Monday, May 12, 2025
Blog Page 62

Hundreds rally in Oxford for ‘anti-fascist protest’

Jacob Newby
-
0
Hundreds rally in Oxford for ‘anti-fascist protest’

Around two hundred people attended an “anti-fascist protest” today near Oxford’s Carfax Tower amid national far-right protests sparked by the fatal stabbing of three girls in Southport. The rally was organised by Oxford Stand Up To Racism and Oxfordshire and District Trades Union Council.

The rally began at 4pm in Cornmarket Street. There is no far-right protest yet, but there remains a police presence.

Chants include “throw the fascists into the sea” and “there are many many more of us than you”. Protesters carried signs calling to “stop the far right” and to “smash fascism & racism by any means necessary”. Several Palestinian flags and one Communist Party flag were also flown.

Shermar Pryce, an Oxford student who attended the rally, told Cherwell that “troublemakers decided to stay home” and the rally was a “passionate demonstration denouncing racism, fascism and other related ideologies.”

An Oxford student who advertised the rally told Cherwell: “Our very own Oxford University has led to these riots. We Oxford students must examine our predecessors’ complicity in this before we replicate their shameful bigoted propaganda.”

Various University of Oxford bodies, including the Philosophy Faculty, Classics Faculty, Queens College, and Magdalen College, have sent out emails warning students to exercise caution when travelling in the Oxford area.

Another rally is planned for Wednesday outside the Asylum Welcome offices on Magdalen Road, organised in response to a national far-right callout for protest in the same location.

The Oxford rally is among a series of national counter protests to far-right demonstrations, which saw hundreds of arrests after riots. Prime Minister Keir Starmer today called an emergency Cobra meeting to address the anti-migrant demonstrations.

Cherwell has contacted Oxford Stand Up To Racism, Thames Valley Police, and the University for comments.

What I wish I’d known before my year abroad 

Phoebe Walls
-
0
What I wish I’d known before my year abroad 

When I started my French and German degree the year abroad felt like an exciting possibility in the distant future. Having fully settled into Oxford life by my second year, preparing to uproot my life and move to a foreign country alone was a daunting prospect. At the faculty information session, a student who had been deported stood in front of us and begged us not to follow in his footsteps — for many students the year had either been one huge disappointment or a life-changing rite of passage. I am so grateful to say I think mine was the latter. So, what do I wish I’d known before embarking on my year abroad? 

Visas are a nightmare

Firstly, I wish somebody had warned me how terribly difficult it would be to obtain a visa. If you’re not lucky enough to have an EU passport, I would recommend starting the process as early as possible to not fall at this first hurdle. The TLS website regularly purges applications so make many copies of your documents and keep them well organised. Turn to other students for support, the faculty will be unable to help you. 

Socialise creatively

When I arrived in a small town in the South of France, I was hit by a foreign feeling forming in the pit of my stomach. It takes some time to adjust to your surroundings but creating your support network will ensure that you don’t end up spending your year abroad hauled up in your room before returning to the Taylorian to scaremonger the year below. 

Making friends is more complicated than at university. Be open to leaving your comfort zone. I joined a Nordic walking club and socialised with seventy-year-olds, all fit as fiddles and brimming with life experience. My French also improved from attending Bachata lessons. Attempting to follow sensual choreography and dancing with grumpy French men did leave me holding back tears in my first class but dance quickly became a part of my weekly routine. Putting yourself out there is important but so is embracing your inner lone wolf. I had a lot more free time on my hands without Oxford’s whirlwind terms. It’s of course important to recharge your batteries at home but try to pluck up the courage to take yourself out to the cinema or the pub. Immerse yourself as much as possible in your new town or city. 

Send some postcards

I worked in a French secondary school in a beautiful, small ancient town called Orange, a much smaller place than I’d ever lived. This ended up being a blessing in disguise. When I visited friends in Paris it was as though the waiters could tell I was foreign before I even opened my mouth and immediately switched to broken English. This was not the case in a smaller town. I liked being a regular at my favourite café and sitting with a 2-euro glass of French wine, watching the world go by and writing my postcards. Please do send your Oxford friends or old flames a postcard, it’s a dying art. 

Get swiping

Speaking of romance, the best advice I could give would be to go on a date in your second language. In our increasingly digitalised world, it’s simple to swipe your way into a bar with a foreigner. If you can find a love interest who speaks poor English, you will come on leaps and bounds. A French man will keep you humble and correct your elementary grammar mistakes and poor pronunciation. Finding yourself finally able to crack a joke in French and translating his favourite English songs into French over a nice bottle of red wine will be the most fun you’ve had in a while. 

Allow yourself respites from your language

Although my language skills benefited the most from interactions like these, I also met some friends for life from closer to home. I arrived in France, adamant that I did not want to waste my year, in a British bubble. I would stand by the fact that only socialising with English speakers is an easy trap to fall into. However, the year abroad will be full of ups and downs, it is so nice to be able to turn to an English speaker for advice. Coping in your second language is invigorating but draining and connecting with people in the same boat will keep you afloat. 

Enjoy it. Oxford’s not going anywhere. 

Finally, I wish someone told me before my year abroad that it would benefit me to have a break from Oxford life. There’s a lot of negativity surrounding leaving as well as pressure to make it the best year of your life. The year abroad really is what you make it. My days in the library feel like a distant memory but a break from the Oxford bubble has left me feeling refreshed and ready to hit the books again for my final year. 

Imran Khan to run for Oxford Chancellorship from jail

Roy Shinar Cohen
-
0
Imran Khan to run for Oxford Chancellorship from jail

Former Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan will be running for Chancellor of Oxford University, his team told Telegraph. Khan, who is currently imprisoned in Pakistan, has yet to make an official announcement. 

Khan was a student at Keble College in the 1970s, studying Philosophy, Politics and Economics and serving as captain of the Oxford Blues cricket team. He later became a professional cricket player.

In 2018, Khan became Prime Minister of Pakistan, running as a nationalist and promising to fight corruption. His tenure ended in 2022 when he lost a vote of no confidence. Earlier this year, Khan was sentenced to a total of 14 years in prison for various charges.

Charges of leaking state secrets and un-Islamic marriage have since then been overturned, while a corruption case remains in trial. A UN human rights working group stated that Khan is under “arbitrary detention” and called for his release.

The Chancellor is the University’s ceremonial head who fulfils formal duties such as presiding over ceremonies, fundraising for the University, and representing it. Lord Christopher Patten has been the Chancellor of Oxford University since 2003 until his retirement.

Last month Patten told Cherwell that “I think all [the University] is trying to do now is to ensure that the [candidates] who are put forward meet certain, very general, reasonable specifics: that they represent what’s established in the law about equality and so on, that they’re respectable, that they’re serious.”

Unlike previous elections that took place at the Sheldonian Theatre, where Oxford graduates in full academic dress casted their vote in-person, this election will be held online. The University also announced that it would not screen candidates following initial controversy over whether candidates will be selected based on identity or ideology. Candidates cannot be current students or employees of the University, nor candidates to political office.

Online voting for the next Chancellor of the University of Oxford will begin on 28 October and will take place throughout the third week of Michaelmas term.

A spokesperson from the University told Cherwell that the press office “won’t be commenting or speculating on candidates while applications remain open.”

Politics on the Edge by Rory Stewart review – “The prime minister we never had”

Hassan Akram
-
0
Politics on the Edge by Rory Stewart review – “The prime minister we never had”

This is a marvellous book, a memoir of Rory Stewart’s nine years in Parliament, and its greatest flaw is that it is not long enough. The original draft was 220,000 words long, and included chapters on Yemen, Libya, Covid policy, populism, and ethics in politics, all of which have now been cut. What remains is nonetheless a work of rare and great power. Stewart writes graceful and lucid prose, and his gifts for simile and character suggest that we lost a novelist where we gained a diplomat, professor, podcaster, and politician. He also possesses the novelist’s skill for showing rather than telling, and at a time when there are so many books telling us what is wrong with Parliament or why the Conservatives were such a mess, this candid firsthand account of the years 2010-19 is invaluable.

By conventional measures, Stewart’s political career was a failure. He did not become Prime Minister; he never held a Great Office of State. But a glance at his record in the offices he did hold – Minister of State for Prisons, for instance – reveals a deeply committed man with the ability to tackle huge problems when given the manoeuvring-room to do so. Some of the greatest politicians, moreover, transcend the posts they hold, and are remembered hundreds of years after the more conventionally successful ones have been forgotten (compare the reputations of Edmund Burke and Augustus FitzRoy). Stewart will be remembered as one of the greats, and the strength of his writing and intellect are such that historians of the future will use this book as a resource, certainly more than they will use, say, Ten Years to Save the West. 

One of his gifts is for perceptive character sketches. Nearly every politician of note is observed here at close quarters and is shown to be comic and grotesque. David Cameron, with his pink cheeks and breezy ignorance, is a harbinger that “the party of Winston Churchill was becoming the party of Bertie Wooster”. Of Boris Johnson, the book’s great antagonist, nobody has ever produced a better physical description:  

“His hair seemed to have become less tidy, and his cheeks redder… as though he was turning into an eighteenth-century squire, fond of long nights at the piquet table at White’s. This air of roguish solidarity, however, was undermined by the furtive cunning of his eyes, which made it seem as though an alien creature had possessed his reassuring body, and was squinting out of the sockets.”  

Stewart foresaw in 2019 that Johnson would “rip the Conservative Party into pieces, unleash the most sinister instincts of the Tory right, and pitch Britain into a virtual civil war”. The pair’s final confrontation over the keys to No. 10 is presented here a tad too theatrically considering that it was only a BBC debate, but this is forgivable because, undeniably, Stewart was right. The last five years and, by extension, the next twenty, would be very different if he instead of Johnson had become Prime Minister.  

As I say, Politics on the Edge is a book that shows rather than tells, and it allows us to infer for ourselves what is wrong with the modern structure of politics. We must be careful not to over-generalise from the experiences of one man, and it should be noted that Stewart neither gives any solutions to the biggest problems he describes nor sets forth anything like an ideology; but as far as I can make out, some of the most pressing issues that he raises are the following: 

The selection system for parliamentary candidates – This is utterly dysfunctional, favouring a very specific kind of party loyalty rather than actual talent; it was due largely to luck that Stewart slipped in through the cracks and got himself elected.  

The toxicity of Parliament – Stewart describes “more impotence, suspicion, envy, resentment, claustrophobia and Shadenfreude than I had seen in any other profession.”

Psychological effects on MPs – When a released prisoner ends up committing rape and murder, it is the Minister for Prisons who must face the grieving families and accept official responsibility. In the case of the family of a manslaughter victim, he must also carry out the horrible duty of explaining why the offence cannot be punished as murder. These are only two examples of episodes that could be psychologically scarring, and Stewart discusses them openly and sincerely. 

Pleasing the press – Stewart and other MPs who make the tiniest errors or misspeaks must put up with abuse and misconstructions from keyboard warriors and press across the country. Politicians have always had to put up with the sneers of a hostile press, but nowadays publicity has been prioritised over policy to a quite unprecedented extent. Policies are chosen less and less for the sake of their own merits, and more and more for the sake of pleasing the tabloids and opinion polls. Stewart also admits that some policies can only be carried out by certain parties: only the Tories, for instance, can push through sentence-reduction laws which coming from a Labour government would have been attacked by the media as “soft on crime”.

The party line – For the most part, MPs must dance to the party whip. Realism and intellectual honesty are very difficult under a party system. On the passage of legislation, Stewart writes: “Even the most rebellious MPs, famous for their obstreperousness, voted against the government in perhaps only five votes out of a hundred. All of which raised certain questions about the theory that MPs were independent legislators, carefully scrutinising laws.” 

Talent blockage – With ministerial appointments, such things as talent, enthusiasm, and expertise seem practically unheard of. Having applied for a position on a committee that he was passionate about, Stewart was refused because “the whips had apparently been told to exclude anyone with an interest in a subject from a bill committee, for fear they would ask awkward questions.”  

Sheer powerlessness – This, perhaps, is the most problematic of all. Much of Stewart’s growing desperation is at how ideas are stifled and no fundamental change can be enacted, owing to the mental bankruptcy of ministers, an immovable civil service, directors-general who can block any initiative, and other practical constraints such as time. “Every day made me more and more conscious of how difficult it was to achieve any fundamental change.”

***

There is one more thing which in a book of this kind is essential. Beyond style, observations, and characters, the most important quality of a memoir is the personality of the author. It should shine through on every page. It should leave a lasting impression afterwards. It should be the one element which above all makes the book worth reading. Politics on the Edge meets all these criteria. Stewart is thoughtful, compassionate, and honest, with an eye for detail and a mind for solutions in government. In a Parliament and more specifically a party filled with hundreds of bleating robots, he is a free intelligence, with a rich appreciation of the arts, nature, history, tradition, and cultures. He is an anachronism, not in the cartoonish sense, but because if he were referred to as a “right honourable gentleman”, it would be a fact rather than an appellation. No other modern politician could say without irony that he believes in love of country, respect for tradition, prudence at home, and restraint abroad, or could give a speech containing the line that “True courage is not the opposite of cowardice, but the golden mean, between cowardice and foolhardiness.” Had he been born a century and a half earlier, Stewart might have been remembered as one of the great Victorian statesmen, a Prime Minister or a Viceroy, as well as a man of letters. As it is, however, he entered the politics of an age which punishes courage and rewards stupidity, and he must join Butler, Gaitskell, and Jenkins as one of the great prime ministers we never had.

The Conservative Effect, 2010-2024 review: “Comprehensive and damning”

Hassan Akram
-
0
The Conservative Effect, 2010-2024 review: “Comprehensive and damning”

“Overall, it is hard to find a comparable period in history of a Conservative, or other, government which achieved so little, or which left the country at its conclusion in a more troubling state.” 

It is refreshing in this book to see the Conservative government of 2010-24 referred to in the past tense. For those of us who until last week had no memory of a Labour government, the prospect of one had begun to seem as much an anachronism as the idea of a king before 2022. Now that the “Conservative Effect”, like the Interregnum, has become merely a blip in history, the last fourteen years can be studied as a historical period. That, in any case, is the aim of this comprehensive and damning book of essays, edited by Anthony Seldon and Tom Egerton. If you only read one book on British politics this year, make it this one. 

Unlike The Decade in Tory or Politics on the Edge or How They Broke Britain (all excellent reads) this book aims at complete objectivity and is written by political academics. As a consequence, it is somewhat dry and data-heavy in places, but, importantly, it has no agenda other than to evaluate the success or failure of the last administration. This has been Seldon’s aim in nearly all of his books since he wrote The Conservative Government, 1951-1955. He divides periods of government into yardsticks of the economy, health, education, the constitution, culture, etc., and by almost all of these measures the last fourteen years have been a cataclysm. 

What a record! External shocks (the aftermath of the Global Financial Crash, the Eurozone crisis, COVID, Ukraine) have been frequent and damaging; but they are no excuse for the damage that has been done. “In previous periods of crisis-bred economic and geopolitical readjustment… the most impressive prime ministers have successfully taken the opportunities provided by external shocks”. 

With the economy it is difficult to know where to begin. Austerity had one job – to get the economy fit after the Global Financial Crash – and it failed at this as well as at everything else, crushing the life from public services like juice from a raisin. High debt, low growth, and low interest have been the constants. If GDP per capita had continued to rise at pre-2008 levels, it would currently stand at £50,200; in reality it stands £10,000 short of that figure. And the last time wage growth was this slow, Napoleon was still alive. Much of the chaos is due to the sheer inconsistency of economic policy, and Labour’s apparent restoration of stable government is itself a mark of progress. 

As far as healthcare goes, if the Tories had fulfilled their promise to increase real-term spending, things may have turned out passably. In fact, the NHS went from having its highest ever approval rating with narrowing inequalities and short waiting-lists, to its lowest ever approval ratings with gaping inequalities and endless waiting-lists. David Cameron’s 2010 promise to “cut the deficit, not the NHS” deserves to be as notorious as Chamberlain’s declaration of “peace in our time”. The service has not been modernised, and remains an “analogue system in a digital age”. COVID only exacerbated pre-existing problems; had it struck in 2010 instead of in 2020, the NHS would not have struggled as badly as it has done. For the first time in over a century, and in contrast to other countries, life expectancy has stagnated, which has had disproportionate effects on some groups over others. The “Red Wall” North now has a lower life expectancy than the South, and, a horrifying statistic about non-health inequalities, almost 1 in 3 children now live in poverty. “The UK is not a good place to be poor,” begins the chapter on social and health inequalities.  

As for education, standards have outwardly improved since 2010, with more schoolchildren well-grounded in English and Maths, higher Ofsted scores, and better literacy performances in international league tables. But education is a sector which cannot be understood in terms of data and policy; it demands firsthand experience of a kind which the authors of this book lack. Anyone who has been through state education since 2010 knows that it requires a desperate overhaul; the current system is unequal, undisciplined, and anachronistic; and in effect its overarching principle remains “selection by mortgage”. What we really need is a return to the meritocracy of the Tripartite System established in 1944, but with appropriate changes to prevent the class stratification which was its unintended consequence. Also treated far too lightly in this book are tuition fees, which were trebled in 2012, and which completed New Labour’s work in abandoning the principle of free education as a right. 

“A sustained period of Conservative government would normally be expected to usher in constitutional stability.” Evidently not. In fact, Brexit and Boris Johnson made a complete hash of the British constitution by such manoeuvres as the illegal prorogation of Parliament, and even the Union itself has greatly been weakened by Tory rule. English interests and preferences have been prioritised over Scottish or Northern Irish ones, and Wales too has seen the growth of a nationalist movement. These things develop very speedily: in only a fortnight since this book was published, a United Ireland has suddenly become a more real possibility, while dreams of an independent Scotland have been destroyed as thoroughly as the SNP at the ballot box. 

If we leave aside the “culture wars” which the last government inflated beyond belief, there have been some successes with culture. Although arts funding suffered a 21% cut in 2010, it reflects well on the government that tax credits were given to struggling TV and film companies during COVID. Of the twelve culture secretaries, apparently the most committed and effective was Matt Hancock. (I always maintain that if not for his disastrous appointment as Health Secretary during a pandemic – a role for which he was completely out of his depth – Hancock would be remembered as one of recent years’ best Conservative ministers, not least because he personally has done an immense amount of work in promoting neurodiversity screening.) 

For those who want to read something other than records of Tory failure, there are some interesting chapters on the realignment of the party system and on the Tory government of 1951-64. But the facts as a whole are not pleasant reading for any Conservative voter. A paragraph from this book’s conclusion is worth quoting: 

“It is hard to see the years since 2010 as anything but disappointing. By 2024, Britain’s standing in the world was lower, the Union was less strong, the country in some respects less equal, the population less well protected, growth more sluggish with the outlook poor, public services underperforming and largely unreformed, while respect for the institutions of the British state, including the civil service, judiciary and the police, was lower, as it was for other bodies, including the universities and the BBC, repeatedly attacked not least by government, ministers and right-wing commentators.” 

For a party to fail this badly in government warrants a long, long period in opposition. Already, to judge from the civil war erupting between Braverman and Badenoch, the Conservative Party will not be electable for at least two election cycles. It is unlikely that there will be anything resembling the Whig Supremacy of 1714-60, when the Tories were in the political wilderness for 46 years – but we can hope. 

Tories trounced, but are young people really represented?

Adam Saxon
-
0
Tories trounced, but are young people really represented?

I was lucky enough to spend the night of the 4th of July in a bustling sports hall in Abingdon, working as a stringer for ITV for this year’s general election. For me – and for most current university students – this election was our first opportunity to vote. It also happened to be a historic election, with the Conservative vote collapsing, dropping to their lowest number of seats since their formation in 1834. Despite this, there are questions around how representative the new government is, for young people as well as the population as a whole. 

Make no mistake. The general election’s results, despite the headline figure of seats, were not (largely) a ringing endorsement of Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour party. His vote share is up just 1.6% on 2019, when Labour experienced their worst result in seats since 1935. Apart from in Scotland, where a languid SNP’s vote also collapsed, the increase in Labour’s vote share is largely insignificant. Starmer has won a smaller proportion of the popular vote than Jeremy Corbyn did in 2017. 

More concerningly, turnout looks to be down to record low levels. In 2019, turnout was 67.3%. This time around, turnout was around 60%, at its second lowest level since 1885. Such a collapse in tangible engagement with politics is dangerous for democracy and an alarm bell signifying widespread disillusionment, especially around Labour and the Conservatives, whose joint vote share is its lowest since 1923. 

Apathy is particularly high among young people, 44% of whom were not expected to vote in this year’s election. The youth turnout is invariably lower than that of older cohorts, but this time around a lack of inspiring policy from mainstream parties as a result of tight economic constraints is likely to have contributed to young people staying at home. One of the new Labour government’s biggest challenges will be following through with Keir Starmer’s promise to return politics to the ‘service of the people’ given that more people than ever are represented by MPs they did not vote for. 

Despite all this, it is difficult to not credit Starmer with what is an incredible achievement. He will have the fourth largest majority in parliament ever, in the first election since Labour’s disastrous performance in 2019.  He becomes just the fourth Labour leader to guide the party to a majority from opposition. As Starmer says, he has turned around the fortunes of his party, and in doing so has won them an election for the first time in 19 years. 

Starmer’s policies, though, are likely to be responsible but unpopular. Strategies like the gamble on growth will take years to see rewards (if they do at all), and there is already talk of Starmer needing at least two terms to deliver on his goals. The goal of building 1.5 million new houses, for example, will take time given it will first require the shredding of existing planning laws and extensive consultations about where ‘new towns’ will be built. If Labour fails to make significant progress over the next five years, they will be forced to accept advances by Reform UK, whose populist rhetoric thrives under widening inequality and worsening standards of living, and a Conservative Party likely to drive itself further into the extremes while in opposition. 

In Abingdon, while trying to elicit hints about who might win the constituency I had been assigned to, I got talking to some of the Green Party volunteers. They were incredibly concerned about the mounting stacks of ballot papers being placed into the baskets for the Reform candidate. Indeed, the rise of Reform when compared with that of the Greens is particularly telling. It has taken the Green Party, in its various forms, around fifty years to win four seats, considered an achievement for them this time around. It has taken Reform in its current form one election to gain over double the vote share that the Greens managed. 

This says something about the general shift of politics in the country. While the mainstream right in the Conservatives has struggled, the Labour Party has shifted to the centre, Reform has risen, and, some argue, the largest truly ‘left-wing’ party now seems to be the Liberal Democrats. There is much to be concerned about for those who see themselves as progressives.The Greens will want to build on their results, having come second in 39 seats, but as of now seem consigned to the fringes of parliament.

More important for many of us, though, is the concern of how heard young people will feel in the years to come. With more young people than ever switching to the Green Party, showing signs that they don’t feel represented by Labour, it will be important for the incoming government to show that they do take priorities like housing and the environment seriously if they wish to win them back. It is also vital that our politicians tackle the brutal apathy of many young people towards politics generally, and reverse decades of declining voter turnout at source. Such a reversal can only happen through taking the priorities of young voters seriously, and showing them that politics can make a positive difference.

OA4P encampment at Radcliffe Camera ‘disbands’

Cherwell News
-
0
OA4P encampment at Radcliffe Camera ‘disbands’

Oxford Action for Palestine (OA4P)’s encampment in front of Radcliffe Camera disbanded in the early hours of 8th July, hours after the deadline given by Oxford University. Contractors began clearing the Rad Cam lawn shortly after.

This follows 64 days of protests since OA4P first established an encampment in front of the Pitt Rivers Museum. Two weeks later, the encampment expanded to the Rad Cam lawn. After the end of term, the University began clearing the Pitt Rivers Museum site and sent out a notice that if the Rad Cam encampment did not leave by 7th July, the administration would apply to court for a possession order.

A statement from OA4P said: “In the interest of our members and of the movement for Palestine, we have decided to redirect our momentum towards other forms of action: organising, political education, and the continued growth of our coalition.

“The negotiations team for OA4P has stated a continued intention to dialogue with the University for as long as the University indicates progress on the coalition’s demands.”

Following the vacation, two dozen protesters also “picketed” at the administration offices in Wellington Square to “disrupt entry”, according to the statement.

Since the end of term, numbers at the encampment had dropped as most students returned home, with mostly graduates and postgraduates remaining.

OA4P originally listed seven demands, primarily targeting the University’s finances. The University has announced an “accelerated review” of its investment policy as well as scholarships and fellowships for Palestinians. The other demands, including divesting from arms companies and Barclays Bank, remained unmet.

In response, the University commented that: “The University welcomes the disbanding of the camp outside the Radcliffe Camera. We are now assessing the state of the lawn and what further action is required to clear and restore the site.

“The University has consistently expressed grave concern about the horrific events unfolding in Gaza. As a community, we hope for a peaceful end to the conflict, a permanent ceasefire, the urgent delivery of vital medical aid and food, and the safe return of all hostages. 

“Senior leaders of the University have been meeting regularly with a range of student and staff groups. We are committed to meeting with members of our community to understand and respond to their concerns, and consider how we can best contribute to rebuilding higher education in Gaza.”

Ebrahim Osman-Mowafy reinstated as Union President

Cherwell News
-
0
Ebrahim Osman-Mowafy reinstated as Union President

Following an Appellate Board decision, Ebrahim Osman-Mowafy has been reinstated as Oxford Union President. This follows his election victory, disqualification by Tribunal, allegations of “institutional racism”, and a walk-out in his support.

Osman-Mowafy told Cherwell that the decision of the Tribunal that disqualified him was “quashed”.

The full Appellate Board report has not yet been published.

At the end of last term, 17 Union committee members delivered a list of demands, including the reinstatement of Osman-Mowafy, and threatened to resign. Dozens then walked out of the Union debate.

Earlier that week, the Union’s three governing bodies – Consultative Committee, Standing Committee, and Secretary’s Committee – each passed motions declaring the Union “institutionally racist”.

Osman-Mowafy alleged that a Clerk made Islamophobic comments regarding hijabi women. Several ex-Presidents of colour and top officers signed letters stating that the Union has been overly litigious and those proceedings have been “disproportionately targeting individuals from non-traditional backgrounds.”

A ‘golden age’ for Oxford: In conversation with Chancellor Patten

Julia Amann
-
0
A ‘golden age’ for Oxford: In conversation with Chancellor Patten

Lord Christopher Patten has been the Chancellor of Oxford University since 2003. Before that, he acted as the last Governor of Hong Kong and as Chairman of the Conservative Party. 

In February 2024, Lord Patten announced his retirement from the Chancellorship;  intense media speculation about which British public figure might take over his role ensued.

Cherwell sat down with Lord Patten to go over his time as Chancellor, how the University has changed over the last two decades, and what it represents now. 

The Chancellor discussed his concerns with the future of higher education funding; the power of donations; western universities’ relationship with China; and the changing demographics of Oxford students.

Oxford students hear a lot from the Vice-Chancellor, but don’t get to interact as much with you. What is your role? What does your day look like? 

I do all the ceremonial stuff but I suppose I’m here, twice a week, sometimes more doing things at colleges. Sometimes fundraising, sometimes anniversaries. I do quite a lot of fundraising. Harold Macmillan, who was Chancellor when I was undergraduate, told me it’s the Vice-Chancellor who actually runs the university – but if you didn’t have a Chancellor, you could never be a Vice-Chancellor. I suppose the most important executive thing I do from time-to-time is chair the committee that chooses the Vice-Chancellor. 

What are some notable moments from your tenure?

It’s been really lucky that I’ve been Chancellor during a golden age for the University. You think about the scholarships, [and] everything from vaccines to huge numbers of academic and research successes. While I’ve been Chancellor, we’ve raised, I think, about five billion in private philanthropy. We’ve got some wonderful scholarships, you know, which helped to open up [Oxford] a bit for kids from disadvantaged backgrounds or disadvantaged schools. At the same time, it hasn’t distracted from the fact that its most important role is teaching its students. So I’ve been really lucky. 

On that note, Oxford has been the subject of some criticism that the donations they take don’t always align with the University’s values. 

There’s an academic committee, which decides what sort of collaborations we should have. Four or five years ago … we turned down a huge research collaboration with Huawei, for example. If you’ve got some rogue, who’s made a lot of money out of something dubious, we normally wouldn’t take the money. It’s happened once or twice … I think we are pretty careful.

Unlike America, you don’t have legacy preference [in the UK]. Legacy preference would make it very difficult for us to avoid being pushed around by the government about admissions.

You have been pretty vocal about being wary of the CCP and Chinese influence in western academic institutions.

There is a China problem. But that’s true of all universities. There are two aspects to it, one of which I think is very manageable, the other is which is more difficult. I think it’s pretty manageable to avoid taking money from dodgy Chinese interests, either universities or industry. You wouldn’t want to stop all research collaboration with Chinese universities. You wouldn’t want to stop collaboration on environmental issues, for example.

But to be doing research or receiving money from a Chinese company which is deep into surveillance technology, or is very suspect … But [that’s] more manageable than the question of ensuring that Chinese students who are here get the same liberal education as everybody else …  so we have to keep an eye on that. But I’m happy that there are so many Chinese students here. I don’t want to stop Chinese students from coming.

There has been some criticism about British universities’ dependence on international students for funding. 

I’ll tell you what makes me quite cross. Higher education is facing a real crisis in funding.

Above all, because the government doesn’t give us as much money as they should. Universities, not just this one, subsidise teaching prices. 

Look at how much [universities] get from foreign students who pay higher fees. They think it’s therefore sensible to try to attract more foreign students. And sometimes they do that by providing what administrators call Mickey Mouse degrees. If there are Mickey Mouse degrees, it’s because of Donald Duck politicians asking universities to do things which are contradictory to what they’re actually prepared to support. 

We’re lucky because we have endowments to escape that. But there are some universities which will go bust unless they’re helped by the government in substantial ways. And it’s obviously crazy if some universities have to fund research based on the income they get from well-off middle-class families in Nigeria or China or India. So I think there are really serious issues in the funding and organisation of higher education. And because we’re so much better placed than anybody else, except probably Cambridge and Imperial, to deal with them, I think we’ll have to take a leadership role [in the next few years] in arguing the case for better funding of higher education.

It seems clear that in a few weeks we might be faced with a new government. How does that play into funding issues?

I think there’s a threat to democracy if you don’t tell people they’re going to have to make future sacrifices. If you tell people it’s going to be all fine if you vote for them, and then after you vote for them they have to cut spending and increase taxes, that really undermines democracy.

I assume there’s going to be a Labour government and I hope that the next Chancellor will be able to convince them that higher education needs a greater priority.

In your 20 years, state school admissions have increased from about 52% to about 68%. Some have labelled it a British version of America’s affirmative action. To what extent should that trend continue?

I don’t think it’s that at all. I just think it’s a more intelligent approach to admissions policy, which some independent schools don’t like. If you’ve got two applicants, one of them went to a smart independent school and the other went to a comprehensive in Hackney or Sunderland, and they both have three stars, which one are you likely to give the place to? The one who’s managed to do very well despite the fact they’ve had a lousy education or education without much in the way of resources. To do that you have to be very careful. One, that you don’t assume that there is a direct correlation between independent education and the lack of social mobility. And two, you have to recognise that some kids go to independent schools because their parents make huge sacrifices.

I think you have to be quite careful that admissions policy, which isn’t a science, does take some account of the resources which those who want to be admitted here have been able to tap into.

We’ve done quite well, in opening up admissions and being more open about the proportion of BAME students and the proportion of students from socially disadvantaged areas.

The Prime Minister was talking, quite properly, about how important it was to have more maths teachers. I thought to myself, if I was debating with him, I would say that there’s no shortage of maths teachers at Winchester [College]. But I bet if you google comprehensives in the area, you’d find that there was a shortage of maths teachers, which is an argument for spending more on teaching and spending more on schools.

But then I’ve just been saying we need to spend more on higher education as well. It’s very difficult in a country … which has been rather badly governed for quite a long time. I don’t want to sound depressing, but I think we’re in a really difficult point [in time] in talking about resource issues.

There’s been controversy surrounding how democratic the elections for the next Chancellor will be, which will be held online for the first time this year. Should the process be democratic? Do you care? 

There was a certain old-fashioned charm [to the previous method]: you’d have students stand outside of the Divinity School, you’d see this queue of people waiting to vote. [At my election] I’d see my whole life in front of me. Permanent secretaries of departments, ambassadors who I had stayed around the world with, journalists whom I knew, businessmen whom I was aware of, and so on and so on. At the time, there was a lot of criticism because it was thought we weren’t keeping up with technology. And it would have been impossible to continue to argue for that today, when you can organise virtual voting with tech.

You have to have some sensible parameters. I don’t think it would make sense for us to have past MPs [as Chancellor]. I think all [the University] are trying to do now is to ensure that the people who are put forward meet certain, very general, reasonable specifics: that they represent what’s established in the law about equality and so on, that they’re respectable, that they’re serious. We were getting bloody lectures from Conservative MPs about [screening nominees to the Chancellorship]. But I’m going to have nothing to do except to say that whoever wins I’ll support. 

What advice would you give to the next Chancellor?

Enjoy it. And always try to publicly support the Vice-Chancellor. You need to support the sort of initiatives which the Chancellor and the administration want to take.

You have to get around the colleges as much as possible. You have to make a public case not just for universities as a whole, but for this one. This is one of the greatest universities in the world. You can’t look at many things in this country and say: ‘That’s the greatest in the world.’ [In Britain, we] don’t have as many of those things as we used to. Our higher education is regarded as enthusiastically or more enthusiastically in public as almost anything except the royal family, the NHS, and the armed forces.

So, I think a Chancellor has to enjoy it. Has to support the administration. Has to deal with government and external forces. And has to continually put forward the moral case for who we are.

In conversation with Moe Sbihi, the British rower ‘Stockholm Syndrome-d’ into Olympic gold 

Olivia Polito Pons
-
0
In conversation with Moe Sbihi, the British rower ‘Stockholm Syndrome-d’ into Olympic gold 

Three-time Olympic medallist, World Champion rower, MBE, the first British Muslim Olympic flag bearer: the highly decorated Moe Sbihi seems to have done it all when it comes to having a successful rowing career. I spoke to him to find out more about where it all started, and how this astounding success has affected not just his athletic career, but his personal life too. 

Moe Sbihi nonchalantly introduces himself as a “three-time Olympic medallist with one gold and two bronzes, and a multi-time World Champion in rowing”. We start at the beginning. Sbihi grew up in the rowing-crazed Kingston-Upon-Thames, with his British mother and Moroccan father, coming across the sport “by a slightly unconventional route”, spotted by Talent ID as part of their 2003 World Class Start programme, which visited schools in search of potential sporting stars. “There was a massive drive ahead of the 2012 [Olympic] Games. I just happened to be tested in the right place, at the right time,” he muses. 

As a teenager, Sbihi admits that he was “a bit of a dickhead”. On the day of testing at his “normal comprehensive state school”, all the tall kids had been warned that they had to bring their kit and take part. Sbihi explains how it so nearly could have all gone wrong: “I wanted to go and play football with my friends, so I got on the bus to the playing fields.” A twist of fate meant his PE teacher pulled back the reluctant 15-year-old and sent him off to the rowing test. “A couple of months later, they said, ‘you have all the raw parameters to be an Olympic medallist in 2012. Do you want to start rowing?’”  

I ask him about the process of becoming an Olympian. “I started rowing with the sole aim of winning the Olympic medal, and that sounds silly when I look back”, he says. “20 years ago, when I started, I was useless – I had no idea what to do.” Initially, he felt that he was going into an elitist environment – but the first few months at his rowing club started to strip back these “preconceived misconceptions”. He was also not that good. “I really struggled at the beginning – they said I had all this raw potential, and it’s great to have all the numbers on a spreadsheet, but I kept falling into the water.” 

Sbihi was warned about the difficulties that lay ahead by his coaches, who let him know “it takes a lot of hard work, dedication and motivation – and even after all of that, it might not happen. The data could be wrong, you might get ill or injured at any point in your career – not everyone is going to be a successful athlete.” 

The struggle for a seat on the boat is a tough one, “Rowing is often epitomised as the team sport, but there are 30 men and 30 women who turn up at the start of each year for 21 seats.” Nine people are guaranteed to miss out on their dream. “Between the months of October and April, you are pitted against each other – you could be taken out of the boat at any point. And then almost overnight, you’re selected into boats. You and I could have been the fiercest of rivals, but the very next day, we’re expected to be teammates in a boat, and go and beat the rest of the world.” 

Despite this, Sbihi still believes rowing is the ultimate team sport, wherein “you could have an amazing race and think you’ve just rowed the best you ever have, and still be last.” Never more appropriately has it been said that the whole is far greater than the sum of the individuals.

The rower gained media attention in the lead-up to the 2012 Games, particularly as the timing of Ramadan, a holy month in Islam, overlapped with the Olympics. “I’d never been to the Olympics, and I got more attention than any gold medallist in the rowing world”. The media became obsessed by how he and other Muslim athletes would accommodate for what he describes as a  “clash of cultures”. “Fasting is one of the fundamental pillars in the Islamic faith, and if you decide not to fast, there are consequences – for every day you intentionally don’t fast, you have to fast an additional 30 days, or you need to feed 60 needy people. It worked out to nearly five years of fasting – it was impossible.” Coming out from 2012 slightly disillusioned with a bronze medal, he decided to maintain a media blackout in 2013 to focus on his athletic performance and avoid media controversies surrounding his faith. That winter, something changed. “I was being foolish – I was one of the first practising Muslims within Team GB Rowing, and I had this platform that young Muslim kids could look up to.” 

I ask more about the sportsman’s identity, and he explains the close links he feels to two countries – Britain and Morocco. Having spent all his summers with his family there, he feels , “very, very close to the country of Morocco”. He describes the emotions tied to representing Team GB whilst having strong ties to another country. “At the start line representing Team GB with the flag on your chest, you can’t help but feel proud to be sitting in a boat of one of the leading nations in sport.” He believes some level of patriotism is necessary to be an Olympian, but the sense of team spirit is ultimately the most important aspect – “the feeling is unrivalled”. 

Sbihi has been widely recognised for his efforts and achievements, and was made an MBE in 2017 for services to rowing after winning gold at the 2016 Rio Olympics. At the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, he became the first Muslim flag bearer for Team GB. “I often talk about my journey being a fairytale from day one”, he says. 

I asked Sbihi to pinpoint the most pivotal moments of his journey, to gauge how he perceives his career and personal life. He identifies his parents’ encouragement to “see the journey through” when he was young as fundamental to his later success, despite the fact that he “hated rowing” when he first started. His mental shift by the end of 2013 was formative to his later success, during the period of his media blackout, which he candidly describes as “one of the most difficult years in terms of mental fortitude”. He reveals the reality that “I became World Champion in 2013. But I didn’t speak to my teammates for weeks and weeks. I felt like I was going off the rails and trying to rebel against all kinds of institutions.” But he was stuck, “I was expected to be the best, and so I had to change my mindset.” His personal development did not stop here – as the rower continued to succeed, he describes how his father’s illness in the run-up to Rio, and the birth of his child, made him realise “you’re not rowing just for yourself, but you’re rowing for others”.

Progress is not linear, Sbihi points out. “Getting the gold medal is probably one of the biggest hand brakes you can ever get as an athlete,” he admits. By 2016, he was the person to beat, without knowing if he could live up to his prior success. He points out that he feels lucky to have won multiple medals, but that the hunger for success has never quite been suppressed. “I still don’t feel completely happy after the career I’ve had. You can always look back and think that something could have gone better. I applaud the athletes that are able to get one gold medal and then just leave the sport, because the ‘what ifs?’ are still running through my head now.” 

He leaves me with this final reflection: “I didn’t like the sport, but I fell in love with the sport. It wasn’t, you know, love at first sight – Stockholm Syndrome is probably the best way to describe it”, he jokingly concludes. The sporting star has indeed achieved his position via rather unconventional means, coming across his talent unwittingly as a teenager, and dealing with questions of fame, faith and patriotism since. He has challenged what it means to be a British Olympic rower, upholding his complex identity and becoming a role model for many, through his impressive integrity and hard work. 

1...616263...2,493Page 62 of 2,493

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