Sunday 27th July 2025
Blog Page 969

Review: Henry V

0

Someone told me recently that they were afraid of getting involved in student theatre because student critics were ‘so mean’. Leaving aside for a moment the ridiculous notion that anyone – other than the select groups of ‘those involved in reviewing plays’ and ‘those involved in plays being reviewed’ – actually cares about what one finds printed in the pages of Cherwell Stage, this remark seems suddenly very pertinent now that I have been given the task of reviewing a play which, unfortunately, I emphatically didn’t enjoy.

Director Frances Livesey has successfully marshalled an enormous cast, almost twenty strong, as well as trimmed what is a bloody long play into something approaching a more manageable shape. The inclusion of a snippet of Henry IV Part II as a ‘prologue before the prologue’ was I thought a decision which paid off, allowing us to see at least some of the transition in Hal from haughty scamp to unpredictable tyrant which makes seeing the Henry plays all together quite so moving. These are not mean feats, nor ones I am in any way trying to belittle, but unfortunately I spent much of the performance bothered by far smaller mistakes. Transitions were slow, sometimes achingly so; set and costume were uninspired; whole scenes passed by with almost a complete dearth of movement, depending on whether you count the old technique of ‘obviously forced pacing in order to imply that I am being intimidating’. These sorts of things tend to get better across a run as a cast relaxes, but they nevertheless prevented any sense of immersion I might have felt.

This is not to say that there weren’t sparks of promise however. Laurence Belcher’s Henry is a delight, soaring resonantly through more than one very famous speech (a highlight was beating apelike upon his chest to roar “I AM A KING”) and bounding across the stage with a petulant and thinly-veiled malice. And Chris Page is good fun as the Dauphin, sneeringly correcting Henry’s emissary on the pronunciation of his name (a nice touch) and lathering in knowing absurdity a speech in praise of his horse towards the end of the first half (prompting Orleans to reply “I have heard a sonnet begin so to one’s mistress”). Indeed the play is at its best when channelling the snide, pugnacious braggadocio which both actors purvey so well – the caveat here being that a whole play consisting of snarling and shouting can get rather boring. In particular Henry’s loathsome courtship of Catherine once battle has concluded (prompting the brilliant line “I love France so well that / I will not part with a village of it”) came off as more needlessly shouty than subtly or insidiously militaristic. Moments of successful comedy which might have provided light in between all this shade were few and far between, the forced consumption of a leek by Gerard Krasnopolski’s Pistol simply too little, too late in this respect.

Ultimately this was a production sometimes good but rarely inspired; resembling what a crew might throw together if told they had no choice but to put on Henry V, but sadly lacking in any stamp of a novel or wide-reaching creative vision.

Mr Trump, who do you think you’re kidding?

1

 

If anti-Semitism within the Labour Party did one good thing, it was to illuminate, across mainstream politics and media, that the left could be a hostile place for Jews. Positioned as an active and natural opposition to fascism—the presupposed arbiter of anti-Semitism, the left has been incredulous to accusations of anti-Semitism within its ranks: ‘we oppose all racisms how can we be anti-Semitic?’ This mantra can lead to the casual dismissal and delegitimisation of Jewish claims, despite the dictates of left-wing identity politics, which enable all other minorities to define their own oppression. A movement championing the oppressed cannot simultaneously facilitate or perpetuate abuse based on race and religion. Logically, the reverse ought to follow: a movement that promotes racism, seemingly shouldn’t champion national liberation of a persecuted minority. Yet, the alt-right seems to do this. Trump’s movement, abreast a wave of American white nationalism, is being presented and endorsed as the flag-bearer of the Jewish state.

From coded Jew-bating jibes like underscoring Jon Stewart’s Jewish heritage, to having a campaign endorsed by a Holocaust-denying former KKK Wizard, Donald J. Trump clearly has a Jewish problem. Trump’s supporters spring to his defence on the David Duke point, claiming Trump can’t be held accountable for the objectionable views of his advocates. They miss the crucial problem here, which is Trump’s failure to adequately disavow this support, as many of his Republican predecessors have done in parallel situations. Even if this failure is in the name of political expediency, and not due to Trump sympathising with Duke, it still reveals Trump’s disturbing tolerance for anti-Semitism. If Trump’s comments about “small men wearing Yarmulkes counting his money” weren’t enough to prove his hostile and stereotype-ridden stance towards Jews —unless they’re his supporters or family of course — his appointment of Stephen Bannon to the position of Senior counsellor is. Executive Chairman of Breitbart News — a virtual playground for white nationalists and “unabashed anti-Semites”, (ADL), Bannon has been directly accused of anti-Semitism by no less than his ex-wife, who alleges that he refused to send their daughters to private school in order to avoid Jewish children. Over the next four years, people that at best tolerate anti-Semitism, and at worst, promulgate it, will run the White House.

Despite Trump’s string of anti-Semitic quips, associations, and appointments, Benjamin Netanyahu, is his number one fan: “President-elect Trump, my friend!” relished the political leader of the Jewish national homeland in his congratulatory video last week. This video surpassed standard diplomatic congratulations in its effusiveness, by all accounts. It exists in stark contrast to that of politically principled, but protocol-obeying, German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. Netanyahu’s legitimising hat-tip is not only irresponsible in how it panders to the Israeli right—Naftali Bennett’s subsequent guillotine to the “era of the Palestinian state” is a harrowing indication—but it is irresponsible for how it aids Trump’s obfuscation of anti-Semitism with blue and white. But many people—many Jews—don’t see this. Instead, they buy what Donald, Bannon, and Bibi are feeding them. This became clear in the aftermath of the election as Netanyahu’s congratulatory video, and clips of Trump rattling off pro-Israel soundbites, crowded my Facebook feed as Jewish contemporaries—many natural Democratic voters, posted captions like “despite everything at least he’s good for Israel!” There is no denying the efficacy of Trump’s ruse.

However, to anyone that observed Trump’s campaign-long shift from ambivalence on Israel to hard-line Zionism, it is clear Trump’s pro-Israel stance is political—it is not pro-Jewish: it consolidates Evangelical support within the Republican base (Christian Zionism relies on Jewish presence in Israel for the Second Coming to occur), it satisfies strategic geo-political objectives, allowing the US an even firmer foothold in the Middle East. It reinforces the idea that Republicans hate the Iran deal for magnanimous reasons (ie for the sake of Israel’s safety), not because it reveals the limitation of American power. Finally, it is consistent with Trump’s Islamophobic, anti-immigration narrative, juxtaposing America with Islamist violence, this time manifested and presented in the form of the Palestinians. Trump’s fervent support for Netanyahu’s Israel grew with the likelihood of his becoming the Republican nominee; now that he is President-Elect, it is resolute. Netanyahu could not be happier.

Donald Trump has co-opted the Jewish national liberation movement with a nod of approval from its political leader. He has done this in pursuit of aims that have little or nothing to do with Jews, and in doing so, he has distracted from the anti-Semites that voted him in, and from those that will run his government. Crucially, he has brushed his own murky track record under a Star of David-marked carpet. From Corbyn’s Labour to the American alt-right: anti-Semitism illuminates the intersection of ideological inconstancy and political self-preservation. The consequence on the left is a riling sense of injustice for those—more often that not—British students, that are told their claimed experiences of anti-Semitism are dramatized and politically motivated. The consequences on the right now go far beyond student politics; they take place on the geo-political stage, and implicate the world’s largest Jewish population outside Israel.

The new left: a sinister disdain for free speech

0

When Donald Trump’s former campaign strategist Corey Lewandowski appeared at The Union this week, anti-Trump protesters’ attempt to disrupt the event was an appalling display of the new left’s fatal disdain for freedom of speech.

By hosting Mr Lewandowski, the Union was complicit in the hatred of his campaign, so the argument goes. The groups organising the protest claimed that to give Mr Lewandowski “a platform” is to “legitimise” his views—as if Donald Trump were some unknown maverick extremist, rather than the president-elect of the United States. No, these views were sadly legitimised many months ago when they entered the mainstream of American politics.

For the Union to step down from its position of neutrality to take a stance on the worthiness of Donald Trump’s campaign would be perverse. Imagine if debating institutions had silenced, say, gay rights activists when they stood in the position of defying Oxford’s consensus. We must all respect freedom of speech even in instances when it benefits our opponents. People who believe in tolerance and compassion should trust that they will triumph against hatred eventually, if allowed to engage with it. A debate chamber should never be a safe space: shielding audiences from nasty views will not mean that such views are defeated. Today’s left sadly seems to have lost sight of how open debate, in which prejudice is aired and challenged, is how the argument has been won by the left in the past, and could be in the future.

The current resurgence of the far-right owes a lot to exactly this kind of shutting down of debate by the left. The campaign successes of Donald Trump in America and Vote Leave in Britain stemmed in part from a rebellion against political correctness. University student bodies, few more so than Oxford JCRs, have been at the forefront of a recent global tendency by which anyone questioning the progressive consensus has been mocked or dismissed in eerily Orwellian style as ‘problematic’, rather than engaged with and persuaded. If JCRs close themselves off to dissenting opinion it is a shame but when national politics does it is a disaster. Abandoned by the progressive consensus, the only place people not immediately convinced by the left have found their voice has been with the extreme right. Freedom of speech is a powerful weapon, of which the right has tragically been allowed to take ownership – the proponents of tolerance must reclaim their stake in it.

Any such suggestion that lessons should be learnt from the right would surely provoke upturned noses from many ‘progressives’, more concerned with cultivating their own moral superiority than winning the argument and winning power. If the left is to stand any chance of reproducing the right’s recent mass-mobilising electoral coups, it has to pay attention to what people like Lewandowski and Farage have been doing well and what their opponents have been doing so wrong. The best place on Wednesday night to face up to and learn from the tactics and psychology of such campaigns was inside the Union chamber, not on the street with a placard.

Fundraising for Matt Greenwood passes £40,000

0

An ergathon will take place this Sunday at Teddy Hall to raise money for Matt Greenwood, 21, an Engineering student at St. Edmunds Hall who has been diagnosed with terminal bone cancer. Fundraising for prosthetic limbs has already reached over four-times the initial target.

After his diagnosis, Matt’s friends, family and fellow students have been raising money to fund his dream of travelling the world. Having reached their £10,000 target in 4 hours of its ‘Just Giving’ page going live and recently passed £40,000, they are now aiming to raise £75,000.

 
Greenwood has been given between six and nine months to live, after being diagnosed with terminal bone cancer in October 2016.

 
Between 11am and 6pm at St Edmund Hall, students will aim to row one million meters to fundraise for Matt. Anyone is welcome to row to help raise money, while cakes and refreshments will also be available. Funds raised will go to the funding of prosthetics to enable Matt to live out his dreams.

 
Before his diagnosis, Matt was an active rower and rugby player and keen traveller. He is determined not to let his condition stop him from pursuing his passion of travelling. He commented, “I am not just going to lie here and let cancer win; I am going to travel and party and love, and get the most I can out of the remainder of my life.”

 
The fundraising effort was started on 13 November with a sponsored 6km walk along the river in Oxford, which was led by the Principal of St Edmund Hall, Professor Keith Gull.

More information about fundraising efforts for Matt can be found on the Facebook event or his Just Giving page.

The end of the film reel

0

The effacement of the history of film is played out on multiplex screens. At my local cinema, each film is prefaced with a ten second countdown showing film prints scrolling across the screen in an old-fashion manner before the filmic effect and grain literally melts away for a cold digital blue—a celebration of the erasure of our old ways for modern efficiency.

Knock off of IMAX’s vaunted introduction to films though it is, there is actually something far more insidious churning under the surface. Aside from this shift being nothing at all to cheer—the death of film is a subject debated to exhaustion—to even have the temerity to use film to hype audiences up for a primarily digital spectacle is dishonest and rather frustrating.

This speaks to a wider issue with 21st Century film, however: nostalgia, while useful to make audiences warm and fuzzy, is employed with breath-taking cynicism in order to sell cinema. We look back to a golden-age of spaghetti westerns and simple film-reel films not because they were better, but because they represent an ideal which we are striving to reproduce, only better, and with bigger special effects.

It is not a ground-breaking argument to propose that the continuing proliferation of remakes have a harmful impact on cinema which will last far beyond the immediate swell of box office profits. Rather, creativity is being hampered in favour of catering to long-gone tastes and calculated attempts to draw people who remember the originals into a darkened room to watch a VFX-laden rehash. Take for example The Magnificent Seven. It was a great movie and a product of its time, so did it really need a remake with the current age’s most famous stars? It seems to be a formula right now.

These remakes—about which far too much has already been written, so it suffices here to be brief on the subject—fail to elicit positive audience or critical reaction precisely because of their very nature. They might be new, but they feel old. Indeed, it is only a matter of time before the public revolt—with their feet—against the fodder they are forced to see.

Cinema is like no other medium in that it publicly devours its young with alarming alacrity. New releases can be easily judged on critical aggregation sites such as Rotten Tomatoes, while budget is quickly comparable with box office haul with just a click on a Wikipedia link. As such, the yearning for the new must constantly be sated with new content, but it must also be sated with risks. To hark back to the glory days of rickety film projectors may appear harmless, but it is certainly an analogy for the current state of Hollywood. Pining for the greatness it has now lost, it looks back to the glory days when cinema was relevant, yet it never seeks to understand exactly why.

If cinema can survive, then its future lies not in yearning for the success of its past, but in embracing its lessons. Hollywood was the greatest storyteller in the western world not because it was wealthy, or fl ashy, but because it was a fearless innovator. What happened? In its new status as An Established Art Form, cinema has become fat, proud and lazy. It’s time for more thought to go into Cinema. It must channel the bravery of its youth to further its survival. Here’s to a revolution of innovation.

Oxford students only second most employable in UK

0

According to Times Higher Education’s Global University Employability Ranking 2016, Oxford University are the second best university in the UK “for delivering work-ready graduates”. The California Institute of Technology topped the Employability Ranking, despite losing out to Oxford in Times Higher Education’s September ranking of the world’s top universities.

THE’s report found that the most prestigious universities were also considered to be the best at producing employment-ready graduates, with California Institute of Technology ranking first, followed by MIT, Harvard, Cambridge, and Stanford. Oxford placed seventh worldwide, narrowly losing out to Yale University.

The data which went into the report was gathered from respondents in 20 countries and consisted of management-level recruiters and managing directors of international firms.

Nine other universities from the UK placed in the top 100, including Imperial College London (16), King’s College London (23), and the University of Manchester (24). The US had the most universities on the list, occupying 37 spots of of the top 100 and six of the top ten.

The Technical University of Munich and the University of Tokyo were the only two non-US or UK universities to rank in the top ten.

John Maier, a second year Balliol PPEist, said, “This is a bitter pill to swallow. My hopes and dreams of being a corporate sellout are slipping away. I might have to do an MPhil, then DPhil, then maybe another DPhil after all.”

Protests outside Oxford Union as Corey Lewandowski speaks

3

Protesters gathered outside the Oxford Union as Donald Trump’s former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, arrived to speak tonight.

The protest, which was organised by Oxford Migrant Solidarity and OUSU LGBTQ Campain with the support of Oxford University Labour Club (OULC) and It Happens Here, amassed a crowd of more than 60 protesters.

They gathered outside the Union whilst members queued up outside to listen to the talk. Among their chants were “This is free speech, that is a platform”, “Oxford Union, shame on you” and “Black Lives Matter”.

Chants continued once the talk had started, with protesters shouting “Get up, walk out”. Their chants could be heard from inside the Union chamber.

Lewandowski left the Trump campaign in June 2016, after having worked there for over a year, amid allegations he was fired, although Mr. Trump’s son Donald Jr. described the split as “amicable”. He was replaced by chief strategist Paul Manafort. His resignations followed allegations that he had forcefully grabbed a journalist, Michelle Fields.

The OUSU LGBTQ campaign said in a statement, “The LGBTQ Campaign stands in solidarity with all LGBTQ people, people of colour, Muslims, migrants and refugees, disabled people, women and anyone who fears hardship or violence under a Trump presidency. We strongly condemn the normalisation of bigotry and the legitimisation of those complicit in fascism and white supremacy, including Corey Lewandowski. There can be no neutrality in the face of fascism; by hosting Lewandowski, the Oxford Union is complicit in this legitimisation.”

Similarly, a spokesperson for Oxford Migrant Solidarity commented, “Oxford Migrant Solidarity recognizes that there can be no free speech for people living under threat of deportation, harassment, or assault. There can be no free speech for a student in a classroom when other students chant “build the wall” at them. Oxford Migrant Solidarity stands in support of those individuals whose voices are not heard on national television, those who do not receive invitations to speak at the Oxford Union.”

It Happens Here, a sexual violence awareness group in Oxford said in a statement, “As an anti-sexual violence campaign, It Happens Here vehemently opposes the Union’s invitation to Corey Lewandowski, who defended Trump when he bragged about sexual assault. Sexual violence is not a joke; sexual violence is not something that we should accept and normalise in this way; sexual violence happens every day and we must visibly and resolutely stand against it, and anyone who trivialises its severity.”

Cherwell spoke to a number of students both queueing and protesting outside of the Union. Sean O’Neill, OULC’s Press Officer who was protesting outside the Union building, told Cherwell, “The most effective way to oppose this movement and all of its variants in the USA and here is to make sure that it’s not normalised. We stand in solidarity with all who this victory has affected and will go on to affect.”

Nathan Wragg, a PPEist at Pembroke who was queuing to hear Lewandowski speak, commented, “I think that Trump’s election is probably one of the most monumental political events of my life. Lewandowski is the first guy from Trump’s real inner circle to speak in Oxford following his election, which is pretty massive to be honest.”

“I think it’s great that there’s a protest here and protesting against platforming is a great idea, but I do not think this is a platform so to speak. The vast majority in the room will be massively against him. I am interested to see how he reacts to some quite hostile questions.”

Nathan Chael, a student in Oxford on exchange from Stanford University, said, “From a neutral perspective of political analysis I think the talk could allow interesting insight into the psychology of the Trump campaign and the current American electorate, and I’m obviously in support of free speech. But as someone still angry and hurting after the election, I’m also fully supportive of those choosing to protest Lewandowski’s talk.

“His campaign’s practices were utterly repugnant, and I think I’d feel disgusted to sit in the same room with him and listen to him talk about how Trump pulled it off this soon after it happened.”

This is by no means the first incident of a protest against platforming outside of the Union. In February 2015 around 400 demonstrators took part in a protest against the French Front National’s leader Marine Le Pen’s speech at the Union, condemning her political views as fascist, anti-immigrant, anti-semitic, and Islamophobic. The protestors opposing Lewandowski used many of the same chants.

The event highlights the controversy surrounding no-platforming at Oxford University. Robert Harris, former president of the Oxford Union, recently commented independently on the Union’s Facebook event, “The argument about whether Lewandowski should be hosted by the Oxford Union most likely comes down to the classic disagreement about the extent [and] limits to free speech. If this is true, then it seems implausible that either ‘side’ is going to be able to persuade the other regarding Lewandowski’s particular invitation – both viewpoints are based on broad, deep-held, ideological beliefs.”

The Oxford Union Society has been contacted for comment.

Wednesday Weltanschauung: Counter-Devolution

1

Devolution, the decentralisation of responsibility away from the central state. Although it is seemingly fashionable to give the governments of ‘the nations’ power over all manner of policy areas, we should be much warier of the potentially devastating consequences of such actions.

When the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly were established in 1999 by the Blair government, a terrible precedent was set. Year after year, there have been requests for more and more power from these devolved administrations. As each new area of competence (from healthcare to social welfare to transport to schools) has been awarded to the aforementioned institutions, the power of Westminster over domestic policy in Scotland and Wales has continually diminished. The Scottish government in particular has removed control of enormous areas of policy from Westminster. The situation is now so extreme, that the Scottish government now has within just 17 years of its initial inception exclusive responsibility for essentially all imaginable responsibilities of government aside from defence and foreign policy. Similarly, in addition to its existing enormous portfolio of devolved competences; Cardiff Bay appears to be poised to soon gain control over policing, prisons, and possibly even taxation within Wales.

Although politicians of all hues regularly champion the merits of devolution to the nations, an inherent problem with this approach can easily be identified. In a time in which nationalism is rising across the globe, should we be devolving more and more power to the administrations of coherently identifiable nations within our United Kingdom? To appropriate the wise words of the great Edmund Burke, “the greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse”. With the fundamentalist separatists of the Scottish National Party (SNP) manipulating the levers of power in Edinburgh, we find ourselves in a situation in which government is being used to try and tear our country apart. Through giving a ‘Scottish government’ power over Scotland, we are legitimising the idea of an independent Scottish state. If we continue to sacrifice Westminster competences on the altar of devolution, it will be mainstream Westminster politicians (and not the Scottish nationalists) who will ultimately be responsible for dismantling the United Kingdom.

Crucially, in the case of Scotland at least, the obsession with using devolved government to pursue an independent state is causing the neglect of ordinary governmental responsibilities. Everything that Nicola Sturgeon talks about can be readily related to the independence debate in some way. With regular requests from the SNP for endless referendums until they get the answer they want, how much longer can the current situation persist for before Scotland splits from the union? On the subject of independence referenda, I am of the firm belief that the pragmatic option to prevent such a catastrophe should be employed. Just as the Spanish government firmly denies the referendum demands of Catalonian separatists, Westminster should maintain its constitutional superiority and just say ‘no’ to the demands of the SNP. If we want to avoid legitimising an independent Scottish state, one of the first things we must do is dismantle the perception that Sturgeon is some sort of Scottish Prime Minister. If the gravitas of being Scottish First Minister was reduced to something similar to the prestige of a glorified county council leader, great progress in the fight to keep Britain united would have been made.

Having been so critical of policies of devolution so far, I feel obliged to point out that they can do a lot of good when applied in the correct circumstances. As a local councillor, I can attest that when appropriate competences are devolved to non-national (and consequently non-separatist) levels like towns and traditional counties, policy can be formulated that best reflects local needs. It is imperative that such forms of devolution should continue to be encouraged. Thus it should come as no surprise that I am pleased to see that the May ministry is putting great effort into the delivery of such an agenda. In the coming years, I would like the government to focus on the propagation of a unifying British identity that could turn back the tide of toxic nationalism. Indeed, as Burke also said, “good order is the foundation of all things”. If we are to preserve its integrity, we should be ordering our country using the model of a unitary state. Although devolution of power to local units is laudable, we cannot continue to enshrine devolved structures which legitimate separatism and separatists.

‘Post-truth’ named Oxford Dictionaries’ word of the year

0

Oxford Dictionaries has announced “post-truth” is its 2016 international word of the year. Reflecting the widespread impact of the US election and the Brexit debate, both the US and UK dictionaries chose the term.

Defined as an adjective “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief”, use of the term has increased by around 2,000% in 2016. “Post-truth” was chosen ahead of a shortlist including other political terms, such as “Brexiteer” and “alt-right”, and cultural alternatives, such as “coulroophobia” (the fear of clowns) and “hygge”.

According to Oxford Dictionaries, the term ” post-truth” was first used in an essay by playwright Steve Tesich in a 1992 edition of Nation magazine. Commenting on the Iran-Contra affair and the Persian Gulf war, Tesich noted that “we, as a free people, have freely decided that we want to live in some post-truth world”.

Casper Grathwohl, President of Oxford Dictionaries, commented, “Fuelled by the rise of social media as a news source and a growing distrust of facts offered up by the establishment, post-truth as a concept has been finding its linguistic footing for some time.
“We first saw the frequency really spike this year in June with buzz over the Brexit vote and again in July when Donald Trump secured the Republican presidential nomination.
“Given that usage of the term hasn’t shown any signs of slowing down, I wouldn’t be surprised if post-truth becomes one of the defining words of our time.”

“Post-truth” has been added to OxfordDictionaries.com, while editors will analyse its ongoing usage to see whether it will be included in future editions of the Oxford English Dictionary.

To see Oxford Dictionaries’ full reasoning and shortlist, click here.

 

No more scholars’ gowns at viva exams

0

New regulations have been adopted which will impose commoner’s gowns for all candidates at viva exams, regardless of whether they own a scholar’s gown.

The Proctors approved of the demands made in the Oxford University Society of Biomedical Sciences’ petition this week, making commoner’s gowns compulsory.

Science students including medics, biochemists and biologists as well as some MsC and DPhil students must attend viva exams in the final year of their course. They consist of a presentation of a research project in front of a jury, followed by questions, and can last up to six hours in some cases.

In previous years, undergraduates who had both types of academic dress could choose which one to wear, leading to potential unconscious bias from the examiners.

Concerns were raised in a Medicine examiner’s report in 2005, advising the candidates not to wear subfusc to their oral exams. Previous attempts were also made at solving the problem by abolishing gowns at vivas, a solution which was made impossible after students voted to keep the academic dress at OUSU’s referendum.

A petition to limit the risk of prejudice was launched in April 2016 under the initiative of Emily Gowers, Vice-President of OUSBMS. Attracting over 300 signatories in the first two days, the petition was backed by LMH, St Hugh’s, Balliol, St John’s and Teddy Hall JCRs.

With a final count of 553 signatures, the petition’s description stated, “Considering the efforts that Oxford makes to ensure that written exams are unbiased (e.g. candidate numbers), it seems ridiculous that during a viva the examiner has a full view of your academic history – and you’re wearing it!”

In addition to giving candidates wearing a scholar’s gown the benefit of the doubt, the petition argued that examiners were more likely to ask them difficult questions, resulting in a two-way disadvantage.

Some signatories suggested that the same should be applied to language orals.

The announcement of the Proctor’s decision was welcomed by OUSBMS president Joy Hodkinson. She commented, “There remain a multitude of ways in which examiners may be unconsciously biased in Viva Examinations, for instance, with regard to race, gender or regional accents.

“Despite this, I believe this change represents significant progress, particularly in relation to the University responding to the voices of the student body. Hopefully, the success of OUSBMS’s campaign will encourage students to pursue analogous initiatives relating to issues of equality in the future.”

Josh Newman, a recently graduated scientist and petition signatory, told Cherwell, “It’s so great to see what is often considered an archaic institution adapting it’s ways to ensure that all exams are fair and equal to all, regardless of past exam performance.”

He added, “Having sat my viva last year, it was plain to see how your gown could affect things – wearing my scholar’s gown, I was worried about whether this would change how my examiners treated me.”

In his message of support to the campaign in April, Newman addressed its opposition. “Yes, the scholar system is in place to reward individuals who have performed well, and the ability to wear a scholar’s gown is a perk of that – however, it is fundamentally not the case that such a system should have the ability to influence the outcome of future exams.

“As a scholar myself, I do agree with having the choice to wear your scholars gown to exams – it’s a personal choice. But as soon as that personal choice has the capability of impacting either your or somebody else’s grade undeservedly, then there is a problem.”