Friday 22nd August 2025
Blog Page 634

Oxford Independent Group applies to become official student society

Ben van der Merwe
-
0
Oxford Independent Group applies to become official student society

A group of Oxford students seeking to set up an Independent Group political club have applied to the Students’ Union for recognition.

The group is part of Young Independents, the youth wing of the Independent Group – Change UK (TIG-CUK), a new political party founded by former Labour and Conservative MPs to oppose Brexit.

Five committee positions were announced on the new website of group, officially called ‘Oxford Students for the Independent Group’. Corpus Christi’s Lily McDermott is listed as President, with Rhodes scholar James Norton as Secretary, Nicole Bussey as Treasurer, Somerville’s Joe Rattue as IT Officer and former Cherwell editor Libby Cherry as Communications Officer.

Speaking to Cherwell, McDermott outlined the group’s plans for Trinity term: “We are aiming to have a meeting at the beginning of Trinity term. From then we will be organising more events, and hope to have one of the TIG MPs visit Oxford.

“We have requested to take part in the Three Party Debate hosted by The Oxford Forum and are waiting to hear back on that front.”

McDermott declined to say whether the group would campaign in the upcoming local elections and how they would differentiate themselves from the Oxford University Liberal Democrats, who share CUK-TIG’s centrist and pro-European political positions. McDermott told Cherwell: “The hope is that we are moving away from tribal politics and wish to work with parties that support evidence-based progressive policies.”

The group’s mission statement reads: “The current political system is not working. The Conservative Party has been taken over by the extreme far right, and Labour is run by the hard left.

“British politics has become increasingly polarised in recent years, and has caused public discourse to stagnate in the same hackneyed narratives which are not only incapable of the pragmatic compromise necessary for government, as the Brexit Crisis demonstrates, but have also produced an increasingly hostile atmosphere which serves only to divide the UK.

“We call for a new kind of politics, a kind of politics which unites the people, ensures wealth and prosperity, and fosters diversity and equality.”

Take it and Run – Philanthropy, The Sacklers and You

Thomas Laver
-
0
Take it and Run – Philanthropy, The Sacklers and You

Should a bad person be allowed to fund good things? Should we insist that they keep money we see as ‘icky’ for themselves, or take it in order to do enriching and real things with it? This is the crux of the debate around the money that the Sackler family – alleged architects of the Opioid Crisis – have given to a number of cultural and educational institutions through their foundation, most notably the National Portrait Gallery, which has recently refused their £1m donation. 

Be honest: if someone had asked if you knew who the Sacklers were three years ago would you have been able to answer? Would you have been able to name where they had donated to, or where might have had a museum wing named after them? As an Oxford student you might have been aware of the library that they help fund, but maybe not that the money comes from the profits of Purdue Pharma, accused by the LA Times of making their main product OxyContin deliberately addictive. It is this controversy that has led groups to call for their donations to be rejected, but to do so is simply virtue-signalling self-flagellation that ultimately harms our cultural heritage.

Opponents to these donations argue that the philanthropy of these families, firms, and individuals is simply what might be called ‘morality laundering’: a way to clean up their name and advertise their products, by associating with large cultural projects that they help to fund. But does this argument really hold? Let’s play a game: Can you name any of the sponsors or benefactors of your favourite museum? The National Gallery, the Ashmolean, or the Science Museum? And even if you knew, would that make you more likely to buy their products, or ignore their negative press? The average person would not – having seen that the British Museum has exhibitions sponsored by BP – say and sincerely believe “oh, BP fund history, maybe their oil spill stuff isn’t as bad as I thought?” 

And therein lies the crux: what these people might think they’re doing is buying some good press, but nobody in the real world actually cares. Barely anyone knows the sponsors, fewer know what these sponsors do, and fewer again are even in the position to buy from them or use their services. What is in fact happening is that these businesses are throwing their (plentiful) profits into funding galleries, museums, libraries, and the places we hold dear to our cultured society in return for… essentially nothing. Why then resist taking their money: So you can stop feeling an ‘ick’ about your Greek or Latin textbook?

However, as well as sponsorship, these ‘protested about’ individuals also occasionally act as trustees on the boards of these institutions. For those of you not au faitwith how these charitable institutions generally operate, essentially the people who become trustees have usually donated a LOT of money over time, and eventually are allowed to sit on the governing body to help with how it runs. What has brought trustees under the spotlight in recent years is the case of Warren Kanders – the Vice-President of the board of Trustees at New York’s Whitney Museum – who also happens to be founder of the arms business ‘Safariland’, leading to bouts of protests there last summer.

 Given the lack of publicity for the work that trustees do and even who they are, we can say neither that Kanders is doing this to rehabilitate his own image, or – especially given that it’s taken more than 10 years on the board for Kanders’ involvement with Safariland to become an issue – that of his company. Why then take issue with his involvement? If someone with lots of money and organisational experience wants to support cutting edge and subversive artists that otherwise might be left by the wayside, then let them – there is simply no avenue for them to take private gain from their charitable work, so no need to worry that by accepting it you are causing a greater harm elsewhere. To object to the help of trustees (financial and practical) too is therefore merely to reduce the effectiveness and quality of our artistic and educational bodies.

And this once more leads us to the one argument that therefore seems left: is a ‘bad person’ allowed to support ‘good things’ like art and education? Throughout history major advances and works have been completed with the support of autocratic rulers and ruthless plutocrats – even Da Vinci was financially supported by the Medici’s and Borgias – and yet what they’ve produced is objectively beautiful. 

There may be a case for refusing donations by those criminally convicted, but to not take the money of those just working in ‘morally questionable’ industries is to let those money-flush rich buggers become even richer for no good reason. Are we really going to insist that their somewhat morally ‘icky’ gains be kept in a Scrooge McDuck style swimming pool, or should it be used to fund cultural enrichment and academic progression as they currently are? 

But even then, another problem arises: which businesses are allowed to be philanthropic? If not arms manufacturers, then also not pharmaceuticals or oil. If not pharmaceuticals, then also not fast food or supermarkets. If not them, do we slide down a slippery slope only allowing auditors of charities to donate? The moral scale is a blurry one, and it may be difficult to stop saying no when we start turning down donations from people like the Sacklers.

If you truly believe that those donating to these organisations should have their money turned away, then you are simply virtue signalling in a way that eventually just denies the cultural sector the much-needed funds that they are simply unable to find elsewhere. These philanthropists have no real route to gain economic or publicity benefits from these donations, so to deny them the chance to donate is to only deny their right to cultural involvement, all while financially restricting these educational and artistic institutions from doing as much as they otherwise could. If you like your museums empty, your libraries deserted, and your galleries plain, then fine – enjoy your dull existence. But if you think the soul needs something other than food, drink and shelter to survive, then we have to accept philanthropy, even if it is from the Sacklers or BP. It might initially seem a little objectionable, but when examined clearly, it is most certainly for the best. 

My Cup Runneth Over

Aine Kennedy
-
0
My Cup Runneth Over

Such a sad tale prepare to hear

As draws from either sex a tear. 

A Moon Cup- meant to help provide

A green approach to the red tide-

I loathe to say, was doomed of late

Unto a dark and heinous fate. 

It boasts a flowery stem, and yet

This cup’s no shrinking violet;

While stream of Tampax seaward flows,

Refusing there to decompose, 

For years one Moon Cup may be kept

Each month to plumb the bloody depths.

Its snug fit forms a splash-proof seal 

To trap that cumbrous crimson yield

Which brings relief to those who daren’t, 

This month at least, become a parent. 

While some grab Kotex by the handful-

Condemn their liners to the landfill-

Those who want to save the earth

Must first contend with Moon Cup’s girth. 

Beware the sizing! Moon Cup yawns

As broad as silicone Don Juan.

The site warns ‘large’ had been designed

With those who’d given birth in mind. 

Once in, the Cup tenacious clings

More tightly than a liner’s wings;

And wedged securely in the breach

It sups as well as any leech. 

For umpteen hours in this pose

One Moon Cup to the challenge rose,

Resisting all attempts to boot

It from its wearer’s baby chute. 

For hours one can safely sport 

A rubbery chalice of this sort-

Alas, one wench misjudged her size

And could not wrest it from her thighs. 

‘Insert a finger, break the seal,’ 

Such wisdom did the website yield. 

But Moon Cup darted skittish back

From every digit’s bold attack:

At each touch fled, as though ashamed, 

Back to the depths from whence it came.

As hours passed, and terror rose,

Its wearer entered panic’s throes. 

Distressed by this and by exams,

Her cooch snapped shut like frightened clam. 

This tale’s conclusion hangs unknown:
Was e’er Cup from his seat dethroned?

’Tis rumoured she produced a spoon

To dig him from his bloody tomb; 

While there are voices, hushed, who say

The Moon Cup clings there to this day. 

But pay no heed to this my tale. 

Such fantasies should not prevail

O’er Moon Cup’s low-cost, waste-free way

Of coping with one’s Dolmio day. 

With time and practice, then with ease:

The cup can exit as you please. 

Disclaimer: menstrual cups can provide a sustainable alternative to single use sanitary products, but, like any medical device, should be used according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Direct any concerns to your health professional. 

Oxford Professor criticises use of gender hormones as “unregulated live experiment on children”

Christopher Sinnott
-
0
Oxford Professor criticises use of gender hormones as “unregulated live experiment on children”

Content warning: transphobia

An Oxford University professor has come under public scrutiny after contributing to a front page story in the Times criticising the use of hormone blockers on young people as “an unregulated live experiment on children.”

Professor Carl Heneghan, a fellow at Kellogg College and the director of the Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine, provided a comment piece to the newspaper as a supplement to an investigation into the Gender Identity Development Service Clinic, which the Times described as “the only NHS gender clinic for children”.

Professor Heneghan’s appeal was made on the basis of medical skepticism over the practice, writing that: “the majority of drugs in use are frequently supported by low-quality evidence about their use beyond the usual age for puberty, or in many cases no evidence at all”.

The piece to which Professor Heneghan contributed sparked a significant outrage, with prominent figures criticising the Times for its coverage. MP for Cardiff South Stephen Doughty tweeted: “It’s not just the shocking 1980s style headline – @thetimes @TimesLucy have given us a bumper edition of prejudice against the #Trans community today. Do they have *any* idea or even care about the harm this risks causing?”.

Speaking to Cherwell, Professor Heneghan stood by his comments, saying: “the development of these interventions should occur in the context of research. Treatments for under 18 gender dysphoric children and adolescents remain largely experimental.

“There are a large number of unanswered questions that include the age at start, reversibility; adverse events, long term effects on mental health, quality of life, bone mineral density, osteoporosis in later life and cognition.”

Responding to the issue for Cherwell, transgender campaigner Fox Fisher wrote: “The University of Oxford has a responsibility to make sure all students feel safe to attend the school – behaviour of this sort should never be tolerated and jeopardises the well-being of students and the integrity of the institution.

“Look at any modern research in anthropology, sociology, biology, psychology or psychiatry – all indicates that trans children benefit massively from being allowed to express themselves.”

In a public statement regarding the article, the Oxford Student Union LGBTQ+ Campaign condemned the article and urged both members of the LGBTQ+ Community and its allies to launch official complaints to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (ISPO).

The statement read: “Transphobic, fear-mongering articles being given priority in national news is unacceptable. Although the article includes information and statements from the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) that refutes its own main line of argument, emphasis is still placed upon unsupported and dangerous viewpoints.

“The prominence of this article within the issue of The Times clearly means to stir up misinformation which will exacerbate the difficulties transgender and gender nonconforming children and teenagers face in the UK.

“The article additionally relies on a statement from Carl Heneghan, who is a senior tutor at Kellogg College. His words attempt to give credibility to a transphobic rhetoric which is harmful to transgender people both within and outside of the University. It is deeply concerning that Dr Heneghan’s attempt to sow confusion about the treatment of trans children by conflating different treatment methods and rejecting information from the GIDS itself is being legitimised by the name of the University in this way.

“Conspicuously absent from both pieces are the voices of transgender people who have used the services provided by GIDS. Ignoring the perspective of the people who matter most in this issue, transgender children, is entirely unbalanced reporting.

“As such, both pieces fail to contribute to any kind of representative discussion on gender dysphoria, perpetuating only a transphobic editorial line.”

This article will be updated as we receive more information.

Reviving Retail?

Sarah Williams
-
0
Reviving Retail?

2018 was yet another bad year for retail: footfall fell for thirteen months straight until December. This, in itself, shouldn’t be much of a surprise to anyone who has even vaguely read or watched the news for the past few years. Amongst the beleaguered high street fashion brands are, admittedly, the usual suspects:  M&S features highly in reports, and the store announced only this week it would focussing more on food from now on. What’s less obvious is that retails woes have affected even those stores traditionally considered more stable.Even Topshop- a store without which no shopping trip of mine from Years 9 to 13 felt complete- has suffered this year.   So what can be done to revive in-store shopping?

A huge focus has been pinned onto the slightly nebulous term ‘ experience.’ Retail experts and stores alike are convinced the thing to revive retail is giving the consumer some kind of ‘extra factor’ in store which entices them to physical shopping. But this in itself doesn’t necessarily mark a change from what retail has always been. In a sense, the job of retail has always been to offer an experience. Shopping centres, were, in their day, revolutionary:  there, for the first time, shopping was transformed into a day out.  Alongside shops were restaurants, as well as, though somewhat less commonly, entertainment experiences; bowling, mini- golf, cinemas. As a consequence, what the  modern consumer wants is not just any old experience, but a new kind of experience.

Ways to plug this gap have been largely technology-focussed, as you might expect.  Virtual reality has been a popular starting point for many brick-and-mortar retailers, and has been put to use by companies as various as Topshop, Tommy Hilfiger, and Coach. Many opt for virtual reality in changing rooms, in some cases uses virtual reality mirrors offering consumers a way to see themselves simultaneously from all angles, or compare two outfits on them at the same time. Tommy Hilfiger’s more creative response, way back in 2015, was to enable visitors using virtual reality headset to immerse themselves in a recording of the line’s Autumn/ Winter show for that year.  There’s a reason, however, that we haven’t seen these rolled out everywhere. In the case of the latter, I suspect the virtual reality headset is somewhat jarring in the context of a high-end fashion store. We go to high-end fashion stores, or any fashion store, for that matter, to see objects of beauty. And if the objects are not beautiful – no end to the brutalist trainer trend is in sight- then they had better be cool. The problem is that virtual reality headsets are neither beautiful nor cool. With the former, we can question whether it really offers the consumer anything different to online shopping. Just how good, really, is the virtual reality mirror? And will it ever match just trying on one more item of clothing?  If there’s no change in experience, then it’s easy to see why customers won’t go the extra mile.

So what retailers are actually looking for is offering the right kind of new experience. It’s got to be something that doesn’t make the consumer feel uncool, and secondly, something that offers them something truly different to what they can get online.  The key word here is ‘exclusivity.’ In a generation that prides itself on its individualism- both in a philosophical and sartorial sense- the most successful retail experience is one that offers the consumer a sense of uniqueness; an experience that can’t be had just as easily in one town as in the next. It’s an area of the current fashion climate that has once again been mastered by Emily Weiss’ Glossier. Glossier has only two stores worldwide: Los Angeles and New York. Not only this, but each store has a different theme, maximizing the uniqueness of the  experience. It’s also worth noting that Glossier refers to its stores as ‘showrooms’; highlighting their position A) as distinct from the ordinary retail experience and b) as an add-on to the brand’s major point of sale; it’s website.

Through this method, Glossier has managed to square a circle in a way it’s not clear that older high street brands will ever be able to emulate. Glossier appeals to vast numbers of consumers. It has 1.9 million Instagram followers, and with cleansers retailing at as low as £10, its prices are not exclusive.  But it still manages, in part through clever branding, in part through retail, to appeal to the modern customer’s individualism. It would be dramatic to say this spells the end of retail;  but it might be a good indication as to which brick-and-mortar stores are going to really succeed in the coming years.

Police prevent climate activists from dropping banner over boat race

Havard Yttredal
-
0
Police prevent climate activists from dropping banner over boat race

Climate protesters from Oxford and Cambridge were searched by police on Hammersmith Bridge during today’s Boat Race. A cloth banner which read “Oxbridge Come Clean” was seized by the authorities.

The students belonged to the pro-divestment groups Cambridge Zero Carbon Society and Oxford Climate Justice Campaign. The groups claim police officers carried a notebook with them which read “Cambridge Zero Carbon”.

A similar protest went ahead last year, when climate protesters dropped a banner reading “Oxbridge Divest” and making national headlines.

Protesters told Cherwell that the police officers justified the searches with claims of protection from terrorism. Saying that the cloth banner is not an item which can create criminal damage, the protesters claim that it was not illegal property.

The twenty-metre banner, which reads “Oxbridge Come Clean”, was meant to be released over the Hammersmith Bridge by a group of approximately 40 students as the first men’s boats passed underneath. The annual boat race is watched by an estimated 250,000 spectators and broadcast live around the world.

In a statement to the media, the groups said: “If nations are to meet the urgent targets set by climate scientists, then continued reliance on fossil fuels is simply no longer an option.

“We call on our universities to use their prominence and influence for good, and lead the way in negotiating investment practices that are sustainable for the future of the natural world and human communities everywhere.

“Oxbridge – and all institutions which claim a role as ‘global leaders’ – must act responsibly in the face of a pressing crisis already destroying millions of lives in the world’s most vulnerable communities.”

The action represents the latest in university fossil fuel divestment campaigns, which have been ongoing at Cambridge for four years and at Oxford for seven.
Previous escalations have seen​ mass rallies at​ ​Cambridge’s Senate House​ and​ ​Oxford’s Clarendon Building​, and the occupations of both ​Oxford’s​ and ​Cambridge’s ​financial and administrative centres.

Oxford and Cambridge continue to invest millions of pounds in environmentally damaging industries, despite calls from staff, students and alumni to relocate these funds. The 2017 Paradise Papers revealed that the two universities were indirectly invested in deep-sea drilling and exploration, which only added to the mounting pressure in favour of divestment.

In the past month, Swansea University and the University of Stirling have pledged to divest, joining the ranks of 76 British universities who have withdrawn financial investments from fossil fuel companies. In 2017, King’s College London agreed to fully divest from fossil fuels after a student went on hunger strike for fourteen days.

Since the autumn of 2017, ​college-based campaigns for divestment have launched at over 25 Oxford colleges, and ​26 student motions​ in support of divestment have been passed within college junior and middle common rooms.

St Hilda’s​ has adopted a new investment policy requiring gradual divestment from companies which do not line with Paris Agreement carbon reduction targets, and ​Wolfson ​has divested direct holdings from coal and tar sands. Finance bursars at several other colleges are actively working towards sustainable plans with students and staff.

This article will be updated as more information becomes available.

Oxford and Cambridge universities and both universities’ boat clubs have been contacted for comment. The Metropolitan Police had no comment to make at the time of publication.

Cambridge win all four Boat Races for the second year in a row

Cerys Baines
-
0
Cambridge win all four Boat Races for the second year in a row

The women’s race kicked off first and although Oxford seemed to get a good start, soon after the Cambridge boat dug deep and pushed past the Dark Blues to gain an early lead. The Light Blues continued to extend their lead throughout the race before eventually finishing five lengths ahead of the Oxford boat with a time of 18 minutes and 47 seconds.

In a Men’s Race that had seen much publicity due to Cambridge’s poaching of two-time Olympic champion James Cracknell, Oxford seemed to have a strong smooth start while the Cambridge boat seemed quite aggressive. Cambridge did begin to inch into the lead, but Oxford were not prepared to let them get away that easily.

As the race approached the 3 minute mark, the Dark Blues closed in on Cambridge which led to clashes between the two boats. Despite this, Cambridge managed to put on a further burst of speed and left the Oxford boat to battle through their dirty water.

In the end, it was Cambridge who were again victorious, completing the course with a time of 16 minutes and 57 seconds. Nevertheless Oxford put in a gallant effort, finishing only 2 seconds behind the Light Blue Boat.

Cambridge Women’s reserve boat Blondie also achieved victory, with another five length win over Oxford Women’s reserve boat Orisis.

In the Men’s Reserves race, the Cambridge boat Goldie gained a lead early on in the race and held on to this to beat the Oxford boat Isis by a length.

BBC Three’s Fleabag

Imogen Harter-Jones
-
0
BBC Three’s Fleabag

“I’d just like my tits to be that much bigger — does that make me a terrible feminist?”

Such forthright, fourth wall busting, hilarious, and conspiratorial asides make ‘Fleabag’ an inventive dark comic character study; the most talked about dramatic phenomenon for some time. A strong, intelligent woman, so much more than a 21st century Bridget Jones, where her motivation is to find inner peace rather than romantic love.

Fleabag is a smart, lovable mess. Vivacious yet broken, she is the creation of writer and actor Phoebe Waller-Bridge. Starting out as a 10-minute sketch, it evolved into a critically acclaimed one-woman show at the Edinburgh Fringe, transferred to London’s Soho Theatre where it was Olivier-nominated before being adapted for television. There is an array of brilliant supporting characters performed by a stellar cast including Oscar-winner Olivia Coleman (“She is not an evil stepmother, she’s just a c**t!”), Andrew Scott (Moriarty from ‘Sherlock’), Fiona Shaw (‘Killing Eve’) and Sian Clifford (“She’s uptight and beautiful and probably anorexic, but clothes look great on her, so… ”). Such sharp intake of breath comments by Fleabag are close to the wire but always delivered deadpan or with a conspiratorial smirk to the camera. Intelligence and irony underpin her asides, expressing thoughts we may not dare vocalise for fear of being a “bad feminist” or politically incorrect.

Fleabag’s external ‘togetherness’ in appearance with her cool clothes, great hair, perfect makeup, upper-middle-class family and London chic lifestyle attending art gallery openings and feminist lectures masks her chaotic life; the recent death of her mother, her drunken one night stands, and her dysfunctional family and relationships. The primary source of Fleabag’s damage, loneliness and self-destructive behaviour is her betrayal of her best friend Boo and intense guilt at having slept with her boyfriend resulting in her indicated suicide. Fleabag’s enthusiastic embracement of her sexuality, including multiple casual hookups, masturbation to BBC coverage of Barack Obama and sexting photos of her vagina, is done with such confidence, daring the audience to slut shame her. While sexually liberated and equal to men – being economically self-reliant, confident and actively pursuing sexual pleasure – the pathos of sex having had such catastrophic, destructive consequences is always present with regular flashbacks to Boo. Her pursuit of pleasure has caused ultimate pain.

Fleabag is rife with wonderful contradictions. Strong yet fragile, witty yet grief-stricken, a feminist who would happily give up 5 years of her life to have the perfect body, an atheist having a relationship with a sexy Catholic priest. She steals, swears, treats people badly, and has random sexual encounters. She is not one to sleepwalk her way through life but grabs it by the throat to experience every minute. She makes mistakes but knows herself and doesn’t give up even when, at her lowest, she says she just wants to cry all the time. “I have a horrible feeling I am a greedy, perverted, selfish, apathetic, cynical, depraved, morally bankrupt woman who can’t even call herself a feminist.” A complex creation – the audience never knows her real name – Fleabag is an immense, fun, lovable, chaotic, glorious character. A true individual and every-woman for our times. There is a little bit of Fleabag in all of us.

21 JCR Presidents sign open letter calling on university to revoke Sultan of Brunei’s honorary degree

Angus Brown and Ben van der Merwe
-
0
21 JCR Presidents sign open letter calling on university to revoke Sultan of Brunei’s honorary degree

A group of JCR Presidents and representatives have signed an open letter calling on the University to revoke the Sultan of Brunei’s honorary doctorate following the announcement of new laws making homosexuality punishable by stoning to death.

In the letter, the JCR Presidents write: “We the undersigned, are writing this letter, in conjunction with attempts from Oxford SU and a petition with support of over 57,000 individuals to express the view that the honorary degree in Civil Law awarded to the Sultan of Brunei in 1993 should be rescinded.

“The arguments for this are threefold and reflect the impact that his continued possession of this honour have. Firstly, on a university level, the University’s failure to oppose the developments in Brunei will be directly seen by its student body, particularly its LGBTQ+ community, as a refusal to acknowledge the horrific impact the new laws will have.

“Secondly, on a national level the University’s inability to call out oppression and violence will not go unnoticed by those who look to it as a forerunner in representing the values of tolerance and liberty – and damage to the University image will serve as a barrier to prospective students from diverse backgrounds.

“The third impact is international and relates to the ethos and teachings of all Oxford law degrees: For the University to stand by, and through its omissions, support these blatant violations of Human Rights and International law, is in no way acceptable.”

The letter further argued that: “The international prestige of Oxford University places it in a prime position to call out oppression in whatever form it takes.

“A collective of other institutions and individuals are already showing anger and disdain at the creation of these new laws. Both Kings College London and the University of Aberdeen are reviewing the honorary degrees held by the Sultan at their institutions.”

According to the letter, by refusing to revoke the honour “the University is supporting mass Human Rights violations, associating itself with the persecution of the LGBTQ+ community, and failing to take a necessary stand in solidarity with its students.”

It concluded that “As senior officers to the University, we ask that you do everything within your power to ensure the University rescinds the Sultan’s honorary degree. The eyes of the world, the eyes of the LGBTQ+ community suffering in Brunei, and the eyes of the students under your care are upon you.”

The letter was signed by JCR representatives from Corpus Christi, Jesus, Pembroke, Merton, Brasenose, St Edmund Hall, St Catherine’s, St Peter’s, Magdalen, Keble, University College, Somerville, Regents Park, Oriel, St John’s, Mansfield, Lincoln, Hertford, New, Christ Church, and St Anne’s. The full letter can be read here.

Speaking to Cherwell, Corpus Christi College JCR President Rhiannon Ogden-Jones said: “After hearing of the new laws in Brunei, I was upset. To then hear they were introduced by a man with an honorary law degree from Oxford, I was shocked. Oxford University is one of the international forerunners for Human Rights education, and this is reflected by the subject’s inclusion in the University’s Law degrees, including the Civil Law (BCL).

“Every part of the academic field of law is marked by the importance of Human Rights, which prevents horrific violations to individual integrity on an internationally endorsed scale.

“In failing to revoke the honorary BCL held by Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah, the University not only contradicts its position as a forerunner in Human Rights research, but also lends credibility to the violation of International Human Rights law. Even if the University were not involved, the reprehensible nature of the Human Rights violations would draw our condemnation, and we will not sit idly by as people suffer unimaginable abuses.”

Jesus College JCR President Ed Lawrence added that: An honorary degree isn’t anyone’s right – it’s a privilege granted by the University, and will be seen as a stamp of approval on the Sultan’s actions.

If an institution representing the height of intellectual thought has endorsed the Sultan’s academic merits, then what message does that send to those questioning his government’s decisions?

It’s hard to imagine what one would need to do to fall short of an honorary degree in an area of law, if introducing the stoning of gay people isn’t enough.

In 1985, the University refused to give an honorary degree to Margret Thatcher because of her cuts to higher education. It’s always hard to compare issues, but I think it’s fair to say Oxford’s LGBTQ+ community won’t be feeling highly valued if the Sultan gets to hold onto his.”

Despite a statement on Wednesday saying that it had not made any new decision regarding the Sultan’s honorary degree, the university has today announced that it will review it, following a petition signed by more than 56,000 people and calls by the Student Union for its revocation.

Pressure on the university reached a crescendo yesterday as both of Oxford’s MPs, Layla Moran and Anneliese Dodds, urged Oxford to revoke the degree. The MPs wrote “It is time to listen to your University community and your conscience.”

They continued: “It is not enough simply to pay lip service to advocating for LGBTQ+ rights. Refusal to rescind the honorary degree to many people implies a tacit endorsement of Brunei’s anti-LGBTQ+ stance and a failure to stand up for the rights of the international LGBTQ+ community.”

Speaking to presenter Nick Robinson on Radio 4’s Today programme, journalist and former Oxford student Owen Jones spoke in support of the petition: “Oxford University shouldn’t be handing out honorary degrees to despots and dictators anyway, but Oxford University now has to make a statement that gay lives matter by stripping this.

“There are other problems as well, for instance the fact that there’s huge amounts of money from the Saudi royal family, another regime which, of course, kills gay people. For the Ashmolean museum and Said business school – Saudi money ploughed in there.”

Robinson replied: “Which may be one reason they’re a little nervous.”

Jones argued that the University should go further than a review: “They need to make clear that they stand with gay people and that means they need to immediately rescind it. Aberdeen University have also given an honorary degree to the Sultan, and they’ve said they’re reviewing it. That’s not good enough either.

“There are lots of gay students from all over the world at Oxford University. They need to know that their university, which has huge international kudos, is prepared to make a statement, prepared to make a stand.”

The Sultan’s son and heir Haji Al-Muhtadee Billah graduated from Magdalen College in 1997.

The University has been contacted for comment.

Oxford announces review of Brunei Sultan’s honour after 56,000 sign petition

Ben van der Merwe
-
0
Oxford announces review of Brunei Sultan’s honour after 56,000 sign petition

Oxford University has announced that it will review its decision to grant an honorary degree to the Sultan of Brunei in light of new laws which will make homosexuality punishable by stoning to death.

The move comes in response to a global boycott campaign in response to the harsh new laws. The University was criticised this week for not immediately following the example of King’s College London and the University of Aberdeen in announcing a review.

A statement on Wednesday in which the University announced it had not made any new decision regarding the Sultan’s honorary degree provoked a backlash from students, activists and MPs.

More than 56,000 signed a petition calling for the University to rescind the degree, a call which was echoed by the Students Union.

Pressure on the University reached a crescendo yesterday as both of Oxford’s MPs, Layla Moran and Anneliese Dodds, urged Oxford to revoke the degree. The MPs wrote: “It is time to listen to your University community and your conscience.”

They continued: “It is not enough simply to pay lip service to advocating for LGBTQ+ rights. Refusal to rescind the honorary degree to many people implies a tacit endorsement of Brunei’s anti-LGBTQ+ stance and a failure to stand up for the rights of the international LGBTQ+ community.”

Speaking to presenter Nick Robinson on Radio 4’s Today programme, journalist and former Oxford student Owen Jones spoke in support of the petition: “Oxford University shouldn’t be handing out honorary degrees to despots and dictators anyway, but Oxford University now has to make a statement that gay lives matter by stripping this.

“There are other problems as well, for instance the fact that there’s huge amounts of money from the Saudi royal family, another regime which, of course, kills gay people. For the Ashmolean museum and Said business school – Saudi money ploughed in there.”

Robinson replied: “Which may be one reason they’re a little nervous.”

Jones argued that the University should go further than a review: “They need to make clear that they stand with gay people and that means they need to immediately rescind it. Aberdeen University have also given an honorary degree to the Sultan, and they’ve said they’re reviewing it. That’s not good enough either.

“There are lots of gay students from all over the world at Oxford University. They need to know that their university, which has huge international kudos, is prepared to make a statement, prepared to make a stand.”

The Sultan’s son and heir Haji Al-Muhtadee Billah graduated from Magdalen College in 1997.

The University has been contacted for comment.

1...633634635...2,518Page 634 of 2,518

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