Tuesday, April 29, 2025
Blog Page 1023

Man found murdered in his home on Iffley Road

0

A murder investigation has been launched into the death of 42-year-old Adrian Greenwood, who was found dead in the hallway of his home in East Oxford on Thursday.

Police were called to his three-storey property on Iffley Road at 3pm, after a cleaner found a man inside the hallway.

A post-mortem yesterday confirmed the cause of death as multiple stab wounds to the chest and neck.

Thames Valley Police believe these wounds were inflicted with a bladed object, but they are yet to recover a murder weapon.

They also believe that an altercation took place in the hallway of the house and that Mr. Greenwood died after a “vicious and sustained attack,” in which the offender may also have obtained injuries.

A 26-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of murder and is currently in custody.

An onlooker, who saw the arrest yesterday, told Cherwell, “I was walking up the high street at around 18:15 when I saw a small grey car barreling through the high speed with the car horn blaring, closely followed by a police car. Both cars were coming from Cowley. I walked past Quod a few minutes later and saw the two cars parked in the middle of the road. Two policemen, one plain-clothed, were speaking to a man who had a couple of bloody cuts across his cheek.”

Detective superintendent Chris Ward, head of Thames Valley Police major crime unit, commented, “We are keeping an open mind in terms of the motive and whilst we have already made an arrest in connection with this investigation, I anticipate further arrests will be made as the investigation continues.”

Mr. Greenwood read Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Christ Church before embarking on a career as an antiques dealer, according to his website.

On the same site he described himself as a “historian, biographer, author and art dealer with a particular interest in nineteenth century British military history”.

He retired four years ago to focus on his writing, producing hundreds of articles since about antiques.

A blue tent was erected outside the house, whilst Forensic teams searched through bins, hedges and drains along the street.

Hugo Kent-Egan, an Oxford student who lives nearby, commented, “I remember seeing the police tape closing off the section of Iffley Road when I was cycling into college yesterday and wondering what was going on, only saw the story just a few hours ago.

“Obviously there are very few details about the incident such as motive and so on, but it was really shocking to read the article and recognise the picture of his house on Iffley Road, just a 5 minute walk from where we live. For something like that to happen virtually on our doorsteps seems very surreal and out of place.

“Considering that to most people Oxford seems a very safe and fun place to live and that the only crime I’ve really ever come across this year in Cowley are bicycle thefts or burglaries, something like this really jars with people sense of safety and will perhaps make me more wary this term.”

Iffley Road reopened last night after officers were seen removing grey Vauxhall Vectra from the property.

However the three-storey house and three nearby properties remained cordoned off this morning.

A spokesman said Mr. Greenwood’s next of kin had been informed, although he is yet to be formally identified.

UPDATE (April 10 2016): Man arrested by police on the High Street released without charge by police.

Free speech French style

0

As I hurried up the steps of Toulouse’s central metro station one cold winter morning back in January, an advertising board caught my eye. Before me, the unmistakeable portrait of the French enlightenment writer Voltaire clunkily rolled up into view, accompanied by his most misquoted saying: “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. Although this was actually formulated as a summary of Voltaire’s attitude towards free speech by a 1906 biographer, it still reflects his view and the point is very much relevant today. As the issue of free speech, especially on University campuses, becomes an increasingly hot topic, there is a great deal we could learn from Voltaire’s example.

In the aftermath of the tragic Charlie Hebdo attack on January 7 2015, which was seen as a direct assault on France’s highly cherished values of liberty and freedom of speech, it is perhaps no surprise that, Voltaire, renowned advocate of tolerance and free speech, was taken up as a figurehead in response by the mourning French people. Voltaire’s face began appearing on ‘Je suis Charlie’ posters, and his Treatise on Tolerance started to fly off the shelves. It was wielded as a symbol of solidarity with the victims and a metaphorical two-fingered salute to the terrorists.

Being an all-round thorn in the side of the Establishment in 18th century Europe, Voltaire was no stranger to trouble and controversy. The NUS’s no-platforming of offensive speakers nowadays would pale in comparison to the extreme and often violent censorship of 18th Century France. Furthermore, Voltaire’s signature sign-off on much of his correspondence,“Écrasez l’infâme!” (Crush what is infamous), criticising contemporary clerical abuses, would serve just as accurately as an ironic jibe at the NUS’s policy of no-platforming today. Throughout his writing career, Voltaire was imprisoned, repeatedly exiled, almost all of his works were banned and three of them were burnt upon release.

One of the central ideas running through all of his works was that of tolerance, in particular religious tolerance. Given the brutal religious wars in France in the 16th century and the constant tension between the Catholics and Protestants (Hugenots), this was a pressing issue at the time. Perhaps then, instead of dropping bombs on Daesh, we should be dropping copies of Voltaire; it would doubtless do more good.

“Voltaire’s furious scorn would come down hard on the NUS’s no-platforming rampage”

However, Voltaire’s philosophy went further than simply tolerating the views of others: he encouraged people to think, be curious and formulate their own ideas. This is perfectly displayed in a quotation taken from his aforementioned Treatise on Tolerance: “Think for yourselves, and allow others the privilege to do so, too.” There’s no doubt in my mind that, were he still alive and kicking, Voltaire’s furious scorn would come down hard on the NUS’s no-platforming rampage and the growing culture of censorship and thought policing on campuses.

Let’s now return to the famous quotation: “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. What this means in practice is that, if you value freedom of expression as a right, then this means defending it for a whole host of misguided people: homophobes, racists, sexists etc.. What this doesn’t mean, as the quotation clearly highlights, is that you agree with their argument.

This is exactly the principle that the new breed of pseudo-progressive student ‘lefties’ so woefully fails to understand. The problem is that when you attempt to defend a person’s right to speak who has ‘problematic’ (to use their own cringe-worthy jargon) views, some are so trigger happy that they don’t even stop to attempt to understand what’s being said. They instantly shut down into generic lefty spiel defence mode, and presume that you too are supporting the offensive argument in question.

We need free speech for everyone, even white supremacist nut jobs and homophobic Bible bashers, because even though we may find their views offensive or hateful, by allowing them to speak freely, it provides a platform to engage them and challenge their views. If only people were as passionate in their desire to fight back against these bigoted opinions, as they are to decry them and call for them to be no platformed and banned.

With the NUS policy of no-platforming speakers with ‘offensive’ views, instead of fighting these opinions through well-reasoned argument and debate, we cower away from them and stick our heads in the sand. In the words of Charles Bukowski, “Censorship is the tool of those who have the need to hide actualities from themselves and from others. Their fear is only their inability to face what is real.”

In another Cherwell article, ‘Censorship is not becoming the new normal‘, Oliver Hurcum claims that, by inviting a speaker with offensive views, the institution is ‘normalising’ this point of view. He even goes on to suggest, using the example of Germaine Greer speaking at the Oxford Union, that by inviting her to speak, the Union is either condoning or willing to accept her ‘transphobic’ views.

I strongly disagree with this. Simply recognising that a certain person has an alternative, probably unpopular, opinion on a topic of debate, and then inviting them to provide an alternative line of argument isn’t showing support for it. It is respecting the value of having a balanced two-sided debate, and also providing an opportunity to challenge these views instead of just brushing them under the carpet and pretending they don’t exist.

It is the duty of any educational institution, especially universities, to present students with contrasting views on a variety of topical, contentious and potentially offensive subjects in order to help them develop as individuals and as intellectuals. Any NUS attempt to no-platform a speaker is a blatant betrayal of the students whose best interests it is supposed to protect and uphold.

The problems surrounding no-platforming and censorship on UK campuses is epitomised well in a particularly amusing Private Eye cartoon from last month. Voltaire manages to get out the first few words of his famous “I may disagree” quotation, before an NUS student officer ‘no-platforms’ him.

So, although I may disagree with what Hurcum says, I will defend to the death his right to say it.

 

Helping others, free of cost

0

Paid for and posted by Libros Para Niños. To find out more, visit their website. 

It’s the typical plight of all too many Oxford undergraduates as they look ahead towards the summer: “I want to go abroad and volunteer… but the cost.”

And it’s strange, almost contradictory: organisations charge exorbitant fees for the ‘privilege’ of doing volunteer work. Meanwhile, local law and finance firms are offering job experience and £15 an hour to do work in an office less than an hour from home. At the very least, shouldn’t flying out to help others be affordable?

This is the predicament that Libros Para Niños (LPN), a non-profit organisation launched and run by Oxford students, works to address. LPN emerged first as a book donating programme before developing into a travelling library. Today it helps place volunteers in service programs to work with local organisations and schools in struggling communities and regions across Latin America: in Panama, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.

And LPN makes its placements for free: unlike ‘gap year’ companies or other volunteering organisations, which charge a fortune to place volunteers in schools in Latin America, LPN places its volunteers in programs without them having to pay a cent.

Founded by Dori Gilinski, herself the daughter of a Colombian father and Panamanian mother, LPN is by and large staffed by Oxonians whose experiences volunteering have shaped their worldviews – and who want as many fellow Oxford students to be able to have the same experience.

Gilinski and the rest of LPN’s team started with the initial purpose of collecting books through book drives and delivering them to compromised communities in developing countries across Latin America. But since 2010, as they came to realise how being forced to pay one’s one way was a problem for so many, LPN has connected people who want to help with volunteering opportunities, while providing support and advice throughout the duration of each trip.

LPN’s team is made of idealists, ambitious ones. Their mission: to catalyze a movement that engages colleges, schools, companies, governments and social enterprises and restructures the way current volunteer and teaching assistant placements are done.

It’s important work. The World Bank has written that getting good education is one of the most important challenges facing Latin America in 2016. LPN’s team is global, with staff members in cities as diverse as New York, London, Tegucigalpa and Tel Aviv. And they hope to leverage that global reach to place volunteers in programs where they can make the biggest impact – again, all for free.

LPN staff talk about why they started volunteering

President & CEO Dori Gilinski (Brasenose, Philosophy and Modern Languages, matriculation 2008):

“The time I spent volunteering in Panama forever changed me. It presented me with a reality that was worlds away from what I live day to day as a Philosophy and Modern Languages undergrad at Oxford. There were neither chairs nor desks, few books and no maps in that barren classroom. In the very same country where skyscrapers fill the air, and the motorway extends for hundreds of miles, six-year-old Yolanda came to class day after day suffering from stomach upsets because clean drinking water is limited in rural Panama.

“Despite the HDI continuing to rise (in 2011, Panama placed 58 of 187 countries), Panama has the second highest inequitable distribution of income in the Western Hemisphere. The significant economic growth the country has experienced over recent years does little to remedy the bleak levels of poverty. The World Bank recently reported that more than 1/3 of Panamanians live in poverty and nearly 15% in extreme poverty (that is, they live on less than $1/day).

“As my trip progressed, I began to question things. I felt guilty for how easy it was easy for me to go back and forth between Oxford and rural, backward San Vicente, but could I honestly say that the young children I was teaching would grow up to do the same? The economy is certainly booming and this will undoubtedly generate jobs, but will it help the uneducated poor or rather push them further and further behind as their homelands get absorbed by urban expansion and as the jobs that are created require a skilled workforce?”

Head of Development Christina Moorhouse (Brasenose, History, matriculated 2008):

“Volunteering in a school in Latin America gave such an incredible insight into the lives of the people I was working with. Living and working so closely within a community gave me a unique view of the dynamics within the society, the everyday concerns, hopes and dreams of the families, and how the children see their place within the community. This felt like an extremely personal experience, and one that will stay with me for a long time.

“The children that we work with are the future of the societies. The family and community ties are hugely important, so by investing in the children you are giving not only them a brighter future, but the whole community.

“I felt I learnt a huge amount both about the community in which I was working, but also about myself. It presented a whole new set of challenges to anything I had done before, and probably will do again, but I find the way that it shaped how I approach things is valuable every day.

“The challenges facing these children in gaining an education and their determination to do so despite this is so impressive.

“Access to a proper education is something we take for granted in the UK, but my experience volunteering made me appreciate it all the more how lucky we are, and how important it is to do something for those who are less fortunate and try to help give them a good start in life.”

Education Advisor Hector Keate (LMH, Maths and Philosophy, matriculated 2008):

“Whilst the primary aim of volunteering is to instigate direct economic and social impact on communities, students considering volunteering should also look at it in the context of broadening their skill set as they approach the job market. When selecting from a pool of highly able candidates, modern employers are keen to hire those students who not only exhibit passion and drive, but also those that have has international experience and have demonstrated commitment to wider social and ethical values.

“Speaking from my own experience, I turned down an internship at a top London consulting firm in order to go to Central America, visiting both educational and social development projects. Rather than harming my chances of employment, the firm was impressed by my attitude and ended up fast-tracking me through the graduate recruitment process and offering me a job.”

Scholarship Manager Emily Hawes (Brasenose, English, matriculated 2008):

“Volunteering in a Centre for Disabled Children in Ecuador was one of the most formative experiences of my life to date, and something I believe has been instrumental to my outlook on life since then.

“Before going to South America, I’d never really done anything that took me outside of my own environment. It taught me to really put myself in the shoes of someone else and reconsider my own assumptions of what it means to be happy and fulfilled.

“I spent six months working in Quito, Ecuador’s capital with children with varying disabilities, whose parents didn’t have the resources to look after them in the daytime. Every day, I was their own source of entertainment other than nurses who came to help feed and change them. Some of the children were as young as six months old, although the age range went up to ten.

“Helping those children, even on a day to day level, was a profoundly fulfilling experience. I knew no matter how mundane the task (feeding, changing, helping them finger paint!) I was making the children feel valued, and helping them to be stretched and challenged in a day which would otherwise have been blank for them. In a society where disabled children are largely sidelined and ignored, the appreciation you could see on the faces of the children (and the overworked nurses) was something I’ll never forget.

“For a school leaver about to embark on the real world, a volunteering experience is eye-opening: its challenging, different, difficult, confusing, fulfilling – and helps you ask the kind of questions that you continue to grapple with throughout your career and life. How do you want to make your mark on the world? How can you work in a way that will help others?

“These are the questions six-months’ volunteering sparked for me, and it’s this kind of inspiration we’re hoping to bring our volunteers for LPN.”

Of Dogs, Doughnuts, and Depression – 1

0

As you probably can tell from the title, I obviously have a knack for conjuring rather catchy titles that alliterate. I chose these very words, not for them to be thematically representative of what I write, but simply because they sound nice when placed together, and also because they are extant each and every day in my rather lonely life. I do not know what my blog will be about. But worry not, my posts will not revolve solely around these three seemingly disparate nouns. My supervising editor has very kindly, and in a potentially hazardous misplacement of confidence, reassured that creative control is very much in my hands. 

I will, therefore, write about what I want to. I will write about many things. I will write about many people and many places. I will write about why Brexit is a bad idea and why Bernie Sanders is such a grumpy but fun socialist grandpa. I will write about how I am absolutely buzzing for Radiohead’s new LP and how I am heartbroken in equal proportions when it comes to failing to buy a ticket to their May 28 gig in London (no surprises there, eh?). 

I will write about my Welsh Corgi, Ollie, who has just turned 3 months old, has a deviant liking towards mud-stained shoelaces, and has an unusually long tail for his breed. I love Ollie and find the companionship of a tender puppy one of the most beautiful things on earth. I will write about cinnamon sugar doughnuts that I get from Krispy Kreme in Cornmarket (and the occasional plain sugar doughnut – trust me, I KNOW my doughnuts), which I consume an unhealthy amount of on a near-daily basis. I probably take in too much sugar but I need the energy kick to cope with life. 

More importantly, I will also write about my rather unwelcome friend whom I have named Tom. I see Tom every day, and to be more precise, each and every minute since January 2015. He is there anytime and anywhere. He is, actually, not a living human being. No, he is far worse. He mostly is silent, but he does, in the odd night or two, speak to me. And when he does, he is very, very persuasive, dangerously so, and he gets to my head really easily. When I try not to listen, he screams and sometimes hits me. Which can be quite hard and can hurt quite bad. But when I start crying, Tom then knows that he has maybe gone a tad too far and then leaves me alone. Temporarily. And he definitely will return sometime after too. He always does. It is tough living with Tom. Perhaps I will spend more of my later posts chronicling this ongoing tempest of a friendship (or relationship, or whatever you might label it).

Anyhow, if this is getting too depressing to read, I apologize. This is quite literally my stream of consciousness and my ideas tend to bounce around a lot. As an introductory blog post, I think it may be appropriate to also note down what I have been up to in the past 3 weeks or so of the Easter vac. I log onto Facebook and I see right away that many of my college counterparts are having what appears to be a smashing time. Mine so far has been relatively monotonous. I went to Berlin straight after term, hoping to detox, hoping to explore someplace new, and to have a taste of the so-frequently-hailed-and-hashtagged pleasures of an ‘indie solo soul-searching trip’. And I did try my best to act like everything was going on fine. I took the customary selfie at Checkpoint Charlie (and the Brandenburger Tor, and the Reichstag, and the East Side Gallery), downed platter after platter of currywurst (and doughnuts too, don’t forget the doughnuts) and managed to tour all 5 museums on Museumsinsel under 5 hours (surely one of my more significant achievements lately). But it was not all sunshine and rainbows. Tom was there too and he spoiled the trip quite a bit. Anyhow, I am happy that I am now back home. I can usually keep Tom at bay when I am surrounded by places and people most familiar to me. This is all from me for now – I look forward to continue my weekly musings.

Such, so far, are the secret confessions of a shy boy from Hong Kong.

Panama Papers to have “no impact” on honorary degree

0

Oxford University told Cherwell Wednesday morning that mentions of Oscar-winning director Pedro Almodóvar, and his brother Agustín, in the Panama Papers have had “no impact” on the plan to award the Spanish filmmaker with an honorary degree. Almodóvar has, however, cancelled media events related to his new film, Julieta.

The decision to award Almodóvar was announced February 22, with the University at the time explaining that “Mr Pedro Almodóvar is a director and screenwriter, winner of the Jean Renoir Award for Screenwriting Achievement, and Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He achieved international recognition for the film Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown in 1988, and has since won multiple awards for Talk to Her, All About My Mother, and Volver, among others.”

“In any case, I reiterate that both my brother Pedro and I, as well as our producer, are up-to-date with all of our tax obligations.” – Agustín Almodóvar

It was revealed earlier this week by the Panama Papers that the Almodóvars were complicit in using tax havens to hide their wealth offshores, away from taxation. While being named in the Panama Papers does not necessarily amount to evidence of criminal wrongdoing, Iceland’s prime minister has already been forced to resign after appearing in them and dozens of other prominent figures have been implicated in the 11.5 million document leak.

Agustín Almodóvar took responsibility for his brother, saying that from the beginning, “Pedro and I divided up the tasks and duties very clearly. I took charge of all of the issues related to the management of the company, and he dedicated himself to all of the creative aspects.”

“In this context, I would like to clarify that the creation of the company in 1991 was on the recommendation of my advisors given a possible international expansion of our company. Notwithstanding that, the company was left to die without activity because it did not fit in our way of working.”

“I deeply lament the prejudice my brother’s public image is suffering, cause solely and exclusively by my lack of experience in the first few years of operation of our family company.”

“In any case, I reiterate that both my brother Pedro and I, as well as our producer, are up-to-date with all of our tax obligations.”

The University did not offer further comment.

Oxford researchers warn against new power stations

0

Energy companies can only go on building new coal and gas power stations for one more year if the world is to meet its global warming targets, according to a new study by Oxford academics.

Researchers at the Institute of New Economic Thinking have shown that the electricity generating infrastructure likely to give 2°C warming will have been reached by 2017. After the ‘2°C capital stock’ is exhausted, all new electricity sector investments will need net zero emissions in order not to exceed the internationally agreed global warming target.

At the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015, representatives from 195 countries agreed to “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels”.

This Oxford study casts serious doubt, however, on whether this is achievable. Stressing the urgency of the situation, the paper states that “the energy system is now at risk of undermining climate stability.”

When asked about the relative importance of the energy sector in achieving the climate goals, Richard Millar, one of the authors of the paper, told Cherwell, “Energy and heat currently contributes about four per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions.” He added, “carbon dioxide-induced warming of the climate system is essentially permanent.”

If policymakers ignore the findings of the study, they run the future risk of “stranding otherwise economically valuable assets,” which would “likely induce significant costs and loss of capital”.

The study defines ‘2°C capital stock’ as infrastructure that gives a 50 per cent chance of 2°C warming based on the normal economic lifespan of power plants, and with the optimistic assumption that all other sectors reduce emissions in line with the Paris Agreement struck in December.

Harriet Waters, Head of Environmental Sustainability at Oxford University, told Cherwellthat “the University is currently spending in the region of £1.5-2 million per annum on energy saving projects,” adding, “99 per cent of the University’s purchased electricity comes from a renewable source.”

The idea that no new carbon dioxide emitting infrastructure can be built in less than two years’ time has serious implications for the investment in the energy sector. Perhaps as a sign of the sector’s uncertain future, a spokesperson for the Oxford University Endowment Fund, responsible for £2 billion of assets from university colleges, told Cherwell, “we have already have significantly lower exposure to energy than if the fund was passively invested.”

Woodrow Wilson’s name to remain on Princeton’s buildings

0

Despite a campaign by students at Princeton, the university’s board of trustees has decided not to remove Woodrow Wilson’s name from the School of Public and International Affairs. Wilson, President of Princeton from 1902-1910 and President of the United States from 1913-1921, is widely credited with inspiring the League of Nations but has been criticised for his personal racism and for excluding black people from federal jobs during his time in government.

After a group of students called The Black Justice League organised a sit-in at the president’s office in November 2015, Princeton’s administration created a committee to examine Wilson’s legacy which published its final recommendations on April 4.

“Developments at Princeton are the latest in a number of student protests over racism in their universities”

While the committee acknowledges that the continued presence of the name “may be discomforting to many, and offensive to some,” it did not cede to the Black Justice League’s demands, concluding “both the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and Woodrow Wilson College should retain their current names.” The report goes on to recommend increased access to doctoral programs for underrepresented groups for doctoral programs and greater historical awareness of the former President’s ‘complex’ legacy.

The Black Justice League issued a statement describing the report as “meaningless platitudes” and which said that “Princeton’s decision today demonstrates unambiguously its commitment to symbols and legacies of anti-Blackness in the name of “history” and “tradition” at the expense of the needs of and in direct contravention with the daily experiences of Black students at Princeton.”

The developments at Princeton are the latest in a number of student protests over racism in their universities. Harvard Law School recently agreed to change its shield following a student movement named Royall Must Fall campaigned against the continued presence of slave-owner Isaac Royall’s crest on the Law School’s shield. And Royall Must Fall itself was named in reference to the Rhodes Must Fall movements in Oxford and Cape Town, which have called for the removal of statues of British business magnate Cecil Rhodes.

Laolu Ayeko, a first year at Pembroke, dismissed comparisons between Rhodes Must Fall and the campaign to remove Wilson’s name from Princeton’s campus, telling Cherwell, “Wilson was born before the Emancipation Proclamation and there’s a big difference in the level of endorsement between naming a school after someone and putting up a statue of someone. The reasoning for naming it after him is pretty valid as well: it is an ode to a positive aspect of him rather than him as whole.”

Ayeko also commented on the statement that Princeton’s decision was a “commitment to symbols and legacies of anti-Blackness,” saying “‘it’s a false conclusion to draw from the situation. It assumes Wilson is a symbol of anti-blackness. He wasn’t; he was a symbol of American politics at that time, in the same way George Washington owning slaves does not make him a symbol of anti-blackness in the eyes of most people. Also his success was not directly at the expense of the black community.”

Xavier Cohen, a third year student at Balliol, disagreed. Cohen told Cherwell, “Naming an institution after someone is to laud them. That’s why we do it in the first place and why people pay a lot of money to get things named after them. It isn’t to do with ‘remembering our history,’ as if we would forget about a US president if an institution was no longer named after him. Instead, what’s happening is that Princeton is ignoring the voices of already-marginalised students of colour who rightly point out that this is not someone we should be lauding in a world in which racism is still deeply ingrained.”

Christianity Finals papers no longer obligatory

0

Oxford’s Theology degree will no longer contain an obligatory Christianity component past first year as of Michaelmas 2016. While Theology prelims will retain two compulsory Christianity modules, Theology FHS will not. The same applies to Theology and Oriental studies as well as Philosophy and Theology. The Theology course itself has also been renamed Theology and Religion.

Johannes Zachhuber, Board Chairman of the Theology Faculty and Professor at Trinity College, told Cherwell that this was a result of “a five-year review process involving both academics and students.”

He attributed the change to the wishes of both undergraduates and academics, saying, “We recognise that the people who come to study at Oxford come from a variety of different backgrounds and have legitimately different interests. They come from the respected communities of Britain.

“If you have a very rigid curriculum, there will be an increasing mismatch between what lecturers are doing in their research time and what they’re having to teach.”

Zachhuver said that the course will now include “a wide variety of papers covering Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism as well as many different methodological approaches to the study of religion including theological, historical, sociological, and anthropological ones.”

He hopes it will also allow students to “critically [question] Western assumptions about religion which often imply the inferiority of non-Western cultures.”

Dr Benjamin Thompson, Coordinator of Undergraduate History, told Times Higher Education that this fell into a broader pattern, saying, “With the Cecil Rhodes statue debate, this ‘decolonisation’ of the curriculum is now quite interesting.”

Harry Cain, a third year Philosophy and Theology student, was enthusiastic about the proposal. He told Cherwell, “If the Christianity papers weren’t compulsory, I potentially would have looked into an area of theology like Islam or Buddhism to see how the worldviews interlink and draw on each other; with this change, hopefully students like myself will pursue their interests more rather than learning modules which are taken solely out of necessity for the course.”

However, he highlighted a fear that the course might risk “becoming an assortment of distinct topics rather than separate insights into an overarching worldview.”

Oxford’s Christian Union (OICCU) replied to Cherwell’s request for comment by stating that it was not the place of the society to comment on decisions made by the Theology Faculty.

The Oxford Islamic Society has been contacted for comment.

In defence of online nudity

0

When Snapchat first emerged, it prompted some mixed responses. “Why ever,” I heard a friend’s mother ask, “would someone want to send a photo that deletes after ten seconds?” However, to us, the accursed porn generation, the answer seemed obvious. In reality, you are unlikely to receive anything more titillating (excuse the pun), than a friend’s odd attempt to “face swap” with someone’s breast. (Disclaimer: it’s not that effective). At the other end of the spectrum, self-published nudes are occupying the more permanent areas of the cyber world, such as Instagram and Twitter. My first response would be positive. Finally, the world is getting over the fact that under our clothes everyone is naked. Unfortunately, this response is too optimistic.

Kim Kardashian’s nude Instagram selfie is no longer news but the public response it garnered remains newsworthy. As Bette Midler tweeted, “If Kim wants us to see a part of her we’ve never seen, she’s gonna have to swallow the camera”. And, there we have it: Kim’s notorious sex tape that resurfaces anytime she disappoints her public. She is in good company: Paris Hilton’s sex tape was infamously leaked in 2004, Pamela Anderson’s in 1998 and 2005, and many reading this will have seen Jennifer Lawrence’s hacked nudes. However, this is a gendered battlefield.How many of you know about Colin Farrell’s leaked sex tape with Playboy model Nicola Narain? Knowing this probably won’t affect your enjoyment of “In Bruges” and I am yet to hear it mentioned in interviews. But, I hear you cryKim Kardashian and Paris Hilton have no talent. No wonder people only care about their sex lives. Well, regardless of what you think of them as individuals, financially speaking, they are two of the most successful entrepreneurs alive today. Yet as soon as Kim uploads a (censored) nude to her own Instagram account, the Internet is awash, yet again, with angry keyboard warriors, desperate to reduce her to a sex tape released over a decade ago. Why?

“All women, not just the Kim Kardashians and Paris Hiltons of the world, are at risk of having their perceived sexuality used against them”

It seems people are angry that Kim got naked for the “wrong” reasons. It wasn’t to further women’s suffrage, it wasn’t for charity or to raise awareness for an important cause. Crucially, it also wasn’t anything we hadn’t seen before. With people outraged at the prospect that this image was a mere publicity stunt, I am personally more concerned by the fact that Kim’s $75,000 diamond earring could also have been dropped in the ocean as a publicity stunt, when instead it could have been donated to a charity. But no, that’s just the Kardashians being the Kardashians. It’s fine to share that video on Facebook and laugh at it. Sharing some post-childbirth body positivity, however, is not to be tolerated.

You don’t need this article to realize that women’s sexuality is often used to delegitimize them. Only a few weeks ago, journalists were clamouring for the punchiest headline to describe Theresa May’s neckline at what has come to be described as the “busty budget” announcement. Hey, it’s not like anything else mildly life changing came out of that meeting, right? For better or worse, Theresa May is the most senior woman in British politics. That she occupies a woman-shaped form should not be seen as a legitimate means of robbing her of professionalism. Such reporting proves how all women, not just the Kim Kardashians and Paris Hiltons of the world, are at risk of having their perceived sexuality used against them.

“We all know that ‘sex sells’ but surely it would be more honest to say ‘sex is sold'”

Much of the online responses were framed as disappointment at Kim “prostituting herself”. Not only is this hugely telling of society’s blinkered views on sex work but it also reveals our discomfort at female sexual agency. The problem is not that Kim is being sold, but that she is selling herself. The sex industry is not without fault but I do not think that the world’s oldest profession is inherently flawed. The issues are underhand dealings, the abuse of power and exploitation of people, not the transaction itself. Plus, let’s not pretend that those decrying Kim’s alleged prostitution are concerned about the nasty side effects of sex work. Not at all.They are offended by something far worse, that is female control over her body.

To “prostitute herself” implies, rightly, that Kim has agency. As voyeurs of a family who are prepared to air even the most intimate and distressing moments on international television, is it really so disturbing that Kim is prepared to use her naked body for publicity? If so, then you should probably reassess your understanding of reality television. We all know that “sex sells” but surely it would be more honest to say “sex is sold”. This example is just one instance of one woman selling her own sexuality amidst a sea of women whose sexuality is being sold for them by someone more powerful or, dare I say it, more masculine.

So, let’s not kid ourselves that the problem is the nudity or the selling of sex. Nowadays, you can’t even catch a bus or turn on the TV without being confronted by adverts depicting naked women draped over car bonnets, or hearing the satisfied moaning of a female Herbal Essences shopper mid-shower. We are bombarded with naked, sexualised female bodies every single day: the only difference in this case seems to be female control. People complain that Kim’s selfie is photoshopped. Don’t like being deceived? Well, where exactly do you imagine Nicole Scherzinger finds those orgasm-inducing Müller yoghurts? Your discomfort is not at the hyper-sexualisation, the beauty ideals, or the nudity. That is something to which you are most likely anaesthetized, thanks to our advertising industry. Instead, you are squirming in your seat at the prospect of a woman who is willing to commodify herself and reap the benefits from such a decision. You are witnessing the fact that sex sells, your discomfort is caused merely by the fact that, here it’s being sold willingly and by its owner.

Purges and politics in cyberspace

0

It seems a commonly held view that the principles of free speech and open discussion now flourish only on the internet. Of late all has not been well in this cyberspace land of supposedly unrestricted expression. Open Oxford, the original Facebook group founded with these ideals in mind, has been racked by internal strife, culminating in a series of controversies last Thursday and Friday. Jacob Williams, of No Offence notoriety, removed a selection of prolific posters from the group, a move which many saw as a contravention of the very principles the group was set up to defend.

We asked those invested in the issue their views and, in the spirit of the free debates they all hold dear, there was little agreement to be found.

What is Open Oxford? In the words of its current administrators, Williams, Ash MQ and Alex McGann the group was “established as a forum for the free discussion of ideas, in response to what we felt was a university environment increasingly hostile to the expression of thought that didn’t conform to certain viewpoints.” Regular user Harry Walton described it as emerging in “reaction to the perceived view that Oxford University was limiting itself to certain ideas and that the boundaries of discourse were being made increasingly narrow due to the actions of a particular student sect which said that certain ideas should not be able to be put forward due to their perceived damage.” Eleanor Sharman, administrator of splinter groups Open Rebellion and Openest Oxford, told us that the importance of these forums of discussion lay in the “free exchange of ideas, openness to new arguments and the pursuit of Truth.”

These similar starting points were not enough to avoid fracture. It seems that a universal commitment to free speech is not a precursor to universal agreement on the topic of ‘shitposting’. ‘Shitposting’ according to the Open Oxford administrators Ash MQ & co involves “a small coterie of members posting in-jokes, diary entries, and pictures of excrement’ which meant that “discussions were derailed, serious threads became lost amongst the nonsense, and most of the group’s over 4000 members were put off ever getting involved.”

It was in response to the scourge of ‘shitposting’ that Thursday’s bans were implemented. The Open Oxford admins have defended their actions, stating, “as of the time of writing no-one has been permanently banned from the group for shitposting. But now modest rule-changes have been made, such that chronic shitposters can be removed at the admins’ discretion after the issuance of a formal warning. Of course there will be some degree of arbitrariness involved in the enforcement of these rules, but this is impossible to avoid – and regardless, we think it is better than having no such rules at all.”

However, Walton interpreted the phenomenon differently saying that “friendly banter, a much maligned phrase, was common and people had fun. A lot of this fun was described as shitposting where jokes that people had established were posted.” Rather than pictures of excrement for Walton supposed ‘shitposting’ actually orientated around the presentation of ideas, he gave the example of smearing, “a joke word that came about due to someone posting someone else’s comments elsewhere on the board to remind them of the views that they put forward earlier.”

It is fair to say that the Open Oxford admins’ call for members to “support the rule changes” if they “share our desire for a space within the university for meaningful, free discussion of ideas” has not been enough to patch up the controversy and save the group’s reputation. In fact many see the initial bans and the rule changes that followed as fundamentally undermining the group, leaving it lacking credibility as a free forum for discussion. Walton argued that “what the recent bans have done… is to copy what made Open Oxford a necessity. The boundaries of discourse have been narrowed down again through the policing of the style in which one puts forward one’s ideas.” Open Oxford was set up, in part, as a response to the heavy handed admin action on other groups; many now feel it has irrevocably gone their way. Sharman said that although she did not speak on behalf of the groups she moderates, her personal view was that ‘the Purge’, as the removals from the group have become affectionately called, was “the worst thing since Stalin” and that she thought the admins should resign.

The groups Sharman moderates, Openest Oxford and Open Rebellion, have seen a growth in members in response to this furore. The admins of Original Open Oxford (as it is now referred to) use these groups as an example of why they see their new rules as so vital, saying “one look at any of the small rival groups set up in response to recent events demonstrates exactly the type of forum it is imperative to prevent Open Oxford becoming.”

Funnily enough not everyone agrees. Walton thinks Open Oxford have alienated many original posters leading to an exodus to other groups “because people feel like they’ve lost a place where they could genuinely communicate with one another without the boundaries of discourse closing in on them.” According to Sharma “Original Open Oxford is faltering somewhat, owing to the fact that all its best, most active members have fucked off to Openest Oxford. Discussion is foundering in Original Open Oxford.” Unsurprisingly, she says she’s not unduly distressed about this. In fact her, and the newly established Openest Oxford community, have taken action, recently set up a Kickstarter page to fund a ‘zine, the amusingly titled ‘The Shitposting Forecast’. The self-stated aim of the publication is to show “that ‘shitposting’ is an arbitrary and stupid designation – and to show how much ingenuity, creativity, and nuance is required to succeed at what others write off as ‘nonsense’.” The Kickstarter page, at the time of writing, had exceeded its £300 target by £189.

It remains to be seen whether the original Open Oxford will weather the storm. Its troubles are not unique, similar difficulties have befallen other monolithic Facebook communities. The question is raised as to whether all groups that reach a certain size inevitably collapse in on themselves, their original purpose drowned in a sea of off-topic memes.