Sunday, May 25, 2025
Blog Page 156

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.”

How do we keep Campsfield closed?

Emma Belmonte
-
0
How do we keep Campsfield closed?

In the first week of Hilary Term, The Student Union became an officially named member of the Keep Campsfield Closed Coalition. The coalition has been organising repeated protests to raise awareness and to express the strong local opposition across Oxfordshire to Campsfield immigration centre’s reopening. But what is Campsfield?

Located in Kidlington just 5 miles north of Oxford, the Campsfield immigration centre was active for over 20 years before being closed in 2018. And yet in June 2022, the current Home Office announced its plans to reopen the centre. The 400 beds of the new facility would once more be occupied by people in exile whose situation the Home Office deems irregular. The people who enter those centres are detained without trial and constrained to a purgatory, waiting for the unforeseeable rulings of the Home Office. The inhabitants are subjected to a hell of administrative threats of expulsions,  even though most of them will eventually be granted asylum.  There are currently seven immigration detention centres currently running across the UK, which according to the government can accommodate up to 3000 people in total. Campsfield’s reopening would therefore largely increase the Home Office’s detention capacities, and cost no less than £227 million. The Home Office intends to justify this cost by ‘going to the market’, which translates to leaving the responsibility of its administration to private companies. According to multiple accounts of past detainees, this model further worsens the conditions of detention as the administration is run in a perspective of making profits. 

The closure of Campsfield in 2018 occurred in a context of repeated protests from local human right activists, as well as numerous hunger strikes and disturbances organised by the detainees themselves.  In 2018, the Immigration Minister, Caroline Nokes, presented Campsfield’s closure as a milestone achievement towards the Home Office’s aim to reduce the immigration detention estate by almost 40% from 2015. In her address during Campsfield’s official closure, Nokes declared: “Now is the right time to modernise and rationalise the detention estate. We are committed to ensuring we have a fair and humane immigration system that provides control, and detention must only be used when we are confident no other approaches will work.” The closures of 2018 followed up on Stephen Shaw’s commissioned reports on detention centres which carried shocking revelations about the failings of this system, the precarious running of the facilities, and its effects on vulnerable people in immigration detention. The Home Office further committed to a collaboration with charities and communities in developing alternatives to detention, protection of the most vulnerable and lastly to increase transparency.

However, there has been a drastic shift in the government’s attitude vis à vis immigrant detention. Despite Nokes’ declaration and the Shaw reports which revealed the archaism of this system behind closed doors, a brand new official discourse has emerged in the last 5 years. This was set out by the current Home Office in 2021: “Those with no right to remain in the UK should be in no doubt of our determination to remove them. Immigration detention plays a vital role in tackling illegal migration and protecting the public from harm.” (Home Office and Tom Pursglove MP, 23 November 2021). The current Home Office’s choice of words is clearly characteristic of the current tendency across Europe to make immigration a matter of security as irregular immigrants are constantly presented as potential threats to the public. 

In February of this year, I interviewed Allan, one of the founding members of  the Keep Campsfield Closed coalition (KCC) which was revived soon after the Home Office’s announcement in 2022. Allan was himself detained in Campsfield in 2013. He arrived in the UK in 2009 after escaping from political persecution in Uganda, working and paying taxes while waiting for his asylum request to be processed. One day he was taken without notice to Campsfield after his residency status was rejected. After being detained for 9 months, a judge ruled the end of his detention, and he was granted asylum status. Allan has experienced the criminalisation of immigrants and asylum seekers firsthand: “(detained) people who went out to access medical attention, to see dentists or to see any other physical pains or whatever, they had to handcuff them, taking them to the dentist. So anybody who gets to see you at the dentist may think you are some very, very big criminal from somewhere”. And yet, only 10% of people detained in detention centres actually are foreign nationals with prison sentences. As for the other 90%, “their cases are just purely ‘immigration’”.

The Home Office presents detention centres as instrumental to deportations within the Rwanda Agreement, which allows people deemed ‘inadmissible’ in the UK to be flown to Rwanda to seek asylum there, and thus: “a fundamental part of our Nationality and Borders Bill and the New Plan for Immigration which will make it easier to remove people who have no right to be in the UK.”

However, unlike the official name ‘Immigration Removal centres’ suggests, a large majority of the people detained are never ‘removed’. According to the KKC: “86% of people leaving detention in 2021 were released on bail, and most made successful claims to asylum or other forms of humanitarian protection, rendering their detention wholly unnecessary”. If by law, these detentions are supposed to be strictly temporary, reality proves  much different. As MP Layla Moran puts forward in a debate at the Parliament on September 23rd 2022, “the average length of detention was 55 days, but some men were held for “excessive periods”. The longest detention in that year (2018) was one year and five months, but we have heard from detainees who were held for more than three years. Many detainees are not held in one centre but are deported, released, or moved around the system.”

The ‘indefinite’ nature of the detention, coupled with the weekly “threatening” notices from the Home Office, are what Allan experienced as being the most scaring to the detained people’s mental health :

 “The issue with being in a detention centre is the uncertainty because a person who’s in jail, real jail, is sentenced; the person knows: you’re spending three months, you’re spending a year, you’re spending whatever time, but in the detention centre, it’s indefinite. That is the hardest part of waking up and not knowing what is happening to you the next day… and you know what the Home Office does? They’ll keep writing you letters almost every week and none of those letters are good. You open up a letter that is threatening you, that is calling you ‘a danger for society’, you’re this and that. That’s something that breaks you down, because you came to a country seeking refugee status, thinking they will give you protection. But the people you run to, they keep the money to keep you in detention. Because it’s like if you have a boyfriend and the boyfriend has been abusing you and beating you up and doing all horrible things to you, then you run to your neighbour thinking your neighbour will keep you out of that danger, close the door. But he just opens the door for your boyfriend to continue beating you there.”

Detention centres traumatise the detainees, denying them access to any mental health support; according to various accounts, this led to self-harm and suicide, as it is thought to have been the case in the Colnbrook immigration removal centre near Heathrow on the 26th of March of this year. 

Behind closed doors, immigration centres are inherently opaque, allowing for repeated violations of the rights of the people they detain. Although the law forbids the detention of minors, recurring testimonies actually reveal the presence of children in detention centres, one example of which is accounted by MP Layla Moran:

“In 2013, I uncovered that a child was being held at Campsfield. A boy was held there for between two and three months. He would have been the only child in an adult-dominated, guarded facility with barbed wire fences. He would not have been allowed to go to school and he would have been unable to interact with other children or lead any sort of normal childhood. We know very little about him other than that he was between 12 and 16.’”

Furthermore, the flow of information in and out of detention centres is strictly limited to, at times, unlawful extents. Journalists are never allowed to pass the threshold of detention centres, and as detainees do traverse it, their smartphones are confiscated and exchanged for ‘little phones’ to which they can transfer their lines, phones which of course do not allow access to the internet, nor to take pictures, videos or recording of any kind. In my conversation with Allan, I asked him if they had any other means of accessing internet:

 “There is a library where you go, this internet, you can go online, you can go on your emails, but most of the sites were blocked. (…) things like YouTube, things like Facebook,  lots of things, lots of sites were blocked.”

 “Lots of sites” include the charity organisations which provide legal aid and support for asylum seekers. This unlawful restriction of access to information is also part of the history of Oxford University’s involvement with Campsfield, as late Professor Barbara Harrell-Bond (Emerita Professor and founding director of the Refugee Studies Centre from 1982 to 1996) was devoted to providing legal help to Campsfield detainees, and as accounted by Allan, advocated to lift the censorship of information which blocked the access to a variety of internet sites in the centre.

So what explains this shift in policy? And furthermore, how did this shift occur in the context of an appearing continuity of the conservatives’ hold on power? Since 2017, Downing Street has been occupied by all rather anti-immigration conservative politicians and yet, the policies regarding immigration detention have completely changed.  It is first surprising that it was under the government of Theresa May that the Shaw reports were completed, and thoroughly acknowledged as accepted, shown by the large plans to close the detention centre. On the occasion of the organisation of a roundtable headed by MP Layla Moran in February, a Lib-Dem Councillor shared his thoughts with me on this interrogation. According to him, the explanation was twofold: first of all, he characterised Theresa May as having been relatively flexible when facing results from studies as well as public opposition, leading her to respond to the general condemnation of immigration detention centres. This pragmatism was not shared by her successors. He added that the shift occurred during the late days of the Johnson II government. Facing a growing precarity of centrist support, his government held more tightly to its supporters of the hard nationalist right, which explains this frenetic and alarmist attachment to detention centres. More recently, the government has extended the investment in detention centres beyond its borders with the announcement of a £500m package of UK public money meant to fund the construction of detention centres  in France to prevent refugees attempting to cross the Channel.

            This year Oxford University has been awarded with the University of Sanctuary status, an award ‘recognising Oxford’s continued determination and initiatives to aid sanctuary seekers, whether they be students, staff or members of the local community’. The Sanctuary Fair on Thursday 11th marked the first appearance of the newly born Oxford Student Action for Refugees (STAR) group created under the impulse of Law student Juliet Van Gyseghem who declared that ‘the current focus is on the Campsfield campaign, but we will extend from this considerably in MT23’. What a better opportunity for the University to be coherent by acting accordingly with the claims for which it was recompensed? A first step would be signing a pledge to withdraw the University’s  investments in industries profiting from border violence against people in exile, as Divest Borders Oxford has called for. 

In the first week of Hilary Term, The Student Union became an officially named member organisation of the Keep Campsfield Closed Coalition (KCC), with the SU president Anna-Tina Jashapara attending their monthly meeting to push forward the campaign’s agenda within the University.  New resolutions state that the SU will “commit itself to call on local and national government to reverse the decision to reopen Campsfield House detention centre” and support campaigns and protests against the planned reopening. Students are supporting KCC and Divest Borders though passing motions in their Colleges’ JCRs and MCRs.  This includes Christ Church, Keble and Exeter JCR which made a contribution of £150 each to the campaign, as well as Wadham’s MCR. This process within colleges has been enabled by the support of Divest Border Oxford’s who put up a toolkit for anyone wanting to present such a motion. This step may be promising, in developing student mobilisation, and using the University’s reputation and connections as an added pressure on local and national governments. An open letter addressed to the government, is currently circulating through Oxford University networks, and has been signed notably by both heads of Colleges of Sanctuary: Mansfield College principal Helen Mountfield KC, and Jan Royal from Somerville. 

Despite these developments, student awareness of immigration detention remains largely limited. Yet, detention centres crystallise institutional racism and xenophobia. They participate in criminalising asylum seekers, in aggravating the precariousness of their situations and in preventing their social and economic integration. Without trials, they condemn individuals to wait in a limbo of uncertainty for a decision on their fate, preventing them from seeking the legal help and support that they are entitled to. All in all, immigration detention centres are the spear of systemic persecution of asylum seekers, often already scarred by such traumatising experiences.

As students of Oxford, we are also members of the Oxfordshire community; as such, we bear a political responsibility to recognise the persecution reopening Campsfield would entail for asylum seekers. We must take action on a local issue which would have national scale consequences.

For more information about the campaign: https://keepcampsfieldclosed.uk

Email : [email protected] 

Toolkit made by Divest Borders Oxford for JCR/MCR motions to support the KCC Campaign: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/3/folders/1NPZkZyC9Y2f1XgDyQOcX1ateV7dH8Gl8Link

To sign the petition : https://www.change.org/p/keep-campsfield-house-detention-centre-closed

Unlocking the Power of EdTech: Revolutionising Education for a Brighter Future

Anas Dayeh
-
0
Unlocking the Power of EdTech: Revolutionising Education for a Brighter Future

EdTech: Pioneering the Future of Education

In today’s modern era, technology’s imprint is increasingly prominent, reshaping all aspects of our lives, and carving a new trajectory for the learning process. This exciting convergence, known as Educational Technology (EdTech), has been a transformative force, redefining how students learn, and teachers instruct. Its scope extends from physical hardware to diverse software applications and digital platforms, becoming integral to every step of the learning journey.

EdTech encompasses an array of digital resources—both online and physical—intended to optimise students’ academic potential. The journey of EdTech has seen it evolve from simple facilitative tools to intricate platforms that respond dynamically to individual learning needs. There’s a symbiotic relationship between technology, artificial intelligence, and education, with the potential to substantially enhance the quality of teaching and equalise opportunities for disadvantaged students. Through animated videos, specialised teacher feedback, and research in cognitive science, EdTech provides tailored and personalised education, outperforming traditional one-size-fits-all classroom instruction.

Despite these advancements, a disconnect remains in EdTech’s adoption by policy leaders. They often favour traditional educational methodologies, neglecting the integration of innovative solutions that could rejuvenate our learning systems. The inadequacies of this approach were glaringly revealed during the pandemic when distance learning became a necessity rather than a choice. Yet, despite the lessons drawn from this experience, a safety net for such emergencies needs to be more conspicuously present in many policy decisions.

Recent policy shifts have increased student responsibilities and expectations, demanding greater academic accomplishments without providing the requisite resources for achieving them. The augmentation of grade boundaries, the proposal to mandate Mathematics until age 18, and the resulting additional workload and pressure on students and teachers alike point to an unmet need for extra support, especially for students from working-class backgrounds.

II. Why am I EdTech passionate? Personal Journey: A Testament to the Power of EdTech

My academic journey serves as a vivid testament to the transformative impact of EdTech. As an A-Level student from a sixth form with an average grade of D+, no GCSEs at the onset of my A-levels, and having recently moved to the UK, my academic prospects seemed dim. My first year was a daunting experience characterised by consistently low grades and growing concern amongst my teachers regarding my prospects of passing the final exams.

The turning point came with a scholarship for students on Free School Meals from Uplearn, an online learning platform that leverages AI and cognitive science. This opportunity transformed my academic trajectory, enabling me to achieve A*A*A at A Levels and be the first to get an offer from the University of Oxford in my sixth form since 2017. Without a shadow of a doubt, I attribute this achievement to the invaluable technological assistance provided by Up Learn and other EdTech tools I’ve used.

Inspired by this personal experience, I recently submitted a motion on behalf of the Oxford University Student Union to the National Union of Students (NUS). This motion urged the NUS to lobby the government to prioritise investment in education technology, particularly emphasising those utilising AI’s power. The objective was to encourage the government to develop and implement technology-based learning resources and programs that provide a more personalised teaching experience, alleviate teacher workload, and allow students to learn at their own pace, both within and outside school.

While my passion for EdTech continues to grow, it’s tempered by an increasing sense of frustration with the government’s traditional approach to educational reform. The overall strategy focuses on raising funding for traditional physical resources and occasional limited curriculum reform. While these efforts are necessary and can yield incremental improvements, they fail to substantially benefit students to the necessary level.

On the rare occasions where government funding is seen, there’s a persistent trend to invest millions in conventional teaching methods with the hope of elevating pupil performance and mitigating educational inequality. While significant, modern educational technological tools should complement these traditional methods and funding. We must advocate for equal access to these resources for all students, as their effectiveness has been demonstrated for those fortunate enough to access them.

Currently, most initiatives to expand access and advancement in EdTech arise from the private sector. However, public support could greatly amplify these efforts, leading to significant strides in EdTech. For instance, only six individuals out of the 8,000 civil servants in the Department for Education were tasked with the responsibility for technology in schools at the onset of the pandemic – a clear indication of the gap that needs to be addressed.

The fundamental transformation in education will come from bridging the divide between traditional and technology-enhanced learning. This effort demands the full support of both the public and private sectors.

III. Personalised Learning through EdTech: A Closer Look

The Imperative Role of EdTech

With the capability to transform the academic terrain, EdTech is an essential tool to enhance outcomes, dismantle educational inequalities, and equip students for a future steeped in technology.

 Personalised Benefits: The Microcosm of EdTech

A fundamental benefit of EdTech lies in the improved engagement and motivation it engenders in students. Through interactive and visually appealing content, learning methods become more accessible and enjoyable. A critical aspect of this engagement is the flexibility that EdTech platforms provide – learning can occur anywhere, anytime, bypassing the confines of traditional school hours.

For instance, AI chatbot EdTech solutions like Khanmigo, developed by Khan Academy and powered by ChatGPT 4, offer unprecedented support to students. They guide through maths problems, help debug code, and even engage in constructive debates. Such 24/7 assistance is a revolutionary leap from conventional teaching methods. By assisting teachers with administrative tasks, AI gives educators more time to focus on their primary responsibility: student growth and learning.

Another standout feature of EdTech is its ability to promote personalised learning, leveraging cutting-edge technology like AI and cognitive science to create an adaptive learning environment that dynamically adjusts to the unique needs of each student. It tailors content to a student’s strengths and weaknesses, allowing learning at a comfortable pace. This shift from a one-size-fits-all teaching approach to a more individualised one enhances the learning process and improves outcomes.

Take, for instance, Up Learn—an innovative online platform that blends AI and cognitive science to help students achieve stellar grades at the A-Level. Remarkably, 97% of learners who complete a course on Up Learn secure A*-A grades. This platform doesn’t merely supplement conventional resources such as textbooks and tutors but provides a comprehensive learning suite to ensure mastery of the subject as efficiently as possible.

Up Learn utilises short animated videos to demystify complex topics, providing clear, engaging explanations. To help students refine their skills further, it offers opportunities for essay feedback from subject specialist teachers. But what truly sets it apart is its adaptive learning capability. It harnesses the power of AI and the insights from cognitive science research to pinpoint the areas where a student struggles. Instead of generalised teaching, Up Learn targets these problem areas specifically, ensuring that each learner’s issues are meticulously addressed.

This targeted, individual-centric approach, a far cry from traditional classroom teaching, proves more effective in facilitating learning. It emphasises how the adoption of EdTech could transform learning, making it not just more engaging, but also more meaningful and effective.

Broad-based Benefits: The Macrocosm of EdTech

EdTech’s potential reaches far beyond enhancing individual learning experiences—it holds the power to create lasting, transformative change on a much broader scale. Its capacity to provide quality education to learners in remote or underprivileged areas, both within the UK and globally, is unparalleled, a fact thrown into stark relief during the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, the pandemic also revealed a stark digital divide among educational institutions. The readiness to transition to online learning varied drastically, with deprived areas often left behind. According to the Sutton Trust survey, only 23% of schools in the most deprived areas had an online platform ready to receive students’ work during the lockdown. This compared poorly with 60% of private schools and 37% of state schools in the most affluent regions, exposing the deep-rooted disparities in our educational landscape.

To redress this imbalance and equip all schools for potential future crises, increased investment in EdTech across the UK is imperative. Not only will it facilitate a smoother transition to online learning when required, but it can also support the integration of a blended learning approach—combining traditional face-to-face instruction with online learning. This ensures educational continuity, preventing major student learning disruptions during crises.

IV. A Vision for the Future: The Unleashed Potential of EdTech

Fostering Innovation and Expanding Growth of EdTech

Drawing from the considerable strides EdTech has made, industry experts foresee a surge in AI-driven, AR-enhanced, and VR-integrated educational technology products. This upswing in innovation, backed by the anticipated market expansion, portends a transformative shift in the educational landscape.

As education transitions towards more student-centric, engaging, and interactive models, we stand at the precipice of significant advancements in educational attainment and the cultivation of lifelong learners. However, these potential gains hinge on creating an environment that encourages innovation and adoption of these tools, necessitating accommodative policies, sustained investments, and effective partnerships between educators, policymakers, technologists, and students.

Shaping Policies for a Forward-Thinking Future

Seizing the full potential of EdTech calls for a unified approach involving government, private sector, and educational institutions. Government public policy should focus on making optimal use of both existing and emerging technologies.

Building a comprehensive, AI-driven, adaptive learning platform could enable the government to provide the population with essential life skills and diverse courses, given the substantial funding at its disposal, unlike current private platforms, which typically concentrate on primary subjects such as maths, English, and sciences. A government-funded and owned platform could diversify its offerings, include a vast array of subjects, and make use of the enormous amount of resources available to government departments. Courses ranging from KS2, GCSEs, and A-levels, as well as digital skills for the rest of the population.

Empowering educators is another crucial element of this vision. Comprehensive training should be provided to teachers to effectively incorporate EdTech into their teaching practices, amplifying its efficiency, and enhancing student learning experiences.

Local initiatives like the “EdTech in the Cloud project“, a collaboration between the OXR Hub at the University of Oxford, Oxfordshire County Council, and Amazon’s Web Services, exemplify one possible vision of forward-thinking public policy. This project aims to mitigate educational inequalities by exploring how scalable immersive technologies could enrich learning experiences in secondary schools.

Eradicating Inequalities in EdTech Access

A pressing issue warranting urgent attention is the inequality in EdTech access. The technologies mentioned are already available. They’re not based on an imaginary future and are used by many private schools nationwide to improve their students’ performance. Platforms like Uplearn, although highly effective, carry a price tag that many across the UK find prohibitive. While scholarships are available for some students, we need to aspire to a future where access to such advanced technology is universal.

To bridge this digital divide, it’s essential for the government to invest in developing and implementing technology-based learning resources and programs, as mentioned above. A government online learning platform will mean that all students, whether private or state educated, will be able to access the same level of high-quality learning.

This should entail equipping every child with a computer or laptop for online content access and infusing technology into the curriculum.

It is simple. These resources should be freely available to all students, ensuring that the transformative power of EdTech is not a privilege for a few but a right for all.

Conclusion: Harnessing the Power of EdTech

EdTech has already demonstrated transformative power in reshaping education, and the future of this industry looks even more promising. I stand as a testament to the potential of EdTech to overcome educational barriers, create equal opportunities, and elevate academic performance. My journey, as well as that of many students worldwide, speaks volumes about the efficacy of EdTech tools and their immense potential to transform the education sector.

The success of this technological revolution relies heavily on its accessibility. We must ensure that the benefits of EdTech reach every student, irrespective of their socio-economic background. A proactive role from the government is crucial in this regard, investing in public initiatives and collaborations to promote technology integration in our education systems.

We must also strive to make teachers active partners in this journey. Only then can we ensure that the promise of EdTech is fully realised, optimising our educational infrastructure to prepare our learners for a digital future.

As we navigate the 21st century, it is clear that traditional approaches to education need to evolve and adapt. Technology is no longer a luxury, but a necessity that has the potential to democratise learning and tear down walls of inequality. Let us leverage the power of EdTech to make quality education a universal right, not a privilege.

EdTech, for me, is more than just a passion—it is a mission, a calling, and a vision for an equitable, accessible, and transformative future of education.

The Crown in our republic

Eduardo Benitez-Inglott y Ballesteros
-
0
The Crown in our republic

Recently, the institution of the British Monarchy has been the particular subject of considerable discussion, and it is evident that younger generations’ support may be, in fact, dwindling. The absence of Queen Elizabeth II, who passed away last September, may also signal that King Charles does not have the same level of support as his mother.

Modern republican discourses often argues the case for the abolition of the monarchy on the basis that it represents ‘exclusion, elitism and hereditary power and privilege at the expense of everyone else.’ I value and respect their perspectives, yet respectfully disagree. First and foremost, someone elite, affluent, and from a privileged upbringing can be perfectly elected as head of state, and this will not solve the issue at hand. Secondly, a massive logistical-administrative operation in itself, dismantling the British Monarchy could well turn to be an expensive mistake that could jeopardise our prosperity and stability as a nation. 

Turning the status quo upside down is expensive, but also unnecessary. For one thing, the Crown, is so much more than just the bejewelled item that Charles III wore on his head last May 6th; it is also the transcendental symbol of unity and permanence of the State, at the service of the common good, on which it depends. In our days there is no Divine Right of Kings anymore, but one can argue that the Royal Crown prevails due to popular consent. 

I completely agree with the words of the director of British Future, Sunder Katwala, a former republican and one-time secretary general of The Fabian Society, who writes for The Guardian: ‘we should place a higher premium on the symbolic value of institutions that help us to transcend our political divides.’ At present, the Royal Crown represents -and is at the service of- the people’s re(s)publica, our public affairs, our livelihoods.  The expectations it creates render it as a multi-faceted symbol of the unity of our community, politics, and public affairs.

We shall achieve the concord we require during this difficult time with the Crown as our common denominator, as we always have done as a nation. This all the more important, especially now. UK’s institutions are currently the target of increasing criticism and divisiveness. According to the most recent Office of National Statistics poll on government trust in the UK, only 35% of the public trusts the Government, well below the average of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (41%). Another interesting instance is that the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Democracy and the Constitution’s report An Independent Judiciary-Challenges Since 2016 among others noted ‘the troubling appearance (even if it is only an appearance) of the politicisation of the judiciary’. The courts of law are a cornerstone of our democracy, and they must be as impartial as possible in practise and in the eyes of the public. 

 I support the people’s re(s)publica, not a republic of the state. The Royal Crown unites us in a manner that no elected politician can, and in so doing protects our way of life in a way that any eventual establishment of a Republic cannot. We, the people, are the State’s skeleton, on which the legislative, executive, and judicial institutions lie, while the Crown is the flesh that binds everything together. There is definitely justification for continuing to preserve the people’s republic through the Crown in the king’s person. The will of the majority, in the form of a perpetual referendum, has preserved it generation after generation. In fact, there has never been a single time in the last thirty years when the republican choice was more than 25%, whereas the monarchy option has always been in the 60% and higher. For the Republic, a Royal Crown.

None of the aforementioned, obviously, makes me uninterested in the viewpoints and arguments of my republican friends. This is especially the case given the highly contentious arrests of republican demonstrators. The argumentative counterbalance should be considered with all its implications. I believe that it is critical to listen to republican points of view in the same way as we would do to pro-monarchists, because there is room for everyone in our democracy. Equally true, it is important to remember that the arrests were prompted by the Public Order Act 2023, passed just a few days before the Coronation.

The British Monarchy then serves as an unbiased centre of gravity for the entire country in the royal person, performing vital ceremonial responsibilities and yet remaining impartial from the controversies of politics. When it comes to Charles III, he certainly has had his fair share of controversies, minor and major… but is any of us free of similar things? Let them who are without sin cast the first stones! Charles, the Prince of Wales, he was at the time; he is now Carolus III Rex [King Charles III, in Latin]. We ought to offer him, as we would to any newcomer, the chance to do what he has been working towards for most of his life.

Is the motion ‘Monarchy or Republic’ useful to help improve the country we live in? Perhaps we should instead start considering how the Crown might improve its role as a rallying point in order for British democracy to become more vibrant. Perhaps we should consider how the monarch’s diplomatic functions can be enhanced to attract more financial investment. Perhaps the British Royal Family should be more involved in promoting affordable housing programmes to aid the vulnerable. All these possibilities underline that a new focus on improving an existing status quo can be more useful than destroying the very system that allows all of us to be free, that has witnessed the emergence and development of our democracy and keeps the ship stable amidst the storm.

Herein lies the secret to the Crown in our republic. 

God save the King.

Image Credit:Firebrace//CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Over 100 academics sign letter in support of trans students

Maggie Wilcox
-
0
Over 100 academics sign letter in support of trans students

Over 100 Oxford based staff members have signed a letter supporting trans rights in solidarity with the Oxford LGBTQ+ society’s campaign against Kathleen Stock. This follows the creation of three letters, two in support of the Union and Kathleen Stock, and one opposing the event and her views.  

The most recent letter in support of trans students denounces the “harm and suffering” trans people have faced in recent years and firmly opposes the Union’s decision to “amplify” Kathleen Stock’s views. The letter was written and organised by Amiad (Addi) Haran Diman, president of the Oxford University LGBTQ+ Society and doctoral researcher in politics at Lincoln College. The letter also takes issue with the response of University leadership, which they believe has not given sufficient “care and attention to student concerns and student welfare”. 

The letter also argues that the event and the University’s response have contributed to “the press ridicul[ing] the need to care for the well-being of the student population”. This sentiment echoes the frustration found in the previous anti-Stock letter, signed by students. One of that letter’s authors, Kelsey Trevett, stated they were “deeply frustrated to see Prof Williams’s conflation of two issues, culminating in his letter in the Telegraph, fuelling media hostility towards trans students. Our open letter demonstrates that when given a voice, students place the safety of our community first and foremost every time. Our voice must not be undermined by university management.” 

Haran Diman was motivated to write this letter as “Oxford University’s trans students have been ignored and abandoned by a university administration that has been captivated by misleading reports from the right-wing media.” They went on to thank the academics who supported the letter and the LGBTQ+ Scoiety’s efforts. Amongst the scholars to sign the open letter are Prof. Kate Tunstall, who was interim provost of Worcester College from 2019 to 2021; Prof. Dan Healey, who pioneered the research on LGBTQ+ experience in Soviet Russia; Dr Pelagia Goulimari, Co-Director of Oxford’s MSt program in Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies; Dr Jack Doyle, Oxford’s first departmental lecturer in LGBTQ history; and Prof. Max Van Kleek, LGBT fellow of Kellogg College and senior member (faculty supervisor) of the OULGBTQ+ Society. The LGBTQ+ Society underscores that the signatories include more than a dozen senior professors and more than half the signatories hold PHDs.

“This is a critical time to support, protect, and celebrate our trans students (and, indeed, trans people worldwide), to counter the increased hostility, violence, and discrimination they are now facing at levels unprecedented in years.”, said Prof. Max Van Kleek, one of the letter’s signatories. “The trans movement are not enemies of free speech; they have every right to protest speakers who frame them as anything but our full, valid, equals.” 

Kathleen Stock will speak at the Union at 5pm on May 30. A counter demonstration has been planned by the Oxford LGBTQ+ society at the same time.

1...155156157...2,500Page 156 of 2,500

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