Saturday 23rd August 2025
Blog Page 54

Oxford study to pay participants over £5,000 to contract malaria

0

The Oxford Vaccine Group is paying individuals over £5,000 to contract malaria for seven months in an attempt to develop a vaccine for relapse infections. Participants will travel to the Radboud Medical Centre in the Netherlands with the Oxford study team, where they will be exposed to the virus under controlled conditions, and then monitored for six months.

Participants are required to be healthy and aged 18-45 and will be paid approximately £5,270 – the figure dependent upon the number of relapse infections they experience. Participants will be reimbursed for their “time, inconvenience, and travel”. The study involves visits over a period of seven and a half months and annual email questionnaires over the following four years.

The study, named BIO-006, aims to investigate new methods for testing vaccines for relapsing malaria infections. Once the parasites are detected in participants’ blood, they will be given standard anti-malaria medication. After initial infection, participants will return to Oxford, and then will have fortnightly check-ups and 24/7 medical support for half a year.

Malaria can be a life-threatening disease, mostly found in tropical countries, but it is preventable and curable. It’s most prevalent in the WHO African Region, where 94% of malaria cases and 95% of malaria deaths occur globally. The Oxford Vaccine Group spends most of its time testing out new vaccines on illnesses such as typhoid, seasonal influenza, and salmonella. Most notably, they are known for creating the Oxford–Astra Zeneca Covid–19 vaccine in 2020.

The chief investigator for the clinical trial, Professor Angela Minassian, told BBC News that this study was “the first of its kind” in regard to introducing malaria infections into healthy volunteers. Minassian explained that 80% of cases of the most common forms of malaria come from relapsing infections, making this an important step in the world of vaccine studies. 

AI’s impact on mental health needs re-evaluation, say researchers

0

Researchers from the Oxford Internet Institute (OII) are calling for a structured framework to assess AI’s (Artificial Intelligence) impact on young people’s mental health as it becomes more and more embedded in everyday life. 

The research team’s study stresses the importance of a critical re-evaluation of how internet-based technologies and their impact on youth mental health is studied. The paper outlines where future studies can learn from the “pitfalls of social media research.” 

The lead author, Dr Karen Mansfield, a postdoctoral researcher at OII, said: “Research on the effects of AI, as well as evidence for policymakers and advice for caregivers, must learn from the issues that have faced social media research. Young people are already adopting new ways of interacting with AI, and without a solid framework for collaboration between stakeholders, evidence-based policy on AI will lag behind, as it did for social media”. 

The study cites a 2023 report by UK regulator Ofcom, which found that two out of five children aged 7 to 12 years and four out of five adolescents aged 13 to 17 years, now use generative AI tools and services, overtaking the pace set by social media. This report also revealed that 58% of internet users are concerned about the future impact of generative AI on society.

The researchers stress the risk of repeating past mistakes, explaining that poor youth mental health is often explained by social media as one isolated causal factor, which can be seen as a reductive view of the multitude of ways social media is used and the many contextual factors which influence both technology use and mental health.

In order to avoid similar problems with AI, the researchers have called for studies that don’t inherently problematise AI, and instead prioritise examining pertinent exposures and outcomes as well as employing causal research designs. 

A contributing author, Professor Andrew Pryzybylski said: “We are calling for a collaborative evidence-based framework that will hold big tech firms accountable in a proactive, incremental, and informative way. Without building on past lessons, in ten years we could be back to square one, viewing the place of AI in much the same way we feel helpless about social media and smartphones. We have to take active steps now so that AI can be safe and beneficial for children and adolescents.”

Oxford Union believes that liberal democracy has failed the Global South

0

In Thursday night’s debate, the Oxford Union voted in favour of the motion “This house believes that Liberal Democracy has failed the Global South”, with 182 members voting for the motion and 144 members voting against. The emergency motion, “This house would occupy the Rad Cam”, also passed with a vote of acclamation.

The evening’s main event began with an opening from a member of the proposition Arwa Hanin Elrayees, a first year PPE student (later referred to as a “keen fresher”), who reminded the audience that the first opposing speaker, Asad Iqbal, had been an avid supporter of Imran Khan’s campaign to be Oxford Chancellor. She began her speech by declaring that “Liberal democracy is rigidly Western”. Finishing her speech to a round of applause and the offering of a cool glass of water, Elrayess was met with a nod of approval from fellow proposition speaker Brendan O’Hara, SNP MP for Argyll and Bute since 2015. 

Opening for the opposition was Asad Iqbal, Oxford Union press officer, who in his speech, accused Former Pakistani Minister for Planning Development and Reform and the second proposition speaker, Professor Ahsan Iqbal, of “[launching] the greatest attack on liberal democracy in history” during his time in government. 

Then for the proposition was Brendan O’Hara, who used his time on the floor to criticise the Minister for Women and Equalities, Anneliese Dodds, for referring to the happening in Ukraine as a “war crime”, with O’Hara saying: “Why is this country able, indeed eager, to call Putin’s actions war crimes, but not those in Israel, when the perpetrator is Netanyahu, and the victims Palestinians?”. Anneliese Dodds was not present at the debate. 

Following O’Hara was the Luxembourg Ambassador to the UK, Georges Friden, who was in opposition to the motion. Friden interrogated the term ‘Global South’, reminding the audience he was a lawyer, and that “if you do catch me using the term, it will only be for sake of argument.” 

Next was Professor Iqbal for the motion, directing the beginning of his fiery speech for the motion at opening speaker Asad Iqbal: “the first speaker has argued that freeing Imran Khan was a principle of liberal democracy… But I was wondering if he was speaking for Taliban democracy?”. This question was met with a ferocious applause and aggressive nodding from the front bench. Speaking of his assassination attempt in 2018, Iqbal shared: “The bullet that still exists in my stomach gives me a taste of Imran Khan’s liberal democracy every day”, which was followed by another round of applause.

Next up was Ambassador Kurt Volker, a former US Diplomat who served as US special representative to Ukraine during the Trump Presidency, who argued that liberal democracy had not failed the Global South. He received a gallant round of applause when he mischievously remarked: “I have the honor of meeting your president… who was elected”, leaving a pregnant pause to let the remark really sink in. When introducing him as a speaker earlier in the debate, Elrayees remarked with a Union-related quip: “I know from Trump’s administration you were surrounded by vipers, so the Union shouldn’t be any different”, which was surprisingly well received.

Rounding off the debate proposition speaker was Oxford’s own Professor Stefan Dercon, who spent the majority of his speech discussing the importance of reading the question and reminded the audience that “the question is not ‘is liberal democracy a great thing?’”. He then moved on to a long allegory about poisonous frogs which sought to remind the audience that it is difficult to differentiate between a poisonous and non-poisonous frog (a tenuous argument) and closed the case with an unfortunate mishap by asking for us to “vote down the motion – no – vote in favour of the motion.” 

Rather cheekily, the final opposition speaker and a Nepalese jurist, Professor Subedi, began by stating: “Since I am the last speaker, I should have the last word, so I can take the liberty of saying whatever I like.” Professor Subedi also made sure to promote his new book about democracy in his speech: “Indeed, I am currently writing a book, and I am going further back than the Magna Carta.” Noted.

Earlier in the evening, the chamber also voted in favour of the rather poignant emergency motion: “This house would occupy the Rad Cam”, following the OA4P occupation of the Radcliffe Camera Library on the 24th January. 

Speaking in favour of the motion, a member of OA4P stood up to tell the crowd, briefly, but passionately: “I am not just doing one thing, I am doing every possible thing.” Members of the audience applauded. Some awkwardly shuffled in their seats.

A speaker of the opposition told the audience about his friend’s frustration after pro-Palestine protesters from an autonomous group occupied the Exam Schools on June 13th: “I knew someone who saw his own friend disrupting his engineering exam later that day. And when he exited the exam hall, his friend [the protester] tried to hug him. […] If we can’t respect each other in Oxford, how can you hope for the Israelis and Palestines to start?” 

Another speaker of the opposition remarked: “The Palestinian movement needs to be able to reach the average person… Everyone sees this movement as out of touch.” 

A vote by acclamation supported the motion, despite, to the best of Cherwell’s knowledge, no known Union members actually ‘occupied’ the Rad Cam on the 24th.

Mini-crossword: HT25 Week 2

0
Built by Cherwell Editors using the online crossword generator from Amuse Labs

Previous mini-crosswords:

For more crosswords and other puzzles, pick up a Cherwell print issue from your JCR/Plodge!

Maria – Pablo Larraín’s grab at ‘high art’

0

Countless documentaries have been made, and even more biographies published on the life of Maria Callas (1923-1977). She has become a mythical woman upon whom anyone can superimpose a new story. The 10th of January marked the UK premiere of Pablo Larraín’s Maria–yet another take on the opera singer’s life. The third in his trilogy of biopics about historic mid-century women, this film focuses more on the curation of visually beautiful pictures than it does on opera and leaves the audience wondering where the real Maria can be found.

At music college, ‘Callas’ felt like a dirty word. Her vocal technique is not one your teachers would want you to copy – it is admired in Callas and only in Callas. To love her publicly would be to divulge a personal secret – that you too, dream of Teatro alla Scala and the tragic diva lifestyle. However, if asked who the greatest soprano of all time was, most would have to answer Maria Callas.

As one of the most iconic and influential opera singers of all time, she became known for her ‘big ugly voice’, which broke operatic conventions. She sang more gutterally and with a vibrato which oscillated much slower than her contemporaries’. Even towards the end of her career, as her voice began to fail her, every note she sang was steeped in visceral and complex human emotion in a way few singers have ever achieved. Callas turned herself inside out before countless audiences, intertwining herself with total strangers as her greatest gift became her life’s burden. 

Depicting the end of her career and her final days, the narrative of Pablo Larraín’s film leans heavily on the physical affliction of her voice. Angelina Jolie, as Callas, combined live singing with lip-syncing to original recordings – both were mostly unconvincing despite seven months of vocal training (that’s 5 minutes in opera terms). In the film’s opening moments, she (badly) sings Bellini’s ‘Casta Diva’ to her housekeeper and is relieved to hear her praise. This depiction is inconsistent with what we know of the real Callas. Mezzo-soprano Grace Bumbry reported: “If I followed the musical score when Callas was singing, I would see every tempo marking, every dynamic marking”. Callas herself, in an interview, explained: “I don’t read the criticisms… I know exactly what I do before anybody tells me”. To suggest she would accept false praise is to discredit her intelligence and musicality. 

Though Jolie artfully embodied Callas’ poised mannerisms and obscure Transatlantic accent, her performance couldn’t hide the feeling that this was another Hollywood-grab at ‘high art’ status. Much like Tár used a classical music setting as a trojan horse for a drama about cancel culture, this film used Callas to access a world of operatic imagery without developing a meaningful appreciation for the art form. It is as if they pillaged Callas’ life for dramatic visuals: the grandeur and elegance of La Scala, Aristotle Onassis’ opulent party, and Paris landmarks against autumn leaves. Every frame is like a painting – beautiful but static. Despite Callas calling singing on stage “an exaltation and intoxication”, which felt as if “the stage itself would burn”, the flashbacks to her performances lack the suspended atmosphere of opera as the audience appears unresponsive and portrait-like. As a result, the contrasting shots between her prime and decline are less impactful.

To add insult to injury, the filmmakers directly insert themselves into this narrative. Under the guise of her mandrax-fueled hallucination, Callas is joined by a film crew. Her interviewer (also called Mandrax) appears and disappears throughout to evoke poignant declarations from Callas about her life. These scenes feel clunky and are an insistent reminder of the behind-the-scenes creators of this film – a watermark across Callas’ story. 

Despite the saccharine imagery on screen (Callas meeting her younger self and the ghost of her past love), the final scene lends some long-awaited focus to the voice of Maria Callas – a glimpse into the rich emotional experience this film could have been.

Flood prevention plan spurred by wettest month on record

0

After experiencing the wettest month on record in September of last year, Oxfordshire County Council has set into motion a new Local Flood Risk Management Strategy. The council formally approved the plan on the 21st of January, and has commissioned Wallingford Hydrosolutions to develop the plan.

The plan will take place over five years and will also consider the long–term implications of climate change. This follows a public consultation and the formation of an Oxfordshire strategic flood risk group that took place in December of last year. The plan focuses most on “local flood risk resulting from surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourse flooding.” 

The plan outlines five objectives: “improving understanding, greater collaboration, ensuring holistic and sustainable approaches are used, preventing increases in flood risk, and improved communication.”  The new strategy responds to an ongoing trend of increasingly frequent and intense floods in the region. 

Councillor Dr Pete Sudbury, Deputy Leader with responsibility for Climate Change, Environment and Future Generations, told Cherwell that there has been an “extraordinary number of flooding events in Oxfordshire.” He described multiple months of rainfall as “extreme.”

Dr Sudbury also commented that “tackling flooding is the first really big battle in the war against climate change.” In his opinion, the issue is set to continue, as “there is no IPCC emissions pathway that stops Sea Surface temperatures rising before 2070.” 

The impact of the ongoing heavy rainfall has long affected rowers. A Cherwell investigation from last year found that rowers on the Cherwell were only unable to row 61% of the time, whilst rowers on the Godstow were unable to row 85% of the time. 
A second year rower from Lincoln College told Cherwell: “River conditions have been remarkably poor, not just recently but over the past few years. We’ve seen more red and black flags, making the river inappropriate for novice outings.”

“Wait and Hope” – The Count of Monte Cristo: Review

The Count of Monte Cristo premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in 2024 to little fanfare. However, it turned out to be a stunning and emotionally-satisfying tale of adventure. While Hollywood continues to focus on blockbusters and the ever-expanding superhero universe, the French have wisely returned to one of their most iconic authors. I would go as far as to suggest that, due to our contemporary lack of imagination, I see no better way to spark a new wave of creativity than by reeducating people with the classics.

Last year, Martin Bourboulon’s The Three Musketeers: D’Artagnan and The Three Musketeers: Milady won over the French box office and grossed nearly 45 million pounds internationally. These two adaptations – old-fashioned swashbuckler adventures – paved the way for Alexandre Dumas’ triumph The Count of Monte Cristo (1846), scripted by the writing duo behind the Musketeers films, Matthieu Delaporte and Alexandre de La Patellière, now in the director chairs.

The plot follows young sailor Edmond Dantès. Soon to be promoted to captain, he is now finally permitted to marry his beloved Mercédès. He is giddy in love, reunited with his father and best friend, and a happily-ever-after seems plausible. But before the couple can say “I do”, Dantès is falsely accused of conspiring with Napoleon, arrested and sent to an island prison where he will remain for the next 14 years. What began as the best of times quickly turns into the worst of times. As Dantès plans a daring escape with fellow prisoner Abbé Faria, he is taught multiple languages and learns of the location of a treasure hidden on the island of Monte Cristo. After successfully breaking free, Dantès uses the riches to reinvent himself as one of the world’s wealthiest men: The Count of Monte Cristo. And thus begins his tale for revenge against all those who wronged him.

What is clear from the start of the film is that, despite the three hour running time, it is fast-paced, scripted by people who know how to compress a 1,300 page novel into a coherent film. It is grand, entertaining and heartwarming, a reminder that the old way of telling stories still works perfectly. The film packs in so much action that one can only watch with amazement and bated breath, immersed in the magic of old-style epic adventures. Dantès’ modus operandi is that: “All human wisdom is contained in these two words: Wait and Hope.” He spends decades planning his revenge, waiting and hoping for the right moment and opportunity to come, and yet the film itself never lingers, constantly moving forward with endless, exhilarating action.

The greatest compliment I can bestow on the film is that it is old-fashioned, executed with golden-era Hollywood panache. With an estimated budget of around €43 million, it is the most expensive French film of 2024 – and rightly so. Each piece of set and costume, every inch of lighting and second of camera placement, is well considered. The attention to detail is a testament to the directors’ dedication, and serves to immerse viewers completely in 19th century France.

Leading the film is the handsome, Ben-Barnes-if-turned-French, Pierre Niney, who plays Edmond Dantès. Niney has a haunted coolness that suits his character’s obsessive persistence, set on a project of retribution against the three men who stole his chance at happiness. Despite often donning various disguises, his hawkish nose and saturnine features are always recognisable. He is outstanding in the role, portraying Dantès with intensity and depth, brilliantly depicting his character’s evolution from a youthful sailor to a vengeful aristocrat on the verge of losing himself.

French cinema has always been a revolutionary force in the world of film. And The Count of Monte Cristo is an example of its greatness. It is a movie that reminds me of how much I love cinema and that there are people out there who love making cinema just as much. In my eyes, The Count of Monte Cristo is one of the best films of this decade, especially for lovers of historical fiction. It is a much welcome return to the epic nature of classic adventure stories, remade with a big budget to match the richness of the author’s imagination. Thus, until this film gains greater global recognition, all I can do is “Wait and Hope” that the world and cinema returns to the wealth of the classics. “Wait and Hope” that quality and heart will surpass publicity and trends. “Wait and Hope” that you watch this film.

To Julian – Ella O’Shea

0
you’re enwombed within stone, this anchorhold,
wool on your skin, the draught on your feet
ink on your nose, barley in your teeth.

to look at a hazelnut and see everything — how marvellous
to have eyes filled with wonder, fear, love,
to hold a cat close, press into her flesh,
feel her mothering warmth, as in Christ’s side.

it is all that is made: these four walls,
a bed, a pot, the altar through a slice in the brick,
to mumble the soft clothing of prayer
in its comfort-slots every day,

to look up through your small window, and
have your eyes receive the stars,
scattered on the blanket of night,
seeing as God did, in the beginning.

it is very good, it is now
and ever, all shall be
well, in this Word,
this world

without end.

The Globes and what we’re getting wrong

0

“Thirty years ago,” Demi Moore told a wildly enthusiastic Golden Globes audience, “I had a producer tell me that I was a ‘popcorn actress’ and, at that time, I made that mean  […] that I could do movies that were successful, that made a lot of money, but that I couldn’t be acknowledged…” The antidote, Moore revealed, was the “magical, bold, courageous, out-of-the-box, absolutely bonkers script” – a script which has since transmogrified into The Substance.

The irony is Moore’s reductive pigeonholing is not dissimilar to the Golden Globe’s treatment of The Substance. Whilst the film has garnered critical acclaim, it’s worth noting two categories for which The Substance was in contention: ‘Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy’ and ‘Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy.’ Though certain prosthetics donned by Margaret Qualley do indeed defy gravity, I’m guessing The Substance isn’t hitting the ‘Musical’ criteria. So it’s a comedy? Really? 

The Substance hits some wickedly comedic beats (one word: shrimp). But what in The Substance bars it from ‘Best Motion Picture – Drama’? Admittedly, the film was nominated for ‘Best Screenplay’, with Coralie Fargeat receiving a nomination for ‘Best Director of a Motion Picture.’ But the damage is done. Horror is not drama. Apparently.

Which is ludicrous, not least because ‘drama’ encompasses any and all dramatic works. The antithesis of ‘drama’ cannot be ‘comedy’ as the binary so often pedalled would have you believe. Though many might have forgotten it, the opposite of ‘comedy’ is in fact ‘tragedy.’ This slippage enforces the common notion of comedy as inferior to tragedy. More concerningly, it implies that comedies and musicals are not drama at all.

Critical snobbery towards horror is rich, varied, and to paraphrase Frankenstein, still very much aliiiiiive. Only six horror films have ever been nominated for ‘Best Picture’ at the Oscars – and only one was victorious (for trivia fans: Silence of the Lambs in 1991). Sure, there’s a recent uptick in horror’s claim to artstry, courtesy of thematically-minded A24 bludgeonings. But where is mainstream adulation for I Saw The TV Glow? Or Robert Morgan’s Stopmotion? Why was AMC’s Interview with the Vampire snubbed in yet another awards season? Not only does Jacob Anderson’s lack of nominations merit a tantrum of Lestat proportions, it is damning proof horror is still overlooked. 

Horror isn’t the only dowdy stepsister when it comes to awards season. There is also the tricksy Oscar category of ‘Best Animated Feature Film.’ This was created after more than sixty years, when the rise of Disney’s competitors provided a large enough nominee pool. Product of necessity though the category is, it raises the same question as the no doubt belly-laugh-inducing romp The Substance: why is genre the be-all and end-all of a piece of art? 

In the case of animation, the simple answer is: it shouldn’t. 2022 saw the nominations of Guillermo del Toros’ Pinocchio and inventive mockumentary Marcel the Shell With Shoes On. A regular contender in this category is acclaimed co-founder of Studio Ghibli, Hayao Miyazaki. While animation is dimensions away from live-action, the fact remains these exceptional films are excluded from ‘Best Picture.’ That’s ‘Best Picture’, mind you; not ‘Best Live-Action Picture.’ I would never advocate for such a rebranding (least of all because it sounds ridiculous). Yet I cannot help but wonder whether making a sideshow of one medium writes inferiority into its DNA. 

Moore’s acceptance speech warns against restrictive, binary approaches to film. Someone is one kind of actor and one kind of actor only. A movie is a “popcorn film” and nothing more. If I can add one more lesson to the countless imparted by The Substance, it’s that such divisions are, at best, irritating, and at worst, obstructive in both the production and consumption of art. In an industry groaning under the weight of tired reboots and 2D that really earns its name, surely strange amorphous films are just what we need? Much like the thing lurking under Elizabeth Sparkle’s skin, “out-of-the-box, absolutely bonkers” masterworks like The Substance must keep pushing against strictures of genre. 

My music doesn’t break tradition. It is traditional

0

When my college denied me permission to perform Chinese music at its Lunar New Year-themed formal dinner last year, I initially accepted the decision. I was a wide-eyed fresher, awestruck by Oxford’s tradition of formals, where fellows strode through our 500-year-old hall to sit at the High Table. Their dark gowns billowed, and their Latin grace sounded impeccable.

Music could not ‘affect’ the High Table, I was told by the college’s email. Who was I to challenge a blanket ban on music?

Days later, my college hosted a Burns Night formal where a bagpipe brightened the hall. A student recited ‘Address to a Haggis’ and stabbed the titular dish at the High Table. It clicked, then, that the ban on music was rather a ban on non-traditional music. Under the hallowed spires of Oxford, that meant non-white music.

It hardly mattered that the instrument I’d played for over a decade, Guzheng, had 2,500 years of history. Its very name meant ‘ancient zither’.

New York City, 1834

Afong Moy was the first known Chinese woman in the US, imported to the East Coast as a teenager in 1834. Traders exhibited her in a box of Chinese artefacts, and curious Americans paid to see the spectacle advertised as ‘The Chinese Lady’. Wearing ethnic garments, she demonstrated speaking Cantonese, using chopsticks, and walking on her four-inch bound feet.

As Afong grew out of her teens, one of her replacements was Pwan Ye-Koo, a 17-year-old girl who played Pipa, the Chinese lute. In a pamphlet advertising her exhibit, Pwan gazed forlornly, hugging her instrument to her chest.

Thus the history of ethnic Chinese instruments in the Western world began as specimens of an exotic race.

In my imagination, Afong and Pwan were fiercely curious about the world. They learned English and devoured books backstage in between shows. When they grew too old for the exhibit, they travelled the country by railroad, making American friends and seeking out their countrymen.

But it is unclear what really became of the Chinese ladies. All I know is history and Hollywood remember their owner, PT Barnum, as ‘The Greatest Showman’.

San Francisco, 2014

When eleven-year-old me stood before the immigration officer at San Francisco International Airport, fresh off a one-way flight from China, I carried a half-size Guzheng on my back. I practiced and performed over my middle school and high school years in the US, everywhere from street corners to theatres that sat thousands.

I learned that being a musician of an ethnic instrument in the Western world means shifting between positionalities: either an echo of the familiar to co-ethnics, or an overture to the unfamiliar for others. To an audience of co-ethnics, I bring the melodies of home – and I will always recall the hunchback Chinese immigrant whose wrinkles stretched into a smile when he heard Guzheng for the first time in decades. But to an audience who never knew of Guzheng’s existence before, I’m an ambassador with only one shot.

In a position to shape their perception of ethnic Chinese music, I wondered whether I was perceived like Afong and Pwan. I’ve been told that every song I play sounds like Disney’s ‘Mulan’ soundtrack, or that Guzheng is cool but not an ‘actual instrument’. I learned it’s pointless to look for an ‘other’ category in prestigious music competitions the way I can find my foodstuff in the ‘world’ aisle of a supermarket.

I suspected that whenever I performed, I was not judged the way piano or violin players are judged for their skills. Rather, my pentatonic tunes were an exotic curiosity for ears acclimatised to Western scales. I was a breathing museum audio guide.

But unlike an artefact in a box, I was learning English, so I began speaking alongside my performance to put my music into context. From delivering a guest lecture at my local university, to national public speaking competitions, to TEDx, I presented the rich heritage of Guzheng and told stories of the Chinese ladies. 

Oxford, 2023

At age 19 I carried my Guzheng through the immigration point at Heathrow International Airport en route to Oxford University. Here, I had no intention to stop my multi-year tradition of putting on Lunar New Year performances – until I learned that my music was deemed unsuitable for the High Table I so revered.

I cried in my room when I learned of the differential treatment between white and non-white music, for a formal meant to celebrate my most important holiday. It came as a shock in a college I’d found welcoming in every way.

I’d never felt excluded until then, but I guess that’s because I’d been the perfect image of an assimilated immigrant. I received high marks in PPE, edited the newspaper, rowed, and held office in student democracy. I spoke and thought in English, quadruple-underscoring the American half of my Chinese-American identity.

But I also teach friends to fold dumplings and decorate my room with red paper cuttings, drink hot water and wear slippers at home. I’ve been expressing myself through Guzheng longer than I’ve been expressing myself through the English language.

My college’s decision was one of many instances of institutional inertia in Oxford, where no specific person holds malice, but that the general reverence of tradition implicitly excludes students from non-traditional backgrounds.

Yet when I wanted to give up, my peers rallied behind me. They told me to speak up and supported me along the way. The JCR President met with the college registrar, and I sent emails to the don who represented the High Table – it turned out he was delighted to see a Guzheng performance, contrary to what the college told me.

We won. At last year’s Lunar New Year formal, I performed ‘Ode to Spring Breeze’ – my own solo arrangement of my favourite musician’s composition for a Guzheng and piano duet. Portraits of all the college’s presidents gazed upon the hall that night. In my imagination, Afong and Pwan were watching too – they watch over all the Chinese ladies, the first ones who forge a tradition in a new place.

I’d set a precedent so that another year, for another cultural holiday, another ethnic instrument may grace our 500-year-old hall.

Turning the (high) tables

Now halfway through my time at this historic university, I never cease to be awestruck by all the traditions – the sub fusc, the punting, the academic enquiries. I adore this year’s Burns Night formal, where I cheered for the bagpipe player and the Haggis addressor. I’ve been asked to reprise my Lunar New Year formal performance too, and so I will, in addition to performing at the Oxford Union and the Town Hall.

My music doesn’t destroy tradition. It is traditional. Precisely because I love Oxford’s traditions, I’m inviting my culture to be part of it.