Sunday, May 25, 2025
Blog Page 130

Multiple subjects to introduce typed exams

0

The University has recently confirmed that multiple Preliminary Exams and Finals will be assessed as in-person, computer based exams in 2023/24. These include English, Classics, Biochemistry, Theology, and the MBA. Preliminary exams “across a number of subjects” and “several Social Sciences Division and Humanities MPhils” will also be typed. 

For English, students were made aware of this decision in October 2023 ahead of the May 2024 exams cycle. This is a result of an English Faculty decision, the discussion of which started when the possibility of typed exams was raised in the JCC meeting in May 2023.

The University has stated that the decision to move exams online (in-person) has come “following a successful launch involving more than 6,000 exam sittings in 2022/23, the University has extended invigilated, typed exams to a wider range of subjects. The exams reflect the experience of most students who now type essays and other submissions, and also provide more legible scripts for assessors.” 

Previous typed exam sittings involved 1,903 individual candidates and 22 exam boards, including Politics, Philosophy, Medicine and Geography (Preliminary exams).

The University has apologised that this information was not circulated earlier. While they have outlined that the exams will be  invigilated “closed book” exams, and that students are able to book one-hour orientations to practice typed tests, current students are still raising concerns over the implementation of this new measure.

English Finalist from St Hugh’s College, Lucy Phillips, told Cherwell that the decision “just seems really poorly planned, as though we were an afterthought. They neglected to tell us something that will be potentially catastrophic for many students’ Finals experience. Whilst the faculty email only came out this week, many more ‘prestigious’ colleges found out from their tutors earlier in the term, which sets an unequal playing field ahead of exams.”

She added: “This decision also disproportionately impacts state school students such as myself who oftentimes have less developed touch typing skills than their peers.” In response, the University told Cherwell that students can apply for an exam adjustment if typing is difficult or impossible for them.

Phillips further reflected on the shift from traditionally handwritten to typed exams, stating: “I also worry about the preservation of handwriting as a craft – surely the Oxford English course … would want to maintain this historic practice?”

The English Faculty have been made aware of these concerns and have released FAQs for timed exams in English in hopes to reduce apprehension over the year.

BAME students constitute majority of UK applicants to Oxford for first time

0

New data from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Services (UCAS) has revealed that, for the first time, UK applicants from ethnic minority backgrounds have outnumbered white applicants to ‘highly competitive courses’ at UK universities. These include courses offered by the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, as well as medicine, dentistry, and veterinary degrees, all of which have an early application deadline in October instead of the regular January deadline.

For the 2023-24 application cycle, 50.8% of the 51,890 UK applicants to these courses were BAME students, a noticeable increase compared to the previous year (49.3%) and significantly higher than the corresponding proportion in 2015 (32.1%). By contrast, the number of white applicants from the UK fell to 25,530 this year, the lowest such figure in over ten years.

Moreover, this year marked a record high in the number of 18-year-old applicants from the most deprived regions in the UK, with 3,160 applications made to Oxbridge and medical degrees, which constitutes a 7% increase compared to last year and is over twice the corresponding figure in 2017. 

Although applications from disadvantaged students have increased at a greater rate than those of students from the wealthiest areas, the latter are still much more likely to apply to highly competitive courses. 

Dr Mark Corver, managing director of dataHE, a higher education data analytics firm, told The Telegraph: “The profile of applications to these courses remains highly skewed, with 9.2% of young people in richer neighbourhoods applying, compared to 2.2% in poorer areas, but this gap does not seem to be widening this year.”

These findings coincide with the introduction of new outreach initiatives at Oxford, including the Astrophoria Foundation Year programme, which welcomed its inaugural cohort of students this year. The programme provides an opportunity for academically talented students who have experienced significant disadvantage or disruption during their education to obtain an undergraduate degree from the University, following a foundation year designed to bridge the gap between sixth form and undergraduate study.

Decline and fall: How They Broke Britain by James O’Brien – review

0

National decline is a difficult thing to prove, because at every point in history there have been those who idealise the good old days and lament the way the world is going. This is especially true in Britain. In the 1540s, East Anglian peasants under Robert Kett revolted because food prices were no longer what they had been. In the eighteenth century, especially after the territorial gains of the Seven Years’ War, there was a widespread bitterness that the country had branched off from its constitutional roots; and against this background the historian Gibbon wrote his six-volume Decline and Fall. In the first half of the twentieth century, the death of Empire occasioned a similar feeling that the nation’s identity and power had somehow collapsed. By the 1970s Britain was the “sick man of Europe”. 

Today, in the wake of Brexit, Britain is once again broken – so argues commentator James O’Brien in his new book, How They Broke Britain.

In writing this history of especially the last thirteen years, O’Brien seems to have modified Carlyle’s famous dictum: “History is but the biography of nasty men and a woman”. Ten chapters detail the ten nasty men and women whom he holds responsible for the decline in the economy, the media and politics. And, significantly, all of his points are packed with enough evidence and examples to show that the decline is provable and measurable.

In terms of the economy, O’Brien deconstructs the links between various free-market thinktanks, Murdoch-owned journalists, and government policymakers which have led to decline. Austerity programmes since 2010 reduced the annual rate of increase for public spending, which not only meant that transport, health, and social care services became weak from undernourishment, but that they eventually buckled under the COVID crisis. Brexit, which made us the “first country to impose economic sanctions on itself”, only added to government debt. Then an estimated £30 billion was flushed away by Liz Truss’s mini budget. 

O’Brien’s revelations about the Murdoch-owned media and the Daily Mail under Paul Dacre certainly deserve to be public knowledge. He demonstrates several links, some of which date back to the Thatcher era, between the interests of the Murdoch press and Conservative Party policy. The way in which ideological and commercial agendas are set above the truth is frankly disgusting. All of the blame for absolutely anything is shifted away from the lawmakers responsible and onto a giant conspiracy made up of immigrants, lefties and ‘remoaners’. When O’Brien compares the Mail’s anti-immigrant headlines of the 1930s to its almost identical ones of today, the whole thing becomes downright depressing.

The chapter on Boris Johnson is a dossier of corruption and amorality, which should be read by anyone who still believes that Alexander Boris de Pfeffel was fit for office. The real highlight, though, is the section on Nigel Farage. There is nothing O’Brien does better than pick apart the lies and prejudices of that man. He sees him for what he is: a cartoon villain whom everyone took way too seriously. The flashbacks to Farage’s schooldays, to his later “assassination attempt” in France, and to his constant pandering to bigotry, are related with a blend of comic irony and genuine concern at the fact that this man was allowed so much influence over British politics. He is, after all, responsible for what O’Brien calls the “Faragification” of the Tory Party; its increasing appeal to the far-right.

O’Brien, a man of the Left, is not a one-note pigeon, and he lays into Jeremy Corbyn as fiercely as into any one of the right-wing conspirators. And, even aside from the ten people who get their own chapters, the smaller fry is not spared either, whether political bullies like Dominic Raab or hatemongers like Douglas Murray. 

The saddest thing about this story of national decline is that none of the right people will ever read it. There will remain those who believe that austerity was the right decision after Labour “maxed out our credit card”; who continue to harp on about Brexit benefits; and who say Liz Truss really had the right ideas but was brought down by the “left-wing establishment”. 

The journalists, think-tankers and politicians who broke Britain have all delegated the blame for it onto the “wokerati”. To these people – all of them right-wing, and most of them Tory – I would put only one question. O’Brien does not specifically ask it. Nonetheless it is an important one to raise. The question is: Given that wokery came about on the Tory Party’s watch, how can they seriously fight an election on an anti-woke platform? I once asked this of a Conservative MP who was giving a talk at my college. He couldn’t give an answer. 

The real answer is that wokery is the merest deflection. It is a scapegoat for these people’s own failures. Yet the myth of the woke mob has eagerly been assimilated by the readers of the Murdoch Press, who now feel threatened if schoolchildren are told about Mary Seacole as well as Florence Nightingale, or if library books now contain the kinds of trigger-warning labels that used to be on DVD cases. 

Another recent book that How They Broke Britain is worth comparing to – briefly – is Nadine Dorries’ The Plot: The Political Assassination of Boris Johnson, which is being serialised in the Daily Mail. This masterwork of political analysis is less remarkable for any actual points it makes than for explaining what the author was up to for the three months it took her to resign from Parliament “with immediate effect”. Dorries’ thesis, of course, is bound to be swallowed by the sorts of people who will read it. I can already see the Mail subscribers flocking to tell their friends that they know “what’s really going on” in politics.

At first glance, Dorries and O’Brien seem to be writing on two sides of the same coin. Their titles both have an air of conspiracy theory, and they both seek to blame one quarter for most of the country’s political decline. There are, however, two essential differences between them. 

First is that fact that O’Brien uses verifiable evidence to support all of his claims, whereas Dorries relies cryptically on a sort of ‘insider knowledge’, and refers to the key puppet-masters only by pseudonyms like ‘Dr No’. 

Then there is Dorries’ underlying assumption that everyone was in it together, that the coup against Johnson was perfectly coordinated and agreed on by everyone involved. O’Brien suffers from no such persecution mania. He has the sense to see that it was not one grand master conspiracy, but that Britain was broken “sometimes by design” and “sometimes by incompetence”.

These may seem like small distinctions, but together they are all the difference between a conspiracy nut and a serious polemicist. As for O’Brien’s book: it is excellent. It is true that the most diehard Brexiteers, Tories, Corbynites and the right-wing press are sure to revile it. O’Brien does not write as well as he speaks on the radio; but that is largely because he speaks so well. He remains unmatched among modern broadcasters for impassioned analysis, biting irony, heartfelt sympathy and sheer rhetorical flourish. His trademark warmth, lucidity and wit – and above all his power to call an idiot an idiot – make How They Broke Britain immensely readable.

The French left: its own worst enemy?

0

For as long as the left has existed, leftist infighting has existed with it. The task of achieving social progress is no mean feat. It requires clear goals founded upon clear values, organisation and above all political unity. 

To say that the French left has a political unity problem would be an understatement. On the 17th of October 2023, the French Parti Socialiste (Socialist Party) suspended its membership of NUPES, the broad left-wing opposition alliance, after Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the leader of the alliance’s largest party, refused to refer to Hamas’ recent attacks against civilians in Israel as “terrorism”. Mélenchon, the leader of La France Insoumise (France Unbowed) said that his position had been misrepresented. He condemns Hamas, but considers their recent actions to be war crimes, and not terrorist attacks. The Socialist Party, on the other hand, was unequivocal in their statement, which “unreservedly” condemned “Hamas’ terrorist attack against Israel”. After the fallout, Mélenchon and the Socialist Party leader, Olivier Faure, accused one another of sowing division. Mélenchon blamed Faure for “splitting up” the left-wing alliance, claiming that the Hamas controversy was merely a convenient pretext for the Socialist Party’s withdrawal. Faure, on the other hand, said that Mélenchon had become an “obstacle” to the alliance, and called for “radical change” in the organisation of the French left. Faure is not alone in this view. Former Green presidential candidate, Yannick Jadot, has called for his party, Les Écologistes (The Ecologists), to suspend its partnership with NUPES. Le Parti Communiste Français (French Communist Party) has recently adopted a resolution condemning the “hegemonic will” of France Unbowed within the alliance, and calling for a “new type of union” on the left. The perception that the French left has a Mélenchon problem is now fairly widespread. “We cannot work with someone who decides everything for everyone”, said Socialist Party politician Johann Cesa. “What the French people want […] is for us to put forward a common programme, with a single candidate [for the presidency] in 2027.” Mélenchon may be the most recognisable figure on the French left, having come third in the 2022 presidential race, but he is no longer seen by his alliance partners as a unifying figure. If “radical change” in the left alliance comes to pass, it is possible that another figure will emerge as the left’s candidate for the next presidential election. 

Just over a year on from its founding, NUPES appears to be on the brink of collapse. Arguably, its unity has been fractured from the very beginning. Founded in 2022 to contest the June legislative elections, NUPES brought together France’s main left-wing parties. These parties became deeply divided following the political realignment effected by the victory of Emmanuel Macron’s centrist En Marche! party in 2017. By 2022, the Socialist Party, a former titan of French politics, was relegated to tenth place in the first round of the presidential race. The left-wing vote was split between six candidates, which, if consolidated into one, would have won the first round, preventing the far-right Marine Le Pen from contesting the presidency in the second round. Something had to change. Mélenchon took the initiative and entered into talks with other left-wing parties to find a common platform on which to fight the upcoming legislative elections. Their main points of alignment were:

  • A reduction in the retirement age from 62 to 60
  • A raise in the minimum wage to €1,500
  • The reintroduction on wealth taxes
  • A freeze in the price of essential goods
  • The creation of a million jobs

However, this offer did not appeal to the French people enough to secure the parliamentary majority which the alliance had hoped for. NUPES candidates won 131 of the National Assembly’s 577 seats, far behind Macron’s party, which was able to form a government through an alliance with other centrist and conservative parties. At this time, NUPES’s tensions were already beginning to show. Mélenchon had proposed that the newly elected NUPES MPs should form a fully fledged parliamentary group, but was shot down by the junior parties in his alliance, who stressed the importance of a “plural” left. 

Controversy struck again later that year, when the France Insoumise national co-ordinator and MP, Adrien Quatennens, was accused of domestic abuse by his wife. He was not expelled from the party and Mélenchon initially rushed to his defence. Junior NUPES parties vocally protested this decision, expressing support for Quatennens’ wife. Some pointed out that if one of their number had been in the same position, they would have been suspended from the party.

Suspicion of Mélenchon’s party has run deep within the alliance since its inception. A 2022 poll indicated that 51% of Socialist Party supporters and 43% of Écologistes supporters considered France Insoumise to be “dangerous for democracy”. The same poll found that a majority of Socialist Party supporters disapprove of the way France Insoumise conducts itself in parliament, and find its views “too radical”. Although NUPES seemed to converge in the fight against Macron’s plan to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64, their strategy was not coherent. Communists sought to vote on the bill as soon as possible, in the hopes that it would fail, whilst the other parties flooded the floor with amendments, aiming to avoid a vote and build momentum among protestors. Mélenchon openly criticised the Communist Party during this process, further alienating his NUPES partner and laying bare the internal division plaguing the alliance. Despite a mass protest movement against Macron’s plans, NUPES was unable to prevent the bill’s passage and to gain the political initiative. Opinion polls show no significant rise in support for the alliance in the wake of the protests, despite a marked decline in Macron’s popularity.


It is clear, then, that the recent Socialist-NUPES split is a symptom of historical division, infighting, and political failure. Whether the Hamas controversy was the last straw, or simply a convenient excuse for the Socialist Party, is largely unimportant. What matters is how the dust will settle. Mélenchon, a veteran of the French left, doubtless sees himself as the natural rallying point for progressives in the next election cycle. But the animosity which has grown between him and the other left-wing parties has cast doubt on this order. A left-wing alliance that can pose a real threat to the centre and the far-right must succeed first in making all its parties feel like valued contributors to its goals and strategy. It must shun the curse of leftist infighting and stand united around a clear, popular political project. Currently, French law prevents Macron from running for re-election in 2027. In fact, he has recently indicated that he will step away from politics altogether after the end of his second presidential term. This could be the opening the left needs to climb their way to the presidency, provided they rally around a figure who is not an “obstacle”, but a lightning rod for progressive energy.

ASEAN Secretary-General gives lecture in anticipation of Oxford Southeast Asian Institute

0

The Secretary-General of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Dr Kao Kim Hourn, addressed a group of students and academics at an event that took place in the Divinity School at the beginning of November. The event was organised by the Oxford School of Global and Area Studies (OSGA) and was also attended by UK Ambassador to ASEAN, Sarah Tiffin.

Kao’s lecture, entitled “The Future of ASEAN: Challenges and Opportunities Beyond 2025”, outlined upcoming ASEAN initiatives, spoke on the future of the UK-ASEAN partnership, and reaffirmed the commitment of the bloc to collaborative decision-making. It also celebrated Kao’s appointment as an Honourable Member of the International Advisory Board of the Institute of ASEAN Studies.

Kao’s invitation to speak at Oxford is the latest in a list of public figures from the region who have spoken in anticipation of the establishment of the ASEAN Institute. In an article on the event, OSGA clarified the terms of Kao’s appointment at the request of Cherwell, stating that Kao will sit on this advisory board once the ASEAN Institute is established. No members have yet been publicly appointed to this board, aside from Kao.

An undergraduate student in attendance at the event expressed their disappointment at Kao’s failure to address the devolving state of democracy in Myanmar, following the imprisonment of Aung San Suu Kyi after the country’s 2020 general election. The student told Cherwell that: “[Kao] definitely glossed over a lot of the deeper strains in ASEAN, and only got around to addressing the situation in Myanmar following a question on the subject from an audience member.”

The Institute, which will run as a part of the OSGA, was announced to great fanfare in 2018 at an event attended by HRH Sultan Nazrin Shah, the Deputy King of Malaysia. The mission statement for the Institute announced that six associate professorships were to be established under it, and that its research areas would span the sustainable development, politics, culture, and history of Southeast Asia. The statement also predicted that the foundation of the ASEAN Institute would “create research and teaching opportunities to be shared across several departments.”

Although five years have passed since this announcement, there are still no full-time faculty-members at the ASEAN Institute – which is alternatively referred to as the Institute for Southeast Asian Studies – and the OSGA have not released any timeline for its full establishment publicly. When approached for comment on this by Cherwell, OSGA gave no indication as to when the institute will be established.

Stagecoach reveals poppy themed Oxford Tube

0

Stagecoach West has unveiled a new, poppy-themed Oxford Tube coach ahead of Remembrance Day. The coach forms part of Stagecoach’s nationwide campaign to raise awareness and money for the Royal British Legion’s Poppy appeal. The new coach will become part of the permanent Oxford Tube fleet, transporting passengers between Oxford and London.

Stagecoach Chief Operating Officer, Sam Greer, said: “Remembrance Day and the Poppy Appeal are causes close to the hearts of many of our employees and customers and we are very pleased to be making this commitment that will hopefully help people to attend memorials across the UK.”

Stagecoach’s efforts have been supported by the Veterans Network; an organization committed to allowing veterans working within Stagecoach to advocate for positive change. Since 2015, Stagecoach has offered free transport to members of the armed forces, past and present, on Remembrance Day and Armed Forces Day in support of Britain’s armed forces community. Stagecoach West’s managing director Rachel Geliamassi said, “Many of our employees have served or have friends or family members with a connection to the armed forces, so it’s really important we show our support.”

As a member of the Armed Forces Covenant, Stagecoach has been keen to recognise the work and sacrifice of servicemen and women publicly. Sam Berkson, National Account Manager for Defence Relationship Management has thanked Stagecoach for their support, “It is clear that Stagecoach recognises the benefits of being a Forces-friendly employer and I look forward to their continued support for Defence and advocacy for its people.”

Stagecoach recently earned the silver award as part of the Defence Employer Recognition Scheme in honour of the company’s work done with veterans and the wider armed forces community.  Such work has included the recruitment of those leaving the forces and continued support given to employees serving as reservists or volunteering as Cadet leaders. As a result, Stagecoach has been marked out as one of the top 100 employers of veterans.

Hundreds gather at vigil for peace organised by Oxford community leaders

0

Several hundred attendees attended a vigil for peace on Broad Street last Sunday evening in light of ongoing violence in Israel and Gaza. Local community leaders organised the gathering to share comforting words and observe a moment of silence. The gathering condemned violence from both sides of the conflict.

The vigil was attended by University Vice-Chancellor Irene Tracy, as well as representatives from the city and county, elected MPs, and faith leaders representing Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, and Buddhist communities. The crowd included councillors on Oxford City Council who resigned from the Labour party last week after Party leader Keir Starmer appeared to suggest that Israel has “the right” to withhold energy and water from Gaza. 

Imam Monawar Hussain, who co-organised the event alongside the Bishop of Oxford Rt. Rev. Dr Steven Croft, told Cherwell that its purpose was to “get faith and community leaders together so we can have one voice that promotes understanding, love, and peace in our community.”

“People are looking for opportunities to come together in a way which stands for peace and doesn’t take one side or another,” Croft told Cherwell. “It’s been very helpful to the people who have to process so many different images on screens over the last few weeks to actually come together in-person.” 

President of the Oxford Jewish Congregation, Martin Goodman, said in a statement: “We join this call for all in our county to come together to assert, in the face of the terrible events in Israel and Palestine, our shared determination to preserve the strong friendship between our communities in Oxfordshire which has been built up over so many years.”

An Oxford resident and member of the local Jewish community told Cherwell: “Our best hope for peace [is] nonviolence, not taking sides, and acknowledgement of each other’s suffering.”

Is art a form of political propaganda?

Art has been employed throughout history as a political tool to propagate ideas of power and ideology and challenge them. However, art is a medium for political discourse rather than an all-encompassing feature. To understand political art we have to assess the different intentions behind various artworks: the context art was produced, who by and the purpose it served.

Art was a political tool used by individuals or institutions to assert their power and ideologies. For example, the baths of Caracalla (AD 212/11–216/17) acted as a symbol of power and reputation reflective of the emperors Septimus Severus and Caracalla, the state and the might of Rome.[1] Its deliberate architectural design and iconographic choices–such as the colossal monolithic columns, imperial insignia, military scenes and material allusions to the empire–contributed to a standardised visual language of art and architecture correspondent with the centralised aims of the empire and its leader.[2]

Similarly, Elizabethan royal portraiture became a political tool to assert Tudor power by diminishing criticism surrounding the queen regarding marriage, succession and legitimacy claims. In 1594, royal portraiture assumed a ‘Mask of Youth’ developed under the supervision of Nicholas Hilliard.[3] The idea was to promote an immortal image of Elizabeth I aiming to resolve her accountability by shifting focus towards her strength as monarch rather than the flaw in her rule.[4] The Hardwick portrait (c. 1590–99) is the perfect example. The magnificence of Elizabeth’s dress and jewels highlighted the glory of the nation, pearls symbolised her innocence and virtue and the noticeable red and white flowers in the background invoked the Tudor Standard.[5]

Let us consider how art asserts institutional power and ideology. During World War II,  the proliferation of anti-Fascist ideology coincided with the systemisation of coherent information and propaganda by the American Office of War Information in the 1930s and 1940s.[6] Leo Rosen wanted to illuminate the brutality and war crimes of the Axis powers–Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan–through his 1943 exhibition, “Nature of the Enemy.”[7] Rosen placed sculptures outside the Rockefeller Centre in New York reimagining America under Nazi rule, juxtaposing Fascist values as the antithesis of American values and norms.[8]

This was an ironic display considering the systemic/systematic racism and prejudice which prevailed in the United States during this period. However, efforts made by the American government to diminish social and political antagonisms–race, gender, class, religion and ethnicity–by counterimaging Nazi diatribes against minority groups suited their democratic aspirations.[9] These efforts can be seen in posters like “United We Win” (1942) depicting a black soldier working alongside a white soldier to give the illusion of racial harmony with the image of the flag behind them acting as an assertion of patriotism.[10] Here art walks a fine line between propaganda and censorship.

Not all art served a political purpose in its pictorial form but in its material form. The patronage and collection of art became a method to assert power among local and international social or political hierarchies. The Hermitage of Catherine the Great was a tool to showcase Russia as a civilised and pseudo-democratic society to the rest of Europe despite its autocratic rule.[11] Catherine was inspired by her husband and predecessor, Peter the Great, to collect art but she maintained a disinterest in it until much later in life[12] They simply borrowed the idea from Louis XVI, who similarly fabricated his image as the enlightened ‘Sun King’ to present the French monarchy in a more favourable light.[13]

Catherine’s efforts were effective as the foreign visitors who attended Hermitage assemblies left Russia with an improved image of it as a civilised and enlightened place, propagating positive Catherinian myth-making.[14] We see similar parallels elsewhere in the Elizabethan royal court in which subjects wore images of the monarch to promote her political image and signal their loyalty to her;[15] or in Nazi Germany where it has been suggested art collections served as a reflection of political standing.[16] Art was ascribed political importance based on its material worth instead of its subject.

Art and architecture have been used throughout history to convey political thought and assert power and ideology. Art absent of political ideology was still valuable in its physical form, used by individuals and group organisations as a system of asserting power through a hierarchical structure of cultural elitism. Art has always served as a form of political propaganda.


[1] Maryl B. Gensheimer, Decoration and Display in Rome’s Imperial Thermae (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 145.

[2] Gensheimer, Rome’s Imperial Thermae, 114.

[3] Amy Moore, “‘The Cult of Gloriana’ and the challenges it faced.” Vides 5 (2017): 63. https://www.conted.ox.ac.uk/mnt/attachments/vides_2017.pdf.

[4] Moore, “‘The Cult of Gloriana’,” 63.

[5] Moore, “‘The Cult of Gloriana’,” 64.

[6] Decker, Christof, “Imaging Axis Terror: War Propaganda and the 1943 “The Nature of the Enemy” Exhibition at Rockefeller Center,” Amerikastudien/American Studies 65, no. 1 (2020): 86. https://doi.org/10.33675/AMST/2020/1/8.

[7] Decker, “Imaging Axis Terror,” 86-7.

[8] Decker, “Imaging Axis Terror,” 92.

[9] George H. Roeder, The Censored War: American Visual Experience During World War Two (New Haven; London, 1993), 154.

[10] Roeder, The Censored War, 76.

[11] Katia Dianina, “Art and Authority: The Hermitage of Catherine the Great,” The Russian Review 63, no. 4 (2004): 632. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3663984.

[12] Dianina, “The Hermitage of Catherine the Great,” 632-33; 635; 638.

[13] Dianina, “The Hermitage of Catherine the Great,” 632-33; 635.

[14] Dianina, “The Hermitage of Catherine the Great,” 252.

[15] See Moore, “‘The Cult of Gloriana’,” 64.

[16] Petropoulos, Jonathan, Art as Politics in the Third Reich (Chapel Hill; London: University of North Carolina Press, 1996), 5.

World Cups – On-Field Festivals, Off-Field Frustrations

0

World Cups are the highlight of many a sporting fan’s calendar, sporting festivals that are exceptional global adverts for their respective games. In recent times we have been blessed with two fantastic tournaments in the sporting world, the ICC Cricket World Cup in India, and the Rugby World Cup in France, which are rumoured to have viewing figures of 2.6 Billion and 850 Million people respectively. A few weeks ago I found myself in an Irish Bar in the centre of Madrid, full of South African, English, Irish and Spanish fans enjoying a tightly fought semi-final broadcast from the Stade de France. World Cups are truly global events.

On the field these tournaments are packed full of exceptional performances, thrilling encounters and shocking upsets; the types of moments that become etched into the folklores of the two games. In India, we have already seen Afghanistan’s triumph over the holders England, Glen Maxwell’s 40-Ball Hundred, the Netherlands upsetting South Africa again and the imperious dominance of Virat Kohli in India’s batting lineup. In France, the quarter-finals produced some of the most thrilling contests imaginable, as Argentina dispatched Wales, the All Blacks toppled top-ranked Ireland, and the Springboks sent the hosts out of the tournament by a single point. Portugal achieved their first RWC victory over Fiji in the group stage, and the final proved to be a tense affair crowning South Africans as the most decorated nation in RWC history. However, whilst fans have been treated to these exceptional moments and matches that inspire and build the games, off the field these tournaments have had a tendency to leave something to be desired. 

The rugby has largely been a storming success. Aside from issues with ticketed entry to games at the opening weekend in Paris and Marseille, which caused complaints from fans unable to reach their seats, the organisers have been quick to respond to any early issues. The stadiums have been healthily packed out for all the games by neutrals and partisan fans alike, creating a mood around the tournament of a great adoration and celebration of the game, which is exactly what a world cup should be. It is a game’s biggest marketing tool, a festival of that specific sport, and that has been the sentiment emerging from France this autumn. World Rugby have provided a fantastic fan experience, and will be confident of the growth the game will experience in the aftermath of the tournament, especially in countries such as Portugal. 

The criticism levied has been down to the clampdown on sharing highlights and clips off the official channels, a result of strict licensing and broadcasting agreements. Referee Wayne Barnes had a post taken down on X showing a humorous moment from a match he officiated, and viewers in France can’t access highlights on YouTube. How can the game reach new and keen to learn fans when its viewership is being actively restricted? Planet Rugby lamented that “This video is not available in your location” and “This media has been disabled in response to a report by the copyright owner” are two quotes that will live in the memory of fans who tuned in for this World Cup.”

In India, off-field the tournament has attracted a substantial amount of criticism around ground quality, empty stadiums, ticketing issues and more. Despite being an ICC tournament, the world cup is managed day-to-day by the host nation, and the BCCI (Board of Control for Cricket in India), the most powerful national governing body in world cricket. The opening game of this tournament was between the finalists of 2019’s exceptional tournament, England and New Zealand, in the Modi stadium in Ahmedabad, and it immediately gave us a sign of what has become a major talking point amongst fans. Where are the crowds? 

Admittedly, this game was played in an extraordinary 132,000 capacity venue, which meant even the record 40,000 reputed tickets sold for a tournament opener would struggle to hide the vast empty swathes of the stadium. But it created a game devoid of the incredible crowd atmosphere so often associated with cricket in India. Around the country, in considerably smaller capacity stadiums, it has become an unfortunately and underwhelmingly common theme; if India aren’t playing, the crowd isn’t there in force. 

There are a number of contributing factors here. Firstly, it is generally understood that Indian fans are rarely ‘cricket fans’ but rather Indian cricket fans, meaning a game between neutrals won’t attract the same levels of interest from home fans. This is not a rule of thumb, and there are exceptions such as the England vs Afghanistan game, but it has generally held true. Additionally, the start time of 2pm does make it difficult for locals to attend games until the working day is over. Ticketing issues have also hurt the event, with complaints of websites showing the exorbitant tickets to be sold out, but stands remaining vacant. Furthermore, the release of fixtures only 2 months before and tickets 6 weeks prior to the start of the tournament has made it difficult for home and away supporters to plan their attendance, something BCCI officials have recognised to be a huge mistake. On arrival in India, some fans have had to travel across different cities to collect their tickets.  

Visas have also been hard to come by, a problem most clearly seen for Pakistan’s fans, left largely unable to be part of the world record 132,000 crowd at the India vs Pakistan game due to ongoing political tensions, which meant the crowd was incredibly one-sided beyond what could be deemed “home advantage”. And inside these empty stadiums, the quality of the grounds has left a lot to be desired. Dharamsala’s outfield has been so poor to the point of dangerous for the players, and the pitches offer some one-sided matches. 

Whilst it is the players who put on the shows we remember, it is the organisers who curate the experience. If these are to be festivals of sport then fans at the venues and around the world should be treated to the best possible experience, which would certainly serve as a positive force for growing the games worldwide. World Cups live long in the memory, and these two tournaments should offer many lessons in the Do’s and Don’ts of these global events. If future hosts can successfully offer the best to both players and fans, then we will be treated to some very special World Cups. 

A care leaver’s note on Oxford’s whacky traditions

0

This week is National Care Leavers Week. The act of dedicating a week to raise awareness for a cause is a PR strategy as old as this university. Now, barely a calendar date can pass  by without a charity demanding attention. So if this landmark passes you by, you’ll be forgiven. However, there comes a point where awareness weeks shift from a PR campaign to a tradition. 

The word tradition literally means the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation. Now in its 21st year, Care Leavers Week has finally reached the point where it has crossed generations and become a tradition. Every year, during the October holidays, the country is asked to give attention to those who grew up in the state’s care. To celebrate their achievements. To amplify their voices. To raise awareness of their challenges. But this is not one we should be proud of and not one I will pass down to my children. This got me thinking: are traditions important? 

This university is famous for its whacky, arcane traditions, from setting clocks wrong to swearing not to light a fire in the Bodleian library. Last week, I saw one of the most public Oxford rituals: matriculation. The ceremony that confers a student’s place here. An induction into the family. Acceptance into this strange world. 

But traditions scare me. I’ve never really experienced them in the way most people have. In the care system, we don’t have any family traditions, let alone any school ones. I didn’t receive a birthday cake until I left the system, and I won’t horrify you with our Christmases. So, when I got an email from the university demanding I participate in this one, every rebel bone in my body was triggered. 

My gut reaction was to run away. To convince myself that this was some outdated, posh rhubarb that didn’t need me. The truth was, I was scared. To take part in a tradition, you must feel part of the thing that is being celebrated. That’s a feeling I’m not used to. Care leavers are used to being ignored, overlooked, and demeaned. By definition, we’re not usually seen as ‘part of the family’. We’re used to broken promises from institutions. Scars like that are hard to heal. 

Some say the Oxford traditions go against everything we have learned about being progressive, productive, creative, and innovative, and they are just not inclusive. But is that really the case? 

Traditions form a collective identity. They touch us, connect us, expand us. As much as I hated being paraded down the street in a silly hat, gown, and white bow tie, for once, I felt included. 

The moment when the Sheldonian Theatre was filled with black and white TV static was unique. For that moment, all the differences in background, area of study, interests, or personalities no longer mattered. At that moment, as the static froze and the Latin was spoken, we were all the same. We were unified in the collective experience of officially becoming students at the University of Oxford. Finally, I felt part of something. 

Are traditions important? I come from a world where traditions didn’t happen, leaving my life as unstable as a Mento in a Coke bottle. But as Oxford opens up to more people from diverse and low-income backgrounds, they will be touchstones that make us feel part of the university. They give us permission to be part of something. 

Image credit: Paul Chapman / CC BY-SA 2.0 DEED via Geograph.