Blog Page 894

Oxford SU stays neutral on NSS boycott

Fred Dimbleby
-
1
Oxford SU stays neutral on NSS boycott

Oxford Student Union have taken no position on the National Student Survey (NSS), despite renewed calls to boycott the controversial scheme.

Student activists allege that the survey is used as part of the Teaching Excellence Framework, which could have an impact on tuition fees.

50% of finalists need to complete the survey, which is run by Ipsos MORI, in order for the results to have any weighting.

A similar University-wide protest last year led to Oxford being one of only four Universities to be left out of the survey results.

The survey was delivered to finalists last week, but so far calls for a boycott have only come from individual activists, rather than student societies.

When asked for their position on the survey, which was delivered to finalists last week, Oxford SU declined to clarify.

Activist and former OULC co-chair Tom Zagoria wrote: “Last year Oxford successfully boycotted the NSS, but we can’t drop the ball now. So this one’s easy, just get on with revision/procrastination, and boycott the NSS!”

He told Cherwell: “the protest is behind last year’s in terms of organisation.”

He has sent a motion to the Oxford Student Union for their meeting in 1st week encouraging them to support the boycott.

Another student activist, Neha Shah, posted on Facebook: “The survey is a widely discredited set of metrics that form part of the Teaching Excellence Framework, a tool the government wants to use to justify tuition fee rises for future generations of students.”

Exeter College JCR president, Ellie Milne-Brown, sent an email to Exeter students in support of the boycott. She wrote: “It is the opinion of the Executive Committee of the JCR that they should refuse to do so, and participate in the boycott that worked so well last year.”

Cambridge University Student Union (CUSU) have already supported the boycott.

A post on their website said: “Boycotting the NSS remains one of our best opportunities to make a clear statement against the direction of higher education which is becoming increasingly inaccessible and elitist.”

OULC have also supported the boycott. A post on their Facebook page said: “Let us come together again to send a clear message to this government that we refuse to be part of a system that puts greed before the needs of students.”

Oxford SU replied to a request for comment after the printed version of this article was published.

A spokesperson said: “There are motions for and against a boycott of the NSS which are going to Student Council on Thursday.

Following the decision by student council, Oxford SU will run a campaign on NSS.”

A spokesperson for the University of Oxford said: “In common with other UK universities, we write to our students every year to make them aware of the National Student Survey (NSS).

“We have been working with colleagues from across the collegiate University, and with Oxford SU, to secure a strong response to the NSS, as we genuinely value the feedback we receive from students.

“This exercise is entirely unrelated to the Teaching Excellence Framework.

“The NSS allows students to tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their time at Oxford, giving us valuable feedback as we seek to improve the student experience.

“Additionally, if more than 50% of our students respond, the results are published on the Unistats website, which is linked to the UCAS website and allows students thinking of applying to Oxford to see what previous students thought of their time here.”

In 2017, a similar boycott led to only 31 per cent of finalists filling out the survey.

One of the organisers of the campaign, Anastazja Oppenheim said at the NUS conference: “if students, en masse, either refuse to fill in the surveys at all or sabotage it… the results would become of little use and would wreck plans for the TEF.”

She later told Cherwell: “The fight needs to continue and, building on the experiences of this past year, we can make the boycott in 2018 even more effective.

“Our campaign has already won some concessions, such as delaying the link between the TEF and fees. But we must organise, resist, and wreck the survey until the TEF is scrapped and the Higher Education reforms withdrawn.”

Winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature: reflections on Kazuo Ishiguro’s recognition

Dan Sutton
-
0
Winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature: reflections on Kazuo Ishiguro’s recognition

On 5 October 2017, the Swedish Academy announced the winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature with the following press release:

‘The Nobel Prize in Literature for 2017 is awarded to the English author Kazuo Ishiguro

“who, in novels of great emotional force, has uncovered the abyss beneath our illusory sense of connection with the world”.’

I don’t know how Ishiguro would sum up his own work, but I doubt it would be much like this blunt and bold announcement, ringing more of Nietzsche than the soft-spoken novelist. Shortly after this statement, the Academy added a biography of the winner: born in Nagasaki in 1954, Ishiguro moved to Surrey at five, published his first book – A Pale View of the Hills – in 1982, and has since written seven other books, most famously The Remains of the Day (1989) and Never Let Me Go (2005). The Permanent Secretary of the Academy, Sara Danius, also gave a short interview about the decision to give Ishiguro the award; adding to the statement from the press release, she described Ishiguro’s work as a blend of P.G.Wodehouse, Kafka and Proust.

Strange as the Swedish Academy’s description may be, it also hints at why Ishiguro won the Nobel Prize in 2017 of all years: his most recent novel, The Buried Giant (2015). Set in a post-Roman Britain plagued by sorcery, a dragon and a mist of forgetfulness, it received a little less critical acclaim than Ishiguro’s more famous works (though was still wonderfully and bizarrely described in The Guardian as “Game of Thrones with a conscience”). Listen carefully to the interview Danius gave, though, and she highlights that novel as Ishiguro’s stand-out piece, even over his Booker Prize-winning classic The Remains of the Day. When she subsequently describes his work as particularly relevant this year, as it “explores what you have to forget in order to survive… as an individual or as a society”, she again seems to be thinking of The Buried Giant. In this novel, Ishiguro certainly does compare individuals’ and societies’ respective needs to forgive and forget: as the protagonist Axl wonders by the end of the work,

“You and I longed for Querig’s end, thinking only of our dear memories. Yet who knows what old hatreds will loosen across the lands now… Who knows what will come when quick-tongued men make ancient grievances rhyme with fresh desire for land and conquest?”

In most of Ishiguro’s other work, however, the pattern is of individuals searching and questioning their pasts. Take Never Let Me Go, where the narrator, Kathy, makes this admission only a page and a half in:

“It’s ever since then, I suppose, that I started seeking out for my donors people from the past, and whenever I could, people from Hailsham. There have been times over the years when I’ve tried to leave Hailsham behind, when I’ve told myself I shouldn’t look back so much. But then there came a point where I just stopped resisting.”

Much the same could be said of the butler Mr Stevens in The Remains of the Day, or the painter Ono in Ishiguro’s second novel, An Artist in a Floating World. The latter of these works, set in post-war Japan, explores how we reconcile past and present when forgetfulness is no longer possible. Ono is conducting his youngest daughter’s marriage negotiations, and decides to take “certain precautionary steps” against his prospective son-in-law understanding his past as a pro-government artist who betrayed a former colleague to the secret police; as time wears on, Ono seemingly moves from forgetfulness to deceit, then admission, and finally denial.

Any of these themes touch on the zeitgeist of 2017, but to me, the most apt of all is the way Ishiguro makes his characters ask how things might have been. Almost without exception in Ishiguro’s novels, the central characters come to a point where they realise that they do not need to make peace with the actual errors or regrets that they find in their past so much as the lingering hopes for a different set of outcomes. Take the moment in The Remains of the Day where Mrs Benn (whom, incidentally, Mr Stevens can only ever think of as Miss Kenton) describes this realisation:

“But that doesn’t mean to say, of course, there aren’t occasions now and then – extremely desolate occasions – when you think to yourself: “What a terrible mistake I’ve made with my life.” And you get to thinking about a different life, a better life you might have had. For instance, I get to thinking about a life I might have had with you, Mr Stevens… But each time I do so, I realise before long – my rightful place is with my husband. After all, there’s no turning back the clock now. One can’t be forever dwelling on what might have been. One should realise one has as good as most, perhaps better, and be grateful.”

I think it is this blend of nostalgia and hope which characterises Ishiguro’s work: his characters allow the reader to participate in and practice the art of remembering well. To that extent, while I enthusiastically welcomed their decision to give Ishiguro the award, I think the Swedish Academy’s description misses the beauty of his writing. His novels do have great emotional force, but wield it gently; there is an emptiness in many of his characters, but also a joy in precious memories and a readiness to face the future. And above all, though some of the connections and relationships he describes are illusions, many more are fragile but real: Mr Stevens’ with Miss Kenton or his father, Kathy’s with Ruth and Tommy, or even Axl’s with Beatrice. Ishiguro does not so much uncover the abyss in the past as explore reconciliation in the present.

 

A letter to: My 2018 self

Julia Alsop
-
0
A letter to: My 2018 self

Dear 2018 self,

You are going to be the new, shiny, improved version of 2017 me. I like to think that means that you’re going to awake at 6am every morning, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, kale juice in hand, ready to do your daily workout before acing a tute. Although, to be honest, you could literally do anything and it would still be an improvement.

In fact, I know you’re going to excel the previous year’s standards, because I have set seemingly unimpressive, yet currently unattained goals. These incredibly low standards will save you the disappointment that will inevitably occur during 5th week, at the latest, when you can’t even name a vegetable and the only reason you wear your gym leggings are because they are the most comfortable thing in your wardrobe.

Firstly, I have resolved to buy less pizza during my essay crises and desperate procrastination (sorry Gloucester Green pizza van for your loss of business). This will result in you, my 2018 self, being more proactive with work, less broke from frivolous pizza expenses, and hopefully healthier too. You will also have more dignity, due to less time spent picking old crumbs out of your margherita scented bra (it’s actually less sexy than it sounds).

2018 me will also leave later for lectures, giving myself around five minutes to make the ten minute journey to the faculty. I hear you saying, “but Julia, that is actually illogical, how can that be even slightly useful?” You see, the time pressure means that you will inevitably panic, and awkwardly run-walk down Cornmarket Street, such that, by the time you’ve grabbed a handout and found a seat, you will have broken a sweat and got that desirable metabolic boost (bonus points for wearing athleisure). It basically feels like a workout without the time or effort of having to go to PureGym.

That’s two resolutions down, and already you are more athletic, productive, healthy and financially responsible. I mean, let’s cut the crap we’ve tried in previous years – you are not a goddess-like yogi, with perfect grades and a cushy internship, complete with actual employment opportunities at the end.But even the smallest improvements that make you feel happier in yourself equate to having achieved some sort of goal in 2018. Also, I think it’s safe to say that 2018 will be unequivocally better if you make the bold New Year’s resolution to not drink tequila…at least not too often.

Best,

Julia x

Peter Preston Obituary: A journalist who believed in action

Fred Dimbleby
-
0
Peter Preston Obituary: A journalist who believed in action

Peter Preston, a former Editor of Cherwell and the Guardian, died last week. He was 79 years old.

I did not know Preston and whilst the various obituaries published this week give some sense of this journalistic giant, it was the editions of Cherwell published when he was Editor that gave a true insight into his character.

For Preston, it was impossible to isolate journalism as merely his profession – it coloured his whole identity. He was certainly not anti- political, as Cherwell’s original slogan professes it to be, but his politics were by no means straightforward. He believed in action, organisation, and progress but applied this to varying and confusing cases. He wrote delicately, but with an anger about the laziness and the ‘good enough’ attitude of many of his subjects.

When he edited Cherwell in Hilary Term 1960, it was a very different beast to the one that publishes today. The paper was far shorter and published twice a week.

But Preston brought something to Cherwell that continues today: an expectation that all can do better. A universal assumption that all should strive for progress and that no one should become complacent or satisfied. In his first editorial, he wrote: “The days when we were all ‘young gentlemen’ are dead and gone. Every individual is to some extent concerned with what happens outside college walls.”

He said to people that there was no excuse for inaction. Preston unveiled the Oxford issues of his time, and was unsparing in his criticism. In one editorial he turned his attack on the religious community in Oxford saying: “Instead of counting the money in the collection bags Oxford Christians should start counting the number of starving in the world, and start acting…together.”

In another he criticised Union elections writing: “Rusty college block-vote machines have been galvanised into action. Old pals do deals to avoid unnecessary clashes. There is the smell of corruption in the air.” Perhaps some things really haven’t changed since his day.

Preston was frustrated with his time at Cherwell. In his last editorial for the paper, he writes about the many things that he did not have time to talk about. He repeats the phrase “too late” throughout the column. This sense continued throughout his life. He expected the same thing of himself as he expected of the people and institutions that he covered. He was never satisfied and always wanted to fill another column, cover another story or hold another group to account.

Cherwell was just the start for Preston’s career. He went on to edit the Guardian, exposing the cash-for-questions scandal. He later ran the Scott Trust, managing the Guardian and the Observer. He also wrote two books, including 51st State in 1998, which had an eerily accurate prediction of the Brexit result.

Only six days before his death, Preston wrote his last article. Here, he turned his critical eye against his own profession saying that although journalism was certainly under threat it also had a responsibility to improve in order to regain the trust of its readers. Journalism was “a business that means treating readers in a jam like human beings, identifying distress, becoming a functioning part of society rather than commentators at its edges.”

This may have been his last comment on the world of journalism, but it was one of his first that summed up Preston’s theory about the industry he dedicated his life to. In his final editorial for Cherwell he wrote: “We would like to thank all of those who have given us help or encouragement during the term. And to those whose toes have been heavily trodden on. Tough. Your feet are too damn big anyway.”

No one escaped Preston; no one was without the need to improve; no one’s feet were small enough to deserve universal praise.

Peter Preston leaves behind his wife, Jean, four children, and eight grandchildren.

The exile of rough sleepers in Windsor reminds us of our own prejudice

Honor Brocklebank-Fowler
-
2
The exile of rough sleepers in Windsor reminds us of our own prejudice

In December, the Home Office’s policy to deport rough sleepers from countries within the European Economic Area was ruled unlawful by the High Court. The news will have struck particularly close to home for those of us privileged enough to call Oxford our home.

Most reading this will be the University’s students, who overwhelmingly can align ourselves amongst the privileged of the world: we have gowns steeped in ceremony and history; we have access to some of the best libraries in the world; we have food served to us in Hall each day, often whilst wearing aforementioned gowns; and most of all, we have homes. As well as students of the institution that Oxford is famous for, we are also inhabitants of the city, and so every day we are faced with the reality of those who live with so little.

These are the people that we pass on George Street on the weekly journeys to Park End and Bridge, who in even the mildest fogs of alcohol we wilfully disregard. These are the men and women that in the cold light of day (and often it is very cold indeed), we encounter sitting outside St. Giles Church pleading for money, and we, somewhat guiltily and yet usually without hesitation, gloss over. We are rushing to a lecture, or meeting a friend for coffee, or heading to football practice – but of course if we had more time, we’d stop, and pause, and give.

But the reality is that what we are doing almost without exception is turning a blind eye, a deaf ear, and often a dispassionate heart, to the people that are as much inhabitants of the city as the rest of us, and in the biting frost of 8th week felt the chill more keenly than we can imagine.

Homelessness is a tragedy practically as old as time, and the issue is as pervasive as ever. It’s been brought to the fore most recently by the headlines announcing that the leader of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead has sought police permission to use legal powers to clear Windsor of those rough sleeping there, in anticipation of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s wedding in May. Windsor is of course globally recognisable as home of Eton College, the elite independent school, and a visible parallel can therefore be drawn between that and Oxford.

Simon Dudley, leader of Windsor’s Conservative council, had made reference in tweets over the Christmas period to “an epidemic of rough sleeping and vagrancy in Windsor” – and this unambiguous descriptor might seem fitting to the crisis that we see in Oxford. An official Oxford City Council count of the city’s street sleepers in the autumn of 2016 confirmed the number of homeless people in Oxford to be anywhere between 33 and 47 on any given night, a shockingly high number given the city’s population is a mere 150,000.

Efforts to counter this crisis have ranged from the practical: working with charities and voluntary groups to house rough sleepers in homeless hostels throughout Oxford, to the desperate: threatening fines of £2,500 to those who put possessions (or, presumably, themselves) in shop doorways.

Yet, it is clear from the appalling death of homeless man, known only as Christopher, on the floor of a London ‘Crisis at Christmas’ shelter on Christmas Eve that the malady of homelessness stretches its cancerous consequences far beyond mere antisocial behaviour, or presenting “a beautiful town in an unfavourable light”, as declared by Simon Dudley.

Councils must work in closer contact with the public – which in Oxford consists of almost 50,000 students – to tackle the sad reality of homelessness. The sad truth is that we, as the distinctly privileged, must face up to our own prejudices in order to offer real help to those who so desperately require it.

Five Minutes with Harry Househam

Cherwell Stage
-
0
Five Minutes with Harry Househam

Could you quickly explain what improvised comedy is and why you love it so much?

Improvised comedy is a genre of live comedy performance in which the show is created based on audience suggestions. Yes, we have formats and games we’ve prepared but using audience suggestions we create and make it all up then and there. If you want to see whole worlds burst from one or two words or to see flawless freestyle rap then improv is for you. With cool west end shows like Austentatious: An Improvised Jane Austen Novel and Showstoppers! An Improvised Musical, Improvised shows are on the rise!

How did you first get into improvised comedy?

In my second year at Oxford I auditioned and got into a group, local legends ‘The Oxford Imps’, and that opened up a world of possibilities. From sell out shows every Monday of term to worldwide tours to France, Holland, The Edinburgh Fringe, the USA and South Africa. The Imps are a great place for people who have never improvised, as I hadn’t, to cut their teeth and to learn the craft of creating songs, characters, stories and jokes up on the fly.

Who is your comedy hero?

Personally I’m a big Dave Gorman fan, I’ve followed his career since I was 14 reading his books watching all of his shows, and it’s great to see him getting into the big leagues thanks to his hit show ‘Modern Life is Goodish’. You can tell he’s so passionate about every project that he undertakes, and throws himself into them all at full thrust.

What is the premise of this new show, ‘Mock Trial: An Improvised Court Case’?

You’re heard of court drama, well this is court comedy. Oxford’s finest barristers and the right honourable Judge Ofthat have gathered to lock away the worst criminals in Oxfordshire, except, the only trouble is one of the legal interns has accidentally shredded and destroyed all of the evidence… Replacing the destroyed evidence with audience suggestions of strange and surreal crimes, and placing random household items into evidence bags these lawyers must see that justice is done. Using these odd crimes and objects we present the cases with witness testimony and flashbacks to the events of the crime. We’ve seen livestock loose in Tesco, a charge of public trampolining, corrupt barristers debarred and Tory lords banned from the use of their shoes.

How did you come up with this idea?

I’ve seen a lot of ‘site-specific’ drama, theatre performed in an interesting space, but this largely takes the form of Shakespeare being done in a posh garden. I thought it would be a cool idea to do a more immersive comedy show in an interesting venue, and I fell in love with the Town Hall Court House. I just thought it felt like a room meant for a show. It’s the same exact room that they used to film the court in ‘A Fish Called Wanda’ with Jamie Lee Curtis and John Cleese. I thought wouldn’t it be nice if you could be in a court room but you aren’t on Jury service and it isn’t stressful or scary because no crimes have been committed? Wouldn’t it be fun to just pretend you’re in a TV crime drama but it’s live and instead of deadly serious and boring it’s good fun and hilarious?

Oxford Town Hall is a very unique venue. Where’s the weirdest place you have performed?

I’ve gigged in the back of a van, and in the middle of a family’s living room, I’ve even done stand-up in Hogwarts (Well the cloisters of New college that are in the Harry Potter films). I’ve got upcoming shows planned on a boat and in a book shop, and perhaps even in the ruins of an old monastery. I think it’s fun to break the mould and to perform in some strange venues once in a while. Watch this space!

Do you have any advice for those looking to get involved with comedy in Oxford?

Write 5 minutes of comedy and perform as much as you can, gig, gig and then gig some more. Nothing makes a comic better like experience. Start with what you find funny, and then see what lies in the middle of the Venn diagram of what both you and audiences find funny. But at all costs gig as often as you can and test stuff, stage craft comes with time but you can always work on material. More practically there’s an open mic that has been running for over a year at the James Street Tavern in Cowley every Thursday. Try it, and if it sticks then stick with it

Are you working on any future projects?

I most certainly am. Our main show is Jericho Comedy on Saturdays at the Jericho Cafe and we’ve also got the Oxfordshire Mind Comedy Gala with James Acaster on Feb 17th. I’m lucky enough to be producing the very talented drag double act Christian Adore and Eton Messe a.k.a. ‘The Dragprov Revue’ who have shows on 4th March and 9th June, and I’m working on ‘The Show that must not be named’ an Improvised Harry Potter book that will be at the Story Museum on Feb 4th – but all the details can be found at www.tightfive.org

 

The Greatest Showman falls on its face

Jonnie Barrow
-
0
The Greatest Showman falls on its face

The Greatest Showman is a textbook example of Hollywood revisionism – taking a seedy historical story and drowning the cinematic retelling in enough saccharine feel-good gloss that it ceases to appear as problematic a story as it once did.

It tells the story of P.T. Barnum, a charlatan who created an enormously profitable business by parading a circus of unusual people before the masses, and turns it into a one-man showcase for Hugh Jackman to win himself a Golden Globe. Jackman is predictably fantastic, and well-supported by Zendaya, Zac Efron and newcomer Keala Settle. That should be all there is to say, right?

Unfortunately not. The Greatest Showman isn’t just glossy – it’s actively pointing its spotlights into the audience so they’re blinded to the hollow centre of this subversively cynical venture. Michael Gracey is the film’s first-time director, but he made his name directing commercials, and it really shows. The film is able to hold your attention in 30 second bursts, but even while it does that, you can feel the charade of what it’s trying to sell you crumbling under its own artificiality.

The narrative the film is desperately trying to peddle is that Barnum was an uplifter of the downtrodden, a champion of diversity, providing opportunities to people who society had given up on.

While such a fairy story is patently untrue, completely rewriting the exploitative and harmful acts that the real-life Barnum made his fortune from, the worst thing the film does is absolutely fail to celebrate diversity even on its own hopelessly artificial terms. The supporting “oddities” in Barnum’s circus are never fleshed out as individual characters, and even as a group are frequently sidelined in favour of Jackman’s well-worn song and dance routines.

While the film likes to pretend that it’s an equal-opportunities affair, it’s telling that Gracey and Jackman’s virtue-signalling ultimately serves to exploit the marginalised as Barnum did, using them when it suits the film’s purposes and then sidelining the very people who were marginalised in real life.

Even ignoring the film’s hollow virtue-signalling, its presentation is just shoddy. Forgettable music numbers are hampered by woefully incoherent editing, continuity errors pile on top of implausible leaps in logic, and the visual effects are as poor as the ugly and uninspired production design.

The film should be the cinematic equivalent of Chicago’s “Razzle Dazzle”: “Give ‘em an act with lots of flash in it/And the reaction will be passionate […] How can they see with sequins in their eyes?” But in the case of this unfortunate critic, it was less Razzle Dazzle and more Hopeless Pocus.

Academic exodus continues

Libby Cherry
-
1
Academic exodus continues

The number of resignations from Oxford European academics has increased once again since the EU referendum.

230 European academics have resigned from Oxford University in the past year, compared to just 171 in 2014-15.

The ongoing uncertainty surrounding negotiations with the EU has been suggested as the reason for the high turnover of staff.

Dame Averil Cameron, a former Warden of Keble College, said that the revelation was “very serious for Oxford.”

Oxford currently employs 20% of EU academics working in the UK.

However, a spokesperson for the University told Cherwell: “It is impossible to draw any firm conclusions about the impact of Brexit on staffing at the moment.

Overall EU academic numbers are virtually unchanged from 1,714 to 1,702 this year.”

The spokesperson continued: “The status of colleagues from other parts of the EU has been a major concern for the University and we have called for clear commitments on this issue to reassure staff and students who are already here or hoping to join us.

The University will continue to call for a free flow of academic talent to and from the EU in the final Brexit settlement.”

James Partridge, a Fellow at University College of Czech told Cherwell: “I’m absolutely certain that a significant loss of EU academics would be disastrous for UK higher education.

“It would be bound to affect the quality of teaching and research across the sector if it happened, and I don’t really see how anyone can sensibly dispute that.

“In my view that would be as true for Oxford as for any other university, but clearly if Oxford continues to be able to recruit new staff from the EU successfully then those effects would be mitigated somewhat.”

Layla Moran, Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, said: “These valued members of our communities find themselves uncertain about the future and unconvinced by the too little too late wooing by an incompetent Prime Minister.

While they were frozen out of the referendum, they are now voting with their feet.”

The Phase I report issued by the EU and UK governments in December stated EU citizens would be able to claim permanent residency status in the UK. It also said that the UK will be able to stay involved in EU programs up to 2020, including Horizon 2020 and Erasmus.

Nevetheless the government’s reluctance to say whether it will continue to engage in Free Movement or remain in the ECJ, which is often a prerequisite for receiving funding from programs within Horizon 2020, means that prospects for academic research are still
uncertain.

A bombastic celebration of Europe, sexual freedom, and gelato

Shamika Tamhane
-
0
A bombastic celebration of Europe, sexual freedom, and gelato

Rarely is a band or artist’s sixth record similar in style and message to their early works; Phoenix’s Ti Amo is certainly no exception. This is not a bad thing per se: they have produced an album which reflects their experience and skill, leaving something that is difficult to dislike.

The band themselves admit their work to be unashamedly optimistic in reaction to growing concerns about Europe. Terrorism, the refugee crisis and the rise of far-right nationalism have been flashpoints which have made Europeans question the stability of liberal cosmopolitan values. This hatred and violence makes the romantic synth-heavy world evoked in the album seem like a faraway comforting escape. Granted, this is also a ‘mythological Europe’ cantered on an Italy with endless supplies of gelato, unreciprocated lust/ love, sunshine, Battiato and Lucio. But this fantasy of unity is potent enough for us all to celebrate. Italian culture is drawn on for its disco and vintage dance floors which are everyone’s guilty pleasure.

The album’s title track ‘Ti Amo’ is best appreciated when looking at the music video which depicts the band members having an enviable ‘Roman Holiday’ full of popcorn, pasta and prosecco. It is a bombastic celebration of sexual freedom – there’s no subtlety whatsoever in lines such as “we’re meant to get it on” heard in ‘Fior di Latte’, also a popular gelato flavour. Motifs such as these create a cohesive feel which was lacking in previous albums. ‘Tutti Frutti’ is certainly more familiar to the band’s roots with a rebellious Strokes-like streak in chanting lines like “wreck the spectacle you live in”. French, their native language is liberally used in this album.

Smatterings of Italian and Spanish are also thrown in through voiceovers, a further reminder that this album is trying, and succeeding, in being ‘quintessentially European’. Phoenix are clearly aware of the clichés they are evoking through the eighteen-minute ‘Ti Amo Speciale’, an eighteen-minute warm parody of 70s Italian variety TV shows which graced Saturday night televisions. It’s quirky and adds to this album’s is crafted in a deliberate, self-aware manner. In the ‘Ti Amo Speciale’, performances are punctuated with light-hearted banter with the hosts who playfully quarrel about whether the band should drink wine when playing and very obviously reading French from cue cards latter muddled.

It is all there – canned laughter, sunglasses worn indoors and harmless flirting. Indeed, questions about which band member is the most romantic and shy feature. Unlike previous albums with apparent ‘standout songs’ like ‘Listzomania’, this album glides through at a more or less even pace. Special mentions have to be given to ‘J-Boy’ which opens the album energetically setting the tone and ‘Telefono’ which closes it and makes the most of chanting “vivere”, reminding us that this has been a sunny experience. Although, this unabashed optimism may dissuade listeners who are more used to the nonchalant and cool melodies of previous albums, Phoenix are still cool just in a different way.

Should we reject the new no-platforming fines?

Julia Alsop and Lucinda Brown
-
0
Should we reject the new no-platforming fines?

Julia Alsop: Yes

The role of no-platforming policies is to allow clearer, considered, collaborative debate, free of intimidation. Filtering hateful views offers diverse – and at times, still controversial – views to emerge.
This is not a ‘snowflake’ generation shying from discussion. We are educated on difficult social issues. ‘Resilience’ is a word constantly thrown around by Jo Johnson and his colleagues when defending their proposed no platforming fines.

Sure – in educational settings it is important to talk about identity, or controversial opinions, and uncomfortable topics. However, it’s distasteful to see no-platforming fines are predominately being pushed by privileged individuals who don’t have their identity questioned everyday. It is nobody else’s right to tell a person that they must be more resilient to issues that may cause them to relive traumatic experiences, and further alienate them from discussions.

By providing trigger warnings, or not including intimidating speakers, we can engage people, who may have had unpleasant experiences – of anything from transphobic abuse to sexual assault – and allow them to safely share their insight. Student unions, including the NUS, work on a principle that disallows prejudiced people from speaking at platforms under the unions’ jurisdictions. By doing this, they are fulfilling their role in supporting all students.

Johnson misunderstands the actions of the NUS and, indeed, other student unions, and has taken their decisions entirely out of context. The NUS have actually only banned six organisations, including the EDL and Al-Muhajiroun, the latter a group linked to anti-Semitism, homophobia, and terrorism. Is that really an unreasonable policy? Giving platforms gives power to those views. It’s not stifling debates to refuse hate speakers, who spout inflammatory information. It’s not a debate if students feel intimidated in their own university by historically violent and discriminatory groups invited in.

Ultimately, it comes down to the principle that the NUS have brought forward: “balance freedom of speech and freedom from harm”. Nearly two-thirds of university students agree with the NUS holding a no platforming policy. It is the democratic choice of students to withhold prejudiced thoughts from debate.

It is important to stress that no platforming policies are used only in exceptional circumstances where speakers are known to incite violence or make hateful statements. It is simply reductive to argue that no-platforming is designed to ban anyone we merely disagree with. To suggest that banning speakers with violent histories should be forbidden, or even result in fines, corrupts freedom of speech is misplaced. Freedom of speech should allow us to share ideas and cultures not create a world where aggression and intimidation speak over the reasoned and reasonable.

Lucinda Brown: No

A year ago, Claire Fox, author of ‘I Find That Offensive’, came to my school to give a talk on freedom of speech. In her talk, she branded our age group as ‘Generation Snowflake’: a coddled cohort of young people who attempt to shut out any views with which we disagree.

Fox declared that, unlike physical abuse, words only hurt because we let them. As if on cue, a student in the audience became hysterical, exclaiming that the school should never have let Fox come to speak. If the pupil had got her way, Fox would have been no-platformed, denying the rest of the audience the chance to listen to her thought-provoking talk.

No-platforming is the antithesis of free speech. As John Stuart Mill wrote: “all silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility”. The only way for us to properly justify an opinion is to engage with people that disagree and discredit their arguments, but no platforming prevents students from doing just that.

The government recently announced a new plan to allow the Office for Students to fine universities which no-platform speakers to “encourage a culture of openness and debate” at UK universities. This policy alone will not bring an end to no-platforming. After all, the primary culprits of no-platforming are the student unions themselves, who are independent of universities and thus could bypass the fine by no platforming speakers at union events held outside of university property.

In addition, for collegiate universities such as Oxford, the government would need to give the Office for Students the power to fine the colleges themselves as well as the University at large. Ultimately though, what’s needed is a fundamental change in attitude amongst students towards free speech.

Universities should not be ‘safe spaces’ where students are protected from ideas which make them feel uncomfortable. University should train students in critical thinking so that they can go on to contribute to a society free from dogma. No platforming compromises this ideal by creating a culture of silence in which difficult topics are never openly discussed. The government’s proposed no platforming fine should be welcomed by students, but I won’t hold my breath.

1...893894895...2,612Page 894 of 2,612