When my relationship ended over a year ago, I was so goodat the breakup. I did everything right. I cried (a lot). I thought about texting him (but didn’t). I watched some awful rom-coms (young Matthew McConaughey, anyone?). I did face masks with my friends and ate ice cream, and for a long time, I really thought my heart would never recover. Of course, as it turns out, this is just how everyone feels after a breakup: I wasn’t the first person to feel like that, and I won’t be the last.
Time passed. I dedicated my newfound time to my friendships, my hobbies (all cards on the table: I row), and my degree. I now look back on what could have been one of my worst times as one filled with memories made with my greatest friends. The novelty of singleness led to a hot(-tish) girl summer (although falling short of the Lily-James-as-young-Donna vac of my dreams). I went on dates. I met new people. But as quickly as it came, the novelty wore off and the reality set in: the dating scene at Oxford is awful.
It didn’t help that I have no idea how to date. My last relationship all but happened to me during sixth form when a guy I got on with like a house on fire and eventually fell in love with came along to begin our on-and-sometimes-off relationship. Sure – there are worse problems to have, but I’m convinced that I’m not the whole problem here. I’m not too proud to tell you I’ve tried dating apps, and they’re a waste of time at best. And yet, meeting someone in person seems like a romantic notion now confined to late-noughties rom-coms. Most people who have tried dating here have had similar experiences. Like them, in the process of exploring the dating scene Oxford has to offer, I have become disillusioned with the great parts about being single; I became one of those people who is far too often talking about how they miss being in a relationship. But I’m a better feminist than that – I’m sure of it.
If you’re wondering why this has been on my mind so much recently, it comes back to a conversation I had at a formal a while ago with the boyfriend of a close friend of mine.
“I was really intimidated by you when I first met you, you know.” He told me.
This surprised me. I didn’t think I was intimidating.
He continued enthusiastically. “Yeah! You’re really intimidating! Like, you seem to have your shit together, and you call me out if I do something wrong – you can be a bit scary sometimes.” He then proceeded to ask all of our guy friends who sat around the table, who confirmed that I was actually very intimidating before they knew me, and that I would therefore never ever date again.
The feminist part of me was going, maybe you should be intimidating. After all, aren’t all the things he listed good things? But a not insignificant part of me – the part which was told I was ‘bossy’ instead of ‘confident’ growing up – felt overwhelmingly frustrated that I couldn’t just be a bit together and self-assured and not intimidate guys I know with it.
So this is the real issue: I might miss some parts of being in a relationship, but I do not want to change myself, to become less good at what I’m doing, to enjoy the things I like less, to take up less space, just to date again. I do not want to lower my standards either, or to expect less of any romantic interests. But from what I can tell, if a relationship was really what I wanted, then I would have to settle or change some of these things. And given that I have no intention of doing that (nor, I think, do I want a relationship that badly), I’m going to remind myself of all of the reasons that I am lucky to not be in a relationship at this point in my life. And there is so muchto love – it’s just about finding it. I can’t be the only one who’s not great at being single yet. But I’ll get there.
The University of Oxford has received an award from the Universities of Sanctuaryfor its continued commitment to helping those who have been forcibly displaced around the world.
Oxford is one of 25 universities across the country to have been awarded University of Sanctuary status. They make up a network of higher education institutions supporting people seeking sanctuary.
The University of Oxford follows Mansfield and Somerville Colleges which were awarded College of Sanctuary status in 2021 after establishing fully funded Sanctuary Scholarships for postgraduate students.
The University has been able to offer scholarships to refugees and other forced migrants since 2016. It began the Refugee Academic Futures scheme this academic year to provide scholarships for graduates.
The University of Sanctuary award heralds renewed investment in helping refugees. Under its new Oxford Sanctuary Committee, Oxford will now deliver an integrated programme of scholarships, support for students from displacement backgrounds and for the Oxford branch of Student Action for Refugees.
University of Sanctuary Coordinator, Maryam Taher said “we look forward to the University building on its positive work, and developing even closer links with local refugee communities and support groups.”
She continued, “the support of the University in welcoming those seeking sanctuary is vital to ensuring the UK offers a safe and supportive environment for those in need at times of crisis.”
Committed to inclusivity, the Oxford Sanctuary Community orchestrated the city of Oxford’s first Sanctuary Fair to connect refugees, students and locals held at the Town Hall on 11 May.
Since its release in January 2023, boygenius’ the record has collected perfect scores from DIY, NME, and Rolling Stone, setting the band up for The Tour this summer and landing them a set at this month’s Coachella. Compared to the ache and emotional purge of the 2018 self-titled boygenius EP, this full-length album represents a fading of anger and a confidence found in healing from past mistakes. the record is a masterclass in learning to understand your own and others’ emotions, celebrating above all the power of friendship (yes, the type of friends who make out in short films directed by Kristen Stewart).
Essential to boygenius’ unique sound is the extraordinary blending of voices – stripped down to a cappella in the record’s first track ‘Without You Without Them’, a texture first demonstrated in the EP with ‘Ketchum, ID’. Through harsh panning and raw ambience, ‘Without You Without Them’ evokes the intimate vision of the three women gathered around a single microphone, gently harmonising to the fluid rhythms of Lucy Dacus’ lyrics . With the almost-familiar, swaying metre of some old forgotten tune, ‘Without You Without Them’is a tender celebration of the folk and the feminine – a recognition of past generations, grateful for how things have turned out despite how things may have once been.
The album’s second track, $20, throws us straight into a punchy, determined groove that somehow feels equally youthful and volatile, changing between a 7 and 5 beat pattern that allows a decisive punctuation of Julien Baker’s phrases. Building to a screaming climax and underpinned by shuffling, polyrhythmic drumming, this song’s vocals are reminiscent of Bridgers’ ‘I Know The End’ or Dacus’ ‘Night Shift’ – a pure and unadulterated catharsis of emotion.
The trademark production style of each artist is present throughout all of the album, but none more obviously than the waterlogged, echoing drums of Bridgers’ 2020 album Punisher in the tracks ‘Emily I’m Sorry’ and ‘Revolution 0’. The summer radio single of the album has to come in the form of ‘Not Strong Enough’. With references to kitchens, drag racing, and singing along to The Cure; framing self-aware, pessimistic lyrics in an upbeat, pop-rock form; this song is one to drive to with the windows down.
the record confidently declares its influences. It includes a portion of Leonard Cohen’s ‘Anthem’ on his namesake’s song, and even credits Paul Simon as inspiration for ‘Cool About it’ (a track which uses the melody from Simon and Garfunkel’s ‘The Boxer’). But the most striking interpolation (in my opinion, the best song on the album) is inspired by boygenius’ own repertoire. It comes in the form of the album’s final track, ‘Letter to an Old Poet’ – an allusion to the title and content of one of Dacus’ favourite reads (Rainer Maria Rilke’s ‘Letters to a Young Poet’). This song brings together past, present, and future – it reprises the lyrics of popular track from the EP, ‘Me and My Dog’ into a crushingly hopeful expression of emotional growth, sending the finished album out into the world with a reminder of where boygenius came from, and where it may be going. Bridgers’ weary opening verses are met by the determined supporting vocals of Baker and Dacus – she begins to sing boldly and unapologetically, remarking “I’m better than you / And you should know that by now”. At the culmination of the song, instead of wanting to be “emaciated”, as in the matching lyrics from ‘Me and My Dog’, Bridgers sings that she is ready to be “happy” – the capacity for which she might not yet have, but decides to pursue. Listeners who have the vinyl LP release of the record are treated to the exclusive experience of an early locked groove on the final word of this album (“waiting”) – a deliberate effect that sums up the journey towards hope that this album represents and brings the artists physically into the room with us, reassuring the listener that they are not alone. the record is undoubtedly a spring album, emerging from the bitter winter of the EP with a somewhat tentative confidence that propels their sound towards the summer of warmth, hope, and growth. boygeniusurges us to deeply understand ourselves and those around us and to let go of pain when we are ready, revealing to us that although past wounds can and will begin to heal, we cannot heal them alone.
Mike Adamson is Chief Executive Officer at the British Red Cross. He will step down later this year having served for over eight years as CEO and four years as managing director. Mike was appointed CEO in 2014 and has led the organisation during multiple humanitarian responses including the terrible Grenfell Tower fire, UK terrorist incidents, the coronavirus pandemic and the Ukraine conflict. Mike has an MPhil in Economics from the University of Oxford. He first worked as a management consultant, then in a variety of roles for the NHS and in the charity sector for the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the British Red Cross.
Evans: What inspired you to apply to lead the British Red Cross?
Adamson: The Red Cross is a movement. Every country in the world has a Red Cross or Red Crescent Society. They all sign up to a set of principles around humanity, impartiality and neutrality, inspired by the actions of someone we would now call a social entrepreneur, Henri Dunant, from the horrors he saw at the Battle of Solferino in 1859. After seeing the carnage on the battlefield, Henri Dunant said two things: ‘Wouldn’t it be amazing if in every country in the world, there were neutral, impartial volunteers ready to provide help, to whoever needs it, whichever side of the battle, whatever their gender, whatever their ethnicity, whatever their religion.’ and ‘When people go to war there should be some rules.’ Henri Dunant advocated for what became the Geneva Conventions. They are still as relevant today as they were 150 years ago. That was what inspired me. It was the opportunity with one of the biggest brands in the world to be able to make a difference in a way that is both local and global. It is an incredible privilege to play a part in the organisation and then to lead it.
Evans:What have been the highlights of his time with the British Red Cross?
Adamson: When I see the work, we do on the ground. Three weeks ago I was in Turkey seeing the response to the earthquake in Turkey and Syria. I’m incredibly proud of the fact that we mobilised an appeal within a couple of hours of the earthquake through which we raised £35 million. Our partner the Turkish Red Crescent is doing an incredible job. They are feeding 1.5 million people a day. It is just on an extraordinary scale. They are providing psycho-social support to people traumatised by the loss of loved ones, the loss of their homes, and their livelihoods. To be able to play a part in that is just fantastic. That sense of the movement, and then to work on the issues that are so pertinent today. Our strategy is based around three big causes: people in emergencies, people who are displaced and people who fall between the gaps in the health and social care system.
You look at the challenges that we face as a nation. The whole attitude to for example migration, refugees and asylum seekers. People coming across the Channel on boats. We have a really important role to play both in providing practical support to people in these defining moments at their lowest ebb but also in putting the case for a much more human approach to policy. It means that people start from a position of kindness, being inclusive, being tolerant, and wanting to help people. We do things, but we stand for something more in terms of our values and that is why we call ourselves a movement. The highlights are being able to be a part of that and to speak up when you know things could be so much better if we told the story differently.
Evans: Could you explain the fundamental principles of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement?
Adamson: There are seven fundamental principles: Humanity, Impartiality, Neutrality, Independence, Voluntary Service, Unity and Universality. All seven are important. I think the most important are:
Humanity: We are here to help people without judging them, we support them because they are in need. We do not make any judgment about how they got there but we do try and learn from it.
Impartiality: Just as I’ve described on the battlefield, we help whomever you are, whatever side of a cause you are on, whatever your gender, religion, or nationality.
Neutrality and independence: We will not get involved in political controversies where they affect our ability to provide support to people. For example, when the Red Cross is providing support to people in Syria, we won’t criticise the Syrian regime. We have to be neutral in order to cross the front line. Both sides of a conflict have to trust us. That is very difficult. When the International Red Cross visit prisoners of war in shocking conditions. We provide practical assistance, food parcels, and medication. We will not comment publicly on the conditions in prison. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International do a really important job, they will tell the world about the conditions in those prisons. That’s not our job. The most important thing we do is to provide a report to the authorities. Our neutrality is what then allows us to go back and provide help the second, the third time. Our neutrality means that we can return to very difficult situations because we haven’t commented publicly on them. That can play out in the UK as well, where in our work with refugees and asylum seekers we will comment on how policy is making people more or less vulnerable, but we won’t do personal attacks on the Home Secretary or ministers or the government. We just present the evidence, and we bear witness to what we see. For us the humanitarian imperative is critical. We walk a tightrope between our neutrality and our independence.
These principles we live by. What is incredibly inspiring to me is that I can go all over the world and meet volunteers in Sierra Leone or northern Syria, and they will be talking about the fundamental principles and what they mean to them. Extraordinary.
Evans: How does the British Red Cross uphold the principle of Impartiality when it comes to controversial issues for instance the UK government’s Illegal Migration Bill?
Adamson: We will bear witness to what we see on the ground, and we will offer opinions on how government policy could be improved. There is a big difference between operating in the UK as a 24/7 democracy, however flawed, and Syria… In Syria, you stay silent, at least in public, because it would be dangerous to do anything else and might jeopardise our ability to provide assistance. You just try to provide humanitarian assistance. In the UK we have made it clear and presented evidence why we don’t think the ‘stop the boats’ policy will work. It misses a bigger picture of what’s happening in the world. There’s so much confusion both in government and amongst the public about who these people are. 70% or 80% of the people who come across in boats are coming from Eritrea, Sudan, Syria and Afghanistan. 80%+ of them make successful asylum claims. That’s not because we’re so warm and welcoming but it is just that they have a case.
Evans: I was keen to find out whether the British Red Cross’s assistance for refugees and asylum seekers is mainly for those coming to the UK or if substantial resources are allocated abroad.
Adamson: It is both. We are the largest independent provider of support to refugees and asylum seekers in the UK. We are bigger than any of the specialist agencies because we can mobilise more funding. Internationally we are often supporting people who are displaced as a result of conflict or climate change across Africa and the Middle East in particular but also in places like Bangladesh. Sadly, what determines how much we can do is dependent upon how much money we have raised. In Ukraine, we have managed to raise a considerable sum of money to support the people who are displaced both in the country and in neighbouring countries. In Bangladesh when the initial crossing of people across the border from Myanmar happened, again we were able to raise a lot of money. That money has tailed off and some of our support has had to tail off as a result. The tragedy of these situations is that it is not a level playing field. Arguably, the biggest crisis in the world right now is the food crisis in East Africa, Somalia, parts of Kenya and Ethiopia and yet we have not been able to raise the profile of that emergency and raise large amounts of money for it and we have not been able to provide as much support as we would have liked.
Evans: A really significant development on your watch has been the British Red Cross partnerships including with the NHS and the Voluntary and Community Sector Emergency Partnership (VCS EP). Could you talk in more detail about these initiatives?
Adamson: Partnerships are critical to us. They come in different shapes and forms. Our partnership with the NHS is around the interface between hospital and home. A significant proportion of people in hospital (sometimes up to 30%), are actually people that are medically fit to go home. Furthermore, some of the people who go to an A&E department don’t need an A&E doctor, they need support to help them with their mental health issues, drug and alcohol problems or a chaotic home situation. We get alongside those people and help them to return home safely, support them and foster a sense of agency in their life. This also helps the NHS because it means resources can be focused on the patients who need clinical support.
Another kind of partnership came out of the learning from the Grenfell Tower fire, where we responded, in the rest centre that was set up as part of the local resilience plan. However, local mosques, churches and youth centres also opened up in the early hours of that terrible Wednesday morning – and they would never have seen themselves as emergency responders in normal circumstances. It made us realise that we needed partnerships with a whole range of community organisations, as well as with local authorities and others. Now we host, and I co-chair, the VCS Emergency Partnership, which has more than 250 member organisations, 70% of which are local, who have signed up to work together to be better prepared for future emergencies. We have a programme to develop training and skills and build relationships for when an emergency takes place so you are not trying to work out who your partners are at the height of the emergency. When you look at the combination of the impact of climate change, terror attacks, and other kinds of emergencies, it is more likely there will be UK emergencies in the future, the risks have gone up, and the risk of pandemics has gone up significantly. We all need to get better prepared. We are working closely with the government in that space to strengthen the nation’s resilience strategies.
Evans: How did the British Red Cross help people affected by the coronavirus pandemic?
Adamson: We did huge amounts of work both in the UK and around the world. From food distribution and private food parcels here in the UK to providing cash. We were able to mobilise funds from our corporate and individual donors to create a cash fund that we could then get to people who had no income, no savings and no recourse to public funds. Refugees, asylum seekers, people in the gig economy, women fleeing domestic violence at home. We were providing support for people to get cash through a network of more than 200 referral partners so that they could buy a SIM card for their phone or food. We also ran a national support line. We were doing vaccination support. We ran some really innovative and award-winning campaigns around vaccine hesitancy. We grew our presence on TikTok. Also reaching out to some groups who were not coming forward. For example, people with uncertain migration status didn’t want to come forward for vaccination because they were worried that they would then be on official records which might leave them more vulnerable. We did so much in terms of helping connect people to the vaccination centres. Internationally it was similar, with the economic support of cash and then helping people to get vaccinated. It was one of the most challenging periods in my time as CEO.
Evans: What assistance is the British Red Cross providing to those impacted by the Ukraine conflict?
Adamson: We have raised over £180 million through the generosity of the British public, corporates and trusts. We have been working very closely with the Ukraine Red Cross since 24 February 2022 when the conflict started, to provide food, psychosocial support and cash since the Ukrainian economy has collapsed. In the conflict areas in the east of Ukraine, we are involved through the International Red Cross in the rehabilitation of water and electricity supplies. We have just supported the Winterization Programme because it gets incredibly cold in Ukraine and people lost their electricity and gas supplies. We are supporting the neighbouring countries in Poland, Romania and Moldova where the Red Cross in each of those countries is also supporting people. When Ukrainian refugees arrive here in the UK, we meet them at airports to welcome and help guide them through the Home Office systems or local authorities and provide cash support to help get them started. We are doing an enormous amount.
Evans: What advice would Mike give to Oxford students who want to support the British Red Cross?
Adamson: We would love it if students at Oxford wanted to come together and form a Red Cross group. The Red Cross is a movement that enables people to show their humanity and their solidarity. The principles and practical work of the Red Cross in helping people have never been more needed. Telling the story is really, really important. We support people at some of the defining moments in their lives when all seems lost. Sadly, I think there are going to be more people who are more vulnerable in the years to come. It is important that we remember our kindness to one another and our mutuality and that we act on that. Let’s not be a bystander – let’s actually do something.
Oxford’s Student Union (SU) has passed a motion to cut financial ties with the Oxford Union, with 78.1% of those present voting in favour. This will likely prevent the Oxford Union from having a stall at the freshers’ fair and is likely to have an impact on new membership signups.
As the Oxford Union is not a student society, they are required to pay for a commercial stall at the SU’s annual freshers’ fair. According to the SU, this is “the primary situation where the two organisations overlap and interact”.
The motion resolved to “cease any and all commercial and financial relationships between the Oxford Union and SU” until the mandate expires in three years. The SU does have an Ethical Code of Practice for its commercial activities, according to which it “should take all practically possible steps to ensure the organisations they engage with for commercial purposes are committed to minimising their negative impact on the environment and the communities they operate in”.
The motion stipulates that the Student Council believes the Oxford Union should be able to “carry out its principles without creating a toxic environment which seems to encourage bullying, harassment, racial profiling, and a systemic abuse of power”. However, since the Oxford Union is a Private Member’s Club, it is not under the jurisdiction of the university and the SU is “unable to properly check Oxford Union matters… which affect students”.
In areas where the SU lacks direct influence, the motion highlighted that “they still have a duty to lobby for change”, or, if unsuccessful, take “necessary actions to safeguard all members of the Oxford student community”. The passing of the motion mandates the VP Welfare & Equal Opportunities and VP Access & Academic Affairs to review the SU’s relationship with the Oxford Union.
The Union told Cherwell: “The Union offers unique opportunities to its members, which range from meeting world leaders, to partaking in our debates, and joining us in our social events. The University’s compliance policy indicates that ‘free speech is the lifeblood of a university’, a principle that is upheld by the Oxford Union.
“It is unfortunate that many of the claims made on the motion are not factually accurate, and merely represent the views of a minority of the student body.”The possibility of turning the motion into a procedural motion was also discussed, which would have enabled all eligible members to vote, rather than just those present in person or online. A cause of concern, however, was that the list of eligible voters might be outdated, as the list was not updated since last term. Ultimately, 23 out of 29 present members (not including abstentions) voted against this.
Other concerns raised about the Oxford Union in the motion included the Oxford Union’s reliance on unpaid “vac days”, which the motion described as “exploitative”. The high cost of membership was also described as “antithetical to the SU’s commitment to access”.
Clay Nash, the motion’s seconder, told Cherwell: “I hope that it sets a standard of accountability for the actions of Private Members Clubs, like the Oxford Union, who do not fall within the jurisdiction of the University’s regulatory bodies.”
According to the motion, whilst “strong action” by the SU might “provide an impetus for the Oxford Union to improve itself for its members in the Oxford community”, the exact actions will be discussed at a later date. Jade Calder, VP Access & Academic Affairs and the motion’s proposer, told the Student Council meeting she believes that “the motion in itself, on a symbolic level, is a good start”.
Only last term, in the article “Dear Oxford Union: what was the point of that?” Jack Twyman made a great point. For members of the LGBTQ+ community, how can it be right, in a space that they can reasonably expect to be inclusive, that individuals should be put to the stand, put on trial to defend their rights against transphobes and homophobes? Having a debate or speaker along such lines seems to have become a staple of the union term card. Quite why is up for debate, but it seems that in an era of sensationalism, the Union aims to bring in as much controversy each term under the guise of so-called freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech, of course, is something that the Oxford Union rightly champions. However, they often seem to breach the boundary between allowing freedom of speech and providing a platform to members of society who have rightly been banished from the mainstream due to their backwards views. Speech that actively harms or incites violence against minority groups has no place at our University. Should we really welcome those who make members of our community feel unsafe? I would like to think not.
In a recent piece for Cherwell (Freedom of speech in 2023: Why the Oxford Union will never cancel controversial speaker) a Union member argued that we should go ‘into the spaces that oppose it [the trans community] the most’ in order to challenge them, a point in which I disagree with. The problem with this point is that it isn’t what the Union does. To the Union: this university should be a space for all its students and staff to feel welcome and safe, and you make it so that they are not. You are not going to them, you are inviting them to come to us, in many ways presenting to your members and the world that either you do not take their struggle seriously or outright don’t support them in the first place. Nothing forces students to turn up to the event. But should they not at least feel safe in a space that many have paid £300 to join?
Call me a hypocrite for making a criticism like this and yet still being a member. I think a lot of those who join the union do so with the promise of seeing incredible speakers, before quickly becoming disillusioned due to its toxic culture and grating politics. The addition of homophobic and transphobic speakers to such a mix doesn’t exactly make the union a more appealing space.
The author also recognises that ‘defending one’s right to exist is awful’. Why on earth does the Union put people in such a position then? I would also challenge the idea that this is the only place these questions can be accessed. We live in a more connected society than ever, and the internet and social media mean that more than ever it is impossible to escape the worst aspects of society. Maybe in the past it was relevant for the Union to provide space, where the world was not so interconnected, and as such there really was no other place to engage with and challenge such views. However, nowadays it seems impossible to spend more than a few minutes on the internet without being met with a case of discrimination or bigotry.
The University’s staff and student bodies have also clearly and resoundingly rejected the invitation of Stock to speak at the Union. At the time of writing, there is a growing number of colleges passing JCR motions condemning the decision. An Oxford Trans+ pride event has also been announced for the day of the talk by the LGBTQ+ society, in cooperation with other activists and other local organisations. This is the sort of action that we should be proud of. Defiance in the face of adversity. An unwillingness to back down when the rights of our friends and peers are called into question. And the sensible and mature way in which we are able to handle such situations, when those who have caused the controversy can do nothing but call us ‘Absolute babies’.
The thing is, there are so many inspirational public figures out there who I can guarantee would be of much greater interest to the student body, and who do not question our peers’ rights. In less than a year as a member, I have been lucky to see the union host speakers including Billie Jean King, Malala, and John Major. All of these speakers I feel I learned something from. What is there to learn from someone like Kathleen Stock? Do I really want to know what ‘one piece of advice’ she would give someone in my position? Not particularly. Do I think anything will be gained from a so-called ‘debate’ with her? No.
So, what should we see from the Union? I don’t expect a lack of controversy; there are important issues in our time that are likely to spark heated debate. But it doesn’t have to be a case where we invite people who question the rights of our peers to be themselves and express who they are. The union should be a place of inspiration. A place where we find like-minded people. A place where, yes, those who oppose us can challenge us. But we shouldn’t accept that guests are going to challenge who our peers are as people. That crosses a line.
St Edmund Hall is one of the latest Oxford colleges to pass a motion condemning the Oxford Union’s decision to host gender critical feminist, Kathleen Stock.
The college joined a growing number of others, including Mansfield, Christ Church, St Anne’s and St Hilda’s, when their JCR passed a motion on Monday night condemning the Union’s decision. Other colleges, such as Hertford, are proposing similar motions in upcoming JCR meetings.
Like other JCR motions, Teddy Hall’s motion resolved to “condemn the Union for platforming Kathleen Stock and call on her invite to be rescinded in support of the trans community”. The Teddy JCR will also reaffirm their support of the trans community and release a public statement written by their LGBTQ+ rep.
Harry Mcwilliam, proposer of the Teddy Hall motion, told Cherwell: “JCRs passing these motions shows that Oxford colleges support trans people, we hope that the union rescinds its invitation, as was said in the official campaign […] statement. The statements already made stand for themselves, and the motions passed by JCRs reflect these sentiments.”
Other colleges’ motions include similar statements of solidarity, with many re-iterating that “the rights of minority groups should never be up for debate,” and that transphobia should not be welcomed by the Oxford community. A motion from St Anne’s further claimed: “The Union has made the choice to amplify a voice that actively harms trans students, trans people and the trans community at large.”
The Oxford University LGBTQ+ Society told Cherwell it is “fully supportive of the[se] efforts … against the union platforming of Stock and in support of those who have suffered abuse as a result of her visit, some of which are our committee members”. The Society encourages all Oxford colleges to follow suit. They are in contact with all the common rooms across the university and have issued a statement which underscores the need for collective action against the Union’s invitation.
Alfie Davis, the OULGBTQ+ Society’s Welfare Secretary and an officer on for the SU LGBTQ+ Campaign, told Cherwell: “Every day, an ongoing choice is made by the President and Librarian of the union to not disinvite Stock, and they must be held accountable for the consequences of spreading her misinformation and hatred.
“Despite promises from senior union officials in our JCR meeting, the union is yet to reach out to the community in any way to condemn the hatred and violent threats we, and I myself, have received online as a result of speaking out. We were promised that a statement would be released last Sunday – a week has passed, and nothing. Either the union is completely disorganised, or they simply do not care enough to put out the presumably empty words of condemnation they assured us were coming.”
The Oxford Union released a statement Monday night after consultation from the Standing and Access Committees. In it the Union stresses that this event will “question and challenge” Kathleen Stock, as “any member who asks a question will have an opportunity to ask a follow up question. This format is designed to uphold the Union’s founding principle of freedom of expression for both our members and our guest speakers.”
Due to the sensitive nature of content discussed in this event, the Union will also provide “additional welfare resources available on the evening.” The Union concluded their statement by reiterating their commitment to civil discussion: “free speech is a two way street and we respect the right to speech of those who disagree with our hosting of the event and condemn the doxxing and harassment that some of them have faced.”
Alfie reiterated that trans rights are “far from a trivial issue, and as a community, we’re tired of having to fight and argue for our right to exist. We’re tired of the union platforming divisive speakers to generate controversy, and we’re tired of their refusal to listen to the communities they hurt by doing so.” Co-chair of LGBT campaign Bella Done told Cherwell: “I’m glad JCRs are proposing motions as the co-chair of the LGBT campaign.” Regarding the JCR motions, Alfie told Cherwell: “This is vital grassroots support and solidarity, and is more important than ever, so I’d encourage anyone reading this to show up vocally in support of the community!”
This article was updated at 22:50 on 08/05/2023 to include updated Oxford Union comment.
Oxford’s School of Archaeology has recently found three new Roman camps across northern Arabia using Google Earth, through a remote sensing survey. The camps were identified using satellite imaging and may provide evidence of a formerly undiscovered and undocumented military campaign that spanned across east Jordan into Saudi Arabia.
The camps were identified by the Endangered Archaeology in the Middle East and North Africa project (EAMENA) and were later photographed by the Aerial Archaeology in Jordan project (APAAME).
A report on the findings, published on the 27th March in the journal Antiquity, suggests the discovery may be linked to a possible Roman takeover of the Nabataean Kingdom in AD 106 CE. The Nabataean Kingdom was famously a wealthy, political entity centred on the flourishing city of Petra, Jordan.
Chief researcher, Dr Michael Fradley, who first identified the camps on Google Earth, explains that there is little uncertainty regarding the date of the camps. He said: “We are almost certain they were built by the Roman army, given the typical playing card shape of the enclosures with opposing entrances along each side. The only notable difference between them is that the westernmost camp is significantly larger than the two camps to the east.”
Experts are indicating that these camps are extremely important in providing new insight into Roman campaigning in the Arab world and the establishment of power. Roman military expert Dr Mike Bishop highlights that “Roman forts and fortresses show how Rome held a province, but temporary camps reveal how they acquired it in the first place”.
These newly found camps are located in a straight line from Bayir to Dûmat al-Jandal, a former settlement in the eastern region of the Nabataean kingdom (now modern-day Saudi Arabia).
The team estimates that the distance between each camp is between 37 km and 44 km. Due to this information, they speculate that it would have been too far to have been crossed by infantry in a day, and were therefore instead built by a unit, possibly on camels, which could have been able to cover an extremely barren terrain in a single day.
The distance of the camps also suggests that other camps may have existed further west at the later Umayyad fort and well station at Bayir.
Surviving Roman history suggests that the transfer of power was a peaceful event at the end of the last Nabataean king’s reign, yet new evidence of the camps indicates a forceful Roman takeover instead.
Though archaeologists still need to confirm the date of the camps through in-person investigation on the ground, there are other questions that remain unanswered concerning the camps. Co-author of the paper, Professor Andrew Wilson asks: “Why does the western camp have twice the capacity of the other two? Did the force split, and if so, where did the other half go? Was it half wiped out in a battle, or did they remain in the western camp to resupply the other camps with water?”
Russia’s Ambassador to the UK will take part in a Q&A hosted by the Oxford Russian Club on Thursday 11th May. The invitation has been criticised for its potential to be used by Russian propagandists who want to claim Russia still has legitimacy in western circles.
As a representative of the Russian government, Andrey Kelin has denied reports that Russian forces committed atrocities in Ukraine. He called the Bucha massacre, where hundreds of people were found dead, as “fake” and “staged by Ukrainian special forces”. Evidence of war crimes including torture, executions, and attacks on civilians and their homes have been under investigation since Russian soldiers withdrew from the city in March 2022. The Oxford University Ukrainian Society added to Cherwell that “as some of the Ukrainian scholars in Oxford witnessed this tragedy, the presence of Mr Kelin in the city wedges a knife in an open wound.”
In an interview with Al Jazeera, he also denied that Russia bombed a theatre in Mariupol which civilians were using as a shelter while the city was under siege. An investigation by the Associated Press indicated that the strike killed 600 people, including children. Amnesty International decried the attack as a “clear war crime”.
Image: The ruins of the Donetsk Academic Regional Drama Theater. The Russian word for children – ДЕТИ – was written outside the building to tell Russian forces that the theatre was not a military target. Credit: Google Maps, March 2022
Dr Jade McGlynn, a research fellow at the Department of War Studies at King’s College London, suggested that the Russian Club’s invitation could be weaponised in propaganda. She told Cherwell that people wouldn’t understand that the invitation came from a student society rather than Oxford University, and that the University’s prestige could be interpreted as an endorsement. “This is going to give further succour to the idea that there are lots of people in Britain who want to hear the Russian view, and that there’s still support for Russia among some Britons,” she said.
McGlynn also expressed doubts about whether attendees would be able to hold the ambassador accountable. “Everyone can see he’s done plenty of interviews. Some really great journalists have struggled to hold him to account,” she said. “His job is to represent the Russian government. And his job is therefore, in my view, to justify and convince people that what amounts to a genocidal invasion of a neighbouring peaceful country is in some way acceptable.”
The Oxford University Ukrainian Society has contacted the Ukrainian Embassy about Kelin’s invitation.
Over 200 Russian diplomats were expelled from embassies in Europe and beyond between February and April 2022. However, the UK did not follow suit. The Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy called for Kelin to be expelled after the Bucha massacre, saying “there should be no place for Russia’s ambassador to parrot the regime’s lies or intelligence agents to continue their hostile activity in the UK”.
As of May 7 2023, the war has been going for 438 days. The Oxford Russian Club has previously been criticised for downplaying the invasion, declining to comment or take an official position in the wake of the invasion. The club has a doctrine of ‘political non-alignment’, and says its aims are to promote Russian culture and language in the University.
All attendees will have to present ID to gain entry to the venue, which will only be disclosed to registered guests in an email, “for security reasons”.
The Oxford University Ukrainian Society told Cherwell: “As far as we know, Oxford Russian Club is not affiliated with the University of Oxford. However, […] we hope that the university will cut short any contractual, commercial or non-commercial relationship with this organisation.
“Mr Kelin represents a country headed by a war criminal, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court. HE Kelin is already banned from Parliament’s estate in Westminster. Hosting events of this kind might affect the reputation of the Oxford city community that welcomed hundreds of Ukrainians displaced as a result of the unlawful Russian invasion of Ukraine since the Kremlin propaganda might use it as a publicity stunt to show that Russian diplomats with dubitable agenda are warmly welcomed by the world’s leading institutions.”
The Oxford Russian Club has been approached for comment, and this article will be updated to reflect any comments Cherwell receives.
‘Here, all we’ll get are a few specks of time where any of this actually makes sense.’
In an alternate universe, you are not an Oxford student reading Cherwell. In another alternate universe, you are a pinata hanging from a tree. In yet another alternate universe, you have hot dogs for fingers.
If the aforementioned hot dogs seem to be just one absurdity among many in Everything Everywhere All At Once, they should not be so lightly dismissed. The film’s exploration of the wacky, disordered multiverse raises profound questions about endless parallel selves and thus broader ideas about one’s identity.
I often feel as though I lead three completely different lives: my life back home, my life at university, and my life during my year abroad. Just as the film’s protagonist, Evelyn Wang, jumps across the multiverse acquiring skills from various realities, so am I the amalgam of seemingly irreconcilable selves which reveal themselves to be inextricably linked. We are not singular beings, but rather contain a multitude of versions. We are everything, everywhere, all at once. But at the same time, we are nowhere. We are not rooted in, nor do we belong in one place; we criss-cross worlds and often even cultures. Indeed, Daniel Scheinert, one of the directors, commented, ‘The whole immigrant story is kind of already a multiverse story because you exist in three or four worlds.’
Yet we would be mistaken in believing that we simply leadsuch lives because we actively shape them. We find our identities and create them. Evelyn’s daughter, Joy, exemplifies the collision of worlds. Torn between her American mindset, Evelyn’s traditional Chinese values, and an inability to speak in anything but broken Mandarin to Gong Gong, Joy’s identity does not fit into any singular category. Evelyn, her husband Waymond, and Joy are fundamentally multifaceted. Each chooses their own way to fight: Evelyn with her fists clenched, Waymond with his optimism, and Joy with her bagel (a way to become oblivious to ‘the pain and guilt that you have for making nothing of your life’).
Everything Everywhere All At Once was lauded as a breakthrough for Asian representation in Hollywood. But representation here is not just about race – it probes a yet more complex question of finding one’s identity in a different country. The film’s depiction of the troubled lives of Asian immigrants encapsulated my own experiences. I watched the film in September, drawn not by the critical acclaim, but rather by the mere fact that it featured English, Cantonese and Mandarin. My life at home was imbued with the co-existence of these three languages, all conspicuously absent during my year abroad in Paris. What I thought would be a comforting reminder of home ultimately challenged my identity more than any other film I had ever encountered.
Although Everything Everywhere All At Once centres on what it means to be a Chinese immigrant in America, as well as the nuances of the Asian-American experience, its portrayal of the multiverse voices a timeless, universal question: what if? What if Evelyn had listened to her father and had not married Waymond? What if she had not gone to America? Considering the ‘sea of every other possibility’ in our lives is overwhelming, almost paralysing. It is all too easy to ruminate over past decisions, to regret the path not followed, to pine for what we do not have. Like Evelyn, we fall for the temptation of thinking that the road not taken would have led to a beautiful life. A narrative in which the dreams we never followed become a reality. However, despite her countless other lives in the multiverse, Evelyn ultimately accepts her original universe and rebuilds her fractured family. Amidst the infinite, whirlwind chaos of the multiverse, love persists. Indeed, Joy is ultimately Evelyn’s daughter in every universe. Her mother is her rock (literally and figuratively). If ‘every tiny decision creates another branching universe’, as Waymond explains, every branching universe leads Evelyn and Joy to each other. At its core, the film reflects the power of love to overcome family conflict and generational divides. Love is why Evelyn cannot bear to kill her daughter and even chooses to protect Joy, who is the evil threatening the multiverse.
Cinema can create ‘a few specks of time where any of this actually makes sense’. For two and a half hours, the film pierces into the very heart of the complexity of the immigrant experience. And yet, Everything Everywhere All At Once does not illustrate how one’s self-interrogation never ceases because Evelyn returns to her original life and reconciles with her family, emboldened by her adventures across the multiverse. In contrast to this ‘happy ending’, the viewer, having been suspended in ‘a few specks of time’, discovers that perhaps things make even less sense than they did initially. For our identities are not fixed; we are never static. With each film, each experience, and each question, we evolve. It is the question that drives us, knowing that we can never find out who we truly are, but hoping instead that we can begin to accept who we may be today.
