Tuesday, April 29, 2025
Blog Page 1021

Review: Eddie the Eagle – ‘he’s a laughing stock’

1

ONE STAR

When you consider the life of an athlete, you realise – to your surprise – how breathtakingly boring it must be. We see people like Mo Farah or Bradley Wiggins once or twice every decade for a few hours in fantastic international sporting events. But in the intervening years there are punitive training schedules, draconian diets and unwavering, slavish devotion to a single (very specific) personal passion.

I’d hate to be a filmmaker tasked with telling an athlete’s story. Fine, there are anchor points every so often where the athlete performs, and the audience can share in the excitement of the stadium crowds in the background, but what’s there to do with the rest of the two hours you need to fill? Scenes about calorie control? No. Perhaps that’s why the latest effort, and I use the word loosely, to make the ‘film about an athlete’ isn’t actually about an athlete at all: it’s about Michael Edwards, better known as Eddie the Eagle.

Eddie the Eagle is perfect for a film. He only started training two years (call it one year, no-one’ll check) before the 1988 Olympics, so there’s no need to tell the boring story of the years of effort he didn’t put in to the sport. He’s an underdog: he’s got funny glasses, and his work as a plasterer before the Olympics means the film can paint him as an impoverished outsider in a UK team of public schoolboys. He’s portrayed by the silver-spoon-less Taron Egerton, which is at least refreshing at a time in British film where most of the cast of The Night Manager can be traced back to the same £30k per year Oxford prep school.

Whatever doesn’t fit precisely into the classic underdog formula – you know, the one better executed by Billy Elliott and Cool Runnings, which are guiltily referenced in Eddie – can easily be fabricated. Hugh Jackman’s reluctant coach, a jaded alcoholic who was previously the star of the US ski-jumping team, is both entirely fictional and lifted wholesale from a parody sketch by Mitchell and Webb in 2007. “I bowled a wide in the World Ashes Cricket Cup!” Mitchell wails, pint in hand. The pint is replaced by a stars-and-stripes hipflask – given up by the last scene, since alcoholism can be cured by vicarious Olympic not-quite-success. Otherwise, the character is identical.

The entire film is a hackneyed caricature of this same formula. The clichés kept piling up, faster than I could count. There is the snobbish official, Tim McInnery with his ridiculous toupee – who wheels out another perfectly serviceable version of Blackadder’s Captain Darling. There’s the disapproving-turned-disbelieving-turned-passionately-supportive father, who is given the funniest line in the film early on: “One of these days you’re going to walk in here in a wheelchair!” There’s the blindly indulgent mother, who at one point goes so far as to give the family’s savings to Eddie without his father’s knowledge, a move which, if done anywhere other than movie-land, would constitute serious financial mismanagement.

There is the compulsory bloody montage scene, with shots of Eddie training in wacky ways as his scores improve and Jackman’s telegraphed frowns of concern becoming smiles of triumph. There are the bureaucratic German race officials for whom “everything must be done to ze letter’. There is the group of toffee-nosed British winter Olympian men – while it’s probably not fair to call them Riot Club clones, you certainly wouldn’t leave them alone in a room with a severed pig’s head.

But by far the biggest cliché in the entire film is Eddie himself. There are a million Eddies in bland feel-good films like this, and there will be a million more after him. He’s the poor, naïve, awkward boy, rough around the edges, with a good heart and a determination to succeed that transforms into an impossibly fast improvement in skill. He is Billy on the dancefloor, or Rocky in the ring, or even Eggsy, Egerton’s breakout performance in Kingsman, in the field. And he is as fictional as his coach.

The real Eddie, far from the bumbling jester we see at the start of the film, was an excellent downhill skier who very nearly represented the UK in 1984. One major disadvantage he had, though, was his weight. He came in at 9kg heavier than the next jumper in his Olympic jumps. It’s no surprise that this was cut, as movies are only made about thin and pretty people. There’s also the fact that Eddie was nowhere near as successful as they made out in the end: they cut that Eddie came last on both of his events, and the tragic way his story continued, with Eddie never qualifying for another Games.

Portraying Eddie as the paint-by-numbers hero that appears on the screen does a disservice to the man, and it does a disservice to his audience because of its perpetuation of a tired message, repeated like a broken record by the film industry. Hollywood is the worst culprit, promising you can achieve literally whatever you want if you just believe hard enough. Forget the needed lifetime of practice, forget natural ability. All that’s required is self-confidence and a good heart. This, while lovely, is absolute garbage. But I bet the same people who complain about ‘the generation that wants everything without working for it’ will be gushing over this film as ‘a stirring tale of Great British pluck’, without considering the link between the films which send this kind of message and the audience, who begin to believe it.

It’s also a rewriting of history to repaint Eddie as a heroic figure. He was not a hero. He was a man desperate to perform in the Olympics – and without any lifelong passion for his chosen sport. He succeeded in doing so – once – because of a loophole in a decades-old selection policy which was patched quickly afterwards. He is a novelty, a comic figure. This confusion was best exemplified in the cinema when Eddie’s first crash happened: half the audience gasped, the other half chuckled. In what is meant to be the character-making speech just before the film’s climax, Eddie says “I didn’t come here to be a laughing stock, and I’m definitely not leaving here as one”. But he was a laughing stock: untrained, under-prepared and only competing on a technicality. And perhaps, in spite of what this film may tell you, that is all he ever could hope to be.

Ray’s Chapter & Worse: 0th week

0

Only a few weeks ago, dear reader, we were wallowing in the midst of the most glorious Easter vac. Long, heady spring days. The burning of tute notes on ceremonial pyres. The joys of avoiding family reunions. And only the faint chance of freak snowfall in mid-Easter. But alas, summer’s lease hath all too short a date, and the long days of library confinement are drawing in. But at least we can all ride on into the valley of Trinity (essays to the left of us, essays to the right of us) knowing we are all refreshed from our long, relaxed Easter break.

At least, my rejuvenated, happy reader, that’s how most people spent their break. But I have to tell you, as you sit here reading this whilst probably sipping a steaming mug of peppermint tea or simply admiring your perfect, smooth skin as it glows with renewed health, that my vac was despairingly different. I have spent the last two weeks chained to a desk at college, doomed to phone grumpy alumni and explain to old women why the we ‘really do need your support’- all whilst forlornly watching children and golden Labradors frolic on the lawns outside without a care in the world. For I, fool that I was, signed up to the college phone campaign.

Now, I accept that I may be exaggerating the trauma of all this slightly. The pain of having to watch all your friends have fun on their vac whilst you phone old people who happened to go to your college is tempered by the frankly ridiculous pay-check you receive at the end of it all. But the truth remains that, as the Oxford streets fill up with excited freshers naively stepping into their third term without an inkling of the prelims horrors that await them, that you can spot those who did the phone campaign by the bags under their eyes and that haggard, haunted look as they studiously avoid mobile phones.

Whilst in the midst of this horrific phone marathon, I stumbled upon this translation by Seamus Heaney (that eternal staple of the A-Level syllabus) of an earlier poem by Baudelaire. Baudelaire’s poem discusses an anatomy engraving of a human skeleton leaning nonchalantly on a shovel, taken from Andreas Vesalius’s anatomy textbook On the Fabric of the Human Body (1543). Heaney cleverly adapts Baudelaire’s message to address the sectarian violence stalking the streets of Belfast and, more importantly, to the question of how – or whether – poetry can deal with it. Now, whilst not comparing my college phone campaign to the Irish Troubles of the 1970s (there were very few petrol bombs planted in the JCR), I couldn’t help but sympathise with this poem’s sentiment slightly. So whilst you gambol happily through 0th week, spare a thought for us poor veterans of the college telephone campaigns. We’ll be curled up under a Bodleian desk somewhere still sleeping it off.

The Digging Skeleton by Seamus Heaney

after Baudelaire

I

You find anatomical plates
Buried along these dusty quays
Among books yellowed like mummies
Slumbering in forgotten crates,

Drawings touched with an odd beauty
As if the illustrator had
Responded gravely to the sad
Mementoes of anatomy –

Mysterious candid studies
Of red slobland around the bones.
Like this one: flayed men and skeletons
Digging the earth like navvies.

II

Sad gang of apparitions,
Your skinned muscles like plaited sedge
And your spines hooped towards the sunk edge
Of the spade, my patient ones,

Tell me, as you labour hard
To break this unrelenting soil,
What barns are there for you to fill?
What farmer dragged you from the boneyard?

Or are you emblems of the truth,
Death’s lifers, hauled from the narrow cell
And stripped of night-shirt shrouds, to tell:
“This is the reward of faith

In rest eternal. Even death
Lies. The void deceives.
We do not fall like autumn leaves
To sleep in peace. Some traitor breath

Revives our clay, sends us abroad
And by the sweat of our stripped brows
We earn our deaths; our one repose
When the bleeding instep finds its spade.”

Wealthy backgrounds lead to higher graduate earnings

0

A recent study on graduate income has revealed that students from wealthy backgrounds go on to earn more than those from less well-off families. The findings of the report also indicate a disparity in the earnings of men and women, as well as differences based upon the course studied and institution attended by the graduate.

The study was a collaboration between the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Institute of Education, University of Cambridge and Harvard University, with funding from the Nuffield Foundation. The Institute for Fiscal Studies’ (IFS) press release states ‘the average student from a higher-income background earned about 10% more than the average student from other backgrounds.’

 
The disparity grew at the very top of the earnings spectrum. ‘The 10% highest-earning male graduates from richer backgrounds earned about 20% more than the 10% highest earners from relatively poorer backgrounds even after taking account of subject and the characteristics of the university attended. The equivalent premium for the 10% highest-earning female graduates from richer backgrounds was 14%.’

 
Oxford was no exception in the study. While ‘more than 10% of male graduates from LSE, Oxford and Cambridge were earning in excess of £100,000 a year ten years after graduation in 2012/13’ only LSE had over 10% of its female graduates earning above the same figure.

 
Zoe Fannon, currently reading for an MPhil in Economics, told Cherwell, “the question in both cases is why individuals from less-wealthy families and female graduates seem to not end up in the high-paid jobs.”

 
She was eager to address the information the study was based on and said “they only have data on the graduates who took out loans from the Student Loan Company.” As a result of how income thresholds are calculated, “the graduates from wealthy families are mostly people whose parents are professionals rather than people whose parents own companies or run hedge funds (because they would likely pay fees straight up rather than taking out a loan).”

 
On the issue of why those from wealthier backgrounds might do better than their peers in competition for the very highest earning jobs, the study offers suggestions but no firm answer. According to one postgraduate with experience in business and hiring processes however, “it remains an unfortunate reality that wealthy, influential families have connections that can give certain graduates an unfair advantage in hiring processes for highly-paid roles.”

 
Jonathan Black, director of the Oxford Careers Service, highlighted the initiatives run by the university that aim to address any disadvantages brought about by household income or gender. He told Cherwell, “the Careers Service provides connections with alumni (to address any social capital deficits) for students, and training programmes are being introduced (eg, Springboard for women students) to address any confidence issues.
“The Moritz-Heyman scholarships programme, which particularly targets students from low-income and disadvantaged backgrounds, includes as part of its support for on-course students funded internship opportunities that allow students to pursue valuable work experience while having their costs covered.”

­­­

Man to be tried for Iffley Road murder

0

A 51-year-old man appeared in court yesterday for the murder of Adrian Greenwood in his house on Iffley Road and could be tried in October.

A suspect aged 26 who was initially arrested after being chased up High St by a Thames Valley police car was released without charge on April 10, three days after the police were called to the crime scene.

Adrian Greenwood, described as an “historian, biographer, author and art dealer with a particular interest in nineteenth century British military history” on his own website, was found dead at number 25 Iffley Road in the afternoon of April 7. The police reported he had multiple stab wounds over head and chest, and observed the likeliness of an altercation that left the attacker himself equally injured.

Michael Danaher appeared in court before 10.30am yesterday to state his name by video, speaking from Woodhill Prison where he is being kept for the moment. The court has decided that he will talk again on July 1, until which date Danaher will be detained at Woodhill. The provisional trial date however is set for the beginning of October and could last for ten days, prosecutor Michael Roques has suggested.

Interview: Jessy Parker Humphreys

0

“Kaiya and I both talked about doing a drag show in the hypothetical for a while, and then for Queerfest, I duct-taped my tits, and I had so much fun… they played Let It Go from Frozen, and I sat everyone down on the sofa in Plush and lip-synced to them, and then as we left Plush, I was like, ‘I need to do this in front of more people, and more people I don’t know.’”

So began Not Your Nice Girl, a duo with great ambitions: challenging an audience’s understanding of gender through performance art is no small feat. Jessy Parker Humphreys and Kaiya Stone, however, seem uniquely placed to rise to the challenge. I met Jessy to discuss their recent success with Binding (a play put on at the BT last term which they wrote and directed) and future plans, both for the devised show BEARDS in 0th week and beyond.

As we wait for our coffee, I ask what they thought of their first directorial experience. “Never again!” they say, laughing. “Well – maybe not never.” In spite of Jessy’s own reservations, their debut was indisputably well received: one review called it ‘a piece that reached out to the audience in every way, buzzing with a sense of change and exciting new voices that need to be heard.’ And while they prefer writing to directing, they describe it as a very positive experience overall. “It was really interesting putting it on – it was quite a personal play, and it was weird putting it into someone else’s mouth and having them play a part which is effectively you, but the feedback was absolutely incredible.”

Touch Therapy, another play Jessy wrote around the same time, is being taken to the Edinburgh Fringe Festival this summer under the direction of Amelia Brown; they admit that the pressure to redraft feels more intense without the freedom to change things over the course of the rehearsal process. With Binding, some scenes were totally devised in the weeks leading up to opening night, and they’re continuing work on it even now – it may be re-written as a one-person show for performance next year.

For the moment, however, BEARDS is the priority. The event page invites anyone and everyone to collaborate with the pair to create ‘a show which will leave you feeling liberated, excited and QUEER. AS. FUCK.’ In particular, they emphasise the importance of a gender performance rather than a gendered performance “Kaiya and I are very aware that drag has traditionally been cis men dressing up as women in a very specific idea of womanhood, and I guess that’s what I would consider as ‘gendered’ performance,” Jessy explains. “We didn’t want to go and just flip that on its head, like, oh, cis women should go and do ‘manhood’ – it’s about gender and playing with gender, but not having to be that kind of binary switch, not necessarily having to play into traditional ideas.”

Over the past month, they’ve sent out a number of emails listing eclectic inspirations and unusual prompts (“Can time be gendered?” “If you were going to create your own myth about the formation of gender, what would happen in it?”) “The aim of the show is to bring people into the performance stuff who might not necessarily have done it, so we’re very much trying to show that creative influences don’t have to be obvious, and I think that comes from me and Kaiya having very varied, very atypical influences ourselves.” Kaiya, who was President of St Hilda’s College Drama Society in her last year at Oxford and is now at drama school, also has a background in comedy and choral singing, as well as an interest in fashion and makeup; Jessy describes their own experience as being comprised of “various random bits and bobs.” The two hope that drawing attention to their disparate influences and experiences will encourage others to try their hand and have had some positive responses already, although Jessy jokes that “it sometimes feels a bit like emailing into the void.” Even so, they know they have an audience – mainly women and nonbinary people have signed up to receive the emails, which they feel is “a really interesting reflection of who wants to be doing this and who feels like they haven’t necessarily had the opportunity to do this before” – and describe not knowing what’s going to happen in the show until the workshop that morning as part of the fun.

What, then, do Not Your Nice Girl hope to accomplish with BEARDS? Jessy classes the performers as the priority. “I think it’s about giving people the opportunity to do stuff they don’t normally get to do.” And if there’s one message people should take away, “It would be that everyone should get on stage and come up with creative things about gender because it’s really fun and it’s really important and I think it’s a really nice way to explore gender stuff without it being a big deal.”

With BEARDS a week away, a scratch night at the Camden People’s Theatre the following day, and big plans for the Fringe this summer, the pair seem poised to provide an eye-opening experience for their actors and audiences alike. “Both Kaiya and I see Not Your Nice Girl as a very long-term project encompassing lots of different things, so hopefully that will continue to be a venture with which we can put out as much creative work as we want to and can do.”

Should Europe care about Trump?

0

When newly-elected President Obama toured the world in Spring 2009, just after his inauguration, the conservative media in the US lambasted him as embarking on an ‘apology tour’. Where George W. had been strong, they cried, Barack Obama was weak and a coward, apologising to their enemies for the US protecting itself. Ludicrous as these claims seem, they are perfectly demonstrative of how much of the US still feels about foreign opinions: they should fear our power, and cooperate accordingly.

Now, there’s a candidate leading the field in the burning corpse of the Republican Party who is xenophobic, sexist, racist and reliant on 18th-century foreign policy principles. He, more than anyone, will send out the feeling that he doesn’t care what a bunch of Europeans think of him. So, when Oxford students march to protest the candidacy of Donald Trump, don’t think he will hear about it, much less address it in any way. But do these largely British students really have the right to meddle in the politics of my home country?

Let’s consider for a second how the election of a President Trump would play out for Europe financially. The US is still the world’s largest economy and is especially important in financial and service sector economic development, meaning the advanced economies of Europe are intrinsically tied to our own. There’s no doubt world stock-markets would collapse with a Donald Trump presidency: at the very thought of his nomination, the FTSE 100 fell 50 points following his Super Tuesday success. Few have faith that his leadership would offer stability, so a Donald Trump presidency would bring economic turmoil for Europe.

Donald Trump is strong, though, right? He’ll secure the world: the US will get tired of winning because he’ll win so much. That, or his foreign policy agenda will spell disaster. Trump has praised Putin as a strong leader, saying he would “get along well with” the Russian leader: hardly a stabilising force in a militarising Europe. His support from far-right political figures like Jean-Marie Le Pen, who said “if [he] were American, [he] would vote Trump”, is doubly worrying, because his presidency could give those dangerous candidates an even larger spotlight on the international stage, endangering the fragile European Union even more.

As for terrorism, the US is isolated and for the most part much safer than Europe can be from violent extremists, as the tragic events in Belgium and Paris demonstrate. Donald Trump would only make this kind of threat more likely. Hillary Clinton was incorrect in saying Trump was being used in recruitment videos, but he may as well be. His calls for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” is one of many statements that fuel the so-called Islamic State’s image of the West as unwelcoming and alienating to Muslims. He will make ISIS more dangerous; he will destroy America’s treasured belief of our own morality for a false sense of security; he will damn the world with his short-sighted xenophobia.

Across Europe, governments are grappling with refugee and migration crises, set to grow in the coming months. Will this potential leader of a land once so welcoming of immigrants, adopted home of Albert Einstein, Yoko Ono and Arnold Schwarzenegger set an example for his counterparts in Europe? In his own words, “I will build a great wall – and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me – and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.” Perhaps not.

In December, the world struck a deal to mitigate the effects of climate change. Yet, the largest historical carbon polluter still has a major political party denying the science of the deal or the practicality that it could be carried out. Have no doubt, Donald Trump will destroy the advances made by the Obama Administration. This is the same man that tweeted: ‘The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.’ Electing Trump would once again set the world on a catastrophic path, endangering everyone from the Marshallese to the Dutch.

So, should students here be allowed to care about who we in America elect? Absolutely. The US President may be our specific leader, but we expect him or her to lead the world, to side with humanity, civility and science, to push the world in the right direction. Donald Trump would do none of these if elected. The British and everyone else in this world have a vested interest in the US Military not becoming the plaything of an egomaniac, the world financial market not collapsing, immigration debates not becoming a farce, extremism — Islamist and far-right — not growing and the climate not being destroyed. As the US continues to play the most important role in preventing these things, the rest of the world should express their opinions about our choices. Will the conservative media or much of the US agree with me? No. But that shouldn’t stop you.

Let’s talk about Boko Haram

0

Today is the second anniversary of the kidnapping of 276 girls from their boarding school in Chibok by the Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram. A video, taken in December, has just surfaced purporting to show several of the girls still alive. Those that get wind of this development might recall the initial atrocity in association with the widespread social media campaign that involved the spread of the BringBackOurGirls hashtag. What they probably will not be aware of is the findings of a Unicef report, released several days ago, which shows that one fifth of Boko Haram’s terrorist attack’s last year were conducted by children.

Whilst there were four attacks of this type in 2014, last year forty four of a total of 151 bombings were carried out by the young. It’s hard to think of much more barbaric than utilising an eight year old, beyond the usual suspicions of communities racked by war, to infiltrate and destroy what are referred to as ‘soft targets’: market places and camps for displaced people.

There are mixed explanations for these suicide bombings, often it is thought that young people are drugged whilst explosives are strapped to them and then device remotely detonated. However, a recent CNN interview with a young girl who escaped from the Boko Haram militant she was forced to marry sheds some light on what might be behind these attacks, three quarters of which are done by girls. She said that with lives of forced marriage, repeated rape and constant fleeing from Nigerian military advances suicide bombing became a potentially attractive option, apparently offering some faint glimmer of potential escape. In fact, she said that abducted girls in the hands of Boko Haram, of which around 2,000 have been taken since 2014, were eager to undertake this potential opportunity which so often ends in the deaths of hundreds.

These statistics might come as a surprise. Coverage of these quite evidently horrifying crimes has been sparse to say the least. The Times yesterday carried two small columns on this story on page thirty, the back page of its ‘World’ section. The BBC and The Daily Mail both touched on the report, but for other major UK news outlets these findings hardly registered. Essentially, unless you pay purposeful attention to the situation in West Africa then it’s likely that you will not have heard about Boko Haram’s continued campaign of extreme inhumanity.

I used to live in Nigeria. In fact, I spent the golden years of my childhood, from when I was eight until eleven, running around in the dusty heat with my friends, many of whom were Nigerian. And until I was sent a link to a BBC news article earlier today I had heard nothing, and therefore cared little about the situation there. The media silence that surrounds these atrocities is no new phenomenon.

“We are routinely shocked by reports of the acts of barbarity committed by the so-called Islamic State but the vicious inhumanity of Boko Haram is unparalleled, as well as under reported.”

Many of you may be able to recall, if not where you were when you heard about the Charlie Hebdo attacks, then at least the vivid media coverage that surrounded them. However, I doubt you remember with the same clarity any discussion of the Boko Haram massacre of 2,000 people in Baga that occurred in the same week. You may be able to recall more clearly the social media campaign surrounding the abduction of the girls from Chibok, but did you know that the violence of Boko Haram has led to the deaths of 17,000 people since 2009, that two million people have been displaced from their homes and one million are still being denied access to education because of the risk the group poses.
We are routinely shocked by reports of the acts of barbarity committed by the so-called Islamic State but the vicious inhumanity of Boko Haram is unparalleled, as well as under reported.  Christina Lamb’s recent investigation reported teenage boys forced to dig their own graves, an executioner referred to as ‘the Butcher’, and horrifying stories of sexual brutality affecting girls as young as five. A  nine to ten year old girl was found recently in the Nigerian bush so traumatised she couldn’t speak, repeating the word ‘bomb’ over and over again; no one is sure where she comes from or what had happened to her.It’s easy to say that this is because these events aren’t European news and so it would be misplaced for European news agencies to carry them as lead stories. Putting aside the moral implications of ignoring suffering this doesn’t hold water. Events in the Middle East are technically as non-European as those in West Africa, yet the actions of IS (Daesh) consistently grace the front pages of our newspapers and are a continued topic of debate and conversation. Boko Haram bare many similarities to IS, in fact they are officially associated, with Boko Haram’s leader calling the areas they control IS’s ‘West African province.’

Boko Haram is, you may be surprise to hear, considered by the Global Terrorism Index to be the deadliest terrorist organisation in the world. The thing is that whilst they are deadly in West Africa they pose little threat to Europe. Boko Haram bomb Cameroonian market places not Brussels or Paris; the women they sexually abuse to do not often flee to Europe, they regularly face further abuse in vast West African refugee camps.

A Cherwell article written last year entitled ‘Are some lives really more significant than others?’ addressed some of these issues. Its author concluded that in actuality we, the reading public, are to blame for the media’s privileging of some lives over others. The media must be attentive to what the public is interested in, and so willing to buy. I agree that it is probably true that the reading public are more interested in what affects them and I think this attention to the commercial viability of news can be employed as an excuse.

But it is an excuse that the media should be deeply ashamed of. Is there not something intrinsically important about making the world aware of extreme human suffering that transcends commercial consideration? The reading public may not currently be interested, but if they are not confronted by these atrocities then they never will be and people will continue to suffer, surrounded only by silence. The media can hide behind the public’s selfish prejudices or take a risk and try and change them.

Calls for employers to pay higher living wage

0

Oxford employers have been asked to pay their staff higher wages due to disproportionately high housing costs. Green party Oxford City Councillor Sam Hollick said people should be entitled to at least £8.93 an hour, while the living wage which most employers, including the University of Oxford, now pay is £8.25 an hour. Hollick said in a statement, “The government’s new ‘living wage’ needs to be a lot higher for it to be considered a real living wage.”

The national living wage was introduced by the Government across the country, replacing the legal minimum wage for people aged 25 or older. Employers nationwide must now pay their staff at least £7.20 an hour.

Yet according to Lloyd’s, average housing prices in Oxford are 10.68 times local earnings, making it the least affordable city in the United Kingdom. Winchester comes second at 10.54 and London third at 10.06.

For this reason, Oxford City Council has separately promised to pay what it calls the Oxford Living Wage, at £8.93 per hour. It pays this to all staff and requires contractors with fees over £100,000 to pay it.

Bob Price, Leader of Oxford City Council told Cherwell, “The Labour City Council established the Oxford Living Wage at 95 per cent of the London Living Wage in 2011. We also require all contractors working on Council contracts to pay this as a minimum. We have also successfully pressed other major Oxford employers to pay the OLW. The five per cent decrement reflected the slightly lower transport costs incurred typically by Oxford workers vis a vis London.”

But Andrew Smith, Labour MP for Oxford East came out in support of a raise in the living wage. Smith told Cherwell, “I strongly support a higher living wage for Oxford, which in cost of living terms is more in line with London than much of the rest of the country, but we also have to win the argument to be allowed to build more homes, or any increase in incomes will be matched by further increases in rents and house prices.

“With the housing crisis, cuts in tax credits, and massive pressure on council and health services, there is a real and present danger of an ever deeper chasm opening up between the haves and have-nots in our city.  This is wrong, unfair, and desperately damaging both to those shut out of opportunity and to the fabric of our society.”

Danny Dolan, professor of human geography at the University of Oxford drew attention to the underlying problem of the housing crisis, telling Cherwell, “As the cost of housing rises much faster than inflation in Oxford and as Oxford is the most similar city in the country to London in terms of living expenses the case of paying at least the Oxford living wage is obvious. Not paying it demonstrates a lack of appreciation of the time and value of others. Unlike the national minimum wage, the living wage does not discriminate by age and pay people less simply because they are not aged 25 or over.”

Dolan added, “The living wage is just a small part of what is needed to make living in Oxford work as well as in most other European cities. Oxford also needs more housing. Again here the university, and in particular a small number of its constituent colleges that own land, have a part to play and a choice to make over whether they play that part.”

Lesley Dewhurst, Chief Executive Oxford Homeless Pathways, a charity providing services for the homeless in Oxford highlighted the insufficiency of salaries for those emerging from unemployment in Oxford. She told Cherwell, “It is my understanding that there is already an Oxford Living Wage prescribed by Oxford City Council which we, as City Council funded organisations, adhere to and support in terms of the salaries we pay our staff.

“However, it is true that employers are finding ways around this with the recent introduction of the national living wage, and we would be naïve to think that this wouldn’t just happen more if a higher living wage for Oxford was enforced.  The way forward, in my view, is for these loopholes to be closed and the cost absorbed by more equal pay structures, with less gap between lowest and highest paid.”

“As far as homeless people are concerned, the most helpful thing to get them into accommodation would be to raise the level of Housing Benefit that can be paid, to encourage private landlords to consider those on benefits or low wages.  Starter jobs for those people coming out of long spells of unemployment are rarely paid well – but, even if paid at the Oxford Living Wage, would not necessarily be sufficient for the high rents that are levied locally.”

However, there have been concerns the raised living wage would put unfair pressure on local businesses. Graham Jones, co-chairman of Oxford-based business group ROX, warned that the higher wage requirement could force some businesses into reducing the number of employees or hours.

He said in a statement, “Higher wages are good for employees, but although some businesses will be able to absorb the costs through efficiency savings, there will be those who need to increase prices, or the reality could be a loss of jobs.”

And Harry Samuels, an Oxford student running for councillor with the Liberal Democrats said that while he supported a higher wage for the city, its impact would be minimal unless housing costs themselves were addressed.

Nicola Blackwood, Conservative MP for Oxford West and Abingdon has been contacted for comment.

Outreach programme launched for ethnic minority applicants

0

Target Oxford has launched a new outreach programme with Oxford’s Undergraduate Admissions office in a bid to target ethnic minority students applying to Oxford.

Over 40 state school students with African and Caribbean heritage stayed at St. Edmund’s Hall whilst they attended the three-day residential event.

The year 12 students received an introduction to life during and after Oxford, meeting both current undergraduates and alumni for mentorship.

They also took part in a number of academic workshops and lectures led by Oxford tutors and research staff.

Dr Samina Khan, Director of Admissions and Outreach at Oxford University, commented, “The first Target Oxbridge residential has been a real success: all the participants were fully engaged and particularly enjoyed the opportunity to see from our current undergraduates what life at Oxford can be like and how achievable an option it really can be. The feedback from students and participants alike was extremely positive, and we look forward to continuing our partnership with Target Oxbridge to encourage and support more ethnically diverse applicants to Oxford.

“While Oxford is a popular choice for students from all backgrounds we know there are talented students who may not be considering us – we hope these initiatives will help shift the balance and put the benefits of an Oxford education on the agenda and within reach for more ethnic minority pupils.”

Naomi Kellman, Manager of Target Oxbridge, told Cherwell, “Rare launched Target Oxbridge in 2012 with the aim of helping black students to increase their chances of gaining places at Oxbridge and Cambridge. Since the launch of the programme we’ve helped 30 students gain places at Oxbridge, contributing to improving the representation of black students at Oxbridge.

“We are delighted that the University of Oxford has partnered with us this year to provide a three-day residential for the students on Target Oxbridge. We expect this residential to further help the students develop the skills they will need to succeed in the application process, and to envision themselves as future Oxbridge students.

“We look forward to seeing the outcomes for this year’s cohort, and hope to see a significant proportion of our students gaining places at Oxford or Cambridge.”

The programme is run by diversity recruitment firm Rare, which seeks to help students with African and Caribbean heritage increase their chances of gaining a place at Oxford or Cambridge.

The event makes up part of a yearlong programme by Target Oxbridge that supports students in their studies and application to university.

Academics and admissions staff from Oxford will offer subject-talks, master classes and application support before the admissions deadline on October 15 as part of the extended programme.

Oxford will also be hosting a new conference targeted at British Asian students in the Slough area as part of its aim to support ethnic minority students in their applications.

They already host an annual conference for African and Caribbean students.

Claims of anti-semitism hit NUS Presidential race

1

Leaders of student Jewish societies at 48 British universities, including Oxford, have signed an open letter asking NUS presidential candidate Malia Bouattia to answer questions regarding comments she has made which they consider anti-semitic.

The Jewish student leaders specifically raises concern with a 2011 blog post in which she called the University of Birmingham a “Zionist outpost in British Higher Education” and commented that one of the problems she faced as a leader of Friends of Palestine was that the University had the “largest JSoc in the country” with leadership “dominated by Zionist activists”.

“I do not now, nor did I five years ago when I contributed to the article cited in [the] letter, see a large Jewish Society on campus as a problem.”

Malia Bouattia, NUS Black Students’ Officer

In a written response to the letter, Bouattia claims she has no problem with the large JSOC. “I do not now, nor did I five years ago when I contributed to the article cited in [the] letter, see a large Jewish Society on campus as a problem,” she writes.

The letter also references a speech she gave to start Israeli Apartheid Week at SOAS in February, during which she claimed the government’s anti-extremism policy, Prevent, had been fuelled by “all manner of Zionists and neo-con lobbies”.

She has since clarified these comments as referring specifically to lobbying done by the Henry Jackson Society, a non-Jewish organisation, for neo-con and pro-Zionist policies, but denies that they reference the Jewish people as a whole. “In no way did I – or would I – link these positions to Jewish people”, she says in her response to the letter from Jewish student leaders.

Indeed, she writes that Judaism and Zionism are not the same and that connecting religion and politics is “both unfair and unrepresentative”.

The open letter also brings up an endorsement Bouattia received from Raza Nadim, the spokesmen for the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, an organisation that has been no-platformed by the NUS since 2004 for promoting belief in a world-wide Zionist conspiracy and once posted on their Facebook page to “take your holocaust, roll it nice and tight and shove it up your (be creative)!”. Specifically, the student leaders take issue with her reply to the endorsement, which was simply, “Thank you :-))”.

In her response to their letter, Bouattia claims she did not know Nadim, nor was she aware of his anti-semitic views, blaming her acceptance of the endorsement on an influx of support and a standardised response to it.

“I have a public facebook page with nearly 5,000 ‘friends’ on it, many of whom have posted supportive messages to my wall,” she wrote. “In all honesty, I was not aware of who Mr Nadim was or his position when he posted to my wall and responded in the same way I would to any post.”

She goes on to claim that as Black Students’ Officer at NUS, she has “a long track record of opposing racism – in all its forms – and actively campaigning against it. I am also an advocate of inter-faith work both inside of our union and beyond”.

Since the release of the letter, all four of the “Oh Well Alright Then” slate members representing Oxford to the NUS have condemned Bouattia’s comments and have thrown their support behind the Jewish student community in Oxford.

Additionally, the OUSU Sabbatical Team have released a public statement against her comments and urged her to answer the letter’s questions, going so far as to claim that “If these allegations are true, we believe it makes her unfit for the office of National President”.

“In order to help prevent the poison of anti-Semitism and ethno-religious hatred from spreading further, we need to make sure that the next NUS President doesn’t have anti-Semitic views.”

Alex Curtis, second year student at St Catz

The letter has also been signed by many current Oxford students, many of whom cited their concern for growing anti-semitism on  university campuses.

Alex Curtis, a second year student at St Catz told Cherwell, “As someone who is partially of Jewish heritage, I am worried about some of the rising anti-Semitism we have recently been seeing on university campuses across the country.

“In order to help prevent the poison of anti-Semitism and ethno-religious hatred from spreading further, we need to make sure that the next NUS President doesn’t have anti-Semitic views.”

The outpouring of support does not shock Oxford JSOC President Isaac Virchis, who believes “this is wholly indicative of the overwhelmingly positive and welcoming attitudes towards Jewish students and JSOC that are prevalent throughout the university.”

While Bouattia has offered her answers to the questions asked by the letter, many people see this breed of anti-semitism as widespread in universities and left-of-centre circles around the UK, including a vote by OULC to support Israeli Apartheid Week that set off questions of anti-semitism within the club and the party in general. Some see this vote as a sign of the increasing accepting of this form of anti-semitism within leftist group.

The resignation of Alex Chalmers as OULC co-Chair in February brought anti-semitism in the Labour Party to light.
The resignation of Alex Chalmers as OULC co-Chair in February brought anti-semitism in the Labour Party to light.

“If there’s one form of racism one can express freely in far leftist circles, it’s anti-semitism; often cloaked in the obfuscating language of Zionism and Zionists, the far left’s pathological obsession with Israel trumps any concern for Jewish welfare or the growth in anti-semitic attacks.” Labour activist Louis McEvoy said, “Obviously one can criticise Israeli government policy, but for some reason this is regularly conflated with dark murmurings of Zionist lobbyists and banks controlling the West, not to mention a pretty commonplace hatred for the very existence of the Jewish state. The candidacy of the utterly vile Malia Bouattia for NUS President is the peak of this phenomenon thus far.”

Indeed, many within the left have come to see the kinds of comments made by Bouattia as toxic to the role she’s running for and left-of-centre politics in general. “In light of this incident, this brings into question Ms Bouattia’s suitability for the role of NUS President where she will be representing the rights of students across the country from a diverse set of backgrounds, including Jewish students, when she is expressing views which are totally at odds with a role that requires impartiality and willingness to work with all students” said Brahma Mohanty, former OULC BME Officer and Social Secretary.