Oxford's oldest student newspaper

Independent since 1920

Blog Page 16

Debaters at Oxford’s Pharos Foundation vote in favour of keeping Elgin Marbles

By
Jasmine Gill
-
Image Credits: Dominic's pics / CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

A debate event, “Losing Your Marbles”, held on 2nd May by an Oxford research institute, Pharos Foundation, voted 55 to 30 that the British Museum should keep the Elgin Marbles, the famous Parthenon sculptures brought by Lord Elgin to Britain in the 19th century.

Speaking in favour of keeping the Elgin Marbles were historian and judge Lord Jonathon Sumption, historian Dominic Selwood, and archaeologist Mario Trabucco della Torretta. In a post on X, Selwood summarised their winning arguments, saying the Marbles were acquired lawfully and that “universal museums are culturally important for humanity.”

Speaking in favour of returning the sculptures were professor Catherine Titi, sociologist Tiffany Jenkins, and Director of the Institute of Art and Law Alexander Herman.

Sumption delivered the opening speech, arguing for legality since the Elgin Marbles were taken down over a period of two years “in broad daylight.” He anticipates the other side would argue for repatriation “as a symbol of their nationhood” but he believes that the sculptures should instead be considered as “great monuments of the human spirit… part of the global heritage of humanity as a whole.”

Titi’s rebuttal drew comparisons between the arguments used by Sumption and those used by Napoleon to maintain possession of artwork he wished to keep in France after he became Emperor. She also disputed Sumption’s legality claim by arguing that a letter which supposedly conferred legitimacy unto Elgin’s actions, was, at best, tenuous as a piece of evidence.

Herman took the repatriation side of the debate alongside Professor Titi, saying

that “the ancient past was a fundamental feature in Greek identity and heritage, and it

remains so to this day. He argued that it was not about a matter of nationalism as much as

“it is about recognising the dignity and the heritage of other people.”

Herman went on to say that “fearmongers” would argue that restitution of controversial

artefacts would lead to a slippery slope of many countries asking for artefacts back, but that this

would never become the norm. He cited statistics that only ten repatriation requests have been received, compared to the millions of artefacts. He believes this does not support the fear that beginning repatriation would lead to famous museums being emptied.

For now, the British Museum continues to house the sculptures despite repeated requests from Greece to repatriate them as a matter of national culture and heritage.
The British Museum also came under fire recently due to doubts over whether it is safe to house precious artefacts after over 1,500 items had been stolen over a period of several years, allegedly by a member of staff.

The 2024 BNOC List

By
Cherwell Editors
-

Here it is! After three weeks of voting, the results are in. With slight adjustments made according to which BNOCs gave consent to be on the list and the addition of some whose fame strictly speaking surpasses that of BNOC-hood, the list is true to those initial nominations.

There are some veteran BNOCs on the list, and some new BNOC faces. Like with celebrities in the public eye, it seems that many BNOCs on the list are known just for being BNOCS, regardless of their other engagements. Many have been involved with the Oxford Union, which is, of course, a breeding ground for BNOC stars. More interesting are the nominations which come from outside of the Union-SU-student-journalism bubble, and whom it has taken some effort to research.

It is tempting to wonder what effect BNOC-hood has on a student’s post-Oxford prospects. Classic examples of previous BNOCs (Johnson, Cameron, Gove etc.) suggest that they might enjoy a messy period of favour- able limelight, but will ultimately be condemned to involvement in large scale political ‘fuck-ups’ that fore- ground their self-obsessive characters. We wish this year’s BNOCs well, and hope that they heed the destinies of those that went before them.

– Rufus Hall (Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Features)

  1. Shermar Pyrce (Third Year, Univ)
    Ex-President of Univ JCR, Shermar is known for embracing Union life after his failed SU campaign. He said: “Here for at least another year – watch this space.”
  1. Chloe Pomfret (First Year, St Catz)
    Self-described as “St Catz’s public enemy no. 1”, Chloe has surpassed BNOC fame with features in nationals exposing the gross injustice that is the price of Pembroke ball tickets.
  1. Danial Hussain (Third Year, LMH)
    As SU President, Danial recently co-authored the much praised College Disparities Report. Afraid we’d feature in the Times, we thought number 3 was a safe bet.
  1. Julia Maranhao Wong (Second Year, St Anne’s)
    Oxford’s American ‘It’ girl (self-proclaimed), when you say Oxford Union, we hear Julia Maranhao-Wong. Also, her Facebook friends list is probably longer than yours.
  1. James Mackenzie (First Year, St Hilda’s)
    Puffer man, red puffer man, puffer red man, James has probably hacked you or you may have seen him in his BRIGHT RED PUFFER.
Image Credit: Oxford Union
  1. ‘Oliver’s Oxford’ (Postgraduate, TikTok)
    Oliver represents Oxford (no way!) to the doom-scrolling masses and is known for bringing other students their five seconds of fame.
  1. Leo Buckley (Third Year, Trinity)
    After an interesting career at the Union, we hope Leo is now living peacefully in his houseboat on the Thames.
  1. Addi Haran (Postgraduate, Lincoln)
    Addi is the former LGBTQ+ Society President, and will be Oxford SU President going into the transformation period.
  1. Benedict Masters (First Year, New)
    It’s a mystery why Ben is a BNOC, yet his fresher-omnipresence is the stuff of legend. He explained with a riddle: “On the race to the bottom I came out on top.” What is in my pocket?
  1. Hannah Edwards (Third Year, Lincoln)
    Known for sitting in a big chair (former Union President), Hannah enjoys arguing with people (competitive debating), but thinks her real talents lie in solving puzzles.
  1. Ella Bolland (Second Year, Trinity)
    Trinity Entz Rep and “loud American”, Ella’s fans admire her commitment to the Park End graft. She said: “People say what I lack in height I make up for in volume.”
  1. Reuben Constantine (Second Year, St Peter’s)
    Starboy of ‘Oliver’s Oxford’, Reuben’s multilingual charm has everyone after him, despite the flop that was his brief attempt at the SU presidency.
  1. Emma Watson (Postgraduate, LMH)
    She’s Emma Watson.
Image credit: Themeplus / CC BY-SA 2.0 via Flickr
  1. Yashas Ramakrishnan (First Year, Balliol)
    Yashas has reached BNOC-stardom through his commitment to History Soc and his Balliol bar doormanship.
  1. Hugo Roma Wilson (Second Year, Trinity)
    OUCA president and in charge of controlling the rabble rousers, Hugo also flirts with the Union (and the Editors, when OUCA misbehaves).
  1. Bintia Dennog (Second Year, Lincoln)
    The Editor we all aspire to be (and the only student journalist deserving of their place on this list), Binti is now having a more relaxed time as German Society’s treasurer.
  1. Leo Brnicanin (Third Year, St Hugh’s)
    The Oxide Radio guy. Leo relentlessly promotes the University’s student radio on Oxfess and elsewhere.
  1. Aaron McIntyre (Second Year, Magdalen)
    Former OULC Co-Chair, Magdalen JCR President, and Symphonic Band President, there isn’t a committee worth being on if Aaron isn’t there.
  1. Joe Thompson (Second Year, New)
    Originally describing himself to us as an “overzealous finance bro networker,” Joe would like to add that you’ve probably also seen him on Oxfess.
  1. Anita Okunde (Second Year, Magdalen)
    Treasurer-elect of the Union and Oxford ACS VP. In the words of her Instagram bio, she’ll be found “either working towards social change or taking cool photos”.
  1. Holly Toombs (First Year, Worcester)
    Holly runs “a network of group chats, that were used by 2400+ offer holders over the past two years”, meaning she’s culpable for bringing together two generations of potential Union hacks.
  1. Bee Barnett (First Year, St Hilda’s)
    Bee is Oxford’s resident fashion influencer, with over 600k followers on TikTok – and, as a result, is arguably more famous than anyone else on this list (bar Emma Watson).
  1. Matty Brown (Second Year, Univ)
    In his own words, Matty is “OUCA President-Elect and leader of the #FreeMattyBrown Campaign”. The Editors aren’t entirely sure what that is.
  1. Izzy Horrocks-Taylor (Second Year, Balliol)
    The Oxford Union’s very own “Barbie” (Izzy’s words, not ours), she is best known for shooting her shot as Balliol’s Netball Captain.
  1. Peter Chen (Second Year, Brasenose)
    As legal counsel for OSPL, you’ll see Peter running between choir rehearsals and Oxford county courtroom, keeping the copyright feds off Cherwell’s back time and again.
  1. Rachel Haddad (First Year, Balliol)
    Rachel is this term’s Union Secretary. Reaching such heights as a fresher, she’s a safe bet for the 2025 BNOC list.
  1. Lukas Seifert (Third Year, Christ Church)
    Having finally left the Union, Lukas runs Oxford’s biggest podcast: LOAF. He’s the only undergrad from Malta (he thinks) and his hobbies include, as he writes, “sending it”.
  1. Ushika Kidd (Second Year, Keble)
    As Ushika would say: “only here because I’m a serial over-committer… Usually found yapping about the climate or badminton, or both.”
  1. Oli and Adam (Second Year, Somerville and Keble)
    In Rufus’s words: “Our very own Starmer and Reeves, this iron-fisted duo has succeeded in their campaign to modernise Cherwell and put it back in the service of Oxford students”.
  1. Martin and Gaspard (Second Year, St Catz and St Anne’s)
    As per usual, the OxStu Editors-in-Chief mark the end of this list. Perhaps one day they will finally be able to break away from minor BNOC obscurity.

Notes from the Editors’

Rufus Hall

Writing in the OxStu, Kesaia Toganivalu once said that there are six types of BNOC: the “InDenial BNOC”, the “politico” BNOC, the “hack” BNOC, the “toff” BNOC, the “GNOC” (BNOC in the LG- BTQ+ scene) and the ‘mystery’ BNOC. It is surely the mark of a good BNOC list that it is representative of these different BNOC sorts. How did our BNOC list fair?

Adam Saxon

Halfway through assembling this list, I referred to the Union term card (you know the one none of us ever really read through) as the “bible of the BNOC list”. It’s true – and, in fairness, the hacks included on this list are some of the most well-known people in Oxford. However, if you delve deeper between the lines, there are a number of people on this list who are known for their contributions to a wide range of non-political aspects of the University. It truly was hard cutting it down to thirty. With over 2,100 names on the form, there are so many people who could have made it – and if you didn’t: take it as inspiration to come back and make your mark next year.

Oliver Sandall

We both really value the BNOC list. Thus, we decided to include only 30 names this year to make sure we end up in the top 30. Indeed, having recently visited the Union as esteemed guests (or so we’d like to think), we feel it’s only right to put ourselves among those who value their self-worth off a trivial list.

In any case, there are a couple of things to note. Shermar – your message asking me to go for a pint (which I declined on grounds of being “busy”) did not influence this democratic process. Hannah – please rusticate once more and apply to be a Puzzles section editor. Oliver – you’re welcome for that viral video. Leo – apologies for not taking you on at Cherwell; your houseboat would have been great for socials.

It’s been a pleasure to help organise and curate this year’s BNOC list – and I hope you like the design. Thank you to Rufus for his hilarious comments throughout and also for his general wisdom. This has been great fun – cheers.

Pro-Palestine protests continue after Vice Chancellor’s statement

By
Selina Chen
-
Image Credit: Selina Chen

Over 600 gathered in front of the Clarendon Building on 16 May for a rally organised by healthcare workers and Oxford Action for Palestine students. Speakers discussed media co-optation of the ongoing encampment’s narratives and encouraged focusing attention on Gaza.

British-Palestinian surgeon and Rector of Glasgow University Dr. Ghassan Abu-Sittah said to the crowd that protesters were calling for severing academic ties between Oxford and Israeli Universities because “there’s no seam where Israeli academia ends and where the Israeli army begins.” 

Abu-Sittah cited quadcopters, drones capable of shooting in small spaces, as an example of a contribution academia has made in weapons development. He encouraged students to continue their movement: “Never before has what’s happening in a colony reverberated so loudly in the metropoles of said colony.”

Oxford DPhil student Amytess Girgis, spoke on “co-optation” of the encampment’s narratives in both positive and negative ways. She said the Telegraph’s interest in ‘toilets and sprinklers’ at student encampments, and Suella Braverman’s visit that morning to Cambridge University’s encampment, at the expense of focus on the situation in Gaza.

She alleged that the University has practised “strategic gymnastics” to avoid engaging with the encampment – and that is “the opposite of ignoring” and called the Vice-Chancellor’s statement “long and so incredibly empty.” 

She also alleged that the University has not responded to the encampment’s email and physical paper asking to negotiate.

When asked about next steps, the encampment’s head of press, Kendall Gardner, told Cherwell: “I obviously can’t directly disclose our plans for escalation but we have teams that are thinking through all the eventualities and possibilities at any given moment. We are not just willing to stand by and let the University refuse to negotiate with us. We will do what we have to do to get them to come to the table.”

Siblings: there’s a fine line between love and hate

By
Flo Johnston
-
Image credit: Nathan / CC-BY-2.0 via Flickr

After watching a Tiktok that said we have already spent the majority of the time we get to ever have with our siblings by the time we leave home, I ran into my brother’s room, misty-eyed, ready to spend some quality time together. I was immediately reminded why this isn’t such a bad thing. I adore my brother, but nobody seems to aggravate me as much as he does. Siblings seem to always know exactly how to push each other’s buttons; they know every weakness to target before we’ve even recognised it ourselves. As annoying as this may seem, it also proves that they often know us better than anyone else. They’ve seen every phase of our lives and been forced to love us through each of them; for the majority of us, this is the only example of a lifelong friendship that we have. I have to give my brother some credit for this because I’ve lived through some shameful personality changes, but he’s always been there (even if it was to tell me how ridiculous I looked).

But now I’m crossing into uncharted territories. I’m away for half of the year and my brother has a social life that most definitely does not include me. He’s not around to flex his stringy arms in my mirrors or laugh at our parents; suddenly we’ve both started spending time at home alone and it’s strikingly empty. Growing up and moving out have always been fears of mine, yet I only ever thought about this in relation to leaving my parents. Siblings are always growing alongside us, often catching up to us; it’s impossible to imagine a time without them. However, when I look at the relationships between my parents and their siblings, it’s very apparent that something must change. Without the forced close proximity, siblings drift to make their ‘own’ families, making time for the people they choose rather than their ‘old’ family.

We’ve all heard the saying “blood is thicker than water”, calling for us to put family before all else, but I think few know its original meaning. The full phrase actually writes that “blood of the covenant is thicker than water of the womb”, which instead encourages us to hold agreements that we make to friends or partners above our own family. It’s easy to agree with this – why should we be forced to favour people with whom we share nothing but blood? Friendships are founded on common interest and love by choice; this surely is a worthier connection to value than the genetic lottery which chooses our siblings.

But I would argue that sharing a childhood creates bonds that can never truly be lost over time. Whether this is with a sibling or a friend you’ve had since primary school, I think it’s hard to outgrow a shared history; people change but your memories stay connected. Nostalgia has a beautiful way of idealising people from our youth and, though this can be misleading, I believe this is why siblings will always be important to us. They represent our childhood selves; aging and distance can’t ever remove this connection and they remain our link back to our past. Surrounded by them, we can again become the most immature version of ourselves, back to the years of bickering and fun – and this isn’t a bad thing. This break from pretending to be an adult is something I will always look forward to when I return home during the vacs and something that I hope will never change in the years to come.

Though writing this has made me appreciate my brother, I know this will be a short-lived gratitude. Nonetheless, I hope this acts as a reminder to our future selves to soak up our last links to childhood and stay close with our biggest enemies (and bestest friends).

A Future in the Light of Darkness review: Imagined engines of desire

By
Alif Aziz and Yoshimi Kato
-
Image Credit: Alif Aziz & Yoshimi Kato

Modern Art Oxford’s exhibit Frieda Toranzo Jaeger: A future in the light of darkness counters the potential for automated vehicles and social media algorithms to consume our future reality. With her work Toranzer Jaeger creates a space where one can explore and affirm an alternative future in which Audis, Teslas, and Rolls Royces should be split, overwhelmed, and destroyed by the forces of floral imagery and female indigenous power. 

Toranzo Jaeger titles one of her central pieces If the future is full of death, the past is the only alternative source of inspiration to the traditions and memories of a zombified world, which responds to the subtitle of this exhibition. How can we find a future in the seemingly oxymoronic light of darkness? Perhaps in the dark void of the future, with the death and zombification of human agency in the age of driverless cars, there is no choice but to dive into a surreal and uninhibited imagination. The negative space of the future can be filled with re-imagined pasts to create new worlds. 

Toranzo Jaeger derives her imagination from the pasts of Western Art History and Pre-Colombian Mexican embroidery techniques, passed down by generations of women. Specifically, Toranzo Jaeger reimagines Western art, such as Cranach’s desolate The Fountain of Youth (which depicts men guiding women into a rejuvenating fountain as part of an initiation into the pleasures of male company and feasting), into a painted image of queer paradise surrounded by lush nature (End of Capitalism, the Fountain), Among Toranzo Jaeger’s embroidered figures, men are notably absent. While in Cranach’s painting the bathed women enter a red curtained tent to prepare for the indulgence of masculine pleasure, Toranzo Jaeger’s red curtains lead nowhere, their creases reminding us of the walls of the endometrium. In this paradise, the pleasure of the fountain does not require masculine undertones. The womb is the alternative engine for human life and floral fertility, rather than the fragmented and burning remains of phallic rockets and satellites. In the subversion of heterosexual desire through imagery, and the canonical artistry of painting with indigenous embroidery (which is often depreciated as a “woman’s craft”), Toranzo Jaeger thus meshes the Western signifiers of artistic prestige with her own cultural practices to reconstruct an alternative vision for the future. 

Toranzo Jaeger considers the present day  in her 2023 work Open your heart and everything will change— a heart-shaped piece suspended in the air. In Exhibition Notes, Toranzo Jaeger recognises a connection between the hearts that dominate the exhibition and the ‘Like”/”Heart’ button on social media, which she calls the “machine of endless desire.” Toranzo Jaeger encourages us to reconsider social media as an insatiable machine that desires for hearts of validation. As users of social media, we become addicted to an engineered desire, which feeds on our instinctive urge to connect with people and reconfigures the way we interact in real life (does the phone really need to eat first?). Perhaps this addiction slowly deprives us of meaningful connections to others’ hearts.

One side of the heart is pastel pink and ‘held’ together in the centre with corset-like, uniformly intertwined threads; it depicts an ambiguous conglomeration of machinery parts that resemble a distorted female face, and is decorated in bows. On the other side is lush greenery with criss-crossed details of embroidered thick yarn. Toranzo Jaeger calls for us to reassess our everyday interactions with desire and notions of feminised beauty which are promoted by capitalist technology. If we cut away the corset and wires which suspend the heart, it will fall and break apart. Only after the forced destruction of social media algorithms and “likes” as forms of interactions which are constrained by programmed systems, can our desires be enhanced and identity be embodied. Technology has, as of yet, failed to deliver this.   

However, Toranzo Jaeger does not completely reject the role of  technology in our lives; she encourages its reassessment. In the passageway between the two main exhibition rooms, visitors are met with a whirring sound of four small installations that open and close, akin to blooming flowers. The movements of these installations, which are painted with the same floral imagery continuous throughout the exhibition, are animated by motors and springs. Toranzo Jaeger reminds us that we should be able to integrate our desires for a thriving natural power with the machinery of the modern world. We should not be complacent and allow technology to reinforce the status quo through its monopolisation by a select few; technology has the infinite capacity to imagine another world. 

Taylor Swift’s The Tortured Poet’s Department: Who tortures the poet?

By
Laura Brink
-

The most tortured love affair on Taylor Swift’s new album is her relationship with her audience. Following its release on April 19th, the album’s reviews were marked by a shared preoccupation with the autobiographical element of her work. This extends beyond speculation as to which ex-lover any given song is about, though many relished in the revelation that her one-month fling with singer Matty Healy might have featured in equal measure with ex-partner of six years Joe Alwyn. 

Autobiographical speculation amongst critics includes theories on Swift’s intentions with the album. What motivated her, some ask, to release an extended version of the album (known as The Anthology)? Has she increased the number of tracks to a whopping 31 as a benevolent gift to her fans, or is this evidence of a cash-grab? Similar arguments have swirled around her rereleasing previous work as Taylor’s Version, and recent songs like Mastermind from her second-to-last album Midnights, while ostensibly about orchestrating a romantic union, have been taken as encouragement from the artist herself to interpret her public image as calculated, clever, or even manipulative. A closer look at the lyrics of some of her tracks from The Tortured Poets Department shows a willingness to engage with her self-conscious project of persona creation, as well as with the various responses to this, and, crucially, with the reality of her fame. 

Long gone are the days where Swift’s appeal lay primarily in her relatable girl-next-door Country charm. Swift’s return to this world in the stand-out ‘But Daddy I Love Him’ might therefore come as a surprise. The track frames her controversially received relationship with The 1975 singer Matty Healy in the same terms as the Romeo and Juliet lovers of her 2008 ‘Love Story’. Swift is fully aware of the ridiculousness of adopting this posture as a 34-year-old billionaire, and does so with a mischievous wink in the line ‘I’m having his baby / No, I’m not / But you should’ve seen your faces’. This lyric breaks the fourth wall of the song, thus making it ambiguous whether the plural “you” refers to the townspeople in the world of the song, or to her shocked listeners. 

Swift has long cultivated a culture amongst her fans of looking for “easter eggs” in her work, for clues about her personal life and future projects, and this ambiguity seems to suggest that some sleuthing Swifties are indistinguishable from prying neighbours. Considering Swift’s well-established reticence to do anything which might alienate her loyal listeners, lines like these, along with the defiant “I’ll tell you something ‘bout my good name / It’s mine alone to disgrace” and unexpectedly forceful mention of people’s “bitching and moaning” about her relationship, her willingness in this song to establish boundaries with her audience is remarkable. 

Other tracks on TTPD showcase a less humourous distancing between Swift and her fans. Clara Bow, one of the simpler and therefore more lyrically successful experiments on the record, picks up on the themes of Swift’s celebrity career. Clara Bow is a much more mature track than others (such as ‘Nothing New’) with a similar theme, and reflects her awareness of the lasting impact she has made on pop culture in the past two decades. The verses chart a lineage of famous women, from the glamorous 1920s movie star Bow, to Fleetwood Mac singer and ‘70s rock legend Stevie Nicks. Swift, noted for her confessional first-person narrated songs, makes an unusual leap in the final verse by including her own name, as well as addressing the new star, who looks “like Taylor Swift” with a sense of bitterness: “you’ve got edge she [Swift] never had”. The very fact that Swift is able to use herself as a benchmark for up-and-coming celebrities is proof of her success. 


Swift’s self-awareness of the kind of fame she is afforded as a pop artist who sings mostly about her love life is a refreshing moment of maturity, though it is sadly bogged down by other less insightful tracks. All of the songs on TTPD are, however, deeply personal ruminations of the like we haven’t heard from her since Lover (2019), given the fictitious nature of Folklore and Evermore (both 2020) and the vague lyricism of Midnights (2022), and might in fact align her with a tradition of tortured poets who were, like Swift, both adored and slammed for their confessionalism, such as Sylvia Plath. It is good to see Swift abandon the hopeless goal of writing relatability, and it will be interesting to see how she develops her newfound self-awareness.

Christian Atheism by Slavoj Žižek review

By
Rohan Kaya
-
Image Credit: Amrei-Marie CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia commons

‘And what did the twentieth century want with religion, already well worn and threadbare from its journey down the ages…What did we have to replace that merciful, self-sacrificing ideal, long since cast out on the side of the road and laughed out of existence by the exigencies of a ‘realistic’ world view?’

In the 1986 novel The Place of the Skull, the Kyrgyz author-theologian Chingiz Aitmatov asks us to consider what the purpose of Christ is in a ‘realistic’ world, one where even the faithful often stand at an ironic distance away from the visceral reality of God’s own flesh on the cross. The section quoted above ends with the death of Avdiy, an expelled seminary student who is crucified by his drug-peddling companions, not for his belief in God, but rather his ability to take this belief seriously: he rejects an evil (the illegal drug market) because he truly believes that peddling drugs would be an affront to a Creator God who taught people how to live through Christ. 

This is the state of affairs that Zizek addresses in his most recent work, Christian Atheism: How to be a Real Materialist. Though he has addressed theology before, Christian Atheism is a theologico-political treatise to which his previous works on the topic are explanatory footnotes. The thrust of the book is to defend what he calls ‘Christian Atheism’ against secularist disavowals of religion, agnostic vagaries, and increasingly popular Western spins on Buddhism and other so-called ‘Eastern spiritualities.’ What I emphasise here, though, is that the book acts to defend, not to explain or justify his theory – namely that atheism is an inevitable consequence of the only ‘universal’ religion (Christianity), the grand narrative in which, for the first and only time, God was reduced to matter, and the flesh won out over the spirit and the logos. To Zizek, it is the idea of the suffering God, and the Pauline community of believers made equal through the grace of the Holy Spirit, that makes Christianity the uniquely universal common ground. As usual, Zizek’s goal is to provoke the reader with a short circuit, taking minor references and thinking points in order to explain a much larger and more complex idea. Which is why, as usual, this book first takes us through poor-quality detective films, memes, obscene sex jokes, the Dalai Lama, quantum mechanics, and ChatGPT- amongst others- in order to illustrate arguments grounded on his own brand of interpreting psychoanalysis through the philosophy of Hegel. For example, his exploration of Christ’s suffering through an M. Night Shyamalan film. This ought not to put anyone off, though; it is precisely in his detours that Zizek manages to ‘short-circuit’ higher intellectual content, bringing out its unexpected implications by using a simpler conceptual apparatus. 

Although Zizek’s diversions illuminate the contradictions and unconscious disavowals of the prevailing secular liberal order, the book functions more like a defense of Christian Atheism against a reader who rejects the Christian legacy inherent in today’s secular societies, than an exhortation to be Christian atheists in the first place. While I suspect Zizek would respond to this point with a resounding ‘yes, so what?’ I found myself questioning what relevance his theory has to someone who, for ideological or simply geographical reasons, does not form part of the community of secular believers that he envisions. If Zizek’s secular community is grounded on Paul and the Gospels, where does that leave the billions of humans who maintain their full-fat commitment to a Cause outside that of European secularism? Zizek is not crude enough to simply exclude the rest of the world from what he rightly acknowledges are universally important struggles (economic and environmental justice, women’s rights, modern slavery), yet he seems to miss the fact that it was the notion of Salvation in Christ, and later the Enlightenment Values, that managed to bar the vast majority of the Americas, Africa, and Asia from access to humanity itself. Zizek has, nonetheless, done a good job of showing us how our prevailing Master-Signifier (universal human rights) actually privileges a certain content (Western liberal individualism), excluding others due to their inability to get in line with Europe’s ideological hegemony.

This leaves Zizek, then, in an awkward position. In order to salvage Christian Atheism from the unconscious disavowals of liberalism that he himself criticises, he will need to reconcile his ‘universal’ theology with his acknowledgment of Christian and Christian-Atheist Europe’s continuing dehumanisation of those who are now left to drown at sea for their failure to get on board with secular humanist ideals. Having recently celebrated his 75th birthday, Zizek continues writing and publishing every few months, so hopefully we will see such a reconciliation in a future detour. 

Oxford research finds AI chatbots cannot provide information about latest news stories 

By
Ellie Yau
-
Image Credit: D Wells / CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Latest research from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (RISJ) has shown that attempts to request top news headlines on the popular AI chatbots ChatGPT and Bard (now Gemini) yielded unreliable results. In their study, over half of responses were not news-related, and the majority of AI responses  began with the phrase “I’m unable to’’.

The RISJ analysed 4,500 headline requests collected from news outlets across ten countries. They found that ChatGPT returned non-news output 52-54% of the time, while only just 8-10% returned headlines that referred to relevant top stories on the outlet’s homepage. On the other hand, Bard returned non-news output in over 95% of requests.

ChatGPT and Bard both run on a large language model (L.L.M.), a type of AI programme that is trained using a wide range of samples from a dataset. This allows the AI to continuously improve its ability to recognise and interpret trends in complex data, such as human language.

The study found that when the chatbots responded with ‘’news-like output’’, responses appeared coherent, however, they tended to summarise articles inaccurately. Additionally, ChatGPT rarely provided direct links to headlines, only opting to 10% of the time. When a link was generally provided, in most cases this was a single link to the original newspublisher’s homepage

When consulted on the risks to users relying on AI chatbots for the latest news, Richard Fletcher, Director of Research for the RISJ told Cherwell: “According to our research, if people ask ChatGPT (the paid version that’s connected to the web) for the top news headlines from a specific outlet, they will often receive a response saying “I’m unable to do that”. Depending on what news outlets they ask about, it’s possible that some people won’t be able to use ChatGPT to get news from their preferred sources.”

Chatbots also displayed ‘’AI hallucination’’, where the algorithm perceives non-existent patterns in the data and thus interprets them inaccurately. In this case, 3% of ChatGPT outputs attributed  exclusive stories to different outlets, and a further 3% were so vague they could not be attributed to existing stories.

Previous research by the Reuters Institute found that  ‘’around half of the most widely used news websites were blocking ChatGPT by the end of 2023’’. This proved to be a great barrier to data-gathering, with the proportion of non-news output for these sites rising to 86% according to the study.

The research points out that while very few people currently use AI chatbots to get the news, it is ‘’highly likely that future generative AI tools will be connected to the web as standard’’, and as such the reliability of these tools to provide up-to-date information is essential.

University statement on Palestine Solidarity encampment affirms right to protest, outlines investment policy 

By
Cherwell News
-
Image Credit: OUA4P

The University today released an official response to the pro-Palestine encampment organised by Oxford Action for Palestine (OA4P) in an email sent to all students and staff from Vice-Chancellor Irene Tracey. 

Tracey’s email reiterated the university’s commitment to freedom of speech and the right to peaceful protest, while acknowledging that the protests have resulted in some members of the University and the public “feeling fearful or uncomfortable.” She further reminded students and staff that “[e]xam season is, of course, upon us and it is imperative that everyone allows students to prepare for, and take, their exams undisturbed.”

The email comes after Tracey’s visit to Downing Street on Thursday 9th May when Rishi Sunak advised university leaders from across Britain to take further measures against antisemitism on campuses.

As a part of its measures against antisemitism, the statement reiterated the University’s use of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism “as a guide to interpreting and understanding antisemitism” although with additional clarifications. The clarifications, as recommended by the House committee on Home affairs, add the statement “It is not antisemitic to criticise the Government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent” to the official definition. 

The statement did not include plans to look into divestment from Israeli companies and arms companies, a major demand of pro-Palestine campus protesters. It stated that the University is in compliance with its own policy on investment in arms, which includes stipulations against “direct investment in companies which manufacture arms that are illegal in the UK, and investment in funds which invest primarily in such companies.” 

In response to the demands to divest from Barclays, the University said that they depend on the bank due to its “large, complex financial needs, and international reach”, and reiterated that they regularly engage with the bank on a range of regulatory issues, including the war in the Gaza Strip. Barclays’ annual shareholder meeting on 9th May was disrupted by activists protesting its alleged links to violence in Gaza and the bank said last week that they do not invest its own money in companies that supply weapons used by Israel in Gaza but that it only trades shares in such companies on behalf of clients.

The email comes as universities across the US and Ireland have reached agreements with campus encampments to close in exchange for concessions regarding divestment from Israeli companies and arms companies. 

American universities including Brown, Northwestern, Rutgers and the University of Wisconsin are among those who have struck deals with encampments in recent days in which they have agreed to open public debate or review on the question of divestment. On 8th May, Trinity College Dublin pledged to cut ties with Israeli companies. 

The statement further highlighted that the University’s endowment is operated through external asset managers and said that neither the University nor the fund own shares in companies directly. 

With regards to the University’s international academic relationships, the statement asserted that it is “essential that Oxford maintains open communications and professional links with universities everywhere.” While the University did not explicitly address the encampment’s calls for a boycott of Israeli universities, it stated that their “Committee to Review Donations and Research Funding” already scrutinised any international research funding relationships. 

The University also highlighted their renewed commitment last term to fellowships with the Council for At Risk Academics (CARA) to support at-risk Palestinian academics in applying to Oxford, “in the defence of academic and university freedoms worldwide.”

In its role as a University of Sanctuary, the University emphasised their commitment to “support students and academics who have been forced to flee conflict or persecution.” The statement also announced that the university is working with the colleges to find ways to “to fundraise for dedicated Palestinian scholarships.”

In response to the statement, the Oxford Action for Palestine coalition, the organisers of the encampment, said they were “severely disappointed” in an official comment and noted that the statement “does not address [their] direct requests to negotiate.” 

They also said they were alarmed by the University’s language, which they said implied their protest was “largely” peaceful rather and prompted fear on campus. 

The comment concluded: “We urge the Administration to understand this moment in history and the risks the University is taking by refusing to act. We request a meeting immediately.”  

Oxford Vice-Chancellor attends Downing Street meeting to ‘protect Jewish students’

By
Anuj Mishra
-
Image Credit: Number 10 / CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

On Thursday 9th May, university leaders, including Oxford University’s Vice-Chancellor, Irene Tracey, met with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Education Secretary Gillian Keegan, where leaders were advised to take further measures to tackle antisemitism on campus. 

The meeting was a response to the erection of pro-Palestine encampments across UK universities over the past two weeks, including at Oxford last Monday.

In a statement ahead of the meeting, Sunak, while acknowledging that universities should be “places of rigorous debate” as well as “bastions of tolerance”, described the encampments as “disrupting the lives and studies of their fellow students and, in some cases, propagating outright harassment and antisemitic abuse.”

The Union for Jewish Students (UJS), who the Oxford Jewish Society (JSoc) are affiliated with, were also in attendance at Thursday’s meeting. UJS representatives demanded that Vice-Chancellors should collaborate with JSoc leaders, condemn antisemitism, and provide antisemitism awareness training. UJS also urged  Vice-Chancellors to collaborate with police forces in the case of criminal activity.

While Oxford JSoc have not released a public statement on the encampment, the Oxford Israel Society – which was set up last October – has issued a statement condemning the encampment. Jewish Students for Justice also issued a statement, standing in “total solidarity” with the encampment and its demands.

Since Thursday’s roundtable, the Oxford Action for Palestine (OA4P) encampment was attacked by six men on Saturday 11th May. In a statement released by OA4P on their instagram account, it was noted that the men “particularly targeted Jewish students trying to deescalate the situation, using unacceptable antisemitic language.” 

The OA4P statement also singled out “Sunak, University administrators, and irresponsible media, who all spent the week weaponising antisemitism to demonise campus protestors.”

In response to the incident targeting the encampment on Saturday evening, a University spokesperson told Cherwell: “The University is concerned by the incident on Saturday evening. Our key priority throughout this protest has been the safety and welfare of the whole University community, as well as visitors to our buildings and the public.

“We are maintaining an increased security presence around the encampment to ensure the safety and welfare of everybody, while also providing regular protection across the rest of the University. We are in close contact with Thames Valley Police and are grateful to them for their swift response on Saturday evening.”

Sunak is continuing to speak on the current situation in UK campuses and in a speech on Monday 13th May he stated: “People are abusing our liberal democratic values of freedom of speech, the right to protest, to intimidate, threaten and assault others, to sing antisemitic chants on our streets and our university campuses, and to weaponize the evils of antisemitism or anti-Muslim hatred, in a divisive ideological attempt to set Britain against Britain.”

1...151617...2,436Page 16 of 2,436

Explore

Follow us

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2024 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy