Stefan Baskerville has won the OUSU election by a few hundred votes, early reports suggest.
Baskerville is a former JCR President of University College and beat John Maher to the presidency in an election troubled with publicity and technical problems.
Sarah Hutchinson won the post of VP (Graduates), Dani Quinn took VP (Welfare and Opportunities) and Kat Wall won VP (Women). VP posts for Academic Affairs and Charities were won by Jonny Medland and Eorann Lean respectively.
A diminutive, elderly, Korean women keeps a crowd of students quiet and fascinated for a full hour. Her voice is strong and although she has the benefit of a translator the emotions she expresses need no translation.
Gil Won Ok’s story sheds light on a part of history that is rarely discussed and that many, the Japanese Government in particular, do not care to remember. “I was thirteen when a man promised me work in a factory,” she begins: duped into sex slavery at a ‘comfort camp’ in North China, it would be 67 years before Gil Won Ok would see her Korean home again.
Along with thousands of other women she was enlisted as a ‘comfort woman’ for the Japanese army. They were routinely raped; non compliance was not an option. “When I was not co-operating they would fetch the guards. The guards would beat me, pull my hair and tell me I deserved to die.”
At times the beatings were so brutal and the women were left so bloodied and weak that their clothes had to be peeled off with knives. During this endless cycle of violence she had her first period. As a naive thirteen year old she thought that the bleeding was a sign of permanent damage.
“The abuse continued during our periods. We were given a cloth. But they got dirty and coated and then the guards would beat us for not keeping them clean. And you know us girls, we like to keep clean”. This persisted for three years until the end of the war. Her ordeal, however, did not end with the triumph of the allies over the Japanese.
Upon return by ship to Korea Gil Won Ok and her peers had to endure two weeks aboard a docked ship awaiting permission to enter. They were without any washing facilities, “smelling like rotten animals,” she recalls. Upon arrival they were taken to hospital where they were examined and promised food and clothes if they were obedient. Without money they had no means of returning home. They received rice and beds “a pittance probably from the government”.
The long term consequences of such abuse has been considerable. In particular her womb was infected and she was left unable to conceive. She says this was a pain felt deeply “as a human. As a women I do not feel complete without giving birth. It was a torment”.
Ultimately though her message today is one of hope. “Life is really resilient. After all I’m still here,” she tells me. She adopted a child and proudly speaks of his Masters degree, accomplishments in business and her grandchildren. “He is good to me. I feel the hardship I went through has been repaid.”
She remains determined to receive an apology and recognition of the harm done from the Japanese Government. “They think once we die we will be forgotten and the abuse will die with us and be erased. But you the young people must not let that happen.”
So far the Japanese government has been stubborn in its refusal to display contrition or compensate the comfort women. Gil Won Ok bemoans the lack of strong support from the Korean government.
“I have never seen a Korean politician despite being Korean. I am a citizen and a daughter of Korea but I feel like a foreigner.” She informs me that she and her fellow campaigners derive great strength and comfort from support of the youth of South Korea and from other campaigners around the world, who back her demand for an apology from the Japanese government. “That makes me feel completely healthy and that life is worth living.”
She feels that the younger generations in Korea are less reluctant to address the issue head on; a consequence she attributes to the renewed sense of national sovereignty, increasing Korean patriotism, and changing attitudes. There are many reasons to be optimistic that she will live long enough to receive an official apology.
On the 3 November last year the UN Human Rights Committee issued its concluding observations and recommendations to the Government of Japan, expressing “concern that the State party [of Japan] has still not accepted its responsibility for the ‘comfort women’ system during World War II.”
Gil Won Ok demands that Japan “should accept legal responsibility and apologize unreservedly for the ‘comfort women’ system in a way that is acceptable to the majority of victims and restores their dignity, prosecute perpetrators who are still alive, take immediate and effective legislative and administrative measures to adequately compensate all survivors as a matter of right, educate students and the general public about the issue, and to refute and sanction any attempts to defame victims or to deny the events.”
The US, the Netherlands, Canada, and the 27 member states of the EU have all urged the government of Japan to provide a public, unambiguous and formal apology for the sex slavery system perpetrated during the Second World War.
Gil Won Ok appears apologetic for speaking at such length about her ordeal and campaign – “a habit of the elderly I’m afraid” – but she emphasises the importance of continuing support for the organisations which provide housing and food for former ‘comfort women’.
She implores us all to “think of the not one, not two but 2,000 women taken away from playing fields, villages, families and friends.” And with that, she leaves to tell her story in another location to another crowd, confident the more people who are told her harrowing story the less likely it becomes that the atrocities committed against thousands of Korean women will fade into a short paragraph of a history text book.
How are crime levels measured?
There are two principal sources of information about crime trends in Britain: the British Crime Survey (BCS) and the officially recorded (police-based) statistics. Despite considerable public concern about crime, trends since 1997 show a clear downward trend. The BCS provides estimates of crimes reported to the police as well as crimes that remain unreported. (The survey asks a large sample of the general population to state any crimes of which they have been a victim within the previous twelve months.)
Victims are also asked whether they reported incidents to the police. The BCS does not provide a complete count of crime – were such an enterprise even possible – but it provides a reasonable guide to crimes committed against individuals and their personal property. In fact it is considered now by most criminologists to be a more reliable indicator of most, but not all criminal behaviour.
Have crime levels risen?
According to the BCS, rates of most crimes have fallen since the mid-1990s, and the declines in burglary and vehicle crime rates have been particularly marked. This – rather optimistic – view of crime has been the subject of much political and media debate, as recorded crime statistics tell a different story. The proportion of crime reported to the police by victims has remained stable since 1997.
Police recording practices have fluctuated considerably since 1997. The police started to record proportionately fewer crimes in the early 1990s – probably responding to Michael Howard’s performance management regime, which placed considerable emphasis on meeting crime reduction targets. This trend was reversed from 1998 onwards when a greater emphasis was placed on more comprehensive recording. The upward turn in trends in police- recorded crime from 2001/02 to 2003/04 is therefore largely illusory.
Can gang crime be stopped?
In contrast to violence associated with binge-drinking, these forms of violence are not crimes of affluence. Whilst it is something of a sociological cliché to say so, violence can serve as a means of securing status and respect within such sub-cultures, whose members have limited access to more conventional forms of achievement. Nor is there any reason to think that alcohol or drugs serve as facilitators. Crimes of this sort are more of a political challenge than alcohol-related violence.
There is some scope to change young people’s behaviour in carrying knives – which will reduce the severity of injuries arising from violent assaults – but the problem will remain that groups of young men excluded from the opportunities of mainstream society tend to play life by a different set of rules. In this case, the solution is to be found in strategies targeting those groups, typically in poor inner city areas and often from minority ethnic groups, who have prolonged experience of social exclusion.
What do the public believe?
The public do not generally believe that crime is declining – most people perceive crime rates to have increased over the past few years at the national level, although perceptions are more accurate when people are asked about their own neighbourhoods. The misperception about crime trends is not an exclusively British phenomenon – members of the public in all Western nations tend to see crime rates as constantly increasing, despite reliable evidence to the contrary.
Why has knife crime increased?
Knives are related to gangs, and there appears to have been an increase in the participation of young males in gangs in recent years. The increase in the number of knives in young peoples’ possession is a little harder to document. One key element is the increase in the number of searches of young people by police officers.
Throughout 2008 knife crime has been increasingly visible in the media. There have been several high-profile murders, mainly involving boys and young men. Often, but not exclusively, victims and offenders have been members of rival gangs, or at least share a gang culture associated with deprived groups in inner cities.
Some victims, however, appear to have been caught up in violent confrontations randomly, and in some cases, fights that might have ended simply with a bruise or two now result – because of the presence of knives – in severe injury or death.
What is the role of drugs in youth crime?
Illicit drug use has grown in most industrialised countries since the 1970s. There are signs that some forms of drug use have peaked, but it is unquestionable that use of drugs of dependence, notably heroin and cocaine, are now at a very much higher level than forty years ago.
It is also clear that there is a strong association between dependent drug use and acquisitive crime. The literature suggests that ‘lifestyle’ and ‘sub-cultural’ factors are important in explaining why those who try illicit drugs are also more likely to get involved in other forms of law-breaking.
The search for novelty and excitement and the enjoyment of the rewards of risk-taking are defining aspects of youth culture. It is hardly surprising that large minorities of the population engage in the – relatively controlled – risks of both recreational drug use and minor crime at some stage of their adolescence and young adulthood.
In the indie clubs and nu-rave gigs, down electro-tinted alleyways and the places where the cool queers prowl, lurks a new plague. As it infects, it turns back decades of effort, making hitherto sane women strip off and growl and men wear pink glitter eyeliner. Its name? TRENDY FEMINISM.
A relatively recent phenomenon, trendy feminism is a growing fad amongst those who like to think of themselves as alternative whilst remaining safely within the indie mainstream. The premise is as follows…
Straight Women: I am alternative and like to embrace queer culture as it makes me feel edgy and, um, alternative. I indulge in a little light gender bending and kiss girls but really it’s just so I feel risqué. I listen to lots of rave music and electropop that has its roots in the kind of music that was Riot Grrl. They were feminists.
I will say I’m a feminist even though I know nothing about it because it must be cool. I will then interpret feminism to mean wearing almost nothing, sleeping around and listening to girl bands. I will make bad-quality zines and stand around in an impenetrable clique, glaring at those who are not cool enough to be feminist.
After all, the fact that I’m out partying and drinking with the boys and not at home sewing makes me a feminist, right? Now I’ll just go and flash my tits to this man next to me- he seems vaguely interested.
Lesbian Women: I am gay, thus I must be feminist. After all, I really like checking women out and I don’t want a man in my life so that must be feminist, right? I wonder if my girlfriend has cooked me dinner yet…
Straight Men: I am embracing elements of queer culture to try and feel edgy and to find an alternative to the usual macho image. I don’t really fit into that one. Being a male feminist means that I’m challenging the structure that tells me to be a certain way, even if I don’t actually care much about women. Plus, if I say I’m a feminist, I’ll get laid.
Gay Men: Since we don’t identify with normal masculinity and don’t want to objectify women, we might as well bat for the other side, so to speak… the feminist side, that is.
Now this may seem colossally unfair and, well, it probably is. I realise that there are many genuine feminists from all of the above groups and that their views and motivations are obviously wildly different to the ones outlined. My problem is with people who do not even know what feminism stands for but use it as an excuse to adopt an identity or behaviour that they are not themselves quite comfortable with, or know is not accepted by the wider world.
Let’s get one thing straight. Feminism is not about female supremacy. It is not about stripping. It is not about a particular kind of make-up, music or fashion. It is not about dungarees and sensible shoes. It is not about any particular sexuality.
Feminism is the search for equality. I don’t just mean the right to work in a bank or use contraception, though both of these are laudable, but rather a search for a way for women to have equal cultural presence, authority and freedom as men.
And in one sense, it cannot be a bad thing that so many people are proud to label themselves feminists. But deep down, it is clear that there is no point in people championing something that they have misinterpreted. If they are using feminism as something it is not, there is a danger that it will become warped or tainted. If uninformed people appropriate a movement for their own ends, it can’t end well.
I spoke to some people on the MSt Women’s Studies course to hear their views and to check that I was not being a closed-minded elitist. One of the students said, “Feminism is just as important today as it was fifty years ago. There may have been political and economic improvements for women but culturally there is still a long way to go.
“Women are still valued on the basis of their appearance, men primarily on their minds. If feminism is misunderstood to mean purely sexual and social freedom, without looking at how people are granted authority and respect, then this gap is only going to widen.
“If people are interested in feminism, that is fantastic. They should read some books and think about it, but going to the right clubs does not make you a feminist. Trendy feminism stands to undermine feminism as a whole by representing it wrongly.
“Some people I know who claim to be feminist don’t think women should work and have kids. Others think feminism is the right to get drunk and have one night stands. I’m far from being judgmental, but I fear that if this is what feminism is reduced to, women will be subjugated forever.”
So how did this strange phenomenon come about? And how can we fix the damage it could do, and is doing?
Trendy feminism has emerged from a certain confusion as to what feminism today is for. There is a split between feminists who want to work on a practical level, setting up rape crisis centres and pushing for female politicians, and those who want to work more theoretically, looking at how women are denied agency and authority on a cultural level.
The practical applications of feminism are undeniably valuable; after all, they are what affects our daily lives. However, I would like to suggest that practical applications of something are essentially useless if there is nothing to apply and, as such, we still need the theory. If anything, the theory must come first.
The debate, however, has created a mist of bafflement that has left a gap into which trendy feminism has rushed, lyrics screaming and lipstick blazing.
Trendy feminism is a direct result of the over-emphasis on practicalities.
In the last few decades, there has been a massive push for women to have equal employment rights. When the current equality laws were put into place, it was assumed by many that the work of feminism was done.
You hear it all the time… “Why do we need feminism today/why are you a feminist? Society is pretty much equal, isn’t it?” Well, firstly, no. It isn’t. Not remotely. Not even on a purely economic level – the pay gap between full-time working men and women is 17 percent.
Secondly, the use of the phrase “pretty much equal” is a let down. Society is not truly, totally equal, and people prepared to accept the current hodgepodge of measures protecting women’s rights need to have a rethink.
But back to the point… when a certain group of people assumed that all practical feminists could sit at ease, job done, they needed to redefine feminism. Lacking the theoretical urge, they chose to move from equal pay marches to dances and songs that revelled in the female spirit.
Whilst women can definitely have fun, the redefinition of feminism as “girl power” seems a little impoverished and shallow – an excuse to sell a few albums, rather than a profound statement of what gender equality means.
So, how can we weed out this trendy but shallow brand of feminism? Well, in the words of former Prime Minister Tony Blair: education, education, education.
Every time someone says they are a feminist, we should question them and push them into understanding that there is more to feminism than wearing mini-skirts or being allowed to go to university. We should encourage women to speak with their minds and voices, not just their bodies.
We should show them that feminism can be fun; it can be an expression of joy about women and their ways; it can have danceable tunes. But it also runs deeper than that, aiming for individual respect, pride, freedom, authority and ability, not just some kind of pastiche of femininity.
You don’t have to study to be a genuine feminist, you just have to think hard about what feminism stands for, how society works, about how women and men are valued and about the kind of image you project.
You have to challenge everything, even yourself, especially yourself, and not follow anyone else’s view blindly. And what you have to do next is ponder, in the bath or while walking home, how relations between men and women could be better. Then you canfinally apply this conception to your life, changing the world in whatever small or large ways you can.
Above all else, genuine feminists stand for complete equality. They stand for freedom for women to be whatever they want to be and to be respected. They stand for the right for all women – yes, even trendy feminists – to go out and dance without fear of objectification, harassment or loss of respect. They stand for both the right to have fun and the right to be valued and respected just as much as men.
So, genuine feminists, show those trendy feminists what it’s all about; get on your dancing shoes and boogie, if you want to, with your minds…
An Iranian millionaire who stole from “priceless” collections in the Bodleian and British Library may face jail after causing an estimated £1 million worth of damage.
Farhard Hakimzadeh, a respected businessman, publisher and intellectual, cut pages from 150 books using a scalpel or razor and then inserted them into his own copies.
Bodleian staff have condemned Hakimzadeh’s actions as cultural vandalism and described his behaviour as “exceedingly clever, devious and skilful.”
He pleaded guilty to fourteen charges of stealing maps, pages and illustrations, and faces a further twenty charges in connection with the thefts.
Hakimzadeh had taken pages from 47 volumes from the Bodleian since 2003 alone, a spokesman for the Bodleian claimed. Stolen maps include one from the British Library worth £32,000.
Richard Ovenden, the Bodleian’s Keeper of Special Collections, said, “his actions fall into the category of cultural vandalism, where his own desire to own rare books encouraged him to damage highly important research materials, and significant cultural objects, that were acquired by the Bodleian and other OULS libraries over many hundreds of years for the benefit of scholars in Oxford and for the many visiting researchers who come to the University because of its libraries.”
Ovenden emphasised that the damage Hakimzadeh has done to irreplaceable works is irrevocable, with effects that will be felt by future researchers who will not have access to full sources.
He said, “most of these books suffered the deliberate removal of pages, and the damage caused will be permanent. The cost of the damage he caused to future scholarship in these fields is therefore significant.”
Hakimzadeh’s crimes were finally exposed when a researcher in the British Library realised that a page from a 17th century book by Sir Thomas Herbert was missing.
Detective Chief Inspector Dave Cobb of the Metropolitan Police Service explained the difficulty of uncovering Hakimzadeh’s crimes.
He said, “it is extremely difficult to detect the absence of these pages as Hakimzadeh took care to select material that only an expert would be able to identify, as early printed books are unique.”
Library staff used electronic records to determine who had taken out the Thomas Herbert book and then examined other works these people had used.
They found that related works, covering European engagement with the area from Bangladesh to modern-day Syria, were also damaged.
Staff uncovered a consistent pattern of damage in works used by Hakimzadeh. By tracing the books he had used in his years as a library member, they discovered that 150 of the 842 books he had used in the library had pages missing.
The British Library alerted staff at the Bodleian Library and contacted the Metropolitan Police.
Police searched Hakimzadeh’s home in Kensington, London, last year and found ten examples of theft from the British Library and four from the Bodleian. Police also recovered two complete books Hakimmzadeh had stolen from Oxford’s Eastern Art library.
He had inserted some of the missing pages, maps and pictures into less valuable editions of the same books he owned.
Hakimzadeh originally claimed he had bought the books from second-hand market stalls. However, a British Library official was able to identify the missing pages when brought in with the police’s second visit.
Experts have suggested that he stole pages to increase the value of his own collection or to add pages and illustrations to specially requested hand-made books.
Hakimzadeh was the chief executive of the Iran Heritage Foundation, a charity he formed in 1995 to promote the history, languages and culture of Iran, and respected author and scholar.
The vandalised books from the Bodleian and other OULS libraries related to Western engagement with the near and Middle East.
Ovenden thanked all the OULS staff for their “diligence and hard work” in helping the police to solve the case and stressed the gravity of Hakimzadeh’s actions. “The seriousness with which the Metropolitan Police and both libraries have taken this case shows that theft and vandalism of this kind will not be tolerated, and will be pursued through the law to their conclusion.”
Hakimzadeh is due to be sentenced in January. Meanwhile the British Library are pursuing a civil claim against Hakimzadeh, seeking to either recover the pages taken from another 150 books, or compensation.
Ovendon stated that the Bodleian is also seeking ways of recovering some of the lost resources. He said, “the University is considering other action to ensure that the losses incurred by the Library are recovered.”
A Ugandan doctor was arrested last weekend after claiming to have earned a degree in Medicine from Oxford University, among other institutions.
Moses Tumusiime, 28, also used the aliases Dr Job Mike Feeth and Dr Job Mark Vie, and was able to perform surgery in over four Ugandan hospital before he was caught.
In addition to Oxford, he carried forged certificates for various medical qualifications from Makerere University in Uganda, Kenwood International University of Science and Technology, San Francisco Northern California College of Science, India University of Science and Technology, and the Medical and Dental Practitioners Council in Uganda.
Police arrested Mr Tumusiime in the Ugandan capital city, Kampala, and he will now be charged with forgery and posing as a medical officer.
Simon Nsubega, a spokesman for the Kampala police force, recommended that employers carry out more careful background checks on the educational qualifications of their staff.
Nsubega also suggested that the Uganda National Examinations Board as well as national and international universities consider more sophisticated degree certificates to combat forgery.
After his arrest, Mr Tumusiime said that he had at one time been pursuing a Bachelor of Medicine at Oxford University but had dropped out due to financial concerns.
However, a spokesman for the University reported that “we don’t have any record of anyone by that name enrolling at Oxford”.
Last week a 29 year old Bavarian banker, who had performed 190 operations, was found to have faked the Oxford degree that enabled him to gain a position as a trainee doctor.
‘Dr Christian E’ created the certificate on this home computer in 2003, and was only caught by an anonymous tip-off to the University Hospital of Erlangen.
The government’s advisor on architecture, urban design and public space has urged the University to scrap its current plan for the Radcliffe Infirmary redevelopment scheme, criticising it as being “wholly inadequate”.
The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) warned that, “unless a thorough reappraisal of the master plan is undertaken…we have little confidence that a high quality outcome can result,” claiming that the plans were simply re-hashes of earlier designs.
The review of the University’s current plans for the half a billion pound redevelopment of the Radcliffe Infirmary site, which will provide a new library and teaching facilities, urged the Oxford City Council not to endorse the scheme in its current form and accused the University of failing to use the opportunity to be more innovative in its redevelopment plans.
Construction is planned to start next spring and the first buildings are expected to open in late 2011.
The planning document was developed by planning specialist Turnberry Consulting and was adapted from previous designs by Rafael Viñoly Architects (RVA).
Accusing the University of simply re-hashing a previous scheme, CABE‘s report said, “this document fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of a master plan[…]
“Rather than promoting key principles, fresh thinking and innovative design responses, it appears to post-rationalise elements of a previous scheme which had failed to meet the long-term needs of the university or adequately reflect the Oxford context.”
CABE have asked the University to break from the Viñoly scheme, noting “key shortcomings” in its proposal.
CABE also disagreed with the plans for an enclosed campus, arguing that the site should be open and “permeable to the public at large.”
In response to the review, an RVA spokesman denied the architect’s responsibility for the plan criticised by the government. “The review was of a planning document produced by the planning consultants, not Rafael Viñoly Architects,” they said.
“This document was not intended for a CABE design review. RVA presented the master plan to CABE in early 2008. It is due to go to committee shortly and has a recommendation for approval by the planning officers.”
A University of Oxford spokesperson defended their current plans and both the firms they worked with on the plans. “Rafael Viñoly architects were selected to develop a masterplan for the Radcliffe Infirmary Site in 2005. In consultation with the University, the City Council, the University’s professional team including planning consultants, Turnberry Consulting Ltd, have produced a masterplan document which provides a framework for future development on the site,” the University said.
“Since it is anticipated the site will provide expansion space for many of the University’s activities over the next 15 to 20 years, it is important that the masterplan should provide such guidance for the future.
“The masterplan was discussed at the City’s strategic planning committee on Monday evening. At present various buildings are being designed and planned for the site.
“These include a new Maths building, a new humanities centre and library, and a new health centre.
“All of these are in the early stages of planning and design and will be brought forward to the City Council’s planning committee to obtain the necessary approvals, over the course of the next year.”
The Radcliffe Infirmary redevelopment scheme has been described as the University’s most ambitious project in recent history and one of its biggest investments to date.
The Russell Group of universities is not doing enough to address the financial and accommodation-based concerns of prospective applicants from less privileged backgrounds, a report released this week by the National Union of Students (NUS) has revealed.
The group of 20 leading UK universities, including Oxford and Cambridge, was shown to attract far fewer students who were concerned about their university being close to home (19% in contrast to 41% for former polytechnics which because universities in 1992), despite this concern being at the top of the agenda for applicants from the lowest socio-economic groups, D and E (parents who are unskilled manual and casual workers).
53% of students from groups D and E reported choosing an institution based on its geographical proximity, against only a fifth of group A applicants (from a professional or managerial background).
The Director of the Russell Group, Wendy Piat, declined to comment on these statistics, stating that the group “welcomes this study which will serve as a useful tool to help our institutions continue to improve the quality of education and support they provide.” In a press release last year, however, Piat wrote that she was “particularly determined to help to tackle the root cause of the problem of the under-representation of students from poorer backgrounds at Russell Group institutions.”
Despite this, the report described a continuing trend that “students that attend Pre 1992 [former Polytechnics], and particularly Russell Group institutions, are significantly more likely to be from higher socio-economic groups.” The statistics come as Oxford processes the applications from thousands of prospective applicants for the 2009 intake, who have been targeted by a number of the University’s access schemes.
These include the Oxford Access Scheme Ambassador Programme, which takes students from “schools with no history of sending applicants to Oxford University… through four years of residential and one day events leading up to university application.”
Responding to the figures, one Magdalen classicist told Cherwell, “it seems ridiculous that our universities can’t get their act together over access. It’s a really important issue to me, and if all these resources we’re putting towards targeting less-well off schools aren’t paying off, we ought to have a serious rethink.”
In addition to access concerns, the report showed how Russell Group students were relatively more likely than those at post-1992 institutions to have wanted a university place “for the experience”, as opposed to “to gain qualifications” or “improve [their] chances of getting a job.” While only 23% of post-1992 university students reported being in it “for the experience,” 35% from Russell Group members said that this was a factor behind their university attendence.
And in spite of the academic prowess of the Russell Group universities, only 62% of students compared to 73% in post-1992 institutions said that they had applied “to gain qualifications.” Russell Group students were also less concerned about “improving [their] earning potential.”
A third-year DPhil student said they recognised that the statistics reflected their own priorities at Oxford. “I was aware that doing a thesis would leave me with a lot of flexibility. I want to get the most out of the extra-curricular activities on offer, and my degree definitely comes second,” he said.
Responding to the findings, Piat told Cherwell, “we are delighted that Russell Group students have indicated the highest levels of satisfaction with the quality of teaching and learning at their institutions and that the vast majority cited academic reputation as a key factor in their choice of university.” She added, “The report found that 89% of students at Russell Group universities rated the quality of teaching and learning as good or excellent, compared to a sector-wide average of 85%.”
The NUS report also highlighted that while Russell Group physics students received more contact hours time that post-1992 universities, they lost out in communications and documentation degrees.
“Students studying physical sciences and related subjects received 20 contact hours a week in pre-1992 universities and 15 hours a week in post-1992 universities,” the study stated, yet “students studying mass communications and documentation subjects received 7 contact hours a week in Russell Group universities compared with 14 hours a week in Post 1992 universities.”
Teddy Hall JCR is divided over its president after students refused to award him a traditional tankard for “good work” during the year.
Charlie Southern, who is a member of the exclusive Teddy Hall drinking society the Syndicate, has been accused of falling short in his presidential duties by a number of students, while others have defended his conduct.
A motion to award Southern Teddy Hall’s customary tankard for successful JCR presidents failed earlier this week for the first time in the college’s history.
Whilst only four students opposed the motion, 17 abstained, meaning that the motion could not be passed.
One student, who wished to remain anonymous, was concerned that Southern failed to attend the St Edmund Feast, JCR photo and OUSU presidential hustings.
They also pointed out that Southern failed to commit to Fresher’s Week, allegedly admitting at JCR hustings that “in fresher’s week his sole contribution was to do six pieces of photocopying.”
Unhappiness with Southern was voiced at the meeting by Ian Lyons, JCR Environment rep and OUSU election candidate, and supported by three other members. His speech made clear, however, that his opposition was largely due to personal annoyance at the JCR’s apathy towards OUSU.
Both he and Daniel Lowe opposed Southern at the meeting, yet as OUSU candidates neither could comment on the matter.
Students were shocked at the failure of the motion, as such an event has never before occurred in the history of Teddy Hall’s JCR.
Other Hall students have praised Southern, saying that the attacks on him were undeserved.
Peter Gray, a second year at Teddy Hall, defended Southern, saying, “Charlie has in my experience been a great president, fighting hard for the JCR.
He has done much work behind the scenes, securing rent reductions for students inconvenienced by workers in college as well as being a leader by example in many of the sports teams.
“He has contributed massively to the college over the past year and the personal attacks on him in his final JCR meeting as president were cruel and unjust.
“It was inappropriate to wait till he was the exiting president to voice their concerns; if there were any issues during the year they should have been brought up earlier, not used as a petty stab in the back as he is leaving.”
When asked to comment on the issue Southern underlined that everyone in the JCR was “entitled to their own opinion” and said that the JCR committee was “great”.
Susannah Otter, Teddy Hall second year, has since presented a tankard to Southern courtesy of private funds she personally collected.
She declined to comment on the failed JCR motion, but did say, “for the record, I think Charlie has been a great president.”
Dr Justin Barrett, from Oxford University’s Centre for Anthropology and Mind, has claimed that humans are naturally disposed to believe in God from birth, in a lecture at Cambridge’s Faraday Institute.
He claims that his research has shown that small children have an innate belief that the natural world has been designed with purpose and intention.
The research project from which Barrett drew his findings came under severe criticism last year, due to the allegedly pro-religious leanings of the foundation which backed the study, which a Nobel prize winner claimed was attempting to “drag us back into the Dark Ages.”
The John Templeton Foundation, which has an endowment of over $1 billion, was founded in 1987 by lifelong Presbyterian and investor Sir John Templeton, a former Rhodes Scholar at Balliol College, who has said that “scientific revelations may be a goldmine for revitalizing religion in the 21st Century.”
Dr Barrett’s study received £1.9 million from the Foundation, which earlier this year denied that it only gave money to projects with a religious bias.
Speaking about his findings, Barrett said, “if we threw a handful of children on an island and they raised themselves I think they would be religious.”
He said that previous research supports his argument, continuing, “children younger than 10 favoured creationist accounts of the origins of animals over evolutionary accounts even when their parents and teachers endorsed evolution. Authorities’ testimony didn’t carry enough weight to over-ride a natural tendency.”
Critics, including Professor Lewis Wolpert, have commented that the research proves little beyond the logical nature of human minds and our need, both as children and adults, to search out knowledge and answers.
He told Radio 4’s Today program, “there’s nothing in our brains that makes us believe in one particular religion and a particular God.”
He added, “what our beliefs really want to do is they want to explain things that matter to us and that’s one of the evolutionary functions of religion.”
In February the study came under severe criticism from scientists who objected to the Templeton Foundation’s funding of the study.
Nobel Prize laureate Sir Harold Kroto commented that the John Templeton Foundation’s “only mission is to undermine the ethical position of the scientific community.
“They could not care a fuck what the outcome is they will still go on funding this sort of inane crap in an attempt to drag us back into the Dark ages. Galileo is turning in his grave.”
He added that the funding was only provided to gain “the reputation of Oxford University…to give their pathetic initiatives some apparent semblance of scientific credibility.”
Dr Barrett, in his lecture to the Cambridge University’s Faraday Institute this week has emphasized that the purpose of the study is to “encourage empirical research testing out claims about the natural, cognitive foundations of religion.”
The president of Oxford’s Christian Union, Dave Meryon, reacted to the research, “although this study cannot prove the existence of God or vice versa, it is fascinating because it corresponds to the Christian belief of a God who ‘has also set eternity in the hearts of men.'”
Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.
Oxford Student Publications Limited
© 2025 - All Rights Reserved
| Privacy Policy