Prince Charles has been elected a Fellow of Kellogg College, it was announced this week.
The Prince of Wales will be the Bynum Tudor Fellow for the 2019- 2020 academic year, during which the college will celebrate its 30th anniversary.
Established in 2004, past fellows include Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Executive Director of the UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women Phyumzile Mllambo-Ngcuka.
The fellowship was set up to engage with influential thinkers and experienced practitioners in business, policy making, and culture.
The Prince of Wales, when ac- cepting the award, said: “It gives me great pride and pleasure to accept the Bynum Tudor Fellowship this year, and I would like to express my particular gratitude to Kellogg College in presenting me with this significant honour.”
Kellogg College, a graduate college and the first to accept part-time students, has over 1,200 students from around 90 countries.
Prince Charles graduated from the University of Cambridge with a BA in 1970 and an MA in 1975. Among his 16 honorary degrees, he received an honorary Doctor of Laws from Oxford University in 1983.
Professor Jonathan Michie, President of the College said: “Following his visit to the College, I am delighted that His Royal Highness has accepted this invitation to be our Bynum Tudor Fellow.
“His commitment to learning – through all stages of life, his passion for the quality of our built and natural environments, and his enthusiasm for innovative thinking and practice across disciplines, are mirrored in much of what we do here at Kellogg. I am pleased to welcome him into our Fellowship during our 30th year.”
Layla Moran, incumbent MP for the marginal seat of Oxford West and Abingdon, began her campaign this week with a pledge to double spending on youth services in Oxfordshire.
The Liberal Democrats announced they would increase spending to almost £8 million to help tackle levels of crime and anti-social behaviour among young people.
The measure is part of a £500 million fund allocated to Local Authorities across England for spending on youth services, thus steering young people away from crime.
A Liberal Democrat press release said: “council spending on youth services has been cut by £300 million – or 40 per cent – since 2015.
“Knife crime has risen by 80% over the same period, with a record high of 47,500 offences recorded in the year to June 2019.”
Committing to a public health approach to tackling youth violence, the Lib Dems aim to focus on identifying risk factors early on, with close cooperation between youth workers, police, teachers, health professionals and social services.
Layla Moran said: “Across the country, there are thousands of youth centres offering invaluable services and support to young people in their localities.”
“Within my own constituency, Wolvercote Young People’s Club has been providing services for the com- munity in North Oxford for nearly 80 years.”
“Local Liberal Democrat councillors alongside myself have been working with youth centres across the local area, but due to Government and Oxfordshire County Council funding cuts and increases in rent, many youth centres’ trustees, volunteers, parents and communities are looking to fundraise tens of thousands of pounds to keep their services running.”
“Liberal Democrats will build a brighter future for young people by doubling spending on youth services to £7,769,119 a year in Oxfordshire.
“With a Liberal Democrat government, young people will have the support and opportunities they deserve, our local communities will be stronger and people here will feel safer.”
Moran has also condemned the Tories for leaving UK-based EU citizens in limbo, after official figures revealed that thousands of EU citizens living in Oxfordshire have not been offered permanent residency.
The figures show that of the 24,930 EU nationals across Oxfordshire who have applied for permanent residency, fewer than half have been offered settled status.
Moran said: “EU nationals con- tribute hugely to the success of our community in Oxfordshire, and we should be celebrating that contribution.”
“Instead, the Conservative government are placing these citizens in legal limbo by not offering thousands of residents official residency in the UK.”
“If the Conservative government wanted to celebrate the fantastic contribution these EU nationals make to our county and our country,
they would stop the uncertainty of Brexit and grant them permanent residency. Instead the Conservative government are making them live under a cloud of uncertainty.
“The Liberal Democrats recognise the contribution EU citizens have made to this country, and will end the uncertainty by stopping Brexit, protecting the rights of EU citizens and building a brighter future for everyone in Britain.”
With a majority of 816 votes, Moran faces a tightly contested election, against both Labour and Conservatives.
Kate Robbinson, Chair of Oxfordshire Green Party, said: “We have an out of date and unfair voting system that favours the largest party, so even though over half a million people voted Green across the country in the 2017 General Election, we won just one seat.
“By cooperating with other parties in this way we are more likely to get more MPs that would reflect the support the party has.
“In Oxford West & Abingdon we helped a progressive Liberal Democrat candidate, Layla Moran, take the seat from the Conservatives in 2017. She has been supportive of the work Caroline Lucas does in Parliament and we would be happy to see her re-elected.”
The decision by the Green Party to stand aside for Ms Moran forms part of a broader push across the country for Remain supporting parties to support one another.
The Green Party’s decision to step aside for the Liberal Democrats last week and pledge their support for the party came as part of the Unite to Remain campaign.
Unite to Remain, a campaign involving three parties that support remaining in the European Union, aims to avoid the “spoiler effect” and maximise the elected number of Brexit-opposed MPs.
In an election which is centred on Brexit, the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party and Plaid Cymru have agreed that only one party will stand in 60 marginal constituencies in England and Wales.
Heidi Allen, founder of the Unite to Remain campaign, told The Guardian in October, “With a single remain candidate in 60 seats we will return a greater number of remain MPs to parliament. This is our opportunity to tip the balance of power away from the two largest parties and into a progressive remain alliance.”
The Pitt Rivers Museum will stage a launch event for LGBT+ History Month on Friday (November 15), to kick off celebrations for the month itself which will be celebrated in February 2020.
The free event, ‘Museum Late Night: Diversity’ will include a series of talks, tours of the museum, poetry, stalls and activities, as well as a diversity-themed light and sound show projected onto the Pitt Rivers and Museum of Natural History buildings.
The launch will be preceded by ‘Story Time with LGBT History Month: Stonewall,’ in which Stephen Boyce, the Chair of Trustees of the education charity Schools Out UK and LGBT+ History Month, will read an account of the 1969 Stonewall uprising for schoolchildren, narrated from the viewpoint of the building itself.
Boyce said: “Each year we find prestigious venues such as the Pitt Rivers Museum want to host the launch event, and each year more and more members of the general public want to be involved and included. Society is changing for the better; let’s keep up the fight for liberation, for all!”
Other speakers will include Dean Atta, author of ‘The Black Flamingo,’ which describes the coming-of-age story of a mixed-race gay teen who takes up drag at university, Caroline Paige, who served as the first openly transgender officer in the UK armed forces, Zayna Ratty, the chair of Oxford Pride, and Sue Sanders, founder of LGBT+ History Month.
Sanders, who initiated the first UK LGBT+ History Month as part of a Schools Out project in February 2005, told Cherwell: “We have been invisible for so long, and we came up with the idea for LGBT+ His- tory Month just after Section 28 died, and it was also at the time when the Labour government was talking about a single equality act, so we thought it was the per- fect time to launch a month that would celebrate LGBT.”
She said this year’s launch is different because “we’re teamed up with the Pitt Rivers Museum, and we’re very pleased to be a part of an institution’s celebration of the LGBTQ+ community.”
Ratty said she was “so proud to be included in such esteemed company” as the first person of colour to serve as chair of Oxford Pride, and added: “As we move forward through time, getting by pure effort similar rights to those who don’t identity [as LGBTQ+], we should remember those who came before us. In hosting this event the Pitt Rivers is publicly showing its commitment to diversity, learning and unlearning past narratives.
“I have had to silence myself at times to avoid being subject to multiple layers of discrimination from both inside and outside of the community and knowing that we all have a part in its future is why we do what we do.
“I know, if the graphics work, when I see the Pride branding projected onto the side of the building, I will have tears in my eyes.”
Numerous organisations will also form part of the event, including Blackwell’s, who will run an LGBTQ+ bookstall, and Pink Times and OX & Fyne Times are expected to among stallholders. Musical performers will include indie rock group Junk Whale, and Aphra Taylor, a folk and grunge artist, as well as Drag Syndrome, a drag troupe made up of performers with Down’s Syndrome.
Since 2005, museums have often been the sites of November launch events, with the British Library’s launch event in London taking place on November 14.
When forming initial impressions, Dominic Grieve QC does not outwardly present as a rebel. Yet, Grieve, former Attorney General and former Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, finds himself in a tricky position. Having lost the Conservative Party Whip he is now campaigning as an independent to overturn his own previous Conservative majority in Beaconsfield.
Invited to speak at the Oxford PPE Society, Dominic Grieve arrives in a tweed suit, with slightly muddy shoes after a day of campaigning in Marlow. He sits down, red socks visible, which fall loosely in line with his ginger tie and poppy pin. Perhaps the colour choice is a reflection of his break from his erstwhile blueness.
He freely admits that he finds himself in a strange situation. Having won a 24,000 majority over Labour in the last General Election, he is now working to overturn that as an independent candidate. He explains that whilst he will be standing as an independent candidate, he does not lose his Conservative party membership until he nominates. Still a Conservative party member, Dominic Grieve laments the exodus of moderate, one-nation Tories from Parliament. Nicholas Soames, grandson of Winston Churchill, is standing down, without having the whip restored. So is Kenneth Clarke, grandfather of the House of Commons. Amber Rudd, a lead- ing voice for one-nation Tory-ism, finds no place for herself in the current Parliament. He seems to be under no illusion, that as an independent MP, his ability to affect changes through Parliament will be much reduced. Dominic Grieve fully ap- preciates the power of the pack in politics.
Yet, Dominic is fighting to stay on.
He concedes that he is not the most natural candidate for a rebel. Before Brexit, ‘establishment’ was more readily associated with him. Indeed, Grieve was educated at Westminster School and then Magdalen College, Oxford, where he was even President of Oxford University Conservative Association. Dominic went on to become a barrister at the Middle Temple; he couldn’t be much more conventional if he tried. He cut his political teeth as a councillor in London before being elected to the safe Tory seat of Beaconsfield.
Throughout his political career, he has been a passionate, small ‘c’ conservative, as much as one can be passionate as a small ‘c’ conservative. A self-described ‘liberal conservative’ with both a small ‘l’ and a small ‘c’, Dominic Grieve believes his views are very much within the conservative tradition, stating “I don’t think I can possibly market myself as anything different.”
He explains, “conservatism tends to centre around the belief that you’ve got an acquired series of benefits that you have inherited from your forebearers that you need to look after and develop, but not churn up unless there is absolutely an over- whelming reason for doing it. Which is why I would say Brexit is such an un-conservative act, because it is a total upheaval.”
I ask how much Grieve’s strand of conservatism as a concept is appreciated by today’s body of public opinion, and whether party politics takes precedence over conceptual considerations in the minds of voters.
Grieve maintains that “people do appreciate conservatism with a small “c”. And [he] thinks historically, one of the reasons for which the Conservative party has been so successful is actually in marketing conservatism with a small “c” to the public and it’s tended to have a very powerful resonance. The sense of security and well-being it gives to people has been one of the greatest selling points of the Conservative party.”
He concedes “it is true that in the 2016 referendum, a large number of people decided to support Brexit, interestingly, in many cases, in the name of “restoring conservatism”, going back to something which existed previously which they felt they’d lost.”
The slogan ‘Take Back Control’ for the Leave campaign immediately springs to mind for both of us. Dominic explains his disagreement, “yet, I don’t think that we’ve ever lost control or any more had control than we had in the EU.
“Truth is, if you’re not an economically powerful country, you will be bullied by other economically more powerful countries. And the history of Britain in the 60s and 70s was that we were being pushed around, so our sovereignty was purely nominal. And I think there is an absolute failure to explain this in the referendum campaign. The referendum campaign was, in my mind, pursued by a series of promises which were unfulfillable but clearly had resonance with the public; hence my comments that the political class had failed to explain what the EU was about and its advantages to us. We simply seem to have been incapable of doing it. And to that extent, that is a collective failure by the political class in that the political class itself couldn’t understand those benefits and seemed to have been unable to, and actually, even try to, persuade people of the advantages it was giving us.”
I draw his attention to the incompatibility between small ‘c’ conservatism and populism, which is riding high around the world at the moment. He concurs. “It’s undoubtedly that populism will destroy conservatism in the long run. There’s always been a bit of Conservative Party populism, but I think it’s not readily compatible.
“My view is that Boris may want to reset the politics of the country – let’s get Brexit done and then we can return to more tra- ditional forms of conservatism, claiming to be an ‘one-nation exponent’. But I think in practice, he is going to have great dif- ficulty doing it. I can’t say it’s impossible; as a very skilled politician, perhaps he will find a way in which he can deliver that. But I’m not persuaded that he will find it easy because it’s like if you go into the china shop and you smash up the china, and then you superglue it all back together, but it never looks quite the same as it did before.
“What does worry me is that the logic of Brexit is if Brexit is made to work, the economic model under which the United Kingdom operates thereafter probably needs to be totally changed.
“That’s one of the difficulties that Boris Johnson is going to have to grap- ple with at the end of this process – that if he tries to take his project forward post-Brexit, he’s going to find that the public don’t want what he’s offering and what he needs to try and do meets with very strong level of opposition.”
“What attracts Boris Johnson is I think the idea that we can be a small, buccaneering country delivering huge amounts of wealth creation. But to do that you’ve got to dismantle the existing economic structure of the UK. This is more revolution and all revolutions have their victims. You can’t make the omelette without breaking the eggs.”
The palpable pessimism is penetrating. I ask if he thinks that we will be in great political turmoil for the foreseeable future.
He argues, “if we don’t rescind or stop Brexit, then yes, I cannot see how we are not going to avoid another 4-5 years of very difficult public spending decisions. Politicians try to avoid making predictions, but actually our whole business is about predicting the future and trying to adjust to it as best as we can. “Something says to me that we’re going to have a tumultuous time re-adjusting, through a new series of partnerships, is going to be a painful process. I wish we weren’t doing it. “The tragedy is that I don’t think the public, outside a tiny minority, really want it. They wanted continuity and ‘taking back control’.”
“All other policy-making agendas have been subordinated by legislations to get Brexit through. It’s almost inevitable that most of them are about expenditure and money, how we best structure our society and provide public services. We ought to be having a lively debate about that and try to make some progress for some reform changes; which is just not happening. I do regret that very much. The longer it goes on, the longer the sense of frustration the public will have. Because even though, to be fair, the government does try to pay some attention to this, it gets absolutely no resonance or publicity whatsoever.”
I ask Dominic Grieve about the domestic issues he wishes to draw attention to.
“There are a number of key domestic is- sues that we need to address. We realise that there is a youth crime problem. I know its gone in cyclical patterns but it’s curious that 10 years ago, there was a sense that people were dealing with it adequately. But why it is that now people are dealing with it in a way, particularly with knife crime, which is highly localised, but which is something that is causing particular disquiet. That might be to do with the state of society but more work ought to be done on that.
“I think our education system is not actually bad. It’s in a much better condition than it was thirty years ago. But there is still an awful lot of work to be done. And schools may vary and I think this is very much about leadership, more than money. And therefore still, I believe this is a great challenge.
“Our health service provision is more strained. I am not sure of simply pumping money into the NHS is the solution; but equally, the attempt to restructure and reform it to free up 20bn pounds in 2010-13 was not a great success. It was not intentional, but we need to do more work on that.
“And finally I happen to think that National Defence is grossly underfunded.”
I direct his attention to a recent opinion piece by Lord Waldegrave for The Sunday Times, in which he asserts that Britain has a national identity crisis. The rhetoric of winning WWII or having a Commonwealth or a special relationship with the EU seems to be no longer adequate.
He concurs that that these are indeed difficult times but insists on being an optimist. “Ultimately, the UK is a very resilient country and this is a long established tradition. There are many aspects of our national life that are hugely positive. Our capacity to get out of these problems is quite good as well.’
“The narrative at the moment is jiggering. There is a general malaise of the Western world. A loss of a sense of identity, of security, a loss of a sense of generational interaction and anxiety about the future. One of Britain’s greatest advantages is that as a country, we have been a historic entity for a long time, and has grown organically, except in the Irish context, without violence, in terms of the unity coming together.
“It’s been able to deliver a profound narrative of inclusion, tolerance, fairness; the underpinnings of the ways in which society operates. People have lost consonance, and that worries me much more. They’re looking for alternative solutions such as narrow nationalism.
“I was shocked to hear that a Tory candidate selected in North Midlands recently said that as far as they were concerned, Northern Ireland and Scotland can just take a running jar, what mattered to this person was just Brexit. We’re still the Conservative and Unionist Party!”
Dominic Grieve is rushed to go to a dinner, so we part ways. Whatever one may think of Brexit or the roles indi- vidual politicians play in its deliverance, one leaves with a sense that Dominic Grieve is a small ‘c’ conservative states- man fashioning himself after Burke, and toil he will for his lifelong beliefs.
Oxford University Africa Society have condemned the Union President for his actions regarding the treatment of a blind man who was expelled from the Union chamber during a debate last month.
The society have called for Brendan McGrath’s resignation in a statement that condemns the “violent, unjust, inhumane, and shameful treatment of [their] member.”
The Oxford University Africa Society (AfriSoc), a society which seeks to set the agenda for the future of the African Continent by providing a platform for African students, plan to protest at the Oxford Union this Friday.
This statement follows the announcement that Helen Mountfield, Principal of Mansfield College and QC barrister, will take Ebenezer Azamati’s case against the Oxford Union.
Specialising in human rights and equality law, Mountfield will take the case after a disciplinary committee banned him from the Union for two terms, having found him to have caused disruption.
The panel, which included ex-President Stephen Horvath and ex-returning officers Henry Samuels and Alastair Graham, found Mr Azamati guilty of violating Union rules against “violent conduct”.
Ebenezer Azamati, a postgraduate International Relations student at St John’s College, has a BA in Political Science from the University of Ghana and an MSc in International Politics from SOAS.
AfriSoc said: “Our understanding is that Mr. Azamati, who is visually impaired, was forcibly and violently prevented from re-entering the Union to resume his seat, and subsequently, forced to leave the debate Chamber after simply exiting and re-entering when the program had not even begun. Even if he had re-entered when the debate had started, such poor treatment through violent means remains unjustifiable.”
The society sent a letter to the Oxford Union earlier this month, demanding the following: a public apology from the Union and its President Brendan McGrath, the recantation of Mr Azamati’s ban, and adequate punishment of the security personnel who assaulted him.
The statement continued to say: “That the Oxford Union neither acknowledged receipt of our letter nor reacted to its contents is not represents the wanting manner in which this case has been handled from the start, and the irresponsible leadership which characterises the Oxford Union today.
“What is more disturbing is that, after the terrible treatment meted out to Mr. Azamati, Brendan McGrath, the President of the Union, who was absent at the scene of the incident personally lodged a complaint against Mr. Azamati for violent behaviour. This is a shocking response given that he was not, in fact, the perpetrator of violence but a victim.
“The manner in which Brendan McGrath and the Union have handled this matter is inhumane, not least given the dignity of an individual at stake. AfriSoc is deeply concerned by the physical, emotional and psychological trauma Mr. Azamati has had to endure in the past few weeks due to reckless leadership on display at the Oxford Union.
“That the Union failed in this basic responsibility is sufficient grounds to demand for the resignation of the Union President, Mr. Brendan McGrath. AfriSoc thus calls on the President of the Union to consider his position given that he his conduct on this matter renders him unfit to assume the position of responsibility.”
“In addition, AfriSoc will proceed to protest against the Oxford Union until our demands are fully met.
“AfriSoc holds this case as not only a grave injustice to Mr Azamati but to all African students, students with disability needs and all students at the University of Oxford with the heart and mind to appreciate the unfair and undignified treatment of Mr. Azamati.”
Mr Azamati could neither confirm nor deny the matter.
Helen Mountfield said: “Mr Azamati is seeking a sensible resolution of this matter within the Union in the first instance and will not be making further comment at this time.”
On November 7, shoppers rushed to H&M flagships worldwide and feverishly refreshed their browsers in anticipation of the Giambattista Valli x H&M main collection drop. Following the line’s successful debut at the amfAR gala in Cannes this past May and the rave reviews emerging from its October 24 fashion show, the virtual and physical stampedes practically wrote themselves into the stars. Within an hour, the collaboration’s intricate and showstopping designs sold out on the high street retailer’s website and hordes emptied high street stores.
In an interview with Vogue last month, the Italian-born, Paris-based designer perfectly summarized his aesthetic approach to the collaboration: “I like the idea of H&M in front of a Caravaggio.” And he did exactly that. At the collaboration’s show two weeks ago, Kendall Jenner modeled Valli’s signature ruffles with the Caravaggio oils of Rome’s Palazzo Doria Paphilj as her backdrop. The Baroque painter seems well suited to the H&M collaboration: just as he sought to render his paintings more relatable by depicting real people in modern dress as models for divine subjects, Valli makes his artform more accessible by trading in plissé tulle for polyester. Just as Caravaggio’s bold reds imbued his canvases with intensity juxtaposed against dark tenebrism, the dramatic red ruffles in which Kendall Jenner walked shone like a bastion of ultrafeminine power and grace amidst what we might call a bleak present. Nicknamed “Project Love,” the collaboration was conceived with the intention of bringing happiness to consumers internationally, and in this, it succeeds. As its hem suggests, the “Long Tulle Dress” (retailing at £299.99) has high-low appeal, conceivably the reason it has been the centerpiece of the collaboration. The tulle dress’s dynamic length, tapered waste, and plunging V-neck all evidence Valli’s dazzling red-carpet style via the high street. Other standout pieces include the “Ball Dress,” a black gown with enchanting floral embroidery (£249.99) and the “Chiffon Dress,” a white frock with cascading pleats and a dreamy print (£139.99). Valli also designed t-shirts (£24.99) and even a two-pack pair of socks (£12.99) in keeping with H&M’s wide range of offerings.
In a recent interview with the Telegraph, Valli said of the line, “My idea was for you to look at a dress and think it is just as good, it just has different ingredients. Very good pizza is not worse than very good caviar, you know?” While Mr. Valli’s final comparison can place the fashion industry into the murky waters of taking street style staples like sneakers or jeans and attaching their label to justify the addition of several zeros to the sum, the notion of appreciating good style resonates with high street and haute couture customers alike. Deft needlework and sumptuous fabrics may be synonymous with quality fashion pieces; yet, Giambattista Valli x H&M perhaps gets at fashion’s very essence: clothes without the mannequin. In other words, Valli’s designs are so compelling that they win admiration from all shoppers on account of their sheer artistry, even if they lack the traditional trappings of a high fashion designation.
We live in a society that values things that are quick to buy, quick to use, and quick to dispose of. Fast fashion encourages us to buy cheap, low quality clothing that will last for a season or two before being disposed of because the fad has come and gone. Technological developments result in a new model of phones, computers, televisions, and tablets every year. Even when the actual shelf life of a product is fairly long, advertising and consumerism inspires us to constantly strive for the next best thing.
Our dissatisfaction with our current possessions drives an economy that exploits the low-paid workers who manufacture the cheap items we buy, and we attempt to remedy our discontentment with more purchases. Often, the things we purchase transition from shiny novelties to common trash in less than a year. This certainly has ecological impacts; when we dispose of objects, they add to the growing issue of pollution caused by household rubbish, and the constant production of new items creates more stress on the environment. A culture that values disposable commodities which are constantly replaced by another version of the same thing has resulted in environmental, economic, and personal drawbacks. To put it simply, throwaway culture is all around us.
However, it would be nice if we could experience this type of fast-paced, exciting culture, but we didn’t have to have the exploitation of workers, the constant spending of money, and the ecological impacts of creating rubbish. It’s thrilling to constantly see novel things, to always be on the cusp of a new advancement. Freshness is fun. We do have a way to experience throwaway culture without the disadvantages, though. What do we have in our daily lives that has a short life cycle of popularity? What is entirely free to make, consume, and enjoy? What has nearly no impact on the environment, save for the minimal energy we use to view it on our phones or computers? The answer to all of these questions is, of course, the humble meme.
It sounds ridiculous, but it’s true. There are plenty of memes that run through a cycle of novelty to obsolescence in weeks, if not days. As we come to an end to 2019, we may fondly remember the memes that carried us through the year. There was the lunch table meme, which featured an image of a school cafeteria with groups of objects (some as niche as brands of water) and a caption asking the reader where they would sit. In early August, an impassioned Twitter user asked about uses for an assault weapon which featured a hypothetical scenario involving the invasion of 30-50 feral hogs. Within hours, social media was full of memes revolving around the phrase “30-50 feral hogs.”
And almost as soon as it appeared, it vanished again, fading from memory, but forever enshrined in our timelines.The list goes on; the memes don’t even really need to make sense, they just need to be new. Nothing was really that funny about saying “they did surgery on a grape”, but the novelty of the nonsensical image (which was, ironically, several years old) paired with the caption was enough to make it a meme.
These are but two examples of the dozens of memes that sprung up on the internet this year. And yet, there were limited negative impacts caused by the fact that memes arise suddenly, and last only a short while. This article does not attempt to discuss the societal impacts of the content of memes, but rather their nature of being so short-lived. Memes seem to somehow be the golden example of a throwaway culture, as well as the antithesis of the things we hate about throwaway culture. Unlike the previous examples of fashion or technology, no one is exploited for making memes, and there is no billionaire who gains fortunes because of the work of thousands of employees. Except in very rare cases, memes are free to make and free to consume; there is no money involved. When we bore of a meme, no matter how quickly that happens, there is no ecological crisis fuelled by our desire to rid ourselves of memes. To get rid of a meme, you delete it from your saved images, or unfollow an account that features the meme heavily, or you delete it from whatever social media you may have featured the meme on. No oceans are filled with memes; turtles won’t choke on pictures of a cat making a disgusted face, and no whale’s stomach will be filled with several kilograms of discarded memes about invading Area 51. If we have issues with memes, which we may rightly have, they don’t come from the temporary nature of memes.
Memes can be an escape from the type of consumerism that burns a hole in our wallets and leaves us feeling discontent with every purchase we make. Because we don’t have to buy memes, we can simply appreciate it for its own sake, rather than constantly judge it in comparison to other things we may have spent money on. If we see a meme, and then suspect that there will soon be another meme with a better punchline, we don’t regret seeing the original meme. However, if we buy a phone and a day later a new model was announced, we’d probably be frustrated beyond belief. Because the only thing that memes cost is our time, we can take them at face value. When a meme is good, the creator gains only clout, and the consumer spends only time. And when a meme is underwhelming, all that is lost is a few seconds that it took to see the image.
Throwaway culture is toxic not because it is inherently bad to like novelty and to become bored with things; throwaway culture is toxic because of the impacts of buying, disposing, and repeating the cycle. While memes are a prime example of a culture that grew up because we desire things that require a short attention span and a revolving door of fresh ideas, they lack the disadvantages that commercial consumerism leads to because there is no physical object to be disposed of, and no exchange of money ever occurs. Memes allow us to indulge in our natural desire to have new things constantly, but unlike the rest of the culture of disposable goods, the temporary nature of meme fads does not directly harm us.
The mere mention of ‘high’ and ‘low’ art can make us feel uneasy. Such distinctions are often branded as pretentious and as the work of the elitist in their desperate attempts to preserve tradition and exclude diversity within the literary canon. Yet, categorization is essential in life; to distinguish is to unite and to set apart.
In literature it is no different. On a hazy summer day, lounging languidly in the garden, we seek the escapism which ‘low’ art offers; deriving a comforting familiarity from the stock characters and clichéd predictability of the plot. Yet, on another day, perhaps in autumn, when the paths of rain are imprinted on the window, we turn to ‘high’ art. Imagine, low art is like going back to a long frequented place, that panders to our expectations yet offers nothing new. In contrast, the process of reading high art is akin to travelling out of one’s comfort zone, to a destination previously unknown. It is literature that we can come back to again and again, and every time a new avenue of allusions will reveal itself.
The severing of literature into mass ‘low art’ and infrequent ‘high’ art is not a facet of elitism but a reminder that books serve different purposes and target different audiences. Let’s now consider poetry – the alleged highest form of literature with its chiseled language and sensitivity to experience. Yet, calling yourself a ‘poet’ does not immediately render your work as ‘high art’. As Matthew Arnold argued, the pursuit of ‘high art’ involves the “study of perfection”. This title is earned by the poets whose great writing present an aesthetic challenge, where that beautiful moment of comprehension opens rather than constricts meaning. Take, ‘Milk and Honey’, Rupi Kaur’s global bestseller that has gleaned over 1.5 million sales. This is, I would argue, an obvious example of ‘low art’. The accessible and simplistic language. The overly familiar tone that shoves aphorisms down the reader’s throat. There is a superficiality about it all; this insta-poetry appeals to our disposable culture. Starved of time, we are constantly seeking instant gratification.
Yet, while Kaur’s poetry has mass appeal, resonating with the tides of feminism, this does not make it ‘great’ writing. This is not to say that simplicity can never be found in ‘high art’. Consider William Carlos William’s poem ‘Between Walls’ that structurally mirrors Kaur’s poetry. Yet, this is where the similarity ends. Kaur’s poetry plays on expectation, in her abstinence from metaphor, there exists nothing behind the words. In contrast, ‘Between Walls’ forces multiple readings; we are perplexed by this waste space “where nothing/ will grow” and the mysterious remnants of the ‘green bottle’. Here, there is an inherent sense of duality, a brokenness that extends from the fragmented verse to the post-industrial space. The poem is spun upon layers, the “back wings/ of the hospital” conveys the interaction between death and healing. We are left with this poignant hope of renewal. Kaur’s simplicity limits interpretation, while William’s forces the reader to pause and think. It is this pause that constitutes ‘high art’, this glint of understanding that makes the process of reading rewarding.
Thus, let us hope that Kaur’s poetry like the ‘low art’ that has preceded it, is only an ephemeral phase that will be trashed by the heavy steps of time. To destroy distinctions is to undermine the value of great poetry. In our hectic lives, let’s not be distracted by the simplistic appeal of low art, but instead take the time to read great poetry. For it is only by undertaking this challenging journey from bewilderment to comprehension, that the poem will echo long after the book has been closed.
Every day for the past four years, bombs have rained down on Yemen.
Cut off from the outside world by an illegal naval blockade and pummelled with state-of-the-art American and British weaponry, Yemen’s situation is described by the UN as the worst humanitarian crisis in the world.
The Saudi-led aerial bombardment has targeted key infrastructure, including schools and hospitals. The war has created three million refugees, and the death toll recently passed the grim milestone of 100,000.
This is just war fatalities – last year, Save the Children estimated that the naval blockade had already killed an additional 85,000 children by starvation. The country is currently experiencing an historic outbreak of cholera, while the UN estimates that ten million people, one third of the country’s population, are on the brink of famine.
In 2017, with the blockade and bombing campaign at its height, Pembroke’s Professor Robert Johnson travelled to the UAE, a core member of the Saudi-led coalition. He was there to speak about Oxford’s ‘Changing Character of Conflict Platform’, a predictive tool which is “aimed at enabling decision makers, policymakers and analysts to anticipate the directions of change in conflict to support strategic planning.”
Professor Johnson was speaking to the leadership of the UAE’s military, ‘professional practitioners’ in the parlance of the field. Nestled in the audience was the oil-rich monarchy’s notorious Prime Minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum.
Last year, the Sheikh’s daughter Latifa gained international attention for her doomed attempt to flee the country and subsequent disappearance, leaving only a video alleging torture and abuse by her father.
The day consisted of an advisory lecture, followed by a panel discussion and “individual seminar support and facilitation to help officers and policy makers understand the changes taking place in the character of conflict, and how to prepare for them, ensure national resilience and manage public awareness.”
Professor Johnson told Cherwell: “I have consistently condemned war crimes and I detest war. Yet I have been in enough wars to know things are never black and white and that is certainly true in Yemen. I wonder if you will investigate Iran’s crimes? But why don’t you go there and see for yourself?”
An Oxford University spokesperson declined to say whether any other similar briefings had been given to senior members of the UAE or Saudi governments or militaries, or whether the University keeps any records of such engagements. In response to the findings of this investigation, the University spokesperson told Cherwell: “Oxford University research is academically driven, with the ultimate aim of enhancing openly available scholarship and knowledge.
“All of these research projects advance general scientific understanding, with subsequent civilian applications including climate change monitoring, earthquake detection, energy efficiency and humanitarian relief, as well as potential application by the defence sector.”
It was the evening of her son’s wedding, and Amina Al-Shahb, 50, was in her kitchen making last minute preparations for dinner. It had been a long day, with 500 guests coming for lunch and nearly half as many expecting dinner. The afternoon had been filled by the sound of drums and songs, as the guests broke out into traditional Yemini dances.
“I was in the kitchen, which was about ten meters from the scene of the attack,” Amina later told an investigator from Yemini human rights organisation Mwatana. “In the blink of an eye, I saw fire and I heard a powerful explosion. The ground jolted under me. The drums fell silent, replaced by cries for help.”
She recalled the scene outside: “The men who were filling the place with happiness and dance were in scattered pieces of charred flesh. The blood was everywhere.” All eleven drummers and dancers had been killed – investigators who arrived the following day found their broken drums scattered across the scene.
Amina’s story is just one of a catalogue of horrors painstakingly compiled by Mwatana. Investigators found no evidence of any military justification for the airstrike that struck her son’s wedding, killing twenty-one, including eleven children.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE conduct their bombing raids in British planes, using British bombs and with British training. The RAF recently admitted sending personnel to Saudi Arabia to repair bomber jets in between missions. Others are working in the control centre where bombing targets are selected. (The government says they play no role in selecting targets.)
Last month, the UN warned that the UK government could be complicit in war crimes for its role in the conflict. Since 2015, the UK has made eight times as much revenue from arms sales to Saudi Arabia as it has given to Yemen in humanitarian assistance.
In June, these sales were temporarily halted after the court of appeals ruled them unlawful. The UK government is currently appealing the decision, but recently breached the court order three times ‘by accident’.
A handful of corporations have profited enormously from the carnage. One of the chief providers of missiles to the Royal Saudi Air Force is MBDA, a joint venture by arms giants BAE Systems, Airbus and Leonardo. At £105,000, £709,000 and £2,000,000 apiece respectively, MBDA’s Brimstone, Storm Shadow and Meteor missiles have made a killing in Yemen.
Oxford receives millions of pounds in income from the arms sector every year, funding the research which keeps firms competitive and their clients satisfied.
Prior to joining Oxford, Professor David Limebeer co-wrote two papers with Asif Farooq of MBDA on the operation of air-to-surface missile guidance systems. At Oxford, he led the Vehicular Optimal Control Group (VOCG). Although VOCG’s public engagement focuses on the applications of its research to Formula 1 racing, the group’s website acknowledges that its research is also applicable to the development of missile guidance systems. Professor Limebeer did not respond to a request for comment.
Until June of this year, MBDA was partnering with computer scientists in the next-door building on a £961,000 research project examining ways to cut the costs of missile production. The project successfully developed a verification framework which substantially lowered the costs of developing embedded software for the aerospace sector.
In the arms sector, embedded software is utilised chiefly in GPS systems and in missiles, where it typically serves as the bomb’s guidance system. The high costs of developing embedded software have, according to the project’s funding proposal, meant “that aerospace is no-longer able to develop embedded software whilst keeping costs to reasonable levels, dramatically affecting the industry’s ability to innovate.”
The researchers behind the project began advising MBDA on the potential applications of their findings to the company’s products in 2016. Both the University and lead researcher declined to say whether this relationship is still ongoing.
Oxford researchers have also worked on technology relevant to missile propulsion systems. At the Department of Materials, across the road from the Engineering Department, researchers were working on a £763,000 project, known as PEICAP, developing passive filters, combinations of inductors and capacitors widely used in electrical control systems, for turbojet engines.
While PEICAP was focused on civilian aerospace, it was led by Safran, a leading manufacturer of turbojet engines for drones and missiles, including Saudi Arabia’s Storm Shadow air-to-surface missiles. The project included research into capacitors based on ultra-thin glass dielectrics, which can withstand extremely high temperatures and are consumed almost entirely by defence markets.
PEICAP was conducted in partnership Raytheon, who use glass dielectric capacitors in a huge variety of defence products including F-15 and F-16 fighter jets, currently engaged in Yemen, and America’s land-based Minuteman nuclear missiles. Raytheon also uses the component in the Freedom-class littoral combat ship which Saudi Arabia is currently purchasing from the United States – potentially for use in the illegal blockade of Yemen’s ports.
When an MBDA missile falls in Yemen, the chances are that it was dropped by one of Saudi Arabia’s 192 Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jets.
Eurofighter, a joint venture by the same corporations which form MBDA (BAE Systems, Airbus and Leonardo), has an additional 48 jets awaiting delivery to the Kingdom, where over 6,000 BAE Systems contractors are currently stationed carrying out vital service tasks for the fleet. As one private British contractor in Saudi Arabia told Channel 4: “If we weren’t there in 7 to 14 days there wouldn’t be a jet in the sky.”
A spokesperson for BAE Systems told Cherwell: “We provide defence equipment, training and support under government to government agreements between the UK and KSA [Saudi Arabia]. We comply with all relevant export control laws and regulations in the countries in which we operate. Our activities are subject to UK Government approval and oversight.”
The sale of Eurofighter Typhoons to Saudi Arabia, which has earned tens of billions of pounds in revenue for BAE Systems, was facilitated by Wafic Saïd, a major donor to Oxford University.
Saïd is one of Oxford’s largest donors, having contributed £20 million to the Saïd Business School at its founding, and more than £50 million since. In 2003 he was awarded the Sheldon Medal, Oxford University’s highest honour for donors, and presented with a bust of himself in the lobby of the Business School.
The Eurofighter Typhoon has proved vital to Saudi Arabia’s air war in Yemen, which has involved targeting civilians “in a widespread and systematic manner,” according to the UN.
One of the Typhoon’s selling points is its reliability, with advanced engine health monitoring systems ensuring that the jets can conduct their bombing raids with little risk to the pilot. This technology, which is also used for civil aviation, was developed with the help of Professor David Clifton at the Department of Engineering.
The Typhoon’s manufacturers also boast of the aircraft’s ability to be fitted with a wide variety of bombs, missiles and other third-party components in what is known as a ‘Plug ‘n’ Play’ weapons architecture.
In developing this system, defence firm QinetiQ has made extensive use of Failures Divergence Refinement (FDR), a refinement checking software tool whose development at Oxford’s Department of Computer Science has been funded in large part by the US Department of Defence. F
DR has had a huge impact in the field of weapons integration. For example, the Royal Navy’s adoption of Tomahawk missiles on its submarines (later used to bomb Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen), “depended crucially” on FDR.
Another selling point is the Typhoon’s advanced on-board computer system, which enables increased autonomous flying. According to manufacturer BAE Systems: “The flight computers fly the aircraft taking inputs from the pilot, freeing the pilot to focus on being the master tactician and principal decision maker.”
The company was recently awarded a $3.1 million contract from the US military to develop artificial intelligence for use in air mission planning. The Oxford’s Centre for Doctoral Training in Autonomous Intelligent Machines and Systems (AIMS), based at the Department of Engineering Science, has received an undisclosed amount from BAE Systems since 2014, as well as arms firms Honeywell and QinetiQ. The company additionally funded a five-year research grant for controlled autonomous systems, which resulted in models expected to be useful for the control of autonomous vehicles.
A spokesperson for BAE Systems told Cherwell: “As a world leader in advanced engineering and technology, we collaborate with academia to develop new technologies through strategic partnerships with prestigious universities in the UK. Our university partnerships help to boost the UK’s defence industrial skills base by supporting the next generation of engineers and scientists.”
Oxford’s involvement in the military-industrial complex is extensive but far from unique. In 2007, the Campaign Against the Arms Trade and Oxford’s own Fellowship for Reconciliation, based on Paradise Street, published their investigation into academic research for the arms industry, Study War No More.
The report examined 26 universities across the UK, and uncovered more than 1,900 military projects worth over £725 million. Oxford came in third place, behind Loughborough and Cambridge.
The projects outlined here are just a small fraction of Oxford’s total work for the sector. Many research projects funded by the arms industry, in particular Rolls Royce, will be used for both civilian and defence purposes. Since 2015, Oxford has received at least £7.6 million in funding from Rolls Royce.
Oxford keeps no public database of military projects. This data was compiled manually from Freedom of Information requests, government databases, corporate press releases and departmental websites.
The UK’s arms sales to Saudi Arabia were declared unlawful in June due to the “clear risk” of such weapons being used in “serious violation of international humanitarian law”. Oxford has yet to reckon with its role in profiting from this grave breach of human rights.
NEXT PAGE: Oxford’s research into drone swarms and nuclear weapons
The Liberal Democrats have been accused of misrepresenting their position in the polls in certain constituencies, including Oxford East, by using misleading data from an independent pollster in its campaign material for the upcoming election.
On leaflets and other campaign materials, the party has used data from Flavible Politics, which is not a member of the British Polling Council. The data has been criticised for inaccuracy in its technique of taking national polls and then applying them to local areas.
In Oxford East, the party will be represented by Alistair Fernie, the chair of the Department for International Development and a previous human rights campaigner for Amnesty International UK.
Fernie told Cherwell: “We don’t think our leaflets are misleading. Flavible is a credible organisation with a transparent methodology for making constituency projections based on national polls.
“Our leaflets make clear that these are projections not polls, and give sources. Both projections and polls can be unreliable, but people find them interesting. The important thing is not to overstate or mislabel them, which we have not done.
“The reason we use these projections is that we want to explain to voters that Oxford East is a Lib Dem vs Labour contest in this election:
“Firstly, the Tories can’t win here – they have not won more than 22% of the vote in general elections for nearly 20 years, and have no councillors.
“Secondly, a lot of people in Oxford East are thinking of voting differently to the way they did in the 2017 General Election, because of Brexit and other reasons. We are hearing this on the doorstep, but until there are any Oxford East polls, projections from national polls are the best way to give some sense of what might happen.”
Oxford East is currently a Labour constituency represented by Anneliese Dodds, who managed to keep her seat in the 2017 election with a comfortable win of 65.2% of the vote. This was an increase of 15.2 percent from the previous election, in which Andrew Smith won percent of the vote.
Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats were the third-most popular party in the last election, winning only 9.1 percent of the vote and lagging behind the Conservatives, who came in second with 22 percent.
The party has been using Flavible projections in York Outer, Esher and Walton, Islington North, Putney, Enfield Southgate, Woking, and Westminster City, as well as Oxford East. The data was earlier used to make bold claims including that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is at risk of losing his seat to the Liberal Democrats.
The Liberal Democrats remain popular in Oxford West and Abingdon, where Layla Moran narrowly beat the Conservatives to cinch 43.7 percent of the vote. It was the first time the Liberal Democrats had won the seat since the 2005 election, following which it switched to a Conservative hold.
Flavible, which describes itself as “an independent commentator on UK politics, specialising in seat projection and statistical analysis,” and was initially set up as a blogging site by students from the University of Plymouth.
The UK is due to go to the polls on December 12 in what will be the third general election in four years.
