In a press release to Cherwell, the Oxford SU condemned plans by the University to fine students for ‘trashing’.

A tradition dating back to the 1980s, trashing is a celebratory event. Finalists, having finished their exams and wearing subfusc, are doused in whipped cream, confetti and other substances, before jumping into one of Oxford’s rivers to wash it all off.

Nonetheless, trashing has faced sustained opposition from the council and University administrators, with the high cost of clean-up, environmental hazards and elitist nature of the tradition all coming under fire.

After moving to ban the practice a few years ago, the University is now planning to fine those participating. The full SU statement reads:

“Oxford SU are disappointed that the University is going ahead with its decision to fine students for post-exam celebration.  

“We want to reiterate Oxford SU’s opposition to the University’s Sustainable Post Exam Celebration campaign. The SU has been in multiple meetings and part of a formal consultation where we expressed our opposition to a punitive approach, and especially one which fined students.

“While we, like many students, believe that environmental sustainability and being mindful of the wider Oxford community are essential, we do not believe that this campaign is a suitable solution to the issues associated with post exam celebration.

“This campaign will not be effective in tackling the issues the University claims it will. The use of fines creates a disproportionate punishment as it will have a great impact on some students, depending on their financial situation. It means that students who can afford the fine will continue to trash, while only the students who can’t afford the fine will be prevented from participating. A punitive approach will never resolve the problems associated with post-exam celebration.

“We also object to the top-down and paternalistic approach the University has taken which vilifies, patronises and scapegoats students. This campaign pins negative stereotypes about Oxford University and its poor relationship with local residents on students and post exam celebrations. This is unfair and untrue. The University as an institution is responsible for its reputation of elitism and its impact on the rest of the city. Furthermore, it is not students’ responsibility to save the University money in order to run essential student services and facilities, as the campaign states. The University should be funding and making this a priority regardless.

“Finally, we recognise the importance of post exam celebration for students and the role it plays in getting students through a stressful exam period, especially in light of the pandemic and its impact on student experience. There has been little to no attempt from the University to consult students and to understand the importance and the reality of post exam celebration for students and the steps students have already been taking to be more conscious members of the Oxford community.

“Oxford SU believes in promoting ‘Green Trashing’ with sustainable materials that are easy to clean up and encouraging students to clear up after themselves. This should be paired with collaboration from colleges to provide students with spaces which are out of the way of the public, as well as providing students the necessary clean-up equipment.

“We have written to the University reiterating our stance and expressing our disappointment and we are awaiting their response.”

A University spokesperson contacted Cherwell to request that the university’s position on trashing is included. Senior Proctor Professor Jane Mellor said: “Throwing food and other materials in exam celebrations is wasteful and disrespectful. We know that our students are committed to sustainability and urge them to extend this to their exam celebrations this year.”  

Junior Proctor Professor Linda Flores commented: “We recognise that this has been a difficult time for us all, and students will be keen to celebrate their achievements. However, we also recognise that we are part of a community and that means exercising consideration and respect for everyone and for our environment.” 

Image credit: Phillip Halling/CC-SA-BY: 2.0

The article was editied at 15:09 Saturday 23 April to include the University’s response.

The National Union of Students has again been embroiled in an antisemitism scandal, drawing criticism in recent months for its failure to protect Jewish students from discrimination, as well the revelation of antisemitic statements by its elected officers.

Robert Halfon, the MP in charge of the Commons Education Select Committee, last week referred the NUS to the Charities Commission “in regards to their treatment of Jewish students and the Jewish community’s concerns regarding antisemitism.”  The nationwide confederation of student unions – of which Oxford SU is a part – was also the subject of a Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) report which said that the organisation’s policies and actions had resulted in “tangible harm to Jewish students.”

Shaima Dallali, the President-Elect of the organisation, has been criticised for tweets, including one that translates as “Jews, remember the battle of Khaybar, the army of Muhammad is returning”, referencing an AD 628 massacre of the Jewish community in the town of Khaybar. Apologising, she did not acknowledge the genocidal element of the event, instead simply referencing “the battle of Khaybar in which Jewish and Muslim armies fought”.

Dallali has previously referred to cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi as the “moral compass for the Muslim community at large”. Al-Qaradawi has said that he would “shoot Allah’s enemies, the Jews”, and called upon God to “count their numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one.”

Responding to criticism, Dallali said, “I’m not the same person I was. I have developed my political language to talk about Palestine and Israel. I stand by that apology”. Discussing backlash, she said, “Unfortunately, as a black Muslim woman, it is something that I expected because I’ve seen it happen to other black Muslim women when they take up positions in the student union or the NUS, where they are attacked based on their political beliefs or their pro-Palestinian stance.”

In the wake of a huge rise in university-based antisemitism in early 2021, the NUS released a quickly deleted statement in solidarity with Jewish students, reading “We are deeply concerned to hear of a spike in antisemitism on campuses as a result of Israeli forces’ violent attacks on Palestinians”. This statement came under fire for associating Jewish students with the actions of the Israeli state, and not simply condemning violent antisemitic attacks.

Responding to this, a spokesperson for CAA said: “Even when supposedly showing solidarity with Jewish students, NUS has managed to blunder in ways that will leave Jewish students wondering how serious the organisation can be about representing and protecting them. It would almost have been better had they said nothing at all.”

Oxford Jewish Society’s president told Cherwell: “Oxford’s JSoc is deeply upset by the actions of the NUS leadership. Its response to the concerns of Jewish students at its national conference will be viewed by many as, at best, insensitive. Past comments of the President-Elect are also of concern to us. Though she has since apologised for some of these remarks, Oxford’s JSoc believes that similar remarks directed towards those of other races or faiths would likely be met with resignation, rather than an investigation.

Among other incidents cited in the CAA’s report was the invitation of rapper Lowkey to perform at its centenary event last month. In the past, Lowkey has spoken of the “Zionist lobby” in the context of global capitalism, defended Chris Williamson, an MP suspended from the Labour Party for antisemitism, and recently claimed that the “mainstream media” had “weaponised the Jewish heritage” of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy to “stave off” concern about the Ukrainian far-right.

Jewish students who expressed concern at his invitation to perform were invited to remove themselves to a safe space which had been intended for attendees sensitive to loud music. Following criticism, Lowkey cancelled his performance, and the NUS released a statement expressing regret that the rapper had been the victim of “harassment and misinformation”. One Jewish Oxford student in attendance told Cherwell that there had been an “atmosphere of hostility” at the event.

These are not new issues; in 2016, a Commons select committee branded comments made by then-president Malia Bouattia as ‘outright racism’. Writing in a University of Birmingham Friends of Palestine blog post, she described the university as ‘something of a Zionist outpost in British Higher Education” with “the largest JSoc in the country whose leadership is dominated by Zionist activists.’ An internal report found that her comments “could be reasonably capable of being interpreted as antisemitic” but recommended no further action. 

Bouattia also used her casting vote to remove the right of Jewish students to select their own representative on the Union’s Anti-Racism and Anti-Fascism Committee.

On Wednesday 13th, the NUS announced an independent investigation into the antisemitism allegations, stating “There can be no place for antisemitism within the student movement. We are listening to the concerns being raised and we’re very concerned about the pain and hurt being expressed. We will take any and all actions that are needed to remedy any wrongdoing and rebuild trust with Jewish students as well as our Members, partners and stakeholders”. 

They also reemphasised a commitment to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, which the organisation’s charter states must be renewed every three years.

Nonetheless, it could be the final straw for many. Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi told LBC on Thursday, “I worry that there is a pattern here, and this could be systemic in the NUS. I have asked my Minister Michelle Donelan to look at our relationship with the NUS”

“All options are on the table with this one, I am deeply deeply concerned.”

The president of Oxford JSoc’s told Cherwell: “While the news of an independent review and commitment to the IHRA definition of antisemitism is welcome, more still needs to be done to address the concerns of Jewish students in general and specifically that Jewish interests are considered unimportant compared to the interests of other identities.

“The NUS should therefore commit to following the recommendations of the review and take further steps to ensure the concerns of Jewish students are not ignored in this way again. Additionally, Oxford’s Student Union and Campaign for Racial Awareness and Equality should use their platforms to make clear on a national level the concerns of Jewish students in Oxford specifically.”

In response to written questions, the Oxford SU told Cherwell that they welcomed an investigation, and that “students are able to pass Student Council motions informing the way our NUS delegates and Sabbatical Officers interact with NUS or referendum to disaffiliate from NUS should they wish to do so.”

However, the statement ended by affirming, “Despite all this, we’d also like to draw attention to the fact that we are disappointed in the way genuine student concerns about antisemitism have been co-opted by the Government and media to further the culture war and silence those who are advocating for Palestinian rights.”

Image credit: Wikimedia, CC BY 3.0

Students have raised concerns over the Lady Margaret Hall ball being held in Ramadan, which has left some Muslim students feeling overlooked and excluded from the event.

One Muslim student at LMH, who chose to remain anonymous, expressed their disappointment in the conduct of both the Governing Body and Ball Committee. They objected that, despite vocal discontent among Muslim students at LMH, neither the Committee nor the Governing Body offered an explanation or apology for the Ball being held in Ramadan.  

Ramadan is the ninth month of the Islamic calendar, observed by Muslims worldwide as a month of fasting, spiritual reflection and heightened worship. As one of the Five Pillars of Islam, Ramadan is regarded as a fundamental practice for Muslims. This year, in the UK, the period lasts from the dawn of Sat 2 April till sunset of Sun 1 May. 

The common practice is to fast from dawn to sunset every day before observing a number of traditional meals such as the iftar, which is the first meal eaten in the evening to break the fast.

The student highlighted that the dining aspect of the event completely excludes Muslim attendees. They criticized the timing of the dinner, which begins before those observing Ramadan can break their fast. They also went on to cite the College’s statutes, arguing that the principles of justice and fairness which LMH strives to adhere to have been overlooked in this case. 

The student indicated that the Muslim community at LMH are seeking greater recognition of the issue, as well as an apology from the Governing Body and Ball Committee. 

The LMH Ball Committee told Cherwell about the process behind the scheduling decision. The Committee had initially sought to hold the event on 14 May 2022, which would accommodate those observing Ramadan. In a meeting on 3 Nov 2021, LMH’s JCR President, Vice-President and Treasurer brought the proposal to the College’s Governing Body, a group comprising the Principal and seven other senior fellows. The proposal for 14 May was rejected due to its proximity to English, Biology and Engineering exams, which begin as early as 16 May.  

The JCR and Ball Committees also offered alternative dates in the weeks immediately following 14 May, including a date in ninth week. The Governing Body decided that these dates would be too disruptive for those taking and revising for exams. The proposal for ninth week was rejected due to concern for first years taking Prelims.  

The Governing Body resolved that the Ball would have to be held in first week, or not at all. With the understanding that large-scale events in College may only be held on Saturdays, the Ball Committee was left to settle for this suggestion and schedule the 2022 Ball for 30 April, which falls during Ramadan.  

LMH JCR President, Lewis Boyd, said that Ramadan “was not brought up in the governing body meeting. The ball committee had planned the schedule carefully so that the ball wouldn’t clash with Ramadan. 

“However, there was a small miscommunication between the ball committee and the JCR core exec before the meeting. The ball committee asked that we represent and advocate for the 14th of May, but didn’t explain why. I don’t believe they were expecting the original proposal to be rejected, and so didn’t expect us to have to argue against it being on the 30th.”

Boyd added that the JCR executive was unaware of the dates of Ramadan, so did not bring it up during the meeting. As a result, they pushed for later dates because they had been told they would be preferred.

The Ball Committee has offered the following apology: 

“We’d like to stress that Ramadan was a key consideration for the Ball Committee, but we’re sorry to have made a mistake during the process for deciding the date, and to Muslim students and their friends for the impact our mistake has had. We want everyone to be able to enjoy our ball, and we’re disappointed that we’ve fallen short in this way.” 

The Committee highlighted that “plenty” of halal food will be available when Muslin students break their fast, and that the JCR would be available as a prayer room. Prayer mats, water, and dates (which are traditionally eaten during iftar) will be provided in the JCR.

The Committee has extended their ticket exchange period to 15 April and will continue to issue refunds so students who are unable to attend the ball because they are observing Ramadan can get a refund.

For the next ball, the Committee are working to make sure that a member of the Committee will be able to sit in on relevant meetings of the Governing Body to reduce the risk of further miscommunication

Lady Margaret Hall has been approached for comment.

Image Credit: Lady Margaret Hall via https://www.lmh.ox.ac.uk/about-lmh

On Tuesday, crowds gathered in Bonn Square to protest the exclusion of trans people from the ban on conversion therapy.

According to NHS England, conversion therapy – sometimes called “reparative therapy” or colloquially known as “gay cure therapy” – tries to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The NHS has described it as “unethical and potentially harmful”

According to the 2018 National LGBT Survey, approximately 5% of the 108,000 people who responded reported to have been offered some version of conversion therapy whilst 2% had undergone it. Those from an ethnic minority background were twice as likely to be affected. About 10% of Christian respondents and 20% of Muslims said they had undergone or been offered conversion therapy, compared to 6% who has no religious affiliation. Over half of those who had experienced conversion therapy reported that it was done by a religious organisation. Isolating the statistics from transgender respondents perhaps demonstrates why the call to “include the T in the LGB” is particularly prevalent with issues of conversion therapy.  Almost one in 10 trans men said they had been offered conversion therapy, and one in 25 said they had undergone it. These statistics were raised repeatedly by protesters to emphasise that transgender people are at the highest risk of being affected by conversion therapy. The LGBT Action Plan 2018 set out to bring forward proposals to end the practice of conversion therapy in the UK and was cited often at the protest as an example of a Government who is failing to keep its promises to the LGBTQ+ community.

Currently, all other countries that have introduced some form of conversion therapy ban have covered gender identity in their definitions. On the 1^st of April, hours after it had said it would drop plans for the ban entirely, the Government announced its intention to ban conversion therapy for matters of sexuality, but not around gender identity. Clay Nash, one of the leaders of Oxford Against Conversion Therapy and organiser of the protest told Cherwell: “The Government went from scrapping the ban all together to protecting gay people from conversion therapy because there was a mass outcry from a majority. So now we need allies to stand beside us while we fight for the protection of trans people too […] If we, members of the public, continue to make noise and insist that a ban that doesn’t protect trans people isn’t enough, I’m hopeful that there will be another backtrack – this time one that protects us all”.

As the Government address the issue of rights for transgender and non-binary people as carrying a “complexity of issues”, protesters in support of a full ban on conversion therapy accused the government of playing politics with people’s lives. Speaking to Cherwell, Clay Nash noted the importance of protesting in Oxford: “there is something very powerful about Oxford, the place where these politicians’ journeys began, coming together to say that we do not stand for transphobia and that we want to forge a more inclusive future.”

Speakers including, but not limited to, Jayne Ozanne, Director of the Ozanne Foundation and the Global Interfaith Commission on LGBT Lives, Green Party Councillor Chris Jarvis, Sarah Stephenson-hunter, speaking on behalf of Trans Actual UK, and Dr Clara Barker addressed the people gathered to protest. Support was visible from the Student Union LGBTQ+ campaign, the University of Oxford and the Brookes’ LGBTQ+ societies, Oxford Pride, The Jolly Farmers and the Oxford University Labour Club.

The overarching theme was one of solidarity and the celebration of trans joy and trans beauty.

This is the question that Oxford University researchers are asking after their research finds that the fast-paced video app could be ruining the attention span of children.

James Williams, an Oxford University ethicist, told The Wall Street Journal about the negative effects of TikTok which gives children and endless flow of instant gratification. He added that ‘it’s like having kids live in a candy store and then we tell them to ignore all that candy and eat a plate of vegetables’. This ‘endless stream of instant pleasure’ is something that Williams argues is ‘unprecedented in human history’.

The consequence of this is that children could negatively affect developing cognitive skills which could leave children struggling to focus on everyday tasks.

Williams explains that the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain which helps humans focus, is not fully developed until the age of 25. Therefore, scientists warn that if the brain, in childhood, is over-exposed to constant changes, like the fast video changes on TikTok, it will struggle to form a pattern of maintained focus. 

TikTok has over 9 million active users in the UK and ~25%  of them are aged between 15-25. After YouTube, it is the second most popular social media platform among children in the US, and ~60% of teenagers aged 12 to 15 use it weekly.

Similar video formats have been adopted by competitor companies such as Meta, formerly Facebook, who introduced Reels. Studies have shown that watching these 15-30 second videos trigger areas of the brain involved with addiction, making it more difficult to leave the app.

A spokesperson told The Wall Street Journal that the app had recently made changes to combat excessive usage, including blocking users under-15 from receiving notifications beyond 9 p.m.

The most popular children’s content ranges from opening toy mystery bags to lip-syncing popular music. It could be argued that clickbait content like this isn’t really a problem. The thing that could be of worry is that kids are no longer outside observers, they are actively encouraged to participate in viral TikTok trends. The digital footprint this leaves can have a long-lasting impact.

Granted, this has been happening since the beginning of Youtube, Viral videos such as ‘Star Wars Kid’ even lead to real-life bullying. Back then video cameras were a lot less prevalent, but now every pre-teen has one in their pocket.

Children are posting countless videos of themselves doing dance trends, many of which are arguably age-inappropriate. Teenagers ‘performing’ their lives on social media and only projecting their best moments will leave some viewers to feel that they’re the only one not having fun all the time. In March, a paper found the proportion of 15 and 16-year-olds in the UK feeling alienated among peers has tripled since 2000 to 33%.

It could be argued that the biggest problems will come when they turn their vestigial attention spans to scientific and political content. If the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us anything, it should be to not underestimate the importance of media literacy. Many people have grown to trust their favourite online influencers more than the experts.

There is an ecosystem of online news coverage where people will read out bits of a story / watch a report then take the most extreme and clickbait interpretations possible. Over the years, people from all sides of the political spectrum have ramped up the rhetoric and spun the most outrageous stories possible to get more views than the competition.

Who wants to read a long boring report about Covid-19 when you can watch someone scream into a webcam about how it’s a biological weapon activated by 5G? The latter will be far more attention-grabbing and entertaining, especially to a generation brought up on flashy 15-second soundbites.