Monday, May 12, 2025
Blog Page 1895

Brasenose Principal to retire

Joanna Wall
-
0
Brasenose Principal to retire

The Principal of Brasenose College, Professor Roger Cashmore, whose use of expenses was recently questioned, is to retire at the end of this academic year.

Cashmore was the subject of national media attention when, in May this year, a report leaked to Cherwell suggested he and his wife had misused college travel expenses.

Following this, a source claimed in October, that the Governing Body of Brasenose had passed a motion of no confidence against him.

The 66 year old has been on research leave since October, with Professor Alan Bowman acting as Principal.

According to a statement issued by the college, the experimental physicist plans to concentrate on his research projects which include work on the Large Hadron Collider and a recent appointment as Chairman of the UK Atomic Energy Authority.

Cashmore, a Cambridge and Balliol alumnus, has been Principal of Brasenose since 2002 and oversaw celebrations to mark the College’s quincentenary last year, including a visit by the Queen.

Why I wasn’t protesting on Thursday

James Weston
-
0
Why I wasn’t protesting on Thursday

Do you ever feel out of step with your own age group? I do. Almost all the time, in fact. Take music: to me, dubstep sounds like one of those old-fashioned modems exploding to the accompaniment of a gut-thumping bass-line that has the uncomfortable effect of making you want to scratch your Adam’s apple from the inside. Also, why call it dubstep? It goes wub. “Dubstep” sounds like a dance craze from the 1940s. Music is only the start, however. I’d rather have a double espresso than a red bull; a dry martini over a strawberry daiquiri; Newsnight instead of Glee. You can imagine how I felt, then, when there emerged yet another way for me to feel out of touch with my peers.

I confess I didn’t protest on Thursday, the day of the tuition fees vote. I’m probably not alone in this. Nevertheless, I wish to defend my position. I absolutely hate noisy crowds. Politics and ideology aside, the idea of being in an over-excited group of people chanting slogans (many of which don’t even scan) appeals to me about as much as the thought of listening to dub-step.

In fact, I imagine going on a demo would be much like going to a music festival, though of course I can’t be sure, since due to my aforementioned dislike of noisy crowds I have experienced neither demo nor festival. I’m not claustrophobic, just slightly misanthropic. I can cope with an orderly queue, and I have no problem being in a packed lift or train carriage, because in this country there are strict regulations about those things: do not talk, do not make eye contact etc.

A protest, however, is by its very nature chaotic. A structure of sorts is imposed by the route of the march, but the point of a protest is not to get from A to B, and, at any rate, no one ever sticks to the planned route.

In every way, protests are messy. Not my cup of tea, I’m afraid. Best let other people get on with it. They’d do a much better job of it than I ever could. If I were occupying the Rad Cam I would ask people to be quiet so that I could get some sleep. I would bring a folding chair and a book to a sit-in. On a march I would get annoyed if the people in front of me weren’t walking quickly enough.

Please don’t think, though, that I am opposed to protests in principle. On the contrary, I think they are terribly important. Every so often, in extreme cases, citizens need something more direct than the ballot box in order to register their disapproval. For this reason the right to protest is one that ought to be valued above almost all others, and should be considered nearly as important as the right to vote itself. With rights come certain responsibilities, however. As a vital channel of democracy, protesting should be afforded a great deal of respect, both by the protesters themselves and, crucially, by those in authority. Both groups seem to have forgotten this, though.

The effectiveness of the kind of demonstrating we have seen recently is only going to be damaged if people take it too far too regularly, and on too flimsy a pretext. Making students pay for degrees that they stand to benefit from is hardly an injustice of the severity to inspire a Mahatma Gandhi or a Martin Luther King. In fact it seems to have inspired the kind of people who get a kick from fighting authority purely for its own sake; in most people’s eyes the face of student activism is not Aaron Porter but the odious Charlie Gilmour.

Everyone agrees that education is a human right, but it is unreasonable and downright naive to argue that the principle of free education for all should extend to a situation where everybody who works for a living would be required to shoulder the entire burden of funding three year degree courses for a lucky few. The danger is that our generation will be remembered for fighting a battle of self interest. Go and ask a foreign student how much sympathy they have for the cause of “free” higher education (“free” is a misleading word: someone will have to pay). We live in a country where some people are illiterate into their teens. I am taught Latin and Greek by world experts. Why is it necessary for the taxpayer to foot the bill for my further development when schools in Britain fall so shockingly behind those of our neighbours?

I don’t understand why people like dubstep. This is a simple matter of personal preference. It is my firm belief, however, that our generation has made a mistake in choosing to fight the present cause. It may well be true that I would make a rubbish protester. Having said that, the point is not to enjoy yourself. I guess that’s what separates a truly worthwhile fight from an excuse for an anarchic day out. “Free” university is not an issue worth fighting for. That’s why I didn’t protest on Thursday. That, and the fact I was on the Varsity trip.

Why bother with Godard?

Sam Jindani
-
0
Why bother with Godard?

Jean-Luc Godard is one of those figures who has become preeminent by contributing to the creation of a whole new stereotype, that of pretentiously abstruse French films. Yet his fame is puzzling even to himself: “I’ll always wonder why I’m known, because nobody sees my movies. Well, almost nobody.” He and other directors such as François Truffaut and Claude Chabrol formed what is known as the Nouvelle Vague, a cinematographic movement lauded by some for its boldness and innovation and derided by others for its self-indulgence and esoterism. Yet, as more often than not, the paradigm case hardly fits the stereotype. Godard’s oeuvre is not simply an array of masterfully crafted but impenetrable films with odd narratives and odder characters; on the contrary, his films have a lot to teach us about cinema.

Godard is renowned for being a maverick who would do things exactly the way he wanted them, with little consideration for practical or even legal concerns. He would often film for only two hours a day, sometimes cancelling the whole shoot on the morning because he wasn’t feeling inspired. To evade the Kafkaesque grasp of the French bureaucracy, he decided to record the sound during post-production, which meant that he didn’t have to comply with regulations concerning sound technicians. He even went as far as scrapping the entire script of À bout de souffle (1960) after he started to film and rewrote the dialogue on set.

This idiosyncratic approach extended to his style of directing, where Godard rejected all the narrative and cinematographic conventions of the time. His use of the jump cut in À bout de souffle is still cited as one of the most daring moves in the history of modern cinema. In a famous car scene, the two main protagonists, Michel Poiccard and Patricia Franchini (played by Jean-Paul Belmondo and Jean Seberg respectively) are arguing whilst driving around Paris. The camera never leaves Seberg, and Godard occasionally leaves out bits of the footage in order to cut to the same shot later in time, a technique which is called jump cutting. (Type “Godard breathless car scene” into YouTube to see the scene.)

Consider how the directing of this scene differs from standard conventions. In Hollywood at the time, and to a large extent still today, if you wanted to show a conversation you would just film it with no pauses, alternating between both characters, i.e. using the shot/countershot technique. Alternatively, perhaps if you wanted to show tension between the characters, you would add some silence in between their lines. No need for jump cuts.

Both methods of directing and writing have their uses, but what Godard does show us that others fail to is a new perspective on cinema. By presenting us with a different way of putting a story to screen, he opens our eyes to how surprisingly formatted by convention mainstream films are. Watching a Godard film may at first seem odd, unnatural even, but once you realize what makes it so, you suddenly grasp precisely what other directors do to prevent that sensation.

So watching Godard – on top of being a pleasure in itself – is an education in the conventions of cinema. The most interesting part is that fifty years after the release of À bout de souffle and eighty years after Godard’s birth, you might think that these conventions would have changed. But the forms Godard was conscientiously going against have hardly altered. Some changes have been made to accommodate advances in technology, but the director’s basic tools, such as shot/countershot, persist.

Sri Lankans slam Union

Christine Murray
-
0
Sri Lankans slam Union

The Oxford Union sparked outrage last week after cancelling a visit by the President of Sri Lanka at the eleventh hour. Mr Rajapaksa was due to address Union members on Thursday of eighth week on national reconstruction and reconciliation.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa had already arrived in the UK when the Union called off the talk, citing “security reasons”.

High levels of protest from pro-Tamil activists had been anticipated for weeks by Union officials and police. In a statement on their website, the Union said that “due to the sheer scale of the expected protests, we do not feel that the talk can reasonably and safely go ahead as planned”.

In spite of fears, the Thames Valley Police issued a statement saying they had developed “a comprehensive policing operation … to facilitate those who wished to protest peacefully as well as provide an appropriate level of security to the president and his entourage”.

Superintendent Amanda Pearson, Commander of the Oxford area, said that the talk would have clearly caused a disruption to the city centre of Oxford but that Thames Valley Police “did have plans in place to deal with, and facilitate, large numbers of people gathering”.

The decision has caught the attention of the Sri Lankan media, with some reports suggesting that the British High Commission had a hand in the cancellation. In a press conference in London, the Sri Lankan external affairs minister, Professor G.L. Peiris called it “a sign of Britain’s moral weakness”.

Minister for Media Keheliya Rambukwella called the incident “a scar on the Oxford Union and the British government”. The BBC reported this week that demonstrators tried to storm the British High Commission in Sri Lanka’s capital Colombo over the Tamil protests that took place in London during President Rajapaka’s visit.

The Oxford Union stated that it holds a politically neutral stance with regard to speakers and that “the decision was not made in relation to any aspect of Mr Rajapaksa’s political position”.

The Sri Lankan President was met upon arrival at London’s Heathrow airport by hundreds of Tamil Tiger protesters who condemned the Union’s decision to host the talk and this week, Sri Lanka were the subject of the latest Wikileaks cables as it emerged that a US envoy believed that President Rajapaksa bore responsibility for an alleged massacre of Tamils in May 2009.

Oxford Sri Lankan Society, who helped to organise the event, condemned the cancellation, calling it a “unilateral decision” taken by the then Union President James Kingston, and describing his conduct “as ‘highly unbecoming”.

The society has worked in conjunction with the Union on speaker events successfully in the past, and had confirmed twelve ambassadors, five diplomats and the Lord Mayor of Oxford as guests for the event.

Dilan Fernando, President of the Oxford Sri Lankan Society, said that “the most embarrassing thing was the way in which it was cancelled”. He emphasised that Mr Rajapaksa had travelled thousands of miles and claimed that the Union President had a duty to “honour his commitment”.

Mr Rajapaksa expressed regret at the cancellation of the visit, which would have made him the first head of state ever to address the Union twice. He first visited the Union in 2008, during the Sri Lankan Civil War between the government and Tamil separatist groups.

James Langman, the Union President for Hilary term, reportedly travelled to London to apologise in person for the decision, extending an invitation for Mr Rajapaksa to speak just a few days later, once Langman’s official term as president had begun.

The Sri Lankan President politely declined but said in a statement that he would “continue to seek venues in Britain and elsewhere where he can talk about his future vision for Sri Lanka”.

The Oxford Union insisted in its statement that “the decision was not taken lightly” and expressed “deep regret” for having to cancel the visit.

The Oxford Union has a history of inviting controversial figures to speak and emphasises that all views must have a platform. In 2007, the Union came under fire for inviting British National Party leader Nick Griffin and holocaust denier David Irving to speak at a free speech event.

Oxford Blues defy the odds at Twickenham

Alice Kinder
-
0
Oxford Blues defy the odds at Twickenham

Oxford University notched up an unexpected 21-10 win at the Varsity Rugby Match yesterday.

The result marks only the second victory for Oxford in six years.

Having lost to Cambridge last year and endured a disappointing season thus far, the Oxford team were the underdogs in the buildup to the 129th game.

Two tries scored in the first half by Cheesman and Crozier, alongside the skilful kicking of fly half Charlie Marr, secured an impressive win for the Dark Blues.

Captain Nick Haydon told BBC Oxford, “This surpasses all my achievements. To represent Oxford University is a great honour, and to lead the side is a very special moment.”

On their website, the Oxford University Rugby Club described the match, which was attended by over 27,000 people, as “a dominant Oxford performance'”. Man of the Match was awarded to flanker Stan McKeen, who led Oxford’s back row throughout.

MPs back tuition fee increase amid protests

Cherwell News Team
-
0
MPs back tuition fee increase amid protests

There were violent scenes in London yesterday as students demonstrated outside Parliament on the voting day for proposed tuition fee rises.

The initially peaceful protest escalated as MPs delayed voting on the proposals until the 5.30pm deadline and police used containment tactics to control the crowd.

According to the ambulance service, 37 people were injured and 22 arrested on the march, which started at noon on Malet Street near UCL, and made its way towards Parliament Square. A number of Oxford students were among the estimated 20,000 people present.

At around 2pm a standoff between a line of police and demonstrators trying to break through one side of Parliament Square resulted in policemen being chased as they tried to retreat. Shortly afterwards metal fencing on the south side of the square was ripped down and protestors flooded onto the grass.

Police armed with riot gear prevented the protestors from getting closer to Parliament. Missiles such as glass bottles and paint bombs were thrown at them from the crowd.

Although there were standoffs with the police in most corners of the square, there was a positive atmosphere at the centre as protesters lit bonfires, played music, and decorated statues and trees with banners and posters.

However, the mood of the day changed at around 3.30pm, when eight police on horseback charged at the crowd at the South West corner of the square, creating panic and fear.

The police advanced in lines on foot, using batons, whilst protestors used metal fencing to try and drive through the police barrier. The area was then “kettled” by police, and demonstrators were prevented from leaving the square, causing further panic.

Teddy Hall second year Frances Reed witnessed a petrol bomb being thrown at the police. She commented, “it was terrifying, it hit the crowd instead. The level of violence was unacceptable – in hindsight, if I’d known the protest was going to be hijacked by anarchists and idiots I wouldn’t have gone.

“I think the kettling was necessary after the petrol bomb, but there were people in the crowd younger than 15 who got trapped there. It actually looked like everyone was dispersing, but the police lined up with riot vans and pushed forward incredibly quickly and that was when things began to get really nasty. People were really frightened.”

However, some sympathised with the violent protestors. One second year Oxford student said, “I know people can be disillusioned by the violence [of the anarchists] but you have to admire them for sticking by their principles. More than any day since the Iraq war, today has shown how out of touch the people in government are, and how unhealthy this ‘Westminster’ style of democracy is.

“The idea that these people are ‘professional agitators,’ creating violence for violence’s sake, is extremely misleading. They are violent because of their anger at the political process in this country, and because they want something different.”

At around 5.45pm word spread that the vote on trebling university fees to £9,000 had taken place and passed with a majority of just 21 out of 649 standing MPs. MP for Oxford West Nicola Blackwood voted yes, and Andrew Smith of Oxford East voted no.

During the evening the windows of the Treasury were smashed, and in a smaller scale attack, so were two windows of the Supreme Court. However, the crowd seemed unimpressed with this action, calling the perpetrator a “dickhead”.

A breakaway group of protestors moved onto Trafalgar Square, where they attempted to set fire to a Christmas tree, and The Strand, where Topshop and other stores were attacked. The National Gallery was also occupied.

The windows of a car containing Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles were smashed and attacked with paint, drawing condemnation from the Prime Minister and police officials.

A member of the OxfordEducation Campaign, which has been responsible for organising protests in Oxford including the Radcliffe Camera occupation, commented, “it’s really sad that the press seem to have jumped on the violence and what happened to Prince Charles instead of yesterday’s real issues. [Attacking the Royal car] obviously wasn’t about fees and funding, they were shouting ‘off with their heads’, for God’s sake.

“Is it any wonder students are angry when the majority express ourselves through peaceful demonstration and we’re still treated like criminals and our views ignored?”

The proposals to raise fees have triggered a wave of student and school pupil protests, with a march last month leading to an attack on the Conservative headquarters in Millbank.

Dozens of university and school buildings across the country have been occupied by students, including sit-ins at Oxford council offices and university sites. Student union heads and protest organisers promised today that “December 9th is only the beginning.”

The politics of the tuition fees vote

Eustace Arnold
-
0
The politics of the tuition fees vote

ConDemed, with the emphasis on Con. In every sense. Tonight was a triumph of Conservatism and a triumph of lies. Or not so much lies as simple U-turn. Before the election, the Lib Dem candidates signed agreements that they would vote against any increase in tuition fees. The Coalition agreement made that null and void. It said Lib Dems could abstain on the vote. But abstain they did not. In an act of outrageous perfidy the Lib Dem ministers all voted in favour of the Bill. That left 21 of the 57 to fulfil their pre-election pledges, and oppose. Labour opposed; so did the smaller parties. Most of the votes- 295 of them- came from the Conservative party. A tenth of that number were Liberal. That tells you all you need to know about the origins of this Bill.

So the politics is exceedingly complicated. The Lib Dems were divided; and if they had not divided then every different step would irritate somebody. If they had all voted against it would destroy the Coalition and result in a general election which the Tories would probably win. If they abstained the bill would pass. If they voted for they would tear up their principles, their agreements, and their independence as a sovereign party. To get round these problems they made like Cyril Smith’s trousers, and split. As they do over everything. That tells you all you need to know about the Lib Dem position.

The Lib Dems are the centre of this story because the other parties are quite staunch. The Conservatives are in favour of reform. The motion- you might have forgotten- will raise tuition fees to £9000 a year, with a minimum of £6000. I cannot see a rational reason for this. Probably the Tories want to make universities more independent; perhaps they want to tackle the deficit; maybe they think it will help the poor in some way. Labour proposes a different option: students pay, but it’s a tax. A graduate tax. This makes no practical difference. Your human rights are still forfeited: you have to pay for education. If you are poor you will be just as penalised. When asked if he could guarantee that students would pay less under Labour, Ed Miliband replied that he could not. That tells you all you need to know about the Labour position.

Of course the main issue was not debated. How universities should be funded is important. But there are other questions too. What they are for; how many people should attend them; what they are supposed to teach; whether they should even exist in their present form. These are all imperative questions. They were not addressed. That tells you all you need to know about the quality of British politics.

We Need To Talk About Steve

Tom Cutterham
-
0
We Need To Talk About Steve

So the other week an author called Steve Martin did an interview about his new novel An Object of Beauty in front of a paying audience at a cultural centre in New York. The interviewer was a friend of his, and a regular arts interviewer in the New York Times magazine. They talked mostly about art and the art world, because that was the subject of the novel.

As it turned out, that’s not what the audience was interested in. Complaints made their way to the organisers. Then Martin stopped talking about art and answered a few questions about being a massive Hollywood comedy star. Maybe someone asked him what it was like on the set of Cheaper By the Dozen 2. Then a few days later everyone got refunds.

What do we want from interviews with authors? They are now central to the lives of authors, who are not so much writers as the marketers of their own books. Publishing is a notoriously chancy game. Most books will be unprofitable, but there’s hardly any knowing which ones. The modern marketing circus is the publisher’s attempt to take control of a book’s destiny, give it a little shove out of the door.

But why do we readers buy into it, and what do we actually want to talk about with authors? Most authors are not also Hollywood celebrities, so I guess we’re there because we like their books – or think they’re culturally influential, even if hateful. Are we supposed to ask them what their books mean? Maybe, what events in your own life inspired such-and-such a scene, or this and that phrase?

No author in her right mind is going to answer those kinds of questions, although it’s disturbing how many poets at readings like to go on about what they were thinking as they wrote each piece. I guess that’s just what they think punters want to hear. Proust understood that everyone gives unique meanings to the things they read, and half a century on, Barthes gave it a label: “the death of the author.”

Clearly, quite a lot of authors are alive and kicking – or at least they have publishers pulling their strings. All we can do is try to make the most of it. But that emphatically does not mean asking authors to solve all the problems that their writing throws up. Let’s treat them instead as interesting people in their own right. I want to ask someone, “what question have you never been asked that you would most like to answer?”

But then maybe writers aren’t always the interesting people we think they will be. The chef Julia Child once met one she had admired. “Writers are fine, sensitive beings, aware of the world, the inner tensions, alert, inquiring, and thoroughly superior beings. Well.” It turned out he wasn’t. “I have never been so slapped in the face by a wet fish.”

Somehow you have to be critical as well as receptive, you have to stand up for your readers (who are they?) as well as the art you’re celebrating (or not!). The world does not need more writing advice. Except maybe advice for writing interviews. Ok then, how about this for an opening question: “what do you think this interview is for?”

Why David Lammy was (partially) right

David Thomas
-
0
Why David Lammy was (partially) right

David Lammy’s article in the Guardian today, revealing that 21 Oxbridge Colleges failed to admit any black students this year (and that Merton hasn’t done so for five), is a much needed wake up call for this university. Lammy’s article was inflammatory, and deliberately so. He made far too much melodrama over the efforts he went to in obtaining readily available information, and did more than a little bit of statistical fiddling. Much of his point was anti-elitist, and that much of it was wrong, but the rest was what we needed to hear.

 

Lammy was misguided in so far as he blamed the university for actively doing something wrong. I don’t believe for a moment that Oxford is racist – that tutors decide not to admit applicants on their basis of their skin colour. In this sense, the university is off the hook.

 

What is unforgiveable though, is that we see the wrong outside our walls and do nothing about it. It is not our fault that the state education system fails the black students that go into it. Oxford University is not to blame for the fact that over 60% of black Oxbridge applicants turned out not to get three As at A-level. Nor is it to blame for the likely cause of their failure at interview – a lack of intellectual confidence and experience in thinking about new academic problems.

 

But we are to blame for doing nothing to correct this. The University’s access operation is woefully inadequate, and often even perverse. How anybody can justify spending more access funds on Manchester Grammar School than any of the hundreds of schools desperately in need of academic inspiration is beyond me, and is something the University seriously has to answer for. That a single penny is spent at Eton is bad, that far more is spent running lectures series is absurd.

 

The University has and will argue that its job is not to fix the education system, just to admit fairly and offer help to those who have less at their school. This approach of “it’s not my problem” is an embarrassingly selfish one from people who have been so lucky in life. There’s no use just running events for students whose teachers have pushed them to apply to Oxford when talent is falling through our schools like a leaky sieve. Poorer students don’t come here because they take the wrong A-levels, because they don’t have the confidence to believe they’ll get in, and because they don’t even realise how to apply. This happens because Oxford likes to stay put, let students come to it, and shrug its shoulders at the massive educational unfairnesses just beyond the College gates.

 

Like Lammy says, Harvard sends a letter to every high-achieving minority student in the US, and Yale employs access officers in each of the 50 states. Oxford targets its access at public schools. We might not be racist, but we are doing absolutely nothing to change a system of entrenched educational disadvantage. To sit back and watch the education system fail droves of pupils is not acceptable, and if it takes a melodramatic Guardian article accusing us of racism to change, then so be it.

The Squeezed Middle

David Thomas
-
0
The Squeezed Middle

Labour have targeted their latest battle cry at “the squeezed middle”, the vaguely defined concept of anybody and everybody who thinks someone above them is having it easy, and someone below is taking them for a ride. Attempts to pin this group down to a specific class or income bracket have rightly met with ridicule, but this is not because the squeezed middle is a bad strategy to employ. The best political strategies are ones that let voters choose how to define them, and make them relevant to their own lives. Obama succeeded because everyone had a change in mind, and everyone had something to hope for. Onto his campaign they could project these hopes, seeing in the candidate exactly what they wanted to. But if at any point Obama had to pin his change down, to say exactly who it was for, he would’ve collapsed – you can’t fit the majority of the electorate into any sensible definition.

 

What you can do is make it a mantra. Every policy creates a middle, and every middle feels squeezed. Tuition fee reform lets off low earners, gives a free ride to anyone with rich parents, but leave anyone earning above £30,000 noticeably worse off in the long run. Tax policy lets ‘scroungers’ off the hook, and leaves enough loopholes for the rich to domicile themselves in Belize (although this particularly loophole is now closing). Every policy is designed to protect the vulnerable, lest we become a heartless society, and to encourage personal economic success, lest we become even less competitive as a country. Given we need to fund the state somehow, the middle will always bear a high burden.

 

Labour know this. Their passionate support of often ludicrous universal benefits is a commitment to this middle. But having lost the brains that ran the Party for the last fifteen years or so, they’ve forgotten how to catch the middle’s eye.

 

The key is that the middle is not homogenous. Chris Bryant tried defining it in terms of an income of between £16,000 and £50,000 a year – hardly a united socio-economic group. If every policy creates its own middle, then every policy response needs to target that particular middle. Each generates its own injustices, and Labour can pick on them. These middles will often overlap, and could find Labour a core area of support, but this need not be at the expense of any others – individual voters affected by welfare, education or health reforms can at least become sympathisers.

 

Whenever a government is under fiscal pressure, someone has to suffer. The Coalition cannot cut off the vulnerable, but nor can they get a grip on those wealthy enough to squeeze through every loophole. During the Labour years, Brown and Blair managed to keep extending benefits to the middle, drawing them into the New Labour project. Now this is no longer possible, the Coalition risk the wrath of the working mother, the pushy parent, and the petitioning pensioner. They cannot afford to buy these groups off. If Labour want to seize their best chance in 2015, it has to be to harness this resentment.

1...1,8941,8951,896...2,493Page 1,895 of 2,493

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