Tuesday 15th July 2025
Blog Page 194

Oxford University to ban staff-student relationships

Cherwell News and Investigations Section Editors
-
0
Oxford University to ban staff-student relationships

The University of Oxford has announced the implementation of a new policy regarding staff-student relationships, to take effect from 17th April 2023.

The policy, set to govern intimate or close personal relationships between staff and students, prohibits staff who have any responsibility for current students from entering intimate relationships. Furthermore, it “strongly discourages” any other close personal relationships which “transgress the boundaries of professional conduct.”

Failure to comply with the new policy will result in staff being disciplined in accordance with the University’s disciplinary procedures. With regards to existing intimate relationships, the University said: “Any appropriate protective steps taken in relation to existing relationships (reported after the policy came into force) will focus on avoiding conflicts of interest by ensuring the staff member ceases to have, or does not acquire, any responsibility for the student.”

The change in policy comes after many months of development and consultation. It overrules the previous policy, where intimate relationships were strongly discouraged (and required declaration to a line manager), rather than prohibited.

The Hackathon to Cabinet: How the Oxford Union shapes Britain’s political culture

Anna Ashkinazi
-
0
The Hackathon to Cabinet: How the Oxford Union shapes Britain’s political culture

CW: sexual assault

It’s no secret to anyone who reads the news that British politics begins in the cloisters of Oxford (and, to a lesser extent, Cambridge) — but, for many of the thirty Prime Ministers our university has produced, this is only part of the story; more specifically, their road to Downing Street started on the leather-clad benches of the Oxford Union’s debating chamber, and in the cushy armchairs of its bar. Three of Britain’s post-war Prime Ministers — Boris Johnson, Edward Heath, and Harold Macmillan — held one or more of the Union’s four highest offices in their time at Oxford, and many more, whilst not elected to high-ranking offices, were well known in student political circles. The Union’s grip on real-world politics, however, doesn’t end here; to get a flavour of the role the society has played in producing the country’s ruling class, one need only take a closer look at the cabinets of the past 12 years, as we will do later in this article.

A common argument made by defenders of Oxbridge’s hegemony in Downing Street goes something like this: surely it’s not a bad thing that the country is run by educated people who graduated from its two most prestigious universities? Similar logic can be applied to justify the disproportionate influence the Oxford Union has exerted over British politics by supplying future cabinet ministers — surely it’s not a bad thing that our politicians not only are well-educated, but have experience in politics and an illustrious record of political achievements that go back to their time at said universities? Having seen much of the culture of Oxford and of the Oxford Union — with the near-termly headlines about yet another scandal and the indiscriminate hack messages that pour in before every election, the Union is inescapable even to non-members — I feel extremely skeptical about both of these statements. To me, as an outsider, everything about the Union, from the £300 membership fee to the exhausting slate drama on Facebook and the allegations of sexual misconduct that seem to have limited social repercussions for the abuser, has always signalled an extremely toxic culture that’s hardly an environment you’d want the people running the country to have spent the formative stages of their career in. Still, due to a lack of personal experience, I felt that I couldn’t be completely certain in my judgement. That changed last week, when I sat down with two former Junior Officers, KD and RM (initials have been changed for anonymity), to have a chat with each of them separately about their experiences with the Union.

KD is a woman of colour who served on committee before being elected to a Junior Officer post; RM is an ex-state comprehensive school student who served in appointed positions before his term as an elected JO. Both felt that conscious and unconscious biases against the marginalised groups they identify with had a big impact on how their Union careers played out. KD said that, when she served on the Standing Committee, the way she and the other women on the committee were treated by male members had clear misogynistic undertones — their ideas were not taken seriously and often ignored, but when others proposed largely the same things, their suggestions were taken on board. Whilst officers take care not to make overtly sexist or racist comments to avoid getting ‘cancelled’, implicit behaviours that make the Union a hostile environment for women and people of colour are still commonplace; casual comments about ‘incompetence’ are mostly targeted at women, she told Cherwell. This sentiment was echoed by RM: “When I ran for President, at scrutiny you could just see the hatred directed at my representatives who were women of colour that wasn’t present towards the other slate”. 

Another deep-rooted issue within the Union which contributes to a culture of male privilege is reported to stem from members’ and officers’ attitudes to sexual misconduct, which women are overwhelmingly more likely to face in social settings. In the past, KD was sexually harassed inside the Union building by an ex-committee member — she recalled that, she felt nervous about calling out the perpetrator, fearing that others might assume her to be “electioneering” with reputational ramifications. According to KD, all the usual issues that survivors of sexual assault face are exacerbated in a Union context, where everything inherently has a political subtext: “When someone comes forward about sexual assault or sexual harassment, people usually feel bad for the person who’s being accused, and oftentimes they gain more support. Victims are often labelled as ‘psychotic’ or are assumed to be ‘trying to ruin someone’s reputation’, in part because there have indeed been cases of fabricated SA allegations, and women who want to come forward often need male support to be taken seriously. In general, there’s a culture of staying quiet about most things, and when someone has done something problematic, you feel uncomfortable calling it out because it puts the target on your back and you want to keep the peace.” 

The culture within the top ranks of the Union seems to leave limited hope for change; as KD remarked, women and people of colour elected to Officer positions usually try to avoid “feeding into stereotypes” and rarely feel comfortable focusing too much on feminism or antiracism because they anticipate backlash.

Perhaps unsurprisingly for a debating society which charges £300 for membership (£178.50 if you’re eligible for its access membership programme), many instances of classism among members are still reported.

According to KD, access is widely seen as a joke and candidates who care about it are looked down upon as “naïve”. “I’ve known former Presidents,” she said, “who cared about access before being elected but, whilst in office, felt uncomfortable making any real changes because they’d be seen as radical superwoke superlefties. Others have no actual care for access and only put it on their manifestos to tick a box.” 

RM, who got involved in Union politics after being ‘coffeed’ by someone he’d met before university, had many thoughts to share about the Union’s relationship with access. “There was a lot of informal social etiquette I needed to learn that I would already have been familiar with had I gone to a different school. Already as an appointed officer I felt a bias against state-school students. I didn’t quite fit the mould in terms of knowing how to give a performance, and it took me a lot of effort to be seen as a serious person. State schoolers have to go much slower and put a lot more work in if they want to run for office because they don’t have the network that people who went to Eton, Harrow, Winchester and other schools like that do from the get-go.” He shared KD’s view that people who come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds are pressured into feeling uncomfortable talking about access issues and making reforms that threaten the status quo. “When I said I was working-class, that was described as an “openly aggressive statement”, and talking about my life was labelled “weaponising identity politics”. The newspapers were also hostile; during my interview for the Cherwell, one of the questions went something like “you talk a lot about access, but how are you going to help all the other members?” and I wasn’t even surprised because I’m very used to answering to that criticism. Talking about your identity is seen as inherently aggressive and perceived as ‘wokery’.”

The former committee members also gave examples of nepotism that they’ve witnessed – the legacy of the Bullingdon Club appears to live on, if with an extra veneer of (often performative) diversity. “Outsiders” have a hard time breaking into the inner Union circles to begin with: “People with similar backgrounds tend to form cliques within the Union and it’s hard to get in. Culturally, people who went to private school fit in easily, whereas people like me don’t feel welcome in the Union and wouldn’t spend all of our time there. There’s also a lot of insider information passed down within private school circles – for example, I recall two people from the same boarding house being elected to the Union a couple of years apart. It’s common to have parents turning up to vote, and even within the student body, there are lots of people who never turn up to most events but show up to vote for the candidate who went to the same school with even if they don’t like each other,” RM said.

KD expressed a similar idea: “It’s not uncommon for people who are big in the Union to know top politicians personally, and even without those connections, people from wealthy families who went to private school have a much easier time getting elected. Slates play a big part in this. Most people who run for President place a lot of importance on ‘background checks’ when forming their slate: they make a long spreadsheet of names and then ask around within their college to find out what their reputation is, so if you haven’t got to know many people yet and can’t be background-checked, the slate leaders will usually go for someone else even if you’re a very strong candidate. Slating in Michaelmas is especially nepotism-based; there’s a large influx of new members who are eligible to vote creating uncertainty about the outcome of the election, so people try to find big names and go for people who went to Eton, Harrow, Winchester and St. Paul’s. It’s hard to get into Union politics for people who have few connections in the society; if you try to approach people as a non-insider, you seem like a try-hard, so the ideal way to get into the inner circle is to first get to know people casually by going to the same events – drinks, debates, hanging out in the bar – and only then try to get involved.”

On Union nepotism beyond Oxford, KD said: “People mostly get involved to network — it’s a good way to meet people who will be in power 30 years from now. Intergenerational connections are the way the people in power stay in power. Ex-Presidents often come to their Union even after university. Many of them continue to stay friends with other Union people long after graduation, they all move to London and socialise within the same circles. A lot of people get pulled into jobs by Union people they know. I feel that the Union network is a concentrated version of public school networks, and it’s still predominantly posh, white and male.” 

RM spent much of my interview with him emphasising how inaccessible the circles he entered through the Union would have been to him otherwise: “A Union career gives you a lot of privilege, but at the same time, being an officer isn’t an easy job and in many cases, it’s a challenge just to make it through your term. So I’m not saying ex-Union people don’t deserve to be in the jobs they land, they just had a lot of legs up along the way and they come to disproportionately dominate institutions.”

Zooming in on the makeup of the past few Cabinets puts these sentiments on a more solid historical footing. Amongst the members of Rishi Sunak’s cabinet are 3 former Oxford Union Presidents (Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; Mel Stride, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; and Jeremy Quin, Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General), as well as 2 former Cambridge Union Presidents (Lucy Frazer, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and Andrew Mitchell, Minister of State for Development and Africa). As far as other Oxbridge political cliques go, Jeremy Hunt, the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, served as OUCA President in his time at Oxford; OUCA’s Cambridge counterpart, CUCA, boasts two former Chairs (Suella Braverman, Home Secretary, and Greg Hands, Minister without Portfolio — the latter also served on the Cambridge Union committee) in Cabinet. Thérèse Coffey, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, is said to have been involved in conservative student politics to the extent that her time at Oxford was cut short by her academic performance being sabotaged by “extracurricular activities”. In Liz Truss’ short-lived cabinet — in addition to Coffey, Hunt and Braverman — Jacob Rees-Mogg served as Librarian of the Oxford Union before being defeated for the office of President, and Simon Clarke and Graham Stuart chaired OUCA and CUCA respectively. 

Somewhat unexpectedly, whilst Boris Johnson himself is one of the Union’s most notorious alumni, his premiership’s cabinets look almost like a hack-free oasis compared with Sunak’s. The familiar names Hunt, Gove and Rees-Mogg are joined only by Nicky Morgan, Baroness of Cotes, who served as Oxford Union Treasurer, but, like Rees-Mogg, lost her presidential bid later on. Johnson’s predecessor Theresa May appointed two former Oxford Union Presidents (Damian Green and Damian Hinds) and one former CUCA chairman (David Lidlington) to her cabinet. Going another Prime Minister back, the years of the Cameron-Clegg coalition were a good time to be an ex-student politico in Parliament; five Cabinet members (William Hague, ex-Oxford Union President; Kenneth Clarke and Vince Cable, both ex-Cambridge Union Presidents; Baron Young, who served on the Standing Committee of the Oxford Union; and, finally, Dominic Grieve, former OUCA President) started their political careers at Oxbridge.

My conversations with the former committee members I interviewed for this article were insightful, but hardly eye-opening. Everything they said was the sort of thing an Oxford student gets used to very quickly, and it takes a while after hearing them before their mind can take a break from the echo chamber of the Oxford normal. As has been abundantly demonstrated by the likes of Boris Johnson, the Oxford Union is categorically unfit to continue to serve as the factory of Britain’s ruling class — it is, at its core, resistant to reform, has been slow to catch up with societal progress and, in many ways, has done so only performatively. It is an institution whose prestige has done society more harm than good, and, unless we want our future politicians trained at the Oxford Union school of nepotism, something needs to change.

‘Originality is overrated, but we do it anyway’ Creativity in Cosplay

Abigail Stevens
-
0
‘Originality is overrated, but we do it anyway’ Creativity in Cosplay

Fandom communities are harshly judged for their supposed disregard of the fabled concept of “originality.” Some people argue that fanfiction authors are inferior writers because they use other people’s characters and stories rather than devising anything of their own. Cosplay, while not as inherently controversial as fanfiction, raises a similar question: is replicating another’s creation as good as coming up with a “new” idea? Setting aside the argument that all forms of media are ultimately derived and reconstructed from the media the creator has seen, what exactly is the artistic process behind cosplay?

Like fanfiction writers, cosplayers are unbound. There is something freeing in making art which has no commercial value; you don’t have to worry about what will please an editor, producer, corporation, or potential customer, and its only purpose is to bring you joy. Cosplay is also a way to hone your skills; artists often start out by copying other works to practise their technique before trying to break new ground. But don’t underestimate the creative process of recreation, especially in the case of cosplay. Even the ones that are exact replicas from a film, television show, video game, theatrical performance, or another medium, require creative thinking.

While watching the series finale of Game of Thrones, my friend and I eagerly discussed what we would have to do to cosplay Sansa’s gorgeous coronation dress. NB: a few cosplayers on Instagram are working on this very costume, and it is taking them years to complete it. It is an intense and laborious process, especially since due to the obvious copyright problem most people don’t do this for a living and must work a paying job. It involves scouring the internet and bookstores for decent tutorials, digging through bargain bins, and getting inventive with old clothes and accessories.

First and foremost, cosplayers face the challenge of having to recreate something with resources that will never match those of a Hollywood costume shop. Figuring out how they did it isn’t really the point. They probably did it using professional equipment far outside your budget. The question is, how can you, an amateur costume designer with limited funds and tools, do it at home? Can you get some materials from a charity shop? Buy fabric on sale? And if there isn’t a pattern available resembling what you want to make, can you freehand it yourself? Or assemble pieces from different patterns?

With every new project, a new skill is learned, such as careful hand embroidery to fashion a Stark direwolf or moulding foam into armour and weapons. Photoshoots and editing images are a beast in themselves; some pros specialise in cosplay photography, but many cosplayers who want to share their creations with the world will resort to scouting nearby locations, assembling mini sets, co-opting family and friends as photographers, and building up their photoshop skills over time. When they finally complete a project, even if it looks exactly like it did in the show, who will dare say that they didn’t think creatively to get there, or that it is not art?

However, there are those who still think that ‘copying’ someone else’s work shouldn’t be considered ‘creative’. What qualifies as creativity? The process or the final product? How different does it have to be? I find that when cosplayers reassemble old clothing into something that looks enough like what the character wore to convey who they are supposed to be, they still end up with something distinct. And while I will always celebrate cosplayers for the time and energy they put into ‘copies’, there are still many examples of how they come up with their own original ideas. The cosplay community is by no means restricted to only recreating things—in fact, I would argue that they would feel very confined by that.

Some cosplayers will borrow a concept or aesthetic to get started, such as the colours and images associated with a specific character or piece of media. If you have a look at @starbitcreation’s Rapunzel dress, you can see how it was inspired by Disney’s film but is still her own. There are a plethora of additional ways to put a personal spin on costumes seen on screen. Mashups are so much fun, such as Merida wearing Hawkeye’s gear (@armoredheartcosplay), Rey’s Jakku garments layered with Hamilton’s military uniform, or Loki wielding a lightsaber (@silhouettecosplay). Some people will transport a medieval princess to the modern era or gender swap a superhero or anime protagonist. The only limit to what you can do with a character is your imagination.

Yet some cosplays do rely on completely original visualisation, such as book characters with no corresponding adaptation. Book cosplays are some of my favourites; cosplayers are given a general idea of what an outfit might look like, but it is still up to them to design the costume and bring that vision to life. Characters from Leigh Bardugo’s Shadow and Bone were very popular on Instagram long before Netflix adapted the series, and you can see how many different people were given the same basic framework, but all delivered unique results. Finally, cosplayers occasionally dress up as characters of their own—I have seen a few people bring their D&D characters to life this way.

Cosplayers must think creatively, otherwise they would just buy a costume on Amazon. Trying to recreate something that was made in Hollywood or Broadway takes hours of conceptualization and planning, watching DIY videos on YouTube, ripping up your work and starting again. Cosplayers are creative, persistent, and come up with new things every day. Ultimately online fan communities are a way for the fans to express themselves through the characters and stories which inspired them.

Everything Everywhere All At Once: A Review

Darren Trisno
-
0
Everything Everywhere All At Once: A Review

The Asian community was repeatedly promised a film that would provide Asian representation in Hollywood.

The film Crazy Rich Asians, set in my country⁠—Singapore⁠—and with a 100% Asian cast seemed like it would fit the description. It was instead an unrelatable mess filled with billion-dollar bachelor parties and expansive estates: the central conflict being that the super hot trust fund baby’s family may disapprove of you as a potential wife. It represented me as well as a zebra crossing represents a zebra. The colours were the same but everything else was frustratingly unrecognisable. 

Then, it was supposed to be Shang-Chi. The first Asian superhero! But again, I⁠—understandably⁠—found it difficult to relate to the plot of: “my father is an evil dictator with the powers of an alien superweapon and he tortured me as a child to be a fighting machine”. While it delivered the important message that Asian dudes have hot abs too, it needed more. 

Then came Everything Everywhere All At Once (EEAAO).

Who would have thought that a movie about jumping through universes, hotdog fingers, and a racoon that controls a chef Ratatouille-style would be the film that captures so much about what it means to be Asian. If you have not watched it, please do, and prepare some tissues.

Disappointing your parents. I would never dream of claiming it as an exclusively Asian experience. However, in a culture known to produce ‘tiger mums’ and ‘helicopter dads’, this theme hits home hard. Perhaps it is because family values are heavily emphasised, and generations are culturally inclined to pin their hopes and dreams on their progeny. Or it is because instead of discussing the weather with strangers and friends alike, we competitively compare our children (our height, grades, schools, incomes, and partners). Parental pressure has always been a consistent theme in Asian media, from Bollywood’s 3 Idiots to Korea’s SKY Castle. In small doses, it feels good to be loved and supported by your parents. E.E.A.A.O. captures the feeling of when one has an overdose. Joy feels shirked and unloved by her mother Evelyn. In a classically Asian manner, Evelyn has replaced “I love you” and “I’m sorry” in her dictionary with “You should eat more” and “Why don’t you ever call?”. Throughout the course of the film, we also find that Evelyn herself has suffered from the disapproval of her father and highlighting the presence of an intergenerational trauma cycle. This is why when Evelyn does express her love to her daughter in the end (as a rock, or when they’re getting sucked into a black-hole bagel), millions of traumatised Asian children worldwide experience a moment of deep catharsis. Some have even joked that Michelle Yeoh deserves an Oscar just for portraying the inconceivable idea of an Asian mother apologising convincingly. Such a collectively shared Asian experience being touchingly portrayed in the film is one of the reasons why this film is a gem. For those who have felt underappreciated and overly scrutinised, this film offers both an apology to the children and an explanation to the parents. In the end, in the small specks of time we get to spend in this ever-expanding multiverse, we would still like to spend them being surrounded by the people we love. 

For an Asian kid, there is only one critic harsher than your parents. Yourself. Maybe it is the internalised pressure from said parents. Maybe it is the inherently competitive cultures many of us hail from. Maybe it is an overemphasis on hard work and an underemphasis on balance. Honestly, if a multiverse version of my partner told me I was chosen because I failed at everything I have ever done, I would not know what to do with myself. Evelyn similarly struggles with her life choices. Was she doomed to living the rest of her days frustrated and burnt out, running a failing laundromat embroiled in tax issues? Through her going to different universes she sees what she could have been – including a world where she realises her fantasy of being a movie star. But of course, with every universe comes its own regrets. She does not end up with her current husband, Waymond. In a heart-wrenching Wong Kar Wai-esque scene, Waymond breaks her and the audience’s hearts when he says: “So, even though you have broken my heart yet again, I wanted to say, in another life, I would have really liked just doing laundry and taxes with you.” Sure, we all want to be “movie stars”. Especially here in Oxford, the default is that you are ambitious and want to seize the world. While we are all striving to be the best, EEAAO reminds us that appreciating the magic in every day, and the blessings we do have, is sometimes all that we need. Put some googly eyes on your bags to laugh a little. Dance when there is good music. Appreciate the laundry and the taxes of life. 

Waymond Wang. Waymond Wang is proof that empathy and kindness is strength, not weakness as some Andrew Tate-esque followers of toxic masculinity might suggest. When we first met Waymond he seems like the classic bumbling idiot. He is carefree while Evelyn is a ball of stress. But by the end of the movie, we see that this is his superpower, not his weakness. 

As Waymond says: “When I choose to see the good side of things, I’m not being naive. It is strategic and necessary. It’s how I’ve learned to survive through everything… I know you see yourself as a fighter. Well, I see myself as one too. This is how I fight.” He’s right. His ability to empathise and love is what gets through to Evelyn, enabling her to save Joy. His ability to find happiness and spread happiness is a superpower. As a man, representations of what it means to be powerful and to save the day have always been about stoic and often muscle-bound aggression. Take Superman or James Bond. For Asian men, the media has given us the martial arts icons of Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan. Waymond initially saves the day with his fighting skills as well, in a hilarious spin on Bruce Lee’s nunchucks technique using his fanny pack. His ultimate power lies not in his fists but in his heart. He shows that to save the day, it’s not about being physically imposing or knowing how to smash your way out of anything. You don’t need to be a calculated, cold Michael Corleone or a brash, aggressive Scarface. You need to empathise with the people around you. I have had an abundance of Kung Fu stars show me that I can fight, in a million different martial arts forms. Waymond, portrayed movingly by Ke Huy Quan, showed me how I can love too. 

Waymond’s doodly eyes show that his perspective on life has always been the solution to Joy’s (and our) existential dread. Joy’s “everything bagel” black hole is black on the outside with white in the centre. It shows a dark view of the world, where most of it is filled with corruption and evil. Waymond’s doodly eyes are the perfect opposite, with a white outer layer and a black centre, showing that life is filled with mostly goodness. His eyes were first portrayed as a sign of his childishness. Evelyn angrily scolds him, telling him not to put them everywhere, making a mess. When Evelyn puts the doodly eye on her forehead during the climax, showing that she has embraced his way of life, she sees what we see. That the eyes are not a sign of weakness, but the philosophy that will save us from our humdrum, mortal dread. The philosophy of seeing the fun side of things, of making the everyday interesting, and of finding the good in the bad. 

The film itself is supposed to be an attack on your senses. Jumping from universe to universe, with intense colours, choreographed fight scenes and hilarious goofs, all while our protagonists are hurtling toward the end of reality. At its climax, however, it gives us a scene in a universe where life did not form. Our protagonists become two rocks, speaking to each other in subtitles. The theatre that was bursting with noise just seconds ago is left in a deafening silence. It is in this silence that our hero, Evelyn, gets her moment of clarity, and manages to get her message across. That Joy is loved, and while everything is nonsense, love is the meaning of the universe. It perfectly encapsulates the feeling of being overwhelmed in the modern world. With assignments, the never-ending doom scroll, and a million television shows on a billion streaming platforms, one could easily feel overwhelmed. Sometimes, we just need that moment of stillness, of clarity. To breathe and just… be a rock. This might be especially important in the Asian context. Those who have been inside an authentic Chinese restaurant could attest that the interlaying sounds of chefs clanging pots, waiters shouting dialects and customers having loud conversations are part of the experience. Those who have watched Chinese news or any Japanese or Korean game show would tell you that every inch of the screen is filled with blaring text or reaction shots. Breathe. Just be a rock. Maybe the way to solve our own doom spiral is to find that moment of stillness for ourselves. 


EEAAO is a boundary-breaking, deeply entertaining film that deserves all 11 of its Oscar nominations and more. For the Asian community, it is the first true piece of Hollywood representation that has resonated with us. For me, it’s the film that showed me my past, present and future. What I could be, what I should be and what I am. Everything, Everywhere, All at Once.

Cherwell 2023 Politics Poll: 54% of students AREN’T proud to be British

Jack Twyman
-
0
Cherwell 2023 Politics Poll: 54% of students AREN’T proud to be British

Politics and Oxford are closely assimilated. Of the total 57 prime ministers to date, 30 were educated here at Oxford, and the relevance of Oxford on the domestic and international political scene is unquestioned. Cherwell wanted to find out what the current students, who will decide tomorrow’s political future, believe. Are we, as Senator Sanders called our student body, “the most progressive generation yet”? Or is Oxford currently host to the next batch of Boris Johnsons and Liz Trusses? 

Cherwell’s 2023 Politics Poll received nearly 500 responses from students university-wide, mostly from undergraduates. In general, they were dissatisfied with the current UK government with only 4 percent of students somewhat satisfied or extremely satisfied.

Party time

If a general election were to happen tomorrow, Labour would win strongly, with 61 per cent of students hoping to vote for that party. The Greens would be in second, just a percentage higher in popularity than the Conservatives, while 7.7 percent of students would support the Liberal Democrats. Smaller parties received less than three percent of the vote and 5 percent of students answered none and or that they would abstain.

At the college Level, University College is the most staunchly Labour with 100% of respondents supporting that party in an election, beating out famously-lefti colleges like Wadham. 

Stereotypes held true on the other end of the spectrum. The top three Conservative colleges are Oriel, Christ Church and Regent’s Park.

Subject-wise, the top Labour degrees were History and Politics, Human Sciences and Law. Classics and PPE did not top the list of Tory degrees. Instead, Theology, Philosophy and Classical Archeology and Ancient History came out on top.  

When asked to choose between Labour and Conservative, 83 per cent of respondents answered Labour, with only 17 per cent Conservative. On the whole, most students feel that Oxford’s student body is progressive, regardless of party affiliation. In terms of more precise political ideology, 50.8 percent answered Socialism, 23.8 percent Liberalism and 8 percent Conservativism. Despite academia’s far-left reputation, 1.8 percent of respondents answered Communism. When offered the choice between Capitalism and Socialism, most favoured the latter system.

A Labour supporting student said “capitalism has left millions of people in the UK alone to freeze and/or starve this winter while energy companies announce record profits.”  One other said “nobody should be 20,000 times richer than someone else.” “Socialism is the next step in the development of human kind” claimed one respondent, “The late stage capitalism system is a failure that benefits only the few”. Arguments against socialism given in the 2023 Politics Poll pointed at historical failure of socialism, contrasted against the possible freedoms and wealth in capitalist societies.

The future politicians: they’re not just PPEists

Just under a quarter of Oxford students would enter politics in the future, while 77.9 percent had no intention. However, if the job of Prime Minister was offered to them 43.9 percent would take up the post. The majority of students would not like to be Prime Minister and around the same number are unhappy that so many Prime Ministers have been to Oxford University.

Unsurprisingly, the PPEists were the most eager politicians, but still less than half of those students admit to wanting a career in politics. Historians were next likely to aspire to politics, followed by Lawyers, then Classicists and Geographers.

23 per cent of Labour supporters want to enter politics, while 32.5 percent of their Conservative counterparts do. 

One Labour student wrote that “it seems that those that most want to hold leadership positions are actually the least qualified to hold them (looking at the Union and the characters that it attracts).” Another student is disheartened at “the thought that all the Oxbridge educated politicians were just hacks ”.

One Conservative student said Oxford politics is “extremely toxic. JCR Committees and the Oxford Union should both be abolished.”

Freedom to preach

A large majority of Conservative students believe they cannot express their political views in Oxford for fear of potential ramifications. This is juxtaposed by 76 percent of Labour and Green voters who said they were able to express their views freely. Lib Dem voters were split 50/50.

One Conservative said “You are sometimes not allowed to express any view out of the consensus of the student body without unreasonable scrutiny or social loss. I might be allowed to say what I want, but it still comes with consequences.” One Reform voter in the 2023 Politics Poll echoed this sentiment: “It is true what they say… [Oxford] is very left wing dominated, especially by academics. Any slightly right wing comment and you’ve been branded as something you’re not.” Another ‘moderate left’ Labour supporter described the cancel culture as ‘worrying’.

Nevertheless, there are many political forums in Oxford. The Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA) and Oxford University Labour Club (OULC) both hold debate and drinking events. OUCA has Port and Policy, and OULC has Beer and Bickering. Only a small fraction of respondents had been to either: 16.9 per cent for Port and Policy, and 22.7 per cent for Beer and Bickering. Those who attend attest to prejudice at times, including one student who “despite being a socialist, had very unpleasant experiences with those politically involved on the left” due to their attendance of Port and Policy.

The reputation of these groups is not good overall. One student said that “the only thing worse than the OUCA (private school Tories who are completely out of touch) are the private school commies who are completely out of touch.” Another claimed “student politics is mostly useless. The big names in OULC or OUCA won’t be the Oxbridge graduates who make big change in years to come.”

When asked about the political scene in Oxford one student said: “There’s the joke that everyone at Oxford wants to be prime minister. I mentioned this to some of my friends, one said “oh no, I only want to be a SPAD”, the other said, “well, I’d be happy with a cabinet position personally”. The thing is they weren’t even joking.”

Another student believes that there are students with the intelligence and empathy to solve political problems, however, “those people are not likely to be the people that go into politics. Unfortunately, politics tends to select ugly people that crave power and status.”

One disillusioned student also hated this trend and the “union to Westminster pipeline”, which creates politicians who “think politics is a game, and it’s like they’re still at Uni.”

Re-drawing party lines and re-writing political discourse

Students were asked if they feel represented in the political discourse of today. Most answered no. When broken down at a party level, Greens felt the most left- out, followed by Conservative students, then Labour supporters and Lib Dems. 

Socialist and conservative students had many grievances. Green students told the 2023 Politics Poll that “the mainstream political discourse is between outright fascism on one side and a socially conservative economic liberalism on the other.” One student who chose Labour said: “Kier Starmer is a red Tory”, another feels that “champagne socialists have taken over.” Disillusioned Conservatives students complained that they didn’t feel represented in the House of Commons or Lords.

Many students complain of a lack of centrist options or nuance in contemporary politics. One noted that there is “no credible centre-centre-right option”. Another pointed out that their “views (perhaps because they are so divergent on various issues) are not well-represented by the political elite, even though [they] may mix with the future political elite.” One simply because “Nobody is nuanced.” 

Political discourse and party power angered many. One student bemoaned a lack of “serious opposition to Brexit within political discourse”. Lib Dem students said the “Political discourse is too focused on the power of parties and not making meaningful changes.” One Reform UK student said that “there is no party that wants low government intervention anymore” another said “too often people are put into one group or another based on one viewpoint they have or even based on appearance.” One SNP voter worried that “in the day and age when MPs tell everyone 15-minute cities are an attempt to “take away personal freedom” I don’t know if we’ll ever approach reasonable and informed political discourse.”

Non-traditional parties do thrive at Oxford, with one Monster Raving Looney Party supporter expressing that the voices and issues they care about “are shut out by many other louder voices on much more menial topics.”

Rule Britannia?

Students were asked, if applicable, whether they were proud to be British. A narrow majority of 54 percent said “No”, while 46 per cent said they were proud to be British. Nearly all Conservative voters were proud to be British, while the vast majority of Green voters were not. 

Most of those who are not proud to be British are Green and Labour students. One Labour student said “I love my home, but when I think of Britain as an entity in both the past and present it’s hard to find much that’s worth being particularly proud of – even our “successes” are built on blood.”  Some others said simply because “We left the EU”,  “the police are corrupt”  and that they were proud “sometimes when we play football but don’t like all the colonial stuff.” Numerous respondents referred to Britain as “Terf Island”. 

Many Labour student opinions were related to the current government. A further student surmised: “The way the government has conducted itself in the last few years is disgraceful, and makes me ashamed to be associated with what they represent about Britain.” A second labour student was more explicit: “First world country that oppresses its poorest. Why would I be proud of this?”.

Those who answered in the affirmative did so for a variety of reasons. Conservative and Reform voters were almost wholly found in this category. Many said “we are the most important country in world history”, with “great culture”, a “glorious history” and “wonderful Tradition”. One called the UK the “Stronghold of Protestantism and the beauty of the Anglo-Celtic union.” Another said “luv me country, luv me beer, ‘ate the french. Simple as.” 

One proud Liberal Democrat student said “while flawed in many ways, Britain has one of the most successfully multicultural societies in the world and, as a result, an amazingly diverse culture, especially in the cities.” 

There were a good number of Labour voters who were proud of being British. One student answering the 2023 Politics Poll said that “humour and pubs are good”. “Our great universities (both of them)”. Others mentioned the UK’s “great queues,” “Monarchy,” “The North, “sport, history, culture, national values.” “Our shared knowledge of those random Christian songs we sang in primary school. Our inability to decide what a roll/bun/bread should be called.”

When it came to one of Britain’s most famous institutions, the monarchy, most students would abolish it. A strong minority however, believe it is important. This minority values its history and sees royal power as the essential referee in our political system.

This question had a strong partisan divide: 85 percent of Conservatives would keep the monarchy, while 56 per cent of Labour supporters would abolish it. Labour students in favour of abolition said: “There is no need for the people to support the socially useless feudal elite.” Another said “While not something I would push for at the expense of more practical concerns, the monarchy is obsolete and contributes to the UK’s archaic political culture.” One Lib Dem called it a “functionless institution.”

Some conservatives in the 2023 Politics Poll had a mixed opinion on the monarchy: “I don’t want to abolish it but I can understand it being gradually phased away over the next couple of generations of the family”. Many students also had weaker opinions on abolishing the power of the royal family, one writing “We should…but like eh. They’re kinda fun.”

Sam Smith’s Gloria is Queer, Controversial Perfection

Jack Twyman
-
0
Sam Smith’s Gloria is Queer, Controversial Perfection

Sam Smith was once Pop’s ‘Most boring figure’ and shot to stardom as they crooned their heartbreak ballads to a receptive audience of every age. Far from their breakout song Latch, their main body of work was marked by Not the only one, Stay with me, and Too Good at Goodbyes, and peaked with their title song for the James Bond movie Spectre with Writing on the Wall.

So what is so different for the album Gloria – one that has catapulted Smith into a different genre where their voice so effortlessly belongs? Well not a huge amount. Smith told Jennifer Hudson on her talk show that “Sad was safe for me, and that in this album I play round with many different emotions, happiness and anger”. Smith’s 2020 album Love Goes would be what I describe as a melancholy but warm summer breeze – still in touch with their roots as a ‘sad song’ artist, but with a more euphoric and creative spin. Songs like Love Goes with its trumpet serenade climax, the dance anthem How do you sleep?, and the powerful I’m Ready all hold clues as to the direction this album would take. 

Smith came out in 2014 after the release of their first album and sung openly about their sexuality in their 2017 album The Thrill of it All with the song HIM. This song captured the choral essence that would make Gloria the song to title this new album. The first song of Love Goes also captured this with Young explicitly opening up to the topic. What Gloria does most effectively is being a ‘Queer Love Poem’. It is breathtakingly diverse in tone, but relatable on every level to queers universally. 

Expectations for the album were high when Unholy dominated charts and catapulted Smith to new heights of stardom, and they would be awarded a Grammy and BRIT in the process. This new dance-style genre is expanded upon with Gimme and I’m Not Here To Make Friends. Smith’s tone perfectly matches the melodies in these songs producing anthems that only grow your love of the song with every play.

I must admit that these three songs are very different to the basis of the album. Most songs keep in touch with Smith’s more serious norm of focus. Yet far from being sad ballads, to me, these songs are comforting and warm. My favourites How to Cry and Who We Love are so relatable to me with my sexuality, that I find myself gravitating to them above any of those dance anthems. 

What must be said is that the synergy of the album is precise. While it may jump around in terms of mood, this is perhaps why it achieves perfection, as it beautifully captures the strong emotions and mood swings that are part of being queer today. From joyous celebration, to deep unease, and then to self-empowerment, Gloria is so good because it represents these effortlessly. Perfect leads into Unholy with a string crescendo in a brilliant way. 

The song and namesake of the album Gloria is a powerful choral hymn that gives permission for queers to engage in the sounds of joyous faith without any of the baggage conventional religion brings. No God and Perfect encourage us to reflect and challenge those around us and ourselves who are guilty of perfectionism. 

Unlike Smith’s other album covers, Gloria features Smith looking directly into the camera, and makes eye contact with every listen. Previously, Smith looked away, and normally downwards – reflective of the down, sad emotions those albums capture. This is further evidence that Smith is reaching musical and emotional maturity in this album, presenting themself as developed. 

Queer people have many power anthems already – one only has to shuffle RuPaul or Todrick Hall to be blasted with empowerment. But Smith has had one of the biggest songs of the season, bringing this empowerment into the mainstream, while also bringing the queer experience onto a high platform with all its navigational difficulties. 

The album has of course not been without controversy. After Smith’s GRAMMY performance where they donned devilish ears, Piers Morgan branded it ‘Satanic’ and ‘Cowardly’. Personally, I think that there’s nothing cowardly about Smith’s transformation from shy balladist to expressing themselves unapologetically. Smith performed Unholy during the performance, which by definition would encourage association with those deemed most unholy – devils. If someone’s faith is so sensitive to seeing an imitation of the devil on stage that it is irreversibly challenged by this, then I think the issue is with their faith, not Sam. 

Smith has been sexually explicit in music videos – namely I’m not here to make friends which involves very eye-raising content. There is always a fine line between being unapologetic about who you are, and then just vulgar. But Smith was always going to have the extra baggage of their sexuality and identity behind any criticism they received. Furthermore, Smith’s size has drawn criticism not given to Harry Styles despite wearing similar outfits. Perhaps being straight and skinny allows for more forgiveness in the press? Body shaming is rife within the queer community too, so Smith is fighting a battle on many fronts. 

Whatever criticism Smith received, I don’t blame them for any of it. If anything, it’s a smart move to garner more media attention by dabbling in the Culture Wars stoked by the alt-right. Yet, a video recently emerged of Smith being verbally abused in an encounter in New York’s Central Park. Regardless of your oepinion of Smith, no individual should ever be subject to harassment just because they have expressed their identity. What Smith has performed in, worn, or shared is no reason for hate. 

Smith is not forcing anyone to watch or listen to their work, rather celebrating themself on the platform their work has created. It is a beautiful transformation to watch. Yes, it may challenge our biases instilled by society over what is ‘normal’, but Smith is forging a new path through tough conditions, one which many others will be able to follow in order to attain inner-happiness much more easily. For the ‘Freedom Caucus’ and free speech ‘warriors’, perhaps letting others express themselves freely can be a challenge, and so this is something for them to work on. 

Gloria was always going to be part of a new chapter for Smith. Figuring out who you are is a constant process, and one that the album captures well. For the queer community as a whole, this album is a welcome addition to queer culture, and I am excited to see where this direction takes Smith next.

Ukraine and Oxford on the anniversary of the invasion

Jack Twyman
-
0
Ukraine and Oxford on the anniversary of the invasion

Cherwell interviewed Oxford Ukrainian Scholars and refugee coordinators as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine reached its one year anniversary.

Friday 24th February 2023 marked a year since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with the anniversary Peace Rally in Radcliffe Square attracting impressive crowds in a strong show of Oxford’s solidarity. The University launched a Ukrainian Scholarship scheme in May last year to help post-graduates from across Ukraine live and study in Oxford.

Cherwell interviewed three recipients of the Ukranian Scholarship alongside the Programme Coordinator for ‘Refugee Academic Futures’ and a member of the Kharkiv and Przemyśl Project (KHARPP). Cherwell also caught up with a Romanian engineer involved in provision for Ukrainian refugees who first spoke to Cherwell a year ago, and visited a special Ukrainian exhibition at the Pitt Rivers Museum.

Sofia Nosirova is a student on the Ukrainian Scholarship Scheme. Studying Historical Linguistics has always been her dream and “this scheme was at Oxford, so I felt a responsibility to take this opportunity to apply, and I didn’t believe I would be admitted”. When she arrived she found “the people here are extremely supportive and helpful and that outdid expectations”. 

She adds that Oxford events have fostered a “community of people and [an] environment where everyone wants to share experiences.” However, “[y]ou do feel very isolated – my longest stay abroad was Michaelmas term”. This is exacerbated by having her parents and grandparents back in Kyiv. 

There are many potential trigger points in Oxford. From overhearing Russian-speakers, to being presumed to speak Russian and like Russian culture, and people misunderstanding the situation. Sofia says this means there is “a constant feeling of danger actually here and anywhere abroad. Anywhere … outside Eastern Europe”. Thankfully, she adds, “college are being really supportive of students’ well-being”.

After arriving in Poland her “biggest shock was the civilian plane [at the airport] because I was scared of it. I have never seen a military plane but I have heard them. This plane was white, grey, and ridiculously big. All the people were so relaxed and living carefree as if there was no war in their town”. 

Sofia spent five months in Ukraine during 2022 and tells me that “people are trying to go on with their lives. They are attempting to find this war-life balance”. Generally, “[p]eople are succeeding”.

In response to whether she finds it hard to relate to people here, Sofia says she places people in several categories: “There are Ukrainians who were in Ukraine on the 24th of February. These people have a huge variety of experiences and I don’t understand all of them, but we are kind of together. [Then] there are Ukrainians who are not in Ukraine on the 24th of February. They’re kind of the same group as us however they don’t fully get it and sometimes they have the wrong story.”

The next category is “Eastern Europeans”, who can relate from Soviet times, as “they hate Russia”, but “they don’t get it either. They’re not supposed to get it. I don’t want them to get it. I don’t want anyone to get it”. The fourth group is people from post-colonial countries because “they hate colonialism”, but they do not have the same connection to Russia. This categorisation places many westerners firmly outside of any capacity to relate, and no more is this shown than in Sofia’s candid account of the outbreak of war. 

On the night before the war broke out, Sofia was due to go on a trip with her friend to a concert. She revounts how “in the taxi on the way to the train station we were reading the news and discussing it with our driver and trying to decide if we should go or not”. Then, “suddenly we heard an explosion. And you know, we hadn’t heard explosions before. We didn’t know what an explosion sounded like. And that explosion was pretty far away. It was outside the city. So it wasn’t very loud – wasn’t very clear. And you were like whoa, is this an explosion or is it not?” 

This continued when they arrived at the station and they went inside. Eventually they decided on their plans: “Well, why not? It’s not less safe than here. So we took the train.” Soon “we were sitting on the train, waiting for it to leave. And we heard another explosion. I was still not sure if it was an explosion. The third one. That one was louder but we were still not sure because there was no siren and no alert”. Sofia tells me that five minutes after each explosion a piece of news would confirm it as an explosion, “and we were still discussing our options when the train departed”. 

Once they arrived after many delays they found a cafe with wifi as Sofia needed to hold an online class “but only one person came and we decided not to have a class today because today is such a special day. You shouldn’t study”. Unsurprisingly the concert was cancelled and they went to the bus stop: “We took the bus that was about two or three hours late because of the shelling because the road was destroyed and the bus had to go through the fields. So you imagine the mental state of the driver.” 

Sofia and her freind made it to Lviv and spent a week renovating a bomb shelter which they immediately moved into. Sofia told Cherwell “I’m so glad I wasn’t alone”. 

Sofia’s stoicism is striking. She tells me she plans to go back to Kyiv during the Spring vacation. She is positive in her outlook and believes that Ukraine will be victorious. 

Sofia finishes the interview by noting that “war changes everything, especially your perception of life”. She continues: “Something I’d like to say to all the people helping Ukrainians is it depends on the person and on the trauma, but you cannot make it right. You can make it better. You will not make those people happy. You will make those people okay. You can help them to deal with their problems, but you can not solve them. And you cannot make them happy, just make them feel safe. And even if you do your best, they will still be extremely grateful. They will feel so much better.”

Daria Koltsova, another Ukrainian Scholar, is an artist focusing on social and political problems. She told Cherwell:  “Oxford gave me the opportunity to continue my practice, to keep working and be able to get a supportive, intelligent community to collaborate and discuss….Oxford is very supportive. However the whole country is. I came here from Germany and the difference is obvious.”

One trigger point for Daria  “is the idea that Ukrainian refugees are privileged”. Daria is an active figure on the Oxford art scene having held a talk in early February at the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) in Oxford. She told Cherwell: “All my art is built on artistic research about war, traumas, and resilience. I gathered bunches of stories. I worked with refugees and military people to create the projects, I engaged families of missing people, I analysed my own traumas and inter-generational traumas as well. For me art is a weapon and a chance to deal with my traumas, to sublimate. Now I’m working on four projects about war and colonial traumas.”

Looking towards the future Daria says: “I feel that we all changed too much, there are many years of hard work to restore the country. I feel myself a part of the lost generation and we now have so many challenges to overcome, to decide where to live, to be useful for the country and to find our ways to live a happy life. We will never feel safe again near Russia. I know that we will win, but the price is enormous, the best were killed, 60% got really serious psychological traumas, young people became injured, thousands of Ukrainian children were kidnapped to Russia. It sounds like an amount of work for 2-3 generations.”

Yaroslava Bukhta is also arecipient of the Ukrainian scholarship. She believes in the importance of the scholarship as “here we have the opportunity to represent Ukraine in the academic world and learn the skills and knowledge essential for the reconstruction of our country in the future”.

She adds: “It highlights the necessity of the decolonising of Ukraine as a locus of study – since in academia it is still often viewed through the lenses of ‘post-soviet’ rhetorics. Luckily, the changes are happening already, and we as Ukrainian scholars in Oxford are doing our best to be the drivers of those changes.”

Being in Oxford during the war is difficult: “In a sense, it is like living in two realities: in one of them you are pursuing a degree in the best educational institution in the world and doing your best to come out a great professional; in another one you keep monitoring the situation in your home country and worrying for your beloved ones.”

However, Yaroslava is upbeat. She told Cherwell: “Still, it is a daily reminder of what we are here for: to be able to build a better future for our country and the children of those who are now protecting Ukraine and the world by the price of their lives.

“On the 23rd February last year I had plans for work, studies and had work for my first masters degree. On the 24th we woke up at 5am from calls from our parents and switched on the news. It felt quite like a bad dream, it was very surreal and didn’t feel like it would last for a long term. But two, three weeks and months later you realise that it’s not a sprint, it’s a long term marathon.

“War is not an experience that any of us are ready for. Imagine normal life here in Oxford with lots of things going on around, and this is all suddenly interrupted by missiles that can kill your family and loved ones at any moment. Your friends take up arms and go to fight on the frontline. Life has changed completely. It goes on in a very different way than it used to be before the 24th February.

“I was in Ukraine when the war started. I spent the first two weeks under the Russian Occupation together with my family. We managed to escape. I went to Brussels to stay at my aunt’s place. I started working again in Brussels as a journalist as I thought it was important to bring a Ukrainian perspective into the Brussels media world. And to be able to speak about Ukraine and raise attention. Then I applied for my scholarship and came here.

“The scholarship I have here in Oxford emerged as a response by the University of Oxford to the beginning of the full scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. I believe the role of us 26 Ukrainian Scholars is to a greater extent make an influence in each of our fields, and to bring a Ukrainian perspective into these fields, something that has been absent for many, many years.

“Each of these bright minds can help to change the situation in the World. War in my country made me more sensitive to conflicts in other countries. It made me think more globally in a sense of the changes that each of us can make in our own countries, to make the world generally a better place within which to live.”

Asked what she would say to Oxford students, Yaroslava told Cherwell: “Each one of us here has an incredible opportunity not only to get something from this place, but also to meet so many people from different countries. My message would be to stay sensitive to the real world. The world doesn’t end at the walls of this University. These are real issues, real challenges, and real peoples’ lives [beyond these walls]. We have real power to influence those lives, so don’t waste your opportunity to make someone’s life better.”

Yaroslava believes a certain ‘war fatigue’ is setting in among the University, the Colleges and the wider Oxford community, and “therefore, we are trying to do our best to contribute to the war effort from abroad and appreciate any signs of help and solidarity coming from the Oxford environment”, with Friday’s  Peace Rally being a key part of this. 

Myroslava Hartmond is the Programme Coordinator for ‘Refugee Academic Futures’ at the Oxford Department of International Development. She told Cherwell: “The intake of 26 sanctuary scholars across 23 different colleges on the new Graduate Scheme for Ukraine Refugees, alongside other programmes that brought brilliant Ukrainians to Oxford — both students and fellows — is completely unprecedented. We have the highest number of Ukrainians studying and working at Oxford than ever before. At no point in the University’s history had there been a scholarship geared specifically towards Ukrainians.

“Some have voiced their concerns that Ukrainians had been given an unfair priority as white Europeans (by contrast with refugees from the Middle East and Africa in previous years), calling out systemic bias. However, the [University’s]dynamic response has demonstrated that the system can and must do more for refugees if they want to attract the best talent from around the globe, and a new infrastructure is being put in place to provide more financial, administrative, and welfare support for those applying to the University from a background of displacement.

“What’s more, if many endowments for national scholarships limit their yearly intake to one student, and Ukraine has been independent since 1991, then present numbers have given the country a chance to catch up. For so long, Ukraine has been in the shadow of its Soviet legacy and the colonial narrative of its eastern neighbour — Russia, benefiting from neither EU or Commonwealth frameworks.

“While both humanitarian and military aid remain essential to Ukraine as the war drags on, we see evidence of a new resilience and self-awareness developing in the mainframe of all Ukrainians — both at home and abroad. No matter where we find ourselves, a part of our mind and our heart is always with those people and places that we left behind. Thus, every Ukrainian shoulders a double burden, regardless of the benefits that displacement may bring in the form of free housing, financial support, or scholarships. Most Ukrainians I have spoken with intend to return home as soon as they are able, many have done so already.

“The war in Ukraine has put the country — its people, its culture — on the international agenda, and a year on from the start of the shocking events we must ensure that momentum is not lost in campaigning for a better representation of Ukrainian content in the public imagination, media discourse, academic curricula, [and] in museum collections. Working closely with Multaka-Oxford, the Refugee Studies Centre (which administrates the Ukrainian scholarship) has developed the first-ever after-hours tour of the Ukrainian exhibits in their important 500,000 item anthropological collection. This will be an effort to better the University’s understanding of Ukrainian material culture, as well as an effort to decolonize some of the narratives around it, frequently imported wholesale from Russian sources.”

Charlotte Farrar is a member of the refugee response initiative KHARPP, founded by Oxford alumnus Ada Wordsworth. She told Cherwell she took a gap year and first came to Przemyśl last summer. The city receives many Ukrainian refugees due to its proximity as the first major station after crossing the Ukrainian border.

Charlotte says that “there’s lots of people from all over the World who help people when they first arrive. The Ukrainians often don’t know where to go so we help them with their belongings and provide clothing and food”. KHARPP also has a project in Kharkiv directly helping Ukrainians manage their response on the ground. 

Charlotte first got involved at St Andrews Universirty, lobbying the Russian Department to add more Ukrainian elements to the curriculum. However, she says “I felt like that wasn’t really sufficient and as I have been studying Russian for 3 years now I wanted to do something useful with that”. Studying Russian has had implications for Charlotte. She told Cherwell:  ‘I think there’s sort of a strange balance at the moment, especially among people who speak Russian or study Russian. They have the feeling of sort of shame and how that perpetuates this imperialism and, you know, cultural domination, but at the same time, given the number of Ukrainians that speak Russian, it’s also a useful tool.”

Asked what she would recommend to Oxford Students wanting to help Ukraine, Charlotte told Cherwell: “There are many differing levels of involvement. I did a lot of stuff at the university and at the community level at first, and I think that was meaningful. We raised hundreds of pounds and sent them for military equipment. I also know people who have been hosting Ukrainian refugees.

“I think there are ways on a more local level to get involved to support Ukrainians, within your own community. But I think on sort of the higher level, you just need that first connection to use as a jumping off point.”

Charlotte says her Russian professors and Ukrainian friends within the department were her staying point: “Thankfully, within the UK, I think all the Russian departments are quite connected, so they knew KHARPP … I think just having that one connection is sort of enough. Also, finding organisations on social media is great as you can tell which ones are still active.” 

Regarding the future, Charlotte told Cherwell that  “there was a lot of talk, from Western analysts, about how we would see a huge flow of refugees coming out in December and January, because of power outages and the harsh winter”. However, “that really hasn’t materialised. There’s been a slight rise in the number of refugees coming out. But there also were a lot more refugees going back into Ukraine for the holidays”. With a new spring offensive planned by the Russians Charlotte says that “there could be an increase but most people are not equipped to really predict that [effect] accurately”.

Charlotte told Cherwell: “When the strikes on critical infrastructure started [in September] there was a big wave of refugees coming out of Ukraine. But there also was an anecdotal difference in the types of people who were leaving.  Prior to that it’s been a pretty good mix of ages and people with children, people without children, lots of older people and also people crossing the border for travel or to go grocery shopping and things like that. After those first strikes in the first week, every single person we saw coming off the train had a young child so I think there are certainly moments where I’ve seen sort of a major, at least visual, difference in the types of people who are leaving.”

The outlook from Poland is positive. Charlotte says “everyone sort of talks about when Ukraine wins the war, because ‘we know it’ll happen’, and then fills in the blank of this sentence after that”. She speaks of someone she met who was returning to Ukraine: “I asked: Why have you chosen to go back? ‘Oh, well, I really need to work. I couldn’t work where I was staying. So I’m returning to Western Ukraine. Plus, I know that when the war ends, which the Ukraine will win and it will be soon, then it will be worth being home anyway’.” This is part of what Charlotte  calls “the sort of the self-sustaining ideology of people and most Ukrainians I come into contact with”.

There are disparities in the treatment of refugees, and as 50% of the volunteers are Polish local customs are translated into this work. “There are quite a lot of Roma, Sinti people who have left Ukraine since February 24, or who have been in Poland and back to Ukraine and sort of migrated between the two. Roma, Sinti people do face racism in Poland and in the majority of Europe, and from white Ukrainian refugees themselves”. She adds that “they have an especially hard time accessing benefits as refugees. They’re often not allowed into the shelters for ‘safety reasons’. And they often have to argue with people in order to secure food or clothing”. This is “quite a major issue that I don’t think has been covered a lot in Western media but beyond that, generally there’s a pretty welcoming spirit toward Ukrainian refugees”.

Charlotte remebers an elderly woman from Kharkiv who arrived in Poland in September: “She arrived with nothing, she didn’t have a phone, she just had a piece of paper with her daughter’s name on it and a phone number because her daughter was living in Germany. She told me that her husband and her mother had been left behind in Ukraine, and that her husband was there to take care of her mother because this woman was quite old. Her mother was extremely elderly and not in any condition to travel. And the woman had been staying there with her family and had sent her daughter away but had stayed herself because she didn’t want to leave. I think it’s quite a common sentiment, especially among the older generation who feel they’ve built their homes in Ukraine. They would rather die there than in some strange place abroad.  But then finally, when the other houses right around her rural village had been bombed, and then her house was shelled and essentially destroyed, she finally decided to leave.”

Charlotte is originally from Tucaloosa, Alabama and tells me of the experience her family had sponsoring her Ukrainian friend: “I think especially given the international reputation of Alabama, one probably wouldn’t expect there would be an incredibly warm welcome for a refugee who speaks limited English. Of course, I think as we’ve seen with all or the majority of Ukrainian refugees since February, there is an element of race at play but nonetheless, we weren’t really sure how it would go.”

Her friend is now working at the local bakery and is settling in well. Charlotte says that  “seeing people in this fairly small community in Alabama come together to help this woman was quite heartwarming”.

Charlotte is also working with Dattalion, a witness database that aims to document Russian war crimes, and also stories of human resilience. There are 170 unique accounts on the database, many that cannot be included as a result of their content. The sheer personal toll of the war becomes evident with each one. 

One example is from Dnipro, from the founder of a glass company ‘OKME Ukraine’: “Since the first days of the war, he has been helping the Ukrainian military with his own funds and with the funds of his business partners. He sends cars, body armour, helmets, goodies for soldiers, copters, generators, binoculars, sights to the front. In most cases, assistance goes to the 93rd separate mechanised brigade – Kholodniy Yar – and to the intelligence of the 239th battalion. They will help rebuild accommodation in Chaplyno. After the rocket fire there, windows and panes were broken. Windows are now being installed in several apartments. And they also help a woman who took care of her 8 grandchildren and great-grandchildren.”

Another account from Dnipro is that of an accountant and mother: “The woman’s family was at home when the rocket exploded near their house at 100 Kalynova Street. The woman covered her daughter with her body. The shock wave broke all the windows in the house. The crater from the rocket was formed 20 metres from the house. The second rocket hit the building of the Ukrtelecom enterprise.”

There is a more positive story  from a Donetsk serviceman who lived with his family in Mariupol: “When the war started, he joined the ranks of the Armed Forces. The couple has been married for a long time, they are raising a daughter, but when he was wounded in Azovstal, he promised his wife to get married in the church. The man fulfilled his promise. In Dnipro, the serviceman entered into a church marriage with his wife. She and her daughter miraculously managed to get out of Mariupol. Both said goodbye to life more than once.”

Finally, Cherwell interviewed Florin Musiuc, a Romanian engineer who now lives and works in Hertfordshire. Cherwell first spoke with Florin a year ago to learn more about the Romania-Ukraine refugee crisis. Florin fundraises in the UK to support his friends back in his hometime of Gura Humorului in Romania, near the border with Ukraine. The neighbouring town, Siret, is a popular crossing point to Ukraine.

The situation in Florin’s hometown is ‘fluid’ but, a year on, “things are quite organised now, compared to the first weeks, and we just don’t notice as much…. It is a continuous process, they come and go”. Florin adds that It goes up and down with the way the conflict is…. Most of the refugees are from the South of Ukraine like Odesa, or Western cities like Lvov, or Kyiv”. 

Asked what happened to the 60 families his contacts in Gura Hymorului were hosting, Florin told Cherwell: “At least one or two families have stayed since last time we spoke. These are families with young children who decided to stay after getting attached to one another. Some have decided to go back home, or stay in Romania, or transit to relatives in Poland and other European countries.”

The Ukrainians are “very grateful generally”. Florin says that “I have seen some photos from the summer time when some families left. The children prepared some paper with ‘Thank You’ drawn with coloured in Romanian and Ukrainian flags and they posted the papers on the car windows. It was very emotional when they left”. Apparently the Ukrainians always have destinations in mind before they leave, mainly in Western and Southern Europe. Florin says that they have names and contact numbers for “each and every” Ukrainian they have hosted over the past year, surmounting to hundreds.

Last year, Florin told Cherwell about the Ukrainian DJs he followed on Instagram who were using their platforms to raise awareness. The DJs are still releasing music. Now, however, “whenever they upload, they say ‘this has been done through the power cuts’, or that ‘it wass difficult to finish this track as you never know when the power is going off or when it will be back on’”.

As Gura Humorului is a small town and not a major city, refugees generally transit through. Florin notes that “there is also not much opportunity and the economy couldn’t absorb that many workers. But in other big cities a lot of them got jobs in IT, barbering, beauty or whatever. There’s a lot of them who decided to settle in and decided to stay”.  Asked if those who do decide to stay are welcome, Florin says yes.

Florin is thankful that financial support is now available for refugee hosts: “So there is definitely not as much financial pressure as it used to be in the first few weeks. The rich ones, they did not expect to be hosted by locals – they actually booked all the luxury hotels – they are the lucky ones per say. They had enough resources to get on with their lives. Then there are the poor ones who are not as privileged so they do have to rely on the empathy and support [of Romanians].”

Surprisingly, Florin says that “a lot of Ukrainians decided to go back – as while the war is still unpredictable, it is more predictable than it used to be in the beginning phases. Those who are less exposed or at lower risk of being attacked have decided to go back to their homes and get on with their lives”.

Florin says that “a month ago there was a 20km queue of lorries (and vans) trying to cross the border back into Ukraine”. A lot of the grain exports are being done via roads and “so lots of lorries from Ukraine and Romania waiting to go in and out of Ukraine transporting the grains to the ports in SE Romania”. The cause of the queue is the inability of the border point infrastructure to cope with the huge increase in crossings. 

Asked if, looking ahead, the people in Romania are fearful of escalation, Florin told CherwellI: “Of course, there is concern over the way this will go, but far more concern during the summer time, whenever the nuclear threat was escalating. Generally, the population is a bit more optimistic, judging by the fact that the war didn’t go as well as the Russians expected, but you never know for sure with these things – it can go either way.”

Asked whether Russia is looking for a way out, Florin says: “Unfortunately I think Russia is on a one way road – they could pull out but that would be the end of Putin’s reign.”

Western support is a “major factor” in the conflict. Asked whether people are looking on NATO, the UK, the US and other partners favourably, he says: “The vast majority have a positive opinion on them…. [However,] of course, there are voices that claim neutrality, but we know that neutrality doesn’t work in this particular case because technically Ukraine was neutral and Moldova is a small state with insignificant army and is officially neutral but they do fear.” The possibility of unrest in the Balkans worries Florin  as “this would be an inter-ethnic conflict and generally these last longer than conventional war”.

Following these conversations, Cherwell was invited to a special showcase at the Pitt Rivers Museum for Ukrainian Scholars which brought cultural identity to the fore. The museum aims to showcase Ukrainian culture, but is aware that “we need to be told of our mistakes”. Many Ukrainian objects are labelled as Russian, and this outreach aims to strengthen communication to correct this. This is a sensitive topic for Ukrainians, conscious that the Russian labelling of objects stems from a past, but still relevant, Imperial Russia. There are 30 Ukrainian objects identified so far in the Pitt Rivers, but without much context and meaning. One particularly striking object is the Kamyana Baba stone sculpture created in the eleventh-century. Some scholars have raised the concern that fighting in the war is destroying many of these sculptures still in Ukraine. 

Oxford’s role in helping Ukrainians has not gone unnoticed. In late January Kharkiv Mayor Ihor Terekhov personally thanked the people of Oxford for their support. Citing the common bonds between the cities with “long university traditions”, he said that “Kharkiv and Oxford have a lot in common, for they are centres of education and science, culture and art of their regions…. [In Oxford we] see an opportunity to involve best practices of world experts in the restoration of Kharkiv”.

The war in Ukraine has profoundly reshaped the political landscape, and as with any major global event, it is always necessary to give the conflict a human face. Cherwell would like to thank all of the interviewees who made this article possible. Your time is greatly appreciated. 

‘This House’: An Interview with the Cast and Crew

Kobi Mohan
-
0
‘This House’: An Interview with the Cast and Crew

This House is a timely and relevant political comedy, exploring Westminster and the 1974 hung Parliament. In the run up to the General Election, pressure mounts as squabbling whips attempt to attract key regional votes. As it becomes clear that the results will be closely balanced, the play tracks the formation, perils, and consequences of a coalition government — including the compromises, conflicts, and power games needed to win control of Parliament.

One Sunday morning, I sat in on rehearsals with the cast and crew of This House at the Oxford Union to find out a bit more about Clarendon Production’s version of James Graham’s sensational play.

PART I: CREW (and a bit of cast)

Why did you choose to put on This House?

Ava (producer): The Union actually came to us with This House. I think about 10 years ago, the Union used to do a play almost every year in the chamber, and Charlie wanted to revive this tradition with his presidency this—

Lucas (director): With the 200th anniversary of the Union—

Ava: Yeah, so he chose the play ‘This House’ by James Graham, which is kind of the perfect play to put on at the union because it’s so political and being in that space — in the chamber — since it’s based on the House of Commons, so that really adds this perfect dynamic to it. It’s really exciting to be back in the union and using that amazing space for some drama instead of for some politics. 

What drew you to audition for the cast of the play?

Caitlin: I think definitely the space was something that drew me in because I hadn’t really heard of a play being put on at the union (…) I also was drawn to the fact that it was going to be a big cast and I would be working with lots of different people and that was something that was quite exciting.

Ava: Yeah, we’ve got 14 people,

Lucas: which is a large cast by OUDS standards, and they’re all fabulous!

Caitlin: Yeah, they’re all so nice.

Lucas: As Caitlin has said, the scale of the production — it’s quite an ambitious show (…) Its timeliness as well, I think is very interesting. I suppose it could have appeared at any time in the last ten years really, but it really suits our current political climate — as a play which I suppose relishes the grubby reality of politics instead of just putting politicians in the pillory for their inconsistencies and failures, it’s one that really appreciates it. 

Ava: And I love James Graham (…) I just love the way he brings the audience through these quite confusing political machinations but it makes it so clear what is going on without being condescending. So yeah, I think he’s a really talented writer so it’s lovely to put this play on.

Lucas: I suppose he’s really good in that regard because at the centre of the play is this profound belief in the political process, the parliamentary system. Underneath all the kind of wrangling and wheeling and dealing, there is this established belief in the strength of parliamentary democracy. I think that really resonates.

We’ve kind of touched on this already, but were there lessons you’ve personally taken from this play having worked on it?

Caitlin: Definitely learning more about the political system and its inner workings. But also, I think it was really humbling from the position of a woman. This is set in the 70s, there’s a moment where we touch on how women couldn’t breastfeed in the house, and if we hadn’t cast this gender blind, then I think it would’ve been mainly dominated by men. In the play, the fact that one of the characters is a woman is a massive deal. And I think that I sometimes have to remind myself because we’ll be in rehearsals and I’ll look around and think “okay, yes we have a lot of women involved in this project but that’s because we’ve chosen to make that change” which I think is really refreshing. For example, I play a man, but I obviously am not—

Lucas: —Caitlin plays our lead, Humphrey Atkins. We thought it would be a bit revisionist to change it to Humphrina or something.

Ava: For me it was a period of politics that I really knew nothing about. And (…) well, can I talk about the end? The vote of no confidence? 

Lucas: Well, I suppose it’s history isn’t it, so there are, unfortunately, spoilers.

Ava: Well, it basically shows the run up to how Margaret Thatcher comes to power. It was quite shocking to discover that in this way… but I guess stay tuned!

Lucas: It stretches from 1974, to the end of 1979, right from the fall of Ted Heath’s government to the rise of Thatcher.  So it’s got this massive scope — so much to do in two hours on stage. I think that will be a really interesting thing for people to come and see (…) Please come and see our show!

Is there anything you hope that your audience will take away from your version of This House? 

Lucas: I think this play offers a really nuanced portrayal of what happens ‘behind the scenes’ as such, whilst still maintaining that satiric verve — it’s a funny play — so I think, treading that balance between being eye-opening but at the same time keeping it fun and enjoyable I think it treads the line really well.

Caitlin: I think it does a really good job of critiquing bad decisions that were made whilst also noting that this job has taken over this person’s entire life. Even if you are critiquing them, you understand a bit more about how much this job has taken over everything else in their life.

Ava: So, when Lucas and I were originally talking about how to put it on, one of the things we kept in mind was to not lean too heavily into stereotyping Conservatives vs. Labour, and how we were going to portray those whips. I think it will be interesting to see what the audience does take away from it in who they side with at different points in the play, because I think you really change allegiances throughout. 

Lucas: Or, if anything, at the end of the play you reach a point where you no longer see sides as much as individuals.

Caitlin: Completely true, there are a number of people in both parties that you find you actually like.

Ava: I agree, I think the labels of Conservative vs. Labour become less important as you go on.

So, this is a fill-in-the-gap question. ‘If you like X you’ll like This House.‘

Lucas: If you like The Thick of It then you’ll like This House— 

Ava: —the amount of times Lucas has mentioned The Thick of It during rehearsals—

Lucas: I occasionally like to direct through references. So like “It’s giving very… Season 2”. I don’t want to discredit myself publicly, but you know, yeah, I have been guilty of that.

Caitlin: If you like Have I got News for you you’ll like This House.

Ava: I’d say also, I guess it’s not quite the same industry but, if you like Succession — that kind of high-powered, taking you through these kinds of complicated twists and turns in a really funny way, and all these people are kind of awful but in a fun way. 

Do you have a favourite line from the play?

Caitlin, Lucas, Ava (in unison): There’s so many! 

Lucas: Well so many of them require context as well — they’ll make sense in the grand scheme of things but .. 

Caitlin: I have one — it’s not a favourite line, it’s more like three (…) So, he says he doesn’t like his office and says “there’s this ugly painted thing in there” and I reply “that’s the member for Gloucester, Colonel, he’s sharing your room”, and that always makes me chuckle.

Lucas: It’s also the obscene kind of situations we find ourselves in. I mean, Midway through act 1 Caitlin is just firing a gun in the Houses of Parliament. 

KM: As you do. 

Lucas: As one does! Funnily enough they did use to have a shooting range, but I think apparently because it kind of reflected too much of the landed gentry vibes that was gotten rid of.

Yep, I think maybe we might be fine without that.

Lucas: Oh Boris with a gun (…) an image I don’t want to think about (…) But also worth noting it’s very profane as well — it’s a naughty, naughty play!

This is more of a personal question but, well, what’s next for you? Anything to plug?

Lucas: Not currently, but there are thoughts.

Ava: Lucas and I were kind of brought together in this and we started a production company together; Clarendon Productions, and we found, quite luckily, that we work really well together so that’s really nice.

So, I’m hearing that there are things in the pipeline? 

Lucas: There may be!  

How exciting! Well, that’s pretty much it. Is there anything else you’d like the audience to know? 

Caitlin: The only thing I would say is that, and this is nothing to do with the play itself but, it’s just been so fun, it’s just been really nice because everyone is so talented, really talented — like it’s quite scary, and the crew, cast, everyone is just lovely. Honestly, I do look forward to rehearsals even if I’m waking up early on a Sunday morning and I’m really hungover, I’ll be there.

Lucas: Yeah, I have been testing the limits of that punctuality! 

Caitlin: But genuinely, it’s been so fun, and I’m going to miss it.

Lucas: And also, come to the last night — we’re having a meet and greet with John Major. 

Ava: He’s going to come watch the play. We hope. 

Lucas: Well, that’s pending.

PART II: THE CAST (or at least some of them)

Note to reader: these interviews are more of a hodge podge of a few conversations with various cast members conducted in the moments between the rehearsing of scenes. For the slightly chaotic formatting that follows, I can only apologise. 

KM: First of all, who are you?

Misha: I’m Misha, I’m a second year PPEist at Exeter, and for the duration of the play I am various different MP’s because I’m part of the Members Chorus as it’s called, which is a sort of amalgamation of 20 or so MPs that 6 of us are sharing the parts of. 

Floss: I’m Floss, I do English and German and I’m a first year at Catz, and I play several different MPs, one of which gets to say “breasts” in the union, which I’m super excited about.

So, what drew you to This House?

Floss: Well, I’ve worked with Lucas before. He was assistant director on Blithe Spirit which I was in last term and I really admire the way he works, and I like the play, so I was just kind of like, ok cool! 

And what do you hope the audience takes away from seeing your version of This House?

Floss: I want the audience to have a good time, and to be able to appreciate the amount of effort and time that has gone into this, but also just for people to see how incredibly talented everyone involved is. 

Do you have a favourite line in the show?

Misha: There’s a fantastic one that Purav delivers quite early in the play where he’s talking about how he hates this constituency that he’s been sorted with, Redditch, known for their needle manufacturing, and he fantastically delivers the line “you can’t find a haystack in Redditch because of all the fucking needles!”

Do you have a favourite moment from rehearsals and working on the show?

Misha: Moo.

You’re going to have to expand on that.

Misha: Well, we had a game of zip-zap-boing, you know the one- you do your zaps, you do your boings and then you gradually whittle yourselves down to two and in order to decide who’s to win of the two, because you can’t zip zap boing one-on-one… that would be ludicrous, so—

Floss: —that sounds like a euphemism.

Misha: —and so to decide the winner of the two, you get down on your hands and knees—

Oh you do, do you? 

Misha: —you face off, and you take your turns mooing at each other, and the first person to break loses.

Floss: Iconic. 

Question number one, who are you?

Alex: Oh, that is a deep philosophical question to start us off, who am I? Who am I. I’m Alex, I’m a second year at New College, I play Bob Mellish who’s the Labour Chief Whip in Act 1, so yeah, having a good time of it, you know? 

Ella: Ella Cradock, also New College, French and German, and playing Michael Cocks, who — spoiler alert — eventually becomes the Labour Chief Whip.

Alex: News to me.

Have you learnt anything from your time on This House?

Alex: Well, I’ve learnt my lines or something like that. 

Hey, would you like to introduce yourself?

Lydia: Hello, my name’s Lydia, my pronouns are she/her and I’m part of the members’ chorus for this play. 

What have you learnt from being part of the show?

Lydia: I’ve learnt about what happened in the 1970s in parliament. I didn’t know that this scandal occurred. I’ve learnt that the debate chamber is quite a cold room.

All equally important pieces of information! So, do you have a favourite line from the show?

Ella: I do really like “she’s a woman, Walter, not an invalid.” I think that’s great, it makes me giggle.

What do you hope audiences will take away from This House? 

Ella: Historically, you definitely learn something, and yeah, it’s just a bit of fun, having a look at how the government works.

Alex: I hope they’ll enjoy it.

This House is on at The Oxford Union Chamber from Monday 6th March to Wednesday 8th and will be showing each night 7:30 pm – 10:00 pm. Union membership is not needed to book tickets and attend this event.

Frankenstein and Me

Sonia Riasat
-
0
Frankenstein and Me

By the time 5th week rolls around, I, like many of us, am struck by the melancholy of the aptly called ‘Fifth Week Blues’. With essays overdue, reading lists getting longer, and a general air of misery, I find myself struggling to tolerate each never-ending day. Alas, as a chronic romanticiser, I put my phone on ‘Do Not Disturb’ and turned to my Pinterest boards of dark academia, played Lana Del Rey’s Ultraviolence, and read Plathian poetry in an attempt to glamorise my suffering. It was in the midst of this melodramatic angst last week that I decided to reread one of my favourite books – Frankenstein. 

I first read Frankenstein in my Year 10 GCSE English class. We would just about scrape through a few pages every lesson as our frail English teacher attempted to communicate the importance of an old horror novel to a group of indifferent teenagers. Personally, much of the 19th-century prose eluded me – I thought it sounded beautiful, but I just had no idea what it meant. It certainly left its mark on me though because I would continue to return to Frankenstein in the years after this first encounter, whenever I wanted to read something ‘familiar’. 

Even now, as I open the book, it takes me back to sitting in that classroom with the people who, I didn’t know at the time, would be the most important people of my life. I think that’s one of the most captivating things about literature – how it takes you to different places, whether those be physical places from your memory or the imaginative spheres of your fantasies. It was a great comfort for me in the despair of 5th week to be transported home by turning over a few pages. 

When Frankenstein opens, it sets the scene of an explorer who against all unassailable barriers persists to accomplish the voyage of his lifetime. The voyager, travelling to the North Pole, narrates to us the rest of the novel. He writes, “I try in vain to be persuaded that the pole is the seat of frost and desolation; it ever presents itself to my imagination as the region of beauty and delight”. It’s these words that stay with me throughout, despite the tragedy that will be woven into the story that follows (which I won’t spoil!), as it inspires a sense of fortitude against whatever may come.  

Frankenstein is a story, ultimately, about what it means to be human. Throughout, Shelley brilliantly explores the dangers of scientific ambition, the responsibility that comes with creating life, and the role of society in shaping individuals. The premise of a creator who rejects his creature’s desire to be accepted challenges readers to consider the humanity of all individuals, regardless of their appearance or circumstances. The important ethical issues and imaginative storytelling are more than enough to stimulate your mind in the middle of a dreary academic workload. 

Beyond the philosophical issues raised, Frankenstein is an incredibly electric and exciting book. There’s a reason it has inspired so much media in the centuries since it was published – the supernatural elements feel like magic, the horror is thrilling, and the anticipation leaves you anxious – all features that add up to a plot with ingenuity that rivals modern-day literature. 

It was this ingenuity that helped me forget the deadlines and burnout of 5th week, as I escaped into Shelley’s exhilarating world, which despite all its tragedies left me feeling comforted and inspired. Much of this inspiration comes from Shelley herself – who as the daughter of Mary Wollstonecraft, ‘the mother of feminism’, carved out her own legacy as a trailblazer with the invention of the science-fiction genre through Frankenstein. Shelley’s ideas were rebellious and original, yet when she first published Frankenstein, she had to do so anonymously. Like many women of her time, she was subject to society’s attempt to suppress, discredit, and anonymise her – but still, she wrote, and did so excellently. 

Her fierce writing, “beware; for I am fearless, and therefore powerful”, is beautifully defiant as well as thought-provoking to read. It’s reminiscent of something every woman knows perhaps all too well – at Oxford, feeling underrepresented has given me the need to prove myself and the feeling that I often have to fight harder to have my voice heard. But like Shelley’s persistent need to keep writing, it is a voice immune to being silenced. 

Oxford researchers predict automisation of nearly half of household chores within next decade

Anika Gupta
-
0
Oxford researchers predict automisation of nearly half of household chores within next decade

Recent collaborative research from the University of Oxford and Japan’s Ochanomizu University conveys that almost four in ten hours currently devoted to unpaid housework and caring responsibilities could be automated in the next ten years. 

During the project, researchers from the universities asked 65 Artificial Intelligence experts (29 from the UK and 36 from Japan) to predict trends in the future automation of common household tasks.

On average, experts agreed that grocery shopping is the most automatable household activity. They predict that grocery shopping time in the future would fall by nearly 60% in 10 years, in comparison to current statistics. On the other hand, experts believe that care for children or the elderly is the least likely to be impacted by AI; with research suggesting that time spent on physical childcare would only be reduced by 21%.

According to Dr Lulu Shi, a postdoctoral researcher and lecturer for the Oxford Internet Institute: “[O]nly 28% of care work, including activities such as teaching your child, accompanying your child, or taking care of an elderly family member, was predicted to be automated. Yet 44% of housework, including cooking, cleaning, and shopping, was thought to be automatable.”

Strikingly, previous studies have highlighted that the UK’s population, aged 15 to 64, spends nearly 50% of their entire work and study time on household errands such as cleaning, cooking and care. However, the recent research suggests a potential increase in the prospect of leisure time, due to the fact that there would be less to do manually around the house.

To this day, the burden of undertaking household labour has fallen disproportionately on women. Ekaterina Hertog, an associate professor in AI and Society at the University of Oxford argues that this has negatively affected women’s earning ability, savings and pensions.

Evidence illustrates that in the UK, the majority of working age men do around half as much of domestic (unpaid) housework as the majority of working age women. In Japan, using the same parameters, the men do just 18%, which is less than a fifth.

Having increased automation and more “smart homes” would therefore also free up working time for women, and could lead to strides which help achieve gender equality. However, technology is still relatively expensive and more extensive and diverse research is needed to be undertaken.

The complete research is published in the journal PLOS ONE. This research project was funded by ESRC in the UK and JST-RISTEX in Japan.

1...193194195...2,515Page 194 of 2,515

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