Saturday 2nd May 2026
Blog Page 208

Student Union to condemn Oxford Union for controversial speakers

Oliver Adelson
-
0
Student Union to condemn Oxford Union for controversial speakers

The Student Council has passed a motion mandating the SU condemn the Oxford Union for inviting Ben Shapiro, Katie Hopkins, and Charlie Kirk.

The motion comes just months after Kathleen Stock’s controversial Oxford Union visit last Trinity term. In the leadup to the event, the SU removed a statement published by the SU LGBTQ Campaign which called for rescinding Stock’s invitation. According to the SU, the decision was made “over fears the statement may have been in breach of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023.”

The most recent motion on Shapiro, Hopkins, and Kirk stated that the views of the three Oxford Union speakers were “repulsive and not worthy of respect in any reasonable society,” devoting a paragraph to each of the speakers and their controversial statements. 

Among the included quotes from Ben Shapiro was his claim that “Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage.” Katie Hopkins was criticised for a tweet that stated “Gypsies are ferrel [sic] humans—we have no duty to them.” The third and final speaker in the motion, Charlie Kirk, was reproached by the SU for promoting inflammatory conspiracy theories and referring to George Floyd as a “scumbag.”

The Student Council also resolved to mandate SU Sabbatical Officers publicly support any protests against Union invitations of Shapiro, Kirk, or Hopkins. While the Student Council clarified that this public support did not imply the Sabbatical Officers had to attend the protests themselves, it indicated that the required support would “include, but not be limited to, the sharing of the details of any such planned protests which the SU or its sabbatical officers are informed of, within one working day of being informed of such protest.”

The Student Council furnished members with an appendix including a draft for the condemnation that would be released on social media. The draft included much of the material covered in the resolution, but it also drew a distinction between supporting free speech and providing a prominent platform to speakers with objectionable views: “We believe that the right to free speech should not be used to actively harm marginalised groups, and that these views may amount to hate speech. 

“The right to free speech does not equate to the right to a platform, especially one this exclusive, where the right to challenge these views costs up to £350 [referring to the Oxford Union membership dues].”

The Student Council concluded the condemnation draft by addressing the Higher Education Freedom of Speech Act passed in June 2023: “As a student union we would like to speak freely on our views around this subject but one of the consequences of the interpretations of the new Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, perversely, means that we may not be able to. 

“Instead we will condemn this ‘bastion of freedom of free speech’ [The Oxford Union] not standing up for our own and implore them to actually be that bastion. Platform marginalised voices and activism, actually show opinions that the media often shoot down and trivialise, let marginalised voices be heard, beyond a context where we have to fight for our right to exist. 

“In addition to condemning the views of Ben Shapiro, Katie Hopkins, and Charlie Kirk and their invitation to the Oxford Union, we condemn the government’s introduction of the Higher Education Act and call for it to be repealed immediately, as the act is in fact, in our belief, a crackdown on freedom of speech.”

Why Don’t We Have Any ‘Mega Popstars’ Anymore? 

Zahra Ahmad
-
0
Why Don’t We Have Any ‘Mega Popstars’ Anymore? 

This August, Billboard released an article asking the question: where have all our mega popstars from the 2000s and early 2010s gone? It was met by widespread online conversations, reflecting the deep-rooted concern within the music industry that the number of recognisable faces in pop music have declined in recent years. Labels are no longer relying on these ‘mega stars’ as the foundation for their incoming profit because pop stars are no longer breaking into mainstream media in the same way they had in the decades prior. Steve Cooper, the former CEO of Warner Music Group, stated at the Goldman Sachs Communacopia and Technology Conference: “what we’ve done over the last number of years is reduce our [financial] dependency on superstars.” Even the record labels have been forced to change their tactics to keep up with the developing industry. Now, record labels financially depend on a larger number of smaller artists, helping them to create dedicated, but more intimate, fan bases who will buy tickets and merchandise. This is a step away from record labels funneling their money into a small number of ‘mega pop stars’ and relying on them and their star power to make up the majority of their profit.

So what does it mean to be a pop star in today’s day and age? In the early 2000s, ‘making it’ as a pop star meant being on the front cover of magazines, hounded by paparazzi, winning Grammys, and selling out arenas. But now, an artist’s success is measured completely differently. Having a couple hundred thousand streams on Spotify or blowing up on TikTok are celebrated as huge accomplishments. What defines someone as a successful pop artist has narrowed – international and mainstream fame is no longer the aim. But why and how has this happened?

In the age of social media and ultra-personalised online algorithms, individuals are increasingly being shown content which is tailored to their interests. Gone are the days when we would collectively read the same news from the same tabloids from the same sources. With algorithms as sophisticated as TikTok’s, we see the creation of pop stars or new emerging musical talent, but only to a select audience. Musical-theatre-star-turned-pop-musician Renee Rapp debuted her first album this August. Her first American and European tour saw her sell out venues with capacities of around 5,000 seats. A decade ago, this may have led some to say that she was on the cusp of becoming a major pop star. But now, her tour videos and album press are only being presented to those who want to see it. She is popular among her loyal fanbase, but the previous wide reach that pop stars were able to turn into international fame is not available. Instead, musicians aim to form smaller, but more loyal, fanbases.

TikTok has also changed who record labels sign, and in what way they do it. Record labels have grown to place a huge emphasis on artists having a notable social media following before they can even be considered for contract. Gone are the days of years of artist development where record labels help to discover and support underground artists. This contributes to the lack of ‘once in a generation’ pop talent. Beyonce had her time in Destiny’s Child, her former girl group, before taking the world by storm as a solo act. Taylor Swift was able to release her debut album before international hits ‘Love Story’ and ‘You Belong With Me’ featured on her second album. Without record labels backing artists who might not find instant success, they leave thousands of artists undiscovered.

Instead, record labels are signing the artists with the most followers and engagement, not necessarily the ones with the most artistic promise. What makes this worse is this tactic clearly is not working. One A&R executive stated, “labels signed more and signed worse than ever before in the decade-plus I’ve been at a major”. The problem is that TikTok is not designed to promote and sustain an artist’s career, but rather individual songs. In the 2000s, when streaming was not as widely used as it is today, labels had significant control over what songs were put on the radio. Record labels could control what we listened to and ensure that certain artists had radio play. Now, however, streaming and Tiktok hold much more importance within the industry. Even if an artist has a hit TikTok song, the wider online audience is unlikely to hear the artist’s later singles. The small success which pop artists can grasp onto is hard to transform into a long-lasting career within pop music. For example, Katie Gregson-MacLeod came to TikTok fame when a video of her singing her song ‘Complex’ garnered 9 million views. It became widely shared and talked about on TikTok and led to her being signed with Columbia Record. Despite her strong artistry and compelling lyrics, the majority of her videos now have under twelve thousand views. This is out of MacLeod’s and her Columbia Record’s hands – it is simply the nature of TikTok, proving how risky it is to rely on it.

As an aspiring pop artist myself I can attest to the industry’s growing frustration, especially among independent artists, at how TikTok has grown to play such a seismic role in music today. If you want to be discovered and signed and funded by a label you have to start playing the game, which is no longer about artistry but online numbers. Of course, you cannot ignore the huge opportunity that TikTok and other social media platforms offer to artists, allowing them to promote their music to millions of people for free and fairly easily. However the reliance that the industry now has on TikTok is, I believe, a failure on the part of record labels. This approach to discovering and signing artists is not sustainable, and I’m sure in the next few decades when the influence of TikTok slowly decreases record labels will have to rethink their current strategy. 

This is not to say that we will never have a mega popstar again. Olivia Rodrigo released her sophomore album ‘Guts’ this September which topped the album charts in 14 countries and gained her 6 Grammy nominations, including Album of the Year. Dua Lipa has just released her first single titled ‘Houdini’ since her second album ‘Future Nostalgia’ which received over 6 million unfiltered streams on Spotify on its first day, her biggest debut yet. We still see pop stars stake their claim in the music industry, all hope is not lost, but the age of a music industry which runs off the monetary power of dozens of rising and established pop stars are over. 

Eight colleges to raise hourly wages to £13.15

Daniel Thomas
-
0
Eight colleges to raise hourly wages to £13.15

Eight colleges are set to raise hourly wages in line with the latest measure to increase the living wage in Oxford by 10%. This is part of a series of measures by the Council to promote wage fairness in the local economy. The new Oxford Living Wage will be raised to £12.49 an hour, and be pegged at 95% of the London Living Wage, currently £13.15.

The Oxford Living Wage, first introduced by the City Council in 2008, is part of the broader Oxfordshire Inclusive Economy Partnership between local government and civil society, to promote equality & sustainable opportunities across the county.

Oxford’s colleges have long been criticised on the grounds of labour rights. A student-led campaign for better wages and conditions in University employment, Oxford Worker Justice, has drawn attention to issues such as the lack of transparency over precisely how much non-academic workers at the colleges are paid, as well as over the use of zero-hour contracts and agency staff.

An annual ranking of colleges published by Oxford Worker Justice finds low pay, insecure contracts, and massive wage inequalities to be prevalent across the majority of colleges. Past investigations by Cherwell, meanwhile, have brought light to exploitative labour practices and stressful workplace conditions among University housekeepers in the “scout system”.

Additionally, the City Council’s employer recognition incentive, that encourages employers who pay the Oxford Living Wage to accredit so they can get wider recognition, indicates that less than 25% of Oxford’s 38 colleges have been accredited. From a list of over 120 accredited employers, only Magdalen, Merton, New, Somerville, St. Cross, St. John’s , Wadham, Worcester Colleges appear, in addition to local businesses frequented by students, such as Common Ground Cafe & the Old Fire Station arts hub.

As an incentive, the Council argues that providing a living wage may help businesses “improve both recruitment and retention.” Research from the Living Wage Foundation backs this up; 75% of surveyed employers reported that paying a living wage had increased workers’ motivation and retention rates, while 94% felt that it had benefited their business overall.

Set to come in from April 2024, all businesses will be accredited through a recognition scheme, operated by Oxford City Council and the nationwide Living Wage Foundation. 

Oxford partners with IMF to predict disruptions to global supply chain

Cherwell News and Investigations Section Editors
-
0
Oxford partners with IMF to predict disruptions to global supply chain

In collaboration with the IMF, Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute has launched ‘PortWatch’, an online platform monitoring and simulating disruptions to global maritime trade from external shocks including those caused by climate change. It was a winner of the 2022 IMF Climate Innovation Challenge, which fosters innovation and collaboration to tackle economic and financial issues related to climate change.

The platform uses satellite data to model actual and expected trade disruptions to maritime ports and assess subsequent spill-over effects on global supply chains. It also allows users to identify current vulnerabilities within the maritime trade network based on new climate scenario analysis developed by Oxford researchers. 

Disruptions to global supply chains, including from Covid-19 lockdowns and extreme weather events, have lost the global economy billions in recent years. University of Oxford Professor of Climate and Environmental Risks, Jim Hall said “Shocks to trade and supply chains can propagate rapidly around the world, leading to economic disruptions and real impacts for people”. He is hopeful that “using PortWatch, we can track shipping disruption at ports and in critical shipping lanes around the world, providing up-to-date information for decision makers.” 

PortWatch is available for public use online, but is intended primarily for policymakers and analysts. IMF Chief Statistician, Data Officer, and Director of the Statistics Department, Bert Kroese said that “the platform’s innovative data sources and visualization tools are designed to help facilitate international dialogue and inform policy decisions.”

Other collaborators on the project include the Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), the United Nations Global Platform (UNGP), the World Bank (WB), and the World Trade Organization (WTO). It received initial funding from the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO).

The project is available for public access at portwatch.imf.org.

Transgender Day of Remembrance Vigil held in Radcliffe Square

Sloane Getz
-
0
Transgender Day of Remembrance Vigil held in Radcliffe Square

Oxford students, staff, and community members gathered in Radcliffe Square last night for a Transgender Day of Remembrance Vigil, organised by the SU LGBTQ+ Campaign to “honour the memory of trans lives lost to violence, hate crimes, and transphobia.”

This observance marks the fourth vigil held in Oxford for Transgender Day of Remembrance, an annual memorial founded in 1999 to commemorate Rita Hester and Chanelle Pickett, two Black trans women murdered in Massachusetts. 

Standing next to a memorial tied to the Radcliffe Camera’s fence that listed the names of trans victims of violence, speakers shared memories, recited poems, and performed songs.

One speaker, Chrissie Chevasutt, an outreach worker for the trans, intersex, and nonbinary community at St. Columba’s United Reformed Church in Oxford spoke about the “hate” perpetuated by many churches and media outlets as a major driver of transphobic violence. 

In statements made before the event, they also praised the decision made by several Oxford colleges to fly the trans pride flags in observance of Transgender Day of Remembrance this week, saying “my whole soul and body breathes a deep sigh of relief, to know that many of Oxford’s colleges are flying the flag. 

“This is huge, in the immediate, it sends a message of hope, that culture and society is changing.” 

Speakers also addressed the ongoing conflict in Israel-Palestine, reading out messages from queer and trans Palestinians posted on the website “Queering the Map.”

The vigil concluded with a moment of silence commemorating the lives lost to anti-trans violence in the past year, following a poem by the co-chair of the SU’s LGBTQ+ campaign, Joel Aston, who expressed their “grief and anger” at transphobic violence. Commenting on the vigil, Addi Haran Diman, president of the Oxford LGBTQ+ Society, said “on [Trans Day of Remembrance], we are rightfully saddened and enraged by losing so many community members. May their memory give us the power to continue fighting another year.”

Kevin and Timmy let it out

Sean Hartnett
-
0
Kevin and Timmy let it out

How to judge a book by its cover

Ananya Parakh
-
0
How to judge a book by its cover

Let’s be real. You’re in Blackwells looking for a book to read if you’re cool, and buying a mug with a world map on it if you’re not. You wouldn’t sit there and flip through the pages absorbing the information in the book to then decide whether or not you should spend 8 pounds on it after you have practically fully read it. If you do that, you’re a sociopath. Therefore, the ability to judge a book by its cover is a skill that is essential for any reader’s repertoire.

The first thing that would catch any normally functioning human’s eye, would be colour. Yeah, pretty books make for great coffee table decorations, but no, you must not be lured by that. Resist the temptation. What you are allowed to judge a book by, though, is the name. Usually. Well written books tend to have interesting names. Maybe some alliteration thrown in there, some banter with words, something not cheesy please, or just something classic or comforting or beautiful. A few examples of the following are, ‘The Elements of Eloquence’ (great relevance for the book’s content too), ‘The Enchanted April’ (doesn’t that just sound like a beautiful read?!) or ‘Where the Crawdads sing’ (What are crawdads? And why do I care about where they sing?). But this doesn’t always work. For example, ‘Pineapple street’. I thought it was a cute name, but it’s a shit book. I guess I was at fault because the cover was orange, my bad.

The next thing I’d consider would be the author. Have I heard their name before and in what context? Did someone cringe at their name or was there reverence and brimming excitement. Was it booktok or a Guardian recommendation? I mean you do you, but I’d totally judge. Some classics like Agatha Christie, Virginia Woolf and George Orwell are just timeless and you could blindly pick those up and know they won’t be bad. A risk pays off sometimes though, but if you wanna play safe, the older ones that are still sticking around bookstores are usually pretty good.

Lastly, the vibes. Did you see it in a section that is surrounded by similarly good books? Is it close to other books that you have read and liked in the past? Does the blurb sound unique and make you feel something? Does it make you wish that there was more? If the synopsis feels too long you’re not getting through 5 pages of that book. Skim through the first page of the author’s introduction if they have one(trust me). Is that engaging? If yes, that book will change your life.

Out of a compulsion to not discriminate against any books, I would like to state that all books offer a special insight into the writer’s perspective on life. Now that that’s out of the way, here’s a couple of basic rules: if the book has been adapted into a young adult movie, it goes down by 5 points. If it has pictures of real people instead of graphics, minus 3. If the reviews on the book say ‘deliciously fun’, ‘poignant’ or any stupid word you could use to describe your chicken, minus 10. If it talks about taking you on a journey, run the other way. Now that you’re fully equipped with the skills to judge a book by its cover, I wish you all the best with wise spending and enjoyable experiences for the rest of your life’s journey.

High Commission “disappointed” with Turkish Society’s platforming of Ersin Tatar

Jakub Trybull
-
0
High Commission “disappointed” with Turkish Society’s platforming of Ersin Tatar

The High Commission of the Republic of Cyprus in the UK has expressed “serious concern and disappointment” with the presence of the elected leader of the Turkish occupied area of Cyprus, Ersin Tatar, at an event hosted by the Turkish Society. Concerns lie largely with language and symbols used to promote the event.

On Monday, the Oxford University Turkish society hosted an event with Ersin Tatar, branded as “a talk by [the] President of [the] Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus,” the “TRNC”. As part of the event’s social media marketing, the presidential seal and a link to Tatar’s website was included. 

The High Commission was particularly concerned with word choice regarding Tatar’s position as it implied that the TRNC is a sovereign state. In fact, it is only recognised by Turkey and not any of the other 192 UN member states, which consider it to be legally part of the Republic of Cyprus.

In a conversation with Cherwell, the High Commission said that they have informed the University and St John’s College of their concerns. They added that they “respect free speech” but urged any symbols and language used to be in line with United Nations Security Council resolutions. These called upon all states “not to recognise any Cypriot state other than the Republic of Cyprus” and “not to facilitate or in any way assist the aforesaid secessionist entity”.

Nicholas Kyriakides, the chairman of Oxford University Society in Cyprus, told Cherwell: “This terminology directly contradicts recognised international norms and is offensive to the citizens of the Republic of Cyprus.”

In response, Oxford University Turkish Society stated: “We were asked to host the event by the President himself and the Turkish Embassy, so we used the title that they asked us to use. It was not a political statement by our society but simply how the guest chose to identify himself.

“We recognise that Cyprus has had a challenging path to peace with ongoing international disputes and suffering on both sides. Tatar’s two state solution is one of the proposals for lasting peace and he is a democratic representative of the Turkish Cypriot community, he deserves to be heard out on those grounds.”

St John’s College told Cherwell: “The College looked at the event carefully. We had a number of aims to consider, including both the wellbeing of all our members, and also our legal obligation to uphold freedom of speech within the law.”

“Having reviewed this, we felt that the event should proceed, but noted that hosting any speaker or society does not imply College endorsement of their views. We asked the organisers to make it clear that the invitation to speak comes from them, not from the College or University, and also asked them to ensure that the event was managed in such a way as to avoid distress or disruption to members of the College and wider community. The President did receive a letter from the High Commission and responded to it.”

In a statement to Cherwell, the High Commission said: “Being certain that Oxford University would have never agreed to hold at its premises any event that would have hosted a representative of an entity that the international community through UN Security Council Resolutions, has declared as illegal, null and void, and the sensitivity of the message and effect of giving a platform to Mr Tatar especially when he was listed in the invitation/poster of the event as the so called “President of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”, we respectfully urged the University authorities to reconsider their decision to allow this event to take place even so this was not an official University event.”

Ersin Tatar and the University have been reached for comment.

UN Report featuring Oxford analysis finds trillions in hidden costs of agrifood systems

Matthew Grigg
-
0
UN Report featuring Oxford analysis finds trillions in hidden costs of agrifood systems

A new United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) report based on Oxford research has found that hidden social, environmental and health costs from agrifood systems globally were up to $12 trillion in 2020. Significantly, costs from limited productivity and lifestyle disease associated with unhealthy eating represented almost 75% of total costs.

Hidden environmental costs, including nitrogen pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, accounted for 20%. Social costs related to poverty represented 4% of hidden costs. The report features analysis by a senior researcher in food system economics with Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute (ECI), Dr Steven Lord, which importantly breaks down the distribution of these costs. 

Health costs linked with unhealthy diets were mostly found in high-income countries, such as the UK and Germany, whilst environmental and social costs were more prevalent in low-income countries. Dr Lord highlighted an important discrepancy: “The majority of the quantified hidden costs are generated in high- and upper-middle-income countries, in particular in the United States and the BRIC countries. However, the greatest economic burden falls on low-income countries.” 

Indeed, future hidden costs could account for over a quarter of low-income countries’ gross domestic product.

The FAO report aimed to address uncertainties in quantifying pollution and future costs to better inform policy, utilising a model developed at the ECI. Potential damage of these costs indicates how pressing their consideration in future policy is. Dr Lord reflected how “$12 trillion is about 33 billion 2020 PPP dollars per day, which is equivalent to a June 2022 Pakistan flood every day or a September 2022 Hurricane Ian every four days.” 

Costs identified by the study were measured by the reduction in welfare associated with a decline in purchasing power, with all currencies treated equally by the measure of purchasing power parity (PPP) dollars in 2020. 

The report comes weeks before the next UN Climate Change Conference COP28 in December, which will for the first time place a major focus on agrifood systems. However, agrifood systems pose a unique set of specific challenges beyond carbon dioxide emissions, such as nitrogen pollution and methane emissions, which must be addressed with different policies. 

Dr Lord has said: “For policymakers, reducing the increasing economic risk posed by agrifood systems activities…requires policies characteristically different to the decarbonization pathway required of other sectors.”

The economic discrepancy identified between which countries shoulder agrifood costs also comes ahead of a crucial moment at COP28 for establishing a working loss-and-damage fund after initial COP27 agreement, to assist lower-income countries often at the forefront of climate change. COP28 provides an opportunity to develop policies to mitigate against risks from agrifood systems that recognise the unequal weight of their hidden costs. 

An (Oxmas) gift-giving guide

Iona Neill
-
0
An (Oxmas) gift-giving guide

As a child, my dad once got a ketchup bottle for Christmas. It is a story that inevitably resurfaces every year as we sit around the Christmas dinner table, discussing the presents we have received – the good ones as well as the not-so-good ones. As the story goes, he once made a passing remark to an aunt about liking ketchup, and it appeared she took the comment to heart. 

Another genuinely bizarre gift that comes up in family conversations is the bra travel case I received when I was twelve or thirteen. At the time I didn’t own nearly enough bras to put in it, nor did I have many exotic places I needed to transport them to. A few years later I opened a Christmas present from a not-to-be-named family member – a new notebook. Upon opening it, I found there were already multiple entries inside. “Dear diary,” one of the entries read, “Today I got dumped”. 

In the wake of these terrible but amusing presents, I decided to try to discover what it is that makes a good present. In my search, I stumbled upon a video by Van Neistat called The Rules of Gifting. In it, Van (the lesser-known brother of famous NYC vlogger Casey Neistat), lays out his ‘Holy Trinity’ of gifting rules. What the Holy Trinity decrees is that a gift should always have at least two of the following three qualities present (see what I did there). 

The first of the Holy Trinity is thoughtful. Thoughtful presents are ones that are specific and show you have thought about what the person you are giving it to likes. A good example of a thoughtful gift I still think about is a CD I was given several years ago when I had just started driving myself to college. My car, a tiny Ford Fiesta, was equipped with a radio and a CD player but no aux outlet. When one of my friends noticed this, they bought me my favourite album on CD. Very thoughtful.

The second of the Holy Trinity is nice. Nice should be self-explanatory. If the present is something you know the receiver will enjoy, then it is a nice present. Niceness, whilst fairly abstract, should be the easiest of the Holy Trinity to achieve. It is a property found in any good-quality, well-made object. If you are really stuck, Van’s rule of thumb is to buy something which is cheap but expensive. There are certain things that are usually cheap, but if you spend a little more money than usual, they become nice. Take chocolate, for example. Chocolate is cheap, but nobody wants just a Snickers for Christmas. Yet, investing ten pounds in some artisan chocolates from a local store should be relatively affordable and result in a gift that is undeniably nice.

The third of the Holy Trinity is made. Made is a little more ambiguous, and the hardest to achieve of the three. What made means is either making a gift yourself or leaving a personal mark on it. Books are an easy way to incorporate an element of made-ness since you can write a short message on the inside cover. Adding the receiver’s name, a short greeting, and the date can go a long way. If you are creative, then homemade jewelry, home-baked goods, playlists and old-school CD mixes, as well as crafted, knitted or crocheted items are all examples of made gifts. Of course, making gifts isn’t always easy in practice. If you’re not very creative nor artistically inclined like myself, then there is often the option to add someone’s initials or other details on items like notebooks, wallets, or bags. Made means that your hand is in the gift in some way.

Van includes an additional rule to made gifts which I should also mention. Gifting an object that you have made entirely yourself can be a risky business. Whilst it is usually true that the gift receiver will like something that you have made yourself, there are always cases when this can go wrong. You don’t want to give someone a large painting that won’t fit in their tiny student house, no matter how good it is. Therefore it is a good rule to only give homemade gifts that are smaller than your hand. This way, it won’t take up too much space, and they won’t feel too bad if they don’t like it.

Thoughtful, nice, and made. Two of these together will make a good present. But if you can check off all three, that’s the Holy Trinity of gift-giving.

Van adds that if you listen to the people whom you need to buy gifts for, they will usually tell you exactly what they want. If you are shopping with a friend and they make a comment about their favourite perfume or a book they have been wanting to read, make a mental note of it. Or, better still, write it down to save for later. This way you will always be prepared for what to buy for someone. 

Buying gifts for lots of people – especially at Christmas – can certainly be overwhelming; hopefully this advice helps.

Adapted from Van Neistat’s video, The Rules of Gifting – all credit to him. Go check it out! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqYIkm66RSI

1...207208209...2,581Page 208 of 2,581

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by Jamie Ashley