Thursday, May 1, 2025
Blog Page 186

Time to BeReal…all the time

Phoebe Walls
-
0
<strong>Time to BeReal…all the time</strong>

Phoebe Walls discusses how even the realest social media yet is subject to “late” realness.

Once a day phones across the world ping with the famous notification: ‘Time to BeReal – 2 mins left to capture a BeReal and see what your friends are up to’. BeReal provides spontaneous, unfiltered glimpses into friends’ lives, be it messy bedrooms or thousands of open tabs. Instagram offers the highlights but on BeReal, it’s acceptable to be out of focus and still in pyjamas at 2pm. The question stands: is this call for realness a burden or a blessing? 

BeReal is an ideal way to keep in touch. Rather than liking someone’s glamorous Instagram, you see them everyday at a random time. Most importantly, it feels real; no filters or time spent choosing the perfect curation of life’s highs. The opportunity to flick through the calendar and see exactly what you were doing one day two months ago is also strangely satisfying. Not to mention the end-of-year replay: a short video created by the app that allows users to watch the year flash before their eyes. BeReal captures the magic in the mundane. 

However, not everyone is being real. Despite the obvious yellow warning sign emojis, the pressure of the 2-minute timer is an idle threat. An increasing number of people post after the chosen time, sometimes as many as 20 hours late, at which point my phone is bombarded with notifications of a ‘late’ post. When it gets to that stage,  I wonder what the point is. Surelythen the app becomes just like any other social media platform. In a society where our identities are often defined by our online presence, the burden of being constantly available can make young people fear that they are boring. I admit I’ve sometimes wanted to wait until my makeup is fully blended, or I’ve worried about still being in a dressing gown at 11am after the timer has gone off. I’d rather post when I’m with my friends than when I’m sitting at my desk. It can also be frustrating when  I wake up to the notification with my eyes still clamped shut like a badger to then see someone else has waited twelve hours to boast their thrilling night out. 

Sometimes the ‘realness’ also creates unnecessary pressure. My feed is full of Oxford students studying at all hours of the day, which makes me feel guilty for relaxing during the vacation. Even on Christmas day, I was tormented by pictures of tutorial sheets and collections revision.

BeReal offers a sense of casual posting for people who prefer to maintain a sense of mystery to their online life. Those with one Instagram post to their name enjoy the lack of pressure on a photo that forms an archive only the user can see. It’s impossible to  stalk a BeReal account and stumble upon a tagged photograph of someone when they were 13 years old. Posts disappear and instead form personal, private calendars. Nevertheless, my Nana was frightened of the app and ran out of the room before the timer got a chance to capture her realness… 

It seems that the ticking time bomb of the BeReal notification is just another excuse to stay glued to our phones. Although less fake than the photo ‘dumps’ found on Instagram (a deliberate selection of photos), BeReal still offers its users the chance to post late and becomes like the forms of social media it has tried to estrange itself from. If we’re being truly real, this is just another online version of ourselves. Perhaps we should aim to spend more time in the real world, having fun with friends and doing things we love, rather than relying on social media to permit ‘realness’. Realness is all around us, we just have to let it in.

“Who am I, and who do I love?”: Neil Bartlett’s adaption of Orlando

Ursula White
-
0
“Who am I, and who do I love?”: Neil Bartlett’s adaption of Orlando

The life of Virginia Woolf’s immortal Orlando (played by Emma Corrin) is adapted by Neil Bartlett and directed by Michael Grandage to create a modern, theatrical piece centred around the question “Who am I, and who do I love?”. The question that pervades Orlando is equally relevant from the Elizabethan to Victorian eras and remains pertinent today, uniting the audience with the characters, and evoking an emotive response to the production which follows Orlando through the centuries, from life as a Elizabethan teenage nobleman to the perils of Victorian womanhood, with tantalisingly hints at the future beyond. Corrin’s sardonic portrayal of Orlando lacked nothing when it came to the comedic catapulting between eras, pulling the audience with them on a fast paced adventure. However, while I thoroughly enjoyed watching them ask “who do I love” over the course of several hundred years, the lack of narrative structure and glancing pace lacked the emotional depth that was hinted at in the beginning and end, leaving me with a sense of having missed something in the character of Orlando.

Upon entering the Garrick Theatre the first thing I noticed was the depth of the stage, which was sparsely set and painted black. The versatility of the stage was used by the actors to create the many lives of Orlando, becoming the backdrop for several hundred years of history, not to mention multiple countries, a frozen river and a ship. The dominant prop in the production is a metal framed bed, which becomes central to the play’s overarching question, “Who am I, and who do I love?”, providing a setting for Orlando’s sexual relationships and the renowned gender change. The bed is wheeled between eras as Orlando becomes accustomed to life as a woman. As this occurs, we see the bed transition from a symbol of sexual exploration in heated scenes with Nell Gwyn and Sasha (both played by Millicent Wong) to a place of confinement in the Victorian Era, when Orlando lies in bed surrounded by tea-cup-bearing Virginia Woolfs.

The production deftly tackles the question of gender on both physical and emotional levels. Beginning with a cocky young Orlando strutting onto the stage in nightclothes, revealing the end of a prosthetic penis, stating that he is not a virgin and reciting a cringe-worthy rendition of Shakespeare’s Sonnet 18, the play presents Orlando as the epitome of a stereotypical ‘teenage boy’. Corrin inhabits this role perfectly, from their bouncing stride to cheeky vocal winking, and charismatic communication with the audience. This boyish body language becomes gradually muted over the course of the play, with movements becoming almost imperceptibly smaller as Orlando transitions to a Victorian housewife, pleading with a chorus of Virginia Woolfs to help them and imploring, “Come on, you wrote me”.

The comparison of Orlando’s nudity at the beginning of the play and 19th Century respectability of the Woolfs, who are identically dressed in long brown skirts, neat buns, and glasses, sets up a comparison between the Victorian ‘Lady’ that Orlando would later become and his original, boyish confidence.

 At the moment of change, nudity is again invoked. By exposing their body as they become a woman, the question is posed: why is it acceptable to see a topless male body on stage, but shocking when the female body is exposed? Throughout the next section of the play Orlando grapples with the perils of inhabiting a female body, from gawking Sailors (including Deba Baker’s laddish Captain) to the need to marry and the lack of property rights, all cheerily explained to them by Ms Grimsditch (Deborah Findlay).

Fundamentally the questions posed in Bartlett’s adaption are ones of identity, not physicality. The conversation created is an intimately personal one in which Orlando’s gender is just one fluid factor of this time travelling, omnipresent, immortal character. By placing Orlando’s gender change into a scenario where it appears to be the most natural of all the surprising events, Bartlett makes it feel expected and commonplace. This is reflected in Corrin’s nonchalant, unphased presentation of Orlando after the change; when Orlando wakes up as a woman, they appear not to have noticed, sitting up in bed and stretching, exposing the side of their chest to the audience. Orlando does not undergo any dramatic physical changes to match their altered gender; the costumes change, as does the way characters view them, but Corrin’s short blond hair and natural makeup remain unaltered. Even Ms Grimsditch is lighthearted, exclaiming, “knock me down with a flipping feather”, then continuing to dress Orlando in women’s clothes as they divulge how their life has changed.

Ms Grimsditch serves as a companion, parental figure, costume assistant and narrator, guiding the audience through the ever-changing timeline of the play and dressing Corrin in outfits to match Orlando’s current identity. She repeatedly states, “Ladies and gentlemen,” pausing before correcting herself “no, sorry, everyone”, with a grin towards the audience, reiterating herself so often it borders on the pantomimic and risking sounding like the show is actually ridiculing gender-inclusive practices. The presence of an older character alongside Orlando cements their exploration of themselves, with Grimsditch appearing static throughout the eras, neither ageing nor altering her attitude and joking with the audience along the way. This grounding lets Orlando change without leaving the audience behind and forces us to question why, if Ms Grimsditch does not question the changes, we would.

While the production allows every character to ask “who am I?”, the question of “who do I love?” is swiftly brushed over in the whirlwind of time travelling, gender fluidity, multi-rolling and costume changes. As someone who has never read Woolf’s original, I left feeling underwhelmed by the short romances and fleeting glimpses of Orlando’s life, which felt disconcertingly insincere despite Corrin’s captivating performance. Defining moments in Orlando’s life, such as their relationships with Sasha (Millicent Wong) and Queen Elizabeth I (Lucy Briers), were brushed over, and even their relationship with their Victorian husband (Jodie McNee) felt underrepresented in comparison to the effect on Orlando. The play is left unresolved, with Orlando poised to continue to move through history and the Woolfs promising that “if you can just live another century”, things will begin to change. Leaving Orlando in this vulnerable position makes the audience work for a solution, eventually finding that we, as a society, have not yet reached one and returning the play to its initial uncertainty. Overall I would have liked to see more of Orlando’s human side and their personal story in this thought-provoking, mesmerisingly theatrical production, but thoroughly enjoyed the whirlwind of history, characters and references woven into the play by both Bartlett and Grandage, and bound together through Corrin’s captivating presentation of Orlando.

Orlando is showing at The Garrick Theatre, London, 26 NOVEMBER 2022 – 25 FEBRUARY 2023

Image: Public domain

Greatly Exaggerated Rumors: A Response to Samuel Moore

Spencer Shia
-
0
<strong>Greatly Exaggerated Rumors: A Response to Samuel Moore</strong>

A recent piece by Samuel Moore in this paper argued that the U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, especially its possible pro-petitioner holding in the pending case Moore v. Harper will “overthrow American democracy”. His fears that the U.S. Supreme Court may “misread” the U.S. Constitution notwithstanding, Moore has, with all due respect, failed to grasp some facts about American Constitutional law, the Moore v. Harper oral arguments, and the nuances of “independent state legislature” (ISL) theories. Rumors regarding the imminent demise of American democracy are greatly exaggerated.

Let us begin with the clause that gave rise to the ISL theory, which is known to us as the “elections clause”. Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads:

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”

Moore claims that the ISL reading of this clause gives state legislatures plenary power over state elections, being able to override governors and state constitutions. He also argues that such a reading is legally erroneous. I am afraid that such a view over-generalizes the wide range of views regarding state legislatures having primary authority over election rules.

Granted,  Moore is right that the ISL maximalists’ view that state legislatures are not bound by their state constitutions is wrong. While the Constitution explicitly requires state legislatures, not state Governors or state supreme courts to prescribe the “times, places, and manner” of congressional elections, state legislatures themselves are creatures of their state constitution. State constitutions established the elections clause’s aforementioned state legislatures. In turn, state legislatures could not override the very legal documents giving them their power in the first place. And as Professors Vikram and Akhil Amar note, Article VI of the Constitution explicitly declares the supremacy of state constitutions over state statutes. It follows that the original public meaning of the elections clause did not confer a super-constitutional power to state legislatures, as the original text of the Constitution made clear the supremacy of state  constitutions. Founding-era practice supports this claim: almost no drafter of the Constitution, and no State in the early Republic held the view that state legislatures could override state Constitutions.

However, that is not the only view supporting primary state legislature power over election rules. One could argue that the Moore petitioner’s ISL theory is not the only ISL theory. Indeed, it is possible for some form of ISL theory to co-exist with checks on state legislatures. ISL theory is not necessarily “blatantly anti-democratic”. Professors Michael McConnell and William Baude, reputable conservative legal scholars, have argued that while state legislatures are cabined by state constitutions, they are still the primary decision-makers regarding election rules. Crucially, their decision-making power over election rules could not be substantively substituted by another body. Such seems in line with the Constitution’s explicit textual command of the “Legislature [of the state] thereof” determining election rules. Applying this principle to the facts of the Moore case, while the North Carolina Supreme Court could lawfully strike down the legislature’s electoral map, they could not, as they did in this case, order a Special Master and outside experts to draw a new one, abrogating and replacing the legislature’s clear constitutional prerogative. So the Moore petitioners are right about the North Carolina Supreme Court overstepping their authority, but wrong about the State Legislature having super-constitutional power over election rules. State legislatures can win in Moore v. Harper, uphold some version of the ISL theory, and not “be able to redraw district boundaries however they want and pass as many laws suppressing voters based on race, gender, and political affiliations as they please”.

Even if the ISL maximalist view were instituted, it would not lead to state violations of the right to vote on the basis of race and sex, as suggested by Moore. Indeed, the 15th Amendment clearly states that the right to vote cannot be denied “on account of race or prior condition of servitude”, whether by States or by the federal government. The 19th Amendment extends that protection on account of sex. The constitutional text is clear, no ISL maximalist argues that state legislatures can override the federal Constitution (as opposed to state Constitutions), and, most importantly, this “conservative” Supreme Court has upheld these constitutional electoral provisions in recent cases. In Cooper v. Harris (2017), five members (including the “very conservative” Clarence Thomas) held two North Carolina Congressional districts, drawn by the state legislature, were unlawfully drawn on the basis of race. The Court unanimously held District 1 unconstitutional; even the most “conservative” members of the Court would not support giving state legislatures plenary power to abridge the right to vote on account of protected characteristics. In short,  Moore’s apocalyptic suggestions are not rooted in fact.

The other apocalyptic suggestion made not only by  Moore, but also by Lucas Haskins in an earlier piece in Cherwell, is that ISL maximalism would allow state legislatures to override the popular vote for the president in their state and appoint electors to select their preferred presidential candidate. First, as seen in the legal text above, the elections clause ISL concerns focuses on “Elections for Senators and Representatives”, not elections for the President of the United States. Therefore, whatever the Supreme Court decides in Moore v. Harper will not directly affect presidential election rules. 

But let us assume for argument’s sake that the logic of ISL maximalism applies to presidential election rules. The constitutional provision concerning presidential election rules is found in Article II Section 1 Clause 2, which reads: 

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress”

It is true that the similar language of this clause may allow the importation of ISL maximalism into presidential elections. Alarmists fear that such would allow state legislatures, rather than state electorates, to select presidential electors. However, this ignores the basic reality that in the status quo, state legislatures can already appoint their own electors and not host democratic Presidential elections. While not done since 1876, the fact that it was commonly done by state legislatures prior to 1876 suggests that this power is rooted in the Constitution. In North Carolina, there is no explicit state constitutional requirement to hold democratic Presidential elections. So even if the ISL maximalists applied their logic to Article II Section 1 Clause 2, it would change little, as many state legislatures currently have no legal obligation to hold democratic presidential elections anyway. If state legislatures eliminate the longstanding practice of democratic presidential elections, it will not be the Supreme Court’s fault. I suspect they would get voted out promptly. And in any case, the Electoral Count Act, proposed by Republican-appointed Judge J. Michael Luttig, and supported by Senator Mitch McConnell, would prevent state legislatures from overriding popular presidential votes after those votes have taken place.

All of this assumes that ISL maximalism will be accepted by the Supreme Court. The evidence that Moore provides in support of this notion is largely speculative. Besides a one-liner that justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh support the ISL theory (ignoring that there are crucial nuances between ISL theories) and a blanket statement of justices Alito and Thomas, and the Roberts Court having an “abysmal record on voting rights”,  Moore does not provide any direct evidence of how the Court would vote in this specific case. Broad statements on bad voting rights jurisprudence do not count, as such concerns a whole constellation of constitutional and statutory issues where not all “conservative” Roberts Court members agree.

Much to the contrary, the actual transcript of the Moore v. Harper oral arguments makes it clear that the Supreme Court has limited appetite to accept the ISL maximalism  Moore fears. For one, Justice Kavanaugh, a possible swing vote in this case, noted that the ISL maximalist position articulated by the Moore petitioner extends beyond Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s concurrence in Bush v. Gore, which he and Justice Gorsuch cited approvingly in the past. His question to the petitioner, of why the Supreme Court should not defer to state supreme courts on questions of state law (this deference principle is supported by the Rehnquist concurrence and the longstanding precedent of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938)), suggests skepticism of the Moore petitioner’s submission. Indeed, the petitioners ask that the U.S. Supreme Court give favorable relief on the basis of ISL maximalism. Such relief would require less deference to State Supreme Court decisions on state election law. Likewise, Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed skepticism of the Moore petitioner’s view that state legislatures can be cabined by state constitutions while making election law on “procedural” matters, but not while making election law on “substantive” matters. This was owing to Justice Barrett’s view of the amorphous boundaries between the two. The Chief Justice also sharply questioned the petitioners, noting that the Supreme Court’s holding in Smiley v. Holm (1932) runs contrary to the petitioner’s submission. Alongside Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, these three Justices likely constitute a majority that will reject the maximal ISL theory feared by Mr. Moore. 

Moore also advances the notion that originalism is an “alternative judicial philosophy”, and that judges in Republican administrations are, thanks to the Federalist Society, “increasingly appointed based on ideology, rather than merit”. I do not wish to unduly detract from the main point of my piece, but I will note that James Madison, who was instrumental to the drafting of the original Constitution, explicitly supported originalism. In an 1824 letter to Henry Lee, Madison wrote that he “entirely [concurs] in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution.” Madison mocked interpreting the Constitutional text beyond its original meaning, writing “What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense”. Originalism existed at the Founding; it is nothing new.

And needless to say, ideology has always been at the forefront of American judicial appointments. Donald Trump is not unique for primarily focusing on ideology. From FDR appointing Hugo Black and Robert Jackson (his own Attorney General) to uphold the New Deal to John Adams appointing John Marshall, a fellow member of the Federalist Party, the American political judicial appointment system will inevitably lead to ideological judicial appointments. But the crucial fact is that the life tenure of U.S. federal judges gives them the independence to advance the rule of law. Justice Jackson heroically dissented in Korematsu v. United States (1944), arguing against the legality of his appointing president Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s internment of Japanese-Americans. Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett all refused to hear their appointing president Donald Trump’s lawsuit to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential elections. A whole host of Trump-appointed lower court Judges voted against Trump’s post-election litigation claims. Far from withering away, judicial independence is alive and well in the United States.

While  Moore is right that ISL maximalism is bunk, he ignores the nuance that exists in conservative legal thought on state legislative power over elections; independent state legislature theories if you will. They demonstrate that ISL theory is not necessarily anti-democratic. Even if ISL maximalism is implemented, its effects would not lead to the apocalyptic collapse of American democracy. And in any case, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would uphold the ISL maximalism he derides. We are not at the brink of armageddon.

Image credit: Wally Gobetz/ CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 via flickr

Philosophy don apologises for racist email: “Blacks are more stupid than whites”

Suzanne Antelme
-
0
<strong>Philosophy don apologises for racist email: “Blacks are more stupid than whites”</strong>

Professor Nick Bostrom has published on apology on his website for an email he wrote in 1996 where he said: “Blacks are more stupid than whites. I like that sentence and think it is true.”

Bostrom continued: “But recently I have begun to believe that I won’t have much success with most people if I speak like that. […] For most people […] the sentence seems to be synonymous with: I hate those bloody [n*****s]!!!!”

In his apology, Bostrom says “I completely repudiate this disgusting email … It does not accurately represent my views, then or now. The invocation of a racial slur was repulsive”. He claims he also apologized at the time almost immediately after the email was written, and says he is apologizing again, “unreservedly”.

The context of the email was apparently a thread on “offensive content and offensive communication styles”. It was sent on the mailing list of an internet forum called the Extropians, an unmoderated platform for “conversations about science fiction, future technologies, society, and all sorts of random things”. In the email, Bostrom said he has “always liked the uncompromisingly objective way of thinking and speaking”, the “more counterintuitive and repugnant a formulation” the better, so long as it is “logically correct”.

The email continued: “Take for example the following sentence: Blacks are more stupid than whites. I like that sentence and think it is true. But recently I have begun to believe that I won’t have much success with most people if I speak like that. They would think that I were a ‘racist’: that I _disliked_ [sic] black people and thought it is fair if blacks are treated badly.

“I don’t. It’s just that based on what I have read, I think it is probable that black people have a lower average IQ than mankind in general, and I think that IQ is highly correlated with what we normally mean by ‘smart’ and ‘stupid’. I may be wrong about the facts, but that is what the sentence means for me. For most people, however, the sentence seems to be synonymous with: I hate those bloody [n*****s]!!!!”

He then said his point was that while he and other people on the Extropians mailing list might appreciate “speaking with the provocativeness of unabashed objectivity” and he thought it was “laudable” to “accustom people to the offensiveness of truth”, this might be a “less effective” way of communication with “the people ‘out there’” and could lead to “some personal damage”.

Bostrom is a philosophy professor for applied ethics and director of both the Future for Humanity Institute (FHI) and the Oxford Martin Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology. According to his FHI profile, he is the “most-cited professional philosopher under the age of 50” and has authored 200 publications, including the New York Times bestseller Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies as well as influential papers introducing the simulation argument and the concept of existential risk.

Joyce Ekakoro, a 3rd year PPE student, told Cherwell she feels “uttermost disgust at the racist comments made by someone so esteemed within one of the departments I study within”. Ekakoro added that “coming to an institution where we know we are a minority is difficult enough … and to have members of staff who should be supporting and empowering our academic endeavours view us so deplorably really stings”. The email has “tainted” her Oxford experience and left her “upset and uneasy”, and she really hopes the university will act.

A University spokesperson told Cherwell: “The University and Faculty of Philosophy is currently investigating the matter but condemns in the strongest terms possible the views this particular academic expressed in his communications. Neither the content nor language are in line with our strong commitment to diversity and equality.”

Bostrom brought the email to light himself on 9th January via an apology published on his website, claiming he had heard someone was digging through the Extropians archives to find “embarrassing materials to disseminate about people”. He feared that “selected pieces of the most offensive stuff will [sic] be extracted, maliciously framed and interpreted, and used in smear campaigns”, and aimed to “get ahead of this” by airing “the very worst of the worst in my contribution file”.

In his apology, Bostrom says his “actual views” are that it is “deeply unfair that unequal access to education, nutrients and basic healthcare leads to inequality in social outcomes, including sometimes disparities in skills and cognitive capacity”. However, regarding whether he thinks there are any “genetic contributors to differences between groups in cognitive abilities”, Bostrom says it is not his “area of expertise” and he “would leave to others, who have more relevant knowledge, to debate whether or not in addition to environmental factors, epigenetic or genetic factors play any role”. Although eugenics does not appear to be mentioned in the original 1996 email, Bostrom’s apology continues, explaining that he does not support eugenics “as the term is commonly understood”. He claims the term is used in “contemporary academic bioethics” in a “different and much broader sense”, such as in reference to the genetic screening and diagnostics available to prospective parents undergoing IVF. Bostrom adds that, “[b]roadly speaking”, he is “favorable to wide parental choice in these matters”.

Cherwell spoke to Deborah Ogunnoiki, a 3rd year classics student, who said that “as a black philosophy student it really terrifies me that someone who could’ve taught me or taught the people who taught me, would casually suggest that my race makes me less intelligent”. She thinks this incident “really shows that Oxford really hasn’t changed”, and “[e]ven if there’s more diversity, it doesn’t mean this place has become any safer for us”. Ogunnoiki noted that it “feels like [the] philosophy department is protecting [Bostrom] more than they’re protecting their black students”.

The Faculty of Philosophy published a paragraph on their website on 13th January which states: “The Faculty is committed to academic freedom of speech and, as part of this commitment, does not moderate opinions expressed by its members. However, we expect all members to meet certain standards of behaviour, and there is no room for hate speech in our faculty. In relation to views that have come to light in a faculty member’s historic email and their recent apology, the Faculty Board would like to make clear that it rejects both the views themselves and the abhorrent language in which they were originally expressed. The Faculty utterly condemns racism in all its forms.”

This statement was repeated in an email sent to all philosophy students by the Chair of the Philosophy Faculty Board. This email advised that affected students could access support through the Student Welfare and Support Services and via their college welfare team. It said the Faculty is “committed to the work of anti-racism” and will be “developing [its] actions informed by the University’s Race Equality Task Force”. The Faculty is apparently planning to invite philosophy students to a meeting later in term to “discuss ways of advancing racial equity and inclusion in the Faculty”.

Nick Bostrom has been contacted for comment.

Preying on Oxford’s (cyber) insecurities

Harry Human
-
0
Preying on Oxford’s (cyber) insecurities

Harry is an MPP candidate at the Blavatnik School of Government. Prior to starting at Oxford, she worked as a senior cyber security consultant in Governance, Risk, and Compliance (GRC). With five years’ experience in the field, she is keen to bridge the gaps in cyber and technology policy-making and implementation.

Last week, it was revealed that a student at Oxford used the public-facing Searching the University of Oxford function to obtain the name, college, department, and email address of every member of the University in a poor attempt to create the monetised Tinder-Facebook mashup, OxShag.

News pertaining to the incident has largely been focussed on the data security and privacy concerns associated with OxShag itself. What is more concerning, however, is Oxford’s policy that allowed the misuse of this data in the first place. This is not only a data security and privacy issue, it is also a cyber security issue.

As a student at Oxford, I am heartened by the implementation of a number of cyber security protocols, like the implantation of mandatory Multifactor Authentication (MFA) when accessing digital university services from personal devices, by the University. MFA is one of the most effective tools to protect against cyber-attacks. For instance, even if an actor is successful in compromising your credentials, MFA makes it very difficult for the actor to use these credentials successfully (there are, of course, exceptions, but those exceptions are outside the scope of this piece).

Given Oxford has clearly thought about its cyber security (to some extent), it begs the question: why does Oxford have a public-facing search function on its website that allows any member of the public with an internet connection to search for the contact details of any current member of the University? The most common response seems to be that this is a handy tool for connecting academics. No shade to the undergrads and masters’ students, but I hardly think we’re being inundated with requests for collaboration on papers and conferences, so much so that the only possible way for a third party to find us is via a dubious search function on Oxford’s official website.

My argument against this type of publicly available search function is fourfold. First, they are unnecessary. Second, they compromise data privacy and increase the attack surface of individuals at the University. Third, this data can be used for much more nefarious purposes than a shitty Tinder-Facebook imitation. Fourth, because this function is publicly available, attribution and enforcement is almost impossible. 

To point one: in the digital age, there are numerous ways to find the contact details or email addresses for someone that do not require providing access to the identifying information of everyone in your institution via search on a public-facing website. For the collaboration this function is designed to facilitate, most academics’ details are available via their department website. Also… Google? The difference being, if someone’s details are available via their department website or their personal LinkedIn, etc., they have consented, or at the very least, been informed that their details have been made available. Not only is this search function unnecessary, but Oxford’s attempts to inform us of the purpose of its use and the ability to opt-out have been haphazard at best.

To point two: the search function can be exploited via automated tools to scalp the information of every member of the university who has not opted out. This is much easier to execute when all the information is located in a central repository, as opposed to dribs and drabs spread across the internet, which the student involved alluded to as some sort of justification for the use of this data. Oxford’s decision to maintain a central, open repository of all current members’ contact data makes it easy for an actor with sufficient motivation and capability to access the data, triangulate the information with other sources, and launch more effective attacks against them.

This leads to point three. Now in possession of thousands of University members’ contact information, you can create your weird Tinder-Facebook mashup. In the case of OxShag, it was a student looking to make connections and some cash. But that very same service could have been used to blackmail or embarrass individuals signed up to OxShag. Independent of OxShag, the search function provides a motivated attacker with access to enough information to launch reasonably sophisticated social engineering attacks, like phishing attacks, that may not be related to the university at all – student bank details, anyone? With the right motivation and resources, the way in which these details can be exploited are endless. We can see how this information was used by a bored student, but the consequences could be much higher if the same process was used by cybercriminals or nation-states. Given that universities and their members have long been the targets of such groups, the prospect of this occurring is well within the realm of possibility and Oxford must weigh these risks with the supposed benefits that maintaining the search function provides.

And now, to point four: enforcement. Oxford has reportedly responded that this was a breach of the IT Regulations, that such use was not the intent of the function, and that they are working to apprehend the student allegedly responsible. I’m guessing, though, that if the apparent student was capable of automating data scalping to this extent, they are also capable of covering their tracks (GL;HF, forensics). Oxford does not seem to have considered that because it’s a public-facing website, attribution, enforcement, and prosecution are tricky. It could be (and, in this case, likely is) a sexually frustrated student, but it could also be a citizen in a foreign jurisdiction. What are they going to do, expel old-mate in North Korea from a university they don’t attend? Extradite them? This is all to say that successful attribution and enforcement is a difficult, resource-intensive process, which lowers the consequences for more unscrupulous actors who could use this information for more sophisticated attacks and/or purposes.

One might rebut and say, “Well, I can export the details of everyone at the university via the Active Directory” (AD) in Outlook. And, yes. You could. But you would need to be a member of the university logged in through a university Single Sign-On (SSO). Yes, this same data can be exported from Outlook… But it can also be audited by IT security with relative ease. Non-repudiation (that it was your SSO and no one else’s) increases both the barrier to, and the consequences of, exporting and misusing bulk personal data, both of which serve as a deterrent.

Currently, the student allegedly responsible may be responsible for breaking GDPR, but is Oxford not accountable? This was only able to occur because Oxford made a decision that allowed members of the University’s contact details to be searched by anyone via public interface. Oxford needs to apply the same level of rigour and consideration that it applied to the implementation of MFA to the future of this service to prevent further misuse of personal data and downstream cyber-attacks. In the short term, Oxford should release University-wide communications regarding the incident alongside clear instructions for users who would like their details removed from the repository.

In the long term, Oxford needs to seriously reconsider the necessity of the search function. It must carefully weigh the benefits of what appears to be a largely redundant tool providing access to ample personal information with the risk of the function and the associated data being misused. If the University decides to keep it, the process for an individual consenting to their details being available through the function needs to be revisited both technically and legally, moved to an opt-in system separate from IT registration, and tested regularly to ensure conformance.

Managing cyber security risk in any organisation is about weighing the likelihoods and impact, including those downstream, of a cyber security event occurring; the balance between a control and its impact on functionality; the priority of managing these risks; and the allocation of resources to manage risks according to these oftentimes competing factors. Organisational cyber security is a complex task for any organisation, but especially for one as large, high profile, and attractive as Oxford. We don’t know if this search function has been used maliciously by more nefarious actors, but we do know that they are able to do so with relative ease. Comparatively, advances in technology have made such a feature largely redundant. Oxford ultimately needs to make the decision on the future of this feature, but from the outside, removing it is a quick and cheap intervention for a feature whose benefits are far outweighed by the risks.

Oxford Date Nights

Sharon Chau
-
0
Oxford Date Nights

$$ = 20-25 pp, $$$ = 25-35 pp, $$$$ = 35+ pp 

A perennial head-scratcher: where should I take my date out for a nice dinner? If you’re stuck between The Ivy and Quod, fear not. Whether you’d like to celebrate an anniversary with your significant other, or splash a little cash on dinner with your bestie, here are your best date night restaurants in Oxford. The price points here are on the steeper side, so these are places to save up for a special occassion, but they are most definitely well worth your while.

Arbequina

Location: Cowley Road

Cuisine: Spanish tapas

Price: $$$

Tucked away behind an unassuming façade, the Michelin Guide-recommended Arbequina boasts a concise menu of seasonal tapas and is one of the most highly-rated restaurants in Oxford. The service was impeccable – we mentioned it was our one-year anniversary and were gifted two complimentary glasses of bubbly on the spot. Despite this, the food was delicious but not stellar, and it probably isn’t worth all the hype, especially when you have to book a table weeks in advance.

Al Andulus

Location: Little Clarendon Street

Cuisine: Spanish tapas

Price: $$

We were pleasantly surprised by our meal at Al Andulus, a beautiful, cosy tapas bar with deliciously refreshing sangria. For a tapas restaurant, the portion sizes were massive, and the patatas bravas was some of the best we’ve had. Also keep an eye out for the weekend flamenco dancers! If you’re looking for a restaurant with good value for money that won’t break the bank, this is the one.

Kazbar

Location: Cowley Road

Cuisine: Spanish/Moroccan tapas

Price: $$

Lavishly adorned with North African lanterns, kilims and mosaic tables, Kazbar is a tapas restaurant that is also a feast for the eyes. The tapas selection was amazing, especially the meat options, with fall-off-the-bone, melt-in-your-mouth chicken and beef. This is the place to go if you’re looking for a dimly lit, atmospheric and mysteriously romantic restaurant.

Gusto Italian

Location: High Street

Cuisine: Yes, it is indeed Italian

Price: $$$$

Newly renovated Gusto Italian, conveniently located right on High Street, is an amazing cocktail bar-cum-restaurant with a snazzy and innovative selection, complete with incredible mocktails – the Pi-No Colada tastes better than the real thing. Come for good, classic Italian fare, but know that the bill can get eye-wateringly high especially if you are eyeing the starters and desserts.

Sichuan Grand

Location: Gloucester Green

Cuisine: Chinese (spicy Sichuanese)

Price: $$

Our go-to Chinese comfort food, Sichuan Grand is a deceptively large restaurant serving traditional, mostly Sichuanese dishes, nestled on the edge of Gloucester Green. With a dizzyingly large selection, including plenty of non-spicy options, you are spoilt for choice whether you’re a Chinese student craving home food or someone wanting to try it out for the first time. Would highly recommend the spicy hotpot with friends!

Pierre Victoire

Location: Little Clarendon Street

Cuisine: French

Price: $$$

A warmly candle-lit French bistro, Pierre Victoire offers some of the best French food in Oxford. Their Prix Fixe menu is great value for money, especially during lunchtime, with large portion sizes and a generous offering of escargots, steak frites, and fondue, amongst others. Splitting a bottle between two also isn’t extortionate, which is more than can be said of restaurants of similar quality. 

Spiced Roots

Location: Cowley Road

Price: $$

A classic Carribean restaurant with a charming teal exterior on Cowley Road, Spiced Roots, as the name suggests, serves some of the most flavourful and delicious dishes we have had. In particular, their lamb chops were beautifully seasoned and crispy on the outside, perfectly pink on the inside, while their fried ripe plantain was succulently sweet and savoury. Very reasonable prices, too!

Cuttlefish

Location: St Clement’s Street

Price: $$$

Filled with twinkling fairy lights and fresh, seasonal seafood, Cuttlefish is a cosy bistro offering dishes ranging from oysters to paella to burgers. Their scallops are pan-seared to perfection, juicy and crispy, and their mixed grilled seafood, including multiple fillets of fish, prawns and cuttlefish, is second to none. If you are a seafood fiend, like I am, then this is THE place for you.

If you’d like to opt for the clichéd restaurants, namely The Ivy and Quod, just know that you are paying to sit on fancy chairs and feel superior to the passers-by gazing in longingly from High Street, not for the quality of food. However, if you pride yourself on your lack of imagination, or if you just want a safe, family-pleasing option, do visit before 6pm to enjoy their early dinner Set Menu, which is much better value for money. But I hope that this list will inspire you to spend date nights in some of the incredible restaurants on offer in Oxford!

Image: Sharon Chau

Euro supermarket and the comfort of finding authentic ingredients from home

Nicole Dimitrova
-
0
Euro supermarket and the comfort of finding authentic ingredients from home

I’ve always been interested in how food and culture intertwine, how certain foods can make us think of different people, places and parts of our own identity. I was lucky enough to get a chance to explore my own culture through food while in Oxford, and this came in the form of exploring my new favourite supermarket. 

Located on Cowley Road, this supermarket came as an absolute lifeline to me here in Oxford. Being a proud Bulgarian, I’m extremely connected to the food from my country. At home, I regularly scoff down сарми (Sarmi) and fresh баница (Banitsa) made by my parents and I, with Bulgarian cabbage, cheese and yoghurt being sourced from our neighbourhood Bulgarian shop. However, when in Oxford I found I missed my food from home- and, while eating in hall is great, there’s nothing like home cooked food, especially when it’s from your culture. 

Alas, one faithful day during a stroll through Cowley, I stumbled upon a shop with my flag, plastered on the outside of it, adjacent to Polish, Turkish, Hungarian and Romanian flags. Without hesitation I stepped in. Immediately I was overwhelmed with options- not only did they have food from around Eastern Europe, but they also had food from Bulgaria! Bulgarian brands, food I was bought up on, food I only ever get to eat when back in my country. 

I was truly spoiled for choice. As much as I love our little Bulgarian shop in my neighbourhood in London, the options there aren’t exactly exhaustive- so stepping into what I can only describe as a heaven for all things eastern European was a complete gamechanger. Not only did they have my favourite snacks, packaged foods and drinks, but Euro supermarket also has a fantastic deli section filled to the brim with meats and cheeses from Poland, along with freshly baked breads and fresh produce (with the added bonus that it’s all loose without plastic packaging). I was also stunned by their selection of beers and other alcohol- including a wide selection of Bulgarian-branded spirits such as мастика (Mastika), мента (Menta) and ракия (Rakiya).  

Quite literally bursting with joy, the following day I ditched the usual trip to Tesco and decided to base dinner around ingredients I could find from this beautiful supermarket I will now be calling my second home. Fresh tomatoes, cucumbers and onions were made into a шопска салата (Shopska salata), paired with Serbian плескавица (Pleskavitsa), with an obligatory can of Bulgarian beer, my favourite being Каменица (Kamenitsa) with which to wash it all down- a classic meal served in Bulgaria that I would probably only ever eat during my holidays there. I felt so connected to my culture and country, in a way in which I hadn’t yet in Oxford, and I definitely couldn’t have done it without finding this little pocket of culture in the city.  

Overall, it’s a remarkable supermarket with something for everyone, whether you’re looking for your favourite childhood snacks, a new spirit to get drunk on or to try a new food, I highly recommend going to visit. 

Recipe – Nicole’s asparagus soup

Nicole Dimitrova
-
0
Recipe – Nicole’s asparagus soup

This recipe is sure to become your go-to, whether you’re cold, feeling a bit under the weather or simply in need of some comforting soup, this is a must try- with shockingly little ingredients and time needed for how good it tastes! I first tried this as a starter in what was otherwise a seemingly underwhelming hotel restaurant. As someone who isn’t overly keen on asparagus, it took my boyfriend convincing me to try it from his bowl for me to fall head over heels in love (with the soup of course). It was a beautiful bowl of creamy asparagus goodness, paired with stretchy salty cheese and crisp croutons on the side- and after some trial and error, I learnt how to make it at home.  

Ingredients (Makes around 4 servings of soup) 

3 tablespoons of butter 

2 cloves of garlic, minced  

900G asparagus, remove the ends and cut remaining stalk into 2cm pieces 

450 ml Vegetable or Chicken stock 

130 ml double cream 

Salt and pepper 

A sprinkle of cheddar cheese (Optional) (make sure to grate it yourself- pre-grated cheese doesn’t melt as well) 

Method 

Placing your pot over medium heat, melt your butter and add your garlic, cooking until fragrant. 

Add your asparagus and season with salt. Cook this until golden in colour. 

Add your stock, cover the pot and leave to simmer until your asparagus is still green, but tender. This should take around 10-15 minutes of simmering.  

Once cooked, turn off the stove and remove pot from the heat and begin to blend until smooth. 

Once blended, add your cream, place the pot back onto the stove over low heat, seasoning the soup with salt and pepper to taste- when serving, sprinkle cheese on top of each bowl and stir (This is optional). 

And that’s it! A soup that is easy to make, involves little effort, ingredients and time, and is sure to impress anybody who tries it! Not to mention- this recipe can be modified to be fully vegan! With plant-based butter and cream, as well as the optional cheese to go on top. You can also get creative and try adding more vegetables to your soup- my recommendations being onions, broccoli and potatoes- but add whatever you can think of really- its sure to win anybody over. 

Image: Doug Beckers/CC BY S.A 2.0 via Flickr 

Oxford and Empire: An “uncomfortable” history

Meg Lintern and Matus Lazar
-
0
Oxford and Empire: An “uncomfortable” history

Oxford life is tied to tradition. From reciting Latin at the start of formal hall to donning gowns for prelims and finals, our university’s history pervades our experience today. The darker side of our history thus also casts its long shadow over the present. In 2016, the Rhodes Must Fall movement spurred an international debate about certain statues in Oxford that honour those involved in some of the darkest aspects of the British Empire, leading Oriel College to promise to remove its own Cecil Rhodes monument in 2020. A year later, Magdalen College MCR members voted to remove a portrait of Queen Elizabeth II, arguing it was a symbol of “recent colonial history”. The flares of fierce debate surrounding Oxford’s past connection with the Empire and its response to this connection have generally been short-lived, soon dampened by promises of new changes to curriculums and admissions processes, and quickly replaced by a general silence from the university on the topic of decolonisation.

Why is this silence the status quo?

Oxford University does not seem much inclined to dwell on its colonial past. This past is made more complicated by the collegiate system. All of Oxford’s forty-four colleges and PPHs have different ages and histories, and have long had different teaching methods, different alumni, different investments, and different leadership. As a result, the colleges have unique histories that often need to be addressed separately, and many have varying levels of ability or interest in doing so. In the Spring of 2016, Oxford launched the Oxford and Colonialism Project “in an effort to reflect on the University’s historic ties with Great Britain’s colonial past and the ways in which the University’s colonial legacies reflect on the present, and our vision of the University’s future.” Its website contains substantial information about the colonial histories of departments, faculties, and colleges. However, with very little effort put into advertising it, these histories and the project itself often do not make it into mainstream conversation, with most students not even knowing it exists.

Certain external groups are taking action to shine a light on Oxford’s colonial past. Uncomfortable Oxford, founded by DPhil students, leads fantastic tours around the university, seeking to generate discussions about racial inequality, gender and class discrimination, and the university’s Imperial legacy. They also attempt to foster systemic intervention in Oxford, pressing it to engage with its past. They told Cherwell: “The University of Oxford does not seem to have made any active or unified response to its colonial history and does not seem to engage as a whole with this topic – or indeed, legacies of colonialism in the form of fossil fuels investments or student representation. We have seen, however, substantial forms of engagement emanating from individual colleges, departments, or academics. These are attempts, within their own sphere, to recognise this history and find ways to address it, in the form of research, scholarships, and public engagement events (such as exhibitions). The decentralised nature of the University of Oxford allowed it to benefit greatly from colonialism in multiple ways, but this decentralisation is also one of the reasons for its lack of responsiveness.”

The spokesperson continued, “Recognising is a first and necessary step. However, it is also crucial that it be followed by representation through scholarship AND recruitment programs. Furthermore, given the university’s research-oriented goals, diversifying both the areas of research and the scholars and subjects in curriculums would also be some of the many appropriate courses of action to take.”

Matus Lazar, an alumnus who studied history at Oxford and a history YouTuber with over 185k subscribers, recently published a video about Oxford’s colonial history. While conducting secondary research for the video, he uncovered details about certain investments made by some Oxford colleges. In the footnotes of a seven-volume book set on the history of Oxford, mentions of some Oxford colleges’ connections to colonial enterprises and organisations were recorded. Lazar sat down with me to discuss this evidence of Oxford’s “uncomfortable history” and the legacy that this has left on the institution as a whole.

Although the collegiate and university’s financial records were inconsistent until the 1870s, they show that the university’s and many of its colleges’ wealth came from holdings and investments. During much of the last five centuries of British history, these investments often contributed to the economy of empire. Certain colleges have more traceable histories of investment into colonial corporations: for instance, Wadham and New College put money into the South Sea Company, which was granted a monopoly to supply African slaves to the islands in the “South Seas” and South America in 1713. Colleges also benefitted from funding for professorships and scholarships that was received from parliament, the monarchy, and prominent individuals. Such positions include the Boden Professor of Sanskrit, funded by Joseph Boden, a soldier of the East India Company, the Beit Professorship of Commonwealth History funded by Alfred Beit, a precious metals magnate in colonial Africa and the Oxford Forestry School funded by the Indian Colonial Government.

The individuals and organisations providing this funding often had very strong links to slavery, imperial companies, and colonial economic exploitation. For instance, Edward Hyde, the first Earl of Clarendon, was involved in the conquest of Ireland, the procurement of plantations in Ireland, and the colonisation of South Carolina. Clarendon later became the University of Oxford’s chancellor and donated substantially to the university, hence the naming of the Clarendon building right across from the Bodleian Library. Although Oxford colleges are not believed to have owned slaves, as is the case with certain American universities like the University of Virginia, it is undeniable that they did benefit from the financial support of those who did.

This year, Stephen Fry attended the Oxford Union to debate whether artifacts obtained through imperial ventures should be returned to their original countries or ethnic groups. This is a particularly pertinent question at Oxford, which owns many old books and artifacts that have been acquired illegally or taken through imperial coercion. For example, the Totem pole in the Pitt Rivers museum was forcefully taken from the Haida people of Western Canada in the nineteenth century and sent to Oxford. This is why the Ashmolean and Pitt Rivers Museums, which have close ties with the university, are currently being called on to repatriate some of their artifacts. The wider university’s possession of items with dubious histories should perhaps also be called into question.

However, the university did not only reap financial rewards from British colonialism; it also supplied the Empire with crucial manpower, producing many of the administrators and officers that would be sent across British territories. The role of Oxford alumni in British imperial ventures can be traced to the very beginnings of the Empire. In the 16th century, the country’s colonial ambitions were spearheaded by Oxford-educated men like Walter Raleigh, Thomas Roe, and Humphrey Gilbert. Raleigh went on to found Virginia, Roe led an expedition to Guiana, and Gilbert was a pioneer of the English colonial Empire in North America and the Plantations of Ireland. Professor Judith Brown has used matriculation records to show that 345 Balliol graduates went out to work in India as colonial administrators between 1853 and 1947, including 273 who found employment in the Indian Civil Service (ICS).

It is important to note that during the same period, 88 Indian students studied at Balliol. There are many historical people of colour whose entry to the university should be celebrated. Cornelia Sorabji, the first woman to practise law in India, is one such example. Another is Christian Cole, who matriculated as the first black student at Oxford in 1873, reading Classics, and graduated in 1876. To give due credit to the presence of students of colour in Oxford’s history would take many more articles.

Much of the rhetoric and ideology that bolstered Britain’s imperial campaign was consolidated by Oxford academics and circulated by the University Press. The historian Laurence Brockliss states that “It was considered to be Oxford’s primary function to take callow youths and turn them into intelligent, upright, and dedicated servants of a British civilising mission”, and, therefore, various course curriculums were tailored to train the next generation of imperial administrators. This led Oxford to serve as a production line for imperial actors. Indeed, the printing press on Walton St helped circulate white supremacist ideologies, and professors taught the ‘theory’ of eugenics, with the arts professor John Ruskin lecturing on how England “must found colonies as fast and as far as she is able, formed of her most energetic and worthiest men”. The Oxford history professor C. R. L. Fletcher wrote a book for primary school called A History of England, in which he stated that the descendants of African slaves in the Caribbean are “lazy, vicious and incapable of any serious improvement … and quite useless”, black South Africans are described as “fierce savages”, and the aboriginals of Australia are “nothing but a few miserable blacks”.

Due to the tradition underlying the structure and content of various subjects at Oxford, relics of the old imperial ideology live on in some of our degrees today. In history, for example, the course structure still mandates that all undergraduate history students study two papers on British history and two on European history across their three-year degree. Considering there are only six papers where the geographic location of study is relevant, this significantly restricts Oxford students’ ability to interrogate global history and explore cultures beyond the West.

This structure makes the subject anything but modern when compared to other British universities. Top universities like LSE, UCL, and Warwick have no requirements to study British history. Likewise, in 2022, Cambridge produced a “substantially new and significantly enhanced curriculum” with far less stringent geographic study requirements. 

Ian Archer and Lucy Wooding, the current heads of Undergraduate history at Oxford (check titles), told Cherwell that “many of us tend to avoid the term ‘decolonising’ in relation to the [history] curriculum because of its contested interpretation, but as a Faculty, we are absolutely committed to diversifying our offering… Our Race Equality Action Group is committed to curricular changes which will promote the study of the Global South and introduce students to a range of historical approaches beyond those dominant in the European historical tradition. Race has been introduced as one of the categories studied in the first-year Approaches to History course; other reading lists have been reviewed to incorporate more diverse perspectives. We have introduced Arabic classes for beginners with a view to facilitating an Arabic pathway through the degree programme. We have also made appointments in black history, welcomed the first woman as Regius Professor of History, and have instituted the first professorship of Women’s History, alongside the introduction of the Masters programme in Gender, Women’s and Queer History. We are looking forward to forthcoming appointments in the history of sexualities, and environmental history, so we are quite confident that our degree is far from archaic.”

Whilst changes to the structures of our university, from the physical fabric of its buildings to the contents of its courses, may be under review, it is obvious that this review is not only important, but pressingly relevant.

Overall, it seems that the legacy of Oxford’s colonial history is so nuanced and multifaceted that identifying the various areas that need to be addressed, let alone addressing them, is going to be a long process and one that requires significant investment in time and funding from the university. Matus Lazar argues that little progress has been made in this regard because “most people either don’t care that much, or the monetary aspect scares them away”. That is to say, the decolonisation debate is generally either seen as a low-priority issue when compared to other questions faced by colleges, such as admission ratios and making money to fund their current cohort, and members of college administrations are frightened by the potential consequences on donations if they take drastic action to address their colonial past. That is ultimately the reason for the university’s silence on this issue and why many professors tend to avoid the word ‘decolonising’ in relation to the curriculum.

Indeed, Lazar believes that the monetary aspect is far more important to the actions taken by the university than any ideological incentive: as opposed to some genuine desire to protect relics of the imperial past, such as the Rhodes statue or the names of buildings, colleges and the university are prevented from acting due to a fear of the financial repercussions. In fact, according to The Guardian, Oriel’s reluctance to remove the Rhodes statue was spiked when “donors apparently threatened to withdraw millions of pounds in contributions or legacies if it did so”. The backlash against the college’s initial decision to remove the statue included a call by former Brexit Party MEP, Ben Habib, to return Rhodes’ endowment to his family and Daniel Hannan, a Conservative MEP who studies at Oriel, reportedly withdrawing his regular donation to Oriel and tweeting that “the first black student won a scholarship 5 years after [Rhodes’] death. Why would anyone give to an institution that treats its benefactors this way?”

In the eyes of Lazar, this debate in Oxford around finances, reparations, decolonisation, and Oxford’s past Imperial connections is ultimately a matter of ‘memory vs history’. Many people in Britain have a positive memory of the Empire, and any attack on its legacy is seen as an attack on this positive memory. Lazar states that “in the end, this entire thing is just an extension of the whole memory vs history battle about the Empire that is happening in the whole of Britain. After all, this wouldn’t be happening in Oxford if it wasn’t a contentious topic in the rest of the country.” From the statue of Edward Colston being thrown into the harbour to the statue of Churchill being tagged by graffiti reading ‘racist’, the battle of how we in the present remember the imperial past is very much ongoing. Whilst the university easily addresses the emotional element of colonialism, with apologies being issued and projects like Oxford and Colonialism being created as a forum for discussion, the university tries to remain silent on any more significant changes. Lazar argues that as long as there will be financial repercussions for thoroughly addressing the university’s imperial legacy, no significant changes will occur, and these financial repercussions will not disappear until the positive memory of the Empire, which still persists in British society, is not resolved.

Ultimately, the questions surrounding Oxford’s imperial history and how to confront it are only beginning to be adequately addressed and will certainly be the centre of controversy for many more years. However, one thing is clear: the university, including its students, needs to ensure that the conversation does not lapse into silence.

Image credit: Wang Sum Luk

Motacilla / CC BY-SA 3.0

David Iliff / CC BY-SA 3.0

British South Africa Company / Public Domain

The Most Anticipated Albums of 2023

Maeve Hagerty
-
0
The Most Anticipated Albums of 2023

After a rather remarkable year for albums in 2022, with hard-hitters like FKA Twigs’ “Caprisongs,” Beyoncé’s “Renaissance,” Big Thief’s “Dragon New Warm Mountain I Believe in You,” JID’S “The Forever Story,” Rosalía’s “Motomami,” and Ethel Cain’s “Preacher’s Daughter,” it seems unlikely that the albums rumored to be dropping in 2023 could ever measure up. 

However, there are some notable new projects dropping this year that are bound to impress. So, here are Cherwell’s picks for the top 11 (we couldn’t decide on just 10) most anticipated albums dropping this year. 

11. Black Belt Eagle Scout – “The Land, the Water, the Sky.” Black Belt Eagle Scout’s exploration of indie rock promises to be a journey of reconnection with her ancestors and through the nature which she associates with them. She said of the project that she “wanted the delicateness of these moments to meet the intense reality of the history of [her] people.”

10. 100 gecs – “10,000 gecs.” After an interesting, experimental release in their first album “1000 gecs,” the duo is returning this year with a new project that promises to be just as weird and wonderful as the last. Doubtless an exciting contribution, “10,000 gecs” is definitely an album to watch for. 

9. Miley Cyrus – “Endless Summer Vacation.” With possibly one of the only truly interesting, and not entirely sour, Pop-Punk albums of 2020 in “Plastic Hearts,” no one really knows what direction her new project could take this year. But, suffice it to say, we’re curious. Cyrus has proven she can be tender, sexy, edgy, and poppy over the course of her career, and this new album is intriguing. No one knows what side of herself she’ll be showing, and that’s the exciting part. 

8.  Måneskin – “Rush!” Following their 2021 Eurovision win, Måneskin has brought an edginess to glam rock and unique charisma which has gathered them a loyal following and which suggests that their forthcoming debut album will be one to remember. 

7. Samia – “Honey.” After a breathtaking debut album “The Baby” (2020), Samia has promised a new project in 2023. After dropping a popular and diverging lead single “Kill Her Freak Out” in 2022, Samia described the song and the forthcoming LP as marking the end of the story of “The Baby” and her transition to a new chapter. Moreover, if “Honey” has even a dab of the indie charm and heartfelt nature of her first LP then it is sure to be a success. 

6. A$AP Rocky – “Don’t Be Dumb.” Though he has not officially announced when it will release, A$AP Rocky has teased his new album and even suggested that Metro Boomin’ will be featured heavily as a producer throughout the project. While some of his projects have proven relatively un-notable in the past, there is hope that this could be a sign of some of his artistic growth since it’s been 5 years since his last full-length LP “Testing.” 

5. Kelela – “Raven.” The R&B singer’s upcoming project is led by the mellow single “On the Run,” and in describing her new album she said that it was her “first breath taken in the dark, an affirmation of black femme perspective in the midst of systemic erasure and the sound of our vulnerability turned to power.” Hopes are definitely high for this project.

4. Yves Tumor – TBA. After dropping the new post-punk single “God is a Circle” (2022) and EP “The Asymptotical World,” fans can only hope that this visionary artist is hinting at a bigger project to come this year. Following the success and texture of “Heaven to a Tortured Mind” (2020), any new Yves Tumor project is something to get excited about. 

3. Gorillaz – “Cracker Island.” The Gorillaz have made a name for themselves collaborating with artists from Carly Simon to Grace Jones, and their new LP promises an even more exciting lineup. With the release of successful singles like “New Gold” (2022) featuring Bootie Brown and Tame Impala, the rest of the album is supposed to feature the likes of Thundercat, Bad Bunny, Beck, Stevie Nicks, and Adeleye Omotayo. “Cracker Island” promises the much-beloved vision of the Gorillaz with the aid of some of music’s most imaginative artists, 

2. Lana Del Rey – “Did you know that there’s a tunnel under Ocean Blvd?” Lana Del Rey just can’t stop. With the astounding, genre-defining “Norman F*ing Rockwell” (2019), and two following decent albums in the interim, Lana Del Rey’s upcoming 9th project seems to channel her signature dreamy, soul-crushing California Americana in a new direction for the same artistry that has made her so popular. The lead title single is nothing short of beautiful and hints at more beauty to follow. 

1. Rihanna – “R9.” All we can say is: please! Please, Rihanna, drop your album! After teasing it for years, and with her Super Bowl Halftime show approaching, is it possible that this could be the year we finally get the much-anticipated “R9?” It’s been 7 years now since her smash success “Anti” (2016), and suffice it to say that her fans—and us—are desperate for this release.

Image is in the Public Domain

1...185186187...2,489Page 186 of 2,489

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by James Ashley