sexual assault. Patterns within different sub-sections of the student population found in sexual harassment data generally replicated into sexual assault data, with the most affected group being students with a mental health condition. 

The University of Oxford has been accused of systemically mishandling sexual misconduct cases, and has previously faced controversy for using anonymity orders to stop the media reporting on cases of sexual harassment – specifically in the case of Professor Soumittra Dutta, the former Dean of the Saïd Business School. Dutta was found by an inquiry to have sexually harassed a female academic and stepped down from his position. The University of Oxford used and later withdrew a request for anonymity in the employment tribunal. 

A recent Bloomberg investigation also examined the mishandling of sexual harassment complaints at the University of Oxford. The investigation alleged that the University continually mishandled sexual harassment complaints about senior male academics, taking place over 9 months of research and interviewing over 50 people. The report described the University of Oxford as an environment in which sexual harassment allegations were dealt with slowly and ineffectively, with University staff stating that the public status of academics appeared to be prioritised over student welfare. The report also touched on individual colleges, where people from New College told reporters that several academics had a reputation for predatory behaviour towards more junior women. 

In 2023, the ongoing project ‘OUR SPACE’ (Oxford Understanding Relationships, Sex, Power, Abuse, and Consent Experiences) found that 50% of students have experienced sexual harassment during their time at Oxford, of which 18% who had experienced sexual violence.

A spokesperson for the University told Cherwell: “The University is developing a bespoke, in-house online training programme to strengthen how Oxford prevents and responds to harassment and sexual misconduct. This will replace the existing Consent for Students course and complement the in-person healthy relationships and consent training delivered by student facilitators. 

“There has been a significant expansion of prevention and training activity across the collegiate university, including an almost 80% increase in the number of college staff trained in 2024/25, which has supported greater awareness, including of the routes through which students can seek support, as well as proactive referrals. The Sexual Harassment and Violence Support Service continues to expand the in-person Healthy Relationships and Consent Workshop programme, delivering the programme across 18 colleges this academic year (up from 15 colleges in 2024/25), with 118 student facilitators, and trained around 2,000 students.”

The OFS sexual misconduct survey strongly emphasised that finding the causes of these variations in the data was beyond the scope of the present analysis”, calling for “additional qualitative or longitudinal evidence”. The OFS also published condition E6 of the regulations for institutions of higher education on 1st August 2025, which “‘sets out requirements for universities and colleges to have a comprehensive source of information setting out its policies and procedures on incidents of harassment and sexual misconduct”’. 

The OFS told Cherwell that they “would encourage all institutions to learn from their own data”, and that they would “publish institutional level data from the 2025 and 2027 surveys together, to support transparency and strengthen the evidence base across the sector”.

The OFS used a direct survey system to generate prevalence estimates independent of institutional reporting systems”. They also separately researched students’ experiences of their respective universities’ reporting and support systems, publishing the analysis. It was found that out of those affected by sexual harassment and violence, only 12% had made a formal report to their university. 

Summer VIIIs roundup: day two

Tim Herd
-
0
Summer VIIIs roundup: day two

Early divisions started strong, with many boats that bumped yesterday continuing on the same trajectory towards ‘blades’ at the end of the week, for which they need to bump each day. 

One of the day’s biggest wins was for Queens M2, who bumped up to first in Division V, becoming the ‘sandwich boat’. This means that they would row in Division IV as well on the same day to allow promotion and relegation between the divisions. To secure a place in Division IV for Friday, they needed to bump again. This was not an easy task, having just raced in the previous division. Incredibly, Queen’s M2 was able to achieve an overbump, as crews in front of them had already bumped and stopped racing. They now sit tenth in Division IV, but will be looking to continue improving throughout the week. To add a cherry on top of an already large cake, Division IV is the lowest fixed division, meaning that, if Queen’s stay there for the rest of the week, they will automatically qualify for Summer Eights next year. 

On the women’s side, there were fewer overbumps than yesterday, as nerves began to settle and matchups got slightly more even. However, Oriel W3 demanded attention as they were able to achieve an overbump on Mansfield W2. 

It’s always impressive when a second boat can bump a first boat; Univ W2 did exactly that, bumping Trinity W1 and evidencing the sheer strength of their programme. This was also shown through the sheer number of Univ crews taking to the water this week. 

In the higher men’s divisions, St Anne’s, St Hilda’s, Exeter, and Worcester’s first boats continued an upwards trajectory, all bumping for the second day in a row. They will all hope to climb further this week, aiming for blades – an impressive feat from any college’s top boat. 

On the women’s side, the top boats from St Hugh’s, St Catz, Somerville, and St Anne’s all bumped again. These crews are all on course for blades, and ones to watch on Friday and Saturday. 

Crews in Division I on the men’s and women’s side were eager to show what they could do after yesterday’s racing was cancelled.

The men’s top division was a site of much change as only two out of the thirteen boats rowed over. One of the most notable bumps was from Oriel on Wolfson. This happened just as the crews were coming out of ‘The Gut’ – the narrow and curved part of the river, between Donnington Bridge and Longbridges. This meant spectators on Boathouse Island got a nice view of the events. The two top-dogs on the river, a bump on Wolfson means that Oriel now sits in headship position. Oriel, hungry for headship this year, will be thrilled to have taken it on the first day of Division I racing. They will be hoping to hold Wolfson off, who will undoubtedly come out all guns blazing over the next two days.

On the women’s side, in the top division only 4 of 13 boats rowed over. One of these boats was Pembroke, which remained in the top spot. Univ will be looking to challenge them tomorrow, as they were able to bump up into second place on the river today.

Nerves in the top divisions were definitely still a factor, especially after yesterday’s cancellation. After another significant rejig today, crews in the top division will need to keep their composure for the races over the coming days. 

The racing action all builds towards an inevitable crescendo: Saturday, the final day of racing. As crews get more used to the course, competition and the racing format, races may become tighter, and faster. With the weather set to remain positive over the next two days, there is rarely a better time to row.

Oxford on-screen: Historical atmosphere and fantasy worlds

Siena Tracey
-
0
Oxford on-screen: Historical atmosphere and fantasy worlds

There are many questions you inevitably get asked when you tell someone you go to Oxford, ranging from the extent of the workload, the quality of the nightlife, and whether everyone you’ve met actually went to private school.

“Is it just like Hogwarts?” is a more outlandish query, and yet I’ve found it to be one that is just as common. On more than one occasion, I have been asked how much Oxford really resembles this fictional setting of the Harry Potter movies. Although much of the childhood nostalgia for this series has been soured by its author’s political output on social media, it remains widely popular, and many of its fans associate its magical school with the city and the University of Oxford.

The fact that parts of the Harry Potter movies were filmed in Oxford is a fun piece of trivia that has become common knowledge, and is frankly difficult to ignore when the city centre is replete with tourist shops full of merchandise – including a rather off-putting sculpture of Dobby in the window of one on Broad Street – not to mention the tourists themselves, often decked out head-to-toe in the Hogwarts uniform, sporting cloaks, ties, and wands.

Even my own college, Wadham, which makes no appearance in the Harry Potter films and sports architecture probably too Jacobean to truly embody Hogwarts’ medieval allure, is frequently bombarded with tourists in such elaborate fancy dress.

A range of locations in Oxford appear in these movies, and in slightly different ways. While the Divinity School and the Duke Humfrey’s Library provided actual filming locations for the Hogwarts Infirmary and Library, respectively, Christ Church’s Hall acted as the main inspiration for the Great Hall seen on-screen. Moreover, Christ Church was not the only college to make it into the films; a scene in the fourth instalment in the franchise was famously filmed in New College’s courtyard.

Aspects of a film, such as the script, the acting, or the music, are more conventional areas of focus for analysis than filming location, and yet the latter contributes much to a film’s atmosphere, especially when the setting is fictional. In the case of the Harry Potter series, Oxford’s medieval architecture affords the fantastical Hogwarts with a sense of mystery and romance that enhances the magical atmosphere. The authenticity of these historic buildings makes the setting more immersive; you really get the sense that this is an ancient castle with years of history and many secrets to explore.

And yet old buildings do not only evoke feelings of magic and excitement, a fact shown by another movie that makes use of Oxford as a filming location.

Another Country (1984) centres around Guy Bennett – based on Guy Burgess, a member of the Cambridge Five – a Soviet double agent whose experience at a British public school in the 1930s, as a young gay man dealing with romance, conflict, and persecution, lays the groundwork for his eventual defection.

Here, the filming location does something slightly different. The medieval architecture confers a sense of prestige associated with a long history, imbuing the public-school setting with institutional power and reinforcing Bennett’s lack of belonging. Confronted with a set that harks back to medieval days, the audience is reminded of the historic and traditional nature of the world Bennett inhabits, highlighting even more how he does not fit into it.

One of the film’s opening scenes perfectly captures the importance of the filming location; at a Remembrance Day service, the schoolboys stand in orderly formation, chorusing out a hymn with expressionless faces. While Bennett sings along, he stares longingly at another student, eventually stopping singing completely as they engage in prolonged eye contact. The romantic undertones of such an interaction hint at same-sex affection; that it is romantic is seemingly confirmed by the frequent cuts to another scene, in which a teacher discovers two other students engaged in clandestine same-sex relations.

The quadrangle in front of the Bodleian Library acts as a backdrop to all of this, only amplifying the sense of transgression in the face of custom and convention. An expression of same-sex attraction, already subversive, becomes even more significant when juxtaposed with a background that carries with it all these implications of history and tradition and conservatism.

The prestige of Oxford as a backdrop also emphasises the power of the public-school institution, adding to the picture of an illustrious educational establishment possessing significant authority. As the narrative unfolds, it becomes clear that Bennett’s sexuality cannot be reconciled with the world he lives in unless it is concealed or repressed. The powerful institution suppresses his attempts to carve out a space for himself as a gay man, and he is left with no choice but to look for belonging elsewhere, which he does by defecting to the Soviet Union.

The relationship between film and filming location does not only work one way. If the prevalence of Hogwarts comparisons and wand-brandishing tourists tells us anything, it is that popular perceptions of both the city and the university have been powerfully influenced by the Harry Potter franchise.

While Oxford as a filming location generally improves a movie – it helps to build atmosphere, establish an immersive setting, and enrich the narrative – the impact that movies have on attitudes towards Oxford can be less positive. In one sense, the association with a fantasy setting evokes a sense of magic, which makes Oxford feel even more charming. Nonetheless, constant references to a children’s franchise can feel a little juvenile and out of touch.

After all, these associations contribute to a view of Oxford that is more fantasy than reality, and it is important not to put Oxford on a pedestal, and lose sight of the fact that it is a university like any other. Ideally, we should strike a balance; an awareness of the reality of life at Oxford can co-exist with an appreciation of its grand architecture and historical atmosphere.

Still, in spite of my reservations about grown adults’ fanaticism for a story meant for children, I’m inclined to think that these associations are largely harmless. If students choose to apply to a university because it reminds them of a nostalgic film favourite, or if tourists want to pose in front of the Radcliffe Camera dressed in full wizarding gear, it simply reflects how the influence of film means Oxford has become something different for some.

Oxford reviews policies following EHRC transgender guidance changes

Hattie Simpson
-
0
Oxford reviews policies following EHRC transgender guidance changes

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) published its updated draft Code of Practice on Thursday, 21st May, prompting responses from across the University over the potential impact on transgender students and staff. The EHRC is a national public body established by the 2006 Equality Act, which acts as the independent equality and human rights regulator.

The 340-page document follows last year’s Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, which ruled that the terms “sex”, “woman”, and “man” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to “biological sex”. The draft guidance states that “a trans man with a GRC [Gender Recognition Certificate] is a woman and a trans woman with a GRC is a man”. 

The updated Code also states that if a service provider “allows trans people to use the service intended for the opposite sex, the service will no longer be a separate or single-sex service under the Equality Act 2010”. The guidance adds that organisations should consider whether “women’s safety, privacy and/or dignity would be at risk” from allowing trans men into “single-sex” spaces.

The publication of the Code has raised questions for universities over how facilities such as accommodation, toilets, and changing rooms may be managed once the guidance is formally approved. In a statement shared online, the University of Oxford confirmed it was reviewing its policies and practices in light of both the Supreme Court ruling and the EHRC’s updated guidance. The University added that the review includes “existing facilities across our estate”.

In a statement to Cherwell, a University spokesperson said: “The University is reviewing the updated Code carefully to ensure we conduct our activities within the parameters of the law, and in accordance with our values. We also note that a Code of Practice for employment is still to be released.

“Oxford remains committed to being an inclusive university where everyone belongs and is supported to succeed. We will continue to work to maintain an environment in which the rights, dignity, and wellbeing of all members of our community are respected, including all members of our LGBTQ+ community.”

The Oxford Student Union (SU) also shared a statement online, saying the updated guidance had “significant implications for LGBTI+ people, particularly those who are TNBI+”. Reaffirming commitments made in its recently updated Trans, Non-Binary, Gender Diverse and Intersex Inclusion policy, the SU stated that it remains committed to “protecting the rights, safety, dignity, and health and wellbeing” of TNBI+ students across the University.

The SU added that it was reviewing the guidance “to better understand how this may impact TNBI+ students” and would provide updates on any actions it planned to take. When approached for comment by Cherwell, the SU referred back to its existing public statement.

Somerville College has also published its own independent statement – the only college to have currently done so – titled “Including the Excluded”. In the statement, it said that “trans rights and women’s rights [are] not in opposition to each other, but as part of the same struggle for dignity, equality and human rights”. The college added that it would “never tolerate harassment, bullying or discriminatory behaviour towards anyone”, noting that discrimination against transgender people remains prohibited under the Equality Act 2010.

The President of Oxford University’s LGBTQ+ Society told Cherwell that the updated Code reflected “the product of years of hateful campaigning from anti-trans organisations”, and cautioned against over-reliance on legal reform, writing that “our current Government does not care about trans people beyond our use as a distraction from other issues”. She added that “liberation is the goal, and legal changes can only ever be a part of that”, concluding that “having a vibrant and thriving trans community… in spite of current national politics – will always be more important to me”.

The publication of the Code comes shortly after controversy surrounding a change to Oxford University Rowing Clubs’ (OURCs) Rules of Racing, which now state that only athletes assigned female at birth may compete in women’s boats. The rule change has prompted backlash from across student boat clubs, with concerns raised over both privacy and enforcement. LGBTQ+ Soc President made clear to Cherwell that they do not view these changes and the updated Code of Practice as “unrelated events”.

Oxford for Trans Rights has arranged a “March for Trans Rights” for Saturday, 30th May at Bonn Square in response to the EHRC guidance.

The rise of Stats.fm: Music as a signal of identity

Suzi Sharp
-
0
The rise of Stats.fm: Music as a signal of identity

It used to be hard to tell what music someone listened to. There were no public Spotify playlists, no Stats.fm top tracks to brag about, and no songs attached to your termly Instagram dump. Today, however, music taste can become an inextricable part of how your identity is perceived. With unprecedented access to data on our own habits, and those of others, we can tie our music consumption ever more tightly to our own personal brand. This has led to an experience of music-listening which is mediated by the public perception of precisely what music one listens to and what it says about them, in ways which have arisen alongside an individualistic shift in the personal branding zeitgeist.  

It is easier than ever to track your listening. With the advent of automatic tracking software such as Stats.fm and its more manual predecessor Last.fm, we no longer have to painstakingly keep a spreadsheet to know exactly what we listen to at every hour of the day. In fact, streaming platforms such as Spotify have even started handing us generalisations of what we listen to per hour, with ‘Daylists’. These consist of the music you most frequently turn to at that specific time each week, updated every few hours and accompanied by a few handy adjectives. My personal favourite title has been ‘Instrumental ballroom dancing this Thursday afternoon’, but, crucially, in Spanish. Daylists, notably, are made using AI to gauge these preferences, perhaps making them the epitome of this algorithm-led listening, creating pseudo-echo chambers of taste.   

This monitoring ability also comes hand in hand with an ease of discovery which would have previously been unthinkable. Rather than reliance on local record/CD shops – which would stock new releases, the well-known classics, and some local talent – or even the radio, offering similar coverage, with streaming, algorithmic listening is now in full swing. This means that consuming an artist’s entire discography is no longer something which requires effort, simply hit play on their artist page on the streaming platform of your choice. Additionally, once an algorithm works out that you’re enjoying a certain song, it can feed you more just like it with precisely zero labour on your part. The time between encountering a genre for the very first time and being a relative expert on it can now be cut down to a matter of hours, and you can now have statistical proof of your endeavours, too. 

Simultaneously, sharing your listening habits is now a very commonplace activity, largely through social media. Without even touching on the recent controversy over artists hiring marketing agencies to – allegedly – fabricate online fandoms for themselves, music is a core part of most social platforms today. Scrolling through somebody’s Instagram page, or their story highlights, now serves as a run-down of what they want you to know about their music taste (as well as obviously what they want you to know about their life). A real on-the-nose example is the annual swathes of Spotify Wrapped graphics – a full year of your listening neatly packaged for exhibition. Personal consumption has never been so public. This is in stark contrast to a time when one had to go out of their way to share these things: band merch, badges, physical copies of music all required active effort to acquire and show off. Today, the equivalent is three taps on a screen and a 30-second listen-through of the clip to make sure it’s communicating the right vibe. 

This has all come together to produce a world in which your music consumption is a core part of your personal branding, your aesthetic, what would be on a Pinterest mood-board titled [your name]-core. In other words, music has become another consumable good mediating your personal identity. It’s another element used to express Who You Are™, insofar as this is your publicly available self, visible by others. There is now a break between authentic self-expression and one’s ‘music taste’: we are all pretending to not know that when we’re listening there’s a non-zero chance that this particular song-rotation will be made public in some form or another. While I’m sure some people do manage to marry the two, and are wholly unashamed of every song they’ve ever streamed, or who simply do not partake in the stat-posting and musical accompaniment to photo dumps, I think it is worth acknowledging that our relationship with music is changing. It is far harder to maintain a separation between your taste, your identity, and how you are thought of by others.  

Never before has it been this easy, or quick, to completely change your go-to music selection with the help of streaming platform discovery functions, nor have we ever had the tools to see and share our habits at the level of detail we do now. This has contributed to everyone knowing far more about each other’s tastes than they used to, and the culture of sharing your interests to be cool online has reinforced this. In essence, choosing what to listen to at any given time is, for many, no longer a decision based purely on the feelings of the moment, but is instead mediated by the knowledge that they are not alone in witnessing this choice.

Summer VIIIs roundup: day one

Arun Lewis
-
0
Summer VIIIs roundup: day one

It’s one of the hottest Mays in recorded history. Crews are wearing layers of factor 50, racedesk is wilting under the heat, and the greatest danger to passersby on the towpath isn’t bankriders, but dehydration: Summer Eights has begun.

Compared to the late Torpheads, the weather for this Summer Eights promises an entirely different setting. With the Isis down to steady green flag levels – where it’s safe to navigate for all crews – and with sun predicted for the entire week, rowers and viewers need not fear unexpected downpours. A drop in the heat from 29 degrees average on Thursday to 23 degrees on Friday and Saturday, students can be pleased to know that conditions will be significantly cooler, bringing an easier watching and racing experience, especially for the more popular days. 

In the men’s divisions, there were relatively few dramatic changes from the starting to the finishing order, with the vast majority of crews either rowing over or managing to bump the crew ahead/be bumped from the crew behind. However, two particularly radical results are of note: New College M3 deserves plaudits for achieving an overbump on Jesus College, knocking them down into division VI and leapfrogging St Edmund Hall M3 and Green Templeton’s M2. New M3 up three places, overbumping on Jesus College’s M2 to send them down into Div VI. Somerville M2 overbumping on Pembroke M3 to place them at the bottom of Div VI. Given this was the first day of VIII’s, we can expect many of the lower crews, particularly the Beer Boats, to improve in form over the course of the racing week.

In the women’s divisions, there were some more dramatic changes in the finishing order. With Green Templeton College W3 catching Magdalen W4, Worcester W4 overbumped on Anne’s W3 to take 82nd place from them, consigning them to the bottom of the running order. 

Two of University College women’s lower boats also had some exceptional results, with W4 achieving a handy 4 crew overbump to demote Pembroke W3 down to division VI and to sit in the same division as the college’s third crew – for the time being. Univ’s W3 managed to overbump Lady Margaret Hall, Mansfield, St Catz, Queens and Peters W2 to jump all the way to the top of division VI, becoming the sandwich boat for division V. A later bump which would have placed them into division V was reversed after it was revealed that Balliol W2’s cox had conceded unusually early out of fear of being actually bumped by St Hilda’s W2, leaving Univ to chase them down but receiving no bump. More impressively, in two of the higher divisions, division IV and III, there were overbumps and large leaps in position here, too, where the contest is likely to be more even and such dramatic results thus unlikely. Brasenose W2 overbumped Regents W1, Lincoln W2 and Worcester W2 to haul themselves towards the middle of Division IV, leaving St John’s W2 facing a lonely row to the coxing stone. Moreover, Catz’ W1 pulled off an audacious bump into division III, leapfrogging Queens and Peters W1. 


Considering the proliferation of gambling and betting apps, it’d be folly to round off today’s account without consideration of Bump’s trader, which every good Oxford rower should have. The most bought crews – i.e. those expected to advance the most over eights – on the men’s side were Hilda’s, Hertford, and Worcester M1’s, and on the women’s side St Catz and Balliol’s W1, and also Univ W3. Speaking of Univ, they have entered the most crews this year at a whopping 9 – 5 men’s boats, and 4 women’s crews – only two short of the all-time record set by Oriel in 1990, when more colleges entered, on average, far more crews.

From sub fusc penguins to college puffer herds: The ‘uniforms’ of Oxford

Aaron Butters
-
0
From sub fusc penguins to college puffer herds: The ‘uniforms’ of Oxford

At my matriculation, I remember laughing with my friends about how it seemed that the entirety of Oxford had been “overrun by penguins”. Everywhere you looked, you would see sub fusc, that bizarre getup that the University demands be worn for its official ceremonies and exams. During my first Michaelmas, as the weather got colder, it was impossible to walk about town and not see herds of students in college puffers, and I soon learned to recognise the various college crests embossed on them. Later, on nights out, you could always recognise a group of Oxford students by their (by then, slightly out-of-kilter) black tie. With all these sightings of homogeneous clothing, it seemed to me as though people spent more time in ‘uniform’ at Oxford than they would have done in sixth form or high school beforehand. But does Oxford really have ‘uniforms’? How might we define them? And what purpose might they serve? 

Does Oxford have ‘uniforms’?

When the term first entered English about 1748, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, a uniform was “a distinctive dress of uniform cut, materials, and colour worn by all the members of a particular naval, military, or other force to which it is recognized as properly belonging and peculiar”. Aside from the definition’s militaristic associations, what interests me is the adjective “peculiar”, here meaning “exclusive” or “unique”. While we might think of uniform as simply meaning sartorial homogeneity, lots of uniforms also stand out for their unique oddness and lack of any general practicality: school blazers, to use a well-known example from the UK, are really rather constricting, useful only when you have copious items to store within their many pockets. They are often brightly and strangely coloured too. Nobody would wear them in any other context outside of school. 

There is a second definition of “uniform” in the OED, in use since 1930: “The customary dress or mode of appearance characteristic of persons of a certain age, class, or lifestyle.” This marks a semantic widening: a term that entered English with quite specific reference to the flamboyant military uniforms characteristic of the 18th century, had by the 20th century broadened its meaning to any recognisable mode of dress. 

Where, then, does Oxford fit into this? What might count as uniforms in Oxford? First to mind come sub fusc and academic gowns, black tie (and indeed white tie for those rather fancy balls), and college merchandise. 

Sub fusc, as the oldest of the bunch, seems to fit most closely with the 1748 definition. It certainly is ‘peculiar’, as the joke about the “penguins” illustrates. Both black tie and college merchandise, on the other hand, seem closer to our 1930 definition. They could certainly be said to be ‘characteristic’ of Oxford students. The one factor that legitimates all of these forms of dress, however, which makes their ‘peculiarity’ acceptable, is the context of the University. Sub fusc, black tie, and college merchandise all link to that institutional power and prestige. These can be called ‘uniforms’ in the sense that they are homogenised forms of dress, unique and peculiar to Oxford. 

College puffers

In order to find out how college merchandise is purchased and received by students, Cherwell reached out to JCRs to find out the popularity of merchandise, whether students thought it could be considered a ‘uniform’, and in what ways it was different from the other ‘uniforms’ that we have discussed thus far. 

The Oriel College JCR President told Cherwell: “Oriel JCR donates all the proceeds from stash orders to a charity chosen by students.” This, in comparison to sub fusc or black tie, shows that there is a much more altruistic motive to purchase merchandise. Buying college stash is an act of goodwill as much as it might be a consequence of wanting to be seen belonging to the University. 

At other colleges, proceeds from stash sales may go back into the JCR. The Keble College JCR President told Cherwell that Keble’s stash sales represent about 5% of their annual budget. In Michaelmas and Hilary this year, Keble sold 148 quarter-zip fleeces and 89 puffers, to a cohort of just 124 new undergraduates this year. The quarter-zips were the most popular item – interesting to note, as it shows the idea that college puffers are the most popular choice to be something of a myth. Even accounting for older students, it seems likely that well over half of the freshers bought a puffer, and likely even more bought a quarter-zip. 

It is clear that college stash, as a purchase made by choice, and with proceeds going to JCRs or to charities, is acquired in a very different context to sub fusc or black tie, and so has a very different meaning to students. It is an optional purchase, and not a cheap one at that: in Corpus Christi’s stash drop, a college puffer will set you back £42.99. Nevertheless, the popularity of the college puffer and of college merchandise more generally persists. Why is this? Do students feel obligated to buy one because of their popularity? Or do they simply want to express pride for their college and for Oxford?

Mansfield’s JCR president told Cherwell that the stash is “really helpful for college culture – we’re a small college, and not as well-known, so it’s nice to have branded coats and jumpers you can wear around.” The JCR president also noted: “I’m not sure I would call them uniforms, especially since some people are more self-conscious about wearing them in a group.” Even among students, then, sometimes the puffers and college merchandise aren’t seen as uniforms inspiring pride or evoking distinction; in fact, there is fear of exactly that.

So, college merchandise is not regularly perceived as a ‘uniform’ by those who enjoy wearing it. However, if we consider the puffer sceptics, the fact that some are conscious to avoid being seen in an “Oxford uniform” shows that, in fact, that’s the way they are already perceiving the puffers. This aversion is not trivial: it shows that some people do see college puffers as uniform-like, or that there is a risk of them becoming like uniforms.  

It is also worth considering the significance of the branded puffer outside of Oxford. Many people choose to wear them at home – and many don’t. On the one hand, some people see them simply as practical coats, and others want, maybe if only a little, to show off the fact that they’ve made it to Oxford. On the other hand, for some, the meaning of the college puffer loses its significance a little outside of Oxford; without the context of many others wearing similar attire and the proximity to the University, the puffer once again becomes ‘peculiar’, and feels odd to wear. All of this is to say, while the puffer might for some be a fun way of expressing college pride and camaraderie, for others, there is the slight fear of them being peculiar, and of them feeling too much like uniforms to be worn outside of the context they came from. 

Sub fusc and black tie

The University website describes sub fusc as “solemn and modest, in line with our ceremonies”.

The English student in me jumped at the chance to look into some of the language being used to describe it here. By being linked to ceremony, sub fusc is, by extension, linked to the power and prestige that it represents. Oxford students wear sub fusc as a reminder of the gravity of these shared rituals and the history of the institution. It is not a “characteristic mode of dress” in the sense of the expanded, 1930 definition of uniform, but rather a form of dress associated with specific events: collections, exams, matriculation. Its “peculiarity” and association with ceremony perhaps make it more of a traditional uniform than the college stash. While college puffers have a much more immediate purpose of fostering college community, sub fusc goes straight back to the heart of the University’s traditions and their roots in prestige and solemnity.

Additionally, as part of sub fusc, gowns group students into different categories. Those who have achieved a first in their Prelims or Mods, or those who have attained other scholarships, can wear scholar’s gowns, while the rest of the student population wear commoner’s gowns. While some may feel that it’s an exciting challenge to aim high in order to ‘win’ a fancier gown, it can also certainly be seen as problematic that students’ academic standing can be ‘read’ by anyone simply from what they are wearing. Is this something that we really need to distinguish in dress? 

Related to sub fusc is, of course, black tie. This is a necessity for formal events, and it’s hard to walk around Oxford at night without bumping into a group in formal attire of some kind. While for most people coming to Oxford, having to regularly wear black tie is a novelty, it quickly becomes normalised. Sometimes, it’s easy to forget that, at most other universities, black ties and formal dinners are a rarity– if they happen at all. It’s only stepping out of the ‘Oxford bubble’ that reveals, once more, as with the puffers, the essential idiosyncrasy and peculiarity of wearing black tie on a regular basis. But the fact that this rather expensive kind of dress is effectively mandated in order to attend formal events leads us to a major problem with these ‘uniforms’ of Oxford.

Who is included?

Thinking about the ‘uniforms’ that Oxford has also means thinking about who they include – and who they don’t. First, the ‘uniforms’ mentioned here: college merch, sub fusc, black tie, all lie behind a paywall. While college merch is, strictly speaking, optional, the others aren’t, and so new students find themselves immediately having to fork over money in order to participate in the university community. Good luck going to a formal dinner, for example, without a suit and tie, or a fancy dress. Some students, unaware that these extra purchases are in order, find themselves frantically rushing about trying to buy a hat and gown before matriculation, and having to forgo formals for the simple fact of not having the right clothing. 

And college merchandise isn’t cheap, either. While you don’t need a college puffer or a jumper, the fact that they help to foster a sense of camaraderie within colleges could mean that those who can’t really spare the cash to buy one might feel, to a certain extent, that they are less a part of that community for not having one. 

Fortunately, there have been efforts made to improve accessibility. Oxford Class Act Society, a society “for working class, state comp, low income, first generation, care experienced, estranged, young carer & foundation year students at Oxford”, runs the Free Sub Fusc Scheme, where new students can apply to receive old sub fusc donated by leaving students for free. Not only does this save students from disadvantaged backgrounds from having to give money that they may not have to spare in order to buy academic dress, but it also means that gowns and mortar boards that are bought stay in use for longer, reducing wastage.  

The sub-fusc penguins waddle on

As freshers and exam-goers waddle penguin-like through town in their black gowns, the peculiar sight impresses upon onlookers and participants alike that certain forms of dress can connote and foster seriousness, solemnity, or academic vigour. The “peculiarity” of uniforms, the fact that they are so out of the ordinary, is perhaps part of their strange allure,  and the potential reason that drew some of us to Oxford in the first place. Sub fusc and black tie are peculiar, and have a direct relationship with the University’s systems and traditions. 

While those seem to be “uniforms” in a more traditional sense, college stash, although prevalent enough to be considered a uniform by some, isn’t nearly as institutionally attached, nor traditionally entrenched. Perhaps the key distinction is between the forms of dress the university imposes upon us, and those we choose to participate in. One is “peculiar”, placing us in close proximity to the history and tradition that Oxford has held. The other fosters a feeling of voluntary community. Both might well be “uniforms”, but they serve different purposes and effects.

But uniforms, in whatever their form, place us into groups. They mark us out from others. Sometimes this can be a positive thing. For example, college merchandise serves to foster a sense of community. But the fact that uniforms put us into groups means, inevitably, that some are excluded from those groups. Those with lower income are disadvantaged by having to ‘buy in’ to the uniforms that Oxford demands they wear. For some, black tie, sub fusc, and college merchandise may be a normality, or will easily become one. For others, they are ‘peculiar’, lie behind an uncomfortable paywall, and may come to represent a feeling of alienation, rather than a feeling of pride and inclusion. 

‘Genocide – I want you to use that word’: Nick Maynard on working in Gaza’s healthcare system

Ned Remington
-
0
‘Genocide – I want you to use that word’: Nick Maynard on working in Gaza’s healthcare system

Professor Nick Maynard is the kind of surgeon that everyone hopes to see before an operation. Talking with me on video call, he shows a warming enthusiasm and friendliness that would reassure any patient, or student interviewer. This gentle humility makes the horror of the stories he has to tell, those from working in hospitals in Gaza, all the more jarring, and impossible to forget. 

Professor Maynard studied Medicine at Exeter College, Oxford, and works now as a consultant gastrointestinal surgeon at Oxford University Hospitals alongside private practice. As a leading specialist in his field, Dr Maynard can expect to get attention from his peers in medical practice and research. It’s his work in Gaza that has given him global reach.

Palestine and Oxford have featured together in Maynard’s life for decades. He first visited the West Bank in 2006, knowing, of his own admission, very little about the history of Palestine, only “what I’d learned in school”. Visiting the streets of Old Jerusalem, Maynard described being “inspired by the people I met, by the beauty of the land”. 

Originally visiting Palestine yearly to teach medical students, he first went to Gaza in 2010, and “never looked back”, taking teams of doctors from Oxford. His trips focused on developing his specialism in oesophageal and stomach surgery, and he began to get involved with Medical Action for Palestinians (MAP), a UK charity of which Maynard is now the chairman.

Even before the Hamas attacks on Israel on 7th October 2023 and the resulting Israeli military action, Maynard says those living in Gaza were “effectively in prison”, with bombings a “way of life” for Gazans. “Even prior to October 7th, Gaza has been a very challenging place to visit, to live in, to provide healthcare. Its economy has been almost completely destroyed for years. I’ve never, ever been to Gaza in all those years without witnessing, every single trip, aerial attacks from the Israeli military.”

Nonetheless, Maynard says that “nothing could have prepared us for the horrors we saw” when returning to the territory on Boxing Day 2023. His gaze strays from the camera slightly as he described his approach to Gaza from Egypt: “We’d stayed a few miles short of Rafah the night before, and it was a beautiful, sunny day, not a cloud in the sky. And as we approached Gaza, you could see this low-lying cloud over the whole of southern Gaza, smoke from the incessant bombing. And you could smell it from about a mile or two away. You could smell Gaza.” 

Graphic videos on social media and messages from Palestinian friends on the ground could do nothing to prepare him for “the sheer devastation of the bombing, the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of displaced refugees…for the volume of injuries”. The hospitals were “completely packed”, not just with the injured, but also with their families and others displaced from across Gaza, with their homes completely destroyed in Israeli bombardments.

Professor Maynard has been to Gaza on three occasions since 7th October 2023. He has been very successful at getting media attention to raise awareness of the plight of the Palestinians – appearing on the BBC, Channel 4, CNN, and contributing to respected newspapers from across the political spectrum, from the Guardian to the Daily Telegraph. Discussing one of the most divisive issues of our time, it’s the precision of a surgeon’s instruction that makes his advocacy particularly effective. His careful analysis of evidence reaches conclusions that cannot be dismissed easily by the Israeli government as misinformation or pro-Hamas propaganda. His diagnosis is clear: Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute a genocide – “and I want you to use that word in this article”, he insists.  

Still, his channelled anger is palpable when I ask him about the accusations of war crimes levelled at the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) by organisations such as Amnesty International, Médecins Sans Frontières, and a United Nations Commission on Inquiry. He provides copious testimony, as he is accustomed to doing in interviews across mainstream media outlets: “Friends of mine have been abducted, detained, tortured to death,” he says, emphasising every word. Others who survived torture met him after their release, and gave “very detailed audio and video testimonies of how they’ve been tortured, all of which I’ve submitted to the international courts”. 

I ask Maynard explicitly about accusations made by him and countless others, that Israel is deliberately targeting hospitals and medical workers in Gaza. He explains how, when working at Al-Aqsa Hospital in July 2024, his team would communicate every day with the Israeli authorities through COGAT, the liaison service of the IDF, to confirm that it was safe to work in the hospital.  Maynard says they were told: “You will be protected. There will be no military activity.” 

“They lied to us, because clearly they did attack the hospitals. They attacked the house we were in. I’ve witnessed with my own eyes the hospitals being targeted. I’ve witnessed friends being killed. I’ve seen the clearest evidence of the deliberate targeting of hospitals and healthcare workers. These are all war crimes.” 

Maynard has been asked the same thing by journalists on dozens of occasions now. His frustration is most clearly directed at the “utterly ludicrous” defences given by spokespeople for, and supporters of, the Israeli government, who he says are “given substantial airtime by the BBC and other awful media outlets”. The Israeli Government, Maynard claims, has never given any “verifiable or remotely credible evidence” to support their defences to charges of war crimes, or to justify attacks on medical infrastructure. “If it wasn’t so depressing,” Maynard continues, “it’d be laughable”.

Israeli authorities have repeatedly justified attacks on medical infrastructure by claiming such buildings have been used by Hamas as command centres, or to store weaponry. “Hamas may be in the tunnels. I’ve no idea, I’ve never been in them. I don’t know what’s going on in the peripheral outbuildings, 100 metres away from the main clinical buildings, they may be based there”, he acknowledges. However, Maynard is unequivocal that there was “not one shred of evidence” that Hamas were operating in clinical areas of the hospital grounds. “They’re not bombing the outbuildings, they’re bombing the clinical areas, and that is where there are patients, that is where there are healthcare workers, that is where there are medical students. These are the people who are being killed by their bombs.”

Maynard says that the medical students whose workplaces are being targeted are “utterly remarkable”. Working in Al-Nasser hospital in southern Gaza, he was surrounded by students “in the middle of a war zone, desperate to learn and succeeding in learning”. With the medical schools destroyed by bombing, lectures and exams have been held in makeshift tents amid a backdrop of bombing. Maynard recounts invigilating one clinical exam for fourth-year medical students, all living in tents with no running water or electricity: “I think there must be about 20 or 30 students, they all turned up… all of them in freshly pressed, beautifully clean white coats. I was just gobsmacked.”

It’s a far cry from the modern medical training facilities of the Oxford Clinical School, which Maynard is keen to pay tribute to for facilitating the rescue of two Gazan medical students to continue their education. These two students, however, are from a total of only four Gazan medical students who made it to the UK following 7th October 2023, a number which Maynard describes as “shameful”. 

Maynard came back from Gaza most recently in July 2025, after a trip where he sustained injuries to his head whilst working in Al-Nasser Hospital. After giving interviews from the hospital in Gaza, including to the BBC with a bandage still wrapped around his head, he has since devoted his free time back in the UK to activism and advocacy. At the same time, he has returned to his full-time job as a consultant surgeon at Oxford University Hospitals. Returning to normality and the “day job” in Oxford, he says it was impossible to know what to expect after “the profound impact … [of] dealing with atrocities”. 

“I had children, patients of mine die under my hands because we couldn’t stop the bleeding from the gunshot wounds”, Maynard recounts. He tells the story of eleven-year-old Habiba, who was left with a severe oesophageal injury, after a bomb explosion. “I spent the whole night operating on her, reconstructing her oesophagus, but we couldn’t feed her. We had no nutrition to come in, and she died predominantly of malnutrition a few weeks later, despite the fact the surgery had itself been very successful”. Moments like those, he says, “you never forget…they’re imprinted on your memory”. 

The return home came with profound relief and “enormous guilt”, as Maynard’s Palestinian friends and fellow surgeons remained trapped in Gaza. However, for Maynard, it’s after “saying goodbye to friends who you know you may not see again…to patients who may not survive, you feel the most profound anger” towards the West’s politicians and mainstream media outlets. Guilt and anger have left him with an “unbelievable, powerful urge…to tell everyone what I’ve seen, because they’re not hearing it from the media…the clear genocide…the war crimes, the ethnic cleansing”. 

And so Maynard continues to give interviews like this one. It’s a “double-edged sword”, he tells me, because “when you recount all these stories, it brings back all the horrible memories. But the overall benefit is this compulsion to share”.  

When you leave Gaza, he says, “you feel inadequate again. You want to be back out there”.  Despite the “emotional turmoil” he feels after visiting the territory, he is clear that the experience has been “life-changing and life-enhancing”. Spending time in Gaza has been “a wonderful privilege, and the last two years have in many ways changed my life”. As he speaks, I look towards the colourful woven map of Palestine hanging on the door behind him.

He says he’s “desperate” to return, but the chance to volunteer in Gaza again looks highly unlikely with his raised public profile of pro-Palestinian advocacy: “People like me, who have spoken out a lot, are not being allowed in” by the IDF, who continue to control all access to Gaza by medical staff, as well as aid workers, aid delivery drivers and journalists. A law introduced in January now forces all aid organisations to register with the Israeli government and submit the personal details of all their staff to the Israeli authorities, leaving 37 non-compliant aid organisations facing bans from accessing the territory, including Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF).

With it looking unlikely that Professor Maynard will be able to work on the ground in Gaza any time soon, his activism in the UK takes on a heightened importance. He laments how global pro-Palestinian activism has “diminished” in recent months. “The marching has reduced, the vigils have stopped…the media isn’t reporting anything about Gaza.” He blames the reduced coverage on public understanding of the official ceasefire in Gaza, dismissed as “propaganda” by Maynard. “There’s not a ceasefire. There’s been a reduction in the violence, but there are still Gazans being killed by the Israelis every single day. The need for advocacy and activism is as great as ever”. 

Making small talk before and after the interview, Maynard appears immensely calm, composed, affable. It makes his anger towards the UK Government and the University of Oxford all the more profound: “Oxford University is doing nothing like enough… the University authorities, by and large, have been silent, and that’s unacceptable.” 

For Maynard, the “woeful silence” of our political institutions amounts to complicity, whilst the UK Government has been outright dishonest. “Don’t believe the government when they say there’s an arms embargo. There’s not.” He accuses the RAF of “providing military intelligence” for Israel through reconnaissance flights over Gaza, condemns continued UK trade with Israel, and highlights recent cooperation between the UK Government and Palantir, the US data analytics company, which was given a £330 million contract with the NHS in 2023, whom Maynard accuses of having “strong links to the Israeli military”. 

Maynard’s testimony can appear extreme, even desperate, to a sceptical observer. The scale of the horror, the strength of the anger around Gaza, makes every attempt to describe what is happening there immensely polarising. Yet hearing him speak, Maynard’s anger does not come across as that of a partisan, but rather the quiet fury of an expert in their field, giving evidence on one of the greatest atrocities of our time, and feeling ignored by those he sees as complicit. 

So, what students at Oxford University could do to make a difference? For Maynard, the answer is obvious. Students should do “what students have been the best at doing for decades: standing up for those who need support, standing up for the underprivileged, standing up for the victims of genocide.”

‘Would you mind if I asked you a troubling question?’:  ‘Ulster American’ in review

Arun Lewis
-
0
‘Would you mind if I asked you a troubling question?’:  ‘Ulster American’ in review

Anyone who describes reviewing a student play as a burden simply hasn’t watched a good play for some time. A free seat to watch young actors, directors, cast, and crew put all their effort into a production with minimal funding and frills is always an incredible experience. Ulster American is one such production. In the limited space of the Burton Taylor studio, set amazingly by Naomi Flexman and well lit according to the conditions of the play by Gabrielle Panova, the creative and personal struggle between the trio within the director’s apartment is brought to life. 

Whilst David Ireland is a fantastic playwright, with his work drawing such names as Woody Harrelson, Andy Serkis, and Matthew Broderick, the play itself is not fantastically well known, and so directors Kate Burke and Robyn Hayward were confronted with a challenge when producing this black comedy. How to communicate to the audience that the entire play shouldn’t be watched in stony silence, but that its seriousness should also be grasped? The directors, producer Frankie Maino, and welfare officer Madeleine Evans faced an almost impossible challenge, particularly given the sensitive material the play touches on. 

But it is a challenge they have pulled off adeptly, helped by a fantastic cast. With Aaron Gelkoff playing Jay Conway, an American actor almost stereotypically self-centred and shallow, Rohan Joshi as Leigh Carver, the anxious-to-please and superficially sensitive director, the play’s opening thirty minutes were well secured. Gelkoff gave an unforgettable performance that never fell into cliché, even as he played the sort of publicly quasi-intellectual American actor most people can imagine – think Brad Pitt. Joshi gave what I believe to be the finest performance of the night, acting as the cantilever of the play, a director increasingly desperately attempting to keep his production aloft. Conway lauded over Carver with skin-deep soul-searching and quizzical observations that Carver, in his desire to avoid any obstructions to his play, accepts, only raising a swiftly muted challenge when Conway describes a particular debauched and morally bankrupt thought.

A decent way into the play, the arrival of Caeli Colgan as Ruth Davenport, the playwright, upsets the unchallenged dynamic that had prevailed thus far. Davenport, as the eponymous’ play’s auteur, engages with the themes the audience might expect as a product of Ireland. She is brilliant, challenging Conway where Carver had been willing to let issues slide – after her brief awe at his celebrity wanes, of course. Arriving following a car crash with her mother, Davenport’s family looms large over the play, as her own identity as a Protestant Unionist rubs both the quintessential Guardian-reading upper middle class liberal Carver, and the self-righteous Conway, the wrong way. Carver fundamentally fails to grasp the basis for unionist identity, whilst Conway’s idiocy and lack of interest in the play itself – communicated with repetitive, deliberate contradictions by Gelkoff – leads this supposedly proud Irish American to express horror at the fact that, rather than being written by an Irish Catholic, ‘the play was written by a Unionist Protestant Brit.

The energy of the play doesn’t abate once the trio assemble, and the comic elements are used fantastically – it, unlike some black comedies, never fails to elicit laughs from the audience, even as the play thundered towards its dramatic conclusion. But there was something left on the table as the audience stood and applauded and began to file out.  For a play that pertained to be about Irishness and the intricacies of Northern Ireland, juxtaposed with those of America, little examination of either appeared for long. That is partly David Ireland’s sin, but I think that the directors could have been bolder in how they approached his work. Having two women in the play, for example, rather than one woman against two men, would have greatly changed the power dynamics regarding discussions of Britishness, Irishness, and its relation to the blunt brutality of the American actor’s wishes; again, this is a sin of Ireland’s, not the cast or crew. The actors are fantastic, and are reliable fixtures of the OUDS circuit that improve with every performance.

Ulster American’s great performances and direction have, however, left its contentious script unchallenged. The ending of the play captures this well. However, whilst it is in line with a black comedy to have Conway and Carver claim credit for Davenport’s success, whilst lumping her with a gendered accusation of mental health issues, this fails to deliver on the promise raised earlier in the play. Davenport – again, played fantastically by Caeli Cogan – is clearly Ireland’s favourite, but she, like Conway, is a character that never reaches the depths of her own morality.

Joshi’s Carver steals the limelight in large part because he reaches beyond the bounds of Ireland’s limits and lends depth and intricacy to the character. He appreciates the experimental element of student theatre, his character attempting to ensure the play’s survival, his own success and conception of himself as a liberal and friend to Davenport. The high drama at the end of the play, featuring an addition not part of the original script, is effective, but the addition is unnecessary. It undermines the nuances to Conway’s character and hamfists what had been a subtle but palpable inequality of power running throughout the play, and serves as a fine allegory for the production itself.


It is superbly acted, fantastically staged and lit, and the production of the play is star-quality. But a failure of directorial ambition, not in producing a poorly directed play but in failing to challenge, or meaningfully amend, Ulster American, precludes it from being a truly great play.

123...2,592Page 1 of 2,592

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by Jamie Ashley