Monday 9th June 2025
Blog Page 914

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.

Profile: Chuka Umunna

Jack Hunter
-
0
Profile: Chuka Umunna

I haven’t spoken to very many MPs before, but I imagine there are few with whom you could launch straight into a conversation about the late-1990s UK garage scene.

“It was pretty underground and centred around the part of London that I grew up in. I got some decks shortly after I went to uni and played out. My music’s my escape, I love it.”

Chuka Umunna is not like very many MPs. A slick ex-solicitor, with a smart use of social media channels — now even including Snapchat — he is perhaps uniquely placed to appeal to the much-mythologised group, ‘young people’.

It’s this appeal, and his presentable and confident spoken style, which continues to generate talk of the possibility that the Streatham MP may run for his party’s leadership for a second time. In fact, rumours have barely paused for breath since he backed out from running in the 2015 contest, following press intrusion into his private life.

His style, however, has proven divisive. He’s seen by some as a little too polished, expensively-suited: a prime example of the so-called metropolitan and careerist breed of politician being rejected across the world. But when Umunna speaks about his time as a student at university in Manchester, it doesn’t appear that he is following a long-harboured master plan.

“I did actually toy with DJ-ing full-time,” Umunna tells me. He used to run club nights in Manchester and his local area of south London. “It was when dance music was really beginning to take off, and you’ve got big-name DJs who are well-known around the world.”

He took a low view of those he saw involved in student politics, who were more “interested in building a career for themselves in politics once they left university”. He was involved with his university’s Labour club, but politics was something he saw himself doing much later in life.

His ethnicity, he says, played a part in this. The son of a Nigerian immigrant who came to Britain with nothing, Umunna knew he faced challenges in gaining selection. “Until quite recently there were very few people in the House of Commons of my background. I really did not have any expectations of being a member of parliament so soon.”

Racist and misogynistic abuse received online by Diane Abbott, following parliament’s vote last week to trigger Article 50, demonstrates that the challenges faced by ethnic minority MPs have not gone away. With hatred finding new forms of expression on social media, does Umunna think their experience has got worse?

“Yes. I think it has because social media gives people a platform to engage in racism anonymously in a way that they could not in the past.” He adds: “I’m just quite lucky in comparison to the experience of others online. Female parliamentarians receive much worse abuse than male parliamentarians.”

Umunna’s constituency is in Lambeth, which recorded the second-highest remain vote behind Gibraltar, and he describes voting against his constituents to trigger Article 50 as “awful”. But he is as ready to criticise the delusions of his fellow Remain supporters as he is the lies of the Leave campaign.

“I am worried about the divisions,” he says, and “the echo chamber culture which we live in. I was a very strong Remain campaigner, and just as I’m appalled at some of the views of the small minority of people, whose dislike of immigration is in part fuelled by prejudice, I am as appalled by the views of some people who voted Remain who go on my social media channel and accuse people who live in Leave-voting areas of being uneducated, bigoted racists.”

These divisions are felt nowhere more acutely than in Labour. Two thirds of Labour constituencies voted to leave, while two thirds of Labour voters supported Remain. Many see the split exposed within the party during the Article 50 vote as evidence of the obstacles to winning a 2020 election. But Umunna does not see bridging the gap between metropolitan Lambeth and Leave-supporting Stoke-on-Trent, where a by-election is to take place, as an impossible task.

“It’s possible,” but a Labour win depends on “speak[ing] for the mainstream majority of working people in this country, in addition to those who cannot support themselves.” Fundamentally he sees the people of Britain as able to unite around “things which are important in their life, their community, their love of this country. That is not something that is decided by whether you live in Streatham, Northumberland, or voted Remain or Leave. So these are universal British values, and if people see those values represented in the Labour party, they will vote for it.”

It’s an undoubtedly impassioned response, delivered with such a scripted feel that it almost sounds like the beginnings of an election manifesto. And when I ask him whether the constant rumours about a second leadership bid feel like a burden, expecting a guarded response, I am surprised by his openness about his ambitions for the party. He’s not far from launching into a speech that wouldn’t be out of place at a leadership hustings.

“I don’t believe that there’s a conflict between Labour’s values and us winning elections and getting into office, to give life to our values we need to get into office to make them a reality.” He goes on: “So I’ve never been shy about saying I want to play a big role in the next Labour government. Wanting to get the Labour Party into government to make our socialism real is not a burden, it’s why we go into politics, to change the country.”

He doesn’t think populism on the left and right shows his politics has been rejected. “I don’t think there’s been a rejection of the politics of looking out for working people, be they in Britain or be they in other areas.”

“Some of the problems for the centre-left is that we’ve been too slow to react to some of the challenges which immigration poses and has left a vacuum which the nationalist right and the populist right have stepped into.”

Umunna’s continued confidence in parliamentary politics to bring about change has not been shared by all of his colleagues. MPs Tristram Hunt and Jamie Reed recently decided they had a better chance to make change outside of Westminster, choosing jobs at the Victoria and Albert Museum and in the nuclear industry respectively over the fractious division which characterises today’s Labour Party. Has Umunna, I wonder, another ambitious and talented politician, and still just 38, considered leaving parliamentary politics?

“No,” he says, and he appears to criticise his departing colleagues. “I would never drop the baton and give it to someone else, because you go in to politics to change the world.”

He speaks of how his politics was “very much shaped” by his upbringing in Lambeth in the 1980s, “when we saw the harsh ends of Thatcherism, the growth in disparities between rich and poor. I grew up surrounded by that.”

His experience of seeing poverty in his father’s native Nigeria appears to have “deeply effected” his political mindset. He describes seeing “large swathes of the population subsisting on no more than two dollars a day.”

It seems a rebut to his critics, who see him as little more than smart-suited salesman, and delivered with a genuine depth and conviction which may offer hope to those who still wish to see him placed back on the frontline of politics. “It may sound crazy and idealistic, but that’s why I’m doing it. I never went into this for an easy ride and I’m incredibly grateful to my wife and my family for putting up with all the attention but they understand what I’m trying to do here.”

Again, there is energy and urgency back in his voice. “So I’m not going to do this forever, but while I’m doing it I want to make a difference.”

Merton vote against Fairtrade certification

Daniel Curtis
-
0
Merton vote against Fairtrade certification

Merton College JCR have voted against Fairtrade certification. The motion, proposed by Samuel Banks and seconded by Christopher McGarry, Merton JCR Environment and Ethics Representative, fell by 17 votes to seven. There were nine abstentions.

Debate about the motion, put through Merton JCR on Sunday 12 February, concerned the prospect of increased prices, decreased quantities at Welfare Tea, and whether Fairtrade is truly an effective organisation.

Anna Schnupp, who spoke in opposition to the motion, did not question to need for a more sustainable model, but rather sought more robust action. She said: “I am pro the argument is that we should be doing more than just getting the Fairtrade label. I personally don’t think it shows that much to just be Fairtrade certified.”

“I think we should be taking more meaningful steps than becoming accredited by [a] label that doesn’t carry much weight. I recognise Fairtrade [as an] organisation does a lot in terms of sustainability, but it’s not the most transparent organisation.”

This result follows several colleges voting for Fairtrade accreditation as a result of the Oxford College Fairtrade Accreditation Campaign’s collaboration with JCRs to facilitating the passing of motions.

The motion outlined that “Oxford Brookes, Cambridge and 170 other universities and colleges are Fairtrade accredited, and that LMH, Christ Church, Linacre and several other colleges have successfully pioneered this policy”.

Oxford Brookes became the world’s first Fairtrade-accredited university in 2003. Cambridge was accredited in 2015. Magdalen, Corpus Christi, Keble and St Anne’s have all also passed motions for Fairtrade accreditation through their JCRs.

Steffie James, co-running the Oxford College Fairtrade Accreditation Campaign with OUSU and the Christian social justice organisation Just Love, told Cherwell: “We were disappointed that the Merton motion failed, especially as it seemed mainly due to misunderstanding about what Fairtrade certification would mean— the campaign doesn’t claim that Fairtrade is perfect or solves every problem, but it is at least a step in the right direction, until eventually there is enough consumer pressure that companies are forced to ensure every supply chain is ethical and just.”

“However, there is lots of progress in other colleges, and we hope to hold a debate next term to increase understanding about the issues surrounding Fairtrade so hopefully Merton’s rejection will not be final.”

Henry Grub, Merton JCR Charities Rep said: “I am quite embarrassed that Merton doesn’t seem to want to support this movement. Global poverty, exploitation and inequality are not issues that we can turn a blind eye to any longer. Fairtrade isn’t the silver bullet solution, but anything that goes some way to helping is better than nothing.”

Two weeks ago Magdalen College JCR passed a motion applying for Fairtrade accreditation of the college and endorsing the University-wide campaign that aims for every college in the university to be Fairtrade certified.

The motion was proposed by Magdalen’s outgoing Environment and Ethics trustee Matthew Steggles and passed with 42 votes in favour and one against. The successful motion mandates Magdalen’s Environment and Ethics representative to liaise with college’s home bursar and senior staff in order to make the college Fairtrade.

The proposal states that the JCR “have an obligation as global citizens to respect those who provide our food and clothing”, adding “Fairtrade certification provides a clear, sustainable and effective framework through which to fulfil this obligation”.

Oxford roundabout named second most dangerous in the UK for cyclists

Lowri Howard
-
0
Oxford roundabout named second most dangerous in the UK for cyclists

The Plain roundabout, situated at the junction of Iffley Road, Cowley Road, St Clement’s and the High Street at Magdalen Bridge, and a main fixture of the cycling route from student accommodation in Cowley to Oxford city centre has been named as one of the country’s top spots for accidents.

45 collisions at the roundabout were reported to Thames Valley Police from 2009 to 2015. It comes second to Lambeth Bridge in London, which saw a total of 53 collisions in the same period.

The data was produced by Map-mechanics, using statistics from the Department for Transport, and was recently featured in The Sunday Times. Eight out of the ten most dangerous places for cyclists were revealed to be in London, with roads in Oxford and Cambridge placing second and third.

Nationally, around 140,000 accidents were reported to police from 2009 to 2015.

A £835,000 project was proposed in August 2013 by Oxford County Council, to which the City and County councils have added a further £135,000 in attempt to slow traffic and make conditions more cyclist-friendly on The Plain roundabout.

The project, which came after increased pressure from cycle groups Cyclox and Sustrans, is set to raise ramps on the roundabout and reduce the number of cycle lanes from two to one. However, it is de-ated whether these changes will actually reduce the risk of collisions for cyclists.

Statistics revealed by the council in September show that the likelihood of a collision is increasing, and that the number of cyclists using the junction has risen by six per cent, from 10,800 per day to 11,500, between 2013 and 2016.

Stephen Hunt, a chairman for Oxford’s cycle group Cyclox recently said: “The council could have done a lot more with the money to make cyclists feel comfortable. Going past the Cowley Road junction on the way to Iffley Road, for example, still creates collisions.”

Hunt also emphasised that reducing the number of traffic going through the roundabout would decrease the risk of collisions dramatically.

In 2013 then Prime Minister David Cameron announced a £94 million funding boost for UK cycling. Oxford received £800,000 of that money, some of which was used to improve the Plain roundabout.

Students affected by Tinbergen closure

Lucy Enderby
-
0
Students affected by Tinbergen closure

Students have been hit by a string of relocations and delays for practical work and lectures following the closure of the Tinbergen building on Monday after a major asbestos discovery.

The Tinbergen Building, which is home to the Departments of Zoology and Psychology, is not expected “to reopen for around two years,” according to an Oxford University statement.

More than 200 air quality readings were taken in the Tinbergen Building since September 2016. However, the building was deemed safe until the discovery of new asbestos earlier this February, which prompted its sudden closure. The University has reassured students and staff that they “do not believe there is any risk to health”.

Numerous affected students have informed Cherwell of their dismay at a lack of information on the rescheduling and relocation of their lectures and crucial practical work, which for some forms a compulsory part of their course.

An anonymous source told Cherwell that in several instances DPhil studentships have had to be extended as a result of the closure of the building. The disruption means that they are unable to complete their lab work, and could have to wait possibly months to be relocated.

There were mixed responses from students on the impact of the closure. Second year Biological Sciences student Maisie Vollans told Cherwell: “Our practicals have been postponed, and we’re waiting to hear where and when they’ll occur. Our main concern is our research projects we’ve planned in Trinity Term, many of which were arranged to occur in the labs in Zoology.”

She added: “We’re given regular updates by our head of department on the fate of our projects and practicals, however it currently seems quite unclear what will happen.”

Similar concerns were expressed by first-year Biological sciences student Henry Grub, who said: “We have had no word on the lab sessions, most likely cancelled for at least this week. Finding the available space is proving difficult.”

He added: “It’s very disappointing from our point of view, last week we spent four hours preparing special E.Coli slides for use this week — chances are now they’re in the bin.”

However, some students appear to have been less badly affected. Third-year biochemistry student Cameron Henderson told Cherwell: “The closure doesn’t affect me too much person- ally, other than the cancellation of my labs that were meant to be this week. Instead, we have been kept updated and it seems we are going to do them in the Medical Sciences Teaching Centre during Eighth week. Albeit not the full practical, but enough so we can complete the necessary work.”

For first-year undergraduate Biological Sciences students, practicals are a compulsory part of the course. The closure of the Tinbergen Building has caused concern that these requirements will not be met.

Suzie Marshall, a third-year Biological Sciences student, said: “It’ll inconvenience first year undergrads and DPhil students most, I imagine, as they’ll need to find alternative labs to do their practical work.”

Associate Head of the Zoology Department, Tim Coulson, told Cherwell: “We have been able to continue all the lecturing on the biological sciences degree course we had scheduled for all students. We have had to cancel a small number of practical classes for the first and second years on the biological sciences course. Teaching lab space is being set up, or has been offered, in other departments and we are currently making sure it will work as we need it to. We will be able to teach everything on the syllabus as planned.

“The students and staff have been amazing during the crisis, but of course it is a difficult time.”

Some students have had their lectures take place in the Natural History Museum lecture theatre. This is significantly smaller than the theatre used in the Tinbergen Building, with one lecturer describing it as the “refugee centre”.

First year Biological Sciences student Daniel Antonio Villar said: “We are now in smaller more crowded lecture theaters, and we don’t really know where our practicals are.”

Oxford University said it is “working to minimise disruption to all staff and students” and does not believe that any face a threat to their health.

Jewish Society criticises ORF speakers for alleged ties to anti-Semitism

Felix Pope
-
0
Jewish Society criticises ORF speakers for alleged ties to anti-Semitism

Speakers at the Oxford Radical Forum (ORF), including controversial NUS President Malia Bouattia, have been condemned by Oxford University Jewish Society (OUJS) for alleged ties to anti-Semitism.

ORF is described by the organisers as “a three day event for the radical left, held in Wadham”, although the College has not confirmed that they are hosting the event. There are currently seven speakers announced.

OUJS said in a statement made to Cherwell: “OUJS stands in opposition to the decision of ORF 2017 to host Miriyam Aouragh and Malia Bouattia.

“84 per cent of our voting members last year voted that they are unable to reconcile their Jewish identity with Bouattia’s presidency of the NUS, and 57 Jewish Society presidents across the country condemned her comments. Further, the Home Affairs Select Committee have condemned her ‘outright racism’ and an NUS investigation decided that her content had been anti-Semitic.

“Last term, our own student union called for Bouattia to issue a full and formal apology, and should stand down otherwise. Jewish students are still waiting.

“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.”

ORF’s committee told Cherwell: “ORF is a weekend of events designed to critically interrogate current political issues from a range of left-wing perspectives, and has been a fixture of intellectual life at Oxford for almost a decade. We consider the speakers to be well qualified to take part in the specific debates to which they have been invited.

“ORF is not committed to a unified political line and as such cannot and does not endorse all the views held by speakers. Its purpose is to enable critical exchange, self-reflection, and mutual questioning, and to contribute to vibrant and nuanced debates about key political issues of the day.”

Bouattia was elected NUS President in 2016, but soon came under fire for stating that “with mainstream Zionist-led media outlets… resistance is resented as an act of terrorism”.

The Home Affairs select committee said of her: “Referring to Birmingham University as a ‘Zionist outpost’ (and similar comments) smacks of outright racism, which is unacceptable, and even more so from a public figure such as the president of the NUS.”

Another figure due to speak at ORF is Richard Seymour, a far-left blogger who previously spoke at at the forum in 2015.

Seymour responded on Facebook to criticism of Jeremy Corbyn by Simon Weston, a British veteran of the Falklands war who suffered 46 per cent burns to his face after his ship was bombed, by writing “Seriously, who gives a shit about what Simon Weston thinks? If he knew anything he’d still have his face.”

Later that year he wrote of an Israeli journalist reporting on Israel-Palestine “Fuck him, they should cut his throat”.

He has also appeared multiple times on Press TV, the Iranian state broadcaster that has been accused of Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism, and wrote on his Leninology blog that “it’s sensible for occupied people to attack and kill British troops”, and “the poppies should be burned – not just a few, in a symbolic Islam4UK-style action, but all of them in a mass cremation; and any family members who actually sign up to wear a uniform of the armed forces in Afghanistan or anywhere else should be shunned, not loved.”

In a statement Seymour apologised for his comments mocking Simon Weston and calling for the murder of an Israeli journalist, referring to them as “off-hand, off-colour statements made over a year ago in what I had assumed were private exchanges.

“These exchanges involved, as far as I was aware, a small number of friends who would know from the context that they were not intended literally or maliciously…

“To be absolutely clear. I do not think that Simon Weston’s injuries deserve ridicule. I emphatically do not think that people who advocate for the West Bank settlers should have their throats cut… I am, of course, very sorry to anyone who was hurt.”

Seymour declined to respond to these allegations in relation to ORF. He pointed Cherwell towards his earlier apology.

Another speaker on the lineup this year is Miriyam Aouragh, a Dutch anthropologist and activist.

In 2004, Aouragh attended a memorial service in Amsterdam for Ahmed Yassin, a Hamas founder and ‘spiritual leader’ who was killed by an Israeli helicopter gunship..

In their statement to Cherwell, OUJS condemned her attendance as a tie to Hamas, describing the group as “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”.

Speaking to Cherwell, Aouragh said: “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.”

Oxford University Student Union (OUSU) Council, Somerville JCR, and Magdalen JCR have each voted to donate hundreds of pounds to support the event sparking further controversy.

OUSU and Somerville JCR both pledged £150 and Magdalen £200 to cover the costs of bringing the speakers to Oxford.

OUJC condemned OUSU’s funding of the forum: “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.”

OUSU Communications Manager, Jo Gregory-Brough told Cherwell: “OUSU weren’t aware of any such allegations against the motion but take them very seriously. With this in mind, the OUSU Sabbatical team are looking into the allegations as a matter of urgency and from which a conclusion will be drawn regarding the funding.”

Somerville JCR President Alex Crichton-Miller said: “ORF puts on panels for all sorts of currently relevant issues, and this absolutely does not mean it endorses each and every word the speakers have said in the past nor might say at the ORF.”

Magdalen’s JCR Executive Committee released a joint statement:”We were unaware of the speakers at the time the motion came to be voted on. We condemn anti-Semitism in all forms.”

This is not the first time that ORF has invited speakers with alleged ties to anti-Semitism. Max Blumenthal, who spoke in 2016, has been criticised for his 2013 book Goliath, Life and Loathing in Greater Israel, in which he compared Israel to Nazi Germany, advocated that the majority of Jews currently living in Israel be removed to make way for a Palestinian state, and referred to Israeli soldiers as ‘Judeo-Nazis’.

Malia Bouattia and Max Blumenthal have not replied to Cherwell’s request for comment.

Correction: The original version of this story (published 17/02/2017) carried the headline “Oxford Radical Forum speakers criticised for anti-Semitism ties”. We have amended the article and its headline to emphasise that the ties are alleged, and to make clear that criticism came from involved parties, and not from Cherwell. We have also clarified some of the alleged ties and contextualised them. We apologise for any upset or confusion caused.

Not Wong: The Invisibility Cloak

Brian Wong
-
0
Not Wong: The Invisibility Cloak

*Queerness is used here in a reclamatory manner.

I want to talk about what it means to be an invisible Queer, and the hidden, pernicious oppression embedded in the means through which we imagine (or assume/appraise) others’ identities on the bases of their behaviours. I want to talk about why policing behaviours on the bases that they are not ‘Queer enough’ is a dangerous norm from both within and without the LGBTQ+ movement. Above all, I want to enunciate the fact that harms can and do result from a norm of assuming others’ gender and sexual identities on the basis of their appearances. Yet let’s first be very clear about two preliminary points of note:

  • Passing as cis and heterosexual in a cisheteronormative society apparently has its benefits – at least on the surface. It appears that you are generally less likely to be socially ostracised; that in societies and cultures that still heavily penalise individuals who perform Queerness in non-performance settings (e.g. cultures that embrace drag shows as subjects of fetishisation and yet refuse to accept the existence of non-cis/het individuals beyond the fetishisation and instrumentalisation under the cis gaze), to pass off as belonging to the constructed ‘Norm’ grants you socioeconomic privileges (e.g. being able to attend school, work, acquire economic and culture capital, accumulate networks of friends and connections – without harassment) appears to be a privilege.
  • Homogenisations are inapplicable and inappropriate – and it would be irresponsible (but also unnecessary) for me to argue that there inherently exists an overriding harm in the manifestations of such relative privileges. In some countries, cultures, or contexts, it may be far more harmful to be overtly Queer than in others. It’s important to bear in mind the intersectional critique that the problematic of Queerness varies from society to society.

Yet the main crux of this article is to argue as thus: despite the privileges often associated with the ability to ‘camouflage’ or ‘blend in’ outlined above, invisible Queers often face problems of another sort. These are the individuals who may identify or view themselves as Queer – with Queer sexual orientations, gender and sexual identities. They may indeed have romantic partners of another gender or sex; or identify themselves as non-binary; or view themselves as non-confirming to the conventional categories framed out and developed by the society that they are forced to be situated in. Indeed, this appears to be a blessing from the eyes of many – they are able to embrace their identities without bearing the costs of alienation and discrimination; they could disguise themselves as cis, het individuals and (when it occurs) ‘take the sides of the privileged’ and shirk off the need to protest or contest their personal politics in the public sphere. These individuals don’t look gay, lesbian, bisexual, or such. They don’t appear to conform to the expected behaviours underpinned by sexual norms.

Let’s make no mistakes here. This sort of dismissive and erasing view is inherently problematic, for several reasons:

Firstly, it feeds off the established controlling images (cf. Collins, Crenshaw, but also Steinem) that are constructed by media, social norms, and powerful key opinion leaders within societies. A straight individual could appropriate Queer behaviours without ever losing their straight identities – for the Queer performativity they exhibit is local and temporary – it is a “sound fashion game”, or a “really cool aesthetic”: its inauthenticity is emphasised and exaggerated, for it dissipates as soon as they resume their conventional identities. But for a Queer individual, for them to be recognised and seen as Queer, they must fulfill the ‘tickboxes’ imposed upon them by entrenched media narratives. A gay man must either be hypermasculine or emaciated and feminine – but never in between (as noted by Kenji Yoshino, the fluidity of a Queer individual feeds into the anxiety of heterosexual gazers, who find the fluctuation and fluidity threatening to their well-formed concepts of the gender binary as innate and non-alterable). A lesbian would only be ‘identified’ as lesbian when she fits into the stereotypes of lesbians (bullshit and offensive ones, by any standard – e.g. ‘promiscuous’ or ‘sex-fuelled’) that are socially endorsed. For individuals who are Queer but do not conform to these categories, they face a double-binding oppression (Crenshaw): firstly, visibility-independent oppression – oppression under heteronormative norms that alienate and patronise their behaviours, romantic partners, and gender attitudes (note: this oppression exists independently of visibility – even if nobody notices, the subjective experience of the Queer individual is still one of fundamental hurting); and secondly, invisibility-driven oppression – the perpetual questioning and/or assuming of their identities as ‘straight’. It makes it far more difficult for Queer individuals to come out – when they have to come out and affirm their authenticity nearly every five seconds (or conversation). Furthermore, it is cognitively exhausting for an invisible Queer person to consistently explain their existence in conversations such as:

“Are you gay?”

“I am!”

“You sure don’t look it!”

“…”

or

“I assumed you had a boyfriend, given that you don’t seem lesbian.”

“…”

Secondly, the erasure of invisible Queerness reinforces unhealthy policing norms both outside Queer spaces, but also within certain Queer spaces dominated by behaviour-essentialist voices – e.g. a sub-group within contemporary Queer literature that policies the authenticity of identities on the basis of their behaviours or self-identification choices. The case-in-point is Germaine Greer, who – in spite of her seminal works such as The Female Eunuch – have repeatedly emphasised that transfeminine individuals merely seek to escape their misogyny via identifying as another gender; that transmasculine individuals are opting out of their obligations towards their fellow women. Whilst Greer appears to actively renounce the role of controlling images with respect to female sexuality, it appears that her works – as with many others – noticeably reinforce the toxic, policing attitudes permeating sects within the modern LGBTQ+ movement. Such policing could become innately dangerous, when it contributes indirectly to problems of gaslighting – when Queer individuals themselves become unclear if they are acting as traitors or impostors, or if they genuinely do have the gender identities they have ‘failed’ to publicly express; of erasure – cf. the persistent framing of bisexuals as ‘people who want to have the cake and eat it or ‘over-promiscuous, sexualised individuals’ (see “Bi Any Other Name: Bisexual People Speak Out” – Hutchins and Ka’ahumanu, 1991), which indirectly discourage individuals who are invisibly Queer to fail to come out and inform the necessary authorities of the problems they face (both psychologically and economically) associated with the oppressive norms they confront. Note, once again, that one can be oppressed by Queerphobic norms even when no one else knows. But to the extent that some know and others don’t (of the Queer identity), the problem is only amplified – these individuals are told that they are inauthentic or not really Queer, and excluded from the otherwise Queer-friendly spaces they could access.

Last but not least, to be publicly recognised and respected for one’s sexual identity is a luxury. To be authentic, and to be ‘flamboyantly out’ is a privilege that not everyone could have access to. To have the right to be Queer means so much more than to have access to civil and political liberties in spite of being a Queer person. It should mean that one, just as one’s cis-heterosexual counterparts, could be publicly recognised and celebrated for one’s choices without being forced to conform to certain controlling images or (self-)policing behaviours.

It is not equality when straight individuals can hyperbolise and appropriate Queer aesthetics for a drag show, for commercial entertainment, and for behaviours that end up trivialising the problems confronting the most vulnerable in societies.

It is not equality when cis-heterosexuality can strategically anti-essentialise, but Queer individuals must necessarily choose between disguising themselves to ensure that they are not endangered by oppressive norms, or preserving their identities.

It is not equality when we constantly – implicitly or explicitly – police Queer persons by telling them that they ‘should look more like X’ or ‘don’t really look gay/lesbian/bisexual/asexual/pansexual’.

Equality, and I will be free.

Equality, and I will be free.

Democratic Art Republic

Queenie Li
-
0
Democratic Art Republic

Even if you study Biochemistry, you are the artist.

Even if you work 9-6 every day, you are the artist.

Even if you never draw a line, you are the artist.

Simply being you is the making of art.

Share your love-hate relationship with Art. Email [email protected]

Democratic Art Republic, art by Queenie Li.
1...913914915...2,508Page 914 of 2,508

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