Tuesday 10th June 2025
Blog Page 3

Dominic Cummings to speak at the Sheldonian Theatre

Joshua McGillivray
-
0
Dominic Cummings to speak at the Sheldonian Theatre

Dominic Cummings, former Chief Advisor to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, will present a 90-minute lecture at the Sheldonian Theatre on 11th June. Cummings is set to speak about contemporary Western politics, focusing particularly on the British and US governments.

The address has been organised by the Pharos Foundation, an Oxford-based group which holds lectures and debates on politics and culture. Pharos describes itself on its Youtube channel as ‘a gateway to civilisation’, and largely hosts conservative academics and political figures. Brexit, identity politics, and classical history are topics frequently covered by speakers for the group. The group invited Cummings last year to an event where he answered questions on topics including the NHS, immigration and the future of warfare.

The lecture on 11th June will in particular address the following questions: “Why are Western regimes in crisis? What can we do in Britain to turn the tide? Why have political and intellectual elites blown up their credibility? What replaces them?”

Cummings first gained national attention as the director of Vote Leave, the official campaign organisation promoting British withdrawal from the European Union, from 2015 to 2016. When Boris Johnson replaced Theresa May as Prime Minister in 2019, Cummings was appointed to serve as his Chief Advisor.

Last year, Cummings spoke at the Oxford Union in an event which was closed to press under ‘Chatham House’ rules. Since leaving government, he has made only rare public appearances other than sporadic media interviews.

The Pharos Foundation describes itself as a “non-partisan research institution and educational charity working for a renaissance across the arts, humanities, and social sciences.” Previous speakers at public lectures include Richard Dawkins, Lord Tony Sewell, and Sir Niall Ferguson.

Barry Lyndon – Kubrick’s ultimate antifilm?

Ruby Tipple
-
0
Barry Lyndon – Kubrick’s ultimate antifilm?

Barry Lyndon has always been dismissed within Kubrick’s filmography. While he is a filmmaker known for his versatility across genres, Barry Lyndon still sits uneasily within Kubrick’s wider body of work. It doesn’t have the satirical bite of Dr Strangelove. It’s not groundbreaking like 2001. There is no rousing hero like Spartacus. It’s not visceral and shocking to the point of censorship like A Clockwork Orange. 

Instead, it’s an austere and remarkably restrained examination of blue-blooded society, based on a Thackeray novel: a classic tale of an idealistic social climber in eighteenth-century Ireland, eventually brutalised by his own successes. 

It’s been discarded by many as a “coffee-table movie” (Pauline Kael). Others describe it as an overly-traditional stepping stone in Kubrick’s career which is dull, uninspired, and ultimately eclipsed by his next and much greater film, The Shining. It seems almost universal among the film world that Barry Lyndon is so ordinary of a creation to the point where it simply doesn’t warrant much attention in comparison. 

Yet, in the conventionality of its subject lies the film’s genius. Barry Lyndon doesn’t make the same kinds of explosive statements which warranted mass censorship campaigns surrounding Kubrick’s other films. Instead, it’s the most subtle peeling back of the glacial veneer which enshrouds the aristocratic society of the past, covering its unpalatable darkness – the most cold, detached way to use the camera in order to examine the violent and uncompromising world which young hero Barry enters into. 

The whole film looks like one, long, eighteenth-century oil painting. In perhaps the most overt example of Kubrick’s meticulous use of mise-en-scene, entire tableaus are constructed in symmetry and uncompromising detail, silent and still. To get the lighting right, whole scenes were filmed in candlelight alone and new lenses were made by NASA for Kubrick’s camera. Cool, detached, and beautiful – the cinematography deliberately evokes classic beauty, straight from the work of Vermeer or Watteau. 

These choices have not helped Barry Lyndon’s reputation in Kubrick’s filmography as an overly-conventional film. Perhaps a different filmmaker would have pressed further into the visceral undertones behind class progression at this time. Others would have found the grittiness of the war and duelling culture that Barry is repeatedly exposed to as a spectacular visual subject – and made a film with the silhouettes, saturation, and cinematographic darkness of a film like Apocalypse Now. Yet, Kubrick not only picks a conventional story, but also a conventional way of visually representing it. 

Yet, peeling back this detached visual layer ever so slightly reveals the darkness that the audience knows Kubrick can represent. There are only small moments where the artifice breaks. It comes in Act II of the film, when Barry lashes out at his step-son, beating him in front of his guests. Kubrick follows the screams of the surrounding women; the boy pushed to the floor by his hair; every punch that Barry lands upon his smaller teenage son. The guests form a gladiatorial circle around the scene – beauty, for a moment, is replaced by animalistic venom. 

The scene lasts 40 seconds. It is still enough to break through hours of visual spectacle. 

That’s why Barry Lyndon is ultimately so worth seeing. It breaks convention by using the artifice of supposed conventionality. Underneath Kubrick’s opulent tableaus lies the worst of human darkness – the primalism which makes us beat our children in front of an audience. Humanity at its most uncompromising, placed behind a mask of social allure. He lets this mask slip just enough for it to be perceptible. Blink and you’ll miss it. 

Yet, this break from visual convention tells the audience all it needs to know about the sort of society that Barry inhabits, and what he is trying to break into. 

Cinema’s hidden gems: Daisies (1966)

Abigail Styche
-
0
Cinema’s hidden gems: Daisies (1966)

Whilst mainstream cinema more often favours the safe and the familiar, some of the most remarkable films ever made are those that dismantle the very idea of what is conventional and slip through the cracks of popular culture. Among these hidden gems, few works have pushed the boundaries of filmmaking to the extent of Věra Chytilová’s Daisies (1966). Inventive, absurdist, and defiantly feminist, Daisies presents an anarchic and visually striking spectacle that epitomises the meaning of experimental film. More than a historical artefact of 1960s counterculture, Daisies remains relevant and artistically radical almost sixty years later. 

Daisies emerged from the artistically fertile ground of the Czech New Wave, a brief but fiercely experimental movement that dominated Czech film in the 1960s. The Czech New Wave was made possible by a period of cultural liberalisation. Following the death of Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev promoted a more moderate mode of socialism. The period became named the ‘Khrushchev Thaw’, allowing for greater criticism of inequality and bureaucracy as censorship became more relaxed. Filmmakers could escape the grip of Stalinist-era social realism which demanded state-approved idealised versions of life. What followed was Czech filmmakers responding to the social trauma and political inequality of the Stalinist era. During this creative opening, Chytilová, an innovator of this movement, crafted Daisies, a film that would cement her place as a radical voice in world cinema. The film shattered both narrative and ideological convention; it was not merely stylistically adventurous but politically subversive. 

At its core, Daisies is a film about female rebellion. The film follows two young women, both named Marie, as they embark on an unapologetic rampage of indulgence, mischief, and chaos. The plot resists coherence in favour of disorder, as the narrative is structured by a sequence of disjointed vignettes. The Maries flirt with and deceive men, gorge themselves on extravagant meals, indulge in wanton acts of destruction, and position themselves as focal points of the public eye. Indeed, they command the attention of the world around them through public disruption, their transgressions transformed into spectacle. They are often centred in the frame, breaking the fourth wall to look directly into the camera. This reinforces their agency through constructing a returned gaze with the audience, disrupting passive viewership and encouraging active critical engagement. 

Visually, the film reflects this narrative havoc: jump cuts collide with psychedelic colour filters, scenes switch abruptly between monochrome and saturated colour, and images are mirrored, reversed, or interrupted. Just as the Maries defy societal expectations of how women should behave, Chytilová defies expectations of cinematic continuity. This rebellion holds greater significance when considering that Chytilová was the first female student at the FAMU film school in Prague, paving the way for female expression in a male-dominated industry.  Chytilová transforms editing from a passive mode of storytelling into a political weapon, attacking the patriarchal structures that dictate how women should behave and how films should be constructed.  

The Maries are not designed to be digestible characters, nor do they conform neatly to familiar archetypes of tragic victims or righteous rebels. They are joyfully disruptive, self-serving, and unapologetically hedonistic. Therefore, it is clear that Chytilová is not offering role models to be placed on a pedestal; she instead aims to provoke the audience. The Maries are a parody of the roles which women are expected to occupy. Whereas modesty and restraint were the expectation, they are indulgent and excessive. Their transgressions challenge the limitations of a culture fixated on control, particularly over the female body.  

Even their childlike mannerisms and line delivery confront the infantilisation of women, not only rejecting social performance but embodying a grotesque caricature, exposing the absurdity of the monitoring of female behaviour by embodying childish mischief. Even today, almost sixty years later, Daisies retains its significance in an era where female bodies and behaviour face a renewed scrutiny in the digital age. This enduring relevance makes Daisies a true hidden gem. The presentation of female autonomy as unapologetically disruptive and gleefully messy still feels like a breath of fresh air.  

Unsurprisingly, the film was banned shortly after its release. The official reason for this was the destruction of food, largely in reference to the climactic scene in which the Maries trample over a banquet table, feasting on and destroying food, a parody of the elite’s wealth and excess during a time of famine. What truly earned the censorship was, in reality, the film’s mockery of authority, celebrating chaos as a form of resistance. This suppression only further cements Daisies as a hidden gem. Despite having been buried by state censorship, Daisies has been rediscovered and praised for its unique style and rebellious attitude. 

Daisies is a reminder of cinema’s power as a medium of social rebellion. Věra Chytilová didn’t just make a feminist film – she produced a piece that pushes all boundaries of cinema, amplifying a female voice demanding to be heard in a world that systematically tries to silence it. 

And the Isis roared – Summer Eights 2025

Arun Lewis
-
0
And the Isis roared – Summer Eights 2025

For the viewing public, and those involved in the racing, Summer Eights 2025 gave some reasons to be fearful. The Thamesis Regatta, the very first novice regatta of the year, had been cancelled earlier in the academic year due to flooding, the Isis bursting its banks and leaving some boathouses unreachable. Torpids was run on half-divs, with only the top crews competing, leaving many novice rowers equivalent bumps experience.

Could this Eights live up the legacy of all the divisions and crews that had thundered down the Isis before it? Would a batch of rowers and coxes who had little-to-no experience in a racing format with plenty of potential for chaos produce safe and engaging racing?

In short? It did, and they could.

The week of Eights began with its inaugural staple, Rowing On. For most non-guaranteed crews, this is a pleasant but not uncompetitive start to the competition. The cut-off time for was 3:16 for Men’s crews and 3:52 for Women’s Crews. Only five women’s boats failed to qualify (admittedly out of a slightly smaller contingent competing for qualification) whilst 21 men’s boats did not make the cut. As someone who rowed on, it was a preview of Bumps. A 800m sprint, at a pace impossible to maintain over the full Eights course, which left the crew confident and qualified for the real deal on Wednesday.

The day arrived inclemently, with temperamental weather alternating between spitting rain and sharp sunlight. With several colleges fielding large numbers of fixed crews plus beer boats – motley crews of ex-Blues or M2-3 washouts, wearing their finest shirt and tie in the case of New College, or tasteful references to Camden Hells for St Edmund’s Hall – seven divisions were organised, racing lasting from just after 12pm till past 6pm, covered live, day-by-day by this paper and racedesk. 

A sense of frisson was present, like at the demonstration of a new car or the first appearance of a football team under new management, driven by that same curiosity about what might happen this year. Many divisions had to wait significantly longer than five minutes on bunglines to find out, as houseboats, pleasure steamers and swans decided that 2025 was their year on the Isis.

But when the starting gun fired, the week began in earnest.

As with any good Oxford event, there was its fair share of drama. Balliol College M3, in attempting to secure its position in Men’s Division V as the sandwich boat, ended up spearing into a houseboat on the left bank of the Isis. Not only did this leave a sizeable hole in the houseboat, but the damage done to M3’s Empacher relegated them to a less impressive boat for the rest of the event. An Oriel College bump on Lady Margaret Hall left serious damage to LMH’’s boat, whilst OxRow reported generational levels of rattling from Oriel crews when faced with their own chant after failing to bump.

Beyond the mishaps of the week, the true focus was on the battle for headship, blades and spoons. Oriel had sat happily atop the men’s divisions for the first three days of Eights, as Christ Church and Keble fell away, before being caught on the last day by an incredible charging Wolfson crew. Christ Church W1’s headship defence imploded after penalty bumps for themselves and Pembroke for impeding University’s W1, who then lost headship to Wadham who, on the last day, were pipped by a Pembroke crew that now holds both Eights and Torpids headships. 21 crews got blades in all, including Somerville W1-3, several boats from Reuben college and Teddy’s beerboat, with a generational over-bump of eight boats in one day leading to them climbing from Division VI to V. 16 boats received spoons, including ex-headship boat Christ Church W1, and two crews from St Catherine’s, Corpus Christi and Jesus, respectively.

Each boatclub could be proud of the efforts of their rowers, whether they got headship, blades, a bump, rowed over or got bumped day-by-day. Spoons and blades might memorialise misfortune or masterful performances on the river, but they don’t capture the scores of training sessions and listless hours spent building a crew over what is the busiest term of Oxford life. You might have just missed out on blades, like Univ’s W2, or won them like the M2. But by turning up for training when the rest of Oxford made the sane choice of staying in bed, carb-loading with the most disgustingly large portions of pasta available, and enduring the aches and pains of rowing, any college rower can and should look back with joy and pride at Summer Eights 2025.

In short, Eights this year delivered the same racing thrills and excitement that it has always strived to, with close racing, drama and glory all occurring on the same stretch of dirty river. It was everything hoped for, and more.

Review: Troilus and Cressida – ‘A missed opportunity to appeal to the brain rot generation’

Georgina Cooper
-
0
Review: Troilus and Cressida – ‘A missed opportunity to appeal to the brain rot generation’

Having heard on the grapevine (and even receiving word from the producer himself) about Troilus and Cressida falling victim to a last-minute casting upheaval, I decided that I needed to go into this play at the Burton Taylor with an open mind. This turned out to be a fortunate attitude to have armed myself with. Moribayassa Productions promised ‘an anti-garden play’ that would be a ‘violently shortened and mutilated’ version. Their promotional video was edited in a distinctly brain-rot style: Justin Bieber’s ‘I Feel Funny’ as the soundtrack, pictures of old men flashing over the blue-toned video, hearts edited onto eyes. Over the course of the play’s 2 hours, it swung from the comically absurd to the melodramatically serious, with varying levels of effectiveness. 

This production transposed the play to a surreal world of video games and crocheted balaclavas instead of helmets. As I entered the space, I was struck by the use of music that sounded like digital bleeps and at how the bare set had a box TV as the focal point of the stage. During the play it was used variously as a display for the litany of Trojan warriors, as a karaoke machine, and as a method of further alienating the outsider, Thersites, who existed only in the videos that were played on it. The sped-up editing of him whizzing around on different playground equipment to techno music (a style that would have made Baz Lurhmann proud) was one of the many early indicators that this show was seeking to subvert the audience’s expectations.

The figure of Pandarus (the actor has chosen to remain ‘anonymous’), an unsettling cross between C-3PO and Lucius Malfoy, was a highlight of this production’s aim to unnerve. With his iPad in one hand (lines needing to be near as a very recent addition to the cast) and a vape in the other, he spoke his lines liltingly between his blackened teeth. Even his most serious speeches were punctuated by him pausing to take a puff of his vape – a move that never failed to make the audience laugh. His conversation with Alexander (Benjamin Helmer), who laced his lines with an inexplicable southern drawl and a smirk, was one of the funniest moments. Similarly, his karaoke performance of Wanda Jackson’s ‘Funnel of Love’, with his voice swerving between a ludicrous falsetto and chesty bass, had me laughing for minutes on end, even after the next scene had begun.

Cressida (Georgie Cotes) did very well to maintain a dynamic performance when dealing with this absurd Pandarus and shuffling Troilus (Rufus Shutter). Alongside her varied performance, her dress worked to highlight the chameleon nature of her character, changing from black to red to brown depending on the colour of the lights Cotes was standing under. However, the performances of both Cotes and Shutter did tend to be still tableaus of emotion rather than believably reactive, most noticeably in the second half. Their parting scene especially failed to elicit any sympathy from me, as I simply did not believe in their romantic connection – a significant problem given this production had whittled the play down to just their love story. The distress of Troilus that took up much of the second half of the performance felt unwarranted and became monotonous very quickly.

Ultimately, the play failed because it attempted to be sincere – subverting my expectations for the worse. After the first act, I happily believed that the show was one big trolling of the audience. The second half’s lack of absurdity (except a moment when actors onstage converse with the recorded Thersites on the TV) and overemphasis on the tragedy of the lovers was a slap in the face – and a lacklustre one at that. The tone switch had already been undermined given that the first half had worked to inhibit the audience creating emotional connections with the characters through its engagement with the absurd and the quite frankly boring directing of the actors, many of whom were lying down for scenes at a time. In a play that had started so bizarrely, it was remarkable that by the end I only felt one emotion: boredom. This was a play of two halves where the second half tried to doggedly claw its way back on track instead of committing to the bit. Rather than the TROLL-us and Cressida I had hoped for, I left utterly unsatisfied. 

Oxford Bus Company urges County Council to curb ’emergency’ congestion levels

Archie Johnston
-
0
Oxford Bus Company urges County Council to curb ’emergency’ congestion levels

Urgent action by Oxfordshire County Council to alleviate Oxford’s congestion problem has been called for by managing director of the Oxford Bus Company, Luke Marion. 

Marion called for “urgent measures” to combat “emergency levels” of congestion in a post to the Oxford Bus Company website in March. He pointed to the closure of Botley Road for improvements at Oxford Station as a particularly important cause. 

Marion told Cherwell: “Our own data tells us journey times on the Abingdon Road have increased by an average of 17% since the closure of Botley Road. Furthermore, services between Blackbird Leys and Oxford City Centre have slowed by 33% in the last decade, and journey times from Wood Farm into the city have worsened by 15% since 2019.”

Botley Road was first shut in April 2023 to allow for improvement work at Oxford Station. The road was originally scheduled to re-open in October 2024, but delays to construction have meant that it is currently set to re-open in August 2026. 

Oxfordshire County Council told Cherwell: “As highways authority, throughout this period we have done all we can to minimise the impact on the rest of the road network by working closely with Network Rail and our other partners, such as the bus companies, to keep the city moving.”

The County Council had planned to tackle congestion in Oxford in 2024 by establishing a system of traffic filters, which would have fined motorists in the centre of the city without a permit. 

The County Council told Cherwell that the filters would reduce traffic flow in the city centre by around 35% during “morning and evening peak periods” and “improve average bus journey times during the day by 6.5% across the Oxford SmartZone, which includes Oxford and surrounding areas.” However, the Botley Road closure has meant that the traffic filters will only take effect in autumn 2026. Marion has urged the council to find a “plan B” in the meantime.

Councillor Andrew Gant, Cabinet Member for Transport Management at Oxfordshire County Council, responded to calls for urgent congestion management, saying: “The county council’s cabinet takes these calls for action seriously. We need faster, more regular, cheaper bus services, and we need them now.

“The way to do that is to tackle congestion, which will of course also deliver safer, quieter, cleaner streets, and help key workers and businesses delivering vital services on our roads. We acknowledge the calls from our partners in the bus companies to act now, and I look forward to engaging on proposals soon.”

Labour MP Sean Woodcock and Labour county councillor Brad Baines have called on the Liberal Democrat-led Council to take advantage of new powers set to be granted to local transport authorities in the government’s Bus Services Bill. 

The bill will give local authorities new powers over fares, routes, and timetables, with private companies bidding for contracts to operate. Woodcock said: “I urge Oxfordshire County Council to seriously consider what steps are available to them, and I look forward to their response.”

Baines said: “Public transport is a key public service and cannot just be about profit. The government is giving us the powers, let’s take back control of routes, fares and timetables to improve services for passengers.”

Labour councillors were challenged by Green County and City councillor Emily Kerr, who said: “whilst Labour and the Tory Alliance say they want [decreased bus journey times], they’ve opposed the policy suggestions which will deliver it, such as traffic filters.”

Improvements to the local transport system are set to be discussed by the County cabinet, elected last month.

The Song Is Over: The Who on their farewell tour

Dylan Brennan
-
0
The Song Is Over: The Who on their farewell tour

In a quietly emotional press gathering at Iconic Images Gallery that Cherwell was privileged to attend, The Who formally announced their final curtain call. Formed in the smog-choked backstreets of 1964 London, four angry young men from Acton chose to hurl their post-adolescent fury through amplifiers into the ears of a changing Britain. Over the decades, they have become one of the UK’s most influential bands, with landmark albums like Tommy, Who’s Next, and Quadrophenia, and anthems such as “My Generation”, “Baba O’Riley” and “Won’t Get Fooled Again”. Inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1990, The Who have sold over 100 million records worldwide. Now, they prepare to take their final bow on American soil.

The 16-show tour marks the conclusion of a six-decade transatlantic love affair – one last lap of honour from the sonic architects who birthed the rock opera, pioneered the art of instrument destruction, and turned windmill guitar strums and primal screams into defining iconography of rock rebellion.

“Everybody’s dream was to make it in America,” reflects singer Roger Daltrey. “Every young musician’s dream was that act. That’s where the first pulses of rock music came from.” There’s a tender reverence in his tone when discussing American audiences – an acknowledgement of completion, of a circle closing. “It meant so much, and it’s been so loyal to us. And I hope we’ve given back to it in the same manner. But it’s got to come to an end one day, and it would be great to do it while I can still sing the songs in the same key, and Pete’s still playing great guitar, and the music’s still got that vitality to it.”

With a touch of wistfulness, the conversation shifts to memories of the band’s first arrival in the country. “It goes back to 1967 in New York. Murray the K’s ‘Music in the Fifth Dimension’,” begins guitarist Pete Townshend before Daltrey cuts in, reaching further back: “Even before that, we had a show in a school gym in Ann Arbor, Michigan. We turned up, set our equipment up in this little part of the gym, went about playing our songs. And the audience just kind of stood over the mouth of it. We didn’t know how we’d be received. But when we smashed the guitar at the end, they went absolutely nuts. So we thought, well … there’s hope.”

That hope, however, demanded persistence. Their American conquest was not immediate, nor was it without struggle. “It took a lot of schlepping,” Townshend told Cherwell wryly. “A lot of tour buses and cheap motels before we actually made it. An awful lot of work went into doing it. And it wasn’t until our record Tommy, which eventually led to us playing Woodstock, that we were really surrendered into American pop culture.” 

Another early turning point was the Monterey Pop Festival in 1967, where the band shared the bill with Jimi Hendrix. “I felt it was wrong for The Who to go on after Jimi, to be honest,” Townshend admits with characteristic frankness, “because I felt he was a superior performer, and certainly a better guitar player. Though I won’t say he sang better than Roger, because he didn’t.” Such humility from one of rock’s most celebrated guitarists speaks volumes about the genuine respect these musical titans held for their contemporaries.

Those early American shows cemented a special relationship with audiences, particularly in New York. “They came and they had a good time and they shouted and screamed, but they really, really listened,” the band recalls with evident fondness. “We had experienced that in universities here in the UK. We played in lots of common rooms, and the students would sit down and have a drink or roll a joint and really listen. And now these days, a lot of people have got memories of meeting their future husbands and wives at Who shows, and they bring their grandchildren to see us. Us being out there performing for the last time is really just to say thank you.”

Discussing their setlist planning, Daltrey reveals the challenges of modern touring: “It’s very difficult. I can’t tell you what we’ll play.” Townshend adds that the technological demands of contemporary performances have transformed how they approach live shows: “Running a show these days is totally different from how it used to be. We used to turn up with a load of amplifiers, a PA that we set up on the stage. We knew what songs we would start with. And then as we went through the show, we would feel the emotion of the audience. And I used to shout out to the guys the next song. But in today’s technology world, where you mix the sound from out front, you have a light show and all that everyone seems to expect, it’s impossible not to have a setlist. Because you’re working as a military unit. The gun batteries rely on the infantry.”

When asked which songs he’s particularly excited to include, Townshend mentions ‘Love, Reign o’er Me’ as the track he’d most like to be remembered for. Daltrey, after some hesitation, suggests ‘Behind Blue Eyes’ is the best song he’s ever written, though he confesses he finds it impossible to pick just one favourite from their extensive catalogue. The tour is aptly named ‘The Song Is Over’ – a title that Townshend calls “Roger’s idea, and I think it’s brilliant”. The song from their 1971 Who’s Next album might feature in the setlist, though Townshend admits that they are still learning to play it.

Daltrey, when asked for advice he might offer his younger self after six decades in rock and roll, responds with a practical quip: “Yeah, read the contracts.” But he proves equally capable of deeper reflections when asked about how he feels he has evolved as a vocalist: “I can still sing songs in the same keys as back in those days, but it’s got a totally different quality. That’s because there’s 60 years of living coming out in that voice. Even though you’re saying the same word, the expression that’s being connected is just that bit different.” When describing the emotional connection he feels to the music, Daltrey becomes almost mystical: “It’s like an energy comes through me that I can only get when I’m singing songs that I love to sing and I’m passionate about connecting. There’s a feeling…I don’t feel whole unless I’m singing. That’s when I’m most comfortable in my life because I’m almost on another planet.” 

While fans might expect the famously guitar-smashing Townshend to have a deep relationship with his instruments, he surprised the interviewers by describing guitars simply as “tools”. “I don’t have a relationship with a guitar,” he confessed. “It’s a tool…a slab of wood with strings.” This practical approach hasn’t stopped him from testing new models, however. “Recently, I bought two guitars online. I bought a Paul Reed Smith guitar, and a guitar called a Jackson, which is made by Fender now, I think. Both those guitars – I played them and they completely blew me away. But on stage, I have to go back to something which is proven, which I know is going to do the job and which isn’t going to fall apart in my hands because I’m pretty brutal.” 

It’s a strangely utilitarian view from the man who elevated guitar destruction to an art form. The iconic image of him smashing a perfectly good Rickenbacker against the stage floor became as much a symbol of rock rebellion as any anthem in their catalogue. There’s something almost paradoxical about Townshend – the mania onstage masking a deeply thoughtful composer offstage. When asked what’s kept him going all these years, he looks inward: “Creativity has been what sustained me rather than performing. For me, it’s the link between the creative stuff and the performing. Whatever we play, the chances are I will have written it. So there’s that sense of closing a circle, having one last grab at trying to bring that thing to life.”

When pressed about a potential UK farewell show, both musicians remain noncommittal. Daltrey, having just completed a solo tour in Britain, notes the contrast, particularly in terms of travel logistics: “Touring America is a damn sight easier than touring the UK because for some reason or another the UK has decided to make it as difficult as possible to go from A to B. In America, you seem to want to make it as easy as possible.” Townshend acknowledges potential options – perhaps a week at the O2, a couple of weeks maybe at the Albert Hall – but points to their need for recovery time between performances, with Daltrey adding: “I’ve been ordered by my throat specialist to say you have to have a day off after every gig and after every three gigs you have to have two days off. Because otherwise you will wreck your voice and you will not be able to sing.”The North American Farewell Tour begins on August 16th in Florida and concludes on September 28th at the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas. No overwrought farewells, no excessive spectacle – just two survivors of music’s most volatile era, raising a toast to the country that gave them back their echo. The music will never die, but this particular song is, indeed, over.

University launches new online resource for state schools

Joel Jackson Buckley
-
0
University launches new online resource for state schools

Oxplore Teach has been launched by the University of Oxford as the an free online platform aimed at supporting academic enrichment in UK state schools. The platform offers ready-to-use activities designed to help students aged eleven to develop confidence and critical thinking skills, helping them to think like a “university researcher”. 

This initiative is part of the University’s broader access and outreach efforts to engage pupils earlier in their educational journey. They aim to encourage more applications from state schools through introducing the idea of Oxbridge at an earlier stage. The University has improved in its state school admissions over recent years with 67.6% in the 2023 admissions cycle. However, there is still a disparity compared to the 93% of the population in state education.

The team behind the platform told Cherwell that the programme is designed to engage their “established network of schools who are less likely to send their students to Oxford”. They have been working with the senior leadership teachers at The Challenge Academy Trust in Warrington to create the programme. 

The platform aims to tackle what the University calls the ‘leaky pipeline‘ phenomenon, where initially high-attaining children from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds at Key Stage 2 often cannot carry this through to GCSE or A-Level attainment. 

Teachers can use the Oxplore Challenge within their timetables. They consist of a 45-minute session, which can be broken into four shorter activities, designed to be used at lunch or in after-school clubs. 

The topics are designed to provoke curiosity and stretch students intellectually as they are often more philosophically inclined or research-based rather than the typical information-recall focus of their regular curriculums. 

Questions such as ‘Can you build a shelter on the moon?’ are intended to prompt pupils to think creatively about space research and engineering, while others like ‘Can you speak more than one kind of English?’ facilitate exploration of dialects and language diversity.

One state school teacher from the comprehensive West Derby School in Liverpool, told Cherwell that they would definitely consider making use of the platform during lessons and considered the lessons “exciting and different”.

The fate of Oxbridge Launchpad shows only the University can improve access

Stanley Smith
-
0
The fate of Oxbridge Launchpad shows only the University can improve access

The most rewarding thing I did in my first year at university was to sign up to Oxbridge Launchpad. During the Hilary break and in desperate need of something to take my mind off a sub-par Q-Step essay, I came across the initiative – a non-profit aimed at increasing the number of state-educated and underrepresented students enrolled at two of the best universities in the world. As a volunteer tutor, I was assigned to an extremely bright young person and we worked in free weekly sessions to develop her personal statement, practise for the entrance exam, and prep for her interview. 

When the news came in January that her application was successful, I was buzzing. I by no means got her place for her but I felt my small effort had at least sent her into that fateful Teams call in December a little more prepared, having helped bridge the ‘information gap’ that means private school students are more aware of what’s needed to succeed than their state-educated counterparts. In a year of privilege and solipsism, dining in giant halls, dressing up for silly Latin ceremonies and fretting over the trivial concerns of my degree, it felt like genuinely important work. 

So when an email arrived this March inviting me to a Zoom call to hear about the “exciting new chapter” for the organisation, I was naturally interested. What I found, however, left me less than stoked. We were informed that the organisation was becoming for-profit, putting its resources behind a paywall and charging £29.99 per tutoring session. They would now offer ‘community spaces’ (read: a discord server) for paying customers to be in constant contact with Oxford students, in what very much resembles the money-for-connections network that the initiative was founded to challenge.

It is obvious that this is a betrayal of the organisation’s original raison d’être. Slapping a hefty fee on the tutoring makes the crucial information tutors provide drastically less accessible. Take the (at least) 22 hours of free tutoring I provided. It would now cost a student £660, a sum few have to splash on an application that may well be unsuccessful. Whilst the staff on the zoom call cited issues with the old system (too many tutors and too little oversight) as a reason for this change, rectifying these does not require the introduction of profit. The founders could have created stronger vetting for tutors or introduced a small fee to cover administration costs, without yanking the prices as high as they have. The old website, now replaced by a sleek new model, declared that “our sole mission is to propel the brightest minds to two of the most prestigious institutions in the world”, but clearly making a pretty penny has become a priority as well. Oxbridge Launchpad is now just another tutoring company, albeit one that is shrouded in the language of social justice. This, in the context of Oxford’s declining state school offer rate, is pretty depressing.

But I’m not here just to bash the organisation for its decision. Ultimately, these changes to Oxbridge Launchpad are a reminder that no-one can improve access to Oxford and Cambridge for them, they must do it themselves. As long as the disparity between private and state education remains, and it looks set to do so as Rachel Reeve’s budget indicates that no new funding is coming, only the institutions themselves have the means to correct imbalances. Crucially, they are also the ones with the real incentive to do so. Remaining a top university requires choosing the students with the most potential to excel in higher education, not those who have been molly-coddled to success at their secondary school. 

Certainly, the universities are making some effort, for instance Oxford’s Astrophoria foundation year. But places on such initiatives are limited, and are not the widespread reform of the admissions process needed to correct the legacy the pandemic left on education inequalities. The current provisions remain exclusive, selecting those who have managed to already excel despite their disadvantages, for instance Oxford’s UNIQ program states that it “prioritises places for students with good grades”. More must be done to discover not only the already successful, but those with potential. 

Many individual colleges do fantastic access work, but the problem is compounded by the fact that those most determined to correct inequalities often have the least means to do so. Mansfield, the only Oxford college whose ratio of private to state school students reflects national averages, has the smallest endowment. Meanwhile, many of the wealthiest colleges, such as Magdalen, remain happy to sit on their hands and accept the highest proportions of the privately educated. What’s required is a coordinated effort across colleges, and that will only occur if the central administration makes it happen. 

External charitable initiatives are important. I for one have seen the difference they can make. But Oxford and Cambridge can no longer rely on them to do their access work for them. Oxbridge Launchpad’s prioritisation of profit over progress shows us that, if inequalities in admissions are to improve, the universities will have to roll their sleeves up and get to work. 

University discipline statute retains ‘problematic clauses’ despite year-long consultation

Amelia Gibbins
-
0
University discipline statute retains ‘problematic clauses’ despite year-long consultation

Proposed changes to Oxford University’s disciplinary code have faced criticism for retaining “problematic clauses” that “remain at risk of overreach”, despite a year-long consultation prompted by backlash over free speech concerns. The power of the University to temporarily ban students from its land as a precaution, as well as limiting freedoms to protest, has been met with scrutiny.

The amendments will also enable the University to investigate more cases of serious misconduct without complaints having to first be lodged with the police. They aim to make the disciplinary process clearer and more accessible, according to a notice in the Gazette.

The proposals also address artificial intelligence, stating that the unauthorised use of AI in examinations is a form of academic misconduct. It clarifies that submitting “materials generated by artificial intelligence” is not considered a student’s own work.

If passed by Congregation later this month, these changes will be enacted to Statute XI, which includes the code of discipline for all students. The updates would come into effect from September 2025, bringing university procedures in line with Office for Students (OfS) guidelines that come into place this summer. 

Concerns with proposed changes

Amendments to the statute proposed in June 2024 were met with concern as a statement circulated which warned of “illiberal” and “alarming” clauses. Opposition to the amendments was noted by over 15 academics in a resolution submitted to Congregation, and over 30 academics backed a resolution in support of a working group. This led the University Council to withdraw them, and the working group was established to revise the proposals. 

The authors of that statement, who have now come forward as Daniel Tate, Isabella Cuervo-Lorens, and Lara Hankeln, told Cherwell that there remain a number of clauses that “still continue to concern [them],” despite some “notable improvements” as compared to last year.

One of the clauses in question stipulates that no member of the University or student member may “disrupt or obstruct” university activities. If the new amendments are passed, this will include disrupting or obstructing “the lawful exercise of freedom of speech”, including by visiting speakers. Protests permitted by the Proctors, however, will not breach the disciplinary rules, though the University did not respond to how many had been allowed in the last two years.   

Another clause introduces the power to temporarily ban students from University premises for up to 21 days. This can be used as a “precautionary measure” if there are “reasonable grounds” to believe that an individual “is likely or threatens to cause damage to property or harm to other users”.

The authors told Cherwell that both of these clauses “remain at risk of overreach, vagueness, and ambiguity.” They asserted that these clauses, as well as another that pertaining to police arrests, could have a “chilling effect” towards freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and academic freedom.” 

Statute XI Working Group

The authors told Cherwell that they provided recommendations on how to address these concerns to the Statute XI Working Group and to members of the three University committees reviewing the amendments. Although they are “relieved” at the improvements, they maintain that the updated proposal retains these “problematic clauses”.

The Working Group on the Statute XI Amendments was proposed by 31 members of Congregation to address the problems with the 2024 legislative proposal. The Student Union (SU) Vice President for Postgraduate Education and Access (VP PG), Lauren Schaefer, was a member of the Statute XI Working Group. 

The SU told Cherwell that Schaefer presented student views in the Working Group, and described it as a “productive and informative space, eager to hear and respectful of student views.” They told Cherwell that “the SU is confident that Statute XI issues have been subject to all due scrutiny through the University’s governance processes.”

By contrast, however, the authors of last year’s statement told Cherwell about issues with “the spirit and terms” of this Working Group. They claim that the process was “undermined by the University administration’s undue influence over the Working Group’s output, as well as by the Working Group’s lack of transparency and approachability.”

The authors told Cherwell that they urge “fellow students to keep up-to-date on the Statute XI process, scrutinise the University Administration’s actions with critical eyes, and remain mindful of their rights under UK and international human rights law.” The SU encouraged students to use formal complaints channels if they believe rules have been applied inappropriately.

In response to concerns with the amendments, a spokesperson for the University told Cherwell: “The proposed changes before Congregation build on a previous set of proposals that was initially developed in 2023/24, and has been further comprehensively reviewed over the past seven months. Staff and students throughout the collegiate University have been extensively consulted.

“The proposals will allow the University to investigate more cases of serious misconduct, make the disciplinary process clearer, more accessible, and more effective, and ensure that the University meets the appropriate regulatory requirements on harassment and sexual misconduct. Congregation will now consider the changes.”

1234...2,509Page 3 of 2,509

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

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

Website by James Ashley