Oxford's oldest student newspaper

Independent since 1920

Blog Page 5

Captain’s Corner: OUBC

By
Krishna Gowda
-
Image Credit: Benedict Tufnell

In anticipation of the Boat Race on 30th March 2024, Cherwell spoke to the women’s president of the OUBC, Ella Stadler, and the men’s president, Louis Corrigan.

When did you start rowing?

E: I started rowing when I first came to Oxford as an undergraduate in 2019. I had been on the ergometer a few times at the gym but thought that it was the ‘Oxford thing’ to get involved in rowing. I did two years of very disrupted college rowing due to 2019/20 flooding and then the pandemic, before joining the university development squad in Trinity 2021 and Trinity 2022. I then trialled in the 2022/23 season, making the Blue Boat and this year I became the president of the OUWBC

L: I started at school at age 13. I rowed for two years and then pivoted to coxing because I clearly wasn’t going to get much taller!

What drew you to the sport?

E: Initially I was drawn to the sport because it seemed like the sport that epitomised Oxford and the thing that I had to try whilst I was here. I stayed because of the friends I made and the satisfaction that I got from a sport which required so much perfection!

L: In all honesty, simply because it was offered and offered for free. I was already a swimmer at the time on a full training programme, but thought I’d try out something different at school. Once you get into it the sport has a way of hooking you in. It’s a unique experience, and I never really looked back once I started to get involved!

Were there any specific goals for this season and how has the season gone so far?

E: The goal for this season as president was for an Oxford clean sweep and to create a great group dynamic that incorporated both the new coach and the recently merged openweight and lightweight women’s training group. As an individual I really wanted to improve my own technical experience, as I am still so new to the sport. I think that both my presidential and individual goals are progressing well, and I am so thankful for the coaches and the team for making it all possible.

L: Our club has a fairly simple goal of winning the Boat Race, which does provide a unique sense of pressure, with all of your work for the year being defined by the outcome of one race on one day. Our goals for this year which were more specific could be thought of as goals for the type of people and athletes we wished to be, and the way that we were going to go about pursuing the win. From my point of view, especially in the context of merging the previous four clubs into one this year, a major goal was to have a cohesive and integrated team of athletes who all see the role that they play in the result in March. Whether they’re the strongest in the Blue Boat, or competing to be in the spare pair, everyone recognising the effect they can have on the outcome of the year, I think, is really key to succeeding. The sport isn’t just physiology, it’s often about building something greater than the sum of its parts. I think we’re going in the right direction there. 

The season so far has been tough with the weather flooding off our home water and much of the rest of the area, but rather than using that as an excuse everyone is even more determined to make the most out of every session and be better people and athletes than yesterday. We’ve had our first opportunities to race externally now, and we’ve seen good results from that. In the last few weeks now we’re doubling down and refining our speed ready for race day. 

What have been the biggest sporting successes and setbacks in your time at Oxford so far?

E: The biggest sporting successes at Oxford were making the Blue Boat and racing in the Boat Race 2023. The biggest setbacks for me were COVID and the river flooding, both in 2019/20 and this year.

L: I guess that question is easy to answer by just reflecting on my previous two Boat Race campaigns. 2022 was the biggest success, winning the Isis-Goldie (Men’s Reserve) race with a record to the Mile Marker for that race. Then 2023, a close loss in the same event, where we changed leads several times over the course and fought out to the last stroke. Winning is probably the best day ever, losing one of the worst, and that’s what makes the race special. Victory is absolute, defeat is total. 

How did the boat race go last year?

E: We lost.

L: 2023 was not our year, to understate it…It has left all of us eager to turn the tide and embed a renewed, winning culture at the OUBC. 

How difficult is it to have a high turnover of athletes, losing and gaining people each year?

E: We actually didn’t have a lot of people leave last year. We have a current women’s squad of 40 people and 18 previously trained with the lightweight or openweight squads, including myself, and 16 members came through the development squad, so had trained in the summer term with us. The job of the president and coaches is to create a training culture and dynamic in which any potential turnover doesn’t matter. I had lots of chats with the returners about developing a culture that we all believed in from day one of the season. I have a lot to thank them for!

L: This has become more of a prevalent thing in recent years, as our programme has an increasing number of postgraduates who are often only here for a year. It certainly gives every year a unique feel, and places quite a lot of demand on the returning athletes to build a culture, while learning the lessons from years gone by. This year we’ve really worked to re-engage our recent alumni to really build and reinforce a sense of an inherent club identity, which can be lost when turnover is as high as it is. We’ve had a lot of insight from a range of different experiences of the race and club, and it has ultimately enabled us to build a team environment which has learned not just from last year, but from decades of experience. 

What is the best and worst thing about being Blues president?

E: The best thing is the people who are alongside me. I wouldn’t be able to put the hours in if it wasn’t for the incredible and inspiring group of women that I am working alongside. Their determination and commitment are highly commendable. The worst things are long rowing meets and long media commitments. 

L: The best thing about being president is watching your work come to life, by far and away. I ran for the role on a core principle: leadership through service. Much of the work I’ve done this year has been to enable the team to focus, as purely as possible, on their athletic careers and on winning this race. I shoulder a lot of the organisation, and work to lay everything in place so that the guys have everything they need to progress and pursue victory. This has enabled everyone to play to their strengths, and support each other through an undoubtedly challenging season, while building a team which is resilient to challenge. 

The worst thing? There are definitely times when the workload, alongside the degree workload and everything else life can bring, can feel overwhelming. I’m fortunate to be supported by good friends both within and outside of the team at times when things can seem too much!

How are you feeling about the Boat Race this year?

E: I am so excited about this year’s race. It is completely different to previous years and I think that the excitement we are feeling towards it is really driving our training on. We just can’t wait to show the world how fast we are and what we have built this year as a collective. Flip the tabs and clean sweep, bring on 30th March. 

L: Everyone is excited to race and display the best of themselves against strong opposition. We’ve got a lot of real solid work under the belt, and we’re improving every day.

SU campaign appalled at Oxford Literary Festival for hosting ‘gender-critical’ sportswoman Sharron Davies

By
Éilis Mathur
-
Image Credit: Diliff via Wikimedia Commons

On Sunday 17 March, the Oxford Student Union LGBTQ+ Campaign issued a statement against the Oxford Literary Festival for hosting Sharron Davies in their  event Unfair Play: The Battle for Women’s Sport. 

Sharron Davies is a former competitive swimmer and in her new book Unfair Play: The Battle for Women’s Sport she argues against the participation of trans women in women’s sport. 

The LGBTQ+ Campaign publicly stated that they were “appalled by the decision” due to Davies’ past comments regarding the LGBTQ+ and transgender community. They noted that in 2019, she had compared drag shows to blackface in a tweet stating they were “a parody of what a real woman is, like blackface.” 

Davies’ synopsis of her book and the upcoming event, which is scheduled to take place on Thursday 21 March, refers to transgender women as “biological males” and states that their involvement in women’s sport “threatens the integrity of women’s [sport]” and “is the latest manifestation of decades of sexism.” The LGBTQ+ Campaign stated that this is “a claim incredibly insulting to the real victims of sexism in sports.” 

While the Oxford Literary Festival is independent of the University of Oxford, several schools, seven colleges, and the Bodleian Libraries are listed as some of the Festival’s “sponsors, donors, and partners.” 

The LGBTQ+ Campaign spoke against the University’s involvement and, in particular, referenced the Vice-Chancellor, Irene Tracey’s first oration in October 2023, when she expressed sadness over the intolerant rhetoric aimed at the University’s transgender staff and students that surrounded Kathleen Stock’s appearance. The Vice-Chancellor said “we should have done more to support them; rest assured lessons were learned.” 

However, the LGBTQ+ Campaign view the platforming of this event as contradictory to the Vice-Chancellor’s assertion and said “in choosing to hold this event, and the language used in its promotion it is clear that this is not the case.” The Student Union Campaign declared: “the University cannot claim it cares about us whilst allowing this to happen.”

Bust?: Saving the Economy, Democracy and our Sanity by Robert Peston and Kishan Koria- Review

By
Hassan Akram
-
Image: Public domain via Wikimedia Commons

So long as we have an economic system geared towards the accumulation of wealth rather than the acquisition of it, inequalities will continue to widen. Fortunately, Robert Peston and Kishan Koria have written an extremely readable analysis of our political-economic system, its flaws, and the many ways in which it may yet be modernised and fixed. The book certainly benefits from having been written by someone of Peston’s calibre. He knows most of the political leaders he discusses; he has been writing state-of-the-nation books for twenty years; and he writes in a refreshingly direct style akin to that of his favourite Guy de Maupassant.

What differentiates Bust? from Peston’s earlier books is AI, and it is clear throughout that he and Koria are fascinated by what they believe is a coming technology revolution. They are certain that economic productivity will rapidly be increased by AI: twelve million American workers may soon have been replaced by it; and, by 2030, 40% of all work could be AI-managed. Despite many grounds for optimism – such as potential developments in education, NHS diagnosis, record-keeping and other areas – AI also brings with it many dangers. We may for instance experience a new “Engels Pause”, whereby economic productivity rises while workers’ living standards fall; or even a “not inevitable” dystopia in which the world is thrown into an AI machine war. Certainly, our current government is unprepared for the revolution that is coming; although, as their sci-fi predictions reveal, Peston and Koria may also be somewhat overprepared. It is true that AI will have a transformative effect, but it may well turn out as manageably and naturally as the Internet revolution of the last few decades.

Separately, there is also an interesting and very convincing argument about low-probability, high-risk events. The authors argue that it would have been rational to prepare for events like a global pandemic or a war in Europe, even if, ten years ago, they seemed almost impossible. By the same logic, preparations ought to be underway for a potential climate disaster. The reasoning behind this is explained at length for the benefit of those who refuse to understand it, though what it boils down to is: better safe than sorry. 

Peston and Koria’s real topic of expertise is economics. In outlining the state of the British economy, they make it clear that, on present trends, we have nothing to be optimistic about. Our living standards are 20% behind those of mainland Europe. Productivity growth is “flatter than a pancake”. Austerity, pessimism, falling life expectancy, the biggest house-price/incomes gap since 1876, inflation, outdated tax structures, a lack of post-Brexit investment, poor infrastructure, cumbersome planning laws, unproductive financial institutions and an education system which blocks talent from certain backgrounds – the list is endless, and all of the factors are analysed and explained with a lucidity which (so my PPE friends tell me) most economists lack. 

Peston and Koria believe that we are approaching a national tide-change moment, as in 1945 or 1979. Price controls are returning, and neoliberalism is failing. The idea that “capitalism is a racket”, which has been given more credence by the Conservatives’ excesses than by any of their opponents, can only be solved by a new set of policies which do not fail voters as badly as the last batch did. Many of this book’s proposals – renationalisation, parliamentary reform, trade union rights – are such as should already have been adopted by any genuinely progressive party, and the authors (unlike Keir Starmer and his pitiful “five missions”) benefit from a vision that is genuinely radical. They want to transform a system which “Gladstone would recognise”. They propose, for example, a proportional representation system with the number of MPs slashed from 650 to 220. 

There is, however, something to be said for keeping some institutions as they are – even if Gladstone would recognise them.  Parliament and the monarchy have together prevented revolution, civil war and invasion for three hundred years, and, though they require reform, they should certainly not be abolished. It is right to decry the £100 million bill for the King’s coronation, and the monarchy does need to be radically defunded; but surely its image is not, as Peston believes, so antiquated as to ward off foreign technology and investment, and it has a unifying, stabilising, historical value which no short-term gold rush could substitute. (Admittedly, where the monarchy is concerned, Peston is more of a royal sceptic than an outright republican.) 

The authors’ other, smaller proposals – each of them minor but together capable of very significant change – include an annual government letter explaining what the young can expect from the future, quality work experience, compulsory bank accounts at fourteen, a windfall tax on banks, a regulated cryptocurrency for central banks, digitised records, pay rises for those who commit to work for the NHS for life, GP feedback forms and an EU referendum in 2034. One of their most controversial points is against the NHS’s “free at the point of use” principle. They suggest that, temporarily, while the NHS is restructured and modernised, wealthier patients should pay for their healthcare. If that creates a dreaded two-tier health system, it would only be a rendition of the existing gap between public and private healthcare. The reasoning here is sound enough, but it may not suffice to justify glossing over what is really the NHS’s founding principle: free treatment for all.

A reforming government would probably do best to adopt a practical number of Peston and Koria’s proposals, while maintaining such aspects of the current system as are worth preserving. The difficulty is to decide what should be changed and what maintained. That is the question that we should be asking, and this book is better than any manifesto in providing a most readable, substantial and visionary guide to answering it. 

The Oxford Revue: A Room with Revue

By
Ralph Whitworth
-
Image credit: the Oxford Revue

I have a habit of steering away from live comedy. This is mostly out of a fear that it won’t be very good, and the excruciating awkwardness which would be the result. So it was only after intense encouragement from a number of sources that I agreed to see this year’s offering from the Oxford Revue. The production ran for two hours (including a short interval) – a great challenge, I thought, to be consistently funny for two hours. Yet they managed it admirably. This was a well executed barrel of laughs from start to finish.

A Room with Revue skillfully delivered a very modern approach to comedy. The production consisted of a series of sketches with no overriding theme or even links between them. In a similar way to the random streams of content which characterise today’s internet humour, the resulting chaos made the sketches themselves even funnier. Scripting was sharp, simple and often very clever, playing off highly relatable moments in everyday life like going shopping, watching adverts or asking for directions. The production also made hilarious use of a projected slideshow, including some sketches done entirely on video. It was this clever use of the varying themes, mediums and forms of sketches that meant the whole performance never got boring – you were always looking forward to whatever was coming next, and preparing to be surprised. It was lighthearted and very refreshing viewing.

Credit for this highly enjoyable show must be given in great part to the actors themselves. The cast seemed selected from a wide range of Oxford students with postgrads mixing with first-years in a huge variety of roles. The actors showed themselves highly capable of performing in this great range of characters and smoothly matched the production’s simple and quick-witted humour. The sketches worked best with multiple actors firing off of each other, and often stumbled the fewer people there were on stage – one-actor scenes tended to work less well. It also has to be admitted that there was a variation in funniness amongst the large cast, with some particularly standing out and dominating their scenes. But the general quality was very high, and there was nobody on stage who disappointed. Every actor was capable of generating many a laugh from the audience.

A special mention must go to the role of music in this production. A four-player band was on stage at all times and performed excellently. Their riffs and tunes were used throughout the production to introduce new scenes and to augment the humour of the sketches. The band was funny in their own right, and only got better in those instances where the cast themselves broke out into song – a risky ploy which can sometimes end badly, but played off to great success whenever it was used.
A Room with Revue was a simple and clever production which ranks as one of the most enjoyable shows I’ve seen all year. With sharp jokes, witty use of action, a solid cast and great musical backing, it rolled along hilariously for its two-hour course, and made me disappointed they hadn’t lengthened it to three. My fears and misconceptions about comedy definitively dispelled, I eagerly await the next offering from this impressive group.

SU launches groundbreaking Turnaround plan with help from University

By
Cherwell News
-
Image Credit: James Morrell

Oxford Student Union (SU) has announced its new “Turnaround Plan” with help from the University aiming to “transform the governance and operations of the SU”. While the student council has been suspended in the interim, the SU will not be shutting down and will continue many of its regular activities. 

The plan comes after multiple controversies rocked the SU in Hilary term. The elections held in week five attracted controversy after many of the candidates alleged that a ‘secret slate’ had been campaigning together despite rules against it. This led to a wave of discontent against the SU, culminating in Corpus Christi College’s disaffiliation, which inspired similar motions in many other colleges. 

Another point of controversy was the Trustee Board’s decision to block two motions of no confidence meant to be chaired in the week seven student council. The decision led to the chair of the council, Isaac Chase-Rahman, resigning at the start of the meeting. In the meeting following his resignation, the council put forward a motion of no confidence against the entire Sabbatical Officer team for their conduct, which was also blocked by the Trustee Board.

The SU acknowledged concerns about “the SU’s ability to operate and represent the student body effectively” which also “created additional pressure on Sabbatical Officers.” This sentiment within the SU culminated in the Trustee Board’s decision to work on this urgent turnaround plan and ask for help from the university.

According to the SU website, the plan currently consists of: a review of student representation systems across the University and a review of the Union’s representation structures and operations, including staffing structures, people & culture, delivery and income generation. 

The plan will be implemented by a Transformation Committee that is co-chaired by the SU and the University in order to create a “more responsive student representation system”, one which “ better supports the Sabbatical Officers.” An additional goal is to improve “clarity among students about the SU’s purpose.”

While the SU will not be shutting down during this transition period, it will cease most student-facing activities and projects during this time. The Student Council will be dissolved and replaced with a “consultative body” to allow for student participation in the transformation planning. While charity and local community engagement efforts will be halted, the SU will continue to operate the Student Advice Service and facilitate student-led campaigns, student representation on University and college committees, and welfare provisions to colleges. 

The SU stated that “the current proposal is that Freshers Fair will take place in 2024.”  but did not outline a full timeline for the transformation. They have been contacted for comment.

Oxford Union tribunal upholds Hilary election after ruling on seven allegations of electoral malpractice

By
Cem Kozanoglu
-
Image Credit: Anita Okunde

The Oxford Union has released a report detailing the judgements of a tribunal that considered seven allegations of electoral malpractice. The tribunal upheld the results of the election and found no evidence of electoral interference by the Returning Officers (ROs). In the course of the investigations, both President-elect Ebrahim Osman-Mowafy and candidate Chris Collins were found guilty of making “vexatious claims” and fined £100. 

Last term’s election saw Osman-Mowafy elected Union President for Michaelmas Term 2024 with four more votes than the runner-up, Collins. Campaigning was especially fierce with three slates competing for votes under newly-instated rules that regulate online campaigning. 

The tribunal noted an increase in litigation, asserting that most previous elections have only led to two or fewer allegations. They attributed the high number of allegations in Hilary term to a rise in “vexatious claims” and continued that “the quantity of claims does not necessarily reflect any material change in the conduct of elections.”

In the first allegation, Mikael Toosy accused Alexandra Duckworth of abusing her powers as an RO in the Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA) to schedule its elections on the same day as the Union’s elections in order to benefit certain candidates. 

Toosy submitted a statement by OUCA President-elect Matty Brown as part of his evidence. Brown tried to retract his statement by claiming it was “procured through duress and deceit”, but the Tribunal found him guilty of making a submission “he knew to be untrue” and suspended his Union membership for Trinity Term. Duckworth was found not guilty.

Additionally, Toosy used case law to support his arguments which prompted the ROs to note: “Parties may be best served by reliance on the Panel’s understanding of straightforward and basic terminology in the English language” and further observed that “detailed references to criminal case law when a reference to the Oxford English Dictionary would perhaps suffice should be avoided.”

The second allegation was Osman-Mowafy accusing Deputy RO Adam Turner of a “motivated attempt to invalidate candidates”, referring to the initial disqualification of 21 candidates from his and Israr Khan’s slates.

The RO that made the relevant decision, Kit Newbold, testified that Turner’s advice to go ahead with the disqualifications had not hindered them in any way. Since Osman-Mowafy’s accusation was that he had hindered electoral officials, Turner was found not guilty.

Additionally, Osman-Mowafy accused Turner of ‘abusing the forms of house’ during a public business motion, but the tribunal accepted the defendant’s assertion that he had acted in accordance with the rules. Osman-Mowafy was found guilty of making vexatious claims and ordered to pay a fine of £100.

The report noted that they were “extremely concerned” that Mowafy brought forward a claim that was “so easily demonstrated to be incorrect” and further advised that the President-elect “makes a more detailed study of the forms of the institution over which he will ultimately preside.”

In the fifth allegation, Collins accused Newbold, who was in charge of the count, of misinterpreting (though in good faith) the rules of the Union which affected the election’s outcome. The Tribunal noted that the election had been exceptionally tight, with Osman Mowafy defeating Collins by three votes in the initial count and four votes in the final count. 

Collins argued that Newbold should have suspended the count and referred the matter to the Tribunal when they discovered that three unstamped ballots were cast. The tribunal found this to be an “impractical expectation.” He also argued that Newbold’s interpretations of certain contested ballots were unreasonable, which the tribunal rejected after taking a closer look at the 17 ballots in question. In fact, the re-examination found that Osman Mowafy had won by a difference of five votes rather than four.   

The Tribunal upheld the election results and found Newbold not guilty of any charges. 

In the seventh allegation, Collins accused Osman-Mowafy and others of conspiring to commit electoral malpractice by “making use of any electronic or online system” to solicit votes, and “[communicating] illicit statements”. The tribunal did not agree that the instances cited, including messaging on the Oxford Union Graduates group chat or holding a birthday party in the Union bar, violated their rules or amounted to a case. Furthermore, the tribunal noted that there was no evidence submitted to back up the charge of conspiracy and Osman-Mowafy described the allegation as “frivilous and malicious”. Collins was fined £100 for vexatious claims.

Ex-access officer Theo Sergiou filed the final allegation, which accused the entire RO team of neglecting to make the election accessible to those with disabilities. It was not considered by the Tribunal due to its submission after the deadline. 

Sergiou stated that elections were inaccessible for candidates due to compressed timelines and voters due to a lack of provisions for proxy voters and those with visual disabilities. 

The Panel did not discuss the allegation in detail as it was not submitted in time but stated that they are “assured that all such complaints are taken extremely seriously and are dealt with at the highest levels of the Society’s governance structures.”

When asked for comment on the proceedings as a whole, the Union responded: “We have full confidence in our disciplinary proceedings relating to the most recent election and look forward to putting on an exciting term card for our members in Trinity.”

Cherwell also notes that there were 3 additional allegations covered in the Tribunal’s proceedings which were not reported on because they were either in camera, too personal or not relevant to the public. The full report can be found at the Union’s notice board.  

To all the pubs we’ve loved before – Three Goats Heads

By
Susanna Elliott and Reka Sztaray
-
Illustration of Three Goats Head
Image credits: Cherwell Food

Week 7 – for the normal student, we are approaching the end of term, for the less normal; it is hack week on St Michael’s Street! For our last review therefore, we headed to the Three Goats Heads (conveniently right beside the Union). We visited here for Sunday lunch and found the pub to have a welcoming, vintage feel. The staff were really sweet and the food arrived incredibly quickly. In short – it was fantastic! The macaroni and cheese was delicious and the nachos were huge and had an exceptional amount of cheese (looking at you, Turf!). The chunky chips also deserve a shout out – they were the best we have had. For drinks, they had an extensive range of beer on tap, we of course had to try their bitters. Samuel Smith bitters was delicious with a buttery note, they even rivalled our favourite bitters at the Lamb and Flag! Our friend had the Alpine lager, claiming that it tasted like Staropranen (a popular Slovak beer – we will take her word for it). An impressive feature of this pub is their cocktail selection – quite rare to see in a pub but this place had it all, ranging from fruity classics to some more sophisticated flavours. Our friend had the Rob Roy and claimed it was the best cocktail he had tasted in a while! Overall, this pub is very quaint, has a great vibe and delicious food, and is particularly good if you don’t want to break the bank!

“Diesmal schweigen wir nicht!” (“We won’t be silent this time”)

By
Julia Hoffmann
-
Image credit: Christian Lue via Unsplash

Germany’s right-wing factions push forward

In another spectacular repeat of European history, a group of right-wing politicians met with an Austrian neo-Nazi last November in a small German town called Potsdam, known for being the seat of residence of Prussian kings and the German Emperor until 1918 The meeting ignited a national discussion on immigration policies, extremism, and the (re?)rise of far-right movements in the country. It was not just notorious figures such as the Austrian neo-Nazi Martin Sellner and representatives from Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD) party which it counted among its attendants; a number of middle class professionals  – doctors, lawyers, and entrepreneurs – were also present.

Sellner, known for his staunch and provocative anti-immigrant stance, took centre stage during the meeting. His speech focused on the concept of “re-migration”, a deceptively clinical term euphemizing the forceful mass deportation of migrants to their “countries of origin”, their possession of German citizenship disregarded. In particular, Sellner advocates for the expulsion of three distinct migrant categories: asylum seekers, non-Germans with residency rights, and what he calls “non-assimilated” German citizens, who, he claims,  “form aggressive, rapidly growing parallel societies”. These ideas resonated with representatives of the  AfD, a right-wing populist German parliamentary party that has gained significant traction in the last year.

Fuelled by a notable rise in support, particularly in Eastern regions of the country, the AfD established itself as a prominent political entity in 2023. Come September of the following year, the state legislatures of the German federal states, Saxony, Thuringia, and Brandenburg will undergo fresh elections; presently, the AfD dominates the polls across all three states, commanding a significant lead with 34 – 35% support in Thuringia and Saxony. This surge of support comes against the backdrop of the ruling Ampelkoalition, a coalition consisting of the Social Democrats (red), the Liberals (yellow), and the Greens (green), falling to new record lows in public support, particularly for Finance Minister Christian Lindner (FDP), Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Action Robert Habeck (Greens), and for the Chancellor himself, Olaf Scholz.

Yet, the AfD is also under pressure domestically from the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency. The agency has labelled the AfD branches in Thuringia, Saxony-Anhalt, and Saxony as right-wing extremist groups. Additionally, the North Rhine-Westphalian AfD youth wing, Junge Alternative, was recently classified as a suspected extremist group; this decision was partly informed by the movement’s close ties to the Identitarian movement, its espousal of “ethno-nationalist” ideologies, and its “contempt for people with an immigrant background”. In response, the AfD maintains that its organisation is a legitimate political entity operating within legal boundaries; its official platform emphasises its dedication to the German nation and advocates for the equal treatment of all citizens, regardless of their background. However, the revelations from the Potsdam meeting have reignited discussions surrounding the influence of far-right ideologies in German politics. Within this climate, calls to ban the AfD have gained momentum, with a petition amassing over 800,000 signatures and initiatives in the Bundestag to outlaw the party.

The German public pushes back

Since the sinister topics of conversation at Potsdam came to light in January of this year, there have been over 870 demonstrations across Germany against the far right; and the protests show no signs of slowing down, with further events planned in cities such as Munich, Münster, Mühldorf am Inn, and numerous smaller towns. The largest demonstration so far took place on February 3rd in Berlin. According to the police, around 150,000 participants attended the rallies near the Reichstag, while organisers estimated that there were up to 300,000 participants. In Munich, hundreds of thousands of participants were counted by the police until the demonstration had to be aborted due to overcrowding. Based on police figures, nearly three million people nationwide have participated in demonstrations against the far right.

As a result, the AfD “appears highly unsettled by these demonstrations. The extreme right is in a state of panic. Attempts are being made to question these demonstrations as forgeries and as staged events”, says Matthias Quent, professor of sociology at Magdeburg-Stendal University of Applied Sciences. While the protests are unlikely to reach or make an impression on “ideologically hardened segment of the AfD voter base”, Quent believes “there is also a reachable portion of the AfD voter base that can be unsettled by the protests and does not take the protective claims made by party leaders at face value.” While these protests may lead to further radicalization of some right-wing members in a time of increasing political polarisation, “people at work or in private circles [who] attend such demonstrations” in towns and cities across the country can help combat the polarisation of social media as undecided voters are convinced that broad swathes of the public are against the rise of the far right. On 14th of February, the AfD was polling at 18%, which is a loss of 4% points compared to the previous month. Having regularly achieved results of 20% or more towards the end of last year, this trend sees support for the AfD continuing to decline. Polling research leader, Robert Grimm, judged that in light of demonstrations for a “well-fortified democracy”, “moderate protest voters” find it difficult to continue sympathising with the AfD and their cause.

Germany’s Interior Minister, Nancy Faeser, has branded these protests as “an encouragement and a mandate” to act politically: “We want to break up right-wing extremist networks, cut their funding and take away their weapons”, Faeser said at the unveiling of her ministry’s new 13-point plan to fight right-wing extremism. This plan sees the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution taking on expanded powers for uncovering the financial sources of right-wing extremist networks. Through these proposed changes to the law, even a potential threat of far-right extremism would suffice to warrant actions such as freezing bank accounts. Faeseris also advocating for a change to the Basic Law, Germany’s constitution, in order to better protect the Federal Constitutional Court from the influence of those with anti-democratic tendencies,  particularly with relation to potential court judges. j The action plan also calls for progress on the stalled firearms law reform which aspired to tighten gun regulations and emphasises changes to the already approved disciplinary law reform, which aim to make it easier to remove “Verfassungsfeinde” or “enemies of the constitution” from public service. Additionally, local police and regulatory authorities, such as the trade and restaurant health and safety control, should be empowered to prohibit right-wing extremist events from taking place based on information from the intelligence services.Amidst the backdrop of rising far-right extremism across Europe, Germany finds itself at a critical juncture. The recent convergence of Austrian neo-Nazis, German right-wing politicians, and Alexander von Bismarck in Potsdam serves as a glaring indicator of the ideological challenges still facing the nation. However, in the face of this resurgence, Germany is not alone. From Austria to Spain to Sweden, the tendrils of far-right ideologies are entwining themselves with the fabric of European society,  directed most aggressively toward the most powerless in society, namely ethnic minority groups and asylum seekers. In light of this growing threat, the importance of anti-extremist action cannot be understated. All across the continent, citizens are rallying in opposition to such groups, against hate, discrimination, and intolerance. Over 870 recorded demonstrations against the rise of the far right in Germany underscore a tendency towards defending democratic values and safeguarding societal inclusivity. The struggle against far-right extremism is not confined to national borders; it is a shared challenge that demands a united response from all who cherish freedom, equality, and human dignity.

To all the pubs we’ve loved before: pitch(er) perfect

By
Susanna Elliott and Reka Sztaray
-
illustration of cocktails
Artwork by Madeleine Storer

The fifth week blues are hitting so we are combatting them with blue lagoons! Spoons
pitchers are a student staple for a reason, and week we decided to try out some new flavours.
This is our ranking of some of the Spoons pitchers, assisted by our expert friends.

  1. Bumbu Colada – this boasts a violent coconut flavour. Not to be touched unless you are a
    serious fan of Bountys. 2/10
  2. The Godfather – our friend described this as “pepsi and disappointment”. If you enjoy cola
    you might enjoy this but save your money and just order a vodka coke, it will taste the same. 3/10
  3. Blue Lagoon – “it tastes like chemicals”, “like eating a smurf”. Despite this, the blue
    lagoon is a fan favourite, our friend Kit said he could drink it “all night long baby”. 4/10
  4. Woo Woo – our friend says it tastes “like the colour red”. A bit like watery squash, but we
    love it. 6/10
  5. Mango Monster Mash – this drink tastes like a holiday. 7/10
  6. Bubblegin – this is our personal favourite. You can never go wrong with a bubblegin, it tastes like childhood and the glitter makes it even better. 9/10
  7. Candy Rosa – this is a new addition to the menu, and we were impressed. A very fruity cocktail, this arguably surpasses our love for bubblegin. It’s safe to say we have found a new favourite and we would seriously recommend you go down to Spoons to try one of these. 10/10

Oxford: A tale of two cities

By
Madelina Gordon
-
Image credit: Mike Knell/CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

The first time I sat down to a formal dinner at Oxford I was bamboozled. Which fork… which knife… do I make my way outside-in, or inside-out? I was informed quite promptly by my tutor to assuredly not eat before the diners in front and to my sides had their meals in front of them. Although my college keeps it to a minimum, I know if I had to listen to five minutes of Latin at that point I would have been utterly dumbfounded. Alas, given I would have to wait until my ten minutes in the Sheldonian the following week to be introduced to incomprehensible Latin prose, I proceeded to eat my meal feeling amused, or pleasantly beguiled perhaps, by the gimmick of it all.

What baffled me as my time in Oxford continued, however, was that the ensemble of traditions Oxford had to offer were by no means a gimmick. I’m not pleading ignorance to the over 900 years of history to which these traditions owe their existence, but I was, and I still am, surprised by the sincerity, importance and integrity of these rituals to the university today. Dressed in a funny gown with a carnation pinned to my chest as I prepared to bleed onto my exam page, I struggled to take myself seriously.

Hilarious as some of the absurd, quirky and wonderful traditions Oxford has to offer are, their retention in Oxford today is a potentially unsettling reminder of what Oxford used to represent, which diametrically opposes the features of Oxford today that drew so many of us here.

On the one hand, Oxford is at the forefront of research and innovation, with swathes of resources both mental and financial supporting it. On the other, Oxford is a hub of discussion, progress, radical thought and critical theory. In the best way possible, Oxford certainly ascribes to what social conservatives associate with ‘woke culture’, if such is to represent self-reflexive thought about the socially constructed nature of structures that stratify individuals, or the critical questioning of existing institutions. Although there is no doubt significant progress to be made, discourse in student activist groups, overflowing attendance to feminist theory lectures, and the hiring of new critical theory scholars reflect the ‘left wing’, if you will, political and social consciousness that has developed within the university.

It is this consciousness that comes into head-on conflict with the culture and thought immortalised in Oxford’s traditions. Oxford was once a bastion of the British class system. It may not be a bastion as such today, but it is certainly still, symbolically or in the minds of some at least, an edifice of class, racial and gender discrimination as well as elitism. Glaring examples emerge by pointing to the Oxford Union and its far from accessible £300 joining fee, or otherwise Oriel College’s stone memorialisation of the godfather of the South African Apartheid. More covert examples are seen in the juxtaposition between the University’s extortionate wealth and the deprivation in local Oxfordshire, or the University and colleges’ failure to ensure not only an Oxford education, but participation in the university at large (joining sports clubs and attending balls come to mind) are accessible. The limited implementation of the foundation year scheme, dwindling number of Opportunity Oxford admissions, and the stigma directed towards students who’ve rusticated for ‘just not being able to cut it’, reflect further ways elitism is an active force. Chance encounters with those individuals, be it deans, principals or students, who very much choose to propagate the rhetoric that Oxford is indeed, elite, reveal that even in the university community, members are still seeking to uphold what Oxford once was in the face of the new. 

So amidst the spires, a struggle seems to be underway. There are two worlds at knuckleheads, grappling over Oxford’s identity. Whether these worlds can be reconciled whilst tradition and history are so pertinent to life in Oxford is an important question. I am unsure how much longer the university will be able to straddle the gaping divide between its past and its future.

Do not take me as arguing for the tradition’s demolition. Tradition is important. A legacy emphasising Oxford’s place as one of the oldest educational institutions in the world generates a spirit that worships and celebrates learning. There is tremendous value in this spirit. It motivates us to rethink and reconsider relics of the past, be it institutions or processes, to cohere with the new.

But I am dubious about the outcome of this internal struggle. As I have already mentioned, Oxford was a bastion of the English class system, and the English class system is very much alive and well. All I can hope is that reflexive and critical recharacterization of Oxford’s values will one day be sufficient to compete and confront a history of exclusion and elitism. The onus of reconciliation is on the present.

1...456...2,412Page 5 of 2,412

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, founded 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

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2024 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy