Friday 11th July 2025
Blog Page 2129

Revelations force Poetry Professor resignation

0

Ruth Padel, the first female Professor of Poetry at the University of Oxford, has resigned after holding the post for only a week.

The resignation follows the damaging relevation that she had sent e-mails to two national newspapers, associating her with a smear campaign against Derek Walcott, a Nobel laureate and her main rival in the race. In the e-mails, Padel mentions allegations of sexual harassment in Walcott’s history.

The discovery of these e-mails has led many to suspect Padel’s involvement with the campaign. Many academics who initially supported Padel called for her to step down. Lord Bragg, a Labour peer described her behaviour as “disgraceful.”

“She should now stand down from the post,” he added. “A shame, but there it is.”

Padel had maintained, in the past, that she played no part in the smear campaign.

“It’s terrible, because it had nothing to do with me,” she said in an earlier interview with Cherwell.

In an official statement released on Monday, however, Padel acknowledged that she had sent the e-mails. She denied engaging in the smear campaign, as she had only passed on information that was already in the public domain.

“I acted in complete good faith, and would have been happy to lose to Derek,” she said, “but I can see that people might interpret my actions otherwise.”

The e-mails to two journalists were sent in early April, and made references to events in Walcott’s past. Padel wrote in them, “Some [of my] supporters add that what he does for students can be found in a book called The Lecherous Professor, reporting one of his two recorded cases of sexual harassment and that Obama is rumoured to have turned him down for his inauguration poem because of the sexual record. But I don’t think that’s fair.”

Shortly after, John Walsh, a close friend of Padel, detailed and criticised Walcott’s alleged behaviour in an article in The Independent. Within the next few days, between 50 and 100 academics were sent anonymous letters containing an excerpt from the book The Lecherous Professor.

As the campaign escalated, Derek Walcott pulled out from the race. He cited “low tactics” and “low and degrading attempt at character assassination” as the reason for his withdrawal.

Ruth Padel defended the e-mails sent to journalists. She said, “I was contacted by an Oxford student, who believed Mr Walcott’s relations with female students at universities was relevant to her university’s election of a professor.

“Because her concern seemed to be a part of the whole picture, I communicated it to two journalists. I would not have done so had I known of the anonymous mailing, or of any journalist intending to highlight this issue on its own.”

Eloise Stonborough, the secretary of the Oxford University Poetry Society, was glad that Oxford will have another chance to elect a person for the post. She said, “I am sorry that the election came to this but given the circumstances I believe that Ruth Padel has taken the honourable course of action in resigning. I am glad that we now have an opportunity to learn from the mistakes made during this campaign and to conduct the new election in a manner fitting to the important position of the professor of poetry.

“I look forward to finding out more about the potential future candidates for the post”, she added.

The University has said that a new election for the position will be held.

Doctor Faustus

0

This Christopher Marlowe play tells the well-known tale of the titular Doctor, a scholar who sells his soul to Lucifer for twenty four years of service from the demon Mephistopheles. It’s a classic tragedy of intellectual over-reaching. At times the action is disturbing, at others, humorous. This is one of the best plays ever written in English, and this production fulfils the demands of the challenging script.

Ben Coopland brought a frenetic energy to the role of Faustus. His soliloquies were delivered with a mania that suited both his early enthusiasm and later despair, perfectly conveying both his character’s charisma and self-delusion..  Gloria Lagou’s Mephistopheles was equally impressive; as Faustus commanded and lectured she followed him around the stage with predatory eyes, creating the impression of a cat playing with its food. Their scenes together crackled with energy. When Mephistopheles tells Faustus that “this is Hell” it sent a shiver down my spine. Faustus can’t quite seem to keep still, and his hasty agitation is perfectly contrasted with Mephistopheles almost feline composure.

The decision to include the comic scenes works well. They act as an effective counterbalance to the Faustus scenes, and help to make Faustus’ aspirations appear all the more ridiculous. They also add a necessary tonal contrast to the play’s more disturbing scenes. The comic characters compliment the innuendo-laced dialogue with well placed physical clowning. The scenes which use the chorus succeed; in an appropriately macabre twist the demons double as friars. Altogether, the play shows evidence of some careful decision-making from director Bryony Hope.

The sinister tone is heightened by original music composed by Philip Knox. Eerie sustained notes play against Faustus’ final soliloquy. The climactic scene builds in a crescendo of tension as Faustus’s fate quite literally drags him down. The play will use a suitably infernal set composed of metal grids backed with metallic blue material, which can be used to show silhouettes. In one such scene a strange mass of demons writhed organically, drawing slowly closer to the doomed Faustus. The effect was truly menacing.  

I would highly recommend this show; it is a brilliant play, and Bryony Hope’s production promises to deliver a thoroughly enjoyable tale of aspiration and damnation.

6th Week, Keble O’Reilly Theatre, Keblefour stars out of five

 

Review: We’ll Meet Again

0

New writing is always difficult, comedy even more so, and it’s very rare that a student-written comedy consistently brings home the funny. In this case, however, I am delighted to be able to inform you that We’ll Meet Again does just that.

Set against a backdrop of economic crises, a looming World War III and hurricanes in Wales, the comedy couldn’t get much blacker, and the menagerie of grotesques doesn’t disappoint, from gin-soaked housewives and vaudevillian vagrants to apocalyptic overlord wannabes. The street-level view of armageddon makes the show feel like a kitchen-sink Dr. Strangelove, and the subtle nods to the film (including of the Strangelove version of When Johnny Comes Marching Home) will delight those familiar with it.

At the centre of it all, the middle-class Fairfax family are conveyed with confidence and a firm grasp of timing. Lotty Davies, playing aspiring alcoholic homemaker Gill, seems at home in the role and in her best moments is possessed of a sarcasm and acerbic wit that one cannot help but relish. Her pedantic husband Richard is played with pencil-straightening repression by Amyus Bale; and Katie Borg, playing the daughter, is so convincing as a stroppy, annoying teenager that there are moments when one is tempted to jump on stage and slap her.

The show-stealer, however, was Nicolas Pierce as Steven, their lodger, a man who is not so much square as he is composed entirely of right angles. He is portrayed with such a pathetic, nervous awkwardness that one isn’t sure whether to laugh, cry, or just give him a hug, especially when confronted with his Michaela Don playing Catherine, his foil in a later scene. He is, in a word, funny.

Credit must also be given to Tom Hathaway and Joe Dunlop, who form a superb double act as Eric & Dave, setting up to be leaders in the post-apocalyptic wasteland. Andrew Wilkinson plays Donald, the exuberant tramp, with an engaging air of nonchalance, although occasionally he could do with reigning in some of the excess energy.

The pop culture references fly thick and fast, whether discussing Bruce Willis’ place in the book of Revelations or simply quoting large chunks of Watchmen. This can be viewed as a positive or a negative depending on your own comedic sensibilities.

There are of course areas that could do with some work: the show has little in the way of genuine plot, feeling more like a setting in which to place the funny, but slightly disjointed scenes.

Overall, however, We’ll Meet Again is well worth seeing and, as first years, I think the writers “Stanley and Vera” (Adrienne Joy and Alex du Sautoy) are definitely a pair to watch.

(four stars out of five)

We’ll Meet Again will be performed at the BT, 9.30, 26-30 May

 

The Rough Road to Peace

0

The shooting of two armed guards at Atrium army base by Republican extremists in February had some of the hallmarks of the old days. For many in Northern Ireland it has raised fears of a return to a troubled past. The history of Northern Ireland is one of seemingly intractable conflict between Republicans and Loyalists that has lasted for over 100 years, claimed thousands of lives and culminated in the destructive of central Manchester by an IRA blast. But then on a remarkable day in April 1997, the Good Friday Agreement was signed, weapons were put down, the Northern Ireland Assembly instigated and David Trimble, now Lord Trimble, was elected the first First Minister of Northern Ireland.

On meeting Trimble you get the overarching impression of a man for whom forceful yet methodical argument has been his trademark. A Nobel Prize winner and an instrumental figure in the Northern Ireland Peace process, Trimble has spent much of his working life talking – painstaking negotiation, back and forth, wearing down opposition until all alternatives have been exhausted, ‘it’s simple unglamorous persistence that wins out.’
So I ask him whether talking is the solution to the world’s most intractable and to the recent shootings by extremists. ‘Yes,’ he answers, ‘but talking to the right people – not to the extremists.’ Given the prominent role of negotiations with the IRA and the Real IRA in the Northern Ireland peace talks, this would seem a rather odd response from such a serial negotiator. But, pleads Trimble, the truth of the peace process is rather different to what we think we know. ‘Negotiations with extremists, the Hain-Powell consensus’ as he calls it, after Blair’s chief of staff, ‘did not bring an end to the Northern Ireland conflict, but rather the work, for many years beforehand was responsible’

Trimble is being nothing short of irreligious. If we thought we’d learnt anything from the nineties in Northern Ireland, it was that getting long lasting peace involved persuading, even charming all types to compromise, extremists included. So we should reject this consensus for dealing with extremists. And yet it’s difficult to imagine a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict that didn’t include a role for the more extreme factions within Hamas. But Trimble’s no ideologue and accepts that the Good Friday agreement could never have been reached without the RIRA at the negotiating table. What he begs to differ on is how you go about getting to the table in the first place:
‘I’m not saying never communicate with those involved in violence but your very much more likely to succeed if you come with clear conditions for negotiations.’ This seems an old fashioned view, somewhat a reversal of the now conventional wisdom that negotiations must go on even as factions continue to extol violence.

But Trimble, as one would expect from a Nobel Peace Prize winner, is unfazed by conventional wisdom and returns to his experience in Northern Ireland. Conditions worked there he argues. ‘Look at what happened when negotiations were unconditional. We had the situation in 1972 when unconditional negotiations with the extremists, if anything, exacerbated the problem’ although he concedes that probably no talks could have been successful then.

What brought an end to the Northern Ireland troubles was as much the conditions on the ticket to the negotiating table, as the negotiations that went on there. ‘The extremists knew from the start that if there was ‘sufficient’ support for the proposals made at any peace talks, they could remain totally opposed, but it wouldn’t matter, they would be left out of any agreement.’

In criticising the likes of Powell and Blair, Trimble’s doing more than just cautioning against negotiating unconditionally with extremists, he’s rejecting the notion of parachuting personalities into conflict zones at the cost of forgetting that it is dogged determination by the people that matter that’s at the heart of peace-making. Referring to a copy of Jonathon Powell’s diaries describing Clinton’s role in leading the peace talks, Trimble nods and smiles ‘Clinton had no idea how to get the result he wanted – same as Blair – thought he could get what he wanted by charm.’
‘Those outside can encourage and assist but it is the people who are there that must do the deal.’

Trimble comes on to his most recent experience, advising Israelis and Palestinians on solutions to their seemingly intractable conflict – a role that he has taken to much acclaim. Yet he is keen to reiterate, ‘I certainly didn’t do anything that might have been telling other people what to do.’ This, I think, is the lesson Trimble wants observers of the Northern Irish peace process to take away; that there are no lessons, there is no one-size-fits-all model.

‘The experience in Northern Ireland has led to £90 million worth of programmes for working with extremists in Britain. This is based on the premise that non-violent extremists will act as a bulwark against violent extremists, supposed lessons from the Peace Process. But we must totally oppose the ideologies that promote violence.’
So I return to my original question and ask Trimble from his experience what we should think about the recent spate of shootings and apparent upsurge of support for extremism among a new generation of young people, some as young as twelve, in Northern Ireland. Perhaps here the lessons of the peace process have some resonance. He replies that young men are always going to be susceptible to recruitment by extremists; no peace settlement will change that.

Does this mean that even the peacemaker does not believe in a lasting peace in Northern Ireland? He is reminded of the lecture he gave on receiving his Nobel Prize for Peace. ‘I said there that winning was like receiving the reward for a race run while the race is still not quite finished.’ ‘This race, at least, is now won.’

We should, within limits, respect institutional autonomy over selection procedures

The way in which we select people is a complicated affair, and one which seemingly divides Oxford. Not only do we find colleges split over their approach to the personal statement, but also to their interpretation of hustings procedures, both of which have drawn criticism this week. Cherwell would suggest we should respect the autonomy of SCRs, and by and large, JCRs, to make their own decisions about these matters.

The UCAS form: hours of deliberation, focus-grouping, re-writes and deep analytical consideration of the issues being addressed. It all seemed to suggest we were writing the next Labour manifesto and not, in fact, 47 lines of personal statement. Cherwell remembers well the emphasis and priority that teachers and heads of departments applied to what essentially boiled down to ‘my hobbies and interests.’ Now we hear that several Oxford colleges are in agreement with their Cambridge counterparts: our personal statements weren’t worth the paper they didn’t bother to print them on. The discovery that personal statements do little but ‘muddy the waters’ of the application process has understandably irritated students who feel they were grossly misinformed when filling out their UCAS forms. However, we shouldn’t be too quick to anger. Much as the haze of a couple of years might lead us to believe our acceptance to Oxford was little but a foregone conclusion, we did in fact all apply to other universities. As is well known, Oxford isn’t like other universities. The fact that some colleges now ignore personal statements does not necessarily discredit them in general. The UCAS website itself admits a likely disparity in opinion, stating that ‘some course tutors find personal statements crucial when making decisions’ whereas ‘others might not put as much emphasis on them.’ The Oxbridge application process varies significantly from the majority of higher education institutions, many of which do not ask students to attend interviews, and therefore only have the UCAS form to make their decisions. Difference between Universities, and indeed between Colleges, is something to be expected, not derided.

 

The same sort of inter-college disparity is present in JCR hustings. Some are dry as dust and poorly attended whilst others are raucous affairs of debauched tomfoolery, with a minority of colleges striking an effective balance. Cherwell would argue that there is room for both. There are clearly some lines to be drawn: Asking St Peter’s JCR presidential candidates to illustrate a preference between various paternal/canine intercourse scenarios, for example, is surely completely inappropriate when involved in the appointment of the most senior student position in college. Admittedly, when looking at student politics from an objective viewpoint the righteous gravity with which many apply themselves to their roles can seem a touch ridiculous. But these roles are nonetheless important parts of a successful college community, and choosing a JCR President on basis their ability to borrow a ladder seems strangely at odds with the significance most colleges give the position. So as ‘profoundly patronised’ as many Worcester students currently feel about the college’s SCR forcing an overhaul of how the JCR goes about its husting process, it isn’t impossible to understand their viewpoint. That being stated, Cherwell doesn’t suggest that the student bodies which currently require their candidates to engage in shoe wrestling, sexual hypothetics and inordinate alcohol consumption don’t care who represent them. That fact that they have chosen requirements which to some seem irrelevant to an important decision making process doesn’t necessarily undermine the elected after the fact—after all, the majority of the electorate will already be aware of the character of their candidates to some extent. We should consider all selection procedures with respect to the needs and culture of the college in question. What has been lacking from the furore over both stories this week is an appreciation for context.

The same applies to personal statements. Perhaps it was pointless for many of us to fill up those 47 lines, but for equally as many others it might not have been. Institutions make decisions in myriad different ways: One party will consider one side of the coin, the other party the reverse, the important thing is which way up it lands.

Facial disfigurement gene discovered

0

An Oxford-led team of researchers has become the first to discover a genetic mutation which can lead to severe facial disfigurement.

The mutation, known as ALX3, was discovered after researchers compared the DNA of individuals from seven families who all shared a similar facial malformation known as ‘frontorhiny’.

Head researcher Professor Andrew Wilkie said, “This finding offers hope to those families considered to be at risk. By correctly diagnosing the condition in an adult, we can reassure them that their children are unlikely to be affected.”

Man stabbed to death in Cowley

0

Police are on the hunt for a killer following a day time attack in Cowley.

The victim stumbled into The Regal club on Cowley Road at 11.50am on Monday, suffering stab wounds to the neck. He was later pronounced dead at the JR Hospital.

Streets around the area were later cordoned off as more than 30 detectives began investigations. The police raided four homes, seized CCTV and increased patrols in the area, but the stabber has not been caught. No arrests have so far been made.

“I would like to reassure the community this appears to be a targeted attack,” said Det Chief Insp Mike Saunders.

 

Peanut butter thief apprehended

0

An Oxford thief was caught when his DNA was found on the spoon left in the peanut butter jar of one of his victims.

Declan Williamson was jailed last Friday after admitting to a string of burglaries and vehicle crimes, including stealing a car and crashing it into a tree.

The 19-year-old also broke into homes and garages in Cowley. Stolen items included whisky, chainsaws, an air rifle, port and a television. He was jailed for two years, and banned from driving for a subsequent two years.

 

 

Union could have online TV channel

0

Oxford Union President Corey Dixon is in negotiations to launch an online television channel featuring speaker events and debates hosted at the society.

The president announced on Monday to Standing Committee that he had been approached by fora.tv, a website where TV channels featuring live events, lectures, debates and conferences from universities around the world can be streamed online.

Users would need to pay a subscription fee to access the channel – with Union members eligible for a discount. A full proposal is to be considered next week, but the channel could potentially bring the Union in excess of £10,000 in revenue per annum.

Greenfield: computer games will make you fat

Baroness Susan Greenfield has stated that social-networking sites and computer games can alter the brain and increase the risk of autism, in an interview with Cherwell.

The director of the Royal Institution and a Professor of Pharmacology at Lincoln college attracted media attention in February after an address to the House of Lords in which she argued that “real-life conversations … require a sensitivity to voice tone, body language and perhaps pheromones. None of these skills are required chatting on a social networking site.”

Elaborating for Cherwell, she explained, “What I’m saying is that we know the environment alters the brain, and so if the environment changes and we spend more time in two dimensions, the brain will change too.”

Greenfield went on to point out a correlation with autism diagnoses. “We also know that there is an increase in autism, and there has been a three-fold increase in prescriptions for Ritalin [a drug prescribed for attention deficit hyperactivity, disorder or ADHD] in the last ten years.”

Most autistic children can be diagnosed by the age of three, but Greenfield did not feel her hypothesis was affected by this, saying, “Children do use the screen before they’re three.” She blamed online activity for making existing tendencies worse.

Greenfield was quick to retreat when asked whether she believed that Internet use directly caused autism: “I’m not saying that because autistic people are comfortable, you’re going to be autistic if you use the screen, of course not, but I’m saying the kinds of activities and the types of issues that are at stake are perhaps similar.”

She further explained, “The problems for young people begin because these games lead them to believe there are no consequences to their actions. They knife someone to death and then they bring them back to life. Everything is reversible. They see their victim on screen covered in red. In real life, that is blood, and they couldn’t just make it disappear at the click of a switch to bring the person back.”

She advances no evidence which might support the conclusion that there is an association between computer games and the ability to empathise with real-life mortality.

Greenfield has appeared in the media this week, detailing fresh concerns that excessive use of computer games “may be fuelling the obesity crisis in today’s world.” Greenfield this week told press that our increasing dependence on computers could also encourage obesity, not only through lack of exercise but through “changing the workings of the brain” by allowing people to take actions without consequences.

“While a child who falls out of a tree will quickly learn not to repeat the mistake, someone who goes wrong on a computer game will just keep playing,” she said, claiming the effect on eating habits could be similar. “Anyone eating knows the consequences but somehow the thrill of that experience will trump the consequences.”

Several influential scientific writers voiced opposition to Greenfield”s latest claims. Medical columnist Ben Goldacre said her views lacked support, arguing that “experimentation in a safe environment” was a natural way for human beings to learn.

Some students also expressed doubt over Greenfield”s claims. Christopher Morgan, a biochemist hoping to specialise in Neurology, said he felt computer games could help people learn from their mistakes. “I believe that one learns far more from mistakes learnt in computer games, since one often has the chance the remedy them immediately. “

Oxford Science Society president Devaki Raj said that more proof was needed before Greenfield’s views could be considered scientifically valid. “An important aspect of science is the sifting of evidence, and so any controversial claims should be treated with the greatest vigilance.”

“Without assessing the evidence and comparing independent research it would be unreasonable to forward any opinion. Whilst a link between obesity and computer usage may be well-established, further support as to causation is required before the claim can be accepted as fact rather than theory.”

However, she was keen to distance herself from her portrayal in the media, stating “I can’t help what the media does with what I say.”