Sunday 27th July 2025
Blog Page 141

Genetics

0

What beauty is there
In the anger that spills from your lips?
After every kiss
A fight
Uneven ground
I’ve become so good at telling lies
The droplets fall; I wipe them
Away
Without a thought
You used to brush them from my cheeks
With tentative hands and shaking fingers
Now I turn away,

I really am my mother’s child
But I have my father’s rage
Pent up inside
My brother just has his eyes
From which, I turn away
Though I love my brother dearly
All the pain
And the exercises
And yet he grabs my hand, still
Pleads with those eyes
That belong to a different face
One much less kind.

I could run
But my fate would find me
As it travels through my veins
Filing through my DNA
I was born to wear this broken crown
Genetically programmed
This damaged commodity.


The countdown To 2024: Abortion rights may be the Democrats saving grace

0

In a week where Republicans tore chunks out of each other in a bruising primary debate, the clear frontrunner, Donald Trump, was in New York, battling to save his crumbling Manhattan Empire. Meanwhile, Biden has come under increasing scrutiny from his own party, seen as more of a liability than an asset. Biden is trailing Trump in the polls, with his age leaving uncomfortable questions for Democrats. The stage is set for a tumultuous 2024.

As GOP presidential hopefuls gathered in Miami on November 8th, the real race seemed to be for second place. Perhaps they are holding out for a vice presidential consolation prize, or desperately clinging onto the possibility that they may be able to take over the reins should Trump not survive his 90+ felony charges. 

Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley fought tooth and nail to claw away support from Trump’s protégé turned chief adversary, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, brandishing her hawkish foreign policy credentials – a hangover of the bygone Bush era. DeSantis once represented a credible challenge to the former president, but his support has since plummeted, now just 14% to Trump’s 57%. Haley is ascendent, reviving her stagnant campaign to a ‘respectable’ 8.7%. The other candidates on stage seemed to have lost their raison d’être. The provocateur Ramaswamy was the only unifying force on stage, drawing the ire of all his competitors. Haley labelled him ‘scum’ under her breath in one particularly heated moment. As the candidates wrangled about who had cosied up closest with Chinese businesses and who does or does not use TikTok, one could not help but think of the farce of it all. Where was the real leader of the Grand Old Party?

In fact, Trump was a mere 10 miles away, already campaigning for the presidential election. Earlier that week, however, the former president was testifying in New York. The man who built his identity around being a successful billionaire businessman now faces the prospect of losing control of his empire. The presiding judge has already ruled that Trump regularly lied on his financial statements and exaggerated his net worth. Trump – despite decrying the ‘witch hunt’ – voluntarily appears in court, conscious that every time he is indicted, the campaign donations come flooding in, and his popularity rises with his core base. Judge Engoron has lambasted the former president’s political posturing, ordering his lawyer to control his client, stating: “This is not a political rally”. 

Trump faces mounting legal difficulties across the country, with his greatest peril in Georgia, where he is being pursued by the state, not the federal government. If convicted, he would not have the ability to pardon himself as president. The racketeering (RICO) case centres on the ‘fake electors’ plot and the infamous phone call to Georgia Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, where Trump asked him to “find 11,780 votes”. In recent weeks, Trump’s co-defendants have been peeling off, one by one, mafia-style, to save themselves, pushing Trump further and further into legal peril. Trump faces the genuine prospect of either prison or the presidency – a cell or the Oval Office come the end of next year.

 If Trump does find himself imprisoned, the GOP will find itself at a dangerous crossroads – they can either rally around another candidate or they can follow their leader into the abyss. The guardrails of American democracy were badly damaged by Trump’s election denialism in 2020 and the country has only grown more divided. In a recent speech on Veterans Day, Trump was widely accused of echoing fascist rhetoric as he centred his vitriol on the “vermin” who “lie and steal and cheat on elections”. If Trump were to lose the next election, he would surely cry foul. If Trump were to be imprisoned, his chokehold on the Republican Party could lead his followers to take up arms. And if Trump were to win the next election, we would likely see a further erosion, or indeed the destruction, of the democratic norms that have come to define the United States. There seems to be no eventuality that does not further divide the nation.

The existential threat posed by Trump also seems set to push the GOP further into the abyss as Republicans fight for the soul of their party. In Miami, Ramaswamy openly called on Ronna McDaniel, the Chairwoman of the Republican Party, to resign citing the spate of recent electoral failures. In Washington, far-right House Republicans ousted their own speaker, Kevin McCarthy, and then struggled to fill the very void they opened. Given all this turmoil, shouldn’t President Biden be cruising to another victory? 

It appears perhaps not, with a recent NYT/Siena Poll putting Biden’s prospects of re-election into question. Trump leads Biden in five of the six major swing states. David Axelrod, chief strategist for Obama’s presidential campaigns, made headlines when he questioned whether it was in the country’s best interests for Biden to run for re-election. 

Of course, polls one year out from an election hardly predict the outcome (if they did, we would likely be coming to the end of eight years of a Hilary Clinton presidency), but the poll has exposed some uncomfortable trends for the Democrats. Perhaps the most concerning is the breakdown in Biden’s “Grand Coalition” of supporters: non-white voters and the young. While incumbents can often struggle to reinvigorate their base, Biden is doing especially badly, with the New York Times noting, in its Times/Siena poll: “Overall, Mr. Trump earns more than 20 percent [support] among Black voters, a tally that would be unprecedented in the post-Civil Rights Act era”. 

It is the apathy among young voters to turn out and vote for an octogenarian that has fuelled debate over whether the Democrats should replace Biden with a more youthful candidate. Indeed, the same NYT/Siena poll recorded that while 44% of voters in battleground states would vote for Biden, 48% would back any ‘generic Democrat’. In a new CNN poll, Biden’s approval rate stood at 39%, and 58% say that his policies have made economic conditions worse; 67% of Democrats say the party should nominate someone other than Biden. Biden faces continual questions about his age and mental acuity, draining energy from his campaign and raising uncomfortable questions for Democrats: if Biden is such a liability, why don’t Democrats make the switch? 

Despite Biden’s legislative successes, including passing a bipartisan infrastructure bill, the CHIPS Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, voters are not so generous in rewarding long-term and incremental improvements. Establishment Democrats are reticent to field another nominee given Biden’s unique position as the only person who can claim to have beaten Donald Trump in a presidential election. Moreover, there is simply not much time left; the little-known Democratic congressman from Minnesota, Dean Phillips, put his head above the parapet, only to be swiftly criticized, sidelined, and ridiculed by the Democratic Establishment. With the DNC changing the presidential primary calendar to favour Biden, it is clear there is little appetite for change. Likewise, nobody wants a repeat of the Ted Kennedy fiasco in 1980 when the Democratic congressman launched a campaign against incumbent President Carter, only for Carter to win the primary, but his campaign mortally wounded.

Herein lies another paradox. Despite Biden’s perilous approval ratings and the apparent collapse of his coalition, the Democrats keep winning big. After halting the arrival of the mythical, but much heralded, ‘red wave’ in the 2022 midterms, the Democrats have successfully used the issue of abortion rights to galvanize support. The night before the third Republican primary debate, the Democrats swept to victory in several states – motivated to protect abortion rights following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling in 2022 which removed the federal right to an abortion. Voters in Ohio, the quintessential purple state turned Trump stronghold, voted 56.6% in favour of establishing a constitutional right to abortion. In Virginia, Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin’s aspirations for a 15-week limit were thwarted when Republicans not only failed to capture the State Senate but lost the House of Delegates. 

In Kentucky, it is almost unbelievable that the same state that produced Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul re-elected their Democratic governor, Andy Beshear. Daniel Cameron, his Republican rival, tried to link him to Biden, but Beshear did not bite. It seems that at least in red country, Biden proved more of a liability than an asset. The issue of abortion rights may very well be the Democratic Party’s saving grace if they can successfully energise young people to go out and vote while also reminding voters that it was Trump who appointed the very judges who would go on to rule in the pivotal Dobbs case. To quote the political commentator Dean Obeidallah, forget Carville’s “It’s the economy, stupid”. It’s abortion, stupid.

Thus, one year out, the 2024 presidential election is a tale of paradoxes. Democrats keep winning big on the issue of abortion, but Biden looks set to lose the election to his deeply divisive predecessor. Likewise, Republicans continue to engage in destructive infighting while the clear GOP favourite battles to stay out of prison. The United States, once the great paragon of democracy and stability, looks set to face its most existential threat since the Civil War. Now, the country must ask itself: “Quo Vadis”?

Student Union to condemn Oxford Union for controversial speakers

0

The Student Council has passed a motion mandating the SU condemn the Oxford Union for inviting Ben Shapiro, Katie Hopkins, and Charlie Kirk.

The motion comes just months after Kathleen Stock’s controversial Oxford Union visit last Trinity term. In the leadup to the event, the SU removed a statement published by the SU LGBTQ Campaign which called for rescinding Stock’s invitation. According to the SU, the decision was made “over fears the statement may have been in breach of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023.”

The most recent motion on Shapiro, Hopkins, and Kirk stated that the views of the three Oxford Union speakers were “repulsive and not worthy of respect in any reasonable society,” devoting a paragraph to each of the speakers and their controversial statements. 

Among the included quotes from Ben Shapiro was his claim that “Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage.” Katie Hopkins was criticised for a tweet that stated “Gypsies are ferrel [sic] humans—we have no duty to them.” The third and final speaker in the motion, Charlie Kirk, was reproached by the SU for promoting inflammatory conspiracy theories and referring to George Floyd as a “scumbag.”

The Student Council also resolved to mandate SU Sabbatical Officers publicly support any protests against Union invitations of Shapiro, Kirk, or Hopkins. While the Student Council clarified that this public support did not imply the Sabbatical Officers had to attend the protests themselves, it indicated that the required support would “include, but not be limited to, the sharing of the details of any such planned protests which the SU or its sabbatical officers are informed of, within one working day of being informed of such protest.”

The Student Council furnished members with an appendix including a draft for the condemnation that would be released on social media. The draft included much of the material covered in the resolution, but it also drew a distinction between supporting free speech and providing a prominent platform to speakers with objectionable views: “We believe that the right to free speech should not be used to actively harm marginalised groups, and that these views may amount to hate speech. 

“The right to free speech does not equate to the right to a platform, especially one this exclusive, where the right to challenge these views costs up to £350 [referring to the Oxford Union membership dues].”

The Student Council concluded the condemnation draft by addressing the Higher Education Freedom of Speech Act passed in June 2023: “As a student union we would like to speak freely on our views around this subject but one of the consequences of the interpretations of the new Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, perversely, means that we may not be able to. 

“Instead we will condemn this ‘bastion of freedom of free speech’ [The Oxford Union] not standing up for our own and implore them to actually be that bastion. Platform marginalised voices and activism, actually show opinions that the media often shoot down and trivialise, let marginalised voices be heard, beyond a context where we have to fight for our right to exist. 

“In addition to condemning the views of Ben Shapiro, Katie Hopkins, and Charlie Kirk and their invitation to the Oxford Union, we condemn the government’s introduction of the Higher Education Act and call for it to be repealed immediately, as the act is in fact, in our belief, a crackdown on freedom of speech.”

Why Don’t We Have Any ‘Mega Popstars’ Anymore? 

0

This August, Billboard released an article asking the question: where have all our mega popstars from the 2000s and early 2010s gone? It was met by widespread online conversations, reflecting the deep-rooted concern within the music industry that the number of recognisable faces in pop music have declined in recent years. Labels are no longer relying on these ‘mega stars’ as the foundation for their incoming profit because pop stars are no longer breaking into mainstream media in the same way they had in the decades prior. Steve Cooper, the former CEO of Warner Music Group, stated at the Goldman Sachs Communacopia and Technology Conference: “what we’ve done over the last number of years is reduce our [financial] dependency on superstars.” Even the record labels have been forced to change their tactics to keep up with the developing industry. Now, record labels financially depend on a larger number of smaller artists, helping them to create dedicated, but more intimate, fan bases who will buy tickets and merchandise. This is a step away from record labels funneling their money into a small number of ‘mega pop stars’ and relying on them and their star power to make up the majority of their profit.

So what does it mean to be a pop star in today’s day and age? In the early 2000s, ‘making it’ as a pop star meant being on the front cover of magazines, hounded by paparazzi, winning Grammys, and selling out arenas. But now, an artist’s success is measured completely differently. Having a couple hundred thousand streams on Spotify or blowing up on TikTok are celebrated as huge accomplishments. What defines someone as a successful pop artist has narrowed – international and mainstream fame is no longer the aim. But why and how has this happened?

In the age of social media and ultra-personalised online algorithms, individuals are increasingly being shown content which is tailored to their interests. Gone are the days when we would collectively read the same news from the same tabloids from the same sources. With algorithms as sophisticated as TikTok’s, we see the creation of pop stars or new emerging musical talent, but only to a select audience. Musical-theatre-star-turned-pop-musician Renee Rapp debuted her first album this August. Her first American and European tour saw her sell out venues with capacities of around 5,000 seats. A decade ago, this may have led some to say that she was on the cusp of becoming a major pop star. But now, her tour videos and album press are only being presented to those who want to see it. She is popular among her loyal fanbase, but the previous wide reach that pop stars were able to turn into international fame is not available. Instead, musicians aim to form smaller, but more loyal, fanbases.

TikTok has also changed who record labels sign, and in what way they do it. Record labels have grown to place a huge emphasis on artists having a notable social media following before they can even be considered for contract. Gone are the days of years of artist development where record labels help to discover and support underground artists. This contributes to the lack of ‘once in a generation’ pop talent. Beyonce had her time in Destiny’s Child, her former girl group, before taking the world by storm as a solo act. Taylor Swift was able to release her debut album before international hits ‘Love Story’ and ‘You Belong With Me’ featured on her second album. Without record labels backing artists who might not find instant success, they leave thousands of artists undiscovered.

Instead, record labels are signing the artists with the most followers and engagement, not necessarily the ones with the most artistic promise. What makes this worse is this tactic clearly is not working. One A&R executive stated, “labels signed more and signed worse than ever before in the decade-plus I’ve been at a major”. The problem is that TikTok is not designed to promote and sustain an artist’s career, but rather individual songs. In the 2000s, when streaming was not as widely used as it is today, labels had significant control over what songs were put on the radio. Record labels could control what we listened to and ensure that certain artists had radio play. Now, however, streaming and Tiktok hold much more importance within the industry. Even if an artist has a hit TikTok song, the wider online audience is unlikely to hear the artist’s later singles. The small success which pop artists can grasp onto is hard to transform into a long-lasting career within pop music. For example, Katie Gregson-MacLeod came to TikTok fame when a video of her singing her song ‘Complex’ garnered 9 million views. It became widely shared and talked about on TikTok and led to her being signed with Columbia Record. Despite her strong artistry and compelling lyrics, the majority of her videos now have under twelve thousand views. This is out of MacLeod’s and her Columbia Record’s hands – it is simply the nature of TikTok, proving how risky it is to rely on it.

As an aspiring pop artist myself I can attest to the industry’s growing frustration, especially among independent artists, at how TikTok has grown to play such a seismic role in music today. If you want to be discovered and signed and funded by a label you have to start playing the game, which is no longer about artistry but online numbers. Of course, you cannot ignore the huge opportunity that TikTok and other social media platforms offer to artists, allowing them to promote their music to millions of people for free and fairly easily. However the reliance that the industry now has on TikTok is, I believe, a failure on the part of record labels. This approach to discovering and signing artists is not sustainable, and I’m sure in the next few decades when the influence of TikTok slowly decreases record labels will have to rethink their current strategy. 

This is not to say that we will never have a mega popstar again. Olivia Rodrigo released her sophomore album ‘Guts’ this September which topped the album charts in 14 countries and gained her 6 Grammy nominations, including Album of the Year. Dua Lipa has just released her first single titled ‘Houdini’ since her second album ‘Future Nostalgia’ which received over 6 million unfiltered streams on Spotify on its first day, her biggest debut yet. We still see pop stars stake their claim in the music industry, all hope is not lost, but the age of a music industry which runs off the monetary power of dozens of rising and established pop stars are over. 

Eight colleges to raise hourly wages to £13.15

0

Eight colleges are set to raise hourly wages in line with the latest measure to increase the living wage in Oxford by 10%. This is part of a series of measures by the Council to promote wage fairness in the local economy. The new Oxford Living Wage will be raised to £12.49 an hour, and be pegged at 95% of the London Living Wage, currently £13.15.

The Oxford Living Wage, first introduced by the City Council in 2008, is part of the broader Oxfordshire Inclusive Economy Partnership between local government and civil society, to promote equality & sustainable opportunities across the county.

Oxford’s colleges have long been criticised on the grounds of labour rights. A student-led campaign for better wages and conditions in University employment, Oxford Worker Justice, has drawn attention to issues such as the lack of transparency over precisely how much non-academic workers at the colleges are paid, as well as over the use of zero-hour contracts and agency staff.

An annual ranking of colleges published by Oxford Worker Justice finds low pay, insecure contracts, and massive wage inequalities to be prevalent across the majority of colleges. Past investigations by Cherwell, meanwhile, have brought light to exploitative labour practices and stressful workplace conditions among University housekeepers in the “scout system”.

Additionally, the City Council’s employer recognition incentive, that encourages employers who pay the Oxford Living Wage to accredit so they can get wider recognition, indicates that less than 25% of Oxford’s 38 colleges have been accredited. From a list of over 120 accredited employers, only Magdalen, Merton, New, Somerville, St. Cross, St. John’s , Wadham, Worcester Colleges appear, in addition to local businesses frequented by students, such as Common Ground Cafe & the Old Fire Station arts hub.

As an incentive, the Council argues that providing a living wage may help businesses “improve both recruitment and retention.” Research from the Living Wage Foundation backs this up; 75% of surveyed employers reported that paying a living wage had increased workers’ motivation and retention rates, while 94% felt that it had benefited their business overall.

Set to come in from April 2024, all businesses will be accredited through a recognition scheme, operated by Oxford City Council and the nationwide Living Wage Foundation. 

Oxford partners with IMF to predict disruptions to global supply chain

In collaboration with the IMF, Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute has launched ‘PortWatch’, an online platform monitoring and simulating disruptions to global maritime trade from external shocks including those caused by climate change. It was a winner of the 2022 IMF Climate Innovation Challenge, which fosters innovation and collaboration to tackle economic and financial issues related to climate change.

The platform uses satellite data to model actual and expected trade disruptions to maritime ports and assess subsequent spill-over effects on global supply chains. It also allows users to identify current vulnerabilities within the maritime trade network based on new climate scenario analysis developed by Oxford researchers. 

Disruptions to global supply chains, including from Covid-19 lockdowns and extreme weather events, have lost the global economy billions in recent years. University of Oxford Professor of Climate and Environmental Risks, Jim Hall said “Shocks to trade and supply chains can propagate rapidly around the world, leading to economic disruptions and real impacts for people”. He is hopeful that “using PortWatch, we can track shipping disruption at ports and in critical shipping lanes around the world, providing up-to-date information for decision makers.” 

PortWatch is available for public use online, but is intended primarily for policymakers and analysts. IMF Chief Statistician, Data Officer, and Director of the Statistics Department, Bert Kroese said that “the platform’s innovative data sources and visualization tools are designed to help facilitate international dialogue and inform policy decisions.”

Other collaborators on the project include the Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), the United Nations Global Platform (UNGP), the World Bank (WB), and the World Trade Organization (WTO). It received initial funding from the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO).

The project is available for public access at portwatch.imf.org.

Transgender Day of Remembrance Vigil held in Radcliffe Square

0

Oxford students, staff, and community members gathered in Radcliffe Square last night for a Transgender Day of Remembrance Vigil, organised by the SU LGBTQ+ Campaign to “honour the memory of trans lives lost to violence, hate crimes, and transphobia.”

This observance marks the fourth vigil held in Oxford for Transgender Day of Remembrance, an annual memorial founded in 1999 to commemorate Rita Hester and Chanelle Pickett, two Black trans women murdered in Massachusetts. 

Standing next to a memorial tied to the Radcliffe Camera’s fence that listed the names of trans victims of violence, speakers shared memories, recited poems, and performed songs.

One speaker, Chrissie Chevasutt, an outreach worker for the trans, intersex, and nonbinary community at St. Columba’s United Reformed Church in Oxford spoke about the “hate” perpetuated by many churches and media outlets as a major driver of transphobic violence. 

In statements made before the event, they also praised the decision made by several Oxford colleges to fly the trans pride flags in observance of Transgender Day of Remembrance this week, saying “my whole soul and body breathes a deep sigh of relief, to know that many of Oxford’s colleges are flying the flag. 

“This is huge, in the immediate, it sends a message of hope, that culture and society is changing.” 

Speakers also addressed the ongoing conflict in Israel-Palestine, reading out messages from queer and trans Palestinians posted on the website “Queering the Map.”

The vigil concluded with a moment of silence commemorating the lives lost to anti-trans violence in the past year, following a poem by the co-chair of the SU’s LGBTQ+ campaign, Joel Aston, who expressed their “grief and anger” at transphobic violence. Commenting on the vigil, Addi Haran Diman, president of the Oxford LGBTQ+ Society, said “on [Trans Day of Remembrance], we are rightfully saddened and enraged by losing so many community members. May their memory give us the power to continue fighting another year.”

How to judge a book by its cover

0

Let’s be real. You’re in Blackwells looking for a book to read if you’re cool, and buying a mug with a world map on it if you’re not. You wouldn’t sit there and flip through the pages absorbing the information in the book to then decide whether or not you should spend 8 pounds on it after you have practically fully read it. If you do that, you’re a sociopath. Therefore, the ability to judge a book by its cover is a skill that is essential for any reader’s repertoire.

The first thing that would catch any normally functioning human’s eye, would be colour. Yeah, pretty books make for great coffee table decorations, but no, you must not be lured by that. Resist the temptation. What you are allowed to judge a book by, though, is the name. Usually. Well written books tend to have interesting names. Maybe some alliteration thrown in there, some banter with words, something not cheesy please, or just something classic or comforting or beautiful. A few examples of the following are, ‘The Elements of Eloquence’ (great relevance for the book’s content too), ‘The Enchanted April’ (doesn’t that just sound like a beautiful read?!) or ‘Where the Crawdads sing’ (What are crawdads? And why do I care about where they sing?). But this doesn’t always work. For example, ‘Pineapple street’. I thought it was a cute name, but it’s a shit book. I guess I was at fault because the cover was orange, my bad.

The next thing I’d consider would be the author. Have I heard their name before and in what context? Did someone cringe at their name or was there reverence and brimming excitement. Was it booktok or a Guardian recommendation? I mean you do you, but I’d totally judge. Some classics like Agatha Christie, Virginia Woolf and George Orwell are just timeless and you could blindly pick those up and know they won’t be bad. A risk pays off sometimes though, but if you wanna play safe, the older ones that are still sticking around bookstores are usually pretty good.

Lastly, the vibes. Did you see it in a section that is surrounded by similarly good books? Is it close to other books that you have read and liked in the past? Does the blurb sound unique and make you feel something? Does it make you wish that there was more? If the synopsis feels too long you’re not getting through 5 pages of that book. Skim through the first page of the author’s introduction if they have one(trust me). Is that engaging? If yes, that book will change your life.

Out of a compulsion to not discriminate against any books, I would like to state that all books offer a special insight into the writer’s perspective on life. Now that that’s out of the way, here’s a couple of basic rules: if the book has been adapted into a young adult movie, it goes down by 5 points. If it has pictures of real people instead of graphics, minus 3. If the reviews on the book say ‘deliciously fun’, ‘poignant’ or any stupid word you could use to describe your chicken, minus 10. If it talks about taking you on a journey, run the other way. Now that you’re fully equipped with the skills to judge a book by its cover, I wish you all the best with wise spending and enjoyable experiences for the rest of your life’s journey.

High Commission “disappointed” with Turkish Society’s platforming of Ersin Tatar

0

The High Commission of the Republic of Cyprus in the UK has expressed “serious concern and disappointment” with the presence of the elected leader of the Turkish occupied area of Cyprus, Ersin Tatar, at an event hosted by the Turkish Society. Concerns lie largely with language and symbols used to promote the event.

On Monday, the Oxford University Turkish society hosted an event with Ersin Tatar, branded as “a talk by [the] President of [the] Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus,” the “TRNC”. As part of the event’s social media marketing, the presidential seal and a link to Tatar’s website was included. 

The High Commission was particularly concerned with word choice regarding Tatar’s position as it implied that the TRNC is a sovereign state. In fact, it is only recognised by Turkey and not any of the other 192 UN member states, which consider it to be legally part of the Republic of Cyprus.

In a conversation with Cherwell, the High Commission said that they have informed the University and St John’s College of their concerns. They added that they “respect free speech” but urged any symbols and language used to be in line with United Nations Security Council resolutions. These called upon all states “not to recognise any Cypriot state other than the Republic of Cyprus” and “not to facilitate or in any way assist the aforesaid secessionist entity”.

Nicholas Kyriakides, the chairman of Oxford University Society in Cyprus, told Cherwell: “This terminology directly contradicts recognised international norms and is offensive to the citizens of the Republic of Cyprus.”

In response, Oxford University Turkish Society stated: “We were asked to host the event by the President himself and the Turkish Embassy, so we used the title that they asked us to use. It was not a political statement by our society but simply how the guest chose to identify himself.

“We recognise that Cyprus has had a challenging path to peace with ongoing international disputes and suffering on both sides. Tatar’s two state solution is one of the proposals for lasting peace and he is a democratic representative of the Turkish Cypriot community, he deserves to be heard out on those grounds.”

St John’s College told Cherwell: “The College looked at the event carefully. We had a number of aims to consider, including both the wellbeing of all our members, and also our legal obligation to uphold freedom of speech within the law.”

“Having reviewed this, we felt that the event should proceed, but noted that hosting any speaker or society does not imply College endorsement of their views. We asked the organisers to make it clear that the invitation to speak comes from them, not from the College or University, and also asked them to ensure that the event was managed in such a way as to avoid distress or disruption to members of the College and wider community. The President did receive a letter from the High Commission and responded to it.”

In a statement to Cherwell, the High Commission said: “Being certain that Oxford University would have never agreed to hold at its premises any event that would have hosted a representative of an entity that the international community through UN Security Council Resolutions, has declared as illegal, null and void, and the sensitivity of the message and effect of giving a platform to Mr Tatar especially when he was listed in the invitation/poster of the event as the so called “President of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”, we respectfully urged the University authorities to reconsider their decision to allow this event to take place even so this was not an official University event.”

Ersin Tatar and the University have been reached for comment.