Sunday 27th July 2025
Blog Page 828

Forget sensationalism, Lammy should focus on social inequality

Arya Tandon
-
3
Forget sensationalism, Lammy should focus on social inequality

Last week I was approached by a BBC journalist. He wanted to know if I’d be willing to answer some questions about diversity at Oxford. At first I was tempted by the prospect of a brief touch of fame. But I eventually decided against it, made my excuses, and walked away.

It wasn’t because I needed to return to college (though this was what I told them), or that I had freshers’ flu, and would like to save my 15 minutes of fame for when I could both walk and breathe at the same time. It was because I didn’t want to be the token BME student in their report.

That’s not to say that the voices of students from minority backgrounds at the University aren’t an important part of the conversation. Their first-hand experience of life within an elite institution is vital if we are to have a productive conversation on inequality and admissions. However, it must be noted that much of the ‘conversation’ splashed across recent headlines has not sought to thoroughly analyse the reasons for a lack of diversity at Oxford, but instead focus on reinforcing stereotypes about the admissions process as elitist and discriminatory.

In his article for The Guardian, David Lammy, the Labour MP who has recently criticised Oxford’s “social apartheid”, raised the problems of below-par schools and a lack of support for applicants only to briefly dismiss them as “excuses”.

Herein lies the real cause for outrage. As a British Asian from a state (albeit grammar) school in the north, it seems as if I’ve become a pawn on the chessboard of identity politics. Painting a picture of a racist, classist university makes for a great story. But it’s not necessarily a truthful one. Meanwhile, the immense underlying problems in our society, ranging from huge divides in educational opportunities to severe regional inequality, continue to go largely ignored.

When the University points to these issues, we can react in one of two ways. In disclosing that it receives a reduced proportion of minority and disadvantaged applicants in the first place, we can recognise that Oxford raises a profound issue.

Or we can choose to subscribe to a conspiracy theory of tutors throughout the colleges meeting up in the dead of night to decide how many black applicants to disqualify, or that, after having a discussion, they don’t want to put up with anyone with a Geordie accent.

Joking aside, it’s understandable why when the statistics are taken at face value without informed context, some people jump to the conclusion of active discrimination in the admissions process. The figures are shocking, and rightfully so. Oxford still has a disproportionate percentage of students from private school backgrounds compared to the general population. Admissions statistics consistently show lower acceptance rates for those from ethnic minority backgrounds, and the fact that a third of Oxford colleges failed to admit any black A-level students in 2015 is objectionable.

But the same admissions statistics also highlight alternative reasoning: higher proportions of ethnic minority applicants consistently going for the most oversubscribed courses. More widely, private schools educate 7% of all students, yet account for a third of all those who get AAA or better in their A-levels.

So, although there are implicit ‘biases’ within the admissions system – for example, a ‘bias’ towards private school students because more of them achieve the highest grades – many of the fundamental causes lie in pre-existing social conditions.

The effects of wider social issues on admissions are serious enough without unfounded claims of discrimination. Of course, Oxford can do more to widen access where it can influence these societal problems. Focusing on expanding outreach, particularly to those regions of the country with fewer current applicants, would help to improve the availability of information for those who could most benefit from it.

Lammy’s proposal for the University to write to all those who achieve 3 As in their A-levels might be impractical but reflects good intentions. Teachers across the state sector should not only receive training in supporting struggling pupils, but also in how to support particularly high- achieving students in reaching their full potential.

In contrast to this vital discussion on improving equality of opportunity, Lammy refers to many colleges as “fiefdoms of privilege” with “interviews overseen by academics recruiting in their own image”. This extreme portrayal is unhelpful, especially since strong claims require strong evidence and he provides none.

At a previous symposium on admissions held at Oxford, he contended that the burden of proof lies on the University to demonstrate that there is no unconscious bias in its interviews.

In reality, the burden of proof lies on Lammy to show that, considering the thorough training on such bias for interviewers, any unconscious bias that does exist actually affects the selection process at elite universities.

Not only does the current media spin ignore the underlying problems, it could even risk putting off some students from applying to Oxford. When I was applying for university, I remember reading about the private/state school student divide, and chatting to friends about how Oxford apparently takes in a lower percentage of BME applicants. For those who have might have less access to the side of the story other than “Oxford is racist/classist”, this could make all the difference in choosing whether or not to apply.

Serious problems require serious solutions. Jumping to caricature and sensationalism, rather than properly trying to consider how we can tackle the fundamental causal inequalities in our society, not only ignores the problem but has the tragic potential to make it worse.

David Lammy: “You cannot describe Oxford as an inclusive environment”

Will Dry
-
1
David Lammy: “You cannot describe Oxford as an inclusive environment”

David Lammy is a lighthouse in British politics: he seeks out rocky outcrops of injustice, where he sees the elite failing the people, and brings them into the light of public scrutiny. He labelled the Grenfell fire a “monstrous crime” and “corporate manslaughter” in the days after the tragedy. The most recent injustice at which he has directed his fire is the “systemic institutional issues” at the heart of our own university’s admissions policy.

“You cannot describe Oxford in any sense as an inclusive environment that reflects our country,” he tells me. “It’s more exclusive than the House of Commons in terms of social background and diversity, or the room for criminal barristers at the Old Bailey.”

He is speaking to Cherwell shortly after a series of freedom of information requests he submitted revealed the extent of elitism in Oxford’s application process. Namely: that in the years 2010-15, 82% of Oxford’s students came from the top two social classes, that Oxford makes more offers to five of the home counties than it does to the entirety of the North of England, and that 13 Oxford colleges did not make a single offer to a black A-level applicant.

Many of those defending the university in the media since these revelations surfaced have argued that diversity would come at the cost of lower standards.

But Lammy is not entertaining this possibility. “Let’s not even have a debate about lowering standards. There are young people who are able to go to Oxford on the grades that they have.”

For now, he believes the debate should centre on how Oxford is reaching those young people. He believes Oxford should be “actively writing to the students who are getting outstanding A*s in GCSEs: ‘Please come to us, please apply, you can come for free.’”

Lammy, who attended Harvard, highlights how the majority of this year’s intake at the prestigious American institution will be non-white. This makes him “conscious of what is possible… the truth is in America the schools are considerably worse than they are in the UK. And yet, Harvard and Yale reflect America to a much greater extent than Oxford and Cambridge.”

To drive the point home, he brings up the issue that one suspects will remain closest to his heart for the rest of his life. “A child who is on the twenty-second floor of Grenfell Tower, who is, despite all the disadvantages of school, the disadvantages of parenthood, the disadvantages of space to revise, who gets one A* and two As, is probably brighter than the child who gets three A*s at Eton.”

His simple message – that children who have the talent should be given the opportunity – has resonated across the political spectrum. Even Michael Gove tweeted that he “<3 David Lammy”, and agreed that blame shifting should be sidelined to end this inequality.

In some of Lammy’s fiercest remarks, he told me that Oxford “should be leading the debate about access and social mobility, not hiding under the bushes, reluctant to hand out data, reluctant to be transparent and instinctively blaming schools and educational inequality for the problem that they have.”

Regardless of your interpretation of the facts, it is indisputable that Oxford should regularly publish their data. Behind the worrying figures is the less headline-grabbing but equally sinister story of Oxford administrators attempting to block Lammy’s investigation at every opportunity.

Lammy described the university as “aggressively resistant” to giving him the data, and when it finally did agree to, after being informed that The Guardian was planning on publishing a story on it, they presented it in such an unintelligible fashion it took plenty of hard work to interpret the results.

Students, he believes, can “play a really, really important role” in fixing the issue. The exceptional colleges that buck the trend – Mansfield and Somerville, among a few others – do so because they have “student officers really obsessed with the issue of getting access to these young people.”

One could infer that Lammy believes students at Oriel and Teddy Hall – where just one and two black British A-level students respectively have been admitted in the last six years – could become a little more “obsessed.”

But in the grand scheme of things, these social justice warriors face insurmountable barriers. Lammy believes the basic problem lies within the college system. “A college-based admission system will always mitigate against progress in this area. Centralised faculties have to recruit so that you do not get the disparity across colleges.”

Within the Oxford bubble, transferring the responsibility of recruitment from colleges to faculty is an almost unthinkable revolution.

Just last week, Louise Richardson was hounded by various college academics for  suggesting that the processing of taxi receipts, among other back office functions, could be centralised to save money.

To erode what many believe to be the lifeblood of a college’s autonomy, its ability to recruit who it wants, is bound to create a fierce backlash from some of Oxford’s more trenchant dons.

On Brexit, Lammy is similarly scathing of the Tory government which he believes is attempting to “hijack our democracy.”

“The people were sold Brexit on the basis that we would be taking back control. We are now seeing an attempt to hide the impact assessments that the government has done and not reveal them to the general public, and to thwart the democratic sovereignty of our parliament by not giving parliament a proper meaningful vote before the deal.”

This, and the government’s refusal to publish its Brexit impact assessments, amounts to what Lammy believes are “dictatorial attempts to thwart democracy, which will only split this country apart even further”.

“It’s clear that nothing that is now coming out of the government suggests that this is in the national interest of our country. We’ve moved a long way from the sunlit uplands of this is going to be easy, the EU is going to be begging us for a trade deal, the world is going to be begging us for a trade deal.”

Lammy believes that students can play a pivotal role in resist such ‘dictatorial’ attempts. They must “resist, resist resist. Protest, campaign, write – make it clear that you will not vote for parties that are intent on Brexit.”

Two days after the referendum, Lammy did his own resisting on Twitter, stating that parliament should ignore the referendum result – out of step with the front bench of his party.

He does, however, optimistically note that “the Labour Party is travelling on the issue of Brexit… Labour is an internationalist party, and it’s working people who will suffer as a consequence of leaving the European Union. I would hope that our front bench position continues to evolve.”

The bulk of backbenchers, on both sides of the aisle, who believe in their heart of hearts that this policy goes against the country’s national interest, are very slowly creeping towards the position Lammy reached just two days after the referendum.

His message to those MPs is: “Put our country first. Put our country first. Be brave and courageous about what is in the national interest of our country.

For a man who has pitted himself against those responsible for the Grenfell tragedy, against what he sees as outdated admissions practices at the country’s finest university, and against a government – and potentially even electorate – insistent upon us leaving the EU whatever the cost, Lammy clearly does not check the odds before picking his battles.

His source of inspiration and hope in these fights is the millennials – “a fantastic generation”. He is less affectionate towards baby boomers “who basically heated up the world and gave us climate change, spent too much money and gave us the 2008 crash, and now seem to be giving us a populism.”

It remains to be seen whether our generation will resist the “bumpy decade” of “reactionism” and “xenophobia” that Lammy believes the UK is in for.

Lammy’s optimism for the UK, and his own career, is grounded in the gamble that us millennials will give him a helping hand in the fights ahead. A proactive group of Oxford students might not be a bad bunch to start with.

Imagining the Divine review – engrossing and important

Elizabeth Diggins
-
0
Imagining the Divine review – engrossing and important

The Buddha. Vishnu. A bearded Jesus. A Parochet. A guilded Hajj certificate. The Ashmolean’s engrossing and important new exhibition begins by addressing the assumptions most of us hold about the ‘big five’ religions. Yet it sets these up only to slowly dismantle and shatter them.

While these may be representative of religion in the early modern period which these artefacts hail from, the exhibition takes the viewer back 1000 years to investigate the more ideologically porous time in which the images of these religions, both literal and figurative, were formed. The exhibition as a whole is a rare chance to see the impact of research work, laid out in a visual and almost tactile way.

The exhibition is a culmination of the ‘Empires of Faith’ project based at the British Museum and Oxford University, which is evident throughout with the focus on clear explanations and intellectual exploration. Next, the exhibition takes the viewer through early Christianity, some of the remarkable objects synthesized in the room including the Hinton St-Mary mosaic with the Chi-Rho symbol behind it. In this instance, possible ambiguities are not quite emphasised enough: it is labelled as a figure of Christ, whereas there are convincing arguments that it is in fact a depiction of Constantine. This would have been an interesting debate for the exhibition to untangle and delve into, especially in the context of the room as a whole, which investigated a crossover between temporal and divine rule.

What is perhaps most remarkable about this room is the small cabinet of curiosities in which the figurines and coins sometimes cannot be identified, due in fact to the extent to which the cultures and symbolism intertwined and intermingled. The section on Judaism, while small, powerfully challenges understandings of early Judaism. Indeed, the figurative illustrations of a God, alongside Romanesque and Islamic techniques and styles, demonstrate the transformation Judaism has undergone between then and now. Turning the corner into the main room of the exhibition, a reverential silence seems to fall. The cavernous hall befits the exhibition’s focus on the divine, and seems almost a shrine dedicated to the art that fills it.

Indeed, the works and relics in this room are worthy of respect, intricate both in artistic terms and in the analysis that accompanies them. One relic in particular demonstrates the close relationship between image and understandings of the divine, the sculpture of a goddess left unidentifiable due to her powerful attributes having been chipped off. The final section takes the visitor through rich Islamic texts, and then the British Isles. Yet here it feels like the exhibition slightly loses its focus and clarity. This is not to say it is not interesting or beautiful.

Indeed, the placement of three standing stones against a backdrop of a rugged vista is visually stunning. Here too, there are early medieval English illuminated manuscripts, gilded and intricate, as well as a fascinating example of a monk practising such illumination. However, while an interesting case study, it slightly feels as if the exhibition just trails off, rather than finishing with a visual bang.

The exhibition is cleverly coloured, with each of the religions it explores assigned a hue in order for the viewer to more clearly follow the complex ideas about religious assimilation that are distilled in the exhibition. Yet given that the exhibition’s focus is on the relationships and similarities between religions, this can be more unhelpful and confusing than elucidating. Indeed, the division of the exhibition into more discrete religious sections means that a copy of the Qu’ran, and a codex Torah to which it was remarkably similar, are situated at different ends of the exhibition.

Similarly, a blue Qu’ran and an Anglo-Saxon codex that was a clear imitation are placed in separate sections. While this is a result of the multiplicity of connections that the researchers discovered, it is disappointing for the viewer and makes the links on which the exhibition is based far harder to make. This is a strong and powerful message from academia about what unites us, and the religions that many follow.

Indeed, at a time when deep divisions are forming along sectarian and religious lines, this is a timely reminder that they were not, and are not, so distinct after all. While the exhibition in many respects throws up more questions than it answers, it has begun a pertinent and long-needed discussion on religion, and what it can demonstrate about the power of unity and assimilation. Indeed, as the Co-Curator Professor Jaś Elsner says, “This discussion has been begun at a time when cultural exchange, migration and globalisation are of critical importance.”

Is there a way out of this crisis for the Catalan people?

Jorge Lopez Llorente
-
1
Is there a way out of this crisis for the Catalan people?

There is a ‘crisis’ in Catalonia. Yet it remains hazy, probably even more so from the outside, as it gurgles with manipulation, fake news and indecision. Catalans now live in a broken mirror of bitter division that sometimes slips into absurd comedy, like the minute-long declaration of independence by Carles Puigdemont, President of the regional government, who then backed down.

You may have believed the international coverage, which was mostly dreadful: nationalist lies were taken at face value, as in the Washington Post’s article signed by Puigdemont. Voices shout over each other, but dialogue fades. We must step back and realise that nationalists of both kinds, with Catalan esteladas or Spanish flags tied to their necks, are equally problematic. Their only ‘dialogue’ is to ram their heads against each other. It’s Spain at its most factious – but their fanaticisms must leave the centre-stage to real talk.

“Aren’t the Catalan people supporting nationalism just for freedom, legitimately, fairly?” Secessionism has been organised from above, from the powerful, so drop that populist idea of ‘the people’ first. Legitimately and fairly? That’s questionable. The Catalan regional government has been contaminating educational curricula with nationalist ideology for years: there are many cases in which Spanish is neglected, whilst Catalan is reinforced at schools, for example.

They have manipulated the regional television channel, TV3, as a propaganda platform without respect for the numerous Catalan anti-separatists who support it through taxes. “But the referendum they suggested is democratic, right?” Perhaps on paper. The latest poll on 1 October, organised by Puigdemont without consent and illegally defying the Constitutional Tribunal, was a joke, not a referendum, including Tupperware ballot boxes and people voting twice or more. Participation was below 50%.

“What if nationalist are a majority anyway?” I don’t know, but I doubt it. Most, if not all, secessionist supporters voted in that poll and they didn’t make it beyond 50%. In the 2015 regional elections (a de facto referendum), the secessionist parties didn’t gain the majority of votes, even if in a messy coalition featuring the radical left-wing CUP they reached a majority of seats. A reasonably reliable poll by CEO (July 2017) indicates that 49% of Catalans reject independence, although a majority want a referendum. Uncertainties remain, but that speaks for itself: their high-ground is shaky.

“Then what? Do you claim that Rajoy has acted correctly?” Far from it. All these years, the useless mannequin performing as Spanish PM Mariano Rajoy has been incapable of acting on anything other than defending his inaction. Crisis exploded and (unsurprisingly) he was unready. Then he worsened the situation, swinging to the other extreme: he lashed out with unnecessary police brutality on referendum day, which should have been snubbed. All states act repressively, but open violence stings even more. It wasn’t even an effective strategy: now separatists can play ‘the only victim’.

Furthermore, Jordi Cuixart and Jordi Sánchez were sent to jail, in an anti-democratic reaction. The judge spoke politically. “Some say they deserve it for breaking police cars – is that an excuse?” Legal action may be necessary, but these activists could have been fined.

It seems that Catalonia will break away. Instability has taken hold. An independent Catalonia cannot emerge though. Rajoy’s government, alongside a parliamentary majority, won’t allow it. “What if Puigdemont had his way?” Alright, devil’s advocate, if that (magically) happened, cold numbers would destroy his rhetoric: as you read this, companies are fleeing from Catalonia to other regions like CaixaBank. Also, an independent Catalonia would economically self-destruct, out of the EU and without Spain’s support to pay debt and pensions, despite Puigdemont’s decision that Spaniards would still pay Catalans’ pensions whatever the situation.

“Still, Rajoy just activated article 155 of the Constitution, which won’t help… It means that Puigdemont will be sacked, Rajoy’s cabinet will govern Catalonia…” So that there can be regional elections in some months. Inés Arrimadas, a levelheaded politician, suggested holding regional elections and that’s reasonable. “It’s a democratic option.” Exactly, but it’s only possible through article 155 or, ideally, convincing Puigdemont to call elections. Puigdemont won’t budge and Rajoy rejects referenda, so there are almost no other scenarios.

So what happens now? Who knows. Hopefully, the debate can progress from populist nationalism to actual problems too, like corruption or unemployment. Flags have covered the muck of corruption from Rajoy’s Popular Party and ‘the 3% scandal’ from Convergència i Unió (the former label of Puigdemont’s party) “Yes, while both leaders disgracefully mishandled other issues, especially public healthcare.” Indeed. Economic accountability on all sides would temper secessionism’s fantasies and direct taxes to better purposes than police violence or nationalist propaganda. Not only just the Spanish, but surely everyone, could do with less shouting, less deception and less hatred, don’t you think?

Smokers need freedom, not permission

Ethan Croft
-
0
Smokers need freedom, not permission

I was unsurprised when the high-minded administrators of Exeter College decided to play mother this week, and propose a smoking ban for the alleged good of their students. And I was disappointed at the slightly damp rejoinders offered by the college’s tobacco-loving students.

Smoking was described by opponents of the ban as “symptomatic of the working class”, another one of those crass but fashionable statements which assume everybody in an economic group thinks and acts the same. But whether these arguments hold up to scrutiny or not is beside the point. Individual smokers have their own motivations, which shouldn’t require justification to the authorities of their university.

I didn’t start smoking because I grew up without much money, but because I like tobacco. I like the rush of nicotine to the blood. I like the peace of sitting in the quad, undisturbed, without the need for a social excuse. I like the opportunity to retreat from the boredom of an office, or a library, or an argument in the kitchen. And I like smokers. It’s a young person’s hobby, and a particular type of young person at that. Cigarettes might not be good for you, but they’re definitely good to you. Smoking is the proclivity of someone who, exceptionally at this University, isn’t planning to settle down in a Surrey semi-detached with a wife and two kids. It’s the pastime of someone who doesn’t actually believe they’re so brilliant that they should live forever.

If there’s one thing that really puts us off quitting, it’s the insufferable piety of the smoke-free. I’m sure all smokers reading this have heard it: “smoking kills, you know!” Yes, of course we know, it says it on the front of the packet. These encounters aren’t even the worst. It’s the melodramatic coughers, and splutterers who really grate on me. Their spiteful idea, that we should be stripped of our ciggies because they don’t like the smell, was also the motivation of Exeter’s proposed ban. The exact phrasing was “inconsiderate behaviour”. But smokers are, in my experience, considerate. We have moved out of restaurants, bars, and pubs, and onto the street. And smokers, seeing a child or an elderly person coming their way, turn their cigarettes away to spare discomfort.

But this is not enough for the deans of Exeter College and Oxford University at large, who continue to believe that we need them to enforce good politesse. They are mistaken. All we need is for them to leave us alone.

Clinical Blues wrap up Bucs hockey double

Thomas Browne and Matthew Roller
-
0
Clinical Blues wrap up Bucs hockey double

Women’s Blues 2-0 Cambridge

In the first part of Wednesday’s double header against Cambridge, the Women’s Blues stepped out onto the turf to see if they could keep their streak against the Tabs going after their 4-0 victory in last year’s Varsity Match. From the off, Oxford had the upper hand and were bringing the game to Cambridge.

Despite some difficulties with the sprinkler system pre-match, Oxford were playing the ball around quickly, totally in control. This dominance finally came to fruition with an early goal from Georgie Walton. The ball broke forward and her shot at the near post squirmed under the Cambridge keeper and managed to evade the Cambridge defender’s fumbled attempt at a goal line clearance, trickling over the line to make it 1-0.

Thereafter, Oxford continued to control the game, despite a few green cards being dished out for some cynical fouls – it was a match against Cambridge after all, and after the first goal the raucous home supporters were baying for Tab blood.

The Dark Blues peppered the Cambridge goal with shots, producing some impressive reflex saves from the beleaguered Cambridge goalkeeper. The visitors did have one half-chance towards the end of the half, when a sloppy defensive mistake left a visiting player one-on-one with Oxford keeper Rachael Dellar. But Dellar was up to the task, diving on the ball and clawing it away to maintain the home side’s clean sheet.

The half ended with a scrappy passage of play, and when the teams returned for the second half it was clear that tired legs were playing a part as the quality of the match dropped slightly.

Oxford maintained their dominance and soon forced a brilliant reflex save from the Light Blues’ keeper, followed by a goal-line clearance from the ensuing chance.

In the final portion of the game, Oxford really put the screws on Cambridge, camped in the final third of the pitch, laying siege to the Cambridge goal with a barrage of attempts. It wasn’t long until Dalton found space through the middle, dribbled past a couple bewildered visitors and coolly slid the ball across goal for a tap in by Rachael Harrison at the far post – an excellently worked team-goal. The match finished 2-0 and the commanding display by Oxford certainly bodes well for 2018’s Varsity Match at Southgate Hockey Club.

Men’s Blues 2-1 Cambridge

After a convincing 6-1 win in last week’s Bucs game against Canterbury Christ Church, the Men’s Blues went into Wednesday’s game against Cambridge with a 100% league record. And from the offset, they were clearly brimming with confidence: although there were few clear cut chances in the early stages, Thomas Claughton’s mazy run down the right nearly created a goal out of nothing. Nobody got on the end of his cross, but Oxford were the stronger of the teams.

Midway through the first half, the pressure paid. A defensive mix-up from Cambridge left the ball free in the area, and 2016/17 captain Ryan Kavanagh was on hand to make it one-nil to the hosts. Not long after, Noah Francis’ drag-flick was well-saved by the Light Blues’ keeper, but Claughton was on hand to slam in the rebound to double the lead. Oxford were cruising, and Francis led a series of penetrating attacks through the middle. Andrew Oxburgh’s driving run led to a chance that was nearly bundled in at the back post, and despite Cambridge hitting the post from a short corner, the Dark Blues went into half-time having completely dominated.

The second half was a drab affair, as Oxford starved the visitors of any real opportunities. Josh Keeling should have scored after a driving run from Nick Leach, and Alex Copestake failed to turn in a ball from Jolyon Dannatt, but neither side looked like scoring.

With two minutes on the clock, Cambridge finally broke through a firm home defence to score, but it was a case of too little too late: the Dark Blues held on to complete a 2-1 win, giving them a three-point cushion at the top of the league.

Poland’s passionate fungal love affair

Jamie Onslow
-
0
Poland’s passionate fungal love affair

For most people at Oxford, third year means academic drudgery ending in exams so stressful that many literally crumble under the pressure, like digestive biscuits. It is not unheard of for particularly stressed finalists caught in the rain to dissolve completely and be washed away in Oxford’s sewer system. However, for modern language students like me, third year means something very different. For while my fellow students were returning to Oxford with heavy hearts, I was jetting off from London Gatwick on the adventure of a lifetime. And while other modern linguists touched down in such exotic climes as South America, Italy and France, I was carried to Poland on an aircraft bedecked in the orange and white livery of England’s premium carrier. Poland is a country about which little is known in Britain. Even though over a million of its countrymen and women live in our midst, a recent survey I conducted found that most Brits thought that Poland was a fictional country invented by Tony Blair in the early 2000s. To the uninitiated, Poland can seem a mysterious and opaque place, and yet for those desiring a better understanding of the country, there is no better place to start than the hallowed tradition of mushroom picking.

While in Britain we spend our free time indoors, munching down biscuits and bathing in gravy, the Poles like nothing better than to spend weeks in the great outdoors, scouring the undergrowth for fresh, juicy mushrooms to satisfy their Slavic cravings. Poland’s love affair with the mushroom goes back to prehistoric times. The Polish equivalent of the Prometheus myth tells how a demigod stole a basket of porcini mushrooms from the heavens in order to improve Polish national cuisine. Displaying their fine grasp of irony, the gods punished him with a fungal groin infection so severe that it would daily lay waste to the affected area, only for the demigod’s various appendages to grow back overnight. To this day, Polish nationalists are reluctant to seek treatment for fungal skin infections, proudly showing their athlete’s foot and ringworm, as if boasting of their body’s quintessentially Polish ability to support all sorts of fungal life.

My first brush with this Polish national obsession was not at all what one might expect. Late one evening as I walked back to my dormitory through Krakow’s cold, dark streets, I took a wrong turn and ended up in a rough part of town. Within minutes, I had attracted the attention of a group of hooded youths. I was soon surrounded, and my assailants demanded that I hand over my valuables. I duly produced my phone and wallet, only to be met with blank stares and disinterest. After an awkward few minutes, I established that it was not my money, but mushrooms, that these disenfranchised young Poles were after. I was allowed to leave only once I had produced a sad-looking mushroom from my rucksack, which I had been hoping to enjoy for my dinner. I would later learn that these occurrences are common in poverty-stricken inner cities in Poland, which in recent years have been struck by a mushroom epidemic so severe that young Poles will commit all sorts of depravities just to get their hands on a few chanterelles.

For most Polish people, however, mushroom gathering is enjoyed within the boundaries of the legal system. If you were to wander through the woods and valleys of the Polish countryside, you would not go far before encountering groups of Poles on their hands and knees, their noses thrust deep into the loam. It is not a hobby completely without danger, for the conditions that make Polish soil so perfect for mushroom growth can occasionally lead to horrifying mishaps.

Polish mushrooms are unlike the mushrooms of any other nation. Here, the mushrooms flourish due to the wet weather, the rich soil, and a political system that has consistently guaranteed each and every mushroom access to first-class education and health services. Yet in some areas of Poland, the earth is so fertile that mushrooms have been known to burst out of the ground at immense speeds and with incredible violence. The otherwise idyllic woods are scattered with the body parts of unsuspecting Poles, torn asunder in their quest for mushrooms. This danger has led to much of the country’s wooded areas being cordoned off, as one would a minefield – yet these are minefields so unpredictable that even Princess Diana would think twice before setting foot in them.

The humble mushroom is as ingrained into the Polish national psyche as fast food and mass shootings in the States. It not only provides your average Pole with all his daily nutritional and entertainment needs, it has also shaped the country’s history and culture. Over the last few centuries, Poland has been repeatedly invaded and partitioned by neighbouring powers who would stop short of nothing to get their hands on Poland’s bountiful fungus harvests. When deciding what shape to make the cloud generated by the explosion of an atomic bomb, the American scientists picked the mushroom design as a tribute to the Polish nation. Other unsuccessful design submissions included the Michelin man, and a raised middle finger, but they were rejected on the grounds that one shouldn’t add insult to injury.

Magdalen to appoint new trans rep

Nick Brown
-
0
Magdalen to appoint new trans rep

A motion to establish a new position of transgender representative on the Magdalen College JCR committee was passed unanimously at a meeting on Sunday evening.

The motion, proposed by Matthew Elliot, stated: “Transgender students face a large number of unique and personal welfare needs and issues which often have little guidance or support from the JCR.” It provides for an amendment to the JCR constitution to add the trans rep to the committee.

The duties of the new position include ensuring equality of opportunity and providing welfare support to all undergraduate students who identify as transgender, and lobbying for changes to college policies on transitioning students.

The debate was brief and passed with little controversy: there were no points against the motion and with no abstentions or votes against. Magdalen’s JCR currently has an LGBTQ Trustee, Billy Nuttal, and Officer, Chiara McDermott.

Nuttall, who seconded the motion, told Cherwell: “I am very happy that the JCR supports members of the trans community in our college.”

By passing the motion Magdalen college joins Wadham, the only other JCR to currently have such a position. Katy Haigh, Vice-President for Women at Oxford SU, said: “It is great to see that common rooms are expanding their representative positions to better reflect the demographics and the needs of their students.”

Magdalen student Ben Hopkinson, who attended the general meeting where the motion was passed, told Cherwell: “This motion proves that the JCR is committed to being welcoming and supportive to all members of Magdalen.”

Another student, Amelia Horn said: “Matthew Elliot made crucial points on how the welfare needs of lesbian, gay, and bi students differ from those of trans students and so it is important to separate the role within the JCR.”

According to the its equality policy, Magdalen College “welcomes diversity among its staff, students, alumni, and visitors, recognising the particular contributions to the achievement of the College’s mission which can be made by individuals from a wide range of backgrounds and experiences”.

In 2014, the college’s LGBTQ rep, Elsa Field, resigned from her position after an article written for the St John’s Gender Equality Festival zine, which was described as “incredibly transphobic” by senior University figures. Elections for the position are expected to be held later this term.

Tarot adds witchcraft and mystery to feminist fashion

Viveka Herzum
-
0
Tarot adds witchcraft and mystery to feminist fashion

For many, fashion is a game of self-expression and of power – power over ourselves, power over others’ perceptions, and power over social norms. Recently, tarot and playing cards have acted as both aesthetic and conceptual inspiration for designers who wish to draw on their associations with power dynamics and with a more modern interpretation of femininity, witchcraft, and political agency.

Just like fashion, card games are all about power shifts. Their language is deeply ingrained in our idioms; keeping your cards close to your chest, putting your cards on the table, or, like the Dolce & Gabbana Spring 2018 runway, being a queen of hearts. Their recent Queen of Hearts collection was a show all about love and feminine power. It was a way of paying homage to the brand’s aesthetic and cultural history while celebrating the classic, dynamic D&G girl; she is strong, sensual, and, most importantly, in control. As it was for Dolce & Gabbana, the use of tarot imagery in Maria Grazia Chiuri’s Dior Resort 2018 collection was a choice rooted in history and in the creator’s own beliefs. The collection, shown in the mystic Santa Monica mountains, is both a nod to his fascination with tarot and a statement on the future of the brand. A recent Vogue article by Nicole Phelps explains how the designer used specific tarot imagery to communicate the significance of the project; the death card, associated with renewal and transformation, and the Tower card, indicative of change, were reflective of a new beginning since the end of Chiuri’s three decade long collaboration with Pierpaolo Piccioli.

The imagery on the Dior runway belonged to the Motherpeace Tarot, designed in the late ‘70s to introduce more inclusive tarot representations, and was used in collaboration with its creators, Karen Vogel and Vicki Noble. The deck, drawing on the female goddesses of indigenous peoples around the world, was innovative in its focus on matriarchal figures and on a more inclusive perception of tarot imagery. Dior’s use of it was a clear signal that times are changing.

Other designers, such as Clio Peppiatt, Alexander McQueen, and Gucci, with their evening gowns embellished with hearts pierced by daggers and recurring “FUTURE” slogans of Spring 2017, have presented collections influenced by tarot and witchcraft. And lest they leave their runway of queens without counterparts, the D&G’s Spring 2018 Men’s collection featured suits printed with images of playing cards and modified tarot prints.
Many attribute this growing fascination with card games and modern witchcraft to an increase in young, politically active women discovering these cultures online. Through its associations with witchcraft, mystery and sexual liberation, tarot has come to symbolise an awe and fear of feminine power. Modern witchcraft, and its representation in fashion, is a statement, a way for young women to reassert their political and personal agency in a Trumpian climate of hyper-masculinity.

A perfectly preserved corner of London speaks to modern Britain

Susie Finlay
-
0
A perfectly preserved corner of London speaks to modern Britain

Folgate Street is a narrow alley, tucked away in the heart of Spitalfields in London. Cobbled and flanked on both sides by teetering rows of terraced Georgian houses, it seems a perfectly preserved slice of the historic capital, as though pickled in some kind of invisible cultural formaldehyde.

That is, until you tilt your head upwards to gaze at the cool, glassy skyscrapers which cluster above, shadowing the little road with an intimidating confidence. Such is the inherent contradiction of this part of East London. It is an area deeply rooted in the past, home to crumbling brickwork and winding, gloomy alleys first inhabited by Huguenot silk weavers in the 17th Century. But the area is simultaneously the beating heart of modern Britain. After all, Old Street Roundabout, a mere five minute stroll from Folgate Street, is the UK’s unofficial answer to Silicon Valley.

Forty years ago however, Spitalfields had not yet been transformed by waves of iPad toting twentysomethings. On the contrary, as a result of bomb damage and decades of declining industry, this patch of London was more disheveled than ever before. However, it is precisely this dilapidation which prompted Dennis Severs to move into 18 Folgate Street in 1979. Severs grew up in Escondido, a small town in Southern California. Drenched in warm year-round West Coast sunlight, its wide boulevards and squat one-storey bungalows were about as far from Folgate Street as it was possible to get. But Severs, who would come home from school every day to watch British period dramas on TV, felt he had been born not just in the wrong country, but in the wrong era. He sought to turn his back on the present day. Folgate Street, in all its atmospheric disarray seemed the perfect stage on which to set the clock back.

Inside 18 Folgate Street, Severs set about perfecting his fantasy. He ripped out the electricity, plumbing and central heating, and redecorated the house, forcing his small corner of the world back into the past. In order to raise the funds necessary to maintain his unusual lifestyle, he decided to open the house to the public. It was Severs’ intention that as the visitor steps over the threshold of 18 Folgate Street, they should feel that they have passed not through a mere door, but through the very surface of a painting.

He dubbed this unique form of art ‘stilllife drama’. David Hockney described it as ‘one of the world’s greatest experiences’. Each room seems a canvas. A bowl of fuzzy apricots piled into a chipped china bowl in the kitchen is reminiscent of a Vermeer still life. The smoky quality of the light filtered through dusty windows in the dining room recalls Rembrandt. A pile of dirty linen casually heaped in a corner of the upstairs bedroom seems worthy of an oil painting in its own right. In one room, a Hogarth painting of a bawdy drinking scene is perfectly reflected by the room in which it hangs. Even an overturned glass of port splashed on the stained tablecloth echoes its two dimensional equivalent in the frame above. However, unlike the Old Masters, Severs’ canvases are alive: 18 Folgate Street is not merely a visual experience, but a multi-sensory one. The pungent smell of urine hovers around a chamber pot beside the bed. The faint sound of footsteps on the staircases above mingles with horse’s hooves on cobbles outside. A half-eaten Turkish Delight lies discarded next to a cup of coffee. The implication is that the house is still occupied. Notes scattered by Severs and family portraits hung around the house suggest that the inhabitants are a family of Huguenot silk weavers named Jervis.

Though they are only figments of Severs’ unusual imagination, the family seems undeniably present as you drift through the rooms. Here is where the motto of the house – ‘you either see it or you don’t’ – comes into play. “Still life drama” is a fine balancing act between the scene pre-prepared for the visitors, and the work the visitors must do themselves as they call on their imagination and suspend disbelief in order to fully participate in the living history of 18 Folgate Street.

Tours are conducted in silence, emphasising the responsibility of the visitor in enhancing their own experience. There is something eerie about the implication that you are visiting a house inhabited by ghosts, but there is equally an intimacy to the sense that the visitor has happened across these mundane domestic scenes, just at the moment that the inhabitants have left the room themselves.

The apparent constancies of family life throughout the centuries are also strangely tender: threads of hair tangled in a brush, an unmade bed, discarded children’s toys scattered across the floor. Dennis Severs’ house has been accused of being ahistorical. Indeed, the house is chaotic: below a Victorian bedroom, a Georgian dining room rubs shoulders with an Edwardian drawing room. There is a startling absence of factual information of any kind. But the result is that the experience at 18 Folgate Street is more emotive than a trip to a museum, and more immersive than a visit to an art exhibition. For a brief moment, Severs permits us to step through boundaries of the picture frame into the past.

1...827828829...2,516Page 828 of 2,516

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