Monday 13th October 2025
Blog Page 712

Graduations delayed as women told to cover up

Eve Webster
-
0
Graduations delayed as women told to cover up

Students have been warned that a failure to follow official sub fusc regulation could lead to “serious inconveniences” and delays.

The reminder comes after some attempted to graduate with what University Proctors considered excessive “flesh” on show, among other infringements on the University’s graduation dress-code.

The email sent to students cited a number of infractions including bare legs or no socks or tights, non-dark footwear, and coloured clothing. 

At this year’s ceremony, some women wearing high-heeled shoes without socks were barred entry to the ceremony until they covered up.

French graduate Eleanor Broome’s ceremony was delayed by fifteen minutes as she “had to run, in full sub fusc and gown, through the crowded streets round the Sheldonian in a desperate search for black socks.”

After eventually finding a pair of tights to wear under her trousers, she was allowed entry to her graduation. 

She told the Telegraph that she thought the regulations to be “so outdated” for not considering women wearing trousers and heels.

She said: “It was a boiling hot July, I didn’t want to wear covered lace up shoes and black socks.

“I did really love my degree and I loved my time at Oxford, but what should have been the happiest day of my life turned into the angriest day of my life.”

On her Facebook page she shared what she called a “provocative photo of my exposed ankles.”

She told Cherwell: “It’s mad [the university] takes it so seriously and won’t allow people to do exams or graduate.”

She added that she has never seen a male student be “told off”.

She also referred to an incident in her Finals during which a female student was threatened with being barred from re-entering the exam room after leaving to go to the toilets without her gown.

Broome told Cherwell: “When we were doing finals, one girl came in, sat down, took off her gown, got up to go to the loo and then when she came back, the exam invigilator said, ‘By rights I don’t have to allow you back in because you are not wearing your gown.'”

In response to her own situation, Broome thanked her friend for who “literally risked not graduating because she wanted to make sure I found some socks” and her mother for “putting up with me in spite of my ankle exposing tendencies.”

Rebecca Morton also had difficulty attending her graduation ceremony as she too was “showing flesh”, according to University officials.

She told the Telegraph that she also saw sexism in the University’s dress code regulations saying they are “designed for a default male student.”

“It is one of the many ways in which the University continues to adhere to a set of archaic regulations that are coded for men.”

In response to these complaints, a spokesperson for the University said: “The note went out to College Deans of Degrees at the start of summer as a reminder of the dress code for degree ceremonies.

“The note was intended to avoid delays to ceremonies, as a courtesy to everyone attending. 

“We are not aware of any significant delays as a result this year.”

Keble students stranded after accommodation cock-up

Fred Dimbleby
-
0
Keble students stranded after accommodation cock-up

Keble College have told second and third year students to “postpone their arrival in Oxford” after a newly built graduate centre was not able to open to students.

The college planned to house 120 graduate students in the newly built multi-million pound H B Allen centre, but have been forced to place them in temporary accommodation because necessary fire safety checks on the building could not be carried out in time.

In an email, seen by Cherwell, the college Warden Jonathan Phillips said that some of the graduates would need to be housed in undergraduate college accommodation, pushing second and third years out of their assigned rooms.

Phillips added: “We have managed to book some hotel accommodation, but this is the busiest week of the year and there are hardly any rooms available.”

The Warden apologised for the failure, which will force second and third year students having to change their travel plans.

He said that students with “a compelling reason” would be able to move in on the previously planned date, but added that “we cannot accept as a compelling reason the fact that the only time you can be brought to College is at the weekend.”

A third year historian at Keble who will be affected by the changes told Cherwell: “Following on from the mind-numbingly stupid decision to renovate Hall during term-time and not the vac, Keble’s latest construction-related announcement adds further to student’s woes.

“Weeks of carefully planned collections revision is now in flux and most importantly, Fresher’s Week, the pinnacle of any second year’s university career, has been totally and spectacularly ruined.”

Students who have been forced to change their move-in date, from the 30th September to the 4th October, will have the four days rent deducted from their termly bill.

Keble College were contacted for comment.

‘No Offence’ and ‘Antinuous: Boy Made God’ at the Ashmolean

-
0
‘No Offence’ and ‘Antinuous: Boy Made God’ at the Ashmolean

Talking through the Ashmolean’s new exhibition on LGBTQ+ histories, No Offence, curator Matthew Winterbottom and Richard B. Parkinson (on whose work the British Museum based this exhibit last year) stress that this is not intended to be an exhibition for gay people. Rather, the opposite: this brilliant exhibition represents another step on the path to reclaiming lost, edited, and hidden LGBTQ+ histories for all to see. For those who think that a gay history means pride flags and radicalism, this exhibition is a must-see: this is a world history still being explored, albeit one unexplored until a few decades ago.

The exhibition first hit the British Museum last year to mark 50 years since the passing of the Sexual Offences Act, which decriminalised male homosexuality, and is based largely on Parkinson’s work on A Little Gay History (2013). The success of that (risky) British Museum exhibition has led to similar efforts appearing nationwide, and its arrival in Oxford coincides with several events on LGBTQ+ histories across the city, including a visit from Oscar-winning writer/director James Ivory (Maurice, Call Me By Your Name, Howard’s End). Ivory’s annotated shooting script from Maurice – an Ashmolean exclusive – is certainly a highlight, a reminder of the importance of a happy film released at the height of the AIDS epidemic in Thatcher’s Britain.

The breadth of what is on display is admirable. The ambiguously-gendered Ain Sakhri Lovers – an 11,000 year old sculpture – shares a case with gay liberation badges from the 1960s; artefacts from pre-colonial African, Indian, North American, and Maori collections share space with Roman vases and original David Hockney drawings. The message – of progress, the lack thereof, and the non-linear path to liberation – is conveyed simply and effectively. Those pre-colonial artefacts serve not only to demonstrate the global nature of LGBTQ+ histories, but at the same time give a grim reminder of the power of colonialism to set back societies we would consider open and fluid. There is unfortunately little by way of women’s and lesbian histories on display, though this is, one can imagine, not through lack of trying. The scarcity of female artefacts should say more about historical societies than it does about our curators – if we are to look at hidden histories, we can’t look past the fact that so often women’s history has gone undocumented, let alone that of women who love other women. The curators could have done more to explain the lack of lesbian history, but otherwise No Offence truly is a stellar exhibition.

Accompanying it in the Gallery 8 space at the museum is Antinous: Boy Made God, a collection of antiquities detailing the cult of the supposedly young and beautiful Antinous, a consort of Emperor Hadrian in the 2nd Century CE. The link to No Offence comes in the analysis of Hadrian and Antonius’ relationship. Whilst No Offence is quite explicit in detailing historical gay romances, the curators of Boy Made God have elected to allude to Antinous being homosexual only once, and in no certain terms. Obviously, one cannot say for certain what his relationship with Hadrian was, but since he became something of a proto-gay icon centuries after his death, it is interesting to see this side of Antinous’ story omitted. It is forgone for a focus on the cult of Antinous at the time of his life, where he is represented, in magnificent and sometimes colossal sculptures and busts, as various Greek, Roman, or Egyptian gods. The result is, again, excellent, as Hadrian’s reverence for Antinous is communicated perhaps better than it would be by simply describing those sources who claim their relationship was romantic.The centrepiece comes in the form of a large bust of Antinous found in Syria, sold in 2010 for around $24 million dollars, placing it among the most expensive pieces of antiquity ever sold, but nearby a marble Germanicus bust from Elgin’s collection catches the eye as well.

When taken together, these two exhibitions offer different, yet complimentary approaches to the subject of LGBTQ+ histories. Boy made God is a narrow showcase of antiquities, No Offence is a global, thematic history. Without the latter, it’s possible that one could go through the Antinous exhibition without thinking much of his relationship with Hadrian. But this subtle yet still so effective approach perhaps demonstrates Winterbottom and Parkinson’s point about hidden histories so well. In these two free exhibitions, The Ashmolean has created a brief, yet comprehensive and powerful display of LGBTQ+ histories that will, hopefully, only inspire more of the same in museums across the country.

Fandom: democracy or tyranny?

Molly Chell
-
0
Fandom: democracy or tyranny?

The digital age has revolutionised the way we interact with and talk about our favourite films and TV shows, with the most successful of them becoming cultural phenomenons faster and more widely than ever before. Thanks to fan interaction online, connecting with people who share your interests has never been easier or more socially acceptable, and the widespread adoption of the idea of “fandom” has fundamentally changed the fabric of pop-cultural discourse.

People debate plot lines and character development on Reddit, post GIFs on Tumblr, and search through Pinterest for memes. YouTube enables fans to share their thoughts on the latest blockbuster or mourn the death of a beloved character through “tribute videos”, sometimes cheesy (but often moving) compilations of clips against a mournful soundtrack. And since 1998, the most devoted of fans have spawned thousands of fanfics across a range of fandoms. But fandom today is not solely reliant on the internet to thrive, as fans turn out in their thousands every year to celebrate their favourites at Comic-Cons all over the world – and you’ll be hard-pressed to find a significant fandom that doesn’t have a corresponding society here in our university.

No longer do people simply turn up to a cinema and enjoy a movie. Now, it has become impossible to escape the maelstrom of fan theories, rumours, and news articles that comprise the constantly regenerating pop-culture news machine. This month’s rumour that Henry Cavill may be about to hang up his Superman cape sent the DC fandom into overdrive, despite the lack of substantive proof to underpin the wild speculation. Right on cue, numerous articles appeared listing their ‘top 5’ candidates to take up the popular role.

The fandom-driven discourse around film and TV in our culture can seem overwhelming for the casual cinema goer, but the importance of fandom to the film industry cannot be overstated. If harnessed properly, fandom and niche-interest groups can be hugely lucrative, driving film studios to keep on producing further instalments for long-running franchises. The revenue drawn from franchise giants like Harry Potter is an indicator of the commercial profit in fandom. It now has a staggering worth of $25 billion – a sum that it couldn’t have attained without its strong legion of fans. Studios are often remarkably brazen in their efforts to tap into niche-interest groups in order to boost their profits; many in the industry raised their eyebrows at Disney when, in 2016, they targeted much of their advertising for Zootopia towards furries.

But film and TV fandoms can have a darker side, especially those focused on a particular actor. In their eagerness, fans can fail to respect the right of a star to a private life. Giving fandoms more power has made them much more vocal in their opinions, as everybody now has the forum to make their opinions heard. Fans can also be strangely unforgiving in their appraisal of a performance; in the most extreme cases, actors have been forced to leave social media to escape the hate, with Kelly Marie Tran being a particularly high-profile Twitter-abstainer after the backlash in the Star Wars fandom against The Last Jedi.

The wider effects of a fandom-driven film industry are plain to see in a cinematic landscape saturated with franchises, sequels and reboots that keep series running over many years. Marvel are producing three movies a year, the Jurassic Park series has been rebooted with two new movies in the last couple of years, while the Fantastic Beasts franchise and The Cursed Child ensures that the Harry Potter universe continues to generate revenue even as the story of our favourite boy wizard has reached its clear conclusion. In 2005, it seemed that the story of the Skywalker family had also been brought to a close, but arguably, in recent years the Star Wars franchise has undergone the largest revival. With two new trilogy’s in the works, a number of spinoff movies and numerous TV series, not to mention the new lines of merchandise, the galaxy far far away has travelled much further than George Lucas’ original vision. As a Star Wars fan myself this new content was welcome news, but not so for others. The disappointing box office return from Solo has prompted Disney to scale back their production of Star Wars films in the future.

The fandom drive has lead to criticism that Hollywood is no longer producing enough original content in the industry’s new focus on satisfying the demands of fandoms. But surely with the amount of money that fandom pumps into the industry and the sense of community that fandoms often give to people, the rise of film and TV fandoms can only be a good thing…right?

70% of students only drink to fit in, says NUS survey

Eve Webster
-
0
70% of students only drink to fit in, says NUS survey

70% of students drink alcohol to fit in with their peers, according to findings released by the National Union of Students.

The statistics were collected from 2,215 students in higher education through a survey which, according to the NUS, “explores students’ behaviour towards, attitudes to, and perceptions of alcohol use.”

The survey found that while 20% of participants intentionally get drunk about once a week, 21% say they have never drunk or have stopped drinking.

Key findings also showed that 2% of the survey’s participants say they drink every day, with around a quarter drinking between two and three times a week.

In regards to the perception of drinking at university, 76% of the students participating in the survey believe there is an “expectation for students to drink to get drunk”. 79% participants agreed that drinking and getting drunk is part of university culture.

Almost half of the survey’s participants claimed that prior to starting university they perceived that students spent most of their time getting drunk.

The report also showed a poor awareness of and limited participation in responsible drinking activities and campaigns at universities, with 10% knowing about said programs and only 1% taking part.

In regards to non-drinking activities and events, half of the students surveyed believed that there is a sufficient number of such events at their universities. However, a quarter believed that there ought to be more. 

The authors of the report speculated that financial and academic pressures have reduced the number of student drinkers.

They said: “The National Union of Students believes the pressures now facing students financially, particularly in relation to doing well because they have accrued so much debt is also causing the shift in students’ drinking habits.”

NUS Vice President Eva Crossan Jory stated that although many students are “making active decisions” regarding their alcohol consumption, she remains concerned that excessive alcohol consumption is still considered to have such an important role in university life. 

She wrote: “…The reality for many is that high levels of personal debt and the pressure to do well means many are going out less and studying more.

The cost of living crisis facing students now also means after bills and food it may not be possible for students to spend on other things such as nights out or drinks.”

She encouraged students’ unions to get involved with Alcohol Impact project to “ensure that all students are catered for” and to reduce high-risk behaviour.

Oxford ranked as Britain’s least socially inclusive university

-
1
Oxford ranked as Britain’s least socially inclusive university

Oxford has been ranked as Britain’s least socially inclusive university by The Sunday Times Good University Guide.

In the first university league table to factor in social inclusion, Oxford ranks bottom based on six measures including proportion of working-class, ethnic minority, and mature students.

The new data shows that just one in ten students at Oxford view themselves as working class, and over 60% of students went to a private or grammar school.

16 out of the 24 Russell Group universities were ranked in the bottom 20 of the table for social inclusivity, with St Andrews, Cambridge, Durham and Bristol also in the bottom five.

Despite eight out of ten pupils attending non-selective schools in the UK, only four out of ten students from Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial College came from these kinds of schools.

MP David Lammy, who has previously accused Oxford University of “social apartheid”, declared yesterday that many of Britain’s top universities were still “gated communities for the privileged”.

He went on to say: “The new Office for Students should prove it has teeth – by using its powers to fine or cap the fees of those institutions which fail to distinguish between elite and elitist.”

Oxford University said that last year’s intake had more students than ever “from areas with low traditions of going into higher education.”

They said: “We are continually evaluating initiatives to improve diversity on all counts and investing further in approaches that work.”

“An outstanding example is our UNIQ Summer School, which has helped 1,250 students into Oxford since 2012, and which we are now expanding to reach an extra 500 students from target areas every year.”

The Sunday Times Guide ranked Cambridge as number one overall, followed by Oxford, St Andrews, and Imperial College, with Loughborough awarded Sunday Times university of the year.

Voluntourism: how a booming industry has real world consequences

-
1
Voluntourism: how a booming industry has real world consequences

Few individuals have placed more emphasis on the imperative to help those in need than Peter Singer. In Famine, Affluence, and Morality, he famously drew a moral equivalence between failing to engage in philanthropy and refusing to jump into a pond to save a drowning child right before one’s eyes. The importance of charitable giving has become largely mainstream.

In public discourse over the past few decades, the clear moral benefits of “doing good” for those in need have accompanied massive increases in social impact activity, including philanthropy and “effective altruism.” However, one such activity in particular has skyrocketed. The booming industry of “voluntourism,” or volunteer tourism, offers travel opportunities associated with social impact volunteering, such as teaching English or building houses in an earthquake-affected region.

If going on vacation while tangibly changing the world sounds too good to be true, that’s because it is. Short-term projects stifle the agency of developing countries to develop sustainably, perpetuating systemic power dynamics that hinder the potential for self-driven projects. Interrogating some of the assumptions behind Singer’s initial claims reveal that such “do-good” activities often actually fuel the systemic conditions that give rise to poverty and other social problems in the first place. Voluntourism has a few key features: a limited time frame (“vacations” don’t last more than a few weeks, a couple months at most), an extremely high turnover rate (volunteers flow in and out in a continuous stream due to the short time frame, and do not participate in any type of formal handover), and a relatively low barrier of entry (for example, you do not have to be a professional or have any engineering background to participate in house-building projects).

Combined, these characteristics can actually generate more harm than good. There are two broad problems with the voluntourist model: the sustainability problem and the amateur problem. Firstly, the short time frame and resulting high turnover rate is very detrimental to long-term sustainability. Teaching English for two weeks rather than investing in resources like textbooks renders structural change impossible and makes a school totally reliant on volunteer teachers. Even if the teaching quality is high, this means that potential teachers from the local community become crowded out.

Secondly, the amateur problem: the only criteria potential volunteers really need to meet are having good intentions and being able to afford a plane ticket to the destination. This means that development projects often lack much-needed expertise: constructing homes without an engineering background, or even teaching without any training, can render poor quality services with very little accountability. Ultimately, this means that “voluntourist” projects disproportionately benefit privileged individuals, who put such activities on their resumes and social media profiles after contributing very little aside from a short period of time and a questionable knowledge base.

However, it is important to note that volunteering is not inherently problematic. There are several criteria a volunteering organization can meet in order to promote good, sustainable practices. By accepting trained professionals to work in a placement for at least a couple months, organizations can combat both the sustainability and amateur problems. Furthermore, hosting volunteers with local families could provide real opportunities for cultural engagement, combating the insularity that results when volunteers stay in accommodation together with very little interaction with people from the community. Discussing one’s work with the stakeholders who are affected by it is a powerful way to gauge one’s impact and get feedback in real time. Further, collaboration with stakeholders on the ground, such as local NGOs rather than large Western volunteering organizations, can significantly mitigate the effects of harmful power dynamics.

As international travel has become more accessible in the past few decades, those privileged enough to fly have truly caught the “wanderlust bug.” Travel has become something of a universal passion, a way to explore and encounter new people with no prerequisites aside from a plane ticket. By capitalising on this desire to travel, the focus of “voluntourism” shifts away from the real needs of the charity sector. Development is a field that requires technical expertise, cultural understanding, and sustained periods of time. It is important to leave such projects in the hands of experts in close collaboration with locals, rather than conflating it with feel-good tourism.

Individuals can donate to charitable organizations, provide professional expertise pro bono, or spend a slightly longer time volunteering with a local NGO and living with a host family. All of these options would have a more meaningful and sustainable impact than voluntourism. Ultimately, Peter Singer provides a compelling case that we should help those in need. Yet how remains an open question, one that is absolutely critical in determining how to deliver tangible material benefits that can last.

Follow the Money: How football puts finance over fans

Cerys Baines
-
0
Follow the Money: How football puts finance over fans

After what seemed like a miracle end to the previous season, when they survived relegation from the Championship in the 88th minute of their final game, the hopes of Bolton Wanderers for the current season were nearly dashed last week. Bolton narrowly avoided administration when they struck a last minute deal. This meant they escaped losing 12 points for their financial struggles, which would have put the Wanderers at the bottom of the Championship with -1 points.

Although it is clear there must be a deterrent for going into administration and for the mismanagement of funds, is point deduction really the answer? Those who suffer most from this are, in reality, the players and especially the fans, who stick with their clubs through thick and thin, rather than those involved with the financial decision making.

The removal of points can cause a club to deteriorate and for financial stability to move further out of reach. Portsmouth FC became the first Premier League club to face administration, in February 2010, and were then relegated to the Championship at the end of the season. They were denied a license to play in the UEFA Cup the following season, which would have improved their debts, despite coming 2nd in the FA cup. Three years on, following further financial difficulties and point deductions, they ended the 2012/2013 season with relegation to League Two. A previously competent football team lost out due to their crumbling finances, as helpless fans watched from the sidelines.

The money problems of some clubs in the top two flights are put in perceptive when we look at Manchester City and United who both reported record revenues recently, with City recently marking a decade under the ownership of the Abu Dhabi United Group. City’s revenue stood at £473.4m for the 2016/2017 financial year, whilst United’s grew to £581m, largely helped by domestic TV revenues. Despite these huge sums for some clubs, Bolton nearly became the first football league side to face administration since 2013 before a £4.8m loan from BluMarble, a figure considered spare change by the largest club in the Premier League.

The increasing emphasis on money in football over the past few years seems to be forcing less well off clubs out of the game, as it is becoming ever more necessary to have the backing of a wealthy owner to have any real chance of competing. Previously, if a club had a player with considerable talent, he would stay with them throughout his professional career, meaning many teams had star players to bolster their position in the football league. Now, however, as soon as a player is identified as a talent, they are poached by bigger clubs, for higher wages and spend the rest of their professional career being traded around by big premier league clubs. This practice has eroded the once close relationship between the players and supporters, fans know that even if their club nurtures a new talent, they will soon move on.

The huge sums of money and the quick turnover of players has all but ended the possibility of success through developing a strong team and management, instead the same big clubs consistently win competitions. In the last 22 years, only the same four clubs – Chelsea, Arsenal, Manchester United and Manchester City – have won the Premier League, the only exception being Leicester City in the 2015/2016 season.

What does this emphasis on money mean for the future of the beautiful game? One can only hope that the smaller clubs can still find ways of being considered genuine competition. It would be a disappointment to see clubs such as Bolton, who were one of the twelve founders of the original football league, fall down the rankings due to their lack of funds. However, with the increasing prominence of big money in football, such as TV deals and large transfer sums, it seems that for now the rich clubs will continue to get richer, while smaller clubs will struggle to make ends meet.

Aung San Suu Kyi’s honorary degree should be revoked

-
1
Aung San Suu Kyi’s honorary degree should be revoked

There is a video from Oxford’s 2012 honorary degree ceremony, and it sends shivers down my spine. Aung San Suu Kyi (St Hugh’s, 1967) is in full gown for the occasion, and with her fellow honorands reporting “tears in their eyes”, says:

“Every human being is expected to have a value, and a dignity of her kind or his kind. And that’s why, throughout the years, when I was struggling for human rights in Burma, I felt I was doing something of which my old university would have approved. And to feel the approval behind me has helped me a great deal. The most important thing for me about Oxford was […] that I learned there in terms […] of a respect for the best of human civilisation. It gave me a confidence in humankind.”

Could this be more shockingly at odds with the scandalous silence and apparent indifference of the Myanmar government over its military forces’ brutal persecution of the Rohingya people? The UN now speaks of genocide, but Suu Kyi’s mantra continues to be: “There have been allegations and counter-allegations. We have to listen to all of them. We have to make sure those allegations are based on solid evidence before we take action.” Allegations and counter-allegations? Is this diplomacy or deception? Perhaps both.

As Einstein put it many years ago, “the world is a dangerous place — not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.” Nothing could be truer of Suu Kyi’s direct responsibility in allowing for and indifferently standing by one of the most devastating humanitarian disasters of the 21st century.

Suu Kyi, once a widely celebrated defender of human rights — Time Magazine named her one of the “Children of Gandhi”; and in 1991 she received the Nobel Peace Prize — has switched sides in the history of her country. She is now among perpetrators, among “those who look on and do nothing”. For this simple reason, it is time that Oxford should follow the example of several other UK universities and revoke Suu Kyi’s honorary degree. Myanmar’s head of government has gone from being a human rights defender to not seeming to care at all, and alleged waiting for “solid evidence before we take action” cannot be an excuse for allowing a military-led ethnic cleansing campaign to continue.

Last year, more than 700,000 Rohingya people were expelled from their homes in northern Rakhine state, fleeing from a nightmare of mass murder, rape, and burnt-down villages. The latest UN report calls for the prosecution of the military’s top tier for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

Further, the ICC’s chief prosecutor Bensouda has now confirmed that the court will be able to take the case to trial — what had before been considered difficult, given that Myanmar never signed the Rome Statute, is now possible by focusing on crimes committed in signatory country Bangladesh. Faithfully in line with her overall refusal to acknowledge the problem, Suu Kyi calls the ICC’s involvement “meritless”.

The University of Oxford has not been completely silent on the developments. In September last year, as Cherwell reported, it issued a statement calling on Suu Kyi to “eliminate discrimination and oppression,” – adding, however, that it would not review the honorary degree. In the same month, St Hugh’s college decided to remove Suu Kyi’s painted portrait – without a political statement. A month later, St Hugh’s students removed Suu Kyi’s name from the Junior Common Room. Yet, what the university itself has done so far is not enough.

Some may argue that it is not the university’s place to get involved in politics, and that doing so would blur the lines of when it is legitimate for the university to intervene in political issues. But if the degree was awarded to honour human rights, can it not be revoked to honour human rights? If human rights aren’t “too political”, speaking out against genocide isn’t too political either. A university that happily hands out honorary titles to prominent political leaders cannot claim that revoking those would be too much of a “political intervention”.

Instead, this could be a powerful public statement against Suu Kyi’s implication in a campaign of mass violence against the country’s Muslim minority. Of course, revoking a degree is symbolic, and thus by definition insufficient. Yet being symbolic, it is also by definition meaningful — and not, as argued in a Cherwell Comment article last year, “evidence of western self-obsession”. The issuing of honorary degrees is part of how Oxford portrays itself to the world — taking that seriously doesn’t speak of self-obsession, but only asks for one small and simple change.

Of course, much more action is needed. But doing nothing on this level, in such a case, is still as politically unacceptable as it is humanly irresponsible. And how much responsibility can an irresponsible university teach?

The government is wrong to dismiss abortion clinic buffer zones

Sophie Kilminster
-
1
The government is wrong to dismiss abortion clinic buffer zones

Last week, Home Secretary Sajid Javid rejected calls for buffer zones outside abortion clinics by saying that protest-free areas around clinics “would not be a proportionate response” to the harassment from protestors. Now perhaps it’s the English student in me, but the suggestion of a “proportionate response” seems to imply that the Home Secretary feels we should wait for a ‘proportionate’ number of women to be harassed before any action is taken to stop this harassment.

Abortion is a contentious issue, but I believe wrongly so; abortion should be personal and the business of only the woman who needs it, like any medical procedure. Protestors have attempted to undermine women’s choices through tactics such as physically blocking the patient’s path, assault and displaying distressing images. The government’s failure to act in the face of harassment appears to me like some sort of punishment. Ultimately, this decision ensures that more women will be penalised in the form of intimidation as they embark on this procedure. Our government seems to think that harassment must go to certain lengths before it is appropriate to step in, almost as if those women deserve a little bit of intimidation because it comes with the territory of having an abortion.

I am not trying to make out that this is the government’s stance, because a stance implies that the government is actually invested in the issue; instead, this is the government’s lazy way of brushing aside a serious problem. There is, to my mind, no similar situation where a man’s choices would be questioned and pressured to such an extent, and where the government would passively condone one group of people treating another as if they’re not entitled to make their own choices.

As ever, this is where the issue of free speech comes into play. It can be argued ‘Pro-life’ protestors (although I dislike this name because if someone is ‘pro-life’ why wouldn’t they support a safe medical procedure which helps maintain the life of a sentient, grown woman) have every right to protest outside abortion clinics because they feel passionately that abortions are wrong. After all, one of the most sacred things about our society is the right to protest freely.

However, much of what is peddled by such protestors is dangerously untrue and uninformed. The abortion limit in the UK is 24 weeks, with 90% taking place before 12 weeks when the foetus is just 2 inches long. Yet a lot of pro-life material makes out that these bundles of cells are miniature babies who could survive outside the womb; such myths can be turned into graphic and emotional anti-abortion material. The Public Order Act of 1986 restricts protest activities which cause harm to others, and the use of those blood-smeared, dead-foetus-featuring signs may do just that to a woman about to undergo a serious medical procedure.

I also take issue with some of the more passive forms of protest, such as being ‘prayed for’, which make up the majority of anti-abortion protests. Such shows of concern are insulting and patronising, a literal ‘holier-than-thou’ take on a personal situation. Whilst 1/5 of women have their mind changed by the staff inside the clinic, these staff are trained to help women make this decision by talking through financial, emotional matters surrounding the pregnancy, not by shaming her by shoving a photoshopped picture of a dead foetus in her face.

Whilst protestors are entitled to freedom of speech, this speech must be informed and not rely on emotional tropes to guilt-trip women, whose situation they know absolutely nothing about, into changing their minds. Abortions are not something that anyone considers lightly. They are expensive, with a consultation costing £85 and treatment as much as £475 at a Marie Stopes clinic. There are proper legal procedures to challenge laws one disagrees with – intimidating vulnerable people outside abortion clinics is not the way to do this.

The BBC found instances of patients becoming distressed, rebooking their appointments or failing to follow medical advice following such protests. This clearly demonstrates how the failure to create buffer zones curtails choices for women. A buffer zone would go a long way to allow women free choice about their pregnancy, a decision which will permanently affect every aspect of their life. Ultimately, the UK government’s refusal to implement them is an affront to all women.

1...711712713...2,526Page 712 of 2,526

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