Saturday 28th June 2025
Blog Page 2156

An Oxford Union

0

A Blue, a First or a husband? It’s accepted that you have to get the first two while you’re still at University. The third, you might assume, would develop over time. Indeed, the average age of marriage in Britain has increased by around 5 years since 1961, to 30 for men and 28 for women. However, for some students the reality of having a husband or a wife happens when they are still at Oxford. For couples Jenni and Nathaniel Fenton, and Kathryn and Nathan Burden, the university experience is somewhat different than for the rest of us: for them, student life is also married life.

Jenni Fenton (née Norman) is 22 and met Nathaniel Fenton at the beginning of her second year of Chemistry at Corpus Christi. ‘Nath was going into his third year studying Maths at Mansfield. We were both working for the International Welcome, a Christian Union event, meeting international students as they arrive from the bus station.’

Jenni and Nath began going out soon afterwards, and were talking about the possibility of marriage fairly early on in the relationship. ‘I had just got out of a relationship and wasn’t keen on going into another serious relationship unless I knew it was right,’ says Jenni. ‘All through that Michaelmas term I was praying for guidance about this. But I am a strong believer that there is such a thing as the right person.’

Many people might argue that that’s all very well, but why not wait? Jenni responds that there was no reason to do so. ‘We already knew that we were right for each other, so there was no reason to hold back.’ The couple hadn’t been living together before the marriage, in accordance with their Christian beliefs about pre-marital sex. Did this temptation have anything to do with their decision to marry so young? She acknowledges that ‘the temptations were clearly there, but they were not a factor in us deciding to get married. I had always considered marrying early. My mother married at 22, and in fact, Nath’s younger brother got married before he did.’

Jenni and Nath got engaged a year into their relationship. ‘My parents were delighted,’ she says. ‘My friends were very happy for me. If anyone around college was surprised, no one said anything negative about it to my face.’ They were married in the summer of August 2008, just after Nath completed his studies in Oxford. They now live together in East Oxford, where Nath has a job, while Jenni completes her last year. ‘We live like a proper married couple. As I’m a 4th year chemist, I have a similar 9-5 schedule to Nath, and we both come home to our house in the evening.’ They have joint bank accounts and share everything in their first home.

Jenni feels that marriage has unfortunately become a ridiculed institution in much of society, due to factors like the increasing divorce rate. ‘I find this really sad, because for me, marriage is a real joy. To be committed to someone for ever, through thick and thin, is an amazing thing. Especially as a girl, I think we need security, and marriage is a part of that security. Girls don’t guard their hearts enough.’

While most students spend their second year at Oxford rejoicing in light of a year free of exams and planning ways to get horrendously intoxicated, Kathryn Burden was planning her wedding. She married Nathan Burden at the Royal Marine’s Museum in her hometown of Portsmouth in August 2008. She is 21 and is a Music finalist at Worcester College. Her husband is a year older and is studying Natural Sciences at Reading University. They live together in housing for couples, provided by the university, with Nathan commuting three times a week to Reading.

They met at Christian camp when Kathryn was 15, ‘we didn’t particularly like each other, but for some reason we started talking afterwards… He asked me out a week after my 16th birthday which was funny because my mum had told me not to have a boyfriend until I was 16′. When I enquired more about the role her family played in her decision to marry, Kathryn explained that they were entirely supportive and any reservations they had were resolved when she and Nathan explained why marriage was so important to them. ‘We both were brought up as Christians and our parents placed quite a lot of importance on marriage, for example saving sex for marriage. It’s a gift from God. They just didn’t want it to affect our experience of university life’.

I was eager to understand how Kathryn and Nathan combated the curiosity regarding who they might meet when beginning life at University. She said, ‘we were engaged before we got to university so there was already that stability and commitment, so I guess while there’s always that feeling of not having been with anyone else, other people go through five serious relationships and end up heartbroken so we’re just really happy and grateful.’ Half moved and half freaked out by just how happy Kathryn seems to be, I tried hard to unearth some sort of buried desire she may have to live life like an average student by asking her if there’s a single thing she secretly wishes she could be doing. She laughs and says, ‘not at all, really’. Fair enough then.

The only time I sense hesitation from Kathryn is when we talk about the impact being married has on her social life which of course must be huge. ‘It’s different in that when your friends come to visit you, there’s two of you there. But I go to College every day to make sure I see my friends and it’s just really nice having a house and being able to invite people round for meals’. Upon hearing about Kathryn’s plans, she admits her friends uniformly thought she was crazy, but in a positive way. ‘Obviously, my Christian friends were less surprised than the others and a lot of my friends just aren’t in the same place but everyone gets excited about a wedding anyway and wedding dress shopping is amazingly fun!’

I asked Kathryn if she was ever worried about changing too much during her time at university and the effect that could have on her marriage. She replied, ‘because we’ve been together so long, we know that as long as you communicate, you can work through change. Actually that’s one of the best things about being together so young as opposed to when you’re 30 and already so established in your own life – we’ve got to grow together. He loves the me that’s underneath, inside, and he’s really helped that to come out and encouraged it – I haven’t lost anything, I’ve just gained so much’
Kathryn hopes to be a music therapist and Nathan has applied to do post-graduate medicine, ‘but we’re open to whatever God wants us to do and one day we’d like to have a family. Four children.’ She giggles, adding, ‘and maybe one day we might be missionaries, I don’t know.’ She goes on to say, ‘our passion for God is what I anticipate will keep us together. We both know that God is first in our lives and that we come second so we’re both heading for the same goal and that’s really binding.’ Prompted by the word binding I ask her about her ideas on divorce. ‘It’s not encouraged as you can imagine, but if it was to happen we wouldn’t be outcast. However we look upon it as not even an option. We believe that marriage is for life, it’s an institution that binds in the eyes of God so it is sacred in that way and your commitment to each other is just really important.’

Despite the fact I had met with Kathryn to talk to her about her marriage, the first time I heard her refer to her husband I had to stifle the urge to say, ‘sorry… your who?’ Marriage at this age is an alien concept to most students, though by the time I had finished meeting Kathryn, it seemed a lot less weird. She is in a loving relationship, is fulfilling herself spiritually and was most importantly, really happy. While I cannot help but be sceptical about divorce not being an option, and about the dominating role religion has played, I also don’t feel it is my place to criticise the brave decision of two young people in love who are going to try their best to stay in love forever. ‘Being married is really cool. You get to be with your best friend all the time! And it’s so nice, knowing that if you have an argument it’s going to be fine because whatever happens we’ll always be there for each other.’

Interview: John Redwood

0

The Right Honourable John Redwood rises to make his Union speech with infinite confidence. He talks authoritatively, without notes, on the causes of our economic woes. I find it extremely hard to maintain my grip on left-leaning values and not to succumb to his extreme right-wing message. His powerful voice fills every corner of the Chamber with resounding gravitas. Frequently he is interrupted by applause, and occasionally by counter-arguments which are swiftly dealt with. Experts on the opposing side soon stop taking his points of information for fear of looking foolish. This is John Redwood, intellectual giant of Conservatism and one of the founders of the Thatcher revolution.
Speaking to him afterwards, Mr. Redwood tells me that he considers his work as Thatcher’s chief policy advisor as the finest achievement of his career.
‘My greatest triumph was taking privatisation to Margaret Thatcher and finding a leader who had the courage to do it. It has transformed the big industries in Britain in a way which has created lots of jobs and prosperity and it has not been reversed by the Labour government.’
Mr. Redwood has been a Fellow at All Souls and written numerous books on economics. With this in mind I refrain from meekly pointing out the mass unemployment Thatcher’s policies caused, confident that my single year of economics studies will not match up to his decades of expertise. I move on to less contentious ground. As a stalwart of the right for many years – the Yorkshire Post called him the ‘Pol Pot of privatisation’ – I ask what the most formative elements have been in shaping his political views today.
‘Growing up in a country that had been gravely damaged by bad government, high taxes and mistaken leadership. ‘
Mr. Redwood also cites the moment his parents bought their own home and left their council house behind as a pivotal turning point. It inspired him to see to it that others could do the same – hence his influence in Thatcher’s ‘Right to buy’ programme. Despite coming from a relatively poor background, he managed to secure a place studying history at Magdalen. What does he think have been the biggest changes in Oxford since he was an undergraduate in the late sixties?
‘Well I think the culture here is richer, it’s more dedicated to high academic standards than when I was here. That makes it better in many ways and I’m always very impressed by what I see when I come here.’
Struggling to imagine Mr Redwood grinding a drunken path through Shark End, I ask what he did with his free time at Oxford.
‘I tried all sorts of things. I went to a lot of drama productions since I’m a great lover of English literature and English theatre. I helped put on a production at Magdalen. I wrote a bit, I spent a lot of time messing about in boats during the summer. I think I spent every evening out doing something.’
Every evening? Perhaps an odd night out at Risa (or its sixties equivalent) was on the cards then. One might have expected Mr. Redwood to have devoted himself the specious glamour of the Union, the thankless drudgery of OUSU or at least the utter irrelevance of the JCR. But no, like many Oxford-educated political heavyweights – Blair and Cameron among them – Mr. Redwood avoided the greasy pole of student politics like most of us avoid that dancing pole at the Bridge. Perhaps not a good sign for the Holts and Iwus among us. Mr. Redwood had some simple advice for our beloved hacks on how to become a successful politician: ‘Follow your instincts.’ Unless of course your name is Roche, in which case, don’t.
Besides, Mr. Redwood had no need for student intrigue. He launched himself into the real world of politics at twenty-one as Oxfordshire’s youngest ever councillor. Since then he has served as Thatcher’s senior advisor, Secretary of State for Wales and in numerous shadow cabinet positions. He currently chairs a Conservative Economic Committee, yet his views on social policy seem somewhat out of step with Cameron’s Compassionate Conservatism. Since he has voted in support of capital punishment and opposed lowering the homosexual consent age, I ask if he ever feels out of touch with mainstream British society. Our conversation takes a rather sour turn as I get a blank look and a blunt answer. ‘No I don’t.’ An awkward pause before he goes on. ‘I think you’ll find those votes were cast some time ago.’ Yet the death penalty vote only took place in 1994, and the one concerning homosexuals five years later. I sense a distinct embarrassment about his voting record, possibly borne of a reluctance to appear distant from the new Conservative image.
Another aspect of Mr. Redwood’s past which he’d probably rather forget dates back to 1993 when he was Secretary of State for Wales. In a televised conference, he was filmed inaccurately miming the words to the Welsh national anthem. No doubt his subsequent word-perfect recitations were the work of some hasty lessons by Welsh colleagues. His frequent portrayal in the media as one of Star Trek’s Vulcans (a result of his resemblance to Mr. Spock) is understandably not a subject he warms to. When I raise it he responds only that ‘I think the joke’s run rather thin.’

Mr Redwood’s latest book examines the significant decline in Britain of party membership and election turnout. I wonder why students today are generally the most apathetic group in the country.
‘Well I think they got very disenchanted with traditional party politics in Britain for a variety of reasons. I think they feel the parties are too spun – too homogenous and probably don’t have the ability to do as much as they would like to do once they get into power, so students feel let down by them. Students now I think are more interested than my generation in picking up a campaign and working with a lobby group rather than working within the traditional party framework.’
Yet Mr. Redwood is optimistic that the old days of party-based student activism are not over forever.
‘I think you may find that interest gets rekindled and is much stronger in the next general election because with the state of the world economy there are very big issues around that people will want to express a view on. Things may well change.’
A result of that change may well be Mr. Redwood’s party back in government after the next election. Whatever you think of his politics, it would be impossible not to come away from an encounter with this man without feeling deeply impressed by his natural authority, formidable intellect and fierce Conservative passion.

 

Protecting the weak

0

Trying hard to avoid my usual slurp, I politely sip my tea from a delicate china cup. Baroness Cumberlege sits across from me, her armchair dwarfing her slight frame and Tory-blue suit. She speaks with a soft yet resolute conviction about her time chairing the Cumberlege Commission. This was set up in 2006 to review the efforts of the Catholic Church of England and Wales in stamping out child abuse by members of the clergy – an issue which has plagued the Church for decades. I am keen to find out what has been achieved, and why such measures were necessary in the first place – one might have expected a holy Church to be free of such horrendous actions.
The stereotype of the paedophile Catholic priest is well known and frequently depicted in the media. A case of a sexual abuse cover-up by the clergy, particularly if the scandal reaches the higher echelons of the Church, is always going to make a good headline. Of course the impression of priests this stereotype gives is highly exaggerated; not every priest is a child abuser any more than every Muslim is a terrorist. Yet the concept of the paedophile priest is not entirely fabricated by a deceitful media. There were twenty-one convictions between 1995-2001. Clearly there is at least a small fire amid all this smoke, and I begin by asking the Baroness why she thinks these problems were not dealt with as soon as they occurred.
‘Well I think in the Catholic Church there’s been something of a dilemma between the issues of forgiveness and how that relates to the consequences of what’s happened. There was a feeling that if you forgave somebody that was the end of the story, without really considering what the consequences were for the individuals who had been abused. Over time there was a realisation that that this is not right, and therefore with great courage the Church said we’ve really got to address this issue. We need training, and indeed now bishops get training in this field, and it needs to be addressed in a comprehensive way.’
The Church has been heavily criticised for the actions of some bishops who simply moved an abusive priest to another parish rather than report them to the police. Such behaviour often resulted in more young victims. Perhaps this permeating tradition of Catholic forgiveness can explain why these bishops acted in this way. Personally I find this hard to accept. Bishops are intelligent men who know that forgiveness is not a substitute for justified criminal prosecution. It seems that the desire to avoid further scandal was the over-riding factor in not reporting priests, and for this a small minority of bishops have a lot to answer for.
A common theory as to why it should be the Catholic Church, as opposed to any other faith, which seems so susceptible to these problems puts the cause down to the required celibacy of Catholic clergy. Does the Baroness think this approach holds the answer?
‘No I don’t. I don’t know about the Jewish or Muslim faith, and whether it’s going on or not, whether they’ve sought to detect it or sought to address it. However I’m afraid it does go on in the Anglican Church. They’ve been confronting these same issues as well but just haven’t been receiving the same degree of publicity.’
The Cumberlege Commission was a follow-up to the 2001 Nolan Report, which suggested a range of reforms to improve the methods by which cases of abuse are detected and prevented. The Baroness’ Commission found that while progress had been made since Nolan, there needed to be a more united, ‘one Church’ approach. Why had this not happened already?
‘Well the Catholic Church has not only diocese (administrative areas) with bishops in charge but it also has a number of religious orders. The last time we counted there were four hundred and twenty different religious orders, and all of them do their own thing to some extent. This presents a challenge in implementing the real consistency that we felt was necessary in policies, strategies and practice when dealing with child abuse.’
Achieving consistency ultimately requires a centralization of the structures used to protect children. Whereas Nolan’s recommendations had often been implemented or not depending on the activism of individual bishops, the Cumberlege Commission wanted comprehensive reform across every diocese. What does this mean in practice?
‘Since we felt that child protection should be at the very heart of the Catholic Church, all that it does and thinks about, we recommended a new organisation – the National Catholic Safeguarding Commission, which would be at the heart of the Church. Sitting on this Commission would be bishops and leaders of religious congregations, but with a lay majority and a highly respected independent chairman. They would set the strategy for protecting children and have a say in disciplinary procedures. In addition to that we suggested that the existing organisation, which is the Council for the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults, needed renaming and rebalancing. This wouldn’t do the discipline but it would do a lot of the teaching of people in this area. It would work with the parishes, it’s in the parishes that these problems arise, and we wanted to make sure that there was a real outreach – a spreading of good practice. All the good teaching that needed to happen would be done by this other organisation.’

A very real issue in this whole situation is what to do with priests that have been accused of abuse, but not yet proven guilty. There has been a strong feeling amongst some clergymen that priests have been treated unfairly. Quite rightly they are often removed from their parish after allegations are made, but may then be left in limbo for an indefinite period. Even if the charges are false, the priest’s career may be ruined, forever humiliating him for a crime he did not commit. Naturally the safety of children is paramount, but the Baroness tells me how this should not mean an utter disregard for the lives of (possibly innocent) priests.
‘The last thing we were very determined to do was to ensure that while we respected the needs of those who’d been abused, whose lives had been wrecked, where the trust had been broken, we wanted to ensure that there was fairness to those who’d been accused. We felt that some of the procedures that were different in different diocese were not being fair to priests and indeed the bishops were very worried about that. And so we introduced a review mechanism, openness, transparency, fairness, respecting human rights, a new process, and that has been adopted by the Church. A review has already been called by one of the bishops who just wants to make sure that the priest has had a fair hearing.’

As damaging as the issue of child abuse has been for the Catholic Church of England and Wales, it has been worse for the Church in the United States. The diocese of LA recently paid out $660 million to around five hundred victims of abuse dating back to the 1940s. I wonder if the Baroness thinks a similar gesture would be appropriate in the UK.
‘Well the Catholic Church is working with its insurers to see whether that is necessary. Up to now no compensation has been paid in terms of a monetary settlement.
‘I think one has to think through the consequences very carefully. When we talk to those who’ve been abused they aren’t after money. They’re after recognition of what had happened. They wanted the perpetrators to be sorry for what had happened. They wanted to ensure that it wouldn’t happen to other people.’
Under the watchful eyes of a dozen portraits of old Popes and Cardinals that adorn the walls of the Oxford Catholic Chaplaincy, Baroness Cumberlege speaks of the victims of abuse with boundless compassion. She tells me of a sobering two days on the Commission, when her sole task was to meet these people who still carried the mental scars of their ordeal.
In a thoughtful silence I place my empty china cup on the coffee table. For everyone’s sake, I sincerely hope that the Baroness’ reforms will be effective, and that the Catholic Church can finally close the book on this dark period of its history.

 

Catz up the ante in title challenge

0

It would be fair to say that both teams approached this game with their minds on different things. Second placed Catz, with three draws from their last 4 league games, needed to get back to winning ways if they were going to put any sort of pressure on runaway Premiership leaders Teddy Hall. Anne’s on the other hand, after a fairly average season by their standards, find themselves languishing mid-table, with any chance of a title challenge
or relegation dogfight long since gone. This may be why they seemed disinterested for much of the match, although they may well have been looking ahead towards their hotly anticipated cuppers semi-final match against St. John’s on Friday.

It was due to this difference in attitudes that Catz ran out as fairly comfortable winners, building their way into the game and dominating in the middle of the pitch. This, coupled with a lacklustre Anne’s performance, meant that although the game never really got going, there was only ever going to be one winner.

Anne’s were clearly suffering from absences in some key positions, notably between the posts. Several times in the opening exchanges goalkeeper Poole showed his inability to deal with even the simplest ball. Their attack also seemed to be relatively one dimensional, with the giant figure of Ed Border providing their main outlet for attacks. The number 9 was dominant in the air for the entire 90 minutes, but just didn’t have the support.

But Catz could also boast their own man mountain up front, in the sizeable figure of McNaughton. The striker looked the most dangerous player on the pitch in the early stages, with surprising nimble feet and an ability to hold the ball up well.

As the half wore on, Catz became more and more assured in their possession, flighting through balls over the top to test the Anne’s defence. It was from one of these that they were finally able to trouble the scorers, with Anne’s failing to track the run of O’Brien, who collected the ball midway inside his opponents half, before calmly slotting past the keeper.

After half time, things only got better for the home side, their movement and passing stepped up a gear, and they moved the ball fluidly from one end of the pitch to the other. Their second goal was a well taken header from Kiln, and from then on it was plain sailing. St. Anne’s, with their minds elsewhere, played out the match with little enthusiasm.

Catz will be pleased with the win. ‘We played them off the park’ enthused O’Keefe-O’Donovan, and they certainly made Anne’s look quite ordinary, which doesn’t bode well for their cup pretension.

New order in cuppers

0

As the final remnants of an incongruously snowy scene were wiped away and replaced with the more familiar canvas of mud and turf known to Oxford’s rugby pitches, the first round of Cuppers got underway with a match that showed both the beautiful and unsightly side to the game. The splendour on this occasion was provided in spades by a New College side, playing well above their fourth-division status. The ugly element came at the game’s climax, when St Peter’s winger suffered a badly broken leg, a far from fitting conclusion to the spectacle.

Judging from this performance, it is highly appropriate that New are sponsored by Oxford’s grottiest haunt, Bar Risa. With a backline as potent as a quadruple-vodka-coke, and a pack with more beef than a post-club kebab. Peter’s, on the other hand, were ragged and rattled as they struggled to cope with their fired-up and well-drilled opposition.

Cuppers always allows stars of the university side to showcase their talents, and New were notably boosted by the presence of Blues’ fly-half, Ross Swanson. Fittingly, it was Swanson who crashed over for the first score, after a quickly taken penalty on Peter’s five-metre line. His successful conversion was added to minutes later by a coolly slotted penalty, pushing New out into an early ten-point lead. Second-year Swanson is undoubtedly a great strength for the New College side, with his skill as a player and ever-increasing experience from playing with the Blues and previously representing England Under-18s likely to ignite a lift-off through the divisions for New. But this was far from a one man cabaret. New, in their red and black stripes were akin to fifteen Dennis the Menaces, causing all sorts of mischief for their below-par opposition. They soon crossed the white-line again as Shaun Nash broke through an attacking line-out to cap a sumptuously worked set-piece.

A crucial slip in attention meant that Peter’s, wearing shirts as loose as their floundering defence, were punished by winger Owen Gallagher, as he touched down in the corner twice before the break. New, twenty-seven points to the good at half-time, were looking impressive; a different species entirely to their struggling league side.
The second half followed much in the same vein. The hosts, seemingly perpetually camped in enemy territory, saw Nash bundled in for a try by the rest of the swash-buckling forward pack. Minutes later, Swanson, supporting a break-out from defence, turned on the gas, and managed to round two covering defenders.

Sadly, the aforementioned end to the match was undeserved; either for New, or St Peter’s, who despite being far from their best, had shown plenty of pluck and fight; their pugnacious nature often denying their opponents on several potential scoring occasions. New, however, will want to build on this superb performance and demonstrate the same discipline and commitment as the competition reaches its crescendo.

Keble dominate chess cuppers

0

Sunday saw the much-anticipated return of Cuppers Chess, in the form of an eight-team, four-board, 15 minute tournament held at Keble. The teams were divided into two groups of four for a round-robin group stage, which would be followed by semi-finals and a final.

In group A, a three-way battle between the strong teams from Exeter, Univ and Merton for the two qualifying berths ensued. Merton’s lower-board strength resulted in draws with both Exeter and Univ, but the decisive result proved to be Univ’s 3 – 1 victory over Exeter, sending them through top of the group.

Group B was dominated by pre-tournament favourites Keble, who scored 11 out of 12 to set up a semi-final with Merton. Second place went to Blackfriars, who defeated both St. Catz B and Merton Magic, who ran away with prize for worst name in the competition.

In the semi-finals, the surprise package, Blackfriars, came extremely close to toppling Univ, losing only on the tie-break rule. In the other semi final, Merton knew they would have to perform exceptionally to have any chance against the all-conquering Keble. It looked as if a shock might be on the cards when Merton won board 4, but Keble’s top three players showed their class to ensure they would face Univ in the final.

First, however, third place had to be decided. Blackfriars drew first blood when board 1 Patrick Mitchell checkmated Merton’s George Raptis with a nice combination. But with the other three games going Merton’s way, Ben Waugh soon levelled the score with a fine win, while Eoin Devane won on board 2. The match would thus come down to board 3, where Alex Antao had a winning position but was desperately low on time. This told, and David Baird capitalised on a mistake by Antao to seal the victory for Blackfriars on the tie-break rule.

Having dropped only two points in the entire tournament thus far, Keble were favourites to win the final against Univ. Indeed Ting Xu soon gave them the advantage with a win on board 4.

However, despite taking a 2-0 lead, things were far from over. Ben Kirollos was looking dominant on 3 and the mercurial Mike Healey looked to have the stronger position against Tom Eckersley-Waites on 1. If both boards went against Keble, Univ would win on tiebreak. Once again, time proved significant; Kirollos’ flag fell, giving Keble the victory. There was still time, however, for a grandstand finish between Healey and Eckersley-Waites with both players having fewer than 2 seconds remaining when Healey won. Thus, Keble won the first Chess Cuppers of this Century. I dare say, given the success of the event, that it will not be the last.

 

In defence of defiance

0

When students walked out of the Clarendon building four weeks ago, there was a sense of achievement. Student activists and university authorities had reached an understanding with a spirit of goodwill that was praised by this paper at the time. The University has since been far from generous in fulfilling their promises. The statements of the Vice-Chancellor and Proctors were dismissive at best, and we now hear that students are being hunted down to pay unspecified fees. These students have reason to feel betrayed.

What good will it do to fine the students involved? At least £1,000 worth of good for the Proctors’ office, but that really shouldn’t be the point. This isn’t a proportional response to the ‘disruption and inconvenience’ that Hood alleges. The occupation lasted for just one day, and was confined to a single, small office building. Nor can the fine be seen as a reasonable deterrent. Occupations such as this occur so rarely that by the time students are preparing to barricade themselves in a university building again, none of them may remember the fines meted out on the previous occasion. The disproportionate nature of the University’s witch-hunt can be seen by the fact that only one other university, out of the thirty that have been occupied, have chosen to punish students in this way. This will serve only to perpetuate the perception of Oxford as an archaic, conservative institution out of touch with the rest of the British academy.

The fragmented nature of the University leads to many differences in operation, many detrimental. On this occasion, however, Oxford’s institutions have real potential to serve the interests of students. Porters, deans and tutors at individual colleges are presented with a prime opportunity to stand up to the centralising powers they frequently complain of for much weaker reasons. Not co-operating with the proctors in identifying their students for punishment would certainly be in the interests of students, and is just the kind of passive resistance by prevarication which is likely to succeed with minimal trouble.

All we can do is to offer our approval to Wadham, our hope that it may continue in its resistance, and that other colleges will act similarly.

 

Dominant Blues floor Cambridge

0

For the second year running, Oxford was victorious at the Tae Kwon-Do Varsity Match. The annual contest, which took place in Cambridge last Saturday, was a truly spectacular display of martial arts sparring. Each squad consisted of Men’s A, Women’s A, Men’s B and Men’s C teams, with individual fights taking place between members of each team. Each winning team contributed points to the overall score.
OUTKD had put forward the strongest Varsity Squad in recent years, with twelve Black Belts and four international standard competitors. The competition for the squad was so fierce that even the Men’s C team members all had previous Varsity experience. Going into the match expectations were high, the only danger to Oxford’s chances was complacency. Fortunately this was avoided and, despite strong Cambridge opposition, the Dark Blue fighters came through to dominate the competition.
The Oxford Squad, as a whole, displayed a higher level of skill right from the start, scoring a perfect victory in the Men’s C team category by winning every fight. The C Team win did not contribute to the overall score but the psychological advantage it had given Oxford was nothing short of awesome. The crowd, which can only be described as partisan, was silenced, as they realised the task which the Light Blues had on their hands.
The Men’s B team matches followed, which ended in a close win for Cambridge due to a disputed disqualification for the Oxford fighter, Romano Tartivita, whose powerful punches were too overwhelming for the Cambridge fighter and deemed “excessive” by the referee. The decision was marginal, and Tartivita can feel rightly aggrieved that he was robbed of what looked to be a certain victory, the inability of his opponent to provide any defence having more to do with the decision than the aggression which the Oxford fighter showed.
After this minor setback it was time for the all-conquering, all-Black-Belt Oxford Women’s Squad, who had been the pride of OUTKD all year, bringing home nine medals between the six of them at the UK Open. They also had valuable experience of winning at Cambridge, having dominated the Cambridge Open Championships. Unfortunately, Cambridge was unable to field a Women’s B, nor a full Women’s A team this year and only two fights took place in the Women’s A category, both of which the Oxford women, Valentina Iotchkova and Alice Gardner, won with comfort and style. A particularly noteworthy fight was that of the Cambridge Women’s Captain against Iotchkova. The Dark Blue fighter, who is currently one of Oxford’s England Squad members, did not concede a single point. On reflection, it was probably a good thing that Cambridge were unable to field a more extensive women’s team, as the one-sided nature of the two contests which took place firmly confirmed the dominance of the Oxford women.
At the end of the Women’s A match, the overall score was 2-1 to Oxford with the Women’s Shield in the bag. There could not have been more excitement from the crowd as the Men’s A team geared up for their match. These fights were no doubt the highlight of the day, with both teams’ presidents, captains and Cambridge’s Lithuanian heavyweight international fighting it out for the remaining Men’s and Overall shields. After having had very little to cheer about all day, the crowd became more and more vocal, urging their team on to greater efforts.
The first three matches gave Oxford a 2-1 lead, with the OUTKD Men’s Captain Nathan Ewin winning his match against his Cambridge counterpart and the UK Open Silver Medallist Patrick Wills nearly knocking his opponent out with fierce blows to the head, which surprisingly did not earn him a disqualification, the referee perhaps sensing the added importance of this contest. In the end, it all came down to the grudge match between the Oxford President, Adam Park, and Cambridge’s international competitor from Lithuania, who had a 20kg weight advantage and had previously won the match between the two at the Cambridge Open Heavyweight final back in November.
Tension was running high and the fighters spent a good half of the first round measuring each other’s movements and strategies. The first round ended with the Cambridge fighter several points ahead but the Oxford fighter had been more reserved and had more techniques hidden up his sleeve than his opponent had thought. The Cambridge fighter soon became tired and his movements sluggish whilst Park picked up his pace and overturned the scores in the last minute to finally win with fast back-kicks in the air and an impressive hook-kick, side-kick combination to the face which dazed his opponent and cause him to stumble and call time-out.
The disappoint of the Cambridge support was tangible, in stark contrast to the jubilation of the Oxford camp. After going in strong favourites, they had not only walked away with an emphatic win, but, disregarding the contentious Men’s B result, had proved themselves to be the better side at all levels. The performance of Park was particularly gratifying, and the settling of his personal score simply added to the feeling of elation.
With many of the fighters returning next year, Oxford can be hopeful of extending their run in this match. Cambridge meanwhile, will be left ponder where they should go from here. From this showing, they are a long way behind their Dark Blue counterparts, especially in the women’s competition. The dust can be expected to gather on the silverware; it will be in Oxford for a while.

Napoleon, complex?

0

A fashion seems to have arisen in popular historical non-fiction over recent years, for making a show of demonstrating, even ‘discovering’ that a certain, very specific moment, idea or conflict should be seen as having much greater significance than it has traditionally been accorded. This pinning down of one date as being absolutely pivotal in determining the course of history, when it had previously been regarded as merely incidental, appeals for a number of reasons.

It certainly appeals to the egos of those who write the books, allowing writers to cast themselves as enlightening excavators of hidden truths that, when revealed, elicit a sleight-of-hand magic trick-like ‘how didn’t I notice that coming?’ reaction in their readers. Perhaps, also, to those readers, this brand of ‘big event’ history appeals by harking to a more old-fashioned, clear-cut view of the past that hasn’t really been in vogue since Britain lost confidence in its own authority to write the world’s history.

This old and essentially imperial style, is based on a strong and simple belief that facts (however dangerously or subjectively oversimplified) are history, and history is fact: World War I started because Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated, Gutenberg invented the printing press, Elizabeth I was a virgin queen, America was discovered by Columbus in 1492, and, now, says Frank McLynn, 1759 was absolutely, categorically, the year in which Britain became ‘master of the world’.

Yet, even more importantly, this cataclysmic brand of history succeeds because every human alive today is of a generation whose entire sense of what a story should be like is derived from the conventions of the Hollywood blockbuster. Every hit film needs a hero, and the only thing better than a hero is an underdog. When historians take overlooked people, dates or ideas and then build history around them, they start to manufacture a story along Hollywood’s star-driven lines and give their readership an underdog to root for or an anti-hero to be intrigued by. The effect is the same as that of Chris Nolan reconfiguring the dynamics of the Batman universe to focus on the Joker in The Dark Knight.

It is into this treacherous landscape of big, broad brushstroke, Harvey Weinstein history that Theresa Levitt strides with her book The Shadow of Enlightenment. The title’s a good one. Very Dan Brown. Very marketable. The subtitle hints further that the book aims for Frank McLynn, that where usually overlooked combinations of events conspire to make history that conventional wisdom dictated was being made elsewhere.

That subtitle is ‘Optical and Political Transparency in France, 1789-1848′. There’s the sleight of hand trick being set up already: the word ‘transparency’ is used in two different contexts that, to the untrained eye, appear totally unrelated, but Levitt is waiting, like a magician who links two silver rings with a flamboyant flick of the wrist, to connect them before your very eyes.

The audience, having never even dreamt of imagining that, in 18th and 19th century France, optical transparency and its political counterpart were in any way linked, will clap politely. I’m sure you’re starting to see a problem here. Whilst Levitt writes well, and her magic trick is actually a lot more successful than many of those attempted in books written this way, she’s applied the Hollywood method to a defiantly art-house subject.

Who, outside of University history departments, will know what ‘optical transparency’ means in this context, and who will care about its hitherto unexplored importance to political transparency in post-Napoleonic France? The showy connective conceit may be the preserve of current popular history, but the subject matter is one for dons and DPhil students; a plain appearance and telltale OUP logo don’t help matters.

I haven’t the knowledge to judge Levitt’s work as a piece of serious academia; I can only regard it I the way I feel it has been sold to me as the common reader, as a piece of popular history that attempts to tap into a current fashion for a particular way of forming and framing history.

Viewed as such, The Shadow of Enlightenment is a noble experiment, but a failed one: like the poorer kind of blockbuster film, the book’s exciting style cannot mask its dull substance.

Viva Glasvegas!

0

The NME Awards Tour 2009 came to Oxford on Tuesday. The tour that has helped, in the past, to launch the careers of bands such as Franz Ferdinand and Arctic Monkeys returned to showcase the talents of four more NME-endorsed hopefuls. Glasvegas, Friendly Fires, White Lies, and Florence and the Machine were the chosen ones this time around. Of these acts, the highest hopes are surely held for Glasvegas. The hype surrounding those four Glaswegians and their peculiar brand of epic indie last year was unbelievable; this year they intend to prove that it was warranted.

Speaking to the band, it’s clear that success came as a surprise to a group whose singer James Allan was on the dole in January of last year. ‘It’s great, if bizarre. You wouldn’t have thought it, coming from where we’re from’ says the band’s drummer, Caroline McKay. ‘God knows what we’d be doing if things hadn’t taken off… Life’s bizarre.’

The band’s members grew up in east Glasgow, and are proud of their working-class roots and the city that raised them. ‘We’re proud to represent Glasgow, it’s a great city, and it’s beautiful.’ Their name reflects this pride, along with the broad Glaswegian accent in which James Allan delivers the band’s vocals.

McKay is keen to maintain, however, that the music transcends regional boundaries: ‘the lyrics are bigger than Glasgow, they’re about human emotions and human vulnerability. It’s universal.’ Here McKay underlines part of what’s special about Glasvegas. As a Glaswegian singing emotional songs about crying and absent fathers, Allan embodies a fascinating juxtaposition of sensitivity and unflinching manliness.

Glasvegas are keen for us to know that they are a band with a social conscience; they know where they came from, and they don’t plan to forget. The band undertook a prison tour in 2007, McKay believes it was crucial to the band’s development. ‘It was a great experience but it was incredibly emotional. You’re looking into the eyes of a group of people who are all dressed the same, locked up together for a multitude of reasons. The response we got was unbelievable but it was sad sometimes.’

I’m not a big fan of the O2 Academy, but at least it’s not prison. This crowd could probably escape if it wanted to, though this seems unlikely tonight as all four acts impress.

Florence and the Machine were first on, and are a fascinating prospect. The wailing voice is a little overwhelming at first, filling the room and assaulting your ears in a way that takes some getting used to. When it combines most effectively with the music it is a powerful weapon, however, and at times the effect was stunning. Florence flung herself about the stage in a self-consciously theatrical stupor and a basque that struggled to keep the buoyant singer’s bustling bosom under cover.

White Lies were next to grace the stage to embark on what was the least interesting of the night’s sets. Joy Division are clearly a big influence, though White Lies are yet to record anything which comes near the quality of that band’s legacy, despite showing flashes of what has clearly impressed someone in the past.

Friendly Fires had the Academy dancing within seconds of taking to the stage, thirty minutes later the crowd wondered what had hit them. Their confusing brand of indie/dance-pop is entertaining, though it’s not clear why it exists, or indeed, like some biological accident conceived in one of Oxford’s science labs, whether it should.

Glasvegas stepped forward next, striding flamboyantly about the stage, safe in the knowledge that the audience had paid to be there and were not being held under lock and key. Their set was stunning, exciting and emotionally potent; they owned the stage. The air of confidence around the band is striking. The media furore and hype hasn’t intimidated them in the slightest, and they just want to show now that it was justified.

Asked what level of success they’d settle for, the answer came instantly: ‘world domination; settle for nothing less.’