Friday 4th July 2025
Blog Page 77

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!

Oxford can win on both free speech and EDI

Tim Soutphommasane
-
0
Oxford can win on both free speech and EDI

Author note: Professor Tim Soutphommasane is the University’s Chief Diversity Officer, and was the Australian Race Discrimination Commissioner from 2013-2018. 

Summers in Britain are increasingly becoming a season of discontent: think train, airport, doctor and nurse strikes. This year, the discontent created more than mere disruption. The riots that broke out across many parts of the country were terrifying in their violence.

It is, sadly, a sign of the times. Across the West, anti-immigrant populism and xenophobia have surged. Extremist activity has grown more slippery and social media platforms are enabling disinformation and radicalisation. 

Many members of our collegiate University community were understandably unnerved by the summer’s racist violence. Which is why, in the days following the riots, the University stood with other institutions in Oxford city and Oxfordshire to condemn racism and discrimination. Bigotry and hatred have no place in Oxford.

We recognise that many in our student community have experienced a challenging time, given the war in the Middle East. Last academic year, the Vice-Chancellor, senior colleagues and I heard from Jewish students and staff about experiences of antisemitism. We have heard from Muslim students about episodes of Islamophobia encountered on Oxford’s streets.

 As we start Michaelmas, it is essential that everyone in our University understands that we do not tolerate any form of racism. We unequivocally reject and condemn any discrimination or harassment based on ethnicity, race or faith – including antisemitism and Islamophobia.  And we expect all members of the University – students, staff, visitors and contractors – to treat others with respect, courtesy and consideration.

This commitment goes hand in hand with our position on freedom of speech and protest. We believe that, within the limits of the law, all views should be given the chance of a hearing. It is part of being a vibrant intellectual community that we hear different views, and be prepared not only to challenge others’ ideas but also our own. Protest is something that you can also engage in – provided it is done lawfully, peacefully and in line with our Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech. 

We can be proud of our record on free speech. In last year’s Office for Students National Student Survey, students were asked, “During your studies, how free did you feel to express your ideas, opinions, and beliefs?” Our score – 90.8% – was the highest in the Russell Group. 

On global issues of significance, there will be many in our community who hold passionate views and commitments. Many of you will want to get involved in political causes, or be parts of movements for social change. Universities are, naturally, a place for you to be involved in this, alongside your studies. But our university must also be a place where every student and member can feel safe and welcomed. As we reminded you in a recent all-student communication you – as a student here – have an important part in ensuring we have an inclusive environment.

As Chief Diversity Officer, I appreciate the importance of striking the right balance, especially when matters of diversity and identity are involved.

There is a cultural challenge here. Earlier this year, partnering with UCL Policy Lab and More in Common, we conducted research on British public opinion about EDI. We found that across British society there is strong support for equality and diversity. But there’s also nervousness about how to talk about matters the right way. According to our findings, 73% of Britons believe that people are made to feel stupid about not knowing how to talk about diversity using the latest language. And 50% personally worry about saying the wrong thing. How, then, can we go about talking about issues?

Answering this goes to the heart of our Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan, which the collegiate University is launching this Michaelmas. The plan brings together the vast range of efforts taking place across colleges, departments and divisions in Oxford that relate to EDI. Our aspiration: for Oxford to be a collegiate university where everyone belongs and is supported to succeed, and for us to be a leader on EDI in society.

The student experience and voice are central to our agenda. During 0th week, we ran EDI inductions at 17 colleges to support freshers in having an inclusive student experience. Later this term, through a new training initiative, we will be supporting JCR and MCR presidents on how they navigate challenges around EDI and leadership.

We will also be establishing a racial and religious inclusion task and finish group this term, bringing together staff and students (including the Student Union president and representatives drawn from JCRs and MCRs). It will be tasked with considering student experiences relating to racial and religious inclusion, and how we can strengthen our institutional responses to discrimination.

There is, of course, more that we can do on EDI. And we will. I hope that students in Oxford will join us.

SU perspective: 

It may sound cliché but the reason I ran for the role of SU President is because I love the student movement and the vibrant student community of Oxford in particular.

Over the past three years, as a trans and Jewish student, I have been a witness to the amazing things the Oxford community can achieve as a collective force for good, and I am proud to represent students here at Oxford – and for that, I have to thank fellow students for their fierce commitment to fighting for everyone to feel included, and the passion of many for political activism in support of what they see as right. This ability and eagerness to speak up continue to be my favourite feature of Oxford.

The past year, particularly Trinity term, has been incredibly hard for so many students. I have been horrified to see cases of antisemitism, Islamophobia, and racism increasing in the city and university that we call home. 

We bear a collective responsibility to uphold the principles of free expression and peaceful protest in the fight against injustice but to also balance this with the rights of all students at Oxford to co-exist in an environment that is safe, inclusive and welcoming. When disruption becomes harmful, we must also bear the responsibility for that collective failure and strive to do better. 

I have spent the past three years – and will spend the coming year – advocating for a better University, with the continuing development of policies and processes that truly support EDI efforts. But the reality is that often the threats to inclusion start closer to us than we’d like – it is incumbent on us as students to lead the way in making sure Oxford is free of prejudice and as your President, I am committed to supporting all students of Oxford to do just that.

Lord Hague: “Oxford made a huge difference to my own life. I believe in helping other people have the same transformative experience.”

Oliver Hall
-
0
Lord Hague: “Oxford made a huge difference to my own life. I believe in helping other people have the same transformative experience.”
Watch the full conversation!

Lord William Hague is certain that we are headed for a “decade of change” and is convinced that he is the person to steer the University of Oxford through it. He is keen to place Oxford at the centre of the next technological explosion, to continue growing access to the University, and has many thoughts on the financial situation of the UK higher education sector. In our conversation in the Oscar Wilde Room at his old college, Magdalen, he speaks on all of these and more.

Hague has a remarkable CV: MP for 26 years, Leader of the Opposition, Foreign Secretary, Leader of the House of Commons, author, columnist, and now even podcaster. First came Oxford, and that is where his drive to become Chancellor originates. “Oxford transformed my life.”, he says, “I came here from a comprehensive school in South Yorkshire. I didn’t know a single person in the whole city and university when I came and when I left, I was ready to go on to be all the things that I became. Oxford made a huge difference to my own life and I believe in helping other people have the same transformative experience.”

The curious position of being the Chancellor allows little scope to make concrete changes to the running of the university but during this even more curious campaign all of the candidates have outlined their views on how it could be done. Hague is no different and his vision again comes back to what he sees as “a decade in which human civilization is going to change more quickly than ever before in the entirety of our history.”.

The financial crisis facing UK universities is the issue of the day in education with nearly 70 already carrying out redundancy and restructuring programmes. On that, Hague concedes that fees may have to rise but that it “certainly shouldn’t be by more than inflation and that there needs to be more help with people to be able to come to university.”

A key part of that is growing the endowment at Oxford, something which Hague believes he can help with through his links with the United States. He also praises such initiatives as the Crankstart Scholarship, saying: “Bringing the best people here irrespective of background, that has to be the objective. We are going to need to keep expanding those sorts of things [scholarships], particularly in an environment where fees are probably going up.”

At the moment, international students are vital for the survival of many UK universities because of the higher fees they are charged. Like many, Hague questions the wisdom of including student numbers in immigration figures altogether, but he is wary of the sector becoming completely dependent on learners from abroad: “It is also true”, he says, “that you can’t have universities become so dependent on students from overseas that then they are in a fragile financial position whenever that changes, because then what happens when there is a future pandemic?”.

In recent years many politicians have expressed the view that 38.5% of UK students going into full-time higher education is too high, but Hague is keen to counter that narrative, one which stems primarily from the Conservative Party that he once led. “I think that over time we probably need a higher proportion of the population to go to university because human capital is the key ingredient of this decade of change that I’m talking about. That’s why it’s only going to get more important and we are going to be competing with nations where it will be reaching up to 65 or 70%.

“In the world of highly intelligent machines that is coming, humans are going to have to make sure that they can work in a kind of co-intelligence with those machines. That is going to require more and more education.”

Freedom of speech on campus and the University’s handling of pro-Palestinian encampments have proved controversial in the last year, and here Hague aligns himself broadly with the rest of the major candidates. He sets out that “the right to protest is well established and quite right in our society, but it can’t be a right to protest that stops other people going about lawful or necessary business. … That is where you draw the line. It’s very understandable at a time of conflict around the globe that people have extremely strong feelings, emotions, reasons, and deep concerns about what’s going on in the world … but it is best debated in all the many forums that we have for debate in a place like Oxford.”

One of the notable things about Hague is that he went into politics at such a young age. He was famously thrust onto the national stage after addressing Conservative party conference aged just 16 and became Leader of the Opposition at the age of 36. Now, he is desperate to encourage highly achieving young people into politics: “Look how we’re struggling across the world with political leaders. It seems like the problems have bigger and the leaders have got smaller… We cannot possibly do without that small cadre of people who’s there to take the plunge (into politics).

On current politics, Hague made a pitch for the Conservative Party to return to the centre, advising that “We should not be a right-wing pressure group that competes with Reform,” and not “to charge off to the right and ignore all those Labour and Liberal people.”. Minutes after our interview, James Cleverly was eliminated from the Conservative Party leadership race.

As has been the case during this election campaign, Hague declined to comment on any other candidates other than to say that there “are other good ones”. He did, however, make a closing pitch as to why he should be elected:

“It is because we need to articulate to the world how critical Oxford is to the next decade in the UK, and we need to raise that bigger endowment for the future that I was talking about. For that, you need somebody who is used to explaining things to the whole country and the whole world, and who is connected to people in business and philanthropy and politics all over the world, particularly in America.”

Stockholm syndrome: Reversed 

Carla Hollier
-
0
Stockholm syndrome: Reversed 

Stockholm syndrome (noun): feelings of trust or affection felt by a victim towards a captor in many cases of kidnapping or hostage-taking.

Education folklore has it that for many years, students at MIT have scrawled the acronym ‘IHTFP’ (I hate this fucking place) around campus in an attempt to express disdain for their university. After two years at Oxford, I can now report that students here often experience similar feelings. It makes sense, though. After all, when so many of us grow up with idealised dreams and expectations – of wandering the cobbled streets, eating in the grand dining halls, and experiencing some of the best teaching the world has to offer – it’s no wonder that we can end up feeling disappointed or disillusioned with our actual experience in the ‘city of dreaming spires’.

Personally, I had envisioned myself studying at Oxford for so long and I held it to such high esteem in my mind that perhaps it was inevitable it did not meet my expectations. In my first Michaelmas, I quickly discovered that the hours were long and hard, and the volume of work too much to bear. I felt stuck between two equally bleak options – spend all my time in the library, trying desperately to understand the content and complete the endless list of work – or risk failing my exams. I felt, and I know that many others still feel, an overwhelming sense of stupidity. Whether I was sitting in the library, explaining work in a tutorial, or measuring and testing in the lab, I felt completely inadequate and utterly convinced I should never have been offered a place; perhaps my acceptance email had been an admin error my college felt too guilty to reverse. This feeling followed me around, and no matter how much I tried to ignore it, it felt impossible to get rid of. I was completely trapped in a city I had once loved. 

Then there is the social side of Oxford. I have met many fantastic people here, but have still experienced my fair share of alienating experiences. There was the time when, at a crew date with another college, the first sconces included “I sconce anyone who compared the homeless people on Cornmarket street to rats”. The group erupted in shouts and jeers, while a few of us laughed in a state of shock. There was no evidence of anyone feeling embarrassed or ashamed, perhaps a slight sheepishness at best, maybe only at revealing too much in front of the wrong crowd. This was normal to them – they had their own culture, their own traditions, their own punchlines, running alongside our own. This vicious underbelly, this poorly-kept Oxford secret which rears its ugly head once in a while (often only when fuelled by copious amounts of alcohol) was suddenly illuminated, right there, standing on chairs towering above us in Jamal’s. This is something I found difficult from my arrival – the pretence that institutions like Oxford are no longer dominated by circles of students from elite backgrounds. There are only so many times that you can watch the light leave someone’s eyes when you inform them that there are no mutual private school acquaintances to bond over, because you did in fact attend a state school in the middle of nowhere. This is another reason I often feel trapped in Oxford, and even though I have met many lovely people, I regularly find myself longing to be back at home.

Oxford is an interesting place to go to university. The highs are incredibly high, the lows devastatingly low. There is possibly no better feeling than being sat in the pub after finally completing a problem sheet or feeling the sun on your face in Christ Church Meadow after a long library session. At Oxford, I think we are all oscillating between being entirely alone and entirely connected – terrified one minute, hopeful the next. We all have our own ways of coping, of dealing with the relentless work and convincing ourselves that it will all be worth it in the end. For many of us, it often feels like too much to withstand. I suppose, in a way, we are experiencing a reverse-order Stockholm syndrome – after longing to achieve a place and finally making it, we find ourselves desperate to escape.

Is the prestige of institutions like Oxford always inextricably tied to a high-stress environment? Or can it reconcile a world-class education with a more enjoyable student experience?

1...767778...2,515Page 77 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