Saturday, May 17, 2025
Blog Page 859

St Hugh’s JCR votes for “the alpacas this college deserves”

0

St Hugh’s College JCR voted this week in favour of a motion entitled “The alpacas this college deserves,” which proposed to investigate the purchase of a college alpaca.

The motion, which passed by 26 votes to four, followed from the Hugh’s MCR welfare reps organising visits by alpacas to the college.

The motion stated: “Everyone in college at the time [of the visit] enjoyed the alpacas immensely, as evidenced by the number of Facebook posts and Instagram photos,” as well as noting that “alpacas are fluffy and cute and adorable and basically represent everything good in this world”.

The motion supported the idea of a pet alpaca on student welfare grounds, as “seeing them on a daily basis would significantly increase student welfare”.

The motion resolved to “mandate the JCR Committee to look into getting an alpaca as a college pet”, and “to look into the practical elements and care required for having an alpaca permanently on college”.

The JCR Committee will report on their findings at the next JCR Meeting.

Deborah Walnicki, the MCR Welfare Rep who organised the alpaca visit, told Cherwell: “We were inspired by an event that took place in Michaelmas term… we were able to bring four halter-trained alpacas for four hours.

“The event brought together the MCR, JCR, and college staff in a unique way. Furthermore, studies have shown therapeutic benefits associated with spending time outdoors, as well as interacting with animals.”

Many colleges already have college pets, ranging from cats and dogs to tortoises, including Regents Park College’s pet tortoise Emmanuelle, who recently celebrated her 114th birthday.

Corpus Christi College even has a Facebook page entitled ‘The Corpus Christi College Tortoise’ which describes itself as ‘The official page of Foxe, the tortoise of Corpus Christi’.

JCR President Ana Pavlova told Cherwell: “The St Hugh’s JCR passed a motion mandating the JCR Committee to look into the practical aspects of getting two alpacas for the college. The motion was proposed following an MCR-organised welfare event with four alpacas which prompted an alpacalypse of photos with the hashtag “#hughsalpacas” on social media.”

Pavlova added: “The JCR believes that getting two alpacas to reside in St Hugh’s on a permanent basis would greatly improve student welfare and we also have some ideas involving expanding the range of college stash to include some alpaca-fur jumpers.”

Not Wong: In defence of lived experiences

0

Amidst the increasingly trendy fashion of bashing mainstream progressive concepts, an underlying theme consistently crops up—an allegation that progressives are ‘exclusionary’ and epistemically myopic, confined perpetually to ‘attacking the person’ instead of the arguments. Indeed, when coupled with essentialist reductions and exaggerated hyperboles of ‘privilege’, such criticisms appear almost persuasive—the progressive is portrayed as a detached member of the ‘liberal metropolitan elite’, and the concept of ‘lived experiences’ becomes part of the weaponry deployed by the Revolutionary Guard to secure their ideological agenda.

Such characterisations cannot, and do not, stand. Whilst a thorough purveying of all progressive concepts would not fit the word limit (nor the spirit of this blog), I’d like to focus on lived experiences, and make a case for why—despite the seemingly exclusionary and elitist connotations the term has acquired amongst reactionaries—it serves a crucial role in social movements and campaigns for social justice. A person’s lived experience refers to the first-hand accounts and knowledge of the individual. When applied in the context of social justice, it typically refers to the localised and marginalised knowledges (cf. Foucault, 1969) of individuals that are accorded or granted epistemic privilege by social movements seeking to rectify injustices perpetuated against them.

Two preliminary comments must be made beforehand. First, I do not believe that individuals should ever be universally silenced across all spaces and contexts because they lack the lived experiences pertaining to a particular topic (that’s the twisted premise upon which the misguided view that ‘social justice warriors hate free speech’ is constructed). Second, lived experience does not operate as a threshold concept, but as a continuum that is mediated by degrees of privilege. A relatively wealthy Chinese student studying in the UK has a very different lived experience to a first-generation Chinese immigrant working a low-pay job, whilst a white gay man may have a very different understanding of the implications of queerness to a black woman residing in a country where the law enforcement is heavily racialised and prejudiced towards her.

These may be crude generalisations, but the essence is clear: lived experiences are heterogeneous and multi-faceted, and they ought to be taken with varying pinches of salt. It would be absurd for me to claim, as a Chinese student, that I have the ‘lived experience of working in Chinatown’. Lived experience is a qualifier, but in its qualifying it also disqualifies those who do not meet its necessary criterion.

Valuing lived experience allows for the identification of otherwise invisible problems, and encourages individuals to collectivise and mobilise in lobbying for political action. There’s no need to grapple with unnecessary struggles over the desideratum of social justice. Whether it be equality grounded in terms of relations, resources, or advantages, a salient feature of most prominent theories of justice is their emphasis upon the subjective experience of the individual. Lived experience is epistemically valuable here for three reasons:

  • The privileging of mainstream discourse—problems affecting a quantitative minority are often underreported in mass media, which respond either actively to political incentives, or passively to the absence of market demand, in underreporting abuses or injustices confronting minorities. Consider, for instance, the fact that entertainment news occupies a far greater share of public discussion than instances of racially motivated hate crimes or implicit misogyny, which—due either to their obscurity or ubiquity, respectively—are systemically underreported. Valuing lived experiences not only allows the subjective reports of the realistic cases of violations to be reported and brought out into the open. It also encourages more individuals to step forth, upon their realising that their efforts to seek publicity and reparations are not futile.

 

  • The ignorance of sympathetic allies—suppose that there exist sympathetic allies who are generally interested in the cause of resisting oppression. The trouble with a lot of oppressive experiences is that it is never possible for those who haven’t endured them to imagine or genuinely understand. The sceptic may posit: “Surely, oppression is just feeling bad and miserable, right?” But such homogenising statements ignore the heterogeneity of experiences. Analogies could be drawn to ‘exceptional’ experiences like skydiving, or seeing the Grand Canyon and/or the Taj Mahal in person, or tasting live octopus. It may be possible to analogise and make comparisons within families of resemblances—but there exist fundamental difficulties in explaining highly unique sensations like experiencing the Grand Canyon, or tasting live octopus, or skydiving. This is also the case with the even greater difficulties of accounting for what specific forms of oppression feel like to individuals who have, at best, only experiences of other types of oppressions in their memories. As I said above—it would be impossible for me, even if I were to have the best of intentions and the most imaginative of minds, to genuinely understand how a first-generation Chinese immigrant feels as he travels to work and is subjected to deeply racialised abuse on the streets of London. There are elements of similarity, but these elements of similarity are diluted by the gaps and differences which define our relations. Let alone consider the statement proclaimed by certain cis-, het-allies that they really do understand what being trans, or gay, or lesbian, or non-binary means.

 

  • The skewing of discussion platforms—a lot of ‘free speech advocates’ enjoy positing that their views have come under increased attack in certain spaces, such as in academic sites such as universities. To an extent, I think that they are correct, and there is valid cause for concern: there are instances of no-platforming that have denied other students opportunities to engage with genuinely groundbreaking theories of ethics and alternative visions of political theories. There have probably been cases where the refusal to platform particular panels has left the possible audiences worse off than their counterparts in some other scenario. Yet this does not negate the greater and more statistically prevalent phenomenon—one where discussion platforms are actively skewed by rules and laws that assign ‘merit’ to particular instances of speeches. Socialisation and norms can discourage certain types of individuals from speaking out, and rules of adjudication and aesthetics can shut out or discredit certain types of discourses. In these cases, valuing lived experiences isn’t skewing the platforms—by temporarily ‘biasing’ or prioritising the value of lived experiences reported by what is often a quantitative minority, it restores the global balance of discussion and ensures that voices from both sides of the debate are genuinely heard. It takes one homophobic politician in a conservative society to rally up fears and paranoia about pro-LGBT legislation (cf. Hong Kong, where an attempt to introduce anti-discrimination legislation has been branded ‘antithetical to family values and ideological warfare’). It takes a lot of emphasis placed upon a group of otherwise silenced LGBT individuals even to begin to combat the entrenched hegemony of ideas that rejects them and their experiences.

A common objection to the value assigned to lived experiences is that an over-emphasis of them backfires—it makes the movement unwelcoming and off-putting to potential allies. There is a plurality of responses to be made here. Firstly, valuing lived experiences is not akin to silencing all alternative voices. This is particularly the case when the desideratum of social justice movements is not purely epistemological—there is, obviously, the practical element of gaining buy-in and support for the causes involved, too. Furthermore, individuals do have a prima facie right to speak and voice their concerns pertaining to a particular topic, independent of whether they have the relevant lived experiences.

Yet in cases where resources for speech are scarce—e.g. time, money, platforms etc. (cf. Fiss)—it is not impermissible to limit effectively certain speech in order to allow the least represented of all voices to be heard and publicised. Above all, to the extent that experiences vary in type, there may indeed be a multitude of cases where first-hand experience is not a necessary condition for individuals to have adequate epistemic access to the topic. I don’t need to be a professional football player to be able to comment on how football is played. The hard cases—and the cases where this claim matters—are not ones upon which common critics of lived experiences often fall back.

Social movements are ultimately an exercise of balancing ideological purity with anti-essentialist strategy. But the defence of lived experiences is not, contra certain critics, an exercise in tyranny—but a beneficial and often necessary component of the struggle for justice.

Guilt and mental illness on my year abroad

0

A month or so into my time in Japan, I felt lost. I was depressed and exhausted, wondering if there was something wrong with me for not enjoying life in the country of my dreams. Everyone around me seemed to be doing just fine.

Turns out, this is a common feeling that few people talk about.

Let’s start by clarifying some things. I suffer from major depression and generalised anxiety. This is a scary thing to admit online, where anyone can see it, but it’s better than letting my illness remain invisible. I’ve struggled with these disorders since I was 15, and four years later, I’m doing better, but there are frequent downward spirals. I have some coping methods, a support network and medication to help me. But it’s never enough, and I suspect that depression will always remain the monster under my bed. That’s ok. But it does mean that dealing with everyday life is often harder for me than for others.

On top of being mentally ill, there is this thing people only recently started talking about: the Year Abroad Blues. Society insists that going abroad is the best year of your life, despite the fact that there are as many different experiences as there are people moving abroad. Friends back home expect me to have endless stories about my adventures—it feels like a shame to talk about the sad stuff instead. There are so many ways in which year abroad can go wrong, and it’s disorienting to be struggling when society tells you you’re supposed to be happy, you ungrateful fool.

In the first couple of months after arriving in Japan I struggled with some serious guilt, because back then I was especially unhappy. The truth is that moving abroad is difficult and exhausting, and it takes one to three months on average to adjust and start feeling stable again.

An interesting thing everyone notices when they move abroad is that they feel constantly tired and sleepy. I’m curious about this so I’ve asked dozens of international students at Kobe University, and pretty much all of them have experienced this. My foreign friend, who is doing her doctorate in psychology here, explained that one of the reasons this happens is that our brains have to put extra effort into processing information in a foreign language.

This means that I have less energy to do everyday tasks than I did back home. Depression lurking in the background also steals some of my energy. So, for the first few months of being in Japan, I could barely stay awake through my classes. I was still dragged to amazing trips on the weekends, but I was barely able to enjoy them. I started avoiding time around people, and my grades slipped because I had no energy to study.

Another source of guilt this year is my introverted nature. I’m good at making close friends, and I’ve made some lovely international and Japanese ones here in Kobe. That’s all I need socially—people I already know, and with whom I can be sure I’ll have fun. Some people around me recently made me feel guilty for not going to bars every other night like they do. There’s nothing wrong with spending your year like that, but to me it sounds very unappealing—I get anxious when I’m surrounded by people I don’t know, and I have to psyche myself up even to go into town on my own. There is an assumption that going abroad is a constant hunt for new friends, and I wish people realised that this is not everybody’s idea of a good time.

Also, people don’t like admitting this either, but the thing is—Japan, or whatever other country you’ve always put atop a pedestal, is just not that great. For example, I was told that Tokyo is a crazy urban jungle wonderland. The reality is that it has some funny shops and cafes, but otherwise it’s hardly different from another megalopolis such as London.

Don’t get me wrong—I still like Japan. It’s a unique society with a mindset that’s very different from that of the West. I love Japanese art and history, and I’m thrilled about being able to speak the language. Japanese people are sweet, and I enjoy the clean streets and great customer service. There are many voices out there sharing how fun and useful a year abroad can be. I just wanted to point out the other side of the coin: it’s not paradise.

My everyday life here is actually more boring than back in Oxford. I have daily language classes which take up the whole morning, as well as a lecture most afternoons. Language classes are hardly exciting, and the lectures are not as interesting as those in Oxford. Waking up early means that I’m exhausted by the afternoon, and all I want is to get back, finish homework, eat, and sleep. The weekends are my only chance to catch up on sleep, so if I choose to travel instead, I might not enjoy it because I’m so tired. The only holidays I have this year have already passed—one for New Year, and a long one for spring. I’ve done my share of awesome travel, and now I have three months of hard work ahead of me. About 70 per cent of my year abroad has been work and everyday routine. It’s not a year in paradise, and we should stop assuming that it’s going to be non-stop fun, because that’s harmful. Once we get abroad and realise it’s not perfect, we feel guilty for not being constantly happy.

Some of my friends here are healthier and more outgoing than me. They tend to look down on my inability to do more than just attend classes, go out with friends, and occasionally travel. They have part-time jobs, they climb mountains for fun, they often go out at night. But I physically can’t do that! I know my body extremely well as I have pushed myself out of my comfort zone countless times. The fact is that I struggle with doing a lot of things at once. I need a full night’s sleep or I will not comprehend what’s going on. I know this, but I still feel guilty for not being as active as other people. We should all remember that different bodies have different limits, and respect that.

Finally, I’m just ready to go home. As I said before, I have three months of hard work ahead of me. Yes, all that matters is that I pass this year, but even passing will take a lot of effort. After my partner visited me I was hit by a new wave of homesickness, and I crave being home with my mum and my cat, where everything is just a bit simpler. I miss being able to read what’s written on the products in supermarkets. I miss being able to communicate with people without having to think hard about how to express myself. I miss not standing out in a crowd and not being stared at. England has its problems, and, as an immigrant child, it took around four years for me to consider it home, but it’s my safe space now. Being in Japan feels too liminal and uncertain—a constant race to do and see new things, when sometimes all I want is to rest.

Of course, I’m not just going to wallow in my misery for the last three months in Japan. I realise what a unique privilege I’m living, and that I will probably never get the chance to live in Japan again. I’m still certain that my year abroad in Japan was a great decision. I’ve had so much fun and I know there’s more to come. It has given me a lot of self-confidence and self-awareness. But I also went through hard times, and believe that I would have struggled less if others around me were more open about their experiences.

I’ve read numerous articles about the infamous Year Abroad Blues, and I now know that plenty of others go through the same stuff that I’m experiencing. It’s a shame that people are often scared to admit that they’re not having the time of their lives, because this reinforces society’s assumption that the year abroad is one big merry-go-round. I think that should change, and that we should be more honest about feeling vulnerable and down. That way we can support each other in times of need, and help each other make the most of our time abroad.

The art of sex in fashion at the Met

The biggest, most highly esteemed, and some would say over-hyped, fashion event of the year took place last weekend in New York. This year’s Met Gala was themed around the designer Rei Kawakubo and her brand ‘Comme des Garçons’. The Japanese brand with the French name (‘like some boys’) is most commonly known for its red heart shaped logo with stylised eyes, the gaze of which stares out from sought after Converse and various t-shirts seen primarily on privileged teens (even the Dover Street outlet is pretty pricey). However, the brand holds significantly greater relevance, and has been repeatedly associated with outlandish artistic and cultural projects on a world-wide scale. As a result it seems apt that this year’s gala theme gave rise to pieces resembling performance art on the red carpet. Not every celebrity adhered to this:  Zendaya in her parrot print Dolce & Gabbana Alta Moda ball gown for instance could be viewed as a work of art purely in terms of beauty and poise, but it certainly wouldn’t be called avant-garde.

Katy Perry and Rihanna however, could have been transferred straight from the red carpet into a gallery. Perry arrived in a custom Maison Margiela gown by John Galliano, and the result was haunting. While simultaneously hitting all the style trends of the night (the powerful presence of red, and the hint of Spanish influence throughout), the embroidered chiffon dress paired with a corset and embellished veil created an almost supernatural vision. Vampire, witch, even satanic spirit—she could have been any of the above. Yet, the look equally channelled the abstract emotional power of the mourning mother figure in Picasso’s ‘Guernica’. This sense of conceptual art continued with her behaviour: after a comment on the reflective mirrors on the headdress she replied “yes, darling, I’m witnessing you and you’re witnessing me,” thus offering possible commentary on the event, celebrity culture or even society as a whole.

Rihanna equally did not disappoint, wearing one of the few pieces at the event actually from a Comme des Garçons collection, with thigh high Dsquared2 lace up sandals. The look has been compared to ‘that lump of dust and hair that gets jammed inside a vacuum cleaner’ yet it is an especially powerful and eye catching spectacle. There’s no denying that apart from her legs and head it disguises all of Rihanna’s body, and it certainly could not be worn to any other occasion, but that, of course, is the point. It’s a performance, it’s a spectacle, it entertains the constantly ongoing issue of fashion over function, as well as beauty within art.

Something else interesting and more unexpected to come out of the Gala was the prevalence of sex in fashion, which has now become difficult to ignore. The ever provocative Nicki Minaj arrived in a red and black H&M gown with whip-like details, trailing an impressive embellished cape, Zoe Kravitz’s black and pink satin Oscar de la Renta gown had serious noir boudoir references, and even the usually fashion-cautious Amy Schumer arrived in head-to-toe structured black leather by Zac Posen. In a less obvious sense there was also reference to nudity and the obscene within Priyanka Chopra’s outfit, which consisted of custom made trench coat-come evening gown, with a trail to match. It harked of flashers and that romantic cliché of the girl turning up to her boyfriend’s door in nothing but a coat.

That is not even to mention the endless ‘nearly naked’ looks (seen perhaps most notably on Bella Hadid in an Alexander Wang jumpsuit and Kendall Jenner in a La Perla outfit), which seemed to be the closest the trend has reached to coming full circle back to Rose McGowen’s iconic look from the 1998 MTV VMAs—arguably the original and unbeatable naked dress statement. Perhaps all this was in reference to the Comme des Garçons ‘sex’ collection from 2001, but if anything the aesthetic was far more Westwood than Kawakubo, and more likely it is just representative of the growing interest among both followers and designers of fashion, for all things erotic. Whether it is seen in the prevailing sheer top trend, (present in every club photo), the nipple tassels and leather in Yves Saint Laurent’s AW17 collection, or even Katy Perry shedding her ghostly red lace and stepping out to the Met ball afterparty in glitter underwear, fit with garter belt, suspenders and thigh highs—we’re in the midst of a sex revolution within fashion.

Many have called to question whether, in this feminist age, such strong reference to the sex industry is appropriate, especially in tandem with brands like Dior and even to some extent Ivy Park, who have made groundbreaking strides to incorporate feminism into their brand. However (in the western world of fashion at least) feminism is no longer just about the vote, or breaking out of the housewife stereotype. We are arguably in the fourth wave of the movement, and have reached a stage where women should no longer have to wear dungarees with hairy armpits to prove that they are more than just sex symbols. They can of course wear those things if they like, but ‘if they like’ is the crucial factor.

Women can now reclaim their sexuality, and portray the strength it possesses. New twists are being put on traditional forms of sensual attire: corsets for instance, are being worn over t-shirts as day looks, which Elle has described as a kind of modern day armour. As Selfridge’s womenswear buying manager Jannie Lee says “Sexy now is very strong”. And it is clear that no one could look at Katy Perry postball in her dominatrix-esque attire accompanied by Moretti and Margot of The Dolls and see anything apart from strength—they looked like a league of sexy assassins.

This brings us back to Kawakubo and Comme des Garçons. Though the brand may not churn out nipple tassels itself, designer and past employee Hiroyuki Horihata has said that, for Kawakubo, “Liberty then as now, is her core motivation”. Thus the Met Ball produced exactly what the theme required—art and liberty.

Life Divided: Punting

For: Jamie Onslow

For most of my life I was unable to enjoy nautical pursuits due to my nervous disposition. On family holidays, I wouldn’t go sailing for fear of being carried off by the wind. I could never swim in the sea in case I was ravaged by mackerel. When all my friends went through puberty and began to engage in piracy on the high seas, I stayed in the library, worried that I would stand out without hook hands, which many of my peers were having surgically attached as soon as they turned eighteen.

Arriving in Oxford, I saw no reason why anything would change. I watched enviously as many of my cohort rose to positions of power within the college rowing team, thereby acquiring vast amounts of social capital and blazers. I wished that I too could prance around Oxford in tight-fitting leggings. Instead, I hid behind potted plants in the Bridge smoking area, lest I get trampled underfoot by the University rowing team. I was resigned to this fate as Trinity term got under way, right up until the moment I discovered punting.

Within minutes of pushing off from Magdalen Bridge, I was sold. The experience was so magnificent that I right there and then bought the rental punt. I spent nearly all of my term on the punt. Instead of cycling around Oxford, I would punt instead, forcing my way down the High Street with nothing but a wooden pole and a tub of grease. As autumn and then winter came around, most of my fellow students abandoned Oxford’s waterways, but I persisted, poling through frozen waters, desperately chasing that indescribable punting high. Little else now interests me in life, and soon I will leave Oxford for good. My punt is loaded with provisions, and I shall finally have the life of adventure I always dreamed of—not on the high seas, but upon the various canals and rivers of the Midlands, far from the sea and all the mackerel that live in it.

Against: Anna Elliot

Ah, punting. Rather like attending lavish balls and cycling through cobbled streets, punting is often seen as a typical pursuit of the Oxford student. In theory it is the perfect relaxing pastime, drawing to mind a vision of students gliding serenely down river.

Yet this common conception is utterly misguided. The whole process is fraught with potential dangers. As straightforward as it may appear to the layperson, steering a punt is tricky, and requires a certain amount of technique. No matter how well prepared you imagine yourself to be, inevitably all knowledge of how to steer miraculously disappears as soon as the punt starts to move. With tension mounting, you find yourselves arguing about how to navigate away from the bank. The risk of a dangerous head-on collision increases as other equally unsteady punts begin to fill up the river, removing all elements of tranquillity from the trip. Tourists gape open-mouthed as you flounder, the boat wobbling and threatening to plunge you into the icy water.

Even if you manage to get the punt stable, the weather is equally likely to ruin your experience. An English summer is more likely to be grey than glorious and, stuck in a punt, you are unable to escape the inevitable May showers. With your picnic provisions ruined, you find yourselves sitting cramped and shivering on an uncomfortable wooden seat. Longing to return to college for a hot meal and a hot shower, you begin to question the value of punting. At this moment, you realise that walking essentially gives you all the same benefits of punting (relaxation in the fresh air, luscious greenery, Instagram-worthy photo opportunities) without the stress, and with the ability to escape the rain. As a result, when your friends try to convince you to celebrate the end of exams with a leisurely punt down the river, you know your answer.

Week in Science: Fourth Week

It’s not easy keeping up with all the events going around the University. With Week in Science, the Cherwell Science and Tech editors bring to your attention interesting talks around the city and university. Here are the events for fourth week.

 

James Martin on Phase Transitions

Presented by Oxford Invariants Society. 

Date and Time: Tuesday, 16th May from 20:00 to 21:00.

Location: Mathematical Institute, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Rd, OX2 6GG

Speaker: James Martin

Description: Some systems show a large change in their behaviour in response to a small change in the value of some parameter. There is a lot of beautiful mathematics concerning the nature of such phase transitions. I’ll show lots of pictures and explore a variety of models, including from probability and physics (percolation, magnetism), from epidemiology, and from the theory of algorithms. No prior knowledge required except some basic probability.

Entry: The event is free for members and £3 for non-members. Memberships is also available for £15, for life.

Current water controversies and what neutrons tell us about them

Presented by Oxford University Physics Society.

Date and Time: 18th May, 20:15.

Location: Martin Wood Lecture Theatre, 20 Parks Rd, OX1 3PU.

Speaker: Alan Soper FRS

Description: In spite of a huge amount of knowledge about water substance, a genuine physical understanding of what causes water’s strange properties still largely eludes us. The talk will summarize some of the more prominent claims and counter-claims about the nature of water, and how neutrons, if not resolving them, have at least provided genuine information to inform the debate.

Entry: £3 for non-members. Free for members (membership is £10, and for life).

Prof. Lisa Randall at the Oxford Union

Presented by the Oxford Union

Date and Time: 16th May, 17:00 – 18:00.

Location: The Oxford Union, Frenwin Court, OX1 3JB.

Speaker: Prof. Lisa Randall. 

Description: One of the leading contributors to modern particle physics, Prof. Randall is currently at Harvard University, researching elementary particles and forces as well as extra dimensions in space. Randall has received acclaim both from within and outside the scientific community, being named one of TIME’s Top 100 Thinkers.

Entry: Free for members.

Christ Church student who stabbed boyfriend could return next year

0

Lavinia Woodward, a Christ Church medical student who stabbed her boyfriend during a drug-fuelled row, could be allowed to the College in October, following the decision of a high court judge to delay her sentencing until September.

The 24 year old stabbed her Cambridge student boyfriend, who she met on Tinder, in the leg before throwing a laptop and a jam jar at him. The argument took place after a night of heavy alcohol and drug use.

Woodward pleaded guilty to a charge of unlawful wounding at Oxford Crown Court, a crime which the judge, Ian Pringle, noted would ordinarily carry a prison sentence. The judge, however, delayed her sentencing until September and hinted that she would not be jailed on account of her “extraordinary” talent.

The court was told that Christ Church would allow her to resume her studies in October, in part because she has had articles published in medical journals and is “too bright” for her studies to be permanently disrupted.

Judge Pringle, noting that a prison sentence would affect her career, told The Telegraph:

“It seems to me that if this was a one-off, a complete one-off, to prevent this extraordinary able young lady from not following her long-held desire to enter the profession she wishes to, would be a sentence which would be too severe.

“What you did will never, I know, leave you but it was pretty awful, and normally it would attract a custodial sentence, whether it is immediate or suspended.”

According to the prosecutor, Woodward had met her boyfriend on Tinder. After her boyfriend called her mother on Skype, she punched him in the face before grabbing a bread knife and stabbing him in the leg.

The defence lawyer, James Sawyer QC, said the conviction had wrecked his client’s dream of being a heart surgeon, and described her as having a “very troubled life”.

A third year student at Magdalen College tweeted her disappointment at the lack of sentencing:

https://twitter.com/annemecremin/status/864509161639473152

Woodward will be sentenced on September 25, but was handed a restraining order in the interim. She is currently living in Milan with her mother.

 

On That Point: Safe spaces and politicians

0

At the Oxford Union on Thursday night, the debate raged on the motion of whether “A university must be a safe space.” The august pair of Peters—Hitchens and Tatchell—were the guest speakers for the opposition, and carried the cause to what was a resounding, and, in Hitchens’ case, thoroughly moral, victory. Now, I won’t bore you with my views on this issue—the place of the safe space within education is now forever the preserve of every uninspired Guardian columnist and reactionary Daily Mail scribbler. You, my reader, deserve better than that. So I shall pose a more interesting question: do our politicians deserve a ‘safe space’? Should, for instance, Jeremy Hunt and Boris Johnson be entitled to the same freedom from confrontation and hostility that I can expect as a university student? I doubt they should be, and I challenge you to reach a different conclusion.

It is already clear that our elected representatives do not exist within a safe space. Whether it’s slime for Mandelson or eggs for Prescott and Miliband, if you can imagine it, it has probably been thrown at a politician. These physical projectiles are matched by the verbal, with surprise attacks lurking around the corner even for the Prime Minister herself, who was today confronted by an Oxfordshire woman furious about cuts to disability funding. Ironically, politicians are now also plagued by those same people who extol the virtues of safe spaces within the education system—individuals who are the first to volunteer as moral adjudicator on whether a word is classed as ‘violent’, but who are also the first to shout “f**k Tory scum!” at a protest. It is really these cheerful little paradoxes that give you faith in our political discourse. So today’s politicians seem to exist outside the groups of people whom safe-spacers wish to protect. My argument differs from theirs in that it is not rooted in hypocrisy, but in a need to preserve our democracy and to protect MPs from genuine harm.

It is important to note that the extent to which MPs are abused through new methods such as social media is an endemic issue, and one that should not be taken as lightly as it is in our society. When MPs like Jess Phillips, Diane Abbott and Ruth Smeeth are subjected to vile, misogynistic and racist abuse online every day, it is clear that the law itself does not go far enough in offering them protection from an assorted mix of bigots, imbeciles, and lowlifes. So it is firstly prudent to say that failing to give politicians a safe space does not extend to compromising their physical wellbeing, or being permitted to unleash upon them unrestrained emotional abuse. This uncivilised element of our culture isn’t befitting of our democracy.

But what I am saying is that politicians, especially ministers of the Crown, do not have a right to be insulated from the public, from the despondent old woman, the frustrated nurse, and the striking teacher. When these often infamous moments occur, such as the time when Tony Blair was barracked by a patient’s family member outside a hospital, or when David Cameron was recently discomforted by the reasoned argument of a teenager lamenting Brexit, it feels as though the democratic kilter has been reset. At that moment, a politician is not in physical danger, but they are undergoing an acutely unpleasant experience. The deference usually directed towards them and their office melts away to nothing. They are brought down to exactly the same level as their fellow countrymen, and they are forced to listen to what angers them. This extends from the individual wishing to speak truth to power to the striking junior doctors in London. When a senior politician is confronted in this way, their cosy reality is shattered and they must defend their actions in the face of those whom they directly affect. It is, in this respect, nothing short of being a necessary component of our democracy.

Now I don’t want anyone to misconstrue my words. I’m not yearning for some dystopian future in which politicians live in perpetual fear, scuttling from meeting to meeting in order to avoid the thousands of angry members of the public legitimised in starting public rows with politicians by my Cherwell blog (after all, digital media spreads fast these days). But I am suggesting that when a politician’s safe space is broken, when they are made to feel uncomfortable about their actions, under pressure to explain themselves, and become aware that people are hostile to their actions, they are almost as accountable as they will ever be to the public. It is for this reason that we cannot allow the rhetoric of safe spaces to be extended to our politicians. There are so many areas in which politicians do desperately need more protection—online, and from physical harm on the streets. But to shield them from what is quite often an old woman shouting at them, would be seen as overkill by the British public and detracts from the fight to protect our representatives where they need it most.

With Theresa May answering only pre-submitted questions on the campaign trail, and the brief craze during which MPs could be provoked into responses on Twitter coming to an end, I think we shall see a resurgence in this form of street-democracy. One in which ordinary people can, for a few brief minutes at best, roll all of Parliament’s functions into one. They can represent their own views, ensure that a politician is held accountable to an embarrassing degree, and conduct scrutiny so thorough it would make the Commons Select Committee on Standards blush. So let us not restrain what has, for hundreds of years, been a pillar of our democracy. From ministers of the Crown to the Prime Minister herself, let us keep our representatives firmly grounded in reality, and not allow them to hide behind the get-out clause of a safe space. Britain can do it, one angry old lady at a time.

Prince Charles and Camilla in surprise Covered Market visit

0

Oxford was brought to a standstill this morning after Prince Charles and Camilla toured the Covered Market on a surprise visit.

The visit was well-attended by hundreds of tourists, students and town-dwellers, to see the royals make their way through the market visiting several shops along the way.

When asked for her opinion on the Covered Market, Camilla exclusively told Cherwell that she thought it was “pretty nice”.

She added: “I haven’t been here for a long time. My son was a student so I used to come when he was here”.

The route included a greengrocer, a cake shop, The Oxford Cheese Company and Brown’s café, before concluding with Charles briefly speaking to members of the public before departing.

Speaking to one student, Prince Charles joked: “Shouldn’t you be at lectures?”

Students at the Turl Street colleges were uniquely placed to witness the impromptu visit, primarily attracting students from Lincoln, Jesus and Exeter.

Ellie Thomas, a first-year English student at Lincoln College said: “My friend texted me because she was down here and there were loads of police and people thought it was a bomb scare.

“We came running out of Lincoln which is obviously really close and got into the Covered Market and started taking pics.

“We were forced into a little group out on the street and he came and spoke to us which was really weird. He came over before he got in the car and had a little bit of a chat.”

Police on duty. Photo: Daniel Curtis

Lottie Lee, a first-year History and Politics student, also at Lincoln, said: “He was talking about how quaint he thought the Covered Market was and how he was really happy that it was still up and running. That was so fun.”

Branwen Phillips, studying CAAH at Lincoln: “[That was] a bit of an eventful trip to Pret. One of the girls was like ‘I was just going to Pret’ and he said, ‘I haven’t heard that one before’.”

Reporting by Akshay Bilolikar, Daniel Curtis, Jack Hunter

Oxfess provides an uncomfortable window into Oxford’s mental health struggles

0

Recently, Oxfess, the third manifestation of a distinctly Oxford orientated page, cropped up to join its hugely popular counterparts: Oxlove and Oxfeud.

But what was originally intended as a means through which students could air humorous disclosures has turned into an unlikely forum for a discussion about mental health, with the posts in question ranging from topics such as social isolation and gender dysphoria to self-harm and allusions to suicide. Such accounts potentially speak volumes about the successes and failures of mental health provision available to the student body, and demonstrate how much more both the university as an institution and we as individuals can do.

To begin with, one may question whether the sheer quantity of posts is indicative of a failure by Oxford in particular, or merely a general reflection of mental health for young people across the university system. Anyone who has struggled with their mental health may not find the sentiments on the page surprising, and anyone who has struggled with such issues at Oxford may well see echoes of their own experience depicted within the writing of other authors.

When considering the issue of mental illness, Oxford is undoubtedly a unique environment in that it carries the potential to evoke a compelling sense of guilt. One is constantly in awe of the gravity of the opportunity they have been blessed with, an opportunity so many aspire to attain.

This gratitude has the potential to colour any valid feelings of resentment or sadness throughout your experience. Mental health issues are in no way unique to Oxford, but the sensation of iniquity that can arise from resenting the university can certainly be unique to those who study here.

It’s an environment in which one is pushed to both their academic and emotional limits, and then, either consciously or unconsciously, told that they ought to almost feel blessed for having the opportunity to fall victim to such pressures. Moreover, and most importantly, those who attend Oxford are not accustomed to failure. Raw intelligence is not enough—it must have materialised in the form of high flying academic success in order for admission to have been a possibility, and naturally for many their sense of self-worth has thus become bound up with academic accomplishment. Couple this with a schedule that rarely allows for respite to reassess or place events in perspective, and Oxford can quickly become a breeding ground for mental health concerns.

However, despite the sometimes harrowing accounts posted on the page, some tangible good can also be found. Thankfully, where you find those in need you often also find those willing to provide the help required. Although it may at first seem trivial, Oxfess has presented students with an opportunity to demonstrate support and to ask anonymous posters to seek help. It’s created a record of genuine experience from those who are suffering, and raised awareness of just how commonplace these issues are. It should be noted, however, that the anonymous nature of the page means that coming to the aid of these individuals in any real sense is near impossible, and this is a fundamental issue which many have found deeply concerning.

This element of anonymity has both allowed those in question to share their experience, whilst simultaneously removing any possibility that they might be provided with the direct assistance they so evidently require.

Moreover, it’s impossible to dismiss the posts as ‘attention seeking’—a common recourse for those who are ignorant of the intricacies of mental health—as there’s no way to attribute them to their original authors. Thus the university is presented with a group of genuinely vulnerable students, and yet no way to aid them directly.

When faced with the experiences depicted on this page, what we begin to question is whether this is a shocking indictment of the poor state of mental health provision at Oxford, or merely a vocalised, yet anonymous, reflection of a ‘cry for help’ which the university is unable to answer.

What Oxfess most clearly demonstrates is that there is evidently far more that both the university and ourselves as individuals can do. Some of those who have posted have stated their rejection of the counselling service currently operated by the university. Others have noted how feelings of isolation from their fellow students and friends have contributed to poor mental health. Therefore, we must not ignore the influential role we all play, both in improving, and worsening the mental health of our fellow students.

When we isolate or exclude those we know to be vulnerable, or speak carelessly towards those who are struggling, we become complicit within an environment which can become unbearable for so many.

In the words of just one of dozens of individuals who have expressed words of support on the page: “I urge everyone at this university to step out of their cliques and talk to or invite someone you don’t usually interact with—it will make a huge difference to their day.”