Tuesday 26th August 2025
Blog Page 676

To include the excluded

0

Reading Virginia Woolf’s ‘A Room of One’s Own’ a year before I would apply to Oxford, I was stunned by the sense of her exclusion, the almost-state of entering an Oxbridge college but being denied complete entrance on account of gender. The experience resonates with an echo of spectatorship, a pre-defined imposter syndrome that haunts through the lines and into our modern day understanding of the sense of not fully belonging.

She attempts to open the library door; the entrance to an Oxbridge library which will one day house her own work: “I must have opened it, for instantly there issued, like a guardian angel barring the way with a flutter of black gown instead of white wings, a deprecating, silvery, kindly gentleman, who regretted in a low voice as he waved me back that ladies are only admitted to the library if accompanied by a Fellow of the college.”

The interruption of male-dominated scholarship into her course enters through the flustered beating of unknown wings, excluding her from waking the echoes of past writers. The University had opened its doors to women in 1879 – yet the sense of exclusion Virginia feels in 1928 persists due the University-imposed quota, established in 1927, its purpose being to restrict the number of female students in attendance. Now we examine: how has Oxford historically regarded female students then and now?

June 1878 witnessed the creation of the Association for the Higher Education of Women, formed with the intention of creating an all-female college – the association was split and eventually formed the non-denominational Somerville and the Anglican Lady Margaret Hall. In 1884, the University controversially opened the examinations of Classical Honour Moderations and the honour schools of natural science, mathematics, and history to female students. However, women were not allowed to matriculate – they could attend lectures and take examinations, but could not receive the degrees which would be given to them had they been men. Women were studying in Oxford but were still kept at a distance, the “guardian angel” of scholarly tradition both teaching them and denying their full place there.

During this period, Trinity College in Dublin was co-educational, and gave Oxbridge women the option to travel to their institution and be awarded degrees. Between 1904 and 1907, the “Steamboat Ladies” travelled to Trinity; one of these was St Hugh’s student, Helena Deneke, later tutor at Lady Margaret Hall.

Writing this piece, I was fortunate enough to be given access to the LMH archives which included Helena’s diary manuscripts that described her life in Oxford from 1900 to 1913. She relates how female students were often not encouraged by parents to apply to Oxford: the first page reads “When I first began seriously to urge a university education my father had demurred: ‘Did I want the companionship of highly intelligent women?’”.

Deneke evokes the constant scrutiny that the female students were under, being reminded during a college event “how careful we must be to avoid offending the susceptibilities of members of the University by unladylike behaviour, we were at Oxford on sufferance and breach of manners”. The progression of female colleges was still thwarted by outdated notions of feminine decorum. A central recollection is her journey to Dublin to collect her degree: “In December 1907 I travelled to Dublin amid rain, and storms and fog… all the same, I found it impossible to think of the whole as anything other than an entertaining game, a foretaste of future history, I felt no loyalty to Dublin”

Her typed voice is descriptive, factual, yet melancholic for a “foretaste of human history” which she can’t yet experience. Instead, she was forced to gain a degree from an institution she had never visited before, miles from the city in which she actually studied and lived. Her voice captures the time of progression and also limitation: women still had to travel to Trinity until October 1920, when they were allowed to officially matriculate. However, this victory was quickly followed by official restriction – the aforementioned quota sysem which was introduced in 1927 and only abolished in 1957.

And yet, despite the University keeping women in this purgatorial state, caught between advancement and tradition, Deneke writes of the sense of community given by an Oxford college, and the friendships, and beauty it allowed. Her experience at St Hugh’s was “my first experience of life in a community… the beauty of Oxford sank into one’s being.” The entry is striking in that the experience of being entranced by the beauty of Oxford, the sunlit days by the rivers, and the view of the spires resonates still with each new student that arrives in Oxford.

As women in the University were attempting to gain equal rights to study, they were also involved in the larger movement for women’s suffrage. In another manuscript, Gemma Bailey relates the experience of the Women’s Suffrage Pilgrimage in 1913. In an entry from 8th January, Bailey recollects: “we carried lanterns and evergreens and had several banners… the police wouldn’t let us actually form at the M.M. … this was fatal. Men began attacking banners and soon there was a free fight”. The marchers journeyed from Hilda’s to Trinity to Balliol amidst violence. The account is integral in understanding the wider political conditions during the attempts to advance women’s education, and we must remember that a struggle in the political as well as the educational was taking place in Oxford.

The LMH Chronicle (December 1928) is a collection of entries by various female students remembering their Oxford experiences. Students’ memories frequently mention the “rules” women were expected to follow: Henrietta Haynes mentions the constant presence of chaperones, expressing her exasperation at “the idea of never being able to take a solitary walk in Oxford”. Women still had to be accompanied by an elder if they wished to walk through the city. Later, Deneke’s voice enters again, remembering LMH during the First World War: air raids in the Old Hall, emptied colleges filling with cadets, and “Somerville college with (the) wounded”.

During the war, the presence of women allowed the University’s continuation: “for some years the women were the reason for carrying on teaching and examining.” When the University began to be re-manned in a normal way a war-time student was heard to remark in great surprise: “Why, there were more men than women at our lecture to-day!” The remembrance that the University was “re-manned” can be seen in the wider significance of men returning to their previously held positions after the war. Deneke’s account resonates with a passion for continuing during a period of fear and uncertainty. And yet, they were still limited by the quota until 1957.

All-male colleges started to become co-educational from 1974 – the first five colleges were Brasenose, Jesus College, Wadham, Hertford, and St Catherine’s. The later colleges to accept women included Trinity and Magdalen in 1979. Here, I want to consider how the architecture of one of the later all-male colleges compares to that of an all-female college. Architect Aaron Betsky has written on the idea of ‘gendered architecture’ – how traditional qualities of great architecture link to those of masculinity. Betsky suggests that the attributes of powerful architecture “of rationality, strength, trying to be as big and tall as possible – those are all things that we associate with masculinity”.

The exteriors of buildings are an expression of human sexuality and power. From a visual perspective, Magdalen and Lady Margaret Hall differ significantly – LMH features the central, circular window above their Old Hall entrance, less defined by grids and functionality, surrounded by meadows (Betsky refers to “gardens and interiors” as female spaces). Magdalen follows a linear, dominating structure; the tall college towers and the rising spire, the dominating presence of the monumental.

Additionally, the adjectives used on the website of the previously all-male college can be compared to those of the women’s college; adjectives often reflect the values of the buildings and of the college itself. On their page ‘College History’, Magdalen describes their architecture in the following terms – “grandest”, “scale”, “grand”, “new” with “the erection of the large allegorical gargoyles”. In contrast, Lady Margaret Hall expresses their architecture as allowing “sensitivity” and “harmonious development” with an “open and welcoming quadrangle”.

The Magdalen values imply stature, height, strength, grandeur, extravagance; LMH speaks more of harmony, enhancement, openness. Viewing Magdalen through the lens of Betsky, we can see how the traditional qualities of masculinity are reflected in the architecture of a previously all-male college in comparison with the tradition of openness officially and architecturally encouraged by the all-female college.

The latest all-female college to become co-educational was St. Hilda’s in 2008. One tutor who has been in Oxford since 1990 and witnessed the changes in co-education is Lucinda Rumsey, Senior Tutor at Mansfield. She has been a lecturer in English in several Oxford colleges including New, Worcester, and Keble and has acted as Senior Tutor since 2008.

I sat down with her to discuss her experiences of women’s education in Oxford. “The female colleges were built from opening previous boundaries of gender and culture. When deciding to go co-educational, people in those colleges were torn between valuing what the tradition was for and the limits it implemented.” We are discussing the presence of female history within a college environment: Lucinda points out that a person is a product of their environment, and often when the environment has a strong female history you can feel that it is a place where women were and will continue to be.

Yet, there is an argument to be made regarding the limitations implemented by the single-sex college. Lucinda remembers an applicant in 1994, when the Oxford application system meant that women could apply to more than one college but would often be allocated to a single-sex college. This applicant interviewed at Mansfield but was allocated to Hilda’s – she preferred to not be in a single-sex environment and did not attend her second interview at Hilda’s. This resulted in her losing her place in Oxford.

Lucinda’s experiences illustrate how the male-female disparity existed between not only students but tutors. Recalling earlier memories of sexism at Oxford, Lucinda describes attending a tutor dinner as the only woman and being expected to pour their coffee. Years later while lecturing at another college, another woman was appointed to a senior position to the chagrin of male senior members of staff. As they were leaving the meeting, two senior staff members were discussing her appointment – one scoffed that he was concerned by the idea of “our male students being taught by a feminist!”.

Her experiences of moments like these allow greater understanding of the progress taken by women in Oxford. The introduction of co-education was only the starting point; the struggle for equality within the University continues in different areas. Lucinda attended the first meeting for the Women’s Studies Master’s degree established by Professor Ros Ballaster. She still has her badge, given to the Women’s Studies lecturers, inscribed with the words “Oxford’s Cheapest Faculty”.

This year, the statistics for gender in the University have been in the national news – ‘Oxford University admits more women than men for first time in history’ was the headline in the January Independent. According to UCAS, Oxford offered places to 1,275 female 18-year-old applicants and 1,165 to male applicants in 2018. In comparison, the University’s official statistics from 2013-2016 show a dramatic disparity between the offers given to male and female students – 2014, for instance, showed 1,364 offers to women and 1,508 to men. However, in 2017 there was 1,502 offers made to female students and 1,426 to men, with the female proportion of total UK students admitted rising to 50.1% in comparison to 46.5% in 2014. In numbers, we seem to have arrived at a Golden Age of equality within our university.

Oxford University declares to base admission decisions on individual merits, regardless of age, sexual orientation, or “gender reassignment”. We have traversed through years of female exclusion, restrictive quotas, the absence of co-education, and the ingrained belief of the “weaker sex”. The scholarly angel in his black gown no longer refuses the entry of women into the library. Yet, with 2018 being the first year to admit more women than men during a 900-year history, we continue to question whether we will continue to remain at a constant level of equality.

The education of women forms an arduous, revolutionary, and progressive part of the University’s history, an area which should continue to be remembered and built upon in coming years.

Nigel Owens to referee upcoming Varsity match

0

It was confirmed this morning that Nigel Owens MBE will be refereeing the Varsity Rugby Match this Thursday.

As a contracted Heineken Champions Cup referee, Owens is required to regularly officiate matches on the continent. The group phase of the European knockout competition traditionally takes place in the Autumn and has previously denied Owens the opportunity to don the whistle for the contest between Oxford and Cambridge.

The Welshman, however, has been handed special dispensation this time around to referee the iconic fixture, before travelling to Paris for Sunday’s clash between Racing 92 and Leicester Tigers.

Upon confirmation of the arrangement, he tweeted: “Very pleased to [have] been given the honour of refereeing the Varsity match at Twickenham on Thursday. Really excited and looking forward to refereeing this great fixture for the first time.”

In 2014, Owens was subjected to homophobic abuse when taking charge of an Autumn International between England and New Zealand at Twickenham, and subsequently two supporters were banned from the home of English rugby.

In August of this year, he revealed that the RFU chairman Bill Beaumont had personally handwritten a letter in which he assured Owens that the RFU were in staunch opposition to the homophobic behaviour and that “[Owens] would always be welcome at Twickenham.”

Owens credits this intervention as the driving force in deciding against retiring as a referee, and in 2015 returned to Twickenham to officiate the Rugby World Cup Final between New Zealand and Australia.

Speaking to the official Varsity Match website, Owens nodded to the long line of Welsh officials who have taken charge of the fixture, adding that he “didn’t want to miss out on this game in my career.”

Owens will become the third referee to blow the whistle in the Varsity Match having previously officiated the World Cup Final, following in the footsteps of fellow Welshman Derek Bevan, who officiated the 1991 Final that Twickenham also played host to. In more recent history, Englishmen Wayne Barnes (2005, 2008) and Dave Pearson (2011) have joined the roll call after refereeing at the World Cup.

The arrangement is no doubt mutually beneficial to all parties involved; a sentiment echoed by CEO David Searle on the Varsity site: “It is fantastic to have the endorsement of the world’s leading referee for our fixture at Twickenham. It is nice to see that the current crop of professional referees still see value in the traditions of the game and still want to be involved in games like the Varsity Match.”

The move is another welcome boost for the occasion after a four-year extension with Twickenham for both the Men’s and Women’s matches was agreed in March. At the time, Men’s captain Dominick Waldouck told Cherwell: “Some of my earliest rugby memories are watching The Varsity game. For me, Twickenham represents the home of Varsity, so it’s great to hear the contract has been extended.”

The 138th Varsity match will take place on Thursday 6th December at its usual venue in Twickenham.

Below is a link to Fred Dimbleby’s interview with Owens earlier this year:

http://cherwell.org/2018/05/06/nigel-owens-i-dont-want-to-be-a-celebrity/

The natural world: unconventional spaces for art

0

If you had been on the beach at Folkestone one day in 2014, you would have seen an Andy Goldsworthy installation in which deep red petals danced into disappearance amongst blue-grey water. Goldsworthy said in an interview for the Guardian that the presence of Folkestone harbour, from which thousands of troops departed for battle, in the background of the sight of the departing petals was a choice of setting which gives the piece profound resonance. To see the petals dispersing in the sea conjures up associations of the fleeting nature of life, and the impossibility of keeping anything the same. To see the red poppy petals disappearing in front of the harbour makes the piece resonate with sorrow at the pointless loss of people’s lives.

Photos of painted stones left in beautiful places, national parks, lakesides and mountain tops are striking; their incongruously bright colours sitting in the landscapes of green and grey in which they are left. Also popular is leaving painted stones turned upside down, so the art-work is hidden and it appears like an ordinary rock, yet it hides swirls of colour, renderings of treasured memories, or inspirational quotes. These painted stones go against the philosophy of “leave no trace”, and thereby the choice of setting for these creations does present some ethical problems. Then again, the choice to leave the stones in nature adds great beauty to people’s creations. They become anchored in the place which inspired them, susceptible to the elements, deterioration over time, and the possibility of being unseen, and the creation being forgotten.

The unusual choice of setting for these pieces; the natural world, enhances both creator’s and viewers’ experiences of the art in a way that is entirely different to a gallery. In the calm halls of art galleries, everything is geared up to protect art from time; both against the damage from light and temperature, applying settings which are optimal to protect fragile materials, and against how the passage of time can make old things seem irrelevant, as teams of experts work to reach out to the public. The point of galleries is to showcase art, to preserve it, and to educate about it.

Someone who does find a stone is granted the joy of discovering something unexpected, and the creators have the possibility of sharing something beautiful with others. Yet this is inevitably combined with a need to accept that a rock left may be undiscovered, and the creation will be left unseen. The joy of making a discovery is enhanced by its surprise, and so the art contains within it an acceptance of the possibility of being unnoticed.

Goldsworthy’s Folkestone installation was filmed, so despite how the water at the centre of his creation itself erases it, the installation is not totally lost by his choice of nature as canvas. The piece is different to the practice of stone-leaving – instead of demonstrating intrinsic acceptance of the passage of time, this installation plays out these feelings; as its petals are scattered by its sea, the way the ocean absorbs to the point of anonymity tells a story of the sorrow of death in war. The installation brings to mind not just the facts of the deaths but also how the remains of many soldiers were irretrievable, and lie in unmarked graves. The choice of nature as canvas plays out these questions of how we relate to the world around us. Although art which is held in galleries can ask similar questions, pieces like this bring these questions into the landscape and thereby explores people’s agonies, worries and lingering doubts about an individual’s place and longevity, and plays them out as potentially coming true; which gallery art cannot do with such vitality and resonance. It is wonderful and necessary for art to be preserved in galleries, whose halls show and protect ancient treasures, but for this art, though beautiful and important, its point is to disappear.

Minority groups feel the most excluded at the Union, report reveals

2

Those with disabilities and from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds gave the Oxford Union the lowest accessibility ratings in the society’s access report, seen by Cherwell, which was internally published last week.

The internal survey was completed by over 600 members, with 166 of them opting to answer questions concerning the accessibility of the Union for minority groups.

While nearly 67% of members who completed the survey said that the initial membership fee was one of the largest factors preventing people from joining the Union, 34% said that the atmosphere of the Union was responsible, while 33% also blamed its reputation.

Members were also asked to rate the accessibility of the Union on a scale of 1 (extremely unsatisfactory) to 10 (extremely satisfactory).

The lowest ratings were relating to members who choose to answer questions regarding accessibility for those who “identify as coming from a socioeconomically disadvantaged background” and for “disabled members”.

Members who chose to answer questions relating to members who “identify as coming from a socioeconomically disadvantaged background” gave the Union an average of 3.5, with written feedback suggesting that the initial membership fee was a key reason for them feeling excluded.  

Meanwhile, those who chose to answer questions regarding access for “disabled members” gave the Union an average score of 4 out of 10, citing queuing for events, heavy doors, and the first floor women’s toilets as amongst the areas of greatest concern.

Those who answered questions concerning access for “ethnic minority members” gave the Union an average rating of just under 6 out of 10, while members who chose to answer questions concerning access for LGBTQ+ members gave the Union an average accessibility rating of 6.5. Many of the respondents expressed concern over the opinions held by many speakers, as well as a lack of LGBTQ+ events.

International student gave the Union the highest access rating of 7.8 out of 10.

Membership fees, accessibility, and transparency were highlighted as the areas of greatest areas of concern, with 48.4% deeming the transparency of the Union for its members ‘inadequate’ by giving it a rating of less than 5.

The Union did not respond to a request for comment.

The report comes in a week where questions were raised by committee members over step free access at the new Plush venue. Minutes from Union’s Access Committee meeting on Friday suggested that the committee were uncertain about the possibility of installing step free access in the Union’s ‘coal-shed’, the former Purple Turtle venue, which the LGBTQ+ club is set to occupy from early January.

The minutes read: “The President-elect acknowledges that this is an issue with which he wants to deal as we have a responsibility to solve this problem.

“Based on his conversations with ex-disabilities officers this week, he says that accessibility of the Union is a serious problem and he wonders if we can tie solving the accessibility of Plush together with solving the accessibility issue of the Union at large.

“The Bursar notes that Plush did have excellent nights for people with disabilities. She says that she does not know how it will be possible to sustain such nights in a cellar and that we are very constrained in terms of what we can do to solve the accessibility problem.”

The President-elect at the time and the Bursar agreed that they would discuss the possibility of step free access with Plush once negotiations had been completed.

 

Oxford’s boxing women step into the spotlight

1

The Oxford University Amateur Boxing Club (OUABC) held its first all women’s event last Saturday night. The historic event gave the female members of the club the recognition they deserve in a sport where women are often underrepresented. The women’s club at OUABC boast Lydia Welham as their captain, the holder of the National Development Champion 2018 award, along with co-captain, Rachel Wheatley, last year’s Sportswoman of the Year. The club competed against other women from a variety of esteemed clubs from across the country.

The night started with a brilliant fight from the junior club members, girls still in primary school. They displayed an advanced skill set, brilliant footwork, a great deal of courage and determination and set the tone for the historic night ahead.

Ella Penny displayed the same power and grit she exhibited at Town vs Gown last year, but her attempts to fight off the ropes met with varying results. Eventually, her opponents jabs to the face saw a bloodied Penny call the fight to an end after an display of extreme determination.

Kaya Axelsson and Sofia Lindqvust’s inter-club match was one of the most tightly fought of the night. The opening was marked by Axelsson’s assertive drives forward, but Lindqvust remainded unphased. She held her ground and although pursuing very different styles, there was little to separate them as neither woman was backing down. In the final round, Axelsson picked up pace and started to throw harder shots, but did not throw Lindqvust off balance and she continued to demonstrate great power. Although split, the judges ultimately declared Axelsson winner.

Both Jessica Lee and Zoey Zhang exhibited their skills in the ring, but both of them fell short of victory. Zhang’s opponent’s combination punching laid bare a difference in hand speed. Lee remained remarkably collected in her fight, displayed deft footwork and picked up pace throughout, but was undone by a lack of consistency in her attacks and failure to drive forward.

Rachel Wheatley and Lydia Welham’s contests were distinguished by the intensity of the physical and psychological intensity displayed. Wheatley’s varied style of attack moved her opponent backward and kept them off balance, enabling her to exhibit her powerful combination punching. Welham’s opponent was particularly formidable, speedy and confident. But Welham was able to counter the offensive and absorbed her opponent’s best shots with little apparent effect. Thudding punches from Welham prompted heightened levels of roaring in the crowd. Despite showing signs of fatigue, she continued to throw and land punches with a combination of power and accuracy. Wheatley and Welham boxed exquisitely in a series of skirmishes that took on the feel of bullet chess: it was a showcase of expert-level work from two of the clubs top operators.

The OUABC was founded in 1897 and is the second oldest active boxing club in the country. That it has taken significantly more than a century for the club to hold its first all female event is, however, more of a reflection on the attitudes to the sport within Britain, rather than the club itself. The number of “male chauvinists in Britain” is what Alan Kean, professional boxing coach has argued has caused women’s boxing in this country to lag behind other nations.

Until 1996 Amateur Boxing Association of England banned female fighters. It wasn’t until two years later, Jane Couch, a bouncer from Blackpool, became the first legal British professional boxer. Significantly, the first Olympics women’s boxing was included in was London 2012. In this light, the OUABC can be seen as relatively progressive for allowing women to join in 2003.

The boxers at the OUABC are helping give women’s boxing the appreciation the sport deserves. Not only have they reached national headlines, but they have held their audience with their sportsmanship, their passion and a palpable desire to prove themselves. In an era when everyone is talking about equal rights and equal pay it is great to see the OUABC putting women on the cards and creating space for them to get the same recognition as men. It’s just a shame it had to take so long.

Sportsmanship, solidarity and the Premier League

0

Of the most recent round of Premier League fixtures, it was not the star-studded clash of Arsenal vs Liverpool which most appealed to the hearts and minds of the football world. Nor was it the admittedly less-glistening Monday night spectacle of Huddersfield vs Fulham. Instead, fans and pundits alike were converging upon the Cardiff City Stadium, where Leicester had travelled to play their first competitive fixture since the tragic death of their owner Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha seven days previously.

Arriving at the stadium, I wasn’t greeted by the usual rowdy atmosphere of my fellow season ticket holders. The two elderly blokes who sit in the row behind me did not, as was tradition, harp on about their hatred of the away team of that particular match as the players warmed up in front of us. Today was different. The thoughts of everyone in the stadium, from the most docile of supporters in the family stand to the hardcore shouters, were on a man who transformed the fortunes of a football club and did so much for its wider community.

Eulogies from around the global football community have poured in for the Thai business mogul who showed that he was infinitely more than the usual uber-wealthy foreign football owner. Srivaddhanaprabha didn’t just transform Leicester from relegation favourites to Premier League champions and Champions League quarter-finalists in the space of two years, he also donated £2 million to a local children’s hospital and a further million to the university’s medical department. This is the legacy of a man who turned a cash-strapped, mid-table Championship side into Premier League regulars and who positively impacted the lives of thousands, a feat far greater than any sporting accomplishment.

His impact could most certainly be felt in the stadium last Saturday. Cardiff owner and friend of Srivaddhanaprabha, Vincent Tan, dedicated the start of the match programme to his Thai counterpart. The programme itself was toned down in design, simply featuring both club’s badges in front of a dark background. Before kick-off, a flag bearing the message “RIP Vichai” was passed from one end of the stadium over to the other end towards the Leicester fans, shortly followed by an emotional and well observed minute’s silence. The Leicester fans wore t-shirts reading “The Boss” accompanied by a picture of Srivaddhanaprabha, and when Demarai Gray brought the Foxes a 1-0 lead early in the second half, the winger ran to the ecstatic away fans to reveal a similar message to ‘The Boss’ under his shirt – “For Khun Vichai”. Where I was sat, some of the Cardiff fans began to applaud.

It would not have been unexpected if Leicester ended up unable to make their mark on the game after lengthy media scrutiny over the previous week. But the 2016 Premier League champions had the better of a game of relatively few chances throughout. They channelled the emotional energy of losing the man who helped earn much of the squad a Premier League winner’s medal into a disciplined and composed performance against a beleaguered Cardiff side. As a Cardiff fan, I have seen some awful decisions made by our owner Vincent Tan since he bought out the club in May 2010. Fiascos such as our one-time transfer policy of exclusively buying players who had the number eight, a symbol of luck in Malaysia, in their birth date or the scandalous and offensive rebranding of The Bluebirds’ kit and badge from blue to red spring to mind. It was clear, both to Cardiff fans and the football world at large, that foreign owners imposing their own culture on clubs with centuries of local tradition was going to lead to alienation.

Tan last week said of Srivaddhanaprabha: “I considered him a friend and somebody for whom I had the utmost respect and admiration.” It may be no coincidence, then, that right as the Leicester owner began to see success, Tan’s ownership strategy at Cardiff began to change for the better. He publicly apologised for his misgivings, reverted back to blue and since 2014 has converted 183 million pounds of Cardiff’s debt into equity. This season, Cardiff are back in the Premier League with the kit in blue and the finances in the black. It wasn’t too long ago when both were in red. Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha has set the benchmark for how football ownership should be done in the Premier League using sustainable development, smart and ambitious investment married with a respect for the history of the club and an appreciation of the wider community of the city as a whole. Here’s to hoping that the likes of Stan Kroenke at Arsenal and Mike Ashley at Newcastle will learn a thing or two from him.

We are all complicit in climate change

0

For a long time, I have thought myself undeserving of a place at Oxford. But now, it seems evident to me that it is possible that every student here, including myself, can make a difference. From the Veggie Pledge to canvassing for divestment, there are a number of ways that we can have a meaningful impact on the environment, and be at the forefront of saving our planet from climate change.

Indeed, whilst ground-breaking research is necessary, we can’t go around with fingers in our ears. Ignoring the true problems that lie before us, and choosing to, whether consciously, or unconsciously, disregard them, is recklessly irresponsible. Oxford has been a blind hypocrite for too long, and this needs to change. We need to change, in order to adapt and survive.

In May this year, Cherwell released an article about campaigns for divestment in Oxford, as the university as a whole had been maintaining its support for companies on the Carbon Underground 200 list. But what has truly changed since then? On its own webpage, the University claims to be a ‘world leader in the battle against climate change’. This can’t be argued with: Oxford undoubtedly provides cuttingedge research, focussing on essential areas such as climatechange mitigation. However, the University itself is not directly involved.

Similarly, just last week a Cherwell investigation revealed that Oxbridge colleges hold over £21 million of investments in oil and gas exploration, production, and refining companies. This is clear evidence that both Oxford and Cambridge have little regard for our environment, concerned instead about the bottom line. Both institutions are at the forefront of research, trailblazers in this field, but this blatant disregard for our environment is endemic, and any research is pointless if the University itself pursues investment in fossil fuels. We must demand that the University divest. Otherwise, our efforts to make small changes at the University are wasted, when on a macro level, the University is choosing to ignore the issue of climate change.

The sad truth is that, regardless of its intellectualism, Oxford does not heed its own words. Campaigns such as ‘Trashing: What A Waste’ merely create a front that the University utilises to suggest that it is ethically and environmentally sound. Following the recent IPCC Global Warming Report, there was a great increase in climate-change coverage in the media. I quickly noticed that a large proportion of this coverage quoted recent research from the University of Oxford. One such report, in the Guardian, contained a quote from Oxford environmental researcher, Joseph Poore, arguing that veganism is the single most efficient method in combatting climate change.

As I was reading this, during a Formal dinner at Exeter College, I felt a sad sense of irony; both the starter and the main included meat and dairy products. Oxford understands that its way of life is harmful to the environment, yet for the sake of tradition, it will not change. People are just doing nothing. And they are happy doing nothing. There is no desire to change for the sake of our environment.

However, whilst the majority remain hypocritical in their approach to climate change, some colleges are taking a lead. In May, LMH JCR passed a motion urging the college to divest from high fossil-fuel companies, allowing LMH to ‘align its investment with its ethical commitments.’ This motion was introduced due to an understanding that other universities, such as Edinburgh and Sheffield, are already well ahead in terms of divestment. A few other colleges have followed this example; St Hilda’s, for instance, is now ensuring that  business plans of companies in which they invest are compatible with the Paris Climate Agreement, and Oriel introduced a similar arrangement.

However, whilst all of these motions have been publicised in Cherwell, no other student bodies seem to have taken notice. What is, for me, particularly worrying, is the fact that Oxford’s larger colleges appear to be doing less. However, whilst the collective action of a college is important, the activity of the individual remains similarly significant. In the stress of everyday life, it is far too easy to forget to be environmentally aware.

But I beg you; the next time you are tidying your room, please don’t forget the presence of that recycling bin. And please, please don’t let your scout throw your recycled waste in with all the rest. Such actions may seem trivial now, but, sooner rather than later, they’ll hold more significance than you ever thought they could.

Updated: 3/12/2018

Blood Brothers Review – ‘truly exceptional theatre’

0

I’ve never before experienced a moment of complete awe in a theatre before. A lot of plays in Oxford are thought-provoking, some are shocking, but never before have I seen an entire audience completely stunned into silence by a moment of pure dramatic brilliance. This moment came at the end of Blood Brothers, Willy Russell’s seminal musical, which has now been running for over 30 years in the West End and on tour.

In truth, it was a moment the audience had been anticipating from the off. The play begins with a prologue, in which the sardonic narrator tells us that we will hear the story of the Johnston twins, “who were born and who died on the self-same day”, and the advertising makes no attempt to hide the tragic climax – the poster outside the New Theatre even shows two men lying on the ground. The fact that you could hear a pin drop, in an audience packed with nearly 1,800 people, is testament to the sheer excellence of the production, which was outstanding from start to finish.

Blood Brothers tells the story of Eddie and Mickey, two twins separated at birth, and the contiguous lives they lead as one is raised on a council estate in Liverpool, and one goes off to university before becoming a politician. Although the story is about the Johnston twins, the play begins with their mother, who aged 25 is a cash-deprived single mum trying to raise seven children alone. After falling pregnant with twins, and threatened with having to send some of her children into care, Mrs Johnston makes an agreement to give one of the twins to the upper-class (and infertile) woman, whose house she cleans, to raise as her own. When the two children meet by chance and become firm friends, their two mothers can do nothing to keep them apart, even as their lives unfold in completely different directions.

It is a strength of the lead actors that they are able to play their characters as young children in the first half as convincingly as they are able to play their adult selves in the second half. Exceptional range is shown particularly by Sean Jones, who plays Mickey, whose command of vocals and ability to transform his stature is completely mesmerising. There is not a weak link in the cast, with the supporting roles often adding in some exceptional moments of meta-aware comedy (“I was your milkman, now I’m your gynaecologist” is how the production explains one of the ensemble multi-rolling in the same scene).

The stand-out role, though, is Mrs Johnston, played emotively by Linzi Hateley, and it is highly refreshing to watch a play with an older woman in the central spotlight. Mrs Johnston’s transformation from hopeful housewife to bereaved survivor is the core tragedy of the play, and it is an added note of the sardonic that we never find out her first name – she is only ever “Mrs Johnston” or “mum”.

In addition to the superb cast, the technical team behind the production have done an excellent job. The frequency of the set changes, and the use of highly ambitious lighting (including gauze) from Nick Richings, make for an urgency of tone that keeps you on the edge of your seat throughout, and the live orchestra bring Willy Russell’s exceptional score to life with vigour. It is clear to see why Blood Brothers has won every major Olivier Award.

The real draw of this play, though, is its message. Blood Brothers isn’t subtle about its presentation of class difference, but nor is it preachy, and the conceit of the parallel lives of the twins makes for some heart-wrenching moments of pathos. These work to demonstrate that nurture is everything in the nature vs nurture debate. Some particularly droll moments are the scene in which we are shown the boys in the classroom, which begins by satirising private schools, with Eddie, in his cricket gear, being grilled about his Oxbridge aspirations by a headmaster in a gown.

The same cast member then plays the scruffy teacher who takes a much larger class in Mickey’s underfunded state school, suspending Mickey for not answering an obscure question about geography that neither the teacher nor the students are at all invested in. The second moment comes when both boys are arrested for throwing stones; after returning them home a police officer warns Mickey’s mother to keep her son under control at all costs, before taking some whisky with Eddie’s father, and warning him to keep his son away from the riff raff. It is notable that both of these scenes depict the attitude of the establishment towards class, but it is also notable that both are unabashedly humorous – and indeed, Blood Brothers is a play that is consistently funny right up until the point of tragedy.

This is a play that debuted in 1983, but is as topical and relevant for 2018 as if it were written yesterday. The fact that the entirety of the New Theatre gave a minute-long standing ovation is testament to the calibre of the production, which draws you in with its endearing characters and tongue-in-cheek humour, before leaving you in tears as the curtain falls. Powerful, moving, and compassionate, this is truly exceptional theatre. I cannot recommend Blood Brothers highly enough.

When and why did Netflix movies get so good?

0

What a difference nine months makes. Back in February, Netflix revolutionised the way films can be distributed when they dropped the much anticipated sci-fi sequel The Cloverfield Paradox on its service mere hours after debuting the trailer at the Super-Bowl.

The entire process of promotion was truncated: the latest Hollywood blockbuster was suddenly available from the comfort of your sofa right after America’s biggest sporting event. There was only one, tiny issue: Paradox was a very, very bad movie. Coming mere weeks after their $100 million Will Smith-fronted sci-fi flop Bright, Netflix were quickly gaining a reputation for releasing films so bad that, even after watching them without buying a ticket, you’d be tempted to ask for a refund.

But after years of doing relatively well in the documentary categories during awards season, Netflix are gunning for major Oscars. And they’re starting to pick up the kind of films that cinephiles can really get their teeth into.

The first of these is Outlaw King, a bloody-’n’-muddy battle-epic about Scottish legend Robert the Bruce which reteams Chris Pine with director David MacKenzie after their highly underrated western Hell or High Water. Despite the similar subject matter and historical setting to Braveheart, comparisons don’t come easily; this is a more muted affair, with acts of violence more likely to inspire disgusted groans than cheers of exhilaration. Yet it’s backed up by incredible direction from Mackenzie, as the film’s natural lighting, detailed set and tactile costume design creates a cohesive, convincing evocation of the past. If nothing else, it’s worth watching at least the opening shot, an extraordinary nine minute single-take that establishes the stakes, tone and central personalities with grace and technical aplomb. 

The politics and personalities are generally far more important to this film than to Braveheart, as the violent political upheaval of Scotland is contrasted against the tender uncertainty of Bruce’s new arranged marriage (to the captivating Florence Pugh).

It’s also worth noting that many of the reviews you may see are of a very different film than the film you’ll see on Netflix. After premiering the film at Toronto’s film festival in September, Mackenzie felt compelled to chop 20 minutes off the runtime. The result has been met positively across the board; the film rarely bags, even if the uniformly sombre score does little to aid the onscreen action.

As much as I would love to dive into the epic sweep of the earth-shaking final battle, I must fulfil my contractual obligation to mention, as all other writers chronicling this film have, that Chris Pine’s penis makes an appearance. You should absolutely watch the whole film anyway, but if you want to skip ahead, the timecode is around ninety minutes in. You’re welcome.

Time, then, to look at Netflix’s other recent major release: The Ballad of Buster Scruggs. This latest Western from the Coen Brothers had a fascinating route to the screen. Originally conceived as a six-part miniseries, the Coens decided midway through making the project that they’d retool it as an anthology film. As such, it boasts an impressive cast – including Liam Neeson, Tim Blake Nelson and James Franco – and balances a wide array of Coen-esque comic and dramatic tones, linked by storybook interludes which tie each story to a deeply-felt metanarrative of myth-making that characterises this patchwork of tales from the New Frontier.

The lengths of the segments range between 11 and 37 minutes, but many of the longer segments are consigned to the back end of the film which makes the runtime feel a little overlong. As with any anthology film, it’s easy to prefer some segments over others; I particularly loved the fourth-wall-disregarding comic idiosyncrasy of Buster Scruggs’ opening story, but Tom Waits’ contemplative, tragic gold-prospecting adventure “All Gold Canyon” almost brought me to tears. Cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel’s use of colour is a stunning companion to the film’s varied tones, as is Carter Burwell’s characteristically textured score.

These releases are an elaborate but crucial warm-up for Netflix as they build towards releases from some of cinema’s most beloved and extraordinary talents. Roma, Alfonso Cuaron’s first film since 2013’s Oscar-winning Gravity, is coming to Netflix on December 14th. And 2019 will see the release of Martin Scorsese’s The Irishman, a $175 million historical epic starring Robert De Niro and Al Pacino, for which Netflix will be pulling out all of the promotional stops. Roma is hotly tipped to be a strong contender for Best Picture at next year’s Academy Awards, so they need to start pleasing the Academy to increase its chances of success. Screening their films in cinemas is the most surefire route to keeping those fickle Oscar voters happy.

Both Outlaw King and Buster Scruggs have been given limited cinematic releases. after Netflix spent years dragging their heels over that idea. I was lucky enough to see both in the cinema, and even you’re unable to see either film projected, it’s absolutely worth seeing both films as big as you can. Outlaw King’s complex and immersive sound mix would be lost on a laptop, while Delbonnel’s gorgeous visual compositions throughout Buster Scruggs are wasted on an iPad.

But the fact that both Outlaw King and Buster Scruggs can be seen by anyone with access to a Netflix account is hugely exciting. It democratises the medium of cinema, removing many of the financial barriers that can limit wide access to great art. As long as the quality of these films remain high, I think that’s something we can all get behind.

The gap is widening: weighing up a football ‘Super League’

0

The nature of the Premier League has undergone a significant change in recent years. Whilst previously it had a unique strength, in comparison to top European leagues, in its reputation as a competition in which ‘anybody can beat anybody’, this is markedly less true today.

After Manchester City’s record breaking points total last year and their subsequent influx of top talent in the summer, including club record signing Riyad Mahrez, they now look as unstoppable as last year’s formidable side. Liverpool and Chelsea join them as unbeaten so far this season, the first time since the 1978-9 campaign that the top three have remained unbeaten for eleven games straight. Additionally, Arsenal look stronger under new manager Unai Emery and are capable of contesting the top four along with Spurs and Manchester United.

Meanwhile, in the 23 away matches the other Premier League teams have played away against this ‘Big 6’ they have lost 22 and drawn one. Not one of the teams currently sitting in the bottom half of the table have been able to overcome a team in the top 5, either home or away.It is on this basis that I believe there is the potential to offer up a lukewarm defense of the formation of a so-called ‘European Super League’. This is in light of recent news released by German publication Der Spiegel that some of the biggest clubs across the continent have held secret talks to this end.

The 38 point target usually set for those teams who expect their season to consist of an arduous battle to survive is getting smaller. Current estimations expectant that a mere 30 points will be enough to avoid relegation. With such a gap growing between the haves and have-nots in the Premier League and with an even wider disparity in wealth and quality between the clubs from the top German, French, Italian and Spanish divisions, is it unfair for us to expect nothing to change in the future?

It seems to me that too many league fixtures have become formalities. Sides turn up to the Etihad or Anfield with little to offer other than perhaps a valiant effort to mute the multitude of attacking threats they are faced with for a short time before they are inevitably swept aside. The competitive essence of these fixtures which was once so tangible has faded. In the past we may have been able to expect these periods of dominance to be temporary but the financial backing of the largest clubs is so absurdly out of proportion with those currently languishing at the bottom that this is unlikely to become any more competitive in the foreseeable future. Only when we see Cardiff splash 50 million on a right back will we see a return to the cutthroat notoriety of our top division.

Real Madrid, according to the Der Spiegel report, have suggested that the Super League could be up and running as soon as 2021, with a number of authorities expressing their extreme disdain after the talks were leaked. Many have pointed to the Champions League as the franchise which more than quenches our thirst for the highest level of club football. I would argue however that largely up until the knockout rounds, at which point it is only the majority of teams invited to participate in the proposed European Super League left in the competition anyway, the same problems as seen in domestic leagues arise. Group stage games are rarely exciting, even those between two top quality sides often lack tension. This is usually because both teams know they are still likely to qualify for the next round if they are to come out second best, so long as they beat the weaker sides in the group. When it comes to the latter stages, however, as last year’s competition so emphatically proved, there is no better spectacle in football. That Manolas Header, that Salah chip in the second leg against City, that Ronaldo bicycle kick; this sort of drama may be what we come to expect week in week out if the rumours are true.

Ultimately, any such move towards a Super League would almost certainly be disastrous for the game at home. The UK government has confirmed its position against it, arguing that such a competition would greatly harm the culture of English football. Normal fans’ plights would be greatly increased as inevitably new TV deals would lead to a decreased interest in local football. I am also under no illusions that these plans only exist to make the rich richer and would greatly reduce revenue for clubs lower down the league ladder, further exacerbating the inequity which led to the tournament’s proposition in the first place. While I cannot advocate for its existence, I can highlight that these potential origins of a Super League are founded in a problem that is not going away and perhaps, although it would destroy all of the tradition and integrity that people love about the sport, at least the football would be pretty exciting.