Moosa Harraj running for the #Bridge slate has been elected Union President for Michaelmas Term 2025 with 833 first preferences, by a margin of around 200 votes over Chris Collins.
The #Bridge slate swept the officer roles. Katherine Yang will be Librarian-elect with 826 first preferences. Raza Nazar will be Treasurer-elect with 878 first preferences. Jennifer Yang was elected Secretary with 855 first preferences.
The following candidates were elected to the Standing Committee, from highest to lowest order of votes: Brayden Lee, Matthew Chiu, Samy Medjdoub, Akshay Pendyala, Chloe Pomfret, Victor Marroquin-Merino.
Results for Secretary’s Committee will be announced tomorrow.
In an interview with Cherwell, Harraj said that he wants to ensure the financial stability of the Union, given its “precarious” financial situation, and create a sponsored Union scholarship programme to “further subsidise students who really need it to become members”.
In her final cartoon of term, Caitie Foley looks ahead to how many will be spending the Easter vac.
Have an opinion on the points raised in this cartoon? Send us a 150-word letter at [email protected] and see your response in our next print or online.
Pierre Victoire has been here on Little Clarendon Street for decades – one of our porters even worked there before coming to college. So I was personally delighted to have the chance to try their menu for a second time, after the arrival of Chris Prow, who had 2 AA Rosettes at his last restaurant in London.
Phoebe, the Lifestyle Dep Ed, arrived with me that evening to a slightly packed bistro and an immediately homely atmosphere. The warm lighting and candles with a vase of flowers lent itself well to the intimate atmosphere; though we were near other tables, they never bothered us, so we were able to enjoy the bread basket with butter in peace.
The menu is prix fixe: there’s a choice of two or three courses without drinks, where certain menu options (like escargot) have a small additional surcharge. Two courses are £29 and three courses £36, a decent price comparable to some college formals. Pierre Victoire also serves lunch, with a slight discount on prices. The menu is filled with classics: moules-frites, duck leg, French onion soup, steak frites, chicken and bacon pate, the list goes on. We decided to share escargots and mussels for the starter, with venison and sea bass for our mains. The vegetarian options were decent in the starters, with fried Camembert or chicory salad, but risotto or a mushroom tart were the only veggie mains. The fondue options in both the main and desserts options were tempting, though.
Starter wise, we were decently satisfied. The first time I was here (pre chef change), I found the garlic in the escargot almost overwhelming; today, it brought a nice kick of flavor without overpowering the parsley and butter. The mussels were not sandy, and the sauce was quite light, though a bit runny. What we could taste had a bit too little of the parsley and shallot flavor, but the white wine did not give an overly acidic taste.
The wine! We had a bottle of the house white, which I found not too bitter and paired well with most of the food (curse my choice of venison!) I am notoriously not much of a wine taster, but I am very picky about wines, and I happily finished my half of the bottle. The wine list was long, besides an option of various coffees and teas, though we were perfectly content with our wine and water.
The mains certainly didn’t disappoint either. Last time, I had a splendid duck breast with raspberry sauce that was perfectly pink and a nice blend of tart and salty. The venison tonight was knife tender; the burgundy sauce blended together with the horseradish creme fraiche and added a bit of a kick to the otherwise less seasoned meat. The burgundy tasted of mushroom and bacon and less so shallot, but was decadent and fragrant. I loved the dauphinoise potatoes; they always are extra tender and creamy, which adds a smooth sensation in your mouth compared to the venison. My candied carrots were sweet but not sickly so, an overall success. Phoebe found the sea bass itself well-cooked and perfect with the hit of salt from the capers, with the beurre blanc adding a nice citrusy hit from the lemon. In comparison, the crushed potatoes were almost bland, though the leek fondue added an interesting texture. The portions were sufficient with the appetizer to fill up someone not too hungry, but it’s definitely more of a special occasion restaurant than for a post-practice team dinner.
Dessert gave us the option of various ice creams and sorbets, fondue for two, cheesecake, and a cheese board. We ordered the creme brûlée and the dense chocolate marquise. My brûlée came freshly torched with a hot dish. It was easy to crack, but I realized some parts of the sugar was thicker than the others. The relative runniness of the custard was relieving and the dish as a whole was not too sweet. The mint added a nice zing as well. In the marquise, the zing came from the orange sauce, where the orange came nicely through as an aftertaste when combined with the marquise. Though small, the marquise was dense, easily filling us up. The chantilly was “nicely sweet” with a nice vanilla aftertaste. Phoebe found a nice balance with a good blend of chocolate in the dessert. I thought there was a slight alcoholic aftertaste, but was still happy with the results.
I wasn’t disappointed by the night, but considering we were on a student budget, we found that the restaurant was not perfect. I certainly think it depends on the menu at the time, but Pierre Victoire had certainly improved from the last time I was there. The cozy atmosphere also proves perfect for anniversaries and other one-offs where the tight-knit French experience is allowed to be truly appreciated. We certainly had fun!
The Oxford Union, self-proclaimed “most prestigious debating society in the world”, has attracted thousands of members and international interest throughout its 200-year-long history, hosting figures from Michael Jackson to Malcolm X. The society is an unincorporated organisation, officially governed solely by elected Committee members, who are more often than not students of the University of Oxford.
According to a balance sheet and accompanying commentary for the 2024/25 academic year authored in January 2025 by the Union’s externally-employed bursar, viewed by Cherwell, the Oxford Union has two years of operation remaining at the current rate of operational losses. The full year budget forecasts a loss of over £358,000 by the end of budgetary year. Cherwell spoke to several current and former senior Union committee members, who were granted anonymity to speak frankly, to gain a comprehensive view of the systemic problems underpinning the Union’s financial circumstance. Additionally, Cherwell asked them about the key donors preventing the society from going under, including an adviser to a Saudi-Arabian minister, who has overseen more than 80% of fundraising for a key Union initiative.
The accounts
The Oxford Union Society is in a precarious financial situation, with its bursar and head of finance stating that the society “has two years of operation remaining” until the society is “no longer a going concern”. A company is a going concern if it is able to continue operating and meeting its financial obligations for the foreseeable future. The Union’s funds are needed primarily for administrative and operational costs, including paying staff, maintaining the society’s buildings, and funding meals for guest speakers and Committee. According to company management accounts and an accompanying commentary seen by Cherwell, the Oxford Union made a loss of over £99,000 in the first half of the 2024/25 budget year. Accompanying commentary notes that as the Union has a cash balance of £718,000, it could remain financially viable for only two more years if it sustains those same losses.
The majority of this deficit comes from “exceptional costs”, including a £137,000 toilet renovation and £39,000 window repair. Additionally, the roof of the Union building requires around a million pounds to be repaired, according to the estimate of one former senior committee member. An additional sum of around £11,000 was spent on legal and consulting fees, in part to address the legal aftershock of the Israel-Palestine debate. Cherwell recently reported that the Union’s standing committee was advised in December that it could face criminal liability amid an ongoing counter-terror investigation into comments made at that debate. Excluding these exceptional costs, the accounts still forecast an operational loss of over £148,000. These issues have arisen from a fatal coincidence of falling income and climbing costs.
Besides donations, the Oxford Union’s accounts project membership, debating competitions, and events as its three routes of income. Membership accounts for half of the Union’s income. However, the Union is forecasted to reach just 90% of its membership goal this year, falling short of its budgeted membership income by £80,000. Commentary authored by its bursar noted, “[We] are not sure if the decline in membership enrolment in MT24 [Michaelmas Term 2024] is a trend, a result of Union activity in MT24, or lack of effective marketing for MT24”, but emphasised the urgency of rectifying the issue. Michaelmas Term 2024 saw unprecedented turmoil in Union politics, with debates frequently derailed by student political maneuvering. The result was debates that were often delayed by more than an hour, with one source saying: “I think people came and they saw that in the environment, and they didn’t want to spend 300 [pounds] to join it.” In addition, debate competitions are projected to generate just 16% of their budgeted income, a disparity of £54,000.
The society’s 2024/25 budget anticipated that it would also generate income in published videos and food and beverage sales. However, these are both projected to be sources of significant financial loss, with the latter suffering from a variance of -1579.9% between its budgeted income and forecast loss. Additionally, despite recent price increases in the Members Bar, the accounts project a £9,000 loss due to food and beverages, despite the yearly budget expecting it to break even and make £600. Further, the Union produces YouTube videos of debates and speeches with the intention of attracting international attention and generating additional funding via advertising revenue. Whilst the accounts leave it unclear how much expenditure can be attributed to video production, the commentary notes that “this year the filming costs are greater than the revenue generated from the filming”, and “a model that costs the Society ~£100k per annum is not sustainable”.
The Oxford Union’s forecast sources of overall loss for 2024-25
No sign of stopping
Despite recurrent losses, the Union has displayed little urgency in reducing its expenditure, evident in its Hilary Term Ball. “We spent £5000 on Bollinger champagne […] there was £1,800 [spent] on peacocks, £750 [spent] on an ice sculpture”, one former senior Union committee member told Cherwell. Usually the Union’s student committee works at the balls and receives free tickets in exchange. This time, external staff were hired for around £3,000. A Union source added that two weeks before the ball, only 300 tickets of the 600 person capacity had been sold. Around 70 committee members still received free tickets, valued at £110.
Several sources stated that systemic short-termism is a major source of the Union’s financial problems. One former senior Union committee member asserted that in the span of eight weeks, it is difficult for presidents to make sustainable change beyond organising debates and events. “It’s very easy to come in and look at the accounts and think, ‘Well, there’s a problem, but it’s not my problem, because I’m only here for three months’,” one source told Cherwell.
The source added: “When the annual budget is presented, depressingly, there’s ten minutes of discussion, and that’s it […] standing committee continually approves loss-making budgets, because it’s never been at the point where those people are the people who actually need to reckon with the consequences.”
Consequently, multiple sources agreed that the current state of the Oxford Union was such that students engaged in front-of-house political activities, often discussing the positions that students would occupy. Meanwhile, significant decisions regarding finances and governance were made by donors behind closed doors.
Further, personal politics take precedence over the endurance of the society’s financial sustainability. Multiple sources stated that standing committee fails to scrutinise the society’s finances, making key decisions based on their slates and the minutiae of Union politics.
Reliance on donors
Due to the failures of fundraising and development channels in the society’s current governance structures, the Union relies extensively on donors to keep its doors open.
In particular, the Union has relied on a former Union president turned adviser to a Saudi minister, Michael Li. Li has personally donated more than £50,000 to the Oxford Union, and helped raise more than 80% of the money for a key fundraising drive.
In March 2024, the Union published the Minute Book, a fundraising brochure aimed at alumni and prospective donors. The brochure outlines a fundraising goal of £5,000,000 by the end of 2025, of which £1,600,000 is said to have been secured at the time of publication. The Minute Book states that this fund is intended to “prevent the closure of the independent buildings” and ensure that the Union can continue to be the “last bastion of free speech”. Over 80% of these donations have come from the US Oxford Union Foundation (OXUF), a US-based non-profit established in 2023 that was set up to process fundraising for the Union in the United States.
The publication of the Minute Book was a moment where sources described realising the opacity of the Union’s finances. A former committee member told Cherwell that “almost none” of the brochure had been presented before the Union’s standing committee prior to publication. They expressed particular frustration at the implication that there could be an authority with power to undermine the elected governing body of the Union: “I thought, why on earth do you think that you can give all this to the alumni, but you don’t feel any obligation to tell standing committee about it?”
The brochure notes that Li, a former Union president from Trinity Term 2017, is the chair of OXUF, and recognises Li’s efforts in supporting the Union financially throughout. The rest of the fundraising comes from OLDUT, a financial trust that owns the Oxford Union’s buildings and grants the Society a licence to operate on its premises.
Li was previously pictured signing a deal between the Oxford Union and the Saudi Arabian think-tank, the Future Investment Initiative. In a brochure for an Arab-China business conference, Li is described as an adviser to a Saudi minister in the Ministry of Investment of Saudi Arabia.
A previous standing committee member described Li’s role primarily in terms of securing high-value donors and speakers for the Union. A senior former Union officer told Cherwell that Li was involved in the invitation of the Saudi ambassador to speak to the Union in 2022 about the country’s Vision 2030 programme. Former Union president Charlie Mackintosh also previously told journalists from The Oxford Student newspaper in 2023 that Li had passed on invitations to the ambassadors of the UAE and Bahrain on his behalf.
However, the Union as an organisation has appeared unaware of Li’s formal role and his influence within its financial and governance structure. In response to a press enquiry, Li was said to have no role within the society, its spokesperson stating in September 2023 that Li “does not represent the Society in an official capacity”. In response to earlier comment requests, however, the Union had asserted that Li was “chair of US fundraising”, with Li “giving up his time to focus on US development”.
Multiple sources attested that they were unsure of Li’s formal role in the Union’s governance. Discussing Li’s role, the former Union committee member said: “He very clearly has a very large amount of influence despite not having any formal role, let alone any elected authority. The people who do have formal roles and elected authority have no idea what is going on […] decisions that should be made by standing committee are not made by standing committee, they’re made by OLDUT or Michael Li.”
According to previous reporting, Li signed an agreement on behalf of the Union with the Future Investment Initiative (FII). The FII was set up by Saudi Arabia’s main sovereign wealth fund, and became notorious after it was blacklisted by major companies as a result of the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Li represented himself to the FII as the Union’s Chair of Development Board, a position that the Union then confirmed did not exist.
OLDUT told Cherwell: “OLDUT does not take, and has never taken, decisions that should be taken by the Oxford Union Society’s Standing Committee. The Oxford Union Society, as a members’ club, is governed by its members and its rules.
“Michael Li, ex-President, is Chair of OXUF, the Oxford Union Friends, and liaises with potential donors in the US. He takes no decisions on behalf of OUS or OLDUT.”
An uncertain insurance
Multiple Union sources told Cherwell that unceremonious conduct in the Oxford Union may, however, have deterred donors, which most visibly manifested in Lord Heseltine’s walk out during the 7th November debate. Multiple sources told Cherwell that the Union was expecting to be signed into Heseltine’s will, though that now seems unlikely.
Multiple sources told Cherwell that if the Oxford Union does not address its financial issues by becoming incorporated or fundraising, there is a plausible scenario where it ceases to exist. A former Union committee member told Cherwell: “I see [a bail out by donors] not necessarily happening this time around, because the Union has gotten into all these controversies”.
A current Union committee member summed up the financial state of the society: “Ultimately, it is a student run society […] there are permanent staff that have far greater capacity to deal with these issues than a lot of us”. Internal politics and financial irresponsibility on the committee’s side pose a major threat to the Oxford Union’s immediate future. The society’s prospects are perhaps not so bleak, however, with options including a transition to an incorporated company with a permanent board of trustees to prevent a future financial crisis. Alternatively, the Union may remain dependent on figures like Michael Li and other donors, though the past year’s turbulent Union politics do not serve well to attract more patrons and maintain old beneficiaries. Whether or not the Oxford Union will continue to operate for more than two years remains to be seen.
The Oxford Union did not respond to Cherwell‘s request for comment.
Plans submitted by the University of Oxford to redevelop their Wellington Square buildings could see the closure of Common Ground, a popular cafe and work space for students. The development work would see the rebuilding of 25 Wellington Square, the refurbishment of terraced buildings for graduate accommodation and a new “state of the art” academic facility.
Common Ground is a coffee shop, community arts and co-working space in the heart of Little Clarendon street, known for its distinct and creative identity. As well as serving refreshments, Common Ground also sells second hand clothes, vinyls, exhibits local art, and hosts live music and comedy nights. Developing 25 Wellington Square will require Common Ground to relocate whilst construction takes place. Although the new building includes plans for a cafe on the corner of Little Clarendon and Walton Street, it remains unclear whether Common Ground itself will have a future at the site.
Little Clarendon street which runs behind 25 Wellington Square has a reputation for being one of the ‘coolest’ places in the UK. One local resident told Cherwell that: “I’ve lived in Oxford my whole life. Little Clarendon has always been a vibrant, bohemian community with lots of quirky shops. It’s already lost a lot of that over the years and this development will yet again swallow up more community spaces like Common Ground.”
Managing Director of Common Ground Eddie Whittingham told Cherwell that the new development “endangers our mission. We are hoping to work collectively with Oxford University to preserve Common Ground’s spirit and what it means to our local community.
“Common Ground has always aimed to bridge the schism between Town and Gown, and we believe that with the right attitude and an effective approach, this redevelopment could do just this.”
Common Ground is currently in discussions with the University and hopes that it will be provided with a temporary home whilst construction is underway, as well as a permanent home once the redevelopment is completed. Eddie added that: “although it is fairly early on in quite a long-term process, we have been very impressed with Oxford University’s engagement with us”
One student who frequents the cafe told Cherwell that: “Common Ground has a really nice vibe. It adds something unique and special to Oxford that it would really miss if it were to go.”
A second public consultation on the University’s plans is open until 10th March and takes place ahead of a formal planning application in Spring. If approved, construction will commence in two phases beginning mid-2026 with completion planned for 2029. The first phase involves demolishing and rebuilding 25 Wellington Square. The new building will house teaching and administrative spaces, alongside retail units and public spaces.
In the second phase, University-owned terraces on Wellington Square and Walton Street will be refurbished for new graduate housing. These buildings will be more accessible with street-level entrances. Communal gardens will also be re-landscaped and additional bicycle parking spaces will be installed.
At the consultation, a local resident told Cherwell “this is just another case of the University taking over again. We haven’t been particularly engaged, and even if we were it would be a paper exercise. This development feels like a foregone conclusion.”
The proposed design of the new building seeks to respond to the surroundings of Little Clarendon Street and to enhance the public realm through wider footpaths. Both phases of the development will also have sustainability in mind, including features such as solar panels and energy-efficient lighting.
Cherwell has approached the University about the future of Common Ground and the Wellington Square Development but they are yet to reply.
Last term, I began my second year here at Oxford, and my first in Cherwell. I distinctly recall the elation I felt while I waited for the onboarding meeting to start, sitting at a battered wooden canteen table in the verdant lobby of a hostel I was staying at in central Berlin. The meeting began with slides detailing our roles as part of the paper, and there was a brief mention of the blind dating section, Cherpse, which needed someone to run it. I figured between that and the Agony Aunt, vicarious involvement in people’s dire dating lives sounded far more amusing. Although it was certainly not how I envisioned my very, very serious career in journalism starting, I was determined to make the most of it; after all, I’ve always felt there’s something about the odd Oxford dating scene that’s worth investigating (what with my entire friendship group’s 0% dating success rate, despite us being what I’d consider a very normal bunch of people.)
Sunday of week zero rolled around soon enough. Armed with a trench coat – worn frequently enough to expose my unfulfilled investigative student journalist fantasy to the entire student body – I was ready for a rigorous term of intense matchmaking, poem writing, diplomacy work, Oxfess mentions, and dating scene analysis.
Now, having exhausted myself with these relentless pursuits, the job has been passed on to a new bright-eyed Cupid, and in my retirement I’ve become fondly reflective, and decided to curate my insights into this list:
Next to nobody wants to date union hacks and rowers. That said, I have a friend who said she’ll occasionally agree to go for coffee with a hack just to feel like she’s going on a date.
Don’t be shy to sign up for a blind date. The people are generally very normal; only one person requested someone with a ‘massive c*ck’. Not sure how they expected me to know that… my passion for investigative journalism certainly doesn’t extend that far.
Corpus is the illuminati of Oxford. It’s a college no one’s ever been to, but if you look closely there’s definitely an underground network of Corpuscles running the University, and I fear my work has only entrenched this. Maybe having no grass in your front quad will do that to students.
There’s a concerning amount of third and fourth years who are willing to date freshers. At one point I had to start recruiting non-first years to match up with all the sharks in my (Google) sheets. Shameless.
Your chances of being set up with the president elect of OUCA are slim, but never zero. Especially if you’re one of the co-chair elects of OULC. According to her, it was ‘not exactly a love match, but definitely a plot twist’ – a plot twist indeed, as she was expecting a woman but discovered that her blind date was with OUCA’s male pres elect. Still, he informed me that they’ve organised a joint event in Trinity, so I guess I can list ‘Diplomat’ underneath ‘Cupid’ on my Linkedin.
Poetry is the best way to entice people to do anything – especially attend a blind date. Having spent many hours crafting couplets, it would seem I’ve mastered the art of rhetorical poetry. Although Walt Whitman claimed that ‘The greatest of thoughts and truths are never put into print’, clearly I did what he could not – my poems not only provided the much needed spark of romance for Oxford’s lovebirds, but also solidified my legacy as the Michaelmas ‘24 Cupid.
I hope these insights are as valuable to you as they have been to me. I can’t recommend being an anonymous, irrelevant third wheel to over 50 couples enough – really. Although I have come away with even less faith that I will ever find a partner here, it’s nice to know we’re all having the same experience.
On Tuesday the 18th of February, the world of Formula One took over the O2 Arena in a special livery reveal hosted by Jack Whitehall. What was framed as an event to celebrate 75 years of Formula 1 somehow slipped into a bizarre extravaganza of booing, DJs and Machine Gun Kelly.
On the surface, such excitement over a livery reveal may appear pointless: why such commotion over the colour of a car which is going to be exactly the same as last year? While it was officially in celebration of F1’s diamond jubilee, there seems to be something more commercial behind the proposal of this ‘anniversary’ event. F1 is in the honeymoon phase of unprecedented growth, where media conglomerates are opportune to capitalise on this popularity wave. ‘Bigger, better, brighter, bolder’ appears to be the agenda. Glitz and glamour, British icons, rehashing last year’s ‘beef’ between Russell and Verstappen. It’s simply giving the people what they want, isn’t it?
If adherence to fan’s wishes is the explanation for this increased showbiz we are seeing in motorsport, their interpretation of what fans want to see is somewhat inaccurate. Reception of the event has been controversial at best, with some fans appreciating the content at the end of a long winter break, while others describe reactions ranging from second-hand embarrassment to downright outrage.
When the day came, Verstappen’s dread seemed well-founded. All ten teams were offered seven minutes to display their liveries, mostly consumed by an entrance montage and brief driver interviews. The remaining time was filled with Whitehall’s comedic bits and music performances from Take That, Kane Brown, and MGK. One particularly memorable moment, if somewhat bamboozling to witness, included Bryan Tyler performing a lengthy solo DJ set to introduce the Alpine livery.
Despite dwindling hopes for the event, it was wonderful to see the 2025 grid and listen to interviews ahead of what is likely to be an eventful new season. The liveries themselves were eye-catching and beautifully crafted, and it was refreshing to see the rookies assimilating nicely into their new colours.
These positive features shouldn’t go unnoticed within the largely negative media whirlwind. However, what became apparent as the event progressed was that the F1 75 show was not necessarily a bad idea in principle, but it was almost undoubtedly a misfire in terms of its execution.
Verstappen in particular looked as if he would rather be anywhere else, and who can blame him? His suggestion that he may boycott the event if held in England next year, is unsurprising following the booing he received onstage. Granted, he was on British soil where allegiance to national drivers is fierce – it’s hard to imagine that the Dutchman would receive the same response in his home country. However, typical Verstappen sarcasm has made light of the whole fiasco, recently joking in a post-testing interview that ‘maybe I’m deaf…it was absolutely fantastic!’.
Another episode of crowd uproar was the FIA: the only acronym that produces more anger in a motorsport fan than DNF. The controversy around the FIA was bound to arise at this event, with recent introductions on swearing bans causing uproar among drivers and fans alike Indeed, One of the more redeemable moments of the evening involved Gordon Ramsay’s fine-worthy expletive when asked about the FIA’s new swearing policy.
Despite its disappointing execution, the growth F1-75 represents is not all bad. F1’s popularity has swelled recently, and the subsequent financial benefits can help fund grassroots programmes and increase employment across multiple sectors.
As sports go, it’s not inaccurate to argue that flashiness and prestige have long been part of motorsport’s identity. Often associated with wealth and Monte Carlo luxury, the recent media frenzy is perhaps just a more public extension of the glamour that F1 always held. But when events like F1-75 come with a tone of forcefulness and fabrication, it instead suggests the balance between sport and spectacle is starting to topple in an unsettling direction.
Verstappen could breathe a sigh of relief – currently, there are no plans for another livery reveal event next year. Still, as long as the fanbase continues its upward trajectory, it is entirely possible that similar episodes will take place in the sport’s future. If Britain does host another full-scale F1 spectacle, perhaps next time give Top Gear’s May, Clarkson or Hammond two hours and a microphone – if the FIA can handle a bit of profanity in the midst.
We are all waiting to hear Crofty telling us it’s ‘Lights out and away we go’ in Melbourne, but ‘lights, camera, action’ still doesn’t feel like an adequate replacement in the meantime. Formula One needs to find a way to balance the surge in media popularity while staying true to its identity as a sport, and the values and dignity of its participants.
You find yourself nestled in one of the cosier armchairs of your tutor’s office on a bright afternoon, your gaze momentarily drawn to the familiar wall of books opposite. Just as you manage to refocus, you are prompted to respond to a question – an intellectual challenge you are more than capable of meeting. In fact, you have a brilliant idea, one that is coherent, creative, and even exciting to articulate. Yet, as you open your mouth, an incoherent jumble of half-formed sentences and stammered repetitions emerges, a shadow of the argument you had so confidently formulated in your mind.
This struggle is not uncommon in an era where much of our most important communication takes place in writing – whether through emails, essays, or carefully crafted messages. For many, proper comprehension of an issue only emerges as we speak or write about it. What begins in your mind as a vague idea of belief can become refined or even changed once articulated into words. However, the written word offers the luxury of time: the ability to meticulously select words, refine phrasing, and anticipate responses. While writing remains a crucial skill, it represents only one side of the coin; the art of effective spoken communication has been relegated to the background.
In contrast, spoken communication demands immediate articulation, often under pressure. It is not uncommon to begin articulating a point, only to realise, mid-sentence, that your argument is nonsensical. This process – of thinking aloud, refining opinions, and learning through dialogue – is fundamental to intellectual growth. Constantly rephrasing arguments, taking a half-formed thought and articulating it to a full one as it moves from idea to speech, is a skill that requires practice and fine-tuning.
When considering public speaking at Oxford, one’s thoughts will likely stroll down St Michael’s Street to the debating epicentre of the city: the Oxford Union. The Union has long been a breeding ground for passionate speakers, boasting a formidable list of alumni who have gone on to hold significant positions in politics and beyond. Admittedly, speaking in the chamber is not without its challenges: instances of speakers talking over one another and bringing forward rash claims culminated in a particularly eventful Michaelmas this year. Yet, setting politics aside, the Union provides a valuable space where students can hone their public speaking skills in a structured environment – whether they choose to participate or simply observe from the chamber benches. Unlike aspiring politicians emerging from a day of PPE lectures, I find equal value in listening to my peers’ perspectives and analysing seasoned speakers’ techniques.
Not all Oxonian public speaking occurs within the context of the Union, however. There is a vast difference between delivering a speech to a chamber and presenting an argument in a tutorial or JCR meeting. Context is crucial: human nature dictates that we assess the stakes of our actions, and public speaking is no exception. The fear of judgment, the unpredictability of live discussion, and the absence of a backspace key all contribute to the apprehension and ‘word-vomit’ many experience when asked to speak in front of others.
However, attributing the decline of public speaking to the pandemic would be an oversimplification. Like the wider world, university life has been undergoing a slow but steady digitisation process for decades. Every generation of students has lived through its own version of the most technologically advanced society to date. I have no doubt that the students of our children and grandchildren’s era will have a whole host of technologies available to them that we couldn’t even dream of.
Yet, despite the shift towards digital communication, our tutorial system ensures that spoken discourse remains an integral part of academic life. While one can research, write, and submit an essay without uttering a single word on the subject, the following day’s tutorial offers no such refuge. The tutorial system is an intimate form of public speaking that cannot be opted into or out of here at Oxford. Unlike the Union, participation is not voluntary; you must be prepared to articulate and defend your ideas in real-time discussion.
So, while the Union-esque rhetoric of practised debaters may remain the domain of a select few, communicating with clarity and confidence is a skill that Oxford’s academic framework ensures no student can avoid.
Have an opinion on the points raised in this article? Send us a 150-word letter at [email protected] and see your response in our next print or online.
You may have seen the headlines about income inequality – the top one percent in Britain earn somewherearound 15% of all income. Cherwell’s fourth annual Sextigation has found an inequality just as yawning in Oxford’s sex scene: just four respondents out of 445 found themselves involved in 15% of all unique sexual partnerships. Nearly a quarter of all partnerships involve the top two percent of shaggers, one of whom reported 90 sexual partners at Oxford.
The new college disparities report
It was a good year to be at St Edmund Hall. Buoyed, perhaps, by their alumnus Keir Starmer making it to Downing Street, they self-reported an average of 7.1 sexual partners. But, like most group projects, this was mainly the work of two dedicated individuals, with a combined Oxford body count of 140. When they were removed, the college average was 2.4. Without them, Trinity’s 4.5 average was the highest, followed by Queen’s and LMH. But it bears remembering that these were self-reported, and a different question revealed which colleges respondents had hooked up with.
(Colleges with only one respondent are omitted)
On that metric, Keble was the most promiscuous – 16.6% of respondents had got with a Keblite (or potentially a KCFC player). Following closely was Balliol with 14.7%. One Hugh’s student spoke of a hookup refusing to go home with them because of the astronomical distance. This doesn’t quite seem to be borne out. The college was tied with Brasenose in third, proving that, whether you’re on Radcliffe Square or St Margaret’s Road, you too can find love at Park End.
But all that sex did not necessarily leave people better off. On average, people with no sexual partners at Oxford reported the highest satisfaction with their sex lives and people with one reported the lowest, but beyond that there was no correlation whatsoever between number of partners and satisfaction.
What should you study?
Most Oxford students are not very promiscuous at all. Only half of respondents reported having had multiple sexual partners at Oxford. Though we only had a couple of respondents, Maths and Computer Science came bottom of number of sexual partners, with a whopping average of 0. Computer Science, despite the potential future earnings, really does seem to be neglected: last year, Computer Science and Philosophy came in at 0.75. Other low ranking subjects include Maths (1.2), Geography (1.4), E&M (1.5), and Biochemistry (1.6). This should be particularly disappointing for the geographers, who in 2024 were one of the highest performers – either the first years have lost their way around the place or the recent grads really knew their subject was ‘where it’s at’.
By contrast, Chemistry, ArchAnth and AMES came out on top, but all were bolstered by individuals reporting far higher figures – removing these anomalies puts the subjects in low-to-average terrain. More convincingly, Earth Sciences, MML, Biology, Human Sciences and Materials Science all did well, with figures ranging from 4.5 to 5.9. No matter how cool Humanities students think they are with their tute essays and no lectures, there’s no good evidence that they’re the preferred domain of ‘the two cultures’.
(Joint honours respondents are counted in both subjects studied. Joint honours typically studied together, eg. PPE, are counted as their own subject. Subjects with only one respondent are omitted.)
Nowhere is safe
Nearly a third said they had had sex in a public place. Chaplains, shield your eyes – there were tales of sex in an organ loft, a room dedicated to a Bible clerk, on a church altar, and in quite a few chapels. Academic places were scarcely treated with more respect. Various libraries, the New College belltower, and bathrooms of academic buildings were all shagging sites as well. Wheeled desk chairs apparently present logistical troubles. On the pastoral side, parks and forests were very popular locations – the presence of a few bushes seems to provide the mirage of privacy (even if you’re going at it in university parks at midday, as one admitted).
One place that doesn’t get the blood flowing though is the nightclub. 38% of respondents “couldn’t say” which club was the best for casual sex; 12% bluntly said: “none.” If they had to pick, Oxford students would go for Bridge, with a quarter of respondents putting it as their top location, followed by Plush at 19%.
It was a particularly surreal experience for the Features Team, going over the responses in the Social Science Library, all too aware of what had gone on in its toilets. And we hate to confess, dear readers, (somewhere in) the office of this venerable publication has not remained untainted.
Partners for life?
For those who do like sex, there’s one big question: how do you keep getting it? Unless you have some miraculous pick-up talent, the answer for many is, of course, to get in a relationship. But is this all that that relationships are for? You might think so, with the endlessly cynical claims about Gen-Z having no capacity for attachment – no doubt as a part of the woke crusade against all things good and proper. But in fact, our data shows that Oxford students are serious about their commitments, and traditional in their wants.
Second-wave feminists: bad news. Despite what you might expect given the waves of secularisation and increasingly liberal social attitudes, fully 72% of our respondents said that marriage was their desired form of future relationship. (We aren’t sure how they intend to square that one with certain acts in certain college chapels…) 55% said that their main goal out of dating in Oxford was ‘finding the one’; only a meagre 7% said it was casual sex. JD Vance can sleep tight, undisturbed by nightmares of “childless cat ladies”: 63% want to have children in the future, though the proportion is bigger amongst men than women.
And lest you think this is purely idle speculation from those dreaming of a non-existent lover, an impressive 57% of people currently in a relationship said they thought it would last ‘all my life’. Unfortunately for some, 7% admitted that their relationship wouldn’t make it past the end of this term. (If this is you, it’s time to send that ‘we need to talk’ message; don’t prolong it any further.)
Looking in from afar
Appearances are everything, and just as important as who is actually having the most sex is who everyone thinks is. In that vein, if personality isn’t exactly your top quality in a partner, you might want to head over to Balliol, Worcester, or Keble, the three most attractive colleges, according to our respondents. It bears taking with a grain of salt, though. 79% of those who said Worcester was the most attractive were from the college itself, which begs the question of whether they are particularly incestuous, or just have average Oxford levels of arrogance.
But even they were outdone for self-admiration by Lady Margaret Hall, with their 83% college representation. All the way in OX2, it’s highly likely that this result is influenced by never even catching a glimpse of someone from another college. For others, distance attracted. Of the three respondents that put Lincoln as the most attractive (0.8%), not one actually attended the college, but two went to Somerville. Maybe Lincolnites are only tolerable from afar.
When same-college respondents were removed, Balliol still came out on top, so it’s possible that there truly are some Adonises hiding on Broad Street. Equally impressive were New and St Catherine’s, neither of which had more than two respondents from their own college, but came in at second and third with 15 and 13 responses respectively. But it’s possible attractiveness brings its own issues – Balliol students had the lowest satisfaction with their sex lives, with an average of 2.7 out of five. All that glitters…
The apps: “Just try someone on and discard them”
Where can you find the top one, two, or ten percent of shaggers? Dating apps are a good bet. Only a quarter of all respondents have used the apps, but this included almost all of the top shaggers. One student who claimed 50 sexual partners in Oxford lamented that it’s “extremely easy to meet people, but sex becomes commodified … real conversations beyond the surface level are hard to find.”
That’s a common complaint: dating apps make the whole romantic experience superficial as people become commodities to browse through, with a better option always potentially being one more swipe away. 71% of students said the apps had not improved the dating experience.
But most respondents had nuanced feelings. A St Hugh’s student wrote that “dating apps are extremely superficial and overwhelm you with too much choice, encouraging people to think of each other as merely ‘options’. However, in some ways they’re a necessary evil with the lack of third spaces to find dates.”
The apps seem to be especially helpful for those seeking same-sex partners. 58% of gay and lesbian respondents had used a dating app, while only 18% of straight respondents had. 54% of gay and lesbian respondents said that the apps had improved the dating experience, while only 21% of straight respondents said the same.
While a Keble student said that “deep down, no one on Hinge wants to meet someone through Hinge, myself included,” a Lady Margaret Hall student said that she met her “boyfriend of over a year on Hinge and am embarrassingly in love with him, hate to tell ya.”
The darker side
It’s not all fun and games, though. Nearly 30% of our respondents said that they had at some point felt pressured into sex, the majority of whom (54%) were female. Another 6% said they were not sure if they had or not. This is just slightly less than the 35% of a national survey of 16-24 year-olds (and the same if you include the unsure category), suggesting Oxford is not much better than anywhere else. Additionally, 16% of respondents said they had felt pressure not to use contraception during sex.
Oxford is also not immune from what has been called ‘the phenomenon of sexual strangulation’. Unwanted behaviour, such as choking, as sexual strangulation is known, has become increasingly recognised as a national and international issue, with research finding that more than one in three Britons aged 16-34 had experienced unwanted choking during consensual sex.
Our survey, which asked about unwanted behaviour in general, found that Oxford came in below this result, but still had 21% of respondents having experience choking or slapping. A further 4% said they were not sure. Some respondents told us of dehumanising behaviour, such as damaging lip biting, being slapped in the face, and being groped whilst asleep.
Data and Methodology
Lastly, a word on the results. Cherwell’s Features team did the best it could to make our results as wide-ranging and representative as possible, but we recognise the limitations of the survey. With over 440 respondents including virtually every college and course, we cover the whole ground. But for some of these subcategories, like less-common subjects, we end up with only a few respondents in each, and hence averages are easily skewed by a single person.
We also recognise that, as a survey very clearly to do with sex and sexual activity, even despite our emphasis that we wanted respondents with or without experience, there may be a skew towards those people who have got more experience than average, as they self-select into participating. Nevertheless, of all our respondents, roughly half had had 0 or 1 sexual partners, with the other half having had two or more. There is also of course the possibility of exaggeration, underreporting, or preference-falsification. However, as our respondents were anonymous, we hope that there was little incentive to do so.
In choosing what questions out of the myriad possibilities to go for, we aimed to preserve the essence of previous iterations of this survey, in looking at the all-important numbers on how much sex people are having, but expand the scope to incorporate wider attitudes and beliefs. We did also, as one perceptive respondent noted, drop ‘the masturbation question’. Apologies for the disappointment.
With the termly set of Oxford Union elections imminent, Cherwell spoke to both candidates vying to become President, Chris Collins and Moosa Harraj, to hear from them about their motivation for running, their plans if they win, and what their favourite thing about each other is…
Introduce yourself briefly.
Chris: I’m Chris, I’m from London, and I’m a final-year Classicist at Corpus Christi. I had the thrill of being the Union’s Secretary last year and I’ve served seven terms on its Standing Committee.
Moosa: I’m Moosa Harraj, a second-year at Balliol studying an MPhil in Economics, and the current Librarian of the Oxford Union.
Why are you running for President?
Chris: The Union holds a uniquely special place in Oxford and in my heart. I love it, and I love you [sic]. In four years in this Society, I’ve seen it at its best and at its worst. I’m running for President because I believe we can – and we must – do better than the disorganisation and division that we’ve seen in recent months.
The Union must be a debating chamber, not an echo chamber, which fairly represents the whole spectrum of views. I want the Union to be a fun and inviting social space at the heart of Oxford life, reaching out to our community and bringing people in.
Moosa: When I was growing up in Pakistan, the country was under a military regime – an environment where free speech was stifled, and independence of thought discouraged. Coming from that, the exhilaration I felt when I sat on the front bench watching Nancy Pelosi speak on democracy was life-changing.
These experiences have made me truly appreciate the empowerment that comes from freedom of speech. I want to bring that to all the members, no matter where they come from, and that’s why I am running for President.
What experience do you have outside the Union?
Chris: I’m delighted to have been JCR Vice President of [Corpus Christi College], and I’m currently President of one of Oxford’s largest political societies.
Moosa: I have experience leading other student societies. As an undergraduate, I was the President of a London University International Development Society and arranged a development symposium.
I also have professional experience that I think is really worth highlighting. Having worked in the accounts team of a business with a £70 million turnover, I believe I have the experience necessary for managing the finances of the Oxford Union.
If you could only keep one of your manifesto pledges, which would it be?
Chris: I’d love to make the cost of membership more affordable, particularly through introducing an option to pay by instalments. We need to remember that people pay a huge amount to join, and we should concentrate on giving them value for their money with luxurious facilities and unforgettable events.
Moosa: I would have to say ensuring financial stability and expanding opportunity. Unfortunately, the Union is in a precarious financial situation. We have just celebrated our bicentenary, so to ensure that we are around for another 200 years, I would develop partnerships with businesses, alumni, and institutions, and secure more external corporate sponsorships.
What’s something you would change about the Union?
Chris: Instead of focusing on delivering great events for our members and debating the issues that matter, the Union has become consumed by internal factionalism and petty student politics.
We need to be genuinely open to, and tolerant of, those of all backgrounds and beliefs, and we have to learn from the mistakes of the last couple of terms. Oxford should be proud of the Union, not embarrassed of it.
Moosa: Right now, we have access membership for those who are from disadvantaged backgrounds, however, for some even that sum is too hefty on a student budget. Therefore, I want to launch a sponsored union scholarship programme where we partner with businesses, our alumni, and other institutions to further subsidise students who really need it to become members.
Furthermore, I am really proud to have started the work on this already this term, helping introduce access rates for postgraduate students, which previously they did not have access to.
Name something you admire about your opponent.
Chris: Moosa is a driven candidate, and I know he cares about the Union immensely. I think the emphasis he puts in his manifesto on the power of truth in the face of an oppressive regime is an invaluable insight into just how much free speech matters.
I wish him the best of luck, though, of course, not too much luck!
Moosa: I think that Chris is very driven; he really does not give up when he sets his mind to something!
If you could invite three speakers during your term, who would they be?
Chris: President Zelenskyy, Meryl Streep, and Serena Williams.
Moosa: Angela Merkel, Sam Altman, Timothée Chalamet.
What’s one debate you would host during your term?
Chris: “This House believes that AI will kill the creative industries.”
Moosa: “This House Welcomes a Multipolar World Order.”
Anything else you want to add?
Chris: I’m lucky to have seen the Union from many different angles. I arranged its elections as Returning Officer, I’ve served on the Finance and Access Committees, and I’m particularly proud to be the only Presidential candidate to have served on the committee that organises our competitive debating.
Wherever you come from, and whatever you study, I hope that the Union can offer you a second home.
Moosa: The Union is a really special place. It is where I’ve found some of my closest friends, and had some truly special experiences and I’ve given a huge amount of my life to it. Just over the last year, I have worked more shifts, scrutinised more budgets, organised more events and worked more vacation days than any other Presidential candidate.
It’s this experience that I think best places me to serve this institution that I love, as your President. But I also think that the Union is all about democracy, so at the end of the day all I can say is that I hope on Friday people come out and play their own role in shaping this wonderful Union which we all share.
