Oxford's oldest student newspaper

Independent since 1920

Blog Page 4

Matchstick Cats

By
Matthew Unwin
-
Image Credits: "Dr Tugwell and Farmer" by Library of Congress/ dr-tugwell-and-farmer-of-dust-bowl-area-in-texas-panhandle-presidents-report.jpg/ CC BY SA 4.0

Mark and Trev were surrounded on the bed of the truck by old wooden beams and bits of furniture – debris of a life that wasn’t theirs – and had positioned themselves amongst this so that they were looking backwards, watching the road unfurl behind the vehicle. Trev always insisted on facing backwards rather than ahead: he spent most of his life looking backwards, now, spent most of his life reliving old memories, on some subconscious level aware that they were slipping away from him all the time.

Forty miles to California.

As they bounced along the road, whilst Mark stared out at the featureless mountains in the distance, Trev was reliving an event that occurred sixty-four years ago in a kitchen in Oklahoma. He had become again that six-year-old boy smelling freshly baked bread and watching his mum slice a piece off for him to taste. Memories like these would float up from the depths of his mind randomly. He couldn’t control when they came, and the rest of the time he couldn’t access them, like a dark veil had drifted over them, so when they did come, he clung to them and wrung them dry, sucked the marrow from them, took in every detail. With the passage of time, the details of these memories had become worn and faded like an old photo. He focused hard, trying to remember the smell of the bread, the items on the kitchen counter, what was playing on the radio, his mother’s face. He was trying desperately to will himself into the scene –

–and then the sound of the truck bounding over a pothole distracted him from the memory, and he forgot what he was thinking about. As quickly as it had surfaced, the moment was lost again.

He turned to Mark. ‘Where we going to?’

‘California.’

‘Why we going there?’

‘You said there was work there – remember?’

‘Oh, okay.’

‘I don’t know where we’re going after.’

‘What you mean “where after”? There is no “after”. If I said we’re going to California, then we’re going to California. I must have known where we was headed back then.’

‘You said the same thing about Elk City, and we kept going on after that.’ Mark paused. ‘Do you even know where we started from?’

‘Course I do,’ Trev said, ‘Tulsa.’

‘Nah, we didn’t start in Tulsa,’ Mark shook his head. ‘Your memory’s gettin’ worse.’ He looked back out at the hills.

When Mark looked back, he saw that Trev was already lost again in some distant memory. The old man’s clothes hung over him, caked in dust and dirt. 

Only thing he remembers clearly now is the road, Mark thought. An endless road. The place names blur together for him. He doesn’t remember the journey beginning. He probably can’t imagine it ending neither. His world’s a reel of road, endlessly unfurling in front of his eyes, never stopping.

I could ditch him at the next town, he thought. They’d been all over the country. Tulsa. St Louis. Atlantic city. Santa Fe. Pueblo. 

Can’t stay on the road much longer, he thought. No person can live like this, constantly shifting from one place to another, all in the hope that they’d find work. Even work picking cotton, that would have been enough. But they never did find anything. Yes, Mark thought, I could bow out at the next city, settle down, find something. Won’t be much, but there’ll be something. Trev’ll continue on, probably, and he’ll be fine.

But then when he looked back, he noticed Trev’s overcoat had come undone at the top and was beginning to slip down over his shoulders. Trev had fallen asleep, completely oblivious. 

Mark leant over and buttoned the coat back up. Only after it was done up did he return to staring out over the side of the truck at the unspooling road.

Biology department equality displays repeatedly defaced

By
Selina Chen
-
Image Credit: George Hodan via public domain

The Biology department’s EDI (Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion) noticeboard and flags have been repeatedly defaced, according to emails sent by the department heads. An incident in early March targeting the Progress and Pride flags in the Zoology Research and Administration Building was followed by further instances in mid-April.

The initial email stated that the department was trying to identify the perpetrators, to whom the department promised disciplinary action. The second email described this behaviour as “frustrating and upsetting” and outlines a two-pronged plan in response.

Firstly, the department said that it will offer those responsible a confidential meeting “to try and understand their motives and to offer support”. Since “it may be possible that those responsible do not realise how hurtful and harmful their behaviour is.”

However, if those responsible did not volunteer themselves for a confidential mediation, the department warned that an investigation to identify them would be underway.

Defacing the EDI noticeboards is unacceptable because it is a form of harassment, according to the email. It further stated: “The university has wide-ranging powers to act against those who are found guilty of it, and we will follow university policy and procedures. In extreme cases, the university can decide to discontinue students from their course of study or terminate the employment of staff, with lesser punishments including removing responsibilities and formal warnings.”


A University spokesperson told Cherwell: “The University is committed to freedom of speech and is clear that within the bounds set by law, all voices or views which any member of our community considers relevant should be given the chance of a hearing. As stated in our Equality Policy, we are also committed to a culture of inclusion in which all members are valued, listened to and empowered to participate fully in the life of the University.”

Oxford Union believes populism is a threat to democracy

By
Adam Saxon and Oliver Sandall
-

On Thursday night, the Oxford Union voted in favour of the motion “This House Believes that Populism is a Threat to Democracy.” The final count had 177 members voting for the motion and 68 members voting against. 

Speaking in favour of the motion were Nancy Pelosi, the first female Speaker of the House, and Oli Dugmore, editor of PoliticsJOE. Secretary Rachel Haddad of Balliol College also spoke in favour of the motion. 

British musician, podcaster and former lead guitarist of Mumford & Sons, Winston Marshall, as well as Union committee members Sultan Kokhar (Chair of Consultative Committee) and Oscar Whittle (Director of Research) spoke against the motion.

Rachel Haddad opened the debate for the proposition, explaining that populism is a force which slowly chips away at the foundations of democracy, naming Trump and Modi as key perpetrators. She continued by suggesting that populism also sows divisions in many areas of society, giving Trump’s ‘muslim ban’ as a key example. Her opening speech was also peppered with jovial remarks and digs at opposition speaker, Sultan Khokhar, commenting on his various attempts at assuming office in a number of different student societies – and even in his own JCR.

Responding to Haddad and speaking first for the opposition was Sultan Khokhar. He claimed that opposition to populism amounts to “slander and denigration” of the average man’s intelligence. 

After introducing the proposition speakers, Khokhar argued that populism only arises when ordinary citizens decide that enough is enough, and that the existing system has failed them. He conceded that it was understandable that many people have a disdain for populism; right-wing populists often promise the world before failing to deliver meaningful change. However, he went on to argue that populists are democratically elected, and that it is not the populists themselves that we should blame for developments like Roe v. Wade. He instead blamed the weak checks and balances present in many political systems for such losses of freedom. He finished his speech with the assertion that populism is the purest form of democracy and that we should reclaim it, not abandon it altogether. 

Oli Dugmore, head of news and politics at JOE Media, opened the proposition’s first rebuttal, reminding the audience not to fall for the ploy that populism is not as much a threat to democracy as other issues.

He continued by joking that he had only just spoken at the Cambridge Union in a debate entitled “This House Believes Modern Technology Will Destroy Liberal Democracy” this past Hilary Term. In a swift change of tone, Dugmore produced a .223 Remington bullet, drawing reference to the January 6th Capitol riots, stating: “[they] did the right thing for the wrong reasons.” He took the time to take a point of information from the audience, joke about his podcast on LBC with Pelosi, and even managed to exclaim “bless you” to someone as their sneeze interrupted the concluding moments of his time at the despatch box. Dugmore finished his speech by stating that populism is the greatest challenge of our times.

Speaking second for the opposition was Director of Research Oscar Whittle, a first year at St. John’s College. Whittle began his speech with the concession that, as a student of politics and a listener of The Rest is Politics, he had – before preparing for his speech – taken for granted that populism is an evil. 

However, he noted that what had made populism the subject of disdain was not the consequences of the ideology in itself, but the politicians who had used it as a manipulative strategy. Populists politicians on both sides of the spectrum make undeliverable and outlandish promises to the electorates which, once in office, they cannot deliver. His solution to this was similar to Khokar’s: we ought to reclaim populism, because ordinary people ought to be represented by their governments. He finished with the argument that democracy is sick, and that the only way to save it is to “make populism great again”.

Following Whittle’s speech, the debate was opened to the rest of the chamber. Of the evening’s two floor speakers, one was ex-President Charlie Mackintosh. He likened populist sentiments to Martin Luther’s condemnation of the Catholic church’s failure to keep up with the needs of his followers. He went on to quote Luther’s famous line “hier stehe ich” numerous times, including in his final remarks.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi was last to speak for the proposition and – following a long day of engagements – she began her speech by accusing modern populism of upholding “Ethno-nationalism”. She 

contrasted this with the populism of 200 years ago under Andrew Jackson, who is known as the founding father of populism. Her main case revolved around the fact that political arguments of 200 years ago shouldn’t necessarily be upheld as ones we use today. Eight points of information were raised during Pelosi’s speech – none of which were entertained by the ex-Speaker of the House. Her closing remarks took issue with one of the points repeatedly raised by the opposition: that a rejection of populism questions ordinary voters’ knowledge of their own interests. She argued that populism on the ground in its current form (emphasis added by Cherwell) is a threat to democracy. 

Winston Marshall spoke last and closed the debate for the opposition. He began his speech with the remark that when he was younger “the word ‘woman’ meant someone who doesn’t have a cock”. The most notable aspect of his speech was his back and forth with Pelosi, who took issue with his argument equating the January 6th Capitol riots with progressives’ 2020 attack on the federal courthouse in Oregon. Later in his speech he attacked Pelosi’s claim that the 2016 presidential election had been hijacked, to which she plainly responded: “it was”.

Throughout his speech, Marshall attacked a number of groups who he argued were in cahoots with political actors around the world. He accused Big Pharma, Big Tech, Davos, Brussels, and large corporations (among others) of undermining democratic processes. Finally, he closed the debate with a list of headlines by media outlets, many of which cited democracy or voters as being “the problem”. He used these as evidence that media elites, too, disdain the views of ordinary people. 

In the Members’ bar, President Louis Wilson announced that the Ayes had swept the debate 177–68 in favour of the motion.

Reading political autobiographies, so you don’t have to

By
Seán Timon
-
Image credits: U.K. Prime Minister / OGL 3 via Wikimedia Commons

Publishing a book has long been a trend for those leaving government in the UK. Memoirs and autobiographies are naturally intriguing, offering us the promise of a peek behind a curtain. We understand that our perception of characters and events is being managed or ‘spun’, yet we crave authenticity, because we know it’s in short supply. This gives politicians an opportunity to sell us their perspectives and narratives on their time in office. In my hastily scribbled notes the names Blair, Cameron, Hancock, Truss & Johnson leap out. When I consider the legacies of this collection, the emotional cocktail is complicated. The adjective “breathtaking” emerges, begging for unprintable collocations.

In the slow-motion car crash of British politics, how do we feel about politicians profiting from their efforts at self-justification? Tony Blair neatly sidestepped this criticism by donating the profits from A Journey to the armed services’ charity the Royal British Legion, who presumably appreciated the money all the more after Afghanistan and Iraq. It seems unlikely that Blair wrote the book for his critics, given the strength of feeling among them. I suspect it was written for his supporters, and himself. If any of you are wondering, it turns out that Blair thinks he did quite well in the circumstances, actually.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, so does Cameron. Dave would have us believe that the Brexit referendum was a political inevitability. What’s most interesting about his effort For the Record is that he is very aware of the impact of the errors of his leadership. Disappointingly, he has forgiven himself rather more quickly and easily than the country has. For the record, For the Record is an astonishingly naive title. Sorry Dave, your record definitely speaks for itself. Similarly, Matt Hancock’s Pandemic Diaries are not, in fact, diaries because diaries are written at the same time as the events they describe, and he is quite clear in his book that it wasn’t. With what he probably believes is bravery, Hancock is emphatic that he makes no apologies for his handling of the pandemic. This begs the question of whether anyone else thinks he ‘handled’ the pandemic.

Liz Truss’ tenure (“term” would be stretching things) has been mainly known for its brevity and severe damage to the economy. The title of her account Ten Years to Save the West completely turns these defining characteristics upside down. Are we to believe that if Liz were elected President of the Western World with ten years of grace it would somehow go well? Much has been made of her husband’s prediction that “it would all end in tears”, Liz mainly seems to attribute her troubles to saboteurs inside her party, the civil service, the Bank of England, and possibly even the nature of reality itself. There’s an old saying that Liz may need to hear, when you point a finger, you generally find three pointing back. In defiance of constitutional convention, she reveals details of the last confidential audience she had with Queen Elizabeth II shortly before the latter’s death (almost certainly completely unrelated). After hearing an outline of Truss’ economic ideas, the most experienced diplomat on planet Earth cautioned her PM to “pace yourself”, we are told. The vignette ends with: “Maybe I should have listened.” ‘Maybe?’ said everyone else under their breath.

This admittedly cherry-picked selection of the modern British political memoir strongly suggests a tendency to the self-serving. As an optimist, I feel sure that the efforts to ignore the critics and rewrite history are unsuccessful. I wonder how many of the people who would ‘rather go for a pint with Boris’ will not only buy the as-yet unpublished memoir but also go along with the picture it paints. I also wonder what a psychologist would make of this literary genre. I’m willing to go out on a limb and make some predictions. BJ’s book will probably justify his reportedly seven-figure advance payment, and will certainly attempt to justify the choices its author made in power. The title will be grandiose. The portrait will be of an embattled and misunderstood lone wolf, doing their best against impossible odds and going down fighting. It is always thus. There will be enough inflammatory and previously unseen detail to capture our interest briefly, but the book will misfire, and will not quite manage to achieve its true goal of shielding the ego and record of its author from the implacable weight of history.

These books are too often a magic mirror for their true audience, the author, reflecting a parallel reality that lets them off the hook. It used to be a cliché that all political careers end in failure, politicians were expected to accept their blunders and personal lapses. In contrast, many ex-PMs and ministers today display a kind of narcissistic defensiveness, focused on obscuring, excusing and positioning themselves. I prefer the millennial tendency towards emotional intelligence, the understanding that mistakes need to be owned and genuine apologies are not qualified in the same breath they are made. Ultimately, these autobiographies all reveal and confirm plenty about the people who write them, just not necessarily the things they would prefer us to know.

Night porters: Student safety jeopardised at University College

By
Zagham Farhan
-
Image credits: Txllxt TxllxT / CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Your college matters. It can define everything – from the state of your accommodation to the quality of your tutoring. At University College, it also determines how safe you are. We remain one of the only colleges not to have Porters in our Lodge at night. This presents a very real and present danger to the safety, security and welfare of our College community. 

Objections have been raised multiple times over. We’ve had a series of JCR motions, challenged College, and, as you may even remember, published a Cherwell article in October. Each of these attempts has clearly failed, but I am trying one last time to make it known to the student population just how indefensible this current situation is. 

I was inspired to write this article by a project I undertook over the Easter vacation. I got in contact with my fellow Welfare Reps at as many colleges as I could in order to find out how Night Porters have helped their students. The number of submissions was substantial, and I’m grateful to everyone who contributed. While each of the over 30 statements represented a ringing endorsement of the necessity of Night Porters, a few stood out in particular. One student stated how the porters were substantially helpful, even going so far as to find them a room for the night, after a friend made them feel extremely uncomfortable while staying overnight. Another student, having experienced a serious medical emergency, noted that they would have risked significantly more severe illness, or even death, had the Night Porters not assisted. Finally, one response recalled someone who was being chased down the street by an attacker and was only kept safe due to the Night Porters’ intervention. 

The message of this report, which I will also be delivering to College shortly, is clear and unequivocal. It is certain that incidents across Oxford have occurred,and will continue to occur, where Night Porters were essential to providing first aid, welfare support, and generally protecting the safety of students. If any one of these incidents had taken place at University College between the hours of 11pm and 7am, the outcome could have been significantly (or even fatally) worse. 

Most strikingly, the college defibrillator remains in the Lodge overnight, and is thus inaccessible at short notice. However, I should note that we’re hoping to make some progress on this in the coming weeks. 

My deep fear is that our college is simply hoping that nothing will happen. I’m confident that almost every student at University College would agree that the current system—simply phoning the Oxford University Security Services in case of emergency—is both inefficient and often unhelpful. Most importantly, it doesn’t come close to providing the service that Night Porters at other colleges consistently do. 

To me, this whole situation only suggests that University College are not giving sufficient consideration to student welfare. Unfortunately, my suspicion is that the failure to implement Night Porters is the result of their unwillingness to spend the necessary funds. I know that this saga has already begun to harm the College’s reputation, and to be honest, long may it continue. I hope, if anything, that through this article it becomes clear to the student population that ours is a College that doesn’t show appropriate care for the safety of its community. 

My message to College is simple – stop hoping something won’t happen, and take real action to ensure that it doesn’t.

When asked to comment, a spokesperson for University College told Cherwell: 

“University College has two resident caretakers and three resident Junior Deans at its main High Street site. It has one resident caretaker and two resident Junior Deans at its annexe. Caretakers and Junior Deans are on-call overnight.

“Overnight, the Lodge phones divert to OUSS, which manages all calls and contacts on-duty resident staff who respond as appropriate.

“OUSS will assist any student who has locked themselves out of their room overnight.

“Should a fire alarm activate, college caretakers and OUSS staff are alerted immediately. Between 2200 and 0800 the Fire and Rescue Service are also alerted automatically and will attend the College.

“First aid kits and the AED are accessible to on-duty resident caretakers 24 hours a day, who will support students appropriately. In the event of a medical or other emergency then, as under previous arrangements, students should call 999. Then, if asking emergency services to attend college premises, students may ring OUSS so that a resident caretaker or other member of college or university staff can provide any assistance that the emergency services may require.

“All students have been made aware of these arrangements, and the College has agreed with the JCR ad MCR that it will review them at the end of the academic year.

“Univ remains committed to the safety and wellbeing of its students and staff.”

‘Rally for Gaza’ protest at Oxford Union talk featuring Nancy Pelosi

By
Cherwell News
-
Image Credit: Adam Saxon

Over a hundred protestors gathered in front of the Oxford Union where Nancy Pelosi is speaking for a protest which a supporter told Cherwell was “organised by a group of different student societies.” A protest also broke out inside the Oxford Union Chamber.

Protesters condemned the Oxford Union and Oxford University who they described as “complicit” in the war on the Gaza strip and accused of “harassing their own students” for their protests. 

Two protesters entered the debate floor and held Palestinian flags in front of Pelosi. They had entered the chamber alongside the audience before walking up right in front of the podium. One of the protesters, with whom the security attempted to negotiate to no avail, wore a T-shirt of the group Youth Demand.

At the beginning of her lecture, Pelosi’s voice was entirely drowned out by sounds of the protestors outside, her words inaudible to the chamber.

“I see power brewing in this room right now,” Pelosi said, in the context of encouraging young people to participate in politics. Protesters outside the Oxford Union were handing out leaflets advertising a demonstration scheduled to take place on May Day.

Half an hour into the protest, Pelosi concluded her lecture, and five police officers entered the room to speak with the protesters. The protesters eventually left with the police, to which the chamber responded with applause.

Pelosi attracted criticism in January when she suggested that some pro-Palestinian protesters were “connected to Russia.” On Monday, Pelosi called for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to resign over his “terrible” actions in Gaza and said the number of people who have died in Gaza since Hamas’s October 7 attack was “too many”.

“We recognize Israel’s right to protect itself. We reject the policy and the practice of Netanyahu — terrible. What could be worse than what he has done in response?” 

A protester told Cherwell: “Pelosi can condemn Benjamin Netanyahu as much as she likes but the point is ending arming Israel.”

Just yesterday, the US signed into law a military aid package that includes approximately $26 billion for Israel and $1 billion for Palestinians in Gaza.

The Oxford Union also saw protests in October when hosting American Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro. At the event Shapiro called protestors’ chants “genocidal slogans” and Union members questioned him repeatedly on the war in the Gaza Strip. 

Union President Louis Wilson wrote in his presidential welcome: “As threats to free speech continue to become more commonplace, and society grapples with the challenges of polarisation, the role of the Oxford Union in upholding its founding values is even more crucial. These values, of promoting free debate amongst students, standing up for free speech, and promoting education, have defined our history and we have a responsibility to ensure they continue to guide our future. The opportunity to hear from people with whom you may passionately disagree is one that must not be taken for granted.”

Pelosi is delivering the annual Benazir Bhutto Memorial Lecture to a full chamber. Later tonight she will participate in a debate on motion ‘this house believes populism is a threat to democracy.’ Speaking on proposition are Pelosi and JOE Media head of News and Politics Oli Dugmore, while in opposition are co-founder of Momentum James Schneider, and The Spectator’s “Marshall Matters” podcast host Winston Marshall.

“They’re side notes in history”: In conversation with Bluestocking Oxford

By
Amelia Dovell
-

Perhaps you’ve heard the term ‘bluestocking’ before. Though it came to be used as a misogynistic pejorative, its origins lie in 18th-century Britain, when groups of women would attend literary societies, which provided a space for literary, artistic and intellectual discussion.

I spoke to Olivia Wrafter, Editor in Chief, and Olivia Hurton, Deputy Editor, who are reviving this historical tradition, through Bluestocking Oxford: an online journal that investigates the intellectual and artistic achievements of women throughout history. Founded in 2009, the journal was relaunched in Michaelmas of 2023.

Both the Olivias are students of English literature, whose research interests align with that of Bluestocking. “I look at the brilliant 18th-century female playwrights… I’m a playwright myself.” Hurton tells me. “I read this novel called The Excursion by Francis Brooke (1777). That captivated me – I found this whole community of brilliant female writers who were able to make quite a lot of money from that art. The things that they were writing about which were fiercely feminist, and the stage gave them a voice, because they were excluded from parliament and government.”

Wrafter’s research also centres around women, particularly in the context of the novel. “Like Olivia, I found this large group of women that were writing in South Africa in the English language. [They] massively contributed to the novel form and genre and how the novel changed during that period, but it’s never been studied before.”

Wrafter’s research will take a different angle on the traditional literary ‘canon’. “I think female novelists don’t get allowed to be credited with having a dialogue with canonical male authors.. at the time”, Wrafter adds. “They obviously were… there were a lot of great Victorian women writers who [had] success during their time.”

But even for those whose work entered the canon, their works and merit were judged differently from their male counterparts. “Image is so bound up with women’s intellectual achievements in a way it’s just not for men.” Hurton says, giving the example of George Eliot, the Victorian novelist. Wrafter describes the narratives about her looks, questioning its relevance to her work. “Obviously, for a male writer that would just never be commented on. And it’s the same today – that has not changed.”

It would be an opportunity wasted if I didn’t ask them each for a feminist literary recommendation. Wrafter’s pick was Olive Schreiner’s ‘The Story of an African Farm’, considered the first ‘New Woman’ novel. The protagonist struggles to enact her proto-feminist political views to her life. “I think that’s just something I find interesting–  if you do one thing that’s not in line with your feminist political views or whatever, does that undermine everything that you stand for? [The protagonist is] an amazing character, it’s an amazing story and an amazing piece of work.”

Hurton recommends Lady Caroline Lamb. “She is an amazing figure. She essentially wrote the really first famous ‘Kiss and Tell’. She had a three month whirlwind affair with Lord Byron… he went off with her cousin and she felt completely betrayed. But she didn’t keep her mouth shut: she wrote this gothic novel – Glenarvon. She was completely disgraced. But she made a lot of money, spoke her mind and didn’t let him get away with it.”

Taking inspiration from Caroline Lamb, Hurton summarises Bluestocking’s goal to empower women to “be heard”. In many ways Bluestocking challenges historical and contemporary narratives around women, and discussions of their achievements, by covering a wide range of voices. 

“The magazine is essentially a platform for women who we think need to be better known, and who we just find really interesting.” Hurton says. “We publish quite different views. One week, I wrote on Barbara Kruger, who’s very left wing, almost Orwellian in her perspective. And then we had Margaret Thatcher the next week. It’s kind of interesting to see that dialogue happening between the articles.” Aside from more well known profiles, Bluestocking also covers the lesser known. “Sometimes they’re completely random,” Wrafter adds. “They’re side notes in history. Recently someone pitched the first female pirate! It’s amazing to find these things out by running this journal.”

One example of such a profile, which both cited as a recent favourite, was a piece on Clarice Lispector by Lauren Davies. Aside from learning about the Brazilian novelist for the first time, both expressed admiration for the way in which the article was written – experimenting with form in a way that, as Wrafter says, “when writing academic articles… you lose.” In this sense, the journal also provides a creative outlet against the more rigid bounds of academic standards – think of the classic ‘Oxford essay’. “It’s been so liberating.” says Hurton. “I can research other things. There’s no constraints on what we really allow articles for.”

One thing that struck me in my conversation with the pair, was the recurring theme of community, particularly of a female network – reaching all the way back to the namesake of the journal. On one level, the magazine uncovers networks of women from the past. As Hurton says, from reading the articles, often unknown links between the seemingly isolated women are understood. On another level, the magazine itself fosters its own community, combining those interested in literature across the university.. “I didn’t meet many post grads when I was an undergrad,” Wrafter notes. “I think I would have appreciated [it]…  Even when I was an undergrad, the idea of doing a PhD was just so far and impossible. It wasn’t something I could do.”

“When women come together and actually, you know, have the community and sit – they talk and socialise, but also academically nurture each other. It’s so beneficial for everyone involved.”

Bluestocking’s focus is unique, not just within Oxford, but on a wider scale. “ I happily devour a Vogue on the occasion.” Hurton says. “But it’s quite patronising about what women actually want. Yes, sometimes it’s nice to look at a woman in a pretty dress, and hear about the latest Charlotte Tilbury makeup. But we also want something that’s going to satisfy our intellectual needs, too. I feel like Bluestocking is incredibly radical. And I wish there was a national magazine like that, because that’s what women actually do want to see and hear. It would inspire a lot of girls, especially younger girls, to think about themselves in a different way. [To see] the different sides of them, which are important, which are not just simply the aesthetic side.”

“[Bluestocking] has been a baton that people have passed on to each other.” She adds. “We both felt like there was so much potential for [the magazine]. I think it’s amazing that it’s been going on for so long, which just shows that there is a need for this… You know, even if we’ll leave, lots of our team will be leaving, but they still want to grow it while they’re a part of it, and ensure the legacy continues.”

Bluestocking currently operates online, with hopes to see a printed edition in the future. This term they will be hosting a literary salon with Feminist Society on the 23rd of May in Week 5,  and are open for submissions from Week 1 onwards. 

With thanks to Olivia Wrafter and Olivia Hurton for this interview. 

Food in Ramadan: Fast or feast?

By
Khadija Khalid
-
Image credit: U.S. Embassy New Zealand/CC0 1.0 via Rawpixel

Take a deep breath in, and hold. Hold it for as long as you are able to (without passing out), and then, once your lungs are pleading for air, only then, should you exhale. And that – that relief you feel once you are able to breathe again – that’s exactly how I feel once the month of Ramadan arrives.

Ramadan cannot be defined simply as a month of abstaining from food from sunrise until sunset – in fact, this is a major misconception. Yes, fasting is a key component of Ramadan, but it is the combination of fasting, prayer, remembrance of God, charity, and being mindful of one’s actions, that allow Muslims to purify their hearts and nourish their relationship with Islam.

During Ramadan, there’s something more in the air, something special, rather uplifting and promising. There is no time where the community comes together more than it does in Ramadan, and this is largely facilitated by the encouragement of generosity and kindness. I live in a very Muslim-populated community; every year, during Ramadan, if I step out onto my street, I can immediately tell that it is nearly time to open the fast – simply because of the smell of samosas frying or biryani cooking. Maintaining good relationships with your neighbours is encouraged in general in Islam, but Ramadan captures the essence of a sense of community, which is why it is especially common to share food with others during this month. My mum will send her favourite child (me) out to deliver foil-wrapped trays of food to the neighbours. There is absolutely nothing more terrifying than the thought of dropping a plate of rice on the pavement, and having to walk shamefully back home and see the look on her face as I admit the cost of my clumsiness.

Whether at home, a Masjid, or anywhere else one may be, it is from the sunnah (traditions and practices) of the Prophet Muhammad PBUH, to open one’s fast with dates and water; dates are one of the fruits (alongside grapes, olives, figs, pomegranates, and bananas) mentioned in the holy Qur’an. Muslims make du’a (a supplication), which serves as a reminder that Ramadan should not be a time for feasting and overeating, rather a time for contemplation and gratitude for the blessings we have in our lives – especially the smaller blessings that we often overlook, like access to clean water. 

The end of Ramadan is marked by Eid Ul Fitr – otherwise known as the Sweet Eid, or the festival of breaking the fast. A day of celebration and thankfulness, Eid is another favourite time of year for practically everyone celebrating. In my family, we head to the Eid prayer in the local park, and spend the rest of the day greeting family and friends, exchanging gifts and food. Each culture enjoys their own ‘traditional’ food on Eid, but it is generally common to eat something sweet. In my family, we have South Asian sweets (mithai), and my mum often makes seviyan (sweet and milky vermicelli). The Moroccan biscuits that my sister-in-law’s mother hand-makes and sends for us each Eid are a personal favourite.

Whilst food plays a major role in Ramadan and Eid, I think it is what accompanies the food that makes everything a little sweeter; from the recipes I’ve learnt from my mum whilst helping her prepare Iftaar, to how food brings the community together – creating new memories and sharing significant cultural food. But ultimately, it is vital to remember that to enjoy the food is a blessing in itself – Ramadan allows for a reflection of how food is something not to be taken for granted, and Eid allows us to celebrate and appreciate this blessing.

A day in the life of an Oxford influencer

By
Christina Kurian
-
Image credit: Daniel Stick

It’s 2 am. I rub my eyes and stare at the glowing screen of my laptop. Just one more video, the little voice in my brain pipes up. Just one can’t hurt. I pick up my phone and continue scrolling through Instagram, the movement of my fingers almost autonomous from my head and its incessant thoughts about the essay due tomorrow morning. Something catches my attention – the sights on this video seem familiar. Maybe I’ll watch it to the end. 

The familiar dome of the RadCam towers in the distance as words appear: ‘A day in the life of an Oxford student’. The next fifteen seconds are a whirlwind of aesthetically pleasing snapshots – studying in a beautiful library, indulging in a latte at Pret, dressing up for formal dinner. I sigh and return to my essay. 

As the name might suggest, we watch influencers to be ‘influenced’. We want to know about their lives, what products they’re using, any hacks they swear by – all in the hope that our lives might become as fascinating as theirs. Influencers are usually so far removed from my existence that I’m perfectly happy to think about them receiving hauls of luxury skincare I can’t afford, or making complicated salads that I’m not even going to attempt. What I hadn’t thought about was an influencer walking down Broad Street.
On the one hand, the close lived experience makes one feel seen. Suddenly the influencers aren’t so far away, and everything they have isn’t so unattainable. After all, they could be sitting five metres away from you in the Taylorian. Yet though they might be close physically, sometimes watching these videos makes me feel worlds away from the lives they live. 

In one sense, it’s almost sad. Often these videos present a rose-tinted, glitzed-up picture of Oxford that I believed in before I actually arrived here and was handed my first reading list. In some ways, it’s like a wake-up call: come on! You really do live in this city of stunning Gothic architecture, of dreaming spires. There are cafes to lounge in, cobblestone streets to be trod, formals to beg tickets for on Oxtickets, etc.

However, I can’t help but feel a profound sense of disconnect. The thought echoes through my head – but this isn’t my life. It isn’t real life. Where is the half-alive, half-dead reality I live, almost drowning in a reading list one week and then spending the next in a blur of Solomon’s and the college bar? Where are the videos of people crying in the library at two in the morning because they used the vac to doom-scroll and forgot all about collections? Or rants about the stress of having to shove everything into one vac storage shared across the whole floor, the cupboard stuffed so tight the door barely closes? Sometimes studying isn’t aesthetic the way that social media makes it out to be. Sometimes it’s gritty and draining, and you feel like reading one more article just isn’t physically possible. 

But the – for want of a better word – messiness of Oxford life isn’t really represented in these videos. 

Is it something about this university which inspires the need for perfection? It’s certainly a world-class institution, overflowing with intelligence and creativity of the highest level. So many inspiring people have studied here – from Malala to Hugh Grant – and we walk in their footsteps every day. Yet, for all of Oxford’s splendour and (dare I say, archaic) traditions, we can’t ignore the reality that it is home to normal students with normal student problems. And those problems are made all the worse by Oxford’s special features; its eight week terms, move-everything-out vac policy, and overall academic intensity are just some of the elements that make studying here both academically stimulating and challenging. 

We can all take different approaches to these influencer videos. We could seethe in jealousy whilst settling in for another long library session. We could feel warmly about being represented on social media. Personally, I think they’re inspiring – I want to have my life so put-together. I wish I had the pre-planning abilities and energy to stay so calm and composed throughout the term. But at the same time, I can’t help wishing for a few essay crisis videos. 

Amal and George Clooney speak at Oxford’s New Theatre

By
Jakub Trybull and Emily Henson
-
Image Credit: Jakub Trybull

Amal and George Clooney made an appearance at New Theatre in Oxford as part of the Skoll World Forum annual summit last Friday. The couple discussed their work at the Clooney Foundation for Justice, storytelling, and the consequences and importance of speaking out against dictators and oppressive regimes.

Amal Clooney, who is an alumna of St Hugh’s, is a barrister specialising in human rights cases. Her most notable clients include high-profile journalists such as Julian Assange, Maria Ressa, and Mohamed Fahmy, as well as former world leaders Yulia Tymoshenko and Mohamed Nasheed.

She spoke about supporting ISIS victims in German courts: “In every case, my clients have come and put themselves into witness protection programmes, some of them are illiterate. They take the stand, they’re speaking in a foreign language, and for days they’re staring down in court the person who can help them enslaved, who abused them, and they tell their story in a way that nobody else could.

“At the end of the trial is the time of the verdict. And the judge says, “You’re guilty of genocide’ in an international courtroom and sentenced him to life imprisonment. He then faints, and she sounds strong. It was just amazing.”

“My wife’s a badass”, George added, “the only person to put ISIS on trial, the only one.”

The 2024 Skoll World Forum is the 20th “annual gathering where the world’s most influential social entrepreneurs and thought leaders come together to exchange ideas for a better world.” The forum has previously hosted speakers such as Malala Yousafazi, Desmond Tutu and Jimmy Carter. The 2024 forum also hosted other notable speakers such as Dame Jacinda Ardern, former Prime Minister of New Zealand, and Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland.

The forum was set up by the Skoll Foundation which was founded by ex-eBay president Jeffrey Skoll. The foundation had an endowment of $1,127,000,000, as reported in 2018, which it uses to make grants and investments intended to reduce global poverty.

The Skoll Foundation told Cherwell: “Oxford’s Skoll Centre has always played an integral role in bringing people together to progress the agenda for global socio-economic innovation and is constantly striving to improve how we can impact positive change across the world.”

The Clooney Foundation for Justice focuses on achieving justice for victims of human rights abuses, especially those who had their rights violated during warfare. They centre their work on vulnerable communities: journalists, women and girls, democracy defenders, LGBTQ+ persons and minorities. In 2022, the Foundation launched the Waging Justice for Women initiative, advocating for reform of gender discriminatory laws and the ending of gender based violence. Amal Clooney discussed the tightening of abortion laws within the United States, such as the recent revival of a law from 1864 banning nearly all abortions in Arizona. 

In October, the Clooney Foundation for Justice filed a case in Germany requesting an investigation into the crimes committed in Ukraine, representing 16 survivors and victims’ relatives. Beyond this, they have previously defended protesters in Hong Kong, prosecuted a warlord in the Democratic Republic of Congo and represented journalists in Belarus. 

1...345...2,416Page 4 of 2,416

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, founded 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

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2024 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy