Sunday 3rd August 2025
Blog Page 393

Not “safe or sustainable”: Bodleian Libraries’ reading rooms remain open

0

Staff at the Bodleian Libraries have spoken to Cherwell regarding the Libraries’ reading rooms remaining open, claiming that conditions are unsafe for staff and students.

One library assistant told Cherwell: “libraries are essential to research but access to reading rooms is not”, citing the number of students who are studying at home this term –  “by keeping the rooms open, they cannot provide for those students who were unable to return or are self isolating by scanning material for them”. The Bodleian has already initiated a return of the Hathi Trust Emergency Temporary Access Service. However, an email shown to Cherwell has revealed that the Libraries have already had to suspend Scan and Deliver services in 2021 due to “extremely high” levels of demand. On 6 January, they “turned away over 475 requests for Library Scan alone”. As term begins, demand will only increase.

Another member of library staff insisted that “having readers in libraries isn’t safe or sustainable in the current pandemic” given “how serious the rates of infection, hospitalisation and deaths are at present”. During the first lockdown, the Bodleian Libraries closed, claiming that “the health, welfare and safety of readers and staff is our number one priority”. The staff member continued:  “The only way to keep us safe is to immediately close all open libraries and move to remote services only, with measures put in place to minimise the risk of travel”. The University of Cambridge has adopted this model, announcing that their library would “close for in-person visits and study” (but students would still be able to collect reading material or use Scan and Deliver Services) in an email to all students on 6 January.

A member of staff who was afraid for their health spoke of conditions within the library: “we share desks… they’re cleaned by us, but it takes one to be sick or careless”. They claimed their concerns “have been dismissed [by management] by quoting the risk assessments done before Michaelmas”. In these risk assessments, the new variant – which may be up to 70% more transmissible – was not considered. They urged the Bodleian Libraries to focus “on scan and deliver and opening our collections more through a reviewed click and collect service”.

Multiple library staff members raised the issue of individuals not wearing face masks in the library. One member of staff told Cherwell: “we are very constrained in terms of our ability to police mask usage due to central university policy, so there is no way that we can guarantee a safe workplace for those sitting in communal areas”.

The Gladstone Link and Radcliffe Camera were originally planned to be open as hub libraries. However, on 6 January, the Bodleian Libraries tweeted: “The Radcliffe Camera is currently closed. Readers with bookings in the reading rooms this morning should not come to the library”. The History Faculty confirmed that this closure was due to a “shortage of staff”. The Radcliffe Camera, Vere Harmsworth Library, the Sackler Library and Gladstone Link LIbrary will now be closed from 18 January while the Old Bodleian and Cairns Library reading rooms will remain open. Library staff were told that their concerns were given “real weight”.

The Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals, the leading professional body for librarians, information specialists and knowledge managers has urged libraries to shut their doors. They declared that “we consider that the benefits of providing face-to-face services are lower than the risks of prolonging the pandemic”. They explained their reasoning: “given that our original guidance on the safe handling of library materials was provided on the basis of advice from PHE, that this advice has been questioned by the US REALM study and no new guidance has been received in respect of the ‘new variant’, we cannot currently state that the risk from materials is negligible”.

A Bodleian spokesperson responded: “Oxford  University’s  highest priority is the health and well-being of our staff, students and the local community. The Bodleian Libraries are currently following government guidance by prioritising remote services rather than physical ones while continuing to offer a limited physical service to students who are currently resident in the city. This is in line with a range of libraries across the university sector. We are asking readers to only book a reading room space if they don’t have access to other suitable study space. When using the library, readers are required to wear a face covering unless exempt under government guidelines; if arriving without a face covering, readers will be offered one by library staff. Readers are reminded to follow all health and safety measures including social distancing, washing hands thoroughly, and staying away from the libraries if they have any coronavirus symptoms. The libraries are acutely aware of the need to balance the needs of students and researchers who are in Oxford, and those who remain at home, and will continue to adjust services to strike the appropriate balance.”

Photo by DAVID ILIFF. License: CC BY-SA 3.0

Editorial: Oxford must adopt a no-detriment policy for this year’s finalists

0

It is an understatement to say that we are living in extraordinary times. Last March, the UK, along with the rest of the world, came to a grinding halt at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic as we tried to cope with a crisis that was entirely without precedent. The Prime Minister told us then that “things are going to get worse before they get better” – but the reality of this warning has only now been fully realised.

Ten months later, the UK has entered the worst stage of its crisis so far: tragically, cases and deaths have soared and, once again, students have been asked to study from home with Hilary term teaching moved online. However, many are highly concerned about the limited and restrained adjustments recently made by the University of Oxford to account for the deterioration of the coronavirus crisis and its impact on the upcoming term and students’ education as a whole. 

It is not unreasonable to expect that students should not be disadvantaged by circumstances wholly beyond their control. That is why the editorial boards of The Oxford Blue, The Oxford Student and Cherwell are calling on the University of Oxford to introduce a fair ‘no-detriment’ policy for finalists.

While the scale of this tragedy has been devastating in terms of loss of life, the quality of students’ education has also suffered enormously. Students have raised serious concerns in recent days and weeks about issues at home: different time zones to Oxford in their home location; a lack of space; noise; and an absence of essential work tools including a desk, books, a computer and a stable, high-speed internet connection. Furthermore, international students are faced with additional (and unpredictable) challenges, such as having to make travel plans, negotiating complex and changeable immigration policies, undergoing mandatory periods of quarantine (either in private accomodation or specialist facilities) and/or firewalled internet access. Students who are materially more privileged than others in these areas are thus at a significant advantage compared to their peers. 

Many students have also felt lonely, confused and anxious throughout the pandemic. Like the rest of the population, students have had to contend with self-isolation and the emotional impact of being unable to socialise normally with friends, family and partners. Some students have been ill with COVID-19 themselves or had to care for sick household members and loved ones whilst keeping up with the famously rigorous, unrelenting pace of an Oxford degree. The pandemic’s asymmetric demands on students means that a one-size-fits-all approach cannot be feasible and a ‘no-detriment’ policy is crucial for student success.

In such extraordinary circumstances – and ten months into the UK’s COVID-19 crisis – students deserve better than inflexibility and an insistence that it is possible to study as normal in such tough conditions. It is crucial to recognise the circumstances that led to the establishment of the ‘no-detriment policy’ last spring have only been prolonged and exacerbated over the course of recent months. If students are to pay full tuition fees for a severely diminished university education, it is right that the University at least intervenes to accommodate the impact of COVID-19 on our learning experience and academic attainment. 

Last year, in light of the rapid spread and impact of COVID-19, the University listened to student feedback and implemented what they called a no-detriment policy, designed to ensure that finalists did not suffer from the consequences of a global issue outside of their control. Whilst by no means perfect, this policy was executed well in many respects. The optionality from last year should be continued further given the nature of the ongoing crisis. Imposing any one formula on the entire student body will unfairly disadvantage a significant number of its members. If we prioritise simplicity, we may unintentionally neglect the nuances of the situation which we face. Decentralising choice to students means that assessment will consider principles of fairness and equity, and ensure that each student can face the challenges we all find ourselves facing on their own terms, in a way that is right for them. That is what a no-detriment policy must guarantee.

There is undoubtedly a shared interest amongst the entire staff-student body in not wanting the value of an Oxford degree to be diluted, and everyone understands the importance of ‘academic rigour’; it is why many students apply to study here. However, it is unavoidable that students will be affected to varying degrees by the pandemic. Some will feel unable to be examined at the end of this calendar year if, for example, they or a close family member fall ill and/or they have been struggling with mental health issues. Others may be able to undertake exams, but will have to do so in extremely difficult conditions. More still will need to fulfil academic conditions to begin postgraduate courses but may or may not be able to be assessed next term. It suffices to say that no one solution can accommodate all students in a satisfactory manner and, therefore, a solution similar to last year must be implemented.

Yesterday’s email from the University, however, is not only a disappointment but an insult to the entire student body. By refusing to implement a clear ‘safety net’ policy, the University is downplaying the real-world impact that the pandemic has had on students’ learning – both in terms of access to teaching and resources, and of the effect of this crisis on students’ mental health. Some individual departments have also introduced policies that represent a ‘business as usual’ approach to exams and assessments, despite students’ loss of library access, resources and study spaces. A reliance on examiners’ personal acknowledgement of the past year’s unique circumstances cannot replace a formal framework that can evaluate and mitigate inequalities in learning and attainment. 

The University has said that it will announce “additional measures” to ensure fair degree outcomes in “the middle of Hilary term”. The only way to ensure fairness is for the University – in conjunction with departments and faculties – to commit, as soon as possible, to a no-detriment policy for all those taking exams and submitting other assessments, Such measures can ensure that no individual Oxford student is unjustly disadvantaged by the effect of the pandemic on their learning in the last year and during the next.  

Oxford’s Student Union, which serves as a voice for a student body of over 22,000, has said that the University should “recognise the academic challenges by reassessing workloads and assessment practices”, calling for a “fair outcome policy” defined as “a system of policies put in place to mitigate the detrimental effects of the pandemic on students with exams and coursework this year”. This will involve the re-scaling and re-weighting of exams and coursework to reflect the impact of the pandemic on the whole cohort. At an individual level, the Student Union has called for students to be able to file for mitigating circumstances and deadline extensions – without needing to prove that the pandemic has affected their studies – and to access better financial, academic and mental health support. We wholeheartedly endorse these demands and encourage students to find out more about the Student Union’s campaign and services and attend the online workshop taking place this evening (13 January), which will address these issues.

Other universities in the Russell Group, such the University of York, have also started to implement similar ‘safety net’ policies, and the Universities of Leeds, Lancaster and Bristol are considering similar approaches. A petition by Oxford students to the Vice Chancellor to implement “fair safety nets” has already attracted almost 800 signatures at the time of writing. 

On Tuesday, the University ruled out the possibility of a ‘blanket safety net’, but given the disruption caused to the last two terms – which will likely endure even beyond Hilary term – it must now act to introduce a fair no-detriment policy which will also reflect the impact of the pandemic on assessments, just as last year’s safety net did. To fail to do so will present an entirely unfair disadvantage to Oxford students, directly undermining the University’s commitment to student welfare and academic success.

The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on a whole generation of students can not even begin to be graphed on a curve. This crisis is, as we are so often reminded, ‘unprecedented’ – but extraordinary times surely call for equally extraordinary measures. 

A fair, robust no-detriment policy is one of those measures – and it must be implemented now. 

Editors-in-Chief and Managing Director, Cherwell, The Oxford Blue, and The Oxford Student

Drawing Attention

0

I’m painting a picture

I’m drawing attention

I’m writing a fiction

I’m seeking redemption

I’m painting by numbers

I’m outside the lines

I’m creasing the paper

I’m taking my time

I’m writing a poem

I’m making it mine

It doesn’t quite flow

It doesn’t quite rhyme

I’m making mistakes

I’m crossing them out

I’m making it ugly

I’m making it shout

I’m spraying over

Writing on the wall

I’m burning the city

I’m watching it fall

I’m drawing attention

I’m drawing a tension.

Artwork by Tom McGrath.

History Faculty will not extend thesis deadlines

0

The History Faculty has sent an email to finalists stating that due to the “undesirability of cutting into the time for Finals revision and the submission of the History of the British Isles portfolio, the Faculty has decided not to extend the submission deadline”. The deadline for students to submit their thesis remains Friday of Week 8 Hilary Term.

 The advice given is that students “should now plan to write a thesis making use of material available online” as well as to “revisit the research you have already completed” and “consult with you thesis supervisor(s) for advice on how to adapt your thesis and alternative reading suggestions.”

There are reassurances throughout the email that “thesis examiners are fully aware, and will be instructed to take account, of the general conditions affecting your thesis work since Trinity Term last year: namely, a national lockdown and remote study away from the academic community since March 2020, then under constrained condition in Oxford for Michaelmas Term, and then from home again this term, and the impact of continuing. Uncertainties on your ability to plan and on mental health.”

One finalist told Cherwell: “the fact that the thesis has been left unchanged by the faculty creates serious issues for its integrity. Even with the mitigating circumstances processes put in place, which will surely be inconsistent at best, students will still be rewarded if their topic happens to be conducive to remote learning, rather than because they are better historians”.

The main provision the Faculty has made for the Special Subject extended essay is “an additional mechanism through which you can communicate the specific impact on your work of limited library access to the essay markers.”

In specific circumstances such as “poor internet connections, the lack of a quiet space to work, illness or the illness of a family member, acute anxiety, and mental health issues” students are also able to submit a Mitigating Circumstances form.

As for Finals exams, the Faculty has not clarified anything further in this latest email.

Image Credit: Maxime Gtn/CC BY-SA 4.0

Oxford University confirms no safety net

0

In an email to students on 12th January 2021, the University confirmed that there would be no safety net policy for examinations taken in Hilary and Trinity 2021: “we will not be introducing a blanket ‘safety net’ for all students… this is because teaching and assessment is being structured and delivered in a more established way this year and with more support available”. In Trinity 2020 examinations, this was put in place, aiming “to reduce the risk that students may be disadvantaged by the conditions in which they revise for and sit their exams in the exceptional circumstances of the CV-19 pandemic”. The Russell Group have previously written an open letter opposing the introduction of safety net policies, deeming them not “necessary or appropriate”.

However, they also announced that other “additional measures” may be put in place and that “a further announcement will be made by the middle of Hilary term”. These measures will be introduced “in consultation with Oxford SU representatives”.

Declared to Deserved Honours or ‘DDH’ Awards will also still be available. However, the University noted that “like last year, the declared outcome is intended only for those students who cannot complete their assessments and who are unable to suspend and return the following year”. The mitigating circumstances notices to examiners process will also remain in place.

For Hilary term, there will be no-in person examinations – except for one medical examination which is needed to meet professional body requirements. Students have been told to await specific instructions from their departments if they were due to take an in-person exam in Hilary. The Classics Faculty have already confirmed that Classics Moderations have been cancelled and replaced with a Prelims-style examination which can be conducted remotely. The email to students noted that “these decisions are final, and arrangements for Hilary term exams are not expected to change again”.

For Trinity examinations, “a number of examinations are planned to take place in-person, but contingency plans are in place should the pandemic restrictions prevent in-person exams taking place” while “all coursework will continue to be submitted online”. The University confirmed that examinations would not be cancelled: “We plan for a full suite of Trinity term exams to take place around their usual time”. They also described a new assessment platform for examinations conducted online. While the platform used was not confirmed, it was described as providing “the benefits of a modern service, but with ease of use, and a smooth transition for students as a priority”.

Martin Williams, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Education), concluded the email: “The pandemic continues to provide us with significant challenges, but please rest assured that supporting your academic success is a key priority for everyone at the University, and we are committed to keeping you updated with the latest information as soon as it becomes available. With your continued flexibility, I am confident that we can have another successful exam season regardless of the ongoing disruption we are all facing.”

Classics Moderations cancelled and replaced with Prelims

0

Following an open letter with 90 signatories calling on the Classics Faculty to cancel Mods, the Faculty has instead opted to replace the traditional exams with a new Classics Prelim.

In an email sent to the signatories of the open letter and others who are entered for Mods, the Faculty’s stance was made clear that the “well-argued letter about Mods’”was “taken into account by the board of examiners”. Ultimately it was argued that “the University thinks it will be to your benefit to have marks available from formal public examinations”.

The open letter cited five primary concerns surrounding these exams and why they believed they should be cancelled in their entirety: the considerable uncertainty of the current situation; disruption to teaching; approaches taken to other exams; problems with the online/’open book’ format; significant access and equality issues. 

An email from a tutor further outlined that all translation elements from the text-based papers will be removed, and there will be no Texts and Contexts papers.. The email from the Faculty similarly stated that “it was inappropriate to use translation from set texts (or indeed any unseens with translations available online)” without remote invigilation which “for so large a cohort would not be possible’. 

Yet the open letter pre-supposed issues surrounding this stating that “Mods is primarily, even  notoriously, about the texts and the language skills that mastering them requires” and by removing this element “render it a shadow of its intended form’ and ‘students whose particular talents lie in translations … lose out entirely on getting the acknowledgement and reward for their academic achievements in those respects.” 

The format of these exams will “be sat as open-book exams on-line (using the same procedures as for Finals last year, which worked well)”. The Faculty email said “We hope that the detailed guidance to follow on open-book examinations will relieve worries about excessive reliance on published commentaries.” Students will also be permitted the use of dictionaries for their language papers. 

Another difference from the previous format is that Prelims can be retaken – the told students that “unlike Mods, there is provision to resit Prelims (at the end of Trinity Term) in the very unlikely event that things go badly wrong”.

This update does not quell the fears of some students, with one telling Cherwell that “there are many more impactful things happening in the world right now” and while he is glad they have decided to half the number of exams  “it really is not an environment where they can ethically ask students to sit 10 papers of 3 hours”. 

The Faculty has not provided any information regarding how these new Prelims will be graded or how extenuating circumstances will be considered.

Image Credit: Lewis Clarke / Oxford : Ashmolean Museum / CC BY-SA 2.0.

Review: Mischief Movie Night

0

If you’re missing the theatre then livestreams of shows are an excellent way to keep enjoying it! Mischief Movie Night, an improv comedy show streamed by Mischief Theatre, is a great way to spend a night in lockdown.

The beauty of improv is that each performance will be different. In just three shows, I witnessed a horror set in a nursery, an angsty vampire teen story set in a French palace, and a spy thriller in the Amazon.

The show is cleverly set up with certain (higher paying) audience members streaming via zoom and contributing ideas for the improv, with the rest viewing via a link. The cast also take to twitter for ideas, leading to wild inclusions such as the spy turned love-interest koala bear, and the award for “most dramatic opening of an umbrella”. I never thought the opening of an umbrella could be dramatic. A full improvised musical number later, I was proved wrong.

The actors were sharp, witty and full of energy despite lacking an audience. Dave Hearn, Bryony Corrigan and Henry Lewis were all hilarious, but it was Harry Kershaw who truly stood out, switching characters effortlessly from a four poster bed (yes, really) to a spy, continuously forgetting his character’s name yet playing it for laughs, and bringing enormous energy to his performance in order to win the award for “loneliest conga line”.

Mischief Movie Night is a funny and engaging show that is sure to brighten up even the darkest lockdown night.

Image Credit: Gudmund Thai. Licence: CC BY 3.0.

Reinvention: rethinking gender and race on stage

It was late March 2019, and my friends and I had just managed to grab some last-minute tickets to see The Taming of the Shrew at the RSC. Even though I do not live not far from the RSC, until this point, I had never seen a Shakespeare play live. Keen to make up for lost time, I was excited as we piled into the cheap seats that our hastily-bought student tickets afforded us. Not even the obstruction of several pillars could dampen the sense of anticipation that lingered in the air.

I must also add the caveat that I hadn’t even read The Taming of the Shrew and only had the vaguest sense of the plot from my childhood obsession with 10 Things I Hate About You. So, apart from the notable absence of Heath Ledger and Julia Stiles, this production immediately stood out for its reversal of gender roles. For a play noted as a witty comedy of female submissiveness and relationship woes, there was a horrific poignancy in the subjugation and gaslighting of the male Kate within the context of the #MeToo movement. Though the reversal was largely played for comic effect, it felt jarring as the entire perspective of the play shifted. It felt daring and bold and thought-provoking — exactly how theatre should feel.

This production was clearly not the first to play with expectations of gender or race. From Patrick Stewart’s portrayal of Othello in a race-reversed cast to Tamsin Greig’s masterful evocation of Malvolia, the Shakespearian world offers realms of possibility for reinvention. The all-black theatre company Talawa produced its version of King Lear in 2016, providing a framework to explore the political tensions of the Windrush scandal and the Brexit referendum. This diversity of casting provides a diversity of experience on stage and often raises interesting tensions which breath fresh new life into the well-known works.

When whiteness is incidental to characterisation or the gender of a character is not explicitly stated, a meritocratic approach to casting should be applauded and championed. Critics of colour-blind casting often drone on that it threatens the verisimilitude of the performance and that seeing a black Eponine or an Asian Elphaba on stage detracts from their total immersion in the play. These people are willing to suspend their disbelief when they see a misunderstood witch bursting into a catchy ballad at the drop of a hat or French rebels putting aside their urgent political activism to rally together on the barricades for a belting encore in Act Two, but draw the line firmly on seeing racial diversity on stage. If this is the hill that they are willing to die on, their argument is at best tenuous and at worst dangerously misguided.

Diversity on stage should be the status-quo. If theatres are to be the bastion of daring and bold creativity that they should aspire to be, they should break down the traditional constraints on who does and should play roles on stage, like the musical Hamilton does by recounting America’s past through the diverse lens of the present. Those who argue that colour-blind casting always poses a threat to the integrity of plays and musicals should get their head out of the sand. If everyone always tried so ardently to preserve the ‘essence’ of theatre, whatever that may be, we would still be stuck with the outdated mentality of Shakespeare’s era that women should not be able to act on stage. Theatre should be synonymous with reinvention and change.

However, colour-blind casting is not without its problems. Arguing for ‘colour-blind’ casting can be a myopic way of tackling racial inequalities. It is the thespian equivalent of parroting “I don’t see race”. Race, and gender, are inextricable parts of many characters and to ignore the tensions that they can create within a play does a disservice to actors and cements inequalities. These factors should not be the only parts of a character that matter — we have moved beyond this reductive, archetypal approach to diversity — but casting directors need to be conscious of the choices that they make. If people of colour are inadvertently always cast in the role of the villain or the outsider, this can further entrench racial stereotypes. If stories with racial tensions at the core are not faithfully represented, it undercuts the very real and horrific abuses and violations of the rights of people of colour. If playwrights that identify as LGBTQ+ or as people of colour are not afforded the right to write their own stories, their voices become silenced. Marginalised actors should not just be shoehorned into pre-existing plays without any respect or provision for the stories they have to tell. To do so is to package diversity into commercially successful morsels that are digestible for largely white, middle-class audiences.

Theatre should be daring and bold and thought-provoking. My first experience of the RSC opened my eyes to that. Theatre has the duty to reflect diversity and prioritise an inclusive approach to casting. But this approach should not be blind; it is more glaringly obvious than ever that casting directors should approach their role with a critical eye, conscious of the possible ramifications of a thoughtless approach to diversity but always aware of the transformative benefits of a thoughtful one.

Image Credit: Ikin Yum / RSC.

New College’s exempt students asked to consider withdrawing their application to return

0

New College has asked students to consider withdrawing their application to return to the college during Hilary term after they received more applications than they could accommodate, according to an email seen by Cherwell.

Students were invited to apply to return to the college for Hilary Term if they lacked access to “appropriate study spaces” at home, required “additional support” including for mental health reasons, had been resident in the college over the Christmas vacation, or were an international student whose travel plans could not be changed. However, the college says they received “far too many” applications and would not be able to accommodate them all.

The email, sent on January 8th, asked students planning to return on the weekend before Noughth Week not to do so unless they have pre-booked travel arrangements or “no other choice”. The college’s returns criteria only allows students to return under “the most extremis of circumstances”.

The Home Bursar, Gez Wells, warned that the college would be reviewing the list of students who had applied to return and “reject a number of those who currently have approval”. “I am aware that some applications have been made for social reasons”, Mr Wells continued, “I need to emphasise that the early part of term in Oxford whilst we are under National Lockdown restrictions will not be social in any shape or form, you will remain under the same legal restrictions as you do in your own homes and the College will take a very hard line on rule breakers.” He also noted: “For every student that returns to College, I have to ask a member of staff to leave the safety of their own homes to return to College to support you.”

Students have been invited to withdraw their applications by emailing the Academic Registrar before noon on Monday January 11th. After that, the college will confirm the final list of students who will be allowed to return before First Week. The request has been made to ensure that the limited number of spaces available in college go to the students in greatest need.

Students who return will have their socialising restricted to within their COVID households. Sport will be banned, and alcohol will not be available to purchase through the bar or dining hall. College scouts will continue to clean communal areas, while students are responsible for their own rooms. Catering will be provided in Hall for students who do not have access to kitchens.

New College has been approached for comment.

Image: simononly/ CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Clubs in crisis: the UK’s declining night time industry

0

This New Year’s Eve, I changed my location to New Zealand on Google then searched up ‘NYE events’. Instead of spending my NYE nauseous off Jägerbombs I was turning green with jealousy, faced with images of packed live music events and sweaty clubs. New Zealand is COVID-free and therefore bars, pubs and clubs have reopened. 

As the NHS contends with a crisis, this prospect is correctly at the bottom of Britain’s priorities list. I’m not advocating for the Rita Ora-esque approach (throwing a 30-person party in lockdown). Nevertheless, if not for a healthy dose of nostalgia to remedy bitter envy, remembering the cultural importance of clubbing will ensure the scene doesn’t collapse entirely. 

In October, the government announced an aid package of £257 million for UK venues as part of the Arts Council England’s Culture Recovery Fund. Providing around £1 million to Motion in Bristol, £500,000 to the capital’s Corsica Studios and various other amounts to both big and small businesses, its arrival was welcomed. Further grants have also been awarded since, including to more venues outside of London, though still excluding many smaller clubs.

However, concerns have been raised about the adequacy of government measures. The CEO of the Night Time Industries Association, Michael Kill has noted their constant U-turns have left clubs crippled, and when applying for compensation or aid, “the level of ignorance from Government for the Night Time Economy & Hospitality Businesses, particularly Nightclubs, venues and freelancers has been shameful”. Revolution Bar Chief executive called the £1000 grants “derisory and insulting”. 

The Tory government does not have the best record for supporting the arts or night-time industry. Johnson’s 2019 announcement of the ‘largest cultural capital programme in the century’ was only a quarter of Labour’s commitment of £1bn billion and the support offered in October was hard fought, driven by popular support for the #LetUSDance petition that received over 145,000 signatures. Let’s also not forget the Sunak vs the Arts debacle in October. Though ultimately ITV News misquoted Sunak’s comments about musicians finding new jobs, and the Fatima Cyber First advert was misrepresented in memes, it instilled a sense of doom for the arts industry. 

With a fraught history between Tory MPs and clubbing, it’s understandable that the NTIA feel they’ll face the chopping block first. Former Foreign Office Minister Henry Bellingham once said, “Obviously the best club in London is the House of Commons.” Dominic Cummings was still the registered managing director of Klute in Durham when he went to test his eyesight back in the spring, voted the worst club in the whole of Europe. At Oxford, we know all too well Tory MP’s prefer different clubbing experiences to the average university student, frequenting a different Bullindgon Club to the one on Cowley Road.

Petty jibes aside, the Conservatives didn’t solely create the crisis facing clubs (though they haven’t really helped them). Neither did COVID-19: UK nightlife has been suffering from long-term malaise for many years now. London lost more than half of its nightclubs between 2007-2017 and some truly historic venues closed through the decade, often due to redevelopment programs, rising rents and unsympathetic councils. Cable, London closed in 2013 after Network Rail took possession of the site. The Arches, Glasgow shut in 2015 after a midnight curfew was introduced making business untenable. Café de Paris announced its closure this Christmas after 96 years, surviving even the Blitz in the 1940s.

Across both parties, rescue efforts have had limited success. London Mayor Sadiq Khan did set up the independent Night Time Commission to create a ’24-hour London’, with a ‘Night Tzar’ to introduce its ten recommendations. However, current Tzar Amy Lamé has faced intense criticism for her response to the pandemic, though it’s been questioned if this is fair, as she holds little influence in the licensing decisions that tend to crush venues and limited fiscal resources. Nevertheless, her response to criticism doesn’t feel me with unbridled hope and joy: “If you want a night tsar that will be out partying every night, you’ve got the wrong night tsar.” I imagined more of a hedonistic character like one of the Ibiza Four, perhaps naively. 

Some have subsequently seen clubbing’s decline as an inevitability caused by evolving consumer habits. In America and other parts of Europe nightclub and bar attendance has declined, letting recent governments and local councils somewhat off the hook. Still, I have always found these explanations slightly jarring. They tend to rely on caricatures of young people and exaggerate generational differences. For example, an Independent article in 2015 ran the headline: “Why Millennials are no longer going to nightclubs…. We no longer go down to the club to find new music, we just listen to curated playlists on Spotify.” Other quotes include, “These days, people want to take pictures and they need something to take pictures of [with the implication clubs don’t make the cut].”

 I have serious doubts. Park End isn’t beloved for playing new music, but for playing floor-filling ‘cheese’ hits: people go to get drunk with their friends and sing-along to songs their parents liked. From personal experience in lockdown 1, 2 and 3, listening to Spotify playlists doesn’t quite match the heady excitement lingering in my college bar on a Thursday night either. I concede, we might be a narcissistic, selfie-obsessed generation, but this isn’t incompatible with a good night out. Nightclubs still hold an important place in the British psyche. Manchester’s infamous Haçienda (closed in 1997, then demolished and replaced with flats in 2002) still generates documentaries and op-pieces. Look up Haçienda on Spotify, and you’ll find countless playlists inspired by Madchester, acid house, 24 Hour Party People and other facets of 80s/90s rave culture (with Gen Z followers!). 

Of course, as absence makes the heart grow fonder, one must be wary of sentimentality. For decades clubs have been plagued by drug use, and this article does not seek to minimize such issues. The Haçienda closed because gang violence was frequent and people were spending their money on anything other than drinks. More recently, Fabric closed in 2016 after the death of two young clubbers on narcotics, which caused Islington Council to revoke their license. However, it eventually reopened after much campaigning and public outcry. 

Still, I’d argue shutting nightclubs could cause more harm. Nightclubs are the modern repackaging of the universal phenomenon of measured hedonism; if lost, people will simply move the party elsewhere. Illegal raves have already exploded in 2020, and their proliferation post-pandemic would presumably increase the probability of drug-related deaths. Attendees may lack access to immediate medical care, can easily attend underage, and may be more reluctant to seek help or be less informed on how to minimize risk. A joint report by the All-Parliamentary Group for Drug Policy Reform, Durham University, the Loop and Volteface seeking to minimise drug-related harm stressed how clubs have the capacity to safely manage drug consumption. Alongside current measures advised in the 2002 Safer Clubbing Guide, the introduction of drug testing services similar to those implemented at festivals could further limit drug-related deaths, which are often caused by people unwittingly taking mixed substances or especially potent pills. These testing services have had great success so far, with a 95% decrease in drug-related hospital admissions from the 2016 Secret Garden Party Festival in Cambridgeshire after a testing pilot took place.

I think there’s something extra special about clubs that warrant their protection. They are liminal spaces: young people on the cusp of adulthood congregate in them, varying identities converge in the anonymity of a dark dancefloor and strangers can share fleeting moments of intimacy. Historic nightclubs are especially significant, as different generations, each producing their own subcultures, aesthetic trappings and musical genres can share a single space over many decades. 

I’ll admit, clubbing does mean a lot to me personally, as an interest in British dance/club music bridges the generational gap between my Dad and I. It’s hard for many people to imagine their parents when they were teenagers, but seeing New Order with mine on my eighteenth birthday reminded me there’s a lot we share with our elders, and that they might understand my teenage angst more than I believe. Returning to Fabric, it’s clear clubs generate strong emotions for many others. Flowers outside of Fabric in 2016 were labelled, “R.I.P Fabric, You’ve gone to join The End, Bogleys, SE1, Turnmills and The Fridge in the big club in the sky. Thank you for all the good times and for the amazing music. Greg x PS. Please Don’t become a Tesco Metro!”. Trainspotting author Irvine Welsh called the closure, “the beginning of the end of our cities as culture centres”.

Greg’s fears of a Fabric x Tesco collaboration never materialized, but many nightclubs have faced grimmer fates. Ed Gillett has explored the ongoing class issue in underground dance music and how gentrification threatens famous nightclub venues. Club 414 in Brixton is provided as a striking example, purchased in 2019 in an attempt to ‘save’ the venue. The original owners were quietly ousted soon after, and although the newly owned business is yet to unveil itself, its future is bleak. The current owners’ development company faced protests for installing segregated ‘poor doors’ in a new Aldgate property in 2014, separate entrances for affordable housing occupants in new developments. I wonder how they will decide to ‘preserve’ the historical and cultural value of Club 414.

Clubs are not apolitical spaces; their existence and ownership are important to marginalized identities, and the pandemic threatens many. Berlin’s queer scene is aided by its thriving gay nightclubs from Berghain to Betty F***. Stonewall Inn saw the 1969 Stonewall riots, and became the cradle of the modern LGBT rights movement. For young people, especially those who face discrimination, the nightclub – especially ones with links to local communities rather than corporations (sorry, this does not include Fever) – is a liberating playground for escapism and safer experimentation. In fact, most mainstream clubbing trends have their origins in queer culture. Disco music first began in New York gay bars popular with people of colour, before it began to cater for white, middle-class America.

Clubs have always been the vanguard of countercultural movements. The radical Italian post-war architects in ‘Gruppo 9999’ used clubs as playgrounds for their pioneering, opening Space Electronic in 1969. Converted from an engine repair shop, its movable furniture and quirky props (including a vegetable garden) turned the club space into a modern theatre. Since the swinging sixties, nightclubs have continued to display their propensity for regeneration. The Cause in Tottenham turned itself into a socially distanced street food chill-out this summer, a significant shift from its infamous ‘Adonis’ nights, frequented by big European DJs like Roi Perez and Tama Sumo. The legendary techno club Berghain, famed for its strict door policy and secrecy, reinvented itself as an art gallery this year, showcasing over 100 Berlin artists’ work. Other clubs haven’t been so lucky, but have still resorted to live-streamed DJ sets to try to generate some income and much-needed positivity. If these developments became permanent fixtures, certain clubs could develop their brands, reaching international audiences and customers less keen on big nights out. 

If one needs any more convincing, in purely financial terms, clubs are indispensable industries. The night-time economy employs over 1.3 million people, contributes £66 billion to the UK economy per annum, and the NTIA claims nearly 800,000 jobs are currently at risk. This collapse would create collateral damage across the hospitality industry, as taxi services, late-night fast food shops and beauty salons rely on nights out for customers. Morley’s, a fast food chicken chain in London, announced its sales around clubbing areas had dropped 25% over the summer.

In cultural terms, I don’t think their contribution can really be quantified. Yale professor Dr. Nicholas Christakis claims that in 2024 we will see the start of our own “roaring 20s” filled with post-pandemic parties, which investors will surely seek to capitalize on by investing again in nightlife. Yet, if we fail to support clubs financially, we run the risk of historic venues being closed and ownership being changed, devastating individuals whose lives are currently dependent on the industry and cutting club world from its rich roots. Similarly, with forced closures, now is the perfect time to reform the night time industry. If we want to the post-pandemic renaissance to have a stage to play out on in the future, further aid must be offered now.

If you are interested in supporting the UK’s night-time economy, an All-Party Parliamentary Group has been established and is seeking for employers and consumers to submit evidence: All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for the Night Time Economy. – Night Time Industries Association (ntia.co.uk)

Image credit: CCO via pixy.org.