Friday 10th April 2026
Blog Page 134

For good free speech: Listen

Conor Walsh
-
0
For good free speech: Listen

Wherever you turn to in Oxford, the words ‘free speech’ or ‘freedom of expression’ never seem too far away. Following the disbandment of Oxford Action for Palestine (OA4P)’s encampment and the revision of university-wide free speech guidelines, you’d be forgiven for being cautious about what you say, or more prudently, don’t say, on university grounds. Nonetheless, free speech is an integral part of democracy. And as intellectual power-houses, encompassing diverse student bodies who are often politically organised and politically motivated, universities are at the heart of free speech and social justice. If you can’t speak freely on a university campus, all hope seems lost.

During her annual Oration, the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Irene Tracey, announced plans for the ‘Sheldonian Series’. This new, termly event seeks to explore “the big questions of our age,” representing a variety of views from across academia. The discussions will be guided by the ‘Free Speech Tips’ devised by students and staff at Worcester College, as well as Heads of Houses from Balliol, Brasenose, Mansfield and Somerville, and hope to tackle difficult or otherwise controversial topics. The tips provide guidance on organising and orchestrating controversial events, upholding the right to disagree, and the importance of “respect for the individual.” Yet they’re only the tip of the iceberg – if you’ll pardon the pun – when it comes to fostering inclusive, civil debate. In a time of heated, geo-political tensions – a world shrouded in war, violence and humanitarian crises – it seems almost impossible to reconcile humanity’s deep-rooted, complex divisions. “Free and inclusive speech” requires balancing freedom of intellectual exploration with respect for all identities and beliefs. But in 2024, the ability to hold a conversation about Gaza, trans rights or reparations for slavery in which everyone feels equally heard and free to speak is but a naive dream. Such polite disagreement is more akin to a utopian vision than an achievable reality.

Like much of our political language, free speech finds its origins in ancient Greece, arising from two, quite distinct concepts. The first, isegoria, refers to the idea of equal speech in public, as practised in parliamentary chambers. Whilst the second, parrhesia, is about speaking freely and frankly: think die-hard Trump supporters. Over time these two concepts converged to denote what we now call freedom of speech. But there is a tension here between these differing terms: the former expresses equality, whilst the latter is concerned with liberty. This tension between liberty and equality is as clear today as it was in ancient Greece. As seen in its origins, what we often think of as freedom of speech can have different, nuanced and misconstrued meanings. Much like an elephant and a squirrel on a seesaw, balancing freedom of expression with respect and sensitivity is impossibly problematic.

Last week I attended a talk with Lord William Hague. The former foreign secretary was grilled on countless topics, including everything from war in Ukraine and the failings of the UN, to the future of the UK Conservative party and his bid to become the next Chancellor of the University. Amongst the many interesting insights made by Lord Hague was a comment on the tensions surrounding free speech. In reply to a question about freedom of expression on campus, he remarked that: “listening to views that make you uncomfortable is one of the most important parts of education.” 

Lord Hague’s comment has been rattling around my head for the past week, leading to the dawning realisation that, perhaps, we have been taking the wrong approach to freedom of speech all along. The impossibility of reconciling freedom of expression with respect and sensitivity seems less intimidating when we shift our attention from speaking to listening.

When it comes to freedom of speech, we’re so obsessed with being heard that we often forget to listen. Whilst liberty and equality of expression are naturally important, polite disagreement can only work if it consists of a dialogue as opposed to a one-sided speech or lecture. In times of heated divisions, especially when our personal ideologies are at stake, we can get lost in the heat of the moment. We can focus so intensely on getting our point across, on being heard, that we’re oblivious to the arguments and thoughts on the other end of the spectrum, or the other side of the debate. For all our good intentions, we end up talking past each other instead of to each other. We must ask ourselves, if we so long for freedom of speech, for polite conversation and civil discourse, shouldn’t that involve listening as much as speaking?

If done correctly, the Sheldonian Series might enable conflicting and potentially polarising views to be expressed respectfully in a publicly accessible forum. But, more fundamentally, the series can provide an opportunity for varying opinions to be heard as well as expressed. Specific details about what we should expect of the series — how it is to be orchestrated, the speakers it will invite and the views it will represent — are yet to be established. But the Vice-Chancellor’s endorsement of the ‘Free Speech Tips’ is crucial. Whilst listening is not the primary concern of the tips, they do well to highlight that speakers should be “listened to in good faith”. No guidance on free speech can ever be perfect, but the principle that attendees should “respect the speaker’s right to speak and agree to allow them to be heard” is an important point. If we wish to talk to one another instead of talking past one another, listening, even if we find something disagreeable or uncomfortable, is an important skill for attendees as much as it is for speakers. A public speaker is only as powerful as its audience – if nobody cares to listen, our words will only ever fall upon deaf ears.

Of course, listening alone cannot solve our problems. Reconciling the world’s geo-political tensions – cultural, ethnic and religious divisions – is not so easy. But it’s possible that a greater emphasis on listening might help this age-old tension in freedom of speech feel slightly less utopian and increasingly realistic. Providing a venue for polite disagreement, a safe space for debate and reconciliation, is a noble, if not challenging, endeavour. But if the Sheldonian Series embraces listening as much as it does equal representation and diversity of thought, there might be hope for freedom of speech after all.

Baroness Janet Royall: “We’ve got to always search for new ways of bringing people in and for breaking down those perceptions of elitism”

Madelina Gordon
-
0
Baroness Janet Royall: “We’ve got to always search for new ways of bringing people in and for breaking down those perceptions of elitism”

Baroness Jan Royall is a British Labour Party politician and currently, the Principal of Somerville College. She has been an MP, a member of the House of Lords, and Leader of the House of Lords. Cherwell spoke to her about her candidacy for Chancellor of Oxford University. 

Cherwell: Being Oxford Chancellor is a curious job because in many ways it’s a figurehead, an honorary position more so than anything else. Why do you think that’s the next step in your career? Why is it that you want the job?

Royall: So as you know, I’ve been at Oxford for seven years, and I came here not really understanding the university. I didn’t come here as an undergraduate. And over that time, I’ve been able to better understand why this is a great university. And this might sound really bizarre, but I really esteem it. I’ve fallen in love with it in so many ways. I just think it is a fantastic university. And today, of course, for the ninth year running, we’ve become the top university in the world. Well, that is pretty damn good. It’s a good day to be being interviewed by a student newspaper. I’m very proud of that.

I’m also an insider. I’ve been living and breathing this place for a long time, and I think that that gives me a good understanding of the University, of its people, most importantly. That is, its students, its academics, its researchers, and its support staff. And I’ve got a notion of all the brilliant research that goes on. The teaching is phenomenal, but there’s also fantastic research, and it’s research that gives us the number one position in the world.

Yes, the Oxford Chancellor kind of is a support role. You’re not out there managing the University. I certainly would hate to do that, and I think the Vice-Chancellor does a brilliant job. But I think that the position has so many strengths that I would be delighted and privileged to be an advocate for the University. And still, there are some real and some perceived barriers, both in terms of trying to ensure that people from whatever background have the confidence to apply here if they’ve got potential, but there are also barriers, as we know, between the town and gown, and we’re breaking those down, but I’d really like to do some more of that, and I think the Chancellor can help with that.

Cherwell: Do you think there is a part or a feature of your upbringing, or particular experiences when you were younger that have shaped your politics today, or just in general, shapes the person you are today?

Royall: So I come from basically a working class background. I wasn’t poor by any means, but my dad was a chauffeur, and then had a corner shop, and then went on to do a social work course and looked after some kids, who used to be called ‘maladjusted’. My mum was a nursery nurse, and so I had a very kind of normal, very loving upbringing, but I was always aware of social injustices, I suppose. And I always wanted to bring about change.

When I was a kid, I didn’t have any confidence, and it was Girl Guides, actually, that helped give me confidence. But then when I went to university, I got more and more involved not in politics, per se, but I got involved in things like the Nicaragua solidarity campaign and anti-apartheid. So I came in from that angle, and then I got passionate about the European Union, and that’s what drove me into politics. I belonged to something called the young European left, and then I became a member of the Labor Party, and I’ve been in it ever since. I’ve always wanted to bring about change, because I think the world is in a perilous state at the moment, but there’s always been a need for change, and I’ve always wanted to help drive that change. And it’s always seemed to me that young people and education is where it all starts.

Cherwell: As a woman working in very masculine settings, in places like parliament, but in politics in general, how do you think your understanding of gender has been influenced by those experiences, and has that informed your perspective today?

Royall: It’s been hugely influenced. And there have always been women for me to look up to, such as Barbara Castle. I worked for Barbara for a long time, and she’s just this beacon of strength, and I thought, I want to be like her. And then there are people like Harriet Harman, just the most amazing women. And in Oxford, I’ve learnt more about the women, for example, at Somerville, like Janet Vaughan. But there are just incredible women in the world.

But there’s always been that injustice, in that women, for many, many reasons, haven’t been able to get to the top. They haven’t had their voices heard. There’s been so much, sometimes overt discrimination, but sometimes lack of confidence. And I’ve always wanted to be part of bringing about that change as well. And in the University, there are now, I mean, there are equal numbers of men and women students, which is great, but in terms of academics, there’s still not enough women academics, and certainly not enough women, academics in higher levels. Yeah. And it’s worse, I would say for black and ethnic minorities, absolutely.

Cherwell: Given Oxford does have this history of being a bastion of elitism and class power, how do you think you can reconcile the emancipatory view you have with tradition?

Royall: It’s perceived to be a bastion of elitism, and I know it used to be, but I have seen great changes in the University over the last seven years in terms of widening access and participation not only in this college, but across the University. That’s been a great joy. So we are breaking down those barriers. There are so many initiatives which are bearing fruit, one of which is the Astraphoria foundation year, and not enough colleges are participating in that at the moment. I’m very glad to be part of that, because we’ve got to always search for new ways of bringing people in and for breaking down those perceptions of elitism. Because honestly, I don’t think that elitism is a reality in Oxford anymore. It is a perception, and we’ve got to break down those barriers of perception.

Cherwell: What do you mean by seeing elitism as just a perception?

Elitism exists as a perception in terms of people applying to the University. I fully support student organisations like Class Act, because I know that for some students from nontraditional backgrounds, and certainly some who come from ethnic minorities, when they arrive, they feel uncomfortable. It’s getting better. In all colleges across the University, great efforts are being made to make a more welcoming environment. I think for a long time, access was getting better, but when people got here, we forgot that they needed support, and I think that’s changing. 

Cherwell: What do you think the biggest challenge for students is once they are at Oxford? In what ways do you think the University can take action on this challenge?

Royall: Finance is a big issue for students. I think that colleges do a remarkable job in providing bursaries, and I’m very proud of what we do here at Somerville. We are one of the top providers of bursaries. So that’s important. I think the University, everybody in this University, or the advocates for the University, need to be making arguments in favour of a better deal for students, in a way, I completely accept that.

Tuition fees, I mean, they have been stagnant since, essentially, since 2012 that’s caused huge problems for the University, for the higher education sector, undoubtedly, they will have to go up with inflation, but that must mean the restoration of maintenance grants. And I would say that it should also mean that maintenance grants should be in addition to student loans, because that would really restore the local playing field.

Cherwell: You’ve said that you’re a passionate believer in the democratic values that university represents. And for that reason, I wanted to ask what would have been your response to student protests? How do you think Oxford as a university ought to exist to best protect freedom of speech, or else balance other interests that are at stake in issues of freedom of speech?

Royall: I think freedom of speech is fundamental in our democracy, including in our University. And I think that students, everybody in the University, should hear and should listen to all people from differing views. As long as it’s within the law, people should be open to hearing different views, even views which they find difficult. But I think that’s part of living in society. So I fundamentally believe in freedom of speech when it comes to protests and demonstrations. Demonstrations, a right to protest, that’s a fundamental right, but I think it has to be done carefully. I think that we have to be aware when we have protests of the way in which they’re conducted, because we don’t want to cause hurt to other people. I’m really, really worried still about antisemitism and Islamophobia, which have been on the increase for a long time, but especially since the abhorrent attacks by Hamas on seventh of October, and of course, the subsequent horrific wars in Gaza and now in Lebanon.

So we have to as a college, as a University, find ways of enabling people to bridge the divides, enabling people to listen to each other with respect to disagree agreeably, knowing that nobody’s going to agree. That’s okay if we disagree, but we’ve got to listen to other people’s point of view with respect.

Cherwell: You would be the first non-Oxford alumni to be Chancellor, since 1834 – the Duke of Wellington. But you’ve said that you think Oxford alumni can sometimes be misty eyed and lack objectivity…

Royall: I did say that. I really, really wish that I’d been to Oxford, okay, because I think it is the best sort of education. The tutorial system is extraordinary, and it gives you ,apart from the academic and scholarly input, it just gives you confidence. It teaches you to discuss, to debate, and to absorb information and then express yourself. And I think that’s brilliant.

So I suppose I’m jealous because I didn’t have such an education. But the fact that I didn’t have an Oxford education gives me a bit more clarity to be able to see it from the outside. What I find amazing is the relationship that alumni have with their colleges. I just think that’s extraordinary, and I love it. I admire it enormously. But for somebody who didn’t go to a collegiate university, the sort of relationships that have developed between alumni or between students and their tutors has my admiration.

Cherwell: So would you say not coming to Oxford is your USP?

Royall: I think it is a USP, yes. But I think my main USP is the fact that I’ve been here for seven years, living and breathing Oxford, and I think that gives you greater insight to the contemporary needs of the university and the future needs of the university.

Cherwell: In terms of balancing contemporary needs with the kind of past that Oxford has – I’m referring to its ties to imperialism and apartheid, for example – in what ways do you think Oxford should balance modernity and tradition? How can it remember its past without perpetuating those structures of injustice?

Royall: I think that many parts of the University are doing that very well. There are many discussions going on around the University about the injustices of the past and how we should consider them, think about them, and ensure that there’s nothing in our present and future that replicates those injustices. Those injustices are to be learned from, to be recognised, not to be hidden, but to be recognised and learnt from.

What I really like at the moment is the discussions going on in the museums about the various objects, for example, in Pitt Rivers, and you know, whether or not they should be returned. And I think that that’s a really healthy debate. And you know, when it comes to actual studying, I like the fact that in our library, for example, there are great sections of books now about the injustices. I think it’s important that people look at our history. History is not static. Yesterday was history. And so I think it’s right that we keep reevaluating our history, not changing our history. History is history, but we’ve got to keep reevaluating it and learning from it.

Cherwell: Going back to the Chancellor elections, it’s quite a unique election campaign in the sense that it’s a bizarre election platform where you have no opportunity to engage with your opponents, or formally present your policies. How are you running it, and how are you approaching the lead up to the election?

Royall: I’ve got a website. I’ve got some social media.

I’m doing much more on LinkedIn than I’ve ever done in my life before. I’ve always done a bit of X, and I kind of wish I wasn’t, because I can’t bear Elon Musk, but hey, it’s a tool for the moment. So I was getting to the point where I was thinking, I’m not going to use X anymore, but then I decided that for this campaign, it could be quite useful.

So I’m using social media and just talking to people. I know that many of the people to whom I speak to, certainly in Oxford, are quietly supportive, but understandably they don’t want to take a public position, and that’s fine. In terms of getting wider alumni to support me, I guess one of the best ways is to talk with people who you know support you, and then ask them to talk to other people to have a trickle down effect. But with an electorate of, I don’t know it’s supposed to be, like 29,000 plus alumni, that’s a hell of a lot of people to get to. I think name recognition is important. William Hague and Peter Mandelson have been interviewed on the Westminster programme on a Sunday night on Radio Four, and they’ve had no one else, so I’m going to try and get on there.

Cherwell: I’ve just got one final question, in comparison to these other candidates running for the chancellor position, why are you better than those candidates?

Royall: I’m better because I know Oxford and its people.

I think that one of the roles of the Chancellor is to be an advocate. I think I’ve got a record of being able to listen and to achieve consensus, not always sort of very visible consensus, but consensus behind the scenes. I’ve done that in various jobs, including as leader of the House of Lords, and so I think that I’d be very good at that. I think that I can do a splendid job.

However, having said that, there are some great candidates, and I think that the future of Oxford is secure under Irene Tracy and the people working in this great institution, and I’m sure that whoever is elected as chancellor, they will be very privileged, and they will do a fabulous job. But I’d be the best.

2024 Nobel Laureate Simon Johnson reflects on his Oxford experience

Sureen Heer
-
0
2024 Nobel Laureate Simon Johnson reflects on his Oxford experience

This year’s Nobel Prize in Economics has been awarded to Oxford alumnus Simon Johnson and his colleagues Daron Acemoğlu and James A. Robinson. Their research aims to answer the age-old question: Why do some nations flourish while others remain trapped in poverty? Their pioneering work reveals that the answer lies in institutions – both political and economic – and how they shape the prosperity of nations.

Simon Johnson studied History and Economics and later PPE as an undergraduate at Corpus Christi College from 1981 to 1984. Currently a professor at MIT, he has long focused on the role of institutions in shaping economies as he worked at Harvard, Duke and MIT. Johnson also served as the chief economist at the International Monetary Fund from 2007 to 2008. 

Johnson and his colleagues arrived at their award-winning conclusions by studying historical data, particularly focusing on settler mortality rates during European colonisation. They found that regions where settlers faced high mortality rates often developed extractive institutions – designed to exploit resources for the benefit of a few. These institutions continue to contribute to modern-day poverty and inequality. In contrast, regions where settler mortality was low saw the establishment of more inclusive institutions, which fostered long-term economic growth by encouraging investment, political participation, and the rule of law. Their research revealed a “reversal of fortune”, where less developed regions with  more inclusive institutions were better positioned during the Industrial Revolution to leverage technological advancements, driving rapid economic growth.

Cherwell asked Johnson to reflect on his time here at Oxford and how it influenced his career.

Cherwell: How did your time at Oxford affect your career and the accomplishment of this achievement? 

Johnson: In three years at Oxford, I learned to think and to argue. I also learned to listen and to take on board the perspective of others. I attended every lecture that seemed at all interesting, undergraduate and graduate level. I went to any seminar that I could fit into my schedule. And then I studied hard at some very different places – I have a master’s from Manchester and a PhD from MIT, I did a post-doctoral fellowship at Harvard; and I worked for 6 years at a leading American business school (the Fuqua School at Duke University), where an important part of my job was to set up a management education centre in St. Petersburg, Russia, shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union. I ran research projects based in Poland and Ukraine, attempting to understand post-communist realities. Then I joined the faculty at MIT Sloan, where I worked on the ground during the Asian Financial Crisis, trying to figure out how countries like Indonesia and South Korea could get back on their feet, and helped build a global entrepreneurship program.

To return to your question: Underpinning my entire career – research, publications, and a wide variety of policy roles – is what I learned at Oxford.

Cherwell: What was your student experience like – did you enjoy it?

Johnson: Oxford was incredible. I took a year off between school and university and had a wide variety of experiences (including five months as an army officer and supervising the kitchen shift at a fast food restaurant in Sheffield). I started Oxford with a clear understanding that, if I did well, my life opportunities would improve. Everyone I met in my first week at Oxford was smart and articulate. My first history essay was entirely mediocre (I started in History and Economics). To swim in this ocean, I realised that I needed to work hard. The returns to that effort were immediate and rather amazing.

Cherwell: Is there anything about Corpus specifically that you found particularly special?

Johnson: Corpus was (and I’m sure still is) a brilliant place. The people around me were clever and thoughtful. Almost all of them were better prepared than I was. It felt intensely competitive but in a good way. The tutors were tough but extraordinarily kind, and they gave me access to top minds across the university, including for one-on-one tutorials (I’ve supervised budgets at a wide variety of schools, and the economics of this still blow my mind). As an 18-year-old, I was thrown into the midst of intense ideas and arguments. If you did the work, you were always treated as plausible equal by much more knowledgeable people. There are not many places in the world where that is true. I still can’t believe how lucky I was to spend three formative years at Corpus.

Cherwell: What was your experience studying under Mr Andrew Glyn?

Johnson: Andrew Glyn was a gentle genius. He taught us neoclassical economics, but as a toolkit, not as a framework for understanding the world. He was a Marxist, but he did not try to convince us to adopt his views. He challenged us to think clearly, even if that involved challenging him. And when you showed him a spark (like a perhaps surprising distinction in prelims in History and Economics in early 1982), he backed you all the way. I switched to PPE at his recommendation, so I could take more economics papers and he arranged for me to be tutored by some of the best minds at the university. And then he pushed me out of the nest – told me that I had learned what I could at Oxford and I should go to America to get my PhD.

From Andrew I had learned to argue, to follow the logic, and to think about what other people were missing. I vividly recall that after one long wrangle about substance, Andrew said I was “bloody minded”. For a long time, I preferred to think of myself as tenacious. But thinking back now about my 30+ years at the intersection of research and public policy, working around the world, getting tenure at a leading business school, rising to the top of the IMF, advising presidential candidates, testifying to Congress (including when committees are controlled by people who really don’t like you views), briefing G7 central bank governors (who also don’t necessarily like where you are going with your arguments), perhaps Andrew knew exactly what I was – and what I could become. I’m very sad that he did not live to see this moment. I’m sure he would have pushed me, even now, to do more – and to do better.

Cherwell: What in particular do you think Oxford gives its students to be able to succeed in their chosen careers?

Johnson: I can only really speak to my experience – History and Economics for prelims, and then PPE (with as much Economics as possible, and never any Philosophy!). In those programs, at least as run at Corpus 1981-84 (although I’m confident this part is quite general and still true), it’s the intensity of the tutorial system, the feedback on your thinking, the pressure to be coherent, and answer the question on two very different topics every week. It’s not easy to stay organised, to get enough sleep, and to keep that focus for an entire term. But if you crack the code and figure out to do well at that pace, you can do anything.

Cherwell: What do you miss most about being a student here?

Johnson: There was a protected and safe feeling about learning at Oxford. The tutors really cared and paid close attention to pretty much everything you said and wrote. I’ve never had that kind of feedback from (even excellent) teachers elsewhere. But I have experienced the same intensity of thinking and of developing ideas in much of my professional work, including in the intensely collaborative research with Daron Acemoglu and Jim Robinson that won the Nobel prize. Oxford was, it turns out, the best preparation possible. But, exactly as Andrew Glyn made clear to me, after three years it was also good to leave, and not to look back.

Cherwell: How has winning the Nobel Prize affected your life? 

Johnson: Winning the Nobel prize in economics is an incredible honour and a much greater accomplishment than I expected from my career. My current focus is on building a research and policy group at MIT, focused on how to develop technology (particularly AI-based) that will help boost the productivity and pay – and therefore improve the lives – of workers who do not have a lot of formal education. This work is joint with Daron Acemoglu and David Autor (of MIT Economics), and I hope that winning the prize will enable us to make progress faster in a way that is more relevant for people around the world.

Cherwell: What in particular do you think people should know about your research? 

Johnson: We won the prize for work that began about 25 years ago, and the seminal papers (according to the Nobel prize committee) were published in 2001 and 2002. But we have continued to build on these contributions – including by incorporating the amazing work of others – with the goal of providing constructive ideas about how to better share prosperity in societies at all income levels. Today, the accelerated arrival of enhanced Artificial Intelligence capabilities provides the world with a choice: Will we develop technologies that enhance the productivity and improve the life chances of everyone, or will we slip into another phase of excessive automation, contributing to further job market and social polarisation?

Cornmarket KFC re-opens after mouse sighting

Ekam Hothi
-
0
Cornmarket KFC re-opens after mouse sighting

The KFC on Cornmarket Street has reopened following a week-long closure prompted by a hygiene concern. The fast-food restaurant closed on 18th October with a notice in the windows that read: “Really sorry…we’re closed at the moment. But don’t worry – we’ll be back at the fryers as soon as we can.”

A KFC spokesperson told Cherwell: “a mouse had been spotted near the front counter and so, in line with our procedures, the team immediately closed and co-ordinated a full investigation with our health and safety specialists to ensure the restaurant meets our high standards.”

He added: “We have strict processes in place to ensure the quality and hygiene standards of all our restaurants.”

The Cornmarket Street location was awarded a Level 5 (very good) food hygiene rating by the FSA (Food Standards Agency), with the last inspection taking place in June.

The KFC webpage for the Cornmarket Street restaurant states: “The safety of our guests and our teams remains our top priority. You can be assured we’re closely following the latest guidance and have all the necessary safety measures in place, including protective screens and increased sanitising in our restaurants.”

The KFC at the Oxford M40 Welcome Break service station, a 20-minutes-drive from Oxford city centre, was closed in June earlier this year after a cockroach infestation was discovered in the food preparation area. During the pandemic, the KFC on Cowley Road was fined £1000 by the Oxford City Council for breaking COVID-19 restrictions.

Researches funded for treating Type 1 Diabetes with ticks

Raakhi Bhagdev
-
0
Researches funded for treating Type 1 Diabetes with ticks

Oxford University has been given £2 million funding from the Type 1 Diabetes Grand Challenge to research whether proteins in tick saliva could be used to treat the disease. 

Oxford’s Cardiovascular Medicine Professor Shoumo Bhattacharya told Cherwell that Type 1 diabetes is caused by inflammation due to chemokines produced in pancreatic islets. Bhattacharya said: “We have been intrigued by the anti-chemokine properties of tick saliva’s Evasin proteins. Evasins evolved over 200 million years to allow the tick to bite and feed without being destroyed by the body’s defence mechanisms.”

Bhattacharya’s team identified small peptides from tick Evasins that block most chemokines, and evolved them further in the lab to improve them. He continued: “These peptides could be turned into drugs. By targeting these peptides to the islets we hope to be able to block islet inflammation. These targeted peptides could protect transplanted islets and beta cells and also protect the native islets in the early stages of Type 1 diabetes.”

Director of Research Partnerships at Breakthrough T1D Rachel Connor said: “by exploring the unique properties of tick saliva, this research could […] pave the way for a future without the burden of daily insulin.”

Affecting over 400,000 people in the UK, Type 1 Diabetes has no permanent cure. The current treatment for type 1 diabetes involves lifelong administration of insulin. Alternatively, patients can have beta cell therapies to replace the destroyed insulin-producing cells. However, the immune system also attacks transplanted cells, meaning patients must take immunosuppressant drugs which have severe side effects. If successful, the tick research could increase the efficacy of beta therapies and alleviate the need for immunosuppressants.

Director of Research at Diabetes UK Dr Elizabeth Robertson notes the “transformative potential” of this research and shares its potential to “revolutionise the way type 1 diabetes is treated and improve the lives of those affected by the condition”.

The funding is part of a wider initiative supported by the Steve Morgan Foundation, Diabetes UK, and Breakthrough T1D. Imperial College London, the University of Exeter, and the University of Cambridge have also received money to pursue this research. 

Heritage group calls for Welsh skeleton’s return from Natural History Museum

Charlie Roberts
-
0
Heritage group calls for Welsh skeleton’s return from Natural History Museum

The heritage group Gower Unearthed has called for the return of the “Red Lady of Paviland” skeleton remains from the Oxford University Museum of Natural History (OUMNH). To raise publicity, the campaign’s director Helen Nicholas and her friend completed a 200-mile run with 20,000-feet elevation from the museum to Goat’s Hole Cave this week.

The Red Lady was discovered in Gower, South Wales, by Oxford’s geology professor William Buckland in 1823. The remains were then transferred back to Oxford, along with other archaeological finds, where they have remained for the past two centuries.

The Red Lady gains its name from the red ochre colouring on the bones. Originally believed to be the remains of a Roman woman, it is now understood to be the skeleton of a young male hunter who lived around 35,000 years ago during the Upper Palaeolithic period. The site of discovery is considered to be the oldest ceremonial burial found in Britain, with the skeleton being buried with stone tools, burned animal remains, and carved ivory. 

Nicholas wrote on social media of the run: “We will pass some extraordinary landscape and will be seeking out some pretty amazing prehistory. We are running to shine a spotlight on the conversation around The Red Lady of Paviland as part of the Red Lady Futures campaign.

While Gower Unearthed have made their desire for the Red Lady’s return clear online, a spokesperson for the OUMNH said the museum has not been contacted directly by the group. They told Cherwell they follow “clear guidelines on human remains which include procedures for legitimate claims for the return of human remains to source communities.”

Calls for repatriation follow the recent return of other human remains from the OUMNH. Along with the Pitt Rivers Museum, the remains of eleven Aboriginal people were returned in 2023 as part of a larger project of repatriation between the UK and Australia.

First five co-educational colleges celebrate 50 years of women

Liya Sebhatu
-
0
First five co-educational colleges celebrate 50 years of women

Five colleges at Oxford University – Wadham, Jesus, Hertford, St Catherine’s, and Brasenose – are celebrating the 50th anniversary of their admittance of female students and becoming the first co-educational colleges. Events are organised throughout the year to celebrate this milestone.

Hertford College plans to release a video series, Hertford Voices, to commemorate both the 50th anniversary of women’s admittance and the 150th anniversary of Hertford’s re-foundation. St Catherine’s College and Brasenose College have also scheduled talks or lecture series from their alumni. Jesus College held an alumni gala night to start their festivities, and Wadham College’s celebrations commenced with panel discussions by alumni from the early years of female admission.

The move to co-educational learning started in 1968 when Wadham’s JCR passed a resolution in favour of it. This eventually became a larger movement, involving the creation of a subcommittee to investigate accepting women. In 1974, the five colleges decided to open their doors to both genders. Previously, womens’ only colleges such as Lady Margaret’s Hall and Somerville College have been educating women since 1879, and St Hilda’s became the last women’s only college to accept men in 2008.

A Hertford College spokesperson told Cherwell: “Hertford is incredibly proud to have been among the first colleges to admit women – a testament to our progressive, inclusive, and academically excellent community.”

The first video of Hertford Voices features stories from Hertford’s first cohort of women. Hertford told Cherwell: “Cathy Shingler recalls the attention [the women] attracted, which sometimes bordered on harassment, though they didn’t use that term at the time. Another memorable story is from 1976 when the first Hertford women’s rowing team competed in Summer Eights. Though they didn’t win, the team symbolised women’s growing integration into college life.”

In a video released by Hertford, these trailblazers also recalled the college’s infrastructure challenges in accommodating women, including outdated facilities and long walks to showers and toilets.

This sentiment could be seen during the Five @ Fifty panel, where women of the first co-educational colleges spoke about their experiences. Francine Stock of Jesus’s third cohort said that the loss of the male rugby team was partially blamed on female students: “A little note was put under all our doors suggesting that women might not want to go down to the bar that evening.”

A Wadham spokesperson told Cherwell: “Wadham has a progressive history and remains true to its values of inclusion and diversity today. The College is proud to be among the first tranche of former men’s Oxford colleges to admit women, and of being the first college to be founded by a woman who was not a queen or an aristocrat.”

Wadham’s Diversity Project in 2016 led to the inclusion of portraits of women in Hall and around the College site; previously only men’s portraits hung in the Dining Hall with the exception of Dorothy Wadham. Other celebratory events included a panel discussion on issues of gender and power within the University.

Dame Sally Mapstone of Wadham’s second-year cohort, now an Honorary Fellow of the college, discussed the imbalance of female and male academic staff at Oxford. She said: “It would be a very big mistake to think that it is a level playing field. When you start to look at issues of intersectionality, the imbalances are still really severe.”

Although there are more female than male undergraduate students as of 2023, women made up only 22% of all Statutory Professors, and 33% of Associate Professors.

What’s your purpose? (In six words or less)

Amy Seal
-
0
What’s your purpose? (In six words or less)

Describe yourself in 6 words or less. Find your passion. Find your purpose. Have you been thinking about your goals? What is the world issue you most want resolved? What are your hopes and dreams? Can they be succinctly described in 6 words or less? Can they be summed up on a Linkedin post? Can your passion become your career? Can you monetise this? Can we monetise this? Can you make us money?

Vacations for Oxford students more often than not mean dedicating a significant proportion of your time to an internship. Bleary eyed and exhausted by the term-time workload, we make space in our schedules to write endless cover letters, touch up our CVs, and find tutors who like us just enough to write the perfect reference. We send off our applications and, in short, beg for companies to allow us the privilege of being an entirely insignificant part of their workforce for a limited period of time. Alongside the internship itself will often come endless mandatory careers sessions and talks – motivational speakers with this or that book to promote, who stand up in front of us naive youngsters and promise the much-sought-after key to finding our place in the ever-elusive and seemingly impossible to break-into workforce.

This is an article, more or less, about these careers talks themselves; God knows I sat through enough of them this summer. For the lucky reader who has yet to experience this mind-numbing phenomenon, allow me to introduce it to you. The speaker begins by asking us if we know what our purpose is. Usually, internally answered by each member of the crowd who begins to panic, something along the lines of: “I didn’t know I was supposed to have a purpose. What is that? How do I find it? I wonder if everyone else knows their purpose and I’m already super behind?”. The speaker will then, graciously, offer to help us out. That’s right – by listening to one simple presentation, we will understand the very meaning of our lives, and how we can fit into this world! 

But here’s the catch. This is not a philosophical exploration, nor a valuable exercise in introspection, nor a spiritual awakening designed to find inner peace. No, this is watered-down psycho-babble mobilised along neoliberal lines. To help us discover our purpose, the presenter will ask us what we dream of. So what do I dream of, I think. I dream of a pretty house, with lots of natural light. A place where the one I love is just down the corridor. A house that is never quiet – that is brimming with the clattering of our many pets, and perhaps a few kids. A house that smells of the bread I will make fresh every week, and always has a supply of baked goods on the kitchen counters. My friends would come round often and their laughter would fill our halls. My parents and sister would be just a short drive away, and we’d meet often for Sunday lunch. I dream of a home. A place where I will feel calm, loved, at peace.

Oh, sorry, is this not marketable enough? Ok, then I dream of surfing in the icy Devon sea and feeling that rush of energy when you finally catch a wave. I dream of creating beautiful music, and even not so beautiful music, with my instruments or even my voice. I dream of writing; on my laptop, in a notebook, anywhere I can, I dream of entire days I could spend watching my ideas materialise on the page. I dream of a world and a life without pain, where there is no suffering, for anyone, anywhere. I dream of justice. I dream of dancing, painting, acting, running, singing, screaming, laughing. I dream of joy, pain, beauty, exhilaration, and peace. 

Oh, still not what you were looking for? Ok, a word I would use to describe myself is, Amy. I think of all the Amy’s I have been, all the Amy’s I have yet to be. All the Amy’s I am to the different people in my life, all the Amy’s I wish I was, and even the ones I wish I wasn’t. I think of how every year, month, day, hour, and even second I am becoming an entirely different person to who I was, but I am also, somehow, still the same me I have always been. I think about how none of this can be described in 6 words or less.

Neoliberalism feeds on hyper-individualism. As the government increasingly de-regulates the market and privatises public services, it becomes the individual’s responsibility to ensure their own security within this new world. Only the fittest survive – and to do so, you must only think about yourself. Yet, ironically, none of this serves you. You are told that through your hard work, your effort, your sacrifices, you will succeed. But at the end of the day, there is a reason only a few CEOs are household names. And in your tireless efforts to become the 1%, you instead become the product. When you put on your clothes in the morning to fit into this- or that- TikTok “aesthetic”, when you eat the breakfast cereal you’ve had for years because it came up on a TV advert when you were 5, when you visit the gym to conform to the “standard” of attractiveness propped up by multiple billion-dollar industries, when you go on social media and your data is farmed to advertisers, and finally, when you sit in a presentation and your inner most dreams and desires are hauled out of you – everything about you is bought, sold, and profited on. You are the product. 

So go on, look inside yourself. Find something within you. Oh but don’t look too hard, no don’t really consider yourself, your place in this world, and what you actually want out of this life. No. Find something marketable. Find something you could say in a job interview. Find a job. Find something your boss will enjoy. Find something we can incorporate into our company’s message. Find something we can profit off of. Find something that makes us look good. Find your place within this system, within this order. Become a cog in our machine. Survive on our terms. Make us money. Succeed.*

*This definition of success is rather rigid. 

A whistle-stop tour of Oxford’s women’s societies

Sophie Lyne
-
0
A whistle-stop tour of Oxford’s women’s societies

Considering women have only received degrees from Oxford since 1920 and most colleges have only been co-educational since the 70s, there are an impressive number of women’s societies.

We have societies which focus on issues facing women and gender minorities in Oxford, like the Feminist Society (FemSoc) and the SU Women’s Campaign (WomCam). We have societies promoting gender equality in male-dominated subjects, like Oxford Wom*n in Computer Science Society (OxWoCS) and Oxford Women in Engineering, Science and Technology (OxWEST).

There are countless societies supporting women seeking careers in male-dominated fields, including the highly influential Oxford Women in Business (OxWIB, which boasts a 45-person committee), as well as Oxford Women* in Law, Oxford Women* in Consulting, and more recently Oxford Women* in Government. There’s an Oxford Women of Colour Society (WocSoc), the annual charity campaign Oxford PinkWeek, and Oxford FemTech Society promoting research into women’s health. All this, and even more new women’s societies are likely on the way.

A little bit of history 

Student-run organisations for women have been around for almost as long as Oxford has had female students (which, admittedly, is not very long). The Oxford Women Students’ Society for Women’s Suffrage formed in 1911, when individual suffrage societies at the women’s colleges combined to form one movement. The OWSSWS (catchy) was allied to the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies, led famously by Millicent Fawcett, and Oxford’s women joined mass demonstrations in London. The banner they carried still hangs to this day in St Hilda’s College.  

It is easy to see the need for women’s organisations in this era: a time before equal voting rights and the widespread social change we have seen across the 20th and 21st century. But perhaps the demand is less clear now. Discrimination based on sex is prohibited under UK law following the 2010 Equality Act. What can all these women’s societies be fighting for? To find out, I spoke to eight of their presidents. 

The societies and their aims

Anita Okunde, co-chair of the SU Women’s Campaign, summarised their work as “making sure that women in Oxford feel like their experiences are valuable and meaningful”. WomCam is, both nominally and in practice, a campaign, so it is perhaps the most overtly activist of the societies I encountered. WomCam’s goals change depending on the priorities of its committee, as well as in reaction to what’s going on in Oxford. Anita elaborated on her current project to advocate for awareness of women’s health issues: “After the last set of graduations we had loads of people messaging the account about how they had certain [health conditions] that under the university guidelines don’t class as serious issues, but really impacted their exams.” 

Other societies have less focus on taking action or campaigning for change, instead running social or discussion-based events. For instance, Oxford FemSoc meets weekly for their ‘Liberation and Liquor’ discussion group, which promises cheap drinks and a circle of students sharing opinions on a feminist topic. On their termcard for Michaelmas 2024 are discussions such as ‘Is there a useful universal feminism?’, and the no doubt controversial ‘Is Oxford sexist?’. Kaiya Tiwari, FemSoc president, said, “our principal goal is education,” which she described as “the key catalyst to making social change.” 

Oxford’s Women of Colour Society (WocSoc) runs a mix of discussion groups and social events such as karaoke, friendship bracelet making, and trips for boba. WocSoc began in 2022 from a group of three friends, and has grown to a committee of 14 people, including two dedicated Welfare roles. President Eugenie Sumkoska said that the society focuses on “creating a safe space for women of colour […] The core of it is that shared experience element.” They are also working on events to actively help women of colour combat discrimination, including a workshop “to give people the instruments and tools to react to microaggressions.” 

Other societies focus less on the present experience of women at Oxford, and more on their future: in entering careers that are either male-dominated, or present difficulties to women which male counterparts may not face. “Our primary mission is to democratise opportunity,” said Elisha Khannah, president of OxWIB. “We want that to be opportunity for everyone.” Although it is now a well-known Oxford powerhouse, OxWIB was founded less than 20 years ago, in 2008. “Women had finally reached the higher levels, [so] they were able to institute these programmes that they would love to have had when they were younger.” 

Oxford Women* in Government is the newest society I spoke to. Founded in October 2023, they already have over 900 Instagram followers and a well-stocked termcard. Co-presidents Gaya Wimalasundera and Anika Gupta also referred to a primarily educational purpose. Their main mission, said Gaya, is “to spread knowledge and be a place where women can learn about a career path that they might want to explore”. Anika also noted that OxWIG is committed to being politically neutral, and is a “place to foster diverse conversations”. It stands as an accessible alternative to party-aligned political societies, which some may find more intimidating. 

I also spoke to the Nirali Jain, president of Oxford Women in Engineering, Science and Technology, and Allie Clement, president of Oxford Wom*n in Computer Science. Nirali emphasised the importance of a “safe space for women in STEM”, with a goal to “equip [them] with the resources that you might not find so easily in other societies.” Allie also described a focus on “building community”, alongside highlighting the work of women who are currently making a name for themselves in computer science, and providing networking and industry opportunities. 

Oxford admissions statistics from 2021 to 2023 show that while some STEM subjects, like Chemistry, have almost equal numbers of male and female students (45.4% of admitted UK students were female), this remains far from the case for subjects like Engineering (22.4%), Computer Science (26.7%), and Physics (19.8%). 

Allie describes Computer Science as highly male-dominated: “It’s almost a social norm to walk into a room and it all be men […] It feels strange if it’s a room of females.” OxWoC provides conferences and talks where female majority is for once the norm. 

A common mission? 

It is worth noting here that I myself have been involved in women’s societies. My time as president of Oxford FemSoc in the 2023-2024 academic year was without a doubt the most rewarding experience of my time at university. 

While president, I was presented with lots of opportunities to collaborate with other societies – not just women’s societies, but groups from all over the university. I spent a lot of time thinking about whether our missions aligned, and whether such collaborations would be enjoyable or beneficial for FemSoc members. Some collaborations went so well that we repeated them – FemSoc X WocSoc will always be a favourite of mine – but other collaborations were politely declined.  

FemSoc welcomes all opinions in its discussions, but the committee holds a firmly intersectional feminist ideology. Other women’s societies might be perceived as feminist and/or activist, but several presidents told me activism was not a key priority for them. Gaya (OxWIG) said, “I don’t think we see OxWIG as merely a form of activism, it’s very much just, this is what we’re interested in, this is what we want to do [government and policy].”

Elisha (OxWIB) agreed. “It’s funny because when I’m in it, I don’t think it [is activist] at all, I think it’s so normal. […] It’s like our safe space.” However, the story changes when she speaks to people outside of the society bubble. “It feels activist, because some of the things that I’m saying, that I think should be apparent, become controversial.” The need for women’s spaces is a given at OxWIB – less so in the corporate world.

Nirali (OxWEST) says that while her society may be perceived as activist, “[the] mission is very much to create opportunity for like-minded people to be around each other, as opposed to making women in STEM known as a ‘new’ concept […] It’s for the women, by the women.” 

Women’s societies aren’t all activist, and that’s okay

These societies are not explicitly aligned with any activist movement: their internal purpose is one of community. It might not be what the Suffragettes had in mind, but spaces for connection – even when apolitical – are undeniably vital. Allie (OxWoC) told me that she moved to Oxford in January and knew nobody in the city. “OxWoC was a bunch of people that had similar backgrounds, similar interests to me. And now most of them are my best friends.” Gaya and Anika (OxWIG) had a similar experience: “We met through OxWIG, and it turns out she lives down my road!” 

Even if activism isn’t everyone’s priority, I think it’s fair to say every society plays some role in the feminist movement: social gatherings, discussions, and community are an inherent part of activism too. Feminism is often perceived as an ongoing struggle, at times dangerous for those involved. We can picture protests, and recall militant suffragettes smashing windows or going on hunger strike.

I don’t deny the importance of such forms of activism, and I feel indebted to the sacrifices of feminists before us every day. However, there is no reason that activism cannot also be enjoyable. Writer adrienne maree brown, in their book Pleasure Activism, reminds us, “There is no way to repress pleasure and expect liberation, satisfaction, or joy.” The feminist movement can – and should – involve community, and be fun. After all, marches and protests only occur because a group of people came together to organise them. 

I asked Georgia Lin, a DPhil Education candidate researching student activism by women of colour at Oxford, for her perspective on whether social groups can constitute activism. Her research has involved attending meetings of FemSoc and WocSoc, and interviewing their members and committees.  

Georgia told Cherwell, “Student societies like FemSoc and WocSoc provide a much-needed and often intimate space for feminists to gather in Oxford. In an institution that can be hostile to feminist thought, coupled with the sense of isolation many marginalised students feel, student-run organisations are facilitating a politics of care through weekly discussions and socials. The creation of these spaces is in itself resistance against Oxford’s patriarchal foundations.” 

We attend a university where women have historically held few leadership roles. As a result, there is something inherently powerful about female society presidents. Their societies are hugely successful: proof, if any more was needed, that women are competent leaders.

I would suggest there are potential ideological differences between the societies, although this can certainly change with constantly shifting committees. While I was FemSoc president, meetings frequently involved discussion of fairly radical ideas, including the link between capitalism and the patriarchy. In Trinity 2024, FemSoc members discussed the question, ‘Is feminism inherently socialist?’ and of the 27 attendees, 26 voted in favour, and 1 abstained – far from politically neutral. While FemSoc welcomes all opinions, attendees frequently express a desire to change the roots of our social, economic, and political systems. In contrast, other women’s societies empower women to enter such capitalist systems. 

Can these ideas be reconciled? Personally, I think we can acknowledge the need for wider structural change while also seeking gender equality within such structures in the short term… but that’s a FemSoc L&L debate for another time. 

When all of the featured presidents gathered together to answer my questions, it certainly felt like they had common ground. They frequently echoed each other’s answers, happily chatted about annoying male employers, and discussed future inter-society collaborations. It was truly inspiring to witness. 

Should men attend women’s societies? 

Most societies mentioned here have at least some events open to men. In fact, one of FemSoc’s elected committee roles each year is a ‘Men’s Rep’ who advocates for men’s issues within a feminist context. This academic year, they also have a male Vice President. 

Kaiya (FemSoc) said, “The men on our committee are really amazing, and you can really tell that they are so passionate about it – it’s really refreshing to see.” She also mentioned that having men on their committee might encourage male attendance, joking, “Sometimes the only way to get men to engage is getting a man to tell them.” 

FemSoc encourages male attendance both to “hear their points of view, but also let them hear what we think as well.” However, Kaiya also acknowledges the danger of this: “When you welcome men into a space you do have that issue of it no longer being a safe space… I’m conscious of things being said that are going to make people feel uncomfortable.” She begins every meeting by pointing out their Welfare Rep, encouraging attendees to step out or speak to a committee member if something makes them feel unsafe or upset. 

Elisha (OxWIB) also described attempts to boost male attendance at their termly Presidents’ Ball: “One of our favourite things to do now is we all bring every single male friend that we can rope in to attend […] it’s actually been one of our most successful initiatives.” Male attendees (affectionately called the OxMIBs) are welcome at many of their events. “We have a specific focus on accessibility, and getting men involved is crucial. We wouldn’t be helping ‘women in business’, unless we recognise that the necessary culture shift requires huge support from other groups, specifically men.” 

Looking to the future

Women’s societies continue to pop up in Oxford every year. But after sufficient social change, will they eventually become obsolete or unnecessary? Should we be aiming for more women’s societies, or fewer? 

Gaya (OxWIG) can see “no issue” with more women’s societies – “the more the merrier!” Eugenie (WocSoc) said, “We will continue to exist because what connects us is the shared experience, rather than any sort of equality in the world,” noting that, “it’s also slightly different with cultural societies, because there is a different dimension of connection there, so I think definitely it is something that will always exist.” 

Nirali (OxWEST) does however hope for a change in their raison d’être. “I do hope that in the future women societies can exist and flourish out of the joy of being together and having shared goals, without the current societal need to simultaneously be a form of implicit activism.” 

WomCam’s future really depends on Oxford, but Anita isn’t hopeful: “If the university ceases to have any problems […] so be it, WomCam has lost its purpose. But I do not see that happening.” 

My key takeaway from meeting all eight women’s society presidents was how much they love their societies. They are proud of their work, and the safe, welcoming spaces they have created. They also truly enjoy attending the events they run. Maybe there are so many women’s societies because women’s societies are fun!

Oxford’s women’s societies are young – the oldest of the societies featured here (OxWEST) began in 2005. Less than 20 years later, women’s societies have large, flourishing committees, consistently high membership and attendance, and ever-growing social media followings. The numbers don’t lie. Demand is high and only increasing. 

As Anika (OxWIG) said, “The fact that our societies are growing, and more and more are coming, there’s a conversation around it […] and conversation provokes people to think critically about why there is need.” So while there may still be sceptics, it doesn’t seem like women’s societies are going away any time soon. 

Throughout this article, ‘woman’ is used to refer inclusively to anyone who identifies with the experiences of women, and to other marginalised genders.

Review: May We Be Forgiven by A.M Homes

Yasmin Beed
-
0
Review: May We Be Forgiven by A.M Homes

Weird and wonderful. Heavy at times, strange throughout, but uplifting to the end. An incredible read.

May We Be Forgiven won the Women’s Prize for Fiction in 2013, and, initially, I wasn’t sure why. Now that I’ve finished it, I understand. It’s ripe with emotion and it’s both dark and strangely uplifting. 

The beginning of the book is shambolic. The protagonist’s life is entirely upended in a series of wildly chaotic occurrences which happen almost immediately, in a string of events so sudden and inextricable that it feels like witnessing a collision. Within the first 15 pages, Harry has had an affair with his brother’s wife, three people have been murdered, and his brother has been sent to a psych ward. It’s not for the faint of heart, but the book isn’t really about these events. It’s about what comes after. It’s about a man dealing with the aftermath of his life collapsing in on itself. We watch our protagonist, Harry, lose everything. We watch his life crumble around him. We watch him grapple with guilt, wondering if the fault lies with him and him alone. 

“‘May we be forgiven’, an incantation, a prayer, the hope that somehow I come out of this alive. Was there ever a time you thought – I am doing this on purpose, I am fucking up and I don’t know why.”

At this point you’re likely thinking this sounds miserable. It’s not a jovial book, but it’s also not quite the disturbed and depressing book you might assume. Between the horrific events, the disintegration of Harry’s life, and his general despair, this book is dark. However, it’s not an entirely miserable read. I could never make it through 500 pages of misery. And the reviews agree with me. One on the front cover of my copy describes it as ‘nightmare-black and extremely funny’. Do I think it was funny? I’m not sure. I wasn’t exactly rolling on the floor but it’s certainly written as a far lighter book than you would expect. 

“A minute after the minder is gone, I accidentally flip a massive clot of rich black dirt into my eye, blinding myself. I paw at my face, trying to clear it. I use my shirt, get up too fast, and step on the trowel, throwing myself off balance. I crash into the barbecue and rebound – mentally writing the headline: Idiot Kills Self in Garden Accident.”

This is down to Homes’ writing style. Brilliant and intriguing, it brings a lightness to the book that I don’t think you could otherwise achieve. It’s written in the first person,  with our protagonist Harry narrating. Despite this, he has an emotional distance from his own life, likely the result of its absurdity, which oddly gives the book a more lighthearted feel. I’m unsure if ‘emotional distance’ is really the most apt term for what I’m attempting to describe, but I certainly felt that Harry struggled to grasp the actuality of what was happening to him. He seems to view his own life from the outside in, and I was repeatedly struck by the impression that I was watching a man so deep within the storm that he wasn’t always aware he was within it. 

“Amazing, isn’t it,” she says, “how easily we slip right off the rails. Are you okay now?”

And yet, despite these struggles, there were moments of profound joy. Harry cobbles together a found family: his nephew and niece, a young boy, an elderly couple. This was what kept him sane, what made life bearable. It was only after finishing the book that I could see that these moments of happiness became more frequent as the story progressed. That was my favourite part about the book. Harry is tasked with piecing his life back together, and the lives of those around him, and it’s something that he has to really want in order for him to see it to fruition. I think there’s something to be said about how sometimes living for others has to be the initial step before living for yourself. 

“The truth is, despite how stressful it all is – not to mention the uncanny sensation that the minute you start to think it’s all going well something is bound to fall apart – despite it all, I am pleased with how well the children are doing.”

Harry appears to be going for a clean sweep on making terrible life decisions but, without wanting to give away too much of the book, he becomes better. He improves the lives of others and has his life improved in return, even if neither group set out to do so. To me, Homes’ book speaks to the, sometimes hellish, unpredictably of life. One moment Harry is trying to look after his niece and nephew, the next he is derailing an arms deal he has accidentally enabled and then, not a hundred pages later, his car is being hijacked. Although surrealist, it speaks to human nature and how very strange it can be, and to the way people can both ruin each other’s life and also come together for each other. 

This message of the importance of people and relationships within our lives has been done before. It’s not new. But what I haven’t read before is a book where such a message is so integral to the story that it is barely noticeable. It’s not asking you to analyse or understand throughout. It’s not didactic, presenting you with a platter of morals to take away. Instead, it tells you the raw and unfaltering account of one man’s life. There are no milestones and signposts, no noticeable changes. It’s only when you look back that you realise what a huge shift has occurred. Only then can you see just how far you’ve come, and just how much has changed. 

“I note the absence of worry and the sense that in the past the absence of anxiety would have caused me to panic, but now it is something I simply notice and then let go – carrying on. I am looking down the table thinking of everyone I’ve ever known; every hello and goodbye sweeps through me like an autumn breeze.”

Granted, the situations were extreme and the characters were intense – I don’t think you’re meant to read the book and directly relate to it – but they’re thought-provoking. They’re not necessarily meant to be realistic. I don’t think A. M. Homes’ exploration of contemporary America is necessarily meant to be realistic either, but it’s interesting. It’s interesting and it’s painful, and it’s strange (potentially too strange for some, based on the reviews I’ve seen online). But I loved it. I sped through it at break-neck speed. Since finishing the book, I can now see why it won the Women’s Prize for Fiction, and I cannot begin to fathom how it was written. 

Before you read this book, please look up the trigger warnings online. It touches on lots of heavy topics, including child abuse, severe domestic violence, and death. Not all of them are described ‘on-screen’, but some are.

1...133134135...2,577Page 134 of 2,577

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 Jamie Ashley