Thursday 7th August 2025
Blog Page 413

Oxford University’s ties to nuclear weapons industry revealed

0

Freedom of Information requests submitted by Cherwell have revealed that Oxford University accepted at least £726,706 from the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), the designer and producer of the UK’s nuclear warheads, during the years 2017-19 alone.

The majority of this money was awarded to the Oxford Centre for High Energy Density Science (OxCHEDS), which advertises AWE as one of its “national partners” on its website.

AWE’s funding is mostly used by OxCHEDS to fund individual research projects and studentships, with a substantial portion (£82,863 in 2019) funding the department’s William Penney Fellowship, named after the head of the British delegation for the Manhattan Project and ‘father of the British atomic bomb’. According to the AWE website, William Penney Fellows “act as ambassadors for AWE in the scientific and technical communities in which they operate”.

This fellowship is currently shared by two professors, Justin Wark and Peter Norreys, both of whom collaborate closely with US state laboratories that develop nuclear weapons, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

AWE donations have also funded projects at the University’s Departments of Chemistry, Engineering, and Physics, a number of which are directly linked to the design of nuclear weapons. One AWE-funded paper, published in 2019, investigated fusion yield production, a vital way of testing the destructive power of a warhead prior to manufacturing, whilst another project researched methods used by nuclear weapons designers for simulating the interior of a detonating warhead.

This research also has civilian applications, and does not in itself point towards the development of nuclear weapons. A spokesperson from Oxford University stated: “Oxford University research is academically driven, with the ultimate aim of enhancing openly available scholarship and knowledge. All research projects with defence sector funding advance general scientific understanding, with a wide range of subsequent civilian applications, as well as potential application by the sector.”

However, AWE is not a civilian organisation. As Andrew Smith of Campaign Against the Arms Trade told Cherwell, “the AWE exists to promote the deadliest weaponry possible. It is not funding these projects because it cares about education, but because it wants to benefit from the research and association that goes with it”. Mr. Smith concluded: “Oxford University should be leading by example, not providing research and cheap labour for the arms industry”.

Responding to Cherwell’s findings, Dr Stuart Parkinson, Director of Scientists for Global Responsibility, described Oxford University’s ties with AWE as “shocking” and called for the work to be “terminated immediately”. He said that the findings “point very clearly to Oxford University researchers being involved in the development of weapons of mass destruction”.

In the face of this criticism, the University spokesperson claimed: “All research funders must first pass ethical scrutiny and be approved by the University’s Committee to Review Donations and Research Funding. This is a robust, independent system, which takes legal, ethical and reputational issues into consideration.”

However, there are growing concerns over the ethics and efficacy of this process, which has seen controversial donations from the Sackler family, Wafic Saïd, and Stephen Schwarzman given the green light despite internal and public protests. The committee’s deliberations are frequently subject to Non-Disclosure Agreements, meaning that they are not accountable to members of the University and to the wider public. Moreover, Freedom of Information requests submitted earlier this year revealed that the committee accepts over 95% of the funding it considers, with congregation members describing the committee as a “smokescreen” and a “fig leaf”.

In recent years, the University has faced increased opposition from student groups such as the Oxford Climate Justice Campaign and Oxford Against Schwarzman over the companies Oxford chooses to affiliate itself with through investments and donations. From this term onwards, a newly formed student group, Disarm Oxford, will be campaigning against the University’s numerous ties with the arms industry. Oxford Amnesty International is working with Disarm Oxford on the global Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, and to strive for the disarmament of the University more broadly.

Dr Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury and Chair of the Trustees of the Council for the Defence of British Universities, told Cherwell: “The recent publicity around university divestment from fossil fuels has highlighted the need for university bodies to be transparent about the ethical standards they apply to their funding, and it is encouraging to see this crucial question being raised also in the context of armaments-related funds and research.”

The combination of Brexit and the coronavirus pandemic has created a particularly difficult time for university research finances. In a marketised higher education system, seeking and welcoming money from industry partnerships seems like an inevitability. However, while some industries rely on academic research to save lives, others are predicated on taking them. With the UK confirmed this year as the world’s second biggest exporter of arms, the University’s significant ties to the development of weaponry has an alarming global significance which is now beginning to be called into question.

Student Council votes to ban beef and lamb

0

A motion mandating the Oxford SU executives to lobby for banning beef and lamb from University-operated canteens and events has passed with a two-thirds majority in this week’s Student Council. The motion does not extend to college butteries which have their own menus and food policies.

The motion mandates the Oxford SU Vice President Charities and Communities to “request fortnightly meetings with the university authorities to advocate for the adoption of a university policy surrounding meat reduction and removal, especially in respect of beef and lamb [and to campaign for] the University to issue advice to faculties, departments, and colleges on how they may follow suit in removing beef and lamb”. In addition, the SU executive is mandated to inform staff and students within the University as to Oxford SU’s support for banning beef and lamb and raising awareness of the policy’s benefits

The motion, proposed and co-written by Vihan Jain (Worcester), Daniel Grimmer (Pembroke) and Agatha Edevane (Wycliffe Hall) refers to the EAT Lancet report for sustaining planetary health. The report argues that in the Global North, consumption of red meat should be severely limited and the intake of fruit, vegetables, nuts and legumes increased. 

The motion states: “As the UK’s premier university, the nation looks to Oxford for leadership, but Oxford has shown a lack of leadership in addressing climate change. The banning of beef and lamb at university-catered events and outlets is a feasible and effective strategy to help the university meet its revised 2030 goal. A change at the university level will open the gates for similar change at the college level.” 

Citing the University’s anti-racist efforts, the motion continues: “The university has a commitment to anti-racism, and this requires urgent action to minimise greenhouse emissions.” An item for discussion proposed by Jain to the Student Council’s 3rd Week meeting states: “The worst effects of human activity related climate change are felt by Black and Brown peoples in the Global South, with women and disabled peoples being disproportionately affected. The University has a duty to minimise its participation in human activity related climate change.” 

Some members of Student Council have voiced objections to the motion. As recorded in the Council’s minutes, one student argued that the motion would “either restrict what students are eating, or allow students to buy food elsewhere, which would decrease usage of University catering services be in the best interests of the University.” To this, the proposers of the motion responded that Cambridge actually saw an increase in sales after they stopped selling beef and lamb in canteens. 

The VP Women, Alex Foley, has spoken in support of the motion: “We should focus on the motion as it is and avoid slippery slope arguments. This is about changing people’s habits, not dictating what they can and can’t do.” Foley warned against “overestimating how hard-done-by people will feel if they’re not served beef at an event.”

Others believed the motion’s demand were too harsh. A student at St. Antony’s College suggested lobbying for a reduction, rather than a cessation in red meat sales.

The motion passed in its original wording, with 31 votes for, 9 against and 13 abstentions.

Ben Farmer, Oxford SU Vice President Charities and Communities, told Cherwell: “I welcome the mandate to engage the University on this important issue. However, it is important to recognise that food-based changes may not be possible for every student or staff member at the University. Further, food-based changes are just one part of changes we’d like to see the University make to tackle the Climate Crisis.

“We look forward to updating students at future Student Councils regarding the progress of this motion.”

In Hilary Term 2020, a motion to campaign for a ban of beef from college canteens was not passed after the Student Council meeting did not meet its required quorum. Although motions that fail a quorum are rolled over to the next meeting, the motion was subsequently referred to the Council’s Steering Committee after Student Council members voted to refer the motion to an all-student consultation. Some Student Council members raised concerns over the policy’s effect on students with eating disorders.

Earlier this year, the London School of Economics Students’ Union passed a similar motion to “ban beef” from campus. Last year, Cambridge and Goldsmiths University both removed beef from all university menus.

‘Because I’m His Daughter’: Fathers and Daughters in cinema

0

My stepdad is my best friend. He made me fall in love with reading when I was six. He home-schooled me when I was ten. He has been there for me as long as I can remember. We talk about everything from relationships to politics, from food to our place in the world. I can tell him anything, and he will always listen.

When I describe my equally loving relationship with my mother, I have many cinematic and television parallels, from Mrs March to Lorelai Gilmore. But I can never find a father-daughter relationship that explains how my stepdad and I are just as close.

Sofia Coppola is tackling this rarely-explored relationship in On the Rocks, in which Laura and her father Felix try to find out if Laura’s husband is having an affair. The pair struggle seeing eye to eye; Felix is an ageing womaniser, while Laura is a young writer and mother. Their relationship is one that feels familiar in film and in life; a father and daughter who don’t really understand each other. But they are on the same team. Maybe this says something about family, who we don’t choose, but who back us up all the same, even if we don’t always get along.

In Your Name, a body-swap romance about Japanese teenagers Mitsuha and Taki, the fraught relationship between Mitsuha and her father, Mayor Miyamizu, is understated, but integral. Near the beginning, we see Mitsuha’s best friends sitting on a bench by the roadside vending machine, looking up the mountain to her house. “She’s on centre stage”, they say, with her father running for re-election. Like Laura and Felix, they have different worldviews; Mitsuha belongs more to her grandmother’s traditional Japan, while her father is caught up in small-town politics. Miyamizu is an absent father, having left his children with their grandmother after his wife’s death. But it is only through their bond that their town, Itomori, can be saved. When Taki tries to convince him of the danger, he won’t listen. Taki wonders, “if it were Mitsuha, would she have been able to convince him?” The answer comes later in the film, where she walks into her father’s office, a determined look in her eyes. He has to listen to his daughter, and believe her, and it is only through this that the people of Itomori survive.

In teen classic Clueless, Cher and her father have a charming relationship. Their bickering is a fun game. He’s impressed with her when she argues her way from a C+ to an A, saying that he “couldn’t be happier than if they were based on real grades”. While he has raised her to be determined, driven, and independent, he has also raised her in a bubble of privilege which she does not begin to poke her head out of until nearly the end of the film. But, as in On the Rocks, it is still her father she turns to when it comes to matters of the heart. This feels closer to me and my stepdad; we argue a lot, but at the core of our relationship, is love.

Love is what Life Itself is all about. Dylan, orphaned as a baby, is raised by her grandfather, Irwin. While Irwin is an old man, and my stepdad is in his mid-thirties, it is still this relationship I feel comes closest to ours. Irwin is protective, and loving, and you feel it in every scene. He wants to make Dylan happy in spite of all the losses she suffers. That’s what parents are meant to do; protect you from the world, and prepare you for it. Maybe we see this in On the Rocks, too. When Felix tells Laura that it’s “nature” for men to have affairs, he is trying to explain the world to her. But Irwin is not preparing Dylan for the pain of cheating husbands, he’s trying to give her hope in spite of grief. The film explores the profundity of this unconventional father-daughter relationship, and shows us that the powerful love between parent and child is not reserved for the nuclear family, but is broader than that, and more beautiful because of it.

In each of these films, I can see an aspect of my relationship with my stepdad. In On the Rocks, I see his weirdness, and the way he has my back. In Clueless, I see our playful bickering. In Your Name, I see the way he trusts me. In Life Itself, I see his determination to protect me, and to love me. These films explore a relationship which is often confusing. The relationships are imperfect, but this is what makes them true to life; rather than an idealised, Hallmark-movie version of father-daughter bonds, these films show messy, but real love.

Image via Pixaby

COVID immunity wanes within months, Oxford study says

0

Researchers with Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust have found antibody responses to COVID-19 decrease by half in less than 90 days. The report published this month, ‘The duration, dynamics and determinants of SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses in individual healthcare workers,’ revealed that antibody levels peak lower and fall faster in younger adults.

Additionally, antibodies to the virus last longer in those who have experienced symptoms and lose their strength faster in those who are asymptomatic. The study found that “increasing age, Asian ethnicity, and prior self-reported systems were independently associated with higher maximum antibody levels”.

The ongoing study of antibody levels in staff members at Oxford University Hospitals NHS is a collaboration between Oxford University Hospitals and Oxford University, with support from the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. The report presents six months of data from a study of over 3,000 Oxford University Hospital workers who have been tested more than once for antibodies.

Those who tested positive were asked to take part in further research to understand their immunity to the virus. They were among the almost 10,000 staff who were tested for presence of COVID-19 and antibodies to the virus.

While there have been many reports on COVID-19 in healthcare workers, this ongoing study is the first to comprehensively investigate all staff groups across an institution and combine data from both symptomatic and asymptomatic staff testing programs. Researchers conclude that further research will be required to track the long-term duration of antibody levels and their association with COVID immunity.

The findings will likely influence the approach of governments and businesses to post-lockdown life in the period between the release and widespread distribution of a vaccine.

The data will also be used by Professor Sarah Walker at Oxford University who currently works with the Office for National Statistics on the COVID-19 Infection Survey to provide the United Kingdom with the most accurate incidence and prevalence data.

Professor David Stuart told Cherwell: “Our recent work is an important part of understanding how long antibodies last. However immunity to infection is multifactorial and so even if antibodies fall it is possible that immune memory and other cellular immunity may still provide some protection.

“This is something we will be able to study over the coming months. It will obviously be important too to understand how long protection following vaccination lasts, which may be different to responses to infection.”

The investigation showed antibodies faded faster in young adults and those who are asymptomatic, however, the reasons for this are not yet known.

Stuart added: “For asymptomatic individuals it is possible to hypothesise that as the original exposure was less significant the original responses may be weaker. It is interesting but not yet explained why levels fell faster in young adults.”

Image credit: Felipe Esquivel Reed, Wikimedia Commons

A message for non-Jews

0

TW: antisemitism

At the time of writing it’s past midnight and, instead of working on my Roman history essay and then winding down for bed as I had intended, I’ve spent my evening arguing with strangers on the internet. Before you jump to conclusions, I don’t make a habit of doing that. But in this particular instance, I couldn’t help myself.

My fifteen-year-old brother writes short articles for a student-run progressive online news platform (@intersect_news on Instagram). His writing is mature, thoughtful, well-researched, and at the same time uncompromisingly personal – in recent months, he has made it his business to write about modern-day antisemitism. In fact, his knowledge of Jewish history and culture and ability to articulately explain tropes and dogwhistles used in antisemitic discourse has often put me, his older sister, to shame.

We come from a Jewish family, and growing up I was proud of the legacy of my great-grandparents. For a school history project in Year 9, I wrote about how they escaped the Holocaust but, like almost all Jews, suffered from antisemitism nonetheless – I vividly remember my grandmother telling me how hurt her father was when the Nazi government portrayed Jewish WW1 soldiers as traitors to Germany, despite his and his family’s personal sacrifice to fight for their country during that war.

Nonetheless, I would always tell people that I wasn’t ‘really Jewish’ or a ‘proper Jew’, because I’m not religious. Thanks in part to my brother, and in part to my own self-education, I am now embarrassed at the sheer laissez-faire ignorance of such statements. Judaism is not just a religion, but an ethnicity and a culture, and one which forms an important part of my heritage. And sadly, whether I call myself a ‘real Jew’ or not, that won’t prevent my family and I from experiencing ‘casual’ antisemitism or microaggressions.

For years I brushed off comments implying that I was ‘pretending’ to be Jewish by wearing the star of David necklace that my grandmother had given me, or asking for my hot take on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict simply because I was the only Jewish person they knew, or telling me that Jews were fine, they just had a problem with the existence of Israel. Accordingly, when my grandmother told me that her father had insisted that if he and her mother fled Germany after Hitler’s ascension to power, it would be to Palestine, because he was a Zionist, I was surprised and a little embarrassed – I had come to believe that ‘Zionist’ was a dirty word.

It is only in recent months – again, thanks in large part to my brother – that I have started engaging with Jewish-created educational resources about the history and culture of our own people, and realised how wrong I was.

For a start, Zionism is the belief in the right of Jewish people to self-determination; a human right protected by the UN in international law. It is emphatically not the belief that Palestinians do not also have the same right; most Jews believe that the two groups have an equal right to self-determination, and support a peace process which would allow the two nations to co-exist. This should not be a zero-sum game; Zionism in its true form – as defined by the general consensus of the Jewish community – simply protects the human rights of Jews,  and does not seek to undermine the rights of Palestinians or other groups. Therefore, warping the definition of Zionism, as ‘Western’ media tends to do, to portray it as a movement which is inherently aggressive and even xenophobic, is simply wrong. Not only is it factually inaccurate, it is hugely harmful to Jews everywhere; it demonises a self-protective Jewish movement, and therefore the Jewish people, for no reason other than latent antisemitic biases. Therefore, saying that one is “anti-Zionist” is pretty clearly an antisemitic dogwhistle; it either condones and reinforces the twisting of the definition of Zionism to suit antisemitic agendas, or, if the true definition is intended, denies Jews the same human right granted to all other groups.

Secondly, Jews are ethnically and historically indigenous to the Levant, just as much as Palestinians are. It is a land for both of us. However critical you are of the actions of the Israeli government (and believe me, I’m highly critical), questioning the right of Israel to exist is a fundamentally antisemitic viewpoint. Israel’s right to exist and the actions of Israeli government are not remotely synonymous; and it is worth bearing in mind that double standards are at play here. For no other country do we equate critiquing their government’s policies with stating that that country should cease to exist, but once again Israel – the only Jewish country in the world – is singled out for delegitimisation. Questioning Israel’s right to exist denies Jews the right to self-determination, gaslights us about our own ethnic and cultural history, and delegitimises the existence of the only safe haven for Jews in the entire world, given that we’ve been ejected from or harassed within pretty much everywhere else we’ve existed. 

I have plenty more to say on the subject of modern-day antisemitism, but those are a couple of the major points that I think everybody ought to know – and yet a worrying number do not. This was illustrated to me all too painfully when my brother wrote a short article on the subject of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s antisemitism. I won’t go into the details of that topic here, because it is summarised well within the article. Similarly, you’ll be able to find plenty of information about the subject just by following Jewish content creators on social media, such as @rootsmetals, @evebarlow, @girl.with.a.hamsa.earring, and @progressivejews.

After a quick read of the article and a flush of pride for my brother for raising an awareness about such a difficult and personal topic, what first caught my attention was that there were already, only shortly after the first half of the article was posted on Instagram, 86 comments under it. I started reading through them and was instantly struck by the blatant antisemitism and wilful ignorance displayed – which, as I’m sure you’ll have guessed by now, is what prompted me to stay up too late arguing with people who don’t know me and, frankly, don’t care what I have to say.

There was constant gaslighting. Pro tip: a non-Jewish person doesn’t get to tell a Jewish person what is and what is not antisemitism, and whether our intergenerational trauma (in particular, the Holocaust) can be appropriated and tokenised to make a political point. There were also frequent dogwhistles of the usual “anti-Zionism is not antisemitism” type, which I debunked above. Even when my brother reiterated again and again in replies to these comments the actual definition of Zionism – which is after all a Jewish movement and so can only be defined by Jews – they persisted in their blinkered determination to insist that he was wrong.

However, what was most alarming to me was how so many people immediately jumped on a fifteen-year-old Jewish boy’s pointing out of antisemitic behaviour in a well-researched and fact-checked manner to attack him, and placed him under enormous burdens of proof – despite the long list of sources he listed in the comments – rather than just listening and considering modifying their opinions. Defending their own biases seemed to be more important than listening to what marginalised people have to say about their own marginalisation. Why is the default assumption that we are wrong about something which we alone experience?

Antisemitism is already so little talked about apart from when it’s time to bring out the kneejerk Holocaust or Nazi comparisons to score a political point; one problem is that it’s very little mentioned in our news or media (hence no doubt why so few non-Jewish people are even aware of AOC’s track record of antisemitism). Another issue is that of discussion and awareness on an interpersonal level; I don’t remember a non-Jewish person, even friends who know that I am Jewish, ever talking to me unprompted about antisemitism, or so much as sharing a post about it. Frankly, it feels like non-Jewish people just don’t care, and it hurts.

I’m sure there are a lot of reasons for this; one is no doubt the general lack of information or news about antisemitism from non-Jewish sources, which is why I encourage everyone to seek out some Jewish educational resources or content creators, such as those I mentioned above. Another is likely that non-Jews often see Jews as privileged rather than oppressed, due to – you guessed it – age-old antisemitic conspiracy theories, as well as the fact that many (but importantly, not all) Jews are white-passing.

However, that doesn’t stop us from being subject to hate crimes – in England and Wales, Jews made up 19% of the total victims of hate crimes in the year from March 2019 to March 2020, despite comprising under 0.44% of the UK’s population. It also doesn’t prevent more covert and insidious forms of antisemitism, exhibited through social exclusion or microaggressive behaviour. Antisemitism may be distinct in some ways from other forms of racism – for example, many (though importantly not all) Jews are white-passing and therefore benefit from white privilege at the same time as being discriminated against for their Jewishness. However, antisemitism is racism nonetheless, and the prevailing implicit attitude that it’s “not as big a deal” as other forms of oppression is hurtful and misguided.

Please, non-Jews who are reading this: step up and show you care, even a little. Educate yourselves, and do some of the work for us. It’s mentally and emotionally exhausting having to deal with this and then taking it upon ourselves to educate others. I don’t want to spend more evenings arguing with strangers on the internet, on my own.

A Vision of Autumn

0

It was uncommonly sultry and dark when I arrived at the Winchester water meadows. The scene was a
near stereotype, and it reminded me of those decrepit – far too embellished – landscapes you see in many
royal palaces. Dark canvases from wall to wall with a gaze rethought man by man to show a season
wrapped in a bouquet, flourish and polish, sultry pastoral happiness down to the darkness of the very
greens of the ancient cottage trees. You could imagine now where the grovelling artist would place those
midnight blue pillars, romanesque ruins to an otherwise normal landscape. It was in this state of mind in
which a variety of illusions came to me as I walked; down and down those far too trodden paths laden
with leaves. They formed small pools of water from the far too recent rain.


Light cast out through the trees refracting around the long shadows of the grass, knifelike beams of pure
light like dull office blinds. Bathed in light now the orange, yellow, red, fittered about in the air as it came
to account within the beams of the orange light, like a bonfire on a lonely heath surrounded by the
greenness of nature clinging onto remnants of summer. How they turn, and turn, and turn, softly as you
look out in the early morning past the thatch eve runs, into the silence of the lost songs of spring which
fill the air with the brisk sounds of leaves caught in amongst willowing wind. Every syllable speaks of
spring’s sadness demesne, as it turns and turns and turns. Now the noise emerges from the red shadows,
the red floor of the old forest comes alive as it forms: and turns, and moves, and forms, and sees, and shakes, and moves, and turns, and turns, and turns, sand dripping through the hourglass, the rotting fruit
of a Dutch still life, fortune and her wheel, orange-tinged and yellow air in the soft dying of the morning
mist which begins to lift. I continue to walk.


Finally the mist lifts and the blueness of the sky becomes visible. A moon on the horizon, water still,
mirrorlike, and clear. Above a noise descends, drooping and getting louder. Gathering swallows twist and
move, noise fills the air as they make their way through the trees, turning and forming as the light comes
together. But the shadow of melancholy still lurks in the depth of this garden. I wonder what John Keats
thought when he made this walk two hundred years ago. His season of mists and mellow fruitfulness.
Looking up I imagined how the scene would look from below, through the midnight blue tree trunks and
the floor littered with a rosy hue, and how it turns, and turns, and turns, and turns. Immortalising that
perfect decrepit landscape.

Illustration by Lizzie Daly.

Petrichor

0

in a quiet hollow on the far side of this field

rain patters through the leaves

like twinkling glass; white sky

snow globe dome. a thousand translucent

serpents of smoke, charmed by wind’s invisible hand,

curl upwards from the chimneys at the wood’s edge.

archaeologist – the mud of the path is wet,

the grey stones shards of bone:

fragments, cold and clear.

I crouch, a child by a rock pool,

to see branches reflected in a puddle.

spider-web, wind-whisper, opalescent:

tracing silver snail slithers with my finger

over white cathedrals; the fat bulbs

of mushroom caps, pale fossils

by my feet. I walk a hundred years forward

and another hundred years back.

Illustration by Charlotte Bunney.

PPE: Where are all the women?

0

Fewer women than men named Greg are speaking at Oxford PPE Society events this term.

Their termcard, released a couple of weeks ago, included thirteen men and only one woman. To add insult to injury, the single woman’s name was spelt wrong, as “Bonnie Honnig” rather than “Honig”.

Image via PPE Society Facebook

The lack of female representation seems less surprising when the composition of PPE Soc’s committee is considered. Its committee page reveals that all executive office-holders were male in Trinity 2020: the president, president-elect, secretary, treasurer, head of events, head of sponsorship, and head of marketing. Its description page mentions the notable speakers it has previously invited: all four are male, however it is true that in Trinity 11 of 25 speakers were women.

The PPE Society is not alone. All nine speakers invited by Oxford Economics Society this term were male. It had another all-male term-card in Hilary Term last year, with eight men and no women. While the society has a female president, all other members of its executive committee are male. Oxford’s Philosophy Society is only slightly better. It invited a single woman this term (alongside five men).

***

PPE has a problem when it comes to gender: speaker lists like this both exemplify the problem and go some way to further it.

Only 37.3% of UK students admitted to the degree between 2017 and 2019 were female, according to Oxford admissions statistics. Once in, women are less likely to get firsts in finals.

Tutors and reading lists are overwhelmingly male, too. Last year, People for Womxn in Philosophy (PWIP) highlighted the fact that only 2 of 42 first-year General Philosophy readings were by women, and released an alternative reading list. An optional feminist philosophy course was only introduced in 2018. In Finals core lectures this term (Michaelmas 2020), 15 men are giving philosophy lectures, compared to only two women (one of whom is teaching the feminist philosophy course).

This was one reason Musiab Bhat, President of the Oxford PPE Society, offered for the lack of women on term-cards: “Many of the academics we invite,” he wrote in an email to Cherwell, “are from our reading lists, which tend to be weighted towards men.”

“I’ve only been taught by one woman throughout my whole degree,” Nino Tsouloukidse, a third-year PPE-ist, told Cherwell. “And the reason I was taught by a woman was because I do the feminism and philosophy special subject; I’m pretty sure some of us won’t have been taught by any women at all.”

There is a dearth of female mentors in the field: Millie Prince-Hodges, another PPE-ist, said: “Until I had a female tutor, academia seemed like it could never be for me. I’d never been able to picture myself as an academic, because there are so few role models presented to us.”

And female tutors can be more than role models – they can make other aspects of the course more inclusive. “I had one female tutor,” said Asisa Singh, a PPE-ist at Queen’s, “and you could really see the difference in the reading lists. We read lots of women, feminist critiques, non-white thinkers. I loved her classes.” Especially given the subjects within PPE, she said, women writers were important: “When you’re talking about justice, how can you ignore the most marginalised figures?”

Smaranda Moroșanu, at Oriel, had had one female tutor, who “fostered a very different environment in her tutorials. The usual tendency is for male students to be more verbose, which isn’t usually correlated to the quality of their arguments. The only tutor who flagged that was my female one.”

***

The absence of women – as speakers, tutors, and classmates – contributes to a male-dominated atmosphere. “I felt my self-esteem drop when I came here,” Prince-Hodges said.

Image by Beatrice Boileau

“In this environment – where you have no female role models, no female classmates, you don’t see women in the readings – your confidence in the work you produce is undermined.”

“Often I’ve said things and my [male] tutorial partners rephrased them, more loudly, and been praised,” she told Cherwell. All of the PPE-ists I talked to could recall specific tutorials where male tutorial partners had monopolised the tutorial without their (usually male) tutor intervening.

Tsouloukidse described a first-year politics tutorial, where she was criticised for not being assertive enough, and told that this was because she was a woman. “I know it was well-intended,” she said, but being told to write more like a man “just reinforced the idea that to do well in a male-dominated world you have to act like one.”

“In my opinion the degree does foster an environment where typically male characteristics are encouraged, like being assertive, loud, having political discussions for the sake of it rather than about content,” Tsouloukidse said.  

***

Some colleges are trying to improve matters. Balliol’s intake of PPE-ists in 2019 had more women than men, and the college has begun hosting women-only days for prospective state-school applicants. Christ Church, too, holds ‘women in PPE’ events each year to encourage female applicants. Somerville’s third-year cohort has equal numbers of men and women, and the college has female tutors in politics and philosophy.

And some women are taking matters into their own hands: Moroșanu told me about a group of female PPE-ists at Oriel, the ‘PPEttes’. “I’d recommend that all women in PPE do something similar,” she said, describing how helpful she’d found it to share experiences and strategies.

“We recognise that there is a broad problem of female representation in Economics,” said the Economics Society when approached for comment; the PPE Society said similar, acknowledging that there was “still much work to be done.” Both societies stated that they had tried to invite more female speakers; the PPE Society pointed out that, although in Trinity they had had no women in their executive committee, they had “a number of women” (two) this term. 

 ***

Despite these attempts, the societies’ termcards and committees remained immensely male-dominated. It’s particularly worrying that Oxford student societies are furthering the underrepresentation of women. As Singh tells me, “We put on events and societies because we don’t think we’re getting these things from our degree.”. But if there are so few women tutors, lecturers, authors, classmates, “where are people supposed to get [a woman’s perspective] from?”

Both the Economics and PPE Societies told Cherwell that it had been difficult to get female speakers; the PPE Society had “invited over 50 women,” while Economics Society had “invite[d] a number of female speakers but were unable to confirm any due to busy speaker schedules.” And both pointed out the lack of female representation within politics, philosophy, and economics, as a factor complicating the invitation of women. 

But many PPE-ists I spoke to were sceptical of this excuse. “It’s not the case that you just can’t get women,” Singh said. “I’ve managed events, and that just doesn’t hold up. It’s not true that there are no women politicians or economists. Occasionally it might be harder, but the fact that [it isn’t a primary concern] says so much about the priorities of people running these societies.”

Moroșanu agreed: “It’s these societies’ responsibility to make more of an effort,” she said: “I was part of the Oxford Women in Business society for two years. We had no problems finding very qualified women in these areas to speak. If you’re committed, it can easily be done.”

Seeing successful female academics is good in terms of encouraging female students, as Prince-Hodges pointed out: including woman speakers also just adds interest. As Singh said, “it would make their termcard better. It’s about having different perspectives.”

“It matters – of course it matters,” said Prince-Hodges about the lack of women on termcards: “Gender does affect how you view the world.”

The PPE Society – aiming to ‘host the world’s leading figures’ – is symptomatic of a broader issue with the degree. When only men are deemed ‘leading figures’, invited to talk at prestigious societies, included on the core PPE readings, and teaching undergraduates, is it surprising that women are less likely to apply, to be accepted, and to excel?

Abortion in Poland: a symptom of a decaying democracy

0

TW: abortion, mention of rape

On the 22nd of October, the Polish Constitutional Tribunal ruled that existing legislation allowing abortions due to foetal abnormalities was unconstitutional, leading to some of the most draconian restrictions across Europe. The only remaining legal grounds for abortion would be rape, incest, and medical risk to a mother’s life, making up some 2% of abortions in Poland. It was pushed by the ruling right-wing party, PiS (Law and Order), without public discussion.

The ruling was condemned by international human rights organizations, the Council of Europe commissioner for human rights, and by opposition MPs, who staged a protest wielding “This is war” placards in parliament.

Almost immediately, demonstrations began in more than 400 cities and towns, known collectively as the ‘women’s strike’, characterized by a red lightning bolt. Not just young liberally-minded women joined; many football fans, bus drivers, and citizens of PiS constituencies also participated in the demonstrations. A notable protest interrupted a church service with women dressed as Margaret Atwood’s dystopian surrogate handmaids. Warsaw independent media, Gazeta Wyborcza, found that 59% of their polled citizens disagree with the changes – on the 30th of October, Warsaw became the site of the largest protest since PiS came to power in 2015, and since the end of the socialist regime in 1989, attracting an estimated 100 000 people.

In a statement, Jarosław Kaczyński, Poland’s de-facto leader and head of PiS, claimed protesters were on a mission to “destroy” the country and called for the protection of the Catholic Church, conveniently disregarding the fact that demonstrations were also concentrated in front of PiS MP offices and his own home. The party failed to condemn counter-protests joined by far-right allies who violently clashed with peaceful demonstrators over the week; some even believed Kaczyński’s statement motivated them further.

The last time PiS proposed plans to restrict abortion in 2016, public outcry managed to table the discussion. Before the historic protest, President Andrzej Duda proposed for abortion to be allowed in the case of terminal foetal defects, but in other cases, like Down’s syndrome, to be outlawed. This is a shift from the ruling, but it satisfies neither women’s rights groups nor radical right-wing government officials. On Tuesday, the government indefinitely delayed the publishing of the court ruling and therefore transfer into legislation, in response to the protests, which gave hope to many. Yet the delay itself was deemed unconstitutional by legal experts; it is being held in limbo, easily reversible at any moment by a government with a questionable relationship to the constitution.

Four years and countless manipulations of state institutions later, do protesters stand a real chance of winning this round?

The ruling is part of the polarization of the nation by PiS, whose agenda centres around the Catholic Church and the protection of “Polish values”, pushing a populist cocktail of anti-EU, anti-immigration, anti-LGBTQ+, and anti-abortion rhetoric. Marta Kotswas, a scholar of Polish populism at UCL noted “an alignment between the political authorities, the church and militant right-wing groups”. The suggested near-total ban on abortion cast women as what Kotswas calls “bargaining chip[s]”, in an authoritarian move unfit for a nation calling itself a European democracy.

PiS has been undermining the values and authority of the EU ever since the marginal and shocking victory of President Duda in 2015. Since then, the party has faced criticism for packing the Constitutional Tribunal with partisans and most notably directly appointing its president, Julia Przyłębska, star of the recent ruling, while side-stepping the constitutionally outlined election process. The Supreme Court has also suffered a loss of independence over Duda’s last term. After overtaking the judiciary, PiS repressed independent media by fining outlets covering anti-government protests, planning to tighten restrictions and push out foreign-owned media, and by hijacking the national news outlet as a propaganda mouthpiece. These processes have not gone unnoticed – in the notorious press freedom index created by Reporters without Borders (RSF), Poland ranks 62nd in the world in 2020, down from 18th in 2015 when PiS first came to power.

This summer, Poland held presidential elections where the liberal, pro-Europe, centre-right mayor of Warsaw, Rafał Trzaskowski, narrowly missed a victory. Incumbent president Duda was re-elected with a hair-splitting 51% majority – one that top political scientists and commentators were unable to predict. Polarization is mounting in Poland and the governing party appears to be doing everything in their power to exacerbate it. The ruling on abortion is only the tip of the iceberg for a party whose elected representative claimed LGBT “ideology” was worse than communism and who failed to denounce a far-right white supremacist march in 2017 – the interior minister called the manifestation of this phenomenon “a beautiful sight”.

Having severed a separation of powers, and on the path to further restriction of independent media, Poland is at odds with the EU which hailed those two pillars as key conditions for membership. This also signals a final departure from the image of a promising, young, post-Soviet liberal democracy.

In October, Kaczyński announced that Poland would veto the EU’s coronavirus recovery package if Brussels made it conditional upon improvements over the rule of law, showing no sign of backing down on radical reforms. He compared the actions of the EU to those of the Soviet Union – an ironic comparison coming from a government whose agenda has recently jeopardized inalienable personal rights and especially considering that Poland is famed for being the first to peacefully remove authoritarian Soviet socialism. 

The Eurobarometer found that of those surveyed in Poland in 2019, 54% tended to trust the EU as an institution, while only 35% tended to trust the Polish parliament and government. But the EU’s hands are tied. Any attempt to strip Poland’s vote or invoke sanctions will not pass without unanimity, which is guaranteed to be blocked by Hungary, led by authoritarian PiS ally, Viktor Orban. The EU’s authority is undercut by populist governments pushing radical agendas and for the time being, its strongest (if only?) weapon is condemnation. But for politicians whose campaigns fuel off hate speech and the smearing of opposition, this appears to be no issue.

The declining rule of law, crippling judiciary independence, and the gradual erosion of independent media freedom are indicative of a wider problem undermining democracy in Poland and in turn, the EU. 2020 is pivotal for the next five years and maybe for the upcoming decades if PiS continues its power-grab with the same unimpeded velocity. Popular protests may have scared the ruling party, but is that all they are able to do?

BREAKING: University reports 146 cases this week, while positivity rate increases

The University’s testing service has confirmed 146 cases of COVID-19 among students and staff for the week 31st October – 6th November, with a positivity rate of 34%. This marks a significant drop in the number of new cases, though the number of total tests conducted has fallen significantly this week.

There were more than 200 new cases across Oxfordshire this weekend, as reported by Public Health England. Oxfordshire County Council note that this is “under-reporting” because cases tested through the University of Oxford’s testing service are not “attributed to a specific geography on the national surveillance system”. The website says: “Public Health England and the University identified this issue and are working to ensure university data is provided in a way that can automatically be included in the national surveillance system.”

Following a three-week period in which case numbers increased almost linearly (with about 200 new cases among students and staff per week), this week marks the first drop in the number of new cases reported. However, the number of tests conducted per week has fallen by about 50% since the week starting on October 17th. The positivity rate of tests was at an all-time high this week, with 34% of cases returning a positive result.

Current University guidance is that students and staff should not get tested unless they have been asked to or they display symptoms of COVID-19. The University’s whitepaper states that “one of the challenges the University faces is staff and students with no COVID-19 symptoms asking for tests unnecessarily”. The University of Cambridge, whose collegiate system mirrors that of Oxford, have set up a testing pod in the city for symptomatic cases, but have recently announced they will test all asymptomatic students in colleges.

The University’s Status and Response website also states that the figures released do not include positive test results received outside of the University testing service. It notes further that “due to the time interval between a test being done and the result becoming available, it is expected that there will be a mismatch between actual results and those confirmed to us on any given day”.

Following the government announcement on Saturday night, the University updated its guidelines: “New National Restrictions will be introduced from this Thursday (5 November). The University is now considering the impact of these measures, and further information will be made available on these pages as soon as possible. You should also refer to the UK Government website for the latest advice.”

According to Public Health England, there have been 206 cases of COVID-19 in Oxford this week. Across Oxfordshire, there have been 814 cases this week. This is similar to 813 new cases in the previous week, raising the 7-day average to an all-time high of over 120 cases per day.

The University has implemented a four-stage emergency response, depending on how wide the spread of Covid-19 is. The current status is Stage 2, which allows the University to operate “in line with social distancing restrictions with as full a student cohort as possible on site”, with teaching and assessment taking place “with the optimum combination of in-person teaching and online learning”. A Stage 3 response would imply “no public access to the University or College buildings” and “gatherings for staff and students only permitted where essential for teaching and assessment to take place”.