Tuesday 29th July 2025
Blog Page 779

Tabloid spotlights only keep the real Oxford in the dark

3

Someone from a working-class background might not traipse through the Oxford admissions page this weekend. But they might flick through a copy of The Sun, The Daily Mirror or the Daily Mail. Staring back at them will be the face of a floppy-haired blonde man, dazed, drunk and, according to the story, disorderly. From it they will take away an image of Oxford as the home of the entitled. The influence of YouTube videos about ‘no-strings financial support’ and the ‘Wall of Faces’ of applicants from a range of racial and socio-economic backgrounds pale in comparison to the national reach of such stories. The reason they gain such traction is simple – it makes a good story.

In the same week Cherwell reported on Hope Oloye’s Afro-Caribbean Tyler Prize, it was the story of an exceptional woman reaching out to those like her, and dedicating her own time and energy to improve access. But this doesnt constitute a good story for the tabloids. It doesn’t fan the flames of anger or frustration, which so often arise when most in society consider Oxbridge. Too often with Oxford, it feels like no news is good news. The most recent stories have done little more than to evoke shame and anger for those who study here.

Over the last six months we’ve witnessed the Vice Chancellor’s homophobic comments, outrage over Lavinia Woodward being spared jail and the University being accused of a “social apartheid”. It doesn’t do much to encourage those on the fence to submit an application. When I was Access Officer at my college, I spent hours trying to encourage BME and working-class students to apply. On open days, I’d approach those who looked like me, more often than not nervous and filled with questions, most of which boiled down to: will I fit in? Each day dozens of hard-working individuals strive to ensure those individuals know the answer is yes. But the reporting which characterises Oxford as an elitist institution efficiently works to prove the opposite.

For example, in June, The Sun wrote a story on the Piers Gaveston Ball. They reported on “Posh Oxford University students queue[ing] half-naked in the street”. Photos of various individuals dressed scantily alongside questionable puns such as “Flesher’s week” and “The undie graduates”, which went on to be viewed thousands of times online and in print. Stories like this prove Oxford must be increasingly open. More opportunities to visit the colleges, increased access efforts and, crucially, more positive media coverage. Oxford isn’t just battling self-doubt, they need to combat an engrained media image of elitism and exclusion.

Of course, there is no smoke without fire. Oxford and other elite institutions should obviously be held accountable for a damaging academic or social culture, and the media should rightly report on their failings. But it is their apparent ignorance towards any progress which is damaging and counter-intuitive if they genuinely desire a shift in the status quo. Oxford contains a number of wealthy and privileged individuals, but reporting like we’ve seen in the tabloids this week purely play into worrying stereotypes. This is not the Oxford I know, and when the headlines and standfirsts fade, the impression remains, one which does far more to discourage applications than to encourage change.

Union suspends membership of Coulter protesters

5

Four students accused of disrupting Ann Coulter’s Oxford Union speech on Monday have had their memberships suspended by a Disciplinary Committee.

The total of five protesters stood up and began chanting “no Trump, no KKK, no fascist USA.” They left the chamber as security officials entered, shouting as they went.

Alex Kumar, Atticus Stonestrom, and James Alster were all banned for a term, while Margo Munro Kerr’s membership was suspended for six weeks. Alster’s ban was in addition to a £30 fine.

Another student also faced disciplinary action, but chose to rescind their membership instead of appearing at the hearing.

Two complaints were filed by Union president-elect, Gui Cavalcanti. The first, made against all five of the protesters, was over the alleged breaking of Rule 71(a)(i)(30), which reads as “conduct intended to disrupt debates or other meetings of the society”.

The second concerned only Kumar and related to Rule 71(a)(i)(13), concerning the failure to hand over one’s Union membership card on request.

Testimony was provided from Cavalcanti himself, the treasurer-elect Daniel Wilkinson, and house manager Bridget Gaughan. Evidence was also provided from various tweets and Facebook posts, including video evidence of the protesters chanting and leaving the chamber.

The disciplinary committee was chaired by Union president Laali Vadlamani.

Cherwell understands that the defendants largely accepted the account of the complainant. He contested that within the first minute of Coulter’s speech, Alster stood up in the middle of the chamber’s corridor and started shouting at her.

After about ten seconds, the other four protesters joined him, and started chanting “no Trump, no KKK, no fascist USA”.

Cavalcanti’s testimony stated it was Kumar who started the chanting, but Cherwell understands Stonestrom confessed to this.

The chanting continued until security guards entered the chamber and began to approach them, which prompted the protesters to gather their belongings and march out, chanting as they went.

Once outside, the security officials and the house manager requested their membership cards. Two of the defendants gave their cards over immediately.

The other three questioned what rule allowed them to request their cards, to which Cavalcanti referred to Rule 71(a)(i)(13). Stonestrom then reportedly replied that this response was “a pretty good answer”, before he and Alster also handed over their cards.

Kumar, however, refused, eventually claiming he was not a Union member and therefore did not have a membership card. This was despite a member of the security team claiming he had remembered Kumar showing it to him earlier.

After five minutes of heated discussion, Kumar was asked to leave on the basis that Cavalcanti knew his identity and that he would not be allowed in the Union again. At the front gate of St Michael’s Street, however, he seemed to changed his mind, handing over his card.

Cherwell understands that the defendants denied, as Bridget Gaughan’s testimony claimed, that Kumar was “aggressive” in his tone, but generally accepted this version of events.

The protesters’ main line of defence was that their protest wasn’t a premeditated act, and that they had intended to challenge Coulter’s views with pre-prepared questions after her speech.

However, they allege that a statement Coulter had made regarding “Mexican rapists” compelled them to speak out.

Alex Kumar told Cherwell: “I make no apology for what I did inside the chamber.

“We must not give an inch to fascism, or to those who preach race hate, denounce rape victims, or advocate genocide.

“I did what I did, and I could do no other.”

Munro Kerr told Cherwell: “The zeal with which the Union insist on protecting Ann Coulter’s right to make hate speech on their significant platform while punishing dissent by Union members is completely ridiculous.”

The protester who resigned before the hearing, and did not wish to be named, told Cherwell: “Less than a minute into her speech, Ann Coulter remarked that she supported Trump on his views on ‘Mexican rapists’.

“I would have been ashamed of myself if I did not speak up; hate speech is not worthy of the respect of silence. I renounced my membership because I do not want to be affiliated with an organisation that empowers or platforms hate speech.”

In the statement they provided to the committee, they claimed that audience members laughed when Coulter said she supported Trump due to his views on “Mexican rapists”.

The statement continued: “When I told Ann Coulter she should be ashamed of herself, I also meant to direct it to the audience. You are all complicit by treating the suffering of people as a joke.”

They added: “I would like to highlight rule 71A of the Oxford Union: ‘The following shall constitute misconduct: (1) Violent conduct, harassment, discrimination or other behaviour on the Society’s premises liable to distress, offend or intimidate other members, the possession or sale of illegal substances.’

“Could someone at the Union please explain to me how Ann Coulter and her comments do not constitute discrimination or other behavior liable to distress, offend, or intimidate? Why are speakers held to a different standard than members?”

A Union spokesperson told Cherwell: “Following a meeting of the Junior Disciplinary Committee held today, all remaining defendants accepted that they were guilty of all charges, and made statements and representations in mitigation.

“All proceedings were observed by the Returning Officer and a Senior Officer at all times – two neutral parties – as prescribed by the Rules, to even more robustly ensure that the hearing was fully fair and proceeded exactly according to the regulations of the Society.

“Full details of the result of the Junior Disciplinary Committee are available on the Society’s noticeboard, and may be seen by any member at any time. In summary, two members were suspended for eight weeks of Full Term, one member was suspended for six weeks of Full Term, and one was suspended for eight weeks of Full Term and fined £30. All four members have the right to appeal, as detailed in Rule 71.

“All members can read the full Rules of the Society online, and I would encourage them to do so.”

The last protest to have provoked similar punishments involved the Union’s hosting of Corey Lewandowski, the former campaign manager for Donald Trump.

The defendants included Tom Barringer, the current VP for Charities and Community at Oxford SU, who was banned from the Union for one term.

Union attacked by pro-life group for abortion panel of exclusively pro-choice speakers

1

Oxford Students for Life (OSFL) have criticised the Oxford Union for hosting only pro-choice speakers at their panel on abortion.

The anti-abortion group referred to the event as “merely a pro-choice workshop”.

The panel aimed to “question and challenge the restrictions on reproductive rights in the 21st century”, following moves made by the Trump administration against abortion laws and the decision in Ireland to hold a referendum in 2018 to repeal the Eighth Amendment.

Speakers included Ilyse Hogue, Ann Furedi, and Sinéad Kennedy, all of whom are prominent voices in pro-choice campaigning in the US, the UK, and the Republic of Ireland respectively.

Member of OSFL and Lady Margaret Hall student, Katie Forkey told Cherwell: “I think that to have really fruitful conversation in these times is to take into consideration that other people have other opinions on this issue and that they shouldn’t be discounted.”

After attending the Union event, co-president of the OSFL Naoise Grenham called the panel “an opportunity lost”.

On behalf of the pro-life group, Grenham told Cherwell: “We were initially glad that the Union chose to cover the topic of abortion.

“However, their manner in doing so was very disappointing.

“An all pro-choice panel and time for a mere two questions meant that only one side of the issue was adequately represented, and thus a chance for enlightening discussion was wasted.”

During the event, Forkey questioned the speakers on whether the options they advocated, such as abolishing regulation on when an abortion can be undertaken during pregnancy so that each termination can be considered “case by case”, were representative of general opinions.

She told the panel that “pro-life supporters are not an insignificant proportion of the population” .

She claimed that only 1% of people in the UK favoured extending the possibility of abortion until birth and that 50% of Americans identify as pro-life.

In response Ann Furedi, chief executive of British Pregnancy Advisory Service (Bpas) Britain’s largest abortion provider, stated she “relished the opportunity” to debate questions concerning abortion with pro-life supporters and referred to two occasions where she had already done so at the Oxford Union.

She said: “But I equally think that it is really good to have a nuanced discussion that assumes that abortion is legal worldwide, once in a while. ”

Ilyse Hogue added: “Ultimately the real question is: Am I comfortable being judge and jury for everyone else, even if I don’t know their circumstances?”

The Oxford Union said in a statement to Cherwell: “We think it’s important to remember that this was a panel event rather than a debate.

“The Union has in fact held multiple debates on abortion rights in the past, which have allowed for pro-life views to be aired.

“Furthermore, on the same day as this event, the Union hosted Ann Coulter, who is known for her pro-life and anti-abortion views.

“With this panel, we felt that those who are pro-life could reasonably ask questions from the audience and engage with the panel anyway – we do think it’s reasonable for the Union to offer a space for pro-choice views to be discussed amongst themselves, touching upon the normative foundations and prescriptive solutions for pro-choice activism, especially with the Repeal the Eight Campaign that is currently taking place in Ireland.”

Cherwell recently reported that OSFL dropped two speakers from a panel discussion.
Controversial pro-life activists Dr Vincent Rue and Dr Catherine Coyle both had their invitations to speak removed.

OSFL then told Cherwell: “We’re restructuring the event having looked further into Vincent Rue and Catherine Coyle’s previous research.”

Uni awards highest share of top grades in country

0

Oxford University has topped a list of the universities with the biggest shares of 2.1s and firsts, according to data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency.

93.8 per cent of students were awarded the top two grades in 2017.

While 33.9 per cent received firsts, only 5.4 per cent received 2.2s and 0.8 per cent were awarded thirds.

The only institution that had awarded a larger share of first and 2.1s was the Royal Academy of Music, a London conservatoire.

In 2017, humanities had the highest share of 2.1s and firsts with only two per cent of finalists being awarded 2.2s and none being awarded thirds.

Students in only nine of 26 humanities subjects offered by the University received grades lower than a 2.1 last year.

Those studying Ancient and Modern History had one of the highest chances of receiving the top two grades with only four finalists awarded grades below 2.1 in the last ten years.

In Medical Sciences, no thirds were awarded last year and there only 15 2.2s meaning that 96 per cent of students received the highest grades.

This is also true of Social Sciences where only 27 students received the lowest final grades.

Mathematical, Physical, and Life Sciences had the highest rate of grades below first or 2.1. In 2017, 14 per cent of finalists were awarded 2.2s or thirds in the subject.

Maths and Computer Science and European and Middle Eastern Languages had the greatest share of firsts with 83 per cent being awarded the top grade.

The rankings also show that the University of Cambridge had the second highest share of firsts and 2.1s among Russell Group institutions.

More than 91 per cent of students received the top two grades in 2017, with 33.5 per cent receiving firsts.

A spokesperson for the University of Oxford said: “We think this is a reflection of our intake comprising of students with very high levels of prior attainment.

“When this is combined with the University’s excellent teaching and facilities, it is unsurprising that our hardworking, talented students get such good exam results.”

This article has been amended to remove an inaccuracy concerning the awarding of firsts to Physics’ students, which did not take into account those studying for an MPhys.

Magdalen JCR rejects new Brexit rep

0

Magdalen College JCR has voted against a motion to create a ‘Brexit Rep’ role on their JCR committee.

The proposed representative would have provided a voice for “the minority of students in the JCR who supported ‘Vote Leave’ in the EU Referendum Campaign.”

The proposer of the motion, Harry Forbes, said in the JCR meeting where the motion was discussed: “We have in our college a minority community that is discriminated against, prosecuted, and violated on a daily basis.

“The lived experience of this minority of Brexiteers cannot be deterred by those of Remainiac privilege, with microaggressions, such as bringing in European foodstuffs.

“I would grant to you that ethnic minorities do have representation of their identity-specific interests within the college, and, being tenant of our identity, the Brexit community needs to be recognised and celebrated by this college, not only as some private, marginalised group as we currently are, but as a heart of the community.”

The motion failed with five votes in favour, 43 votes against, and no abstentions.

Ben Hopkinson, JCR freshers’ rep, was present at the meeting and told Cherwell: “I think it’s important that we recognise the many minorities that contribute to Magdalen life.

“However, creating a Brexit rep is a mockery of the minorities in Magdalen that actually face discrimination on a daily basis.

“I’m proud of Magdalen for quickly voting down this mocking motion.”

Another first-year student present at the meeting said: “The main crux of the issue for me was the appropriation of terminology associated with the LGBTQIAP+ community, especially when spoken in such a comedic tone.

“It undercuts the serious nature of queer rights by continuing a history of making them the punchline to a joke.

“Naivety is a privilege and, as such, I feel the speaker does not understand oppression.

“Of course, his argument was difficult to justify from the start as a majority of Brits chose to leave the EU.

“Yes, an understanding of our Brexit predicament is vital, but anyone who has the audacity to consider themselves a minority because of it is clearly just delusional.”

A speaker in opposition of the motion at the meeting, said: “I think if the person who proposed the motion would like to organise a group of people who support Brexit in Magdalen, then he should do so in his own time.

“But I don’t think it’s the place of the college or the JCR to start taking sides.”

Forbes told Cherwell: “The motion for Brexit rep highlighted the proliferation of gratuitous reps for every imaginable grouping of students, and the atmosphere of hostility towards views divergent from the left wing consensus within student politics.

“Sadly, but unsurprisingly, the motion failed, demonstrating the dominance of the the elites that this motion was intended to reveal.”

Mansfield lodges objection to New planning application

0

Mansfield has objected to a planning application by New College to develop a site on Savile Road.

College administrators sent an objection letter to Oxford City Council, which read: “the proposed development has completely disregarded the impact it would have on Mansfield College.”

The letter claimed a new ‘Warham Tower’, part of New College’s plans, was “little more than a vanity project.”

It noted that “the whole community of the College is united in opposing the scheme as proposed.”

The principal of Mansfield College, Helena Kennedy QC, signed the letter.

The objection draws attention to what it claims are several infringements on the Council’s Local Plan (2001-2016). It states the development will not be equivalent in scale to the surrounding area.

It argues the new ‘Warham Tower’ is not consistent with the Saved Policy HE.9 (High Building Area) which states that no new building can exceed 18.2 metres within 1.2km of Carfax Tower.

New’s proposed tower would be 25 metres in height, and 650 metres away from Carfax.
This has been called a “flagrant break of this high buildings policy.”

Mansfield has also lodged concerns regarding overlooking and privacy, considering the close proximity of the new buildings to Mansfield’s student accommodation.

Mansfield JCR president, Daria Lysyakova, told Cherwell: “[The JCR] were one of the main supporters of a formal objection from the outset.

“I believe that building two metres away from our boundary is more than unreasonable.

“Windows from the New College accommodation block will look directly into windows of Mansfield accommodation. Having students from another college at such close proximity is a serious invasion of privacy.”

Mansfield College Bursar, Allan Dodd, told Cherwell: “We have ensured that neighbouring colleges are aware of the proposed development.

“Thereafter it is entirely up to them whether they submit an objection.”

The Warden of New College, Miles Young, told Cherwell: “Great care has been taken to mitigate the impact on Mansfield College, at every stage of the process, and with extensive dialogue.

“More generally, we are very disappointed that a proposal which will take 70 students away from the overdemanded Oxford housing market is not treated more fairly. We all have an interest in that.

“At the same time a proposal which has been praised by experts for its contribution to the townscape as both original and sensitive is not in our view fairly appraised by the Mansfield letter.

“Of course, we recognise that developments in Oxford often cause issues, and we are always willing to do our very best to deal with them.”

Other groups have offered considerations on the planning application process. These include Oxford Preservation Trust and the Historic England Commission.

Dodd also notes that the consultation period was extended by the Council.

He understands  this was because the mandatory original public notification of the proposed development failed to make clear that the development was in conflict with the Council’s policy on height of buildings in the Local Plan.

Oxford City Council have been contacted for comment. They are not obliged to respond to planning objections until the meeting of a planning committee.

Oxford charged students £50k more in library fines than any other university

0

Oxford students were charged over £50,000 more in library fines than students at any other UK university in the academic year 2016/17, new data has revealed.

A freedom of information request seen by Cherwell revealed that the Bodleian Libraries collected £167,689.78 in library fines between September 2016 and August 2017.

King’s College London, which charged students £113,726 was the only other university to collect fines worth over £100,000.

A spokesperson for the Bodleian Libraries said: “The money from fines is reinvested into the Libraries.”

The figures constitute a vast increase in the sum collected by the University compared to last year.

In the academic year 2015/16, Oxford students were charged £92,254.70.

Other Russell Group universities in the top ten include the University of Cambridge (£98,487), University College London (£87,195), and the University of Edinburgh (£76,501), according to the i newspaper.

Some universities, including Bath and Chichester, have recently adopted policies such as auto-book renewal and opted against collecting library fines in order to reduce costs of use for students.

Last year, a Cherwell investigation revealed that 14 per cent of Oxford colleges have fined their students over £25,000 since 2010. 95 per cent of fines levied by colleges were
library, lost book, or administrative fines.

The Bodleian Libraries comprise a collection of 32 libraries across the University. Fine policies across libraries differ, but the majority charge 20p per day for overdue standard loan items, while short loan books are charged at £1 per day. Overnight loans are charged at 50p per hour.

Typically, if a reader’s total fines exceed £10, they must be paid before the student can borrow again.

A Bodleian Libraries spokesperson told Cherwell: “Fines are a standard procedure used across libraries to ensure that materials are returned on time and thus made as widely available as possible to all readers.

“There was an increase in the number of fines incurred by students (undergraduates and postgraduates) in 2016-17, but a decrease in the number of students who received the fines.

“This shows that a smaller number of students failed to return a larger number of materials on time.”

Worcester edge past New College to seal Cuppers glory

0

Worcester won men’s Cuppers for the first time since 2013 on Friday night, thanks to a clinical 2-0 victory against New College.

After New enjoyed most of the early running, Andrew Kinsella opened the scoring against the run of play, scrappily bundling home from a corner.

Worcester grew into the game, and took control in the second half. With moments left on the clock, man-of-the-match Olly Cobb jinked past his opposite man, and his deflected shot squeezed in to seal the win.

Having comfortably overcome St. Catz in their semi-final, and with promotion to the JCR Premier Division all but assured, New went into the game as favourites, and they had most of the early running. James Foord, Dylan Evans and Alex Craig looked to control things in midfield, and Patrick Leahy’s dangerous runs in behind seemed to worry Worcester’s centre-halves.

Five minutes in, Jeff Sload made the first of a series of fine saves in the Worcester goal, as he held onto a deep free-kick that Evans, one of two Blues players on the pitch, had whipped in.

Another chance soon followed, as the diminutive midfielder found Leahy with an inch-perfect through ball, but the number nine fluffed the finish, firing wide of Sload’s goal.

Matt Wilson’s last-ditch block then kept the game goalless, following another wave of New pressure, before Worcester finally got a foothold in the match.

Sam Hale and Ben Jones pressed well in midfield, and Cobb’s direct running down the right began to cause problems.

After winning a corner, the winger whipped in a delicious cross that New failed to deal with; Kinsella, languishing in the six-yard box, could hardly believe his luck as the ball fell to him, and his scuffed shot looped agonisingly over Connor Sargent. Worcester were ecstatic, and led against the run of play.

A matter of minutes later, only the woodwork could prevent the men in pink doubling their lead. Jones lifted his head up some twenty-five yards from goal, and saw the space around him: he unleashed a thunderbolt with his left foot, and with Sargent beaten, New’s travelling army breathed a collective sigh of relief as the ball slammed against the upright.

Worcester looked invigorated by the goal, and went into half-time firmly on top; for all their early dominance, New created little in the twenty minutes before the break.

Following the interval, the men in white – searching for a first Cuppers title since 1908 – were re-energised, and Tom McShane’s deep cross forced a good save out of Sload. Craig then worked an opening for himself in midfield, but again, his shot was lacking in any real venom, and Worcester’s clean sheet remained in tact.

The quality of the game descended in the second half, and openings were few and far between. Worcester were quite happy to sit deep and play on the break, as Hale pinged diagonal balls to both wings and the tenacious Jones continued to work hard in midfield.

Jones threatened again from range, and Tom Oliver nearly scored an outrageous lob after being sent through, as Worcester looked the more likely to grab the all-important second goal.

With ten minutes left, Evans – forced deeper and deeper in the second half – managed to release the isolated Leahy, whose knock-down found Craig, but he couldn’t find the finish: New’s profligacy in front of goal would prove costly.

In the dying embers of the game, Cobb worked an opening for himself down the left. He darted past the New defender following a corner, and fired low and hard at goal. A wicked deflection took the ball past Sargent, and sent the Worcester fans into jubilant celebrations. The New players slumped on the turf, dejected: they knew that their dream had faded.

Worcester, meanwhile, were rightly thrilled. After three consecutive titles between 2011 and 2013, four years without a Cuppers win had seemed like an eternity. While their position in the relegation zone of the JCR Premier Division might suggest otherwise, they will hope that this can be the start of another period of domination of college football. The dominant Hale’s midfield presence will be sorely missed, but there is enough quality in this side that this win could be the start of something special.

Letter to: my neighbour

0

Dear neighbour,

I wonder what your first anxieties were when you moved into halls. Were you wondering whether the people you lived with would be ridiculously clean, leaving passive aggressive post-it notes everywhere? Or would they be the biggest slob, emerging from their room only to pop another frozen pizza in the oven, slowly hoarding all the plates until you were forced to eat your soup out of a mug? Most importantly, how much would you be forced to hear of what is happening in their room? Nobody wants to hear the moans of an acquaintance at two in the morning, and then be forced to make uncomfortable small talk with them when you bump into each other in the hallway the next day. Instead, you’ve got me as a neighbour, and whether we like each other or not, we have to put up with each other if we want to survive the year sharing the same environment.

If we had a kitchen, like I did last year, it would be easier to find ourselves learning the ins and outs of the other students living around you. You’d know who is most likely to be sloppy drunk when returning from Bridge, only to set off the fire alarm at two in the morning. It would work, in a weird sort of way – there is an intimacy that comes with boiling your fusilli on the hob next to someone else’s penne, even if you have nothing else in common.

But we have no kitchen or social area. We are, instead, blessed with a large set of rooms in a spacious building, that essentially form a kind of self-contained unit. You, my so-called ‘neighbour’, are reduced to the pattering of footsteps and the occasional sound of a distant shower being turned on. But whilst this removes the feeling of having to force ourselves to ask each other vague questions about how our days went or what our plans are for the evening, there is also a whole new set of questions. If I don’t even know your name, what am I meant to do if my heating doesn’t work, and I want to check if it’s more than just an issue with my room?

Now, as a music student, I am hyperaware that you may, on occasion, be victim to impromptu through-the-wall performances, particularly when drunk guests to my room also enjoy singing Byrd motets or sight-reading piano duets. I am sorry when that can be annoying but, dear neighbour, maybe consider just asking me to keep it down if you’ve got an essay deadline? There’s nothing worse than the ghost neighbour…the one who broods and builds up a grudge until they complain about you on Oxfeud, or worse, the JCR group page.

We don’t have to be friends, or even acknowledge each other, but let’s never grow so bitter as to not communicate any significant grievances.

Best wishes,

Your neighbour (a stranger)

Black Panther celebrates black culture in all its glory

0

In a cinema filled with a stunning conglomeration of geles, bubas and rainbows of prints, Oxford’s Afro-Caribbean society gathered to watch the opening of Black Panther, complete with special guests and a Q&A panel.

The colours of the ‘traditional clothing’ dress code for the event at the Curzon cinema in Westgate soon blended with the film itself. The film began, and we woke up in a world of iridescent blossoms, a swirling purple sky, and an unforetold depiction of black beauty.

In Black Skins, White Masks, Frantz Fanon writes that narratives surrounding blackness are often reduced to “tom-toms, cannibalism, intellectual deficiency… and slave-ships”. Black Panther completely defies and reshapes this image. Blackness is presented unashamedly in all its majesty.

Michael B. Jordan’s character, Eric, intellectually disarms a white academic on the history of several African artefacts, and he does so entirely in African American vernacular.

The dialogue, costume, and technology in Wakanda are not altered to appease the hegemonic ‘Western’ idea of what has been previously characterised as ‘savage’, ‘barbaric’ or ‘third-world’. The appreciation of black culture in Black Panther completely subverts a narrative in film that has for so long undermined black culture. Black viewers are finally able to see themselves empowered and not victims – our excellence and magic is esteemed, not diminished.

“The sunsets there are the most beautiful”, a young Eric is told by his father, in a fairy-tale-like fashion, about Wakanda, the fictional East African country in which Black Panther is predominantly set. Rachel Morrison’s cinematography delivers this truth. From the immense waterfalls and plains, to the technological advancement present in all the architecture, the landscape positively glitters.

Aside from the landscape, the human vision of black beauty also dominates the screen. The makeup of Lupita N’yongo, Danai Gurira and Letitia Wrights keeps us in awe throughout the film, and reflects the traditions unique to black women.

This celebration of both diasporic and African femme beauty culture dismantles the image of attractiveness which has previously dominated popular Western discourse.

While the excellence of black beauty has always existed, it is now with Black Panther that it is recognised in the mainstream.

However, it isn’t simply in their beauty that the women of Wakanda captivate us. Throughout the film, the men surrounding N’yongo and Gurira’s characters, presented with examples of their strength and intelligence, are left speechless, or physically kneel before them.

Okoye is the greatest warrior in Wakanda, Shuri is the mind who developed the most advanced technology in the world, and Nakia is a humanitarian who works tirelessly for those oppressed around the world.

The film is an ode to black women, and in it Afro-Caribbean communities will recognise the women in their own lives.

Black Panther is representative of a greater tradition of afro-futurism, which until now, has been hidden in the margins of culture. Whilst it is a milestone for the long-ignored to suddenly be entering the mainstream, it is important to remember the stories of Octavia E. Butler, the paintings of Jean-Michel Basquiat, and the writings of Sun Ra. They are the foundation which Black Panther builds its excellency upon.

In his petition to get Marvel to donate 25 per cent of their profits to black communities, Chaz Gormley writes, “[you] have the ability… to not only go see a film about a fictitious country in Africa with advanced technology, but the opportunity to… make such advancements possible, in real life.”

The excellence of Black Panther is only the beginning of a larger revolution in our culture, not just in terms of the representation it provides, but the potential for real social change it contains.