The Ashmolean announced this morning that it has raised enough money to purchase Joseph Turner’s painting ‘The High Street, Oxford’ (1810). The work is considered a major piece in Turner’s output. The museum previously had the piece on loan from a private collection. The piece had been offered to the nation in leiu of £3.5 million of inheritance tax, but the museum needed to raise a further £860,000 to permanently incorporate the painting into the museum’s art collection.

The fundraising target was met just four weeks after the museum announced their intention to purchase the painting. Donations came from a variety of sources, including the Heritage Lottery Fund, The Art Fund, The Friends and Patrons of the Ashmolean, with £60,000 worth of donations from the public at large. Dr Alexander Sturgis, Director of the Ashmolean, gave this comment: “The Museum has been overwhelmed by public support. With well over 800 people contributing to the appeal, it is clear that the local community, as well as visitors to the Museum from across the world, feel that this picture, the greatest painting of the city ever made, must remain on show in a public museum in Oxford.

“We are so grateful to the members of the public who have made donations; to the Heritage Lottery Fund and the Art Fund; and to the Friends and Patrons of the Museum. There are big plans for the painting once we acquire it. It will be lent to regional museums so as many people as possible from the surrounding area will be able to see it; it will be at the heart of a new series of educational activities for schools and young people; and, not least, it will have pride of place in the Museum’s Nineteenth Century Gallery which will be refurbished and reopened in early 2016.”

Stuart McLeod, Head of Heritage Lottery Fund South East England, expressed his satisfaction at the Ashmolean’s successful bid: “We’re delighted that the public and museum visitors have donated so generously and enabled the Ashmolean to meet their target so quickly – this just shows how important this painting is. Congratulations to everyone involved.”

Atalanta Arden Miller, an undergraduate studying at the Ruskin School of Art, emphasised the importance of the Ashmolean to art students at the university: “I hope this acquisition will encourage more students to come to the Ashmolean and explore the huge collection of his work held in the print room. The Ashmolean’s collection has always been inspiring to Oxford students. ‘The ashmolean print room is the most important tool in Oxford for an artist- working first hand from the drawings is like getting a one to one lesson from Michelangelo or Raphael.”

Over the summer, the painting will be available to view in the welcome space of the Ashmolean.

On 16th June, OUSU’s Board of Trustees (composed of the sabbatical officers, four external trustees, and three student trustees) passed by consensus an action plan to comply with Section 26 of the government’s Counter-Terrorism and Security Act. This section, part of the government’s controversial PREVENT strategy, places a duty on bodies such as universities (listed in the act as “specified authorities”) to have “due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism.” PREVENT defines extremism as “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy [and] the rule of law.”

Despite some opposition, OUSU has resolved to implement the contents of a document which specifies several key areas where students “at risk” of radicalisation might be identified. One key area cited in the document is “Pastoral care and student welfare”; the manager of the Student Advice Services (OUSU’s free and confidential advice, information and advocacy service) has now been trained by the Thames Valley Police to comply with PREVENT strategy and identify students who hold what the government defines as “extremist” views”. This training will also be delivered to all Advice Service staff and OUSU’s Sabbatical Officers over the long vac. Ultimately, OUSU’s strategy resolves to make its staff and officers “comfortable sharing concerns about radicalisation and extremism”, including referring students who are receiving pastoral support to the government’s Channel program, which assesses students deemed “at risk” and decides what intervention, if any, is needed.

Another potential site of “radicalisation” on campus identified in the document was “Events”. The action plan resolves to review and update the University’s free speech policy in line with PREVENT, and to develop a new “external speaker policy which acknowledges and navigates the full legislative framework” of the Bill by Michaelmas 2015. These shifts in policy appear to indicate that the University and OUSU will have greater control over the invitation of guests and external speaker events, as the government’s official duty guidance on PREVENT states that “radicalisation on campus can be facilitated through events held for extremist speakers.”

Marc Shi, Chair of OUSU’s Campaign for Racial Awareness and Equality, commented, “The language of ‘radicalism’ and ‘extremism’ has been used by a growing number of governments and institutions to disproportionately police and target people of colour. That the University of Oxford and OUSU has taken up this language and activities through the adoption of the Prevent policy, and furthermore has done so with no consultation of the OUSU BME Officer or the Campaign for Racial Awareness and Equality is deplorable, and further evidence for the lack of regard the University has for the experiences and perspectives of its students of colour. CRAE stands against the adoption and implementation of this policy, and urges all those who support the inclusion and representation of marginalized voices, particularly voices of people of colour, to do the same’.

The implementation of PREVENT strategy in UK Universities has drawn criticism from a number of student organizations. At this year’s Conference, the National Union of Students passed Motion 517, proposed by the NUS’ Black Students Committee, which resolved “to encourage Unions and institutions to not comply with or legitimize PREVENT and to develop guidelines for Unions on effective non-cooperation with the Act and its proposals.” Motions condemning PREVENT’s Higher Education policy have also been passed by Student Unions at UCL, LSE, Manchester, SOAS, Queen Mary’s and Cardiff. The legislation has also been condemned by a number of prominent UK academics, including the signatories of an open letter published in The Guardian.

Alasdair Lennon, VP Welfare & Equal Opportunities, and Emily Silcock, VP Charities and Community, commented, “In order to adhere to our legal obligations as trustees of the Oxford University Student Union (OUSU) and those obligations created by the ‘Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015’ we have had to implement the ‘Prevent Plan’. Politically, [we] disagree with this piece of legislation and a motion will be brought to the first OUSU Council of Michaelmas to condemn it.”

A spokesperson from the University told Cherwell, “New duties imposed by the 2015 Counter-Terrorism and Security Act are yet to come into force for universities. The University is awaiting the Government’s accompanying guidance to Act and the date for its implementation. Once these are received, the University will consider its detailed approach and the implications for existing policies.”

The Home Office declined to comment. 

A new dating site, chivalrynotdead.com, founded by an Oxford University graduate, has been criticised on social media for being old-fashioned, sexist and heteronormative.

English graduate Beth Murtagh, who completed her degree in 2007, founded the website both due to the high prices, and hence relatively low usage rates, of better-known dating sites, and as an antidote to what is perceived by some as the modern ‘hookup culture’ of apps such as Tinder, which appear to focus on one’s physical attributes. Speaking to Cherwell, Murtagh commented: “I thought there was a gap in the market for a site which was focused on romance and long-term commitment, as the sites which did do this were all affixed to religion. I wanted to make a site which was for all religions and those of no religion.”

The website, whose tagline is ‘good old-fashioned dating’ and which is currently free to use, requires men to browse through women’s profiles and send the first message to any women they wish to date. Women are forbidden from sending the first message, although they can wave a virtual handkerchief at men to ‘show their favour’.

Adam Roberts, an OUSU Presidential contender in the past academic year’s elections, who last month finished his final year reading PPE at Wadham, criticised the principles of the site, telling Cherwell, “Chivalry can mask a patronising and controlling attitude towards women: ‘chivalrous’ behaviours are more common in men who think women are incompetent, in need of protection, and in some way pure, and also correlate with traditionalism about gender roles and victim-blaming in the event of sexual violence.

“Chivalrynotdead.com is ‘old-fashioned’ in the same way that notions women are objects to be won, bought, cherished, guarded and owned are. The handkerchief motif is literally medieval, and alarm bells should be ringing if you think what the dating world needs is programmed restrictions on women’s agency.”

The site was also met with considerable scepticism and derision on the Oxford-based feminist Facebook group Cuntry Living, with a discussion of the site and its aims running to 54 comments. The group’s administrators, however, declined to comment, in seeking to protect the privacy of discussions which taken place in the group, which has ‘closed’ privacy settings, and none of those involved responded to Cherwell’s requests. Criticisms of the site appeared to focus on the old-fashioned and allegedly sexist nature of the site’s core values, the alleged appearance of a heteronormative culture, and derision of the notion of women waving a handkerchief to attract men’s sexual or romantic attention. Chivalrynotdead.com’s Twitter account has sought to highlight instances of feminist commentators stressing feminism and chivarly’s compatibility.

Murtagh continued: “I was also interested in ‘old-fashioned’ ways of dating as I found that taking things slowly allowed me to find out what the men I was dating were like and how they were likely to treat me in a relationship. The point is that it is an old-fashioned way of dating (my tagline is ‘good old-fashioned dating’), as I wanted to harness traditional values.” Alongside being a ‘traditional’ dating website, the site also contains relationship and dating tips for men and for women, though they are locked so that they can only be seen by the intended sex. The tips include ‘girls, find someone who will ruin your lipstick instead of your mascara’ for women and ‘guys, if you like her, tell her. Maybe she likes you too’ for men.

Although the site appears to be unique in the UK, the concept of a website which restricts the ability to make the first move to one gender is not unprecedented in Europe. In 2008, French site adopteunmec.com (translating to ‘adopt a guy’) was criticised in the French media for its mode of operation, in whichmen pay to upload profiles of themselves and women pay a significantly lower rate to be able to ‘buy’ men from different fashion-style collections, such as ‘muscular’ or ‘tattooed’.

Murtagh, however, defended the site. “It is a real shame that some men may have been put off being chivalrous in their dating lives for fear of being seen as sexist. I recall a study earlier in the year by Judith Hall in the US where no matter how men responded, they were labelled sexist, either due to displaying hostile sexism or by being ‘benevolently sexist’. Being ‘benevolently sexist’ included things such as smiling and being friendly. It seems that sometimes, men can’t win. To me chivalry means that a man respects, protects and cherishes the woman he is with because he understands her importance, not because she is weak. The site boils down to ‘treat women well’, which I think is a positive thing.” Murtagh also stressed that she is developing a sister site for gay and lesbian dating, stating “this is because the set-up I have where one sex is blocked from messaging the other is too complicated to have all sexualities using the same site model. This is from a programming point of view and not from any ideological one. I really can’t stress that enough!”

On the criticism her site has received, Murtagh responded: “I am a firm believer in freedom of speech and for the opportunity for people to express themselves however they wish. The site is intended to provide a space for those men and women who are disengaged with ‘hook-up’ culture and choose to meet likeminded people in a place which is suitable to them personally. I think that should be defended.”

The “Say Something” campaign was launched in Westminster this week with the support of Nicola Blackwood, Oxford West and Abingdon MP. The campaign was founded by the national charities NWG Network and Missing People, with the aim to safeguard children and young people from sexual abuse by empowering them to identify early signs of child sexual exploitation.

It will offer a free, 24-hour, nationwide anonymous phone and SMS helpline (116 000) enabling young people to disclose information and seek support for themselves or their peers. The hope is that the introduction of a secure helpline, importantly with the option to remain anonymous, will give more young people the confidence to come forward with their concerns.

Nicola Blackwood told Cherwell: “It is important that we all think about this, spot the signs and speak out against abuse, and adopt a zero tolerance attitude to adults developing inappropriate relationships with children. There is a responsibility on everyone in society to do all that they can to protect vulnerable people. Together, we can work to inform, educate and prevent this kind of child abuse. Anything that increases signposting in this crucial area has to be commended, and hopefully this helpline will increase reporting.” 

A significant aspect of the campaign is that it seeks to work with young people for young people, with its website, www.stop-cse.org/saysomething, including an advice section written by young people. “Even though you might think that there’s nothing left or nowhere to go or nothing good will happen. It’s not true. Everything will be ok,” one writes, while another stresses the need to “never think no one will believe you. Someone will believe and trust you.”

Alongside crucial contact information, the website offers some important advice such as the dangers of meeting in person individuals you have spoken to online. It also outlines a definition of child sexual exploitation as ‘when a young person is used by being made or tricked into doing something sexual sometimes receiving something in return like love, affection, money, drugs or alcohol’.

Ione Wells, the Oxford University student who launched the #notguilty campaign to support victims of sexual assault, commented: “It’s really important that young people feel that they can recognise sexual exploitation themselves and know how to seek help too, as it might sometimes be easy to think ‘they’re being overprotective’ or ‘they don’t know me enough to judge’ if other people make such observations – and sometimes this may be true.

“I hope the campaign can help individuals to feel more in control of their situation, and able to seek the help they need, as well as educating everyone to look out for others in their community and work together to combat exploitation. I also hope that in peer-to-peer situations it stresses that noticing signs must be approached sensitively and avoid accusatory tones. It is crucial that victims do not feel blamed, or told that they ‘got themselves into’ a situation like that, when they have been subjected to damaging exploitation by others.”

The campaign partnership was funded by the Department of Education and sees the collaboration of the charity NWG Network (a UK network of professionals working with children and young people who are at risk of or have experienced sexual exploitation), and Missing People (which has over 20 years’ experience of providing phone-based support to vulnerable and exploited children, many of whom have suffered from sexual abuse). It also operates Runaway Helpline for children and young people who are considering running from home, or have already done so.

In 2013, the NGW Network launched the successful campaign ‘Say Something if you See Something’ which continues to provide awareness-raising materials to the night-time economy workforce and hotels, to help them recognise indicators of child sexual exploitations and report suspicious activity. It has been implemented across the UK and most recently Canada, with the toolkit (including information for taxi companies and hotels) downloaded over 2500 times. In a single UK region, the project has so far resulted in 43 reported incidents leading to 9 safeguarding enquiries.

Hertford college’s resident Lego enthusiast, Dr Andrew Beaumont, has built a special Lego model of the college, which was displayed at Oxford University’s open days this week.

The six foot wide replica of the 700 year old college façade, which faces the Radcliffe Camera, was displayed prominently at Hertford’s open days on Wednesday and Thursday. Although Dr Beaumont is yet to have entirely completed the model, he has already used over 30,000 Lego bricks. The project has so far taken six months and the model has been built from memory, without any sort of plan.

Aside from specialising in constructing replicas of Hertford’s most famous features, Dr Beaumont is a lecturer in History and the college’s Home Bursar. He has previously admitted that his construction of the models is purely an extracurricular activity.

Matthew Hiscock, Director of Admissions at Hertford, told Cherwell, “Hertford [is] fortunate enough to have a Home Bursar who is also a Lego enthusiast! Two years ago he built a Lego model of the Bridge of Sighs. We thought it was pretty great and so this year he has created a model of the side of Hertford that faces out to the RadCam.

“It’s a great thing to display at open days because it is something that distinguishes Hertford from other colleges. It helps potential applicants remember the college and sends out an important message; that we don’t take ourselves too seriously. It reflects the fact that we are a college full of academics, staff and students with distinctive and celebrated talents that extend well beyond their academic excellence.

“When Dr Beaumont’s model is complete, it will include intricate replicas of the rooms in that part of the college. Some quirky additions include a batmobile for the Principal and a science lab for aliens, that unfortunately do not exist in reality.”

Alongside these fantasy elements, the model also features figures who attend or work at the college, including Principle Will Hutton. The Lego model also contains two special QR codes printed on to the bricks of the walls, which prospective students can scan to then access the college prospectus.

Cherwell recently reported on the representations of the candidates for Oxford West and Abingdon created out of LEGO by Dr Beaumont in the build up to the General Election. Some of his other projects include homages to Harry Potter and “the life of Vladimir Putin”.

Dr Andrew Beaumont is yet to comment and Oxford University declined to comment.

Oxford students have hit out after being excluded from No HeterOx, a Facebook group created to give a platform to Oxford’s Queer and Trans community, allegedly because of their political views.

The Facebook group’s privacy has now been set to ‘closed’, meaning only members can see its content.  Accusations of anti-Semitism have also been levelled at some members of the group, due to the use of the terms ‘Zionist’ and ‘Zio’.

The No HeterOx Facebook administrators have now excluded several people while others have left voluntarily. The group describes itself as “a new print publication, acting as a platform of discussion and expression for Oxford’s Queer and Trans community…All, regardless of gender identity and sexual orientation, are welcome to contribute.”

An official statement, posted by one of the Facebook group’s administrators Tam Guobadia, stated: “Over the last couple of months it has become clear that this group has been more or less derailed from its original purpose which was to provide a space to amplify the voices routinely sidelined by a mainstream gay rights discourse more concerned with marriage than murder. Unsurprisingly, the endemic problem is one of white cis men, blissfully ignorant of their privilege, drowning out everyone else with their basic as hell politics.

“This group is not politically neutral: we are against assimilation and conservatism. As this seems to come up again and again and it seems some clarification is needed, Zionists are not welcome here. If you disagree with the fundamental attitudes of this group, that’s fine, but please leave. You are welcome to setup your own group that is more in tune with your ideology. Otherwise, you will be removed.”

Rowan Davis, another administrator of the group, commented on the post saying, “We share a radical politic that sees the root of the oppression of queer people not in the minds of individuals but in structural forces that will not be solved by making us more and more integrated into cis-het society but instead standing up and saying ‘we’re queer and the rest of you are going to have to deal with it’ – by directly intervening in the monotony of cisheterosexism.

“This group is anti-police, anti-prison, anti-heteronormative, anti-homonationalist, anti-colonial, anti-state, anti-corporate.”

Jan Václav Nedvídek, a 3rd year PPEist who was removed from the group, commented, “I don’t really mind I’ve been kicked out, I would probably have left anyway pretty soon. After white gays like myself were told to ‘shut the f*ck up’, it didn’t really feel like the most welcoming group on Facebook. I particularly felt very disappointed by the fact that people seem to think that white gays don’t experience any hardship – I invite those who hold that view on a short trip to Russia, which might make them change their minds. Being from Eastern Europe myself, I find this erasure most unfortunate.”

William Round, a PPE graduate from Brasenose, commented, “I left No HeterOx of my own accord within the last week because, as a gay man with moderate political views, I was tired of the effectively doctrinal insistence of administrators and dominant members of this page that discussion of LGBT issues should be conducted within a narrow, radical left-wing framework.

“A particularly disgraceful symptom of this malaise is the anti-white racism that permeates the group. Whatever liberationist mission statement the group claims to have, it is simply wrong to alienate a substantial proportion of LGBT people in Oxford from mainstream online discussion of LGBT issues across the university. How, for example, is ‘fuck privileged gays’ meant to aid constructive dialogue?

“It’s time to face up to the fact that this alienation has only happened through the way this forum has been managed. As we ourselves are trying to stand up for acceptance and tolerance for our community, we need to demonstrate willingness for bridge-building within our community first.

“Now I’ve left, my advice to future Oxford students is to show, in greater numbers, the courage to take on the narrative promulgated by certain individuals, and reclaim the real opportunity for free discussion for all students, and particularly for all LGBT students on LGBT pages.”

David Browne, who was also removed from the group, commented, “To be honest, I’m not surprised I was removed; I had dared to like comments by a Jewish member who felt uncomfortable with the open apologism for the use of the anti-Semitic “zio” slur, and my public criticism of the admins probably made me an obvious target for a purge based on the views of the admins.

“I think the mass removal of people based on politics (or even suspected politics in some cases) is extremely unhelpful; it plays into a false narrative that being LGBTQIA+ somehow inherently determines your political views. There is nothing about anyone’s sexuality or gender that dictates you must be anti-establishment, anti-capitalist, anti-marriage or anti-Zionist.

“Further, it’s extremely hypocritical of such a group to declare spaces ‘unsafe’ only insofar as it allows for abuse and marginalisation of those raising legitimate points about your own language; the difference between a call-out and thread derailment appears to simply be whether the admins agree with your concern, and to demand that no comment or discussion is passed on their statements while talking about identifiable people behind their backs.

“Perhaps, if the admins are serious in their acknowledgement that there is no one LGBTQIA+ community, they should retitle the blurb for the group from “a platform of discussion and expression for Oxford’s Queer and Trans community”, to something more accurate, perhaps: “a group for radical left-wing anti-Zionists, ideally Queer or Trans”.”

Tam Guobadia told Cherwell, “We the creators and admin’s felt an intervention was necessary for a variety of reasons: because the basic, quietist ultra conservative politics that this space was born of an abhorrence for; the kind of throw-everyone-under-the-bus that isn’t a white cis-man politics; the kind of politics that silence the resistance and disturbances of qpoc and trans women of colour as inappropriate; the kind of wait-for-your-turn, assimilationist politics that our liberation is not to be found in; aggressively statist-zionist politics that seek to justify the violences of a colonialist state by masqueraded behind queer identity-has become a dominant voice, holding back discourse, and supporting status quo’s that erase our queer experience under the banner of free speech and liberalism.

“This has never just been about offence: These “opinions” offend us because they oppress us- they make it easier to do violence to the most marginalised of our community. So we abhor the pink washing of the colonialist projects these politics uphold.”

Issue was also raised with the use of the term ‘Zionist’ in the official statement.

Jacob Brennan, who raised concern on the Facebook page over the use of the term, told Cherwell: “It was never my intention for this to become a defence of Zionism or to erase the highly damaging actions carried out under the banner of Zionism, which I find highly problematic as a Jew and someone on the left. It was merely to point out that it is a highly complex ideology that should be open to interpretation and discussion.

“Israel is definitely a colonial project, but Zionism is not purely colonialism. It is also a response to colonialism, the result of conflicting Jewish and Palestinian national movements, and in its early stages was greatly influenced by socialism, anarchism, religious prophecy and existential fears. My Zionism starts and ends with Israel’s right to exist within its pre-1967 borders.

“I believe that some of the responses to my viewpoint were overtly anti-Semitic: the original poster of the ‘Zio’ comment accused me of spreading Israeli propaganda (referring to me as ‘the above Zionist’ and repeating the word I had asked them not to use in a way which was overtly confrontational) in language which resembled an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. When another (non-Zionist) Jew called out their use of anti-Semitic tropes, no action was taken by the admins.”

When asked about the use of the word ‘zionist’, Guobadia commented, “We are anti-Zionist, because we are anti-colonialist; we are anti-empire; we are anti-manifest-destiny. A radically intersectional queer space is necessarily so, because we fundamentally abhor the segregation, violence, systematic dehumanistation and racism that all imperial and colonial projects are predicated upon. Regardless of nuanced, and complex relationships we all have with political ideologies, and our personal interpretations of them, they cannot be validated or severed from how they are violently enacted in practise.

“We stand with Jewish peoples against anti-semitism, but we cannot stand with a political ideology used to prop up a colonialist project – our refusal of Zionist ideology as peoples and people of colour all the result and living with all the trauma of colonialism projects, does not make us anti-Semitic.”

“I think there’s so much difficulty that is faced as a result of a lack of nuance, and I worry that we argue at cross-purposes, with everyone differing in their interpretation of Zionism, or rather what Zionism is shorthand for, which is confusing the discourse, and creating disputes where there is more overlap and consensus than disagreement. We accept the literal and abstract concepts of Zionism as interpreted by student Jewish youth, but also balance this with the realities of the enactment of this in Palestinian displacement/colonial violence, and Zionism in the sense we use it, is hard to sever from what is happening in actual tangible struggle.”

Annie Teriba, another No HeterOx group administrator, was reached for comment.

Read the full official statement by the group administrators here.