Wednesday 15th October 2025
Blog Page 699

Out in Front: Lewis Hamilton’s fifth world title

-
0
Out in Front: Lewis Hamilton’s fifth world title

Lewis Hamilton became one of only three men to win the Drivers’ World Championships after Sunday’s chaotic Mexican Grand Prix.

Red Bull Racing’s Max Verstappen was the man who stood atop the podium on the day, the 21-year-old capping off a highly impressive weekend with a dominant win where he led for 67 of 71 laps. Verstappen has built a reputation in his first 3 years in Formula 1 as an almost obsessively competitive driver. At times though, criticism has come his way when this competitiveness has blown over into overly aggressive and dangerous driving. In Mexico, however, we saw Verstappen fully in control, successfully protecting the car on a day where mechanical failure was rife and with a maturity that belied his years.

Verstappen was the fastest man on Friday and Saturday’s practice sessions but after missing out on pole position in qualifying he channelled his frustration and made Red Bull team principal Christian Horner proud: “I think it played on Max’s mind, and from the moment he turned up [on Sunday] you could see there was only going to be one guy coming through turns 1/2/3 in the lead. As soon as he emerged from the rst three corners with the lead, the rest of it he controlled brilliantly.”

Despite Verstappen’s masterful drive, it was always going to be Hamilton earning the plaudits after the chequered flag. After a very dominant season, Hamilton only needed to finish seventh at the Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez to write himself into the history books alongside Juan Manuel Fangio and Michael Schumacher.

While lacking pace compared to Ferrari and Red Bull throughout the entire race weekend, the Stevenage born superstar still managed to produce a conservative and measured drive to bring the car home in a respectable fourth position. But in the media pit, surrounded by hordes of team mechanics, media pundits and fans, Hamilton wasn’t immediately jubilant at his feat over the course of the season: “It really doesn’t feel real at the moment… it feels like a normal day when you’ve had a bad race! I think it’s gonna take a while to sink in, but I honestly feel very humbled. I feel so conflicted, because in my heart I still want to win the race. It’s really weird, because I don’t really feel like celebrating. I’ve still got races I want to win and things I want to achieve this year.”

Coming second in Mexico and second in the Driver’s Standings, Hamilton’s rival Sebastian Vettel was gracious in defeat after his loss in the title race was confirmed.

“I congratulated him,” Vettel said after the race. “He drove superb all year and was the better one of us two, number five is something incredible. I congratulated him, asked him to keep pushing next year and we’ll fight him again.”

It was Verstappen and Hamilton who surged forward into first and second right from the first corner, leaving pole-sitter Daniel Ricciardo languishing in third. Ricciardo, after incredibly quick practice and qualifying sessions, found himself yet again plagued by the ongoing reliability issues that have led to his decision to leave Red Bull Racing at the end of this season. Sunday marked the Australian’s 8th DNF from just 19 races, compounding previous season’s reliability issues which led to six DNFs in 2017. Ricciardo is usually considered to be one of the more amiable and patient drivers on the grid, but was thunderous in the paddock post-race, saying:“You know, honestly, now where I am, I don’t see the point of coming on Sunday. I haven’t had a clean race or weekend in so long. I’m not superstitious or any of that … but the car’s cursed. I don’t have any more words.” Ricciardo will undoubtedly be hoping for better reliability from the team at Renault, where he will spend the 2019 season.

Misfortune also struck Force India’s hometown hero Sergio Pèrez, who until Sunday had never finished outside of the points in his native Mexico. To the dismay of the crowd, Pèrez was forced into retirement by a brake failure. A visibly dissapointed Pèrez reflected after the race: “We were doing a fantastic job. Seventh place was in my pocket, the team had a great strategy, but unfortunately it was not our afternoon,”

In the end, the expected coronation of Hamilton took place as scheduled, but this year’s Mexican Grand Prix was not without its flash-points and moments of drama. Attention now turns to Interlagos in two weeks’ time, with the Constructor’s Championship still very much hanging in the balance with Mercedes leading with 585 points and Ferrari on 530.

Top Girls Review – ‘uncomfortably straddles the experimental and the domestic’

-
1
Top Girls Review – ‘uncomfortably straddles the experimental and the domestic’

It’s exciting to see an all-female cast. Even though I should be expecting it, given the play’s name, I’m pleasantly surprised as six women fill the room, a dinner table awaiting them. The Pilch is a fun venue to be in: the audience are in on the action, an extension of the dinner party. And Churchill’s writing lends itself to intimacy: characters are constantly interrupting one another, and I feel slightly as though I’ve walked in on a cosy girls’ night. But Top Girls is ultimately a play about high-powered individualism and the cost of female success in a man’s world, telling the story of Marlene (Katie Cook), a Thatcher-loving managing director.

The silent waiters in the first act, Hannah Patient and Aisling Taylor, end up lighting up the show. Patient, as Angie, is impressive, handling the nuances of the character with skill and ability. Equally, Taylor provides a great bit of light relief as a posh, gum-chewing twenty-one year old, faking her way through a job interview. Patient and Taylor feel like grounding presences in a play that wanders strangely between monologues by a ninth century female pope (acted hilariously by Paula Kaanders), a thirteenth century Japanese concubine (Leanne Yau), and banal interactions in a sterile workplace.

The plot loosely revolves around a business that, when performed by Oxford students, almost feels like a deliberate parody of the OXWIB society, full of high-powered, manicured women. Intended to be punchy, the workplace scenes sometimes drag, something that is not helped by having two intervals. Whilst Cook and her cohort (Martha Berkmann, Camilla Dunhill) are compelling, I am sometimes left wondering what the point of it is. The problem is more that they are not likeable enough: I feel no sympathy for Cook’s character, and am unable to empathise with the sacrifices she has had to make for her success. It’s a brand of feminist individualism that does not have quite enough gusto, nor enough comic potential, to be convincing – though I am also left wondering if this is a problem with the writing.

The final act, set between Marlene and her sister Joyce (Eilidh Ross), is a difficult domestic drama, as the tensions between the sisters come out during a drunken night in Scarborough. Here credit must be given to the set designer, Ella Easton: Joyce’s home is impressively detailed, again giving the sense that you are sitting on a sofa opposite the two arguing sisters as they sip brandy. Whilst it is moving – I feel particularly warm towards Ross’s quiet performance – it feels like a whole play in itself, isolated from the rest of the action. I struggle to see the connection between the bizarre dinner party of Act 1, full of women from across history, and this moment of domesticity. Churchill’s play uncomfortably straddles the experimental and the domestic. Adam Radford-Diaper’s adaptation is slick and well-acted, often wonderfully absurd and funny, but ultimately leaves me feeling slightly cold.

A Guide to Black Tie (sort of)

Anonymous
-
0
A Guide to Black Tie (sort of)

Picture the scene. You’ve paid £100 for the privilege of going to a ball, and the night ahead lies at your mercy. Your trousers and shirt are on and the creases are so sharp that they could cut through the jargon of an English Lit finalist’s essay. Having surreptitiously googled ‘black suit belt thingy’ you have discovered the item before you is in fact a ‘cummerbund’, which you say aloud to yourself a few times whilst giggling, before tying it round your waist.

Now it’s time to separate the men from the boys. The bow tie. The piece-de-resistance. Thank god that, according to GQ, the “neckwear is supposed to look somewhat floppy or off-kilter and perfect alignment is not expected or preferred,” because you are utterly incapable of tying one. Never fear – the trusty clip-on tie rises from the second drawer down to greet you like an old friend, and in a matter of seconds is firmly affixed to your collar.

Shoes polished, socks on, and a check of the family tree confirms that Bob is indeed your Uncle. A quick glance into the mirror reveals that you now look like Daniel Craig, Sean Connery, and Roger Moore all rolled into one, and as you leave to join pres you are already smiling at the thought of Jonty and Bonty laughing when you sidle up to the bar to ask for a VK, shaken, not stirred.

But then disaster strikes. Because, as you hit pres, you realise every other bloke there is dressed like you. And suddenly you aren’t James Bond at all. You’re Ron Weasley. Wobbly lib, greasy-haired, Professor-McGonagall-teach-me-how-to-waltz Ron Weasley.

Loathe it or love it, the black tie is a necessary fixture of Oxford’s social scene. This is perhaps unsurprising – a dress code that has connotations of elitism being associated with a university that deals with similar accusations every day is hardly headline news. It can also be something of an inconvenience, what with the inevitable stains, the stiff collars, and the dry cleaning. What even is dry cleaning? What do they even do there?

But let’s hold on a second. Whilst they are over a century old and seemingly inaccessible, the reality of the modern-day tuxedo is that they are now available in the likes of Topman, H&M, ASOS, and many other staple high street shops – something of a far-cry from the Savile Row they might usually be more associated with. And they can perhaps be modernised and tweaked even further to address the establishment vibe the outfit gives off. when Charlie Chaplin wore it in his 1930s slapstick films, or when Ian Fleming decided which hue of velvet his protagonist was going to don in that chapter, did they really have in mind that somewhere, in 2018, Giles and Hubert would be pairing their outfits with denim jackets and air maxes like the hypebeasts they bloody well are?

Herein lies the crucial problem. How does one stand out in a suit being worn by all around you? There’s always the velvet smoking jacket, but that has certain risks attached to it. If a couple of your mates have them too, suddenly your intended chic of sophisticated armchair socialist has been replaced with barbershop quartet, on the cusp of a heartfelt rendition of ‘I Want It That Way’. Not ideal.

Then there’s the option of the dazzlingly white tux, an excellent choice for everyone who wants to look like a waiter from Fight Club. The first rule about white jackets is definitely, definitely, that no one should wear white jackets. So, a simple black number appears to be the top choice.

Of course, there’s always the option of not wearing a jacket at all. You’ve been working out at Pure Gym, you’re well known around college as the brand rep of Huel, why not show off those biceps as much as possible and remove the blazer altogether? Again, it’s a definite possibility, until the inevitable rip occurs, and then you’ll be wishing you had something to cover up the impracticalities of your XXXS shirt. And if the rip doesn’t get you, well my friend, the sweat will. Patches emerging out of nowhere, laughing to themselves as you have to spend the remainder of the DFO gig with your arms clamped by your side. I think not.

The trousers then, surely? Pin stripe is a possibility. Al Capone wore pin stripes. He was a cool guy, right? No. Incorrect. He was a convicted criminal who ended his days in Alcatraz having contracted dementia from undiagnosed syphilis. Pin stripes. Your call.

Your choice of footwear is an absolute deal breaker. Too casual and scruffy, and you look underdressed and out of sorts, too loud and it’ll be even worse. The number one worst thing you can do is wear slacks. Slacks. One of the premier reasons I am doubtful of the existence of a higher religious being is because I refuse to believe any omnipotent, benevolent presence would sanction the creation of slacks. If I wanted to look like an extra in a Year 8 production of Bugsy Malone, I would audition.

And don’t get me started on White Tie. The £200 for a Commemoration ball can just about be scraped together, but having to fork out to loan a full outfit on top of that? And can someone please explain the buttons to me? Why are there two sets of buttons? It’s not like the outfit itself is particularly becoming either. I didn’t want to look like a pregnant penguin. I just wanted to ride the dodgems.

In short, the solution – the only possible solution – is clear for all to see. We must simply all agree to look the same. So I call on you, tuxedo wearers of Oxford, let us unite behind a uniform outfit of tailored black jacket, white shirt and black trousers. I can’t stop you from jazzing up the tie, that’s your prerogative, and if you want to stand out then so be it. But I can at least illustrate the pitfalls of attempting to do so.

Next time you find yourself preing before a 21st or a ball in a room filled with individuals imitating your outfit, take a moment to smile, reflect, and consider what could have been.

Sure, you’re no different from the rest of these people. But at least you aren’t Gary in the corner, who looks like he’s about to go on stage with Suggs and the rest of Madness.

Drunk Enough to Say I Love You? Preview: ‘The political becomes personal’

Cesca Echlin
-
0
Drunk Enough to Say I Love You? Preview: ‘The political becomes personal’

Nearly every other minute, I am scrolling through various news and social media apps, bombarded with a cacophony of headlines, photographs, and videos. This is the way most of us bear witness to our ever-changing world. Yet these chains of daily interactions with the media can simply leave us feeling numb, or else pointing the finger at intangible concepts and buzzwords like ‘the corporations’ or ‘the elite.’

News stories prove most memorable and provocative when individual human experiences, relationships, and emotions are brought to the fore. This explains why, historically, photography has been so successful at causing widespread outrage for particular issues – consider, for example, its importance in the development of the Vietnam War, and more recently in the ongoing refugee crisis.

Similarly, in Caryl Churchill’s 2006 play, Drunk Enough to Say I Love You?, the political becomes personal. The plot intimately traces the developing romantic relationship between two characters, Guy and Sam. But their explicitly political dialogue reveals that the pair exist as a metaphor for the special, if at times deeply toxic, relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

Originally written as a two-hander for a pair of male actors, Klaxon Productions have brought gender-blind casting to their production of Churchill’s text – Pelin Morgan and Charithra Chandran play Guy (UK) and Sam (US) respectively. Director John Livesey tells me he felt no need to restrict the gender of the characters, but the fact that it is a queer relationship seems to be an important aspect of Churchill’s intentions with the script. Livesey points out that so many queer relationships “happen behind closed doors” and it is this sense of intimacy or even claustrophobia that makes the piece so intense.

I am told that the set will be minimal, with one mattress on the floor to illustrate that we are in a bedroom. The intimacy of the bedroom will be intensified by the presence of a cameraman onstage, who will, I understand, record throughout the piece, with this footage projected onto the stage’s back wall. Conversely, these projections will also work to counteract the intimacy of the relationship, bringing into play the dichotomy of intimacy and distance that characterizes the way we interact with both politics and the media.

Livesey is taking advantage of a variety of media with his production – light, video, music – and as such he is seeking to create, in his own words, a full “aesthetic experience.” Livesey goes on to insist that this play is simply a portrait of a devastatingly toxic relationship, or “a tragedy without catharsis.” Here, he continues, referring to Shakespeare’s King Lear, we see “Lear in the storm… he’s mad and we don’t know how to respond.” Like Lear in the storm, Livesey argues, Churchill’s text allows us to “see America with no clothes on”.

In this preview, I watch a good thirty-minute chunk of the whole fifty-minute piece. The structure of the dialogue makes it initially difficult to decipher, with the two characters cutting the each other off nearly every line. Chandran tells me beforehand that the text, being without punctuation or stage directions, leaves immense space for interpretation. The experimental nature of the dialogue is obvious immediately, but as an audience member I certainly became used to the style as the scenes went on. In fact, it ultimately worked to make the piece more memorable.

Chandran and Morgan’s chemistry onstage is electric. Their portrait of this intense romantic relationship ranges from endearing and sexy, to aggressive and devastating. Sam (Chandran) embodies the United States, introducing the more naïve, or perhaps moralising, Guy (Morgan) to his political agenda. Across the scenes, they discuss in explicit terms political issues like war, space, colonialism and even torture. Chandran brings a gravitas to Sam that does justice to the US’s status as the world superpower. Throughout, she demands to be listened to. Morgan’s characterisation of Guy works to compliment Chandran’s Sam, bringing to the fore a sensitivity and hesitation that complicates Sam’s relentlessness.

Livesey explains that Guy does not only stand for the UK in this scenario, but for “anyone who falls in love with America.” Originally, Churchill named Guy’s character “Jack”, but changed it to “Guy” to illustrate that, as Livesey says, “Guy is all of us… (This is) our relationship with America.”

As the scenes go on, Guy reacts to Sam’s political decisions in multiple ways. At times, Sam’s promise of power utterly seduces Guy, but at others Guy cannot help but squirm at her partner’s cruelty. The most effective scene I saw which illustrates this dynamic was one in which the two characters examine dozens of papers on stage, reading statistics off them which signify war casualties, arms supplies and bomb use amongst other things. As Guy reads, she becomes increasingly aware of the devastating effects of this toxic relationship, and Sam reacts without mercy. She picks up the stack of papers from the middle of the stage, and proceeds to walk around the borders of the stage with Guy remaining crouched at the centre, dropping pieces of paper as she goes. As such, Sam creates a physical trail of her own destruction.

Chandran and Morgan’s presence on stage is most compelling in that it serves to remind the audience of what exists behind ‘high-scale’ political moves: the decisions of individual human-beings. As such, Drunk Enough to Say I Love You? forces us to look at politics in a unique way – we are made not only to attach responsibility to the people around us, but, crucially, to ourselves.

Drunk Enough to Say I Love You? by Caryl Churchill, is running at the Michael Pilch Studio from 31st October to 3rd November.

Revealed: Oxford research associate’s far-right links

Ben van der Merwe
-
7
Revealed: Oxford research associate’s far-right links

CW: This article contains reference to anti-Semitic and Islamophobic content and language.

An Oxford research associate and former Exeter fellow – who was scheduled to speak at a far-right conference last week – wrote, ‘liked’, and retweeted anti-Semitic and Islamophobic content, Cherwell can reveal.

A University spokesperson stressed he was no longer part of University staff, leaving in 2017.

On Twitter, Leonard also argued that immigration “should be fought with every means possible,” writing that “tens of millions of Muslims support ISIS,” and claiming that immigrants are responsible for 82% of crime in Sweden.

Leonard also wrote: “With so few Jews, it is extraordinary that the [Swedish] print media is largely owned and edited by Jewish families.”

George Soros, who frequently features in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, was also targeted. According to Leonard, the “arch plutocrat” desires “the break-up of the national consciousness” via immigration.

After being contacted by Cherwell two days before the separate Traditional Britain Group (TBG) conference – which was held last Saturday week – Dr Stephen Pax Leonard distanced himself from the event, stating that he had cancelled his speech “some time ago” after realising that TBG was a far-right group.

TBG gained notoriety in 2013 when it called for those of “non-European stock” to be “requested to return to their natural homelands.”

When Cherwell contacted TBG founder Gregory Lauder-Frost, however, the far-right organiser said that Dr Leonard pulled out “precisely 48 hours beforehand.” On the TBG website, the group complained that the cancellation of his “long-standing” booking at such short notice had prevented them from finding an adequate replacement.

The ethnographer would have been speaking alongside representatives of the German AfD and Austrian FPÖ, who have been criticised in recent years for Islamophobia.

Two of Leonard’s books have been published by Arktos Publishing, which is led by UK CEO Gregory Lauder-Frost. According to its editor-in-chief Jason Jorjani, the publishing house is “the leading press of the alt right.” It is also linked to Identity Evropa, a group the Southern Poverty Law Center says “peddles the delusion of white genocide.”

In his most recent book, The Ideology of Failure – which was to be the topic of his talk – Leonard rails against Islam, ‘cultural Marxism,’ and migrants, who, he argues, “are committing rape and murder on a daily basis.”

His previous book, Travels in Cultural Nihilism, in which he argued that diversity was equivalent to “cultural abandonment and ethnic dilution,” was described as by white supremacists online as ‘eloquent’ and ‘impassioned’.

Leonard personally recommended the book via Twitter to Pamela Geller, the far-right anti-Islam campaigner and friend of Tommy Robinson.

A University spokesperson told Cherwell: “Dr Leonard was employed as a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow at the University of Oxford on a project in linguistic anthropology until 2017 when his fellowship ended.

“On leaving the University, he was accorded the title of Research Associate, which is often extended to external researchers collaborating with Oxford academics on specific projects. Dr Leonard has no current collaborations with Oxford and this unpaid title is due to expire in April 2019.

“Dr Leonard is not a member of Oxford University staff, no longer writes or comments as an Oxford academic, and the University therefore has no comment on his current activities and publications.”

Dr Leonard is currently a Senior Research Fellow at Durham University, who described his views as “wholly inconsistent” with their own.

Dr Leonard has been contacted for further comment on his online activity.

An earlier version of this article stated that Dr Leonard was employed by Durham University. We’d like to clarify that he is actually a Senior Research Fellow, and is not employed by St. Chad’s or by the University. The Senior Research Fellow position is an entirely honorary position and expires at the end of this academic year.

Oxford Diocese defends invitation of Islamic scholar to preach at University Church

Sophie Kilminster
-
0
Oxford Diocese defends invitation of Islamic scholar to preach at University Church

The decision to invite an esteemed Muslim scholar to preach at the University Church last Sunday has provoked criticism from conservative Anglicans.

MBE recipient and esteemed Islamic Scholar Monawar Hussain was invited to deliver a sermon at the University Church of St Mary the Virgin, located in Radcliffe Square by the university’s Vice Chancellor Louise Richardson.

This decision has caused uproar amongst a number of traditional Anglicans.

The conservative Anglican blog “Archbishop Cranmer”, run by Adrian Hilton, told The Guardian that he believed the Church of England would now be “open to people of all faiths and none, and that we can look forward to a series of heretics, blasphemers, idolaters and unbelievers [preaching in future].”

Since then the Diocese of Oxford has received twelve complaints about the sermon, although only three came from the local area.

In a statement endorsed by the University, the Diocese of Oxford said that Monawar Hussain was “most welcome” and that he would “speak in his own right” whilst being “mindful of the rules of Eucharistic hospitality”.

Hussain is the founder of the Oxford Foundation, a scheme that mentors young people using theology and the arts to contribute meaningfully to British society, and is a tutor at Eton College.

He said: “There are many different voices in all our traditions. Some Muslims might not be happy at my presence at the church.

“So I’m not surprised [at the objections], but there are so many more Christian friends who are pleased I’ll be there. We need to be building trust and working together.”

Hussain was awarded an MBE in the Queen’s Birthday Honours list in 2017 for his services to interfaith relations and the community.

‘The launch was a dream for us’: Onyx magazine releases its first issue

Fin Kavanagh
-
0
‘The launch was a dream for us’: Onyx magazine releases its first issue

The first edition of Onyx magazine launched last Thursday at the Oxford Foundry. The 88-page magazine, entitled ‘Dawn’, was written and produced by an all-BME editorial team.

The launch featured an excerpt from the production of Medea which gained critical and student acclaim in Oxford during Trinity last year, alongside musical and saxophone performances.

The Onyx editorial team told Cherwell: “We are so proud to have launched the first edition of Onyx Magazine, the event allowing us to finally share the incredible work that has gone into it with the world.

“The launch was such a dream for us, not only to see the magazine in print as the team that put it together, but to see the joy it brought to other people.

“We hope that the magazine can be a continuing celebration of African and Caribbean culture, and encourage black students to get involved in creative arts – an industry in which we are severely underrepresented.

“Once black students begin to see themselves and their art displayed and celebrated, they’ll be encouraged to develop their skills, hone their craft and raise their aspirations of what is possible for minorities within the arts.

“Onyx, especially in it’s first edition, ‘Dawn’, aims to unearth voices that are not often heard and platform both creativity and culture and we hope that if you manage to get a copy, you will treasure it for the gem that is it”

Onyx’s editor-in-chief and third-year student at Regent’s Park College, Theophina Gabriel, founded the magazine to amplify the creative work of African and Caribbean minorities within the University, and to attempt to improve diversity within the creative industry.

300 copies of Onyx will be distributed to universities across the UK, alongside 44 colleges across Oxford.

As of May, the magazine had secured £6,000 in funding from college JCRs and the University’s Access Department, which agreed to cover the printing costs of the first edition.

A post on Onyx’s Facebook page read: “The atmosphere, support and energy in the room was incredible… the way in which you helped us celebrate Onyx has left the team feeling speechless.”

Oxford UCU fails to reach turnout threshold to call for strike action

Angus Brown
-
0
Oxford UCU fails to reach turnout threshold to call for strike action

The Oxford University and College Union (UCU) has failed to meet the necessary turnout requirements to vote for strike action, despite over 70% of balloted members pledging their support for a move to action last Friday.

In a vote held on Friday 19th October, one motion calling for strike action and another calling for a marking and assessment boycott were voted for by 73.2% and 85.8% of UCU-affiliated Oxford staff members, respectively.

However, these motions did not pass because the Union failed to ballot over 50% of members as required by current UK trade union laws.

This means that no strike action will be able to take place, preventing a repeat of last year’s University-wide lecturer strike.

UCU Oxford told Cherwell: “The wishes of Oxford UCU’s members have been frustrated by restrictive trade union laws… which introduced the 50% turnout requirement for industrial action with the clear aim of hampering collective action by trade unionists.”

They added: “We are discussing as a branch whether we would like to re-ballot our members to try to reach the 50% threshold.

“This will be a branch decision taken in the context of an emerging national consensus among UCU branches of the best way forward.

“In the meantime we will continue to work with and for our members on the issues raised in this ballot: declining pay, the gender pay gap, precarious contracts and excessive workload.”

With 85% of members at FE Colleges and 69% at universities voting in favour of strike action, the national UCU has also voiced concerns that “restrictive trade union laws mean that, with the exception of Northern Ireland, only those institutions where a 50% turnout is reached can act on the result.”

Head of Policy and Campaigns for UCU Matt Waddup said: “These Oxford UCU fails to reach turnout threshold to call for strike action.

“However, pernicious restrictions on turnout which single out trade unions for special treatment mean this can only be taken forward in some institutions”.

UCU has said that it will be holding a meeting of its members in the next few days to decide whether or not to take further action.

A spokesperson for the University told Cherwell: “Higher education pay is negotiated at a national level between the Universities and Colleges Employers Association and the University and College Union.”

Balloting for a strike came after UCU rejected the Universities and College Employers Association’s final offer of a 2% pay rise for staff last May.

Disputes continue between UCU and UCEA over pay.

Oxford researchers expose ‘data thirst’ of big tech companies

Isabel Morris
-
0
Oxford researchers expose ‘data thirst’ of big tech companies

Companies such as Google and Facebook receive enormous amounts of data from third party smartphone apps, according to a recent study released by University of Oxford researchers.

The study, which analysed the code of 959,000 apps available on the US and UK Google Play stores, found that 88% of apps could ultimately transfer data to Alphabet, Google’s parent company.

The figures further reveal how vast numbers of apps are set up to convey data to big tech companies, with Google topping the list of potential recipients.

The researchers told Business Insider that this sort of data “enables construction of detailed profiles about individuals, which could include inferences about shopping habits, socio-economic class or likely political opinions.”

They added: “These profiles can then be used for a variety of purposes, from targeted advertising to credit scoring and targeted political campaign messages.”

The research was carried out as part of an EPSRC funded project, SOCIAM, led by Professor Sir Nigel Shadbolt.

SOCIAM is looking at how humans, computers, algorithms and data interact at Web scale.

Professor Max Van Kleek led the research project and Dr Reuben Binns was the
lead author of the research paper.

Binns told Cherwell: “Users should be concerned about the amount of data they are giving away – even data which does not appear to be sensitive– such as a set of GPS co-ordinates can easily be uniquely identifying and reveal where you live, work, socialise, or pray.

“But individuals shouldn’t be expected to take on all the responsibility and make great sacrifices to maintain their privacy; we need governance and business models that protect people’s data in line with fundamental rights.”

Google has disputed the methodology used by the Oxford researchers.

A Google spokesperson told Business Insider: “We disagree with the methodology and the findings of this study.

“It mischaracterises ordinary functional services like crash report-
ing and analytics, and how apps share data to deliver those services.”

“Across Google, and in Google Play, we have clear policies and guidelines for how developers and third-party apps can handle data and we require developers to be transparent and ask for user permission.

“If an app violates our policies, we take action.”

Binns responded: “We are not claiming that all instances of third-party tracking are unjustified, as crash reporting and analytics are useful tools for developers. Google offer third-party tracking capabilities for both purposes.”

He told Cherwell: “Our research aims to identify any third parties that could be sent personal data from an app – whether such data are used for analytics or targeted advertising.

“As outlined in our paper, 87% of the apps we studied shared data with at least one of the subsidiaries of Alphabet, Google’s parent company, and over 60% of them shared data with DoubleClick, a Google-owned advertising network.

“Google’s statement does not appear to dispute these findings.”

Oxford has become an exam factory

-
1
Oxford has become an exam factory

Oxford University was ranked first in the world yet again by Times Higher Education. Yet this rosy picture disguises major academic problems long present in this institution, notably its inflexible course structure and lack of interdisciplinary interaction.

Under the current system at Oxford, we choose a course and only study topics relevant to that subject. Taking classes from another department is sometimes possible, but such options are few and topics limited. Simply put, the education system at Oxford is not designed for the free pursuit of knowledge. In fact, this idea of intellectual exploration is nowhere to be seen in the university’s vision; only under the finer points of the strategic plan was “[ensuring] students achieve their full academic potential” mentioned. Then can one’s potential ever be realised if students are never given the opportunity to explore their interests and discover where their potential lies?

This question is especially pertinent to those coming from the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder, who have had few opportunities to study beyond the standard curriculum. In most cases, they stuck to subjects which they excelled in at A-level – and those subjects tend to be in the sciences. As a result, we see an alarming chasm between the percentage of state school graduates pursuing sciences and arts.

To truly increase access, it’s not enough to have open days and encourage six-formers to apply to Oxford. Instead, the university must strive to provide an equal playing ground for students from different backgrounds – not by restricting the freedom of intellectual pursuits but by actively encouraging them through allowing every student to explore any field of interest. Such a measure inevitably calls for a revolution not only in this institution’s course structure but also in its admissions policy.

However, merely reforming the above can only be a superficial remedy. Oxford must make the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake top of its vision. A cursory skim of its current vision suggests a huge commitment to “generating” knowledge for “economic growth.” Woe to Oxford, an institution where knowledge is constantly being generated. Perhaps Oxford should to change its name to “Factory of Oxford” to better reflect its vision.

Nevertheless, it’s deeply disturbing that an elite institution as Oxford takes such a naive and utilitarian view on the pursuit of knowledge. Ever since the first scientific discovery, most discoveries were not driven by money but sparked by curiosity. Only in modern times do we see increasingly profit-driven research, which rarely has a wider impact on other fields. After all, why would any modern corporates fund research in some esoteric branch of mathematics with no applicable value? If Oxford truly intends to “lead the world in research and education,” it must abandon its childish attitude toward knowledge and encourage the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, which requires a more flexible curriculum.

Oxford must open department doors (quite literally – what can be more discouraging for someone interested in a certain subject than being denied access to the faculty building?). It should cultivate an interdisciplinary vision and encourage interdisciplinary discussions. We live in an age in which the borders between academic disciplines continue to blur and academic success is increasingly achieved by connecting the dots between seemingly unrelated subjects. Gaining a deep understanding of one subject without much knowledge of others is becoming ever more difficult. The very act of drawing out a list of courses means many combinations of subjects are excluded: what if, for instance, one wants to pursue natural sciences, or gender studies?

One inherent drawback of the Oxford system is a dichotomy of core subject knowledge and supporting knowledge more thoroughly studied in other departments. As a result, such peripheral knowledge is often taught by non-specialists in a way that only includes the bare minimum necessary for us to better understand our core subject. For example, take the mathematics classes for physicists; the name “mathematical methods” says it all – the course is not intended to be systematic or rigorous, rather it merely aims to teach the mathematical tools applicable to physics. Granted, this is exactly what prospective bankers hope for, but others lose a precious opportunity to develop mathematical acumen and an alternative perspective to physical problems.

Such prevalence of the utilitarian approach to knowledge is deeply worrying and perhaps a by-product of the specialised curriculum. Cultivating an interdisciplinary perspective involves a broad and formal study of subjects, including areas with no apparent connection or application to another field. The Oxford system limits such possibilities and is therefore unlikely to produce interdisciplinary visionaries.

Tackling those issues requires not just a change of policy, but also a re-evaluation of this institution’s mission and vision. Oxford cannot rest on its laurels in the name of tradition anymore – we must reform.

1...698699700...2,527Page 699 of 2,527

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