Friday 18th July 2025
Blog Page 812

As You Like It review – ‘Slightly flat, with a twist of theatrical magic’

Harry Hatwell
-
0
As You Like It review – ‘Slightly flat, with a twist of theatrical magic’

Shared Experience and Theatre by the Lake’s joint production of one of Shakespeare’s most famous comedies left me feeling slightly flat. But it did have some great moments of true theatrical magic and acting skill.

Set in the Forest of Arden, As You Like It follows the loves and dramas of a rowdy group of banished and exiled people fleeing a political tyrant.

Finding each other again in Arden, Rosalind (Jessica Hayles) and Orlando (Nathan Hamilton) fall even deeper in love but there is a problem: Rosalind must hide her identity… and so begins a love triangle of epic proportions. Both Jessica Hayles and Nathan Hamilton excelled in their respective roles, with Hayles giving a strong epilogue directly to the audience. Casting her as one of Shakespeare’s strongest female leads was a masterstroke.

Not all was well in this production’s Forest of Arden, unfortunately. Despite the programme’s promise of “the land of evocative beauty that is Arden”, what was presented to the audience was a distressed and bare-looking tree, some white boxes, a telephone box (which was most out of place), and a blank background with some lighting effects.

I did not feel at all transported to a land of love and joviality by Libby Watson’s set. It lacked innovation, or any realism. The projections of birds and animals on the backdrop were insufficient in making up for the bareness of the stage and the severe lack of greenery – some leaves on the tree would have been a welcome addition. The poor company had to climb up and down the thing while it shook from side to side.

The play was saved by director Kate Saxon’s ability to bring to life to the sheer power and beauty of Shakespeare’s narrative. As You Like It is, in essence, a light-hearted and fictitious fairy-tale of a love story: it’s set in a forest of lovers and there are multiple, direct references to the art of theatre.

Yet Saxon favours a more serious and bleak approach, particularly at the start when Orlando’s quarrelling with his brother Oliver (played well by Matthew Darcy) turns violent and causes him to be banished.

The dark lighting designs by Chris Davey, matched with Watson’s claustrophobic set made me feel I had the wrong ticket and was instead watching something markedly more gothic. Luckily, Shakespeare saved the day and all was well by the close of the curtain, but many opportunities for comedy were missed.

It is worth saying, however, that the darker tone led to some moments of sensitivity and real emotion – particularly when Hayles’s character is presented with Orlando’s blood-stained clothing. This production sees her distraught reaction represented through rhythmic dance and movement along to Richard Hammarton’s moving sound designs very effectively. Moreover, Hamilton exhibited stellar acting skills in the delivery of his lines, truly making Shakespeare’s verse and prose sound as if it were everyday English.

If you want to be transported to a faraway land of beauty and greenery, this production is possibly not for you. While I was left wanting slightly more, the final song and dance from the cast, in true Shakespearean fashion, left me feeling uplifted. It is worth a watch.

Produced by Shared Experience and Theatre by the Lake, As You Like It is touring until December 2017.

Gui Cavalcanti wins Trinity 2018 Union presidency

Cherwell News
-
0
Gui Cavalcanti wins Trinity 2018 Union presidency

Gui Cavalcanti will become President of the Oxford Union for Trinity term 2018, following elections on Friday 24th.

Shivani Ananth was elected to become Librarian. Both positions were uncontested.

Daniel Wilkinson defeated Redha Rubaie to become Treasurer. Off-slate, Norbert Sobolak lost to Molly Greenwood for the position of in-coming Secretary.

This is the first election since Hilary Term 2016 that any officer position has been contested.

The full list of all members elected is as follows:

OFFICERS

President-Elect: Gui Cavalcanti

Librarian-Elect: Shivani Ananth

Treasurer-Elect: Daniel Wilkinson

Secretary-Elect: Molly Greenwood

STANDING

Shanuk Mediwaka – 180

Genevieve Athis McAlea – 174

Adam Watson – 170

Charles Wang – 160

Charlie Cheesman – 160

Izzy Risino – 148

Chris Garner – 114

SECRETARY’S

Musty Kamal – 153

Eric Sukumaran – 113

Cecilia Zhao – 86

Nick Brown – 85

Raphael Zyss – 80

Brendan McGrath – 76

Lucas Barnfather-Jones – 68

Abhijeet Oswal – 68

Reza Javan – 66

Rohan Radia – 64

Emma Brown – 54

 

Mansfield up in arms over ‘ostentatious’ New College building plans

Henry Straughan
-
2
Mansfield up in arms over ‘ostentatious’ New College building plans

Mansfield students have attacked New College building plans, describing the proposed structure as an “ivory tower”.

New College reportedly intends to build a new accommodation block overlooking Mansfield. They also intend to build a tower – above the height of Carfax tower – on the corner of Saville and Mansfield road.

The accommodation block will be built just two metres from the Mansfield perimeter at the nearest point.

New plans to spend around £2.5 million on the tower, which will house an ‘Institute of Philanthropy’.

The entire project is expected to take around four years with a projected cost in the tens of millions. Mansfield are expected to put in an official planning objection.

However, it shaping up to be something of a David versus Goliath battle. Mansfield is one of Oxford’s smaller and poorer colleges, while New College is far larger and wealthier: as of June 2015, it had a financial endowment in excess of £190 million, and net assets of over £220 million. In 2016, Mansfield had an endowment over around £14 million.

Questions have been raised over the timing of planning application, which is set to be lodged in December. Students suggested that with 30 days allocated for response, any objections will be hindered by the vacation.

The plans will not go public till next Thursday. This means most Mansfield students will be leaving Oxford for vacation only days after. This is likely to inhibit what is expected to be a considerable response from the Mansfield student body.

Mansfield members have alleged that the building works will lead to significant disruption within the college. JCR president, Joe Inwood, suggested that the issue concerns “being a good neighbour”.

He noted that Mansfield has only just established a large on site community, and have recently “begun to flourish as one of Oxford’s newer, poorer, but also more representative, colleges. While their far wealthier neighbour is constructing a large disruptive development”.

The accommodation block will provide New College with 70 additional rooms. Inwood suggested that New’s decision was an “ostentatious demonstration of wealth”. He described the plans as New “spending four years on a literal ivory tower and quad to the great disruption of their poorer neighbours”.

Particular concerns were raised over the noise pollution the project will create. The groundworks, a particularly loud part of the building process, will run from Michaelmas 2018 to Trinity 2019.

The overall construction will not be finished till at least 2021 and so will affect Mansfield finalists sitting exams in 2019, 2020 and 2021. Moreover, some Mansfield students take exams in college in rooms only eight metres away from the projected construction site.

Daria Lysyakova, incoming president of Mansfield JCR, told Cherwell: “I am deeply concerned with their building works disturbing Mansfield students, particularly during exam periods. The building site will of course be disruptive on a daily basis but… perhaps the worst consequence is that it could have a serious impact on Mansfield students being able to revise for their prelims/finals in their college rooms.

“I’m further concerned with how close they have moved the school ‘assembly room’ (actually a music room) to our boundary and think that this could cause disturbance to our college long after the building works are complete.

“Their uncompromising approach to this project puts Mansfield in the very poor position, where it is clear that all of our undergraduates living on site will be strongly impacted by the building works, but we are unable to get our concerns heard or appropriately addressed by the planning committee at New.”

Mansfield students have also raised concerns about their level of privacy within college accommodation. Rooms in the planned New block will look into Mansfield’s rooms. In response to Mansfield raising this issue New College promised to take measures to obscure the view.

However, such measures will only be effective for students sitting at their desk, with New College defending the decision by claiming “people don’t tend to stand in their rooms for extended periods of time”.

New College’s Warden told Cherwell: “There has been close consultation with Mansfield College as the project has developed. Oxford building projects are always likely to inconvenience neighbours.”

“We are ready to do whatever is necessary and practical to minimise disruption. Our architects and advisors are very clear there is no issue of over-looking. The really important issue here is that by housing all our students in college we will be taking significant pressure off the Oxford housing market which benefits all students, and I hope it will be possible for people to see that big picture.”

Inwood questioned the efficacy of building a tower, a large quad, and a music hall as a way to take pressure off the Oxford housing market.

Conleth Burns, New College JCR President, told Cherwell: “The New Quad represents a unique and exciting opportunity for future New College students. The New Quad will include: one of Oxford’s first fully accessible towers… state of the art study and teaching facilities and a brand-new arts and performance space.

“I’ve been in close contact with the JCR President at Mansfield in the past few weeks seeking to understand the concerns of Mansfield students better. I will be feeding these concerns into the planning process going forward. I am confident that Mansfield College and New College can be and will be good neighbours throughout the development of the New Quad.”

Mansfield student Josh King, said: “It seems the management at New College have little consideration for the effects their actions will have on others. This new development will subject those at Mansfield and Wadham to constant noise pollution for at least four years, including throughout revision and finals.

“It is ironic that New College are building a Philanthropy tower to teach people about the rich helping the poor – when a rich college is exploiting the weakness of a poorer college.”

Race workshops exacerbate the problem they seek to eliminate

Sandra Xu
-
0
Race workshops exacerbate the problem they seek to eliminate

Be it the Civil Rights Movement, the recent conflict in Charlottesville, or the constant protest against the lack of ethnic representation in elite universities, problems of racial inequality and misrepresentation persistently plague our daily life.

The creation of so-called ‘race workshops’ has become a somewhat popular trend in universities (and, in our case, individual colleges) for raising awareness about equality and diversity as well as promoting understanding between people of different races.

Suggestions have even been put forward to make them mandatory, so that students could learn to reflect on their own biases and talk about race in an open and informal setting. At first blush, an idea with merit, and one which we could say would necessarily lead to transparency, understanding, and tolerance. However, on closer inspection, what does the existence of such workshops truly entail?

The issue of race is a sensitive one. So prone are we to employ words and expressions that might be mistaken for discrimination and abuse that it can pervade our every thought. Students of colour are already differentiated from others in regards to their backgrounds and cultures. The mere notion of race workshops further amplifies the problem, positioning them under a magnifying glass with the following message implicitly understanding that these students are different from ‘us’.

They have a special identity that makes it necessary for ‘us’ to understand them in a particular way. That’s why ‘we’ are taking the time to talk about ‘them’. Race workshops serve more to divide than unify, presupposing the differences in identities and placing an invisible label on students of colour that would later prove hard to remove.

Preconceived prejudices will not be thrown away. Instead new ones will arise. The fact that many of the workshops are set as a part of freshers’ week timetable serves to prise students apart from each other, even before the start of the course, by reminding them that they all come from different places.

On the other hand, the creation of workshops sends an implicit message that the University administration is taking an active part in raising awareness of racial inequality. In other words, because of the existence of race workshops, less responsibility needs to be taken for the actual integration of students of colour.

Though this is certainly far from the intention of creating such workshops, it does provide an excuse for the administration to wash its hands of the issues of racial diversity. As an international student myself, I have found it far more helpful talking to access officers such as the Junior Deans or international representatives than partaking in any official inductions on racial awareness or potential bias, when it comes to the issue of cultural integration.

The latter is simply neither the correct, nor the appropriate format. The problem of racial differences is an inveterate one. Differences in culture and disparities in values acquired through the formative years of one’s lifetime will not be easily dispelled within the course of several weeks or months. Assimilation and the breaking down of cultural barriers should be a gradual process accomplished through the frequent exchange of intellectual ideas, the pursuit of similar interests and passions as well as the discussion of common dreams and aspirations, not one that could be achieved through the attendance of infrequent race workshops.

The truth is, the more emphatic people are about the issue of race, the less likely it is that students of colour are treated equally. The whole concept of ‘race’ is already overly emphasised. What we need now is a de emphasis of the issue and, in turn, a putting of everyone on the same line. A more effective alternative would be to expand the creation of societies or weekly workshops that focus on the specific cultures of a particular region, such as the origins of Hindu art.

Through the universal media of art and music, students are more likely to be genuinely interested in and appreciative of the virtues of foreign cultures, and thus cultural exchanges and the increasing of diversity will be facilitated. After all, from wherever we originally come, whatever our secret passions or deep desires, we are all bound together by the ties of humanity, which transcend issues such as race.

University is a good place to start breaking down barriers, as we explore the world and endeavour to carve out our path to the future. Every experience we live through alters our outlook on life, every person we encounter reveals to us the diversity of humanity. Racial diversity is one of the many things that shall shed infinite light on our perceptions of the world, contributing to the formation of even our most basic opinions.

Thus, a truly efficient way that would enable us to understand the depths of other cultures should be devised in the place of race workshops.

I feel no sympathy for the student suing Oxford

Jordan Bernstein
-
0
I feel no sympathy for the student suing Oxford

I’m guessing, not at all cautiously, that I’m not the only Oxford student who feels no sympathy for Faiz Siddiqui. If you’ve never heard of him, good: it means you’re reading the right type of news (as Trumpian and distasteful as it may sound).

Siddiqui is the Oxford History graduate suing our university for £1 million. He claims that the inadequate teaching he received here meant that in 2000, as he donned his subfusc for the last time and took his place among ocks of students in Exam Schools, he could only muster an upper-second. No other grade was possible or conceivable. Try as he might, the number ‘70’ evaded his every attempt.

The ensuing series of events happened like clockwork. Instead of the highly lucrative career at the tax bar he claims to have worked hard towards his whole life, all he could muster with an upper-second was a training contract at Clifford Chance (by many accounts, one of the best law firms in the world). Note, however, that with all of the pomp and circumstance that such a case deserves, Siddiqui’s counsel Roger Mallalieu has denounced this employment history as “frankly poor”. Frankly, we should all be so lucky.

Now unemployed, like the bowler-hat-guy from Disney’s Meet the Robinsons, he has had time to reflect on who really was to blame for him not reaching the heights of a legal career. Certainly not himself, no. That’s right, Oxford.

It should be noted there are some anomalies in his case that make his argument sound less petty than it otherwise might. Though the High Court have only just begun hearing evidence, it appears that there was a tangible issue during his time at Brasenose College of absent tutors, limited resources, and my personal favourite, teaching that was “a little bit dull.” It’s also alleged that tutors failed to pass medical information onto examiners. The effects are also, allegedly and rather seriously, not limited to above-average job prospects, with Mr Siddiqui saying that the “inexplicable failure” of life with a 2.1 has exacerbated clinical depression and insomnia. Certainly no laughing matter.

But what exactly are we to make of a case like this? Well first, if there is truth to the accusations based on medical grounds, the University still has a long way to go in ensuring students are fully supported, and it’s learning all the time. Data procured under the Freedom of Information Act published in Cherwell last term showed an uptake in the number of students using the counselling service, showing, if nothing else, that there is better advertisement of the resources on offer and, perhaps, better communication with the University itself given the widespread use.

On the claim itself, many will know that even if extenuating medical circumstances are taken into account, which is rare, they will rarely result in signi cant mark increases, and even more rarely across the boundary between upper-second and first class.

And on the rest of the claim – the poor resources and dull teaching – I’m incredibly sorry for saying that the blame for a 2.1 still should not fall at the door of the University offices. We all know what we signed up for when we came to Oxford. Optional lectures, varying teachers and teaching standards across colleges, small tutorials where blagging your way through an hour means you’re screwing yourself in the long-term. If we didn’t know when we signed up, we quickly adapted.

Maybe our college library has poor resources, but we also have a Bodleian Library which by law has to be sent a copy of every book published. An Oxford student makes do with the considerable resources of a University the likes of which are an example for comparable institutions across the world. Some get a first, others aspire to one and instead get a 2.1, itself no mean feat.

But the thing about Oxford is that it prepares you for life when you leave, or if it doesn’t it certainly leaves you out in the wilderness, with nothing to expect but fundraising calls. Once you’ve got your degree and you’re training with a city law firm, you lose your right to blame Oxford for anything.

Five minutes with: Audrey, the mysterious figurehead of The Oxford Revue

Cherwell Stage
-
0
Five minutes with: Audrey, the mysterious figurehead of The Oxford Revue

Could you tell us a bit about your involvement with Oxford arts?
Casual, passionate, bric-a-brac. I’m a bit of a best-kept-secret, really. A 1983 Cherwell article (they were still painted on papyrus then) called me ‘Uncontested Queen of the Oxford Night’, despite widespread misgivings. Any more questions?

Can you tell us a bit about The Oxford Revue?
The Oxford Revue is a group of outcast geniuses who put on silly little sketch shows and do stand-up performances in places like the Wheatsheaf Pub and my front room.

What’s your fondest memory of comedy at Oxford?
In the winter of 1988, Stewart Lee and I were on a three-day tour which ended in The Cellar. By which I mean the dusty basement near the station where we’d all come together to bash out a sketch. Quite unexpectedly, we found a weepy David Cameron muttering something about his piglet, and how all his school friends would think him an imposter. They’d dared him to piss on the train tracks, you see, but he had a phobia of trains and he begged us to help him save face. Well we thought, “why not just really push the envelope here, then?” That summer we took our show ‘Pig In The Mirror’ up to the Fringe. It was an hour of Stewart doing his David Cameron impression, snivelling about a pig that didn’t love him back, while I danced around with a gymnastics ribbon. That’s where our logo comes from. You could say it’s when the Revue went political.

Who are your comedy heroes?
Josie Jambles, Cobbie Claxon, Louie de Rampart-Chambleaux. These are all before your time of course, and they’re all dead, sadly. Lost to the 1990s, to the dancefloor; to poppers. Here’s to them, really. Oh, and my mother. Mean as a hell-cat and hit the bottle hard, but the funniest woman I’ve ever known. Still alive, still notorious, and a public figure in fact, so I’ll withhold her name for now. (I’ll give you a hint: Dench.)

What advice would you give to freshers who might want to try their hand at comedy?
Get involved! Not you – was calling out to my old friend Rebus Bunk over there. Ah, it’s not him. Just a possum. We’d love to have you too, though! So long as you’ve got moxie and verve. These can be quietly expressed (for now). We’ve got auditions on all the time – go to www.oxfordrevue.org and sign up for our newsletter. The more the merrier, I always say. That, and “I’ll share with you tonight, but next time bring your own”

Do you have any exciting events coming up?
I thought you’d never ask. Coming up we’ve got my eponymous comedy cabaret, called Audrey, upstairs at the Wheatsheaf Pub on Tuesday the 28th. £3.50 at the door – these eyelashes don’t come cheap, I’m afraid. We’ve also got extensive programming next term, and the tickets are already selling fast. Check out our social media, apparently we’re on Instagram now.

What’s an Audrey?
It’s the divine torch-song of a woman sat before you now, pet. It’s also my bi-weekly comedy cabaret, usually upstairs at the Wheatsheaf Pub, my old haunt. I host, I dance, I monologue – unless I’m held up in a brawl or a scandal, of course. In that event, one of my underlings fills in for me as host, presiding over a bill of sketch, stand-up, and musical comedy. But my presence is most always felt.

Twelve private schools gain more Oxford offers than the north

Mia Millman
-
0
Twelve private schools gain more Oxford offers than the north

All major northern cities combined secured fewer places at Oxford and Cambridge than twelve southern private schools, new data has revealed.

483 places were offered to pupils from twelve southern schools, compared to 398 for all northern cities. Of the top six southern schools, which received 344 offers between them, five are based in London.

The twelve schools collectively received roughly one in 14 of all offers made to both universities.

In total, the two universities offer nearly 7000 undergraduate places each year.

The cities included in the regional data, gathered from an FOI request made by David Lammy MP, were Middlesbrough, Bradford, Liverpool, Bolton, Sheffield, York, Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester, Hull, and Birmingham.

Westminster School alone received 88 offers, equivalent to nearly a quarter of the offers made to all major northern cities. The other schools with the most offers were Eton College, with 68 offers, and St Paul’s School, with 53 offers.

Other schools named on the list include City of London Boys, Magdalen College School, Wycombe Abbey, and Charterhouse.

The most recent figures available were used for the twelve schools, though some of the latest data is from previous years.

In response to these findings, Lammy claimed the data provided “yet more evidence” that change was needed at Oxford. Lammy said: “It is simply not acceptable for these institutions to take £800 million in taxpayers’ money from people in every city, town, and village when they are not reflective of our nation outside the wealthiest areas of the southeast of England.”

Catherine Canning, Oxford SU VP for Access and Academic Affairs, told Cherwell: “We believe that the University should set and strive to meet stretching targets for widening access to Oxford.

“We believe access stems from long before application and does not stop at an offer letter. The University has an obligation to support students throughout this process.”

This comes after statistics earlier obtained by Lammy showed that four out of five students at Oxford and Cambridge are from the top two most privileged economic groups.

Speaking to Cherwell, Pembroke JCR Access rep, Graham Mogridge, said: “This statistic is frankly appalling. It illustrates that the need for access work, and government action, is as relevant as ever. “Work is needed at all levels, from University to student, in defeating Oxford stereotypes, and providing those that have the potential with support before, during, and after the applications process.”

A spokesman for the University said: “When students from the north of England apply to Oxford, they tend to be very successful. What we need are more applications.”

The data also revealed that Oxford made only 193 more offers to applicants from the whole of northern England than it did to applicants from the five home counties.

The University told Cherwell: “One of the most important things to look at in admissions is the fairness of success rates, not just the raw numbers.”

“In our case, figures for the latest admissions round show that students whom we flag in the admissions process as being particularly disadvantaged (because they attended an underperforming school or live in an area of high social deprivation) actually have better success rates when they apply than their more advantaged peer applicants.”

John’s votes against new officer to defend freedom of speech

Sam Rice
-
0
John’s votes against new officer to defend freedom of speech

St John’s have dropped plans to introduce a ‘religions & beliefs’ officer to protect students’ freedom of speech.

The original motion argued that those who hold certain religions or beliefs are “at risk of unjust discrimination, yet have no liberation position in the JCR”. It said the role was necessary after a series of incidents of alleged “religious discrimination” at Oxford.

The motion passed narrowly at its first reading two weeks ago, but failed to pass at a JCR meeting on Sunday. Students instead passed a motion to endorse the college’s freedom of speech policy.

The original said: “students are entitled to hold personal beliefs and participate in open discussion about those beliefs without fear of being banned from college/ JCR events, being discriminated against, or having their events hijacked by protesters.”

The motion called for the creation of a Religions and Beliefs Officer, who was to have a budget of £300, with the responsibility of “representing all the religions and beliefs held by students in the JCR”. A separate ‘Religions & Beliefs sub-committee’, consisting of five to ten people, would be set up to “represent the range of beliefs held by students in the JCR.”

At the meeting two weeks ago, JCR members questioned whether the religions and beliefs officer could adequately represent the faiths of all College students.

Concerns were also raised about the religions & beliefs subcommittee potentially becoming dominated by Christians, the most common faith in the College, and therefore not representing the beliefs of other students.

“One individual would not be able to represent all the religions and beliefs that the students hold,” one student said.

Another said: “As the dominant belief in the college is Christianity, and many other beliefs have far fewer students, how would you ensure that there is representation on the sub-committee from these other groups.”

Despite opposition, the motion narrowly passed in a secret ballot, with 26 votes in favour, 24 against, and eight abstentions.

This Sunday, the religions and beliefs motion was put to a vote again, as it was constitutionally mandated to pass twice. However, at its second reading, the motion failed, with 34 votes for, 44 against and seven abstentions.

Instead, an amended freedom of belief motion, noting: “there has been some controversy recently within the JCR concerning what is acceptable as freedom of speech” and resolving to “endorse the College freedom of speech policy”, passed almost unanimously, with 81 votes in favour, one vote against, and two abstentions.

The initial two-part freedom of belief motion noted concerns about specific incidents on campus which had been “interpreted by some as religious discrimination”.

The motion highlighted the Balliol JCR committee banning representatives of the Christian Union from its freshers’ fair in early October, over concerns their presence could lead to “alienation or micro-aggression” for new students.

The decision was condemned by a JCR motion which accused the JCR of “barring the participation of specific faith-based organisations” and describing the step as “a violation of free speech [and] a violation of religious freedom”. St John’s JCR committee declined to comment on the motions.

University trawled sensitive data to drive donations

Fred Dimbleby
-
1
University trawled sensitive data to drive donations

Oxford University employed private investigators to examine the financial backgrounds of individuals who donated to the University following the death of Cecil the Lion, Cherwell can disclose.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has now begun an investigation into revelations that British universities breached data protection laws by passing the details of donors on to private investigators.

Following Cecil’s death, 11,000 individuals donated a total of over £750,000 to an Oxford campaign in support of the University’s wildlife conservation unit, which had previously been tracking the lion. Oxford then passed donor details onto the private scheme ‘WealthPoint’ in order that they could identify individuals wealthy enough that might donate again.

According to a freedom of information (FOI) request, seen by Cherwell, the University had employed Blackbaud Inc – who run the service – since 2013, but has now ended its subscription. When contacted for a comment on this, a spokesperson declined to provide any further information.

An FOI request made by the Daily Mail revealed this week that Oxford has also been using privately employed investigators to examine the financial status of former students. Data gathered included information about the present job, position, and wealth band of alumni.

The records of almost 200,000 Oxford alumni have been inspected since August 2007. Three private companies have been used by the University to collect and analyse this data, including a company called Prospecting for Gold and another named Wealth Engine. These assessments can be used to find out the likelihood that individuals will donate in future, or even write Oxford into their will.

In November and December 2014 private firm ‘Wealth Engine’ was provided the details of 3,669 individuals in preparation for a telethon.

The FOI request showed that 24 Russell Group Universities have been using similar data screening methods, some of which have been running since 1997. £1 billion was donated to UK universities last year, with the majority going to Russell Group institutions.

Information Commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, said: “Personal data belongs to the individual. That means telling people what it’s going to be used for and who it’s going to be shared with. This is what the law required.

“We will look carefully at the evidence provided by the Daily Mail to see if and where any rules have been broken.”

In 2017, the ICO fined eleven charities a total of £138,000 after they breached data protection law. If an institution failed to gain consent from individuals to screen them, or their reasonable expectation that their data would be stored, they may have broken the law.

An Oxford University spokesperson told Cherwell: “We have used wealth screening firms to support our efforts to raise money for our research and teaching objectives, but it is a tiny part of our fundraising activity and the vast majority of the screening happened at least eight years ago.

“We have not tried to hide this – every email sent to alumni has a link to our data protection statement, which clarifies that our development and alumni relations system may be used for fundraising and hold donor status and wealth assessment information.

“For many years, all alumni have been able to opt out if they do not wish their data to be used in this way, and we would never sell their data to external partners.

“We are committed to transparency in the use of our data and we will continue to review our data protection statement to see if we can make it clearer.

“We are proud of the results of our successful fundraising campaign – it has funded thousands of students from all backgrounds to study at Oxford, and research which has transformed the lives of people around the world.”

Cherwell has seen emails that have been sent to alumni in which a data protection statement has been attached. The link is usually placed at the very bottom of emails and leads to a website that lays out the policies of the University’s Development and Alumni Relations System.

Public schoolboys dominate Union election

Matthew Roller
-
1
Public schoolboys dominate Union election

The Oxford Union’s elections are still dominated by the privately educated and men.

21 of the 30 officers running in Friday’s elections attended fee-paying schools, Cherwell analysis has found.

Just one of the twelve candidates for senior positions – defined as Standing Committee and above – attended a state comprehensive school, according to social media profiles. 70% of those running are male. There are only four female candidates for senior positions, three of whom attended private schools.

According to the most recent data that the University has made available, 59% of offers Oxford made to students studying in the UK went to state school applicants. Under 7% of secondary school students in the country attend independent schools.

But the Union is set to continue as a private school-dominated society, with students who attended fee-paying schools running uncontested for the roles of President and Librarian.

Only one position, Treasurer, is guaranteed to be won by a state educated member: it is being contested by Redha Rubaie and Daniel Wilkinson, both of whom attended grammar schools.

The imbalance of backgrounds is even more apparent in junior roles, which tend to be contested mainly by first-year students. Of the 17 candidates for Secretary’s Committee, 14 attended private schools, including St. Paul’s Boys, Abingdon, and Sevenoaks.

The news comes after a recent Cherwell investigation found that 76% of elected officials on this term’s committee attended independent schools. 52% of JCR presidents went to fee-paying schools, the Cherwell investigation found, as well as half of senior editorial staff across Cherwell and The Oxford Student.

In 2010, following a similar investigation, a Union source told Cherwell they had been encouraged to use contacts they had met at public school to win votes.

“When I ran for the Union, I was encouraged by members of my slate to make use of the number of Oxford undergrads from my old school and to contact them for votes,” they said.

The gender imbalance amongst those running for election follows criticism of a male-dominated term card. Just twelve of the 61 speakers scheduled to speak at the Union this term were female.

At the time, the St. Hilda’s Women’s Rep said: “The Oxford Union’s term card proves that success and intelligence at Oxford are continuously and persistently equated with whiteness and masculinity.”

Rachel Collett, the Women’s Officer for both Class Act and Oxford University Labour Club, said the Union was “dominated by private school boys.”

Union president Chris Zabilowicz, stressed his commitment to widening access to the society.

“Anyone who knows me will support me when I say I very much care about diversity, as the first openly gay President of the Oxford Union and an access member myself,” Zabilowicz said.

Polling in this term’s Union elections is open today, and the results are expected to be announced on Saturday.

This article originally stated that all women elected to senior roles were privately educated. It has been amended to reflect that in fact only three out of four were.

1...811812813...2,515Page 812 of 2,515

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by James Ashley