Thursday 6th November 2025
Blog

Alcoholism at Oxford University: A Perspective

Anonymous
-
0
Alcoholism at Oxford University: A Perspective

I can still remember the first time I got drunk. I was around 13 years old. A friend had stolen some of his dad’s whisky, and we got through half a bottle together. The experience wasn’t particularly extraordinary, apart from one thing: even then I was astonished, terrified, by just how much I enjoyed being drunk. The rush, the feeling of the alcohol coursing through my veins, the way it made my worries and anxieties dissipate for a few blissful hours. I subconsciously realised something that, years later, I would spend countless hours grappling with; whatever joys I could experience sober, they would be even better with a bottle in hand.

The next few years went by relatively normally. The lack of independence borne from still living at home meant my alcohol use was kept in check. All that happened was that every week or two when me and my friends were out drinking, I’d always end up getting absolutely shitfaced –  far more than anyone else.

Then I arrived at Oxford University. It only took a few weeks for my alcohol use to absolutely soar. I was 18 at this point, and without my parents breathing down my back, I was free to drink as much as I pleased. In the Michaelmas and Hilary just gone, I drank an average of around 100 to 150 units a week. I drank virtually every day – and I mean drank, enough that almost every night ended with me stumbling up the stairs to my accommodation and collapsing in bed, drunk out of my mind. I spent well over a thousand pounds on alcohol, leaving less than half of my money for other expenses.

There are probably very few environments worse for would-be alcoholics than Oxford University. The atmosphere of constant stress, the omnipresent ‘work hard, play hard’ undertone, the fact that almost every society runs countless boozy events, combined with virtually every college having a cheap and accessible bar, meant that I stood little chance. It’s true that, regardless of where I went, alcohol problems would have probably arisen. Of the three factors often leading to alcoholism – a family history of alcohol abuse, beginning drinking at a young age, and past mental health problems – I tick every one.

But Oxford undoubtedly exacerbated my issues. It doesn’t have much of a drug culture (in my experience, at least), but it has one hell of a drinking culture. Very few people seemed to notice how out of hand my drinking was getting. In a society where getting drunk regularly is a common occurrence, it’s hard to differentiate between someone who likes to drink and someone who needs to drink. When I finally began the long and painful process of seeking sobriety, the lack of support provided by the university was shocking. My addiction advisor suggested I  seek out alcoholic support groups within the University. As far as I can tell, no such group presently exists.

The solution isn’t, however, some sort of puritanical clamp down on drinking among students. The vast majority of you reading this article will be perfectly capable of drinking healthily and in moderation – and I am deeply envious of you. College bars and drinking events provide most with a hugely enjoyable social space. Some alcohol free alternatives would be nice, but that’s all. Instead, the University needs to do more to assist those students who are struggling; and we all need to be more ready to look out for the warning signs of alcohol dependency. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to drink; but when we start noticing that ourselves, or others, need to drink, alarm bells should be raised.

The writing of this article marks the two month anniversary of my sobriety. These past few weeks have been tough, much tougher than I could have ever expected. But they’ve also been incredibly rewarding. Getting over an addiction requires a complete life reset; it requires reconnecting with the friends and passions that you lost to booze. The constant urge to drink still hasn’t left me, if it ever will. Knowing that you can’t under any circumstances do the thing you want to do more than anything else is torture. But finally, for the first time in many months, I’m able to appreciate the beauty of our world, the simple joys of friendship, without the distorting lens of the bottle – and that makes it all worth it.

But if there’s one piece of advice I want anyone who relates to this article to take to heart, it’s this: don’t go cold turkey. Alcohol is one of the few drugs whose withdrawal can be fatal. For me, it was so bad that I was rushed to the John Radcliffe emergency unit, suffering from delirium tremens – a condition arising from alcohol withdrawal with symptoms like tremors, delirium, hallucinations, and even seizures which could potentially lead to death. Talk to your doctor, or any other NHS resources, so you can withdraw with the help of medications to protect you.

Drinking in moderation can be great fun, but if you notice yourself or anyone else unable to put down the bottle, becoming dependent on alcohol to get through the day, it’s time to take a break. And if that’s too hard, speak to a pastoral adviser or counsellor. Alcohol nearly ruined my life. For many years to come, I think, I’ll still be grappling with its consequences. I don’t want it to ruin yours.

‘Personal imprint’: an interview with the founder of Tree Artisan Café

Kenny Cota
-
0
‘Personal imprint’: an interview with the founder of Tree Artisan Café

During exams, my friends and I formed a study group. While it took us three years to realise that studying might be important even for a History degree, the dread for our upcoming exams eventually sunk in. Amidst the panicked conversations about misogynistic late-Roman chroniclers (looking at you, Procopius) were the study breaks at some point in the day to visit a café. A European-style working day with a long lunch break was essential to feeling like a real humanities student, and spending on coffee or cake proved to be an excellent means of coping with exam stress.

Now that exams are long gone, I have found time to consider what I could write about that would allow me to reflect on my experience of Oxford as a city, and I was torn between pubs and cafés. However, having been teetotal for the first year of my degree, in lockdown for the second and a finalist for my third, my pubbing credentials are well below par. Being a sugar-addict, however, my café CV is brimming with relevant experience, and I felt the need to pay some kind of tribute to the coffee shop scene here.

Bored witless by the Law Library, I applied for a loyalty card at the adjacent coffee shop, Missing Bean, and I also occasionally resorted to the suspiciously cheap coffee in college, where the exciting catch is that the oat milk is off and the coffee tastes burnt. As Exeter’s Cohen Quad is in Jericho, Tree Artisan, located on Little Clarendon Street, became our most-visited café. To find out what coffee shop life is like in Oxford from the point of view of the owners, I decided to interview Tree Artisan’s founder and owner, Graziella Ascensao.

Tree Artisan Café now feels like a fixture of the Oxford coffee scene, but it faced challenges from the very start. Graziella moved to Oxford from Brazil at 18, and later worked in the service sector, as both a barista and a waitress, and began to save up until she could afford to open her own café. It seemed as if fate had conspired against her when the COVID-19 pandemic hit as soon as she had secured the lease for the premises.

However, consistent with the rest of her attitude connected to her work, Graziella approached the challenge with a positive mindset and turned it into an opportunity. ‘At that time, I saw it was the time to open,’ she says. ‘When people were in front of their computer all day, they wanted to pick up a coffee and go to the park’. While, due to COVID-19 restrictions, she found it harder to cultivate the atmosphere she wanted within the physical space, she managed to generate a small community of regular customers who appreciated the friendliness and good coffee on offer. ‘I found positivity in that. I am always trying to be a warm person’.

This attitude is Graziella’s main take on the difference between the culture of chain cafés and that of independent ones. She takes pride in buying everything from independent suppliers, from bread to coffee beans, not wanting to compromise the culture of a small local enterprise. ‘There is more love, more passion. With chains, whoever you are, you are a number. The staff are a number, the customers are a number, everybody is a number. It is completely different to when you have a focus on the people’.

This focus is arguably what makes Tree Artisan Café unique. After exams, my friend and I worked there one afternoon, while the café was quiet. As we worked, we noticed that the staff recognised and talked to almost every customer who walked through the door. For a generation that appreciates the personal experience afforded by food vendors, this kind of human interaction sets Tree Artisan Café apart from chain cafés, where the staff often seem stressed and keen to hurry along to the next customer. The feeling that you’re part of a community is a huge appeal, and one that makes sitting in Tree Artisan much more appealing than, for example, sitting in Café Nero.

While the independent café market in Oxford is crowded and competitive, Graziella does not feel this is a hostile environment, and rather sees a market where independent outlets do not have to try and beat each other down to stay in business. ‘Honestly, I respect all of them, because I believe in this world there is space for all of them. Tree Artisan has my biometric, it is different from all the others. It is my personal imprint on them. It is like my baby. I am not comparing to others; I love it because it is mine’.

This ‘personal imprint’ is a huge part of independent coffee outlets in Oxford, and Graziella’s experiences definitely shape how Tree Artisan operates. Having been vegan for three years, she ensures there are multiple dairy-free, gluten-free and vegan options on the menu. As a lifelong member of the allergy club myself, it is welcome to have actual choices, especially when they’re genuinely delicious and likely to even be bought by someone who isn’t allergic to the other options. The menu is also rotated regularly, according to which options prove most popular, which allows Tree Artisan to be customer-driven, rather than constantly supplying the same, bulk-bought generic options available at a chain.

Graziella’s enthusiasm talking about running her own café is infectious. ‘It is hard work,’ she tells me at the end of our interview. ‘I’m here at 4:30 in the morning every day, and I have gratitude to be here. It is my passion, I am happy to be here’. It is this highly personal desire to create a positive experience for every customer that sets Oxford’s independent outlets apart from their corporate competition, and Tree Artisan Café is the perfect example of this alternative, people-focused approach to growing as a café in Oxford.

Image credit: Emily Perkins.

What are Conservative Party Members thinking?

Oliver Hall
-
0
What are Conservative Party Members thinking?

Friday 2nd September is creeping ever closer and with a government that seems to be set on inaction until then in the midst of the biggest cost of living crisis in decades, for millions it can’t come soon enough.  Before then though, 0.3% of the population will decide who the next Prime Minister is and all signs now seem to suggest that that person will be Liz Truss. 

Personally, I see it as a tragedy on several levels but, above all, I cannot cease to be totally baffled by the polls that show Truss will win by such a landslide.  Not only is it now with seeming daily regularity that a new independent report, financial expert, or ‘Tory grandee’ points out her economic plans are both unfundable and inadequate.  More than anything, the Conservative Party Members seem set to condemn themselves to losing the next election by electing a leader and resulting cabinet that is beyond impalpable for the general population.

I suppose the first step in trying to get inside the mind of Tory members is understanding who they really are, something that is notoriously difficult and explains why opinion polls in leadership contests vary so much in comparison with those of general elections.  Although the information is not officially published, Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University, concluded nearly ten years of study on this and told the FT last month that “There hasn’t been much change in the demographics of the Tory grassroots since we began our research on party members back in 2013.”  The research found that, rather unsurprisingly, that members are disproportionately older men.  63% were male (compared to roughly half of the UK population), their median age is 57 (the national average is 40), and 80% fall in the so-called ABC1 category of the most highly-paid demographic group (this makes up 53% of the country).   They also match the classic stereotype of being white and right-leaning on issues, with 76% voting for Brexit and 95% identifying as White British in a country where that makes up just 83% of the population.  Now, that is a lot of numbers, but the fact that those voting on our next leader come from such a small and narrow segment of society is not only plainly a crazy and scarcely believable part of our democratic system but goes some way to explaining how and why they have leaned so heavily on Truss over Sunak. They have rewarded her ludicrous attempts to evoke Thatcherite policies which don’t fit the current economic climate and, much like the Foreign Secretary’s desperate efforts to emulate Thatcher’s personality and dress sense, are outdated.

Despite this, in fact for this very reason, one would think that the constant comments from some of the Tory party’s oldest, most successful, and most well-respected names, about just how baseless much of Truss’ economic policies are, would have swayed more of the base towards Sunak.  Kenneth Clark has described her approach as “nonsense and simplistic” and related it to techniques that might be used by a Venezuelan government.  Former leaders Michael Howard and William Hague, as well as well-respected current MPs such as Dominic Raab, Jeremy Hunt, and Michael Gove, have all taken to the airwaves and newspapers in the past few days to speak against the idea that tax cuts can resolve the crisis.  Even Lord Lamont, Treasurer in the Thatcher government remembered so fondly by much of the conservative party base, has publicly backed Sunak over the holes in Truss’ plans. It isn’t only individuals who think that her plans are misguided either: the IFS joined countless other economists last week in pointing out that her current ideas are simply unfundable unless they are accompanied by spending cuts.

What makes all of this even more crazy and difficult for me to get my head around is that the members seem blissfully unaware of just how unelectable Truss is for the electorate as a whole.  With a general election looming in 2024 you would think that there would be an appetite for a relatively inoffensive leader who appeals to as broad a base as possible.  Whereas Sunak has at least shown his ability to appeal to a large spectrum in the past, earning himself the nickname ‘Dishy Rishi’ during his Eat Out to Help Out glory days, Truss has never shied away from bulldozing ahead with unpopular policies and divisive comments.  Whether that is upsetting Scots by saying that the best way to deal with their democratically elected leader is “to ignore her” or regular workers by telling them to put in some more “graft”, Truss trails Keir Starmer and rival Sunak in every poll of the general population.  And if recent leaks of her planned cabinet are to be believed, placing Jacob Rees-Mogg as Levelling-up Secretary, she hardly appears to be planning a change of course on this front.

So – why?  What is it that appeals?  It might well be a case of Johnson continuity – indeed in surveys, many have said that they feel Sunak betrayed their leader by resigning and becoming one of the major catalysts for the Prime Minister’s downfall.  In reality though, I think it is more of a case of the members being genuinely detached from the real world themselves.  For whatever reason they don’t seem able to see their impending decision risks disaster for millions of people across the country by worsening current financial pressures as well as putting them in a catastrophic position ahead of the next general election. Two years is a long time in politics, but right now I struggle to see why on earth the turkeys are voting for Christmas.  

Image: CC 2.0 – UK Government via Flickr.  

Vessel : A Review

Cia Mangat
-
0
Vessel : A Review

CW : mention of disordered eating, fat phobia, body dysmorphia

Have you ever wept in a toilet stall—maybe during a particularly rough school day, maybe during a night out that went wrong—thinking that you were completely insulated from the world outside, only to realise that there’s a giant gap in the door –  so whoever is walking past can definitely see you, all puffy-faced? Grace Olusola’s Vessel spoke directly to my teenage self and my current self alike, as I found myself in that exact situation after the show: watching the play felt like having my private, internal feelings about my body and food externalised and projected onto the stage at the Old Fire Station this Trinity. I felt seen. 

Last summer I vented my frustrations at feeling like the only fat person at Oxford on Twitter, and my notifications pinged more than normal for a little while. Initially, I worried that a play seeking to address themes of bodies and food in the Oxford community would centre the experiences of people who are afraid of looking like me. While I do not seek to invalidate the experience of people who are insecure and conventionally attractive, there’s a difference between being insecure about having rolls when you slouch and, as the Comedienne comments, “the world decid[ing] whether you’re ugly or not for you”.

Yet Olusola and her team of six other directors have taken the wide-ranging diversity of such relationships with body image into close consideration. Vessel is made up of twelve discrete episodes, each drawing inspiration from student survey responses on questions around bodies and food. The episodes differed significantly in tone, managing to tackle these issues with sensitivity and humour, and reminded me of scrolling through TikTok: we see a spoof of 2000s fatphobic TV shows, titled ‘Formerly Grotesque Fat People Bake On Blind Dates While We Watch’, and a monologue on different kinds of Reese’s peanut butter cups, among others. In ‘Not Like other Girls’ we even see a girl sniffling in the school toilets, not unlike me after the show.

The episodic structure and use of several directors is certainly a strength of the show, reflecting how our relationships with food and our bodies has as much to do with class, race, gender and sexuality as with what we see when we look in the mirror. I particularly enjoyed how the show played around with form and structure to reflect this: in ‘Femi’, Tariro Tinwaro sings of a best friend with an eating disorder “outrunning bodies like mine”, while in ‘The Comedienne’ we see Chloe Ralph hilariously enact the awkwardness of mediocre standup about her friend group and conclude “with friends this fucked up, this may be one of the few situations in life where being the fat one is actually the best status in the group.” 

Olusola cites her experience as a welfare officer at St. Catherine’s College, as well as her own body image struggles, as a catalyst for Vessel: this certainly shows throughout the production, albeit not in a way that feels patronising, didactic or reductive. At the beginning we hear a voiceover announce the show’s trigger warnings, and that if at any point an audience member needs to leave and take a break, they are welcome to do so. Likewise, at the end the crew offered pens and index cards to audience members as a chance to reflect on what they had just seen.

While I did sometimes find myself wishing for more cohesion between the writing of the episodes, I enjoyed the way that each episode was announced by the pinning of a poster or a graphic with its title to a board at the back of the stage, creating a sense of collaginess and accumulation. This imagery of food wrappers and containers was neatly alluded to in ‘Motherhood’, an episode where a woman tidying the house for a date discovers her daughter’s binge-eating stash concealed between stage blocks. During the interval, a friend remarked that the episodic nature reminded her of opening a door at a house party and accidentally walking in on a conversation between strangers that you were not meant to overhear, as alluded to perfectly in a scene where we watch the awkward reconnecting between old friends gradually tip over into a painful conservation about responsibility when one is  mentally ill. Olusola’s skilful writing shines through in lines like “I had a brain that betrayed me–you were the collateral”, and “sorry, force of habit, when you’re at death’s door [so often] you start leaving a key under the doormat.”

The presence of fat actors and explicitly working-class characters, albeit only a handful, on a student stage was particularly refreshing to see, although I did find myself wishing for more than a few of the twelve episodes in a show about bodies to centre their experiences.

Overall, Vessel’s careful balancing of sensitivity and humour in its treatment of the subject matter of body image and food made it an important and worthwhile watch; I can only hope that we see more stories and actors with these experiences on the Oxford student stage in the future. 

Where do we go from here?  Reflections on a day of chaos in Downing Street

Oliver Hall
-
0
Where do we go from here?  Reflections on a day of chaos in Downing Street

Where do we go from here?  Reflections on a day of unprecedented chaos in Downing Street…

The past few years in British politics have repeatedly defied belief but Thursday 7th July will go down in history as the most chaotic, bizarre, and extraordinary day that our country has seen in decades.  This morning, it was barely possible to make a cup of tea before returning to the television to learn of another ministerial resignation or letter from newly appointed cabinet ministers calling for the Prime Minister to go. Chris Mason taking the phone call from Downing Street to confirm Boris Johnson’s resignation live on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme perhaps perfectly summed up the incredulous nature of the morning’s proceedings. The big question now though is what on earth happens next?  Where do the Conservative party and the country go from here?  As it stands, the PM insists that he will stay on until a new leader is announced, but is that really feasible?  Who is best positioned to succeed him? One thing is certain, the turmoil is far from over…

Who Next?  The Runners and the Riders

The main reason why Johnson has survived in post for so long in spite of countless scandals that would’ve buried leaders of the past has been the lack of an apparent successor. Now the Conservative party is facing a leadership election with contenders from across the political spectrum, as it tries to decide its future.

Liz Truss

Bookies odds – 7/1

Long-time favourite of old-time party members but counting many enemies among fellow MPs, the outspoken Truss has never been afraid to make her leadership ambitions clear. Much like Johnson, she has been happy to bend her political beliefs to fit with her rise to power after backing remain in 2016 only to become one of the biggest supporters for a hard Brexit in recent years. Brash and brazen with political stances branded by many as ‘Thatcherism on steroids’, she certainly wouldn’t offer the dramatic change in tone and direction needed if her party is to stand any chance of rescuing themselves at any approaching election.  She may also struggle in early stages of the leadership race, with several MPs declaring privately that they wouldn’t back her.

Nadim Zahawi

Bookies odds – 8/1

Zahawi was centre stage in the political chaos of the last 48 hours after being appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday night, doing the media rounds defending the Prime Minister on Wednesday morning, and then calling for his resignation on Thursday.  His political stock rose substantially as vaccines minister during the pandemic and, popular amongst his colleagues, he now appears to be one of the favourites to succeed Johnson.  The only thing standing against him may turn out to be his relative inexperience in government. 

Rishi Sunak

Bookies odds – 4/1

There are few men in history who have had such a dramatic rise to fame and fall from grace as Rishi Sunak. An unknown among the public when appointed as Chancellor he attracted fans throughout the pandemic with generous furlough and ‘Eat Out to Help Out’ schemes before becoming embroiled in the Partygate scandal and brought down by questions over his wife’s non-dom tax status.  There’s a chance that his shock resignation on Tuesday night might just have saved his chances and he is sure to be a front runner if he can convince MPs of his credentials.  Equally, his resignation letter suggested that his could be ‘his last ministerial job’ and a return to pre-political life could certainly prove to be an attractive proposition for the former banker.

Sajid Javid

Bookies odds – 7/1

Having already failed twice in leadership elections could it be third time lucky for the man who initiated the final chapter of Johnson’s prime ministerial career?  Although his dramatic move and speech after PMQ’s will appeal to some, few can really doubt his own personal motivations for moving against the PM when he did and that kind of ‘snakery’ as Number 10 likes to call it has been enough to see others named Michal Gove get the sack.  Javid would offer something different in terms of a political direction and would appeal as a more stable set of hands but his flip-flopping hasn’t won him many fans amongst MPs and party members.

Penny Mourdant 

Bookies odds – 5/1

Who? I hear you ask.  The bookmakers’ favourite that’s who!  Mourdant finds herself in the bizzare position where not having any experience working in recent cabinets will be seen as one of her biggest strengths.  If you are in search of a metaphor for the dire state of the Tory party then this is it.  Being a long-time Brexit backer makes her palpable to the right of the party and the ERG but her membership of the liberal Conservative ‘One Nation’ caucus means that she has a fairly wide reach.  She has perhaps the fewest enemies of any of the obvious contenders.  Then again that is inevitable when you consider that she has never held a post of significance within government.

Tom Tugenhadt

Bookies odds – 14/1

‘The rebels’ choice’, Tugenhadt is one of the few likely runners who has spoken out against Johnson from the start.  The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee slammed him for his performance as Foreign Secretary and has remained critical ever since.  His rhetoric always focuses on a renewal of traditional conservative values, the meaningful substance of that rhetoric unsurprisingly remains in the dark.

Jeremy Hunt

Bookies odds – 11/1

Hunt will undoubtedly frame himself as the man who stood up to ‘Johnson the bully’ and never served in his cabinet.  In reality, insiders suggest that his close relationship with Theresa May meant that he was never invited to – a quite extraordinary thing when you consider the amount of ministers Johnson went through.  Hardly a superstar as health secretary Hunt would represent a return to the more traditional style of government of Theresa May and although that be unexciting to some MPs, large swathes of party members could be convinced by a reassuring return to relative normality.

Ben Wallace

Bookies odds – 5/1

The defence secretary never resigned from the cabinet but did just about manage to squeeze in a letter calling for Johnson to go before the final decision was announced.  The former soldier is broadly seen as reliable and undramatic, both potentially very attractive characteristics at the moment.  He has won international acclaim for his dealing with the Ukraine crisis and the general public would be sure to back him on that but he is notable for his lack of experience in all other areas of government.  Despite his popularity, he has also previously stated his desire to take on the role of UN Secretary-General in the future and that may yet prove to be his next step.

So, in conclusion, the race remains very much open.  Dozens are sure to declare their leadership bids over the coming days and countless campaign websites will no doubt be launched within hours but the stark reality is that none of the options are pretty for the Conservatives.  The party is in a mess, politics is in a mess.  Opposition parties insist that Johnson cannot remain PM whilst the process continues and any caretaker would get the chance to audition their potential on the biggest stage.  It still remains to be seen how long the elected leader will stay in post.  Can any of those listed above really stake a claim to Johnson’s record-breaking mandate from 2019?  A general election may very well be on the cards and, if that is the case, then the calculations change all over again for the MPs with the fate of the nation in their hands…

Your Thoughts

We asked you to sum up your thoughts about our departing Prime Minister’s time in office and departure itself – it’s safe to safe that the responses were mixed and I am happy to report that you didn’t hold back!

Charlie Aslet on the nature of Johnson’s departure:

“Boris Johnson’s resignation had as much dignity as a streaker at a football game. He clung to power until even his unkempt reflection was telling him it was time to pack it in. Some people would have thought it honourable to jump before being pushed. Not Boris. He was beaten up by all his closest friends and colleagues, his trousers hoisted around his ankles and then given a mighty boot up the buttocks before stumbling over the cliff. His only consolation as he tumbled down that rockface was that he managed to give Michael Gove a final slap in the face before he fell, giving him the sack when everyone else was resigning. In a way, I feel a bit sorry for Boris. His resignation was like the assassination of Julius Caesar, except this time it felt like he also managed to stab himself a few times before he died. But, then again, the man seems incapable of telling the truth. Even when he says he’s leaving it’s difficult to believe it will actually happen. When he says he’s actually staying, that’s when I’ll be ready to believe he’s really going for good.”

We then asked you for reflections on Johnson’s premiership:

“Good riddance babes”

“One word – joke”

And your predictions for the future:

“Same circus different clown”

“There is an unfortunate possibility that the Tories may be redeemed in the public eye”

“No chance anyone else will have anywhere near the decision-making prowess of Boris – prepare yourselves for an era of catastrophic indecision”

“I’m just sad for the people of Ukraine. Their future is now in doubt more than ever.”

“Someone equally bad or worse will become Prime Minister, there is no winning!”

Image: CC:2.0 (BY-NC-ND 2.0 via FLKR)

Putin’s ‘hockey buddy’ funded Teddy Hall and Saïd Business School

Charlie Hancock and Maurício Alencar
-
0
Putin’s ‘hockey buddy’ funded Teddy Hall and Saïd Business School

UPDATE: On the 29th June, The UK Government announced a new round of sanctions on several high profile Russian figures including Potanin, with the aim of “hitting Putin’s inner circle”. A government statement read: “Potanin continues to amass wealth as he supports Putin’s regime, acquiring Rosbank, and shares in Tinkoff Bank in the period since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”

As the Western world moves to sanction overseas Russian money, Cherwell has found that St Edmund Hall and the Saïd Business School accepted donations from Vladimir Potanin, the oligarch and metals tycoon who is the second richest man in Russia.

Potanin, 61, has a net worth of $27 billion, as estimated by Forbes. In 2020, he was included on the US Treasury’s list of 210 Russian oligarchs, businessmen and politicians under considerations for sanctions, dubbed ‘Putin’s List’. He is widely known for regularly playing ice hockey with Putin. Potanin’s fortune fell by $3 billion on the day that Russia invaded Ukraine. Potanin also served as the Deputy Prime Minister for 7 months between 1996 and 1997. 

In 1999, Potanin founded the Vladimir Potanin Foundation to “implement large-scale humanitarian programs” in the fields of “culture, higher education, social sport and philanthropy development”. The foundation donated £3 million to St Edmund Hall in 2018 to endow a research fund for Earth Sciences, and to jointly establish the Vladimir Potanin Associate Professor and Tutorial Fellow in Earth Sciences with the University of Oxford. The endowment also funded the three-year Vladimir Potanin Tutorial Fellow of Russian Literature and Modern Languages.

The foundation also granted $150,000 to the Saïd Business School in 2017 for a fellowship scheme for the Oxford Social Finance Programme. The school selected 15 Russian charity workers to attend this programme between 2017 and 2019. 

The collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s allowed well-connected individuals to profit from the bloc’s transition to a market economy by gaining control over newly privatized state assets. Many of these deals were done privately, without competition. While in office, Potanin proposed the controversial ‘loans for shares’ scheme, which is seen as having furthered the rise of the oligarch class. This scheme effectively caused the consolidation of oligarchs’ control over the Russian economy. ‘Loans for shares’ encouraged wealthy businessmen to loan money to the Yeltsin government in exchange for state-owned shares in companies, many of which extracted and processed Russia’s abundant natural resources. 

Of the programme, he told The Financial Times: “It is the biggest PR tragedy of my career. Of course, the privatisation process has to be transparent. And in our case it was not. My plan was different. I wanted to privatise the companies with banks and qualified people, raise their value, and then sell them.”

Through this scheme, Potanin and his long-term business partner Mikhail Prokhorov acquired a 54% share in Norilsk Nickel (Nornickel). The two businessmen separated their assets in 2007, leaving Potanin with 34.6% of the shares in Norilsk Nickel. The company’s total assets amounted to $20.7 billion in 2020.

On top of being the world’s largest producer of nickel, Norilsk Nickel is one of the world’s largest industrial polluters. In 2020, the company produced 1.9% of total global sulphur dioxide emissions. The company has announced that it intends to reduce suphur dioxides from its plants in the heavily polluted Norilsk region by 90% by 2025 from a 2015 baseline.

Potanin is the only Russian to have signed The Giving Pledge, in which the super-rich pledge to give a majority of their wealth to philanthropic causes. Other signatories include Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerber, and George Lucas. He said his decision was motivated by a belief that “wealth should work for public good”, and as a way to “protect [his] children from the burden of extreme wealth”.

A spokesperson for St Edmund Hall told Cherwell that the gift was accepted “in good faith and at a time when relations with Russia were in a substantially better place. This was a one-off donation and the College does not anticipate any further funding from The Potanin Foundation.

“The College is deeply concerned at the events happening in Ukraine and sincerely hopes that a peaceful outcome will soon be reached,” they added.

The Saïd Business School told Cherwell: “The grant went through the University’s robust approval process and the partnership ended in 2019. The focus of the programme is to improve the social impact and philanthropic work of charities and non-government organisations (NGOs) across the world. As a global business school with students and alumni from across the world, we have been deeply saddened at events happening in the Ukraine and hope a peaceful outcome is soon reached.”

The University of Oxford, Interros, and The Vladimir Potanin Foundation were approached for comment.

Image credit: Kremlin.ru/CC BY 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Review: “Black Lives Playlist: Track 2” by Sam Spencer

Katie Kirkpatrick
-
0
Review: “Black Lives Playlist: Track 2” by Sam Spencer

CW: homophobia, racism

A couple of hours before watching Track 2, I saw a friend’s Instagram story pointing out the comments on a post from the official 10 Downing Street account. The post celebrated the ‘extraordinary contribution of LGBT’ people to Britain, but the comments were full of the kind of vitriolic homophobia that it’s hard to believe still exists in public spaces. It is this kind of hate, as well as the prevalence of outright racism, especially in online spheres, that makes projects like the Black Lives Playlist essential.

Track 2 is, primarily, a monologue about the experience of being Black and gay. It centres around The Speaker’s complex inner turmoil between shame and pride in his sexuality. Whilst we may now fortunately live in a world where homosexuality is far more accepted, this play serves as an important reminder that prejudice still very much exists in our society,and that microagressions can have serious consequences especially where marginalised identities intersect.

In spite of this, Track 2 never feels like a PSA about homophobia or racism. Instead, its character-driven nature is relatable to anyone who has ever felt out of place at a family party; anyone who’s questioned what they really want from life; anyone who’s kissed someone they didn’t really like and regretted it; anyone who’s looked at themself in the mirror mid-breakdown and thought, actually, they look kind of hot. This is the play’s greatest strength: writer Sam Spencer manages to both convey a very specific life experience and connect with universal feelings of anxiety and difference.

The Speaker tells us about a day spent visiting his sister’s boyfriend’s family for the first time – an experience that sparks complex emotions and difficult memories. This central narrative introduces us to the story of his ex-boyfriend, and a rendez-vous with a man from the gay hook-up app Grindr who asks The Speaker some difficult questions. Each of these narrative strands ties together cohesively. Credit must go to Spencer for creating a plot that plays out in such a satisfying manner, and to director James Newbery and assistant-director Grace Olusola for translating it onto the stage so effortlessly.

The different visions of the show’s team work flawlessly together. With one-person shows, especially those performed and directed by different people, it’s easy for conflicting creative visions to come across in the finished product, but no such issue exists here. The use of music adds to the piece brilliantly, and the colourful lighting accentuates the vivid narrative, although the lighting could perhaps have been used to accentuate key moments to a greater extent, and mark transitions between time periods more clearly. Yet, the collaborative nature of the project translates into a show that knows what it wants to be, and executes this vision immaculately. 

The greatest strength of the direction is its simplicity: the story is allowed to speak for itself, which is essential to its success. Spencer’s script never tries to be overly clever or conceptual, instead relying on its innately heartfelt character development and engaging humour. He has a talent for visceral description, making both messy hookups and family dinners crystal clear in audiences’ minds, despite the minimalist staging: The Speaker remains sat alone in a dark space throughout. The script is structured very cleverly, with the hook-up acting as a frame that gains new meaning at the end, and the sister’s boyfriend storyline leading us craftily to an emotional climax. In addition to this, Spencer’s mixing of personal anecdotes with general thoughts on the likes of Stonewall statistics and making out with girls helps the writing sit so perfectly on the line between specific and universal. If I were to be especially fussy, it could be said that the script becomes slightly repetitive at times. Some elements, such as the use of the Grindr sound effect, could do with verbal clarification for audiences less familiar with the app, and the ideas around religion could have been fleshed out further. It remains, however, a remarkable piece of writing.

Spencer also performs his writing with a real honesty, transitioning smoothly between a public-facing cheekiness and moments of serious emotional depth – there are points where we feel genuine concern for him. The only things subtracting from the performance are some issues with awkward cuts and poor sound quality – the choppy switches between cuts takes us out of a few important moments, and dialogue with the off-screen voice in the first scene is at times hard to make out. These flaws can be easily forgiven, though; the show would work seamlessly in person, but we are unfortunately still gradually exiting the age of online theatre.

Like every other theatre fan, I’ve watched a lot of filmed monologues over the last year and a half. The influence of the likes of Fleabag can be felt within this piece (what would a review of a monologue be without a reference to Phoebe Waller-Bridge or Michaela Coel?), but it’s clear that the team have taken into consideration the limits and possibilities of the form and made it work for them. With its cohesive structure, engaging character and unfaltering honesty, Track 2 takes its place as one of the best examples of what has become an era-defining genre.

Image Credit: Pete Miller.

Editorial: Russell Group Student Newspapers for No-Detriment Policy

Russell Group University Newspapers
-
0
Editorial: Russell Group Student Newspapers for No-Detriment Policy

As the editors of Russell Group student newspapers, we are writing collectively to request a reversal of the Russell Group’s statement, 7 January 2020, ‘on ensuring fair assessment and protecting the integrity of degrees.’

As editors, not only are we students or recent students ourselves but we are also in constant contact with the students at our respective universities, as part of the function of our extracurricular roles. Apart from sharing in their collective experiences, we have a unique insight into their attitudes, viewpoints and beliefs. We speak and listen to them every day – and every day since the beginning of this academic year, we have heard students calling for more understanding, cooperation and empathy from university management. 

The statement shared by the Russell Group on 7 January showed the inconsistencies between what they and we understand to be adequate teaching. Whilst we enormously appreciate the hard work of teaching staff under these challenging circumstances and understand the complications ‘blended learning’ has presented, students have repeatedly said they have not been adequately supported throughout this pandemic. This is by no means to disregard the tremendous efforts of university staff, but it is simply a consequence of the realities of a year like none other in living memory. 

The lack of a ‘no detriment’ or ‘safety net’ policy has been a miscalculation by the Russell Group. Students across the UK have been left feeling abandoned by both the government, devolved administrations and universities themselves. 

As the editors of 28 student papers, we pick up and record the views of our students on a regular basis. What many are telling us, as a result of personal and shared difficulties, is that they do require the support a clearer ‘no detriment’ policy would deliver.

We object to the assumption made by the Russell Group that ‘emergency measures’ are no longer ‘necessary’ or ‘appropriate’. We are living through what are undeniably unprecedented times – this is a global emergency. The Prime Minister has labelled these weeks of the third lockdown as the critical point in the UK’s fight against the pandemic – death tolls are high, hospitals have reached capacity, we are still just in the early days of administering vaccines. Students, locked down in various levels of economic and social stability across the nation, are facing some of the most important exams we have sat in our lives to date – under some of the most difficult circumstances many will have faced. International students, too, have been working all term from various time zones around the globe, detached from the support of their student communities.

If anything, this point in the pandemic is perhaps the most urgent. We are now facing a mental health crisis amongst young people. Figures by WONKHE and Trendence have shown that more students feel lonely and isolated on a daily basis as a result of the pandemic. Additionally, surveys of undergraduates by various higher education policy advisers have found that over 50 per cent of students say their mental health has significantly deteriorated during the course of the pandemic. 

Students are attempting to sit assessments with a lack of resources, varying internet connections and mixed home environments. There are students without desks, who share bedrooms with siblings, who have caring responsibilities when they’re at home. Across the country, there are students from wide and varied backgrounds who are struggling to study for their final year assessments, many also affected by illness and bereavement owing to COVID-19. Students from lower income families as well as estranged students are disproportionately affected in their learning experiences this year and less able to receive the traditional means of support. They do not deserve to be dismissed.  

Yet, no one from the Russell Group denied the emergency of the situation when metal fences were erected around halls at Manchester. Universities even went as far as to declare their own local emergencies by locking down individual residences during outbreaks amongst first years. There was no denial of ‘emergency’ when students were being blamed in the media for spikes in national COVID-19 cases. 

A-level and GCSE exams have been adjusted to as if this were an emergency – so why aren’t the Russell Group responding in the same way for university students?

It should also be noted the UK government have voided themselves of much of the responsibility for the problems students face. On January 15, the Minister of State for Universities Michelle Donelan tweeted that ‘if universities want to continue charging full fees, they are expected to maintain the quality, quantity and accessibility of tuition’. A government who demands this from its universities should put support systems in place to enable it.  

You have explained to our respective Student Unions that it is more appropriate for universities to provide ‘a range of policies and tools’ to ensure fair assessment for students. Whilst we agree some universities will need to adapt their policy on an individual basis, the Russell Group’s collective position against ‘no detriment’ or ‘safety net’ policy does not match the reality of what many students have faced, and are continuing to face, this year.

In principle, a ‘no detriment’ or ‘safety net’ policy should ensure a student’s grade is not worsened as a result of the pandemic. Currently, many of your universities’ mitigatory policies amount to simply offering more time for assessments. Frankly, a matter of extra days or a week is not sufficient for the challenges that we have outlined above, which students are facing in real time.

We understand that an algorithmic approach is not entirely viable due to the lack of benchmark data for many students at this stage of the 2020/21 academic year – that’s a mathematical given. But it is by no means impossible to support an alternative ‘no detriment’ policy built for the circumstances. The University of York, for instance, is implementing a comprehensive policy, attempting to take into account the unique challenges posed by this pandemic, as opposed to reshuffling and extending existing policies. 

By readjusting the weightings of each year towards a student’s overall degree and choosing the better of the two for penultimate- and final-year undergraduates, as well as allowing first-years to re-sit up to 90 failed credits in exams, the University of York have worked to try and introduce an appropriate and fair policy. Postgraduates, who should not be forgotten in any such policy, have also been offered an assured ‘safety net’. Overall, it is certainly not perfect but it at least strives to fulfill on the principle of ‘no detriment’, allowing students to simply focus on their studies, with some confidence they will not be impacted by COVID-19, whilst preserving the value of their degrees to employers. 

We urge all Russell Group universities to introduce similarly comprehensive policies.

Whilst we understand that every subject, university and student is different, showing the understanding and empathy to their students embodied in York’s approach should be a basic requirement.

Presently, there are a small number of universities, such as Cardiff, that have recently implemented similar policies. Yet their commitment to this editorial is on the basis that students from all Russell Group universities should have the same level of assurance.

Overall, many students will of course respect and largely agree with your desire to maintain degree standards comparative to other years and to ensure, as you say, that they still ‘command the confidence of employers and professional bodies’. However, where other aspects of society have shifted or seen unprecedented measures introduced over the course of the last year, we believe a reweighting or rescaling of degrees is certainly possible. The students we write for and hear from daily are not asking for a policy that allows them to stop working or learning, but one that simply acknowledges the reality of the pandemic and its wide-ranging impact.

Ultimately, you claim you want to uphold the integrity of our degrees. Yet a university’s first responsibility is to its students and acting with integrity ought to mean upholding this responsibility. Many students across the country have not received the ‘blended’ or ‘hybrid’ learning experience they were promised; many are now separated from their campuses, with its facilities and libraries, due to a third national lockdown brought about largely by an unforeseen variant; many are facing personal, long-term hardship as a result of the virus, and/or extreme difficulties at home.

The integrity of a degree, too – students would hope – should encompass a focus on the opportunity to learn and study as well as a focus on rankings and outcomes. The integrity of university institutions should entail safeguarding the mental wellbeing of its students. Under the current plans laid out by most Russell Group universities, students are reporting to us loudly that neither of these are currently in line.

Students have not been quiet about their concerns. With exams fast approaching, and some already underway, now is the time for Russell Groups universities to act compassionately and responsibly.

Editorial: Oxford must adopt a no-detriment policy for this year’s finalists

Cherwell Editors
-
0
Editorial: Oxford must adopt a no-detriment policy for this year’s finalists

It is an understatement to say that we are living in extraordinary times. Last March, the UK, along with the rest of the world, came to a grinding halt at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic as we tried to cope with a crisis that was entirely without precedent. The Prime Minister told us then that “things are going to get worse before they get better” – but the reality of this warning has only now been fully realised.

Ten months later, the UK has entered the worst stage of its crisis so far: tragically, cases and deaths have soared and, once again, students have been asked to study from home with Hilary term teaching moved online. However, many are highly concerned about the limited and restrained adjustments recently made by the University of Oxford to account for the deterioration of the coronavirus crisis and its impact on the upcoming term and students’ education as a whole. 

It is not unreasonable to expect that students should not be disadvantaged by circumstances wholly beyond their control. That is why the editorial boards of The Oxford Blue, The Oxford Student and Cherwell are calling on the University of Oxford to introduce a fair ‘no-detriment’ policy for finalists.

While the scale of this tragedy has been devastating in terms of loss of life, the quality of students’ education has also suffered enormously. Students have raised serious concerns in recent days and weeks about issues at home: different time zones to Oxford in their home location; a lack of space; noise; and an absence of essential work tools including a desk, books, a computer and a stable, high-speed internet connection. Furthermore, international students are faced with additional (and unpredictable) challenges, such as having to make travel plans, negotiating complex and changeable immigration policies, undergoing mandatory periods of quarantine (either in private accomodation or specialist facilities) and/or firewalled internet access. Students who are materially more privileged than others in these areas are thus at a significant advantage compared to their peers. 

Many students have also felt lonely, confused and anxious throughout the pandemic. Like the rest of the population, students have had to contend with self-isolation and the emotional impact of being unable to socialise normally with friends, family and partners. Some students have been ill with COVID-19 themselves or had to care for sick household members and loved ones whilst keeping up with the famously rigorous, unrelenting pace of an Oxford degree. The pandemic’s asymmetric demands on students means that a one-size-fits-all approach cannot be feasible and a ‘no-detriment’ policy is crucial for student success.

In such extraordinary circumstances – and ten months into the UK’s COVID-19 crisis – students deserve better than inflexibility and an insistence that it is possible to study as normal in such tough conditions. It is crucial to recognise the circumstances that led to the establishment of the ‘no-detriment policy’ last spring have only been prolonged and exacerbated over the course of recent months. If students are to pay full tuition fees for a severely diminished university education, it is right that the University at least intervenes to accommodate the impact of COVID-19 on our learning experience and academic attainment. 

Last year, in light of the rapid spread and impact of COVID-19, the University listened to student feedback and implemented what they called a no-detriment policy, designed to ensure that finalists did not suffer from the consequences of a global issue outside of their control. Whilst by no means perfect, this policy was executed well in many respects. The optionality from last year should be continued further given the nature of the ongoing crisis. Imposing any one formula on the entire student body will unfairly disadvantage a significant number of its members. If we prioritise simplicity, we may unintentionally neglect the nuances of the situation which we face. Decentralising choice to students means that assessment will consider principles of fairness and equity, and ensure that each student can face the challenges we all find ourselves facing on their own terms, in a way that is right for them. That is what a no-detriment policy must guarantee.

There is undoubtedly a shared interest amongst the entire staff-student body in not wanting the value of an Oxford degree to be diluted, and everyone understands the importance of ‘academic rigour’; it is why many students apply to study here. However, it is unavoidable that students will be affected to varying degrees by the pandemic. Some will feel unable to be examined at the end of this calendar year if, for example, they or a close family member fall ill and/or they have been struggling with mental health issues. Others may be able to undertake exams, but will have to do so in extremely difficult conditions. More still will need to fulfil academic conditions to begin postgraduate courses but may or may not be able to be assessed next term. It suffices to say that no one solution can accommodate all students in a satisfactory manner and, therefore, a solution similar to last year must be implemented.

Yesterday’s email from the University, however, is not only a disappointment but an insult to the entire student body. By refusing to implement a clear ‘safety net’ policy, the University is downplaying the real-world impact that the pandemic has had on students’ learning – both in terms of access to teaching and resources, and of the effect of this crisis on students’ mental health. Some individual departments have also introduced policies that represent a ‘business as usual’ approach to exams and assessments, despite students’ loss of library access, resources and study spaces. A reliance on examiners’ personal acknowledgement of the past year’s unique circumstances cannot replace a formal framework that can evaluate and mitigate inequalities in learning and attainment. 

The University has said that it will announce “additional measures” to ensure fair degree outcomes in “the middle of Hilary term”. The only way to ensure fairness is for the University – in conjunction with departments and faculties – to commit, as soon as possible, to a no-detriment policy for all those taking exams and submitting other assessments, Such measures can ensure that no individual Oxford student is unjustly disadvantaged by the effect of the pandemic on their learning in the last year and during the next.  

Oxford’s Student Union, which serves as a voice for a student body of over 22,000, has said that the University should “recognise the academic challenges by reassessing workloads and assessment practices”, calling for a “fair outcome policy” defined as “a system of policies put in place to mitigate the detrimental effects of the pandemic on students with exams and coursework this year”. This will involve the re-scaling and re-weighting of exams and coursework to reflect the impact of the pandemic on the whole cohort. At an individual level, the Student Union has called for students to be able to file for mitigating circumstances and deadline extensions – without needing to prove that the pandemic has affected their studies – and to access better financial, academic and mental health support. We wholeheartedly endorse these demands and encourage students to find out more about the Student Union’s campaign and services and attend the online workshop taking place this evening (13 January), which will address these issues.

Other universities in the Russell Group, such the University of York, have also started to implement similar ‘safety net’ policies, and the Universities of Leeds, Lancaster and Bristol are considering similar approaches. A petition by Oxford students to the Vice Chancellor to implement “fair safety nets” has already attracted almost 800 signatures at the time of writing. 

On Tuesday, the University ruled out the possibility of a ‘blanket safety net’, but given the disruption caused to the last two terms – which will likely endure even beyond Hilary term – it must now act to introduce a fair no-detriment policy which will also reflect the impact of the pandemic on assessments, just as last year’s safety net did. To fail to do so will present an entirely unfair disadvantage to Oxford students, directly undermining the University’s commitment to student welfare and academic success.

The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on a whole generation of students can not even begin to be graphed on a curve. This crisis is, as we are so often reminded, ‘unprecedented’ – but extraordinary times surely call for equally extraordinary measures. 

A fair, robust no-detriment policy is one of those measures – and it must be implemented now. 

Editors-in-Chief and Managing Director, Cherwell, The Oxford Blue, and The Oxford Student

All I Want for Christmas is Food!

Katie Hollands
-
0
All I Want for Christmas is Food!

Come Christmas, what’s on your table? Are there bowls overflowing with cranberry sauce? Plates filled with pigs in blankets? A prize bird gleaming on its platter? Traditions differ, but some dishes find their feature every year. 

For most, the star of the Christmas feast is the turkey: the plump, golden-skinned bird that takes pride of place. But different birds have had their place; peacocks, pheasants and ducks all had their time on the table and before Victorian times, a goose was the typical centrepiece of the Christmas meal. 

Henry VIII, a man then synonymous with decadence, may have been the first in England to try a turkey, but it did not come into fashion until Charles Dickens chose to emphasise the immense philanthropy of Scrooge’s gift to the Cratchits by swapping their traditional goose for turkey. No expense would be spared, and thus the Christmas turkey fell into vogue. Isabella Beeton, author of Mrs Beeton’s Book of Household Management, and the Victorian authority on all things to do with housekeeping, bolstered this new trend by proclaiming that Christmas for the middle class “would scarcely be a Christmas dinner without its turkey”. 

Two of the more controversial members of a Christmas dinner, Yorkshire puddings and Bread Sauce, both find their origins in leftovers. Although many would argue Yorkshire puddings should only be eaten with roast beef, they actually originated from the drippings of fat off mutton as it roasted. As dripping fell into a pan filled with a batter, a Yorkshire pudding – enormous by today’s standards – would grow. Anyone with a food-strict upbringing similar to my own would never imagine a Yorkshire pudding on their plate come Christmas, yet this favourite continues to divide the country. It takes just a quick google search to discover the years of articles that have piled up from yuletides arguing pro-YP or against!

Yorkshire puddings’ more traditional, but stranger cousin is bread sauce. The beige, lumpy, liquid-like substance is not much more than gloop to those who haven’t been brought up with it. But to a fan, it’s a haven of stodgy delight. Bread sauce also originates from leftovers. In the Medieval period, soups were thickened with leftover bread, rather than flour as used today. These soups were prepared for Christmas feasts and evolved into the bay/nutmeg/clove flavoured slop (can you tell I wasn’t raised on it?) that so many will douse their turkey with this week.

As with anything that has its roots in the dinners of yore, the veg on our plates at Christmas have been shaped simply by whatever our ancestors managed to grow. Brussel sprouts found their way to the UK from Belgium, being the only cold-hardy green around. Parsnips, the preferred partner to sprouts, are harvested in the winter. Their first frost causes sugars to be released from their starch stores, giving them their characteristic sweetness (you won’t find that fun fact in your cracker). 

Christmas desserts may be the most reliably underwhelming part of the day. Dessert has the opportunity to hold such creativity and glee, and yet the dry, misshapen lumps turned out year after year hold nothing but an unbelievable amount of fruit. They also hold a considerable serving of history. 

The myth of each of the thirteen fillings of Christmas cake representing the 12 apostles and Jesus is a fun tale, but the most interesting story is with mince pies. First, let’s clear it up – yes, mincemeat did once contain real meat. Dating back to the crusades when meat/spiced/fruit pies found their way back to Europe, mince pies evolved from rectangular “coffins” to round Christmas Pyes that were often found at bountiful Christmas feasts. They were famously held in disdain by Cromwell’s Puritan government because of the ‘more-gluttony-less-Jesus’ they seemed to represent. By the Victorian period, mincemeat was being prepared and jarred earlier and earlier in the year to allow flavours to mature, and hence, meat was left at the wayside – thankfully for us. 

These Victorian mince pies largely look like those we have today – buttery pastry, spiced fruit (and suet) filling, decoration with festive designs on top. Though their status as a delicious treat may be divisive, mince pies, with their undeniably Christmassy aroma, remind you it’s a special time of the year, and for that they fulfil their role as a Christmas food tradition. 

Whether you guzzle gravy or put away potatoes, your food has been through a lot to make it onto your table – so forget the Queen’s speech and tune into your food come Friday. 

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons.

SU criticises colleges’ reduction of vacation residence

Imogen Duke
-
0
SU criticises colleges’ reduction of vacation residence

Some colleges are reducing the availability of residence for students over the Michaelmas vacation. Oxford SU is lobbying to ensure international students are guaranteed accommodation for those who wish to remain, and has criticised the impact on care leavers, estranged students, and independent students.

Oxford SU passed a motion in 3rd week resolving to ask the University to guarantee all international student residence in Oxford over the vacation. The SU also resolves to push for vacation residence to be offered at 15% of usual vacation rent.

College policies do not currently fulfil Oxford SU’s requests. St John’s College has said that their vacation residence and grant scheme “will not operate as usual” during this vacation. All students have to leave, except international students whose home borders are closed and students with extended terms for their subjects.  

St John’s told students that this was to ensure staff get a break from a difficult term, and students get a break to spend some time in a “different environment” before next year.

Queen’s College emailed students saying they “strongly urge” and “expect” all UK-domiciled students to return, noting that for students with welfare concerns, the welfare services would be closed for a period over the vacation.  

They also told international students that the requirement to quarantine in their home country and in the UK is “unlikely” to be a “compelling reason” to be granted vacation residence. Queen’s said that, if borders for students’ home countries are closed, students should consider asking friends to stay at their homes. Queen’s reminded students that “there is no automatic right to stay in College”.

Oxford SU Class Act Campaign told Cherwell: “This is an issue not only for international students, but also for care leavers, estranged students, and independent students. Colleges consistently fail to provide these students with security, instead leaving individuals to negotiate with them for the right to have somewhere to stay. This is a difficult situation for everyone, but many students call Oxford their home, and must not be forgotten in this pandemic.”

One anonymous student told Cherwell: “The vacation residence policy email I received from my college was a disappointing read that placed unnecessary anxiety upon estranged students. For some of us, home life is not safe: it does not matter if this has always been the case, or if this is recent. Trinity Term lockdown was hard enough to suffer because students from other colleges were able to return – hopefully we can stay this time.

“I, like many other students, am incredibly grateful for my time at Oxford because of the freedom it gives me. It is also one of the reasons students take advantage of the vacation residence system: escape. To put it plainly, studying in college is better than working at home. We already try so hard to learn to live independently, study efficiently and strike that balance needed to be happy that if we are forced back into our older unhealthy environments no good will come of it.”

Oxford SU will further ask the University to ensure students who are required to quarantine upon return to Oxford get free accommodation, and receive food at the average price of their college’s home food.

Students who were required to quarantine upon arrival at the beginning of Michaelmas faced very varied college policies. Oxford SU’s motion stated that students were “in some cases charged extortionate rates for their accommodation”. 
Cherwell reported at the beginning of the term that Oriel College charged self-isolating international students over £700, including a nearly £30 per day food bill. Some colleges, including Hertford, Magdalen, Queen’s, and Worcester College, made accommodation free.

Image credit: Simononly/ Wikimedia Commons

Oxford University’s ties to nuclear weapons industry revealed

Ben Jacob
-
0
Oxford University’s ties to nuclear weapons industry revealed

Freedom of Information requests submitted by Cherwell have revealed that Oxford University accepted at least £726,706 from the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), the designer and producer of the UK’s nuclear warheads, during the years 2017-19 alone.

The majority of this money was awarded to the Oxford Centre for High Energy Density Science (OxCHEDS), which advertises AWE as one of its “national partners” on its website.

AWE’s funding is mostly used by OxCHEDS to fund individual research projects and studentships, with a substantial portion (£82,863 in 2019) funding the department’s William Penney Fellowship, named after the head of the British delegation for the Manhattan Project and ‘father of the British atomic bomb’. According to the AWE website, William Penney Fellows “act as ambassadors for AWE in the scientific and technical communities in which they operate”.

This fellowship is currently shared by two professors, Justin Wark and Peter Norreys, both of whom collaborate closely with US state laboratories that develop nuclear weapons, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

AWE donations have also funded projects at the University’s Departments of Chemistry, Engineering, and Physics, a number of which are directly linked to the design of nuclear weapons. One AWE-funded paper, published in 2019, investigated fusion yield production, a vital way of testing the destructive power of a warhead prior to manufacturing, whilst another project researched methods used by nuclear weapons designers for simulating the interior of a detonating warhead.

This research also has civilian applications, and does not in itself point towards the development of nuclear weapons. A spokesperson from Oxford University stated: “Oxford University research is academically driven, with the ultimate aim of enhancing openly available scholarship and knowledge. All research projects with defence sector funding advance general scientific understanding, with a wide range of subsequent civilian applications, as well as potential application by the sector.”

However, AWE is not a civilian organisation. As Andrew Smith of Campaign Against the Arms Trade told Cherwell, “the AWE exists to promote the deadliest weaponry possible. It is not funding these projects because it cares about education, but because it wants to benefit from the research and association that goes with it”. Mr. Smith concluded: “Oxford University should be leading by example, not providing research and cheap labour for the arms industry”.

Responding to Cherwell’s findings, Dr Stuart Parkinson, Director of Scientists for Global Responsibility, described Oxford University’s ties with AWE as “shocking” and called for the work to be “terminated immediately”. He said that the findings “point very clearly to Oxford University researchers being involved in the development of weapons of mass destruction”.

In the face of this criticism, the University spokesperson claimed: “All research funders must first pass ethical scrutiny and be approved by the University’s Committee to Review Donations and Research Funding. This is a robust, independent system, which takes legal, ethical and reputational issues into consideration.”

However, there are growing concerns over the ethics and efficacy of this process, which has seen controversial donations from the Sackler family, Wafic Saïd, and Stephen Schwarzman given the green light despite internal and public protests. The committee’s deliberations are frequently subject to Non-Disclosure Agreements, meaning that they are not accountable to members of the University and to the wider public. Moreover, Freedom of Information requests submitted earlier this year revealed that the committee accepts over 95% of the funding it considers, with congregation members describing the committee as a “smokescreen” and a “fig leaf”.

In recent years, the University has faced increased opposition from student groups such as the Oxford Climate Justice Campaign and Oxford Against Schwarzman over the companies Oxford chooses to affiliate itself with through investments and donations. From this term onwards, a newly formed student group, Disarm Oxford, will be campaigning against the University’s numerous ties with the arms industry. Oxford Amnesty International is working with Disarm Oxford on the global Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, and to strive for the disarmament of the University more broadly.

Dr Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury and Chair of the Trustees of the Council for the Defence of British Universities, told Cherwell: “The recent publicity around university divestment from fossil fuels has highlighted the need for university bodies to be transparent about the ethical standards they apply to their funding, and it is encouraging to see this crucial question being raised also in the context of armaments-related funds and research.”

The combination of Brexit and the coronavirus pandemic has created a particularly difficult time for university research finances. In a marketised higher education system, seeking and welcoming money from industry partnerships seems like an inevitability. However, while some industries rely on academic research to save lives, others are predicated on taking them. With the UK confirmed this year as the world’s second biggest exporter of arms, the University’s significant ties to the development of weaponry has an alarming global significance which is now beginning to be called into question.

Oxford University leads ‘breakthrough’ in coronavirus treatment

Imogen Duke
-
0
Oxford University leads ‘breakthrough’ in coronavirus treatment

A trial led by Oxford University has discovered that dexamethasone, a cheap steroid, can help reduce deaths in seriously ill COVID-19 patients.

The drug reduced the risk of death by one-third for patients on ventilators and by one-fifth for patients on oxygen.

Oxford University says: “Based on these results, 1 death would be prevented by treatment of around 8 ventilated patients or around 25 patients requiring oxygen alone.”

Chief Medical Officer Professor Chris Whitty has described it as “the most important trial result for COVID-19 so far”.

The British government has immediately authorised use of the drug in the NHS, saying “thousands of lives will be saved”. The government has secured supplies of dexamethasone in the UK, meaning there is already treatment for over 200,000 people.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said this is “a remarkable British scientific achievement” and that the government “have taken steps to ensure we have enough supplies, even in the event of a second peak”.

It was discovered as part of the RECOVERY trial, the Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy, which has involved over 11,500 patients at over 175 NHS hospitals in the UK.  

About 2000 hospital patients were given 6mg of dexamethasone per day and compared with more than 4,000 who were not.

For patients on ventilators, it cut the risk of death from 41% to 28%. For patients needing oxygen, it cut the risk of death from 25% to 20%.

The drug costs £5.40 per day and treatment takes up to 10 days. Professor Martin Landray, one of the Chief Investigators, has said: “So essentially it costs £35 to save a life.”

Chief investigator Peter Horby has said: “This is the only drug so far that has been shown to reduce mortality – and it reduces it significantly. It’s a major breakthrough.”

The UK Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, said: “This is tremendous news today from the RECOVERY trial showing that dexamethasone is the first drug to reduce mortality from COVID-19. It is particularly exciting as this is an inexpensive widely available medicine. This is a ground-breaking development in our fight against the disease, and the speed at which researchers have progressed finding an effective treatment is truly remarkable. It shows the importance of doing high quality clinical trials and basing decisions on the results of those trials.”

Peter Horby, Professor of Emerging Infectious Diseases in the Nuffield Department of Medicine and one of the Chief Investigators for the trial, said: “Dexamethasone is the first drug to be shown to improve survival in COVID-19. This is an extremely welcome result. The survival benefit is clear and large in those patients who are sick enough to require oxygen treatment, so dexamethasone should now become standard of care in these patients. Dexamethasone is inexpensive, on the shelf, and can be used immediately to save lives worldwide.”

Martin Landray, Professor of Medicine and Epidemiology at the Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, one of the Chief Investigators, said: “Since the appearance of COVID-19 six months ago, the search has been on for treatments that can improve survival, particularly in the sickest patients. These preliminary results from the RECOVERY trial are very clear – dexamethasone reduces the risk of death among patients with severe respiratory complications. COVID-19 is a global disease – it is fantastic that the first treatment demonstrated to reduce mortality is one that is instantly available and affordable worldwide.”

Image credit to Pixabay.

Self-isolated student diagnosed with Covid-19

Imogen Harter-Jones
-
0
Self-isolated student diagnosed with Covid-19

Public Health England (PHE) has confirmed that a student at the University of Oxford has tested positive for coronavirus (Covid-19) after returning home from a specified country.

The university has said that “Our immediate concerns are for the affected student and their family, along with the health and wellbeing of our university staff, students and visitors. The student is being offered all necessary support.”

The university has established that the affected student did not attend any university or college events after they felt ill, when they subsequently self-isolated. 

PHE has advised that the risk to other students and staff is very low and that university and college activities can continue as normal. They have also advised that the university and colleges do not need to take any additional public health actions in the light of this specific case.

A university spokesperson has said “We have worked with PHE to make sure that anyone who was in contact with the student after they fell ill have been notified and that they are able to access support and information as needed. PHE do not consider individuals infectious until they develop symptoms.”

The university is providing support for students, staff, and the wider community.

The University is sharing further updates on the current infection at  www.ox.ac.uk/coronavirus-advice.

BREAKING: Oxford announces record state school offers

Molly Innes
-
0
BREAKING: Oxford announces record state school offers

Oxford University has announced that more than 69% of undergraduate offers have been made to students attending state schools. The increase of 4.6% is the “best percentage increase the University has ever seen.”

30.9% of offers were made to students from independent schools; this is over 12% higher than the 18% of students who attend independent sixth forms, according to the Sutton Trust (2018), and dramatically higher than the 7% of all UK students attending independent schools. 

78% of offers were made to UK applicants, 7% to EU applicants and 15% to Overseas applicants. The University specifies that ‘UK applicants are more likely to receive an offer.’ 

The University was unable to provide a breakdown of the split between Grammar, Comprehensive, Academy and other forms of state schools as they do not currently collect that data. The data on the inter-state school split is not published in the University’s annual data report either, however the May 2019 access report published by the University highlighted that ‘In 2018, 11.3% of UK students admitted to Oxford came from the two most socioeconomically disadvantaged groups (ACORN categories 4 and 56).’

Oxford’s successful UNIQ programme has led to 250 students being made offers this year. The offer rate to students who attended UNIQ programmes is 33.6%, in contrast to the offer rate of 21.5% across UK applicants. The increase in offers to UNIQ participants comes after the expansion of the scheme last year, which saw more than 1,350 pupils take part in the programme – an increase of 50%. This is the largest number of UNIQ participants to receive offers in the programme’s history, thanks to the dramatic development in 2019. 

This year, Students from POLAR4 quintile 1 accounted for 6.4% of UK offers – up by 1.4%. These students represent the areas with the lowest progression to higher education.

Dr Samina Khan, Director of Undergraduate Admissions and Outreach at Oxford, said: “We are delighted by this record number of offers to state school students, and to students from under-represented backgrounds. This creates a strong foundation for what we aim to achieve. We know that students from some backgrounds are not as well-represented at Oxford as they should be, and we are determined that this should change. Having taught in state schools during my career, I know the wealth of talent that lies there. We wish the students every success in their studies, and hope they flourish at Oxford.”

The number of offers made to young people from areas with the lowest progression rates to higher education have increased. Students from POLAR4 quintile 1 accounted for 6.4% of UK offers – up by 1.4% from 2019 offers.

In 2015 the University made 56.7% of their offers to students from state schools. Across the past five years, there has been an increase of 12.4% in state school offers. This comes after pioneering Oxford schemes have taken place, from the UNIQ programmes to Lady Margaret Hall’s Foundation Year and University College’s bridging scheme. It also coincides with the University’s formation of the Foundation Oxford and Opportunity Oxford schemes.

Opportunity Oxford launched at the end of the previous academic year, and this week more than 100 candidates from under-represented backgrounds received offers to study as a part of the scheme. Dr Andrew Bell, Coordinator of Oppertunity Oxford and University College Senior Tutor, has stated:

“Opportunity Oxford is a major new initiative to increase the number of offers made to UK students from under-represented backgrounds, and to provide academic support to those students to ensure that they have the best possible start to their university careers. This year, more than 100 offers have been made under the scheme across 28 colleges. We anticipate making 200 offers per year under the scheme from 2022 onwards. We’re really excited to have launched Opportunity Oxford, and we very much look forward to welcoming our first cohort to Oxford later this year.”

This article was updated at 20:02 15.1.20 to clarify POLAR.

Further clarification was made at 00:11, 16.1.19 concerning Opportunity Oxford.

Kiss My Genders – Celebrating identity with the Hayward Gallery

Charlotte Hall
-
0
Kiss My Genders – Celebrating identity with the Hayward Gallery

“Look.” A voice whispers – slowly, sensually.

White curtains quiver in the non-existent breeze that haunts the clinical interior of the Hayward gallery. With that slight movement, too, the image projected onto the curtain sways – Victoria Sin’s wide eyes flicker involuntarily as the camera slowly zooms into their face. In sparkling lingerie and full drag inspired by Cantonese opera, the model, laid out demurely across a satin curtain, stares back at the starers; sometimes sultry, sometimes vulnerable, always, somehow, piercing.

“Look. Look. Look – At her.”  

Victoria Sin’s A View from Elsewhere, Act 1, and She Postures in Context, three film-art pieces projected onto a curtain-enclosure, embody the spirit of the Hayward’s latest exhibition Kiss My Genders. The exhibition, made up of over a hundred artworks by thirty different international artists, centres around gender identity and fluidity. Physically enclosing their viewers in the wavering medium of cloth and projection, Sin appears to comment on the insubstantiality of gender boundaries, but in subverting perspective and viewing experience, also draws attention to the role of performance, presentation and spectatorship in all elements of identity. Hayward claims the exhibition focuses on “content and forms that challenge accepted or stable definitions of gender.” Paintings of hunter-gatherer tribes with drag elements question the West’s suppression of third-gender narratives, while sculptures made of artificial oestrogen and testosterone break down, biologically, what it means to be “male” or “female”.

But more than just gender identity, the exhibits are an expression of the individuality and the internal or cultural conflicts of the artists. Amrou Al-Kadhi teams up with Holly Falconer to explore what he describes as the “disorienting” experience of being drag as a person of Muslim heritage by modelling as drag persona Glamrou wrapped in a Persian carpet. Cloned in different poses through triple exposure to express the incongruence of these disparate cultures, Al-Kadhi demonstrates their successful unification in the persona of Glamrou. Meanwhile Juliana Huxtable’s photographic self-portraits deflect identity-labels entirely; using makeup, costumes and fantasy backgrounds, she deflects the reductive categorizations ascribed to her as a “black intersex artist” by creating personalized embodiments of mythology, sci-fi and super-heroes. Kiss My Genders thereby becomes an exploration not only of the boundaries perceived in gender – but of individuals’ cultural identity experiences.

With this exhibition, an art assistant explains, the Hayward is attempting to break the mould of LGBTQ+ and gender-related exhibitions, which often focus on the violence and oppression experienced by these communities. Instead they want to celebrate different identities. Nonetheless, the exhibition is palpably political: Zanele Muholi explores black lesbian and transgender experiences in South Africa through photography – and acts of violence are still an all too present component of that. In her series Crime Scenes she stages the aftermath of brutal murders, photographing the upturned feet of model corpses buried in sheets of plastic and litter. Paintings like YESSIR! Back off! Tell me who I am, again? combine illustration and collage to satirize the way gender transition is spoken about. The artist, Flo Brooks, depicts a fictional cleaning company scrubbing away at a therapist’s room, reflecting his experience of the “hygienic spaces” he experienced while transitioning; “spaces designed to clean, conceal and correct” things socially considered “dirty, abnormal or other” – but also addresses the way transgender issues are generalised and “sterilized” through neat clinical terms. Artists in Kiss My Genders marry the intensely personal with the social, emotional with the playful, and at the same time evoke all the contrasting feelings of pride, comfort, fear, frustration, belonging and exclusion.

The exhibition succeeds in its “celebration” and “expression” of identities – but the presentation, at times, is confusing. The works of some artists are split across multiple floors, the labelling unclear, and it is generally worth asking the art assistants to talk you through the rooms – difficult, when the gallery is at its busiest and a shame for an exhibition set on “opening doors.” Perhaps this is all the more noticeable as the exhibition appears to be catered towards an audience that identifies with binary genders – many of the artworks require the context of the theme or artist in order to be appreciated. Often, however, this is used in a positive way; many of the exhibits are truly thought provoking.

Most strikingly, Something for the Boys takes us through a spiral of ruched curtains in metallic pink – as if we are walking into a private adult show, yet at the same time, as if we were walking onto a stage. In the centre of the spiral we find ourselves in a circular womb-like room with a screen. Cutting between various LGBTQ+ spaces in Blackpool, the projected film shows an increasing disconnect between sound and image; a drag queen mouthing to “I am who I am” off-sync, interjected with a club-dance choreography, stills of gay clubs, the camera panning over pornographic videos and fetish-wear, and back to the drag queen – except this time she just mouths, and all we can hear is industrial sounds – once again connecting gender-identity and sexuality to cultural identity as a whole. But there is also something intimately performative about the display – the gesticulations and dances, unhinged from their appropriate music, seem to point to a theme of performance and spectatorship at large. And suddenly, that circular room no longer feels like a private theatre. It starts to feel like a stage, and the question crosses our minds – who is really the performer here, the drag act, or us, playing up to our female/male expectations? Just as Victoria Sin’s insistent murmurs, Kiss My Genders seduces its audience into truly looking – and becoming aware of the instability of their perspective in the process.

This year’s NUS conference – how your delegates voted

Sam Millward
-
0
This year’s NUS conference – how your delegates voted

The National Union of Student’s annual conference took place between Tuesday and Friday of this week. Five of Oxford’s seven elected delegates were present and voting in Glasgow, with two not voting on any motions.

The voting records of all delegates are available for viewing online, whilst a list of the motions discussed over the three day event can be found here.

This conference saw the election of Zamzam Ibrahim as NUS President. Ibrahim, the former president of the Salford University students’ union, vowed in her manifesto to hold a National Student Strike, calling for free education, an improved student maintenance allowance and the return of the post-study work visa for overseas students.

Among the motions discussed, Oxford SU delegates voted to support the Mental Health Charter. This would seek to improve standards of mental health provision and funding across universities, acknowledging alarming rates of student suicide and the ongoing “mental health crisis”.

All Oxford delegates voted against the motion to revoke gender quotas within the SU. The proposer highlighted the now-increased presence of women in the organisation, since the rule’s creation in 2014, as well as the potential harm to non- binary individuals that a 50% female quota poses. The last 5 NUS presidents have identified as female, with racial discrimination featuring more often than gender inequality in this year’s manifestoes.

The conference itself was marked from the outset by sitting president Shakira Martin’s admission of the NUS’s financial trouble. Telling the conference that “we should have run out of cash”, Martin stated: “We are having problems that we need to sort out”.

This follows the November announcement that the NUS was unable to pay off a £3m deficit, cutting half of its jobs as a result. However, all Oxford delegates voted against a review of the NUS’s finances.

Closer to home, Oxford SU is continuing the hunt for a VP for Charities and Community, a position unfilled by Hilary term’s election. President Joe Inwood also penned a letter this month, calling for the university to revoke the honorary degree given to the Sultan of Brunei.

Oxford SU has been contacted for comment on the proceedings.

Tracey Emin’s A Fortnight of Tears: an unflinching study of the haunting power of trauma

Beth Simcock
-
0
Tracey Emin’s A Fortnight of Tears: an unflinching study of the haunting power of trauma

It is a Sunday and some weeks since Tracey Emin’s latest London solo show at White Cube Bermondsey first opened to the public. Yet the people of south-east London have emerged in droves, so that at lunchtime the gallery is still milling with visitors – the fullest I have ever seen it. It is testament to the magnetism and celebrity of an artist like Emin that people continue to flock so dutifully to the austere, white-lit and grey-walled gallery to see a show entitled A Fortnight of Tears, when outside it is one of the sunniest days of the year so far. Outside, the faint hum of pop music floats down from the nearby park, while a yellow Labrador lolls out into the sunshine on the corner opposite. The scenes inside Emin’s exhibition, however, tell a starkly different story. 

Emin’s show is a broadly autobiographical survey of love and loss. It is a tour de force in sculpture, neon, painting, film, photography, and drawing. The artist’s uncanny ability to stage life’s ordinary tragedies, and to be entirely candid about the experience of female pain, is on display as masterfully as ever in the demanding spaces of the White Cube. Decades of dirty laundry are paraded through the gallery; the horrors of a 1990 botched abortion, rape, and the death of her mother are the dominant topics of expression. Though much of the language and subject matter has been a constant throughout her career, it is evident that Emin has come some way from her days as a party-girl enfant terrible of contemporary British art. There is a discernible grown-upness about this exhibition; familiar, ugly subjects are returned to with a new seriousness and sensitivity, though the bite is doubtless still there.

The South Gallery I houses ‘Insomnia Room Installation’. Huge Gilcée print iPhone selfies of the artist reveal a tormented Emin in various states of physical and mental injury over four years of sleepless nights. The pictures are double hung almost up to the ceiling in a manner that falls somewhere between a teenage girl’s bedroom and a French salon. Unframed and pinned in each corner, they lift off the wall slightly, a pencil signature just visible on each bottom-right corner. We are invited to share the unhappy bed. As the first room of the show this sets the tone for the rest: sad, intimate, and earnest.

Alongside the ‘finished’ works further on in the gallery, four cases containing sketches and writings on paper, maquettes, and memorabilia are exhibited from the artist’s archive. These sketches – some on notepad pages branded with the names of hotels – are reminiscent of those doodles we draw out on paper absent-mindedly, while taking a phone call or sitting in a lecture. They have a day-to-day feel about them. The cabinets are organised thematically under the topics of love, sex, death, and fear. Indeed, these are the subjects to which the artist returns obsessively, and which percolate through every room of the gallery, bleeding into each other at the edges.

Paintings around the cabinets line the wall like the Stations of the Cross. But Emin’s protagonist keeps falling down, stumbling with her proverbial cross with little sense of any eventual redemption. We are inclined to believe that these are self-portraits, though the women’s faces are almost always obscured. Emin’s girls have soft, protruding (pregnant?) bellies, clubbed feet and hands, blurry faces, and masses of dark pubic hair. The viewer is struck by the way that the swollen nipples, breasts, and genitals always seem to be most in focus.

‘I Watched You Disappear. Pink Ghost’ is the first picture in a brilliant triptych of portraits in the Ashes Room. Blurred as if captured through tears, steam, or the fogging lens of memory, a soft rosy body floats behind the canvas, which itself perhaps imitates a shower curtain. To the right a painting about the death of Emin’s mother, ‘I Was Too Young to be Carrying Your Ashes’ ruptures any impression of shy, warm womanhood that might have been offered by that tipsy pink. Thick red paint then erupts through the curtain-canvas; with a sudden and regrettable violence, this is the moment the Hitchcockian knife wielder plunges his weapon. The picture is an open wound, a bloody, weeping sore. ‘You Were Still There’ then resuscitates a dissected body. The womb is darkened with movement like the impact of a punch. The colours shift throughout from the pink-red blushes of the Madonna to the grey blackish-blue bruised body of Christ. A punishing and merciless life-cycle is acted out.

Emin proves herself here as a painter and a sculptor of bodies, rather than figures; her subjects are not idealised forms that exist outside of the self, but those that are an extension of it. In the best of these works, the intimate understanding of the body and of a personal psychology comes out beautifully raw. They are positioned firmly within the artist’s own identity, and in the bodily violence that is the source of so much of her trauma. The bodies that Emin paints are much better than the large sculptures that dominate the space because they still feel alive – trapped between soft and hard lines, pushed and pulled and beaten out on canvas and paper. Corporeal suffering is not only acted onto the body, but oozes out from within it into art.

Love, desire, and violence are intimately linked in Emin’s world. The interactions between bodies in the paintings are like the kiss in Giotto’s frescoes, where two faces collide into one, eyes open; somehow unromantic, while still wholly passionate. The word ‘longing’ seems to have come up in titles and prose again and again throughout the exhibition. In her 1996 film How It Feels – a fitting endnote to the show – Emin comments on her abortion: “I will never really get over it”. This sits at the core of all the artwork – the wanting, the not getting, and the not getting over.

“What this whole show is about is releasing myself from shame. I’ve killed my shame, I’ve hung it on the walls,” Emin claims. Women wracked with grief and desire, aching and desperate, contort themselves with it, she seems to be saying. Everything is deeply felt and then neatly hung up. The exhibition is entitled A Fortnight of Tears because, Emin claims, that is the longest she has ever cried. For all its wailing and thrashing, this grieving process has produced an exhibition of staggering emotional complexity.

Oxford Professor criticises use of gender hormones as “unregulated live experiment on children”

Christopher Sinnott
-
0
Oxford Professor criticises use of gender hormones as “unregulated live experiment on children”

Content warning: transphobia

An Oxford University professor has come under public scrutiny after contributing to a front page story in the Times criticising the use of hormone blockers on young people as “an unregulated live experiment on children.”

Professor Carl Heneghan, a fellow at Kellogg College and the director of the Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine, provided a comment piece to the newspaper as a supplement to an investigation into the Gender Identity Development Service Clinic, which the Times described as “the only NHS gender clinic for children”.

Professor Heneghan’s appeal was made on the basis of medical skepticism over the practice, writing that: “the majority of drugs in use are frequently supported by low-quality evidence about their use beyond the usual age for puberty, or in many cases no evidence at all”.

The piece to which Professor Heneghan contributed sparked a significant outrage, with prominent figures criticising the Times for its coverage. MP for Cardiff South Stephen Doughty tweeted: “It’s not just the shocking 1980s style headline – @thetimes @TimesLucy have given us a bumper edition of prejudice against the #Trans community today. Do they have *any* idea or even care about the harm this risks causing?”.

Speaking to Cherwell, Professor Heneghan stood by his comments, saying: “the development of these interventions should occur in the context of research. Treatments for under 18 gender dysphoric children and adolescents remain largely experimental.

“There are a large number of unanswered questions that include the age at start, reversibility; adverse events, long term effects on mental health, quality of life, bone mineral density, osteoporosis in later life and cognition.”

Responding to the issue for Cherwell, transgender campaigner Fox Fisher wrote: “The University of Oxford has a responsibility to make sure all students feel safe to attend the school – behaviour of this sort should never be tolerated and jeopardises the well-being of students and the integrity of the institution.

“Look at any modern research in anthropology, sociology, biology, psychology or psychiatry – all indicates that trans children benefit massively from being allowed to express themselves.”

In a public statement regarding the article, the Oxford Student Union LGBTQ+ Campaign condemned the article and urged both members of the LGBTQ+ Community and its allies to launch official complaints to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (ISPO).

The statement read: “Transphobic, fear-mongering articles being given priority in national news is unacceptable. Although the article includes information and statements from the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) that refutes its own main line of argument, emphasis is still placed upon unsupported and dangerous viewpoints.

“The prominence of this article within the issue of The Times clearly means to stir up misinformation which will exacerbate the difficulties transgender and gender nonconforming children and teenagers face in the UK.

“The article additionally relies on a statement from Carl Heneghan, who is a senior tutor at Kellogg College. His words attempt to give credibility to a transphobic rhetoric which is harmful to transgender people both within and outside of the University. It is deeply concerning that Dr Heneghan’s attempt to sow confusion about the treatment of trans children by conflating different treatment methods and rejecting information from the GIDS itself is being legitimised by the name of the University in this way.

“Conspicuously absent from both pieces are the voices of transgender people who have used the services provided by GIDS. Ignoring the perspective of the people who matter most in this issue, transgender children, is entirely unbalanced reporting.

“As such, both pieces fail to contribute to any kind of representative discussion on gender dysphoria, perpetuating only a transphobic editorial line.”

This article will be updated as we receive more information.

OUWAFC take on the Tabs

Cerys Baines
-
0
OUWAFC take on the Tabs

On a sunny but very windy afternoon on Sunday 10th March, the Women’s Football Blues faced Cambridge in their annual Varsity match at the Hive Stadium in Barnet. The stakes were high – with their BUCS season drawing to a close, this game was the climax the team had been preparing for all season. Perhaps the fact that Oxford had already faced Cambridge twice in their BUCS run this season made the competition even fiercer; a 0-0 draw between the two sides in late January demonstrated that Varsity was either team’s for the taking.

Both teams got out of the blocks fast at the start of the game, making for an exciting first half. Although Cambridge did seem threatening at times and were putting Oxford under a lot of pressure by playing a particularly high line, the Dark Blues were able to keep them at bay and captain Lucy Harper led her defence well to snuff out any hope of glory for the Cambridge attack.

Oxford were equally keen to apply the pressure in the Cambridge half and wingers Erin Robinson and Katie Plummer made some great runs down the pitch which were difficult for the Light Blues cut out. However, with the Oxford forwards often being found offside, it was hard for them to break the deadlock and consequently the teams went into halftime with the score still at 0-0.

However, early in the second half, Cambridge were able to break Oxford’s resolve, and after a fumble in the box the ball came out to the edge of the area for Cambridge’s Ashcroft to propel a shot into the top right of the goal and put the Light Blues ahead. Two minutes later, the Tabs extended their lead after a corner that was not cleared up by the Oxford defence.

Despite this, Oxford did not let their heads go down and the next ten minutes of the game were extremely tense, with the Dark Blues desperately trying to close the gap between the two teams. Eventually, first-year duo Taiye Lawal and Rani Wermes were able to link up in Cambridge’s box, before Wermes went down from a foul and earned Oxford a penalty. Substitute Monique Pedroza stood up to the plate and smashed the ball high into the net to put Oxford level, much to the delight of the Dark Blue crowd.

Unfortunately for the Oxford team, as the match drew on they were unable to find any more luck in the Cambridge half, and at the other end of the pitch, Cambridge were awarded a penalty from a rather dubious handball and were able to make it 3-1, effectively sealing the deal and winning the game.

As the final whistle blew, Oxford were clearly filled with despair over their loss. However, such a valiant performance gave them much to be proud of, and the Dark Blues will be hoping to work harder than ever next season to claim back the trophy.

Despite this loss, the Women’s Reserves (the Furies) were able to find success against Cambridge Reserves (the Eagles) on home turf at Iffley on Saturday of 7th Week. The Furies found themselves 1-0 up after a through ball from Jasmine Savage reached the feet of captain Rebecca North who slotted the ball firmly in the back of the Cambridge net. However shortly after, Cambridge managed to breach Oxford’s defence, and after a two on one situation with Oxford’s last woman, were able to equalise with a short range shot on goal.

Going into the break the score remained 1-1, but neither team had any luck in the second half either, meaning at the end of the 90 minutes, the game went straight to penalties. The tension in the stadium was riding high, but Oxford kept their cool. After four goals from four Furies and three goals and a miss from Cambridge, the final Eagles penalty taker was hoping to keep her team in the game. However it was not to be, and an admittedly easy save from goalkeeper Emmie Halfpenny saw the Furies win Varsity for the second time in a row.

As the whole of the Oxford team sprinted from halfway to celebrate with their keeper, it was easy to see just how much this Varsity win meant for the Furies, who had worked so hard throughout the season for this moment.

With one cup spending a year at The Other Place, and the other cup held firmly in Oxford’s hands, all we can do now is wait until next year to see if OUWAFC are able to do the double over Cambridge.

OULC chairs accused of ‘misleading and unfair’ conduct over attempt to control club’s relationship with the media

Angus Brown
-
0
OULC chairs accused of ‘misleading and unfair’ conduct over attempt to control club’s relationship with the media

The co-chairs of Oxford University Labour Club have issued a statement to committee members demanding that all contact with the student press be approved by the executive, Cherwell can reveal.

Aiming to centralise the executive’s control over the club’s relationship with student media, the co-chairs recently claimed that committee members were constitutionally required to consult the co-chairs on statements to the press.

In a message sent to members of the club’s committee, co-chair Grace Davies said: “If any of you guys are approached by OxStu or Cherwell please please [sic] let us know.

“We’re keen to have a say in all communication going to the media and the constitution says that you should consult the co-chairs – I’ll be quite sad if I see peoples quotes in papers and me and Arya didn’t know about it first.”

Despite Davies’ claims that it is a constitutional requirement for members to consult the co-chairs before approaching the press, Cherwell could find no evidence of such a rule in the club’s constitution.

The club’s co-chairs responded to a request for comment by claiming “The comment regarding consulting co-chairs was intended to extend to, but only to, members of the club speaking on behalf of the club. The position of co-chair is the only position which has the mandate and official capacity to speak on behalf of the club.

“There was no intention to limit comments to press when speaking on individuals’ own behalf and in a personal capacity, and the intention was instead that any comments made officially by the club were decided by the entire committee, with both co-chairs being able to gauge the position of the entire club.

“Individual members of the OULC executive making comments on behalf of the club, does not follow the convention of the Labour Club, and can lead to confusion about the official position of the club.”

“We’re upset that a member of the club felt it was an attempt to censor their personal expressions of their views and would reassure them that this in no way our intention.”

“The publicity officer is elected to manage media and communications, and as such their role is to oversee comments made to the press, working alongside the co-chairs.

“This is a well established convention. Whenever possible, we try to reach agreement about statements to the press within the OULC committee so that the entire committee has a say in our official position, rather than individuals who do not have the mandate to decide OULC’s official position to the press. 

“The established interpretation of the constitution and other documents referred to in the constitution, is that only co-chairs can be ultimately responsible for any pronouncements made on behalf of the club.”

Despite this claim, no mention is made of members speaking on the club’s behalf in the original message.

One OULC member, speaking anonymously, told Cherwell that: “Though of course I understand why the Labour chairs want to centralise a lot of communication to the press, to act as though it is a formal rule is misleading and unfair.

“Moreover, on certain issues the ability to voice dissent via the press is valuable, and the Labour club will ultimately be weaker for the absence of honest disagreement with the party line.”

Oxford Boat Clubs announce crews for April’s race

Cal Flintoff
-
0
Oxford Boat Clubs announce crews for April’s race

Oxford University Boat Club (OUBC) and Women’s Boat Club (OUWBC) this morning confirmed their crews at the City Hall, London for next month’s Boat Races.

The Men’s boat is identical to the crew that was named for last weekend’s fixture against Oxford Brookes, a race that was postponed due to high winds.

The crew weighs in at 719.6kg, 19.6 kilos lighter than the 2018 crew but nonetheless a shade heavier than their Cambridge counterparts, who weighed in at 718.3kg.

In the Women’s boat Oxford will concede roughly a 10kg swing, with the boat tipping the scales at 568.8kg compared to the 578.3kg of the CUWBC.

OUWBC will head into the race with 2 returning members of last year’s defeated crew, naming both Beth Bridgman of St Hugh’s and Keble’s Renée Koolschijn, although both have shifted position in the boat, with Bridgman moving from Stroke to position 6, and Koolschijn from Bow to position 3.

The situation is mirrored in the Men’s boat as OUBC president Felix Drinkall and Christ Church student Benedict Aldous – who last year replaced Joshua Bugajski at the eleventh hour in a decision shrouded by illness – are the only survivors in a youthful-looking crew.

The average age of the Oxford Men’s boat is 21.8 years-old, a historically low figure accentuated by the presence of four undergraduate scientists in the aforementioned duo of Drinkall and Aldous, as well as Charlie Pearson and Tobias Schroder.

This is in stark contrast with the CUBC crew, who sport an average age of 26.3, after the decision to include two-time Olympic gold medallist James Cracknell in the boat. Cracknell qualifies for selection as he is studying for an MPhil in Human Evolutionary Studies at Peterhouse College, floating the idea on Twitter as early as July 2018 alongside the hashtag “#NeverTooOld”.

The OUWBC crew have an average age of 23.9 years-old, slightly younger than the 24.3 years-old of the Cambridge Women’s crew.

The Light Blues comprehensively swept all 4 races last year, including a first victory in eight years for the Cambridge reserve boat Goldie over Isis, a dominance hitherto unseen since the move to stage each race on the same tideway in 2015.

Cambridge now lead the standings in the Men’s race 83-80, whilst they boast a greater advantage in the Women’s race, notching 43 to Oxford’s 30.

This year’s Boat Races take place on Sunday 7th April, with the Women’s race commencing at 2:15pm, followed by the Men’s race an hour later at 3:15pm.

The bookmaker William Hill has priced up the Men’s Race on their website, rating it a closely-fought affair, going 8/11 about Oxford and evens for Cambridge, with the possibility of a dead heat rated a 50/1 chance.

OUBC Crew:

Bow: Achim Harzeim, Oriel, 26yo, 88kg

2: Ben Landis, Lincoln, 24yo, 82kg

3: Patrick Sullivan, Wadham, 23yo, 92kg

4: Benedict Aldous, Christ Church, 21yo, 94kg

5: Tobias Schroder, Magdalen, 19yo, 94kg

6: Felix Drinkall, LMH, 19yo, 84kg

7: Charlie Pearson, Trinity, 20yo, 82kg

Stroke: Augustin Wambersie, Catz, 23yo, 89kg

Cox: Anna Carbery, Pembroke, 21yo, 54kg

OUWBC Crew:

Bow: Issy Dodds, Hertford, 69kg

2: Anna Murgatroyd, ChCh, 68kg

3: Renée Koolschijn, Keble, 73.8kg

4: Lizzie Polgreen, Linacre, 60.7kg

5: Tina Christmann, Worcester, 72.2kg

6: Beth Bridgman, St Hugh’s, 70.4kg

7: Liv Pryer, Teddy Hall, 77.3kg

Stroke: Amelia Standing, St Anne’s, 74kg

Cox: Eleanor Shearer, Nuffield

Corpus Christi JCR calls for Parks College plans to be stopped

Charlotte Moberly
-
0
Corpus Christi JCR calls for Parks College plans to be stopped

Corpus Christi College’s JCR Executive Committee has sent an open letter to the Vice-Chancellor objecting to the proposals for a new postgraduate college. The letter argued the University had failed to engage sufficiently with University members regarding the proposals, and suggested that “this college has no goal other than increasing student numbers.”

Parks College, a new postgraduate college proposed by the University to begin accepting undergraduates in 2020, aims to “draw together researchers from different disciplines to explore some of the big scientific questions of our time.”

The new college will use the Radcliffe Science Library site as part of the library’s redevelopment. The college will also aim to provide accommodation elsewhere. The Corpus Christi Executive Committee believe that “The “co-location” of Parks College and the Radcliffe Science Library will undermine both.  Every space is temporary: a room will one day be a library, the next, a seminar room, the day after, a public exhibition.

“How can academia flourish without a permanent space? The students and fellows of Parks College will instead remain confined to their respective Departments, defeating the ideal of interdisciplinary studies.”

Students also raised concerns about their opportunities to engage with the University on the Parks College proposals. During a JCR meeting about the letter, its author, Ed Hart, said: “I think it’s important to push against the lack of communication. It is a huge project and was pushed through within three months.”

In the letter, the committee wrote: “The proposal has been made with little to no attempt to engage with University members. The proposal was first mooted in August, in the provisional 2018–23 strategic plan, and it was presumed the creation of any college would be closer to 2023 than today.

“The plan was confirmed after the end of Michaelmas term 2018, after the publication of the final Gazette of the year, preventing serious discussion of it.

“Now, it is to be rushed through Congregation, with plans to hire fellows in just three months’ time. Meanwhile, student and faculty publications fume incredulously and faculties have been left expressing surprise that an important laboratory may become a dining hall.

“We find it concerning that such a monumental decision has been made without adequate consultation of the students you claim to represent.”

The committee also raised concerns about the purpose of the college, since it does not have an overtly outreach focus.

They said: “The proposed college fails to embrace Oxford’s long history of founding colleges to include those from marginalised backgrounds and to improve the lives of those outside the College system. Consider the foundation of the women’s colleges, the foundation of Mansfield College for non-conformist Christians and the foundation of St Catherine’s and St Cross for those without college affiliation.

“Parks College fails on both counts, its website paying lip service to “[embracing] internationalism and diversity” and the benefits of college life.”

“120 years ago, Ruskin College, Oxford, was founded to expand education access to adults with few or no qualifications. It embodies many of the qualities admired in the University’s own colleges. Parks College has none of them.

“The University offers nothing – a half-hearted college, cynically preying on outsiders’ unfamiliarity with Oxford – in return for self-aggrandisement and tuition fees. This proposal demeans the University and the Colleges. It must be reconsidered.”

Responding to the letter, Professor Lionel Tarassenko, Senior Responsible Owner for the Parks College Project, said: “Parks College addresses one of the key education priorities in the University’s Strategic Plan, which is to increase the intake of graduate students across all four divisions by up to 850 a year by 2023, while maintaining quality.

“It will enable the University to grow the number of graduate students, but without upsetting the balance between undergraduate and postgraduate student numbers in mixed colleges or imposing unrealistic targets for growth in the existing graduate colleges.

“The proposed new graduate college will actively promote interdisciplinary exchanges between researchers from across the four academic divisions. It will offer graduate students a rich and stimulating intellectual and social experience, on a par with that at the other graduate colleges.

“And, as with other graduate colleges at Oxford, it will have an outward-looking and inclusive ethos, which embraces internationalism and diversity. As with St Cross College when it was founded, the Fellows of the college will be University professors and researchers who do not currently have a college affiliation.

“Far from leading to a loss of library facilities, the Parks College project presents an exciting opportunity to redevelop the science library and its services to align more closely with the needs of scientists in the 21st century – students, researchers and other academics.

“The proposals for the new college have been discussed with graduate student representatives, the staff of the Radcliffe Science Library, and at meetings of numerous University committees, including the Curators of the University Libraries, Education Committee, Conference of Colleges Graduate Committee, Conference of Colleges, Finance Committee, Personnel Committee and Council. Throughout this consultation process, the plans have been gradually evolving to take on new ideas and to ensure that concerns raised are understood and addressed.

“The plans for the new college and the allocation of space were approved by Council on 11 March, and will now be put before Congregation in early Trinity term. The OUSU VP for Graduates is a member of the Programme Board which is responsible for the development of the plans.

“We are actively encouraging students to participate in the planning for the new college. We have been running Q&A events for students in partnership with OUSU, and we are inviting students to help shape the academic blueprint of the college at a series of focus groups, which will take place in late April and early May.”

In the motion for the JCR Committee to sign the letter, the Corpus JCR President Rhiannon Ogden-Jones was also mandated to discuss the issue with other JCR presidents and the Corpus MCR to seek their support. The motion was passed with 13 votes for and 2 against.

The University have been contacted for comment.

Lord Adonis: I “can’t wait” to debate Nigel Farage at the Oxford Union

Christopher Sinnott
-
0
Lord Adonis: I “can’t wait” to debate Nigel Farage at the Oxford Union

Cherwell can reveal that Nigel Farage is expected to speak at the Oxford Union on Thursday’s eighth week debate on Brexit.

The announcement of Farage’s appearance had not yet been made by the Oxford Union, but instead was pre-empted by Labour peer and People’s Vote supporter Andrew Adonis, who this morning tweeted: “I’m debating Nigel Farage at the Oxford Union on Friday. Can’t wait”. Given that Oxford Union debates are, under normal circumstances, held every Thursday of term, and that the Union’s term card places the Brexit debate on Thursday 7th March, it is not known whether the date announced by Lord Adonis is correct.

The specific motion that will be debated at the upcoming Brexit debate and which speakers would be attending has been kept a secret from the Union’s members throughout the term. The Oxford Union’s website has for weeks read “speakers to be announced”.

Cherwell has contacted representatives of Nigel Farage, Andrew Adonis, and the Oxford Union for comment.

It is not yet known which other speakers from the student body or elsewhere have been confirmed to speak at the event.

Along with the Union debate, Adonis also announced on Twitter he would be speaking at Leeds, Eddisbury, Oxford, Llanelli, Swansea, and Wrexham in the upcoming week.

The Oxford Union organised a now-famous debate on Britain’s membership of a European community in 1975, two days before the referendum which saw Britain’s voters consent to membership of the EEC. Speakers in proposition included Edward Heath and Jeremy Thorpe, while Barbara Castle and Peter Shaw spoke in opposition.

More on this story is expected to follow.

Controversy over Pride flag at Queen’s College

Sam Millward
-
0
Controversy over Pride flag at Queen’s College

There has been significant disagreement between staff at Queen’s College over the decision of the college to fly an LGBTQ+ rainbow flag in recognition of LGBTQ+ History Month, after the college Provost, Professor Paul Madden, opposed the move.

In a meeting on the 13th February, which was attended by representatives from the JCR and MCR and a number of college fellows, the Governing Body passed the unreserved motion to raise the flag for the remainder of the month with a vote of 18-3.

The vote came after the Provost had excused himself from debate on the matter.

However, Cherwell understands from sources present at the meeting that, following the vote, the Provost ruled against the majority, instructing that the flag not be raised for more than the originally planned one week.

No statement has yet been given to explain this decision.

Upon the Provost’s overruling of the vote, Cherwell understands that a fellow left the session in protest at the decision, not returning for the duration of the meeting.

A few days later, an email was sent to the JCR President and Vice President by the Dean, informing them of a change of college policy, stating that the flag would fly for the month as a whole.

When contacted for comment, the Provost did not offer any explanation of his decision. Both the Senior Tutor and Dean also declined to comment personally.

Speaking to Cherwell, a spokesperson for the college said: “As has been customary for a number of years, instruction was given by the Provost to fly the rainbow Flag in the first week of February.

“After it was taken down, the Provost received representations that, in view of the observation that it had become customary among the colleges for the flag to be flown throughout February, the College’s position seemed anomalous.

“He therefore reviewed the decision and gave the instruction that the flag should fly for the whole month and it was remounted on the morning of Thursday 14th February.”

The decision stands in the context of the fact that all other colleges on the high street have flown the rainbow flag for at least a week in February, with many flying it for the whole month.

The disagreement comes just a couple of weeks after Cherwell’s revelation that more than 100 serving Oxford clergy have signed a petition opposing a call by local bishops for “an attitude of inclusion and respect for LGBTQ+ people,” with staff from two Oxford colleges among the signatories.

Responding to the issue, Queen’s JCR President Ebrubaoghene Abel-Unokan said: “The original decision not to fly the LGBTQ+ flag for the entirety of LGBTQ+ history month was, in my opinion, an oversight by the College. It was an anachronism from the College’s past that does not reflect our varied and inclusive community of students and staff or acknowledge and value the contributions they make to the life of the College.

“It is a de facto tradition for the LGBTQ+ rep of our JCR to request that the College fly the flag for the entire month, and I’m incredibly pleased to see that this year Florence Darwen was successful in lobbying the College to change its policy.

“I’d also to thank the Senior Tutor, Nicholas Owen, and the Dean, Chris O’Callaghan for the roles they played in securing the change.

“The JCR has always championed progressive political beliefs, and I would like to think that this is but one step in the consolidation of those views into the College’s practices.

“I have little doubt that this will continue as Queen’s welcomes Dr Claire Craig CBE later this year, who will be the first woman in the College’s history to hold the position of Provost.”

Oxford University LGBTQ+ Society told Cherwell: “While we haven’t been contacted directly by Queen’s students regarding this issue, and are therefore uncertain about the nuances of this particular situation, we as a Society strongly encourage colleges to fly the LGBTQ+ Flag for the duration of pride month.

“It is an important symbol of tolerance and acceptance, which promotes the wellbeing of LGBTQ+ students.

“It is extremely disappointing when college officials do not understand the value of celebrating their LGBTQ+ students and sending a welcoming message to potential applicants.

“We run a campaign service to help students enact change in their colleges, and would strongly encourage Queen’s students to get in touch with us, with the aim of improving provisions for LGBTQ+ students by rectifying this issue.”

McGrath and ‘Together’ slate sweep Michaelmas 2019 Union election

Christopher Sinnott
-
0
McGrath and ‘Together’ slate sweep Michaelmas 2019 Union election

Brendan McGrath will be Union President next Michaelmas after receiving 84 more first preferences than rival James Lamming.

Candidates on McGrath’s ‘Together’ slate also secured the positions of Librarian-Elect (Mahi Joshi), Treasurer-Elect (Shining Zhao), and Secretary (Amelia Harvey).

Three out of the four Standing Committee candidates nominated by the ‘Together’ slate also won election, compared to two of Lamming’s six candidates for the ‘Engage’ slate.

Two independents, Mo Iman and ex-Logistics Officer Nikhil Shah, complete the seven-member standing committee.

However, ‘Engage’ had some success in the election, as the most popular candidates in both the Standing Committee election (Spencer Cohen) and Secretary’s Committee election (Chengkai Xie) were from the slate.

Speaking to Cherwell about the result, James Lamming said: “Whilst this obviously was not the result the Engage team had hoped for, I can without any doubt say that Brendan will put together a fantastic term card, as one of the most diligent and dedicated members of Union committee I have ever worked with during my time at Oxford.

“I am immensely proud of the team myself and my officers put together.”

The election of Brendan McGrath as president of the Oxford Union comes after a turbulent term for the current Librarian, after members saw a motion for impeachment being filed against him, and his first candidate for Treasurer, Lee Chin Wee, being disqualified from running for the position.

McGrath declined to comment to Cherwell on the election result.

Those members elected will be expected to follow through with the pledges made in their manifestos. The ‘Together’ slate claimed that it would introduce member-speaker roundtable events, make the Union’s financial accounts transparent by publishing a fully audited account online, and implement a strict ‘zero tolerance’ policy on bullying. The ‘Engage’ slate’s pledges included a bar happy hour with pints costing £1, livestreaming events on the Oxford Union app, and holding more female-led debate events.

McGrath, Joshi and Zhao will serve their terms as officers in Michaelmas Term 2019, while Secretary-elect Amelia Harvey will assume her post next term in Trinity.

New data reveals suspension gender gap among postgrads

Libby Cherry
-
0
New data reveals suspension gender gap among postgrads

New data shows that 8.7% of female postgraduates suspended their studies in 2016/17, one-third higher than the rate for men (6.5%). The gender discrepancy was mirrored in withdrawal rates, which were 1.37% for men compared to 1.64% for women.

The data, obtained from the University by Cherwell, reveals a consistent gender disparity in suspension and withdrawal rates over the previous 8 years.

Suspensions are when a single student pauses their study during a given year, with one student potentially accruing multiple suspension ‘counts’, in the rare event that they do so more than once.

Withdrawals are when a student completely withdraws from their programme of study. This does not include those that have been transferred to a different programme of study.

A spokesperson for the University told Cherwell: “These numbers are relatively low so we should be careful about drawing conclusions from them without understanding the context. We offer high levels of academic and pastoral support to our graduate students through their departments, colleges and central University services.

“There are many reasons why a student’s status might be suspended, including health, maternity or paternity, personal circumstances, academic difficulties and disciplinary matters. Suspension is often a voluntary decision by a student, and in most cases students return from periods of suspension to successfully complete their course.”

A History Masters student at St Catherine’s, Hannah Grange-Sales, told Cherwell: “Women are conditioned to believe they are less intelligent than men, therefore there is both a real and imagined need to work harder to be considered men’s intellectual equals.

“Girls and women are also taught from an early age to internalise ‘unbecoming’ emotions, such as anger, frustration and hopelessness.

“Considering the historic argument against women’s right to education that they do not hold the mental rigour to undertake study, there is a double pressure to overcome this stigma and maintain a facade of capability when, for a variety of personal reasons not linked to their intellect, this may not be the case.

“The increased pressure for women to prove themselves intellectually coupled with the internalisation of emotion can surely be considered a factor in the higher rate of mental health issues amongst female students.”

The overall suspension rate for all postgraduate students has also increased year on year from 2013/14 to 2016/17 from 5.98% to 7.93%, although there was a slight decrease last year to 7.5%.

The withdrawal rate has remained consistent at about 1.5%, peaking in 2013/14 at 1.82%.

There was also a marked contrast between those on research and taught postgraduate degrees, with the former having consistently higher levels of suspension and withdrawal. In 2016/17 just under 10% of research graduates suspended their studies compared to 6% of taught graduates. This figure decreased slightly to 9% last year.

Cherwell understands that the disparity in the figures could be due to the length of postgraduate research degree, which are typically three years. Taught degrees can be as short as 9 months, meaning that there is less opportunity for students to suspend or withdraw from their studies. Just under 52% of enrolments in 2017/18 were in taught degrees.

Oxford SU VP for Graduates, Alison D’Ambrosia told Cherwell: “It is a ticking time bomb the issue of graduate student welfare. With a huge increase in graduate numbers over the past several years, we have seen minimal investment in their welfare provision and support.

“From a counselling service that is only open during term time to students been pushed from college to department to seek help, more needs to be done to properly support the graduate student body. It seems that the first call of action is for students to suspend rather than tackle the causes of suspension and offer proper support for students.”

According to the SU’s recently published counselling report, postgraduate students were proportionally less likely to seek help than undergraduates, with 10.8% of postgraduate researchers and 9.2% of taught students receiving counselling to 12.3% of undergraduates.

The report added that the lower take up of provision could be due to cultural differences. In 2016/17, 64% of graduates were non-UK students.

University offers no deal Brexit advice for EU students

Ayesha Seghal
-
0
University offers no deal Brexit advice for EU students

The University has released advice for EU staff and students in preparation for a no deal Brexit.

The new website explains that the University is now “making preparations” for the possibility that Britain leaves the EU without a deal, which will go ahead if no withdrawal agreement is in place by March 29th.

A no deal Brexit would be likely to include EU citizens entering the UK being treated as third country nationals, no longer subject to EEA immigration rules and requirements. This would mean EU students would pay higher tuition fees than they do now and may need new visas to conform with new immigration laws.

Research staff may lose the opportuning to access EU research funding, which totalled £78 million in the academic year 2017/18. The University may also lose the opportunity to participate in pan-European collaborations.

Given the growing uncertainty, the University is now advising EU students to ensure they have all relevant paperwork up to date.

The University stresses that EU citizens will still be able to apply to study at Oxford, and that “all Oxford University staff from the EU will have the same right to work in the UK whether a withdrawal deal is agreed or not.”

A spokesperson for the University said to Cherwell: “Given the ongoing uncertainty about the implications of the UK leaving the EU, the University is working hard to understand and manage the impact on our staff and students.

“Dedicated web pages with the latest information about the implications of Brexit have been set up for staff and students and these will be updated regularly. The pages consider all possible outcomes of the current negotiations, including the possibility of the UK leaving without a deal.

‘Whatever the outcome of current negotiations, the University of Oxford is, and intends to remain, a thriving, cosmopolitan community of scholars and students united in our commitment to education and research.

“The departure from the EU will not change this; our staff and students from all across the world are as warmly welcome as ever.”

The Students’ Union reaffirmed the need for advice, stating: “Students need guidance as soon as possible. If a no deal Brexit does happen, students want the University to quickly provide information about the impact it’s going to have on them.

“Graduate students from the EU could face serious disruption, particularly those studying for 1-year masters programmes. There are major issues outstanding, especially around the future of the Erasmus programme and future prospects for research students. The only way to avoid this mess is a People’s Vote with the option to remain.”

With just over six weeks left until the Brexit deadline, the University will continue to update their page with more information as it is available, and individual colleges may be providing specific information directly to students before the end of Hilary Term.

For more information, or to keep up to date on the University’s advice, visit the University’s Brexit advice page for students and for staff.

Union Librarian Brendan McGrath avoids impeachment

Christopher Sinnott
-
0
Union Librarian Brendan McGrath avoids impeachment

Brendan McGrath, against whom a motion for impeachment was filed on Thursday 7th, has won his vote not to be impeached by 400 votes to 189.

A notice has been pinned on the Oxford Union noticeboard that reads “The Librarian remains in office. The Motion of Impeachment is unsuccessful”.

The 68% vote in favour of McGrath comes after the 12 hours of deliberation that an impeachment motion in the Oxford Union entails. On the day of the vote supporters and allies of McGrath mobilised a “Vote No” campaign on Facebook, posting social statuses that presented McGrath’s potential impeachment as symptomatic of ‘toxic politics’.

More on this story is expected to follow.

Fixed-term contracts disproportionately held by women and minority groups

Editor
-
0
Fixed-term contracts disproportionately held by women and minority groups

A greater proportion of women and those from BME backgrounds hold fixed-term contracts at the University.

In 2018, the proportion of women in fixed-term contracts was consistently higher across the academic divisions, with the sharpest disparities in the Social Sciences where 56% of women were in fixed-term contracts compared with just 45% of men.

In the Medical Sciences Division, 85% of those from BME backgrounds were found to hold fixed-term contracts in 2018 in comparison to just 68% of those who identify as white.

For Social Sciences the respective figures were 66% to 45%, and in the Maths, Physical, and Life Sciences, the figures were 74% to 43%.

Overall, the proportion of all those of fixed-term contracts has increased significantly from 2008 across all divisions apart from Medical, with the Humanities Division seeing the biggest increase in the use of fixed-term contracts, from 23% to 32%.

In 2018, just under 50% of staff from the Maths, Physical, and Life Sciences, Social Sciences, Medical, and Humanities divisions, were on fixed-term contracts.

The University’s policy on ending fixed-term contracts requires dismissal to be “fair and transparent.”

Employees are informed three months before the end of their contract is “at risk”. When it is not possible to extend or renew the contract, an employee will be informed of the fact a month before its termination.

A University spokesman told Cherwell: “Oxford is the UK’s most successful University in attracting external funding to support our world-leading research. The funding packages support jobs for researchers at every career stage, including fixed-term posts. The larger number of fixed-term contracts results from this increased funding success, opening more opportunities for the next generations of world-class researchers. We have had particular success in attracting talented women to progress their careers with us, including those areas of the sciences where they have been traditionally under-represented.

“We do recognise that fixed-term work can create uncertainties and practical difficulties. We make extensive efforts to support staff on these contracts, including through personal and career development opportunities.

“All staff at Oxford, whether on permanent, open-ended or fixed-term contracts, benefit from our generous employment packages and support for future development. We are also working hard on moving staff onto open-ended and permanent contracts wherever possible. A growing proportion of these contracts are held by women, while the proportion of all staff on open-ended contracts in the sciences is now growing faster than those in fixed-term posts.”

The University’s policy is to ensure departments are “keeping contracts under active review and transferring staff to permanent or open-ended contracts wherever funding permits.”

The proportion of staff working on open-ended contracts in the sciences is now growing faster than those on fixed-term contracts. For example, in 2008, 75% of staff in Medical Sciences were on fixed-term contracts and 4% on open-ended contracts; By 2018, fixed-term contracts had fallen to 72% and open-ended contracts risen to 8%.

The proportions of women in permanent and open-ended positions has increased in some sectors. In Medical Sciences in 2008, 45% of permanent contracts and 53% of open-ended contracts were held by women. By 2018, women held 52% of permanent and 57% of open-ended contracts.

However, in a 2016 report the UCU also included open-ended contracts within their definition of insecure contracts, because their “employment is dependent on short-term funding.”

Their report read: “Employers like to emphasise the degree of choice and agency available to workers on casual or as they like to call them ‘flexible’ contracts, but it is obvious that your enjoyment of choice and flexibility will be shaped by which category you are in.

“It’s simply impossible to imagine that a workforce of this magnitude is comprised entirely, or even largely of the people who conform to the employers’ caricature of the jobbing professional who relishes the flexibility.”

Oxford UCU representative Patricia Thornton told Cherwell: ”Regardless of whether the University wishes to accept the UCU’s calculation of the HESA data on precarious contracts or not, it’s clear that in many divisions, the numbers of staff on casualised contracts have been rising.

“It’s important to note here that “open-ended externally funded contract” staff, whilst sometimes not counted as casualised, effectively face the same level insecurity: their employment is terminated if and when the external source of the funding is withdrawn. The key difference here is that, whereas a fixed-term contract employee is given an end date at the point of hire, the staff member on an open-ended externally funded contract is not; which is arguably even less secure for the member of staff, whose employment can come to an end suddenly and without sufficient warning if the funding is withdrawn.”

Just under 5% of staff in the Medical, Maths, Physical and Life Sciences, Social Sciences, and Humanities cumulatively are in open-ended or externally funded contracts in 2018. The figure was just 2.3% in 2008.  

Thornton continued: “Casualised contracts not only create a two-tier workforce within the university, with casualised members of staff effectively carrying out many, if not all, of the same duties as their permanent counterparts on a day-to-day basis, paid lower salaries and afforded a greatly reduced level of protection (and fewer benefits), but they also magnify pre-existing inequalities within the workforce, like the gender pay gap and the persistent underpayment of minority ethnic staff.

“There is a significantly higher proportions of women than men in fixed-term contracts across the divisions, and, disappointingly, that proportion has actually increased marginally since 2008 in the Social Science and MPLS Divisions, and increased significantly in the Humanities Division.

“Equally disturbing is that, despite Oxford UCU’s persistently raising this issue with the administration, and despite various commitments that have been verbalised across the university, the percentages of staff on fixed term term contracts have instead risen since 2008.”

One representative of the ‘Academic Precariat’ group, pointed out that these figures fail to account for those that have already left the sector due to casualisation.

They told Cherwell: “There are plenty of us around, but very little data or interest in us. I left the sector for a range of reasons, but most of them related directly to insecure employment and its consequences: a two-tier system in which casual teaching and research staff undertake work that mainly just enables senior academics to bring in big money projects, lack of respect for intellectual ownership of teaching/research materials produced on these contracts, feeling and being utterly disposable, lack of investment and interest in supporting career progression (why should they, when to offer us more secure employment would be to remove the props fora system which values REF and big grant money above all else?).

“Another big factor in my decision to leave after my short-term postdoc was the minimal prospect of ever being able to secure a contract long enough to actually qualify for maternity pay in the near future.”

Interview with Mishal Husain ahead of the Romanes Lecture

Conor Walsh
-
0
Interview with Mishal Husain ahead of the Romanes Lecture


Mishal Husain is an award-winning journalist, author, and broadcaster. She was a household name at the BBC for over two decades, working as the broadcaster’s Washington Correspondent and as a presenter on Radio 4’s Today Programme for eleven years. Husain is now Editor at Large at Bloomberg Weekend, and recently launched her first podcast series, The Mishal Husain Show, where she interviews world leaders, business titans, and cultural icons.

Husain describes her Muslim faith as an integral part of her identity, as well as her work as a journalist. She delivered this year’s Romanes Lecture at the University of Oxford, by invitation of the Vice-Chancellor. During the lecture, Husain tied her faith and ancestry to the history of empire, questions of identity, and the search for reason. She talked of ‘searching for light’, which she said is found beyond the headlines – in history and forgotten texts.

Cherwell sat down with Husain whilst she was in Oxford. In between dress rehearsals and touring the Schwarzman Centre, we discussed the theme of her lecture; her career in journalism, and the changing landscape of the news media – from tapes and print, to tweets and reels.

Cherwell: Maybe we could start by talking about the theme of your lecture: ‘Empire, Identity, and the Search for Reason’. What inspired this?

Husain: My starting point was seeing that the first Romanes Lecture was given in 1892, because that date rang a bell with me straight away. The reason was that when I was researching my family story, Broken Threads, I had noted 1892 as being the general election that brought the first Asian MP to the House of Commons, Dadabhai Naoroji, and the fact that this lecture was first delivered in that year by Gladstone, who was, you know, Naoroji was one of his MPs, I just thought: “Oh, what a wonderful bit of serendipity. This date actually means something to me.” And, of course, when you’re asked to give a lecture as prestigious as this, you also feel the pressure to say something that is ideally unique, but certainly meaningful.

I thought, “my professional life as a journalist is why I’ve been asked to do this”. I also have researched the impact of empire on families like mine, both the establishment of the British Empire and the way it came to an end. And when I thought about 1892, I thought this was a moment – the first Asian MP was elected to the House of Commons, this was an imperial subject who ends up being a legislator for the Empire. This is a moment when East and West come together. From there, I started to search for other examples where East and West come together, really challenging the divisions that we’ve seen for many generations, but which feel particularly current now. And that’s why the final part of my lecture is essentially on Islam and Muslims and some of the underappreciated, if not unknown, ways that Islam and Muslims have either influenced this country, or are linked to this country and its culture in perhaps unexpected ways. That’s why I look at architecture and poetry; reason and insight in the Quran; the world wars; and Muslims in the Renaissance. 

I wanted to say something that reflected who I am, both who I am as a journalist, and my heritage, particularly the Muslim part of my heritage. The fact is, that particular community is underrepresented in my profession of journalism.

Cherwell: One thing that particularly stood out to me is this idea of identity, and the importance of understanding one another’s identities better. You call, in particular, for reason as a response to misinformation, and I was wondering what the best way is, in your view, of tackling misinformation, and who do you think should be responsible for this – is it journalists, politicians, or perhaps day-to-day users of social media?

Husain: I feel the responsibility to arm yourself with knowledge is part of your duty as a citizen. There is, certainly in relation to Islam and Muslims, I think, a lot of casual misinformation. People’s opinions are formed without either much access to knowledge, or interest in proper knowledge, and that’s why there are numerous myths circulating. There’s no doubt, also, that there are cultural practices and there are individual actions and difficult issues that we should never shy away from discussing. I’m not trying to suggest that there are any areas of public life that should go undebated. I’m arguing for proper discussion. I’ve chosen to focus on what I call, in my lecture, ‘the five points of light’, because I think there’s a lack of bedrock knowledge. I think we’re very keen to see divisions rather than common threads. That’s the message I wanted to get at in this lecture. And I hope what I say offers less discussed points or points of new insight.

Cherwell: On the point of division – one of the things that you’ve, no doubt, seen as a journalist is that the way we consume the news is changing. There’s huge gaps between generations and how we engage with the news. To a lot of young people, or some young people at least, the news is something that old people do. Social media has become a priority. Meanwhile, older generations continue to consume these more traditional kinds of news. What would you say to these young people who say, “Oh, the news is something for older people.” Why does the news matter?

Husain: Well, the news is evolving, and I’ve grown up in what we certainly think of, and see. as traditional news media. I’ve spent most of my career at the BBC, and often that’s called ‘legacy media’ nowadays, usually pejoratively. I’ve seen the whole trajectory of the technological revolution in news. When I joined Bloomberg, and then the BBC, tape was still cut by an actual TV editor. You would take the tape which had come in from the agencies, which had been recorded in-house, and you’d physically run with it to an edit suite, and a videotape editor would cut a 10 second headline for you. So the idea that you’d ever have a device in your own hand which you could film an entire documentary on, or you could go live around the world on, was just nonsensical to me when I was your age. I’ve seen a whole technological transformation. But I certainly think traditional media really has both moved with social media, and has also been massively challenged by it. 

I’m launching a podcast, and I think what podcasting has done to the world of information has been revolutionary. I’m now moving into that phase of my professional life. Although the podcast is also going to be filmed, and is going to be on YouTube, and social media. So I think the media of the future is going to have to straddle all these dimensions.

Someone who set out today to have exactly my trajectory, I think would be a very unwise path to go down. That route is not there anymore. I suspect now that if you were setting out as a young producer in a newsroom, as I was in the 90s, what platforms your work goes on would, 10 years down the line, be a bit unknown. TikTok, for example, has come out of nowhere as a news source, as well as a source of other kinds of information. So I think it’s really hard to predict what the landscape is going to be a decade down the line. 

But I do believe that good content travels, and I think my core philosophy as a journalist is to do good work in whatever the medium, and for your principles and who you are as a journalist, not to change, because I think that is transferable. I was at the BBC, and as everyone knows the BBC has a certain kind of framework of impartiality. I’m in a different news organisation now with its own set of editorial standards, but who I am as a person hasn’t changed. I am as committed to fairness and accuracy at Bloomberg as I was at the BBC, and I think that’s the zone which every journalist or aspiring journalist needs to be in. They need to ask themselves: “What kind of journalist or content maker do I want to be?” And then you have to find the vehicle or the employer or the platform that fits what you want to do, but equally, be prepared to pivot.

Cherwell: You talked briefly at the start about representation in journalism, and I guess that brings up two things: ‘representation’ in terms of how certain groups in our society, in our country, are portrayed, and also ‘representation’ in terms of who journalists are, who the media is. What more could we be doing to improve representation in the media? 

Husain: My podcast, The Mishal Husain Show, is going to be in-depth conversations with newsmakers, or ideas people, or cultural figures. And I think what I’m really trying to get at there is something of the lost art of conversation, the lost art of the long form interview. Obviously things get clipped up and shared in different ways, but I also really hope that a really good conversation is the kind of thing you can really immerse yourself in. But look, representation of all kinds in newsrooms is really important. I’ve been around so many tables where people will spot stories. Either they’ll spot stories which no one else has spotted and you need that. Or they’ll say “no one’s thought about this particular angle on a running story”. Journalism is still a very middle class profession and you might do a story on something like prepayment meters, and you look around a room and realise, actually, there are very few of your colleagues who know what it’s like to pay for your utilities in that way. 

So that’s one thing, I think that representation is just really important. You can’t do the best work unless you have enough input from a diverse range of sources. But you also need to have the kind of culture where people can speak up. And I think that’s probably harder to do, because journalism is the kind of profession where the louder voices can command a room. So as editors, as managers, to create the kind of culture where, the person who’s got a thought running through the back of their mind and would really like to say it but feels intimidated, can do so, is such an important thing to do. I think this is often the underappreciated part of representation. It’s not just sitting around the table, but it’s feeling that you’ve got a voice in that particular editorial meeting – you’re not going to be rubbished, you’re not going to be made to feel small. 

And of course some newsrooms, some news providers, they’ve got a very particular axe to grind, and they’re not going to be interested in that. But that’s not the kind of place that I’m ever really going to want to work. So that’s not my world. My world is one where I want to feel that different voices have a say, and I want to be challenged by my colleagues, as well as by people watching and listening, because I think ultimately it makes you better at what you do. The harder you have to think about your process and your product – your output – then the better it is likely to be. That’s also what I’m arguing for in the lecture: you know, there’s a long tradition within Islam of an emphasis on reason and insight and thinking, and that’s one of the under-appreciated and little known aspects of the faith. So I feel like how I am as a journalist is linked to my heritage and my upbringing, as well as the places I’ve worked and the people who’ve influenced me professionally.

Cherwell: I know we’re short on time, but can I ask one very quick question: on your very last broadcast of The Today Programme you chose a song, Daydream Believer by the Monkees. Why did you choose it?

Husain: You know, no one’s asked me that, Conor, it’s very good. Why did I choose it? I think I knew I wanted to have music. And then, of course, there’s the question of what will it be? It’s then very hard because you think “people are going to analyse this”. It’s a bit like desert island discs, although there’s only one song.

I think it’s because it starts with the 6 o’clock alarm. So I thought the very beginning of it was for someone who’d been in that early morning world, or that very early morning world, because it was a 3 a.m. alarm, not a 6 o’clock alarm. I felt that worked, and I also really wanted something upbeat and joyful. But I had a few different options on the go, and in the end I settled on that one. I only expected it to run as a little blast. But then my colleagues at Today decided they wanted the whole 3 minutes. I feel like I sent the nation off with a whole load of music that day.

I did think hard about how to say goodbye, because it’s a programme with a unique place in national life, and I was part of it for 11 years. Someone told me the other day that they cried during my enduring goodbye. I was so touched by that – that’s not the only person who said it to me. I thought “how wonderful – this is about the power of audio to reach out and connect you to people who you’d never otherwise meet”. I was very touched by that.

Oxford Climate Justice Campaign relaunches with Rad Cam demonstration

Joseph Rodgers and Arina Makarina
-
0
Oxford Climate Justice Campaign relaunches with Rad Cam demonstration

The Oxford Climate Justice Campaign (OCJC) has relaunched with a banner-drop demonstration in Radcliffe Square, marking National Climate Action Day. It has also joined the Fossil Free Careers Campaign, which aims to reduce the ties of Oxford Careers Services with fossil fuel companies. 

OCJC’s aim is to campaign for the University’s divestment from fossil fuels through reevaluation and amendments to the Oxford Martin Principles. The Oxford Martin Principles were established to “provide a framework for engagement between climate-conscious investors and companies across the global economy”. They were designed by Oxford University and Oxford Martin School, a research and policy unit in the Social Sciences division, to analyse the contribution of investments to carbon dioxide emissions.

OCJC have also joined the Fossil Free Careers Campaign, led by the national student group People & Planet. This is a national effort to pressure University Careers Services into cutting their partnerships with fossil fuel companies and providing “opportunities that sustain and support the environment”, according to OCJC’s statement. The group has been in contact with the Oxford Careers Service, who have agreed to sit down with them to discuss sustainability. OCJC expects this to take place within the next week.

An OCJC representative told Cherwell: “A lot of people are going directly into really damaging industries, and we think it’s the responsibility of Oxford, If they’re telling us for three years that we’re the best and the brightest, to send us towards the things that are doing good for our world.”

Regarding the University’s Careers Service, a University spokesperson told Cherwell that their mission is “to help students make the best-informed decision about their career”. They added:  “We were the first UK university careers service to ask employers for their green credentials and several thousand employers have completed that information.”

OCJC also announced their partnership with a sister society at University of Cambridge. Together, the societies will reinstate the Climate League of Oxford and Cambridge Campaign (CLOC), which will also include a project ranking the Cambridge and Oxford college’s sustainability policies.

The OCJC representative told Cherwell: “A lot of the reason why students don’t demonstrate as much as they used to for the climate is because it feels so huge and so out of control. If we can show people that there’s actually this very focused campaign, that’s college-based and so within their own community, then it might be more appealing to get people involved.”

On divestment from fossil fuels University spokesperson told Cherwell: “The University is banned from investing directly in fossil fuels extraction companies and is compliant with this. The University holds no investments in fossil fuel extracting companies. It has 0.2% indirect exposure through fund investments.”

SU President for Communities and Common Rooms found guilty of Oxford Union electoral malpractice

Cherwell News
-
0
SU President for Communities and Common Rooms found guilty of Oxford Union electoral malpractice

Shermar Pryce, President for Communities and Common Rooms at the Oxford University Student Union (SU), has been found guilty of electoral malpractice by the Oxford Union Society, which led to the suspension of his membership for a term.

An Oxford Union tribunal ruled that Pryce interfered in the Union’s 2025 Trinity term elections, using his influence on social media to solicit votes for George Abaraonye. This included campaigning for Abaraonye and distributing a Cherwell article concerning a police investigation into Rosalie Chapman, the other candidate in the Trinity term election, and her connection with an anonymous smear campaign. Abaraonye won the election, receiving 611 first preference votes against Chapman’s 416 votes.

The article was shared by Pryce in a Union-affiliated WhatsApp group chat with approximately 200 members, as well as his personal Instagram story, where he has over 3,000 followers. The panel ruled that this was sufficient evidence to convict Pryce of electoral malpractice.

Cherwell understands that Pryce is currently appealing the ruling, and that the decision is not final until the appellate board reaches its decision.

Pryce told Cherwell in a personal capacity: “This matter predates any relationship and my employment with the Students’ Union. The matter relates to an internal process at a private members’ club which is unrelated to the University or the Students’ Union. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further until that process has concluded.” 

The unknown owner of the Instagram account Overheard at Oxford has also been convicted of harassment and electoral malpractice, specifically “acting violently or in a manner that is liable to distress, grossly offend, or intimidate others in connection with the Election”. The account, which has just over 15,000 followers, posts quotes from Oxford University students that have been overheard around the city. These quotes are often humorous, relating to student life and intercollegiate rivalries.

According to the report: “It has clearly become so widely believed that Mr Pryce controls OaO”, however, Pryce “categorically” denies the ownership. The evidence initially led to a “unanimous verdict, beyond reasonable doubt, based on Mr Pryce’s apparent control of the [Overheard at Oxford] Instagram account”. However, this decision was reversed for procedural reasons. The panel decided that time restrictions meant that Pryce would not have “enough time to properly rebut the case”, so this raised concerns that the decision would be “procedurally unfair”.

Chapman told Cherwell: “What I went through during the Trinity election was extremely distressing…I still care deeply about this institution, and I hope this decision helps move the Union toward a more respectful and fair democratic culture.” The statement was made regarding Overheard at Oxford account, whose ownership remains unconfirmed.

As SU President for Communities and Common Rooms, Pryce sits on a number of University committees, acting as a representative for Oxford students. During his election campaign he was endorsed by all of Oxford’s main political societies, including the University’s Labour Club (OLC), Conservative Association (OUCA), and Liberal Association (OSLA). Pryce was also elected to the Union Society’s standing committee during Hilary Term 2024.

Correction: The article previously stated that Pryce was elected to the Union Society’s standing committee during Trinity Term 2024. In fact, Pryce was elected to the Union standing committee during Hilary Term 2024.

Sin and nectar: Behind the scenes of ‘Women Beware Women’

Tomas Overton
-
0
Sin and nectar: Behind the scenes of ‘Women Beware Women’

I arrived at a rehearsal of Women Beware Women and found Hippolito (Kit Parsons) and Isabella (Céline Mathilda), uncle and niece, embracing and sharing an incestous kiss flavoured by the punnet of grapes sat between them. “‘Tis beyond sorcery, this, drugs or love-powders; / Some art that has no name”, Hippolito lamented centre-stage. This was an introduction fitting for a play whose driving force, as director Jem Hunter put it, is “sex”. 

Thomas Middleton’s infamous revenge tragedy Women Beware Women (1657) follows a series of affairs in an increasingly debauched Florentine court, which culminate in a massacre at a masque. Curious to see how this depravity was taking shape, I interviewed the cast and their director three days before the show’s opening at the Pilch.

In a short interview with Jem, I tried to unpick some of the ideas that were animating the production. My first question was about the set: a garish chessboard lit impressionistically and peopled with costumes hired from the Royal Shakespeare Company. Jem was clear that this beauty was superficial, providing “a glimmering surface for the play, with…ribbons and everything and gorgeous costumes, and underneath it you will understand that there’s a very disgusting, sordid underbelly of lust that’s trying to get through the whole time”. This was the first hint of a theme that kept coming up in our conversation, that of artifice. Jem also described the period costumes in terms of their restrictive nature: “even physically it will restrain the actors”. 

Like the set, the costuming is only another layer of restrictive beauty. Language, even the language of the play, then receives short shrift as another illusory attempt to capture what is physical: “the body is an instrument that makes noises, and the skin stretches over your ribcage and your diaphragm does stuff and your vocal chords vibrate, and you get a raw physical sense of language.” For Jem, the set, costumes, and even the words of the play are only an artificial layer papering over deeper forces.

These ideas have their place within a historical critique of theatre, uniting with Antonin Artaud (French practitioner of the Theatre of Cruelty which emphasised the physical at the expense of the rational) against ‘high realism’ with a sense that “you are trying to represent reality but you need to depart from reality and from that place of departure find the truth”. Jem described conventional realist concepts such as character and emotion as irrelevant, as ways of avoiding an address to those aspects of human experience that are “so much stranger than we think”. Instead, we should “uncover these strange spirits…something magical”. Those spirits seem to exist, for Jem, outside of language or character, instead residing in the scenario of the theatre and the movement of bodies as something strange and ritualistic.

I was curious to see how these ideas were actually finding expression in relationships between the people involved. My first question to the cast, about how they were conceiving of character in a more conventional sense, was met with opposition. Céline was clear that the play is “so representational, because it is a human chess game. It’s almost like meta-theatre”. The cast described the characters as mere puppets within a larger structure, each assigned a chess piece, each acting out of their own control. It was clear that direction in terms of psychological states had been rejected throughout the rehearsal process, replaced with non-naturalistic blocking and an emphasis on spectacle. 

When I asked Jem about how he found working with the cast, he stated that: “I think the main problem with them was coming to terms with, you don’t have to look normal on stage [sic]. You don’t have to act as if this is a conversation happening in a bedroom or something. It is a stage, and you are performing.” The cast seemed to share a sense of what the play is about and what the production was moving towards. I didn’t stay for long enough to get a sense of how this consensus had actually formed, but I did get a glimpse in Jem’s insistence that: “I constantly remind them of the chess pieces. I tell them, embody that. Chess pieces move in a very constrained way, and I think that’s the kind of deliberateness I want.”

As I left, I got the sense that the production was committed to a unifying idea, and that Middleton’s tragedy would probably be receptive. A text so immoral, self-conscious, and garish can only be approached through extremes. Whatever is behind these characters – lust, fate, God, or theatre – we will certainly see a damned humanity spread spectacularly across the stage. This is a production where violence and immorality will be celebrated as the basis of a new understanding, of a place beyond ourselves. What this place looks like is up to the cast and crew on Wednesday.

You can watch Women Beware Women at the Michael Pilch Studio from the 5th to 8th of November.

How to build a ball

Mair Andrews
-
0
How to build a ball

Students have started reaching out to Oxfess to solve the annual dilemma: which colleges are hosting balls, and which are the best to go to? 

Within weeks of unpacking in Michaelmas, inboxes fill with calls for committee applications, while tickets for launch parties are more sought-after than a last-minute Park End code. But there is more to a ball than the glamorous logo on the Instagram account – they put the college’s relationship with their students under a microscope. From proposal to realisation, the inner workings of a ball define the student experience beyond that one night, with college patriotism following you from the first stash drop to your visits after graduation. It’s no surprise that students want to know how to make the most out of their Trinity, but that decision may very well not be yours, as the future for Oxford balls looks to change.

A ball, let alone a worthwhile one, is no guarantee. I myself know how unstable ball planning can be: last year I was on the committee for a ball that never happened. Complications with a bursar handover meant that the 2025 Keble Ball proposal was rejected twice, even after St Catherine’s College bursar volunteered to take all liability for a joint ball. 

The anticipation around a college ball is part of its magic – it is the event of the year, and a brilliant way to celebrate the college community. But this anticipation creates huge pressure, particularly for the ball committee. Thrown in at the deep end, with budget proposals and production companies to book alongside very busy degrees, how do these committees actually make it to the first drink?

The secret: it’s all about the bursar. 

Before we begin

What’s in a ball? According to the Student Union’s guide, an Oxford ball is a must-do bucket-list activity. Most colleges host one every one to three years, inviting current students, alumni, and often guests. The evening is organised by students who first plan a theme, then embellish with food vendors, drinks, musical entertainment, and other activities. Anticipation for a ball builds from Michaelmas to Trinity – the event is announced, tickets are sold, and then black-tie wear is bought. College balls are a great way to celebrate your college community, combining both MCR and JCR, and for the college to foster connections with past students. For students, it’s a fab night out, and you can even work for some of it to get subsidised tickets. This is the legacy of the Oxford ball tradition, but there is more to a ball than an Instagram post. 

A ball must be chosen wisely. It’s not just about who the headlining act is or how watered down those cocktails are. Oxford balls are a unique phenomenon, in that they are entirely held up by goodwill between the members of a college and its Governing Body, meaning that wealth, reputation, and other behavioural issues in college are also factors influencing decisions made. Getting from the first committee meeting to the survivor’s breakfast is a complicated, stressful process – I’ve broken it down into a few not-so-easy steps. 

Step one: Manage your (college’s) budget

The average budget of a college ball, calculated from various FOIs, is £250,000. Despite this cost, it is rare that any college is financially affected by them. They are mainly non-profit, self-funding business operations run entirely on ticket sales. Yet the wealth of a college still hugely impacts the budget, scale, and success of a ball, so that rich colleges know best how to look after their students. 

Wealthier colleges tend to have the best relationships with their alumni. The more benefits a college can give to alumni, the more likely they are to receive donations. The success of a ball is therefore not just a promise for alumni, but a commitment to current students for what they can expect when they graduate. A spokesperson for New College told Cherwell that the purpose of a ball is “conviviality” and to hold a “memorable event”, while St John’s College bursar described it as a “unique and shared experience to celebrate students’ time in Oxford”. 

There is a more practical significance to accommodating undergraduate, postgraduate, and past students in a single event – the relationship between each class of ticket is integral to the success of the ball. Tickets for current students, particularly access tickets, are subsidised by a premium on alumni sales. As a result, richer colleges can offer more to their alumni, take in more in donations, and have better-subsidised tickets for current students, creating a virtuous cycle for when those students graduate. 

Furthermore, while a college’s wealth has no direct impact on the funding of the ball, it may impact how invested the college is in ensuring its success. If appeasing students of past and future is a large part of your endowments and funding, you care a lot more about guaranteeing a good night. 

Step two: Choose your bursar

Once you have your ball (provisionally) approved, you must get to the planning. But the budget of the ball is not the only factor monitoring its scale: the involvement of the bursar is paramount. The balls with the strongest rapports with their bursars, according to testimonies from students and bursars individually, are Merton Winter Ball and St John’s Trinity Ball. Coincidentally, these are the balls with the highest budgets of those who responded to Cherwell’s survey. In previous years, the bursars from St Hilda’s College and Mansfield College took little involvement in the production of the ball beyond their legal requirements. 

In my many emails to colleges across the city, it was notable that the wealth of the college correlated with the amount of characters utilised in their response. Call it networking or saving face, wealthier colleges were much more open about the entire process of organising a ball. 

Iris Burke, Bursary Manager for St John’s, explained that professional staff have taken on more responsibilities for the ball. This was to help “from a risk management perspective and to ensure valuable learnings and experience get passed on to the next cohort of students”. Their domestic bursar and another Governing Body Fellow are on the organising committee for the college ball, liaising closely with the student volunteers. 

Since the COVID-19 restrictions on events in 2020 resulted in many cancellations, the role of college staff in upholding the institutional memory of college balls has been increased. Usually, the handovers between ball presidents, along with students’ own experiences of previous balls, preserve a college’s own traditions. However, with the cancellation of balls from 2020 onwards, and the difficulties in getting them started again, there’s a break in the chain on the student sides. Previous ball presidents may have graduated or dropped out, and few students left in college remember the pre-2020 balls. The expertise of college staff, therefore, has become increasingly important. 

After the 2019 and 2023 cancelled Keble Balls, Jade Morris came to the role of Ball President with a Governing Body who had never experienced a ball at Keble. She explained to me how she contacted the previous Ball Treasurer through Facebook after seeing their name on the handover documents. “A lot of it was on the fly,” but she managed to orchestrate the cheapest college ball in Keble memory: current student tickets were only £80.

The Keble alum recalled how it was her chosen production company that had to explain to her that the £75k budget approved by the Governing Body was not going to be enough. “As soon as you get a marquee involved, there are a lot of extra health and safety costs.” A domestic bursar, therefore, is essential: “the paperwork is unavoidable”. “I was on the phone to the Senior Fellow and Domestic Bursar from 5pm most nights for weeks leading up to the ball.”

It was stressful, but she enjoyed the experience of “building a ball with a blank slate.”

A good bursar with a good heart builds a good ball. Harmohinder Bahl, the current Home Bursar for Worcester College, has made his role integral to the Oxford three-year memory cycle. While his main focus is “to make sure the event runs smoothly and responsibly, with minimal financial and reputational risk to college” he also sees it “as a chance to help students grow. Organising a ball develops valuable skills — teamwork, budgeting, leadership — and it’s rewarding to see students gain confidence and enjoy what they’ve achieved.”

Over lunch or coffee in the college hall, he initiates meetings between the previous and upcoming ball committee members to help provide advice and bounce ideas off of them. Beyond his personal involvement, he has established a tradition of providing a “lessons learned” document to the committee one month after the ball, once the euphoria has waned, to compile advice for future iterations. He explained that it’s all about balance: “I don’t want this to thwart the creativity and evolving nature of balls to come”

When we spoke, he emphasised that there is no tension or hierarchy in the bursar’s involvement with the ball: he sees it as him explaining the experience and sharing his expertise. “I would deliver the ball, but it would be commercial, not for the students.” It is paramount to him that the ball is a collaboration; this is a level of trust that was demonstrated in 2021 when he took on the responsibilities of the outgoing bursar’s ball committee. I asked why he felt comfortable doing so – other balls have been cancelled due to changes in bursar, as I experienced with last year’s aborted Keble Ball. Bahl simply said that he “ had complete confidence in the ball committee’s ability and enthusiasm. They were organised, motivated, and willing to learn — and with that level of commitment, plus my own experience, I felt everything was in good hands”. 

This level of college involvement in the planning of a ball has changed since the cancellation of the 2020-2021 balls: Mansfield College now position their bursar onsite throughout the ball to respond to any issues arising that evening. This role, however, is still entirely focused on the legal requirements and implications, whereas Bahl’s personal trust and confidence is well placed. When I contacted him for a comment request, he asked to call instead so that I could ask as many questions as I liked. A bursar ought to have confidence and involvement in the student committee. 

Step three: Get to know the JCR

Across all colleges, one thing is unchanging: the ball is a student-run operation. The bursar represents the college and Governing Body, but it is the ‘Ball Committee’ who must first approach the Governing Body with a proposal. Each college’s Governing Body comprises of Fellows, many of whom hold University posts. Colleges are hesitant to guarantee a ball outright, but many make reference to a “standing order” in their JCR handbooks which guides the JCR in creating an application to present to the college. This subsection of a handbook is the closest thing that colleges offer in lieu of an instruction manual: they include the standard procedures of how often the college hosts a ball, what a proposal should include, and what a committee should look like. 

So, if you want in on the ball, it seems that you best befriend the JCR committee. In some rather lacklustre responses to my emails, most college bursars declared that they have no involvement with the ball selection process and that it is entirely organised by the JCR. St Hilda’s College Ball is “wholly dependent” on the JCR petition and election of a committee, and the Balliol College JCR leads the selection process. Worcester College were the only ones who mentioned an interview process with the Governing Body for roles such as president and treasurer, while only Merton College specified the involvement of the MCR in the proposal for a ball. 

Regardless as to how much support the college offers to their ball committee after the confirmation of the ball, the proposal and instigation is a student initiative. Each college can adjust their level of involvement at any point in its development, but Bahl’s  “complete confidence in the ball committee’s ability and enthusiasm” was echoed by other bursars such as David Palfreyman at New College, who told Cherwell that in his 40 years as bursar he has experienced “no disasters organisationally or financially – students can organise very effectively!”. Of the 15 colleges who responded, none other than Keble have a record of a rejected ball proposal. 

Step four: Pick your poison, or rather, production

Balls are a competitive business. Restrictions on events during exam season means that there are limited dates that colleges can host. While most colleges sell out their own students’ tickets, the inflation on guest tickets is how many break even. There is obviously a market for guest tickets: balls occur in three-year cycles so students often attend other college balls in the years between their own. When tickets are at such a premium, it isn’t just a struggle to make your ball more appealing, it’s difficult to book production companies. 

The staple entertainment events for Oxford balls range from musical headliners to bumper cars and swings, while certain refreshment stalls offer sponsorship. When multiple ball committees are targeting the same providers, it is a race to sign contracts before they get double-booked for the same day. 

The extent to which balls are conceptualised and developed by students worsens this issue. Once you sign up to a ball committee, you realise that it is an echo chamber of all other balls ever held: whether you are drowning in handover documents, comparing notes with other colleges, or looking at previous celebrations, the names of the same production companies and caterers begin to feel like a threat. 

Still, this is not an issue separate to the college’s involvement: budgets are built from the supplier’s quotes, but they may be booked out by the time the Governing Body approves the proposal. 

These costs are not insignificant either: both catering and production occupy a third each of the average ball budget. Once themes are announced, Oxfess will resurface to ask the masses who the predicted headliner for each college is. Despite being the centre of many students’ concerns on which ball to attend, entertainment (both musical and non-musical) never takes up more than a quarter of the budget. 

Top tip: Get them before they are gone

The future of college balls is changing. Last year, Cherwell investigated the ways in which colleges invest their endowment wealth into student life. Of course, subsidising accommodation and offering study grants are more essential to student life than a college ball is, but the investigation revealed that the relationship between college spending and student welfare changed after the 2020 lockdown. Cherwell found that “colleges have increasingly adopted protective financial policies that place the possible needs of future students above the real needs of current students”. A college ball is still an investment in students because it fosters good relationships with their alumni, who will likely fund future balls through ticket sales or donate directly to the college. It is therefore no surprise that the wealthier colleges have more regular balls with larger budgets: the involvement of a bursar indicates whether or not the college is invested or detached from student life. 

It will be notable in future years to see which colleges adapt to the changing needs and expectations of students regarding the provision of an Oxford ball. Since 2020, balls have changed structure in multiple ways. Many colleges now have increased the role of the bursar to ensure financial stability, but the cost of living has affected budgets too. The production costs for Exeter Ball, including the transport of equipment and energy costs for the evening, for Exeter Ball jumped from 27% of their 2019 budget to 38% of their 2022 ball. 

But some of these changes don’t just reflect the state of the nation but a changing perspective on these celebrations. Worcester College first implemented noise regulations in 2023 after a series of complaints, spending around £4,000 on combating that alone. Bahl explained that this was simply a courtesy: they believe in “One Worcester”, a “shared sense of unity between everyone connected to the College — students, staff, alumni, and the wider community. It means working towards common goals and making sure that big events like the ball bring people together rather than apart.” The individualism of each ball created by the strong sense of college identity required to advertise it does not separate it from its local area.

As the budget for a ball is increasingly unsteady due to cost of living and efforts to ensure the sustainability of a ball, the overall provision of a ball may itself be changing. Bahl explained that the current structure of a ball is becoming an unsustainable endeavour because “the way balls are promoted and delivered is evolving, especially as costs rise.” When I asked him what he saw in the future for Oxford balls, he said “This might mean smaller events or less frequent ones, but it also pushes us to think creatively about how to make them special. With the right mindset, and where finances allow, colleges can still create memorable experiences — and well-funded colleges will likely continue (or start) to offer strong support to keep that tradition alive.” He has been working with the SU to explore the possibilities of a more collaborative approach between colleges.  With the rise of Town Hall black tie events and ball alternatives like the Catz Gala last Trinity, the demand for a ball is changing. 

Jade Morris disagrees. “The secret is in simplicity –  the Keble ball was lovely because it felt like a Keble event for Keble people.” She explained that it was no coincidence that the queue for drinks was always longer than the queue for food – this type of numbers game is what keeps a ball safe. “The purpose of a college ball is to show that you care about your students. Logistically speaking, it’s a pain in the ass”. A smaller ball is more intimate, but it also keeps guests’s expectations in check: Jade explained that the recent Keble Ball was limited to alumni from the last five years only because they would want a “Keble event” rather than “dinner with a champagne reception”. It clearly worked: tickets sold out within three seconds.

Well-managed complexity: ‘In Praise of Love’ 

Charlie Bailey
-
0
Well-managed complexity: ‘In Praise of Love’ 

In Praise of Love by Terence Rattigan was a play well-chosen in today’s political context – it uses the unhappy relationships between Estonian immigrant Lydia (Nicole Palka), English former intelligence officer Sebastian (Sam Gosmore) and their son Joey (Ali Khan) to comment on wartime trauma, the gap between actions and political ideals, and the isolation that comes with living as a foreigner in a new setting. 

The central tension of In Praise of Love is Lydia’s terminal illness, and her and her husband’s shared knowledge that she has mere months to live, which they each aim to conceal for the other’s benefit. Easy-going American novelist Mark (Grace Yu), a long term romantic devotee of Lydia’s, is introduced as the peaceful voice of reason, offering comfort to both members of the couple. This adaptation chose to lean into the awkwardness of Mark’s romantic attachment to Lydia, with Sebastian displaying a sense of forced obliviousness each time he walked in on them blatantly embracing. Yu’s unflappable, unwaveringly kind tone was a well-executed counterweight to the chaotic emotions of the other characters. 

The actors were talented at balancing comedy and emotional depth. The standout performance came from Nicole Palka as Lydia: her portrayal made it clear to the audience that while Lydia carried trauma from her experiences during the Russian and later Nazi occupation of Estonia, she was by no means weak. Her lines were articulated in a focused way that meant the audience never missed a word, and passages that dealt with her inability to adjust to English culture came across as authentic rather than stereotypical. 

Both Palka as Lydia, and Gosmore as Sebastian, ably tackled their characters’ long narrative monologues, which may have become tedious had it not been for their constant changes in tone and pace. Gosmore’s talents shone through particularly in the second half of the play, in a scene between him and Yu in which he shed his English pomposity, and admitted it was only with the knowledge that Lydia had months to live that he had come to really care for her. 

Another important theme of In Praise of Love is the difficulty of being honest about one’s emotions. The actors’ performances were strongest in the brief moments where the script depicted the characters opening up: particularly memorable was a section where Sebastian relates his understanding of the pain Lydia endured in a wartime labour camp, including a chilling tale of when she played dead amongst the bodies of her friends to ensure her escape. It was a well-performed tonal shift from Sebastian’s otherwise comedic presence onstage, and demonstrated Gosmore’s versatility as a performer.

A key contribution to the relative strength of the second half was Khan’s portrayal of Joey, bringing a clarity of thought to his parents’ emotions. Moments where Khan impersonated his father, angry at the superficiality of his Sebastian’s Marxist principles, were well committed to.


Other moments lacked polish, but this can be attributed to opening night nerves. Joey’s first entrance onto stage could have had more impact, as the audience experienced it as a random disembodied voice in a moment of silence. Leaving a moment or two for the audience to register the actors’ reactions to Joey would have aided this. Likewise, Sam Gosmore’s portrayal of Sebastian as blustering and pompous was generally effective, but there were points of dialogue when his words were hard to make out amongst this characteristic huffing and puffing. I also felt that the couple of passages enacted around the chess set suffered from a loss in momentum, but this can be blamed on the demands of having this tedious prop in the original script.

It was clear that the set was carefully thought out by the production team. It was effective at creating the impression of a middle-aged couple’s home, and the overflowing bookcases were a not-so-subtle nod to Sebastian’s self-centred intellectual pursuits and failed attempts to continue as a successful novelist. The set also carried some comedic flair: the “contraption” that Mark shows Lydia how to use, so that she can access the medical records that Sebastain has kept from her, was in fact a simple step ladder, and this was used well to provoke laughs from the audience.

Despite some less impactful moments, the actors managed the complexities of the script well. Joey’s monologue critiquing his father’s adherence to Marxism in word rather than deed felt relevant today, relating to debates around the right of those with privilege to act as “armchair revolutionaries”. Having not been aware of the play beforehand, In Praise of Love at the BT was a rewarding evening’s entertainment.

University indicates support for tuition fee increase

Charlie Goldberg
-
0
University indicates support for tuition fee increase

Oxford University students will pay higher tuition fees next year after Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson announced a suite of education reforms last month. Under the reforms, the price of tuition in English universities will rise yearly in line with inflation, as will the value of maintenance loans available to students. Maintenance grants will also be reintroduced for students from lower-income households. A University spokesperson indicated support for these changes.

The government has said that, eventually, tuition fee increases will only be allowed at universities that perform well on the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF), the official system for assessing university performance. TEF ratings are assigned based upon evidence submitted to an independent panel of academics and students, as well as numerical data including student satisfaction and achievement scores. University fees increased this academic year for the first time since 2017 – they were previously frozen. 

Tim Bradshaw, Chief Executive of the Russell Group, an association of 24 public research universities, including Oxford, described the announcement and accompanying white paper as a “milestone”, adding that the indexing of fees to inflation was a “first step in putting the sector on a more financially stable footing”. 

Bradshaw also spoke out against the government’s proposed 6% levy on international student fees, which he said would “seriously hamper universities’ ability to invest in students and communities”. Phillipson had previously stated that the levy on international fees would be used to fund the new targeted maintenance grants.

An Oxford University spokesperson told Cherwell that they had nothing to add to Bradshaw’s statement. The University has long supported increases in tuition fees, arguing that the real cost of educating an undergraduate was far greater than the cost of tuition. 

Oxford has the largest endowment of any university in Europe, when the financial assets of its colleges are included. For several years, Oxford has reported annual surpluses of over £100 million. However, elsewhere in the UK, four in ten higher education institutions are believed to be in financial deficit.

The General Secretary of the University and College Union, Jo Grady, spoke out against the announcement. She said that the policy “doubled down on the tuition-fees funding model” that she credited with causing a crisis in the university sector. 

Grady did, however, agree with Bradshaw’s opposition to the international tuition fee levy, saying that the government should “stop attacking international students, who contribute so much to the sector, the economy, and Britain’s soft power”.

The Oxford University Student Union (SU) told Cherwell that the current funding model for higher education is unsustainable, but said that “passing that pressure on to students is not a long term solution”. 

The SU spokesperson also said that increasing tuition fees will have a disproportionate impact on international students, as the international student tuition levy will likely lead to an increase in international fees. In relation to linking tuition fees to the TEF, the SU told Cherwell that quality should only be incentivised in a way which does not limit access to higher education.

The changes to fee structures will have a significant effect on Oxford students. More than two-thirds of the £412 million that Oxford receives each year in course fees comes from international students. Estimates by the Higher Education Policy Institute predict that the proposed fee levy for international students will cost Oxford around £17 million each year, with the total yearly cost to English higher education institutions standing at over £620 million.

In Conversation with Cherry Vann, Archbishop of Wales

Magdalena Lacey-Hughes
-
0
In Conversation with Cherry Vann, Archbishop of Wales

“I have a strongly-rooted faith that my gender and my sexuality is part of who I am and part of what God created, and that therefore is part of what I bring to my ministry.”

The recent election of the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Dame Sarah Mullaly, was front-page news, as she became the first ever woman to hold the post. But the fact that she was beaten to the accolade of being the first female Archbishop in the UK is less well known. The election of the Archbishop of Wales, Cherry Vann, in July 2025 placed her name in the history books, not only as the first woman to be elected as Archbishop in the UK, but the first woman in the global Anglican Church to be in a civil partnership with a woman. Cherwell sat down for a conversation with the Archbishop of Wales, who will be officially ‘enthroned’ on 8th November 2025, to talk about the issues surrounding her appointment, her education, her ministry, and the Church’s approach to politics.

With Oxford’s rich choral and chapel traditions, the Archbishop Cherry understands the depth that music can bring out of buildings made for worship. She seems to wisely carry forward her experiences from her past into her ministry, and understands the impact that Oxford’s chapels can have – as welfare facilitators and for artistic expression. “Music speaks to the heart. You don’t have to analyse it or explain it. It just gets you. It engages emotions and the deep worlds of spirituality in often surprising and unexpected ways. It can get to you in a way that rational thought can actually keep at bay.”

The Archbishop’s story, though, is much more complex than simply where she studied – it is, in fact, layered with complications about who she is as a person. Unsurprisingly, her election has been met with discussion, opposition and division. The Church of Nigeria has formally severed ties with the Anglican Province of Wales as a result: “We must not allow culture or modern wisdom to dilute the authority of Scripture. These trends must be resisted,” Archbishop Ndukuba, the head of the Nigerian Church, has said in response to the election.

Given the Church’s fraught history with ‘modern’ ideals, this strong reaction does not seem startling. But her approach to this misalignment is one of maturity and trust. She told Cherwell: “The Church in Wales knew as well as I did that electing me was going to cause issues. But, when God calls, then you don’t say no, and they discerned that. I discerned that. And here I am.”

The Archbishop Cherry Vann admits that the variety of countries that Anglicanism represents are so diverse that it is often very difficult for people to come to terms with such broad differences. She explained how it was the context of the Church in Wales that made her election possible. The Nigerian church, alongside other churches across the world, have to fight for their credibility, which is not the case for Anglicanism in the UK. Her profound hope is that they are able to come to terms with their differences, and find relation within their shared humanity: “These people have never met me. They don’t know my ministry, my history, they don’t know what I’ve brought to the diocese, what difference I’ve made. They just focus on one thing.”

Despite her realisation that these differences might never be resolved, she is determined to not let that limit the impact of her election: “My primary drive at the heart of my ministry is to reach out to those on the margins and those who struggle with the issues that I seem to be a conductor, a lightning rod for. Not to stay apart, but actually to go towards and to try and establish a relationship where we can actually talk.”

Archbishop Cherry’s sexuality seems to come between people’s understanding of God’s word and their understanding of her humanity. But the levels of tolerance do not just vary across seas. The Church in Wales has a more progressive stance than the Church of England, allowing blessings for same-sex couples since 2021 and with discussions in progress on same-sex marriage in church. Nonetheless, the appointment of a lesbian Archbishop marks an historic milestone. Its impact on attitudes toward the LGBTQ+ community remains to be seen, but for those long forced to navigate the divide between sexuality and faith, this is a powerful step toward visibility and belonging within the Church.

“It’s been amazing for them to see somebody like me in this role. It’s very empowering and hopeful and inspiring for them and that’s great. I think for the church, it’s signalled something really quite remarkable that it’s been able to happen at all. I don’t think you can underestimate the impact that has.”

But the Archbishop of Wales is no stranger to dealing with disapproval from her colleagues. In fact, dealing with opposition is a cornerstone of her journey through priesthood. Archbishop Cherry was among the first five women to be ordained priest in the Manchester diocese in 1994, the first year of women’s ordination. In 2008, she became the first woman to become a senior priest in the diocese of Manchester, being elected Archdeacon of Rochdale, and, in 2019, she became the third woman in the history of the Church in Wales to serve as Bishop.

Being among the pioneering women at the front of the battle for women’s leadership in the Church, Archbishop Cherry said that her experience with prejudice and dissent in her early ministry. She was uncertain whether she’d be able to become an ordained priest at the start of her training in 1986, but nevertheless she maintained a posture of confidence that her call would find fulfillment in whatever way possible. “I suppose it cements your sense of call, because you don’t take anything for granted. It’s part of the process of learning to trust, that God knew what God was doing.”

Yet her faith did not erase the uncertainty. She recalled the resistance she encountered in the early years of her ministry, especially from male priests she needed to persuade that this was a step forward for the Church. A defining moment in that experience, she said, was a clergy conference in the Diocese of Manchester.

The Archbishop went on to describe the ways in which male colleagues and priests protested the ordination of women by not engaging and not attending Eucharist at the conference. “It just felt really awful and not Christian – not at all what we should be doing. So there was one occasion I went and sat with them at the meal that night. I think it quite amused them. It was awkward, but I felt it was important to just reach out.”

After the conference, she was motivated to contact those in opposition, and created a group of four men opposed to women’s ordination and four women priests. They met three times a year, and would eat, pray and discuss together. After 20 years of respectful conversation, they’d become “really good friends… it’s been one of the most profound things in shaping me.”

The Archbishop of Wales conveyed that modelling the faith and people’s equality within the church family was vital in respecting each other within church leadership: “I saw that when you work hard at loving somebody who is vehemently opposed to your ministry and you try and work with that, then something quite beautiful can come out of it.”

Women, and their role in church leadership, has so often been underestimated. The Archbishop told Cherwell: “Having been to India and to Africa, it’s made me realise how often women are the glue that hold families together and hold communities together. And I think that’s something important that women bring – this kind of innate desire to keep people together as a family.”

Speaking to Cherwell, the Archbishop reflected on how her early ministry and pioneering has prepared her for the backlash she faces now: “Clearly you can’t hide the fact that you’re a woman. Whereas I spent most of my life in the Church of England hiding the fact that I was gay. I know a lot of other people do hide it out of fear. But coming to Wales has just completely shifted that for me because I was told that it wasn’t an issue, and that I would be welcome.”

Archbishop Cherry linked this to the way in which Wales might feel side-lined and a minority in relation to England, which helps its culture relate to, and be sympathetic towards, other people on the margins, and how she feels welcome to visit parishes with her partner, Wendy. “It says something really quite special about Wales.”

But her sexuality is a new fight, one that Archbishop Cherry realises is a harder issue for people to come to terms with than her gender. She approaches building bridges with those opposed by inhabiting the role as a leader, not a campaigner. Modelling the faith, rather than pushing an agenda is important to her, especially due to the weaponisation of scripture: “I think the role of the Bible and what people perceive is said in the Bible can be used in a way that it couldn’t be used with women. Many people in my diocese are fine, but even those who do struggle I am able to maintain a relationship with.”

Lack of unity is not a problem that is restricted to the church, but is at play in our politics too. ‘Belonging’ is a word that seems obsolete to many, and so Cherwell asked the Archbishop of Wales to comment on the rise of right-wing politics, and the Church’s approach towards divisive rhetoric. She spoke about the Church having a story to tell about inclusion and God’s love for everybody, which needs to be told louder and more often. People are dissatisfied and feel excluded by politicians, governments and social norms, and they look for somewhere to give them a voice: “I think Nigel Farage has played clever on that and has accumulated all the discontented people and actually given voice to their anger. But he’s clearly got momentum, and I think everybody’s running scared as to how to counter it.”

The Archbishop emphasised that we need to create a space where everyone feels they have agency and value, and to work with governments to ensure their work doesn’t exacerbate divides, but is actually working for those who feel excluded: “I think we have to be very clear that a society that tolerates exclusion, never mind extremism, is a divided society and therefore, by nature is an unhealthy society… we have to speak out. And I think we’ve been too timid and apologetic.”

But this is not to say that the Church is without its own issues. Alongside major safeguarding issues in the past, Archbishop Andrew John, whose hurried retirement resulted in the appointment of Archbishop Cherry Vann, was prompted to step down from the role. This was due to serious concerns regarding safeguarding failures, inappropriate conduct and weak financial controls at Bangor Cathedral.

Such stories of corruption and misuse of power are stories that we are all too familiar with hearing from the Church. Coming out of this murky haze, Archbishop Cherry Vann is faced with a culture of mistrust perpetuated by the abuse of power that her predecessors have created – a hard position to step into after such serious concerns. Leadership coming out of a break of trust is often a make-or-break moment within an institution, and so her early approach to her new role is vital. She hopes to create a communion where people can come together, voice their concerns, challenge each other’s beliefs, and re-build a relationship between all areas of ministry. She said that she wants to model this culture, because “I think that’s what leaders do. They model a culture, a way of behaving, a way of responding, a way of being, and people notice that. And it trickles down. So I hope to model something quite different, something that’s more open, responsive, accountable.”

The Archbishop said how being open about questions and concerns means that they can be addressed, which is impossible if they are kept secret. Silencing people has caused problems in the past. She said that she is trying to be honest and open, modelling a culture in order to change it. This will take a long time, but people need to be able to identify problems and behaviours that are wrong. “I think we need to find a way of coming together so that we can build those relationships, have open and honest conversations and hopefully agree on behaviours that are going to model something that’s a bit more Christ-like… It might inspire more trust, might show us as being more accountable, and the importance of having that openness and transparency in all we do.”

Clearly, Archbishop Cherry Vann’s experience throughout her ministry has prepared her for this new role – one that she has stepped into with confidence and clarity on what needs to change. At a time in history where church attendance is still declining, but where research is showing there is an increasing interest in faith in the UK, openness and honesty is vital in order to uphold the Church’s structures and the positivity that it puts into the world. This election has changed the history of Christianity altogether, and brings hope for the building of a safer, healthier and more united church for the future.

“Whether you like it or not, God welcomes everybody and you just have to get used to that idea, and find a way of living out that love, that care, that compassion, that respect that we believe God holds all his children in.”

In Conversation with Sathnam Sanghera

Hattie Simpson
-
0
In Conversation with Sathnam Sanghera

Sathnam Sanghera doesn’t believe in tidy or easy stories. Whether writing about empire in his award-winning books Empireland and Empireworld, or his own family in his 2009 memoir, The Boy With The Topknot, he seems most at home in the uncomfortable space where opposite things can be true at once. 

As we get into our conversation, it doesn’t take long for us to start discussing the innately political nature of being a historian. Sanghera insists the two – history and politics – are inseparable, though he’s quick to clarify that he’s never been politically active himself. “I’ve never been on a march”, he says, before pausing to admit that he sometimes wonders if that might be a failure on his part. For him, the black-and-white nature of protests misses something essential. He explains that he would happily join a march if he could take a banner saying “opposite things can be true at the same time”. Complexity, nuance – this is what he truly believes in, and he is critical of the way politicians and social media users tend to ignore it. This conviction seems to underpin his work as a historian; books and history, he emphasises, are all about nuance. This instinct clearly shapes his writing, a constant effort to hold conflicting truths together – particularly in his discussions of empire. For Sanghera, opposing the empire is as much a British tradition as being proud of it: “Abolition is a proud British imperial tradition, as was slavery: both things can be true at the same time.” 

He talks about how little of this complexity he encountered in his own education. At Cambridge, he didn’t study a single brown author until his final few terms and empire never came up at all. That silence, he suggests, still shapes the way Britain remembers its past – or chooses not to. “The arguments we have about empire are the same as those that were had at the time”– whether it was too expensive, if we should be focusing on Britain instead – he makes clear: “This is not a new thing.”

When we discuss how empire continues to dominate modern politics, he traces a familiar cycle: Corbyn calling for teaching the “crimes of empire”; Gove defending its achievement as Secretary of State for Education; and, more recently, Sunak complaining that historians try to rewrite the history of slavery too much. “Seemingly unaware”, Sanghera adds, “that’s literally what historians do.” Even Reform have picked up on it, turning history into a talking point at their recent Party Conference in Birmingham. “It’s a constant battle and culture war”, he says, “and we keep going back and forth with it. It’s quite tedious.” 

He admits that although he has become well known for writing about empire, when he first started he was surprised by how little he knew. “Almost every day over the last five years I’ve learnt something new”, he says. What particularly struck him was the sheer level of opposition to empire at home – another reminder that resistance to slavery has always existed alongside support in Britain. “There’s this old line that we shouldn’t judge the past by modern values, but it was actually opposed at every single stage.” He explains how figures like Warren Hastings and Robert Clive, both credited with laying the foundation of the British Empire in India, were dragged before Parliament to “answer for their crimes”, and when Lord Clive later died, it was widely believed that he’d taken his own life because he was so tormented by his actions.

For Sanghera, these stories complicate the national myth of moral certainty, revealing how Britain has always been divided over its own sense of purpose. “If you control the past, you control the present”, he says, “history is a narrative of the past; a politician is trying to offer a narrative for the future.”

Despite the attention that his work on empire has achieved, Sanghera is reluctant to view himself as an authority; “I don’t feel like I’ve got a lot of influence”, he says. Although he’s advised various establishment bodies, he “doesn’t get any sense they’re listening to me”. He suggests that even those that once did are now backtracking with Reform on the horizon. It’s part of the reason why he distances himself from party politics altogether – he’s joined the Labour Party twice and quit both times, and admits he has probably voted for almost every political party at some point. “I struggle to be part of something”, he says, “I think I’m contrary.” 

For all the noise that surrounds the politics of history, Sanghera seems most animated when talking about writing itself. He’s spent years moving between the genres of journalism, memoir, and history, which he recognises is “not the way to establish your career”. However, he is clear that all forms of writing fundamentally come with the same purpose: trying to understand things for himself. In fact, he suggests one of the most productive things you can do is to put this journalistic lens on your own experiences, as he did when writing his memoir, as it is only this that allows you to confront awkward facts. This curiosity seems to have always guided his work, more than any desire for influence or recognition. “I just like to write the book I want to read… even if no one wants to read your book, at least you’ve learnt something.” He’s just finished writing a book on George Michael and the music of the 1980s and ‘90s, and is currently spending lots of time reading about science – particularly physics and quantum physics. When I jokingly suggest that he might be ticking off degrees one by one – history, politics, music, physics – he laughs then turns serious, “whenever anyone tells me about their degree I almost think I wish I’d done that, cause you just want to learn stuff”. 

His literary influences also reveal a love of blending serious subjects with humour. He cites Salman Rushdie, Evelyn Waugh, Martin Amis, Hilary Mantel, and Jonathon Coe when asked who inspire him. “There’s something about people who write about serious subjects but with comedy that I’m really drawn to,” he says. 

This instinct to remain a perpetual student also shapes his approach to writing. At the Financial Times (FT), and in academia, he was trained to remove himself from the story, “they ban it, they knock it out of you”. It was only later, through his FT column and The Boy With the Topknot, that he began to unlearn this habit: “It taught me to have a voice. It went against all my training, all the academia and everything I’d read.” Finding that voice, he insists, takes time – and persistence. “No one really has a voice in their twenties”, he says, “you have to churn out quite a bit of writing before you get it but once you find your voice, that’s it, you’ve got it, you can’t lose it.”

Sanghera is also an obsessive reviser, a self-confessed tinkerer. He feels there is a question unanswered in “almost everything I’ve ever written”, and suggests that “the writer doesn’t finish the book, they have it taken away from them by their editor”. He describes rewriting individual chapters up to 120 times. Though, he can admit, whilst you technically become better at writing over time, there is a certain charm, accessibility, and innocence that older writing has, that he simply cannot replicate now.

As our conversation turns from process to purpose, I ask whether he thinks about how his work will be remembered. “I think about legacy a lot”, he says, “I’d rather be known in my lifetime… it doesn’t really matter what happens to you once you’re dead.” He’s read enough to know how unpredictable memory can be; writers adored in their time, like Arnold Barnett (whose classic novel The Old Wives’ Tale inspired Sanghera’s Marriage Material) are now rarely read. For Sanghera, that unpredictability appears to be oddly freeing – as he describes, “the world decides for you” when it comes to what you are remembered for. It’s obviously not legacy that motivates him, but curiosity.

What is clearly most important in driving this curiosity is reading. I feel, as with all interviews, that I must ask the classic student journalism question of what advice he would give to students. His answer is unsurprising. Read. “We’ve got a crisis in reading”, he says, “even people who want to be writers don’t read enough.” He compares it to wanting to open a corner shop but never going to Tesco – the idea makes us both laugh but the point is serious. “Read. Read a lot. Read stuff you disagree with. Read sh*t stuff. Read good stuff. Read stuff you don’t quite understand.” This is almost radical advice for somewhere like Oxford, where, for all the endless reading done for our various essays and exams, we rarely approach books with this deliberate curiosity he describes. Our approach is too often with the purpose of ticking yet another book off the reading to-do list, rather than allowing ourselves to fall into the brilliance of a truly good book. For Sanghera, reading and writing are inseparable, and certainly neither are the endpoint: “Almost everything I’ve written, I want to rewrite.”

Top tech deals for students this Black Friday

External Contributor
-
0
Top tech deals for students this Black Friday

Black Friday is a good moment to upgrade your study setup without overspending. If you’re weighing up a new laptop, better audio for classes, or a few accessories to make your day easier, it helps to arrive with a clear shortlist and a budget.

Keep an eye on trusted retailers and certified refurbishers, compare a handful of models, and decide what really supports your coursework before the offers start flying.

Essential study gear worth grabbing

Let’s start with the device you’ll use most. A nimble laptop with an up‑to‑date processor, 16 GB of RAM, and SSD storage will handle notes, research, and multitasking without fuss. If your degree leans on design, engineering or programming, consider a machine with a dedicated graphics card or Apple’s M‑series chips since you’ll gain stability and performance for the long haul. As the Black Friday listings start to surface, shortlisting two or three models helps you compare calmly and avoid impulse buys.

Tablets shine for reading and annotation, so pair one with a stylus and a lightweight keyboard to create a compact workstation for classes and the library. The real advantage is how quickly you can jump between PDFs, slides, and notes that sync across devices, which makes revision feel less cumbersome.

A good monitor and some ergonomic tweaks can change your day-to-day more than you think; a 24–27 inch IPS screen eases eye strain and makes writing or data work calmer. Watch for bundles with stands, compact Bluetooth keyboards, or laptop risers.

Audio, accessories, and smart savings

Silence helps you focus, especially in a busy flat or a crowded library. That is why noise‑cancelling headphones often see meaningful price drops during Black Friday, and they’re a safe bet if you need to block out chatter. Prefer something lighter? True wireless earbuds with a reliable mic are great for seminars and video calls, and they disappear into a pocket when you’re on the move.

Storage and power are the quiet workhorses of a smooth week. An external SSD makes backups fast and painless, while a USB‑C hub fixes the “too few ports” problem on modern laptops. Add a GaN charger, and you’ll carry less without giving up speed.

A backpack with a protected laptop sleeve, cable organisers and sturdy zips won’t grab headlines, but it prevents cracked screens and tangled chargers. When you see a solid model discounted, it’s a practical pick that lasts beyond the academic year.

Plan your buy like a pro

Start with what you truly need, like faster compiling for your code, better colour accuracy for design work, or simply longer battery life for back‑to‑back classes. Processor generation, RAM, storage type and display quality tell you more than any slogan.

Then, stack savings sensibly. Combine student discounts, loyalty points and voucher codes with Black Friday prices. Set price alerts a week early and check a product’s price history to avoid chasing “deals” that aren’t really discounts.

Finally, look at the aftercare. A clear return window, a decent warranty and access to repairs can turn a good price into a smart purchase.

123...2,537Page 1 of 2,537

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 Jamie Ashley