Thursday 17th July 2025
Blog Page 175

Medics and Pantos: In conversation with the Producer of the Medics charity – Tingewick

Tingewick is a charity led by a group of 29 medical students at Oxford. They work together to raise money as well as completing all their clinical placements together. Throughout the year, they put on a variety of events for the other medical students and the general public in order to raise money for two charities that are chosen at the beginning of the year. This year, the profits are being spilt between The Oxford Hospitals Charity and Yellow Submarine. The most famous event is the Tingewick pantomime, written, directed, and staged by Tingewick Firm with the cast being fully made up of 1st-year clinical medical students. It is attended by over 1400 doctors, nurses, and members of the general public at the John Radcliffe Hospital site. 

I sit down with producer Tolu Duckworth, a 4th-year medical student, to talk about the charity and its importance in the Oxford community. 

Though a Google search can tell you a lot about Tingewick and its history since its creation in 1938, I ask Tolu “What is Tingewick?” I want to know what this charity means to the people who volunteer their time out of their degree. Tolu tells me “Tingewick is a charity that is run by medical students from Oxford to raise money for local Oxford charities. This year, we’re raising money for The Oxford Hospitals Charity, which provides resources and equipment to help give patients, doctors, and people all the stuff that they need to look after their health across the Oxford Hospitals Trust. And also, Yellow Submarine Charity, which is a charity which works with local children who have autism and developmental needs to help them sort of progress and gain the skills that they need to help them in the real world by offering them jobs, training ships and residentials as well, they could go on across the year.”

It’s a hefty commitment, but why is it important? Tolu tells me “It’s always just sort of good to give back. So given the fact that this is a society charity run by Oxford medical students, all of our placements are involved within the JR, Churchill, Hornton etc. So, understanding where the money comes from, to provide the resources to help the patients that we will in the future be helping out as well is so needed, because a lot of the stuff that doctors do, that nurses do, other health care professionals, etc, they can’t do it alone. And donations are so important so that they are able to provide patients with all the things that they need in order to promote good health and just help them recover from things that they may be dealing with and experiencing. And it’s just always great to give back to charity as well. And Yellow Submarine is also close to one of our members. So, wanting to raise money for that is something that’s quite close to our hearts and that’s what we wanted to go for this year.”

Tolu tells me how much they raise on average, “So I think last year’s committee raised, across their fundraising year, I think over £30,000, which we’re definitely trying to hit, or even beat. And previous years have also raised about £20,000 a year. So definitely, definitely, big money involved. And it all goes towards Oxford charities and is split between the two. Every year money is raised for Oxford hospitals, but the second charity is always different. It’s always just nice to be able to help smaller charities that may not necessarily get as much funding, just to make sure that they are given support in any way. So just out of the need.” 

But how do this small group of medical students manage to raise £20,000 – £30,000 every year? Tolu explains that “There are so many things that we put on as a group. Like I said before, there are 29 of us, all medical students with a range of skills and traits. One thing that we’re currently doing is we’ve held a raffle with some amazing prizes that have been donated by some local businesses, including an annual pass to Blenheim Palace, free cinema tickets, £50 voucher for Coconut Tree, and so many other things. We are doing the National Three Peaks challenge very soon, actually. We’re raising money just in terms of sponsorships and doing other types of challenges across the year. Even cycling the equivalent of the height of Everest is coming up at some point in the year, some charity bake sales, and just other awesome things as well. And the big thing that happens every year is a pantomime show that we put on. The fourth-year medical students all audition, sing, act, and dance to a show that we as the fifth-year students write, produce, and choreograph everything to put on and play around and have fun, and the tickets to the show contribute towards, again, fundraising as well as the drinks and the things that we sell them on the day. And the pantomime is the big thing. And it’s a lot of great fun to end the year with our pantomime, which would be happening at the end of November. It’s something to look forward to and look out for.”

With the pantomime being such a hit what exactly does this night of laughs actually entail? Laughing Tolu tells me “So Tingewick actually started as just the show. And it’s been going on for sort of over 80 years now. It started off as a way for medical students to unwind and have fun amidst their degree. And I think within recent years, it then turned into like a fundraising scheme, which makes a lot of sense. Though everyone knows Tingewick as the pantomime, there’s actually just so much more involved behind the scenes, including our separate fundraising events. So if there’s anything to sort of get involved with it’s the pantomime shows, you can see a lot of medical students make fun of themselves, their tutors, Oxford, and everything, it’s just really great fun. And it’s usually like a spin on really classic shows. I think last year was based on Legally Blonde before that, it was a Doctor Who theme, and there have been Shrek themes as well. It’s a really great show just to see your friends and classmates in. The pantomime is the biggest thing we have, and it’s great every single year. I’m not biased at all but definitely go watch it.”

Tingewick is more than the pantomime, which will be put on this November, so in the meantime what is next for the student-run charity? Well, according to Tolu, “So in terms of upcoming things, we’ve got our charity raffle, which is ending on the 24th of May, our Three Peaks challenge, which we are doing over the weekend of the 20th and 21st of May. So keep an eye on our Instagram account to see our journey climbing up Snowdon, Ben Nevis, and Scafell Pike in 24 hours. Why are we doing this? It’s for charity! So, please help. We have just loads of different challenges and events, loads of fundraising events, lots of baking, lots of eating, lots of inviting the old committee to come back and join and just preparing for our big shows like the pantomime. So that’s what we are sort of working on and we’re excited!”

So much is going on for Tingewick, and though it’s run by the medics, I ask Tolu how the rest of us, as fellow students can support the charity. Tolu tells me, “Just get involved in any of the events that we put on, buy a raffle ticket, sponsor us, even if it’s a pound or a penny, and come to watch the shows. I think the big thing is the pantomime show because it is just a lot of fun to sort of support your friends if you have any medical student friends in 4th-year or 3rd-year as well. It’s just great to show support in that way. So definitely do try and come to the show because it’s like a nice sort of combination of all of our efforts of the year.”

Many of us go through our Oxford degrees, go to doctor appointments in Beaumont Street or may have ended up at the John Radcliffe after a particularly heinous night out, without ever thinking of what it takes to keep these services open. They not only help the thousands of students who move in and out of Oxford but also the wider Oxford community who live here year-round. Tingewick’s work to support The Oxford Hospitals Charity represents the best of us as students and as people. 

New Oxford Monopoly board available in November

0

The games company Winning UK has recently announced that they are developing a new and updated Oxford Monopoly board. Unlike the old board, the new Monopoly board offers the opportunity for the public to suggest and vote on the sites that will be featured. A representative of Winning UK has described it as a “new board for a new generation”. 

The first Oxford Monopoly board was released in 2001, described in a Winning UK Facebook post as being “hugely popular in its day”. However, the original Oxford board has since been discontinued. 

Major Oxford landmarks are expected to be on the board: such as the Radcliffe Camera, the Bodleian Library, and the Ashmolean. With the new edition, we can also expect the inclusion of new retail spaces, potentially including the Westgate Shopping Centre. 

Additionally, on the 12th of May, a person dressed as Mr Monopoly (who may have been a representative of Winning UK) was seen around Oxford at many of the popular tourist destinations, advertising the new Oxford Monopoly board. 

When asked to comment on the new Monopoly board, a student told Cherwell: “Really cool to hear that Oxford is getting a board that focuses on the city and not just the university. They’re open to suggestions about what places to include and I hope they add some of Oxford’s many green spaces and parks. Not only will this make an easy gift idea for friends and family, but hopefully the game means tourists will be able to enjoy Oxford from the comfort of their homes”.

Suggestions for the board can be sent to [email protected] before midnight on Thursday 25th May. The new Oxford board is set to be available from November 2023. 

Oxford admissions interviews to stay online

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0

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

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

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

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

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

Image Credit: Tabs Preston

Magdalen Street Odeon to close just before its 100th anniversary

0

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

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

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

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

Giving up the ghost – is Classics really dead?

0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Monarchy: An Embodiment of Britishness?

0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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