Oxford's oldest student newspaper

Independent since 1920

Blog Page 3

Lessons from the Cambridge Union

Image Credits: the wub / CC BY- SA 2.0 via flickr

I went to Cambridge a few weeks ago, and attended a Cambridge Union debate on whether feminism and religion were compatible. I should warn you at this stage that this is most certainly not an article about our esteemed Oxford Union. Any similarities (or perhaps unfavourable contrasts) between the two institutions are purely incidental and drawn at the reader’s own discretion. 

Their Union is a relaxed space. The debating chamber is warm, quite small, and intimate. No Union people or anyone else — besides the Officers and speakers — wore anything more than smart casual. I was greeted at the door with a smile and waved through with my OU card, no questions asked. Many people enjoyed a pint as they watched the debate from the crammed balcony. 

There were precisely zero minutes of pre-debate shenanigans. To my astonishment, the officers and speakers arrived promptly, the president announced the floor prize, and then the whole thing kicked off. There was no mention of anybody’s ‘business’. Instead, we got straight onto the real business and the whole reason we were all there: to hear the debate. 

There were four speakers on each side and nobody spoke for too long. Only one speaker was a student, and they were a fresher. There were no roasts or parliamentary theatrics. Just a frank debate between atheists and liberal religious figures. It was refreshing to hear articulate adults provide different points of view.

Afterwards, everyone was treated to free chips in the bar, with speakers, Officers, and attendees all mixing together. Nobody was whisked away to a private post-drinks reception. Results were announced promptly by the president: it was conclusively decided that religion and feminism were not compatible. As cheers went up, I sat back in my chair to reflect on the night. The Cambridge Union is a smaller, less significant institution than its Oxford equivalent — but I can’t help but feel that a visit to the other place for one Union in particular might well be in order.

Oxford Union believes Israel is an apartheid state responsible for genocide

Image credit: David Hays

The Oxford Union voted for its controversial motion “This House Believes Israel is an apartheid state responsible for genocide” last night, with the society’s buildings surrounded by tight security and protesters rallying outside. The House saw 278 votes in favour and 59 votes against.

Speaking in Proposition were Palestinian poet Mohammed El-Kurd, Union President Ebrahim Osman-Mowafy, Israeli-American activist Miko Peled, and Palestinian-American poet Susan Abulhawa. Speaking in Opposition were British broadcaster Jonathan Sacerdoti, British barrister Natasha Hausdorff, Arab-Israeli journalist Yousef Haddad, and spy Mosab Hassan Yousef. Yousef is the son of terrorist organisation Hamas’ founder who then defected to become a spy for Israeli intelligence. He has been criticised for his hatred of Islam.

Outside the society’s buildings, around two dozen pro-Palestine protesters rallied on St Michael’s Street, their chants audible from the chamber. Oxford Action for Palestine, which called the protest, wrote that its purpose is to show “Zionists are not welcome in Oxford”. A protester told Cherwell that their reason is twofold: to show solidarity with Palestinian speakers, and to stand against the Union’s platforming of speakers.

Speaking first in Proposition, El-Kurd said: “If this motion passes today, it means that this body is catching up to the moral clarity of the global majority. It is about time and about 70 years too late.” He called Zionism “irredeemable and indefensible”. Lastly, El-Kurd refers to Yousef’s work for the Israeli Defence Forces and said it “dishonours me to share a space with [Yousef]” before walking out of the chamber.

Opening for the Opposition, Sacerdoti argued that the Proposition “intended to inflame not inform” and called the motion itself “an outrage”. In middle of his speech, a member of the audience began heckling “you sick motherf***er” and “genocidal maniac” before being escorted out of the chamber. Sacerdoti continued to argue that each Gazan is receiving more food than the world average.

Osman-Mowafy spoke next for Proposition, framing the debate as one that “puts correct names on self evident truths”. He cited specific Gazan families, asking: “How many bullets do you need to kill one family? 335.” He also quoted Netanyahu saying “Gaza is a city of evil” and that “Gazans are animals”, whilst noting that 50% of Gazans are children. Some of the Opposition were chuckling, to which an audience member in the balcony asked: “What’s so funny?”

Next up in Opposition Haddad told the crowd: ‘‘If you are booing, I’m sorry to say it, but you are terrorist supporters”. Haddad cited Jews, Christians, and Arabs playing football together in Israel, how as an Arab-Israeli himself he gave commands to and was saved by Jewish soldiers, and that an Arab man heads the largest bank in Israel – all evidence against an apartheid, he said. He ended by shouting: “You’re losing! You’re losing the Israeli-Arab war! You’re losing everything!” Due to a lack of decorum, he was asked to leave by the Chair during members’ speeches, at which point he put on a T-shirt that read “your terrorist is dead” with a crossed-out face.

Speaking in Proposition, Peled described the terrorist attack carried out by Hamas on 7th October, 2023, as an act of “heroism”, which drew condemnation from the crowd.

Yousef opened by referring to his work stopping Hamas suicide bombers despite being the son of the terrorist organisation’s founder. He then turned to incendiary comments including “Palestinians are the most pathetic people on planet Earth”, which incited many Points of Orders over whether he should be removed from the chamber. In response Yousef said: “this House has been hijacked by Muslims.” He called Palestinians “a false identity” and said that “we [Arabs] will exist long after the Palestinian thugs who came to hijack our society”.

Final Proposition speaker Abulhawa began with a story: “‘When I was in Gaza I saw a little boy whose arms and part of his face had been blown off by a booby-trapped can of food.” She characterised her opponents as “invoking Holocaust and screaming Antisemitism” and said: “I came to speak directly to Zionists: we let you into our homes when your own countries turned you away. You killed and robbed and burned and looted our lives, you carved out our hearts.”

Near midnight, the last Opposition speaker Hausdorff took the stage. She said that Jewish students have been intimidated from attending the debate tonight and called it “a dark moment in the Oxford Union’s history”. In response to the alleged lack of historical and legal context tonight, she said “but I am here, so fear not, ladies and gentlemen” and goes on to argue indoctrination as the centre of this conflict. Hausdorff continued: “Genocide is a slur being alleged against the real victims of genocide in this case.”

Cherwell Town Hall MT24: Meet the candidates

Image Credit: Anita Okunde, Siddhant Nagrath

Anita Okunde

Introduce yourself briefly.

I’m a third year PPEist at Magdalen College, and I’m the Treasurer of the Oxford Union.

What is the main reason you are running for president?

The Oxford Union is quite deeply personal to me. My dad, who didn’t finish secondary school, uses the Oxford Union debates to understand English and the British accent. So, having my paper speech be part of that has always been something that I take quite a lot of personal pride in.

I’m sure we’ve all heard the rumors about the Union not being a welcoming space for people like me. So to my surprise, and my happiness, seeing an officer that looked like me in my first term as a fresher made me feel like it was a space I could be welcome in, and a place that I could actually participate in. 

What commitments and experiences do you have outside the Union?

I’m currently the SU Women’s Campaign co-chair. Last year, I was the Vice-President of the African Caribbean Society. I’ve been a climate campaigner, as well as a former Member of Youth Parliament.

What’s one thing you would change or improve about the Union?

One of my pledges is a “value for membership” project. I understand the initial price of the Oxford Union membership is very steep, and for a lot of people, is inaccessible. I want to make sure that members and potential members understand what they’re buying into. There are a lot of perks that people don’t know about. … I’m currently working on a survey to make sure the members can actually have their voice heard on this.

What issues do you think face the Union in the future? How would you try to fix them?

The underrepresentation of women in leadership roles and on term cards, alongside insufficient provisions for those with disabilities and other protected characteristics. I believe that strengthening the Union’s financial position is essential to funding initiatives that would open the doors to a more diverse range of students and make them feel truly welcome. In the past, I’ve organised women-focused events, such as professional headshot sessions and social gatherings. While these have been impactful, with additional resources we could dramatically improve the scale and quality of these initiatives.

If you could invite three speakers, who would they be?

Michelle Obama. Burna Boy. Chappell Roan.

What’s one particular debate you’d like to see?

“This House Believes that the ICC is failing to hold global leaders accountable.”

Favorite historical union president?

Geraldine Jones, the first woman President.

What song can you not get enough of right now?

“That’s So True” by Gracie Abrams.

Siddhant Nagrath

Introduce yourself briefly.

I grew up in Delhi in India for the past 18 years. I’m studying PPE at Keble. I’m a second year. 

What is the main reason you are running for president?

I think there fundamentally is space for difficult debates and discussions, and I don’t think the Union has been doing that to the fullest extent that it can be. One of the things I pledged in my manifesto is to debate dangerous topics. By that I mean intellectually dangerous topics, the sort of topics that make people a little bit uncomfortable to think about or talk about. The things that actually matter are the ones that make people uncomfortable when they think about it.

What commitments and experiences do you have outside the Union?

I’m Treasurer at the O’Reilly Theater. I am an international competitive debater and competed for Team India at the World School Debating Championships. I work for an actor company. I have run several organisations before.

What’s one thing you would change or improve about the Union?

On the point I said earlier about pushing the boundaries with the topics we debate. For example, one of the biggest debates I can think of is “Hindutva is not Hinduism”. One of the big issues has been this idea that Hindutva and Hinduism are just lumped in together… I want to focus on more intense questions, having the ability to bring in speakers and question them more intensely and under more scrutiny serves Union members better. It also increases publicity the Union receives.

What issues do you think face the Union in the future? How would you try to fix them?

Yeah, I think one of the biggest things we have seen this term is the question of rules reform. Frankly, those reforms were brought in my name, and people voted against them. But I think similar to what the “No” campaign said in their platform: It was not a vote against reform, it’s a vote against these specific reforms. There are systems and rules in society that are broken that allow for action against people from minority backgrounds. I want to work towards fixing that.

If you could invite three speakers, who would they be?

Shah Rukh Khan. Angela Merkel. Sam Altman.

What’s one particular debate you’d like to see?

“This House Believes Hindutva is not Hinduism.”

Favorite historical union president?

Benazir Bhutto.

What song can you not get enough of right now?

“Feet, don’t fail me now” by Joy Crookes.

Ethnic minority residents in Oxford feel significantly less safe than white residents

Image credit: David Hays

Major disparities between white and ethnic minority residents in feelings of safety, cultural inclusivity, and financial security, the City Council’s annual survey reveals. It also captures the housing crisis’s impact, despite an overall satisfaction with the city.

Disparities by ethnicity

While 34% of ethnic minority respondents believe that “people being attacked or harassed because of their skin colour, ethnic origin, religion, or sexual orientation” is an issue, only 9% of white respondents believe so. 66% of ethnic minority respondents agreed with the statement that people from different cultural backgrounds got on well together where they lived, while 81% of white respondents agreed.

Residents from ethnic minorities showed lower satisfaction than white respondents – 52% versus 74% – with the City Council this year. There were no major differences between the two groups on this measure in 2023.

Additionally, Oxford residents from ethnic minority backgrounds have faced more significant financial difficulties than white residents. 24% of ethnic minorities surveyed believe the economy is “really struggling” compared to 10% of white residents surveyed. Moreover, ethnic minority residents of Oxford have had more difficulties buying or moving homes, paying for fuel and energy bills, having job security, and affording food.

Housing

The residents’ survey also revealed Oxford residents are dissatisfied with the level of house building in Oxford. Only 16% of the residents surveyed think that the Council is building enough homes, and only 14% felt that the Council was doing enough to combat homelessness.

The Council aims to resolve shortages in decent housing with its housing organisation OX Place that aims to build 2,000 new homes. However, the Planning Inspectorate has rejected the Council’s aims because these goals are far higher than those set by the standard method for determining housing needs. The Council is thus currently trying to determine the appropriate approach.

The Oxford City Council leader Susan Brown said that while she is pleased by the overall positive view,  she acknowledges the housing crisis: “Everyone who lives or works in Oxford knows how bad the housing crisis is – we are all living through it every day. Building more affordable housing is my number one priority and one that we have been delivering on. Over the last five years, we have built or enabled 856 new affordable homes in Oxford.”

Overall statistics

The survey, conducted by the Oxford City Council annually, polled 899 residents who were selected to be demographically representative. 

Overall statistics are more positive. 70% of respondents were satisfied with their local area as a place to live, compared to 66% in 2023. Moreover, 54% were satisfied with the City Council’s decisions over the previous year, against 24% who were not. 

An overwhelming majority (90%) of Oxford’s residents feel safe in the city centre and residential areas during the day, compared to 70% feel safe at night. However, 43% say that the police and the City Council are not effectively addressing the problems of crime and anti-social behaviours.

Councillor Brown said: “What I most want to say to Oxford residents though is: we hear you. Oxford City Council will continue to fight to build new homes, create new jobs and seek fairer wages – and continue to deliver high-quality services to everyone in our city.”

Oxford professor resigns from Royal Society over Elon Musk’s fellowship

Elon Musk speaks at XYZ conference in January 2024.
Image credit: Wcamp9//CC BY 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Dr. Dorothy Bishop, Emeritus Professor of Developmental Neuropsychology at Oxford University, resigned her post at the UK’s Royal Society over Elon Musk’s fellowship. Bishop says the honor of being a fellow of the Royal Society is diluted by the fact it is shared “with someone who appears to be modeling himself on a Bond villain”.

The Royal Society currently has around 1,800 fellows, and being appointed is considered a pinnacle of many scientists’ careers, a distinction Musk earned in 2018 for his contributions to the space and electric vehicle industries.

In August, a group of 74 other fellows had written to the President of the Royal Society proposing to revoke Musk’s fellowship over his comments on unrest in the UK. They raised doubts over whether he was a “fit and proper person” to hold fellowship. However, the Royal Society lawyer concluded Musk did not violate the organisation’s code of conduct. 

Bishop’s resignation was partly driven by frustration over the difficulty of removing a fellow from the Society. In her blog, she pointed out that no fellow has been expelled in the past 150 years, arguing that election to fellowship, “like loss of virginity, is something that can’t readily be reversed.” She believes the lack of action is partly due to the fact many fellows are not active on social media and therefore do not get a complete picture of Musk’s actions.

Bishop stated that Musk’s fellowship made her uncomfortable, calling it a “contradiction of all the values” of the UK’s national academy of sciences. Along with several other fellows, she gathered evidence suggesting Musk’s actions conflicted with the Royal Society’s Code of Conduct. This included social media posts that they argued offended the LGBTQ+ community and put members of the scientific community at risk. They also raised concerns about Musk’s work with Neuralink, claiming it failed to adhere to regulatory procedures for Good Regulatory Practice.

Additionally, Bishop criticized Musk’s promotion of anti-vaccine views, downplaying of climate change, and spread of deepfakes, which she argued ran counter to the Society’s principles. Musk also threatened legal action against a group of researchers whose work showed that hate speech on the platform X (formerly Twitter) has increased since his acquisition of the site.

She also noted that Musk’s fellowship made her unable to comply with the society’s code of conduct which calls for fellows to treat each other “collegially and with courtesy”.

Bishop called her decision a “gut reaction”. She admitted that her resignation probably would not have any real effect but that it brought her comfort to be disassociated with the organisation: “I didn’t really want to have anything to do with it”. Still, in her blog, Bishop referred to the Royal Society as a “venerable institution” and highlighted the important work it does in promoting science.

Report: Students should be able to view their exam scripts

Image credit: Joshua Fang

A new report by the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) found that current restrictions on students being able to view and share their exam scripts reduces students’ opportunities to learn from past work and “undermines confidence” in the exam system. Currently, Oxford University students can access past exam scripts through a Subject Access Request, a process unfamiliar to most.

The report’s author Rohan Selva-Radov said that it reveals “a pressing need for greater transparency and consistency from universities.” Director of HEPI Nick Hillman concurred that “the issue of transparency in exams is not discussed within higher education as much as [HEPI] believe it should be.” 

The report found that GCSE and A Level boards are far ahead of universities on this issue, with all exam boards having functionality for the sharing of exam scripts, while only 52% of universities do so currently.

In response, the report recommends that all universities publish a policy regarding their approach to letting students see their exam scripts. It goes on to say that all universities should allow their students to view exam scripts as a default and that they should adopt technology that would allow students to do so easily.

Oxford currently allows students to access past exam scripts through a Subject Access Request (SAR). The process, however, is not straightforward, with students needing to email Data Protection to submit an official request. Moreover, most students are unaware that this process even exists. 

A PPE student who used SAR told Cherwell that “I learned about SAR from an Oxfess, so I was initially doubtful of it, especially as my tutor has never heard about SARs. But once I got my essay scores and comments I found it really helpful, so I wish there’s more clarity on how we can access our own academic information.”

City provides beds to rough sleepers following snowfall

Image credit: Roy Shinar Cohen

Due to sub-zero conditions, local authorities activated the Severe Weather Emergency Protocol (SWEP) last Tuesday. The emergency response promises temporary accommodation for all rough sleepers during extreme weather conditions.  

As part of the protocol, local homelessness agencies are to provide free extra beds, offering support to individuals regardless of whether they qualify for benefits or have previously refused aid. Linda Smith, Councillor for Blackbird Leys, told Cherwell: “We [the council] worked with various partners to make sure that up to 41 bed spaces would be available each night.”

SWEP is typically introduced after consultation with St Mungo’s outreach and assessment service Oxford Street Population Outreach Team. The decision is made by morning of that day and staff from the St Mungo’s Outreach team are responsible for checking that everyone who may need to access the service is aware of its opening. Those who are not allocated a SWEP room can still gather at O’Hanlon House, a hostel in the city centre run by Homeless Oxfordshire, between 11 pm and midnight for guaranteed shelter. 

The order was originally set to last from Tuesday 19th of November to Friday 22nd however, after review, it was extended to Monday 25th. Councils across London, Bristol and Bournemouth have taken similar steps in implementing emergency procedures to protect those without housing through freezing temperatures. 

Hannah Faulkner, Head of Rough Sleeping Services at St Mungo’s, outlined the severity of the rough sleepers’ situation: “These low temperatures can kill people who are street homeless and it is absolutely right this is treated as an emergency.”

According to figures released in February by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, there has been a 70% increase in the number of people sleeping rough in Oxford compared with the previous year.

The City Council is currently running several initiatives to combat homelessness, with an agreed £1.65m grant budget for 2024/2025 to help prevent rough sleeping. The grant lends support to the Oxfordshire Homelessness Alliance, a “housing led” service which ties together outreach, accommodation and prevention services across Oxfordshire’s six councils to systematically tackle rough sleeping.

However, just last month concerns arose from homelessness charities in Oxford such as Homeless Oxfordshire, Connection Support and Aspire Oxfordshire over the future of the Rough Sleeping Initiative (RSI) funding which the government recently announced will end in March. 

With charities at a “funding cliff edge”, there are concerns that there will be a steep decline in the availability of aid offered to those facing homelessness. The Draft Housing, Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy for Oxford 2023 to 2028 states: “Continuous funding from the government and other sources is key for it to be able to continue to deliver and develop the range of services that are needed to end rough sleeping in the city.” 

Linda Smith, Councillor for Blackbird Leys, also remarked on the growing difficulties facing the Council regarding the provision of aid to the homeless, telling Cherwell: “There is a shortage of truly affordable housing in Oxford, and rents in the private rented sector are impossibly high for people on a low income.

“This means it is very hard for people to move on into a settled home from a hostel or supported emergency accommodation after a period of rough sleeping. It also means that too many households are reliant on the council accommodating them in temporary accommodation to avoid homelessness, which is creating an unprecedented pressure on the city council’s budget.”

Most menstrual tracking apps are designed with ‘Western assumptions’

Image credit: David Hays

A recent publication led by an Oxford University professor has called for more research into the accuracy of apps such as Clu, Flo, and Period Tracker. The authors note that most period tracking apps are designed with “Western assumptions”, such as monogamy and what should be considered a “normal” menstrual cycle, that limits their cultural relevance and effectiveness in other contexts. 

The research, led by Oxford’s Dr. Franceso Rampazzo, further suggests that period tracking apps may be more popular where there is reduced accessibility to reproductive health services. It suggests that users in countries where there is an “unmet need for family planning” rely more on the apps as methods of birth control and for achieving pregnancy. The paper says that since such apps are designed for use in the “Global North”, the implication of such uses for the apps need to be studied in the “Global South”. 

Co-author Dr Douglas Leasure also expressed concern about the “potential risks when private-sector app developers fill in for reproductive health professionals”, such as the monetisation of individual data that has been collected on a global scale.

Previous concerns have been raised about data privacy in these apps. A report in period app data security by the Information Commissioner’s Office in 2023 stated that 54% of women reported receiving “baby or fertility-related” adverts since signing up for the app. In the US, the overturning of federal abortion rights also led women to delete their period-tracking apps in fear that their data may be used to prosecute abortions.

61% of respondents, from across 112 countries, listed menstrual cycle tracking as their primary usage of the app. Achieving pregnancy was 22% and avoiding pregnancy was 8%. Statistics show that period app usage in South America was similar to that in Eastern Europe. The research was unable to find data for parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and China. 

Unfortunately, the Union Matters

Image Credits: David Hays

Within a decade of being founded, the Oxford Union was already doing its best to tear itself apart – complete with a faux-epic of the conflict written under the name Habbakukius Dunderheadius – and it’s not grown much calmer in its old age. With all the recent convulsions (never mind the constant elections), Union drama sprawls over student papers, Oxfesses, and your Instagram DMs alike. All this for, it must be said, a student society well past its glory days. No one can be blamed for throwing their hands up and complaining that the Union doesn’t matter.

Unfortunately, it does. Not nearly as much as hacks think it does, but it does. On a basic level, it’s a company with employees, a balance sheet, and, as some on Committee have recently learnt, trustees. It’s also snagged more than £300 from thousands of students, so it’s probably worth paying attention to how that’s being spent.

The Union’s most valuable assets, though, are its prestige and history. This already gives us more reason to take notice – I care about what happens to the place that hosted the King and Country debate, that witnessed Malcolm X declare the line that we are not human beings unless we band together. But that legacy gives the current Union power, power to draw big names, and power to broadcast and legitimise others. The Union did not single-handedly make Tommy Robinson or George Galloway famous, but if it had no effect you wouldn’t see so many people protest speakers like Kathleen Stock.

If that doesn’t convince you, think selfishly. The Union is so widely known and has such cultural capital that it affects Oxford as a whole. When articles are written about it being bigoted, or posh, or full of wannabe politicians, that affects how people think of Oxford students in general. The finer details of the Union’s fiercely-guarded independence get lost – sometimes it even gets reported as the Student Union – and, given its members are almost exclusively from the University, the conflation isn’t wholly unfair. Rightly or wrongly, it affects how prospective students see the University, and how you’ll be seen by people you meet in your life, just as stories of the Bullingdon Club did and do. 

Union drama might not be as cataclysmically important as hacks make it out to be, but we can’t ignore it.

Home, and how to find it

Image Credit: Brett Jordan//Pexels License via Pexels

How do you define the undefinable? How do you even begin to think about the meaning of those words whose meaning can only be encapsulated by the word itself? Those words that have powerful associations, that can conjure powerful images, but we cannot draw meaning out of without repeating the word over and over. For me, one such word is “home”.

Now, anyone with an internet access, a dictionary at hand, or a mind of their own will immediately contest this – a home is a definable, tangible thing – and Merriam Webster, Cambridge, Collins and more all contend it is “the place where one lives”. But I have never found it that simple, and it is exactly in that contradiction – the fact that the tangibility so strongly associated with a “home” for me does not begin to describe it – perhaps can attest to that.

My family can never quite seem to sit still – figuratively, not literally of course, and in my 20 years I’ve lived in different 6 places (Oxford being the 7th), and my parents even more. Perhaps it’s a deep rooted wanderlust, or a fear of stagnation, or the realisation that the best thing to do when you are unhappy is to drop everything, pack it up, and move away – and so we did, again and again.

It’s not that I’m complaining, don’t get me wrong, and please do put away your tiny violin. I have been lucky, luckier than most to explore all these different parts of the country, and the world – and that my parents work in a field that allows them to get up and go whenever and wherever they feel like it. What I am really describing, in the grand scheme of things, is a non-issue, it is, in fact, the absence of a problem. But I still think that there is a valuable point in here somewhere, in that the issue of home affects us all, and will come to affect us more profoundly as the years go on. In being at university, we have quite literally stepped out of the comfort of our homes, our past lives, and everything we knew (in one way or another), and have had to reorient ourselves entirely. And for us finalists, that question of “where is home” is becoming all the more pressing. Don’t get me wrong, reader, this is not an article about the housing market. It is about how to conceive of belonging and “home” when it is no longer linked to something tangible – it is about the places where home might be found, the places where it is not found, and it is, fundamentally, about the indescribable feeling of being in a crisis, thinking “I want to go home” and not knowing what that means.

The first indication that my concept of home was perhaps a little abnormal was, when a natural disaster extended a family holiday, I burst into tears. This was a surprise to my bewildered parents for a multitude of reasons. The disruption was such that we would miss the first few weeks of school, I was six, and we were at Disneyland. But still, I cried and I cried and I cried. And, as one does when their child is distraught for no discernable reason, my parents asked “what’s wrong”, and, as has been an ongoing theme in our relationship, I knew I had no idea why I was in such immense anguish – so, I would have to make something up. And so I landed on, “I miss my teddy bears”. And though I still can’t verbalise that feeling, I think, there is some wisdom to be pulled from the echoes of my six year old tantrums. What I am sure many of us have experienced at University, in not feeling “at home” until all our posters, fake plants and fairy lights have been put up in our dorms – perhaps I was onto something in that home can be found in the teddy bear that sits on your bed at university.

But this is not everything. Posters and plants might trick the eye, and perhaps the brain into some superficial degree of comfort, but they can never fully bring about that feeling of “home”. Perhaps I wanted my teddy bear not because he was a visual reminder of comfort and a sense of continuity in the otherwise (apparently) turbulent world of a six year old – but rather, because when you hug a teddy bear, they hug you back.

Perhaps, then, home can be found in the company of others. Perhaps then, the reason a home is a home, is not because we particularly enjoy the four walls and the decorations inside it, but because the love we share with the people inside it. Perhaps, then, a home can be found anywhere. And to some degree I think it can. Because have you not felt that sense of warmth and joy deep inside when you’re crying with laughter with friends, have you not looked around and felt that full-body relaxation, that indescribable sense of comfort? Did you not feel at home at that moment?

Perhaps there is something to be said about keeping bad company, about the virtues of keeping a home and a people separate, and about fostering a sense of internal comfort and self-reliance. Or perhaps that is a topic for another article, for a wiser and older “me”, who, I hope is at “home”, wherever and whatever that means. My point, I suppose, is that, for the finalists among us, it deserves thinking about. What and where is your home, and how this can change. If you have the answer, I would love to hear it.

It seems like life after university is a journey to find our way home, whatever that means.