Friday 22nd August 2025
Blog Page 637

Let’s get on with it

Will Robinson
-
0
Let’s get on with it

Writing for an audience consisting of the student body of the 4th most Remain city in the country, writing an ostensibly pro-Brexit piece on why the ‘Revoke Article 50’ petition is a waste of time, is not the easiest task. Therefore, I’ll try to avoid making the arguments that the petition-signatories amongst you will be expecting me to make: 

I could frame my argument around the fact that thousands of signatures have come from all over the globe – from the USA, to France, to Russia (no doubt interfering in our democracy again), to Kosovo, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, even to the largely internet-less North Korea – and that, therefore, this petition is broken and should have no bearing over our politics: this is why we register to vote and then do so at a local polling station. 

But I won’t. 

I could frame my argument around the fact that the petition, as little more than an online survey, is intrinsically broken: it is vulnerable to duplicated signatures through multiple email addresses, or to bots (as has happened in extremis with previous pro-Remain petitions of the same ilk)[1]as the site has no ‘captcha’ verification; nor does it for age. Petitions are not good at reflecting the wider electorate – this is why we have proper polling methodologies, with control and sample groups and statistical analysis at one end of the scale, and actual voting at the other.

But I won’t.

I could frame my argument around the fact that the petition was started by an extreme supranationalist Europhile (alleged to have described how she would murder the Prime Minister, and to have discussed how to purchase legal guns and their modification to cause maximum damage to take to the Commons…),[2]and that this is just another example of Remoaners not accepting democracy and blah blah blah… 

But I won’t. 

I won’t frame my arguments around these points not because they are not legitimate, and not because they are necessarily bad (although they’re not great – looking at you number three) but because even if all were true in the fullest extent, it would be churlish to deny that this petition is remarkable: it is remarkable that the website has repeatedly crashed under the weight of traffic it has received;[3]that approximately a tenth of the eligible electorate of the country has signed it (if we are to take the 6 million figure entirely at face value); that it is the most popular in the history of the Commons Petitions Committee.[4]There is a large socio-political force that sits behind this 6,000,000 figure. That is undeniable, regardless of how questionable the nature of the petition and its signatures may be.

So, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that all (or very nearly all) of the 6 million signatures thus far are those of adult citizens of the United Kingdom, fully eligible to vote in a hypothetical referendum or General Election should there be one tomorrow (please no), and that none of these people have signed more than once. 

Either the petition to revoke Article 50 is a total waste of time, or it is something far more sinister. It is a waste of time if its sole purpose is to convey to Parliament the sentiment of its electorate. The basic point here is that there is a colossal cognitive dissonance in assigning so much credence to an online survey, and simultaneously so little to the result of an historically large national referendum that dwarfs the petition in any game of numbers. 

Furthermore, the supposedly vast momentum behind the petition is illusory. The polling data of the last couple of weeks – which does represent the British electorate in its geographical, political, social and economic diversity – tells an entirely different story to the one told by the petition. Petitions, by their nature, can only be echo chambers – agreement is all that can be measured. There is no ‘I disagree’ box you can sign instead. So for this petition, volume alone is not enough, particularly given that its signatories are almost demographically identical to the Remain vote of 2016.[5]The petition tells us nothing new: plenty of people, at least 16,141,241 at recorded peak, wanted to be in the EU – these signatories are the (minority) hardcore of that vote.

Indeed, an Opinium poll of 21/03/19 found that public opinion is shifting quickly towards a ‘No Deal’ outcome as opposed to any extension of Article 50, by 46% to 39%.[6]ComRes, also on 21/03/19, found that leaving the EU in any shape or form has a 15 point lead over remaining, 50%-35%.[7]Polling is no perfect science, but as measures of reflecting shifts in the mind of the nation’s electorate go, polls are competing in the 100m finals at the Olympics, and petitions can’t work out which shoe goes on which foot. Extraordinary as 6 million signatures is, it means nothing for majority public support for revocation – the polls say the opposite.

If we ask ourselves what this petition wants, surely, as members of a liberal democracy, we must conclude that this is the extent of it. A methodologically-corrupt poll. A waste of time. 

What else could it be? 

The petition demands that Article 50 is unilaterally revoked, and that the UK remains a member of the EU. Thus, to sign it is to explicitly call for the vote, cast by the British people (a lot more than 6 million of them) to be cancelled. There is no getting around this simple fact. 

The petition is not a plea by the pro-Remain lobby for Parliament to vote on revocation, nor that we give it another go: to rehash the arguments about whether or not we should be a member of the EU, and then let the people of this country make their final decision on the matter (no, for real this time, no take-backsies, we promise!). It simply demands that we remain in the EU. End of story. Pitiful and perilous as it was, the argument for a second referendum could be justified. This demand cannot. Every signatory of this petition rides roughshod over the vote of every single citizen of this country that did their civic duty in June three years ago. 

To simply remain in the EU would be to deliberately and totally ignore the result of the largest democratic exercise in our history, nowhere near the turnout at any past (or almost certainly future) General Election. This alone would be wrong, but there is more. 

The result of the referendum of the 23rdof June, 2016, was a vast anti-establishment movement: it was made by the voice of the disenfranchised people of this country, in deindustrialised, coastal or rural areas, hit harder by austerity and EU regulation of fisheries and agriculture than anyone in the home counties can imagine. Leave-voting territory is lightyears away from the economic, social, political and media bubble of the South East, and it rejected that status quo. To fail to heed this vote, made for the ‘right’ reasons or not, is to betray the backbone of the nation. 

And yet this seems neither here nor there to the middle-class intelligentsia of the South East (disclaimer: this may make me a class traitor), because it did not go their way. In any other scenario, Oxford students would be falling over themselves to defend the voice of leave voters, as those hurt by the country’s imbalance of social, political and economic power and in media influence. Shame they voted the wrong way.

To those of you that think the best way to remedy this battle cry, this Eurosceptic aberration, this silly mistake, or however you see it, is to simply ignore it – best of luck to you. Sign away.

Given that the density of the petition’s signatories perfectly geographically match that of the 2016 vote to remain,[8]it rejects that vote and nothing more. ‘Remain supporters support Remain!’ – what a headline. These are not Leavers ‘seeing the light.’ This is not the North East coming round to Guy Verhofstadt, the ECJ and Chuka Umunna’s brand of “cheese and biscuits”[9]neoliberalism. Revocation would solve nothing of this mess in the long or short term, and it would lead to the root cause (of which Brexit is but a symptom) becoming immeasurably worse for the pro-Remain political classes’ agenda than it already is; if they think otherwise I’d like to know what they’re smoking [insert Lib Dems joke here]. 

Either this petition is a waste of time – a failed poll – or it is a cold, conscious choice to tell a great number of people of this country that their vote does not matter, and that by extension, neither do they. It doesn’t matter if this is the intention, this will be the consequence. Surely it must remain the former, and not become the latter.

P.S. At least 11,400,000 more signatures, all of them verified, and then maybewe could take this petition seriously. Just kidding! Sitting on the sofa and following a link you see on Facebook to click a button is not equivalent, in any sense, to getting off your arse and going to vote, nor is a single polling day to an online petition open indefinitely 24/7. Frankly, if Article 50 was to be revoked, I’d almost be more annoyed by the fact that this petition got its way, than by the democratic vacuum it would create.

Everyone has had enough of this farce. Let’s just get out, deal or no deal, and get on with the rest of our lives. Revoking Article 50 means years more Brexit chat – I for one cannot be bothered.

[1]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36640459?SThisFB&fbclid=IwAR3i-h78JqDArEKbYN30dbLD_nfSFrgzCArt_T8ipoCMEYiBUGuSArn_X-Q

[2]https://order-order.com/2019/03/22/revoke-article-50-petition-creator-threatened-may-discussed-buy-legal-guns-take-commons/

[3]https://twitter.com/HoCpetitions/status/1108711030736199686

[4]https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/24/brexit-petition-to-revoke-article-50-reaches-5m-signatures

[5]https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1109511517551112198

[6]https://www.opinium.co.uk/brexit-blame-game/

[7]https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Daily-Express_Brexit-and-VI_March-2019_updated.pdf

[8]https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1109511517551112198

[9]https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1108460589398016000

Student “asked to leave” after bringing her toddler to Oxford talk on “Women and leadership”

Amelia Horn
-
0
Student “asked to leave” after bringing her toddler to Oxford talk on “Women and leadership”

The talk took place on Tuesday 26 March at the Sheldonian theatre. The speaker, Julia Gillard, was the first woman to take up the position of Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister in Australia. She served as Deputy from 2007 until 2010 and then as Prime Minister from 2010 to 2013.

Nuffield Department of Population Health, which is part of the University, organised the event. The full title of the event was: “Women and leadership – fighting for an equal world.” Julia Gillard’s commitments include serving as a patron of CAMFED, the Campaign for Female Education.

In a post on Facebook, Ania Kordala stated how she had allegedly emailed ahead to ask the organisers if she could bring her toddler, “putting the request” in the ‘Special Requirements’ box available to those signing up. The event’s host, Professor Valerie Beral, directed through her Personal Assistant Sarah Atkinson, responded: “Unfortunately, babies and toddlers can not attend.”

Allegedly, Ms Kordala decided bring her child along anyway “to see what they say at the door.” In a second Facebook post written shortly after the event, she said: “I was lucky to meet my college principal and ask her to back me up, which she did do so they let me in.

“They pick a seat for us, the talk is about to start, and I’m so excited and relieved.”

Ms Kordala reported that after her toddler “babbled”, “a lady from technical crew” approached her and told her she “needed to leave.” According to the student, she left the room to talk to the woman, who then “would not let her back in”, and she was told “her friend could get her stuff [which was left in the room where the talk was taking place].”

Reportedly, the “technical lady’s” reasoning was that Ms Kordala and her child were sat “right next to the video camera man.” However, she allegedly offered to “go to the other side of the room so the camera doesn’t pick up [the toddler’s] babbling” and was told: “No, you need to leave the premises.”

Head of the Nuffield Department of Population Health Rory Collins told Cherwell: “A student brought her young child to the lecture held yesterday in the Sheldonian Theatre, and I personally ensured that she was allowed to bring the child into the building. It is definitely not appropriate that she was later asked to leave with her child.

“We encourage students and others with families to participate fully in events run by the Department.

“In future, we will make sure that all staff working at our events are aware that families are welcome.”

Principal at Green Templeton College, Professor Denise Lievesley, told Cherwell:

“On arriving as a guest at the Sheldonian theatre to hear Julia Gillard I met one of the Green Templeton students, Ania Kordala, with her toddler. 

She reported that she had been refused entry.  I explained to Ania that I had no official role but that I would see what I could do. 

I spoke to Professor Rory Collins of the Nuffield Department of Population Health, asking if Ania and her child could be admitted.  He agreed wholeheartedly, and he and I went outside together to ensure that she was able to enter. 

As far as I was aware this was satisfactory, so  I am very sad to learn that Ania was subsequently asked to leave.  I was unaware of this. 

Green Templeton College prides itself on supporting students with families, and it is especially inappropriate that this happened at a wonderful talk by Julia Gillard about significant gender inequalities which still exist in our societies.” 

Ania Kordala said: “As we are walking out of the building I hear the room filling with applause as Julia Gillard enters the stage and starts talking. About women in leadership. About equal rights and opportunities.

“Later on, the University of Oxford and Nuffield Department of Population Health will congratulate themselves on organising such an event and being at the forefront of a fight for equality.

“The talk will be watched many times and probably also receive media coverage. But this is just one side of the story.

“The other side of the story is a student parent who wanted to be a part of the talk. Who literally fought her way into the building despite being told ‘no.’ Who made it inside and got kicked out almost immediately after. Who is outside the building while everyone else is inside.”

Speaking exclusively to Cherwell Kordala added that “The fact that I was asked to leave is one thing. How it was dealt with is another.

“It was not only rude, the message was – We’re ruining the event, our presence is a problem, and the sooner we disappear the better.

“Even when I was already in the corridor and nobody could hear my daughter, there were 3 or 4 people impatiently waiting until I gather my stuff and pointing me to the door. I had to remind them I had a buggy, go get it, (carry up the stairs with a toddler in one hand and buggy in the other) and then ask to leave via an accessible entrance and not the staircase.

“I was so mad I was hardly talking, I was just pointing to the where the buggy was and where the accessible entrance was.

“I have been lucky to have a supportive PI, an amazing co supervisor, and a great family friendly group. I have attended lectures with my daughter before (one on Athena Swan in DPAG, but not only) and even a Christmas carols service in Keble College chapel. There had never been an issue until yesterday. She normally either sleeps through the event or plays with books. If she starts disrupting the event or cries, I leave.

“If you’re organizing an event after 5pm, especially if the event is about equality, women in the workplace, try and organize it in a child friendly place, or offer a crèche service for the event. We don’t stop being interested in the world just because we are parents.”

The University, and event host Professor Valerie Beral have been contacted for comment.

Review: The Duchess of Malfi – a brave and ambitious move

Imogen Harter-Jones
-
0
Review: The Duchess of Malfi – a brave and ambitious move

Notorious for being bloody and demanding, John Webster’s The Duchess of Malfi (1612) is not an obvious choice for an amateur group to perform. However, York Settlement Community Players (of which Judi Dench was a member in the 1950s) proved largely up to the task. With a pared down plot and modern dress, Sam Taylor (RSC and National Theatre actor) directs an accessible, fast-paced and engaging rendition of the ultimate Renaissance revenge tragedy in the intimate studio space of York Theatre Royal.

At the heart of this play are the themes of class and men’s control over women – their lives, finances, sexuality, relationships. While Antonio, confidently played by David Phillipps, is cast as a romantic class warrior, his received pronunciation and smart attire – equal to that of the rich brothers, the Cardinal and Duke – obscured the class distinctions underlying their animosity towards him. That said, however, their interdict against marriage is absolute, irrespective of social status. The Renaissance imagination presented the Duchess, played in an understated manner by Amanda Dales, as a ‘lusty widow.’ Her secret remarriage to her lower-class steward Antonio, against her brothers’ will and below her rank, made her culpable of excessive sexual desire and deserving of death.

The relationship between the titular Duchess and Antonio was convincing. However, the sexual politics were somewhat lost with the ‘forbidden lovers’ element being overemphasised to a Romeo and Juliet level.  While this interpretation liberated the Duchess from the sexist ‘lusty widow’ label, at times she seemed too passive – a far cry from the radical warrior of patriarchal sexual liberation and self-determination, who was so intimidating to her over-controlling brothers that they killed her. Dales’ scenes of imprisonment, torture (both physical and psychological) and death by strangulation on stage are her most stoically impressive, with the famous line, “I am Duchess of Malfi still,” asserting her right to exist independently in a quiet, self-possessed manner. Music was masterfully employed in the aftermath of the Duchess’ murder by strangulation on the orders of her psychotic twin brother (Ferdinand, the Duke), as he slow dances with her corpse to The Beach Boys’ ‘Don’t Worry Baby’. The carefree, psychedelic, daydreamlike quality of The Beach Boys’ music was sharply juxtaposed with the nightmarish tragedy of the scene presented on stage. The dissonance was positively chilling: the most haunting, powerful moment of the play.

Ferdinand’s incestuous desire for his twin sister the eponymous, but individually anonymous, Duchess was strongly realised. Uncomfortably close touching, inappropriately sexualised dancing and lecherous looks hinted at Ferdinand’s dark sexual feelings. In his scenes of madness and grief after his orders to kill his sister are acted upon, Harry Revell came into his own as Ferdinand. He dominated the emotional heart of the play, although his character was in the running for the hotly contested title of the most morally reprehensible. He commanded the attention of the audience whenever he was on stage. Revell’s demeanour revealed the true psychopathic nature of the brothers and their obsessive desire to control their sister’s sexual autonomy. However, while the portrayal of Ferdinand as a warped incestuous monster explained his actions, those of the Cardinal were less clear. Furthermore, the Duchess was portrayed almost too innocently and Ferdinand’s madness excessively accentuated. This lost some of the layers of interpretation, particularly men’s domination of women to preserve their own power for power’s sake.

Despite the play’s clear place within the canon of Renaissance tragedy, there were lighter, comic moments in The Duchess of Malfi, most notably in the form of Bosola, the servant spy placed by the brothers in the Duchess’ court. Maurice Crichton’s frank Yorkshire delivery and ease of command of the language accentuated the sexual innuendo. Whilst Bosola is frequently compared by literary critics to Iago, YSCP’s interpretation allowed for a more human, emotionally fraught and complicated antagonist to emerge.  

Sadly, the final scene was distinctly underwhelming. In a culmination of betrayal and violence, everyone dies, whether by kissing a poisoned bible or by being stabbed. Webster has set the scene for an orgy of bloodletting akin to Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs, but the lack of any blood or visual effects to suggest the horror was anticlimactic: there’s only so much that writhing bodies alone can convey. Whilst a tight budget may have restricted this scene, creative alternatives could have been employed to give more weight to this horror of mass murder.

As an amateur dramatic performance, this was impressive. As with much regional theatre, the main shortcomings could have been overcome with a bigger budget. Nevertheless, this production proves that regional amateur dramatics can still be ambitious, confident and relevant. Whilst the manifestations were extreme, the underlying motivation – men’s control over women’s lives – makes the play pertinent for our times.  

Oxford donor suspends giving amid opioid legal scandal

Sam Millward
-
0
Oxford donor suspends giving amid opioid legal scandal

The Sackler Trust, a donor to the University of Oxford since 1991, has put all further philanthropic donations on hold due to its implication in the US opioid crisis.

Dame Theresa Sackler, Chair of the trust released a statement, saying that “The Trustees of the Sackler Trust have taken the difficult decision to temporarily pause all new philanthropic giving, while still honouring existing commitments.”

This comes after the National Portrait Gallery and the Tate Group both announced that they would no longer accept gifts or donations from members of the family.

The Bodleian Sackler Library, as well as the Sackler Keeper of Antiquities at the Ashmolean, are funded by the $11 million the University has received from the family.

In addition, a University lecturer and teaching fellowship in the Earth Sciences are supported by the family’s donations.

The same statement reaffirms the Trust’s support for the Sackler family, eight of whom are named in a lawsuit by the Massachusetts’s Attorney General. Purdue Pharma, and 17 associated individuals are accused of using deceptive practices to push addictive drugs, that led to fatal overdoses and the evolution of the opioid crisis.

The Connecticut and Ohio Attorneys General also have cases against Purdue and the Sacklers, along with hundreds of others brought in U.S. courts.

Oxford University stated, in April last year, that it would not reconsider donations from the Sackler family, despite their involvement in the production of the addictive opioid.

A court ruling states: “They [the 8 Sackler family members] directed deceptive sales and marketing practices deep within Purdue, sending hundreds of orders to executives and line employees.

“From the money that Purdue collected selling opioids, they paid themselves and their family billions of dollars.”

More than £60 million has been donate to UK organisations since 2010. Since that same year, the Centre for Disease Control estimates that 243,678 have occurred as a result of opioid overdoses.

Huawei boss alleges Oxford faced “interference” in decision to cut ties

Ben van der Merwe
-
0
Huawei boss alleges Oxford faced “interference” in decision to cut ties

The decision by Oxford to suspend financial ties with Huawei in January was the result of “interference”, company director William Xu has alleged.

Oxford announced a suspension of new partnerships with the Chinese technology giant in January after the Trump administration accused the company of acting as a vehicle for Chinese state espionage and violating US sanctions on Iran.

The decision to suspend donations was taken on the 8th of January, the same day that Chancellor Chris Patten asked the government for advice on University policy towards the firm while giving oral evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

A spokesperson for Oxford University confirmed that the decision to suspend donations was taken on the same day that Patten made the request to the committee, but denied that the former event was influenced by the latter.

Giving evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in January, Oxford Lord Patten said the University was “really live” to the concerns expressed by US government.

A spokesperson for the University told Cherwell at the time that Lord Patten’s comments were “applied to the higher education sector in general and he does not have specific concerns relating to Oxford.”

Responding to concerns expressed by a Conservative MP that China was seeking to exert influence in British universities, Lord Patten distinguished between the “legitimate” influence operations of organisations like the British Council and those of organisations like MI6.

Lord Patten called for greater guidance by the UK government on collaboration with foreign entities such as Huawei: “I also think that, without in any way suggesting that universities should get agreement from Government about what research to do or what research collaboration to allow, it would be very helpful if there was more agreement within Government about what is acceptable, and if there were a point of contact in Government to which all universities can turn.

“I read the papers and I read about views on Huawei. I am no expert on 5G or these issues, but if the Government have anxieties about a company, it should be possible for a university, if it is being offered research collaboration with that company, to ask somewhere in Government what is happening.”

Speaking to the Hong Kong-based Apple Daily, Huawei chairman William Xu said that the suspension has had little effect, and suggested that the University will seek to resume ties soon: “Although [the universities] think co-operation is win-win with Huawei, they are temporarily suspending co-operation”.

Xu revealed that the company’s invests $300 million annually in foreign universities. “Our collaborations with universities, especially in basic research, not only will not stop, but will increase,” he predicted.

Seeking to allay concerns that Huawei exerts malign influence in universities, Xu told Apple Daily that more than 80% of Huawei’s investment in US universities are donations with no strings attached.

The company director said: “Huawei does not need results and ownership. Huawei does not require students to enter Huawei after graduation. We are completely open-minded.”

Oxford University and Lord Patten have been contacted for comment.

From Paris with Love

Clare Tierney
-
0
From Paris with Love

“I want to take you out to dinner and talk about your year abroad.”

We went to Noodle Nation on Gloucester Green, Trinity 2018. James and I had only known each other three weeks, and quite honestly the idea that we might try and continue what we had barely begun confused me. No one wants long-distance and if they do, it’s often because they will have their mind distracted by the novelty of travelling to a new place. I was the one exploring Europe, not him, and yet he seemed keen to contemplate the possibility. I wanted us to each be safe – not sorry – and I had heard the sorrowful tales of those who had tried without succeeding. Neither of us deserved that. Least of all him, this kind, caring, breath of fresh air of a man soon to be tackling English finals. We parted ways, respectively not letting on how deflated we were left feeling in the other’s absence.

Summer in Paris and I was subconsciously compensating for my loss of an ideal companion. With Tinder. It taught me a lot and, pardon the innuendo, filled a gaping hole left by the aforementioned ideal companion. That I don’t want someone in their 30s, that I want someone who respects me, that I need someone who isn’t just looking for a novel ginger and English native to tote around the city. Having said that, the French-speaking opportunities that the app presented to me were unmissable. I embraced them between sobbing sessions at my intern’s desk. 

Oxford, throughout this time away, has remained my centre of gravity. When everything’s foreign it throws you off balance and only the comfort of friends and a familiar environment can give you back your stability. Noughth week Michaelmas saw me back visiting those who, before too long, would be retreating to their revision caves. James was no exception, and we spent the weekend interrogating each other about the dating-related escapades that had gone on in both England and France. I remember having to disguise my frustration because all I wanted was this man to myself, for him to be off the swiping market. He seemed unfazed by my cross-Channel tales.

I failed to mention that mid-September when I was passing through London, James did a four-hour Oxford Tube round trip to see me for just two hours. My grandma had died earlier that day and I spent my journey to Gatwick in tears because I had lost James too. But I had a necklace that got me thinking, maybe, if this guy is prepared to give me a cross bought on holiday in Greece, he likes me? A phone call on October 9th confirmed my shaky suspicions and I was literally shaking. Shaking before, afraid of rejection and shaking after in disbelief. Quite rightly, he had made the point that I seemed to enjoy the single life in Paris, the city of love. It could have been the dissuading factor, but it wasn’t. James was himself in la ville d’amour only eight weeks later. By January he had met my family and he has just left Lisbon where I am spending phase two of my year abroad. Almost six months and going strong, I am a staunch proponent of trying to make it work if you feel there is something there to surmount physical separation.The next time we see each other, it will be a year since we first met.

I still struggle with accepting that someone is willing to make the effort for me and likewise with missing someone who should be so much closer geographically. FaceTime is your friend and handwritten letters sent by snail-airmail add tangible romanticism to the every day. I am a naturally trustworthy person, and this is, of course, key. But losing my (proper) relationship virginity while abroad has meant adding more of the unknown to what is already strange and unfamiliar. It feels natural to be with James and yet so unnatural that ‘being with’ should be little more than words on a page and calls dependent on Wi-Fi connection. In spite of this, we both agree (and what a cliché this is) that if we can do this, we can do anything. We have had a head start on others whose relationship must withstand unsynchronized graduations. Oxford to London is certainly much easier than Lisbon to Oxford.

Virtue or reality: defending the white saviour

Aine Kennedy
-
0
Virtue or reality: defending the white saviour

Last Monday, MP for Tottenham David Lammy was being berated on Twitter as the cause of cold tea, overboiled eggs, and an £8 million drop in donations to Comic Relief. Such was the fallout from his highly publicised spat with ‘Strictly’ darling Stacey Dooley. Lammy had accused Dooley’s appeal, and the accompanying Instagram shots posing with doe-eyed African toddlers, of sending “a distorted image of Africa which perpetuates an old idea from a the colonial era”. Everyone from the Daily Mail to the founder of Wikipedia sprang to defend both Comic Relief and the Great British Public; even the Guardian ran the entreating headline, “Can’t we finally accept that some ‘white saviours’ really want to help?”

The irony of this torrent of righteous indignation was lost on the alleged ‘white saviours’ and their supporters, whose personal affront grew to eclipse both their charitable endeavours, and the opinion of the politician who had criticised their depiction of his fellow black people.

Lammy was demonised for raising the very issue that Comic Relief had acknowledged, and vowed to correct, in 2018. CEO Liz Warner responded to accusations of ‘poverty tourism’ in a Guardian article entitled ‘Comic Relief to ditch white saviour stereotype appeals’, vowing that “you won’t see a celebrity standing in front of people talking about them… you’ll see people talking for themselves.” Yet Lammy’s comments on the unresolved nature of this problem were framed as “egotistical posturing” and “manufactured indignation” – charges surely more applicable to the chorus of reproach that tried, in all seriousness, to blame him for £8m worth of public tightfistedness.

This is not to say that his stance is without flaws. Writing in the Spectator, Remi Adekoya acknowledged the negative perceptions of black people encouraged by such appeals, and the issue for black people in the west of association with “a poor and unsuccessful continent”. While these portrayals can also sustain a racist-colonialist narrative of an Africa incapable of self-governance, Adekoya argues that these issues are secondary to the fact that the poverty broadcast to the world is real, concluding that “(this) suffering is more important than my image.”

The issues raised by the debate are pertinent to attitudes about charity both at Oxford and for individuals. Social media, and a fairly left-leaning student environment, have made it easier than ever to engage with voluntary organisations online. This is, of course, to be welcomed, enabling donations and increasing awareness in a manner unimaginable before the internet; nonetheless, it has also led to the rise of altruism as accessory. With one click, a well-meaning Facebook user can announce to their whole news feed that they are ‘going’ to a protest or fundraising event, whether or not they actually attend. They can share a video or donation link, which will ornament their profile and receive likes from their friends. These gestures not only provide a false sense of moral achievement, but factor into social media presence and digital reputation, in rather the same way that Ed Sheeran’s image might benefit from a jaunt to Liberia. Ricky Gervais’ 2009 sketch about faking an African appeal in a TV studio strikes an alarmingly close comparison: “Why would I go to a country that you need injections for when I can just do it here? I get the publicity, they get the cash- everyone’s a winner.”

Such unintentional virtue signalling is by no means restricted to the online realm. Student journalism brings an increased level of personal attention- and reputational gain- to the promotion of good causes. Thus, it carries the same dangers of potential complacency and self-congratulation that compromise the altruistic nature of gestures on social media. The glut of articles denouncing such matters as climate change, fascism, and the like are surely well-intentioned; however, they exist in an echo chamber, as it is hard to imagine any dissenting opinions being uttered in polite Oxford company, let alone published in the Cherwell.

Journalism and social media activity of this nature are typically motivated by a desire to bring attention to a good cause. This is a wholly admirable urge: charities cannot function without public awareness and support, but in the age of the internet, promotion of others is increasingly entwined with promotion of oneself, to the extent that it is becoming a social tool.

A charity’s ‘brand’, rather than the cause it represents, can come to dominate its public image, for example through association with particular events such as club nights. This is not to detract from the benefits of ‘grooving for a good cause’; however, it is a concrete example of how altruism is increasingly acquiring a social function. After a thinly-attended club engagement, one Pink Week organiser noted balefully that their organisation “isn’t really one of the cool charities at Oxford. We just don’t have Solidaritee’s clout.”

Even the most cynical, self-serving effort, by what the Guardian termed “egomaniacal monsters in cargo pants”, might help to raise awareness or money, which can translate into real benefit, regardless of the motivations that produced it. And celebrities are a sure-fire way of bringing in funds: Red Nose Day’s star-studded telethon format has raised over £1bn in its 30 year history, with £71m taken in 2017 alone. Ed Sheeran crooning duets with orphans of Ebola is a tear-jerking theatricality, more camera-friendly than the “local heroes and heroines” that Comic Relief had promised to foreground. It is for charity executives to decide whether depicting anonymous, skeletal children with a Hollywood voiceover, bereft of dignity and presented as a spectacle, is worth the financial benefit this approach can produce.

Netflix and Grill?

Peter Lewis
-
0
Netflix and Grill?

‘Binging: It’s how we consume content now’ is a line spoken by Jake Peralta in the hit US sitcom Brooklyn 99. Hearing these words in the midst of my post-Hilary hibernation, they stuck around in my head for some reason. In hindsight, this is probably because the episode in question was the twelfth one that I’d watched in single day. As such it landed quite close to home.

A week (and 112 episodes later) I emerged from this slump and attempted to start some vac reading. As this happened, I noticed a few things: first, I was much more productive, but I also started eating more healthily and even doing some exercise. After doing a bit of research, I found that there’s quite a strong link between binge-watching, and out diets.

A recent study by Lori Spruance, a health science professor at Brigham Young University found that young people who watch up to six consecutive hours of media in one sitting are more likely to eat poorly and exercise less. Spruance’s study showed that 85% of ‘binge-watchers’ were less likely to eat fruit and vegetables less than once per day, and under 50% were found to meet daily physical activity recommendations. When evaluating the long-term implications of such habits, weight gain, cardiovascular disease and type-2 diabetes were all found to be on the cards.

Most of this information is probably unsurprising to readers. TV, as a sedentary recreational activity, encourages snacking; however, the easy pattern of clicking ‘next episode’ over and over again can often lead to a loss of self-control. This in turn is reflected in diet. 

It also might not help that ‘binging’ as a concept is so prevalent in our society. Originally associated with an excessive indulgence in eating or drinking, the fact that the term is so casually invoked by streaming services is problematic in itself. In advertising ‘binge-worthy boxsets,’ Netflix may be seen to be normalising behaviour which is by definition is associated with mental and physical health problems.

When viewed in relation to the increasing student consciousness about mental health in Oxford, the prevalence of ‘binge-culture’ may be seen to have a dramatic impact on Oxonians in particular. Lottie Seller’s article last week has already highlighted the isolating impact that Oxford’s short-terms can have on individuals, with the intense eight-week term structure effectively encouraging a culture of ‘binge-studying.’ As such, in attempting to unwind over the vacation and catch-up on TV avoided during term-time leaves Oxford students susceptible to the negative health implications of ‘binge-watching.’

As with many things, the solution suggested by experts is moderation. Spruance’s advice is, “Take breaks from binge-watching; set a limit on the number of episodes you’ll watch at once so you can incorporate healthy activities in your life too.”  Other suggestions include a replacement of unhealthy snacks with healthier ones, and an effort to undertake at least some form of daily exercise.

Ultimately, as Peralta suggests, ‘binge-culture’ is unlikely to disappear anytime soon, especially given the popularity of streaming services among young people. However, if ‘binging’ is to be done (as most of us are likely to do at some point), a greater self-consciousness of how viewing habits influence the ways we eat may help limit the lengthier set-backs to mental and physical health.  

Oxford students join “million-strong” anti-Brexit march

Angus Brown
-
0
Oxford students join “million-strong” anti-Brexit march

A large number Oxford students attended Saturday’s “Put It To The People” march through central London demanding a second referendum on Brexit, joining what organisers claim to be upwards of a million other marchers.

One source told Cherwell that at least 50 Oxford students were on the march, although the number is difficult to verify due to the large number of separate groups that organised blocs.

Speaking to Cherwell, Our Future Our Choice Oxford President Dominic Brind said: “It was thrilling to see so many Oxford students among the million marching on parliament to demand their say. It’s become yet clearer that the government has no idea of how to sort out Brexit: that’s why it has to go back to the people.

“Most of the undergraduates at Oxford were too young to vote in 2016: among the 2 million young people across the country who have turned 18 since then, and who must have their voices heard in a People’s Vote.

“I would urge everyone to write to their MPs as we approach the final stage of Brexit to urge them to let the people have the final say on Brexit.”

Former chair of “BeLeave”, the scandal-plagued pro-Brexit campaign group for young people, Darren Grimes argued: “Of course Oxbridge students are in attendance of this Losers Vote march, I fully expect them to be in the Commons in two decades, continuing the tradition of being removed from the electorate they likely don’t deserve to represent.

“As for the attendance of young people more generally. Not all young people are pro-remain. Young people without higher education experience are no more pro-remain than older people without higher education experience. When will we give those young people a platform?”

Polling shows consistent support for remaining in the EU amongst British university students, with some showing over 70% support remaining in the transnational body.

If you have any images from the Put It To The People march which you would be happy to share with Cherwell please contact us at [email protected].

  • Photo Credit: Becky Clark
  • Members of Our Future Our Choice Oxford
  • Photo Credit: Becky Clark
  • Photo Credit: Becky Clark

The crises of contemporary art

Zhao Niuniu
-
0
The crises of contemporary art

When it comes to things to make fun of, contemporary art is one of the best options. With all its eccentricity, remoteness, abstraction, contemporary art is a world of chaos — are there any objective standards left? Are there even any minimum requirements still? Naturally, the ‘contemporary’ doesn’t have the golden test of time to appeal to. The audience is free to applaud or ridicule; the room for contemporary art is always the crisp and light-hearted, whispering curiosity rather than reverence.

But first, what is ‘contemporary art’? Does pop culture count — including radio station top hits, and Marvel movies? Or, does street art count? What about watercolours sold along the Seine, or the not-too-dissimilar dusty paintings of art school graduates? These are certainly contemporary; these may or may not be art; but these are not what we think of when we talk about ‘contemporary art’. Let us say, then, that contemporary art is the kind of work that makes its way into reputable museums and galleries, that gets a listing on artsy.net and an opinion piece or two in magazines. Contemporary art is a pretentious term; let’s treat it as it is.

The art scene, as such, offers us a bountiful miscellany of absurdities. From the incumbent Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) to little Shanghai galleries, I remember watching long, senseless, and (dare I say) boring videos — more often than not titled ‘Untitled’ — involving horse-headed puppets, squeaky chickens, or bleak empty landscapes; tangled objects that make me want to scream ‘what do you mean!’; and gigantic installations so peculiar that they simply scared me away. Each time the question haunts me, ‘what is art?’; each time the confusion only compounds.

One may say that art today is different from before insomuch as it has ceased trying to be beautiful. Somewhere in the twentieth-century things went wrong: Andy Warhol and his soup, Marcel Duchamp and his fountain, Andres Serrano and his Christ. Somehow, this bunch stopped trying and people started to think that not trying was cool – if you couldn’t appreciate their nonchalance, it was surely you that wasn’t sophisticated enough and you that was missing out on the essence of life. It is in response to this loss of coherence, combined with a certain arrogance associated with the ‘art persona’, that people have generally come to think that ‘art’ is now up for the grabs — and if there’s no standard, there’s no respect.

Has art ceased trying to be beautiful? Certainly not. Contemporary art, with its new mediums and new narratives, can be stunning like never before. Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s The Pont Neuf Wrapped is nothing but beautiful — the artists wrapped the bridge in yellow silken fabrics, creating an image of such vibrant smoothness that, although the project itself was intentionally temporary, even the photos can immediately evoke awe and delight. Robert Mapplethorpe’s photography, though more provocative than Pont Neuf, still expresses beauty with its tight composition, thoughtful lines and immaculate lighting. In addition, in defence of the somewhat flooded format of the video, I have to mention my all-time-favourite, Camille Henrot’s Grosse Fatigue, an ambitious narrative of human history, saturated with poetic delicacy and moving imagery.

Yet, a different and more difficult question is, has art ceased trying to be meaningful? In previous epochs, art could be about the ideal (Greek sculpture), the divine (Medieval cathedrals), heightened depictions (Dutch paintings) or realistic expressions (the Impressionists). Some would argue that, in the present century, accurate depiction as the objective of art has been effectively defenestrated. We certainly still have art about the beautiful, about the ideal, about the divine, but the majority of contemporary works, even if they are actually expressing something at the heart of human life, make no sincere effort in communicating to the audience what ‘the point’ is.

It would be hard to argue that contemporary art is friendly to its audience. From a cynical angle, it is even deliberately unfriendly, making pretentious, exclusive gestures with its empty sophistication, only for pretentious, exclusive people to cluster around it into self-select social circles — something like Luis Bunuel’s surrealist film, The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie.

But all this does not mean that art has gone down the drains. Our intuitive judgement isn’t necessarily right — perhaps after all, art is supposed to be ahead of its times, thus it ought to be somewhat despised by contemporaries. People hated the Impressionists when they first started, but now everybody loves them. Perhaps the nineteenth-century populace wondered ‘just what the heck are these dots?’ in the same way we now wonder ‘just what the heck are these metal wires?’. It’s likely not true that fewer people now care about art than before. Art was never down-to-earth; it’s supposed to alienate, then transcend, then break boundaries.

Contemporary art is no different from the old masters in how much it engages and how far (and close) it is to our lives. It is different in its scale of disorder — but that is, as ought to be for art, an accurate reflection of the human condition: the disorder of contemporary art is very much in sync with the general chaos of modernity (from exponential technological growth, to physical theories, to the political disasters of the past century). It is very different, however, in its increasingly global nature and its market implications.

I have been drawing examples from the European art tradition due to lack of confidence in commenting on other traditions. Contemporary art is a global dialogue, however, with various incorporations, transportations and fusions of historical and cultural elements. But artists of different origins and traditions, if hot and alive on the international scene, tend to show a certain convergence to European mediums and techniques — thus just like other aspects of globalisation (think: jeans, fast food restaurants, coffee shops), the globalisation of art has a tinge of cultural imperialism to it.

This transitions us smoothly to the elephant in the room: the billion-dollar global art market. Perhaps after all, what we object to when we say ‘I can draw/make this too’ isn’t how minimalistic the work is, but what an absurdly high price it commands. When Marx said the culture that bourgeois society claims to defend is all class culture, he probably didn’t expect contemporary art, vehemently rebelling against the arguably patriarchal propriety of the olden times, has come to be even more bourgeois in effect.

The various biennales and auctions everywhere are strange gatherings of the elite; the best artists are those who know how to market and sell. The art market really reflects a two-fold inequality: the inequality among artists (selling none or selling millions, with barely anything in between), as well as the inequality among the audience (is the demographic that shows up in museums diverse at all?). If merit is subjective, price is not. How to cash subjective value into hard digits? There is something twisted going on.

Art for art’s sake is not useless. Art has always been somewhat ‘higher’ above, somewhat transcending the conflicts and tribalism of ordinary life. Art should never be an instrument of political righteousness (there is really too much watered-down propaganda going on); but equally, art should never be an instrument of ‘class consciousness’, of signalling one’s position in the social hierarchy. Contemporary art is vulnerable to both, especially with the billion-dollar market combined with the cult of genius. In this world of acceleration, for contemporary art, just as for everything else, opportunities come together with traps.

Hyper-connectivity and the explosion of available mediums mean that on one hand, new forms of art — from photography to light installations to experimental multi-dimensional online projects — come with restless potential and evolve with delectable creativity; on the other hand, a dilution of focus and loss of purpose make the dialogue between the artist, the art, the market, and the audience a massive confusion. The distance is not between art and people; the distance is really just between people.

1...636637638...2,518Page 637 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