Sunday 29th June 2025
Blog Page 1127

Student anger at straight-up ‘appropriation’ of Queerfest

Kim Darrah
-
0
Student anger at straight-up ‘appropriation’ of Queerfest

Anger over the treatment of Queerfest as a party rather than a celebration of queer culture has led to thwarted efforts by the event’s organisers to prioritise the LGBTQ+ community.

Queerfest is an annual celebration of queer culture run at Wadham, planned for Saturday 21st. The event is organised as part of Wadham’s ‘Queer Week’, which features events addressing the issues faced by the LGBTQ+ community.

Queerfest is described by its Facebook event page as a chance to “escape heteronormative hegemony and cissexist society and ascend to queer heaven”. However, many LGBTQ+ Oxford students feel this aim is undermined by non-LGBTQ+ partygoers who appropriate the event. While the event specifically says that all are welcome regardless of sexual orientation or gender, there has been anger that the rapid sale of tickets in the past has led to LGBTQ+ students missing out.

Organisers of Queerfest, alongside Oxford LGBTQ Society, have made efforts to prioritise LGBTQ students this year. Joel Hide, President of Oxford LGBTQ Society, said, “This year the LGBTQ society has worked closely with Wadham’s SU LGBTQ Officer Olivia [Braddock], and the SU Entz reps to provide ways for LGBTQ people to get tickets before they go on general sale, as last year tickets sold out so quickly that a lot of queer people missed out.” Tickets for last year’s Queerfest event sold out in a matter of hours.

One way that the organisers aimed to prioritise the LGBTQ+ community was by selling tickets at an LGBTQ+ drinks event prior to general release. However, widespread anger resulted after these efforts were allegedly undermined by non-LGBTQ+ attendees who crashed the LGBTQ+ drinks in order to take advantage of the early ticket sale.

Comments on Oxford LGBTQ society’s Facebook page expressed anger at the crashing. Daniel Morris wrote, “The LGBTQ+ community would like to extend a massive thx to all tha cishets who showed up at drinks 2nyt, we felt so ***liberated*** as we were crushed by you while queueing for our queerfest tix. Looking forward to seeing you at future LGBTQ+ drinks to continue your excellent allyship work, and hope you’ve enjoyed attending all of the other Queerweek events!!!! [sic]”

Commenting on the anger, Hide explained to Cherwell, “I would view the problem as being that a lot of cis-het [cisgender and heterosexual] people come to Queerfest just because it’s a cheap party, without engaging in the any of the other events or talks that take place during queer week and without appreciating that the event is intended as a celebration of queer culture.”

A Tumblr page has been set up to stress the aim of the event, asking viewers why they want to go to Queerfest. It provides two options: “Join the party” or “Celebrate all things queer”. Pressing “Join the party”, the page reads, “Maybe give it a miss? Whilst QueerFest is a great party it’s the final celebration at the end of Queer week – so it’s really just for people who want to celebrate all things queer! If that’s not you then there are plenty of other things to do.”

Olivia Braddock, LGBTQIA officer, and Hannah Marshall, a Queer Week committee member, said, “It is saddening that [Queerfest] receives so much more attention than the events of Queer Week, and we would appreciate any efforts towards correcting this imbalance. It has also come to our attention that some people crashed the LGBTQ drinks this week… which is very disappointing and shows a shocking lack of respect.”

 

Analysis: Queer identities need space in a heteronormative society (Molly Moore)

Can I go to Queerfest? That’s a question many people should have asked themselves before jumping on the party bandwagon and joining the hot pursuit for Queerfest tickets this week. The event has triggered a larger debate on the nature of queer spaces and who should primarily be able to access them (well done if you answered ‘queer people’).

There is no doubt that Queerfest will deliver the amazing party it has promised, but something that all students in Oxford need to account for is the limited number of queer spaces available to LGBTQ+ people in Oxford. Sure, there’s Plush. Once, there was Babylove too. Aside from LGBTQ Society events, internal college gatherings and liberation events, the scale of access to queer-only spaces is limited.

As the LGBTQ Society’s Women’s Welfare Rep and Christ Church’s LGBTQ+ Welfare Officer, protecting the safety of my community is my main concern at any queer event. I’m sure countless students have been exposed to the chaos of Plush on a Friday night and the influx of cis/straight-identifying students who have turned up post-crewdate just to enjoy the party.

Something that almost inextricably occurs is cis-het people taking offense at the queerness around them, or fetishising normal aspects of queer life that really aren’t their business. Having straight guys comment on how sexy they find my sexuality is something I have been exposed to more times than I could count. It’s time to sort it out. Please lads, no more.

Prioritising access to tickets for LGBTQ+ students this year was an immensely positive move by Wadham SU and the LGBTQ Society. It means that people who have most likely attended other events in Queer Week will get the chance to celebrate queer culture in all its radical, glittery glory this Saturday. So we all thought. On Tuesday night at drinks I saw some familiar faces: cis-het faces that don’t normally appear at Tues-gay drinks. Either way, surely it occurred to them that LGBTQ+ events should first and foremost be accessible for LGBTQ+ people? After all, every Queer Week event is of equal value and Queerfest is but one of them.

It is a complex issue, given that queer identities are numerous, non-binary, and not adherent to the boxes hegemonic society would like to place us in. But there is no way to know how queer anyone is. When accounting for the safety of LGBTQ+ individuals, it is no one’s place to assume anything about anyone’s identity. Policing queer identities is the last thing any LGBTQ+ person needs. We should not have to prove our identities, or evidence of our queerness in order to gain access to environments such as Queerfest, nor should we have to worry about being judged as ‘straight-passing’. But nor should we have to feel as though our queer spaces are threatened by cis-het people who don’t understand the significance of queer events to queer people.

The solution can only be that cisgender, heterosexual people think more about fixing the imbalance between queer spaces and cis-heteronormative society. Queer Week celebrates the LGBTQIA community. Queerfest is simply the finale in a series of the amazing events which comprise Queer Week. Are you going to Queerfest to engage with queer culture? If the answer is no, maybe just take a trip to Camera instead.

Profile: Nick Robinson

Henry Shalders
-
0
Profile: Nick Robinson

This is a big week for Nick Robinson. On Monday his voice returned to the airwaves as he became the newest host of the BBC’s flagship morning current affairs show Today. It is quite a transformation for a man who, a mere six months earlier, had been battling lung cancer.

I meet Robinson straight after his talk to a standing-room only audience at the Union. In person he is every bit as charismatic and lucid as he appears on television, very much the veteran broadcaster. There’s a kind of instinctive gravitas about him, an easy charisma, which perhaps comes from interviewing so many of the world’s most powerful people. One can easily see why he was labelled a ‘hack’ when at Oxford in the mid-80s; he’s as part of the establishment as the ancient walls of the building we’re sitting in, the man for whom every politician will pick up the phone. “It hasn’t changed a bit,” he remarks nostalgically to me, as he surveys the Union’s Goodman Library.

Robinson is a consummate performer, holding the audience in the palm of his hand throughout his talk. He covers free speech, debate and its threats in modern-day society. For a journalist constrained by the rules of BBC impartiality he is surprisingly forthright, critical of the relevance of identity and gender politics and dismissive of the concept of a ‘safe space.’ To argue with somebody is to accept the likelihood of offence, he believes, and a ‘safe space’ which provides cotton wool from the real world of debate is inimical to free speech. Most controversially, Robinson has little time for the Rhodes Must Fall movement. “Is it really the big issue of our age, the removal of a statue?” he asks, bemused that student debate has stooped to such seemingly petty and inconsequential levels.

Robinson’s debut at Today is but the latest stage in what has already been a remarkable career in public service broadcasting. He read PPE at Univ from 1982-85 and was awarded a 2.2 (“If I could change one thing about my time at University, I would do more work.”) Clearly quite a big name when at Oxford, Robinson boasts the accolade of Cherwell’s Pushiest Fresher of the Year 1982-3, awarded by Evan Davis when he edited the paper, then ending up as OUCA President for 1985. The first decade of his career was spent in current affairs as a producer, finally becoming a BBC Westminster correspondent in 1996. From the late 1990s he slowly became a household name, rising to the role of ITN’s political editor in 2002, before eventually taking the throne at the BBC in 2005. He is the only broadcaster to have held both roles, his political punditry casting a long shadow over a decade of broadcasting on public life.

Yet for a man so long in the tooth in political reporting, Robinson seems as energetic as ever. “You don’t do news if you don’t get an adrenalin buzz from big news,” he tells me, “the great privilege of doing any news job is that you’re there at the beginning of a story. You may be the fi rst person breaking a story; my heart goes that little bit faster, my pulse races a little bit quicker.” Robinson is renowned for bringing that combative energy to his interviewing style, an approach also popularised by Andrew Neil and Jeremy Paxman. Does he think this is the best way to interview politicians?

“No, not at all actually. In my fi rst few years as a TV producer we were doing these very long form, twenty or thirty minute interviews with politicians in which we were drawing out what they thought. Now days, even in an interview with the Prime Minister – which is the biggest deal you can get in my job – it will last, at most, four minutes on screen. Therefore there’s a need to be very focused, two points of questioning maximum, and sometimes to be very challenging in order to get answers.” Robinson is clearly looking forward to Today, where the interview is less about the soundbite.

“In my new job at Today there will be times when I’ve got seven minutes, 10 minutes, 12 minutes” – time then for Robinson to go that little bit deeper. “I sent a text to a politician this morning saying, ‘You’re saying interesting things at the moment; will you come on and discuss them?’ We’ve got to give people the space to think out loud, not to feel if they come on they’ll just get a belting.”

You can’t work in news broadcasting at the moment without noticing the waking dragon that is ITV’s News at Ten, relaunched under Tom Bradby back in October. Robinson is quick to praise Bradby’s and ITV’s efforts. “Tom has brilliantly said to ITV, ‘Let’s make an alternative.’ ITV news was always much much classier, much, much better, than a lot of people in the opinion-forming classes thought it was, but they didn’t watch it. But it was always bloody good.” Robinson knows what he’s talking about here. “I used to do Tom’s old job. One of the reasons I left was that it was quite clear that the BBC’s News at Ten got a lot more attention in terms of viewers.” Does he worry that BBC news personalities excessively dominate the agenda? “I wouldn’t call it a danger, but it’s always healthier when there’s competition. I want ITV news to do well; I want Sky News to do well. We are a better country when people have a choice and, this is about as far as I can go, it’s never good if there is a single dominant voice and there isn’t.

“There are still a couple of a million people watching ITV and that is a hell of a lot of people. So the idea that the only news people see or hear is from the BBC is untrue. So competition is good and I’m cheering him on – the better they do, the better we’ll be.”

We turn to Jeremy Corbyn and the ‘new politics’. Robinson is clearly a little sceptical, though admits the media itself should take much of the blame. He recalls, “I was in a unique position for me in fi fteen years; of watching him being elected and not working – since I was at home, unwell. And I emailed in to say ‘I think you’re judging this in a slightly out-of-date way, you’ve got to make sure you say to the audience that here is someone new.’

“So I definitely think, the big danger with the Corbyn debate is journalists not listening to the fundamentals but to the horse race. So you discuss Trident in terms of Michael Foot losing the 1983 election but really who cares what happened in 1983. Though it’s a fact worth observing because it shapes the politics of the Labour Party, it’s not actually what the public want to know.”

Here Robinson is back on familiar terrain: the importance of free debate. “What the public wants to know is what are the arguments for and against; is it a good idea or is it a terrible idea? We’ve always got to make sure that instead of reaching a conclusion fi rst, which is anybody who thinks ‘A will lose’, we’ve stood back and said, ‘Here’s a really interesting debate, here are the arguments against, here in favour.’”

But the irony perhaps to Robinson is that for a man who so stridently promotes free speech he can seem resolutely traditional and lower ‘c’ conservative. He was, after all, not only OUCA president but a keen activist in the Young Conservatives in the North West in the mid- 1980s, rising to National Vice Chairman from 1985 to 1987. His contact book reads like a Who’s Who of the good and the great, and he recollects with glee anecdotes from a 1980s Oxford alumni get-together a few weeks previously which featured “many of the big names in British life today”. He’d buy the Thick of It boxset over The West Wing, but only because he was at Univ with Armando Iannucci, its creator.

Is there a risk, then, of establishment bias in his work? Robinson tackles this issue head on, perhaps slightly wearily given the number of times he’s asked about it.

“You judge people by what they do, not by who they were or what they thought thirty years ago. If anybody raises bias, fine, tell me, give me the detail of what I have reported is inaccurate and unfair.”

“What is a mistake are people who peer into your mind. And they say they know what you really think. You don’t have a clue what I really think, how can you possibly know what I think thirty years after I took a particular set of views. Are we to think everybody thinks exactly what they used to think then? Are we to go through everybody’s views and say ‘You thought that in 1983?’”

Over a career as long as Robinson’s no broadcaster can avoid allegations of bias altogether, though, and the new Today host has had plenty of experiences with controversy. “I had a great run-in with Alex Salmond in which there was something there I didn’t say right and I apologised for that, and there was an inquiry into it in the end. I’m not frightened of saying you don’t always get it right.” Success, though, is Robinson’s ultimate vindication. “Do you think people would care about my views if they thought that I was biased? I’m the only person whose held the job of Political editor for the BBC and ITV – would they both be in favour of employing someone who was biased?”

There are reports that Robinson’s voice isn’t holding up well after his debut on Today last Monday. It was hardly a smooth first morning on the job; his co-presenter Jim Naughtie was caught on microphone swearing. But it’s a certainty Robinson will soon be back on the airwaves. Adversity is no stranger to him; he began his career still haunted by the memory of a recent tragic car accident. “It’s funny,” he laughs wryly, “you get defined by what you’ve done most recently. In a year’s time people will be probably be saying ‘that guy on the radio should really give television a go.’”

OUSU 2015 election: results in full

Tom Hall
-
0
OUSU 2015 election: results in full
SABBATICAL POSITIONS

President
Jack Hampton (BackJack) – 1389 (meeting quota) Elected
Eden Tanner (The Big Picture) – 741 
RON – 288

VP Access and Academic Affairs
Eden Bailey (IOU) – 865 Elected
Duncan Shepherd (BackJack) – 759
RON – 159

VP Charities and Community
Beth Currie – 1297 (meeting quota) Elected
RON – 210

VP Graduates
Marina Lambrakis (The Big Picture) – 394  (meeting quota) Elected
RON – 38

VP Welfare and Equal Opportunities
Sandy Downs (BackJack) – 736 Elected
Jessy Parker Humphreys – 504
Jenny Walker (Welfair) – 403
RON – 145

VP Women
Orla White (IOU) – 677 (meeting quota) Elected
RON – 56

Part Time Executive Positions

Academic Affairs Campaign Officer
Tom Wadsworth (Welfair) – 1030 (meeting quota) Elected
Gareth Sessel – 562
RON – 219

Access and Admissions Officer
Adam Kellett (IOU) – 940 (meeting quota) Elected
Samuel Sanders – 495
RON – 227

Black and Minority Ethnic Students Officer
Hilal Yazan (IOU) – 1245 (meeting quota) Elected
RON – 281

Community Outreach and Charities Officer
Yoni Stone – 1332 (meeting quota) Elected
RON – 230

Disabled Students Officer
Ronak Patel (Welfair) – 671 Elected
Iggy Wilde (IOU) – 644
RON – 159

Environment and Ethics Officer
Fairlie Kirkpatrick Baird – 1293 (meeting quota) Elected
RON – 247

Health and Welfare Officer
Katy Haigh (BackJack) – 1426 (meeting quota) Elected
RON – 256

International Students Officer
Meera Sachdeva (BackJack) – 1365 (meeting quota) Elected
RON – 203

LGBTQ Officer
Catherine Kelly (Welfair) – 766 Elected
Will Andrews (BackJack) – 716
RON – 166

NUS Delegates
Rowan Davis (Welfair) – 321 (meeting quota) Elected
David Klemperer (Oh well, alright then) 226 Elected
Harry Samuels – (Oh well, alright then) 215 Elected
Vivian Holmes (Welfair) – 215 Elected
Matt Sumption (Oh well, alright then) – 175 Elected
Anne Cremin (Oh well, alright then) – 153 Elected
Tom Turner – 137
Amran Hussain – 109
RON – 96

Student Trustee
Alex Bishop – 1038 (meeting quota) Elected
RON – 302

The Long Campaign: the experience of an OUSU candidate

Jessica Parker Humphreys
-
0
The Long Campaign: the experience of an OUSU candidate

It’s the end day of voting in the OUSU elections and I am exhausted. I’ve spent the past two weeks flyering in the rain, going from college to college husting, and awkwardly messaging people to persuade them to vote. As a candidate for VP Welfare and Equal Opportunities, the irony about the toll these past few weeks has placed on my welfare is not lost on me. The fact that OUSU has a crisis with engagement is often discussed but to be honest, having run in these elections, I can see why you wouldn’t want to.

Over the past week, myself and others running in the election participated in 12 hustings at various colleges across Oxford. Average turnout was about 10 people everywhere and OUSU central hustings was notably lacking anyone who didn’t already know one or more of the candidates. Gearing yourself up to talk to an empty room is difficult, and the time consuming nature of hustings means that what should be a fun and enjoyable opportunity to engage with students across the university quickly becomes a drag. I’ve been lucky to have been running against two wonderful candidates, Jenny Walker and Sandy Downs, and we agreed early on that if any of us needed to take a welfare break from husts, none of us would go. People running for other positions were not as fortunate.

Another problem has been the financial burden that OUSU elections places on candidates. Sabbatical candidates running on their own can spend up to £135 with £10 extra for every other sabbatical candidate on a slate. Thankfully, limits are placed on spending with receipts being required to be submitted at the end of the election but £135 is no small amount of money. OUSU offer some financial support for candidates to apply for but I was not informed of how much money I would be receiving until Monday, a day before the polls opened. Fortunately, I had launched a crowd-funding campaign a week before and thanks to generous donations, I was more than able to adequately fund my campaign. Yet, there was a large amount of time where it looked like I was going to be unable to utilise the amount of money all candidates were entitled to.

The financial situation in OUSU elections also favours slates who can split the amount they are entitled to spend between them. Slates are groups of people who are registered to campaign together; candidates running on their own then can’t endorse anyone running. When I decided to run independently, I was told it was my ‘political death.’ Ignoring whatever that means, running independently is seen as being useless and impractical because you are considered unlikely to win. Now I don’t know what tonight’s result will be but I do know that I have had some great conversations throughout this campaign. I’ve been given a platform to talk about what I think needs to be changed at this university, which has been an honour. And a number of people have said lots of lovely, complimentary things about me. All of this will be true regardless of the outcome. Because independent candidates are not allowed to endorse others for fear of being accused of ‘cross-slating’, OUSU elections become about individuals rather than ideas. There is, of course, an element of scrutiny required with the individuals running in an election, but I believe that the strength of ideas often gives a good indication of what the individual will be like.

Running independently has meant that all of the burden has been placed on myself. I haven’t been able to voice my opinions about who I would want to work with should I get the role, despite the fact that we have to be part of a team and having watched everyone hust 10+ times, I have a pretty good idea about who is the best. Everyone acknowledges that elections are tough but I think there are a number of things that can be done to make OUSU elections more accessible for everyone. Firstly, reformulating the way husts work, either by geographical location or moving to a more online web-based system of videos. Secondly, considering how much money candidates really need to spend on a campaign. And thirdly, either ending slating or relaxing cross-slating rules. People should be able to run for OUSU without being emotionally or financially put off, and currently that is not the case.

 

Jack Hampton wins OUSU Presidency

Tom Hall
-
0
Jack Hampton wins OUSU Presidency

KEY RESULTS (full results here)

  • President: Jack Hampton (1389 votes) – BackJack
  • VP Access and Academic Affairs: Eden Bailey (875 votes) – IOU
  • VP Welfare: Sandy Downs (858 votes) – BackJack
  • VP Charities: Beth Currie (1297) – independent candidate
  • VP Graduates: Marina Lambrakis (394 votes) – The Big Picture
  • VP Women: Orla White (677) – IOU
  • All uncontested candidates elected

Voter turnout: 14.2%, four more voters than in 2014

________________________________________________
 
21:52 Winding up at Cherwell Towers – congratulations to the candidates, and pick up a Cherwell tomorrow for a hefty dose of facts and analysis.
 
[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%8652%%[/mm-hide-text]
 
21:36 Jack Hampton is drunk
 
[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%12396%%[/mm-hide-text] 
 
21:30 Blurry shot of IOU celebrating…
 
[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%12394%%[/mm-hide-text] 
 
…and Oh, Well, Alright Then….
 
[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%12395%%[/mm-hide-text] 
 
21:22 Jack Hampton buying our Cherwell reporter drinks
 
21:08 Jack Hampton is covered in BackJack stickers, apparently. “I’m not going to remember this evening – I’ve just drunk an unbelievable amount of brandy in 10 minutes.”
 
21:06 Sandy Downs to Cherwell: “Thank you to my slate, Corpus and the queers. Well done to Jessy and Jenny – and bring on next year!”
EDIT – further comment: “We’re happy and we’re going to get drunk!”
 
21:04 Official response from Eden Bailey: ““I’m absolutely delighted. This is such an important time for higher education, and I’m grateful that the students of Oxford have decided that I’m the person to speak up for them all on the university and national level.”
 
21:02 Women are the real winners of this election
 

 
21:00 Jack Hampton responding to victory: 
 
“My biggest thank you has to be to Catz- I’m basically sure it was Catz what won it. I’m looking forward to taking a million steps forward with OUSU and all my great colleagues.”
 
20:56 Eden Bailey, reacting to success:

 
20:40 lol

 
20:38 Old-guard BNOCs on that hype

 
20:36 Looks like #receiptgate is delaying the results announcement…
 

 
20:35 Unnamed election official: results are “interesting”. Cherwell correspondent at BackJack HQ: “incredibly nervous and tense in here”. Groundbreaking stuff.
 
20:28 OxStu reading our live blog – nice work :*
 

 
20:26 Concluding thoughts from ‘Oh Well, Alright Then’ HQ: “we hope moderate apathy wins the day”
 
20:24 THE COUNT IS COMPLETE 
 
20:23 “Live feed” 
 
[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%12392%%[/mm-hide-text] 
 
20:15 Cherwell denizens feeling the heat
 

 
20:12 Louis Trup chatting live to Oxide Radio from Colombia: “the main way I’ve been keeping up to date is via the Cherwell and OxStu [sic] websites”
 
20:09 SHOTS FIRED
 
 
20:07 And they really bring out the best in people 
 
20:04 OUSU election coverage attracting Oxford’s greatest and goodest
 
20:03  

 
19:57 Whatever the result, Cherwell‘s ready
 
[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%12391%%[/mm-hide-text] 
 
19:53 BAAAAIIIIITTTTT

 
 
19:50 Readers will be reassured to know that he’s listening, though
 
[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%12390%%[/mm-hide-text] 
 
19:46 Interestingly there’s complete Twitter silence on #ousu2015 from both of of the two last OUSU Presidents @ljtrup and @tomrutland
 
19:42 Heated exchanges on Twitter
 
19:32 Turnout: ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡3142 voters, 14.2%, up 4 VOTERS FROM LAST YEAR!!!11!!1!
 
 
19:30 The thumbnail looks even better
 
[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%12389%%[/mm-hide-text] 
 
19:27 Duncan Shepherd brought us our favourite codpiece of the campaign

 

19:16 Top #ousu2015 accessory award goes to Jack Matthews – he kept it all these years…

19:13 And our favourite putdown: 

 

19:08 Cherwell‘s campaign pic pick: an endearing sketch of Jessy Parker Humphreys’ face

 [mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%12388%%[/mm-hide-text] 

18:58 OUSU less impressed with stellar Oxide coverage than we are, apparently

18:49 A highlight of this election for us was BackJack’s innovative use of Grindr

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%12387%%[/mm-hide-text] 

18:46 THE DEADLINE FOR EXPENDITURE RECEIPTS HAS PASSED. Props to Oxide Radio for the info #fireinthebooth

18:38 We couldn’t contain our excitement – here’s a SICK countdown timer so you can follow every second of hype: 

 

18:29 A quick reminder that coverage has been ongoing for the last couple of weeks: here‘s an article by Eden Tanner about mental health, and here‘s one on the same subject by Jack Hampton. Both interesting reads in an atmosphere of increasing debate around mental health provision in Oxford.

18:23 #punylives #mightyoverlords

18:19 Meanwhile, some are more dedicated to OUSU than others…

18:10 Having finished the evening’s hackery, the BackJack slate has posted a bleary-eyed photo of themselves, doubtless exhausted from hours of messaging distant acquaintances and friends of friends in time-honoured student election fashion.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%12386%%[/mm-hide-text]

 

18:07 Voting in the OUSU elections has now closed! As we wait with baited breath for the results that will determine student experience between MT16 and TT17, Cherwell is here to bring you all the updates and reaction to events on George Street at OUSU HQ.

Taking the long read — why size matters

Naomi Gee
-
0
Taking the long read — why size matters

This is my eulogy to Proust (and for that matter, the entire French language). As a former joint schools linguist, now pursuing the lonely open fields of sole German, the taste for studying Proust’s masterpiece À la recherche du temps perdu is one that is unlikely to leave with the last remains of my torn-up prelims essays. For those unacquainted with this work, it is a novel of epic proportions exploring different layers of involuntary and voluntary memory. Its beauty lies in its manipulation of the reader’s own recollection and the multiple different lenses through which this shared reader/ protagonist past is viewed. By the end of the final volume – le temps retrouvé – the reader is forced to reach back into their own, now-distant, memory to recover how the book began.
Within this framework, the reader gets to know the narrator by way of his own observations. Humans are complex beings and while even a novel the length of la recherche only begins to scratch the surface of the complexity of self-presentation, it at least draws the reader away from tired stock characters and begins to delve beneath the surface of a protagonist’s consciousness, forming some level of intimacy between him and the reader.
The longer novel, a category of which Proust makes up a small if heavy proportion, is like a long-term relationship. Yes, filled with ups and downs, boredom, and potentially finishing long after it should, yet strangely delightful and formative within this unpromising frame. It is the difference between being an enraptured follower of Downton and just reading the reviews afterwards to keep up to date with conversation (an infuriating habit of a friend of mine); between a career politician who has chosen a particular seat to try and make it to Westminster and a grass-roots campaigner who is a genuinely proud member of their community. Unarguably in the above situations the career politician could be right and the campaigner completely off-kilter, and my interpretation of Downton could be completely misled in comparison to the objective review. But it is about passion and commitment, without which life is only ever bland. That’s what Proust means to me. Time spent so stuck in another world that it becomes part of your very being.
George Eliot is another champion of the long novel. In a world of period dramas incessantly obsessed with Jane Austen, whose works, though great as a form of light comedy, are nothing in comparison to the intricate presentation of an entire community with deep, twisted yet convincing characters which is George Eliot’s Middlemarch. Indeed, every description is so wonderfully delicious and phrased to such perfection that it truly surprises me that anyone does anything with their life apart from read Eliot. Nowhere else have I found an author present characters to which I have so closely identified, which became only the more concerning when serious life-disturbing flaws were revealed. Dorothea’s marriage to the decrepit yet knowledgeable Edward Casaubon reveals a quest for knowledge worthy of any Oxford student, made all the more striking by its miserable results. None of the characters are condemned for being the way they are. Indeed, a reader would be challenged to try and find an outright favourite or moral paragon. Neither are we left with an ending with unrealistic expectations. Even after falling into the arms of the man of her dreams, a point which I found disappointing but again an utterly believable chink in even the strongest and most wilful heroine’s armour, Dorothea is lamented by her friends: “Many who knew her, thought it a pity that so substantive and rare a creature should have been absorbed into the life of another, and be only known in a certain circle as a wife and mother.” A tension of the feminist debate not unique to 1850. Oh, the joys of literature.
The interminable drive of the quest for greatness and the pointlessness in part of such never-ending academic endeavour is seen in the character of Casaubon and the lack of realistic self-expectations in Lydgate (take note, Oxford): “His skill was relied on by many paying patients, but he always regarded himself a failure[…]”. This character also presents the idiocy of idolising a future partner, to the neglect of their true nature, as seen in his relations with Rosamond. The self-delusion of the bourgeois and their declaration of a right to certain privileges is seen in Rosamond herself, as she “often spoke of her happiness as a ‘reward’ – she did not say for what”. Philosophically, Eliot is realistic, and impeccably so, as she writes: “For there is no creature whose inward being is so strong that it is not greatly determined by what lies outside it.” Indeed, we could all take a few social lessons from the 1800s now and again.
On that lasting note, I would urge you, o stressed Oxonian this Christmas, to slow down and immerse yourself in a longer novel. It may just be the best thing you ever do for your own sanity and sense of perspective

Cher(ch)world: Religion in Oxford

Luke Barratt
-
0
Cher(ch)world: Religion in Oxford

 

 

No-media safe-spaces are self-defeating

Iona Tarbet
-
0
No-media safe-spaces are self-defeating

“Hey hey, ho ho, reporters have got to go!”

These were the words that could be heard chanted repeatedly by a human shield of students at Missouri State University last week, as they blocked media access to the scene of resignation of the University President, Tim Wolfe. On November 9th Wolfe made his resignation speech under the watchful eyes of student protestors angry at Wolfe’s apparent ambivalence towards serious and ongoing episodes of racial hatred involving Missouri State students, as well as what many students felt was a campus-wide atmosphere of intolerance and racism. Things came to a head when graduate student Jonathon Butler was joined four days into his hunger strike by a largely black contingent of the Missouri State football team; by day eight Wolfe capitulated and protestors rejoiced.

The ‘no-media safe-space’ created by students at Missouri State is a novel, and rather confusing, thing. Students erred frustration at the way the media reports racial issues in America and emphasised their right to a safe space. Infuriating though the mainstream media can be when reporting on race-relations, and crucial though it is for students who feel victimised to be able to voice their opinions with confidence, there is an undeniable degree of irony to this story.

Recent student protestors at Missouri, Missipipi, and Colombia have all taken inspiration and strength from one another, as well as from the highly publicised Black Lives Matter campaign. A hunger strike is, at its core, an attention seeking device. Everything about the behaviour and actions of these students was designed to shame University administration into addressing their grievances; and it worked. Fear of public outcry, and not a sudden change of heart and sincere concern for the health and safety of his students on the part of Tim Wolfe, is what forced the University to react.

Some definitions are needed here. A safe space is defined by Advocates for Youth as “A place where anyone can relax and be fully self-expressed, without fear of being made to feel uncomfortable, unwelcome or unsafe….a place where the rules…strongly encourage everyone to agree with others”. A protest is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as “a statement or action expressing disapproval of or objection to something”. A protest, by nature, necessitates a degree of conflict. Safe spaces are conflict free-zones and therefore safe spaces and protests must be mutually exclusive. To protest is a democratic right, but we do not have the right to expect our protest to come at no personal cost; protests are designed to upset and inconvenience their targets and a protestor should therefore not be surprised if their action forces them to encounter conflicting opinions and people who question their position. The students of Missouri have co-opted the concept of a safe space; protesting is a public demonstration of dissent and there is nothing ‘safe’ about it.

If you care enough about a cause to attend a protest in its name, you ought to be able – you ought to want to – talk to reporters and argue your case. If, as the protestors at Missouri argued, you feel that the media will “just get the headline wrong anyway”, then it is understandable to want to simply block the media out. But to do so would be to deny the critical role media outlets and TV cameras have in bringing about social change. In the twenty-first century we have the privilege of being able to take journalism into our own hands; if you don’t like the way someone is reporting something you can go online and tell your side of the story; if you don’t like the media, you can be the media. The students of Missouri may have successfully kept journalists off university property – something they are within their rights to do – but they have not kept the story out of the headlines. I was angered, though not surprised, by Fox News’ coverage of events at Missouri State and feel for the students who do not want to be the target of antagonistic news anchors and online trolls, but the solution cannot be to ban the media outright.

Rather than employ no-media safe-spaces we must change the media from within so that protestors can relish the opportunity to practice their freedom of speech and defend what it is they feel so strongly about, rather than shy away from it. A no-media safe-space may in some circumstances be a good idea, but it seems to me that in most cases no-media safe-spaces undermine freedom of speech and undermine the very causes that those who enforce them believe in.

Farage, Clegg & Barroso at EU debate

Jack Schofield
-
0
Farage, Clegg & Barroso at EU debate

The Oxford Union this evening announced the speakers who will be taking part in its debate ‘This House believes Britain and the EU are better together’ this coming Monday.

Jose Manuel Barroso and Nick Clegg MP will be speaking in proposition of the motion, while Sir William Cash MP and Nigel Farage MEP will form the opposition.

The names of those taking part in this particular debate had not been included in the Oxford Union’s Michaelmas termcard stating security reasons and are only now publicly known.

Jose Manuel Barroso was the President of the European Commission until the end of October 2014 when he was succeeded by Jean-Claude Junker following the May 2014 European Parliament elections and had served as President for two five-year terms. The Commission presidency is the most powerful Office in the EU with the 28 Commission members, one per EU member state, determining policy agenda and legislative proposals. Prior to that, Barroso was the Prime Minister of Portugal between 2002 and 2004. He is a member of the European People’s Party, the main centre-right grouping of national European political parties.

Nick Clegg MP was the British Deputy Prime Minister throughout the last Parliament until this year’s General Election as the Leader of the Liberal Democrats at that time. An alumnus of the College of Europe in Belgium as well as Cambridge, he is a leading figure in the UK in favour of Britain’s EU membership and his is the most pro-European UK-wide party in Parliament. Clegg now serves his Sheffield Hallam constituency as a backbench MP. In April 2014 he took part in a head to head debate with Nigel Farage on Britain’s EU membership.

Sir William Cash MP, speaking for the opposition, is the Conservative MP for Stone and is the Chair of the House of Commons’ European Scrutiny Committee. The Oxford Union’s event announcement for the debate states that he has been described as “the most eurosceptic Member of Parliament”. Cash was the founder of the Maastricht Referendum Campaign in the early 1990s, leading the internal opposition to then Conservative Prime Minister John Major’s request for his party to vote in favour of implementing the Maastricht Treaty (which took the European Economic Community and re-established it as the European Union with greater powers).

Nigel Farage MEP, who will speak last in the debate, is the Leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and is a member of the European Parliament for the South-East of England region, which includes Oxford. He led his eurosceptic party to first place in the UK in last years European elections, although was disappointed to have only had one MP elected to Parliament at May’s General Election. While it remains unclear precisely what role he will have in the upcoming EU referendum he will certainly be prominent. He is currently touring the country as part of the ‘Say No to the EU Tour.’

Jan Nedvidek, OUCA President, commented to Cherwell, “It’s so important and fortunate that we as a nation are going to have a very serious debate about the UK’s position in the EU in the run up to the referendum.

“Let’s remember though that it is only thanks to the Conservatives that we will be having this referendum, as both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats opposed it the run up to the General Election. Unlike them, I believe it is absolutely crucial that the public get a say on this most important constitutional issue, and I’m delighted that such prominent speakers will get us started in Oxford.”

The referendum on Britain’s EU membership will take place by the end of 2017 and could be as early as next Autumn.

The Oxford Union has been contacted for comment.

Thinking about mental health

Eden Tanner
-
0
Thinking about mental health

CN: mental health, suicide

The mental health of graduate students is frighteningly poor. In a recent survey done at the University of Berkeley, it was reported that 50 per cent of reported suicide attempts were of STEM graduate students. For many, it has become an accepted part of joining the academey. Students are dismissed – and often punished – for being ill, or wanting to have some time off for a holiday, to recharge their batteries. From within my own department, Chemistry, I have heard stories so horrific that they border on unbelievable.

For students who don’t have the fortune of a research group to fall back on (and even for some of those who do), completing a research degree can mean facing long periods of isolation, with little or no support. If they’re lucky, they might have a great supervisor, who they see more frequently than once a month. However, for the majority of students, this is not the case. Add this to the concerted shutdown that Oxford undergoes during holiday periods, and the lack of accountability of college advisors, and you have a recipe for disaster. For international students like me who cannot go home for Christmas, it can be an exceptionally lonely and isolating time. The counselling service even shuts down over the breaks, leaving struggling students to manage by themselves. This is not just about graduates, either: for undergraduate international students who face exorbitant fees, going home is simply not an option. Further, many final year undergraduates have to be here outside of term time to do research, or to prepare for finals. Never mind the culture shock you face when you arrive. Getting a degree from Oxford is a gruelling process, and one that the University is not adequately addressing.

I’m writing this as someone who has battled depression for ten years, and almost didn’t survive my degree because of the lack of signposting, the confusing UK health system, and absence of institutional support. It took me six weeks to get something that resembled healthcare, by which time I was severely ill.

Oxford University Student Union needs to be on the frontline of this battle – we have good relationships with the Collegiate University, the Counselling Service, and local services. This is why it’s not good enough to focus purely on extending term lengths, introducing reading weeks, or workload caps as solutions to the mental health crisis we are facing at this and every University. Aside from the fact that these will take years to implement, they are ideas that will either have negligible, or in some cases, negative impacts, upon the graduates that make up 47 per cent of the student population. You can’t cap a DPhil workload, and you can’t extend what is essentially a full time job without cutting into the little holiday we are given. We have to think about the wider implications of these policies in much more detail, and consider the effect they will have on all students, financially and materially as well as in terms of wellbeing.

We need to have a serious, well-thought-out conversation about what comes next. We need support for students for the whole time they’re here, and a better way of reaching them – many graduates do not interact with their Colleges at all, and so addressing welfare provision in departments is critical. We need to signpost the NHS Services better, and make the University or College provision that does exist less variable. There are tangible ways of effecting change, that are achievable, and that will make a huge difference to the life of every student.

In short, we need a plan – a vision – for how welfare works at Oxford, made by all of the people who will be affected by it. OUSU has a duty to represent and work on behalf of every student at Oxford, and to provide support for all those in need of it. Currently, that’s not happening. A welfare vision would allow OUSU to set clear priorities for the next few years, so that we keep pushing the University to make change where we as a student body want it most. I don’t need any more empty platitudes about not being ill at Oxford. I am ill, I am at Oxford, and I deserve to be here and to be heard, as does every other student, undergrad or grad, wherever you’re from. We are accountable to every student – it’s time that all our needs are put in the frame.

1...1,1261,1271,128...2,514Page 1,127 of 2,514

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 James Ashley