Saturday, May 24, 2025
Blog Page 629

The UCU strikes, one year on

0

February 22nd 2019 will mark one year since the start of the university strikes against pension cuts. The strikes were the biggest in UK higher education history, bringing 42,000 staff onto the streets in protest. Nearly 575,000 teaching hours were lost, and more than a million students were affected. The UCU (University and Colleges Union) brought 61 universities to a complete standstill.

Among students, the strikes were often reduced to an inconvenience, with lecture schedules in disarray, labs cancelled, and streets blocked. One Oxfess labelled the strikes “pointless”; another begged that those striking “kindly [f**ked] off”. The motivations behind the strike seemed complex and inaccessible, the results unclear and non-specific.

But for staff, the strikes were necessary, an essential response to the new pension plan, set by the USS (University Superannuation Scheme Trustee) and decided by the JNC (Joint Negotiating Committee between the UCU and the USS). The plan, proposed in late 2017, would have changed the pensions of the vast majority of those working in higher education, demanding higher contributions and forcing an end to defined benefits (among other changes, including the removal of the 1% match on the USS Investment Builder). In short, the new plan offered a lower pension at a higher cost. The UCU predicted that pensions could be cut by £10,000 a year during retirement.

“The pension issue created this great fury and strike and dispute,” Peter Hill, the former Oxford UCU president, explained. “What was proposed at the start by the USS was a big cut to pensions in one go. This was not just an incremental year-on-year gradual erosion of benefits.”

In Oxford, the experience of those striking was unique. Their impact was both assisted, and inhibited, by the way in which the university functions. They were assisted because the University’s Council Secretariat (also known as Congregation, a kind of parliament for university staff) met during the action, and voted to maintain current pension standards, regardless of the USS decision. On the other hand, none of the colleges “recognise” the UCU, meaning staff could not strike against the college parts of their contract. College teaching had to continue. Hill’s frustration was clear: “It’s a problem, it’s something we have tried to raise many, many times, but the colleges are a law unto themselves.”

Oxford’s UCU, and its members, still feel the impact of the strikes. Hill talks of the growth of the branch (“over 50% in terms of numbers”), while Svenja Kunze, the Vice President, refers to a “renewed energy”, with people “becoming more engaged with the union and taking part in all kinds of working groups and campaigns.” “During the strikes themselves,” Hill adds, “you had lots of academics coming together and talking to each other in ways that hadn’t really happened before and a collective spirit of getting together and discussing common problems.”

The energy and passion stirred up by the strikes enabled the branch to strengthen their representative structure (whereby their members can choose to become a point of contact for specific groups or departments in the university). It is now the biggest in the UK. The branch is also using its energy to involve itself with the creation and development of national policy; to this end, Jaya John, the current president, explained, the branch has “been calling twice as many general meetings as usual.”

Work by groups such as Oxford’s UCU has meant that national policy has experienced rapid development in the past year. Following the strikes, the USS and UCU organised a Joint Expert Panel (JEP) which reassessed the valuation of pension schemes and looked for the best way forward. The JEP considered the two opposing positions. The USS had argued that the pension fund would cost more to maintain in future, because it wanted to invest in low-risk (more expensive) ventures, after a consultation with universities. This meant it would require higher contributions from staff (and from employers). However, the UCU urged the USS to keep its funds in high risk (less expensive) ventures, so that their level of contribution would not need to change. The JEP supported the UCU position.

In a statement on the JEP’s decision, the USS commented: “There may well be areas where our opinion and understanding differs from that of the panel but we will want to reflect on the report in due course. The views of stakeholders will also be required before we can derive any conclusions.” They added: “Ultimately, its proposed solutions reflect the panel’s terms of reference, but would require employers to take on higher levels of risk – and to pay higher contributions – than has been expressed to us to date, through the valuation process… Unless and until an alternative has been agreed, consulted upon, and implemented, cost sharing remains the default process for addressing the regulatory and legal obligations of the 2017 valuation.” The full statement can be read on the USS website.

The JEP’s findings are currently under consultation. If accepted, employees and employers could avoid any increase in contribution, and any loss in benefits (the UCU’s ideal, and official, position, known as ‘no detriment’). The University was unwilling to comment on the consultation but did release their response: an uncontroversial and ultimately meaningless statement that it hopes to avoid “the significant contribution increases currently expected” and welcome the USS actuarial valuation in March.

This year, however, the focus has shifted onto pay. Many staff have lost “pay due to sub inflation and pay rises over the last ten years”, John explains. Hill added, “Workload is rising while pay in real terms goes down. It shows you how university managements tend to undervalue the labour that university employees are putting in. Redressing that balance is the main agenda the national pay dispute at the moment.” John also suggested that the “increased marketisation of the sector,” had led “vice chancellors to build more buildings and facilities” rather than investing in staff and teaching for university students. “People make the university,” Kunze said, “they should be valued for the work they do.”

The national pay dispute also aims to address pay inequalities and the casualization of university contracts. A previous Cherwell report highlighted the problem of casualization (when university staff are moved onto casual or short term contracts); 76.9% of academics were in precarious jobs as of 2016, as opposed to the national average of 50.9%. The gender pay gap is a similarly significant problem: in 2016, Oxford’s male academics earned an average of £7,626 more than women (well above the national average of £5,983).

The gender pay gap also varies between colleges; at New, it is reported to be as high as 24.3%, while at Magdalen, female staff could expect to receive just 2% less than their male counterparts. But there are other disparities to be addressed: as Kunze noted, “once we have all the methodology and all the data, we are extending that to look at other pay inequalities [such as] the ethnicity pay gap.”

The dispute itself follows a series of meetings with the University and College Employers Association (UCEA), with whom the UCU negotiates pay. In such meetings, John claimed that “the employers negotiate[d] in bad faith” and described the pay offers as “very low, much lower than inflation” (a view strongly rejected by the UCEA, who instead described the meetings as ‘constructive’, and the pay offer as ‘very good’).

This isn’t the first time that negotiations between the UCU and the UCEA have gone sour. The UCU went on strike against their employers in 2011; they also called for a marking boycott, following a failure to provide a “proper pay offer for 2013-14.” The tensions are historic, the implications significant. But if the UCEA will only negotiate fairly when, as Hill says, they are “conscious of the possibility of strikes on the other side of the negotiating table”, then what choice do the UCU have? As John explained, “we don’t want to harm people’s teaching and learning. But at the end of the day to make the sector sustainable in the long run, we are regrettably arriving at this through the intransigence of the employers.”

We are all invested in an effective and sustainable higher education system, Hill agrees, “it’s not like we have any malicious wish to damage people’s education, but I think some university managements and governance in the past have been fairly successful in driving a wedge between student bodies and staff on that kind of issue, and I think it’s important to see the common interest in a fair and sustainable higher education sector between staff and students.”

If the ballot calls for it (with more than half the votes in favour), there could be further higher education strikes in March or April following the end of the ballot on 22nd February. But industrial action would only be possible as long as the strike ballot was open, meaning that it could occur any time up to six months in the future. As John comments, there would have to be a “national conversation about the best time to strikes.”

The risk with such strikes is that student opinion moves against university staff, particularly following the long strikes last year. Strikes, necessary to the achievement of change, become vilified. John emphasised the significance of student support, saying: “I’d like to take the opportunity to say thanks so much to everyone for your support during the USS strikes, it made such an important difference to us to know that we enjoyed your support. It takes quite a vision of not just “what’s happening to me and my degree and this time?”, but to take a step back and say that that’s important for the whole sector, that’s a vision you can’t always count on, so it’s very much appreciated.”

Heading into February, we are on the verge of great change. The strike ballot is open, the pensions consultation is in process. The pay gap, pensions and the casualisation of contracts: the situation could be completely different by the end of the month. There is the opportunity to enact a huge shift in the way in which university employers treat their staff, academic or otherwise. All that there’s left to do is wait, see and support.

Who can afford such an indulgence: Cheap shots at expensive degrees

0

Last week, The Economist took it upon itself to settle once and for all the debate around which of your mates ‘does a real degree’, which can usually be found bubbling away on Oxfess. ‘Graphic Detail’, a data analysis feature which has previously considered “the retreat of global democracy” and “which countries are most likely to fight wars”, was dedicated on January 26th to a brutal assessment of Oxbridge graduate earnings, summarised with the tagline “high-scoring students leave £500,000 on the table by eschewing economics”.

Noting that undergrads at “elite” universities are more likely to study purely academic fields, the article suggests that “employers treat a degree from a top university as a proxy for intelligence”, allowing Oxbridge students with non-vocational degrees to “squeak by financially” on the prestige of their alma mater.

The giddy attacks on an elitist Oxbridge, kept afloat by “rich parents” whose progeny can afford to turn their noses up at an economics degree for a trifling a half-mil per year, are made in a strikingly personal, even hypocritical manner, reducing the issue to a caricature at the expense of any considered or original commentary on the access issue.

The data is there, but it’s swaddled and distorted by condescending, sarcastic language, with attendant implications of a baselessly snobbish Oxbridge that is painted in rich and scathing detail across the piece.

The economics degree is constantly referenced as a benchmark for financial security, the ‘responsible’ choice of qualification; the reader is invited to deplore the injustice that an average Cambridge arts grad earns the same as an economics student at “less exalted” Hull, solely on the merit of their institutional privilege. Having warmed up with subtler potshots like this, and the reference to Oxbridge attendance as a “proxy” for rather, than evidence of, intelligence, the author throws restraint to the wind and informs us that “Oxbridge students can pretend to read “Ulysses” for years and still expect a decent salary”. From here, the article descends into berating arts students with good A levels for not applying for more lucrative- you guessed it- economics degrees.

It seems The Economist is unable to grasp the concept that not everyone wants to study their namesake discipline or that some people select their degree for reasons aside from “employability” and their future salaries.

This extreme lack of nuanced perspective extends to its treatment of student demographics. Oxbridge has real and continuing access problems, especially in the humanities, many of which are best applied for with A-levels now available only in private schools, closing the opportunity to study them off from all but the most privileged elites.

Despite positioning itself as an enemy of institutional elitism, the article encourages the narrow view that ‘only poshos take Oxbridge arts degrees’, an exclusionist line that undermines efforts such as #ThereIsAPlaceForYouHere and theTarget mentorship programme.

By leaning on such discouraging stereotypes, and neglecting any mention of students who aren’t “from richer parts of Britain”, the piece helps to perpetuate the problem it outwardly criticises.

In depicting Oxbridge as a den of pampered toffs who can neglect practical qualifications in favour of sponging off daddy, the author implies that students rely on the nepotism and privilege of their upbringing, to which their university is an accessory. While unfortunately this stereotype has roots in truth, it’s certainly not limited to Oxbridge.

Look at the current Duke of Westminster, with his £9bn fortune and 2.1 in Country- side Management from Newcastle. Here, once again, the article stumbles over its maddening inability to understand that not everyone wants to study economics. Ever ready to criticise humanities students’ poor financial judgements, the author refuses to acknowledge that for people with a passion for the humanities, studying at a prestigious university is the more ‘pragmatic’ financial route, and that an Oxbridge degree might actually be a means of increasing, rather than squandering, one’s hypothetical salary.

Instead, the fact that Cambridge arts grads earn £26k more than their contemporaries at Wrexham Glyndwr is used as a belittling comparison to the £44k gulf between Cambridge economics grads and those of Salford.

The article utterly ignores the possibility that less privileged students might be interested in the arts as well, erasing them from the debate and further en- forcing the exclusionary stereotype. The piece offers one patronising concession to the foolhardy, spoilt arts student. While many such feeble-minded individuals “would struggle to crunch numbers”, the few who can, but have chosen not to pursue this to degree level, are castigated for wasting their intelligence on the humanities – the final nail in the coffin for the piece’s implicit suggestion that humanities student are intellectually inferior.

The case for human extinction

0

“A person would have to be delusional to appreciate existence”,“life is a net negative” and “existence perpetuates suffering” is just some of the festive wisdom Diane Brandy imparted on me over the Christmas vac. No, she’s not an Oxford student in the grips of a pre-collections crisis: she’s a subscriber to the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT).

The VHEMT, as Vonnegutesque as it sounds, is essetially an environmentalist movement, albeit with a slightly darker premise than going veggie or litter-picking. It has its roots in the ‘60s and ‘70s, when nuclear testing and use of carcinogenic insecticides by the U.S government spawned the likes of Greenpeace, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The movement was given its name in 1991 by Les U. Knight, its most high-profile activist to date; even his name, if you say it quickly enough, is a piece of subliminal propaganda. One of the most common rumours which swirls around the VHEMT is that it’s a suicide cult – it’s not. It’s not even an organisation, let alone a cult. Voluntary-human-extinction is a philosophy, set of beliefs, lifestyle more than anything else, revolving around stewardship of the planet. What are the tenets of the VHEMT? Is there some truth in the movement’s beliefs or is it just nonsensical pessimism? Does it actually offer a solution to environmental issues?

The movement’s tenets are hard to define; they don’t really have any. The VHEMT isn’t an organisation, it’s a disorganisation. Its lively Facebook community, with nearly 9,000 members, hasn’t accepted anyone new in 2 years. Its website hasn’t been updated since its creation – the formatting is quite medieval. The movement’s official newspaper, ‘The Exit Times’, was discontinued in 1994, after only three issues. In short, there is no definitive list of the movement’s beliefs. The Facebook group is a forum for everything from articles entitled ‘If Spiders Worked Together, They Could Eat All Humans In Just One Year’, to anti-pornography activism and contraception advertisements. Perhaps the only recurring theme which cuts through the eclectic swamp of posts is that of antinatalism. This philosophy is a convoluted jumble of anti-affirmative ethics, negative utilitarianism and Kantian imperatives – whatever that means. Fundamentally, antinatalism is the belief that having children is harmful, and thus implicitly that the Earth is overpopulated. Hence the idea of human extinction. The VHEMT’s slogan is “May we live long and die out”. But harmful to what? While many environmentalists agree humans are harmful to the Earth’s ecology, some hardcore antinatalists go a step further.

Over the Christmas vacation, I spoke to Diane “Childfree” Brandy, an avid antinatalist, vegan, animal rights activist and VHEMT subscriber from Pennsylvania. She represents many of the views on the antinatalist-extinctionist spectrum.

Diane left me under no illusion that humans are cause of environmental degradation, with statements like “the only way to spare suffering to our species and that which is done to other species by mankind is to stop reproducing” and “mankind has been harmed and harmful since the beginning”.

She’s not wrong. Despite claims that climate change is an organic process, the result of natural warming in an interglacial period, or even, ahem, a hoax by the Chinese government (as Trump has suggested), it’s irrefutable that human activity is at the crux of this environmental cataclysm. Global atmospheric temperatures are fast approaching 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, as the concentration of ‘greenhouse’ carbon-dioxide gas in the atmosphere increases. Massive anthropogenic emission of CO2 and reduction of biospheric carbon sequestration mean we are on a course to reach 2 °C above pre-industrial levels within decades.Coral reefs will ‘bleach’ and die as ocean temperatures and acidity increase, depriving millions of species of their habitat. The half-billion human beings who rely on coral reefs for protection from tropical storms, for food or employment, would see their livelihoods threatened. The global rate of eustatic sea-level rise has already decupled since the 1990s to an average of 3 mm a year, but reaching as much as 10mm in the Pacific Ocean; Asia-Pacific is home to 60% of the world’s population. Ironically, unchecked global warming could plunge north and western Europe into an ice-age. Glacial meltwater off the coast of Greenland dilutes and desalinises the water of the Gulf Stream, which gives western Europe its temperate climate, slowing it down by 20% already in the last 50 years. Humanity’s so-called stewardship of the planet has been the antithesis for centuries. Diane’s argument, which she suggests is a maxim of any antinatalist or human-extinctionist, is logical and scientifically proven. Earth and the environment would be better off without its bipedal tyrants.

That’s where the logic ended. From here onwards Diane’s VHEMT philosophy strayed from science to the realms of depressing misanthropy. I found it striking that, while she raised the issue of humanity’s impact on the environment, her focus always turned back to humanity’s impact on itself. For a self-identified environmentalist and animal activist, the human predicament seems to take surprising primacy over the environmental. Diane certainly cares about nature, and animals, having “rescued dogs and cats for over two decades”. She describes them as “vulnerable and voiceless” while calling her stance towards human welfare “indifferent”. She went on to say “It’s impossible to be vegan as we all inadvertently kill insects and mammals…because of massive amounts of animal slaughter globally and domestic pet euthanasia rates in my country alone, this is a major reason that I want humans to become extinct”.

The mention of animals and the environment seem just interlaced into, and secondary to, her belief in self-perpetuated human suffering. Diane believes that voluntary human extinction, a mass abstinence from procreation until humankind dies out naturally, would “do humans a favour” as much as it would alleviate environmental problems.

Part of this is what Diane calls the “tragedy of the birth”, a central antinatalist belief that birth and procreation is selfish and negative and that children are hauled unfairly into a world of suffering, almost as a pet for their parents to love, and receive unconditional love back. “The child’s birth, suffering and eventual death was not consensual” and “parents should be fully accountable for their offspring’s welfare and financial needs till death” indicate how in the eyes of the VHEMT, procreation is criminal. When I asked Diane how she justifies this view, she gave me her rendition of life as a hopeless struggle: “growing numbers are seeing the rawness of reality. Get up, shower, go to work after being in traffic, spend your youth in the workforce, take heed that animals suffered and were slaughtered for your meal, drive home, pay bills, resolve tension at home with the children, go to the doctor, worry and die”.

Perhaps her views stem from somewhere else entirely. When I asked about her religious orientation, she replied: “for the most part I was raised with religion. I eventually rejected it because it wasn’t logical. Antinatalism is logical”. Les U. Knight writes on the VHEMT website: “We call The Movement VHEMT, but it’s undoubtedly been given other names throughout history. None have been recorded, as far as we know.” In fact, antinatalist, VHEMT-esque thinking can be traced back to one of the oldest and most seminal texts of all: the Bible. In chapter six of Genesis, it says that “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth” and “it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth”. Then “the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth”. Luckily for us, Noah convinces God to spare his family alone. Misanthropy is an irrefutable theme in many religions, as well as philanthropy, incorporating ideas such as original sin, and cause each other as well as themselves suffering.

So why does this phenomenon of someone “losing one’s faith”exist? Diane rejected her faith out of a pessimism for humanity, refuting religion as illogical compared to the rationality of antinatalism. Yet her own ‘logical’ beliefs and some of the core ideas of religion intertwine. Some religions posit that human beings have great capacity for evil, and for causing damage, as well as for good. In believing in the former, in a sense, Diane hasn’t entirely rejected her faith. Rather, like many, her beliefs align with religion selectively. In her indictment of humans and human life, she sounds more like someone who has lost faith than a passionate environmentalist, with views as uncoupled from rationality as the Bible she calls illogical. Many of her beliefs seem more emotional than logical. Ironically, her claim that “a person would have to be delusional to appreciate existence” seems itself delusional.

But Diane’s views do not represent that of all VHEMT supporters, and certainly not those of the movement’s figurehead, Les U. Knight. Living somewhere along the Willamette River in Oregon, U.S.A., he lists his personal information on the VHEMT website. His religious orientation is “Eclectic”, drawing on the Christian Golden Rule – treat others how you wish to be treated and other “nice stuff like that”. His political stance is anarchism; not in the pejorative sense of anarchy, but rather the rejection of a controlling government and hierarchy. He describes himself as being part of the “human family” which has “over seven billion members”. He sounds like a humanist, and this is reflected in his brand of antinatalism, which he calls “pro-human”. His definition of VHEMT philosophy is a “simple train of logic, guided by love, and [arriving] at the conclusion that Gaia would be better off without humans”. He doesn’t even insist, like Diane, that “many parents are in denial over their resentment over having children”, instead saying of people who have already had children that “there is no reason to feel guilty about the past”. He summarises the role of a VHEMT subscriber as: “they don’t pressure their children to give them grandchildren and might encourage them to make a responsible choice with their fertility”. On balance, Les is almost the polar opposite of Diane: he values rather than denounces humans, takes a tolerant view towards non-antinatalists, and emits a hopefulness rather than a despair toward the human race. In this positive, less human-hating form, VHEMT appears more logical, more environmental, and less mental. In any case, the stark differences between Les and Diane’s VHEMT views show just how vague and personalised it is as a concept. The 9,000 people in the movement’s Facebook group – and perhaps many thousands of supporters worldwide – are like moths, each with their own perspective and life experience, attracted to the shining light of antinatalism. But what attracts them to it, and to Voluntary Human Extinction, can vary dramatically. Are they all attracted to it for the right reasons?

Misanthropy certainly doesn’t feel like the right reason, or the reason Les intended, for supporting human extinction. A genuine concern for the environment, does. But though Knight’s philanthropic, environmentalist beliefs are quite rational and convincing, there is a central flaw in antinatalism, and thus in VHEMT. There is an assumption that people can just stop having children. This has more than a tinge of white middle-class privilege about it. The developing world doesn’t always have the privilege of readily-available, cheap contraception. In parts of the developing world, the deficit in female emancipation means some women cannot assert control of their own biology. In countries like Uganda, where 75% of the population are in primary occupations, mostly working on farms, where state welfare for the elderly is non-existent, children are almost a necessity. Conversely, in the developed western world, it really costs to have children. A recent article in The Guardian (‘Is having five children really a middle-class status symbol?’) satirises the idea of having a higher number of children as a symbol of status. It places the cost of children at “about £150,000 a child” in the UK. Whether you think children have been commodified into ‘wealth trophies’ by an exhibitionist middle-class or not, it doesn’t matter. What matters is that parts of the developing world can’t afford not to have children, while in the developed world it is a matter of who can afford them. We have the capacity, and choice, to abstain. Financially, it even makes sense. Ultimately antinatalism is a luxury billions cannot afford, and the idea that everyone should just stop reproducing, as simply as that, feels almost pompous.

For me, the VHEMT and its twin philosophy, antinatalism,certainly contain a degree of reason. Especially when considering the toxicity of human activity to the natural world, and its major role in what feels like the insurmountable threat of climate change. Then again, any great human mission seems insurmountable…until it’s surmounted. Voluntary human extinction feels overwhelmingly defeatist. It appears a sensible course of action only for the exhausted environmentalist or the misanthropic nihilist, and seems to attract mostly the latter. Les U. Knight’s cheery environmentalist and philanthropic rationalism doesn’t change the fact that he’s given up. Anybody who subscribes to VHEMT is proverbially abandoning ship. The ship being deep ecology, sustainable living, the Paris Agreement, and technological innovations like carbon-capture storage. Les U. Knight says that parents shouldn’t feel guilty for having children in the past, because “guilt doesn’t lead to positive solutions”. Nor does admitting defeat. Though the movement is by no means organised or popular, it is international, and highlights an intensifying pessimism towards our environmental predicament. Pessimism isn’t productive, and is hardly the remedy needed to combat climate change and pressure on natural resources.

This, I suppose, is where Oxford students should come in. Allegedly this is quite a good university, and seeing as we, in our carbon-emitting, (predominantly) meat-eating existence, are part of the problem, we might as well attempt to fix it. Instead of turning to movements grounded in unproductive, self-pitying, and often very questionable philosophy, this generation needs to devise a solution, or at least a mitigation to threats such as climate change, be it scientific, social or political. It’s either that, or pick up a Slipknot album from HMV and book that vasectomy. Your choice…

Made in Dagenham Review – ‘a fight that will affect women for generations to come’ –

0

Over dinner, my friend and I both questioned whether the addition of music to the storyline, in Made in Dagenham, would trivialise the issue the musical seeks to address – gender pay equality.

Arguably, however, in director Miranda Mackay’s Made in Dagenham, the music and singing makes the characters and the devotion to equal pay more real. In their solo performances, you can visibly hear how important this issue is to them. Connie, played by Isabella Gilpin, has devoted her whole life to this cause, and the power behind Gilpin’s singing reflects this.

The music throughout is used not to trivialise but to give these women a voice, and the accompaniment of the ensemble, and band, demonstrates how Rita and the Ford Dagenham women are fighting not for themselves, but the average woman, embodied and symbolised by the ensemble. Theirs is a fight that will affect women for generations to come.

Regarding costume design, the uniformity of the outfits the working men and women in Dagenham wear are a symbol of their dependence on the Ford factory for employment. More poignantly, however, they demonstrate the unity that the women – and, indeed, the men – at Dagenham, have for one another.

But whilst the men are resigned to their ‘blue collared’ outfits, it is clear from the start that these women are fighting to break this mould. Rita’s yellow dress reflects the yellow wallpaper in her house; she is a family woman, and her fight is not only for her, but more importantly, her family’s futures.

It is evident that despite this solidarity, these women have their own unique identities. This fight may be for equal pay, but these actresses make it clear that these women are all unique. They will not be confined to the homogeneity that the Ford management want them to so desperately preside within, and they are all distinct individuals.

Ellie Thomas, as Claire, is convincingly scatty but her singing and performance are powerful. She persuades us that Claire is unashamed of who she is – she doesn’t care what the other girls, or indeed, anyone thinks. Similarly, Grace Albery as Sandra accuses Monty of being useless, but does so unashamedly with a visible tone of sarcasm. She is brash, brazen, but most importantly, she is brave.

David Garrick’s portrayal of Harold Wilson was comical (pipe and all), but he hadn’t quite got the Huddersfield accent right. Yet somehow the fact his accent was not quite right mirrored Wilson’s presence in the play – slightly out of place.

The music throughout heightened the intensity of the plot but when Wilson appears on stage, he is at odds with the music, battling with it – not embracing the music, like the other characters. This demonstrates what Made in Dagenham is all about, and what it’s not about. It’s not about politicians, or corporate slime-balls. It is about the average man. Or more truthfully, the average woman.

Garrick, as Wilson, and indeed, De Giorgi, as Mr Hopkins, Ford Dagenham’s Managing Director, play into their roles as uncaring, compassionless politicians and capitalists well. Their verbose, ostentatious displays are compelling, to the extent that the audience is determined not to like them.

But not liking them doesn’t mean we can’t laugh at them. Despite the seriousness of the topic, this production of Made in Dagenham is oddly funny, without undermining the fundamental message. That we laugh at Mr Hopkins’ attempts to appease Henry Ford, or Wilson’s womanising, is testament to the actors’ abilities to play these characters with conviction. The audience’s laughter parallels the laughter of these men in response to the request for equal pay – they trivialise it, they see it as a joke.

And the set design reinforces this. A Ford sign looms ominously over the stage for most of the entire first half, as if the eye of God is watching over these workers. It seems unlikely that these women will ever achieve the gender equality or the C grade they want. The staging decision, with a series of stairs, and a platform above, leave the management peering over the women in their uncomfortable, hot factory. Mackay’s decisions for the stage starkly shows the disparity and inequality between the men and the women.

But by the end, Rita, played by Maddy Page, has climbed the stairs, and delivers her speech to 3,000 trade union members. The positioning of Rita, and her husband, Eddie, played by Eoghan McNeils, at the end of the play is powerfully poignant. Rita is on the step above, but her and Eddie are now the same height. Her fight for equality has symbolically been achieved.

Music and the Comeback Kids

0

The year is 2007 and Take That are back, ‘Shine’ is in the charts, Mark Owen is finally getting the recognition he deserves. Later that year, the Spice Girls announce their own reunion. It’s two years since Busted split, and nine-year-old me is wondering if they will ever return. And of course, as is the cyclic nature of pop music – wanting to cling to fame and the worry of dwindling royalty cheques – these stars all come back to us, eventually.

There are a generation of young kids waiting for One Direction to return. Inevitably, they will. Probably, just as Take That did, without their Robbie. Harry Styles will push further into acting, and the other four will have to reunite, as Celebrity Big Brother has been cancelled. They will be balding, and one will probably go through a tax-scandal before we are told once more that we’re beautiful.

Despite the sell-out stadium tours and profitable merchandise, musical comebacks are never quite as good as the original thing was. I remember seeing McBusted in 2014. It was incredible, but only because they were singing the classics. Year 3000 and Obviously were highlights, but now that Busted have reformed with the original three bandmates, I am completely disinterested. I’m past diluted pop-punk now. There’s something somewhat inauthentic about musical reunions when the band themselves were so certain about their parting. The main issue when it comes to bands reuniting and returning to the musical sphere is probably not the manipulation of their fans, but the pulping narcissism it implies. There is a level of self-importance in splitting up, only to come back when, inevitably, people stop caring about you and you run out of money. Unless you are Fleetwood Mac, who disbanded in 1995, but reunited weeks later. Importantly, a band should be certain of their departure.

It’s funny, we live in a culture of wanting the ‘next big thing’, and yet these washed up stars keep on asking for our money. Claire from Steps has just released an album; it’s not actually that bad, but it’s not particularly ground-breaking stuff. Spice Girls have, yet again, announced their comeback (Even though it feels like they’ve never actually left). Even ABBA are releasing new music, and Cher is touring again. Both of which are quite exciting, the former absolutely, Cher I’m less bothered about. She was awful in Mamma Mia 2. It’s about taste, I suppose. Fall Out Boy reuniting in 2013 was possibly the most underwhelming thing for 15-year-old me who somehow managed to bypass that stage, despite the Tumblr page. But, if Oasis had reunited when I was at peak obsession, I may have burst. But they never will, and I am grateful for that. They have managed to at least hold on to some musical integrity, even if Noel Gallagher’s High Flying Birds and Liam’s Beady Eye were equally as dull as each other. It’s more authentic to stay away from the temptation to come back. When The Stone Roses returned, it was only really 16-year olds in bucket hats and my mum that cared. Even then, she wished she’d have just seen them the first time around instead.

Nostalgia is an interesting thing when we consider it with music. We don’t have to remember the songs, we can just listen to them again. Endless enjoyment can come from Spotify’s Cheesy Hits playlist. It’s not the music though, is it? It’s the memories, it’s remembering Christmas 2005 and being given a McFly album. It’s playing it over and over again until they have no option to comeback with another. Time is crucial when considering the comeback. A band must have had prominence back when they were together, and that fame must have continued whilst they weren’t together, for their reunion to have any impact. Fame is held not in sales and charts, but in fans. We all have to grow older, and we carry our favourite artists from our childhoods with us. Of course, we yearn for them to reunite; we yearn to be childlike again. The children who begged their parents for the Busted album, or the teens that flocked to the cinema to watch Spice World, become the adults who can pay for it themselves this time around.

I’m not sure if you’ll catch me at any reunion tours, or purchasing hastily put together albums any time soon. But who knows what I’ll be like when I’m 40. If, like me, you are a bit bemused by the Busted reunion, or that Spice Girls are asking for our money again (without Posh, since she’s loaded anyway), then rest assured. We don’t have to jump on any bandwagons.

OUDS New Writing Festival 2019 – A Roundup

0

The New Writing Festival is an annual event showcasing the best of Oxford’s student writing. On this week at the Burton Taylor are four full scripts hand-picked by the OUDS committee from a number of submissions. The ethos of the festival include a commitment to improving the accessibility of the Oxford drama scene. For the writers, it’s a chance to have their script performed without navigating the theatre bidding process, which can often seem intimidating to newcomers. Many of the cast and crew have never acted or been involved in a show at Oxford before, and the festival provides the opportunity to do so with additional help and mentorship from the OUDS committee.  Below, the writers have compiled their thoughts on what their script, and the festival as a whole, means to them.

LEAP OF by Jamie Murphy

Showing Wednesday at 9:30, Friday at 9:30 and Saturday at 4:30

The play was written three years ago now, so coming back to it for this project I couldn’t help but instinctively feel a little sceptical. That instinct has been proven wrong again and again. The brilliant enthusiasm of our director, as well as the immense talent of our cast and creative team have made me fall back in love with this play. And because it was written by a much younger version of myself, I have felt able to be unapologetically delighted with it. The person I am now could never have written this play – its lyricism, delicacy and quiet beauty are no longer in my lexicon. Hearing my words in the mouths of our wonderful cast has been a privilege. It’s a play about loss, belief, sisterhood, running away and flying girls. There’s no reason to be sceptical about this one. No reason at all. Come along. – Jamie Murphy 

PLAGUED by Henry Waddon

Showing Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 7:30

In mid-June 2018, I finished my last A Level exam and, in-keeping with the cliché, decided that my holiday reading should vaguely relate to my upcoming medical degree. In Cardiff Central Waterstones, I lazily headed straight to the ‘Popular Science’ stand and was drawn to a copy of HOW TO SURVIVE A PLAGUE by David France.

I would go on to read a beautiful, moving and insightful account of the realities of living at the epicentre of the AIDS outbreak, and the brave men and women who stood up in order to raise awareness about this terrifying and unrecognisable virus.
I knew that Oxford Drama encouraged a culture of trying to generate new theatre, particularly on topics about which you are passionate and engaged, and so I began to write PLAGUED, a story about how two men responded to the outbreak of an inconceivable, devastating virus. What’s more, during the era, New York and San Francisco were perceived as a safe haven for all kinds cultural experimentation, and yet these two cities would soon become razed by HIV and AIDS, an awful, ironic result of innocent liberty.
I do somewhat worry that I am behaving a complete imposter, writing about an era and location of which I have absolutely zero first-hand experience. Moreover, not being a member of the LGBTQ+ community myself, I deeply, deeply hope that my writing does justice to the genuine, authentic experiences of the characters, because this story was simply too important to not be told, and I hope I’ve told it right. – Henry Waddon

CUTTING ROOM by Arthur Charlesworth

Showing Tuesday at 9:30, Thursday at 9:30 and Saturday at 9:30

Set in the midst of the Midlands, this play is all about cuts. A single claustrophobic room with four desks, four characters taking calls, listening to a town complaining about austerity. They seem detached from the outside world – we never hear the other sides to their phone calls, and all we see is office banter. Gradually, however, things start to fall apart and their boss’ oft-repeated platitudes appear hollow. In trying to not be affected by the calls, they forget that they can be effected by the cuts. This is the first play I’ve ever written (I am not pretentious enough to call it my ‘debut’!) Nor am I pretentious enough to say it is about anything too grandiose. I chose the Midlands because that’s where I’m from – when was the last time you heard Josiah Wedgwood mentioned in a play?! Council budgets have been slashed up and down the country, and you need only step out of college to see that Oxford is no exception. Mainly though, the play is about life in an office, with every day people doing the same thing every day until it loses all meaning. It’s been fantastic seeing a thing I’ve written come together, and the directors Django Pinter, Lowri Spear, and the entire cast have done an incredible job. Hopefully they’ll be some laughs, hopefully some gasps, and I hope to see you all there. – Arthur Charlesworth

CONFESSIONS OF A COCONUT by Saraniya Tharmarajah

Showing Wednesday at 7:30, Friday at 7:30 and Saturday at 2:30

Confessions of a Coconut was created through four years of research through a fellowship during my undergraduate career at Johns Hopkins. Born in London, I always found the strong sense of community Sri Lankan Tamils held onto to be so disparate from my experience as a Tamil in the US. Furthermore, I was interested in how second generation immigrants are able to forge a connection to their homelands despite not being able to return due to forced migration. Although some parts of the play are based on my experiences (the poop bit), most of the play is based off of qualitative interviews – with some parts being even verbatim. I crafted the composite character of Geeta through interviews of second generation Tamils in London. Some felt a strong sense of identity, others did not. But, I think all agreed that, “being Sri Lankan, being Tamil, adds a bit of colour and texture to our otherwise plain, English lives.” – Saraniya Tharmarajah


The ‘one-man multinational fashion phenomenon:’ Karl Lagerfeld

0

The tsar of fashion has died on Tuesday, 19 November 2019. Fashion has lost one of its last universal talents, a master of self-staging and a pop culture icon.

In a word: Karl was everything. Karl did everything, could talk about everything, had a strong opinion on everything and lived everywhere. His work makes it impossible to pin him down. He could design a wine glass as well as a dress, he illustrated, created perfumes, drew caricatures for the German ‘Freie Allgemeine Zeitung’ but was also an entrepreneur, a film-maker and pre-eminently a master of staging.

Born in Hamburg, Germany, to the businessman Otto Lagerfeld and his second wife Elizabeth Bahlmann, Karl entered the fashion world in 1955 by winning the design competition of the International Wool Secretariat in the ‘Coats’ category. Balmain hired him as an assistant but three years later Karl moved on to Jean Patou where he designed two couture collections per year. His first collections, however, were not received positively from the conservative press. They considered the hems too short and the necklines too low, all which made his designs too pret-a-porter and excluded from couture. Later, it would be exactly this ability to transform and reshape couture as something wearable that would underscore his revival of struggling brands. But before that chapter started, he worked for Tiziani, Chloé and had various side projects, from lingerie to shoes and sweaters.

His rejuvenation of established brand signatures came to the fore in his work with Fendi in the mid-1960s. His playful attitude towards luxury pelts like mink or sable released the brand from its stale, squarish image. Instead, Karl’s ‘fun-fur’ was shaved, dyed and bound into tufts to make the renowned double F logo. The same ludic method also shaped his success at Chanel. The brand offered a virtually inexhaustible archive of visual elements for him to use: rows of shimmering pearls, camellias, oversized buttons. Performing respectful iconoclasm, Mr. Lagerfeld made the Chanel suit suitable for the woman of the 21st century and hailed the black Chanel bag as an ‘it-accessory.’

His endeavours with his own personal label never reached as much popularity as his work with already established brands – the Lagerfeld brand, started in 1984, switched ownership several times. Malicious tongues said he was only able to produce his best work within the framework of another designer’s vision. His supporters argued he was simply too busy. While others retired, Karl designed eight collections per year for Chanel alone at the age of 85. He had life contracts with both Fendi and Chanel and he abided them as a man who “designed like he breathed”, who only death could keep him from creating.

A master of visuals, he created elaborate scenes to present his fashion in the same way as he invented himself as an icon. The sets of his Chanel shows were legendary. Post-apocalyptic wastelands were followed by underwater paradises and even a fully-stocked Chanel supermarket. His one-liners are pop-culture at its finest and were even published as the book ‘The World According to Karl’. Ever a showman, Lagerfeld was never afraid to comment, even if his comments were often branded inappropriate or politically incorrect. Examples include Adele’s weight, criticising the #metoo movement and Germany’s decision to open her borders to millions of Syrian refugees. Many of his quotes turned into bon mots. His opinion on wearing sweats was critical: “Sweatpants are a sign of defeat. You lost control of your life so you bought some sweatpants.” But Lagerfeld was not above accessible fashion. The fast fashion giant H&M chose him as the first designer with whom to create an inexpensive capsule collection. It sold out in two days.

Karl himself claimed he was working towards being remembered by no one, but for someone whose tireless creativity has spanned decades, that is too ambitious an aim. After he himself paid respect to other designers’ visions for so long, it remains unclear whether the continuation of his brand will allow him to establish his own design legacy posthumously. One thing is certain: the world of fashion has lost a leading creative force. But at the same time, I am excited to see the ideas and creatives who will fill the void he has left behind.

New data reveals suspension gender gap among postgrads

0

New data shows that 8.7% of female postgraduates suspended their studies in 2016/17, one-third higher than the rate for men (6.5%). The gender discrepancy was mirrored in withdrawal rates, which were 1.37% for men compared to 1.64% for women.

The data, obtained from the University by Cherwell, reveals a consistent gender disparity in suspension and withdrawal rates over the previous 8 years.

Suspensions are when a single student pauses their study during a given year, with one student potentially accruing multiple suspension ‘counts’, in the rare event that they do so more than once.

Withdrawals are when a student completely withdraws from their programme of study. This does not include those that have been transferred to a different programme of study.

A spokesperson for the University told Cherwell: “These numbers are relatively low so we should be careful about drawing conclusions from them without understanding the context. We offer high levels of academic and pastoral support to our graduate students through their departments, colleges and central University services.

“There are many reasons why a student’s status might be suspended, including health, maternity or paternity, personal circumstances, academic difficulties and disciplinary matters. Suspension is often a voluntary decision by a student, and in most cases students return from periods of suspension to successfully complete their course.”

A History Masters student at St Catherine’s, Hannah Grange-Sales, told Cherwell: “Women are conditioned to believe they are less intelligent than men, therefore there is both a real and imagined need to work harder to be considered men’s intellectual equals.

“Girls and women are also taught from an early age to internalise ‘unbecoming’ emotions, such as anger, frustration and hopelessness.

“Considering the historic argument against women’s right to education that they do not hold the mental rigour to undertake study, there is a double pressure to overcome this stigma and maintain a facade of capability when, for a variety of personal reasons not linked to their intellect, this may not be the case.

“The increased pressure for women to prove themselves intellectually coupled with the internalisation of emotion can surely be considered a factor in the higher rate of mental health issues amongst female students.”

The overall suspension rate for all postgraduate students has also increased year on year from 2013/14 to 2016/17 from 5.98% to 7.93%, although there was a slight decrease last year to 7.5%.

The withdrawal rate has remained consistent at about 1.5%, peaking in 2013/14 at 1.82%.

There was also a marked contrast between those on research and taught postgraduate degrees, with the former having consistently higher levels of suspension and withdrawal. In 2016/17 just under 10% of research graduates suspended their studies compared to 6% of taught graduates. This figure decreased slightly to 9% last year.

Cherwell understands that the disparity in the figures could be due to the length of postgraduate research degree, which are typically three years. Taught degrees can be as short as 9 months, meaning that there is less opportunity for students to suspend or withdraw from their studies. Just under 52% of enrolments in 2017/18 were in taught degrees.

Oxford SU VP for Graduates, Alison D’Ambrosia told Cherwell: “It is a ticking time bomb the issue of graduate student welfare. With a huge increase in graduate numbers over the past several years, we have seen minimal investment in their welfare provision and support.

“From a counselling service that is only open during term time to students been pushed from college to department to seek help, more needs to be done to properly support the graduate student body. It seems that the first call of action is for students to suspend rather than tackle the causes of suspension and offer proper support for students.”

According to the SU’s recently published counselling report, postgraduate students were proportionally less likely to seek help than undergraduates, with 10.8% of postgraduate researchers and 9.2% of taught students receiving counselling to 12.3% of undergraduates.

The report added that the lower take up of provision could be due to cultural differences. In 2016/17, 64% of graduates were non-UK students.

Oxford Students join local schools in Climate strike

0

Students of all ages from Oxford’s primary and secondary schools will be joining a nationwide strike today in an attempt to put pressure on the government to change its policy regarding climate change.

The group cites an “alarming lack of Government leadership on climate change over previous decades” as the main reason for the strike.

Demonstrators are set to gather in Carfax from 11am on Friday morning.

Layla Moran, MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, has announced she supports the strike action and that she will be joining students in their protest.

The protestors are hoping to publicise their concerns over the need for action on climate change and to encourage others to do the same.

According to the UK Youth Climate Coalition (UKYCC), strikes have already been organized in over 50 UK towns and cities, in locations as diverse as Truro and Fort William.

UKYCC campaigner Jake Woodier explained that: “Youth voices are too often left out of the discussion when it comes to climate change … [It is] no longer a problem to be dealt with in the future.

“The reality is, we’re living through a crisis of humankind’s own doing, and it’s only going to get increasingly worse unless we take radical, rapid action to transition to a low or zerocarbon economy in the immediate future.”

Layla Moran commented: “Climate change is the biggest issue facing our planet, yet it is consistently ignored by Parliament and Government despite pressure from MPs.

“I support the students in their strike, though I feel saddened that they feel they have to do this to raise the profile of this issue and hope the schools see this in the positive light it is meant.

“They have my assurance I will continue to champion their cause.”

Moran, who is Liberal Democrat Education Spokesperson, also commented: “Without a doubt this strike is a pivotal moment for the students involved. We face a global crisis in climate change and I am proud to support our younger generation who have taken up such an important and principled position.

“As a former teacher I absolutely understand the frustrations that teachers and schools may have with these strikes.

“I hope schools colleges and universities see this in the positive light it is meant and equally hope those students act sensibly with making sure adults know where they are and making up the missed work.

“Time and time again we have seen the issue of climate change ignored, whether it be locally due to the ignorance of local councils who plough on with projects that will damage the environment, or the Tories’ shameful national record on climate change.”

This comes after a series of climate change strikes in other European cities, including the Hague, Brussels and Berlin. These protests were primarily made up of students, protesting against government inaction on environmental issues.

Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old Swedish student who made global headlines last summer by protesting outside the Swedish Riksdag every day, missing school on Fridays to do so, has been cited as the main inspiration for these strikes.

She has urged students all over the world to go on strike, saying: “Why should we be studying for a future that may be no more? This is more important than school, I think.”

Cherwell spoke to a secondary school student, 15, who attended a protest last week in the Hague, together with an estimated 10,000 other students. He described the atmosphere as “inspiring”, saying that he and other friends who attended are “hoping that as a result of this protest, the government will take action to improve the future for us and every other child in the Netherlands.” He added that “if [the government] don’t, we’ll be back next week!”

Although greenhouse gas emissions have been in decline in the UK since 2017, the continuation of processes such as fracking has meant that damage is still being done to the environment. Concerns have been raised about the country meeting its targets to reduce emissions by 50% by 2050, something the government pledged to do as part of the 2008 Climate Change Act.

Students all over Oxford, and indeed the rest of the world, will be hoping to remind their governments to prioritise climate change to secure their futures.

It remains to be seen how many students will turn out to strike on Friday, and how the government and local schools will respond.

Hilda’s JCR to become carbon-neutral

0

St. Hilda’s College have become the first college to pass a motion to reduce its emissions to net-zero by 2040.

Rupert Stuart-Smith, a Geography student at the college, proposed the motion last Sunday in accordance with the Paris Agreement.

The Paris Agreement, which 195 members of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have signed as of November 2018, is due to start in the year 2020.

The motion, which passed unanimously, noted the growing threat of climate change, calling on the college to reduce all emissions to net-zero by 2040; ensure all future buildings are carbon neutral; and ensure all current and future buildings are at the highest energy efficiency standards.

The University of Oxford have already expressed their interest in environmental sustainability and tackling climate change, with events taking place throughout the year, such as Student Switch Off, and the newly launched Sustainability Skills Bank.

In 2011 the University set a target to reduce carbon emissions by 33% by the end of 2021. Stuart-Smith told Cherwell, “St Hilda’s has led Oxford’s colleges in demanding that all companies in which we invest align themselves with the Paris Climate Agreement. The College must now commit to eliminating the carbon emissions associated with its own activities by 2040, as is required by the Paris Agreement.

“Our colleges aim to give us the tools to succeed in life. They must not simultaneously compromise that success through their contribution to climate change, the greatest threat to the wellbeing of today’s students.

“The unanimous support of the JCR for this motion demonstrates the conviction of St Hilda’s students to confront the challenge of climate change. We look forward to working with the Governing Body over coming months to make this goal a reality.”

With the growing concern over climate change and what we can do to help, this motion sets an impressive precedent, one that will hopefully be adopted across more colleges in the coming months.

Speaking to Cherwell, Oxford’s head of Environmental Sustainability Harriet Waters said: “Its great to see a JCR taking such a proactive stance on carbon reduction to tackle climate change. Good luck to St Hilda’s on their carbon reduction journey.”