Saturday, May 17, 2025
Blog Page 146

Brasenose College JCR disaffiliates from SU and NUS

0

Brasenose College JCR has voted to disaffiliate from the Oxford Student Union (SU), and by extension from the National Union of Students (NUS). 

In an email seen by Cherwell, the Brasenose JCR Secretary told students that “[f]ollowing the referenda a couple of weeks ago, I am now able to announce that Brasenose JCR has voted to disaffiliate from both Oxford SU and the National Union of Students”. The email continued, reassuring students that “the JCR’s disaffiliation from both organisations will not affect your individual rights to interact with the SU or the NUS, nor to make use of their services”.

While Brasenose College JCR is not directly affiliated with the NUS, the motion for disaffiliation that was passed was titled “Disaffiliation from the SU and the NUS”. The motion noted that “[a]ffiliation with the NUS costs the SU, and therefore the collective student body, over £20,000 a year”, and added that the JCR “should not stand for the unaccountability of the NUS regarding its structural failure to efficiently combat antisemitism”, referencing Rebecca Tuck KC’s independent report into antisemitism within the NUS. Regarding the SU, the motion said it was “structurally unsound … the Sabbatical Trustees are ineffective, unaccountable … and at times uncooperative, whilst being paid around £25k”.

The Brasenose JCR Committee told Cherwell that during the meeting to discuss affiliation it had to be explained what the SU actually does, which they think “clearly shows that the SU is neither active nor vocal enough to garner the attention of our students”. The Committee said that the “absence of a working relationship” between the JCR and the SU meant members of the JCR Committee “have had to resort to consulting with the Vice Chancellor directly, which negates the founding purpose of the SU as an intermediary”. The Committee also criticised the SU’s decision to retract a statement against Kathleen Stock, claiming that “the SU leadership does not do enough to defend the voices of the student body, and those of vulnerable minority groups in particular”. The Committee concluded: “The SU does not work for our students. As such, we see no reason to remain affiliated.”

Joel Bassett, Brasenose JCR Secretary, emphasised to Cherwell that the referendum had been held purely because the JCR is bound to propose a motion considering its affiliation every Trinity Term. However, Bassett added that he “personally put forward a case in favour of disaffiliating from both organisations”. He thought the SU “has not made enough of an effort to effect change at a university level, and has not made an effort to work with our JCR”, and also cited Rebecca Tuck KC’s report. Bassett added that “[b]y disaffiliating, we hope that both organisations will feel greater pressure to change how they run, and to foster better relations with other Common Rooms”. 

The disaffiliation will stand at least until Brasenose JCR reconsiders their affiliations again in a year’s time. The email sent to students added that the JCR would “soon be writing to both organisations to confirm this and to express our discontent”.

The SU told Cherwell: “[We aim] to ensure that all students feel represented by us. A common room choosing to disaffiliate is therefore a clear sign that we must work hard to improve our support, and listening to the student body about how we can develop a better SU is an absolute priority going forward.

“The SU President has reached out to Brasenose to discuss students’ discontents and how we can work with them to address any issues.”

Just last term, the SU itself held a referendum on affiliation with the NUS and voted to remain affiliated by 791 to 589, but with a turnout of only 5% of the student body.

This article was updated at 1pm on 14/06/2023.

Election succession suspended for President-Elect amidst allegations of electoral malpractice

Election succession for President-Elect Hannah Edwards has been suspended due to allegations of electoral malpractice. The allegations also affect the elections to Secretary’s Committee. An Election Tribunal will shortly be summoned to hear these claims.

The Union’s Returning-Officer (RO) wrote in a statement, published on the Union noticeboard, that he received four complaints of malpractice which “purport to affect the Office of the President-elect, Librarian-elect, Standing Committee and Secretary’s Committee”. The RO has since clarified to Cherwell that he received two valid allegations of electoral malpractice which purport to affect the Office of President Elect and Secretary’s Committee, and two other complaints which were passed to the Tribunal for consideration and subsequently ruled to be invalid.

This follows an election which saw markedly low voter turnout and mostly uncontested positions.

Edwards has been contacted for comment and this article will be updated to reflect ongoing developments.

New multi-cancer blood test shows promising results

A new multi-cancer blood test sponsored and facilitated by the University of Oxford has been lauded as a potential breakthrough in cancer research and diagnosis, according to results from an NHS trial. 

Testing for over 50 different types of cancer in more than 5,000 people in England and Wales from the ages of 18 and over visiting their GP with suspected symptoms, the trial yielded a success-rate for identifying the disease as an impressive two in every three cases. Of these, the NHS trial has shown a further 85% success rate in the ability of the new multi-cancer blood test to identify the original site of the cancer.

As part of the SIMPLIFY study, it forms part of the first ever large-scale multi-cancer early detection testing (also known as MCED) in individuals presenting to their GP to follow-up on suspected cases of cancer, and has relied on the joint work of public and private sector companies in the United Kingdom and abroad.

With the University of Oxford both sponsoring the study and responsible for data collection, interpretation and analysis, efforts have received considerable funding from bodies such as the American healthcare company, GRAIL. Further support has been given by NHS England, NHS Wales, the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) and NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

Professor Helen McShane is the Director of the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Group, and has described the study as ‘A fantastic example of how academia and industry can work together for patient benefit’ through a shared commitment ‘to diagnosing cancers earlier, when they can be cured’.

The importance of an early cancer diagnosis to a patient’s well-being and prognosis is well-known, yet has often been challenged in part by limitations on the resources available to GPs and hospitals, as well as the heavy weight of associated costs.

According to Brian D. Nicholson, Associate Professor at Oxford’s Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, it is here, as well as within the science itself, that the blood test trialled by SIMPLIFY offers real hope. 

Discussing the implications on standard GP consultations, Nicholson explained that “most patients diagnosed with cancer first see a primary care physician for the investigation of symptoms suggestive of cancer, like weight loss, anaemia, or abdominal pain, which can be complex as there are multiple potential causes. New tools that can both expedite cancer diagnosis and potentially avoid invasive and costly investigations are needed to more accurately triage patients who present with non-specific cancer symptoms’”

Alongside ‘the high overall specificity, positive predictive value, and accuracy of the cancer signal detected and cancer signal origin prediction that was reported across cancer types in the SYMPLIFY study indicate that a positive MCED test could be used to confirm that symptomatic patients should be evaluated for cancer before pursuing other diagnoses.’

These potential advances in optimising the process of cancer diagnosis is hoped to be a step in the right direction not only to limiting the need for the harsher and frequently invasive treatments for cancers caught in their later stages, but also to curbing the fatality rate of the disease through early diagnosis while optimising NHS resources and cutting waiting times.

Jam Factory to reopen

0

Having shut last September, The Jam Factory will reopen with Thirst Bar as the new license holders. The former tenants who ran a restaurant, bar, and gallery in the space which hosted live music every Friday independently were forced to close the doors of the former marmalade factory when they could not come to an agreement with the property’s landlords, Nuffield College.

The new license granted to Thirst permits them to host live gigs and film screenings at the site. This venue would become the cocktail bar chain’s third across the UK and second in Oxford. Thirst is typically less popular with undergraduates than Atik or Bridge, styling itself toward a target market of young professionals with deeper pockets.

This comes after Brasenose College reversed their decision last week from a staunchly opposed position to the licensing of the venue where a spokesperson maintained that the application be ‘refused entirely’. The college expressed concern that the late closing times applied for by Spirit Ltd. on behalf of Thirst: 1am on Thursday and 2am on Friday and Saturday, would intrude upon their ‘peaceful place in which to sleep and study’. But the college’s position softened, and it then withdrew objections to the license after a new, uniform closing time of 12am was agreed upon.The Oxford Mail reported that neighbours feared the return of what they termed “drunken revelry” which they associated with Plush’s old Park End St incarnation before it moved to its current location in Frewin Court. The date of the legendary venue’s grand reopening is yet to be announced.

How can we make the most of Oxford’s eight-week frenzy?

0

There’s nothing that irks me more than non-Oxford students complaining about a ten week term, weekly lectures, and measly seminar reading. It’s not like they even go to those anyways. And let’s not forget about the reading week spent skiing in the Swiss Alps. So when my non-Oxford friends ask me whether I’ve ‘caught up on my lectures’ (not that I have any), I really need to spend some quality welfare time with the college cats. Let me put it this way: we have a different lifestyle over here at Oxford. A lifestyle that I can barely even keep up with myself.

I am often told how lucky I am to only have eight week terms. I’m not even here for half the year, so what’s the big deal? I had no idea that at other universities, summer terms are spent for revision and exams. I remember only too well the stress of juggling Prelims revision and Italian language classes hoping for even a moment to sit in Gail’s and contemplate life. We may have 0th week — but it’s hardly the same when you’re busy moving back in and cramming collections revision. The work is compressed into two months in which you find yourself jumping over essay hurdles, praying that your chatterbox tute partner diverts the conversation away from that pesky reading you never got round to doing. There is not enough time to do so many essays, and sometimes I feel like I come away from tutorials knowing nothing. Yet, I have friends from home with only two essays a term. Two! And here I am with two essays a week if I’m lucky. The mental marathon that is expected of you far outweighs a genuine interest in your reading list, for that information will have to be stored deep within the recesses of your brain until those final exams. Whether or not that’s a good thing, I couldn’t say. Somehow I just know that I have been conditioned to the Oxford lifestyle.

But maybe other universities have it right. At my boyfriend’s university for instance, their Uni glossary includes words such as ‘academic calendar’ and ‘collusion’, whereas we have to define the word ‘Commoner’ and ‘Bulldog’ (which I myself still don’t really understand). And don’t get me started on the College family system. While I have found Oxford’s collegiate system to be a welcoming support bubble, I have been met with some serious side-eye when discussing ‘college parents’ and ‘sub fusc’ to my friends back home. College families are a sweet welfare idea in your first days as a fresher, but once you mention how your college made you marry your own college sister…it does get just a bit too ridiculous. Even the Oxford bubble is constricted between colleges. Our lives are incongruous to each other. I couldn’t imagine life at another college, let alone another university. Since we all slaved so hard to get here, we might as well romanticise it. The only thing universal about university is the struggle. But at least I get an Oxford degree out of this, right? All this hard work will certainly be worth it.

The university experience is one bound by the restrictions of time. If only we had the time to enjoy the weekly formals, college bops, and annual balls — though this is still a sore subject for my fellow Hughsies — maybe I would not feel bittersweet jealousy when I see others living an ‘easier’ university life. We have found ourselves in a place where we are surrounded by tradition and glamour, yet we have no time to enjoy it. Certainly, one could say that such pressures exist at all universities but with the distinct experiences presented to Oxford students, it’s almost a shame that participating feels like a guilty pleasure.

Reflections of an Oxford Union reporter

0

For better or worse, I’m known around town as a journalist who reports on the Oxford Union – something I’ve done for both Cherwell and national newspapers over the last two years. Now, before I leave the country on my year abroad (putting as much distance between myself and the historic debating society as possible) I wanted to write a bit about my experiences of reporting there. 

The Union’s place within Oxford is interesting. An initially inconspicuous gothic building in the town centre, some students manage to do their entire degrees without setting foot in it. Maybe they’re put off by the £300 life membership fee or avoid it for ideological reasons. Maybe joining never even occurred to them. But knowingly or unknowingly, they live alongside several thousand current students who own a life membership and others – like 6 former Prime Ministers – for whom a place on the Union’s committee is a defining part of their time at Oxford.

Typically, Union committee members (“hacks”) are held in some level of reverence or disdain by other students. My friends in college, who seem bored by the Union’s very existence, often ask me how and why I have the will to report on these people. Let’s start with “how”, because there are a number of tricks to the trade…

  • Be available: any aspiring Union reporter should live on Facebook Messenger and be prepared to put their evening on hold to hear the latest gossip if necessary. Most hacks are so self-obsessed that they’ll give you a lot of information if you’re patient enough to listen. That said, it’s always worth having multiple sources as a means of cross-referencing, to help distinguish the facts from the half-truths and self-serving agendas.
  • Read the Union’s atrociously dull Standing Orders (read them and understand them!): seeing as the majority of recent committee dramas have been driven by “infringements” of these regularly-updated constitutional clauses, it’s worth having working knowledge. One of my more down-to-earth sources recently told me: “this entire year in union politics is built on hacks not knowing rules” and it’s true; the constitution seems to exist less as a foundation for running the society than as a means for angsty twenty-year-olds to perpetually screw each other over. So, with political prospects pivoting on the contents of this immense PDF document, paying attention to its language in your reporting will do wonders for the Union’s perceptions of your competence – and, in turn, how much committee is likely to tell you.
  • Live in the buildings: I can’t stress this one enough. Making yourself part of the scenery is important, not only so people can sidle up and slip you secrets, but because it’s amazing how much you can observe about the place just by sitting in it. Also, as it stands, committee doesn’t seem to have addressed the fact that the walls are very thin, and their conversations are consequently very audible. Only last week I was working in the Union, completely minding my own business, when I suddenly became privy to an officer’s frenzied attempts to write a speech using ChatGPT after Peter Tatchell pulled out of the pride debate. And sometimes you learn things which are really interesting…

Beyond these ground rules, dress well and speak politely; apologise profusely for covering stories the hacks would rather you didn’t (while covering them anyway), and make sure your caffeine dependency is slightly more visible than theirs (they’ll respect it). It’s really just a cultivated way of putting your sources at ease, by looking as if you could almost be one of them… 

Well, as someone who spends most of the year running around town in Barbour jacket with a non-stop rota of coffees, there’s certainly a world in which I might have been a hack – and the same could actually be said for several of my old colleagues at Cherwell. But as it is, I like writing a little bit too much, which led me to the realisation that demographic overlap and the ability to think like a hack might be helpful when trying to report on them.

But why would anyone want to spend their time in this way? My answer here is ever-evolving, and my relationship with the Union is complex. For my first term in Oxford, I didn’t make it to a single event and bought a membership because I wanted to use the library. (I memorably got lost when I was trying to find the place and had to ask Michael – the then-Librarian – if he happened to know the way. Fortunately he did, although I had no clue who he was.) However, a week later I found myself reporting on his landslide election victory and in Hilary 2022 I started a writing column for The Oxford Blue on the weekly chamber debates. The real fun had started.

Now, every term the Union puts out a marginally updated version of its “How to get involved” guide for any fresher who might be tempted to join committee. If this had been better advertised, I might have made the requisite number of speeches in time to sell my soul and run for election, having been thoroughly taken in by the white-tie extravaganzas I’d witnessed from the press bench every Thursday. As it was, however, I found out more about the practicalities of being on committee when a series of articles called The Union As It Is fell across my desk for editing.

All of this happened in the run up to HT22 elections, and if you weren’t in Oxford at that point, it’s worth reading up on your Union history. After the results were announced, allegations of misconduct on committee sent the Union into a period of higher-than-average turmoil, which only concluded with Ahmad Nawaz’s loss of the Presidency in MT22.

This largely explains why I stuck around so long: for the few members of the student press and the Union who were made aware of said allegations upfront, the captivating, horrible, and educational nine-month build-up to what ultimately happened was difficult to escape.

It was also an opportunity to learn a lot about journalism: the news team covering the Union in TT22/MT22 handled everything from source protection and police reports to the guidelines for reporting on sexual assault allegations. 

I also learnt the technicalities of getting people “on record”. In fact, since my article “Authoritarian and Impulsive: Union officers speak out against Ahmad Nawaz as members prepare to vote” was published, I’ve quite regularly been asked why I included so many named quotes from members of committee, given that the Union Standing Orders explicitly prohibit them from speaking to the press without presidential approval. 

Well, to answer quite simply, I was up to eyes in “senior union sources” by that point last Michaelmas, and frankly sick of committee members who expected to hide behind student journalists and let the papers do their dirty work for them. 

If they had strong opinions about the Michaelmas president, our editorial position at the time was that they should put their names to it. Subsequently, my article has been described as “groundbreaking” and “kingmaking”. Personally, I just hope it sets a precedent for Union officials being a little less spineless. 

I still take a dim view of those who tried to retract their comments after knowingly providing them on record; but fortunately, a number of committee’s smarter individuals reached the sound conclusion that it would be good to put free speech into action, for a change, and the rest is history.

Setting the woes of the Nawaz episode aside, however, most of committee’s routine interactions with the student press are downright weird. 

Some of them are terrified: A hack strutting pompously around the bar in full tartan once froze on seeing me. “Oh no! It’s a member of the press!” he squealed, his voice rising half an octave, before scarpering upstairs faster than I’d thought possible. 

On another occasion, a dejected-looking officer wolfing down his Maccies in the courtyard replied to my offhand “hello” with an imperilled cry of “No comment!” 

Then there are the ones who try to be charming: some hacks have invited me to taste hummus, review their biohazardous boats, skip queues, or drink unlimited free wine in the Union bar. Most of them exuded ulterior motives and were routinely atrocious at hiding their misguided expectations of favourable coverage in return.

Still, things seem to have come full circle in my time here: last year there was a phase where most of committee didn’t refer to me by name, but merely as “press” or, if I was lucky, “a reporter from Cherwell”. These days (I was alarmed to discover) I only need to walk into the buildings and mention that I could do with a coffee before a seccie runs off to get me one, while I bemusedly try to remember who they are and wonder if I’m losing my touch. I don’t know which of these instances is less embarrassing.

But the hacks you genuinely warm towards are undoubtedly the most problematic. Luckily for me, most of these individuals are now “semi-retired”, “hack-adjacent”, or cleanly out the other side, but the overlap between social and semi-professional settings in a place as small as Oxford is never without difficulties. Unsurprisingly, cordial relationships can sour when the time comes for you to write something less-than-complementary about your previously co-conspiratorial coffee buddy. One moment you’ll be photoshopping the doomed hack’s face over a picture of the debate chamber to create an image for your article, telling yourself it’s purely work and that they’ll understand; the next moment they’re phoning you up in tears, threatening you, or reminding you how much fun you had at their party a week earlier.

Of course, the easiest way to avoid situations like this is not to get too close to committee, period. Working for a publication with a strict editorial policy will help with this, and sometimes you can also rely on a tedious Director of Press to kill the vibe. The worst of these have completely aired me, making my job ten times harder by going AWOL when I needed urgent statements on the Union’s behalf. Others have provided me with flimsy laminated press passes or snazzy personalised lanyards in turn, while being equally sluggish at issuing any “official” information. The current one had his personality beautifully summed up in The New Statesman last week, and there’s nothing more for me to add there at present (but please can I bum a cigarette sometime?).

Lacklustre DoPs or otherwise, good sources can obviously help to bridge the gap by supplying information in a timely manner, but the more cards you hold in a place like the Union, the more potential you have to become a political actor yourself, instead of a neutral reporter. This can be dangerous – while it may appeal to any personal desire for a power-trip, it’s rarely conducive to good journalism. 

Indeed, the moment hacks start asking you to campaign manage them (no, thank you!) or asking you to spill the tea on their potential opponents and running-mates in exchange for drinks (yikes), then you know you’re in trouble. 

Flattering though it is to know you live rent-free in some hacks’ heads, as they worry about how many files of dirt you might have on them – it can sometimes backfire on you. For example, I was very nearly denied entry to a recent Union event when it transpired that someone “on high” had tried to ban me from the chamber, allegedly out of fear for my paranoia-inspiring journalistic intent. Thank goodness a couple of sensible committee members reversed this, reaching the sound judgement that  – even in circumstances as sticky as last week’s – such action was, perhaps, a little steep.

Strange relationships aside, I wouldn’t change my experience of reporting on the Union for anything. Helping to oversee the John Evelyn gossip column in Michaelmas was definitely a highlight, and although these anonymous features in the back of every Cherwell print should be consumed with a large pinch of salt, a good Jevelyn will sometimes include some helpful pieces of Union intrigue for the editors’ eyes only – sometimes to be removed at their discretion.

Now, in the spirit of this, I believe the Union can expect a typically tempestuous time ahead. I’ve heard enough about the gathering storm-clouds to suspect that – while the leaking roof might make it through Michaelmas in good shape – the same might not be said for certain committee members. Anyone who’s still in Oxford and feels inclined to take up Union Watch can expect as much of an interesting time as I’ve had.

Cowley Road Carnival cancelled after fundraising shortfall

0

The Cowley Road Carnival is Oxfordshire’s biggest public free event and was anticipated to return for the first time since the Covid-19 pandemic. However, failing to raise the £20,000 required to go ahead, it has been cancelled. 

It was hoped that with Covid restrictions lifted, the event would return with the theme of “Our Nature Our Future” on Sunday 9th July. But even after Cowley Road Works’s Just Giving appeal raised £2,329, the organisers announced “with deep regret” that they would cancel the carnival due to “several significant challenges”.

In their statement, Cowley Road Carnival organisers point to unforeseen financial obstacles, with quotes for certain “crucial Carnival services” having increased by 177% this year. 

They also cite time constraints, infrastructure costs, a reduced grant from Oxford City Council of £7000 which they claim is a reduction from the usual £25,000 as well as an unsuccessful application for £29,000 from the Arts Council.

The carnival, which normally takes place on Cowley Road, usually included live music and DJ performances as well as processions, Eco Floats and House Floats. Known to bring in 50,000 spectators, the event has been Oxfordshire’s biggest public free event.

The organisers, Cowley Road Works, say “the Carnival is inclusive: it brings together all ages, and all ethnic, social and economic groups and is the culmination for our cultural outreach programme.”

The Carnival had planned to include 1,000 artists and 700 procession participants. Its overall estimated cost was £130,000.

Carnival Trustee Sarah Connor explained, “we understand the immense disappointment this announcement may bring to our community, stakeholders, and supporters who have eagerly awaited the return of this cherished event.

Hope remains as two pubs, James Street Tavern and Black Swan, have announced that they are planning “mini festivals” in lieu. The organisers of the Carnival say that “we are already planning for an amazing Carnival in 2024.”

Bumps, Banks, Blades and Spoons: Summer VIIIs 2023

0

Summer Eights have come and gone, and the highlight event of the Oxford rower’s trinity term card has left us for another year. A staple of Oxbridge culture, Bumps racing, coined due to the narrow rivers forcing a more unconventional form of racing to be adopted, is simple. Make contact or “Bump” the boat ahead of you to take their position. Conversely, all boats fight hard not to be bumped. If you neither bump nor are bumped by another boat you are considered to row over. Boring definitions aside, how did the regatta unfold?

John’s M1 and M2 are unstoppable?

Gaining 3 positions on Wednesday by getting the over bumps on Somerville, then bumping Christchurch IIs the next day and Mansfield 1s on Saturday, to say SJBC’s Eights week went well for John’s M1 is an understatement. Almost identically Johns M2s who overbumped Corpus Christi’s M3s, rowed over the next day and then gained a position each day for the final 2 days. Johns’s w1s bumped on all days but the first two added three extra places to the aggregate. Across all crews, a total of 11 places gained for John’s, making it the most successful club on the river this year. 

Worcester W2 Blades! Again?

Back-to-back Blades in Torpids and summer eights this year, Is there any stopping the Worcester W2s? 

Brasenose

Brasenose’s M2s gained blades this year with an impressive campaign. Alongside them, the rest of the crews put on great performances making this club the third most successful down the isis this year. 

Exeter: Tale of two fates 

Let’s see – the Women’s crews did excellently. Exter W1s got the over bump on Somerville, on Friday, and gained 5 positions over the competition. The W2s and W3s also had a great campaign, gaining lots of positions. The men however did not manage to share the same fate, and in fact, suffered the very opposite, the worst of which being the M3s who were very much on course for spoons but kept place on Saturday avoiding it. 

Wadham: worse for wear 

Wadham College Boat Club had a particularly tough time. Not one of the crews gained a position and the W2s lost five positions across the week, so perhaps not a week to remember. Times like these warrant a special shout-out to its W3 crew, in a week where WCBC looked hit by a bad case of Murphy’s law, and each crew sunk like stones, this crew managed to stay afloat, gaining back on Friday the place they lost the day before. 

Somerville: it was not great

Better luck next time to the Somerville crews too, they sit at the bottom of the table in places lost this year with an aggregate of 14 places. With only 3 competing crews this year, this number is put very mildly, quite bad. That being said, all hope is not lost, perhaps they’ll come back with some vengeance next year. 

Image Credit: Nikola Boysová

Protesting with Pride

0

On a grey and characteristically dreary Oxford afternoon, Bonn Square was transformed into a place bursting with colour, light and life. Students and staff from all walks of life came together in order to protest the Union’s platforming of the notoriously controversial philosopher, writer and apparently “gender-critical feminist” Kathleen Stock that evening. The trans rights protest, the counter-protest and the conveniently timed release of Channel 4’s controversial documentary Gender Wars, starring Stock herself, all coincided on Tuesday 30th May. Since then, national and even international media has been awash with coverage of the events leading up to, during and following this day. Somewhere along the way, the issue has devolved into a discourse on free speech. Stock’s supporters rail vehemently against the alleged conspiracy to subdue their trans-exclusionary opinions. For those of us on the other side – dubbed the “woke mob” by the Daily Mail – this has never been about anything more radical than the freedom to exist. 

For weeks, tension had been brewing. The Oxford University LGBTQ+ Society first issued a statement criticising the Union for their invitation of Stock.  In a statement posted online, the society said it was “dismayed and appalled” by it and urged the historic debating society to rescind their offer. Many JCRs and MCRs followed suit. 44 Oxford dons signed an open letter in her favour. Over 100 signed one against. The media leapt at the scent of a sensationalist story. Billboard Chris –  a vocal gender critic- spent a day around the Radcliffe Camera with a provocative sign saying “Children cannot consent to puberty blockers”. Even Prime Minister Rishi Sunak weighed in with the warning that “a small but vocal few” should not be allowed to shut down discussion and debate. Everyone had an opinion. 

On the day of the Stock event, the LGBTQ+ Society organised and promoted their own – ‘Oxford Trans + Pride’. The day consisted of two panels hosted at Lincoln College titled ‘Between Free Speech and Hate Speech’ and ‘Trans+ Joy Across Generations’, followed by a ‘mass rally’ at Bonn Square, then a march to the Oxford Union in order to stage a peaceful protest outside. During the rally, two-minute speeches from speakers such as Max Van Kleek – an associate professor – were interspersed by a trio of organisers teaching the crowd some chants that would be used during the protest. Our voices were heard: it is reported that the “fracas” was easily heard within the Chamber. The media coverage of the protest has been laughably self-contradictory – singing and dancing to Whitney Houston’s ‘I Wanna Dance with Somebody’ or Cyndi Lauper’s ‘Girls Just Wanna Have Fun’, waving rainbow flags and wearing flag capes, handing out leaflets and bottles of water, organising welfare spaces in the nearby St. Peter’s College and Frewin Annexe is somehow simultaneously the behaviour of violent “militants” and, according to Stock herself, “actual babies”.For those of us protesting, the emphasis was very much on the peaceful celebration and amplification of trans voices and joy rather than the hatred and bigotry Stock and her followers thrive on. 

Freedom of speech is not synonymous with the right to a platform, just as misinformed ignorance and blatant hate speech are not the same as scientifically proven facts. TERFs like Kathleen Stock will always have a platform in the digital age. This was never about her right to speak, it was about the privilege of speaking at the Union – a prestigious space with weight behind its name. In a world where trans discourse is constantly weaponised, the Oxford Trans+ Pride protest was a joyful though impassioned assertion of our power, our unity and most importantly, our simple right to exist.

“That’s not misogyny, babe”. 

0

If I were born four hundred years ago, I’m pretty certain I would have been burnt at the stake for being a witch. Being told to “shhh” and how “scary” I looked by a six foot-two, mullet-sporting man on Mayday morning at Magdalen Bridge reminded me of this fact. I forgot how ‘scary’ a woman with an opinion could be. 

Today we live in a society where the dialect surrounding misogyny has been transformed into something more clandestine. Whilst I cannot literally be condemned to death for possessing the qualities of a witch, I can still be condemned socially for the same reasons. If a woman is confident, passionate, or independent, it’s not uncommon that these traits will be translated by some men into ‘cocky’, ‘bossy’, or ‘overbearing’. Through these covert changes in language, misogyny is able to slip through the cracks. 

Four hundred years ago my left thumb might have been tied to my right toe before I was tossed in the moat surrounding the Oxford castle and prison. Had I sunk and drowned, I would have been innocent. Had I floated, I would have been a witch, fished out, and burnt at the stake. Not the best odds. The man on the bridge on Mayday looked like he’d have quite liked to toss me into a body of water, although he probably wouldn’t have gone as far as burning me. The reasons why a woman could be accused of witchcraft four hundred years ago were many and spurious. Watch out if your neighbour’s cow died or a child fell and hurt themselves outside your house or a man had impure thoughts about you. Also watch out if you lived alone, didn’t have children or were outspoken. The man on the bridge identified my ‘witchiness’ on similar grounds – I was wearing red eyeliner, which apparently made me look ‘scary.’ He repeated this word many times when I called him out. 

As I stood on the bridge being berated for being ‘scary’, I realised just how helpless these women must have felt when on trial. How does one prove they did not curse their neighbours’ milk? How could they show that their cat was not the devil incarnate? How would I respond to the allegations of sinisterness? When someone shouts something at you enough it starts to feel like your reality. After the fifth time, I began to wonder whether I should have spoken up in the first place, whether I was being unnecessarily provocative. It made me wonder whether, if a man in my town told me that I was a witch enough times, purely because of my stubbornness or because of the mole on my neck, I would believe it. I feel lucky to have been brought up to stand up for myself and for other women around me when faced with similar situations; however, this is not the case for everyone at Oxford, let alone across the world. I could not help but think of all the women stuck living with men such as the one on Magdalen Bridge, who have to take daily jabs at their intelligence, or have to make sacrifices in order to protect men’s fragile egos. Of course, encounters such as these may not seem like such a big deal in the grand scheme of things and, to an extent, they aren’t. Women across the world are still facing extreme persecution not dissimilar to, if not exactly like, actual witch trials. My experience with the casual misogyny on Mayday morning is incomparable. However, it is also important not to become complacent in the face of these types of interactions, as these casual, misogynistic behaviours will and have begun to become commonplace amongst young men. We must stop accepting misogynistic jokes in order to set an example for future generations. What does it say about modern society if men are allowed to start calling women ‘scary’ for speaking up. Is this not exactly how the witch-hunting craze started in the first place? 

Most astonishing was how the man in question began to back his claims with evidence, by pulling up a photograph of a witch on his phone. It was in this moment that I most sympathized with accused ‘witches’ of times past, not least Rachel Clinton, a Salem ‘witch’. Her accusers professed that she showed “the character of an embittered, meddlesome, demanding woman—perhaps in short, the character of a witch.’’ I felt as though the picture on the man’s phone was the modern-day equivalent. Fortunately, the absurdity of this man’s actions was enough to settle any anxiety I might have otherwise felt about being too ‘outspoken’. I told him that, had he just told me that he was misogynistic in the first place, we might have saved ourselves from the ensuing back and forths. At this point, his girlfriend felt it necessary to inform me that “that’s not misogyny, babe”. I found the misogyny pretty blatant in this interaction. A picture of an actual witch had been shown to me. However, it did make me think about all the small ways in which boys and men are able to belittle women without being called out or, in this case, by being defended. Even when I was clear in my mind of my ‘innocence’, I couldn’t convince him or his friends. Though we may no longer risk being tied to a cucking stool and dumped into the river Cherwell, we are nevertheless still tested on our ability to conform with standards set by men centuries ago. I did not fit his paradigm because I was not willing to accept his casual misogyny, so he used his physical dominance to shout down at me, I suppose in the hope of my surrender.

I suppose being a witch is a slightly self-fulfilling prophecy, one that I’m fond of myself. But whilst I might be able to laugh at my own ‘witchiness’, we must be careful that the road to casual misogyny doesn not become a slippery slope. Just consider how you might have reacted five years ago, had someone told you that Roe vs Wade would be overturned. Fairy tales, even the most sinister ones, can always turn out to be real. 

Image Credit: Robert Benner//CC BY 2.0 via Flickr