Sunday 12th April 2026
Blog Page 1114

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

William Taylor
-
0
Woodrow Wilson’s name to remain on Princeton’s buildings

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

William Long
-
0
Christianity Finals papers no longer obligatory

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

Eloise Sykes
-
0
In defence of online nudity

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 cry, Kim 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

Alex Walker
-
0
Purges and politics in cyberspace

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.

Should music be used for political ends?

Richard Birch
-
0
Should music be used for political ends?

It appears to be the hip thing to do at the moment; to ‘do’ Cuba. After Pope Francis’ visit less than six months ago and Obama’s this same week, the Rolling Stones are the third in a fine line of notable visitors to the country. The British offering, if you will.

But there is a very big difference between the Rolling Stones and the other two visitors. Obama’s visit was indicative of a thawing of relations between two ideologically opposed countries. Meanwhile the appearance of the Pope is indicative of the re-emergence of Roman Catholicism which was long suppressed by the Communist regime. The old Catholics came out of the woodwork for the Pope’s visit in September, and even Raul Castro admitted he was so impressed by him that he was debating returning to the church. It is obvious, then, that these two visits were of paramount socio-political importance.

The Stones’ visit, however, put simply, should not be. They aren’t the leaders of the world’s most powerful religion or the world’s most powerful country. They’re just the ‘World’s Greatest Rock and Roll Band’. This is the band that have 11 arrests between them. This is the band who got a song about heroin, slavery, S&M and oral sex to number one in 1971 (‘Brown Sugar’, in case you’re wondering). They burnt down Playboy Mansion, threatened to stab Donald Trump, hosted a free concert where four people died and four people were born… the list goes on.

Some expected the band to comment on the situation in Cuba – the lack of basic resources for the general population, the poor state of the hospitals and infrastructure and the continued violations of civil liberties. The opportunity was definitely there to make a statement. The question remains as to whether or not the Stones should have felt obliged to comment on such issues. To my mind, such politicisation is beyond the remit of the band. Only twice in their lengthy oeuvre do they support any clear political view. Why should they have had to start now? It would seem slightly odd for this famously debauched bunch of Bacchanalian revellers to start pontificating and preaching to the Cuban people about the need to change the political system.

Fundamentally, they are different from the Pope and the US President. They were there in Cuba to entertain. Indeed, the very fact that they put the concert on for free (knowing the population could not afford a Stones’ ticket under normal circumstances) made a statement larger than any they could have verbalised – that they wanted as many people as possible to be able to enjoy their music. Leave the politics to the world leaders – leave the rock and roll to the Rolling Stones.

OO admins apologise for “Purge”

Sophie Jordan
-
0
OO admins apologise for “Purge”
Following the changes that have been made in discussion rules for the Open Oxford group supporting free speech on Facebook, admin Ash MQ published an apology on behalf of the entire team. Members of the group had been banned from the conversation without prior warning for posting messages considered unrelated, leading to protests and the creation of Oxford Rebellion in response to what some called the “purge.”

Declaring they “reserve the right to remove posts and ban members for abusive and off-topic posts”, the three admins of the group, Alex McGann, Jacob Williams and Ash MQ announced the new set of rules they had agreed on in the afternoon of April 1. This change has failed to satisfy the members of the group, despite Jacob Williams evoking the fact that the decision of banning a user would be “somewhat arbitrary” but entirely normal in order for the discussion to function.

A message of apologies has been posted by Ash MQ, in which the admins states that the team is sorry for the unexpected series of bans. According to Ash MQ, this happened before the whole team decided to change the rules and the admins now agree to say that such rapid action was necessary but should have been preceded by “formal warnings”.

In his post, Ash MQ wrote, “Shitposting is definitely a problem, and so I am fully behind the changes to the guidelines — but the bannings should not have happened until after we instated the new guidelines, and only after we had issued formal warnings to the culprits.”

Ash MQ told Cherwell, “The modest rule changes are definitely a good thing.

“I just don’t support the fact the rule changes were enforced before the rule changes were announced (which happened without my knowledge or control), so I reversed that, and apologised on behalf of the admin panel. From now on the new rules will be enforced,” he added. “All the admins are behind what I did.”

Shop until you really drop: Pint Shop comes to Oxford

William Taylor
-
0
Shop until you really drop: Pint Shop comes to Oxford
This summer, Cambridge-based Pint Shop will be opening the doors of a sister establishment on George Street. The offshoot of the pub will be taking up residence facing the New Theatre in a two floor 5600 square foot space. There will be room for 110 diners and 24 kegs.

The Times’ 12th Coolest Restaurant’s website declares itself “a place where people from all walks of life, rub shoulders with each other” and models itself on the home-brewing beer houses of Victorian Britain. The Pint Shop’s online self-portrait guarantees “craft beer, intimacy & fun, throw in some killer food, cooked on coals, just as it was 1830 and deliver it with a bunch of amazing people.”

Evoking this news, Becca Chaplin and Jacqui Thorndyke from food guide Bitten Oxfordtold Cherwell, “We’re always pleased to have new food and drink venues opening in the centre of Oxford, especially when they’ve been winning Awards and recognition left, right and centre, plus we’ve needed some excitement on the scene for a while.

“Craft beers are really coming into their own here, especially with so many excellent local breweries and we’re definitely excited by The Pint Shop’s menu. Our only reservation would be that they’re from Cambridge!”

Ed Murry from the local Shotover Breweries commented “a lot of the pubs in Oxford are tied,” which means that they have to serve the pub chain’s branded beer, “so if Pint Shop’s independent, great!”

Night out aficionado and student Malachi Rayner was another to express interest, “Local craft ales are something students are starting to embrace, cheap and alcoholic, and a break from sickly hyped up £1 jäger bombs and alcopop deals in college bars.”

Newly appointed Balliol Rugby Club Social Secretary Calum Holt also noted the Pint Shop’s decor and ale selection, telling Cherwell with excitement, “I’m looking forward to being very responsible with a small group of friends from chess club in this bar!”

The Pint Shop remained unavailable for comment, presumably too busy planning how to escape Cambridge.

Open Oxford goes into meltdown

Sophie Jordan
-
0
Open Oxford goes into meltdown

Created as an online space for members of the University to discuss their views of sensitive or controversial issues, Open Oxford now faces difficulties as a series of bans have led to questions about the administrators’ rights to impose limits on the subjects evoked.

The group’s objective has been to “encourage vigorous but respectful discussion of any topic people are interested in.” Judging that a few of its members had strayed from this original line by posting what admins Jacob Williams, Alex McGann and Alex MQ called “in-jokes and frivolous humour” in their recent online explanation, several of its members were removed from the conversation.

This removal of members is not a one-off, with the admins making it clear that in the future they “reserve the right to remove posts and ban members for abusive and off-topic posts.

“Necessarily this will be somewhat arbitrary but so are all rules. We’ll try to warn people whenever possible before removing them, and we’re happy to readmit members who were removed if they agree to abide by these guidelines.”

Reactions to this have divided the active users of the group, some of which decided to create Open Rebellion in response to Open Oxford’s meltdown.

Sophia Nash explained this division, telling Cherwell, “The OOverlords have betrayed their loyal subjects. We have risen up in defiance of this dictatorship, to stand up for free speech in all its forms and because idk, we were bored.”

The word “purge” was rapidly adopted by members of the group to describe the series of bans. According to Eleanor Sharman, “The admins may yet see the error of their ways, but any revocations of their Purge will now be too little, too late. Original Open Oxford has fallen.”

Alex Doody, a third year German student currently on his year abroad also called for the admins of Open Oxford to resign. He told Cherwell, “Considering the entire raison d’être of Open Oxford as a group to facilitate Free speech, be that serious discussions, polls or even pure shitposting, an antidote to all these other proscriptive Facebook groups, I was initially shocked that a rogue admin would do this, and have become increasingly disgusted as it has become apparent that this may be a coordinated effort.

“I am angry at the way admins have handled this and acted in a way of which Stalin would be proud, and see this as an affront to the very Principles OO was founded to defend. The Admins should resign in shame,” he claimed.

Like the majority of members and former members of Open Oxford expressing their opinion on the meltdown of the group as a space for free discussion, Elrica Degirmen joined Doody in her statement to Cherwell. “This is an affront on the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech ensures that people are able to talk about topics that they want to discuss with others and there is no requirement to always debate “intellectual” subjects.

“Anyone could have banned individuals who make posts on things they do not want to be reading about and indeed no one is obliged to be in the group. It is a great shame that the administrators of Open Oxford thought they could just remove people for arbitrary reasons but it was pleasing to see other members taking a stand against them through continuing their discussions on other related groups.”

Some had a more positive attitude towards the removal of certain members, however, with Ed Mahoney telling Cherwell, “The removed people have a habit of ‘shitposting’ and spamming with unintellectual rubbish.” He added that they formed “a sort of clique which made it difficult for many to follow.”

More on this story: OO Admins apologise for “purge”.

Analysis: Politics and purges in cyberspace

University announces new college

Daniel Kodsi
-
0
University announces new college

Green Templeton College must be breathing a sigh of relief: no longer will it have the distinction of being Oxford’s newest college. Instead that honour will be held by a new college, the first since the merger of Green and Templeton Colleges in 2008, and the first built since Kellogg College was constructed in 1990.

The new college, to be named ‘Wartshog’ is projected to cost nearly £1b over the course of its construction. Though most of this, about £600m, will come from the coffers of the University and its constuent colleges, much of the rest will be donated by Joanne ‘Jo’ Rowling, perhaps better known by her penname ‘JK Rowling.’

Worcester Professor Josephine Quinn, a Buildings and Estates Subcommittee member, told Cherwell that Rowling was highly involved in the project’s conception and committed to building a college explicitly for the ‘gifted.’

“Her idea was fully fleshed out,” Quinn said. “And I must say it was brilliant – flew past the committee without a modification. Despite being new, the college will be built in the style of outdated architecture – Rowling showed us photos of an old Scottish castle – and open only to those who deserve to be there by dint of birth.”

Quinn explained that Wartshog College will take a revolutionary approach to determining admissions. Rather than requiring the ‘talented’ apply, it will send out postcards – to be returned by July 31 – to those whom the college deems to have just the right attributes for study at the University. Those students will be offered a one-of-a-kind education, all the while cloistered off away from the prying eyes of the masses.

The University said in a statement, “We view the creation of Wartshog as a way to truly begin moving forward into the 21st century. Oxford is continuously in the process of modernisation and advancement in order to stay truly competitive as the world continues to globalise. Accordingly, we are in full agreement with Ms Rowling’s plans to build a college where you will be able to graduate without having spent anytime interacting with anyone who is not in some way fundamentally similar to you.”

Students have lauded the University’s announcement. David Lawton, a second year at St Hilda’s told Cherwell, “I am shocked and impressed by the foresight of the University. In announcing that the new college would be built exactly in the model of pre-twentieth century architecture, they subvert our understanding of what modern truly is. And the decision to only accept those with certain ‘abilities’ means that Oxford will continue to maintain its firm hold at the top of whatever university rankings are next scheduled to come out.”

When asked whether he thought it was problematic that most of those who would attend Wartshog came from families that also attended Oxford, Lawton said, “Well, that’s only most, right? Every year I’m sure there will be at least a few who come from families in which neither parent attended a similarly presitigious institution.”

When contacted, Rowling told Cherwell, “I have always found Oxford a beautiful, magical place, perfect for nurturing ‘special skills.’ Not just that, but the University is the ideal mingling ground for bright young people and I’m sure that the relationships they form here will continue to shape their personal and professional lives for decades to come.”

In addressing the fears that students from atypical backgrounds could face discrimination and mudslinging, Rowling said, “It’s possible – but I think the education Wartshog will provide will be more than commensurate for any such problems. After all, they could always choose not to attend, couldn’t they?”

At press time, the University was announcing plans to identify potential applicants to Wartshog and other colleges as early as birth and make sure to accept them when they were old enough for admission.

Review: Zayn Malik – Mind of Mine

Harry Smith
-
0
Review: Zayn Malik – Mind of Mine

Mind of Mine is Zayn Malik’s first solo effort since his departure from One Direction early last year, so it is hardly surprising that the album makes explicit efforts to distance itself from that X-Factor brand of watered-down pop. The album approaches graphic sex, dark emotions, and the low points of nights out, which is a welcome change for Zayn; one of the greatest positives of this album is that it feels more sincere than One Direction ever did. But on MoM, Zayn still suffers from overproduction, which jars with what should be raw subject matter and lends an irritating self-consciousness to his supposed image shift.

Musically, the album has more interest than the two made-for-radio singles would suggest. The move from pop into R&B feels natural for Zayn’s vocal style, and while Zayn’s voice does little to distinguish him within the genre, it does work well within said genre’s limitations. The backing tracks draw from a wide range of influences, with unsurprising tinges of Frank Ocean and Robin Schulz, as well as synths that wouldn’t be out of place on a Passion Pit track, or in the softer sections of a XXYYXX album. This diverse musical source material comes together most successfully on ‘tRuTh’, which is also a rare lyrical high point. Its references to his past, trapped in a world that was “not [his] scene”, have the ring of honesty that makes good R&B, and the tinkling synth ornaments and relaxed bassline work well against the track’s softer vocals and chorus-soaked guitar.

Mind of Mine has moments of interest, and some genuinely enjoyable songs, but the extent of its weaknesses, and their prominence in the bulk of the album, only serves to overbear the stronger, more sincere tracks. It is, however, an album that could have been heavily trimmed, which might have made the issue of Zayn’s repetitive lyrical content less obvious, and helped the back end of this 59-minute album feel like less of a slog. Many of the tracks suffer from the common pop disease of having one or two clever lines padded out with rhyming clichés to make a song. ‘lUcOzAdE’, ‘TiO’, and ‘BRIGHT’ are queued one after the other, and ‘LIKE I WOULD’ comes shortly after, all of which are grounded in the stale, overdone, “let’s fuck” school of songwriting, making the second half of the album into an ad nauseam repetition of the self-evident theme that all-grown-up Zayn beats us over the head with in ‘dRuNK’ – “Right now I’m emotional.”

1...1,1131,1141,115...2,577Page 1,114 of 2,577

Support Student Journalism

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

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

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

Website by Jamie Ashley