Friday 11th July 2025
Blog Page 693

Trinity building proposal approved despite Bodleian opposition

0

A proposed building development by Trinity College has been approved by the Council, despite opposition from the Bodleian Library.

The extension will include a lecture theatre, five new teaching rooms, an additional library and 46 accessible student study bedrooms. Currently two floors of Trinity’s library, as well as most communal spaces are inaccessible by wheelchair.

However, in a submission to the council’s planning committee, Bodleian librarian Richard Ovenden noted the adverse effect the new building would have on the Weston Library’s reading rooms.

Ovenden told the Oxford Times: “The proposed development would be just 35 feet away from this reading room and would be as high as the north range of the Weston Library and run almost the full extent of the reading room’s length.

“The view, so cohesive to quiet study, would be completely lost, blocked by student accommodation that is, in our view, too big and too close.

“The reduction in light and the increase in noise would cause harm to one of the world’s great research spaces.”

President of Trinity College, Dame Hilary Boulding, noted that Trinity has made an effort to work with and satisfy different interest groups during the consultation process.

Boulding said: “This is a heavily constrained site. We’ve taken time to understand these constraints and to explore and model opinions and have worked collaboratively with council officers and many interest groups.”

The new building, which will be the first to be built on Trinity’s main site in 50 years, will aim to provide accommodation to all 50 first-year graduate students. The College are presently only able to house 17 out of 150 graduate students on the main site.

Boulding added that the extension would help to “foster a graduate academic community”. She also noted that the new accommodation would alleviate problems in Oxford’s housing market.

The proposal was put on hold for five months earlier this year, to allow Historic England to review any impact the development would have on Weston Library. They concluded that any potential impact would be modest.

This follows the news in June that New College was granted permission to go ahead with a controversial redevelopment that will see a 21.8-metre tower be built on a new site on Savile Road.

The proposal was met with opposition from nearby Mansfield College, whose Principal at the time, Baroness Helena Kennedy, filed an official complaint to the council.

The Threepenny Opera Review – ‘both unsettling and wildly entertaining’

0

Even at the dress rehearsal, it was clear that SLAM Theatre’s The Threepenny Opera is not to be missed. As the first production of Simon Stephens’s adaptation since the National’s in 2016, SLAM makes the most of this exciting opportunity with their exhilarating and hilariously vibrant revival.

When Polly Peachum elopes in the middle of the night with the notorious criminal Macheath (“Mack the Knife”), her parents instigate a dizzying manhunt for the East End crime lord. The King’s Coronation gets closer, and blackmail and bribery collide with moments of shock patriotism to reveal every aspect of this amoral criminal network.

As a familiar Victorian character, the master criminal led astray by his sexual voracity, Macheath is kept from feeling two-dimensional by Eoghan McNelis’s more haunting lines: “we can’t have ethics that we can’t afford”. The Peachum parents, played by Marcus Knight-Adams and Ella Tournes, form a thrilling double-act, engaging in ridiculous insult battles to see who can shout “you bastard” the loudest. Knight-Adams’s performance is at once hilarious and faintly disturbing, providing many of the play’s most memorable gags, and yet willing to break a girl’s fingers for information. The performance, then, offers plenty of laughs, but it is not afraid to dramatise the more crude sides of this tumbledown district. Macheath, though accused of dismembering two people (“while still alive!”, Polly reminds us), repeatedly avoids capture. He keeps plates spinning until the very end, relying on the help of his beret-wearing criminal gang.

If at times the play borders on the absurd, it is prevented from ever becoming too chaotic by tight direction and well-rehearsed timings. Indeed, the performance was skilfully balanced, combining crude scenes of poverty and prostitution with hilarious slapstick comedy. “I stabbed him in the bum”, Macheath reminds us, as spools of red wool spill out from the prison guard’s trousers. This heady combination of euphemism and destitution culminates in the final scene, which boasts a scaffold and noose, alongside party hats and a baby’s buggy.

The set, too, is simple but deeply effective. The ramshackle brick buildings, complete with shattered windows and broken shutters, establish the sordid tone of the play, evoking the terrible poverty that Macheath tells us to overlook: morality, we are reminded, is “not a simple matter”. Props come and go, such as a noose and prison bars, but the basic arrangement is kept the same and creates a space that doubles as prison and whore house.

Part of the charm of this dark musical, then, is its unexpectedness and impressive flexibility. But the power of this production also owes much to Matthew Jackson’s musical direction, which uses a seven-piece band to do full justice to the play’s musical history. The lighting also proves wonderfully jarring as ominous flashes of red light offset the largely monochrome costumes, reminding us of the brothel to which Macheath cannot help but return.

After the National Theatre’s 2016 debut, Michael Billington suggested that Stephens’s adaptation makes one or two odd choices in its handling of Brecht, transforming Mr Peachum from a threatening embodiment of bourgeois criminality into a lewd figure with a checkered waistcoat. But even if Stephens exaggerates the sexuality, implying that Macheath has compromising information on “our important friend in Windsor”, and alluding to a past liaison between Macheath and the chief police inspector Tiger Brown, his lyrics ensure this is never overplayed. The musical numbers offer a stark contrast with the play’s self-conscious theatricality, insisting that there is no place for morality amongst the “desperate folk” of London’s East End, that “a vice is not a vice when there is no food”.

The joy of this production is that it offers a vigorous new take on Brecht’s musical with sharply defined performances and a vibrant on-stage band. Though the play is prefaced with a warning that “there will be no moralising tonight”, SLAM’s revival of The Threepenny Opera speaks to social problems of abuse and poverty, offering a compelling performance that is both unsettling and wonderfully entertaining.

First CofE vicar to be in same-sex marriage becomes LMH chaplain

1

The first Church of England vicar to be in a same-sex marriage has temporarily been made chaplain for Lady Margaret Hall.

Andrew Foreshew-Cain was appointed to the role for this term, covering for the sabbatical of LMH’s permanent chaplain.

In April 2017, Foreshew-Cain attracted national headlines when he resigned as a priest and left his London parish, citing the “institutional homophobia of the church” which he believes has put him on a “blacklist” with the Anglican church.

Foreshew-Cain’s new role is not a Church of England appointment. LMH is an independent institution outside the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Oxford, meaning the chaplain does not require a licence from the Diocese of Oxford.

Foreshew-Cain says he has devoted LMH’s chapel theme to “living with difference” and emphasised a message of “acceptance and equality”. He told Cherwell: “In the world today, it’s really important to learn how we live with each other in peace and understanding.”

A spokesperson for LMH said: “Andrew Foreshew-Cain was recommended to us and his
appointment was approved by our Governing Body. We are delighted that Andrew is here and making such a positive contribution to the college.”

A spokesperson for the Diocese of Oxford said: “We wish Andrew well for his term of ministry at Lady Margaret Hall.”

Last month the College of Bishops met in Oxford to discuss how the church could improve its relations with LGBT Christians.

Plush faces imminent venue closure

1

The Plush Lounge is set to be evicted from their current location on Park End Street, Cherwell can reveal, with staff in a battle to find a new home for the nightclub.

A spokesperson for the nightclub told Cherwell: “For some time, we have been in discussion with Nuffield College who own the building concerning the redevelopment of the site.

“Nuffield College and their agents have been extremely supportive in sourcing an alternative central Oxford location. Plush are completely committed to providing an ongoing safe space for the LGBTQ+ community within central Oxford.

“Discussions are currently ongoing, and we are very confident that we will be able to release some exciting news in the next few weeks.”

Privately owned and operated, Plush has been occupying their current site at 27 Park End Street, widely known as the Jam Factory, since 2010.

The LGBTQ+ venue is open Tuesdays, Fridays and Saturdays.

Plush added: “The club was founded to provide a safe atmosphere predominantly for the LGBTQ+ community, whilst welcoming all patrons who share our values and respect our culture.

“The club has established itself as a leader in the provision of high quality entertainment at
affordable prices in Oxford, and is recognised as a destination of choice.”
Nuffield College also owns the property occupied by The Bridge and – until its closure in July 2016 – by Wahoo nightclub.

The latter closed after a multi-million pound deal between Nuffield and Christ Church led to the site being renovated to become what is now the Oxford Foundry.

Former Somerville entz rep and Plush superfan, Mo Iman, told Cherwell: “Plush, as Oxford’s premier LGBT+ nightclub, provided a safe space for a community that is generally mistreated at traditional venues.

“It is sad news to hear that it will not be at the Jam Factory but hopefully it will return with the same friendly staff and inclusivity that both town and gown have enjoyed.”

Nuffield College have not responded to a request for comment.

SU welcomes students responding to Gender Recognition Act consultation

1

Oxford University Student Union opened its offices on Monday to enable students to submit responses to the Reform of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) 2018 consultation.

The consultation, commissioned by the Government Equalities Office, aims to gage the public’s views on how to reform the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

A spokesperson for the SU told Cherwell: “Oxford SU hosted around about 30 students throughout the day, we provided a space to work, snacks and information on our views on the consultation.

“We then let the students fill out the consultation unhindered and provide whatever answers they would like for us. Oxford SU firmly believes in equality for all and this is one way of helping to achieve that.”

Oxford SU VP Women Katt Walton was present throughout the day to advocate for the importance of the consultation. The University’s LGBTQ+ society also provided a set of template answers to assist those answering the consultation.

Walton told Cherwell: “The SU strongly supports the reformation of the GRA so that it can better support the trans community. We are very proud to unequivocally support the trans community and we urge everyone to fill out the GRA consultation.

“We have decided to have an office open day because many people will have questions about the GRA, we want to be able to provide that information in an easily accessible way, so they then can fill in the form whilst they are here.

“We hopefully want to get as many voices calling for equality and respect submitted because we know that opposing voices will be loud and myths and misinformation will be spread.”

In a SU blog post, Walton wrote: “Currently, trans folk have to endure a long and dehumanising process to ‘prove’ their gender identity. It’s very stressful, complex, expensive, and largely inaccessible to trans people.”

The SU also made its own submission to the consultation, which incorporated contributions from members present on Monday and is publically available on their website.

In their submission, the SU stated: “This consultation widely misses the mark and has squandered the opportunity to hear, first hand, the experiences of trans people.

“Rather than focus on how policy is implemented and the real life impact of these arduous, outdated, overly-medicalised policies on the lives of a marginalised group, this survey demands time and labour from said marginalised group in order to answer questions that require both an in depth knowledge of the GRA 2004 and the EA 2010.

“Not all trans people are politicians. Not all trans people are lawyers. Trans people are simply trying to live their lives in a way that is safe and as free from dysphoria and discrimination as possible.

“Many of the questions in this survey are a matter of fact, not opinion: They should not be up for debate.”

Anyone can participate in the consultation, but a few questions on the form are reserved specifically for people who identify as (binary or non-binary) transgender.

Since the GRA was first implemented in 2004, 4,910 people have used it to legally change their gender. The government estimates that there are 200,000 to 500,000 trans people living in the UK.

Currently, it costs £140 to go through the process of legally changing gender. The process also requires, among other documents, a medical report that proves the applicant has gender dysphoria and proof that they have lived as their new gender for at least two years.

The current GRA doesn’t legally recognise the existence of non-binary people. In their submission, the SU added: “Society has moved on from outdated concepts of binary sex and gender and now the legislation must catch up.

“EDM660 (2015) called for the gender marker X to be added to passports, that we are still debating this three years later is baffling. It is time to move on.”

The submission closes on 19th October 2018 at 11pm.

Anti-racist groups to protest AfD leader’s visit to the Union

1

Stand Up to Racism Oxford and Unite Against Fascism have come together to organise a protest coinciding with Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party leader Alice Weidel’s visit to the Oxford Union.

The AfD is the third largest party in the German Bundestag, but Stand Up to Racism Oxford’s Ian McKendrick argues that the party “built up its following by stoking up racism against migrants, Muslims, and refugees.”

As a member of parliament for the Baden-Württemberg region since 2017, Weidel has been outspoken on such issues, however claims that her own motivation for joining the party came from their anti-Euro stance.

Speaking on behalf of the Union, Union President Stephen Horvath defended its decision to invite Weidel.

He reiterated the organisation’s commitment to political neutrality and free speech, and also emphasised the fact that Union members would be afforded the opportunity to challenge Weidel and ask her questions once her initial speech was over.

Horvath told Cherwell: “The Oxford Union remains committed to the principles of political neutrality and free speech, and we invite a variety of political leaders from different countries and competing ideological camps.

“In recent years, those perspectives featured and questioned at the Union have ranged from Julius Malema, leader of the radically leftist Economic Freedom Fighters in South Africa, to Marine Le Pen.

“Alice Weidel is the leader of the largest opposition party in the German Parliament. After Dr Weidel’s speech in the Union’s debating Chamber, members will be welcome to ask her questions, and challenge her views if they wish.”

Concern about the AfD has risen in recent months following claims of its links to neo-Nazi groups in Germany. In September, their Thuringian leader, Björn Höcke, was one of several key party members who marched alongside far-right protest group Pegida in Chemnitz.

The ‘silent march’, as it was advertised, was called for by the party to honour the death of a local man, who was allegedly stabbed by an immigrant to Germany.

Expressing surprise at the idea that Weidel’s speakership invitation was controversial enough to merit protest, an AfD spokesperson told Cherwell: “The AfD is a constitutional state party.

“In the AfD, there are no members who are or were members of a far-right party. I think the protesters do not know what fascism and what racism is.”

Labour MP for Oxford East, Anneliese Dodds, expressed her disapproval at the invitation, saying: “It is very concerning to hear that the Oxford Union has gone out of its way to court a far-right politician in this way.”

Oxford City Councillor John Tanner described the planned visit as “an insult to the University, to Oxford’s minority communities and to all of us who believe in an open and multi-racial society.”

This is not the first time that the Union has been criticised for allegedly giving racism a platform in Oxford, past speakers include Tommy Robinson and Marine Le Pen.

Weidel’s speech is scheduled to begin at the Union at 8pm on 7th November. Protestors will gather from 6pm on St Michael’s Street.

The Oxford Revue: Best of the Fringe Review – ‘these are emerging talents’

0

“The BEST of the Fringe? Maybe it should just be the good of the fringe? Or just of the fringe?”: Beginning his set with this self-deprecating joke, Joel Stanley humorously tackles the pressure of a show whose title broadcasts the word ‘best’. Certainly, the name of the Oxford Revue’s Fringe showcase set a bar of excellence that inflected my own expectations as I sat down for an evening of stand-up comedy.

And yet, despite this, I was not disappointed. What this show brings may not be the polished coherence of professional stand-up comedians, but it is witness to the exciting experimentation and energy of young comedians with new material and fresh characters.

Will Bearcroft’s brilliant magic-comedy routine that combined telepathy, a mechanical whisk and effortless confidence was a particularly impressive set in the evening. Likewise, Alison Middleton’s hilarious performance left me in stitches as she asked some ‘big’ questions with a philosophical sharpness perhaps only seen before in Kylie Jenner’s ‘realizing stuff 2k16’. Middleton’s facial expressions and delivery were a sight to behold, possessing a kind of clown-like control over her facial movements that makes her very watchable. Both Bearcroft, the ‘Bear’, and Middleton showcase a masterclass in confidence and delivery, their sheer self-assurance holding the audience like putty in their palms.

There are some fantastic one-liners in this show, particularly in Bill Freeman’s set in which he plays the persona, ‘Andrew the Serial-Killer’, a character pretty self-explanatory. Character comedy is a hard task to pull off and I was slightly dubious at the start of this ‘serial-killer’ set, feeling that the creepy-psycho-murderer character was perhaps well-trodden ground. Yet I was completely won over by Freeman’s terrifying, wild energy and the unflinching silliness of some of his jokes. His entertaining use of props and dynamic characterisation made him a highly watchable act.

Joel Stanley’s set began the show and, although the self-confessed least experienced of the night, he showed off some exciting originality and hilarious one-liners. He also delivered the only poo joke of the night and, for that, I am thankful to him. The night showcased a range of comedy from the more observational in Stanley’s set to the utterly absurd in that of Freeman’s, yet each made the terrifying task of stand-up look both natural and enjoyable. I felt quite at ease in the hands of these performers and from numerous less pleasant experiences of professional stand-ups at the Fringe, I know that this is no mean feat.

The best comedy, in my humble opinion, is always charged with ideas and thoughts that underpin the laughs. There were moments in the evening where I felt the content to be a little thin on the ground and longed for a set that attempted to probe or challenge ideas or assumptions in its jokes. Perhaps this was an unfair expectation in a student show, but I felt occasionally the comedians and MC strayed into the realm of anecdotes without much purpose. Yet there were a few, truly brilliant, incisive moments in the evening, a highlight being Stanley’s sharp mockery of the expectations placed on his stand-up content as a black comedian.

If at moments I searched for a meaty handle, a through-line or edge to direct the ideas or questions of these set-pieces, I was kept continually delighted by the humour and verve of these comedic performers. These are emerging talents. Albeit varying in experience and craft, they are each, nonetheless, genuinely entertaining and they warmly serve up an evening packed with laughs.

Transition wardrobes are a SCAM

1

As per usual, fall fell short of expectations. Though Vogue persisted to write article after article about the new new neutrals and an A-Z trench-coat directory, it is becoming all too clear that bridging your wardrobe from summer to winter is a slick trick by the industry to hand over our student loans (and probably make us buy more UGGs).

The issue stems from our somewhat fabricated, idyllic picture of autumn: “seasons of mists and mellow fruitlessness, close bosom friend of the maturing sun,” along with chai lattes, cosy blankets, and pumpkin spice candles – a white girls dream… and Keats’? And the blame for this picture lies somewhere between film 80s flicks like ‘When Harry Met Sally’ and ‘Dead Poet’s Society’ and American vloggers flooding YouTube with their ‘FALL ROUTINE 2018’.

It seems that such a season doesn’t exist in Britain – the perfect weather, when all you need is a light jumper, lasts for about a week in September. By the time Fresher’s Week is over, thick coats and woollies have flooded the lecture rooms, UNIQLO proclaims a shortage of thermals, and the Atik cloakroom queue is busier than the bar.

We’re blinded by these buzzwords like ‘layering’, ‘durable’, or ‘autumn staples’. The textures, colours, and creativity that autumn brings are gorgeous. Some of the most innovative collections and designs appear in autumn. Instead of drowning under one big coat and scarf, we’ve seen experimentation with animal prints, tweeds and leather, even neon and PVC – yet the items are simply impractical.

Hermes and Loewe did leather coats for around £1,400 but apparently both got their inspiration from… ‘The Matrix’? And everyone is doing capes. Yes, it’s cute to feel like you’re in Little Women, but will all that space around your arms really keep you warm?

Autumn doesn’t exist. It’s wonderful to see designers with an excuse to produce more designs, but I can guarantee that you can survive the week of coolish weather with what you wore in summer paired with last year’s winter collection.

For those on a budget, the pressure to revamp your wardrobe for maybe six or seven different seasons a year is misleading. The shops want to sell and sell all year long. By creating a feeling of falling behind the trends, we’re convinced we need to buy more and buy more. Being ‘fashion forward’ is promoted as being fashion savvy and an inspiration to others.

But what is this pressure really? Nothing more than a convenient tool to never let us be satisfied with our wardrobes for longer than a few weeks.

These incredibly unnecessary trends simply highlight a disconnection between how the fashion industry understands consumerism. The idea that we’re all buying clothes for the next season in advance is a clear misunderstanding of the average customer – let alone students who can barely write an essay in advance of the actual tutorial.

Of course, Spring Summer lines are showcased in early autumn; it allows for smaller designers to take inspiration from the big fashion houses and visualise the upcoming trends, but this doesn’t mean the shops need to be saturated in unrelated clothes.

I speak for the majority when I say seasonal clothing is purchased as and when it is needed. It’s raining? Get an umbrella. Holiday abroad coming up? Time to get swimwear. So picture this: it’s the end of October, your housemates still won’t agree to put the heating on and there are NO more thermals at UNIQLO, so you go to Topshop, New Look, and even venture to John Lewis to look for a decent jacket – ANYTHING.

What do you find? SPRING CLOTHING. Florals, light jackets, ballet flats, floaty blouses, and everything but the item you desperately need. Why do brands punish the disorganised? Why discontinue the clothes that relate to the season you’re actually in? Why suddenly stop me spending my money on clothes when I actually want to?! This scam is more complex than we first thought.

So, what should we wear in autumn? How do we enjoy one of the best seasons, even if it doesn’t really exist? Of course, buy the pieces you like. If you don’t, it will be put on sale and discontinued before you know it.

For a more practical approach, reuse your summer tees and match them with some good jeans – thankfully available nearly all year round. Play with accessorises that transcend the seasons – baseball caps, jewellery, head scarfs, etc. It makes far more sense to invest in a good pair of boots and a study bag.

This is probably one of the main causes for the rise in popularity of online shopping. Companies like ASOS, Missguided, and Boohoo can hold a huge range of stock and, hence, always have pieces relating to different seasons and occasions. With these online brands, you can count on getting the pieces you need, whenever you need them.

What may seem like a rant against the ‘dangerous’ capitalist fashion industry, is simply a cry for more sense when it comes to collections changing every two weeks. Buy what you love, but be aware that there is no such thing as an ‘autumn essential’. Even Keats saw the illusion: “until they think warm days will never cease.” 

Let’s save our loans for more fresher antics, rise above the advertising, and make peace with the perfectly suitable wardrobes we already have.

The Imperative to Resist Injustice

0

Many of us would presumably be familiar with the thought experiment of a drowning child in a shallow pond. You are an able-bodied pedestrian, walking past a child who is drowning in a pond; you could save them, incurring little costs to yourself beyond damaging your shoes. You nonetheless choose to walk past the child, leaving them to die, in preservation of your shoes.

The intuitive response to you here would presumably be as follows: we would find your apathy not only discerning and alarming, but worthy of moral condemnation. In other words, we intuit that the pedestrian in question has a prima facie duty to rescue the child, and the failure to comply with said duty – given the low costs involved – is morally reprehensible. It is deemed, in academic-lese, to be impermissible.

The universality of this intuition then leads us to a more curious question – for why, then, do we not share this very intuition when presented with instances of individuals refraining from, if not actively circumventing, the engagement of episodes of socioeconomic injustices?

From the housing crisis in London (see Grenfell last year) to the epidemic of sexual assault on campuses, from the fact that the electoral college settled for a historically unprecedented bigot as their choice for the 45th President of the US, to the political reality that witnessed a surge in virulent, bigoted candidates in countries ranging from Brazil to France, the Netherlands to the Philippines – the instances and frequency of large-scale, state-sanctioned (or at least tacitly condoned) injustices have increased, yet many remain unmoved.

Unmoved, in being politically apathetic and preferring to non-vote despite the importance of each and every vote; unmoved, in shying away from calling out and engaging political injustices because of the alleged fear of ‘over-politicisation’; unmoved, in being callously detached from the parallel realities inhabited by many who are far less privileged or fortunate.

I’d make the simple claim that the imperative to resist injustice, much as the duty to rescue the drowning child in a shallow pond, is not an option, but obligatory. There are several strong reasons in favour of thinking so, many of which clearly follow from common moral intuitions.

The first is a claim from virtue – that a virtuous political agent should harbour attitudes, traits, and beliefs that reflect a fundamental commitment to the dignity, humanity, and rights of others, and that such a virtuous political agent would opt to reflect their concerns for others through seeking to alleviate others’ suffering. Indeed, if we would not wish to end up sleeping rough on the streets, or as subjects of sexual harassment before the kangaroo courts of unsympathetic, victim-blaming public, why should we be OK with instances where others are placed in such undesirable positions?

It does not take someone who is maximally virtuous to participate in speaking out, voting and acting in defiance of injustice. It merely takes a pinch of virtue and a healthy dose of introspection.

The second reason is an extension of the Harm Principle. We find it almost truistic these days to repeat the John Stuart Mill mantra – that an individual’s right ends when it results in harms towards an innocent individual. Yet what we perhaps fail to recognise is that every time we choose to not donate towards a charity that addresses global poverty, or to not speak out on behalf of victims who are silenced in the status quo and are unable to do so on their own, or to not lobby for political changes in protection of ethnic minorities who suffer under gerrymandering and the Incarceration Complex…

We are committing an active and conscious choice to prioritise something we value more – whether it be our careers, or luxury, or a marginal modicum of time – over the needs and interests of others. This very active decision is something that can and should be judged as having incurred harm upon others.

For every word that is left unspoken, every act that is unperformed, and every decision consciously or implicitly made, could well be indirectly enshrining the powers of the oppressors against the oppressed.

The final justification sources from the unique relations that suggest that some of us are far more proximate to the victims in question than we’d like to comfortably think. Men benefit from faux-meritocratic systems that structurally discriminate against women in selection for education, employment, and promotions within workplaces. Wealthy businesspersons benefit from the lowering of taxes, which indirectly deprive the working classes of welfare and much-needed public infrastructure. White citizens of former colonial powers benefit from the accumulated wealth founded upon centuries of colonial oppression of former colonies.

If we are legally cognizant of the proposition that unjust enrichment is morally problematic and ought to be faulted, why should we not extend this principle to spheres of social justice, and recognise that beneficiaries from injustices have an active obligation to ameliorate said injustices?

The central objection to all of these claims is one of costliness – that it costs individuals far too much in order to resist injustices. In some instances, this may well be true; incurring death threats because of speaking out against a tyrannical regime whilst risking one’s life is probably a disproportionate risk that no one should reasonably take. It would be absurd to argue otherwise.

Yet this objection doesn’t stand, for several reasons. Firstly, this claim is simply empirically untrue for many cases: voting in the Mid-terms is not costly; signing a petition and raising awareness on one’s Facebook page for a particular cause is not costly; speaking out in a (generally) democratic society and lending your potentially greater media capital to typically silenced voices. All of these actions are not particularly costly to the individual.

Secondly, to the extent that it may be very costly for one individual to ameliorate all effects of existing injustices, this is where the collective action problem lies. If every member of the public chips in a little, whether it be in monetary or political terms, the cost that each member has to shoulder becomes substantially less. Saving a homeless man from sleeping rough for a year may impose a large financial sum upon the lone benefactor – but this sum can be quickly and easily reduced when distributed amongst ten or fifteen people.

So, the costliness objection simply does not stand.

Let’s not forget the clichéd yet sagacious saying: all it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. From the victims of Grenfell to the rough sleepers on St. Giles, from the thousands of boats of people and refugees being turned away by wanton border controls, to the victims of Donald Trump’s tyrannical rule – these are individuals to whom we owe a most significant obligation in assistance and beneficence.

Let’s not legitimise our inaction with the fallacious excuse of costliness. In face of injustice, we fight – we do not compromise, we do not yield, and we certainly do not go gently into that good night.

Campaign for Southeast Asia centre receives royal backing

0

The University of Oxford came a step closer to establishing a Centre for Southeast Asia Studies last week, at a ceremony held at the Sheldonian Theatre.

The Deputy King of Malaysia, Sultan Nazrin Shah, was involved in a ‘Royal launch’ at which he declared his support for the initiative.

The proposed Centre will be included in the Oxford School of Global and Area Studies, and will act as an aid to both research and teaching on Southeast Asia.

Shah, a Worcester PPE graduate and Chancellor of the University of Malaya, welcomed the idea. He said: “By creating a dedicated focus for research and teaching excellence in Southeast Asia Studies, Oxford will make a significant contribution to the global academy.

“This ambitious, thoughtfully-integrated knowledge enterprise will put Southeast Asia at its heart, benefitting both the citizens of the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries and the people of the wider world”.