Saturday, May 3, 2025
Blog Page 574

A weekend to remember

0

If anything, this year’s Champions League Final acted as a smokescreen (or more precisely a red flare) to cover the more exciting and controversial events of a jam-packed weekend for sports fans around the world. Liverpool’s 2-0 victory against Tottenham to seal the club’s sixth European Cup was a drab affair and an underwhelming climax to what many believe to have been the greatest Champions League season ever. If this was the case, then why was this such a memorable weekend?

First of all, the weekend was memorable for Anthony Joshua for all the wrong reasons as he suffered a catastrophic defeat in his American debut in Madison Square Garden at the hands of Mexican American boxer Andy Ruiz Jr – a man many had written off with Joshua being considered a 1-25 favourite and possessing clear physical advantages. However, the fighter, who some had compared to the “wilderness explorer” kid from the film Up due to his rounded physique, boxed impressively to force a seventh-round stoppage and bring the heavyweight division to a standstill.

Continuing on the theme of sporting upsets, England were defeated by Pakistan in the Cricket World Cup on Monday (a little after the weekend, I know), a team they had defeated 4-0 in a recent series and who had been humiliated by West Indies on the very same ground (Trent Bridge) on Friday last week. Pakistan, batting first, managed to accumulate a total of 348-8, with multiple higher order batsmen contributing impressive totals and with England’s lacklustre fielding proving costly. England, needing to pull off the highest run chase in World Cup history, were unable to build on centuries from Joe Root and Jos Buttler and fell agonizingly short (14 runs to be exact) with a final total of 334-9.

In fact, the weekend was even more disheartening for English sports fans as Phil Neville’s England Women’s team surprisingly lost 0-1 to New Zealand Women’s team at the Amex Stadium in Brighton in their final warm-up game before the FIFA Women’s World Cup. With the Lionesses getting their World Cup campaign underway against Scotland in Nice on Sunday the 9th of June, this result was not the ideal preparation they might have wanted – perhaps excusable due to the absence of important players such as Demi Stokes, Rachel Daly, Mary Earps and Jade Moore.

Elsewhere, however, British interest was high in Johanna Konta’s run to the quarter-finals (and then the semi-finals) of the French Open despite being ranked 26th in the world. Such is the unpredictability and excitement of the women’s draw these days, Serena Williams and world number one Naomi Osaka crashed out of the competition in the round of 32 on Saturday, leaving the draw relatively open – with the world number three Simona Halep the highest ranked player still in the competition going into the latter stages.

In the men’s competition, however, all of the big names are still lurking menacingly in the tournament as I write this, with Nadal and Federer due to play one another in what is sure to be an epic semi-final on Friday. With all of the world’s top five in the quarter-finals, the latter stages of this year’s French Open are a thrilling prospect.

The week leading into this weekend, too, has been significant for another sporting titan, as Formula One star Lewis Hamilton claimed his 77th career victory in the Monaco Grand Prix, his fourth trophy this season and a showing that bodes well going into this weekend’s Montreal race.

The favourite to claim the World Championship, Hamilton seems to be back on top form and will make Mercedes one to watch for the duration of this season.

In the same vein – that of an old order re-asserting their control – European champions Saracens mounted an impressive comeback from eleven points behind to defeat Exeter 37-34 in the Premiership final at Twickenham on Saturday. Despite a spirited performance from Exeter, Saracens prevailed and have now won five of the last nine Premiership crowns.

This was also their second double (winning the European
Champions Cup as well as the Premiership) in four years, which must make them one of the great all-time English club sides. With the game being contested so well and some of England’s key players featuring for both Exeter and the dominant Saracens, this bodes well for the Rugby World Cup which kicks off in Japan in September.

Across the pond, some of America’s biggest national sports have now reached the playoff finals stage. In basketball, a Kevin Durant-less Golden State Warriors put in a strong away performance to beat the Toronto Raptors 109-104 and to level the bestof-seven NBA Finals series at 1-1. The Warriors, looking to win their third NBA Championship in succession, face the prospect of playing game three of the NBA Finals in Oakland without some of their key players – shooting guard and three-point specialist Klay Thompson as well as small forward and two-time NBA Finals MVP Kevin Durant.

In the NHL finals, Eastern Conference champion the Boston Bruins dismantled Western Conference champion the St. Louis Blues 7-2 on Saturday to take a 2-1 lead in the series. The 2019 Stanley Cup Finals are finely poised, however, with the Blues tying the Finals as they beat the Bruins 4-2 on Monday.

There was also a very significant end-of-season event which took place more locally last week and which came to a “head” on Saturday: Summer VIIIs. For those not interested in rowing, or those who only went along to drink themselves into a Pimms-induced stupor, the results of this jam-packed event may easily have gone amiss. With Oriel winning the headship in the men’s event and Wolfson winning in the women’s event, there were also numerous blades distributed at the end of an exciting week of rowing. Indeed, most of the talk on the final day centred around how the men’s division one was klaxoned and cancelled because one of the men’s crews went perpendicular to the bank and the race was deemed too dangerous to continue. This is testament to the appeal of sport that surpasses winning and losing: it’s the thrills and spills that draw us in.

Why I Didn’t Tell Anyone I Wrote A Book

0

For a long time now, I have woken up with this strange urgent fear in my heart. What will happen if they found out? What if they already knew? What if it was never me? What if I’m just pretending?

I was in school when Imposter Syndrome crashed into my universe and invaded my thoughts round the clock. But it wasn’t always like this. Combine maladaptive daydreaming with a strong love of novels and there you have the recipe for an unconstrained hyperactive imagination fuelled by that child-like confidence that you can do absolutely anything, because someone has to. So one day, I woke up, took a shower, and decided to write a book- because why not? Presumptuous? Yes. Overconfident? Of course. But apart from these two qualities, I had other qualities which I discredited for a long time, namely- persistence and my ability to work hard. For months, every single day, I diligently worked on the book. From drawing up the first draft to planning each chapter in depth and to finally bringing the entire story to life, I gave it my all. But maybe I gave it a little too much and I suppose that was the issue. 

If I were ever to claim that I was a frank and unambiguous person then I’d be straight up lying. But that doesn’t mean I’m an introvert. In fact, I have always been a very social person. Yes, I could talk to you for hours about whether pineapples go on pizza but the moment the conversation ever so slightly tiptoed around my personal life I would immediately brush it under the carpet. Humour was my armour and making lame puns, my sword. With these two I managed to safely deflect almost all questions about myself while also gaining a reputation of being funny. So, I suppose you could say it was a win-win situation. 

I had always loved writing. To be able to put everything down on that non- judgemental piece of paper was therapy in itself. I often wrote in my diary, with that sturm and drang that is exclusive to those stormy teenaged years, but at that turbulent time I definitely felt true to myself when I was used to pretending to be something else. That’s why when I came up with the idea of writing my own book, I didn’t even think twice. I didn’t realise that there was a difference between the process of writing a personal diary and a novel open to the public. Even though no one, except my family, knew I was writing a book, with every chapter I threw my all. By the end of it, even though I had evidence which suggested that the book was my own creative feat, I felt like I couldn’t have possibly done it. I remember when I received the call from the publishers saying that they wanted to print my book, instead of being overjoyed I felt oddly scared that the ‘Talent Police’ were going to break into my home and charge me guilty. In an ironic twist the title of my book reflected perfectly how I felt – ‘The Conflicting Contradiction’. 

As the process of editing started, I began to analytically question and doubt myself. The same thoughts which drove me before now poisoned me. That chime that everyone, – especially the highly-strung mess that is an Oxford student – knows, “I’m not good enough”, set up permanent residence in my head. I also got some special ones like, “the publisher has surely chosen my book by mistake”, “my book definitely has dozens of errors since English isn’t even my first language” – my thoughts consumed me and left me a frightened neurotic who compared their weaknesses to the strength of others to inevitably enter a loop of discrediting themselves over and over again. 

I remember the day my book released. Between making writing a book look easy and discounting my own value, I had seeped into a darkness so deep that I was beginning to pull other people along with me. I remember my mum shedding tears of joy when my book released and telling me how proud she was of me but in response made her promise not to tell anyone about it. When she told our family, the unjustified anger I felt was profound and almost destabilising. I remember the draining effort I put in to hide this chapter of my life from my friends. But it’s difficult to hide something which the Almighty, Google itself, has evidence of, and so even though I tried bottling this huge thing inside me, the truth started leaking through the cracks. A couple of months after the book had been released, my friend from school texted me exasperated “you wrote a book and didn’t tell me!!” What followed was nightmares and paranoia about other people finding out. 

When you put your ever-vulnerable teenaged heart and soul into things, you lay yourself bare. Even when you write an essay or produce any sort of work that you are proud of here at uni, it is so much worse for a tutor to throw it back in your face telling you that it’s not good enough. And that’s far worse than handing in something you knew well to be very mediocre only to have your suspicions confirmed later in your tute. But, giving into that fear of making yourself vulnerable through pride leads to something basically useless, you not trying. And even if it all comes to nothing, you’ll only make yourself frustrated and miserable if you don’t give it your best. 

I think the two things that helped me break this vicious cycle was introspection and, ironically, writing. The one thing I’ve realised is that you don’t need to be perfect to be worthy of the success you’ve achieved. Confidence is our best accessory and by masking it we not only put ourselves through a lot of unnecessary pain but also hurt the people around us. It’s not easy to get out of this but it is necessary to understand how important it is to start internalising our successes. Back yourself and do whatever it takes to help yourself no matter how ridiculous it sounds to others- whether it’s making a document listing all your achievements or an album on your phone with screenshots of texts from your loved ones saying they’re proud of you. It is very strange to be so self-congratulating when we’ve spent most of our lives constantly striving to be better, or worse still the best. But I’ve realised I’m more than good enough. There’s no point in trying to outrun your successes when they’ve already caught up with you. 

A front-foot approach

0

With the vast majority of ICC Men’s World Cup tickets snapped up and sell-out crowds turning out to many of the fixtures so far in this year’s tournament, the sport seems to be in rude health. Indeed, with as many as 2.5 billion fans worldwide, cricket is officially the second most popular sport in the world behind football. However, although this number appears quite significant on paper, when taken from a geographical standpoint, it is quite clearly restricted to the United Kingdom, the Australian continent, the Indian subcontinent in Asia, the Caribbean islands and a few pockets of Africa that include South Africa, Kenya and Zimbabwe. Most of these countries are, of course, former colonies of the United Kingdom, and cumulatively the countries are home to around a quarter of the world’s population already (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh in particular) – demonstrating that global awareness of cricket is in fact very low; much of the world does not understand cricket nor the buzz that surrounds events such as the ongoing World Cup.

Indeed, with this being the case, it comes as a massive surprise that the International Cricket Council (ICC) decided to trim the number of participating teams in this year’s World Cup and the 2023 version to the lowest it has been since 1992. This only serves to decrease the global popularity of the game and marginalize the Associate Nations, a few of which put on a brilliant show in the 2015 edition of the World Cup. Ireland and Zimbabwe were always in the hunt to reach the quarterfinals of the tournament, whereas Bangladesh, who have now established themselves as more than giant-killers, defeated England to qualify for the quarterfinals. In fact, with the number of teams participating in this year’s World Cup at a staggeringly low ten, this is part of a gradual decline in worldwide participation that is nothing if not disconcerting and indicative of a continued elitism in the sport. The 2007 World Cup was probably the best World Cup played so far from a participation point of view. A total of 16 teams got to play in the tournament, which again decreased to 14 in 2011 and 2015. This is a stark contrast to the FIFA World Cup and the Rugby World Cup, where giants are occasionally eliminated by lower-ranked and underrated teams, which adds to the excitement and global following of the event.

Rugby Union in particular, as a sport which is no bigger than cricket and has similar origins in the Commonwealth, is a model to follow. Rugby’s version of the World Cup comprises of 20 nations. World Rugby, the sport’s governing body, is considering increasing the number to 24 for future tournaments in order to allow the sport to take up a truly global position, one which helps smaller nations gain exposure and so increase sponsorship, bringing in more money to develop the game. In contrast, cricket’s reductive and retrenching strategy for its World Cup is not conducive to growth. Moreover, rugby has benefited in terms of international exposure from re-joining the Olympic Games after a 92-year absence; twelve nations competed in men’s and women’s rugby sevens tournaments in Rio in 2016. It is to be hoped that cricket will follow suit and apply for Olympic inclusion in the near future.

World Rugby and International Cricket also have very different governance structures. Rugby has more of an inclusive attitude with the priority being to develop smaller teams by not depriving them of funds and offering more of a balance within the weighting of the voting structure between “Tier One” and “Tier Two” nations. Cricket has less of this expansionary zeal, dedicating most of its reforms, revenue and voting power to the three richest cricketing countries: Australia, England and India. The intention of the ICC is certainly not to stagnate the worldwide popularity of cricket, but that is potentially what might happen if this narrow-minded approach persists. The sport will remain something of a quaint British relic that is fortunately fervently followed in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

This brings me back to the organisation of the World Cup. This year’s cricket World Cup in the U.K. is essentially invisible to a large part of the world as, unlike the FIFA World Cup, cricket’s showpiece spectacle is limited to a reduced number of teams and held in an all-too-familiar destination. Looking back to the 2007 edition of the ICC World Cup, this was a FIFA-esque tournament with each group having four teams, wherein the top two teams progressed to the subsequent rounds. When there are fewer teams in a group, what happens is that once a Test-playing nation is upset by one of the minnows, there is little room to recover. One shock defeat, and the World Cup is as good as over for a major team.

In 2007, India and Pakistan were eliminated in precisely this fashion in the group stages. With two major sides eliminated in such an embarrassing fashion, this became the talking point of the World Cup and attendance at the host stadiums consequently declined due to the exit of two major teams, particularly that of India, which resulted in lower than expected revenues for the ICC. Therefore, possibly as a matter of precaution, the ICC decided to revise the format for 2011 and have been decreasing the number of participating nations ever since, perhaps to ensure that all major teams have sufficient chances to recover if they receive a shock defeat at the hands of one of the lower ranked teams. In so doing, the ICC have completely obliterated the surprise factor of the tournament by limiting the number of teams to ten. They have made it a round-robin tournament instead of a more exciting knockout-themed event.

Not only have emerging nations been cut out of the tournament, but also it will be played in the U.K. for the fifth time in twelve World Cups, a type of monopoly that doesn’t exist in other major sports. Indeed, cricket has long been dominated by the so-called “big three” power nations of India, England and Australia, with each of the upcoming major men’s events being held in those countries until 2023. Perhaps the hegemony of cricket can learn from basketball, for which the World Cup is being held in China in September this year, or the Rugby World Cup which is being staged in Japan from September to November. The ICC desperately needs to develop a global vision because the world is changing rapidly and there needs to be more effort in promoting the game internationally.

Cherpse! Joe and Dina

0

Joe, 2nd Year, History, Worcester

Blind dates being what they are, I was slightly worried that we’d have too little in common and that we’d run out of things to talk about. Thankfully, that wasn’t the case and the conversation flowed very easily, with us talking about various subjects ranging from our degrees to our differing impressions of Berlin to our favourite pubs in Oxford. Overall it was a very nice and chill set up – what can really beat an evening at the pub? 

What was your first impression? 

Dina struck me immediately as very nice and friendly. As soon we met at the entrance to the Bear, she hugged me and apologised for being late. 

Quality of the chat out of ten? 

7/10. 

Most awkward moment? 

When I asked Dina what Egypt was like at the turn of the 20th century (she said that was her favourite period of Egyptian Arabic literature), and she responded with “you’re talking like we’re in a tutorial”. 

Kiss or miss? 

Maybe if we got to know each other a bit better.

Dina, 3rd Year, German and Arabic, St. John’s 

It was fairly easy to find each other outside the Bear, being a pretty quiet Monday evening. Once we got over the classic ‘college? subject? year?’ chat, conversation flowed pretty freely, and we discovered that he probably knew more about my degree than I did – his extensive knowledge of both the Fatimid caliphate and medieval German literature really put me to shame. We also bonded over our mutual fear of delving further into student drama than buying tickets to the Worcester garden play. Before I knew it, our glasses were empty and the parasol we were under didn’t provide much shelter from the rain, so we decided to call it a night. 

What was your first impression? 

A little nervous but really polite. 

Quality of the chat out of ten? 

7/10.

How did the date meet up with your expectations for it?

I was hoping for an evening of interesting chat and got exactly that.

Most awkward moment?

When it started torrentially raining and he was in shorts and sandals.

Kiss or miss?

Sadly, a miss.

Preview: The Witch of Edmonton – ‘promises a sufficiently sinister experience’

0

If, like me, you have an unhealthy penchant for ghost stories, but the paranormal scene at Oxford just isn’t quite cutting it for you, then fear not – Hoof and Horn Productions have got you covered. Their fresh take on the 17th century classic The Witch of Edmonton, which heads to the BT Studio in Seventh Week, promises a sufficiently sinister experience for any self-professed lover of the macabre.

Anyone familiar with the original tragicomedy (written by Thomas Dekker, John Ford and William Rowley) will know that it follows multiple stories. At the core, we have the story of the eponymous witch, Elizabeth Sawyer, an old woman who turns to witchcraft after a wrongful accusation (with the help of the devil in the form of a dog, naturally). Other stories include that of Frank Thorney (who is forced to enter a bigamous marriage, and ends up murdering one of his wives) and of the morris-dancing Cuddy Banks.

Writers and directors Bertie Harrison-Broninski and Felix Morrison’s take is ambitious and radical: plucking out Elizabeth’s story, they have put it at the forefront of their production, and constructed a new narrative around it. As is clear from the first scene I preview, their new narrative is highly original and entertaining: to my delight and surprise, in the unlikely location of the Baring Room in Hertford College, I am treated to a ghost tour. Tasha Saunders is highly convincing as our eccentric ghost tour guide, who summarises the mythology surrounding the witch at the beginning of the play. With the aid of a brilliant script, her performance is compelling, and she singlehandedly delivers one of the most captivating opening scenes in a student play I have seen so far. “Are you a believer or do you believe?” she asks, her eyes shifting and widening almost manically, her voice rising and falling to a raspy whisper throughout her speech.

A striking aspect of Harrison-Broninski and Morrison’s production is its employment of multimedia. For example, Saunders’ first monologue (one of three throughout the play) will be delivered to the audience on video. For me, considering how well Saunders commanded the physical stage, this decision is quite surprising; I look forward to seeing on the night whether the video is as effective as the physical performance I witness. Sure to please any lovers of musicals in the audience, I am told that there is also dancing and original music (composed by Toby Stanford) throughout, and the first instance of this precedes Saunders’ opening monologue. Though I am not lucky enough to preview the opening dance, Stanford grants me a taste of the music which accompanies it with an impressive performance on the piano. The music being somewhat dissonant, brooding and at times almost joyful, I anticipate the dance will also be suitably weird and wonderful.  

The other two scenes I preview are equally as compelling. In the first, a distressed Elizabeth (Lowri Spear), having just been abused by her local community (“I am shunned and hated like a sickness,” she laments), expresses her desire for revenge. So this scene heralds her descent into world of the occult as she imagines what it would be like to be a powerful witch. Spear looks appropriately witch-like in a hooded red cloak, a circular arrangement of sticks and logs on the ground nearby reinforcing the supernatural atmosphere.

However, from this scene, as well as the final one I preview, it is Sam Gledhill’s performance as the devil-dog which is the one I am most excited to watch on the night. Simultaneously coercive and friendly towards Elizabeth, the devil-dog is a complex, shifting character in the narrative, his presence rather terrifying and his relationship with the witch unsettling. The role is undoubtedly a challenging one, but Gledhill fully embraces it. With a black dog mask covering his entire face, Gledhill moves with remarkable ease on all fours across the stage, speaking in a low, growling voice.

Aware of the misogynistic undercurrent of the original play, and the fact that, like their predecessors, they are two men telling a woman’s story (a story which is based on true events), Harrison-Broninski and Morrison are particularly conscious to convey a sympathetic view of Sawyer’s story in their take on The Witch of Edmonton. It is clear their production is much more than merely a ghost story. They have constructed a kaleidoscope of perspectives throughout the play, encouraging their audience to think about authorship and who’s telling a story. Considering how much work they’ve put into adapting the play, throughout the preview Harrison-Broninski and Morrison are remarkably modest – though I am sure the audience in 7th week will agree with me that the feat of their undertaking deserves great praise.

The Witch of Edmonton is on at the BT Studio from Tues 11th until Sat 15th June (Seventh Week)

The long read: the libertarian links of a private tuition programme

0

Academic freedom is being threatened at Oxford University, but its opponents are not ‘snowflake’ students. Rather, it is happening behind closed doors as part of a global attempt by a small sect of libertarians to, if not create a political hegemony, then at least to exercise undue influence over those in power: legislators, policymakers, and, most insidiously, students and academics.

In the US, this influence over higher education institutions has been well-documented: The Atlantic and investigative journalists at the Center for Public Integrity have charted the interconnections between ideological ‘anarcho-capitalists’ and oligarch climate change deniers, who are using strategic donations, grants, and fellowships at American universities to create an army of the politically sympathetic to “to infuse politics and government with free-market principles”.

Their meddling in university curricula has sparked the UnKochMyCampus campaign, which provides advice for students and academics who fear their institutions are at threat from donor interference. They found that in 2017 alone, Koch-affiliated foundations had spent $62.24 million on 296 individual university campuses. Now this mission has spread beyond US borders, in the form of ‘study abroad’ programmes. Revolving around a single political ideology, these programmes have co-opted the Oxford brand to entice US students to enrol in their narrow-minded curriculum, making an experience at one of the top universities in the world conditional upon an exclusive education in a single political opinion.

There is no reason for the majority of Oxford students to be aware of the Oxford Study Abroad Programme or the Washington International Studies Council, as it is known in the US. Working with Magdalen, New, Christ Church, and Trinity, OSAP acts as an intermediary between US students and these specific colleges, facilitating placements as Associated Members or Visiting Students for up to a year. While the details of the curricula for these studentships aren’t included on the website, OSAP also runs ‘Specialised Summer Programs’. Whilst these ‘Programs’ use college facilities and are often instructed by handpicked Oxford academics, students are taught using custom reading lists and lectures developed by the “faculty leaders” of the programmes, as Academic Director Tim Moore explained, without ‘interference’ from OSAP itself.

Nor does OSAP’s educational scheme show evidence of being overseen by the central University or departments. An Oxford University spokesperson said: “Colleges may choose to allow external groups to use their facilities under the ‘associate member’ category. The Conference of Colleges has its own guidelines on associate membership. Associate members are not Oxford University students, and colleges do not have any academic oversight of these students or responsibility for their academic programmes. However, colleges only enter into agreements with intermediary companies that offer academic programmes of good standing.” In a similar vein, Oxford’s North America Office told me staunchly that there was “no connection between OSAP and any of our staff or board members”.

Magdalen College declared that it “has no association with [OSAP], and the only associate members it accepts through an intermediary are those welcomed as part of a programme with Stanford University. The College accepts a small number of Visiting Students (not associate members) each year who have been recommended to it by WISC, in accordance with the Code of Practice for Visiting Students agreed by Council and the Conference of Colleges.”

Not only does this seem a singularly irresponsible model, a closer look at OSAP’s sample lectures, lecturers, and academic advisors reveals a highly commercialised organisation aimed at pushing a far-right agenda that is not only similar to those being propagated in the US but is directly funded from the same Koch sources. Astronomically expensive (costing up to $71,700 for one academic year), yet without giving students any form of official qualification beyond the ‘Oxford experience’, these programmes clearly do not prioritise the educational principles of research accuracy or academic freedom.

OSAP is the brainchild of the late Chicago-trained economist, Robert L. Schuettinger, whose deep involvement in the day-to-day running of OSAP’s summer programmes is evidenced not only by the eulogistic description of ‘Our Founder’ on its main website, but his repeated inclusion as a lecturer on both OSAP’s International Relations Programme and the Reagan-Thatcher Lecture Series (formerly known less discreetly as the Conservative and Libertarian Thought Programme). Trained under Friedrich Hayek in the 1950s, the European Conservative’s glowing obituary indulgently describes the former Reagan presidential aide’s “irascible personality and politically incorrect utterances” alongside his lifelong commitment to inspire “intellectual counter-revolution to cement the role of classical liberal ideas”.

In amongst the sycophancy, the eulogy reveals a rather tumultuous career, following highs of publishing the influential criticism of government fiscal intervention Forty Centuries of Wage and Price Controls with Adam Smith Institute co-founder Eamonn Butler, and lows of being fired from his job at Lynchberg College, Virginia by “tenured radicals” who had “tended to the left in the anti-Vietnam and Watergate era”. At Oxford, Schuettinger was an Associate Member of Christ Church, and a Visiting Research Fellow at the University’s Rothermere Institute from 2013-14.

All this goes to confirm that Schuettinger is not just your ordinary Oxford-phile. Indeed, he is firmly ensconced in the Koch nexus. Not only was he Director of Studies at US conservative thinktank the Heritage Foundation, which received $300,000 from the Koch-affiliated organisations in 2013, he was also a contributor to the Mises Institute’s online journal. The Institute’s board of directors includes Bob Luddy, who founded the Thales Academy, a chain of private schools teaching “free-market economics” to school pupils and has attended at least two Koch donor summits.

The Institute also plays a starring role in UnKoch’s Advancing White Supremacy report, which describes countless concerning episodes with Institute-affiliated academics, noting most shockingly the ‘Neo-Nazi’ rhetoric of its director, Jeff Deist, in his description of the importance of “blood and soil and God and nation” and the banning of Mises Institute Scholar Hans Hermann Hoppe from Reddit after he created a string of memes that featured characters wearing “the yellow-and-black anarcho-capitalist flag, and Nazi flags.”

But perhaps most damningly, Scheuttinger was a member of the Mont Pelerin Society, near-universally considered the most exclusive club of libertarian ideologues internationally. Co-founded by Hayek, the society meet annually to discuss “the fundamental principles of economic society” with members including Charles Koch himself. But Mount Pelerin isn’t merely a convivial old boys’ club: the Society had international ambitions from the outset, with many of its members providing the ideological expertise for General Pinochet’s “radical liberal constitution” for Chile which was implemented following a 1980 military-backed coup.

OSAP’s own affiliates are testament to Scheuttinger’s grand reputation in the libertarian sphere. Edwin Feulner, cited as a member of OSAP’s ‘Academic Advisory Board’, was former President of the Heritage Foundation and member of the 2016 Trump transition team. Last year, the Foundation released a statement celebrating the fact that Trump had adopted two-thirds of the Foundation’s policy recommendations which included withdrawing from UNESCO and the Paris Climate Accord, and increasing military spending. OSAP’s website also includes praise from Texan Public Policy affiliate Ronald Trowbridge, who has formerly argued for the privatisation of universities despite evidence that this allows for the politicisation of education by private funders like the Koch family.

Yet for all Schuettinger’s deep involvement with individuals that have open intentions of hijacking the education system to further disseminate their own ideology, OSAP continuing to be involved in Oxford since 1983 is indicative of dangerous naivety on the part of the University. Even if University officials didn’t give Schuettinger a quick Google, the content and lecturers behind the Specialised Summer Programmes are enough to show that the motivation behind OSAP is not wholly educational.

The International Relations programme, based primarily at New College, gives no overt indication of the course’s libertarian bent, although perhaps its emphasis on the “role of the nation-state” and “rise of ethnic and religions regionalism” [sic] doesn’t make the reality wholly unsurprising. Underpinning the programme is KCL historian Andrew Roberts’ A History of the English-Speaking Peoples since 1900, which is partnered with a lecture on ‘The English-Speaking Peoples under Attack’.

While Roberts said that he did not know his text was being used as part of the programme, he showed familiarity with OSAP programme as “the one that Bob Schuettinger ran in the 1980s.” The book itself was not only derided by Principal of St Anne’s College, Tim Gardam, for its “relentless, coarse polemic”, and belief that “only English virtues that count are those that march to the colours of the full-blooded, neoconservative global nationalism of Donald Rumsfeld and George W Bush”, but also factually incorrect, according to an Economist review, “less a history than a giant political pamphlet larded with its author’s prejudices.”

And these prejudices are not at all benign. In November 2001, Roberts was a guest of honour at a dinner at the Springbok Club for South African expats, which has been described in the Guardian as a “pro-apartheid” group. The Club’s organiser, A D Harvey, gave a speech entitled ‘Towards a New Imperialism’, archived on their website, which described how “third-world minions have been pleased and grateful to receive all the advantages of our civilisation and standards of law and order”. When asked about this association, Roberts said: “I am not nor have ever been a supporter of racial discrimination of any kind, as is very clear from my work.”

Presented on a glossy website complete with videos of vaguely bemused students wandering around Christ Church meadows, the Reagan-Thatcher Lecture Series is OSAP’s “latest offering”, teaching students “the nuances of the “special relationship” between the US and the UK first-hand”. According to Polluterwatch, in 2017 the Lecture Series’ Scholarship Fund received $10,000 from the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, a clear link between OSAP’s ventures and the hundreds of Koch-funded academics and thinktanks in the US. Moore was unable to confirm if the donation was made, claiming the fund was a “wholly separate entity”, but he stressed that “OSAP is not associated in any way with the Koch Foundation.”

The lecturers on the Reagan-Thatcher series are a peculiar brand of Oxford academic, including historians Mark Almond, formerly a lecturer at Oriel College, and Norman Stone, former Chair of Modern History at Oxford and foreign policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher. Both Stone and Almond are affiliated with Oxford-based British Helsinki Human Rights Group. Condemned in the Economist for “noisily defending a grim lot of east European politicians against the imperialism of western do-gooders”, the group recognise that they often draw “starkly different conclusions from other human rights groups” to “present a more balanced view of events in post-communist Europe.

For an instance of these unusual views, take their approach to Hungary. According to the FT, Stone’s latest book Hungary is peculiarly “silent about the epoch-making changes that have taken place under Orban”. Meanwhile Almond, a regular writer for the Daily Mail, wrote about the appointment of the authoritarian leader, defending Orban’s professed favour of ‘illiberal democracy’, saying “what he meant was that the people should get what they voted for and not be blocked by the Eurocrats of Brussels and its judiciary.”

Stone has also been widely criticised for his refusal to recognise the WWI Armenian genocide as such, explaining to the Telegraph, “I don’t believe the Turkish leadership sat down and said, ‘Let’s wipe them all out’”. The original coiner of the term genocide, Raphael Lemkin referred both to the Holocaust and the atrocities in Armenia to define the term. Stone, perhaps coincidentally, lectures at Bilkent University in Ankara, Turkey. When asked about his activities both inside and outside of OSAP, Stone said: “I know nothing of any of this.”

Mark Almond also has his own personal ties with the American libertarian network, acting as an Academic Advisor for the Ron Paul Institute. Another cited lecturer in the ‘sample programme’ is Ted Malloch, who formerly taught at the Said Business School in 2016 and had ambitions to be Trump’s Brussels ambassador. However, these were crushed after the University exposed his claims to be a Senior Fellow at Wolfson College and a Director of a summer school at Pembroke as false. Aside from these potentially credible lies, the FT also revealed that Malloch had boldly – and falsely – boasted of a knighthood and claimed to have been dubbed “a genius” by Margaret Thatcher in his autobiography. Yet for prospective OSAP applicants, Malloch is presented as a worthy ambassador of the University’s educational reputation.

But for all this, what should really worry the University is OSAP’s overwhelming focus on the Oxford brand, exploiting its association mercilessly in the pursuit of its clients. Students at the Reagan-Thatcher Lecture series, OSAP claims, will be taught using the “unique” Oxford tutorial system, attend formal at New College, and Evensong at Christ Church. What makes OSAP “the best overseas study abroad programme in the world” (as its website claims) is not its in-depth research into right-wing politics but its affiliation with the University. The impunity by which OSAP operates, seemingly unscrutinised by the University and unnoticed by students, is clearly evident in this reckless adoption of Oxford’s key features as indicators of legitimacy. So confident of their ‘difference, OSAP grandiosely claims to offer a $200,000 prize to the “the first reader who can describe an equal program anywhere”.

OSAP has come under scrutiny in the past. In 2013, an internal report by the University expressed concerns about how programmes like OSAP “pose a severe reputational risk” to Oxford, given that “the transaction seems to be one of a purely commercial kind” without taking into account students’ academic profile. In 2008, American students complained to Cherwell about the price of programmes like OSAP and feeling tricked into engaging with the intermediary instead of applying to the University directly. Moore claimed ignorance of both criticisms, saying he had “received no complaints about the quality of OSAP’s educational provision or the level of our fees.”

This fatal combination of narrow political ideology, politicised funding, poor educational materials, and questionable lecturers makes OSAP’s course the paradigmatic opposite of academic freedom. Putting aside the fact that their political philosophy encompasses those who have espoused racist, anti-democratic, and elitist viewpoints, simply allowing the University’s name to be associated with completely unregulated educational programmes seems absurd. While one can always claim that the University is in no way affiliated with the programmes beyond the letting of a college room, the failure to recognise that any association will always be internationally interpreted as endorsement is deeply naïve.

Our University needs to take responsibility and wake up to the fact that ‘neutrality’ cannot justify what is really a dangerous lack of critical examination.

A fee hike for international students is deeply unfair

0

There is nothing accessible about the 10% hike to international student fees. It has recently been announced that the fees for overseas students at Oxford are due to rise by over 10% for more than 40 undergraduate courses.

This change would put many international students in a very difficult position with respect to applying for and studying at Oxford: although this is perhaps only the tip of an iceberg when it comes to the wider difficulties international students face as they seek to pursue their studies here: from porters mistyping ethnic minority students as tourists, to colleges having deeply unfriendly vacation storage policies, to the repeated failures at facilitating the integration of international students who are studying in the UK for the first time.

International students – as is the custom for UK universities at large – pay significantly more than their UK and EU counterparts. For international students, the rates and fees of Oxford, even with all its funding and scholarships, remain disproportionately exorbitant.

Many of my friends who contemplated applying for Oxford eventually settled for other (equally valid, but not their desired) universities back home or elsewhere in the UK. For an institution that brands itself as the apex of intellectual discovery, this is problematic, unfair, and hugely exclusionary. Prospective talents are put off from applying or taking up their offers, because for all the fanfare about funding (especially at undergraduate level), students from abroad find themselves shunned by an unhelpful administration and excluded by prohibitive bureaucracy.

Most current international students find themselves scraping by in order to make their academic and financial ends meet.

I’ll be frank here: I myself had the privilege and fortune of attending the University of Oxford as an undergraduate on a full scholarship from a generous donor. Without the scholarship, I would have struggled with the fees, and that is in spite of my family’s relatively decent finances.

The intuitive response to my observation may be – international students are wealthy: surely, they are far better than domestic students in terms of affording Oxford’s fees. Some may well be.

But not that friend of mine whose parents are retiring soon with limited pensions and heavy mortgages yet to be paid off; nor that friend of mine whose parents sold their only apartment to raise enough money for them to come to England for sixth form and college; nor many amongst the 43% of Oxford’s student population – 17% amongst its undergraduates – who are not UK or EU citizens.

Individuals’ life chances should not be predominantly determined by the resources and prospects of their parents. Meritocracy alone is arbitrary enough; we have no case to introduce a further arbitrary variable that compounds the birth lottery with the wealth lottery.

Perhaps the question is one of feasibility. Yet it would be unfair to dismiss the egalitarian cries here as simply infeasible, because we know full well that what we deem feasible is the product of negotiations and historical processes that have typically excluded international voices and left some of the least represented nationalities erased and silenced.

Finally, Oxford and Cambridge – given their historical snobbery and role in producing some of the finest disastrous governing minds that wreaked such havoc across the world during the colonial era – should recognise that they have core reparative duties to at least offer those with talents and aspirations, born in other countries, a fair chance at entering and thriving in them.

Now the further objection may be – if other countries aren’t doing it, why should the UK? See the classic anti-slack-taking challenge to taking up the burden of mitigating injustices (Miller, Cullity): why should we scratch the backs of other countries’ citizens when they don’t do it for our own?

This mentality is understandable, but misguided. It ignores the fact that citizens – 18 to 21 year olds – often have limited to no say over their countries’ educational policies. It also assumes that just because a problematic practice is currently the norm, we should maintain it as such – for all the fanfare of a post-Brexit, better England, here it becomes ironically reluctant at taking up greater leadership roles and positions as a leading country in the world for education.

Moreover, it isn’t true that all countries charge their overseas students exorbitant fees – and even if their private universities do so, there is no reason why Oxbridge should be allowed to get away with this, given their unique roles as neither fully private nor public.

We do not allow injustice to be committed again merely because it has already happened – why should we let superficial cries of so-called ‘fairness’ drown out the voices of those who would truly need and deserve the opportunities to acquire the world-class knowledge and skills championed by Oxford, very possibly to make a difference to their own countries and the world?

Finally, there’s the objection from local interests: that international students ought to cross-subsidise poor and deserving local students. Yet this claim conflates the claim right of local students with a particular claim upon foreign students.

It reeks of the classic, callous claim that pits white working class against foreign migrants workers. It neglects the fact that it is years of deliberately or incompetently maintained austerity that has left this country’s education infrastructure damaged and its students, youth, and future generations collectively deprived.

Why should we allow the UK government and education establishment to drive us apart, to impose upon us artificial divides at their own convenience? Life’s unfair, you might think. Deal with it.

Sure, but dealing with it should not be akin to remaining silent and complicit, in face of injustice. We can deal with unfairness by removing it.

Because there is nothing more frustrating than the exploitation of ‘local interest’ as a cheap political excuse to dismiss our obligations to strive for greater fairness and justice for all – whether they are students or migrants.

Because wealth is a deeply arbitrary metric in allocating education spaces, which makes current students feel unwelcome and future students feel deterred, thus undermining the meritocratic end objectives of tertiary education.

Because I was lucky, but many are not.

Because international students deserve better. Because we can do better

Oxfordshire County Council vote ‘No confidence’ in Oxford Health

0

Oxfordshire County Council have passed a vote of no confidence in the Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust.

The decision follows a failure of communication about the closure of a local Community hospital.

Meeting on Friday 31st May, the Oxfordshire Joint Health Overview Scrutiny Committee (HOSC) discussed the recent closure of Oxford City Community Hospital, before holding an amended vote of no confidence in the Trust’s use of communicative procedure.

The possibility of the unit closing had been on the table since the previous summer, but was not declared to Oxford health until after the final decision was taken on the 8th May.

In response to this, Oxfordshire County Council convened a meeting of the Overview Scrutiny Committee, confirming the motion of no confidence on the same day that patients were discharged from City Community Hospital.

According to Oxford Health, the HOSC received testimony from “chief operating officer Dominic Hardisty, clinical director Pete McGrane and joint service director of Oxfordshire community services Tehmeena Ajmal, who responded to a volley of questioning”.

“The committee acknowledged the Trust’s grounds for the temporary closure.”

COO Dominic Hardisty told the committee that communication surrounding the issues was not of the standard it “could or should” have been, but cited a fear that staff would leave if the decision was announced, claiming employees may “vote with their feet”.

Hardisty also admitted that the unit had only managed to stay open due to the “extraordinary efforts” of staff members, informing the committee that some employees would work consecutive night and day shifts to cover staffing shortages.

County Councillor Lis Brighouse said she “would not accept” Hardisty’s response: “many of the residents in my ward work on the Churchill site.

“I’ve not met one health professional who would vote with their feet.

“They’re working back to back shifts in a system we know has massive problems. It’s a mess. “I can’t accept that they would vote with their feet.”

Councillor Hilary Hibbert Biles also told Cherwell the committee that the “lack of communication shows a lack of respect”.

The Chairman of HOSC, Arash Fatemain, described the issue as “managed rather than addressed” by Oxford Health.

He went on to say: “In light of the events that have transpired in the past and in particular, some of the decision-making, the committee doesn’t have confidence that there’s a proper understanding of the agreed working principles from Oxford Health.”

As previously reported by Cherwell, the Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust temporarily closed its 12 bed City Community Hospital at the end of last month, due to staff shortages.

Half of all nursing posts had been unfilled since 206, with two thirds of posts due to be vacant by the end of the May.

Oxford hospitals are also experiencing an “exodus” of EU workers since the 2016 referendum. 800 EU staff have left Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, over double those that left in the five years preceding 2016.

Oxford Liberal Democrat MP Layla Moran said: “The fact that over 800 EU nationals have left our health service since Brexit is deeply saddening.”

Oxford marches for an end to NHS crisis

0

Hundreds took to the streets last Saturday to protest the state of the NHS.

Under banners calling for action to Oxfordshire’s NHS staffing crisis, protesters marched through the city centre. With the closure of Oxford’s community hospital fresh in people’s minds, the town’s access to medical care was at the top of the list of concerns.

Growing opposition to the privatisation of cancer-scanning services at the Churchill Hospital was exacerbated last month when it was announced the twelve-bed ward in Headington would temporarily close due to a shortage of NHS nurses.

Health campaigners had raised concerns that more than two thirds of nursing posts were vacant by the end of May.

Beyond Oxfordshire, NHS services across the country have been battling a staffing crisis for a number of years.

Extremely high costs of living in Oxford have been cited as the main barrier to attracting new staff.

Latest NHS figures show that the trust employs 5,343 staff with just over 13% of posts being vacant.

Last week, John Drew, Director of Improvement and Culture at Oxford University Hospitals (OUH) told Cherwell: “Recruiting and retaining staff is a challenge both for the NHS nationally and for us here in Oxfordshire.”

Acknowledging the significance of the crisis, Drew went on to say: “We have a clear workforce plan in place for the year ahead which includes ongoing recruitment of international nurses, a significant growth in apprentices, and continued efforts to ensure that OUH is a great place to work so that our existing staff want to stay with us.

“Moreover, we have seen a reduction in staff turnover recently and we want to see that trend continue by retaining our staff and helping them to develop and build their careers here in Oxfordshire.”

Yet as well as the high cost of living, the Oxford University Hospitals Trust, which runs the John Radcliffe and Churchill hospitals, recently revealed that amidst the growing uncertainties of Brexit, a growing number of Spanish nurses were leaving the organisation to go home.

Responding to the worsening staffing crisis, a major expansion and redevelopment of housing for NHS staff in Oxford is being planned.

A plan, submitted to the Oxford City Council in April, involves the demolition of the original hospital accommodation and the creation of an additional 51 homes.

Protestors also marched against the privatisation of cancer (PET-CT) scanning at the Churchill Hospital.

In April, Oxfordshire’s Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee was presented with a petition, which had amassed 10,000 signatures, opposing the plans. The belief of the petitioners is that privatisation of such services would mean that the NHS would become an inferior service.

Scanning services for cancer (PECT-CT) have been provided at the Churchill Hospital since 2005. In a meeting between the UOH and the Oxfordshire Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (HOSC), it was decided that the matter would be referred to the Secretary of State for Health.

The OUH told Cherwell that due to the decision “no changes will be made to the current PET-CT service at the Churchill Hospital while this process is ongoing.”

Following the meeting, the OUH Chief Executive, Dr Bruno Holthof, said: “I would like to thank the Oxfordshire HOSC for agreeing to our request to examine this issue.

“I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the many patients who have contacted us to say how much they value the current PET-CT service at the Churchill. We are grateful for their support and also that of our local MPs and our governors who have spoken out on this issue.”

Pride must be inclusive

0

Presuming that you’re living in the 21st century, you will be aware that June is Pride Month for the LGBTQ+ community. Pride is a time for celebration and, as is in the name, pride for the community itself. And yet every year the same age-old question arises: should straight people be allowed to march?

The history of Pride is understandably both an empowering and heartbreaking subject. Pride originated in New York in 1969, with a riot at the Stonewall Inn following one of the raids that often occurred in LGBTQ+ friendly spaces. These raids were frequently intrusive – anyone in feminine clothes would have to prove their female anatomy to police officers – and it was at this point that the tolerance limit of this discrimination had been reached.

It’s quite easy now to forget why Pride exists, or why there is still a need for it to exist (straight pride has been demanded by allegedly “oppressed” cisgender heterosexuals for over 30 years). Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and with the increased visibility of the LGBTQ+ community has emerged an increase in the voices of what is either blatant homophobia or simply an ignorant refusal to empathise. So, when various members of the community resist allowing straight people to march with us, this should come as no real shock. The reasoning is clear: straight people cannot relate to our history, have not experienced discrimination in the way we have, are not explicitly part of the LGBTQ+ community and may even oppose its legitimate existence.

Pride is a time for the LGBTQ+ community, the moment when we can come together to show that we exist and that we deserve to exist. For some, to share this is to loosen the link to our history and to others in our community. Is there much sense in allowing people whose existence goes unquestioned for 12 months of the year and who effectively have 11 straight pride months, to march with those who are celebrating the time in which they can forget the toxic shame that has caused a repression of their innate nature and identity?

My answer, despite the above, is yes; there is always sense in allowing straight people to march in Pride. In fact, there is far more sense in allowing them to march than rebuking their presence entirely.

As has already been established, Pride is a time for the LGBTQ+ community to be openly proud of their identities. This has now become not simply a march to end the harassment and belittling of the community, but a march for acceptance. Self-acceptance, yes, but also acceptance from those outside our community.

We expect, justifiably, to be integrated into a society in which 90 percent of people identify as straight. We are a minority. We do not have the power to be exclusionary. If there is to be acceptance, there must also be the recognition that this applies to our actions towards those outside the LGBTQ+ umbrella.

In excluding straight people, and by ‘straight people’ I am talking about straight allies rather than those with exclusionary views themselves, from celebrating our identities we only marginalise ourselves further. We extend the separation and misunderstandings between the two. The irony of demanding to be a part of society and then actively seeking to shelter ourselves from said society is frankly ridiculous.

I do not dispute that Pride should center around the LGBTQ+ community, and in attending any straight allies should be fully aware of this. However, the solution to all our discriminatory issues and subconscious bias toward cisgendered heterosexuality does not come in the form of the insular surroundings of only those inside the community. I return to the issue of reactions; if we act in this way for the one month we are given to freely express ourselves, what do we expect from the other eleven months in which our straight contemporaries dominate? Just as we feel resentment and anger from the varying exclusivity of society, so would any straight ally who is rejected from showing their support.

And it is this support that is so vital in our fight for acceptance. We fight for equality and inclusivity; why divide when we are given a choice? Why would the 90 percent of the population who do not identify as LGBTQ+ include us, the clear minority, if we can’t even include those who fully support our rights? The point of Pride, as the name would suggest, is to be proud of who we are. How can we do so if we do not have the support of others, if we are continuously shamed and dehumanised?

We are not equal yet – we have much further to go. But we are much, much stronger if we act as a combined potential rather than with solely the remaining 10 percent of the population.

With this being said, there is a certain level of conduct that should be upheld by straight allies when attending Pride. It is an enjoyable event that should be welcoming to everyone, but that is not to say the history behind it takes a back foot. To all of us celebrating Pride this month, there is a deeper meaning that an enjoyable afternoon with music and alcohol should not distract us from. This is a time for humans as a whole to support each other as equals, to show our solidarity no matter what identity or sexual persuasion.

Read our history, take from it what you will, and please, celebrate it with us.