Wednesday 9th July 2025
Blog Page 195

Of Libraries, With Love

Libraries: at university, they suggest study spaces and endless repositories of knowledge. They are “gates to the future“, in Neil Gaiman’s words, though lately, they have also been warm havens for visitors seeking shelter.  

What with dissertation season, I have retreated to these familiar rooms more often than ever. My favourites in Oxford are complete opposites. There is Duke Humpfrey’s in the Bodleian, which preserves its atmosphere of studied mystery even though it famously doubled as the Hogwarts library in the Harry Potter films. The other is the Oxfordshire County Library near Westgate – modern, glass-fronted, recklessly reaching outwards.  

A term and a little more left, then perhaps I shall never see them again. It’s funny how in this city of libraries, it does not feel like enough. This is not about the libraries of Oxford, but the trail that leads to them.  

The first library I lived in and loved looked huge and never-ending then, and so it remains, for I have not gone back. Torridon Library in Lewisham with its red brick, high ceilings, and stained-glass windows gave one the confused sense of a church. When I was small, I assumed all libraries were like that – cosy yet imposing, treasured but free. There were fancy columns by its smart wooden door and a dome giving way to the sky. Gaston Bachelard, that old philosophising romantic, writes of the ‘compact centre of daydreams’ in the childhood home, which informs one’s later experiences of space; I think there is something similar to be said for the first library, in its harbouring of dreams. 

Libraries provoke you to reach further. Bachelard was right about the details that “have engraved in our memories a slight difference of level” in the childhood home, where a room “was not only a door, but a door plus three steps”. In the first library too, memories of spaces and paths are heightened – though there was but a single step into my childhood library, though a vivid one. It was the library, you raced to get there first, you leapt up and waited, knowing you were there. Inside, the proud triumph of having read all the Rainbow Fairy books on that second shelf in all their sparkling colours, the dull dismay when a friend passes airily by and says, ‘Oh yes, I read those ages ago’. For words are tricky, slippery things, and I took longer then – having reading sessions while others were at Assembly, and language support classes where one learnt perplexing words like ‘tadpole’. 

You learn greed at the library. They aid and abet you, those librarians: Take what you want, they say, with genial smiles that know very well what they are doing. 

To make you love books – they take up the goal with relish. “This, a brilliant book, and have you read…?” Summer reading challenges where, for whatever reason, you end up with a pack of monsters: Top Trumps cards with round teeth and too many eyes. Racing through Tintin comics and Jacqueline Wilson paperbacks, while Dad disappears into one of those clunky computers at the side. Freedom of obsession is allowed and to be cherished.  

School libraries were in on the plot, and I remember the library in junior school, which you were allowed to enter with a laminated orange pass – like a Golden Ticket but mostly for skiving off class under the guise of virtuous literary quests. You can’t help discovering things even so, and near the door is the exciting ‘New Books’ shelf where once, rashly taking up the first book I saw, its cover deep red with a green jewel, I found Eva Ibbotson. 

Birds sometimes flew into my secondary school library – a pair of doves, beady-eyed and perpetually confused, hopping along the books. They were not meant to be there, of course. “Should shoot them”, a teacher grumbled once, but the librarian always managed to coax them out. A storybook librarian, cosy and kindly with an endless supply of chocolate biscuits which she called, with a touch of delicious eeriness, ‘brain food’. The shelves were placed so the light fell unevenly between them. I like libraries where one’s allowed to hide. 

Mrs Dalloway was there, concealed in a worn blue book without its cover. Woolf pointed slyly to Dostoevsky on a high shelf, a line of Jane Austen, those heavy red volumes of War and Peace peering challengingly down at you from all the way up there. Read. Memorising page numbers so you could finish the book next time, before the bell.  

The local library at home, after we moved, is incredibly tiny but still manages to have an endless supply of Agatha Christie novels. The Central Library in town feels labyrinthine, a huge box of mystery sweets, daring you to try them all.  

You learn greed and stay hungry. 

Here we are in a city of libraries, and it is never enough. But I owe so much to those old libraries; I would not have made it to Oxford without them. 

Meet the candidates! Cherwell Town Hall HT23

0

Each term, the end of 7th week heralds Oxford Union elections. Cherwell sat down with this term’s candidates for the presidency to learn more about them, their reasons for running, and visions for the Union. 

Disha Hegde, St John’s College, 2nd year History

What’s your main motivation to run for President of the Oxford Union?

I got my Union membership after watching its debate videos on YouTube and thought it would be a great opportunity to meet inspirational people. I decided not to get involved for the first few weeks at Oxford because the Union reputation is not great. But, I gave it a go and it’s given me access to amazing opportunities: I’ve debated alongside Stephen Fry, met Anthony Joshua, and questioned Matt Hancock. So I saw the problems in the Union but I also saw the things the Union does really well. Now I want to improve outreach and inclusion, the quality of our events (we rarely hold controversial speakers to account adequately), and our financial stability. As well, I’m the only candidate who serves as an officer and I’m from a “non-traditional” background.

What commitments and experience do you have outside the Union and how do you think that would impact your role as President?

I served as Co-Chair of the Women*’s Campaign, where I’ve lobbied colleges to improve their policies regarding women and gender minorities. This has given me a really good insight into the institutional problems women* face. The same problems exist in the Union; we do need policy change. I’m also a trustee of the mental health charity, The Mix which has helped understand how to tackle mental health from an institutional perspective.

Every president has a manifesto, but lots of voters won’t read them. If you could highlight two manifesto points that you think every Oxford student should hear, what would they be?

I want to improve the experience of the Union for the ordinary member. I’ve done that partly through introducing Member Question submissions and changing the way the interview process works. I want to do it further by introducing suggestions, open surgeries so the people who decide how the Union works aren’t restricted to the friends of the committee.

I also want to make the Union less of an exclusive society and integrate it more with Oxford life. So I want to work with more societies and run ‘how to get involved’ workshops to help reach under-represented groups. I want to help more people to get access to the incredible opportunities I’ve had access to. 

If you could invite any three speakers to the Union, who would they be?

  • Rihanna
  • Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
  • Emma Raducanu

Juan Dávila, St John’s College, 4th year Engineering

What’s your main motivation to run for President of the Oxford Union?

I like fixing things and I think the Union is broken. I’m running under #Come, funny as it is – and I do think it’s hilarious. The Union used to be more at the centre of Oxford life, so we should continue to drive membership to make it the case again.

Every president has a manifesto, but lots of voters won’t read them. If you could highlight one manifesto point that you think every Oxford student should hear, what would they be?

I have entered the Union building more than any other candidate. I like that pledge because I had to prove it; it shows something. I’ve got 905 more proven instances of entering the Union than any other candidate. It demonstrates how much I want this. 

What commitments and experience do you have outside the Union and how do you think that would impact your role as President?

I’ve been alive more than any other candidate so, in some sense, I’ve got more experience than any of them. I’ve been a member longer than anyone else as well. I’ve seen good and bad presidents; I’ve seen it all.

I do have one claim in my manifesto which literally says “INSERT CLAIM HERE”. Hilarious, but what does it mean? It means that I want to listen. I won’t be a complete candidate until you tell me what you guys want. It is a commitment to have an open-door policy. My manifesto is built around as many people as possible.

If you could invite any three speakers to the Union, who would they be?

  • The Pope
  • Lee Mack (he is the fastest brain I’ve ever seen)
  • The MythBusters (they’re the reason I’m an engineer)

Chloe Glynn, St Anne’s College, final year Geography

What’s your main motivation to run for President of the Oxford Union?

I got involved in the Union after Hilary in my first year, after a term went by when I wasn’t going to get involved at all because the society didn’t have a good reputation. But I would rather change the Union from the inside, I’d rather see it be more representative of people, and uphold free speech in a way where we have a right to free speech and others the right to be offended. The best way to do that now would be to have better relationships with people outside and be able to collaborate with people and other societies. I got involved in Committee because I wanted to find a way to uphold free speech where everyone could feel comfortable with it. And play my own part in making free speech for everyone. Not just the one side.

Every president has a manifesto, but lots of voters won’t read them. If you could highlight two manifesto points that you think every Oxford student should hear, what would they be?

Anyone can write a manifesto. I think the difference between me and the other candidate is the fact that I’ve run the daily operations. My slate, it’s not a slate of hacks, which we have seen time and time again, it’s myself, who has run the operations and knows the events inside and out, and the staff and committee management. This is a slate of competence, and that experience is useful. I hope there’s an appeal in trying to find a different way of running the union with members first, because you’re voting for somebody who has been around the members and had those one-on-one conversations with them everyday. 

Also, I’m really excited to pledge more alumni networking events and mentorship, to make a formal mentor program to aid social mobility and the perks of being a members club. 

What commitments and experience do you have outside the Union and how do you think that would impact your role as President?

I think that I have had certain personal experiences and my background is quite interesting. My Mum is Indian, but I’m very white presenting. I came out as gay and it was a sort of thing where overnight you’re suddenly viewed differently, and you get different comments. Debates should go ahread, we should have those conversations, but in a way that’s respectful to everyone. My background was not a background where you would think she’s going to come out and get into Oxford. But, I don’t want that to be the reason that people vote for me. It’s about competence. I think those experiences lend themselves to an immense desire to want to do more for the members, to do more for people from non-traditional backgrounds. I think when you have more members from diverse backgrounds that only helps free speech, because it’s free speech for everyone.

If you could invite any three speakers to the Union, who would they be?

  • Boris Johnson
  • Taylor Swift
  • The English Lionesses
  • (Maybe also Jean Whitehorse, a Native American anti-sterilisation activist if I can slip in a 4th!)

 Voting will take place in the Union on Friday, March 3rd.

‘Korean Lunch Tray’ and superstar chefs come to Oxford

0

South Korean TV channel JTBC made the trip to Oxford earlier this month to film their new show, ‘Korean Lunch Tray’. Accompanied by star chef Lee Yeon Bok, comedians, actresses, and K-pop stars from the group Monsta X, I got a chance to sit down with the stars and chat all things food. And that was before they cooked for hundreds at Lady Margaret Hall the next day…

The programme has a fascinating concept. Celebrity chef Lee Yeon Bok, Monsta X singer Joo Heon, supermodel and comedian Hong Jin Kyeong, comic duo Nam Chang Hee and Heo Kyeong Hwan, and YouTuber Peter Bint form the cast. Together, they travel around the world, reproducing Korean food and school lunches (served in the trays pictured) for different people around the world. So, after Wolves FC the day before, the 75-strong crew took over Lady Margaret Hall for three days of planning, interviews, filming, and an Asian lunch extravaganza!

On the first day I was invited to appear on the programme, conducting an interview with the full cast of stars on a huge variety of topics from fish and chips to how Korean food is viewed in the UK. Over the course of 45 minutes, I was struck by the genuine fascination and interest in British food and culture. All of the team are big foodies and they were desperate to try classic British dishes such as fish and chips. 

Image courtesy of Sungwon Han

I wasn’t surprised to hear about the perception of British food in South Korea. Descriptions included ‘bland, flavourless, and boring’, and it was hard to disagree! However, I was also able to provide an insight to them into the ‘new British cuisine’ that is currently flourishing across the country. The plethora of farm-to-table sites and the embracing of different cultural influences was something alien and fascinating to them.

In terms of Korean food in the UK, they had been shocked by how receptive people had been. They found students especially were more than keen to sample Korean specialities and the queue at lunch the next day certainly backed that up! In London and Wolverhampton they noted that people were more reluctant. We also got into the nuanced differences between Asian cuisines and how pan-Asian high street chains such as Wagamma’s and Banana Tree have led to the British market often becoming unaware of just how much dishes vary from country to country.

The next day, LMH dining hall played host to the main event — lunch. The crew got in the kitchen and managed to provide a remarkable selection of dishes for the hundreds of students and staff from across the university. On the menu were many of the Korean classics. Korean lettuce wraps and sticky rice formed the base and the perilla leaves and radish alongside the lettuce made them stand out as genuinely unique. The staple of beef bulgogi came with them and tables had guides about how to wrap and eat for the most authentic experience!

The lunch tray

Elsewhere, the handmade kimchi came with cucumber and added a whole different level of flavour and crunch to the normal cabbage. Aside from that was the Korean take on fish and chips — suffice to say I prefer it to the English! Lightly dusted in breadcrumbs the flavour of the fish was allowed to flourish. Tornado potatoes were of course not left out — the new festival food staple crisp and dusted in onion salt, simply perfect.

We did of course reciprocate the favour with a collection of English foods and treats of our own. An obligatory Collin the Caterpillar and a bag of Percy Pigs were far too sweet for the Korean taste buds though! Hot cross buns were slightly better received but the blue cows and goat cheeses from the Oxford Cheese Co. went too far the other way with salt proving a problem.

In all, the few days were a truly surreal experience. It was an absolute pleasure to get so much time interviewing such big stars and I was genuinely impressed by their interest and fascination with food culture in the UK. No doubt the programme will go down well, but in the meantime, the crowd at Lady Margaret Hall certainly enjoyed the show!

Backstage interview: the creatives behind Bare

Max: Could you please give us a brief description of what Bare is about and why you have decided to stage it now?

Mina: Bare explores a variety of themes, from body image to sexuality to familial relations, all under the inescapable umbrella of religion. It lays bare its characters, their insecurities and their fears, and doesn’t shy away from the moral grey area they all occupy. Following Peter and Jason’s clandestine relationship in their final year of school, the musical takes its time to explore everyone else in their lives as well – there are no two- dimensional characters here, and that’s what makes it so approachable and engaging to almost anyone! 

Felix: Bare is about a gay relationship in a religious boarding school and follows the story of the two main protagonists as they fall in love and then ultimately fall apart as they struggle to come to terms with their sexuality and the views of those around them. It’s rare to have a musical where the gay relationship is more than just a subplot and Bare obviously places it at the centre of everything.

How have you found the rehearsal process and what’s been your favourite moment?

Peter: I’ve loved every minute of rehearsals for so many different reasons. The show has such an incredible score and the music is so much fun to sing; the characters have so many layers and such intricate relationships with one another, there’s so much to sink your teeth into and the acting is a really interesting challenge. But mostly, I think it comes down to the group of people working on the show. It feels like such a cohesive group and the directorial team have put in a lot of effort to make sure that we break down the barriers between cast and crew to form a single unit, all pulling in the same direction. And that’s exactly how it feels: everyone supporting each other and creating a space where everyone’s talents can shine. I have two favourite moments. The first was two weeks ago at our first sitzprobe. It was our first time hearing the band live and singing the entire show from start to finish. It just hit so different to all the other rehearsals and I had goosebumps the whole way through; everyone sounds insane. Then, tonight, we had our first run in the O’Reilly. It’s an emotional show—I won’t spoil the second act, don’t worry—but we finished, several of us in tears, and just held each other for a few minutes. There was just this collective breath of ‘wow, this show is something special’, feeling so lucky that we all get to do it together, and this simmering excitement at the prospect of sharing our hard work with audiences next week. We can’t wait.

Gianni: I’ve never been in any type of theatre production before, but have always wanted to be in a musical since I was young, so initially I was very nervous to meet everyone else at the first rehearsal. Those nerves thankfully vanished when I met our lovely cast and crew, and how willing everyone was to make sure that no one was left behind, no matter their previous level of experience. Since then, especially as I got to know the musical better, rehearsals have been so enjoyable and are always made better by the cast and crew. My favourite rehearsal moment so far has been the first full run-through of the show. It was incredible to see all the songs finally connect together and form a cohesive storyline, and it just heightened the excitement and level of emotion we all felt.

How similar are you to your character in real life?

Gianni: As a queer person raised in a Catholic family, I certainly relate to some of the challenges my character (Peter) faces. Coming to terms with your identity is scary, and even after that there are sadly still many challenges queer people face. In real life, I’m grateful to have a very accepting and supportive mum, so it has been interesting to explore the nuances of Peter’s relationship with his mother, especially regarding family pressures and the influence of religion.

Peter: Honestly, if I was anyone in the central love story, I would be Peter, not Jason. I’ve always been more introverted, immersed in my own thoughts, overthinking everything and hesitant to express myself, so I really relate to that part of Peter in the show. Jason is always so brash, bold and quick to take action; he never really thinks before he acts—could never be me.

What is your favourite song in the show and why?

Mina: Once Upon a Time brings me to tears every time; but if I need a bit of a pick me up – Confession is probably what I’d go for; that may just be because I’m now just imagining our cast doing their amazing choreo to it! 

Felix: Currently really love Absolution as Gianni gets a chance to show off his incredible vocal and emotional acting skills. 

Peter: This is such a difficult question because this show is filled with so many absolute bops. You & I is definitely the most fun to perform, it’s so cheeky and it captures the nature of undercover romance so perfectly. One Kiss has no right to sound as sexy as it does, and Are You There just slaps from start to finish. But, I think I might have to say that Bare is my all time favourite. It’s a duet between Peter and Jason at the emotional climax of the show, it’s the first time we see them freely and unabashedly express their love for each other and the music delivers. There’s a reason it’s the titular song, just saying.

Gianni: My favourite song has to be “Warning”, performed by the incredible Eleanor Dunlop (playing Claire, Peter’s mother, in the musical). I genuinely had goosebumps after we ran this song at the sitzprobe. I think the lyrics are very relatable to any parent who is trying to support their child through something which they struggle to understand, and Eleanor’s voice makes it hit even harder.

Why should people come and see the show?

Felix: For the insane hip-hop/street dance (thanks to our amazing choreographer Tiggy!) [Tiggy Jones], incredible pop/rock opera music and a hugely talented cast and crew! 

Mina: Simply to feel something. No, really: if you want to laugh, cry, be shocked, scared, and generally in your feelings this is the show to come to. Also some beautiful acting, show-stopping choreography, and mesmerising singing!

Gianni: Though Bare highlights the love story of Peter and Jason (we love queer love), it also explores the lives of numerous other characters, and how the unfolding events affect everyone in different ways. I like to think every audience member will uniquely relate to the show, and that’s the beauty of it. Come see us 1st-4th March at the Keble O’Reilly!

Peter: So few shows put a queer love story in the spotlight, it’s really relatable and it’s so empowering to see it take centre stage. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, and you’ll sing the whole way home. And you’ll be supporting the amazing work of a wonderful team of student creatives. Plus, it’s gay. Are you really gonna tell me you have better 7th week plans?

Bare opens tomorrow at the Keble O’Reilly until 4th March.

Oxford, the 15-Minute City, and the Birth of a Lie

0

It was impossible to miss the commotion of February 18th. Libertarians, climate-deniers, and conspiracy theorists alike rallied in Broad Street to protest the “globalist agenda” of the Oxfordshire County Council. As I left my room on that morning, the first hint that something unusual was afoot was the police drone being launched out of the front quad of my college. Approaching the porters’ lodge, the sound of Billy Joel’s “We Didn’t Start the Fire” became increasingly audible, along with a buzz of voices. By this time, I had an idea of what I was about to stumble upon. As a native citizen of Oxford, I have been following closely the backlash against the County Council’s Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and traffic filters, which have become controversial issues beyond the city’s borders. They have even attracted criticism from abroad, with right-wing figures such as Jordan Peterson describing the Oxfordshire County Council as “idiot tyrannical bureaucrats”. I was therefore unsurprised, upon leaving college, to see a “don’t tread on me” flag fluttering above the crowd. I was even less surprised to discover that many of the protesters were not even Oxford residents. Most of the opposition to the Council has been external, and typically based on cynical misrepresentations of what the policies are, and what they seek to achieve. I soon found myself debating a man who believed that 15-minute cities are the thin end of the wedge for total global domination by the World Economic Forum. He admitted that he was not a local, but asserted that Oxford’s policies are a global issue. Bewildered, I scuttled off to the Bodleian, where – the noise of the protesters still distractingly audible through the window – I asked myself: how on earth did we get here?

15-Minute cities: “climate lockdown” or local vision?

The first thing that should be noted is the distinction between the policies of the City Council, and the County Council. The idea of 15-minute cities is a key element of the City Council’s “Local Plan 2040”, a broad vision for the development of the city over the next 20 years, covering housing, employment, biodiversity, inequality, and culture. According to the plan, a 15-minute city is one which is “planned in such a way as to optimise the opportunity for people to be able to reach a wide range of facilities that they need to live well and healthily within a 15-minute walk of their home”. Although this concept is tied to the goal of reducing car use, the plan does not include any references to the traffic restriction policies, which are the purview of the County, not City Council. Claims from conspiracy theorists that the County Council’s policies are attempts to “lock citizens in” their 15-minute neighbourhood are completely misguided.

So what exactly are the Council’s policies?

The central issue of the February 18th protests was the County Council’s proposal to introduce six new traffic filters on key connecting roads around the city (see below). It is a part of the Central Oxfordshire Travel Plan, whose goals include the reduction of car journeys, a net-zero transport network, and zero road fatalities. This plan does include references to the concept of a 20-minute city, but does not designate 20-minute zones, as conspiracy theorists claim. Traffic filters are a way of controlling the number and type of vehicles that pass through a certain point on the road, specifically during the hours between 7am and 7pm. These are not physical barriers blocking the road, as can be found in some streets in Cowley. Instead, automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras monitor cars passing through, with a fine of £70 issued to drivers who are not exempt. The primary goal of this scheme is to reduce unnecessary car journeys within the city, so there are numerous exceptions made to give free passage to buses, taxis, business goods vehicles, care workers and blue badge holders. Also, residents of the city are permitted 100 days per year in which they can travel through the filters with no charge. When the trial period of the scheme begins, it will be accompanied by a public consultation to assess the impact and public support.

Map of Oxford showing how each zone will be accessed from the Ring Road by its main roads, with the traffic filters preventing private motor vehicles travelling between zones.

Image Credit: Headington Liveable Streets

The birth of a lie

The above image has been viewed over 2.7 million times, in a retweet of the following dystopian prediction:

“You will remain in your 15 minute zone. If your children are lucky enough to be granted the privilege by the elites running your town or city, they too will raise their children in the same property and 15 minute zone that they were raised in.”

This image was created by the community activist group Headington Liveable Streets (an organisation in favour of the County Council’s measures to control traffic), to help visualise the areas which will be mutually inaccessible (directly) by car after the changes. It is still possible to drive indirectly between any of these areas free of charge via the bypass road around the city. But for many of the millions of people who saw the tweet, this detail (along with many other important nuances) was completely lost. As a consequence, these outsiders to the local politics of Oxford have been given evidence for their conspiracy theory of authoritarian government control. Similarly birthed out of the Chinese whispers-like chain of internet misinformation was the claim that 93% of Oxford residents had voted against the proposal. The origins of this idea lie in the first public consultation on the proposal, in which a free-text box was provided to give respondents the opportunity to give their comments on the benefits of the scheme. In this box, 7% of respondents wrote comments categorised as supportive the scheme. Keep in mind, this was by no means a binary poll – by comparison, 8% of the comments were categorised as disagreeing with the scheme. Yet in the mind of the bad-faith anti-traffic filter activist, 100% minus 7% support equals 93% opposition. This becomes a tweet, which becomes a retweet, followed by comments. Soon people are repeating the idea that “93% said no” to the traffic filters. People then read this, and assume that there had been a formal poll on the issue. This morphs into the lie that 93% of Oxford residents had voted against the proposal, the type of lie that drives thousands to take to the streets in protest.

Are there legitimate concerns about traffic filters?

I am personally a strong supporter of the plan, coming from one of the 30% of Oxford households that does not own a car. I believe that the best thing for the city’s future is a move away from driving, and towards public transport, cycling, and walking. For evidence of the effectiveness of traffic filters, look no further than Oxford’s city centre, whose borders are dutifully guarded by bus gates (which function in a similar way, see below). As a consequence, the streets are much safer for pedestrians and cyclists, bus journeys are much faster, and the overall atmosphere of the town is more pleasant. This said, some people have legitimate reasons to be sceptical of the traffic restriction proposals, which are often drowned out by the unhinged whining of conspiracy theorists.

A picture containing text, road, outdoor, street

Description automatically generated

Image Credit: Google Maps/ CC 1.0

The traffic filters will undoubtedly increase journey times for those who choose to travel around the city by car, as many will continue to do, unless bus services are improved in tandem. Of course, for people with mobility issues (many of whom do not qualify for a blue badge), walking, cycling, or taking public transport is much more difficult, and they may still need to travel by car. There have concerns from local businesses that the traffic filters will lead discourage potential customers from driving to their premises, resulting in a loss of revenue. Some have criticised the plan for not including exemptions for electric vehicles, which are quieter and do not pollute the air. 

When you cut through the noxious fog of social media hyperbole, a genuine, honest debate is uncovered. As students, we are part-time citizens of Oxford, and have a right to be a part of it. Whether or not you support the traffic filters, remember that (if you are a citizen of Britain, the Commonwealth, Irish Republic or an EU member state) you are able to register to vote in Oxford, and can participate in the City and County Council elections. The next time an rowdy mob comes to distract you from your essay crisis, remember that you have just as much a right to make your voice heard!

Top Image Credit: World Bank Photo Collection/ CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 via Flickr.

Feeding my friends

0

Food, or feeding people, is often cited as a “love language”. Getting your loved ones together round a table to serve them a meal, nourish them, and enjoy food together is an act that resonates with a lot of people. Online declarations are frequently made that cooking for others is the ultimate expression of love. Whilst it may be somewhat corny to announce food to be your love language, it is clearly meaningful to many people, and the act of sharing food has even been shown to have a multitude of health benefits.

In 2019, I moved into a house I had found on SpareRoom. I got on well with the other tenants, and soon after, we began taking turns to cook for one another. We were all working full time, so it made sense that we’d each cook one night per week, ensuring that everyone had a good meal every evening. Eating together quickly became a major part of our weekly routine — four or five times a week we would lay the table and sit down to share food. Over time this habit became indispensable. We all agreed that we were eating better than we had previously and we looked forward to unwinding together after a long day of work. Cooking for an audience was a great motivator to experiment with new recipes and different types of food. As well as improving our diets and eating habits, we agreed that eating together generally improved our quality of life.

Studies into social eating have indicated that sharing meals has a number of health benefits, both emotional and physical. Regular social eating has been shown to result in greater satisfaction with life and closer ties to community, which is hardly surprising. With my housemates, evening meals were our time to catch up. Around the table was where our friendship was formed, and where we shared our successes, difficulties and supported one another. As the cliché goes, we were expressing the love and care in our friendship by feeding one another.

Now that I’ve moved into graduate halls in Oxford, I find myself guilty of taking shortcuts with my cooking and rushing my food when eating. These days, I’m only ever cooking for one and I don’t enjoy the process as much as I used to. When I do eat alone at home, I sit at the wood-effect linoleum bar in the kitchen, on a too-high barstool, towering over my food. I watch Netflix on my phone as I shovel rice into my mouth. Many of us are guilty of eating too quickly, and for me, this is never more true than when I eat alone. An hour of cooking concludes with a ten-minute meal that I don’t take time to enjoy. The habits I had with my former housemates are nowhere to be seen.

It has also been shown that social eating has physical health benefits, as it reduces the pace at which we eat. We are distracted by the company and as a result we are more likely to eat a little slower. Eating too quickly can cause increased blood sugar spikes, which are linked to problems with organs such as the heart and the kidneys. Therefore eating slowly, as we do when eating socially, can have a long-term positive impact on your physical health.

Additionally, there are studies linking social eating to better nutritional intake. Whilst this can’t be true in every circumstance, nutrition being dependent on what we put in our food, it makes sense that sharing the cooking in a household might result in more diverse meals and varied food types. In our house, sharing the responsibility for mealtimes gave us the time and space to cook more diverse meals. As each of us only needed to cook once or twice a week, we each made more effort to cook tastier and more varied meals. For us at least, we all noticed that we were eating far more healthily as a result.

Therefore, as well as being an ideal antidote to the “epidemic of loneliness” caused by highly individualised lifestyles, social eating appears to be good for your physical health. But, with very little time on their hands, is it really possible for busy Oxford students to reap the benefits of eating socially? There are a few possible solutions.

For those who usually eat alone at home, it may be better to eat in your college dining hall a few times a week. However, if you don’t enjoy the food in your hall, or if you live too far away for it to be convenient, then lunch breaks with friends are a better option. Maybe sitting on the grass outside the Rad Cam or in University Parks in the summer with a sandwich and coffee, or in one of the food stalls in the Covered Market when it’s cold or raining. And, whilst it isn’t ideal, sharing meals digitally over FaceTime or Zoom has been shown to have some of the benefits of physically eating together. Coordinating meals with faraway partners and friends could make for a cute long-distance date. Lastly… perhaps occasionally, we can find the time to cook a meal for our friends. Come back for part 2 where I find out if it is really possible to cook for and feed my friends in my small graduate accommodation kitchen!

NUS referendum voting underway as campaigning intensifies

0

Voting has opened for the referendum on whether Oxford Student Union should remain affiliated with the National Union of Students (NUS). Voting will close at 6pm on 1st March.

The referendum asks students: “Oxford SU is currently affiliated to the National Union of Students (United Kingdom). Should it continue to be affiliated: yes or no?”

The two official campaigns for this referendum are called ‘Vote YES to NUS’ and ‘Say No to NUS’.

‘Vote YES to NUS’ is led by Anas Dayeh, of St John’s College. ‘Say No to NUS’ is co-headed by Ciaron Tobin, of Magdalen College, and Caleb van Ryneveld, of Christ Church College. 

For this referendum, a new by-law has been issued that stipulates that at least 4% of SU members must turnout to vote otherwise the referendum’s result, whatever it may be, will be deemed invalid and have no effect. Considering the recent SU elections had only a 10% turnout, failing to hit this threshold seems like a real possibility.

Say No to NUS believes the NUS is “An Institution in Crisis”. According to their press release: “There is currently no President due to the incumbent being fired following an independent investigation into antisemitism. This marks the third of the last five presidents of the NUS to be involved in an antisemitism scandal, reflecting endemic problems within the organisation. The NUS has been found guilty of such serious failings that the national government has suspended all negotiations and discussion with it.”

Regarding Oxford’s role in the NUS, the No Campaign says that “none of the Officers of the NUS are from Oxford University”. Additionally, “no initiatives have been proposed by the Oxford SU and supported at the National Conference in five years”. Therefore, “outside the NUS, Oxford will be able to advocate directly for students, and push for comprehensive reform to strengthen student representation”.

At the centre of the No Campaign’s disaffiliation argument is the fact that “membership of the NUS costs the Oxford SU over £20,000 a year in dues”. The No Campaign believes this could be better spent on student welfare: “Putting Oxford students front and centre, we can fund our SU campaigns, such as the Liberation and Disabilities Campaigns, more effectively and ensure Oxford students are represented effectively.”

The student unions at Reading, Queen Mary and Warwick universities have already voted to disaffiliate from the NUS. According to the No Campaign, “this referendum presents an opportunity to stand with students across the country in rejecting racism and embracing a positive vision for representative, compassionate and effective student activism”.

Caleb van Ryneveld, joint head of the No Campaign alongside Ciaron Tobin, told Cherwell: “In the recent SU election, hundreds of students backed me to be a Delegate to the NUS on a specific manifesto to campaign for disaffiliation. This highlights the real appetite to make the positive decision to cut ties with the toxic and unrepresentative organisation. There is a clear case for disaffiliation, and with my track record and dedication to this cause I am honoured to be leading the campaign.”

Regarding the 4% threshold, van Ryneveld told Cherwell: “Every vote will count, but the groundswell of support across Oxford for the campaign to vote no to continued affiliation and stand up to the NUS shows reaching the threshold for disaffiliation can be achieved.

“We are directly engaging with students across the University to ensure their concerns are put front and centre of the campaign and encourage anyone interested in getting involved in the events we will be running over the duration of the vote to contact the Say No to NUS campaign directly through social media.”

Vote YES to NUS uses the slogan ‘Stay Connected, Stay Powerful, Stay Affiliated!’

According to the Yes Campaign’s press release, “the NUS is a powerful voice for students across the UK, representing more than 7 million students from over 400 institutions”. Remaining affiliated means Oxford students “can join forces with other students to campaign for the issues we care about, such as education, mental health, climate justice, and social equality”. 

The Yes Campaign argues that “being a member of the NUS is not only beneficial for us as individuals, but also for our Oxford SU as an organisation”, and emphasises that “the NUS provides us with resources, training, support, and opportunities to collaborate with other student unions”.

The Yes Campaign’s list of NUS-derived ‘Big Wins’ include a £15 million University Student Hardship fund, £800 million in rent wins, forcing a U-turn on A Level grades, ending NDAs for sexual misconduct in 54 insitutions, and freezing the student loan threshold. 

The Yes Campaign acknowledges that “the NUS is not perfect, and it has its challenges and limitations”. However, disaffiliation “will isolate [Oxford] from the rest of the student community” and “weaken the student movement as a whole”.

Anas Dayeh, head of the Yes Campaign, told Cherwell: “I have been involved in student activism and advocacy for a long time, and I have seen firsthand the power of collective action and solidarity. I was inspired by the previous successes of the NUS in driving social change and fighting for better education, and I wanted us to continue being part of the movement so that we can work together and push for progress and justice.

“I’m excited to lead this campaign and work towards a better future for our university and students. I’m eager to engage with students and hear their perspectives on the importance of NUS affiliation. Together with other passionate individuals, I’m confident we can make a difference and create a stronger, more united student movement.

“The campaign team is working tirelessly and is confident in their ability to make a strong case for staying affiliated with the NUS. They are optimistic about the potential for their message to resonate with voters and are eager to see the positive impact that staying affiliated with the NUS can have on the university and students across the UK.” 

A varsity society match like no other; an ACS affair

0

Following a long coach ride departing from the sunny skies and blue gates of Trinity college, the football team and its loyal band of travelling fans arrived under looming dark clouds in Cambridge, sizing up the truly massive St John’s college Cambridge sports grounds, the stage upon which the theatre of football would take place. 

With the Cambridge team, sporting oddly oxford blue-ish bibs, made their way to the pitch, the ref blew his whistle kicking off the game. The Oxford support couldn’t be louder, the Cambridge side-line support lacked lustre. This became a trend, blue bibs donned by the Cambridge crew looked inferior to the coordinated custom black, white and gold jerseys worn by Oxford’s ACS team. Cardboard signs and chants littered across the Oxford supporters, with an atmosphere rivalling Anfield. Cambridge were more like London stadium-esque.

Still, the home team managed to put a goal in the back of the net first. The Oxford crowd and players stunned, despite their shabby appearance and lack of fan support, the Cambridge ACS seemed a challenge. One goal down but much of the first half still to play, there was still no panic from the away side, just determination, within the next five minutes Oxford’s team began to gel and gain more and more possession. 

For this they gained their two rewards with Oxford netting an equaliser and then putting themselves ahead before the half time whistle. By this time a steady Cambridge support began to develop, with the home side support becoming larger. Unfortunately in the time in which the Cambridge support streamed in, the Oxford side had begun to play more confidently and fluidly as the Cambridge side began to fall apart. Half time was a welcome pause for them to refocus their game plan and make some much needed substitutions. 

As the whistle blew and the second half kicked off, fortune fled the Cambridge side, quickly replaced with misery. It seemed that the Oxford side, who were already dominant by the end of the 1st half, had decided to enter second gear. Rain began to pour down on the sports ground, and as umbrellas lifted high, it was clear the prospects for the Cambridge side fell low. Three consecutive Oxford goals, with no Cambridge attack in this period indicated the size of their woes, the worst of these being a penalty which reflected the unconsolidated defence Cambridge had to offer. 

With 10 minutes to go and 6 consecutive goals conceded by the Cambridge side, times were looking rough for Cam ACS, playing to see the game out, knowing that while conceding 6 was humiliating, 7 would be atrocious. Yet even this task was made difficult by the skills of the Oxford ACS players. Cam ACS were in serious trouble, lacking the ability to make more than two passes before they found themselves dispossessed, tackled or turning over the ball unintentionally, as this point the seventh goal looked inevitable 

But in the spirit of Cambridge, those noisy neighbours couldn’t keep it down. After a match of outstanding saves, the Oxford goalie made a mistake, to which the Cambridge side, deprived of chances throughout the game, did not hesitate to maximise putting it at the back of the net. Incredible! Momentum swung. cheers erupted from Cambridge support, even if this goal was going to be consolation only. But a minute later, a swift Cambridge attack lead to another goal! Where was this side hiding?

With two minutes to go, was there actually a chance Cambridge could turn it around? Four goals in deficit and around 2 minutes to play, surely it couldn’t be possible right? 

Before you could ask, Cambridge had another! The Cambridge support roared seeing their side outplay the other The formerly resigned Cambridge side were on fire and Oxford with a five-goal lead cut to two looked almost vulnerable. The dominant Oxford ACS had disappeared, replaced with one searching for a full-time whistle. 3 goals in five minutes was not what anyone had predicted. 

Well…when the ruckus of celebration had died down, the sight of the linesman waving his flag furiously called time on the Cambridge celebration and ultimately the game, as a discussion between linesman and referee while the clock ticked on, led to the goal being disallowed and the full-time whistle ever closer. With a final kick, the game saw its close with the away side storming for glory towards their supporters. 

In a game in which the Cambridge side saw bursts of greatness at the very start and end, it was unquestionably Oxford ACS’s deserved victory. Once the full-time whistle blew, in the midst of disappointment and jubilation, we are still united in the pride of having an ACS in both Oxford and Cambridge

Image credit:  Oxford ACS

Will we no longer accept religious views in political positions?

0

Kate Forbes launched her SNP leadership campaign in prime position as the bookies’ favourite. Within 24 hours her campaign was leading the conversation and headlining the news. But not for the reasons she wanted. 

In her initial media round when questioned over her previously stated views on same-sex marriage, Forbes doubled down. She expressed personal disapproval of same-sex marriage, pre-marital sex, and also reiterated personal opposition to the recent Scottish Gender Recognition Act. The basis of these views? Her religion. Forbes is an active member of the Free Church of Scotland, an evangelical and Calvinist denomination of Christianity which believes that the Bible is God’s word. 

This is certainly not the first time that a political career has been hampered by religious views. Notably, Tim Farron’s leadership of the Liberal Democrats was dogged by his Christian beliefs. He resigned after poor results in the 2017 General Election, stating that he had become “torn between living as a faithful Christian and serving as a political leader”. 

As someone about to write a Master’s thesis on the theme of promoting religious diversity and tolerance, something made me feel uneasy about this situation. Would it have been better for Forbes to be dishonest in the face of questions over her views? Must politicians strip themselves of all personal religious beliefs? I do not support Forbes’ views, nor would I vote for her, nor am I at all invested in the success of the SNP – but answering ‘Yes’ to either of the previous two questions seems deeply problematic if we are to build a religiously diverse and tolerant society. 

Partly it appears to come down to the question: ‘What do we want from our politicians?’. Scotland, and the United Kingdom, operates under the premise of representative democracy – we vote for people to represent us. But do we want elected members who ‘represent’ us in the sense that they will most effectively and competently advocate for our needs and interests, or do we want to elect those who ‘represent’ us in the sense of having a similar background to us (looking, acting, and thinking like we do). Whilst often there are, rightly, calls to increase the notice given to the latter type of representation, in moves to increase opportunities for minority representation – it would seem on the whole we vote with the first type of representation in mind. This is particularly the case when voting in constituency-based systems (Single Member Districts in Holyrood Elections) where one is not just voting for their local representative, but also with the make-up of the national government in mind. 

Yet, if we are voting for politicians to represent our interests most effectively, and to form the most competent governments, then should we not accept a distinction between a politician’s personal views and their professional views. This is perhaps particularly the case when situations such as the cost of living crisis and the Ukraine war increase the need for effective governance more than ever. If the intention is not to represent us in the second sense, but primarily the first, then can we not accept that politicians personally hold views, which they do not intend to represent in their professional capacity, and thus will not be involved in their policy direction or their campaign pledges. 

In her Sky News interview, Forbes initially retorts: “You’re asking me if I would impose my views on other people”. She is quite clear that this is not the case. She goes on to say, “for me, it would be wrong according to my faith, but for you I have no idea what your faith is. So, in a free society you can do what you want.” Does this particular quote not illustrate exactly the attitude that is required if we are to promote a diverse and yet tolerant society? A distinction between the personal and private vs. the professional and public. A mutual respect that, as individuals, we can hold views and engage in discussion and attempted persuasion on such views, but that at the end of the day each individual is at liberty to hold their own private views, so long as it causes others no harm. 

In other jobs equality protections around religion as a protected characteristic are clear, although often tested. Where one’s private religion does not negatively interfere with their professional capacity one cannot be discriminated against. Forbes has promised she will “not roll back on any rights that already exist in Scotland”, and ultimately is the leader of a party that will collectively decide policy, not a sole dictator. Her personal views will not become SNP policy. But is the problem here that politics is different to other jobs? Are we unable to untangle the personal from the professional in politics? Either consciously, through active campaigning or profiling such views via their platform, or subconsciously, through biases during voting and equal interactions with constituents – perhaps politics is a profession where the interwoven nature of personal and professional is too messy to separate. After all, we are particularly interested in the personal lives of politicians – most recently, the character and misdemeanours of Boris Johnson became one of the many reasons for his downfall.

Forbes’ response to this? She cites the example of Angela Merkel, former Chancellor of Germany, who in 2017 allowed a Bundestag vote on same-sex marriage. The vote passed, and Merkel implemented the legislation – but Merkel had personally voted against the legislation, voting instead in line with her ‘conscience’ on the issue. Despite her personal opposition, Merkel stated after the vote that she hoped the result “not only promotes respect between different opinions but also brings more social cohesion and peace.”

There is undoubtedly a major problem of politicians with a platform holding views that, if promulgated, would reduce individuals’ rights. And we should use the ballot box and campaigns to ensure that progressive views are promoted. But if we also advocate for a tolerant and diverse community which promotes freedoms, including religious freedom, then it seems wrong to preclude someone from a professional political role purely on the basis of private religious beliefs. If Forbes is right that the crux of the Sky interview questioning was to ask if she would impose her views on other people, then are we hypocritical to embolden ourselves to impose our views on her? I will not proclaim to give the answer, but if we are to move forward into a truly tolerant and diverse community with a representative political system then these are the questions we must face.

Image credit: Leslie Barrie / CC BY_SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons