Tuesday 7th October 2025
Blog Page 755

Blind Date: “He put up with my chat for nearly two and a half hours.”

Ella Thomas, First Year, History of Art, Christ Church

The date was really fun. We went for drinks, then dinner and had a look around both our colleges with a brief photo shoot at the RadCam in between. He was initially very easy to spot outside the pub at 6’6”. It was raining for a lot of the evening but he had his self-professed ‘f*ck boy’ umbrella which saved the day (still not entirely sure how an umbrella has those kind of qualities, but the umbrella definitely came in handy). We talked about everything from biceps to Brexit (although I think he was initially a bit worried about my choice of college and avoided talking about politics until near the end of the date). I am not quite sure how my art history chat about Oxford architecture went down as he told me “not to talk just to fill the silences”, but he politely put up with my poor chat for nearly two and a half hours, so I’ll allow it.

First Impressions?

Funny, well-dressed and very tall.

Quality of the chat?

Good – a solid basis of meme knowledge.

Most awkward moment?

Finding out his favourite flavour of crisps were Ready Salted.

Kiss or miss?

Miss.

Tom Linden, Second Year, Maths, Worcester

I had a fun time – she was very friendly and easy to talk to, even if our subjects clashed a bit. We bonded over our similar interest in music (my risky play of dropping house-techno in early payed off). It seemed like she took my humour quite well, which was a big tick. Having to chase a stranger into the RadCam to ask if they could take a photo of us and discussing the logistics of completing the raunchy Worcester challenges made up a couple of the more interesting moments of the night. I felt like she was a little bit disinterested at times; she brought up the fact that she had an essay to finish that eve. However, I think we got along quite well, even if we ended up discussing the colour of stone in Oxford to fill a break in the conversation. Riveting stuff. I’m sure she’ll find someone to bond over Art History with in the near future!

First impressions?

Fantastic choice of a gin and tonic first up, big respect.

Quality of the chat?

Very passable.

Most awkward moment?

When I brought up Schindler’s List. Yikes, what was I thinking.

Kiss or miss?

Near miss

Gender equality is not purely monetary

0

April 2018 marks the first month in which British companies with over 250 employees are legally required to publish their gender pay gap data. Cue newspaper headlines, outing the country’s most renowned enterprises as being sexist, discriminatory and regressive in their practices.

I am a feminist who takes issue with headlines implying that women earn less than their male counterparts for equal work. This is very rarely true, and young women should not be graduating with this belief in mind – a belief which subliminally undercuts their self-worth and fuels resentment before having even established themselves as able professionals.

Equal pay is not synonymous with the gender pay gap, and legislation including the Equal Pay Act (1970) and the Equality Act (2010) ensures that all individuals performing like-for-like work are receiving identical salaries. This is not without exception, of course. Unlawful gender discrimination is an ongoing concern, but this accounts for a negligible proportion of the gap.

Our growing obsession with pay gap figures is portraying gender equality as a monetary issue. This is far from what it is. In response to recent objection, six of the BBC’s highest-earning male staff have agreed to take pay cuts in a bid to remedy the gap. Shedding public light on the company’s gender imbalance is a step in the right direction, yet these kind of band-aid solutions and so-called female empowerment schemes are failing to look beyond the facts.

As a firm believer of equal opportunity, I would not want a pay raise to compensate for my lack of testosterone. Contemporary Britain seems far too invested in gender-related injustices to consider factors which should determine income. Considerations such as occupation, experience, age and education, along with a number of qualitative factors including diligence, flexibility and willingness to work in unpleasant or dangerous environments. The gender pay gap takes none of these into account. The majority of published statistics also omit part-time work. This is a female-dominated field and, when based purely on part-time employment, last year’s pay gap stood at -5.1% in favour of women.

A women’s decision to work part-time is too often shaped by societal expectations and the need for physical and emotional recovery post-childbirth. This is not always the case, and when statistics are broken down and viewed in terms of occupational segregation, much of the gender pay gap falls down to the different career paths chosen by men and women. Many of the most distinguished professional fields take root in a history of male influence which, many would argue, serves as a disadvantage to female candidates. This element of choice must nonetheless be respected.

Within Oxford, the traditionally highest-paying undergraduate degrees are still attracting male-dominated applicant pools. Engineering Sciences, for example, saw 2152 male applicants compared to 689 female from 2014 to 2016. Among the ‘typically lowest-paid’ degrees we have Fine Art and Art History, together attracting just 211 male applicants and 870 female.

In order to achieve complete equality in the workplace, it may seem reasonable to address the stark differences in subject choices at the earlier stages of our education. The problem with this is that our decisions are influenced by gender-typical characteristics. A man should not be assumed to bear masculine traits. Nor must a woman radiate femininity. Yet with this in mind, studies have identified certain characteristics as being typically female and typically male. Female traits include sensitivity and the desire to nurture; a logical reason for which professions such as early childhood education, social work and counselling continue to be dominated by women, and just so happen to pay below-average wages.    

The UK’s median pay gap of 9.1% is a result of female underrepresentation in highest-paying professions. Oxford, as written in the University’s 2018 Gender Pay Gap Report, “is no exception when it comes to gender equality”. This is widely recognised as the root of the problem – hence the University’s initiatives to increase the proportion of women in positions of leadership. Somerville College notes that women are overrepresented in the lowest paid roles such as housekeeping staff or ‘scouts’, as they are colloquially known among students. With the knowledge that scouts are lumped together with fellows, professors and principles in the same pay gap calculation, Oxford’s statistics suddenly seem a lot less informative and worthy of further clarification. The same applies to national figures.

Publishing data which provocatively draws boundaries between male and female employment will not solve the issue at stake, but exacerbates a gender divide which need not exist in an inclusive feminist society. Workplace equality will only be realised by putting an end to this checkbox-like analysis which classifies individuals according to a single variable. The implication of recent gender pay gap statistics is that the average woman earns less than the average man because she is female. Besides from being factually inaccurate, this observation overlooks the issue of persistent gender imbalance across employment sectors – the primary cause of the wage gap. This uneven distribution does not lay the groundwork for a future of absolute equality, yet a perfectly equal spread is not necessarily in accordance with our end-goal. A wage gap of 0% will not engender equality.

We must share the outrage of the Windrush generation

1

Hearing the words ‘Windrush controversy’, it might be easy to disengage from as something that will not affect anyone you know. My grandparents’ arrival from Jamaica in the late 1950s connects me to these recent chain of events.

A chat with my grandfather’s dearest friend, known fondly as ‘Uncle Clarence’, who came to England as a young man enabled me to truly comprehend the impact of this sorry affair. Through the static crackling of weak reception he tells me about his close relative, who moved to England in 1964 aged 16, finishing school before venturing into the working world. For five decades he worked hard, started a family, and recently retired. Yet, unlike most retirees, he is currently burdened by the anguish of having to prove he is a citizen of the place he has called home for the past half century.

In a situation that can only be described as Kafkaesque, his own government is questioning and thereby undermining his right to belong. Despite recent apologies and promises of compensation, this elderly gentleman is still struggling through the onerous task of establishing his right to citizenship; for example, perusing his local library’s historic files to prove the existence of the long-demolished school he attended back in 1964. Given the severe stress being imposed on this community’s older generation, apologies for “anxiety
caused” seem underwhelming.

The situation speaks to the undervaluing of an entire community, people who were invited to Britain to become valued members of society and have since become an integral patch in the fabric of which modern day Britain is made. A lack of bureaucratic foresight has engendered the notion that the right to be British is a quality that can dwindle with time. Such an oversight demonstrates a lack of consideration for Brits with West Indian backgrounds. The fact that, instead of being protected by the government, individuals are having to protect themselves from the government is frankly disheartening. Such injustices have been a continuing trial for Caribbean communities in Britain for years, which begs the question why it has taken this long to come to light. Uncle Clarence tells me of an English born child, who attended a charity nursery he and my grandparents set up. Clarence had to bring objections when, in response to his carer passing away, the three-year-old was going to be sent to Jamaica to live with his grandmother. An infant was going to be sent to a country to which he had never been, to stay with a woman he had never met, with no social services to protect him should his grandmother no longer be able. To Clarence the government appears willing to jettison its own citizens, into what he considers a no man’s land.

This attitude should concern us all, mirroring as it does Enoch Powell’s view: “The West Indian does not by being born in England become an Englishman … he is a West Indian or an Asian still.” Clarence said he felt strongly that the nursery needed to protect the boy, so that he could go on to be educated and aspire to be a valued member of our community. It was my grandparents’ adoption of this glorious attitude towards education, protection and opportunity which led to my being able to write for an Oxford University student paper. Britons who have striven to be valued by this country are simply not.

This issue goes beyond recent controversies. My late grandmother’s good friend, having retired to Montenegro Bay on a pension she spent her adult life earning in Britain, struggles to visit her children and grandchildren as she must apply for a £400 visa. Whilst many are alarmed about ‘potential’ situations involving EU (white) immigrants, it is disappointing to see that the mistreatment of Commonwealth citizens (non-white) generates a fraction of the outcry.

Clarence concludes: “I am only one voice.” Yet there is a louder voice, the collective voice of this integral community within our nation, which carries strength and power and calls for a Britain that is willing to invest in its people as they are willing to invest in their country. We must now be willing to listen.

Don’t Look Back in Anger

1

Only nineties kids remember this” is a familiar phrase for social media scrollers, one used to announce the inherent transience of any fashion trend, TV show, or other cultural phenomena. It is exclusive, an inside joke. It is the reserve of a demographic who are just old enough to remember a better time before that pesky Generation Z came along and ruined everything.

While my own sense of nostalgia for the nineties is limited, there is no doubt in my mind that this was the greatest decade in the history of film. Disclaimer: I am no Roger Ebert. There is little point in me trying to argue that this was the greatest decade in film in any objective sense. Rather, I can assure you that it is my own personal favourite decade and give you some of my best arguments. Feel free to disagree with me. You’d be wrong, of course, but that’s your prerogative.

Following the rise of the big blockbuster, cinema stood on the edge of a brave new world as the millennium drew to a close. The home video market increased the amount of revenue that films could expect to earn. This inevitably led to stylistic changes in filming and editing to cater for small – as well as big – screen viewing. Cinemas coexisted in perfect harmony with the trusty Blockbuster video store on the corner. It was a power shift that paved the way for the more recent rise of digital distribution media such as Netflix.

The increasing influence of the small screen complimented another hallmark of nineties cinema: the success of the ‘indie film’. Films from independent studios began to combine festival furore with the kind of box office success which had previously only been enjoyed by Hollywood blockbusters. By the end of the decade, several independent studios had been acquired by major ones. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles got the decade off to a good start, becoming the most successful independent film at the US box office at that time. The film grossed over $100 million – not bad for its independent studio New Line Cinema, who became poster-boys for the ‘Indie Dream’. Cinema had never been so stylish. From its screening at Sundance in 1992, Miramax Films’ Reservoir Dogs became a classic of independent film. Two years later, Pulp Fiction made Quentin Tarantino a household name. The film achieved overnight success, winning the coveted Palme d’Or.

Tarantino brought pop-culture together with the pillars of traditional cinema, paving a new path for the film of the 21st century. 1995 saw our old friend New Line Cinema release the chilling masterpiece Seven, allowing David Fincher to exorcise the demons of his directorial debut, Alien 3. Then with 1999’s Fight Club, Fincher and Twentieth Century Fox proved decisively that the combination of indie talent and major studio muscle could be a winning one. Imagine cinema today without independent directors, without Paul Thomas Anderson, Sofia Coppola, or Guillermo del Toro. They, along with many others, came to the fore during the nineties.

There must have been something in the water because it wasn’t just the young blood who reached new heights. The decade opened with Goodfellas, a film many regard as the greatest in the career of Martin Scorsese. The following year, James Cameron’s Terminator 2: Judgement Day became one of the few sequels to have bettered the original, while 1993 saw Steven Spielberg bring the novel Jurassic Park to the screen in the most awesome fashion. In the nineties, going to the cinema was a hard-hitting experience. These films were renowned for their groundbreaking use of computer-generated imagery, which expanded the boundaries of cinema. In the 21st century, the fetishisation of CGI has become one of the defining characteristics of blockbuster films. The most ambitious use of CGI came in the mid-1990s when Toy Story became the first feature-length film to be completely computer animated. The very fact that films of this kind are now considered ordinary is a testament to the legacy of Pixar’s early imagination, which produced the similarly successful A Bug’s Life and Toy Story 2. At the same time, Disney underwent a renaissance, releasing animated classics such as Aladdin, The Lion King, and Hercules. These films gave us songs like ‘I Just Can’t Wait to be King’ that still ring around in our heads despite our best efforts to banish them to the back of our minds.

That’s the thing about nineties films. They’re still appreciated twenty years later, many of them even more so than on their release. They were born out of the fusion of old and new, of style and substance. Much of this article reads like a random list of iconic films from the decade, but there are so many more: Forrest Gump, Titanic, Independence Day, The Matrix, Scream, etc. If there isn’t a single one of these titles that resonates, where have you been for the last twenty years? In the nineties, film was changing rapidly. 90s films capture cinema at a critical juncture, a time of innovation, and that’s why so many of them are timeless.

Pink food: style over substance?

0

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

0

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’

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

1

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

0

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

0

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.