Still thirsty for puzzles? Why not try the last mini:
Follow the Cherwell Instagram for updates on our online puzzles.
For even more crosswords and other puzzles, pick up a Cherwell print issue from your JCR or porters’ lodge!
“What does summer mean to me?” was always the first question on the first page of a new schoolbook. A trap disguised as a creative writing prompt. You were meant to produce something sun-soaked and mildly mythic: tales of the Aegean or at least a ferry to Calais. But what if you’d just spent six weeks stress-eating Wotsits and watching CBBC in a hot room?
Some kids wrote about sailing in Greece or “really bonding with Grandpa in Tuscany”. Others said they “found themselves” in Cornwall. I once wrote a full-page lie about learning to surf in Devon, despite the fact that I can’t swim in a straight line and once cried on a pedal boat in Swanage.
The truth? I was lucky in many ways – holidays, heat, even the occasional Ryanair flight with my name on it. But still, the question always felt loaded. “What did you do this summer?” quickly became “Who did you become this summer?” And if you hadn’t had a glow-up, a coming-of-age moment, or at least a near-death jet ski incident, had you even summered?
Some summers were spectacularly uneventful. Some were sad, angsty, heavy with a side of sunburn and the long, low ache of not being invited to things. Other summers were breakthroughs. The kind where you pick up a textbook in August like it’s a love letter to your future self.
Then came the chaotic ones. The international ones. Where you learned how to say “hospital” in Spanish and why monsoon season is not, in fact, a cute aesthetic. I spent one summer in Nicaragua, watching the sea roll in on Ometepe Island and realising that no great spiritual revelation comes from a bug bite and a bad haircut, but you do come away with a new kind of clarity.
Summer teaches perspective – badly. It crashes motorbikes, calls insurance companies, and makes you apologise to your parents for things they didn’t even know you did. It throws you into deep conversations with strangers who seem wiser than you until you realise they’re also 19, lost, and googling “what is foreign transaction fee”.
Summer is a contradiction in motion. It’s epiphanies in hostel bathrooms. It’s BuzzFeed quizzes at 3am and pretentious conversations about Dali on a boat with a leak. It’s your third cocktail and your fifth rebrand. It’s a season for lying to yourself (gently), romanticising yourself (aggressively), and reinventing yourself (clumsily). It’s a time to be someone else or maybe just more yourself than usual.
So I don’t have a clean answer to the question. But I do have this: summer is self-mythology on a sweaty timeline. It’s always a little cringe in hindsight, but necessary. Summer, for me, is the bridge between the person I was trying to be and the person I might accidentally become. And that’s probably more than my Year 3 teacher bargained for.
President-Elect of the Oxford Union George Abaraonye is receiving backlash for his positive comments on Charlie Kirk’s shooting. Initially, George Abaraonye told Cherwell: “In that moment of shock, I reacted impulsively and made comments prior to Charlie being pronounced dead that I quickly deleted upon learning of his passing. Those words did not reflect my values.”
Since Friday 11th September, there have been more responses to the story. This article will be updated as new developments arise.
James Price, former Conservative Party Chief of Staff, resigned as the honorary secretary of the Oxford Literary Debating & Union Trust (OLDUT), saying he “cannot in good conscience remain” in the position. Price condemned Abaraonye’s statement in response to the backlash calling it “psychopathic”. OLDUT is a financial trust that owns the Union buildings and licenses the society’s operations on the premises.
Oxford African Caribbean Society (ACS) has issued a statement condemning the “anti-black and anti-migrant rhetoric”, racial abuse, and death threats directed towards Abaraonye among the backlash to his comments. ACS stated: “We encourage productive conversation rather than the disparaging of George’s character and denouncing the legitimacy of black people existing in Higher Education.” Oxford Feminist Society shared the post on their story in solidarity.
Elon Musk replied to a post on X on the alleged motion of no confidence: “Kick him out.” Musk also supported Pierce Morgan’s denouncement of Abaraonye. Responding to a post claiming Abaraonye’s admission into Oxford showcases “unfairness that talented white people are having to face”, Musk stated: “Racism of any kind is wrong, obviously including anti-White racism.”
US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau stated that he will strip visas from foreign nationals that “glorify violence and hatred”. He responded to a post condemning Abaraonye’s words with an image of the US seal styled as a Batman spotlight with words “El Quitavisas” in the corner – Spanish for “the visa remover”.
Former Prime Minister Liz Truss posted on X calling Lord Hague, Chancellor of Oxford University, to “show some mettle and expel George Abaraonye”. Lord Hague was approached for comment.
Richard Tice, the deputy leader of Reform UK, told The Telegraph: “Free speech enables him to say this, but it also shows he is not fit to be president and should be fired from his post and expelled from the university.”
A former Tory Cabinet minister also told The Telegraph: “The Oxford Union is the cradle of politicians. One of the lessons in politics is learning to resign with dignity.”
University College Master Baroness Valerie Amos stated that Abaraonye’s comments “do not contravene the College’s policies on free speech” and “no disciplinary action will be taken”.
The Oxford Union issued a statement condemning the racial abuse and threats directed at Abaraonye. “No individual should ever be attacked because of the colour of their skin or the community they come from.” The statement also added that whilst the Oxford Union “does not possess executive power to summarily dismiss President-Elect”, a complaint was filed against him. Disciplinary proceedings launched by the complaint will be treated “with utmost seriousness” according to the Oxford Union statement.
The online backlash facing Abaraonye has led to doxxing of several others also exposed in the leaked Whatsapp screenshots as well as racist comments directed at Abaraonye.
Oxford Stand Up To Racism has issued a statement in support of Abaraonye calling to “stop the racist witch-hunt”. “It’s absolutely shameful that Abaraonye’s rivals within the Union not only leaked the comments to the press, but also phone numbers of freshers that were also part of the WhatsApp group.”
AI tools have quickly become part of the student workflow. From drafting to editing, they promise faster writing and better structure. But their growing presence has also raised concerns about academic dishonesty, confusion around boundaries, and uncertainty about what counts as “your own work.”
That’s why clear guidance matters. Students need to know how to use AI tools in ways that enhance learning, not replace it. The AI writer by StudyPro, for example, can assist with outlining, editing, and clarifying ideas while keeping the student in full control of the writing process.
When used thoughtfully, tools like this support academic growth without crossing ethical lines. Understanding where that line is and how to stay on the right side of it is essential for confident, responsible use.
Academic institutions are built on principles of originality and accountability. When students submit work, they are expected to show their own thinking, analysis, and effort. Misusing AI puts that trust at risk.
Ethical use ensures that the work reflects the student’s understanding and voice. It also builds real skills, like critical thinking, writing fluency, and argument development, that shortcuts can’t provide.
There’s a difference between using AI as a guide and using it as a ghostwriter. The line becomes clearer when you focus on intent and control. Did the AI help you understand, or did it produce the final version? Did you direct the process, or copy and paste without review?
Supportive use involves guidance: helping you brainstorm, outline, refine language, or review structure. Misconduct begins when the AI generates full answers or submits work that you haven’t engaged with meaningfully.
Using AI to explore potential angles on a prompt is ethical when it helps you think more deeply or see different perspectives. You might ask the AI to list related topics, provide questions to consider, or suggest themes based on your course material.
What crosses the line is asking AI to come up with a thesis and outline, then using that structure without changes. That removes your judgment and turns the process into automation.
Do: Ask AI to suggest topic angles or key questions.
Don’t: Use a thesis or submit an outline entirely generated by AI without review or input.
AI can be helpful for organizing early ideas into sections or identifying logical gaps. For example, you might feed it your thesis and ask for a possible structure or see if your argument order makes sense.
The issue arises when students rely on the outline as-is without adjusting for their assignment, argument style, or required components. An outline should reflect your strategy, not just AI’s interpretation.
Do: Use AI to test structure ideas or spot missing elements.
Don’t: Rely on AI to design your paper from start to finish.
Drafting with AI gets tricky fast. If the AI writes full paragraphs or entire sections, and the student does not critically revise or reshape them, it becomes substitution rather than support.
Ethical use looks like inputting a rough draft and asking for suggestions, clarity edits, or tone adjustments. It involves rewriting the content yourself, guided by the feedback.
Do: Ask AI for sentence-level suggestions or clarity improvements.
Don’t: Copy entire AI-generated sections into your paper unchanged.
This is one of the safest areas for AI use. Grammar checks, sentence restructuring, and style suggestions are similar to what writing centers or grammar software already offer.
The key is to review the changes and ensure they still sound like you. Blindly applying all edits may alter the meaning or introduce errors, which makes you less accountable for the final work.
Do: Use AI for grammar and flow review.
Don’t: Apply fixes without reading or adjusting them yourself.
AI can help generate citations, especially when you provide source details. It can also help you understand how to cite in APA, MLA, or Chicago format.
However, if the AI invents sources or misrepresents information, and you include that in your paper, it becomes academic dishonesty. Always verify the sources and confirm accuracy.
Do: Use AI to format citations or explain style guides.
Don’t: Include sources you didn’t read or that the AI fabricated.
To stay on the right side of academic standards, ask yourself:
If your answer to any of these is no, pause and re-evaluate your process.
Every institution has different rules about AI use. Some allow it for drafting or grammar, others prohibit it entirely. Review your course syllabus, writing center resources, or academic integrity guidelines.
If unclear, ask your professor directly. Transparency is always safer than guessing, especially in high-stakes assignments.
AI should enhance your skills, not bypass them. When you treat AI as a tutor or editor rather than a ghostwriter, you learn more from the writing process itself.
Try asking the AI to explain a concept in your own draft or suggest how to improve clarity. These interactions improve your understanding while keeping your ideas front and center.
When you use AI ethically, you can feel confident that your work is your own. You’ve used tools thoughtfully, made independent choices, and delivered something you can explain and stand behind.
This confidence is important in long-term learning. It ensures that you develop writing habits and critical thinking skills that last beyond one assignment.
| Task | Ethical Use | Misconduct Example |
| Brainstorming | Getting topic suggestions | Submitting a thesis created by AI |
| Outlining | Testing structure for your own argument | Using a full AI outline without editing |
| Drafting | Revising AI suggestions in your own words | Copying full paragraphs from AI |
| Editing | Fixing grammar and transitions | Applying edits without review |
| Citations | Formatting and checking sources | Using fake or unchecked citations from AI |
Use this table as a quick reference to guide your choices when using AI tools.
The more you use AI tools responsibly, the easier it becomes to set your own boundaries. You’ll know when to ask for help, when to take control, and how to keep the writing process your own.
Start by using AI for low-stakes assignments or early-stage drafts. Build habits that support your authorship instead of replacing it. With time, ethical use becomes second nature, helping you develop confidence, sharpen your critical thinking, and approach future tasks with a clearer understanding of how to use AI constructively.
AI can be a powerful academic tool when used with intention and care. It offers feedback, structure, clarity, and even learning support, but not ideas or originality. That part must come from you.
By treating AI as an assistant, not a substitute, you protect your integrity, grow your skills, and meet the standards of academic honesty. The more confidently you understand the line, the more effectively you can use AI without crossing it, and the more meaningful your academic work will become.
The Ellison Institute of Technology (EIT) is funding an Oxford vaccine research project that will tackle pathogenic diseases using AI.
Ellison, who recently overtook Elon Musk as the world’s richest man, is giving Oxford £118 million for the programme, which will be led by the Oxford Vaccine Group.
Professor Sir Andrew Pollard, director of the group that led COVID-19 trials, described the programme as a “new frontier in vaccine science”. Scientists will use “human challenge models”, where volunteers are safely exposed to bacteria under controlled conditions and AI tools to identify immune responses that predict protection.
Oxford’s Vice-Chancellor, Irene Tracey, described the project as a “major step forward” in the strategic alliance with the Ellison Institute. She explained that her vision is to draw “more talent and capacity to the Oxford ecosystem to turn scientific challenges into real solutions for the world”.
EIT is designed to host 7,000 scientists, including an oncology clinic, auditorium, laboratories, library, classrooms, and park space. Oxford University, by comparison, has 5,000 research staff.
The Institute has already faced leadership turbulence, with the President, John Bell, resigning days before the vaccine project was announced. Bell was pictured signing the contracts with Irene Tracey when the “strategic alliance” was first announced in December 2024. Bell publicly endorsed Lord Hague in the Chancellor election last year.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Bell clashed with Ellison over operations and staffing, and that tensions flared over the mix of people being brought into the Institute, as well as Ellison’s decisions to fire senior staff without involving him.
Bell, who was Regius Professor of Medicine at Oxford until March last year, also serves as chair of Our Future Health, a government-funded project to genetically test millions of patients. He holds over £700,000 of shares in Roche, a pharmaceutical company where he sat on the board for 20 years, which has drawn criticism from genomics-monitoring groups for the “conflict of interest”.
Despite these controversies surrounding Bell’s various roles, a University spokesperson told Cherwell: “We recognise his pivotal contribution in helping to establish the Institute and in attracting outstanding researchers to its mission.”
Bell belonged to the Institute’s Faculty of Fellows alongside former Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Tony Blair’s own Institute for Global Change (TBI) is bankrolled by Ellison. As well as sharing their source of funding, the Ellison-funded institutes work in collaboration on an “AI for Governments” project.
Larry Ellison amassed his billions as boss of tech-giant Oracle, where he has made headlines for suggesting that Oracle would pioneer “AI mass surveillance”, as well as for his friendship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom he offered a job at Oracle. Ellison donated to the Israeli military through Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, giving the organisation $16.6 million in 2017.
Ellison also reportedly has a close relationship with Trump, attending meetings in the Oval Office. Trump has questioned the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, which were pioneered by the same Oxford Vaccine Group that are partnering with Ellison’s institute on this project.
Responding to Ellison’s ties to vaccine-sceptic politicians, as well as questions over the ownership of intellectual property (IP) stemming from the strategic alliance, the University spokesperson told Cherwell that it ensures any external partnerships “align with the University’s public mission, including by realising impact from our academic research”.
Further details on the ownership or management of intellectual property arising from the programme have not been made public.
President-Elect of the Oxford Union George Abaraonye is receiving backlash for his positive comments on Charlie Kirk’s shooting. Abaraonye posted on his Instagram yesterday the statement: “Charlie Kirk got shot loool [sic.].” The post has since been deleted.
George Abaraonye told Cherwell: “Last night I received the shocking news about a shooting at Charlie Kirk’s event. In that moment of shock, I reacted impulsively and made comments prior to Charlie being pronounced dead that I quickly deleted upon learning of his passing. Those words did not reflect my values.”
The Telegraph has also reported that Abaraonye wrote in messages to a WhatsApp group for the Oxford freshers: “Charlie Kirk got shot, let’s f—ing go.”
The backlash has led to doxxing of other people exposed from the screenshot of the WhatsApp groupchat and racist comments directed at Abaraonye.
The Union has condemned Abaraonye’s comments in a public statement, saying “his reported views do not represent the Oxford Union’s current leadership or committee’s views”. They have emphasised that the Union “opposes all forms of political violence and strongly stands by our commitment to free speech and considerate debate”.
The comments have sparked a backlash. Josh Wolfe, co-founder of Venture Capital firm Lux Capital, posted on X that he will decline his invitation to speak at the Union until “cultural leadership from the top celebrates peace + coexistence + civil discourse + denounces violence [sic.]”.
StopAntisemitism also posted on X: “Our Executive Director was recently invited to debate at [Oxford Union]. Until George Abraraonye steps down/is removed, StopAntisemitism employees will not be engaging with your debate society due to safety concerns and your President elect’s pro violent stance.”
Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities Claire Coutinho criticised the comments, posting on X: “Where is the belief in free speech, the tolerance for opinions, the empathy?” The Telegraph article was also reposted by Dan Crenshaw, Republican Congressman.
A spokesperson of the University of Oxford told Cherwell: “The Oxford Union is independent of the University. We deplore comments appearing to endorse violence – they are unacceptable and entirely contrary to the values of our community.”
Charlie Kirk, 31 was shot dead yesterday while speaking at Utah Valley University. He was attending the University as part of his ‘American Comeback Tour’. Kirk is known for his right-wing activism and public debating in support of second amendment rights and pro-life stance on abortion.
Kirk visited the Oxford Union earlier this year on 20th May as a speaker in opposition at the debate ‘This house believes Trump has gone too far’. George Abaraonye was one of the students debating Kirk that day.
In response to the backlash, George Abaraonye further told Cherwell: “To be clear: nobody deserves to be the victim of political violence. Nobody should be harmed or killed for the views they hold. I may have disagreed strongly with Mr. Kirk’s politics, but in death we all deserve respect, and I extend my condolences to his family and loved ones.
“At the same time, my reaction was shaped by the context of Mr. Kirk’s own rhetoric – words that often dismissed or mocked the suffering of others. He described the deaths of American children from school shootings as an acceptable “cost” of protecting gun rights. He justified the killing of civilians in Gaza, including women and children, by blaming them collectively for Hamas. He called for the retraction of the Civil Rights Act, and repeatedly spread harmful stereotypes about LGBTQ and trans communities. These were horrific and dehumanising statements.
“My reaction was not a call for violence, but a raw, unprocessed response to what felt like a painful irony. I retracted those words almost immediately, yet I’ve been troubled to see some in the media ignore my retraction while amplifying my deleted comments. A standard of behaviour that is now leading to racist comments and a myriad of threats and discrimination made towards me. It is right to call out my insensitivity, but the same scrutiny must be applied to rhetoric that has caused real harm and continues to do so.”
CW: sexual assault
Oxford University has published a new webpage setting out its “approach to preventing and responding to harassment and sexual misconduct”. The page brings together policies and guidance on harassment and sexual misconduct, and highlights changes to key disciplinary policies which will come into effect this month.
A University spokesperson told Cherwell that its “comprehensive online resource” was published to meet new requirements from the Office for Students (OfS), the higher education regulator, which stipulate that universities “maintain a single comprehensive source of information” on policy relating to sexual harassment from 1st August.
Several key harassment and sexual misconduct policies were recently altered as part of a wider package of changes to Statute XI, which concerns University discipline. The new webpage presents Statute XI as a key source of guidance and also explains the procedure for addressing reports of harassment or sexual misconduct.
The guidance prohibits “intimate relationships” between staff and students where the member of staff has responsibility for the student. If a member of staff develops any other “close personal relationship” with a student for whom they have responsibility, they are required to declare it to their Head of Department or Chair of Faculty.
The page also advertises support services available to students reporting harassment and sexual misconduct and to the subjects of those reports. These include the University’s Sexual Harassment and Violence Support Service, its Harassment Advisor Network, the University Counselling Service, and services offered by the SU and colleges.
One significant change to the procedure concerns police involvement. The University spokesperson told Cherwell: “The changes, which come into effect on 1 September 2025, will allow the University to investigate more cases of serious misconduct (for example sexual violence) without complaints having to be made to the police first, and to align itself with new regulatory requirements, good practice guidance for the sector, and principles of trauma informed practice.”
Statute XI
Changes to Statute XI have been met with criticism during the last two academic years. The changes were originally intended to be voted through by Congregation, the University’s governing body, in June 2024. However, they were withdrawn after over 30 academics backed a resolution to form a working group to revise the proposals, following the circulation of a statement which highlighted “illiberal” and “alarming” clauses.
In particular, the statement’s authors expressed concern about a clause which introduced the power to ban students from University premises for up to 21 days. The amended Statute XI calls this a “precautionary measure”, to be used if there are “reasonable grounds” to believe that an individual “is likely or threatens to cause damage to property or harm to other users”. Last term, the authors told Cherwell that several clauses could still have a “chilling effect” on freedom of expression.
Answering concerns around freedom of speech, the University spokesperson told Cherwell: “The changes are not intended to create any fresh powers for the discipline of students relating to lawful protest. The University is subject to UK law in all its activities, including laws related to free speech, freedom of expression, and protest, as well as the University’s own policy on free speech”.
A working group was formed to revise the proposed changes to Statute XI, first meeting in November 2024. During this process, there were opportunities for student feedback. A spokesperson for the Oxford University Student Union (SU) told Cherwell: “The SU ran an extensive student consultation throughout the academic year on the amendments to the disciplinary code (Statute XI), offering students the opportunity to provide feedback both through an online form and at an in-person forum. Throughout the year, the former Vice President for Postgraduates sat on the University’s working group for the Statute XI amendments to ensure that student voices were represented in the amendment process.”
However, the SU’s submission to the Statute XI Working Group noted that the tight window they were given to collect student feedback limited “opportunities for engagement”. The 2024-25 winter vacation took up a significant portion of the SU’s window to facilitate student input, with only 61 responses submitted. Concerns expressed in the earlier statement were repeated, whilst some students questioned the relevance of the proposed changes to issues of harassment and sexual misconduct.
One student wrote in their consultation submission: “If the University wishes to regain the confidence of its student body it must show that it is willing to cooperate, actively engage with, and elevate student concerns.”
The SU spokesperson told Cherwell: “We remain committed to ensuring that students’ experiences and feedback continue to help shape University policy.”
If an older adult has ever raised their eyebrow at your vegetarianism, then I might just have the book for you. They might be interested in knowing that even 200 years ago our normal dietary patterns would have seemed luxurious to all but the aristocracy.
Animal History – History as if Animals Mattered is the newest title edited by Dr. Claire Linzey and Rev. Andrew Linzey, directors of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics. Pitching itself as an attempt to reframe animals as subjects worthy of historical research, the book is made up of 14 essays (previously published in the Journal of Animal Ethics) written by a range of academics in different fields. Animal History raises thought-provoking questions about the processes of making history, sheds new light on intellectual figures’ reflections on animal rights, unpacks interesting theological debates, and offers a series of intriguing historical case-studies.
The book’s first essay is a great opening, immediately addressing the elephant in the room: how can we write animal history? In this piece, Jacob Brandler takes on the question raised in the introduction: “Is animal history a new form of colonialism in which the voiceless are subject to further speciesist human control by the taking over of their voices?” Brandler proposes that we look at animal history in an entirely different way, taking into account both what we know and do not know, acknowledging the human lens through which historians have tended to look, and respecting the unknowability of animal perspectives.
It is not about claiming to know what animals feel, but about trying to better understand our relationship with them and their influence on human history. He argues that this frees humans from anthropomorphising animal history, allowing us to “search for different ways of seeing animals as they exist independent of human perspective”. This ethos follows through into the later essays, all of which address how different people have conceptualised our relationship to animals and thought about animal rights.
Although the book will naturally attract readers with an interest in animal conservation, the wide array of subjects covered combined with the general readability of the essays makes it worthwhile for anyone engaged with wider historical and philosophical debates. Violette Pouillard’s piece on attempts at writing the biographies of famous animals, Lauren Bestwick’s essay on Margaret Cavendish and animal ethics, and A. W. H. Bates’ text on vivisection and virtue ethics are, to my mind, standouts. All three essays make for incredibly interesting reading because of how interdisciplinary they are. In the Cavendish essay, for example, not only does Bestwick shed light on just how ahead of her time Cavendish’s views on animal life were, but she considers evidence ranging from 17th century English law to Cavendish’s own poetry. Bestwick also highlights interesting intersections between Cavendish’s frustration with the lack of agency and opportunities given to women at the time and the subordination of animals: “Beasts are but a Degree below us [women], and Men use us but a Degree above Beast.”
If there is one criticism to be levelled at the book, it is that the scope – animal history – is so wide and untraversed that, at times, the essay topics can feel slightly disconnected. This is particularly felt in the third section of the book on historical controversies. The first three essays focus largely on biblical interpretations of vegetarianism and the Middle Ages but the fourth piece jumps to anarchism and vegetarianism in 20th-century France. Although the essay about the relationship between individualist anarchism and vegetarian diets is extremely interesting, it feels out of place next to the other pieces.
The Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics aims “to pioneer ethical perspectives on animals through academic research, teaching and publication”. Animal History – History as if Animals Mattered is certain to further that goal, providing incredibly interesting introductions into various areas of thinking about animal life. A happy marriage of complexity and readability, Animal History is certainly worth your time.
You may have spent the last year wondering what has been going on amongst all the scaffolding and construction noise at Hertford College. The Hertford Archaeological Open Day on Saturday 6th September provided the answer, with insight into the building work and rescue archaeology that has been taking place behind the College’s walls.
Hertford is currently in the process of building a new library and archival storage, including a basement that will extend under the main Old Quad to the Old Chapel and up against the All Souls College boundary. Development in Oxford, and across the country, goes through a planning process whereby potential archaeological importance has to be taken into consideration. Archaeology companies are then contracted to excavate and record any finds before the construction can take place.
Oxford Archaeology have taken on the project. They are a commercial company which works all around the UK, not just in Oxford as the name may suggest. Ben Ford, senior project manager at Oxford Archaeology, told Cherwell: “Part of our remit is to invite members of the public in to show them what we’re finding…the project is quite complicated, because there are a lot of different aspects to working together with construction.” This means that they will probably be working until Christmas 2025, having already been at Hertford for almost a year.
During this long job they have found some decidedly interesting things. Tamsin, an archaeologist working on the site, told Cherwell: “There’s a lot of archaeology here. Our work varies based on what we think is there, and how it impacts the surrounding landscape.”
The excavations in the Quad have revealed that many different buildings and institutions once made up the Hertford we know today. Archaeological evidence, used alongside old maps, attests to the existence of three small, medieval academic halls: Black Hall, Catte Hall, and Hart Hall. Precursors to the college system, only Hart Hall was to survive, eventually becoming Hertford College. The Quad also has remains from the back gardens of properties that lined Catte Street, which was once the centre of hand-made book production in Oxford. This pairs nicely with the discovery of a collection of metal book clasps (which held books shut when they were made of parchment paper), as well as writing leads and styli.
Another archaeologist, James, walked me through some of their best finds, displayed in a glass case for the visitors to see. He said: “The [reading] lens is the best thing I’ve ever found. I’m still ecstatic about it. It came out perfectly; it was absolutely stunning.” He went on to add that, as reading lenses were popular before the 1300s, this one could be well over 700 years old. Other finds included German stoneware pottery, French jetons (a form of medieval currency), and a Scottish coin, showing that “we’ve got a large international population that’s coming to Oxford to interact with the University, and they’re bringing their culture with them”.
The waste pits from the three halls have brought to light small everyday items. These include combs made from animal bone, metal buckles, drinking vessels, tableware, and even a set of wooden bowling balls, painting a picture of student life not far removed from our own. Eating, drinking, and leisure activities went hand-in-hand with academic studies, even in the medieval period.
Whilst the archaeologists may be done by the end of 2025, Olivia Warburton, Head of Communications at Hertford College, said that the library should be finished in time for the 2027/28 academic year.
OrganOx, a University of Oxford spinout specialising in organ preservation technology, has been acquired by Japanese healthcare company Terumo Corporation for £1.18 billion. The deal announced this week marks the first time one of the University’s companies has been sold for more than £1 billion.
Founded in 2008 by Professor Constantin Coussios of the Institute of Biomedical Engineering (IBME) and Professor Peter Friend of the Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, OrganOx emerged from collaboration between Oxford’s engineers and clinicians. Its pioneering technology, Normothermic Machine Perfusion, keeps donor organs functioning outside the human body by circulating oxygenated fluid at body temperature. This process not only prolongs organ viability but also enables clinicians to assess function in real-time, significantly increasing the number of organs available for transplant.
Since its inception, OrganOx’s devices have been used in more than 6,000 transplants worldwide. They have enabled the use of organs from higher-risk donors that would previously have been discarded, while also reducing the need for emergency and night-time surgeries. Earlier this year, the company’s achievements were recognised with the Royal Academy of Engineering’s MacRobert Award, the UK’s most prestigious engineering innovation prize.
The acquisition builds on a longstanding partnership between OrganOx and Terumo, which first invested in the company through its corporate venture arm in February this year. The deal remains subject to regulatory approval but is expected to accelerate the technology’s global reach, expanding its benefits to patients and healthcare systems across multiple continents.
Professor Coussios, co-founder of OrganOx and Director of the IBME, reflected on the journey from lab to clinic: “From the outset our aim was to solve one of transplantation’s greatest challenges: preserving organs in a viable state for longer, so as to make it possible to assess and potentially transplant what was previously thought untransplantable. Seeing that vision realised for the benefit of patients across four continents has been incredibly rewarding.”
The former Director of the Oxford Transplant Centre, Professor Friend, added: “OrganOx technology is transforming the landscape of organ transplantation, with huge impact on both patients and surgeons. The success of this venture results from a highly effective synergy between Surgical Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, and from the University of Oxford’s support in translating our research into real-world impact.”
The University of Oxford was an early investor in OrganOx, providing proof-of-concept funding through the University Challenge Seed Fund and later supporting the company through its Spinout Equity Management Fund. The transaction represents a 50-fold return for founding investors and reinforces Oxford’s position as one of the world’s leading ecosystems for biomedical innovation.
Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.
Oxford Student Publications Limited
© 2025 - All Rights Reserved
| Privacy Policy
