Monday, May 12, 2025
Blog Page 196

Baroness Hale visits the Oxford Union

0

The Oxford Union welcomed Baroness Hale on 24th November as she answered questions about her legal career to a packed audience in the chamber.

Baroness Hale is a British judge who joined the House of Lords as a Lord Appeal in Ordinary in 2004 and remains the only woman to have been appointed to that position. She then transferred with all other Law Lords in 2009 to the then-new Supreme Court, where she served as Deputy President from 2013 to 2017 and  President from October 2017 to January 2020. 

 Hale was responsible for overseeing the court as it made several significant rulings, one being when it declared the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament in 2019 unlawful. 

Opening the talk, Hale shared her thoughts on current events, namely the Scottish Independence ruling earlier in the week. 

“Anybody who has read the Scotland Act would not have been surprised by the decision of the UK supreme court [to disallow an independence referendum without Westminster approval]”. That decision is very far from one that turns the Supreme Court into a political court. It was a straightforward decision.”

Hale then focused more generally on public outcry to some of the court’s rulings. “It is always difficult to persuade those who don’t like a court decision to not attack it politically,” she told the chamber. “The answers to legal questions have political implications. So when we ask about the process of exiting the EU, none of that was about whether we should leave, but about the role that parliament should play – a constitutional, legal case.”

Hale believes that the appointments to the UK Supreme Court are based on an open, transparent, and independent merit-based system. “I’m living proof that politics doesn’t come into it,” she said, adding “Judicial appointments in the UK are not made on party-political grounds”.

Next, Hale discussed the challenge the court faces with interpreting laws. “It has always been the principle that you try and interpret the words consistently with what you think parliament’s intentions to be. Although these have never occurred to most members of parliament when they voted.”

The Union then asked Hale about the increasing perception of the court as a political body following the two Gina Miller cases and questions of the Human Rights Act

“The only thing the courts can do is explain their decisions and explain why they are making those decisions,” Hale responded. “The courts have limited power to defend themselves against unjustified criticisms. The best we can do is reach our decisions in accordance with legal principles. If the public thinks we’re doing something different there is very little we can do against it. It is the job of Lord Chancellor to defend the courts – and most have been quite good at that – but one or two have not – and you all know what I mean by that.” Laughter from the audience followed.

“Although parliament made a song and dance about [certain decisions] it is parliament’s job to keep us in check,” she continued “They are legally and constitutionally supreme. But as we all know, our government is not separate from parliament and must command a majority. So basically, the government is in charge unless parliament says no.”

Asked about whether she thought the House of Lords should be elected, Hale said, “Reform of the house of lords has been on the agenda of constitutional reform in the Labour Party since 1998 when they removed most of the hereditary lords. 

My feeling is that were there to be a wholly elected House of Lords there would then be a huge question about what its power should be. Think about how you would legislate the House of Lords. The PM can appoint who he damn well pleases – checks are not effective. It is difficult to put in constitutional form with any degree of respectability. Many agree on reform but deciding how is why it hasn’t happened yet.”

Hale says her proudest case is the Porogation Case from 2019 “though I suspect the Yemshaw [v London Borough of Hounslow case on domestic violence] case did more good for people”, she added.

“I am proud of court convening so quickly to ensure parliament could get back some of the time from the unlawful Prorogation, and because it was a hugely important political question that reverberated around the world.” She recalls a meeting with the Head of the Commonwealth shorty afterwards “who said … they were all worried that if it went the other way then their governments would have tried equally egregious things”. 

One audience member told Hale that she was a ‘role model’ to many women. 

Hale responded that her story “should be a source of encouragement for women and others because it demonstrates that somebody who has none of the usual connections in terms of family, education, social standing, and birth can reach the top of the justice system in this country.

Hale left the chamber to resounding applause.

Image credit: Jonathan Kirkpatrick

Oxford makes progress after centuries of social engineering in admissions

0

Recently, a widely read and wildly misguided attack was launched by the Telegraph (and reported on by this paper) on the contextual admissions process at Oxford and Cambridge. According to frustrated heads of private schools, admission consultants, parents, and students, declining admission rates for private school students constitutes “social engineering” and “alarm bells should be ringing.” Their writing is so ignorant and one-dimensional that it reads more like satire than investigative journalism– the record needs to be set straight.

Let’s be clear: applications to Oxbridge have risen by 31% in the last five years so admittance rates for all students have been on the decline. Those rates at Oxford are still higher for private school students than state school students. In fact, this year private school students comprise 31.3% of Oxford students despite making up only 7% of the student population. Contextual admissions is just one mechanism that is pushing Oxford on the right track, but more work needs to be done. The suggestion by some that we reverse course is sickening.

I do not understand what the problem is with contextual admissions: there is no way a student can be evaluated fairly without considering the context in which their achievements were made. Contextual factors used by Oxford include a student’s school, neighbourhood, and eligibility for free school meals. Research shows that ‘pupils from state schools are more likely to get a first-class degree than pupils from independent schools with the same GCSE grades.’ Jonathan Portes, former Director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, points out that if Oxford does engage in social engineering it is in favour of private school students who are disproportionately admitted relative to their likelihood of achieving good degrees.

The amount of mental gymnastics that the Telegraph and elitists do to rationalise their entitlement is flabbergasting. One article claims that spots at Oxford are not ‘allocated fairly to those who will most benefit from them,’ while another acknowledges (correctly) that disadvantaged students benefit the most and instead rhetorically questions, ‘At what point does social mobility stop?’ One article somehow reconciles disapproval of contextual admissions with acceptance of the idea that ‘a truly fair university application system would surely spot talent wherever it is to be found … and would reward potential and not just performance.’

Here are a few more unironic snippets from Telegraph articles:

There was no explanation that I could give his parents for [rejection]. We made sure he applied to a College with hundreds-of-years-old links with Winchester and that didn’t work either.”

Just as young people in disadvantaged circumstances didn’t choose to be born there… other people didn’t choose to go to a relatively successful school in Buckinghamshire.”

[A private education] almost seems to be a disadvantage really in many ways, especially for the top public schools.”

Whenever values in a society shift, there will be winners and losers. Money and privilege no longer afford as much educational advantage for elites as they have for centuries, finally giving way to principles of equity and genuine meritocracy. That students from Harrow no longer enjoy the 45.2% Oxbridge acceptance rate they did five years ago is not a crime. As Oxford becomes increasingly accessible for increasingly competitive state school students, it should be expected that state school students make up an increasing proportion of the student body. Insofar as we believe that Oxford should admit students that are representative of the diverse wider population, have the most potential to succeed, and will benefit the most from attending, then this – and contextual admissions – is something to champion and celebrate.

Image: CC1:0

Why have so many Prime Ministers gone to Oxford?

0

The question as to why so many of the Government’s top brass has come from the esteemed colleges of Oxford has long been debated. In the second series of the much-loved 80s show Yes Minister, a debate arises between Jim Hacker MP and Bernard Woolley as to why they had two really good roads to Oxford before any to Southampton and Dover. The answer? Simple, according to Woolley; “Nearly all our permanent secretaries went to Oxford, Minister.”

This, to me, can also translate word-for-word onto the unique relationship between Oxford as a university and Prime Minister. There is something abstract, something metaphysical, about Oxford’s ability to draw in undergraduates, chew them up, and spit them out as graduates ambitious for a career in politics at all levels. Indeed, most general-election winning leaders since World War Two have at one time eaten in Halls, attended a College bop, maybe even pulled a few all-nighters to meet that pesky essay deadline. Even Tony Blair, deemed in 1997 to be a “breath of fresh air” (not my words) in British politics, read Jurisprudence in the musky halls of St. John’s College, graduating with a second-class honours in 1975. Out of the 57 heads of government since the 18th century, 30 have been educated at Oxford. Going back to the time of Thatcher, the list goes something like this; Oxford, Oxford, Oxford, Oxford, Oxford, Edinburgh, Oxford, No University, Oxford. This begs the question: why? What is it about this university that takes undergraduates and turns them into material worthy for the job of Prime Minister, debatably?

The first potential reason can be none other than the historical background of the figures that come to prominence as Prime Minister. With few exceptions, most offerings for the role of PM proved to be male, pale, and perhaps a little stale. Most were educated privately in settings such as Eton, Harrow, Winchester, Fettes, Haileybury: it’s hard for students to pass through such hallowed institutions and not come out with an in-built notion of self-confidence and the impetus that they will go far in life. As someone fortunate enough to attend private school for Sixth Form, it is undeniable that such institutions endow their male alumni with more than A-levels and a liking for Schöffels: throughout my two years there, I saw astoundingly mediocre lads transformed into bolshy, strong-willed ‘men’ who thought they were God’s great gift to earth. To put it short and sweetly; it’s pure arrogance, manifested in human form. I’m sure there are some classmates of Boris Johnson that would say the same thing. Such arrogance is even captured in political zeitgeisty show The Thick of It, in which lovable antihero Malcolm Tucker admonishes junior adviser Ollie Reeder in his gloriously distinct manner; “Feet off the furniture you Oxbridge ****, you’re not on a punt now.” More than once has the show proven to be more on-the-pulse politically, despite being written almost two decades ago, and I cannot help but feel as though it captured this feeling perfectly.

Maybe, it was the change in educational philosophy, and the creation of the notorious degree of Politics, Philosophy, and Economics? Admittedly, not all recent candidates for the top job have read for a degree in this field. Johnson infamously read for a degree in Classics, while May studied Geography at St Hugh’s – an apt subject to choose for a college so far out you’d need a map just to navigate your way to lectures. 

How did PPE as we know it come about? It’s undeniable that the World Wars changed society; while changing the world as was known at the time, there was also a noted change in the approach to educating the ‘generation of tomorrow.’ Out went the notions of Classical education – previously viewed as the only education a ‘gentleman’ received to prepare him for the world – and in came a degree Dons at the time believed would equip the leaders of tomorrow with the knowledge and skills needed to ‘lead civilisations.’ Gone was the education centred around civilisations of two millennia ago, and in with teachings of philosophy, political thought, and economics. Classics was not the education deemed adequate to cope with wars, governance, global finance, the emergence of media, and revolutions across the globe; a more modern, multi-disciplinary degree was needed. So, the creation of the first modern-day course was complete, and despite other Universities including Cambridge adopting courses with similar outlines, Oxford’s PPE course is still seen as the gold-standard degree for those that flatter themselves with the same overconfidence shown by David Cameron. Even a centenary after its creation, PPE is still viewed as the degree choice of the ambitious – perhaps not the competent though, if the short records of Liz Truss (PPE, Merton, 1993) and Rishi Sunak (PPE, Lincoln, 1998) are anything to go by. Even if politics isn’t your ambition, the career still serves as a springboard into the civil service, a career in diplomacy, and even journalism – the opportunities are limitless, and all beneficial areas to have contacts in for the up-and-coming parliamentarian. Hustling your way to 500+ LinkedIn connections by the age of 25 has never been easier. 

When all is said and done, however, I’m not entirely sure we can blame the state of the country on one particular choice of degree, tempting though it may be. My degree may not make me a ‘proper’ Classicist to some, but I still feel rightfully annoyed whenever I hear people say the issue with Boris Johnson is that ‘he studied Classics… you know.’ There are arguably more pressing issues with him as a character, and we’re actually quite a civilised bunch, thank you very much. There seems to be no set degree that you *must* study in order to reach the lofty heights of Whitehall; many notable PMs do not share a uniting subject between them. Margaret Thatcher, for example, studied Chemistry, which isn’t the most obvious degree choice for those wishing to enter Parliament. Perhaps, the answer has to lie elsewhere. 

There is another notorious area of Oxford that can perhaps be responsible – take the blame, even – for the disproportionately high number of Oxonian Prime Ministers. As someone who has only set foot in the notorious claret-coloured building once, has the dreaded Oxford Union played a role? What is someone with buckets of self-confidence, a desire for “playing devil’s advocate,” and a penchant for honing their // debating skills supposed to do with their evenings once they’ve matriculated? It is on those well-trodden planks of the debating chamber that the likes of David Cameron, H. H. Asquith, Edward Heath, and Jacob Rees-Mogg have all stood and debated a wide range of topics. Yes, Cambridge has a debate Union that’s just as controversial as ours, and other universities have debating societies, but it comes down once again to the idea that we did it first – and because of this, we inherently have the head-start over all other societies in terms of prestige, ability, and notoriety. It’s a place to hone skills, and much like other opportunities, a chance to hobnob and network with people similarly vying for the same roles. Financial Times Journalist Simon Kuper, who studied at Oxford at the same time as Cameron and Johnson, clearly highlights the link between the politics of the Union, the politics in Parliament, and the tactics used in the EU referendum debate. It’s “a kind of children’s parliament that organises witty debates,” he writes, with Westminster essentially being an elitist private-school club where the likes of Johnson and Cameron would feel at home. Was the Union just another stepping stone to them? Potentially. It does appear that the Union is a self-fulfilling prophecy; you hone your skills within their walls, you perform well, you make the contacts you need to consider Politics as a viable option, and before you know it you’re sitting comfortably, both figuratively and literally. Those plush, green-leather benches in the Commons are proven comfortable places for MPs to recline during debates, and the £84k a year salary plus more than generous pension scheme is certainly enough to heat all the homes you might come to own. If conducted correctly, a career in politics can last an entire career lifespan; even done incorrectly, chances are with the current state of affairs you’ll still find yourself well-off. Or, failing that, in the I’m A Celebrity jungle. 

There is one last point that I think supersedes both the Union, the private schooling, and the inflated egos, and might be viewed as a bit of a curveball; that is, the prominence of political associations and organisations. Once again, we come to the familiar argument of yes, other universities have political societies, but Nothing Compares to Us, to paraphrase Sinead O’Connor. A weird flex it may be, but our University Conservative Association (OUCA), is the largest student party-political society in Europe according to their website. Similarly, the University Labour Club (OULC) describe themselves as “the largest and oldest Labour club in the country,” after celebrating their centenary in 2019. Starting to notice a trend here? Maybe Oxford’s age and illustrious history of alumni attracts those who get their kicks from walking through the same halls as the dead white men they’ve spent their lives idolising? Who knows; maybe they’re seeking out the ghost of Margaret Thatcher in the hope she’ll imbibe them with the knowledge of how to deal with the EU; fleeing with the knowledge before she can steal their milk.

Both societies host events such as Port and Policy, OUCA’s weekly gathering to discuss current policy ideas, while OULC’s Beer and Bickering provides a chance for friendly debate on motions such as ”Should we be terrified of the Tories?” For fear of losing my impartiality in this article, I feel like I should refrain from answering that; but both societies provide members with the chance to debate in a less raucous manner. In short, the perfect place for those just starting out on the debate circuit. 

Networking at the Union is certainly interesting, but for the most part that is only among other students; sure, some of them might have some family connections that can help them along, but if they’re ‘looking after themselves first’ (to quote the Iron Lady), then the chances of them sharing such connections with others is slim. Contrastingly, both societies have strong networking opportunities and crucial interaction with their ‘mother’ parties. OUCA’s trips to the House of Commons this term was arranged in collaboration with a current MP, and their London P&P events provide the perfect opportunity for alumni to wine and dine their way to several important connections. Considering names such as Cameron, May, Hague, Hunt, Rees-Mogg, Hannan, and Gove have all played a part in the history of the society, there is no telling the sort of political connections that can be made at their events. Labour’s networking focuses more on the tactical and practical; while introducing them to MPs during talks and canvassing opportunities, the Club also gives students the chance to acquire meaningful experience of public interaction. A skill of great importance to the budding parliamentarian, but an ironic stance for the Labour Club to take. If only someone had given Gordon Brown the same training before the 2010 election. Union membership is also costly; even the Lifetime Access Membership, which I’m eligible to receive, still costs more than my food budget for most of the term. Membership to both societies is much more accessible; £10 life membership for the Conservatives, and £15/£8 for Labour, the latter being an access membership. Such party-political organisations ultimately provide a more structured and more accessible route into politics for students. This seems like the most effective method to forge your political career; all the benefits of the networking and experience, but without the risk of embroiling themselves in major Union scandals that will haunt their future careers.

There are many other reasons that Oxford may be the breeding ground for future Parliamentary leaders, but those reasons are just about as strong as Matt Hancock’s for ditching his constituents to appear on a reality show. Thus, they won’t be discussed here. 

Despite the tone I’ve taken occasionally in this article, I am in fact proud to say I attend this university. What doesn’t make me proud is the connection Oxford has to the Prime Ministers of the past decades. Disregarding the intrinsic links between Oxford and the Premiership, it is important to ask if we as an institution are proud to have these figures as our political leaders. We have Oxford graduates in economics who crashed the economy in the space of 44 days, making a mockery of the country globally. We have Oxford graduates who were supposed to be honest to voters, yet the real number of children they have goes unanswered. We have Oxford graduates who play fast and loose with the livelihoods of millions of people, putting more consideration on how their tax policy will impact those on £200,000 a year more than £20,000 a year.

What does it say about Oxford as a University for producing political leaders such as this? It should be no source of pride for us current students that Oxford has produced these people.

It can be easy to despair, but I find that there is light at the end of a tunnel. As Bob Dylan said in his 1964 song; the times, they are a changin’. Back when the current leaders were debating on the Union floor, frantically writing in the library, or sipping pints in the Chequers, even the mere idea of a program like UNIQ summer schools would have been mocked. Colleges did not have access and outreach departments; I imagine the only outreach Oxford considered was reaching out to Eton beaks to see how many were interested in applying that year. I’ve heard the phrase that “the 1970s and 1980s were different times” and they really were for Oxford. We live in a different Oxford to the University that shaped the Prime Ministers of recent decades.

I’d like to end with a quote from George Orwell that I feel sums up the way things will change in the future; “In Slough, Dagenham, Barnet, Letchworth, Hayes – everywhere, indeed, on the outskirts of great towns – the old pattern is gradually changing into something new…. In those vast new wildernesses of glass and brick the sharp distinctions of the older kind of town… no longer exist. To that civilization belong the people who are most definitely of the modern world…  they are the indeterminate stratum at which the older class distinctions are beginning to break down.” I wholly agree with what Orwell postulates here – modern students, from modern towns, with modern outlooks will be the future – but I still don’t quite see my home town of Basildon producing any heads of government any time soon. 

Maybe there will still be links between Oxford and the role of Prime Minister in years to come, but I hope to see a leader who represents the Oxford I know today. The ones where the students are conscious of those around them. Ones that have self-belief because of their own abilities, and not because they were brought up with the notions of inherent superiority over others because of their family, background, schooling. In short, Oxford needs to produce a Prime Minister that has the people’s interests at heart, and not those of their elite friends or their own vested interests in advancing their career. Whether we can produce such a leader is unknown, but a girl can dream.

Who knows? Maybe the person reading this right now will one day rise from their bench, and take to the Dispatch box. I doubt Oxford has seen its last PM just yet.

A Night Under the Stars: Reviewing Enclosure

0

The programme for Mostly Moss Productions’ Enclosure reads: “In this time of crisis hold each other closer. In community with each other, and with the more-than-human, with love: resist”. Not only was this message conveyed in the brilliant original writing of Jamie Walker and the story that unfolded before the audience’s eyes; It was lived every evening. People joined and walked together, shared blankets, drank cups of tea and sat together in the common. That was what was so unique about Enclosure, you weren’t just watching the action, you became a part of it. 

It is unusual to see a performance happening outdoors in October, yet charming advice to “follow the fairylights” by members of the crew led the audience into Hogacre Common Eco Park. This site-specific staging  effectively announced the production’s message before it even began. A public access site attesting to the “wilderness ever present and accessible to everyone”, whilst an outdoor setting vulnerable to weather changes served as a reminder of the future of the climate and the ever-threatening potential for extreme weather events. Their message emphasises that we have to face the future together, helping one another out, just as the audience were that night. From beginning to end, in setting and in performance, Enclosure was a truly thought-provoking piece, leaving you questioning your relationships with the natural world as well as one another. 

The play opened with the  weekly conservation volunteers, Jules (Lindsey March), Tom (John Gaughan), Ed (Finn Carter), and Debbie (Pareena Verma), sitting together, eating cake Debbie had made and discussing the work they had been doing managing the scrub of the common. We find out that wild boar have returned to the common, meaning the volunteers will no longer gather, as a scientist from Holland comes to oversee the process of rewilding. The story follows Ed, the biology student new to the group, as he learns about the common and the conservation work of both Tom and Ingrid, the scientist, who take opposing views on who owns the land and what should be done with it. 

Gaughan gave a captivating performance as Tom, with high emotion and intensity evident as he spoke about his relationship with the common and his pain at seeing it fenced off and blocked to ordinary people in favour of the animals. Defending his stance against the rewilding to his friend Harry (Aryman Gupta), he passionately shouts that “They don’t care!”, forcing us to question our relationships with animals and how we perceive their capacity to think and feel. 

In a captivating monologue, Tom takes us through the history of the common, from open ground where wild animals roamed, to a shared place for ordinary people, to the Forest laws that meant that the rich took ownership of the land. It outlined the complex nature of land ownership and privatisation, and provoked questions of why we humans often feel like we own such land when we in fact share it with so many other organisms. Angry, impassioned dialogue was occasionally interspersed by mutter of “it’s freezing”, sending laughter through the crowd, all of whom trying to keep warm on a bitter Autumn evening. 

Cass Baumberg and Mary-Jane Woodward played a dynamic mother-daughter duo as Ingrid (Baumberg), the scientist from Holland, in charge of overseeing the rewilding of the common, and her daughter Anna (Woodward). Baumberg gave an excellent performance, bursting with realistic enthusiasm as she taught Ed about the rewilding project. Her performance captured the essence of the play and the feeling that we were not just watching actors, but everyday lives – real people with real care, passion and curiosity for the topics they explored together, which is a credit to the actors’ commitment. Woodward conveyed beautifully (and through few words) the wonder and innocence of a child interacting with the details of the natural world. Movement and playful exploration of the space brought scenes to life, especially a musical interlude during which  ‘animals’ explored the common space, before giving branches to members of the audience – a statement of unity and sharing. 

The climax of the piece was the moment that Tom stole the key to the fence from Ed, and broke into the common to kill the wild boar, holding Anna hostage with him. The tension left you on the edge of your seat as Ingrid emotionally tried to explain to Tom the point of rewilding, and that the space would open once again, and this time they’d be doing the conservation work “with them”, referring to the wild animals. Mid-performance, posts and strings were arranged  around the audience, literally closing us in, heightening the intensity of the final moments as they stood trapped either side of a fence, and the audience sat enclosed where we sat. 

However, despite the undeniable merits of such a unique setting, it did leave me with questions surrounding accessibility. The route to the common meant navigating poorly lit paths, a raised footbridge with access by stairs only and then the uneven ground of the common. 

Located next to train tracks, frequent background noise made some of the dialogue difficult to hear, whilst the biting cold started to feel uncomfortable as time went on. Mostly Moss Productions did their best to combat people walking alone in the dark, organising a walking group from the centre of Oxford to the common as well as having a crew member or two along the route to ensure people could find their way. However, one student, who travelled alone, said to Cherwell, “I couldn’t shake the feeling that between the unlit country roads, terrifying footbridge and lack of signposting the venue was at best difficult to get to, and at worst frightening”. It would seem such a shame for people to not be able to access or be distracted by the challenges of the setting when the piece itself raises so many important questions and holds so many messages about community. 

Most Moss Productions’ Enclosure gave a strong and thought-provoking message about conservation, with storytelling eloquently interwoven with fascinating biological and historical facts such as the forest laws and processes linked to rewilding. Under the surface, dialogue about the common seemed to hold a broader social message with lines such as “they used to be a little more fluid and open… a great deal depends on it” together with sighs of “not much difference between us and the common”, seemingly emphasising the need for increased tolerance and togetherness in society, open minds, flexibility of ideas, community spirit. Whilst drawing our attention to important environmental issues at this time of climate crisis, Enclosure also painted a detailed picture of the challenges we as a society face and how we should face them. The answer: together.  

Delightful, witty and well-rendered: ‘Blithe Spirit’ in review

0

In something of a swan song for Oxford’s A2 Productions, on the 9-12th November, they took to the Keble O’Reilly Theatre for their production of Noël Coward’s Blithe Spirit. Cherwell’s previous interview with director Alex Foster and Alfred Dry (Madame Arcati)  raised expectations for A2’s creative reimagining of the 1941 play by Noël Coward, and the performances did not disappoint. 

In this queer retelling of the original story, Charles Condomine (Michael Freeman) and his wife Ruth Condomine (Siân Lawrence) invite some of their friends and a bizarre spiritual medium called Madame Arcati to their home to conduct a séance. However, in A2’s version, Madame Arcati is a drag queen and when the séance proves effective, it is Charles’ dead first husband Evelyn Condomine (Daniel McNamee) who comes back to haunt the married couple. 

The script lends itself well to this queer reframing, and overall the show was a large success. Though the first few minutes were a little rough,  with a few lines delivered too early and the Condomine duo almost over-eager to push the conversation along,  the actors’ found their footing and the rest of the performance was a delightful, witty, and well-rendered retelling.

Especially notable was Daniel McNamee’s performance as Evelyn, and Alfred Dry, in his Oxford-famous drag persona Miss Take, as Madame Arcati. Embracing the overdone, Dry successfully created the comedic atmosphere so essential to the otherwise awkward séance scenes and improvised gracefully in the face of accidents and errors. Madame Arcati’s hair and makeup were also stunning, artistry which can be credited to Dry / Miss Take as their own makeup artist.

McNamee tastefully played with the feminine tropes designed for the original ‘Elvira’, and used them to explore the queerness of Evelyn without falling into any tired cliches, and the result was something neither derivative nor superficial, which actually added to the humour and intrigue of the production.

As Foster told Cherwell in his interview “what’s quite funny is that making it more pronouncedly queer has meant that the jokes are just dirtier and sexier and funnier,” and while this is very true, it is also true that this humor is just as much a testament to the actors’ as it is to the adaptation of the script. Lawrence plays the outraged wife with apparent ease and Freeman is the perfect foil against which the craziness of the other characters’ shines out while still adeptly representing Charles’ character.

 The show’s technical elements were also very successful. The costuming by Mia Beechey reflected the characters well and elevated them to a higher level of believability, creating relatively timeless styles that still suggested the wealth and stature of the Condomines and the eccentricity of Madame Arcati. The set design by Jigyasa Anand and Teagan Riches was also effective, creating different spaces of interaction onstage, although it did seem slightly disjointed, as though none of the set pieces ought to exist in the same living room. Some of them, especially the sofa, did not do the elitist nature of the Condomines justice, while the singularly unstable nature of the table made the séance scenes constantly feel one step away from scenic disaster. However, the space enabled the often-emphatic physical performance of Madame Arcati and the rest, creating a level of dynamism that aided the storytelling. 

A2 productions’ performance of Blithe Spirit was everything you could hope from student theatre: invigorating and humorous, but also sharp and poignant at times. It was the perfect form of middle-term escapism and did the original play and its playwright justice, as well as celebrating a new generation of queer culture and creativity. 

Image Credit: A2 productions

‘Swinging the Lens’: In conversation with Adjoa Andoh

0

Adjoa Andoh, a ground-breaking actor and director, known most recently for her role as Lady Danbury on Netflix show Bridgerton is the 2022 – 2023 Cameron Mackintosh Professor of Contemporary Theatre at St Catherine’s college. She will be holding a series of ‘in conversations’ and workshops addressing key issues of diversity and inclusion while making work at Oxford, in her time as Professor.

‘Swinging the Lens’, the name of her production company, encapsulates all that she is aiming to do.

If we think of a lens as our perspective on the world, she’s asking whose stories are getting told, and acting to change that, so that new stories, new perspectives, new lenses on reality are given the space to be heard too.

I sat down with Adjoa following her second workshop and we talked about her aims, belonging, role models and I reflected on the transformative impact her work had had on me in such a small space of time.

We started with a moment in her inaugural lecture where she spoke about ‘class, race and poverty’ still being key determinants of opportunity in our society and the stories that are told of ‘people like them’. I resonated with what she said. When I took my seat at the beginning of her first workshop, I was at one of my lowest points. In the weeks leading up to the workshops I had had someone turn to me in a tutorial and ask, ‘what would a working-class person like you know about that?’; and sat in my university kitchen, someone told me that ‘people like you should be made to wear a special commonest of the common gown’. Just two examples of the multiple explicit and implicit moments built up over my two years here that told me, loud and clear, that I didn’t belong.

It felt like my 17-year-old self-had been proven right. I laughed when it was suggested I applied to Oxford, I looked at my head of sixth form and said, ‘a place like that doesn’t want people like me’, I hoped I would be wrong.

In a matter of minutes Adjoa changed all of that. She stood in front of us all and told us that we were welcome, we belonged and that our stories, perspectives, and ideas were all as valuable as each other’s. In the adverts for her workshops, it says she’s particularly interested in meeting students from ethnic minorities, low socioeconomic backgrounds, those with disabilities and those identifying as LGBTQ+; groups often marginalised or erased from the narrative, whose stories often aren’t told and if they are, not by the people who live them. For too many of these students, myself included, they feel excluded from many places, and access often comes as an afterthought. I’ve always felt a sense of frustration when people told me not to worry, ‘there’ll be people like you there’. Representation matters but even statements like these have an air of exclusivity, that you weren’t wanted or didn’t belong in the main, you had to stick to a little side group.

For Adjoa, she says, “I think we have to re-educate ourselves because I think there is a lot of pressure for people to fit into their particular box and not stray from it.”

I ask her why she is here doing the work she is doing. “I’m here for all of us who need space made for us.” She asks, who has the right to tell us we should be excluded from the spaces we feel excluded from, if we have the skills or curiosity to want to be in them? In her state of ‘outrage and childish it’s not fair’ she says she’s simply interested in being fair. Not “more superior or more entitled or more exclusive, I’m saying let’s be fair.”

As for the phrase ‘people like them,’ she sees it as a classic way of othering and disempowering and is interested in the opposite because she has been ‘people like them’. “Our existence is miraculous, and this othering is a waste of growth, a waste of joy” and any structure where this is the narrative, she will push back against. Pushing back is exactly what she is doing, by opening up the conversations but also by setting the example, creating an empowering, collective, creative space where everyone from all different backgrounds is welcome and is made to feel like they are heard and belong. Highlighted is what we have in common, and we celebrate that. We also learn, respect and value the stories and perspectives we share with each other that highlight our differences. We learn about the people who came before us and the importance of knowing that we have been part of the story before this point.

She tells us stories of the unsung, stories most of us have never heard before, but in knowing about them Adjoa says; “we can go forward standing on the shoulders of those who already came before us”. The examples she gives in her lecture are black footballers and the contributions they have made to British football; including Jack Leslie the first black player to be called up for England in 1925. She asks if we knew this story, maybe less fuss would be made about black footballers now, and maybe less hate would have been received by our young black penalty takers at the 2021 Euros?

In her short time here, she has created an empowering space for us all to share. I’d given up hope on ever feeling like I belonged in Oxford up until that point. However, now I had been given the space to belong, my question, now in my own state of outrage, why can’t this be mirrored elsewhere?

I ask her how we can apply what is created in that room to wider life?

“If we can use days like today, of being together, as a touchstone, to constantly remind yourself, when the noise that says you shouldn’t be here, you’re not valid, not worthy, is loud… remember the people I told you about, those unsung people whose achievements we don’t know about and just hold on to them.

“Remind yourself when you need it and re-encourage yourself that you belong.

“Hold your place, hold your nerve, hold your line because what you are doing is holding a space for joy for yourself. For the celebration of yourself.”

That joy is infectious and uplifting. What she tells me rings true. From that first workshop onwards, I have held on to that feeling and felt empowered, not only to stay and find that joy for myself, but also to share it – create that space for others as Adjoa has for us. Her work is all about stories, and here I want to tell this story of hope and joy, so it too can be used as a foundation for future work to be built upon.  We are already here with a space of mutual belonging in Oxford, we are part of the story already, hopefully in knowing that we can move forward standing on the shoulders of Adjoa and the work she has done.

“There are terrific stories of joy and beauty, togetherness, cooperation and elevation but they’re not the stories that lead.”

Creating such a welcoming space started with the smallest of gestures, disguised as a simple memory game, we started the session by going around every person, having them say their name, the group repeating it back to them and welcoming them. This is something that could have been rushed but instead, Adjoa stopped and made sure every single person’s name was being pronounced correctly. I asked her why it was important to her to start the session this way, “Names are something we carry with us everywhere and people bothering to pronounce your name correctly means they’re bothered to spend enough time with you to pay attention to the fact that it is important. That you are important. That honouring the name you carry is important.”

You could hear in the voices of many in attendance this was something people seldom paid attention to, after repeating their name once or twice some were ready to give in, but Adjoa encouraged them. She talks about how people often feel embarrassed about needing to ask you to repeat your name or not getting the pronunciation right the first time but that the point is, “that intention, the intention to pay attention.”

It was worth it, such a small gesture yet I watched as people’s faces lit up as they heard a room of people pay attention, make the effort and pronounce their name correctly. Names carry so much meaning about our identity, but for so many, it is something that goes overlooked. When our names are said incorrectly many of us laugh, for me often going ‘I don’t know who this Teigen person is’, but such a small thing can make us feel so unseen. For Adjoa, she says “I’m much happier to go ‘say your name three times and everyone says it back’, let’s honour and respect that person because we all deserve that. It’s really a tiny thing.”

Adjoa is interested in and gives us the space to explore and express the complexity and multiplicity of stories that make us who we are. For all of us, assumptions are made by the people around us, of the story that makes us, based solely on the way we look, the colour of our skin, and our accent. Each of us is beautifully complex and it’s when we take the time to ask and listen and tell the stories that aren’t given the platform to be told that we are enriched by the full force of life. We are all, she says “vibrating with living history”. At her lecture, a White English Victorian formal family portrait is projected behind her. Adjoa looks at the faces in the picture and smiles before telling us the portrait is of part of her family and talks us through her family tree. Whilst she laughs that nobody needed to see that, she included it because for her “when I look at my great grandfather Joseph Pickering and my nana Jessie and my great grandmother Jessie that is not what people would expect to be part of my family if they look at me.

People’s lives are interestingly complex, we need to think about that complexity.”

It is also, as Adjoa tells me, where we find our common ground with each other and that stories need to be told so we can “understand what’s really going on in the world and the ways we engage with each other”. At the workshop we play the game ‘anyone who’ where people run across the circle if something said applies to them such as ‘anyone who is wearing black shoes’. It highlights what we have in common, potentially unexpected commonalities. What we find in common, who we resonate with, and who our role models are, also interests her. “It’s about essence and spirit sometimes”, you don’t necessarily have to look like someone or sound like someone for you to resonate with them, to share something in common with them. She tells me “When I play Richard III, I do so because, as a little mixed-race girl from the Cotswolds in the 1960s I resonated with him, his sense of not being fully embraced. What had my life to do with Richard III? Nothing and everything. I love the freedom of that, let me get my influences where I get my influences.”

We are students from all different backgrounds, different ethnicities, sexualities, genders, social class backgrounds, and ages, we are all studying a range of subjects but in those workshops, we are a collective. It doesn’t matter if you have any experience in theatre, it’s all about stories, which are told, which aren’t, who’s telling them and why. We explore texts by Lolita Chakrabarti, Kobina Sekyi, Biyi Bandele and Shakespeare. We share our perspectives and ‘lenses’ through our own writing. Most important of all we are together in a collective joy, a celebration of ourselves and each other, one in which I hope we can expand to the rest of the university and beyond.

For anyone reading this, who is being made to feel like they don’t belong or is being made to feel ashamed of parts of their identity – the final question I asked Adjoa was her advice to you and why you should come to the next workshop.

“If people feel like they are being excluded or marginalised or made to feel less than they should, come to the workshop for encouragement that they are fabulous and they are welcome and they are wanted and actually the ‘less than’ appellation should be applied to the people who are making them feel that way.

You are at Oxford University by dint of your hard work, your application, your curiosity and the skills that you possess, and no one has the right to take that away from you. Any who attempts to, is unworthy and should not be paid attention to.

It is your right, it is your duty and make it your joy, to remain and flourish because this is an extraordinary institution, and it has many benefits, and you should not be shoved sideways away from those benefits because somebody else is confused by your presence.”

“This is your time, your opportunity – How wonderful you are.”

Image credit: St Catherine’s College

Striking the balance at university

0

As you get stuck into university, whether it be at undergrad or postgrad level, there will be hundreds of opportunities and events thrown at you. From society events, speakers that visit the university, career networking afternoons and then just your friends organising a weekend pub trip. All in all, you can pack your days with back-to-back plans or keep them empty.

But striking the balance is something I find incredibly difficult. Will I miss a great speaker? Will I not be in the loop? I sometimes find myself racing home to try to nap or just relax a bit in preparation for an evening event that I really should just skip. I sometimes struggle to say no.

When my friends meet up, even if I am tired or feel like I need a day at home, I will convince myself that it will be fine when I get there because I will be with everyone and having fun – I will forget that I am in dire need of some TLC.

I sometimes envy those who can just say: “Sorry, not tonight”, without feeling the need to give a detailed explanation about how they are so sorry but they can’t come for reasons x, y and z. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not someone who never turns down plans or puts themselves first. I love my sleep as much as the next person and even when I have plans, I try my best to not allow my sleep to get compromised. I have also backed out of plans— just maybe not as often as I should.

But it can be difficult when you want to do all these things. I am not packing my calendar full of events that I dread or dislike. I wish I could be in two places at once, but as fun as this term has been, I am also aware that it has been packed that little bit too full. I need to prioritise certain events and know to turn down others, even if I feel like I don’t need a night off at that moment in time, my future self will thank me for it.

I get easily swept up in things that sound exciting. When someone tells me they are a trapeze artist, my immediate thought is: “That is so cool, maybe I can try that”. Really there is no need for me to fling myself from ropes for the hell of it. As a fun activity to try out sure (it does sound amazing), but not another regular appointment on my weekly schedule. Just because someone else does it, or someone I know raves about something, it doesn’t mean I have to move mountains to include it in my day. I need to just acknowledge that it does sound great but that what I actually need is my pyjamas, a blanket, and Legally Blonde.

Being busy and having lots to do it great, but only when you are actually able to enjoy those plans and not just trudge through them thinking about the moment you get to collapse onto your bed. In the new year I am going to try and follow my own advice of saying no – the world won’t implode and your friends won’t hate you. Have a night off, it’s ok.

Image Credit: Leeloo Thefirst via Pexels.

Time’s Up: Oxford Student Union’s latest climate justice demands

0

The Oxford University Student Union has renewed its push for climate action with its latest set of sustainability demands to the University. These aim to tackle widespread collegiate inaction in addressing the climate crisis and give governing bodies until March 2023 to act.

The SU is calling for each college to adopt a target of net zero carbon and biodiversity gain by 2035 at the latest, and appropriately reorganise governance to allow for sufficient time devoted to the project. They must also form sustainability committees with suitable student representation and be publicly transparent by publishing comprehensive strategies and full annual progress reports.

In the past, college level commitment to climate action has been limited. As it stands, Mansfield and Hertford have publicly committed to a 2030 net zero target, with St Edmund Hall releasing a sustainability strategy earlier this year. Divestment from fossil fuels is similarly underwhelming with only 6 colleges cooperating directly with the central university and out of the rest, a minute number (Balliol, Somerville, Trinity and St Anne’s) have committed perfunctorily to fossil fuel divestment.

Anna-Tina Jashapara, VP Charities and Community recognised the responsibility of the colleges “as institutions with considerable power and resources”. Some colleges, of course, are less equipped to initiate an immediate change but Oxford SU make it clear that the college contributions fund will continue to offer support. 

The SU’s demands highlight that even wealthy institutions such as Oxford University, which has a £5.06bn endowment, still have a long way to go before reaching carbon neutrality and fossil fuel divestment. Mirroring the stark apathy of the Global North and the richest, most powerful nations both attending and abstaining from COP-27, colleges have been largely inactive for three years despite the University’s commitment to fossil fuel divestment in 2020. 

Following the general theme of inaction, COP-27 ended on 18th November. Nevertheless, the SU’s actions herald a renewal of commitment to public, clear-cut change making. Meanwhile, the demands are fully supported by the Decarbonise Oxford campaign, Oxford Climate Justice Campaign, and Oxford Climate Society, inciting student-led involvement and action. At present, it is largely students who are holding their colleges accountable for climate action. CLOC, for example, is the student-founded points-based system that grades individual colleges’ climate action and provides clear evidence of university-wide inaction.

The Oxford SU demands that responsibility is taken publicly by everyone; there are no colleges, staff members, faculties, departments or students who are exempt from the impact of climate change. So these are the people who must take action for climate justice. Action Director at OCS, Esme McMillan, reminds us that now is the time to ensure “our planet is liveable for all present and future generations.”

Letting the “work do the talking” – Professor Samson Kambalu’s Fourth Plinth statue

0

One of Oxford’s own, Professor Samson Kambalu of Magdalen College, is the current laureate of Trafalgar Square’s Fourth Plinth. As something that embodies the diversity of British identity, his statue, Antelope, is a direct challenge to Oxford’s own statues. It highlights that the university is as static as its statues, stuck in a bygone era of so-called colonial glory. Now, Antelope represents an opportunity to develop, expand, and enrich Oxford’s global identity.  Instead, it is doggedly silent on the topic, only acknowledging Kambalu in a brief website news update. This embodies a more deep-rooted apathy to confronting the most difficult conversations. The whole university should be proudly knowing of the nationally significant work of Samson Kambalu. Instead, I’ve spent more time explaining who he is over the last few weeks than having vital discussions on what is more important: a fauxlanthropic Gormley with genitalia greeting the Broad Street masses or persistent challenges to the colonial past through building a lively, diverse array of sculptural identity.

Statues are complicated in Oxford. In 2020, debates were re-sparked by the Black Lives Matter protests that dominated High Street where Oriel’s Rhodes looms. Now, the conversation can celebrate Kambalu’s art but dialogue barely exists; are we still not at the point of replacing Rhodes with Kambalu’s socio-politically powerful figures?

When conversation occurs, it is bound by counter-productive left-right politics that stymies debate: The Times called Antelope a ‘disappointing history lesson’ whilst the Guardian calls it an ‘anticolonial hero statue’. Majestic and dauntless – unlike Rhodes’ bowed head – pan-Africanist John Chilembwe and European missionary John Chorley represent something that is far more educational and conversation-opening. The two papers’ diametrically opposing takes on the statue illustrate that we are still unable to celebrate diversity instead of idolising colonialists.

Kambalu has said that “Antelope on the Fourth Plinth was forever going to be a litmus test for how much I belong to British society as an African and a cosmopolitan. This commission fills me with excitement and joy.” This joy had been very, if briefly, present in Oxford; the Professor had an exhibition, New Liberia, in Modern Art Oxford where a maquette of Antelope was on display as well as in Magdalen’s Fractured Republic display.  For now though,, the trip to London must be made to see the statue. This raises questions of Kambalu’s relationship with Oxford – surely there should be a permanent version of Antelope in Oxford? I was interested to know how much dialogue the Professor had had with the university to scope what Antelope meant to an institution founded on colonial iconography. In an emailing discourse, Professor Kambalu made it clear that he must “let the work do the talking” and declined to disclose his level of communication with the university. Is Oxford still hooked on its “dodgy” history? Will there never be the “imperial showdown” (The Guardian review of Antelope) that Antelope calls for? 

We’re still waiting for university-wide discussion. In 2020, the Oxford Zimbabwe Arts Partnership proposed an anti-rhodes, anti-colonial statuesque celebration of diversity but the art project was swiftly shut down by the university. An OZAP Facebook post from June this year indicates that ‘Oxford & Rhodes: past, present & future project is still in progress’ but the university is still quiet.

On the whole, however, Antelope has been widely successful, provoking much healthy debate. Kambalu’s art invests in conversations on a better future but for now, Oxford remains stuck in its “dodgy” past.

Antelope is on display in Trafalgar Square until 2024 and a maquette of Antelope is on display in the Scottish Parliament.

Image: CC2:0//Stu Smith via Flickr.

Oxford’s Ebola vaccine recommended by WHO for use against Uganda outbreak

0

A new Ebola virus vaccine developed by the Oxford Vaccine Group is one of three vaccines recommended for a trial in Uganda to combat the ongoing outbreak of an Ebola variant that evades current vaccines.

Existing vaccines that effectively halt the more common Zaire strain of ebolavirus do not work with the Sudan strain behind Uganda’s outbreak. With support from researchers at the Jenner Institute, Professor of Vaccinology and Immunology at the Oxford Vaccine Group, Teresa Lambe OBE, has developed an experimental vaccine designed to generate an immune response against both the Zaire and Sudan strains of ebolavirus. The vaccine is due to arrive in Uganda this week.

According to Lambe, the outbreak in Uganda “highlights the ongoing and pressing need for rapid responses to prevent outbreaks escalating further”.

Since Uganda declared an Ebola disease outbreak caused by the Sudan ebolavirus on 22nd October, 163 infections and 77 deaths have been reported across nine regions. The urgency of this situation led the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Ministry of Health in Uganda to co-sponsor a randomised ring vaccination trial of vaccines designed for the Sudan strain. This method was previously successful in Zaire ebolavirus outbreaks in Guinea and Sierra Leone. 

The WHO asked the existing COVID-19 Vaccine Prioritisation Working Group to extend its COVID-19 remit to rapidly evaluate the suitability of candidate Ebola vaccines for inclusion in the planned trial in Uganda using similar considerations on safety, likely efficacy and logistic issues relating to availability and implementation.

Consequently, the WHO Vaccine Prioritisation Working Group recommended on 16th November that the Oxford biEBOV vaccine be included in a planned ring vaccination trial in Uganda. Two other vaccines from the Sabin Vaccine Institute USA and International Aids Vaccine Initiative were also recommended for inclusion.

Oxford’s ebola vaccine was developed using methods proven successful in the development of the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. Both share a common vector of the ChAdOx1 virus, a weakened version of a common cold virus (adenovirus) that has been genetically modified so that it is impossible for it to replicate in humans. 

The Working Group noted that the Oxford vaccine’s use of the ChAdOx1 platform in the COVID-19 pandemic was tested in the field with over two billion doses. However, they ranked the Oxford vaccine last out of the three as there is limited clinical trial experience with the ChAdOx1 platform encoding an ebolavirus insert. 

Sandy Douglas, Associate Professor at the Jenner Institute and lead on manufacturing scaleup for the Oxford vaccine, was keen to highlight that “[o]ne of the key advantages of this [Oxford ebolavirus vaccine] is that it should be possible to produce it at [sic] very large scale”. He noted how the Serum Institute of India was able to use Oxford’s adenovirus manufacturing techniques to make more than one billion doses of the Oxford adenovirus-based COVID-19 vaccine.

Disease outbreaks are unpredictable, and according to Dr Charle Weller, head of infectious disease prevention at Wellcome, the WHO may use only one vaccine in the field to ensure enough data is collected to assess one candidate fully, or decide to use all three in case one fails. The vaccine trial is also dependent on good relations with the local community, but recent accounts from frontline workers have raised concerns about misinformation and local conspiracy theories that claim the Ebola outbreak is fake.