Tuesday 22nd July 2025
Blog Page 611

Entomophagy: a word to remember

Rohan jain
-
0
Entomophagy: a word to remember

Deep inside of Sainsbury’s Locals across the country, a revolution is
stirring, creeping and crawling its way into the public eye: the insect
revolution. That’s right. Thanks to start-up Eat Grub, for the first time in my young life, I can walk down the street and purchase a bag of roasted crickets like it’s the most natural thing in the world (which, on some
level, it is).

We all know the spiel: insects are the future of protein.

Firstly, they are highly nutritious, containing roughly three times as much
protein per gram as beef. Secondly, the environmental impact of rearing insects does not compare to that of farming mammals and birds. Cows, for example, need copious amounts of feed and water to survive. Producing a kilogram of insect protein requires only one twenty-two-thousandth of the amount of water that producing a kilogram of cow protein does. Now you can protect your gains and your planet at the same time.

But do crickets taste good? The short answer is: yes.

The most direct comparison is to crisps or pork scratchings. There is no pronounced ‘crickety’ flavour to be reckoned with and, in a blind taste test, my guess is that you would happily chow them down. The crickets provide a crunchy base which goes well with standard crisp seasonings. Eat Grub’s ‘Smoky BBQ’ bugs live up to their billing and are given a slight sweetness by
the granules of brown sugar mixed into the packet. ‘Peri-Peri’ and ‘Sweet Chili & Lime’ are also available as flavours.

What is distinctive about crickets is the pleasant flakiness that comes from the skin of the insects and the slightly powdery consistency of their roasted bodies. Neither of these features detracts from the experience of eating them. If anything, they create a richer textural landscape for the seasonings to interact with. However, the downside of this flakiness is the absence of structural integrity. Be ready for some crumbly crickets.

To reiterate, there’s not much to be afraid of here. Sure, the eyes on the critters will make you think twice, but by the end of the bag, any initial revulsion will likely have been overcome. And the good news is, roasted crickets are just the start. Once we Westerners unshackle ourselves from our psychological reservations, we will gain access to new worlds of food. We will see our planet and its culinary offerings in a fresh light. From the aphrodisiacal fried hornets of Japan to the crunchy termite snacks of sub-Saharan Africa, the potential rewards are too great, too interesting, to pass up on.

Alexander Woollcott once lamented: ‘everything I like is either immoral, expensive, or fattening’. I guess the poor guy never found out how good crickets taste.

Review: A Little Night Music – ‘a sophisticated and pleasant performance’

Simone Fraser
-
0
Review: A Little Night Music – ‘a sophisticated and pleasant performance’

Queen’s choice of A Little Night Music for their garden play was a good one. The Sondheim classic fit beautifully with its surroundings: the lush gardens of Queen’s, and excellent lighting meant that the slow setting of the sun only added to the intimate atmosphere of the performance. We’d been blessed with a beautiful day for the first night of the performance, and the combination made for a very pleasant evening.

Although there were a few opening night wobbles in the early stages of the musical, for the most part the singing was excellent, particularly that of the main characters. In places the orchestra and chorus seemed to be a little out of sync; once again I would put this down to the stress of a first performance, as by the interval these had been smoothed out, and the second half was significantly better.

In the lead role of Desiree, Emi Staniazsek dazzled, showcasing an ability to be both seductive, comedic, and intensely vulnerable at different parts in the performance. Indeed, the audience laughed aloud frequently throughout the performance. A special mention must be given to Gavin Fleming and Grace Albery in their roles as the wonderfully mismatched couple Count Carl-Magnus and Countess Charlotte – the huge cheer they received during the bows shows just how fantastic their performances were. Fleming in particular managed to make the audience almost cry with laughter at his pompous and fiery demeanour – even with his trousers round his ankles. The main cast in general had fantastic chemistry, and were well-rehearsed and confident in their performances. Even the supporting characters had very distinct personalities, and almost every person stole the show at some point.

A few other areas that must be praised were the stage direction and costume. By careful use of the chorus, the tricky business of moving characters and props off stage at the end of the scene was made much smoother. Furthermore the choreography throughout was simple but effective, and very fitting with the tone and setting of the performance. The costume too was for the most part very fitting. This was particularly the case for  Madame Armfelt, an old woman, whose costume and make-up was so convincing that several among us were left wondering if she was genuinely an older tutor or mature student. There was, however, some discrepancy in historical base. Costumes like that of Count Carl-Magnus or the servant Frid suggested a reasonable level of devotion to the original setting of the play around 1900, but other characters wore jeans or other outfits much more fitting with the modern day, or past century. Yet this did not particularly detract from what was a very impressive performance, and was just a minor note.

The thing that let the performance down the most were the frequent technical faults. Particularly regarding the chorus, there were moments when you simply could not hear what was being said or sung, and some microphones completely switched on and off at random moments throughout the performance. Again, hopefully this issue will be resolved in the remainder of performances, but did at some points dull the magic somewhat.

Generally, I really enjoyed the performance. To be able to produce something as complex and moving as that performance A Little Night Music, with the cast and crew still tackling difficult degrees is highly impressive, and I would recommend watching it for the magnificent cast if nothing else. I’m confident that the minor criticisms I have are mainly down to the fact it was opening night, and will be resolved in the remainder of the performances. Overall, a sophisticated and pleasant performance.

Review: (The Wings of the) Seagull – ‘leaves you frozen’

Simone Fraser
-
0
Review: (The Wings of the) Seagull – ‘leaves you frozen’

There are some plays that leave you frozen for a second when they end. Where the whole audience pauses for just a few moments: no-one looks at their phone, or gathers up their coat, or even turns to a friend to discuss it because they’re so astonished by what they’ve just seen. (The Wings of the) Seagull was one of these plays.

The single actor play is set in 2014. Perhaps this setting is a little overemphasized at the start – there’s a sequence with a suitcase, a Harry Styles cut-out, and a whole host of other throwback items that lasts just a little too long. Yet this background is very important in highlighting the innocence and optimism of the central character, an unnamed 15-year-old, on their way to secondary school for a normal day.

We follow them though the typical school bus journey, maths class, and English lit, a witty and relatable first-person teenage commentary running throughout. Quotes about Curley’s Wife in English literature class make the audience smile, we relate to the awkward struggle to find an Oyster card at the front of the bus queue, and we sympathise when they complain that their best friend has been ditching them for his new girlfriend, setting up a very likeable and relatable lead. Again, the constant references to 2014 can seem a little forced, but the charisma of the lead actress, Pelin Morgan, and the entertaining and intelligent writing of Amitai Landau-Pope make this mundane scene both funny and genuinely interesting. It’s a normal day, with a school trip after lunch to see Chekov’s The Seagull. And then something awful happens.

I’m not going to spoil the experience of those of you still going to see the performance by telling you the ins and outs of it, but the trigger warnings for the production: ‘flashing lights, gunshots, suicide, sexual assault, a mention of extreme violence’ should give you a strong hint of the subject matter of the production. The powerful contrast between the happy, childish demeanour of the title actor in the early stages of the play, and the awful experiences they have to go through is incredibly poignant. The continual monologue highlights exactly how awful the situation is, and no member of the audience could fail to feel horrified at the events that we are told about.

The premise of the play revolves around Chekov’s The Seagull – although you certainly don’t need to know anything about it to understand what’s happening. There is a skilful interweaving of the two throughout the production: the title character watches it in some scenes, a literal seagull appears at an important turning point in the plot, and the concept of a play-within-a-play influences the entire production. It would be easy for this to be too on-the-nose, but the concept does not feel forced, and instead adds depth and dramatic irony to what is already a fascinating storyline.

The inextricable intertwining of tragedy and comedy runs throughout both (The Wings of the) Seagull and the Chekov original, with laugh-out-loud moments interspersed with stomach-churning horror, and pure sadness: the writing does credit to both Chekov and Landau-Pope. Yet the way in which the play switches from the modern day to 2014, 2017, and back again does allow a presentation of hope through an unsuccessful, but healing, later love affair, moving away from the original ending of The Seagull – in this, the title character, in their own words, “endures”.

I must finish by once again praising the superb acting of Pelin Morgan. It’s not easy to carry an entire one-hour performance alone, yet with a fantastic blend of physicality and emotion she more than does justice to an incredibly personal and horrifying subject. Credit must also be given to the voice actors, whose dialogue, heard throughout the play, helps to create a well-rounded and interesting production. Ultimately, (The Wings of the) Seagull is up there with some of the best student drama I’ve ever seen, and both Morgan and Landau-Pope’s talent cannot be overexaggerated.

Review: A Woman of No Importance – ‘the best Wilde production I’ve ever seen’

William Atkinson
-
0
Review: A Woman of No Importance – ‘the best Wilde production I’ve ever seen’

Amongst the grand sort of critics whose opinions must be italicized as opinions, A Woman of No Importance is one of Oscar Wilde’s weaker plays. It doesn’t have the salacious Biblical scandal of Salome, the irreverent quotability of The Importance of Being Earnest or the witty, Wildean poise of An Ideal Husband. But that’s just the irrelevant waffle of the terribly self-important. A Woman of No Importance is brilliant. By turns funny and dramatic, it’s as worthy as anything else of Wilde’s oeuvre. This is all the more the case with the Magdalen Players’ garden play production. Not to be all gushing, but I it might just be the best Wilde production I’ve ever seen, West End included. Those who like unkind reviews, look away now.

I’ll need to justify myself, or else be accused of the same sort of grandiose opinion I’ve just lampooned. But through pitch-perfect casting and direction, the Magdalen Players have taken a great play and elevated it enormously. The play is often criticised for not taking off until the arrival of Mrs Arbuthnot part way through Act 2. But this production avoids that problem. Partly, that’s through the sumptuousness of the setting – there are few more lovely places to spend a late spring evening then an Oxford Master’s Garden. But much more importantly, it’s through the talented work of Director Henry Sleight and his cast and crew. Sleight’s deft handling of the script gives the production a momentum all of its own, and his willingness to keep the cast active on stage avoids the talky scenes from being staid and stuffy.

The play starts in stereotypically Wildean fashion: a country house brimming with an assortment of upper-class caricatures deep in conversation . The cast handle the wit with uniform aplomb, and I wish I could praise each individually, but there are a few standouts. Oliva Krauze makes a brilliantly bonkers hostess Lady Hunstanton. She has a great handle on the character’s forgetful running gag; fortunately she remains firmly endearing and not irritating. Tatiana Gilfillan makes a hilariously hoity-toity Lady Caroline, and her wonderful comic timing makes for some great deadpan moments. Imogen Front makes for a suitably devilish Mrs Allonby. The ying to her yang is Flora Blisset’s wonderfully earnest  Hester Worsley. Both her and Front make their respective monologues real highlights of the play: the contrast of American morality and English laissez-faire makes for a delightful combination . That’s the spread of an excellent cast, who take each role, however small, and shine in their own unique way.

But the highest praise must be saved for the tragic central familial triangle of James Geddes’ Gerald, Ben Gregson’s Lord Illingworth and Amy McCall’s Mrs Arbuthnot. Geddes makes a nuanced performance out of what a lesser actor might have stereotyped as a bumbling Tim Nice-But-Dim. His portrayal shows a progression and evolution that is not only deeply emotionally satisfying but displays real talent. Gregson, meanwhile, makes Illingworth a right piece of work. He perfectly captures the character’s deadly caddishness, working him down from a charming lady-killer at the start of the play to a grotesque bully by the end. You can’t help but want to cheer when he gets a slap from Mrs Abuthnot. McCall is simply brilliant – the best live performance I’ve seen in any Wilde production, hands down. The tragic dutiful sadness she conveys brings out Arbuthnot’s overwhelming shame. The nuance of her expressions and the concision of her reactions, coupled with Wilde’s powerful writing, make her powerful performance at the play’s climax in Act IV a tour de force, and clear highlight. I was almost tearful. McCall can be very proud, and hopefully will go on to even greater performances soon.

So Director Henry Sleight and his crew have pulled off an undoubted triumph of excellent direction, staging and acting. Sat in Wilde’s old college, the late evening English sun glimmering down, provided with such a theatrical feast, we were very lucky indeed – and I’m sure Wilde would have heartily approved. And if that isn’t a terribly self-important opinion, I don’t know what is.

Trinity JCR rejects Plush accessibility donation

Charlotte Moberly
-
0
Trinity JCR rejects Plush accessibility donation

Trinity College’s JCR has rejected a motion to donate for the Plush for All accessibility campaign. Instead a motion will be brought at the next JCR meeting to donate the same amount to a local LGBTQ+ charity.

Concerns were raised by JCR members over donating to a for-profit business, with arguments that it was a business investment, not a donation featuring. It was suggested that the college should be donating to registered charities rather than merely speeding up the actions of a business.

Since moving venues, Plush has been collaborating with the Oxford SU LGBTQ+ Campaign and OU LGBTQ+ Society to improve accessibility at the new site in Frewin Court. Once inside the club, the venue is 100% accessible. However, the stairs in the entrance to the venue limit disabled access.

The Plush for All Campaign is fundraising to install a chairlift, which would make the club fully accessible. While the club could raise the £10,000 needed for the project on its own, it would take them at least a year to do so.

Many students were concerned about donating to a for-profit organisation over a charity. One said: “I would not just hand over money like that to a nightclub, however good the cause. You don’t know where it will really go.”

The student who put forward the motion argued: “Firstly, improving accessibility is not a business investment. Oxford as a city is not an accessible place to live, and it’s clear that almost all the businesses here are completely financially viable without being fully accessible.

“The venue in which Plush currently resides has never before been wheelchair accessible and has hosted various wildly successful clubs in the past. Plush do not want to become fully wheelchair accessible because they think it will improve their finances – it will not. It may improve the sale value of the venue but the building, owned by the Union, is not going to be sold anytime soon and this is clearly not their motivation for installing a chair lift.”

While acknowledging JCR members’ concerns about donating to a for-profit organisation, they argued that: “Plush have contributed a huge amount to the cause: buying in-house wheelchairs, making the inside of the club fully accessible (toilets, bar areas, dancefloor), and creating a quiet breakout space.”

They added: “As for the worries that we will not get anything in return, that is the point of a donation. Plush contribute a lot to the LGBTQ+ community here: they sponsor Oxford Pride, they subsidise Tuesday nights, and they have held nights for people with learning and physical disabilities with no cost for the organisers, while incurring costs themselves.

“Historically, LGBTQ+ spaces have not qualified as charities because they, by social consensus at the time, were not seen as having a charitable purpose.

“The company vs charities argument is valid but there must be considerations about the historical realities of LGBTQ+ charitable causes. Ultimately this is about what Plush can do for a marginalised community, and to my mind it has proven its worth and deserves our help.”

Some JCR members were strongly in support of the motion, and argued that students would benefit. One said: “It would be such a lovely gesture to see that the JCR is willing to put forward this small amount of money towards increasing access.

“Oxford is such an inaccessible place already, and Trinity is lacking in disabled students at least in part because of its own accessibility.”

Some members of the college suggested that this was a use of the JCR budget that could be afforded, raising the fact that Entz were given £150 of the JCR budget to spend on pizza and snacks.

One student said: “If we can afford this then £200 on something that would benefit the overall Oxford community for years to come (without affecting the financial standing of the JCR in the slightest) seems like a no-brainer really.”

The motion was defeated by 63 votes against 35, with 5 abstentions. Last week, Christ Church JCR also rejected a motion to donate to the Plush for All Campaign. The proposal suggested that the money come from Christ Church JCR’s unplanned emergency fund.

Those present reported that one of the main objections raised was the inappropriateness of using this fund for non-emergencies. The majority of fund spent so far this year went towards building a new herb garden.

However, several other college JCRs have pledged their support, including University, Hertford and Wadham. Total college donations to the campaign total over £1800.

In a statement about the campagin, the SU LGBTQ+ Society said: “The new venue is not currently 100% accessible. From the outset, Plush have been committed to changing this to continue being an LGBTQ+ space open to all.

“They have consulted with members of Society and Campaign, including our Disabilities Reps, and have already invested significant amounts into accessibility at the new venue.

“This includes: installing an easy access toilet, a ramp, and better breakout zones with quieter music and softer lighting than in the old venue. This addresses the needs of those with physical, sensory, cognitive, mental and developmental disabilities.

“The last piece in the puzzle is the installation of a chairlift for wheelchair users. “After months of consultations, this is the solution that we have found that best marries user needs, feasibility and cost.”

Lazy Rich Caucasians: the legacy of the college admissions scandal

Aine Kennedy
-
0
Lazy Rich Caucasians: the legacy of the college admissions scandal

“Ruh roh!’

How apt for Emmy-winning actress Felicity Huffman to borrow a phrase from Scooby Doo when confronted by a hitch in her cartoonishly nefarious plan to bribe her child into a prestigious university. Months later, when her words surfaced in an email in the ‘Operation Varsity Blues’ sting, the whole conspiracy had taken on a highly theatrical quality: a former Desperate Housewife, facing the flashbulbs in court rather than on the red carpet, wobbly-lipped at the prospect of time behind bars.

News of William Singer’s multi-million dollar scheme to ‘unethically facilitate college admission’ for children in more than 750 families produced just as much amusement as shock when it broke in March this year. The stereotypes that the principal characters of this drama embodied were at once familiar and distant: here were the picket-fence matriarchs of the small screen, and their yacht-owning, chino-clad husbands, flinging cash about to get their dimwitted progeny into a big-name college, with an audacity that seemed hilariously incongruous with the modern educational system. Entertaining and convenient as this narrative may be, it reduces the sobering reality to a superficial drama played out before the cameras by a handful of Insta-friendly scapegoats, potentially detracting from real action on the issues exposed by the indictment.

Huffman and her fellow Hollywood indictee, Lori Loughlin, have been central to a media narrative that emphasised the fantastic, and blurred the line between reality and drama; they have been the main, or in some outlets, the exclusive focus of an investigation which incriminated over 50 people. This was a case of life imitating art in spectacular and highly marketable fashion. 56-year-old Huffman embodied the apparently vanilla, suburbanite lifestyle of the show where she made her name: having served her time on Wisteria Lane, she had been peacefully receding out of the public eye since Desperate Housewives ended, via some forgettable philanthropic endeavours and an even more forgettable mothering website. And her crime, a perfect combination of criminality and largesse, could have come straight from a plot arc on the show. Determined – nay, desperate – to get her child into a ‘good’ college, this thin-lipped WASP had resorted to funnelling bribe money through a fake charity.

Aside from adding another federal charge, the nature of the money laundering added a further layer of cinematic villainy to the saga. Bribery? Enough to get some clicks on a Buzzfeed listicle, sure, but not that spicy. The fake charity, on the other hand, was the first in a series of twists in a tale whose outlandishness beggared belief. Here was the sweetheart of middle-aged, middle-class America, dishing out $15,000 to an organisation that used its mission statement – to help disadvantaged and deserving kids get into college – to do the exact opposite.

Meanwhile, Singer’s ‘Key Worldwide Foundation’ and ‘Edge College and Career Network’ went to equally brazen lengths to provide for their clients. Students were photoshopped into stock photos of athletes to strengthen applications for sports scholarships; $400,000 bought a football recruitment at Yale for a a student who didn’t play the game at all. An equally risible image- and lucrative media angle- was provided by the revelation of a 36 year old Harvard grad being shipped in to take SATs on behalf of Singer’s teenage beneficiaries. Mark Riddell would be flown in to one of the testing facilities that Singer boasted of ‘controlling’, either to take the test in a hotel room – after a $5,000 bribe to the exam administrator – or to pass students answers in the exam. Prosecutors begrudgingly admitted that his ability to achieve a precise score which would boost an application without arousing suspicion was due not to prior knowledge of the questions, but to his being “just a really smart guy”.

The internet watched with glee as more details spilled out of the investigation and into the glamour magazines. Loughlin’s daughter Olivia – whose admission into the University of Southern California by way of its rowing team cost Loughlin $500,000 – had carved herself a hard-earned niche as a makeup vlogger on Youtube, a platform which would provide lashings of schadenfreude in weeks to come. “I don’t know how much of [USC] I’m gonna attend.. but I do want the experience of like game days, partying. I don’t really care about school, as you guys all know,” she mused in a now-deleted video. It later emerged that the budding beauty guru was reportedly on a USC trustee’s yacht when the college admissions scandal broke.

Social media has made gossip into a spectator sport. Influencers win fans- and thus sponsorships- by fostering a sense of intimacy and emotional investment. This is often done by sharing ‘intimate’ details about their lives, or ‘opening up’ about personal hardships, but perhaps the most effective way to engage an audience is by involving them in digital mob justice. So-called ‘cancel culture’ sees Youtube personalities release 40 minute attack videos on each other, which can in turn reduce follower counts by millions in a matter of days. The focus on media-friendly figures in the college admissions scandal has dragged it into this superficial and petty realm, where ‘justice’ can be meted out in a way that grabs attention on Facebook but does little to address the actual problems.

Loughlin’s daughter lost lucrative endorsements and had her social media influencer persona-cum-career-path yanked from under her feet, while her mother and Huffman have been pulled from upcoming film projects. But while this public humiliation may be a satisfying conclusion for those refreshing the Cosmopolitan ‘admissions scandal timeline’ on a weekly basis, it is not an adequate response to the issues brought to light by Operation Varsity Blues. Huffman will pay a $15,000 fine and potentially serve four months in prison; a token reprimand for the public face of university corruption.

But the case has also demonstrated just how easy it is for rich people to get into an elite college without fraud. Most top-100 American institutions give a boost to ‘legacy students’, and can be led to view an applicant more favourably through donations. Singer also described the practice of exploiting accommodation for learning disabilities: “All the wealthy families figured out that if I get my kid tested and they get extended time, they can do better on the test. So most of these kids don’t even have issues, but they’re getting time. The playing field is not fair.” Gossip-column attacks on washed-up cable actresses will not remedy this. In a case motivated strongly by a desire to maintain appearances, the public would do well to look past the superficial conclusion of the scandal, and seek reform at the less glamorous and more effective level.

Fun or fake?

Simon Hunt
-
0
Fun or fake?

I’m not going to question whether student politics is good fun, because for a lot of people it obviously is. What I do believe, however, is that people who find student politics the most fun are the worst possible candidates for a future political career.

There are those who find student politics exceedingly fun, and there are those who will go on to become political leaders, and I think it would be best for us all if membership of the two groups never overlaps. I’m talking entirely from personal experience here, but on the basis of discussions I’ve had with those who are involved in student political societies, they are invariably people who don’t personally stand to gain or lose from their own local politics.

Living in a sleepy village or a nice part of town where there are little in the way of serious political issues besides rates of rubbish collection, the politically minded naturally turn to national and international issues to quench their thirst for intellectual debate. If, however, they live in a place where there is crime, poverty and serious inequality on their doorstep, then finding solutions to these questions naturally requires more urgent attention than discussions on geopolitical matters, which just seem remote and alien.

For these people, the student debating chamber is thus more like a pantomime than it is a place to have a proper debate: the levity with which political matters are treated feels so unwarranted. Eccentricity in Oxford’s student societies once stood for those people who defended fringe viewpoints but with laudable precision and dexterity. The kind with whom you wouldn’t really agree but who possessed such conviction and determination to resolve some real injustice that you had great admiration for them.

Eccentricity these days stands for those students who don’t have particularly interesting views or thoughts – and they might effortlessly change from week to week – but who like to dress in a funny way, they enjoy wearing silly bow ties and other quaint clothing. Decades ago, it was almost a requirement of a successful political career that it began at a university, in a student political club or association. Nowadays, it’ll likely count against you, which is a good thing in my view.

People don’t want plastic politicians with identical histories as former student politicians. What people do want are those who are interested in politics, not in the sense of it being the object of intellectual curiosity, but rather because they are strongly motivated – perhaps because of personal experience – by perceived injustices that they would like to make a personal contribution towards rectifying. And those people are hard to come by in student political clubs and debating societies.

They do exist at Oxford however, but they’re already out there solving problems and improving things, not talking about them over a glass of port. They are already making a difference, raising money for charity, helping to tackle problems in their communities, supporting those around them and fighting for those who don’t have a voice. They aren’t interested, perhaps not even capable, of wrestling with the weighty intellectual issues which are announced as motions in debating societies. But the work that they are doing is equipping them for successful future political careers far better than any number of hours of student politics could do. Student politics can and should be fun, but let’s not pretend it’s a dress rehearsal for real life.

Prelude to war or diplomatic overture?

Lara von der Brelie
-
0
Prelude to war or diplomatic overture?

Tensions continue to rise amid a deteriorating economic situation in Iran and a build-up of US military equipment in the Middle East. Predictions for the future, however, remain polarised. Some argue that the current friction will come to nothing. Pointing to the similarities between President Donald Trump’s relations with North Korea and Iran, some suggest that a diplomatic breakthrough may be on the cards. Refusal by either side to back down and engage in discussions, however, has led others to predict that war is becoming an inevitability.

Both views are misplaced. The situation is more volatile today than it was during the crisis with North Korea. Personal grudges, clashing ideologies, and political pressures narrow the potential for compromise. The stakes, however, are also arguably much higher. The involvement of the vital strategic and political interests of both sides means that a full-blown war will not be allowed to happen.

Relations between the United States and Iran have been strained since the 1950s. Despite these tensions, in 2015 Iran reached an agreement with six countries, including the US, to limit its enrichment of uranium in return for the removal of sanctions placed on it by other countries.

In May 2018, Trump unilaterally withdrew from the agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The sanctions he has since reinstated on Iran have caused triple digit inflation and massive reductions in the value of its oil exports. Economic hardship has in turn led to conservative criticism of President Hasan Rouhani’s decision to enter into the JCPOA in the first place.

On May 8th of this year, Iran gave the remaining countries in the JCPOA sixty days to come up with a way of protecting Iranian oil sales from US sanctions. If China, Russia and the EU states fail to find a solution, it has threatened to suspend its restrictions on uranium enrichment and halt the redesigning of its heavy-water reactor.

Some commentators have predicted a similar alleviation in tensions between Trump and Rouhani as occurred between North Korea and the US.

There are certainly commonalities between the two crises. Then as now John Bolton very publicly pushed for America to take an aggressive stance towards a so-called threat. Writing in the Wall Street Journal a month before becoming National Security Adviser, he argued that it would be “perfectly legitimate for the United States to respond to the current ‘necessity’ posed by North Korea’s nuclear weapons by striking first.”

Why is this situation different? In February 2018, John Bolton had little in the way of formal power; it would be another month before he ascended to the position of National Security Advisor.

But tensions between the US and Iran run much deeper. On the American side, many individuals with personal bones to pick are involved. Bolton has openly professed his dislike for Iran since his time in the Bush administration. As a profoundly Christian Zionist, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo’s views run counter to Iran’s bellicose attitude towards Israel. Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric could not be more at odds with Iran’s conservative Islamist government.

From the Iranian perspective, the government has little reason to trust the US. The Americans have a long history of improper involvement in Iran, including the CIA’s 1953 instigation of a coup against their democratically elected Prime Minister, as well as its role in the Iran-Contra affair. Both ensure that Iranian hatred for the Americans runs deep.

The weakened position of the moderates in Iran’s government also limits the potential for discourse. Calls for dissent and withdrawal from the nuclear agreement grow ever louder among Iran’s conservatives. Rouhani’s promise that the JCPOA would bring economic prosperity was overconfident and short-lived. Growing scepticism regarding the President’s foreign policy will thus severely limit his potential for conciliation with the US.

Does this mean war? Probably not.

The threat to oil and gas facilities in the Persian Gulf will likely make even the most hawkish policymaker think twice before acting. A war with Iran would also give it free reign to attack Israel, an American ally.


Wanting to maintain its soft power in the region, the US will not attempt a direct intervention in Iran. A more realistic prediction for the future is a series of proxy wars between the two states. Indirect conflict between Iranian backed militias and US or Israeli armed forces will intensify in countries such as Syria if relations remain in deadlock. More drastically, however, failure to limit the impact of crippling US sanctions could cause Iran to withdraw from the nuclear agreement. This would mean an end to international oversight on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

What seems increasingly clear is that the US is out to pick a fight. Pompeo took the provocative step in April of listing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organisation. Yet a recent statement by the deputy commander of the U.S.-led coalition in Syria argued that the threat from Iranian-backed forces had not increased. That Iran’s alleged “troubling escalatory measures” may just be an excuse for American neoconservatives to reassert their position in the Middle East seems likely. The question now is whether the US will succeed in entrenching its influence in the region. If it doesn’t, a miscalculation from either side could lead to unintended conflict.

“Black students don’t apply to Oxbridge because of a deficit of hairdressers”

E.M Ayovunefe
-
0
“Black students don’t apply to Oxbridge because of a deficit of hairdressers”

So, you’ve found yourself outraged by an intentionally provocative headline about race and Oxbridge. Welcome, friend. Join me in suckling at the nourishing teat of rage. Let it sustain you.

So, before we begin, the facts as they are: Professor Graham Virgo, Cambridge University Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Education, conducted interviews with Black Cambridge undergraduates and sixth-form students, so as to better understand the obstacles they faced in applying to Cambridge, and to inform the university’s approach to access work in the African and Caribbean communities. Number three on the list was the shortage of Afro-Caribbean hairdressers in Cambridge, after “not having enough money,” and “not fitting in.” Still with me? Good. Let’s unpack this.

The deliberate sensationalisation which seems always to accompany the discussion of race, of university students, and of academia more generally, is here coalesced into a perfect storm, cannon fodder for The Telegraph. The article is a calculated and cynical minimisation of the anxieties of current and potential Black university students, which bypasses the latest strike in the press’s war against “snowflake” students and identity politics, seeking to depict the very modest and reasonable expectation that my university town might have somewhere I could get a f**king haircut as ridiculous and entitled.

The dearth of Afro-Caribbean hairdressers in a university town signals to would-be students that the town just doesn’t have that many Black residents. A barometer of cultural inaccessibility and alienation for Black students, a lack of hairdressers is but one symptom of broader concerns regarding the need for a cultural infrastructure or community that can support Black students in the race-related issues they may (let’s be honest here, will) encounter during their studies.

Whatever it actually means, it is as reductive to discourses on access to dismiss the very valid concerns of those applying to university as it is lazy for Cambridge University to blame Black students for the failure of their own outreach efforts. The Telegraph elected to report at length on the apparent absurdity of choosing not to apply to Cambridge based on the proximity of a barbershop, rather than anxieties surrounding finances and fitting in as a Black student in an overwhelmingly white institution. In doing so, they threw away an opportunity to facilitate a meaningful and productive discussion of the structural and institutional obstacles which deter Black students from applying to the country’s top universities.

Full disclosure: I travel to Brixton to get my hair done. I’ve had one barber my entire life, and I don’t intend to change that. I also know several people, from a variety of ethnic groups, who at seventeen years old decided against applying to Oxford or Cambridge simply because it wasn’t a university environment which, in their eyes, reflected the demography of the multicultural and inclusive towns they’d grown up in. To pretend as if academic concerns are the only factors which influence university applications is absurd, as absurd as it is to paint Black students as unreasonable for having the temerity to consider non-academic concerns when making their application.

They might not be able to populate their respective towns with barbershops, but if Oxford and Cambridge want to prove themselves truly committed to diversifying their student populations, they need to come good on the promises to which they have publicly committed themselves, and start asking present and future Black students not just “where do we err?” but “how do we change?”

While I’m inclined to, for the time being at least, reserve all judgements, I must also ask of Oxford whether it is an institution that fundamentally wants to improve itself. I sometimes wonder whether Oxford doesn’t half revel in the illusions of mystique and grandeur it’s built up for itself over the last nine centuries, and whether the university is willing to cast off some of the myths and traditions that so often dissuade the uninitiated from applying.

Should we cancel reality TV?

Deia Russell-Smith and James Cashman
-
0
Should we cancel reality TV?

Deia Russell-Smith: Yes

Following the suspected suicide of a 62-year-old who appeared on The Jeremy Kyle Show a few weeks ago and the death of two former Love Island contestants, the justifiability of reality TV has come into question.

Many have questioned how damaging reality television shows are for the contestants and viewers alike. The debate has attracted the likes of Katie Hopkins who, ironically, called into question the humanity of the effects of such shows on the lives of the British public.

The suicides of Love Island contestants Mike Thalassitis and Sophie Gradon have highlighted the severe pressure that constant public scrutiny brings down on people, both male and female. The intense training programme before episodes air, the money spent on personal trainers, and sheer time in the gym have shown many fans that the body types presented on the show are far from real or sustainable. The intense and damaging norms that prevail on the Island advocate toxic masculinity and dumb femininity, leading Piers Morgan to brand the contestants “the stupidest people in the world.” The intense conditions on the show mean that few relationships last outside the confines of the villa; even this year’s beloved Jack and Dani barely made it past the six-month mark.

All these reasons for axing these shows are valid, yet cutting the shows is just the first step towards confronting the underlying trends that they have so vividly and disturbingly highlighted.

Reality TV is hardly the only place where suicide happens or people are under constant stress and scrutiny. The fact that someone dies from suicide every 90 minutes in the UK shows that television-related suicides receive wildly disproportionate media attention. Every suicide is tragic. In order to get to the root of the problem, we must take a long and hard look at how our obsession with perfection is reinforced by advertising, social media, and unrealistic body images. Lastly and most pressingly, we must consider the way that “reality” television presents and heightens reality itself.

Taking Love Island off television like Jeremy Kyle is just the tip of the iceberg. So much more needs to happen in order to prevent negative mental health and the ensuing deaths. The show has recently announced that it will try to ensure a more thorough aftercare process for this year’s contestants, raising hopes that some progress will be made. Nevertheless, however difficult it may seem, cutting such shows altogether may be a surer way to impact the lives of people positively.

More systemic solutions, however, are needed. The government needs to look closely at the implications of social media, negative advertising and television upon the lives of its citizens. Ultimately, the way to stop such suicides is to make our own reality less like the one reflected back from our screens.

James Cashman: No

I was taught, from a very young age, that life is about choices. You choose how much time you dedicate to a piece of homework, how you treat the person being bullied in your class, and how you conduct yourself in public situations. You rise and fall based on your choices.

In the same way, people choose to go onto The Jeremy Kyle Show. Guests are not randomly selected: this is not the Hunger Games. Guests know in advance that their personal lives will be laid bare to a national audience of one million people. They accept this risk and take the opportunity anyway. As former guest Dwayne Davison said on the radio recently, before he “basically texted” the show to ask to participate: “of course I knew what Jeremy Kyle was about.”

I feel dreadfully sorry for the man who recently took his own life after recording an episode. He must have been in a terrible emotional state and one can only sympathise.

However, one cannot take away his responsibility for going on the show. He was accused of infidelity by his fiancé but instead of seeking to challenge this accusation in private, he chose to confront it in front of the country. He must have known that whatever was said between himself and his partner, and whatever judgement the lie detector produced, would be broadcasted to millions.

I am not here to defend reality TV. I personally can’t stand it, and am especially dreading the imminent return of Love Island to our TV screens. I find it puerile and moronic. What I am here to defend, however, is the right of broadcasters to make such programmes, of people to consensually participate in them and of the viewer to watch them.

There seems to be a rather sinister and profoundly unhealthy culture of intolerance emerging. Instead of tolerating something that one finds uncomfortable, it is quite common now for a person to seek to suppress it. One can see this in the phenomenon of “trigger warnings” which accompany lectures and newspaper articles that contain “distressing” material, the idea being that the reader must be protected from uncomfortable feelings that may be aroused. It was thus correct, some argue, that ITV pulled The Jeremy Kyle Show because it aroused uncomfortable feelings in its guests.

As someone who has undergone therapy for clinical anxiety and depression, I can tell you that this idea is ridiculous. It suggests that the individual has no responsibility or agency, and is actually the opposite of what is required: someone suffering from an anxiety disorder must learn to weather difficult sensations in order to become more resilient for the future.

Life is difficult, and one must encounter difficult and distressing experiences and take responsibility for one’s actions. People who participate in reality TV shows do so with their eyes wide open and must deal with whatever is thrown their way. We cannot make their decisions for them.

1...610611612...2,515Page 611 of 2,515

Support Student Journalism

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.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by James Ashley