While Oxford University is not requiring students to be vaccinated against COVID-19, Cherwell has learned that two colleges are asking students to disclose whether they are fully vaccinated against the disease.
Cherwell has seen emails from St Edmund Hall and Lincoln College, asking students to tell their College their vaccination status. Both colleges said they were asking students to share this data to understand what proportion of the College population was vaccinated.
The colleges also said that having this information would help them keep track of who needed to self-isolate. In England, people who are double-vaccinated do not need to self-isolate if they have been identified as a close contact of someone who has tested positive for COVID-19.
A person is considered fully-vaccinated if they have received two doses of a vaccine approved by the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA). These conclude the Oxford/AstraZeneca, Pfizer/BioNTech, and Moderna vaccines, as well as the single-shot Johnson & Johnson/Janssen vaccine.
A close contact is considered anyone who lives in the same household as someone who has tested positive for COVID-19. Those who have been in face-to-face contact within two metres of someone who has tested positive for at least fifteen minutes, or within one metre for any length of time, are also considered close contacts. A person who has been within one metre of someone who has tested positive for river a minute – regardless of whether they have been in face-to-face contact, is also considered a close contact.
Lincoln said that knowing students’ vaccination status would help “keep our college life as close to ‘normal’ in this academic year”.
The email from St Edmund Hall emphasised that it was up to students to decide whether to share their vaccination status. They added: “a full picture of who is and who isn’t vaccinated will help us to respond effectively to potential outbreaks and ensure that the right information is given to the right people”.
Lincoln said student’s vaccination status would only be shared with College personnel “who have a need to know the information”. It was unclear from the email seen by Cherwell how St Edmund Hall would store this information, and under what circumstances it would be shared.
Lincoln College and St Edmund Hall have been approached for comment.
Little Simz obviously isn’t a ‘leave the best ‘til last’ kind of person, because Sometimes I Might Be Introvert’s opening and eponymous track is a belter. Released as a single earlier this year, Introvert echoes with roiling drum beats and dramatic flute playing, and the artist’s trademark lyricism hits home every time. In an age where the best songs can aim for a catchy chorus that will blow up on TikTok, you might think that a 6-minute track is a brave choice. But even my shredded attention span is captured, and it’s a perfect introduction to a seminal album.
In fact, Sometimes I Might Be Introvert is a lesson in structure. From the first dramatic track, the album climaxes in the joyful Afrobeat-influenced collaboration with Nigerian artist Obongjayar Point and Kill and drifts away into Simz’ characteristically reflective sound in How Did You Get Here and Miss Understood. The narrative arc is tied together by precise interludes, most with the disconcerting tones of Emma Corrin’s voiceover.
Using Corrin’s voice is an interesting choice, and I can’t help but try and dig out the logic behind it. Her posh, assertive tone is immediately recognisable from the Netflix series The Crown, which aired last year and in which Corrin plays Princess Diana. That means listeners automatically associate the voiceover with her breakout role, and that iconic mingling of vulnerability and defiance with which Corrin plays it. Surely Corrin, inarguably a symbol of the establishment, is an unlikely choice for an album so rooted in racism, poverty and black identity? But somehow, the contrast works, and the tracks where their voices collide, like Gems [Interlude] where Corrin’s voice acts as an inner guide to Simz’ doubts, have a kind of divine power. The choice also seems pretty deliberate. Simz takes the face (or rather, the voice) of British royalty and uses it to represent her own inner voice. But more importantly, it brings the exploration of womanhood and female consciousness to the forefront of the album. This is, after all, an album about women breaking out of their role and being more than one thing. Corrin breaks away from her role as Diana to gain a new confidence in her voiceover and become something other than what listeners expect her to be. As the title suggests—sometimes I can be one thing, but sometimes I can be the other.
In terms of Simz’ sound, something’s definitely changed since GREY Area, her 2019 album which garnered her international attention, and even since her 2020 EP Drop 6. This Simz is more adult, more confident in her own voice and in playing around with her style. The pure anger that characterised her earlier work is very much still present, but it’s accompanied by a new maturity and mellowness. This is particularly evident in the album’s characteristically seamless transitions. The switch between Woman and Two Worlds Apart is actually gorgeous, symbolic of how this album can shift between gears without giving an inch. One second we’re confronted with a defiant Simz, questioning everything from global inequality to sexism to internal conflict. The next we’re seeing a different and previously unknown side to her. There’s a vulnerability to songs like Two Worlds Apart: ‘Please don’t tell my mama I’ve been smoking marijuana’ she implores the listener over a zoned out, reggae-influenced backing track. Often, the two sides converge in one track. It’s the perfect blend for an album preoccupied with the multitudinous nature of being a woman, and gives her even more avenues to explore as an artist.
Another thing I love about Simz’ work is the way she challenges tropes of female music. Like, obviously I like screaming Olivia Rodrigo in the shower as much as the next person, but it’s fucking refreshing to have an album so unpreoccupied with ex boyfriends and cat fights. Tracks like I Love You, I Hate You feel especially transgressive. If you’re expecting an ode to toxic love like gnash and Olivia O’Brien’s, i hate you, i love you, then prepare to be shocked. It’s actually an ode to her father, who abandoned her as a child, and includes such lyrical zingers as: ‘Is you a sperm donor or a dad to me?’ The narrative is continued in Rollin Stone, a quietly excellent track that mixes her classic style with rap that barely rises above a whisper and yet holds the emotional power of her louder stuff: ‘Mummy handled business, papa was a rolling stone/ I’m a mix of both, there ain’t no bitch-boy in my bones’. Like the rest of the album, I Love You, I Hate You marks the notoriously private Simz giving her listeners more than ever before. It’s a window into her soul, and fans would do well to take the opportunity to peer in.
Oxford City Council has decided to extend Broad Meadow until the 10th of October. The meadow was officially opened on the 1st of July and has served as a pedestrian-friendly outdoor space for residents and visitors to enjoy throughout the summer. Now, with Broad Meadow remaining on Broad Street into the autumn, students will get a chance to enjoy the space.
The Council says that the project fulfilled its intention of promoting safe use of the city centre while supporting Oxford’s economic recovery.
With the extension in place, the annual Arts Market will be hosted in the Meadow on the 2nd and 3rd of October, serving as one of the Council’s proposed community and arts events that the Meadow was intended to host.
A consultation questionnaire is available on the Council’s ‘Citizen Space consultation portal,’ which has provided visitors to the Meadow the chance to “comment on the scheme and shape plans to create an outdoor public space on the whole of Broad Street on a permanent basis.” Students are also able to give their feedback on the Meadow as they return to the city for Michaelmas term.
The Council’s announcement of the extension coincides with World Car Free Day, which encourages people to opt for walking, cycling, or using public transport instead of driving.
Councillor Tom Hayes commented “World Car Free Day is an opportunity to enjoy people-friendly streets and what better day is there to also announce the continuation of Broad Meadow? The wildflower meadow has given us a vision of what pedestrianisation of Broad Street could look like, and this Council is committed to bringing about the pedestrianisation of this street and others. As a listening council, we want to hear from the whole of Oxford, so please do share your views.”
The Oxford University History Faculty has announced that most final exams will be sat in person.
According to an email sent to finalists, which has been seen by Cherwell, four of the seven final papers will be sat in-person in the Exams School. These fall under the categories of Further Subject, Special Subject paper II, European and World History, and Disciplines of History.
The Special Subject Paper I, which consists of an extended essay, and the compulsory dissertation will be submitted through Inspera. The deadlines for submission are the Friday of Week 0, and Friday of Week 8 of Hilary Term respectively.
Most finalists who took History of the British Isles will have already submitted three ‘take home’ essays at the end of the previous academic year. Students who matriculated in 2019 and have are retiring to complete their final year have been contacted separately to explain the situation regarding this paper for their cohort.
Students studying a Joint School with history will receive further information “as the position becomes clearer and the University clarifies these aspects of the wider approach to examinations”.
The email went on to say that the Faculty and University have contingency plans in place incase circumstances regarding the pandemic change, rendering in-person invigilated exams impossible. The Faculty said these contingency plans could include online open-book exams. But they said they did not expect this to happen.
The Faculty said the decision to hold in-person exams was taken after student opinions were consulted. This included a survey of student opinions, which received 365 responses and is said to present “a picture of [the] student body fairly evenly distributed in its preferences”.
Some students have expressed frustration with the announcement. A history finalist at Lady Margaret Hall told Cherwell: “These generic statements do little to soothe history students, most of whom have never taken in person exams or collections. Our finals will be our first experience, a trial whose results will massively impact on our future. I do not feel the History Faculty has adequately taken into account the situations students have been put in by the pandemic and they have routinely broken promises. We were reassured in MT 2020 that tutors had been advised to reduce our our workload from 8 essays for the EWH [European and World History] to 5 to account for lack of access to the libraries/suitable reading resources – however, in my case and many others it was not. The History Faculty must provide clear details for how they will take into account the impact of the pandemic on their students, and, most importantly, follow through with them.”
The Faculty said: “We are aware that the learning experience of students has been significantly affected by pandemic conditions. Most Finalists, for example, will not have taken Prelims and will have felt the restrictions on library access and the general stress of the situation. While four of the seven History papers will be examined through in-person, invigilated exams, we are conscious that the run-up to them has been very different from pre-pandemic times. We have taken into account the exceptional circumstances created by the pandemic up to now and will continue to do so as the situation evolves…
“College organised collections will be a very useful resource for practising in-person examination and Exams Schools always run valuable practice sessions in Trinity Term. You may well feel that that pandemic conditions will have an effect on your examination performance. We are very alive to this issue and the system by which any student may submit a ‘mitigating circumstances’ statement for consideration by examiners will remain in place. Rest assured that the Faculty and tutors will be working to make this process as smooth and as fair as possible for everyone.”
The University and College Union (UCU) has announced that following cuts to University Superannuation Scheme (USS) members’ pensions, the UCU is due to hold a strike ballot this October. Oxford University is among the institutions whose staff will hold will hold strike ballots over both cuts to USS members’ pensions, and pay and working conditions.
University employers are being accused of cutting the USS members’ guaranteed annual pension by 35%. This move was decided by Universities UK (UUK) in a vote to cut thousands of pounds from the retirement benefits of university staff. The plans were based on a valuation of the USS scheme conducted at the beginning of the pandemic, during which the economy was experiencing market crashes. The UCU refers to this valuation of the USS scheme as “flawed”.
Alternate proposals for reform of the USS scheme were put forth by the UCU at the Joint Negotiating Committee, with employers present as represented by UUK. These proposals were not accepted and options to delay the move were also rejected.
University staff are also said to be in dispute over “declining staff pay, the use of casualised contracts, unsafe workloads and equality failings.” The UCU produced research findings showing that 42% of teaching staff are employed on zero hours contracts, while 49% are employed on insecure, fixed-term contracts.
Furthermore, the UCU cites that pay for university staff has fallen by around 20% between 2009 and 2019, with employers making below inflation offers while tuition fees grow. Equality failings relating to staff pay are also to be on the second strike ballot. The UCU highlighted the gender pay gap of 15.5% and the figures provided by the Higher Education Statistics Agency revealing that of 22,810 professors in the UK, 27% are women and 1% are black. Consequently, the UCU is calling for “a £2.5k pay increase; an end to race and gender pay injustice; a framework eliminating the use of precarious contracts, such as zero-hours employment; and meaningful action to tackle unmanageable workloads.”
The University and College Union confirmed on Wednesday that strike ballots will open at UK universities on Monday 18 October unless employers meet its demands.
The UCU’s higher education committee confirmed that 152 institutions will be balloted in total, with six being balloted on USS only, 83 are to be balloted over pay and working conditions, and 63 balloting over both USS and pay and working conditions. The University of Oxford will be balloting over both issues.
The UCU expects employers to negotiate offers regarding both USS and pay and working conditions or face disruption to the end of term and the beginning of the next one, with the ballot running until the 4 November unless the disputes are resolved.
Jo Grady, the UCU General Secretary, provided the following statement: “University staff propped up the entire sector during the pandemic, but they are now being thanked with huge cuts to their pensions, unbearably high workloads, and another below-inflation pay offer – all whilst universities continue to generate a handsome income from tuition fees.
“The truth is that very well paid university leadership, who manage institutions with bigger turnovers than top football clubs, are choosing to exploit the goodwill of staff, repeatedly refusing to address the rampant use of casualised contracts, unsafe workloads or the shocking gender and ethnicity pay gap in the sector.
“Our members across the UK know that working in a university does not have to be like this and are clear that they are ready to take action to stand up for their dignity, defend pensions and win long overdue improvements to their pay and working conditions. There is still time for university chiefs to resolve a situation which is entirely of their own making, but they must return to negotiations and make credible offers.”
The National Union of Students (NUS) has come out in support of the staff ballot, saying “students will hold employers responsible” if employers do not come to “a negotiated settlement and address the fundamental issues repeatedly raised by staff.”
Larissa Kennedy, the NUS National President, said, “As students, we regularly witness how staff and student’s conditions are intertwined. University management forcing staff onto casualised contracts, cutting their pay, and now trying to cut thousands of pounds from their pensions cannot be divorced from the fact that one in 10 students has needed to access a foodbank to survive the pandemic – these aren’t the actions of a university leadership or an education system that have the interests of staff or students at heart.
“Staff working conditions are student learning conditions and we stand shoulder to shoulder with our educators in fighting for a more just education system. We demand fully funded, accessible, lifelong education where our spaces of teaching and learning belong to the students, staff and communities they exist to serve. Until then, it is entirely in the gift of vice chancellors and employers to come to a negotiated settlement and address the fundamental issues repeatedly raised by staff. If they don’t, students will hold employers responsible.”
The Provost of Worcester College, David Isaac, has apologised for the College’s decision to host a controversial Christian residential course between 6-11 September. The course featured speakers who have appeared to draw connections between homosexuality and paedophilia, and is run by an organisation which opposes abortion, same-sex marriage, and banning so-called conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ people.
The Wilberforce Academy is a week-long residential course run by Christian Concern, a religious lobbying group, with the aim of “equipping the next generation of leaders in public life”. The course is aimed at students and young professionals working in a variety of sectors including law, politics, the media, business, and the arts.
Cherwell has reported that some speakers at previous Wilberforce Academy conferences have appeared at rallies hosted by groups supportive of the English Defence League, and have spoken alongside the far-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders.
Worcester College is not the first Oxford college to host the Wilberforce Academy. Trinity, Exeter, Jesus, and Wolfson Colleges have all been criticised for hosting the conference. After backlash from students, Exeter College donated the profits from the conference to LGBTQ+ causes. The then-President of Trinity College apologised for hosting the Wilberforce Academy.
In 2018, students at Lady Margaret Hall voted to refuse to allow Christian Concern to hold events in the College on the grounds that their presence would threaten the “physical and mental safety” of students. In the same year, The Queen’s College refused to host the conference because of their commitment to “promoting equality of opportunity and opposing discrimination”. Christian Concern was eventually able to book Wolfson College for their 2019 residential course.
Colleges at Cambridge University have also been criticised for hosting the Wilberforce Academy. The conference was hosted by Magdalene College in 2014, and Clare College in 2015. Sidney Sussex College hosted the Wilberforce Academy in both 2016 and 2017. Magdalene and Sidney Sussex both told the student newspaper Varsity that the Wilberforce Academy was a private booking which did not represent the views of the College.
Christian Concern has been accused of peddling “homophobia and transphobia” for their stance in opposition to same sex marriage, and for describing proposed reforms to the Gender Recognition Act as “an attack on children, families, and marriage”.
The group opposes banning so-called conversion therapy, on the grounds that it would criminalise some forms of religious practice including “spiritual counselling”.
Figures from the 2018 National LGBT Survey found that 5% of LGBTQ+ people in the UK had been offered some form of conversion therapy, and another 2% had undergone it. 53% of respondents said that they were offered conversion therapy by a faith organisation or group.
In a letter to the Evangelical Alliance, Prime Minister Boris Johnson promised that “appropriate pastoral support (including prayer) in churches and other religious settings” would not be criminalised under any ban on conversion therapy. However, survivors of these practices in religious settings have claimed that the “prayer” they received “did its damage” and even caused them to self-harm and attempt suicide.
The chief executive of Christian Concern, Andrea Minichiello Williams, has described homosexuality as being caused by environmental factors such as “the lack of a father” and “sometimes a level of abuse”. These comments were made at a 2013 conference in Jamaica where she was arguing against the repeal of the country’s colonial-era ‘buggery laws’ which criminalise same-sex intercourse.
At the same conference, she appeared to link homosexuality to paedophilia, saying: “They [proponents of LGBTQ+ rights] hate the line of homosexuality being linked to pedophilia. They try to cut that off, so you can’t speak about it. So I say to you in Jamaica: Speak about it. Speak about it.”
Photographs from the conference shared on Instagram show that Mrs Minchiello Williams, visible in a turquoise patterned dress, spoke at the Wilberforce Academy at Worcester College.
Abi, a student studying Theology and Religion at Worcester, told Cherwell: “For me, it’s genuinely surprising that Worcester has agreed to host them [The Wilberforce Academy]. I’ve always been proud of the fact that Worcester is a (largely) inclusive space. Associations with Christian Concern are disappointing and feel like a step in the wrong direction.
“Obviously Oxford isn’t short of problematic connections, and I would never pretend that Worcester is perfect – but I think this puts the students in a difficult position with the college that is loved by many of us.”
In an email to students at Worcester which has been seen by Cherwell, Mr Isaac said: “Worcester College recently hosted a conference run by the Wilberforce Academy, a Christian group who have promoted controversial opinions on a range of subjects, including reproductive rights and conversion therapy. These views do not align with our values, and we are aware that the conference’s presence and promotional materials have caused distress to many members of the College community, including students, staff and fellows. We deeply regret this.”
“Our normal vetting processes did not work as they should have done. We are undertaking a review immediately to ensure that this does not happen again,” he said.
A summary of the curriculum for the five day course is available on the Wilberforce Academy’s website. Day one included discussion of “our Western Christian heritage, how it came about, and why we are now at a critical point in our history”. The summary for day five claims that the “historic freedoms of the Christian West” are under threat from an “encroaching politico-religious ideology of Islam”, and promises discussion on “the nature of Islam”.
Using the Wayback Machine online archive to access previous versions of the webpage, Cherwell found that information about the curriculum was available as far back as August 14th 2020.
Worcester College told Cherwell: “We deeply regret the distress caused to students, staff and other members of the College community by the presence of the Wilberforce Academy conference. The College was not aware of the speaker list or programme content in advance. The booking was taken in good faith, but it is clear that our procedures did not work as they should. We have begun an urgent review to ensure that this does not happen again.”
Mr Isaac continued: “This was a serious failure that has caused significant distress. We apologise unreservedly to all those who have been affected, and we want to work to rebuild trust across the College community.” He urged students who had been affected to contact the College’s welfare team.
After consulting with representatives from the Junior Common Room, Worcester College has decided that the profit from the conference will be used to fund “dedicated equality, diversity and inclusivity initiatives”.
A statement from the JCR included with Mr Isaac’s apology said: “We appreciate how promptly the College took action, [sic] to resolve their oversight in hosting the Wilberforce Academy. We are equally shocked and disappointed to hear about the conference, and we would like to thank the Freshers who brought it to our attention and voiced their worries. We would like to encourage all students not to hesitate to contact us if something in College concerns them.”
Andrew Minichiello Williams, CEO of Christian Concern, told Cherwell: “It seems that cancel culture has once again demonstrated the power of its grip in one of our top universities, fuelled by a small group of activists who won’t tolerate any view that departs from their own narrow ideology and who will resort to tactics of misrepresentation and sweeping allegations to get their way, seemingly frightening nearly everyone into submission. That a college now led by someone who has so often claimed to be a defender of freedom of expression in higher education is rumoured to have capitulated to this aggressive movement is even more concerning.
“We very much enjoyed our week at the college, were very warmly welcomed, including by the Provost, received many compliments from the staff and were not aware of any complaints or concerns being raised with us at the time. Yet now we hear it alleged that the college has ‘apologised’ for hosting us! We will be seeking urgent clarification.
“Whatever happens, we will continue to speak of Jesus Christ who was himself an ‘outsider’ and by his words and actions demonstrated his commitment to reaching the marginalised, excluded and vulnerable so that they could discover true hope and everlasting love through him, even sacrificing his own life to do so.”
The Oxford University LGBTQ+ Society and Oxford University Islamic Society have been approached for comment.
Oxford and Cambridge JCR and MCR bodies are set to be made exempt from new freedom of speech laws targeted at higher education providers and their student unions, according to The Guardian.
The bill states that higher education providers and their student unions must “secure freedom of speech” for students, staff, and speakers. This includes making venues available to all groups or speakers and the publishing of a code of practice for all events.
The bill also gives the government the power to fine higher education institutions who do not enforce the rules.
Oxford student common rooms will be exempt from these laws but Oxford colleges will not be. During a debate on the bill, Michelle Donelan MP, the universities minister, said: “Colleges do fund their junior and middle common rooms. And to that extent, they can exert a lot of control over their activities, as these groups do not own or occupy their own premises, or run the room booking systems. And so imposing these freedom of speech duties on [them] does seem quite unnecessary and overly bureaucratic.”
The exemption was criticised by Labour MPs who accused the government of giving Oxford and Cambridge special treatment. Matt Western MP, the shadow minister for universities, said: “It is ridiculous for ministers to say that students in Warwick or Hull should be subject to unnecessary, burdensome bureaucracy and their student unions put at risk of being sued, but not the students of Oxford or Cambridge due solely to the makeup of the university. The government’s exclusive approach risks creating a two-tier system across our universities.”
Oxford University Student Union has been approached for comment.
It is an astonishing fact that 0.48% of the global population has sole and sovereign say over 20% of the world’s freshwater, 10.4% of its oil, 8.5% of its forests, and possibly the North Pole (depending on your side in the Santa dispute).
I’m exaggerating a bit, of course: nature and its resources have no regard for borders. But the future of a vast swath of land was nevertheless on Monday night’s ballot as the world’s second-largest nation went to the polls, and from afar it might appear that we Canadians are fans of Groundhog Day. Not only did we give Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party, in power since 2015, its third mandate, we even landed on largely the same parliament. From 2019 on the Liberals have governed with a minority of 157 in a 338-seat House of Commons; though the votes are still trickling in, it looks like around 155 Liberal MPs will sit in Canada’s 44th parliament. The Conservative Party’s new leader, moderate Erin O’Toole, also mostly brought his party to the same old destination: as in 2019 the Conservatives won the popular vote by 2%, but will land just above 120 seats. Two seats so far look to change hands in favour of the left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP) led by Jagmeet Singh, while Yves-Francois Blanchet’s separatist Bloc Quebecois (BQ) sees 30+ MPs reelected in la belle province. Just another day in 21st-century Canada.
The thrill, perhaps, is in the minutiae. The Canadian Greens’ dramatic and bizarre implosion over the last few months have captured national eyeballs for a party that consistently polls below 10%: after its charismatic former leader Elizabeth May stepped down in 2019 at the height of a Green wave, her successor Annamie Paul has been embroiled in controversy and leadership challenges from within. As of Monday night it seems that two Green MPs will be heading to Ottawa after all, but Paul won’t be among them: she came last in her home constituency of Toronto Centre last night, and with the Green vote collapsing from coast to coast her leadership is up in the air.
And what of that much-discussed threat to “Western democracies”, however useless the term may be? Canadians walk a fine line between individualistic tendencies and collectivism: our superiority complex towards our southern neighbours tend to make us sneer at their self-obsessed extremes, but to the rest of the world we like to appear, well, “free”. This dilemma has been stretched to the brink by recent implementations of “vaccine passports”, which conveniently lent visibility to a fledgling far-right movement. Maxime Bernier’s populist People’s Party of Canada (PPC), founded after his tense departure from the Conservative caucus, was rendered to bare irrelevancy after its anti-immigration message failed to land in 2019. Emergency public health measures gave it a second life and a new demographic: by openly courting the individualist, vaccine-sceptic crowd, within a few weeks it soared past the Greens and Bloc Quebecois in polls. As of Monday night, the PPC is on track to capture one in 20 votes. First-past-the-post means that it translates to exactly zero seats: Bernier himself swallowed a bitter defeat in Beauce, his home constituency (and the constituency with the highest percentage of White voters in Canada). The PPC is no AfD — if anything, it played into the Liberals’ favour by splitting right-wing votes in key constituencies. Its future likely hinges upon the course of the pandemic: if Trudeau plays his cards well and leads Canada out of the pandemic intact, Bernier and co. may just be yet another herd without a cause.
At many points, the snap election has appeared like an obscene caricature of Global North privilege: the moral grandstanding of our democracy must go on, despite a still-raging pandemic, despite bodies of children found from sea to sea to sea, despite towns burnt off the map by domes of fire. Every party leader apart from Justin Trudeau, who called the election to strengthen his minority in the House, made a point of criticising the very happening of this vote. It would be naive to think that O’Toole, Singh, Blanchet, and Paul genuinely prefer the continuation of a Liberal government over a chance to expand their own parliamentary shares, but pandering to a frustrated public didn’t necessarily pay off. Five weeks of pandemic-style campaigning later, the curtains fall on a country that just wants its government to get back to work.
Don’t worry, I know better than to call our election ‘theatre’: however much those of us in democratic states may feel frustration with our first-past-the-post systems, feeble politicians, or indeed the choices of our fellow citizens, to denigrate the process itself is an insult to the 23% of the world ruled by unaccountable authoritarians. Only 24 hours before Trudeau emerged victorious, Hong Kong’s elites cast ballots in a puppet show that does not belong in the same sentence as an election. Covid is ripping apart public confidence in institutions globally: at least in Canada, we tell ourselves, we still get to speak our conscience.
But what if my conscience tells me that these institutions need to be rebuilt from the ground up? It has been a summer of unrelenting trauma for Indigenous peoples and horrifying (though far-too-late) shock for the country’s settler majority, compounded by a fourth Covid wave, wildfires, the difficulties of economic recovery, and violent incidents of anti-Asian racism. The CBC (Canada’s public broadcaster) reported live from constituencies across the country on Monday night: poignantly, one journalist reported from the doorsteps of the former Kamloops Indian Residential School, where 215 bodies of Indigenous children were found and a national reckoning was set off. How could any political agenda truly reconcile this? We can no longer look for saviours in our politicians: in the postmortem era of Trudeaumania, we expect practical continuity functioning in the background of difficult seismic shifts.
As Canadians send the exact same government straight back to work, most of us are realistic: we’re now all-too-familiar with the Trudeau Liberals’ policy strategies and tactics, and we know more or less what it will and will not do. The rest of the work may just be on our own shoulders, as well as the shoulders of provinces, municipalities, and communities. It is the state that emerges triumphant no matter the winner: the 44th election changed little of Canada’s political landscape, but we did collectively reaffirm some kind of belief in some kind of Canada. I would never dismiss the sacred importance of voting: being the first and only actually enfranchised voter in my family, this enormous privilege is not lost on me. But what Monday night showed us, above all, is that we’re diversifying our relationships with political power. The state will not save us from ourselves.
Image Credit: Can Pac Swire / CC BY-NC 2.0 via flickr
Up to 450 volts of electricity courses through the body during electroconvulsive ‘therapy’ (ECT) sessions. The procedure works by passing an electric current through the brain, triggering multiple seizures that alter brain activity, supposedly relieving a plethora of traits associated with various mental health issues. A ruling by a federal appeals court in Washington DC overturned the Food and Drug Administration’s ban on the use of electric shock therapy on people with mental health issues, after a legal battle focused on its use on autistic individuals at a Massachusetts residential school. This points to a fundamental problem in our discourse around autism and disability more widely; we should be attempting to understand and support autistic people, not to cure them.
The Judge Rotenberg Centre – renamed after county judge, Ernest Rotenberg, who stopped an attempt by Massachusetts state authorities to ban ‘aversives’ (physical punishments used for behaviour correction including smacking, pinching, and ammonia exposure) after the death of a 22 year old autistic man at one of the centre’s homes – has been the focus of much hurt and anger from the autistic community. Aside from the disturbingly brutal nature of shock therapy, much anger has focused on the attempts themselves to ‘cure’ autism. Autism is not an illness; it is a part of an individual and their identity that cannot be removed.
Efforts to cure and treat autism are not limited to ECT and the Judge Rotenberg Centre. The Spectrum 10K study has raised questions of how we discuss and understand autism here in the UK. The study, by researchers at Cambridge University, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), and the Autism Research Centre, amongst others, has asked for 10,000 autistic individuals to send in their DNA for research. Its stated aims are to “investigate the genetic and environmental factors that contribute to autism and related physical and mental health conditions to better understand wellbeing in autistic people and their families”. But the nature of the study’s focuses have raised serious concerns.
Efforts to study the genetic causes of autism generate understandable anxiety that the study might be seeking to ‘cure’ or decrease the prominence of autism. Indeed, whilst Spectrum 10K organisers insist they are not attempting to find a cure for autism, a number of those who are either part of or affiliated with the study have also partaken in projects that would suggest otherwise. Daniel Geschwind, co-principal investigator, has affiliations with an organisation called Cure Autism Now (now part of Autism Speaks), a fairly self-explanatory organisation that focused on research into and treatments for autism. Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, director of Cambridge’s Autism Research Centre and project leader has also stated that there was “no way we can ever say that a future political leader or scientist won’t use the research for eugenics”.
Attempting to eradicate or decrease the prevalence of certain characteristics through genetics, as organisations searching for ‘cures’ and preventative measures for autism do, is eugenics. The eugenicist movement, which first rose to prominence in the UK in the 19th century before spreading across the world, is associated with many of the horrors committed by fascist regimes. The early 20th century saw many governments attempt to ‘phase out’ certain characteristics, including disability and particular ethnicities and sexual orientations, through forced sterilisation, controlled ‘breeding’ programmes and genocide. Cloaking attempts to use genetics to phase out autism in the language of potentially developing ‘pregnancy screenings’ and ‘supporting autistic people’ do not make their true intentions any less terrifying and alarming. Baron-Cohen admitting the possibility of misuse of data has quite appropriately shocked many in the autistic community, who fear future attempts to prevent autism or eradicate it entirely.
Baron-Cohen has also himself been widely criticised by the autistic community. A 2009 BBC article written by him propagates many of the harmful stereotypes around autism. Baron-Cohen writes of the link between “males, maths and autism”, asserting that “people with autism are much more likely to be male” and tying their “male brains” to exceptional mathematical ability. The truth is that whilst the majority of those diagnosed with autism may well be males, autism is not a gendered ‘condition’ and a key reason why autistic men and boys outnumber autistic women, girls, gender non-conforming, and gender diverse people, is that diagnostic criteria remains heavily coded in stereotypical language and assumptions of gender. The trope of autistic people being cold, unfeeling mathematicians and STEM geniuses is equally harmful: autistic people can be creative, we can be empathetic, and we can be talented outside of these fields. Autistic people can also be academically average; the ‘autistic people are superheroes’ narrative would not let you believe it, but autistic people may be academically unexceptional. That is fine too. Baron Cohen cautions that pregnancy screenings or treatments for autism may risk reducing “the number of future great mathematicians”, but in order for an autistic person’s life to matter they do not have to be “great” or exceptional. In order for there not to be a eugenicist attempt to eradicate autism, autistic people should not have to prove their worth.
In this same article, Baron Cohen, whilst discussing the ethics of attempting to prevent autism during pregnancy, writes, if a ‘treatment’ to reduce testosterone in a foetus (believed to contribute to autism) “helped that baby’s future development, we would all be delighted”. “Delighted” to get rid of autism? He then goes on to caution against preventing “not just autism but the associated talents that are not in need of treatment”. The idea that you can take an autistic person and separate out the traits that society is ill-equipped to deal with but keep the characteristics that would benefit society is problematic. The concept of taking the ‘good bits’ from an autistic person, but preventing and eventually eliminating the ‘bad bits’ is dehumanising and concerning. Baron Cohen’s role at the helm of Spectrum 10K has only stoked concerns that the study’s intentions are dubious.
The National Autistic Society (NAS), one of the biggest autism-focused organisations in the UK, has expressed its reservations towards Spectrum 10K project. It states that it “declined to take part” in the Spectrum 10K study and urges “autistic people and parents considering taking part to look into this study carefully and consider the potential benefits and harms”. It goes on to discuss the difficult history of research into autism: “for many years, autism was mis-characterised as a disease or illness and something to be cured… Society and researchers still have a long way to go to fully earn the trust of all autistic people.”
All too often in research and autism discourse, the voices of autistic people are lost or drowned out. Many conversations about autism continue to be dominated by those actually removed from autism: parents and researchers rather than autistic people themselves. Autism Speaks contradictorily only has two autistic board members out of a total of 28 directors on its board. For an organisation which quite literally claims to speak for autistic people and related issues, autistic voices are seemingly rare. Many (but admittedly not all) of those who have come forwards as Spectrum 10K ‘celebrity’ ambassadors are, again, not actually autistic people themselves, but the parents of autistic people. These include TV show host Paddy McGuiness, the father of three autistic children, who described himself as “excited” by the project, and television personalities Carrie and David Grant, who describe Spectrum 10K as offering “hope that it could have real impact on health outcomes and the support available”. In particular, David and Carrie Grant highlighted their “passion…to see more being done for girls and women on the spectrum” as key reasons for urging others to take part in the study. But rather than platforming the voice of an autistic woman or girl, or supporting one of the many organisations that work in partnership with autistic women and girls to aid them, this plea again takes up space that should be for autistic people. A quick Google search of autism will yield countless results and blogs on parenting autistic children and similar parental-focused issues. It requires concerted effort to actually find an autistic voice. Whilst doubtlessly harbouring good intentions, those who speak over autistic people are, in reality, doing very little in terms of tackling societal stigmas and supporting autistic individuals. A seemingly obvious first step of rectifying the many issues with the way we discuss autism is surely to listen to autistic people.
The outcry over both the Judge Rotenberg Centre and the Spectrum 10K study also forces us to examine the way society interacts with disability more generally. The social model of disability, developed as part of the disability rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s, urges us to change the way we consider and discuss disability. It holds that there is nothing intrinsically ‘wrong’ with a disabled person, but rather it is society which is at fault for disabling the individual. This model highlights the systemic barriers and impairments that make life more difficult for disabled people and urges for a more accommodating and supportive social structure. In contrast, the medical model of disability sees the individual as impaired and shifts the ‘fault’ onto them. These two contrasting models are caught up in efforts to ‘cure’ autism. The social model of autism posits that autistic individuals face barriers from an unrelenting and unaccommodating neurotypical society. It still recognises autism and autistic individuals as disabled – not ‘differently abled’ – as they are disabled by neurotypical society. The structural, cultural, and institutional barriers autistic people face do not make them ‘differently abled’, but actively work to disable them.
Those who advocate the social model of autism are also therefore suspicious of any attempts to find a cure for autism. There are many ways society can support autistic people and make their lives better, and the social model encourages this, but attempts to treat or prevent autism switch the lens to a medical one. Studies with the aim of better understanding autism and to improving the lives of autistic people are to be encouraged, but when they are instead attacking autism and therefore autistic people, often subtly through the language of ‘treating’, ‘preventing’, and even ‘supporting’, these studies understandably ring alarm bells. Autism ‘treatment’ through ECT at the Judge Rotenberg Centre or the Spectrum 10K genetic research do not address the societal problems around autism and the treatment of autistic person but, as per the medical model of disability, scrutinise and in many cases punish the autistic individual for simply being themself.
For many autistic people, autism is part of their identity. For me, being autistic is as much who I am as having brown eyes or being mixed-heritage is. None of these characteristics can be fundamentally changed or altered and nor should they be. Reading about genetic attempts to cure or prevent people like me is as dehumanising as it is insulting and offensive. Autism cannot be extracted from the individual, leaving a shiny, super-talented genius behind; for many of us, it is a fundamental part of who we are and our identities.
In retaliating against efforts to cure autism, the names of exceptional autistic people have been reeled off and the prospect of their never having been born pondered. From Albert Einstein to Anthony Hopkins, autistic people have doubtless achieved many amazing things. But we should not oppose those who seek to eradicate or cure autism because of the successes of notable autistic individuals, but because autistic people are people too. Our lives are important and worthwhile no matter what we may or may not achieve. Support for autistic people should not be predicated on exceptionalism, but on humanity.
At the 1993 International Conference on Autism, Jim Sinclair, an autistic man, stated: “autism is a way of being. It is not possible to separate the person from the autism. Therefore when parents say, ‘I wish my child did not have autism’ what they’re really saying is, ‘I wish the autistic child I have did not exist and I had a different (non-autistic) child instead’.” When we talk of curing or preventing autism, we are directly attacking autistic individuals and the value of their lives. Autism often moulds the fundamentals of a person’s life and identity and so an attack on autism is almost impossible to separate out from an attack on autistic people themselves. Autistic people need support; we need extra accommodations and assistance; we need empathy, compassion and understanding. But we do not need curing.
The search for a name for the successor to Clement Cattlee has drawn to a close, with Lyra receiving the most votes from a shortlist of five.
1,700 votes were cast over three days, with 36% cast for the winning name.
Other names on the shortlist included:
• Clawkins
• Martlet – a mythical footless bird in heraldry, several of which appear on University College’s crest
• Mary
• Shelley
Lyra said via Angela Unsworth, Domestic Bursar: “Thank you to everyone who helped to name me, even my new friends at the Oxford Mail and the Cherwell got involved! I love my new name almost as much as I love bits of string, my comfy bed, and ‘accidently’[sic] pushing the big buttons on the Lodge computer (I don’t know what they are for but they make the Porters very excited when I do it…)
“I am beginning to see pictures of me popping up all over and lots of people are already dropping into the Lodge to say hello, now they can call me Lyra when they cuddle me. See you all soon!”
University College said Lyra may dictate future updates, which will be available on the College website.
