Tuesday 24th June 2025
Blog Page 361

Modern musicals and new writing: where did musical theatre leave off?

Katie Kirkpatrick
-
0
Modern musicals and new writing: where did musical theatre leave off?

CW: Addiction, rape, homophobia, conversion therapy, depression

When theatres around the world closed a year ago, many of the hit shows were film adaptations like Frozen and Moulin Rouge, or jukebox musicals like Tina. While the apparent lack of original musicals can feel disheartening, there’s actually a lot of original work out there. Having spent much of lockdown getting obsessed with recent musicals of varying levels of obscurity, I decided to look at the different ways in which theatre has been growing and changing. 

A New Classic

An obvious place to start is with the most recent winner of the Tony award for Best New Musical: Hadestown. Written by Anais Mitchell and directed by Rachael Chavkin, the show reimagines the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice with a political edge, incorporating haunting vocal harmonies and an incredible set. Hadestown is a show that restores your faith in modern musicals, as it feels like a new twist on the classic musical. The elaborate set and evocative lighting make it feel like something from another world, and the writing combines soulful ballads that wouldn’t be out of place in the musicals of yesteryear with a folk vibe and an eclectic mix of voices. Hadestown manages to be universal enough to appeal to all kinds of theatregoers, while still offering something we haven’t seen before. 

Reinventing the Jukebox Musical

While normally I’m decidedly not a fan of jukebox musicals, recent Broadway hit Jagged Little Pill stands out from the genre and feels fresh. Morissette’s songs – the soundtrack to generations of teen angst – are cleverly rearranged, and three new songs flesh out the piece well. Its staging is hugely creative, with choreographer Sidi Larbi Cherkaoui creating an enthralling mix of dance and physical theatre. What sets JLP apart from the bulk of jukebox musicals, in addition to its new material, is the way in which many of the songs are completely reinvented: break-up anthem ‘You Oughta Know’ features lyric changes that make it specific to an LGBT relationship, and ‘That I Would Be Good’ is made into a trio reflecting three different characters’ conflicts with their families. The storyline itself also feels pressingly relevant without being forced: it centres on issues like presciption drug addiction and rape, while also touching on sexuality and race. Perhaps, sometimes, the challenges of using an existing catalogue of songs can give new writing more scope. 

LGBT Representation

Many recent shows have strived to discuss issues that feel relevant to audiences today – last year saw Netflix release the film adaptation of The Prom, an original show based on a true story about a lesbian student who wasn’t allowed to attend her high school prom with her girlfriend. Following in the footsteps of the Tony-winning Fun Home, the Broadway production put its lesbian protagonist in the spotlight and cast several LGBT actors, thus vastly improving representation in theatre where it’s been lacking. Until recently, there have been very few musicals centring the experiences of female LGBT characters, with the most recognised characters being Maureen and Joanne in RENT or the lesbians that appear in the second act of Falsettos. With Fun Home and The Prom leading the way, we can expect more to come: in 2019 I was impressed by a workshop production based on the cult film But I’m a Cheerleader, and there’s a lot of buzz around Lempicka, also directed by Rachel Chavkin, which is headed to Broadway. 

Mental Health

While the first show to come to mind on this topic will for many be smash hit Dear Evan Hansen, a particularly promising production in the works is It’s Kind of a Funny Story. Based on the book of the same name by Ned Vizzini, the author of Be More Chill, Funny Story is about a teenager called Craig who is diagnosed with depression and admitted to an adult mental health ward. For a storyline that sounds so gloomy, the show is surprisingly witty and candid, while still not shying away from the realities of mental illness. There’s yet to be a fully staged production, but YouTube videos are available of a workshop performance that features Dear Evan Hansen’s Colton Ryan, and it seems a run is expected in the not-too-distant future. Considering the success of Evan Hansen and the conversations about mental health being had in so many cultural spheres, we can surely expect more shows to tackle difficult themes head-on. 

Social Media

That’s not to say all new writing has to be serious and emotional. In recent years, platforms like Twitter and TikTok have become a huge part in finding an audience for new writing. A musical that’s recently gained popularity via sites like YouTube and Twitter is Preston Max Allen’s We Are the Tigers. The show, which had an Off-Broadway production in 2019, is a slasher comedy about a cheerleading sleepover which turns into a murder mystery. Its strength comes from the humour that runs through the book, as well as a soundtrack full of belting and tight harmonies. Shows have also begun to use social media in their scripts and staging – one such show is the Australian Fangirls by Yve Blake, about a 14-year-old girl who will do absolutely anything to meet her boyband idol. This is a trend we are likely to see continue, especially emerging from a time when all our interaction has been digital.

Who’s to say whether theatres will be able to open in June as planned? But regardless of when exactly the curtain rises again, there are plenty of promising new shows out there. Recent shows are pushing boundaries, and appealing to younger generations by talking about issues that matter to them. And with so many exciting writers, directors, and choreographers still creating original work, there’s so much more to come. 

Image credit: Ajay Suresh via Flickr & Creative Commons.

Gun Laws in America Are The Problem: Trust me, I Grew Up There

Anvee Bhutani
-
0
Gun Laws in America Are The Problem: Trust me, I Grew Up There

CW: Violence.

When I tell people I’m from America, guns tend to get mentioned in an instant. I’ve often gotten casual remarks like “So you can just go over to Walmart and get an AK-47, can’t you?” or “well, at least we don’t have school shootings here.” I usually tend to laugh these off, but the reality is that when the exaggerations are stripped away, what remains is a grim – but accurate – picture of the state of affairs in America. 

While growing up, school shooter drills, or “Code Red,” as we called them, were quite typical. Our classroom procedure used to go something as follows: our principal would first make an impromptu announcement on the loudspeaker – “Code Red. I repeat this is a Code Red” – and we would promptly begin shutting off the lights, closing the curtains and locking the doors. We would then take all our classroom desks and construct two mini-barricades: one by the doors to create a buffer in case a shooter was to enter the door, and the other in a corner of the classroom which was most out of the line of fire. We’d all then huddle in the corner behind this little barricade and our teacher would silence our whispering voices and muffled giggles as local police officers came to our school campus to make sure we were doing the drill correctly. As sad as it sounds, like clockwork, we repeated this procedure twice a year, every year. 

But, for me, it was no sooner than 2nd grade (Year 3) when a real situation necessitated putting what we had learned in our drills into action. Over 10 years later, the memory is still vivid in my head. There was an active shooter by our campus so my primary school and the local high school nearby were put on lockdown. I remember us working expediently through the drill procedure that we had so diligently practised – the only difference being that this was no drill. We kept pestering our teacher, “Is this actually real?”, “Is there a shooter here?”, “Are we going to die?”, to which she didn’t reply, hoping not to provide us with false solace. As she kept us quiet, I remember some kids began to cry, and others were curled up in a ball trying to pray for a sliver of hope. I personally did neither. All I can remember is a sick sinking feeling in my stomach as if this was how it was all going to end.

Yet around 3 hours later we got another announcement on the loudspeaker: the shooter had been caught by the police, his bag of guns was confiscated, and we were free to go home for the day. The magnitude of the situation only dawned on me a long while later: at the age of eight, I had experienced a school shooting.

But despite the gravity of the event, I had this same experience again in 5th and 10th grade (Years 6 and 11). When I hear from students from other countries that this is not something they have experienced, it baffles me. In America, it is taken for granted that every six-year-old child knows how to protect themselves in the case of a school shooting.

Current affairs looming in the news also put my experience into perspective. Last month, during the Capitol insurrection, a lot of people around the world, and around me, experienced shock and horror as Congress members recounted their traumatic experiences from being locked down in a holding area while the building was secured. Though part of me felt empathy, it largely just reflected the “standard procedure” I grew up following. Crouching in a corner and holding your breath as you hear voices and sirens outside is the norm for me.

This past weekend, while most celebrated Valentine’s Day, the somber shadow of the third anniversary of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida where 17 were killed and another 17 were injured was still lurking. Since that tragedy, youth anti-gun activism has reached a new peak. The initial March for Our Lives protest took place in Washington DC on March 24, 2018 where nearly 1.2-2 million people attended similar events worldwide, making it one of the largest collective protests in modern history. Students staged walkouts at their schools across the nation and used their voices for a difference. In fact, schools in my own area took to the streets downtown with megaphones and poster boards as they marched towards city hall to make themselves heard. 

And since then, activists have continued to voice their opinions. Cameron Kasky, one of the cofounders of March for Our Lives, recently commented, “Mitch McConnell and my little sister now have something in common, which is that they are going to have to go through mass shooting drills.” Kasky’s father commented, “The Republican Party has done a masterful job of conflating gun ownership and the Second Amendment and patriotism.” 

But even beyond anecdotal experience, gun violence is experienced and perceived as a bipartisan issue, even though ownership is right-wing heavy. Pew Research Centre found in 2017 that 83% of US adults said they consider gun violence in the US a big problem — including 50% who called it “a very big problem.” In 2018 it was found that students themselves even brought guns to school at least 392 times over the course of the year for various reasons, be it protecting themselves, wanting to gain respect or having the intention to harm. While a multitude of issues get associated with gun reform including poverty and lack of mental health support, it is a simple fact that where gun laws are weaker there are more mass shootings. 

The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution grants Americans the right to bear arms, and this gives people the privilege to both buy and carry guns. While laws currently differ from state to state, the basic principle remains that apart from convicted criminals or those who are mentaly ill, virtually anyone has the access to firearms should they want them, a principle that is very divisive and has been prompting calls for stricter ownership regulation measures.

Despite the lack of action as of yet, things are looking up on a legislative front. President Joe Biden on Sunday called on Congress to institute “common sense gun law reforms,” including widespread firearm sales background checks and a ban on assault weapons, highlighting an “epidemic of gun violence” in the US on the third anniversary of the deadly Parkland school shooting. 

While it seems callous to say, I am optimistic that the recent Capitol insurrection will remind politicians why stricter gun control should be mandated. Even though the impeachment motion failed, I am hopeful that both living through and recounting their traumatic experiences will remind them why such reform is necessary, not only for youth but for a generally safer society.

Image credit: Peter Cedric Rock Smith via Flickr & Creative Commons.

Wolvercote residents campaign against St. John’s College Oxford North development

Cherwell News
-
0
Wolvercote residents campaign against St. John’s College Oxford North development

Wolvercote residents led an hour-long socially-distanced protest outside St. John’s College on Friday to show their displeasure with the college’s plans to redevelop the greenfield land which it holds in North Oxford. Attendees placed placards outside the College’s main entrance on St. Giles’ and stood to chat to passers-by about their goals. The Oxford North project, overseen by the College’s Thomas White Oxford company, took its first steps in 2007 when the ‘Northern Gateway’ site was proposed by Oxford City Council in its ‘Emerging Core’ strategy and adopted in 2011.

An Area Action Plan was then subsequently launched by the Council in 2015, which insisted “the development of the Northern Gateway offers the opportunity for existing and new firms to relocate, and to ensure that Oxford’s economy continues to grow for the benefit of the City and as a vital component in the growth of Oxfordshire more widely.” Thomas White Oxford and St. John’s College, in a joint statement in the build-up to the protest on 19 March 2021, defended their “proposals, [which] realise the vision… for Oxford North to [become] a new district for the city.” 

This vision is not shared by local residents of Wolvercote, which directly borders the proposed development. Cherwell spoke to the leader of the protest group, Carol Peaker, at the protest on Friday. Peaker previously lectured in the Department for Continuing Education at Oxford. She noted “the community has been fighting Oxford North for years”, but that their cause had gained more urgency and timeliness during the pandemic. “ The world has changed… Oxford is going to be full of empty office and retail space, people are working from home.”  

In the College’s response to the protester’s manifesto, they stated that “any of the concerns raised by the Wolvercote group have been addressed during the lengthy processes of public consultation and public examination that have taken place in relation to this proposal over the last decade.”

Peaker disagreed: “I think people felt during consultations that they were just making lip service to consultations. When I talked to people in Wolvercote, the feeling is this sense of despair and powerlessness, against the might and wealth of St John’s College. They were just going to greenwash everything and run roughshod.” 

Peaker’s belief has been reinforced through her communication with the College: her first letter, with over 200 signatories, was responded to by the developer, rather than the College directly. Though a second letter was sent and responded to by former John’s bursar Andrew Parker, residents resorted to protest as they believed this was the only method that would enact meaningful change. 

The central concern for the protesters is the destruction of the greenfield land. Nonetheless, the college stresses that their proposal will create “three new public parks totalling 23 acres and planting 1,000 new trees”. 

This is received more cynically by Peaker. “What they’re saying about the parks and things like that, if you look at the plan, most of the proposed ‘parkland’ is right beside the A34 – not really not the place where you want to take your kids to because it’s thunderous [with traffic].” 

Peaker called for St. John’s students to join “what is…a real seismic change in thinking around development. We live on an island with a finite amount of incredibly precious green space – we have to stop building on it, because development cannot go on forever without imperilling our future… We need trees much more than buildings, more than unnecessary office space. I would like St John’s College students to tell their college how they feel and to understand it, viscerally.” 

The College has started enacting its plans, cutting down “historic” hedgerows as part of licenses given by Oxford City Council. Despite these cuttings being used as biomass fuel, as noted on the Oxford North website, this proved to be a point of consternation for Peaker: 

“The community is devastated at the moment, because they said that they were going to do some vegetation clearage. They proceeded to dig up quite a number of ancient hedgerows and to completely destroy a nature walk that has been loved by the neighbourhood for generations” She observed that traffic noise from the A34 and A40 has worsened as a result, and that “we’d like [the hedgerows] replanted.”  

In response, Thomas White Oxford pointed towards the project’s “site-wide ecology strategy that seeks to draw together the planting strategy with the Sustainable Drainage Strategy (SuDS).” This includes planting new hedgerow, creating further habitat and biodiversity opportunities to support the native birds, bats, and insects, and retaining broad-leaved trees. 

When asked whether she thought that her protest would be successful, Peaker responded “I intend [it] to be”. A response to the protest has been issued, and St. John’s has emphasised its commitment to biodiversity and to creating green spaces alongside the redevelopment of its lands. 

A right of response has been provided to St. John’s College.

Image Credit: Top, Carol Peaker, In-line, Cherwell News

23/3/21, 21:24 – this article was edited to replace ‘green-belt’ with ‘greenfield’

 

2020 Oxbridge admissions statistics sees two state schools make the top five

Sasha Mills
-
0
2020 Oxbridge admissions statistics sees two state schools make the top five

Data released by Oxford and Cambridge and collated by The Spectator has revealed the top schools for Oxbridge offers in 2020. 3 of the top 5 schools are private, while Hills Road is a selective sixth form college, and Peter Symonds School is a non-selective sixth form college. Research by The Sunday Times has shown that several top private schools have seen a decrease in Oxbridge admissions. Data collected by UCAS has also shown that the 2020 admissions cycle saw a 34.8% increase in students from POLAR4 Q1 (a measure of University participation by area) applicants finding places in the top 15 most selective universities and colleges.

The top 5 schools for Oxbridge admission vary in size: Westminster sixth form has approximately 200 students in year 13, while Peter Symonds College has approximately 2000 students in its sixth form, a similar number to Hills Road College. St Paul’s school currently has 217 students in year 13.

A graph showing applications and offers made at the top five schools

At Hills Road College, 69 students have now also received an offer for the 2021 cohort, 38 from the University of Oxford and 31 from the University of Cambridge. Hills student Joseph Clarke has been offered a place at Oxford to study history, and told Cherwell: “I hadn’t originally intended to apply to university, and I had only decided that I would apply to Oxford a few months before needing to hand in the application. It was a good deal of work, especially preparing for the admission test and interview, but I’m so glad that I applied because of everything I have learnt.”

Awa Ndour, another Hills Road student, has been offered a place to study Experiment Psychology, and told Cherwell: “I didn’t properly consider applying to Oxford until I got my UCAS predicted grades in the summer, and it suddenly dawned on me that I had a chance at getting in. I decided to apply because I knew it was a unique opportunity and I really liked the look of the course. Even though I wasn’t certain at the time I would go if I got an offer, I wanted to give myself that option, and I was up for the challenge.”

Hills student Lena Van Dongen has been offered a place at Cambridge to study Maths: “I’ve always loved Maths, and knew that Cambridge was renowned for its Maths graduates, so I naturally wanted to apply. The process has been generally fine so far but quite demanding. The interview was a great opportunity to try some advanced maths, but I still have to sit the STEP entrance exam, which will be the most challenging part of the process.”

Peter Symonds College has had 56 successful offers for the 2021 cohort. The College has a dedicated Oxbridge tutor and offers an Oxbridge preparation program, which includes interview and entrance exam support. Principal Sara Russell told Cherwell: “With the effects of the pandemic students have faced additional challenges this year so we worked hard to overcome some of these. The moment the first lockdown was announced we knew we needed to adapt our strategy, and develop distance ways of delivering the things that have worked so well for decades.”

Peter Symonds student Milosz Kowalski has been offered a place at Cambridge to study Human Social and Political Sciences, and said: “As someone from a working-class, migrant background, it was sometimes difficult to see myself at Cambridge, but the supportive atmosphere at Symonds made me feel that truly anyone can succeed.”

A spokesperson for St. Paul’s School told Cherwell: “We are delighted that so many of our students who wished to study at Oxbridge have been offered places. It is a testament to our students’ talent and commitment to their studies during an exceptionally difficult year for all schools that so many have achieved their first choice of university. We are also delighted with the success enjoyed by candidates from our partner schools with whom we have worked in support of their applications, in almost all subject areas.”

A spokesperson for the Westminster School told Cherwell: “We are delighted that our pupils continue to achieve excellent outcomes despite the challenges of the pandemic, including opportunities to study at the world’s best universities. We are equally delighted by the increasing numbers of pupils from the maintained sector progressing to these institutions, including from Harris Westminster – just one example of what can be achieved through meaningful partnership and hard work. We are proud of each and every one of these students, and applaud their achievements.”

A spokesperson for the University of Oxford told Cherwell: “From expanding our digital outreach offering during lockdown, to voicing and upholding concerns about the Ofqual algorithm used to award A-level grades, to the collegiate university this year forming a nationwide community outreach programme offering bespoke and local support to students of mixed ages, their parents and teachers, we are consistently working to make Oxford first choice for students from under-represented backgrounds.”

“This commitment to supporting talented students of all backgrounds to achieve their Oxford dreams and potential, has seen a record number of state-school students arriving at Oxford in October 2020, and state school applicants receiving more than 68% of offers in the most recent admissions round.”

“We are particularly pleased to have been able to welcome the inaugural class of Opportunity Oxford students, notwithstanding the constraints imposed by the pandemic. It is going to be a challenging year ahead for all of us but we are confident that our concerted outreach efforts are focused on the right areas, and allowing us to find talented students from a broad range of backgrounds who are passionate about their subject.”

Eton College has been contacted for comment. 

Image Credit: JR P/CC BY-NC 2.0

25/3/21, 16:22 – this article was edited to include comment from the University

Defending Democracy: why we must prevent the protest bill

Natasha Voase
-
0
Defending Democracy: why we must prevent the protest bill

2020 was a bad year for democracy. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index, 70% of countries around the world reported a decline in their levels of democracy. The factors to blame are rushed legislation, suspended civil liberties and weariness with the whole damned thing. Thanks to the bill currently being discussed in Parliament, 2021 might be a whole lot worse.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is a threat to our democracy. It’s come under fire for several problems, including its attacks on already marginalised groups and the lack of focus on gender-based violence. The attacks on the right to protest have become a focal point for civil liberties campaigners everywhere as it will remove a critical avenue of democratic expression. Section three, however, has demonstrated the government’s worrying attitude towards democracy.

The measures contained in the bill constitute a clear attack on the right to peacefully protest, which will increase the already extensive powers of the police to restrict protests. The new measures will give the Home Secretary the power to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the protest,” regardless of whether or not this is a static protest of one person or a large procession (54, 2, ab, i, p. 45). In addition, the police will be able to impose strict start and end times, as well as a noise limit on a static protest which is, practically speaking, concerning. What’s to stop them from abusing this power by curtailing a protest they do not personally agree with? In short, the government is launching a severe attack on civil liberties. 

The bill is both absurd and unaccountable. It grants the Home Secretary sweeping powers to determine what constitutes a “nuisance.” This sets a worrying precedent. What’s to stop the government from telling a protest that it can only be one hour long and no louder than the sound of a library? Add to that the fact that it will permit the Home Secretary to add to the existing legislation without parliament, and also to  “define any aspect” of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest.” By removing the necessity to consult Parliament on additional legislation, this removes any semblance of accountability as MPs – who are elected to scrutinise legislation – would be powerless to prevent new legislation from being added. Accountability of power is key in a democracy and this legislation is a direct attack on this principle.

For a government that has so frequently lambasted “woke cancel culture,” it’s remarkable that they’ve decided to employ similar tactics in their very own culture war. Is seeking to diminish the voices of those who dissent while amplifying the voices of those who agree with you not an example of cancel culture? The bill demonstrates a worrying mindset – that liberty only applies to those with whom one agrees.

While protests such as Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion have been lambasted as threats to democracy, in reality, they are a cornerstone of it. That the bill has been motivated by a personal dislike of these movements – particularly of Extinction Rebellion – demonstrates the worrying mindset behind it. According to the Home Secretary, Black Lives Matter is “dreadful” and Extinction Rebellion are “eco-crusaders turned criminals.” While not all Conservatives share this opinion, with Theresa May urging the government to rethink the Bill, this demonstrates a worrying attitude towards free speech in the British democracy. The legislation isn’t about protecting society from overzealous protestors; it’s about silencing them. It’s true that democracy isn’t always easy. While you have the right to voice your opinion, someone else has the right to criticise it. Just as you have the right to protest, someone else has the right to oppose it. It’s a two-way street but one which has never before been subject to such a direct attack by a piece of legislation. That’s the price of a free society. Who would want it any other way?

It’s often said that you don’t realise what you have until it’s about to be taken away and that’s certainly the case with this legislation. While civil liberties have no doubt been altered during the pandemic, the current situation is temporary. This legislation will not be. So, to the government which so frequently invokes the “Blitz Spirit” and “fighting Britons”, we ask: what did all those brave people fight for? That’s right: liberty. The kind of liberty that will protect us long after this pandemic.

At the time of writing, protests have successfully delayed the government’s attempt to sprint the Bill through Westminster, demonstrating just how difficult it is to ignore the will of the people. This petition has already gathered enough support that if the government ignore the people’s mandate, they will be breaking their own rules. What we can do is hold them accountable for this. Signing the petition, being vocal on social media, writing to MPs (find out how here), and generally scrutinising the government will all ensure that nothing is swept past our eyes.

Image credit: Michael Coghlan via Flickr & Creative Commons. 

Is this the end of the gig economy?

Johannes Moehrle
-
0
Is this the end of the gig economy?

In the past weeks, prosecutors in the UK and Italy have scored big wins against pillars of the gig economy. On 19th February, the supreme court in London unanimously ruled that Uber drivers must be considered as workers rather than self-employed. Four days later, on 24th February, prosecutors in Milan moved in a similar direction when they ordered the four food delivery companies with activities in Italy (Uber eats, Deliveroo, Just Eat, Foodinho-Glovo) to hire 60,000 workers and pay a total of €733m in fines.

These decisions in the UK and in Italy will have a serious impact on the way these companies carry out their activities, since their drivers and food-couriers will soon have to be paid at least the minimum wage, and will be entitled to holiday pay, as well as maternity and medical leave. This essentially means that Uber in the UK and Uber Eats and its competitors in Italy will need to have a significant change in their business model in order to comply with their workers’ new status. Above all, these two court rulings set a precedent for thousands of gig-economy workers in these countries and beyond. After a tentative start to this rapidly changing system, new regulations are likely to be put into place in the near future, which will apply to more than just taxi-hailing and food delivery companies. 

So, with these major companies under scrutiny in several countries, are we witnessing the crumbling of the gig-economy? Perhaps it is worth defining what is commonly understood under the term ‘gig economy’ and how we have ended up where we are now. The ‘gig economy’ is a labour market characterised by the prevalence of short-term contracts or freelance work, as opposed to permanent jobs. In sectors such as the arts and journalism, for example, this system has been in place for decades, but for services such as ride-hailing and food delivery, it is a fairly new phenomenon that has been growing hand-in-hand with the rapid technological progress of the last decade.

For the proponents of this system, it is a liberalisation of the market that allows flexibility for everyone. Workers should have the freedom to choose when and how much they wish to work and get paid accordingly, and customers have access to quicker and cheaper services around the clock. Theoretically, companies such as Uber and Deliveroo do nothing more but put both workers and consumers in contact; often, this is done through a very well-designed app, which makes the whole process all the easier. It is undeniable that, for us consumers, our lives are ameliorated by the fact that companies like Uber and Deliveroo enable us to find a driver and hop into their car within five minutes or have hot meals delivered to our door at any time of the day. 

This system, however, has a far darker flip side for these working in it. For them, the ‘flexibility’ and ‘freedom’ so often praised by these companies’ executives are generally nothing but an illusion. Workers for companies such as Uber and Deliveroo are in fact fully dependent on their apps; Uber for example sets the rates, sets the contract terms in which drivers have no say, requires drivers to take certain routes, and disciplines drivers through a rating system. These elements clearly show that drivers are in a position of subordination to Uber and that the company is doing more than just connecting drivers and customers.

In fact, Uber has deliberately put drivers in a system where they feel compelled to work for increasingly long hours, as the algorithm punishes drivers for turning down rides, and in turn, gives them fewer rides. Indeed, working ridiculously long hours is the only solution for many drivers to make ends meet, with some drivers working over fifteen hours a day, in order to barely make a living after having paid for the maintenance, the license and the insurance of their vehicle. Furthermore, it is worth noting that drivers only get paid once they are given rides by the app and that the hours they spend waiting for ride-requests to pop up are hours in which no money is made. These dire conditions have led drivers around the world to sleep in their parked cars in order to cram in more work hours. More worryingly, others admit having already nodded off behind the wheel due to a lack of sleep, which in turn also casts doubt on our security as passengers.

Food-couriers are just as dependent on their app, be it Deliveroo or Uber Eats, and expose themselves even more to the dangers of the road late into the evenings trying to make a living. These narratives only get sadder and more dangerous when you consider that these same ‘self-employed’ drivers do not have the right to injury compensation in case of accidents. Taxi-hailing and delivery companies are well aware of these situations, but deem them necessary if they want to continue offering their services at unbeatable prices around the clock.  

So perhaps, it isn’t so much the gig economy as a whole that is crumbling, but more the new form it has taken with the development of technology, which has been morally and legally questionable. In European countries, the rising popularity of apps such as Uber, Uber Eats and Deliveroo has put a strain on welfare states; in recent years, there has been an expanding number of workers who are dependents of a company, without receiving the social security that comes with such dependence.

It is, therefore, high time that the status quo undergoes change, and these two landmark court rulings are hopefully the first step towards a legislative update regarding self-employed workers in the UK and abroad. Today there is a need for change. With the development of platforms such as Uber or Deliveroo, the line between what is a self-employed, independent worker, and what is a worker whose income solely relies on a single company – but is not an employee – is getting blurrier. 

We can only hope that legal action on its own will regularise these sectors in the near future, but more than that, it is our responsibility to reflect on how we want our society to function, how we want its workers to be treated, and whether we accept that increasing numbers of working people, do so without the safety net that basic social security offers. If we as consumers don’t acknowledge the dire conditions in which people we rely on work, there will be no incentive for anything to change.

Yet, there is hope for change if we understand that the cheapest prices for services are often made at the cost of decent working conditions. In the ongoing pandemic, we have seen that drivers and especially food couriers perform essential jobs, which many of us have come to rely on in our everyday lives. But, it is worth asking ourselves what is behind the ever-lowering price of these services and whether we accept it by contributing to it.

Image credit: Leonhard Lenz via Wikimedia & Creative Commons. 

The ‘Foxification’ of British news: the impact of new right-wing media in the UK

Biba Jones
-
0
The ‘Foxification’ of British news: the impact of new right-wing media in the UK

While you might not choose to tune in to its shows, News UK TV should concern you. Media mogul Rupert Murdoch, who created the hugely influential conservative network Fox News in the US in 1996, launches his newest channel, News UK TV, in Britain this year. The venture was granted a license by government media regulator Ofcom in December 2020 and will combine entertainment with right-leaning news commentary and opinion. The channel is set to begin a staggered rollout in April, racing against rival GB News, another similarly ‘Fox-News-style’ channel also arriving on UK televisions soon.

These channels, neither of which have yet aired a single minute, are already stirring controversy by their mere existence. Calls for advertising boycotts, and words of warning for the decline of impartiality have set an ominous tone. One TV executive asked: “Will it be that they will try to ‘out-Fox’ each other?” Will they push each other, as well their left-wing counterparts, to greater extremes and away from centrism — a spiral of division for us to watch uneasily from our sofas at home?

It certainly paints a dark image. Even though the stringent regulation of broadcasting in the UK means that these networks will not be overtly one-sided or spread ‘fake news’, they are worrisome. A new fixation on ‘opinionated’ and ‘politicised’ news commentary will feed into ‘bubble culture that isolates viewers in echo chambers. These channels also have the potential to widen political polarities, bring anti-political correctness debates to the fore, and could eventually be joined by more extreme digital news sites which are not subject to the same regulation as television broadcasting.

Indeed, the introduction of these channels has led many to question the future direction of broadcast journalism in the UK. Unlike the US, Britain has a long history of strict rules that limit bias and inaccuracy in news broadcasts, but News UK TV and GB News have both stoked fear of more divisive and partisan journalism. With Boris Johnson eyeing ex-Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre as the next chair of Ofcom, the Financial Times has described a ‘storm of outrage within the media industry’ that has questioned the way in which regulation could be stretched or relaxed. Former chairman of Independent Press Standards Organisation Alan Moses is not worried, arguing that if Dacre is appointed he will have to “have to embrace the standards he had previously opposed” because “regulation is a rigorous business”. According to Moses, any chair will find it hard to make significant changes because “the scope of jurisdiction is enormous”.

So TV regulation is unlikely to be loosening any time soon, but will Murdoch really play by the rules? There certainly are concerns that even if Ofcom regulations stay the same Murdoch will push against the boundaries of its impartiality code. The channel will be legally obliged to include both sides of arguments and thus offer balanced coverage, but ‘balance’ can be achieved over a day or over a series of programmes, which leaves a significant leeway that can be taken advantage of.

Murdoch also has a track record of bending the rules. Kevin Rudd, a former Australian Prime Minister claimed that “Murdoch will say anything and do anything to win regulatory approval, and then do the reverse in practice”. When Murdoch started airing US Fox News in Britain, it was twice censored in 2017 for violating impartiality standards, and TalkRadio, which Murdoch bought in 2016, has been fined for breaching impartiality rules. A push towards more right-leaning opinionated news might threaten balance in less obvious ways, with both GB News and News UK TV likely to use a careful selection of guests and language to push certain sides without breaking regulations. GB News has rejected suggestions that they will be biased, writing to the Guardian to complain about ‘anti-impartiality’ accusations, claiming that they will comply with Ofcom’s rules. The network’s chairman Andrew Neil, however, has claimed that GB News is “about disrupting the status quo”, which makes me sceptical that they will comply entirely to existing regulations, or that they will do so without stirring anger and discontent. It seems likely that these channels will call for greater freedom of expression once faced with stringent rules, feeding into global populist complaints about restrictions on freedom of speech.

The fixation of Fox News on ‘cancel culture’, which has largely intensified in the past month, is a testament to a wider resistance to ‘cancel culture’, and by extension to limitations to free speech. Fox News contributor Tomi Lahren recently called on conservatives to “start cancelling” companies that engage with ‘cancel culture’, while, on one day in early March, Fox reportage on Dr Seuss being ‘cancelled’ lasted over twice as long as its coronavirus coverage. I believe a similar fixation on ‘cancel culture’ and freedom of expression will likely arise on these new channels, especially due to stricter in the UK, which are likely to cause friction among those expecting a Fox News alternative in the UK.  The recent events concerning Piers Morgan, who stormed out of Good Morning Britain following criticisms for his treatment of Meghan Markle, could well be early signs of this. Perhaps Morgan, who has now stepped down as a host on Good Morning Britain, will join the GB News or News UK TV ranks. Andrew Neil has ardently criticised ‘cancel culture’ on numerous occasions and hatred towards ‘woke’ culture will likely be fomented by these channels.

GB News and News UK TV are already inciting hatred for centrist and left-leaning broadcasting platforms. Neil has said that GB News will cater to the members of the population who “who feel underserved and unheard by their media”. He appears to believe that he is speaking on behalf of a large number of ordinary citizens when he describes disillusionment towards the incumbent news broadcasting services, and it is likely that many feel this way, but comments like this further influences people, and foments anger and discontent to a degree that may not have existed before. Neil has called the BBC a “mortal enemy” and “determined propagandist” whose “very existence should be the subject of a very intense and well-funded campaign”. It is likely that this rhetoric, and the idea that existing platforms let the British population down, will be a common theme across the network and in its marketing.

Some media experts are particularly worried about the timing, predicting that the social division seen in the UK during Brexit will resurface, having been set aside by the current pandemic. Opinionated news will only widen this gulf when it returns, and increase partisanship and xenophobia. Right-wing populism and the fears of immigration that drove the Brexit campaign will likely be fuelled by right-wing partisan news. Could covert racism and xenophobia filter though? Will Brexit criticism be absent from these channels? The sources of fundraising and endorsements for GB News foreshadows the Brexit-sympathetic approach the channel is likely to take as the effects of Brexit come into fruition in the following months and years. 60 million pounds raised by a Dubai-based investment firm, Legatum, and a pro-Brexit hedge fund manager Paul Marshall for example.

GB News’ logo itself seems to be a subtle hint to the Union Jack. It seems likely that this logo was designed to appeal to right-wing nationalism and its use, the introduction of two right-wing broadcasting networks, and the finalisation of Brexit earlier this year makes for a cringingly nationalistic image for Britain. Rasmus Kleis Nielson, director of the Reuters Institute of the Study of Journalism at Oxford University argued that the politics of resentment, “often driven by older white men who are right-wing”, is “a market that is well-served in print and online already.” Do we need it on our screens? Entering a post-covid and post-Brexit world we don’t need a war on “woke” culture, or increased divisions — we need unity, empathy and cooperation.

It might be argued that Murdoch’s past failures in the UK suggest that these new channels will not prove seriously influential or popular; that the British audience is different from the American audience and fewer will therefore receive right-leaning news commentary warmly. Murdoch’s attempts to bring Fox News to Britain, for example, was a complete failure, and it was pulled off the air in 2017 after failing to attract an audience. At the time, 21st Century Fox said “Fox News is focused on the U.S. market and designed for a U.S. audience and, accordingly, it averages only a few thousand viewers across the day in the UK”. However, GB News is a much more ambitious venture, will run for 24 hours and recruit journalists from all over the UK and Northern Ireland, hoping to appeal to a much wider and more diverse audience.

Others may argue that even if GB News and News UK are initially influential, their popularity will fade away as viewers slowly lose interest and potentially revert to more centrist broadcasters. The shrinking popularity of Fox News in the US does not however come as a result of a move towards centrism, quite the opposite.  Fox News’ recent dip in ratings is due to the increase in other radical far-right outlets such as Newsmax and One America News. Newsmax is one of the most popular online fringe media networks in America, with a subscription count that increased over 300% in the two weeks following the election, it brandished 1.7 million subscribers by 5 January. Online news and opinion sites are not subject to the same regulation, and Newsmax is far more extreme than Fox, pushing conspiracy theories and hatred, and arguably playing a large role in inciting the violence at the capitol earlier this year.

I believe that this is the most harmful potential outcome of the ‘Foxification’ of British news. It seems likely that right-wing commentators and viewers who were promised a voice for right-leaning journalism and opinion will be disappointed with the restrictions placed on News UK TV and GB News. Their disappointment, influenced by the polarisation of post-Brexit Britain and fed by these channels, will turn them to more extreme media outlets for opinions.

GB News and News UK TV will be highly regulated and will need, legally, to provide a balanced array of views. These channels should worry us nonetheless. ‘Bubble culture’, whereby the individual surrounds themselves only with commentary with which they agree, will only be heightened with the rise of opinionated, partisan news. To predict what a post-Covid world will look like can only be conjecture, but these channels will not help to close post-Brexit political and social chasms within the UK.

Image Credit: Elf Sternberg via Flickr & Creative Commons.

Meet the Balliol student running for Oxfordshire County Council

Sasha Mills
-
0
Meet the Balliol student running for Oxfordshire County Council

Sasha Mills speaks to Michael O’Connor, a student at Balliol studying for a master’s in philosophy, who is running in this year’s County Council Elections for the University Parks Ward who is also a member of the last standing Oxford team in this year’s University Challenge. 

SM: I thought I would start by asking how you got into politics in the first place. Not everyone does this kind of thing, you know?

MOC: I obviously have a general political interest in things like climate change, or homelessness in the city. All these things just matter to me.

In terms of why local government specifically, my parents live in London. And in 2018, I happened to live next door to the local Labour Party campaign coordinator. And one day I bumped into him, and he said, “Do you want to come knocking on doors?” And I sort of said, “Yeah, okay!”

And I ended up spending a lot of time knocking on doors for three counsellors. And they just seemed like really wonderful people who cared about even [the] very boring bits of local politics, which wasn’t something I knew that much about. There’s something that’s very attractive about knowing a community well, quite aside from the broader things that you can do in local politics, there’s also just the fact that talking to people, doing things for them on that close, local level is just very rewarding. 

And then there’s also the fact that in this particular situation, where there’s a pandemic on, Labour are looking for candidates and when there’s a Tory government at Westminster that isn’t doing very much on climate change. And when you do walk through the city every day, or when you’re driving into the city, you see the marks of inequality. Or you go from Greater Leys to Central Oxford, and there’s a 15-year life expectancy difference, or you walk to the city centre – and it’s not unfamiliar as somebody who has lived in London and been at the centre of London – but you do see people who just don’t have homes on the streets. 

So, it’s a sort of cocktail of those things.

SM: You’re obviously running as a Labour candidate. How does what you do relate to what people tend to think of as ‘Labour,’ which is Labour in Westminster, Keir Starmer, etc. 

MOC: Hmm, well, I guess there is quite a difference between local politics and national politics. But equally, there’s substantial value overlap. The National Party cares about addressing issues like climate change, it cares about making sure that we live in a country where everybody has a home, everybody has an opportunity. 

So in that sense, there’s a link, but local councils are, I would say, quite autonomous to some degree. And that is a good thing, insofar as it means that when there’s a government at Westminster, that isn’t doing as much as you’d like on certain issues, local government can still do its own thing. Obviously the local government has to balance its budget. Other than council tax, it doesn’t have the same powers of taxation. 

There is that fundamental value overlap. But then [it’s also] a powerful site of change in its own right, and has that degree of autonomy.

SM: How do you think the University Parks fit into what’s going on at the county level? And what do you think are the issues that are most pressing specifically in this area?

MOC: The city council deals with housing planning, waste collection, leisure, it’s technically responsible for things like homelessness and the environment, but it has to work very close to the county council on them. And the county council [is] just education, social services, transport, etc. 

And the University Parks division of the county council is basically just the very centre of Oxford, and some residential areas a bit North. So the only thing that it directly influences in that area is transport. But that’s critically important at the moment, because many of the city’s plans to reduce emissions and make Oxford greener and more livable hinge on cooperation from the county council in that area. 

But also, you have a vote on all issues on the county council. So anything that it deals with from, education, to social services, all fall within that sort of purview. And especially because University Parks is mostly student-y, it kind of gives you licence to rove further, and to take a more ideals based approach.

SM: How do you think that student politics and the political scenes in unis, like Oxford, fits into the national scene? And also that kind of links into, how do you think the best way of representing students will be in the county council? So it’s kind of a two-part question, one that’s kind of ideological and slightly wishy-washy. How do students fit into politics? Do they fit into politics all the time? I’m not convinced that they do. 

MOC: In Oxford itself, there’s student politics in terms of, OULC and OULD, and that sort of thing. There’s Oxford SU, the JCRs, and there’s also the great activist campaigns – Oxford Worker Justice, Oxford Climate Justice Campaign, Oxford Fair Living Wage Campaign. And then things like It Happens Here, which exist in pretty much every university. 

Oxford [University] is quite crucial to the visual life of the city as a whole, because the university is such a big part of the city. It employs so many people, it’s so big and wealthy. So anything that they can do, together with, say, the SU, to change how the university works, inevitably has effects in the city, like efforts made for the living wage. 

The activist groups in Oxford SU and JCRs are important because they influence the university and the university has an influence on how the city council operates. And these little activist groups can often exert influence within, say, the labour group on the council. Lots of counsellors work closely with them. 

In terms of where students fit in more generally, they have lots of time on their hands, and they care about lots of things. And so it’s often in student groups or people in further education [that]  really powerful ideas come out. That’s as true in Oxford as anywhere else. 

I guess that because students don’t have set places of residence, they switch from one place to another – they’re only at University for three years – they don’t necessarily see that much of the whole city. And they’re hard to canvas: you can’t walk down the road and knock on their doors, especially if they’re in colleges. They do perhaps tend to be sidelined by big parties trying to get votes. 

And University Parks, for instance, the turnout is often very low indeed, like 20-30% or something. Even in [2017], when there’s a general election, the local elections turnout still wasn’t huge in these Central wards. So the product of that is that maybe their voices don’t get heard as much as they might be.

SM: It seems like, from what I read in your campaign materials, that climate change and climate policy [is] the heart of what you want to work on. What do you think the best would be the best policies for Labour to be pushing for on a national level? And what do you think can happen in Oxford further to the initiatives that are already ongoing?

MOC:  Well, I don’t want to commit myself too far, because I’m really not an expert. I mean, I should say that one of the reasons why I’m emphasising say climate change [is] you want to give people something that you can actually do. And Oxford is taking great measures on the environment. The county council is sort of getting in the way. 

So, I can say, if you vote Labour, this is something we can give you. This is something we will give you. And it resonates with students who are not necessarily in Oxford for the long term, [and] care about lots of different issues. But climate change is one that just hits home because it affects everybody everywhere. 

Setting a target can be self-fulfilling, [and] if you set an ambitious target, you then change your policy to meet the ambitious targets. Merely setting the target already has an effect. So just an ambitious Net Zero target, probably combined with the kind of Green New Deal that was being sold a couple of years back, and [that] Keir Starmer committed to in running for leader, something along those lines. 

Oxford is already sort of over a decade or more ahead in its targets. And it’s not just its targets, they’re actually meeting them, the council will go Net Zero at the end of this year. And one of the best things Oxford’s ever done is had a climate assembly a couple of years ago, which just got together with lots of ordinary people who gave them lots of information about the climate. And then said, “What do you think we should do?”, and the overwhelming consensus was ‘the climate crisis is a huge issue and Oxford needs to do as much as possible and go as fast as it can’. 

And the city’s policies have reflected that. Recently, as well as its main budget, it had a whole climate budget, increasing funding by [18] million pounds per year, with 50 million pounds towards insulating homes and all these different measures. 

SM: There is a really massive contrast between this enormously wealthy University, and then the poorer parts of the city. What do you think are the long term changes that need to happen in order to address this wildly imbalance situation in the city?

MOC: There’s a really interesting reflection by Danny Dorling, a Professor of Geography at Oxford, who grew up in Oxford, on how Oxford has changed, and how it’s always been unequal. But the inequality, as in so many other parts of the country, has accelerated, and become even more geographically divided. 

The real inequality is between the north of Oxford and then the East, especially areas like the Leys out beyond Temple Cowley, where the car factories still are. And the problem with trying to resolve inequalities like that is that there is no single thing behind them all. I guess one of the central issues is housing and poor quality of housing, food poverty, fuel poverty, high rent payments, all these things that play into that.

I mean, the city council announced last year a plan to build 11,000 New Homes, and had a very active [plans] for the past five years or so on food poverty and fuel poverty, the former of which is mostly modelled on the ones that they have in Bristol, and it’s championed the Oxford living wage. 

And those sorts of things have had an effect. I think in 2015, there were several Oxford areas in the bottom decile of most deprived areas in the country. And then 63 of the 83 areas into which Oxford’s divided improved, according to the government’s indices of deprivation, between 2015 and 2019. So something’s clearly having an effect. 

But equally, there is still that big educational and income inequality, and that massive life expectancy difference between, I mean, the far north of my division, life expectancy is late 80s, and might even be 90. And then some parts, sort of in the east of Oxford, just beyond the and around the ring road, it’s 15 years below that.

So in terms of what can actually be done, one of the key things is housing, it’s building more homes, it’s improving the homes already there, it’s doing things like improving the efficiency of those homes, because if they’re not well insulated, then that means higher energy bills, and that leads to fuel poverty. And that also ties in with the environmental agenda; they mesh quite neatly. 

Danny Dorling’s essay is about the University in relation to the inequality in the city. Oxford hasn’t built many schools in the past 50 years. And he says it wouldn’t be that hard for, say, a College to give up a playing field for a new school. And you look at things like for instance in the living wage, the University recently signed up as a living wage employer. But I mean, as Cherwell recently wrote, many colleges are not still not paying the living wage. The University can’t abdicate its responsibility on that front. Because it exists in the city. 

SM: So we’re going to wrap up by talking about University Challenge. How did you even end up doing that? How does it work? I don’t understand it to be honest. 

MOC: Usually, if you’re a JCR president, you get an email from a producer at University Challenge around September every year. And it is (laughs), a quiz show I should clarify. 

And a couple of years before I joined Balliol, a Balliol team won it. And one of the remaining team members was there when I was in first year. And I took the test and got on the team, but then we didn’t get on TV. 

And then last year, [I] did it again for the third time, my third year, and we got on. And I suppose that, clearly, you’re not somebody that watches University Challenge, but for a certain small segment of the country – I was sort of aware of it. I knew Balliol had won it and I’d watched a couple of series quite closely. 

And it’s one of those things that’s just very enjoyable to be on. I mean, it’s such a nice home for all those useless bits of information that you have buried in your head. I was on it with four people from Balliol […]. We did our first first sort of sets of filming a few months ago, and then everything stopped because of lockdown. So to film the rest of the rounds, we journeyed up to the studios in the middle of the long pandemic months. 

It’s quite surreal, we checked into a Holiday Inn in Manchester and sort of got into the studio with these great big glass screens between us (laughs). 

The Oxfordshire County Council Elections are taking place on the 6th of May, and the deadline for voting registration is the 19th of April. You can find out more about the election here. 

Image Credit: Michael O’Connor

Remembering Mickey Lewis

Cherwell Sport
-
0
Remembering Mickey Lewis

CW: Death

Members of the Oxfordshire and wider football communities have been paying tribute to Mickey Lewis, ex-player and coach for Oxford United and coach of 18 years for OUAFC, who died on 5th March.

Mickey’s tragic death at the age of 56, after a short battle with cancer, has shocked and saddened clubs and individuals from across the football pyramid, including many of the thousands of young players he coached both within Oxford University and elsewhere in the city.

His contribution to football in Oxfordshire is immeasurable, and nothing short of legendary. Mickey readily took on backroom roles as diverse as caretaker manager, stand-in physio, and occasional coach driver on top of his playing duties at professional club Oxford United. Later, he devoted himself to working as a youth coach at United, as well as with semi-pro side Oxford City (where he led the Velocity Football programme) and OUAFC, whom he guided to one of their most successful periods ever.

Speaking to Cherwell, current Blues Captain Ben Putland described Mickey as “an incredibly kind, generous, and funny man who taught us much more than football” and “a lifelong friend to hundreds of Blues, past and present”.

OUAFC hopes to celebrate Mickey’s life and achievements with a number of commemorative events over the next year and beyond, while a GoFundMe has been set up in Mickey’s memory alongside several of his other clubs, with the aim of supporting wife Suzanne and son Zach, whom Mickey leaves behind.

Suzanne and Zach Lewis made the following statement following Mickey’s death: “It is with deep sadness that we have to tell you our beloved Micky has lost his short battle with cancer.

“Micky fought with typical bravery and tenacity having been diagnosed only two weeks ago with a rare and aggressive form of lung cancer.

“As we all know Micky loved football, loved people and loved life and we will miss him so very much.

“We would appreciate some privacy right now but will announce any details in due course because we know how loved Micky was.”

As a player, Mickey Lewis spent his early years at West Brom and Derby County, before moving to Oxford United, where, between 1988 and 2000, he would go on to make over 350 appearances and become a fan favourite – earning the nickname ‘Mad Dog’ with his tenacious midfield performances.

Despite officially retiring from playing in 1996, Mickey returned to the pitch for the ‘U’s during a short period in the 1999-2000 season, on account of an injury crisis in the first-team squad.

Between 1996 and 2015, he had spells as the club’s youth-team coach, assistant manager, and caretaker manager (twice), while additionally lending his hand when necessary to odd jobs such as driving the team bus and deputising for the club physio – in short, Mickey became a much-loved, much-valued part of the furniture in the club’s backroom. He also spent time working in a coaching capacity at Oxford City F.C. and Banbury United, as well as several other professional and semi-professional clubs outside Oxfordshire.

Mickey joined OUAFC in 2002 and inspired the Blues to a hat-trick of Varsity wins in his first three years as coach. In the period since, Mickey’s side were only beaten over 90 minutes on three occasions, and won four of the five most recent Varsity clashes. Sustained success was also found under his guidance in the BUCS league system and the Brookes Varsity series, while the annual ‘Old Boys’ game offered a chance for OUAFC alumni to return and catch up with Mickey, a “highlight” for many former Blues, according to the club.

Putland told Cherwell: “Mickey coached us like he would coach any of his professional sides. He was passionate about bringing the professional experience to all tiers of the game and to players of all backgrounds and characters.

“It didn’t matter what level you played; everyone got the same treatment and we loved being given that opportunity.

“His unwavering dedication, enthusiasm, and endless positivity drove the Blues’ ambitious and determined culture. Yet, he had a brilliant ability to always maintain a light and fun atmosphere, often filled with his contagious laughter. We enjoyed every session, and a huge part of the enjoyment was down to Mickey’s character and company.

“We feel very lucky to have known him, and he’ll be sorely missed. We’re sending all our love to Suzanne, Zach, and family.”

Players from across Mickey’s 18-year tenure at OUAFC came together to send their messages of love, support, and thanks shortly after his diagnosis. The club will dedicate the annual ‘Old Boys’ game to Mickey, while plans are also being made to honour him at this year’s Varsity match.

Two former Blues gave Cherwell the following statements in tribute to Mickey and his work with OUAFC:

Leo Ackerman (Blues Captain 2018-19): “I remember the first time Mickey and I sat down to discuss our plans for the 2018/19 season.

“I walked into the Costa Coffee on the Banbury Road, full of nerves, fumbling through my pockets to make sure I had enough change to purchase a coffee for Mickey. I spotted him, shook his hand nervously, and asked what he wanted to drink. ‘Large triple latte mate, with an extra shot’. It was 5.30pm.

“I went up, grabbed the coffee, and sat back down, leather notebook in my sweaty palms, ready to share my rudimentary tactical ideas with a man who had played and managed in the game for over thirty years.

“He saw the anxiety and lack of confidence in my eyes. He must have, because he grasped his rocket fuel in his right hand, flashed his eyes open wide, curved a slight but unmistakeable smile at me, and said: ‘don’t be nervous, son. Be your own man and everything is going to be fine’.

“We might have been pretty rubbish that season, but those words still soothe and strengthen me every day. Mickey has motivated, inspired, and guided generations of OUAFC players just like me.

“There have and will be in years to come better fathers, brothers, and sons, because of his legacy. Boys that came to university and left having learnt to be their own men.

“We will always be grateful for everything that he did for us.”

Leon Farr (Blues Captain 2010-11): “Mickey was more than a football coach to hundreds of players who worked with him across his two decades of service to OUAFC.

“As a coach, he was an incredible communicator, motivator and tactician. Passionate, intelligent, with an instinctive ability to get the best out of every player. Mickey enjoyed a successful career as a top-level professional player and coach, but he never patronised OUAFC. He took his role at the club seriously, but never too seriously, and his training sessions were relentlessly fun.

“His energy and enthusiasm were legendary and I’m still laughing at his training ground gags 10 years later. We would have run through a brick wall for him.

“Off the pitch, Mickey was the same as he was on it. Funny, kind-hearted, and generous with his time – a man who loved his family and his job.

“Mickey would often say: ‘Don’t let the game pass you by!’ and for me it summed him up perfectly. He never did let life pass him by, and I feel so lucky to have known him. I’ll miss him terribly.”

Special thanks to Ben Putland for his contribution to this article.

Image credits: Oxford University Association Football Club

Mickey Lewis Memorial Fund: https://www.gofundme.com/f/mickey-lewis-memorial-fund-official 

 

Anti-racism workshops aren’t a waste, they’re essential

Shariq Haidery
-
0
Anti-racism workshops aren’t a waste, they’re essential

CW: racism.

Stories about Oxford and the various policy decisions its constituent colleges make periodically find their way into the national press.  I did not, however, expect to find one about my college and a workshop it put on attacked by the Daily Mail. St Hugh’s College set up a workshop, called ‘It’s All About Race’ at the start of this year to further educate its undergraduate students on racism and how we can tackle it going forward. The Daily Mail article criticises St Hugh’s College for putting on this anti-racism workshop and has a statement from a member of St Hugh’s about how the workshop was a “colossal waste of time and money”.

Before I go on to respond to the anonymous member of St Hugh’s who claims “I have seen no inkling of racism since I have been here,” I would like to clarify a few of the concerns the article expresses about the workshop. Firstly, the article does labour the point that the workshop is meant to “question ingrained attitudes” and frames this as a negative. My own response to this is that the workshop was intended to question ingrained attitudes and have people rethink their perspective. Indeed, this is only logical if the ingrained attitudes in question would be detrimental to the well-being of other members of the college, which racist attitudes obviously would be. As someone who deeply regrets the use of homophobic, antisemitic, transphobic, and racist language when they were younger, I wish I had been able to attend workshops like the one put on by Hugh’s sooner to get rid of the biases that were ingrained into me by my upbringing in a family that were hostile to anyone who was not a Pakistani Muslim. It was not until I went to high school and had my biases challenged by friends that were Jewish, Black, gay, or transgender that made me question the implicit or explicit attitudes I had. Even then, this process took pretty much till the end of secondary school. Workshops like the one put on by Hugh’s would have accelerated this process by directly challenging the way I viewed the world.

The second thing I would like to highlight is how the article consistently refers to the government’s ‘scepticism’ of anti-racism. It does so as if the government is an unbiased and purely latitudinarian entity. One only needs to look at those to whom Boris Johnson has given power and the views they hold to understand the ideological reasoning that lies behind the government’s scepticism. For example, Munira Mirza, who Boris appointed to head his commission on racial inequality in the wake of the death of George Floyd, claims that systemic and institutional racism is not a “reality” but rather a “perception”. She also claims that anti-racism is a “grievance culture”. Is it really surprising that we hear such a sceptical line from the government given the clear ideological aversion Boris and co. have regarding anti-racist activism?

Now that I have clarified a few things mentioned in the article, I want to respond to the anonymous claims. They say, and I quote, “Oxford is increasingly out of touch with the real world. I have seen no inkling of racism since I have been here.” I’m sorry – what planet have you been living on? I honestly find it hard to believe that anyone could make such an assertion in good faith. There is clearly a disconnect between a statement like “I have seen no inkling of racism” and the reality of what BAME students at St Hugh’s have experienced.

I know for a fact awful racial slurs have been used by JCR members. I know for a fact that students have made racist and disparaging jokes about a specific ethnicity or race. I know for a fact that deeply problematic jokes about the BAME community here in Hugh’s have been made. I’d classify these as ‘primary’ incidents of racism, i.e. clearly racist behaviour. The anti-racism workshop obviously helps to solve these issues. A known response to this is that while anti-racism helps solve these issues, simply not being racist would achieve the same. Therefore, shouldn’t we abandon anti-racism and stick to just not being racist if it prevents these primary incidents of racism?

Whilst not being racist might solve these primary incidents, the attitudes that lie behind them remain. This in turn can lead to what I would call ‘secondary’ incidents of racism. These are matters that aren’t explicitly racist, unlike primary incidents. This includes things such as defending racist jokes or harassing other students about whether or not they go to a college. Anti-racism and anti-racist training help to root out the attitudes that help perpetuate these secondary incidents, which in turn prop up the environment where primary incidents of racism occur. Thus, although it may be right to say just not being racist may lead to fewer reports of primary incidents of racism in the short term, in the long term not being actively anti-racist perpetuates a hostile environment for BAME students where secondary incidents go unchallenged and this can lead back to primary incidents.

Before I sign off, whoever this member of St Hugh’s is should be appalled by the social divisions they have helped to inflame. A significant chunk of the commenters on the Daily Mail article are racists who now feel vindicated in their view of Oxford and wider society at large. The article and the Hugh’s member portray such a false picture of how things actually are here at Oxford that it is no wonder this false description perpetuates the image, among Daily Mail readers, that Oxford is a bastion of overzealous wokeness that simply doesn’t work. In reality, Oxford and Hugh’s specifically are taking the right steps in fostering a more accommodating environment for BAME students and making us feel as though the university is a place for us, too. Whilst I am angered by the comments, I do not simply mean to demean my fellow Hughsie’s belief. I hope to express my genuine hurt at their ignorance. Only by addressing my own views and behaviour was I able to develop as a person. If I wasn’t challenged, and instead denied the existence of discrimination that I helped to perpetuate, I wouldn’t be the person I am today.

1...360361362...2,514Page 361 of 2,514

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