Thursday, May 15, 2025
Blog Page 141

UCU votes to end marking and assessments boycott

Oliver Adelson
-
0
UCU votes to end marking and assessments boycott

The UCU has ended its marking boycott, with 60% of members voting in favour of the decision. Markers have been instructed to resume “working normally” on examinations that have been left unmarked from the boycott. The UCU leadership, however, advised markers to contact their UCU branch if they are given “inappropriate or unreasonable instruction to speed up marking and assessment in order to ‘beat’ the marking and assessment boycott.” 

The UCU has confirmed that, although the boycott is being suspended, this is not the end of its industrial action. It indicated that from Monday, 25 September, to Friday, 29 September, lecturers at 136 universities across the UK will go on strike. Since Oxford’s Michaelmas term begins on 8 October, the lecturer strike is not expected to affect Oxford students. 

The end of the boycott comes at a time when many Oxford students have not received degree classifications due to missing marks—according to a Freedom of Information Request made by Cherwell, over 400 Oxford students have, as of 22 August, been provisionally given unclassified degrees. While markers will resume working on marking papers for these students, it is unclear how soon the marking will be complete and a degree classification conferred. Despite these uncertainties, the University has made it clear that all assessments will be marked.

In a social media announcement, the UCU indicated that the Higher Education Committee (HEC) has also voted to launch another national ballot on this year’s pay offer. The following reason was given: “Only by renewing our mandate with another massive YES vote can we force our employers to make the type of pay + conditions offer that members deserve.” 

The UCU continued, reiterating that “the fight is not over,” and that “we will not give up until we have delivered the deal that addresses years of pay cuts, unbearable workloads, rampant casualisation and unacceptable pay inequalities.”

The decision to end the boycott was not without dissent. One university lecturer replied to the social media announcement by tweeting, “You have absolutely betrayed your MABbing members if you’ve decided the call-off is effective immediately, as opposed to when the mandate was due to end on 30/9 as we were reasonably preparing for. How am I supposed to mark over a hundred papers while preparing for the new term?” 

The Student Union told Cherwell: “From the perspective of affected students, the end of the MAB signals relief and the return of their long-awaited grades. Despite this, we also recognise that this end sacrifices industrial action that we, as a Student Union have and will remain in full support of. Not only are we democratically mandated to support UCU industrial action, but we are institutionally built upon values that promote causes that are intended to improve the educational experience of students.

“By improving staff pay and working conditions, current and future students will find themselves in a better educational environment- which for many, will one day be their own working environment.”

The University told Cherwell: “While recognising the right of our colleagues to take industrial action, we regret the impact the boycott has had on some students. We are working to ensure that any outstanding marking is undertaken and we are working with colleagues across the University to put the necessary processes in place to deliver this in a timely way.”

This article was updated to reflect comment from the Student Union at 14:14 8th September 2023 and the University at 10:24 13th September 2023.

The geopolitics of speech at the University

Aissa Dearing
-
0
The geopolitics of speech at the University

[CW: Transphobia]

In the wake of the controversy around Kathleen Stock’s invitation to speak at the Oxford Union, as a geographer, I found it necessary to critically reflect on how society delineates what is, and is not, considered free speech. As an American, I’ve been instilled with the concept of free speech; why it should be a human right, why it’s necessary for democracy, and why it must be protected. It’s my First Amendment right. 

As Evelyn Hall (commonly attributed to Voltaire) noted: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it.” It’s a useful byword for how the state should interact with civil society, the press, and those associated with protest; in a democracy, even the government is not beyond criticism and condemnation. Yet, we tend to forget the significant roles that many Western democracies play in regulating permissible speech, as speech that is threatening, fraudulent, obscene, or disturbs public safety can lead to an arrest or a civil suit against the speaker. 

Commenting on the allowance of Kathleen Stock’s invitation to speak at the Union, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak declared that debate is the “hallmark of a tolerant society”. A letter, signed by 44 Oxford University academics from all sides of the political spectrum, asserts that universities are spaces that promote “free inquiry,” and the fact that the Union has invited a controversial speaker is a part of the university’s “pursuit of truth by means of a reasoned argument.” By blockading controversial speakers like Kathleen Stock, there is a worry that the University will become a ‘propaganda machine’ for particular political views. 

Yet, the university is not the state; and therefore, has a different duty to speech. As an academic institution, correctly or incorrectly so, the University of Oxford is considered one of the world’s leading knowledge generators. People look to the University to see the greatest debates unfold and answer the world’s unanswerable philosophical, moral, and ethical questions. Within the School of Geography and Environment at the University of Oxford, where my work is housed, there isn’t room for ‘experts’ who dabble in climate denier rhetoric to be invited on faculty, or even to participate in department-hosted debates and lectures. As the University’s policy on free speech reminds us: “Not all theories deserve equal respect. A university values expertise and intellectual achievement as well as openness.” The School of Geography and Environment is precisely that first – a school – where academic inquiry is pursued. It would clearly be a waste of university resources to host climate denialism and it would validate an argument that not only is unfounded, but unacademic. 

I’ve experienced hate speech and witnessed the pathologising of vulnerable communities under the auspices of free speech. Using a geographical lens, it becomes ever more apparent that a person’s positionality plays a significant role in their ability to speak freely. Speech is not simply something that everyone has innate equal access to; it is both a right and a resource that can be controlled and bordered. Those who hold identities outside of the ‘universalized man’ (male, white, heterosexual, cis-gendered, able, and of means) can experience impaired ability to speak freely, especially in the presence of hateful rhetorical devices that undermines their personhood. It often then becomes the burdening responsibility of the person who holds identities outside of the universalized man to defend their right to exist. 

The LGBTQ+ Society at Oxford called for the dis-invitation of Kathleen Stock because her thoughts contribute to physical and psychological harm to the transgender community. While some may consider a debate on transgender people’s rights an intellectual exercise, others, especially those belonging to the trans community, find the debate on whether their existence is valid not only harmful but dehumanising. 

When the Oxford Union platforms misinformation by inviting those who distort statistics and engage in rhetoric and pathologies, society can interpret this action as inherently validating what they have to say. Kathleen Stock is no longer famous on the dark corners of Twitter for being ousted (Stock claims she left of her own volition) from her last teaching position for her “gender-critical views,” but she is validated as a subject-matter expert in her field by the Oxford Union. We must be careful who we grant this privilege to. We aren’t self-selecting what is beyond discussion, but we are mindful to not validate blatant misinformation. Just as there is no question whether or not to invite people who engage in blatant climate denialism, why do we draw the line at transgender people’s existence? A controversial view becomes hateful when it advocates for the de-existence of other people through the removal of rights, resources, or otherwise. Then, activism is forced to emerge, often by people who hold the identities that the rhetoric harms the most, putting the most vulnerable communities in mental, emotional, and physical danger. By platforming anti-trans rhetoric, we strip transgender people of not only their right to free speech, but their right to simply be.

Here, philosopher Karl Popper’s thoughts on the tolerance paradox resonate: “Unlimited tolerance leads to the disappearance of tolerance.” This in no way advocates for the dismissal of debate nor the canceling/de-platforming of controversial views. Tolerance demands discomfort, as it allows our society to critically reflect on the values we wish to adhere to and those we wish to transform. As we enter into contentious debates, it’s essential for us to reflect on why we are arguing in the first place, approach the other side with humility and a willingness to learn, and perhaps even remain flexible to having our minds changed. I’m reminded of an old adage that folks in my community would say when starting a debate: “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.” When we permit hateful speech to fester, it undermines the rights of others to exist safely.

Image Credit: Peter O’Connor aka anemoneprojectors/CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Embarking on the year abroad

Phoebe Walls
-
0
Embarking on the year abroad

The year abroad takes third-year modern languages students away from the Oxford bubble and into the world of the unknown. As a seventeen-year-old fresher, this time felt like a distant, tropical idea. It was something fun to say to people I’d just met. Yet in second year, the reality began to sink in. Navigating job applications, and the nightmare that is obtaining a Visa post-Brexit all whilst juggling the notorious Oxford workload, proved a stressful time. 

The year abroad meeting from the languages faculty left us all shell shocked, frantically typing away. We all felt green with envy at those lucky enough to possess EU passports, the golden ticket to freedom of movement. The year abroad office told us that they are not able to offer support with Visa applications. The necessary websites and documentations proved a minefield. You’d think you were applying to MI6. When TLS purged my application because I hadn’t been able to book an appointment in 20 days, my friend peered her head through my basement window to find me weeping. 

Trinity was our final term as languages students to let loose and make the most of Oxford before waving it goodbye, with the knowledge that when we returned for our fourth year we’d have finals chaining us to library desks. The workload in our final term did not lighten, despite us drowning in year abroad admin. It was a hectic time, filling in form after form, whilst still churning out two essays a week – and having fun.  

Friendships and relationships also begin to feel fragile as moving away loomed. However exciting the prospect of meeting new people, leaving behind my close friends was bittersweet. For some year abroad students, relationships disintegrated before their year abroad. Heartbreak and Trinity seem to go well together. The sun can dry tears. 

Before we knew it we were running down the High Street in pyjamas for our final bop of the year and drunkenly confessing our love for each other in the toilets. 

After a week at home, I packed everything into one suitcase and arrived at the airport. I’ve never felt more like an adult. I was delighted to have found such a cheap hotel to break up my long journey across Germany, one of Booking.com’s hidden gems. I managed to accidentally walk up to the entrance of the next door mental hospital which had a creepy doll staring at me from the window, sending a shiver down my spine. The sign for a mother and child convent made me laugh. The converted convent hotel was indeed a peaceful haven. On my first night I enjoyed dinner, watching couples intertwined, waiting for heartbreak. I indulged in people-watching and the peace of my own company. 

I love writing postcards and sending frantic texts, a running commentary to my Mum of this rollercoaster ride. Despite all its flaws social media offers a chance to share the highlights of our lives online.  

Embarking on the year abroad is one of the most nerve-wracking things I’ve ever done, pushing me out of my comfort zone into a foreign culture. For us languages students, this summer marks the beginning of a brand new chapter and I’m excited to see what it holds in store.

Image credit: Phoebe Walls

Fringe: “Quite absurd”, Review of Blue Dragon

Anuj Mishra
-
0
Fringe: “Quite absurd”, Review of Blue Dragon

“It’s beautiful, isn’t it?”, says a harried wife to her brooding husband as she looks out onto a small and scattered audience in an Edinburgh community centre. She doesn’t mean us. The couple are actually on a train platform with a mountain view, and it is on this same platform that we remain for the entirety of Blue Dragon. “Innocent enough”, I thought as I geared up for an Agatha Christie style romance-mystery, but Oisin Byrne’s play quickly devolved into Pinteresque absurdity with a heavy helping of black comedy.

Blue Dragon, we learn, is the name of a sort of euthanizing (or perhaps just homicidal) express train. Very good, except for some reason its passengers (a series of three couples, all played by Juliette Imbert and Lorenzo Allchurch) are stranded on the platform with ‘the Driver’ (Leah Aspden) and ‘the Artist’ (Katie Peachey). The play effectively follows each of the couple’s interactions with ‘the Driver’, while ‘the Artist’ comes and goes in an anxiety-provoking hurry: it is rather a lot to take in for a fifty minute Fringe play.

The highlight of the play was the character of ‘the Driver’, who dominates the stage. Aspden delivered this role with excellent comedic timing, perfectly pacing her character’s degradation from hubristic dominance to emotional breakdown. 

The binary of player and audience is obfuscated by Byrne’s writing: ‘the Driver’ looks out at us from time to time, sensing the audience’s presence, and certain lines are delivered by Aspden to a sort of ‘onstage audience’ as she narrates her backstory. Harry Brooks’ direction furthers the confusion: the actors enter from a door behind the audience – we can tell they’re coming while the previous scene is still unfolding – and they sit in the back row between scenes. I charitably regard this as an artistic choice rather than a venue constraint – the effect is the same.

The play had an overbearing preoccupation with art, dealing with various forms (shadow puppetry, art writing, and aqua beads, to name a few). Indeed much of this was transmitted through the character of ‘the Artist’, whose main function was to bang on about, well, art. Peachey’s monologuing successfully drew minutes into what felt like hours, and touched on all the areas of theory that any respectable humanities reading list would. The success of this characterisation was only slightly marred by my unshakeable concern that this tortured artist was a sort of double for Byrne himself. 

In search of a pithy statement to wrap up the review (and to tack onto the headline), I find myself at a loose end. For I, in all honesty, have no idea what Blue Dragon actually meant. Blue Dragon strategically trades meaning for sensory intensity – it is hilarious, somehow touching, and quite absurd.

An Exciting New Productions’ Blue Dragon had its initial run at Oxford’s Burton Taylor, and continued at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe at the Just The Tonic, Nucleus venue.

Fringe: “Continuously Shocks”, a Review of Cruelty

Eric Balonwu
-
0
Fringe: “Continuously Shocks”, a Review of Cruelty

“Imagine. You’re a character. You’re in a club.”

This may be Oli’s (Luke Nixon) first line to the audience but it does not feel necessary. Even before the play has begun, the work of Sound Director (Julia Males) and Lighting Designer (Alva Orr) means I already feel like this is the case. The combination of pop music played throughout the play (such as Lizzo’s ‘Tempo’) and bright iconic lighting choices make Oli’s dancing in a nightclub both convincing and successful from the get-go. Seeing lots of Oxford University Students in one space and the slightly sweltering Bread and Rose Theatre also helped make the stage feel like a bad nightclub. Where else, apart from ATIK, Bridge or Plush, do you get to see so many Oxford students in one building (including those who you did not expect to see) in an uncomfortably hot environment? 

Oli, the protagonist, is ostensibly introduced as just a ‘nice and chill’ guy who seems to enjoy clubbing (not because he is a “hardcore rat” but instead because he just likes to dance). While Cruelty may be a one-man play, the plot is driven by Oli’s interactions with other characters (disembodied voices that the audience can only hear but never see). 

However, it is never in doubt who this play is centred around: it’s Oli’s world and all the audience can do is watch him react to others. And Luke Nixon’s performance is captivating enough that this does not pose a problem for the play. The audience never seems to lose focus on Oli, and in fact, I found myself continually engrossed by Nixon’s stellar performance.

By easily switching from the intensely serious to light comedic relief, he left the audience mesmerised and brought all aspects of the play to life. Funny throughout, Gabriel Blackwell’s Cruelty moves towards the increasingly macabre as Oli goes from the club to a disturbing hookup, all while the audience is learning about Oli’s Father with the eventual revelation of his suicide. 

Blackwell’s writing continuously shocks. The abrupt descriptions of a gun, an abandoned baby, a homeless man and rotten food in an orgy prevents the audience from ever feeling relaxed and caused me to feel a continual sense of unease throughout. 

However, Cruelty definitely had many comedic moments which the hysterical audience (and even Julia Males in the back) absolutely loved. These jokes landed largely because of Luke’s delivery – my personal favourite being a self-aware joke about a one-man play in Clapham.

Though the disconcerting nature of the script prevented the jokes from being as funny as lines on a page, I don’t know if this is a positive or negative. Was the audience meant to sit shell-shocked, or laugh along guiltily? Blackwell’s writing was discomforting largely because he made a point of ‘breaking the fourth wall’ and making the audience feel as if they were unwelcome voyeurs. Repeatedly, Oli acts as if we should not be looking, shaming the audience, while recognising and stating that we are compelled to look anyway. 

Cruelty does slightly disappoint in one political way – something that as a PPE student I just can’t help but mention, even if others may disagree. Cruelty‘s cursory mention of US police violence, enough to evoke feelings of pity from the audience (but not much else), seems to me symptomatic of a wider problem. Political activism that is viewed as an ‘aesthetic’ designed to solely attract attention for the activist rather than help the marginalised communities they claim to represent. Cruelty fell into this trap. It mentions police brutality but it functions just as another way to shock the audience and as a tool to develop the character of a white man.  It would have better served to either centre the play about police violence or otherwise completely ignore it.

On a final note, Cruelty has succeeded in demonstrating Blackwell’s talent as a first-time writer. By intentionally blurring the line between the audience and the actors, Cruelty set a higher bar than most other student productions. I believe they were able to follow through.

Fringe: “Uncannily familiar”, Review of Cowboys and Lesbians

Anuj Mishra
-
0
Fringe: “Uncannily familiar”, Review of Cowboys and Lesbians

Didn’t we all have that one frustratingly intense and slightly homoerotic friendship in secondary school?

Such is the plight of Cowboys and Lesbians’ lovestruck protagonists. Nina (Julia Pilkington) and Noa (Georgia Vyvyan) are a deeply familiar duo: they discuss one-sided sexual fantasies about their male teachers and lament the canteen’s shortage of southern fried chicken. They are also in denial, disguising their affection for each other with a favourite line of kids who don’t want to renounce heterosexuality quite yet: “well, everyone is a little bit queer”.

As far as portraying British secondary school goes, Billie Esplen strikes the mark perfectly, and this relatability is one of the play’s major strengths. Its other strength lies in its subplot.

This subplot is the product of Nina and Noa’s collective imagination, a sort of fanfic – a parody of rom-com, set in the wild West – which is played out by the same actors. In so weaving these two strands, Cowboys and Lesbians overtly explores the relationship between our most intimate selves and the popular narratives of romance against which we gauge them.

A play of extremes in a sense, the ‘Cowboys’ narrative moves between romance tropes melodramatically while the ‘Lesbians’ mostly sit around and discuss their own lack of action (sexual and otherwise). The constant between the two was the comedy, which was astutely written by Esplen and excellently delivered.

Despite being a two-woman play, Pilkington and Vyvyan jump between characters with great skill, from the delicate bumbling of two teenagers afraid to confess their love for one another, to the aggrandised meet-cute of a cowboy and his Southern belle. Pilkington was on par with Heath Ledger in Brokeback Mountain in her performance of misunderstood masculinity, and Vyvyan had clearly developed a mastery of the smoulder after a month at the Fringe.

Georgia Vyvyan’s signature smoulder. Photography Credits: Arabella Kennedy-Compston (@arabellakcfilm)

Immensely funny, masterfully constructed, and, uncannily familiar – this is a play which knows how to touch its audience.

Cowboys and Lesbians is Billie Esplen’s latest play, and has been produced by Eleanor Birdsall-Smith. Both are alumni of St. Anne’s College (English, 2016) and currently work in film and television. During their time at Oxford, Birdsall-Smith wrote for Cherwell and The Isis, and Esplen for The Isis.

The play ran at Edinburgh Festival Fringe at the Pleasance Dome, the playtext is currently available to purchase.

Over 400 students still await classified degrees, University confirms

Jakub Trybull and Bintia Dennog
-
0
Over 400 students still await classified degrees, University confirms

The University of Oxford has confirmed that approximately 400 students have been provisionally given unclassified degrees in response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request made by Cherwell. While these students will be able to graduate, they will do so without provisionally knowing what class degree they are receiving. 

Of the approximately 3,300 undergraduates and 6,000 postgraduates that make up over 9,000 yearly taught course graduates, 5% will graduate without fully confirmed degrees. Despite a small number being given provisional classifications, the majority of students affected, accounting for roughly 400 undergraduates and postgraduates, hold unclassified degrees. 

The FOI request also revealed that 33 students, comprising 5 undergraduates and 28 taught postgraduates, are unable to graduate due to boycott-related incomplete results, as of 22 August.

19 subjects ranging across all four academic divisions – humanities, social sciences, medical sciences, and mathematical, physical and life sciences – have reported some impact from the boycott.* 

In response to the FOI request submitted by Cherwell on 6 July, the University initially requested a one-week extension on the day the request was due, in order to compile the relevant information. Following this, the FOI was returned and Cherwell was told that no full record of the students nor the subjects affected was held. 

In further correspondence with the University’s Information Compliance Team, Cherwell noted that preliminary numbers must be available. On 17 August, the University stated they would find and provide preliminary figures, which Cherwell then received on 28 August, 53 days after the FOI was submitted. 

Students have previously criticised the University for its lack of transparency in dealing with the boycott. One History and Politics student told Cherwell: “We had to piece together all the evidence, so very much student detective work given the uni’s preference for things to remain very opaque.”

A full record of students affected is expected in November, when all exam results will have processed and exam boards met. The University’s guidance regarding the boycott, last updated on 23 August, states that all assessments will be marked, even if marks are delayed. 

However, the University and College Union (UCU) previously announced that its Higher Education Committee voted to “take further strike action before the end of September and to begin preparations for a new ballot in order to renew UCU’s industrial mandate in the pay and working conditions dispute.” The re-ballot, expected to take place before 30 September, could prolong disruption into 2024.

In a statement to Cherwell, the University said: “While recognising the right to take industrial action, we regret the impact the UCU’s marking and assessment boycott is having on some students. 

“The overwhelming majority of examinations and assessments have taken place as planned, and in most cases the mitigating actions taken by departments have enabled the vast majority of students to graduate. We are grateful to colleagues across the University for their hard work in managing this situation and minimising the impact on students as far as possible.”

The University further stated that they are working on minimising delays and supporting students progressing to further study or jobs. 

* The full list of affected subjects includes Anthropology, Area Studies, Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, Biochemistry, Computer Science, International Development, English, Experimental Psychology, Geography, History, Human Sciences, Law, Maths, Modern Languages, Linguistics, Physics, Politics, Social Data Science/Social Science of the Internet, and Social Policy and Intervention.

‘ASMR Eat Your Heart Out!’: A Review of The Metamorphosis

Anuj Mishra
-
0
‘ASMR Eat Your Heart Out!’: A Review of The Metamorphosis

If you were exposed in any way to Matchbox Productions’ The Metamorphosis this term, the words ‘binaural sound system’ probably accompanied it. For the uninitiated, it’s a fancy phrase for headphones. So, as the last members of the audience squeezed into a packed Pilch, I sat taking in the whispers of Sonya Luchanskaya: ‘You should be hearing this in your left ear.’ ASMR eat your heart out.

This course of action – fiddling, people-watching, ASMRing – was so enjoyable to me that it was only after a good five minutes that I decided to scrutinise the set: a table, already scattered with a messy ensemble of plates, and a floor-length net curtain, behind which was a bed, and a small stand with a charming photograph of Franz Kafka himself. And, of course, the barely visible, and apparently lifeless body of Gregor Samsa (Joe Rachman), as he slept.

Making excellent use of binaural sound (by Alva Orr), The Metamorphosis is delivered (as is done in Kafka’s novella) as the internal monologue of our protagonist, Gregor. The visual perspective is, however, reversed: in the novella, we follow Gregor’s voice, yet director Lily Berrell’s production inverts this, with the actions of the family taking the foreground. The effect of this was interesting, as Gregor is cordoned off in a way which allows the audience to forget him periodically, just as his family slowly begins to. However, Rachman’s constant movement never allowed us to truly forget he was there: here he was in paroxysm, there he stood contorted into one of many “bug positions” (as Rachman described in an interview with Cherwell). This inversion of perspective also allowed the character of Greta Samsa (Juliette Imbert) to take on much greater importance, and rightly so, given her place as Gregor’s caregiver. Imbert did an excellent job of the role, conveying Greta’s slow growth (or decline) from naïve, devoted sister, to chronically irritated, Gregor-hating “fine young lady” (in the words of her parents).

The excellent performances of Gregor and Greta, at the centre of the play, were complemented by the mother-father act, comprising the well-meaning Frau Samsa (Millie Deere), and the stalwart Herr Samsa (Jo Rich). Deere shone in her role, playing the scorned wife, the overbearing mother, as well as the disgusted keeper of a house infected by the “thing” that is Gregor. Berrell performs a master-stroke in leaving Gregor as just that, a “thing”, allowing the metamorphosed character to retain all the ambiguity of form that Kafka intended. Although, in English translation, Gregor is often made a cockroach, Kafka made no such elucidation, and so, we see Rachman slightly bruised up, but with no discernible ‘insect’ costuming: he is stripped down to a pair of white underpants, and his acting does all the work.

The family stay on stage for most of the performance, with no discernible shifts in set or in personage as the play progressed. The temporality of the play was, therefore, masterfully contrived: episodes shifted from one to the other fluidly, months of narrative passed by in what was only a handful of scenes and 45 minutes of performance. The production was well punctuated by the swift entries and exits of the Clerk (Hal Gavin), and then the Lodger (Susie Weidmann). Both burst onto the stage, acknowledging the audience and scrutinizing us as though we were a collection of bric-a-brac on a shelf, and garnering rounds of laughter for their over-the-top roles.

The Metamorphosis was, understandably, intense, and weird – in a good way. Blessed with excellent performances, and clever use of technology, the play captured all the absurdity of Kafka. All in all, a wonderful and careful adaptation of the novella which, as any good adaptation should, took the source material, and ran with it.

Former SU President-Elect who resigned over insensitive social media posts releases book detailing harassment and “injustice”

Cherwell News
-
0
Former SU President-Elect who resigned over insensitive social media posts releases book detailing harassment and “injustice”

Rashmi Samant was elected as the first female Indian president of the Student Union in February 2021. However, within five days of her appointment, student outrage over insensitive social media posts led to her forced resignation. Her new book “A Hindu in Oxford” delves into how her life “turned topsy turvy by accusations of racism, anti-Semitism and transphobia” and the bullying and harassment that ensued. She previously stated that her posts were “dug up, mischievously misinterpreted and weaponized to browbeat me into resigning.” 

The controversies stemmed from Samant’s Instagram posts: she captioned her visit to Malaysia with the phrase “Ching Chang”, separated “women” and “transwomen”, and used a play on words in reference to the Holocaust Museum in Berlin: “The memorial *CASTS* a *HOLLOW* dream of the past atrocities and deeds.” Additionally, Samant also drew a comparison between Cecil Rhodes and Hitler at a Student Union debate. 

On a Twitter post announcing her new book, Samant stated that her “historic election victory rapidly transformed into a distressing nightmare of bullying, harassment, & threats,” which included death threats and police intimidation. 

In an article dwelling on cancel culture, published in the Times of India, Samant explained that the attacks she faced were spearheaded by “an academic at the University who directly targeted and insulted my Hindu identity and upbringing. She added that the “cyber lynching”  that occurred “was so intense that I was bullied into resigning. I caught the first flight back home, had a nervous break-down and ended up in hospital.”

Following the comments made by the academic, Oxford investigated the matter. Although the result remains confidential, Samant’s lawyer, Adhitya Srinivasan, tweeted: “Oxford has finally concluded its investigation into the harassment complaint filed by Ms Rashmi Samant. I am delighted that a decision has been reached, and I am pleased with the outcome of the investigation.”

Samant also said that these attacks had led to her issuing “a wholly unwarranted apology”, as she “did not do anything wrong in the first place, something which has been validated by experienced lawyers and a senior Jewish rights activist.” 

At the time, Oxford’s Jewish Society told Cherwell: “Her caption of a photo at the Berlin Holocaust Memorial exhibited severe insensitivity and ignorance, as did her ill-thought-out parallel between Cecil Rhodes and Adolf Hitler.” The Oxford International Society and the SU LGBTQ+ Campaign also called for her resignation. 

In the Times of India article, Samant also explained that cancel culture has become “a personalized witch-hunt that aims to permanently destroy the character and prospects of those who fail or choose not to conform to political correctness and unreasonable, wokish insanity.” 

She stated: “It is clear that those who purvey a trigger-happy cancel culture are power-hungry hypocrites who derive fulfilment by imposing misery on others. Their combination of sheer ignorance and over-confidence is as dangerous as it is nauseating. They also flagrantly use and abuse the public spirit of accountability to deleterious effect.”

Samant’s successor, Anvee Bhutani, also responded to Samant’s tweet, stating: “When Rashmi resigned, I ran, was elected, and served a successful term as an Indian Hindu President of Oxford University Students Union.

“Racism exists in Oxford, but Rashmi was not bullied because of her race, religion, or nationality. This novel propagates a false narrative.” In response, Samant told her to “read the book before judging it by your bias.”

No evidence connecting Facebook usage and psychological harm

Anika Gupta
-
0
No evidence connecting Facebook usage and psychological harm

An independent study, conducted by Oxford scientists, found no evidence that Facebook had an adverse impact on well-being.

Despite widespread claims about the negative impact of social media platforms on welfare, research piloted by Professor Przybylski and Professor Vuorre at the Oxford Internet Institute, found that their conclusions were quite the opposite. 

Their research paper reflects that, though evidence of detrimental psychological effects linked with Facebook – and social media in general – is popular in academic and non-academic circles alike, indication of harm is always “more speculative than conclusive.“

In supporting this, Oxford researchers analysed well-being data over twelve  years from 72 countries, representing nearly a million people. As much of past research into social media usage and health has been exclusively focussed on data amassing from the Global North, resulting in inaccuracies, Professors Przybylski and Vuorre understood that to distil the best possible results on any plausible associations, they would require a wide-ranging, international database. Some co-operation from Facebook was also required, but only in providing vital data for the project. 

Critically, research looked closely at Facebook’s trends in global penetration in its earlier days (2008 – 2019), where speculation on connection between social media and wellbeing were at the forefront. In addition, they also linked data tracking Facebook’s global adoption with “three indicators of well-being: life satisfaction, negative and positive psychological experiences”. From this, the scientists found positive correlations between Facebook usage and well-being measurements in many cases.

Oxford experts also explored differences in relation to gender and age. Results found that Facebook usage and well-being had, on balance, more of a positive association among youth. Further, a more positive correlation amongst the factors was seen more for males than females. The paper stresses that while the impacts were small, they should not be overlooked.

The Facebook study aligns with previous research from Oxford’s researchers, which found that the use of technology has not increasingly over time become linked with harmful psychological outcomes. 

Professor Vuorre emphasises that their findings should now “help guide the debate surrounding social media towards more empirical research foundations.”

The full study will be published on the Royal Society website after the news embargo lifts.

1...140141142...2,494Page 141 of 2,494

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by James Ashley