Oxford's oldest student newspaper

Independent since 1920

Blog Page 2

Oxford University and the guise of climate consciousness

By
Madelina Gordon
-
Artwork by Joseph Walford

Oxford University and climate action. Opinions on Oxford’s relationship with such action differ profusely across student activist groups, the University administration and climate-focused academics. In navigating the conflicting views and disagreements between key stakeholders, data made available to the public in response to FOI requests, is of paramount significance. Thus, it is through a data-oriented lens, that in the context of the last decade being the warmest in historical record and projected warming of 2.6-4.8 degrees celsius if no change is made to current levels of emissions, Oxford University’s self-defeating ties with the fossil fuel industry and the contradictions between its policies and actions are exposed.

To understand the inconsistency in the University’s policies and rhetoric regarding the climate crisis on the one hand, and its fiscal actions on the other, one needs to go back to the university’s milestone unveiling of The Oxford Martin Principles for Climate Conscious Investment in 2018. 

The principles were developed in the context of two important background conditions. The first is that in order to meet the aims of the 2016 Paris Agreement – which was to limit global temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels by the end of this century – annual emissions would need to reduce 43% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels. 

The second key contextual condition for the principles was the Sullivan Principles from which they took inspiration. These principles, released in 1977 against the backdrop of Apartheid in South Africa, provided seven requirements concerning equal treatment of employees regardless of race (explicitly in contradiction with racial segregation policies under Apartheid) that needed to be met by any corporation in South Africa as a condition for doing business with overseas companies and investors. The Sullivan Principles were adopted by 125 US companies, and during their introduction and the divestment campaign they prescribed, there was much appraisal for the principles’ success. In 2020, the Oxford Martin Principles sought to replicate their model and apply it to the urgent need to ensure that two-thirds of current fossil fuel reserves remained unburned in order to meet the demands of the Paris Agreement. 

There are three Oxford Martin Principles: (1) commitment to ‘net-zero’ emissions, (2) developing a profitable net-zero business model, and (3) quantitative medium-term targets. They prescribe that companies should develop and publish a transition strategy to reach a net-zero target. For companies providing carbon intensive services or fuels with “no currently available substitutes”, the principles advise “a clear plan” for developing and deploying substitutes. According to the principles, these plans all should be in the timescale of the mid-term; which in 2018 was 2030 according to the Oxford Martin Principles briefing document, yet there is minimal explanation for how this definition of the ‘mid-term’ has been reached.

The function of the principles is to “provide a framework for engagement between climate conscious investors and companies across the global economy”, and generate a checklist that must be met by companies outside of Oxford looking to meet the ‘climate conscious’ label. According to the Oxford Martin School website, by the close of the programme’s launch in November 2020, “the principles had influenced the strategies of investment management companies and institutional investors that control a combined £62.5 billion,” including Sarasin and Partners and other such global investment management companies, alongside St Hilda’s College and New College. 

What is crucial to note is that the principles have also been fundamental to Oxford University’s own financial policies. In the 2022 OEF report from Oxford University Endowment Management (OUem) –the subsidiary responsible for managing the University’s £6 billion endowment – it is specified that OUem “asked all investment partners to use the Oxford Martin Principles for Climate Conscious Investment”. Oxford’s donations and research funding guidelines specify consideration of “the funder’s commitment to net zero, as evidenced through credible plans to achieve net zero carbon by 2050 or sooner, consistent with the Oxford Martin Principles”. Moreover, the Oxford University Careers Service has introduced a set of questions for recruiters which draw on the principles.

On the most generous understanding, most of the key players in the fossil fuel industry do not meet the standards set by the Oxford Martin Principles. According to evidence collated by Climate Action 100+ – an initiative that assesses the extent to which the “largest corporate greenhouse gas emitters take necessary action on climate change” – whilst ExxonMobil has failed to make a commitment to GHG reduction in the medium term,  Shell does not have a decarbonisation strategy to meet its medium and long term GHG reduction targets, and both BP PLC and Eni SpA’s medium term targets for GHG reduction are not aligned with the global target of limiting warming to 1.5°C. 

In the post-Martin Principles era, it is surprising and deeply worrying to find that Oxford University has maintained its financial relationships with these fossil fuel companies. Freedom of Information data has revealed that, since 2016, research funding in excess of £5.5 million has been provided by the likes of Shell, Eni SpA and other fossil fuel companies to Oxford University. Moreover, the proportion of funding annually provided by these companies did not decrease with the passing of the Oxford Martin Principles. In 2020, two years after the principles were published, the total annual funding from fossil fuel companies was 3.5% higher than in 2017. Likewise, the total donations from fossil fuel companies including Shell, ExxonMobil, Eni SpA and BP to Oxford schools or departments did not change following the implementation of the principles in 2018. Sizeable donations between £500 000–£999 999 have been donated to the university in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. Sums of up to £500 000 were repeatedly donated between 2016 and 2023, suggesting little change as a result of the passing of the principles.

The extent of the relations between Oxford and these key players in the fossil fuel industry is illustrated by records of non-transactional interactions as well. In November 2023, a Freedom of Information request was lodged by Oxford students to retrieve the list of official meetings and conferences between 2021 to 2022 attended by the three directors of Oxford Net Zero – a research initiative whose mission is to “inform effective and ambitious climate action among those setting net zero targets in institutions and governments across the globe” – with the largest oilfield service companies and members of the Carbon Underground Top 200. Importantly, two of these three directors are researchers at the oxOxford Martin School, and were involved in drafting the Oxford Martin Principles. What the FOI request discovered tells a story unaccounted for in Oxford Net Zero’s mission statement. The inquiry retrieved lists of lunches, receptions, workshops and “connects” with Shell, Equinor, BP and Exxon Mobil between 2021–23. In 2021, three years after the Oxford Martin Principles were first implemented, 14 meetings and conferences between Oxford Net Zero’s directors and fossil fuel companies took place. For context, one of these supposed  ‘meetings’ was a lunch with BP at the Hotel Du Vin in Glasgow – during COP26

So, not only are Oxford University’s economic ties to fossil fuel companies still existing at the levels of funding and donations, but the actors responsible for setting the industry-leading sustainability targets embedded in the Oxford Martin Principles are, in fact, consistently engaging with the corporations from which the principles themselves stipulate divestment and delinking. The optimist might speculate that these meetings are the basis for constructing the conditions for complete delinking from fossil fuel companies or pressing for climate action in the fossil fuel industry. However, the lack of transparency regarding the content of these meetings means we have no way of corroborating such speculation. No minutes or reports of any of these meetings are available beyond the data retrieved from the freedom of information inquiry. 

Given the insufficient action of key corporations in the fossil fuel industry, including BP, to take action towards, or even implement, medium term GHG reduction targets in line with limiting emissions to 1.5°C, there seems to be little case for optimism, and rather has motivated negative speculation about Oxford University’s actual intentions amongst student activists. Oxford Climate Society Presidents Flora Prideaux (current) and Guy Zilberman (former) echo such speculation, stating that “Oxford University’s educational and research approach to the climate crisis is manufactured by the same individual assisting the fossil fuel industry with its ‘strategy’. This coordination is actively harming students and academics in the institution, shaping the research produced by the university.”  

Against the backdrop of climate emergency, the question remains: what do we make of all this? 

To put a finger on it, there is a twofold concern regarding the current state of affairs. Firstly, Oxford University is not ‘delinking’ from the fossil fuel industry. Delinking refers to breaking the wider scope of ties between the University and corporations – that is, cutting research funding, donations and engagement with fossil fuel corporations in regular meetings. This alone is deeply problematic as it diminishes the effect of divestment from fossil fuel companies where it has taken place, as it is still affirming their social licence whilst negating the social ostracisation and diminished economic agency that ought to follow from such divestment.

The second major worry is that the problem of failed delinking with fossil fuel companies is exacerbated in virtue of the University’s creation of and self-proclaimed adherence to the Oxford Martin Principles. The fossil fuel companies we have a record of the University engaging with do not meet the targets set by the principles. Thus, despite the guise of rigour and due diligence in sustainability that is afforded research funding or donation guidelines from their engagement with the Oxford Martin Principles, in practice, the principles are either being consistently undermined, or rather are serving to preserve existing comfortable and economically beneficial ties that Oxford University has with major fossil fuel companies. 

Whilst this self-undermining is no doubt embarrassing, what is more worrying is the complicity of the principles in sustaining linkage to the fossil fuel industry. This linkage sets a precedent for loosely enforcing climate-minded policy which has a high risk of replication by other higher education institutions and commercial corporations, given Oxford’s position of academic and best practice exemplarity in the UK. That Oxford is providing a set of principles to be used as bases for corporate climate policies, but those principles are entirely compatible with maintaining significant ties to the fossil fuel industry, provides fertile ground for half-hearted and performative climate action policies, that en masse could vastly detriment and impede global efforts to deal with the climate crisis. 

The contradiction taking place is more than a morally wrong, and totally undermining offence. It is fundamentally shaping and directing approaches to climate action in industry. The incentive to get fossil fuel corporations to reduce their carbon emissions does not exist when these corporations are still funding research, still getting shoe-ins to personal meetings with key stakeholders, and in this process being accorded legitimacy and kudos by leading climate research initiatives.

Students cannot sit still. The University’s ties to the fossil fuel industry may still be deeply ingrained, but they are not interminable. The Oxford Martin Principles have been insufficient to eradicate such ties. More is needed, and what more, I think, should be directed by students, by the next generation, by researchers not ascribing to the ‘carbon-zero’ hegemony that dominates Oxford climate research. The extent of Oxford’s imbrication with the fossil fuel industry is by no means uncovered. Here is a narrative that is part of a far bigger picture, and there is an unwavering impetus to not only complete the story but do everything in our power to rewrite it.  

When asked to comment, the University of Oxford told Cherwell:

Our partnerships and collaborations with industry allow researchers to apply their knowledge and expertise to the challenges of pressing global concern, including research into climate-related issues and renewables. 

The University receives research funding and donations from companies and organisations from the fossil fuel sector, typically at an average of ~£3m pa in research funding( < 1% of research turnover) and ~£2m pa in philanthropic donations. These funds are used principally to support researchers and activities aimed at speeding the transition to a net zero carbon future, or to support activities not connected to fossil fuels (such as research on anti-microbial resistance).

“In 2022, Council made a decision not to accept donations or research funding from companies and organisations in the extractive fossil fuel sector unless those companies had (a) a published commitment to net zero in line with the Paris Agreement; (b) a clear strategy and business model for achieving net zero; and (c) medium term metrics of progress. As of last year, the University has employed, from internal funding, a researcher, embedded in the Oxford Net Zero initiative, specifically dedicated to evaluating the net zero strategies of extractive fossil fuel companies in support of this decision.”

Trump’s sentence may do more harm than good

By
Ella Stone
-
Credit: Ted Eytan / CC BY-SA 4.0

I think it’s fair to say that for a lot of people, myself included, the image of Donald Trump in an orange jumpsuit and chains waddling into prison for his crimes is quite gratifying. And with the recent guilty verdict in the New York case against Trump, alongside the other cases against him stalling out, people have come to celebrate this case as the best chance to reach the image described above. While I share the same visceral desire to see Trump punished for all he’s done, on a practical level, it’s important to take a step back while we wait for the sentencing of this case to look at both the legal and political implications.

Let’s start with the outcome described above: Trump is sentenced to prison, home confinement, or strict probation. At first glance, this outcome seems enormously beneficial in the election. He would not be able to campaign properly, and a New York Times/Sienna poll from 2023 showed that many independent and Republican voters would potentially change their minds about him if he were to be convicted. However, this view is likely oversimplified. 

In order to understand why this outcome is not as simple as one might think, the full nature of the charges against Trump and the case as a whole must be understood. Trump was found guilty of falsifying business records. This offence is almost always a misdemeanour, which results in only a monetary fine unless it can be connected to another crime, and even then, a prison sentence is far from guaranteed. Mr Bragg (the prosecutor on the case) argued that the falsified business records were used to interfere with the 2016 election. This was an unusual approach that raised a host of technical legal issues, and many believe it was only tried in this way because of Trump’s reputation and the media attention surrounding this case. 

As a result, a serious sentence against Trump would likely only reinforce the argument that this trial was a witch hunt and could lead moderate conservatives to flock to his defence. Trump would be able to better argue he is being persecuted, as it is highly unusual to be imprisoned over falsifying business records, especially in the circumstances of this case. This would be an even more pressing criticism considering that the sentence against him would come at a time when he is gaining in the polls nationwide and New York is a heavily progressive state. Moreover, while the 2023 poll discussed above indicates he might lose support, a recent poll specifically about the trial indicated that most voters will not have their minds changed by the verdict in this case, and nothing in that poll suggests that a more serious sentence would change that sentiment. 

It seems unlikely for the reasons discussed above that the guilty verdict against Trump will result in any significant sentence beyond a fine and potential probation, and even if it did the sentence would likely not take effect before the election. With that in mind, the question then becomes, what are the other outcomes?

The Trump team has already said they plan to appeal the verdict. While the case itself was overall legally sound there are several technical issues which an appeals court may take issue with. If an appeal were to succeed, this would be disastrous both politically and legally for the Democrats. This would prove to many people that Trump was unfairly targeted, granting him even stronger support. Additionally, the other cases against him (such as the Georgia case or the federal document mishandling case) would be heavily scrutinised and painted with the same brush as the New York trial – as unfair witch hunts – even though these other cases rest on much stronger legal bases. If the general public sees these other cases in the same light as the New York case, it could seriously undermine the chance that Trump will ever be appropriately punished and even increase the chance he is re-elected. 

Arguably, the most likely outcome is that Trump’s sentence will be nothing more than a fine and probation. This is the only sentence which has consistent precedent in similar cases across jurisdictions. This outcome seems like very little would change. It would be minor enough for Trump to brush off politically and would not change many people’s minds (as seen in the poll discussed above). If this truly is the most likely outcome, what was this all for?

The poll I discussed earlier indicated that there is some small group of voters (6% or less) who may be less likely to vote for Trump based on his guilty verdict. In the swing states where the election may be as close as one per cent, that could be huge. However, this verdict also has a high likelihood of firing up Trump’s base and even more moderate conservatives who view the case as a witch hunt. People with that view may now be more likely to show up on election day than they otherwise would have to “help defend Trump” from the “unfair persecution.” That effect will likely be compounded if Trump’s sentence is as serious as many of us would viscerally want it to be.

The media circus that surrounds the current trial of Mr Trump wants to frame this as the “trial of the century,” but it’s simply not. Maybe the other cases could have been, such as the Georgia case against him, but this is a relatively small charge, usually resulting in a slap on the wrist. If we truly want to have the best chance at avoiding a second Trump term and maintaining a functional rule of law, it would be prudent to stop focusing on the New York case and instead focus on actual political issues, or even the other cases against the former president.

Blue Monday: Forever a New Order

By
Emma Heagney
-
Image Credit: Luke Brehony / CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Everybody knows Joy Division, everybody knows New Order. If the former’s post-punk gloom is the gateway drug for 80s bands like Bauhaus and The Cure, the latter is a divergent foray into thumping, Kraftwerk-style techno. Yet, ‘Blue Monday’, New Order’s 1983 hit, bridged the gap between restless New York clubs and a budding gothic subculture. In a hefty seven minutes and twenty-nine seconds we hear the synths and choral samples of Kraftwerk, the rhythm of Donna Summer’s ‘Our Love’ (1979), and the same bassist that underscored many of Joy Division’s most successful works.

Soon after the death of Joy Division’s lead singer and eccentric dancer, Ian Curtis, New Order was born, consisting of the remaining members of the original band as well as keyboardist Gillian Gilbert. Bernard Sumner stands out in particular, as the former guitarist of Joy Division but now the frontman of the new venture. Their first album, Movement (1981), was joined by the single ‘Ceremony’, written in the weeks before Curtis’ death and considered by many to be the last ‘true’ Joy Division song. My own father, a true music nerd and child of the 80s (as he so often likes to remind me), remembers this as his favourite song by either band.

In 1981, a visit to New York City introduced New Order to the local scene of dance music, including funk-inspired electronic beats and post-disco sounds. The wonderful 1982 track ‘Temptation’ is a personal highlight for me, acting as the precedent for later experimentation in ‘Bizarre Love Triangle’, ‘True Faith’, and of course, ‘Blue Monday.’

New Order’s discography up to 1983 is a thrilling experience for the ears, from the early riffs on Movement, laden with post-punk influences, to the techno tunes on Power, Corruption, and Lies (1983). Of the latter, one track is particularly noteworthy in the eventual creation of their magnum opus: ‘5 8 6’. The drum loops and beats are almost identical to those of ‘Blue Monday’, and both songs are exactly the same length. Not long after, ‘Blue Monday’ was written, recorded, and mastered.

For those of us who weren’t around at the time of the song’s release, we may underestimate the following it garnered. In an era where popular music was spread either via the radio, MTV, or even word of mouth, the taken-for-granted convenience of streaming platforms was cast off as an invention for the future. To this day, ‘Blue Monday’ is still the best-selling 12” single in British history. New Order had finally carved out their own place in music and popular culture, and the associations with Joy Division simply became a fun fact.

Why do I love ‘Blue Monday’ so much? It isn’t just the innovative direction the band took, nor the large instrumental sections that allow you to appreciate each element. For me, the appeal of the song lies in its enmeshing of different genres, borne out of the post-Joy Division context that the band found themselves in. Drawing inspiration from both the ‘Father of Disco’, Giorgio Moroder, and the gothic basslines of Siouxsie and the Banshees (as well as several other artists and sounds), New Order successfully merged dance and rock. Perhaps they weren’t the first to do so, but clean, crisp ‘Blue Monday’ stands out as an encapsulation of the sound that would become ‘alternative dance’.

‘Blue Monday’ didn’t just define the 80s, it continues to define music. Originally finding success in not only mainstream club-goers, but also amongst goths of the time (perhaps owing to the cold, choral echoes in the background), the track is almost a crossover hit, informed by the post-punk sensibilities of the band’s past and looking towards a modern, electronically inclined future. It perfectly balances the worlds of mainstream and alternative, of commercial success and critical acclaim.

The college tortoise that has taken over my life

By
Grace Allen
-
Image Credit: Rhea Score.

I celebrated May Day in a pretty unorthodox way: I adopted a tortoise. Or more accurately, I took her over – with a group of friends. Minutes after dragging myself out of bed bleary-eyed at 11 am, we were navigating corridors whilst carrying a vivarium like in a scene from ChuckleVision. The newest resident of the annexe, carried behind us in a shoebox filled with soil, was Aristurtle (Aris to her friends), the St Peter’s College pet. Matriculating in 2012, she is a Horsefield tortoise with a significant underbite, approximately 15 years old, loves raspberries, and hates baths. These were the facts I knew about Aristurtle, but there is so much more to her (and to being a tortoise custodian) than I could ever have imagined on that hungover Wednesday morning.

Aristurtle has always had an almost mystical hold over her custodians. To one former custodian, she is his “baby girl”. We take her into college to roam the grass, and he soon prints across the quad to hold and stroke her on the shell. This isn’t uncommon. Our custodian group chat goes back nearly a decade. Another former custodian – who graduated four years ago – attends every Tortoise Fair. The tortoise-tortoise keeper relationship quickly becomes a fascination; it turns out that living with and caring for a surprisingly complex animal creates a bond that, although Aristurtle may be unaware of its existence, is pretty enduring. 

That’s not to say that caring for a tortoise is the most pleasant experience. Tortoises smell, they nip, they climb into your shoes and up the legs of your trousers. My friend Rhea, in whose room Aris is currently resident, has accustomed herself to the noises throughout the night, but remains baffled at our girl’s ability to get stuck inside shoes left lying on the floor. Worse than this, Aristurtle, lovely as she is, is an escape artist. Left alone, she can traverse the quad in less than two minutes in search of delicious (and toxic) daisies, or cigarette butts (equally as toxic). She requires constant supervision – so good luck writing that essay in the sunshine. But she also has her endearing habits. Her speed, annoying as it can be, won her the McEwen-Benatar Trophy for Racing Excellence last year at the Tortoise Fair, and made her a favourite for victory this year. And she’s still small, so it’s no real hardship to pick her up and carry her across the quad all the time. Plus there’s the glory of the Race.

Trinity is always a big term for Oxford’s resident tortoises. The Corpus Tortoise Fair is, of course, the highlight of the testudinal calendar. Emerging as a challenge issued from Corpus Christi to Oriel, it has been 50 years since the very first fair. A half century which has produced an impressively well-managed event. If you’ve been to the Tortoise Fair, you’ll know exactly what I mean – the team running the fair have capitalised on every opportunity to make it more than just a race between some (admittedly slow) reptiles; you can buy merch with custom artwork, enjoy Pimm’s while listening to a poem written especially for the event, and even place a bet to back your favourite tortoise. This year’s Fair, threatened by rain, saw a sad defeat for Aristurtle, but a heartwarming victory for the newcomer, Kale from Nuffield. Aristurtle will always have her place in tortoise racing history regardless. Actually, perhaps this is the most rewarding aspect of being a custodian, too: the knowledge that you are part of the history of the tortoise, one in a chain of custodians stretching back through the years, with many more to come after you. I like to think that in 50 years someone will see our 2024 JCR photo, spot Aristurtle in the front row, and compare her to the larger, older tortoise sitting in a wooden box in their room. One can dream.

Local elections: Britain’s greatest fortune-tellers

By
Stanley Smith
-
Image credit: Descrier / CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

It’s a rare moment when the papers in Britain agree with one another. Yet, following the May 2nd local elections, they all appeared to have the same message: the polls are correct in their prediction of electoral distaster for the Tories come the next general election. 

The Conservatives undeniably took a thumping, losing 474 councillors, the Blackpool South constituency and a key mayoralty. But how much can we really extrapolate these results to make predictions about the general election? For many of our generation, whose formative political experiences were the shock victories of Trump and Brexit in 2016, there is a perhaps inbuilt scepticism of any media coverage that presents an election outcome as certain. Should we really take such prognoses at face value? 

Certainly, local elections are much more complex than general elections. The beginning of May saw a mixture of council elections across England, as well as Police and Crime Commissioner contests in England and Wales, and 11 mayoral elections. This is far from a comprehensive national picture; we learn nothing about Scotland where Labour must make gains to form a majority. Nor are voters guaranteed to make the same decisions when it comes to choosing an MP. Voters are more willing to support smaller parties and independents at the local level, before returning to the major parties at a general election. The Conservatives, one might think, might take some solace in the fact that the results later this year could be very different. 

But the truth is that the Conservatives benefited from the key differences between local and general elections, rather than being hindered by them. Their few successes came where voters chose to think local, despite deep frustrations with the national party. Ben Hounchen, the Conservative mayor for Tees Valley, won re-election by distancing himself from the national brand, running on his local impact, and dropping the Conservative logo from many of his pamphlets. His brag that voters liked him whilst disliking the Tories shows an understanding that, in contrast to Sunak’s attempts to paint it as evidence of some remaining hope for the Conservatives, many who backed Houchen will be voting against his party later this year. 

Despite Tory attempts to cosplay as independents, national issues were clearly more important to voters. Andy Street, who said the quiet part out loud when he admitted that it was “utterly deliberate” to leave the Conservative logo off his campaign material and declared that people are “sick and tired of Westminister”, still narrowly lost his West Midlands mayorship. This is especially true for councillors, who bore the brunt of public anger with the national party’s failings, resulting in the Tories losing control of ten councils.

This is in part because you can’t fully separate local and national issues. Whilst the May elections frequently featured ‘hyper local’ concerns such as potholes and road quality, such issues are directly connected to national problems, such as the decline in local council funding under the Conservatives, which leaves local bodies unable to tackle voters’ priorities. Voters cannot think local without being persistently reminded of Conservative failings.

This has been exacerbated by the ongoing death of local news. As more small papers close due to rising costs, our news feeds are dominated by stories on ‘party-gate’ and Liz Truss’ disastrous premiership, rather than the actions of our local councillors. Consequently, such stories are at the front of our minds when we head to the polling booth. As a result, local votes tell us more about national perceptions of the major parties than the Conservatives might want to admit.

The loss of these councillors is not only significant as an indicator of where national politics is heading. It may have a material impact on the outcome of the next election. Councillors make up the ground force of national parties, organising much of the local campaigning and door knocking which is crucial for getting MPs elected. With many Conservative councillors now out of the job, in their view, because of the actions of the those in Westminster, they will be much less keen to help their local candidate. This will make it harder for Tory hopefuls to connect with their local constituents, something they will need to do as few will be looking to run on the government’s track record. 

Admittedly, the consistently low turnout for local elections should give pause to anyone wishing to make big predictions off the back of this month’s results. Previously only 32% of those who voted in the general election in 2019 voted in the 2018 local elections in areas able to participate in both. But there is little reason to believe the Conservative claim that the general election will see loyal voters finally show up to the polls. As the 2018 local election showed us, those who don’t vote at the local level but do in the general election often change parties, rather than stick to their usual loyalities. With the greater presence of Reform UK at the general election, whose capacity to damage the Tories was demonstrated at the Blackpool South by-election, it is likely that Tory voters who stayed away this month may be the ones who jump ship later this year. 

Don’t get me wrong, a Labour landslide is far from guaranteed. Keir Starmer must take seriously the complaints over his stance on Gaza which lost Labour control of the Oldham Council. We are also yet to see whether the SNP can mount a comeback under Swinney, or will continue to suffer from the same incumbency problem and perceptions of corruption as the Conservatives. But if the Tories perform better than expected at the general election, it will be because of events that occur between now and then, and not because the distortive nature of local elections. Every once in a while, it’s okay to believe the media hype. 

Has the term democracy lost its meaning?

By
Roy Shinar Cohen
-
Image credit: Isabela.Zanella, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

We are living through the biggest election year in history, an exercise in democracy which testifies to its victory as a political system. More than half of the world’s population is expected to go to the polls at some point in 2024, but does that mean all these people live in democracies? Surely not. You may remember: during a fateful week in the middle of March, earlier this year, the Russian people went to the polls. Putin (shockingly) won, but that does not make Russia a democracy. So what does turn a country into a democracy?

When we talk about democracies, we actually talk about both an ideal and the form of government that strives to achieve that ideal. However, a quick historical recap reminds us how much the democratic ideal has changed. Centuries ago, colonialist countries relying on the exploitation of enslaved people, such as the United States, Great Britain, and France, were all considered ideal democracies. As recently as decades ago, countries in which the majority of the population (be it women or working men) did not have the vote were still considered democratic. And even after the majority of adults obtained the right to vote, colonialism, segregation, and political persecution remained common. Surprise! These countries were also considered democratic. Looking back, we refer to them as democracies, but we would never consider these political systems democratic in the third decade of the twenty-first century.

This could indicate that we think of democracy as a relative term compared to other countries in the same historical context. The early United States was arguably the most democratic country in the world at the time, even though it relied on a class of enslaved workers and only a tiny part of its population had the right to vote. Nowadays, we still rank democracies and discuss them relative to one another. Scandinavian countries are often looked up to because they are seen as most democratic. But how can we know that we will not look back at the Scandinavian countries as flawed democracies in fifty years’ time? What’s striking about this is that, as we have seen, democracy is an ideal and a set of institutions. So why should we consider it relatively – should countries not be either a democracy or not?

Indexes tell us in 2023 there are over 70 democracies around the world. However, in many cases of these 70 democracies, both public opinion and political theory pose substantial challenges to the categorisation as a democracy. These cases include Hungary, Singapore, Israel and the United States, states which you may consider democratic to different extents, if at all. 

Let’s examine the case of the United States. Looking back, would you consider a country where only some men have the right to vote, where people of a certain race are enslaved, and where indigenous people are killed and their communities destroyed systematically a democracy? Would you consider a country with a segregation regime that separates people according to their race in all areas of life a democracy? Would you consider a country that goes to war and kills indiscriminately (lying to its people about it, of course) a democracy? I would be surprised if you did. All of these policies go straightforwardly against democratic ideals as we understand them today and have understood them for a long time.

If this is not enough, we can look at the United States in recent years. In January 2021, the then President, Donald Trump, incited an insurrection in the Capitol leading to a mob of hundreds raiding the building and threatening representatives. The reason: preventing the democratic transfer of power. Accordingly, polling from the end of 2021 reveals that the majority of people in 16 Western and American-allied countries, as well as the American people, think the United States is no longer or has never been a democratic model.

Now, as he runs for office again, more and more details are revealed about what a second Trump presidency might look like. A recent Time Magazine interview with Trump and his closest aids reveals that in a second term he “would let red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans.” He “would be willing to fire a U.S. Attorney who doesn’t carry out his order to prosecute someone, breaking with a tradition of independent law enforcement that dates from America’s founding”. All that while “weighing pardons for every one of his supporters accused of attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021”. And yet, the United States is the leader of the Western camp, which prides itself on its democracy and protection of human rights. We should all consider the hypocrisy of this, and whether the United States and other countries live up (or ever have lived up) to the standards which they claim to promote.

It appears to me that the word democracy has lost its meaning. How can it describe so many different regimes in the past and present, and how could all of them fall under the same category? “Democracy” covers all that is deemed good, so any regime that wants to increase its legitimacy will bend logical definitions to prove itself. Even in the year that supposedly proves democracy’s victory, it is not at all clear what and who democracies are.

‘Killing’ the story: Lucy Letby, the media, and the courts

By
Ella Stone
-
Image credit: Lonpicman / CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Lucy Letby. If you’re from the UK, you’ve likely heard that name many times over the last few years. Her arrest, trial, and sentencing were all widely published in tabloids, Twitter, and even the BBC. While there hasn’t been any comprehensive polling on what percentage of people in the UK believe that Letby is guilty, my impression is that many do. However, for those of us who aren’t from the UK, this case has remained somewhat unknown. While the Guardian has published over 100 stories about the case, the New York Times has only published 4. This is not unusual, since sensationalised cases in one country may not make much impact elsewhere. The trial provides a good opportunity to examine the media’s relationship with the courts and the damage it can cause to the judicial process. What makes the Letby case particularly interesting is the recent New Yorker article, which has challenged no only the basis of the case, but its representation in the media.

Lucy Letby was a neonatal nurse at the Countess of Chester Hospital from 2012 to 2016. Colleagues noticed a sharp increase in fatalities in the unit during 2015 and a pattern began to emerge indicating that Letby was present for many of the deaths of babies in the unit. After further investigation and multiple arrests and interrogations, Letby was charged with the murder and attempted murder of 18 babies in 2020. Her trial lasted almost a year, and after 22 days of deliberation, the jury returned a somewhat split decision, that was for the most part guilty. Recently, her claim for appeal was denied, and prosecutors are currently retrying her for one of the deaths in which the jury couldn’t reach a verdict. 

On its face, this seems like the whole picture of the case, but I’ve left one part out: the role of the media. As mentioned previously, This case has been covered extensively in the UK press. From Letby’s first arrest to every day of the trial, news outlets have covered every detail of the evidence against Letby, and the general public has reacted in kind. Even early on, the public consciousness of the UK seemed to decide that Letby was guilty. 

This is not an uncommon outcome for widely publicised cases. In our modern landscape of 24-hour news, social media sites allow everyone to publish every thought and form group opinions easier than ever. I personally don’t agree with this sensationalization of the court process, as I believe the justice system is not well designed to accommodate media outrage. Prosecutors who argue their case for a row of cameras rather than a row of jury members will necessarily erode the stringent rules and procedures meant to ensure the effective functioning of our justice system. Despite this, I acknowledge that the current media environment is not likely to go away anytime soon – good trials make good television. 

However, if we are going to have publicised trials – if news outlets are allowed to publish every detail of the court proceedings, arrest, and sentencing – then criticism of that process must be allowed as well. The New Yorker article I mentioned earlier is one such piece. The article suggests that the verdict against Letby may have been a miscarriage of justice. However, if you had searched for that article in the UK a few days ago, you’d have found nothing. The article was going to be blocked by a court order before being voluntarily removed for UK audiences by the publisher. In the UK, the media is not allowed to publish articles that could bias a jury in a criminal case, and the ongoing retrial of Letby counts as one such case. This isn’t an issue on its own. The problem is that the same gag order against the New Yorker did nothing to prevent articles like a recent piece in the BBC, which in its opening line stated that “child serial killer Lucy Letby” had been denied permission to appeal. For reference, the New York Times, in a similar piece, said, “The guilty verdict makes Ms. Letby the most prolific serial killer of children in modern British history.” The difference is subtle, but the implications are vast: it seems that much of the UK media phrases her guilt as an unassailable fact, now bolstered by her conviction and failed appeal. On the other hand, US media bases her guilt on the court’s verdict. This phrasing leaves the possibility open that her guilt is not guaranteed if the verdict was improper. There is no justification for why UK courts allow the BBC to discuss the case in this way while the New Yorker is not allowed to criticise the case in any way.

Media sensationalization of trials will always favour the prosecution. Just look at the roster of true crime podcasts to understand how much people enjoy hearing about the evil that their fellow citizens can commit. As a law student and someone who competed for years in mock trial competitions, this issue quickly becomes apparent because defence cases are usually complicated and not easily put into sound bites that can be widely circulated. Prosecutions, on the other hand, can be divided cleanly into means, motive, and opportunity. This system will frequently lead to headlines about horrible allegations that gain more traction, more clicks, leading to more people believing the prosecution unequivocally and ignoring the points of the defence.

This article is not an attempt to challenge the veracity of Letby’s verdict or to say that it was incorrect. The courts have made their decision, and despite powerful criticism from the New Yorker, that verdict has withstood an appeal. It should be considered legally sound, barring any exonerating evidence that could come to light. It is up to every person to decide for themselves whether the verdict in the case was just. However, there is no excuse, in a system that prides itself on open justice and free access to the courts, for blocking the publication of articles critical of the courts and their decisions.

How much do we really value free speech?

By
Morien Robertson
-
Image credit: Txllxt TxllxT/CC BY-SA 4.0 DEED via Wikimedia Commons

The investigation into Cambridge fellow Nathan Cofnas, a self-described ‘race realist’, has been deeply divisive. It illustrates deep and difficult questions about what freedom of speech and tolerance mean in a liberal society based on equality and mutual respect. The debate is particularly intense when it comes to academia. On the one hand, the right denounces ‘cancel culture’ and ‘no-platforming’, whilst on the other, academics are criticised – and even fired – for teaching critical race theory and supporting Palestine. The UK has experienced significant declines in the Academic Freedom Index, with the US and Netherlands the only other Western countries to face a comparable decline.

On 5th April, Emmanuel College, Cambridge cut ties with Cofnas, suggesting that things he had written in his blog could be considered a rejection of its Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) policies, whilst the University triggered an investigation that could lead to his dismissal. Cofnas had written in a blog post that “in a meritocracy … the number of black professors would approach 0%” and cited Harvard statistics to argue that in a colourblind system, black people would “make up 0.7% of Harvard students”.  

Emmanuel’s decision has led to much backlash, most notably in the form of an open letter to The Times signed by some people very familiar to any Oxford philosopher, including Peter Singer, Roger Crisp, Amia Srinivasan, and Steven Pinker. The letter notes that Cambridge first defended Cofnas’s freedom of speech, and attacks the reversal in policy, arguing: “Members of the college or university who disagree with Dr Cofnas’s views could issue statements repudiating those views and explaining why they believe them to be mistaken.” They of course don’t endorse his views, however.

Whilst Cofnas’s views are, I would hope, abhorrent to all readers, the point is not to suggest agreement with his work. It is that the principle of investigation, and potential firing, as a result of protest and moral disagreement, is a dangerous one. Professor Srinivasan, in an article in the London Review of Books, which expands on her reasons for signing, affirms her complete rejection of his racism, and emphasises the key distinction between research and teaching. Srinivasan rightly suggests that students should not have to be taught by someone who makes them feel justifiably uncomfortable. 

She cites multiple recent instances of academics having been disinvited from speaking or even suspended as a result of supporting Palestine or teaching courses in systemic racism and gender theory. In these instances, academic institutions have exercised their power based on feelings of offence or disagreement. The danger is clear: if academic freedom is rescinded, then there is no way to challenge hegemonic viewpoints and debate vital issues. Part of what academic freedom means is “vocational liberties”, which allow for the freedom to research and teach on all matters of professional interest. 

The other key element is that whilst the protection is expansive, content-based speech discrimination is permissible, even foundational. There are disciplinary standards and a level of rigour required of all researchers, which means there is an “inequality of ideas”. If an academic is clearly producing work which fails to conform to the minimum methodological standards, then it is unworthy of discussion, as it fails to contribute to the search for truth and understanding which is the whole point of academia. For this reason, it is not a violation of freedom for a climate change denier whose work is based on false empirical claims to be denied the right to speak at a conference. It would, however, be a violation if an economist, whose work is agreed to be rigorous and sound, is fired as a result of disagreeing with progressive welfare systems, due to student protests, say.

The point is that academic inquiry is a shared project of humankind, aimed at understanding life, the universe, beauty, and all things in between. If the work is of a sufficiently high quality, then moral disagreement is not enough to reject it. Standards of morality have been, historically, incredibly variable: one needs only think about Galileo being found guilty of heresy and made to live under house arrest for teaching heliocentrism. 

Perhaps the example feels outdated, though: we are hardly living during the time of the Inquisition anymore. It seems obvious that the dogma of mediaeval Catholicism is far removed from modern policies of tolerance and human rights. But Peter Singer, in his rebuttal to Cofnas’s investigation, suggests that: “at Emmanuel College, freedom of expression does not include the freedom to challenge its DEI policies, and that challenging them may be grounds for dismissal.” Of course, though, these policies represent beliefs which are practically axiomatic amongst most people in this country, and are values which many think of as fundamental to who they are. Equal rights and basic equality are the result of centuries of struggle, pain, and suffering. Speech which undermines this struggle is understandably seen as outrageous. 

But there is a major risk of any widespread and popular belief becoming institutionalised, transforming from something which has majority support to an unquestionable monolith. Free speech is almost always a stellar example of hypocrisy: everyone wants free speech, until someone says something they don’t like. Yes, there are many things, like values and rights, which we feel, passionately, to be just objectively true. But in fact, especially in the domain of philosophy, nothing is obvious, and nothing unquestionable. Emotions and passions are not the right way to deal with academic inquiry. It is methodology and rigour which are important, not one’s emotional or moral opposition.

That is to say, you can vehemently disagree with someone, but in dealing with academic research, the basis for these critiques should be ‘this is why you are wrong’, rather than ‘I don’t like what you are saying’. This is far from saying that Cofnas is remotely right: works he cites such as The Bell Curve have been roundly attacked as simply wrong. Cofnas holds a philosophical position, and it should be attacked as such. The danger when we allow universities to arbitrarily decide that some research area is ‘immoral’ or ‘illegitimate’ is that we are left speechless when they designate something we truly believe in to be outside the scope of research. Freedom comes with costs, of course, but the danger of doing otherwise is greater.

Malala Yousafzai unveils scholarship for Palestinian graduates at Oxford University

By
Roy Shinar Cohen
-
Image Credit: DFID / CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Malala Yousafzai has unveiled a new graduate scholarship for Palestinian students at the University of Oxford. In her speech announcing the scholarship, she said: “We must all do everything we can to support as many Palestinian students as possible.” 

Her scholarship for Palestinian graduates will be part of Oxford’s ‘Refugee Academic Futures’ program, which offers financial support “to pursue graduate study at Oxford to students who are refugees or other people with lived experience of displacement.”

Yousafzai’s new scholarship aims to “provide Palestinian students the opportunity to study at Oxford”  by ensuring “they can overcome financial obstacles that hinder their educational aspirations.” Additionally, the program will assist in “guiding Palestinian students on their university applications for the UK and US.” Yousafzai revealed the first person to secure this scholarship will join Lady Margaret Hall in the next academic year. 

Yousafzai is a world-renowned human rights activist and the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize laureate. She studied PPE at Lady Margaret Hall between 2017 and 2020, graduating with honours. 

Since the War in the Gaza Strip, Yousafzai has spoken out about “Israel’s targeting of educational institutions.” She has already committed $300,000 in emergency support for Palestinian-led organisations and humanitarian efforts. 

Yousafzai said: “Together, we are not just funding a scholarship, we are sending an important signal of solidarity with Palestinian people which will resonate far beyond the walls of Oxford.” She added that the scholarship “is about supporting young Palestinian voices which will resonate across the board.”

Yousafzai revealed her scholarship at a dinner hosted by the Oxford Pakistan Program (OPP), an organisation which seeks to “create new opportunities for Pakistani scholars and support Pakistan-related activities at the University of Oxford.”

A spokesperson from Lady Margaret Hall told Cherwell: “Since its foundation, LMH has been committed to opening up educational and career opportunities to talented scholars regardless of background. We are very grateful for the support of our alumna Malala Yousafzai and we look forward to working with Malala Fund, which intends to provide one-time seed funding to support this initiative.”

Oxford admissions report reveals falling intake of state school students despite rise in applications

By
Emily Henson
-
Image Credit: Mikela Persson Caracciolo

Oxford’s latest admissions report reveals that over 20% of British students admitted come from disadvantaged backgrounds, however, the proportion of students coming from state schools has fallen for the past three years. 

While the number of applicants from state schools has increased over the past five years, the proportion of these students, who are admitted into Oxford University, has been falling since 2019. In 2023, this proportion of state-educated students was 67.6%, a decrease from the high of 68.6% in 2020. This figure is not equal across the colleges and Pembroke College has the lowest proportion of students from state schools at 57% while Mansfield College has the highest figure of 94%. 

The overall intake continues to under-represent students from state schools. Comparison between the number of state school students who are admitted into Oxford and the proportion of state school students achieving AAA or better at A-level, reveals a 12% discrepancy. Indeed, while the number of offers to state school students has increased, the amount actually admitted has fallen. 

A spokesperson from Oxford University told Cherwell: “Oxford embraces students from all school types and is committed to attracting students with the highest academic potential, from a diverse range of backgrounds. The proportion of UK undergraduates from state schools has risen considerably in recent years, from 60.5% in 2018 to 67.6% in 2023. This figure can be affected by a number of factors, including the number of applicants who successfully meet the conditions of their offer.”

Students from socio-economic disadvantaged backgrounds and areas with low progression to higher education have also decreased from a peak in 2021. The University told Cherwell: “Oxford remains committed to ensuring that our undergraduate student body reflects the diversity of the UK and that we continue to attract students with the highest academic potential, from all backgrounds.” 

The spokesperson added: “The past few years have been challenging, with students, particularly those from socioeconomically disadvantaged groups, continuing to feel the impact of Covid-19 and the cost of living crisis” and drew attention to the new Access and Participation Plan, set to be published later this year, that “will provide a renewed focus in attracting and supporting students who are under-represented at Oxford.” 

The proportion of students eligible for free school meals has increased to 7.6% in 2023 from 5.3% in 2021. Vice-Chancellor Irene Tracey has credited the Crankstart programme for increasing the figures. She stated: “Oxford offers one of the most generous support packages available to undergraduate UK students to ensure finance is not a barrier to study here, providing over £9.5 million of financial support to those from lower-income households. Around 1 in 4 of our UK undergraduates currently receives an annual, non-repayable bursary of up to £5,800.”

Figures on ethnicity in the admissions report also shows that the percentage of UK-domiciled Black and Ethnic Minority (BME) students has increased by nearly 7% from 2019, rising to 28.8% of students admitted in 2023. From 2021 to  2023, over 50% of medicine students admitted identified as BME. 

Oxford University identifies Bangladeshi and Pakistani students as being underrepresented at highly selective universities, and has seen a rise from 2.1% of students admitted coming from these backgrounds to 3%. This compares to the 5% of students achieving AAA or better at A-level, who come from Bangladeshi or Pakistani backgrounds. 

Applications from EU-domiciled students have fallen significantly in the past five years, dropping from 12% in 2019 to 6.8% in 2023. The majority of international students come from China, Singapore and the United States. Students from London and the South East make up nearly half of British students admitted, with the lowest proportions coming from Scotland, Northern Ireland and the North East. The report states: “UK-domiciled students are substantially more likely to receive an offer.” They make up 63% of applicants but nearly 80% of the students admitted. 

Irene Tracey has said: “We remain committed to ensuring that we attract and admit students with the highest academic potential from all backgrounds, and that our student body reflects the diversity of the UK and embraces students attending all types of schools.”

123...2,433Page 2 of 2,433

Explore

Follow us

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2024 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy