Monday, May 19, 2025
Blog Page 156

Oxford admissions interviews to stay online

The Admissions Committee (Part of the Conference of Colleges) has decided after a vote that future Oxford undergraduate interviews will remain online for the next five years. Interviews will follow the online model developed during the COVID pandemic, despite the University’s long-standing tradition of in-person interviewing.

After a lengthy consultation process, 24 colleges voted in favour of keeping interviews online for the next five years versus seven against. This decision comes as the University may also be moving admissions tests online following their new partnership Tata Consulting Services (TCS).

The decision to move interviews online was shared with some JCR and MCR presidents and students. Oriel students were informed in an email “future admissions rounds will be on-line”,  despite attempts made by both the students and members of the college’s administration to keep interviews in-person.

While responses to this are set to vary across colleges, Oriel has confirmed that it will attempt to offset any potentially negative impact on prospective and incoming students during the admissions process by maximising the opportunities available to visit the college “at other times during the year”.

Such concerns over the welfare and support available to offer-holders and prospective students have been echoed elsewhere, with students at St Hilda’s College voicing fears over the disparities that may emerge between students with different access requirements, stating that it was the equivalent of “kicking people out”. Without school access to computers or the resources necessary for online interviews, considerable concerns have been expressed over the move, although the University does offer equipment and technology to schools lacking.

In a statement to Cherwell, the University confirmed “The colleges of Oxford University have decided that forthcoming undergraduate admissions interviews will take place online. This follows extensive consultation carried out with stakeholders across the University and elsewhere, concerning the merits of both in person and online formats in admissions interviews, and the success of this format over the past three years. Oxford will continue to aim to deliver a consistent and high-quality experience for this part of the collegiate University’s application process. We are grateful to the many schools, colleges, parents and guardians who support their students for an Oxford interview”.

This article was updated at 10:45 on 21/05/2023 to include University comment.

Gregory Doran named Oxford’s 30th Cameron Mackintosh Visiting Professor of Contemporary Theatre

0

World renowned director Gregory Doran has been named Oxford University’s latest Cameron Mackintosh Visiting Professor of Contemporary Theatre for the academic year 2023-2024. 

The Cameron Mackintosh Visiting Professor of Contemporary Theatre is a professorship connected to St Catherine’s College. Established in 1990 in honour of the theatre producer Sir Cameron Mackintosh, the position is held for a year by a prominent figure in the world of theatre. 

Gregory Doran grew up in Lancashire and studied English and Drama at Bristol University before beginning his career at the RSC in the 1980s, with a stint as Artistic Director until April 2022. An important figure in stage, television, and film productions, he is particularly well known for his Shakespearean work, such as his 2008 Hamlet production, released as a television film starring David Tenant and Patrick Stewart in 2009. Doran’s non-Shakesperean productions include Death of a Salesman, The Orphan of Zhao, The Odyssey, as well as David Walliams’ The Boy in the Dress.

Doran will succeed Adjoa Andoh – best known for her role as Lady Danbury in Bridgerton – as Cam Mac Visiting Professor.  

He has accumulated numerous awards such as the Laurence Olivier Award for Outstanding Achievement of the Year and the Sam Wanamaker Award from Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre. 

Doran also has numerous doctorates from eminent universities across the UK. His memoir, My Shakespeare: A Director’s Journey through the First Folio, was also published earlier this year. 

The Cameron Mackintosh Visiting Professorship is designed to give students at Oxford the chance to work directly with some of the most important figures in contemporary theatre. Cam Mac Professors hold lectures in order to encourage and promote the practice of contemporary theatre at the university. The inaugural lecture is also open to the public. 

When asked about the professorship, Doran said: “I am chuffed and honoured to take up the Cam Mac Visiting Professorship and to work with students. It is a privilege to be able to share your passion.”

University prevents Union freshers’ fair ban by treating them as a student society

0

The Oxford Union will not be banned from the freshers’ fair after the University has decided to treat them as a student society, despite the Union’s independence from the University’s or Proctors’ authority. Whilst the SU motion prevents the Union from purchasing a commercial stall at freshers fair, the University will allow them to apply for a student stall and bypass the ban, as they should be “treated on the same basis for bookings at the Fresher’s Fair, as it is run by students and has a high proportion of student members. Many other unregistered societies are permitted to attend the fair on this basis.”

This will also likely enable the Union to avoid the cost of a commercial stall. A senior Union source told Cherwell that “the Union should be able to attend the fair as normal but without having to pay the [SU] the almost £4000 cost of buying a corporate slot.” 

The University told Cherwell: “The Freshers’ Fair is intended for the benefit of all students and should therefore be open to all student-facing societies.  We do not support attempts to select those who are eligible without adherence with the universities policies and appropriate engagement.” 

One of the University’s pro-vice chancellors, Professor Martin Williams told The Telegraph: “The Oxford Union, a debating society independent of the University but whose leaders and members are mostly drawn from our student body, has not been banned from attending the Freshers’ Fair.  Students should be free to decide whether to join a society or club. Whilst we understand there are concerns held by the Student Union about the Oxford Union, the University is actively encouraging the two organisations to talk through the issues.”

The SU has claimed that “this is a concerning precedent in its attempt to undermine concerns that students have raised and democratically affirmed regarding issues such as forms of harassment and bullying”.

In response, the University told Cherwell: “We do understand that the Student Union has concerns about the management of the Oxford Union. We encourage the SU to constructively engage with the OU on this, and would advise this approach for any student-facing society the Student Union may have concerns about.”

As part of a preliminary review the SU also addressed a letter to the Union president, Matthew Dick, which specified a few “simple initial recommendations” to improve the experience of Oxford Students. This review by the VP for Access and Academic Affairs and VP for Welfare and Equal Opportunities was mandated alongside the commercial freshers’ fair ban in the last student council meeting. 

The SU recommended the Union to register with the Proctors office, which would provide “an external mechanism for dealing with internal problems”. Yet, this would violate the Union’s Independence Clause (Rule 69), which stipulates: “The Society shall not be registered with the Proctors as a University Club.” 

Alongside this, the SU expected the Union to commit to:

  • Ensuring that all committee members and event officials are specifically anti-sexual violence trained, along with the cretion of the position of anti-sexual violence officer
  • Creating explicit policies on anti-harassment, anti-bullying and anti-victimisation, anti-indirect discrimination and direct-discrimination, and whistleblowing
  • Removing punishments for members who cannot attend Union meetings for academic-related reasons

The SU also proposed that the OU extend the free open period in Michaelmas to a month, rather than the current two weeks, which would “allow students to make a more informed decision” in regards to membership purchases. Additionally, the SU invited the Union to an open student-led discussion on how to improve its culture before the last student council meeting in June. 

Updated at 7:55 on 20/05/2023 to reflect University comment.

Worcester x St Catz take home the Women’s Rugby Cuppers trophy

0

In the Women’s Cuppers final, Worcester/St Catz emerged victorious over last year’s champions Corpus/LMH/Trinity/St Hilda’s. 

Right from the start, Worcester demonstrated excellent structure in their play and displayed pace and ambition in their backline. The Worcester backs wasted no time in making an impact as Rachel Hewitt crossed the try line early in the game, putting the team ahead with a score of 5-0. A try by Maria Watt’s further solidified Worcester’s advantage, leaving the game at 10-5 at halftime. 

The second half presented a challenge for both teams, with the heat taking its toll on the players. The defensive efforts from both sides intensified, slowing down the pace of the game. A well-placed kick from scrum-half Florence Baker Masters and the skilful play of Tabs Preston and Maria Watt resulted in another try for Worcester, with Watt successfully grounding the ball directly under the posts. Maddy Kawalenko’s conversion extended their lead to 17-10, but two yellow cards shown to Worcester players in succession put them on the back foot, leaving them to fight until the final whistle.

Corpus captain Lauren Webb proved to be a formidable force on the field. Her sheer pace and fierce handoff led to her scoring two tries for her team in the 2nd half, keeping Corpus in contention until the very end. However, a missed conversion in the 80th minute left Corpus behind, and Worcester/Catz lifted the Emma Bidiscombe trophy. Both teams deserve credit for the exceptional display of rugby– a testament to the growth of Women’s rugby in Oxford, with the majority of players involved having never played before university. 

Player of the Match award: Fly-half Maria Watt (Catz) for her two tries and fine defensive efforts.

Image Credit: Tabs Preston

Magdalen Street Odeon to close just before its 100th anniversary

0

After 99 years of business, the Odeon Cinema on Magdalen Street will be closing its doors for good. At its peak, the cinema was one of Oxford’s most popular entertainment venues, but the rise of streaming platforms, the effects of the pandemic, and the opening of other cinemas have contributed to its decline over the past several years.

By modern standards, the cinema boasts a small size and limited selection. Just four minutes away, the newer and larger Odeon Cinema on George Street appears more popular. One student remarked, “I’ve only been to the Magdalen Street cinema once as George Street is bigger and tends to have more [show]times”. 

Odeon has announced that June 5 will be the cinema’s last day of buisness. Housed in a Grade II listed building, the cinema first opened as a silent movie theatre in 1924, and remained a mainstay of Oxford entertainment for nearly a century. Before being acquired by Odeon, the cinema cycled through various names and owners, going by the Oxford, the Super, the Cannon, the MGM, and the ABC.

Oxford cinephiles disappointed by the loss of the Magdalen Street Odeon will be relieved to note that both the Odeon on George Street and the Curzon in Westgate remain open for business. Odeon Cinema declined to comment on this closure.

Giving up the ghost – is Classics really dead?

0

There is no denying it. I do spend a lot of my degree learning a language that is literally dead. Time and time again, concerned parents, bemused relatives, well-meaning friends, and even complete strangers have all asked the same question: Why? Truly, what is the future of a degree so stuck in the past? For many, Classics – also known as Literae Humaniores – seems incapable of giving us anything new with the exception of yet more Tory politicians. The study of ancient civilisation, history, and literature is often misunderstood as having no real purpose, beyond being the pastime of the privileged. I beg to differ wholeheartedly. Before I am accused of bias, allow me to explain how Classics is incredibly relevant, both to modernity and – perhaps more crucially – to the masses.

Classics forms the basis of pretty much everything. Politics, science, maths, religion, philosophy, architecture, history, literature, art, music, language – you name it and I pretty much can guarantee that the ancients did it first. Is a world without these even worth living in? Ask yourselves this question. A long time ago, the Epicureans, the Stoics and the other schools of philosophy asked themselves the same thing. Mark Twain once famously stated that “There is no such thing as a new idea”. Instead, what we have are old ideas put into a mental kaleidoscope to create fresh combinations out of the “same old pieces of colored glass that have been in use through all the ages.” The ancients gave us democracy; law courts; paper; central heating; theatre; sewage systems; atomic theory; even time as we know it (cheers, Julius Caesar). We do not live in a vacuum – everywhere we look we are confronted with fragments of someone else’s original thought and though these concepts have been developed and refined from the point of their conception, the fact that they inherently do not belong to us is something that demands acknowledgement. The modern neglect of Classics is an act of copyright infringement. The ancients deserve the same respect we are obliged to give modern thinkers, scientists and creators and perhaps even more respect as the things we consider to be important expressions of being human simply would not exist without them.

Of course, all this is just sentimentality. Does anyone really care that Immortals by Fall Out Boy is actually a sample of Tom’s Diner by Suzanne Vega or that Picasso often painted over the work of other nameless artists when he couldn’t afford fresh canvases or that the quintessential ‘British’ fish and chips were actually brought in by Jewish settlers in the 17th century? Apparently, the “now” is what matters, not all the layers of history hidden beneath it. I beg to disagree. In truth, all these origin stories are relevant, deeply interesting and necessary for us to properly understand the final product. Vega has songwriter credits for Immortals, the radiography images of the underpainting allow art historians “to look inside Picasso’s head and get a sense of how he was making decisions as he was painting the canvas” and as for the fish and chips, we are given yet another reason to question if British culture is even real. Every aspect of our modern world – material and abstract alike – is rooted in the deep past. Without first acknowledging these origins, we cannot begin to understand what is going on around us.

As a Classics and English student, I am keenly aware that my exposure to the ancient world is a significant privilege – literature is constantly metamorphosing and the ability to trace ideas, forms, and genres across cultures and time is not only valuable but imperative. A reader of Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost’ cannot hope to unlock even a fraction of what the text holds without a conscious appreciation for the general epic genre and the seminal classical works of Homer, Virgil and Ovid (to name a few). Just as Leonardo Dicaprio’s Jay Gatsby is no more than a formless shadow without F. Scott Fitzgerald’s ‘The Great Gatsby’, the book loses so much of its nuance without the knowledge that the American writer borrowed heavily from Petronius’ Satyricon and his portrayal of rich, repulsive Trimalchio and his extravagantly ridiculous dinner parties. In fact, ‘Trimalchio’ and ‘Trimalchio in West Egg’ were among Fitzgerald’s working titles for the novel, in order to underline the importance of the classical parallel. These examples are a bit pretentious admittedly. Some might say that ‘Paradise Lost’ and ‘The Great Gatsby’ arguably have very little relevance anymore. So let’s use something with far more cultural capital – the Hunger Games Trilogy.

Suzanne Collins’ YA series took the world by storm when it first hit the bookstores in 2008. “To live or not to live?” – no.  Move over Shakespeare, the only question on anyone’s lips was  “Team Gale or Team Peeta?”. Aside from the exciting love triangle and the chilling depictions of violence, however, the world of the Hunger Games is stuffed chock-full of classical allusions. And they’re not just gratuitous ornaments used to lend the writing an air of sophistication and grandeur. They add a real depth to the message at the crux of the series – Collins’ incisive criticism of imperialism and its inherently predatory power structures. Collins’ Panem is modelled on the Roman Empire: the Capitol is Rome and the districts are the municipal states under its control. The Capitol, like Rome, simultaneously leeches on its people and keeps them in docile submission with an effective combination of entertainment and punishment. In other words, it’s a parasite that relies heavily on its host for survival, while also destroying it. Even the name of the dystopian civilisation – Panem – is looking back to the past. “Panem et circenses” (bread and circuses) is a quote from the satirist Juvenal expressing his pain at how the Roman populace has become passive and submissive when they are provided with the basic necessities of food and mindless entertainment. The sentiment holds truth for both Collins’ not-so-fictional world and our modern reality. Colonisation operates on exactly the same principles as Roman imperialism and the sociopolitical dynamics of the Capitol. A parallel could even be extrapolated to urban deprivation and imbalance in modern-day Britain. Looking at it from this perspective, London has insidious similarities to the Capitol and Rome. We repeat ourselves because human nature remains unchanged – an awareness of classical precedence helps us better understand the functions of our world and perhaps even to drive us to make change happen.  

Classics is incredibly important in politics today, besides churning out a worrying number of Tory Brexiteers. All the structures that form the backbone of modern democracy have ancient origins. If we take America as an example, it is well-furnished with relics of ancient governance. A key facet of ancient Greek political thought was the need for separation of powers. Plato’s Republic discusses the importance of mixed government – he deemed a perfect blend of oligarchy and democracy necessary for the stability of a state. Aristotle took these ideas and formulates a three-pronged government with a legislative (make laws), judicial (interpret laws) and executive (enforce laws) branch. Polybius transferred the concept to Roman republicanism and eventually, it trickled down into the American Constitution via the Founding Fathers who used ancient principles to found a new nation. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and co. were all extensively educated on classical matters, in fact, historian Bernard Bailyn states tha “knowledge of classical authors was universal among colonists with any degree of education”. As Aristotle recommended, the power structures in America are three-tiered: the Congress is legislative, the Supreme Court is judicial and the President is executive. This division of responsibility is how we are able to maintain democracy and prevent a slide into despotism. It is evident that when the Founding Fathers envisioned a future for their country after British imperialism, they looked to the past for a functioning model for a fairer and more sustainable way of governance. Since the American political model is pretty much the same as it was when it was brought in, the classical precedents could almost be used as a manual – the mistakes that meant the end of those civilisations can be avoided and corrected before they pose a threat to us.

The act of building on and improving classical precepts is also paramount in the world of science and mathematics. Ancient mathematicians contributed to number theory, mathematical astronomy, mathematical physics, and even broached ideas close to integral calculus. We are all somewhat familiar – some more than others! – with Pythagoras’ Theorem and Pythagorean triples. The fact that we still use his proof is testament to the importance of the classical world to the way we understand our world today. However, the ancients have also inspired fresh ideas. They triggered new developments that otherwise simply would not have been possible. It is of immense importance to trace these evolving ideas from their origin so we can properly understand how they came about. Parts of Pythagoras’ ideas were explored in depth by the 3rd-century Alexandrian mathematician Diophantus who wrote a text called the Arithmetica, now only partially preserved. One of the mathematical problems within the Arithmetica – dubbed the ‘sum-of-squares’ problem – asks how a given square number is split into two other squares. This was mostly left alone all the way until 1637 when in the margin of his copy of the Arithmetica, Pierre de Fermat scribbled that he had discovered a “truly marvellous proof” showing that It was impossible “to separate a cube into two cubes, or a fourth power into two fourth powers, or in general, any power higher than the second, into two like powers” but that the “margin is too narrow to contain” it. This cryptic note – mere marginalia – came to be known as ‘Fermat’s Last Theorem’ and for centuries mathematics devoted themselves to finding this lost proof with little success. Finally, in 1993, English mathematician Andrew Wiles presented his proof in public for the first time after working on it in near secrecy for 6 years. His proof built on the work of predecessors Gerhard Frey, Jean-Pierre Serre and Ken Ribet and though a flaw was found during peer review, he published a second paper that circumvented the problem in 1995. The thrilling saga, starting with Diophantus and ending with Wiles, spans nearly 2000 years. Without the classical inception, we might not have ever come to the modern end product nor ever hope to understand it without an awareness of where it came from. This is only one example in sea of similar developments. 

Human culture is not a static and stable phenomenon. By nature, it is ever-shifting and giving birth to new ideas that still rely on the old. Old things – paintings, poetry, music, etc – are just waiting to be deconstructed and looked at again from a modern point of view – be it feminist, postcolonial, queer or a combination of all these things. Classics is no exception. In recent years, there has been an incredible demand for a specific literary niche: retellings. Madeline Miller’s ‘Song of Achilles’, ‘Circe’ and ‘Galatea’; Natalie Haynes’ ‘A Thousand Ships’, ‘Pandora’s Jar’ and ‘Stone Blind’; Pat Barker’s ‘Silence of the Girls’ and ‘Women of Troy’’; Margaret Atwood’s ‘The Penelopiad’ – all these have one thing in common. They all take a classical story and rewrite it afresh from a sidelined perspective. Most of these examples are written with a feminist lens and a voice is given to the formerly voiceless women who populate the margins of both the stories they feature in and the societies they live in. Our fascination for these rebellious reimaginings is at least in part derived from the fact that they go against the grain of a monolithic cultural canon.

As human beings, we always want to push the envelope a little further and Classics is the perfect springboard for our artistic and ideological nonconformity. Classics offers the foundations for us to build on but the power of hindsight allows us to pick and choose what to keep and what to discard. Without it, there is nothing to be inspired by. There is nothing to fight against. There is nothing at all. Classics is so embedded in every facet of human existence that it literally cannot die. 

The Monarchy: An Embodiment of Britishness?

0

The monarchy is often said to embody British identity and tradition, but it is not clear how. Those disposed to sneer when they hear it, dismiss the claim without sensing a need to refute it. Either they find the very idea of national identity repulsive, so it is not worth debunking, or they consider monarchy so obviously incompatible with a modern conception of national identity that there is no need to explain their objection. On the other hand, those disposed to accept the claim often do so on an almost religious basis, such that they also stop short of spelling out their reasoning. Underlying this is, I suspect, an intellectual insecurity, as though they know the claim cannot survive honest scrutiny. It is then safest to fend off scepticism by retreating to some made up norm of etiquette, much as religious people like to suggest it is rude to examine too closely what they profess to believe.

My own view is that there is an important sense in which the monarchy embodies British identity and tradition. I think it is glib to reject the claim by vague appeals to democratic values, as critics do, or to conflate a sense of national identity with racism. I also think it is wrong to leave the claim unexamined, as supporters tend to, satisfied as they are to treat it as a platitude from which dissent constitutes a breach of taste.

The survival of the monarchy is a testament to the moderation that characterises British political history. This moderation is key to Britain’s political stability, which is perhaps our greatest and most distinctive achievement. No other power has managed to negotiate its entry into modernity without succumbing to the itch to ritually smash up and vandalise its traditional institutions. The French guillotined their king and proposed to hang their priests by their entrails. The Bolsheviks shot the Romanovs in a basement after promising not to, before proclaiming and enforcing atheism in the name of progress. The Chinese tore down their Buddhist shrines, set Daoist temples on fire, buried alive their monks and dug up the corpse of Confucius in the course of a Cultural Revolution to modernise China. The Japanese are remembered for stunning reforms in the Meiji era, but we overlook the trauma of the experience as entire classes like the Samurai were erased. When it dawned on the Americans that the ancient practice of slavery was not compatible with modern civilisation, it took them a civil war killing 600,000 of their own people to abolish it.

Against this background the British experience stands out as an outlier. Unlike say the Ottomans, who sought to preserve an ossified political formation against the tide, Britain recognised early on the need to adjust and reform our institutions in light of modern conditions. But unlike the other major powers, we did so in a stepwise and gradualist fashion, sparing ourselves the trauma that each of them were put through when they pursued changes at speed and with violence. Three reform acts in the 1800’s forestalled the need for a peasant revolt in England to distribute political power to the masses. The adoption of the Salisbury Convention restricted an unelected House of Lords to a supervisory role, preemptively depriving them of the kind of legislative power that would have been impossible to reconcile with democratic aspirations. The common law accumulated over time an elaborate and expanding sphere of fundamental rights the monarch’s subjects could claim against the sovereign, although there was never a pompous moment where they were formally codified and declared in a constitutional document. The Church of England lamented but acquiesced in the decline of religion, and duly withdrew from public life — leaving, as it were, before they were asked to leave. On top of all of this was the monarchy itself which, having seen the writing on the wall in the rest of Europe, gave up of their own volition the executive power they used to wield and invented a largely ceremonial role for themselves before any homegrown Bolsheviks came for them.

All of this meant that Britain was able to transform and modernise itself without engaging in the hysterics that had at one time or another overwhelmed the other major powers, sometimes for prolonged periods and leaving permanent scars. It is because we achieved these changes without a formal revolution that virtually all of our traditional institutions remain intact: we have retained an established Church, an unelected Upper House, a monarchy, and we continue to govern ourselves without a codified constitution. This is not to say that things have been static, or that we are somehow stuck in the past — a lazy and inaccurate refrain of republicans. Rather, our institutions have reinvented themselves before the forces seeking to overthrow them gathered pace.

It is this manner of reform that is so characteristic of what we and others associate with the English stereotype: measured, understated, spectacle-free. To return to the example of slavery, an event as momentous as its abolition was achieved in England by an Act of Parliament, as an ordinary piece of legislation. The resolve to do even dramatic things without drama has enabled us to adapt calmly to fresh circumstances without an overt demolition of long-held practices and institutions. No doubt this enduring equanimity irritates revolutionary types, eager to throw the table over for a clean start, but it has ensured the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next for four centuries. There has been no coup in England since the Restoration.

When the French Ambassador M. Paul Cambon concluded his long career in 1920, he took lunch with Winston Churchill, who asked what he made of the England he had seen over his many years in the country. The exchange was recorded in Churchill’s memoir:

“‘In the twenty years I have been here,’ said the aged Ambassador, ‘I have witnessed an English Revolution more profound and searching than the French Revolution itself. The governing class have been almost entirely deprived of political power and to a very large extent of their property and estates; and this has been accomplished almost imperceptibly and without the loss of a single life.’”

In this way the outward sameness of our established bodies conceals the truth: we have evolved, in material terms, beyond recognition. Their continued existence, whether it is the established Church or the House of Lords, offers visible proof of how far we have come without an open break from our traditions. It is in this sense that the stubborn survival of the monarchy, despite its transformation in substance, embodies the way Britain conducts itself and what we have achieved.

Image Credit: Katie Chan//CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia commons

Oxford SU reverses Freshers’ Fair ban on Union after being “reminded” of free speech policy by University

0

The Oxford Student Union (SU) trustees have reversed the SU’s decision to ban the Oxford Union (OU) from freshers fair, allegedly after being “reminded” of the University’s free speech policy.

The SU previously voted to ban the OU from the freshers’ fair, referencing “long-standing concerns relating to alleged bullying, sexual harassment, discrimination and data privacy breaches which affect students”. 

In a recent email to the student body, the SU clarified that the motion that banned the Union from freshers’ fair was “unrelated to Dr Stock’s intended talk [at the Union]” and that it is “deeply unfortunate that the media has chosen to imply a connection” between the two. 

In a letter to The Telegraph, one of Oxford’s pro-vice chancellors, Professor Martin Williams, writes that recent reporting by those concerned about the University’s approach to free speech has “unfortunately been ill-informed and therefore… unnecessarily inflammatory and incorrect.”

The letter continues: “The Oxford Union, a debating society independent of the University but whose leaders and members are mostly drawn from our student body, has not been banned from attending the Freshers’ Fair.  Students should be free to decide whether to join a society or club. Whilst we understand there are concerns held by the Student Union about the Oxford Union, the University is actively encouraging the two organisations to talk through the issues.

“Our Freedom of Speech policy makes clear that the University seeks to prepare students to encounter and confront difficult views, including views that they find unsettling, extreme or even offensive.  As a result, we do not allow the no-platforming of any lawful speech whilst also supporting the right of students, staff and societies to protest and challenge speakers at events, as long as they do so within the law and our policies.

“The University and its colleges host hundreds of events each term and we will continue to invite a wide range of speakers. So, despite what some may have been led to believe, freedom of speech and expression is alive and well at Oxford.”

The University’s free speech policy, available online, states: “Recognising the vital importance of free expression for the life of the mind, a university may make rules concerning the conduct of debate but should never prevent speech that is lawful.

“Inevitably, this will mean that members of the University are confronted with views that some find unsettling, extreme or offensive. The University must therefore foster freedom of expression within a framework of robust civility.”

The SU, Union, and University have been approached for comment.

Devil-DHD

0

I’m not going to discuss the sexy and aloof “sorry, I tap out when I’m bored, so it’s your duty to keep me entertained,” kind of ADHD but rather, the less glamorous version which (with affection) I refer to as devil-DHD – the kind of ADHD that quite often leads to inevitable shame and debauchery. As I am actually one of them, I hold these specimens very close to my heart.

When around a Devil-DHD person, you might find yourself hearing outlandish lies, leading you to believe that it could be pathological. They may tell everyone how they went to Berghain this summer and had the time of their life, when you – who were on that Berlin trip with them – know full well that the colourful pop-music dance bar you went to was assuredly not Berghain. If you are kind, you let them have it, if you are my best friend, you say “huh? Maddy, what the hell are you on about, that was not Berghain.”, leaving them the joy of ten unimpressed pitying faces. The truth of the matter is, to a traditional ADHD brain, the name of a club or a location often lodges itself in a dark and fastened safe that floats somewhere at the back of the mind. The key to the safe conveniently remains at the location itself (I have keys in Italy, Berlin, Milan, Amsterdam, London). The memory of the event or the feeling, however, is often crystal clear, almost palpably vivid and tangible in our sensory consciousness. It’s the where, what, when, and why that fail us. But to a Devil-DHD, this extends beyond mere memory-loss, and becomes an opportunity to get creative.

It’s a known fact that people with ADHD are more creative. Countless studies (Scientific American, Psychology Today, ADHD Institute and many many more) sustain that “98% of case studies found that adults with ADHD had a higher rate of creative achievements compared to adults without ADHD in their daily life.” And it’s true. I get so creative with my lies that sometimes I wonder whether I should begin writing them down to keep up. My therapist with impressively large gums loved it. She got to help me with so many mind-blowing problems. Whether they were real or not was neither here nor there. Her face, and gums, would light up in a huge, Cheshire-cat smile. “Tell me more” she’d muse, as I told her about the time I once got forced, in Milan, by a drug dealer to deal several drugs to people because he had a warrant after him and couldn’t take the risk. I did go to Milan – I can’t take credit for that – but the rest was all a product of my resourceful imagination.

Another thing that goes hand in hand with the condition is hedonism. Imagine a slightly narcoleptic brain that falls asleep every so often (while your outer-shell appears awake). Then suddenly the brain briefly wakes up again but on steroids. We need to make the absolute most of these few awakened moments. Everything needs to happen fast (men, don’t take that too literally). We need to grab every chance by their hyperactive balls, before it’s gone and Cinderella’s carriage becomes a pumpkin again. These are the times you might find us running to the bar for the seventh cocktail, trauma dumping on a captured victim, and interrupting people like it were a quiz and our buzzer was “oh that reminds me!” It can come across rude, or just plain annoying, and I am aware of this, but dear neuro-normatives, you need to understand the urgency. To understand, you must take into account all of the lower moments (there are many), that occur when the brain is asleep and unstimulated, when we zone out, and for that reason become alienated from the conversation, emitting an icky series of unanswered “who? When? What are we talking about? What? Guys?” that get depressing to hear, even for us.

 It is during our lower moments that your phone might begin to ping with eight consecutive “what are you up to tonight?”s followed by a painfully desperate “drinks on me if you come out”. All I can advise is for you to tap into compassion. Even if you choose that you do not wish to take us up on our pleading tequila shots spam, an “oh! Sorry can’t tonight, but definitely tomorrow!” will do, even if it is a lie. We aren’t ones to judge lies and this’ll give our restless brains somewhere to rest, at least until tomorrow. It’s really that simple. It’s when there’s nothing stimulating us and nothing immediate that we begin to wonder why we tried so hard to win the sperm race in the first place. It really does occasionally get that dark up there. An ADHD-er who is self-aware might journal and may have devised certain coping mechanisms, but there is no miracle cure to the overwhelming deserts of boredom and nihilism that we so often stumble upon.

The unhealthier Devil-DHDer will resort to quicker and more harmful measures. A vape addiction will become a good friend and getting batshit drunk on nights out, a BFF. A need for immediate gratification will often turn us into people we don’t necessarily want to be: self-centred, disinterested, debauched.

 So, because my boyfriend Mr. Vape is waiting and my brain’s about to tap out, I’ll wrap it up here: yes, there’s the whole fun-loving “I’m quirky” side to ADHD, but behind the veil of hyperactivity there’s also a lot of despondency and pain. (Which reminds me of the painful time I went paragliding and the rope detached, leading me to fly straight into a mountain and I got escorted back to land by an emergency helicopter that happened to be flown by Monica Bellucci – my aunt.)

But in all seriousness, have a heart for us little lying devils. We mean well.

Oxford hosts Sanctuary Fair for the first time

0

The Oxford Sanctuary Fair was hosted for the first time on Thursday 11th May in the Oxford Town Hall. 

It was organised by a collective team from the University of Oxford and its Refugee Studies Centre, Oxford-based Charity Asylum Welcome and Oxford City Council. The fair aimed to develop the City Council’s bid to become an accredited Local Authority of Sanctuary. In 2019 the council started this process by signing the City of Sanctuary Charter.

Nearly 20 organisations took part in the fair, ranging from the University’s own Career Service, to the Iraqi Women Art and War group, Sanctuary Wheels, the Diocese of Oxford, and the free tutor provider Jacari.

Panel sessions were also provided with speakers from the city’s student and local community alike, discussing  topics around ‘making sanctuary a reality’, the politics of refugees, community, education, homes, faith and campaigning. 

Also provided were workshops aiming to develop the skill set of the members of the organisations present and the wider Oxford community. These touched on contemporary advocacy, career pathways within the refugee support sector, democracy when building a sanctuary city and how the arts can amplify the voices of those displaced.

Hannah Ling, Social Justice Adviser to the Diocese of Oxford said “It’s really great to be here at the sanctuary fair sharing about how people can get involved with local volunteering with churches from supporting English language classes for refugees and asylum seekers, or helping support people in asylum hotels.

“It’s been really great to connect with local people and give them information about what we’re doing, but also to be surrounded by a whole bunch of people doing amazing work in this area and feeling like together we can really make a difference”.

The fair gave students the opportunity to get involved further in refugee affairs. The Keep Campsfield Closed Campaign had strong student engagement, with one member of the campaign saying student support is vital to its success as the University has real, significant power in the town and concerning the future of the Detention centre only 5km away. While Layla Moran, a former refugee and Liberal Democrat MP has been vocal on the issue, Oxford East Labour MP Annelies Dodds has been “less enthusiastic”, as one campaign member noted. 

There was also ample opportunity for JCRs and MCRs to get involved, from ‘Sanctuary Wheels’ requesting more bike donations to enable transport provisions for new arrivals, the careers service’s human rights workshop projects, and many volunteering opportunities for language teaching, tutoring and hosting.

Juliet Van Gyseghem, President of the Student Action for Refugees (STAR) organisation, told Cherwell that “The timing [of the fair] could not be more ideal [as] it was held only a day after the Oxford got University of Sanctuary status”. She made clear that “For us in STAR, a newly re-started student group, we were able to connect with individuals and organisations who are actively working to make Oxford a more welcoming and inclusive space”. 

In the future STAR hopes “to be a driving force amongst students to encourage engagement with the local community”. Van Gysemhem believes that “As students we have an obligation to combat harmful rhetoric and policy. In STAR Oxford, we aim to do this through a combination of advocacy, campaigning, and volunteering. We welcome anyone to get involved. You can follow us on instagram @oxforduni.star” 

The international spirit of the Sanctuary fair was a particular source of satisfaction for those organising the event, with speakers from a diverse range of backgrounds. Participants ranged from a Canadian-Somali city councilman speaking about his experience making his city more welcoming to refugees, a Chinese masters student who volunteers locally with refugees, and an Albanian speaker who impressed the reality of life as a young girl being potentially trafficked – specifically “to trydown this assumption that Albanians are here as economic migrants”. Speakers from Ukraine, Eritrea and Sundan were also present. 

Director of Asylum Welcome Mark Goldring believes the event has been a success. “Asylum Welcome helped organise the event because we wanted to help both the University and the city on their journey to be official places of sanctuary. That required them to develop plans to try and become much more inclusive organisations, and today has got that started well. 

“We’ve looked at the politics, we’re looking at some of the practicalities, we have refugees speaking for themselves, discussions on next steps, so it is only the beginning of something, but it is a positive step. And having the University be able to announce this morning that they’ve got that official status is a great step forward”, he continued.

When asking what events were on offer at the fair, Goldring responded, saying that “Today has been a combination of presentations to the whole group, but just as importantly there’s about 20 stalls, so students and citizens can all learn about what they can contribute and what they can do. So, it’s a combination of understanding more and practical actions.”

Regarding whether or not the Sanctuary Fair is set to become an annual event, Goldring stated that while the 2023 Fair would likely not repeat on a regular basis, “that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be student events and there shouldn’t be planning activities. Our aim is to do more to get refugee voices into the planning process, and that’s not necessarily achieved by big events because everyone speaks different languages [and come from] different backgrounds”.Instead, according to Goldring “its far better to say ‘what do we do to improve transport for refugees, what can we do to help them thrive in the school system,[and] how do they get better access to University’. It’s more thematic than the big set-piece.”