Tuesday, April 29, 2025
Blog Page 45

SU apologises to former president over ‘unfounded’ suspension

Cherwell News and Investigations Section Editors
-
0
SU apologises to former president over ‘unfounded’ suspension

The Student Union (SU) has released a statement apologising to former president Danial Hussain for “fail[ing] in its responsibilities, and in particular its duty of care” following an independent report. The apology comes after Hussain’s suspension last year over allegations the report finds “unfounded” and that the period of suspension was “not warranted”.

​​Hussain was initially suspended in summer last year, reinstated after the complaint was dismissed, and then suspended again in November, following a complaint that he shared pornographic material to SU staff via Google Drive. The report finds the allegations against Hussain to be “unfounded and unsupported by evidence (as confirmed by the investigation carried out at the time)” and the following suspension being “not warranted in the circumstances”. Hussain should have been allowed to return to his role, it stated.

In a statement, Hussain said: “I had to overcome constant unprofessional, hostile, and discriminatory behaviour from those within the organisation intent on discrediting my leadership…I am proud to have persisted despite these challenges and to have succeeded in both bringing about reform to the SU by spearheading a root and branch transformation and in delivering meaningful change to Oxford by publishing the College Disparities Report.”

The report described the failure as accumulated by the SU as a whole instead of by individuals, and that “had a significant and negative impact on Mr Hussain and his wellbeing”. In particular, it highlights the “publication of media articles containing sensitive, confidential but incomplete information about internal HR processes”.

The SU declined to comment throughout the investigation period, nor when Hussain was reinstated as President in February, stating that they “do not comment on confidential HR matters”.

The statement goes on to acknowledge the effect on Hussain, saying that he “did not receive the level of support he should have received” and thanking him for the significance of the work he did whilst in office. Initiatives such as diversity unconscious bias training, clarity about people’s roles, relationships and responsibilities, and support for elected officers in their roles that will be implemented as a result of the report. 

At the time of Hussain’s suspension, he said that a “thorough and fair examination will clear me of any wrongdoing”, and was reinstated in his role after four months of suspension with pay.

Hussain faced backlash during and after his suspension. The incident was referenced in Corpus Christi JCR’s motion to formally disaffiliate from the SU, stating that “the SU is marred by controversy”. His absence from the role was referenced during the most recent elections for President, as one candidate ran on a platform of an “empty chair”, as “the SU is currently running just fine without anyone fulfilling the role of SU President.”

Here’s the full text to Hussain’s statement:

I acknowledge the apology from the Oxford Students’ Union (SU) for its failure and mistreatment of me and commitment to introduce equality and diversity training. This is a first step, but further change is still needed.

For years the Oxford SU has been perceived as a failed organisation unresponsive to students’ needs. I was elected with a clear mandate for reform and drive meaningful change. However, I was appalled to face internal obstruction against increasing accountability, effectiveness and transparency; the very changes that students demanded from their SU. Worse, I had to overcome constant unprofessional, hostile, and discriminatory behaviour from those within the organisation intent on discrediting my leadership. 

I am proud to have persisted despite these challenges and to have succeeded in both bringing about reform to the SU by spearheading a root and branch transformation and in delivering meaningful change to Oxford by publishing the College Disparities Report.

I am grateful to all who believed in me and supported my efforts throughout this difficult period, and who enabled me to implement reform in the interest of all Oxford students.

Peter Mandelson’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein draw student scrutiny ahead of Oxford Chancellor election

Cherwell News and Investigations Section Editors
-
0
Peter Mandelson’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein draw student scrutiny ahead of Oxford Chancellor election

Lord Peter Mandelson, a frontrunner to be the next Oxford Chancellor, was questioned over his ties to the late sexual abuser Jeffrey Epstein by the President of the Oxford Union during his latest appearance.

On 15 October 2024, the Union President asked Mandelson whether staying at Epstein’s house while Epstein was in prison would have “any bearing on [his] ability… to lend dignity to the university”.

Mandelson answered, “I don’t think so, no. I certainly regret ever meeting him in the first place. Um, had I known what he was and what was transpired [sic], I would have thought better of it.” 

When asked whether he was aware of the allegations against Epstein at the time, Mandelson told the audience: “I’m not, I’m afraid, going to go into further detail about this. I’ve said publicly that I regret meeting him in the first place. Everything that needs to be known about him is now known. There’s nothing further I can add.”

Cherwell has reviewed Mandelson’s career and controversies during and since his time in government. This piece accompanies Cherwell’s profile on Mandelson from earlier this month. 

In his career, Mandelson has served as European Trade Commissioner and British First Secretary of State. He served as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Northern Ireland Secretary, and Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. Perhaps most notably, he worked as Director of Campaigns and Communications for the Labour Party from 1985-90, when he earned the label ‘architect’ of New Labour. He has also been referred to as the ‘Prince of Darkness’ for his ‘ruthlessness’ and ‘media savvy’. 

38 candidates are running to be the next Oxford Chancellor of the University of Oxford. Mandelson is one of the two most prominent candidates for Oxford Chancellor, alongside Lord William Hague, former Conservative foreign secretary and party leader. Other frontrunners are Lady Elish Angiolini, a lawyer and principal of St Hugh’s College, and Baroness Jan Royall, principal of Somerville College and former leader of the House of Lords. 

The first round of Oxford Chancellor voting commences on 28 October 2024. It marks the first time the election for the Oxford Chancellor will be held online. Around 26,000 Oxford alumni have registered to vote in the election. 5,000 faculty and senior staff are also eligible. Five candidates from the first round of voting with continue to the second round of elections for the new Oxford Chancellor. The second round of elections for the Oxford Chancellor will commence in sixth week. Candidates for Oxford Chancellor will be eliminated one by one until one candidate receives more than 50 per cent of the vote. The next Oxford Chancellor will be announced during 7th week of Michaelmas Term, 24-30th November.

Links to Epstein

Mandelson had documented links with the late sexual abuser Jeffrey Epstein, according to the Financial Times. The same article, referencing a 2002 report by New York Magazine, stated that Mandelson attended a dinner party at Epstein’s townhouse in Manhattan in 2002 alongside Donald Trump and other figures. 

Mandelson told Cherwell: “I did not attend any dinner party with Donald Trump”.

The Financial Times article noted that in 2005 Mandelson and Epstein went shopping together in the Caribbean. Last year, The Telegraph reported on a 2005/6 photograph that showed Mandelson and Epstein together while Mandelson tries on a belt in a St Barts fashion boutique. 

In 2007, Mandelson and Epstein celebrated a birthday together in the latter’s Paris apartment. Epstein had been charged with soliciting a woman for prostitution in August 2006.

A JPMorgan report (2019) suggested that during June 2009, Mandelson stayed the weekend at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse, according to the Financial Times. At the time, Epstein was in prison for soliciting prostitution from a minor, and Mandelson was the UK Business Secretary.

The Financial Times quoted an email exchange between Epstein and Staley on June 17 from the same JPMorgan report:“Peter will be staying at 71st over weekend, do you want to organize [sic] either you, or you and Jamie,, quiertly [sic],, up to you.”

Mandelson said to Cherwell that he did not “stay the weekend with Jeffrey Epstein in Manhattan in 2009.”

The Financial Times article reported on their relationship in the following years. Epstein and Mandelson continued to communicate by email. 

In 2014 Mandelson signed up as a “founding citizen” of the TerraMar Project, a charitable group founded by Ghislaine Maxwell, which received financial backing from Epstein, according to a 2019 article in the Daily Mail. Mandelson told Cherwell he has “no recollection of this.” 

There has been no suggestion of any wrongdoing by Mandelson. 

A spokesman for Mandelson said: “Lord Mandelson very much regrets ever having been introduced to Epstein. This connection has been a matter of public record for some time. He never had any kind of professional or business relationship with Epstein in any form.” 

Mandelson stated to Cherwell: “I have consistently expressed regret over my introduction to Mr. Epstein and extend my full sympathy to his victims. At the time, I had no personal knowledge of the extent of his abusive activities, which only became widely known following his 2008 conviction in Florida.”

Links to Deripaska 

In 2008, while he was serving as EU trade commissioner, Mandelson was caught in a controversy over his links to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. 

In 2008, Mandelson attended a drinks party on Deripaska’s yacht off Corfu. Mandelson told Cherwell the gathering “included other public figures with their own reasons for attending.”

A month after this meeting, Mandelson advocated for the removal of trade restrictions which hindered the oligarch’s aluminium business, Rusal. 

Mandelson told Cherwell: “Trade decisions, including those related to aluminium foil tariffs, were made collectively by the European Commission, not by individual Commissioners, based on evidence supplied by officials.”

Peter Mandelson had met Deripaska in Corfu, Moscow, and Davos. Mandelson confirmed at the time he had first met Deripaska in 2004.

In October 2008, the Conservative party called on Mandelson to disclose further details of his meetings with Deripaska.

Mandelson denied favouring the oligarch, according to an article in The Guardian. Mandelson told Cherwell: “Suggestions that I personally acted to benefit Mr. Oleg Deripaska are unfounded and risk distorting the professionalism required in my role.”

He told Sky News​​ at the time: “All I would say about that is that [Deripaska] has never asked for any favours, I have never given him any favours, and that is what the European Commission in their examination of the issue has very firmly put on record.”

On 16 October 2008, David O’Sullivan, the Director General for Trade of the European Commission at the time, wrote a letter to the Sunday Times stating that he “would like to clarify that no such (personal) intervention took place”.

Links to Russia

Until June 2017, Mandelson was a director of the Russian company Sistema, a conglomerate which supplies Russian defence technologies. Mandelson, whose role paid him £200,000 per year, continued to work for Sistema after Putin’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. Sistema is a majority shareholder in defence technology company RTI, whose chairman, Evgeny Primakov, was a Putin ally, former Prime Minister and co-founder of the Fatherland All Russia Party.

In 2017, the Telegraph reported that Mandelson signed a letter to Vladimir Putin asking him to ensure that a legal dispute between Sistema and a state-owned Russian oil giant concerning the Russian government’s seizure of assets was “fair”.

Mandelson told Cherwell: “Communications involving Sistema were related to a legal defense against the Russian government’s unlawful seizure of assets. The political climate ultimately led to my departure from the board and I have not returned to Russia since.”

Global Counsel

Mandelson co-founded the advisory firm Global Counsel in 2010, serving as director of the company until June 2024. 

The company is currently under investigation by the Office of the Registrar for Consultant Lobbyists for “potentially inaccurate quarterly information returns.” 

The investigation follows an article by Democracy for Sale, which revealed last month that the group had failed to disclose lobbying on behalf of Qatar. The article reported that while Mandelson was still president of the Global Counsel, the group lobbied UK government ministers, including then investment minister Lord Dominic Johnson, to influence UK trade policy on behalf of the state-backed Qatar Free Zones Authority, without registering the client. 

The Guardian reported that Mandelson had brokered introductions between Uber and powerful representatives of business and government, helping the company access Russian oligarchs who have since been placed under sanctions by the British government in the wake of the war in Ukraine. 

He appeared to have been an adviser for Uber Technologies, Inc. in Russia between 2015 and 2016, according to documents reported on by The Guardian. 

The same article reported that the relationship generated close to £200,000 in fees for Global Counsel.

Mandelson told Cherwell: “I had no personal involvement in matters between Uber and individuals in Russia, and the reports about Global Counsel’s role referenced in your outline are both tendentious and unsubstantiated. I neither had then, nor do I now have, any personal knowledge of or connections with Russian billionaires.”

Links to other figures

In 2004, The Guardian reported that Mandelson, the then EU trade commissioner, was linked to Lebanese businessman Ely Calil, the alleged financier of a failed coup in Equatorial Guinea. The Spectator reported that in an intelligence report delivered to the British government, Calil said that “Mandelson assured him that he would get no problems from the British government side” and invited Calil to see him again if Calil “need[ed] something done.” Mandelson had rented a flat in Holland Park from Ely Calil in 1999. Mandelson told Cherwell: “My short-term flat rental from Mr. Ely Calil in 1999 was strictly a landlord-tenant arrangement. Any suggestion of a connection involving a planned coup is entirely baseless.”

Mandelson said in a statement at the time: “I have never undertaken to deal with it in relation to the British government in any way, shape or form” and denied reports that he faced questioning over the issue.

In 2001, while serving as an MP from Hartlepool, Mandelson met the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, at Assad’s home. Mandelson wrote in a piece for the Independent after the trip that “politics had nothing to do with [his] plans” in travelling to Syria. He subsequently described Assad as “a decent man doing a difficult job” and “an intelligent and cultured individual”. 

Mandelson stated to Cherwell: “Meetings with figures like Bashar Al Assad, soon after he became Syria’s leader… were part of my public responsibilities and aligned with the diplomatic expectations of my role [as an MP]”.

Cherwell contacted Oxford University, St Catherine’s College, The Oxford Union and the Oxford Labour Society with requests for comment.

Oxford University Press Announces New Sanskrit-Hindi-English Dictionary

Lilly Law
-
0
Oxford University Press Announces New Sanskrit-Hindi-English Dictionary

Oxford University Press (OUP) announced the launch of its trilingual Sanskrit-Hindi-English dictionary containing 25,000 words. It was published in collaboration with Uttar Pradesh Sanskrit Sansthanam, an educational institution in Lucknow that aims to promote, preserve, and develop the ancient Sanskrit language and culture.

The dictionary is in line with the importance of language learning for cultural development and empowerment of the local language through its three-language formula. Moreover, this dictionary reflects the Indian Ministry of Education’s policy for strengthening development and national unity. 

An OUP spokesperson told Cherwell, “Trilingual and bilingual dictionaries are extremely important in countries or regions where students or learners are multilingual, and learning a new language through the scaffolding for more than one language known to them.”

Linguists have suggested that Sanskrit and many European languages can be traced to Proto-Indo-European, a common ancestor connecting diverse language families. Thus the study of Sanskrit’s development and connections provides insight into international language evolution, exchanges between cultures, and patterns of migration.

With 25,000 words, the dictionary’s goal is that every Sanskrit student can be conversational and fluent in a decade. OUP continued: “Sanskrit is important to Indian culture as it is widely used in religious literature, and most modern Indian languages are directly derived from, or strongly influenced by it.”

The managing director of Oxford University Press (OUP) India, Sumanta Datta, said: “Oxford University Press is dedicated to the preservation and enrichment of languages, fostering a global commitment to linguistic diversity, and knowledge dissemination. This trilingual dictionary represents a significant milestone in our commitment to promoting language learning and our cultural heritage”.

In her remarks, Datta also referred to the 2020 National Education Policy (NEP), which promotes the acquisition of at least three languages as a key curriculum goal, two of which must be native to India. While the attainment of two languages native to India has been an aim of the Ministry of Education since 1968, previously, Hindi-speaking states were encouraged to learn southern states’ languages, and vice versa.

Chanel announces sponsorship of Boat Race

Bryn Mollet
-
0
Chanel announces sponsorship of Boat Race

Luxury fashion brand Chanel has entered a long-term partnership with the Oxford-Cambridge Boat Race, now renamed The CHANEL J12 Boat Race, as its titular sponsor and timekeeper after the previous sponsor filed for bankruptcy. J12 refers to one of Chanel’s watch collections, with the company drawing on a connection between synchronicity in rowing and watchmaking.

President of Chanel Watches & Fine Jewellery Frédéric Grangié said in a press release: “Synchronicity in rowing is as crucial to the race as watchmaking craftsmanship to ensure accurate timing. Every rower, like every mechanism in a watch, must work together as one; the balance, the weight and the oar movements must all be impeccably timed.”

Chanel’s founder Gabriel “Coco” Chanel was inspired by her own interest in sport to create clothes for women that were less restrictive and easier to move in. 

The previous titular sponsor of the boat race was Gemini, a platform for cryptocurrency portfolio management founded by two twins and Oxford alumni, Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, who rowed for the Blues in the 2021 Boat Race. The company filed for bankruptcy earlier this year having faced accusations of defrauding investors, resulting in a $37 million fine and having to refund users. 

Other sponsors over the years include Ladbrokes, Beefeater Gin, Aberdeen Asset Management, and Newton Investment Management.

Chanel is the first company in the race’s 195-year history to be the Boat Race’s official timekeeper as well as its titular sponsor and official partner. The contract extends until 2029, which will be the race’s bicentenary.

Each year over 250,000 spectate the Boat Race on the riverbank, with millions more watching on television. This year saw defeats for both Oxford’s Men and Women, giving Cambridge a record of 87–81 for men and 48–30 for women.

Guess who’s coming to dinner? Politics.

Madelina Gordon
-
0
Guess who’s coming to dinner? Politics.

I am not American. I’m actually not even British. Nevertheless, US elections tend to take on their own significance in popular political discourse stretching far beyond American shores. For this reason, until the impending moment when the votes are in, it seems that attempting to avert political discussion is an impossible task.

I can attest to such being the case within my family. This summer, I attended a fair few family gatherings. At one, the briefing my parents gave me before politely knocking on my aunt’s door was: “For god’s sake, don’t bring up politics”. And mind you – I was certainly of the opinion that this was warranted, reasonable advice definitely worth following to keep the peace.

Alas. Politics was indeed brought up.

First, I tried to zone out. That lasted about ten minutes. Once I got started, I was arguing till the cows came home. My mum later said I had been a little, well, hostile.

Exasperated (and sometimes appalled) as I was by the conversation and opinions of my extended family members, the experience was an important reminder of exactly how much of an echo chamber Oxford is. The sensitive, nuanced disagreements with peers at Oxford usually about how to achieve some agreed upon goal are minor and superfluous in comparison to the cataclysmic political schisms that existed between the opinions of myself and my family members. Specific, delicate political discussion is a product of the Oxford bubble that always, sadly, pops.

So with the US election on the horizon and political contentions bubbling just below the surface of so many interactions – how ought we to approach political disagreement? To add flames to an already daunting task, how does one approach political disagreement with family members and turn outbursts at the family dinner table into constructive, meaningful conversations?

As someone who has all too often fallen in the camp of outburst, I do not pretend to know all the answers to this question. But I can speak from experience on just how difficult this task is, and what often works for me to ease some of its pressures.

I think knowing when to shut up is definitely a good start. Pair that with the patience to actually listen to what your rogue cousin has to say — and taking the time to hear why they think that can often can be remarkably insightful. For me, listening to my grandma reminisce that JFK was the best — most handsome — US President, and then go on to announce that Donald Trump would have her vote were she born in the land of the free, feels important. My grandma is a hard working, optimistic and kind-hearted Italian Nonna who makes the best gnocchi, and for her, politics has never been the kind of philosophical moral discussion as it is for Oxford students. She’ll still come out with outlandish statements about sexism or climate change that I’ll be dumbfounded by, but that doesn’t diminish my impetus to speak with her, to learn about why and where her ideas come from.

These kinds of experiences tend to be completely off limits to the average Oxford student circulating amongst the academic elite. Whilst Oxford provides us with rich academic opportunities to grow and learn, our time away colours often abstract and intangible academic discourse with the diversity and complexity of real people that live and exist in the wider world.

When voicing one’s own opinion at the dinner table – something that you shouldn’t be dissuaded from merely in lieu of disagreement – my advice would probably be to do so a little tentatively, being prepared to explain and back yourself when asked why exactly you find that to be true. Sometimes when doing this, I am confronted with questions to assumptions that I wouldn’t normally think twice about. This can trigger an introspection and self-awareness that isn’t always initiated when learning alongside like-minded peers and tutors. If you take disagreements as that – catalysers of introspection – political conversations become far more attractive, far more interesting, and not something we ought to shy away from.

So with things really heating up on the US election front, which may or may not entail a similar heating up on the family political turf for you, I would be an advocate for not leaving politics at the door before attending a family dinner. By inviting in politics and letting disagreements come out, a whole lot of self-reflection becomes possible. Talking about politics outside the bubble makes what you learn inside it all the more relevant.

Oxford’s long vacation vexation

Thomas Armstrong
-
0
Oxford’s long vacation vexation

In a recent poll of Oriel College students for Cherwell, almost two thirds of those surveyed agreed that the University’s 8-week terms are too short. So, how are we to explain the notoriously overworked Oxford student’s counter-intuitive desire for more time spent studying? The answer lies deeper than a simple enthusiasm for hitting the books.

One of the main concerns raised by those students in favour of longer terms related to workload. Rather than advocating for more of the same system, it seems students would appreciate extended terms to allow an extra week for revision, or just a ‘reading week’ as is common in other UK universities. Of course, there’s more to Oxford than academics. It’s also worth considering the impact this extra breathing space would have on the extra-curricular scene. Over 400 societies are currently affiliated with the University, not to mention those at the college level: surely it can be no bad thing to allow students’ sporting, dramatic, or creative talents more time to flourish.

Furthermore, it is important to appreciate the respite that student life provides for those with difficult home situations. According to the Office for Students, the 3,000 students who enter higher education every year while dealing with estrangement achieve lower average marks and leave their courses more frequently. Oxford’s terms — with Cambridge, as short as any in the country — mean that these students spend less than half the year actually living in Oxford University accommodation. If one accepts that estranged students are at their least vulnerable when in their college, they are denied this protection for six months out of the year.

Some have suggested that the issue seems an easy one to resolve. This year’s long vac, at 16 weeks, lasted longer than the 1940 Battle of France and Brian Clough’s tenure at Leeds United put together. Surely it’s as simple as adding a week onto each term and shortening the summer vacation accordingly to compensate for the change.

Yet things aren’t nearly that clear-cut. The same Oriel students who broadly favoured longer terms were split almost exactly evenly on whether or not the long vacation should be made shorter to compensate, a result which seems strange until you examine the motives respondents offered. One, writing anonymously, suggested that “[the vacation] drags sometimes, but that’s what it’s for”. Several others highlighted that the sheer length of time away from study allows for both leisure and professional development through internships.

The main reasons for opposition to a shorter summer vac among Cherwell’s focus group were financial: many are reluctant to take on the burden of another week’s accommodation costs. And these material pressures have even deeper impacts still. For some students, Oxford’s accommodation system presents a difficult choice between strife on the financial front or on the domestic one. Students wishing to stay in Oxford over the vacation must not only pay additional fees, but also justify their presence to college authorities – a situation which, for some, is symbolic of the University’s callous attitude towards its students outside of term time.

Mel Monemvasioti, also of Oriel, remarked that “Mental health and caring for your students goes beyond having a counselling system and therapy llamas. It needs to translate into material changes that actually provide benefits and support to students and don’t just treat them like cash cows. The vac issue actually illustrates a wider problem with the way [Oxford] approaches mental health and student support.”

This warning in some ways reflects the current state of the relationship between students and the university. Cherwell has repeatedly covered the rise in mental health concerns among Oxford students and young people in general, as well as allegations that the University is still yet to adequately deal with these problems. As with the rent question, some of Oxford’s perceived failings return again and again to issues of cost. The University’s collegiate structure is often cited as a defence against calls for greater investment. Oxford administrators claim to be hamstrung by the fact that £6 billion of the University’s £8bn endowment is tied to individual colleges rather than a single central body, meaning that University-wide improvements are extremely difficult to implement.

However, there are some cases where that argument has met fierce opposition. The College Disparities Report from the Student Union highlights that certain colleges would be more than capable of enacting financially sustainable reform across the University. Christ Church’s endowment, for example – said to be in excess of £700m in 2023 – is greater than that of every university in the country bar Cambridge and the remaining Oxford colleges.

The picture, therefore, is characteristically bleak. Lengthening terms and shortening the summer vacation would likely alleviate the significant pressures on students’ mental health, but that would require financial sacrifices. If some colleges were to subsidise others, the entire University could take steps to accommodate such changes and provide students with longer leases for the same price. Yet for many, there is a recurring feeling that asking for aid from Oxford’s wealthier colleges seems less feasible than drawing blood from their centuries-old stone.

Oxford Union believes Islam is compatible with democracy

Ila Banerji
-
0
Oxford Union believes Islam is compatible with democracy

The Oxford Union voted last night that Islam is compatible with democracy. But before debating world politics, the packed chamber was treated to nearly an hour of the Union’s very own politics, with President Ebrahim Osman Mowafy, his supporters, and his critics engaging in a heated debate over racism, rules changes, and the legitimacy of returning officers. The motion “This House Believes Islam is Incompatible with Democracy” saw 49 votes in favour and 116 votes against.

Before taking questions, Osman-Mowafy began with a summary of last term’s controversy over “institutional racism” and the undemocratic nature of returning officers, who were the primary target of last week’s reforms. Social Events Officer Shermar Pryce asked Osman-Mowafy if he was still friends with a member who had called Pryce a “coconut”, eventually escalating into shouts about dinner and Instagram slides. Russell Kwok, who was blocked from becoming a Deputy Returning Officer, accused Osman-Mowafy of misspelling his name and alleging that he was “racist by association”, a term Osman-Mowafy denied using.

Students of law – a subject that appears to dominate Union leadership these days – must have greatly enjoyed the courtroom-esque scene, but the same can’t be said for the audience. Throughout this heated saga, students repeatedly asked for the Union to move onto the main debate, to applause and cheers from the chamber. The invited speakers, one of whom had flown in from Malaysia just for this debate, sat silently throughout all this, exchanging amused looks and occasionally giggling.

Finally underway, the debate began with Deputy Director of Press Yashas Ramakrishnan opening for the proposition. He started by “roasting” his opposition, mentioning that Usame Zukorlic used to run an organic store and thanking him for “putting down the green beans to focus on something more serious”. The audience did not laugh. Ramakrishnan’s argument hinged on the idea that Islamic governments can only function as the voice of God, making representation of the people impossible. He seemed eager to get through as much argument as possible — so eager he had to be asked to stop speaking so quickly. 

Next came Treasurer-Elect Moosa Harraj, who began by saying Ramakrishnan’s stance on the motion makes sense since “when Muslims run, they beat him in democratic elections”, referring to his recent loss in standing committee elections to three Muslims. He went on to refer to proposition speaker Benedict Masters as a “socially acceptable Boris Johnson.” Harraj’s argument hinged on an explanation of democracy and justice in Islamic history, as well as highlighting the importance of “consultation” in the religion. 

Next came the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, Zuhdi Jasser. Jasser began his speech by asserting that he was a proud Muslim. As an American, Jasser deemed Britain and the USA the “free-est countries in the world”, and was met with applause from the audience. He defined Islam as not just a religion, but also a “brand”, and one that he believes has been corrupted; Islam could be compatible with democracy, but is not. Jasser found time in his nine-minute speech to advertise for his book at least twice.

Serbian politician Usame Zukoric informed the chamber that this was his first debate in English, which he said proved a “special challenge”. Zukoric put himself and his protection of Muslim minority rights forward as an example for the compatibility of religion and democracy. He provided examples of Muslim democracies such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Tunisia, urging the audience not to allow “isolated examples of extremism” to “overshadow” the Muslim faith. Zukoric finished by reminding the audience of the importance of European Muslims. 

Masters began his speech by addressing the “elephant in the room” and admitting that he also did not know why he had been chosen to speak. Masters tried to appeal to the chamber’s baser instincts by starting his speech with an insult to the French, a tactic that received a tepid response. Masters’ main argument was that Islam could not be compatible with democracy because divine law would always trump human law. He took a different approach than his fellow speakers, by admitting that all faiths struggled with this same problem, concluding that secularism is the only ideology that can coexist with democracy.

Now reaching 10.15pm, Malaysian politician Maszlee Malik had to wait awkwardly for an exodus of people leaving the chamber before he could begin his speech. Malik detailed his work with education in Malaysia as a real-life example of how Islam could be compatible with democracy. He went on to call out what he called the “hypocrisy of Western democracy”, referring in particular to what he saw as bystanderism in the context of the war in the Gaza strip – Malik’s explicit referral to it as a “genocide” elicited applause from the chamber. 

The final proposition speaker, the former Deputy Leader of Reform UK, Ben Habib, began by informing the chamber he was not actually interested in debating the motion. Instead, he decided he would debate what he deemed a more important question – whether or not Islam, as it is practised in Britain, is compatible with British democracy. Instead of talking about the motion, Habib launched into an attack on “diversity, equality, and inclusion”. He professed that he believed liberalism had gone “too far” and that the UK was now “positively prejudiced” for minorities. 

At last, Majjid Nawaz began his speech by arguing that no proposition speaker had been arguing for the motion, which referred to Islam in its essence, not as it is practised now or its history. Nawaz went on to say that he believed the motion was dangerous, saying that it was sentiment like it that had led to the communal riots experienced in the UK earlier this year, as well as the Bosnian genocide of the 1990s. He went on to state that there is no predetermined way to Islamically govern because concepts like “state” and “constitution” did not exist when Islamic scriptures were being written; systems, he said, are made by people.

Editors’ note: Commentary herein represents the opinion of the reporter, not of Cherwell.

Lord Mayor inspects New College walls following 650-year tradition

Devon Darley
-
0
Lord Mayor inspects New College walls following 650-year tradition

In a historic ceremony dating back to the reign of King Richard II, Oxford’s Lord Mayor Councillor Mike Rowley inspected Oxford’s medieval city walls on 23rd October. This ceremonious tradition has been observed for nearly 650 years, honouring an agreement made on 30th of June 1379 between New College and the City of Oxford.

King Richard II granted New College founder William of Wykeham a royal charter to establish New College in 1379. Along with this charter came the land on which New College would be built. The land, however, came with a condition: since the Oxford City Walls would pass through New College, the college was entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining the walls and providing two entrances through which the Lord Mayor could inspect them. Since then, every three years, the Lord Mayor has carried out this ceremonial inspection of the city’s historic walls – which today stand as one of the last remaining stretches of the walls that originally encircled the city.

New College has taken its role of wall-upkeep seriously. Climbing or walking atop them is strictly forbidden in the Dean’s Handbook, a book of rules that govern New College students. Common myth says that anybody found on top of the wall is faced with immediate expulsion. While it is unlikely that the walls will ever be used for their intended purpose of protecting Oxford from siege again, save for protection from commemoration-ball-breaking hopefuls, the preservation of the walls remains crucial to the college both to preserve an important part of the city’s history, and to uphold their 14th-century agreement with the King of England.

As part of the ceremony, the Lord Mayor and City Councillors walked from the Town Hall to New College’s gate on Queen’s Lane. Led by the City Mace, upon arriving, the second Sergeant of Mace knocked three times on the non licet gate to New College, symbolising a formal request for entry. After being greeted by the Warden and Fellows of the college, they began a thorough inspection of the walls.

No bonfire at bonfire night for the first time in 56 years

Charlie Bailey
-
0
No bonfire at bonfire night for the first time in 56 years

This year’s Guy Fawkes Night celebration in South Park will not feature the traditional bonfire, marking a first in the event’s 56-year history. Following complaints from local residents after last year’s event, Oxford City Council permitted Oxford Round Table, which organises the annual charity occasion, to proceed on the condition that the bonfire be excluded from this year’s festivities.

Last year the event coincided with Storm Ciaran, which over-saturated the park, making it vulnerable to the heavy machinery. The damage was caused by vehicles transporting logs for the bonfire, and despite prior concerns and suggestions that Oxford Round Table protect the ground with sheeting, this method continued “on the grounds of cost.”

Around 40 locals lodged complaints with the city council about the grounds, and additional complaints referenced the large amount of smoke generated by the bonfire. Oxford Round Table was ordered to cover the cost of repairing the extensive damages.

This decision comes after negotiations with Oxford Preservation Trust and Friends of South Park group. Other conditions include the implementing metal roadways underneath the funfair and only allowing essential and emergency vehicles to enter the site. Attendees are encouraged to use the Oxford Bus Company for transport now that parking is prohibited on the main site.

Some council members argue that complaints about smoke and mud are not substantial enough to justify discontinuing the bonfire. Independent councillor Ajaz Rehman called the decision “draconian” and emphasised that the event “belongs to the whole of Oxford.” Rehman also expressed concern that the absence of the bonfire could lead to lower ticket sales – last year’s event attracted 20,000 attendees and raised £85,000 for Oxford Round Table to continue their work aiding local charities.

Despite this change, the event, scheduled for the evening of 2nd November, will still include a fireworks display, food villages, bars, and funfair rides. Chairman of Oxford Round Table Josh Worsfold confirmed that Illusion Fireworks, the reigning National Fireworks champions, will once again handle the display.Event director Joseph Garbett added that to make up for the absence of the bonfire, this year’s fireworks show will be the “biggest and best ever.”

‘Technical difficulties’ delay new online History Admissions Test

Mair Andrews
-
0
‘Technical difficulties’ delay new online History Admissions Test

The History Admissions Test (HAT) was supposed to take place at 9am on Monday, but technical difficulties meant that students could not begin the exam until 11am at the earliest, two hours after the test was expected to start.

An applicant told Cherwell that while experiencing delays at their testing centres, students received emails saying the HAT was cancelled. However, many students stayed and took the test after some time. She said: “It was very stressful for those of us who did take it as many of us were unsure if we would be able to until the very last minute.”

The exam itself is a 60-minute essay response to a source text and a vital part of the Oxford application process, serving as the primary selector for interviews.

This is the first year Pearson VUE has delivered Oxford admissions tests, and the first year it was delivered digitally. It comes after multiple issues with tests last year, including for geography, English and maths, where the results were not factored into admissions decisions.

Some admissions tests, such as the English Literature Admissions Test (ELAT), have not run this year because of the new provider, Pearson VUE, which requires students to register at certain test centres to be examined in person. The English Faculty decided this was unfair and made the test inaccessible and are looking for alternative options for next year’s admissions cycle. 

In light of the technical issues with the HAT today, the English Faculty is still unsure how to implement the ELAT again next year. 

A University spokesperson told Cherwell that despite a “technical issue” in the test centres, “the large majority of candidates were able to sit their tests globally as expected.” They apologise for the disruption caused to affected candidates and “will ensure that no-one is disadvantaged by this morning’s events. We are working with Pearson VUE to ensure there is no repeat of this.”

More admissions tests are taking place today, including for classics, ancient history and classical archaeology, biomedical sciences, modern languages and philosophy.  

1...444546...2,488Page 45 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