Tuesday, April 29, 2025
Blog Page 430

The Right to Breathe & The Suffocation of Black Lives

Rhea Chopra
-
0
The Right to Breathe & The Suffocation of Black Lives

“I can’t breathe.”

These were the chilling final words of George Floyd, spoken with Derek Chauvin’s knee pressed to his neck. Despite George Floyd becoming quickly unresponsive, Chauvin’s knee remained there for 8 minutes and 49 seconds. According to an independent autopsy, George Floyd’s death was a homicide, caused by  “asphyxiation from sustained pressure.” 

Image Credit: Ariel Sinha (2020)

Chauvin is no stranger to gross misconduct. He has reportedly been involved in three instances of police brutality during his tenure, and was placed on leave in relation to one of these instances in 2011. He has even had 17 complaints filed against him. Yet, he was allowed to continue wearing an officer’s uniform. Tou Thao, one of 3 other police officers who watched Chauvin kill George, was sued in 2017 for use of excessive force and has 7 complaints against him.  Yet, he too was allowed to continue ‘protecting’ the community. It is ironic that the people meant to protect were the ones who killed George Floyd. 

“I can’t breathe,” were the same words that Eric Garner uttered in his final moments in July 2014. Floyd and Garner’s words are not the only similarities in their cases. The police officer who killed Eric, Daniel Pantaleo, was also involved in lawsuits related to racially-charged misconduct dating back to 2013. It’s also important to note that the case against Pantaleo was dropped in 2019 on Attorney-General William Barr’s orders, allowing him to walk free. These tragedies prove what many of us have known for a long time: the criminal justice system in America is broken. 

This isn’t just an ‘America-only problem’. There is a reason that the saying is ACAB (all cops are bastards), not ‘some-cops-in-some-countries-AB.’ In Australia, David Dungay’s cries of “I can’t breathe,” in his prison cell in 2015 echoed the cries of Eric Garner. This parallel is even more striking in that the officers involved were cleared of wrongdoing by a coroner last year. In 2018, Black Indigenous Australians made up 2% of the population, but were overrepresented within the inaceration system, making up 27% of the prison population.

Image Credit: Sarah Jeacocke 2014

Though it may surprise you, the UK is far from innocent here. Olaseni Lewis, in 2010, could not breathe. Neither could Sean Rigg in 2008, nor Christopher Alder in 1998, nor Shiji Lapite in 1994. According to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), there were 276 deaths during or following police contact in the 2018-2019 financial year. Just last week, the IOPC launched an investigation into the use of excessive force by police officers in the West Midlands. All this really makes you wonder whether we need our very own ‘Mapping Police Violence’ website.  

Chauvin may have been charged with second-degree murder, but the underlying issue behind all of this will not disappear with him behind bars. Distressingly, the consequences Chavin faces are the exception. 99% of killings by police officers committed between 2013-2019 have not resulted in any criminal charges.  Similarly in the UK, a report from the Runnymeade Trust shows that no police officer has been convicted in relation to a death since 1971.  

Racism in the UK is not restricted to the police force though. It reared its ugly head when a man claiming to have coronavirus felt it was okay to spit and cough at Belly Mujinga, who later died due to coronavirus. Mujinga had disclosed her underlying health condition to her employers and was afraid to go to work. Despite this, she was not excused, or even given PPE to protect herself from the virus. This is a fear many of her colleagues have echoed, with Govia Thameslink Railway only providing employees with masks seven weeks after the spitting attack. 

I don’t have to prove that we see racism right here in Oxford too. No one has forgotten that we live in a city where the ‘Colonial Comeback’ cocktail was once thought to be a good idea. People still remember the way Ebenezer Azamati was treated, and that POC members of the standing committee elected soon after said they felt like tokens. Even in the wider Oxford community, we saw a racism-related attack during Eid in 2017. While these examples may seem few in number, they are symptoms of the wider problem that many of us have the privilege of closing our eyes to. 

Following George Floyd’s death, social media was flooded with the stories of Black people who live in fear of being the next hashtag. American Activist Tarana Burke shared the story of the time her partner (in her words, “a 6’3 Black man”) was interrogated rather than assisted by the police when his own car was vandalised. In another incident, her partner refused to carry a bright pink and red shopping bag for fear of being profiled as a theft suspect. As a non-black person, I have never had to stop and think about things like this. But such considerations are the invisible equivalents of Chavin’s knee, pressing on the necks of members of the black community worldwide.

The effect of racism can also be seen in the response to the protests in the US. We have all seen people condemning the riots, but we have to be more informed before forming judgements. According to Professor Stott, an expert in crowd behaviour and public order, whether protests turn into riots is “largely to do with the nature of the way police treat crowds.” He also suggests that violent protests are targeted and meaningful events, and can be an “expression of power” for disenfranchised black citizens.  

Donald Trump’s “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” tweet (since removed after a warning from Twitter), is the same call made by the 1967 Miami Police Chief Walter Headley, who used the phrase to introduce his ‘get tough’ policy on policing in black neighbourhoods. The quote was said to have been a significant factor in instigating the 1968 Miami Riots, which killed three people and led to the arrests of 222 people. According to press accounts found by Igor Volsky, this policy also led to every seven out of ten young black people being mistreated by the police in Miami. This serves as a reminder that we must remain critical of the attitudes expressed by those who currently hold power. 

Whether you believe that the prison system as a whole must go or not, one thing is clear: the issue of police brutality will not go away until every Derek Chauvin no longer lives in a world which allows him to believe that any person is beneath him because of the colour of their skin, which allows him to act on such a belief by being a cop, or which allows ‘good cops’ to remain silent when they see their colleagues exhibiting racist behaviours. 

As a non-black person, it is not enough only to feel outraged by racism when we see George Floyd being killed. In Angela Davis’ words, “[i]n a racist society it is not enough to be non-racist, we must be anti-racist.” Writing this article does not give me an excuse to stop learning. Far from it, in fact. We can all take time to learn more about black history, the effects of colonisation, white privilege, and how the ‘Model Minority Myth’ and internalised racism from non-black POC contribute to black oppression. We can all share the resources we find helpful in learning about these topics with our friends, rather than only posting #blacklivesmatter on our Instagram stories. We can all ask our college officials what they are doing to make college more accessible for BAME students. 

We often do not see racism as, in Peggy McIntosh’s words, we were “taught to see racism only in individual acts of meanness, not in invisible systems conferring dominance on [our groups].” None of us are perfect, and there is no shame in admitting that, but we all have the power to be better. Although being taught how to be more informed on things we care about is not unique to being in Oxford, we all undoubtedly have a platform and privilege as students at the University of Oxford. 

So ask yourself this: how will you use your platform when it matters the most?

Image Credits: Cover image and ‘Justice for George’ by Ariel Sinha (2020), https://www.instagram.com/arielsinhaha/ , https://twitter.com/arielsinhaha

‘Justice for Eric’ by Sarah Jeacocke (2014)

Petitions: George Floyd: http://chng.it/ZG9GndkTjH; http://chng.it/Z8j4dfcdwH; Belly Mujinga (http://chng.it/hRsyV2vXLQ); Tony McDade (http://chng.it/HFrynVVPZG) 

Places to Donate: Students in Support of National Lawyers Guild (https://www.facebook.com/donate/1625263847640171/2648068865459640/); Black Visions Collective (https://www.blackvisionsmn.org/about); George Floyd Memorial Fund (https://www.gofundme.com/f/georgefloyd) Where to find more resources: https://blacklivesmatter.carrd.co/

University announces plans for in-person teaching in Michaelmas, UCU not consulted

Amelia Wood
-
0
University announces plans for in-person teaching in Michaelmas, UCU not consulted

Oxford University has announced its commitment to resume some face-to-face teaching in Michaelmas term.

In an email to students, the vice-chancellor, Prof Louise Richardson, affirmed the university’s intention to conduct both in-person and remote teaching in Michaelmas 2020. Lectures and other large group teaching will remain online, but it is planned for smaller groups to once again be taught face-to-face with tutors.

Trinity term has been carried out remotely following changes in government guidance as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. But the vice-chancellor hailed ‘face-to-face personalised education’ as the hallmark of Oxford in her communications with students.

However, the question remains as to whether it will be possible to resume in-person teaching by Michaelmas term, which begins on 1st October, especially if social distancing measures are still in place.

A significant portion of senior academic staff are over 60, the age group most at risk of severe illness or death should they contract Covid-19, according to Imperial College London and University of Oxford research. So there may be some reluctance among staff to resume interacting with students in person.

The University and College Union (UCU) – responsible for the strike action earlier in the year –raised objections to the plan on Twitter, due to their own concerns about the proposal. In a comment to Cherwell, the UCU committee stated:

“Oxford UCU have not heard anything from the University about the resumption of face-to-face teaching before the announcement last week. Needless to say, it came as quite a shock to us and many of our members. We have significant health and safety concerns which have not been addressed by the University, and we insist that they do so urgently.”

Other universities have announced their own plans for teaching next academic year. Cambridge University made national headlines when it announced its own intention to have lectures online only for the whole of the next academic year. The University of Reading also committed to online lectures for the upcoming term. 

The University of Oxford was contacted for comment.

Image credit to Martin Addison/ Wikimedia Commons.

‘Still a long way to go’ with access targets for disadvantaged students at Russell Group universities

Matthew Schaffel
-
0
‘Still a long way to go’ with access targets for disadvantaged students at Russell Group universities

Recent modelling done by Russell Group universities has suggested that they will have to accept students with low A-level grades or no academic qualifications in order to meet the access targets set by the Office for Students.

The group of universities, representing the top 24 academic institutions in the country have addressed the need for an approach focused on narrowing the attainment gap between children of disadvantaged and privileged backgrounds at an earlier point in the education system. As part of their response, they have called for the government to create a new Office for Tackling Inequality, and to launch a new 10-year strategy aimed at addressing these issues.

The exact figures from the report suggest that the most selective institutions will need to recruit all applicants from the most underrepresented areas, who have received three A-levels by 2026, regardless of the grades they have achieved. By 2035, this would require the universities to recruit all applicants from these backgrounds, regardless of whether they have studied for academic qualifications.

Office for Students has in recent years set out to decrease the gap between those from underrepresented backgrounds and their more privileged peers. Their latest target for universities has been a requirement for this ‘gap’ to be eliminated by the 2039-40 academic year. Universities may face financial penalties if they fail to meet the targets.

Chris Millward, Director for Fair Access and Participation at the OfS, in response to the new report said:

“I welcome this report and the commitments made by Russell Group universities in the plans they have agreed with us to transform opportunities for students who are underrepresented in higher education. There has been clear progress in opening up opportunities to study at the most selective universities, but where you come from continues significantly to determine where you end up. There is still a long way to go before these opportunities are genuinely available across all parts of the country.

“The Russell Group is right to highlight the importance of collaboration. That’s why we are funding Uni Connect partnerships to give impartial information, advice and guidance to 1,613 schools and colleges, reaching over 180,000 young people and their parents in areas where fewer people go to university. We are also funding the Centre for Transforming Access and Student Outcomes in Higher Education (TASO), an independent what works centre which will generate and share evidence of effective approaches used by different universities, and working with the higher education tracking services to ensure that universities can demonstrate the benefits of their outreach work – wherever the student ends up.

“The current crisis has revealed different experiences and outcomes across our educational system, so it is more important than ever to make progress on tackling inequality in higher education. We are working to ensure that vulnerable and disadvantaged students receive the best possible support during the coronavirus outbreak, and we will be looking to universities to get back on track with their plans to address equality gaps as the nation moves out of lockdown.”

A spokesperson for the OfS also addressed the specific concerns from the Russell Group’s report:

 “It is true that Russell Group universities because of their high entry requirements don’t currently have enough disadvantaged applicants who meet those requirements. This is why – as the report itself acknowledges – they need to both engage in attainment raising activity so that more disadvantaged pupils become applicants, and operate contextual admissions to recognise and address the systemic inequalities in educational outcomes. It’s also important to note that our target won’t be met if universities only focus on admitting more school leavers – they need also to embrace students who are looking to return to education later in life and provide more flexible learning opportunities for them. Reducing the attainment gap in schools is a government priority addressed through the pupil premium in particular and a focus of work by the Education Endowment Foundation too.”

Dr. Tim Bradshaw, Chief Executive of the Russell Group, said on this issue: 

“Educational inequality undermines the pipeline of talent into the UK’s world-class universities when we should be unleashing opportunities to anyone with the drive and determination to access higher education, regardless of their circumstances.

“Russell Group universities will continue to do their part but breaking down the barriers created by educational inequality that start early in life is not a job for universities alone.

“We have set out bold plans to address this issue but we must work with government and as a whole society to level up opportunity for every community across the country.

“People and ideas will be fundamental to our economic growth and recovery after the Covid-19 crisis. It is more important than ever to tap into every scrap of potential and talent and ensure that nobody’s future is restricted by their background, ethnicity or income level.”

Oxford University chose not to make a comment but said that they would shortly be releasing their Undergraduate Admissions Report which contains their approach to access and the rest of the sector. This report has now been delayed due to “world events”.

Image credit to Mike Peel/ Wikimedia Commons.

Finality in film: The sense of an ending

Bella Stock
-
0
Finality in film: The sense of an ending

For me, it is always endings, not beginnings, which leave the most lasting impression: the ends of novels, films, historical epochs – even lives. Finishing with a flourish is the difference between a good film and a great film; it’s like writing a mediocre essay but concluding with such aplomb that your tutor forgives all the waffle and wool you spouted en route. Well, a girl can dream anyway.

Ambiguity in film endings is as tempting for filmmakers as it is infuriating and intriguing for audiences. We crave closure, and when this desire is thwarted, we seek to become the producer ourselves, concocting elaborate conspiracy theories and submitting our interpretations to debate with others. Ambiguous endings are a gamble for filmmakers. Such endings expose them to accusations of non-committal storytelling, a failure to satisfy, and cowardice before the daunting task of wrapping things up, or indeed, relieving themselves of the onus to do so by putting the ball in the viewer’s court.  Nevertheless, the rewards of taking such a risk can be great, generating an ongoing dialogue that enlists a cult following and a sense of timeless classicism, which indisputable conclusions don’t seem to so readily accommodate. 

There is no better way to introduce ambiguity into an ending than by blurring the boundary between the real and the imaginary. Darren Aronofsky’s Black Swan is so intensely symbolic throughout, that some view its dramatic ending, which sees Nina collapse wounded on stage, as purely a metaphor for the tortures of achieving artistic perfection. Throughout the film, Aronofsky continually has the audience see one version of events through the warped vision of Nina, who is steadily losing her sanity, only to be corrected by reality, so that viewers are left wondering whether the ending is but another figment of Nina’s imagination– the entire scenario a hallucinatory episode. 

Perhaps, debating the reality or fictitiousness of a film is a futile exercise, as film is a medium born of imagination. Yet, it is an exercise we are irrepressibly drawn towards. The ending of Life of Pi is charged with the meta-meaning surrounding this very idea. When Pi finally returns home, the insurance agents who interview him are unconvinced by his tale and ask him for the truth, to which he responds with another story, replacing the animals with humans. The film ends with Pi telling his autobiographer that the matter of which story is true is immaterial and leaves him the freedom to choose that which he prefers. Pi, in a sense, extols the virtues of the ambiguous film ending, seeking to leave the interpretation of plot details to the viewer, so long as the essence of the narrative is maintained. 

At times, I feel there is something gimmicky about ambiguous endings– that they are a kind ‘interactive experience’ that indulges our childhood fantasy of being invited on stage to be a special volunteer at the pantomime. This is inflated to the level of travesty in Netflix’s recent release of an Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt special, which gives the viewer as much power as possible to determine the ending as they are provided with narrative options at various points throughout.

It’s something theatre has also toyed with. James Graham’s play, Quiz, gives the audience an opportunity to act as a jury (via electronic voting)  and decide whether Who Wants to be a Millionaire? contestants, the Ingrams, are guilty. Graham’s interactive play operates on much the same principle as the ambiguous ending: the filmmaker brings forward the witnesses, lays out the arguments, and then leaves it to you, the jury, to make the decision, even if the judge gives a tentative nod. Graham understood the desire of the viewer to be provided with the flexibility and freedom to come to their own conclusions, rather than be funnelled into a single interpretation by the writer. 

It is striking that Parasite, which won the Academy Award for Best Picture this year, has a deeply ambiguous ending. We think we have an ending: Ki-Woo’s dream home achieved and reunited with his father, but the final shot, back at the film’s opening, writing his vow to his father in his childhood home, muddies this image. Has he really attained his aspiration of wealth and social success, or is he once again doomed to the torture of relentless striving? 

I miss the sucker-punch, phwoar kind of awe I feel when served an undisputed finale, but it is the ambiguous endings which have me mulling over what I have seen for days on end. If nothing else, the ambiguous, leaving-it-open-to-your-interpretation card, might be worth a try the next time one of my tutors challenges me on my essay’s inconclusive ending: it’s artistic license, I promise.  

Heads of colleges condemn racism in open letter

Joe Hyland Deeson
-
0
Heads of colleges condemn racism in open letter

The heads of house at all thirty-nine Oxford colleges, as well as at Rhodes House and all six of the Permanent Private Halls, have written an open letter condemning the “conscious and unconscious racial bias” which “remains prevalent across many institutions” in response to protests sparked by the death of George Floyd.

Signatories included the Dean of Christ Church, the college which has this week faced backlash after inappropriate comments were made about the global Black Lives Matter protests during the hustings for Cake Rep.

The letter, meanwhile, asserted a shared desire for “good race relations, tolerance and multiculturalism” at the University and across the world.

The first draft of the letter circulated to college JCRs was not signed by the Warden at Wadham College or the Rector at Lincoln, although it has now been explained that this was caused by an administrative error. 

The Lincoln JCR President, Amy Dunning, had told Cherwell that she was “beyond disappointed” to find out that her college’s Rector Professor Henry Woudhuysen had not signed the open letter. However, upon seeking an explanation from college, it emerged that the signature had not been included due to confusion over whether approval from the governing body would need to be sought before Woudhuysen could sign. Between the circulation of the draft letter to JCR Presidents and its online publication, the Warden of Wadham College’s signature was also added.

The open letter, which was written from John Bowers QC, Principal of Brasenose College, was published on the Guardian website on Sunday afternoon, and now includes the signatures of all Oxford college heads of house. It concludes:

“We acknowledge the role that education can play in building racial equality and fair inclusion of black voices and perspectives in society. We recognise and regret that, for black members of our community, the unfolding crisis together with the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on their communities has caused them particular anxiety, anger and pain.

“We stand with them during these difficult moments with hope that, through the global mobilisation of many against these injustices, through education, discussion, and peaceful protest, we may work together towards a world free of systemic racism and discrimination.”

Image credit to Radcliffe Camera Oxford/ Wikimedia Commons.

Open Letter Responds to Support Service Investigation

Suzie Murray
-
0
Open Letter Responds to Support Service Investigation

Following an investigation published by Cherwell earlier this week, an open letter has been circulated, calling on the University to collaborate with students in improving both the services and transparency of the Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence Support Service. 

Cherwell’s investigation revealed that the University’s Support Service also provides support to students accused of sexual harassment and violence — a provision which they do not make clear in their advice to student survivors who may be accessing the service. 

Following a lengthy statement released by It Happens Here, the Student Union campaign have partnered with the independent advocacy group SpeakOut Oxford to produce the open letter, addressed to Vice Chancellor Professor Louise Richardson. The letter may be signed through a google form, and is being circulated by the groups alongside a template motion for college Common Rooms to add their signature as a collective body. As of the evening of Thursday 4th of June, the letter has received 459 signatures. 

The letter calls on the university to provide “independent, victim-focused advice from a service fully dedicated to helping victims/survivors”, and criticises their decision to keep students “in the dark”. It goes on to quote anonymised accounts from the student body: one wrote, “I feel utterly disillusioned and shaken, and that I have lost a safe space”, whilst another said, “The University’s response of empty phrases … makes it even worse”.

Further to this , the organisers have appended to their letter comments from a number of their signatories (with permission), including expressions from individuals who feel “shaken and disappointed”, “appalled”, and “devastated”. One such comment addresses the University directly, writing: 

“Please do more than read and reply. I hope this letter, these stories and these students’ experiences are enough evidence to bring about necessary dialogue and change within the university, both in terms of culture and policy.”

At least sixty comments have been appended to the letter.

When contacted for comment, the organisers said: “After learning about the Support Service’s lack of transparency and conflict of interest, both It Happens Here and SpeakOut wanted to take action before the end of term. Whilst these are two separate organisations, we have the same values and goals, and believe that our combined actions will have the greatest impact on reforming the University’s policy. In the space of 24 hours we formed a collaborative group and wrote both an open letter addressed to the Vice Chancellor and a template motion for JCRs and MCRs to pass in solidarity. 

“Sexual assault is chronically underreported, and victims are too often left feeling isolated, ashamed, and helpless in a culture which silences their voices. The Support Service is one of the very few official University spaces intended to make victims feel supported, safe, and believed. However, in its current form the Service is failing both victims and accused, and both organisations believe that the University owes its students better.”

A spokesperson for the University said: “We are aware of this open letter and we have contacted the authors to have a constructive conversation on the concerns raised about conflict of interest, and seek their input on how we can better advertise the provision and provide reassurance to all students.

“We cannot comment on individual cases. However, sexual harassment and violence are completely unacceptable, and the University treats all allegations with the highest seriousness. We are committed to minimising all forms of sexual misconduct and continue to invest in our support and disciplinary systems to reflect this.”

If you have been affected by sexual harassment or violence, there are a number of resources available to you. As well the University’s support service, you can also contact: the Oxford Sexual Abuse and Rape Crisis Centre, an independent charity in Oxford where you can also refer yourself to the university ISVA; your local GP; It Happens Here, the OUSU campaign against sexual violence; SpeakOut Oxford, an independent and student-run advocacy group; the university counselling service; and/or your college welfare team.

Opinion – The Tautology Of Police Brutality: What Is Really At Stake

Jerry Amokwandoh
-
0
Opinion – The Tautology Of Police Brutality: What Is Really At Stake

There is a lot of noise surrounding the unlawful murder of George Floyd and the murders of countless George Floyds, Ahmaud Arberys, and Breonna Taylors (see their names at NPR’s comprehensive, but by no means exhaustive, list). There is, rightfully, an endless stream of strong analysis of what is going on, and amidst this uproar I do not wish to add anything to distract from those hard facts which we all must acknowledge and for which we must bear social responsibility. It falls on us to interrogate our relationship to state criminality. As the so-called anti-police brutality protests rage on, and the race war is now more visibly witnessed (at least in a way that mainstream media outlets can attempt/pretend to digest), we must assess our position of solidarity and look at the clear-as-day inner workings of oppressive state force.

The protests in the States are about far more than police brutality. In fact, their labelling as such is a gross (and dare I say intentional) over-simplification. The police force is necessarily brutal by definition: they are the civil force of a state, responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and maintenance of public order. The role of the police to protect property and the private interests of the capitalist class, over those of the public, is more than clear when the US government easily and quickly mobilises forces en masse in response to the manifestation of frustration but justice remains reluctant, and still missing in the case of the actual murderers. 

There is already plenty of useful analysis about the role of ‘looting’, as well as the classist and racist nature of invectives against passionate organisation. The differences in the handling of armed white protestors and unarmed black protestors in the past month, for instance, are readily accessible on your social media feeds. Though under-reported and rarely acknowledged, longer-term strategy is being employed. Black Movements were ready to mobilise and have been mobilising long before this recent killing, and for significantly longer than our leaky memory of  60 years of marching against state-sanctioned murder.

I repeat: what is being protested in the US is far more than police murder and the sanctioned devaluation of black life and civility. What is being protested is even more than the structural disenfranchisement, electoral and extra-electoral, of black citizens or that we all knew (pre-inquiry) that the lethality of Covid-19 would be higher for black citizens. If we, here in the UK, are able to grasp this, then we too shall be aware that we are staring down the same mobilisations of state oppression. A wider definition of police brutality must be acknowledged and challenged here. Brutal is all police machinery. We have witnessed that police brutality has not been silenced by Covid-19 but amplified at a time when statistics show that black people were more likely to be fined than white counterparts[1]; and the overrepresented black population (wiped from public imagination) behind bars are kept at high risk of infection. If our government failed to protect and safeguard those in UK care homes, then how much less do we expect them to have cared, covered up and under-reported the situation going on inside the largest prison population in Western Europe?

Police brutality is the conservative pledge to guarantee ‘safer streets’ by increasing this prison population capacity by 10,000, to recruiting 20,000 more police over the next 3 years and 6000 in the next year alone. Pledges all made without any further considerations for the sort of necessary community actions required to challenge the issues of the streets. Police brutality is, and is backed by, the £10 million that Boris could find to “significantly increase the number of officers carrying” Tasers, as well as the increase of their legal usage by police officers. Tasers are not fashion statements. Police brutality is, I repeat, the UK’s claim to having the largest prison population out of all in the EU, with taxpayers footing the £2.75 billion prison expansion project. Domestic violence, ‘anti-social’ behaviour, knife crime … these will likely increase – they will increase – under the circumstances of a deeply depressed society, increased unemployment, and no prospects, yet, for future sustainable training and restructuring of the economy. But I suppose that is exactly what the extra 10,000 places in prison will be for. While some may believe in police reforms, others understand that police brutality is tautology. We must apply a structural gaze to the voice of protest or simply be forced to witness the continuation of our community’s pain.

What is being protested here is far more than the police’s protection of private interests. Police brutality was witnessed at Extinction Rebellion protests. Police brutality has been witnessed during the Covid-19 pandemic. We have not forgotten Belly Mujinga; we have not forgotten Stephen Lawrence; we have not forgotten Mark Duggan, or the dubious circumstances surrounding his death; we have not forgotten Jimmy Mubenga; we have not forgotten the police raiding Stormzy’s house; we have not forgotten gutted communities and the increasing power of police; we have not forgotten countless pictures of the loss of black life systemically normalised; we have not forgotten that black life extends beyond diasporic and displaced communities in the West. Black Lives Matter in a way that threatens the global status quo. BLM

[1] Imagine a £60 fine while waiting for Universal Credit to come through or knowing that you will not be able to pay rent soon.

Anneliese Dodds accused of “sitting on the fence” over lockdown easing

Joe Stonor
-
0
Anneliese Dodds accused of “sitting on the fence” over lockdown easing

Anneliese Dodds, the shadow chancellor and MP for Oxford East, has been accused of “sitting on the fence” after avoiding stating whether the Labour Party supports the government’s easing of lockdown.

Despite the warnings of some senior scientists that it is still too early to relax strict lockdown measures, the government has pressed ahead with plans to partially reopen schools and to allow groups of up to 6 people to meet from Monday.

Appearing on BBC One’s The Andrew Marr Show on Sunday, Dodds was asked several times whether she supported the government’s move to ease restrictions, but avoided answering the question directly. The government’s decision does not appear to align with conditions that Labour had demanded be met before giving people more freedom, including the roll out of a national phone app and 250,000 tests a day, neither of which have been achieved.

The Labour leader Keir Starmer had said on Friday that the party would not support a gradual easing of lockdown until these conditions were met.

In response to Mr Marr’s conclusion that “given your own tests, it seems to be that Labour must oppose unlocking”, Ms Dodds sought to distance Labour from the decision-making process, suggesting that Labour does not have access to the same scientific information as the government. She said: “You know the government has taken that decision and the opposition can’t take that decision because we don’t have the scientific advice in front of us.”

The short interview provoked frustration amongst some Labour supporters, with many writing on twitter angered at the perceived lack of clarity in Labour’s position, with one user stating: “What has become of Labour? It’s awful.”

However, Dodds did respond to the threat of a resurgence in coronavirus cases leading to a reintroduction of lockdown measures, and in doing so acknowledged the risks associated with an over-hasty easing of lockdown. She stated: “As you would expect as Shadow Chancellor, I’m very, very concerned about what could happen to our economy if that happens, as well as the health impact.” 

Anneliese Dodds stressed that parents should not feel pressured to return their children to school if they fear it is unsafe. She also challenged the government’s “lack of preparedness” that has led to the Prime Minister’s promise that “we will have a test, track and test operation that will be world-beating and yes it will be in place by June 1st” being unfulfilled, calling for the government to act “urgently” to clarify the scheme. 

Image credit to Cicero Group/ Flickr.

Oxford delays publication of access reports because of current “world events”

Violeta Perea Rubio
-
0
Oxford delays publication of access reports because of current “world events”

The University of Oxford have delayed the publication of their yearly admissions and diversity data, due to be published today, in light of current “world events”.

The HuffPost UK had access to an email circulated on Wednesday which notified staff of this delay. In this email, the university stated they felt “strongly that this is not the right time to share our data”, alluding to the ongoing global Black Lives Matter protests against racial injustice in response to the murder of George Floyd last week.

The report gives annual detailed diversity data on university admissions. Last year, the ‘Annual Admissions and Statistical Report’ found that the 2018 intake saw an increase in the proportion of students admitted from state schools from 57.2% to 60.5%. The report aims to make data on ethnicity, age, gender, disability, economic background, education and geographic residency area more transparent in order to improve outreach efforts.

The HuffPost quotes the email, which reportedly reads: “After careful consideration of the current world events and also learning that Cambridge will not be publishing its admissions data until late June, the decision to postpone the release of the annual admissions statistical report has been taken,” the email states.

“The delay also allows us more time to work on announcing our commitment to outreach through our digital outreach programmes, which are being delivered despite the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and particularly the closure of schools since March 2020.”

This comes after the University has received backlash for its response to the Black Lives Matter protests. Users on Twitter have responded with mentions of the University’s issues with racism, particularly regarding The Union, affiliations with Cecil Rhodes, and the rejection of the Stormzy Scholarship.

Yesterday, June 3rd, South Parks saw hundreds of protesters manifesting their solidarity with George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter movement.

A spokesperson for the University explained: “The University of Oxford was scheduled to publish its annual Undergraduate Admissions Report this week. However, as world events have escalated over the last ten days, it became obvious that now was not the time to share this content. In fact, some headline admissions figures have already been published, in January this year, and revealed that the University is now attracting more ethnic minority students, including Black students, than ever. Having already shared this core information, it felt deeply inappropriate to publish content that could distract from the important challenges and debate facing our society at this time and try to draw attention to our own progress on the figures. The report will therefore appear later this month.

“Oxford abhors racism and discrimination of any description and protecting the wellbeing of our Black and ethnic minority student and staff community is a University priority. Recent events have shone a light on imperfections everywhere, including at Oxford, and we are working hard to build towards a truly diverse community. Our admissions figures are an important indicator of our progress but we also need to guarantee an inclusive and respectful learning environment for all.”

The University reassures the report will be published by the end of the month.

Image credit: Ellie Wilkins

Law finalists not informed of exam error

Tilly Walters
-
0
Law finalists not informed of exam error

A Law FHS paper contained different instructions than previously stated in the exam conventions, and finalists were not communicated instructions to remedy this mistake during the window throughout which the paper was taken. 

While the exam conventions, sent on Tuesday 26 May, state ‘FHS candidates taking this paper should answer 4 questions including at least one problem question’, the exam paper for land law stated that candidates must answer two problem questions. In previous years, the land law paper has required students to answer one problem question. 

Individual candidates were sent conflicting information during the exam, but no clarification was made to the full student body, even though the faculty were aware of the error. While many students followed the stated guidance on the paper itself, some reportedly deviated from the rubric. Individual replies to students from the faculty seen by Cherwell demonstrate that they were aware of the issue, but did not take any steps to inform all finalists. 

Only some candidates sitting the exam in different time zones (which, in accordance with University policy, is anything beyond GMT+7), were informed of the mistake or of the way to approach the exam.  

It remains to be seen what steps the Law faculty will take to remedy this. In an email to finalists sent early on Thursday, the faculty wrote, “The examiners will take account of the position in which this placed candidates– I can’t comment further on what steps might be taken at this point – while anyone who did not follow the rubric and answered one problem question will not be penalised for rubric violation.”

While Oxford’s guidance for closed book exams states to “Raise your hand if you suspect there is a mistake on the exam paper”, in order to communicate to invigilators, there was no advice on the exam conventions circulated to candidates about how to communicate a mistake in the current open book format. 

A Law finalist, who had taken the exam, stated: “It’s disappointing but not unprecedented that an exam should contain a typo. What is shocking is that the fact of the mistake wasn’t immediately communicated to everyone taking the exam and clear instructions given about whether to follow the conventions or the exam. That is what would have been done in an in-person, invigilated exam.  

“It is even more surprising that only some candidates were told that there would be no penalty for breaching the exam rubric. Forcing students to work out, in the middle of an exam, whether they should ‘break’ the rules to perform best, while only some are told that there will be no consequences for doing so, ironically raises some interesting jurisprudential questions about obedience to law. I would have preferred to deal with those in the jurisprudence paper, rather than in the land paper.”

A spokesperson for the University said, “We will not comment on individual papers while the exam process is on-going. However, the University has always had process in place so errors can be flagged in the conduct of exams. This process has been adjusted for this year’s Open Book exams and communicated to all students sitting these exams. Exam boards will take any errors into consideration when finalising marks.”

Image credit to Ham/ Wikimedia Commons.

1...429430431...2,488Page 430 of 2,488

Support Student Journalism

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

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

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

Website by James Ashley