Tuesday 22nd July 2025
Blog Page 445

Ode to an empty Oxford

And all at once, the world of an Oxford undergrad seemed to stop turning. Those who had often barrelled into friends’ rooms to save them from “editing an essay” (scrolling through Facebook in a melancholy reverie) no longer intrude with a tea-mug in hand, cheap Prosecco swashing over the rim. The usual bustle of tourists, gaping at the spires of the Bodleian, no longer collide with students who, struggling to reach Exam Schools in time for their 11am lecture, impatiently brush past them, the sandstone heights of the imposing colleges jostling for space on the High Street so familiar that they have ceased to impress.

Gone are the moments of spontaneity that see books tossed into bags in favour of a quick drink among friends at the King’s Arms, or rushes to the Covered Market to shovel in a few mouthfuls of Thai food before a tutorial or an afternoon slog at the library. There are no more dawn-awakenings for a morning training at Cowley, treading the cobblestones of Radcliffe Square, silent for once, while the moon’s mellow face still lingers in the inky sky, cycling over Magdalen Bridge among other early risers as the city stirs from its slumber. No more sighs of relief as that particularly draining essay is finally submitted, nor grudging concessions to the cajoles of gin-softened friends dragging you from your desk to a late-entry at Bridge.

The college doors are barred, the books lie forgotten, their yellowed, curling pages unthumbed, the quads no longer echo with passing, light-hearted exchanges or 3am stumbling returns from Hassan’s. The bells of St. Mary’s do not disturb grumbling, hung-over students with their early chimes, nor do the windows of the Missing Bean overlooking Lincoln’s ivy-clad walls fog up from the huddles of bodies hunched over notes on Spanish literature and Freudian philosophy. The cider taps of the Turf Tavern do not flow, nor is the surface of the Isis broken by the slicing oars of Balliol rowers, the river carrying newly-hatched ducklings and snow-feathered swans rather than students balanced precariously on punting boats with a Pimms-induced confidence. No Mayday song echoes through the city’s sun-bleached streets from Magdalen Bridge, and no streamers and shaving cream paint the old cobbles, sodden with Lambrini and dotted with sunken red carnations. No-one blissfully strolls through the meadows of Christ Church, awash with a kaleidoscope of vibrant hues as wildflowers burst into life, nor are lichen-pocked college walls illuminated with the glow of dancing spotlights in the jubilation of a summer ball.

Instead, the gardens of Lady Margaret Hall spread forth their creeping vines without the restraint of a groundsman’s careful hand, and the grass of untrodden lacrosse pitches in University Parks grows freely. The geraniums crowding the window boxes of the Old Quad of Brasenose gleefully bask their faces in the sunlight that streams through the stained-glass windows of empty chapels still reverberating with their last Evensong. The winding wooden staircases of the Bodleian are given a moment’s respite from the constant creaking weight of students searching for that last vital book on their reading list, while the cobbles of the old streets, worn smooth by hordes of tourists and time-pressed students, begin to be softened by carpets of green moss growing through cracks in the stone. The statues of 17th century scholars keep guard over this hallowed place of learning, watching the house martins and sparrows flit between college bell towers, bursting with a birdsong that once competed with the cacophony of the everyday hustle.

Now more than ever, the city seems frozen in time, resembling a former age where those same moth-eaten pages were read deep into the sacred hours of the night, but by the light of a candle, dripping wax over a parchment of notes scribbled hastily by a feathered quill, rather than in the glow of a laptop screen. Where then, as now, the city was awash with a passion for learning and a hopeful yearning for a brighter tomorrow. Though stripped of the daily hubbub and empty of the flow of young minds and hearts that throng through college doors, seeming to power the very city with their energy, Oxford retains its charm.

The world may seem to have stopped turning, but the beauty and heart of the city remains to those whose eyes are open to it. Which begs the question, are the students the life-force of Oxford, or is it the city itself which breathes life into those who study here?

Illustration by Charlotte Bunney

After 30 years Liverpool are Premier League Champions

0

1990 was an important year for Liverpool fans. Liverpool won their 18th league title and their last one before 2020. The Premier League was yet to be born, Pingu had just graced British TV, and Margaret Thatcher was still Prime Minister.

Many young Liverpool fans, myself included, weren’t around to celebrate that victory. For many of us, our fondest memories of Liverpool have taken place out of the domestic tournaments: Istanbul 2005 sticks out, as does our 4-3 comeback against Dortmund and 4-0 against Barcelona. Finally, under Klopp, we’ve all got another great memory with such an incredible club. Liverpool has finally won the Premier League.

I’ve heard us described as a ‘glorified Blackburn’ (by a Villa fan…). Many like to joke about LiVARpool (note: see any of the tables where Liverpool are still at the top when VAR is removed). Even Twitter users are going to have to move on to a new club with new jokes. Without (and partly thanks to) the snake Sterling, or Coutinho, or anyone else people said we needed to win a title, Liverpool have silenced the haters. Call us the unbearable if you must, but we’ve done it. Give us an asterisk or complain about starting the league up again in June rather than scrapping it; it won’t make this moment any less real or valid.

With a captain rejected by Alex Ferguson and young full-backs that are present in almost everyone’s fantasy team, Liverpool has proven that spending the most money isn’t the most important thing. There is something special about Liverpool – the passion from the team and fans is incredible. Look at Man City, who weren’t even able to fill their fan cams in the empty stadiums (which might still be a record attendance for the Emptyhad). The difference is clear with Liverpool: we wanted this, and it showed. Throughout the year, the fans have been incredible, and watching clips of the players celebrating Man City’s defeat show just how much this means to the squad too. Klopp was even willing to bust out some dance moves. Whoever said that those with LFC champions tattoos were prematurely celebrating have finally shut up.

A lot of people will say that we’ve ONLY won one Premier League. They want to believe that this is a one-off, and Liverpool will be waiting another 30 years for their next title. They argue that we’ve been lucky, Bobby Firmino isn’t the greatest centre forward in the modern game, and Salah is a one-season wonder. These are also, coincidentally, the supporters who think City is a club of great history, Rashford is as good as Messi or Everton are a club deserving of a Champion’s League spot. That is, they’re all in a state of delusion.

Liverpool are the reigning champions of Europe, the reigning champions of the world and now the champions of England. You Never Walk Alone.

Review: Repeat Attenders

In Repeat Attenders (2020), a legion of loyalists to musical theatre take their turn in the spotlight. The documentary introduces us to repeat attenders of theatre shows through a sensationalist lens. It opens with Sally Frith in Paddington Station, on her way to see Les Miserables for the 977th time. (Yes, you read that right). From there we meet a series of superfans, some of whose dedication makes even Frith’s pale in comparison. One fan, investment banker Joel Torrance, even has her beat on attendance numbers – he’s seen Rent 1,169 times.

Many of these superfans turn to musical theatre as a form of escapism. Gudrun Mangel suffered emotional abuse from her parents in her childhood, but finds comfort in watching Starlight Express. Christine Bogle loves dressing up as characters from Cats, but after explaining her love for the musical, says: “The worst part is feeling like me again”. Others leave you disturbed: Michael Falkner was jailed for stalking Beauty and the Beast star Debbie Gibson. At the end of the documentary, we’re left wondering if the repeat attenders are dealing with their issues in a healthy way. Even at a relatively moderate level of repeat attendance, there is the financial cost of theatre tickets and memorabilia; at its most extreme, the admiration can turn into obsession.

But short of that dangerous extreme, is the devotion of repeat attenders really so bad? I don’t think so. To me, the love and appreciation which drives the superfan’s repeat attendance is something which is very relatable. More than that, it empowers both the theatre industry at large and the repeat attenders themselves.

The intensity of the superfans’ devotion is not as strange as you might first think. Some might find watching the same show over and over again repetitive and uninteresting. But the avid superfans aren’t looking for something new or different each time they see a show. It is the sense of familiarity that keeps drawing them back for more. Just as comfort food or re-runs of The Office never seem to get old, repeated viewings of the shows don’t lose their magic for the devoted superfans. There is something about the stories being told that resonate with repeat attenders. The fact that they can laugh at jokes and revel in performances they have seen and heard so many times before is a testament to how captivating these shows are and the strength of the repeat attender’s empathy in connecting to the characters on stage.  

This relationship between repeat attenders and the shows they love is not just one-sided. It’s symbiotic. Repeat Attenders shows us how the fans rely on the shows for joy and catharsis. At the same time, commercial theatres rely to a significant degree on the business generated by repeat visitors, a demographic that includes those who see the same show twice or thrice to those who have seen it hundreds of times. Styhre’s empirical study in Perception and Organisation: Art, Music and Media suggests that Broadway musicals like Miss Saigon and Cats relied on the predictable demographic of repeat visitors to sell tickets, especially in off-peak seasons. For the underdog shows in smaller, independent theatres, the superfans’ support means even more. It could make a real difference to the theatre’s bottom line.

Then, there is also the close relationship which repeat attenders have with each other.  In Repeat Attenders, we see superfans discuss the shows they love, dress up in character, and perform in tribute acts together. They bond over their shared love of theatre. More than anything else, being a repeat attender is about connecting with other – both the actors on stage and their fellow fans. Although repeat attenders will have to miss out on their shows as theatres stay closed during the COVID-19 pandemic, they still have the camaraderie they’ve found in the superfan community. The heart of the superfan’s repeat attendance is in indulging themselves in what makes them happy and share their appreciation with each other. There are surely worse ways to live.

Review: The Radio Show at the End of the World

‘The Radio Show at the End of the World’ is a radio play by the Oxford University Light Entertainment Society (OULES), available for free on their YouTube channel. It is set during the end of the world, when multiple apocalypses are occurring simultaneously, with an incredibly vast cast of characters that need to face the situation – whether as heroes, villains, or simple spectators. We follow some peculiar scientists, obtuse soldiers, a radio station, an unlikely group of survivors, and many more. Thanks to very competent directing (Val Gladkova), this complex play manages to be a tonally cohesive, thoroughly enjoyable piece of media.

The atmosphere of the play feels very absurdist, with numerous comedic pieces but also some dark undertones. It is eerie and bizarre and chaotic, but in such a way that immediately captures the audience’s attention and holds it in place for the whole two and a half hours. This is a testament to the wonderful writing (Em Fawcett, Ekin Pehlivan), which shifts tones with ease – from satirical to serious, for instance – while still maintaining an underlying consistency.

The cast works incredibly well as an ensemble. All actors performed splendidly, from the adorably paranoid Mitchell (Charlie Gill) to the responsible, sensible Alder (Ana Pagu), and from the childish, weird Young (Maya Walker) to the slightly otherwordly, mysterious Brian Cox (Maddie Hall). Of note were the characters of Roger Blighty (Em Fawcett), an insufferable professional complainer, and Oakley (Val Gladkova), a pretentious Philosophy student, who manage to be terribly obnoxious while still making the audience care for them in the end. Tom Vallely also offers a great performance as the sensitive, world-destroying creature DVORSHAK, arguably one of the best characters of the play.

The sound editing of this play is simply incredible; the sound effects are never out of place, with great comedic timing. The variety of sounds used is also impressive, and the effort put into creating sonically interesting and cohesive definitely pays off. One of the best audio features of the play is the brilliantly written songs and catchy jingles. They are often unexpected and extremely entertaining, with good singing performances and arrangements. But what really stands out are the cheeky and textually-rich lyrics, which complement the zany tone of the play very well.

The world-building is incredibly intricate. Since the setting is contemporary, it may seem peculiar that so much time is devoted to showing the context. But the play starts in medias res, and the audience needs to adapt quickly to everything that is happening, so there are several setting-up scenes. It is quite pleasing to see how a play devoid of visuals manages to be so descriptive about the characters’ surroundings, as radio plays are often vague in this respect. This world felt very real and present around the cast, who were not simply reciting dialogue in a void: thanks to the brilliant sound edits, they seem to actively interact with their world, which makes for a very immersive experience.

The play is quite long, and with so many characters it can sometimes feel like one is losing track of who is who, or of whether we have met a certain character before. Luckily, that only happens with minor characters, and forgetting some names is not the end of the world, as the voices and personalities are distinct enough that the confusion is minimal. Still, at times some scenes may feel slightly pointless, or as if they are there only to offer some quirky, funny moments. While I think that there is some truth to that, I usually found that very scene served a purpose, even if just to set the tone or highlight particular aspects of the world. ‘The Radio Show at the End of the World’ is strongly recommended, as it handles a convoluted plot and a large cast of characters extremely well. With its sophisticated production, it makes for an exceptionally entertaining listen.

The Global Backslide of LGBTQ+ Rights: what’s happening and what you can do about it

0

CW: homophobia, transphobia, mention of violence towards LGBTQ+ people

As Pride month draws to a close, it can be comforting to look back on the advancement in LGBTQ+ rights which much of the world has witnessed over the past three decades. In the 2019 British Social Attitudes survey, 66% of respondents said there was nothing wrong with same-sex relationships, up from 11% three decades prior. However, LGBTQ+ people in the UK still face discrimination and are disproportionately victims of hate crime, showing that Britain is by no means a perfect society when it comes to LGBTQ+ rights. Internationally, the picture is more alarming still. From Hungary to the USA, conservative governments have launched an all-out assault on LGBTQ+ communities, seeking to deprive them of hard won civil rights. Therefore, while Pride should be a celebration of Britain’s vibrant LGBTQ+ community, we must also always remember that queer people still face discrimination, even across much of what we would consider the developed world.

In recent decades following limited liberalisation in the wake of the USSR’s collapse, Russia has become the epicentre of LGBTQ+ rights backsliding. Infamously in 2013 the Kremlin enacted laws criminalising so-called “LGBTQ+ propaganda”. This has been seen by many as an attempt by Putin to sure-up his conservative base following economic stagnation; however, it created a deeply hostile environment for LGBTQ+ people within Russia, one which has only grown the years since. On the 1st of July, Russians voted in a constitutional referendum to, as well give Putin wider dictatorial powers, further entrench homophobic attitudes in Russian law. In particular, it will give constitutional authority to the view that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. These reforms have won the blessing of, among many prominent Russians, Russia’s deeply reactionary Orthodox Church. Alongside this, the violent persecution of LGBTQ+ people continues in the southern region of Chechnya, as documented on the new film “Welcome to Chechnya: The Gay Purge”, which will be available on the BBC in July. This documents how since 2017 the Chechen regional government have launched a violent crackdown on LGBTQ+ rights going beyond even any of Putin’s edicts, as gay and trans people face state sanctioned torture and abduction.

While Russia’s persecution of LGBTQ+ people is well known in what is considered the West, gay and transgender rights have also been under assault in countries like Hungary and Poland, both members of the EU and NATO. In Hungary, the totalitarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, emboldened by new emergency powers, has passed transphobic legislation as the rest of the EU deals with coronavirus. Under Hungary’s new laws, legal acknowledgement of transgender people has been ended. The edict defines gender as based on chromosomes at birth, meaning trans people will be given neither medical help to transition nor legal recognition of their gender identities. The law also prevents people from changing their names to align with their gender identity, meaning their name on official documents may appear disjointed from the outward appearance of trans people. Opposition leader Bernadett Szél has pointed to this as a particularly repressive clause, as in Hungary it is required to show ID cards for a number of daily activities like collecting post, thereby meaning trans people will be forced to out themselves on a daily basis. In a country where 69% of the vote went to far-right parties, this obviously presents a danger to LGBTQ+ people’s safety.

Similarly, Poland has over the past five years seen increasing government repression towards LGBTQ+ rights. While this has been less extreme than in Hungary or Russia, the ruling Law and Justice Party are nonetheless avidly homophobic, having supported the creation of “LGBTQ+ free-zones” in more than 80 of Poland’s municipalities. However, on July 12th, Poland is going to the polls in a presidential election to choose between incumbent Law and Justice president Andrzej Duda and the more liberal Mayor of Warsaw, Rafał Trzaskowski. The former has campaigned on a heavily anti-LGBTQ+ ticket, calling LGBTQ+ acceptance an “ideology worse than communism” and vowing to defend Poland’s children from the so-called “ideology”. Duda has committed support from Poles in rural areas, with a majority of Polish men saying in a recent survey that the LGBTQ+ rights movement was the greatest threat to the country. Trzaskowski on the other hand, while having avoided LGBTQ+ issues on the campaign trail, has in the past supported protection for LGBTQ+ people and marched in Warsaw’s 2019 gay pride parade. In the first round of voting Duda won 44% of the vote to Trzaskowski’s 30%, with polls stating that the run-off vote is too close to call. Were Trzaskowski to triumph, he would be able to use the president’s veto power to block attempts by the Law and Justice controlled parliament to enact further discriminatory legislation.

However, it’s not enough to think that it is only in the ‘illiberal democracies’ of Poland and Hungary that LGBT rights are under threat. Under Donald Trump the US government in 2019 banned transgender people from enlisting in the armed forces unless they did so under their birth sex assignment. Further, in June 2020, in the middle of Pride month, the Department of Health said it would be basing its interpretation of sex discrimination on biology at birth. In effect, this meant that hospital and insurance companies would now be able to refuse cover for transition-related care. However, unlike in Hungary and Poland, American institutions have proven more resilient to Trump’s attacks on LGBTQ+ rights. This was evidenced by the Supreme Court’s 15th June ruling that workplace discrimination based on sexuality and gender identity was illegal, going against the policy of the Trump administration.

Other so-called Western countries have also seen a pushback against LGBTQ+ rights; notably in Spain the Vox Party, which calls for curbs on gay Pride parades and a ban on same-sex adoption, won 14% of the vote in last year’s election.

Therefore, while we might be tempted to celebrate the success of the LGBTQ+ rights movement, we must always be vigilant of following the dangerous path of places like the US. It is particularly worrying that British Social Attitudes mentioned at the start of this piece actually recorded a 2% drop in the acceptance of same-sex relationships compared to 2018. As well as being aware of the dangers our own society faces, LGBTQ+ people and allies should do all in their power to help the victims of LGBTQ+ discrimination abroad.

For readers in EU countries, the most effective way might be to contact your local MEPs to encourage the EU to bring action against Hungary and Poland. For Britons, while we are no longer a member of the EU, we can still write to our MPs to lobby for increased government action against regimes which threaten LGBTQ+ rights.

It is crucial that we remain constantly aware of the campaigns which brought us our civil rights, and continue the struggle to maintain them both at home and abroad. The cases of Poland, Hungary, and the US show the dangers of complacency, and we owe it to the disempowered in those countries to do what we can to stand with and support them.

Readers can find below a list of Stonewall’s partner charities for the countries mentioned in this article, many of which desperately need support.

Russian LGBT Network

Polish Society of Anti-Discrimination Law

Gay, Lesbian and Straight Educators Network

Acropoli

For confidential advice and support, you can contact Switchboard at 0300 330 0630, 10am to 10pm, every day, or email them at [email protected]. All phone operators are LGBTQ+.

Out of the Blue release remotely filmed charity music video

0

Oxford’s all-male a capella group Out of the Blue has released a new single and video – a cover of Ariana Grande and Justin Bieber’s ‘Stuck with U’, to raise money for Helen & Douglas House. In locations ranging from beaches in Amsterdam, to in front of the Hong Kong skyline, to valleys in Wales, and even in front of the Radcliffe Camera, the group recorded and filmed on their phones.

“Whilst it was certainly a challenge not being able to rehearse together, there were moments where it felt like all the boys were back in Oxford again,” said member Jonty McConnaughie. With the help of Anna Whitmore (Director), Olivia Webster (Producer) and Garbriella Farah (Director of Photography and Editor), the group managed to create a cohesive video from their respective lockdown locations. The video currently has over 6000 views.

Speaking to Cherwell, the group’s president Rory Naylor elaborated on their choice of song: “I’m personally really glad to have a proper duet in our repertoire…I’ve wanted Out of the Blue to do one since joining in 2017!” He continued that the song “reflect[s] how a lot of people are feeling during lockdown”.

The video aims to raise funds for Helen & Douglas House – the world’s first children’s hospice, based near Oxford. The group has been donating all profits to the charity for over a decade, as well as collecting at their gigs, totalling over £150,000 of donations.

Naylor told Cherwell that the group visits the hospice “at least twice a year to spend time with the children and their families and, obviously, perform to them!” Helen & Douglas House has also had to become more inventive with its fundraising efforts in lockdown, selling masks and marking Children’s Hospice Week 2020 on YouTube.

Out of the Blue said that they “hope that the video will live up to the brilliant work of their predecessors and raise as much as possible for Helen & Douglas House during this difficult time.”

Out of the Blue had previously planned a lavish concert to celebrate the twentieth birthday of the group, originally founded by a Harvard graduate studying at Oxford. Throughout the years, Out of the Blue has performed on Britain’s Got Talent, received support from Shakira, became the Edinburgh Fringe’s highest-grossing non-professional act, and was described by the Daily Telegraph as “a capella royalty”.

Naylor said: “We are, of course, gutted that we don’t get to properly celebrate Out of the Blue’s 20th birthday. However, most of the work that we put into planning the three day event for all 150 alumni has been easily transferred over to next year… which I guess is going to have to be even bigger to make up for the year delay!”

Out of the Blue, along with many other societies in Oxford, are struggling with preparing for next term while unsure of what restrictions will be in place once October arrives: “We’re just keeping our fingers crossed that we can audition and rehearse together in October. It seems unlikely that theatres will be open before 2021 which is slightly worrying given that we do have quite significant running costs. However, we will continue to be creative.”

The video can be found here. The single can be purchased here in exchange for donations to Helen & Douglas House, or Helen & Douglas House can directly be donated to here.

Black Lives Matter Oxford faces antisemitism concerns

CW: antisemitism, Racism

The group Black Lives Matter Oxford has been accused of antisemitism after posting a widely criticised mural as a cover photo for a Facebook event on Saturday. The photo gained attention following a tweet by South Oxfordshire Liberal Democrat councillor Alexandrine Kántor. Over the past weeks, Black Lives Matter UK has repeatedly faced concerns regarding antisemitic elements in the organisation. 

On June 27th, Black Lives Matter Oxford, an independent organisation showing solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement, posted a mural by graffiti artist Mear One which has been described as “combin[ing] a variety of antisemitic slurs” by the Jewish Chronicle. The mural was posted as a cover photo for the event ‘Freedom Summer BLM’, a solidarity march to be hosted on Saturday. 

Shortly after, Alexandrine Kántor, a South Oxfordshire Liberal Democrat Councillor, posted on Twitter: “The Oxford #BlackLivesMatter seems to think antisemitism is a [sic] acceptable way to fight racism. How disappointing. You don’t fight racism with racism.”

On Facebook, the councillor asked Black Lives Matter Oxford to remove the picture, saying she would otherwise report the group for racism.

In July 2018, Oxford City Council agreed to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism which includes “making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or […] Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions”.

Following posting this image on Facebook, Black Lives Matter Oxford retweeted a statement on Sunday from the organisation Black Lives Matter UK, which described “mainstream British politics [as] gagged of the right to critique Zionism”. The tweet has been widely condemned as antisemitic.

The Campaign Against Antisemitism, a major UK Jewish watchdog, has heavily criticised this tweet. The watchdog stated: “Black Lives Matter should aspire to be a movement against racism that unifies people and achieves lasting change, not a movement that spreads hatred and achieves lasting division.”

Black Lives Matter Oxford has replaced the mural photo on Facebook and published a formal apology on their Twitter account.

The statement reads: “We understand that recently an antisemitic image was used on one of our events. This is deeply concerning and the person who used the image is deeply sorry. We absolutely do not condone the image used and have since removed it.” 

“We will use this time to learn from their mistakes and ensure every person who attends our events feels safe. We stand resolutely against antisemitism, and see our struggles for liberation as interconnected.”

Black Lives Matter Oxford have also apologised for retweeting the Black Lives Matter UK statement regarding Palestine, saying: “We would like to state we are extremely upset and sorry concerning the retweet made by an unauthorised individual who was not given permission nor had cleared the action with us. The views implied do not represent us and we are working to ensure that this never occurs again.”

Source: Twitter (@Alexa_Kantor)

Speaking to Cherwell, Councillor Alexandrine Kántor said: “I do not think they have an issue with antisemitism, it was a case of not being aware and they have learnt from it and took action on their staff members to ensure this does not happen again.”

“Mistakes can happen and become opportunities to learn and educate ourselves. It is quite rare to receive an honest and meaningful apology, as well as actions to ensure this won’t happen again. Apologies appreciated and accepted, but this is not about me […]. I am an ally, I am very glad about their public statement. UK BLM should learn from them.”

Adam Bernstein, President of Oxford JSoc, told Cherwell: “We were disappointed to see it posted but pleased to see it taken down almost immediately. Oxford Jsoc remains determined to stand up to antisemitism and anti-black racism.”

The mural in question, titled ‘Freedom for Humanity’, depicts six men in suits under an Eye of Providence, playing a Monopoly-like board game that rests on the backs of naked, predominantly dark-skinned figures. The artist Mear One has confirmed that “the banker group is made up of Jewish and white Anglos”. On his Facebook page, he further stated: “For some reason they are saying I am antisemitic. This I am most definitely not… What I am against is class.” 

The Jewish Chronicle, an influential Jewish newspaper, wrote in 2018 about the mural: “The overall message is a classic conspiracy theory. […] Antisemitism has always had a left-wing version that fingered Jewish capitalists as the enemy of the good. Saying rich Jews are a class enemy is no less vile than saying they are a racial one.”

The article was published when Jeremy Corbyn, Labour leader at the time, was heavily criticised for his reaction to the mural on social media during his time as a backbencher. He has since publicly stated his regret for his actions and described the contents of the mural as “deeply disturbing and antisemitic”.

Black Lives Matter Oxford has been contacted for comment. 

Background photo by Bablu Miah/ Flickr. Mural by Mear One.

OPINION: The new foreign policy and international aid ‘super-department’ suggests the Government is choosing politics over people

0

Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Boris Johnson, announced the merger of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and the Department for International Development (DfID). This merge will call into existence a ‘super-department’ to be formally established in early September: The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. 

At its best, the move comes at an inopportune time, in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic and then as we begin to rebuild the economy in a vulnerable post-lockdown state – it comes with little surprise that the merger was not granted the attention it so desperately deserved. At its worst, this decision is indicative of a severe dereliction of moral and ethical reasoning: prioritising foreign policy interests above the needs of those most vulnerable in the world. 

During the announcement of the merge, the prime minister explained that UK overseas aid has been “treated like a giant cashpoint in the sky, that arrives without any reference to UK interests.” To justify this claim, he added: “We give as much aid to Zambia as we do to Ukraine, though the latter is vital for European security. We give 10 times as much aid to Tanzania as we do to the six countries of the western Balkans, who are acutely vulnerable to Russian meddling.”

Aid funds allocated to Zambia and Ukraine are matched, this much is correct. However, the level of acute poverty between the countries is not. 57.5% of Zambia’s population are considered below the international poverty line of $1.90 per day, in comparison to less than 1% in Ukraine. Similar disparities between the two countries emerge when exploring the demographics of various quality of life indicators, such as ‘access to electricity’, ‘people using basic sanitation services’, and ‘secondary school enrolment’. 

As enshrined in law, the PM has vowed to commit 0.7% of the UK’s Gross National Income (GNI) to aid. It is the distribution of this GNI percentage, however, that we should be concerned about. This new ‘super department’ will almost certainly grant the Foreign Office more jurisdiction over the allocation of aid funding, likely resulting in a higher fund allocation channelled towards countries which align well with the UK’s geopolitical aims. Think Ukraine, Belarus, and even Venezuela. Increasing funds to some regions prompts a decline in funds to others – the victims of which will inevitably be those who need it most. Think Zambia, Malawi, Lesotho – countries that face the most rampant rates of global poverty.

Aligning foreign policy interests with aid assistance is neither a new nor an uncommon phenomenon, but this does not make it the right one. Aid must be apportioned on the basis of necessity first and foremost, not dictated by foreign policy interest. Anything less is a shameful acceptance of an increasingly egocentric British sentimentality that seems to have contaminated our politics since the Brexit agenda infiltrated political conversation. We must move beyond this jingoistic concept that aid assistance need demonstrate a binding ‘quid pro quo’. 

Even more urgently, as we lay in the wake of a pandemic-stricken world, aid assistance in the most vulnerable of regions will be needed now and in the near-future more than ever before. Stephanie Draper, chief executive of international development network Bond, explained: “Scrapping DfID now puts the international response to Covid-19 in jeopardy and, at a time when we need global co-operation, risks a resurgence of the disease both abroad and here in the UK”.

Having been announced by a man who can be said to have a long record of making clear his nationalist impulse, there is little shock factor to the merger. It seems that for Mr Johnson, as is the case for much of his cabinet, alleviating rampant global inequality and poverty alone is simply an insufficient cause. If it does not impact the UK in some favourable way, it is not worth doing. 

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will stand to epitomise the rise of potent insularity in British politics. It marks more than just the merger of two institutional bodies, but also the merging of UK policy interests to a rapidly waning sense of morality.

Review: Florence Given’s debut book Women Don’t Owe You Pretty

CW: mentions of sexual assault

“WARNING: CONTAINS EXPLICIT CONTENT (AND A LOAD OF UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS)” is a near perfect summary of Florence Given’s debut book. Women Don’t Owe You Pretty is the permanent pep talk you didn’t even know you needed.

The book provides an introduction into Florence’s feminism, a feminism built on a foundation of recognising your privilege, unpicking your internal bias, learning to fall in love with yourself and battling dragons along the way, all on your own. It would only be a slight exaggeration to say that in the course of reading, my heart grew about seven sizes.

Given expresses one sentiment in particular early on and it is a sentiment I quickly came to share – this is the book I wish I could smack my younger self round the head with. The opening chapter, titled ‘Feminism is going to ruin your life (in the best way possible)’, perfectly encapsulates the fear many feel at starting to question the world around them, and worse still, the world within them. As Given quotes in her opening pages: “A comfort zone is a beautiful place, but nothing ever grows there.” Falling in love with feminism came to me long before Florence, and in some ways, there are swings and roundabouts. Over 50% of Netflix’s catalogue bores me beyond belief now, the acute awareness that many female characters could be replaced with a sexy lamp with no consequence to the plot bleeding out the thrill of an extra fight scene. Roughly 75% of my dinnertime conversation is fraught with debate and discussion and the occasional shriek of ‘MISOGYNY!’, and I am 100% sure my name will be swiftly followed by an eye-roll by a solid percentage of the people I have known. My father included.

Yet even for me, parts of Given’s book were uncomfortable to read. And that was bloody wonderful. Women Don’t Owe You Pretty compelled me to consider the amount of internal misogyny breeding within my very own brain. I am acutely aware of some of the bad habits I fostered growing up. It was a regular occurrence for me to find comfort in other women’s ‘flaws’, to fake orgasms, to put the people I fancied on a pedestal (and bulldoze through red flags) and to totally dismiss the fact I have never only fancied one gender. I look back at my younger self and cringe beyond belief. Even now, as ‘actual adulthood’ encroaches, I will catch myself linking women’s sex lives and fashion choices to their worth, evading accountability for my own contributions to this culture and assuming, as I always have, that the only way to win the game of life is to marry a man, have a child or two, and live happily ever after. These are tendencies we’ve been taught quite literally since birth that only upon quiet moments of ‘wait, what?’ prove themselves to be total nonsense. And in Given’s words: “Baby, once those goggles are off there’s no going back.”

The days after finishing the book were spent looking back on life experiences with my jaw on the floor, so flabbergasted and furious that it was almost funny. A male school teacher ridiculing me for dropping a spare tampon on a classroom floor, to the point I denied it was even mine. A female teacher calling me a slut to my face for the crime of kissing my boyfriend in her eyeline, without a second glance at his role in the scandalous affair. Teenage girls explaining to their friends that any kind of sexual encounter is totally unacceptable unless you have shaved your pubic hair that very morning, in order to avoid ‘spikey syndrome’. Teenage boys drawing up an ‘ugly list’ and placing bets on who they could nail, utterly baffled by any suggestion that was actually totally unacceptable. We have been raised on a diet of misogyny and remain blissfully blind to it. Where I grew up, it was mixed into our school dinners and announced daily in our assemblies. Racist and sexist jokes were a commonplace currency. Sexual assault was lunchtime gossip. And frankly, privileged is too polite a way to put it.

These experiences, likely familiar to many, feed into a culture which collectively skates over the oppression of women as well as various other demographics. Given writes eloquently about the prevalence of rape culture, and the male gaze as both a stepping stone and a spine for it. Looking back, I grew up seeing the filming of sexual encounters without consent, the sharing of deeply personal sexual stories without consent and the distribution of deeply private photographs without consent, as just a depressing consequence of the poor decision-making of women. The exploits of young men were laughed off and often lauded, while social detriment was reserved solely for those exploited. Girls were shamed and boys were bolstered, and the victim-blaming was not only evident but explicit. The disturbing stories of sexual assault and rape at the hands of my peers since graduation is something I wish I could feel shocked by. But this ‘slippery slope’ is in reality a natural and inevitable progression, and something someone, anyone, should have stepped up to put a stop to when it began.

I always had a gut feeling that the way my world was working was not right. I knew it didn’t make sense that I felt the need to dumb myself down or laugh at men who weren’t funny or have sex when I didn’t want to. But I didn’t have a word for it. I didn’t understand that immorality could be mainstream. I didn’t know how to reconcile a craving to conform and a desire to just be myself. Feminism was far from taught at school, it was a dirty word, met with bemused eye-rolls from teenagers and teachers alike. I would blag my way through debates and debacles, often spiteful and occasionally spineless, trying to find some kind of balance between being myself and being desperate to fit in. Given offers a much needed reminder that breaking yourself into bite-size chunks can only breed an awfully hollow type of happiness.

Florence Given sells feminism as what it is: freeing and utterly delicious. She affirms and articulates precisely the points it feels so hard to put your finger on sometimes. Her brand of feminism is undoubtedly not the be-all-and-end-all – but it is an excellent place to start. Sitting on the sofa with my sister, switching between drinking it in and discussing, the world made more and more sense to me. I relished in the realisation I can choose to never wear high heels again and the world will not end. I savoured the shock that if someone doesn’t like me because I think combatting social injustice is important, then I am perhaps not the problem there. I snuggled up in the sentiment the that the world will make more and more sense to me the more I learn, and that the phrase ‘be yourself’, a lesson we are taught aged three and then systematically untaught every year after, is actually the ultimate form of self-care.

If you are a veteran in feminist literature, read this book as bath time relaxation (and feel free to roll your eyes at those parts which seem a little simplistic). If you are an entry-level enthusiast, read it and kick-start your understanding of the world around you, scribble in the margins and call your loved ones to tell them all that you’ve learnt. If you think feminism is boring, read it and feel your sense of self come apart at the seams and do the work to sew it back together, jointly a little lighter and a little heavier than you were before. Just read the book. You will be far better for it.

Inaccessible: Why Oxford’s latest state-school statistics shouldn’t be celebrated

0

“Record numbers of state school pupils offered Oxford places” exclaimed The Guardian in January when the University released its preliminary admissions report for 2020. Headlines were again emblazoned with praise for Oxford and their access achievements when they released their final 2019 admissions statistics stating that 62.3% of offers were for state schools. Whilst this is undoubtedly an improvement on previous years, to champion these figures as a success would be a mistake. Oxford repackages these statistics in an attempt to demonstrate progress, without acknowledging what they really mean for state-school applicants.

Reports on the statistics stated 62.3% of Oxford offers went to state-schooled students. This is not true. The admissions report for state and independent schools only shows UK-domiciled students. State school students did not make up 62.3% of offers or Oxford undergraduate places, they made up 62.3% of UK offers.

In 2019, over 21% of offers went to international students. In reality, what these statistics actually say is from 79% of offers which went to UK applicants, 62% went to state schooled students. Or in simpler terms, 49%, of Oxford offers went to UK state school students. The state-educated 94% of the UK student population are given less than half of Oxford’s offers. This is despite the fact the number of state-school applications has risen dramatically. There were almost 40% more state-school applications in 2019 than there were in 2009 when state school students made up 45% of the student body.

Oxford has not released information on the educational background of international students in its admissions report. Cambridge, however, has released a more comprehensive report. They have been able to separate 179 of their non-UK domiciled offers into state and independent students. Of these 179 offers, just 9 went to state educated students. If we are to assume Oxford international students have similar statistics to Cambridge, it is evident that most of this 21% are not state educated. It is likely Oxford is just replacing a domestic elite with a global one.

That said, let’s put aside for a moment that overall, state school students account for less than half of the Oxford student body, and focus solely on the statistics for UK offer holders. In the UK, privately educated students make up only 6% of school children in the UK. If state schoolers make up 62.3% of Oxford students, then the top 6% of the most privileged students in the country make up almost 40% of UK students at the University. In this statistic, it would be hard to see how we could label Oxford as accessible.

The problem with these reports is that we measure Oxford against itself. The record numbers of students accepted are still proportionally far less than they should be. Being less elitist than it once was doesn’t mean Oxford isn’t still elitist; it is by no means a bastion of progress in the higher education of state comprehensive students. Nor does it mean it is admitting a healthy proportion of said students. These improvements are more about chipping away at a weight on an imbalanced scale rather than levelling it. 

There is also a myth surrounding these statistics that it means 62.3% of offers have gone to ‘the average student’. Most students in the UK are educated in state comprehensive schools. Oxford admission statistics do not separate the state school statistics into comprehensive and grammar distinctions. This is important as grammar schools often have more resources and take in fewer pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds than comprehensive schools. Clumping all state schools into one statistic is an easy way to repackage them to look more progressive than they are. 

Oxford champions state school admission as a sign of access for less privileged students and fails to acknowledge that ‘state school educated’ does not equate to ‘student from average background’. Hills Road, for example, sends more students to Oxford than any other state school. Ofsted noted that Hills Road “is in a prosperous area with low unemployment”. Lee Elliot Major of the Sutton Trust stated “it’s a college that has lots of children of Cambridge dons”. Even from a position where we take the state school admission statistics to be acceptable, we cannot use them as the main indicator of accessibility. 

Oxford is still not doing enough to improve access for underprivileged students. ACORN is the measure of disadvantage Oxford uses in its admissions statistics. Those in category 4 and 5 are considered disadvantaged. According to ACORN, 40% of the UK population fall into one of these two categories. In 2019, Students in these categories made up just 12% of Oxford offers. Not only is there a disproportionately high number of private school students at Oxford, there is a disproportionately low number of students from underprivileged backgrounds. Again, this statistic only uses a percentage of UK-domiciled students, not students as a whole.

These statistics feature only the percentage of offers. In 2018, “Only 76 per cent of Oxford offer holders from socio-economically disadvantaged groups were admitted compared with 86 per cent across the board”. The university fails to account for the disparity in grade achievement between private and state school students. Whilst cynical, it could easily be said the university can hand out offers to disadvantaged students, improving their statistics, whilst knowing they would not have the same support or teaching standard as their peers, and would be less likely to make these grades. 62.3% of offers does not automatically convert into 62.3% of Oxford students.

What is evident is that we shouldn’t be blinded by “record numbers” and “vast improvements” in these statistics. We need to look harder at the reports Oxford throws at the headlines before we congratulate improvements in tackling elitism that just don’t deal with the reality. There is only one clear message we get from the 2020 admissions report: it simply isn’t good enough.