A motion to remove the Sackler Library name from the Bodleian Libraries building has been passed by the Student Union. The motion, heard in the 3rd-week council meeting, was passed by 89% with 40 votes, 5 against and 6 abstentions.
The motion has mandated the SU President and Vice-President Charities and Community to lobby the Oxford University to drop the Sackler name from the building due to their involvement in the opioid epidemics in the U.S.
The wealth of the Sackler Library was raised in part by the Sackler family who are associated with the US opioid crisis. The Sackler family owns Purdue Pharma, the pharmaceutical company which played a role in the epidemic which killed over 500,000 Americans alone since 1999, according to Bloomberg News.
Purdue Pharma introduced the prescription painkiller and opioid OxyContin which they heavily promoted. Aside from offering pain relief, misuse of OxyContin can result in addiction, overdose, and death. Perdue Pharma has faced over 1,600 lawsuits regarding the widely available painkiller. Following a 2007 lawsuit, Purdue Pharma paid $600 million in fines for misleading regulators, doctors, and patients about the drug’s risk of addiction and its potential for abuse.
Oxford University has received over £11 million in donations from the Sacklers. The Sackler Family Trust and the Dr Mortimer and Theresa Sackler Foundation have made several philanthropic donations to UK institutions, including the National Gallery, Tate Modern, and UCL, amounting to £80 million. They are estimated to be America’s 30th richest family, according to Forbes.
The proposer of the SU motion, Marco Rodriguez, told Cherwell that Oxford is displaying “no intentions to review past or current contributions from this family, and it is publicly reiterating their intentions to continue receiving funds from them.”
“It would be difficult, if not impossible, [for Oxford University] to dissociate their funding with all the pain and sorrow the abuse of Oxycontin has brought to American society. The faster Oxford breaks links with this name, the better.”
“We can conclude that the Student Union may not have the power to change Oxford’s decision but certainly has the moral ground. It indeed has the right (legitimacy) to define a principled stand on behalf of the students, be public about, and criticize the University’s decision.”
Rodriguez commented on the difficulty of higher education institutions to obtain funding which coerces them to turn to individual sources: “We also must accept that universities in the UK must rely on different funding sources rather than public funds, as the government contribution to higher education has diminished progressively… [There is] considerable pressure on raising funds from other sources, especially from wealthy private individuals or corporate funds.”
In regards to receiving philanthropic donations, a spokesperson for the Bodleian Libraries told Cherwell: “All major prospective donors are carefully considered by the University’s Committee to Review Donations under the University’s guidelines for acceptance. The Committee considers the sources of an individual’s or organisation’s wealth and may reconsider a donor in the light of new information. The University monitors significant developments in the public domain and the Committee considers donors when potential donations are brought to their attention.”
Oxford University, Purdue Pharma, and the Sackler Family Trust have been contacted for comment.
Aston University in Birmingham and London South Bank University have announced plans to cut History courses. Aston University plans to close its entire History, Languages and Translation Centre, whilst London South Bank will terminate its History, Human Geography, Refugee Studies, Development Studies and Education for Sustainability courses. Experts warn that the trend may be replicated elsewhere, as the government seeks to champion perceived ‘high-value’ STEM and vocational courses.
The cuts follow Education Secretary Gavin Williamson’s proposals to require financially struggling universities to close so-called ‘low value’ courses with low graduate pay, to qualify for Covid-19 recovery bailouts. The bailout requirements require the affected universities’ ‘commitment’ to free speech. The University and College Union’s general secretary Jo Grady said these twin conditions are evidence that ‘the government is prepared to exploit universities’ financial difficulties to impose evidence-free ideology and reduce the diversity and strength in depth of university courses and research’.
The projected closures have generated concerns that History, Languages and humanities studies may become the preserve of the elite, with those unable to leave home to study less able to access the subjects, which are available at less universities. Popular historical author and Professor of Public Engagement with History at the University of Reading, Kate Williams, told The Guardian that History ‘should be a degree that is open to all, and that means it must be available to those who want to study locally’.
Older universities have been able to recruit more History, Languages and humanities students following the removal of the cap on student numbers. This has been detrimental to smaller History and humanities departments elsewhere, with fewer than 40 of London South Bank’s 7000 students enrolled this year in the programmes it seeks to cut.
Professor Catherine Fletcher of Manchester Metropolitan University said this disparity ‘gives more choice to some students, but leaves others from less privileged backgrounds with no options at all’, raising further concern over the pressure on academics in expanding History departments at Russell Group universities.
The Universities and Colleges Union protests the cuts, particularly given their impact on academics at the affected universities. London South Bank History Academic Sami told the Socialist Worker that the LSBU cuts were a ‘kick in the teeth’, particularly as the courses were pulled…from UCAS before telling staff’.
Some commentators have noted that History graduates are indeed ‘employable’, with British Academy research indicating that eight of the 10 fastest-growing sectors in the UK economy employ more graduates from the arts, humanities and social sciences than other disciplines. Others have criticised the metric of valuing higher education courses based on their employability prospects, with Ms Grady lamenting the underemphasis on ‘critical thought’ as a desirable component of university education, rather viewing education ‘in crude economic terms’ as she feels the government has done .
An Aston University spokesperson said: “This is an open and ongoing consultation, and we are in discussions with potentially impacted colleagues and UCU. We are unable to comment further at this stage.”
A spokesperson for London South Bank University (LSBU) said, “Decisions around the courses we offer to prospective students are taken very carefully. We regularly consider how our courses provide students with the skills they need to enter high quality jobs or further study, previous enrollment levels and how they support LSBU’s strategic goals including social mobility and removing barriers to student success.”
“Out of LSBU’s 7,000 new entrants in the 2020/21 academic year, less than 40 enrolled against the seven courses that are closing. We want to re-shape and re-energise our offer to strengthen our student’s teaching experience and research outcomes.”
“Our long-term ambition is to increase total spend on LSBU staff involved in educational delivery by 2025. This includes increasing the quality of contact through small group teaching with a focus on ensuring students have the skills, experience and knowledge to progress to high quality employment or further study.”
The latest escalation in the decades-long state of tension between Israel and Palestine has seen at least 230 Palestinians, including 65 children, killed over 11 days by rocket fire from Israel. Over 50,000 Palestinians have been displaced. In the same period 12 Israelis, including two children, have been killed. Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ defense system has prevented many rockets fired by Hamas from reaching their target.
After mounting international pressure Hamas and Israel agreed to a ceasefire commencing at 23:00 GMT on May 20th (2:00 on May 21st local time). President Biden has hailed the moment as a “genuine opportunity to make progress”. But how can diplomats solve a crisis which has been ongoing for over 70 years?
Tom Fletcher began his diplomatic career in Kenya and France, before serving as a foreign policy advisor to Prime Ministers Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, and David Cameron. In 2011, he became the youngest senior British Ambassador in 200 years when he took up the post of Ambassador to Lebanon. In 2020, he took up the post of Principal at Hertford College, where he read Modern History.
Cherwell: Arguably, this is one of the most difficult geopolitical challenges in the world to solve. How have we got here?
TF: “It’s a great question. If it was easy we’d have done it a long time ago. Very smart diplomats and peacemakers have been working on this for decades since 1948. I still think that at its root there is a simplicity to this, which is that you need two states: a state of Israel and a state of Palestine, where the rights of Israelis and Palestinians are considered equally. But it’s much harder to actually deliver that.”
2021 marks 73 years since the Nakba, which saw Palestinians forced to leave their homes. Has the fact this crisis has continued for decades made it harder to resolve? “There have been moments when a two-state solution felt much more possible. I was actually in Israel-Palestine in 1994 when there was a sense of things moving in the right direction. The populations themselves were more optimistic; Yasser Arafat came back and there was this sense that there was a deal to be made, which was basically land-for-peace. The problem is the politics. The politics on one side or the other doesn’t quite work so often.”
Protesters at a Pro-Palestine demonstration in Oxford on May 16th. Image: Sasha Mills
President Biden has called for a ceasefire, despite the United States recently vetoing a UN Security Council statement calling for just that. What is the US trying to do at the moment?
“The good news is that, unlike Donald Trump, Joe Biden isn’t fanning the flames. I’ve been saying I don’t think he’s doing enough yet to put them out. But, I think we can be encouraged that Joe Biden, Anthony Blinken and Jake Sullivan are people with huge amounts of national security experience dealing with Israel-Palestine. They know the leaders very well.
“I feel more confident that they are putting that pressure on behind the scenes. I know from talking to people at the White House that there is a lot of behind-the-scenes pressure for a ceasefire. It’s great that they’re now calling for that publicly.
“Often, the tactic is that America will blunt criticism of Israel in public, in order to put more pressure on them in private. They’ll say to Number 10 or the Elyseé: ‘Don’t push for a [UN Security Council] resolution on this. Give us more time. We need more time to convince the Israelis to stop.’ That’s the normal dynamic at these moments.”
Have the actions of the Trump administration exacerbated the situation?
“They have. There was obviously no pressure during that time for Israel and Palestine to actually come to the peace table in a serious way. Almost everything that Donald Trump did made it harder to come to the table. For example, the Americans knew that moving the embassy to Jerusalem was very provocative for many in the region, not just the Palestinians.
“Also, in that period there was a sense that Netenyahu knew he could expand settlements as much as he wanted, and there would be no criticism. That really did build much of the pressure that has led to this point.”
What steps can the UK government take to help calm the situation?
“The most important thing the UK can do is push in public and in private for a ceasefire and for real diplomacy towards a two-state solution. Importantly, the UK – even with aid cuts – is still a big aid donor and has an important voice in trying to get humanitarian access. At the moment, Israel is blocking that access. It’s vital to get in there: hospitals and schools have been damaged. We’ve got to get in and start to rebuild.
“The UK does have ways to put pressure on the parties on the ground to get them back to the negotiating table. I wouldn’t want to be too prescriptive about what those are, because it’s quite good to go into a negotiating room and have those options.”
According to UNICEF, there are 192,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. When you were the Ambassador to Lebanon, how aware of the situation in Israel-Palestine did you have to be?
“Many of the Palestinian refugees who fled Israel and Palestine in 1948 and 1967, many driven from their homes, have become double or treble refugees. They had to flee again because of the civil war in Lebanon. In some cases, they fled to Syria, and then became refugees again. So you have that trauma going down through generations.
“It was often a dynamic we had to be very aware of. When there was violence across the Israel-Gaza border, it was often likely that rockets would come across the Lebanon-Israel border as well. There was always a danger that Israel would smash up the south of Lebanon, or that Hezbollah would fire rockets at the north of Israel at civilians. We were always we’d move very fast with the UN to try and de-escalate those situations.
“It was also a big dynamic because Hezbollah was the most powerful political group in Lebanon, when I was there. Of course, Israel was very unhappy about that. Many of us were very unhappy about the power Hezbollah had. But they were a political actor in their own right. As embassies, that was a difficult dynamic for us.
“I used to always say about the kinds of challenges Lebanon faces around coexistence and living together despite our differences; if we can’t crack those in Lebanon, we’ll face them closer to home as well. I think that in the five years since I’ve left Lebanon, you can see the way those arguments are now playing out in our own society.”
What lessons have you learned from working with the Lebanese government, which is divided along sectarian lines, to promote stability and human rights? How can these lessons be applied to the Israel-Palestine crisis?
“I think you have to recognise the historical roots of much of this. Part of the work of diplomacy, and of being a good ancestor, is to think about healing the wounds of history. What are the grievances and judgements that we inherit that we should pass on?And, what are the grievances and injustices and hatreds that we must not pass on? I think working that out is the most important work of an ancestor.
“Education is also really important. For me, education is upstream diplomacy. It’s why I’m now in Oxford. A project we did in Lebanon was to work with the different religious groups on ‘how do you teach people from other groups about your religion?’. What we found was that in most schools you were taught purely by people from your own religious group. They would say: ‘the people down the road that look different, or worship a different god, or worship in a different way, they hate us. So we have to hate them,’. We got the 19 religious groups together, to try and get them to find a common way of teaching about each other. It was really complex, but it’s really important.
“I think that the more Israelis learn about Palestinians, and Palestinians learn about Israelis, the more people-to-people contact there is, more people can understand they have more in common than what divides us.”
Tom Fletcher visiting a school in Lebanon for Palestinian refugees in 2012. Image: British Embassy Lebanon/CC BY-NC 2.0 via flickr.com
You have repeatedly said that you are both Pro-Palestinian and Pro-Israeli. That’s a stance which leads to accusations of bothsidesism and downplaying the suffering of Palestinians, or is compared to saying ‘All Lives Matter’ at a Black Lives Matter parade. Considering this level of polarisation, how do we make room for nuance?
“One way we can start is to get away from the sort of statements we make as governments. I’ve written these statements for years, so this is kind of mea culpa. We tend to write statements saying: ‘Israel deserves security, and Israel has a right to self-defence. Palestinians deserves to be free from discrimination, and to be able to improve their livelihoods,’. Actually, Israel and the Palestinians both deserve security. They both deserve dignity. So we start to identify things which are clearly issues of dignity, equality and human rights. The Palestinians have as much right to all those things as Israelis. Rather than saying ‘one side deserves this, the other deserves that’, we recognise that there is a common framework there.
“We also have to be honest that there is a massive imbalance. Israel has disproportionate strength, and uses it in disproportionate ways.”
How do we bring a sense of proportion into this discussion?
“Part of it is about calling out what is disproportionate. ‘Proportionate’ is one of those slightly measly diplomatic words. We say: ‘We call upon all parties to act in a proportionate way,’. Great, we do! But what does that actually mean in practice?
“Do we think it is proportionate to take down the building with international media offices in? I haven’t seen a real explanation for why it was targeted, apart from chatter from the Israeli Defence Force saying it was some kind of Hamas cell. Again, it comes back to the nature of proportionality. What’s the evidence for that? Do we collectively think that justifies taking out a building in that way?
“Do we think it’s proportionate if the home of a Hamas commander is in one neighbourhood, to hit that neighbourhood. I think there’s a legitimate argument to be had, there. For me, I don’t regard those things as proportionate. I think we should call them out as disproportionate. I think doing that gets us beyond the simple ‘Ah, but Israel has a right to self-defence’ or ‘Ah, but the Palestinians have a right to fire those rockets’ into a more nuanced conversation.”
Over the weekend I was speaking to a lot of protesters, many of whom were Palestinian. They told me it was important to ‘change the narrative’ around the crisis. How do we bring the sense of proportion you have already discussed into narratives in the media or governments?
“I think some of the points I’ve made about language are part of that. We should condemn attacks on civilians no matter where they come from, rather than condemning them from one side and saying ‘we’re concerned’ about those from the other side. I think there are subtleties there which show we’re not equally concerned about both sides.
“So much of this comes back to a two-state solution. We have to show that we don’t just care about this situation when there’s a flare-up. When it does calm down, as it will do, we have to show we are going to get that state of Palestine, and to end the discrimination of the checkpoints and the economic chokehold on Gaza. We’ve got to be talking about that as much as these flare-ups, rather than thinking ‘well that’s okay now, we can go back to normal’ because the status quo isn’t fair, because the occupied Palestinian Territories are still occupied.”
How do we bring the Israeli government, Hamas, and the Palestinian National Authority together for negotiations?
“I think a starting point has to be an unequivocal recognition of Israel’s right to exist, and of Palestine’s right to exist. Suggestions that we can go back to a time when you could deny either of those things are really unhelpful.
“I think ultimately, we probably aren’t at a point where there is a quick fix now, even though we know what the deal looks like. Most moderates in Israel and Palestine know what the deal looks like. Most diplomats, including in the White House, know what the deal looks like. We almost got there in the past.
“We’re not going to suddenly have a peace conference, and it will all be okay. That’s a delusion. We’re going to need to do this more incrementally, and that starts with rebuilding trust. We have to show that we can bring back opportunity and dignity to the Palestinians. We need much more in the way of people-to-people contact between Israeli and Palestinian civilians, which gets past their two governments.
“The problem is that, at the moment, the hardliners around Netenyahu and around Hamas are getting stronger. They are unpopular, and were becoming more unpopular. Now, because of this crisis, they’re seeing an opportunity to regain their foothold.”
Does this conflict play into their hands?
“They certainly calculate that it does. They both draw oxygen from each other. It’s a terrible situation to be in, when that is the case. But, we’ve got a hardline Israeli government and a hardline government in Gaza. As long as space for moderates is choked off, it’s going to be really difficult to make any progress.”
When people talk about the conflict between the Israeli government and Hamas, the West Bank – which is not administered by Hamas – is often left out of the conversation. Considering that the majority of the West Bank lies under Israeli control, and Palestinians face restrictions on their movement within the region, what role does the West Bank play in resolving the crisis?
“The core of the solution will be that the Palestinian state would be in the West Bank, with its capital in East Jerusalem. That’s been the British position, the International position, and even the American position for decades. The West Bank has to be key to that. But that means we need to see an end to the expansion of settlements, because at the moment a Palestinian state will not be viable if the continued development of settlements choaks off the space available.”
Protesters fly Palestinian flags in Oxford. Image: Sasha Mills
What impact could this crisis have in the Middle East beyond Israel and Palestine?
“It makes it much harder to make progress on the wider normalisation of relations with Israel. You’ve had countries across the region recognising Israel’s right to exist and building diplomatic ties. That doesn’t mean they won’t and shouldn’t be very critical of Israel when it discriminates against Palestinians, builds settlements, and levels areas of Gaza. But it is positive that there is a wider acceptance [of Israel’s right to exist], and that’s part of the answer. I think it’s important that there’s recognition that you can’t have one without the other: normalisation with Israel needs to be accompanied by normalisation with the Palestinians, too. I worry that the violence on the ground and inside the Al-Aqsa mosque, and the forced evictions have settled back some of the wider efforts to build peace in the region.
“They also strengthen the rhetoric of extremists across the region. They give Iran a sense of cause. Iran loves to claim it defends the Palestinian cause, while it fights to the last Palestinian. Extremist groups will draw oxygen from this, from footage of Israeli soldiers inside a mosque during Ramadan. These are quite counterproductive images.”
There’s another element to this conflict, and indeed many others in the twenty-first century, which is an information war on social media. Considering the power of viral posts to shape opinion and spread a message, has social media turned us all into diplomats?
“I think it has. In the book I wrote, I ended with a chapter called Citizen Diplomats, because we need everyone to start thinking like diplomats. That doesn’t mean we all need to walk around speaking in platitudes about proportionality and ceasefires and so on. But it does mean we need to start thinking critically and have to be more discerning about what we read, what we sign, what we share, and the ways in which our actions and words can be a part of the solution, or part of the problem.
“In Lebanon, whenever a bomb went off I used to say the things we needed to do as individuals was to pause for breath, not to rush to judgement about who was behind it, and then to reach out to someone on the other side. These aren’t complicated things. They should be basic human instincts, and yet we don’t always do them.
“On an issue like this, it’s so sensitive and delicate. Getting the words wrong really matters. What I’m trying to set out is actually what the international humanitarian law is. It’s not my view. It’s actually what the international humanitarian legal approach is. I think the more people can go back to the facts, seek them out, and then call out the more toxic media and images, the better. The media has a really key part to play in this.”
A recent preview of Half Baked left me a little unsure of what to expect. Would COVID guidelines and rushed rehearsal schedules leave the show feeling a little underbaked? Rest assured, the cast and crew all rose to the occasion, delivering what was a hugely enjoyable and entertaining night out.
The show itself is centred around the premise of what happens if a bakery gets a cocaine delivery instead of flour. Nina Jurković delights us with a script that is witty, fast-paced and filled with a delicious number of bun-themed puns. Without spoiling the plot, the play takes an unexpected turn satirizing the ongoings of the contemporary art scene. Indeed, it is the way that Jurković uses bread to explore big questions about the nature of art that is the biggest strength of Half Baked. At one point, the show becomes slightly meta when one of the characters begins to consider what it would be like to write an all-female play that for once is not about the woes of being a domestic housewife pining after a man. The fact that Bourne Bakery is perennially empty and in wait for a customer feels like an intentional allusion to the café in Fleabag, immediately setting the tone for a play in which women are allowed to be themselves, rather than filtered entirely through the perspective of the male gaze. The play reminded me of the Bechdel test, in which at least two women have to talk about something other than a man for a work of fiction to pass. Half Baked passes the Bechdel test with flying colours. It is truly a feminist triumph and is so refreshing to see an all-female cast on an Oxford stage—something of a rarity, especially in the genre of farce.
In terms of performances, there was not a weak link in the cast. Leah Aspden must be commended for her performance as the lead Hazel. She flooded the stage with a real sense of charisma and warmth in every scene that she was in, immediately setting the audience at ease. Poddy Wilson also showed excellent coming timing as Molly, completing the double act that lies at the heart of the piece. Both of the actors, despite only being in first year, showed real maturity in their performances—I am sure we will be seeing much more of them over the coming years when Oxford theatre properly resumes in person. I also particularly enjoyed some of the minor roles. Anna Coles as the ‘dumb-blonde drama school student’ was a main highlight of the night, while Beth Ranasinghe, Maggie Moriarty and a surprise cameo from the Assistant Director Gabe Winsor really proved the mantra that there is ‘no such thing as a small part’, making me cackle with laughter even in the moments they were not saying anything on stage.
The show is not perfect. The blocking was at times slightly stilted (which is understandable given the short rehearsal period they had in the North Wall Arts Centre itself). At times the characters felt a little too much like stereotypes, and the first third could have been significantly reduced in length. But it was such a pleasure to be back in a real live theatre watching people perform in real life rather than behind a computer screen, and there is no better first post-lockdown show to see.
I had the pleasure of speaking to Nina Jurković (writer/director) about the creative development of the show itself.
What inspired you to write Half Baked?
“My friend Maxine and I were putting on a production of Blithe Spirit back in 2018, when the male lead dropped out, and we couldn’t replace him. It was not the best position to be in two months before opening night. We had an all-female cast, and so out of spite, we were determined to do an all-female play, but we couldn’t find anything that wasn’t sad, or didn’t have the word ‘dildo’ in the first scene. We fashioned a number of phone note scribbles into a plot, which became the short play Toast. Maxine edited and advised while I wrote, giving the cast whatever scraps we had just finished for each rehearsal, eventually finishing the script five days before opening night. Three years later, our production company applied for the residency slot at the North Wall, seeking to improve the play, iron out some of the problems, and develop it into a more complete and less frantically written whole. Now, it’s ‘Half Baked’.”
Biggest challenge in the rehearsal process?
“We’ve had to rehearse outside, due to a cheeky little global pandemic, so dodging pigeons, rain and runaway dogs have been our main obstacles. Rehearsing without any tables, chairs or props, while also keeping a metre apart at all times has been a slightly unconventional rehearsal process, but it’s definitely been better than zoom, and you can work wonders with a well-placed puffer jacket. Also, trying to describe where we were in University Parks when most of our company didn’t know what rugby posts were was pretty difficult, too.”
Why should people come and see Half Baked?
“If you’ve been missing student theatre, this is what you’ve been waiting for! The cast and our production team are absolutely fantastic, talented, and hilarious. It’s also not about disasters, death, or any real problems at all, so it’s hopefully a good bit of escapism, and if we’re really lucky, you might even find it a bit funny, maybe, hopefully. Plus, I found it quite exciting to actually go all the way out to Summertown for the first time – got very excited by the big M&S.”
Fave type of cake?
“I’m ~*vegan <3*~, so if I find anything that isn’t dense or oddly chewy, I’m very very happy. My favourite cake is my mum’s dutch apple cake, which she makes with Bramley apples, and has this crunchy cinnamon sugar crust which is really unbeatable.”
Half Baked in three words?
“Is it flour?”
Half-Baked continues tonight and Saturday, 22nd May at 7:30pm (2:00pm matinee on Saturday) at The North Wall, Summertown. Tickets are available at https://www.thenorthwall.com/whats-on/half-baked/.
The UK government has announced funding cuts to arts subjects including music, dance, drama, performing arts, art and design, media studies and archaeology and according to the Office for Student (OfS), who are responsible for distributing government funding to universities.
The government has sent a statutory guidance letter to the OfS directing them to cut funding by 50% to high-cost courses not on the Department for Education’s priority list. Performing and creative arts are not among the official “strategic priorities”, with a cut from £36m to £19m proposed next year.
Education Secretary Gavin Williamson said he would “potentially seek further reductions” to central funding for such courses in future years. The government has requested for the money to be redirected to “subjects that support the NHS and wider healthcare policy, high-cost STEM [science, technology, engineering and mathematics] subjects and/or specific labour market needs”. The Department of Education said that this is what is necessary to “support the skills this country needs to build back better”.
Despite this “catastrophic” cut, the Department for Education said that most university funding comes from tuition fees and other sources, and that the reduction in funding would only affect “a small proportion” of universities’ income.
The Russell Group of research universities has objected to the proposed cuts. Its submission to the OfS argues that the affected courses will now run at a deficit of about £2,700 per student, including the income from tuition fees. The group – including University College London, who are anticipated to lose £5.8m – said the cuts will particularly affect universities in London and their ability to attract disadvantaged students or those from under-represented backgrounds.
Singer and former Pulp frontman, Jarvis Cocker and author Bernardine Evaristo are among those who have criticised the plan to cut government funding for arts. Cocker said the “astounding” move would hit poorer students the hardest and claimed that the cuts would ensure arts subjects were only accessible to wealthier students.
The cultural sector contributed £34.6bn to the overall UK economy in 2019, an increase of 27% since 2010, compared with an 18% rise for the overall economy.
Cocker told The Guardian: “I think it will really just put off people from a certain background, and that’s a pity because it’s about mixing with people with different ideas, and then you get this cross pollination of stuff that makes things happen.”
He added: “It always seems to be that it’s art education that seems to be this expendable thing, as if it’s not important, and it is.”
Chris Walters from the Musicians’ Union said the consultation, which closed at midnight on Thursday May 6, had been “poorly publicised” and was not “transparent”, “legitimate” or “fair”.
He said: “It risks the financial viability of training that is essential for producing the next generation of musicians and arts professionals.”
“The notice for this cut is so short that it will likely cause chaos as courses are withdrawn at the last minute, affecting students who have already been accepted onto courses for autumn enrolment.”
“The cut will affect all students, but particularly those from less privileged backgrounds who may rely on local, less well funded institutions that cannot divert funds from elsewhere.”
Booker Prize-winning writer Evaristo described the plan as an “awful assault on the arts in universities”. Evaristo and others have expressed their support for the Public Campaign for the Arts which launched a campaign urging Mr Williamson to rethink his strategy.
General secretary of the arts union Equity, Paul Fleming, said his organisation also “opposes these cuts in the strongest terms”.
He said: “This is yet another government attack on arts education, following years of deprioritising drama and other creative subjects in our schools.”
“What is most troubling about the proposal to cut 50% of funding… is that it blocks a route into the creative industries for working class and other marginalised groups.”
A spokesperson for the Department for Education told Cherwell: “The proposed reforms to the Strategic Priorities Grant would only affect a small proportion of the income of higher education providers. High-quality provision in a range of subjects is critical for our workforce and our society. That is why we asked the Office for Students to allocate an additional £10m to our world-leading specialist providers, including several top arts institutions. Government’s proposed reforms only affect the additional funding allocated towards some creative subjects and are designed to target taxpayers’ money towards the subjects which support the skills this country needs to build back better, such as those that support the NHS, high-cost STEM subjects.”
“The OfS are currently consulting on proposals and we will take account of responses from universities, students, and others before making any final decisions on our funding method.”
Oxford Professor Peter Edwards has joined the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a group accused of climate change denial. Peter Edwards is a Professor of Inorganic Chemistry and a fellow of St. Catherine’s College, Oxford. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), launched by Lord Lawson and Dr Benny Peiser in 2009, is a group that “while open-minded on the contested science of global warming, is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated.”
The GWPF claims to have no official or shared view about the science of global warming, but states that “our members and supporters cover a broad range of different views, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change position through agnosticism to outright scepticism.” The group’s main focus is to “analyse global warming policies and their economic and other implications.”
Professor Peter Edwards has researched high-temperature superconductivity, the electronic properties of metal nanoparticles, the metal-insulator transition and hydrogen storage and CO2 utilisation technologies. He is also the Co-Founder of the King Abdulaziz City of Science and Technology–Oxford Centre for Petrochemical Research (KOPRC), the UK Sustainable Hydrogen Energy Consortium and was the UK Representative in the Kyoto International Partnership for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells in the Economy forum on Future Hydrogen Energy. The professor has also had close collaborations with Sir John Houghton, who won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) together with Al Gore.
The Oxford Climate Justice Campaign stated to Cherwell regardingProfessor Edwards’ appointment: “It is disappointing to see the solutions needed to tackle climate change being undermined by Oxford academics. Fossil fuel companies have already wreaked destruction, both on a large scale as the main contributors to the climate emergency, and on a more local scale in communities (usually marginalised and racialised) where extractive goals are prioritised over human rights. The transition to renewables will not be easy. But it is possible; and for the sake of people who will lose their livelihoods to climate change, transitioning to renewables as fast as possible is the only ethical option.”
“With Carbon Capture and storage technology still at an early and expensive stage, the only hope is to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels in the coming few years. Moreover, as a climate justice group we regard the severance of ties with the fossil fuel industry as a moral as well as a practical imperative. Indigenous peoples, communities of colour, and nations in the Global South have been irredeemably abused by fossil fuel companies, and to show solidarity with them we must separate ourselves from the perpetrators. Our atmosphere is like an overflowing bathtub, with carbon emissions flowing out of the tap. It is illogical to keep mopping up the water (using Carbon Capture and Storage) instead of turning off the tap (leaving fossil fuels in the ground).”
On the appointment of Professor Edwards, the spokesperson for the group said: “This appointment flags up a contradiction in our University’s ethics. On the one hand, Oxford’s recent efforts towards sustainability have been commendable (including the 2020 Congregation vote for partial divestment from fossil fuels, and the new Sustainability Strategy). On the other hand, as long as Oxford receives money from the fossil fuel industry it raises the question of whether academics like Edwards are incentivised to defend the fossil fuel industry due to the money their departments receive from these companies.”
“We believe that our recent report demonstrates this same contradiction: though the University is making strides in sustainability, it is yet to understand and embed the values of climate justice. As an international institution, Oxford needs to show care for those suffering from the effects of climate change and from the human rights violations of the fossil fuel industry. This can only be done through a complete severance from the fossil fuel industry.”
In response, Professor Edwards said to Cherwell: “The Haber – Bosch process alone is said to feed approximately 40% of the global population. Whatever their faults – and I am acutely aware of them – we simply cannot stop using fossil fuels; at best we will have to transition from them. The International Energy Agency itself now projects that 70-75% of global energy consumption in 2040 will be met by fossil fuels (recall, this was circa 85% in 2020). If we were immediately to stop all fossil fuel use, how many of the earth’s population of nearly 8 billion people would we be likely to support ? One estimate is 2 billion people. The challenge we/your readers have to face is that fossil fuels underpin everything we take for granted – even the crops to feed that gigantic population. Boycotting or divesting from the fossil fuel sector is a complex matter as I tried to point out in the case of our own links with the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology.”
“I do not believe that the level and scale integration of renewables – wind and solar generation – onto the grid is feasible from either a technological or a socio-political viewpoint. Wind and solar energy are not ‘dispatchable’ meaning they cannot be summoned onto the network when needed . Intermittent renewable generation cannot be called upon exactly when required…society requires uninterrupted or nearly uninterrupted access to electricity . With the hope that ‘Green Electricity’ will fulfil all of our needs , the load on the grid will surely need to double in scale.
“I raise this as I have no doubt that the consumer will have to pay for such attempts and this will affect disproportionately the poor and most vulnerable in our society. I know from my own extended family- some living in hugely-disadvantaged areas in the North West that this is of grave concern to them. They are not the people who can afford to buy a Tesla and recharge on their own driveways!”
The Professor also noted that he receives no funding or fees from his association with GWPF.
A spokesperson for the GWPF told Cherwell: “To call the GWPF a ‘climate-denying think tank’ is both a deliberate smear and untrue. The GWPF does not have a collective or official position on climate science.”
“Moreover, for most of our publications we invite external reviews from experts who we expect to take a different view to the publication’s author. We offer to publish any substantive comments or criticism alongside our main publications. In this way, we intend to encourage open and active debate on the important areas in which we work, primarily on climate policy.”
“This explicit diversity of opinion and our willingness to raise critical questions is one of the reasons why eminent scientists like Professor Peter Edwards and Professor Peter Dobson have recently joined the GWPF.”
In response to this, the OCJC stated: “OCJC relies on the expert opinion of reputable researchers when labelling companies and organisations. If GWPF have an issue with how we have labelled them they should take that up with those professionally qualified to identify climate denial.”
Litter on Port Meadow left two animals needing vet treatment over the weekend of the 8th to 9th of May, with injuries that could have been life-threatening. A horse cut open its hoof on broken glass and a cow suffered an intestinal blockage thought to be caused by eating litter.
This is not the first time that animals in Oxford have suffered injuries from litter. Last year, two cows, including a seven-month-old calf, died as the result of eating plastic bags, balloons, and other rubbish left behind on the meadow. Other grazing cows and horses sustained multiple injuries, including glass cuts. Oxford District Services (ODS), the Council-owned company responsible for litter management, has also had to rescue swans that became entangled in rubbish.
As the weather warms up and restrictions on outdoor gatherings ease, the City Council anticipates a bigger problem with littering in the city’s parks and green spaces. The Council offers a simple bit of advice: “Bag it, bin it or take it home” as part of its anti-littering campaign ‘Don’t Feed The Animals’.
The Council also urges people not to put their rubbish into overflowing bins, but to hold onto it until they find an emptier bin. Overflowing bins can attract scavenging animals, who then spread the litter around creating a new litter problem. Even one piece of litter can be fatal. The Oxford Mail reported that a dog recently died from eating a disposable facemask in an Oxfordshire park. Overflowing bins can be reported on a Council web page.
To combat the litter problem, the Council has increased bin capacity collection frequency, with staff out on Port Meadow as early as 6am. Volunteer groups such as OxClean Spring Clean are also addressing the problem, and will meet on May 29, June 5 and June at 12 for volunteer litter picking. Police and Council staff can also sanction littering, and are able to issue fines of up to £150.
Port Meadow Ranger Julian Cooper said: “It’s heartbreaking when we see animals suffering because of people’s carelessness. ODS has regular litter collections, but it only takes a moment for an animal to eat litter or step on glass or metal left behind. Ultimately it’s up to all of us to clean up after ourselves so we don’t see any more harm.”
“In the warm weather last summer we were collecting three tons of rubbish a day at Port Meadow – our teams can’t keep up with that rate of littering. Everyone knows they shouldn’t drop litter. However tempting it is to rush on to the next thing, just think about the harm you might cause by leaving rubbish behind. Bag it, bin it or take it home.”
Image credit: Photo by NeONBRAND on Unsplash. The image does not show a bin in Oxford
Anvee Bhutani has been elected as the President of the Oxford Student Union for the 2021-22 academic year. The voting had the highest ever turnout for a by-election, and has also beaten the overall turnout for several past annual leadership elections. 2506 people turned out to vote, a 146% increase from the last by-election in 2019, with the most voters coming from Keble College. The leadership contest also had the highest number of candidates ever in an SU President election, with 11 students running for the spot.
Bhutani is a current 2nd-year student at Magdalen College studying Human Sciences. In her manifesto she outlined the key areas she will focus on in her role as SU President: Access and Academics, Community Affairs, Welfare and Mental Health and Societies and Clubs. She also highlighted her experience across SU, college, and society roles.
In her manifesto, she states that she will “continue to lobby for lecture capture post-pandemic,” work with the student press to increase engagement, and “lobby for more funding towards existing mental health support programs for graduate students,” alongside a range of further policies including extending racial awareness and the accessibility of welfare support. Bhutani’s full manifesto can be viewed here.
Bhutani’s experience includes President of the Oxford India Society, Managing Director at The Oxford Blue, and she is the current Co-Chair at the Campaign for Racial Awareness and Equality (CRAE), which forms part of the wider SU. She has also worked as a shift leader at Turl Street Homeless Action, and in her manifesto suggests working with this group to support the local homeless population “via food and supply donations.”
I log onto a zoom call to be greeted by an array of colours: placards from protests cascade down the walls, various rainbow objects litter the room, and a vase of flowers stand in front of a trans flag with the words ‘We Will Not Be Erased’. I can tell this is the room of an activist.
Elliot Brooke is a second year History Student at St Hilda’s College, who spends his spare time campaigning for improvements in trans rights across the University through his roles as Transgender Representative for LGTBQ+ Society annd Co-Chair of LGBTQ+ Campaign. For someone who has spent more time at home than at university, he has accomplished a lot – he laughs as he tells me that he came back to Oxford last year after being away due to personal circumstances throughout Hilary, to suddenly be told that he would be doing another term from home due to a global pandemic. Yet, coming back to Oxford in Michaelmas Term of this year he was quick to launch straight into projects that had been brewing over lockdown.
Many people will remember his own trans flag being hung across the RadCam railings with two panels alongside displaying 242 names of trans victims of violence in 2020. It became a place for the trans community to come together to grieve, as well as demonstrate their love and sense of community. I inquired about Elliot’s inspiration for this memorial: “Anti-trans violence is such a huge problem still, especially beyond this country, and the victims who may otherwise be forgotten deserve to be remembered. I played around with a few different ideas on how to do it, but in the end the panels made most sense and ensured the names of those we lost were displayed clearly, which I feel is important. After settling on that, it was just a matter of persuading a group of mates to help duct tape everything together and drag it all down to the radcam at five in the morning”, he chuckles.
I ask him further about the decision to locate this memorial at the RadCam: “Radcliffe square gets a huge amount of foot traffic so i knew it would be a place where the memorial would get seen by a lot of people, and so raise a lot of awareness for TDOR and the wider issue of anti-trans violence. It was also an outdoor space large enough that if LGBTQ+ individuals wanted to come and spend some time mourning and reflecting, they could without worrying about Covid.”
He takes a deep breath before continuing, reflecting on the memorial as a statement as well: “Over the past couple of years, there have been a lot of instances within the university that have contributed to creating an alienating and unwelcoming environment for it’s trans, non-binary and gender non-conforming members. I think for a lot of people, there was something very empowering about seeing the trans flag hanging outside the radcam, a building so iconic and so strongly associated with oxford. It was about asserting our right to be here and be seen.”
This was one of his first projects that he did under LGBTQ+ Campaigns, a group he became involved with during his Second Year: “I’ve had a really mixed bag of experiences throughout the past couple of years around being trans at oxford,” he tells me, “loads of people have been absolutely fantastic about it, which was a really pleasant surprise, and I am so grateful to have found an amazing group of queer friends who are just fantastic. But there were also a few incidents and individuals who made things really difficult, which led to my mental health being really negatively impacted. Over the summer of 2020, I gave a speech about this at the London Trans Rights Protest in July, and the positive reaction and support I got from speaking out about my experiences was incredible, and encouraged me to look more into how I could personally get involved in work to try and improve the experience of Oxford’s LGBTQ+ members – which is when someone suggested joining campaign to me!”
Now he is Co-Chair of the LGBTQ+ Campaign alongside Tori Mangan. When inquiring about the workload, he admits it is a lot of work and that he feels “sometimes it’s easy to forget that students in volunteer roles are also still students who have a whole degree to do on top of the work we’re trying to accomplish within campaigns.” Yet, for him it’s an experience he wouldn’t miss: “it’s been a really incredible opportunity that I’m so grateful to have – I’ve been able to work with departments on developing their equality policies, attend national conferences, and work in smaller ways to try and improve the situation for LGBTQ+ students in the university, and that is a really rewarding position to be in.”
Due to his various roles, it is clear he is fast becoming an expert on the issues facing trans students within Oxford, so I ask him where he feels that trans activism needs to go in the future. He takes a moment before carefully continuing, “I think there is still a very serious issue surrounding the lack of adequate welfare provisions and safeguarding measures for transgender, non-binary and gender non-conforming students within the university. The 2018 trans report revealed just how dire the situation was regarding trans individuals in the university, and unfortunately my confidence that these statistics have improved over the past three years is low. Activism and welfare are, when it comes to trans issues especially, often inextricably linked together; our very existence is constantly politicised, and therefore activism becomes an incredibly important tool in pushing for our basic rights to safety, privacy and comfort to be met. We’ve still got quite a long way to go before we can say that goal has been met.”
When I ask him what is one thing he wishes people knew about campaigns, he smiles: “I wish people knew how keen we are to connect more with the wider student body. I know there’s a general feeling that the SU doesn’t really do a lot, and I can understand how sometimes it can feel very far removed – especially since the collegiate nature of Oxford means the SU can sometimes play a less significant role in our day to day life than it might at other universities. However, having worked with the SU for coming up on sixth months now, it’s been really enlightening to see how many resources they have available that are simply not known about, and how helpful they can be in resolving issues students are encountering. We really are happy to help in whatever way we can, and are always interested in hearing your issues and ideas, and supporting any projects you might want to carry out.”
As the interview comes to its conclusion, the final question I have is “what role can other students have in continuing to support in order to support the work that you do?” Elliot eagerly states “the absolute best way people can support the work we do is by continuing it themselves. From small acts, such as adding your pronouns to your email signature and asking others to do the same, and challenging people when you hear anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric to take the burden off your LGBTQ+ peers, to bigger things like setting up a Gender Expression Fund in your college and actively getting involved in queer activist efforts in Oxford. We’re currently looking to fill some campaign positions, so if you are interested in getting more involved, feel free to reach out to us!”
It’s bizarre when Eleanor Neale replies to my first question. I’ve become so used to having her videos playing in the background, describing murders, kidnappings and missing persons’ cases. It’s incredibly odd to now hear her respond in real time. Still, this is a feeling common to many – with 1.6 million subscribers and nearly a quarter of a billion video views, Neale is one of the world’s most well-known true crime YouTubers.
Beyond views, Neale’s videos often have tangible impact. Her video on Jessie Blodgett, a nineteen-year-old singer and musician who was murdered in 2013, has been watched over 1.2 million times. The LOVE>hate Project, created by Jessie’s parents in 2016 to help victims of human trafficking and domestic violence, received an influx of donations after Neale referenced them in the video. Jessie’s father even reached out: “I remember her dad emailed me… he was just checking all the accounts. And he was like: ‘we had a huge influx of donations around last week, and I couldn’t figure out where on earth they were coming from’.” The LOVE>hate Project later featured Neale’s video on their website. Neale continues “I could tell how happy he was in this email. Sometimes I kind of forget the kind of impact that my videos have until it gets to something like that. My audience can raise hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds for particular causes. That really reminds me like why I do this.”
Such pressure – the knowledge that a victim’s friend or family member could be watching – must be intimidating. Sometimes, they may be shocked or horrified by what they see in the media. One episode of Netflix’s I Am A Killer explores the murder of Robert Mast. When family members were approached to participate in the show, Mast’s stepmother replied: “as a parent, a fellow human being, I beg you not to do this… PLEASE don’t do this!” Mast’s stepsister told TIME: “When we continue to give numbers to these shows, they keep making them. And real people living real lives keep getting re-traumatized every time.” Likewise, Lauren Bradford’s mother was murdered in 1991. In 2016, ITV aired The Secret, a drama series based on the “story” of the crime, despite resistance from Lauren and her family. Lauren wrote in the Guardian that “by calling it a story, they trivialise the reality of these events and dehumanise the impact that it has on those involved. Furthermore, careless oversights, such as the misspelling of my mum’s name in emails that I had to correct, go deeper than just a trivial mistake; this echoes a disrespect for the victims and disregard for accuracy. In telling these “stories”, they have to re-write truth to fit a narrative that gives the impression of an assumed complicity or even authorisation from the families, which is so often not the case… Truth is replaced with “good enough truth”; embellished and rewritten for entertainment”.
However, while TV documentaries have teams of researchers and PR officers who can navigate these difficult interactions, Neale is working with far fewer resources. She’s recently hired an editor to take up some of the workload while someone else makes her thumbnails (although she has the final approval, noting how some are “too movie poster for me”). While As much as Neale loves covering cases concerning serial killers, she’s had to limit these as they take her “about three weeks” to research. With a schedule which features multiple uploads each week, this is unsustainable. At the beginning of each video, Neale includes a disclaimer that she means no disrespect to the victims or their families and that all research has been obtained through reputable secondary sources. Regarding the disclaimer (which has now been replicated across the true crime YouTube community), she says “I did six videos without it. And there were so many people that commented ‘are you doing this for views?’… I don’t like that people are coming to my videos and thinking that of me when I started out just doing missing persons cases and the reason I was doing them was to get them out there”. Neale elaborates – “you do have to state your intentions. That’s the first time someone is hearing you and seeing you… They don’t know anything about you… You need to make it clear that you are just doing it to cover the case and give that victim justice in a way”. Can this be enough?
“It can be a little bit scary sometimes”. She pauses, then continues. “I’ve had so many cases where I’ve covered the case on YouTube, and then like one of the victim’s family members has emailed me: more often than not, they’re absolutely lovely. When I know that family members of these victims do see the videos, there is a huge pressure there – I’ve got to do the victim justice. I’ve got to tell their story accurately.”
One of Neale’s first videos covered the case of Alissa Turney. At the time, the seventeen-year-old’s disappearance was unsolved. Her sister, Sarah, used social media to campaign for justice. Sarah contacted Neale directly after seeing her video and explained that some of the evidence – which Neale had found through news reports – was wrong: “Her family have had this uphill battle with news outlets because they’ve always been printing things wrong about this case. And I said, ‘Look, I would love to redo this video with your input’. And I did; I took the video down. And I spoke with her sister and we completely redid the video”. In August 2020, Michael Turney – Sarah’s father and Alissa’s stepfather – was charged with Alissa’s murder. When announcing the grand jury indictment, the prosecutor addressed Sarah directly, praising her efforts. “Your perseverance and commitment to finding justice for your sister, Alissa, is a testament to the love of a sister,” she said. “Because of that love, Alissa’s light has never gone out.”
Neale tries to cover many cases relating to young women. “That is what young women who watch me respond best to, as scary as it is for them to hear all these horrific cases… I think back to when I was 16, 17, 18, and I used to walk home from my friend’s houses in the dark – they’d live two miles away from my house! I would never do that these days and I would hope that my little cousin and my friends’ little sisters wouldn’t do what we did”. In a sponsorship with sportswear brand Gymshark, Neale shared tips to stay safe while out running (such as removing information when sharing screenshots of routes on social media, location sharing, and running against traffic), while recognising that no level of precaution can guarantee protection. “That was literally my favourite sponsorship that I’ve ever done. It wasn’t as much about the brand, it was about what they stood for”. Neale tells me she wants to be a “friend” to viewers who is relatable and comforting. She seems more like this corner of the internet’s elder sister: ready with advice and concern for her fanbase, along with sympathy for those impacted by the cases she is covering.
Neale doesn’t often speak about the impact of researching – often gory, often intimately personal – crimes on a regular basis. “At this point, I’ve pretty much kind of been able to separate my work from my brain. And if I couldn’t have done that would have made me ill – if I couldn’t pull up that kind of shield, when I started researching, then it would really, really affect me”. She pauses. Her usually bubbly tone, referenced in innumerable YouTube comments in contrast to the grim subject matter of her videos, is sombre now. “I’ve gone through stages where I’ve been like an anxious mess… and then I can’t leave the house for a week…. I’ll be walking down the street when it’s kind of dark and all the cases that I’ve ever covered will be running through my brain”.
She’s stopped covering certain cases due to the impact on her own mental health; children’s cases remind her of her four-year-old nephew, who occasionally features in her videos. “These children lost their lives so traumatically”, she says, “I feel like it is important to tell their stories. But, at the same time, those were the ones that got me choked up every time… In every case of a young boy, I would relate it to my nephew. And every time I would just cry.” Speaking to BBC Sounds, Neale elaborated: “I get all the emotion out as I am researching [but] I remember I was researching the Jamie Bulger case which is one of the worst cases I have ever heard of in my life,” she recalls. “I remember I cried so much as I was researching that case.”
For viewers too, there’s a potentially negative impact when consuming excessive true crime content. Erin Parisi, a mental health counsellor who specialises in true crime coverage, told INSIDER: “For someone who has their own trauma, especially of a violent or sexually violent nature, it can be really triggering to listen to stories that are similar, or even that don’t seem similar on the surface. For some, it could be like picking a scab off of a wound over and over and over again… never giving it enough time to heal”. Amanda Vicary, an associate professor at Illinois Wesleyan University, echoed this sentiment in the Huffington Post: “Women may want to learn about crime because they fear being a victim themselves, but then with every podcast they listen to or book they read, they are just learning about another woman who was kidnapped or killed, which can then increase the fear even more”. Neale has received countless messages from young female fans (her typical demographic) who feel overwhelmed by bingeing her videos. For someone whose income relies on consistent viewers and regular channel growth, her response is surprising: “Every single time someone says that I say ‘please, please do if it’s affecting your mental state, take a step away. Don’t watch any true crime content’. Sometimes I wish I could take a break from it – as much as I love my job and as much as I feel like it benefits people. Sometimes I wish I could shut off true crime and have a happy month and then go back to it. So, I really encourage my viewers to do that to take a break every now and again. Otherwise, you’ll end up thinking the whole world is just doom and gloom all the time.”
While streaming services have led to an explosion in the amount of content available for viewers (Sky has now launched its own channel purely devoted to the genre), this isn’t a new phenomenon. Capote’s In Cold Blood is a classic of American literature, while the serials of Wilkie Collins and Charles Dickens were greatly influenced by the British public obsessively tracking true crime cases in daily papers. True crime books have also been wildly popular for decades. A 2006 survey found it was the fastest growing literary genre; Mailer’s The Executioner’s Song even won a Pulitzer Prize. A 1993 survey conducted by Publishers Weekly found that true crime novels performed better when they focused on more gory content – with serial killers doing especially well. A direct link to the case can be viewed as even better, lending the text some form of authority. Helter Skelter, the best-selling true crime book of all time, was written by the lead Manson family prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi (alongside Curt Gentry). Similarly, Ann Rule’s The Stranger Beside Me focuses on the writer’s personal relationship with Ted Bundy. True crime YouTubers are limited by the platform’s guidelines regarding graphic content and often have no relationship to the cases they’re covering. What, then, is the allure? Neale believes there’s a level of intimacy unique to YouTube. “It is so much more relatable and aware. I’m literally just a northern girl sat in my bedroom”, leading to content feeling like a “conversation” rather than being primarily “produced and edited”. This level of access and relatability cannot be replicated by documentaries. Similarly, there’s a sense of community – which Neale describes as “respectful” above all else – within her subscriber base, with viewers able to theorise and change their minds based on new evidence in real time.
The freedom of YouTube also allows creators to focus on ‘smaller’ stories. While there is a grim level of awareness regarding cases which are likely to increase engagement – Neale confesses that “the videos in which there is a young, white female in the thumbnail do twice as well as any other case” – there is also the opportunity to highlight lesser known cases. She cites a recent video covering the kidnap and murder of Latisha Frazier – “oh my god, it was awful. She was killed by all of her friends. She was lured there and killed, and I couldn’t find any videos… And I was like… ‘right, okay, I’m going to tell this story’”. More generally, a focus on sensationalising cases means that “people’s everyday stories don’t get told – like the ones where someone is killed by their partner in their home. It’s not as juicy as something else. And that’s one of the sad things that I’ve realised while I’ve been doing this job is that if people like me and my peers don’t tell the ones that don’t get the documentaries or the Netflix series, then they don’t get told. And I like to say that in the start of my videos where I cover smaller cases.
“These ones are being told on my channel because no one else will tell them and I want to tell that story.”
