Saturday 23rd May 2026
Blog Page 7

Something wicked this way comes: ‘Macbeth’ previewed

0

Arriving at Somerville College in its full summer pomp, Stanley Toyne and Cameron Spruce, the codirectors of Cross Keys Productions’ Macbeth, walked over with me to the college chapel as we discussed the ephemeral bother of collections and the issues of trying to work amidst glorious sunshine.

Once sat in the space, with the fitting set-up of three grand thrones in the middle of the chapel’s walkway, it was easy to understand why the two have decided to stage their modern, mafia-set take on Macbeth here. There is an otherworldly feel to the chapel, a non-denominational space, shorn of ornate religious trappings yet clearly somewhere to be treated with reverence. Everyone knows the basic story beats of Macbeth – duty, pride, betrayal, downfall – but the use of a chapel was key in protecting the core of the story in a new modern setting.

Discussing the setting, Stan highlighted that, as with the mafia context, the use of the chapel was a deliberate choice, and had in fact been the cause of some difficulties in securing a location for the production, with several chapels either being too expensive or unwilling to host a mafia-themed production. He highlighted the similarities in power relations between the feudal system of medieval Scotland, where the original play occurred, and the mafia – a veneration of violence, an emphasis on family and religiosity – that allowed the play to transpose well. Chiming in, Cameron highlighted that the transverse staging of the chapel with nave, transepts, and chancel offered not just a fluid feel to the play, but an interactive feeling, placing the audience in and among the drama.

The mafioso setting of the play raised questions – how would some of the main characters, particularly Lady Macbeth and her husband, Malcolm, Duncan, and the witches, translate into this  20th-century setting? They both talked at length about how Malcolm, rather than merely being the hapless heir to the amiable Duncan, was to be portrayed as an actor in his own right, capable and willing to manipulate those around him in advancement of his own goals, particularly the vulnerable MacDuff, when news of his family’s murder reaches him. The three witches each aspire to capture an element of mob life and also allude to the Greek mythology of the Fates. Each represents something Macbeth lacks and wants at certain points in the play: authority, love, and excess, capturing the cycle of Macbeth’s character without denying him the agency of his choices. In this production, Macbeth is not solely the unwilling tool of fate – though elements of the fantastical do endure in this plot – but rather an independent agent, influenced not just by his surroundings but also by himself, and so too is Lady Macbeth.

Of note should be the ease with which the two directors bounced off each other, and how the arrival of two cast members, playing Lady Macbeth and Macbeth, did not prompt any great change of character or slip into a new persona. Instead, they genially integrated their cast into the interview, allowing me to enquire about how they found the role, the directorial approach, and their approach to the characters. Working within the setting dictated by the directors, both felt a range to explore the emotional depth of the characters, particularly with Macbeth stylised as more of a bruiser in this play, substituting swords and rapiers for pistols and knives, and Lady Macbeth made to be more than the particularly reductive versions produced in certain modern adaptations, like the Patrick Stewart-led modern take on Macbeth. They both lean into the stereotypical mob depictions of their roles, but Lady Macbeth uses it far more knowingly as a public facade, with her ability to occupy a sweeping veranda of opinion towards her emotionally complex, yet explosive, husband a core part of this rendition’s characterisation.

Both Cameron and Stanley have acted in OUDS productions before, with Cameron giving an excellent turn as Wriothesley in last year’s production of Wolf Hall at Christchurch. They spoke candidly of how their experience on the other side of the dynamic influenced their open, approachable attitude towards the actors, and how an unexpected delay over the spring vac allowed the actors to further develop their characterisations. The play’s newly composed organ score, courtesy of Peter Hardistry, functions as what Cameron described as “motivic glue”, highlighting the changing power relations and positions of the character as the play moves towards its ultimate conclusion. The production effortlessly combines the old with the new to produce what promises to be a thrilling rendition of the Scottish Play.

Oxford Labour defies national trends at city council elections

The Labour Party defied national trends in the Oxford local elections yesterday, with their seat count in the City Council dropping slightly from 21 to 20, against a national backdrop of major losses for the party. Multiple students at Oxford University stood unsuccessfully as candidates in wards across the city.

The Labour Party remains the largest party on the council. The Green Party gained four councillors, raising their total count to 13. The Liberal Democrats remained steady on a total of nine seats. The number of Independent councillors dropped from nine to six, with four now representing the Independent Oxford Alliance and two representing the Real Independents Group. The Conservatives and Reform UK still have no representation on the City Council.

A total of 24 councillors were up for election this year, with one councillor elected in each of the city’s 24 wards. Oxford City Council elects half of its councillors every two years, with each ward represented by two councillors overall. The Council remains under no overall control, meaning no party holds a majority. Labour previously held a majority on the Council for 13 years until the 2023 resignation of ten councillors in protest of Labour’s policy on the war in Gaza.

Holywell ward, the City Council ward with a majority student population, was held by the Green Party, with recent Oxford graduate Alfie Davis elected with an overwhelming majority of 622 votes over the Labour student candidate, Awab Kazuz.

Davis told Cherwell that the result in Holywell represents “a profound rejection of Labour” by students and a new form of “politics for the people”. Reflecting on the significance of the result for young people, Davis added that students represent a “unique social community… that is recognised very little”. However, they highlighted that their key takeaway from the Oxford results was the “ridiculously high” turnout, over 40% in most wards, describing this as a “real sign of young people showing interest in local elections”.

The results come amid major losses for the Labour Party in local councils across England, as well as projected losses in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd. Speaking to Cherwell after his loss, Labour candidate Kazuz, a first-year student at St Edmund’s Hall and a member of the Oxford Labour Club Executive Committee, said he was “really proud of the campaign that we ran” and noted that the party was holding “marginal seats”. Kazuz rejected any suggestion that the night had been a “drumming” for Labour in Oxford, telling Cherwell: “We’re doing better than a lot of people expected us to do.” He also said he was “rooting for Alfie so that they can do the best that they can for the people of Holywell”.

Student candidates also stood in the Carfax and Jericho ward – Harriet Dolby for the Conservatives, and Vittorio Cuneo-Flood for Reform UK – with a candidate ultimately elected from the Green Party, replacing the incumbent Labour candidate. Student Harry Morgan stood unsuccessfully for the Liberal Democrats in Osney & St Thomas, Zelalemawee Asheber stood unsuccessfully for the Green Party in Walton Manor, and Indigo Haynes stood unsuccessfully for the Green Party in Blackbird Leys.

Speaking to Cherwell, Morgan, former President of the Oxford Student Liberals Organisation, highlighted the “disconnect between the University and local elections generally”, adding that students have seemingly been more engaged this year. Addressing the wider national result, however, Morgan warned of the rise of Reform UK for students, saying: “They don’t really believe in the climate crisis. I don’t think they have housing solutions. I don’t think they have the deep thinking to deal with any of the problems that are going to affect us.”

Reform UK has made gains in councils across England. Whilst no seats were won by Reform in Oxford, they increased their vote share across the city, and came second in three wards, all of which were won by the Labour Party.

Reflecting on the results of the night, Councillor Susan Brown, Labour Leader of the Council prior to the election, told Cherwell: “I feel we have listened to local residents. We have given a very positive program to the people of Oxford. And so I’m pleased and proud that at the end of tonight, we ended up as still very much the largest party…It seems to me that people are relatively happy with what we are putting forward.” 

Brown acknowledged that it had proved “very difficult…to communicate directly with students”, particularly in the Holywell ward, and recognised that Labour continued to lack a majority (25 seats) in the Council, telling Cherwell she was “always happy to work in partnership and collegiately” with other parties.

The outcomes in each ward were as follows:

Barton and Sandhills – Labour hold

Blackbird Leys – Labour hold

Carfax and Jericho – Green gain from Labour

Churchill – Labour hold

Cowley – Green gain from Independent

Cutteslowe and Sunnymead – Lib Dem hold

Donnington – Green hold

Headington – Lib Dem hold

Headington Hill and Northway – Labour Hold

Hinksey Park – Labour hold

Holywell – Green hold

Littlemore – Labour hold

Lye Valley – Green gain from Independent

Marston – Green hold

Northfield Brook – Labour Gain from Independent

Osney and St Thomas – Green hold

Quarry and Risinghurst – Labour hold

Rose Hill and Iffley – Labour hold

St Clement’s – Green gain from Labour

St Mary’s – Green hold 

Summertown – Lib Dem hold

Temple Cowley- Independent hold

Walton Manor – Labour hold

Wolvercote – Lib Dem hold

G for Georgian? LGBTQ+ representation in historical fiction

It is undeniable that LGBTQ+ representation in the media has become more positive in recent years. One may assume this trend extends across genres, forms, and time, allowing previously unacknowledged LGBTQ+ historical figures to receive recognition. The popular series Bridgerton, for example, deviates from the books to feature two LGBTQ+ main characters. However, the majority of media with LGBTQ+ main characters is contemporary and does not explore the existence of LGBTQ+ identities in previous centuries. It seems historical literature has indeed fallen behind in LGBTQ+ representation. If this is true, then why, and how can this issue be solved?

There are a few reasons to think that this could be the case. For instance, a recent talk at the Oxford Literary Festival, entitled ‘Gender-Fluid Georgians’, saw Carolyn Kirby and Anthony Delaney in discussion on their work about LGBTQ+ Georgians. They discussed the many issues surrounding the writing of texts, both fiction and non-fiction, about historical LGBTQ+ figures. There remains a legacy of concealment that many appear hesitant to deviate from, noticeable archival scarcity (meaning criminal records are the widest body of evidence remaining), and moral discomfort surrounding revealing identities that were so carefully kept hidden. 

Even if there are limitations and worries surrounding the representation of historical LGBTQ+ figures, it is possible to make up for these oversights. If they have been long under-represented, Kirby and Delaney try to undo this in their work. Kirby discussed this in her novel, Ravenglass, which centres on the life of the protagonist, Kit, whose disruption of gender norms forces him to live a life of concealment. Kit must suppress an interest in feminine fashion, and later hides in a more literal sense by living as Stella, in a fascinating exploration of gender identity. 

Delaney’s non-fiction book, Queer Georgians, explores silenced LGBTQ+ voices in the Georgian period. He details the lives of a variety of Georgian people, discussing figures mostly unknown, as well as revealing information from the archives about the undiscovered LGBTQ+ lives of better-known figures. He especially discussed archival gaps and how deep one must look to discover historical figures’ true lives, which is one possible explanation for the scarcity of LGBTQ+ historical texts. However, the existence of Kirby and Delaney’s books is evidence of the increasing recognition being given to LGBTQ+ figures of the past.

One admirable figure that Delaney discusses is Margaret Clap. Nicknamed Mother Clap, she provided a place of refuge for LGBTQ+ people. She ran a Molly House in Holborn, a “pub for homosexual men” and gender-nonconforming people, where they could socialise safely away from the rest of society without fearing the consequences of expressing themselves. Elsewhere, this fear was strong given that sexual activity between men was outlawed by the Buggery Act of 1533, which said that the “detestable and abominable Vice of Buggery committed with mankind or beast” was punishable by death. 

Margaret Clap is a fascinating part of the history of Molly Houses due to her rebellion against law enforcement and being “actively involved in legal battles relating to sodomy charges”. Her aid was selfless; she put herself in danger to protect others and was eventually prosecuted. She was fined, made to stand in the pillory, and given two years’ imprisonment; it is unknown whether she survived her prison sentence. The records of Clap’s actions emblematise the issue of having criminal records as the main source for LGBTQ+ history. Not only does it limit understanding, but it is also reductive of the humanity of these people whose lives now must go unacknowledged outside of the record of their then-criminal activity.

Clap’s form of allyship to the LGBTQ+ community is one that clearly had a great positive effect. However, it is somewhat foreign to forms of allyship today in that it required her to hide those she aligned herself with, rather than championing them openly. In modern society, the latter form of activism is often more prominent because of the increasingly accepting attitudes towards LGBTQ+ people, at least in certain parts of the world. Perhaps it is this tradition, and the lack of source material that comes from this need to hide, which leads to fewer stories being told about LGBTQ+ people of the past, even whilst they are gradually gaining greater acknowledgement in contemporary pieces. We have inherited a legacy of both internal and external suppression, which has such power that it feels more natural to continue this than to break bounds.

Despite the excellent work of these authors, as well as others, there remain difficulties in countering the issue of LGBTQ+ under-representation. Perhaps it does not feel truly possible to celebrate these people, given the need for any author to place themselves in the same position as the law enforcement who cruelly exposed their identities. 

Even with the best intentions and in a much more accepting climate, it may feel uncomfortable to profit off of revelations about identities that were kept so carefully hidden, and for such good reason. It is difficult to celebrate their humanity when LGBTQ+ figures of the past were not perceived (and therefore not documented in the archives) as such, and their stories rarely end happily. However, whilst this may be the case, the books written by Kirby and Delaney, as well as their invitations to speak at the Oxford Literary Festival, are proof of at least some forward movement. 

Therefore, it is possible to overcome the struggles of writing about historical LGBTQ+ figures and responsibly represent them. It may be necessary to spend extra time searching the archives, but this is not an impossible activity. Delaney discussed the limitations of writing a non-fiction text about figures who are often seen solely through the lens of a criminal in the archives. If a piece of information has not been reported, if no humanity has been given to these figures in the records, then no humanity can be recorded in a history book about them. Such limitations do not, however, apply to a novel. A careful amalgamation of historical accuracy with the gift of humanity in a work of fiction could be the answer to this issue of responsible representation of lives once gone despised, who now have the retrospective opportunity to be celebrated.

‘Technologies of capture’: Ben Lerner’s ‘Transcription’ Reviewed

0

CW: Disordered eating.

As an Oxford student, I often think it would be nice to have fewer screens in my life. No more phone, no more tablet – I’d rid myself of these pointless objects and live life to the fullest, rapturously taking in every note of birdsong, every tree, every tiny vein on every leaf of every tree. I’d be fully engaged with the world instead of aimlessly googling whatever happens to come to my mind at any moment of the day. Most importantly, I might even finish my degree. I’d become a productivity machine.

On the other hand, maybe it would be a kind of living hell. This is a possibility that Ben Lerner’s short new book, Transcription (2026), raises. The book opens with the unnamed narrator travelling to interview his academic mentor and 90-year-old intellectual superstar, Thomas, for a magazine. In the hotel he’s staying in, just before he’s due to meet Thomas, he knocks his phone into the sink. Cue lots of panicking about how he’s not going to be able to record the interview – FOMO of the very worst kind. And yet he’s too embarrassed to simply say, “I knocked my phone into the sink and so I can’t record you”, and instead thinks up a semi-elaborate lie as to why their first meeting should merely be a preparation for the real interview. Not only that, though, the narrator’s lack of a phone makes him less attentive, not more. “Shamefully unresponsive to the old media that surrounded me”, as he puts it. “Paintings, analogue photographs, a vinyl record spinning somewhere in my mentor’s house.” He has the opportunity to engage with all these things, but all he wants to do is check his emails. A bit like me when I’m ‘working’.

Lerner, who is somewhat of a literary superstar, at least in the US, is not afraid to take on the big themes. In Transcription, we find not only the question of “technologies of capture”, in the narrator’s words, but also, in no necessary order of importance: paternal abandonment, dementia, anorexia, suicide, Covid, the generation gap and euthanasia, often all mixed into the same page. It’s a lot to take on, and it’s not always entirely clear what each of these elements is doing, other than to add a certain seriousness to proceedings. And yet there’s something hypnotic about Lerner’s trim and often surprisingly hilarious prose, which keeps you reading on.

And the question the book raises is an interesting one, even if everybody has been asking it for a long time now. Are our screens good for us – an infinite source of knowledge which I’d once have had to traipse to the Radcam and read actual books to get – or are they gradually destroying our souls and our ability to connect with the world and even with each other? One of the strengths of Transcription is that it doesn’t give a definitive answer to this. It’s not a coincidence that Thomas’s anorexic granddaughter only finally starts to eat food once she has the distracting, soothing effect of as much screen time as she could possibly want. “Dad, I want you to cut me an apple”, she says one day as she is watching endless ASMR unboxing videos on YouTube. For her and also for her highly privileged parents, screen time is the greatest of blessings, far more so than books, a university education, and all the organic berries and grassfed beef their money brings them. 

In complicating rather than answering the question, the book is very much a work of fiction, and indeed, fiction is another of Lerner’s themes. People experience different technologies in different ways, some good, some bad, some in between, but one idea the book raises is that there’s a parallel between our screen-dominated lives and fiction. When the narrator is accused of falsifying what becomes his famous interview with Thomas, the charge against him is that of turning the interview into fiction, as a “defence against the reality of losing” his mentor. Fiction as escape, fiction as a kind of reconstructed, mediated reality. Thought of in this way, it’s not clear how much difference there is between fiction and our permanently online world – or whether the one can really be that much worse than the other.

Not unrelatedly, the book also suggests that maybe there isn’t that much difference between a life which is mediated by screens and one which isn’t. Screens have constructed an alternate reality, one in which we quite literally live online, in the same digital house as millions of others, relating to each other in seemingly peculiar ways, hating them, loving them, completely misunderstanding them. But even when the people in Lerner’s book aren’t connected to one another via their phones or tablets, their world is a messy, incomprehensible place. People talk past each other, people forget who it is they’re talking to, people constantly worry about how others are perceiving them. In other words, the ‘real’ world isn’t any more appealing than the online world, precisely because it isn’t all that different. Where exactly this leaves us on the screen question is difficult to know. And what it means for my degree, I’ve got no idea. But I think that I’ll stick to my devices for now.

Oxford, and the ongoing appeal of the literary canon

0

I remember my tutor asking us if we thought our literature options were broad enough at the end of an Italian tutorial last term. This question really stuck with me: not because I have a clear answer (I still don’t – could a reading list ever actually be broad enough?), but because, surely, whether I thought so or not, Oxford would continue to teach the same novels that it has been teaching for hundreds of years

As a Modern Languages student at Oxford – a primarily literature-focused course – I am no stranger to reading lists built around canonical authors. In theory, we are given freedom within a reading list; we choose, to some extent, the works that we want to study (though of course these include Dante and Petrarch). It would be, as I answered my tutor’s question, easy to describe our literature options as broad. After all, I have managed to study female authors without having to choose a specific ‘women writers’ topic. And yet these choices are already framed by the same set of already-established works. The range of choices may appear to be wide, but its boundaries are clear. 

In reality, while they seem to be fairly inclusive, our reading lists are composed entirely of works that form part of the literary canon – works deemed ‘essential’ and of the highest quality, historically chosen by a narrow and influential elite. These are the books that our tutors studied, as did the scholars teaching them, with their authority only accumulating over time. This status seems to justify their quality: they are good because they are famous, and famous because they are good. With this assumption, though, comes the question of whether we have inherited the habit of valuing these canonical works, rather than that of analysing and questioning them ourselves. 

There is a certain pressure to enjoy the classics at Oxford, especially given our university’s emphasis on tradition, and yet I have found myself writing essays on novels that I didn’t actually like. Enjoying the texts feels like a marker of intellect, seriousness, and taste, while failure to do so is accompanied by a sense of guilt and a suspicion that I’m just not clever enough to “get it”. 

I wonder whether our admiration of these books and the appeal of the canon itself is genuine or just learned. Appreciation of the canon can become performative, something that is expressed rather than felt. I myself have avoided expressing opinions on novels I’ve studied here (in all honesty, I am not a fan of Sand’s Indiana, nor of Ginzburg’s Lessico famigliare): there is a certain awkwardness that arises in a tutorial when someone says that they didn’t like a set text, one which I would much rather avoid. 

Oxford’s relationship with tradition only exacerbates the idea that the canon has endured because of its status: studying here comes with a continual awareness that we are not only reading a selection of texts, but the same novels that have been studied here for decades. There’s a sense of continuity, a link to the past – we are partaking in an intellectual conversation that began years ago. The canon, through our reading lists, is continually pushed onto us, and it can be difficult to form our own opinions on these novels away from the appreciation that is expected from us. When we read a classic, we are aware of its status even before we begin to develop our own opinions; they come with an implicit weight and an expectation of depth, of importance. Our response is shaped before we start to read, which we then do according to this expectation.

So does the canon only endure because we’ve learned not to question it, or is it actually because of the merit of the texts themselves? The canon isn’t simply imposed and followed – its works are (or at least most of the time) there for a reason, and I won’t pretend that I don’t love studying the majority of the works that comprise my degree. The same novels have often remained so influential and so widely read not only because of tradition, but because they continue to offer something to their readers. As a Languages student, reading texts in the original and finally understanding one of Petrarch’s sonnets or a canto of the Divina Commedia provides an intellectual satisfaction that is hard to replicate elsewhere. Though it can sometimes be difficult to separate authority from quality, in most cases, canonical and classic works are genuinely well-written. We have standards for everything else, so why wouldn’t we for books? And I think that’s why the canon is so hard to reject: it’s not just elitism and snobbiness, but its works have genuine appeal. 

It’s easy to think that the canon endures only because of tradition, and because we are taught that it should, but perhaps it continues to hold so much weight because it continues to persuade us. Even as we are encouraged to question it – as I myself was in my recent tutorial – we find ourselves not only guided to but drawn to it. Maybe it has continued for so long just on status alone, but to say this takes away from the genuine appeal that a lot of its works have.

Since I have been considering this tension, I’ve become less interested in whether the canon deserves its status and more in how I respond to its texts. We can approach the canon with both scepticism and appreciation, and doubt about the canon’s prestige can coexist with a genuine enjoyment of its books.

Why Niche Dating Apps Are Becoming Popular Among Young LGBTQ+ Adults

Dating apps are no longer just tools for finding a partner. For many young people, they are spaces to test identity and see how others respond. This shift is clear among Gen Z, who often treat dating as part of self-discovery. 

Data from Tinder reports that 54% of users first came out on a dating app. These patterns suggest a deeper change. Niche platforms now meet needs linked to safety, identity, and belonging, not just romance.

Micro-Communities Over Mass Matching

Large dating apps often group many identities into broad labels. This can lead to identity dilution. Users may feel reduced to a few tags. As a result, their full identity is not seen or understood. Many start to look for smaller spaces where nuance matters more. This shift is clear as interest grows, with many users searching for bisexual dating sites to find more accurate matches. People using these platforms often want more than access to profiles. 

They look for spaces where bisexual identity is not questioned or treated as a phase. On many large apps, bisexual users report being filtered out or misunderstood by both straight and gay users. Niche platforms respond by setting clearer identity categories and allowing users to state preferences without pressure. This reduces misinterpretation and repeated explanations.

Niche apps also build matching systems that reflect these needs. They sort users based on layered identity traits, not just gender. This helps people feel seen in a more accurate way.

Identity Exploration Happens Faster in Controlled Spaces

Recent data from online dating news points to rapid change. There has been a 30% increase in listed gender identities. Non-binary users have risen by 104%. These figures suggest that more people are testing and naming their identity through apps.

Niche platforms support this process in a more controlled setting. Social pressure is lower, as users expect openness from others. There are fewer heteronormative assumptions built into profiles and matching systems. This reduces friction during early stages of self-definition.

Many users treat these apps as identity rehearsal spaces. They test labels, pronouns, and boundaries before sharing them offline. This allows for quicker self-understanding, with less risk of negative response.

Reframing the Problems with Online Dating

Many discussions about the problems focus on ghosting or shallow chats. Yet a deeper issue is identity compression. Users are reduced to short bios and a few images. This creates a form of market-style comparison, where people are judged quickly and often unfairly. Critics link this to swipe culture and the wider commodification of dating.

Niche apps respond by limiting scale and slowing interaction. They use more detailed profiles and specific matching rules. This shifts focus from quick choice to clearer identity signals. As a result, users face less pressure to fit into narrow categories.

Platform Specialisation vs. Generalisation

Specialisation improves relevance. Users receive matches that reflect more precise identity markers. This reduces noise and unwanted interactions. It also supports clearer communication from the start.

FeatureMainstream AppsNiche LGBTQ+ Apps
Matching logicBroad filtersIdentity-specific filters
User intentMixedMore defined
Safety toolsStandard moderationCommunity-driven safety
Identity expressionLimited depthExpanded options

As a result, connections are based on shared context, not just general attraction.

Why Women-Focused Queer Apps Are Growing

Interest in lesbian dating apps and gay dating apps for women is rising for clear reasons. One key factor is the reduced presence of male gaze dynamics. Users report fewer unsolicited messages and less pressure to present themselves in a certain way. This changes how profiles are written and read.

Communication styles also differ. Messages tend to be more intentional, with clearer context and tone. Many platforms set norms that favour consent and mutual interest before contact. Community moderation plays a strong role here. Users often report issues and shape acceptable behaviour together. These patterns create more predictable interactions and stronger trust between users.

Conclusion

The focus is no longer on scale, but on accuracy and trust. Smaller platforms offer clearer signals and more control over interaction. This supports both self-definition and safer communication. As expectations change, users are likely to keep moving towards spaces that reflect their identity with greater precision.

Plans for new Oxford graduate college approved

0

Oxford City Council has approved plans for a new postgraduate medical college in Headington. The plans also include a mental health hospital and a modern facility for brain sciences research, forming a new Warneford Park development centred on mental health and brain research.  

The proposal, led by the Oxford University Hospitals Trust in collaboration with the University of Oxford, was approved on 21st April. Permission, however, is not officially issued until details of the conditions are agreed with the council. Once official, phased delivery of the new campus will take place over the next ten years, with healthcare, research, and teaching provision to continue throughout construction. 

The new college will be known as Radcliffe College, the first University of Oxford college to be located in Headington, and will admit postgraduate medical students. Plans for the development of the college include restoring the Grade II-listed Warneford Hospital building, which will form the centre of the college. 

Radcliffe College will be the first new University of Oxford college founded since Reuben College was established, marking a relatively rare expansion in the University’s collegiate system. 

The site is expected to provide newly-built accommodation for around 250 students, including graduates, DPhil, and postdoctoral researchers in medicine, life sciences, medical engineering, and other related subjects. Researchers and clinicians who currently have no college affiliation are also expected to find teaching roles and membership at the new college. 

The plans have drawn criticism from local residents and councillors, particularly over proposals to increase parking provision on the site by more than 50%. Some have described the changes as “egregious” and “catastrophic”, raising concerns about traffic, environmental damage to Warneford Meadow, and the impact on children travelling to nearby schools.

The new mental health hospital would replace the current 200-year-old Warneford Hospital, which has been deemed no longer fit to provide modern clinical facilities. 

The 200th anniversary of mental health care at the Warnerford Hospital will be commemorated with an exhibition scheduled to take place at the Museum of Oxford, over the summer, on the Hospital’s history. As part of the program of events for the anniversary, there will also be a new play performed at the Old Fire Station theatre which will focus on those who lived at the institution.

The centre is set to cost £750 million and will focus on mental health and brain sciences, forming a major medical research and innovation facility. Combining Oxford’s two Biomedical Research Centres, the research on brain sciences is projected to create an annual growth opportunity for the UK of over £1 billion.

Oxford University has been approached for a comment.

Union President-Elect found guilty of electoral fraud by Tribunal

0

Catherine Xu, the Oxford Union’s President-Elect for Michaelmas 2026, has been permanently barred from holding office at the Society after an Election Tribunal found that she orchestrated a scheme to impersonate legitimate voters at the Hilary Term 2026 election.

The Tribunal, which sat on 25th and 26th April, found that Xu retrieved a stack of Oxford Union membership cards from her locker at Exeter College on polling day and distributed them to individuals not entitled to vote, instructing them to cast ballots in other members’ names. Yolanda Liu, a successful candidate for the Secretary’s Committee, was also found to have participated in the scheme, receiving approximately six cards from Xu and distributing at least one on polling day. The Tribunal noted that Liu’s witness statement contributed to Xu being added as a defendant in its proceedings,

According to a report seen by Cherwell, the Tribunal’s findings relied on a combination of witness evidence and communications between Xu and Liu. WeChat messages sent by Xu on polling day, in which she asked how the process of “finding people” was going and instructed Liu to be “especially careful”, were found to have “no plausible innocent explanation”. Additionally, a voice note sent by Xu four days after the election, asking Liu if she still had “the cards”, was described as “particularly damning”. Xu’s own witnesses gave contradictory accounts of her movements on polling day.

Xu was found guilty on six of seven charges, including using the Society’s membership records to influence the election, procuring the impersonation of members at the poll, and conspiracy with Liu. The Tribunal described her conduct as “wholly incompatible with the standards of behaviour that would be acceptable for a President of the Society”. 

She was found not guilty of intimidating a Secretary’s Committee candidate who had intercepted one of the individuals attempting to vote fraudulently, but the Tribunal said her conduct towards them “does Ms Xu no credit”.

Xu’s legal team did not file a witness statement despite having one prepared; she herself chose not to give evidence-in-chief. 

Following the outcome of the tribunal, Xu has been disqualified from the Hilary Term 2026 election, and from nominating in any current or future election in the Union. She has further been “permanently barred from holding any Office, Appointed role, or official position in the Society”, “permanently barred from sitting on any Committee of the Society, with the exception of Consultative Committee”, and “suspended as a Member until the end of 9th Week Trinity Term 2026”.

Liu’s membership has likewise been suspended, and she has also been disqualified from the Hilary Term 2026 election.

Liu told Cherwell she “strongly” disputes the Tribunal’s findings and intends to appeal. She argued that the decision rests on “basic misreadings of the evidence and errors of law”, and rejected the Tribunal’s characterisation of her as a “junior partner in the scheme”. Liu maintains that she refused to participate in electoral malpractice. She added that the central finding against her relied on “contested identification evidence” that did not meet the required standard of proof, and that she was “confident” the decision would be overturned on appeal.

The Tribunal has ordered that the election for President-Elect should be annulled, and that there be a re-Poll, to be held on Monday, 11th May. Previously nominated candidates, with the exception of Xu – namely Hamza Hussain, Gareth Lim, and Liza Barkova – are to be included automatically on the ballot. Additionally, members eligible to nominate for President-Elect in the Hilary Term election will also be eligible to nominate in next week’s re-Poll, with no requirement for any qualifying speeches. The Tribunal will remain empanelled in order to oversee the re-Poll.

When approached for comment, the Oxford Union told Cherwell: “A Disciplinary Proceeding has taken place, following which the Election Tribunal has ordered a re-poll. Standing Committee note the findings therein and will discuss them in due course. It would be inappropriate to comment further as the proceedings may become subject to appeal.”

Xu told Cherwell that she “strongly rejects” the Tribunal’s findings and denied that any conspiracy existed. She expressed concern that the decision relied on evidence that she believes to be “fabricated or materially unreliable”, and described the penalties imposed as “extraordinarily severe and disproportionate”. Xu added that the case “must receive strict appeal review, with full procedural fairness and transparency”.

‘If he wanted to he would’: The problem with TikTok dating advice

0

“If he wanted to he would”. Look under the comments of any TikTok video about dating and you’ll see it repeated over and over again; it’s a promise of clarity, an explanation, a definitive answer to any and all problems that could arise in a relationship. But relationships aren’t that simple. With the rise of TikTok, and the generic, algorithm-driven dating advice that comes with it, we are continually encouraged to seek a one-size-fits-all answer to our problems. As more of us turn to an app rather than our partners or friends for advice, we risk reducing complex dynamics into 30-second videos that assume the worst, and ask for the impossible. TikTok has no shortage of “dating experts”, and their advice offers a bleak and overwhelmingly negative outlook on our relationships.

Today, I opened TikTok to see a video entitled “At the end of the day, dump him”, in which the creator listed a number of ‘flaws’ deemed worthy of a breakup. Among them, the simple act of questioning if your boyfriend has cheated on you: “at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter whether or not he was actually cheating on you, the fact is you’re questioning [it]”. Now, in some cases, this might be a valid point  – yes, of course your boyfriend shouldn’t be making you feel like he has cheated on you. But I can’t help but wonder about the effects that this sort of content has on relationships where this isn’t the case. Or relationships where one party is naturally prone to doubts, and is convinced by someone they’ve never met to dump a boyfriend who is “trying his best”, because – as this TikTok put it – “his best ain’t it”. Every relationship is different, and when we simplify all problems down to one issue with the exact same solution, we strip away the nuance that real-life situations often require.

These TikToks, along with offering an overwhelmingly negative outlook, encourage unrealistic standards for our dating lives. Entering this side of TikTok, you are met with a barrage of content centred around communication.We’re not meant to be reachable 24/7, but by telling us to expect this, these “dating experts” are only setting us up for failure. Creators often make assertions about how long it should take to receive a reply to a text message (their answers all differ), but also about how often you should see one another (on which they also can’t agree). Their advice is the same for developing relationships; I have seen countless Tiktoks claiming that if someone is interested in you, they will make the effort to seek you out. But the reality is that this kind of constant open communication isn’t natural. If your partner is working, busy, or even just in need of an hour to themselves, not texting back  does not mean that they don’t care about you, and TikTok should not tell us that it does. 

This kind of advice doesn’t just set unrealistic expectations, but actively discourages real communication. Instead of having a conversation with our partners, we are encouraged to analyse, dissect, interpret, and ultimately to assume the worst. Even where there were no issues in the relationship, this ensures that they can be easily created. Tiktok constructs a paranoia, whereby taking time to reply to a message suddenly represents a lack of interest, spending too much time with friends becomes a sign that they don’t care. We begin to hold our partners to unrealistic standards, quietly “testing” them to see if they will fail, rather than being honest with them about what we need. But relationships aren’t built on mind-reading. A simple conversation would suffice to fix most of the issues that these TikToks claim to resolve. But that wouldn’t generate enough views. And therein lies the problem. 

The people making these videos know exactly what will work to gain more clicks, more likes, more followers. They know that the more dramatic they are, the more likely their viewers are to continue watching, and this in turn ensures that the TikTok algorithm suggests similarly outlandish videos. And so the cycle continues; we see a video telling us that something our partner did is breakup-worthy (like when they took too long to reply to a text the other day), and we watch it until the end. This ensures that we are shown similar content. We then begin to overthink (how long will it take them to reply to this text?), and draw the worst possible conclusions when we don’t get the desired outcome. All the while the comments section continues to whisper “if he wanted to he would”. And so we continue to doubt our relationship, watching more videos for an explanation – and the one provided is ultimately generic and hollow. 

At this point, the problem isn’t necessarily the relationship at all. It’s the way that we’re being told to interpret it. These videos, through capitalising on an insecurity, manage to create problems even where there were none, so that their creators can then offer a solution. These TikTok “dating experts” may offer us a quick fix to our problems, but relationships don’t need generic answers or universal solutions – they need communication. So, if we want a relationship, maybe we should look away from our screens and towards the person that we want to build it with.

Honorary Degree recipients announced for 2026

0

The University of Oxford has announced its 2026 honorary degree recipients, with seven individuals to be conferred with degrees at the Encaenia ceremony on 24th June. 

The honourees come from a wide variety of careers. Those awarded include former world number one tennis player Billie Jean King; economist and Nobel Laureate Professor Daniel Acemoglu; and former chief executive of GSK, Dame Emma Walmsley DBE. They are joined by dancer and choreographer Carlos Acosta CBE; biochemist Professor Katalan Karikó  and Nobel Laureate Professor Shuji Nakamura; and Emmy nominated filmmaker and historian Henry Louis Gates Jr.

The University has been granting honorary degrees since the 1400s, whilst the Encaenia ceremony can be dated back to the 16th century, assuming its current form around 1760. 

Recipient Billy Jean King won 39 Grand Slam singles, doubles and mixed doubles titles, including winning a record 20 Wimbledon championships. She is also known for campaigning to equalise prize money in professional competitions across both womens’ and mens’ professional championships. Carlos Acosta was awarded a CBE in 2014 and retired from Classical Ballet in 2016, but continued to choreograph and perform.

Professor Acemoglu was awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2024 alongside two others for “studies of how institutions are formed and affect prosperity”.  Fellow recipient Professor Nakamura was also awarded a Nobel Prize, for Physics in 2014, for emitting energy-saving efficient blue light-emitting diodes, whilst Professor Karikó won a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for discoveries enabling nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccines.

Dame Walmsley worked at GSK for 15 years and served as Chief Executive Officer of GSK for 9 years, retiring in December 2025. She is joined on the list of honourees by Henry Louis Gates Jr, known for his work as a literary critic, professor and history, as well as a literary critic. Gates was nominated for an Emmy Award for “Exceptional Merit in Documentary Filmmaking”  in 2022 for his work as Executive Producer for the documentary Frederik Douglas: In Five Speeches.

Honorary degree recipients are recognised for their distinction in their field or service to society. Previous honorees include former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet, and Monty Python comedian Sir Michael Palin. Decisions on recipients of honorary degrees are made by a selection committee. Encaenia 2026 comes after Lord Hague awarded eight honorary degrees in February this year in a Special Honorary Degree Ceremony to celebrate the beginning of Lord Hague’s term as Chancellor at the University. 

The ceremony involves the heads of colleges, university dignitaries and holders of Oxford doctoral degrees in Divinity, Civil Law, Medicine, Letters, Science, and Music. The honourees assemble and walk in procession to the Sheldonian Theatre. There, they are introduced by the Public Orator with a speech in Latin, and finally granted their new degrees by the Chancellor, Lord William Hague. Students at the University may attend the ceremony, with tickets released on  5th May.