Friday, May 2, 2025
Blog Page 934

Who is to blame for the ‘Post-Truth’ era?

Jonathan Bowering
-
1
Who is to blame for the ‘Post-Truth’ era?

With the creation of the internet, came a new era of self-educators, a new era of students eager to find out information for themselves and less likely to accept the ‘facts’ prescribed to them by teachers and parents. We can think of these people as a new breed of anarchists. Instead of a reaction against prudishness and uptight-ness, as in the 80s, it is a reaction against conforming to the state-prescribed educational structure.

These students have been told, through a multiplicity of sources-not least the previous generation, about ‘untrustworthy politicians’ and how they have been ‘lied to’ time and time again. After all, how readily are we told that it was Thatcher who destroyed northern domestic industry? How often is it said that it was Blair who autocratically led us into an illegal war in Iraq? Why should we trust governmental educational policy if we can’t trust their other home or international affairs policies?

This is the view of the misrepresented and it is part of the reason for populism’s recent victory over the progressive liberalism of the last 50 years. It is simply a fact of people refusing to look at the full picture and instead turning, due to a lack of time and motivation, to attractive young people flouting their often undeveloped views over social media. These people write with a level of passion not often found in legitimate sources of information. It is an obvious psychological reality that, following a disenchantment with authority, the self-educator will turn to the most convincing orator or writer-regardless of the legitimacy of such a source. We have seen this with Brexit and with Trump. The question is whether we allow rhetoric to dominate truth.

What we notice, as a result of this educational disenchantment, is the young following in their parents’ footsteps by taking an anti-intellectualist view with a foundation in opinion, rather than fact. This group often writes under the heading of the ‘alt-right’, a synonym for “I am angry with the nature of society without necessarily knowing anything about it but a man, with cool hair and sunglasses, told me all about it so he must be right”. The line “everyone is allowed their opinion” may be issued in response to my complaint and it is, of course, true. However, it is not freedom of opinion or speech that is the problem in our society but the ease with which the ‘layman’ accepts opinion as truth.

It is unfair to blame the internet too greatly for the new wave of anti-intellectualism—there are many other causes of it. The disproportionate representation of white, Oxbridge-educated males in high-level professions, for example, is a legitimate reason to feel disenchanted with ‘the system’. And of course, the internet does provide a wealth of legitimate information. The difficulty lies in part in public laziness. People are unwilling to look hard enough for the truth when so much convincing rhetoric on major issues can now be found on social media. This is not a new problem—why take the time to look for the truth when something claiming to be that truth is so easy to find?

The traditional media must therefore also take its share of the blame. The media, the pinnacle of freedom of speech and information, perfectly exemplifies my point. The issue with the traditional media is that everyone knows that news companies are corporate businesses which are ultimately designed to make a profit. By their very nature, they must appeal to the masses and thus project and represent a specific political view. What was not explained clearly enough to the previous generation is that people read whichever news has political spin aligning to their own views, and that this does not make it the objective truth.

Throughout 2016 we have seen that there is an over reliance on media, both traditional and social, for facts. This failure, mostly caused by the past generation, must now be conveyed sensitively to the present internet generation. We must explain to them that opinion is individualistic and personal, it should not be relied upon as truth. Whilst we must allow freedom of speech and access to the opinion of others, we must not allow millennials to be indoctrinated by rhetoric and must teach them the value of differentiating between falsehood and fact.

Brasenose graduate sues Oxford after not receiving a first-class degree

Ethan Croft
-
2
Brasenose graduate sues Oxford after not receiving a first-class degree

Oxford history graduate Faiz Siddiqui is currently suing the University for £1 million because he did not leave with a first-class degree.

The 38 year old solicitor, who left Brasenose College in the summer of 2000 with a 2.1 in Modern History, is bringing a loss of earning claim against his chancellor, masters, and scholars of Oxford University.

He told the High Court that “negligent” teaching by members of the faculty during his Indian imperial history module prevented him from achieving a first-class degree and forging a successful career as an international commercial lawyer.

Siddiqui claims that his special interest module was poorly provided for by the University, with four of Oxford’s seven Asian history experts on sabbatical during his final year 1999-2000 and his result pulled down his entire degree.

In court, his lawyer Roger Mallalieu claimed that thirteen of his fifteen contemporaries studying Imperial Indian history scored their worst mark overall in that module.

Mallalieu said, however, that the claim is not a direct attack on any particular member of the faculty, which Siddiqui understands was under pressure at the time due to staff shortages.

Siddiqui now suffers from depression and insomnia, which he has linked to his exam results and which he claims have led to an inability to maintain long-term employment.

Oxford University initially asked for the claim to be dismissed given the length of time since the graduate left the college. The University also pointed out specific instances where Siddiqui received personal attention during his studies, including additional time in examinations after complaints of hay-fever.

A judgement on the case is expected before the new year.

Siddiqui and Oxford University’s History Faculty have been contacted for comment. Oxford University declined to comment on an ongoing case.

“What matters is what you see”

Amy Booth
-
0
“What matters is what you see”

”One day I decided that I was beautiful, and so I carried out my life as if I was a beautiful girl. I wear colors that I really like, I wear makeup that makes me feel pretty, and it really helps. It doesn’t have anything to do with how the world perceives you. What matters is what you see.” (Gabourey Sidibe to Harper’s Bazaar.)

I was a shy and self-proclaimed ugly duckling of a sixteen-year-old when I came across these words for the first time (on Tumblr, because where else would my faux-deep, semi-reclusive teen self have been spending time?), and I feel I’m only being very slightly over-dramatic—and, perhaps ironically, only very slightly less faux-deep—when I say that they changed my life for the better. It’s hardly a secret that younger girls and slightly older, oh-my-god-I’m-an-adult-now girls (like I must begrudgingly admit I am now) are under constant pressure from the media and their peers to look and act in a certain way, and that mental illness among children and teens of all genders is at an all time high.

It doesn’t take a genius to realise that, if you’ll pardon my French, sidestepping the bullshit of the former can have a positive impact on many individuals’ mental health, too. It’s for this reason that I consider Sidibe to be an important feminist role model for what has been dubbed the Selfie Generation. In a world so focussed on the aesthetic, helping to convince even one girl she is not unworthy of feeling beautiful is, in a highly individual and perhaps (but unapologetically) superficial level, a revolutionary act.

Everyone who defines for themselves, on their own terms, what makes them feel beautiful sticks up a huge middle finger to the media, to peer pressure, and to any other so-called authority that defines beauty in the narrow ways we have grown so used to. Sidibe’s words are powerful because she herself is far from ascribing to these ideals; being dark-skinned and overweight, she is the antithesis of what the mainstream media would promote as beautiful. And yet, as she asserts so eloquently, what other people think of her individual beauty does not faze her. She decided she was beautiful, and so she became. I implore every girl reading this who has ever been made to feel ugly or unworthy by anybody to do the same. And I am heartened to see girls and women who, on some level, already do.

The ‘Selfie Generation’ is empowered, liberated; every selfie is a composition, taken with the right lighting and the right angle to create an image that its subject feels happy and comfortable with. For the first time in media history, women are in control of their own image, taking, selecting, and uploading self portraits that they feel good about, regardless of whether girls who look like them would ever be found gracing the pages of a Vogue editorial.

It hopefully goes without saying that a girl’s self-worth should not start and end with her appearance. Obviously we can and even should aim for much more. However, my personal experience following the adoption of Sidibe’s words as a kind of mantra is that, superficial as it may seem, feeling that you look good by whatever standards you have set for yourself is a massive first step toward feeling better about other aspects of yourself, too. When media pressure to look a certain way is so omnipresent and pervasive, it can be pretty draining to have to contend with this as well as anything else that might be going on in your life and getting you down. Taking control of your own self-image means that nothing and nobody else can make you feel you ought to look a certain way. And when everything else is turning to crap, be it down to a bad breakup, drama with friends, or merely a looming deadline, it’s at least one load off your mind.

Although I’m mostly speaking from a personal perspective, I imagine that my experience of body image and self-confidence will be a familiar tale for many other girls and women. For years, I used makeup and meticulously straightened hair as props in order to feel pretty enough to go to compete with other girls. This ‘competition’ wasn’t malicious. It was about me wanting to feel pretty like the others, dreading being the plain one among girls who looked how the teen magazines I read religiously told me I should.

In hindsight, of course, everyone else was probably feeling exactly the same way—despite what I thought when I was scrolling through Tumblr in a My Chemical Romance t-shirt and comically heavy eyeliner, I was, in fact, just like other girls. Feeling physically inadequate is, sadly, an everyday part of life for many girls and women, and that’s why it’s important to me to share Sidibe’s words. “What you see” can be what you want to see: sometimes you might have to fake it ‘til you make it, as the 16-year-olds on Tumblr are saying these days.

British skier found dead at Varsity ski trip resort

Felix Pope
-
0
British skier found dead at Varsity ski trip resort

A 22-year-old British man has been found dead at Val-Thorens ski resort after a night out drinking.

NUCO Travel Ltd has confirmed that the student concerned was involved in the Oxford-Cambridge Varsity ski trip, which it helped to organise.

A spokesman said, “Sadly one of our passengers passed away on Sunday 4th December 2016. At this time, to respect their family’s and friend’s privacy, we will not be commenting further.”

According to Swiss newspaper Le Matin, which cited police reports, the man was discovered unconscious in his room by friends early in the morning. Emergency services were called, but the firefighters that arrived at the scene were unable to revive the young tourist, who had died from cardiorespiratory arrest.

According to police reports the man and his friends arrived by coach yesterday afternoon before immediately attending a party. It is believed that he died at some point between Saturday night and Sunday morning.  

Val-Thorens is currently hosting the Oxford-Cambridge Varsity ski trip, the largest student snow sports event in the world. Thousands of students from both universities are currently at the resort, with about 15 per cent of Oxford students attending. The annual event was first held in 1922, and has previously been criticised by Oxford college deans for its reputed debauchery.

Students left by coach for Val-Thorens on Friday and arrived yesterday. The trip ends next Saturday.

Val-Thorens resort and the Varsity Committee have been contacted for comment.

Review: In the Republic of Happiness

James Lamming
-
0
Review: In the Republic of Happiness

In my eyes, Martin Crimp’s experimental play In the Republic of Happiness is somewhat reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984. Just as Orwell proclaimed that he wrote “because there is some lie that I want to expose, some fact to which I want to draw attention”, Crimp’s play delivers a shocking critique of the 21st century’s self-obsession, consumer culture, and delusional dreams. Performed for the first time in Oxford in the Burton Taylor studio, the student production does well to capture the spirit of such a complex and layered script. The incredibly talented actors competently navigate the stormy seas of traditional acting, physical theatre, dance, and singing.

As it starts the play seems reasonably straightforward. We see three generations of a working-class family, clearly uncomfortable in one another’s presence, suffering through a Christmas dinner. Awkward subjects are raised, such as alleged favouritism and internet pornography, and characters can scarcely move for the presence of incredibly obvious elephants in the room: family grandfather (Max Cadman) has dementia and teenage daughter Debbie (Alexa Mackie) is unexpectedly pregnant.

However, all awkward tension is shattered when Uncle Bob (played by the charismatic and talented Hasan al-Habib) enters uninvited, only to drop bombshell after bombshell on the characters’ already difficult lives. After his diatribe, the lights dim and the play’s centrepiece, the Five Essential Freedoms of the Individual, begins: plot and character are cast aside and cast member after cast member becomes a generic member of society, proclaiming how independent and free-thinking they are. However, it quickly becomes clear that they are not; in a sly piece of deconstructionalism, each cast member shouts defensively that “I write the script of my own life”, but both Crimp’s dialogue and the excellent choreography of director Una O’Sullivan make it clear from the outset that this is not the case; words and phrases are repeated and jumbled up, while O’Sullivan has the multi-talented Lucy McIlgorm act as the masterful puppeteer behind each character’s actions.

But it would be remiss of me to talk too much about Crimp’s writing, when the performance is really all about the director and the actors. Much like Crimp’s more famous work, Attempts on Her Life, In the Republic of Happiness is one of those plays which requires significant interpretation on the part of the director; the original script is sparse, lacking stage directions and unlike a Shakespeare play, the director cannot fall back on the safety net of prior adaptations for ideas, since the play has not been regularly performed in the past ten years.

In a very real sense, Una O’Sullivan had the chance to break new ground in her adaptation of the play, which is exactly what she has done; the choreography of the dance and physical theatre are excellent, and the play seems suitably fractured. The work’s chaos and discordance relies on the grindingly incongruous repetition of certain words and phrases, and O’Sullivan does well to really bring this out; the play’s middle section feels fittingly uncomfortable and nerve-racking due to her directorship.

Considering what was asked of the cast of eight, the acting is good. The conversation in the opening scenes is a little stilted and Debbie (Alexa Mackie) at times seems undecided as to whether her accent hails from Notting Hill or Aberdeen, although I am sure this is just down to first night jitters. As the scene progresses, actors seem to settle into their temporary characters. Amelia Coen is completely believable as the angry younger daughter Hazel with her cutting jibes, while Hasan Al-Habib’s masterful portrayal of the outwardly charismatic but sexually abusive Uncle Bob steals the first act in my eyes.

Each and every actor comes into their own during the second act; I can fully understand the somewhat jerky nature of the first act when I realise how much blood, sweat and tears must have gone into the carefully crafted choreography. Lucy McIlgorm here shines with her incredible singing, as well as her dancing and acting. Clearly chosen for the role of puppeteer for her on stage gravitas, she masterfully commands the audience’s attention.

Despite a slightly stilted beginning, this Oxford production competently handles a difficult play. Under director Una O’Sullivan’s leadership, the acting goes from strength to strength as the play progresses, and I would thoroughly recommend trying to get your hands on a ticket.

The fundamentals of sporting passion

Adam Hilsenrath
-
0
The fundamentals of sporting passion

Passion is often hailed as the minimum requirement of any team. Its importance rarely understated, pundits, managers and players alike declare the desire, the drive, the hunger that their teams can and will display or, in the case of defeat, that they lacked.

A few of weeks ago, Mexico faced up against the USA in a 2018 World Cup qualifying match in Ohio. On the back of success for a presidential campaign that was less-than-favourable to Mexicans in its policy and language, indeed in a key swing state won by the Republican nominee, the media covering the game spoke of the increased intensity, passion and feistiness to the game both in the build-up and throughout the match. That the game was won through a dramatic 89th-minute header by Mexican captain Rafael Marquez, cueing frenzied celebrations added another layer to the impassioned spectacle.

On the same day, England faced up against their old rivals Scotland in what was in the end less of a close contest, but one billed as equally full of passion and desire, from all quarters. Not only has the traditional rivalry between Scotland and England often been enough in and of itself to push the players involved onto that extra level of intensity, but both managers’ jobs were on the line, more so Strachan’s than Southgate’s.

Finally, earlier in the afternoon, there was another passionately played out match. The LMH 1st team travelled all the way south of the Oxford city centre to play St. Hilda’s away in the JCR Cuppers tournament. There was no large crowd, no managerial threat, no age-old rivalry (unless you count their league game the week before). And yet, Hilda’s last-minute equaliser and LMH’s shoutout-winning penalty sparked loud and emotive celebrations from the respective teams.

If one were to look for other cited causes of intensified passion, they are all over the place. Small, compact stadiums, with fans close to the pitch, such as Bournemouth’s Vitality Stadium or Crystal Palace’s Selhurst Park, are seen to cause intimidating atmosphere that spurs on home teams. Local rivalries, relegation dogfights, title contenders, minnows against giants in cup ties. Even already-relegated sides are said to be dangerous opponents as they play for pride with nothing to lose.

If passion is so commonplace, then, and from such a wide variety of sources, then why is such emphasis placed upon it, week in week out, in every season? One could argue that it aids certain systems; high intensity pressing, such as that which Jürgen Klopp’s Liverpool employ, or backs to the wall defending, such as Burnley have impressively displayed in recent weeks, particularly against Manchester United, might require increased levels of passion. However, passion is not caused by the tactics or system played; as established, it comes from all over the place, and to pin it down to any one cause or need would be overly simplistic.

Rather, perhaps the regularity of passion shows why so much emphasis is placed upon it. Passion is the most essential part of any team. Not in the sense of some kind of pre-match team speech to get everyone riled up and ready to go. When pundits really analyse on the topic of passion, and really emphasise the importance it had on one game or another, it is not because of its presence but its lacking.

When teams lose over and over again, it is a common cliché that the fans would be satisfied if only they showed a little fight, as was the case in Newcastle’s relegation-doomed season in 2015/16. When England fail to perform in major tournaments, as they often do, the go-to problem blamed by fans and punditry is often the lack of intensity or passion. It is the ultimate sin in sport to not give it your all, to fail to, as the cliché goes, leave everything out on the field, or in the ring, or on the track, or on the river.

The simple reason why a dead-rubber Oxford reserve league division four encounter on the last day of the season between two sides neither sitting at the bottom, nor in with a shout of promotion is that everyone wants to be there. It is not some mandatory secondary school game that people have dragged themselves to and spend seeking to avoid exercise and injury. The notion that anyone would voluntarily play sport, and in the case of professionals get paid for it, and not want to throw their heart and soul into it is so incomprehensible to the sporting world that it automatically sets you at a disadvantage to your opponents, and it earns you the wrath of your critics and perhaps your fans.

Sport is unifying, and engaging, and the team bonds that are forged can make or break a season, but passion is the underlying and most essential tool. Passion should not, in theory, offer any advantage, but should merely level out the playing field and make sport the spectacle that it so often is; passion is simply an inherently natural part of sport, it is not as the media hype train would like to argue, a phenomenon that raises its head only at those particularly heated derbies and grudge matches.

OxFolk reviews: Life in a Paper Boat

Ben Ray
-
0
OxFolk reviews: Life in a Paper Boat

When one thinks of the well-established folk singer Kate Rusby, her smooth, silky tones instantly spring to mind, a voice as comfortable and comforting as a favourite jumper. Over the years Rusby has garnered many accolades, having been one of the few folk singers to be nominated for a Mercury Award, and along the way gaining the title ‘The Barnsley Nightingale’, her soft cadences leading her to carve out a unique niche in the folk world. Indeed, with her latest release Life in a Paper Boat tallying as her 14th studio album, you could perhaps be forgiven for predicting how her music might sound—but you’d be wrong. This new release by Rusby is an exciting listen, full of experimentation and showing a clear effort to forge new ground—all accompanied by Rusby’s haunting, unforgettable voice.

Throughout this album Rusby retains the ability to surprise the listener. The music is laced throughout with an intoxicating mix of darkness and humour. Haunting ballads such as ‘The Witch of Westmorland’ are contrasted against lyrics like that of ‘Big Brave Bill’: “It was UHT milk, she broke down and cried.”

Indeed, this last track deserves a special mention: placed at the end of the album, ‘Big Brave Bill’ finds Rusby narrating the tongue in cheek story of the superhero from the mines that just loved Yorkshire tea. (If you have time, check out the fantastic music video accompanying this track on YouTube.) One can’t help but wonder if this is Rusby playfully signing off her latest release with a jubilant signal of new, exciting work to come.

As always, it is Rusby’s astonishing vocals that are the crowning glory of ‘Life in a Paper Boat’: she manages to engage and hold the listener throughout, even during one potentially over-long six-and-a-half-minute minute track. Despite the impressive range of emotions she manages to convey in this album, there are ample examples of the slower, more sensitive songs for which Rusby is most famous. Even within the upbeat, quick rhythms of ‘Only Desire What You Have’, her voice gives the song a sensuous, smooth quality that manages to lift the track above the rushing instrumentation.

The diverse and sometimes experimental instrumentation on this album really complements Rusby’s breathy, distinctive tones: indeed, Rusby herself has mentioned “the union between old songs and modern musical technology.” As well as working with Rusby’s traditional band members, the group is joined by Dan Tyminski singing with her on two tracks, whilst the skilled banjo player Ron Block’s musical offerings light up many of the tunes. Each song has a distinctive, beautifully formed opening, with the first track ‘Benjamin Bowmaneer’ emerging from a single chime and a gorgeously rich guitar line.

This whole album is a stunning addition to Rusby’s repertoire. Both new and bold, is shows that she is still able to surprise and push the boundaries of her vocal style, whilst also allowing her distinctive voice to shine through- a difficult balance in folk music.

Labour: Richmond by-election’s biggest loser

Louis McEvoy
-
1
Labour: Richmond by-election’s biggest loser

Zac Goldsmith, surely one of 2016’s most tragicomic political figures, ended his parliamentary career last night with yet another humiliating defeat, this time completely unnecessary. Long gone are the days when Goldsmith was fawned over as a beacon of youthful, compassionate Conservatism, merrily courting liberals and environmentalists; this attractive, eco-friendly, modernising Tory is now, rightly, excoriated by the liberal left for his mayoral campaign. Even the Tories are unlikely to miss a man who reduced their paper-thin majority even further. His decline and fall has been swift; he will be remembered as a nasty and incompetent loser. Good riddance.

As satisfying as Goldsmith’s defeat is, it doesn’t especially change things. Lib Dem survival on the margins, picking low-hanging electoral fruit here and there, was to be anticipated. Elsewhere, there are a plethora of Tory seats, with slim majorities, ruthlessly attained by the Conservatives last year at the nadir of Lib Dem fortunes; such seats can be regained now that the Lib Dems have renewed their pre-2010 role as a party of protest. Alas, any Lib Dem gains, through by-elections, are rendered irrelevant by the impact of potential boundary changes, and more pertinently by what will almost certainly be big Tory gains elsewhere. A hard Brexit still looks inevitable. But let’s allow the Lib Dems to savour their first victory in a long time.

What Richmond Park does raise is a much bigger and more important issue than anything to do with the Liberal Democrats: the future of the Labour Party. Richmond Park was a vote on Brexit, and Labour lost their deposit for the first time in a by-election since 2008. Richmond might not be ideal Labour territory, but even the dismal 2015 election saw them gain nearly five times the number of votes in Richmond than they received this time round. Brexit undoubtedly remains the big dividing line and primary political issue in British politics, and what the parties say on it matters. So where do they all stand? The Tories appeal to Leavers; UKIP calls for an extreme Brexit; the Lib Dems oppose it through talk of a second referendum, appealing to disaffected Remainers. Labour…well, what should Labour’s line be?

The likes of Owen Smith, David Lammy, and the defeated Richmond candidate Christian Wolmar adopt the Lib Dem view and oppose departure altogether; a broader cross-section, entailing everyone from John McDonnell to Chuka Umunna, support leaving but quibble over specifics. Their broad stance seems to amount to criticising the government’s “shambolic Brexit” for being unclear about its aims and for failing to stick to the Leave campaign’s promises, which is all well and good, but hardly offers a clear alternative pitch for voters.

Several weeks ago, Corbyn declared that he would oppose the triggering of Article 50 if the government failed to meet his demands, but this was rapidly abandoned. Worse still, although most Labour MPs want “soft Brexit” and to remain a member of the single market, Corbyn chose to criticise aspects of membership and signalled a desire to simply maintain “access” to the single market. Corbyn’s suggestion is an interesting one, considering it is identical to the nebulous Tory line, and that no one opposes some sort of access to the single market. Clearly, Labour is in a bit of a pickle.

There’s no doubt that Labour has it harder than any other party when it comes to determining an effective and cogent line on Brexit. Whereas a majority of Tory voters opted to leave, most Labour voters opted to remain – yet simultaneously, seven in ten Labour constituencies voted to leave.

Opposing Brexit would open the way for UKIP and Tory gains. However, supporting Brexit leaves Labour vulnerable to challenges from the left; frustratingly, a recent YouGov poll has suggested that a pro-Brexit Labour stance was the least popular compared to a pro-soft Brexit or a pro-second referendum position. Thus, opposing Brexit might allow Labour to pile up votes in urban areas, whilst being decimated elsewhere. This is not a strategy worth considering, and the fact that Corbyn himself is patently unwilling to go against the result is the final nail in its coffin. If a second referendum is off the cards, then what do we call for? Soft Brexit seems to be the only obvious option, but this would entail supporting continued freedom of movement, thereby creating the UKIP campaign strategy for them. This would please few people.

This leaves us either with the task of supporting hard Brexit and therefore having nothing to say about the issue, or finding a new position beyond the banal labels of ‘soft’ and ‘hard.’ The whole situation reeks badly of Labour’s Scotland problem – a country whose politics are defined and divided by another referendum. In a chillingly similar fashion to the setup here, all sides of the debate are monopolised by other parties: those who want independence vote SNP, and those who want to stay are increasingly moving towards the strongly and unambiguously pro-Union Tories, who beat Labour into third place in the Scottish locals earlier in May. The Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale has sought to win over both by remarking that she might consider voting independence in the future, and asserting, post-Brexit, that there should be a second independence referendum if the Scottish people want it. Little wonder Scottish Labour is dying.

If Labour is to talk about Brexit – and it must – it cannot oppose leaving, but it has to find a way to differentiate itself from the government. Perhaps we could insist on remaining in the single market but ending freedom of movement; this might be impossible for the government to negotiate, but making impossible but popular demands is part of the luxury of opposition. Yet, like the other options, this is a compromise which cannot totally please either side. Labour’s problem here harks back to the old Hampstead-Hull divide: the party straddles a broad church of liberal, pro-immigration voters in urban areas and more UKIP-inclined, anti-immigration voters in its old heartlands. If we choose one side, we’re likely to lose votes from the other. It seems that, as usual, there is no easy solution for Labour’s difficulties. Inevitably, we will remain unclear on the Brexit issue, and thus, our enemies – Lib Dems who prey on Remainers, UKIP and Tories preying on anti-immigration Leavers – will prosper at our expense.

Rhodes Must Fall return to protest outside Oriel

Jack Hunter
-
1
Rhodes Must Fall return to protest outside Oriel

Campaigners demanded Oriel College “name their price” at a Rhodes Must Fall (RMF) protest outside the college on Friday.

The protest came a year after Oriel launched their sixth-month listening exercise, which was brought to a halt in January when they announced their intention to keep their statue of British Imperialist Cecil Rhodes.

There were chants of “get up, get down, there’s a decon movement in this town” and “de-de-decolonise” while the group presented a cheque to Oriel, explaining in a letter to the college “you understand only the logic of hard cash”.

Campaigners claim that Oriel College’s decision not to remove the state was motivated by a potential loss of funding from wealthy donors. The college has strongly denied these allegations.

In an open letter to Oriel from Rhodes Must Fall Oxford, which was read out at the protest, “Your actions reflect a broader context of embedded prejudice, white supremacy and institutional indifference at the University of Oxford.”

“You are just an example of the university’s institutional racism: you marginalise, ignore, and actively undermine the voices of particular racial groups as you stuff your pockets with their money and pay lip service to an empty agenda of diversity.”

The protest’s focus on the issue of financial donors follows recent developments within the RMF Oxford campaign and decolonisation movement, as protesters seek to intersect with Free Education Oxford and other groups against the “colonisation and neoliberalisation of higher education”.

Graduate student and decolonisation activist Rachel Harmon told Cherwell,”We are going to let the University and Oriel College know that RMF Oxford is going to keep organising until our objectives are met and until our demands are dealt with in a meaningful way by the university.”

“We’ve been extraordinarily disappointed with the institutional response so far and we’re not going to give up just because they haven’t done what we want them to do yet.”

She explained that the protest was demanding the University “deals with iconography around the university which glorifies people who have done really atrocious things throughout history”. The group also demand changes to the “extraordinarily euro-centric curriculum” and representation.

A spokesperson for Oriel College told Cherwell,”In January, after careful consideration, the College’s Governing Body decided that the Rhodes statue will remain in place. As was made clear at the time, the College considered a wide range of views from many sources including students and academics, heritage bodies, national and student polls, alumni and members of the public. The overwhelming message of these was in support of the statue remaining in place, for a variety of reasons.”

A spokesperson from Oxford University said, “Oxford University is a welcoming, tolerant and diverse community. More than 25 per cent of our undergraduates and postgraduates are black and minority ethnic students. We are continually working with students on many initiatives towards greater inclusion and representation for all ethnic groups.”

“For example, we ran a highly successful summer conference to encourage more UK minority ethnic applicants from state schools, jointly led by students in the University’s African and Caribbean Society. We are also working in consultation with minority ethnic students on curriculum change, and supporting this process with a series of high-profile public lectures on cultural change in higher education.”

Preview: The Pillowman

Jeevan Ravindran
-
0
Preview: The Pillowman

A writer puts pen to paper only to churn out stories of little children being horribly murdered. We soon discover that he has a very troubled backstory, a tortured and traumatised brother, with murder accusations hanging over both their heads. However, insist directors, John Maier and Will Cowie, this is a comedy.

Initially, I have difficulty believing this, and as the rehearsal begins, I am mesmerised more by fear and a gnawing curiosity than by the side-splitting humour of it all. Katurian (played by Lillian Bornstein) is both narrator and performer, with intriguing re-enactments of his stories interposed between the action. As the lights come up in the opening scene, he sits blindfolded, alone onstage, and is subsequently interrogated by police officers Tupolski and Ariel (played by Joseph Stephenson and Christian Amos), who meet his impassioned claims of innocence with a mix of apathy, amusement and anger. In fact, the entirety of Martin McDonagh’s script toys with the juxtaposition of brutality and comedy.

To enact one of the stories, a vast white covering, part wall, part screen is transformed, as Eve Finnie’s remarkably designed puppets play out Katurian’s words. Suddenly the directors’ vision comes alive as a story both real and imagined plays out before us. Much as the writer describes his parents conducting an “artistic experiment,” it is obvious that the play itself is an artistic experiment, toying with the play’s earthy and sinister misanthropy. It is clear that Cowie and Maier have read and interpreted the play sensitively, choosing to see it as a statement on society. Gender-blind casting and the innovative storytelling methods only add to this.

The intimate setting of The Michael Pilch Theatre breathes a new life into this adaptation. The audience, on the same level as the actors, have a close insight into the minds of the characters, whose intense exchanges are claustrophobic in their proximity. The directors seem keen to assure those who might have seen the 2014 Playhouse adaptation that this is quite different – the minimalist nature of their production has forced them to delve deeper into the play and create something entirely original. Yet, seeing the play in action, it’s almost impossible to imagine the production on any scale other than this.

It is difficult to deny the talents of this small cast of four – Lillian Bornstein’s Katurian is at once forceful and pitiful, playing beautifully opposite the comic duo of Stephenson and Amos; the pair bring out the play’s boldest humour, whilst having fun at Katurian’s expense – torturing him, then politely asking him to take a seat. His brother Michal (Chris Page) is childish and naïve, failing to understand the gravity of his situation, bemoaning an itchy posterior, and shaking his head confusedly at Katurian’s complex intellectual musings.

Talking to the cast afterwards, they assure me they’ve had fun preparing for the play, despite its dark themes. Cowie and Maier say they were looking for eminently capable comic actors in casting, and that the nuances of Martin McDonagh’s bathetic and anticlimactic humour are often easy to miss.

It’s clear that there’s much more to expect than what we’ve seen – a story told through animation, retro TVs, and realistic fight-scenes choreographed by movement coach, Pete Sayer, as well as much more humour. “We want people to leave crying, but crying with laughter,” Maier concludes. “But maybe every one in three tears should be emotional,” chips in Cowie.

Whether funny or emotional, with its turbulent mix of totalitarian horror and quirky humour, don’t put head to pillow this week without seeing The Pillowman.

The Pillowman runs in 8th week at The Pilch Studio, (30th of November- 3rd of December).

1...933934935...2,489Page 934 of 2,489

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