Thursday, May 22, 2025
Blog Page 115

The EU’s AI Act is significant for all of us

Clemmie Read
-
0
The EU’s AI Act is significant for all of us

Oxford students have been no strangers to ChatGPT since its much-hyped launch in late 2022. Squabbles about the ethics of its use in research or essay-writing – balancing the potential for efficiency that it offers with the obvious problem of cheating – has acted somewhat like a microcosm of broader debates about A.I. over the last year. Its applications can be incredibly beneficial (as ‘work-hard-not-smart’ types can attest) but they are matched by risks and problems which, until now, countries worldwide have not been confident enough to regulate. But this is beginning to change; and whether you’re a keen ChatGPT user or not, the regulatory future of A.I. will affect you.

It was certainly a long time coming: the European Union’s much-awaited A.I. Act was agreed in the early hours of Saturday 9th December, after days of marathon trilogues (three-way meetings between the Parliament, the Council and the Commission) which spanned 22-hour sessions at a time, with the occasional break for the legislators to sleep. Critics understandably objected to this essay-crisis approach to one of the most important regulatory advancements of the century. But the regulators were racing to surmount objections from powerful opponents which could have delayed the Act by several years, as both member states and tech companies lobbied to limit the regulation. A landmark agreement was finally reached.

This surreal episode, live-tweeted throughout by those in the room, was itself only the final step in a legislative process which began in 2018, when EU regulators began working on the A.I. Act. Of course, this was long before the introduction of general-purpose A.I. models like ChatGPT, whose launch in November 2022 brought both generative A.I. and fears about its applications into the mainstream. The 2021 draft was torn up and re-written to address these developments. Consequently, the new act claims to be ‘future-proof’; whether or not we believe that laws which could take two years to enforce can govern the unknown developments to come, one thing is certain: the A.I. Act is a huge regulatory landmark. It is the beginning of a governance process that will determine the global future of technology, and the future of our society, altogether.

Oxford itself is at the forefront of these legal and philosophical debates, not only because its researchers pioneer crucial technological advancements, but because the Philosophy Faculty now includes an Institute for the Ethics of A.I., which launched in 2021 to conduct independently research into ethics and governance too often undertaken by the companies themselves. John Tasioulas and Caroline Green of Oxford’s Institute for the Ethics of A.I. explain, the Act “strives to avoid the twin perils of under-regulation (failing to protect rights and other values) and over-regulation (stifling technological innovation and the efficient operation of the single market)” by taking a tiered approach. Different A.I. models will be treated very differently: ‘minimal risk’ applications get a free pass, but ‘general-purpose’ models like ChatGPT will have to provide full transparency about everything, from the content used to train the systems, to cybersecurity measures and energy efficiency.  The use of A.I. for surveillance purposes (using machine vision for facial recognition, monitoring behaviours, and even predicting future behaviours, Minority Report-style) has largely been banned, except when it’s exceptionally required for a member state’s national security. These last two measures provided serious sticking points: law-makers disagreed about how far surveillance measures should go, and how much general-purpose models should be regulated (they were nearly excluded from the regulation altogether). But the result is on the stricter side, taking a strikingly bold position. The hope is that this won’t preclude innovation: EU Commissioner Thierry Breton called it ‘much more than a rulebook – it’s a launch pad for EU start-ups and researchers to lead the global A.I. race’. Only time will tell if this ambition is realistic. 

The road to regulation has been a long and fraught one. This is partly because its progress is so much more fast-moving than democratic legislation can ever be, and partly because of the obvious knowledge deficit. Technological entrepreneurs don’t understand the law, and law-makers don’t understand technology, so each thinks the other is missing the point, and leaves the two at a stalemate. The solution so far has been to let Big Tech just regulate itself – but the various privacy scandals in which the major companies have found themselves over the last decade have shown how little they can be trusted to hold to the rule of law. Think of Facebook’s role in the Cambridge Analytica scandal around the 2016 elections, AT&T’s role in Edward Snowden’s disclosure of the NSA surveillance programmes in 2013, and the antitrust cases (abuses of their market dominance) that Apple, Amazon and Google have all faced in recent months. 

Combine this with the existential worries which have followed the release of general-purpose A.I. models, from fears of deepfakes and job losses to a vision of a future dominated by A.I. overlords, and the need for law-makers to step in is clear. These fears were only exacerbated by the recent chaos at OpenAI, which saw CEO Sam Altman deposed and reinstated within a week as the board divided over the importance of A.I. safety. Earlier this year, a group of AI scientists called for a six-month moratorium on developing the technology while regulation was worked out. This certainly seems like a good idea on paper, but how realistic it is has proved another question. After all, profit-driven entrepreneurs are unlikely to stop thinking or planning for a good-faith pact; and the bureaucracy around regulation, as the five-years-and-counting progress of the A.I. Act makes clear, means it is far more than a six-month process.

Rigorous legislation is needed – this much is no longer in question. Countries have avoided being first to take the jump, fearing both the hit to innovation and the disadvantage to national security that restricting A.I. would create. Not for nothing has it been compared to the nuclear arms race: whatever a nation’s leaders might think of its risks, they are unmistakably more vulnerable without it. After all, protecting jobs is crucial, but if rival superpowers use outlawed A.I. to develop biological weaponry, it could become a moot point. The regulatory advances of the USA and UK remain embryonic compared with the AI Act. The US currently has an A.I. Bill of Rights but is unlikely to go much further given the current political gridlock. Rishi Sunak, meanwhile, somewhat modified his pro-innovation attitude by hosting a headline-grabbing A.I. Summit at Bletchley Park in November 2023, which produced a collective agreement to protect A.I. safety worldwide. But these nascent efforts have been firmly overshadowed by the EU, which has become the first jurisdiction to not just state but legislate. This is the world’s first proper attempt to do so.

It’s no surprise that this approach has come from the EU. Historically, the US’ market-driven foundation has led to a laissez-faire legislative approach which promotes innovation and technological development above all else, while the EU’s rights-driven model prioritises the rights of users, market fairness and upholding democracy over economic progress. This is borne out in recent EU acts, like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which caused a worldwide headache for tech companies and users alike. This was the first proper attempt at protecting data worldwide. Each approach has its pitfalls: the US outstrips the rest of the world in technology, but is arguably responsible for all the dangers that come with it, while the EU protects its citizens far more successfully, but remains on the back foot in terms of what it actually creates. President Macron has publicly attacked the A.I. Act, complaining that “we can decide to regulate much faster and much stronger than our major competitors. But we will regulate things that we will no longer produce or invent. This is never a good idea.” Fears that the EU is becoming an unattractive environment for start-ups are rife, not least because it is far easier for cash-rich incumbent companies to get around the regulations. 

What does this mean for the rest of us? It’s fairly likely that the rest of the world will follow suit: Breton claims that “Europe has positioned itself as a pioneer, understanding the importance of its role as global standard setter”. This acknowledges the so-called ‘Brussels Effect’, whereby EU legislation often becomes global practice, partly because of its ideological influence, and partly because it’s easier for tech companies to comply with EU demands worldwide than to adapt for different jurisdictions; hence Apple’s new iPhone has a standard USB-C charger, not its distinctive lightning adaptor, because of a newly enforced EU law. If the effects of the legislation are detrimental enough to Big Tech, however, this might change, and the EU becomes a strikingly different technological climate to the rest of the world. Even enforcing the regulations is likely to be tricky, given cash-rich tech companies’ abilities to appeal court cases indefinitely (or, indeed, to pay the fines required without much of a hit). There’s a long road ahead, even before we anticipate how A.I. itself might have changed by the time the Act is enforced in 2025, let alone in the decades to come, and how the law might have to change to govern it accordingly. This Act is one of landmark significance, and an encouraging step in the right direction; but it’s only the very first step.

74% of students think Oxford University is not inclusive: EDI at Oxford

Éilis Mathur
-
0
74% of students think Oxford University is not inclusive: EDI at Oxford

Less than ten years ago, Oxford University came under fire for its lack of diversity. The former Minister for Higher Education David Lammy accused the University of “social apartheid” after Freedom of Information requests revealed that nearly one in three Oxford colleges failed to make a single undergraduate offer to a black British A-level student in every year between 2010 and 2015.

Since those remarks, the number of Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) students at Oxford has risen by nearly ten percent. The last seven years have seen an increased University focus on Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) with new targets, new policies, and new committees. The situation has certainly changed, but exactly how much progress has been made? And how much more needs to be done?

Oxford’s EDI policies

All EDI policies and strategies are overseen by Oxford University’s Equality and Diversity Unit (EDU). The Unit is headed by Vernal Scott, who was recently appointed to the role in October after previously leading Diversity and Inclusion for the Essex police. The EDU works to create an inclusive culture and a respectful environment for both students and staff alike. Professor Tim Soutphommasane, the University’s chief diversity officer, told Cherwell: “Our efforts on this are about ensuring we attract and retain the very best students and staff, from all backgrounds and from all parts of the world.” 

The University’s EDI policies are rooted in the 2010 Equality Act, which protects identified groups from discrimination, harassment or victimisation. In accordance with the act, Oxford University holds five Equality Objectives:

  1. Diversify the University’s governance structures
  2. Increase the proportions of women and minority ethnic staff in senior roles
  3. Promote the visibility and inclusion of LGBT+ staff and students
  4. Widen undergraduate access and admissions
  5. Eliminate attainment gaps 

In July 2018, a strategic plan was developed to improve attainment of these objectives over the next five years, but its execution time was extended by an additional year due to pandemic-related delays in funding and resources. 

The Strategic Plan includes 17 commitments and 29 priorities in the themes of education, research, people, engagement and partnership, and resources. Increasing the numbers of students from underrepresented groups, reducing gaps in attainment relating to gender and ethnicity, and achieving a more diverse staffing profile are just a few of the Plan’s aims. 

The achievement of these commitments and priorities has been the responsibility of various committees and bodies, made up of the University’s most senior officers, including Pro-Vice-Chancellors and Proctors. 

Have EDI policies been a success? 

In many ways, Oxford’s EDI policies have achieved a lot. The proportion of admitted UK-domiciled students who identify as BME has risen from 18% to 28%, falling in line with the nationwide student population. 

The makeup of the University’s staff has also diversified. Since 2011, the number of women in the most senior academic grade, Statutory Professor, nearly doubled, and there was a 2% increase in the proportion of BME senior researchers between 2020 and 2022.

The proportion of students from different ethnic groups at other UK universities and at Oxford do mostly line up: 12% of all UK students come from Asian backgrounds and 14% of Oxford students do as well. Much of this progress can be credited to the development access programmes, such as Opportunity Oxford and UNIQ. 

However, there is no doubt that extensive attainment gaps still remain. For example, only 3.3% of Oxford’s undergraduate admissions are of Black African or Black Caribbean heritage, while the nationwide average across all universities is 9%. Furthermore, The Times Good University Guide ranked Oxford as the 13th “whitest university” out of the 24 Russell Group universities. 

The proportion of disabled students at Oxford also continues to lag behind the rest of the country. While 17% of UK students have a disability, only 12.8% of Oxford students do. 

The University’s Equality Objective to increase the presence of women and ethnic minorities in senior roles has only been partially achieved, falling short of its original goals. As of 2022, 10% of academic staff were BME, compared to a target of 15%. Similarly, women only compose 39% of governance structures, which falls short of the 40% to 60% goal. 

While the Strategic Plan has made progress on many of the Equality Objectives – a University Staff experience survey found that 83% of staff felt they were “able to be themselves” at work – some still have a long way to go. The lack of progress on many issues can be explained by difficulties posed by the pandemic and a lack of finance. The progress report in 2019 noted: “Securing funding for planned activities is the major challenge across the Strategic Plan priorities.” 

Some have also wondered whether the disjointed and broad nature of the Plan, with numerous priorities covering issues from student diversity to research investments, complicated its implementation and fulfilment of objectives. 

When asked if the aims of the Strategic Plan were realistic, Professor Soutphommasane told Cherwell: “We are resolved to build on our progress. That is why we are developing a new collegiate University Equality, Diversity and Inclusion strategic plan that will guide the next state of our institutional efforts.” 

What do students think? 

A recent Cherwell survey found that 74% of students do not think Oxford is an inclusive environment. When asked whether the University’s approach to EDI was effective, only 11% voted “yes,” with 53% voting “only partially.” So despite convergence in admissions statistics and near completion of most objectives, overwhelming student opinion suggests Oxford still has a long way to go toward total Equality, Diversity and Inclusion.  

One issue seems to be the lack of engagement with students in the implementation of many EDI policies and commitments. All college JCRs have BME or Ethnic Minority representatives, who might be interested in communicating about and providing feedback on the University’s EDI policies as the spokespeople for the students of colour in their colleges.

The University of Oxford seems to agree. It told Cherwell: “Students are central to the University’s EDI approach and Equality Objectives.” Yet only half of surveyed college representatives had heard of the Equality and Diversity Unit, and none of them said they had received any contact from this committee, which is responsible for fostering an inclusive environment at Oxford. 

One BME representative told Cherwell: “Our work as BAME Reps is often isolating…I receive no dedicated support or resources from the University or my college.”

The LGBTQ+ Society President had a different perspective. She told Cherwell that, although she had once been a harsh critic of the University’s approach to EDI, she has “since worked with them and realised there is a lot of goodwill and desire to do better.” She further stated the EDU helped facilitate three meetings with the VC  which led to tangible results.  

The broader difficulty of achieving a unified policy partly stems from Oxford’s collegiate system. With 39 different colleges that each have their own independent governing body, it often seems impossible  to expect uniform change. 

To combat this, a University Joint Committee on EDI has been established, about which the University told Cherwell: “There are efforts to join-up the work that students and staff are doing across colleges, departments and divisions.”

Over the last decade there has been a concerted effort to improve Oxford’s EDI policies, which has led to undeniable progress. The success of new access schemes and increased attention given to improving this area of University life have led to statistically significant growth in diversity among staff and students. 

However, equality, diversity, and inclusion do not just lie in the numbers. Diversity is a step in the right direction but our investigation confirms that there is still a lot of work to do to make Oxford a fully equal and inclusive place for all. 

Adidas, Auden, and the author: on Zoom with Mark Ford

Olivia Boyle
-
0
Adidas, Auden, and the author: on Zoom with Mark Ford

The emails I exchanged with Mark Ford had the paw prints of a poet: frequent ellipses and the sparing sign-off ‘M’, like our interview, only leaves one wanting more. 

In conversation, his answers were vibrant, and full-bodied. They took us everywhere from a backpacker’s unwitting exchange of Reeboks for ‘tatty Adidas’, to Twitter’s role in the election of Oxford’s Professor of Poetry, to Bob Dylan. 

As podcaster alongside Oxford don, Seamus Perry for the London Review of Books, Ford is a master of both spoken and written criticism. I was interested in his relationship with the two entwined yet vastly different worlds of premeditated essays and riffing conversations. 

So, I asked what label he would give himself – podcaster or poet, academic or author? “They’re all connected in various ways. I don’t really consider myself any one thing foremost except when I’m doing that thing.” At any given moment he might be “writing my book on Thomas Hardy so I feel I’m a Hardy critic” – the app I recorded our conversation on had transcribed that to be “hearty critic”, which would arguably be another fitting label – at another point when “I’m tinkering with a poem, I feel like I’m a poet.”

With such freedom, Ford exists multiform in the ether, that place where podcasts will float forever more. For this reason, writing down his ideas will reign supreme over recording them through the foam of a microphone. Ford related: “writing is my raison d’être. No, I wasn’t put on Earth to write but writing is the thing I find most gratifying. And there’s a sense that something that gets published does exist. And in a library, potentially forever.” Even if the rolling waves of a riffed conversation is fun – especially with someone you’ve been through seminars with as Ford did with Perry – “podcasts will disappear into the ether in however many years time.”

As for the writer, inspiration exists in their mind in the abundance of metaverse podcasts. “[Written literary] criticism you can get going on almost any time. Poetry’s a bit more difficult to access. The process of waiting and getting going on a poem is in the lap of the gods.” Poetry, Ford told me, has its own ether: “it all comes from a dreamy, less professional state of mind.” As such, there is an unparalleled “kick” from the so-decided end of a poem against the soft press of the stop-recording button. 

And, of course, there ain’t no Keats nor Tennyson to rival in the podcasting world. I sense from Ford relief that “you’re always conscious, as a poet, that it’s not as good as ‘Ode to a Nightingale’ or ‘Ulysses’.” But, as he assures me, it doesn’t matter when you’re writing poetry for poetry’s sake. 

If poetry is written for the sake of its words, where does the poet and their biography fit into all of that? To this, Mark Ford spectacularly scrutinises, in awesome succession, the ideas of Paul Muldoon, I.A. Richards, and D.H. Lawrence who all willingly stand for the separation of art from artist. Though, as Lawrence posits, we may not be able to trust the teller, Ford believes in “creating and communicating with a more general audience” which has an enthusiasm for a “contextualised poetic narrative” as opposed to focusing on the “internal patterning” of granular poetic technique. 

Where it all gets a bit psychedelic, then, is when the poet deliberately merges the real and unreal. And Mark Ford has palpable fun with this. “I suppose that most people who enjoy poetry see little point in calling it real or unreal. And they are surely right,” writes John Bayley in the 1962 lecture that Ford referred to as the reason he reads Keats the way he does now. For Ford, sometimes it can be “criticism which is the most powerful”. It can be conflicting perceptions of reality – a critic’s interpretation will never be the same as the poet’s own – which make “experiencing life and literature invigorating, original and fresh.”

But nothing would be as powerful, it seems, as the dubious tea leaves that appeared at the bottom of a bottle of wine shared with strangers  on a train from Barcelona to Madrid. This, as I was informed, is behind his poem ‘Unreal’. 

“Your poem, ‘Unreal’,” I asked incredulously, “was it in fact unreal?”

And, unlike the poems which come to him in his dreams, he said, “No, that one is completely true.”

On this train, “I was 21. I was in a carriage with two guys who were very friendly and gave me some wine to drink. [A few beats…] When I woke up, I was in Madrid and the train had been stopped for a couple of hours. And the weird thing was [though this already seems a bit strange], these people took my new Reeboks and left me with a pair of quite tatty Adidas shoes. So I was padding around Madrid for the next four days trying to get my passport and some money.” 

Much of ‘Unreal’ does take place in Ford’s dream state – just when the tea leaves hit. It is “a catalogue of cities whose name derives from Adidas shoes and I was slightly parodying T.S. Eliot’s use of cities in The Waste Land,” an equally unreal poem. Yet, attaching it to a poet-past makes the poem more real even if that is to recount a state of unreality. You see, you get intriguingly “topsy turvy”, a phrase which Ford made multiple use of throughout the interview.

Just as Ford attended Bayley’s seminars with future co-host, Seamus Perry, these metaphysics must have rung prophetically real. Unreality paves the way to Ford’s current reality. 

Last year, Ford was in the running for Oxford’s Professor of Poetry. It’s apparently a piece of cake: “you just write a brief blurb and then you contact your friends and ask them to vote for you.” Ford modestly forgets to mention that you must have a substantial inventory of Auden (Professor of Poetry 1956)-tier poetry to be nominated. And a relatively small number of enemies to be elected. Ford told me “there were about 300 votes cast for Auden. Now, I think about 900 people vote. But there must have been 100,000 more who might have voted.” I think he leans towards suggesting the position has become about who you know, rather than what. 

Ford said: “It was a lark and it was good for me really. I plotted out the lectures I would have written. I listened to Alice Oswald’s lectures which came from a rigorously, mystically almost, poetic kind of perspective. But I’m an academic, I give lectures on academic subjects and that’s what I feel comfortable talking about.” So all in all, “it would have been fun.”

In the sphere of unreality, I wondered if the incumbent Professor of Poetry, A.E. Stallings’ Twitter activity could have had anything to do with her recent success. Ford, who is not active on social media, proposed that “social media alters much of what gets picked up and becomes current. But, I’m a bit fuddy-duddy that way and I suppose I feel I don’t quite have time for it. But that could be a foolish thing to say because there’s no point in writing lots of things if no one hears about them.” If social media were the only way to get readership, Ford would get involved. For now, it’s not. For now, you can toy with the belief and disbelief, reality and unreality of Mark Ford’s work in libraries and with ‘tatty’ copies passed thoughtfully between friends. 

Mark Ford and Seamus Perry are releasing a new series of podcasts with the London Review of Books on the politics of and political literature later this year.

With enormous thanks to Mark Ford for giving his time for this interview.

Oxford researchers unveil Neptune’s true colour

Selina Chen
-
0
Oxford researchers unveil Neptune’s true colour

A team led by Professor Patrick Irwin of Oxford University’s Department of Physics found that Neptune and Uranus are both pale blue-green, not deep navy blue as is commonly believed. The main purpose of their study, published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, was to explain why Uranus’s colour changes throughout its year.

Scientists have also long been puzzled by why Uranus is greener during its summer and winter but takes on a blue tinge during its spring and autumn. The planet’s spin patterns – with one of its poles pointing toward the Earth and the Sun continuously during its solstices – contributes to differences in its reflectivity.

Through comparing the spectra of Uranus’s poles to its equatorial regions, the Oxford researchers found that poles appear greener during solstices because of a lower concentration of methane and increased reflection from methane ice particles. Their study settles the question of why Uranus’s colour shifts over its 84-year orbit around the Sun.

In order to figure this out, two clashing observations about the colour similarity between Neptune and Uranus had to be sorted out. Irwin said that this endeavour ”opened up a complete rabbit hole for me as I learnt how the eye perceives colour and how sRGB monitors reproduce colour images on a screen.” 

It turns out that photos showing a blue Neptune had been edited to make dark features easier to see, a fact which “became increasingly overlooked with time, and gave rise to a long-standing misunderstanding on what the true colours of these two planets actually are” according to Irwin. 

Rebalancing old images using data from the Hubble Space Telescope and European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope, the researchers found that both ice giants are similar in shade. Compared to Uranus, Neptune is slightly bluer due to “a thinner haze layer.”

When asked about what remains to be discovered about these two planets, Irwin pointed to our inability to explain the overall variation in absolute reflectivity depending on Uranus’s distance from the Sun. However he is hopeful about the new high-precision data from the JWST: “As soon as we’ve figured out the best interpretation of the observations we’ll let everyone know!”

Oxford hospitals declare increased pressure amidst strikes

Emily Henson
-
0
Oxford hospitals declare increased pressure amidst strikes

Oxford’s John Radcliffe Hospital has announced increased levels of pressure in the midst of junior doctor strikes lasting six days. An Operational Pressure Escalation Level (OPEL) 4 has been declared, the highest level on the framework, signalling an increased risk of compromised patient care and safety. 

Junior doctors have taken part in over 30 days of strikes since March 2023, demanding a 35% pay increase. Last month, negotiations broke down between the British Medical Association and the government, leading to a three-day strike in December and the subsequent action this year. The six-day strike is the longest industrial action in NHS history, lasting from the the third to the ninth of January.

Alongside Horton General Hospital, John Radcliffe has asked staff to take steps to ease pressures on services, including discharging patients as soon as they are ready to leave and rescheduling some elective procedures. In line with national aims, accident and emergency departments are being prioritised over non-urgent needs. Chief Operating Officer Sara Randall said: “We are working with our systems partners to ensure that patients who are ready to continue their recovery at home and leave our hospitals are able to do so in a timely manner. This frees up beds for patients who need to be admitted.”

Oxfordshire hospitals have been under increasing strain, with only 62% of A&E patients being admitted, transferred or discharged within the four hour target. Last winter, Oxfordshire went into OPEL 4 for one day, while remaining in OPEL 3 across the season. Ms Randall observed: “As is often the case at this time of year, the Trust is under a lot of pressure with high numbers of patients attending our hospitals and many of those needing to be admitted. Increased attendance at A&E departments, staff shortages, and reduced patient discharge have contributed to the increased pressure, accompanying the industrial action.” 

Ms Randall commented on the strikes: “This industrial action is going to be very challenging for us because the beginning of January is always a particularly busy time for the NHS. We are working hard to ensure the safety of all our patients, and the wellbeing of our staff.

“It is highly likely that waiting times for our urgent and emergency care services will be longer. Our Emergency Department colleagues are working exceptionally hard, and have to prioritise patients who genuinely need emergency care.”

Short-term contracts put Oxford University staff at risk of poverty

Martha Smith
-
0
Short-term contracts put Oxford University staff at risk of poverty

An employment tribunal will be convened in Reading this January to look into problems associated with short-term and casual employment contracts at Oxford University, identified by the UCU (University and College Union) as significant causes of poverty.

The tribunal has been organised in light of a survey conducted in Trinity term of 2023 by the UCU, which later led to an October 2023 report written by the UCU in conjunction with academic staff currently working within the university.  

The report drew attention to the prevalence of poverty among Oxford University’s academic staff employed either by colleges or by the OUDCE (Oxford University Department for Continuing Education) – in the report, hundreds were said to be affected. This high risk of poverty is both caused and compounded by the fact that staff find themselves in a precarious ongoing cycle of short-term job contracts which, for some, has reportedly lasted for decades. 44.9% of those surveyed reported feeling “very bad” about their job security.

The report found that those paid by the hour often have an overall pay which amounts to less than the National Minimum Wage, while those who have a set wage tend to be on “casual” short-term contracts with an income 60% less than the average UK annual household income.

The UCU laid out their aim in writing the report: “First… to raise awareness in Oxford… for the staff employed by the Collegiate University, it specifically aims to produce useful knowledge for local campaigns. Secondly… [the report] is intended for Senior Management at the University and its constituent Colleges.”

A spokesperson for the UCU has stated that, though the subject of the report is largely a systemic issue, employers still have the power to make change.

Oxford academics Rebecca Abrams and Alice Jolly spoke out about the “inappropriate precarious casual contracts for teaching staff” almost a year ago. They have since spoken at the Watford employment tribunal on 16 November 2023. Their complaints will continue to be addressed at the tribunal taking place in January.

The report also refers to the unmanageable workloads faced by academic staff who occupy casualised roles and must juggle multiple roles which “together amount to far more than full-time equivalent hours.” Women, who, according to the survey, are more likely to occupy casual roles, are particularly impacted.

The lack of longer-term contracts helps uphold a lack of diversity at the University, according to the UCU.

An Oxford student told Cherwell: “It is shameful to see reports of these contracts employees are made to suffer. Being a student at this world class institution I want to feel pride in my time here but instead I feel disgusted at how the university treats its staff. Demands for fair working conditions and pay are nothing more than reasonable and I hope the University takes a New Year’s resolution to guarantee this.”

In light of the information released in the Union’s report, a spokesperson for Oxford University has said that the OUDCE is currently in the process of reforming its structure following an external review. Changes to the employment structure of the OUDCE are set to be implemented in the academic year of 2024-2025.

Students in four-star hotels following accommodation construction delays

Éilis Mathur
-
0
Students in four-star hotels following accommodation construction delays

More than 120 students from two Oxford colleges are being housed in four-star hotels following delays in student accommodation construction. 

For over two months, around 100 students in their third year at New College have been staying in the Leonardo Royal Hotel, and this term, 20 St Peter’s Students have been booked into Voco Oxford Spires Hotel. Both colleges pursued this option after delays in construction. St Peter’s College told Cherwell: “The occupation of its new student residential development, Castle Bailey Quad (CBQ), was unavoidably postponed until January 2024 due to supply chain issues.” 

Both New College’s Gradel Quadrangles and St Peter’s College’s Castle Bailey Quad originally had expected completion dates of Summer 2023. 

The Leonardo Royal and Voco Spires hotels have amenities including indoor pools, leisure clubs, spas, and a Marco Pierre White Steakhouse. New College and St Peter’s College have offered the students residing in hotels compensation in the form of gym access, free meals or meal credits, and moving assistance. Transportation vouchers, such as bus passes, have also been provided for students between the city and hotels, which lie one to three miles outside of Oxford center. 

Despite the funding provided by St Peter’s College and the building contractors of New College to finance the hotel rooms, which typically cost £100 to £150 per night, students are still paying rent – albeit at a reduced rate. St Peter’s College told Cherwell: “The College…reduced impacted students’ weekly rent rate over the delay period in compensation for the delay.” This policy proved controversial among New College students since, in a similar situation with Exeter College in 2016, students did not have to pay rent. 

The reaction among students at St Peter’s seemed slightly more positive, and a student told Cherwell that the news of the temporary hotel housing was “received super well” and students even made jokes about “swapping this four-star hotel for a house share in Cowley.” 

This accommodation crisis reflects a broader trend in Oxford of student enrolment outpacing the quantity and affordability of student accommodation. In the last decade, the number of students at the University of Oxford has grown by over four thousand while inflation has increased the cost of renting and construction.

In 2018, a delayed opening of a graduate center at Keble College led to hotel rooms being booked as temporary accommodation for second and third-year students. A similar solution was also suggested by St Catherine’s College’s JCR due to the RAAC (reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete) crisis back in September.  

Talking to The Times, the Warden of New College, Miles Young, acknowledged the desperate need for student accommodation. He pointed out how New College has “sunk dramatically in terms of competitiveness through our inability to house a whole year of undergraduates in college accommodation, when our peers do.” New College has asked benefactors for sums reaching £25,000 per bedroom for a building which will house 94 students. 

As of this term, students at both colleges have been able to move out of hotels and into the newly finished accommodation buildings. St Peter’s College informed Cherwell: “The College has opened the buildings and moved students into their rooms in Castle Bailey Quad as of January 2024.” 

New College’s Gradel Quadrangles has also welcomed in students at the beginning of this term, with a student telling Cherwell: “Yes they have moved into Gradel.” Yet for students who plan to reside in the adjacent New Wareham House, the hotel residence continues. 

50s musicals are making a comeback: Review of Guys and Dolls at The Bridge Theatre

Kiaya Phillips
-
0
50s musicals are making a comeback: Review of Guys and Dolls at The Bridge Theatre

Over the Christmas vacation I was lucky enough to go with my family to see a production of Guys and Dolls, which is currently running at the Bridge theatre, London. Being a musical performance originally released in 1950, I was keen to see how a 2023 style staging of this decades-old play would go down with a modern audience. Having not been to this venue before, I really enjoyed the in-the-round staging design that was both immersive and functional. This theatre is frequently described as “the new globe” (as it actually only opened for productions in 2017) primarily due to this classically associated Shakespearean design and frequent staging of Shakespeare plays on its stage, and I can see why that would be the takeaway from a visit to The Bridge. But, the design does a good job diverting from this label in bringing in the round staging to a more modern audience with its industrial style, open stage floor (where there are tickets available to stand right in the centre of the action) and high-up seats spotted around the peripherals of the rest of the space. For Guys and Dolls, it worked just as well as expected, and although I only had a seated ticket I still felt attached to the play whilst seeing how standing members got to successfully, directly interact with it. 

The set design was expertly done with stagehands dressed as policemen moving audience members about the space to allow the show to continue seamlessly. The actual stage was made up of several large concrete blocks of varying size and length that could come up and down from the ground, creating different pathways and angles for the actors and audience to interact with. It was dynamic and shifting, keeping us looking in several different places at a time, always intriguing us as to where the action would go next. 

This effect was enhanced by the fun and outlandish costume. Eye-catching bright colours kept your gaze, and the large swishing skirts of the women and well tailored suits of the men added to the 50s feel of the piece and worked hand in hand with the dynamic choreography and the respective characterisation of all the roles. 

Being a production full of standout tunes, that I will certainly be blasting from spotify in the oncoming weeks, makes it hard to single out any song that disappointed. However, I can single out a standout moment for me, which came in the second act. Warned by my dad that all the major songs that make the production so iconic were all in the second half, I was eagerly awaiting the oncoming numbers as the interval came to a close. And I was not disappointed, especially when “Sit Down, You’re Rockin’ the Boat” came on. An amazing written song and performed to jazzy perfection, it stole my favourite moment of the show in seconds. Performed by The Voice semi finalist and frequent Broadway star Cedric Neal, he embodied the stage like no other character had yet done with their singing, and he blew me away with his utter vocal power. 

Another favourite included the anthem of female power sung by Celinde Schoenmaker as Sarah and Marisha Wallace as Adelaide, shunning their respective useless male counterparts in musical form. The song, “Marry the man today”, was funny and lighthearted though it emphasised the frustration felt by the characters, and us as invested audience members, in the face of their respective, often incompetent, men. It was a beautiful blend of female voices that was one of the few rare moments that the two women are together in the production. 

If you’re a fan of musicals and like the classic old age feel of anything that comes from the 50s, then you will love this rendition of Abe Burrows and Jo Swerling’s play. Even for the non-typical theatre goer, I can imagine this would be a fun evening for all, even just for the joyous, light hearted, nature of the musical that my dad and I came away having experienced.

Guys and Dolls is running at The Bridge theatre from 3 Mar 2023 – 31 Aug 2024.

Murder is Easy- Review

Hassan Akram
-
0
Murder is Easy- Review

Rating: 3/5

Oxford is no stranger to culture wars. We know how little provocation such wars require, so it’s unsurprising that the BBC’s latest Agatha Christie series, Murder is Easy, has managed within a week of its release to precipitate a full-scale conflict. Director Meenu Gaur’s decision to replace the retired policeman of the novel with a Windrush-generation civil servant has been variously praised (The Guardian) and denounced (The Telegraph) by all the usual suspects. 

In 2024 — uncannily like in 1914 — the main causes of the Great War appear to be: militarism (“woke militance”); alliances (the BBC is said to be allied with the “woke mob”); imperialism (Gaur called the show “an allegorical story about colonialism”); and nationalism (the Daily Mail’s review complained that “nostalgia for Agatha Christie’s Britain… [is] a thought crime”). Art is rarely separable from politics, and it’s quite clear that Murder is Easy’s fiercest critics and admirers are reacting to its sociopolitical stance rather than to its value as a TV show, which deserves to be examined in its own right.

Now, the aim of a detective story is to please. It must provide a puzzle; it must provide a solution; the author or director may embellish this basic framework with comedy, drama, romance, politics or anything else, but should never waver from the central focus of puzzle and solution, because then it would no longer be a detective story. Agatha Christie understood this, and, when you look closely enough, so does the BBC.

The plot isn’t one of Christie’s best (but then, anything would pale beside And Then There Were None or Roger Ackroyd) and it hasn’t translated exceptionally well onto the screen. Quite often it feels convoluted and drawn-out, and it could certainly have been compressed from two episodes into one. Yet the only real test of a detective plot is the solution: is it surprising and does it feel earned? The solution here ticks both boxes and, for that satisfaction alone, the series is worth watching. 

Even if, during one of those dullish few minutes in the middle where nobody’s getting murdered, the plot fails to please, the cast and direction sustain the interest. Christie’s distinct period flavour is reinforced by regular drone shots of a green and pleasant land, country houses, costumes,  slick cars and references to “before the war”.

Then there is the cast. The lead role is played by David Jonsson, who, whether strolling through London or playing on the village sports field, has a solid screen presence. If ever he comes across as bland, that is through no fault of his own but is instead owing to the dryness of the script. Jonsson also shares an obvious chemistry with his fellow investigator, the “averagely observant secretary” Morfydd Clark. Above all, what they have in common is an ability to wear period dress instead of being worn by it. 

Penelope Wilton’s role at the start is initially promising, but she is promptly bumped off and confirmed as a cameo rather than a character. Tom Riley’s Lord Whitfield belongs recognisably to a now-obsolete “type” – the grand rich host of the country-house dinner – and he carries this off with enough of the right accent and mannerisms to be convincing. The best performance, though, comes from Matthew Baynton (fresh from his address at the Oxford Union). He is as charismatic and wild-eyed here as he was in his Horrible Histories days, if slightly more subdued, and his role as a eugenicist doctor is one of the show’s highlights.

Murder is Easy is, on the whole, not the best Agatha Christie adaptation. Nowhere does it match the quick pace, witty script and characters, or deft direction of last year’s Why Didn’t They Ask Evans. Then again, there have certainly been worse adaptations. On Friday evening, in the empty few hours between the end of collections and the start of the Bop, this new show is an easy enough way to pass the time.

China in Africa: Trojan horse or friend in need? (And why the West should worry)

Alexander Still
-
0
China in Africa: Trojan horse or friend in need? (And why the West should worry)

The future belongs to Africa. Its developing economies are increasingly diverse. Its working population is skyrocketing, whilst its natural resources are abundant (especially when it comes to clean energy – think lithium). Soon, its strategic geographical position could see it become the epicentral thread in a web of global trade networks bridging East and West. 

The global economy, meanwhile, needs reignition. Manifold setbacks over the past decade have depressed growth. As the world recovers and seeks to revitalise the flame, Africa – and the promise of its people – will play a central part in lighting it. 

Everybody knows this. Especially China. 

Yet the emphasis remains on development. Only half its infrastructure needs are being met, with the African Development Bank estimating the infrastructure need of Sub-Saharan Africa to exceed US$93 billion annually over the next ten years. 

Consequently, African nations are proactive in seeking foreign aid to help sustain development and improve regional integration by building dams, power-plants, and railways – something China’s media discourse emphasises. As a result, our focus must remain on African agency. For it is African nations that are themselves actively investing in their future.

Yet it is China which, for a long time, has signed the cheques. 

Since the launch of its ‘Going Out’ strategy in 1999, Beijing has invested increasingly in Africa, with direct investment growing more than six-fold to around US$80 billion: in 2019, it invested more than double that of the U.S. To this extent, China has so far monopolised the market for foreign investment. For years, Beijing has urged state-owned enterprises (SOEs) to penetrate local markets, taking advantage of a dynamic new phase of world trade and the hunger of developing regions for investments in infrastructure. Many are uniquely-equipped to meet Africa’s needs, having spent the past two decades gaining experience in developing infrastructure domestically. 

In this sense, China’s involvement represents, in the words of professors Giles Mohan and May Tan-Mullins, a “global realignment of Southern interests”, allowing Beijing to frame its ambitions – whatever they may be – within at least a rhetoric of global leadership and cooperation.

Its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), evolving to become the overarching framework through which China engages with the continent, has seen billions pumped into developing projects such as Ethiopia’s Eastern Industrial Zone (EIZ) – described by the country’s former Prime Minister, Meles Zenawi, as an example of China’s “irreplaceable role” in the Ethiopian economy. The zone is 100% owned and managed by China’s Qiyuan Group.

Reports of corruption are widespread. Working conditions are under increasing scrutiny. Similar projects have been investigated for using special economic zones to side-step U.S. import tariffs. Nevertheless, so long as Chinese investment appears lucrative (and the EIZ has created more than 20,000 new jobs), China will continue to attract nations such as Ethiopia.

The consequence is that Afro-Chinese relations run the risk of becoming dangerously asymmetrical. 

The Cameroonian anthropologist Francis Nyamnjoh used the terms “eating and being eaten” to describe Africa’s vulnerability. Desperate to develop, nations such as Zimbabwe face being ensnared by the “emerging tentacles of…global extractive capitalism”. Zimbabwe’s Congress of Trade has already complained of local industries being undermined, with China’s growing presence leading to “dependency syndrome” in various sectors. Dependency theorists in the West are growing concerned.

So too are its leaders. 

Many in the West see China’s investment as a ‘soft’ means of establishing itself globally. Some even suggest that through projects such as the EIZ, Ethiopia (and elsewhere) may become Chinese “colonies”. This is certainly hyperbole. From Ethiopia’s perspective, claims of “Chinese neo-colonialism” come from “fear in the West of growing [Chinese] influence in Africa”. Often, investment stems from socioeconomic weaknesses back home, with many Chinese workers seeking greater financial opportunities building roads etc.

Regardless, it is important that we recast geopolitical issues in geoeconomic terms, and recognise that those countries investing today in such things as renewable energy-sources may become the dominant geopolitical players tomorrow. 

A good example is lithium. By 2025, Africa’s share of global lithium production is expected to leap from 0.1% to 10.6%. Lithium is crucial to a carbon-free future. It powers everything from electric car batteries to grid-scale energy storage. 

And China has a strangle-hold on the supply-chain. 

Africa’s largest lithium projects are being bought by Chinese SOEs. In April 2022, Arcadia, located in Zimbabwe and one of the world’s biggest lithium projects, was sold to Chinese investors for an 87% share. Benchmark Mineral Intelligence predicts that soon, 90% of Africa’s lithium supply will come from mines owned or partly-owned by Chinese firms. This includes an illicit trade involving tax-avoidance, not to mention allegations of human-rights abuse. For China, however, the speed with which it is able to strike deals seems to be what matters. 

The West, by comparison, is slow, unsurprising given the political risks of investing in potentially inhumane projects, in addition to public discourse surrounding mining. Yet whilst the West talks, China digs. This, compounded by U.S. policies which prioritise free-trade subsidies, threatens to see China’s grip over global supply-chains only grow tighter: Washington currently has no such free-trade agreements with Sub-Saharan Africa.

Many have condemned what John Bolton, former U.S. National Security Advisor, called “the strategic use of debt to hold states in Africa captive to Beijing’s wishes and demands…with the ultimate goal of advancing Chinese global dominance.” In Kenya (which owes US$6.83 billion in China loans), debt distress is a genuine concern.

Yet if China can be accused of laying ‘debt-traps’, so too could the West: interest rates on loans from private lenders in the West are almost double those on Chinese loans. Likewise, whilst the same cannot be said for BRI projects in places such as Sri Lanka, China shows no inclination of seizing assets off the back of defaults in Africa. Some at the Africa Policy Institute in Nairobi even speak of “silencing the narrative” on debt-traps being “peddled by the West.”

In truth, those such as President Ruto blame the entire global financial system for failing to respond to the needs of emerging economies.

The fact remains that China’s way of doing things has, in the eyes of many Africans, worked, with many viewing BRI projects in a positive light. How else are we to explain the enthusiasm of everyday Kenyans such as Ms Echesa, who in referring to Kenya’s Standard Gauge Railway advocated “[further] sacrifice to pay the debt and get more for such [BRI] projects”. 

For many African nations, Chinese loans appear more conducive to longer-term development. Moreover, unlike the IMF’s, they aren’t conditional on reform – a selling-point Xi Jinping emphasises. “We have a high degree of agency,” Ethiopia’s deputy economic commissioner has been quoted as saying, “yet Western countries try and advise us about what our…law should be.” 

Rapid investment in infrastructure can also help bolster the legitimacy of ruling regimes, and it is little surprise that the majority of support comes from ‘upstairs’ – that is, political élites.

The ‘downstairs’ view is often very different. 

Nevertheless, for African governments desperate to develop, China represents a viable way forward.

The question, therefore, is how the West makes sense of all this – and more importantly, how it responds. Since 2022, both the G7’s Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment and the E.U.’s Global Gateway have, between them, promised US$600 billion in investments. With domestic infrastructure dead in the water (HS2, for example), justifying this will prove difficult. Even if its effectiveness is stymied by poor risk management, China has a massive head-start. 

Perhaps the threat is overblown. After all, China’s “grand-strategy” at times seems incoherent, or at least complicated by competing internal interests. What matters is how Africa chooses to move forward: how it seeks to foster greater regional trade, and integrate national markets into the global supply chain. As one Ethiopian official put it: “We should play the East…and West to our advantage.” For the West, however, China’s head-start must seem rather worrying.

1...114115116...2,498Page 115 of 2,498

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by James Ashley