Monday 16th June 2025
Blog Page 73

Oxford awarded £1 million for new heritage technology initiative

Isabelle Monahan
-
0
Oxford awarded £1 million for new heritage technology initiative

Nearly £1 million has been awarded to Oxford University to strengthen its conservation and heritage science initiatives.

The Oxford Collaboration in Heritage Science Research and Engagement (OCHRE) project received the funding from the UK Research and Innovation Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC). The University is a leading player in AHRC’s £80 million investment project.

Aiming to foster collaboration between arts and sciences, OCHRE will involve the departments of Geography, Archaeology, Materials Science, Engineering, and Chemistry at the University – as well as institutions like the Bodleian Library and Ashmolean Museum. 

OCHRE is part of the national Research Infrastructure for Conservation and Heritage Science (RICHeS) programme, which aims to utilise improved technology to safeguard the UK’s cultural heritage. RICHeS seeks to improve access to heritage collections, stimulate the UK’s heritage economy, and drive innovation in material science.

Led by Professor Heather Viles of the School of Geography and the Environment, OCHRE will create a sustainable heritage science hub connecting eight laboratories that will be equipped with advanced tools. Viles told Cherwell that the hub would take the form of “a modest, hot-desking space” and “a series of events to showcase what [they] do.” 

Viles said she was excited about “addressing some big challenges for cultural heritage”. She also told Cherwell that she was “really keen to work with all types of heritage organisation, from the biggest and highest profile sites which attract global visitors such as Blenheim Palace” to “much less well-known local sites.”

New technologies enabled by the investment include scanning electron microscopes and enhanced digital and hyperspectral imaging technologies, which will increase the detail visible when artefacts are being studied. Higher-performance equipment for chemical and structural analysis and portable analysis tools will also be introduced, including handheld X-ray devices thought of as a “lab in your pocket”.

The UK had a heritage sector of £31 billion in 2019 according to Historic England, with Oxford itself providing £7.9 billion in research and knowledge exchange activities in 2018-2019.

Oxford study shows Americans have ‘significantly worse’ cardiovascular health than Britons

Isabel Thompson
-
0
Oxford study shows Americans have ‘significantly worse’ cardiovascular health than Britons

Oxford researchers found that British adults are healthier than Americans, especially in terms of cardiovascular health. The study compared empirical data from British and American adults aged between 33 and 46, revealing that American adults are much more likely to be obese, face high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and have overall poor cardiovascular health.

Significantly, the study reveals that even the most affluent Americans have health equal to, or worse than, the most deprived Brits. Co-author of the study, Dr Andrea Tilstra, believes that America’s high inequality, alongside an extremely limited welfare state, has contributed to these findings.

In addition to comparing their health, the study asked participants about their self-perception. The researchers found that while British adults have better health, they are more likely to say that they’re in poor health. While 18% of Brits said they had “poor health”, only 12% of Americans said so.

Nevertheless, the UK is by no means in the clear. Deputy Director of the Leverhulme Centre Professor Jennifer Dowd notes that Britain has a large smoker population when compared to the US.

Additionally, Britain has a growing obesity epidemic. The study reports the British obesity rate at 34.5%, trailing narrowly behind the US’s rate of 40.4%. Professor Dowd said that the “worsening health trends in the US could serve as a warning for Britain”, and she is not alone in this.

This study is in line with Prime Minister Starmer’s description of the NHS’s state as “reform or die”. Starmer further detailed that currently one in three British adults are obese, with one in five having high blood pressure by midlife, and that “those from the most deprived backgrounds are twice as likely to be obese by reception age”, indicating the complexity of the problem.

Dr Tilstra further adds that this paper illustrates a unique opportunity for comparative research between the two nations, by specifically comparing “differences in policies and other environmental contexts”.

Oxford researchers call for recognising lifestyles of Mobile Indigenous Peoples

Rani Chor
-
0
Oxford researchers call for recognising lifestyles of Mobile Indigenous Peoples

In collaboration with the UN, a team of Oxford University researchers released a report focused on the legal recognition, land rights, and mobility, including transboundary movement, of Mobile Indigenous Peoples. The Oxford team also organised an event with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) at the UN General Assembly in New York on Monday.

Oxford’s Dr. Ariell Ahearn, a lecturer at the School of Geography and the Environment, and Professor Dawn Chatty, an Emeritus Professor of Anthropology and Forced Migration, led the team responsible for in-person and virtual consultations with Mobile Indigenous Peoples, including the Sámi reindeer herders of Finland and the Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada. 

Dr Ahearn told Cherwell: “[Mobile Peoples] have experienced discrimination and criminalisation based on their mobility and human rights violations. These must be rectified and the rights upheld by states and the UN.” 

The UN event on Monday 14th aimed to introduce context around this Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of Mobile Indigenous People. Hosted in partnership with several organisations including the UNDP, University of Arizona and the Special Rapporteur’s Office.

The report relates to demands of the Dana+20 Manifesto, which calls on governments, corporations, UN agencies and researchers to create policies that recognise and protect mobile lifeways, through building upon a statement of principles called the Dana Declaration on Mobile Peoples and Conservation (2002) of which Chatty is a committee member. 

The report on the situation of Mobile Indigenous Peoples was presented to the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on 15th October. According to the report, Mobile Indigenous Peoples face increasing challenges such as border restrictions, environmental degradation, and loss of land rights, which threaten their way of life and ability to sustain their cultural heritage. The report found conditions including an 8% decrease of precipitation and an average temperature 2.5 times the world average in the Mongolian highlands, killing herders’ livestock and threatening their livelihoods.

“As an academic activist who has worked closely with Mongolian mobile pastoralists and witnessed the destruction of their homelands including sacred sites by mining companies, I consider it my duty to join their fight for justice,” Ahearn told Cherwell.

The Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, José Francisco Calí Tzay, explicitly thanked the University of Oxford in the report for organising the virtual consultation and side event at the twenty-third session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues this past Spring. 

Since beginning her academic career forty years ago, Chatty has advocated for the rights of Mobile peoples and the power of academics to bring sound research to the table. She told Cherwell: “For decades much academic and development ‘research’ insisted that mobile peoples were backward, irrational, and an embarrassment to progressive, development models of modernity.” 

Instead, she said that: “movement and mobility need to be recognised as an excellent adaptive strategy – in terms of livelihoods as well as current global climate change”. Chatty continued: “We need to get away from the sedentist perspective that sees mobility as somehow threatening.” 

Looking ahead, several Oxford researchers will attend events provisionally set in Mongolia in 2026, which the United Nations has deemed the International Year of Rangeland and Pastoralists. 

Dame Maggie Smith’s Oxford beginnings, from Mansfield to McGonagall

Georgia Campbell
-
0
Dame Maggie Smith’s Oxford beginnings, from Mansfield to McGonagall

‘I remember being so frightened and thinking “if it rains I won’t have to do it”. But we kind of went on – I think – in the rain, anyway.’ 

It is difficult to imagine the two-time Academy Award winner as she must have appeared to audiences of the Oxford University Dramatic Society’s 1952 production of Twelfth Night. Slightly soggy and very scared, 18 year-old ‘Margaret Smith’ (as she is listed in the programs) made her first ever reviewed performance as Viola in the Shakespearean comedy at Mansfield College Gardens. 

But in spite of the weather, and her nerves, Smith’s performance was a huge success: ‘I was much struck by the simple sincerity of her acting,’ stated a reviewer for the Oxford Mail, ‘she approximates very nearly to the Viola of our dreams.’ 

And so began Dame Maggie’s path to global fame: four years later she was on Broadway; three years after that she received her first Academy Award nomination for Nowhere To Go (1958). Now nearly a month since the news of the actress’ death, aged 89, we can reflect on Smith’s extraordinary career and her connections to the city that started it all. 

The Smith family moved to Oxford when Maggie was four years old: a result of her father’s work with the University’s School of Pathology. When she left Oxford High School at 16, Smith began training at the Theatre School connected to the Oxford Playhouse (her parents had refused to let her go to the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts for fear of London’s wild influences). Here she would often get involved in student productions with the University. At the time, Oxford University Dramatic Society (OUDS), as well as many of Oxford’s colleges, didn’t admit female members so were forced to recruit women from elsewhere. It was an opportunity that Dame Maggie relished. 

Smith performed with the University College Players in Hilary Term of 1953, playing the female lead, Consuela, in Leonid Andreyev’s He Who Gets Slapped First. Univ remained all-male until 1979, but Peter Bayley (former English Fellow at the college) remembered Dame Maggie’s performance even then as ‘striking’. 

Though international stardom drew Dame Maggie away from Oxford in the late 1950s, she remained tied to the city – and the University – for all of her life. Smith would return to Oxford again, famously, for the filming of the Harry Potter films, taking on the role of the iconic Professor McGonagall (the role she is perhaps most famous for amongst students today). 

She was, allegedly, the only actor that J.K Rowling specifically requested. But though Smith enjoyed the fame afforded to her later in life by the Potter franchise and her success in Downton Abbey, she famously stated in an interview with the Evening Standard that ‘it wasn’t what you’d call satisfying. I didn’t feel like I was acting in those things.’ It was Smith’s formidable versatility over an almost century-long career that has secured her place as a British national treasure. 

Dame Maggie was also a long-standing patron of the Oxford Playhouse, and was given the Bodley Medal by the Bodlein Libraries in 2016 for her services to the performing arts. In 2017 she was awarded an honorary fellowship by Mansfield College, paying homage to that first rainy performance of Twelfth Night.

In her conversation with Baroness Helena Kennedy QC (former head of Mansfield), Smith recalled that her 1952 co-stars took bets on the future of the cast during rehearsals: according to them, ‘I was the one who was the least likely to do anything’. Seventy-two years, a Damehood, and countless accolades later, it is safe to say that they couldn’t have been more wrong. 

Bazball 2: Electric Boogaloo

Raghav Chari
-
0
Bazball 2: Electric Boogaloo

Last term, I wrote an article on England cricket after their demoralising Test series defeat in India. The gist of the article was that, despite the loss, England should keep faith in its head coach Brendon ‘Baz’ McCullum and his Bazball brand of cricket, and that the team would ultimately learn from the experience.

Six months on, I feel fairly validated. England cricket has persisted with Bazball amid heavy criticism (no need to thank me, Rob Key), and have been rewarded with a strong showing in the home summer, winning five Tests out of six against the West Indies and Sri Lanka. And, as I predicted, there’s been a maturing of the team— a refinement of their methods.

They don’t go into tricky situations with the same reckless abandon now; there’s a recognition of the need to grind it out sometimes. At Old Trafford, Joe Root batted sensibly and slowly ground out the chase in front of a probing Sri Lankan attack. Similarly, in the next Test at Lord’s, Root took care to put on 143 before attempting his much-maligned reverse scoop, which was promptly caught at gully.

To me, however, the story of the summer is the rise of young talents in the team. With the retirement of Jimmy Anderson, Root and captain Ben Stokes are the only regular selections on the team that are above the age of 30. England is fielding probably the youngest Test team in the world, and surprisingly, they don’t feel unsteady.

Credit where it’s due to Baz and Stokes: virtually every single player they’ve picked has performed well at the international level. Their selections are often left-field, often ignoring contenders with traditionally solid numbers behind them in the county system. Instead, they tend to pick on attributes, and it’s worked out so far.

Examples of this abound. This year, Shoaib Bashir was picked for the India tour as a spinner for his height and High Release Point™, despite fairly poor numbers in county cricket. He’s had a promising tour in India and then skittled the West Indies at Trent Bridge. Gus Atkinson and Jamie Smith, both Surrey players, debuted this summer and have slipped comfortably into the team; Atkinson taking 34 wickets at 20, and Smith scoring 487 runs at nearly 50. They’ve shouldered a lot of responsibility and have responded admirably.

I’ve always credited Bazball for backing its players and creating an environment of positivity and self-belief that allows them to thrive. I think this culture is the reason why so many young players come into the team and perform well. Don’t forget, the top three of Crawley, Duckett, and Pope have all been accused of technical deficiency, but the environment and the backing they receive has helped them settle in and start performing. And now, strange as it may seem, they are becoming the seniors in this team.

Yes, really, whisper it if you must, the changeover of generations has already happened. Stokes’ absence due to injury in the Sri Lanka series led to Ollie Pope taking over as captain, which is a role he will undoubtedly inherit in the future. In the last year, Broad and Anderson have retired, Foakes and Bairstow been replaced, Leach and Robinson dropped. Bazball 2.0 has been characterised by the desire for fresh faces, and these fresh faces make the youngsters of yore look old by comparison. ‘Potential’ is the watchword for this new era.

It’s no secret what this potential is meant to be unleashed for: Baz and Stokes are clear that all their selections and planning lead to the Ashes in Australia in the winter of 2025/26. They want pacers that are genuinely fast and get lots of bounce, like Atkinson and Olly Stone. They want aggressive spinners like Bashir, and aggressive batters like Crawley. It’s increasingly apparent that they’re cutting off all the deadwood that has plagued England and replacing it with young talent that can challenge for the Ashes.

It’s an ambitious plan, especially since the youth of England will be up against the oldest and most experienced Australian team in decades. Baz and Stokes have their task cut out for them. England play 11 Tests before the Ashes, six of which are tours of Pakistan and New Zealand this winter. This winter’s Tests will probably determine who is on the plane to Australia.

Now that the first Test in Pakistan has already finished, we have some perspective on what the touring plans are. Brydon Carse was called up and impressed (me, at least) with the pace and bounce he offered. Leach returned to the team and was instrumental in helping the team beat Pakistan by an innings after conceding 500+ in the first innings. Woakes was in fact backed to lead the bowling away from home, and Pope was given the captaincy in Stokes’ absence. Now, Stokes will return for the second Test and is likely to bowl a bit as well.

The batting lineup seems settled for the Ashes, so I won’t dwell on it longer than one prediction: Joe Root will finally make his first century in Australia this Ashes. He’s in sublime form and this is practically his last chance. Beyond that, I won’t offer comments on what seems to be a very stable batting order.

There are still questions around the bowling, though, and especially the pace attack. The foremost is of Chris Woakes. He played in Pakistan, yes, but will he play in the Ashes? His bowling has never looked inspiring Down Under, but leaving him out means fielding a bowling attack with zero experience of Australian conditions. I think he’ll be in the squad, but won’t play.

As for the other pacers, Atkinson and Wood seem to be locks if healthy. Then there is a whole battery of options to choose from: Tongue, Hull, Potts, etc. I personally favour Stone and Carse. They’ve both bowled at good pace and bounce, and bowl at awkward angles for the batter. I predict Carse will feature prominently in the Ashes.

Last is Stokes. He needs to bowl again, but more than anything else he needs to do Ben Stokes things when the chips are down; I don’t see England winning the series without one of his talismanic performances. This is probably his last tour to Australia. Let’s see if he makes the most of it.

Debate commentary: Oxford Union has confidence in the Labour government – but not its own rules

Jacob Newby
-
0
Debate commentary: Oxford Union has confidence in the Labour government – but not its own rules

The Oxford Union voted that it has confidence in this government. The annual motion “This House Has No Confidence in His Majesty’s Government” saw 116 voting against and 71 voting for last night. Prior to the debate, President Ebrahim Osman Mowafy passed sweeping rules changes with an emotional speech, followed by a long standing ovation and some objections.

Before the main event, the chamber voted against the emergency motion “This House Would Vote for Donald Trump”. The debate, more relaxed and jovial, featured the comment, “does democracy matter? Maybe” and a heated argument between a married couple with opposing stances.

After guest speakers for the night entered the chamber, the room fell silent to hear from Osman-Mowafy, who rather tellingly began saying “business might get messy”. Private and public business must be held right before the main event, and members will vote on motions proposed by the Committee. The Press Officer told Cherwell to “strap in for the drama”.

Osman-Mowafy then began an emotional speech about his experience being disqualified from the presidency by election tribunal, and later reinstated after 17 Officers threatened resignation. He told the chamber that “you shouldn’t have to dress a certain way, be a certain way, to be a member of this Society”, voice wavering, and pausing for a moment to wipe his eyes. After his speech, the chamber erupted in a standing ovation that lasted for two minutes.

The proposed changes were voted on without hearing unfriendly objections, causing member Lyle Hopkins to walk out with a shout “you don’t know what you’re voting for!” Despite a notice posted by the Returning Officer attempting to strike down the changes, the chamber voted in favour. The guest speakers sat uncomfortably for the half-hour drama.

The main debate (finally) got under way. Opening for the proposition was Chief Operating Officer Karma Gad from Mansfield College. She “roasted” an opposition speaker, former Conservative MP Rt. Hon. Tobias Ellwood VR, for being on the wrong side of the debate floor. Dramatics ensue as Ellwood stands for a point of information, correcting Gad that he was arguing against his party because the Conservatives were in power when he accepted the offer to speak, and the Union wouldn’t let him switch sides – ironic, given Union hacks’ tendency to do just that.

Opening for the opposition was Standing Committee member Anya Trofimova from St. Johns College. Trofimova went straight for the jugular, “roasting” proposition speaker Conservative MP Rt. Hon. Richard Holden by hoping his loyalty to his side of the debate “extends further than his loyalty to the North East” – referencing the MP’s controversial “parachute” election when he moved 250 miles south to Basildon and Billericay right before the 2024 General Election. Holden, perhaps used to the theatrics of parliament, sighed and found something fascinating about the ceiling.

The debate continued with a proposition speech from Chair of Consultative Committee Noah Robson from Christ Church College. A clear and compelling speaker, he compared Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s inaugural speech, which referenced a budgetary “black hole” left by the preceding government, as similar to former Chancellor George Osborne’s speech in 2010 following the defeat of Labour. He continued by arguing that whichever government is in power, we get the same net negative result.

Next up in opposition was Labour MP Kevin Bonavia, who, before speaking, stood in awkward silence as some fifty debate goers shuffled out of the chamber. Besides a stumbling joke about Liz Truss’ short premiership, the speech was again a boilerplate Labour manifesto retelling – despite a point of information about whether Labour’s victory was simply a result of tactical voting, adeptly handled and relatively unanswered.

Proposition speaker Conservative MP Dame Harriett Baldwin spoke next, accusing Labour’s cuts to the winter fuel allowance for “cruelly chilling” our elderly. On a point of information about the Rwanda bill, Baldwin said that “I don’t think anyone in this chamber has been to Rwanda” but that “I have visited the accommodation [that migrants would’ve used] and it is very agreeable”. The chamber erupted into laughter. She finished with reference to Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s acceptance of gifts, saying that “this is the type of corruption you would see from a banana republic.”

Opposition speaker Labour MP Calvin Bailey MBE was next, opening by calling himself “from one of those banana republics” and made reference to the standards on his chest as proof of his credentials. Bailey seemed to read his prepared speech word-for-word, starting his final remarks with “my conclusion” as if it were a heading on his paper.

Next up, Conservative MP Richard Holden began his speech clutching notes on House of Commons paper, as if it were prepared on the debate floor itself – and it sounded like that, too. The Government “dropped the ball on House of Lord reform” and “took a knee to the Chinese Communist Party”, he said, followed by accusing Starmer of getting “backstage tickets for Tay-Tay [sic] in exchange for blue lights”.

The final speaker, Ellwood, commented on the number of people still leaving the chamber, saying that he “was expecting the janitor to come in soon”. He sought to butter up the crowd by arguing that “it is clear why there are so many prime ministers from Oxford”, pleasing the hacks who no doubt have such aspirations. He followed by taking the audience on a trip around the world, referencing Greece, Ukraine, and a “massive bum fight” between Russia and China. Despite the argument, or lack thereof, he spoke confidently and well to the audience as if a seasoned Union veteran.

Editors’ note: Commentary herein represents the opinion of the reporter, not of Cherwell.

Dominic Grieve: “The point is, can one be useful for the university? I think I can.”

Oliver Hall
-
0
Dominic Grieve: “The point is, can one be useful for the university? I think I can.”

Dominic Grieve KC is ready for the job, or as ready as you can be for a job that has no real defined role. By his own admission, of the countless election campaigns that he has fought in his life, this one is “totally unique”. Having said that, Grieve is more than ready to make his pitch.

Dominic Grieve has led multiple extremely distinguished careers. First a lawyer and then as a new Conservative MP elected in 1997. He went on to represent his constituency of Beaconsfield for 22 years, and served his first cabinet role as Attorney General for David Cameron’s coalition government from 2010-2014. After that, he was Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee for four years and came to particular public prominence during the Brexit negotiations after the referendum in 2016. He was in favour of a second referendum and regularly brought amendments to the government’s various ‘Brexit bills’ in the years after the referendum. Alongside Rory Stewart, Greg Clarke, and Phillip Hammond, he had the whip suspended by Boris Johnson in 2019 for voting against a no-deal Brexit. He lost his Beaconsfield seat after standing as an independent candidate against the Conservatives in that year’s general election.

Taken alone, none of this is relevant to a role that would see him as the figurehead of the University of Oxford, although the name recognition should certainly help in an extremely crowded field of candidates. What is relevant is the diversity of experiences that Grieve has had in his career, and the diversity of thought that he has expressed. His candidacy does not fit conveniently into the opposing party political boxes which the media has assigned to Lord William Hague and Lord Peter Mandelson.

On why he wants to commit to a decade-long, unpaid position, Grieve is clear: “The point is, can one be useful for the University? … I think I can. Part of it is of course ceremonial but quite honestly I’m not too carried away with that. Ultimately, that part can probably be done by anybody, but then there is the job of supporting the University. I have my own views on higher education and I am very privileged to have been here [Oxford]. I loved and still love the place. But the governance is ultimately for the Vice Chancellor and the Council. They make the decisions but what I think Chris Patten [the outgoing Chancellor] has done well is to provide support, both publicly and privately. Most of all, I see it as job that I could do well for the university, I think it would be fun, and I’ve got the proper amount of time to do it.”

Grieve has very particular views on higher education and agrees that it is at an inflexion point, especially with regard to funding. “In terms of Oxford’s future, it’s competing with American universities which are very heavily endowed. Relatively speaking, the £1.3 billion that Oxford has is not a huge amount of money”.

On his interests in education, Grieve is keen to stress that his focus is and has always been on widening access. He is on the Board of Trustees for the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies and has done mentoring there, as well as at his former college, Magdalen.

Access is undoubtedly his biggest concern when it comes to the potential raising of tuition fees which has been reported in recent weeks. “Frankly, the level of funding per student is insufficient”, he says. “The problem is that that’s not readily curable. The alternative is to grow your endowment substantially like Harvard or Yale so that you can pick whoever you want and provide support for teaching and research. Most universities in the UK won’t be able to make that leap but Oxford and Cambridge, alongside most of the London colleges, probably are in a position to do that.”

As Grieve goes on to say, there is no “magic wand solution” and an endowment of the five or six billion pounds that he thinks might be necessary is not currently forthcoming. In the long term, he is advocating for a “rewiring of how people approach donations.” Instead of donating to their former colleges, as he does himself to Magdalen, he suggests that a better approach would be more central donations to a general endowment fund.

In the near term, the government’s only option seems to be a tuition fee increase, but Grieve is weary: “I think the idea that you can continue raising it in line with inflation when we’ve had the levels of inflation that we’ve had is completely unrealistic. Ultimately, even raising fees by £1000… will make it even more daunting for students to consider coming. It’s a huge issue and it risks restricting access even more, that’s why you need alternative funding sources.”

By its very nature, the Chancellor position is a spokesperson for the entirety of higher education. On this, Grieve says that there should be an acceptance that some university courses are not worth the price that students are paying. He is quick to reject the last government’s “rude” quips about “Micky Mouse degrees”, but does agree with the premise. “There is a problem, which is that lots of people are going through degrees, which I think may be interesting, but that may not be of great value in terms of setting yourself up to be successful economically. Those people could be at a disadvantage with somebody who’s gone off and got a technical qualification in plumbing and will be earning significantly more than they are.”

Grieve is quick to hit back at the previous government’s rhetoric surrounding international students and immigration. During the Conservative party conference, Grieve went on LBC radio to criticise Robert Jenrick’s campaign video as “nasty” and “scandalous”. “The idea”, he says, “that people are coming here to scrounge rather than to make a contribution, I just don’t think that it’s true and I’ve never seen any evidence of it whatsoever.”

The UK university sector relies heavily on international students to support them financially because they pay far higher fees than domestic students. After changes to rules on dependents under the last government though, arrivals of international students decreased by 16%.

Like many, Grieve passionately believes that students shouldn’t be included in immigration numbers at all. “It is beyond my comprehension”, he says. “I’ve never understood it. Immigration is about people coming to this country for settlement. I cannot see why statistics should include students here for a temporary period.”

In the same vain, and as Vice President of the European Movement, Grieve is insistent that a much-discussed deal with the EU on freedom of movement for young people must happen urgently: “I don’t really understand what is bugging Keir Starmer in not approving it. You can change the rules so that you can’t get permanently settled status through the scheme so there isn’t an issue. Allowing young people to travel is of a huge benefit to us and our young people as well as our diversity”.

Eventually, our discussion moves on to freedom of speech. Predictably here, Grieve is also clear in his convictions: “Freedom of expression within the law is absolutely essential. It is also right, however, that people need to express themselves with civility. There’s a time and a place for everything, but in a university, it should absolutely be possible for controversial views to be put forward, listened to, and debated.

“The encampments are slightly different because they are just a demonstration protest. I personally don’t think that people should break the law in any protest. We have a great right to protest in this country that we facilitate. You are not entitled to glue yourself to the road, or to a door, or to occupy other people’s property. That’s breaking the law.”

Overall, Grieve is a man who believes that his lived experiences would make him useful to the University – that is why he is standing. He has written his personal statement for the university, he is in the process of setting up a campaign website, and he is contacting everyone he can think of to try and drum up support. This, however, is not an election where candidates can stand out by attacking each other. At this stage it is impossible even to know how many people are running.

“I think that I could do this job very well”, he says, “but the reality is that some of the other candidates could too. At the end of the day, I just have to make sure that I don’t disappear and the voters are just going to have to make up their minds.”

Where to go when accessibility fails?

Matilda Carnegie
-
0
Where to go when accessibility fails?

Being deaf since birth, I have never been able to access language in the same way as my hearing peers. My daily life as a cochlear implant user mirrors the experience of those learning a second language, requiring ten times the effort to have only a fraction of the comprehension. This reality is why I require additional time for exams, due to the time pressures involved in contrast to writing essays at home. I was officially allocated an extra 45 minutes of time (15 minutes per hour) to account for the fact that it takes me longer to process language. Here is what happened on exam day.

I took my seat in the smaller room, which is where it all began. Initially, my computer experienced a glitch that prevented me from logging on using my regular SSO details. I tried to seek assistance from the exam proctors, yet remarkably none of them were familiar with operating the computers. In-person computer exams were introduced for the first time this year but unfortunately, no IT support was forthcoming. I managed to find an alternative login method, although it caused a 15-minute delay in accessing the system. This was already 15 minutes off my exam time. 

Despite the rocky start, I persevered and completed the first two essays. In the middle of the exam, one of the proctors came up to me to offer an apology for the situation and to explain the absence of guidance on the new computer procedures. The fiasco escalated when the extra time was not implemented, resulting in my exam finishing at the same time as everyone else’s: I was locked out of my computer.

Upon realising the error, I informed the proctors about the extra 45 minutes allocated to me, leading them to contact someone else by phone for my re-entry. After about 30 minutes, they informed me that I would resume the exam at 1:15 pm and finish by 1:55 pm. Regrettably, I was misinformed by the proctor, and my exam actually concluded at 1:35 pm, leaving me with only 20 minutes to complete the final paper. I raised my concerns and was informed that nothing more could be done. 

The exam proctors said that I needed to submit a mitigating circumstances notice (MCE) to the examiners. I promptly submitted the paperwork for the MCE and hoped that it would resolve the situation. However, I was warned by other students that MCEs sometimes do not offer a sufficient framework for the examiners to consider the circumstances (examiners are not always informed about adjustments and the options are limited by what work was produced on the day). Regrettably, the cautionary advice held true, and I received my exam result over the summer. It was a passing grade – not as strong as I had hoped – and falling significantly below my usual performance in class. Furthermore, I was informed that no adjustments could be made to the outcome.

I approached Former DisCam chair Theo Sergiou for his take on the issue. He explained  that “In the 2 years of being co-chair and with over 200 students who approached us for help, about 50% were exam related.’’ He told me that my story was “not uncommon”, and was prolific “amongst graduates and undergraduates, and throughout colleges and departments… On a personal note, I am registered partially blind but in half of my final exams the paper was not enlarged, and the online systems could not enlarge the font. IT took up an hour of my time, and the squinting caused me to vomit in one of my exams. The mitigating circumstances form was considered without any changes to my marking.”  

Whilst nobody has the deliberate intention for a situation like this to arise, my experience certainly underscores how in the hallowed halls of a longstanding institution like Oxford, accommodations for disabled students are often viewed as an afterthought. The incident was the tipping point for me, so I decided to focus on leveraging my experiences to improve Oxford’s accessibility for disabled students. With this objective in mind, I reached out to my department to inform them of the circumstances that had transpired. The situation was challenging as the responsibility did not lie solely with me or the department; instead, it fell on the University as a whole to take action to meet the needs of disabled students. Fortunately, my supervisor supported me throughout this situation and truly advocated on my behalf.

My department escalated the matter to a higher level, engaging with relevant individuals and fighting for increased investment and attention to prevent similar situations in the future for the countless other students who have accessibility requirements. They implemented alterations to the exam protocols, allowing MCEs to be considered in final exam evaluations. This revision enables examiners to review all the various assessments completed by students and make a more comprehensive judgement. Whilst it is not a miraculous fix, it is certainly a step in the right direction, and more than what I expected.

Studying at Oxford University has been a life-changing opportunity and has opened many doors for me personally. I have met so many incredible professors and students – hence why I am passionate about writing this article to raise awareness. Oxford is a formidable institution, so change will not be immediate. However, real progress can be made when there is collective action in advocating for change across all levels and areas of disability equality. As Theo rightly says, “you all can do something about it: stand by Oxford’s disabled students and fight with us.” 

Oxford at the Olympics

Cherwell Staff
-
0
Oxford at the Olympics

This year, Oxford sent eight of its sons and daughters to Paris for the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Cherwell looked into our history at the Games and spoke to some of them too.

Oxford has sent hundreds of sportspersons to the Olympics and Paralympics, stretching all the way back to the inaugural modern Games in 1896. Over the years, our prodigal students and alumni have represented myriad countries across sports from tennis to gymnastics to swimming. In recent years, though, rowing has been the sport of choice for Oxonians. In this year’s Olympics and Paralympics, all eight of our representatives were in rowing, and three out five were rowers in the previous Tokyo Games. This time, Oxonians picked up three Golds and two Bronzes.

Cherwell reached out to a few Olympians, finding out what it was like for them to go to Paris, looking to make history. It’s not been a straightforward path for them; becoming an Olympian takes perseverance and relentless practice from day 1.

Nick Kohl, who came 4th in the Men’s Coxless Four for Italy, spoke to us about his journey from his small town of Cadrezzate to Paris. “I started rowing at age 12, in the lake near my village”, he said in an interview. When he turned 15, he chose to move 600 kilometres away from home to join a project to develop young talent. “The goal was for Tokyo 2020”, he says. But there were hiccups in his path. He first rowed for the Junior National team in 2015, but failed to make the world championships at junior level. He wouldn’t make Tokyo, and he admitted that he felt self-doubt, but he kept going. The turning point was when he went to Syracuse University in the US. “I picked up a new coach who changed my mentality”, he said, He made the u-23 world championships, and then came 3rd in Florida. In his last year at Syracuse, his coach pushed him to go for the national team, and Kohl went all in. He upped his training, making the Italian national team in November 2023. In April 2024, he won the world cup for the first time. From there, they qualified for the Olympics, and started training.

The Olympics itself is another step up. Dave Ambler, who won Bronze for Team GB in the Men’s Coxless Four, told Cherwell about how different the intensity is from rowing at Oxford. “I’m very proud to say I did bumps with Jesus College”, he told Cherwell. With OUBC, he looks back fondly at “the minibus rides we’d have on the way to Wallingford or the crew curries we’d have with our coach”. “It was the closest team I’ve ever been on”, he says. But for the Olympics, he says “I went from doing two sessions a day to three… it took a bit of time to get used to”. But he does maintain that “in the build-up for the Olympics, [we] made sure to keep it light-hearted and fun”.

How is it to be at the Olympics? Kohl says: “At first I found it really weird”; being around so many world-leading athletes and seeing them train. “But when I realise I’m one of them too, it’s a great feeling”, he says. He remembers the sound of 30 thousand people cheering in the last 50 metres of his race as the best memory in Paris. “That feeling can only happen at the Olympics”.

And what would they say to aspiring rowers and Olympians at Oxford? Kohl advises to get a hang of how everything works in first year. “Play through the summer and see how much time it takes out of your day. Figure out if you can do it during term. If you want it, you can definitely do it.” Ambler says, “My advice for any up-and-coming rowers is to enjoy yourself, find ways to make training and your boat club a fun and sociable place to be. The friendships I’ve made through rowing are by far my strongest and I think a lot of this comes from having a great time along the way!”

Oxford kebab vans: For the uninitiated

Amanda Li
-
0
Oxford kebab vans: For the uninitiated

Oxford students have loyalty to two things: their college and their kebab van. There are quite a few scattered around the city, appearing from around 7pm until 3 or 4am. Before you pick which one you will exclusively eat from for the next three years, here’s a guide to who serves what, where. 

Most people will go to one of five vans for a drunk midnight snack: Hassan’s, on the corner of Turl and Broad Street; Hussain’s, on St. Giles next to the Ashmolean; Solomon’s, next to it; Ali’s, on Woodstock Road; and Posh Nosh, next to Westgate. I’ve tried all five; yes, they taste different. McDonald’s is also a popular choice, closing at 3.  Whilst each van has a similar menu, serving grilled doner or chicken in a wrap or pita, alongside variations of chips, burgers, chicken nuggets, mozzarella sticks, and falafel wraps, don’t be fooled into thinking they’re interchangeable. Each van offers a unique culinary experience – you’ll never get the same kebab. Below is Cherwell’s completely unobjective guide to the vans that feed our late night cravings.

Hassan’s: 

Location: Hassan’s is the most convenient to get to (unless you’re at St. Hugh’s), within a 5 minutes’ walk of most central Oxford colleges. 

Food Verdict: My college parents took me there the day it first opened during 2022 freshers week. They said it would change my life. It did. I have remained a loyal customer ever since. They’ve even met my dad. 

Queue: Normally there are five or six people in the line at once, but it can wrap around the corner at 1 AM on the night of a ball. 

Merch:  Sweatshirts are £15.  

Hussein’s: 

Location: North of Tesco on the Ashmolean Museum corner; it’s closer to Worcester and John’s.

Menu:  It has a larger selection, including things like onion rings. For chicken-lovers, Hussein’s has got you covered; popcorn, tenders, grilled, Hussein’s leaves little room for imagination on the chicken front. My friends have said they would die for the mozzarella sticks because the breading “just hits different”, and the barbecue sauce is nice. 

Good to know: The line is not horrendous until there’s a bigger event on, when you could wait up to 30 minutes to get your fix. The staff, like Nadiya, are lovely, sometimes drawing hearts on the lids of our chip boxes. 

Ali’s:

Location: North, near Somerville, St. Anne’s and St. Anthony’s, but have honestly only gotten it when near Anne’s (maybe twice in the last two years.) 

Food Verdict: When I did go, it was around 2:15 and the midnight rush had long passed so there was no queue. I love their burgers, they remind me of home a bit. With ketchup and chips, they go a long way. 

Solomon’s:

Location: Hussein’s

Food Verdict: I often mix up Solomon’s with Hussein’s, but I like Solomon’s burger sauce more. We’ve heard a few horror stories about their garlic mayo, but ultimately that’s really just a problem with garlic mayo as a concept.

Queue: They’re normally less busy than Hussein’s but are equally good; if you’re in a rush, it’s fine to pop by there. They’re owned by the same family and the vibes between the two are always jovial. 

Posh Nosh: 

Location: It’s close to St. Peter’s, just down New Inn Hall Street, but most people who go are coming back from Atik (RIP) or Hank’s. 

Big Plus: A pound cheaper than the others, with a small chips at £2.50. 

Food Verdict: Their chili sauce has a texture akin to pasta sauce; it’s certainly unique but goes better in a kebab than on chips. My friend swears by the cheesy chips. 

The next big question once you’ve decided on a van, is of course, what to order. This, of course, is highly dependent on why you’ve ended up eating at one of the holy grails of Oxford’s dining scene – Cherwell offers a definitive guide for what to order, when:

When you’re up next and undecided: Don’t waste the time of the van owners or the people behind you. Get a small chips and barbecue sauce so you’re not the asshole holding everybody up.

Back from the club but heading to afters: A large cheesy chips with salt. Steer clear of the anti-social sauces: curry, garlic, chili are not soft on your breath. 

On the way home from the library at some ungodly hour: Doner wrap with all the works: salads, chili and garlic sauce, AND a drink. #treatyourself. Do you want onion rings too?

You’ve ended up at Hussein’s but you’re loyal to another van: The mozzarella sticks with ketchup. The Italians may cry, but you’ll sleep well knowing that you cheated on your van for some delicious stringy sticks. 

You’re a picky eater: Chips and chicken nuggets, ketchup in a corner. But at that point, just get McDonald’s. 

Once you receive your order, eat it either on your way back home or sit in a public space nearby and chat. Radcliffe Square and the little memorial across from the Ashmolean are common choices. Both have public bins in their vicinity, which are a far more preferable alternative to having the lingering smell of last night’s kebab stuck in your bin for the next week. Kebab vans are staples of Oxford culture, so don’t be afraid to try them all—your drunk self will thank you!

1...727374...2,511Page 73 of 2,511

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