Thursday 28th August 2025
Blog Page 687

Jacob Rees-Mogg interview: ‘I know the establishment only too well’

Oscar Baker
-
2
Jacob Rees-Mogg interview: ‘I know the establishment only too well’

“Jacob is one of the new breed of serious students intent upon the maintenance of good old fashioned standards.” So read one column in a late 1980s copy of Cherwell, in which many of the current crop of big names at Westminster infamously and predictably feature in all their glory. I put this to Rees-Mogg as a opener, hoping to begin with the Jacob this University once knew. After all, rarely a moment passes these days without the Honourable Member for North East Somerset being splashed across the headlines on Europe. Where did it all begin?

“I am a Conservative,” he launches, “and Conservatives are in the business of preserving what is best about the present… and not changing for changing’s sake, so that would still be true.” Not exactly new terrain! In characteristic and historicised bluster, he assures me his trajectory to the centre of our politics is motivated by a desire to improve “the condition of the nation…in Disraelian terms.”

Rees-Mogg is undoubtedly and unapologetically as elite as it gets. Eton preceded Oxford, and investment management at Rothschild followed it. A backbencher since 2010, he now chairs the European Research Group, the main Tory organ of hard Brexit advocacy chipping away at the Government. To many, Rees-Mogg is the paradigm of the establishment, but at the same time he appears a maverick sniping at it on the main issue of our day. I ponder how he reflects on this contradiction.

“To some extent I know the establishment only too well, but perhaps because I know it well I know what’s wrong with it. I think the problem with the British establishment is that it has for too long thought that its main object was to manage decline.” This is recognisably Thatcherite in tone, those sympathetic might say admirably honest. “I think the Government’s negotiations have been much too much about [this] than about getting the Brexit prize. The excitement of politics is to make things better all the time, its looking for constant improvement.”

In the last weeks, EU leaders have again met to discuss the latest state Brexit negotiations. The border in Ireland remains unsolved as a flashpoint of the talks, haunting Mrs May. Just before we speak, Rees-Mogg’s European Research Group threw their weight behind a Canada-plus arrangement as an alternative to Chequers. The retort from Downing Street had predictably followed, insisting that no third party trade deal has ever reduced hard borders.

This is risible, insists Rees-Mogg. “To say no trade deal has ever reduced hard borders is simply untrue. The European Union is in essence a trade deal which is what it began with, which is why the EU has complete control over our trade policy at the moment. Whichever Downing Street spokesman said that should be sent off to Oxford to have a remedial history course, they might not make such silly comments.”

What about the claim that the stockpiling of medicines and a new food supplies minister is a sign of an impending cross-border trade disaster? Rees-Mogg offers a retort of his own: “It’s Project Fear on speed…this is all hysterical, and shouldn’t be taken seriously.”

Amidst the political dogfighting and bravado that dominates Westminster, Rees-Mogg insists his Brexit can uphold the sovereignty of the nation. I wonder how this is possible given the apparent need for customs controls between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK in any Canada style trade agreement. “The definitely would not happen,” Rees-Mogg claims, citing the precedents already applied by the EU on its other external borders. He simply adds, rhetorically: “We’re one country, the EU cannot be allowed to chop up the United Kingdom.”

Few would dispute that endlessly repetitive sloganeering across the spectrum has done little for the quality of the debate, other than supply ministers a veneer of conviction behind which they can hide. It seems the campaign for a Peoples’ Vote is starting to pierce through this, backed here now of course by Oxford SU. Activists amassed in London on the recent march for a Peoples’ Vote. There is of course no need to establish Rees-Mogg’s position on another vote, but what of his justification? Nothing is undemocratic, surely, about confirming public support on the precise details of the deal agreed. In any case wouldn’t it be better for advocates of Brexit to ratify the ideas they seem so confident about?

“Well what’s your question?” Rees-Mogg answers combatively, audibly irritated at this challenge. “You’re asking the question, you’ve got to specify, what type of referendum are you asking people to sign up to?”

After a to and fro as to what’s on the ballot paper, I insist its about keeping options open to the public. This receives little recognition. “People have voted to Leave, they’ve made that decision. They made that decision two years ago.”

“Can we then have another vote a year later to decide whether we are going to stay in the European Union? Make it the best of three! What you’re saying is that the people who lost want us to keep on voting until they win, and then they want to stop voting. My answer to that is this is simply an abuse of the democratic process…the only people who want a second vote are people who lost the first time round, that don’t accept the democratic decision that was made in 2016.”

We become so engrossed in the back and forth on Europe that we almost lose sight of my opening enquiry into Rees-Mogg’s university days. I return to his mantra of “not changing for changing’s sake.” ‘Change’, of course, is among the first words off the lips of many MPs when the topic of Oxford rears its head. After all, there are more students from Westminster School than there are black students in last year’s intake. The top twelve independent schools outnumber all state comps. I wonder whether Rees-Mogg sees this as a ‘social apartheid’, like his colleague David Lammy MP.

“No, I don’t agree with that. I think that Oxford exists to have a complete focus on academic excellence…you see it across the country with people being told they shouldn’t apply to Oxford…that’s wrong and Oxford is right to get out and about.”

This is perfectly acceptable in theory, but in practice resources for teachers and students have been stretched across the country since at least the start of the decade. One can hardly argue that there is an equality of opportunity nationwide. Surely, we’ll unfairly miss some of the best and brightest, and restrict our University’s diversity and inclusion? I put the case for more lenient entry standards for those from disadvantaged and underrepresented backgrounds.

“That is the wrong approach, that is a desperately condescending approach,” he shoots back, the most animated in our discussion so far. “The issue for Oxford is to increase the numbers applying from diverse backgrounds rather than trying to fill quotas which would damage the academic excellence of Oxford, as if it were just a quota machine.”

It’s clear Rees-Mogg cares about this place and its traditions. After all, he is still the Honorary President of OUCA, in the news of late for the controversy surrounding banning the Bullingdon Club. He also sits as a Trustee of the Oxford Union’s parent body, having been Librarian. Once a keen student politician, Rees-Mogg’s stand on free speech seems especially pertinent. So often the lightening rod for criticism of students, I wonder how this noted debater will react when I explain some in Oxford will likely forward an argument that to no-platform him and his views would the right step.

“That is the beginnings of a totalitarian regime. Not only are they threatening free speech which is a good thing in an academic setting, but they’re also threading the fundamentals of the Constitution.” With such dramatic rhetoric its clear Rees-Mogg joins the choirs of onlookers who cry ‘crisis’ and ‘fiasco’ at student debate. He adds: “It always used to be that there used to be a very strong tradition of defending free speech on the Left.”

This seems the appropriate moment to bring up the controversial social views Rees-Mogg has himself shared with television and student audiences across the country. There seems a disconnect between his outwardly polite and affable nature, and his positions on gay marriage and abortion that many find abhorrent. To the challenge that such views are homophobic and misogynistic, he shoots back: “I think that’s simply wrong. Whenever people resort to abuse in terms of an argument, they have lost the argument.

“They need to put counter argument that deal with the substance of what is being said. The issue with abortion is that there are two lives and you have to consider both lives…life is being ended and that is not something that can simply be ignored. If you look at opinion polling, you seem to see that more women have concerns over abortion than men, whatever it is it’s not an anti-women view.”

Whilst many of us might find Rees-Mogg’s views unappetising, it’s clear he won’t be retreating from view any time soon. We cannot ignore his viewpoints. I wrap things up wondering what optimistic message he can offer to young people on our current political state. Perhaps this will initiate some kind of common ground?

“For young people this must surely be the most exciting opportunity because who would you rather decide who leads your life: you or somebody else? Surely you want to decide how your own life is led? We’ll do it better than anyone else will do it for you…”

This of course remains to be seen. As our and our country’s future is deliberated for us away from view, I hope Rees-Mogg pauses to consider the strength of feeling among most young people; that the step we’re about to take is both wrong and deeply upsetting. I really do.

The Spectre of Virtue Signalling

Brian Wong
-
1
The Spectre of Virtue Signalling

Progressive social movements serve a pivotal role in public discourse – whether it be in student circles or in wider society. They act to critique the status quo’s intrinsic flaws and inadequacies, but also remind the public of the distance between the ideal aspirations towards which we strive, and the non-ideal reality that confronts disempowered groups on a daily basis. Yet in an age where the simulation has displaced the originally simulated, an uncanny spectre haunts the contemporary progressive left – and that spectre is the performative act of virtue signalling.

To be clear, this isn’t an article that advocates against armchair activism, popular media campaigning, or the low-cost high-returns effective promotion of worthwhile causes; nor is this an article that condemns the usage of tweets or Facebook statuses or YouTube vlogs as means of raising the salience and public comprehensibility of social justice causes. These are all worthwhile and important dimensions of social activism, especially given the increasingly technologically fixated zeitgeist of our times. Instead, I want to focus on the very specific phenomenon of virtue signalling in activism – the instrumentalisation of discourse about social justice causes as a means of accruing personal social capital.

To be clear, there are no clear-cut, paradigmatic cases of this phenomenon, beyond perhaps Rachel Dolezal or Pepsi’s atrociously insensitive faux-Black Lives Matters campaign in 2017. Indeed, by definition, for one to successfully accrue social capital in the process of talking about or advocating social justice, one cannot come across as inauthentic or merely instrumentalising justice as a PR talking shop: doing so would defeat the entire purpose. Yet the underlying features of virtue signalling can easily be established: i) it involves a performative, often quasi-theatrically expressive speech-act – whether this be a strident social media post or a self-congratulatory tweet; ii) it features a reward to the individual partaking in it – perhaps in the form of greater ‘respect’ or credibility, or higher volumes of social capital and likeability amongst one’s circles. In other words, ii) takes the ‘warm glow’ we feel as we donate to charities to a whole new level.

To some extent, a moderate volume of virtue signalling is not necessarily undesirable. The existence of rewards to the individual motivates them to engage in activities that have net positive effects: in engaging otherwise unengaged members of the public, in disseminating information about otherwise obscured causes, or in mobilising their surrounding friendship groups and acquaintances to participate in activism. To perform a virtuous speech-act is also one of the quickest ways of inducing individuals into potentially caring for the ideologies and causes they advocate – by preaching in a necessarily quasi-authentic manner, one becomes enrolled in the ideology one may have initially paid only lip service to. There is a dangerous tendency in contemporary activism for us to spend so much time self-critiquing and problematising all of our natural inclinations and habits, that we forget what we are campaigning or struggling for in the first place; let’s not take the critique of virtue signalling too far.

Yet beyond a certain threshold or limit, virtue signalling becomes deeply problematic, for two reasons. The first is its blatant instrumentalisation of the suffering or misfortunes of others for individual gains. Take the classic ‘friend in hospital’ example – suppose your friend ends up in a hospital due to an accident, and you are deliberating whether you ought to visit them. In scenario 1, you visit them out of a deep sense of sympathy and concern for their wellbeing, and you hope that your visiting them could help them recover as soon as possible. In scenario 2, you visit them because you are motivated by the expected reciprocation and benefits you will acquire from them after they recover. Scenarios 1 and 2 feature exactly the same actions, but we would intuit that Scenario 2 is wrongfully motivated. Why? Perhaps it is the act of dishonesty – that we feel that you are being fundamentally deceitful towards your friend in concealing your ‘ulterior motives’ as you visit them; or perhaps it is the fact that you are instrumentalising the unique context in which they have ended up as a means of advancing your self-interest. It is for this very reason that we may be a tad appalled at Tahani in The Good Place (an excellent series worth watching even if you do not enjoy philosophy), who views all of her philanthropy and charitable activities merely as a means of obtaining fame, recognition, and the ‘warm glow’ associated with being perceived to be a moral character. The treatment of social justice as a tool, as a weapon is deeply disrespectful to victims of injustices, but also to other activists who take their advocacy seriously and genuinely.

The second issue with virtue signalling is that it is practically counterproductive. For the privileged, the question of justice may be an afterthought, what Carol Ann Duffy describes as “the reader’s eyeballs prick, with tears between the bath and pre-lunch beers.” (War Photographer); it may even be rhetorically appropriated in theoretical, obscurantist academic-lese by charlatans like Jordan Peterson. Yet for the victims – far removed from the virtue signalling sliced in-between a snap and an Insta story – their pains are real, actual, and urgently in need of relief. Excessive virtue signalling creates superfluous content that causes prospective audience to be desensitised to calls for help. Moreover, given that most virtue signallers tend to come from positions of privilege, their voices end up silencing and erasing those of actual victims or individuals with lived experiences of oppression. The last thing we need in the campaign for greater equality and justice is for the targeted audience’s newsfeed to be saturated with free-floating hashtags, meticulously planned self-obsessed videos focusing on the Me behind the manicured public images, as opposed to They who live on in silence.

All of this is not to say that activists should not feel good about the work they do – they deserve to, and such ‘feel good factor’ often acts as key motivating reasons for activists to continue campaigning. Yet let us not forget that questions of justice are real, political, and deeply personal – they’re not there to be your ticket to the La La Land of moral self-righteousness, so let’s not treat them as such.

Jenni Murray pulls out of HistorySoc event

Greg Ritchie
-
0
Jenni Murray pulls out of HistorySoc event

Jenni Murray has withdrawn from her scheduled event with the University’s History Society, following condemnation of her invite from three student liberation groups.

On the Facebook event, Oxford University History Society posted: “We are sad to announce that Jenni Murray is now unable to make it to this event, and has cancelled for personal reasons. Thanks to everyone who expressed interest!”

It is unclear whether the pressure from Oxford SU liberation groups is related to Murray’s cancellation.

Earlier this week, Oxford SU LGBTQ+ Campaign, Oxford University LGBTQ Society, and Oxford SU Women’s Campaign collectively wrote a statement condemning the society’s decision to invite her this Saturday at Oriel College on the topic of “Powerful British Women in History and Society”.

In the statement, they accused her of making “explicitly transphobic comments” in a 2017 Sunday Times article, where she “repeatedly insinuated that transgender women and girls are not women and can only pretend to be women.”

In the article, she wrote that “it takes more than a sex change and makeup” to become a woman, and she told trans women to not call themselves “real women”.

The statement said: “Her views, which clearly reflect a lack of engagement with the vast majority of actual trans people, and are in sum deeply harmful to trans women and trans feminine people, contributing to and exacerbating the harassment, marginalisation, discrimination, and violence that they already face.”

At the time, a spokesperson for the University told Cherwell: “Oxford is committed to supporting the University’s transgender students and staff and to providing a welcoming and inclusive environment that promotes equality and diversity.

“We are also committed to freedom of expression, and this event is entirely suitable for a student society.”

Oxford rejected my scholarship, claims Stormzy

Greg Ritchie
-
0
Oxford rejected my scholarship, claims Stormzy

The scholarship launched by Stormzy to help black British students at Cambridge was originally proposed for Oxford University – only for the University to reject it, according to the award-winning grime artist.

The musician – who was declared Person of the Year by the Oxford African and Caribbean society in 2017 – was speaking at the launch of his new publishing imprint, Merky Books, alongside fellow rapper Akala, poet Benjamin Zephaniah, and writer Malorie Blackman.

However, Oxford University denied that they had received any “offer or proposal” and noted that they had today contacted Stormzy’s representatives to “welcome the opportunity to work together” on a possible scheme.

Music journalist Dan Hancox attended last night’s event and tweeted: “Tonight at the Barbican Stormzy revealed that the much-discussed scholarship he’s funding at Cambridge Uni was first proposed to Oxford University, and they told him to get lost?! Incredible.”

This appears to contradict a report from the Oxford Mail from August, where the University said it had not been approached about a scheme similar to that at Cambridge.

The Stormzy Scholarship will completely fund two students’ tuition fees and maintenance grants for up to four years of an undergraduate course. It will run this year and in 2019, funding four students overall.

Stormzy himself will fund one scholarship, with the second being funded by Youtube Music.

Stormzy announced the launch of the scholarship on A-Levels results today at his old school, where he said: “We’re a minority, the playing ground isn’t level for us, and it’s vital that all potential students are given the same opportunity.”

Earlier this year, Cherwell revealed that Oxford admitted more pupils from the private Westminster School than black, British students in the space of a single year.

A spokesperson for the University of Oxford told Cherwell: “Oxford University is committed to widening access and participation for all students from under-represented backgrounds. We admire Stormzy’s commitment to inspire and support black students to succeed in higher education. We have not received or turned down any offer or proposal to fund undergraduate scholarships at Oxford.

“We have contacted to Stormzy’s representatives today to clarify we would welcome the opportunity to work together on inspiring students from African-Caribbean heritage to study at Oxford.”

In an earlier statement, the Oxford SU Sabbatical Team said: “It comes as no surprise to us to hear the University turned this offer down (sic). It shows their complacency and how out of touch it has become on this issue. For too long we have seen a lack of action on improving access to Oxford. This was a clear way to change that, and it seems the University is happy with its position at the bottom of the class when it comes to breaking down barriers for black students and students of colour.

“As an SU we firmly believe in education for all. One scholarship would not solve deep-rooted problems of racism and inequality in this University or our education system but it’s a step in the right direction.

“It seems that it’s too late for this opportunity, but we implore the University of Oxford to ensure this does not happen again (sic). We will be continuing to the push the University for an explanation for this error.”

This article was amended at 14:00 GMT 08/11/2018 with the addition of the University of Oxford’s statement, which denied they had received a proposal from Stormzy; and again at 14:45 with a statement from Oxford SU’s Sabbatical Team.

Bad blood with slogan t-shirts

Rebecca Gregory
-
0
Bad blood with slogan t-shirts

I write this article from a place of anger, fresh from furiously typing an Instagram message of complaint (yes, they’re a thing now) to a high street brand due to their sloppily misspelt French slogan t-shirts. Perhaps not the end of the world as we know it, but certainly a sign of poor manufacturing and design.

Now, I do have some slogan t-shirts, and I don’t mean to tar them all with the same brush. I quite like t-shirts donning the word ‘Feminist’ (as long as the wearer actually is one). Actually, I’m not even that bothered whether the t-shirt’s slogan is filled with meaning or has social implications. One of my own favourite t-shirts is a yellow Brandy Melville top with the word ‘Honey’ embroidered top left. I like the style, colour combination, and it makes me feel happy and summery, and brightens my mood.

Here’s what really grinds my gears about slogan-tops: so often they are used to express absolutely nothing. I’m not saying that slogan t-shirts need to be deep or philosophical, but the fact is that so many words seem to be used gratuitously. The worst case of this had to be the misspelt French slogan t-shirts I mentioned earlier on. How can a misspelt t-shirt mean anything? How can it express oneself, which I see as fundamental to the clothes we wear?

Now, I do study French at university, but some of the mistakes made on several (YES, SEVERAL) t-shirts by the offending high-street brand could probably be corrected by my seven-year-old nephew who has studied French for a year, and certainly put straight by a simple Google Translate or WordReference search. The worst top was one that contained several mistakes. It said:

“CHAMPS ÉLYSÈES

TOI&MOI

COMME CI ÇOMME ÇA

L’AMOUR PARIS FRANCE

MON AMI MON CHÉR.”

First, I’ll say that if these words mean anything to you, go for it, wear it. But really it’s just a collection of ‘French-ish’ words that make no sense. What is particularly confusing about this t-shirt is that the shop seemed to know how to spell ‘comme’ the first time (without an accent), but not the second…? Did they change designer half way through?! Similarly, they obviously haven’t googled the spelling of Champs Élysées, which is hardly a lot to ask for. Clearly, this doesn’t reflect well on the brand, who put in little effort to create quality clothing. It smacks of laziness, and more than anything, a lack of care.

The brand knows that the people who buy their clothes probably can’t speak much French, if any, and so would assume that the words on the t-shirt were written correctly. But I also think it shows a deeper problem with slogan t-shirts. Why has fashion come to us feeling the need to wear a top with French words on just because they’re French? I’m not claiming to be innocent in this matter either. I actually think we all do it. We wear tops with words without thinking about their meaning. But this creates a void between what we’re wearing and the original function of fashion: self-expression.

This was highlighted to me when I started teaching at a primary school in France. The majority of the children can only manage very simple English phrases – not much past ‘Hello’, ‘Goodbye’, and ‘What is your name?’. But in contrast with this, I noticed that lots of the children seemed to be wearing tops with English phrases. When I ask the children if they know what the words mean, they don’t have a clue. Now, I do accept that at primary school age, parents tend to buy their children’s clothes, but I must say that with the poor English of the children, I’d be shocked if the parents understood what their tops said either. One of the most amusing cases was that of a boy wearing a cap with the words, ‘Sorry I’m swag’, embroidered on it.

I guess you could say that expresses how he wishes to be, or how his parents wish him to be seen, but the fact it was in English seemed gratuitous, and I doubt the child understood the actual implications of being ‘swag’. It got me thinking that maybe, in the same way as when we use French in Britain, the French use English gratuitously, to seem cool or stylish. The actual words are not important. Though, to be fair, at least the French managed to spell the slogans correctly.

All of this has left me in an uncomfortable position with slogan t-shirts. I can’t help but look at the amount of slogan tops in British shops, both tops with English and foreign-language slogans, and wonder who really connects with them. Perhaps it’s just the case that for a lot of people, it’s not so necessary to connect with one’s clothes. I can understand that, and it’s not the wearers I blame, it’s the fashion brands. Fashion has always been used as a mode of self-expression, and fashion brands should promote this, at least with correctly-spelt and non-gratuitous slogans.

Factfulness review: On the importance of truth

-
0
Factfulness review: On the importance of truth

Many readers will already be familiar with the late Dr Hans Rosling’s infectious presenting style. In a wealth of TED talks, BBC documentaries and news appearances, Rosling has sought to persuade us that when it comes to global health and international development, our worldview is 50 years out of date.

80% of the world’s population have access to electricity. The proportion of people living in extreme poverty has halved in the last 20 years. Average life expectancy at birth has risen to 70 years of age. Yet when asked whether or not this is the case in surveys, the vast majority of people in most countries will report the opposite of what is really happening. They make more mistakes than they would have done had they answered randomly. In Rosling-speak, “they are worse than chimpanzees”.

Factfulness, written by Rosling in the run-up to his death, covers all this familiar material. It’s delivered with Rosling’s trademark concision, and peppered with anecdotes from the two years he worked in Mozambique. But in many ways Factfulness represents a profound shift in Rosling’s thinking. After finding that even audiences at Davos were deluded about global health and population growth, Rosling has come to the conclusion that “our overdramatic worldview is not caused simply by out of date knowledge.” After all, “even people with access to the latest information got it wrong.” Rosling’s explanation for this is that evolution has saddled us with a trait for overdramatization. Even if you’re right only one in ten times, jumping to the worst conclusion will be evolutionarily advantageous if it helps to protect you from danger.

This paradigm shift has led Rosling to update his pedagogical style. Each chapter is focused on correcting one of the ways in which we systematically misinterpret information. We assume that trends will be linear. We fail to notice slow processes of change. We focus on extreme outcomes without considering how likely they are. Each of these tendencies is addressed by one of Rosling’s ten “Rules of Thumb”: “lines might bend”, “slow change is still change”, and “look for the majority”.

The lessons may seem simple, but Rosling delivers them with such informative flair that the book is a delight to read. The world has gained a brilliant primer on world health, but lost one of its greatest and wisest educators.

Enchanted by the power of on-screen magic

-
0
Enchanted by the power of on-screen magic

A few weeks ago, I looked into a crystal ball and saw myself. There was no vision of a family or a premonition of unimaginable wealth. There was just me, my younger eyes glued to the TV. I was watching a family of three sisters, balancing all the complexities of life whilst repeatedly saving San Francisco.

There were images of the practice of scrying, the Book of Spells, and the beautiful bond of sisterhood. This was an instant reminder of a programme from childhood, captured in what the label underneath revealed was a 1582 crystal, owned by the famous magician, John Dee.

It is no coincidence, then, that this exhibition is so aptly named ‘Spellbound’. “Do you believe in magic?” the posters advertising the Ashmolean’s exhibition of magic, ritual, and witchcraft ask. Whatever your answer is, the possibility of a “yes” always seems to hover just around the corner as you walk around the exhibition.

It is this element of perpetual possibility within the realm of reality that drew me back to my fond memories of television shows such as Charmed. Though the episodes that I watched as a teenager were repeats, with the original series airing from 1998 until 2006, the Halliwell sisters still seemed like they were a part of the world and time in which I lived, magical powers or not.

Though I certainly wouldn’t answer “Do you believe in magic?” with a confident “yes”, they made it impossible for me to give a confident “no”, either.

After an episode of Charmed or Once Upon a Time, or even Doctor Strange, it feels like somewhere in the world there has to be people who can do things that most people can’t. Maybe even magic.

Nevertheless, the majority of people would answer the Ashmolean’s question with a “no”. In fact, shows such as Once Upon a Time and Grimm, which both reinvent the fairytale, revolve on the fact that the majority of the world are completely ignorant to the supernatural scenes around them.

Even when magic appears in plain sight, it is transformed into something that any person can understand as real or reasonable. Any declaration of magic to the disbelieving world would be ascribed as being purely psychological, proof or not.

In Once Upon a Time, a well-known Wonderland character states: “You know what the issue is with this world? Everyone wants a magical solution to their problem, and everyone refuses to believe in magic.”

But children seem to be exempt. Generally not as weighed down by the problems of reality as adults are, they tend to be much more filled with the possibilities of imagination.

Seeing magic play out onscreen, in what looks like the real world, gives people of any age the ability to suspend their disbelief – to escape the expectation of logical thought that pervades our world and use the belief of a child to step, temporarily, into a another.

Watching magic performed onscreen opens our minds to it, making us slightly surer that, though our own Hogwarts letter may have been lost in the post, someone out there might still have received theirs.

It is no wonder that Harry Potter continues to stay so popular when sometimes just the possibility of ‘a magical solution’ can be enough to get through the week. Here at Oxford, with the stress of ever approaching essay deadlines, we do need that possibility. But Oxford’s link to magic is more than that. As a private bubble that protects students from the stresses of the real world and reality of adult life, it is the perfect place for fantasy.

Oxford’s ancient architecture and position of removed mystery makes it easier to believe that anything is possible. It’s the perfect setting for an exploration of the magical world.

It is unsurprising, then, that so many authors have turned to it when writing. The city forms the perfect setting for a number of famous book series including The Bone Season and His Dark Materials, both, uncoincidentally, written by previous Oxford undergraduates Samantha Shannon and Philip Pullman.

In July, filming began in Oxford for a new BBC adaptation of His Dark Materials, produced by Bad Wolf. This is the same production company behind new TV show, A Discovery of Witches, also based on a popular book series. The series will star James McAvoy (Split, Atonement, X-Men) as Lord Asriel, Dafne Keen (Logan) as Lyra. Lin Manuel Miranda (creator and star of Hamilton) is set to play balloon pilot, Lee Scoresby.

I cannot wait to watch both of these shows.

Wadham students demonstrate against proposed rent prices

Greg Ritchie
-
1
Wadham students demonstrate against proposed rent prices

Wadham students held a demonstration on the college’s front quad this afternoon, in protest at the “unaffordable” rent of the college’s new second-year accommodation building.

According to organisers, the demonstration was intended to show the widespread anger at the £700 a month rent for the newly-built Dorothy Wadham building on Iffley Road, ahead of a meeting of the college’s Governing Body this afternoon.

Wadham SU has demanded a reduction in the rent from £700 to £550, and a move to term-time contracts. College authorities have maintained that they are “investing heavily to provide our second-year students with high quality, safe, convenient accommodation.”

In what was a very civilised protest, the students initially gathered at the stairs leading to hall, before moved onto the grass of front quad – an act strictly forbidden by college authorities.

However, after speaking with the porters on duty, the organisers agreed to move to the outskirts of the grass, in respect for the college gardener.

Once the students circled the quad, there were chants of “When I say Iffley, you say 550” and “Can’t pay, won’t pay”, as well as speeches from organisers.

In a speech at the demonstration, Wadham SU’s Vice-President, Joe Lovell-McNamee, told the crowd: “We’re asking that the current first years are not expected to pay unaffordable rents in second year, they’re currently being asked to pay £700 on a 9-month lease, which is £6,300 for the entire year!

“This is unaffordable, unflexible [sic], and unfair and we won’t stand for it. All that we are asking for is that the University of Oxford and Wadham College with all of its resources and all of its funds as one of the richest, wealthiest, international educational institutions, can give its students equitable housing arrangements.

Wadham SU Vice-President, Joe Lovell-McNamee.

“We’re not radicals, we’re not asking for a ridiculous amount, we’re asking for what’s owed to us. We hope that the governing body will see that our demands are reasonable and that they will find a meaningful solution to this current situation.”

On Sunday, Wadham SU passed a motion setting the SU’s official position regarding the accommodation contract for the Dorothy Wadham, demanding rents of £550 a month and term-time contracts.

In the event that College and SU fail to reach an agreement, the motion also mandated to refuse to run a room-ballot, or participate in any college-run room-ballot, to inform alumni of college’s proposal and its effects on students, and, as a last resort, to ballot for a rent strike which would impact Hillary Term’s battels.

A rent strike would involve second years refusing to move into the Dorothy Wadham building, and for all students not to pay college rent from next term onwards.

Lovell-McNamee told Cherwell “In line with a motion passed unanimously on Sunday, Wadham SU students gathered on front quad to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with current proposals for the rent and lease terms of next year’s second-year off-site accommodation.

“For the half an hour before governing body was set to meet, we thought it important to show that the opposition to unaffordable and unfair rents was far-reaching throughout the college, and can’t simply be brushed off as the view of a small vocal fringe.”

A Wadham College spokesperson told Cherwell that the college is “in discussion with its students on this matter and will issue a statement once a decision has been reached.” 

Perceptions of the monstrous

Molly Innes
-
0
Perceptions of the monstrous

Artists hold up a mirror for us to see ourselves within their frame, and we decide which bits we relate to and which we don’t. Monsters are a prevalent image within art. Yet, what constitutes monstrous is never really fixed. Monsters are not human – or so we are led to believe. However, the minute a person does something bad, they are labelled as a ‘monster’ – see Trump, or Philip Green, for example.

Definitions of ‘monster’ vary from ‘a large, ugly, and frightening imaginary creature’ to ‘an inhumanely cruel or wicked person’. If the latter creates the former, who is the real monster, and what does this reflect about society?

If you look at Leon Kossof’s ‘Self Portrait’ (1952), you do not only see the artist, but an impression of Frankenstein’s monster too, drawing from the 1931 film; a large raised forehead and similar facial features are discernible. I’m not suggesting that Kossof is ‘an inhumanely cruel or wicked person’, but in creating his image in this style, there must be an embedded sense of self that is not wholly positive. Perhaps intentional, but maybe not. Regardless, the blending of the human with the monstrous within self-portraiture is intriguing as it provides insight into the artists’ distorted sense of self. Even more intriguing is what would bring an artist to create such a depiction in the first place.

Although Andy Warhol’s ‘Self Portrait with Skull’ is not as macabre as Kossof’s, he still creates an image that intended to disturb the viewer. He places the skull next to his own head and makes the viewer examine what may be the ‘true self’ – what we will turn back into. The skull is a common motif for horror, mainly because it reminds us of our own mortality. We can all relate to Warhol’s image.

Visual depictions of monsters vary, even when they are well-known, canonical monsters. If we look at vampires, present within many art forms and images, they are often depicted as seductive temptresses. In Munch’s ‘Vampire’ (1985), it is unclear whether the vampire is biting or kissing her victim.

Stoker’s book, Dracula, came two years later, which established a different vampirical image. The 1922 film Nosferatu depicted Count Orlok – based on Dracula – as possessing human characteristics, but still different. We can trace this depiction to present day, with Lady Gaga’s Countess in American Horror Story ‘Hotel’. Her image takes vampires back to the seductive portrayal used by Munch, recasting the vampire in modern light. Her monstrous abilities are not immediately visible, arching the modern-day monster further towards its ‘inhumane and wicked’ definition.

Some monsters don’t need to have their image adapted over time in order to remain relevant in popular culture. The clown motif remains terrifying. The influence of the clown as a monster is one of human conscience, an image that is supposed to be funny – but isn’t. That surely says something about us all. We have witnessed an image that should be joyful morph into one of terror and evil.

The painted red smile, the arched eyebrows, the dreadful star: perhaps flows are monsters because they are trying to create an image of humanity that is not realistic. We do not constantly smile, so the fact that a clown always does highlights their inhumanity. Pennywise the dancing clown from both of the 1990 adaptations and the 2017 reincarnation of Stephen King’s It highlights the terror that can be generated by recycling the same image. The 2017 adaptation was just as terrifying as the first, even if we knew what to expect with the clown.

We are exposed to images of monsters from a young age. We enjoy them, we find them funny. We dress up as them for Halloween and watch the DVDs on repeat. Perhaps it says more about humans than it does monsters that once we reach a certain age, the images we once found entertaining can be turned into horror. It feels as if the monsters are always there, waiting, until eventually we find terror within them.

I wonder at what point a person viewing Munch’s ‘Vampire’ realises that the image is of the vampire biting, rather than a woman kissing. Or whether Kossof’s ‘Self Portrait’ would suggest connotations of Frankenstein’s monster if one hadn’t already been exposed to such a famous image: would it still be monstrous to the viewer?

Monsters are scary, but human consciousness and our ability to twist the innocent into terror is scarier.

Oxford held at home by Loughborough

-
1
Oxford held at home by Loughborough

Coming into the game on the back of two consecutive wins, Oxford were hoping to close the one point gap between themselves and league leaders Nottingham firsts, and had a great chance to do so against Loughborough’s second team. The Midlands side were sitting at the bottom of the Midlands 1A division, having lost their opening three games.

The Blues started the match well, putting the Loughborough team under sustained pressure with their aerial dominance and strong physical play. This aggressive start paid dividends for the Blues, forcing errors from a Loughborough side that struggled to maintain possession.

The first chance of the game came the Blues’ way after a nice move resulted in Pat Barton playing the ball through to Dom Thelen, whose shot dragged wide of the post. A great chance that should have been converted.

Soon after, a great piece of skill from Zachary Liew, whose link up play with Captain Leo Ackerman on the left hand side troubled Loughborough for much of the first half, led to an incisive ball that cut through the Loughborough box, falling at the feet of Chris Caveney, whose shot was deflected out for a corner. Ackerman’s out swinging corner kick was decisively headed towards goal by Thelen but just missed the target.

Oxford’s dominance was really starting to show now and, despite Thelen receiving a yellow card for an ill-judged complaint at a poor refereeing decision, they showed no signs of relenting.

The Blues bench were once more on their feet just after the half-hour mark when a great shot on goal from Caveney drew an equally good save from the Loughborough keeper, but again, the reward for Oxford’s supremacy proved elusive.

The decisive moment came just before half-time and, despite their poor quality in the first half, it was Loughborough who scored. A momentary switch off from Liew left a gaping hole that was duly penetrated by a quick ball out from the back which was soon passed on to Loughborough’s pacy number nine, who would’ve struggled to miss from such close range.

The half-time whistle blew and Oxford were left ruing their missed opportunities in the first half, particularly as they only managed to test the keeper on one occasion.

The Loughborough side came out of the dressing room far more composed after the first goal had relieved some pressure. The Blues were undeterred though, and less than ten minutes into the first half a free-kick was given in Oxford’s favour. Whipped in by Ackerman, the ball was met by an unchallenged Thelen head and found its way into the back of the net, drawing Oxford level.

The game now evened out as Loughborough responded well, showing a fight that had been almost entirely absent in the first 45 minutes. The match became a more closely contested affair and it was a foul on the edge of Oxford’s penalty area by Oli Cantril that led to another Loughborough breakthrough and the Blues once more looking at a one-goal deficit.

15 minutes later, a great pass from Oxford’s Pat Collins to Thelen led to a corner ball for Oxford which Loughborough struggled to defend, only managing to put the ball out of play for a corner on the opposite side of the pitch. Loughborough again showed their difficulties defending set-pieces as the ball found its way to an indecisive player in purple who was muscled off the ball by a determined Ram Choudhury. The ball then found its way back to Ackerman who provided the cross for Oxford’s second headed goal, this time from winger Caveney.

Two Oxford substitutions sought to inject some pace into the game, and Oxford nearly snuck a winning goal after a nice free kick routine caught Loughborough unawares. The remaining ten minutes of the second half resulted in few chances as the teams largely nullified each other’s threats and the final whistle blew, meaning Oxford had to settle for a solitary point and regret not making more of their first half dominance.

1...686687688...2,519Page 687 of 2,519

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