Saturday 2nd August 2025
Blog Page 700

Glitterball abandons ‘hideous’ theme

-
0
Glitterball abandons ‘hideous’ theme

The 2019 Glitterball committee has come under fire after advertising a “tokenising” and “appropriating” ball theme on their event’s website.

Cherwell understands that the theme of next June’s Glitterball has changed from “LGBTQ+ History through the Eras” to “Somewhere Over the Rainbow”, upon recommendation from the University’s LGBTQ+ Society and the Oxford Student Union’s LGBTQ+ Campaign group.

The original theme proved controversial among some students and was criticised on Twitter for “tokenising” and “appropriating” the actions of those who participated in the Stonewall Riots.

The riots were a sequence of large-scale demonstrations by members of the LGBTQ+ community provoked by a police raid which took place at Manhattan’s Stonewall Inn on 28th June 1969.

These protests are widely considered the most important event leading to the beginnings of modern activism for LGBTQ+ rights.

The ball is due to take place a week preceding the 50th anniversary of the riots, scheduled for 20th June at Oxford Town Hall.

Until the initial theme was dropped, the Glitterball’s official website marketed the event as “celebrating 50 years since the first brick was thrown at Stonewall with [its] very own protest.”

The statement also urged the ball-goers to “tear up the dresscode and slap on [their] glittery warpaint!” promising that the event would be “a riot”.

In a response on Twitter, an Oxford student called the theme “hideous”, “egregious”, and the most “brazenly offensive thing to have come out of Oxford.

“I just heard that Oxford LGBT+ Society are taking the Stonewall Riots to be the theme of their next Glitterball.

“Yes, ball, an elitist institution, which is effectively a piss-up, where no doubt copious amounts of drug abuse will take place.”

When asked to comment, Glitterball President Nic Elliott denied that the ball was linked in any way to the anniversary of the riots, writing that: “The Glitterball 2019 theme will not be and was never going to be ‘the Stonewall Riots’.”

Instead, he told Cherwell that ‘LGBTQ+ History Through the Eras’ was only a potential theme being considered, but upon “discussions” with SU Campaign and the LGBTQ+ society, the theme was dropped.

In regards to abandoning this as a potential theme, Elliott told Cherwell that, after consideration and “work[ing] closely with the LGBTQ+ Society, SU LGBTQ+ Campaign, and other Oxford based LGBTQ+ groups”, the committee decided that the initial theme was not “an appropriate message for a celebratory event like Glitterball 2019.”

He told Cherwell that the previously-quoted event details were posted online in order “to see how it would appear visually,” along with marketing for other potential themes.

However, he wrote that seeing the previously-quoted event details on the live website “helped [the committee] realise” how the theme “may be perceived as distasteful, as the website is very glittery and ‘upbeat’.”

This lead them to “[believe] that it did not fit with the darker moments of our shared LGBTQ+ history.”

Elliott stressed that this “mockup marketing material” was put online prior to any official announcements regarding the Glitterball and, therefore, allegedly assumed that the “website traffic before this was zero.”

He told Cherwell that the likelihood of “somebody outside of the Glitterball committee, LGBTQ+ Society, or the SU LGBTQ+ Campaign seeing this pre-publication material was extremely low.”

This is despite the fact a senior editorial member of Cherwell viewed the “pre-publication” material while it was still publicly available online.

Elliott told Cherwell: “Although we intended to celebrate the positive aspects of our history, we felt that we could not do so without acknowledging the more negative aspects and huge amounts of work that still need to be done, particularly with regards to trans liberation.

“The LGBTQ+ community and its struggles throughout the years have encompassed salient intersectional aspects, so I understand that approaching this theme may be perceived as tokenisation or appropriation.

“We strive to create an event which LGBTQ+ people can not only enjoy, but feel proud to have been part of, and so invite and value any and all feedback from our community.”

OULGBTQ+ Society President, Ellie Oppenhein, told Cherwell that while the Society is not officially linked to the Glitterball, they are still closely involved with the organisers.

Oppenhein said: “Due to the significance of this event for LGBTQ+ students in Oxford, we are in close contact with the organisers to ensure that the event is inclusive to as many students as possible under the LGBTQ+ umbrella.”

She confirmed that the theme was dropped “due to the complex nature of sensitively executing such a theme.”

Cherwell understands that the SU’s LGBTQ+ Campaign, the political campaigning arm of the University’s student LGBTQ+ community, took particular issue with the theme.

The campaign’s co-chair, Aaron Hughes, told Cherwell that the campaign “gave feedback on the theme” that lead to the ball committee deciding to change the theme in order to “honour and celebrate the work done by LGBTQ+ activists”, as per “[the ball committee’s] original intention.”

In order to recognise the 50th anniversary of the riots, the Glitterball will be making a donation to a LGBTQ+ charity.

Uni harassment cases rise as new support centre opened

Daniel Hall
-
0
Uni harassment cases rise as new support centre opened

A total of 92 cases of bullying or harassment have been reported to the University of Oxford since 2012, Cherwell can reveal, with more reported complaints of sexual harassment in the last academic year than the previous five combined.

Five cases of rape or sexual harassment were reported in April 2018 alone, with the figures obtained by Cherwell by Freedom of Information (FoI) requests suggesting a clear upwards trend in the frequency of reported cases.

The news comes after a new Sexual Harassment and Violence Service was jointly launched by the University and Oxford SU on Monday, following recommendations from a working group led by Helena Kennedy QC.

The number of reported cases of bullying or harassment has increased in recent years.

In the past three there have been over ten reported complaints against University staff, numbers not matched in any of the previous four years.

So far in 2018, 15 complaints of non-sexual harassment or bullying have been made against University staff.

In the last academic year, there were four allegations of rape made against Oxford students, three of which are still under ongoing University investigations and one of which is not currently under ongoing investigation.

In April 2018 the University recorded two allegations of rape, two of sexual assault, and one of sexual harassment.

All of these cases are still being investigated by the University.

A single complaint upheld over the last two years, while five of the 26 complaints made in 2017/18 have been partially upheld.

Of the remaining 26 complaints recorded since 2017, nine were not upheld, five were resolved informally, six investigations are ongoing or on hold, and two were unable to be completed.

Responding to the upwards trend in bullying and harassment, a spokesperson for the University told Cherwell: “The University is committed to providing an environment where all students and members of staff are treated with dignity and respect and can work free from any type of discrimination, harassment and victimisation. “The University strongly condemns all forms of bullying or harassment as unacceptable behaviour, and we have clear procedures for complaints to be made and addressed.

We have established a network of approximately 300 harassment advisers within the University, across each department and faculty, and confidential advisors are appointed within the colleges.”

Oxford City Council calls for divestment

Isabel Morris
-
1
Oxford City Council calls for divestment

Oxford climate groups have renewed calls on the University to fully divest from fossil fuels, after Oxford City Council voted overwhelmingly to disinvest their pension fund from fracking.

It comes at a time when student campaigners are expected to up the pressure on the University, as tensions continue to rise over the investments of Oxford’s endowment.

Oxfordshire residents and student campaigners gathered at Town Hall before the meeting to express their support for the vote, in a rally organised by Oxford University Climate Justice Campaign (OCJC).

The motion, proposed by Labour councillors John Tanner and Richard Howlett, passed 38 votes for and none against, with two abstentions.

The proposal reaffirmed the Council’s opposition to investment in fossil fuels, which they voted for in 2014, and recommended redirecting such investments to renewable energy initiatives.

The motion cited investments of £84 million – equivalent to 3.85% of the £2 billion County pension scheme – in companies which practice fracking or hydraulic fracturing.

Student campaign group OCJC told Cherwell: “OCJC was thrilled to stand alongside citywide climate justice organizers and Oxford community members as we watched our local democratic body call for the fossil-free economy we all deserve.

“Dozens of us gathered to thank Councillors supportive of the motion, and to remember the Frack Free Three activists imprisoned last week for peacefully protesting fracking in Lancashire.

“Beyond the ethical and scientific certainty about obsoleteness of fossil fuels, what we were was hearing was an enthusiasm across party lines about building something better for the City of Oxford.

“This is the  major takeaway  that OCJC campaigners will bring to the University as we start the new academic year: that divestment has been recognized by our own City as an opportunity for building the future we actually want.

“Unlike the University of Oxford, they understand that they can trust their fund managers to generate robust returns while feeding back into the livelihood of this very city instead of relying on the industries that are fuelling climate change.”

Oxford University has a £2 billion Endowment Fund that is managed and invested by the Oxford University Endowment Fund (OUem), which was revealed to be investing in oil extraction and exploration by the  Paradise Papers leaked last November.

Several Oxford colleges also invest through OUem.

In 2014, following student concerns raised through the SU and backed by both staff and alumni, the University agreed to a University-wide consultation on fossil fuel divestment. Students responded by submitting a set of recommendations, which were endorsed by a majority of JCRs and MCRs.

The University’s Socially Responsible Investment Review Committee (SRIRC) responded by submitting its own set of recommendations, directly inspired by the students’, to the University Council.

However, Council decided to prohibit direct investments in coal and tar sands, of which the University already had none.

It also did not commit to any further divestment, allowing continued indirect investment in fossil fuels.

A University spokesperson told Cherwell: “In May 2015, the University’s Council made a statement on fossil fuel investment, following a wide-ranging consultation, and restricting investment in coal and tar sands.

“This statement remains the University’s position and all investment decisions are made in accordance with it.

The Oxford Endowment Fund has low exposure to the energy sector and has actively sought to invest in groups targeting resource efficient companies.”

‘The Fishermen’ Review – a ‘mesmerising’ and ‘almost biblical’ tale

-
0
‘The Fishermen’ Review – a ‘mesmerising’ and ‘almost biblical’ tale

Based on Chigozie Obioma’s Man Booker prize nominated book of the same name, The Fishermen is, on paper, a tale of brotherhood and the fracture of a family through tragedy. But it is also easily so much more than that.

As a play that focuses on the bonds and relationships of the family, an important feature of Nigerian culture, The Fishermen boils the action down to just two people – the youngest brothers, Benjamin and Obembe. Reuniting after 8 years apart, the two brothers reflect and essentially ‘act out’ memories from their childhood which change the course of their lives forever. As director Jack McNamara points out, the ‘siblings hold traces of their wider family within them,’ and so we still meet the other characters, but only through the lens of the two brothers. This careful morphing into each character is managed through subtle mannerisms such as the jutting out of a hip and disapproving wag of a finger to imitate ‘Mummy’ or a quiet stillness that evokes the father. Consequently, the brothers communicate their own personal tragedy through playing their family members, which further intensifies the dramatic heart of this play, as an encounter between siblings can quickly become a confrontation with one’s parents or other siblings.

Steeped in mystery and superstition, the dramatic arc of the play is almost biblical. Starting off with the homecoming of a long-lost son, to the Cain/Abel duel between the two eldest brothers and the neat circularity of the narrative (with the brothers ending the play as they began it, singing), the play is carefully plotted. Knitting it all together are the threads of an oral storytelling tradition with superstitions and beliefs that still clearly hold sway despite the authority of Christianity, and the overarching tension between a divined fate and one’s own free will. This is eerily personified in the character of Abulu, the village ‘madman’ whose dire warnings that Ikenna will die at the hands of one of his brothers sets the novel’s tragic plot in motion. This also serves as a catalyst for the brothers’ spiral into a web of distrust and suspicion, which rapidly pushes the story toward its climax, and results in the brothers bringing about their own fate. The climatic fight between the older brothers, Ikenna and Boja, is a memorable scene with actors rapidly shifting from abrupt movements to balletic slow-motion lifts and leaps. In this moment the stage is washed in darkness and the actors are illuminated in their stillness, which is mesmerising. Realizing that Abulu is the cause of conflict between the brothers, a gruesome revenge is planned, resulting in more tragic rifts.

The set allows for a raw performance, with Amelia Jane Hankin’s stripped back design giving the actors space to weave in and out of large metal poles that divide the circular risen stage area. These poles are sometimes used as props, and easily become fishing poles and nets and or even to conjure the image of the brothers snaking through a field. It is clear that collaboration has been at the heart of this production, and the dynamic between the two actors (Michael Ajao and Valentine Olukoga) is the show’s greatest success. They effortlessly bounce off each other, enabling them to smoothly transition from character to character. The choice of who doubles up which roles – such as oldest and youngest brother – also work well, bringing a circularity to the production. Ajao’s measured transitions from the eldest and serious brother Ikenna to the youngest and naïve Ben are moving. Throughout the play, we never forget the importance of brotherhood, whether this be through reminiscing over the taste of their mother’s Ogbono soup or the gentle teasing between brothers over Mary J. Blige. These tender moments make the latter stages of the story all the more heart-breaking to watch.

The story of Nigeria is also the heart of this play, with Gbolahan himself growing up in Nigeria until the age of ten, which is also the age of the book’s protagonist. This is captured through the use of language, mixing the traditional English novel form with the oral storytelling tradition, echoing the great Igbo writer Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart. The narrative itself is set in 1990’s rural southern Nigeria, when it was under the military rule of General Sani Abacha, and the narrative cleverly mixes the sense of national unrest, westernization and modernity to parallel the paths of the characters without neglecting the tragedy of the Agwu family.

Leaving the theatre, I was left with the overwhelming sense that the play was a starting point for many conversations that need to take place, especially within the African and Caribbean community, about attitudes towards mental health, black hypermasculinity and the imprisonment of minors. The father’s words to his children that they become fishermen ‘of good dreams (…) Go-getters. Children who will dip their hands into rivers, seas, oceans of this life and become successful: doctors, pilots, professors, lawyers,’ is something that will undoubtedly resonate with children of the diaspora like myself, but by the end of the play becomes tinged with a tragic irony that underpins the story.

The obsession with meritocracy in university admissions is misguided: here’s why

Brian Wong
-
0
The obsession with meritocracy in university admissions is misguided: here’s why

There is an almost routine, certainly mundane argument that is launched against any and all forms of affirmative action policies adopted by universities – whether it be quotas, preferential or favourable admissions methodologies that are cognizant of the prospective students’ academic environments, or more subtle methods of rectifying and combating historical injustice. The argument is centred around the opaque notion of meritocracy, couched in the terms of stressing the importance of meritocracy, and meritocracy alone, as the selection criteria that universities should adopt. If it is true that universities must solely be meritocratic in admissions, all forms of affirmative action policies are unjustifiably distortionary, and must hence be rejected.

This is a fallacious argument. It falls, not just for the obvious reason that university admissions do not solely have the obligation of selecting based on merit, but because affirmative action – if anything – facilitates a better and more genuine attainment of meritocracy in admissions.

Recognise that the ‘differences in quality’ in the first place are often far less significant than some polemics like to believe. Quotas are often implemented in a manner that render the admitted individual, at most, marginally worse than the non-admitted individual in their initial attainment and skill. This makes sense from a practical point of view – university administrators have little to no incentives in devising quota systems that admit substantially academically weaker students, who are unlikely to benefit from or find conducive the particular environments afforded to them. Students with vastly inferior academic capabilities would also be unlikely to imagine themselves thriving in such environments in the first place. Thus, the ‘difference in merit’, to begin with, is unlikely to be significant.

Even if there exists some disparity in initial attainment, the meritocracy-obsessed argument neglects the fact that merit and ability are dynamic; they evolve in response to coaching, support, teaching, and peer-based positive reinforcements. The initial attainment gap between the admitted student and the non-admitted student can be easily closed over time. Thus, in retrospect, it is not clear why the admitted student is any less deserving than the student who is allegedly ‘displaced’.

The dynamicity of merit also lies in its ambiguous definition, which is important for two reasons. The first reason is that it is not clear why merit must only map onto so-called ‘objective’, academic attainment and results. Surely, the ability to work hard, the ability to think beyond the curriculum, the enriched appreciation of the real-life implications of curricular content are all equally valid alternative metrics of merit. It is deeply unclear why someone with 1 or 2 more A*s is necessarily, if at all, also superior in all of these other aspects. If affirmative action policies enable the recognition of a hardworking student over a student with 1 more A*, who is to say this isn’t merely meritocracy with an alternative yet equally valid metric?

The second reason is that metrics of merit are often constructed – explicitly or implicitly – by dominant social pressures and forces. Elites often pick and choose metrics as bases of apparent ‘merit’, so as to favour group closure and a continued monopoly of access to privilege (see Weber or James Coleman for more on this). For example, the deliberate decision of including Latin knowledge in admissions to certain private schools and, up until a few decades ago, certain Oxford degrees, or the tendency for certain corporations to feature interview stages that heavily test for so-called ‘cultural capital’ etc. are all examples of where the metric of merit is designed and enforced arbitrarily and selectively. It is not clear why the state-designed curriculum in examinations is the ultimate or most accurate arbitrator of merit. It is even less clear why obscurantist tests, acting as effective hurdles for disadvantaged individuals, should be accorded much weighting or recognition as objective measures of ability.

The upshot of all of the above is that affirmative action policies are not intrinsically opposed to meritocracy. Yet a further argument is that they actively facilitate the promotion and cultivation of merit in individuals. Firstly, the certainty of quotas affords disadvantaged individuals a much-needed glimmer of hope and mental boost (against potentially discouraging teachers, HE advisors, and even parents) that motivate them to both aspire towards and apply for admissions into universities, if not more traditionally competitive ones. Secondly, affirmative action policies also provide school administrators in underprivileged areas with the bargaining capital to campaign for more resources, or a more efficient allocation of resources, in supporting one or more of their students in applying for competitive universities. Thirdly, affirmative action policies ensure that in face of bigotry and exclusion, students from minority backgrounds can collectivise and find solace in each other’s support. Above all, affirmative action taps into the undiscovered or underdiscovered merit in individuals – such as the African-American who would never have applied to an Ivy League school (due to their Impostor Syndrome) had it not been for the positive nudge, or the young woman who grows up being told by misogynistic teachers that STEM subjects are not the right choice for her. These are all reasons why affirmative action in fact bolsters meritocracy, as opposed to detracting from it.

Yet even if an admission decision is indeed un-meritocratic, and even if none of the above refutations apply or hold, it still remains highly unclear as to why university admissions must only care about meritocracy. Public facilities, infrastructure, or even consumer goods are rarely rationed on the basis of merit; in particular, access to public facilities and welfare is often rationed on the basis of need or aggregate social utility. Why should the case of universities be any different? If offering an ethnic minority member from a historically oppressed community a place at university means that their community acquires a new role model, their family gains a stable source of income, and the academic discourse at the university benefits much from their presence, is it not profoundly evident that the university has a strong reason to forego selecting purely based on merit, in exchange for an outcome that is both socially advantageous and desirable?

Here, one may object and argue that universities ought not instrumentalise the lives of individuals so as to achieve some broader social objectives. Whilst this argument against instrumentalisation may well be true in a vacuum, it misses the point raised above. The point is not that universities should instrumentalise their students in a vacuum – but that given the limited number of university spaces available, universities have the right, and with good reason, to introduce considerations beyond mere narrow meritocracy as bases for selections. Furthermore, this charge of instrumentalisation becomes less relevant when it can be pointed out that the students, admitted through affirmative action, also have much to gain through the academic experience.

Universities are more than merely merit-obsessed, mechanical institutions that robotically take in solely the most ‘meritorious’. Even if they are concerned with merit in general, there exist plenty of reasons as to why meritocracy is better attained in the presence of affirmative action, especially when the ideal of meritocracy is built on grounds that are far more flimsy and arbitrary than critics of affirmative action would have one believe. The obsession with meritocracy in university admissions is therefore not only misguided, but also deeply damaging to the pursuit of both excellence and equality (not mutually exclusive!) across universities.

Bop ’til you drop!

Keep Off The Grass
-
0
Bop ’til you drop!
Bops are one of Oxford’s most universally loved events. They are essentially large college parties that resemble cheesy school discos, only with copious amounts of alcohol.
Every college does them differently, though typically they’re held a handful of times each term to celebrate major occasions (like Freshers’ Week, Halloween, Christmas). These cheap, no-frills “nights in” come with the comfort that you’ll always know someone in the room.

Drinks

Central to the success of bops are college’s freshly made bop juices. These magical concoctions are typically spirits combined with an assortment of fruit juices to produce a delicious, lukewarm sickly-sweet mixture all served up in a plastic cup. They may not be rooftop Cosmopolitans, but they’ll definitely do the job. With free or very cheap entry, and with bop juices costing as little as 50p a cup, you’ll be struggling to spend more than a tenner all night.

Costumes

Bops are invariably fancy dress, though the themes vary dramatically from the ordinary to the plain bizarre. People make an art out of foraging, recycling, and mashing together outfits from anything and everything they can lay their hands on. Don’t be afraid to release your inner primary school child and get messy with cereal boxes and PVA glue.

Venues

Bops are traditionally held in college bars or function rooms. This means that you can experience all the chaos of a night out with only a short stagger back to your bedroom. There’s also no need to risk hypothermia queuing for entry in the sub-zero January temperatures. Some colleges do hold their bops at external venues however (smaller clubs like Fever or Plush). While these don’t have the same locality, the perks of a proper dance floor and better stocked bar should not be understated. So whether you’re a veteran clubber, or a newbie to the dance floor, bops have something for everyone. They’re a fun and safe environment to let loose from the academic pressures of Oxford life without the expense, effort, and exhaustion of a night out on the town.

How to manage your work

Cherwell
-
0
How to manage your work

You’re not alone!

The main thing to note is that being stressed is completely normal and everyone will have tough points in their Oxford life. If you’re finding something difficult then someone else almost certainly is too.

Don’t let it get out of hand

Make sure you’re aware of how stressed you are and don’t let it get the best of you. If you have any worries about work, there are lots of people to whom you can speak in college or at the University, from Welfare Reps to Student Union Officers and Nightline. College Parents or subject peers can also help with content, notes, or if you need something explaining.

Perspective

Remember that improvement is a gradual process. The work that you do in first year doesn’t usually counts towards your final grade, it’s more about building a base for you in your second and third year. Don’t stress if you feel like you’re not getting anywhere immediately.

Non-academic pursuits

Make sure that you are doing activities away from your degree. Not only do library breaks boost overall productivity, but doing an activity that you enjoy, whether this is sport, music or any other hobby, is important to take your mind off work.

If you’re looking to balance work in particular, plus your other commitments, consider exploring remote customer service roles that offer the flexibility to fit your schedule.

Managing work-related stress is crucial, especially when juggling a heavy workload or feeling overwhelmed. While it’s important to seek support from college resources, such as Welfare Reps or peers, it’s equally essential to find a job that suits your lifestyle and helps reduce stress. If you’re looking for Salesforce developer remote jobs, there are plenty of opportunities that allow you to work from home, offering flexibility and a healthier work-life balance.

Be realistic with your time

A caveat to this is making sure that you don’t take on too much. Your tutors will probably remind you that you are ultimately at Oxford to do your degree and that this should not be sidelined. If you are finding that you are not leaving enough time to do that work, then it might be necessary to drop one of your extra activities.

Plan ahead

Plan your work ahead so that you can find the balance between setting aside enough time for your degree, as well as taking time away from it. Putting your deadlines and commitments into an online or paper planner and then working backwards from deadlines, slotting in enough library time, is a good way to do this.

Formals: The truth behind the tradition

Cherwell
-
0
Formals: The truth behind the tradition

College formal dinners or formal halls are a key part of being at Oxford. Their format can vary significantly by college but they generally involve a three course served meal in the college’s fancy hall. Some colleges hold them only once a week; other twice a week, perhaps Tuesday and Thursday; whilst others like St. Catherine’s and Oriel hold them every night. The dress code also ranges significantly with some not having a dress code at all and others requiring smart clothes with a gown, so do make sure to check beforehand. A highlight of formals is the Latin grace at the start- Univ claim their grace is the longest but others have challenged this.

I’d really recommend trying to go to formals as many different colleges as possible as they’ve each got a different vibe and are a great chance to look round other colleges. The best way to go to a formal at another college is by getting your friends at other colleges, such as those doing the same course as you, to invite you, as you almost always need to be a member of the college to book a formal there.

However, Oxford Raise and Give (www. facebook.com/oxfordrag) also run Formal Hall Surfing which gives you a chance to buy a tickets for formals at different colleges so look out for that! Fun formals to visit include St. Benet’s Hall where every guest is introduced by their host, St. Catherine’s for the biggest hall, and Mansfield where formals take place in the chapel.

In full: Union term card released for Michaelmas

Cherwell News
-
0
In full: Union term card released for Michaelmas

Yanis Varoufakis, Russell Brand, and Alexa Chung are among the speakers listed on the Oxford Union’s Michaelmas term card, Cherwell can report.

The society will also play host to a large array of world leaders – including a panel hosting 5 of the Central Asian ‘Silk Road’ countries for the first time – with a term card possessing a clear political focus.

Union President Stephen Horvath told Cherwell: “My vision for the Union is simple: we should offer members the chance to engage directly with premier speakers on important topics.

“I was first drawn to the Union as a debater, and I wanted to ensure our line-up this term captured a range of viewpoints and brought them into conversation on seven controversial topics. The War on Terror debate, for example, includes diplomats, politicians, military leaders, and policing and security experts from three different countries – it is through the breadth of speakers in any one debate that members can really challenge their starting assumptions.”

Diversity

The Union’s speaker events, debates, and panels planned for the term ahead feature a range of actors, world leaders, sportspeople, and thinkers – just over 35% of whom identify as women*. Around 9% of total invited speakers openly identify as LGBTQ+.

Little Mix, an award-winning British pop group well known for their hit ‘Shout Out to My Ex’, account for four of the total 15 women* scheduled to present at speaker events next term.

Despite a drop in the amount of international speakers from last term, there is a more global focus than in previous years. International speakers make up approximately 43% of the total.

Union President Stephen Horvath told Cherwell: “Building on our progress in the last few terms, I am pleased that we once again are organising panels and head-to-head debates to offer deeper engagement, on topics ranging from modern slavery to the future of the Euro. I am also pleased that over a third of our speakers are female and that around a quarter are from BME backgrounds. ”

Debates

The Union will host seven debates on Thursday evenings from first week to seventh week. At each event, there will be an emergency debate at 19:45 followed by the main debate at 20:30.

Topics to be debated include retributive justice, private schools, the war on terror, as well the perennial No Confidence debate in Her Majesty’s Government. Debate speakers include Universities Minister Sam Gyimah, Dominic Grieve MP, and US Ambassador Gerald Feierstein.

In addition to three panels, the Union will also host a range of special events, including the The Grand Final of the Union’s internal debating competition and a Euro Head to Head debate, which will take place the evening before a major European Council meeting.

The Union’s Silk Road Panel, co-hosted with the Oxford Silk Road Society, will be the first time ambassadors from the Republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan sit on a panel together.

Founding president of the Silk Road Society and event organiser, Marcello Fantoni, told Cherwell: “Our society is dedicated to the study of the culture, history, geography, and politics of the Silk Road, both ancient and modern. The event is officially entitled ‘Central Asia into the 2020s and Beyond’.

“Given the ongoing instability in the region, our aim as a society is to ensure the perspectives of these nations are not overlooked. Too often, Central Asia has been seen as the backyard of China or Russia, without proper consideration given to its perspectives and ambitions.”

The full term card can be found here. [https://www.oxford-union.org/term_card]

1. 11th October

“This House Has No Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government”

Proposition
Nia Griffiths MP
Chris Bryant MP

Opposition
Sam Gyimah MP
Brandon Lewis MP

2. 18th October

“This House Believes Science Alone Can Never Answer Our Biggest Questions”

Proposition
Dr Denis Alexander
Professor Richard Swinburne

Opposition
Professor Ijeoma Uchegbu
Professor Peter Atkins
Professor Frank Tipler

3. 25th October

“This House Believes the War on Terror Has Been Its Own Worst Enemy”

Proposition
Sir Ivor Roberts
David Pratt PC, KStG
Congresswoman Jane Harman

Opposition
Sir Mark Rowley QPM
Ambassador Gerald Feierstein
Elaine Duke
General Graeme Lamb KBE, CMG, DSO

4. 1st November

“This House Believes that Retributive Justice is Obsolete”

Proposition
Frances Crook OBE
Ard van der Steur
Dominic Grieve QC MP

Opposition
Peter Hitchens
Peter Dawson

5. 8th November

“This House Believes We Have Not Remembered Them”

Proposition
Professor Catriona Pennell
Dr Jenny Macleod

Opposition
Simon Jenkins
Surgeon Commander Andrew Morrison MP
Major General Nicholas Caplin CB

6. 15th November

“This House Believes Private Schools are a Public Disaster”

Proposition
Brett Wigdortz
Karin Smyth MP

Opposition
Barnaby Lenon
William Wragg MP
Sir Graham Brady MP

7. 22nd November

“This House Believes Ireland is Ready for Reunification”

Proposition
Colum Eastwood MLA
Micheal Martin TD
Joan Burton TD

Opposition
Mike Nesbitt MLA
Claire Sugden

 

Thinkers
Peter Higgs; 30 October, 20:00
Slavoj Žižek; 9 November, 20:00
Yanis Varoufakis; 14 November, 20:00

World leaders
Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe (Sri Lanka); 8 October, 20:00
President Rumen Radev (Bulgaria); 18 October, 17:00
Pr Minister Tony Abbott (Australia); 5 October, 20:00
Former President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud (Somalia); 12 October, 17:00
Former President Ian Khama (Botswana); 12 October, 19:00
Former President Tarja Halonen (Finland); 10 October, 20:00

Media and Entertainment
Jude Law; 14 October, 17:00
Little Mix; 19 November, 17:00
Margarita Simonyan; 10 October, 17:00
Russell Brand; 22 October, 17:00
Sonia Friedman; 30 November, 16:00

Business
Jo Malone; 11 October, 17:00
Sir Paul Smith; 17 October, 14:00
Alexa Chung; 21 November 17:00

Sport
Nigel Owens; 24 October, 17:00
Ding Junhui; 20 November, 20:00

Cherwell video team is recruiting for Michaelmas 2018!

Isaac Pockney
-
0
Cherwell video team is recruiting for Michaelmas 2018!

Cherwell is looking for new team members to help us produce quality video content in Michaelmas term, 2018. Experienced or not, if you’ve always wanted to get involved in broadcast media find us at the Freshers’ Fair and come and have a chat or shoot us an email at [email protected]

1...699700701...2,517Page 700 of 2,517

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by James Ashley