Tuesday 1st July 2025
Blog Page 21

Review: As You Like It – ‘What’s not to like?’

0

At last, the sun is coming out to play, and the Mansfield Players’ staging of As You Like It has given this summer’s outdoor theatre season a merry welcome. The performance is so contagiously high-spirited that, in keeping with this play’s signature ‘All the world’s a stage’ speech, every creature is inclined to participate. A cat attempts to steal the show by strolling mischievously around the musicians, a chorus of birds chimes in with their evensong, and a separate staging of The Princess Bride at the nearby Wadham is happy to contribute its chaotic brawl noises. It is a collaborative affair. 

As the spectators arrive, the cast seems already to be in character. The group bursts into the traditional ‘I love the flowers’ song while EP Siegel, playing the cynical Jaques, pretends to read Nietzsche’s The Joyful Wisdom: an apt allusion, and an amusing way to set the scene. Mansfield’s garden makes for a lovely Forest of Arden, transcending the stuffy indoors and emulating the ceilingless Globe Theatre, where this Shakespeare play is believed to have been first performed to the public. The play is deliberately self-aware; there is something quaint about how the exaggeratedly French Duke Senior (Josephine Bernier) introduces the ‘players’ and declares out loud that they will now begin with Act 1, Scene 1. 

The harmony between the play’s heroines, Rosalind (Elizabeth Hamilton) and Celia (Emily Polhill), is a pleasure to witness – they are synchronised in their laughter and their tears, and both comically faint at various points in the play. Ben Gilchrist plays a convincing youngest brother in his role as Orlando, unrivaled in his ability to conjure up a youthful blush at the sight of his character’s crush. Arthur Bellamy entertains as Touchstone, simultaneously impersonating a pretentious intellectual and Shakespearean fool, and his bright blond hair enlivens an already vibrant costume.

EP Siegel is not just Jaques, but seems to play a second director within the play: this production adds a playful moment to Shakespeare’s original, where Jaques utters a frantic ‘fuck!’ and implores a front-seat spectator to fill in for a seemingly missing actor. Siegel captures the essence of Jaques’ boisterous melancholia and executes an impressive performance of the ‘Seven Ages of Man’ speech, slowly amplifying the tension and spiraling into an explosive existential crisis. This Jaques is a character who makes use of liminal spaces, watching from the aisle, in cahoots with the audience as the action unfolds. The fourth wall wanes, leaving us uncertain: have we been lured into the spectacle, or has the play stepped out into the real world? 

The director (Tom Onslow) double-casts characters masterfully to enhance the comedy: Dami Adedoyin-Adeniyi is both Charles, the fiery wrestler, and Audrey, elegant ‘country wench’. Alex Lauff, clothed in black, plays the malignant character of Duke Frederick, but dons a pink floral shirt to embody William, a ‘country fellow’ who woos Audrey. When Rosalind, Celia and Touchstone traverse perilous obstacles to reach the Forest of Arden, our Duke (Alex Lauff) nobly takes on the role of a tree obstructing their path. 

Phoebe (Rav Sagoo) and Silvius (Isabella Savin) are endearing comedians, and Lauren Mlicko’s whimsical singing is a jovial ornament to the play. Zoë Shah’s leafy costume designs breathe life into this pastoral fairytale. This performance feels no need to drastically renovate Shakespeare’s classic, as many modern adaptations do, but perhaps this is precisely what makes it so timelessly familiar. 

As the night gets colder, the audience snuggles up with fluffy blankets, delighted by this cosy comedy, a comfort from the sorrows of the day. With four couples happily married and a powerful epilogue delivered by Rosalind, the play comes to an end. From this day forth, I vow to be an honest reviewer, to critique unflatteringly if I must – but as it turns out, I do like it.

Moving out and moving on

0

The idea that you should never discuss politics at the dinner table has long been a cliché, but over the last few years, it’s become arguably the cliché of our times. Brexit, COVID, Trump, Palestine, you name it – most issues these days are so divisive, it seems impossible to have a normal conversation about them, let alone come to some kind of agreement or, god forbid, to actually change each other’s minds. 

It can seem like anytime someone raises one of these issues, the outcome is more likely to be angry mouth-frothing than anything resembling a respectful discussion. So surely it would be better for all of us, the cliché says, if we just left the contentious stuff behind and concentrated on the things we can agree on. The fact that good weather is better than bad weather, for instance, or that dogs are better than cats. Trump-lover or diehard Corbynite, no matter – if only we would stick to these more clear-cut issues, everybody would be friends. 

By instinct, I’m not a fan of the cliché. Isn’t it infantilising, treating us all like we’re small children, unable to talk about anything even slightly controversial without having a temper tantrum and throwing our toys out the pram? Wouldn’t it be healthier, not to mention less boring, to have all the contentious stuff out in the open? After all, what does it say about our relationships, be it with friends, family, or the always-smiling dog-walker in Port Meadow, that we can only spend time together as long as we leave the things we might disagree on out of sight. It seems less like a recipe for healthy relationships than for repressed feelings and mutual suspicion. Surely we can get along whilst having our views out in the open – and maybe we’d even like and respect each other more because of it, not less.

My relationship with friends back home has put this opinion to the test. Sometimes I feel like studying at Oxford has been a years-long process of developing views that are the polar opposite to those held by the people where I used to live. I don’t think I’m being unfair to anyone when I say I grew up in a Brexit-town, before Brexit was even a thing. A small but once busy seaside tourist destination in south west England, my little town now has more boarded-up pubs and fish and chip shops than open ones. The people there are angry, and you only have to hang around for a few minutes to hear it. Benefit scroungers are stealing taxpayers’ hard-earned money. Immigrant ‘invaders’ are slowly managing to implement Sharia law. Feminists won’t be happy until all men are in prison. The town, like the country, is going down the pan – and somebody has to be responsible. 

For a long time I couldn’t resist the temptation to fight the cliché. When you hear straight-up untruths, it’s hard to bite your tongue. I’d take the opportunity to point out that, say, the striking NHS nurses weren’t all ‘skivers’, or that hundreds of people weren’t now suddenly dying from COVID jabs. Granted, there was a bit of me which did this almost like a reflex, and I was sometimes less sensitive than I could have been: of course the COVID jabs are fine – and you have to be mad to even question it. But for the most part, I thought there was nothing wrong with us having a good old argument, and that maybe if we were all open about these things, some of us might even change our views. It didn’t work. We never properly fell out, but I often wondered if we would.

The trickiest part of all this has been feeling that I myself have turned into exactly the stereotype the people back home are sick of in the first place. And it’s hard to deny that in many ways I have become exactly the ‘woke social justice warrior’ who the Trumpists and others are fighting against: the person who abandons his roots and goes off to uni, home of the woke mind virus and the liberal metropolitan elite, learns a bunch of things about social justice, then returns home from time-to-time to explain to everyone exactly how they have got things so wrong. I’ve turned into one of ‘them’, and so before I’ve even opened my mouth, everything I say has already been discounted. The more ‘calmly and reasonably’ I put my point across, the more condescending I feel they think I’m being. And in a way, they’re not completely wrong.

Therein lies the difficulty. These stereotypes are now so deeply embedded, it means that we don’t take each other seriously anymore, even when there might be a degree of truth in what the other person is saying. As for me and my own friends, we seem to have fallen into an unspoken agreement that things would be much easier if we just leave the controversial stuff off the table. I’ve ended up feeling happy enough with this, because the fact is that it does feel easier to get along with people when we stick to what we do have in common rather than what we don’t. For the moment, it seems to be working. What it says about the strength of our friendships, I’m not so sure. 

C Sunday: The Cambridge art of day drinking

It’s 10:30am. As we trudge down the stairs, loaded with bags, we pass someone carrying a heavy pint glass filled with Guinness. A trolley hurtles across the street conveying a shirtless man, his head wrapped in a large bag. A gaggle of toga-clad students bustle by. On any other day I’d think I was hallucinating.  

Caesarian, or “C” Sunday is a Cambridge tradition which originates from a 20th century annual skirmish between the Jesus College drinking society, the “Caesarians”, and the Girton “Green Monsters”, until its eventual prohibition in 2014. By comparison, its present-day iteration is a lot more tame, but nonetheless promises unique sights, as hundreds of Cambridge students gather on Jesus Green on the Sunday of May Week for picnics, initiations, and, above all, day-drinking.  

When we reached the Green just before midday, groups of students were beginning to pour in, the crowd splattered with a palette of fancy-dress. The drinking societies were unmistakable; each came clad in their own uniquely insane attire, to complete their own uniquely insane initiation rituals. My friend points out the ‘Alleycatz’, the all-women’s drinking society at St Catharine’s, dressed in neon orange jumpsuits and chugging from shoes. The epicentre of the crowd buzzes with activity; for those not participating in drinking societies, it’s preferable to pitch your spot on the outskirts. Narrowly avoiding the flight path of a series of men racing on all fours, dressed head to toe in pink, we claim our position, and enjoy what my friend dubs “a picnic with a view”.  

As most Cambridge students head into exam term, C Sunday constitutes a final hurrah, expending all their energy before knuckling down. The spirit of revelry, somewhere between a Bacchanalia and a large-scale fraternity party, was infectious. Over the course of the day we witnessed the relentless attempts to scale the central lamppost around which much of the activity throngs (with only one success story). The day offers endless opportunities for people-watching – it turns out I know far more people in the other place than I had previously thought. Everything was infused with a sense of unity, with distinctions between colleges, year groups, and subjects blurred – if you can ignore the sporadic tabloid photographers, and the occasional police officer, both circling the Green like vultures, eager to fashion a tale of excessive debauchery out of what should be a harmless day of letting-off steam.   

C Sunday is definitely a marathon; some fell at the first hurdle, and tapped out even before college brunch. Sustaining ourselves with steady snacking, we managed to maintain just the right level of tipsiness throughout the day to secure our place amongst the survivors who made it to the club night. Although it’s not an occasion for the tee-totaller or the sufferer from hay-fever, for me, C Sunday was definitely worth the four hour bus journey from Oxford, a day of student solidarity, suspending all thoughts of studying in an annual release of tension. If there’s one thing that Cambridge students can boast, perhaps it’s their mastery of the art of day-drinking.  

‘Oxford DIY Pride’ to stage separate Pride event

A new organisation has been set up as an alternative to the official Oxford Pride. Oxford DIY Pride plan to host their own pride event across Florence Park Community Centre and the Old Fire Station on 15th June, a week after the official Oxford Pride Event on 7th June.

Oxford DIY Pride objected to the sponsorship of Oxford Pride by Siemens Healthineers, a subsidiary of the German multinational technology conglomerate Siemens, in an Instagram post on 27th April. According to the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions Movement, which identifies corporations with links to Israel and Israeli military action in Gaza and encourages people to boycott them, “Siemens is the main contractor for the Euro-Asia Interconnector, an Israel-EU submarine electricity cable that is planned to connect Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory to Europe.”

Oxford Pride told Cherwell: “With regard to Siemens Healthineers Magnet Technology Oxford (actually a subsidiary separate from Siemens), this partnership was terminated on 29th April 2025. This was due to concerns that their LGBTQIA+ staff could be subject to harassment by those pressuring them to cut ties with us. It is unacceptable that any individual should feel threatened for supporting a Pride event.”

Siemens Healthineers are currently developing a £250 million facility for MRI cooling technology in North Oxfordshire, which they claim will bring more than 1,300 skilled jobs to the local area. Siemens Global call themselves “allies and advocates” and feature testimony from LGBTQ+ and “ally” employees on a dedicated webpage

Oxford DIY Pride acknowledged the “termination” of the partnership on their Instagram page. However, Oxford DIY Pride still plan to go ahead with the separate event, arguing that there is a “clear desire for a non-corporate pride” in Oxford, and that other corporations involved in the sponsorship of the main Pride event also have ties to genocide in Gaza. Oxford Pride told Cherwell: “We’re aware of a small group planning an alternative event. We welcome all community-led initiatives, including those that focus solely on protest or expression.”

Oxford Pride has grown significantly in recent years. In 2023, Oxford Pride reported shareholder assets of £46,850, almost quadruple that of the £12,635 total in 2021. The BBC reported an attendance of thousands at Oxford Pride in 2022, and the 2024 event hosted performers at three different stages throughout the city centre.

Oxford DIY Pride claim that Oxford Pride deflected criticism over the sponsorship by arguing that they are “not political”. Oxford Pride told Cherwell: “As organisers, we remain politically neutral and work hard to create a space that reflects the full spectrum of our LGBTQIA+ community. Furthermore, Oxford Pride is a registered charity, and the Charity Commission clearly states that we are legally not allowed to take political positions that fall outside of our charitable objectives which are LGBTQIA+ rights within Oxford and Oxfordshire.” 

The Charity Commission states that political campaigning or political activity “must be undertaken by a charity only in the context of supporting the delivery of its charitable purposes.” For these purposes, political activity is defined in terms of seeking to change government policy or legislation.

Oxford DIY Pride told Cherwell: “Caring about, promoting and celebrating LGBTQ+ people does not exist in a vacuum; our identities are interconnected, and the struggle of one oppressed people does not separate them from the struggle of another. Pride began as a protest, and now more than ever must continue to reflect that character, to demonstrate queerness and unity when our human rights are ignored, threatened or revoked.

When we look to Palestinians, whose human rights have been violated time and again over the past 77 years, there is an innate solidarity there. Pride is about defiant existence in the face of forces that do not want us to be here; Palestinians embody this every day.”

This tension between ideas of Pride as a protest and corporate sponsorship of Pride events is not one unique to Oxford. DIY Pride themselves cite similar events in Brighton and Reading as their inspiration, and there have been further instances of pro-Palestinian action in relation to Pride events in Birmingham, Glasgow and Exeter.

Cherwell has approached Siemens for comment.

5 Summer Travel Ideas For Students 

Travelling is almost considered as a right of passage for students. So, if you’re thinking of using your time off to travel or just want some summer travel ideas that won’t blow your budget, here are just a handful of options you could consider:

  1. Apply For a Summer Job

Travelling while earning money is a no brainer for some students and gives more purpose to your time away. Whether it’s working the bar in Ibiza or teaching English as a foreign language, summer jobs are a great way to explore new cities and experience a variety of cultures while also earning money and gaining vital work experience. 

  1. City Hop

Travelling between European cities can be easily achieved on any budget, particularly with numerous budget airlines and railways. Interrail through several of Europe’s most popular destinations like Prague, Berlin, and Amsterdam and explore at your own pace. With plenty of budget accommodation in and around Europe, and student discounts on international rail passes, you can make the most out of Europe without breaking the bank. 

  1. Go on a Road Trip

If you’d prefer to stay closer to home, why not road trip around the UK? One notable option is the North Coast 500, a route of just over 500 miles across the stunning coast of Scotland. The route features a range of unforgettable experiences, from mesmerising sceneries to some of the best pubs in the UK. If you don’t have a car, you can always hire one. There are places that offer young driver car hire, so you can enjoy your road trip without the hassle. 

  1. Backpack Around Asia 

If you’re looking to experience a completely different culture to the UK, consider a tour of Asia. Not only is backpacking around Asia a unique experience, but most countries within the continent are very affordable, making it much easier to keep costs down. From public transport to food and accommodation, expenses are typically much lower than the likes of popular destinations in Europe. 

  1. Do Volunteer Work

Volunteering abroad is a great way to gain life and work experience whilst keeping travel costs down. There are numerous volunteer programmes all around the world that offer accommodation and food within the price, so you can explore more places for less of a price tag. Whether it’s a wild cat sanctuary in South Africa or a conservation project in Costa Rica, the options are endless. 

Get Going!

Whether you apply for a summer job abroad or road trip around the UK, travelling is a great way to gain life and work experience. And with plenty of affordable ways to travel, there’s really no excuse – so get booking! 

Decentering men: Feminist empowerment or brutal asceticism?

0

Dating can be frustrating, to say the least. Being trapped in a situationship with someone who throws around pop-psychology terms such as ‘commitment issues’ to diagnose their lack of effort  is an all-too-common occurrence. To like someone and act authentically seems to be a dying art – what is true love without relentless anxiety and the “what are we” talk, anyway? Many women, tired of fruitless “talking stages” and begging for the bare minimum,  may be familiar with online discourse on “decentering” men – I know I am. But why is this specifically aimed at women? And what does it mean exactly, to”decenter” nearly half of the population? 

Decentering men is a fourth-wave feminist concept, originating in the early 2020s, which most commonly focuses on the experiences of heterosexual women. Proponents argue that women’s lives are far too contingent on male validation, so that romantic involvement is seen as a prerequisite to fulfilment. Fear-mongering influencers warn that a woman might neglect her goals (career or otherwise) if her thoughts are consumed by a mere man – and the emphasis is on your Hinge date being “just some guy”. It is thought that women are more likely to excuse poor behaviour because of the patriarchal roots of relationships, which make women crave the romantic approval of men more than vice versa. Thus, there is a need to make an active effort to decenter men. This, at first, seems nothing but empowering: after all, we no longer live in a society where women rely on men for their livelihood. 

But does this movement go too far? Obsession is not always self-effacing, or contrary to feminist principles of independence. Sometimes this is merely excitement, and it is only human for this to become distracting. The most celebrated romance novels, while, of course, being idealistic, portray love as all-consuming, and even sickening at times, nor is this trope reserved for women. Perhaps the decentering movement goes too far in gendering modern dating. Maybe love doesn’t need to be constantly politicised, and worrying about the feminist implications of really liking your talking stage actually just ruins what would otherwise be an enjoyable experience. In my own experience, over-literal subscription to such ideas only exacerbated the perfectionism I already suffered from: I distinctly remember calling my mum in tears, thinking I was letting down my gender for getting distracted from a Prelims essay (it didn’t even count towards my grade – yikes). Is the doctrine of decentering, therefore, too harsh? 

Cliché as it is, it seems that finding a balance is the best means to navigate this movement. Being distracted by someone who treats you well is not necessarily a weakness; on the contrary, it is often a source of happiness, and what’s more self-empowering than that? However, the issue arises when another person becomes the only source of such happiness. Decentering men can be a helpful way to realise that a relationship is not necessary to feel whole in yourself – especially considering how many people seek out the concept of one, without even enjoying the reality of it. After all, it is this mindset that leads to letting your standards slip. Boredom and the desire to be “locked in” to an undefined someone has led me, a self-proclaimed feminist, to excuse some truly egregious behaviour. I’m still haunted by my friends’ disappointed faces when I finally told them the full truth ex post facto – “you never mentioned that he said that!”. So, before you make your next pros and cons list (not a terrific sign, might I add), consider: is he really all that? 

Concerns over University plans to halt funding for admissions tests

0

Plans by the University of Oxford to stop subsidising admissions test fees have been criticised in a motion set to be tabled at the first meeting of the ‘Conference of the Common Rooms’ (CCR). The University has been conducting a consultation on the proposal, which would take effect from 2026.

Currently, Oxford’s own admissions tests are free for all applicants, with the costs being covered by funding from the University. This is unlike Cambridge University, where admissions tests must be paid for by candidates, with the Engineering and Science Admissions Test (ESAT) costing up to £130.

According to the motion, colleges have been presented with the option of either taking on the costs of testing themselves, or charging prospective students individually. If the latter option were to be taken, a currently unspecified fee waiver system would be put in place for certain applicants.

Cherwell understands that Oxford had agreed to continue the funding arrangement with Pearson VUE – the organisation which runs the tests – on a short-term basis for both 2024 and 2025, whilst a permanent arrangement was agreed. 

The issue is set to be brought up at the newly-established CCR, organised by the Student Union (SU), on Thursday 15th May. If the motion were to pass, it would mandate the SU to advocate for alternatives to Oxford-only testing, such as the potential for “collaboration with other similarly selective universities”.

The motion raises concerns that such a move might “exacerbate college disparities and disincentivise open offers”. It also warns of impacts on the University’s access policies, highlighting the importance of preventing the “psychological barriers to Oxford applications from becoming any higher than they already are”.

In response to the claims, Oxford University told Cherwell: “A consultation is currently underway across the collegiate University in relation to 2026 undergraduate admission tests. The outcome of that consultation will be shared in due course.”

Being loved in a loveless environment

0

“You overloved me.” These are the words Maggie Marshall utters to her parents in Everything I Know About Love. With thick, long brown hair and panda-ringed eyes, Maggie embodies the archetypal home counties girl – her life comfortable yet adrift, with no apparent reason for her poor choices. While our circumstances differ slightly (no matter how hard I try, I’ve never successfully had bangs), Maggie’s declaration about the problem of overloving resonates deeply with me. It jolted me out of a haze of late-night energy drink-fueled productivity – a chaotic frenzy to finish my never-ending backlog of work. I felt like I was living the epitome of modern exhaustion in those moments.

It’s a universal truth that you don’t realise how fortunate you are until something changes. For me, that awareness came through my relationship with my parents. Thankfully, they are still alive, though my mother often jokes that I’m driving her into an early grave, but leaving home for university was a monumental shift. Experts would say that separation is essential for growth. I embraced it enthusiastically, confident in my independence and secure attachment to them. Yet, despite my readiness, university unearthed some brutal truths.

One of the most jarring was this: nobody cared about my opinion, not in the way my parents, peers, or teachers once had. Attention wasn’t given; it was earned. It sounds narcissistic, I know, but that wake-up call made me realise just how privileged my upbringing had been. The greatest advantage in life, I now believe, is having good parents and emotional stability. This foundation enriches every aspect of your life, but with that blessing comes a challenge – it sets your standard for love incredibly high.

My parents’ warmth, security, and unwavering support created an expectation that the world simply couldn’t match. And it didn’t – particularly not at Oxbridge. When I arrived at Oxford, I had unknowingly set myself up for disappointment by imagining friendships, romantic relationships, and deep emotional connections that never quite materialised. For months, I pretended otherwise. Whenever someone asked how I was finding Oxford, my voice would go an octave higher. I’d chirp, “Well, I am loving it!”—as if auditioning for a McDonald’s ad. It wasn’t that I disliked Oxford itself—it was more that the emotional side of life hadn’t developed at all.

Despite countless late-night conversations in Spoons about people’s lives, hopes, and dreams, I struggled to form meaningful connections. I could understand others, but they couldn’t quite reach me. The problem was that I expected to be understood in return. I spent so much time chasing a kind of love, whether platonic or romantic, that mirrored the ease and reciprocity I’d known at home, that I overlooked the quieter, more subtle offerings of connection around me. Maybe love wasn’t unattainable—just different. Slower. Less certain. More ordinary. I searched for an ideal instead of accepting reality. And that was okay. In learning to love myself more, I’ve come to accept the challenges I face—both external and self-imposed. Through this, I’ve realised that my expectations needed adjusting. Rather than mourning what I lack, I’m learning to appreciate and return the love I do have—especially that of my parents, however imperfect or occasionally grumbly it may be.

Interestingly, I’ve found that my friends at other universities, with whom I initially put on a front, suffered the same struggle—the ache for friendships that don’t always materialise on schedule, especially at Oxford, where there’s an unspoken code of self-containment. People strive to appear more stoic, emotionally self-sufficient, and unaffected than they are. It reminds me of Sebastian Flyte in Brideshead Revisited, who hides behind his charming, carefree facade while masking deep emotional turmoil and loneliness. Like Sebastian, many in Oxford suppress their vulnerability, presenting a polished, emotionally impermeable front. And that makes forming genuine connections all the more difficult. We’re all so desperate to appear fine that we forget vulnerability is not only okay—it’s necessary.

Bev Thomas, in her writing, argues that parents—especially mothers—should be “good enough.” I’ve realised that mine was—and is—and always will be far more than good enough. She is a great mother, and I’m slightly ashamed to admit it took me a term and a half at university to realise that. But moving forward, to all the misguided teenagers searching for platonic and romantic love, my advice is to be open and hopeful. It’s easier said than done, and some days will feel more challenging than others. But, fundamentally, I’ve learned that I must keep searching for love.

As Maggie’s mum says, “I think you are looking for an extraordinary kind of love, but I don’t think that you want to be loved in an extraordinary way. For what it’s worth, I think what you want is to be loved plainly and quietly, without spectacle or anxiety—like Birdy loves you.” I think I am, too. But, at Oxford, even in the “Birdy department,” I’m still searching. But it will come in time—hope does spring eternal.

From cloisters to concrete: Oxford’s architectural evolution

0

As a proud member of one of Oxford’s younger colleges – one that didn’t make it into the set of Saltburn – the magnetic pull of the old Oxford cloisters appeared alive and well when overhearing an incoming fresher express disappointment about not being pooled to one of the “fancy old colleges.” They imagined the Oxford of postcards and films: cloisters, gargoyles, and stained-glass chapels. St Peter’s College may not frequently appear on corner shop merch, but its campus, nestled near Oxford Castle and St George’s Tower (the oldest surviving structure in the city), is home to an eclectic blend of Georgian architecture and 20th-century additions.

Despite my collegiate bias, the city I call home for half of the year is nothing short of stunning. With its alluring architecture embedded within the stone of its old colleges and libraries, the kind that turns gold when touched by the sun and (unfortunately) slows the packs of tourists who flood Broad Street on a weekend. Colleges, whose stone is home to the footsteps of writers, prime ministers, and other ghosts of Oxfords’ past, form an iconic backdrop to the city, no matter which college crest you wear on your puffer.

The city’s architecture adds an intangible richness to everyday life for students. A mental health walk across Christ Church Meadows, with the spires piercing the treeline in the distance, becomes endeared with a touch of romance that reminds you how lucky you are to be surrounded by buildings older than certain empires. There is a quiet romance in passing through archways that have stood for centuries or writing essays in rooms older than most modern nations. It is in these spaces that history embraces you. 

Yet Oxford is not static. Modern architecture is gradually asserting itself on the peripheries of its medieval core. Contemporary architecture is steadily making its presence known within the university, dispersing the old stone walls with pockets of white tile. The Blavatnik School of Government embodies transparency and openness with its wide panes of glass and spiral form. At the same time, the boxy buildings of Oxford’s newer colleges take on a more functional and minimalist architectural form to catch up with the modern educational landscape. 

However, for all their practicality, these buildings rarely capture the affection reserved for Oxford’s older landmarks. Places like the Radcliffe Camera, functionally impractical, remain one of the most beloved sites in Oxford, an ‘X’ on the map from which the rest of the city orbits. Designed by James Gibbs in a baroque style, it serves as a reminder that between the clinical modernity of the Glink and the domed grace of the Camera is a sense of enduring tradition, which happens to make for a quality photo opportunity on a sunny day.

Many of Oxford’s oldest colleges have married tradition and progress, either through modernised interiors or the addition of a few new buildings around the old architectural spine of the college. Walking through college grounds, one might pass from a 15th-century dining hall into a 21st-century library without leaving the place’s spirit behind.

For students living in less storied accommodations, such as the 20th-century sprawl of the Saints Club, the magic of Oxford is never far away. A stroll through Radcliffe Square, a detour down Ship Street, or an aimless meander along the High Street will bring you face to face with centuries of architectural heritage. The beauty of studying here is that even if your accommodation was built in the 1960s, you’re always just a few steps from a portal to the past.

While newer colleges don’t miss out entirely on the architectural legacy of the city they inhabit, the gravitas etched into the older architecture of Balliol College, Merton College, or University College Oxford, anchors the university’s identity in ways that the modern locations struggle to replicate.

After all, where else can you justify spending £5 on an iced coffee if not beneath the weathered stone of a medieval Pret?

Adolescence: Can TV spark radical change in young men?

0

Adolescence is just another example of art acting as a conversation piece. The recent series has inspired much conversation after it has highlighted how harmful online misogynistic and ‘incel culture’ content can influence young boys. Netflix’s announcement that the series will be available to screen freely in UK schools shows the cultural importance that has now been placed on Adolescence’s messaging. 

Afterall, it was Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer who called for Netflix to make such a move. But can four hours of television tackle something as enormous as online misogyny and incel culture? Or does it just scratch the surface? And are we now in a ‘govern by TV’ show doom-loop? 

Adolescence, if you haven’t seen it, is about a 13-year-old boy, Jamie (played by Owen Cooper), who’s arrested for the murder of a female classmate. As the series unfolds, we start to learn about Jamie’s dark motives, and we’re shown how horrific the consequences of online toxic masculinity and misogyny can be. 

The series also demonstrates how Jamie’s parents (Stephen Graham and Christine Tremarco) deal with their son’s horrendous crime. It explores their second-hand guilt for Jamie’s actions, and their confusion surrounding his motivations. 

The series is important. It is a direct response to the rise of hateful ‘red pill commentary’ amongst teenagers. It’s the canary in the coal mine of this huge societal challenge which is staring us right in the face. What Adolescence does well is raise questions, and integral ones, at an important time. But what it doesn’t do is answer them – and, in all fairness, I don’t think it was ever meant to. 

However, the politicisation of Adolescence as the answer could be problematic. Politician’s overeager responses to the Netflix drama risks an epidemic of condescending conversations between adults and children if adults don’t grasp the nuance of the problem itself first. 

Critically, the series shows how young boys in general find it incredibly hard to talk about social media and incel culture, whilst also illustrating adults’ ignorance of those very problems in the first place. This is exemplified when the confused Ashley Walters’ DI Bascombe and his son (played by Amari Bacchus) have an awkward conversation about this mysterious online content at school in episode 2. 

However, the exchange demonstrates not the naivety of teenagers to the challenges Adolescence presents, but the naivety of adults. This one scene highlights the need for politicians, teachers, and parents to truly get to grips with this issue before presenting solutions. Anything other than this will result in similar ill-informed conversations happening nationwide. 

Furthermore, the laziness in which Andrew Tate’s name is briefly mentioned in episode two feels slightly forced. It’s an obvious signpost to older viewers of the crux of the show – like they were worried all the ‘red pill chat’ would go over people’s heads. 

This is not to mean that young people don’t need education on the issue – they really do. However, will positive change be enacted by simply showing the Netflix show in classrooms without any other guidance accompanying it? 

Unless teachers, parents, and all adults generally can comfortably and confidently engage with these issues in a non-condescending way, then there’s no hope anything will ever be solved. Showing kids films or shows in class doesn’t always lead to great results – look at Mr. Malik in episode 2 of the show. 

At the heart of Adolescence, though, is one thing: a girl who’s been murdered because of the internet – this should, importantly, not be forgotten. Jamie’s crimes, however, demonstrate the worst-case scenario of misogynistic online radicalisation. This is because not every teenager will be a Jamie. Some may just feel confused and isolated – scared of social media and its effects. These children deserve more than Sir Keir and Netflix’s ‘govern and educate by TV’ strategy. 

In future, the government should be more proactive in investigating the underlying causes behind the issues Adolescence presents. It’s short sighted to believe that a TV series is going to fix all online misogyny. It’s also patronising to young boys to group them all together as potential Jamie’s – they’re not. Education on this issue needs to be done with subtlety and nuance. What the writers of Adolescence have given society is a prompt. Sometimes that’s all that’s needed. Although the current reaction to the series is both encouraging and potentially problematic, no one can argue that it hasn’t started conversations. And without conversations, great societal challenges can never be solved. The hope is that Adolescence kickstarts the fight-back against online misogyny and incel culture and isn’t just treated as the cure itself.