Kati’s organised a somewhat embarassing secret Santa and Paul and Ralph end up going as a pantomime deer to the Christmas bop. Anton’s actually turned up to a social event for once, but Sarah and Eleanor can’t find him…
Don’t miss out on tomorrow’s Staircase 22, the last in this series.
Sarah and Kati find a mysterious letter from one of Anton’s relatives while Eleanor tries to work out how to imitate a peacock’s mating call. Have Ralph’s dishonest tactics got him elected to the Union?
Don’t forget you can catch up on all the previous episodes of Staircase 22 on the podcasts section of our website. Don’t miss tomorrow’s episode exclusively on cherwell.org.
Merton alumni have voiced concern over the forced retirement of college staff, with some even threatening to withold donations to their College.
The College’s policy to reitre employees at 65 has come under scrutiny this year, as two popular members of staff reach this age. Both members of staff have requested to exte
nd their contracts.
Another member of staff recently received a letter from the Domestic Bursar telling him he must retire at 65 unless he requests an extension to his employment, according to JCR president James Nation.
The Facebook group “Mandatory retirement of Merton Staff” was set up by 2007 Merton graduate Tom Newton-Lewis after College staff members complained to alumni about the policy.
Merton graduate Edward Brightman wrote that the retirement policy was “definitely something all Mertonians should be up in arms about.” Andy Godfrey argued, “I imagine if enough people were to threaten to refuse to donate money to them they’d start to worry.”
Jennifer Hoogewerf-McComb, another alumnus of Merton, commented, “This is completely disgusting” adding, “we should be refusing to donate.”
JCR President James Nation commented, “Mertonians do have a very strong attachment to certain members of staff by virtue of the fact that we have a very friendly community here of which [they] are a key part. Particular cases at the moment have brought the College’s policy to light.”
Nation explained, “In this particular case, I do not think College will change their policy…Some Mertonians I’ve spoken to so far can see the reasons why College has gone for this option, but are just upset that it is affecting a well-known staff member in particular.”
Merton has a set retirement age for all staff, which applies to everyone, including scouts, porters and Fellows. Other Colleges decide on an individual basis whether staff should retire at 65 or stay on. However, Merton argues that it is fairer to have an overarching policy that would see all staff retire at the age of 65.
Angel Sarmiento, finalist at Merton and former JCR Treasurer said, “One thing is pretty clear – Merton alumni have set a precedent both for Merton and for other Colleges, that policies will be subject to the scrutiny of the alumni as well as that of current students.
“It is amazing how fast the response was to the issue. Even if it does not make an effect on this situation, Colleges will be more careful in the future about how they act. They will not be able to brush off the alumni with a statement by the JCR President if they cannot justify their policy.”
Douglas Bamber, the Domestic Bursar, argued in defence of Merton’s position. “Merton College policy has not changed and the default retirement age of 65 has always been the College policy.
“We operate the same policy as the University for all categories of staff and furthermore we comply with the law of the land.”
Porters at Merton declined to comment on the issue.
Concerns have been raised about the status of the unique Oxbridge tutorial system following news that around £10 million will be withdrawn from government funding to Oxford and Cambridge Universities.
In a document addressed to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), Oxford University has reportedly said that it will have little choice but to slim down provision for teaching unless an alternative source of income is found.
The proposed cuts would affect funds allocated for the upkeep of Oxbridge’s historic buildings, and the University warns it would have to divert resources to fill the gap.
David Palfreyman, the bursar of New College, Oxford, and the director of the Oxford Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies, expressed concern at the difficulties less wealthy colleges could face in maintaining the prestigious tutorial system. “We are a relatively rich college and we will do our damnedest to keep it going but I don’t know how poorer colleges are going to struggle through.”
Commenting on the challenges facing Oxford, a University spokesperson denied that the tutorial system is to be scrapped. However, they pointed out, “Current public funding only covers about 50% of Oxford’s undergraduate teaching costs. The more cuts we face in government funding, the more acute this problem becomes.
“We are doing all we can to help ourselves, particularly through our large fundraising campaign, where we are asking friends and alumni to help us maintain Oxford’s standards of excellence.”
The University is not alone in facing fiscal difficulties. The University and College Union has suggested that more that 5,000 jobs are at risk nationwide as the government reduces its Higher Education budget by £180 million.
However, some have argued that it is disproportionate that Oxbridge should be hit by £10 million of this cut.
Oxford University is still engaged in consultations with the HEFCE.
While travelling with my family through the United States, we decided to watch Bruno, a film with rave reviews that opened to packed audiences. Needless to say, watching the film was not a very pleasant experience for my mother, who was raised in a strictly orthodox Hindu home and witnessed all the horrors of religious pogroms when she was young. Her inability to understand irony merely added fuel to the fire. The ability to divorce subject matter from its artistic expression in a humourous form is culturally subjective, but one should not assume that this is purely symptomatic of cultural upbringing. While it may be obvious to most that it is not Bruno’s political insensitivity but rather its stupidity that is humourous, the line between the two is often blurred. In fact, a large part of why Bruno and Borat have been so popular is their suppression of obvious irony.
“The problem is that an audience may confuse the irony with political insensitivity itself”
Borat is a classic example of where this divorce between the subject and its portrayal has been most successful. For instance, when Borat makes fun of Jews, this is not intended to support anti-Semitic views but rather portray the narrow minded, racist nature of these views. The problem is that an audience may confuse the irony with political insensitivity itself. The success of these films, may in fact result in desensitizing us to racism by making racism funny. Today, political insensitivity has become a fad and young people often take pride in justifying mild forms of racism.
On more than one occasion, I have come across individuals who seem to think that making Holocaust or ‘dead-baby’ jokes is acceptable. While I am not making any value judgments as to whether these jokes can ever be made, I can say with a degree of certainty that in most cases the individuals telling these jokes would never have dared exercise the same degree of insensitivity had there been Jews or pregnant women around at the time. While the intention of these jokes may have been to display, in a self-deprecating manner, the idiocy of these ideas, often conversations may take a defensive turn and efforts are made to justify racist or bigoted ideals. Mix that with the absence of irony, or its ineffective portrayal, and you have a classic recipe for unpleasant jokes.
“Nowadays, politically insensitive humour is analagous to cigarette smoking amongst teenagers; the allure of the taboo”
Earlier this year, during a regular gathering of friends in a local pub, a friend of mine decided that it would be appropriate to pretend to be racist. To be honest, it made for loud laughs and a good time. However, as the night wore on, the pretence seemed to wear off, and a strange form of the forbidden fruit effect seemed to take over. Nowadays, politically insensitive humour is analagous to cigarette smoking amongst teenagers; the allure of the taboo. The attraction to the forbidden is fertile ground for attention-seeking teenagers who want to be provocative. This can be dangerous when they convince others that their ideas are reasonable. While the comedian may know at the back of his mind that he is not racist, he may encourage it in others or be seen as racist himself.
I am not sure that the risks involved in such interpretations justify censorship, but they are risks nonetheless; a risk that is present with most activities from bungee jumping to drawing cartoons. The question is, how far should these risks go? The line should be drawn at some stage, but where?
Ralph and Peter Renee start getting angsty about the impending election while Kati starts looking for a foot on the Oxford stage. Will Eleanor’s hust for p
eafowl rep leave her unfit for the position?
Don’t forget you can catch up on all the previous episodes on Staircase 22 in the podcasts section of the website.
Don’t miss tomorrow’s episode exclusively here at Cherwell.org
In the quest to replace Andrew Flintoff and to have a variety of bowling options, there is a possibility of England picking Luke Wright to bat at number seven in the first Test match in South Africa. Although it is understandable that England wants a five-man bowling attack, Wright simply lacks sufficient quality with bat or ball to merit Test selection.
Wright is a destructive and clean-striking hitter of a cricket ball. He is a fine fielder and bowler capable of hitting almost 90mph, so it is easy to see why Wright has been touted for Test honours. It is an appealing idea to have Wright come in at number seven and demoralise bowling attacks in a manner not dissimilar of Flintoff. But such a notion is not ground in reality.
Wright has so far played 28 ODIs, averaging just 22 with the bat, despite being given significant opportunities to open the innings. With the ball, his ten wickets have come at a cost of 47 apiece – so where exactly is the evidence of a man able to make a valuable contribution to the side batting at number seven?
It is first worth considering what England would regard as a good series from their number seven against South Africa. Realistically, Andy Flower may hope he could average 30-35 with the bat, including some momentum-seizing 50s, and claim perhaps 10 wickets at an average of under 40. If he were to perform that task, few could argue he is not worth his place in the side.
But he simply would not. Wright’s technique remains far too flawed for him to score consistently at Tests, especially against pace bowling of the calibre of Dale Steyn. Indeed, he has only ever scored two county championship centuries. His bowling bustles and is improving but a first-class bowling average of 43 doesn’t lie: it tells the story of a man who could not even be trusted to contain, let alone threaten. Revealingly, Paul Collingwood (a shoe-in for the first Test), is entrusted with the ball more in ODIs and has a lower first-class bowling average. Along with Jonathan Trott and Kevin Pietersen, that is sufficient bowling to augment the four frontline bowlers.
Wright has potential, certainly, but his selection, especially for such a challenging series, would wreak of prematurity: this is a man who needs to cement his place in the limited-overs sides and do more for Sussex in the four-day arena before he should be considered a viable Test candidate. His selection would be a throwback to the pre-Flintoff days, when England were so desperate for an all-rounder that they selected men, such as Ronnie Irani, who patently lacked either the batting or bowling quality required.
Having Matt Prior at six and Wright at seven would not inspire confidence. If England beef up their top-order, selecting all six of their specialist batsmen with Prior an ideal number seven, they should be able to regularly compile scores of 400 plus in their first innings. And that, rather than through bits n’ pieces men, is how Test matches are won.
L.A. synth-pop outfit Metro Station have just landed in London. In a little under a week they’ll be taking to the stage at the O2 Arena to open up for Miley Cyrus, a.k.a. Disney sensation Hannah Montana – a.k.a. little sister of Trace Cyrus, front man of Metro Station. Personally I’d find the situation rather embarrassing if I were in the band. Hmmmm… I think a lot of people might.
But not these guys! At least, if they do, they don’t show it. Perhaps they’ve been forced not to by their record company, or their promoters, or perhaps by some unquenchable thirst for fame and fortune, irresistible to them even if it has to come courtesy of hockey mums, Hollywood and eight-year old kids. In desperate search of some answers, I caught up with the drummer, 33 year-old Anthony Improgu.
He explained the band’s take on it: ‘It’s a blessing for us; you know, we’re lucky to be on this tour.’ It’s an unsurprising statement, in light of the band’s overarching aim: ‘We just want to be as big as possible’, he went on to say. But I was puzzled – what are Hannah Montana fans likely to make of a band whose tour partners so far have typically been the likes of emo/punk acts Good Charlotte, Panic at the Disco, and Fall Out Boy?
Improgu has no concerns: ‘Miley’s older now; so her crowd’s getting a little bit older. I mean, we’re a bit more edgy than her but I think it’s actually fine because it’ll be a really pop crowd and the kids are young but, you know, they pretty much love 80s music, and that’s what we bring to the table.’
He acknowledges that, ‘playing to eight year-olds and stuff’, they’ll have to alter their live show – ‘because of the parents and stuff’ – but ultimately he feels that ‘a lot of bands would die for an opportunity like this’.
When he speaks along these lines I begin to wonder whether Improgu and I are on the same planet as each other. Of course, a lot of bands would die for an opportunity like this – bands like Bob the Builder and the Wiggles – not, I’d have thought, bands with front men who sport sleeve tattoos and have symmetrical lip piercings.
This said, he was keen to stress that Metro Station have no pretensions of being a rock band: ‘We’re definitely a pop band’, he asserted, before going on to clarify: ‘What we mean by pop is timeless melodies. The lyric content is not necessarily happy, but it’s hinted with a happy note – it could be rock, it could be hip-hop, whatever – that’s pop.’
Hmmmm… good definition, cleverly vindicating commercially desirable business move… possibly spoon-fed by savvy press agent?
Just kidding. I can honestly say that nothing in my conversation with Improgu led me to suspect that in going on tour with Miley Cyrus the band might be doing something contrary to any artistic principles of theirs. I do believe Improgu when he makes out that he and the rest of the band
are entirely happy – delighted – with the way things are going for them.
Unashamedly seeking to become ‘as big as possible’ whatever the cost, Metro Station occupy a different realm from that in which bands obsess about image and artistic integrity and profess to hold sacrosanct such fickle ideals. The more realistic of the two is surely theirs. Miley Cyrus’ nine-date UK tour is mostly sold out. The few tickets that are still available from online agencies range from £175 to £475. As Bobbi Flekman observes in Spinal Tap: ‘Money talks, and bullshit walks.’
Metro Station’s eponymous debut album was released earlier this year on Columbia Records.
The winners of the OUDS New Writing Festival were announced today.
A yearly competition for budding playwrights, the Oxford University Dramatic Society (OUDS) New Writing Festival (NWF) is a highlight of Oxford’s dramatic calendar. Entrants are invited to submit a new play they have written. The winning scripts are produced and performed for an audience that includes celebrated professional writers and literary agents. This year’s competition saw thirty-seven entries reduced to a final group of four winning scripts, after three gruelling rounds of judging.
The OUDS Committee selected a ‘long list’ of fifteen outstanding contenders. Helen Eastman, literary associate of Soho Theatre, made a final shortlist of six for Tony Award-winning playwright Michael Frayn. Frayn chose four winners: The Fireflies by David Shackleton, Instead of Beauty by Richard O’Brien, Revival by Carla Neuss and Toffee by Charlotte Geater.
The four plays will be performed in the Burton Taylor Studio in Seventh Week next term. NWF producer Chloe Courtney remarked on the variety among the winning entries. ‘We have a massive range of scripts, from character-driven coming-of-age drama to an absurdist piece which channels Beckett,’ she said.
Over twenty directors applied to bring these scripts to life. Sarah Perry, a fresher who won acclaim for Oriel’s Cuppers entry, The Lover, will direct Revival. She described her feelings about directing this script. ‘Revival uses quite stylised, playful language in a naturalistic setting. I’m excited to see what comes out of that physically,’ she said.
Meg Bartlett of Merton, director of Best of Cuppers nominee A Real Summer and Rimika Solloway of St Peter’s, assistant director of A State Affair, take on Toffee and The Fireflies respectively. Christchurch English student Abhishek Bhattacharyya, originally from Delhi, directs Instead of Beauty.
Roland Singer-Kingsmith, President of OUDS, has high hopes for the event. He says he is ‘extremely excited about the invigorating transformation from page to stage of four of the best new plays in Oxford.’ There is certainly much to look forward to, and maybe a few surprises. Michael Frayn called one of the plays ‘whimsical and bold’ and commented that he liked the ‘self-opening filing cabinets’ in another. He has selected an overall winner from the final four, but its identity remains a closely guarded secret – at least for now.
Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.
Oxford Student Publications Limited
© 2025 - All Rights Reserved
| Privacy Policy