Friday 8th May 2026
Blog Page 838

Vincent’s Club elects first female president

0

Vincent’s Club, the 155-year-old sports club known as ‘Vinnie’s’, has elected its first female president.

Sophie Taylor, a medicine student at St Catherine’s College, will step into the role next term following Tuesday night’s elections.

Taylor saw off three other presidential candidates – although the full election results remain confidential.

Vinnie’s, which was established in 1863, has a membership made up largely – but not exclusively – of Blues sportsmen and women.

It is based just off the High Street, at 1A King Edward’s Street.

The club has only admitted female members since 2016.

In 2015, the club’s members voted in favour of removing the word ‘male’ from its constitution, and thus admitting female members, but failed to reach the necessary two-thirds majority.

A year later, however, some 85 per cent of members voted in favour of the change.

Previously, to access the Vinnie’s clubhouse, a female student – or any other non-member – had to be invited as the guest of a member.

Taylor won her full Blue in 2016 as part of the women’s hockey side that beat Cambridge, and captained the women’s cricket Blues throughout the summer of 2017.

Outgoing president Ronan Llyr said that Taylor’s election represented “a historic moment for Vincent’s”.

“Sophie was the events secretary on the committee this year, a role which she carried out in a truly exemplary manner,” he said.

“I have every confidence in Sophie and look forward to offering my full support to her over the coming year.”

Taylor chose not to comment on her election.

Uni apologises after cleaner told to remove International Women’s Day graffiti

4

Oxford has apologised after a picture of a female cleaner scrubbing out the words “Happy International Women’s Day” from the Clarendon steps went viral.

Oxford Associate Professor of Political theory, Dr Sophie Smith, tweeted the photo of an unidentified cleaner scrubbing off the chalk graffiti, prompting an angry backlash and over 3,000 retweets.

Smith claimed an onlooking group of male university security officials had made the cleaner remove the graffitti.

The image was branded “shameful” by some Twitter users, with one saying: “having a woman scrub off chalk that says Happy International Woman’s Day while some blokes stand around in the background isn’t a good look.”

Twitter user Jessie Raymond added: “A picture’s worth a thousand words.”

Others remarked on the poignancy of the image, with one tweeting: “Wow. Is this a photo or a Banksy?”

Oxford University apologised for the incident, saying it was “deeply sorry”.

In response, Smith demanded the university give the cleaner “a heartfelt apology, a warm cup of tea, the rest of the day off and, along with all our precarious staff, good enough pay to live in this city.”

The incident followed an International Women’s Day rally organised by picketing UCU trade unionists and students outside the Clarendon Building.

Union elections marred by voting blunder

1

A candidate in last week’s Oxford Union elections has been denied a spot on the Secretary’s Committee despite winning more votes than his nearest rival.

According to initial results Rai Saad Khan, who was running on the ‘Ignite’ slate, was narrowly beaten to the final position on the committee by ‘Reform’ candidate Mo Iman.

However, last night the Union’s returning officer stumbled upon a spreadsheet error which had undervalued Khan’s votes, meaning he should have been elected.

As no complaint was registered in the 48 hours following the close of the poll, the society said it would not amend the results to the correct outcome – a decision which prompted Khan to question “the democratic nature of the Union”.

Last week saw the first contested Union presidential election in five terms, with the race for Secretary’s Committee also being remarkably competitive.

Only the first eleven of over twenty candidates would make it onto the committee, and the results announced on Saturday morning showed that Iman had just pipped Khan to the final spot.

However, last night a mistake with the vote count was discovered. In a document outlining what happened, the returning officer said he had “discovered an error in the Excel spreadsheet formula for vote change for Rai Saad Khan.

“I subsequently went through the spreadsheet to investigate whether there were any further errors, and also produced a corrected version,” he said. “I asked an ex-Returning Officer trained in using STV [Single Transferrable Voting] to independently confirm this.”

He discovered that Khan should have had a vote value of 86.298 by the final round. Mo Iman, meanwhile, only had a vote value of 81.490. As such, Iman should have been eliminated in the final round, with Khan taking his place on Secretary’s Committee.

Despite this error being clear and the returning officer labelling it “an injustice”, he concluded he could not change the result. Union Rule 33(b)(vii)(1) states that the Returning Officer may order a recount if an error is brought to his attention within 48 hours of the close of the poll, meaning the deadline had long passed when the mistake was discovered.

Rai Saad Khan told Cherwell: “I deeply regret the turn of events, and sincerely hope Mo resigns on his own accord, as it is unfair for all those who are elected on committee and those who didn’t get elected.”

Khan also expressed his frustration at the Union’s rules. He told Cherwell: “Rules such as 33b vii(1) that still exist within the Union highly call into the question the democratic nature of the Union, and it is deeply troubling that all malpractices or violation of elections laws are protected beyond a 48 hour period, such that even when evidence of a miscount or illegal electorial acts do arise, the elected members are protected at the cost of ordinary members and voters.

“This rule is made to benefit the elected members, and is another sign of prestige and inequality within the Union that needs to be changed.”

The returning officer of the Oxford Union did not wish to comment.

The electoral blunder follows reports of infighting at the upper echelons of the society.

In a recent meeting of the Union’s Standing Committee, outgoing Secretary and defeated presidential candidate Molly Greenwood accused President Laali Vadlamani of acting “very unprofessionally on many levels”.

Tensions had first been raised early on Monday morning, when the agenda for the meeting detailed Greenwood’s intention to make a statement regarding “the unacceptable conduct of the President, Laali Vadlamani”.

However, when she stated her intention to read this out, there was an objection from the sitting Librarian, Sabriyah Saeed. She referred to Standing Order B6, stating that the agenda had not been sent out in due time by the Secretary and thus that Greenwood’s statement should not be heard.

Greenwood argued that the President had already made statements which were not highlighted on the agenda, such as accusing Greenwood of the “serious offence” of failing to provide minutes of previous meetings on time.

The objection was seconded by Treasurer – and winner of last week’s presidential election against Greenwood – Stephen Horvath. This meant the statement could not be made, as per Union rules.

After this heated exchange, it seemed that Greenwood had been silenced. However, when Horvath proposed a vote of thanks to President Vadlamani, referencing her efforts to improve the diversity of speakers at the Union, Greenwood made an objection on the grounds that she had “acted very unprofessionally on many levels”.

The vote of thanks went on to pass immediately with no further opposition, and the fractious meeting was brought to an end.

Saeed, who first objected to the reading out of Greenwood’s statement, told Cherwell: “I believed that it was improper for this business to be brought to Standing Committee and under standing order B6 I exercised my right to object to it being brought forward.

“The reason B6 is not always invoked where it might be is due to the fact that the Standing Committee often needs to deal with business arising less than 48 hours prior to the meeting, and in such cases the invocation of B6 would prevent it from acting on its duty towards the general membership.”

Vadlamani and Greenwood declined to comment.

Laura Freeman: “If you are unwell, you have to find the thing that motivates you”

0

Journalist Laura Freeman’s biblio memoir The Reading Cure charts her voracious reading habits, and the recovery from a more dangerous obsession that accompanies it.

Since Freeman was diagnosed with anorexia nervosa at the age of 14, a love of literature has provided a constant throughout the “for every two strides forward there was a lurch back” unpredictability of recovery.

In describing those initial days, Freeman is firm in her refusal to glamorise anorexia: “When I was told I must try some new food I behaved like a captured animal chained to the table leg, wild with distress.” Constructing a metaphor of her ideal mind as a library, with thoughts stacked neatly like books, Freeman sets about re-ordering the shelves torn down by illness. Steering this is the hunt for literature’s finest scenes of food, a preoccupation which encouraged her to break the cycle of repetitive and restrictive meals. First it is Mrs Cratchit’s plum pudding, next comes a hearty breakfast of “eggs for zest” with Siegfried Sassoon. Meanwhile, the recipe for Mesdame Poulard’s perfect omelette is a revelation. Laura stomps out the rhythm – “Break, beat, butter, shake” – re-learning to eat as if choreographed into dance.

Speaking to Cherwell, Freeman considers at what point she felt ready to write about her experience. It was not about reaching a significant milestone of recovery, but the realisation that younger girls might benefit from this kind of book. She thought that if she “could tell a story that’s actually positive, one that isn’t a misery memoir, then that would be a good thing.” Did she envision other people suffering with anorexia among her readership? “Not exclusively” she says. The book is “for anyone who loves books or is interested in food writing, who has struggled with anorexia or looking after someone with anorexia, or who has…felt that their mind has been against them.”

Even so, Freeman admits that certain scenes might be difficult for someone with the illness. Does this mean she advocates trigger warnings? She isn’t particularly set on their increasing usage, as such a protective move “rather patronises the individual and takes away the bit of agency of being able to say ‘I am strong enough to cope with this’”. Freeman expects her reader to be responsible. I inquire whether, given she attended Cambridge and then pursued a career in journalism, one might not consider Freeman responsible as well. She has repeatedly opened herself up to the risk of criticism, negotiating the draining presence of this illness while vulnerable and overworked. Freeman is characteristically unfussed by this, recalling how in finding student journalism, “the bustle and hum of a newsroom were so attractive that that outweighed any nervousness about going into that world.”

Upon graduation, she completed nearly 80 job applications in the first eight months. When the opportunity arose to start at the Daily Mail, she admits “I was so relieved to have a job that I think worries about risk didn’t really come into it.” Notably, Freeman has thrived doing anything that takes her out of hr illness, finding solace in walking, art and her journalism.

Freeman is adamant that reading itself is not the prescription: “I think the message is that if you are very unwell and in despair you have to find the thing that motivates you that makes it worth getting better for, and for me that has been books and reading and writing.”

With so much to be positive about, do I dare tackle the oft contentious question of modern food politics? Flippant food trends can have serious repercussions, and Freeman attributes the emergence of the clean eating movement to a near relapse in 2014. Should bloggers be held responsible for misleading nutritional information? With punchy phrases like “kale saints and chocolate sirens,” Freeman uses her book to ridicule, rather than rail against the idiocy of our new discourse around food. She prefers not to be afraid, instead laughing at the inadequacy of courgetti as a replacement for pasta. Nevertheless, she laments the narrow definition of wellness proposed by an industry that advocates a vegan, dairy-free, gluten-free, and sugar-free lifestyle.

“If I look at what I eat I have porridge with milk, and tea with milk, and roast chicken and new potatoes, and tarte tatin, and rhubard crumble, and Greek yoghurt, and scrambled eggs, and poached eggs, and boiled eggs, and I feel well, I am well, and I feel strong and resilient, and that for me has to be what wellness is.”

Let us not forget that Freeman lost her teenage years to this illness. Having nearly been sent hurtling back to that former anguish, I find her outlook incredibly forgiving. Similarly, when I mention Doritos’ recent plans for a ‘female-friendly’ crisp, she laughs heartily at the gendering of food for supposedly dainty women.

But Freeman is serious about the profound impact of attaching moral value to food. If restraint is virtue and indulgence is vice, both are equally harmful ideas. She regrets the way in which advertising of ‘guilt-free’ and ‘naughty’ foods is targeted at women. She suggests: “I do think we should be more bolshie than the advertisers would have us be.”

This word ‘bolshie’ sticks with me. Freeman is no stranger to unusual words, and her book is peppered with discoveries of novelty utensils (truckle, jorum, dixy, and pottle abound), all of which help to make the actual eating less daunting. Throughout these multifarious discoveries of words and characters, I find that it is the people in Freeman’s life who deserve the most credit.

Recovery is a solo-marathon, but their steady presence provides crucial support. Freeman concurs wholeheartedly, arguing that “the heroine of the book is not Virginia Woolf, and it’s not J.K. Rowling, it is my mum.” We cannot all have the infinite patience of her mother, but we can do our best to make an apparently vulnerable person feel welcome.

After a dismal freshers’ week, running solely on oat cakes eaten in isolation, Freeman describes how an invitation to share a stir-fry provided the turning point she so desperately needed.

Conjured from the electric hob and eaten crowded around a bedroom floor, she finds that “in company and with these strangers who would become friends, I could eat.” May we help each other to keep the minds-library in place.

Commercialism kills artistic legacy

0

The music world seemed to have a unanimous thought on the morning that news broke of David Bowie’s death in January 2016. His album Blackstar, released just two days previously, instantaneously became a treasure-chest of significances. What was he trying to tell us? Lyrics analysed, music videos pulled apart and his private life — that is, his decision to keep his cancer diagnosis out of the public eye — opened out in a media frenzy. It was a bizarre blend of international mourning and interrogative entitlement.

According to Official Charts, more than five million Bowie records have been sold in the last two years. This includes greatest hit releases, anniversary picture discs, and as recently as this year, re-issues of original demos. It was certainly a lucrative time for record companies, as the perpetuation of the memory of one of the most well-loved pop stars ever is a nearcertain way to produce profit, espescially at a time when Spotify-led, algorithmic processes sell music on an increasingly whimsical, ‘hyperpersonalised’ basis.

The lure of a nine-time platinum selling musician to compete against the potentially fake artists which constitute streamed playlists and save Spotify millions in royalties is clearly just too strong. But the impact on how we remember the man himself is far more complex. However Bowie’s identity is now caught up in a mercenary battlefield which forgets the spirit of the artist and reproduces it in the interests of modern-day market demands.

The same is true for other highprofile figures — Graceland, ‘The Home of Elvis Presley’, in Tennessee offers anyone willing to pay $169 an Ultimate VIP Tour. The result of this mass commodification of memory is a net worth, on the 40th anniversary of Presley’s death, of $300 million.

Tragic circumstances around Amy Winehouse’s death were handled with delicacy and intimacy in the 2015 film Amy which received critical acclaim (rated five out of five by The Guardian’s Peter Bradshaw) and has become the highestgrossing British documentary film of all time. Her family’s response, however, was far from congruent with positive public reaction. Her father Mick claimed there are “basic untruths” and if people want to remember Amy and enjoy her art, they should individually listen to her music and video content instead. He later proposed an alternative, “more accurate” film to include details of his assistance with addiction treatment, as in the film he is portrayed as actively opposing Amy’s rehabilitation.

If there is dissension in how someone’s life facts are recorded and presented, how is it possible, in media and art, to do justice to the more subjective concept of their memory? There is a fundamental discord in the approach to comprehending someone’s memory. This results in a distortion in our view of who they are; their legacy becomes fragmentary splinters of constant, alternative interpretations, leading to collective commemoration away from the original figure.

These commercialisations of memory are odd incarnations of the elegiac form. In the place of a personal handling of grief has come the intense socialisation of how a person is remembered: there is debate over which aspects should be celebrated, invasion into the most intimate parts of their home, and outrage at decisions about privacy.

Of course, elegies have existed since ancient Latin poetry and various forms of media and art have adopted elegiac modes in order to process death, such as the enchanting, minimalist illustrations of Mari Andrew, or grief blogs like ‘Diary of a Widower’; they hold a kind of cool closeness with lost loved ones.

As a genre, its purpose is to provide a transcendence of original pain, enforce recognition, and stimulate disclosure. Freud famously wrote in his 1917 essay ‘Mourning and Melancholia’ that an elegy is a ‘work of mourning’ by being both about mourning and helping the creator to work through their grief. It is a genre entirely personal, and at once medicinal for those in pain and restorative to the memory of those passed.

The modern elegy has seen its multivalence expanded into tweets, tours, films and anniversary release discs. It has become increasingly difficult to ignore the financial agenda that infuses itself into the public arena of remembrance. Tennyson’s 1849 poem In Memoriam A.H.H., which took 16 years to write and was not even conceived with publication intended, seems a lexicalised therapy session that is numbingly repetitive, but rewarding in its intimacy. Kenny Ortega’s documentary-concert film This Is It, released in October 2009, is intimate too, with footage of Michael Jackson in the last rehearsals before his death just four months previously, but somehow feels invasive and exploitative, a view shared by the countless fans who held boycotts.

Commercialised associations of an individual appear as false impressions repeatedly compressed and repackaged. The memory of the person is at risk of becoming inauthentic and deflated, a version of the original which is easy to access and profitable. Remembrance is supposed to be complicated and difficult, hard to read and hard to watch. Shiny shows and anniversary editions remove the personal from the person. When the figure in question is no longer alive to keep their identity up-to-date and in their control, there is a serious risk that their memory is repurposed for consumerist ends.

We would do well to realise that memory is, and always will be, a mere construction of our imaginative reality. When the remembered is absent, we ought to keep our constructions between us and the lost subject, so that memory — and mourning — is idiosyncratic, respectful, and above all, demarketed.

Adwoa Aboah: Dreamgirl

0

I love Adwoa Aboah.. But I don’t really know how to convey my love for this woman. When I first think of her, her insane beauty comes to mind. Check bones so sharp you could mandolin vegetables on them, espresso shot eyes and a perfect, freckled almost sepia complexion. Yet, sharper, even than her cheekbones, is her intellect and vocal criticisms of the fashion industry.

She leads frank discussions around about mental health, body image and sexuality. Aboah uses Gurls Talk, the online platform she founded, to tackle issues ranging from imagery of black women in the media to the impact of social media on self-esteem. So that’s pretty great. A model who is using her position to scrutinize the fashion industry and address issues in earnest. She is passionate, opinionated and serious.

These qualities distinguish her from many other models out there. When Aboah gets video interviewed by Vogue she speaks compellingly, using her platform to challenge the very real diversity problem still highly visible in the fashion industry. This is serves as a refreshing break from the manner in which other models conduct themselves in interviews. There is no girlish prancing around, feigning giggles in a sickly-sweet manner (cough Poppy Delevigne, Gigi Hadid, Karlie Kloss etc.). She doesn’t want to be adorable. She looks the camera dead on and in her deep gravelly voice tells everyone why it’s all bullshit.

And that is exactly what Adwoa Aboah did last week when she gave a speech at the opening ceremony of London Fashion Week. She used the opportunity to highlight the recent allegations of abuse of models at the hands of powerful figures in the industry. Aboah praised Conde Nast and Kering/LVMH for their respective Model Charters, both of which are designed to implement positive change within their respective businesses. She describes how such efforts provide her with a growing sense of comfort and confidence, assured that we are taking the right steps.

This is the first move towards systematically changing the way we work collectively to protect the safety and rights of models in the industry. She stressed that the British Fashion Council must question how the fashion industry could better represent “the reality of our larger community and provide our next generation a proper example of what they see around them every single day?”. Her conclusion was extremely powerful “as a model and as a woman – I want to challenge each and every one of you today to think about what your role is within this industry and what you are going to do to ensure that you use your own voices to help change the system that has allowed such rampant abuse of power and fear to take advantage of so many that have not have voice. I plan to continue to use mine – and I challenge you today to do the same with yours.” Brilliant. Just really brilliant. That speech encapsulates all the reasons why, and this is not an overstatement, Aboah is one of the best role models that the fashion industry has ever produced.

But what is more courageous than Adwoa Aboah’s tenacity to critique the fashion industry, is her own candid discussion of her mental health struggles. I really (really!) implore you to watch her amazingly candid and honest video interview for The What’s Underneath Project by StyleLikeU. Aboah takes off her clothes while speaking frankly about her experiences of depression and addiction. Watching that interview really affected me more than I can say. I have struggled with some pretty serious mental health issues myself, and one thing that I have always found extremely hard is talking honestly, openly and accurately about my experiences.

There is still a huge amount of stigma around mental health. And a lot of that stigma may not even be external. People are more informed today than they perhaps even have been about mental health. But what many people who suffer from mental health conditions, myself included, find is that the people harshest on them for having these “issues” are themselves. It can be really difficult and uncomfortable to talk to even your closets friends about what’s actually “going on with you”, when you’re filled with self-loathing and embarrassment about whatever the hell is going on, because you yourself don’t really understand.

How the hell do you go about finding rational sentences among irrational web being spun inside your head? Should I even release these thoughts to the world outside my head? And then comes Adowa. “I just didn’t want to be Adwoa” So simple. So direct. So honest. “I was like, ‘F***, I don’t even know how to be this person. That self-hatred is something I work on on a daily basis.” Talking about anxiety, self-hatred, substance abuse and suicide attempts with clarity is not easy. However, she eloquently addresses the complexities of her personal struggles with the same forceful directness she employs in her political activism.

Often, and most especially when I’ve had a few drinks with friends, and the subject of mental health or my own mental health issues come up, I get very animated and suddenly find myself 20 minutes later deep into a Adowa Aboah based rant. I am sure my company appreciate the rambles, but just to make sure they don’t forget I will inbox them all the link to the StylelikeU interview I have been discussing. I realise now that in this article is many ways the written form of that same drunken adoring Adowa Aboah chatter.

Yet, the way I find myself depending and falling back on Aboah to navigate difficult discussions is case in point of her brilliance. She is helping young women formulate a dialogue around and broach the immensely difficult issue of mental health in a novel way.  She is making young women (or at the very least this young woman) engage with and feel animated by important issues, forcing them to reevaluate their political and personal spheres.

Labyrinth preview – ‘an impressive blend of exciting text and creative movement’

0

Labyrinth tells the story of the Minotaur in King Minos’ labyrinth, with one important difference: it is written from the monster’s point of view. Adapted from the Borges work The House of Asterion, the company has shown a wide range of innovative and enthralling techniques in order to reinvent this ancient myth. Each character has two actors playing them, each revealing different aspects of their personality.

It was interesting to see how the actors interacted with each other, whether it was Asterion, (played by Math Roberts and Harry Berry) battling with his own conflicting personas, or Ariadne (Alma Prelec and Kristen Cope) and Theseus (Patrick Orme and Jeremiah O’Mahony) exploring their relationship together with both visual and verbal language. Working from a script co-written by Nick Smart and Krysianna Papadakis, the actors devised a lot of the scenes themselves, using physical theatre to unite all of the action.

Watching the first scene, in which Asterion tells us of the hardship of his isolation, this physicality becomes integral. The two actors showed themselves to be playing the same character by working so close together, their movements reflecting the other’s speech and entwining in moments of heated tension. The physicality made this scene clear, without being too overpowering, and the movement was choreographed to work seamlessly with the dialogue. This was the same with the second scene I saw, where Ariadne and Theseus both watched the Minotaur, mocking him in his isolation.

Again, physicality was used to bring out the tensions between the two mockers, as the ‘other’ Ariadne and Theseus played out a romantic to and fro. The spacing was masterfully balanced here, and there was always something going on in every corner of the stage, without any one movement taking precedent over the others. Here, Theseus and Ariadne presented a strained relationship, the awkwardness of their communication coming out in Alma Prelec’s delicate portrayal of a fiery Ariadne, while Patrick Orme played up the sadism towards the Minotaur to an unnerving extent.

Labyrinth is set to be an impressive blend of exciting text and creative movement. Though interpretations of such famous myths can sometimes go astray, it seems like the actors and directors have worked hard to inject new life into the story, and to bring out different aspects of each character individually, and their relationships with the others.

Exclusive: Blues announce Varsity football squads

0

Cherwell can reveal the Blues football squads ahead of this year’s Varsity matches on 25 March.

Captains Alex Urwin and Maddie Hooper have both confirmed the players that they will hope can play their part in doing the double for the third year in a row.

Urwin is one of six returning Blues in the men’s squad, alongside his likely centre-back partners Sam Hale and Cian Wade, midfielders Laurence Wroe and Wulfie Bain, and last year’s Varsity hero Dom Thelen.

There are few surprises among the women’s squad, as Hooper has largely opted to keep faith with the side that sealed the Bucs Midlands 2B title two weeks ago.

Her side are undefeated in 2018, and have the opportunity to seal the double on Wednesday in the Midlands Conference Cup final against Oxford Brookes – victory in that game would mean seven wins out of seven since the turn of the year.

The men’s side face an important game of their own on Wednesday. The Blues will play Cambridge for the second time in a matter of weeks, and, after a 1-0 win last time out sealed the league title for the Light Blues, Oxford will be desperate to make a statement of intent before Varsity.

Maddie Hooper’s side celebrate their 8-0 win against Northampton, which sealed the league title.

Hooper herself will form part of a formidable defence, alongside Claudia Hill and Lucy Harper. The trio acquitted themselves well in last year’s Varsity against an impressive Cambridge attack, and have all impressed this season.

Indeed, Hill and Harper recently faced off in the inaugural Hassan’s Cup final; and despite a dominant performance from Harper – who scored a thirty-five yard screamer – it was the Saints’ Hill that prevailed.

However, Oxford’s key player will undoubtedly be Sherona Forrester.

The Jamaica international has been a huge addition to the side this year, and her quality has been felt whenever she has played.

In the men’s fixture, Urwin faces a difficult decision regarding the identity of his goalkeeper.

Sean Gleeson, an unused substitute in the past two Varsities, has been the first-choice stopper this season, but is coming back from injury.

Meanwhile, his understudy, Harry Langham, has made few mistakes while deputising, conceding just twice in his three recent starts.

Dom Thelen, playing in his third Varsity, will be the key man up front, and will hope to repeat last year’s match-winning heroics: he scored one and set up another in Oxford’s dramatic 3-2 victory.

Thelen celebrates his goal in last year’s Varsity (Photo: David Bauckham/Centre Circle Publishing)

This year’s Varsity will be the first since 2012 not to feature last year’s man-of-the-match, Michael Moneke. The centre-back was an influential figure in his time at Oxford, but this year’s settled back three of Urwin, Wade and Hale will do their best to ensure that his presence is not felt.

As Cherwell reported in January, this year’s double-header, which will again be held at The Hive, Barnet, sees the men’s match played before the women’s fixture.

It will be the first time in a major sport that the women’s match has formed the second half of a double-header.

The men’s game will kick off at 2pm, with the women’s match to follow at 5pm.

Men’s Squad: Sean Gleeson (Exeter), Jamie Shaw (Hertford), Leo Ackerman (Somerville), Laurence Wroe* (Pembroke), Cian Wade* (Green Templeton, vice-captain), Sam Hale* (Worceseter), Mo Eghleilib (Harris Manchester), Wulfie Bain* (Brasenose), Dominic Thelen* (Wycliffe Hall), Till Wicker (St Catherine’s), Takahiro Tsunoda (Wolfson), Jack Witt (Hertford), Alex Urwin* (Exeter, captain), Tom Faktor (Pembroke), Harry Langham (Wadham), Matthew Naylor (Merton).

Women’s Squad: Anna Garcia (Magdalen), Maddie Hooper* (LMH, captain), Isabel Stainsby (New College), Claudia Hill* (Linacre), Sherona Forrester (Linacre), Louise Nolan* (Wadham), Kiah Rutz (Kellogg), Lucy Harper* (St. Peters), Helen Bridgman (St Hugh’s), Ellana Slade* (Trinity), Brigid Lahiff (Regent’s), Erin Robinson (Oriel), Katie Plummer* (Wadham), Beverly Leon (Green Templeton), Mary Hintze (Trinity).

* denotes returning blue.

Vice chancellor u-turns on UCU strike

2

Oxford’s vice chancellor, Louise Richardson, has signalled a change of policy on the University’s position on a Universities UK (UUK) survey about pensions.

The survey was used to justify the controversial changes to the pension fund, citing that 42 per cent of institutions, including Oxford, wanted the scheme to have “less risk”.

The Oxford University and College Union (UCU) branch have praised the decision saying that “Oxford Uni will now be able to hold its head up high”.

In an email sent to staff this morning, Richardson wrote: “In light of the depth of feeling of so many colleagues we will convene a special meeting of Council today at noon and will be recommending that Council reverse its response to the UUK survey in line with Congregation’s resolution.”

It follows a tense meeting of Congregation, Oxford’s governing body, yesterday where dons vowed “we’re not done” after some members of university management successfully blocked a vote on pensions at Congregation today.

After the vote was blocked, dons in attendance held a symbolic vote in support of the resolution outside in the Old Bodleian library quad. The resolution passed by 418 votes to two.

She also explained why she was not present at yesterday’s meeting. She wrote: “I was very sorry not to be there myself but I had scheduled a trip to New York on university business before the meeting of Congregation was called.”

She added: “I also hope that we will be able to work together to help bridge the divide between UUK and UCU in the ongoing negotiations. The future of our pensions is a shared interest for so many members of this University that we must try to find common ground…”

“In the coming days we will look for ways to improve our engagement with staff so that all members of our community are able to speak and be heard on this very important issue.”

The President of the Oxford UCU branch, Garrick Taylor, told Cherwell: “Oxford UCU very much welcome this news, which will undoubtedly let us move into a position where the industrial dispute can end, if UUK listen to what is now without doubt the predominant view of UK universities.

“Oxford Uni will now be able to hold its head up high knowing that it is no longer pushing for the end of the defined benefit scheme that will ensure the financial welfare in retirement of tens of thousands of staff in USS eligible universities in the UK.”

Richardson’s u-turn comes after leaked University UK documents (UUK) seemed to reveal that Oxford colleges played a major role in pushing through the changes to academics’ pensions which have provoked nationwide strikes.

The data showed that each Oxbridge college was counted as an individual institution in a survey used to set the policy, which potentially gave them disproportionate influence in comparison to other British universities.

The University has been contacted for comment.

The Flick preview – ‘there’s even going to be popcorn’

“We call this the walkthrough…” begins Peter Madden as Sam, in the first scene I’m shown on Tuesday. I’m only watching a rehearsal in the Balliol music room, but this doesn’t feel like a walkthrough; the acting is tight, controlled and impressive.

And ‘The Flick’ really is a play about the acting. Annie Baker’s 2014 Pulitzer Prize-winning drama features only four characters, employees of a cinema that is going digital. The interactions between each of the characters demonstrate the difficulty of balancing humour and friendliness while retaining the formality and hierarchy of the workplace, with all of this masking true emotion. Isabel Ion’s production covers this well: the play is funny, but tense. The words left unspoken are as important as those that are.

Sam’s ‘walkthrough’ is a scene in which he’s showing new recruit Avery (played by Lee Simmonds) how to sweep the rubbish in the auditorium after a film. Simmonds draws out the humour of following Madden round with a mop, but not to the point of fully realising this scene’s slapstick potential. This isn’t a bad thing; if perhaps it sacrifices a few laughs, it creates a more powerful atmosphere. We are left with the irony of watching a scene filled with anticipation, set after the audience has finished watching a film and left.

There is a strong homosocial tension between Sam and Avery. Madden tells me that Sam is always “trying not to let his guard down”, and that the authority he has over “inexperienced” colleagues makes him “feel like he’s worth something”. As this power dynamic equalises, Sam loses authority and insecurities bubble towards the surface.

I mention to the cast that silence seemed an integral part of this production, and my comment’s greeted with laughter. It turns out that this has been a real point of focus in rehearsal, and one that Ion had been reminding them of earlier that day. The hard work paid off: it’s the stand-out strength of the performances. Ion has a number of productions under her belt at this point, but states that this aspect of ‘The Flick’ gives it more unique challenges. It is “muted” and “low energy (but not in a bad way!)”. She says she wanted the dialogue to sound “natural”: “when we talk in reality we don’t express ourselves within the planned narratorial arc of a scene”, and “we sit in silence when we don’t know what to say”. This is demanding on the actors; silence puts more focus on their physical acting, but this doesn’t present the cast with any problems.

As momentum builds, we have a focus on the theme of speech. Lines on this topic come in quick succession: “just say it”, “I remember saying that”, “What did he say”, “I’ve been saying that shit for years”, anticipating the climactic scenes where the characters let release all the stored-up emotion.

When these moments finally arrive, they are worth the wait. An explosive scene between Sam and Antonia Clarke’s ‘Rose’ throws moral shade onto both characters. Avery’s big moment comes in a recital of Samuel Jackson’s classic ‘Ezekiel 25:17’ speech. Performing such an iconic monologue is a daunting task, but Simmonds pulls it off. Baker’s inclusion of this speech is clever; just as Jules in Pulp Fiction reinterprets the biblical passage for the situations he finds himself in, Avery reinterprets the Pulp Fiction scene for his own.

The inclusion of such film references is one of many ways that the mediums of film and theatre overlap or clash in this show. Ion even links this to the theme of a need for intimacy that recurs in the play; while “all the longing and desire seems to come from the escapism film offers” the “physical intimacy” of theatre (“especially in The Pilch!”) creates a sense of immediacy and involvement that contradicts the detached experience of watching a film.

The set design by Lewis Hunt promises to make this involvement even more exaggerated. The Pilch is going to be ‘reversed’, with the audience facing the usual seating and doors. A haze machine is going to recreate the projector beam, and the team have been to Malvern to acquire some authentic old seats from a cinema “which was shut down in the new digital age, much like the upgrading cinema in the play”. As a final touch if you’re not already persuaded – there’s even going to be popcorn.