Sunday, May 18, 2025
Blog Page 152

Stock should speak at the Union, says Rishi Sunak

Charlie Hancock
-
0
Stock should speak at the Union, says Rishi Sunak

The row over Kathleen Stock’s invitation to speak at the Oxford Union has made it to Downing Street, as Rishi Sunak told The Telegraph he thinks the event should go ahead.

As many as 1000 protesters are expected to picket the Union on Tuesday night while Stock speaks in the chamber, in the culmination of a protracted dispute which has divided students and staff. Stock has been accused of transphobia, and her invitation has sparked uproar among segments of the student body who do not believe the Union should host her.

Sunak told the newspaper he believed students should be allowed to hear and debate Stock’s views, as she is a prominent voice in the debate surrounding trans rights.

“University should be an environment where debate is supported, not stifled. We mustn’t allow a small but vocal few to shut down discussion. Kathleen Stock’s invitation to the Oxford Union should stand.”

“A tolerant society is one which allows us to understand those we disagree with, and nowhere is that more important than within our great universities,” he said.

This comes after students and academics at Oxford have signed a series of opposing letters. An initial letter to The Telegraph that supported Stock’s visit in the name of free speech was signed by 40 academics, swiftly followed by a similar student letter with over 100 signatures. An opposing letter against Stock’s visit was also published last week with signatures from over 100 academics.

Controversy over Stock’s invitation to the Oxford Union coincided with a decision by the Oxford Student Union (SU) to ban the Union from having a stall at freshers’ fair, although the SU denies that this was related. The ban will not take effect, as the University intervened by telling the SU that for the freshers’ fair they would consider the Union to be a student society. This also likely means that the Union will be able to avoid the £4000 cost of a commercial stall.

The dispute comes at a significant moment for the political debate over speech in universities. Later this week, Sunak is set to confirm the Cambridge University academic Arif Ahmed as a Director of Free Speech and Academic Freedom. Under the recently-passed Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, Ahmed will have the power to investigate universities and student unions in England and Wales who are accused of censoring academics and speakers for their views. Ahmed was criticised by the master of Gonville and Caius College and Cambridge students for inviting the gender-critical feminist Helen Joyce to give a talk about cancel culture.

App interfaces can change calorie consumption, Oxford study finds

Alexandra Hedström-Blake
-
0
App interfaces can change calorie consumption, Oxford study finds

Small changes to the infrastructure and user-interfaces of apps such as UberEats and Deliveroo can reduce the calorie consumption of customers by up to 15%, a new study by the University of Oxford has shown.

Hailed by researchers presenting at the European Congress on Obesity in Dublin, the study led by innovation agency Nesta alongside colleagues from the University of Oxford emphasised the importance of design to the development of consumer choices and dietary habits – without “only having to eat green salads”. 

Carried out on a pool of approximately 23,000 adults across the UK, the randomised trial focused on examining the impact of 14 different key changes on a simulated delivery app, the results of which were subsequently compared with data produced by a separate control app. 

According to researchers, changes including the implementation of smaller, default portion sizes, the ready availability of nutritional information and the promotion of healthier restaurants and food options led to an average drop of 209 calories per meal and a significant reduction in food intake, results highly praised by the chairman of the National Obesity Forum, Tam Fry.

Speaking in conversation with The Telegraph, Fry stated that “This meticulous research ticks all the boxes. When the app allows the customer to avoid opting for unhealthy choices and directs them to lower calorie options, this is just what the doctor ordered.”

As of 2021, the national obesity rate was estimated to be as high as 25.9%, with a further 37.9% of England’s population described as overweight, statistics which have spurred government intervention within the food and hospitality sector in recent years with varying levels of success.

Yet following the decision in April 2022 to make calorie disclosure a compulsory feature of most restaurant menus as part of wider initiatives to curb rising obesity rates, backlash concerning the policy’s hidden impact on those suffering from eating disorders has remained unresolved.

According to Fry, it is thus “reasonable for the app to be able to hide calorie counts for people who find that they add to their eating disorders or, simply, annoy them”.

With popular delivery apps such as Deliveroo, UberEats and Just Eat currently raking in as many as 25 million customers a year, the cooperation of leading companies is an integral aspect of any potential implementation of the study’s findings.

Dr Bianchi, a member of the Behavioural Insights Team at Nesta, a British innovation-centred charity, and one of many working on the trial alongside colleagues from the University of Oxford has, however, said that research may be far from over, with “Testing similar initiatives with real restaurants and delivery apps […] important to assessing the long-term impact of these interventions in the real world.”

According to Bianchi, “Further research should also explore the best way to balance desired health impacts while minimising effects on businesses and on cost-of-living concerns for consumers.”

Guardians of the Galaxy 3

Mattie Sutton
-
0
Guardians of the Galaxy 3

The usual minor spoilers ahead.

Bradley Cooper’s Rocket Racoon spends a decent bit of Guardians of the Galaxy 3 in the medical bay. To the cinema aficionados, the diagnosis for the Marvel Cinematic Universe is looking equally grim. Does the old crew of Guardians resuscitate the brand? Or is coming back to Marvel like Zoe Saldaña’s Gamora meeting Chris Pratt’s Star Lord: an awkward reunion with an ex we’d forgotten?  

The eugenicist High Evolutionary wants his old pet, Rocket, back. Rocket’s got injured by Adam Warlock as part of the scramble. Instead of bothering the intergalactic RSPCA, the Guardians go on another tune-filled, entertaining journey to save their furry friend. 

I think part of the reason why this iteration of the Guardians of the Galaxy is ending is because Marvel are running out of animals to use as joke names for Rocket. “Trash Panda?” “No, we’ve used that one.” “Rabbit?” “Thor did it.” “Squirrel?” “Excellent.” Tony Stark wins it with “Build-a-Bear”, if you ask me. 

Pom Klementieff and Dave Bautista absolutely smash it as Mantis and Drax. Charisma. Humour. Emotion. Chukwudi Iwuji does a great job as the High Evolutionary, although I doubt he’ll make it into the pantheon of legendary Marvel villains simply because he’s so pure evil you can’t see his point of view (compare and contrast Thanos and Killmonger, 20 marks). On the plus side, for the first time in a while, he’s a villain who’s got an actual reason for listening to classical music. Reasons other than being a psychopathic villain exist, I’m told. 

Even at two and a half hours, it’s more crowded than a Marvel writer’s room. The character relationships are as ever spot on, Drax and Mantis being by far the funniest, but if you stop and think too long on the walk back from the cinema you’ll realise a few too many of the others were talking, sometimes-walking plot functions. Will Poulter’s Adam Warlock in particular is very funny, very well-written, very nicely-acted, but ultimately ends up a big, sparkly, gold deus ex machina. 

Make sure you bring tissues with you, because with ample flashbacks to Rocket Raccoon’s caged friends, Gunn throws not so much the kitchen sink as a zoo of mangled animals at you. Waymond from Everything Everywhere All at Once seems to have visited and stuck a series of big, cute eyes all over this film. The entire Guardians philosophy is dowsing you with a disorientating mixture of cuteness and horror, and watching you smile back as if it’s your own child. It’s a fitting way to end a trilogy that earned its stripes compelling you to care about a tree who makes even my essays seem verbose. 

Pack your glasses with the tissues: there’s a lot of spinning. It’s a film you could watch a surprising amount of while in a handstand. I was almost disappointed when Dead or Alive’s ‘You Spin Me Right Round’ didn’t get used in the soundtrack given the amount of camera action that’s been fit in. Having said this, Fast X is about to come out, so I’m sure in a week’s time Guardians will look positively sedentary. 

The use of setting is, as usual for Guardians films, clever. Each location is just as colourful on the screen as the comparable Ant Man and The Wasp: Quantumania, but feels more thought-out. The use of “Counter-Earth” is particularly underrated, I think: just when you’re expecting a big space battle, Gunn lands the spaceship somewhere that looks just down your road. Watch out for the classical music villains lurking behind the bins. 

In the music department, ‘Since You Been Gone’ is probably the standout track in the line-up, and with the state of Marvel at the moment you suspect it’s what the Disney executives might be singing through James Gunn’s window in a few months. Gunn has the skill of writing and directing, regardless of what you think of the details of the film, funny, emotional and coherent stories that balance a sense of blockbuster and intimacy.

If you’ve been sitting at home with your cork board and red string, becoming the next Hercule Poirot trying to work out how on earth the MCU fits together nowadays, give this intergalactic film a try. It’s refreshingly unconnected. If you think Rocket Racoon is an odd-sounding sandwich, it might not be for you. Perhaps in a franchise about a group of misfits, facing a villain who wants absolute perfection, the beauty yet the flaws of Guardians of the Galaxy 3 make it a fitting end to the trilogy. 

The Case for No: Why JCRs should motion to disaffiliate from the National Union of Students

Peter Chen
-
0
The Case for No: Why JCRs should motion to disaffiliate from the National Union of Students

CW:references to anti-Semitism

The Hilary Term university-wide referendum (with only 5% turnout), resulted in the Oxford University Student Union’s (SU) continued affiliation with the National Union of Students (NUS), a nation-wide organisation of university and college students that has been recently been plagued with allegations of antisemitism and abuse. With 56% voting to remain affiliated and 42% wanting to disaffiliate, it was yet another resounding ‘NO’ answering the question of whether the SU should sever ties with the NUS.

This was not the first time the Oxford University has held such a referendum, nor was Oxford the first university to hold such a referendum this year: back in 2016, Oxford’s first disaffiliation referendum failed with similar margins but boasted a much bigger turnout (27.7%). In the last 6 months, student unions from the universities of Warwick, Brighton, Queen Mary and Reading all voted to disaffiliate for essentially the same matters I am now raising for debate: how the NUS treats Jewish students. Much can be said about how the ‘No’ campaign at Oxford was run this time around, but I would be amiss to obsess over that result. Oxford’s students voted and we must all respect that. However, I am here to make the case that JCRs, being separate legal entities from the SU, should and must all vote to disaffiliate from the NUS.

Before I dive into the issues, however, I will make a few preliminary points. 

Firstly, time is of the essence. If your JCR’s constitution is anything like mine, there is only one opportunity every year to review its affiliation. For Brasenose, this is at the upcoming fifth week Trinity term meeting, and the JCR Secretary is required to propose the motion. So, if after reading this article you are indeed convinced, read up on your constitution – or change it, it’s easier than you think – and start proposing those disaffiliation motions. 

Secondly, I understand and appreciate that certain topics discussed in this article are deeply personal for some readers. I sincerely hope that any conversation that you may have about this topic will remain respectful, cordial, and productive like this article intends to be. 

Thirdly, the point of this article isn’t necessarily to advocate for disaffiliation, however counterproductive that may seem. I don’t claim to be an expert on the NUS by any means, and so I cannot predict the practical consequences of disaffiliation with any degree of accuracy. Rather, I am making the case for ‘No’ in the hopes that it will encourage the crucial dialogue amongst students so we can have the conversation that we should have had last term, about antisemitism, about the Israel/Palestine conflict, about which organisations we choose to affiliate ourselves with and why. What I don’t want, is for JCRs to blindly subscribe to organisations that we know little about and ask ourselves what happened after the fact when things go horribly wrong. And horribly wrong things did go.

The NUS has an antisemitism problem. This is no secret to anyone who has been following the saga around the ousting of their last President, Shaima Dallali. The Government, in their press release announcing the suspension of relations with the organisation, said that the antisemitism issues are ‘well-documented and span several years.’ This is all because the NUS commissioned an independent report by Rebecca Tuck KC, a horrifying account of how Jewish students were mistreated and ostracized.. I will detail some of her findings now. 

In a 2017 survey about the experience of Jewish students, a whopping 49% stated that they would not feeling comfortable attending NUS events. According to Ms Tuck, this figure would be no better today. What then, exactly, has gone so wrong for a near majority of Jewish students nation-wide to feel uncomfortable attending events hosted by an organisation that is supposed to represent all students? 

In her report, Ms Tuck details how Jewish students were alienated due to their perceived affiliation with ‘Zionist’ viewpoints, and how such an environment went unchallenged within the NUS. When these students brought complaints and sought redress within the organisation, their concerns were dismissed for ‘bad faith’ or improper motive, and this resulted in a culture of hostility towards Jews. She also found that Jewish students suffered harassment related to their race and or religion which the organisation’s policies failed to address, in a potential breach of the Equalities Act 2010. 

The following is worth quoting in full: “It is apparent from this report – and indeed from other reports over the last 17 years – that the culture within NUS and at NUS events has been perceived by many Jewish students, for good reason, as hostile.” (emphasis added)

Here are some accounts of the experience of Jewish students at NUS conferences: 

“There was an open endorsement of violence against Israeli civilians and Zionist sympathisers at NUS Society and Citizenship Zone Conference in 2011 without challenge. This made me feel unsafe as a Jew and I left the event early. I did not attend any more Zone events.”

“At the 2016 conference there was a motion for the NUS to mark HMD [Holocaust Memorial Day]. I was really really shocked that someone could speak against the motion. The person who spoke against had prepared a speech, removing the Jewish nature of the Holocaust talking about gay/Roma/communist etc. victims. Megan Dunn [then President] spoke up and asked why there was a problem marking the centrality of antisemitism in the Holocaust. I had never before come across people who genuinely did not understand the antisemitic nature of the Holocaust. For that position to be applauded was very shocking. It had been tabled to be a unifying motion.” (emphasis added).

As one Palestinian delegate wrote:

“Antisemitism plagues every part of the NUS…. As a Palestinian, I find it deeply offensive that support for Palestinian human rights is being used to mask blatant antisemitism. The conflation between the conflict in Israel-Palestine and British Jews must stop. Our Jewish students cannot be made to feel responsible for a conflict that is being waged thousands of miles away. They cannot be made to feel unsafe, as they are hounded and targeted at our university. Instead, we must listen to them and act on their concerns. The advocation of Palestinian rights and valid criticism of the Israeli government should never lead to or justify racism against Jewish students in Britain.”

This must stop. As many have pointed out, the NUS is committed to addressing these concerns and to transform this hostile culture. However, as Ms Tuck notes, “[altering] a culture is a notoriously difficult task.” It is only right that JCRs motion to disaffiliate from this organisation in order to signal our trenchant condemnation of the antisemitism within the NUS and send a strong message about our values and beliefs. No one should be made to feel unwelcome because of their race or religion, and this is especially true for a national organisation that is supposed to represent all. 

There are, however, broader lessons to take away from this experience. As Ms Tuck notes, this culture of hostility is directly linked to the Israel/Palestinian conflict, which in turn stems from the conflation of British Jews and the Israeli government. Anecdotal accounts tell me that this may also be true in Oxford, although I cannot confirm the extent or severity of these issues. It is crucial that we, as a university, do not slip into the same toxic mindset that has plagued the NUS for the better part of the last two decades. We must always remember that a person’s political opinions are not defined by their race or religion, and we must never allow Jewish students to feel unwelcomed based on what their perceived views are.

This is why I want you, the reader, to propose and fiercely debate disaffiliation motions within your own JCRs. This is an important conversation, and it goes to the heart of who we are as Oxford students and what we believe in. At the end of the day, whether our JCRs are affiliated with this one organisation is of little significance. However, what is important is that the message is loud and clear: hate, in any form, must never be tolerated as we work towards becoming a more inclusive and welcoming university for all. 

Image Credit: Jimmy Harris//CC BY 2.0 via Flikr

LB’s — Summertown’s one-of-a-kind Lebanese deli

Oliver Hall
-
0
LB’s — Summertown’s one-of-a-kind Lebanese deli

One of the defining factors of Oxford’s food scene is just how many different cuisines there are on offer. It never ceases to amaze me how, in such a small city, there are so many opportunities to experience authentic food and cultures. From Persian food on Cowley road to Greek dishes at Georgina’s in the Covered Market, and Roman pinsa at Bbuona, there really is no shortage of diversity. LB’s in Summertown is yet another example of that with a remarkable selection of homemade dishes giving a taste of one of the world’s most fascinating cuisines.

Founded in November 1995 by Fawzi Harb, this is very much a family affair. He is still more than central to operations with his daughter on hand to passionately chat through all manner of Lebanese delights. A large deli counter greets you as you enter the shop filled to the rim with everything from green hummos (more on that later) to kibbe and moussaka. All of this is of course available to eat in and order by weight but also to box up and take away for home. In addition to that, the deli offers daily lunch boxes which provide a selection of the most popular cold deli items, a daily hot special that comes with rice and costs around £7, and a selection of wraps.

From those wraps, we tried the most popular, the chicken shawarma. This is of course a classic and it’s easy to see why it is such a popular order here too. It costs £5.50, notably at the high end of lunch wrap options, but offers a much more complex flavour profile than something you’d get from somewhere like Najar’s. The garlic sauce stands out more than anything else and is of course made in house.

Chicken shwarma wrap

We also tried a variety of deli items, starting with the new beetroot kibbe and the aforementioned green hommos pairing. The hommos is conventional but with kale blended in to add a fresh lightness that you wouldn’t normally get. It goes particularly well with the kibbe. Traditionally filled with lamb and onion, this vegan twist contains vegetables instead and is all the better for it. This adds a variety and allows the beetroot shell to shine in its own right.

Green hummus, falafel, and beetroot kibbe

Batata Harra are cubed potatoes that are fried alongside garlic and coriander. They are a great addition to the lunch box but do need to be paired with something else. The only other note here was that they could have been crispier — admittedly that softening of the shell is almost impossible to avoid when fried potatoes are served cold.

Vegetarian lunch box

Falafel are, of course, a staple of Middle Eastern cuisine and the homemade ones here are fairly classic. Slightly lighter than some, they are marked by the presence of more sesame flavours than you’d often get, helped by the use of seeds as well as sesame oil. More impressive though was the way that thet maintained its crispy exterior despite coming cold, unlike the earlier mentioned potatoes.

Moujadara was a completely new dish to me and is essentially a really simple mix of rice, lentils, fried onions, and a combination of other herbs and spices from the house mix. I’m a mild fried-onion obsessive but often think that rice and lentil dishes can ere on the side of blandness. In line with everything else at LB’s though, there was no danger of that and the herbs balanced the flavours of onion perfectly for a dish far far better than plain rice and a perfect counter to the spicy Mauhamara nut and chilli paste.

Spinach, Mousaka, and Mauhamara

Better than all of that though was, quite remarkably, the spinach. Regular readers of mine know that salad and salad leaves are always a focus of mine (to say the least!) and it is the simplicity of this dish that makes it great. Broiled with onions and another mix of Lebanese spices, it both has a flavour all of its own but also works well as a base for other items. It certainly elevated the Mousaka, which is served here with chickpeas. It’s an intriguing and traditional Lebanese version known as ‘Bizeit’ but for me, would be really taken to a better level if it were served warm. Clearly that isn’t the possible instore but taken home and heated could be a winner.

Sweets are, of course, here too. Baklawa are available with almonds, pistachios, or cashews, and this variety is certainly welcome. Usually, Baklawa is far too sweet for me, with the over-drenching of honey ruining the nutty flavour within. That is not a mistake made by LB’s with a much larger proportion of pastry. Unfortunately, this time it is that that dominates the cashew beneath but if you are willing remove a layer or two or are a big fan of filo then this is one for you. We also tried cashew fingers — it was nice to get something different from baklawa and these are much nuttier with a pleasing crunch.

Baklawa and cashew fingers

All in all, LB’s kind of does everything and does it all well. Any criticism is nit-picking and in terms of a value-focussed chance to check yet another world cuisine off your list of Oxford experiences, you can’t go far wrong. My tip? Go in and let yourself be guided! Order as many items as possible, find some favourites, and come back for quick lunch breaks or to stock up for a home feast. Summertown’s options are ever growing, from classic French, to tapas, and American BBQ,but through all of that, it is clear why LB’s has remained a staple.

Just as nice for thrice the price?: The international experience at Oxford

Tom Grigg
-
0
Just as nice for thrice the price?: The international experience at Oxford

I would be lying if I said I hadn’t looked into getting adopted by my British relatives. Why? Well, as an Australian citizen, I have the poor luck of falling into the “overseas student” category when it comes to university fees. So much for being a member of the Commonwealth! If I could have successfully naturalised, I would stand to save a staggering £75,000 over the course of my degree. 

This figure comes from the difference between the annual fees for a PPE degree for home students and those for students hailing from abroad. While the former are capped by the government at £9,250, the latter are more or less subject to the vicissitudes of the market, where the current equilibrium is £35,080. For a subject like Psychology, Philosophy and Linguistics, the number is £44,240.

Now, the University has a professed commitment to inclusivity in both an international and financial sense. However, if we look a little closer, in light of the above disparity there is a contradiction in some of the University’s claims. Consider the following excerpts from the website:

  • “Oxford’s international profile rivals that of any university in the world, highlighted by the breadth and depth of its research collaborations and a truly global student body and academic staff.”
  • “Today, one third of our students, including 21% of undergraduates, are international citizens and come from over 140 countries.”
  • “​​Our ambition is to ensure that no one with outstanding academic potential is deterred from studying here because of their background, personal circumstances, or finances.”

Does this ambition really extend to the entirety of the student body? Of course, all the overseas students here are both willing and able to meet the financial demands one way or another. To get a broader perspective on the international experience at Oxford, I sat down with a few students to listen to their thoughts. 

Moving to university is a big step for anyone. For international students, it’s a massive step. No one can better testify to this than Jenni, a first-year PPList. Her journey to college was more daunting than most. Forget the 23-minute train ride from Reading, Jenni flew all the way from Sydney, Australia: “I came here alone two weeks before term started… I was walking up and down the High Street, no one was helping me…I knew no one.” Once term starts, one quickly becomes much too busy to be preoccupied with homesickness and whatnot, but those first few weeks can be especially isolating when home is half a world away.

Julia, an American PPEist coming from across the pond, discussed the additional travails she faced. On top of the canonical learning curves in time management, essaying and domestic duties, Julia spent her first few weeks in Oxford: “Getting phone plans, sorting out my visa, setting up a bank account… Stuff like that, where if things go wrong, this is actually a problem!” 

We also discussed the logistical implications of the (in)famously short terms and long vacations. My family is currently in Denmark, and while the solo Oxford to Paddington Station to Liverpool Station to Stansted airport to Copenhagen trip is quite the ordeal (with basically all my worldly possessions in tow!), it’s not impossible. In Jenni’s case, flying back and forth to Sydney three times a year is not viable, but the alternative is spending more on accommodation beyond the standard 27-week contract (she also noted that a 40-week contract is inconvenient for those students who are able to head home each vacation). There are also problems with moving in and out: “It’s so much effort, and they don’t give you as much storage as you need…I’ve had to store stuff in friends’ rooms, and lost stuff in the process of things being stashed about.”

The degree of culture shock one experienced was closely tied to the student’s previous international experience. Irene, a biologist at St Hilda’s who grew up in Australia and then Shanghai, completed sixth-form here in the UK, and recognises the head start this gave her when university began: “I learned about the culture, the people and how things work here… I feel like understanding the pop-culture here helps in communicating with people here and the other way around.” 

On the other hand, Mrinal, another first-year, was born and brought up in India, and we discussed the range of factors one had to acclimatise to in making the big jump to Oxford: “It was a totally new experience for me shifting from an Indian curriculum to a british one… The culture here is quite different, there are different tastes, different hobbies, different foods…I think the catering system needs to improve in order to better cater for international students.”

For most students, life inside Oxford is completely different to life outside Oxford. Cecilia, a second-year Engineer who has been an expat her whole life, emphasises this dichotomy: “It does sometimes feel like my life is split in two. Once I come to Oxford, I’m in Oxford; once I’m back in Paris, I’m in Paris, and there’s no oscillation between the two.”

Given how intense the term is, it can be nice to catch a break. For Julia: “A lot of times, it can seem like life in Oxford is everything…the way I escape that very intense lifestyle is coming back [to the US] and it’s really nice to put everything into perspective, in the sense that no matter what happens in the UK, I will always have this home.”

Throughout the interviews, the general consensus reached was that yes, there were additional logistics that needed consideration, but it was definitely worth it – it’s not unreasonable to say that going to the top university in the world is always worth it. The differences between the international and domestic experiences were much smaller than the similarities. The main point of contention was, as this article has been driving towards, the fees.

The financial requirements associated with tertiary education vary around the globe. On one hand, you have the US system, exorbitantly expensive. When I asked Julia about her thoughts on the overseas fees at Oxford, she notes: “For a lot of [Americans], going to school in the UK is the cheapest option. Even with the flights taken into account, it costs so much less for me to go to the UK… when we were looking at Harvard, it was around… three times as much for a single year.” On the other hand is the Danish system. I lived as a resident in Denmark for my last two years of high school. Had I chosen to go to one of the Copenhagen universities, not only would I have paid no tuition – not even in the form of a loan – I would have received the Statens Uddannelsesstøtte, or “state educational grant”. This grant, similar to the maintenance loan in the UK but again, non-repayable, adds up to around £600 a month. 

The Danish case is just one manifestation of the socialist policies for which the Scandinavian countries are known, and would likely nauseate truly free-market liberals. There is always a value tradeoff for any policy. In this case, it is equality and efficiency. 

I don’t think that the British government has any explicit responsibility towards subsidising or capping international fees, although there is certainly an argument to be made in favour of doing so. Most interviewees, for example, stated that they saw themself staying in the UK for at least a few years after their degree. Conversely, a recent article in The Times noted a potential brain drain occurring in Britain as “Private school pupils turn backs on Oxbridge to chase Ivy League places”. Making the UK a more financially viable destination for university would undoubtedly pay dividends in the long run by attracting bright students from across the world.

Government incentives aside, I wonder if a case couldn’t be made for the university itself to have a greater responsibility in promoting financial inclusivity. At the very least, I’m not sure the ambition “to ensure that no one with outstanding academic potential is deterred from studying here because of… finances” is quite compatible with the fact that the Student Loan option is unavailable to international students. Scholarships don’t provide a viable option either; as the website notes, numbers are “ very limited, which is why we encourage students to explore options for sourcing funding in their home country.” Australia, my home country, has a similar student loan scheme to the UK, but unfortunately it is only available for Australian students studying in Australia. 

The fact is, most international students rely on private finance. Everyone interviewed recognised the privilege of being able to afford to attend Oxford; Ibrahim, another first-year, mentioned that his parents “have been planning for these kinds of fees for our whole lives.” Mine have too, but the year-on-year increase of £6,000 – a roughly 20% increase, while the Consumer Price Index for the UK has measured annual inflation at 10.4% in January – is hard to swallow.

For every worthy student who is lucky enough to afford their place, one can’t help but think of those who aren’t so fortunate. Those students facing economic hardship, in both developed and developing countries, who have the intellectual means but lack the finances. There undoubtedly are comparable domestic cases, but this is mitigated by initiatives like the Crankstart Scholarship. For the international case, Cecilia argues – and it is hard to disagree – that admission is a case of merit conditional on financial viability: “It’s only the best from those that can afford it.”

Is there a solution? 

Assuming the government is unable to financially support these students for political and economic reasons, I believe there is still the possibility of recreating the student loan option independently. Think of a large – and yes, it would have to be large indeed – fund from which international students could take a loan to cover the cost of tuition, to be paid back in the future, adjusted for inflation. The University is quick to advertise the employability of its graduates, so I don’t see why such a fund couldn’t be self-sustaining once established.

 
This is what realising the ambition of admitting everyone with the requisite academic potential could look like. Unfortunately, it would require a considerable capital endowment. Ideally, it would be great to see the University put its money where its mouth is, but as Cecilia said “There’s only so much money to go around, and because it is so expensive for any single student to come here, the University does just not have the budget to send more than a handful of students here.” The alternative could be an extremely benevolent series of donations from alumni and other philanthropists who see the value in such a fund. Dear reader, if you are feeling especially benevolent today you could be the first to take this step!

Bus price cap to continue until the end of October

Martha Smith
-
0
Bus price cap to continue until the end of October

The £2 cap placed on the price of bus tickets has been extended until the end of October.  

The programme was originally instituted beginning this year, with an initial trial period set to three months, ending on March 31st. Implementation of the cap was then extended until the end of June. The £2 has now been extended once again so bus tickets are expected to remain at a standard price at least until the end of the year. 

The £2 cap covers any single journey on an Oxford Bus Company, Thames Travel or Carousel buses vehicle. A government report on the early progress of the £2 cap shows a positive financial impact: “[E]arly evidence suggests a potentially positive impact on patronage and the cost of living”. 

There is no set maximum distance that can be travelled with a single £2 ticket provided that the passenger does not change buses. For instance, a £2 ticket can and has taken passengers as far as 26 miles. However, the cap only covers local buses and school day services are generally not included.  

Rishi Sunak has increased funding for the scheme by an additional £500 million. The primary aim of the bus cap is to help the British public with the ongoing cost of living crisis by making bus travel more affordable and consistent in price.

As transport secretary, in 2022, Grant Shapps spearheaded the ‘Bus Back Better’ campaign, which intends to help bus companies recover after the pandemic. The origins of the £2 bus cap can be traced back to Shapp’s campaign. The government hopes that the stability brought about by the cap on the prices of bus tickets will promote the growth of bus companies and increase the number of customers travelling by bus. 

The Oxford Bus Company also upgraded and increased the number of coaches heading towards Heathrow Airport as a means of meeting increased demand. From May 28th, 12 extra buses will leave Oxford to Heathrow Airport. They ordered 104 more electric buses, set to be in use by the end of 2023. 

According to the Oxford Bus Company, the cap has been welcomed by bus operators as well as passengers. Director of Oxford Bus Company and Thames Travel, Luke Marion has issued a statement: “The extension of the £2 fare capping scheme is excellent news for passengers and the bus industry. Not only is it helping passengers continue to get out and about, it is also helping operators maintain services.”

Marion also hopes for the introduction of long-term funding and infrastructure for the £2 limit on ticket prices. 

Oxford Union votes not to fight for democracy abroad

Bintia Dennog
-
0
Oxford Union votes not to fight for democracy abroad

Following Saturday’s debate, the Oxford Union has voted against fighting for democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law abroad, as part of a special debate motion with the Harvard Political Union. The motion failed with 72 votes in favour and 150 votes against.

The motion addressed concerns of a decline of democracy around the world, rising authoritarianism and the question of interventionism.

Speaking in favour of the motion was John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the UN from 2005 to 2006 and National Security Advisor under Trump; the Afghan politician, writer, and activist, Fawzia Koofi; the Estonian politician and previous Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister of Defence, Urmas Reinsalu; and Harvard student Maya Bodnick.

In the opposition, the former US Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith and the international relations scholar and professor Stephen Zunes argued alongside Union President Matthew Dick and Oxford student Sultan Khokhar. 

Maya Bodnick first introduced the opposition speakers. She said she was flattered to be invited by the President given that she is “not a porn star or a transphobe”, prompting laughter and applause from the crowd. 

She went on to argue that Ukraine is currently “ground zero for the West’s defence of democracy”. If the US and European states are too fearful to stand up to Russian and Chinese aggression, these authoritarian regimes “will be emboldened to offer more terror, just as Hitler was in World War Two.”

Opening for the opposition, Matthew Dick argued that military intervention will never achieve its ideals. He reminded the audience that justifications for intervention, such as liberation, were likewise used by Putin. Moral triumphalism of the United States, he further argued, impedes democracy. 

Dick also urged the audience to not be fooled by the proposition: a vote for them is not a stand against Putin’s Russia nor is it a stand for democracy. “Democracy is in essence a voluntary act of free will,” he declared, “if democracy can only survive by forcibly submitting opposition for its free will, then it’s already been killed.” He added: “Its blood is in the hands of the proposition and not the foreign regimes they rail against.”

Fawzia Koofi pointed out that there is a fine line between colonised foreign policy and values. She urged the audience to protect the principles of democracy and uphold human rights. “I believe, if the world had not failed in Afghanistan, the Ukraine situation would not have been where it is now,” Koofi claimed.

Professor Stephen Zunes however further cautioned against intervention. “Before we start talking about fighting dictatorships, we should stop propping up dictators”, he advised, highlighting the fact that 57% of the world’s dictatorships receive arms from the US. Instead, he appealed to the success of nonviolent methods.

Urmas Reinsalu revisited the Russian invasion: “Putin belongs on a tribunal as a war criminal”, he contended, lamenting the G7 leaders’ “pact” against this. He further advocated for intervention on humanitarian, security, and moral grounds.

Next on the opposition was Sultan Khokhar, jumping in as a replacement for Pakistani politician Fawad Chaudhry, who was prevented from attending as he is currently in custody. Sultan denounced violent intervention as “inherently dubious, shady, and questionable at best” or “racist, supremacist, and morally bankrupt at worst”. 

“Operation get rich of oil, I mean, uh, freedom” has no mandate from the population, making it illegitimate, Sultan claimed. He referenced a study of 93% of Iraqis wanting the US-led coalition forces to leave. 

After four emphatic floor speeches, it was John Bolton’s turn to address the Union and he was met with a hefty round of applause. “This resolution does not advocate war”, he begins, before, moments later, declaring “if you want peace, prepare for war.” 

Bolton spoke at length about the virus of isolationism, stipulating that America is founded on protecting the values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. “The only land we ever asked for was the land to bury our dead”, he insisted. 

Speaking on Venezuela, Bolton stated: “It’s tragic that we and our other coalition partners couldn’t even get enough assistance to free the people of Venezuela who are being depressed politically, and crushed economically.”  

 “We will ultimately bring the Castro brothers dictatorship… back under the control of the people”, Bolton mentioned, referencing Cuba. “And let’s not forget Israel, the only functioning democracy in the Middle East, threatened by a nuclear holocaust”, he continued. “We will stand with Israel.”

Closing the debate, Peter Galbraith argued that we must use the effectiveness test when determining whether to fight for democracy. “Yes, there are times we should fight and we have fought successfully,” he proclaimed, but “the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate why it is not feasible to fight for democracy outside the West.” He criticised the Reagan administration’s embracing of Pinochet, under which Bolton served at the time. 

Galbraith further argued that both an independent judiciary and political parties accepting election results are essential features of a successful democracy – neither of which the US possesses. He claimed that the Supreme Court has “become more partisan, more extreme right wing, more an instrument of the Republican Party” since 2000. This is referencing George W Bush’s electoral victory in Florida, where a divisive landmark Supreme Court ruling stopped the recount of votes. If the count hadn’t been stopped, Bush’s opponent Al Gore could potentially have won.

Bolton interrupted the speech: “Would you have understood the wrong result if the court said stop the recount earlier because it violates the constitution?” In response, Galbraith argued that it had been “an entirely partisan exercise.” This caused the chamber to applaud in agreement. 

Galbraith went on to criticise how the majority of Republicans in Congress voted to overturn Biden’s win, despite the election being “indisputably free and fair”. American Democracy in 2020, he believes, was not saved by the courts or Congress, but instead by the incompetence of Donald Trump and the likes of people such as Rudy Giuliani. 

Galbraith concluded: “Rather than looking for authoritarian dragons to slay far from home, America should be fighting to save our democracy at home.”

Dozens of Ukrainian refugees now homeless in Oxford

Rufus Hall
-
0
Dozens of Ukrainian refugees now homeless in Oxford

Dozens of Ukrainian refugees in Oxford have been registered homeless, the Oxford Mail has uncovered. 

The Mail submitted numerous FOI requests to councils in Oxfordshire, revealing that 31 of the 2,143 refugees matched with sponsor homes under the Homes for Ukraine scheme in the county are now registered as statutory homeless, over two-thirds of whom are in Oxford. 

This follows previous criticism of the scheme, introduced by the government in March of last year to assist individuals, charities, community groups and businesses to bring Ukrainians to safety in the UK following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

In response to the request, Oxfordshire councils reported that at least 10 family groups are among the 31 Ukrainians registered homeless in the county. These groups include children and teenagers. 

Statutory homelessness designates a situation in which a council is unable to obtain long-term accommodation for a household after 56 days. The status ends when such accommodation is secured. 

Kateryna Bondarchuk, who fled Ukraine one week after the Russian invasion in February 2022, cited the high cost of rent as a problem for Ukrainian refugees attempting to find housing in the private rental sector. She said: “I think a lot of Ukrainians are homeless in Oxfordshire because it’s very difficult to rent a house when you don’t have a credit history, and your salary is not high enough for renting.”

The Homes for Ukraine scheme aimed to match Ukrainian refugees with household sponsors in the UK. Sponsors committed to hosting a refugee for at least six months, receiving payments from the government of £350 a month for up to 12 months after the beginning of the sponsorship. 

Bondarchuk highlighted other problems for Ukrainian refugees attempting to find housing after their sponsorship had finished. “Some landlords don’t want to rent their property to Ukrainians because they have visas which only last three years,” she said. 

“Sponsors have been receiving £350 a month and it’s so little, especially if you host a big family. If the sponsors were paid more, they would host Ukrainian refugees for more than a year.”

These findings are the latest symptom in a string relating to the government’s handling of Ukrainian refugees. Previously, Robina Qureshi, the head of Positive Action in Housing, the charity which organises the longest-running refugee hosting programme in the UK, said that the government’s Homes for Ukraine scheme amounted to a “gimmick”, and had given people “false hope”. She cited the “tortuous and confusing” bureaucracy involved in the scheme, which made it inaccessible to many refugees. 

The Times reported on 29th March 2022 that fewer than one in ten applications to accommodate Ukrainian refugees in British homes had been approved, amid fears that thousands of sponsorship offers would be wasted. 

Local councils in England and Wales have a statutory obligation to prevent homelessness. Due to the politically sensitive nature of refugee status, the question now arises as to whether homeless Ukrainian refugees will be given priority attention over the existing homeless population in Oxford and the wider region. 

Cabinet member for housing at Oxford City Council, Councillor Linda Smith said: “[F]or those in Oxford, we provide the same homeless prevention support as anyone with the right to live here.”

“There is support available from the council and local refugee organisations for those looking to rent, providing advice and practical support with things like contracts, references and understanding the rental market in Oxford.”

Just Stop Oil activist who threw soup at Van Gogh painting gives talk at Earth Sciences Department

Sloane Getz
-
0
Just Stop Oil activist who threw soup at Van Gogh painting gives talk at Earth Sciences Department

The Oxford University Earth Sciences Department hosted Just Stop Oil activist Phoebe Plummer for a speaker event last Thursday, entitled ‘How To Just Stop Oil. Start acting like life depends on it: civil resistance to climate chaos in 2023.’

Plummer, a 21-year-old student and climate activist from London, generated controversy last year when she and a fellow activist glued themselves to a wall in the National Gallery and threw soup at Van Gogh’s Arles Sunflowers to protest against climate inaction.

Just Stop Oil, the organisation Plummer represents, has gained notoriety for their unorthodox protest strategies, which have included other art gallery protests and “slow marches”, which aim to draw media and public attention to the urgency needed to combat the climate crisis.

In her speech, Plummer stressed that without serious climate action, “We might see the destruction of all we know and love.” These sentiments have been echoed by Oxford academics at the Earth Sciences department and beyond. In a 2021 report, Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, the Halley Professor of Physics, urged that “As long as there is any unburned fossil fuel left in the ground, it is still worth fighting to keep it there.”

In an interview with Cherwell, James Skeet, a spokesperson for Just Stop Oil said: “History has shown time and time again that disruptive civil tactics are a large component of what brings about change, the fact we have universal suffrage, the civil rights movement – it’s a very long list […] most of the rights we enjoy today didn’t come about through polite asking but through people making the nuisance of themselves and demanding change.

“University students have always been at the forefront of real social change, so it’s absolutely imperative that young people are well versed in this sort of stuff and keen to get out into the streets – and ultimately its young peoples’ futures on the line.”

University students and young people make up a significant proportion of Just Stop Oil’s activists and students involved in the organisation at Oxford University and Oxford Brookes have demonstrated extensively in Oxford this year. Last term, Just Stop Oil activists hung banners near the Longbridges Boat House during the Torpids boat race and conducted a two-hour-long “slow march” through Oxford city centre to protest new deep mining projects in Cumbria. These demonstrations have been met with public frustration, but on the whole the student response has been largely supportive.

In response to a request for comment, a University spokesperson said “This is an externally-organised event booking that the University has assessed in line with its code of practice on meetings and events, as it does with all such requests.”

1...151152153...2,496Page 152 of 2,496

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