Sunday 26th April 2026
Blog Page 698

Gender pay gap: Vice-Chancellor criticises “frustratingly slow” progress

Fraser Maclean
-
0
Gender pay gap: Vice-Chancellor criticises “frustratingly slow” progress

Little progress has been made in reducing the earnings gap between male and female staff members, a report by the University has revealed.

Since the first such report last year, the mean gender pay gap amongst Oxford University staff has decreased slightly from 24.5% to 22.6% but remains higher than the national average. The median figure has remained at 13.7%.

Although more women are in receipt of bonus payments, the mean gap between male and female bonus pay is 64.1% (down from 79% last year). The median figure has decreased substantially, however, from 48.7% to 6.7%, suggesting that the bonuses of senior male staff are responsible for much of the gap.

The report finds that: “The gender pay gaps identified are mainly attributable to a lack of women in senior roles in the University.” Of the 25% highest-earning staff, just 38% are women. A majority of all other staff are women, including 62.5% of the 25% lowest-paid staff.

In introduction to the report, Vice-Chancellor Louise Richardson, writes: “[W]e have made progress, but the progress is frustratingly slow.”

The report reiterates a commitment by the University to achieve yearly increases in the proportion of female professors at the university, with a short-term goal of 30% by 2020 for all professors and 20% for statutory professors. This is coupled with a commitment to see a third of University leadership roles, such as departmental heads and senior management positions, occupied by women.

As an organisation with over 250 employees, the University is legally required to release gender pay data. Last year, a number of colleges released their own statistics, with Balliol and Keble reporting the highest mean pay gaps this time last year.

The 2019 report is available on the University website.

Mackintosh at the Liverpool Walker

Sam Riley
-
0
Mackintosh at the Liverpool Walker

Being met by a single, rather old, wooden chair is a bold opening statement for any exhibition, though the Liverpool Walker’s current exhibition of the Scottish architect, painter and designer, Charles Rennie Mackintosh, carries this off with aplomb. In many ways, this single piece of everyday furniture captures the essence of Mackintosh, or at least what the curators wish to present him as, a working-class liberator of the arts. This presentation is indeed a convincing one, acting as a showcase of his strikingly aesthetic images, ones that were not meant to be kept in private homes or collections, but instead to adorn the streets, tea rooms, and advertising boards of Glasgow, to be appreciated by all.
Likewise, Mackintosh’s numerous architectural plans seem something more than preparatory sketches, mere functionalist slaves to the construction of the building represented. Instead, the plans for Glasgow’s New School of Art, with their striking red borders, and washed interiors of blues and greens, directed by bold black lines are inherently attractive. Even the elevations of the stairwells are precisely inked, down to individual bannisters and supports showing a draughtsman with an eye for a quotidian beauty that needn’t be confined to traditional spheres of art, but one that could permeate technical plans.
This intersection between the practical and the aesthetic sums up much of Mackintosh’s work, whilst seemingly echoing aspects of the Mucha exhibition held at the Walker in 2017 and the gallery’s permanent collection of Pre-Raphaelite work. Like Mucha and the Pre-Raphaelites, Mackintosh’s figures blur the distinctions between nature and humanity, many containing an ethereal, subaqueous, even disturbing quality. This is apparent in Mackintosh’s 1898 painting of an auburn-haired woman who is as much a part of nature as the landscape- strewn with roses -from which she emerges.
Likewise his advertisement, two years earlier for the Scottish Musical Review, though not highly ornamented nevertheless demonstrates this breakdown of boundaries, whilst amplifying the sexuality that in the other work is a mere undertone. A pair of swifts are foregrounded against two crimson spheres, which when considered in light of the central figure’s voluptuous crimson lips emerge as stylised breasts. The birds’ elongated tails reaffirm the sexuality of the image, creating a border for the lower part of the image before forming the vulvic shroud of the woman’s head. This morphing takes place in the pair of Scottish thistles which flank the upper portion of the image, where they seemingly sprout the keys of a brass instrument, which remind the audience what the poster is advertising. All this is synthesised precisely and simply, using the same colour scheme as his architectural plans, the classic Mackintosh crimson, mid-green, and black.
Some of the most moving pieces in the exhibition were not the vast posters, stained-glass windows, or tapestries. Instead, the pocket sketchbooks of Mackintosh and his contemporaries, such as Talwin Morris, show scores of pencil and watercolour manifestations of internal ideas, most of them remaining in this inchoate form, never realised. These range from a lilac budding in five vulnerable stages to three separate patterns for wallpaper or carpet, verdant and vine-like. Though these were designed to be scaled up, the power of these works lies in their intimacy, coupled with the Romantic poignancy in the knowledge that they never progressed past this initial stage. Their spatial proximity on the page contrasts with their undoubted relational separation to create a distinct intimacy with the artist and his works in a way that is rare to find in larger or completed pieces.
Much of the success of the exhibition lies in the variety of the scale of the works on display, for instance the comfortable cohabitation between small, standalone drawings with larger glorious poster cycles. Similarly, though the work is predominantly by Mackintosh, included is a significant amount of work by British contemporaries but also, more thought provokingly, coeval works from places as disparate as Anatolia, Japan, and Turkey. A Japanese book of crests and watercolours from 1881, strikingly like Mackintosh as they may be, displays a marked abstraction, something Mackintosh only really experimented with at the end of his life in the 1920s when his city and landscapes contain a subtle surrealism. Eastern ceramics and woodblocks invite further stylistic comparisons through geographic range.
It is an ironic but fitting valediction to Mackintosh that his fundamentally ‘everyday’ Art- whether in subject matter or in design -now finds itself transported from the bustling streets and private notebooks of its origin to galleries across the country, where it is completely at home.

New data reveals extent of access gaps in English universities

Charlotte Moberly
-
0
New data reveals extent of access gaps in English universities

New data from the Office for Students shows 67% of English universities and other higher education providers had gaps in higher education access for young students from the least advantaged areas.

The dataset from the independent watchdog for higher education in England shows that while progress is being made, students from disadvantaged backgrounds and those with mental health issues still face gaps in access as well as higher drop-out rates.

There is also a significant achievement gap, with 74.6% of students from disadvantaged backgrounds being awarded a first or a 2:1 compared to 84.1% of students from the most advantaged backgrounds.

The data looks at the gaps between students from the most and least advantaged areas; white, black, Asian and minority ethnic students; and disabled and non-disabled students among other categories. It considers each university’s student intake, drop-out rates, degree attainment and progression to further study or employment for different groups of students over the last five years.

Although there has been some improvement in recent years, the access gap between students recruited from the most and least advantaged areas for Oxford University was one of the highest. In 2017-18, the gap was 54.1%, while the national average was 18.1%.

A University spokesperson said: “We welcome the Office for Students’ initiative on openness about access, complementing Oxford’s own work in recent years in sharing its admissions data widely. We are pleased to see the figures highlight our outstanding record of inspiring students to good degrees and into stimulating and rewarding careers and further study.

“The OfS figures for 2017 entry demonstrate our steady progress in attracting talented undergraduates from diverse backgrounds. This reflects the success of one of the UK’s most ambitious student outreach and support programmes and we know that our figures for 2018 entry, to be published shortly, will show further advances, but we know we have more to do and are keen to meet the challenge.

“We also welcome the OfS call for ever-greater accessibility to student places across the sector. We are exceeding our current OfS targets on this, but will shortly be announcing ambitious plans which will push us further in widening participation for all in Oxford’s outstanding education.”

Chris Millward, Director for Fair Access and Participation at the OfS, said: “The dataset is a game changer for the way in which we hold universities to account on access and successful participation. It provides a more transparent picture of equality of opportunity in different universities than ever before.

“Universities will be held to account for their performance, not just by the OfS but by students and the wider public, who are increasingly expecting stronger progress in this area. We expect to use it to ensure that all now make significant improvements during the coming years.”

“We have set ambitious targets to reduce equality gaps during the next five years. Universities now need to focus their attention on the specific areas where they face the biggest challenges. While some universities will need to focus on improving access to higher education for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, the data shows that for many universities the real challenge is in ensuring these students can succeed in their studies, and thrive in life after graduation. This data will help them to do that, and to showcase their achievements.

“It will enable us to make consistent judgements of how well different universities are doing, and provide clarity to universities on how their performance will be assessed.”

For the first time, the data also shows the gaps between students with and without known mental health conditions. 86.8% of full-time students with a declared mental health condition progress into their second year of study, compared to 90.3% of full-time students with no known disability.

Yvonne Hawkins, Director of Teaching Excellence and Student Experience at OfS, said: “The data shows there are clear differences in outcomes for students who declare a mental health condition, compared to those students who have no known disability.

“Universities should look at the data closely and consider how they can continue to support students reporting mental ill health.

“Work to improve the mental health of all students is a priority for the OfS. We have made funding of up to £6 million available to drive a step-change in improving mental health, and are working with Research England to deliver further funding of up to £1.5 million to enhance mental health support for postgraduate research students.”

Review: Betrayal – ‘all the poise, restraint and subtlety that Pinter’s masterpiece requires’

Alison Porter
-
0
Review: Betrayal – ‘all the poise, restraint and subtlety that Pinter’s masterpiece requires’

Harold Pinter’s 1978 masterpiece Betrayal may be set in a privileged world, but Lloyd’s production (now running at the Harold Pinter Theatre) expertly conveys how betrayal can overwhelm us all.

Pinter’s masterpiece follows the lives of married couple Robert and Emma (Tom Hiddleston and Zawe Ashton), and Jerry (Charlie Cox) – Robert’s best friend, and the man with whom Emma is having an affair.

Famously unfolding in reverse order, the play’s first scene features Emma and Jerry meeting for the first time since their affair ended two years ago, before Pinter takes us incrementally backwards in time, through various lunches and secret late-night meetings, to its very inception nine years earlier.

Despite the play’s setting of affluence (Robert and Jerry are publishers, while Emma runs an art gallery) Lloyd’s stripped back and starkly minimalist production emphasises the universality of these human experiences.

The set, consisting of a mostly blank white wall and a few chairs, acts as a canvas upon which we the audience can project ourselves, the only real remarkable elements being the revolving segments of the stage floor.

Their subtle rotation helps to illustrate both the passing of time (one of Lloyd’s ingenious ways of handling the play’s tricky chronology) and the characters’ emotional stasis or development. This is heightened through Lloyd’s choice to keep all three characters on stage throughout the majority of the play, even though Pinter’s scenes are mostly between two characters at a time.

The third ‘other’ is perpetually there, and they almost insist upon this presence, sometimes stood completely still at the back of the stage, or gradually moving as they almost eerily watch on. And when the name of the ‘other’ is mentioned, a subtle glance from the third party, or a movement of their head, reminds us that the betrayed individual is always very much there.

Ashton’s Emma in particular makes for a compelling ‘other’ in the scenes where she is typically absent. She creeps barefoot at the back of the stage, idly tracing patterns on the white backdrop while in the scene Robert and Jerry share one of their rapid, machismo-fuelled exchanges.

Much criticism towards Pinter takes aim at his depiction of women; however, Ashton refuses to let Emma be submerged in this masculine world. When she asks if she can take both men to lunch, it’s a surprisingly measured and assertive request, and in the final (but chronologically first) scene, her sense of choice and freedom is prominent.

But perhaps no one encapsulates their character’s emotional fluctuations more than Hiddleston, whether savagely attacking his dish of prosciutto e melone during dinner with Jerry, or quietly crying as his darkest suspicions are confirmed, or trying to assert dominance during quick-fire dialogue concerning a game of squash.

This is a role which Hiddleston has supposedly wanted to play since drama school, and you most definitely believe him when you see his eyes start to glisten with tears, visible even near the back of the stalls.

Though Hiddleston does have superb chemistry with Ashton, it is the tension between Robert and Cox’s Jerry which really bites and cuts. In one moment of beautiful timing and with masterful use of the rotating stage, they are positioned in such a way for their paths to intersect and for a burning stare to be shared with each other while Robert, the scene’s ‘absentee’, circles slowly around Jerry who embraces Emma.

It’s these seemingly simple (yet hugely telling) exchanges which make the multiple betrayals feel so raw and cutting. The production abounds in pauses and almost unbearable silences laden with the weight of the unspoken: Lloyd is highly conscious of the significance of what remains unsaid, and all three actors demonstrate remarkable restraint in allowing these silences to run their course.

Much like the third character’s presence on stage even in the scenes where they are absent, the lack of dialogue creates an undeniable sense of presence, pushing the unspoken to the forefront and leaving us to fill in the blanks.

These crushing absences, along with the actors’ spectacular chemistry and Lloyd’s brilliant attention to detail, make Betrayal a triumphant culmination of the ‘Pinter at the Pinter’ venture. This beautifully understated production allows us to see ourselves in every glance, every tear, ending the season not so much with a ‘bang’, but with all the poise, restraint and subtlety that Pinter’s masterpiece requires.

FIFA politics strike again with latest proposal

Guillaume Paugam
-
0
FIFA politics strike again with latest proposal

The FIFA Council, which met in Miami earlier this month, discussed the possibility of increasing the number of countries taking part in the 2022 football World Cup from 32 to 48.

Gianni Infantino, the president of the football governing body, said that such a change, originally planned for 2026, was possible.

This is consistent with the trend set by UEFA, Infantino’s former organisation: the European Football legislating authority increased the number of sides allowed in the Euros’ group stages from 16 to 24.

I believe that the aim to make football more universal is laudable, but the way FIFA does it is wrong and primarily results from its own financial and political considerations.  

To understand the topic better, a bit of history is needed. The first World Cup took place in Uruguay in 1930: although 16 teams were expected, only 13 of the invited sides could make it to Montevideo.

As early as 1934, invitations were abandoned, and qualifying rounds were implemented. 16 remained the number of participating nations until the 1982 Spanish Mundial, where it was raised for the first time to 24. Less than two decades later, it was increased yet again to its current level of 32.

This increase in competing sides parallels a trend of universalisation in World Cup Access: while the first tournaments saw almost no nations outside Europe, and, to a lesser extent, Latin America, involved, raising the numbers has allowed the world’s most popular sporting event to open up.

The rise from 16 to 24 sides, in 1982 coincided, for the first time, with the participation from two, rather than one, African Confederation sides and Asia/Oceania sides, following the wish of the then-FIFA boss João Havelange to diversify the tournament. For Cameroon, Algeria, Kuwait and New Zealand it was their first involvement at this stage of World Football.

The move to 32 teams further raised the number of teams from outside Europe which, however, remains the main provider with 13 teams. The planned reform, with 48 countries, follows the same logic. Africa, Asia, Oceania, and North and Central America, all see their representation almost double, while Europe and Latin America’s spots also increase – but much less in proportion.  

This looks great on paper but carefully thinking about it reveals a number of issues. The first one is an obvious quality and quantity trade-off, already apparent at the 2016 Euros. It is clear that opening the door to so many teams from all continents, that would not normally be let in, will undermine the overall quality of the competition.

Whether this is problematic or not depends on personal values, and it is not up to me to decide. With the last Euros taking place in my home country, I was well-placed to witness the incredible and unique enthusiasm brought by fans of countries that did not make the cut in the old formula.

However, one also has to admit that the standard of the competition was much poorer than before the reform, with some games exhibiting appallingly low quality at this level. The Wales-Northern Ireland game, a Championship-level fixture if you are feeling generous (which is not even surprising if you look at the squads), springs to mind.

One could argue that this is not the first expansion, and that previous reforms did not harm the World Cup, but the 80’s and 90’s expansion matched a real boom in football universalisation that made such reforms necessary, something which is less evident today.

Moreover, the planned increase is a lot more worrying than previous changes due to its impact on the tournament’s organisation. Indeed, 48 teams is an awkward number that requires an overhaul of the group stages: from groups of four with the top two qualified, the World Cup is moving to groups of three. Yet, the number of teams going through remains the same, meaning that the degree of competitiveness of group games decreases sharply. As such, unlike previous changes to the number of teams, this specific reform undermines the very competitive nature of the World Cup. The question “where does it stop?” comes to mind.

At this stage, you might think that this may be true, but that I am definitely watching football through the lens of a privileged fan, one whose favourite team seldom misses big football tournaments and sometimes wins them (thank you Griezmann).

Why would my pleasure matter, you might ask, if more teams, hence more countries and people, can take part in the giant party atmosphere created by a World Cup? And you would be right. The point here is not to defend the privilege of established teams to partake, but to denounce a reform that in fact will do little to really benefit newer footballing nations.

Very likely, smaller teams will not make it through group stages. 16 teams will come for two games only. Besides the absurdity in terms of organisation (a World Cup requires a huge amount of preparation for a team, even more demanding for smaller teams with fewer resources, that is certainly not vindicated by the perspective of playing two averagely competitive games, seen as training rather than actual competition by the biggest team in the group), it is just illusory to think this will contribute to a country’s footballing development. FIFA might grant more countries an access to the table, but certainly not the right to eat.

What makes a nation improve at football are long-term policies and investments in people and infrastructure. This is precisely what enabled Iceland, a place about as populated as Croydon, to become a footballing nation to be reckoned with (no need to remind English fans). Not being granted an easy right to participate (and most probably lose after two games). Sadly, it seems like FIFA prefers to renovate the facade rather the inside.

Another problem emerges. By making the World Cup seemingly more universal in terms of country access, FIFA reduces the capacity of smaller, or less developed, countries to ever host the world’s most popular sporting event. 32 was already a lot for a country to host. 48 amplifies the problem. It is no coincidence that the 2026 World Cup was attributed to the gigantic geographic trio of the USA, Canada and Mexico, rather than Morocco, unsuccessful for the fifth time at this stage: the infrastructure required to accommodate nearly 50 squads, all the fans and the media will become out of reach for most.

As usual, FIFA’s decision to increase the number of countries in fact only follows the logic of money and politics. Bigger World Cups mean more TV rights and marketing fees. The French Press Agency (AFP) revealed in 2017 that FIFA already expected the increase from 32 to 48 teams to yield an extra 605 million euros for its budget. Electorally, FIFA presidents are elected by all 209 affiliated Football Associations, with each country having one vote, regardless of its size. No wonder why Infantino, who is running again this year, is so keen to please as many smaller FAs as possible with his reform project.

What alternatives are there, then? First of all, FIFA, being the wealthy organisation we know (five billion in expected income over the 2015-2018 period), has the financial power to fund extensive football development programmes everywhere in the World, especially in less-advanced footballing nations. As mentioned above, long-term policies work: countries need to build infrastructure and develop competence. Not all countries are as rich as Iceland, but this is precisely where FIFA should step in. There are so many countries that have the passion, pool of players, and talent to play football, but, due to a lack of resources, are unable to develop the infrastructure to succeed at top international level. Rather than giving these national team players an increased “chance” to maybe play two group games before, most likely, going home, FIFA should invest its money into making smaller footballing nations the heavyweights of tomorrow.

Of course, this is long-term. Meanwhile, FIFA could reform the allocation of spots given to each continent within a 32-team World Cup. Europe, representing 40% of teams in the group stage of the last tournament, and Latin America, with 50% of its affiliated national sides qualifying, dominate hugely. This obviously derives from these continents’ dominance over world football: they have provided all the World Cup winners. Countries from other continents making it to the last four, like South Korea in 2002, constitute rare exceptions rather than regular occurrences. As such, an overhaul of representation quotas would bring the risk of missing potential winners of the tournament, which is probably not desirable. Nevertheless, while massive expansions such as the one from 32 to 48 teams risk letting very average teams in, current repartition rules across continents have the opposite flaw, leaving some very decent non-European/Latin American sides at home, due to the very restrictive number of teams from similar areas being allowed entry. 

As such, without arguing for a perfectly representative allocation of spots, I believe there is room for reform. A team like Ivory Coast, made up of players found in all the top leagues, missed out narrowly due to the restrictions imposed upon the number of teams Africa can send to the World Cup, while sides like Iceland, Serbia or Poland came bottom or second bottom in their groups. It is possible to marginally reform the system to make it fairer, while waiting for longer-term investments to work and balance the repartition of footballing power across the globe, with the ultimate aim being to not have any trade-off between fair continent representation and quality of the football, hence making it possible to more drastically reform the continent quotas. But FIFA’s current desire to increase the number of teams from 32 to 48, fuelled by economic considerations and petty politics, represents the worst of both worlds: lowering the level without giving smaller footballing nations an actual chance to really be important actors in international football.

It’s time to accept Brexit has failed

Libby Cherry
-
0
It’s time to accept Brexit has failed

Noisy criticism has erupted over the petition to revoke Article 50, decrying it as yet another ugly, anti-democratic manifestation of the zombie Remain campaign, that continues to haunt this nation in the guise of forty-year-old centrist dads and Alexa Chung, spread by the ineradicable disease that is the #FBPE Twitter hashtag.

MPs who dare to speak out in support of such a proposal, including the Conservative, SNP, Lib Dem, Plaid Cymru and Independent Group members who signed Joanna Cherry’s resolution to revoke Article 50 (which was put to the Commons yesterday), have been lambasted as traitors throughout the Brexit process. Signatories have been demonised as fanatics, willing to overrule the current of public opinion in their attempt to turn the UK into the vassal state of the EU without mandate.

Yet our current default position – no-deal – would achieve exactly this, placing us instantly into the position of a petitioning poor relative, accepting whatever crust of a trade deal that the US or the EU deign to offer us while lacking any support from the British people or their representatives. Rather than having revoking Article 50 as the default situation in the event that Parliament failed to negotiate a deal that appealed to all members of parliament, we have instead adopted a self-destructive alternative that seems less to do with putting pressure on the EU to offer us a good deal then blackmailing MPs into accepting a highly inferior political and economic relationship.  

Revoking Article 50 was one of the proposals debated in yesterday’s series of indicative votes, along with EEA/EFTA style arrangement and no-deal. It was practically inevitable that both no-deal and Revoke, as the two poles in this debate, would be nixed. Given that each of the other possibilities for our future relationship with the EU – EEA membership, a customs union, Canada-plus, May’s deal itself – have each ridiculed as ‘unicorns’ by some portion of the House, it is unsurprising that none garnered majority support, resulting in the day ending inconclusively.

Putting aside the fact that the government can completely ignore yesterday’s outcomes, Parliament itself has been stymied. Whatever anyone says, there is still a dangerous risk of crashing out on 12th April despite the Commons having twice rejected it. No-deal has no more mandate than revoking (at the time of writing, a petition for leaving with no-deal attracted just under 590,000 signatures, in comparison to Revoke’s 5,935,000 signatures) and will have real detrimental consequences for the entire population of this country that seems the height of naivety to ignore. 

Like any term remotely related to Brexit, revoking Article 50 means different things to different people. Many of those calling for Article 50 to be revoked are also supporters of a People’s Vote, but conflating the two is a confusion of Brexit outcome and the process by which such an outcome is reached – hence the two were tabled separately yesterday. Personally, I think that any deal that we decide on should be ratified by the British people – whether Revoke/Remain is on the ballot paper or not.

Equally, revoking Article 50 need not require a second referendum: instead, it should be, instead of no-deal, implemented as our default option. Furthermore, while some would like to use revoking Article 50 to give us more time to negotiate a ‘compromise’ with the EU, there is an argument to be made for simply revoking and remaining a member. As pundits keep telling us, we want the government to ‘get on with it’. We have had two years to negotiate Brexit, and we have failed. If we revoke Article 50, it should be a decision to permanently remain. 

This may sound controversial, undemocratic, taboo. This reaction has been created by the narrative that has been sown over the past two years, beginning with Cameron’s initial, perhaps throwaway, mention of the ‘will of the people’ that has served over the last two years to morph our popular conception of democratic principle to mean a fatalistic, blinkered, obstinate adherence to a notion of ‘Leave’ that itself changes meaning from week to week. Even if today’s statistics had not suggested that 55% of peoplewould now vote Remain in a second referendum, in any other situation of proposed change – for instance, in business – if such a change was unachievable, the natural position would always be the status quo. 

Revoking Article 50 after two years of negotiations may sound defeatist. But given that even the series of ‘indicative votes’ yesterday have been branded a “constitutional revolution”, taking back control from the ERG ‘Grand Wizards’, who have been the architects behind the no-deal default, would be an act of strength. Neither, in the event of revoking, would the last two years have been for nothing. Both Leave and Remain voters were chronically ill-informed about the EU and the UK’s current relationship at the time of the initial referendum, that amounted on both sides to a lack of interest in European policy that had always rendered the Union’s actions tainted with accusations of unrepresentativeness.

In our new state of enthusiasm, as the one million marchers proved on Saturday, we are perfectly poised to go back into the European Union with new zeal and urge for greater collaboration. Today’s greatest problems – climate change, migration, populism – transcend national borders, and remaining in the most powerful collaborative bloc on the planet would surely only be a progressive step. 

Let’s get on with it

Will Robinson
-
0
Let’s get on with it

Writing for an audience consisting of the student body of the 4th most Remain city in the country, writing an ostensibly pro-Brexit piece on why the ‘Revoke Article 50’ petition is a waste of time, is not the easiest task. Therefore, I’ll try to avoid making the arguments that the petition-signatories amongst you will be expecting me to make: 

I could frame my argument around the fact that thousands of signatures have come from all over the globe – from the USA, to France, to Russia (no doubt interfering in our democracy again), to Kosovo, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, even to the largely internet-less North Korea – and that, therefore, this petition is broken and should have no bearing over our politics: this is why we register to vote and then do so at a local polling station. 

But I won’t. 

I could frame my argument around the fact that the petition, as little more than an online survey, is intrinsically broken: it is vulnerable to duplicated signatures through multiple email addresses, or to bots (as has happened in extremis with previous pro-Remain petitions of the same ilk)[1]as the site has no ‘captcha’ verification; nor does it for age. Petitions are not good at reflecting the wider electorate – this is why we have proper polling methodologies, with control and sample groups and statistical analysis at one end of the scale, and actual voting at the other.

But I won’t.

I could frame my argument around the fact that the petition was started by an extreme supranationalist Europhile (alleged to have described how she would murder the Prime Minister, and to have discussed how to purchase legal guns and their modification to cause maximum damage to take to the Commons…),[2]and that this is just another example of Remoaners not accepting democracy and blah blah blah… 

But I won’t. 

I won’t frame my arguments around these points not because they are not legitimate, and not because they are necessarily bad (although they’re not great – looking at you number three) but because even if all were true in the fullest extent, it would be churlish to deny that this petition is remarkable: it is remarkable that the website has repeatedly crashed under the weight of traffic it has received;[3]that approximately a tenth of the eligible electorate of the country has signed it (if we are to take the 6 million figure entirely at face value); that it is the most popular in the history of the Commons Petitions Committee.[4]There is a large socio-political force that sits behind this 6,000,000 figure. That is undeniable, regardless of how questionable the nature of the petition and its signatures may be.

So, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that all (or very nearly all) of the 6 million signatures thus far are those of adult citizens of the United Kingdom, fully eligible to vote in a hypothetical referendum or General Election should there be one tomorrow (please no), and that none of these people have signed more than once. 

Either the petition to revoke Article 50 is a total waste of time, or it is something far more sinister. It is a waste of time if its sole purpose is to convey to Parliament the sentiment of its electorate. The basic point here is that there is a colossal cognitive dissonance in assigning so much credence to an online survey, and simultaneously so little to the result of an historically large national referendum that dwarfs the petition in any game of numbers. 

Furthermore, the supposedly vast momentum behind the petition is illusory. The polling data of the last couple of weeks – which does represent the British electorate in its geographical, political, social and economic diversity – tells an entirely different story to the one told by the petition. Petitions, by their nature, can only be echo chambers – agreement is all that can be measured. There is no ‘I disagree’ box you can sign instead. So for this petition, volume alone is not enough, particularly given that its signatories are almost demographically identical to the Remain vote of 2016.[5]The petition tells us nothing new: plenty of people, at least 16,141,241 at recorded peak, wanted to be in the EU – these signatories are the (minority) hardcore of that vote.

Indeed, an Opinium poll of 21/03/19 found that public opinion is shifting quickly towards a ‘No Deal’ outcome as opposed to any extension of Article 50, by 46% to 39%.[6]ComRes, also on 21/03/19, found that leaving the EU in any shape or form has a 15 point lead over remaining, 50%-35%.[7]Polling is no perfect science, but as measures of reflecting shifts in the mind of the nation’s electorate go, polls are competing in the 100m finals at the Olympics, and petitions can’t work out which shoe goes on which foot. Extraordinary as 6 million signatures is, it means nothing for majority public support for revocation – the polls say the opposite.

If we ask ourselves what this petition wants, surely, as members of a liberal democracy, we must conclude that this is the extent of it. A methodologically-corrupt poll. A waste of time. 

What else could it be? 

The petition demands that Article 50 is unilaterally revoked, and that the UK remains a member of the EU. Thus, to sign it is to explicitly call for the vote, cast by the British people (a lot more than 6 million of them) to be cancelled. There is no getting around this simple fact. 

The petition is not a plea by the pro-Remain lobby for Parliament to vote on revocation, nor that we give it another go: to rehash the arguments about whether or not we should be a member of the EU, and then let the people of this country make their final decision on the matter (no, for real this time, no take-backsies, we promise!). It simply demands that we remain in the EU. End of story. Pitiful and perilous as it was, the argument for a second referendum could be justified. This demand cannot. Every signatory of this petition rides roughshod over the vote of every single citizen of this country that did their civic duty in June three years ago. 

To simply remain in the EU would be to deliberately and totally ignore the result of the largest democratic exercise in our history, nowhere near the turnout at any past (or almost certainly future) General Election. This alone would be wrong, but there is more. 

The result of the referendum of the 23rdof June, 2016, was a vast anti-establishment movement: it was made by the voice of the disenfranchised people of this country, in deindustrialised, coastal or rural areas, hit harder by austerity and EU regulation of fisheries and agriculture than anyone in the home counties can imagine. Leave-voting territory is lightyears away from the economic, social, political and media bubble of the South East, and it rejected that status quo. To fail to heed this vote, made for the ‘right’ reasons or not, is to betray the backbone of the nation. 

And yet this seems neither here nor there to the middle-class intelligentsia of the South East (disclaimer: this may make me a class traitor), because it did not go their way. In any other scenario, Oxford students would be falling over themselves to defend the voice of leave voters, as those hurt by the country’s imbalance of social, political and economic power and in media influence. Shame they voted the wrong way.

To those of you that think the best way to remedy this battle cry, this Eurosceptic aberration, this silly mistake, or however you see it, is to simply ignore it – best of luck to you. Sign away.

Given that the density of the petition’s signatories perfectly geographically match that of the 2016 vote to remain,[8]it rejects that vote and nothing more. ‘Remain supporters support Remain!’ – what a headline. These are not Leavers ‘seeing the light.’ This is not the North East coming round to Guy Verhofstadt, the ECJ and Chuka Umunna’s brand of “cheese and biscuits”[9]neoliberalism. Revocation would solve nothing of this mess in the long or short term, and it would lead to the root cause (of which Brexit is but a symptom) becoming immeasurably worse for the pro-Remain political classes’ agenda than it already is; if they think otherwise I’d like to know what they’re smoking [insert Lib Dems joke here]. 

Either this petition is a waste of time – a failed poll – or it is a cold, conscious choice to tell a great number of people of this country that their vote does not matter, and that by extension, neither do they. It doesn’t matter if this is the intention, this will be the consequence. Surely it must remain the former, and not become the latter.

P.S. At least 11,400,000 more signatures, all of them verified, and then maybewe could take this petition seriously. Just kidding! Sitting on the sofa and following a link you see on Facebook to click a button is not equivalent, in any sense, to getting off your arse and going to vote, nor is a single polling day to an online petition open indefinitely 24/7. Frankly, if Article 50 was to be revoked, I’d almost be more annoyed by the fact that this petition got its way, than by the democratic vacuum it would create.

Everyone has had enough of this farce. Let’s just get out, deal or no deal, and get on with the rest of our lives. Revoking Article 50 means years more Brexit chat – I for one cannot be bothered.

[1]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36640459?SThisFB&fbclid=IwAR3i-h78JqDArEKbYN30dbLD_nfSFrgzCArt_T8ipoCMEYiBUGuSArn_X-Q

[2]https://order-order.com/2019/03/22/revoke-article-50-petition-creator-threatened-may-discussed-buy-legal-guns-take-commons/

[3]https://twitter.com/HoCpetitions/status/1108711030736199686

[4]https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/24/brexit-petition-to-revoke-article-50-reaches-5m-signatures

[5]https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1109511517551112198

[6]https://www.opinium.co.uk/brexit-blame-game/

[7]https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Daily-Express_Brexit-and-VI_March-2019_updated.pdf

[8]https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1109511517551112198

[9]https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1108460589398016000

Student “asked to leave” after bringing her toddler to Oxford talk on “Women and leadership”

Amelia Horn
-
0
Student “asked to leave” after bringing her toddler to Oxford talk on “Women and leadership”

The talk took place on Tuesday 26 March at the Sheldonian theatre. The speaker, Julia Gillard, was the first woman to take up the position of Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister in Australia. She served as Deputy from 2007 until 2010 and then as Prime Minister from 2010 to 2013.

Nuffield Department of Population Health, which is part of the University, organised the event. The full title of the event was: “Women and leadership – fighting for an equal world.” Julia Gillard’s commitments include serving as a patron of CAMFED, the Campaign for Female Education.

In a post on Facebook, Ania Kordala stated how she had allegedly emailed ahead to ask the organisers if she could bring her toddler, “putting the request” in the ‘Special Requirements’ box available to those signing up. The event’s host, Professor Valerie Beral, directed through her Personal Assistant Sarah Atkinson, responded: “Unfortunately, babies and toddlers can not attend.”

Allegedly, Ms Kordala decided bring her child along anyway “to see what they say at the door.” In a second Facebook post written shortly after the event, she said: “I was lucky to meet my college principal and ask her to back me up, which she did do so they let me in.

“They pick a seat for us, the talk is about to start, and I’m so excited and relieved.”

Ms Kordala reported that after her toddler “babbled”, “a lady from technical crew” approached her and told her she “needed to leave.” According to the student, she left the room to talk to the woman, who then “would not let her back in”, and she was told “her friend could get her stuff [which was left in the room where the talk was taking place].”

Reportedly, the “technical lady’s” reasoning was that Ms Kordala and her child were sat “right next to the video camera man.” However, she allegedly offered to “go to the other side of the room so the camera doesn’t pick up [the toddler’s] babbling” and was told: “No, you need to leave the premises.”

Head of the Nuffield Department of Population Health Rory Collins told Cherwell: “A student brought her young child to the lecture held yesterday in the Sheldonian Theatre, and I personally ensured that she was allowed to bring the child into the building. It is definitely not appropriate that she was later asked to leave with her child.

“We encourage students and others with families to participate fully in events run by the Department.

“In future, we will make sure that all staff working at our events are aware that families are welcome.”

Principal at Green Templeton College, Professor Denise Lievesley, told Cherwell:

“On arriving as a guest at the Sheldonian theatre to hear Julia Gillard I met one of the Green Templeton students, Ania Kordala, with her toddler. 

She reported that she had been refused entry.  I explained to Ania that I had no official role but that I would see what I could do. 

I spoke to Professor Rory Collins of the Nuffield Department of Population Health, asking if Ania and her child could be admitted.  He agreed wholeheartedly, and he and I went outside together to ensure that she was able to enter. 

As far as I was aware this was satisfactory, so  I am very sad to learn that Ania was subsequently asked to leave.  I was unaware of this. 

Green Templeton College prides itself on supporting students with families, and it is especially inappropriate that this happened at a wonderful talk by Julia Gillard about significant gender inequalities which still exist in our societies.” 

Ania Kordala said: “As we are walking out of the building I hear the room filling with applause as Julia Gillard enters the stage and starts talking. About women in leadership. About equal rights and opportunities.

“Later on, the University of Oxford and Nuffield Department of Population Health will congratulate themselves on organising such an event and being at the forefront of a fight for equality.

“The talk will be watched many times and probably also receive media coverage. But this is just one side of the story.

“The other side of the story is a student parent who wanted to be a part of the talk. Who literally fought her way into the building despite being told ‘no.’ Who made it inside and got kicked out almost immediately after. Who is outside the building while everyone else is inside.”

Speaking exclusively to Cherwell Kordala added that “The fact that I was asked to leave is one thing. How it was dealt with is another.

“It was not only rude, the message was – We’re ruining the event, our presence is a problem, and the sooner we disappear the better.

“Even when I was already in the corridor and nobody could hear my daughter, there were 3 or 4 people impatiently waiting until I gather my stuff and pointing me to the door. I had to remind them I had a buggy, go get it, (carry up the stairs with a toddler in one hand and buggy in the other) and then ask to leave via an accessible entrance and not the staircase.

“I was so mad I was hardly talking, I was just pointing to the where the buggy was and where the accessible entrance was.

“I have been lucky to have a supportive PI, an amazing co supervisor, and a great family friendly group. I have attended lectures with my daughter before (one on Athena Swan in DPAG, but not only) and even a Christmas carols service in Keble College chapel. There had never been an issue until yesterday. She normally either sleeps through the event or plays with books. If she starts disrupting the event or cries, I leave.

“If you’re organizing an event after 5pm, especially if the event is about equality, women in the workplace, try and organize it in a child friendly place, or offer a crèche service for the event. We don’t stop being interested in the world just because we are parents.”

The University, and event host Professor Valerie Beral have been contacted for comment.

Review: The Duchess of Malfi – a brave and ambitious move

Imogen Harter-Jones
-
0
Review: The Duchess of Malfi – a brave and ambitious move

Notorious for being bloody and demanding, John Webster’s The Duchess of Malfi (1612) is not an obvious choice for an amateur group to perform. However, York Settlement Community Players (of which Judi Dench was a member in the 1950s) proved largely up to the task. With a pared down plot and modern dress, Sam Taylor (RSC and National Theatre actor) directs an accessible, fast-paced and engaging rendition of the ultimate Renaissance revenge tragedy in the intimate studio space of York Theatre Royal.

At the heart of this play are the themes of class and men’s control over women – their lives, finances, sexuality, relationships. While Antonio, confidently played by David Phillipps, is cast as a romantic class warrior, his received pronunciation and smart attire – equal to that of the rich brothers, the Cardinal and Duke – obscured the class distinctions underlying their animosity towards him. That said, however, their interdict against marriage is absolute, irrespective of social status. The Renaissance imagination presented the Duchess, played in an understated manner by Amanda Dales, as a ‘lusty widow.’ Her secret remarriage to her lower-class steward Antonio, against her brothers’ will and below her rank, made her culpable of excessive sexual desire and deserving of death.

The relationship between the titular Duchess and Antonio was convincing. However, the sexual politics were somewhat lost with the ‘forbidden lovers’ element being overemphasised to a Romeo and Juliet level.  While this interpretation liberated the Duchess from the sexist ‘lusty widow’ label, at times she seemed too passive – a far cry from the radical warrior of patriarchal sexual liberation and self-determination, who was so intimidating to her over-controlling brothers that they killed her. Dales’ scenes of imprisonment, torture (both physical and psychological) and death by strangulation on stage are her most stoically impressive, with the famous line, “I am Duchess of Malfi still,” asserting her right to exist independently in a quiet, self-possessed manner. Music was masterfully employed in the aftermath of the Duchess’ murder by strangulation on the orders of her psychotic twin brother (Ferdinand, the Duke), as he slow dances with her corpse to The Beach Boys’ ‘Don’t Worry Baby’. The carefree, psychedelic, daydreamlike quality of The Beach Boys’ music was sharply juxtaposed with the nightmarish tragedy of the scene presented on stage. The dissonance was positively chilling: the most haunting, powerful moment of the play.

Ferdinand’s incestuous desire for his twin sister the eponymous, but individually anonymous, Duchess was strongly realised. Uncomfortably close touching, inappropriately sexualised dancing and lecherous looks hinted at Ferdinand’s dark sexual feelings. In his scenes of madness and grief after his orders to kill his sister are acted upon, Harry Revell came into his own as Ferdinand. He dominated the emotional heart of the play, although his character was in the running for the hotly contested title of the most morally reprehensible. He commanded the attention of the audience whenever he was on stage. Revell’s demeanour revealed the true psychopathic nature of the brothers and their obsessive desire to control their sister’s sexual autonomy. However, while the portrayal of Ferdinand as a warped incestuous monster explained his actions, those of the Cardinal were less clear. Furthermore, the Duchess was portrayed almost too innocently and Ferdinand’s madness excessively accentuated. This lost some of the layers of interpretation, particularly men’s domination of women to preserve their own power for power’s sake.

Despite the play’s clear place within the canon of Renaissance tragedy, there were lighter, comic moments in The Duchess of Malfi, most notably in the form of Bosola, the servant spy placed by the brothers in the Duchess’ court. Maurice Crichton’s frank Yorkshire delivery and ease of command of the language accentuated the sexual innuendo. Whilst Bosola is frequently compared by literary critics to Iago, YSCP’s interpretation allowed for a more human, emotionally fraught and complicated antagonist to emerge.  

Sadly, the final scene was distinctly underwhelming. In a culmination of betrayal and violence, everyone dies, whether by kissing a poisoned bible or by being stabbed. Webster has set the scene for an orgy of bloodletting akin to Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs, but the lack of any blood or visual effects to suggest the horror was anticlimactic: there’s only so much that writhing bodies alone can convey. Whilst a tight budget may have restricted this scene, creative alternatives could have been employed to give more weight to this horror of mass murder.

As an amateur dramatic performance, this was impressive. As with much regional theatre, the main shortcomings could have been overcome with a bigger budget. Nevertheless, this production proves that regional amateur dramatics can still be ambitious, confident and relevant. Whilst the manifestations were extreme, the underlying motivation – men’s control over women’s lives – makes the play pertinent for our times.  

Oxford donor suspends giving amid opioid legal scandal

Sam Millward
-
0
Oxford donor suspends giving amid opioid legal scandal

The Sackler Trust, a donor to the University of Oxford since 1991, has put all further philanthropic donations on hold due to its implication in the US opioid crisis.

Dame Theresa Sackler, Chair of the trust released a statement, saying that “The Trustees of the Sackler Trust have taken the difficult decision to temporarily pause all new philanthropic giving, while still honouring existing commitments.”

This comes after the National Portrait Gallery and the Tate Group both announced that they would no longer accept gifts or donations from members of the family.

The Bodleian Sackler Library, as well as the Sackler Keeper of Antiquities at the Ashmolean, are funded by the $11 million the University has received from the family.

In addition, a University lecturer and teaching fellowship in the Earth Sciences are supported by the family’s donations.

The same statement reaffirms the Trust’s support for the Sackler family, eight of whom are named in a lawsuit by the Massachusetts’s Attorney General. Purdue Pharma, and 17 associated individuals are accused of using deceptive practices to push addictive drugs, that led to fatal overdoses and the evolution of the opioid crisis.

The Connecticut and Ohio Attorneys General also have cases against Purdue and the Sacklers, along with hundreds of others brought in U.S. courts.

Oxford University stated, in April last year, that it would not reconsider donations from the Sackler family, despite their involvement in the production of the addictive opioid.

A court ruling states: “They [the 8 Sackler family members] directed deceptive sales and marketing practices deep within Purdue, sending hundreds of orders to executives and line employees.

“From the money that Purdue collected selling opioids, they paid themselves and their family billions of dollars.”

More than £60 million has been donate to UK organisations since 2010. Since that same year, the Centre for Disease Control estimates that 243,678 have occurred as a result of opioid overdoses.

1...697698699...2,579Page 698 of 2,579

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 Jamie Ashley