Saturday, April 26, 2025
Blog Page 320

EXCLUSIVE: Oxford India, Hindu, and South Asian Societies Launch Fundraiser for COVID-19 Relief in India

0

Three Oxford societies have launched a fundraiser in response to the worsening COVID-19 crisis in India. The Oxford India Society, Oxford Hindu Society, and Oxford South Asian Society are aiming to raise £10,000 over ten days to help local and national organisations in the country.

The societies have issued a joint statement on their charity effort: “The consequences of the coronavirus pandemic have made themselves felt in all areas of the world, but the situation in India is emblematic of this disruption. Caught between the threshold of its populated developing urban centres and its overburdened rural infrastructure, the pandemic has placed an unseen level of stress on India’s financial, medical and social framework.  Cases are rising at an unprecedented rate, with the daily number of new cases crossing 350,000, breaking records of single-tallies even during the first wave. In April, alone, India reported more than 5 million new cases, and more than 50,000 deaths, the majority of which were preventable.”

“The lack of availability of oxygen cylinders, hospital beds and essential medicines for critically ill patients has overburdened India’s healthcare system. The state has been unable to handle the full capacity of the crisis, and individuals and local organisations (funded through mutual aid efforts) have stepped in. It is necessary for the international community, whether a part of the Indian diaspora or not, to come together and provide as much aid as possible to help the nation tackle this crisis.”

“We strongly urge all members of the Oxford community to join us in supporting Indian charities who are seeking to alleviate and manage the burden on the healthcare system. Our aim is to raise £10,000 over the next ten days. At the conclusion of the fundraiser, we will be donating the money to local organisations and charities that are providing immediate on-the-ground relief in the worst hit parts of the country.”

Anvee Bhutani, President of the Oxford India Society, said: “The situation in India is a humanitarian crisis and one that requires immediate direct aid to prevent mass loss of life. We in the UK are privileged with our access to a reliable and efficient nationalised healthcare system, but this unfortunately is far from the reality in other places around the world. We are calling on the Oxford community with the hope that we’ll be able to join in support and solidarity to provide aid to India during this difficult time.”

Suyesha Dutta, President of the Oxford South Asian Society, added: “Having voluntarily immersed myself in the COVID relief effort virtually in Delhi, I’ve witnessed the catastrophe that has engulfed India. There is a critical shortage of hospital beds, ICUs, ventilators, oxygen, plasma, and medicines. It has often been the case that by the time I find a lead for a patient, they have passed on. This is an emergency with no end in sight.”

Aditya Dabral, President of the Hindu Society said: “All of us at HUMSoc are deeply upset and worried by the reemerging COVID crisis in India. We hope that this fundraiser will go some way in alleviating the plight faced by so many, and encourage all members of the Oxford community to donate however much they can in the service of a crucial cause. It can and will make a meaningful difference.”

You can donate to the fundraiser here.

I know which side my bread is buttered!

0

‘Why don’t we have salty butter?’, my naive, eleven year old self asked my mother one day. Looks of consternation flew across the kitchen, my mother’s eyes pleading my father to answer this one. ‘Because we just don’t’ came the reply, hostile and no-nonsense, as though I was at risk of being instantly excommunicated for even thinking about salty butter. 

Of course, I’m exaggerating, but it is an unavoidable fact that butter is not just butter! There is a web of social implications behind the pat sitting in the top shelf of your fridge door. That is, if you have butter at all, and not marge, a whole other bag of historical worms. In the States, margarine production started in 1875. In the beginning, it was made from a primary product of beef fat, a far cry from today’s Flora or Stork. Within ten years just under half of all states (24 in total) had laws restricting the sale of this dairy substitute. Why? Well, that’s the thing – it was economically damaging to the dairy industry. Cue bootlegged margarine passing between States. 

Margarine nowadays is very much a beef-free affair, made from plant oils. What’s more, if you look carefully at your packet of Flora, you may notice that you can no longer ask someone to ‘Pass the marge!’ – it is, in fact, a spread! What defines a spread, I hear you ask? Less than 80% fat, hence why spreads are marketed as healthy alternatives to butter. And, so long as it hasn’t had to be smuggled across a border, it is at least two times (if not three) cheaper than butter. Many Modernist writers rail against margarine as poor-man’s fare lacking in nutrition:

Potatoes and marge, marge and potatoes. It’s after they feel it. Proof of the pudding. Undermines the constitution.

Joyce, Ulysses

During WWII margarine took up its place in the middle-class pantry, and was a handy vector for getting vitamins A & D into a malnourished populace. Today it lurks there unwanted, the cuckoo in the bread-spread nest. This situation was again made more complicated with the advent of mainstream veganism. Plant-based diets are often viewed as the preserve of the moneyed, whose wallets can stretch to avocado on sourdough toast and oat milk chia puddings with goji berry and almond butter. So maybe we’re due a soar in spread shares? 

Let’s get back to butter and the real question – to salt or not to salt? Well, again, it’s not clearcut. Nine years on from that unworldly query, I now realise that unsalted butter is one of those middle-class markers. There may be a historical reason for this. In the past, salt was added to butter to preserve it. Butter is essentially churned cream. Those with more milk than they needed, the rich, had a constant supply of butter hence no need to salt it. Nowadays we have fridges, but salted butter still lasts longer and so is cheaper. 

But that’s not it. The hidden reason is that the middle-classes are willing to pay for their unsalted privilege. Perhaps the answer lies in how we use it? It’s undeniable that for the platonic toast, melted salty butter steals the show. However, when it comes to cooking with the stuff, the ready-salted nature takes away control. Completely unsuitable for certain cakes and breads, and off the table for the sodium-conscious savoury cook, salty butter loses ground. And it is the middle-classes that make dinner from scratch the most. 

For full recipe, head to @cherwelloxford or @greens_and_grains

Why am I musing this now? I’m currently on my year abroad in France, where it’s a matter of geography. If you’re Breton or Normand, salty butter is your building block for everything. Everywhere else, it depends on personal taste. So here not only am I free from familial expectations on the butter-front, but I’m also cut off from any subconscious cultural pull towards unsalted butter in Tesco. I’ve embraced it to such an extent that I haven’t, dare I say it, bought unsalted butter once in France. 

I’m not ready to go mono-buttered with my fridge drawer, either. There are definitely some instances where unsalted butter is god. However, I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the number of dishes that are better made with salted butter rather than unsalted and a pinch of salt. Cooking shallots and mushrooms this way is infinitely better – tossed with cooked spaghetti and a grind of pepper and now we’re really talking. Salted butter in sweet treats is also no hardship. Chocolate and salt go well together, why not take out the element of chance and use salted butter? 

So yes, for now I’m singing the praises of salted butter. Perhaps I’ll be converted to olive oil once in Italy, the next step of my year abroad. But let’s see how long it takes me to be re-educated once back in Blighty… 

Oat-so-lovely: exploring the overnight craze

0

If you follow any food blogs or channels on social media, you may have noticed the breakfast trend sweeping Instagram and Tiktok: overnight oats. But what is it that’s driving this craze, and how is it supplanting traditional breakfasts and holding its own against fitness food brands such as Huel?

Quite simply, in my opinion, because it tastes good. Unlike breakfast cereals, which can often feel repetitive and boring – especially if you’re facing down a bowl of Corn Flakes in a rush – there’s something distinctively attractive about overnight oats. Perhaps this is due to the process behind it: preparation the night before, measuring out your oats and dousing them with milk and flavourings – whether this be cinnamon and mixed spice (my current favourite), cocoa powder, peanut butter. The possibilities are endless, and range across a spectrum of nutrition levels!

You can also add in a wide variety of fruit and veg – with my favoured “carrot cake” style oats including some grated carrot and a handful of sultanas, though I have seen friends swear by grated courgette (I have not dared to try this yet!). Such are the possibilities for experimentation, and the endless ensuing variation, all stemming from a simple combination of oats, milk or water and a pinch of salt, that it can sometimes leave me gazing at the aisles in Tesco wondering what could spice up my oats even further. This prevents the old shtick of ‘boredom with breakfast’ that one may get if having porridge, for example, for countless days on end – if you’re tired of your current flavour, it only takes a little change to switch things up.

Moreover, unlike Huel and even some breakfast cereals, it’s something that seems definitively appetising and affordable. A 1kg bag of oats costs between 75p-£1, and that’ll last you two to three weeks; compare that to the £1.10 per meal cost of Huel, or the average price of £3 for a decent size box of cereal (which will inevitably go way faster than the suggested serving time), then you’re saving a lot of cash. Sure, it may seem like it’s a new fad born from the Waitrose-shopping elite, but it’s surprisingly affordable. This is enhanced by the fact that I’m using scales to measure out my oats – something that I’ve never considered when throwing cereal into a bowl.

Overnight oats also improve the start of your day. There’s no better feeling than waking up, dragging yourself out of bed, and treating yourself to a damn good breakfast which you prepared the night before. Unlike with other great breakfasts like scrambled eggs or pancakes, there’s little to no extra preparation involved (only adding in extra toppings) as the fridge has done all the work for you, and the only cleaning up that’s needed is just soaking your bowl after eating, prepping it for the next day.

There is, however, a danger. Just as it is possible to add too much milk to your Weetabix, leaving it to become a sludgy, unappetising mess, one can add too little or too much to your oats. Waking up to a failed jar is not the one, an anti-climax after opening the fridge door with so much expectation. But, though this may occur once or twice as you get started with making overnight oats, the more experience you get, the less often that disaster occurs. Of course, you can always put some more oats or more milk in, go back to sleep for an hour or so, and the problem may have resolved itself.

Whatever your diet (gluten-free, vegan, non-dairy), overnight oats are available for you. Just get your oats, your soaking liquid of choice (any milk or water will do), and a pinch of salt, and have a browse of the thousands of recipes, blogs, vlogs and TikToks about it. I do provide a word of warning – your friends may get tired of you mentioning it. But for the best start to the day? I think a few broken friendships are worth it.

Is the drinks industry chugging sustainability initiatives?

0

In February 2020, the drinks industry scored a poor 4.8 out of 10 for sustainability in the inaugural Drinks Industry Sustainability Index Trends Report 2020, published by Magners producer C&C Group and Footprint intelligence. The report recognised the fact that businesses were rethinking packaging, transportation, and wastage with sustainability in mind, but found there had been no great lengths of change in the industry. The drinks industry can require highly intense energy input for the processing of fruits or grains and distilling processes. According to the report’s findings, only 50% of glass containers were recycled in the drinks industry, with bars and restaurants sending 200,000 tonnes of glass to landfill each year. Meanwhile, growing concern for sustainability and plastic pollution within the industry has resulted in the fivefold increase in sales of water in cans. 

The issue of ethical consumption and ‘think before you buy’ can be starkly seen in the plastic versus canned drinks debate. According to a citizen survey, conducted by the Waste and Resources Action Programme and the Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment in 2019, over half of UK consumers agree that they are less concerned about packaging, including plastics, if their council collects it for recycling. While bottles are one of the most readily collected plastic items – and can be recycled with relative ease – their reprocessing actually does little to benefit the environment long-term. According to, the EU-supported industry consultant group, Zero Waste Europe, Mechanical recycling, which describes the shredding and melting down of used plastic into flake-like grains to be sold on to manufacturers, “is kicking the problem of plastic waste into the long grass”.

This is largely down to the open-loop nature of the plastic recycling process, or as it is better termed, the ‘downcycling’ process. Contrary to popular belief, plastic bottles are rarely used to make more bottles or plastic packaging which, according to a 2017 report from CNBC, means that nearly every drink we buy is packaged in new plastic. It finds that major soft drinks companies only source approximately seven per cent of their plastic from recycled materials. The chemical fibres in plastic bottles and objects, made from the polymer strain PET, considerably weaken when the product is recycled, and are usually turned into items such as carpets, fleece-lined clothing, jumpers, jackets, and sleeping bags. In the making of these goods, various other non-recyclable elements are added, meaning the products are likely to end up in landfill, alongside the 700,000 tonnes of textiles that are thrown away each year in the UK. Further, it remains widely unknown that most of what we throw into our recycling bin never gets reprocessed, because only 2 out of the 7 common plastic varieties are widely recycled (Repurpose Global). Plastic recycling, in most instances, merely delays the inevitable landfill.

Plastic recycling, in most instances, merely delays the inevitable landfill. 

A new proposition for the use of aluminium cans promises higher levels of recycling and may be the best replacement for plastic when it comes to beverage packaging. Recycled within a true closed-loop system, aluminium retains its quality each time it is reprocessed, meaning cans are able to be transformed back into themselves an infinite number of times. Unlike plastic bottles, the average rate of recycled content in European aluminium beverage packaging is 47%.

However, there are still downsides associated with the use of cans: aluminium is extracted from bauxite ore, which is strip-mined and incredibly destructive to the natural environment, leaving toxic ‘tailings’, and is highly energy intensive to refine. Roughly speaking, it takes nearly 15 times the amount of energy to produce new aluminium than it does to produce new glass. Even if you take into account the amount of recycled material used in a can, the contrast of energy used in production between a bottle and a can is vast. 

The WWF reports that 8 million tonnes of plastic are dumped in our oceans every year and 90% of seabirds have plastic in their stomachs. Yet plastic still remains the modern world’s packaging material of choice: roughly a third of the 350 megatonnes produced globally is used in packaging. According to a European Commission study, PET bottles and their lids are some of the most commonly found items among ocean debris.However,  as public perception shifts, and the issue gets pushed up the political agenda, the blame cannot be solely placed on the consumer. Instead, the corporations and systems we live in must change. Endless capitalist growth and consumption provides high demand for cheap and harmful options like plastic packaging. Individual action is important; we must always push for change and advocate for what we want to happen. However, corporations must implement the changes we want to see and take the next steps into cultivating  a sustainable production line.

This is a complex issue involving individual action, consumption, business, and industry.  What is needed to protect our environment, and promote a future where nature becomes a significant focus, is systemic change. Systems change when sustainable products become accessible to everyone, policy change and legislation ensuring that all socioeconomic groups can acquire a variety of green items. Advocacy for reducing plastic pollution has forced the drinks industry to change production materials, now we must keep on pushing. While the Covid-19 pandemic has put a temporary stop to mass campaigning on the streets, it has also given a new urgency to the warnings that destroying the environment threatens us all. We cannot continue to be unspecific about the action required to address the climate crisis. At some point, we will have to move from a position of simply calling for action to setting out our vision of how we could get to a post-climate-crisis world.

Artwork by Mia Clement 

Material girl: How the pandemic changed the way we shop

0

Almost 40 years later, Madonna’s words still ring through: “everybody’s living in a material world, and I am a material girl.” Guilty as charged, and mildly ashamed that pandemic me proved to be more materialistic than I would like to admit.

The reopening of non-essential retail marks a return to the throngs of shoppers on UK high streets, but when the first national lockdown greeted us, many bricks and mortar retailers were forced to open their virtual doors – and consumers flocked. 87% of British consumers started utilizing online retailers in 2020, increasing from 53% in 2008. Dependence on e-commerce peaked and the value of online sales reached £99.31 billion in the UK. For some, the pandemic came with the realisation of what is really important, and that, perhaps, life would go on without a new pair of shoes or the latest beauty supplies. For others, online purchases were a treat after a long week of working from home and with less social living expenses, they had more to spend on discretionary items.

When first faced with our new reality, even a trip to the supermarket, an armour of hand sanitiser, face masks, and gloves in tow, was no small feat, and for some, it was easier, safer and more convenient to buy groceries with a swipe and a click. But Tesco and Ocado were not the only delivery vans on the road. In April 2020, online retail experienced an increase of 15.8% and during the most recent lockdown in the UK, the proportion of online spending soared to 35.2%.

The periods of lockdown changed the state of online shopping and retailers were forced into drastic shifts in order to keep up with consumer behaviour. To navigate this new competitive reality, retailers adapted by extending their digital engagement, attempting to bring an ‘in-store’ feel to their online presence, improving their delivery services, investing in warehousing spaces, and simplifying the experience by reducing the number of clicks. Celine Pannuti, Head of European Staples and Beverages Research at J.P. Morgan, said: “In the past few years, some of the big players have invested a lot to be more digitally savvy, accelerating innovation and refocusing their portfolios. I think a few of these companies had come into the pandemic prepared to a certain degree, because they had prepared their company to change and pivot more online. We see retailers narrowing their product range, focusing on what matters more and mainstream brands and products, so the shift to e-commerce for big and small brands is key.”

The word ‘essential’ is difficult to define in a society where, for most, all the basic needs of Maslow’s pyramid are met. Non-essential retail shut but that didn’t stop non-essential purchases. In the midst of lockdown, boredom was rampant and buying online was safer. But deeper psychological theories underpin the online habits of pandemic buyers.

People took to the supermarkets in droves last March, even before a national lockdown was announced. Trollies overflowed with jumbo packs of toilet roll and enough dried pasta to feed the population of Italy. Upon entering a frightening abyss of uncertainty, people clasped at what control they had. Speaking to CNBC Paul Marsden, consumer psychologist at the University of the Arts London, said: “Panic buying can be understood as playing to our three fundamental psychology needs.” He explained that autonomy, relatedness, and competence, give people a sense that they are “smart shoppers”.

Among the top products that boomed during lockdown were jigsaws, to counteract boredom, computer accessories and furniture, to spruce up the home office,  and booze, well, to keep sane. Sales of activewear and casual clothes continued to rise throughout the year, but, as we sank deeper into lockdown funks, luxury apparel and accessories also started to rise. Why buy a Gucci handbag when you can’t flaunt it while out for brunch? The answer: because we could. For some, buying unnecessary items also provided hope for time when strutting down to the local pub in brand new loafers would be allowed.  

Online shopping enables a similar sense of control to panic buying. A 2013 study published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology found that shopping choices restored personal control and reduced residual sadness. The research was based on the fact that “sadness is strongly associated with a sense that situational forces control the outcomes in one’s life”. The concept of situational forces dictating the events of our lives – sounds vaguely familiar during a global pandemic. A year of turmoil wrought personal upheaval and a lack of individual control, resulting in consumers clinging to their power of consumption. When faced with an uncertain situation we tend to try whatever we can to feel like we have some control. And so, virtual retail therapy and comfort buying provided a sense of control at a time when we felt deprived of so much.

The sight of delivery drivers raised a smile during the height of lockdown when the thought of opening a package was the peak excitement of the day. However, the increase in home delivery had wider environmental impacts. But it’s not unusual to have to tear open a large box and unwrap multiple layers of plastic and cardboard before reaching a product that would fit in the palm of your hand.  Amazon’s sales in the UK soared to a record $26.5bn but even before the pandemic, a report from the nonprofit ocean advocacy organization Oceana estimated that Amazon was responsible for 465 million pounds of plastic packaging waste. In 2019, Amazon co-founded The Climate Pledge and committed to “making all Amazon shipments net zero carbon through Shipment Zero, with 50% of all shipments net zero carbon by 2030”.Senior air quality manager for Environmental Defense Fund Europe, Elizabeth Fonseca, told the Evening Standard:  “Air pollution is an unintended consequence of this rise, especially since most deliveries happen via diesel-fuelled vans that pump dangerous pollutants into the air we breathe.”

Henry David Thoreau once said that “The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it”. Judging by that account, I’ve given Asos much more than they deserve. Fast fashion brands were one of the few retail winners. Boohoo, for example, recorded an increase in its sales by 45% to £368m from March to May. While fewer clicks before being thanked for your purchase may help retailers stay afloat while also being convenient for consumers, for some passive shoppers (those whose go-to procrastination method is adding items to their wishlist), there is a dangerous lack of steps before their bank balance drops a few digits.

During the pandemic, people started to rely on the instant gratification of online shopping. Buying is just one click away. And for anyone with an overdraft, there’s no need to worry about having enough cash at hand. Many people add items to their basket and after finding themselves curious as to how much of a bill they have worked up, they end up confirming their purchase. The only roadblock is entering their card details giving them time to come to their senses and change their mind. But, thanks to autofill, your order is on its way! The ability of devices to save card information also means that all we have to remember is that three-digit CVV. Farnoosh Torabi, a personal finance coach, said: “Money is abstract as it is, and it’s why a lot of us have a hard time managing it. If you have to see money leave your wallet, overspending is harder.” 

After days confined to their homes, many people started to spend their time and their money differently. People spent less and saved more. Barclaycard found that overall consumer spending was down by 7.1%. The transition to a cashless society also gained momentum. Eric Leenders, managing director of personal finance at UK Finance, said: “September [2020] saw the proportion of contactless debit card payments hit a record high for the second month in a row, rising to 64% of total transactions in August. The value of overall contactless spending was also up by over 18% compared to the same period last year, as consumers made further use of the increased £45 contactless spending limit.”

Instantaneous access to money, the convenience of carrying only a thin card and no rattling sound of coins in the bottom of your pocket all sounds very appealing but the prospect of a cashless society also brings risks. Sweden has one of the world’s most aggressive policies to become cashless with cash accounting for less than 1% of total transactions compared to 23% in the UK. Many find it harder to control spending when they can’t see the physical cash leaving their hands, and if anything was to happen to your bank account, in a cashless society there are no alternative sources of finance. Diners are also less likely to leave tips when they haven’t got small change and, for children, there’ll be no spontaneous £5 notes from generous neighbours.

Despite the hike in retailers switching to digital sales, for certain stores, such as Primark, online retailing isn’t an option. The related logistics costs to online shopping means that delivery costs would exceed the value of many of its goods.  A recent report carried out by IMRG, found that 33% of retailers had to increase prices to cover the cost of returns.

The question now that non-essential retail has reopened and things are gradually returning to ‘normal’, is whether the shifts in online shopping, our attitude towards consuming and our conception of money, are here to stay. Sarah Hunter, Chief Australia Economist at BIS Oxford Economics, said: Australia is a really interesting case study on this as the pandemic is basically under control domestically which means that the majority of restrictions have been lifted.” She added: “We can see in the data that although online’s share of total retail spending has fallen back from its lockdown peak it’s a long way above where it was a year ago.”

According to Statista, online retail is forecasted to grow by 34% in the next three years but Celine Pannuti researcher at J.P. Morgan said: “In the next 12-24 months, consumers are going to be left with less money in their pocket. Many people will be left unemployed and will have less to spend. This will reinforce the trend for staying at home. We could also see some downtrading as consumers settle for more affordable options, though for now, we have seen consumers buying big brands and choosing household names overvalue or private label products.” 

Before I left home for Oxford last October, my dad told me that a significant number of delivery drivers were losing their jobs. Why? Because my leaving meant a huge drop in deliveries to the area. After that funny, but not so subtle, nudge, I realised that I may need to reexamine my online shopping habits. At least now, while I’m still a material girl, if I do splurge on a clothing haul, I’ll have somewhere to wear my new purchases, even if it’s only to my local beer garden!

Artwork by Rachel Jung 

Cher-ity Corner: KEEN 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 with Catherine Smith, Programme Manager of KEEN; discussing the origins of KEEN, the various opportunities they have for students and the rewarding nature of volunteering with them. Find out how you can get involved and more about their amazing work.

What’s KEEN?

KEEN can be traced back all the way to 1984, upon the arrival of a Rhodes Scholar who recognised the lack of sporting opportunities for those living with disabilities in Oxford – and wanted to do something about it. Initially what was a small tennis club for disabled individuals, is now 30 years later an international non-profit movement that serves hundreds of young people with disabilities each week in cities around the UK and US, training over 30,000 volunteers as a result (but… Oxford is still its flagship branch)!

KEEN’s mission is to create, support and promote inclusion for disabled children and young people. They exist because they believe everybody should be meaningfully included in their communities and have equal access to sports and recreational activities. Not only do KEEN run their own inclusive activities, but they do so much more work beyond that in trying to change perceptions of disability and working within the local community to make society a more inclusive place across the board.

“Working in partnership with other organisations, university clubs, and charities is so important to that side of our mission: we recently established Inclusive Oxfordshire with the aim of making Oxford fully inclusive place for disabled people by 2030.”

In normal times, KEEN run a regular weekly timetable filled with things like AllSorts (their flagship sports session), ZigZag (their creative session), KEEN Teens and GrEAT Social, as well as KEEN plus events which involve trips to museums, the theatre, bowling and so much more!

At the moment, they are operating a busy Virtual KEEN timetable over zoom which is a blast: you can do everything from yoga to talent shows, cooking to exercise classes, KEEN choir, Film Clubs and even just general chats. There have been up to 20 sessions weekly, with around 400 total sign-ins weekly. They have also been sending out weekly postal packs to families unable to access zoom since last March and have created our own YouTube Channel packed full of fun activities to complete. 

How can students get involved?

“KEEN simply couldn’t function without our absolutely brilliant team of student volunteers. I can’t speak highly of them enough – they truly make KEEN as wonderful as it is.”

Many students get involved by coming along as a “Session Buddy” to in-person or virtual activities, offering support and getting stuck in themselves. Many volunteers also run the sessions, so get to decide what activities KEEN do on a week-to-week basis. “It’s a fab way to escape the student bubble and release your inner child!” – Catherine

KEEN also have a very committed Student Committee working behind the scenes on an operational level who run KEEN’s social media, help produce accessible resources and so much more. “We’re a sociable bunch and welcome absolutely anybody to get involved.” – Catherine

Why should you get involved?

“It’s a joy to watch as young people develop and grow in confidence and build relationships – we have participants who at first barely say a word and then start performing at KEENs Got Talent every week or showing everybody a stretch in yoga, and who wave like mad when they see their friend join the call.”

KEEN is driven by inclusivity: it helps make the world a friendlier, more equal and more accessible place.

“A parent recently told me how grateful they were for ‘adding so much colour’ to their child’s life; a volunteer told me KEEN had been a lifeline over lockdown – it’s little things like this that encapsulate how rewarding this work is.”

Want to get involved?

You can get in touch with the Programme Manager (Catherine) at [email protected]. Their website and socials also have useful information:

https://www.keenoxford.org

Instagram

Facebook

Twitter

The Undercurrent: Fun – a vital ingredient for optimising your performance?

I’ve got hundreds of questions for the University, but the overarching one is fairly simple: how have they kept a straight face as they stitch-up their students at every turn? How did they resist the temptation to add a cheeky ‘lol’ to the emails that rejected student residency in favour of letting tourists roam the grounds? Which wannabe comedian came up with the idea of adding a line about the importance of student well-being to the end of emails announcing measures that make student well-being immeasurably worse?

Every email that comes into my inbox from a University or college email at the moment displays a breath-taking lack of self-awareness. I recently got one with the line “remember to have fun” near the end. I held my breath, beside myself at the idea that someone in college might actually value my social life. Imagine my disappointment when I read the next words: “fun is a vital ingredient for optimising your performance.” In Oxford, that’s what passes for a message of encouragement. To anyone else, it’s the sort of phrase you’d see on a billboard in a dystopian future where humans are kept as pets by robot overlords.

The pandemic has laid bare the tutors’ predilection for viewing every aspect of student life through a magnifying lens of academic achievement, which they seem to have placed firmly between food and water on their warped idea of a student hierarchy of needs. During the pandemic they’ve turned this magnifying glass on students to devastating effect, frying us like ants in the summer sun. Without wanting to sound needy, it would be lovely to hear from someone at the University who cares about my well-being regardless of whether it improves my essays.

You can’t even escape to social media for a break from it all. Take the official University Twitter account, which recently published a video on the benefits of walking that included the (unironic) line “if you get a really bad email from your boss or a frustrating message from your sister, go out and stretch your legs.” If I went for a stroll every time I got a “really bad email” from the University, I’d be able to drop out altogether and pursue a career as an Olympic walker. If the frequency of these “really bad emails” continues when everyone comes back I worry that Cornmarket might start to erode.

Another shining example of this total inability to read the room came in their tweet urging the student population not to trash each other because of the practice’s “negative social, financial and personal impacts on the whole Oxford community.” I’m all for a bit of well-placed environmentalism, but being lectured about the social impact of shaving cream by an institution that is perfectly happy to support arms companies leaves a distinctly bitter taste in one’s mouth. God forbid the sound of celebrating students disturb the researchers hard-at-work on Britain’s next for-profit death machine.

Now, this would all be very funny if these messages weren’t coming straight from the people that have been assessing our mental health claims for the last six months. The delicious irony of being asked the reasons for my mental health issues by the institution that has caused almost every problem in my life for the last two years has not been lost on me. 

Only Oxford could turn the delicate process of divulging a mental health issue into a sick version of Britain’s Got Talent that’s all sob-story and no singing. And, to be honest, if I was choosing whom to divulge the intimate details of my home life to, I’d rather Simon Cowell than a panel of tutors whose combined insight into mental illness is that it disappears when you go for a bloody walk.

Art by Justin Lim.

Greed is nothing new in football

0

News of a proposed European Super League, including the so-called ‘big six’ English Premier League teams, broke on Sunday to much shock and dismay within the football and sporting world. But, almost as quickly and suddenly as this news broke, all six English teams involved confirmed that they were pulling out of the Super League after sustained fan pressure and a grassroots campaign against the proposals.

The European Super League would have involved a selection of 20 elite men’s football teams (12 of which were publicly confirmed) competing in a season long European league competition, as opposed to the existing knock-out UEFA Champions League. Crucially, the founding 15 clubs would not have had to qualify for the Super League through domestic footballing leagues, as they do with the Champions League. Manchester United, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Liverpool and more were among the teams who had put their names to the Super League proposal, launching a wave of criticism and claims that the spirit of the game has been lost. Though many of the teams implicated have listened to these claims, the reality is that the spirit of football was lost long ago. The elitist and greed-driven plans for the European Super League shouldn’t surprise us.

Speaking a few hours after the news broke on Sunday 18th April, former Manchester United defender and Sky Sports pundit, Gary Neville, claimed he was “absolutely disgusted”, particularly with Manchester United and Liverpool for betraying their working class roots. In making these comments, Neville drew on the long tradition of football as ‘the people’s game’ – a game created by and for the working classes. A number of northern industrial towns were the sites of the first football teams that would later grow into Premier League giants and billion-pound conglomerates. Sheffield FC, recognised as the world’s oldest football club, was founded in 1857 by a group of men who sought to formalise the “kickabouts” that had been enjoyed by a number of locals. As Neville discussed, his own team, Manchester United, was “born out of workers”. Originally founded as Newton Heath, the club was established by railway workers in Lancashire in 1878, acting as a sort of workers club that used football to create a community. Most Premier League teams have a similar heritage centred on working class solidarity and community. And yet, in today’s game, these working class legacies have been lost.

Neville went on to criticise the teams who had joined the Super League as motivated by “pure greed”. However, it seems fair to say that greed is now embedded within every area of the modern game, from transfer fees and sponsorship deals to ticket pricing and broadcast rights. Greed has driven the profit and money involved in football to quite unbelievable heights and has corrupted what was once – but is no longer – the people’s game.

The inflation of transfer fees is just one example of such greed, which can clearly be observed through glancing back over the past few decades. Back in 1979, Trevor Francis became the first million pound transfer in English footballing history when he joined Birmingham City from Nottingham Forrest. Just weeks before, the record transfer fee had already been broken, when David Mills signed for West Bromwich Albion from Middlesbrough for £500,000. Francis’ signing smashed that record only a short while later, marking a turning point in football history. The current record signing now dramatically overshadows the £1 million paid for Francis. The most expensive player bought by a Premier League team, Paul Pogba, came to Manchester United for 89 times what Birmingham City paid for Francis, and across European football, the record for the most expensive signing is held by Neymar Jr., who joined Paris Saint Germain for €222 million.

Competition to sign players for record fees and world-firsts overshadows the fact that the game is becoming increasingly inaccessible to a number of fans. With clubs raking in ever more money through transfer fees, shirt sales and sponsorship deals, ticket prices do not seem to be decreasing. Rather, the opposite is happening. To take just one example of ticket prices, The Football Supporters Association, FSA, highlights “the acceleration in the rise in ticket prices well beyond the rate of inflation” which has meant that game has become “unaffordable to large swathes of its traditional fan base”. One Liverpool fan group estimated in 2013 that ticket prices had increased by an astonishing 716% since 1989. Similar patterns can be observed across the ticket prices of other clubs, and there is evidence that younger fans, especially, are being priced out of watching the game. So, even as clubs are splurging plainly ridiculous fees to sign and pay their players, fans have been forgotten and left behind, expected to meet ever more costly demands.

Serious and distressing concerns have also been raised around the source of money being mined into Premier League and European football clubs. Manchester City is, for example, currently owned by Sheikh Mansour, the deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates, UAE, a state which Human Rights organisation Amnesty International describes as continuing to “restrict freedom of expression”, conducting “unfair trials” and failing to change laws which made “women…unequal with men”. More recently, during the latest international break, the German, Norwegian and Netherlands national men’s teams took a stand against the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.

The upcoming contest has been shrouded in distressing reports of human rights violations, exploitation and maltreatment of workers involved in constructing stadiums. Concerns over forced labour, appalling living, working conditions and exploitation have been voiced for several years and yet, as it stands the World Cup in 2022 is going ahead. Games will be played in the same stadiums where migrant workers died and footballing authorities will enrich themselves off of the suffering and abuse of others. What is more, last year’s UEFA Champion’s League finalists Paris Saint Germain are owned by Qatar Sports Investments, a state-owned shareholding organisation dominated by the rulers of Qatar. This makes PSG, along with Manchester City, the only two state-owned clubs in the world, both of whom are funded and owned by states with poor records on Human Rights. Such concerns (which go well-beyond just Manchester City and PSG), coupled with the mostly tacit acceptance of the Qatar World Cup, paint a fairly terrifying picture of the state of modern football. Human Rights should not be a price we have to pay for football: they are non-negotiable. Football has become complicit in Human Rights abuse. That horrifying truth shows how far the game and its original values have been distorted. 

Football clubs are no longer what they were established for. They are businesses and are not governed in the interests of the fans and of the game. Some of these businesses are complicit in awful crimes and violations across the world. Guided by profit, gain and greed, clubs act as capitalist corporations; football itself has become a secondary concern. Banners reading: ‘Created by the poor, Stolen by the rich’ were unveiled at EPL stadiums across England in protest of the plans for the Super League. This aptly captures what has happened to the game since its inception: football has been gentrified. It has been appropriated by the elite and commercialised to the point that fans, who football teams were originally set up by and for, have been left behind.

Bright green and gold scarves became the emblem of angered Manchester United fans who sought to reject the takeover of the club by the Glazer family. In purchasing the club, Malcolm Glazer unloaded £525 million of debt on the club (and the club has remained in debt since the takeover, accumulating an extra £140 million of debt in the single financial year between 2018-19). This garnered criticism for the manner in which the club has been run for personal profit and with little regard for the game. Green and gold, as the colours worn by Manchester United’s ancestor club, Newton Heath, represented the opposition of the fan base to the take over and a desire to return the club to the fans, as Newton Heath had been. The breakaway club FC United of Manchester was established to do just that, spawned in the aftermath of the Glazer takeover for Manchester United fans disillusioned by the commercialisation of football. It claims to provide “authentic, supporter-owned, community-focused football for supporters who are tired of modern football’s constant pursuit of further riches at the expense of…the fans”. Such statements clearly carry the spirit of the founding football teams and the workers who came together to carry Newton Heath, centering on community and the fans having a stake in the game.

German clubs also provide an admirable model of how the game can stay within the grasp and control of the fans. The so-called 50+1 model dictates that fans must have a 51% stake in football clubs and thus majority of voting rights and decision-making powers. The Bundesliga website explains that “this means that private investors cannot take over clubs and…prioritise profit over the wishes of supporters”. German teams were historically “not-for-profit organisations run by members associations”, given that German law forbade ownership by private organisations up until 1998. The rule has been credited with the stable and relatively affordable price of most Bundesliga tickets and keeping German clubs out of the high levels of debt that have smothered other European teams. In keeping clubs firmly in the control of fans, German teams have managed to resist the profit-driven capitalist takeovers to which English clubs have fallen prey.

The 50+1 model has been praised around the world for ensuring the sustainability and democratic ownership of football clubs and touted as a system that offers fans far more control over the game than any other place in the world. A future in which this model was adopted in England seems more remote than ever, but it is equally clear that football clubs cannot be left in the hands of greedy and unrestrained capitalists. Listening to fans involves bringing them directly into decision-making and the governance of the club, ensuring that football stays relevant and true to its roots. The German 50+1 model could be a way of effectively protecting it from the spiralling corruption increasingly engulfing the game.

Effective controls on the increasingly ridiculous levels of spending that have come to characterise the modern game are also severely lacking. UEFA Financial Fair Play rules have shown themselves to be flimsy and ineffective – indeed, one may validly question the extent to which this really promotes ‘fair play’ and a ‘fair’ level of spending given that clubs are still permitted to spend hundreds of millions, up to €5 million over their earnings. Football exists in a very unusual and yet unique echo chamber, whereby money and monetary values seem to bounce around until they increase to ludicrous levels. Against a backdrop of economic uncertainty and downturn, money in football seems unaffected and continues to reach ridiculous heights, underpinned – always – by greed.

If human rights and human lives can be sacrificed supposedly in the name of football, something has gone seriously wrong and the game has been warped. If the supporters who built the clubs and continue to provide their life source count for nothing, a serious reconsideration of the way football is run is desperately needed.

Greed has sadly become an integral part of the modern game, woven into its very fabric. The European Super League is an attack on football. But the groundwork for it was laid a long time ago. Football needs to heal; dismantling the Super League will not be enough to undo the corruption that has become embedded in the game. It will take more than just defeating these proposals for the game to truly heal. Decision-making needs to be more transparent, the football echo chamber needs to be smashed and the game must be returned to the fans.

Fighting the Super League was just the tip of the iceberg. The reality is, that with spiralling ticket prices, rocketing transfer fees and profit-oriented governance, the game has not belonged to the fans for some time. The Super League was merely the latest iteration of greed-driven corporate capitalist interests attempting to corrupt the game. But the principles behind the campaign against it still apply and should live on. Football fans should not wait for the next European Super League-style proposal; they should demand action and ownership of their clubs now.

Magdalen College reopens to tourists despite delayed student returns

0

Magdalen College, Oxford has reopened to tourists, despite the fact that not all students will return to the college grounds until mid-May. Under current government guidelines, “outdoor hospitality venues” and “outdoor attractions” have been allowed to open from 12 April. Meanwhile, the government stipulates that “[higher education] providers should not ask students to return if their course can reasonably be continued online” and that students on non-practical courses “should continue to learn remotely and remain where they’re living until in-person teaching starts again, wherever possible”.

Magdalen College advertised that they were “open to visitors” on 12 April,  while their students on non-practical courses were not informed of return dates until the following day. Writing on Facebook, Magdalen college advertised that the first 20 visitors would receive a “free Magdalen calendar”. 

Visitors can explore the grounds of the college, including its deer park, for a reduced price of £6 for adults and £5 for Over 65s, children and students from other institutions. Oxford students can visit for free. 

Magdalen is currently the only Oxford college to reopen to the public. Christ Church remains closed to visitors “at least until the end of the academic year”, although they have advertised the opening of their new takeaway café on 1 May, as well as their shop which is currently open. 

King’s College, Cambridge, is also accepting visitors during timed slots. Writing on their website, the College said they were “delighted” to open parts of their grounds from 13 April. For a reduced price of £5, members of the public can visit the wildflower meadow and the Xu Zhimo garden. The College also plans to open their Chapel to tourists from 17 May.

On 13 April, the government announced that in-person teaching for students on non-practical courses would resume “no earlier than 17 May” giving universities just over a month to prepare for this change. Meanwhile, the government’s original roadmap out of lockdown, detailing provisional “unlocking” dates for other sectors, including 12 April for outdoor hospitality and attractions, was announced on 22 February, giving such sectors more time to prepare. 

Students and university leaders have previously expressed frustration at higher education’s omission from the original roadmap. Many were further disheartened by the 17 May date. In response to the announcement that Magdalen would reopen to tourists, Abigail Howe, a Second Year English Literature student at the college, told The Telegraph: “The roadmap has been done in such a way that university students’ return has been prioritised below people having a walk in the college grounds.” 

In relation to Magdalen’s policy under the new University guidance, Ms Howe told Cherwell: “Magdalen’s returns policy has been really sympathetic and considerate to my knowledge. However, the fact they are legally able to take in tourists before all students can return does highlight the absurdity of the government’s roadmap and the way students have been consistently disregarded by the government.”

A spokesperson for the Department for Education told Cherwell: “All university students who have not yet returned to campus and in-person teaching will be able to do so alongside 17 May, at the earliest. The timing aligns with Step 3 of the Government’s roadmap, where restrictions on social contact and indoor mixing will be further eased and aims to limit potential public health risks associated with student populations moving across the country.”

The Department did not provide comment on the specific reopening of colleges to the public.

Magdalen College has been contacted for comment.

Image Credit: Ed Webster / CC-BY-2.0

Everyone’s Invited: Oxford University mentioned 57 times

0

CW: Sexual assualt and rape

More than 80 UK universities have been named on Everyone’s Invited ‘rape culture’ website where students have been reporting accounts of sexual harassment, abuse, misogyny and assault. The website has collated nearly 15,000 anonymous accounts thus far and claims are now being extended to testimonies from university students. The data was released both to highlight the problem on campuses and expose sexual abuse in further education.

Receiving over 1000 new testimonies related to universities within a week, Everyone’s Invited has so far mentioned eighty-four institutions in total. Some universities are mentioned dozens of times, including around 50 mentions each for some elite universities. Oxford University (57 times) along with University of Exeter (65) and University College London (48) fall into this category. Seventeen UK universities have more than five mentions and 15 of these qualify as Russell Group universities – traditionally among the most prestigious in the country.

When asked to explain the correlation between elite universities and the increased number of mentions, Soma Sara, founder of the Everyone’s Invited website, said: “There are logical reasons for this bias. The platform is still new, and it has grown through word of mouth, with friends sharing it with friends. I went to a private school and then a university in London. As a result, we received an abundance of testimonies from certain areas and groups.”

A Russell Group spokesperson said “No student should feel unsafe or have to tolerate harassment or sexual misconduct in any circumstance. Our universities take this issue incredibly seriously and provide a range of support to help students feel supported and safe. Where a crime has been committed it should be reported to the police. The testimonies highlighted via the Everyone’s Invited website show the need for us all to take this issue seriously.”

A University of Exeter spokesperson has said: “The safety, security and wellbeing of our students is, and always will be, our primary concern”, adding that it had a “zero tolerance for sexual harassment, abuse or assault”. Similarly, a Leeds University spokesperson also spoke of a zero-tolerance approach. A University of Edinburgh statement said all complaints would be treated seriously and with sensitivity. Oxford University are yet to provide a statement in response to the institution’s several mentions on the website.

Image Credit: Janeb13/pixabay.com