Thursday 14th August 2025
Blog Page 1174

Review: Elephants

0

★★★★★

Five stars

When I entered the BT, I was told by a fellow audience member that the play should be ‘quite good’. That was an understatement. Elephants is a bitchy domestic drama full of dark comedy and memorable lines. It is first class escapism premised on laughter at those in a worse position than yourself. In this case, we laughed at that most classic of satirical set ups: the dinner party. Director Anthony Maskell really made a meal of it .

Much of this humour comes from a deliciously excessive level of angst. Think of those awkward silences during a morning tute after a night at Park End. Like such tutes, the plot strikes a comic note between tragedy and farce. The cast consists of four talented actors who expertly portray linked but ultimately isolated characters at a dinner party. The hosts are the separated and soon-to-be divorced couple Laura (Olivia Homewood) and Greg (Alex Hill). The visitors are Todd (Anthony Maskell) and Jennifer (Maddy Walker). At the start, they are a mirror image of each other but it soon become clear that lurking in the depths of the two relationships are two very different issues. 

The stage itself takes the form of two chairs, one table, and an unfortunate carrot cake complemented by many alcoholic drinks. The bare nature of the set brought into sharper relief the spot-on performances by the small but supremely talented cast. Olivia Homewood deserves particular praise for her ability to create hysteria worthy of a Greek tragedy. Her drunken dance moves could still use a bit of work though. 

Maddy Walker meanwhile perfectly treads the line between a middle class stereotype and an actual human being; desperate for the lifeof her hosts without realising the true extent of what that entails. So much so that I often felt guilty when allowing myself laughter at her expense.

Maskell – director, actor, generally nice guy – depicts Todd perfectly and provides the standout performance despite having the least lines. His hulking presence takes centre-stage and we were all on the edges of our seats (I accidentally fell off mine in fact) in the hope of another line delivered in his gruff monotone.

Last of all, I must address Alex Hill. He has quite a pair, a pair of underpants that is. His neatly groomed legs left the audience baying for more. Overall, the play delivers a welcome relief from the Oxford bubble by allowing you to enter another. 

The stand-out moment of the script was em- blematic of the absurd and delightful escapism on offer. In short, it connected Action Men toys and infantile sexuality. It made me to look back on my seemingly innocent childhood with a… different outlook. The overall juxtaposition of maturity and childhood is unmatched, for childhood petulance has been translated into the adult desperation with almost unbear- ably humorous results. In search of a light yet thought-provokingbreakfromwork, this play was just the ticket 

Preview: Play and That Time

Saturday morning, time is of the essence and I’m sobering up to reality. A reality littered with commitments and consequences, punctuated by deadlines and decisions. Routinely, I pour myself a scorching hot cup of coffee, check my emails and it is then that I notice a message: ‘preview needed, go to Holywell Street’. Ten minutes later, I’ve been ushered – almost clandestinely – into a small, sparsely furnished sitting room. And so it begins, Play is afoot.

Resolving to “bring some underperformed Beckett to Oxford”, the director, Alannah Jones, has set her sights high. This is no mean feat by any stretch of the imagination, but I assure you – you will not be disappointed. Utterly entrancing, this play will leave you dumbfounded. Quirky, yet captivating its delivery is stupendous, worthy of any stage that springs to mind.  I count myself fortunate to be among the first, of what I hope will be many, to witness this, the latest awe-inspiring performance from WiseUp Productions.

 Bursting and brimming with energy from the get-go, Play is a demanding piece set against a startlingly brisk pace. Juxtaposing this immediacy, we are confronted with three black urns, each housing a babbling, emaciated head. These ‘figures’, if we may use such terminology, are stock characters of Beckett’s. Those of you familiar with Endgame will undoubtedly detect dramaturgical tropes reminiscent of Nag and Nell, for instance. Yet, there is something fresh, something so subtly nuanced in this portrayal. For one thing, the structure of this work presents itself as less a narrative than a state of being. Lingering aimlessly in the ether, the urn-locked entities are beholden to a schizophrenic existence of contemplation, barely capable of twitching their heads this way or that. The middle urn contains a man (M) while his wife (W1) takes up position to his right and his mistress (W2) occupies the urn to his left. In short, the play centres on ‘The Affair’, its repercussions and a pendulum-like dialogue, swinging from one person in ‘the love triangle’ to another. As with Krapp’s Last Tape, Beckett again toys with the pathos of self-delusion and the bittersweet pangs of memory.

Premiering in 1963, Play is a semi-autobiographical rehashing of Beckett’s own personal life. Shortly after his marriage to Suzanne Deschevaux-Dumesnil, his partner of twenty-odd years, Beckett resumed an affair with Barbara Bray, a BBC script-editor. Predictably, their relationship was an uneasy one. I mean, forget attending the play, Bray reviewed it and, in doing so, lambasted the “amiable duplicity” of M as being “all need and weakness and feeble.”

The spotlight, what Jones terms “the fourth character in the play”, acts as an interrogator, inquisitively poking and prodding the characters into submission. Indeed, Billie Whitelaw once referred to it as “an instrument of torture”. Reaching out across the darkness, it chooses the speaker. Manichean elements of truth and ignorance, light and darkness abound. Lacking the slick transitions of previous adaptations, Jones has opted for a more rustic use of the torch, darting over and back betwixt the sullen faces. In some ways, this may be said to stall the blistering pace of the play, but only on rare occasions. Similarly, the set could have benefited from greater shade, or siphoning off of the natural light. Needless to say, however, if this is an issue, it will surely be remedied by relocating to the Burton Taylor Studio later this week. Jones details how this venue is “the perfect location” to explore that “starkness” without losing any of the preview’s close intimacy. After all, it can hardly be argued, “Beckett works best when he’s in your face”.

 Opening with a dense polyphonic texture of unintelligible mutterings, musicality is a motif that stretches the length and breadth of Play. Cast in fugue form, it deploys language in a patently musical way, enmeshing three contrapuntal voices together. 

Spellbinding, I cannot sing WiseUp’s praises enough. On all accounts this performance has been a rousing success. Yet, with such a minimalistic set, this is not an assessment adjudged sparingly. Nor is it without rhyme or reason. Pondering, perusing over my notes, I’ve tried to place my finger on why exactly this production carries itself so grippingly and I think it boils down to this: the cast. Beckett once commented, “the best possible play is one in which there are no actors, only the text.” If Beckett found a way to compose it, Amelia Brown, Peter Sayer and Alexandra Greenfield have found a way to bring it to life. Skittish and fidgety, all three actors/actresses have dug deep, searched and tapped into the most base and primordial of human instincts, laying them bare before the blinkering eye of a relentless inquisitor. 

Hands down, this has been one of my favourite performances during my time at The Cherwell. Admittedly, and allow me to set the record straight – I am something of a ‘Beckett buff’. In that sense, this production could only have gone in either one of two directions: very well or very badly. I am delighted to say it has stayed the course and I eagerly anticipate the full showing, including That Time. Rather than a happy-go-lucky comedy, this is an exposition of the meditative power of theatre, of its catharsis. A timeless classic, I suspect its resonance, my musings on it, will long outlive the lukewarm coffee currently resting on my desk. Fabulous! 

Review: Girlhood

0

★★★★☆

Four Stars

French film-maker Celine Sciamma’s new release Girlhood is a powerfully intimate film, with a focus and style that represent a significant and refreshing novelty in both mainstream and French cinema.

Girlhood centres on Marieme (Karidja Touré) – a quiet, watchful sixteen-year-old most at home on the football pitch – in the months after she is told that she cannot move up into high school as she had hoped, leaving her at sea in a world of indifferent adults. We watch as Marieme is recruited by fellow drop-outs Lady, Adiatou and Fily into a ‘bande des filles’ (‘girl–gang’ – the original French title) and is immersed in the petty crime, gang-fights and, crucially, the friendship that this brings with it.

Girlhood is a film about growing up in a life with few options, surviving in a world where everything, even companionship, seems to come at a price.

From the opening scene – an all-girls American football sequence underpinned by the rhythmic urgency of Light Asylum’s ‘Dark Allies’ – music plays a major part in structuring the story. The film is broken up into segments by Para One’s atmospheric electronic soundtrack, each one marking a new chapter for Marieme as she moves from quiet observer to being in control of her decisions, earning the nickname ‘Vic for Victory’ from group-leader Lady (Assa Sylla). One of the most moving highlights of the film sees Lady and the other girls mouthing and dancing along to Rhianna’s ‘Diamonds’ – the entire song – under a blue tint that makes a moment of warmth seem tinged with sadness.

Refusing to follow her mother into a career cleaning the same hotel that she and the gang like to sneak away to for a night of dancing, drinking and dressing up together (paid for by bullying pocket money out of children at the school gate) Marieme cherishes what little freedom she has and the excitement that comes with it. But losing the respect of her family and community means this freedom slips away, and she ends up leaving home to work for a drug dealer, dressing as a boy in order to avoid unwanted attention.

Although this cannot last and she is forced to leave, still she does not concede defeat to her circumstances, choosing terrifyingly uncertain independence over the life of sheltered domesticity that would regain respect and welcome back home. It is this decision that marks the point at which Marieme is most powerful, despite the desperation of her situation, her conviction becoming a small glimmer of hope in a world which has become increasingly dark and isolating.

Touré is captivating in the lead role, maintaining a vulnerability that never quite falls into weakness. That the actors were all scouted from the streets of France is almost incredible given the unfailing strength of the performances.

Visually alone, Girlhood deserves extremely high praise for its artistry. The beautiful outlines of Crystel Fournier’s cinematography are interspersed with close-ups of the characters – faces, hands and smiles all in captured in shallow focus in turn. The result is at times the detached perspective of an artist, changing suddenly into an almost intrusive closeness. As a result, the tower blocks of the estate where it is set are at once claustrophobic symbols of the restrictions of the girls’ limited futures as well as structures within which tender family ties are safely contained.

Scenes with Marieme and her younger sister in their shared bedroom become fragile moments of innocence, before the entrance of an abusive older brother shatters the calm. Meanwhile it is the moment when the girls play a hilariously competitive game of crazy-golf, which seem most moving for their simplicity. Sciamma makes it impossible to forget that for all the intimidating talk and sexualised outfits, the girls are just that, girls – despite their hardened, adult exteriors.

Girlhood is the only mainstream film I can think of to feature a core cast of young black female actors, fulfilling the director’s self-confessed aim of bringing this under-represented demographic onto the screen. That said, the film does not explicitly place issues of race and gender at its centre, instead allowing the characters’ stories to unfold unimpeded by these discourses. The lack of interference is such that by the end, I was left almost wishing for a more contrived, typical happy ending, only to realise the necessity for its more realistic alternative, which offers no such quick-fix solution, but ends in the midst of uncertainty.

Girlhood resists the norms of subject, setting and casting, yet it does so in a way that brings us closer to the normal, to the reality of teenage experience. Even if the accuracy of the portrayal of banlieue life has been questioned, it is film that resonates through its suggestions of what it means to be teetering on the edge of girlhood, to be finding security and a place in which to belong when everything is liable to change in the blink of an eye, or at the end of a song.

Why the NUS anti-Lib Dems campaign is wrong

0

I don’t know why, but it seems to me that whenever the NUS appears in the press, it always seems to be for something cringeworthy, at best. However, somehow the referendum on disaffiliation we voted in last year was nullified and never repeated, and thus the NUS still officially represents us. I realise that as a commentator, I’m meant to comment on things. However, on this occasion, I don’t think I need to do that: I’ll just present the facts and let you draw your own conclusions.

The NUS Executive, without consulting university representatives, decided to spend roughly £40,000 on a campaign about tuition fees. However, they thought that issue-based campaigns were far too boring, so they decided to make it party specific by adding the Liberal Democrats’ logo on all the posters and billboards. Because of this, they became non-party campaigners,
as defined by law, and as the sum spent exceeds £20,000, they were meant to register with the Electoral Commission; at the time of writing the NUS are yet to do so.

Just imagine the size and quantity of these billboards, if they’re worth £40,000! As you read this, the NUS activists behind the campaign are driving them around Labour-Lib Dem marginal constituencies, trying to convince former Lib Dem voters to vote Labour.

Having done my research, I think this is the first time the NUS is officially and openly spending our money on a party specific election campaign. They are not campaigning against tuition fees – they are campaigning for the Labour Party. Conveniently of course, the fact that Labour introduced tuition fees in the first place in 1998 and then tripled them in 2004 somehow managed to escape the attention of the NUS Executive Committee.

I daresay no one can accuse me of being a Liberal Democrat sympathiser: but what this campaign is doing is unnecessarily negative and antagonising. I’m delighted the NUS cares about the way I vote. However, I have a request: can those of you in NUS positions please not spend our money on a campaign which is explicitly telling us who to vote for?

Those Lib Dem MPs did indeed break their promise. However, I suggest it’s time that we start being mature about things and realise that if we don’t have a majority government, parties have to enter coalitions and compromise?
If the public wants a multi-party system, they need to accept no party will ever be able to translate its manifesto into policy in its entirety. I don’t think many of us expect the NUS to actually represent us and make our lives better anymore. But frankly, I think spending our money on a party-political campaign whilst most likely simultaneously breaking the law (an investigation is ongoing) is simply beyond the pale.

Can we please have another referendum on disaffiliating? Ideally one the result of which will actually count this time. In the meantime, I’d suggest that we all think about ways in which £40,000 could have been spent to actually make a positive difference to the lives of UK students.

Why we need a sensible debate over Europe

0

With the majority Tory government we now have, it is clear there will be a referendum on whether or not Britain should stay in the European Union. We will need to have national debate on Europe and the UK’s position in it, and I can only pray that it is a sensible and mature debate.

Many people on the Left try to avoid having such discussion by simply portraying anyone who asks questions about the EU as a xenophobe or some kind of ultra-right fool. In a classic attempt to discredit your opponents rather than having to confront them in a rational exchange of opinions, these people are the main reason why unsavoury, hard core anti-Europe parties are on the rise throughout Europe. With UKIP, the Front National, the Finns’ Party, Podemos, the Danish People’s Party, you need mainstream parties to be critical of the EU when appropriate. Pretending it’s all roses is intellectually lazy and disingenuous, and people just don’t buy it.

I was born in Europe, and my family still live there. I can afford to study at Oxford only thanks to money I get because I’m an EU citizen. I’ve worked for several EU-related organisations. In fact, I ran for the European Parliament with the Czech Conservative Party last year. And, believe it or not, I’m a Eurosceptic.

Being a Eurosceptic is not about having some kind of irrational, superstitious contempt for the Continent. It’s about recognising that there are some things that the EU does wrong, and admitting that perhaps in some areas we went too far in transferring national powers to Brussels. It’s about talking openly about the fact that over the past decade or so, people have started to feel very alienated by the EU and that the EU elite has often pushed for things on which there was no consensus across Europe.

Almost half of the entire EU budget is spent on subsidising French farmers, who then go on to spill their milk outside the Élysée Palace when en grève. Over £130 million a year is spent on the travelling circus that once a month sees the European Parliament decamp from Belgium to France. More and more laws and regulations are passed in Brussels which Westminster gets no say over, despite the fact that they affect British people and businesses. Is Cameron really that crazy for wanting to have a conversation with EU leaders about whether it’s perhaps not the right time to change some of these things?

It’s like when you’re in a relationship (not that I would know): pretending there are no problems at all if it’s clear there are some will help no one. Studies and public opinion polls show us that more and more people all over Europe are raising their eyebrows, and to pretend that nothing is happening is quite frankly arrogant. Let’s have a sensible debate about facts in the run up to the 2017 referendum. A debate in which there is no room for prejudice and belittling of our political opponents. I believe the British people, being the sensible bunch they are, will make the right decision when it comes to it.

Why criticism of the FPTP system is misguided

0

Every election is a moment of national political mobilisation – that’s why they’re so exciting. Things get very emotional in the run up to polling day, and a couple of days after that. But once the dust has started to settle, people often start asking bigger questions. Is our political system a good one? Should we change it?

Virtually without exception, a great number of self-proclaimed experts on British constitution emerge after every election. We’ve now heard how our electoral system is rotten, how the entire political structure is about to disintegrate and how hugely undemocratic, unfair and unjust the Westminster model of government is. Those who lost the election now claim it’s because of the First Past the Post system rather than because of any fault on their side. But do you know what – I actually think the UK political system is great.

There is no objective yardstick against which we can measure a political system: fairness is a vague concept that means different things to different people. If you were given a tabula rasa and you could create your own country with its political system completely up to you, you would face many trade-offs. For example, what’s more important: the stability and clarity of First Past the Post or the more accurate representation you get with PR? Checks and balances like in the US or fusion of powers like in the UK? 

The grass is always greener on the other side. Whilst many people in this country are very envious of the proportional systems used by most countries on the continent, many European nations go on about how much they wish their system was more like the one in Blighty. In Europe, you get parties which only focus on a teeny part of the electorate, get six or eight percent of the vote and make parliament a very unpleasant place. It’s no coincidence that the Polish president, hoping to be re-elected in the ongoing election at the moment, has promised to introduce FPTP in Poland. Similar conversations are being had around the globe.

And let’s not forget: had the most recent election happened under PR, we would still have a Tory government. It’s just that it might be forced to repeal gay marriage under pressure from Northern Irish Unionists, or kick out those bloody Eastern European immigrants stealing our university places (like myself) under pressure form UKIP. You are quite right: we are now governed by a majority government which received just over 37 per cent of the vote. But remember: that’s exactly 37 percentage points more that the last coalition manifesto received.

For countries aspiring to democratise, the UK has always been the first point of call. Some people believe that it would be fairer to replace our system of government with a continuous series of marches and demonstrations (or ‘demos’ apparently – so good to see the radical Left using ancient Greek), but I simply don’t buy that. Go live in Russia or the Stans in Central Asia for a couple of years – after all, they use PR, so they must be really democratic – then come back and tell me how rotten Britain is. I’m seeing my auntie in Moscow this summer, feel free to join me.

The reaction of the radical left after the election

0

I love political debates. Over the past couple of years, we have been arguing about what party should govern this country. However, it seems that this debate is now over: the electorate have settled it for us.

People across the country decided to surprise everyone (probably including themselves) and return a Conservative majority government. The Tories made gains at the expense of Labour in predominantly working class areas like Wales or the North (#Balls). But some people only seem to like democracy as long as it delivers the right result. For Oxford’s radical left, the result was far from ideal.

The sheer and utter contempt for the millions of ordinary votes expressed by so many people at Oxford is quite frankly staggering. Guess what: most of the electorate are not white boys from Eton and the South East. Most of them are not selfish, ignorant or stupid. Facebook over the past week or so really has shown that radical left are exactly what they accuse the Tories of being: nasty, mean and arrogant.

Guys, you lost, and the mature thing to do would be to ask why, so you can fix it for the next election. Instead, some of you have decided to spread vitriol, and refer to us, Conservatives, using words for which my granny would smack me. You have the audacity to claim that the Tories are elitist, whilst claiming that the voters are stupid and don’t understand, because how on Earth could anyone ever vote for the Tories? There was a surge in Tory support among ethnic minorities, young people and the LGBT community – please get a grip and stop telling me I’m a self-hating gay (and foreigner) for voting Tory.

We now hear how the Tory government has no mandate, as it only got a majority because of our rotten and discredited voting system. This is the very system the public overwhelmingly supported in a referendum a couple of years ago. Where were these voices when Labour got a staggering majority of 179 seats with 43 per cent of the vote in 1997? Or in 2005 when the Tories got a million more votes in England but a hundred fewer seats? Everyone enjoys the game when they’re winning: the real test of character comes when you start losing.

As is always the case, the vast majority of people are very sensible. Most of my Labour and Green friends shook my hand on Friday, said ‘Well done’, and started preparing the campaign for 2020. This is one of the (many) things the rest of the world – and me personally – admire about the British: your ability to control and manage your emotions and handle them in a mature manner. Most people don’t feel the need to insult me, most want to talk to me about politics.

Respect for James on the right here; while I disagree with him on virtually everything (I bet he even likes Marmite), at least he actually campaigned for Labour and fought for what he believes to be right, like a grown up. A huge well done to everyone who did the same, whichever party they supported.

We all want to make Britain a better place, we just disagree over the best way to do it. However, ultimately it’s the voters who decide what the best way is, and in 2015, they decided it’s the Tory way.

Investigation: Women in academia

0

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%11957%%[/mm-hide-text]

THE PROPORTION OF WOMEN in academia at Oxford University is significantly less than their male counterparts. The University’s own figures, set out in 2013 as part of its application to renew its Athena Bronze SWAN award, show that at that time just 20 per cent of Professors were women, along with 30 per cent of University Lecturers. The proportion was even more imbalanced in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) disciplines, where only 16 per cent of Professors and 18 per cent of University Lecturers were women.

The Athena SWAN Charter is an Equality Challenge Unit initiative which was established in 2005 to encourage and recognise commitment to advancing the careers of women in higher education and research in MPLS (Mathematical, Physical and Life Sciences) subjects. Daisy Hung, the MPLS Athena SWAN Facilitator at the University, told Cherwell how the department is working to combat the gender gap, “In terms of gender equality initiatives within MPLS, the 10 academic departments within MPLS have received Athena SWAN awards (Silver and Bronze). The Athena SWAN charter mark has generally been a catalyst for change within departments, and spurred greater activity to advance gender equality.

“It has served as a useful mechanism for each department to do a thoughtful and thorough assessment of their quantitative and qualitative (staff and student) data to identify specific gender gaps and challenges. Specific actions are then formulated to address those identified issues, and each department has a tailored action plan. The Division is reviewing the best practices that arise from the departments, sharing that information across departments, and identifying appropriate actions to implement across the Division.

“The larger gender gap in STEM subjects, and the decline in female students from undergraduate to postgraduate, are connected and complex issues that deal with individual choices, societal pressures and stereotypes, (overt and implicit) discrimination and bias, and structural inequalities that can make pursuing and sustaining a career in STEM more challenging for women. There is no easy answer or solution.

“Initiatives that MPLS departments are employing are trying to address all levels of the educational pipeline from recruitment/ outreach, retention and promotion of women in academia; and focusing on supporting individuals (e.g. training, mentorship, career development, etc) as well as addressing structural inequalities (e.g. unconscious bias, recruitment criteria/procedures, etc).

“While many of these initiatives are focused on women and its impact on women, many also positively affect both men and women and serve as good practice for all. Greater diversity in STEM benefits everybody.”

In terms of disparity in the humanities, Dr Selina Todd, a History fellow at St Hilda’s, wrote an article in The Guardian in February 2015 about tackling everyday sexism in university life. Todd argued that “[o]ur universities are highly sexist institutions. Women are outnumbered and relegated to junior posts. More than 60 per cent of academics are men, and about 80 per cent of professors. Official statistics show that more women are on temporary contracts than men.

“Behind the numbers lie depressing examples of everyday sexism. A new survey by the Royal Historical Society (RHS) shows that female academics, regardless of whether they are PhD candidates or professors, are exploited and marginalised by ‘macho practices and cultures’. Combative behaviour in academic debates and a long-hours culture are de rigueur. And, as a report by Women in Philosophy points out, the problem is ‘not that women are somehow less able to cope when aggressive behaviour is aimed at them… It is rather that aggressive behaviour can heighten women’s feeling that they do not belong, by reinforcing the masculine nature of the environment within which they work and study.’”

Todd is on the steering group of a new initiative at the University – Women in the Humanities – aimed to “introduce real feminism into universities and to combat women’s marginalisation, both as subjects of study and as serious scholars.” The programme offers postdoctoral writing fellowships for scholars whose work promises to advance significantly knowledge of women’s lives, experiences and representation.

In response to our anonymous student survey, one student critiqued prevailing attitudes in history, “In my three terms at Oxford, I have had only female tutors but this is due mostly to the staff at my college and I also suspect partly because I have looked at ‘gender history’ and ‘social history’, which are less respected than traditional areas.”

In response to our survey, many students were concerned with sexism at a personal level rather than an institutional level. One student told us, “I think covert sexism is a major problem in Oxford. I feel pushed down because of the sexism. I am constantly reminded I am not a mathematician; I am a female mathematician.” 

Eden Tanner, graduate student in Chemistry at St John’s College and ex-OUSU Graduate Women’s Officer, has written extensively on the gender gap in MPLS, and has interrogated the ways in which it can be tackled. She explained, “This small sliver of research (and there is a lot more out there, showing the same trends!) shows us that women (and people of colour) face barriers entering STEM fields or with finding employment in STEM.

“It has certainly been my experience that others feel that I don’t belong working in Chemistry – whether that’s the non-existent concealment of shock at a social event when I’m asked what I study, the equipment supplier automatically using ‘Mr’ as my title when they reply to my enquiries, or a number of incidents where I have basic concepts explained to me at length (If you’re interested, the two winners for most outrageous ‘explanations’ were my education on the ins-and-outs of how to connect an electrical plug into the socket and one gentleman who kindly explained to me that Physical Chemistry ‘doesn’t actually exist’).

“Given this range of problems (and I’ve focused on the retention of women, which is more common in Chemistry than it is in fields like Physics or Engineering, where recruit- ment is by far the bigger issue), where do we start?

“The obvious place would be unconscious bias training for academics and admissions people of all genders, to combat the discriminatory thinking behind the bias that is (sometimes) unconsciously applied towards women and other groups of people that face systemic bias. The other fairly straightforward move would be to improve the welfare of all people in STEM, by acknowledging the often exclusionary and unhealthy environment of the lab, and having transparent and easily accessible harassment policies for situations that go badly wrong.

“Another large part of the problem is girls and young women experiencing socialisation that leads to a lack of conceptualisation of woman in the role of scientist. Thinking specifically about retaining undergraduate women and people of minority genders in STEM, the current learning environment may reinforce this belief.

“I personally often find entire terms or conference sessions where not a single woman is speaking. Having lectures, tutorials, and seminars led by people of all genders normalises the place of people who aren’t men in STEM, and having more accessible role models who are closer in age and life experience is affirming. In particular, the creation of open forums where undergraduates can meet and hear from current graduates (in the form of ‘Ask A Grad’ panels) and mentoring schemes that connect undergraduates with graduates are the ways in which OUSU through Anna Bradshaw, the Vice-President (Women), are working to tackle these problems at Oxford University.”

In a meeting of the University Council in March this year, a number of proposed gender equality targets were approved. These included increasing the proportion of female Professors to 30 per cent by 2020, increasing the proportion of female Statutory Professors to 20 per cent by 2020, working to ensure that women comprise 30 per cent of members of Council and its main committees, and for selection committees to aim for a representation of at least one third women. One historic step towards gender equality was taken by the University last week, when it was announced that Louise Richardson, current Principal and Vice-Chancellor of St Andrew’s University, had been nominated as the first ever female candidate for Vice-Chancellor of Oxford. 

The disproportionate influence of minor parties

0

There is probably no point trying to convince any students how to vote in the General Election, surely we’ve all made up our minds by now. The background of this article gives you a clue as to who I’m voting for (or rather would be voting for if I could: #foreign). But I would still ask you for one thing: vote so that you actually determine who gets to govern this country.

The one thing about this election people will remember is how messy it’s all been. So many parties, seven-way leader debates, uncertainty. The simplicity, clarity and effectiveness of the good old two-party system all seem to be disappearing.

Many people got really angry with the Lib Dems for breaking their promise on tuition fees. But don’t blame them, blame the British electorate. Broken promises are inherent to multiparty systems. If no party commands an overall majority, coalitions have to be formed, and parties will have to sacrifice some of their policies in the process.

There is nothing fairer about proportional representation or multiparty governments: you get coalition agreements that no one ever voted for. Look at Israel, where far-right parties with about five per cent of the popular vote almost entirely control a highly divisive and controversial foreign policy that has made them no few enemies, and then ask yourself whether the our political system is really that bad.

And look what these small parties are doing to Britain. If Labour is the largest party, it will have to enter some sort of deal with the SNP, and the Nationalists will get to dictate the terms of that deal. A party with less than four per cent of the popular vote – a party for which 92 per cent of the people in this country can’t even vote for – will dictate government policy.

imilarly, if the Tories are the largest party and have to rely on UKIP or the DUP (much, much less likely than the earlier example as UKIP and DUP are very unlikely to get more than 10 seats between them), our country will be subject to policies very, very few people will have voted for.

The next government will be either Tory or Labour. The next Prime Minister will either be Cameron or Miliband. That really is the choice we all face, and we should all pick between the two.

If I were really mean, I would say I love the Greens for example – they literally eat Lib Dem and Labour votes, thus helping the Conservatives in many marginal constituencies, including, incidentally, Oxford West and Abingdon. You may dislike that, you may think our electoral system is unfair, but you have to face the reality. Vote Tory or Labour, and actually have a say on who runs the country.

I hope your hangover isn’t too bad when you read this on Friday – be it caused by Bridge or by celebrating or drinking down the sorrows after staying up all night to watch what promises to be the closest-fought General Election in recent memory. But remember: the hangover of being run by people who want to break up our country could last five years.

The sheer hypocrisy of communist sympathisers

0

One thing that shocked me when I moved to the UK from Eastern Europe roughly five years ago is how it is acceptable to be a communist supporter among young people here.

Even at Oxford, the number of people who think it’s a totally legitimate ideology is very high. Wolfson has organised a communism-themed bop, and Wadham JCR (sorry, Student Union) was going to vote on whether or not to fly the USSR flag to celebrate the end of World War II later this week. I know what you’re thinking, and no, I’m not kidding.

Let me reassure you – I do not intend to stage a protest and shut this bop down. I believe every JCR (or GCR for that matter) should be allowed to host whatever event they like and whilst I might find some of them objectionable, I don’t feel I’m in any position to tell people what to do.
What I find staggering, however, are the double standards so many people hold about the two great evils of the twentieth century, communism and national socialism.

Everyone at our university – I should hope – and the vast majority of people in this country would feel absolutely appalled, shocked and mind-blown if someone suggested to host a Nazi-themed bop or fly the Third Reich flag: and rightly so, of course. If someone were to upload a picture of Hitler or Mussolini wearing a party hat as their cover photo on Facebook, they would probably be reported to their college and disciplined. But turning Stalin into a fun, cuddly little creature is totally cool?

So many people at Oxford talk about no-platforming extreme views as shown by the reaction to the OSFL debates in Michaelmas last year and whilst I disagree with them, I would say they have a valid and intellectually defensible claim. What I can’t get my head around though is that after saying we shouldn’t platform Le Pen because she’s a fascist, they’re more than happy let the Oxford Marxist Society sign up members at Freshers’ fair.

They say it’s different, because communism is an ideology of liberation. I’m sorry, but I don’t buy this. The only reason why it’s become acceptable in the UK to be a communist is that the UK has never fought this poisonous ideology directly and has no direct experience of it. Go to the Czech Republic or Poland and you’ll be arrested for denying the crimes of the Soviet rule.

There actually are people at our university who want to fly a flag which symbolises a regime which killed around 20 million people, systematically used rape as a weapon in warfare, and targeted Jews, gay and disabled people in its killings. Flying it is neither cool nor hip: it’s beyond the pale.

Communism is not cool, and communist dictators are not bop costume material. When Prince Harry wore an SS uniform to a fancy dress party a few years ago, he was sent to Auschwitz to realise there are things one doesn’t joke about. I wonder whether it might be worth organising a trip to a few Siberian gulags.