Sunday, April 27, 2025
Blog Page 9

Torpids 2025: Bumps, slumps and eleven-spot jumps

Clemmie Ewins
-
0
Torpids 2025: Bumps, slumps and eleven-spot jumps

Torpids: the bringer of cult-collegiate support, un-ironic unitards, and this year: the first blue skies in what has felt like an eon. Torpids sees colleges qualify as many boats as they can in both men’s and women’s divisions and enter them into four days of bumps racing. From the bung lines at Iffley Meadows it’s a mad dash to the finish just before Folly Bridge; battling to bump the boat in front, avoiding being bumped by the boat behind and as was painfully reminded to the St Catherine’s College and St Hilda’s College boats this year, evade swans that should happen to cruise into the racing line!

Torpids 2025 provided a turbulent competition with immediate disappointment for the lower-half divisions who missed out on racing altogether due to the high stream. It was up to the top 37 men’s and women’s crews to carry to competition for their respective colleges.

Crews across the divisions were gunning for blades, an honour only bestowed upon crews who bump every day of Torpids: Hertford College maintained consistently high performances as their W1 and O1 both secured their set, with W1 even jumping up into the top division. Men’s Division III saw blades for four of their twelve crews; St Hilda’s, Oriel College, Wolfson College and Worcester College, rendering it the most fruitful division of the competition, closely followed by Women’s Division II in which three sets of blades were won by Hertford, Exeter College and Somerville College. The college who gained the most places at Torpids was Worcester, with an increase of eleven; six places gained by the men and five by the women. 

But as some colleges soared, others (almost literally) sunk, and we had no shortage of spoons this year. Women’s Division I dished out three sets of spoons to Magdalen College, Trinity College and Lady Margaret Hall, as these three boats had fallen into the division below by the end of Saturday. Linacre College suffered a huge dip in the position of their O1 boat as they dropped eleven places down the ranks. It was only their women’s crew that prevented total annihilation by gaining two places overall. The most catastrophic spoons recipients of this year’s Torpids were St Anne’s College. Starting at a comfortable 20th, the week saw Anne’s only qualified boat, their W1 crew, plummet down to 33rd. Perhaps the lack of lower-half divisions was a blessing in disguise, as it prevented any further spiralling.

Saturday provided a lovely end to the occasion as the smell of cheap prosecco drying on the pontoons filled the air, as the commentator repeatedly reminded crews to hold back from jumping into the river in celebration. Ultimately, it was the Wolfson men and Pembroke women who both solidified the top spot in each Division I, and won their first Torpids Headships. 

As support and excitement built over the week, the Isis welcomed back its state of boat-induced chaos. Bank riders, spectators, umpires, and poorly timed pedestrians lined the banks and, as you made your way down the towpath, Torpids was on every tongue. Now that rowers have wetted their racing appetites, it’s up to the boat clubs to keep up the momentum and use their victory or defeat to fuel their training for Trinity’s Summer VIIIs.

Oxford Feminist Society condemns Oxford Union’s invitation of rapper convicted of assault

Noah Robson
-
0
Oxford Feminist Society condemns Oxford Union’s invitation of rapper convicted of assault

Oxford Feminist Society have condemned the Oxford Union for their invitation of convicted domestic abuser Dizzee Rascal. The rapper, whose real name is Dylan Mills, is due to appear at the Union on Wednesday for a Hip Hop panel event, followed by a concert later that evening.

Oxford Feminist Society told Cherwell: “The Union’s unwillingness or inability to withdraw its invitation, apologise for extending it in the first place or publicly condemn the actions of Dizzee Rascal contradicts its ability to be the bastion of free speech it claims to be.

“It is an insult to the victims of domestic violence and to women in general. The lack of repercussions faced by these men then resulting in career promoting opportunities minimises the violence that women face, mainly at the hands of men.

“Violence against women is a national and international emergency, and the Union is complicit in perpetuating an environment that supports it.”

Dizzee Rascal was convicted in 2022 of assaulting his former partner, losing an appeal against the judgement a year later. He was given a one-year restraining order and a 24-week curfew, following a trial at which he denied assault by beating.

In an Instagram post on Sunday, Oxford Fem Soc demanded that the Union withdraw the invitation, issue an apology for “normalising such individuals”, and update their guest policy “to ensure no further abusers are invited”.

Fem Soc also told Cherwell that their “contact and discussion with the Union’s Press Team has been transparent and in good faith, helping [them] outline internal and external means of redress.” However, they raised concerns at the “apparent lack of internal ability for individual Union committee members to take action towards either disinvitation, or a statement of recognition or condemnation on behalf of the Union.”

One Union member, Emily, who did not want to give her full name, told Cherwell that she had raised issues with the invitation for some time, but had not received any response to her concerns after contacting the Union on social media. She said to Cherwell: “I was very vocal about my upset over the Union inviting a convicted domestic abuser to speak. I contacted all of the current committee, the Union social media pages and an internal Union group to no reply.

“Inviting Dizzee Rascal is not only invalidating for students who have experienced abuse but it is also upsetting to give him the honour of speaking at the Oxford Union. It is wrong, and the committee has failed to address my concerns as a member at all.”

The panel at the Union on Wednesday evening is set to discuss Hip Hop and its impact on youth, with other guests including Tajai, MC Serch, DJ Yoda, and DJ Bonds.

In regard to action surrounding the event, Feminist Society told Cherwell that they have “not publicly planned any action against the Union, however [they] do call for a boycott of all non-disruptive attendance of the event.”

They further added: “We would like to repeat that both us and the Union have been civil to this point, but there is nothing civil about normalising violent misogyny and cultural acceptance of those that commit it. That in itself is violence and is a violation of the free speech of all those affected.”

Cherwell contacted Oxford Union for comment but did not receive a response.

Cherubs Grow On Trees: Atmospheric student filmmaking

Lara Machado
-
0
Cherubs Grow On Trees: Atmospheric student filmmaking

Making short films is hard. You have anything between two and 20 minutes to tell a compelling story. As an audience member, they can often feel unsatisfying. However, for many filmmakers, the format is less about narrative and more about experimentation, less about a cohesive plot, or in-depth characterisation and more about an initial foray into a theme, about raising questions. It is certainly true that looking back on the short films of now-lauded directors – from Bong Joon-Ho to Paul Thomas Anderson – it is precisely the seeds of what later fuelled their feature films which strike us. But if it is hard to make a short film on any budget, it is even harder to do so on the unavoidably limited student budget. 

Comfort Tanie Maseko, director and writer of Cherubs Grow On Trees, which was filmed during their time at Oxford, describes the production as a “zero budget, student short film”. The end result becomes, in the light of this statement, even more admirable. This is not to say that the film is perfect, or that it doesn’t feel like it was made by a group of talented students, rather than seasoned, industry professionals, but that with a runtime of only eight minutes it submerged me in its world and left me wanting more.

The first thing that will strike you about Cherubs Grow On Trees is how beautifully it is shot – particularly its first section. The film – a self-proclaimed gothic, romance drama – follows a girl, played by Avania Costello, who has come back to Earth in the form of an angel and seeks to understand her death. Depicting an afterlife or telling a story from the perspective of the dead on-screen is a challenge. How can you film living, material things and give a sense of detachment from life? As the film aptly puts it: “A mind can only wrap itself around so much nothing”. However, Cherubs Grow on Trees  – through very well-executed shots – is truly convincing in its depiction of Costello’s distance from what we see around her.

The first part of the film is shot entirely in black and white, with Director of Photography and Colourist Aristotelis Chrysos showing a great command of shadows. The streets and corners of Oxford are bathed in darkness, contrasted with unusually bright lamp posts that take on ghostly presences themselves. Costello’s characterisation is also beautiful. She wears a plain white dress, which not only stands out against the darkness that surrounds her, but is accompanied everywhere by a faint white glow. Often she is out of focus when her surroundings are not, which further gives us a sense of her as a non-corporeal being.

This is where Costello’s performance is also of importance. As the voice-over monologue details her feelings of absolute detachment from the material world, her voice is almost emotionless and her face practically expressionless. Costello’s utter indifference shines through the screen. She wanders through the streets with a strange sense of unshakeable purpose, but simultaneously of utter calm. The dance scene is great at building on this feeling. Accompanied by an ethereal soundtrack composed by Can Arisoy, Costello leaps and turns and shakes in ways that make her body seem impossibly light. The editing of this scene – executed by Joshua Luther Recido, who is also the film’s Sound Designer – is very clever. Recido repeatedly fades shots of Costello’s dancing from different angles into each other, so that her movements often seem to extend unnaturally. 

The second part of the film is sadly not as good as the first – although perhaps it is necessary as a conclusion. Although the red cinematography is effective at conveying that this is the scene of an unnecessary death and the reveal of Costello’s dead body is undeniably effective, the introduction of a more conventional narrative in the film’s last two minutes feels rushed. 

Cherubs Grow on Trees is a testament to how a creative, talented set of people working together on a film can create good art regardless of budget. After receiving a Special Mention laurel from the 2025 UK Student Short Film Festival, the team plans on submitting the film to the Oxford University Short Film Festival. Hopefully, this will make it available to Oxford audiences on a big screen later this term. In the meantime, you can follow Sixth Inn Productions on Instagram for more details as well as a trailer.

Oxford research midwife wins King’s award for humanitarian work

Ben O'Brien
-
0
Oxford research midwife wins King’s award for humanitarian work

A research midwife at the University of Oxford, Alessandra Morelli, has received an award from the King in recognition of her humanitarian work in flood-hit Libya. 

Morelli was deployed to Libya by the frontline medical aid charity UK-Med in the aftermath of the Storm Daniel, which hit the country in September 2023 and killed over 3,000 people. There, Morelli trained Libyan midwives in the city of Derna, where the storm had hit particularly hard and caused severe flooding.

Morelli is a researcher at Oxford’s Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, where she is currently working on a project that aims to reduce complications for women who are pregnant or giving birth. She had previously worked with UK-Med in response to the two earthquakes in southern Turkey in February 2023. 

The new award, which recognises extraordinary service in response to humanitarian emergencies, was presented at Buckingham Palace on 25th February. At this event, Morelli and 13 other frontline medical responders were given Humanitarian Medals in recognition of their work.

Morelli told Cherwell: “Being one of the first recipients of this award came as a huge surprise. It’s truly an honour to receive this recognition, but more than anything, it’s a reminder of the resilience and courage of the people we try to help. I hope that this award will put humanitarian work in the spotlight, drawing more attention to the urgent need for resources, policy changes, and global support for those affected by crises.”

Beyond Libya, UK-Med is also providing critical medical support in Gaza and Ukraine, staffing hospitals, performing surgeries, and training local staff. 

When asked what drives her to pursue such difficult work in extreme conditions, Ms Morelli told Cherwell: “The people we help are my greatest source of inspiration. Seeing their strength and determination, even in the face of crisis, fuels my commitment.” 

David Wightwick, CEO of UK-Med, said: “These dedicated professionals have put their expertise to work in the most extreme conditions imaginable.

“Their commitment to saving lives, often at great personal risk, is a testament to the values of humanitarianism and medical excellence.”

When speaking to Cherwell, Ms Morelli outlined her plans for the future, intending to continue providing emergency healthcare internationally as and when it is needed, stating: “This is not just a job–it’s a lifelong mission.”

Lessons in Censorship: A Cautionary Tale against Bodleian Blacklists 

Sophie Price
-
0
Lessons in Censorship: A Cautionary Tale against Bodleian Blacklists 

If Magdalen College alumnus Oscar Wilde had wished to settle into an afternoon at the Old Bodleian to read his own book, The Picture of Dorian Gray, he would have found it nearly impossible to do so. Deemed to be too obscene for unrestricted access by the 19th century Bodleian, his book would have been buried away in Oxford’s clandestine restricted section along with other ‘unsuitable’ material. With four hundred years under its belt, the Bodleian has not been entirely immune to blemishes in its commitment to fostering liberated academic practice. 

There have been centuries of whispers, typical of the hallowed halls of academia, that some books should be restricted or altogether removed. Casting aside accusations of OX1 believing it is the centre of society, the Bodleian indeed does not exist in isolation: It is one of only six legal deposit libraries in the United Kingdom and Ireland, and if such an esteemed academic institution restricts books, it risks emboldening others to follow suit. 

In a university education, learning to face perspectives you disagree with is as essential as wading through the endless pool of sources supporting your arguments and interests. To ban a book for its obscenity only prevents its reader from learning how to handle exposure to such content and deprives critical engagement with history’s mistakes. Banning books is not protection, it is disarmament.

There’s also the trivial matter of human nature: people want what they can’t have. The best way to spark interest in a text is to tell someone they can’t read it. The idea of a licentious underground in the Bodleian (admittedly not the Glink) filled with mysterious manuscripts oozing with dangerous secrets would only produce an allure that makes such texts into forbidden fruits. 

The Bodleian library and a restricted section of unruly materials may produce chuckles from its Harry Potter-esque connotations, but the actual collection of restricted books provides a telling insight into the irony of intellectual suppression in an academic arcadia. Historically, book restriction in the Bodleian was centred around a collection known as the Phi books, aptly named due to the Greek Phi symbol on the spine of its literary hostages. Originating in the late Victorian era, the collection acted as a loophole in the battle between the legal deposit system and the need to protect innocent undergraduate minds from profanity. Texts deemed to be ‘obscene’ were muzzled with the phi stamp and could only be accessed upon request with a letter from a tutor. 

In many respects, looking back at such collections of banned books can help us chart the course of human attitudes towards what is considered improper across time. In the Bodleian, notable books that became restricted inmates include James Joyce’s Ulysses or D.H Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover, authors who now frequently appear on undergraduate reading lists. Where the Victorian Oxonians were primarily concerned with sexual profanity or obscenity, contemporary debates about censorship tend towards social controversy. Recently, the US Education Department vowed to abandon its role in investigating schools that received civil rights complaints for book censorship primarily due to race and sexuality. It is perhaps unsurprising that modern books commonly associated with restriction tend to be canonical titans such as Orwell’s 1984, and Animal Farm, or Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale. While the above can all be easily accessed by Bodleian readers, the resurgence of censorship debates should serve as a reminder not to take this freedom for granted. 

In the 21st century, there is the issue of the internet being able to overrule attempts to restrict or censor a literary text. Restricting a text may appear pointless if a summary can be accessed online in seconds. Worse, is there any danger in banning a thoughtful and scholarly text if misinformation on a similar topic is floating around unchallenged on social media?

Nowadays, Bodleian restrictions tend to occur when publishers communicate any errors or legal issues that would warrant the book to be kept behind closed doors. Fortunately, the Bodleian mandates that no books be destroyed or removed entirely. Instead, they are placed in a restricted section and can be accessed upon special request. This assurance that no text is outrightly removed is more respectful to the legal deposit protection, and the reasons for restriction are more practical than ideological. However, it must remain that we don’t return to previous systems of book bans for their content or controversy. Regardless of what approach schools and universities take worldwide, if the Bodleian wishes to remain a statute of academia, then they must make sure any text remains available to be read, even if it must be requested. 

Ideas do not vanish simply because they are hidden away. Books that contain contentious ideas or explicit content should be free to be critiqued and contextualised rather than denied. If every generation removed their concept of the distasteful or obscene, we would be left with empty shelves. To think restrictions are reasonable for brokering peace and keeping the academic community in a state of amicable neutrality is to misinterpret the point of a book. Indeed, empowering a finite number of individuals with the authority to impose sweeping bans, which affect not just academia but also members of the public, is not only intellectually condescending but also insults the reader’s free will. Books, even at their most controversial point, should be provocative rather than squandered for the sake of coddling capable minds. 

Restricting one book initiates a precedent that, if left unregulated, could quickly spiral out of control. If one book becomes banned, why not another? What criteria defines obscenity, and who gets to decide? The Bodleian is not Blackwells, where titles are shelved according to consumerist concerns. It is a sanctuary of knowledge that should steer clear from the business of approval. 

Fortunately, if Wilde had wished to read his book today, he would have full access to the Bodleian, Radcliffe Camera, and many college libraries. His decree that ‘there is no such thing as a moral or immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written’ is one that any library should live by. For now, we can be grateful that both have a home on our Bodleian shelves.

Should ‘Orbital’ have won The Booker Prize? 

Laurence Cooke
-
0
Should ‘Orbital’ have won The Booker Prize? 

I have some reservations, but first, some reassurances: this review is not going to claim that Samantha Harvey’s Orbital, the 2024 Booker Prize Winner, is a work without merit. She really does manage to capture a remarkable synthesis of the galactic and the mundane. She excels in beautiful descriptions of our humble and yet majestic Blue Marble, rotating under the orbit of six ISS astronauts whose lives form the novel’s bedrock. Her book cleverly intersperses snippets of her astronauts’ personal and professional (read remarkable) lives: their hopes and fears, their atrophying bodies, and the hope with which they pursue their duties. 

Moreover, the fragility of the Earth as seen from the observation window speaks to our vulnerability in the age of climate breakdown. A typhoon is moving across the Pacific and the Philippines look like specks when you’re 400 kilometres above sea level. Yet we don’t float away into abstract grandstanding – NASA and the European Space Agency appear in the acknowledgements, which is unsurprising since we’re also offered a very material picture of life without gravity. Think velcro, swallowing toothpaste, and sinus problems.

There’s also room for political commentary, the most amusing case being the authorities’ refusal to maintain a toilet shared by astronauts of all nationalities. Harvey does, however, paint an optimistic tableau of the potential for unity at the frontier. The Russian cosmonauts are presented sympathetically, and what emerges is a sense of similarity, not difference. 

What Harvey has, above all, is the courage to not shy away from what she presumably considers her central mission: the orbit. We’re not allowed to forget that the Earth is moving below, and life in space is not presented as an untethered foray so much as a constant tango between planet and satellite. Each continent rolls into view several times per day.

So far, so good. However, when I think of The Booker Prize’s criteria of being awarded to the best “work of long-form fiction”, Orbital’s ennoblement certainly raises some interesting questions about what it means to be a novel, and a great novel at that. It is my contention that Orbital is at its heart an extended work of prose poetry. Descriptions abound of the Earth viewed from afar, but there is a distinct lack of jet propulsion as far as narrative thrust is concerned. The characters feel under-developed, and are really just vehicles for the fragmented reflections which provide some human drama. 

Think of the great story arcs of some of the previous Booker winners. Does Orbital really stand alongside Wolf Hall, say, in its depth of character, its woven narrative? Maybe we just don’t think these are essential ingredients of truly great novels, but they surely make for a more compelling reading experience. There is nothing wrong with novels whose narrative strand is oblique. One of my favourites is Ishiguro’s The Remains of the Day, precisely because while it might seem like nothing has happened, everything has happened. 

Which brings me to something else which has intrigued me greatly: discussion of Orbital’s length. Some have alleged that the shortness of the novel speaks to diminishing attention spans, or at least the changing way in which we consume literature. Some student reviews claim that Harvey makes it difficult to read the book in more than one sitting, in part to give the overworked Booker judges an easier time, but also to allow us to experience a whole day with the astronauts. 

I couldn’t read it in one sitting! The detail is so rich, the motifs so repetitive: the novel is a dense travelogue of space. So many sentences run like this one, from one of the final pages of the book: “Rose-flushed mountains, lavender desert, and up-ahead Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and a round of faint cloud that is the moon”. Is this good writing? Or is this a (dare I say it) over-written description? Orbital is a lesson in the fact that length has far more to do with a work’s inner layers, its characters’ interiority, and the logical progression of ideas. I will confess that it took me longer than expected to read Orbital because like the ISS, it circles back round again and again… and again. The same ideas, the same eternal mode: description.

These descriptions, of course, have great value – I hope the first part of my review has established that. But upon finishing the book, I still felt as though Harvey had done a great job of seeming to say very profound things, without actually saying that much. An interesting piece of prose poetry it certainly is. A genius novel? Perhaps not.

Mini-crossword: HT25 Week 6

Zoë McGuire
-
0
Built by Cherwell Editors with the online cross word maker from Amuse Labs

Previous mini-crosswords:

For more crosswords and other puzzles, pick up a Cherwell print issue from your JCR/Plodge!

Oxford now has the right approach to animal testing

Arun Lewis
-
0
Oxford now has the right approach to animal testing

This newspaper recently conducted an investigation into animal experimentation performed at Oxford for medical and research purposes. Animal experimentation has long been a divisive issue, and the suffering it causes subjects is always regrettable. But important medical research relies on animal experimentation, and the importance of post-pandemic medical research has never been higher.

The University no longer uses animals in teaching, but their use continues in research. The vast majority of these – over 190,000 – are rats. Over nine years, the number of animals subjected to experiments has fallen by 30,000. In 2023, barely 1% of experiments resulted in fatal outcomes, with most of this burden again falling on mice. Anti-testing protestors and activists have never been shy about expressing themselves.

As the investigation details, bombings in 2008 cost the University £14,000 and saw an extremist jailed for a decade, whilst the construction of the Biomedical Sciences building had to be paused for five months in 2004 after threats were made against it. The late Sir Colin Blakemore, who sewed kitten’s eyelids shut and later killed them to understand lazy eye, the most common then-incurable cause of childhood blindness, had HIV-infected needles sent to his house. It’s clear that research using animals both endures at Oxford and continues to be deeply controversial.

Undoubtedly, some of these experiments are unpleasant, and the maiming, suffering, or death of animals for no good cause should not be celebrated. It’s right that medical students no longer use live animals when recorded demonstrations are available. It’s laudable that both the number of experiments conducted on live animals is falling, and that the number of fatal experiments are so small, and primarily conducted on rats rather than larger mammals such as apes. Elon Musk’s treatment of monkeys in his Neuralink experiments, for example, reaches an unnecessary, insensitive level of cruelty that Oxford doesn’t match.

Avoiding such brutality should be the primary goal of researchers when handling such subjects in experiments, acknowledging that they are experimenting on living, feeling creatures regardless of their intelligence. The use and destruction of animals in pursuit of cosmetics research, a purely commercial application, should be and is rightfully condemned as a disgrace. 

Yet an all too easy appeal to simply banning all animal testing would do incomparable harm to quite literally millions of people. The vital role animal testing has played in understanding cognitive development, illnesses, infections, and physiology cannot be waved away as unjustified. Could any well-intentioned protestor, who genuinely cares for the wellbeing of animals, look at a patient suffering from a currently incurable condition, or one which causes chronic pain, and conclude that they deserve to suffer for the benefit of non-human animals who would otherwise be tested upon?

In an ideal world with no pain, animal experimentation would of course be unnecessary. But in a world riven with illness, diseases, and all manner of conditions which can cause great harm and suffering to a great number of people, we as students, and as a country, have to decide what we are more willing to let trouble our conscience. The suffering of animals in pursuit of a cure, or the avoidable suffering of a colossal number of people, who for instance inherit a debilitating condition, in an area of the world with higher levels of disease or worse healthcare facilities, or simply one facing poverty.

I have to confess a personal stake in this question. Not only did my grandfather carry out research on naked mice, testing the efficacy of leprosy cures, but there is a far closer reason I feel animal testing is deeply unfortunate, but necessary. My namesake, my grandfather’s brother, died of TB in the early 1940s in rural Bengal. In 1944, the first effective treatment for TB was deployed, and by the 1960s, TB was widely and easily treatable. How many more families would still suffer the same heartbreak mine did, if animal experimentation had not contributed towards the development of treatments for TB?

In an era of antibiotic-resistant infections, when conspiracy theories regarding science and a lack of trust in medical professionals are rampant, and spread profligately online and  by way of leaders themselves, animal experimentation continues to play a small, unfortunate, yet unavoidably important role in the progress of medicine. The suffering and sacrifice of the animal subjects should never be forgotten, nor minimised, and the use of animal testing should remain at a low level.

Yet there is little substitute for the real benefit that can be derived towards medical progress from it, and so no matter how well-intentioned and righteous those who oppose it may be, Oxford’s current position of involving animal testing in research, but not teaching, is the right one. This University may struggle to get many of the big questions right, but it has hit on the correct formula to balance the suffering of test subjects against the benefits of animal testing.

Have an opinion on the points raised in this article? Send us a 150-word letter at [email protected] and see your response in our next print or online.

Palestine Action protesters vandalise Blavatnik School of Government

Ila Banerji
-
0
Palestine Action protesters vandalise Blavatnik School of Government

The Blavatnik School of Government was vandalised in the early hours of Friday morning by Palestine Action. Glass smashed in the windows and doors of the building. Some of the damaged glass was sprayed with what appears to be red paint.

The Blavatnik told Cherwell: “The vandalism will not impact the opening and operations of the Blavatnik School. We remain open for students and staff through the back entrance.”

The Blavatnik has been a target of pro-Palestinian protest before, with Oxford Action For Palestine (OA4P), protesting outside the building as former Governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, spoke inside. 

Palestine Action has vandalised University buildings in a similar way before, smashing the glass of the doors of the University’s Wellington Square offices and spraying them with red paint, in October of last year. 

In an Instagram post, Palestine Action said: “Oxford university targeted again over ties to genocide, including investments in Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer.

“Last night’s targeting of the Blavatnik School of Government sends a clear message to the board of governors: End your complicity or expect direct action.

“Rishi Sunak is due to take up his new position on Blavatnik’s board soon. Under his direction, Britain participated in the genocide of Palestinians.”

A University spokesperson added to Cherwell: “The University is working with the Police to identify those responsible.”

A spokesperson for Thames Valley Police told Cherwell that they had “received reports of criminal damage” but that “no arrests have been made at this time [and] an investigation is ongoing”. 

Whilst OA4P claimed they were not involved in the action, they posted a statement on Instagram in “solidarity” with the action. A spokesperson told Cherwell that “OA4P was not involved in but stands in solidarity with actions calling out Oxford University’s complicity in Israeli genocide, apartheid, and occupation”. 

Oxford Union believes there is no moral difference between American and Russian foreign policy

Poppy Littler-Jennings
-
0
Oxford Union believes there is no moral difference between American and Russian foreign policy

In Thursday night’s debate, the Oxford Union voted in favour of the motion “This house believes there is no moral difference between American and Russian foreign policy”, with 155 members voting for the motion and 125 members voting against it.

The same debate took place in the Union 41 years ago to the day, as was noted by several speakers over the course of the evening. On 27th February 1984, the chamber discussed whether there was any moral difference between the foreign policy of the US and that of the USSR. Then, the noes had it, with 271 members voting against the motion and 232 members voting for it.

The debate commenced with the Union Librarian, Moosa Haraj, opening for the proposition. His argument focused on how, despite the purported values of freedom of the US and the frequent depiction of Russia as the “villain”, both countries only pursue “power not principle”. He cited the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the invasion of Ukraine in 2022 – a contentious comparison which was questioned later in the debate – arguing that in both instances, actions were claimed to be for liberation, when in fact they were for nothing other than self-interest. He argued that, fundamentally, the sole difference between these “two self-interested titans” was that the US “just has better branding” to disguise the imperialism that lies at the heart of its foreign policy.

Following this, the Treasurer, Sarah Mughal Rana, took the floor as the first speaker for the opposition. She opened her speech for the opposition by conveying her personal connection to the motion, explaining how she grew up in the thick of the war on terror. She insisted on the importance of examining the moral frameworks that underpin these two powers, arguing that whilst the US couches its foreign policy decisions in claims of neoliberalist and secular values, Russian policy is modelled on the preservation of its own sovereignty and resisting Western opposition. She noted a certain difference in priorities and strategy, as Russia is known to pursue external annexation, whereas the US is not, as well as the existence of “specific accountability frameworks” in the US, such as in the Senate, as opposed to a distinct lack thereof in Russia.  

Next to take the floor for the proposition was Israr Khan, President of the Union, whose argument, similarly to the Librarian’s, primarily entailed an examination of the way in which the US obscures its intentions with regards to foreign policy decisions. He argued that one of the few advantages of the Trump administration is that the President is upfront about acting uniquely out of self-interest on the international stage, contrary to previous US leaders.

President Israr Khan then drew his listeners’ attention to the 251 American military interventions that took place between 1991 and 2022, as compared to Russia’s 25, as well as the 1 million people that died in US wars post-9/11. In light of these figures, he underlined the phenomenon of American exceptionalism and claimed: “Washington weaponises the dollar”. He drew his speech to a close by asserting that the solitary moral difference to be observed between Russia and the US is one of “style” rather than of “substance”.

Following him was Erik Ramanathan, an American attorney who served as US ambassador to Sweden under President Joe Biden from 2022 to 2025, who began by describing the motion as “dangerous”. His argument centred around the US’s interest in other nations as allies rather than mere vassals, as they are understood by Russia, as well as the power held by the American people to “sound the alarm” when foreign policy decisions are taken that they don’t approve of, giving the example of the Vietnam War. 

He did, however, stress the power of the right to protest and the freedom of press that bridles such a movement, stating: “Resistance is growing stronger by the day.” To this he opposed the lack of such opportunity for change in Russia, somewhat wryly concluding his speech by assuring the chamber that, unlike in Russia, no one would be arrested for which door they walked through. 

The third speaker for the proposition was Vladimir Pozner Jr, a Russian-American journalist who acted as a spokesperson for the Soviet Union during the Cold War. He also stressed the point of exceptionalism as a common trait for both powers, and used the expression “intellectual junk food” coined by President Nixon, to explain how both countries present their foreign policy in a way suited to the sensibilities of their respective publics. 

He spoke of how, in 60 years as a journalist, having spoken to many highly ranking people, both publicly and privately, on both sides, not once has he heard any of them say a word about moral foreign policy. To conclude his speech he thanked the members for their attention and wittily cited Shakespeare: “A plague on both your houses!”, earning a bout of laughter from the chamber.

Speaking next was Russian investigative journalist and Russian security services expert, Andrei Soldatov. He stressed a fundamental difference in the motivations of Russia and the US relative to foreign policy, attributing fear to the former and ambition to the latter. He argued that decisions made by Russian leaders betray a deep-seated fear of regime change, something that can be attested by the fact that he himself has been placed on the wanted list by the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs for his work in investigative journalism. 

Following Andrei was Liza Barkova, a first year PPE student at Christ Church College and a Russian citizen with, as Sara’s speech earlier teased, an alleged Russian oligarch for a father. Like the preceding speakers for the proposition, she argued that the ultimate and only goal of both powers was a protection of self-interest. She highlighted the impact of Russian foreign policy on its own people, discussing the conscription of boys her age to the war in Ukraine as well as a personal anecdote in which her best friend found herself having to hide in Kiev after the outbreak of war. 

She made a case not for the equal “immorality” of the two countries but for their identical “amorality”, claiming that their shared goal of power is pragmatic, and that pragmatism is essentially amoral. She concluded that “there is no moral difference because there is no morality in it [both Russian and American foreign policy].”

The final speaker of the evening was a member from the audience, who took the place of President Guillermo Lasso, who had to leave the debate due to an “emergency”. The member underlined examples of the US intervening with the intention of saving smaller nations from atrocities such as genocides, and, by comparison, the manifest lack of such an action in the history of Russian foreign policy. He also argued that the invasion of Iraq is not comparable to the invasion of Ukraine and to do so is morally abhorrent and “a mockery of this union”.

Also expected to speak was Nina Khrushcheva, the granddaughter of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and a Professor of International Affairs at The New School, but she withdrew prior to the debate.

1...8910...2,486Page 9 of 2,486

Support Student Journalism

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

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

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

Website by James Ashley