Saturday, April 26, 2025
Blog Page 326

Students speak out against new government guidance for universities

Sasha Mills
-
0
Students speak out against new government guidance for universities

On Tuesday, the government confirmed that students on non-practical courses and those not included under current exemptions would not be allowed to return to in-person teaching until the 17th of May, as part of step three of the reopening roadmap. This comes after mounting uncertainty around University returns after it was initially believed that government guidance would be delayed until after the Easter holidays. Cherwell has collected the opinions and testimonies of students on the updated guidance.

Katie Bowen, a student at the Queen’s College, told Cherwell: “It’s beyond frustrating. When we weren’t allowed back for Hilary, we could see the figures rising and the reasoning behind staying at home. But now, when beer gardens, zoos, theme parks and so much more are open, it’s just ridiculous that we can’t return to uni. This government claims education is a priority but it very clearly isn’t.” 

James Green, a Classics and English student at Exeter College, told Cherwell that he believes that “the stark absence of any detailed statistical explanation for the decision published on Tuesday makes an utter mockery of the ‘data, not dates’ maxim the government have repeatedly fallen back on this year.” 

“In the context of the relaxations which went into force on the 12th, delaying widespread student returns until May 17th suggests nothing short of a disregard for the value of higher education, and will seem completely illogical to those of us who experienced the rigour of a COVID-secure university in Michaelmas. For most of us freshers, this is the second time that the government has played fast and loose with our education in under a year, after the A-Level fiasco back in August.”

Debora Knut, a Spanish student at Trinity College, told Cherwell: “I haven’t been back at Oxford since Michaelmas Term of 2019, because I had to suspend my studies due to a brain tumour diagnosis and just as my suspension ended students weren’t allowed back by the government. I really miss it. It took a huge toll on me to not only go through the aforementioned diagnosis but to then be isolated from my peers. I’ve now been allowed to return on welfare grounds, but it was embarrassing and painful to have to mull over my personal issues so that they could be presented as a petition just to be able to be at Oxford.” 

“I am so lucky that I was not interrogated and my reason for returning was handled sensitively, but I know this isn’t the case for many people across colleges. Having to bare your soul in exchange for being at university (and sometimes even being rejected after doing this) is so unfair. The fact that we pay fees should be enough reason to be back. Lateral flow tests are readily and frequently available to students which means we are able to be safe, making it that much more frustrating that the government seems to care so little about us.” 

Anvee Bhutani, a Human Sciences student at Magdalen College, told Cherwell: “As an international student it seems like the government has led us on for a year now with the prospect of returning to normalcy and in-person teaching, but their own poor decisions have inhibited these plans from coming to fruition. I believe we should not at all be mandated to pay the full amount for university considering the short duration we went back for.” 

“To me, it is especially unfathomable that I have to pay £27k for what someone described well as a ‘glorified book club’. Even though I’m able to be back in college, a lot of my friends are not able to be [and] I’m losing out on the experience of going to events, being part of societies, interacting with people.”

“Oxford is obviously limited with what they can do and is bound by government guidelines, but given they have the closest contact with students, it was expected that they would put the weight of their big name and legacy behind lobbying the government. Unfortunately, this has not been at all done, and despite this fact, the University is continuing to hold us to the same academic standards. We have once again been made scapegoats in a decision that is hugely disappointing.”

Daniel Dipper, a student at Magdalen College, told Cherwell: “I know I have been lucky that I’ve had a good set of tutors who have been responsive to my emails, I’ve been able to work with online learning, and I’ve had generous financial support from my College which has helped me to purchase the academic books necessary for my course. I know [that] compared to many other universities we are lucky in the financial resources some Colleges are able to afford.”

“However, the pandemic has still massively disrupted my learning, led to me knowing few people at university very well, and has meant I have spent more time in a tiny room in my childhood home than I have at university. I’ve had COVID-19, it was terrible, and I still to this day suffer the debilitating effects of this disease, and I know some lockdown measures have been needed to conserve healthcare capacity and save lives, but university students just haven’t been on the government’s radar. I am pleased universities are now part of the roadmap, however, they should always have been – universities must not be forgotten in this way again.”

Kwabena Osei, a student at Corpus Christi College, told Cherwell: “Having previously understood the importance of preventing a huge spike of COVID-19 within the student community, I fail to understand the justification behind the Government’s actions. It is hypocritical to allow large department stores to reopen fully, yet prevent in-person teaching (that happens on a much smaller scale) from taking place.”

“Students this year have already had to sacrifice so much – and I feel at this point a £9,250 price tag hard to justify given the scale of disruption. Returning on the 17th May leaves roughly 4 weeks of in-person teaching, and with many students having exams at the end of Trinity, the short amount of time left in the academic year only adds to the pressure caused by insufficient online teaching, a lack of access to resources, and little support from the University” 

Connie Claxon, the JCR President of Worcester College spoke to Cherwell on behalf of the ‘Our Turn to Return’ campaign, whose petition for returns has now reached over 10,000 signatures.  “The news that students on non-practical courses cannot return to university until 17th May has been absolutely devastating for students. Why is it that students can now go to a zoo or theme park but we cannot return to university which we pay over 9 grand a year for?” 

“Allowing all students back to university would not result in the mass migration of students that the government seems to be implying because 76% of students were already living in their term-time accommodation last term, it is only the final 24% that has been left out once again. We have launched a campaign called Our Turn to Return and a petition that is now at nearly 10,000 signatures and with enough support we really hope to be able to turn this dreadful decision around.” 

A spokesperson for the Oxford SU told Cherwell: “‘The recent government announcement is disappointing for many students as once again the government has failed to prioritise students and recognise the significant challenges so many students are facing.” 

“We are working with the University of Oxford and its colleges to understand the implications of the announcement and are calling on the University to update students as soon as possible. We remain concerned about the inconsistency about how the government guidance, particularly around exemptions to return, is being applied by colleges and we continue to lobby for colleges to allow students to make their own decisions about whether they fall under the exemptions and to facilitate student’s return as requested.”

Image Credit: Matthew Waring via Unsplash

Alternative media: how are we getting our information?

W A Whitten
-
0
Alternative media: how are we getting our information?

Cast your mind back to the summer of 2007, when the iPhone had just been released, the recession had not happened yet and the idea of getting news from something like an app on your phone was nowhere to be found. That was fourteen years ago. Things change and the way we choose to find information about the world and current affairs is constantly changing too. Facebook and Twitter offer information in short snippets, major newspapers have their own apps, YouTube allows somebody to watch ‘news’ when it pleases them. We no longer need to wait around until the ten o’clock news comes on. So, what are we using, and are they any good?

YouTube has become a platform for both reporters of and commentators on news and politics. I am personally a big fan of TLDR news, in all honesty going to them far more than I do actual old school media outlets, such as the ten o’clock news or the papers. They allow me to pick and choose the topics I want to hear about and view things when I want, unlike TV news which has specified times. This opportunity for choice is an option our grandparents were not given. Mostly though I just like the way they present, addressing the issues individually and as a topic rather than just a headline. This, in my eyes, is the positive side of YouTube news; these are the people successfully attempting to keep up with expected standards of neutrality.

There is a dangerous side to YouTube news as well. On the 15th of March 2019, fifty-one people were killed at a shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand, along with another forty injured. According to a report by The Royal Commission of Inquiry, the shooter often accessed extremist material on Youtube. The danger with sites like these, such as YouTube is that the content creators are largely unaccountable, unlike those in the traditional media who are held to higher levels of scrutiny by the courts and legal systems. TLDR are in the minority maintaining the same standards as traditional media. See the likes of Ben Shapiro and Stephen Crowder and their videos. The problem with such sites is that they can allow people to outlet views that are not supported with any real or reliable data.

Twitter is another major source of many people’s information that has arisen during the past two decades.It is a source of both news and personal stories. Many of us use it to see what is going on and to see what the opinions of people are. Yet Twitter is an echo chamber that does not represent the population at large.Twitter’s users are younger which means the political views of the younger demographic are being platformed the most. In the UK over 50% of the nation voted to leave the EU, but if your only news source was Twitter this would likely seem entirely impossible. Though there are micro echo chambers within Twitter which do not follow the standard views for users, these are only small groups. In my questioning of a few people, some said they used Twitter to hear about news stories, and then went on to read about them further elsewhere. This is fine, this is safe. But to use Twitter as a primary source for information and news is dangerous. Twitter’s nature as an echo-chamber can lead to certain opinions appearing more widely supported than they are.

Many people, myself included, use Facebook as a source for news. Lots follow the pages of more traditional media outlets such as The Guardian or Financial Times on Facebook, or even Cherwell. Likewise, this is a legitimate use of social media; Facebook alerts us of the stories, and then we go off and read the articles from the Facebook pages which we would otherwise find on apps or the websites of the media outlets. This is similar to how many of the people use Instagram: they would find stories on the platform the same as people do on Facebook and the stories which interested them they read up on further. However, the 2020 election shows that Facebook most certainly does not avoid the issues that both Twitter and YouTube have. The unfounded QAnon conspiracy theory, that Donald Trump was secretly fighting a ring of paedophiles in the highest ranks of the United States, was largely to be found on Facebook, and other such far-right ideologies use the platform as their hub. In January, Mark Zuckerberg announced that  Facebook is stopping recommending both civic and political groups. He stated that Facebook wished “to make sure the communities people connect with are healthy and positive.” The fact is that on Facebook these communities are often not healthy and are often misleading. 

It is quite surprising that memes have become a form of political exchange and currency. We have all seen memes about Boris, and about both the 2016 and 2020 American elections. These are less a source of political information but, rather, a source of influence. Memes have become like the modern poster; they are not a form of information presentation but are rather a way in which viewpoints can be presented to seem commonplace, grab viewer’s attention and spread, and thus one person can create a meme that appears to be supported by thousands. Furthermore, WhatsApp has accentuated the spread, particularly amongst the older generation. 

On the 20th of October 2020, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez live-streamed Among Us on Twitch (an online streaming site)  which received 400,000 views. Recently, Twitch has seen a shift in its most popular videos, with the chat section overtaking the gaming section as the largest. Twitch has seen the rise of figures such as the political commentator Hasan Piker, who gave a constant stream on twitch over the election period, which at its height had 225,000 viewers. Of course, those watching such streams tend to be younger, with the average age of a Twitch user being in their late teens and early twenties. Research by Cambridge University has suggested that getting younger voters engaged in politics can lead to a lasting impact on later elections as the voters are caught younger. The Obama election caught onto this, placing ads in games on Xbox live in both 2008 and 2012. Hasan Piker believes he is popular because he is more relatable and down-to-earth than the standard news anchor. Unlike the mainstream press, those on Twitch are free to show their biases, and thus where they lie on the political spectrum is clear to see and that allows a viewer to react to the information appropriately. Twitch has yet to see the dangers concerning political information that Facebook and Twitter have concerning radicalisation and misinformation, but it will come as the audience for political information on the streaming service grows.

Are these sources of information good ones? As aforementioned, it is not surprising that people are turning to these new forms of information gathering. They are suited to and adapted for the viewer. Twitch really demonstrates why these sources of news and information are becoming more popular. Because people are social media anyway, YouTube and Twitch are the standards of our generation much like TV was to the generation before. As we spend hours each day on these sites, it makes sense that we turn to them for information, as we are there anyway. We have access to all the information we could ever want on our phones, so these new forms of media and information are not only new but are the new normal. However, until they are regulated more carefully the dangers associated with using them will persist, so use them, but be careful in their use. Facebook, Twitter, Twitch and YouTube are great sources of information and will become the main ones for many of us. This in itself is not a negative; technology adapts, and the way people live their lives adapts with technology – but so must regulations and laws. If these are to be sources of our news and information, then they must be held to the same standards as traditional sources of news such as newspapers and TV news.

Image Credit: CartridgeSave via Flickr & Creative Commons.

Let Normal Programming Resume: Coronavirus Passports Won’t Solve Anything

Charlie Aslet
-
0
Let Normal Programming Resume: Coronavirus Passports Won’t Solve Anything

The government continually finds bizarre new ways to tackle the pandemic. We were singing ‘Happy Birthday’ to our hands when other countries were plunging into lockdown. We were urged not to wear masks when anyone could see that they were effective. We were all ushered out of pubs and restaurants at 10 pm into a crowded stream of revellers all dumbfounded by government incompetence. At least we didn’t have France’s 7 pm national curfew?

Now, in the latest curious piece of policy, the government looks set to introduce passports for people that are vaccinated. Yes, failing to learn from the disasters of the NHS Test and Trace system, which has gone over budget by £15 billion, the government seems willing to squander many millions more on something that they claim will only be a temporary measure. If they decide to implement the vaccine passport, however, it will probably take months to complete and won’t be nearly as useful as government boffins have imagined.

Undoubtedly, even the Test and Trace App was a failure. It was first reported to be in development in March 2020. Boris Johnson told parliament that it would be in place by June 2020. In June 2020, the first prototype for the app was abandoned (£10 million down the drain). It was not until September that the app came out, and by then it was only used for 2 months before the November lockdown and the tier systems were put in place. By the time the vaccine passports are put into place, I wouldn’t be surprised if we had moved on to the next pandemic.

But I am not only wary that the vaccine passports will become a black hole for government resources. Every other day Rishi Sunak seems to pull shiny coins from behind his ears to fund Covid expenditure. Government spending has ceased to have any meaning. But vaccine passports will also provide people with a false sense of security. It was only recently that Boris crushed people’s hopes of a normal Easter, reminding us that the vaccines are not 100% effective. What then would the vaccine passports guarantee? If two people cannot safely mix indoors now who both have had the vaccine, why will this change with a piece of paper proving it?

Though it is clear that people want a sense of security from the government. 58% of British people support the introduction of the vaccine passport system, even when the vaccine rollout is still ongoing. These rates are relatively lower in younger people – 45% of young people support the introduction of vaccine passports whilst people are being vaccinated, rising to 60% once everyone has been vaccinated. Clearly, I am swimming against the tide.

This age division has been a common theme during coronavirus. The young had to make sacrifices for the old. This was the unescapable reality. But now, instead of rewarding the young, vaccine passports would further penalise them. It will be the octogenarians going wild in Spain’s party cities. The young will have to sit this summer out, as the last, clinging to the mantra that ‘there’s always next year’.

The role of the government should not be to indulge people’s sense of insecurity or germaphobia. The role of the government should be to return the country to a state of normality, now, as coronavirus recedes. The government’s carte blanche of ‘anything to get out of this’ must be abandoned. The means no longer justifies the end in a post-vaccinated society.

Government tactics to increase lockdown compliance were emotionally manipulative. ‘Can you look them in the eyes and tell them you’re helping by staying at home?’ People felt guilty even for doing things that were completely legal in lockdown. I’m sure many were afraid to leave the house. Now the government has to deal with the consequences of the fear they engendered. This begins by ensuring no new restrictions are introduced after 21st June.

I personally am not too fussed about personal liberties. Let’s face it, I didn’t do much with my liberties when I had them. But after a year inside I have started to care more about them. I do not think that it is too much to ask to have a meal in a restaurant without having to present credentials. Baroness Chakrabati, whom I have often strongly disagreed with in the past, has a point: ‘It’s one thing to have a passport to travel internationally, that is a privilege, even a luxury, but participation in local community life is a fundamental right’.

Of course, I can see where the desire for vaccine passports comes from. The government are incentivising the population to get a vaccine. This is particularly relevant to groups who are less likely to take the vaccine if not required, namely the young and certain minority groups. The government hope to reverse the spread of disinformation by compelling people to get a vaccine. But this will not solve the problem. As David Archard, chair of the Nuffield Council on Biotechnics, argues, it is more effective to counter disinformation with accurate information. Any form of government compulsion will engender mistrust.

It might also be of use to reopening travel. It could allow vaccinated people into countries with low levels of vaccination, reducing the risk of spreading Covid upon arrival. But this seems unlikely. The government has already introduced a ‘traffic-light’ system for travel even if you are vaccinated. Our government and governments around the world do not want to allow new Covid strands into their country, immune to their vaccines.

I’m sure many will consign this as overly pessimistic or unhelpful. The government says that we will need to learn to live with the virus, but surely after a year we have appeased it for long enough? The way to rehabilitate society is not by curtailing more of the country’s freedom. The risk, so low now with vaccinations, should be left to the individual. Let normal programming resume.

Image Credits: Creative Commons – “Doctor or nurse filling a syringe with Covid-19 Vaccine” by wuestenigel is licensed under CC BY 2.0

Checkmate or blunder? Adapting “The Queen’s Gambit” for the musical stage

Beth Ranasinghe
-
0
Checkmate or blunder? Adapting “The Queen’s Gambit” for the musical stage

CW: substance abuse.

Contains spoilers for the Queen’s Gambit.

In the year of multiple lockdowns, tracksuit bottoms and face masks (not the liquid spa kind), Netflix gifted us with an array of series to cosy up to. Tiger King graced our devices, keeping us busy researching ‘did Carole kill her husband?’ for a good six months. Yet, little did we know that by the end of those six months, the orphan-turned-chess prodigy Beth Harmon would stun us with her intellectual, addictive personality in The Queen’s Gambit. Netflix’s adaptation of The Queen’s Gambit, Walter Tevis’ 1983 novel, became one of the more unexpected critical and commercial successes of the year. Over 62 million accounts viewed the seven-part series from creators Scott Frank and Allan Scott in a month, thus earning its title as Netflix’s most-watched limited series to date. Following its television success, The Queen’s Gambit is set to be adapted as a musical. Can such a show which touches on sensitive, complex topics ever be successfully adapted to the euphoric world of musical theatre?

Adaptations on Broadway are not a rarity. The likes of Legally Blonde, Shrek and Mean Girls all fall under this category – but can we say that these were successful adaptations? There is a noticeable difference when we see songs wedged into already built storylines. The songs feel almost forced as if they only have one purpose which is to mould to the already established story arc. Arguably, adaptations deny composers of their artistic freedom to create innovative, inspired music since they themselves are not involved in the story-building process. From a music al standpoint, I personally find the above adaptations to be deficient, lacking that spark found when both story and song are sculpted together.

In adaptations, music has an instrumental role (excuse the pun), where it merely aids the plot as opposed to making the plot. Compare such adaptations to the likes of West Side Story, where we see the composer, lyricist, choreographer and writer work hand-in-hand to produce art based on the original concept of modern-day Romeo and Juliet. The dances, songs, lyrics are beautifully incorporated into the storyline that is being built alongside it: the score matches the emotion of the lyrics which are as passionate as the dancing which reflects the potency of the story. All four elements of the musical have equal force. Perhaps it is time for Broadway to abandon adaptations and produce more original work, given the recent decline in the quality of adaptations.

The Queen’s Gambit explores the life of Beth Harmon; an adroit chess player – an intellectual and high-stakes game, but not a game renowned for its visual excitement. Despite this seemingly simple narrative, the plot’s scope stretches extensively, following themes of substance abuse, addiction, suicide, autism, feminism and queerness. Following her mother’s suicide, orphaned Beth is taken to Methuen Home, where tranquillising medication is routine in disciplinary practice, prompting the beginning of an elongated struggle with substance abuse. It is here that she also develops a propensity for chess. Both her natural skill and drug-induced state enable her to visualise chess games. Beth’s adolescence also explores the trials of marital toxicity, withdrawal symptoms and alcoholism. Furthermore, the theme of feminism runs parallel to Beth’s success in chess as she consistently surpasses men at their own game.

Several members of the autistic community have agreed that Beth Harmon is a richly rendered portrait of Autism. It is important to acknowledge that we cannot fully contemplate how Beth’s addiction manifests without also considering the fact that she is arguably an undiagnosed autistic woman living in the mid-twentieth century. While Beth’s autism may not be the focus of her story, it is clear to see how it impacts her relationships. Beth has two central relationships: her addiction and her talent. After a devasting loss in her sport, Beth plunges into a days-long drug and alcohol binge. Although, during a final in Moscow, we see the peak of her ability and struggles, as, with the support of her friends, Beth is able to visualise the game without the use of any substance. This final moment carries with it a double entendre: a victory against her chess rival as well as a step towards overcoming substance abuse.

Recent theatrical performances are not merely a pleasant watch but have a clear aim: evoking a response in the audience and prompting conversations about relevant topics. Dear Evan Hansen discusses topics of suicide and mental health; Waitress draws attention to abusive relationships. Heathers’ heavy, satirical tone explores some of the most serious social issues faced by young people in America, such school shootings/bombings and suicide.

We can conclude that the successful integration of serious topics into musicals is indeed possible. It remains uncertain, however, as to whether this could be the case with The Queen’s Gambit. It would be impossible to address each of the issues brought up above in such a short space of time whilst also giving each issue the weight it deserves. If the writers choose to address Beth’s autism, in a sensitive and authentic manner, they must address the community that will be receiving this portrayal. There is also the risk that in addressing the darker themes of substance abuse, addiction, suicide: will such themes become trivialised, or worse, glamorised?

The challenge of making these topics more accessible whilst avoiding belittling the severity of each topic is risk-ridden. Can Beth’s story really be addressed appropriately in the space of 150 minutes? It appears that the writers are left with two options. Should they go broad and shallow: a depiction of the heroine, briefly touching on all darker themes at the cost of creating a complex character? Or, alternatively, go narrow and deep, revolving the musical around only her chess journey at the cost of renouncing some of Beth’s defining character traits. Both options have their setbacks: the former has repercussions on the success of the musical, the latter having repercussions on Beth’s now diminished character, as communities, once included in Beth’s story on Netflix, are now excluded from the stage debut.

Stage rights to the novel have been acquired by the entertainment company ‘Level Forward’. It is worth mentioning that this company has produced films on sexual harassment and assault including the musical Jagged Little Pill focusing on similar issues. They are also responsible for ‘the most controversial play on Broadway’ according to Vox, Slave Play, which explores the impact of racial identity on both sex and personal lives of couples. So, we may retain some hope for the musical adaptation of Queen’s Gambit, given the company’s experience of handling weighty topics.

It can be argued that musicals are capable of addressing heavy topics carefully and with nuance as they have done in the past. However, the complexity of Beth Harmon begs to differ – her character demands specific compassion that a musical adaptation may not be able to provide. I remain unpersuaded that The Queen’s Gambit concerns a girl merely floating up the chess ranks, generally unchallenged and almost entirely unrestricted by gender. Nor am I convinced that her depiction throughout the story can be described as ‘steadfastly serene’ and I am disappointed that her complex character has been so easily reduced to her skill for chess. This diminished perspective of Beth Harmon, I believe, is sadly the only perspective from which a somewhat coherent musical can be formed. The Queen’s Gambit is the story of competition, control, addiction, being a woman in a world dominated by men, trauma, autism. To adapt such a complex series into a musical would be to severely undermine the weight of each of these topics and in turn, the production would do no justice to the character of Beth Harmon and the communities she represents.

Image Credit: Charis Tsevis via Flickr & Creative Commons.  

PresCom ask that colleges allow standardised self-certification to return

Charlie Hancock
-
0
PresCom ask that colleges allow standardised self-certification to return

The Committee of JCR Presidents have written to the Conference of Colleges to request that Colleges adopt a standardised approach which students to self-certify their eligibility to study in-person. The letter comes after the government confirmed that students on non-practical courses would not be able to return to campus until May 17th.

A parliamentary petition opened as part of the Our Turn To Return campaign has gained over 8,500 signatures, thus nearing the threshold at which the government will respond. The petition highlights that school students have been able to resume their studies in person, while university students would have to continue studying remotely.

Colleges have a degree of devolved power to shape their returns policy, which PresCom argued creates an “unfair application system across the whole University”. While some colleges, like St Edmund’s Hall, allow students to self-certify whether they meet the requirements to return, others require students to submit evidence to a Dean, Senior Tutor or panel to get permission.

“As adults from a variety of backgrounds who have all faced different experiences of the pandemic, students themselves are at best placed to decide if returning is the most appropriate option for them…As representatives of our JCRs, we know of circumstances where students have not wanted to disclose particularly sensitive information (despite the confidentiality of the process) which created a barrier preventing some students who nonetheless need to return for the sake of their wellbeing.”

The letters asks the Conference of Colleges whether they “considered the implications of returns policies with regard to Equality”. According to the Office for National Statistics, nationally 76% of students returned to term-time accommodation during the spring term. PresCom emphasised that students from lower-income backgrounds would “suffer the most from these inconsistencies as their affluent peers are able to enter into short-term leases in cases of rejections”.

PresCom continued: “We hope that all Heads of Houses share our opinion that a consistent approach across all colleges in processing student returns is the most equitable solution, and should be adopted as soon as possible. Given the importance of the upcoming term for Finalists and other students sitting exams, it is imperative that there is a consistency between colleges’ interpretations of the government guidance to ensure that degree outcomes are a product of one’s own efforts, and not which college you attend.”

PresCom had previously written to the Universities’ Minister, Michelle Donelan, urging her to provide guidance on when students would be able to return to university.

Image: Tetiana SHYSHNIKA via unsplash.com

University begins regular asymptomatic testing

Jill Cushen
-
0
University begins regular asymptomatic testing

The University of Oxford has announced that it will begin regular asymptomatic testing for students and on-site staff from the 12th of April.  Students that are able to return to Oxford for Trinity term will be expected to take two Lateral Flow Device (LFD) tests which will be available from their college upon arrival. After these initial tests, students are “strongly encouraged” to visit the sites twice a week for asymptomatic testing. 

Students will have access to two dedicated testing sites around Oxford, St Luke’s Chapel (Radcliffe Observatory Quarter) and the University Club (Mansfield Rd). Another site, the Richard Doll Building on the Old Road Campus will become operational on 26 April. Students can book the free tests two weeks in advance on the symptom-free testing for COVID-19 webpage and should aim to get tested on the same day each week. The result will take 30 minutes and will be communicated electronically.  

The updated guidance states: “Although testing is voluntary, we strongly encourage you to participate in the programme if you are required to be on site, whether for work or study.   This includes staff and students who have been vaccinated or have had COVID-19 more than 90 days ago.” 

“The risk of COVID-19 remains very high and it is essential that we as a community take all necessary precautions to stop the spread of the virus. Testing is a major component of this effort and we hope that the vast majority of eligible staff and students will join us in helping to stop the spread of COVID-19.   ” 

Students and staff who have symptoms of Covid-19 are reminded to instead book a PCR test through the Early Alert Service. If they receive a positive LFD test, they must self-isolate and also book a confirmatory test. 

Image Credit: Commonwealth Media Services / CC BY 2.0

BREAKING: Government confirms that students cannot return until 17th May

Sasha Mills
-
0
BREAKING: Government confirms that students cannot return until 17th May

The UK government has officially confirmed that students not permitted to return under previous guidance will not be allowed to return until the 17th of May under updated guidance released via their website. This comes after mounting concerns following the delay of guidance for students, including backlash from the Oxford student body.

Students exempt under the previous rules remain exempt, and the government points out in the document that they “prioritised the return to in-person teaching and learning for students on courses which had to be delivered in-person and which supported the pipeline of future critical key workers” alongside “in-person teaching and learning for students who are studying practical or practice-based (including creative arts) subjects and require specialist equipment and facilities.”

The guidance states that all students unable to return currently will be allowed to return in step 3 of the roadmap, commencing on the 17th of May which “will leave a short window for in-person teaching and cocurricular activities to boost student engagement and employability before the end of the academic year.” This decision has been justified in-line with a “cautious approach to the easing of restrictions.” This is despite the document also acknowledging that “anecdotal evidence collated by SAGE suggests that there was limited evidence of transmission attributed to in-person teaching and learning environments.”

Yesterday JCR Presidents came together to launch the ‘Our Turn to Return’ campaign, urging the government to allow students to return to universities for the beginning of term. Templates for letters to MPs have also been circulated amongst the student body, alongside a petition set up by PresCom which has already received over 6000 signatures.

The University of Oxford has been contacted for comment.

Image Credit: Defence Images / CC BY-NC 2.0

13/4/21, 18:29 – some wording edited for clarity.

The Future of Tiger Woods’ career after serious car accident

Ariana Rubio
-
0
The Future of Tiger Woods’ career after serious car accident

On the 23rd of February 2021, golfing legend Eldrick Tont ‘Tiger’ Woods was involved in a serious car accident while driving solo on the outskirts of Los Angeles. While there was no evidence that Woods, who received a ticket for reckless driving after a minor accident in 2009 and pled guilty to driving under the influence in 2017, was inebriated, County Sheriff Alex Villanueva reported that it appeared that the star was speeding at the time of the crash.

At approximately 7 am in the morning, Woods’ SUV collided with a raised median, crossed two oncoming lanes of traffic, and struck a tree. The vehicle is thought to have rolled over several times before coming to rest on its side. This is known as a ‘rollover’ accident, which is more likely to result in fatal injuries than other types of crashes. The golf mogul’s injuries, while not fatal, were serious: they included open tibia and fibula fractures, which were compound (meaning that the bones broke through the skin) and comminuted (meaning that the bones were in fragments). After undergoing emergency surgery, which involved the insertion of rods, pins and screws into his legs, Woods is now in recovery.

While clearly fortunate to have escaped death, the ramifications of such serious injuries are of great concern, both for Woods himself and the golfing world at large. Widely regarded as the greatest golf player of his generation, his dazzling array of accolades include eighty-two PGA tour wins, five Masters Tournament victories (the latest of which was in 2019), and six-hundred and eighty-three weeks ranked world number one. Woods, age forty-five, placed his professional career on indefinite hold after a fifth spinal surgery in December 2020, and sports commentators fear that the debilitating injuries from his car crash may catalyse his retirement.

In a statement released on Twitter, however, Woods thanked the medical professionals who took care of him at the Harbour-UCLA Medical Centre and Cedars-Sinai Medical Centre, and assured fans that he is ‘recovering at home’ and ‘working on getting stronger every day’. As of yet, he has given no indication that he is considering retirement. One of the more optimistic commentators, former PGA Tour player Bill Mallon expressed hope for the star’s return to professional tournaments in an interview with BBC golf correspondent Iain Carter. Emphasising that Woods received immediate treatment and did not suffer from infection, Mallon estimated that his fractures could heal in as little as six weeks, and posited that the star would return to professional golf in a year.

As the world of golf awaits Woods’ recovery and, hopefully, return to competitive play, let us hope that both the star and his fans use this unfortunate event as an opportunity for reflection on the importance of vehicular safety and the discomfiting fact that injury can derail even the most promising of sporting careers. Currently still immobile, we hope to see the golf icon puttering around again soon and, eventually, resuming his former prowess on the grass.

Image Credit: Keith Allison via Wikimedia Commons

 

BREAKING: Closure of Oxford Fever confirmed

Jill Cushen
-
0
BREAKING: Closure of Oxford Fever confirmed

Fever, one of Oxford’s leading nightclubs, is set to close permanently. The popular late bar and nightclub was located on 13-15 Magdalen Street and has been closed since the first national lockdown last March. A spokesperson for Fever in Oxford told Cherwell: “We can confirm that the lease on property has expired and returned to the landlord, meaning it will no longer operate as Fever.  Where possible, we have redeployed our team to other sites.”

Cirkus, another nightclub venue on George Street, will also not reopen after lockdown restrictions are eased. On March 30 2021, the company, Cirkus Bars Ltd, was dissolved following a Gazette notice for compulsory strike-off, filed in November. 

The announcements of both Fever and Cirkus shutting their doors, follow the recent closures of other music and club venues across the city with both Emporium/Basement and Cellar closing permanently in 2019. After a petition to save The Wheatsheaf, one of Oxford’s last live gig venues, it has been announced that the planning application to convert the space into student flats has been withdrawn.

Speaking about the closures, Joshua Roche, Event Manager at Varsity Events, told Cherwell: “I think generally it’s unfortunate regardless of who’s running which night. It’s nice for students to have an option of where to go and it creates a bit of variety in the city because each venue had its own feel to it and people went to different venues for different reasons. So it’s a real shame. Unfortunately, it’s been a tough year for everyone and it’s just one of those things that has happened.” 

He added: “We’ve got to make do with what’s around now and we will still provide a fantastic night life for students with what we have available.” 

The director of Cirkus Bars Ltd has been contacted for comment. 

Image Credit: Luca Volpi/CC BY-SA-3.0

Oxford University Music Faculty responds to media coverage

Cherwell News and Investigations Section Editors
-
0
Oxford University Music Faculty responds to media coverage

The Music Faculty offered an explanation to students about curriculum reforms on 6 April 2021, following media coverage in The Telegraph and Daily Mail. They believe communications between Faculty Board members have been “represented in misleading fashion” by the Daily Mail. 

The Telegraph published an article on 27 March which details efforts to “’decolonise’ the curriculum”. It discloses the wishes of staff “to address this ‘white hegemony’, including rethinking the study of musical notation because it is a ‘colonialist representational system’”. 

The Daily Mail also covered, and have now altered, the story. The initial article detailed Faculty proposals for “scrapping” sheet music, which has now been removed. This article has been condemned by the Oxford University Music Faculty for representing the curriculum changes “in [a] misleading fashion”. The Faculty holds that the coverage follows “a Freedom of Information request to the Music Faculty in mid-January” by The Telegraph. 

In a statement released on 31 March 2021, the Faculty explained that they “are also enhancing our students’ opportunities to study a range of non-western and popular music from across the world” whilst “retaining — and in no way diminishing — the Faculty’s traditional excellence in the critical analysis, history, and performance of a broad range of western art music.” 

An open letter has been written by students to the faculty about the media coverage and statement. The letter seeks greater communication to students following the media coverage of course changes. It states that “the Faculty’s job is to its members, not the press or the public”. The letter also argues the statement put out by the faculty shows “no intention of changing the very cultures that have continued their exclusionary practices for so long.”

The Faculty has said that “the changes to [their] curriculum contribute to that process; undoubtedly, there will be more work to do, and we will look forward to continuing to engage with students in that ongoing process.” The Faculty has proposed changes to the undergraduate curriculum which follows consultations about the course since the Black Lives Matter movement in June 2020. The faculty have communicated that “over the past few years [it] has sought to diversify its curriculum”.  

Ella Marshall-Shepherd, a postgraduate music student at Oxford University, told Cherwell: “The need to decolonise Oxford’s music curriculum is long overdue. Many students (as well as several staff members) are consequently baffled at the culture of wilful ignorance and indignant resistance to suggestions of change.” 

The Music Faculty have taken action by seeking to “appoint an associate professor in popular music” as well as making curriculum changes, yet to receive approval from the University. The Faculty’s proposed “structural changes” to the curriculum includes making the Keyboard Skills an “opt-out” module for Prelims students. It also would make Foundations in the Study of Music compulsory in “a significant contribution to the decolonising and the rebalancing of the curriculum.”

The Daily Mail have been contacted for comment. 

1...325326327...2,486Page 326 of 2,486

Support Student Journalism

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

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

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

Website by James Ashley