Tuesday, April 29, 2025
Blog Page 494

Tinder? I hardly know her

0

2:30AM. You’ve left Bridge before closing. Some reptilian part of your VK-addled brain sparks up and before you know it, you’re in bed swiping left on the eighth person whose ‘tall, if it matters’, and swiping right on someone just to exercise some other muscle group in your thumb. Of course, that happens to be the one person you match with that evening. Your eyes roll, and you’re immediately met with the race to un-match before you get hit with some variety on ‘hey, seeing as we’re both up…’

There is something about spending time on Tinder (other dating apps are available) that feels akin to awkward, sexually charged eye contact on the District Line. The moments/hours/days between the millisecond dopamine rush and the first message being sent leaves you in an odd limbo where you both know you’re equally interested/bored/drunk, but not quite enough to actually engage in conversation. If you finally do take the plunge and decide to talk to each other, the vast majority of conversations take one of two routes:

‘Hey’
‘Hey’
‘How you doing?’
‘Ahaha is that a Friends reference’
‘yh ahah’

Or, perhaps more entertainingly,

‘I would love to suck your toes.’

This is not to say Tinder is always the technological equivalent of taking someone home after a club night just to look in the mirror and ignore them whilst they sit awkwardly at your kitchen table, but slowly that Black Mirror episode where Bryce Dallas Howard gets arrested for the human equivalent of a low Yelp review seems to make sense the fifth time someone opens with the James Franco wink gif. At least ‘lucky for you I’m a pervert’ was an original conversation starter. And just like a club night, the urge to shower is overwhelming and you’re probably disappointing your parents. Swiping on Tinder feels like an acceptance that you’re bypassing any kind of slow blossoming genuine connection– no one writes songs about being superliked by Chris, 25, Brookes Uni.

So then when you’re standing outside the tube station, somehow recalling every single sex trafficking story ever reported, thinking back to a more innocent time where only silly people got into strangers’ cars,  you catch the eye of the collection of photos you’ve been chatting to walk towards you and in a weird uncanny valley moment realise this is a complete stranger you’ve been talking to for three weeks. Only then does it cross your mind that those photos were probably picked for good reason, and their height definitely does matter. Do you hug? Shake hands? Fist (bump)? They’re paying, right?

At the risk of mixing modern-day metaphors, we’re able to treat people in the same way we treat a box set of Killing Eve. It’s on-demand attention where you can, quite literally, turn people off. The ghost in the machine has a name, and it’s Molly, 22, Beautician. So why not delete it? Why not, you know, leave the house? Get out a bit? Firstly, at least it’s not meth, but secondly, there’s perhaps something reassuring about such a vast group of people all choosing to download an app that we can collectively agree is basically a technological purgatory where lost souls wait around for something better to happen. If one extreme of social media is seeing someone from the year above you in primary school get engaged on Instagram whilst you’re still shimmying away from a nonce on the Park End cheese floor, the other is on Tinder, where we’re all just shimmying away from toe-suckers and hoping we’ll bump into someone who knows how to use deodorant.

A brief translator’s guide to Tinder:

“6’0”, because apparently that matters”
I’m 5’10” and bitter.

“Why match and not message?”
I’ll message you “hey” eight times at 3:30am, then call you a slut when you don’t reply.

“Send memes”
Send nudes.

“Your mum will love me.”
She won’t.

“Sesh-head”
I smell like dark fruits.

“New to this.”
I’m 57 years old and hang about at clubs.

“Not on here much, add me on Instagram.”
I’m not actually a human being.

“Dark sense of humour.”
Racist.

UCU Strikes: What you need to know

0

The University and Colleges Union will begin strikes again this Thursday, Cherwell is here to tell you everything you need to know.

When are strikes taking place?

The UCU has announced 14 weekdays of strikes, but action will be spread out over the course of 23 days. Striking days will be grouped into three clusters and escalate in length during the 23 days. 

Cluster 1: Thursday of 5th week – Wednesday of 6th week (4 working days)

Cluster 2: Monday of 7th week – Thursday of 7th week (4 working days)

Cluster 3: Monday of 8th week – Friday of 8th week (5 working days)

Who is striking?

The University and Colleges Union is organising and participating in the strikes. The UCU is a trade union which represents those employed in higher education. This means that union represents casualised researchers and teaching staff, “permanent” lecturers and academic-related professional services staff. Any employee of the university who falls under one of these categories and is a member of the UCU is eligible to participate in the upcoming strikes.

It is unclear how wide-ranging strikes will be this year, and exactly how many lecturers intend to strike. Although all UCU members have the right to strike, whether to strike or not is left to the discretion of the individual. Cherwell understands that approximately 50% of the Oxford UCU branch turned out to vote in the strike ballot. Of those, around 75% voted in favour of action, meaning that around 38% of Oxford UCU members have returned a vote to strike.

As of October 2019, Oxford’s branch of the UCU had 1,225 members.

Information distributed by the University has made it clear that they expect the majority of teaching to go unaffected.

How will it affect me?

The most tangible effects for students will be the cancellation of some lectures, labs, and other teaching organised by the central University and its faculties. Students will be notified beforehand if any events are cancelled. Oxford has also said that it will attempt to reschedule any teaching which is affected by the action.

Further, the UCU has encouraged its members to take action short of a strike. This involves working strictly to contract, not catching up on work missed due to work, not covering for absent colleagues, not undertaking any voluntary activities, and a marking and assessment boycott. Action short of a strike is unlikely to drastically impact the quality of teaching but may mean academics becoming stricter with the work they will carry out for the university. The marking and assessment boycott means that academics may elect not to participate in the marking or moderation of university-level examinations.

Teaching in college will go unaffected. Tutorials and classes should go on, and collections and internal examinations will be undertaken as normal.

Why are academics striking?

Members of the UCU are striking this term over two separate disputes. One relates to the University, and the other to the higher education pensions’ provider: the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS).

Dispute with Universities

The UCU’s dispute with universities covers pay, equality, casualisation, and workloads.

The Union has alleged that higher education employees’ retail price index (RPI) inflation-adjusted pay has fallen by around 20% since 2009. This figure stands at odds with calculations made by the University and Colleges Employers’ Association which puts the pay reduction since 2009 between 1.5% (CPIH inflation-adjusted pay for junior university staff) and 17% (RPI inflation-adjusted pay for senior university staff).

Negotiations with the UCEA, which represents universities in negotiations, on the current dispute began in March 2019. 

Most recently, the UCEA submitted an offer to the UCU in January which details the concessions universities are currently willing to make. The offer includes a 1.8% pay increase for staff, which the UCU says “fails to keep up with the cost of living.” The offer also includes measures to address the gender pay gap, expecting universities to work with trade unions to address disparities. It also encourages universities to move staff currently employed on casual or fixed-term contracts onto indefinite contracts, and encourages institutions to investigate ways to ensure that demands placed on university staff are achievable.

Currently, UCU negotiators have made it clear that they do not believe that this latest offer represents the best deal which could be achieved for members, although both parties agree that significant progress has been made on the dispute.

Dispute with the USS

Union members have also raised a dispute concerning the sustainability of the universities’ pensions scheme.

The dispute has been slower to negotiate, as the UCU argues that the current pensions pot has been undervalued, and members are currently being asked to increase contributions to the scheme while receiving less in their retirement.

According to the UCU, changes which have been made to the USS have meant that an average member will pay £40,000 extra into their pension but receive £200,000 less in their retirement.

The USS argues that the scheme “faces a challenging environment in which the costs of funding high-quality defined benefits have increased.”

This dispute also involves Universities UK, representing universities in the pensions dispute. According to UUK, employers have agreed to cover 65% of the increased costs to the USS. The body has expressed dismay at the decision taken by the UCU committing to further strike action.

Where will the strikes take place?

Strikes will take place outside six locations in Oxford:

  • Clarendon Building, Broad Street
  • Examinations Schools, High Street
  • Science Area South, South Parks Road
  • Science Area North, Parks Road
  • Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road
  • The Old Road Campus Research Building, Roosevelt Drive

Picket lines will form at around 8:30 am.

There will also be a rally outside the Clarendon Building on Broad Street at 12 pm on Thursday 20th February (Thursday of 5th). Speakers at the event will include the president of Oxford Students’ Union.

Should I cross a picket line?

Striking members cannot stop students from crossing picket lines, and decisions to attend lectures must be made by an individual. However, Oxford Students’ Union encouraged students not to cross picket lines during the strikes in November 2019, citing that “we have a responsibility to support this upcoming strike.”

It also encouraged Oxford students to participate in “solidarity action.”

Can I seek financial compensation for lost teaching time?

Oxford has made it clear that they intend to put alternative arrangements in place to minimise disruption during the strikes. They will not be issuing compensation to students.

However, if alternative arrangements have been inadequate, students may complain to the University.

Will the strikes end after this term?

If the UCU is able to find resolution with universities and the USS, strikes will cease. However, the Union has made it clear that they are willing to take further industrial action until the end of the academic year if sufficient progress is not made. For many universities, this will require a re-balloting of members, since strike ballots are only valid for 6 months. At Oxford, the current strike mandate lasts until July, since the most recent ballot was returned in January this year.

What have the relevant parties said about the strikes?

Cherwell asked the UCU, Oxford University, the Universities Superannuation Scheme, Universities UK and the Universities and Colleges Employers Association for comment regarding the most recent round of strikes. Their responses are as follows.

Oxford UCU

“UCU has just announced 14 days of strike action, starting on the 20th of February, for both the USS pensions and the pay & equality disputes. Oxford will now also be joining the USS action after a successful re-ballot, in addition to the pay & equality dispute which we took part in last term. While we have seen important steps in engagement, with employers being prepared to discuss issues that were previously off the table as a result of the first round of strike action, they have failed to make serious commitments in either dispute so far. We have 17 days between now and then, and very much hope that UUK and UCEA will at last come to us with a serious offers on the two disputes. UCUs HEC will meet on the 14th of February to consider any offers that may be on the table between now and then, and we will of course be following developments closely. We do not want to resort to strike action but we are prepared and determined to do so if necessary”

Jo Grady (UCU General Secretary)

“We have seen more members back strikes since the winter walkouts and this next wave of action will affect even more universities and students. If universities want to avoid further disruption they need to deal with rising pension costs, and address the problems over pay and conditions.

“We have been clear from the outset that we would take serious and sustained industrial action if that was what was needed. As well as the strikes starting later this month, we are going to ballot members to ensure that we have a fresh mandate for further action to cover the rest of the academic year if these disputes are not resolved.”

Oxford University

“The University is disappointed with the outcome of the Oxford UCU ballot in favour of industrial action over USS pensions. We understand the concerns many staff have on pensions, as well as on pay. We also have a duty to ensure our education and research activities continue as far as possible and will therefore have contingency plans in place to minimise the impact of any industrial action on staff, students and visitors.”

USS

“We recognise the difficulties in levying higher contributions but USS, along with all similar pension schemes, faces a challenging environment in which the costs of funding high-quality defined benefits have increased.

“We will be revisiting these issues over the coming months under the 2020 valuation and are committed to working with Higher Education employers to build a secure financial future for our members and their families.”

UUK

“We regret that UCU are planning further strike action at a time when positive talks on the future of the scheme are making significant progress and are ongoing. Despite this, UCU continue to request that employers pay still higher contributions at unaffordable levels.

“By law, pension costs had to rise to maintain current benefits. Employers have agreed to cover 65% of these increased costs, taking their contribution to 21.1% of salaries from October 2019 – together committing £250m more a year. Members have been asked to make a fair contribution too.

“The best way forward is to work collectively to secure a pension scheme that is highly valued and affordable for all. The current tripartite talks between UCU, USS, and UUK, which are set to continue at least until March, are building a shared understanding on the future of the scheme, jointly developing governance reforms and considering alternative pathways for the 2020 valuation.

“Universities will put in place a series of measures to minimise the impact of industrial action on students, other staff and the wider community.”

UCEA

“We are dismayed, and many HE institutions will be so too, to see UCU’s HEC decide to ask the union’s members to once again use damaging strike action over last year’s national pay demands. Strike action should always be a last resort and we believe that UCU’s 70,000 members in the 147 institutions should now be given a say. There are new ways forward being offered by HE employers – UCEA has made available significant positive proposals on key issues in UCU’s dispute – contractual arrangements, workload / mental health and gender pay gaps / ethnicity pay – developed following two months of talks with UCU. Strikes in less than half the universities in the multi-employer negotiations are not the answer and are in real danger of undermining the national collective pay bargaining arrangements. 

“UCEA has proactively and formally consulted its members in developing our significant new proposals as we can only move with the consensus of our members. UCU members deserve a chance to have their voices heard as to how they feel about the progress that has been made and whether they want to choose an alternative to further disruptive action.”

An Ode to Trixie Mattel

0

If someone were to bring up ‘drag music’, the likelihood is that your first thought would sound a little something like 2:30am on a Plush Tuesday. Whether it be the all-familiar refrain of RuPaul’s ‘Sissy that Walk’ or the dulcet tones of your favourite local queen’s rendition of ‘Man! I Feel Like a Woman’, there’s a certain sound that tends to be almost synonymous with drag.

Most people’s mental image wouldn’t necessarily be a self-proclaimed ‘backwoods barbie’, complete with heartfelt lyrics and autoharp-driven melodies to match, or at least not until recently. Shot from relative Milwaukee fame to worldwide drag superstardom almost overnight, Trixie Mattel is known for doing just that.

Now three albums and nearly two million Instagram followers deep, Mattel gained a reputation after appearing on season seven of RuPaul’s Drag Race and subsequently winning season two of the ‘All Stars’ edition in 2015 and 2018 respectively. Known for her exaggerated take on Barbie’s signature look (hence the ‘Mattel’) and witty improvisational humour, she won hearts, a successful web show with best friend and creative partner Katya, and a modest $100,000. Whilst a considerable amount was spent on refining her drag, she funnelled the rest into her drag-meets-country-music passion project.

Her first EP, Two Birds, was released in 2017 – a six-track collection of songs touching on classic country tropes such as marriage, hometowns, and the trials and tribulations of getting into full drag on the road. At the time, it was a far cry from what her newly-found Drag Race fans knew her for. Whilst she did dabble in music in season seven, this was in a theatrical parody of John Waters’ Pink Flamingos – not quite doing justice to the extent of Mattel’s talents. Instead, she showcased a genuine and tender component to her voice and image alike, previously masked by the seven stacked pairs of 301 lashes.

In interviews around the time of the release of Two Birds, Mattel was candid about how the process of writing her lyrics differed from her usual stand-up routines. Talking about track three, ‘I Know You All over Again’, she shared how she’d go from telling jokes on stage about her time on Drag Race, to drinking alone at her hotel bar and openly sobbing whilst writing lyrics. She talks of the fallout of a break-up with autobiographical finesse: “And I don’t call you when I cry/And I don’t stay the day in bed/Mostly I’m fine/Most of the time I get by, like I said.” It’s lyrics like these that showed fans a different side to the larger than life Trixie character that she’d created, letting them in bit by bit to hear the vulnerable voice of Brian Firkus – the man behind the makeup.

The 2018 follow-up to Two Birds – you guessed it – One Stone, only further proved to showcase Mattel’s musical prowess. With lyrics, vocals, and multi-instrumentals provided by Mattel herself, the EP took the #1 spot on the Billboard Heatseekers charts. This served to break not only her music, but modern drag music in general, into the limelight. Premiering on the same night as her season of Drag Race: All Stars, it acted to bridge the gap between Drag Race fans and fans of drag as an art form.

This is not to say that Mattel is the first to do what she’s been doing for drag artists these past few years. Figureheads such as Divine and RuPaul himself undeniably paved the way for Mattel to have the creative freedom to bring drag country music to the masses. The way in which Mattel does it, however, is what makes her art so special. As drag has become more mainstream and commercialised, its flaws as a community have been put under a microscope. RuPaul has been heavily (and rightly) critiqued for his erasure of AFAB (assigned female at birth) performers – who build up a large and fundamental part of the community as a whole. As Drag Race is the main form in which many people see drag, this erasure is damaging to AFAB performers worldwide. Without women, drag would not be what it is, – something that is at the heart of Trixie Mattel’s music and image.

Whilst Firkus is himself a cis, white, gay man, he has put women right to the forefront of just about everything he’s done. Owing his sound to inspirations like Dolly Parton and Kacey Musgraves, he uses his platform to hold women to the highest esteem. Regularly inviting female fans on stage to sing his songs, and writing music “for and about women”, he does so in a way that doesn’t trivialise the female experience as many drag performers tend to do. As a man in a male dominated scene, Mattel brings a refreshing riot grrrl-esque ‘girls to the front’ ethos, embedded in country songs. Whilst much more needs to be done to make the drag community a more inclusive space, Mattel is doing what more performers in her position should be – and sounds pretty great whilst doing it.

Town beat Gown in annual boxing showdown

0

For nearly 150 years the Oxford Union debating chamber has been a place where great minds have clashed in intellectual battles. On one special night every year, however, late in January, it is home to a different sort of battle; one fought with fists rather than words. I am speaking of the Town vs Gown Boxing Show, which took place this year on Saturday 25th January. It is a fitting location for the event, as boxing seems to me to be the physical embodiment of the process of discursive conflict that occurs during a debate. In boxing, as in debating, two opponents go head to head according to a strict set of rules, which ensure a fair fight. The winner is usually selected by the judges who, like the audience of a debate, vote on who displayed greater skill during the bout.

Town vs Gown is organised entirely by the students who make up the committee of Oxford University Amateur Boxing Club. On the night, a team of volunteers from OUABC dedicate their time to help the committee in ensuring that the night runs smoothly. The committee and volunteers did a brilliant job this year and put on a seamless and professional show, consisting of 13 action-packed bouts, which left the distinct impression in the spectators that the tickets were money well spent. 

The show is the second biggest in the OUABC calendar, after the Varsity match against Cambridge, and it is one of the highest attended amateur boxing matches in the whole country (although the annual Women’s Boxing Show, which runs in Michaelmas, is quickly growing in popularity after having been established in 2018). The primary purpose of Town vs Gown is to prepare boxers in the club for the Varsity match by giving them the essential experience of an amateur bout in front of a large crowd. Despite the name of the show, 5 of the bouts were internal, matching 2 OUABC boxers against each other. This was done to ensure that as many OUABC fighters as possible could compete. The Town fighters also came from other areas besides Oxford such as London and Whitley.

Every single boxer, regardless of whether they had started boxing only a few months ago or if they had been training for longer, was a hardened athlete by the night of the show. This is a testament to the determination of the boxers and the dedication and hard work of the coaches, who in mere months mould us students, who often enter the gym more comfortable with books than gloves, into bona fide boxers. Every single boxer deserves a huge amount of credit for having the courage to step into the ring and compete; the enormity of this feat can only be fully appreciated by those who have done the same.

Now, onto the night itself. Before the first bout started, the chamber was tense with anticipation. In preparation for the first bout Lakshmi Manoharan and Paddy Lee, both OUABC fighters, warmed up in the narrow corridor outside. They were nervous, but eager to get into the ring and put their skills to the test. Finally, the wonderful Kaya Axelsson, OUABC Vice President and MC for the first part of the night, announced around 6:15 that the bouts were off to a start. Lakshmi entered into the blue corner and Paddy into the red. The bell dinged and the fight began. The first round was very evenly matched, as both fighters got a feel for each other and got comfortable in the ring. Encouraged by their corner advice, they roared into action in the second and third rounds, with a much higher number of punches coming from both fighters. Lakshmi was the taller fighter and she used her range very well, flicking out her jab and often landing it. Paddy did well to close the distance, however, boxing with her hands high. When she got in close, she was able to land some very effective overhand rights. The fight was well matched, but Lakshmi was able to land more punches through effectively using her range. She won by unanimous decision.

The second bout was also an internal OUABC one, with Andrew Marotta in the red corner and Ryan Fincham in the blue. The first round started, and Andy was able to incorporate some very good right uppercuts in his combinations. He slipped many of Ryan’s shots displaying effective defensive skills. Ryan came back, however, with good combinations of his own, resulting in a very intense third round. Andy slipped and everyone held their breath; would it be judged a knockdown? No, it was clearly a slip, and the referee let the fight go on. Ryan landed some heavy shots resulting in the referee giving Andy a standing 8-count. He beat the count, and came back with shots of his own, so that the bout ended practically mid-punch. The decision went to Ryan, in the red corner.

The third bout, also internal, was between Charlie Sillett in the blue corner and Matthew Proctor in the red. Matthew was the taller fighter, and this can sometimes actually be a disadvantage as if shorter fighter can get in close, he can make it very hard for the taller one to land punches. Matthew, however, did not let this happen, and he started each round explosively landing very powerful punches. Charlie was always able to come back in the second half of the round, showing great fitness and endurance. This bout really was a battle; both fighters had bloody noses by the second round, and in the third they both received standing 8-counts. Charlie, however, was able to come back from his standing 8-count and deliver enough punches that Matthew had 2 standing counts in the third round. Charlie won by split decision.

The next bout was the first true Town vs Gown fight of the night. OUABC boxer David Kim, was in the blue corner, against Chris Ockwell, from Thames Valley ABC, in the red. Chris seemed to be the more experienced fighter, but David did very well in the first round, by landing counter punches as an answer to his opponent’s attacks. In the second round, Chris landed a combination which led to David receiving a standing-8 count; but David came back from the count with a vengeance and ended the round very well. In the third, David received a bloody nose from one of his opponent’s punches, but he hardly seemed to notice and went on fighting. The blood was dripping profusely, however, and so the referee stopped the fight so that the club doctor, Dr Paul, could have a look. The verdict was not good; the bleeding would not stop and so the fight would have to be stopped. David protested and badly wanted to fight on, but the decision was made; the priority is always the safety of the boxers. Gown 0, Town 1.

The fifth bout was between Tom Lousanda from OUABC, and Daniel Stringer from Imperial College Boxing Club. This was a very close and well fought bout from both competitors. There was a lot of clinching throughout, and Daniel got called by the referee for illegally punching from the clinch. The final bell rang with Tom landing a stiff straight right to Daniel’s face. It ended too close to call, but Daniel was declared the winner by split decision. Gown 0, Town 2.

Luka Deekeling (OUABC) and Lucas Marino (Thames Valley ABC) fought in the sixth bout. Lucas, in the red corner, landed a lot of shots on Luka in the first round, and there were fears that the bout may have been a mismatch; Luka completely dispelled these after he beat a standing 8-count in the second. Luka showed his superior fitness by heaping pressure on Lucas in the latter half of the second with relentless combinations, completely exhausting his opponent. By the end of the third round Luka was landing shots at will and he was being clinched constantly by his opponent who looked like he would collapse at any moment. In a very close decision, Lucas Marino in the red corner won, but it honestly could have gone either way. Luka showed great grit and endurance in his comeback. Gown 0, Town 3. At this point, Isra Hale, an OUABC alumna, took over as MC, continuing the brilliant job of hyping the audience that Kaya had started.

The seventh bout was very closely contested between Stan Dumas in the blue corner and Jerome Pringle from Thames Valley ABC in the red corner. Jerome boxed with his hands low, landing quick shots and moving, while Stan stalked him around the ring, landing shots of his own. Stan worked the body very well, slowing his opponent down, before landing more shots upstairs. Jerome clinched a lot when Stan’s pressure became too much for him, and by the third Stan showed his superior fitness (a common theme of the night), ending the round with a barrage of punches. Ultimately the judges decided that Jerome had fought the more tactical match and he was awarded the win by split decision. Gown 0, Town 4.

By now the debating chamber was full and the audience was making a lot of noise. The atmosphere was electric, in a way that is unique to boxing shows, and people were itching for the next bout to start. Mu Huan-Lee entered the ring for the next bout to face Gledian Busi from Oxford ABC. This was certainly one of the best bouts of the night. Gledian was very aggressive and opened the fight with a wild barrage of punches. Mu was not fazed by these in the slightest, and took some on the gloves, and slipped others. Mu utterly dismantled his opponent with his powerful straight left, showing his remarkable conditioning. He knocked Gledian flat on his back with a quick left, which sent the crowd roaring. In the third round Mu landed an absurd combo of three straight lefts in a row on his opponent, which led to him receiving a standing 8-count. He ended the fight strongly, with Gledian backed up on the ropes. Unanimous decision for Mu; Gown 1, Town 4. The crowd roared again, with Mu’s personal fanbase brandishing a flag with his name and a boxing glove drawn on it.

In the ninth bout, Yannis Goutzamanis from OUABC faced Ali Gomma from Whitley ABC. Yannis was clearly the fitter fighter in this bout, but his opponent was more experienced and landed more punches in the first two rounds. In the third, Yannis was by far the busier fighter. His opponent was exhausted and boxing with his hands down; Yannis made him pay for it by landing combinations upstairs. Unfortunately, Yannis had not done enough in the first two rounds to convince the judges and Ali won by unanimous decision. Gown 1, Town 5.

The tenth bout was an absolute war. Nik Repin-Millard (OUABC) faced Remel Francis (Blackbird Leys). Nik had an incredibly aggressive style, pushing his opponent back with powerful punches. He worked the body and head very well, landing four straight uppercuts to the body at one point in the second round. By the end of the third round both fighters were utterly exhausted; it was definitely the fastest paced fight of the night. Unfortunately, the judges felt that Nik had not done quite enough, and Remel was awarded the decision. It was still an incredible effort from Nik, who was facing a more experienced opponent on his debut match. Gown 1, Town 6.

The eleventh fight was an internal one between Alex Brindle, and Adrian Kozhevnikov. This was another contender for fight of the night. Adrian dropped Alex ten seconds into the first round with a crunching overhand right, which shocked his opponent. Alex shot straight back up and used his distance well with the jab for the rest of the fight. Adrian was, however, able to use his overhand right effectively to land on Alex over the top of his left hand. The fight ended with both boys swinging at each other with intent. When the final bell rang, they embraced each other in a touching show of respect. The winner by decision was Adrian. Alex came back very well after his knockdown but could not quite turn it into a win.

The penultimate fight of the evening was between Max Jenkins (OUABC) and Zoran Vjestica (Blackbird Leys). This was a very good fight, and Max used his technical skills to win it. He was able to parry and counter his opponent’s punches, moving around the ring beautifully, in the best defensive display that I have seen at an OUABC competition. Max won by decision. Gown 2, Town 6.

The last bout of the night was between Axel Forssberg (OUABC) and Kymel Austin (Blackbird Leys). Axel was very calm and comfortable in the ring, boxing with a high guard. He landed some vicious combinations on his opponent in the second round, which left the crowd silent, as you could hear the leather crunching on his opponent’s face. In the third round Axel’s opponent was given a standing 8-count, which he beat, but he was stumbling around the ring for the rest of the round. The fight possibly should have been stopped early, but it ended with Axel landing shots at will. Axel won by unanimous decision; a great end to a spectacular evening of boxing. Gown 3, Town 6. 

Town vs Gown is a magical evening. It is a night where alumni return and mingle with current boxers, and the sport is introduced to many people who have never seen it live or at all. I remember when I saw my first show in January 2018. I was so entranced by what I saw that I knew I had to compete in the next year’s show, even though I had very little experience. I dedicated myself to training and in 2019 I did compete. That is the beauty of boxing at OUABC; if any student is willing to commit themselves to training, regardless of whether they have boxed before or even are physically fit when they first enter the gym, they will be able to completely transform themselves for the better. OUABC is a beautiful family and I welcome anyone who wants to do something special with their time at this university.

The experiences the OUABC boxers gained from their bouts will prepare them for their true test on the 7th March, the Varsity Boxing Match, which will be in the Oxford Town Hall. Even though Gown technically lost on the night, every single OUABC boxer held their own and learned a lot from their bouts. In boxing it really is true that ‘You either win or you learn’.

Ireland: Regression or Revolution?

0

Michael Dolan considers Sinn Fein’s surprising success at the Irish election last weekend.

Speaking on RTE News on Monday, two days after Irish voters headed to the polls in a general election, Mary Lou McDonald stated that “Sinn Fein won the election, I think everyone accepts that.” Yet, Just weeks ago, few could have imagined such a result. Sinn Féin secured 24.5% of the first preference vote, pushing the once dominant Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael parties into second and third place respectively. So, what could be behind the ‘Sinn Féin surge’? Has the party’s progressive brand of republicanism struck a chord with a new generation of voter, shocked by the ignorance of Irish issues in Britain laid bare by the Brexit saga? Or has Sinn Féin’s socialist message, which presents it as a real alternative to the centre-right status quo, reached out to voters desperate for change and a radically different approach to issues such as health and housing?

What is clear is that a quarter of the Irish electorate has not suddenly embraced a violent, republican ideology overnight. Whilst there is no escaping Sinn Féin’s bloody past and links with the IRA, it would be a mischaracterisation of the modern party to describe it purely on these grounds. RTÉ’s exit poll found that Sinn Féin was the overwhelming first choice of voters aged 18-25, most of whom were born after the IRA ceasefire in 1994. For these voters, its paramilitary links do not form a significant part of their image of Sinn Féin. Instead, the party represents a break from the Fianna Fáil-Fine Gael duopoly which has dominated Irish politics since the foundation of the State. This generation is also the generation which saw its prospects shattered by the economic delinquency of Fianna Fáil during the ‘Celtic Tiger’ and subsequent crash. It then saw crippling austerity under Fine Gael as Taoiseachs Enda Kenny and Leo Varadkar sought to rebuild a devastated economy. Referenda on same-sex marriage and abortion have also made it into one of the most politically engaged generations in Irish history.

Although Ireland’s economy is now thriving, the reality is that the younger generation of ‘Celtic Tiger cubs’ are not reaping any tangible benefits of this prosperity. Rents across the State, particularly in Dublin, are now amongst the highest in Europe, and the market is inaccessible even for well-paid graduates. Public services remain wildly understaffed and public servants underpaid, with pay rates not having been restored to pre-crash levels. 

Ultimately, we live in a society rather than an economy, so when we come to cast our ballot it is not the GDP that matters, but rather the figure on the bottom line of their payslip. It is no surprise that Sinn Féin has emerged as a beacon of hope for this forgotten generation, who view a vote for Fianna Fáil as a vote for Fine Gael and vice versa. This generation is once bitten twice shy when it comes to these two parties, and the absolute failure of Fine Gael to adequately address the housing crisis has served only to compound this frustration.

Nevertheless, the prospect of Sinn Féin leading the next Irish government is a troubling one. Despite the retirements of former IRA chiefs Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness from the party’s leadership in recent years, the party is not entirely detached from its past nor is it honest, let alone contrite, about it. Dessie Ellis, a Dublin-based Sinn Féin TD, served a prison sentence for possession of explosives linked to the 1982 Hyde Park and Regent’s Park bombings which killed 11 people. The Sinn Féin website, however, describes him as a ‘lifelong republican [who] was incarcerated for almost 10 years for his political beliefs.’ On Monday, footage emerged on social media showing Waterford TD David Cullinane shouting a slogan in support of the IRA shortly after his election. When questioned, Mary Lou McDonald, the woman-who-would-be-Taoiseach, simply smirked and dismissed the issue. Sinn Féin’s refusal to acknowledge much less condemn rather than ‘green-wash’ its past is concerning, but more disturbing still is the control exerted by the Army Council of the IRA over the party’s strategy.

Both An Garda Síochána, the Irish police force, and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, agree that the Army Council retains oversight over Sinn Féin. So, whilst its rise is largely in spite of its odious past, the deeply unsettling consequence is that both parts of the country could soon be governed by a political party overseen by a terrorist organisation which has claimed thousands of innocent lives.

This House Believes It Was Right To Strip Shamima Begum Of Her Citizenship

0

Will McCathie and Lauren Shirreff consider the wider impacts of Shamima Begum’s loss of British citizenship.

Proposition: National Security Must Be Prioritised

Will McCathie, The Queen’s College

You have no rights, only privilegesShort of an appeal to the divine, there is little in the way of air-tight argument to prove people have intrinsic rights. Especially concerning our relationship with the state, our so-called rights are mere constructions made up by the institutions of people we put our trust into. And when necessary, these privileges are revoked by the state. If you commit a crime and are caught and convicted, it is likely that you will find yourself lacking the freedom you once believed was owed to you. Rights previously held in the highest regard can come to be significantly fought against – the US’ second amendment, for example. Even citizenships, one’s membership of the state they were born into by chance, are privileges revoked at the behest of the state when considered necessary.

There are no two ways about it – so-called Islamic State is our enemy. It is the enemy of this country, our allies, our values and our way of life. To choose to join such an entity is abandon and revoke all aspects of our world in favour of the enemy. In 2015, Shamima Begum made this exact choice, and now, nearly five years later, has lost the first stage of her appeal against the home office’s decision to revoke her citizenship. This revocation remains the right decision.

Ms Begum was fifteen at the time she decided to leave Britain to join Islamic State. Those defending her use this as evidence for lack of culpability and try to portray her as a victim. Yet, I would disagree. By fifteen, an individual is long past the point at which they are able to morally responsible for their actions. Need I remind you that both Thompson and Venables were only ten, and the courts rightly decided to convict on that case. On the issue of her apparent status as a ‘victim’, a story spun by her legal team, MRDA clearly applies – if it makes effective defence her legal team would clearly not hesitate to use it, regardless of its degree of truth. Even past the age of fifteen and into adulthood, Ms Begum did not decide to return, only attempting to do so upon the territorial collapse of IS. She not only chose to join the enemy, she chose to remain, with evidence suggesting she significantly aided the reprehensible activities of IS, such as enforcing their dress code at gunpoint, and stitching bombers into suicide vests.

This case will undoubtedly set an important precedent in the UK. To those of you who still oppose this revocation on humanitarian grounds, I would appeal to you to consider this as a deterrent, put in place to prevent human loss of life abroad. The UK’s international order is grounded on state sovereignty, not on internationally policed human rights, and these states’ ultimate priority is to their own national security. And in cases such as these, national security must be prioritized. 

Opposition: Deprivation Of Citizenship Is Diplomatic Arrogance

Lauren, Balliol College

When Shamima Begum was first recruited into ISIS in 2015, police commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe stated that she should be treated as a victim should she return to the UK. The government’s decision in 2019 to revoke Begum’s citizenship could not, therefore, be more of a u-turn. Yet, this is not an isolated case; the UK government has consistently failed young people groomed into defection to Syria, and its effort to display a ‘tough on terrorism’ stance disregards the complexity of Shamima Begum’s situation. It was not justifiable, morally or legally, to leave her effectively stateless.

For the UK government to strip an individual of citizenship with legal sanction, the individual in question must be eligible for citizenship elsewhere. Sajid Javid argued that Begum could obtain Bangeladeshi citizenship, given her parents’ nationality, but the teenager has never set foot in the country. The UK government’s decision to wash its hands of Begum, passing the legal burden of making an individual stateless onto another country, is an act of diplomatic arrogance. Deprivation of citizenship is only possible if the act is deemed to be ‘conducive of the public good’. It is unclear what kind of threat Begum would pose if she returned to the UK, particularly if she was in prison under counter-terror laws. Moreover, the UK government’s decision is only legal on the technicality that Begum must only be an eligiblecitizen of another state, not an actual one – but the UK knew that it could not expect Bangladesh to take Shamima Begum in.

What defines the move to strip Begum of her citizenship as unethical lies in the circumstances leading to her choice to leave the UK in the first place. Similarities between techniques used by ISIS recruiters with the ones used by child sex traffickers have been noted by many before, including by Nicky Morgan, who argued that Ms Begum was ‘systematically targeted and groomed’. Furthermore, Article 3 of the UN’s Palermo Protocol gives one definition for the trafficking of persons as ‘the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation’. Begum’s age at the time of her travel to Syria leaves her in this category.

Yet, the central issue is the xenophobia that Shamima Begum’s expulsion promotes. Few have held empathy with Shamima Begum, despite the innumerable horrors she has experienced. Some have attested to crimes committed by the nineteen-year-old, but she is yet to be convicted for a single crime. In an attempt to demonstrate its stance on terrorism, the UK government has acted unjustly towards Shamima Begum, regardless of the crimes she may have committed or the views she may hold. Its choice to strip Begum of her citizenship represents a massive oversight of the problems faced by young Muslim women, and the ways in which this country has failed them. She must be tried as a British citizen, and treated with humanity.

Postgraduate access schemes to reach under-represented backgrounds

0

Oxford University has expanded its postgraduate access scheme to reach students from underrepresented backgrounds.

This summer, more than 60 paid research internships will be available through the University’s graduate access programmes.

They are offering projects in a wide range of subjects from physics, biochemistry and mathematics to geography and English literature.

Following the success of the first UNIQ+ graduate access summer school, applications for UNIQ+ 2020 and the Wellcome Biomedical Vacation Scholarships are now open.

In 2019, 33 students from across the UK attending UNIQ+.

This year, these two programmes will offer twice as many UK students from under-represented groups the opportunity to experience postgraduate research through fully paid research internships, it has been announced.

The University’s graduate access programmes offer opportunities for graduate students to undertake a research internship under the supervision of Oxford academics and with mentoring from current students.

The courses are open to those who would otherwise be prevented from pursuing postgraduate study because of socio-economic, or financial circumstances.

Participants will attend a range of skills sessions, lectures and social events, as well as receiving information on the application process for graduate study and funding.

David Gavaghan, Professor of Computational Biology and Director of the MPLS Graduate School, said: “The University’s success derives from its community of outstanding researchers and the world-leading research environment that supports them. We are really excited to be able to invite students from under-represented backgrounds to join this community for the summer and to experience this world-leading environment through UNIQ+. There is no typical Oxford experience or typical Oxford student. We want everyone who could benefit from our doctoral research programmes to consider us.”

Feedback from the pilot year of UNIQ+ was “highly positive”, and this year the programmes have expanded.

UNIQ+ 2019 participant and University of Bristol student, Ellie Jarvis, said: “UNIQ+ was a unique insight into postgraduate life and a really valuable way to spend the summer; it pushes you out of your comfort zone and into a worldrenowned university that is often seen as inaccessible.

“Opportunities like this are still scarce but I am hopeful that this is changing. I believe that the University of Oxford’s UNIQ+ programme is pioneering a new era of research internship opportunities across universities so that all students can fulfil their passions.”

60 places will be available for 2020 UNIQ+. This includes six projects in biomedical sciences funded through the Wellcome Biomedical Vacation Scholarship.

Participants are paid around £2,500 and offered free accommodation provided by Oxford colleges for the seven-week science programme or four-week humanities programme.

Nadia Pollini, Director of Graduate Admissions and Recruitment, said: “We have been delighted with the success of UNIQ+ in its first year and we are very excited to have the enthusiastic support of the University, its colleges and academic departments and institutes in expanding the programme this year. We strongly encourage anyone who might benefit from such an opportunity to look into what these programmes offer to students from under-represented backgrounds.”

In a statement, Oxford University said: “The University is committed to giving talented applicants of all backgrounds the chance to benefit from an Oxford education, regardless of their personal circumstances. Through initiatives like UNIQ+ the University of Oxford aims to increase the number of promising graduates from under-represented groups.”

Colleges show support for St John’s divestment

0

A number of Oxford colleges have expressed solidarity with protestors campaigning for “direct action for divestment” at St John’s College.

Two weeks ago, students across the university took to St. John’s front quad for five days, camping out in protest against the college’s investments in Shell and BP, and to demand the declaration of a climate emergency from the college. St John’s currently invests £8.1 million in these companies, which are actively starting new fossil fuel projects that finance misinformation campaigns.

In addition to this, hundreds of graduates have signed a letter to St John’s College urging them to cut ties with the companies, while Oxford alumni have threatened to withhold financial support for the college should they continue their relationship with Shell and BP.

St Anne’s College was one of the first to communicate their support for the protestors at St John’s, passing a JCR motion on Sunday which stated that: “The climate crisis is a real existential threat, and an Oxford College has a duty to its members not to support companies which threaten the climate and fund misinformation campaigns.”

The motion went on to say: “St John’s effective punishment of students involved in the action is an abuse of power that is reactive to the threat that activists present to an entrenched financial system.”

This claim comes as a response to St John’s treatment of a number of student activists. It is reported that some students of the college had their keys temporarily deactivated after they were involved in the occupation. The college also reportedly cut off supply lines into the college, making it difficult for protestors to get food.

The St Anne’s motion states that although the college eventually agreed to meet with student protestors to discuss divestment and the occupation ended, this “doesn’t excuse or diminish the cruelty with which the college treated the students during the occupation.”

St Anne’s JCR has pledged to show their support for the actions of members of Direct Action for Divestment (DAD) , and to send a letter from their JCR president to Maggie Snowling, the President of St John’s college, and Andrew Parker, the Principle Bursar, expressing their support for the protestors and asking St John’s to “cooperate with the activists on their demands in the ensuing talks.”

Oriel College also proposed a motion to send a letter to the college’s President and Principle Bursar on behalf of their JCR. In the minutes from their meeting, a message from St John’s JCR president was read out stating that: “the whole College is pretty much on lockdown as the front entrance and several side entrances are closed – we have to enter College through a small turnstile, which isn’t ideal, especially for students with disabilities.”

The president’s message went on to add: “In any letter I end up writing to College, I reckon I’ll say something that the JCR supports the campaign to divest from fossil fuels, whilst supporting the right to peaceful protest, but also asking that College be better prepared to deal with this should it happen again in the future.”

The JCR motion sparked debate at the Oriel meeting, with some arguing that activists had not followed the procedure which would best encourage the college to divest; students brought attention to the disruption this might cause to those completing their final year studies, and called the process which was undertaken by the activists “dangerous.”

The motion has since passed with 30 votes in favour, and 20 against.

New College JCR have also raised the issue. New’s JCR president Josh Attwell stated that: “While I support divestment, I would like my letter that this motion wants me to send to show awareness that College needs a longer time scale to work on big things like this. We want them to still cooperate on divestment, as we understand how hard this change is.”

The New College motion passed on the 3rd February through online voting.

Oriel accused of “gagging” welfare claims

0

A former welfare officer at Oriel College told Cherwell she was paid £5000 and signed an NDA to “sever ties” with the college after raising concerns about the mishandling of welfare complaints.

Since 2016, 45 universities have spent over £1.3 million on silencing students’ complaints of “sexual assault, bullying, and poor teaching”, according to new information obtained by the BBC.

Tiziana Scaramuzza, a former DPhil candidate at Oriel College, was paid to support student welfare while completing her law degree.

She spoke with senior staff about her concerns over failure to follow suicide prevention measures, breaches of confidentiality, and mishandling of sexual assault reports.

She told the BBC: “I was bullied into keeping quiet and all my concerns were dismissed or shouted down. They treated me like dirt.

“It was completely inappropriate. They treated me like an inconvenience, like I was the problem, instead of dealing with the problem.”

After submitting suggestions on improvements to safeguarding measures, Scaramuzza was offered “a £5,000 settlement with an NDA to sever ties.”

“Once I moved to a different college to finish my PhD, I learnt they hadn’t made any changes, which was concerning because a lot of students were vulnerable.”

Oriel College told Cherwell: “Ms Scaramuzza was employed as a Junior Dean at Oriel College from 1st Sept 2012 28th February 2013.

“The College cannot otherwise comment on matters concerning individual past members of staff.

“We can confirm that we conducted a thorough investigation into our welfare provision in 2013 and continue to strive to provide a high level of support to our students and staff. The College takes the welfare of students and staff very seriously. We currently have several members of staff, external doctors and counsellors providing welfare support.”

An ex-peer supporter at Oriel College told Cherwell: “Oriel’s welfare provisions are very contradictory. There is a dedicated team of both staff and students who take welfare very seriously – particularly peer supporters and the college chaplain who acts as a member of welfare staff.

“Yet, when it comes to sexual assault cases, members of the senior staff appear to want to stifle allegations in order to preserve the college’s reputation, even at the cost of endangering students by allowing those they acknowledge have engaged in unacceptable behaviour to remain on campus and only receive minor punishments, rather than face the repercussions of a scandal. Oriel needs to do better.”

This comes amid new reports that nearly a third of universities have used NDAs to suppress student complaints since 2016. These are legally binding contracts that restrict the sharing of information.

The BBC’s new figure of £1.3 million was acquired the data under Freedom of Information laws, and calls the numbers “an underestimate.”

The BBC says: “All but two of the 136 universities contacted responded, with varying degrees of transparency owing to data protection concerns or claims of confidentiality.

“Of these, 45 universities said they had used NDAs but not all of them disclosed full details, meaning it is hard to determine the true scale and this is an underestimate.”

Cases revealed include a student at the University of West London being threatened with expulsion if she “made a fuss.” She took legal action, which resulted in a settlement in which she received £1000 as compensation and signed an NDA.

In 2019, the BBC uncovered that UK universities spent £87m on “gagging orders” for staff since 2017, to stop “bullying, discrimination and sexual misconduct allegations becoming public.”

Former universities minister Chris Skidmore responded to the findings saying: “This is nothing short of an abuse of power. I have spoken against the use of NDAs on staff, but it is staggering that some universities have used them against students.”

Scaramuzza has since started ‘Do Better Academia’, a website for victims who feel universities have not adequately handled complaints. It is a platform to share stories and get in contact with journalists in order to hold academic institutions accountable.

She says: “There is a culture of impunity and [universities] know that they can get away with mishandling complaints or actively perpetrating wrongdoing and then cover it up.”

Coronavirus vaccine to be produced in Oxford

0

A team at Oxford University’s Jenner Institute has announced that it has signed a contract with Italian biomedical manufacturer Advent Srl to produce the first batch of vaccines for preventing novel coronavirus.

The Jenner Institute, affiliated with the University’s Nuffield Department of Medicine and in collaboration with the Pirbright Institute, is devoted to vaccine research and development.

It has been taking the same approach with its current trials of a vaccine for Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome, another coronavirus.

According to the University’s News Office, ‘seed stock’ for the new vaccine, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, is currently being manufactured at the University’s Clinical Biomanufacturing Facility in Headington, and will be transferred to Advent upon completion. The contract specifies that Advent will produce 1000 doses for the first clinical trials.

Advent Srl is a subsidiary of IRBM, an Italian company specializing in molecular biotechnology, biomedical sciences, and organic chemistry. Previously it has developed a variety of vaccines, including the Italian anti-Ebola vaccine.

Its Science Park is located in Pomezia. Dr. Piero Di Lorenzo, President and CEO of Advent and IRBM, said that they are “thrilled to be working with the Jenner Institute on this critical project that has great significance for the international community due to the outbreak of novel coronavirus. Once again the IRBM group is at the forefront of R&D”.

The research team at the Jenner Institute is being led by Professor Sarah Gilbert, whose research focuses on immunology. She has also been involved in projects related to MERS, Zika, Nipah virus and Lassa fever.

Professor Gilbert told Oxford University’s News Office that: “Novel pathogens such as nCoV-19 require rapid vaccine development. By using technology that is known to work well for another coronavirus vaccine we are able to reduce the time taken to prepare for clinical trials. Advent are working with us to move as rapidly as possible.”

The development of this novel coronavirus vaccine will make use of a safe version of an adenovirus, which can cause a minor cold-like illness but has been modified to prevent reproduction in the body.

Furthermore, genetic codes for making the coronavirus Spike protein has been added to allow for production of antibodies, which stops infections by binding with viruses.

As of Tuesday, the novel coronavirus has caused more than 1000 deaths, the vast majority of which were in mainland China.

There have been 8 confirmed cases in the UK, and the Chief Medical Officers have raised the risk to the public from low to moderate.

The Oxford Mail reports that prisoners at a detention facility in Oxfordshire are currently being tested for coronavirus due to one prisoner having recently been in Thailand and exhibiting symptoms.

Cherwell has reached out to IRBM, the Jenner Institute, and Professor Gilbert for comments.

The outbreak of coronavirus in China has forced Oxford undergraduates to return to Britain from their year abroad. The majority of Oxford students, who had been in China on their year abroad, have now returned to the UK.

Students, all of whom study at university in China rather than gaining employment, have had their studies suspended.Term was supposed to begin on Monday 17th February, but this original date has been postponed until further notice.

With the Chinese universities closed indefinitely, Oxford University is setting up classes for second-year Chinese students, so that the interruption to their education is limited.

In the latest update on the website, the University said: “We ask that students and staff support their fellow friends and colleagues at this difficult time. Harassment and discrimination of any kind, including racial harassment, are totally unacceptable at the University.”