Monday 14th July 2025
Blog Page 247

President and Treasurer attempt to oust each other as Magdalen JCR goes to double no-confidence vote

Oliver Hall
-
0
<strong>President and Treasurer attempt to oust each other as Magdalen JCR goes to double no-confidence vote</strong>

Turmoil has descended on the Magdalen College JCR, as drama over the weekend culminated in two no-confidence votes being brought against leading members of the committee. JCR president Daniel Dipper and his treasurer are set to be challenged in competing votes between 18:00 and 20:00 this evening, during the last General Meeting (GM) of term.  

The controversy began after a series of alleged derelictions of duty by Treasurer Julian Müller.  Several people within and outside of the JCR claim to have suffered from a repayment process that either took too long or didn’t take place at all. Some committee members have waited up to one month for payment and at least three have gone into their overdraft. Müller told Cherwell, “While it is true that there have been a small number of payments later than usual, due to one missed weekend of reimbursements, and I did and do apologise to those affected by this, it is not true that payments did not take place at all.”

Following “long-term discussions” with multiple committee members, including Vice-President Henry Kay, President Dipper took the decision to bring a vote of no-confidence against Müller last week. Kay told Cherwell these discussions involved “tangible dissatisfaction with the Treasurer.”  Normal conventions would have seen the Vice-President conduct the vote but, with Kay unable to attend, Dipper was obliged to conduct proceedings.  

Rules demand that in circumstances such as this the vote must be conducted by show of hands with only those present allowed a say.  However, Dipper broke from these conventions by permitting members to vote by proxy and in secret.  Subsequently, the result of no-confidence was contested by Müller.

Müller told Cherwell, “At the committee meeting that was supposed to determine whether I was found to be in dereliction of duty (a term that does not even exist in our constitution, but in the constitution of the union), the president acted as chair of the meeting, interpreter of the constitution, and also prosecutor, as he brought forward the allegations against me. Regarding the voting procedures, he did not only break from voting conventions, but in fact broke with the constitution, by allowing proxy votes and a secret ballot, both of which are explicitly not permitted by the constitution.”

This saw the Vice-President Henry Kay obliged to bring a motion of no-confidence against Dipper himself, meaning that two votes will now take place in tonight’s GM.  The meeting is expected to be packed to the rafters, with the events sparking debate across the college community.

When approached for comment, Müller told Cherwell “Ultimately, the controversy arose because the President, instead of seeking constructive dialogue or making use of other measures provided by the constitution for such situations (such as “Censure of a committee member”), decided to directly initiate removal from office proceedings, something which has been unprecedented in our JCR for at least the past 5 years, and is ultimately seen by many as un-constructive and perhaps politically motivated.”

The ramifications of the deposing of the President are set to be widespread. A source close to the JCR suggested to Cherwell that Dipper’s de-facto successor Henry Kay isn’t interested in the role of president and would resign if forced to take it up. Kay told Cherwell: “I can’t confirm or deny whether I would resign, I have strong reasons for both taking and declining the role. Maybe unwilling, but also wanting to do what’s best for the JCR.”  

Dipper, voted Oxford’s number one BNOC earlier this term, has been praised by some for his levels of commitment. He told Cherwell: “Throughout my tenure I feel I have gone above and beyond for the JCR, sometimes clocking up as many as 70 hours in a week as JCR President and working 20 hour days. I have campaigned to improve sexual violence processes which will be put in place over the summer, so Magdalen can hopefully be the best college in the university for tackling and preventing sexual violence. This change was anticipated to take years and has been delivered in less than 6 months. I fulfilled the vast majority of my pledges within the first 6 weeks of my election. I sent an email as soon as I became aware of the impeachment.”

Over the weekend he wrote to JCR members: “I write to you having received notification of a motion of no confidence in myself, to be discussed in the General Meeting on Monday. As President, my role is to represent all students, and I will continue to do so to the best of my abilities. It is crucial to respond to any concerns as a matter of urgency. I stand by my achievements and conduct in office. I am therefore making myself available over the next two days through open hours.”

The result and the fate of the Magdalen JCR will be known by this evening. However, the ramifications are likely to play out in the much longer term.

This article was updated at 17:21 06/06/22 to reflect comment from Treasurer Julian Müller.

Image: Ed Webster/CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Main Character Syndrome

Alex Beard
-
0
Main Character Syndrome

We are obsessed with appearances. A browse through any of Oxford’s student newspapers or Facebook groups will make this clear: even life’s banalities have become a performance. The library is as much an opportunity to look sexy and mysterious, couched in panelled oak and dim lighting, as it is a place for reluctant study. Tesco is a place to look either immaculately put-together, or indeed to look un-put-together, but in a managed and seductive way. Though we may try to maintain an ironic distance when we repeat such notions as ‘being the main character’, there are only so many times that something can be said ironically before it reveals a latent truth.

The truth is that we have become accustomed to seeing ourselves through other people’s eyes – to reading our own external appearance for meaning and consistency, and editing it where necessary. This cycle generates self-awareness to the point of paralysis, as we learn to pre-empt judgement from other people, and adjust our behaviour accordingly, even when in an act of naïve pleasure we are not seeking to elicit it. If I take a Penguin Classic to a coffee shop, does this make me look erudite, or does it make me look as though I am trying to look erudite?

It is only in a digital culture that we could ever be so suffocatingly self-aware. Not only because we are constantly confronted with our own image, but also because the image which we are expected to project of ourselves must appear authentic despite being curated, and meaningful despite its fleetingness. Generations past also had to bear in mind that they were being perceived, but they did not have to confront this perception – this alternate self – in digital form, and were not expected to generate it so consistently. Nor did they encounter other people in such form.

The impulse to create more compelling representations of our own lives is indicative of how we increasingly resemble the things we buy. We have always ascribed to commodities a ‘meaning’ beyond their use: fashion brands would not be viable if the bits of fabric they sold us (no more objectively valuable than unbranded bits of fabric) were not associated with some kind of ‘lifestyle’. Now we deploy the same logic in order to market ourselves to potential friends, followers and employers: we mould ourselves, for example, as socialites or activists. In the process, we incorporate many of the consumer choices we have been taught to associate with what we take ourselves to be.

“Main character syndrome” represents the attempt to narrativize this digital personality. To be the main character is to construct an account of the world in which you are simultaneously the active subject in your own story and the object of everyone else’s perception. In this sense, we mimic celebrities, the original people-as-commodities, who are held up as society’s protagonists. The public image of celebrities reflects far more closely the prejudices of the media and the morbid curiosity of their fans than it does the complex reality of their lives as individuals. Similarly, any attempt at ‘main characterhood’ will end up accounting for what we think other people think our lives should look like, rather than what they actually are. If accounts of celebrity are to be believed, then the experience of leaning into, and in a sense becoming, the representation, is a suffocating and alienating one.

If life as a self-aware, self-stylising main character really is as unedifying as I describe, then why is it that so many of us seem to take pleasure in it? It has perhaps to do with the attempt to impose meaning on our lives. Most of us are preparing to be fired down the same well-trodden career paths as previous generations, and to be measured against the same standards of success, without any of the certainties. There seems something rather jarring about finding meaning in any of the things we might traditionally have turned to – a vocation, a political cause, or a family – at a time of social fragmentation, collapsing living standards and looming ecological catastrophe. In the face of meaninglessness and disempowerment, maybe it is only natural that we relocate ourselves within our own narratives and flatter ourselves with the thought that we are being perceived, if only because that would mean that other people found our lives meaningful.

Confronted with such all-consuming self-awareness and mutual surveillance, which at times makes the Rad Cam feel like a panopticon, we would do well to remember that most people are too busy thinking about being perceived to actually perceive anyone else. We will never find the meaning we are looking for in our lives by trying to embody the images we construct of ourselves, which will only ever be poor and insufficient approximations of who it is we really want to be. Instead, we should behave in a way that is not contingent on the perception of others, and critically confront the digital apparatus which makes living an authentic life harder than it ever has been.

Further Delays to Reuben College After Asbestos Discovery

Oliver Hall
-
0
<strong>Further Delays to Reuben College After Asbestos Discovery</strong>

The project to build the new Reuben College now faces further delays well into 2023 after builders discovered asbestos in wall plaster.

Oxford’s newest college, which will be the first new one to open in more than 30 years, was due to be handed over to the university this year but that will now have to wait until at least Easter 2023.  Developer Morgan Sindall Construction has led the project which involves refurbishing the Grade II listed building that used to be home to the Science Library on South Parks Road.  

The new post-graduate college was announced in 2018 and work began in 2020 off the back of a £71m investment from the ‘Reuben Foundation’.  Its principal aim will be ‘to foster interdisciplinary research and its innovative designs for its communal spaces and quads have received acclaimed from various architecture specialists.  

Owing to the age of the building thought, the refurbishment was always going to be an ambitious one to undertake without delays and those early worries have now been realised.  The builders on sight are said to have discovered ‘significant amounts of asbestos’, predominantly in the wall plaster of the science library.  The chemical has been linked to various cancers and asbestosis meaning that its removal is strictly controlled by health authorities when it is discovered on building sites.  As a result, and pending further plans to remove the deadly substance without damaging the building, workers are currently banned from entering the site altogether.

James York is the area director for Morgan Sindall and is in charge of the project.  He said that, “The lead into this project has been extremely challenging, and the building has thrown things at us that no one could have ever expected. I’m extremely proud of how the team has tenaciously stuck to the task and worked with the university and the college to create a solution to unlock what will now be a fantastic new facility.

The entire team has worked incredibly hard so far as the project involves a careful balance of improving the building whilst retaining features expected in a Grade II listed building. Once complete, we will hand over an outstanding teaching and social space which will attract students from far and wide.”

The plans for the sight also include a brand-new dining hall development with impressive vaulted ceilings and exposed timber, a library on the top floor, and special facilities to hold items from four different university museums in the basement.

Image Credit: Alloyox via Wikimedia CC BY-SA 4.0

“I am the Chair!”: Emergency Union meeting on fashion show devolves into chaos

Cherwell News and Investigations Section Editors
-
0
“I am the Chair!”: Emergency Union meeting on fashion show devolves into chaos

CW: Sexual violence, child abuse, suicide attempt, trauma

Following Thursday’s controversial late-night debate, the Union’s split surrounding Saturday night’s fashion show and its governance has spilled further into the open. 

The fashion show was aimed to host and feature ‘survivors’ of trauma.  Senior Members of Committee, including the Librarian Charlie Mackintosh, called an extraordinary meeting of the standing committee on Saturday afternoon, criticising the way that senior leadership had handled the event. 

Throughout the meeting, there was emotional pushback from the organisers of the event, including the models and designers who were meant to feature at the show.

The current Oxford SU President and Oxford Union Secretary Anvee Bhutani pledged a ‘Survivors Fashion Show’ in her manifesto for the Hilary Term Union elections. 

The event was advertised as a “night to celebrate and empower” survivors of abuse and trauma, with proceeds going to charities which support survivors.

The past week, however, saw extensive criticism of the event, including from WomCam [the SU’s women’s campaign]. Members of Junior Committee, who were assigned to work on the event, expressed their concern about the potentially “triggering” nature of the show.  

In an email exchange the day before this meeting, seen by Cherwell, numerous senior members of the Union raised further concerns about the show. A senior member went as far as to say he “strongly believed” that the event should not go ahead, though it would be “logistically and financially difficult” to cancel it at such short notice, adding that it should be postponed “at a minimum” until sufficient consultation had been held. Other senior members supported his assertion in subsequent emails.

A senior Union member told Cherwell that the show was not discussed at a Monday Standing Committee meeting, which they claimed the President did not attend. Minutes from that meeting are not yet available. 

Saturday’s contentious meeting, which lasted two hours, was attended by numerous members of various Union committees, including President Michael-Akolade Ayodeji, ex-President Adam Roble, SU President and Union Secretary Anvee Bhutani, Returning Officer Chris Collins and a host of other senior members, including Charlie Mackintosh, Naman Gupta, Will Feasey, and Kesaia Toganivalu.

The first object on the agenda was a letter sent by former Treasurer Kesaia Toganivalu, one of the co-founders of ‘Not Here, Not Anymore’. The letter called out the Union’s decision to go ahead with the fashion show despite criticism. 

The letter cited NHNA’s criticism of the show, saying that “the Oxford Union Committee actively propagate a belief that those who come forward about sexual assault are doing so for political gain. In last term’s election on a campaigning level sexual violence was solely spoken about as something people would leverage for political gain”.

The Woman’s Officer, Serene Singh, who has taken a leading role in organising the fashion show then spoke, defended the show by describing its roots as an anti-suicide project. She went on to say that societies which had criticised the show misunderstood the event in its promo posters, but that It Happens Here were ultimately “fully in support.”  

Toganivalu then tried to make a point, but was stopped by Ayodeji. He then stopped Mackintosh from interjecting, saying “I’d like to get as many new points as possible”. Toganivalu would later dispute Singh’s claim that IHH had retrospectively endorsed the fashion show, saying that “it is factually not true.”

A spokesperson for It Happens Here confirmed to Cherwell that it decided not to be involved with the fashion show on Sunday 29th May after discussions with Union organisers. 

Ayodeji would frequently stop other speakers from making “points of order” and other such interruptions. Secretary’s Committee member Rosie Jacobs’ speech about the disregard for the feelings of female Junior Committee member was halted twice by Ayodeji, with Treasurer Gupta eventually asking “Why do you keep interrupting her?”. “I’m the Chair of this meeting”, the President responded.

After this, some of the show’s participants  spoke, describing the empowering effects that performing had had on them. In an emotionally charged moment, multiple committee members spoke about survivorship, and what the theme of the show meant to them.

Bhutani claimed that neither any Junior Members nor any Committee complained to her or asked questions in the three-month period between her election and the event going on. She described this lack of communication as “extremely disrespectful and hurtful.” Mackintosh attempted to reply, but was shut down by Ayodeji, who repeated “I am the chair.” 

The meeting broke into chaos shortly after proceedings restarted at 15:20. Mackintosh attempted  to replace Ayodeji with the Senior Welfare Officer as chair of the discussion. After a brief confusion over whether this was in fact constitutionally possible, the members of the Standing Committee present took a vote. 

Hegde, Mackintosh, Naman Gupta, Spencer Shia, and Matthew Dick voted to replace Ayodeji, whereas ex-president Adam Roble, Alex Garcia, Israr Khan, Bhutani, and Joshua Chima voted against. As a result of the draw, Ayodeji remained chair.

Bhutani read a statement from a junior committee member that had been sent to her in support of the fashion show. The Junior Committee member said that the way that It Happens Here had handled the situation was “awful”. If people were upset, she argued, they should have raised concerns earlier.

Anvee Bhutani told Cherwell that she was “ashamed and embarrassed” to be on the same governing body as three other individuals who called the meeting: “By calling this meeting, [they] gave the models a terribly disgraceful welcome and then forced them to recount and relive their trauma, from being abused as a child to having survived a suicide attempt, at the meeting table. Given that this was personally distressful for me, I can’t imagine how much worse this would have been for the models.”

Nearly two hours in, ex-president Adam Roble attempted to end the meeting. Ayodeji said he was “not inclined to let this meeting run much longer”, extending it by five minutes with many members still waiting to speak. Throughout the meeting, he said that he did not want the meeting to go on for too long, citing concerns about whether attendees would be “triggered” by the discussion.

The final intervention of the afternoon was by a female member of the Junior Appointed Committee. She described the meeting’s proceedings as “extremely disrespectful”, criticising the perceived silencing of junior members speaking out during the meeting. She said that senior leadership had “pit [sexual violence survivors] against other survivors”. 

She continued that the meeting had demonstrated that the Union was “not an encouraging environment for female members of [the] Committee to come forward”.

Her speech was met by a round of applause, including by Bhutani and Ayodeji.

A senior member told Cherwell that the chairmanship of the meeting was ‘abysmal’. They added: “A meeting which was called to discuss governance, and ensuring safeguarding and wellbeing in the Union, never touched on those topics.” 

Anvee Bhutani told Cherwell that the concerns raised by those who called the meeting “seemed like performative solidarity”. She added that the models said they “had never felt more safe or loved”.

Though “there were concerns raised about the event happening at the Union given [its] history”, “one of the key organisers of the event and a senior member of the committee was sexually harassed at the Union itself several times and this is their way of reclaiming this space,” Bhutani emphasised.

She concluded: “On the whole, it was evident that those who were against this show previously had a complete misunderstanding of what the show stood for. I honestly found it appalling that governing body members would think this is an appropriate item to table for discussion in this way and I think them trying to demean all those involved in making this event possible is absolutely vile. I seriously hope they take the time to reflect on their actions and the impact it had on everyone today.”

Michael-Akolade Ayodeji and other senior Union figures have been approached for comment. The article will be updated to reflect their responses.

This article was updated at 15:23 to include Anvee Bhutani’s statements.

Sexual Violence Resources

University of Oxford 

Sexual Harassment and Violence Support Service

Oxford against Sexual Violence campaign for students. 

Oxford University Counselling Service – 

[email protected]   01865 270300

Oxfordshire and United Kingdom 

https://www.osarcc.org.uk/

The Samaritans (open 24/7)   [email protected]   116123

Revenge Porn Helpline 

It Happens Here:

Join us at It Happens Here if you need support or want to learn more about what you can do to help the cause.

We run weekly wellbeing sessions for survivors and their allies (Safe Spaces project), which you can sign up for here. 

 If you have been affected by any of what has been raised in this article, please consult https://www.ithappenshere.co.uk/ where you can find a list of resources, ranging all the way from college level based support to national support services. We also have a short quiz you can take to signpost you to the most useful support service.

Image Credit: Topper the Wombat/ CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

The University must take a look at itself before dishing out trashing fines

Maurício Alencar
-
0
The University must take a look at itself before dishing out trashing fines

The University has lately been dishing out fines of up to £150 to students caught ‘trashing’. The SU criticised the University’s decision to fine students. The SU said that it opposed the University’s ‘top-down and paternalistic approach’ which “villifies, patronises and scapegoats students”, opposing the “disproportionate punishment” according to students’ different financial situations. The SU added that it is “not students’ responsibility to save the University money in order to run essential student services and facilities”. Right on. 

‘Trashing’ is what it says on the tin- wasting goods, destroying the environment. The authoritative measure might have otherwise been somewhat credible if the University had a clean and green history. 

While climate change is at the top of the University’s agenda in research and development, the University seems to have little qualms about accepting funds from the world’s mega polluters, such as INEOS (2021) and Shell (2013). In relation to INEOS’s donations, a statement from the Oxford Climate Justice Campaign last year said that it was a “clear example of greenwashing”.

Worse, Oxford was caught out by the Panama Papers using offshore tax havens to secretly invest millions of pounds into ventures which develop oil exploitation. This revelation dates from 2017, not long ago. Just imagine what else might be hidden behind unrevealed documents.

The University has made no no statement promising to cut ties to any major earth polluters. The University has not shown any willingness to cooperate with the SU’s Green Trashing Campaign or EcoTrash. It has essentially told students ‘we’re always right, you’re always wrong’. We’ve heard it all before. 

Students have been using lube for trashing, despite the threat of fines. The central issue for the University now is that the locus of trashing is not confined to the corner of Merton Street. Instead, confetti has littered the whole city, making the clean-up job ever more difficult. The University has made things all the more challenging for themselves; it must get its own house in order and still mop up the mess across Oxford.

There’s a blatant conflict of interest for the University to punish its students for trashing while failing to make public assurances about the source of its own donations and investments. You can’t punish students for the crimes you fuel. 

Image Credit: Philip Halling/CC BY-SA 2.0 via Geograph

“Rage and heartbreak” – Review: Medea

Anya Biletsky
-
0
“Rage and heartbreak” – Review: Medea

TW: graphic descriptions of death.

There is little quite so devastating and unexpected as a mother murdering her own children. The mindset and motivations behind such a deed are inexplicable – but this is precisely what fifth century Greek playwright Euripides explores in his tragedy Medea. The play, first performed at the dramatic festival at Athens in 431 BC, continues to inspire conflicting feelings amongst its audiences almost two and a half millennia later. This week, the New College Classical Drama Society staged their interpretation of this contentious play, transforming the New College cloisters into a fifth century Corinthian palace.

Featuring a considerable contingent of New College students in both the cast and the crew, this year New College’s annual Greek play was directed by Old Member Andrew Whiffin, who graduated in 1973. This is the first time the Greek play has not been directed by David Raeburn, acclaimed classicist and translator, who sadly passed away in 2021. The translation used for this staging of Medea is his – as stated in the programme, this decision was in “tribute to his unique contribution to New College Classics”.

New College’s Medea begins with an intensity that establishes the play’s consistently heightened emotional tone. Emily Osborne as the Nurse imbues every word of her opening monologue with the suitably frantic energy of a woman frightened and distressed by her raving mistress, who is threatening “death to the whole house”, as we soon find out. Indeed, Medea is a play with foreshadowing aplenty: the Tutor (Mortimer Blyth) reinforces the tension, stating that “there’s worse to come”. 

The first we experience of the protagonist (or perhaps antagonist) herself is the sound of her terrible screaming from inside the cloisters. Medea (Emily Hassan) is not yet visible to the audience, but her shouts of “io! io!” resound chillingly through the quad, preparing us for the thunderstorm that is to come. We share in the mounting trepidation of the Chorus of Corinthian women, played by eight cast members, plus a Chorus leader (Paige Allen), who are worried that “sorrow’s tide is powerfully sweeping in”. How right they are.

As Medea, Hassan’s powerful voice has inflections of rage and heartbreak in turn: she laments the sorrow of her situation, then seethes over Jason’s betrayal before plotting ways to wreak hideous vengeance. She is a truly frightening figure as she stalks the quad, coming right up to the audience and looking them in the eye as she delivers some of the most acerbic lines of the play.

Jason (Syren Singh), who has given up Medea for a new wife, is insufferably conceited and chauvinistic. Entering the stage resplendent in blue and gold, Jason gloats over Medea, his irritatingly blasé attitude in marked contrast to her aggravated state. Singh’s voice conveys the rhythmic undulations of Euripides’ metre, echoing the original Greek verse form of the play; Raeburn’s modern but melodic translation allows for this homage to be paid to the way in which the tragedy would have been performed in the fifth century BC. The Choral odes likewise show a keen awareness of the metrical nuances of the original Greek text, a true feat for a performance in English.

Flawless and subtle is Hassan’s portrayal of Medea’s trademark duplicity. After convincing an initially unrelenting Creon, whose nervous firmness is well conveyed by Kilian Meissner, to allow her to stay one more day in Corinth before her departure into eternal exile, Medea glances stealthily at the audience, and the traces of a smirk on her lips betray her true, malicious intent. Our dread on behalf of Creon clogs the evening air. We witness again Medea’s chilling smile when she successfully manipulates Aegeus (Danny Doyle-Vidaurre) into promising her asylum. Doyle-Vidaurre’s cheery portrayal of Aegeus affords a welcome moment of respite from the overall gloom of the play.

A particularly memorable scene is the Messenger’s (Ailbhe Sweeney) recount of the death of Princess Creusa and Creon. Sweeney singlehandedly and brilliantly re-enacts the horror of this scene; she physically recreates Creusa’s movements as the princess, poisoned by Medea’s deadly robe, “staggered sideways, her limbs all shaking”. Her own repulsion at the sight of Creusa’s flesh “oozing away from her bones” makes the audience recoil – it is entirely believable that she has witnessed this terror. All the while, Medea revels in the “hideous agony” Creusa and Creon suffered by her doing, her laughter clashing unnervingly against the Messenger’s stricken tone.

As the June sun sets, plunging the cloisters into soft orange-lilac light, the sun likewise sets on Medea’s relationship with Jason and her children, and we reach the explosive climax of the play. Blood-curdling screams of children from offstage confirm all our worst fears; the audience shudders in the cooling evening air. Jason and Medea’s final altercation takes place over the expanse of the quad, Medea standing in the cloisters and Jason on the grass, with the audience physically caught between them. I had wondered how the team would pull off this final scene, in which Medea traditionally stands in a chariot suspended above the stage, but they made excellent use of the space afforded by the New College cloisters to reflect the irrevocable emotional separation between Jason and Medea.

It is at this point that Jason’s hitherto haughty demeanour finally peels away, and he is left a shaking, stammering wreck as he begs Medea to allow him to hold his sons’ corpses one last time. The role reversal is striking, horrifying and poignant; it is here that we truly sympathise with Jason.

In advance of opening night, the Classical Drama Society had asked followers on social media, “are you #TeamMedea or #TeamJason?” A mark of a truly successful staging of Medea, the audience left New College’s production as torn about this question as ever. 

Image credit: Marius Maxwell.

‘You know that you’re witnessing history’: CNN’s Clarissa Ward at the Union

Charlie Hancock
-
0
‘You know that you’re witnessing history’: CNN’s Clarissa Ward at the Union

CW: Violence

Kharkiv, 24th February, 4am Kyiv time. No sooner had Vladimir Putin finished an impromptu speech in which he announced the start of a ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine, then the first artillery barrages of the war began. The off-record intelligence Clarissa Ward and her team had received from CNN’s stateside offices was correct: Russia was going to invade Ukraine.

Addressing an audience at the Oxford Union, the CNN Chief International Correspondent said she’d considered the prospect of war “crazy”. In spite of the increasing presence of Russian troops along the Ukrainian border, Ukrainians she’d spoken to did not seem to think – at least publicly – that Russia would invade. Neither did many journalists who had covered the 2008 Russo-Georgian war and 2014 annexation of Crimea. It didn’t make sense. “There was no clear victory for President Putin to achieve. And even at that stage, with a much different understanding of what that would look like and how quickly the Ukrainian forces would capitulate, it still didn’t seem to make any sense,” she said. 

The imminent threat of a war which wasn’t seeming to materialise could have been part of a strategy for Russia to achieve diplomatic objectives. But after Putin gave a speech on 21st February in which he recognised the independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, two seperatist-held regions in Eastern Ukraine, she realised “there was always going to be a war”. There was no bluff.

“Not only do you know that you’re witnessing history,” she said, recalling the first attack on Kharkiv. “You know that you can’t fully get your arms around everything that’s happening. But you also know that your only job is to be on air and describe what you’re seeing.”

Born in the UK and educated at Yale University, Clarissa Ward started her career as a journalist in the aftermath of the September 11th Attacks. She told the Union that, like many Americans, she felt a sense of a “calling” after the Twin Towers fell, and wondered what her role in responding to that moment could be. She was struck by the misunderstandings and miscommunications which led to the attack, and became fixated on finding out not only who was responsible, but how the world saw America versus how America saw itself. 

Her first overseas job was a three month long internship at the CNN bureau in Moscow. After that, she wanted to get a job in the newsroom. CNN was her first choice, since she started watching it “religiously day and night” after 9/11, but they were unable to immediately offer her a job. Instead, she was hired by Fox News to man the night-shift. “I had no life, I had zero life”, she said, comparing how close she felt to achieving her dream in Moscow to how far away it felt at that point. But the night-shift meant that Ward could talk to journalists in Baghdad when they woke up seven hours ahead of New York. After experiencing the invasion of Iraq vicariously through their dispatches, she convinced Fox News to send her to Baghdad, where she quit her job and established herself as a freelance journalist based in Beirut.

Ward was never interested in pursuing a career covering domestic politics, and even turned down an offer to be on the Presidential campaign trail with Hillary Clinton. Being an international correspondent has allowed her to be a witness to many of the most dramatic events in recent history, including the 2011 earthquake in Japan and conflicts ranging from Iraq and Afghanistan, to Yemen and Syria.  When asked about how much agency she has to choose the stories she pursues, she told Cherwell that while she knows that it’s necessary for her to cover massive stories when they break, she is able to pitch and cover stories she feels passionately about. One under-the-radar story she investigated in 2019 to Emmy-winning success was the Russian government’s deployment of mercenaries known as the ‘Wagner Group’ in the Central African Republic.

Ward also worked with Bellingcat to investigate the poisoning of Russian opposition figurehead Alexey Navalny. She told Cherwell that she had not done any stories with Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation since the 2020 investigation, but has remained in touch with Navalny’s team.

When asked by Union Librarian Charlie Mackintosh about the most challenging environment she had worked in, Ward described how several of her colleagues and friends were captured by both the Assad regime and ISIS when covering the war in Syria, adding “the situation became so dangerous that journalists basically stopped going for very good reasons”. In 2016, she went undercover in rebel-held regions of the country, and was later invited to speak at the UN Security Council about the horrors civilians were living through. “My first day on that trip we saw a fruit market get bombed for no reason. A ten year old boy, two women, and a handful of other people were killed,” she told the Union.

“When you come back from a place like Aleppo, you really struggle to embrace joy and love,” she replied to a question about how she takes care of her mental health after working in combat zones. She described how while she could feel like people at home don’t understand the environment she’s returned from, it’s crucial to reintegrate into everyday life. She also stressed the importance to journalists of finding outlets such as therapy to deal with the traumatic events they witness.

“You’re not always the cleverest person in the room,” she said when asked what advice she had for students at Oxford University at the end of her talk. “And if you are, it doesn’t matter because you can learn so much from listening. I feel like as a culture, we’ve lost track of that. Listen, be curious, and be open.”

Image: The Oxford Union

Northern Ireland’s three-way split

Thomas Evans
-
0
Northern Ireland’s three-way split

For the first time since the foundation of Northern Ireland, a nationalist/republican party with the expressed aim of a united Ireland is the largest party in Stormont, the Northern Irish parliament. Sinn Fein received the most first preference votes, the largest vote share, and the most seats in the 5th May election, returning 27 Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) out of the 90 positions up for grabs. As part of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, power-sharing between representative parties of the two ethno-nationalist communities in Northern Ireland is a prerequisite for a devolved administration. So, if the two largest parties following the election – nationalist/republican Sinn Fein and the unionist/loyalist Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) -manage to strike a deal and form a power-sharing executive, Sinn Fein’s Michelle O’Neil will become First Minister. This would be a monumental milestone in the history of Northern Ireland, which has had a unionist Premier since the country’s establishment in 1921. 

The cross-community Alliance Party was the other big winner of the election. Despite a marginal decrease in vote-share, Alliance increased its returned MLA count by nine – the largest increase of any party in the election. The Social Democratic Unionist Party (SDLP) and the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) both lost seats (four and one, respectively) and vote share. The Green Party has been completely wiped out, losing their only two MLAs in the Assembly. But it is the DUP who has been the most impacted. The DUP remains the largest unionist party in Stormont with 25 seats, but it lost 6.5% of the vote share and three seats The resulting electoral landscape in Northern Ireland is complex, with patterns going beyond the traditional divide of ‘orange’ and ‘green’ – shorthand for the politics of unionism and nationalism respectively. Broadly, three distinct patterns can be seen: the holding of the Sinn Fein vote, intra-unionist competition, and what looks to be the establishment of a non-aligned third force in Northern Irish politics. 

On the latter, the rise of Alliance, largely at the expense of the SDLP and the UUP, conforms to trends existing since 2006 in Northern Ireland, with an increasing number of people identifying with neither party. Last year, the politics Professor Emeritus Professor John Coakley (University College Dublin and QUB), noted that “a new middle ground is indeed slowly emerging in Northern Ireland”, where changing domestic priorities and increased immigration will produce dynamics in which lower-preference votes are given to parties of the centre (Coakley, 2020: 47). The 5th May election results appear to reflect this. Polling revealed consistent big issues for voters were healthcare and the rising cost of living, not border polls or the Northern Ireland Protocol (which governs customs and immigration issues at the Irish / Northern Irish border post-Brexit). 

As Alliance rises, the UUP and the SDLP, formerly the two largest parties and governmental partners between the establishment of devolution in 1998 and 2002, have continued their downward trajectory. The future looks bleak for these two. Despite the UUP’s attempt to burnish its progressive liberal image under a new leader Doug Beattie, the hoped ‘Beattie Bounce’ fell noticeably short, and the SDLP also faces a painful post-electoral reckoning. It seems unclear where these parties can position themselves. On national issues both parties have been long outbid by the DUP and Sinn Fein respectively, and on middle-ground issues such as health and social care, the economy, and integrated education, the parties look to have been overtaken by Alliance. If the UUP and the SDLP want to stay relevant in Northern Ireland, they must find a way of navigating these two forces.

Sinn Fein has done a much better job at retaining vote-share and seats than its longstanding partner in government. The lack of significant intra-nationalist electoral competition along the lines of the intra-unionist fallout that the DUP has faced in regards to the Northern Ireland Protocol helps explain why the DUP has been knocked into second place. Sinn Fein have become the largest party despite only a modest increase in its vote share (1.1%), and no gained seats. They have also played a tactical game by focusing primarily on social issues this election, such as the cost of living and healthcare investment, and largely avoiding overt messaging that a vote for the party was a vote for Irish unity. They didn’t have to, since the campaign for Irish unity  is obviously the foundational tenet of an organisation that was set up as the political wing of the Provisional IRA (PIRA),and with no intra-nationalist challenger, this left campaigning space and energy for messaging on social issues. Additionally, Sinn Fein has done a good job of keeping its traditional working class voting bases with the party while developing beyond this. Throughout and after the Northern Irish Conflict known as ‘the Troubles’, Sinn Fein developed community structures within republican areas. Many of these community centres are still functioning, and Sinn Fein maintains a strong presence within its traditional heartlands in working class nationalist communities while additionally increasing appeals to a generation born after 1998 and middle class voters. April 2022 polling data showed that Sinn Fein had a dominance of planned first-preference votes in the 18-24 demographic (38% compared to the SDLPs meger 2% in the same cohort), and among middle class, working class, and “other” voting blocks (27%, 29% and 23% respectively). This is not to say that there are no issues within creating this type of ‘big tent’ voting coalition. In certain areas of traditional support, notably areas of Derry, the party has suffered from allegations of ‘jobs for the boys’ and perceptions of the monopolisation of the community sector and peace-funding allocation. Independent councillors took five seats off Sinn Fein on Derry and Strabane District Council in 2019, including the former dissident-republican prisoner Garry Donnelly (who still retains his seat) in the Creggan area of the city, a republican stronghold. Sinn Fein is clearly aware of its vulnerability here, and removed the leadership of the local Sinn Fein Cumann (Irish for ‘branch’), including both its MLAs in 2021. Despite this, the collapse of the SDLP and Sinn Fein’s holding of the vote in Northern Ireland, and its spectacular growth in the Republic of Ireland where the party stands at 36% support – putting it on course to win the next election if this is accurate and voter support holds – puts the party in a very healthy position going forward. 

In comparison, the DUP placed the national question at the centre of its electoral messaginghighlighting the thorny issue of the Northern Ireland Protocol and the party’s position as the only blockade against a Sinn Fein victory. The largest challenge for the DUP now clearly lies to its right. Though the Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV) won’t be sending another MLA to join its leader, Jim Allister, in Stormont, the party can claim success in its increase in votes by five percentage points, having challenged the DUP in key battlegrounds like North Antrim and Strangford. It remains to be seen if the TUV will be able to capitalise on its gains from this election, but it has clearly had a huge spoiler effect (a product of vote-splitting) on the DUP, waging a consistent campaign on the Northern Ireland Protocol and eventually contributing to the DUP’s collapse of Stormont. It is unclear what the DUP can do to win back support lost chiefly to the TUV. Ideally, the party should focus on the needs of the communities it represents, for example by alleviating the cost of living crisis and increasing opportunities. This can only be achieved by re-entering Stormont as a constructive partner of government. However, it seems likely that in practice we will see a hardening of positions, not pragmatic politics.

On this point, it is unclear when the DUP will decide to re-enter Stormont, if at all. Failing to re-enter would in effect leave Northern Ireland ruled from Westminster. As the largest unionist party, the DUP is required to nominate a Deputy First Minister and agree a power-sharing executive with Sinn Fein. It is unclear how the party can do this, considering recent statements made by its leader Jeffery Donaldson over refusing to re-enter Stormont until the Northern Ireland Protocol is essentially removed, and the perverse but tempting electoral benefits which could emerge by hardening their position in the face of TUV pressure. Critics of Northern Ireland’s ethnic-tribune system note that the political structure produces what is known as ‘centrifugalism’, whereby parties are rewarded for hard-line appeals to one community to outbid others from within the same ethno-nationalist block. As the TUV’s vote share increase maps largely onto DUP loses, a continuing period of intra-unionist jockeying seems likely. 

Northern Ireland has had periods of power-sharing collapse and reversion to direct rule by Westminster twice since 1998. The longest collapse, from 2002-2007, occurred after the police service of Northern Ireland believed that they had discovered a PIRA spy ring in Stormont, which resulted in the arrest of three Sinn Fein members, though these charges were eventually dropped. The most recent collapse lasted from 2017 to 2020 and was caused by the ‘cash for ash’ green energy scandal tied to then DUP leader and First Minister Arlene Foster and the DUP’s refusal to agree to an Irish Language Act as a precondition for resuming Stormont. Northern Ireland will face serious problems if Stormont collapses again, most notably the lack of leadership and the inability to pass budgets. This comes at a time when the region – which includes some of the most deprived areas in the United Kingdom – faces a growing cost of living crisis. 

A collapse of Stormont would also likely be seized upon by republicans opposed to the GFA – so-called “dissidents” – for whom it would offer a clear way of discrediting the existing system of politics in Northern Ireland. It must be stressed that ‘physical force republicanism’ is small, fragmented, largely constrained to specific areas in Northern Ireland, and lacks the capability of the Provisional IRA. But Northern Ireland risks a perfect storm of growing deprivation combined with feelings of disenfranchisement among the nationalist/republican community. Groups which recruit in areas of low income and poor opportunity provision, and who utilise historical parallels to highlight continued repression and the supposed failure of the post-GFA state and the peace process, would likely benefit from another Stormont collapse. Loyalist paramilitarism would also likely be strengthened by this political vacuum for the same reasons. 

So where next for Northern Ireland? Despite Sinn Fein’s success, a referendum on Irish unification is unlikely to occur anytime soon, despite the party’s president Mary Lou McDonald now talking about holding a border poll within the next five years. Unionist parties across Stormont still hold a slim majority, and there remain plenty of obstacles in the way of Irish unity. However, this election demonstrates that the likelihood is certainly not decreasing, and Sinn Fein has demonstrated its hegemony in nationalist politics. The growth of Alliance, meanwhile, raises an interesting dilemma for how to accommodate non-aligned parties (and voters) into a political system developed to bridge intractable conflict between unionists and nationalists. 

Once again Northern Ireland is entering into a period of governmental uncertainty. There are challenges across the country which can only be solved by strong, cross-community,good-faith leadership. When Stormont resumed in 2020, roughly three years after the last collapse, it was spurred on in a large part by the death of the journalist Lyra Mckee, who was shot by a gunman of the New IRA in Derry following street disturbances. Parties should remember what can occur when a political vacuum is allowed to manifest and their obligations to govern in the coming days and weeks.

Image credit: Dom0803 / CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

The changing role of Christianity in British society

Jack Twyman
-
0
The changing role of Christianity in British society

In 2018 a survey found that 70% of young Brits aged 16–29 had no religious affiliation. Yet the country as a whole remains firmly religious with the large majority (59% as of 2011) identifying Christian. It seems that we are at the pinnacle of a great social upheaval; Christianity remains firmly imprinted in the national psyche, even as it fades from its once prominent position. Understanding in which directions society will go as it breaks free from religion is of utmost importance to social planners, politicians, and all of us. Britain is entering the beginnings of a social experiment like no other. Atheism looks set to become the biggest group belief. And so, we need to find another way of living. Another way to ‘love thy neighbour’. Another way to find a purpose in life. This development is perhaps particularly surprising given the way that Christianity is so tightly integrated into many British institutions and much of British culture. 

My childhood is emblematic of the Christian-oriented upbringing that many in this country experience. I went to a Church of England primary school and was brought up with Christian values, forced to recite the Lord’s Prayer and sing hymns, regardless of what my true beliefs actually were, and regardless of the fact that my peer group encompassed a variety of faiths.  Quite how this is allowed in our supposedly secular state is baffling. The double standards with attitudes to Islamic schools is obvious, with much controversy and debate surrounding their presence, while many Christian schools continue with none of the sort. Christianity is presented as persisting in the performance of the national psyche, whether that be church bells ringing or Christmas festivities.

The celebration of Christian festivals, particularly Easter and Christmas, has become normalised in our multicultural society. A comparison with how the holidays of other religions are treated illustrates the point; for example, many people see Jews celebrating Hanukkah or Passover as a primarily religious activity, regardless of whether the Jews in question identify as religious or not.  By contrast, celebrating Christmas or Easter can be seen as totally secular just because of how much Christian traditions are normalised as part of British culture, and plenty of non-Christian or non-religious households feel comfortable decorating a Christmas tree, when it (probably rightly) would feel strange for them to light a chanukiah. For me, growing up, every Christmas, there would be the annual school nativity play, in which the nativity story was presented as fact. And then Father Christmas would deliver your presents. When Santa Claus was shown to be a marketing ploy and nothing else, your faith which had developed as a child went under the most stringent of tests. Is it a coincidence that most people lose their faith in their teenage years? The ONS 2011 census showed a dramatic difference between a larger percentage of people who identify with a faith from 0-15 years old and then a drop of over 50% in the 16-24 category.

I recently went to a church service out of curiosity as to how Christianity is being practised today. As I sat in there, I was told that “To be a Christian today means to be an exile, much like Peter was”. It shocked me that this was being openly preached. Did he forget that our head of state is Christian? Or that our school terms revolve around Christian holidays? Or that the flag of our country is derived from the symbol of a Christian saint? It was as if everything I had studied and read about the hardlining of Christian identity was appearing in reality. As I sat there my suspicions felt confirmed. Regardless of the joy of the worship songs, or the promised feeling of belonging, I couldn’t escape feeling that it was for me an uncomfortable precedent.    

As a gay person I don’t always feel comfortable with religion. I know how much it’s been used to persecute fellow members of my community, and how it continues to torture them through conversion therapy. Yet I can still see the attraction of it; religion can be a means to do good, or at least to provide a moral framework.  Without this guideline where do our ethics come from? Kindness? Compassion? It’s a dilemma that we have yet to fully embrace. One group that seeks to undertake this challenge is the Humanists: a broad global movement with a common goal of building a community with shared values but without a religious aspect. Humanists UK defines a humanist as someone who “trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works, rejects the idea of the supernatural, makes ethical decisions based on reason and empathy, and  believes that human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same.” It sounds rather good, and they claim to have millions of followers in the UK. Surely caring for the planet and others is a noble endeavour?

Yet it is precisely in the empowerment of individuals that issues arise. Who defines what is relatively ethical, and how can we know that they are right? On the other hand, while religion can help to define a group’s ethics and so act as a source of peace and cohesion, it also can divide and has served as the justification of many horrors. Take apartheid in South Africa; it was justified by the Afrikaners through religion. At the same time, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which helped the country come to terms with the past and move on based its messages on the Christian principle of forgiveness. But did they really need Christianity to forgive? Did they even have a moral obligation to forgive? Humanists would question this. 

The role of the church in British communities has been entrenched as a seemingly immovable presence for centuries. Even in Oxford, while the built environment and land use has changed drastically, a quick look at old maps will show that the churches that pervade the city today have been present for nearly a thousand years. The decline of churches and the conversion of many into new spaces – take Freud bar in Oxford for example – have had profound consequences for the societies they inhabit. For instance, the death of social network programming in south-eastern US with the decline in churches has worsened the situation of some of the most vulnerable in society. During the evacuation of Afghanistan in August 2021, churches in the UK played an important role in taking in Muslim refugees and providing basic essentials for them. Of course, community centres also played an important role in this, suggesting that better funding of community centres and schemes – a vital necessity in the face of declining church numbers (only 1% of the population now regularly attend a Church of England Sunday service) – could fill the void left by the decline of religious institutions.

I respect the view that there is much wisdom to be learned from the Bible: many valuable lessons about how to live a fulfilled, and contented life. But is the meaning still true when separated from the faith they originate from? In many cases, I think yes. Being respectful, kind, caring, and helping the less fortunate are all noble endeavours. But it is simultaneously true that the Bible has been used to impose stringent controls over people’s behaviour and identity. Here it is clear to see that the way faith is upheld shifts with the time. For younger generations some ‘theological’ debates are no longer relevant: do I care that some religious texts allegedly say that homosexuality is wrong? Absolutely not. My identity is neither validated nor invalidated by scripture. In the words of the US Secretary of Transport Pete Buttigieg, “If me being gay was a choice, it was a choice that was made far, far above my pay grade […] if  you’ve got a problem with who I am, your problem is not with me. Your quarrel, sir, is with my creator”. Yet there are many religious gay people out there; they combine their faith with their true identity in a way that I think is pioneering.

Regardless of the growth of atheism in Britain, the relevance of Christianity in the world at large today is doubtless. Since the beginning of the Ukrainian invasion, the Russian Orthodox church has played a significant role in sustaining public support for the military effort. Indeed, since Russia’s post-Soviet reformation, religion has become a powerful form of social control. Conservative Christians have seemingly hijacked national sentiment in the US. It turned sharply to Christianity during the Cold War, to combat the ‘godless USSR’; this  resulted in President Eisenhower changing the national motto from ‘E Pluribus Unum’ (From Many, One) to ‘In God We Trust’. The sentiment clearly persists in the ‘radical left’ narrative pervading conservative airwaves today; being aetheist can be political suicide in the US.

Christianity will still persist and like anything under a perceived threat, it is ripe for the pressures of extremism to pervade it. The rise of white Christian nationalists in the Western world will continue to pose an issue for national security; we can already see how conservative Christians have seemingly hijacked national sentiment in the USA. Is using religion to justify attacks on civil liberty or bodily autonomy really religious in origin? I think most would agree that Christianity has been distorted and moulded to suit the political motives of these groups. One thing is for certain: we are firmly entering the post-Christian era in the UK. Will we have an atheist Prime Minister in a few years? The leader of the opposition and labour party, Sir Keir Starmer, is an atheist, so it is a real possibility. What the country decides to do with the religious relics that scatter the physical and imagined fabric of the country will determine to what extent Christianity fades from our collective psyche.

Christianity has played a unique role in my life. I was brought up a Christian, I was christened, attended Church services, and was instilled with Christian values for the entirety of my primary school days. It was the realisation of my sexuality that ran parallel with my realisation that religious folks who espouse homophobia have no basis to their argument. Their belief is just a belief, because for me my existence is reality. Ultimately this undermined my faith in its entirety. And I began to see the often patriarchal nature of Christianity (with God as the ‘King of Kings’) as evidence for it being a social tool and not something I wanted to be part of. Christianity is still the world’s largest religion and its influence is huge. Yet in the changing trends of religious belief in this country, it is shifting out of its position of dominance. Perhaps this reflects the freedom of thought we enjoy nowadays and our largely improved situations compared to our historical counterparts. Is it not in the face of suffering or sorrow that religion becomes most attractive? 

Image credit: Dillif / CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Union president Michael-Akolade Ayodeji facing resignation calls after bullying complaints

Isaac Ettinghausen
-
0
Union president Michael-Akolade Ayodeji facing resignation calls after bullying complaints

Members of the Oxford Union, including librarian Charlie Mackintosh, made official complaints accusing Trinity Term President Michael-Akolade Ayodeji of bullying and sexism, following a week of controversies over a debate and a fashion show. Ayodeji is currently also president-elect of the Oxford Student Union.

Issues were raised in the chamber following the President’s rescindment of a speech on the debate “This House Believes The Raj Lives On”. Disha Hegde, a member of the Standing Committee, made a Facebook post on Thursday morning saying that Ayodeji had visited her the night before to tell her that she would not be speaking in the debate, with no reason given.

Hegde wrote: “This debate meant a lot to me, as an opportunity to talk about my country and my culture in such a historic debate. Before she passed away, my grandma and I used to watch videos of the Oxford Union debates together. I’m not really sure how I’m supposed to tell my mum who was coming down to Oxford with my Grandma’s sari for me to wear.”

Hegde continued: “While I do think the way I’ve been treated is symptomatic of a larger problem of the culture at the Union, I won’t get on to that right now.” 

Two members, Librarian Charlie Mackintosh and Secretary’s Committee member Joe Murray announced their intention to raise questions over Ayodeji’s conduct at the Public Business Meeting (PBM), scheduled to take place before the debate. 

This follows a schism within the Union over a planned fashion show; several members of the committee, including the Chief of Staff, Chloe Glynn, and the Chair of the Consultative Committee, Alex Fish, registered complaints over the event. They cited some committee members’ discomfort at being expected to work at the show, as they believed the Union was “not a safe space for women”. Though these concerns were expressed to Ayodeji and Secretary Anvee Bhutani, the event will still go on this Saturday.

There was commotion after Ayodeji made the decision to postpone the PBM to after the debate – a move which is conventionally followed by a public vote. Murray stood to ask “on what ground?” after which the president continued without acknowledging the opposition. 

After this, Hegde stood, saying “‘You are suppressing a member’s right to speak”. Ayodeji appeared unfazed, after which Dhruv Sengupta, another member present, stood to say “‘you can laugh all you want, you can either take it to a vote or ignore the rules of democracy.”

Following this fracas, about 40 members in the chamber stood and left. A member of the Union’s committee described it as a “shitshow”. Another member in attendance told Cherwell that “I’m sickened to have voted for a president of a debating society who doesn’t want to facilitate good debate. He’s a twat.”

Once the debate ended and the PBM started, the atmosphere in the chamber quickly became hostile. Mackintosh, the librarian – the second most senior post in the organisation – rose to stand opposite Ayodeji at the dispatch box. He began his questioning by asking the president to explain the postponement of the PBM. Ayodeji initially refused to answer, but when pressed – with Mackintosh citing how two other notices had been read out – he explained it as a matter of courtesy to the invited guests.

Ayodeji denied Mackintosh’s claim that three separate individuals had had opportunities to speak rescinded. Mackintosh then asked whether the rescindment of Hegde’s invitation was fair, given that it took place fewer than 24 hours before the debate, to which members of her family intended to travel. Ayodeji responded that he had offered her an opportunity to take part in a floor speech,a privilege open to all members.

Mackintosh asked whether it was true that he had “reduced female members of committee to tears on several occasions”. Ayodeji responded: “As we both know, I work very hard to make the Union and the University an inclusive space.” Mackintosh didn’t accept this, asking: “Then why did I have to sit at 1AM today comforting a crying member of committee due to the manner in which you spoke to them?”. Ayodeji simply replied “I don’t know.”

Mackintosh ended his questioning by addressing the audience, saying “I think the questions and the answers this evening speak for themselves.”

Joe Murray, a member of the Secretary’s Committee, continued Mackintosh’s line of questioning, asking whether it was true that multiple people have threatened to resign over Ayodeji’s treatment of them. Ayodeji refused to comment on the “various reasons as to why people want to step away from the Union.”

Murray asked “In light of the events that have unfolded, which are a great embarrassment, do you think that you should resign?” Ayodeji retorted, “I do not.”

Joe Murray told Cherwell that he brought his questions to the chamber “as a public business meeting, because too many in the Union do not feel heard. I am doing this on behalf of them. Accountability is crucial in any student society, and I seek to uphold that in the Union.”

As events came to a close, with members in the chamber well after midnight following over two hours of infighting and hostility, the Deputy Returning Officer addressed Mackintosh, asking a question sure to cut to the core of the Union’s internal politics: “are there more members here to watch the Public Business Meeting than the debate which just happened?”

Michael-Akolade Ayodeji, Anvee Bhutani, Disha Hegde, and Charlie Mackintosh have been approached for comment. This article will be updated to reflect their responses. 

Image Credit: Nato via flickr.com

This article amended an issue pertaining to the fashion show at 13:46 03/06/22

1...246247248...2,515Page 247 of 2,515

Support Student Journalism

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.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by James Ashley