Saturday 2nd May 2026
Blog Page 794

Talk Matters

“Come on Max, if you’d just go for a walk you’d feel heaps better.”

Behind this comment is a loving parent: what makes the comment so alarming is that they show how serious mental health issues continue to be dangerously misunderstood. When I was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder Type II, I sat my parents down to explain how the condition had affected me in the past and meant for the future. They retorted, “Oh, we thought you were just being a difficult little shit.”

These comments highlight a critical fault in the way we don’t understand the limits in the agency people with mental illnesses have over their moods and behaviours. To an extent, people are right to think that the same things that help them when they’re feeling a bit sad or stressed, for example, might help someone with a mood disorder that throws them into the extreme depths of depression and anxiety. However, what characterises a mood disorder is precisely that they are severe enough to cause “difficult”, undesired behaviours and that they don’t respond well to interventions that might help less severe moods.

In recent years, much has been done to improve understanding of depression and anxiety. Yet, in their more extreme forms, these (and other mood disorders) are still shamefully misunderstood.

Perhaps this is an issue with the language in ‘mental illness’ as a term: it has more in common with a long-term disease such as diabetes – needing long-term treatment and restricting the lives of sufferers – than with an illness such as the flu, which has a negative impact but goes away after a relatively short period of care. Mood disorders have resulted in me feeling, at various points, depressed – unable to move, tired, with aches and pains, lacking in appetite and motivation, confused, and suicidal. Or at other points manic – with racing and incoherent thoughts, inflated self-esteem, excessively talkative and distractible, sexually driven, spending excessive amounts, and sometimes experiencing delusions and hallucinations. What’s more, there’s also a significant likelihood that people with bipolar disorder develop an anxiety disorder (about three quarters do), or an addiction problem (like about half of people with bipolar), and the rate of suicide is fifteen times higher than in the general population. Only about 20% of people with bipolar disorder are considered “high-functioning”, with the other four in five struggling to stay employed long-term or keep in touch with their social peers.

It’s a heavy set of statistics, one that illustrates quite how heavily the odds are stacked against people with bipolar disorder – and mood disorders more widely – being able to live balanced lives. Above all, diagnoses of mood disorders are lifelong: this means that, according to psychologists, they can be managed, but never cured, and that people experiencing them will have to stay alert their whole lives or risk spiralling into the grip of a severe mood episode.

Considering the agency of people with mental illnesses and the time frames of their conditions, it seems that referring to disease or disability is more adequate: appropriately, Oxford University provides support for people with mental illness through the Disability Advisory Service. However, the connotations of mental disease (associated with neurological degeneracy) or of mental disability (typically referring to intellectual disability such as Down syndrome) mean that the language of mental illness will have to suffice for this article. I hope that the meaning of illness can be questioned, and understood through a wider, less discriminatory lens.

Sadly, the unfortunate effects of a condition that one cannot opt out of are frequently compounded by issues arising from people’s perception of such conditions. Far too often, people carry a misconception that those with mental illness are in some way failing to do enough to control it. This wrongly and damagingly assumes agency in people with mental illness where there is little to none. It’s easy to see how it comes about – perhaps the neuro-typical observer witnesses behaviours that exceed their own reaction (such as a screaming or sobbing fit) in the sufferer. “I might have done that,” they think, “but I pulled myself together so that I wouldn’t. Why can’t they do the same?”

We’re not all equally good at pulling ourselves together, whether mentally ill or not. However, to look at the behaviour of someone with a mood disorder and think it to result from incompetence in dealing with tough situations is misguided and can lead to counter-productive attitudes and interventions. The options for someone with a mental illness in such a situation might range from sobbing (at best), to darker, suicidal moods. The behaviour they exhibit having strived their hardest to resist their mental illness’ negative pull might match up with the behaviour a neurotypical person could foresee themselves having if they ‘allowed’ themselves to feel worse.

If the standard of agency that neuro-typical people have is used to judge those with mental illness, we end up with a very skewed perception of how well someone with a disorder is managing their mood. They might have been fighting their hardest to reach what, to others, looks like a low point. When we assume in such ways that the behaviours of those with a mental illness are in some sense an indulgence or a failure on their part, we drastically underestimate the great forces at work on them and the great strength required to face up to such forces.

What’s more, this flawed thinking actually undermines how we think of the actual capabilities of someone with a mental illness, disempowering them in the process. Confusing the limitation in choices available to them with the variety of ways they can react to these, those with mental health problems are often thought of as reckless, unhinged, or lazy.

Surely it only takes looking at the great lengths they go to in order to live less affected lives to dispel such an impression: consider the time needed to regularly go to appointments with doctors, psychiatrists, therapists and support groups; consider, too, the alarming side effects that they put up with because of medications or medical interventions (a far from exhaustive list could include such things as nausea, memory loss, skin problems like psoriasis, hyper- or insomnia, potential kidney failure and – with a dark irony – suicidal thoughts). Consider quite how terrifying treatments like electroshock therapy and deep brain stimulation are, both involving having electrical shocks administered to the brain, the organ that constitutes your identity as a person. If those with mental health issues are subjecting themselves to such things in the name of being healthier, the toll that not intervening takes on them surely is remarkable, and their strength, assiduity and bravery in trying to manage their condition is commendable.

Of course, not everyone who experiences a mental health problem will seek the sorts of treatments outlined here, and many are right not to do so and to manage their condition in another way. There is no best solution to the problem of mental health: different treatments are effective in varying degrees and they are likely to affect each of us differently. Some of us will struggle with therapy, others will find it really helps them understand and address issues. Some will do better without medication, others will find it essential in allowing them to be in control of their lives.

However, the obvious stakes at play in the treatments above demonstrate the severity of people’s conditions regardless of the treatment chosen and the strength of character so many of them have in facing up to them. The pursuit of mental health is anything but reckless or lazy. The sooner this can be acknowledged, the sooner we can give those who experience it credit for their defiance of the complex neural mechanisms which attempt to sabotage their lives in every way.

Rather than a “pull yourself together” comment delivered at a time of crisis, praise for the steps they are already taking and offers of help where useful would go a long way to help the situation. This will help them receive more accurate feedback as to their character so as to construct a self-image that is less negative and less skewed. Given the unfortunate effect that mental illness has on self-esteem, this may well be a good way to empower those who experience it in fighting the unfairly negative feedback their brains are constantly providing them with. If you know someone with a serious mental illness, consider quite how many victories they have had: as morbid as it sounds, if they are still alive then they’ve already got one thing to be proud of. If they are managing to keep in touch, that’s another. Feeding themselves daily is too.

Though I have, until this point, made much of the seriousness of mental illnesses, it should also be stressed that increasing awareness of their severity shouldn’t come at the cost of downplaying mental suffering on the less severe end of the spectrum. Demanding more realistic attitudes and better treatments for those with chronic mental issues doesn’t mean abandoning those whose distress is less permanent. Unfortunately, there seems to be a line drawn in the sand which changes as often as the tide comes in and which separates “significant” conditions from fleeting discomfort, and, more problematically, considers the latter kind as something not worthy of treatment or help.

Any degree of undue suffering is undesirable, and worthy of being addressed. I continue to be shocked by the number of people I know that suffer from mental illness to a large extent but, for a long time, don’t consider themselves worthy of treatment. Part of this is the illness itself: if your self-esteem is low, then your ability to feel you’re deserving of services that people with serious difficulties use is greatly diminished. It’s easy for people with mental illness to admonish themselves for using others’ time and money to get better when there must be someone suffering more than them (this, of course, is wrong on many levels). However, the way mental illness is understood by society at large also feeds into these damaging perceptions, and can troublingly reinforce the distortions they might believe because of low self-esteem.

Oxford University’s counselling system does seem to approach this issue relatively successfully. Anyone going to the service is set up with two-to-three sessions to begin with. For many, a few hours of frankly reviewing the issues they face and the factors at play will be a good way of taking account of how they are doing and how they should address issues going forward. For some, though, this won’t prove sufficient, and they are given the option to have more sessions if they wish.

Options like this are crucial for bridging the gap between neurotypical and mentally ill populations, and for intervening before suffering escalates to a chronic level. The counselling service is unfortunately under-appreciated for its ability to help out in this realm, with many thinking of it as being “reserved” for those with serious conditions. In fact, almost the opposite is true: the counselling service is probably best placed to help precisely those who are going through a rough patch, before their mental health deteriorates to the point of needing psychiatric intervention.

Oxford has the second highest budget of any British university for mental health services, so, though the counselling service can be quite busy, they do have the resources to deal with students wanting help. Furthermore, the Disability Advisory Service can help make arrangements from exam scheduling to housing for those with more chronic forms of mental illness, and peer supporters and Nightline are on hand to listen to your issues and struggles. Raising awareness of both the University’s many services and others such as the Samaritans, Mind, and Warneford Mood Clinic is a worthwhile pursuit, as it will help people with any degree of mental suffering understand that they need not face their struggles alone, as well as informing their friends on the best ways to support them.

Above all, the guilt and stigma around both needing help and seeking help must be fought. This takes many forms, and means bringing an end to “pull yourself together!” comments and the mentalities behind them, not shying away from discussions about mental health, and, where possible, “coming out” about your own mental struggles. When it’s safe to do so, starting conversations about your experience of mental illness will help alleviate the shame of being affected by it, much of which simply results from such topics being taboo.

Mental illness permeates humanity. Not only do you personally know several people who are affected, you also constantly engage in the creations of people with mental illness: you have read some Edgar Allen Poe or perhaps some Virginia Woolf. You have heard the music of Tchaikovsky or Joy Division’s Ian Curtis. You have seen the art of Michelangelo or Van Gogh. You have watched the performances of Carrie Fisher or Catherine Zeta Jones. You are reading this article.

Mental illness is a major part of normal society, and it’s time it be treated as such. Mental health is just another factor that affects our abilities to go about our lives day-by-day, and as such is nothing to be ashamed of. I feel lucky that, when seeing friends, it’s become fairly normal to ask each other how our mental health is, much like asking if someone slept well or if their ankle is recovering after a sprain.

This acknowledges that mental health is like any other form of health: just as consulting a friend on a toothache might lead to them giving you valuable advice to go to a doctor if it seems severe from their perspective, asking about each other’s mental health means you’re more likely to spot issues before they get too severe. We can provide each other with somewhat educated help rather than just wondering why someone looks glum and not knowing what to do. Not only does opening up like this lead to deeper, more meaningful friendships, it also chips away just a little at the stigma around mental illness in encouraging those in your entourage to see it as an acceptable thing to be affected by, struggle with, and talk about. We’ll start to accept the important basic facts about mental illness: it affects millions of people in the UK to differing degrees, it permeates your social groups, it often can’t be cured, but it can be managed, and those affected by it can live fulfilled lives. Those fulfilled lives start with this acceptance and the wider the acceptance, the better for us all.

Georgian independence petition discovered at Bodleian

0

A century-old petition calling for Georgian independence was revealed on Friday by the Bodleian Libraries to honour the centenary of the county’s independence.

The petition contains a number of objections against the occupying Russians as well as appeals to the international community to stop the atrocities and pogroms unfolding in Western and Central Georgia.

The petition was signed by 3000 men and women of all classes from across the country. The Bodleian Libraires claims that those signing the petition were doing so “at great personal risk.”

The document has been in the Bodleian Libraries’ possession since 1920, however it was only over the past few weeks that have researchers realised its importance.

Originally presented at the 1907 Hague International Conference, the petition is the first documented occasion of the Georgian population protesting for further rights as a nation.

Georgian independence was achieved in 1918, eleven years after the petition first surfaced.

The document was part of a collection donated by Sir Oliver Wardrop, who – along with his sister, Marjory – was friendly with the petition’s instigator, Varlam Chrkezishvili, an exiled Georgian nationalist. The Wardrop siblings were both the founders and major benefactors of Kartvelian (Georgian) studies at Oxford.

The the significance of the document was realised and researched by Dr Beka Kobakhidze, Dr Nikoloz Aleksidze, and Dr Gillian Evison.

Dr Kobakhidze said that he was “honoured” for his role in making “forgotten names public after 111 years”.

He said: “At a time when there was no compulsory education and a high rate of illiteracy, the petition is the first documented instance when the Georgian national historic narrative of the Georgian-Russian relationship comes not from elite groups, but from ordinary people of all social classes.

“Men and women, entrepreneurs, workers, nobles, peasants, clergymen, and teachers from all regions of Georgia put their signatures to this address to the political west.

“Looking through the petition I had a feeling that I was interacting with my ancestors, people who stood for national liberties while risking their lives.”

Kobakhidze added that many Georgians might be interested to see the names of their relatives on the petition.

Bodleian Librarian Richard Ovenden claimed that the discovery of the petition made clear the importance of Libraries and archives and showed the “role [they] play in the preservation and dissemination of information.”

Ovenden also hoped that the attention generated by the document “will encourage greater scholarship on Georgia, the Wardrops, and this turbulent period of history.”

Dr Evison noted the “striking” nature of the document, stating: “Signatures have been collected on many different sheets of paper – accounting paper, on the back of the petitions, and written in ink, or pencil – so it tells its own story of how keen Georgians were to make their mark through whatever means were available to them.”

Former president of Oxford’s Georgian Society, Nikoloz Aleksidze, told Cherwell: “The petition is remarkable for a number of reasons. It undermines the commonly articulated view that the 1918 independence was merely an accident and that Georgians never wanted or tried to secure independence from the Russian Empire.

“The document proves that the unanimous Georgian protest against the Russian Imperial Rule and colonialism has a long history from the early 19th-century rebellions to the 1918 Declaration of Independence and later 1991 restoration of Independence from the Soviet Union. The petition is a crucial chapter in this history of resistance.

“From the point of view of Georgian-British relations, the document was edited by later British High Commissioner to Transcaucasia, Oliver Wardrop, who was the most meticulous and ardent defender of Georgia’s independence in the West during his entire life.

“Britain’s support for Georgia’s independence, territorial integrity and European integration, spearheaded by Oliver Wardrop, was reinvigorated after the restoration of Georgia’s independence in 1991.”

The 29-page document is now publicly available online.

Exposed expenses hide a darker truth

0

The parliamentary expenses scandal of 2009 led to new standards of transparency and accountability in public life and demonstrated that the public will not tolerate blatant misuse of funds and cronyism.

Almost ten years on, it seems that Oxford has yet to learn this lesson. Last week, Freedom of Information requests sent by Cherwell revealed exorbitant expenses claimed by college heads. Even worse, over half of colleges contacted failed to give detailed breakdowns of expenses despite their legal obligation to do so.

Even the shamefully incomplete responses from colleges hint at possible scandal without further details. Take, for instance, the former warden of New College, Sir Curtis Price. Last year, he claimed a whopping £1200 from New College from his exploits at the Knickerbocker Club, a highly secretive New York gentlemen’s club, and the private member’s club, Soho House Chicago in a matter of days. It’s hard to think of a reasonable explanation for such use of college funds, and somewhat predictably both New College and Sir Curtis Price have declined to comment. As a bare minimum, expense claims must be open to scrutiny and accountable to college members to prevent questionable use or indeed misuse of college funds.

I don’t mean to suggest that expenses are never justifiable. Some expenses claims are certainly legitimate; for instance, college staff members ought to be reimbursed for travel or accommodation costs, incurred whilst doing their job. Rather than screaming blue murder at the sight of any large expense claim, we must use our common sense to evaluate the reasonableness of such claims. For example, consider the fact that St Edmund Hall’s Principal Keith Gull claimed almost £500 on presents and gifts in 2015. Without any context, this claim seems to drift into questionable territory and raises the ugly possibility that the Principal could be siphoning off college money for his own gain.

However, it would be extremely unfair to jump to this conclusion, as Mr Gull clarified to Cherwell that this money was spent on Christmas presents for the entirety of the college staff. Of course, it can be debated whether £500 was too much (or perhaps even too little) to spend on this annual gesture funded by the college given the number of staff involved, but the point is that we should not be too quick to judge.

Nevertheless, colleges ought to be far more transparent with how they spend their money. As students, we have a right to know how our fees are being spent, which includes the right to be indignant at unjustifiably lavish expense claims. That’s why perhaps the most concerning result of Cherwell’s Freedom of Information requests is what they failed to reveal. Several colleges failed to respond to the requests entirely, whilst others refused to provide any breakdown of the annual expenses claimed. This is a big problem: with no accountability to students, alumni or the wider public, there is the potential for expenses to be excessive, used inappropriately, and open to fraud.

It is an unfortunate consequence of the collegiate system that the existence of multiple colleges fosters this opacity. Freedom of Information requests are less effective across so many colleges since each one responds to these requests with varying levels of detail (if they do respond at all). This lack of consistency means that the transparency of colleges varies widely. Not only is this unfair to students attending less transparent colleges, but this also means that it is more difficult to hold individual colleges to account. Instead of being able to petition the University as a whole to release vital records on past expense claims, students must petition their individual college.

Consequently, no mass student action can be taken to demand greater transparency, and individual colleges can continue to hide away their expense claims without fear of critique. Compare the situation at Oxford to that of other UK universities such as the Universities of Glasgow and Edinburgh, where Freedom of Information requests have resulted in the complete breakdown of the expenses of their vice chancellors right down to receipts for the purchase of a slice of cake and a bottle of water. This is the kind of transparency which Oxford colleges ought to provide, and it is a sorry state of affairs when less than half of the colleges actually do so.

Nevertheless, the student body should lead by example. At present, JCR accounts are often only scrutinised by students directly involved in JCR finances rather than the college student community at large. This is particularly lamentable given that the spending of JCR money is frequently determined by those few students who are interested enough to attend General Meetings, typically without consideration of budgets. As a result, JCR expenditure has the potential to be highly partisan and excessive, and so all JCRs should publicise a breakdown of their spending online to JCR members in the interests of transparency and accountability.

Ultimately, colleges must be more transparent with their use of college funds. Senior college staff should not claim expenses unless they are willing to publicly defend them. Having contributed to college funds ourselves, we have a right to know how college money is being spent and to judge for ourselves whether the expenses accrued are justified. Excessive expense claims are deplorable, but the current complete lack of transparency on behalf of many of the colleges is the true scandal.

Access denied? Reflections on a revealing week in Oxford

Daanial Chaudhry – 1st year PPE-ist, Somerville 

Ironically, Cherwell’s article on the access report was written by six white individuals, only one of whom is a woman. This demonstrates a systemic issue that extends beyond the confines of a single admission statistic. It is perhaps symptomatic of how, once BME students are here, they remain chronically underrepresented across student societies, and indeed across student journalism. As such, even for the small minority of BME, and particularly black students, that receive an offer from Oxford, their opportunities once here, and afterwards, are severely limited when compared to their white, and often better-off, counterparts.

This is a social issue. Students from underrepresented groups do not have the same social network created at school which then continues at university, leaving them unaware of and unable to access certain opportunities. Whilst black and white students may both finish as Oxford graduates, the white one finishes with statistically a better chance of gaining a first as well as the connections to catapult them into a high-paying job.

There is also a psychological effect at play that cannot be ignored: the idea that Oxford is not for students from a particular background. This is an untruth, but it continues to discourage people from applying. Only through persistent efforts to encourage people from underprivileged backgrounds, based on class or race, to apply and by telling them that they can succeed, will these statistics change.

Molly Innes – Social Backgrounds Officer, LMH 

The report reveals shameful revelations that I won’t repeat here. We can see these statistics both in our experiences in Oxford, and now from the report. It solidifies the facts that we could have already guessed. And yet, what the report doesn’t reveal is arguably most revealing about Oxford as an institution.

The report separates ‘state’ from ‘independent’ schools. Yet there is no differentiation between the types of state schools we come from. In a table at the end of the report, listed under ‘state’ are: ‘Academy, Comprehensive, FE Institutions, Grammar, Sixth Form College, and Other Maintained’ The experience of a student from a comprehensive (like myself) is very different to one from a grammar, or even a sixth form college.

A report from October 2016 highlighted that 2.6% of grammar school pupils come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Initiatives like the Uniq summer school (without which I wouldn’t be here) are doing brilliant work.

But it appears that the University is using the news, that 500 more places will be opening on the summer school, to cushion the injustice that the report shows: we are not all in the same boat when coming from a state school. Our university should be ashamed for suggesting that we are.

Catherine Canning – VP Access and Academic, Oxford SU

This week, Oxford released the first Annual Admissions Statistical Report. Does there need to be a concerted effort to change? Yes, it’s happening and we need to keep improving and go even further. I love meeting young people and trying to change their perceptions of this town and university.

Access and outreach is just one way of reaching the people who would never have otherwise considered Oxford. But access is more than an offer letter and starts before the application process and is still an issue post-graduation.

Our fantastic students campaign and volunteer alongside their degrees to try and change this place. Whether it’s lobbying for structural reform or supporting those who are underrepresented when they get here, students want to keep making a difference and improve this university from the inside. We have students who volunteer in a variety of ways to encourage young people to consider applying to Oxford.

However, the structural challenges to access cannot be solved by student action alone, it needs bold actions from the university, schools and government policy to make Oxford truly accessible.

Realistically, how we are going to change things here? Students are always trying to
improve this institution, so become that voice, hold this university to account and reduce the barriers for the next generation

Alexander Curtis – 3rd year Geographer, St. Catz

It is of no surprise in the slightest that the BA Geography course at Oxford has been revealed to be one of the worst performing in terms of accessibility to those from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. Only 7.3% of UK students admitted over the last three years came from areas classed under ACORN categories 4 and 5, the lowest of any degree course other than Classics. Similarly, a mere 5.9% of students admitted to the course over the same time period came from POLAR quintiles 4 and 5. Only Oriental Studies performed worse on that measure.

The structure of the Geography course itself is seemingly designed to favour the socioeconomically privileged. Dissertation topics involving travel (self-funded, of course) to exotic and far-flung locations are known to be fetishised amongst students and staff alike.

The low contact hours and often abstract human geography content associated with the course are almost tailor-made for the minor independent school ‘gap yah’ type who wants to spend most of their time at Oxford promoting their street credentials and reminiscing at parties (often with peers who they were at school with) about their time volunteering at an elephant orphanage in Sri Lanka. I have found many such people to be perfectly nice. After all, I count many as my friends. However, the departmental culture which I have outlined is hardly welcoming towards those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, many of whom have no experience of travel at all.

The insidious power of borrowing

0

Visual culture and architecture are firmly connected to the identities of cities and nations. The Eiffel Tower is almost synonymous with Paris; the Statue of Liberty with New York. When we imagine colonial architecture, our minds turn to towering Corinthian columns and imposing imperial pediments.

We imagine the halls of Harvard University, or the French châteaux scattered through the jungles of Indochina. Yet this is to treat the subject unfairly. Colonists frequently built settlements that synthesized their own architecture with that of those they oppressed, creating uniquely syncretic structures, not quite based in either tradition.

Take the Victoria Memorial in Kolkata, India, for example. At a first glance it looks like a marble St Pauls Cathedral, a perfectly baroque structure plucked straight out of London. But the longer one looks, the more Indian the building seems to become. Its arches are pointed and its towers are topped with octagonal-domed Hindu chattris. The portal resembles a Mughal iwan and the marble itself is the same marble as was used for the Taj Mahal.

The Victoria Memorial is a prime example of Indo-Saracenic architecture – Saracen being a medieval Latin word for Muslim. To some extent the collision of cultures and use of Indian techniques was not a positive recognition of Indian architecture. This cultural synthesis was rooted in the British appreciation and romanticisation of Indian art – in the nineteenth century, orientalism in Europe was at its height and Indian art was frequently valued for its exotic but alien qualities.

Yet mere aesthetic concerns are insufficient to explain the Victoria Memorial. The Memorial’s unique style of architecture is seen virtually nowhere back in the UK (with the notable exception of the Brighton pavilion). The rarity of this memorial betrays the real reason behind such architecture: control.

After the Indian Uprising in 1857, the British finally deposed the last Mughal Emperor and with their main rival gone, they now wished to legitimise their rule over India. Thomas Metcalfe writes in his book An Imperial Vision, “The colonists did not want to consider themselves as only foreign invaders. They wanted to be a legitimate continuation of the Mughal Dynasty”. Incorporating traditional elements into their architecture helped to present the British crown as a natural successor to its enemies. Including Indian techniques in local architecture was not a sign of respect but a state policy intended to justify British rule.

The Spanish conquest of South America showed much less fusion of art and architecture. However, even in South America, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as Spain gained control over parts of Morrocco they began to build numerous ‘Neo-Mudéjar’ buildings, combining modern Spanish architecture with ‘horseshoe’ archways and arabesque tiling. No colonial powers remained devoid of the influence of those that they oppressed.

When an area is conquered, local art usually ceases and foreign styles of art are imported en masse. But if any empire is to be sustained, it needs to provide work for the local population. Local artisans are eventually employed to build and design again. Given time, local styles of art always resurface, albeit in a new context. This fusion of the art of conqueror and conquered has happened since the dawn of civilisation.

One only needs to look at how Egyptian and Greek art became subsumed into a new Roman art to see this play in action. Hagia Sophia – the magnificent mosque which became emblematic of the Ottoman Turks, and became a model for mosques across Asia minor – began its life as a Byzantine Cathedral.

Architecture is inherently a display of power and it brings up problems of heritage more powerfully than issues surrounding other debates about literature, music etc.

In many post-colonial countries, therefore, colonial architecture has been eradicated from the map in a symbolic gesture to show newfound freedom – either through deliberate bulldozing or simply through a wilful indifference to its demise. But despite it still being built for colonial aims, this same fusion architecture has proven much more problematic than normal colonial architecture after independence.

Whereas a baroque English cathedral in the Caribbean is easy to dismiss as an imposition, fusions shows some level of syncretism. It is proof that the colonial experience was irrevocably part of a nations life, not just a mere slip up.

The most powerful forms of imperial artist control were not always erasure or imposition. Frequently imperial rule was legitimised by the co-opting of traditional regional symbols and the moulding of them into imperial forms and styles. The echoes of imperial rule remain in strange, distorted buildings that belong to no one culture, but instead exist in a liminal space and time.

Oxford pubs serve the most expensive pints outside of London

0

A pint costs more in Oxford pubs than anywhere else in the UK other than London, according to a new study.

The average cost across Oxford for a pint is £4.57, second only to London’s £5.19.

Carlisle was found to serve the cheapest pints, at an average price at £2.35 followed by Chelmsford at £2.60.

The study, conducted by MoneyGuru, found that Edinburgh (£4.35), Bristol (£4.32) and Winchester (£4.30) also served some of the most expensive beer in the UK.

A MoneyGuru spokesperson said: “Beer prices are a highly contentious issue in the UK with price hikes becoming more and more frequent.

“At the end of 2017, the average pint of bitter rose above £3 for the first time in history, while lager now sits at £3.58.”

The study also claimed that Dubai is the most expensive city for beer-drinkers in the world, with the average pint there setting them back £9, while at the other end of the scale, a pint costs just £1.17 in Prague.

Last January, Oxford researcher Professor Robin Dunbar claimed that there are links between spending time at the pub and happiness.

Dunbar said: “[My] study showed that frequenting a local pub can directly affect people’s social network size and how engaged they are with their local community, which in turn can affect how satisfied they feel in life”

Access denied: Oxford’s white privilege is revealed

3

The full extent of Oxford’s access problem is still unravelling as new analysis by Cherwell has revealed the white privilege at the core of its admissions system.

Following the release of the University’s first-ever undergraduate admissions report on Wednesday, new analysis of the data has shown that of every 100 white applicants who applied between 2015 and 2017, over a quarter –  27% –  were given offers. White British applicants were twice as likely to gain admission as their black British peers.

Just 16% of black or black British (African) and 20% of black or black British (Caribbean) students who applied at the same time were given offers. The total black minority ethnic (BME) offer rate for the 2015-17 period was 18%.

The findings come after Cherwell revealed on Wednesday that Oxford admitted more pupils from Westminster School than black students in 2017.

Naomi Kellman, founder of Target Oxbridge, said that the findings were unsurprising: “Target Oxbridge has been working to improve the representation of black students at Oxford since 2012, and so the statistics did not surprise me, as it is an issue we work on every day.”

“I am please to see some improvements in the number of black students admitted to Oxford each year however, and am keen to continue pushing for greater change.”

Kellman said that Target Oxbridge, which aims to help black and mixed race African and Caribbean students increase their chances of Oxbridge admission, will expand to provide support for black pupils in Years 10 and 11, as well as their parents.

“If we want to see significantly better statistics in future years, we must start working with students before they start their A-levels,” Kellman said.

Of the 120 black students admitted to the University between 2015 and 2017, Corpus Christi College admitted just one despite attracting a dozen applications. Seven other colleges –  Balliol, Exeter, Jesus, Magdalen, New College, University, and Worcester  –admitted just two.

At the same time, the overall number of BME students admitted to Oxford rose from 13.9% in 2013 to 17.9% in 2017, with the number of UK-domiciled BME applicants to the University also increasing by 38% during the same period.

The disparity in ethnic inequality remains vast on the college level. While BME students made up 20.3% of the total UK students admitted to Keble College between 2015–17, this figure was just 10.8% at St Edmund Hall in the same period.

Labour MP David Lammy, who has outspokenly criticised Oxford over the last 18 months for failing to improve equality in their admissions process, said on Wednesday that the latest data reveals little has changed.

“The University is clearly happy to see Oxford remain an institution defined by entrenched privilege that is the preserve of wealthy white students from London and the south-east,” he said.

In a tweet, Lammy said that there are “huge differences between the individual colleges on admissions of state school students, BME students, and students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Some colleges are working hard to address this issue, many simply seem to not care. They are just recruiting their in own image [sic].”

Lammy also criticised what he called the University’s “institutional failings” for ethnic inequality in course and programme admission, citing the statistic that only a single black student received an offer for Computer Science between 2015-17 despite 30 applications.

“For four of the biggest courses – Law, PPE, Medicine, Geography – you are twice as likely to get in if you are white compared to if you are BME. Oxford need to address these institutional failings instead of spinning the figures and blaming the schools or applicants,” he tweeted.

Just 10 black British students were admitted to the University to study PPE between 2015-17, the data showed, while six black British students gained places to study English Language & Literature.

Lammy said: “If Oxford is serious about access the University needs to put its money where its mouth is and introduce a University-wide foundation year, get a lot better at encouraging talented students from under-represented backgrounds to apply and use contextual data when making offers.”

Lammy’s comments on Wednesday come after a new study revealed yesterday that disadvantaged students from the worst performing schools do just as well or better in Medicine as students from top schools, even when their A-level results are worse.

The study, led by the University of York, found that these pupils outperformed their independently-educated peers with the same grades. The researchers suggest that competitive medical school entry requirements should be contextualised for schools with low average A-level results.

Despite just 5% of students in the UK being schooled privately, currently half of Medicine entrants are independently educated.

Earlier this month, Conor Ryan, director of the new Office for Students, called for a switch to a post-qualification admissions (PQA) system, claiming that disadvantaged teenagers lose out in an admissions system that requires school students to apply to university using predicted grades.

A University spokesperson told Cherwell that Oxford is “very concerned about fairness and does not believe in a system that inadvertently excludes bright but disadvantaged candidates.”

“The limitations of a pre-qualifications admissions system are well known, but it would be logistically very difficult to move to a post-qualification system and therefore would need to be considered carefully; a consultation several years ago across the higher education sector found universities raised a number of concerns about moving to PQA that still need to be addressed,” the spokesperson said.

New analysis from Wednesday’s release also reveals a systematic weighting in favour of students from independent schools.

Between 2015-17, 5,007 applications were made from students at state comprehensive schools, with an offer rate of 22% – four percentage points lower than the offer rate for applications made from independent schools (26%) in the same period. The University received 14,636 applications from students at independent schools.

The figures also showed that the top twelve independent schools sent more students to Oxford in 2017 (321) than all state comprehensive schools (308).

17 of the top 20 schools for Oxford admissions in 2017 were fee-paying, while three prestigious grammar schools completed the top 20.

Westminster School, which charges £12,580 per term for boarding, topped the list. Out of 98 applications, 54 pupils received offers and 49 were eventually admitted to the University.

Eton College (45 students), St. Paul’s School (37), and King’s College School (31) were the other fee-paying schools to make up the top five.

Peter Symonds College (31), which is a non-selective sixth form college in Winchester, was the only non-independent school in the top five.

Hills Road Sixth Form College in Cambridge (26) and Pate’s Grammar School (17) were the other non-fee-paying schools to send more than 15 students to Oxford last year.

Though Oxford admitted more UK-domiciled female undergraduates than male in 2017, the report revealed variation at college level. In the last three years, less than 40% of Balliol College’s undergraduate intake were women. New College followed closely behind with 41.6%.

Overall, the University-wide gender split between women and men was 48.8% to 51.2%.

On Tuesday, a ‘Solidarity Rally’ organised by Common Ground, the Oxford SU Class Act Campaign, Oxford First Generation Students, and the Oxford Students’ Disability Community will be held outside the Radcliffe Camera.

According to its organisers, the event plans “to ensure that potential applicants to Oxford hear our voices and see that we are trying to change the institution from the inside”.

Keble and Pembroke win Summer VIIIs headships

0

Keble and Pembroke won the men’s and women’s headships respectively in front of a packed final-day crowd at Summer VIIIs.

Pembroke rowed over for a third consecutive day after bumping Wadham on the first afternoon of racing to ensure that for the first time since 2013, the headship changed hands, before Keble staved off the challenge of a resurgent Oriel to become Head of the River for the first time in 41 years.

There was little in the way of final-day drama in the top divisions, as the top six women’s boats and top eight men’s boats all rowed over.

Earlier in the day, the lower divisions produced some remarkable rises. Pembroke M4’s impressive over-bump on Thursday meant that they ended the week eleven places higher than they had started it, while several women’s crews – Green Templeton W1, St Hugh’s W2, Corpus Christi W2, St Catz W2, and Wolfson W4 – finished +6.

Other crews to win blades included Worcester M1, St Hugh’s M1, and New College W1.

Keble’s headship – their eighth overall, and their first since 1977 – was inspired by the presence of two Blue Boat rowers in the boat: Joshua Bugajski and Will Geffen.

Their bump of Christ Church on the first day pushed them up to head, before they successfully rowed over on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.

Christ Church’s defence of their headship ended disappointingly: they were bumped by Oriel on Thursday as well, and ended the week in third.

In the women’s racing, Wolfson impressed throughout the week with a Blues-heavy boat, but Pembroke ended up winning the headship at a canter: they were dominant throughout the week, and their lead over Wadham was in little doubt this afternoon.

It was Pembroke’s first headship since 2012, and their fifth overall, and the Boat Club will be hoping that this can turn into a sustained period of success, replicating the 2000-03 crews who won the headship for four years in a row.

Jacques-Louis David’s artistic revolution

0

Revolutionary France was a troubling time to be an artist. ‘The Declaration of the Rights of the Man’ declared an end to censorship. Yet Robespierre’s terror saw the blood of countless artists stain the Place de Revolution. The rules were less clear but in many ways state control over the arts remained unchanged. But the state didn’t just erase art, it also sponsored its creation.

Enter Jacques-Louis David, married to a royalist and a member of the artistic elite who became the de facto artist of the revolution. David’s great talent was his ability to take stories that were known but distort how audiences felt about them. We can see this in David’s neoclassical style through which he depicted the same characters but with new emotions.

Take his painting ‘The Oath of the Horatii’, presented in the Paris Salon in 1785. The painting depicted a narrative known by the citizens of Paris: two groups of men, the Horatii and the Curatii, were selected to fight in order to resolve a conflict between Rome and Alba.

On the left of the painting we see the oath taking place, presented in the geometric lines of the Horatii. On the right we see the women, the sisters of the Horatii and the wives of the Curatii, weeping at the fate of their loved ones.

In the period dramatizations of the story there is little reference to this oath and the selection of the combatants is usually depicted as the result of aristocratic whims. Here David paints a world where the state is worth the ultimate sacrifice.

But perhaps the message here is too subtle. ‘The Oath of the Horatii’ was, after all, accepted into the Paris Salon and David continued to receive royal commissions after its release. To see David’s true political masterstroke, we must look later in his career. On 13th July 1793 revolutionary journalist and politician Jean-Paul Marat was stabbed in his own bathtub by journalist Charlotte Corday.

The real Marat bathed to ease a debilitating skin condition and his murder, committed by a woman whilst he lay helpless in a bath, was an ignominious one. Were the story to end here it is likely we would care little about Marat’s death. But we do care.

On 16th October 1793, whilst Marie Antoinette was guillotined for high treason, David unveiled his new painting in the Louvre, ‘The Death of Marat’. In the painting Marat slumps out of the bath, Christ-like with blood pouring down his chest, the skin unblemished.

There is more than a hint of religious martyrdom about the image. But Marat is surrounded by a dark background, very different from the light of heaven we are used to seeing. The soul of religious symbolism is missing. Instead Marat is a martyr for the revolution. It is through this expert and surprising manipulation of what we think we know, that David tells us how to feel. He tells us to believe in the revolution.

Café circuit: The Society Cafe

0

It’s easy to see why this place has become a favourite of Oxford’s students, coffee lovers and Australians alike. Coming from Sydney myself, where café culture is the culture, it’s refreshing to find somewhere in Oxford which is devoted to making your day better in every way it knows how.

The coffee, while fruitier and less bitter than The Missing Bean or JCT is good, especially for those soy, oat and almond drinkers among us. You are going to pay more than a high-street chain, but having an actual barista behind the machine using good coffee really does make a difference. Their range of teas is equally impressive, especially their English Breakfast and Black Chai. The real hero of the menu however, is the dark Madagascan hot chocolate. It’s bitter and rich without losing its flavour or becoming giddyingly sweet. I’ve never had better. The pastries, cakes and sandwiches are fairly expensive, I’ll admit, but they are delicious.

Where Society really separates itself from the competition is its dedication to atmosphere. Free from the hustle and bustle of certain Turl Street establishments, the vibe here is predominantly calm. The staff are friendly, the interior minimalist and slightly bare, and even when it gets crowded, it’s open and light enough not to feel claustrophobic.

Their collection of stunning magazines is a real highlight. Head to the shared table at the back or downstairs to the cosy basement for a range of indulgently large mags and coffee table books.

The level of care dedicated, not only to the drinks, but to the whole café experience is rare in the UK. People often tell me that good coffee shops are pretentious, but this couldn’t be further from the truth. Yes, Society is full of people that love cafés, but it’s also full of friends meeting for coffee, and students taking an hour’s shelter from the onslaught of an Oxford term. From the welcoming service and good coffee, to the thoughtfully designed interior and collection of reading material, Society is a breath of fresh air in Oxford’s café scene.