Wednesday, May 14, 2025
Blog Page 661

Moderation and the free speech debate

Barney Pite
-
0
Moderation and the free speech debate

If you haven’t heard of Quora, imagine Wikipedia meets LinkedIn, YahooAnswers all grown up, or Facebook with a brain. Think of a social media site where lawyers ask doctors questions about Christian doctrine, entrepreneurs market the latest products and the hottest ideas, and Mark Zuckerberg hunts for his next investment. Quora is social media at its best: a knowledge market for people with questions that only an expert can answer.

Quora is unusual on the social internet: it puts quality of content over quantity of users. Quora’s moderation strategy packs a serious punch – the administration responds to reports of policy violations within hours, at the latest. Site moderation is so stringent on Quora that the community has discussed whether moderation policies pay sufficient heed to freedom of speech. But what Quora has discovered is simple: if you want to curate high quality content, you need to moderate the conversation – or the people who have the expertise won’t share it.

In 2009, Adam D’Angelo and Charlie Cheever, two senior executives at Facebook, decided to start a website. Their project was founded on high ideals: D’Angelo and Cheever wanted to ‘share and grow the world’s knowledge’. Quora – the plural of ‘quorum’ and the name they eventually settled on – was all about quality: “The site naturally selects for high quality people,” remarked D’Angelo, in a 2010 interview. “A lot of people really like to answer questions, and they re- ally enjoy sharing their knowledge. Especially people who have valuable knowledge.”

Within a year, Quora’s impressive clientele included: Mark Zuckerberg, Mark Andressen, one of the most powerful venture capitalists in Silicon Valley, and Fred Wilson, a Wall Street investor with stakes in Twitter and Tumblr. The user base has continued to expand: now Quora counts Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Justin Trudeau, and Jimmy Wales among its number. A list of the most-viewed writers reads more like a roster of academia’s great and good than a series of internet celebrities: Richard Muller, a recipient of a MacArthur ‘Genius’ Fellowship and a physicist at Berkeley, Robert Frost, who works at NASA, and Ernest W Adams, a professor at Uppsala University in Sweden.

Quora’s high minded principles are reflected in the biographies of its founders. After attending Philips Exeter – an elite boarding school in Massachusetts, where his classmates included Zuckerberg, and he won national coding tournaments and Informatics Olympiads – D’Angelo went to Caltech, where he read Computer Science and competed as an international collegiate programmer. Charlie Cheever, his co-founder, worked for Amazon and Facebook before Quora. Before that, he was at Harvard.

In the years since its foundation, Quora has grown quickly: despite Quora’s drive to ‘optimise for quality’, the site now attracts 200 million unique viewers per month. A 2017 fundraising round returned a 1.8 billion USD valuation, double the company’s worth in 2014. And Quora has pushed for globalisation: users can access the platform in Spanish, French, German, and Italian, with Indonesian, Hindi, Japanese and Portuguese versions in the pipeline.

A fundamental of how Quora curates expertise is that it recognises that a free space isn’t necessarily a safe one. In order to foster informed and quality speech, you need to generate an environment which gives the users with real knowledge the confidence to come forward.

I spoke to Jonathan Brill, head of Writer Relations at Quora, about their moderation strategy. “Quora is about making people feel safe enough, so that they can share what they know with someone else who has a question,” he said. “It’s not enough for it to be technically available to everybody to share their knowledge, it also has to feel safe enough, or else only the incredibly thick-skinned, hostile and combative people will feel safe.”

The safety of the social internet is a hot topic. Today, when terrorists hatch plots on WhatsApp, extremists organise rallies on Twitter and elections are won on 4chan, what’s said online can resound much more widely than the confines of the platform. But to what extent should Silicon Valley’s titans decide which sounds resound? What are the guidelines by which Silicon Valley decides what is and isn’t fair? Should governments moderate Silicon Valley’s moderation process? Who watches the Watchmen?

For years, platform administrators kept their distance from the people who used their platforms, as more users created greater advertising revenues, and lax usage policies meant more users. But with the simultaneous rise of Donald Trump and an uber-politicised social media, administrative structures have started to weigh-in. In 2016, notorious provocateur Milo Yiannopoulous was permanently banned from Twitter after publicising abuse of Ghostbusters’ star Leslie Jones. More recently, in August of 2018, Spotify, Apple, Facebook, Vimeo and Youtube removed videos published by InfoWars’ Alex Jones. Online right-wing factions protested loudly, in both cases. Yiannopolous condemned the situation in Breitbart:“Anyone who cares about free speech has been sent a clear message: you’re not welcome on Twitter,” said Yiannopoulos. Stevan Crowder, a right-wing podcaster and blogger, Tweeted that: “An anti-free speech communication platform will lose its value’, in the wake of Yiannopoulos’ ban.

It would, however, be an exaggeration to describe Quora as opposed to free speech. Quora prioritises real expertise at the expense of totally open discourse: “Most of the brightest people in my life I would not describe as combative or eager to engage in online conflict,” said Jonathan. “They want to avoid conflict. That’s what smart people do. So if you want to provide a space for the smartest of smart people to share what they know, you have to eliminate the shenanigans that are present in most online spaces.” Eliminating shenanigans, for Quora, means putting all the power in the hands of the content creator. I asked Jonathan about Quora’s anti-trolling measures. “It feels like you have a lot of tools at your disposal,” he replied. “You can block the person, you can delete the comment, you could respond to it if you want, and you could go further and delete the whole thread and what they say at any point. It’s your answer; you wrote it, you own it.”

From the outside, Quora might sound like a dull and stuffy place, frequented by people with bigger egos than brains, but there’s a reason public figures with busy schedules and guarded agendas are drawn to the website. Quora curates quality expression in topics as broad as Jose Mourinho’s defensive football, and nuclear physics. Quora’s quality is seriously addictive, both if you’re writing or if you’re just reading. It’s easy to find the social internet vacuous; Quora adds some- thing fundamentally serious and considered.

When Quora had a critical mass of answers, questions, and users, its founders decided to make a change. BNBR (Be Nice, Be Respectful) became one of Quora core moderation principles. BNBR was controversial because the website seriously enforced it, banning a number of prominent users including Brooke Schwartz, due to alleged BNBR violations.

On Medium, a publishing platform and social journal- ism site, Schwartz wrote ‘[their] obsession with BNBR is turning Quora into a cesspool of crap and spam, especially considering they’re systematically banning all of their best users.’

Schwartz’s argument isn’t totally coherent, as a goal of Quora’s assiduous moderation program is to minimise exactly the sort of ‘crap and spam’ Schwartz sees all over Quora. But anything the site loses from BNBR, it certainly makes up for in users who like it.

I spoke to Andrew Weill, a tax lawyer from the San Francisco area, who writes about parenting, atheism, politics, and the law, for an audience of almost 60 thousand followers. When asked how Quora facilitated good quality content, he responded simply: “BNBR. That’s less about the Quora enforcement, which is spotty, and more about the fact that the site attracts people who like BNBR and set it as their normative standard.”

People have argued that both this insistence upon BNBR, and its totally writer-centric approach to moderation, infringe upon freedom of speech: “Quora, instead of allowing free speech, act [sic] like a bunch of censoring Nazis,” wrote Gregory Smith, a banned second amendment-supporter, on his blog. Philip Pillali, a student from New York, described a BNBR decision as “a targeted attempt to silence an answer that disagreed with the views of the moderators of the platform.”

Yet, Quora’s mission – to curate a virtual space for the dissemination of expertise – is one that attracts people who’ll Be Nice and Be Respectful without being asked. BNBR exists because the kind of user Quora wants to attract likes it, and they won’t post on the site unless a policy of its kind is in place. Again: smart people want to avoid conflict online, they don’t want their expertise challenged or insulted by nameless online trolls. “Without a concerted effort to enforce BNBR policies,” wrote Jim Watkins, a Canadian writer with four and a half million total views, “Quora would not be a forum I would spend any time on.” “Without the rule of BNBR, Quora would devolve into name-calling and nastiness. It would become the home of crackpots and kooks,” said Peter Flom, a statistical consultant with 74 thousand followers.

And support for BNBR isn’t necessarily politically one-sided. I spoke with Matthew Bates, a teacher from Chicago. With 70.5 million views and 63 thousand followers under his belt, Bates is the best known conservative on a site that leans to the left. “The ability to delete comments on your posts and block people helps,” said Bates. “Also the ability of everyone to report people for harassment helps a lot.”

A safe space is good for everyone who is taking the site seriously: it doesn’t infringe upon free speech to enforce rules which ensure the platform’s broader quality. And Quora doesn’t see itself as a website designed to foster the discourse that an open forum encourages. “Discourse is more of a byproduct of a lot of people on Quora feeling safe enough to share their knowledge,” said Jonathan. If you disagree with someone, write your own answer. But a writer’s space is theirs to control, and if they want to delete your comment or block you, they are free to do so.

This moderation style is hardly the online norm. “I’m confident that we spend a lot more time thinking about it and per our overall budget we spend a lot more on trying to solve that problem,” said Brill, when asked about how his competitors moderated. “And the rea- son is very simple. Economically, if we want to be the best place to share your knowledge, again, the kind of people we want to get to do that, on Quora, just aren’t going to do it if they feel threatened.”

Quora isn’t ignorant of historical biases, either: they recognise the groups who’ve been worst treated in the academic and discursive space. Brill observes that: “women and minorities are targeted and harassed on various platforms on the internet by people that are using pseudonyms. We’re more diligent than most about making sure it doesn’t happen and about responding quickly when it does.” The site enforces a real name policy – it’s possible to ask a question anonymously, but to ensure informed and quality content, and to show that the writer knows what they’re talking about, an account has to be in the user’s own name.

When a prominent and popular user admitted that he was writing under a pseudonym, his account was blocked, despite having legions of fans. If writers can hide under the veil of anonymity, they can say what they want, without the risk of reputational damage. Quality communication requires honesty. The trade- off that Quora has made isn’t straightforward. The Internet is funded by advertisers who put the quantity of attention drawn above quality. Nevertheless, Quora has become a place to go if you need to find something out, providing valuable expertise when you need it most. They moderate harshly, because they need to – an informed space demands an amnesty on abuse.

Quora is different from other sites on the internet, but the changes they’ve implemented demonstrate lessons about the nature of communication, both online and not. We’d all do well to remember that.

 

 

The Inaugural Women’s Oxford Boxing Match: Preview

-
0
The Inaugural Women’s Oxford Boxing Match: Preview

Oxford’s first ever female boxing event will take place on Saturday 17th November at the Iffley road sport centre.

The match will see the women of Oxford University’s Amateur Boxing Club compete against tough competition from across the nation, with boxers coming from as far afield as Cornwall and Essex.

The OUABC women’s team is currently one of the strongest female squads in the country, and the match will see Oxford’s best and brightest compete across eight senior and two junior bouts.

The OUABC roster looks particularly strong this year, featuring the newly crowned Amateur Boxing Association champion and 2018 Blue, Lydia Welham, whose last opponent asked for the match to be stopped after one of Welham’s ferocious punches, as well as OUABC women’s co-captain, Rachel Wheatley, herself a Blue in 2017 and a BUCS silver medallist.

Accompanying these two stand out boxers are veterans of the fiercely contested annual ‘Town vs Gown’ match, OUABC president Indie Walker, women’s co-captain Ella Penny and Sofia Lindqvist will be looking to dazzle once again under the bright lights, following strong performances at the event last year.

The match also sees the return of Zoey Zhang, who will enter the ring after a brief hiatus following the 2017 ‘Town vs Gown’.

In addition to the experienced fighters of OUABC, the Oxford Women’s Boxing Match will see two new boxers blooded when Kaya Axelson and Jessica Lee enter the ring to spar in their first ever Amateur Boxing matches.

In addition to the senior bouts, there will be a series of junior fights, which will give the crowd a chance to see the up and coming talent that the club possesses.

Indie Walker, OUABC president, told Cherwell “The women’s team is the strongest it has ever been. We’re training twice a day most days and we’re ready to smash this match. The workouts have been gruelling but we’re all glad the event is now within reach.”

The match looks set to be a historic occasion for OUABC and offers the rare chance to see boxers of such high quality fighting competitively in Oxford.

The weight of inheritance

Becky Cook
-
0
The weight of inheritance

When we express our love for a piece of culture, we will often hoard vintage posters, hunt out first edition books, stack piles of vinyl and CDs, or seek original paintings in museums.

But some fans take their love further, transforming themselves from enthusiasts into devotees by visiting the sites their favourite artists and writers once graced.

Their ‘cultural pilgrimage’ manifests in different ways – for fans of The Beatles, it is a visit to Abbey Road, for fans of Oscar Wilde, it is kissing his grave in Paris with bright red lipstick. But the act of journeying, of actively seeking out a destination like a pilgrim, remains the same.

Jungian thinkers structure pilgrimages into three stages: the release from the conventions of home, the spiritual renewal at the destination, and the return journey in which the pilgrim leaves something of themselves behind and takes something of the site back with them.

It is an ethos of transfer, a movement in which one physically ends up at the same point but spiritually transcends one’s former self.

But in secular terms, the cultural pilgrims who pose in front of Abbey Road or kiss Oscar Wilde’s grave do not hope for some kind of life-altering shift in perspective, or even necessarily a new interpretation of Abbey Road or The Picture of Dorian Gray. Rather, it seems cultural pilgrims attempt to cling onto the vestiges these artists leave behind.

In the absence of ever being able to meet Oscar Wilde, standing at his grave is the next best thing, the closest they will ever get to the man himself, both physically and emotionally. A false sense of intimacy is cultivated, in which the pilgrim feels a familiarity that is necessarily one-sided.

This promise of intimacy or rebirth fits well with the idea of religious pilgrimage, as the objects in that case are supposedly endowed with a transcendental force; they become gateways to an otherwise inaccessible spiritual beyond.

But for the cultural pilgrim, a grave is just a grave – there is no communing with a spiritual deity involved. It seems that our obsession with these objects and places is therefore rooted in the cult of the artist, rather than being an exercise in self-discovery.

This cult has proliferated through Western culture thanks to the iconography of languishing geniuses cultivated by the Romantics. Just as historically, pilgrimages drew people to sites and artifacts they believed were imbued with sacred or mystical power, we believe that the mere presence of an artist imbues a site with some mystic mark that is emotionally potent yet physically untraceable.

The artist has the ability to transform something as mundane as a zebra crossing or as common as a local pub – things that are not unique in themselves – into sites of devotion, pulling people from all over the world in a magnetic lurch.

This kind of thinking inscribes a ghostliness within these places, as cultural pilgrims enter a negotiation with a vestige, a reckoning with their own envisioning of an inaccessible past. But soon the cult of the artist expands into a cult of tradition. Objects of pilgrimage are, after all, only what they are because of their popularity. We love to replicate the image of The Beatles on Abbey Road and then let it fly through other people’s Facebook timelines and Instagram feeds.

Perhaps what the cultural pilgrim brings back from their destination, then, is not some kind of spiritual rebirth, but visual evidence of proximity to the iconic.

The cultural economy of the latter half of the twentieth century meant images such as the sleeve of Abbey Road proliferated throughout mass culture to no end, and with our tendency towards distributing images of ourselves on social media, engaging with these kind of traditions may merely signify a further participation within this economy.

Putting on red lipstick and kissing Oscar Wilde’s grave is a bizarre act when stripped of the curtains of tradition surrounding it. To do so seems to say more about a desire to be part of a tradition, than it does about the way individuals choose to express affection for a dead artist.

By leaving our lipstick stains behind, we are trying to appropriate a larger moment in cultural history. It is not enough to want to be intimate with the artist – we want to become part of their legacy as well.

Sometimes being at Oxford feels like being a cultural pilgrim. In my first meeting with my tutor, she told me to feel “haunted’ by being here, to feel the weight of inheritance – the inheritance of a thousand-year history of intellectual distinction”– despite the enormous cultural chasm between Oxford at its conception and Oxford now. But perhaps that is what we look for when we turn ourselves into cultural pilgrims – being part of that haunting weight of an irretrievable, inaccessible past.

Loveable rogues: why we love a good villain

-
2
Loveable rogues: why we love a good villain

The old proverb that a hero is only as great as their villain is a valid concept. In order to understand a villain, we must first understand they are only half of a whole. A binary shared with a hero, where they coexist and depend on one other. Good versus evil. Light versus dark. Protagonist versus antagonist. A dichotomy perfectly captured in Jekyll and Hyde, or more recently in this month’s Venom. Two opposing sides wrestling for control.

So what then qualifies as a great villain? Is it the capability to commit pure evil and show no signs of redemption? Agent Smith, Alien, Predator and the T-1000 are all considered to be relentless killing machines and among the most famous villains standing the test of time. But whilst they are distinctly identifiable as villains, does this black and white approach necessarily make them great? The Joker, arguably the greatest villain of all time, thrives on anarchy and nihilism. But he is not totally dislikeable.

His one redeeming quality is the humanity he displays towards Batman, and the equal status he gives to his nemesis. The Joker is inherently flawed by an inability to permanently kill his adversary, which perfectly personifies how both villains and heroes cannot exist without their antithesis. This by no means makes him less of an effective villain. On the contrary, for a man so hellbent on wreaking chaos, it adds a level of understanding to a character whose backstory remains as ambiguous as his endgame.

This, ironically, is something which Joaquin Phoenix’s upcoming standalone film could potentially undermine. By giving the Joker an origin story, a name, a human identity, you suddenly make him comprehensible; but the whole purpose of his character is to thrive on nonsensical actions. The ambiguity surrounding the Joker is what ultimately makes him so compelling to watch, because viewers cannot unpick his thought processes.

I have seen many rankings that place Darth Vader as the greatest villain of all time. And yet by the end of Return of the Jedi, can he even be labelled as such after slam-dunking Emperor Palpatine into the Death Star reactor?

He proves once and for all that he is the Chosen One and finally gets round to bringing balance to the force. While this is a classic example of villains performing heroic deeds, this metamorphosis is becoming increasingly recognisable in contemporary films and television.

We need only take Loki, the villain who broke free from the stereotype of Marvel villains being underdeveloped, and became a tortured soul torn between his selfish ambitions and his family loyalties. By Infinity War, he too was willing to risk everything in order to protect his brother.

Even on the small screen, despicable characters like Jaime Lannister and Negan, who each started off as an incestuous Prince Charming and an eccentric psychopath respectively, are being given stays of execution in order to give them a well rounded arc of redemption.

This sense of completion, revealing more humanity to characters than we might initially consider, simply makes for more engaging drama.And so it seems that villains aren’t considered great because of their lack of humanity, but rather because of their humanity.

While the Daleks and Cybermen are perhaps the most famous Doctor Who villains, the most effective is without doubt the Master, whom has a philosophical stance and sympathisable characteristics which makes him not just a threat, but also a well developed character.

Similarly, Thanos, the being who took the universe’s overpopulation issue into his own hands (quite literally) is only tolerable because he isn’t selfish. He is quite possibly the most selfless person to have ever existed, not caring about personal perceptions and instead focusing on the pragmatism of what’s at stake.

Some films, meanwhile, prefer to keep us completely in the dark about who we should be rooting for. Sicario is critically hailed for its consistent moral shapeshifting, leaving it to the audience to decipher whether there is a clear hero or villain, or whether we are simply left with characters who are inherently human.

What we are seeing nowadays is a preference to shift away from the clear cut binary of heroes and villains. We live in a time of antiheroes like Walter White, Jax Teller, Rick Grimes and Thomas Shelby, whose villainous actions are depicted as a response to their individual circumstances.

So if we can understand the reasons driving a character’s choices, we can connect with their journey and even if we don’t endorse it, we can empathise with where they are coming from. Which is undoubtedly why it is so thrilling to watch an underappreciated chemistry teacher turn into one of the most dangerous drug dealers to ever grace the state of Albuquerque. Not even Thanos poisoned children.

 

Rethinking our role in development

Becky Clark
-
0
Rethinking our role in development

Having stayed in Kenya for two months this summer, it feels strange to be back in Oxford. No more matatu drivers shouting in a bid to get me into their crammed vehicles, no more two-hour hikes in the sweltering midday heat to reach a tarmac road, and, most significantly, no more eating ugali (a Kenyan porridge made of cornmeal). I had been volunteering with a UK charity, Education Partnerships Africa (EPAfrica), which recruits students from several UK universities. The charity works in rural secondary schools, using bottom-up initiatives to empower the local community.

Based at a rural secondary school in western Kenya, I worked with two project partners to invest £3000 into sustainable projects for the school, ranging from fixing the water supply to creating an ICT lab. Although the work was very small-scale, I was exposed to major challenges facing East Africa and innovative solutions to these issues. Indeed, my very understanding of ‘development’ evolved over the summer.

According to the orthodox view, dominant until the 1990s, development simply was economic growth. Poverty was defined purely in economic terms as a lack of income or resources. However, Amartya Sen’s ground-breaking book Development as Freedom led a new way of thinking, recognising that development and material prosperity cannot be equivocated. Sen instead considered development to be the process of enabling people to make the most of themselves. To complement this, the Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative and the United Nations Development Programme jointly devised the Multidimensional Poverty Index in 2010. This uses a multifaceted approach to determine the level of poverty within a country taking into account a range of factors such as school attendance, nutrition and sanitation.

My experience this summer has given me a whole new perspective on what it means for a country to ‘develop’. Living in a traditional Kenyan homestead, I saw first-hand the near-universal sense of pride in local customs such as traditional male circumcision; regardless of your opinion on such practices, it was inspiring to see the community come together in celebration for such events. A one-size-fits-all approach to development which simply advocates industrialisation overlooks the inherent value of cultural richness and community participation. My close interaction with the family also showed me how individuals can simultaneously be well-off and deprived in different aspects of their lives; the children excelled at school and most family members owned televisions, yet there was no running water and nobody owned any means of transport.

A big realisation I had when travelling to Nairobi was the extent of the rural-urban divide in Kenya. The level of income and wealth inequality between the cities and farmland (known as shamba), as well as within the capital itself, is absolutely staggering. Looking out of the coach window as we entered the capital, I had to crane my neck to glimpse the top of a glass sky-rise building – a stark contrast to the small thatched-roof houses which some of our neighbours occupied.  When walking around the affluent Westlands suburb in Nairobi, with its posh cafés and huge shopping centres, I glumly reflected on the fact that less than five miles away was Kibera, the largest urban slum in Africa. GDP hides this inequality, and it was clear to me that any measure of development must look beyond GDP to get a real sense of the economic prosperity of residents.

A key challenge I encountered during my stay was gender inequality. There were infuriating instances where contractors would only converse with my male project partner. For instance, an IT specialist refused to make eye contact with myself or my female co-worker, even when it was clear that she was by far the most tech-savvy and had researched the precise projectors and routers we needed (a clear display of the ‘girls don’t know about computers’ mentality). We actively resisted such behaviour, but its prevalence made me realise how frequently women in authority must feel excluded and devalued.

The staffroom was its own battlefield. The teachers were overwhelmingly male, resulting in a toxic laddish atmosphere in which women felt silenced. In one instance, a group of male teachers mocked a female teacher over the fact that she was not married. When the woman declared that she did not want a husband, the men hooted with laughter before dealing her a scathing outpour of scorn. Many other female teachers did not feel able to speak up in similar situations.

One dilemma we faced was over installing a ‘high achievers’ board, naming the final-year student with the highest national exam grade as a way to motivate students to study hard. To my dismay, the Headteacher’s list of names was all male. I worried that this could severely demoralise female students. Yet my suggestion of separate girls’ and boys’ boards would also not have worked as teachers wanted the board to display actual marks, and a girls’ board persistently featuring lower grades could be even more demoralising for female students. In the end, we compromised with a board documenting the achievements of students for the past fourteen years, thus incorporating three female names.

One of the most difficult things I had to come to terms with was the fact that our investment in the school could not address the most significant barriers to educational attainment and that there were many deep-rooted issues which I could do nothing to solve.

Every day, as we walked home from school, we would pass the same girl of around five years old, whatever the time. We realised that she must be pacing up and down the same dirt track for hours on end each day. Questions swirled in our minds: why was she not in school? Was she safe? Where were her parents? With each coming day, we grew more concerned about this girl, and so it was with great relief that we finally encountered her mother by a primary school one day. Speaking with her, it became apparent that the mother could not afford the school fees, and so each day her daughter would be turned away from school. It was a heartbreaking story, but one which is all too common.

Similarly, when our school reopened after the school holidays, it was deserted. During the first week of the new school term, only around 10% of students attended lessons, whilst huge swathes of students dressed in their school uniform could be seen walking away from school. A conversation with the Head Teacher revealed that these pupils could not afford to pay the fees upfront, and so they regrettably had to be sent away due to the school’s limited resources. This issue hurts families who work in agriculture disproportionately, as they can only make a lump-sum payment once the crop has been harvested. Free schooling in Kenya is largely a myth, since state schools still require fees to pay for obligatory school lunches and staffing shortages. This inevitably means that thousands of children from the poorest households are currently excluded from education.

Language barriers also present a huge hurdle to high academic performance. Can you imagine having to sit all your national exams in, not your first, not your second, but your third language? This is what the vast majority of Kenyan students must do. In the region where I worked, children speak Luhya and Kiswahili at home, and only learn English during primary school. However, by secondary school, all lessons are taught in English. This insistence on teaching in English without providing adequate support to those students with limited exposure to the language causes many students to be left behind.

One challenging aspect of rural living in Kenya is how the weather can dictate your day. Poorly-maintained rural roads were what made us fear the weather. Torrential thunderstorms would render the pot-hole riddled dirt track an impassable river; on several occasions I found myself trapped in the local town, unable to make my way back to the family compound until the storm passed. Even when walking down the road on a sunny day, I once found myself sinking into a pool of mud and having to be lifted out.

This poor infrastructure is devastating for remote communities. Visiting the nearest health clinic can take hours, making emergency medical treatment nearly impossible. The cost of a boda boda (motorcycle taxi) ride to the nearest market means it is difficult for some residents to buy and sell goods, undermining their livelihoods. Until large-scale infrastructural action is taken by the government, the weather will continue to rule the roost and these underlying problems will persist.

There are a huge number of Western misperceptions about Africa. To start with, there is little comprehension of the distinction between regions such as East Africa, let alone individual African countries. Western views of the level of economic development in these countries have been massively skewed by the media and not-for-profit organisations, who are incentivised to publicise the most extreme and appalling instances of poverty to boost readership and charitable donations.

For example, mobile technology is widespread in Kenya. There were just two tiny shops near our hamlet: the first provided mobile phone charging, the second topped up mobile phones with credit. The country is a world leader in mobile-money services, with most of the population subscribed to various mobile phone payment services; the most popular platform, M-PESA, has 18 million active users. This innovation, in turn, promotes development. Research by MIT has shown that between 2008 and 2016, mobile money services lifted 2% of Kenyan households out of extreme poverty and particularly benefitted female-headed households. Mobile money gives women greater financial independence, enabling them to set up their own businesses and move away from agricultural work.

However, many people in the West still labour under the misguided view that there is very little mobile technology in Kenya. For example, one of our school projects was to install a WiFi connection for the new ICT lab. Yet during a phone-call home, people asked incredulously, “But how on earth is that ever going to work? You do realise that you’d need good data signal for that.”

There are also a large number of microfinance initiatives, which seek to distribute small loans to individuals who lack access to financial institutions. Indeed, M-PESA was originally designed to facilitate this. I accidentally stumbled across the power of microfinance myself during my short stay in Kenya. Returning from school one day, my project partners and I were invited to share chapatti and chai with the family. We sat in confusion as community members gathered inside the house, each placing a small number of Kenyan shillings on the table.

In turned out that the local residents had started a microfinance initiative whereby each month they would pool cash and lend this to someone in the community. A delay in the repayment of this loan would not have the same catastrophic consequences as it would with a commercial bank, making the loans very flexible. Many residents probably lacked credit scores and so could not borrow from banks anyway; this system enabled them to access capital, which they could then use to start up small businesses. Microfinance is just one system that emphasises the importance of community empowerment in development.

This summer was a steep learning curve in more ways than I could describe. EPAfrica’s emphasis on investment ensures that its positive impact is felt long-term, and the continuous focus on school ownership of projects reduces the risk of aid dependency. I could not recommend volunteering with the charity enough to anyone who genuinely wants to make a sustainable difference (albeit small), learn about a new culture and make long-lasting friendships.

Becky Clark is EPAfrica Oxford’s Recruitment and Retention Officer

Apply to be a Project Worker at http://epafrica.org.uk/volunteer/project-worker/apply/

Application deadline: Sunday 11th November 2018

Netball Blues steal crucial win against Loughborough

-
0
Netball Blues steal crucial win against Loughborough

Oxford’s Netball Blues team were victorious on Wednesday in a thrilling game against a strong Loughborough team, which extended until the final seconds of extra time. The final score stood at 58-57. The game was evenly matched throughout. Loughborough’s impressive shooting accuracy put pressure on Oxford’s defence but in open play the Blues had brilliant pace, intercepted well and found crucial space.

In the first quarter Loughborough had a strong start but Oxford kept responding to their challenges. Alexandra Shipley, Oxford’s centre, kept the Loughborough’s defence on their toes with her skilful dumpy passes and speed, not surprising for the fresher who has won the cross country cuppers race. The second quarter was weaker for Oxford; they started the second phase of the game one point down and ended it with a two-point gap, 22-24, behind their opponents. Loughborough’s goal keeper played well with multiple missed shots just before half time frustrating the Oxford attack.

In the third quarter, Oxford resumed their attacking play with power and a flurry of goals came in quick succession. The goal attack and goal shooter combination of Zara Everitt and Madeline Oshodi, worked very well and was key to the Blues’ success. The pressure applied by Oxford caused Loughborough to make mistakes and tensions rose as the visitors reacted aggressively to the Blues’ challenges. Oxford ended the third quarter with a four-point lead at 38-34.

The final section of the game was incredibly dramatic, with ten minutes to go the score was equal and the volume in the Iffley sports hall rose as supporters and team mates urged Oxford on. With a game so closely matched for fifty minutes, the closing minutes were no different. Substitute wing defence Ellie Peel ignited pace in the centre of the court in the second half of the game. Oxford were down three points but composed shots brought the score to 45 all with one-minute left. This then reached 47-47 with fifteen seconds remaining. From the restart Oxford surged down to court and made a shot on goal, the ball entered the net as the final buzzer went. To the disbelief of jubilant fans, the goal was deemed to be played after the game was over.

The two teams would now play two smaller extra halves of seven minutes each. Changes to their wing defence and goal keeper appeared to be a tactical move to provide an energetic defence. The Blues went into the final seven minutes one point down at 51-52 but as the game had shown thus far, such a small points gap could be closed within seconds. Oxford’s goal keeper, and vice- captain, Kirsty McCann impressively blocked an attempt at goal from Loughborough and the score was once again tied. With one minute to go Oxford were up two points and they needed to keep possession, after a resurgent goal from the opposition Oxford scored again in the last 30 seconds of the game to bring the score to 58-57, just before the final buzzer.

Oxford were extremely resilient throughout the match in a game which could have been easily won by either side. Whilst there were phases of the game in which Oxford went a few points down this never lasted long and they kept composed and took shots accurately when it mattered. This win was testament to the Blues’ brilliant communication and team unity and their impressive composure when there was intense pressure, never letting fatigue set in. Wednesday’s win brings Oxford into the last 16 of the BUCS midlands conference cup, they will play Birmingham in two weeks’ time.

Oxbridge’s Dirty Money: how colleges invest millions in fossil fuel, arms and tobacco

Jack Hunter
-
1
Oxbridge’s Dirty Money: how colleges invest millions in fossil fuel, arms and tobacco

Oxford and Cambridge colleges are investing tens of millions of pounds in fossil fuel, arms and tobacco companies accused of harming the environment, funding climate change denial, and committing human rights abuses.

In total, Oxbridge colleges responding to requests hold over £21m in oil and gas exploration, production, and refining companies, figures obtained and analysed by Cherwell and Varsity reveal.

New College Oxford invested £449,622 through one of its portfolios in fossil fuel firms Royal Dutch Shell, BP, and Lukoil – some of the world’s largest carbon emitters.

Shell and BP are two of the world’s biggest backers of fracking. Shell has fracking operations in the USA, Canada, Australia and Argentina, and announced last year that it planned to spend between $2 billion and $3 billion per year on shales between 2018 and 2020.

The company has also been criticised for alleged human rights abuses in Nigeria. Last year, Amnesty International published a report accusing Shell of complicity in murder, rape and torture carried out by the Nigerian military in its operations in Ogoniland. Shell has firmly denied the claims, describing them as “false and without merit”.

BP has fracking operations in the US, Argentina and Oman. In collaboration with China National Petroleum Corporation, it is also conducting exploratory drilling for shale gas in southwestern China’s Sichuan basin.

Trinity College Cambridge is, by far, the college with the most holdings in fossil fuels. The college invests £8,236,949 in companies included in the list of 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions.

These include £1,780,292 in Exxon Mobil, the world’s biggest oil company, which allegedly funded climate change denial lobbying groups in the US in an attempt to block efforts to fight climate change. Exxon denies funding climate change denial.

Image: Juni Ham/Rafa Esteve/Cherwell.

A spokesperson for Trinity said its investments supported “the provision of an environment that offers an excellent education and the capacity for high-calibre research”.

“A significant proportion of Trinity’s undergraduate and postgraduate students receive bursaries, research grants or other forms of assistance,” they added.

Oxbridge colleges invest a further £7,420,134 in arms manufacturers. This includes Hertford’s recent £661,576 holding in Rolls Royce. The company claims to be the second largest supplier of military aircraft engines in the world, providing defence aero-engine products to “160 customers in 103 countries”.

New College’s funds recently included a £216,816 holding in Mitsubishi Electric, listed in The Guardian’s top 100 arms producers.

New College and Hertford did not respond to requests for comment on their investments.

The findings will heighten pressure on colleges to divest their endowments. So far, only St Hilda’s at Oxford and Queens’ at Cambridge have announced plans to fully divest their endowments.

The moves followed a high-profile campaign at both universities in the past year that has involved Cambridge students launching a six-day hunger strike, the forced removal of protesters from Cambridge’s administrative buildings, and a banner drop at the Boat Race in March.

Taz Walden, Co-President of Cambridge Zero Carbon Society, described the findings as “a national scandal”. Walden said: “Oxbridge colleges famed for their total lack of accountability are pumping money into arms, tax havens and the world’s most destructive fossil fuel companies.

“These are educational institutions that could be part of building a better world, they should not be profiting from its destruction.”

She added: “Today will be the catalyst for a new campaign, aimed at Cambridge college funds, pushing them to follow in Queens’ footsteps and commit to full fossil fuel divestment.”

A spokesperson for the Oxford Climate Justice Campaign (OCJC) told Cherwell: “The recently uncovered data confirms and specifies for some colleges what we at OCJC have long suspected: all Oxford colleges currently hold investments of some sort in fossil fuels, and no college except for St Hilda’s (after student pressure) has yet committed to cutting financial support for industries bent on accelerating climate change.”

Campaigners also stressed how Oxford colleges invest further millions through undisclosed tracker funds and the University’s endowment fund, Oxford University Endowment Management (OUem).

OCJC said: “OUem divulging where its money is going would make it publicly accountable for its investments, and exposed to the scrutiny of Oxford students and academics who want a rapid transition to a low-carbon world. OUem’s lack of transparency is a strategic effort, not a passivity, to keep public knowledge limited at a time when universities, governments, and pension funds worldwide are making commitments to divest.”

An Oxford spokesperson said the University’s socially responsible investment policy ensured its central investments decisions “consider social, environmental and political issues in maintaining ethical standards.”

“The University is confident that OUeM operates entirely within the Policy on Socially Responsible Investment and has a transparent approach to its investment decisions, providing as much information as is consistent with its obligations to confidentiality and commercial sensitivity,” they added.

Last week, Cherwell revealed that St Anne’s had invested in corporations accused of selling arms to Saudi Arabia, producing nuclear weapons, causing huge environmental damage, and committing human rights abuses. Despite this, the college were found to have invested in the corporations after their controversies had been publicly reported.

A St Anne’s spokesperson told Cherwell: “Both the College and its fund manager take Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) standards seriously and have recently undertaken ESG benchmarking as part of a regular review of its investments.”

Revealed: Oxbridge’s offshore millions

Jack Hunter
-
1
Revealed: Oxbridge’s offshore millions

Oxford and Cambridge colleges will be hauled before Parliament after an investigation by this newspaper revealed that many are funnelling hundreds of millions of pounds into secretive offshore funds.

Using Freedom of Information requests, Cherwell and Varsity, the Cambridge student newspaper, obtained and analysed the full investment portfolios of over 40 Oxbridge colleges, providing an unprecedented insight into how the ancient institutions invest their multi-billion pound assets.

The responses reveal that multiple Oxford colleges invested almost £150m in a network of funds registered in tax havens stretching from Jersey to the Cayman Islands. These include the same offshore funds that provoked outcry last November after being identified in the Paradise Papers leaks.

One year on, St Catherine’s College Oxford still holds investments in two funds managed by Coller International, the private equity firm in the offshore financial centre of Guernsey, that were revealed by The Guardian last year to have past links to offshore oil and gas exploration.

The disclosures also reveal how Oxbridge colleges directly invest tens of millions of pounds in fossil fuel, arms, and tobacco companies, despite growing pressure from students and academics to divest their endowments.

John Mann MP, Chair of the House of Commons’ Treasury Sub-Committee, which is carrying out an inquiry into tax avoidance and evasion, claimed he would call Oxbridge colleges to Parliament to address the findings.

“Oxford and Cambridge colleges have attempted to draw a veil of secrecy over their funds,” Mann said. “They will be called to Parliament to account for this behaviour and how they intend to remedy it. Oxbridge colleges were already on our radar, and this exposure greatly assists in moving them into our agenda.”

Other Oxford colleges investing a combined £144.9m in offshore funds domiciled in tax havens including Jersey, Guernsey, Cayman and Bermuda include Exeter, Hertford, Keble, Merton, New, Pembroke, Queen’s, Somerville, St Peter’s, Trinity, and University. New College is Oxford’s biggest offshore investor, with a combined £118.611m invested in three offshore funds based in Cayman, Guernsey and Jersey

There is no suggestion that colleges – who register as tax-exempt charities – are avoiding or evading any UK taxes by investing in offshore funds.

However, critics say that the only motivation for investing in the offshore jurisdictions is greater secrecy, fewer regulations, and lower taxes.

Prem Sikka, an emeritus professor in accounting at the University of Essex, last year questioned the ethics of universities sending their endowments offshore.

He told The Guardian: “All the Caymans offer is secrecy and tax avoidance. There is nothing else there. It’s not as if this is a place actively engaged in advancing science, research or human knowledge.”

Cherwell’s findings prompted fresh criticism over the transparency of colleges’ investments.

Alan Cobha, CEO of the advocacy group Tax Justice Network, said: “The colleges might claim that these holdings in financial secrecy jurisdictions are just ‘business as usual’ for the offshore asset industry.

“But the public might expect some kind of leadership in transparency and accountability from these institutions, which are also leading players in UK education – and, of course, significant beneficiaries of taxpayers’ money, and of charitable status.”

St Catherine’s Oxford and Trinity Cambridge continue to hold investments in Coller International Partners V – identified in the Paradise Papers as having invested $1bn in Royal Dutch Shell, which in turn funded oil and gas production and exploration projects.

Trinity College Cambridge invests £1.1m in an offshore fund linked to oil and gas exploration projects. Image: Juni Ham/Rafa Esteve/Cherwell.

St Catherine’s bursar, Fram Dinshaw, defended the Coller investment, saying the college most recently held $3,892 in the fund “as part of its wider endowment strategy”.

He told Cherwell: “Offshore structures for investment partnerships are entirely legal and commonly employed investment vehicles that provide multiple benefits quite unconnected with tax avoidance to their investors. The fact that the college is itself a tax-exempt charity makes any link in our case to tax avoidance evidently absurd.”

Recent data shows Trinity still invests £1.1m in the fund. A college spokesperson said: “As a charitable institution, Trinity ploughs all income received from its investments into education and research, and the maintenance of the College’s historic buildings and library collections for future generations.”

Oxford bursars stressed that their offshore investment structures were legitimate.

A spokesperson for Pembroke told Cherwell: “As with other Colleges, Pembroke holds long term investments in order to generate returns which are vital to meeting our annual expenditure on core academic activities. Pembroke currently has some international investments which are held through professionally managed funds.

“However, as a charity, we are not liable for UK tax on income from our worldwide investments.”

A University College spokesperson said the college is not due to pay tax on its investments and “uses its investment income and gains to provide essential support to its charitable higher educational purposes.”

St Peter’s said its investments were regulated by the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority.

Room for improvement for England after narrow win against South Africa

-
0
Room for improvement for England after narrow win against South Africa

England narrowly beat South Africa 12-11 in their first test of the Autumn internationals on Saturday.

This was a game which South Africa should have won, they completely out-powered England in the scrum and dominated the first half. They suffered from the absence of their scrum half Faf de Clerk, who was not released by Sale Sharks. At full back Willie La Roux was also missing but even with these gaps in the South African squad, it was their game to loose.

After coming into the game having gathered a strong reputation this year, having been put forward for Super Rugby’s player of the year, Malcom Marx had a terrible game. The South African hooker, who Clive Woodward dubbed ‘the best hooker in the world’ perfomed poorly, his throwing into the line was weak and could have been what lost the Springboks the game. Bad decision making from South Africa meant that they failed to convert possession and pressure into points. They refused to take penalty points which were on offer and had they converted these opportunities they may have gained up to nine more points. South Africa had a much stronger back row which was felt by the English front row in the first half; England gave away penalties and were going backwards in the scrum, which can be very psychologically damaging. The replacement front row for England in the second half, of Moon, George and Williams, was much better in the scrum.

Eddie Jones has some real decisions to make as to his personnel for this week’s game. Tighthead prop Kyle Sinckler was brilliant in loose play but struggled with the scrummage and Alec Hepburn at loose head prop is likely to be replaced. At under 16 stone Hepburn was outpowered and struggled in the scrum. His teammate from Exeter, Ben Moon, was much stronger whilst packing down. England completely transformed thier play in the second half, especially when the game broke up. They increased their pace across the field and looked threatening in attack. Jonny May had an outstanding game and could have won Man of the Match, which was given to Mark Wilson on his England debut. Farrell was moved to number ten, the position he is most comfortable in, with Ford absent from the side. This breaking up of the Ford- Farrell axis was smart from Jones, with Ford’s tackling often unreliable. Farrell is usually pushed to centre but at fly-half he had a strong game. Farrell saved England near the end of the game by ripping the ball from South Africa. There will be much debate as to whether his final tackle was lawful, as he arguably made a no arms tackle with his shoulder. South Africa weren’t awarded a penalty which if converted would’ve given them the match.

Elliot Daly is usually a star player but had a poor day. He failed to catch the high ball on several occasions and can probably be held responsible for Nkosi’s try. His vision was poor on two occasions and had he seen May on the outside, points for England may have followed. After playing a game which they likely should have lost, England will need to greatly improve for their next fixture.

New Zealand, who will face England for the first time since 2014, will offer an even greater challenge this weekend. As the number one team in the world they arguably have the most skilful, fittest and well organised side currently playing in international rugby. England are likely to struggle but to have any chance of winning they’ll need to strengthen their pack and hold onto the ball instead of kicking the ball loosely away. Any possession givenaway to the All Blacks will lead to an inevitable avalanche of tries. Daly will be put to the test again with a bombardment of high kicks, a challenge which he failed at this week. When at his best, Daly can be a strike weapon and along with the rest of the back three will need to covert their power into points on Saturday.

Tom Curry is likely to be unable to play having been injured during the match which limits Jones’ options in the back row. If Courtney Lawes is to play, who has been injured with a bad back, he could provide some important height in the line and make it more likely that England can win their set pieces. England need to address the clear weaknesses in their front row, an area in which New Zealand are well organised and powerful. Jones should give careful thought to his front row that played in the second half. George was excellent at hooker and made a key difference, however it is likely that as co-captain, Dylan Hartley will start. He played well but is an asset overall for his leadership and expeience, having more caps than the rest of the forwards combined.

Brasenose wins Veggie Pledge

Isabel Morris
-
0
Brasenose wins Veggie Pledge

Brasenose College has taken the Veggie Pledge title for 2018, in what has been the biggest year of pledges that Oxford has seen.

With 367.9 points on the Veggie Pledge leaderboard, Brasenose was followed by Wadham (319.25) and Worcester (182.51). The Oxford Student Union reported a total of 1,660 pledges overall.

The Veggie Pledge is an annual scheme organised by the SU aiming to encourage people to reduce their meat intake throughout the month of November.

Brasenose JCR President Manish Binukrishnan told Cherwell: “We’re delighted as a JCR to have rallied together to make a real difference to the environment and win Veggie Pledge.

“We really pride ourselves on having a strong sense of community and it was fantastic to see students from the JCR, HCR and even some staff pull together and pledge. Of course, beating Wadham was a welcome side benefit.

“In all seriousness, it’s great to see students both at BNC and the wider university commit to such an important cause.”

Brasenose JCR Environment Rep Matthew Hewlett told Cherwell: “Reducing your meat consumption is a surprisingly easy way to reduce your carbon emissions. Furthermore, opting for a plant-based diet is highly beneficial to most people’s health – reducing your risk of getting heart disease for example.

“Brasenose makes it easy for students to go veggie, with fantastic plant-based food served in hall and the college café, all at affordable prices. We’ve also got a big group of students getting involved in Student Switch Off and Green Impact this year, which goes to show how people here are willing to support environmental action.”

In an effort to win this year’s pledge, many colleges have undertaken measures to increase student participation. St Hugh’s College, last year’s winner, passed a motion to only provide vegetarian food at JCR meetings throughout the month. Brasenose, in addition to having veggie-only JCR meetings, created a veggie default setting on their formal booking system.

Wadham and New held meat-free days in their halls, while Hertford made the vegetarian meal the standard option at their Chaplain’s Buffet during November.

VP Charities and Community Officer, Rosanna Greenwood called the Pledge a “flagship campaign” for environmentalism.

Greenwood told Cherwell: “Now in its 3rd Year, Veggie Pledge is bigger than ever – smashing 1000 pledges!

“It’s the flagship campaign encouraging students to be more environmentally and sustainably conscious throughout the month of November.

“Everyone can be involved in Veggie Pledge in some way whether reducing meat intake, taking Tupperware to Gloucester Green Market or using less palm oil.”

Roll up! We have a winner! Well done to Brasenose College/ Brasenose JCR who took the title with a late surge. It is our…

Posted by Oxford SU on Friday, November 9, 2018

On the Veggie Pledge Facebook page, Greenwood said: “Almost 1,700 students took part in this year’s Veggie Pledge and whilst the college competition is always fun, it’s extremely important that we remember the incredible impact that we will make during November.

“Over 15,000 animal lives have been spared and over 50 tonnes of Co2 saved (equivalent to flying from London to NYC 50 times!).

“In addition to this I have had an amazing amount of people get in touch, telling me that as a result of pledging they have become much more sustainably conscious, which is wonderful.”

1...660661662...2,494Page 661 of 2,494

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