Tuesday, May 13, 2025
Blog Page 21

Abolishing tuition fees would be a middle class cash grab

Oscar Reynolds
-
0
Abolishing tuition fees would be a middle class cash grab

After the announcement of a modest increase in tuition fees last November, calls for their abolition were once again heard. But scrapping tuition fees would imperil the quality of British universities, do little to make university more affordable, and be socially unjust.

Economically, the British (excluding Scotland, given its different approach to tuition fees) student loan system is the best of both worlds. As the Financial Times journalist Martin Wolf has pointed out, European countries that primarily fund universities via taxation (such as France or Germany) tend to spend a smaller share of GDP on higher education than countries that rely on tuition fees (such as Canada, the US, or the UK). Given how British public services are faring (even as tax take is at a 70+ year high), a switch to state funded higher-education may result in universities receiving inadequate funding.

On the other hand, a system in which individuals borrow from the market saddles those who financially gain the least from university with the highest debt, as they cannot pay it off. Without collateral, banks demand stringent conditions, for instance American restrictions on discharging student loans in bankruptcy. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) estimates that (under the current, post 2023, system) students will repay on average 1.85% of their lifetime earnings, not an unreasonable amount. Only those who earn enough to pay do so. The recent increase in fees would only affect the estimated 65% of students who will earn enough to not have their debt written off. The British loan system is therefore a good compromise, avoiding the pitfalls of public funding but protecting students from the vicissitudes of market lending.

But more importantly, moving away from tuition fees would not be socially just either. Graduates earn more than non-graduates, so abolishing tuition fees would benefit a better-off group at the expense of everyone else. The IFS estimates that, at age 25, one in seven people do not have good GCSEs (grade C (or equivalent) or above). This group would receive virtually nothing from reducing tuition fees but would face the additional taxes and/or cuts to public services that would fund them.

This points to a limitation in using university for social mobility: much is set by age 16, before higher education can make any difference. The IFS notes that “only 8% of young people who were not meeting expectations in reading, writing and maths at the end of primary school went on to achieve pass grades in GCSE English and maths”. We would better tackle inequality by increasing funding to primary and secondary education, before irreversible disadvantages set in. Using tax revenue to reduce tuition fees instead of this would be a middle class cash grab.

The options for raising revenue to pay for state-subsidised higher education look poor. Alongside raising a larger amount of tax than for decades, the British tax system is notoriously complex compared to peers. Some have hoped that a wealth tax might solve the problem, but studies and commentary on a British annual wealth tax have been less than lukewarm and wealth taxes elsewhere have had a poor run.

Britain was one of the hardest-hit countries in bond market convulsions at the start of this year, with the 10-year bond yield reaching its highest since 2008; the 2024 Autumn Budget forecast a debt servicing bill of £126 billion in 2025-26, more than the defence budget. Increasing public borrowing to fund tuition is not a realistic option (and borrowing to fund day-to-day spending is anyway unsustainable). Regardless of whether we believe the UK can realistically raise the funds, are there better ways to spend the additional budget than on abolishing a just and effective system? The rise in British child poverty, among other problems, might suggest so.

Critics of the current system are right to highlight the problem of insufficient maintenance loans. Indeed, the Department for Education’s “Student Income and Expenditure Survey 2021 to 2022” reported that mean full-time student expenditure is more than the maximum (outside of London) maintenance loan, plainly putting poorer students at a disadvantage. However, while maintenance loan amounts do present a very real challenge to poorer students, tuition fees do not: British students do not have to pay them before studying and might never pay them back in full. While the idea of a “student loan” and headline fees would understandably worry an 18 year old unfamiliar with the system, better information about the costs and repayment process would be a vastly more efficient manner with which to tackle this concern compared to scrapping fees.

None of this implies that we should endorse an anti-intellectual populism which sees university education as profligate and unnecessary. We all benefit when everyone, no matter their background, has access to education and is able to put their talent to the best use possible. The modern world would not function if it was full of either graduates or non-graduates. More importantly, education and the pursuit of knowledge are things which we ought to promote and treasure: they make us human. But we must also be clear-eyed about who benefits financially from university education. Abolishing fees would bring little of the beauty of knowledge to those without good GCSEs. It would harm students, the taxpayer, and the goal of equality.

Have an opinion on the points raised in this article? Send us a 150-word letter at [email protected] and see your response in our next print or online.

Oxford Union would ‘cancel cancel culture’

Arina Makarina
-
0
Oxford Union would ‘cancel cancel culture’

In Thursday night’s debate, the Oxford Union voted in favour of the motion “This House Would Cancel Cancel Culture”, with 144 members voting for the motion, 144 members voting against, and the tie-breaking vote cast by Union President Israr Khan. 

The debate kicked off with Chief of Staff Siddhant Nagrath – in favour of the proposition – mockingly noting that his opposition, Rosalie Chapman, has “an extra knack for cancelling the Union”. Nagrath made a case for “debate, dialogue, discussion”. He argued that cancel culture is “mob mentality” rather than accountability, which blocks beneficial ideas.

He was followed by Chair of Consultative Committee Daniyal Vemuri who started by ‘roasting’ Nagrath for taking his “hack-ginity” as part of his pursuit of presidency in Michaelmas. Vemuri claimed that cancel culture is “in principle with free speech” and necessary for holding each other accountable. He referred to John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle, arguing that speech can have harmful effects. He concluded with the statement, “free speech maniacs, please go ahead and cancel me”.

Dr Naomi Wolf, an American writer, self-proclaimed “feminist icon”, journalist, and vaccine-denier (this latter past-time wasn’t advertised in the term card) then argued in favour of the statement by listing statistics that supposedly demonstrated a link between the COVID-19 vaccines and infertility. She declared that her “cancellation” was an attempt to “silence” her. Looking up at the balcony, she continued to argue that many thinkers (Socrates, John Milton, Thomas Paine – the list went on) were themselves cancelled for their beliefs at the time. 

The debate continued with the opposition speaker and Treasurer-elect Rosalie Chapman. She spoke in support of the victims and marginalised communities that themselves were “cancelled” by dominant powers. Chapman endorsed cancel culture as a sign of social progress, arguing that the racial slurs that “terrorised communities” still have inflammatory and harmful connotations. She later mentioned two Andrews, Prince and Tate, that haven’t been held accountable for their harassment of women and “cancelled”. Chapman finished by saying that “speech is only truly free for those in positions of power.”

Political commentator Dave Ruben spoke next for the proposition, stating that “free speech is literally his favourite thing to do”. He argued that people should be able to say things to each other’s face and agree to disagree without the fear of being silenced by a “weaponised mob”– Wolf nodded sadly the whole time. “Words are words, and you should have learned it in fourth grade.” 

Ernest Owens, an award-winning journalist speaking against the statement, opened his speech by saying “if words do not matter, why are we here?”. He argued that speech used by criminals can have detrimental effects and those who claim otherwise are “intellectually dishonest”. Owens used Mein Kampf as an example of when something should be cancelled; an audience member asked for a point of information on this, and Owens responded “we are not going to deny holocaust in my time here” and that “there was a time when people that look like you would ‘cancel’ me”. Owens noted that cancel culture is only disliked by people like Trump because “it’s used to push back for rights”.

The final speaker for the proposition was Union Director of Strategy Eeshani Bendale, who spoke against cancel culture as a  “pervasive social phenomenon”, which stops people from learning from their mistakes. Bendale pointed out that the consequences of cancel culture are harmful, regrettable and often irreversible, and that it is not the way to achieve accountability.

The closing speaker of the evening was human rights activist Peter Tatchell. He defined cancel culture as an “an act of withdrawing support from an individual, organisation, or regime” for their actions. Tatchell conceded that sometimes cancel culture has gone too far, but the motion would reject all forms of cancel culture, which is wrong. Cancelling oil companies, dictators, war criminals has a “moral and ethical purpose”, and cancelling cancel culture would result in “betrayal of human rights”.

Before the main debate began, the chamber voted against the motion “This house supports the break up between Europe and the US”. The discussion circled around the Western world, human rights, Russia, Ukraine and Trump. An elected committee member, accompanied by eager claps, argued against the motion and suggested returning the original US colonies to “Britannia”, arguing that the current US government lacks “King Charles’ strong hand”. 

The emergency debate was followed by the signing ceremony of six scholarships for students from underprivileged backgrounds from Pakistan in memory of former Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto, who was also the first woman elected to the head of a democratic government in a Muslim-majority country. 

This was followed by Rosalie Chapman’s proposition to establish the role of sexual violence officer. The motion passed unanimously except for one loud ‘nay’ from a member.

Much ado about funding: Financing Oxford student theatre

Lilly Law
-
0
Much ado about funding: Financing Oxford student theatre

Last term, I performed in my first show at Oxford University, and I couldn’t stop talking about it. Everyone I knew was subjected to my monologues about rehearsals and costumes and casting, and most of my friends met this with remarkable patience. One friend of mine was also in a play, and we ended up trading notes on our experiences. 

Both shows were Oxford student theatre, but mine was Shakespeare and hers was contemporary. The differences didn’t end there. I had no idea of the budget for mine – all I knew was we had enough for frequent snack runs during rehearsals, and for very nice drinks at the cast party. My friend knew all too well the state of her show’s finances. Instead of discussing our acting choices, I heard about the fundraising, production, and marketing woes befalling her show. And I wondered which one of our experiences was more common.

At first glance, it seemed like hers. Over half of respondents to a survey on Oxford student theatre funding stated that the budgets of the shows in which they had participated were moderately low (Figure 1). They cited a “long confusing process” to secure funding, loans that were “daylight robbery”, and “fighting over limited funding”. 

There are several archetypical budgets. The Oxford University Drama Officer, Noah Wild, encourages producers not to exceed a breakeven percentage of 60% in their budgets, meaning that total expenditure, generally, should not exceed 60% of their ticket sales. As a result, there are differing budgets for different venues. Shows at the Burton Taylor Studio (“the BT”) are unlikely to exceed £720. Shows at the Michael Pilch Studio have a ceiling of around £1,500. At the Keble O’Reilly, it’s around £3,500. And at the Oxford Playhouse, where the most “professional” productions are performed, the budgets will stretch to £24,000. 

The ways that budget impacted the production itself were myriad. Most reported technical limitations: one show had to choose between the entire cast having mics, or none of them, and could not afford the former. Practical effects would be limited to Playhouse shows, notorious for their expense, and the trade-off for elaborate costumes would often be a threadbare set and lighting.

Even before design was considered, a production’s budget impacted far more fundamental aspects, like which show would be put on at all. Shakespeare can seem endemic in student theatre (this term alone has King Lear, Richard II, Romeo & Juliet, and The Merchant of Venice being performed in various venues), but there is a strong financial incentive. Since they are all in the public domain, there is no estate to contact, no stipulations to abide by, and no rights to purchase.

For contemporary theatre, particularly for small-scale productions, rights can take up almost half of the budget, in some cases costing more than venue hire. Translated scripts prove even more difficult, since the copyright attaches to the translation, as well as the original. Even plays written centuries ago may require budget allocations for rights, because the translation is not in the public domain. For one respondent, the cost of licensing pre-existing licenses was so much that they were translating the play from Italian themselves.

Funding Oxford drama

There are two primary forms of funding for Oxford student theatre: grants and loans. Grants can come from JCRs, college societies, and the Cameron Mackintosh Drama Fund (CMDF), while the Oxford University Dramatic Society (OUDS) offers pro-rata loans. Productions that receive these loans must pay back the amount they borrowed plus a share of the profits; a loan worth 25% of the budget would be repaid with the amount itself and 25% of the profits. One hundred per cent of the respondents stated that they had used JCR or MCR funding in their productions, and just under three-quarters used OUDS loans or CMDF grants (Figure 2).

Grants and loans are not the only dividing lines for funding sources. OUDS and the CMDF are drama-specific entities. As an entity created to fund student drama, the CMDF takes an interest in ascertaining how best they can help  beyond the bare provision of grants. The University Drama Officer exists to facilitate and support student theatre, and to liaise between production companies and the CMDF. In service of this, he has introduced numerous changes in order to make funding more accessible. This term, he is running production workshops to help first-time producers make funding bids. Additionally, he advises bidders on the best way to structure their budget. The next innovation will be a requirement for all shows receiving CMDF funding to submit a financial report at the end of their production, so that the Fund can better see which areas to aid.

Similarly, the Treasurer of OUDS, Chess Nightingale, has been closely involved in ensuring as many production companies as possible secure funding. Nightingale circulates a funding provocation form each term, when bids for theatres open, advising how best to structure the form to ensure acceptance. Reels on the OUDS Instagram are aimed at debunking common myths, and a new website is currently in development to better convey key information like deadlines and expected awards. She stated that OUDS “rarely reject applications” and never “purely on technicalities”. 

In contrast, JCRs and MCRs are not designed with the purpose of funding student drama, which can lead to some issues. They have other priorities, and therefore may be more likely to refuse or to limit the amount allocated. On average, they contribute between £50 and £200, depending on the number of students from that college involved in the production.The utility of JCR funding will also depend on the colleges making up the production team and the actors, since wildly different levels of funds exist between each. 

Some colleges have their own arts societies, but they may also have a more convoluted method of securing funding. For example, the Brazen Arts Fund (Brasenose) is unaffiliated with the JCR, and will only reimburse receipts, limiting the extent to which they can be used in the development of a show. College drama societies may also introduce stipulations, such as the proportion of students from that college who must be in the performance, or for a committee member to be in the production team.

Still, it is relatively simple, administratively, to request funding from JCRs, and such funding is a well-known source. The nature of their grants means that all of the profit from a show can be retained, and potentially reinvested into the next. This is unlikely to cover a full production, being more effective as an ad-hoc supplement.

The less centralised structure of Oxford student theatre is partly a result of abundant sources of funding. At other universities, like Newcastle, LSE, and York, there is a central dramatic society, funded by ticket sales, membership fees, and the Student Union. The numerous external sources of funding for Oxford drama limit the need for centralisation.

While the production companies in Oxford are affiliated with OUDS, they are autonomous entities, which allows them the freedom to put on whatever show they wish. But this autonomy goes both ways. If a company doesn’t have a knowledgeable producer or an experienced stage manager, there are no guardrails. As a result, significant polarisation is possible between the resources and expertise of prominent companies with a strong track record, compared to smaller, first-time companies. The availability of central funding limits the disparity here somewhat – the alternative of JCR funding is once again dependent on the composition of the production company. One respondent identified tension from different companies “fighting over limited funding”, but without OUDS and the CMDF, such fighting would only intensify. 

Audience experience 

The budget of a play didn’t make a considerable difference to the audience members’ enjoyment. When asked whether they enjoyed watching larger scale or smaller scale performances, the vast majority stated that “it depends” on a far wider variety of factors. Only one person had a preference at all, and that was for smaller shows, because “they often have more time and love put into them”. For them, Playhouse shows, with budgets of over £20,000, had never been “anything better than just fine.”

Among the rest of the respondents, one criterion stood out: how well a show knew what it wanted to be. The only relevance of the budget was whether it was “in line with ambitions”. As a result, there was something of an expectation gap between different venues. Those at the Playhouse, which signified a higher budget, brought higher expectations. Respondents admired the “spectacles” that could be created, and their potential to be “impressive, exciting, and immersive”. The flipside of this was a lack of risk in terms of content. The need to break even, when that number is in the tens of thousands, meant that high budget shows tended to stick to established work that would bring in an audience. No-one disputed the technical marvel that could be produced with a larger budget. But several remarked that, with higher expectations set, there was a greater risk of falling short. 

 With a lower amount needed to break even, smaller shows could take more risks, and the more basic set design meant an unflinching focus on the performers themselves. Respondents enjoyed smaller venue shows for “intense moments”, “subtle emotions”, and “real gems of new writing”. In both cases, the quality of the show to the audience was not tied to the budget, because they knew to expect different things from different productions. “Quality drama” above all, was the most important consideration. That isn’t necessarily guaranteed by money. 

Funding from an actor’s perspective

In terms of ideal productions in which to participate, opinion was more divided. Over a quarter preferred larger-budget productions, although it still depended on other factors for half. The throughline for those preferring larger productions was a sense of security. The necessary resources were already in place, so the actors could focus on what they were doing in the play, rather than worrying about what was going on backstage.

In particular, the presence of “extra” features made a difference, like intimacy direction and choreography. Intimacy direction is a recent, fought-for inclusion to OUDS, and still remains difficult budgetarily. Wild estimated that a significantly discounted professional intimacy director was around £450 a day; more than it costs to hire the BT. One interviewee spoke of having a student intimacy director, who was not involved in rehearsals, and only came on the day of the show to check the entire production. The lack of thoroughness and organisation contributed to a feeling of discomfort, impacting the actors’ enjoyment of the play. 

“Professional” was often used to describe better-funded plays. Whether this is guaranteed depends on how you view professionalism. Onstage, a larger budget goes a long way to make a show appear professional, with a cohesive set design, fantastic practical effects, and the lack of obviously borrowed props or costumes. One respondent talked of the “OUTTS chair” – a style of prop that you’d instantly recognise if you’d ever been involved in a play. The immersion for the audience, and the actors, is more likely to be secured with these design considerations, meaning that funding may be important for a more professional production.

But there is another sense of professionalism that cannot so easily be seen from the stalls. Conduct and organisation backstage impacts the experience of everyone involved in the production, and this depends on the cohesion of the cast and crew, not the set, which is far more difficult to secure with money alone. Tensions may be lessened when there is a sufficient budget, but a dedicated production crew, a well-equipped producer, and a welfare officer who knows that their role goes beyond providing snacks are no less necessary. Improving comfort backstage is not necessarily a question of more money, but of a more purposeful approach to putting on a show. That’s something that can only really be built from experience.

The opportunities to build this experience in student theatre are nearly unparalleled in Oxford. Only Cambridge was brought up as a potential competitor. One respondent, who graduated in 2023, explained the sharp contrasts of her experiences with student theatre at Oxford and at her subsequent university. There was “almost no funding”, leaving them reliant on ticket sales and often suffering losses, making musicals increasingly unsustainable. The variety was limited, having to “carefully… pick shows that will bring in a big audience in order to make our money back”. There were less direct comparisons too – the tech resources available from the Oxford University Technical Theatre Society (OUTTS) are discounted compared to commercial rates, and the CMDF pays for the electricity in the BT.

Oxford student theatre’s variety is its strength. It allows for shows that are new, experimental, and genuinely exciting, while also creating masterpieces of technical skill that allow actors and crew alike to develop their abilities. The money available ensures such an assortment can be performed, but equally important is how well the cast and crew work together. If funding remains accessible to all, as OUDS and the CMDF are working to ensure, then the show will always go on.

Oxford City Council rejects publication of air quality data

Charlie Bailey
-
0
Oxford City Council rejects publication of air quality data

A motion for the publication of data about air quality in the proposed areas for the expansion of Zero Emission Zone (ZEZ) was rejected by the Oxford City Council on Monday 27th January. 

David Henwood, a councillor from the Oxford Independent Alliance, motioned for the City Council to publish a supplement to the 2023 Air Quality Annual Status report to decide whether the planned £5.2 million expansion of the ZEZ remains “objectively justified”. He argued that the report would provide greater public knowledge of nitrogen dioxide levels. The Council’s climate policy previously faced scrutiny after it suspended a traffic filter trial, blaming the Botley Road closure. 

Oxford has been a designated Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) for nitrogen dioxide since 2010. It is the responsibility of local authorities to declare themselves an AQMA if they believe air quality standards will not be met by relevant deadlines.

Oxford’s Zero Emission Zone was introduced in February 2022 by the County Council, covering central roads such as Cornmarket Street and Ship Street. Motorists driving petrol and diesel vehicles can incur charges varying from £2 to £10 if they enter the zone between 7am and 7pm. Its planned 2026 expansion would cover a much larger area including parts of Jericho and streets near Worcester, Magdalen, and Merton colleges. 

Members of the Independent Oxford Alliance, Oxford Independence Group and Real Independents voted to support the motion. During the last local election, members of these independent groups campaigned to remove the ZEZ. 

The motion was voted against by every Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green councillor. Chris Smowdon, Leader of the Liberal Democrat group on Oxford City Council expressed concern at the motion’s attempt to question the ZEZ’s expansion, describing it as an “attempted gotcha” which failed to acknowledge that cars emit harmful chemicals other than nitrogen dioxide, and that even if only a small level of nitrogen dioxide was found in the extended area, it would still be hazardous. 

Protestors holding banners that read “Climate Policy Starts at Home”, “Think Global Act Local” and “There Is No Planet B” entered the public gallery as Henwood’s motion was introduced. Josie Procter, who organised the protest, expressed concern with Henwood’s motion saying: “a recent uptick in commentary from elected councillors…seems to ignore the very real current climate emergency, despite both city and county councils making climate emergency declarations as long ago as 2019.” 

Since the full council meeting on 27th January, Oxford City Council have made public a Source Apportionment Study demonstrating which pollution sources in Oxford contribute most to air pollution levels. It aims to use data on both nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter levels – emitted by petrol and diesel cars – to identify the necessary reduction in pollutant emissions to achieve the Council’s target. 

The data from across Oxford shows that road transport remains the largest contributor to air pollution, accounting for 32% of total NOx – a combination of nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide – emissions. The percentage of road transport emissions contributed by buses has decreased by 28% since the last Source Apportionment Report, due to the introduction of 159 electric buses in January 2025 under the ZEBRA scheme.

Annual mean nitrogen dioxide levels across Oxford decreased by 18% between 2021 and 2023, meaning they have stayed within the legal limit.  According to a City Council press release, Oxford is currently in compliance with the UK’s legal limit for nitrogen dioxide. 
Cherwell have contacted Councillor David Henwood and Councillor Chris Jarvis for comment.

The Goat Review: ‘raw, absurdist, and honest’

Michelle Jiang
-
0
The Goat Review: ‘raw, absurdist, and honest’

Clarendon Productions brings The Goat, or Who is Sylvia? (Edward Albee) to the Michael Pilch studio, painfully, humorously, and soulfully. Seated in the round, the audience is gifted a fly-on-the-wall experience in the exclusivity of a family dining room. It feels intrusive to be here, pressed up against bedsheets hung up around the studio, cloaking both actor and audience in the private affair. 

The set (Lucas Angeli, Vita Hamilton, Fraser Gilliat, George Vyvyan) feels distantly familiar. Upon the wooden dining table at the centre, newspapers and books are strewn carelessly, and a vase of seasonal flowers is displayed proudly alongside half-enjoyed cups of tea, glasses of water, and a small dish of peanuts. Warm lampshades on side-tables punctuate the rows of audience, and a couple of bookshelves neighbour the doors.

Honor Thompson plays Stevie, an affluent suburban wife. Sitting amidst the audience in the comfort of her tastefully curated home, she lights up upon the entrance of her husband, Martin (Rob Wolfreys). They joke and they touch, effortless and unsparing in their affections. Wolfreys portrays Martin, a 50 year-old architect at the summit of his career, concealing a hauntingly transgressive secret. He has fallen in love with a goat, Sylvia, the partner of his emotional and sexual affair. 

The play begins with Martin struggling with his memory in conversation with his wife. Shortly after, the scene introduces the family’s oldest friend, Ross (Luke Bannister), who arrives to interview Martin on his latest success. Here, Martin wrestles with distractedness and verbal incoherence, much to the frustration of his friend, and is soon pressured to reveal the source of his anxiety: he is sleeping with a goat. Bannister consistently and impressively harmonises stunned disgust with fierce loyalty in his performance of Ross; what begins with an apparent sentiment of pride in being the one in whom Martin confides, quickly transforms into stark repulsion and despair, his ‘head-in-hands’ disposition enmeshed skilfully with ‘tongue-in-cheek’ farce.

While Martin’s memory and emotional wellbeing seem spotted, his demeanour remains largely unfazed. There’s some sort of honest assurance coursing through his despondency, which Wolfreys conveys impeccably. His speech is erratic and disjointed; it’s annoying and worrying, simultaneously igniting and disrupting the fast pace of the performance. He shares confessionally with a kind of earnest retrieval that is truly rare to see on stage: you’re moved to sympathy, however disturbing the substance of his story.

Thompson’s commitment to Albee’s dry, absurdist humour, while equally breaking our hearts with candid vulnerability, is sincerely remarkable. Highly intelligent and admirably composed, Stevie is beautifully embodied by Thompson’s subtle physicality and tentativeness. Her flair for storytelling, beyond the story at hand, through something even as delicate as the way that she looks at her husband, enriches the performance entirely. Unthinkable shame meets once-pride; in one breath, “you goat-fucker, you love of my life” is delivered as an outcry and felt like a knife. Thompson’s portrayal of Stevie is arresting and unforgettable.

Euan Elliott offers an exceptional performance of Billy, their 17 year-old son. Wide-eyed, wounded, bewildered, and thoroughly unsettled, Elliott perfectly captures the nature of this mournful and confused teenager, whose world is destroyed at the cusp of his making sense of it. He deftly balances instances of appalled outburst with quiet resignation: the indignant, forceful voice of an almost-man contrasted shatteringly with the scared confessions of a little kid. There is an endearing clumsiness to his activity, from his startled posture, to his feigned bravery in confrontation, to the way he lingers awkwardly by the door.

For me, underpinning the play were the occurrences which happened only a couple of times, easily missable given the pace of the performance, yet strikingly essential. In the middle of, for example, a shouting match between husband and wife, of tumultuous discovery or crippling revelation, there would be on occasion a moment that feels like both characters step outside of staring at the devastation to ‘see’ one another. “Very good, by the way”, says Martin as his wife cleverly finishes a singular sentence that shreds him to pieces. Neither pausing to register his comment, nor exploding in enraged response, Stevie replies simply: “Thanks”. Pedantic language games and snide grammar corrections litter the play’s dialogue. We see that their marriage has worked seamlessly for 22 years because what goes beyond love is reciprocal knowledge and timeless playfulness. For Wolfreys and Thompson to convey a kind of intimate mutuality that is so instinctive and unaffected, and, as an audience member, to watch two people on stage genuinely know one another in the purest and most transparent form, even despite the majority of the play navigating the ruin of this knowledge, is extraordinary. It feels reductive to call it ‘chemistry’.

Vita Hamilton’s debut directorial project has blown us all away, with her careful balance of raw, absurdist humour and salient honesty. Hamilton’s crafting of the play is masterful: skin-to-skin and suffocating, yet eliciting quiet relief.

The show feels like a drawn-out heartbreak, intermittently broken by eruptions of incredulous laughter. You burst out laughing while the tears are still streaming down your face. Quick, astute dialogue and fluid, familial movement traverses erotic struggle, personal dysfunction, and relational carnage. The Goat leaves a lasting impression. A catastrophe of the home and the heart.

The Busy Body Review: ‘Theatre of the Real’

Lara Machado
-
0
The Busy Body Review: ‘Theatre of the Real’

The Busy Body (1709) is one of the many plays written by Susanna Centlivre. Centlivre is often referred to by critics and historians as the most successful female writer on the 18th-century English stage and yet, to most of us, her name means nothing. The times that The Busy Body has been performed in the past hundred years can be counted with one hand. 

The team at Oxford’s Creation Theatre, in partnership with Orange Tree Theatre, are here to revive Centlivre’s play for 21st century audiences. With only four days of rehearsal, little-to-no staging and performing script-in-hand at a non-theatrical venue (St. Hugh’s Mordan Hall), the cast and crew of The Busy Body had no easy task and yet, there was hardly one person in the room not taken by the irresistible charm of both the text and the performance. 

Centlivre’s play is both hilarious and biting. Following two young women and their attempts at escaping controlling and abusive guardians, The Busy Body has a lot to say not only about the lack of female freedom but also about the contractual nature of personal relationships when everything from marriage to guardianship revolves around money and legal documents. Introducing an element of chaos to the plot, is the character of Marplot – the titular “busy body” – whose sole aim is to find out his friends’ secrets in order to participate in their plots. Unfortunately for his friends, Marplot is a walking disaster and the more he tries to help, the more problems he causes. 

When I found out this was going to be a script-in-hand performance I was slightly sceptical of the barrier that that would potentially raise between actors and audience. However, the performance lived precisely off of audience interaction. Zak Ghazi-Tobarti’s hilarious Marplot, jogs through the audience in quest for secrets and at one moment makes to turn into one of the audience rows, chiding the elderly couple sitting at the end for blocking his path: “This is a path!” At another point, the actor loses his place in the script and turns it into one of the funniest moments in the performance by announcing: “ I am going to… I am going to read the script!”. 

All jokes aside, it is clear that the creative team embraced pushing the boundaries of theatrical etiquette and our relationship with staged performance, all while giving the audience a good laugh. A key example of this is when Boadicea Ricketts’ energetic Miranda in a classic aside asks the audience: “What should I do?”, and when faced with no reply insists: “No, really, what should I do?” Yes, it is a comedic moment but it also highlights the strange trope of having characters request advice to a nameless mass that never replies. There is also no backstage, so when characters exit they merely sit down around the stage area or stand behind the audience. Although this is obviously due to the limitations of the space, it also constantly reminds us that we are watching a piece of theatre. Similarly, at one point, Kevin Golding’s relentlessly strict Sir Jealous Traffik, is supposed to beat Marplot. He flings his script at Marplot and one of the actors stands up from their seat and bangs two bats together to make a slap-like noise. Again, this is undoubtedly a decision employed due to lack of time. However, it is interesting because it deconstructs the principles of a ‘realist’ stage slap and exposes the technique behind it. This constant exposure of the motions of theatrical performance is key because it parallels the play’s own exposure of everyday performances and of a society that sustains itself on performative exchanges: performances of gender, of friendship, of love, of identity, of nationality, of power, of innocence and of wealth. 

Equally, although the tone of the performance is undoubtedly comedic (I doubt anyone will forget Don Diego Barbinetto’s ‘Spanish’ attire anytime soon), there are moments of inescapable weight in the performance. There was a palpable sensuousness and gravity to the scene when a masked Miranda talks to her unknowing lover Sir George Airy, and he – desirous to know her identity – threatens to unmask her. Her reluctance is beautifully played by Ricketts, whose performance makes it clear that while Miranda fears the discovery of her identity, she perhaps fears the vulnerability of surrender to another above all. 
The Busy Body is an extremely entertaining play with a wealth of interest. It is to be hoped that the success of this performance will encourage producers to take more chances on staging Centlivres’ work and that of other largely forgotten female dramatists.

Lord Hague sworn in as Chancellor of Oxford University

Selina Chen and David Hays
-
0
Lord Hague sworn in as Chancellor of Oxford University

The Congregation admitted Lord William Hague as Oxford University’s 160th Chancellor today, in a traditional ceremony held at the Sheldonian Theatre.

Surrounded by a procession of high-ranking University officials including Vice-Chancellor Irene Tracey, Hague walked from the Clarendon Building into the Old Bodleian Quad, through the Divinity School and out toward the Sheldonian.

Attendees first sang the national anthem, and Tracey opened the Convocation for the purpose of admitting the Chancellor. 

In a ceremony filled with both grandeur and humour, Hague was handed various objects of importance, including the University’s statutes, keys (which he shook dramatically), and seals, before he finally pledged “do fidem” (I swear) to his oath and donned an ornate gold-embroidered gown. The ceremony was accompanied by trumpet and organ fanfare, as well as songs performed by the choir of Magdalen College, Hague’s alma mater.

Yet Latin and pomp-aside, both the orator and Hague peppered their English speeches with light-hearted quips. The orator questioned Hague on his Latin skills, and poked fun at his attribution of his First in final exams to “last-minute cramming”. 

The orator said: “If I may use academic terminology, the great Creator himself took a sabbatical – the first, indeed, after a busy week 1 of his term. (Our cosmologists are still, I think, uncertain about how he spent 0th week.)”

Hague proved his Latin skills by expressing his gratitude in said language, before deciding it was time to “indulge [himself] in the liberty of using the vernacular”. He celebrated the presence of the previous Chancellor, Lord Chris Patten (inaugurated in 2003), noting: “The last chancellor to relinquish the role in their lifetime, the 2nd Duke of Ormonde in 1715, fled the country immediately. I am very pleased that Chris has seen no need to do so.”

He also shared anecdotes of his two other predecessors. Harold Macmillan, at age ninety while Hague was in his twenties, told the young man “don’t do too much, too soon”. Hague had thought the advice useless, until at age 36 he was elected leader of the Conservative Party and realised “how very shrewd that advice had been”. Roy Jenkins, on the other hand, told Hague to ignore publishers’ word limits when writing a book – and so Hague did.

Remarking on the progress Oxford has seen since his matriculation, Hague commended the diversity in gender, ethnicity, and socio-economic background. According to him, as a result, Oxford has seen significant breakthroughs and turned more outward-looking. “We are positively delighted with the idea of a railway to Cambridge. You can’t get more open-minded than that,” Hague said to peels of laughter from the crowd.

At the same time, Oxford is an institution that honours tradition, with a rich history entwined with today’s ceremony. Hague noted that the first document requiring the appointment of a Chancellor is older than Magna Carta. He said: “The reason we speak Latin today even though we all understand English, and hand over keys even though we no longer know which doors they open, along with a magnificent seal even though we could perfectly well send an email, is that we recognise we are the beneficiaries of the labours of centuries, and we are acknowledging that our labours must be equal to passing on to future generations this priceless inheritance”.

Hague identified four areas of what progress means for Oxford. First, it is in the UK’s national interest that Oxford is at the very forefront of scientific and technological breakthroughs. Second, the acceleration of change means an ever-growing need for humanities such as ethics to guide our path.

Third, freedom of speech is of paramount importance: “We cannot prepare for the turbulent decades to come by shielding ourselves from inconvenient arguments, wrapping ourselves in comfort blankets of cancellation, or suppressing minority views because they conflict with the beguiling certainty of a majority. I strongly welcome the decision by ministers to revive most of the provisions of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act.”

Finally he warned against the “darker side” of the digital age and urged students to “not stare into smartphones”.

Despite the challenges posed in these four areas, Hague said he maintains confidence in the University’s strength due to its pluralistic structure with 43 colleges and halls: “We will make mistakes, but we will never all make the same mistake at the same time”.

The new Chancellor concluded in his address: “I will do well to follow the example of my most recent predecessors in upholding the idea of a great, liberal university built on ancient traditions but at the cutting edge of modernity, opening brilliant minds with the power of debate, inquiry and reason. I will celebrate and articulate your achievements, urge you on when you have doubts and help protect you when your freedoms are under threat. I look forward, more than anything I have ever done, to representing and championing one of the greatest institutions in the world, the University of Oxford.”

After the ceremony, the Chancellor’s procession walked down Parks Road until Keble College, tipping their hats along the way.

Doubts on Banksy

Ruby Doran Meira
-
0
Doubts on Banksy

It seems that for the current university generation, a pervasive entity has weaved in and out of our lifetime’s discourse around art. This formless spectre has ignited inspiration in some, vitriolic disdain in others, and even provoked full-blown exasperation in others. If you were to ask anyone between the ages of 15 and 40-ish to name one currently active artist with mainstream notoriety, their likely response would still be “Banksy”. What is so enticing – and infuriating – about this mystery man’s slapdash approach to political commentary?

Banksy started out in the early 1990s, but it wasn’t until the 2000s that he had honed his signature style of stencilling and began to refine his strain of epigrammatic satire. Though there was a time where he resold prints of his pieces that had been sprayed on public surfaces, nowadays the Banksy money-machine operates primarily through private art dealerships which collectively represent the driving force behind Banksy’s net worth (reportedly over £37 million).

This is a fact Banksy seems to be keen for you to forget; he is usually incredulous about the astronomical going rates of his work at auction. In fact, one of his pieces, Morons, depicts an auction coupled with the framed text: “I can’t believe you morons actually buy this shit”.  But as per the standards of any reputable auction house, a proportion of that profit is usually returned to the contributor. Questions around the ethics of reselling art for extortionate prices and the often scant financial security of the artist are valid concerns in a world with an ever-widening gap between the consumption habits of the upper class and the global daily survival concerns of workers. Yet it seems that beneath the anti-establishment appearances, Banksy stumbles at the first hurdle: addressing this issue in a moral and transparent way. 

Another article entirely could be spent chronicling the long and near hysterical financial history of Banksy’s repertoire. But frankly, the origins of my quarrel with Banksy lie beyond the money: I believe we should stop letting people away with the notion that subversive and politically engaged art means “the establishment doesn’t want me to tell you that, and if you don’t get it you’re part of the problem.”

I especially think that we should stop taking Banksy in good faith, assuming he’s some sort of puppeteer, sardonically hovering over our pitifully incomplete analysis of his art – sometimes he just makes really bad stuff. To be clear, it is a fundamental belief of mine that styles deviating from the classic (and often Eurocentric) norms of fine art often have the most profound potential to create something genuinely arresting and intelligent – you only have to consider the work of Keith Haring or Basquiat to find pertinent examples. But that’s really what irks me about such a platform being wasted on Banksy: simple or easy aside, art shouldn’t be as lazy as finding a wall and slapping on an over-produced, Warhol-esque print stencil with something about trees written underneath and calling it a day. And what’s worse Banksy still carries on as if he’s God’s gift to the Left. This worked well in his formative years when he was a genuine nobody, but the facts of his refusal to update the act while his fame and fortune have eclipsed those of the wildest dreams of the people he purports to represent, have left a sour taste in my mouth.

In conversation with Oxford’s new Chancellor, Lord William Hague

Oliver Hall and Amelia Gibbins
-
0
In conversation with Oxford’s new Chancellor, Lord William Hague

Lord Hague is taking on one of academia’s most historic positions as the Chancellor of the University of Oxford, a role that dates back to 1244. Succeeding Lord Patten, who retired last year, Hague has been preparing to lead the University into a decade of change and innovation at a pivotal moment for higher education. In an exclusive interview, Lord Hague sat down with Cherwell to discuss his vision for the University, the challenges facing the sector, and what this decade of change will mean for Oxford.

Hague won the Chancellor election at the end of last year, following several months of campaigning that led to victory over 38 other candidates. The first round of voting saw a final five of Lady Elish Angiolini, Rt Hon Dominic Grieve, Lord William Hague, Lord Peter Mandelson and Baroness Jan Royall, with some 23,000 votes cast.

Several months on, Hague is now ready to get to work as Chancellor. The former politician jokes that the process “was possibly a bit more complicated than electing the president of the United States”, and that now he is “ready to get going.” Reflecting on the other candidates that made it to the final five, he believed that “they were very worthy competitors… [who] all remain very committed to doing things for Oxford in the future.”

Hague has strongly emphasised that the Chancellor “does not actually run the university.” Instead of day-to-day decision making, the position involves ceremonial duties, alongside representing Oxford on the national and world stage. He was full of praise for Vice-Chancellor Irene Tracey, whom he describes as “absolutely great.”

An area that Hague does regard as within his remit, however, is fundraising. Hague said that Oxford will “need the generosity of its benefactors over the next decade in a very big way.” In a similar vein, he explained that “some of Oxford’s fundraising plans over the coming years will be the most ambitious ever, … [requiring] updated science facilities, graduate scholarships, and support access for students across the board.”

During the campaign, Hague had emphasised his links to the United States and the funding that he would strive to attract from over the pond. However, the political landscape of the United States has changed drastically since he spoke to Cherwell in October, and the new presidential administration has spoken out against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) schemes that it views as a waste of spending. Concerns have now been raised over whether US-UK research partnerships could be caught up in Trump’s crackdown on DEI. For instance, a US embassy-funded grants scheme, run alongside the British Association of American Studies, collapsed when the UK found out that they had been asked to erase any mention of diversity from awarding criteria.

When asked whether the Trump administration may be problematic for the University, Hague was clear that although it may present issues, “the answer is to ensure the excellence of research so that there is a compelling case across the Atlantic to continue those partnerships.” Hague’s opponent in the Chancellor elections, Lord Mandelson, is now the British Ambassador to the United States – Hague remarked that since “[Mandelson] has been so keen to support Oxford”, maintaining relations between US investors and Oxford would be yet “another task on his checklist.”

In recent years, Hague has written extensively on the potential of artificial intelligence, including uniting with Tony Blair to applaud the government’s new AI Action Plan and calling for further investment in the field. In his interview with Cherwell, he said that AI “will change education in many ways that we can’t yet anticipate… Universities will be the fulcrum of a decade of exceptional change.”

Though it is a clear opportunity for innovation, policies regarding the use of generative AI in particular present a dilemma for universities. Currently, Oxford has very strict rules that restrict its usage by students. Although reluctant to predict the outcomes of the rapidly evolving technology, Hague was keen to stress how important it is for “universities to be an utterly human experience. 

“There are great strengths of personal tuition and of a collegiate community,” he said. “Universities will have to work even harder to make sure that people are having a fantastic human experience.

“In a world [that is] in a state of economic, social, and political upheaval, … what happens in Oxford is and will be critical to the success of the UK.” Investing in Oxford, he explained, “is in the critical national interest of the United Kingdom.”

Recent months have seen Chancellor Rachel Reeves turn to universities as an engine for growth, including the revival of plans for the so-called ‘OxCam Arc’, which the government states could generate £78 billion by 2035. Hague stated that it is “a key part of my job, as a public figure and somebody who’s had a lifetime in politics, to urge them to deliver on those things.”

Hague was also keen to underline the balance required between this investment into research and the undergraduate teaching experience. “We are so high in the world rankings because we are such a great centre of research and of teaching,” he said.

Another key element of Hague’s election campaign was the focus he placed on broadening access to the University and ensuring that it was open to people from all backgrounds. Having attended state school himself, Hague has recently advocated for the 93% Club, this year attending as a guest at their ball. When asked about Oxford’s declining intake of state school students since 2020, Hague told Cherwell: “it’s not good that it’s slipped back. …Covid may have had a greater impact on education in state schools than in private schools.” However, he did caveat that whilst one “should not obsess about small changes, it is really important to keep up the momentum on this.”

Cherwell then presented Hague with comments from Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who has broadly spoken ill of the sector as it stands, leading him to stress that he “does not agree that too many people are going to university.” He continued that given the era of unprecedented change in the world, “highly successful countries will end up with a higher proportion of their young people going to university.

“We have some work to do… in improving the image of higher education, which is often seen by all political parties as something that just takes up money.” 

The financial crisis that universities are facing has been widely reported in recent months, with 1,000 proposed redundancies in the sector projected in 2025, and more than 500 staff moving on from Oxford during the last financial year. On this topic, Hague said that “there is clearly a major problem in the funding of higher education in the UK.” He welcomed the increase of tuition fees in line with inflation, announced last year, but warned that most of its benefits had been “taken back away from universities by increasing employers’ national insurance contributions.” 

Hague called for change in the ways of thinking about the issue, stating that he did not “see a solution to the problem in the UK without some greater public funding of higher education… On the long list of items that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has that need more money, the higher education sector is one of them.”

The new Chancellor also pointed out that as tuition fees rise, Oxford has the ability to “enlarge the resources available” to those in need. He pointed to the success of Crankstart scholarships in helping students at the University, and said that “we’re going to need more of that sort of thing… the financial pressures on students will not go away.”

Paying higher tuition fee rates than domestic students, international learners play a vital role in the financial sustainability of UK universities. However, new rules introduced last year restricted the number of dependents that students could bring to the UK. As a result, the number of applicants from overseas has declined.

Both in October and in this interview, Hague made clear that he does not believe students should be part of overall migration statistics. “The UK,” he argued, “should be accommodating to large numbers of overseas students who are buying a service in which we excel.” He went so far as to call the United Kingdom “a superpower in higher education”, citing the high positions many of its universities hold in global rankings.

Lastly, we turned to the Higher Education Freedom of Speech Act, a bill delayed by the government that is now set to be implemented later this year. Among plenty of other areas, the act seeks to legally reaffirm the provision of free speech in university settings. Here, the Chancellor was clear and expressed his full support, commenting: “to know that the law reinforces that (freedom of speech and academic freedom) is important.”

On the recent protests that have taken place at the University, including the occupation of the Radcliffe Camera, Hague stressed the importance of respect and understanding. “There are bound to be really fierce differences… on both sides of the argument. The important thing is to hear both sides of the argument and to respect that people may have a difference of view.”

Another key provision of the new law is its prohibition of the use of non-disclosure agreements by universities in cases of harassment and misconduct. Oxford has faced accusations of using these measures in the past and Hague was emphatic in his stance that “it is not something that I would at all encourage or approve of. Hopefully this act is going to settle that once and for all.” The University told Cherwell that “the University of Oxford does not and will not use Non-Disclosure Agreements to prevent the investigation of complaints of sexual misconduct or other inappropriate behaviour, or to prevent responsible whistleblowing,” and encouraged anyone affected to contact the university.

A decade is a long time to commit to any job. The years ahead will be defined by profound change, something that Hague does not seem fazed by and appears to embrace. Within his remit, he has expressed his commitment to liaising with students and attracting donors that will drive Oxford forwards. On the national stage, his political experience will doubtlessly be important when working with governments of both colours to best represent higher education institutions across the UK. However, whether he will be successful in his mission still remains to be seen.

Sculptor of the Sheldonian to be celebrated in a new exhibition

Joshua McGillivray
-
0
Sculptor of the Sheldonian to be celebrated in a new exhibition

The sculptor who carved the “Emperor’s Heads” currently standing outside Oxford’s Sheldonian Theatre, Michael Black, will be celebrated in a new exhibition at the Oxfordshire Museum this spring.

The exhibition, entitled “Michael Black: Chisel, Wood, Stone”, will include a full-size plaster ox – which was once carried over Oxford’s Aristotle Bridge as part of  the annual May Day celebrations – and an artichoke-shaped fountain which will sit in the museum’s garden. Black’s family have contributed three short archival films. 

Most famously, he was appointed in 1970 to create replacements for the 17 Emperor’s Heads that surrounded the perimeter of the Sheldonian Theatre, which had become weathered over the century during which they had been on display. His versions were first revealed in 1972 and have remained in place ever since.

When the Sheldonian was first constructed, William Byrd built the 13 original Heads commissioned between 1664 and 1669. Byrd’s heads had to be replaced in 1868 due to erosion. Black located seven of the originals, five of which were still in Oxford, and based his versions on them rather than the later substitutes.

Black was the son of a vicar and was born in 1928. He grew up in Dorset and began training as a carver during his undergraduate degree at St Catherine’s College in the 1950s. He died in 2019.

His life’s work also includes early commissions restoring gargoyles across Oxford; stonework at churches and colleges around the city and busts of the former British Prime Ministers Alec Douglas-Home and Harold Macmillan.

The Oxfordshire County Council representative Neil Fawcett said: “Michael Black was a talented sculptor who received notable public commissions, exhibited artwork at prestigious galleries, and restored the stonework of churches, colleges and other buildings across Oxford.”

“This exhibition is a rare opportunity to discover this important artist’s legacy. Through loans and archival material from Black’s family we are treated to an intimate insight into the artist’s life.”

1...202122...2,493Page 21 of 2,493

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