Tuesday 10th June 2025
Blog Page 646

The demonisation of antifascist protestors cannot continue

Jorrit Donner-Wittkopf
-
1
The demonisation of antifascist protestors cannot continue

You would have to be living under a rock to avoid talk of the Oxford Union’s controversial invitations. As someone of German heritage I cannot help but notice the ongoing misrepresentation of antifascist protests outside the Oxford Union. Coming to Oxford, it soon became clear that the student political scene is quite far removed from British and European campus norms – both those of my friends and those in my parents’ heyday. Peculiar to Oxford, especially when compared to what my family taught me, is a deep-seated disaffection for protest and indeed many overt forms of political expression. Protests are almost always maligned in the comment sections of student newspapers, for example.

With each Union-related fascist controversy, I am certainly pleased to find a host of opinion pieces advocating free speech and a healthy dose of caution when using the fascist label. On the other hand, something that is problematic is that there is such little breadth of opinion represented in the discussions after each protest. It seems almost as if the antifascist protestors are not represented at all in student journalism. I have also become quite disturbed by how often those arguing against the antifascist demonstrators buttress their arguments with an attack on the very essence of protest itself.

The critique of antifascist protest itself made me think of what my mum and dad had taught me. They were at the forefront of student politics when they were studying in 80’s Munich and later 90’s London. Theirs was a childhood steeped in the inescapable spectre of German fascism and its horrendous trail of devastation and genocide. The fear of a fascism’s revival was then – and still is – at the very centre of the German psyche. My mum was taught at the age of five what had happened at the nearby Kemna concentration camp; my dad went on compulsory school trips to the memorial sites once a year. As students, they stood time and time again in solidarity with the Roma communities who were – and still are – being deported from the same countries they were massacred in 70 years ago.

Most intrinsically, they taught me never to forget The Holocaust. They pressed eye-witnesses’ novels into my hands and ingrained in me an innate wariness of fascism. Fascism was unique, dangerous and innately opportunistic. It came in all different guises and its greatest strength was that it was so hard to pin down. It must be dealt with sooner rather than later.

My parents also enshrined in me the importance of protest. Peaceful protest was sacred and always justified. A society in which people are no longer at liberty to assemble and critique authority is a society which has lost its freedom. They warned me that protest as a legitimate form of political expression was going to become more and more endangered as the internet took hold, whilst fascism was going to become increasingly dangerous as the holocaust faded from collective memory of Europe[1].

And so it was disheartening to find that many of those who took it upon themselves to use the Cherwell Comment section to castigate antifascist demonstrators do not seem to have grasped the centrality of protest as a universal human right[2], an intrinsic form of political expression and a crucial tool to stop fascism’s deadly spread[3]. Each time the Union invited Tommy Robinson, Marine Le Pen, Alice Weidel, Steve Bannon or Marion Maréchal Le Pen to speak, numerous comment pieces appeared chastising antifascist demonstrators on increasingly ludicrous, unfounded grounds[4].

One theme which is running through the pieces is that protesters are somehow ‘wasting’ police resources[6]. This is not a valid line of argument. Protest is as much a civil liberty as free speech is, in fact, the two are part and parcel, and the function of the police is to protect both. As the East Oxford MP Anneliese Dodds so aptly put it, it is the Union that is wasting police time by consistently inviting propagators of hate speech as a publicity stunt[7]. The opinion pieces tarred all protesters with the same brush, suggesting that the most ‘extreme’ slogans, the swearing at police or the physical violence were somehow totally universal amongst all those who chose to speak out against fascism. To expediently negate just how multi-faceted and broad a church protest can be so as to better make a point is hardly accomplished reporting. Throughout these myopic, finger-pointing generalisations, it soon becomes easy to forget that those protesting outside the Union are united behind a cause we all sympathise with. They are saying no to fascism, racism and hate speech.

But what I found by far the most disturbing is the lack of responsible journalism. In spite of the critical acclaim many of these ‘free speech’ articles receive, there is little to no attention paid specifically to what antifascist protestors are demonstrating against. Instead, commentators write a thousand words in voracious attacks directed towards what they see as illiberal, intimidating leftists.

Predictably, earlier this week heralded the publication of another immensely popular Comment piece criticising those protesting against Marion Maréchal Le Pen’s visit last week[8]. It re-used the trope of demonstrators wasting police money and shouting ‘disrespectfully’ at police. It is also the latest in a long succession of Cherwell Comment pieces which grossly misrepresent those standing up to fascism. Not a single ‘free speech’ advocate who has thus far chosen to  protestors has taken the time to properly interrogate why so many see the likes of Robinson, Le Pen, Weidel, Bannon and Maréchal as fascists.

And so it was hardly surprising that an article avidly defending Maréchal’s right to speak at the Union did not feature the words Front National a single time. Maréchal is practically guaranteed to become the next leader of France’s Front National (recently rebranded as National Rally[9]). She represented the party in the French parliament and is tipped as its most likely candidate for the 2022 presidential elections[10]. To discuss the politics of protesting Maréchal’s visit whilst alluding only once to the political party and ideological movement she represents surely fails to grasp even a sliver of what the debate is all about. A piece earlier this week offered a thousand words on how the term Nazi had been ‘taken out of context’ but did not once attempt to properly explain how Maréchal and her movement are not Nazis. This is symptomatic of the reaction to antifascist protests over the past two years and is simply irresponsible and lazy journalism.

In the case of Maréchal’s Union speech, its defender’s constantly cite her party’s recent electoral success in the French presidential elections as some sort of loose justification for her right to speak. Since when did mainstream public opinion suddenly serve as a benchmark for what ideologies are considered acceptable? Was it not one of the first lessons we learnt in history classes on Nazi Germany that what is mainstream is not necessarily justifiable? Public opinion is hardly a bastion of progressive values – 55% of Europeans would ban immigration from majority-Muslim countries[11]and only 55% of Brits support gay marriage[12], to cite two of many examples. Maréchal’s Front National received 30% of the French vote in 2017, the exact same proportion as Adolf Hitler received in the first round of the German elections in 1933. Both achieved unexpected success, in part by promising to tyrannize and persecute minorities, be it the Jews then, or the Muslims, Roma and migrants now. In both cases, a third of the public cheered them on: the people had spoken[13].

The Union invited a speaker who represents a fascist movement which singles out minority groups as enemies of the people. 82% of Front National’s members self-identify as racist[14]. Despite their leaders attempts to ‘de-demonise’ the movement, another poll found 87% to still be ‘very racist’[15]. The FN’s regional elections were run on a campaign slogan promising ‘to decry and eradicate all bacterial migration’[16](my own emphasis added to highlight the fascist language of racial contamination). The FN frequently promises a ‘great displacement’ of migrants who have settled in France[17]. One FN councillor recently suggested that Roma families should pay for their houses by having ‘their gold teeth…collected from them’[18]. I simply ask, does this idea of ‘mass removal’ of minorities or the extraction of gold teeth remind us of anything? More pressingly, what is the difference between this rhetoric and that of the Nazis and where would those arguing for freedom of speech draw the line? Is there even a line?

It is obvious. Maréchal’s movement has a long-standing affiliation with fascism which refuses to go away. This is not an extreme leftist or progressive opinion. 58% of French people perceive Front National as a threat to democracy[19]. It is a movement which has always been home to fascist undercurrents. Only a few months ago it was explicitly renamed after a party founded by French Nazis. This tradition stretches far back to Maréchal’s racist, fascist, homophobic, holocaust-denying grand-father Jean-Marie Le Pen, who founded the party in 1972[20].

Maréchal herself – far from merely making ‘controversial comments about Islam and homosexuality’ as previous opinion pieces have indifferently put it[21]– has always refused to fully condemn her grand-father Jean-Marie’s hate speech. Not in 2014 when he jeered that Ebola would solve France’s migration problem ‘in three months’[22], nor in 2015 when she deemed his horrendous gas-chamber comments nothing more than ‘a useless provocation’[23]. The Union invited a speaker who condones racist hate speech and blasé allusions to the mass murder of minorities to give a 15 minute address up the road from a holocaust memorial exhibition.

Jean-Marie Le Pen’s descendants Maréchal and Marine, her aunt and current leader of the Front National, continue to communicate the same fundamental hate-filled, fascist message, simply cloaking it in more palatable language[24]. The pair of them have simply shifted the goal-posts: antisemitism and homophobia have been toned down. Overt ethno-nationalism has been replaced by a kind of ‘civic-nationalism’ with distinctly racial undertones[25]. Let us not forget that the latest ‘reformed’ generation of the Le Pen dynasty did not describe Jean-Marie’s racism, homophobia and antisemitism as deplorable or criminal. No, they simply deemed it a political suicide[26]. It was more than enough to win them an audience at the Oxford Union.

In any case, where antisemitism and holocaust denial have been swept under the carpet, the FN’s Islamophobia and racism remain full-throated as ever[27]. Maréchal claims that Muslims ‘cannot have the same rank’ as Catholics in society[28]. Her aunt compares Muslim street prayers to the Nazi occupation and once asked an audience ‘would you accept twelve illegal immigrants moving into your flat?…some of them would steal your wallet and brutalize your wife’[29].

Perhaps a closer look at Marion Maréchal Le Pen’s record and a broader interrogation of the movement she represents can give us a better picture of how diligent we should be. It is patronising to suggest, time and time again, that protestors who ‘lump’ her and other controversial figures into the category of ‘Nazi’ are misguided, without even touching on the political movement she or other supposed fascists represent. It is foolish to presume that any political movement operates in a vacuum away from its members, followers and voters. Robinson’s white supremacist followers, Breitbart’s hateful authors, Weidel’s neo-Nazi following and Le Pen’s racist voters should be considered just as much as what their figureheads say on record. Perhaps the Union could rescue its reputation by evaluating what is fascist through a more comprehensive framework. As for the Maréchal speech’s relevance to us in the UK? The ‘foreign country’ that one article described Maréchal as affecting is France, one of the UK’s closest allies, £33.8bn of its exports, and a shorter drive from Oxford than Newcastle. Maréchal and the Front National are on our doorstep, threatening the very values that make Great Britain, namely inclusivity, equality and multiculturalism. Upon closer inspection, some things explain themselves.

[1]https://www.history.ox.ac.uk/article/no-isnt-1930s-yes-fascism

[2]https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-11-right-protest

[3]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/07/st-kilda-rally-a-fascist-movement-can-only-be-kept-small-if-we-call-it-by-its-name

[4]http://cherwell.org/2018/11/16/dont-confuse-free-speech-with-hate-speech/?fbclid=IwAR3gBy7-PZps_ZiM693P_XTTf_daC4m7N1o7De9aOf6ZP_idqnMPsnGrH8s

[6]http://cherwell.org/2018/11/16/dont-confuse-free-speech-with-hate-speech/?fbclid=IwAR28relvFOD-obwGmqLuV2HwPsIbiQbUgMkCeKVrihPpKqPSBYBvcsIw1co

[7]https://www.oxfordstudent.com/2019/01/22/marechal-talk-draws-protests/

[8]http://cherwell.org/2019/01/29/bring-down-controversial-speakers-with-debate-not-disorder/?fbclid=IwAR1gu3EYz82GgzCquKyb3Vix2-ZLTwgVASvVZ2itAvBho9r-JR5Y0OOwzBQ

[9]https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-france-politics-nationalfront/frances-national-front-renamed-national-rally-idUKKCN1IX5LR

[10]https://www.dw.com/en/cpac-2018-marion-marechal-le-pen-marines-hardline-niece-to-share-stage-with-us-conservatives/a-42665843

[11]https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/what-do-europeans-think-about-muslim-immigration

[12]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35447150

[13]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/07/politicans-must-shape-public-opinion-not-follow-it

[14]https://booksandideas.net/The-Front-National-Still-Racist-and-Xenophobic.html

[15]https://www.marianne.net/politique/retire-le-noir-le-racisme-decomplexe-des-jeunes-du-front-national

[16]https://www.ardi-ep.eu/marine-le-pen-proposes-to-eradicate-bacterial-immigration/

[17]https://jyx.jyu.fi/bitstream/handle/123456789/58696/URN%3ANBN%3Afi%3Ajyu-201806213316.pdf?sequence=1

[18]https://www.20minutes.fr/politique/2131615-20170913-elu-fn-voulait-recuperer-dents-or-roms-exclu-parti

[19]https://www.businessinsider.com/french-see-marine-le-pen-front-national-as-danger-to-democracy-2017-3?r=US&IR=T

[20]https://www.rtl.fr/sujet/jean-marie-le-pen

[21]http://cherwell.org/2019/01/29/bring-down-controversial-speakers-with-debate-not-disorder/?fbclid=IwAR1gu3EYz82GgzCquKyb3Vix2-ZLTwgVASvVZ2itAvBho9r-JR5Y0OOwzBQ

[22]https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/10847344/Jean-Marie-Le-Pen-Ebola-epidemic-would-solve-immigration-problems.html

[23]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/08/frances-front-national-plunged-into-family-feud-over-holocaust-remarks

[24]https://oeilsurlefront.liberation.fr/en-bref/2018/03/11/un-cadre-du-fn-suspendu-apres-des-injures-racistes_1635321

[25]https://www.history.ox.ac.uk/article/no-isnt-1930s-yes-fascism

[26]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/08/marine-le-pen-front-national-jean-marie-elections-holocaust

[27]https://sos-racisme.org/fn-pas-change/

[28]https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/exclusive-interview-with-frances-youngest-and-most-controversial/

[29]https://www.businessinsider.com/john-oliver-france-election-warning-2017-4

Budget cut for Bodleian Libraries

Simon Hunt
-
0
Budget cut for Bodleian Libraries

The Bodleian Libraries’ book purchasing budget has been cut for the 2018-19 academic year.

The central library budget for the 2018-19 financial year is £8,699k which is a fall of over £50k from the previous year. When adjusted for inflation over the period, this amounts to a near -3% cut in the library’s book-purchasing capacity.

One librarian who wished to remain anonymous told Cherwell: “it’s disappointing to see that the book purchasing budget has fallen in real terms for the 2018/19 financial year.

“The problem is being exacerbated by the fall in the pound, which has meant that books published outside the UK cost a lot more than they used to. We have a smaller budget but an even smaller number of books that we purchase with it.”

Philanthropic donations to the Bodleian, which are counted towards the library’s book purchasing budget, have also fallen from £1,088k to £993k, representing a 12% real-terms cut from 2017-18 to 2018-19.

Philanthropic donations include “income generated by Trust Funds being used to purchase materials and one-off donations for the purchase of particular items or groups of items” according to a spokesperson from the Bodleian Libraries.

No squidding! Time to ink again about octopus terrine?

Michael Culbert and Ray Williams
-
0
No squidding! Time to ink again about octopus terrine?

Squidnap!

Michael Culbert

The recent controversy over whether Somerville was right to remove octopus from their formal menu highlights the persistence of a lack of understanding of how it feels to come to Oxford for someone from a working-class background.

As someone from a council street in Belfast who has tried some of the more unusual seafoods, I welcome the Somerville principal’s decision; and I’d say if you are an Oxford student finding yourself outraged by the fact octopus has been taken off your formal menu, you might want to re-evaluate your priorities.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with eating octopus, as far as I’m aware there are no ethical issues beyond the usual for any meat, and branding foods as “too posh” misses the issue here.

I would, in fact, quite like to try octopus after hearing about this mini-scandal, but I’m somewhat glad that it wasn’t on the menu for my freshers formal.

Coming to Oxford is, for most, a disorienting experience filled with novelty, much of which is exciting, some of which is stressful and takes a while to adjust to, and a little of which is just unnecessary. So why make that any harder than it already is?

Having a plate of octopus – a food I don’t think any half-educated person should need to have pointed out is not a staple of the British working class – set down in front of you at your first formal dinner at Oxford firmly joins knowing which type of gown to buy in the latter category.

For many students at Oxford formal dinner, with its candelabras and three courses, may be at least a somewhat familiar experience, and a great part of Oxford is that formals are, for the most part, very cheap and accessible.

This means that whatever students have (or have not) experienced at home becomes less important.

We should recognise, however, that millions of people in the UK live in poverty, meaning going out for a meal is a rare occurrence for huge swathes of our country; and when it does happen it’s Wagamama or TGI Friday’s, not Somerville for some cephalopod.

Inevitably, then, to make Oxford more accessible to all sections of society we must realise this and alter our expectations.

The ability of any student to feel that they fit in here is more important than scolding them for a lack of adventurous tastes in seafood, and to not recognise that fact is the epitome of middle-class privilege.

We’ll sea

Ray Williams

Octopus terrine. A week ago, I’d never heard of it. Even now I’m not wholly sure what it is.

And yet its supposed abolition from the menus at Somerville College has been talked about in the Daily Mail, The Telegraph, and on BBC Online. We have found ourselves in the midst of a manufactured controversy that should never have gotten beyond the pages of the student papers or the com- ment threads of Oxfess.

Believe it or not, octopuses do not feature heavily in Oxford’s Access and Participation Plan for the coming year. If you read Baroness Royall’s original blog post, she mentioned the ‘bemusement’ of one Somervillian at being served what I gather is some kind of pasted octopus.

Bemusement was the emotional trigger of all this fuss. Baroness Royall’s heart is in the right place and I applaud all those working to make Oxford a more comfortable place for students that do not fit the traditional Oxford mould.

However, access isn’t about removing and hiding Oxford’s various curiosities it’s about making them less mysterious. Indeed, it’s those very curiosities that appeal to many students here.

Students from less advantaged backgrounds, including myself, go to university expecting to try new things.

We expect and welcome change and challenge. We are not afraid of the odd oddity. We are not afraid to stand up and demand that changes be made. And we are not afraid of octopus terrine.

After all, there are far stranger things in this city. And, for that matter, far greater impediments to access.

The media furore around things like this do far more harm than good.

It’s bad enough feeling like a fish out of water without being patronised as well. I am of course sympathetic to the fact that in a place as bizarre as Oxford there is no reason to make it any stranger.

I also empathise with any student who’s been embarrassed in a new situation. I lurched from disaster to disaster in first year. But there’s a first time for everything and university is the place to discover new things. If not now, then when?

Of course we find it comforting to eat food that reminds us of home. But we don’t need to eat such food exclusively to feel comfortable, and we don’t need to be patronised by those who feel we can’t handle the shock of octupus terrine.

We would quickly come to regret it if colleges decided to serve fish finger sandwiches every dinner time in a the name of comfort.

The world’s in dissarhea: the sillier side of life

Becky Cook
-
0
The world’s in dissarhea: the sillier side of life

We live in a world where a recent death row inmate demanded he be served a “fattened live cat” for his last meal, forcing the Colorado State Penitentiary to become the first to deny a prisoner their final supper of choice.

Once upon a time, this kind of wacky story was light relief amongst the dryer political fare. How lucky we are that cat eating felons are now on the more predictable, tedious end of the news spectrum.

Government shutdown slackening staff numbers at the White House? Fret not. A Big Mac buffet it is. Of course, the nuggets and sachets of sauces must be served on silver platters and flanked by robust candelabras, lest we lose the touch of grandeur for the fast food feast.

Brexit not going as well as one would hope? Never fear, Chris Grayling is here and he’s brought a bunch of plucky rookies to run our glorious cross-Channel ferry service. Don’t worry about their lack of experience, they’ll pick up how to float the boats as they go along!

But happily, the weird and wonderful is not just a matter for international politics. Closer to home, a runaway rhea (a small emu, apparently. No, me neither) is running amok in the vicinity.

The bird was first spotted somewhere called Peppard Common, which Google Maps assures me is relatively close and, much to do chagrin of law enforcement, he is still at large. Chris is his name and circumvention is his game.

The juicier news tidbits often seem to come from America, a surprise to no one. For those who failed miserably in their attempt at dry January, a woman in the US was recently banned from Walmart after she went on a wild joyride around their car park on a mobility scooter, all while slugging back wine from a Pringles canister.

This went on for two and a half hours. No, really. Two and a half hours. That is 150 glorious minutes. Think about that. If you, like myself, are a finalist and feel on the verge of cracking in a similarly dramatic and amusing manner, never fear.

Whenever it all becomes too much, and you too feel like eating a well-fed cat in dismay, don’t worry about light entertainment or stand up comedy.

Turn on the news, open up the paper and prepare to enjoy the strangest show of all – the real world.

The awkward conversation around ‘Privilege’

James Lingfield
-
0
The awkward conversation around ‘Privilege’

The concept of social ‘privilege’ is something that only relatively recently has been prominent in social discourse.

Some believe that it’s something that defines the very essence of everything one can achieve in their lives, such as columnist Brando Simeo Starkey. Others, like lecturer at the University of Michigan Jamie R. Abrams disregard entirely believing it to be a myth.

When asked to write something on the topic, I had to reflect on the concept and my own position on it for one of the first times ever, and its something I have found quite difficult.

It’s a topic that’s impossible to define, quantify and measure and even my own musings will be completely different to yours of your friends or anyone else’s.

I felt best to begin with myself. As shocking as it may be for some of you to hear, I’m disabled. When I was born, my parents were told I would never walk, talk, sit up, or even eat solid food, and that I’d likely be dead by the time I was 12.

Luckily, and against all medical advice, my parents refused to accept this prognosis, trying any way that they could to make a better life for me.

I’m so thankful for the mobility I have, because I know it should have been much worse. That’s not to say that there are many facets of my disability that I really don’t like, many of which are not too obvious to others.

I fatigue an awful lot quicker than most, so am limited in the amount of time I can spend both working and socialising. In addition, this city in particular throws up a lot of access issues. The fact that I’m in Bridge every Thursday is because it’s the only club accessible for wheelchairs. Perhaps what irritates me the most of my condition is the social stigmas surrounding it.

The slightly higher and slower speaking voice that I’m met with when talking to strangers is a bit too common of an occurrence for me. A girl I met in the summer even asked my Dad: “Did he really get into Oxford?”.

It’s very hard to create an individual personality that allows you to be per- ceived outside of your wheelchair. As much as I love the people and the environment at Hilda’s, I even felt it took at least until around the midpoint of Michaelmas to kick these stigmas at university, which is why I really didn’t enjoy the beginning of my time here.

The issue of ‘privilege’ I think perhaps is highlighted here. I even felt that I had to overcome these social preconceptions when meeting everyone, even some of who I now consider my closest friends.

They clearly never had any malicious intention, which is why I feel it unfair to confront people on this issue, when, if anything, they’re doing it with my benefit in mind.

The Wikipedia definition of privilege is: “The perceived rights or advantages that are assumed to be available only to a particular person or group of people”. Under this definition, I feel personally I don’t quite have the ‘advantage’ of having a ‘blank slate’ in a new social situation, with me often having to joke about the disability to bring out the elephant in the room.

In a more practical sense, even last term, there were many events that I’d turn up to, not be able to attend, and then leave my friends with choice of either leaving me or spoiling their night, which is a lose-lose scenario.

I think it’s fair to assume these all to be considered as some sort of ‘privilege’ for abled bodied people.

However, even factoring in my own experiences, I still feel the term ‘privilege’ is a bit problematic. Granted, I am disabled, from a working-class background, and am a first-generation University student, which could lead you to assume that I am lacking ‘privilege’.

However, I am also a heterosexual, white, man, which one could argue grants me certain ‘privileges’. There are also issues of types and degrees of ‘privilege’: am I, say, more ‘privileged’ than an able bodied, black woman from the LGBT community?

Even from a mobility point of view, is the fact that I still have function of all four limbs a type of ‘privilege’ I hold over other people with certain disabilities?

Your answers to all of these questions would likely depend on your own social position and perceived ‘privileges’, which in turn I suppose throws into question this entire piece: can my point of view be trusted and accepted given my own social position?

Can I be trusted to be unbiased, subconsciously or otherwise? The fact that Oxford University is not 100% comprised of white, British, abled bodied, heterosexual men is a sign that ‘privilege’ is not a definitive.

Society has evolved to the point where, although its true ‘equality’ can be debated to say the least, one can overcome their social ‘privileges’, as seen by all of us being where we are.

I don’t think its unfair to feel that an Oxford Education is a ‘privilege’, given its likely career boosts.

So ultimately, the question of the severity of different types of ‘privileges’, and if ‘privilege’ even exists in the first place is a debate for someone far cleverer than I (I’m an English student, I’m clearly not that bright).

I just think that, given that everyone has a different social position, and thus a different level, type, and perception of ‘privilege’, the healthiest and best way of dealing with it and getting it out in the open is to talk about it more.

We have to create a discourse with people from all sides contributing, so that hopefully, one day, the marrying of all these different perspectives can be achieved.

Review: ENRON – “absolutely captivating”

Agatha Bather
-
0
Review: ENRON – “absolutely captivating”

Lucy Prebble’s play follows the rise and fall of the energy trading giant Enron. Jeffery Skilling, your least favourite PPE boy who loves telling you how smart he is through the medium of debate, transforms the old gas and oil company into a firm that trades in energy, then bandwidth – and maybe even weather.

We first meet Skilling at a staff party (or a “celebration of ignorance”), in which the company is drinking to moving the financial model of mark-to-market, a model which allows for the company to increase their stock price before or, in this case without, increasing their profits. With him is Andy Fastow, another Oxford type, this time the nerdy one who still likes you to know he’s intelligent but flexes slightly less.

As the play persists, the work that the two men are doing seems to become increasingly removed from the world around them. Skilling takes the company from selling energy to the “glistening, clean industry” of trading. With their company’s stocks mainly being reliant on projections when the projects don’t pay off, Enron is left verging on bankruptcy, and so Fastow detaches himself further from reality, creating shadow companies to hide the debt, embodied as dinosaurs.

The company is distancing itself from reality, but the impact it is having on real life is only getting greater. We hear of deaths and the ruining of lives in the name of Skilling’s ego, or the company’s share price, all juxtaposed with crude jokes and a classic neo-liberal excuse that the company cannot be wrong, its either the fault of overregulation or the market.

The two other main players in the Enron game are Ken Lay, Enron’s chairman, and Claudia Row, Skilling’s failed rival and a character representing an amalgamation of high up company staff. Lay is an honest grandfather-like figure who takes a step back when he notices business is getting dodgy and refuses to hear of anything wrong, claiming, “Once you bury a dead dog, you don’t dig it up to smell it”. Row is an old-schooler with a distaste for Skilling’s ideas who generally fails to use her femininity to her advantage in this masculine company, although we are led to suspect that she may have been more successful before Skilling’s arrival.

What really hits home about the production is this: while you’re watching it, you’re sat near to, or maybe even are, the next Jeffery Skilling. He tells us that the smart people like him work in the private sector, and those who dossed about become politicians. I urge everyone to make their PPE friends watch it as a morality check.

Enron tells this corporate story through extravagant staging. Dressed like a park ranger with a tie around his head, Andy Fastow invites us into his lair-like office which slowly becomes filled with green lighting, smoke, and the aforementioned dinosaurs. We watch this childlike character treating hiding debt and finding loopholes as an all-consuming game. This game continues ‘upstairs’: throwing punches, losing money and cracking jokes, the traders almost can’t stop moving in the testosterone fuelled trading floor; each excited line delivered to us after a run downstage. The production amazes throughout with its rather ‘dotcom-bubble’ electronic backdrop projecting political events, graphs and share prices.

This staging was absolutely captivating: I found I couldn’t take my eyes away for the entire performance. Every scene change is slick, with those moving furniture doing so – in suits – in a fast and ordered fashion. Every detail of the play is considered, from establishing the scene and moving the plot through a long period of time quickly (and without discontinuity), to directing the audience’s attention to the speaker.

The performance from all the cast is similarly incredible; their comedic timing is on point, and I’d be surprised if any of them could have done anything more with their lines. There were laughs from the audience throughout, driven both by comic lines and also by the drama of the scene. While watching, I was even drawn to believe the age of the characters through their convincing acting styles and costumes.

We are even treated to further absurdity with a beautifully harmonised barbershop-esque performance, as well as the throwing of shredded documents over Lay. This surreal quality keeps us at a safe distance from identifying with the would-be-tragic-hero, Jeffery Skilling. Although he and Enron fall, the people who fall with it fall more; and rather than the ending being cathartic, I was left rather more with a desire for social justice, or at least a desire to throw two fingers up to capitalism and move to Norway and raise some chickens.

With absolutely no lawful wrongdoing or vested interest, I wholeheartedly recommend that you watch this play.

Slow Cookers: The Future Of Student Gastronomy?

Peter Lewis
-
0
Slow Cookers: The Future Of Student Gastronomy?

Being a student at Oxford is busy occupation. Between the masses of lectures, tutorials and vain attempts to hold down a social life, its no wonder we struggle to find time to cook.

Having to rely on college catering is a risky business. Chaotic schedules of rehearsals, classes, training sessions, and the occasional nap often result in students missing meal times, and having the unenviable task of throwing together something edible at the end of a long day.

Being all too aware of this problem, I asked myself, is there a better way for students to eat?

A possible solution may lie in the purchase of a slow-cooker.

Over the vacation Santa was kind enough to leave me one under my tree which, despite making me feel very old, did make me quite excited at the thought of coming home in the freezing evenings to a steaming pot of delicious casserole or spaghetti bolognaise.

For those of you who don’t know, a slowcooker cooks your meal – slowly – throughout the day, saving you the trouble of preparing a meal when you get home. You simply chop up all your ingredients in the morning, leave it to steam for six-eight hours, then open up the pot to consume a tasty meal.

While this does involve a degree of preparation in the morning, the cooking itself is a one-step, chop-and-chuck process, and the machine is very simple to use.

There’s also a lot of variety with the meals you can make. While my first thoughts were only of hot stews to ward off the cold, popular recipes include curries, soups, lasagne, chicken, and even cakes if you’re feeling adventurous. They’re also great for those seeking healthier alternatives, eliminating the temptation to order food in, or wander down to the nearest chippy in search of sustenance.

Slow-cookers are also compatible with a student budget, with prices ranging between £10-£30 for a small model. While using it does force you to buy your own ingredients, the lengthy steaming process can tenderize less expensive cuts of meat, allowing for money to be saved on ingredients. They also use significantly less electricity than an oven, and leftover portions can be refrigerated, ready to eat at a later date.

Inevitably the biggest downside of slowcookers is the amount of time they take up. Preparing meals does involve that little bit of extra work in the mornings, which limits their usefulness for those inclined to sleep-in as much as they can.

Additionally, the planning of meals alongside the weekly food shop takes up more time than simply attending college meals.

Nevertheless, they do offer a refreshing sense independence for anyone finding themselves rushing around in the evenings, and can be an invaluable tool for anyone seeking to eat well on a budget.

Recipe: Chocolate Tacos

Emma Hawkins
-
0
Recipe: Chocolate Tacos

Makes 10

Time: 90 minutes

Ingredients

For the shells

  • 100g Plain flour
  • 100g Caster sugar
  • 2 tbsp Cocoa powder
  • 2 Large egg whites
  • 2 tbsp Melted butter
  • 60ml Whole milk

For the filling

  • 50g Milk chocolate
  • 100g Chopped hazelnuts
  • A few scoops of chocolate ice cream
  • Double cream (or squirty cream)
  • Fresh fruit (I went for bananas and strawberries)

Method

1. Begin by making the taco shells. Put the flour, sugar, and cocoa into a large bowl and whisk together.

2. In another bowl put the egg whites, melted butter, and milk and whisk together.

3. Pour the wet mixture into the dry mixture and whisk to make a smooth batter.

4. Place a small frying pan over a medium heat. Lightly oil and then add about 1 tbsp batter to the pan. Smooth the mixture around the pan to make an even layer.

5. Cook for a couple of minutes and then flip the taco over and cook for another couple of minutes on the other side.

6. Cover a rolling pin in cling film (or another long round object). Take the taco shell out of the pan and carefully fold it over the rolling pin. Hold it in shape for about 10 seconds and then leave to cool whilst you repeat with the rest of the mixture.

7. Once all your mixture is used up melt the chocolate for the filling in a heatproof bowl over a pan of gently simmering water.

8. Dip the edge of one of the tacos in the melted chocolate and then dip the edge into a bowl of the chopped hazelnuts. Leave on a plate to set.

To include the excluded: An interview with Baroness Royall

Fin Kavanagh and Abby Ridsdill-Smith
-
1
To include the excluded: An interview with Baroness Royall

First opened to women in 1879, Somerville can hardly call itself old as Oxford colleges go. It can however boast to be the only remaining college to have hosted all-female principals. Baroness Janet Royall is the latest to join those ranks.

Her predecessor, Alice Prochaska, came from a radically different background of historical cookery books and archiving, while Jan’s careers is rooted in Westminster. Chief whip of the House of Lords during the Blair years, she makes no attempt to hide her politics. Not an Oxbridge graduate herself, unlike the majority of principals and deans, she provides a breath of fresh air to the college – though far from a quiet one.  

Her latest crusade, removing octopus terrine from the freshers’ welcome dinner, in an attempt to create a more inclusive environment, proved to be a goldmine for the broadsheets. While Giles Coren, Rod Liddle, and the gammon brigade in The Telegraph’s online comments were quick to accuse her of pandering to us snowflakes, the move was well received by students – not to mention the cephalopod community, who have since requested their own JCR officer.

Arguably, the worst thing about “Terrinegate” was the way it overshadowed Somerville’s other attempts to become more accessible. The college gave 72.6% of its UK offers to state school students in January, significantly more than the Oxford average. Like many other colleges, it’s also committed to radically increasing access and outreach spending, in response to the admissions report of May last year.

“Access [ensures] that young people who got the ability to come to Oxford University, and enjoy everything that is brilliant about Oxford [also] have the ability to do so,” Jan explains:

“One of our founding principles was to include the excluded and that ethos continues to this day. We want to include everybody who has the ability to get here.”

“We want to ensure we maintain academic standards…just like everyone all over Oxford. But there are many young people who live in disadvantaged areas, and have difficult family backgrounds. Through no fault of their own, they may have never thought about Oxford. But Oxford is for everybody.”

All colleges have committed to change since May. However, there is a great difference between promising and creating change. Jan explains that Somerville has committed to participating in UNIQ, along with 22 other colleges this summer, in line with the programme’s expansion. She also refers to Target Oxbridge and Somerville’s own “demystifying day” – which aims to make the University less intimidating to prospective students before their interviews.

She also notes the effectiveness of the college system in improving access, explaining:

“It should be an opportunity, as there are well evidenced Oxford wide initiatives – like UNIQ. It enables many different [access initiatives] to be tried, tested, [to] see whether or not they work. It’s very important now that colleges are coming together more to work in a more focussed way in different areas of the country.

“As long as colleges cooperate and collaborate when and where necessary, it’s good to have the collegiate system”.

Jan’s comments are at odds with some other commentators. Lord Adonis recently called for colleges to be built for disadvantaged students. David Lammy also recommended that the admissions process be centralised. The University remains highly skeptical about both proposals, though we wanted to see if she had given them any thought:

“I think it’s interesting to hear other people’s ideas, but I think this is up to Oxford, because we have to determine what is best for the University, and best for our students throughout the country. What worries me is that some people from outside of Oxford think we are wanting to bring about change for PR reasons, and that is not the case. The reasons we at Somerville, and I’m convinced all colleagues in all of the colleges, what to bring about change is because it’s the right thing to do…for the University, and for society as a whole.”

Doing the right thing for the university, and for society, was inherent in Jan’s decision to remove octopus from the menu. We approach the subject and the wider question of tradition, and whether that played a role in her decision:

“I personally like tradition, and I think it’s great we are rooted in some traditions. The thing about the ridiculous octopus story is its not about dumbing down as some people have suggested, it’s a way of ensuring that when people first come to Somerville they think it’s a place which feels okay, I don’t want students to feel like they can’t be themselves here, they must feel able to be themselves, but I also want them to feel comfortable.    

“After day one, let’s have lots and lots of octopus, but on day one, lets have things that people feel comfortable with.”

A Public Health Emergency

Zahra Farzanekhoo
-
0
A Public Health Emergency

In 2013, a group of doctors declared in the British Medical Journal that food hunger is a ‘public health emergency’. Often when thinking about food scarcity, we tend to think about developing countries and famine. We forget that food hunger is present on our doorstep. We come face to face with it every day without even realising; perhaps whilst walking down Cornmarket at night or in the supermarket aisles where a mother may be visibly conflicted as she decides how to make her last £2 feed four people that evening. It is an issue that should not exist anywhere, but especially not in one of the world’s largest economies, where supermarkets are packed to the brim, full of food they will throw out at the close of business.

As a result of the 2008 Financial crisis and the subsequent austerity measures introduced by David Cameron and the coalition government, the use of food banks has grown drastically.

Furthermore, a 2012 study undertaken by Netmums found that 20% of mothers missed out on meals so they could feed their children instead. More and more children are showing up to school malnourished and underweight and whilst many see school holidays as a much needed break, for many families it is a very stressful time because they cannot afford to feed their children.

The first step to alleviating this issue is acknowledging that it exists. The Conservative government has to realise the severity of this is- sue and how deeply it runs through the country. In 2017, Jacob Rees-Mogg notably commented that “inevitably, the state can’t do everything, so I think that there is good within food banks”.

There aren’t. There is one simple reason: Conservative government policy has caused so much strain on low-income people that they have resorted on charity to fulfil their own and their families most basic needs. The government needs to stop brushing it under the carpet and its reliance on food banks and charities to address its shortcomings and inadequacies.

Once the government recognises the reality of the issue, they need to reform the current benefits and universal credits system.

In particular, they must work harder to en- sure that there are no delays or gaps in income. Even a lag of one day can be too much. It is important to note that some people even lack access to food banks or are unaware or embarrassed to use them.

We need to have a system which understands the context of the issue that it is attempting to be solved. In fact, we already have a welfare system that has the primary aim of reducing poverty, a system that those who are on the boundary of survival rely heavily on.

Therefore, it would make sense and it would be reasonable to expect that this system also has a solution built in which addresses the issues that will inevitably arise if payments are delayed. This can only happen if there the government initiates a cultural shift and changes the approach currently employed and exhibited by local councils.

The first would be to limit the use of benefit sanctioning in only a few exceptional cases and have a greater understanding and respect for the people who are appealing for help.

The government needs to rethink its harsh austerity measures that are disproportionately affecting low-income people. It needs to stop making the most vulnerable in our society pick between keeping warm or eating. It needs to stop making parents choose between feeding themselves and feeding their children. And it needs to recognise that this issue exists and it needs to stop tolerating it as just a by-product of economic security. If the only way this government thinks it can achieve economic security is by starving its poorest, then it confirms what we always knew about the Conservative party.

Until then, people in Oxford and across the nation will continue to suffer from nutritional poverty without any hope of a solution in the foreseeable future.

1...645646647...2,508Page 646 of 2,508

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