Tuesday, May 6, 2025
Blog Page 309

“Everyone’s Invited” founder Soma Sara speaks at the Oxford Union

0

CW: sexual violence, assault 

Soma Sara, the founder of the viral Instagram account and website Everyone’s Invited, spoke at the Oxford Union on Wednesday 17th May. The campaign posts testimonies from sexual assault survivors and focuses on UK education institutions, aiming to “eradicate rape culture” in the UK. It shot to fame after the death of Sarah Everard in March 2021 and has received over 16,000 testimonies since its beginning in June 2020. Sara argued Everyone’s Invited is the catalyst for government efforts to tackle sexual assault, sparking an Ofsted review into misogyny within schools. 

Soma Sara, 22, stepped up the Oxford Union podium with an air of courage and dignity despite this talk being her first in-person public event. Her focus was rape culture, defining it as a “systemic social problem” surrounding “power, gender, and entitlement”. Sara declared that “we are all complicit in rape culture… Yes – I am complicit in rape culture. Yes – you are complicit in rape culture”. When asked by Cherwell how we may tackle our own internalised misogyny and attitudes towards rape culture, Sara encouraged the audience to read testimonies and repeatedly “check yourself”. 

Sara addressed issues surrounding the phrase “rape culture”: some believe it is too extreme, over-emphasising misogynistic attitudes within society. Sara argued the phrase is as thought-provoking as it is realistic, proven by the onslaught of testimonies Everyone’s Invited has received. Sara feels it is “uplifting” and cathartic to see so many survivors come forward and speak about their experiences, stressing intersectionality when considering survivor testimonies. Similarly, she stated that survivors are not exclusively female – Sara said male survivors face greater stigmatisation when revealing their experiences, made easier by the platform’s anonymity. 

Soma Sara speaks to Union Librarian, Molly Mantle. Credit: The Oxford Union

Sara went on to say that she believes that the social media platform acts as a safe-space for sexual assault survivors: “a place for people to freely share without the fear of shame or judgement”. It seeks to eradicate a culture of victim-blaming which plagues society and ostracises sexual assault surviviors. However, when asked about the perils of social media by an audience member, Sara admitted that it is in fact a “double-edged sword”. Social media, she said, has an ability to negatively exacerbate issues, used to circulate unsolicited images and increasing access to pornography. 

She also emphasised the need for courage when speaking about experiences of sexual assault and calling out rape culture. Sara revealed her own experiences of harassment and assault, a topic she rarely touches on. Sara revealed that she had glass bottles thrown at her after shouting back at cat-callers at the age of 17. Sara encouraged the audience to become “active bystanders,” which involves safe and effective intervention to make disaproval of rape culture-encouraging behavoiurs clear. She believes such “little moments of bravery” help address a toxic culture of misogyny, rather than demonise perpetrators of such misogyny in an effort to distance Everyone’s Invited from “cancel culture”.

When asked about the future of Everyone’s Invited by the host, Sara stressed a move from focussing on specific institutions such as schools and universities, to targeting the wider culture of misogyny. Everyone’s Invited has recently stopped naming the schools of sexual assault perpetrators, though it continues to name universities. It received a disproportionate demographic of testimonies from private schools which Soma Sara believes does not reflect the endemic nature of UK rape culture. 

She did, however, argue that the initial naming of schools on the platform was attention-grabbing, which forced government action on the issue. Sara also believes it helped more sexual assault surviviors to come forward about their experiences as they were able to relate to those already posted. She argued that this naming decreased stigmatisation which often makes survivors feel invalidated.  

A full video of the speech and Q&A segment will be uploaded to the Oxford Union’s YouTube page. 

Image Credit: The Oxford Union

Modern Art Oxford launches exhibition by Oxford fellow: ‘Samson Kambalu: New Liberia’

Modern Art Oxford (MAO) has opened a new exhibition  ‘Samson Kambalu: New Liberia’ depicting the work of Oxford-based artist and writer Kambalu, who is also a fellow at Magdalen College. It will run from 22nd May to to 5th September and offers free entry for all. 

‘New Liberia’ seeks to emphasize today’s changing attitudes towards social justice, and show how individual freedoms are uniquely dependent on our geographic and historical position. The exhibition is inspired by events in Kambalu’s childhood, growing up in the Malawi dictatorship that followed British colonial rule. The installations incorporate Kambalu’s experiences of watching makeshift cinema, and his interpretations of the ‘masked’ dance performances of the Nyau, the secret society of the Chewa people that populate Malawi.

Image Credit: Samson Kambalu, New Liberia, installation view at Modern Art Oxford, 2021. Photo by Mark Blower.

The series of installations include text, sculptures, video and performance opportunities. In the first room, one is greeted by two elephant sculptures made up of cut up Oxford University gowns, surrounded by multi-national flags. The second room introduces national independence hero John Chilembwe through a series of black and white images, accompanied by two-line dialogues. 

Next is a small gallery, where a screen shows Kambalu on trial for his ‘Sanguinetti Theses’. To create the ‘Theses’, Kambalu photographed Situationist writer Sanguinetti’s art, which is also scribbled across the walls, for which Sanguinetti sued him in 2015. The fourth and final room includes short video clips of Kambalu performing acts of individual freedom in public spaces, and invites visitors to re-enact a 1915 court-room exchange on the room’s central podium.

Entry to the MAO is free, but booking is required. The Pembroke street museum is open from 11am to 4pm every day, with special late evening extensions until 8pm on 27th May and 24th June. The MAO has stair-free access to all floors. There are seating opportunities on the ground floor outside the shop, but none in the exhibition itself.


Image Credit: Samson Kambalu, New Liberia, installation view at Modern Art Oxford, 2021. Photo by Mark Blower

Student unions could face fines over free speech breaches

0

Universities in England could face fines if they fail to protect free speech on campus under tougher legislation set to be introduced.

The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill was among the proposed changes to laws announced in the Queen’s Speech and aims to “strengthen freedom of speech and academic freedom” at universities. Visiting speakers, academics or students could seek compensation if they suffer loss from a breach of a university’s free speech obligations. 

Under the new legislation, new freedom of speech and academic duties would be placed on universities and, for the first time, on student unions. Individuals would be granted a right to seek compensation through the courts if the freedom of speech duties of an institution or student union had been breached.

The Office for Students, the higher education watchdog in England, would hold the power to impose fines on institutions if they breached the rules. Among the proposals, there is also an appointed “free speech champion” whose role would be to examine potential infringements of duties, for example, the no-platforming of speakers or the dismissal of academics.

The aim of such legislation is to ensure that university staff feel safe to put forward controversial or unpopular views, without being at risk of losing their jobs.

A spokeswoman for Universities UK (UUK) told the BBC: “Universities are (rightly) already legally required to have a code of practice on free speech and to update this regularly. It is important that the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill is proportionate by focusing on the small number of incidents, while not duplicating existing legislation and creating unnecessary bureaucracy for universities which could have unintended consequences.”

Speaking to the Evening Standard, Head of the University and College Union, Jo Grady said: “There are serious threats to freedom of speech and academic freedom from campus, but they come from the government and university managers, not staff and students. Widespread precarious employment strips academics of the ability to speak and research freely and curtails chances for career development.”

“If the government wants to strengthen freedom of speech and academic freedom, it shouldn’t be policing what can and cannot be said on campus and encourage university managers to move staff on to secure, permanent contracts.”

Education Secretary Gavin Williamson contended that it was a basic human right “to be able to express ourselves freely and take part in rigorous debate”.

He added: “Our legal system allows us to articulate views which others may disagree with as long as they don’t meet the threshold of hate speech or inciting violence – this must be defended, nowhere more so than within our world-renowned universities. Holding universities to account on the importance of freedom of speech in higher education is a milestone moment in fulfilling our manifesto commitment, protecting the rights of students and academics, and countering the chilling effect of censorship on campus once and for all.”

Universities minister Michelle Donelan said: “This bill will ensure universities not only protect free speech but promote it too. After all how can we expect society to progress or for opinions to modernise unless we can challenge the status quo?”

Image Credit: Number 10 / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Chinese diplomats’ Twitter use analysed in Oxford study

0

A joint study by the Oxford Internet Institute (OII) and the Associated Press (AP) has examined the way in which Chinese diplomats use social media to promote the country’s vision.

According to the study, PRC diplomats made 201,382 tweets – an average of 778 per day over a nine-month period from 9th June 2020 to 23rd February 2021. These posts received almost seven million likes, one million comments, and 1.3 million retweets. Diplomats made 34,041 Facebook posts over this period. 

The report claims that China has “significantly expanded its online public diplomacy efforts” and adds that “the PRC makes use of both state-controlled media outlets and over 270 diplomatic accounts on social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook to amplify the PRC’s perspective on global affairs and current events.”

The investigators discovered that only one in eight Chinese diplomatic Twitter accounts were labelled as such, and contend that there is a network of unidentified accounts amplifying the diplomats’ message. In the UK, the study looked at thousands of tweets by (then-Ambassador) Liu Xiaoming and the official account of the embassy in London. The Oxford team identified 62 accounts, representing 44% of the ambassador’s retweets and 30% of the embassy’s, as forming a co-ordinated group of supporters.

The research found that “nearly a third” of these accounts “were created within minutes of each other on just five days and the vast majority only amplify and engage with the PRC’s diplomats to the UK, but no other PRC diplomats.”

The OII report states, “In a world where social media platforms have been increasingly influential in global communications, our study has identified another area where powerful actors systematically exploit the facilities provided by these platforms. Our study provides extensive evidence for where and how a powerful state actor like the PRC may be able to create an illusion of inflated influence over global discourse.”

Marcel Schliebs, lead Oxford researcher, said his findings reveal “the actions and reach of China’s digital publicity campaigning” and “can help us develop a better understanding and response to China’s increasingly assertive global facing propaganda strategy.” Schliebs called for greater cooperation with social media platforms and added that “every day social media users can also contribute by carefully checking what information they are consuming or amplifying while using these platforms.”

The report comes alongside a rise in the spread of disinformation through online platforms in a number of countries, including by Western politicians. The OII clarified that “as our report uses open source data, we are not able to attribute this coordinated operation to any state or non-state actor.”

Commenting on the findings, the Chinese embassy in London defended China’s right to express its opinions online. A diplomatic source told the Associated Press: “If it is against the rules of social media to retweet the Chinese embassy’s tweets, then shouldn’t these rules be more applicable to retweets of malicious rumours, smears and false information against China? We hope relevant companies will not adopt double standards.”

How to find the ‘good’ in ‘goodbye’: moving on and breaking up

0

We choose who we trust. Sometimes, we just pick wrong. We kiss the wrong people, hold the wrong hands. When you realise you aren’t being respected and your feelings are being overlooked or (worse) stomped on, an ending quickly becomes inevitable. But what do you do when you feel it? That sinking feeling in your gut — the instant something precarious falls apart? 

In an age of emphasis-on-the-casual dating, situationships and shifting circumstances, the credits can roll with barely a second’s notice. Almost-Maybes become Definitely-Nots in the time it takes for a head to turn or a mind to change. Things can end before they’ve technically even begun. Often, this amounts to little more than a polite parting of ways, but where feelings are involved, it’s inevitably more complicated. So, how do you say ‘goodbye’ with your head held high? 

Endings like these often boil down to a power struggle. Do you quit biting your tongue and say everything you want to, consequences be damned? Or, do you make peace with your silence for the sake of an easy life? Do you message first (a claim for the moral high ground) or do you refrain (the above-it-all approach)? Or, is it weak to declare a truce, and petty to hold out for the sake of it? 

Through a healthy amount of trial, error and observation, I can confidently say I’ve arrived at a fairly obvious (and yet, ground-breaking) conclusion: it’s completely up to you. But as long as you’re worrying about the other half of the equation, you’ve got the wrong idea. 

Take the whole ‘post-break-up glow-up’ culture. It might be superficially satisfying, but it’s hardly a healthy mindset if your sole focus is on how it’ll make them, rather than you, feel. It’s fun to feel smug about looking drop-dead gorgeous when you go to say goodbye, but it can quickly backfire into you feeling daft about the effort you put in in the hope they’d notice. Similarly, wearing your hair up because they like it down, or eyeliner because they prefer you without, puts all the power in their hands — and for what? Just wear what you want. That might mean reclaiming a look you abandoned once you realised they didn’t like it, or wearing that outfit you love almost as much as they do, but wear what you want in spite of their opinion, rather than to spite them. 

My Timberlands are my superlative combat boots. When I’m going into battle, it’s nice to do it while looking them dead in the eyes (or scrutinising their hairline) and with a swish in my step. That doesn’t mean I don’t still sometimes get a twinge of satisfaction when I remember my ex’s preference for ‘natural’ makeup as I’m sweeping on a darker lipstick he hated, but now I’m learning to make sure I pick my wardrobe with me in mind. Every. Damn. Time. It’s just an added bonus that the confidence that comes with wearing what you love is the best kind of ‘revenge sexy’ there is. 

But my least favourite aspect of an ending, even worse than the wardrobe-worrying, is the race to begin again. Why does it seem like an embarrassing admittal of defeat to say you’re happily single? I love the quiet thrill of knowing I haven’t met that person yet, but it could be today, or tomorrow, and in the meantime I’ve got friends who feel like family and that’s more than enough to make me happy. But faced with an ending, I often find myself immediately wishing for a new beginning. Wanting a fitter, funnier someone to flaunt shamelessly in the face of the fool who passed at the chance to be with a catch like me. 

It’s a bit gross though. The fact that I find myself looking for a weapon to wield after an ending feels distinctly un-feminist. This intimi-dating generally seems to rely on finding the ‘perfect’ person, upholding patriarchal preferences and placing your self-worth in someone else’s approval. If you’re a straight woman, this relies on the assumption that your ex is more likely to either respect or feel undermined by you if you find a Better Man than if you’re successful and happy without someone new by your side. This, I have to raise an unimpressed eyebrow at. Your dates deserve to be treated like human beings, not hand grenades. And why spend the time and energy dating someone new if you aren’t doing it for you? 

Whenever my love life takes a turn for the disappointing, I realise I’ve never felt the same happiness holding a hand or giving into a kiss than when I catch myself mid-laugh with my favourite people, finishing a knitting project or on a long walk with a really good coffee. We should cut the nonsense about how we’re half of a whole until we find our Other. Because I definitely don’t feel that way. I never really feel like myself through another person’s eyes; I’d never choose to describe myself as ‘sweet’, I’m a whole lot less collected than I can convince people I am, and I don’t want to factor a man into my makeup routine. I’m genuinely content in my own company, and I’m not going to give that up just to prove a point.  

What would happen if we all just focused on ourselves after an ending? Reconcile if you’re sick of fighting, be pissed if you aren’t ready to forgive, decide yourself that ‘enough is enough’ if it’s too much grief to keep ‘talking about it’ every five minutes. It won’t always be an ending that you want, but that doesn’t mean you can’t make it mean something. 

Make no apologies about how you choose to heal and, perhaps most importantly, change your mind and your tactics anytime you want. Let them think what they like — as long as you know your own mind, that’s all that matters. 

You don’t have to explain yourself or worry about being constantly consistent, and you don’t have to be seen to have the upper hand. As long as your main concern is yourself, you’ll have it. 

Because sometimes, there’s nothing left to do but write your own ending. 

Hyperpop: the newest teen fad or pop music’s saviour?

0

There was a musician that seemed to have the answer to the question about the future of music. The future is glossy latex, easily packaged and sold. The future is a product. This musician was SOPHIE, whose untimely death occurred just as the genre she helped to pioneer was gaining traction. With the release of her debut single ‘Bipp’ in 2013, the sound that lay the foundation of what would become hyperpop was established.

“The Future is glossy latex, easily pacakged and sold”

At the same time, a record label that would become closely associated with SOPHIE and the bubblegum bass subgenre was created. PC Music was founded by A.G. Cook in 2015, the same year SOPHIE released her debut compilation album, Product, which had the same emphasis on striking a balance between synthetic, cleanly produced and bouncy dance-pop songs and a darker, more abrasive edge. Both Cook and SOPHIE would go on to produce for Charli XCX, whose 2016 Vroom Vroom EP proved a watershed for the emergent genre, bringing it its first taste of commercial success. So, what brought about this success? The appeal of hyperpop can be boiled down to three main factors: irony, diversity, and overstimulation.

The first and perhaps most important aspect of the genre, the one that separates it from your run of the mill pop music is its sense of irony and self-awareness. This has been present in the genre from the start, with SOPHIE’s early work being a good example. The cheery female voice exclaiming Latex gloves, smack so hard, PVC, gets me hard on the 2015 single ‘HARD’, accompanied by sparkly synth melodies and distorted percussion provides a juxtaposition that’d produce discomfort in any casual listener. But it is this juxtaposition that characterises the genre: bright, happy elements of club hits mixed with a subversive sly irony that comes with introducing darker lyrical and aesthetic elements.

Taking cues largely from the godawful meme genre of nightcore, 100 Gecs, pits simple (or patently nonsensical) lyrics to a myriad of schizophrenic constantly changing beats. This self-awareness at their own ridiculousness is key to their appeal; vocalist Laura Les’ pitch-shifted rant at the start of ‘money machine’, compares arms to cigarettes, laments inadequate truck size and uses the term “piss baby” as an insult. On the other hand, some of their lyrics are so plain and earnest that they can’t help but evoke pathos. The simple sentiments of Laura Les putting unconditional trust in her lover the aptly titled ​’xXXi_wud_nvrstøp_ÜXXx’ are contrasted with an abrasive, glitchy breakdown right afterwards. In essence, hyperpop recognises pop music’s inherently ridiculous nature. It attempts to convey unironic, earnest sentiments while simultaneously being a billion-dollar industry built on the exploitation of artists, which hyperpop takes to the nth degree. A good demonstration of this is ‘It’s Okay To Cry’, the opening track from SOPHIE’s 2018 album Oil of Every Pearl’s Un-insides. A tender ballad about being honest with one’s feelings, it boasts glossy and surprisingly typical production, only to be followed by a track about being whipped whilst role-playing as a pony. On any standard pop album, this would be career-ending, but it fits in with hyperpop’s rejection of watered-down sentiments in order to maximise commercial appeal. As a result, SOPHIE does not have to make compromises in her subject matter.

“It is more of an idea, a philosophy, that often, but not always, incorporates excessive ammounts of irony…”

100 Gecs also play into another important part of hyperpop’s appeal: its diversity. Their 2019 debut 1000 Gecs is 23 minutes long and has 10 songs, but maybe spans twice as many genres. Pop, trap, breakbeat, heavy metal, ska, dubstep, even experimental noise is tackled on the record, with most songs containing two or three sections of totally different genres. Another example of this is the work of hyperpop-adjacents and meme sensations Drain Gang. The output of their three primary members, Bladee, Ecco2k, and Thaiboy Digital was initially distinct. Ecco2k took a softer, poppier direction, while the other two operated within the cloud rap and trap subgenres. More recently, however, their projects have slickly blended together into a detached, melancholy fusion of hip hop, pop, dance music and r&b. Bladee’s increased use of singing on tracks like ‘Girls Just Want To Have Fun’ shows this, and Thaiboy’s work as superstar alter ego DJ Billybool. Perhaps the most extreme case of diversity is A.G. Cook’s album 7G, spanning 49 songs, and ranging from touching guitar ballads to ear-meltingly twitchy drum n bass.

This also raises the question of what is Hyperpop? In short, you can’t really say. It spans so many genres, subgenres and styles that there is no definitive hyperpop “sound”. Instead, it’s more of an idea, a philosophy that often, but not always incorporates excessive amounts of irony and maximalist aesthetics. So, what’s the future of the genre? As with any subversive musical movement, its aesthetics will be co-opted by major labels but losing the irony and intellect that made it so distinctive in the first place.

Image Credit: Aleksandra Pluta. 

EXCLUSIVE: Landmark grant scheme created at the Oxford Union

0

A motion was passed at the Oxford Union last week introducing a new presidential cost support grant scheme. When an incoming President is a current student, the Union will now match all University grants and government grants that would be received by that student were they studying, up to and including the amount of a Crankstart scholarship. The motion was proposed by Molly Mantle, the current Librarian.

Historically, the workload of the Oxford Union President means that they usually rusticate for a year to take up the role if they are currently studying. This rustication results in the loss of student finance and university grants, and those taking up the Presidential role must generally either commute to Oxford or live in the city. This means that historically it has been difficult for Presidents to take up the role if they are not able to finance themselves independently.

Alongside the new presidential cost grant scheme, the Standing Committee will now be able to approve grant applications to other bodies – for example, grants that could be received by international students from their home countries.

Molly Mantle, the Librarian and proposer of the motion, told Cherwell: “I believe this change is a huge step forward in tackling centuries of access issues and perceived elitism at the Oxford Union. It should never be the case that someone feels dissuaded from running for the Presidency because of personal financial hardship.” 

“In going some way to help with this important issue, I hope this change brings a greater diversity of candidates – as this is the only way to allow the Union to reach its full potential.”

Adam Roble, President, told Cherwell: “As a majority state-schooled President, it has always been close to my heart to improve access at all levels of the Union. Personal financial  independence, or lack thereof, should never be a factor in someone’s decision about whether or  not to run to be the President of the Oxford Union.” 

“This motion marks a huge step in the Union’s continuing efforts to improve access across the board, and I am so proud to have lead the team which has made this vital change.”

Image Credit: NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Haute Kosher: when they come, they come for all of us

This is a phrase I often repeat to myself when I find myself falling into the trap the far left often encourages: stop focusing on antisemitism, it’s an unimportant distraction from other issues. It has also been the motto of movements throughout history, including in Nazi Germany where Jews were encouraged to value the greater good of the Volksgemeinschaft over their own misgivings about this Adolf Hitler fellow and vote for him as the best chance of securing a resurgence of German success. Today, I am told by the far left that antisemitism is irrelevant in the bigger picture of the global advancement of society and it is selfish to bring up when a person who seems otherwise fine has a blind-spot regarding antisemitism. They tell me that antisemitism is not properly worthy of condemnation when it targets only Orthodox Jews – those who are more visibly Jewish – such as Sarah Halimi in France or the couple with their baby in New York who got slashed with a knife.

But, I must remind myself, that doesn’t make it okay. The ease with which those on the left can dismiss and essentially dehumanise Jews who are visibly Jewish is disturbing. I wonder if those on the left realise that Orthodox Jews are still people whom it is unacceptable to attack. But also, when they come, they come for all of us. The people excusing attacking those whose Jewishness is visible with an attitude of “if they hate attacks so much why do they insist on being so obviously Jewish?’ do not seem to realise that whether we are open about it or not, we’ll always be found. Always. It doesn’t matter how much we assimilate; something about us makes it impossible to hide. The more tragic irony is that all those on the left arguing that Jews are playing the victim by highlighting antisemitism when we could ‘literally just take that star thing off’ are ignoring that the most assimilated Jewish community ever was the German and Austrian Jewish community of the 1920s and 30s. Surely, I do not need to tell any reader how that turned out. There is a reason why the rich Jews in Vienna who ignored the bubbling undercurrents of antisemitism and had no idea what was coming are always held up as an example to scare us.

What has brought this to the forefront of my mind is the recent 600% increase in reported antisemitic incidents in the UK, coinciding with recent violence in Gaza and Israel, lasting 11 days and taking over 200 Palestinian lives and 12 Israeli lives. This article is not about those events, although I hope we can all agree that those 11 days incurred a tragic loss of civilian life and were symptomatic of deeper issues within the Levant region. This article is about the way that many antisemites have reacted to these events – from those who have used it as an excuse to physically attack Jews and synagogues to those who have argued that such actions are all just a natural and unavoidable consequence of a government 3000 miles away committing horrible acts. And, of course, those who also tell me that while we can accept that every other form of discrimination exists across society and the political spectrum, antisemitism is somehow unique, in that a person being a leftist makes them magically immune to the antisemitism which the world imprints on us all. No other political beliefs are supposed to give such magical powers of immunity.

There is also the group, that even includes some Jews, who argue that, in order to gain the right to speak about the skyrocketing antisemitism we’re experiencing, we must first become experts on the politics of the Middle East. We must also condemn sufficiently the Israeli government to gain the right to ‘acceptably’ call attention to our experiences without ‘centering ourselves’ because apparently Jews being afraid of a rise in violent antisemitism is entirely unreasonable in its own right. Again, I do not know of any other minority group who are told that they must become experts on the geopolitics of a region 3000 miles away before being allowed to be scared of attacks at home.

This attitude of righteously ignoring antisemitism as long as there is something worse happening in the world is deadly, and it is deadlier still when Jews themselves participate in it. In 1930s Germany, the now tragically infamous Verband nationaldeutscher Juden (roughly: National League of German Jews) was prominent. They advocated for the total assimilation of Jews into the Volksgemeinschaft. They argued against Jewish boycotts of Nazi Germany and encouraged Jews to support the Nazi Party, even going so far as to proclaim that Jews would be safe under their rule. The League was disbanded in 1935 and its leader was ultimately sent to a concentration camp. Even being ardent supporters of the Nazis and standing against the rest of the Jewish community on every issue did not save the members of this organisation; they were killed by Nazis just like the rest of the Jews. This group is seared into my brain and the brains of so many other Jews as a warning of what happens to all of us, even those of us that attempt to win the favour of the people trying to kill us.

When I find myself falling into complacency and believing that we can afford to accept some degree of antisemitism in the name of wider progress, I immediately think of this organisation. When I first heard of its history, it terrified me enough that I still keep screenshots of the organisation’s Wikipedia page on my phone that I check from time to time. The truth that I must admit is that it terrified me so much because I could see myself becoming them.

It is why I now always stand up for my fellow Jews when they experience antisemitism, even if I am not personally impacted by it and may even receive more credit in left-wing circles for not saying anything. I cannot ignore antisemitism faced by my fellow Jews, especially in leftist and progressive spaces. We have always been told that we can rely on the anti-racist left to stand up for us when antisemitism rises to deadly levels again, but we have been shown conclusively that this is not the case. Large leftist institutions like the National Union of Students are intent on blaming antisemitism on Israel rather than on antisemites, and therefore tacitly legitimising it and framing it as something that will be ‘solved’ by removing the modern state of Israel. Personally, I would argue that there may have been some antisemitism on earth before the creation of modern Israel in 1948 and that a geopolitical shift wont magically erase over 2000 years of ingrained hate.

Instead, what I have seen is a left waiting for any excuse to dehumanise us and justify our deaths. There used to be a rule on the left that it was wrong to treat someone differently because of their nationality; this rule does not however apply to Israeli Jews, who apparently deserve to die because of the actions of the Netanyahu government. That’s about half the global Jewry ruled out of protection. It used to be the case that targeting someone because of their religion was not acceptable, but now it is okay to target Orthodox Jews and those who wear kippot or Magen David, because they’re choosing to mark themselves as a target when they could simply not wear their religious items. That’s all the observant religious Jews gone. Now we are told that any Jew who is a ‘Zionist’ – bearing in mind that this term has no universal definition, and can mean anything from supporting a single state for Jews and Palestinians, to a state of Israel and an equal state of Palestine, to a single Jewish state in the whole region, to a myriad of things in between – is a legitimate target. According to multiple studies, the vast majority of world’s Jews support some Zionist model. By such ‘logic’, the vast majority of Jews – as well as any others who live in Israel or are religiously observant – can be deemed subhuman legitimate targets for attack. How long before that tiny slither of the rest of us – non-Israeli, secular, anti-Zionist Jews – also become legitimate targets? Before some reason is found to justify our deaths as well?

I don’t personally intend to wait to find out. This is why I will fight antisemitism no matter who it is aimed at or who it is coming from or what greater cause it is in the name of, be that fixing the German economy or standing against Netanyahu. I will never say that if we just assimilate enough, they’ll leave us alone, because they never do. Even if I vehemently disagree with the politics or values of another Jew, I will always stand up for them. Because we are all Jews, and because when they come, they come for all of us.

Image credit: “Marc Chagall – La Guerra, Der Krieg, La guerre 1964-66” by verot is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.

Cher-ity Corner: Target Schools Oxford

One of the most important lessons I have learnt, as I imagine many others have too from this pandemic, is the value of offering up our time to help others. Cher-ity Corner is a weekly column that highlights local Oxford charities that students can volunteer with and make a difference.

I spoke to Harry Twohig, President of Target Schools, the SU’s access and outreach body. We discussed opportunities that are on offer for both prospective and current students and lots about what they do. Find out how you can get involved and more about their amazing work!

What’s Target Schools?

“Target Schools is Oxford SU’s home of student-led access work, with the overall aim of widening participation and improving access to higher education (specifically to Oxford) for students from under-represented backgrounds.”

It was first established as a scheme of Oxford SU in 1982, with the Target Schools Annual Review a few years later noting that ‘non-application, not non-admission, was the problem to be addressed by the [Target Schools] committee.’ By 1990, the schemes student committee had begun producing student and teacher handbooks, which were in effect a slimmed down version of the Alternative Prospectus which still exists today – and by 1995 a programme of visits to targeted comprehensive schools had begun. From 2009, their shadowing day programme was introduced, which is currently the main form of delivery. This involves bringing prospective applicants to Oxford for a day and giving them the opportunity to shadow a current student.

Fun fact… Ed Miliband was once a member!

Harry Twohig says that Target Schools can be broadly defined in two projects:

“The major project is the renewal and annual relaunch of the Oxford SU Alternative Prospectus, which provides thousands of prospective applicants each year with the opportunity to gain an insight into what life at Oxford is like. We’ve recently collected over 150 responses from students across the University which will be used to reshape the site in preparation for our relaunch ahead of the next set of virtual open days in the summer. This is important to us as it allows prospective applicants to hear the authentic voice of students studying at the university, allowing for informed choices to be made.

“The shadowing day programme is our main undertaking in terms of programme delivery. In recent times, because of the pandemic which shall not be named, we’ve had to shift delivery online, condensing it into a one-hour online workshop. So far, we’ve reached over 250 prospective applicants with our workshops this academic year, which is something that we’re really proud of. As a result of the success of our digital work, we are now considering whether a hybrid model, with some online and some in-person delivery, could be possible in the future. Pre-pandemic, our shadowing days would have involved around thirty students from across the country using public transport to travel to Oxford, attend lectures, visit libraries, and attend in-person workshops at colleges. Our delivery model definitely wasn’t built with a pandemic in mind! Thankfully, though, we have been able to shift our shadowing day delivery online. We can’t quite provide the same personal experience as a 1-2-1 encounter, but a key aspect of our virtual shadowing day workshop is to give prospective applicants the opportunity to spend time working with current students in small groups, so that we maintain that interactive and personal element as much as possible.”


How can students get involved?

“The good news is that we’re always looking for people to come onboard and help us out! We recruit for committee members on a regular basis, with our largest intake being in the Michaelmas term of each academic year, so keep your eyes out for that.

“We also have some ad-hoc volunteering opportunities, particular around supporting with our shadowing days, both virtually and in person. To be eligible to get involved, all that students need to do is complete our short shadowing day training module which can be accessed here: Safeguarding Training (oxfordsu.org). We’ll then be in touch when the next opportunity to get involved arises!”

Why should you get involved?

“In many ways, our cause is still important for exactly the same reason that it was when we were founded back in 1982 – because far too many young people write Oxford off as a possibility. They see the city as this magical, enchanting place where they couldn’t possibly belong.

“Currently, two members of our committee and countless more of our volunteers are actually former Target Schools shadowing day participants themselves! This is something we’re really proud of – it’s an incredible reminder of the power of the work that we do. There is something really powerful about being in a (sadly virtual) room with students and staff who are drive to create change and make an impact.”

Want to get involved?


You can directly email at: [email protected]

Or you can give them a like/follow on Facebook here.

A “quiet revolution:” report outlines ongoing sustainability efforts across the University

0

A report by the Conference of Colleges has been published about existing college sustainability. 

The report details sustainability efforts in Oxford colleges and aims to use its evidence “to collectively and individually set meaningful targets for reducing environmental impact”. It also has the ambition to “make Oxford a truly environmentally sustainable city”.

The report details the “quiet revolution [which] has been occurring in the colleges and PPHs with the implementation of numerous actions and activities to make them more environmentally sustainable”. Oxford colleges set their own environmental targets as they are a “semi-independent entity” from the central University. 

Within the 494 actions made by the 44 colleges, energy saving initiatives were the most common, made by 95% of colleges. Energy saving actions include draught proofing and insulation improvements, put in place by 21 colleges. Energy efficient designs were adopted by 5 colleges. These 5 colleges, including Hertford and St Peter’s College, are adopting or have adopted Passivhaus buildings which provide “a high level of occupant comfort while using very little energy for heating and cooling.” 

30 colleges reported undertaking energy saving initiatives which include “replacing traditional incandescent lighting with LED equivalents or low energy lightbulbs”. Wadham “recently changed all lights to LEDs in the main Library, including desk lights. The lights automatically dim when there is no activity in some area[s].” The chief challenge for completing such energy saving initiatives was “expense associated with implementing these higher environmental standards.”

The report details Oxford college’s use of renewable energy sources. Both Christchurch and Wolfson college made use of Air Source Heat Pumps. The report states that their high cost was offset by the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) which provides government payment for 20 years. Use of solar panels were reported to be in the process of being installed, or are being installed by 9 colleges. LMH and Somerville both use solar panels to preheat student blocks. 

Efficiency controlling energy use was also a subject of the report. It details the use of Building Management Systems (BMS) by 13 colleges which manage boiler performance. Furthermore, smart TRVs which control the heating of empty rooms are used by 6 colleges. Heating controls also improve thermal efficiency. One college reported an 18% reduction in gas usage after installing heating controls. 

Colleges are reported to have used behavioral tactics to improve their environmental sustainability. Audits have been used by across 6 colleges: Merton college is reported to have “used the services of a specialist energy surveyor to audit the college estate in terms of carbon, natural capital and biodiversity.” St John’s took part in the government’s CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme which is reported to have helped reduce the college’s carbon footprint. 

Carbon footprint reduction is detailed in the report’s investigation of adaptation to green transport. 10 colleges, including Keble, University College and Oriel, disposed of or replaced vans in favour of electric transport. Some colleges have installed charging points for electric vehicles. 

Water saving initiatives were also outlined in the report. Water saving devices are reported to be in place in colleges across the university. These include: “traffic light shower heads” which operate on a timer in St Edmund Hall and Wadham and a “rainwater harvesting system” in Christchurch college. 

The report details efforts to maintain and create biodiversity within Oxford college environments. Wadham College “installed two British National Standard bee hives in 2019. The starter colonies came from a bee farm in Warwickshire and the bees are wonderful for pollinating the flowers.” Christchurch college created a wildlife corridor for small animals, including badgers, to utilise. 

Plant diversity has been ensured by 8 colleges who have begun planting native species and wildflower gardens. These include Jesus College’s action to wild parts of their gardens and avoiding grass cutting. Furthermore, 6 colleges have taken part in “greening” areas. St Edmund Hall created a green wall “which offer[s] both visual improvements and habitats for insects”, though maintaining these environments is reported to be challenging. 

Many colleges are reported to have made waste-reducing efforts. Recycling amongst Oxford colleges is widely reported in an effort to “minimise waste being incinerated off-site”. St Edmund Hall are reportedly planning a Winnow Waste management system which measures food waste created by college diners. 

Food sourcing initiatives have also been undertaken by a variety of colleges. Among others, LMH and Keble are Fairtrade accredited. A herb garden is also being grown at St Hugh’s for the college kitchen. Fourteen colleges are reportedly reducing their meat consumption, taking part in ‘Meat-free Mondays’. The report states “most colleges have had a positive reception to these [meat-reducing] initiatives, with members regarding the changes as healthy and facilitatory of a flexitarian diet. Others have been met with resistance, with pushback from staff and students on restricting choice.”

Image Credit: JR P / CC BY-NC 2.0