Friday 18th July 2025
Blog Page 614

Christ Church JCR rejects motion to abolish scholars’ ballot privilege

Charlotte Moberly
-
0
Christ Church JCR rejects motion to abolish scholars’ ballot privilege

Christ Church’s JCR has voted against abolishing the scholar and exhibitioner ballot privilege.

While the motion gained majority support, it did not receive the 2/3 of votes needed to pass.

Christ Church’s current policy is for those who get a scholarship or exhibition in their first year to get first choice of rooms via a separate ballot in their 3rd year.

The motion was brought forward by James Mulvey, and seconded by Rebecca Rogers.

According to the motion: “Generally speaking, due to structural education inequalities that may not balance out by the end of first year, privately educated students are more likely to achieve a Scholarship than state educated students.

“There is no standardised procedure for awarding Exhibitions across subjects – year-on-year the same subjects award several Exhibitions while others award none.”

They argued that: “The quality of one’s final years of accommodation should not be influenced by results achieved in first year or via the non-standardised awarding of Exhibitions.

“Arbitrary factors such as educational background and subject choice should not continue to influence one’s quality of accommodation at Christ Church.

“Hard work should continue to be rewarded, but via the existing system of financial reward and the Scholar’s Gown which does not recognise high achievement at the expense of others.”

There are very few colleges which still have ballot privileges for scholars and exhibitioners. Hertford was the most recent college to abolish the system.

James Mulvey, who brought the motion to the JCR, said: “Opposition to the motion focused on the role of the Scholars’ room ballot bump as an incentive for hard work. Clearly this incentive is not working, as Christ Church has maintained a mediocre position on the Norrington Table in recent years.

“In fact, Christ Church is one of the only colleges across Oxford that gives preferential treatment to Scholars and Exhibitioners when it comes to room selection. If there is progressive change on this front in Oxford, it is clear that Christ Church is falling well behind.

“Christ Church often has a negative image, one that is characterized as archaic, static and elitist. I have fortunately found this inaccurate to a large extent from my time here. However, on this important issue of Scholar and Exhibitioner ballot privilege, we are on the wrong side of progress I believe, and the majority of voting JCR members agreed.

“This change has commanded the majority of our JCR and yet college staff are against it. Christ Church can only exorcise these often-unfair labels if it embraces reform and engages with student, otherwise as it stands it will be condemned to living in the past.”

St Hugh’s JCR rejects motion to create Liaison Officer for Oxford Living Wage

Charlotte Moberly
-
0
St Hugh’s JCR rejects motion to create Liaison Officer for Oxford Living Wage

St Hugh’s College JCR has rejected a motion to create a Liaison Officer “to liaise with college staff and help promote the Living Wage in college”.

St Hugh’s College currently pays its scouts £9 per hour, below the Oxford Living Wage currently set at £10.02 per hour.

The motion also called for the JCR “to launch a campaign for the Oxford Living Wage at St Hugh’s and seek to utilise creative methods to pressure college into improving pay conditions for staff.”

The Oxford Living Wage, set by the City Council, is set at a higher rate than the National Living Wage to reflect the higher costs of living in Oxford.

The motion argued that “Scouts, housekeepers and everyone else employed by St. Hugh’s ought to be paid at least the Oxford living wage.

“The JCR should support and stand in solidarity with workers at St Hugh’s.

“The JCR should seek to organise, lobby and take whatever action necessary to improve the wages of the workers at St. Hugh’s.

“A spirit of solidarity and activism among the JCR will be beneficial for members of the college.”

The motion was proposed by Joe Higton, a finalist at the college. After an online vote, it was rejected by 39 votes to 26.

The motion also called for St Hugh’s JCR “to launch a campaign for the Oxford Living Wage at St Hugh’s and seek to utilise creative methods to pressure college into improving pay conditions for staff.”

One of the concerns raised during the JCR discussion of the motion was that the role of a JCR Officer is to represent the student body and to be elected by those that they were representing, which would not be possible in this case.

Higton suggested that this motion was more about raising awareness, so he was not sure what the drawback of this would be.

The JCR President also argued that the motion appeared to be “quite patronising”. However, Higton maintained that the motion was “simply backing staff members in line with the Living Wage Campaign.”

In the JCR meeting, it was suggested that the person sitting on College’s committees is best placed to raise this issue, and that students could not fulfil this.

The Secretary pointed out the potential for conflicts of interest between JCR and the Liaison Officer in terms of student rent levels.

According to the minutes of the meeting, “college have stressed staff wages as a key argument for proposed rent raises in the past and during this year’s rent negotiation.”

Higton told Cherwell: “I think the motion didn’t pass mainly because the committee opposed it, but I also think I ought to have prepared the motion better and anticipated the pushback – I didn’t expect anyone to oppose it because I think it seems fairly straightforwardly good.

“I think it’s disappointing it didn’t pass, and it shows that sometimes people become too concerned with the technicalities and inner workings of JCR business rather than wider goals.”

Higton explained that, although as a finalist he does not have the time to set up an Oxford Living Wage campaign at the college himself, “the idea was that this would create some kind of momentum or inertia in that direction for other people to take it on.”

Oxford City Council recently launched a new Oxford Living Wage Accreditation Scheme.

It is the minimum which the council pays its staff and agency workers.

The Council also expects all suppliers with contracts over £100,000 to pay the Oxford Living Wage to their staff and subcontractors.

While 17 of Oxford’s 38 colleges and Oxford University are signed up to pay the Real Living Wage of £9.00 per hour, currently only two Oxford colleges and PPHs, Blackfriars College and Campion Hall, pay the Oxford Living Wage – a separate wage rate due to the substantially higher costs of living in Oxford.

Oxford was recently classed the least affordable city in the UK, with average weekly rental prices at £121.15, much higher than the national average of £87.68.

Other colleges have also launched campaigns to pay their staff the Oxford Living Wage. St Hilda’s students began a campaign in February, while Wolfson students are also calling for the college to raise staff pay.

Recently, Labour Councillor Martyn Rush told Cherwell that these campaigns made him “hopeful of progress on these fronts soon.”

This comes after Susan Brown, the Leader of Oxford City Council, wrote to the wealthiest Oxford University colleges to ask if they could pay the Oxford Living Wage to their lowest-earning staff.

Brown called the low number of colleges paying the Oxford Living Wage to all staff “disgusting.”

Oxford SU currently operates an Oxford Living Wage Campaign, which has been arguing for colleges to pay all staff the recommended by the council as a minimum.

College crime hotspots revealed

Ben van der Merwe
-
0
College crime hotspots revealed

Three Oxford colleges experienced more than 250 crimes in their vicinity in the first three months of the year, a Cherwell analysis of police data has found.

Of all crimes between January and March for which a location was recorded, and which were within 500 metres of any college, 570 occurred closest to St Hilda’s. This includes 159 violent and sexual offences, 61 bicycle thefts, 30 burglaries and six incidents of the possession of a weapon.

Nuffield came a distant second at 282 recorded crimes, while St. Catherine’s came a close third with 267.

St Hilda’s came top for all categories except vehicle crime and ‘theft from the person’, a category which includes mugging and pickpocketing. Nuffield recorded 16 such incidents, while Jesus came second with 11. St. Catherine’s came top for vehicle crime, with 31 incidents.

The most common crimes overall were violence and sexual offences (346), anti-social behaviour (190) and bike theft (185).

Between January and March of this year, here were 61 recorded bike thefts near St Hilda’s, 26 near Nuffield, 22 near Pembroke and 21 near St Catherine’s.

Thefts from the person were most common in the vicinity of Nuffield (16), followed by Jesus (11), St Hilda’s (9) and Queen’s (3).

Six instances of the possession of a weapon occurred near St Hilda’s. Nuffield experienced four such cases, followed by Pembroke and St Catherine’s (both at 2).

The new body movement

Joanna Lonergan
-
0
The new body movement

To throw some numbers at you, research released by Dove, for their ‘Self-Esteem Project’, found that 96% of women in the UK reported feeling anxious about the way they look, compared with 86% in China, 72% in Brazil and 61% in the US. Only 4% of the women in all the countries surveyed would consider themselves ‘beautiful’, and by the time girls reach 17, 78% will be ‘unhappy with their bodies’.

Although the stats are harder to find, men aren’t immune from the problem. A survey of more than 1,000 8-18 year old boys, conducted by the Credos advertising industry thinktank, found that 55% would consider changing their diet to look better and 23% believed there was a ‘perfect male body’. Obviously, this affects all of us. But we already knew that.

Just when we were all beginning to tire of opening Instagram only to scroll through seemingly endless pictures of slim, toned and altogether ‘perfect’ bodies, the ‘Body Positive’ movement erupted onto our screens.

And erupt it did. At the time of writing, typing #bodypositive into Instagram coughs up 9,519,285 posts. Literally millions of people have seemingly embraced the Body Positive message that no matter what shape, size, age, or weight, every body is beautiful.

At its height, the movement no doubt helped innumerable people embrace who they were and what they looked like. As mentioned above, it’s inevitable most of us will struggle with body image at some point in our lives (for a surprising number of us it might even be throughout our lives) and social media only makes this issue worse.

Earlier this year, two researchers from York University in Toronto published a study linking social media to self-perceived body image (Body Image 28, 2019). Commenting on the findings, Mills said, “[Participants] felt worse about their own appearance after looking at social media pages of someone that they perceived to be more attractive than them. Even if they felt bad about themselves before they came into the study, on average, they still felt worse after completing the task”.

So, amidst an overbearing conventional beauty standard, constantly reinforced through the media, which prescribed thin as the ideal, seeing people such as Chessie King, Meghan Jane Crabbe and Sara Puhto post their ‘Instagram vs Reality’ myth-busters really helped people, including me, to recognise that what you see is most certainly not always what you get.

We don’t see the countless outtakes, discarded photos, or time spent editing those perfectly posed bikini photos. Don’t get me wrong, I think this is great. While most of the mainstream media continues its onslaught on the average person’s self-esteem, it’s truly inspiring that this movement has empowered so many people to love their bodies.

But that being said, I do think we’re in danger of allowing ourselves to become too enthralled with, and too caught up in, it. Body Positivity actually originated in the ‘Fat Acceptance’ movement of the 1960s, experiencing a second wave in the 1990s before the advent of social media accelerated its growth and thrust it to the fore of our attentions. This was a period when beauty standards were getting progressively more unrealistic, culminating in where we are now.

In fact, current media ideals are achievable by less than 5% of the population – and that’s only if we’re thinking about weight and size. When we add shape, face, muscle tone etc into the messed-up mix, it’s probably going to be around 1%. 1 percent. Yes, ‘Body Positivity’ set out to alter (even rectify) this, but as it’s grown #bodypositive has become more of a buzzword to attract likes or attention than a focused and effective attack on conventional ideals.

The same flawless, edited and ‘perfect’ women that flounced onto our screens before are still there, but now they’re ‘embracing’ body positivity too, using the hashtag for their gym selfies and clean-eating snaps (Fit Tea anyone?).

Yet again it feels as if those who don’t fit these standards are being alienated from the cause – the cause that was started by them and for them. Interestingly, there’s also a flip side to this. Alongside the insta-beauties who have appropriated #bodypositivity for themselves are the ‘acceptably curvy’ people. People who are around a size 16 and have fat ‘in all the right places’.

Whilst it’s great that these previously marginalised people have found a way to express their self-love, it does leave many feeling that they’re not curvy enough to be body positive. Of course I’m not saying that anyone should be excluded from loving themselves and I’m certainly not implying that slimmer people don’t struggle with body image issues – many of the 96% from Dove’s study will have been an average dress size.

What I am trying to say, however, is that body positivity has become confused with confidence and self-love meaning those who the movement was originally intended to empower are often left on the outside looking in. There’s this new pressure to love ourselves, when for many of us, this is often far from realistic.

So, how can we reclaim the idea that each and every one of us deserve to take up space in the world? How can we really and truly accept ourselves for how we are, granted that we’re healthy and happy? And how can we relieve ourselves of this obsession with what we look like?

Welcome to the stage ‘Body Neutrality’.

It might not be the catchiest heading – it’s certainly not as attractive as ‘Body Positivity’ – and it hasn’t captivated social media in quite the same way (yet) – at the time of writing there are 12,357 posts with #bodyneutrality. But bear with me. It will all make sense.

Basically, Body Neutrality empowers you to embrace yourself as you are, including the bits you don’t like about yourself. Its focus is to avoid self-hate whilst simultaneously alleviating the pressure of having to love your body. The goal is to respect and accept your body for what it is – and that’s it.

Body Neutrality recognises that not everyone is going to love every part of themselves all the time. The reality is that some days you’re going to look in the mirror like ‘F/ck yeah, thank you legs for taking me places, thank you arms for allowing me to reach for the biscuit tin, and thank you stomach for keeping my organs where they should be’, but then there’ll be those days where you stand in front of the very same mirror, focusing on that mole you hate, or the acne scars that suddenly seem so obvious.

We all pick ourselves apart sometimes, and we all have good days and bad days – it’s natural. For people living with eating disorders, body dysmorphia or disabilities, and those who do not identify with the body they were born into, loving their bodies is especially difficult.

Even for the average person, any negative thoughts they may have about their body aren’t going to dissipate immediately upon reading some inspirational Instagram caption. This is simply an unrealistic expectation inherent in the Body Positivity movement, and one that Body Neutrality seeks to dispel.

Embracing Body Neutrality over Body Positivity allows you to experience negative feelings about yourself, but without the pressure that comes with having to be positive all the time. In other words, it’s a middle ground between positivity and negativity – well, it’s neutrality. In its most twisted form, Body Positivity has become commercialised and mediatised.

In terms of the former, so many of these so-called ‘Body Positive’ posts are trying to sell us detox teas, zero calorie noodles or some miracle weight loss potion. Even those you might least suspect – the bigger brands who are seemingly trying to combat the issue with ‘real women’ models or campaigns – are also playing their part. Even Dove, who many will remember being at the forefront of body positivity in the media with their ‘Campaign for Real Beauty’, can be accused of exploiting the movement as a marketing tactic.

The overall perception of women’s bodies was so dire that Dove would get all the credit, and the sales, for simply identifying the problem. Cue a wave of copycat campaigns focusing on the aesthetic and not the issue at heart. It’s no longer expedient for brands to make you hate yourself, so now you must love yourself (and use their products to get yourself there!).

All this might seem incredibly cynical, and maybe it is. But the underlying message in all of this mediatised and commercialised ‘Body Positivity’ is that now, in order to accept your body, others must also accept it. Posting your curves on social media – stretch marks, cellulite and all – is no longer about just you accepting yourself; it’s now about telling others they ought to accept your image too.

When I did my Instagram search for #bodypositive, I had a quick look over the results. In the ‘Top Posts’ section was a picture of a beautifully curvy woman, posing on a sunlounger in a patterned cut-out swimsuit.

Setting aside that she obviously fitted neatly into the ‘acceptably curvy’ category mentioned above, it was the caption and comments on the post which interested me. In her caption, this woman encouraged her followers to accept all the premises of Body Positivity writing, ‘Love yourself today. Love everything about yourself because you are all beautifully and wonderfully made.’ A lovely sentiment, and her followers responded accordingly – the comment section was filled with ‘You look so great’, ‘All that thickness I’m so here for it sis’ and ‘You are so f/cking beautiful’. This woman got a lot of positive feedback about her body, which must have made her feel amazing. But why do we have such an obsession with how we look?

Think about your own Facebook. I know I’m guilty of commenting on how gorgeous someone looks when they upload a new selfie or change their profile picture – it’s just what you do. But does this reinforce our need for others to accept how we look before we can fully accept it ourselves?

Body Neutrality rejects this. Why should anyone else have a say in how you see yourself? It’s your body and you should do what makes you – emphasis on YOU – feel good. They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and maybe that’s true, but it should also be in the eye of the beholder. Beauty isn’t about how people perceive you and what’s more, your worth is not defined by your beauty. We alone should be allowed to determine how much our appearance defines us and we alone should be allowed to decide how well we want to conform to societal beauty standards – whether that be ‘conventional’ beauty or that of any social movement.

Asking us to LOVE our bodies simply asks us to focus even more on what is staring back at us in the mirror when in actual fact it really shouldn’t matter so much at all. I mentioned earlier how disabled, trans, people living with eating disorders and other types of people who don’t fit into either the ‘existing’ or the ‘new’ standards can feel excluded from Body Positivity.

But Body Neutrality has the potential to have a real impact on these peoples’ lives. It doesn’t ask for wholehearted adoration of our bodies no matter what, rather it asks us to make peace with them. I want to say again that I am in no way looking to #hate on the Body Positive movement.

I genuinely think it’s an amazing thing which has touched the lives of so many people, helping them to realise that just because they are not a size 6-8 and have ‘wobbly bits’ doesn’t mean they aren’t beautiful too. I simply want to point out the flaws in the movement – the commercialisation, the unrealistic expectations inherent within and the exclusion of certain people.

As I said before, Body Neutrality is still somewhat new and is still finding its place on social media. It is also in no way perfect, having its own flaws (we still can’t seem to find a way to properly include men and their body image issues) but I hope this new movement will go some way to overcoming the mistaken assumption that body positivity equals straightforward body confidence. That’s not how it is or how it should be. We need to realise and accept that everyone has parts of themselves that they don’t like, and that’s totally, completely and wonderfully ok.

Fiddling while the planet burns

Felicity Victoria Graham
-
0
Fiddling while the planet burns

The year is 1960, and Charles Keeling begins his ‘Keeling Curve’, following a prediction in 1959 which stated that CO2 would rise by 25% by the year 2000 with potentially ‘radical’ effects on the climate.

Fast forward to 2019 and, even sixty years later, such vague predictions are still regularly being put forward by the world’s leading scientists. Yet, many doctors are now diagnosing their patients with ‘eco-anxiety’ due to the imminence of the climate crisis, and eco-rebels have taken to the streets. The most recent rebel group, Extinction Rebellion, is one of the most popular revolutionary movements the UK has ever seen. However, it seems that action on the street is still far weaker than words on a sheet.

With more than 20,000 scientific publications each year with key words of ‘climate change’, it is no overstatement to say that climate change has become one of the most over-intellectualised issues of our current world. Whilst I do believe that this renewed focus on climate change is something to be celebrated, over-intellectualisation is by no means a good thing.

Intellectualisation is by definition a defence mechanism we utilise when wishing to revoke emotional stress. We, as students at this university, are extremely prone to falling into the trap of intellectualisation. The emotional turmoil of a break-up or a fall-out with friends may be easily forgotten about by delving into revision, or getting stuck into a good book which combats emotion indirectly. Even staying on to do a Masters’ degree can sometimes act as a sort of intellectualisation; to escape the real world and the prospect of having to find a job, each year thousands of students decide to keep themselves within the relatively comfortable borders of higher education. In all three of these examples there is a common theme; avoidance.

But how is this relevant to climate change? Prior to last week, I had always been proud of myself for committing to my studies of climate change at school, constantly discussing the topic with my friends, and attending the lectures of the Oxford Climate Society regularly whilst at university. Yet, it was one of these very lectures that made me realise that my understanding of climate change, and the narrative I apply to it, was in fact an immoral one.

The lecture I attended was led by Mike Hulme, a Professor of Geography at Cambridge, and the author of the renowned book Why We Disagree About Climate Change. Hulme became a climate sociologist after years of work within the field of climate science, interested in the way humans view the issue of climate change from various different perspectives. In the lecture, he applied the framework of different ‘narratives’; he argued that some may view climate change as a left-wing conspiracy, some as a tale of moral growth, whilst others may even link their narrative to religion. Hulme discussed these variants on the assumption that anyone with a ‘narrative’ was not questioning the actual facts of climate change, and I was intrigued by the framework he was giving this global issue. Yet, whilst sat in this lecture, feeling intrigued and vaguely perplexed, I felt a sudden pang of anxiety at the utter triviality of everything Hulme was saying. Nobody in that room was actually doing anything about the issue at hand.

At this point in the lecture, I had a horrific moment of anagnorisis; I realised that I enjoy learning about climate change. The climate crisis is an issue that combines my love for physical geography and tragic drama into one captivating screenplay; one that I appear to be all too happy to re-watch. Yet, somewhere within my learning about climate change, I seem to have misplaced the most important fact; that this screenplay can’t be re-watched. The finalé is the extinction of the human race and the end of all life on earth.

For years, I have deflected my guilt onto national governments and TNC oil-companies, who laugh their way out of the climate crisis with ineffective, localised schemes, rather than utilising their global platforms to promote large-scale change. But who am I to judge? What have I actually been doing to combat the climate crisis? I have merely been indulging in the intellectual essence of climate change, retreating into the facts and statistics, and, ironically, believing that I have been ‘spreading awareness’ through writing short articles for Cherwell. Now, like national governments and international organisations, I am increasingly beginning to realise that this simply won’t do anymore. I must break out of the cycle of over-intellectualisation and remind myself of the reality of the tragedy that is about to ensue.

Such a change of heart, and indeed of mind, also needs to occur within Oxford. The University continues to be an important research centre within the global effort to tackle climate change, yet its findings often simply state facts, and show no interest in actual involvement with mitigation and adaptation methods. The University and its findings demonstrate an unquestionable example of over-intellectualisation; our scientists work with the issue of climate change, yet are entirely detached from the direct emotional and physical consequences that this issue might bring. Scholars such as Mike Hulme are no longer relevant in the discussion of climate change – we need action, and we need it immediately.

Love will tear us apart

Jamie Johnson and Helena Peacock
-
0
Love will tear us apart

Following Georgia limiting abortion to the first six weeks, in effect making it illegal, Alyssa Milano has called for women to participate in a sex strike. The actress and #MeToo activist tweeted “Until women have legal control over our own bodies we just cannot risk pregnancy”. Should women join this strike, or are its effect more damaging than helpful for their cause?

Yes: Jamie Johnson

We should not understate the significance of recent developments in Georgia. American lawmakers have found and successfully implemented a work-around to Roe v. Wade, the main protection of women’s choice in America since the 1970s. Measures to decrease the number of weeks after which abortion becomes illegal to six is an effective ban for many women.

Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez noted this week that six weeks amounts to a full menstrual cycle plus two weeks. Many women will pass the threshold without even knowing they’re pregnant. This is an assault on the rights and dignity of women that comes as part of a broader problem. The problem of having a man like Donald Trump as president. The problem of having abuse perpetrated systematically by men in positions of power. The problems of limited freedom and unlimited violence that regularly cause women misery across the world.

The potential solutions to this are a constant talking point whenever women’s rights are threatened. Potential legal changes, potential changes in the workplace or even in our political systems themselves are regularly proposed, and of course are often valuable. But the solution proposed by Alyssa Milano is a novel one, and at least in principle worth considering. She argues that ‘until women have legal control of our own bodies we just cannot risk pregnancy’.

This so-called ‘sex strike’ seems radical, but the principle behind it is a sound one. Men have no right to sex, to use a women’s body in any way and so in that sense there is every right to act this way. Moreover, men in general bear some collective responsibility for these laws; not only are men disproportionately responsible for making these laws, but for voting in the conservative lawmakers who push them.

But more fundamentally, political constraints of this kind which are regularly placed on women are only ever the consequence of patriarchal structures all men are, to a greater or less extent, complicit in. The ‘sex strike’ is, on the most basic level, a universal punishment and potential vector for change. But more than that, it could function as a symbol of change, of the power women have even in societies still dominated by men.

And of course, the practical implications of this kind of shift being adopted widely are hard to predict. The coverage would likely be negative in many instances. Moreover, the increasing trend towards political polarisation within romantic relationships, which in other words means conservative women are more likely to date conservative men, means that the actual impact might be limited. But in reality, of course, a symbol needn’t alter views all on its own – the main problem in modern day America, as in many places, is one of awareness.

All too often, we turn a blind eye to the suffering of women and the consequences they face at the hands of ill thought out or straightforwardly cruel changes in our political system. If this strike can address that wrong, even if it’s only partially, that is worthwhile.

No: Helena Peacock

It was in an ancient Greek comedy, written almost two and a half thousand years ago, that Aristophanes’ Lysistrata encouraged the women of the Greek city states to renounce all sexual pleasure until the men ended the bloody conflict of the Peloponnesian War. The women were frustrated by decisions being made without their contribution, frustrated that their voices were not being heard. In May of this year, Georgia became the sixth U.S. state to sign a ‘heartbeat’ bill into law which effectively banned abortion outright. The response, surprisingly, recalled that of the ancient Athenian woman, with actor Alyssa Milano assuming centre stage and proposing a sex strike of her own: ‘Until women have legal control over our own bodies we just cannot risk pregnancy’ she wrote, ‘join me by not having sex’.

Milano indirectly invoked Lysistrata’s ancient actions, but she does not, it appears, acknowledge any problem with utilising literally ancient practices, borrowed from societies in which women’s voices and actions outside their roles as domestic and sexual objects were, undeniably, deemed irrelevant. However well meaning, she inadvertently recalls a time when such reduction was unapologetically commonplace, and subscribes to the misogynistic idea that a woman’s contribution to society must be purely sexual. She demands respect, but only for a woman’s sexual capabilities. The person, the voice, is ignored. The strike fails to recognise that our power is not one derived from or confined to our reproductive organs.

Suggesting that women exist solely to engender sexual pleasure in men, the sex strike demands that we reclaim control of our bodies, while simultaneously refusing to see that part of that control should encompass sexual autonomy. Sex is framed as something to which women are subjected. Such characterisation is demeaning to both parties, and structures sexual engagement within a dangerously heteronormative framework.

Feminist activists have long fought, and continue to fight, for the acknowledgement that sex does not exist solely for male pleasure and women can be and want to be active participants in sex. They have been able to rewrite the false narrative that men are like the desperate chorus of Aristophanes’ comedy, baying at the gates of the Acropolis, threatening to raze it to the ground if their needs are not satisfied. Such a victory should not be so easily relinquished.

So yes: reclaim our legislatures from the men who dominate them and who seek to tear our hard won liberties from us, reclaim the bodies upon which they infringe, reclaim our right to choose – but not like this.

Alyssa Milano knows that ‘the stakes are never higher than right now’, but she must utilise the privilege of her position and her platform to transcend the superficial and enact genuine change, to protest, to demonstrate, and even to strike, but not to tell women to refrain from having sex until abortion laws are changed. She must demand that those in power transform the stage on which we are forced to perform. It is nonsensical to sacrifice autonomy of one kind in order to gain another; we deserve both.

Trinity’s Welfare Turmoil

Amelia Horn
-
0
Trinity’s Welfare Turmoil

Serious concerns have been expressed by Trinity students about the performance of the College’s welfare provisions in Michaelmas, according to survey results obtained by Cherwell.

An emergency JCR meeting called just days after the survey was published led to the College launching an independent review into their welfare provision. A new member of the welfare team was also appointed to help improve the college’s welfare capacity to deal with welfare concerns.

The minutes of the meeting record how: “[the JCR Secretary] emphasised how JCR members can share their concerns about either the temporary measure or the longer-term review of the welfare system with the Exec Committee and the Welfare Reps, who will respect confidentiality.

“It was also emphasised how this temporary measure is by no means all that is being done to reform the Trinity welfare system – and the review will help to usher in further changes for the new academic year.”

On 29th January 2019 an Emergency JCR Meeting was called in which the results of the survey were discussed, having been sent out to JCR members via email. The survey was a volunteer sample of 93 members of the JCR. It was made clear that because of this: “the figures should not be taken to be a completely accurate representation of the JCR at large, however they shall give an indication of general feeling on certain key issues.”

One section of the survey asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement: “Trinity is a place that cares about its students’ welfare.” The results concluded: “Out of the 93 responses, 30 students either disagreed or slightly disagreed, with a further 13 having no clear opinion on the matter, suggesting that nearly half of all JCR members do not feel that Trinity is a college that strongly cares about its students’ welfare. This is particularly striking given that only 16 students fully agreed with the statement.”

When asked “How confident would you feel approaching a college staff member about a mental health issue?” half of students said they were not confident, rating the college either one or two on a scale of one to five. Only three students gave a rating of five. In contrast, for confidence in approaching a JCR peer supporter about a mental health issues the average response was a 3.2.

Another question asked “If you have approached a college staff member about a mental health issue, how satisfied were you with the way the issue was dealt with?”. In response to this, 9 out of 31 students said that they would rate their satisfaction as a 1. On the other hand, none of the 19 students who responded rated their encounter with JCR welfare representative peer supporters as a one.

A section on sexual harassment asked respondents whether they thought there was a clear way of reporting harassment issues in college. Only 8.8% of those who answered gave a response of “yes”, with 34.1% answering “no”. Asked whether they would feel comfortable doing so, only 10% of people answered “yes”.

The survey also found issues with the JCR’s welfare positions, namely Peer Supporters and Welfare Reps. It stated: “The main barrier to improving the approachability of the JCR Welfare Representatives and Peer Supporters was that as these roles are filled by current students… in turn, JCR members may feel this is a less confidential means for support, due to its greater informality, particularly if you know the peer supporters socially.”

However, it was also emphasised that the lack of an “approachable system” provided by College put a “huge strain” on the JCR welfare team who were not qualified mental health professionals and are “limited in both training and power.”

The minutes record the response of the JCR President: “This is also a really important issue that needs to be recognised and should not be overshadowed by the other findings of this report. He stated that the new Equalities Fellow Maria is extremely willing to deal with these problems and promote a more inclusive community.”

Another student was reported to have “expressed confusion about the way [College President Dame Hilary Boulding] and Anil (then the Equalities Fellow) were surprised by the findings of the report, given that from their experience, a multitude of issues have been reported over the past year. This suggests a major issue with lack of transparency of where information goes from the initial point of contact.”

The JCR Secretary responded by telling attendees that she had been “encouraged” by the meeting with the College President, and stated that “she does seem to really recognise the issue” but has to be “pragmatic” when carrying out changes.

The College President later announced, in an email on 28th February, the Governing Body’s intention to conduct an “independent welfare review” of Trinity’s welfare provision, which will be carried out this term. Deputy Head of the University Counselling Services Maureen Freed was announced to be conducting the review, which was to start at the beginning of Trinity term.

In light of the review, a new member of the welfare team has been appointed. In an email from last week, the President said: “Please note that we have slightly different welfare arrangements in place for this term. In order to create some additional Welfare capacity, we are pleased to welcome Mark Bezerra Speeks who will be available to students on Mondays and Fridays.”

The results of the survey prompted a series of proposed solutions, both in terms of JCR and College welfare. The JCR’s action to be taken included urging College to recognise “the extremely low levels of confidence students generally have in approaching college staff members about mental health issues” and creating a Google Form to allow JCR members to submit anonymous complaints or concerns about specific Peer Supporters, whilst also creating a more thorough screening process for candidates who wish to become Peer Supporters.

In response to the reportedly “shocking” statistics on the handling of sexual harassment, the JCR has urged the College to create the position of at least one “Harassment Officer/Women’s Officer” among the Fellows that was separate from both the Dean and the Welfare Dean. The JCR also stated their intention to “make both Trinity’s stance on and processes of managing claims of sexual harassment clearer to all students” and to “formally increase the number of sexual harassment responders in Trinity.”

The minutes of the emergency meeting state that Trinity College “seemed to take the findings very seriously” and confirmed that various plans which were presented to the Governing Body.

These proposals include a revising of the College safeguarding policy to clarify the route through which students can be referred to outside agencies, a College policy on sharing information to solve confidentiality issues, consideration of the provision of Mental Health First Aid training for key personnel, and a regular review of the College Harassment policy. The results of the survey were also shared with the Dean and Welfare Dean.

A spokesperson for the College told Cherwell: “Ensuring Trinity’s welfare provision is as effective as possible is an important priority for Trinity – the JCR welfare survey raised important concerns around provision, which we are committed to addressing in a positive and decisive way.

“As a next step, the College has engaged the Deputy Head of Counselling at the University to conduct an independent review of welfare at Trinity; she is an experienced organisational consultant who has worked with other colleges on similar reviews.

“It is our goal with this review to get underneath the general impressions of welfare at Trinity and understand specific instances where support was needed and how the college responded. These will be used to develop appropriate responses to the issues raised.

“We are grateful to students for working with us and hope to continue working positively and constructively to ensure our welfare provision is robust in serving all students who need support.”

Last term, as reported by Cherwell, an email on behalf of Trinity’s JCR President was accidentally leaked, revealing sensitive information about welfare to the JCR.

The email stated: “out of 12 people identifying as Black/African/Caribbean/BlackBritish (4) and Mixed/Multi-Ethnic (8) (some people however also said prefer not to say) 9 people said in the survey that they “faced any specific issues or incidents” at Trinity with regards of race/ethnicity and 5 people said that worries/issues about race have a detrimental effect on their mental health.”

Trinity JCR, the Trinity Welfare Dean, and the college’s President were contacted for comment.

Polarising the free speech debate

Brian Wong
-
0
Polarising the free speech debate

Recent debates over no-platforming have become both increasingly emotional and polarising. One side claims that no-platforming is a weapon of last resort against fascists, extremists, and racists. The other side outdoes this side in hyperbole and takes to framing the issue as one concerning freedom of speech; add to that a healthy dose of self-obsession and a disproportionate sense of self-importance, and you end up with the arguments presented by the likes of Allan Bloom – that speech and debate are the solution to any and all bigotry and hatred.

Indeed, if we are to look at some of the speakers that have been purported to be no-platformed in recent years – from Peter Singer to Peter Tatchell, or even Richard Dawkins – it appears that there are rather curious episodes of no-platforming seemingly stifling debate and shutting out discourse where it could be conducive. In truth, the reality is probably somewhere in between the two extremes (not necessarily right in the middle, however): yes, there are cases where no-platforming has gone too far, but to employ this as a weapon to characterise no-platforming as itself too far or erroneous would be a deeply misguided strategy.

No-platforming is justified on several grounds. The first, and perhaps more negatively quasi-defeatist argument, is that debate simply does not work (or is incredibly difficult) in many instances. Certain speakers – such as Jordan Peterson – enjoy employing deliberately obscurantist phrases and terminology to lend credence to his pseudoscience, and to convince the audience that behind his veil of impenetrable jargon lies a guru in fields of study concerning God-knows-what (his psychology research itself is reasonably high-quality, but his views on alleged ‘Cultural Marxism’ and the contemporary progressive movement are deeply outlandish, to say the least).

Others adopt conniving speaking strategies or hire skilled PR teams to design the Q and A sections such that questions (due to the short time constraints) come across as hurried, rushed, and easily defeasible. Still, many of those speakers who are no-platformed are unpleasant to the extent that few other than their most ardent supporters rock up to these events. This reinforces a (false) sense that they are universally endorsed and strengthens the social and emotional barriers for those brave enough to take on these ‘renowned speakers’.

Finally, many reporting on (or spinning) the speaker events are likely to pick out particular soundbites and take them to be resounding signs of the speaker’s alleged victory (see, “Ben Shapiro Destroys Liberal!”). Now I do not think these reasons are exhaustive – there obviously are cases in which speakers are rightly and adequately challenged; yet the upshot of the above is that there will be instances where the challengers ‘win’ logically, and yet still fail to ‘defeat’ the speaker in the public’s eyes. The public’s views are shaped not by evaluating argument-response-rejoinder, but whose soundbite is more eloquent.

The further justification is that student-centric platforms often lend substantial credibility (and publicity) to these speakers. Universities and their student societies are endowed with an air of faux legitimacy that their counterparts – e.g. political societies or newspapers – tentatively do not possess. A hypothetical platforming of speakers such as Milo Yannopoulos would lend their currently dwindling popularity a massive boost – both in terms of the prospective spinning (e.g. “University students debate and lose to Milo!”) and actual campus-centric publicity. Why lend these individuals more airtime and pseudo-academic credentials, when there are many better alternatives to platform?

Whilst platforming far-right speakers is certainly not the same thing as instigating far-right violence we must be cautious of the potential advances we grant to those who actively seek to undermine the fabric of society and the ability of others to speak. The final justification is a question of resource allocation. Student societies’ time, space, and publicity-associated privilege are scarce resources. Scarce resources must be allocated on a morally justifiable principle that can be reasonably agreed to by all (reasonable) individuals – I don’t need to relitigate Scanlon’s contractualism here. The gist is that no-platforming was never about stripping the ‘freedom of speech’ of a particular speaker, but the question of what metrics should we use (or not use) to allocate airtime in a particular space.

No one has the moral entitlement to speak ill of the dead at their funerals; no one has the right to blast anti-Semitic chants at Holocaust survivors nearby. The right to speech does not extent to all instances or cases. Even if speech does not cause harm, it can still be restricted on grounds of contextual inappropriateness. Robert Simpson and Amia Srinavasan aptly characterise no-platforming as compatible with the broader principles of expertise justice – academic spaces ration their resources and opportunities to speak on the basis of expertise. Speakers who have little to no expertise in the subjects they are to speak on (e.g. Ben Shapiro and reproductive justice) should not be allocated resources that they do not deserve. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech at large.

With that being said, no-platforming is obviously not always the ideal answer to any and all speakers with potentially controversial views. In many instances, no-platforming speakers also lends them greater legitimacy and publicity, providing them with rallying cries to frame themselves as the so-called martyrs and enemies of the “regressive Left”. Ironically, with the no-platforming outside the Union on Thursday night raging on, Katie Hopkins’ speech was met with (shockingly chillingly, for a person of colour like me) applause, even when she slid into her bad-tempered comments about Muslims halfway through her directionless tirade. The motion (in favour of No Platforming) was defeated by a landslide, perhaps the result of the fact that those who could have defended no-platforming and argued their case did not, in fact, go to the debate.

Finally, no-platforming precludes us from persuading and convincing the undecided or the uninformed, who may indeed attend these events with the hope of finding out more about the speakers. Furthermore, there must be greater scrutiny and accountability with regards to the processes which decides whether particular speakers are no-platformed. It would be, in the long run, rather perilous if we were to allow a small group of individuals running an organisation to decide whose speech is worth listening to and whose isn’t. There must be counter-majoritarian measures, of course, to prevent the tyranny of the majority. There should also be checks and balances on those whom hold such counter-majoritarian veto powers. I say this not with the intention of undermining or discrediting the no-platforming movements across university campuses; I say this instead with both respect and admiration for the courage of those who are willing to call out and take on the Establishment.

No-platforming is not universally bad, but we must recognise its limits and flaws when they crop up. Only then can advocates of no-platforming (as I am) withstand the scrutiny and disparaging of reactionaries – with pride, as opposed to evasion. Do not offer platforms to individuals who do not deserve it, but let us be very careful when arbitrating who does, or does not, deserve a platform.

Behind Closed Drawbridges

Emily Parker
-
0
Behind Closed Drawbridges

Although the political power of the royal family is waning in our democratic modern age, their prominence in film and television is not. Indeed, in recent years, there has been a veritable flurry of media portrayals of royalty, encompassing a wide range of storylines and figures – with varying results. Success comes in many forms, as films like The King’s Speech have been successful both in terms of critical and audience reception, while others like The Other Boleyn Girl receive a slightly frostier response (Alex von Tunzelmann called it “Hollyoaks in fancy dress” – not exactly a ringing accolade) despite a warm reception at the box office.

On the other end of the spectrum, movies like Diana show that stories about royalty have an equal capacity to flop: even the film’s Wikipedia entry calls its reviews “overwhelmingly negative”, and with a Rotten Tomatoes score of 8%, the bleak facts are hardly contentious.

The appeal of a royal story is on some level irresistible. Movies such as the aforementioned, as well as television series like The Crown, are only a response to a modern audience with an evolving but persistent appetite for stories about kings and queens, princes and princesses. In an age where ‘relatability’ has been much touted as the most powerful currency in the market, it seems strange that narratives about the most exclusive – and thus least relatable – tier of society should have gained and retained such mass appeal. Yet perhaps, on a deeper level, these stories are relatable, and their force lies precisely in the thrill of discovering relatability in the most unlikely places.

From the complicated love-hate-forgive relationship between the Boleyn girls, to the portrayal of all-too-ordinarily-human conflicts and reconciliations in The Crown, behind the lavish costumes, the stories of happiness and pain are the same. From the point of view of the average person sitting in front of their screen on a Friday evening, perhaps with a take-away korma, it is well worth savouring, imagining, or better still, speculating how ‘they’ live. After all, is there anything more appealing than seeing that the elites of society are really just like us?

A film about royalty which is just a history book transmitted onto the screen would not, I venture, be a very good one. In fact, it would probably rival Diana’s Rotten Tomatoes score. As fascinating as the machinations and politics behind royal power may be, these elements alone do not make for entertaining and engaging movies. Instead, it is the human element that continues to fascinate and excite. The Other Boleyn Girl is a good example of this: while the movie (and the book it is based on) could have focused on many other interesting and unique aspects of the Tudor court life, it is the love triangle of Henry, Anne and Mary which is at the core of the film – the kind of dramatic conflicts which could be found in any part of society.

Humans are social creatures, and this is reflected in our viewing habits – we like nothing better than seeing someone else feel our emotions, live out our experiences, share in our sorrow, joy or love. What is appealing is not what makes the royals different from the average viewer, but the human relationships and personal struggles common to all – royal or not. The fundamental existential core of these stories is what pulls viewers back to films about royalty again and again.

Bagels: A Holy Food for Every Meal?

Ashley Lo
-
0
Bagels: A Holy Food for Every Meal?

Bagels: Some of us have probably mistaken them for doughnuts. Those who did were probably disappointed. Not memorable enough to deserve their own shop, nor mediocre enough to be neglected entirely, most people overlook this circular alternative to the baguette, or at the very least confine it to the breakfast menu. Are they right to do so? I wasn’t sure, and seeking to answer this question, I embarked on a quest to discover the tastiest (and most affordable) bagels Oxford had to offer.

Breakfast from the Alternative Tuck Shop seemed liked on obvious way to start. Between baguettes, paninis, baps and five varieties of ciabattas, why choose the roll-with-a-hole for to begin the day? Maybe you shouldn’t: but I love pesto, I love chicken, I love bagels. Hence, I must love a pesto chicken bagel. The logic is sound. Premises true.

Yet somewhere in that little corner shop, my conclusion fell false. Sadly, even though the bagel itself was comfortably crispy, the chicken chunks were distributed so unevenly that it pushed the two half bagels apart. If my bagel falls apart, so do I. Are bagels really meant to be sandwiches?

After a disappointing start to my journey I turned to an organization more famed for its deserts than its lunch menu. I discovered that bagels at G&D’s work on a cheese-tolerance scale. Old and classy? Cream cheese. Tired of being average? Go with Meltz. Feeling adventurous or already drunk? Rich pizza bagels. Then decide what goes in between: Mediterranean, Greek or Bacon & Brie. Finally pick between plain, poppy seed and sesame bagels. Does it really matter? For aesthetic reasons, I suppose it does. Breakfast bagels are also served before noon, which is a plus.

To be honest, G&D bagels are like my tute essays, full of loose arguments and random musings, individually amazing, but heedlessly lacking in unity when combined. This time I got Tuna melt: first rate fillings, second rate bagel. Biggest turn-off was its density: too loose, not crispy and not chewy. I was also hoping that there would be ice cream bagels. There were no ice cream bagels. Disappointing.

In the final hopes of bagel salvation, I went back to a reliable old favorite of mine. The venue: Art Café. The tea-time snack: a classic salmon and cream cheese bagel, stuffed throughout with cucumbers. The cucumbers were a nice touch to freshen up the saltiness of the fish, balancing out creamy thickness of the fish and cheese. Bagelwise, it’s there, chewy crust and dense interior. Toasted to perfection too: just warm and crunchy enough to hold everything in place. Perfectly balanced, as all things must be. It also comes with salad and coleslaw on the side, which is a nice touch, and rectifies the error in over-filling made by Alternative Tuck Shop. The final verdict: a strong old bagel.

1...613614615...2,515Page 614 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