Monday 21st July 2025
Blog Page 747

Pink food: style over substance?

Julia Alsop
-
0
Pink food: style over substance?

Pinkster, Edgerton, Hoxton, Gordon’s, and Beefeater – do these names mean anything to you?

Perhaps the gin drinkers will recognise these to all be prominent brands of mother’s ruin. But these are also a small selection of the increasing number of brands who have also developed pink gins. They’re pretty but, in most cases, just add synthetic fruit flavour (I’ll allow angostura bitters).

I have even learnt that port wine, made in tawny, ruby, and white varieties since the 1700s has fallen to the trends of rose-hued booze. First released ten years a go, rosé port has become incredibly popular in recent years. Much like pink gin, it is often served with tonic, or else neat in a pretty port glass. It is delicious, but almost like candy rather than the elegantly sippable taste of a more traditional port.

And now the Kitkat has fallen victim.

They are releasing the ruby Kitkat to the UK, rumoured to be with a higher price than the original, and with – as we could’ve guessed – a slight berry taste (why all the sweetness?)

Unless you’ve been hidden under a rock, you’ve seen the evolution of food crazes; we’ve had unicorn food (lots of swirls, stars, and purple), and seen charcoal– everything, rainbow grilled cheese sandwiches, not to mention intrically crafted smoothie bowls more photogenic than most mere mortals.

Don’t get me wrong: I love Instagram.

I’m one of those people who delight in a well-framed shot from a city getaway or, indeed, a chance to document my Sunday brunch particularly visually appealing shot of avocado toast (I’m a ’96 baby – a proud millennial).

However, I’m also a foodie with a penchant for pecorino, chili oil, and damn good quality gin. That is to say, looks can be deceiving.

In a world where one can publish a picture on Instagram at the tap of a finger (of course, only once you’ve added 30 hashtags and your obligatory filter– maybe Valencia?), it seems the Instagram-aesthetic is becoming the most important foodie factor, sacrificing flavour for the sake of ‘no filter-needed’ food art.

As much as I appreciate the allure of attractive, colourfully tinted drinks and foods in all shades of pastel, let’s be honest: the tastiest dishes are usually brown.

Universities’ spending on staff reaches record low

Isabel Morris
-
0
Universities’ spending on staff reaches record low

While UK universities’ income increased by £915m (2.7%) between 2015/16 and 2016/17, the proportion of expenditure on university staff dropped to a record low of 52.9%, according to figures published by the the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) on Thursday.

The data also shows increases in universities’ reserves, which are up to £44.27bn from £12.33bn in 2009/10. Between 2015/16 and 2016/17, they accrued a surplus of £2.3bn, equal to 6.4% of income.

The percentage of expenditure spent on university staff has decreased by 6.54% in the past seven years, while percentage spent on capital expenditure is risen by 34.9% during that time.

https://twitter.com/ucu/status/989459801536155648

In a statement, the UCU said that these figures “made a mockery of universities’ claims that staff were a top priority.”

UCU general secretary Sally Hunt said: “With capital expenditure shooting up and staff costs down to a new low, it is clear that universities are prioritising investment in buildings over their staff. This makes a mockery of claims that staff are a top priority and also suggests they ignore what students say they want.

“While universities’ income rises and they hoard huge reserves, it seems the only people to benefit are vice-chancellors whose pay and perks have long been a source of embarrassment for higher education. The time has come to address the fall in staff pay and we hope the universities will respond positively at next month’s pay talks.”

The latest financial statements for Oxford University show the university’s income at £1.4 billion, with staff costs representing 51% of university expenditure for 2016/17. This figure is 2.9% below the national average released by HESA.

A University spokesperson told Cherwell: “It is a key priority of the university to provide a safe, welcoming and inclusive workplace that enables everyone to develop and do their best work here.

“Our spending towards staff recruitment and development include, for example: expanding the support for staff who have family and caring responsibilities and launching the Allies and LGBT+ Role Model programmes to build on our work as Stonewall Diversity Champions to promote LGBT+ equality within the University.

“In addition, spending goes towards using the Vice-Chancellor’s Diversity Fund to support the implementation of a number of projects, including a project to diversify portraiture in the University’s public spaces and the Returning Carers’ Fund, which makes grants to researchers and academics to support their return to research following a period of leave for caring purposes.”

The spokesperson confirmed that staff costs increased by 5% compared to 2015/16 spending.

Death By Murder Review – ‘an endearingly ambitious bunch of clowns’

Charles Britton
-
0
Death By Murder Review – ‘an endearingly ambitious bunch of clowns’

If I took anything away from last term’s improvised comedy offering, Mock Trial: An Improvised Court Case, it was an overwhelming desire to see somebody take this longer-form improvised storytelling to the next logical step: a single sketch spanning an entire performance, a fully-developed improvised narrative. A term on, fledgling improv troupe The House of Improv promised to provide just that. Their debut show, Death By Murder is a charming departure from what improv fans are used to delivered by an endearingly ambitious bunch of clowns.

The biggest challenge facing long-form improv is consistency, retaining spontaneously created information across the whole performance. Death By Murder immediately eliminates this problem that Mock Trial struggled with by using name tags to distinguish each character. Not merely a convenient cue for the actors, the tags give each audience member the chance to come up with a character name, which the actors would then pick out of a hat and have to embody from that time forth. This random method is fair, sure, but it inevitably leads to most suggestions never being realised as they remain, tauntingly, sitting in a hat at the front of the stage.

In fact, audience participation in general is poorly integrated into the performance. The key creative decisions the audience could influence, namely the setting and the murderer, were decided by clap-o-meter, impossible to quantify, open to bias: who’s to say the actors cannot just pick the most confident performer to give a monologue when the cheers sound about the same volume? Surely, a show of hands would have been more democratic. Still, after that debacle, we had the components of our story: a bonkers murder mystery romance on a submarine liner.

Fortunately, it is no exaggeration to say that the actors “embody” their characters. Everyone quickly established a unique identity, creating a distinctive party with an impressive range of character types, accents, and mannerisms, from J. $wag’s (Rick Stevenson) Irish-Canadian accent to Dr. Steve Twinkletoe’s (Jack Lawrence) tepid body language and submissiveness to his wife. All of this was accompanied by keyboardist Christopher Magazzeni’s surprisingly varied score. Some brief lapses of established character – Alfreda (Eliza McHugh) started swearing a lot more in the second half than her demeanour had previously suggested – rarely detracted from the consistency of acting.

Such attention to detail extended to recurring jokes, the standout gag being J. Swag’s misguided decision to create a submarine by sticking one cruise ship on top of another, leaving half the rooms upside down, a detail the crew are ashamed of. The actors all contributed to these motifs, exploiting them to the full. The dreaded upside-down rooms prompted Alfreda’s (Eliza McHugh) lament that “I don’t have sticky feet like they do in the movies”. Characters’ constant attempts to define themselves as either a scientist or an artist led to Dimitri’s (Emma Hinnells) ingeniously edgy line “I’m not a person. I’m a concept”, which was then refigured as “What is a concept to do?”. In that sense, House of Improv achieves a level of character development impossible to pull off in a sketch show, with no concept half-baked nor overdone.

Yet, behind this energetic bombast was an intimacy unrivalled by other improv troupes. The resounding impression I got was of a group of people who just love being in front of an audience together, perceptible in the way each actor went to select a name tag, read it aloud, and was greeted by laughs from their co-actors. This unintentionally led to one of the show’s best gags, in which Hinnells spent five minutes trying to peel off her name tag, only to find that the audience member had written the name on the wrong side. The fact that this happened twice was sublime. While the laughing did come across as amateurish at times, such as when the audience was deathly silent and the actors were just starting to establish a scene, or whenever somebody fell back on a quintessentially ‘studenty’ joke about employment prospects, the actors’ connection to each other and the audience was, on the whole, charming.

Saying that, there is still a lot that can be done to improve this formula. The predictable structure of cycling through each character combination did lead to some interesting parallels between the pairs but, more often than not, led to scenes feeling inorganic, especially when they remembered that conflict had to come from somewhere to build up to the murder. The whole structure of telling the story up to the murder and ending with the murderer’s confession seems a bit misleading in contrast the “mystery” that was advertised. Why not carry on after the murder, detailing each character’s response to the tragedy, with a detective, perhaps even played by an audience member, who has to interview each character? As it stands, the ‘Death’ in Death By Murder is merely a device to provide the show with a definitive end. What is it with recent improv shows and their fixation on murder, anyway?

To write off this promising improv troupe, however, would be an absolute crime – a murder, perhaps? I deplore my liberal use of the past tense in this review, but the nature of improvised comedy means that every night this show runs will be unique: all the more reason to go and witness it for yourself. With their undeniable ambition and charm, House of Improv have loosened the Imps’ monopoly on the improvised stage in Oxford. This strong debut is a promise of greatness to come.

OULC speaker invite sparks anti-semitism concerns

Greg Ritchie
-
1
OULC speaker invite sparks anti-semitism concerns

Oxford University Labour Club (OULC) has invited a controversial journalist, who has denied the existence of an anti-semitism problem within the Labour party, to headline an upcoming event.

Richard Seymour has also expressed repeated support for the anti-semitic terrorist group Hezbollah.

The revelation comes only a month after the club released a statement condemning anti-semitism within Labour, and calling on leader Jeremy Corbyn to apologise for the party’s “consistently inadequate response to internal anti-semitism”.

The OULC co-chairs have told Cherwell that they were not aware of Seymour’s “more controversial views”, and have contacted him to “clarify his positions in the hopes [sic] that these have evolved over time”.

Seymour is a Marxist writer and activist, who blogs from the page Lenin’s Tomb. Jeremy Corbyn was heavily criticised for speaking alongside him at a Momentum event in 2016.

In the same year, Seymour wrote a blog post concerning anti-semitism allegations within the Labour Party entitled ‘Yes, it is a witch hunt’. The post begins: “By now, I think, it is being quietly acknowledged in most sensible quarters that Labour doesn’t have an ‘antisemitism problem’.”

Seymour has also written: “Antisemitism is more than the arrangement of words: in its classical phase it was a structure of oppression promulgated through law and perpetuated through various social arrangements. There is nothing like this today: there is, however, a racist, expansionist state that purports to speak for the Jews.”

On the same blog, Seymour has expressed “unconditional, but not uncritical, support” for Hezbollah, a proscribed terrorist group who strive for the elimination of the state of Israel

In addition, he faced widespread criticism when he commented on a video of an Israeli journalist: “He makes me sick. He’s a piece of shit. He’s standing there complaining that the army isn’t helping the colonists keep the Palestinians in their place. Fuck him, they should cut his throat.”.

He also provoked widespread condemnation after he posted hate speech against Falklands’ veteran and burns victim, Simon Weston.

In a comment, Seymour wrote: “If he knew anything he’d still have his face”. He later issued a lengthy apology on his blog.

OULC co-chairs, Anisha Faruk and Ray Williams, told Cherwell: “Having spoken with Oxford JSoc, we all agree that in the past Seymour has made comments which are unacceptable and we have asked him to clarify his positions in the hopes [sic] that these have evolved over time and to make sure that our event will not be used to air any offensive and discriminatory viewpoints.

“If our concerns are not assuaged, we will not hesitate to rescind the invitation. However at the event, which will be open to all, he will be firmly and constructively challenged by the Chair on previous comments made.”

They also told Cherwell: “We were not aware of his more controversial views – we knew him simply as the author of ‘Corbyn: The Strange Rebirth of Radical Politics’, a well regarded book about the political conditions that lead [sic] to the 2015 Labour leadership election result.”

President of Oxford University Jewish Society (JSoc), Jacob Greenhouse, told Cherwell: “We are heartened by OULC’s response and commitment to cooperation with us. In particular, we are looking for a denunciation of some of Seymour’s past comments, including reference to the antisemitism scandal being a ‘witch-hunt,’ and his allusion to an ‘Israel
Lobby.’”

The termcard also includes an event featuring Rupa Huq MP. Huq attracted controversy in 2017 after publicly defending suspended Labour MP Naz Shah on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. Shah had come under fire after a social media posts, including one that suggested Israel should be moved to the United States.

Huq defended Shah’s actions and a “silly mistake” and compared them to a post she had shared of Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson on a zipwire next to Barack Obama. Huq also insisted: “Naz Shah did not write any anti-semitic tracts. She just clicked share.” She later apologised for her comments.

OULC has faced scrutiny for their own internal problems with anti-semitism in the past. In 2016, co-chair Alex Chalmers resigned in protest at what he perceived to be a large portion of club members having “some kind of problem with Jews”.

After a year-long investigation, the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the party voted to clear the two student members under investigation for alleged anti-Semitic behaviour – a decision Oxford JSoc labelled “utterly shameful”.

Richard Seymour was contacted for comment.

Inequality at universities is a symptom, not a cause

Olivia Webster
-
0
Inequality at universities is a symptom, not a cause

Our country is facing a damning educational inequality problem, which has always existed and isn’t going to disappear anytime soon. The unrepresentative nature of our best universities is an important issue to tackle, meaning it was all the more disappointing when the government’s grand solution to this is using ‘sanctions’ against these institutions.

This is the brainchild of the government’s Education Committee and, as with most things stemming from government committees, it’s not a very good idea. The lack of clarity on what being sanctioned entails is frankly alarming. In truth, I’m not sure policymakers even know themselves, with Nicola Dandridge vaguely claiming that sanctions could involve ‘fines’, ‘encouragement’, and ‘engagement’. Issuing some of the richest institutions in the world with a fine doesn’t seem like it’s going to get results. With ‘encouragement’ and ‘engagement’, the government are simply encouraging from the side-lines, while not doing anything themselves.

The committee has also given no indication of how they’re going to measure what they consider to be ‘social injustice’. Are they just going to fine any university that doesn’t have enough students deemed as sufficiently poor or disadvantaged? Those from low intake backgrounds don’t want pity, token places, or positive discrimination: they want the support that will allow them a fair chance at making a successful application. Instead, the government is using these petty punishments against elite universities as a smokescreen for their own chronic failure to address the UK’s educational inequality issue. Elite universities do have a responsibility to help. Yet, the government needs to acknowledge that the problem starts with their failing education system.

Independent schools nurture from birth a host of well equipped applicants who could sit an Oxbridge interview before they were toilet trained. In contrast, low funding, high staff turnover, and lack of information means state schools aren’t providing people with the tools and encouragement they need to apply to Oxbridge successfully.

Furthermore, the media’s focus on inequality at Oxbridge only perpetuates the stereotype they are trying to eliminate. Prospective applicants read these demonising articles and wrongly assume that Oxbridge isn’t for them. So, thank you David Lammy for setting back outreach work once again. And thank you to the government, whose use of elite universities as a scapegoat just prevented another talented teen from applying.

Instead of making hollow statements about sanctions, the Education Committee should take a long hard look at the secondary education system. If they participated in the conversation Oxbridge outreach teams are trying to have with hopeful applicants, instead of fuelling the vindictive media, then we might begin to see the changes we all hope for.

Letter To: My Estate Agent

Daanial Chaudhry
-
0
Letter To: My Estate Agent

Starting an email with ‘Dear Miss Choudhury’ might be a good idea, if you were emailing a woman whose surname is Choudhury. However, I am neither a woman, nor is my surname Choudhury. Despite having met me twice, you continue to send me a plethora of emails addressed this way. As an estate agent, a bastion of modern living, I cannot comprehend why you would assume my gender, and what’s more, assume wrongly.

But at least you’ve found me a house, I guess. “How many bedrooms does it have?” A perfectly reasonable question one of my housemates asked as we arrived at our first property, bright-eyed and bushy tailed. “Erm… I’m not sure, I’ll have to go back to the office and find out,” you replied. Now, I’m no expert (I do PPE), but it doesn’t take a degree in Maths from Oxford to count the number of bedrooms in a house. Anyway, ignoring the fact you prep for viewings less than I do for tutes, we were not disheartened and still excited to view our first property.

A three (or four) bedroom flat that could be reached through a dusty alleyway, above a local Chinese takeaway. This was the place we were looking forward to calling home for the next year. Alas, we might have been able to call it home if had you brought the right set of keys. So we waited for you to run back to the office, the rain beginning to slightly dampen our spirits.

We never found out if the flat had three or four beds. No, when you eventually returned, you informed us that this flat had already been let to someone else. Thanks a bunch. I could’ve spent my afternoon doing way more productive things, like sleeping, or watching Friends, or viewing houses with a competent estate agency (if there is such a thing).

Anyway, we eventually found a house, with the appropriate number of bedrooms, and, even better, it wasn’t already let out to another tenant. I thought that our interaction with you was over. But, no.There I am sitting in the library, writing my essay, with only six minutes to the deadline, relying on my 72 words per minute typing speed to help me reach that all-important word count – and then you call. And call again. And again. Not a good time Philippa. And if someone doesn’t pick up, why don’t you take the hint? Maybe I’m just not that into you.

When the shoe is on the other foot however, you suddenly start to play hard to get and take a week to reply to my emails. My tutor conducting research in remote parts of Kenya replies to her emails quicker than you. If I’m not mistaken, you spend most of your life in an office in Oxford, with WiFi, a computer, and a contract that says your job is to respond to my emails. Not impressed, Philippa, not impressed.

Best,

Daanial CHAUDHRY

PS: Please fix the sink before we move in.

 

Lets Talk About: Porn

Francesca Whitfield
-
0
Lets Talk About: Porn

In line with the Digital Economy Act (2017), new regulations regarding age checks for viewing pornography online are being brought into force by the UK government. These checks are meant to ensure that under 18s will not be able to access online pornography, by making users validate their age.

This begs the question, if the government are taking these stringent step, how far is pornography harmful to our society? One clear misnomer is the narrow definition of pornography we are often presented with by the mainstream media. In reality, we have to understand pornography within the wider context of the society responsible for producing it. Perhaps a better question is not to wonder what impact pornography is having on society, but what impact society is having on pornography.

The word was originally used to reference the recording of prostitutes in words or drawings; but since the Victorian era, pornography has expanded and evolved in its definition.. The boundaries between pornography and the closely-related erotica have become  blurred – what distinguishes one from the other, when both are designed to incite sexual arousal?

I believe the distinction relies on the negative connotations which the word pornography encompasses. Two things which are without question harmful to society are child pornography, and the prevalence of children viewing pornography. Indecent images of children and their distribution have been illegal since the passing of the Protection of Children Act (1978). Nevertheless, this has not stopped these despicable acts against children, nor the self-distribution of nudes and images by Under 18s amongst their peers. Both of these issues are known to have an impact on the mental health and psychological wellbeing of children. It is obvious that we need to protect children from the negative impact of pornography.

We must also not ignore the very recent problem of ‘revenge porn’. This is where a sexual image or video sent in private may be distributed to people it wasn’t intended for, and in worst case scenarios, uploaded to pornographic websites for the gratification of strangers. This cannot be seen as anything but detrimental for both children and adults. Indeed, in 2016 an Italian woman killed herself over sex tapes which went viral after an ex-boyfriend uploaded them to the internet.

The distribution of such images and videos clearly indicates a problem in society more broadly with sex and sex related issues. It seems to me that sexting and revenge pornography reflect the way in which sex and relationships are handled in society.

Its hard not to ignore the gender differences within pornography and how women and men are stereotyped within pornographic imagery. Pornography reflects and engenders stereotypes and perceptions already present in society; whilst it may enforce these, they do not originate with pornography itself.

I would argue that the production of pornographic images and video need not be seen as harmful; but we must scrutinise the ways in which its produced and how it is presented to society as a whole. Indecent images of children are clearly morally wrong as they violate those who are unable to protect themselves. However, an adult’s choice and desire to view sexual images of other consenting adults should not be prohibited or banned.

We should instead address the issues which make pornography a contentious topic. We have to make sure that it is subject to stricter codes of conduct. It should not exist as something which takes advantage of vulnerable people, either those who are portrayed or those who view it. It should not pop up unwanted and unrequested on browsers, whether to children or to adults, and it should not be used as a method in which to hurt other people. Pornography should not be used to degrade women, violate trust in the case of revenge pornography, or to indoctrinate children with unrealistic understandings of sex and sexual activity.

I would argue that the harm which pornography has the power to cause, is based its ability to reflect and magnify societal issues that already exist. Therefore, only if it can be produced, used, and monitored responsibly, can it be seen as a valid medium of creative and sexual expression.

Students protest ‘transphobic’ women’s group

Alice Bruce
-
6
Students protest ‘transphobic’ women’s group

A large protest in support of transgender rights was held outside the Radcliffe Camera on Wednesday evening, in response to the ‘TERF’ group Women’s Place holding a talk in Oxford.

The 120-person group gathered at 6pm to display signs and hold speeches from activists criticising Women’s Place for depicting trans people as “monsters”, outing them, and fostering hate speech.

Protesters condemned Women’s Place through the evening as TERFs (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists) as opposed to inter-sectional and inclusive campaigners for equal rights.

Ribbons, in the colours of the transgender pride flag, were tied to the railings of the Rad Cam to “honour” trans people who have “experienced violence from TERFs and thousands who have committed suicide or experienced transmisogyny and transphobia”.

The Oxford SU’s LGBTQ+ campaign and the university LGBTQ+ society issued a statement on Tuesday evening condemning the meeting.

The join statement described Women’s Place as “one of several groups dedicated to challenging trans people’s existing rights in the UK” and claimed they have “profil[ed] trans women as male sexual predators and vilif[ied] trans activists as violent oppressors of free speech”.

A statement released by Women’s Place on Wednesday says this statement “defames” Woman’s Place and its members and “contains many inaccuracies”.

The talk held by Women’s Place concerned proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act (GRA), which would include allowing trans people to self-identify their gender and align their legal sex with their gender identity on documentation.

Under the current law, trans people must receive a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria – the state of identifying with a gender other than the one assigned at birth, which requires lengthy assessments by medical doctors and psychologists. Additionally, they must have lived in their “acquired gender” for two years.

Trans people argue that the GRA needs to be reformed, as the current lengthy process means that trans people can’t determine their own personal identity.

Women’s Place was founded in 2017 to discuss the impact of changes to the Gender Recognition act and for “women’s voices to be heard”.

They campaign for “women’s only spaces to be upheld” and express fear that “the provision of single sex services, such as those provided by rape crisis centres” could be affected by changes to legislation.

The organisation’s statement on Wednesday denounced efforts by Oxford students to “shut down” their meeting, and called on politicians to “protect free speech”.

The statement also denied claims that Women’s Place was a transphobic organisation.

“Trans people are welcome at all [our] meetings, and [Women’s Place UK] have already had two trans speakers on the platform who share the concerns.”

One of the organisers of the protest, Jack Doyle, told Cherwell: “There are fears from trans exclusive feminists that men would be coming into women’s spaces. However, there is no evidence to suggest that that would happen.”

Doyle said that “[the Women’s Place talk] is not a free and open discussion by any means. The venue has been kept secret, and no trans people were invited to speak on the panel.”

Characterising the opinions of those who were to speak as “hate speech”, Doyle went on to say, “I don’t think it would be productive to engage with those people, so instead we are having a visible demonstration where people can see us and hopefully disagree” with Women’s Place.

A member of the trans community who spoke at the protest, Clara Barker, was invited to attend the talk but told the crowd that they didn’t think it was an equal or fair panel. They felt that the event would have negative impacts on their physical and mental health, as well as fearing possible altercations.

Nicola Williams, who represented the “Fair Play for Women” group and was one of the panellists at the Women’s Place talk, told Cherwell that she would be talking about laws and how that “at the moment trans rights and women’s rights are balanced”.

Williams said that “it is fine to have trans women in women’s spaces in many occasions” but that “sometimes when sex matters, such as in a women’s refuge, it is important to have a distinction”.

She stressed that “it is just a debate to talk about the law so people know what is happening and get some feedback”.

Regarding the lack of Trans people on the panel Williams told Cherwell: “it is difficult as there aren’t that many trans people who would want to speak.”

Williams mentioned that it was a “shame” that Barker declined an invitation to attend.

She said they “would be very welcome to come.”

Christine, a trans woman attending the event who did not provide her surname, told Cherwell that she thought the Women’s Place campaign was “very positive” as “women do have genuine concerns and they are not being heard by the political elite”.

She described the phrase ‘TERF’ as a slur, saying that she feared that “there are many more women who fear to speak up” and that she wanted dialogue and debate so that an understanding could be reached.

“I am not saying that there isn’t transphobia on this side of the argument. I think at times there is but I don’t think that fundamentally women are motivated by transphobia.”

Hannah Clark, another protestor, told Cherwell that the proposed changes to the GRA were “seemingly progressive” but that she was concerned about the way that service providers could interpret the law, claiming that “women’s spaces, women’s refuges, women’s hospital wards” could be impacted negatively.

Clark is a representative of the ‘Man Friday’ campaign which encourages women to self-identify as men every Friday to protest possible changes to the Gender Recognition Act. When questioned about the protesters’ accusations of transphobia she said that she thought this was “incredibly lazy” and that the event was an “inclusive place”.

Clark told Cherwell: “We are not saying that trans people don’t exist or trans people shouldn’t exist, we are saying if you are going to change the law you need to insure that everyone’s voices are heard…there is not a hierarchy of rights.”

One of the few men attending, who did not wish to be identified, told Cherwell: “Postmodernism has gone a bit crazy, and we are losing definitions.”

“We need to restore balance to our culture and say that a woman is actually a woman, a man cannot become a woman.”

After finishing their protest at the Rad Cam the group of activists marched to the Women’s Place meeting. Members of the group described themselves as an autonomous students who came together from both Oxford and Brookes Universities.

They received endorsement from Oxford’s racial, gender, and LGBTQ+ equality campaigns. Members included trangendered people, a women’s representative from the National Union of Students, and LGBTQ+ community members and allies.

Oxford could face ‘sanctions’ over access inequality, says Education Committee

Matthew Roller
-
0
Oxford could face ‘sanctions’ over access inequality, says Education Committee

The chair of the UK’s House of Commons Education Committee has claimed that elite universities will face sanctions if they fail to address their “social justice problem”.

Speaking at a University Alliance event on degree apprenticeships, Robert Halfon MP said that he wanted to see “elite universities properly being held to account for the numbers of disadvantaged students they admit”.

The Education Committee confirmed to Cherwell that the new Office for Students would consider sanctions.

The body’s chief executive, Nicola Dandridge MP, said in Parliament last month: “There is a whole range of sanctions that can be applied, from encouragement, engagement, and discussion to fines and more interventionist approaches at the other end.

“In the past, the Director of Fair Access could refuse to sign off a plan, in which case the higher fee could not be charged – that was the nuclear option, if you like.

“That was actually quite difficult, because it did not allow for a nuanced range of responses. We have many more tools available to us, which will allow for a more nuanced and therefore more effective engagement with universities.”

Halfon, the Conservative MP for Harlow, warned of a ‘two-tier’ system within UK universities.

“I would like to see the elite universities properly being held to account for the numbers of disadvantaged students they admit – and the support they receive whilst studying.

“Perhaps we should regard universities as elite only if they are providing a real ladder of opportunity to the disadvantaged. Maybe universities should only be seen as ‘the best’ when they lead their students to well-paid job destinations and reduce Britain’s skills deficit.

“The new Office for Students must lead in this. There must be sanctions from the new regulator for those universities who are failing in this regard.”

In March, the Higher Education Standards Agency (Hesa) revealed that Oxford accepted fewer applications from poor neighbourhoods in the 2017-18 academic year than any other mainstream institution.

Just 2.8% of the University’s intake were from students who live in areas classified as the most difficult to engage in higher education.

Following the report’s publication, Labour MP David Lammy – who accused Oxford and Cambridge of “social apartheid” in October – tweeted: “Shame on them. Oxbridge take £700m a year in taxpayers’ money yet are not tackling entrenched privilege.”

Earlier this month, Oxford was ranked as the fourth-most unequal university in Britain in a report by the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi).

The results came from calculating the ‘Gini coefficient’ for UK universities based on their share of student entrants that came from the five different Participation of Local Areas (Polar) quintiles in 2016.

A University spokesperson told Cherwell: “Oxford…is committed to further diversifying its undergraduate intake, and to being honest and transparent about our record on access. We have agreed targets with [the Office for Students] and against these we are showing strong performance – particularly in relation to our recruitment of students from socioeconomically disadvantaged post-codes, as well as schools and colleges with limited progression to Oxford.”

Wadham trials new ‘paternalistic’ smoking restriction

Jeremiah O'Mahony
-
2
Wadham trials new ‘paternalistic’ smoking restriction

Wadham will trial a new smoking policy for Trinity Term that limits the act to areas “immediately” around eight smoking bins. The college informed students of the new policy via an email on Tuesday.

According to the email, Wadham “conducted a consultation last term on its smoking policy.”

“As a result, Governing Body has decided that for a trial period lasting for all of Trinity Term, smoking on the main College site will be restricted to the immediate vicinity of the existing smoking bins.”

A map attached to the email marks the locations of the smoking bins, most of which are on the edge of campus. The email continues: “The College will be closely monitoring adherence to the new guidelines, and will review the smoking policy at the end of the term.

“It is essential that these new guidelines are fully respected. If they are not, the College will consider moving to a total smoking ban.”

The email also warned students that there is no smoking bin outside the MCR, “where many smokers currently choose to congregate.”

Wadham joins St Hugh’s college in trialling a smoking ban in Trinity, while seven colleges including St Edmund Hall and Mansfield have blanket bans on smoking.

St Hugh’s decision to trial a ban was criticised by some students as “ridiculous” and “parental.”

When Exeter announced plans for a ban that were later withdrawn, Exeter JCR Disabilities Rep Grace Tully told Cherwell: “Habitual smokers are aware of the drawbacks and danger of the habit, but our community gains nothing from physically and socially ostracizing those of us who do still smoke.”

A Wadham second year told Cherwell: “I’m annoyed at college for further attacking the rights of smokers. I do feel this is just the first step to an outright ban. Such paternalism really isn’t in the spirit of Wadham, in my opinion.”

Wadham SU declined to comment.

1...746747748...2,515Page 747 of 2,515

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