A varsity society match like no other; an ACS affair
Following a long coach ride departing from the sunny skies and blue gates of Trinity college, the football team and its loyal band of travelling fans arrived under looming dark clouds in Cambridge, sizing up the truly massive St John’s college Cambridge sports grounds, the stage upon which the theatre of football would take place.
With the Cambridge team, sporting oddly oxford blue-ish bibs, made their way to the pitch, the ref blew his whistle kicking off the game. The Oxford support couldn’t be louder, the Cambridge side-line support lacked lustre. This became a trend, blue bibs donned by the Cambridge crew looked inferior to the coordinated custom black, white and gold jerseys worn by Oxford’s ACS team. Cardboard signs and chants littered across the Oxford supporters, with an atmosphere rivalling Anfield. Cambridge were more like London stadium-esque.
Still, the home team managed to put a goal in the back of the net first. The Oxford crowd and players stunned, despite their shabby appearance and lack of fan support, the Cambridge ACS seemed a challenge. One goal down but much of the first half still to play, there was still no panic from the away side, just determination, within the next five minutes Oxford’s team began to gel and gain more and more possession.
For this they gained their two rewards with Oxford netting an equaliser and then putting themselves ahead before the half time whistle. By this time a steady Cambridge support began to develop, with the home side support becoming larger. Unfortunately in the time in which the Cambridge support streamed in, the Oxford side had begun to play more confidently and fluidly as the Cambridge side began to fall apart. Half time was a welcome pause for them to refocus their game plan and make some much needed substitutions.
As the whistle blew and the second half kicked off, fortune fled the Cambridge side, quickly replaced with misery. It seemed that the Oxford side, who were already dominant by the end of the 1st half, had decided to enter second gear. Rain began to pour down on the sports ground, and as umbrellas lifted high, it was clear the prospects for the Cambridge side fell low. Three consecutive Oxford goals, with no Cambridge attack in this period indicated the size of their woes, the worst of these being a penalty which reflected the unconsolidated defence Cambridge had to offer.
With 10 minutes to go and 6 consecutive goals conceded by the Cambridge side, times were looking rough for Cam ACS, playing to see the game out, knowing that while conceding 6 was humiliating, 7 would be atrocious. Yet even this task was made difficult by the skills of the Oxford ACS players. Cam ACS were in serious trouble, lacking the ability to make more than two passes before they found themselves dispossessed, tackled or turning over the ball unintentionally, as this point the seventh goal looked inevitable
But in the spirit of Cambridge, those noisy neighbours couldn’t keep it down. After a match of outstanding saves, the Oxford goalie made a mistake, to which the Cambridge side, deprived of chances throughout the game, did not hesitate to maximise putting it at the back of the net. Incredible! Momentum swung. cheers erupted from Cambridge support, even if this goal was going to be consolation only. But a minute later, a swift Cambridge attack lead to another goal! Where was this side hiding?
With two minutes to go, was there actually a chance Cambridge could turn it around? Four goals in deficit and around 2 minutes to play, surely it couldn’t be possible right?
Before you could ask, Cambridge had another! The Cambridge support roared seeing their side outplay the other The formerly resigned Cambridge side were on fire and Oxford with a five-goal lead cut to two looked almost vulnerable. The dominant Oxford ACS had disappeared, replaced with one searching for a full-time whistle. 3 goals in five minutes was not what anyone had predicted.
Well…when the ruckus of celebration had died down, the sight of the linesman waving his flag furiously called time on the Cambridge celebration and ultimately the game, as a discussion between linesman and referee while the clock ticked on, led to the goal being disallowed and the full-time whistle ever closer. With a final kick, the game saw its close with the away side storming for glory towards their supporters.
In a game in which the Cambridge side saw bursts of greatness at the very start and end, it was unquestionably Oxford ACS’s deserved victory. Once the full-time whistle blew, in the midst of disappointment and jubilation, we are still united in the pride of having an ACS in both Oxford and Cambridge
Image credit: Oxford ACS
Will we no longer accept religious views in political positions?
Kate Forbes launched her SNP leadership campaign in prime position as the bookies’ favourite. Within 24 hours her campaign was leading the conversation and headlining the news. But not for the reasons she wanted.
In her initial media round when questioned over her previously stated views on same-sex marriage, Forbes doubled down. She expressed personal disapproval of same-sex marriage, pre-marital sex, and also reiterated personal opposition to the recent Scottish Gender Recognition Act. The basis of these views? Her religion. Forbes is an active member of the Free Church of Scotland, an evangelical and Calvinist denomination of Christianity which believes that the Bible is God’s word.
This is certainly not the first time that a political career has been hampered by religious views. Notably, Tim Farron’s leadership of the Liberal Democrats was dogged by his Christian beliefs. He resigned after poor results in the 2017 General Election, stating that he had become “torn between living as a faithful Christian and serving as a political leader”.
As someone about to write a Master’s thesis on the theme of promoting religious diversity and tolerance, something made me feel uneasy about this situation. Would it have been better for Forbes to be dishonest in the face of questions over her views? Must politicians strip themselves of all personal religious beliefs? I do not support Forbes’ views, nor would I vote for her, nor am I at all invested in the success of the SNP – but answering ‘Yes’ to either of the previous two questions seems deeply problematic if we are to build a religiously diverse and tolerant society.
Partly it appears to come down to the question: ‘What do we want from our politicians?’. Scotland, and the United Kingdom, operates under the premise of representative democracy – we vote for people to represent us. But do we want elected members who ‘represent’ us in the sense that they will most effectively and competently advocate for our needs and interests, or do we want to elect those who ‘represent’ us in the sense of having a similar background to us (looking, acting, and thinking like we do). Whilst often there are, rightly, calls to increase the notice given to the latter type of representation, in moves to increase opportunities for minority representation – it would seem on the whole we vote with the first type of representation in mind. This is particularly the case when voting in constituency-based systems (Single Member Districts in Holyrood Elections) where one is not just voting for their local representative, but also with the make-up of the national government in mind.
Yet, if we are voting for politicians to represent our interests most effectively, and to form the most competent governments, then should we not accept a distinction between a politician’s personal views and their professional views. This is perhaps particularly the case when situations such as the cost of living crisis and the Ukraine war increase the need for effective governance more than ever. If the intention is not to represent us in the second sense, but primarily the first, then can we not accept that politicians personally hold views, which they do not intend to represent in their professional capacity, and thus will not be involved in their policy direction or their campaign pledges.
In her Sky News interview, Forbes initially retorts: “You’re asking me if I would impose my views on other people”. She is quite clear that this is not the case. She goes on to say, “for me, it would be wrong according to my faith, but for you I have no idea what your faith is. So, in a free society you can do what you want.” Does this particular quote not illustrate exactly the attitude that is required if we are to promote a diverse and yet tolerant society? A distinction between the personal and private vs. the professional and public. A mutual respect that, as individuals, we can hold views and engage in discussion and attempted persuasion on such views, but that at the end of the day each individual is at liberty to hold their own private views, so long as it causes others no harm.
In other jobs equality protections around religion as a protected characteristic are clear, although often tested. Where one’s private religion does not negatively interfere with their professional capacity one cannot be discriminated against. Forbes has promised she will “not roll back on any rights that already exist in Scotland”, and ultimately is the leader of a party that will collectively decide policy, not a sole dictator. Her personal views will not become SNP policy. But is the problem here that politics is different to other jobs? Are we unable to untangle the personal from the professional in politics? Either consciously, through active campaigning or profiling such views via their platform, or subconsciously, through biases during voting and equal interactions with constituents – perhaps politics is a profession where the interwoven nature of personal and professional is too messy to separate. After all, we are particularly interested in the personal lives of politicians – most recently, the character and misdemeanours of Boris Johnson became one of the many reasons for his downfall.
Forbes’ response to this? She cites the example of Angela Merkel, former Chancellor of Germany, who in 2017 allowed a Bundestag vote on same-sex marriage. The vote passed, and Merkel implemented the legislation – but Merkel had personally voted against the legislation, voting instead in line with her ‘conscience’ on the issue. Despite her personal opposition, Merkel stated after the vote that she hoped the result “not only promotes respect between different opinions but also brings more social cohesion and peace.”
There is undoubtedly a major problem of politicians with a platform holding views that, if promulgated, would reduce individuals’ rights. And we should use the ballot box and campaigns to ensure that progressive views are promoted. But if we also advocate for a tolerant and diverse community which promotes freedoms, including religious freedom, then it seems wrong to preclude someone from a professional political role purely on the basis of private religious beliefs. If Forbes is right that the crux of the Sky interview questioning was to ask if she would impose her views on other people, then are we hypocritical to embolden ourselves to impose our views on her? I will not proclaim to give the answer, but if we are to move forward into a truly tolerant and diverse community with a representative political system then these are the questions we must face.
Image credit: Leslie Barrie / CC BY_SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons
“State of the Art”: Why the Schwarzman Centre for the Humanities is a Revolutionary Project for the Future of Oxford
After a ground breaking ceremony on the 23rd of February, work has officially begun on the £185 million (including an additional £10 million announced last week), 200,000 brick Schwarzman Centre for the Humanities. It seems fitting to take stock now and evaluate what such a project means for the future of Oxford and the Humanities.
The project has experienced no shortage of criticism. Concerns have been raised over Schwarzman’s support for Trump (since rescinded) as well as the environmental and economic impacts of his company, Blackstone. Holding the University to account is important, but my short time in student journalism has taught me that it is easy to get caught up in frustration and negativity at the expense of recognising the bright future of the University.
For this reason, I would like to turn to face the under-acknowledged positives. The future is indeed bright: £185 million is an unprecedented donation for the eternally underfunded humanities and is particularly crucial given the era we are entering. The institute for ethics in AI will place Oxford at the forefront of research into questions like what it means to be human, while the new humanities cultural programme will bring the university’s research to wide new audiences through lectures, exhibitions and performances. Truly, the Centre has the potential to cement Oxford’s position as the leading destination for humanities not just in the UK, but in the World.
The new institute for ethics in AI has the potential to be particularly influential. It will have six main research themes including what AI will mean for democracy, human rights, and the environment. We are moving into a period dominated by discussions of what humanity’s relationship should be like with the artificial intelligence it creates. As such, it is vital that scientific and technological discoveries are complemented with considerations on issues like how we come to terms with what AI may mean for employment and the automation of day-to-day tasks. There is so much we are yet to understand, and the Schwarzman Centre truly cannot come quickly enough.
Another major part of the new centre will be an array of exciting venues, including a 500-seat concert hall. Professor Dan Grimley, head of humanities at Oxford stated for Cherwell that: “Oxford has a world-class music scene but has long needed a venue that could do full justice to the high standard of music making that the city sustains. Our beautifully designed 500-seater hall will be a top spec facility, with acoustics engineered by the best in the business: Ian Knowles of Arup.” The prestige of those hired to work on the project is inspiring. Bringing in the ‘best in the business’ will ensure that the facilities the building contains will be top of the range, exactly what is needed for academics to further their research.
Professor Grimley went on to talk about the range of performances that will be hosted in the new venues, with genres ranging from classical, to jazz, to south Asian music. It is particularly exciting to note the attention he brings to experimentation. If Oxford’s music scene is to remain “world-class” as professor he states, then significant investment will be needed now and into the future.
The university’s willingness to provide such investment is an inspiring commitment to the importance of music and the arts in the 21st century, even amidst a misguided attempt by the likes of Rishi Sunak to move the education system towards a more STEM-based focus. Indeed, developments in STEM directly affect our lives, but it is the humanities that allows us to understand where we lie in relation to such developments. This can be done through studying the past as well as the present and the future, allowing us to learn from the social and moral challenges of previous generations and draw parallels with our own.
The scale of the project is unprecedented. It will bring together 7 faculties, two institutes, 600 members of staff, as well as 140,000 books and other items from core Oxford collections. When asked by Cherwell, Professor Grimley said that with the new facilities, “the possibilities are endless!” As well as providing the environment for collaboration between departments and existing researchers, the next generation of researchers will find inspiration in the 750 new study spaces it will create, around half of which are for graduate students.
In an era of climate crisis, the project will also be state of the art in its environmental commitments. It aims to be the largest building in the UK to meet Passivhaus standards, demonstrating again Oxford’s commitment to being at the forefront of the battle against climate change. This is exciting and again is the standard we expect from an institution like Oxford. The building will combine high levels of insulation, solar power generation on the roof and heat pumps to usher in a new standard of sustainability to the university. This is impressive, and not only sets a standard for Oxford, but sets a precedent for other large construction projects, university based or otherwise.
It should also be drawn to attention how real the project will begin to feel in the coming months and years. Imagining all these venues may feel irrelevant to a student body of which many will have left by the time it reaches completion in 2025. However, those in the first year of a four-year course this year will benefit, while a full intake of undergraduates who will have the opportunity to experience the centre’s world-class facilities will matriculate later this year. The project will also feel incredibly real to Somerville students in the coming weeks and months, as a new building takes shape in their back garden.
For more information around the Schwarzman centre and the facilities it will bring to Oxford, see https://www.schwarzmancentre.ox.ac.uk
All statistics and information courtesy of Matt Pickles, Head of Communications for Humanities at the University of Oxford.
Image Credit: <P&P> Photo/ CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 via Flickr
Hundreds demonstrate in support of Iran’s Reza Pahlavi at Oxford Union
Supporters of Iran’s exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi travelled from across the UK to signal their support for him as he held a talk in the Oxford Union this evening.
Reza Pahlavi, son of the last Shah of Iran, is currently one of the leading opposition figures in the protests against the Iranian regime. He previously spoke at the Union in 2014 on the topic of a democratic Iran.
According to the police, a crowd began forming outside the Oxford Union at around 15:00. Whilst roughly 2000 were expected to show up, police estimated the turnout at around 700 people, telling Cherwell at 18:00 that they had no intention of dispersing the crowd, though a drone was raised over the gathered supporters.
While Pahlavi spoke inside the Union, people chanted his name and held up pictures of him. Many had Iranian flags painted on their cheeks and held red roses in support. Some stood on chairs or climbed onto the plant boxes outside Society Cafe to get better views of the Union entrance.
One supporter, who had travelled from London, told Cherwell that they were happy that Pahlavi was being hosted in the Oxford Union and that they were in Oxford to support him because he will lead a referendum for a free Iran if the dictatorship lifts. Another supporter, also from outside Oxford, told Cherwell they had found out about the event on Twitter.
In his address to the Oxford Union, Pahlavi stressed the importance of maximum support and maximum pressure with regards to public opinion and legislation, such as further sanctions, as Iran is in a “critical phase”. He told the chamber that his “first ask” was to secure internet access in Iran, to ensure connectivity and allow for further organisation of the resistance. He also proposed using the seized assets from sanctions to help fund mass labour strikes.
When asked about when, or if, the regime will fall, Pahlavi said this depends on additional support and whether the momentum can be maintained. The regime, he believes, is “much further ostracised today than nine years ago”, when the Oxford Union first hosted him. He also believes that a peaceful regime change, like that in South Africa, would be possible. Pahlavi further mentioned that he is against using force as a means to an end, and that by not resorting to violence “the cost of change” can be minimised. He recently told the Telegraph: “I think the alignment of stars is now there. The opportunity is right in front of us [for the Islamic Republic to fall].”
Pahlavi also claimed that both his role and that of the opposition lies solely in achieving a referendum and quickly erecting a parliament afterwards, in order to debate all the areas in which opinions differ. He also stated that a secular government would be a “requisite for democracy”. Notably, he said that he does not intend to run for office himself.
At the end of the talk, Pahlavi urged Oxford students to empower and act as ambassadors on behalf of the Iranian people, noting that many revolutions began at universities. His visit to Oxford is part of a broader tour of Europe that Pahlavi has been using as an opportunity to discuss Iran’s political climate with European officials and politicians.
Oxford receives £16.5m for psychosis research
Researchers at Oxford University are to lead a research programme into the antipsychotic properties of cannabidiol (CBD).
CBD is one of the chemicals found in marijuana but it is distinct from tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the chemical in marijuana which produces the feeling of being high. £16.5 million has been awarded to the department of psychiatry at Oxford University by the Wellcome Trust. This money will be put towards a global clinical trial to see if CBD can treat people with psychosis.
Currently, the NHS only prescribes CBD for a few conditions such as severe epilepsy in children and vomiting and nausea in adults caused by chemotherapy.
Professor Philip McGuire of Oxford university will lead the Stratification and Treatment in Early Psychosis (Step) programme. It will involve 1000 people who are either at clinically high risk of psychosis, are undergoing a first psychotic episode or have psychosis and have not responded to conventional treatment.
Professor McGuire said: “Cannabidiol is one of the most promising new treatments for people with psychosis. Many people with psychosis are open to trying cannabidiol and previous smaller-scale studies have indicated that it has beneficial effects.
“As well as treating psychosis that is already established, the study will also investigate whether cannabidiol can prevent the onset of psychosis in people at high risk of developing it.”
Since they were developed in the 1950s, drugs such as quetiapine and olanzapine have often been used to treat psychosis by blocking dopamine receptors in the brain. However, these antipsychotics are ineffective for many that use them, and the side effects associated with them can be severe. But for most living with psychosis, there are no alternatives. Research into CBD as an antipsychotic would therefore be welcomed.
Lynsey Bilsland, head of mental health translation at Wellcome, said: “This exciting programme will help us to find out if cannabidiol is effective at treating psychosis at various stages by testing it at scale.
“While antipsychotics are commonly used to treat psychosis, they can have significant side effects, patients often stop taking them, and they don’t work for everyone. This means that it is important that we explore avenues such as this one for new therapies.
“In addition, as part of these trials the researchers are aiming to identify biomarkers – biological signposts – which would indicate that a patient might respond well to the treatment. This will allow for greater personalisation of treatment in the future.”
The programme will be coordinated from Oxford and will involve 35 centres across Europe and North America, with the CBD being provided by Jazz Pharmaceuticals at no extra cost.
Review: The Ashmolean Rooftop Restaurant
Sitting at the top of the Ashmolean Museum, inside their rooftop restaurant, with its big glass windows and the sunshine pouring in, it is easy to forget my worries about an ongoing essay crisis or anything of the sort. I would really recommend visiting on a sunny day because the sunlight streaming in is so lovely. Cherwell had the privilege of enjoying a lunch at this conservatory-esque restaurant a few weeks ago, and we are so glad that we did.
Not only did their menu have an extensive veggie and vegan selection, but everything sounded delicious as well. To start, we had the soup of the day, a coconut, red lentil and chili blend that was equally mild and flavour-packed. It was such a light, welcome beginning to our meal, with some perfectly toasted bread on the side. I also ordered their fries, not only because they offer a perfect bite of crunch and fattiness much like a crouton, but also because I’m a massive proponent of dipping fries in soup. Try it before you knock it.
Sipping our drinks, we then proceeded to the main course, that was a pan-seared mackerel with a beetroot and horseradish remoulade, spinach and French frisée. The presentation was excellent, the dish looked divine, and the fish was cooked perfectly. Every supporting component was also excellent and it was overall a very well balanced dish. What’s interesting to note is that their menu specifies that their meat and dairy is UK-sourced, with an emphasis on sustainability and produce quality. This kind of attention to the food and its environment is not only refreshing to read, but also extremely important to me as a consumer. To finish off our meal, we opted out of dessert because we were stuffed, though in retrospect, the dark chocolate vegan torte was screaming my name. We were offered a complementary glass of prosecco and an espresso to round off the meal, and we left feeling refreshed for the day. The waiting staff were all very accommodating and professional, and the overall experience, from the atmosphere to the food, was an overwhelmingly positive one.
In conversation with Barney Mayhew
Barney Mayhew is an expert in conflict and humanitarian aid. He served in the armed forces for four years in Cyprus, Germany, Namibia and Northern Ireland, and has worked on conflicts as a civilian ever since. He has worked for the EU, the UN, and Christian Aid in Bosnia/Croatia, Rwanda and Congo respectively, as well on various crises for the British Government. So, in light of the recent tragedies in Turkey and Syria, as well as the Conservative government’s dogmatic commitment to cutting our international aid budget, it was fascinating to speak to him about the current crises, aid in general, and the real effects of spending less.
Oliver Hall: What would you say is the most important guiding principle when providing international aid and support across all different areas? Could you find one unifier?
Barney Mayhew: When you’re facing large-scale, urgent need, the first thing is to assess what the need is. And some of what I say will seem completely obvious, but the obvious thing quite often does not happen. Assessment is not easy, because you can see what the media and other sources are saying so you will have some knowledge about what the needs are, but that will just be the information that is reaching you. What you want to do is assess the complete picture throughout the area or the population affected, including all the places to which no one has got access. It is all about the hidden need. I’ve had examples where large numbers of people have been killed, and no one knew for a long, long time.
OH: And is that especially a problem where you’ve got regimes that have restricted media access? If we are to bring the current crisis in Syria and Turkey into it, obviously there’s a lot of media focus on Turkey in the immediate aftermath because agencies can get journalists on the ground, but less in Syria because access is harder for journalists to gain.
BM: Obviously it is more difficult with restrictive governments. But what I just said applies even if you don’t have a restrictive government. It is easier to go and assess an easily accessible city or main road leading up from a city, or villages near that main road. It’s much harder to get into the less accessible areas where the need may be greater because it takes longer. As a result, there can be an understandable media and aid agency bias towards large towns and cities. That is helped by data, crowdsourcing, and artificial intelligence which will have an increasing role. But then you have to watch out for other biases, towards data-enabled sections of the population for example.
I balance that by saying you will never have perfect information, you will never have even a reasonably complete picture, especially in an emergency. You must become comfortable making decisions based on very incomplete information, you’ve got to just do the best you can.
Next, you have to plan. What are you going to prioritise? Then, you’ve got to do it. And the planning and acting is iterative. You plan, you act, you then discover new information, you have to adjust your plan, and you carry on doing. Assessment carries on, right the way through, because you’re continuing to find out new information on situations changing before your eyes. So, it’s assess, plan, and act in an iterative cycle.
The fourth pillar is evaluate. Assess, plan, act, evaluate. How did you do? What can you learn? How well did you spend the money you were entrusted with?
OH: What is one factor that is the most important?
BM: The top priority is to have a strong team, or build a strong team. Because from that, everything else flows. If you haven’t got a strong team, you’re not going to achieve anything like as much as you could.
There’s been, in my view, an excessive fear of public opinion, which might object if X per cent of an aid agency’s budget has been spent on training instead of on food for a child who needs it. But if you spend five per cent on training, you will probably double the impact of the remaining 95 per cent because it’ll be spent twice as well by well-trained people.
In the short term, that is a lesson that has to be learned by the aid agencies. There is some training but far less than there should be. They should be brave in educating public opinion that spending more on training will bring greater benefit to the poorest and those in need, and will – perhaps counterintuitively – mean greater value for money.
OH: Local organisations are obviously incredibly important, so how does the interaction work on a practical level between governments committing funding and it reaching those in need?
BM: Every donor country has a different preference but to generalise, nations move quickly to announce money fast. They will then seek out which organisations are best placed in that particular crisis, to use those funds to provide effective help. Donor nations spend most of their money through the United Nations agencies, NGOs, or local organisations. The Turkish Red Crescent, for example, has something like 10,000 volunteers even in normal times. It is extraordinary. They know the local area, they speak the language. They’ve got the logistics, they’ve got vehicles, and they’re ready to go. They’re on the spot before the crisis even happens – fantastically powerful. It’s an order of magnitude or several orders of magnitude more capable of reacting quickly and appropriately than most international agencies.
Faith-based agencies can also have broad reach, with an existing presence in every village or town. And international agencies can sometimes have deep local knowledge. In Afghanistan for example, a few international agencies had been present and working there for 40 years before the US and its allies launched their military intervention.
The British government also supplies some aid directly, because it holds stocks and capabilities of its own, and contractors on standby. That includes Search and Rescue, earthquake rescue teams who are highly skilled.
OH: Are the search and rescue teams able to do anything significant, given the huge scale of the earthquake?
BM: Yes, they are hugely valued by nations that have suffered an earthquake. The numbers of lives they can save may be small, but every life saved is profoundly important, not only in the obvious sense – to the individuals and their families – but also in a political sense. The affected communities and nation see it as a strong signal of support.
Sending search and rescue teams costs quite a lot of money… if you were to do the calculation of pounds spent per life saved, it is much more expensive than in a refugee camp for example, where economies of scale mean that the cost per life saved is much lower. But for human reasons that are hard to articulate it feels, and is in my view, the right thing to do.
OH: I do want to ask you about the cutting of the aid budget and that 0.7% figure. Just how dangerous is that cut on the ground, because it seems to me to be catastrophic.
BM: Let’s cut straight to the chase. It is inevitable that if you reduce the aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5% of gross national income, many people will die because of that cut. One could do estimates of how many, but that’s a decision that has an immediate, direct cost in lives lost.
In fairness, one has to say that the same argument would apply the other way. If we added several billion we would save many more lives. So it’s a political judgement: a judgement call about where to draw the line. Will it cost lives? Yes, it will. And so the Chancellor, by doing that, is signing the death warrant of lots of people.
OH: But by actively making a cut, isn’t it also a question of the signal you are sending?
BM: Yes, it sends a strong signal right around the world, because Britain is seen as one of the leaders in this area. It has a massive effect globally if we are not meeting the UN target of 0.7% of GNI. Other nations are then more likely to follow suit.
OH: The striking thing for me is that there seemed to be no clamour of public opinion for this to be changed. Why do you think that it happened?
BM: I think you’ll find that the right wing of the Tory party has complained about 0.7% for a long time.
Well, that was a truly fascinating conversation. A few things definitely stood out for me. Among them is just how complex the system behind the scenes is. On the surface, governments announce big figures but it was fantastic to hear just how that money gets to the people in need. Aside from that, the views and warnings on cutting the aid budget were stark. There is no doubt people are suffering for the sake of appeasing the right wing of the Conservative Party. Post-Brexit promises of a global Britain are quickly fading and if the government wants to hold onto any of its international reputation, this seems a sensible place to start…
Image courtesy of GK Church
In conversation with Luca Guadagnino
Obviously you’re in a very student-dominated space, so we were going to start by asking about your series ‘We Are Who We Are’. How did you go about inhabiting those teenage lives?
I don’t think I have to find a way to inhabit someone’s identity. As a filmmaker, I think what I do is focus on always starting from the perspective of the behaviour of any given characters that we want to describe the life of. The show is about a group of teens, but also a group of adults. So we applied ourselves to always be in the shoes of each and every character; which could be the sixteen-year-old Fraser or it could be his stepmother. I think the final resort for me is to be able to find wonderment in myself. To be able to look at my actors and to help them to get everything they can into the camera and make sure that the movie can play as a TV show about these characters as much as a documentary about them [the actors playing the characters].
And how might those choices differ in a longer, television format as opposed to a movie?
Long form or shorter cinematic form, for me, it’s irrelevant. In general, I don’t want to think that way. That’s why I’ve refused, many times, to do what they often ask of filmmakers, when they ask them to join a TV project, which is to do the pilot episode. You go and film the first episode and you get given a set of rules, which could be a texture of the image, the rhythm of the movie, or the style. But I don’t believe in that, so I never accepted. I can do something if I believe in it, and I would [like to] own everything I do.
‘Call Me By Your Name’ was shot on 35mm film. Do you find the more traditional method of shooting adds an extra layer to filmmaking compared to digital?
[For ‘We Are Who We Are’] I shot on digital because the subtitle of the show was ‘Right Here, Right Now’ so I intellectualised, in a very cheap way, the idea of nowness by shooting in digital. Which was a great experience; I did it for the show. But to me, cinema is camera and it’s not video camera, it’s film. It’s mechanical and not digital, it’s not data … I don’t know. Maybe it’s just because I’m old-fashioned.
‘We Are Who We Are’, and indeed all of the stories you tell, seem to be, at the root, love stories. What does love mean to you? How does that manifest in your work?
That is a huge question. That is like asking someone what water means to them. It’s a very difficult question to answer, particularly because, being a vain person, I don’t want to give an answer that would showcase my intellectual frailties and banalities. I can tell you that when you tell the story of someone’s desire for someone else, you tell the story of how you see the other, and how you meet the gaze of the other. I think that is very cinematic. I’m interested in that.
Thinking about vanity in art, I watched Tar last night, with Cate Blanchett, and there’s a quote I found fascinating: “you gotta sublimate yourself, your ego, and yes, your identity. You must in fact stand in front of the public and god and obliterate yourself.” How much does this quote resonate with you as a filmmaker and artist?
I have extreme reservation, and a sense of modesty, about thinking theoretically about myself, my work or my role as a creative person. I’ve never indulged in reflecting on that, to be honest. I think for me, it’s about owning what I do, knowing what I do by heart and also being open to meeting with ‘the other’; as in people I work with, the talents I have the privilege to film, or the audience’s that I have the opportunity to meet.
Thinking about propaganda films, you mentioned in an interview how you were inspired by Pasolini. It is my understanding that some of his work can be seen as semi-propaganda in the sense that it’s anti-political, so how do you translate that kind of material?
I don’t think that Pier Paolo Pasolini was a propaganda-driven poet at all. Zero. I mean, I think if there is someone who was really alien from the idea of propaganda, it’s him. I think Pasolini has always been an underdog and has always been played as an individual taking risks that he died for. He showcased a very unorthodox and completely individual sense of things in poetry, literature, cinema, and also as a columnist on the Corriere della Sera, in open editorials that he was writing there. So I have to refute the concept that Pasolini was a propaganda-driven artist and author and poet. I didn’t look at his work as some kind of outcome of an idea of propaganda at all … I think people should look at him with their own eyes.
Your approach to film is very philosophical and sensitive, yet you also create these very extreme films; you mentioned in an interview that one of the first films you watched as a child was a horror film. After such success with your films like ‘Call Me By Your Name’ and ‘Bones and All’ ’, we were wondering if there’s a topic or taboo you wouldn’t put in a film.
I would never do a movie that sounds sadistic to me. And many movies are sadistic, to be honest. That would be the threshold. Another threshold could be a movie that is an ideological tool to sell a point of view. I will never do a propaganda movie. I admire the Alfred Hitchcock propaganda films that he made during World War Two, they were amazing. But I don’t know if I would have done it.
To answer the second part of your question, I don’t think ‘Call Me By Your Name’, for instance, is about any kind of taboo. And definitely, I don’t think that CMBYN is specifically about a taboo or is about homosexuality, I think CMBYN is about how we can showcase a moment of truth towards our desires, and how in the long run, we hide and we lie toward our own desires. I think that’s what it’s about to me.
Say Yes to NUS: The Case for Remaining Within the National Union of Students
The following article is written by Chloe Field, the NUS VP for higher education.
Students created students’ unions to harness local collective power, and a national union to build national collective action. 101 years ago, Oxford students’ union met with 16 other students’ unions a small dusty room in London to found NUS and it has been integral to shaping the national student voice ever since. Many of our student leaders have come from Oxford, with three former NUS Presidents hailing from the university. I and my NUS colleagues are sad whenever a student body contemplates leaving our union, but Oxford’s storied place in the creation of NUS means you would be especially missed.
The student movement is a powerful force for good and I am incredibly proud to lead NUS in its 101st year. But I can assure you it is not without its challenges, and these may lead some to question the value of a national union. I will address these and the lessons we have learned below, but first allow me to explain why a strong bond between Oxford Students’ Union and NUS is vital to the health of the whole movement.
Our first President, Ivison Macadam, was an ex-serviceman, whose experiences of the trenches of World War 1 inspired his desire to campaign for a better future for all. Indeed, in a speech to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, he said, “If students are co-operating today surely there is hope for tomorrow.”
Macadam’s optimism embodies both students’ unions and our national union. NUS serves as the national representative body for students and the collective power it gives us is incredibly powerful. This is especially true when times are hard, and no one would doubt that they are now. The need to work together to protect the most vulnerable amongst us and to speak out for ourselves and our fellow students has never been more urgent.
Being a member of NUS is all about collectivism. We are stronger working together than when acting alone. The past few years have shown us the value of our united voice. In the face of the pandemic, the ongoing cost-of-living crisis, the student mental health crisis which is in part a result of these, and a continued lack of support from the government, students have suffered, and are suffering, like never before. Many are being pushed to the brink.
But I can assure you NUS is tireless in its efforts to fight for students. In the last year alone, we have won £15 million to support students in the cost-of-living crisis; new legal protections for student renters; £3 million of funding to tackle student mental health in England; we’ve persuaded the Welsh government to increase the maintenance loan by 9.4%; and we’ve got 80 universities to end the use of Non-Disclosure Agreements to silence victims of sexual violence, including 3 Oxford colleges. Just this week the government announced further plans to stamp out the sexual harassment and misconduct that plagues our campuses, with policies we’ve been campaigning for since 2010, long before anyone else was willing to talk about it.
Our current cost-of-living campaign is fighting to increase financial support for students, and we’re campaigning for cheaper student housing, free transport, and well-paid, secure jobs. We can succeed, as our past triumphs show. During Covid we secured £800 million for students, through campaigns for rent refunds and student support. For Oxford students, this delivered £152,273 in hardship funds. The extra £15 million in hardship funding we won this year is bringing £26,878 to students at Oxford. ‘That last sum alone is more than what Oxford SU pays to be in NUS – and that is just one of many wins so far this year. The financial return on what you put into NUS is never in question – it is undeniably strong every single year. But staying in your national union is worth so much more. Just look back at our history and the contribution we have made to students and to wider society.
- We developed the original student discount card (NUS card, now Totum) and the ISIC card (the international version) securing discounts for students wherever they go and making student life more affordable for all.
- Student railcards were introduced thanks to our campaigning and then we went further and ensured those aged 16 to 17 could benefit from them too.
- When no one else would insure students, we did, establishing Endsleigh Insurance to cater to student need.
- NUS is the reason students don’t pay Council Tax.
- We persuaded banks to offer postgraduate loans and then got them to remove the age caps.
- NUS Scotland got tuition fees abolished for undergraduates in Scotland, something NUS UK is planning to make central to our campaign for the coming General Election.
- We were early adopters of Fairtrade products, creating the first mass market for them, and it’s no exaggeration to say this fuelled the mainstream demand we see today.
- NUS has been at the forefront of campaigns for equality, leading the charge on trans rights, and the current campaigns on the Gender Recognition Bill in Scotland.
Of course, we cannot, and should not, talk about equality without recognising the pain felt by Jewish students as has been clearly identified in NUS’ independent investigation into antisemitism. The Tuck Report is a disturbing account of antisemitism within NUS and our movement more broadly. It is a truly difficult read but I welcome the clarity it brings to enable us to act with confidence to tackle antisemitism head on. I offer my unreserved apology to Jewish students for the harm caused and assure you that NUS is committed to ensuring that Jewish students feel safe and welcome in every corner of our movement for the long term.
Antisemitism is anathema to our core values, which is why we have accepted the report’s recommendations in their entirety and published an action plan for tackling antisemitism, which includes specific actions and deadlines for implementation and are currently putting together an Advisory Panel to oversee it. I, and everyone in NUS, are clear that our task is to kick antisemitism out of student politics for good.
Jewish students should never be expected to carry the burden of delivering change alone. We believe this is a defining moment for NUS, students’ unions and the whole student movement and it is for this reason we have published the full Tuck Report, unredacted, and our action plan, online to bring transparency, accountability, and the opportunity to learn and become a movement we can all feel pride and belonging in.
I believe the arguments for Oxford saying Yes to NUS are compelling. We are an organisation that has owned its failings and confronted them head on. We deliver win after win that brings a material benefit to students lives and are a powerful advocate for their rights. We champion the work of student leaders, whether in students’ unions, JCRs, clubs or societies. We are proud of the brave and ambitious work that students do, day in day out, to build our better future and we defend them to the hilt, an attack on one is an attack on all. We fundamentally believe in the transformative potential of education and the capacity for change, across campuses and in our own house. We speak truth to power, representing the student body to government and national decision makers. Leaving NUS would deprive Oxford students of connection and the benefits of a collective body of seven million students and 400 students’ unions. But equally, and no less importantly, it would deprive the wider student movement of the powerhouse that is Oxford students.
At a time when higher education faces significant challenges, it is vital students work together and support each other across our differences. Oxford’s departure from NUS would fragment the movement, precisely when, with a general election looming, we have everything to win by uniting. I urge you to vote to remain a member of NUS and continue to work as part of the national student voice in pursuit of a more equitable and just education system and society.
For the material value.
For the national voice.
For you and your rights.
For your fellow students and their rights.
For better education for everyone.
For a stronger and fairer society.
And for the generations who come after you.
Say Yes to NUS.
Voting in the referendum is open between 08:00 on Monday 27th February and 18:00 on Wednesday 1st of March, and votes can be cast via the Oxford SU website.
Image Credit: Marco Verch CC BY 2.0 via Flickr
