Friday, May 16, 2025
Blog Page 900

Review: The Homecoming

Lael Hines
-
0
Review: The Homecoming

After the play finished, a few good friends walked towards me. “Wait, so what happened?” My friend Alex’s facial muscles were contorted. “What the fuck just happened?” It is in this question that the play smacked the nail on the head. The actors did an excellent job of portraying the tensions and ambiguities of this sexually charged, clenching domestic drama. Like Alex, I clenched and contorted my face all the way through, and watched as confused neighbours did the same.

Hugo Macpherson did a particularly excellent job of capturing the quick-witted, sinister pimp, Lenny. Macpherson’s performance stood out to me, as his character seemed unaffected by the violent and sexual motifs. It was in this nonchalance that the play’s effect became all the powerful. Why is no one caving under the pressure? Why is Lenny acting so ‘normal’, when everything seems to be on the brink of collapse? Other characters gave a more emotional performance, particularly Rupert Stonehill as Teddy. He played an angry Teddy, rather than the passive figure I took from reading the play.

I like to think of Pinter’s plays as an arrangement of characters. The audience witnesses this arrangement, and takes what they will from it. In a speech at the National Student Drama Festival, Harold Pinter explained: “I do all the donkeywork, in fact, and I think I can say I pay meticulous attention to the shape of things, from the shape of a sentence to the overall structure of a play. This shaping is of the first importance—you arrange and you listen, following the clues you leave for yourself through the characters.”

My one criticism would be this play was a bit heavy handed in expressing these ‘clues’. I was unsurprised when Sam alerted the audience that Mac had slept with Jesse, after strongly insinuating this fact through the pauses in his early speech. The play was wrought with strong clues and emotions, which made it slightly less alarming and perplexing for the audience. Adam Goodbody’s performance of Uncle Sam was incredibly unique and intriguing. He played the part with a slight smirk and his own brand of boyishly handsome restraint. Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this production, and deem it a loyal and intriguing rendition of the play.

Oxford’s driverless destiny

Josephine Pepper
-
0
Oxford’s driverless destiny

Could you start by explaining what Oxbotica is and what it’s doing?

Oxbotica is a software development company, developing software that’s going to enable autonomous vehicles and self-driving vehicles. It is a spin out from Oxford University’s Mobile Robotics Group. Through this we have licensed more than ninety pieces of intellectual property from the University, representing around 160 years of previous development by the University.

We work to develop the software ourselves and then we work with customers to help them access our software and integrate it into their own products. Some customers are interested in licensing our complete autonomy software while others may be more interested in licensing small parts of it.

I understand you are also working on a project called Gateway…

The Gateway Project is in Greenwich. We are working with other companies to pull together a fleet of seven or eight autonomous shuttles. These vehicles will be in operation sometime in the second quarter of 2017 and open for public demonstration for two or three months, ferrying people around the back of the Dome and around the Greenwich peninsular.

It is a research project to understand how the vehicles will mix with pedestrians, how people react to them, and also how the vehicles will react to people.

What is the public attitude to driverless technology?

By and large we have found people to be very accepting of driverless technology. Already existing is the driverless Docklands Light Railway, with no real negative feedback. The Heathrow Terminal Five pods are completely driverless and again there has been huge customer acceptance of that. These are the same pods that we now bring to Greenwich.

If well received and working well, what are your visions for this technology? Will we see lots more of it in the near future?

There’s definitely a market for autonomous vehicles in the smart cities of the future. The advantages of these vehicles include that they are by and large electric, meaning less output pollution, and the energy can be generated away from the city itself, creating less urban pollution. Another advantage of autonomous vehicles is we are able to schedule where they are, where they go, what they do—such planning allows us to cut down on congestion as well. We see brand new cities in China being built around the concept of autonomous technology like this, which certainly represents a huge potential export market for the UK.

One of the big focuses in this industry is around improving road safety and reducing avoidable accidents. We know that over 95 per cent of road accidents are caused by driver error and driver inattention.

Do you find yourself in competition with the autonomous vehicle projects in Silicon Valley?

Our model is very much one of allowing companies to licence and access our intellectual property and then integrate it with products. We see these companies working in this area as potential customers and have very good relationships with most of them.

Where are the main obstacles with this type of development?

Probably one of the major challenges has been finding the right number of suitably qualified engineers to work on the project for us—they are in very short supply in the UK, and in fact worldwide as this is such an explosive technology. The other blockage to large scale production at the moment is the cost of sensors. We are waiting for the cost to come down in 2020 or 2021 as the mass market kicks in.

Are there security concerns or threats of malicious hacking?

We have built cyber security into the software, both into physical access and remote access. The software is very secure—as secure as your bank account. We don’t really see any particular issues from that perspective, although of course lots of people like dreaming about it.

Could you elaborate about the software?

Our software is needed to give a vehicle intelligence to understand three things: where it is in the world, what’s around it, and then what to do next. So the first part is all about navigation and localisation, understanding where the car is. The second part is about understanding things around the car (people, roads, traffic lights). The third part, which is by far the most difficult, is planning how to get to where we need to be, given that we understand where we are and what is around us.

Presumably this involves a degree of teaching and learning responses by the car?

Yes some of our software is self-learning and over a period of time it will improve, for example in its recognition of pedestrians or cyclists, and it will start to recognise specific situations and be able to share this learning of situations across multiple vehicles.

Typically we use two or three different types of sensors. We use cameras, particularly stereo cameras, lasers ([a type] more commonly called lidars), and radar as well. We fuse all the data from the different sensors together, so we have one big picture. Each sensor has its own strength. The cameras are very good at the angle of separation between things whereas lasers are good at telling you exactly how far away something is.

From this information the [engineers] try to create models of how the vehicle is moving through the world. From this model they start coding and developing software we can put into the vehicles which we can then start to test. It is very complex and we rely on some of the cleverest people in the world that come to us from Oxford’s PhD programmes to make it possible.

Christ Church JCR vote against ‘sesh reps’ motion

Cherwell News Team
-
0
Christ Church JCR vote against ‘sesh reps’ motion

At a general meeting last Sunday, Christ Church JCR voted down a motion to rename their Entz Reps to ‘sesh reps’.

Sigfried Thun-Hohenstein, who proposed the motion, suggested that ‘sesh’ might be a more accessible term for freshers than ‘entz’, which is an Oxford-specific term that requires new members of the college to learn jargon.

He also alleged that ‘sesh’ might encourage entertainment reps to promote non-drinking events in college, rather than focusing exclusively on the organisation of club tickets.

Speaking in opposition, some members of the JCR suggested that the term ‘sesh’ had connotations of lad culture that might foster an uncomfortable environment in college and damage Christ Church’s reputation across the rest of the University.

Others worried that although the joke of ‘sesh rep’ might be funny now, it might become a stale joke that members of the JCR tired of.

An amendment was proposed to review the name of the entertainment reps annually, and change the name of the position in the standing orders and constitution of the JCR, but the motion as a whole was voted down by a significant margin.

The ‘sesh’—an abbreviation of session—is a term that came to massive prominence last year following the creation of the satirical ‘Humans of the Sesh’ Facebook page in 2015.

One student who requested that they remain anonymous said: “The sesh is an integral part of youth culture.

“Students can frequently find themselves alienated in the elite and old-fashioned environment of Oxford.

“The familiar notion of seshes, and the ‘sesh gremlin’ will help to reassure many students. I’m extremely disappointed that this motion has failed.”

Balliol second-year, John Maier, told Cherwell: “I was disappointed when I heard the result. As a self-confessed ‘sesh head’, I was chuffed to see Christ Church ‘blazing’ the way for Oxford to become as cool as like Bristol where all my sick mates are”.

Wadham SU tight-lipped over drone purchase

Cherwell News Team
-
0
Wadham SU tight-lipped over drone purchase

Members of the Wadham Student Union (SU) have remained tight-lipped about plans to buy the College a drone using money won from voter turnout figures in last week’s OUSU elections.

Last Sunday, Wadham debated a motion at its SU meeting, proposed by the President, Lucas Bertholdi-Saad, to buy the college a drone because “they are cool and have popular support”.

The motion was amended to instruct the Tech Rep to investigate how best to spend £150 of the £300 Wadham has won on a drone.

SU committee members and Wadham students appeared unwilling to speak to Cherwell about the plans. The Tech Rep, Saul Mendelson, had allegedly “strongly advised against offering comment” to student reporters. He later informed Cherwell he was “just kidding”.

According to the motion, the SU plans to use the drone “to make exciting access videos, to film Wadstock [the college’s annual music festival] from above, and to be rented out to other colleges when they need a drone”.

Oxford University Students Union awarded £300 to Wadham after it came second for turnout for OUSU elections. Teddy Hall, who came first, won £600.

Teddy Hall JCR President Amelia Gabaldoni informed Cherwell that the college was “most probably” intending to use the money on welfare teas.

The Wadham motion intends to use £50 on the “purchase of donuts, snacks and drinks” and donate a further £50 to each of the two nominated RAG charities, which were decided in the OUSU elections.

Amongst students who were willing to voice their views, opinions on the drone were mixed.

On the SU’s Facebook page, one second-year student said: “The drone is clearly an essentially needed aspect of college life.”

However, other students were more critical. Rachel Collett, a Wadham first-year, told Cherwell: “A poor quality camera filming football matches or promotional Wadham videos is a complete waste of money that could be used to actually benefit the SU and Wadham students.”

She added: “Fundamentally the money could be put to much better uses like buying condoms, tampons, or other welfare-related things.”

Another student, who wished to remain anonymous, said: “I think it’s ridiculous that Wadham SU are considering spending such a large amount of money on what is little more than a rather flashy toy.”

They said the drone “will be something only a small group of people will enjoy using”.

Bertholdi-Saad, the motion’s proposer, did not respond to Cherwell’s request for comment.

Oxford deemed “hostile environment” to free speech

Katherine Pye
-
0
Oxford deemed “hostile environment” to free speech

The online politics magazine Spiked have given Oxford university and students union a ‘red’ for campus freedom of speech in 2017, for the third year in a row.

The “anti-Stalinist left” magazine commented on the ranking: “The University of Oxford, the Oxford University Students’ Union and its constituent colleges and JCRs collectively create a hostile environment for free speech. The university, which has moved to a Red ranking, restricts ‘offensive’ and ‘needlessly provocative’ speech, and insists people use transgender pronouns.”

Further reasons for the ban included Christ Church College banning a debate and criticised OUSU for banning pro-life groups and stopping the student magazine No Offence being handed out at the 2015 freshers’ fair.

The University, whilst declining to comment in full, drew attention to Louise Richardson’s comments in January 2016 calling on students to remain open minded and engage with “objectionable” ideas. Richardson, in her speech said: “In an increasingly complex world the best may not be those who look and sound like ourselves.”

She continued: “How do we ensure that they appreciate the value of engaging with ideas they find objectionable, trying through reason to change another’s mind, while always being open to changing their own? How do we ensure that our students understand the true nature of freedom of inquiry and expression?”

Spiked’s criteria for a red ranking is: “A students’ union, university or institution that is hostile to free speech and free expression, mandating explicit restrictions on speech, including, but not limited to, bans on specific ideologies, political affiliations, beliefs, books, speakers or words.”

The magazine emphasised that: “being compelled to express something is as corrosive to free speech as being prohibited from expressing something.”

Jacob Williams, undergraduate at Exeter College and editor of the No Offence magazine banned from the 2015 Oxford freshers’ fair disagreed. He told Cherwell: “The University deserves its red ranking because its intellectual climate is deeply intolerant. All the arguments against freedom of speech rest on an implicit belief in human autonomy—the structures it is supposed to reinforce are judged to be bad because they limit the ability of members of certain groups to act unimpeded by external forces.

“The fundamental problem is that the ascription of value to this autonomy, which is questioned by the social conservatives, anti-feminists, or pro-lifers whose speech is restricted, is taken for granted, rather than being recognised as a fallible moral belief that university ought to equip us to critically examine.

“Ultimately, there isn’t much point in debating freedom of speech, because once you start examining this assumption behind the restrictions, you’ve already won the battle and moved the discussion to the issues the non-orthodox want to talk about.

“There are alternative worldviews to the secular liberalism that dominates our universities, and they deserve a fair hearing.”

This news comes amid ongoing debates about freedom of speech on British university campuses. When Donald Trump’s former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, came to speak at the Oxford Union last term, protesters from Oxford Labour Club, Migrant Solidarity and LGBTQ societies gathered outside the Union to condemn Lewandowski and protest the Union’s decision to allow him to speak

OUSU told Cherwell: “At OUSU, we’d like to say how proud we are to have received a red ranking from Spiked for the third year in a row. This red ranking recognises, among other things, our work in lobbying the University for a harassment policy which supports all students who need it, our incredibly well-received consent workshops and our firm pro-choice policy which extends to a ban on publications which attempt to manipulate vulnerable people into unwanted pregnancies.

“In particular, we’re glad that in their section on the Central University’s Harassment Policy, Spiked chooses to highlight the part which specifies that misgendering a trans person may constitute harassment.

“This was a change the Student Union was instrumental in making, and one which we are glad to say continues to improve the quality of life of trans students at the University.

“One problem we have, however, is getting this message out to students, especially trans students who may wish to use this section of the harassment policy to get support. So we’d like to thank Spiked for this important inclusion.

“Despite their their implication that supporting trans students is itself a violation of free speech, we hope their editorial will raise the profile of the support available for trans students, and have a net positive effect.”

Oxford distances itself from Trump hopeful

Maxim Parr-Reid
-
0
Oxford distances itself from Trump hopeful

Ted Malloch, an academic who is said to be in line for the post of United States ambassador to the European Union, is accused of falsely claiming Oxford College fellowships.

A number of claims made in Malloch’s CV and his autobiography Davos, Aspen & Yale are disputed.

Blackfriars, the Dominican PPH, told Cherwell that: “In publicity statements about Professor Ted Malloch, he is described as a Research Fellow of Blackfriars at Oxford University.”

“Professor Malloch was teaching at the Saïd Business School and was looking for an affiliation with an Oxford College or Permanent Private Hall.

“We sent him a letter offering him the position of Research Fellow from 2014, but never received a reply.

“To our knowledge, he has not visited Blackfriars since the offer was made”.

Malloch has also claimed that he was a fellow at Wolfson and Pembroke Colleges, Oxford. Both institutions deny such an affiliation.

Pembroke College provided the following statement to Cherwell: “There is no record of Professor Ted Malloch having held a College fellowship or associateship at Pembroke College.”

Wolfson College states: “In publicity statements about, and by, Professor Ted Malloch, he is described as having been a ‘Senior Fellow of Wolfson College’. This is inaccurate.”

Another claim is that he was a “professor” at Saïd Business School. In fact, Malloch was a senior fellow on a short-term appointment. Said Business School told Cherwell that: “Ted Malloch was on a short-term appointment and his title during this period was Senior Fellow in Management Practice.”

Henley Business School, at Reading University, revealed to Cherwell that: “Professor Ted Malloch currently works with Prof Andrew Kakabadse developing a board leaders programme.”

In recent days, the American professor has hit back at his critics, saying it was akin to an “assassination attempt” against him.

Mr Malloch said: “They are trying to get at Trump by launching a hit on me, by trying to discredit me because they think that will kill off my chance of becoming the next US ambassador to the EU.”

Ted Malloch told Cherwell that he had “nothing else to add”.

Economics and managment student Justin Wang commented: “Obviously, the falsifying of credentials is wrong.

“If his claims of working at Oxford are confirmed to be untrue, then Malloch should be reprimanded.

“However, just like how the fact that Senator Elizabeth Warren may have lied about her Native American heritage to help her get into college does not disqualify her from public office, the same standard ought to apply for Malloch.”

Drop dead funny

James Lamming
-
0
Drop dead funny

Acting is a morbid business. Never mind the on-stage gore and tragedy, dramatic lingo is chock-a-block with references to kicking the bucket: failed jokes “fall dead”, actors “corpse”, and comedians deliver their lines “deadpan”. In their new production, titled Dead Funny: The Improvised Funeral, the Oxford Imps took this macabre tradition to its hilarious limit with their own blend of improvised comedy.

The Imps clearly had fun setting up the Facebook page. The evening’s description promised to “urn” my laughter and make me “die laughing” as they “put the fun into funeral”, with “more foot-in-mouth moments than a cannibal’s barbecue”. Very clever wordplay and all that, but could the director not have left me just one joke for this review?

Sadly, they could not put the pun into punctuality. The show began a half-hour late and, although the show’s premise does hinge around the vicar’s delayed entrance, one feels that a laugh every thirty minutes does not successful improv make.

Thankfully the laugh-to-minute ratio dramatically sped up as it quickly became clear that the Imps are a wildly talented and charismatic bunch of performers with bright futures in the acting profession. Dom O’Keefe made up for causing the delay with a brilliant performance as a hilariously sarcastic vicar. While other performers were hit-and-miss (as is the nature of improvisational comedy) O’Keefe was somehow consistently on form.

The show’s format was strikingly original: a series of reminiscences about the deceased (all inspired by the wackiest of audience suggestions), allowing the performance to move beyond the physical location of the funeral parlour and into…well just about anywhere, as the Imps demonstrated. On the first night, these sketches wildly varied from bongo playing, and semi-crustacean pirates to jokes about match fixing in cricket, all through the quick wit and wordplay of the cast.

The performance benefited from the cast’s incredible musicality in the form of “hymns”. Although the poem round did not quite come together, laugh-out-loud hymns were improvised on the spot, while Joe Zacaroli impressed on the keyboard. The cast had clearly spent plenty of time honing their improvisational harmony as a group, and there were few awkward interactions between actors. While the sketches were amusing, some were a little too absurd, at least on the first night, although Giles Gear lent an edge of comic maturity and gravitas to the proceedings.

Improv often falls terribly, terribly flat. Actors are left flailing and hamming up their acts, all while the audience looks on in pained silence. Thankfully, nothing could have been further from the case last night. Despite their (hopefully) one-off lack of punctuality, the night was a great success: genuinely funny, talented improvisers came together around a thoroughly amusing theme to astound the audience.

Dodging Oxford’s cyclists

Emma Leech
-
0
Dodging Oxford’s cyclists

After a recent altercation with a bike (read: I wandered out into the road and was thoroughly knocked out by a cyclist) I thought it would be useful to compile a handy list of ways to stay safe on the streets of Oxford.

1. Look twice before you cross the road. No actually, look three times, maybe twelve. You might give yourself mild whiplash with all this head turning but the same is inevitable without it. Cyclists have an innate ability to apparate from distant realms just as you are about to cross, so make sure you are always vigilant.

2. As a pedestrian, wear knee pads and elbow pads. Unless I missed something from this week’s fashion spread, blue and purple limbs aren’t exactly on trend for Spring/ Summer 2017. Working them into a bop theme seems equally unlikely. Anyway, you can only milk your injuries for sympathy for one day, max. People get bored of bruises.

3. Do not trust a friend to check the way is clear for you. They will inevitably snake you out with Matrix-style dodging moves whilst you are left floundering in the path of the oncoming vehicles. And believe me, after the initial shock, you will be pestered with apparently hilarious reconstructions of your “textbook” knock-out. As soon as the tears dry, the mocking begins.

4. If you do end up in the path of a bicycle you will have a few moments to think of your priorities. Yes, you may need your hands for the mid-term collection you have on the horizon but are they really worth saving over your chicken and avocado flatbread? The choice, in that moment, is yours, but all I’m saying is that hands survive impact and chipotle sauce doesn’t.

5. If you are a cyclist, wear a helmet. You didn’t get here on your good looks and as much as a helmet might ruin your street cred, a severe head injury isn’t too hot either. We are all unashamedly self-absorbed, so even if you consider yourself a true Bradley Wiggins of High Street, an obnoxiously unaware pedestrian could endanger you.

In all seriousness, we all make mistakes and can cross the road at the wrong time or don’t look or swerve the wrong way because we’re jamming along to the music in our headphones. But just because we are usually lucky and usually get away with it does not make us invincible. Take care, whether you are cycling or walking to make sure you are constantly aware of what is around you. Otherwise, you might end up like me, wandering around college clutching ibuprofen and asking anyone who will listen if they want to see your wounds. They don’t.

‘Jackie’: simply a mishandled film

Surya Bowyer
-
0
‘Jackie’: simply a mishandled film

The recently released film Jackie largely concerns itself with the four days immediately after the JFK assassination. But the film’s structural conceit is that it frames these days through a meeting with journalist Theodore H. White, who is writing a piece on the former First Lady for Life magazine. Scenes of their meeting are inter-cut with non-sequential scenes from both before and after the assassination, as well as a brief depiction of the assassination itself. But the film also inter-cuts a later meeting with a priest (played well by John Hurt). If this sounds a little confusing—it is.

Perhaps the style was intended to reflect Jackie Kennedy’s mental state in the wake of the assassination. But the editing is fragmentary, and not in a clever, well-thought out manner. Something which happens more than once is that during a one-on-one dialogue scene, we will be given a cut to a different location, with the characters rearranged, and yet the conversation will seemingly continue from where it left off . This defies logic, and means that situations are never allowed to become fully realised or explored.

A useful case study of the lack of care afforded to the film’s editing is the conversation in Jack Valenti’s office. The camera begins by swinging between Jackie and Valenti, back and forth to reflect the dialogue. This is good, and helps track the intensity of the conversation. Yet then we get a completely, utterly needless cut, and the effect is ruined.

I usually take no issue with handheld camerawork. But does everything need to be handheld? The claustrophobic effect of repeated handheld close-ups works in a film like Black Swan, where the film places itself closely to the protagonist. But Jackie, for all its ostensible focus on Jackie Kennedy, doesn’t do this.

Much has been reported about Portman’s extensive research for the role. She received training from dialect coach Tanya Blumstein, and spent hours studying footage and audiotapes of Kennedy. Yet whilst she achieves an eerily accurate aural portrayal, her physical performance isn’t quite right. In the sections where the film reproduces scenes from the 1962 documentary White House Tour with Jackie Kennedy, Portman plays the First Lady too stiff , too austere. The real Jackie, whilst poised, smiled with her eyes and came across as far more…human.

The issue here is the direction and script. A montage shows Jackie drinking a few different types of alcohol in a few different rooms of the White House, whilst listening to ‘Camelot’ at full volume. This is the closest the film gets to exploring the deep intricacies of her anguish. On the whole, the film keeps a marked distance, and suffers for it.

The depiction of the funeral procession is, like most of the film, inter-cut with Jackie’s exchanges with the journalist. In their conversation, Jackie finally acknowledges to White the ‘pageantry’ of the burial: “I didn’t do it for Jack, I did it for me.” The film then immediately cuts to a close-up of her veiled face, mid-procession. It is clear that we are meant to think of this as a revelatory moment. Yet this revelation is not earned; is not even really a revelation.

We know she was doing it for herself. We have known it for a while. While Mica Levi’s score is strange and harrowing, it is let down by its deployment to accent these moments of pseudo-revelation. Of the two Kennedy brothers, Peter Sarsgaard is the lesser doppelganger, but gets the far larger part. His quiet intensity and calm vigour is effective at cutting through the scenes of political disorder. This is the film’s standout performance.

Yet Jackie remains thoroughly frustrating. It could have been a very good film. Instead it is simply a mishandled film.

OUSU, Magdalen and Somerville JCRs to debate withdrawing Oxford Radical Forum funding

Felix Pope
-
0
OUSU, Magdalen and Somerville JCRs to debate withdrawing Oxford Radical Forum funding

Following Oxford University Jewish Society’s (OUJS) condemnation of the Oxford Radical Forum (ORF) for inviting “speakers who espouse anti-Semitism and hate speech”, Oxford University Student Union (OUSU), and Magdalen and Somerville JCRs are set to debate withdrawing funding from the event.

Speakers at the Oxford Radical Forum (ORF), including controversial NUS President Malia Bouattia, have been variously condemned for alleged anti-Semitic views, alleged sympathy with Hamas, and for mocking a disfigured British veteran, among other provocative positions.

Magdalen and Somerville JCRs had voted before the announcement of the lineup to give £200 and £150 respectively to fund speakers travel to the event and to publicise the Forum to common room members. OUSU Council voted to give £150 from their discretionary fund.

This morning debate erupted on the Magdalen JCR Facebook page in response to OUJS’s statement.

Jemma Silvert wrote: “ORF are not providing a forum for open and honest debate… In platforming three openly anti-Semitic speakers they are ensuring a systematically one-sided discussion, and not the open forum they had promised when requesting our funding.

“Whilst it is the prerogative of the left to criticise the actions of the Israeli government (in my personal opinion, rightly), this can be done… without any traces of anti-Semitism. If ORF wish to provide such a viewpoint in their debates they should be doing so without platforming speakers who have an unapologetic history of anti-Semitic and racist remarks.”

Another student commented: “However pro-free speech you are, and I am very, I don’t see any defense for *paying* to help these people.”

Magdalen is now set to hold an emergency JCR meeting this Sunday in order that a motion can be proposed in an attempt to withdraw the money they donated, which has already been given to ORF.

The Magdalen JCR executive team said in an email to JCR members: “This JCR in no way condones anti-Semitism or hate speech in any form and the committee are thus deeply perturbed by ORF’s announcement. We are dealing with this to the best of our ability.”

Somerville College JCR will also hold a meeting this Sunday, in which “the JCR’s donation to the ORF will be brought under review”, according to JCR President Alex Crichton-Miller.

Crichton-Miller also stated in an email to JCR members: “The passing of that JCR motion in no way sought to condone the alleged views of these speakers. We utterly condemn hate speech and attacks on identity in any form.

“The invited speakers was not a topic for debate in the meeting, and indeed the implicated parties had not (I am told) been confirmed as speakers at the time. The ORF is a left-leaning weekend forum that seeks to provide robust debate on issues that it feels are relevant.”

OUSU said in a statement: “OUSU weren’t aware of any such allegations against the motion but take them very seriously. We have previously condemned anti-Semitism and expressed our commitment to tackling it, which we reaffirm now. We are similarly opposed to any form of oppression and prejudice against marginalised groups.

“The OUSU Executive Committee has considered the matter, and believes that Cherwell’s investigation constitutes new information, and which may have affected the outcome of the motion had it come to light in the original discussion.”

OUSU now intend to hold a debate at council due to be held on the first of March, to which they invite “all interested parties (including the original proposers of the motion, and OUJS) to attend and debate the issues.”

The statement put out this morning by OUJC condemns three figures scheduled to speak in particular: “The Oxford University Jewish Society (OUJS) stands in opposition to the decision of the Oxford Radical Forum (ORF) 2017 to host Miriyam Aouragh, Malia Bouattia and George Ciccariello-Maher.”

George Ciccariello-Maher, is a self-described ‘radical political theorist’ and Associate Professor at Drexel University.

OUJS state that: “Last year, Ciccariello-Maher suggested in a tweet that Israel harvests organs, and explicitly refers to the blood libel trope. This is the idea that Jews steal the blood and organs of non-Jews for religious rituals. It is not only false, but grossly offensive. It is steeped in a long history of blood libel claims and should put someone beyond the pale of student debate.

Ciccariello-Maher rejected the allegations, telling Cherwell: “The desperation of OUJS’s campaign against the ORF is truly absurd. In particular, I am accused of fostering a ‘blood libel’ narrative, when the totality of my comments on the matter have been limited to: one, defending my courageous colleague Jasbir Puar from a similar smear campaign, two, posting a 2009 article published in The Guardian on the subject, and three, responding to Israeli military comments regarding admitted past practices.

“The ludicrous nature of OSJS’s claims is most apparent when they suggest that I “explicitly refer to the blood libel trope,” without mentioning that I only “refer” to the trope in order to reject its use in smear campaigns like this one.

“The saddest part of such witch hunts is that we live in a moment of resurgent white supremacy – anti-Semitism very much included. We should be spending our energy fighting real racists and anti-Semites, not invented fantasies.”

Malia Bouattia was criticised last year following her description of Birmingham University as a  “Zionist outpost”. Following her election as NUS President, OUJS referred to her comments as “unambiguously and unashamedly anti-Semitic” and campaigned for Oxford to disaffiliate from the NUS.

An NUS spokesperson released the following statement in relation to allegations made against President Bouattia: “Malia has addressed the accusations of antisemitism numerous times since her election last year, including in the Sunday Times in April, the Huffington Post in October, and in writing to the 560 NUS-affiliated further and higher education students’ unions in December.

“The resuscitation of this story in the media is part of a sustained attack on a high-profile Muslim woman in a public position. Her family has been harassed and she is the subject of regular and serious threats. These attacks not only put her personal safety at risk but are part of a dangerous trend that deter under-represented groups from taking part in public life.”

OUJS said of Miriyam Aouragh: “In 2004 she organised a commemoration service for Ahmed Yassin, the founder of Hamas, a terrorist organisation whose charter issued in 1988 is overtly anti-Semitic, stating the need to kill Jews and referring to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”

In a statement made to Cherwell Miriyam denied the allegations: “Like many I was very angry about Israel’s murderous targeted killings campaign between 2000-2004, which saw hundreds of political activists and leaders assassinated when the popular uprising in 2000 broke out.

“These war crimes were condemned across the political spectrum, especially the ‘collateral damage’ caused by extrajudicial killings using F16s, such as collapsing buildings with families in them and the killing of bystanders when cars were blown up.

“One case was that of Ahmed Yassin of Hamas, an elderly man in a wheelchair living in a refugee camp in Gaza. I was part of a protest against the incredible violence of that period, many were making this argument, including the UN, the EU, as well as a large numbers of MPs in this country.”

However Jewish News—Britain’s largest Jewish newspaper—and JTA—a global Jewish news agency—have claimed that in 2004 Aouragh indeed did organise a memorial service in Amsterdam for Ahmed Yassin, the Hamas founder and ‘spiritual leader’ killed by Israel that year.

The OUJS statement continues: “We believe that our community should not be inviting speakers who espouse anti-Semitism and hate speech. They should not be afforded a platform to spread their opinion. We understand that the ORF are “not committed to a unified political line”, however anti-Semitism in any form is not a political issue and should be condemned.

“In the OUSU council of February 1st, £150 of OUSU’s discretionary fund was assigned to the ORF and, in particular, to these speakers’ expenses. ORF have also received funding from a number of JCRs. We believe that our students’ union and JCRs should not be supporting this event and therefore demand that their funding for the Oxford Radical Forum 2017 be withdrawn.”

 

In light of Cherwell‘s investigation, OUSU has as made clear its intention to re-examine ORF funding: “The OUSU Executive Committee has considered the matter, and believes that the Cherwell’s investigation constitutes new information, and which may have affected the outcome of the motion had it come to light in the original discussion.

“As a result, and given that ORF doesn’t take place until 3rd-5th March, we have decided to refer this motion back to OUSU Council in 7th week Hilary Term (1st March). We encourage all interested parties (including the original proposers of the motion, and OUJS) to attend and debate the issues.”

The Oxford Radical Forum has been contacted for comment.

1...899900901...2,495Page 900 of 2,495

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