Monday 6th October 2025
Blog Page 786

Night Out: the Oxford experience

Anonymous
-
0
Night Out: the Oxford experience

Any Oxford night out inevitably starts with pre-ing in your corridor. Almost equally as inevitable is the arrival of a junior dean, who reminds you more than three people in a room is a ‘party’ and that you will be ‘deaned’ if you don’t stop making such a racket.

Don’t they understand our need as students to relax after an intense day of skipping lectures, endless repeats of Friends, and a brunch outing? So you proceed to your college bar. Despite being ‘heavily subsidised’, the drinks are of course the same price as those at a rooftop bar somewhere in trendy East London. But, unlike trendy East London bars, your college bar is a sweaty basement with sticky tables and peeling wallpaper. And what’s that funny smell?

When the bar staff tell you ‘you can’t drink your own drinks in here’, you explain that it isn’t your drink but your friends. Yet they’re still intent on halting your consumption. But there’s no way you’re arriving at that club sober. No. Way. There’s nothing for it but to down the bottle on the walk to the club. It’s the sensible thing to do.

As usual you forgot to buy a ticket, so as you arrive at the club and all your friends proceed to the door, you are consigned to the very back of the queue. It’s fine though, you’re just tipsy enough to bear it and you still have more to drink. The queue inches forward, and so far you can ignore the cheers of the ‘lads’ behind you. Actually, they’re pretty close behind you. Some personal space please?

After drunkenly reassuring the bouncer that the photo on your learner license is indeed you, they let you in. Even though you’re in the second year of a law degree, and you’re pretty sure there are discrimination laws against charging men more than women, you hand over your money. You’re in.

In hindsight, the hurdles you have to jump over before even being admitted into the club and the just about average – or, depending on the club, below average – night you’ll have, don’t make the experience seem worthwhile. I’d rather watch another episode of Friends – the one where Rachel turns 30, or ‘The One Where Chandler and Monica Get Engaged’ (gets me every time). Hey, don’t let me stop you – but you should probably start queuing now if you want to get in.

Oxford beat Imperial to secure league title

Freddie North
-
0
Oxford beat Imperial to secure league title

The Oxford University men’s water polo team secured the Bucs Southern Premier League title last Wednesday with victory over Imperial College London, becoming the first Oxford team in over a decade to win full Blues for water polo. Oxford’s victory at the Rosenblatt Pool at Iffley was the culmination of an already successful season.

Impressive wins at home to Bristol and away to Imperial early in Michaelmas saw the campaign start full of promise, but a narrow 12-11 loss to the University of the West of England ended hopes of an undefeated season before Christmas.

Yet, Oxford bounced back in Hilary, grinding out results in an intense schedule of games. A 6-6 draw at home to perennial table-toppers Cardiff was followed by a decisive 11-4 away win at UWE set up a high stakes situation for the final game of the season at home to Imperial. Win, and they would go top. Lose, and they would miss out on full Blues.

Given what was at stake, the first quarter of the Imperial game was predictably cagey, with the away side struggling to break through a fierce Oxford press, while at the other end of the pool the home side repeatedly found shots hitting the posts or flying over.

However, with two minutes left of the quarter the pressure began to tell, and Oxford managed to breakthrough, two goals from pit forward Seh Woon Neo sending them into the second quarter with a 3-1 lead. The game was won in the next eight minutes of play, as Oxford proceeded to shut out the Imperial attack, winning the quarter 3-0 and going into halftime with a comfortable 6-1 lead.

From there, experienced pit defender Joe Ortiz led a stifling defence that kept the Imperial attack out of range of the Oxford goal and allowed outside players to steal the ball and make their opponents relinquish possession by forcing turnovers. Oxford ‘keeper Luca Rottoli managed to maintain the shut-out, saving a penalty as well as making several key steals that saw he and Ortiz keep the Imperial pit forward locked out of the match.

From that point on, the game was fairly comfortable for the home side. Formulaic polo saw Oxford continue to find success playing the ball into goal-scorers Richard O’Halloran and Seh Woon Neo, while also attempting to wind the clock down.

A series of well executed moves saw Oxford move the ball around the pool with ease, finding O’Halloran in space on the left-hand side multiple times and extending their lead to 9-2. In the final quarter, Imperial began to show signs of revival, drawing the score back to 9-5, however the pace of Oxford’s counter-attack through the legs of Blues swimmer and crowd favourite Dominic McGloughlin soon stretched the game out.

A series of attacks back and forth saw Oxford continue to frustrate Imperial, answering two of their goals with three of their own. By the time the last minutes of the game came around, Oxford were comfortable enough to sit back and let time run down, until the game ended with a final score of 12-7.

In this game, as over the course of the season, a core of players entering their final years at Oxford proved the value of experience, while his year’s crop of freshers provided a massive boost. Five of the players who featured against Imperial were in their first year with the team.

Victory sent them to the top of the league, a feat not achieved by Oxford since the Premier Division format was introduced.

They also secured a bye into the quarter-finals of the cup competition to add yet more momentum to carry them into the Varsity Match in two weeks’ time.

Victory review – ‘Julia Pilkington’s direction places us on a knife edge’

Tony Wilkes
-
0
Victory review – ‘Julia Pilkington’s direction places us on a knife edge’

“I love this fucking nation. But what is it?” asks Charles. It’s a good question. At first glance, the world of Julia Pilkington’s Victory’s is one of luscious costume. Mia Parnall creates a Reformation enmeshed in elaborate corsage, peering out behind frivolous frills. Abigail Allan’s marketing presents us a world with an emphatic connoisseur’s precision. We are seduced by the folds of a fabric, a blotch of rouge on the cheek. “This fucking nation” is beautifully composed.

So it’s surprising to find soiled sheets hanging from the ceiling, serving as ornately decorated banners. ‘HARMONIA BRITANNIA’ is printed in block capitals down the frayed edges. Instead of perfume and powder we find hay strewn on the floor. The view is accompanied by a striking soundtrack, produced by Nathan Geyer. I’m told it’s a harpsicord, “processed” and “manipulated”, the result being an erratic strumming of strings, applying a kind of pressure that we know must break. Before the play has even started this ‘HARMONIA’ is on the brink. It’s gonna get messy.

Britain is in a mess. It’s 1660 and Charles II is back on the throne. “This is a new world”, and the anti-monarchists are sweating. The tension is played out by the story of John Bradshaw’s widow – the High Court Judge who tried Charles I. Heads rolled. Now, Bradshaw’s torso hangs on the Strand. His head sits on a spike. But that’s history. His widow Susan vows to retrieve the mutilated parts. What follows is a “baroque ‘n’ roll…tragedy”, one and a half hours of grotesque and comical chaos.

Immediately we are inundated with obscenity. Dick jokes spring out of nowhere. We hear of smutty sex – “cunt leisure”. The King’s mistress cries at his coronation, “Charlie! You are hurting my arse!” The cast’s distorted and exaggerated delivery had the audience in stitches. There was something special about every actor: Stas Butler’s gawping face; Olivia White’s stony ‘I’m done with you’ face; Adam Diaper’s careering body; Alex Rugman’s pathetic contortions; Esme Sanders’ delightfully sickening grin. Rosa Garland’s eyes spoke volumes. I kept jotting down the same word for Livesey’s performance: ‘hilarious’, underlined. His comic timing meant he didn’t even have to speak to make us giggle. The only problem arose when these grotesqueries drowned out the words. There were moments when some characters omitted a funny-sounding gabble, making it hard to follow the plot. It is lucky, then, that Howard Barker’s play is unashamedly chaotic. The play is fragmented by total blackouts. We are meant to feel lost, but we’re swept up in the romp.

It is Bea Udale-Smith’s performance that provided a stunning psychological realism. There were moments when the artifice seemed to slip away, as if she was really feeling. Emotions flickered across her face. Her eyes glimmered. Being told her husband has been found dismembered and displayed we witnessed a complete mental and physical collapse. It was unbearable. It is Susan that articulates the play’s fundamental drama: what happens when man turns to “an animal, in times of animals.” To see Victory is to witness what fills harmony’s gaping absence – to indulge in diabolical disorder. The beautiful composure we expect visibly unravels. The white face paint begins to smear. Costumes tear. Dresses are dishevelled. Hands are bloodied.

The result is a constant shift between hilarity and brutality. Julia Pilkington’s direction places us on a knife edge. She masterfully turns the scene in a moment. A raucous wedding turns to torture when a dissident is presented on a kind of platter – his tongue cut out. Alex Rugman triumphed playing a man reduced to maimed animal. We winced with him. The same can be said for Adam Diaper’s portrayal of Charles. His ability to play both a tyrant and a clown is testament to the power of his acting. He a line he stops our laughter in our throats. Amidst the laughter we had an underlying sense of trauma – of blood in the air.

But it is not only this we sense. Victory is a powerful reminder that student productions can dazzle.

Girls and Boys review – ‘a drama that not only strikes, but leaves us sizzling’ 

Tony Wilkes
-
0
Girls and Boys review – ‘a drama that not only strikes, but leaves us sizzling’ 

It’s half four and I’m standing on the platform for trains to London. I’m going to review a play I only heard about three hours ago. Boys and Girls. No. Girls and Boys. I don’t know what it’s about yet. But the one thing I do know, is that it stars Carey Mulligan, the BAFTA award winning actress for An Education (2009) – the film that prompted my application to Oxford.

Dennis Kelley’s play – premiered at the Royal Court Theatre last week – acknowledges this appeal. It is one and a half hours of Mulligan, a one woman show. The production pictures, sent by the theatre’s Press Assistant, show Mulligan in striking clarity, cast in relief against a set doused in a deep blue. The pictures scream one thing: ‘We’ve got her!’. And it was for that reason that I found myself hurtling towards Paddington, braving the Circle and District lines to Sloan Square, to see a play I did not know.

Walking into the Royal Court I sensed a kind of charge. An energy was gathering, an excited static ready to break. The press event is packed. Catching a glimpse of the press list I made out Telegraph. A purple light reveals faces I recognised – a trendy woman with long, thick grey hair…but from where? The Times? But it is only when I got to my seat that I recognised that this was big. ‘GIRLS AND BOYS’ stood emblazoned across the stage. The show knew the weight of its name.

From the offset we were given what we wanted – the chance to witness Mulligan’s talent, intimately. The play follows an unnamed woman recounting how her “intense, passionate head-over-heels relationship” started “to go properly wrong.” She did so in her bare feet. Her hair was tied back in a bun, leaving her entire face to be seen. The result was that meaning was invested on the face, on expression. This stripping back quickly established the character as the funny, outspoken friend telling a hilarious story. In the first of a series of “Chats”, she talked about “this female friend” of her husband’s

Emma…And it’s not that I was jealous, because first off, that’s not what I’m like. I don’t do that. But the first moment I met Emma, I just thought – No.

There is nothing in the script that accounts for how the house burst into fits. It was the subtlety of expression after the “No.” Her eyes conveyed a dumb disbelief in the possibility she ever could have said, “Yes.” And we could perceive all this because she wasn’t just talking. She was talking to us. There were moments when I was convinced she was talking to me. She seemed to be looking straight into my eyes. And I’m sure everyone felt this. Being told that she got her dream job in another “Chat”, one audience member emitted a loud “Ah!” It was a response we would make to a close friend with good news. And it was. Mulligan, in a few minutes, had befriended us all, and we were hooked.

These “Chats” then flipped to familial “Scenes”, in which we watched Mulligan embroiled with her two children. The scenes varied from squabbling – “Stop laughing! I want you to apologise to your sister” – to artful negotiation: “the Shard made of mud does sound fantastic…but secondly you are not taking a bucket of mud in your bedroom.” What was stunning was that the children were never there. They existed as mime. And it was beautiful. One moment we watched Mulligan guide Danny – around four years old – out of the room. Her two hands appeared to lightly touch his back, creating the illusion of a presence, a weight. Their existence was so vivid that the play ceased to comprise one character. A whole cast appeared out of air.

It is easy to forget that we were mesmerised by the performance because of the writing. As the programme says, “[t]he Royal Court Theatre is the writers’ theatre. It is a leading force in world theatre for energetically cultivating writers.” The writing is so provocative, so arresting, because it is raw. One passage rang particularly true:

I had to make a conscious effort not to talk about him, because he was the only subject I was ever interested in. I was obsessed with his hands…[H]e had these ridiculously articulate hands like they’d been sewn on and had belonged to a surgeon or … a concert pianist.

But something else started to seep into the hilarity – an awful violence. Her husband’s reaction to her pregnancy leads to her “decid[ing] there and then to have an abortion. I was gonna get rid of, well … my child, because in my mind it had already become a child…But I was going to … kill it. To keep him. That’s how intense this was.” Amidst all the laughter she says: “I think a lot about violence…I just think it’s such a fundamental part of our species that how can you understand us without understanding it?”

What was so strange is that we didn’t clock it. We continued to laugh. I didn’t sense the “dirty little thoughts polluting our perfect nuclear family, infecting it with a darkness it should not have…” The lighting coated the darkness in a thick bubble-gum blue. The comedy blunted a sinister edge. We never saw what was coming – the thunderclap – the violent shock of one simple line that left my heart in my throat – the event that gives the play its name.

A review can’t spoil this. It would subvert the play’s genius. So I will work with a blank. I will try to make the invisible meaningful. At once we felt a shift. The play suddenly acknowledged itself as a narrative. Mulligan’s character had, all this time, been an actress in her own drama. The play is so successful because it plays us. The shock prompts us to re-read. Seemingly innocent details gain an awful significance. It is no coincidence that the programme is not so much a programme but a script. It begs to be retraced, to be re-analysed, re-assessed. Kelley and Mulligan have created a drama that not only strikes, but leaves us sizzling.

Societies condemn platform for Israeli politician

Libby Cherry
-
0
Societies condemn platform for Israeli politician

Oxford societies have attacked the decision to invite former deputy prime minister of Israel, Dan Meridor, to talk at Christ Church.

The Oxford Amnesty International Group supported an open letter from the Oxford Students’ Palestine Society condemning the Oxford Israel Forum, the PPE society, and the International Relations Society for hosting the speaker.

The letter was also signed by multiple individual SU campaigns, including Oxford Climate Justice and the Oxford Arab Cultural Society.

The letter read: “For over 30 years Meridor has been party to grave breaches of international law while holding office; acts which violated the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.

“We find it deeply distressing that this individual representing the Israeli regime should be given a platform in Oxford, especially by student societies that were established to enlighten and educate students about international affairs.

“Meridor’s inpunity for these heinous war crimes are contrary to our university’s core purposes, and our student community’s commitment to justice and equality.

“We wish the Palestinian people, who are struggling for their rights with great dignity, to know that we do not extend him an invitation; and to tell them that Meridor is not welcome at our University.”

The Oxford University Palestine Society told Cherwell: “The letter was written for two reasons.

“The first was to explain the reasons why it was such a terrible thing to do, so that members of the hosting societies, however few in number they are, can learn some facts about whom they were welcoming.

“One hopes if they had known this individual record, they would reject any association with him, or complicity in inviting him.

“The second is because the Palestinian people are now facing terrible human rights violations. When we thought of them hearing about Oxford doing such a shameful thing, it made us want to let them know, at the very least, that most of us here are appalled that some students could be so callous, and so ignorant, as to extend an invitation to this individual.”

The Oxford Israel Forum told Cherwell in a statement: “Free and respectful dialogue is the only path to a lasting solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict.

“That certain factions seek to bully into silence guests invited to the University is a very sad state of affairs.

“No evidence was provided for the vitriolic accusations made against Mr Meridor, because there is none. He is known and respected internationally for his dovish views.

“The statement issued against him, with its outright defamation, betrays the true agenda: to end constructive discussion and silence speakers, not because of their views, but because they come from the only Jewish State.

“The Oxford Israel Forum is proud to stand in defiance of this baseless hatred and in support of freedom of speech.”

The PPE and the International Relations Society said in a joint statement: “Hosting speakers does not equate to endorsing them or their views.

“An important part of the educational process is having one’s views challenged.”

Meridor has spoken at numerous UK universities this month. His speech at King’s College London this month was met with protest.

A King’s College student, Rebecca Wright, told Cherwell: “I do think it’s disappointing that Jewish students’ feel like this is a violation of their freedom of speech. I think there would have been more respectful methods, but the way they’ve done it certainly has gained a lot of publicity within the university and beyond for their cause.”

Additional security measures were implemented for the talk at Oxford. Meridor told Cherwell in regard to the King’s incident: “I expected it but I think it’s totally wrong, they called me a war criminal.”

He added: “There was shouting outside and some background noise but it’s only part of a free society that people have a right to shout. The problem is not that they demonstrated, they have a right to demonstrate if they don’t agree with them.

“The problem is that rather than talking, they demonstrate, rather than discussing things with us and coming in and asking me questions that are serious questions and hearing my response and agreeing – you know, this is a better way to solve problems.

“With these guys nothing will help, there was always anti-Semitism in Europe and it is present in many places but many people aren’t anti-Semites, many criticisms of Israel I think it’s legitimate to criticise us (sic). I think when you criticise this government or that government it’s fine if you do it in a normal way – say we don’t agree with your policy here, can we discuss it further.

“This is something we don’t do to any other country, why do we single it out? If we don’t agree with Britain we criticise what they do but we don’t say that Britain shouldn’t exist. This is something I don’t accept.”

The national branch of Amnesty International also condemned other speakers invited by the Israel Forum. Shortly after delivering his speech at Oxford in January, Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, was banned from a London branch of Amnesty International.

The event he was supposed to speak at, a debate on the UN Human Rights Council’s treatment of Israel, was cancelled.

Amnesty International said: “We do not think it appropriate for Amnesty International to host an event by those actively supporting settlements.”

Tabloid spotlights only keep the real Oxford in the dark

Naomi Packer
-
3
Tabloid spotlights only keep the real Oxford in the dark

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

Greg Ritchie
-
5
Union suspends membership of Coulter protesters

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

Eve Webster
-
1
Union attacked by pro-life group for abortion panel of exclusively pro-choice speakers

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

Fred Dimbleby
-
0
Uni awards highest share of top grades in country

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

Isabel Morris
-
0
Magdalen JCR rejects new Brexit rep

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.”

1...785786787...2,524Page 786 of 2,524

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 Jamie Ashley