Saturday 7th June 2025
Blog Page 1238

Anti-celebrity rules OK. Long live Baldwin.

Ollie Johnson
-
0
Anti-celebrity rules OK. Long live Baldwin.

Yes, I know, another article about celeb­rity and modern culture. Zeitgeist in my sights; hit, sunk. And what’s this? A secondary narrative about celebrities being hypocritical? My god, I have my hand so firmly on the public’s pulse. But trust me, I’ve got something really interesting to say. Look, I’ve even made up a word: ‘anti-celebrity’.

Mystery has always captivated our imagi­nations, and there’s nothing so seemingly enigmatic as a celebrity who rejects their own fame. Marlon Brando epitomised this for the previous generation, what with his antics at the 1973 Oscars and his widespread reputation as an impossible person to interview. Taking an altogether more bellicose approach, Oliver Reed didn’t so much reject his fame, as maul it, chew it up and spit it back out, into the faces of interviewers and women’s liberation campaigners alike.

But at least Brando and Reed did that ‘Being famous is ridiculous’ shtick with an undeni­able sense of cool and panache. Others have not fared nearly as well. Alec Baldwin’s rela­tionship with celebrity can only be described as a car crash in very slow motion. Baldwin has repeatedly railed against being placed, he claims unwittingly, into the glaring public spotlight; that he never wanted his every move and word to be written down and reported on.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%11000%%[/mm-hide-text] 

I completely sympathise with that, because it’s not like he’s a world-famous actor, news­paper columnist, talk-show host, or author of his own upcoming memoirs and other books. How could he possibly have known that very restrained level of exposure would have meant he was recognised in the street? Although, he could probably have thought ahead about the impact of being arrested for riding his bike against the traffic on Fifth Avenue. Because that’s just silly.

I can’t sympathise with Shia LaBoeuf. His meltdown was as public as it comes, even including turning up to a film brief modelling a paper bag over his head, which had written on it, “I’m not famous anymore.” Which is oh so very meta. Am I meant to feel sympa­thetic that he became famous? What exactly did he think was going to happen by starring (I’m purposefully avoiding describing his role as acting) in the Transform­ers franchise? And for the record, Shia, trying to atone for your sins by doing a string of niche, hipster art projects doesn’t erase the fact you were in a film series that had to have a trademark symbol in the title.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%11001%%[/mm-hide-text] 

This outspoken dismissal of celebrity can be seen as a way of solving the paradox of being, simultaneously, an artist and a businessper­son. Prior to the commercialised Disneyland that we now inhabit, it was far easier to maintain artistic endeavours for their own cul­tural ends. But now, artistic intent has to be balanced with economics. There’s no such thing as creating an album, or a film, for its own sake. There is always a financial corollary. Hence, ‘artists’ are now trapped in the purgatorial no man’s land of trying to appear genuine whilst also flogging their wares.

That paradox wouldn’t be so problematic if it weren’t carried out in such a disin­genuous way. Kanye West has had innumerable fracas with paparazzi and journalists for invading his personal life to an excessive degree. Fair enough. But he doesn’t complain when that ‘unwanted’ exposure leads to mas­sive boosts to his music and clothing-line sales. Banksy maintains his persona of a true ‘artiste’, by not gaining financially from the sale of his street art, and yet made a feature-length film in 2010. Are we meant to believe that wasn’t motivated by the brand value of labelling it a Banksy film?

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%11002%%[/mm-hide-text] 

And let’s not forget the eminent hypocrisy of decrying fame and yet maintaining galling levels of exposure online. How can you com­plain about being too much in the public eye, and yet have your own website, Facebook page, Twitter, and Instagram? That may be what’s needed to remain in the public consciousness, but it entirely blurs the line between neces­sary and excessive levels of celebrity.

Sia has trod the knife-edge routine of rejecting fame better than most. Despite writing a staggering number of the pop hits of the last five years and her most recent album debuting at No. 1 on the US charts, she has explicitly rejected her fame. She rarely performs live, hence why she doesn’t tour, and when she does, she does so with her back to the audience. She has spoken, in terms eerily reminiscent of dialogue from The Dark Knight, about creating a symbol in the blonde bob wig she, and the performers in her videos, don that means she doesn’t need to be recognised in person. As she said in an interview, all she wants to do is “get fat and pee on the side of the road”. Which is fine. But you really didn’t need to write six best-selling albums to do that, did you Sia?

Milestones: Bowling for Columbine

Fergus Morgan
-
0
Milestones: Bowling for Columbine

The USA is a country riddled with prob­lems. At the risk of echoing the hyperbole of that Fox News segment, it is a country of over 300 million people where inequality, unfairness, and corruption are rife. The little people are constantly being fucked over by big, faceless corporations and, of course, by the government.

Guns, inaccessible healthcare, racism, sexism, wealth inequality – all are prevalent problems facing modern-day America. And one man has arguably done more than anyone else to draw attention to them.

Michael Moore began making documenta­ries in 1989 with Roger & Me, which examined the emotional and economic repercussions of General Motors transferring its factories from Flint, Michigan, to Mexico in search of cheaper labour.

Already, the characteristics of Moore’s idio­syncratic film-making are visible. He works from a populist perspective, revealing the dev­astating effect of moral bankruptcy on the lives of everyday people through harrowing interviews, and adopt­ing a faux-naivety when narrating and interviewing that empha­sises the lack of humanity of the individuals and organisations he attacks. It is evocative stuff.

Over the subsequent decade, Moore produced films, TV pro­grammes and books satirising and criticising various aspects of ‘the man’. It was in 2002, however, with the award-winning Bowling For Columbine, that he first approached the issue of gun violence.

Focussing his argument on the Columbine massacre of April 1999, in which two seniors shot dead 12 other students and a teacher before committing suicide, Moore examines with arresting clarity the problematic nature of America’s relationship with guns.

With Bowling For Columbine, Moore is at his righteous, yet eternally placid, best. He never betrays his anger, but simply maintains his recognisable brand of false ignorance, either when childishly asking a suit from an arms manufacturer about weapons of mass destruc­tion, or when questioning Marilyn Manson on why people found it easier to blame him for the Columbine massacre instead of America’s culture of “fear and consumption”.

There are some truly sickening moments, particularly for us liberal Brits. One scene, in which Moore receives a free rifle simply for opening a bank account is particularly memo­rable, as is a moment when Moore resorts to flatly stating worldwide gun crime statistics.

“How many people are killed by guns each year? In Germany, 381. In France, 255. In Canada, 165. In the UK, 68. In Austra­lia, 65. In Japan, 39. In the US, 11,127.”

Moore asks the question with his characteristically innocent style, then answers it in the most devastatingly effective way possible. Bowling For Columbine is a compelling, thought-provoking, and arguably world-chang­ing documentary, and its success reflected this. It became the highest-grossing mainstream documentary of all time, only to be relieved of that accolade by Moore’s 2004 film, Fahrenheit 911, which exam­ined the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The uphill battle to register student voters

Tom Hayes
-
0
The uphill battle to register student voters

The electoral register is key to our democracy. Yet, the completeness of that register is in grave danger. The Lib Dem-Conservative Government’s shakeup of how you register to vote has scratched 12,000-plus electors from Oxford’s rolls. Many of them are students, many of them are based in East Oxford, where my ward of St Clement’s lies.

Under the new system, you have to register to vote individually. No longer will one resident in a household be able to register all occupants in that property. No longer will universities register their students. As for a city where students make up more of the total population than they do anywhere else in England and Wales, Oxford is the worst-hit university city. Registration in some wards with large student populations has fallen off a cliff.

We need the register to be complete, so the City Council is focusing resources on young and student electors. The evidence is clear that going door-to-door makes a difference, which is leading council officers to prioritise face-to-face canvassing. OUSU are holding street stalls to drive up registration, which I’m supporting and staffing some shifts for.

But, we face an uphill battle to register voters lost in the switch-over in time for the general election, and we need you support. Please head online now to check you’re registered to vote and if you aren’t, register straight away. And please get the word out, so that as many people as possible get back onto the electoral register. 

It’s disturbing that the new system makes it harder to vote, particularly for students who were likely to be registered in the first place. In Sheffield – where the student vote could topple Nick Clegg – those losing the right to have their say have greatest anger at the reversal of policy to abolish tuition fees and trebling of them to £9,000 a year. To see voting become harder when we’ve all seen under-18s doing it for the first time in the Scotland referendum (and Ed Miliband’s pledge that they could do it permanently) is disappointing to say the least.

So, to have a say over the decisions affecting your future, your voice has to be heard. If you aren’t registered, please go online and register now.

Spiked criticises Oxford’s “censorship”

Tom Carter
-
0
Spiked criticises Oxford’s “censorship”

Online magazine Spiked has published a ranking of the attitudes of British universities towards free speech, placing Oxford in the “red” category. The website states that universities in this category, the “most censorious” one, have “banned and actively censored ideas on campus”.

The ranking looked at University, OUSU, and college policies. Spiked accused the University of restricting free speech through its harassment policy, which restricts “needless” and “provocatively offensive” speech, and its internet regulations. These ban the publishing of racist, sexist, or homophobic material.

Trudy Coe, the Head of the University Equality and Diversity unit, stated, “The policy expressly provides that vigorous academic debate will not amount to harassment when it is conducted respectfully and without violating the dignity of others or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them.”

In response to this, Tom Slater, the compiler of Spiked’s rankings, told Cherwell, “The definition of harassment has been expanded to the point of meaninglessness. We can’t allow well-meaning policy such as this one to permit censorship by the back door.”

The ranking claimed that the University was responsible for cancelling the OSFL abortion debate last term. However, this was a College decision. Martyn Percy, the Dean of Christ Church, refuted the allegation that the event was “banned”, telling Cherwell, “We simply said that with the amount of notice given, there was not enough time to make the appropriate arrangements, and conduct an exercise in consultation.”

Also criticised was the use of trigger warnings at OUSU Council. Louis Trup responded, “If policies like trigger warnings constitute a threat to freedom of speech in Spiked’s definition, then it is clearly seriously flawed. It is a work of pseudo-social science crafted towards a political end, and anybody with a basic understanding of research skills will know to take this ‘news’ with a massive pinch of salt.”

The ranking also condemned Balliol JCR’s ban on ‘Blurred Lines’ and the supposed disbanding of Pembroke Rugby Club after a “joke email”.

Becky Howe, Pembroke JCR President at the time, commented, “I was surprised to see ‘Pembroke College disbands rugby team for joke email’ as a reason for Oxford’s ‘red’ rating. Firstly, it’s incorrect – Pembroke’s rugby club was not disbanded. Secondly, it was popular reaction against the email that brought it to public attention, discussion and condemnation – I’m not sure how this equates to censorship of ideas, personally. Thirdly, if calling people out for misogyny and sexism is a bad thing according to Spiked ‘researchers’, I’d like to sit them down and have a long chat about that.”

Slater responded, “Yes, calling people out for misogyny is a good thing. Silencing them is not. This is the problem, we’ve gotten into a position where censorship is seen as a means of tackling backwards ideas. It’s not.” 

Two in three state schools send no pupils to Oxbridge

Ellen Milligan
-
0
Two in three state schools send no pupils to Oxbridge

Two out of three secondary state schools do not send any pupils to Oxbridge, according to new figures released by the Department of Education.

The report studied the destinations of Key stage five students in 2012/2013. Of the 48 per cent of state educated students who went on to higher education, only 16 per cent went on to study at an institution in the top third of HEIs. Oxford and Cambridge jointly admitted only one per cent of this number. In comparison, private fee-paying schools sent 60 per cent of their students to a HEI and five per cent of these were admitted by Oxbridge.

The Master of Wellington College, Sir Anthony Seldon, who delivered the annual ‘access lecture’ at University College this year, talked to Cherwell about the reasons behind this figure, saying, “It is a big thing to crank up a school for Oxford and Cambridge. Unless there are teachers who have been undergraduates there, it can seem intimidating and remote.”

He suggested that in order to improve this figure, the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University could personally sign a letter to every Principal or Head of every secondary school or college in the UK, inviting them to submit applicants, and explain exactly how they can go about it.

However, the University of Oxford told Cherwell, “The University devotes a huge amount of resource to widening access and student support, but diversifying intake is something that can only be done on the understanding that everyone – government, schools, parents, teachers, and universities – has to work together.”

They added, “Admissions figures that show that a small number of schools contribute a large number of successful candidates to Oxford largely reflect the challenges of student recruitment in the context of uneven distribu- tion of high-achieving students in schools.”

A Sutton Trust report in 2011 showed that five English schools – Eton, Westminster, St Paul’s Boys, St Paul’s Girls, and state-funded Hills Road Sixth Form College in Cambridge – sent more pupils to Oxbridge between 2007 and 2009 than nearly 2000 lower-performing other schools combined.

The issue of state school admissions was raised by a debate held at the Oxford Union last Thursday, in which the proposition argued that figures such as these needed addressing by introducing quotas.

However, when asked her opinion on whether quotas should be introduced for state school admissions to Oxford, JCR Access Rep at St. Catherine’s college Rebekka Smiddy, said, “Personally, I’m not a big believer in positive discrimination; it could present potential issues with better applicants being discarded for quota filling.”

“However, I do believe that more state school applicants should be applying to both Oxbridge and Russell group universities, as they often have the ability to succeed but are put off by uncertainty about how the system and university works.”

Geography undergraduate Hannah Kinnimont toldCherwell of her experience applying to Oxford from a comprehensive school and the help she received from a teacher who had attended Oxford.

She admitted, “I would not have had a clue how to apply otherwise and I probably would have chosen to not apply altogether.

“I suppose schools which do not have any teachers or students who have previously gone to Oxbridge are left in the dark about the application process and this may put them off applying.” 

Analysis: Harry Gosling argues that the public-private school impasse is a disgrace, but there is no easy solution 

The perpetual domination of Oxbridge places by privately-educated pupils, with two-thirds of state schools not managing to send a single pupil to Oxford or Cambridge, somewhat undermines the idea that we live in a progressive, socially mobile society.

Private education enables children already privileged by virtue of their family circum- stances to go to schools which further enhance their socioeconomic position. Exceptional resources, superior teachers, and an informational asymmetry in post-16 education are three crucial advantages of private schools. Many private schools have continual informal contact with elite universities, and numerous members of the teaching staff in these schools are often Oxbridge graduates themselves. State schools battle to keep up.

For something as fundamental to a child’s development as education to be determined by parental wealth is unfair and unjust. As Alan Bennett argues, “To educate not according to ability but according to the social situation of the parents is both wrong and a waste.” Figures show that a pupil at a private school is 55 times more likely to be offered a place at Oxford or Cambridge than a state-school pupil from a poor background. 71 per cent of judges, 62 per cent of officers in the armed forces, and 53 per cent of senior diplomats were privately educated, yet only seven per cent of the population attended a private school.

Proponents of fee-paying schools may extol the virtues of a parent’s ability to choose their child’s education. But this misses the point: only a small minority of parents are in a posi- tion to be able to make the choice between putting their children through private or state education. Do we prioritise the right of those who can afford to educate their children privately to do so? Or do we prioritise the right of every child to an equal start in life? The answer to this question reveals the nature of the society we would like to live in.

The problem extends beyond the simple public-private dichotomy, however. We can never hope to succeed in completely levelling the playing field for children starting out in life, as schooling isn’t everything. But educa- tion is arguably the most fundamental aspect of development. The current system entrenches children’s socioeconomic circumstances. 

There is no easy answer when it comes to deciding on a course of action. Lowering the standard of education to the lowest common denominator is not the answer. Politicians, particularly those who were privately educat- ed themselves, tend to wish away the issue. In many cases this is understandable, given the desire to dodge the charge of hypocrisy. Yet in the UK, where we consider ourselves to have an open and mature democracy, we cannot avoid the issue any longer. An open and frank discus- sion concerning the role of private schools is very much needed.

Ensuring that we give all children the same start is impossible, but that does not mean we should not try. 

Cambridge’s access scheme #CamTweet leads to porn

Ellen O'Neill
-
0
Cambridge’s access scheme #CamTweet leads to porn

A Cambridge University access initiative has been forced to change its name after it was found to be directing Twitter users towards pornography.

The Twitter hashtag #CamTweet was supposed to be used by Cambridge students to give an insight into life at Cambridge, and was inspired by Oxford’s #OxTweet project. However, many tweets using the #CamTweet hashtag were in fact advertising live pornographic webcam shows performed by ‘cam girls’.

On discovering this, two days after the project’s launch, Cambridge quickly changed the access hashtag to #CambTweet. Helena Blair, Cambridge University Student’s Union (CUSU)’s Access & Funding Officer, claimed that “when the #CamTweet project started, the hashtag was not being used to share pornographic images – if you were to look back far enough you would see that the webcam accounts started using it after our project’s launch. We did check the hashtag was suitable in advance”.

She did not anticipate any lasting damage from directing potential applicants towards pornography as well as Cambridge, adding “We believe little damage has been caused and it’s largely forgotten about – #CambTweet is gathering a strong following of prospective applicants and is receiving very good feedback. We’re excited to see it develop!”

She also confirmed the project’s debt to Oxford access, adding “We have received a lot of encouragement and support from #OxTweet and the two projects run effectively side by side.”

#OxTweet launched last year and has had a generally positive response. Students generally do not use their personal twitter accounts but ones set up for the purpose with handles like @OxHumanSci: they are sometimes but not always anonymous. Undergraduate Natasha Gillies, who runs the @MertonBiology account, praised the project, saying “When I first joined the #oxtweet initiative, I wasn’t really sure how far-reaching or useful it would really be. However, it’s been a year now since I started and it has really taken off.

“We often get retweets from schools around the country and it’s been a great platform to let people ask questions or just to give some idea of what an Oxford student’s day-to-day life is like, from Tesco runs to essay crises. During interviews we had a lot of positive comments on the accounts and quite a few Biology applicants said it had been really useful in their decisions to apply. I think people can often be sceptical of prospectuses and I feel they appreciate having this more personal insight into student life.

“The #CamTweet incident is a real shame, but it was just a silly mistake – although I recommend they do a little more research on their hashtags in future. I would hope it wouldn’t cause any lasting damage and most importantly it shouldn’t detract from what is a really positive 21st century tool for access. If nothing else, people are definitely talking about it now!”

James Blythe, OUSU’s Access & Academic Affairs Officer, said “I’m delighted that Cambridge has recognised once again that it can learn so much from Oxford by launching its own version of OxTweet, a fantastic and innovative access project that I was delighted to nominate for an OUSU Student Award. I’m sure all the great access initiatives had their embarrassing moments in the first few weeks: I personally wish our fenland friends all the best.”

Hertford College Access Officer Archie Jones told Cherwell, “Having a sensible and well-meaning project colonised by the forces of pornography is every access officer’s worst nightmare and will certainly be keeping me on my guard in the future. My every sympathy goes to the struggles of our Cambridge neighbours and I am confident that more good than harm will have been done by #CamTweet as was.”

A second year Cambridge student, who wished to remain anonymous, said “Cambridge access have done fantastic work to date and #CambTweet is one example but there is of course more to be done. Hopefully this is another impression that #CambTweet will dispel – that as well as being Old Etonians and geniuses Cambridge students also have to be willing to participate in sex work. Life at Cambridge is stimulating and varied, and, speaking for myself, involves neither as much work nor as much sex as people might think.”

Castle Mill: Grad accommodation under siege

Charlie Wells
-
0
Castle Mill: Grad accommodation under siege

Oxford students and residents have clashed over the upcoming Castle Mill vote by the University Congregation on February 10th, which is considering whether or not to demolish the top floor of the developement.

The vote stems from the continued controversy surrounding the £21.5 million development, consisting of 439 units of graduate accommodation on Roger Dudman Way. The five-storey accommodation blocks are prominently visible from Port Meadow, a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Scheduled Ancient Monument. The vote will be taken by the Congregation, the University’s sovereign body, composed of almost 5,000 administrative and academic staff.

The planning process for the development has been repeatedly criticised. City Council heritage officer Nick Worlledge raised worries in an internal report in January 2012 that the height of the blocks could impact the visual environment around Port Meadow, just a month before planning permission was given.

An independent review, commissioned by Oxford City Council, found that whilst no breach in planning legal procedures had occurred, the consultation process had been inadequate. The Oxfordshire Green Party has also previously called the development a “horrendous blot on our historic landscape”.

OUSU, as well as Oxford’s Vice-Chancellor, has repeatedly criticised the motion to remove the top floor of the blocks – one of the options given by the Independent Environment Assessment. In the first week of Hilary, OUSU agreed to oppose the campaign and on Wednesday 4th February the Council allocated £50 to materials for a demonstration outside the Sheldonian Theatre, where the vote will be taking place on February 10th.

OUSU President Louis Trup has also raised concerns about the current campaign to remove the top floors of Castle Mill in light of the cost, as well as the signifi cant impact it would have on its graduate residents with families. In a reply to a Sunday Times article which emphasised the negative aesthetics of the developement, Trup tweeted the reporter, saying, “Really shoddy Castle Mill article from @JonUngoedThomas in @thesundaytimes – like the campaign, not listening to the students this aff ects”. He continued that he “would have happily explained that ‘option 3’ will negatively impact families, local residents, and grads if only you asked”.

Danny Waldman, the OUSU Rent and Accommodation officer, told Cherwell, “With a Council-set cap of 3,000 students allowed to ‘live out’, University-provided accommodation is clearly vitally needed.” Waldman added, “To drive over 300 students, many with families, into an already-saturated private housing market makes no sense.”

Oxford University’s Head of Government and Community Relations, Margaret Ounsley, emphasised on the University’s website the “social and economic benefits brought to the city” by the development and argued that going with option three was “nearer the everyday reality of doing the right thing.” Ounsley paid tribute to the “neatly run” and “media-savvy” campaign of ‘One Floor Off’ group.

Students from across the University have expressed concern at the estimated £30 million it would cost the University to remove the top floor, as well as provide alternative accommodation.

Wadham SU condemned the action as “absolutely unacceptable” and passed a motion, which stated, “The University should do its best to provide aff ordable accommodation, not spend money tearing it down.” The SU mandated its president to write a letter to all Wadham academics urging them to oppose the motion. Some Wadham students encouraged the University to look at other, cheaper options, which could hide the Castle Mill development such as cladding the buildings or planting trees. Many drew attention to Oxford’s status as the UK’s least affordable city to live in when compared to average local wages, and suggested that this could only worsen the situation.

CherwellTV covered the OUSU protest outside the Sheldonian on February 10th.

Secrets of Venice

Nathan Stazicker
-
0
Secrets of Venice

%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10988%% 

%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10989%% 

%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10990%% 

%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10991%% 

%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10993%% 

Protests at Exeter over OSFL abortion panel event

Alex Doody
-
0
Protests at Exeter over OSFL abortion panel event

Oxford Students for Life held a controversial panel event at Exeter College on Wednesday, attracting protesters from across Oxford University. Around 20 students turned out on the evening of the event to express their opposition to the event taking place in the College. Exeter College refused to cancel the event, however, citing concerns over freedom of speech.

The pro-life event, entitled ‘Pro-life feminism: A panel discussion’ is part of OSFL’s ‘3rd Week focus on pro-life feminism’ and featured a panel of five female speakers discussing why they are both feminist and pro-life. The all-female panel featured a paediatrician, a qualified solicitor, a Rhodes Schola r, a trainee teacher, and a charity fundraiser explaining how they came to support a pro-life stance, and how they find a pro-life ethos to be compatible with their feminism.

The panel was organised after a peer supporter at Exeter booked the College room. Despite calls from some, including students who had themselves had abortions, to have the event cancelled, College offi cials decided to proceed.

A peaceful protest against the event was organised by Alice Nutting and Ella Richards, both English students at the College. The protest’s Facebook event stated that whilst OSFL were entitled to hold the discussion, Exeter College had a duty of care toward students and staff , which includes not making them feel uncomfortable in their home.

Protestors proceeded to gather outside the Saskatchewan Room where the discussion was being held and made paper fl owers with pro-choice statements and expressions of discontent written on them.

Before the event, Alice Nutting told Cherwell, “I’ve organised this protest as I want college to be a safe place for all those who’ve had an abortion – we’re here, we’ve made fl owers and we’re out in solidarity for all those who’ve had to have an abortion. We’ll be asking questions and making our views known.”

Many of the protestors attended the discussion, using the Q&A session to question the pro-life views of the panel. All bar one of the questions asked came from pro-choice protesters.

Ella Richards commented, “We decided to organise the protest because we were really uncomfortable about the prospect of an antiabortion group holding a meeting at a place which is ultimately a home for a lot of people. One in three women in the UK will have an abortion before they are 45; statistically there will be students, staff , and fellows who have been personally aff ected by abortion in some way.”

The event was also attended by many pro-life advocates, including a Sacristan at Pusey House, Guy Jackson, who told Cherwell, “A lot of people seem to assume that being pro-woman means being pro-choice as well. It was refreshing to hear from women who disagree.”

On its website, OSFL claims that it is a nonsectarian group dedicated to “promoting a culture of life at the University and in the wider community, advocating the protection of human life and dignity from conception to natural death”.

The society holds regular pro-life events which have attracted signifi cant attention in the past. Last term, OSFL had planned a debate between historian and writer Timothy Stanley and journalist Brendan O’Neill at Christ Church entitled ‘This House believes Britain’s Abortion Culture Hurts Us All’. After a large protest was organised by OxRevFems, the debate was deemed a “security issue” and ultimately abandoned. O’Neill described the protestors as “the new enemies of free speech”.

After this week’s event, a member of OSFL told Cherwell, “Last night was less about winning arguments than about having a sensitive and responsible discussion of the complex issue of abortion, and we were grateful to the pro-choice audience members who came along and contributed. In their diff erent ways, our five speakers all offered hope that we can build a society which values both women and the unborn.”

Emily Watson, a panel member, told Cherwell, “It’s wonderful to see dialogue being enabled around the important issue of abortion. It’s a serious issue that deserves attention, and a university like Oxford is a great place to discuss why more young people are declaring themselves pro-life.”

However, Richards responded, “We would still have preferred that the discussion was not held in a college and we are pleased that the College is now working out a system so that events like this don’t occur in future.”

A film night was organised by the JCR for students who wanted to avoid the tense atmosphere around the debate. The JCR Executive and Exeter College declined to comment on their decision to allow the booking of the room and the discussion to proceed.

Two anonymous testimonies from Exeter students who have had abortions were submitted to Cherwell. They can be read below:

Person A

I had an abortion whilst in my first year at Exeter. I couldn’t see how this event was in the academic or welfare interests of students; I couldn’t understand why the event had been advertised at other colleges but not at Exeter. I expressed these concerns to College.

The event went ahead. After peacefully protesting outside, I went in to hear their views. The talk began with them stating that the event was not a debate; we were simply to hear the opinions of the pro-life speakers, and there could be questions at the end.

Some what the speakers said was surprising. One speaker spoke of how abortion clinics in the USA “target” people, specifically “Black and Hispanic communities”. When, at the end, I asked how a clinic can “target” someone – does it hunt them down, get them pregnant, and force them to have an abortion? – members of the panel expressed the view that abortion in the USA was introduced as a form of “eugenics” aimed at controlling the Black and Hispanic population, and that the preponderance of abortion clinics in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods today is evidence of that campaign of “black genocide”.

I defend the rights of women to be able to choose abortion. I defend the rights of Pro-Lifers to disagree with me. Sadly, though, the event did very little for free speech, and even less for the Pro-Life cause.

Person B

As someone who had an abortion less than a month ago, I was deeply distressed to find that my own College, who had been made aware of my abortion at the time, decided to allow the event to occur – especially when I, along with others, expressed serious welfare concerns to the College.

We held a peaceful, well-attended protest outside, writing positive, pro-choice feminist messages on origami flowers that talk attendees had to walk past. We then decided to go in and hear the panel’s views on ‘pro-life feminism’.

Expecting discussion based on the concept that life begins at birth, instead the panel said some productive things about improving help for young single mothers, but balanced out any positivity with anecdotal evidence and claims such as: feminists should consider that abortion deprives men of fatherhood; some abortion clinics offer women no other advice and pressure women into abortion; and, moreover, that the panel wished to give women “more options”, but still wanted to abolish abortion.

I found out later that the student from Exeter that booked the room did so believing that it was for a talk on increasing support for single young mothers, which was clearly not what it ended up being. I would have preferred that the talk was not held where I live, sleep and work, and I’m glad that in response a system is now being put in place by College to not allow this to occur again. In the meantime, attending the debate and hearing just how spurious, unfounded and frankly libellous much of what the pro-life speakers said made me have hope that their cause will go no further.

Bali’s Beauty

Emma Snashall
-
0
Bali’s Beauty

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10982%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10983%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10985%%[/mm-hide-text] 

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10986%%[/mm-hide-text] 

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10987%%[/mm-hide-text] 

1...1,2371,2381,239...2,507Page 1,238 of 2,507

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