Tuesday, May 13, 2025
Blog Page 38

Oxford cured my perfectionism

0

Pre-Oxford, I was everything you would expect of a to-be Oxford student: top marks, homework always in on time, projects completed to the nines. I never would have admitted that I felt pressured to be ‘top of the class.’ It’s true that I was not pressured by parents, friends, or even teachers – I don’t think. And yet, I know that deep down, back then I needed to be top of the class. I needed to feel the security that came from knowing that I was doing well, I was doing best.

Because it was my identity. Bookworm. Academic. (Sweat). It was a core part of me, internal pressure building as it bubbled up, up, and poured out into my homework, classwork, and tests.

It would have been safe to assume that on this trajectory, Oxford would swing the pendulum even further, heightening my perfectionistic tendencies. And yet, contrary to what people might assume, being at Oxford actually cured my academic perfectionism. There’s no longer the pressure to be at the top, because everyone here hails from the academic summits. There’s no longer a clear mountain
that I have to climb, that I have to be on top of. I’ve experienced great freedom in just, well, giving up. I no longer try to be top of the class. I no longer feel the need to
be the best. Of course, I still put in effort – but that effort comes from wanting to enjoy my degree, not wanting to reach the top. I want to learn, not secure top place. There’s no point in trying to be the top of the class anymore, because we have all climbed past the clouds and are together upon the peak. There are still sub-peaks, higher places you can climb up to. There are the people who get firsts. There are people who want to do a Master’s. But to me, these seem more like cairns: not at all necessary (or recommended) to climb. If you see someone on one, you are impressed, perhaps taken aback, but feel no compulsion to join them. There is no sense that you have failed in not climbing one. Sometimes it’s fun to climb a cairn – there might be a slightly different view, a better one, even – but it’s certainly not necessary. Certainly not something one must do every week.

Things that would have horrified me a few years ago are now no big deal. Need to ask for an extension on an essay? Totally fine. Handing in a piece of work a few hours late? Doesn’t faze me. Have to hand something in that I know is sub-par? Oh well. Doesn’t matter too much. It’s near-impossible to meet every deadline here. Definitely impossible for every piece of work to be perfect. So the Oxford workload, rather than triggering a stress response, has instead desensitised me to the fear of academic failure. Exposure therapy, I suppose. It’s very freeing.

So here, I am no longer the academic one. The bookworm. The sweat. I’m not aiming for a first. I don’t want to do a Master’s. Although there are people beyond my primary
friendship group who probably still think of me as the ‘quiet’ one – I’ve never been a fan of raising my hand in class, that much hasn’t changed – amongst my friends, I’ve become known as the ‘chaotic’ one. The ‘fun’ one. The one dragging everyone to bops and making them dance. The one rallying them to stay up on May Day. The one who does hair and makeup for people before going out. The one with the most ‘entertaining’ love life (such a flattering label).

And so I’ve experienced a different sort of imposter syndrome. I’ve not experienced any significant academic imposter syndrome – not that I feel on top of the work; just
that I’ve sort of bumbled my way along in bemused acceptance. But I have most definitely felt social imposter syndrome. How have I become the one amongst my friends who wants to go out the most? The one who (apparently) knows most about hair and makeup and clothes? The one who supplies the friendship group with the best (as in
worst) relationship drama? How is all this me? Until relatively recently, I didn’t give a second thought to clothes, or hair, or makeup, or social events – let alone
relationships. It’s been a total social repositioning. The pendulum has swung entirely the other way. Of course, these shifts are a natural part of growing up. Yet I know
that being in Oxford has intensified the contrast.

But then I go home for the vac, and hang out with my brother and his girlfriend and their friends … and the pendulum swings again. All of a sudden, I’m flung back into
my role as the academic one, the one who loves studying – the one who even goes to Oxford, of all places. My makeup bag is pitiful compared to theirs. My wardrobe is drab – seriously lacking in trends. To them, my social life must seem painfully tame and stiff. My love life too, probably. Your parties are run through college? A black tie dinner is your idea of a fun Friday night? I must seem ridiculous.

I suppose all this should leave me with a bit of an identity crisis. A sense of disorientation, hesitancy, or loss. But as it turns out, I’m quite happy to just sit on the pendulum and let it take me where it will.

Cut the job chat

0

It’s Michaelmas term of my final year. The days are short, my patience even shorter, and every conversation seems to circle back to the same dreaded question: “What are you doing next year?”

Michaelmas is when all those lofty intentions to apply for grad schemes meet the sobering reality of fast-approaching deadlines. Applying to jobs is stressful enough, without the Oxford degree looming – just try taking your third psychometric test of the week while your half-finished essay languishes in another tab. It sure isn’t fun.

But worse than the stress of applying is the incessant yapping about it. Grad schemes have become the be-all and end-all of the Oxford bubble. They’re sold to us as a one-way ticket out of whatever nondescript town we come from; financial stability is a bonus. For those of us who live outside London, they promise salvation from spending next year stranded in District 12, working the same part-time job we had when we were sixteen. The endless scrolling on LinkedIn is now tinged with urgency, jealousy, and the faint drone of parental reproach. 

When you’re in your fourth year, this stress is compounded by the unsettling reality that most of your friends have already secured their degrees – and probably a place at one of the Big Four, despite having never declared any particular affinity for accountancy. Others have succumbed to what they admit is ‘panic Masters’, buying themselves an extra year of borrowed time. 

In just the last week, I’ve seen friends flip-flop from applying to the first posting they found when they searched “well-paid grad scheme” online to announcing that they intend to spend a gap year in the Amazon rainforest, learning Portuguese to “boost employability”. It’s starting to wear me down.  

But here’s the thing: Oxford is just one giant bubble. There’s always been this constant pressure to secure the perfect next step – be it a micro-internship or a summer analyst position. Out in the real world, people take winding and unexpected paths. Careers aren’t made or broken by the end of November. 

So, can we please stop obsessing over grad schemes? Getting the degree should be priority number one. And besides, we found other things to talk about before all this job chat came up. Let’s try and make the most of the time we have left in Oxford. In any case, no more talk of Brazil! 

The inevitability of Noodle Bridge

0

In a controversial move, Christ Church College has been granted approval for the construction of a new footbridge crossing the A40. But what makes this bridge newsworthy, you may ask? Although only a bridge, it epitomises the fact that no construction project is safe from the inventive thinking of modern architects. 

Dubbed the ‘noodle bridge’, Christ Church’s new foray into modern architecture has caused an uproar, with locals slamming it as ‘nonsense’, ‘very ugly’, and ‘totally inadequate’. Certain council members and architects have launched a staunch defence, boasting that the bridge and its odd wavy shape was designed by an ‘award-winning’ architectural firm. To many, it seems ‘award-winning’ and ‘aesthetically pleasing’ do not necessarily go hand in hand. 

The new bridge is part of a wider plan by Christ Church to develop a small snippet of its 10,664 acres of owned UK landholdings. The infrastructure forms part of a wider scheme to build 1,450 new homes at Bayswater Brook, located just north of Headington. Adding insult to injury, many locals have voiced that the location of the bridge is inadequate for its very purpose: this new development will massively increase road congestion and is located too far west to make a meaningful impact on future residents. 

Despite the litany of concerns, Christ Church’s plan has been approved by both the South Oxfordshire District Council and Oxford City Council. Whichever way your opinion about the ‘noodle bridge’ sways, it now remains only a matter of time before the foundations of yet another exemplar of modern architecture are laid in our great city; Oxford.

Intoxtigation 2024: Merton drinks least, Christ Church most, and two thirds tipsy around tutors

The results of Cherwell’s unprecedented investigation into students’ drinking habits are finally in. We have received over 1,250 responses – nearly 10% of the University’s undergraduate body – across every year, college, and course. Data can now tell us conclusively which colleges and courses drink the most and the least, and reveal the scope and nuances of Oxford’s relationship to alcohol. No stone was left unturned from rankings of bars, pubs, and drinks through to students’ behaviour in contexts as varied as sports socials, crewdates, society debating drinks, and dinners with tutors. Prepare yourself for some surprises as we test out which pieces of received wisdom fit with the data. 

Overall picture and methodology 

Assuming that people would not be bothered to calculate their total units per week and then find the average of this: as editors we tried ourselves and it was too convoluted and definitely took longer than the five minutes we promised you the survey would take. The Features team instead focused on how many days each week students were drinking, and then factored in units at this stage to gauge intensity. The NHS defines a unit as “10ml or 8g of pure alcohol, which is around the amount of alcohol the average adult can process in an hour.” The NHS weekly recommended limit is 14 units, which should be spaced out throughout the week. A pint of beer or glass of wine is approximately two units, a single shot of a spirit one unit. 

It’s ironic then, that when only 23.6% of respondents considered their alcohol consumption to be ‘quite heavy’ or ‘very heavy’, 51.8% regularly consume the NHS weekly limit of 14 units in one night. Within this figure, 20.7% of respondents had at least 28 units over just two or three days each week. 8 people claimed to drink (at least) 98 units of alcohol weekly.

The emerging picture is that students underestimate how much they drink, since 80% of respondents viewed their consumption as ‘low’ or ‘moderate’. 7.8% of respondents were teetotal. It’s worth noting, of course, that non-drinkers were probably less likely to fill out the survey. This notwithstanding, it is still possible to compare across colleges and courses, since this limitation applies everywhere. And of course, a large number of non-drinkers did still take the time to help us out and fill in the survey. 

Ranking the colleges 

The goal of this investigation was to compare perception and reality. In some cases, it seems that stereotypes hold true, others less so. Results are also often very split. St Peter’s is perceived as the college that drinks the most, but with only 18.1% of responses. Balliol followed with 14.8%, and Teddy Hall claimed third with 7.1%, with Catz on 5.5%.

Stereotypes really kicked in at the other end as 33.7% voted Mertonians as the students who drink the least. Wycliffe Hall was a clever choice – given its status as a theological college – with 9.8% of respondents. The most telling, then, were the next popular options: 7.8% for Harris Manchester (postgrads don’t have fun?) and 4.3% for LMH, intriguingly. Next was 3.7% for Corpus Christi. 

As it turns out, Christ Church, not Peter’s, is Oxford’s booziest college. The average ChCh student drinks on 4.06 days per week on average, including 1.28 days with heavy drinking of 14 units or more. They were followed by Regent’s Park, Oriel, Brasenose, and St John’s. Peter’s dropped down to 8th in terms of overall days drinking (3.64), but was second for days of intense drinking (1.17). Balliol came 6th and Teddy Hall was mid-table. Here we didn’t include the results from colleges with less than 20 responses, of which there were four (Hilda’s, Pembroke, Lincoln, and Harris Manchester). They were all mid-table at any rate. 

Cherwell can officially confirm that Merton is where fun goes to die. Mertonians drink an average of 2.48 days per week, and a rowdy 0.24 days for 14+ units. They were joined near the bottom by Magdalen and Mansfield (2.77 and 2.82 respectively). One wonders if Merton’s reputation is affecting the kind of students it recruits, turning a once unfounded perception into a reality. All’s well that ends well: they’re top of the Norrington Table for a reason. 

The course contest 

With so much time on their hands, HisPolers are the biggest drinkers at 4.26 days per week, and 1.27 for heavy drinking. However, it’s actually those who do Asian and Middle Eastern Studies who love a hard night out the most, at 1.45 days of heavy drinking. English, Human Sciences, Classics, and Law also feature near the top, according to the data. All subjects in the ranking had 10 submissions or more. 

By way of contrast, Computer Science students only drink 2.60 days per week. At least that’s still more than the average Merton student. They were followed by Philosophy, Psychology and Linguistics (PPL) as well as Earth Sciences, and Modern Languages. Engineering is solidly in the middle of the table with 3.47 and 0.75. The picture from the subjects is not easy to interpret, but broadly shows humanities students outdrinking expectations in contrast to their STEM peers. 

The gender gap? 

Another important facet of Oxford’s drinking demographics is gender. 52.4% of the survey’s respondents were female to 43.9% male, so different genders were well represented. Perhaps unsurprisingly, men drink substantially more heavily, averaging 1.12 days of heavy drinking per week to women’s 0.65. This means that if men were a college (an alternate universe Mansfield, you could say), only Christ Church and Peter’s would go harder than them. More widely, male respondents drink 3.69 days per week on average, to women’s 3.18. This isn’t necessarily evidence that men are more often drunk than women, of course, just that they consume more alcohol. 

Enthusiastic freshers 

The image of the silly, inexperienced fresher is indeed accurate. It turns out that first years drink on an average of 3.60 days each week, dropping to the rock bottom of 3.22 in second year. After a year of being berated by your tutors and falling victim to essay crisis after essay crisis, it seems that second years are slightly more world-weary than they are a year prior when they have freedom for the first time.

Perhaps surprisingly, third and fourth years experience something of a new lease of life, with numbers increasing up to 3.44 and 3.40 respectively. Is this finalist fomo, or does the crippling pressure of finals spark a need to hit the cheese floor?. Third years may drink more regularly than second years, but when they do, it is generally less than 14 units. Second years are therefore still drinking more heavily than third years once they get going, at 0.87 days a week compared to 0.82. But freshers win on both counts, passing the NHS weekly limit on 0.93 days a week on average. Ah, to be young again. 

Bars and pubs 

There was a huge split in opinions regarding which college has the best bar. We didn’t prohibit respondents from answering with their own college bar, and there were several ‘don’t knows’ and some quite angry responses, including “don’t know, don’t care” and “all are shit”. The best college bar, according to public opinion, is Balliol with 19% of responses (hardly a landslide majority), followed by Peter’s (17.1%), Worcester (9.1%), Jesus (8.5%), and, interestingly, Regent’s Park (4.2%). 

The crown of worst college bar goes to Wadham (9.9%), followed by Catz (8.4%), Christ Church (7.5%), Keble (6.2%), and Oriel (5.5%). It’s probably also worth remembering that these are still bars which respondents (or their friends) are likely to have visited, and there will be even more mediocre bars that people just ignore. 

The matter of pubs was no less controversial. The Lamb and Flag received the most votes at 17.4% of responses. This was followed by Wetherspoons’ Four Candles at 13%, then Turf Tavern on 11.7%. From there the order was White Rabbit (8.4%), King’s Arms (6.8%), Chequers (6.6%), The Bear (5.2%), Spoons’ Swan and Castle (4.6%), LGBTQ+ pub The Jolly Farmers (4%), The Grapes (3%), White Horse (2%), and then many more.  Some respondents used the open text option to cast their vote for The Jericho Tavern and The Cow and Creek. Another, seemingly misunderstanding the question, opted for New College bar. 

In the opinion of this writer (a John’s student), it is astounding that anyone would vote for anything but the Lamb and Flag. The ambiance, the history, and the choice on tap are simply unmatched. Yet clearly location also plays a big factor: with their college literally a stone’s throw away across Oxford’s nicest cobbled passage, 49% of John’s students opted for L+F as their favourite pub, over 30 points more than average. A select few lucky students actually live above the pub. 

Drinking and society events 

Alongside pubs and bars, there is no shortage of drinking-related society events to attend in Oxford, with the most popular being Tuesgays, which 28% of respondents have attended at least once. In the political scene, it was once again a Labour victory by an underwhelming popular vote margin with Beer and Bickering sweeping 10.24% to Port and Policy’s 9.12%. 

All placing at just over 3% in the alliterative events space there is FemSoc’s Liberation and Liquor, Liquor and Liberalism, and the communist October Club’s Rum and Revolution (3.28%).

PPE soc’s Bottles and Banter was left with a meagre 17 respondents. Of course, should you become a section editor at Cherwell (see our Instagram), you’ll have access to our fantastic socials.  

The good, the bad, and the ugly places people have been drunk 

Oxford may be renowned as a place where Britain’s best minds tutor diligent students, but this hasn’t stopped nearly two thirds (64.6%) of us from being drunk around tutors at least once while at Oxford. 

From fresher formals to subject dinners, Oxford almost endorses enjoying a glass of wine (or five??) with tutors who wrote half of the secondary reading for your essays. Now the question is, does this enhance your professional relationship or hinder it? Maybe ask one of the 115 students who have been drunk around a tutor more than five times. 

As for the most inappropriate places Oxford students like to drink, naturally we have the holy trinity: church, library, tute. It almost seems as though students like to use alcohol as a coping mechanism for stressful situations (“prelims” was a frequent response, as well as the (more specific) “Spanish oral exam”). Others described having brought along mulled wine to “liven up” a tute. 

In fact, some get the memo about Oxford’s drinking culture before they are even accepted, taking the edge off their admissions interview. Start as you mean to go on, I guess. Now, although I would probably have to be drunk to ever sign up for the Oxford Half, this doesn’t mean you should run it whilst being under the influence, but according to one survey response, this has indeed been done. Whoever you are, the authors are in awe.  

It’s not just in academic settings that Oxford students are drinking in bizarre places (whatever happened on the “Hertford philosophy retreat in the Cotswolds”?) In fact, students drink in places ranging from the Tescalator to their cousin’s seventh birthday party. Some responses we were too scared to publish. The word ‘inappropriate’ has never felt so apt. 

The crewdate is often viewed as the cornerstone of drinking tradition here. Yet it’s not a universal phenomenon, with 39.3% of respondents having never been on one. Marmite comes to mind, with 16.7% having been on six or more throughout their degree. 

The timeless adage ‘what happens on a crewdate stays on a crewdate’ was cast aside by the Intoxtigation’s plucky respondents allowing us to provide you with some nuggets of Oxford’s weirdness. So if you are squeamish, look away now. Stories ranged from crewdate classics of taking shots out of belly buttons and eating a cucumber from two ends to somewhat more unconventional tales of body wash, breast milk, and exploding onion bhajis. Like social media moderators, the Features team has now seen everything from toe-sucking to dislocated knees, people going commando for ‘good pants bad pants’ to penis laceration. A large amount of responses were of a highly sexual nature. 

I sconce anyone who leaves a crewdate for not wanting to drink out of £500 shoes. And to the person who left the message “The Isis has been known to outdrink Cherwell” – I hope you have rectified this erroneous belief following the editorial team’s impressive week 6 performance. 

We couldn’t mention crewdates without talking about sport. Unsurprisingly, 67.4% of people considered rugby the most alcoholic sport, followed by football and rugby (both roughly 12.5%). Other common suggestions included hockey and netball. And whoever thinks choral singing is a sport, touch grass. 

Cost and choice 

How much we spend on alcohol is also a key factor in consumption, with the most common spend being £10-20 per week (26%). 35.3% spend less than this, or nothing at all (if you do drink, we’re assuming you only go to Spoons). 19% spend north of 30 quid each week. We’re assuming the 37 people who splash more than £70 each week (£560+ each term) are the rich friends that 31.6% of our respondents would rely on to buy jägerbombs for them in the club, or buy any at all. 40.9% refuse to get drinks in the club out of principle. Pres really is best. 

£4-£5 appears to be the average price of a pint where students are from. Apologies to the (presumably) Londoners – 8.8% of those surveyed – who pay over £7 each time, you (almost) have our sympathies. We’ve suspicious that anywhere in the UK the average price of a pint is £2, so we’re assuming the 80 people who selected this option live abroad or their hometown literally is just a Wetherspoons. 

Of course, it’s not just how much you’re paying but what you’re drinking that varies wildly. Beer is Oxford’s winner with a quarter of students judging it to be their favourite drink. A long way behind is cider (12.3%), closely followed by vodka and a mixer (11.5%), cocktails (10.9%), white wine (8.2%), gin and mixer (6.2%), red wine (6%), and so on. Wine is definitely a strong Oxford preference – if we’d combined all the wine categories (red, white, rosé, port, etc), it would have been a stronger second place at 18%. 78 aficionados surveyed have also been to Bacchus wine tasting. Honourable mentions from the open text response also go out to ale (yes stranger, we apologise for not diversifying the beer options respondents could select), crosskeys, and tea. 

If you’ve read this far, you clearly have enjoyed our crunching of Oxford’s alcohol numbers. We’ve tried to cover as much ground as possible, and with some interesting smaller points amongst the larger headline conclusions, hopefully everyone has learned something. And that something is probably to be very scared going into a crewdate. 

Lessons from the Cambridge Union

0

I went to Cambridge a few weeks ago, and attended a Cambridge Union debate on whether feminism and religion were compatible. I should warn you at this stage that this is most certainly not an article about our esteemed Oxford Union. Any similarities (or perhaps unfavourable contrasts) between the two institutions are purely incidental and drawn at the reader’s own discretion. 

Their Union is a relaxed space. The debating chamber is warm, quite small, and intimate. No Union people or anyone else — besides the Officers and speakers — wore anything more than smart casual. I was greeted at the door with a smile and waved through with my OU card, no questions asked. Many people enjoyed a pint as they watched the debate from the crammed balcony. 

There were precisely zero minutes of pre-debate shenanigans. To my astonishment, the officers and speakers arrived promptly, the president announced the floor prize, and then the whole thing kicked off. There was no mention of anybody’s ‘business’. Instead, we got straight onto the real business and the whole reason we were all there: to hear the debate. 

There were four speakers on each side and nobody spoke for too long. Only one speaker was a student, and they were a fresher. There were no roasts or parliamentary theatrics. Just a frank debate between atheists and liberal religious figures. It was refreshing to hear articulate adults provide different points of view.

Afterwards, everyone was treated to free chips in the bar, with speakers, Officers, and attendees all mixing together. Nobody was whisked away to a private post-drinks reception. Results were announced promptly by the president: it was conclusively decided that religion and feminism were not compatible. As cheers went up, I sat back in my chair to reflect on the night. The Cambridge Union is a smaller, less significant institution than its Oxford equivalent — but I can’t help but feel that a visit to the other place for one Union in particular might well be in order.

Oxford Union believes Israel is an apartheid state responsible for genocide

0

The Oxford Union voted for its controversial motion “This House Believes Israel is an apartheid state responsible for genocide” last night, with the society’s buildings surrounded by tight security and protesters rallying outside. The House saw 278 votes in favour and 59 votes against.

Speaking in Proposition were Palestinian poet Mohammed El-Kurd, Union President Ebrahim Osman-Mowafy, Israeli-American activist Miko Peled, and Palestinian-American poet Susan Abulhawa. Speaking in Opposition were British broadcaster Jonathan Sacerdoti, British barrister Natasha Hausdorff, Arab-Israeli journalist Yousef Haddad, and spy Mosab Hassan Yousef. Yousef is the son of terrorist organisation Hamas’ founder who then defected to become a spy for Israeli intelligence. He has been criticised for his hatred of Islam.

Outside the society’s buildings, around two dozen pro-Palestine protesters rallied on St Michael’s Street, their chants audible from the chamber. Oxford Action for Palestine, which called the protest, wrote that its purpose is to show “Zionists are not welcome in Oxford”. A protester told Cherwell that their reason is twofold: to show solidarity with Palestinian speakers, and to stand against the Union’s platforming of speakers.

Speaking first in Proposition, El-Kurd said: “If this motion passes today, it means that this body is catching up to the moral clarity of the global majority. It is about time and about 70 years too late.” He called Zionism “irredeemable and indefensible”. Lastly, El-Kurd refers to Yousef’s work for the Israeli Defence Forces and said it “dishonours me to share a space with [Yousef]” before walking out of the chamber.

Opening for the Opposition, Sacerdoti argued that the Proposition “intended to inflame not inform” and called the motion itself “an outrage”. In middle of his speech, a member of the audience began heckling “you sick motherf***er” and “genocidal maniac” before being escorted out of the chamber. Sacerdoti continued to argue that each Gazan is receiving more food than the world average.

Osman-Mowafy spoke next for Proposition, framing the debate as one that “puts correct names on self evident truths”. He cited specific Gazan families, asking: “How many bullets do you need to kill one family? 335.” He also quoted Netanyahu saying “Gaza is a city of evil” and that “Gazans are animals”, whilst noting that 50% of Gazans are children. Some of the Opposition were chuckling, to which an audience member in the balcony asked: “What’s so funny?”

Next up in Opposition Haddad told the crowd: ‘‘If you are booing, I’m sorry to say it, but you are terrorist supporters”. Haddad cited Jews, Christians, and Arabs playing football together in Israel, how as an Arab-Israeli himself he gave commands to and was saved by Jewish soldiers, and that an Arab man heads the largest bank in Israel – all evidence against an apartheid, he said. He ended by shouting: “You’re losing! You’re losing the Israeli-Arab war! You’re losing everything!” Due to a lack of decorum, he was asked to leave by the Chair during members’ speeches, at which point he put on a T-shirt that read “your terrorist is dead” with a crossed-out face.

Speaking in Proposition, Peled described the terrorist attack carried out by Hamas on 7th October, 2023, as an act of “heroism”, which drew condemnation from the crowd.

Yousef opened by referring to his work stopping Hamas suicide bombers despite being the son of the terrorist organisation’s founder. He then turned to incendiary comments including “Palestinians are the most pathetic people on planet Earth”, which incited many Points of Orders over whether he should be removed from the chamber. In response Yousef said: “this House has been hijacked by Muslims.” He called Palestinians “a false identity” and said that “we [Arabs] will exist long after the Palestinian thugs who came to hijack our society”.

Final Proposition speaker Abulhawa began with a story: “‘When I was in Gaza I saw a little boy whose arms and part of his face had been blown off by a booby-trapped can of food.” She characterised her opponents as “invoking Holocaust and screaming Antisemitism” and said: “I came to speak directly to Zionists: we let you into our homes when your own countries turned you away. You killed and robbed and burned and looted our lives, you carved out our hearts.”

Near midnight, the last Opposition speaker Hausdorff took the stage. She said that Jewish students have been intimidated from attending the debate tonight and called it “a dark moment in the Oxford Union’s history”. In response to the alleged lack of historical and legal context tonight, she said “but I am here, so fear not, ladies and gentlemen” and goes on to argue indoctrination as the centre of this conflict. Hausdorff continued: “Genocide is a slur being alleged against the real victims of genocide in this case.”

Cherwell Town Hall MT24: Meet the candidates

0

Anita Okunde

Introduce yourself briefly.

I’m a third year PPEist at Magdalen College, and I’m the Treasurer of the Oxford Union.

What is the main reason you are running for president?

The Oxford Union is quite deeply personal to me. My dad, who didn’t finish secondary school, uses the Oxford Union debates to understand English and the British accent. So, having my paper speech be part of that has always been something that I take quite a lot of personal pride in.

I’m sure we’ve all heard the rumors about the Union not being a welcoming space for people like me. So to my surprise, and my happiness, seeing an officer that looked like me in my first term as a fresher made me feel like it was a space I could be welcome in, and a place that I could actually participate in. 

What commitments and experiences do you have outside the Union?

I’m currently the SU Women’s Campaign co-chair. Last year, I was the Vice-President of the African Caribbean Society. I’ve been a climate campaigner, as well as a former Member of Youth Parliament.

What’s one thing you would change or improve about the Union?

One of my pledges is a “value for membership” project. I understand the initial price of the Oxford Union membership is very steep, and for a lot of people, is inaccessible. I want to make sure that members and potential members understand what they’re buying into. There are a lot of perks that people don’t know about. … I’m currently working on a survey to make sure the members can actually have their voice heard on this.

What issues do you think face the Union in the future? How would you try to fix them?

The underrepresentation of women in leadership roles and on term cards, alongside insufficient provisions for those with disabilities and other protected characteristics. I believe that strengthening the Union’s financial position is essential to funding initiatives that would open the doors to a more diverse range of students and make them feel truly welcome. In the past, I’ve organised women-focused events, such as professional headshot sessions and social gatherings. While these have been impactful, with additional resources we could dramatically improve the scale and quality of these initiatives.

If you could invite three speakers, who would they be?

Michelle Obama. Burna Boy. Chappell Roan.

What’s one particular debate you’d like to see?

“This House Believes that the ICC is failing to hold global leaders accountable.”

Favorite historical union president?

Geraldine Jones, the first woman President.

What song can you not get enough of right now?

“That’s So True” by Gracie Abrams.

Siddhant Nagrath

Introduce yourself briefly.

I grew up in Delhi in India for the past 18 years. I’m studying PPE at Keble. I’m a second year. 

What is the main reason you are running for president?

I think there fundamentally is space for difficult debates and discussions, and I don’t think the Union has been doing that to the fullest extent that it can be. One of the things I pledged in my manifesto is to debate dangerous topics. By that I mean intellectually dangerous topics, the sort of topics that make people a little bit uncomfortable to think about or talk about. The things that actually matter are the ones that make people uncomfortable when they think about it.

What commitments and experiences do you have outside the Union?

I’m Treasurer at the O’Reilly Theater. I am an international competitive debater and competed for Team India at the World School Debating Championships. I work for an actor company. I have run several organisations before.

What’s one thing you would change or improve about the Union?

On the point I said earlier about pushing the boundaries with the topics we debate. For example, one of the biggest debates I can think of is “Hindutva is not Hinduism”. One of the big issues has been this idea that Hindutva and Hinduism are just lumped in together… I want to focus on more intense questions, having the ability to bring in speakers and question them more intensely and under more scrutiny serves Union members better. It also increases publicity the Union receives.

What issues do you think face the Union in the future? How would you try to fix them?

Yeah, I think one of the biggest things we have seen this term is the question of rules reform. Frankly, those reforms were brought in my name, and people voted against them. But I think similar to what the “No” campaign said in their platform: It was not a vote against reform, it’s a vote against these specific reforms. There are systems and rules in society that are broken that allow for action against people from minority backgrounds. I want to work towards fixing that.

If you could invite three speakers, who would they be?

Shah Rukh Khan. Angela Merkel. Sam Altman.

What’s one particular debate you’d like to see?

“This House Believes Hindutva is not Hinduism.”

Favorite historical union president?

Benazir Bhutto.

What song can you not get enough of right now?

“Feet, don’t fail me now” by Joy Crookes.

Ethnic minority residents in Oxford feel significantly less safe than white residents

0

Major disparities between white and ethnic minority residents in feelings of safety, cultural inclusivity, and financial security, the City Council’s annual survey reveals. It also captures the housing crisis’s impact, despite an overall satisfaction with the city.

Disparities by ethnicity

While 34% of ethnic minority respondents believe that “people being attacked or harassed because of their skin colour, ethnic origin, religion, or sexual orientation” is an issue, only 9% of white respondents believe so. 66% of ethnic minority respondents agreed with the statement that people from different cultural backgrounds got on well together where they lived, while 81% of white respondents agreed.

Residents from ethnic minorities showed lower satisfaction than white respondents – 52% versus 74% – with the City Council this year. There were no major differences between the two groups on this measure in 2023.

Additionally, Oxford residents from ethnic minority backgrounds have faced more significant financial difficulties than white residents. 24% of ethnic minorities surveyed believe the economy is “really struggling” compared to 10% of white residents surveyed. Moreover, ethnic minority residents of Oxford have had more difficulties buying or moving homes, paying for fuel and energy bills, having job security, and affording food.

Housing

The residents’ survey also revealed Oxford residents are dissatisfied with the level of house building in Oxford. Only 16% of the residents surveyed think that the Council is building enough homes, and only 14% felt that the Council was doing enough to combat homelessness.

The Council aims to resolve shortages in decent housing with its housing organisation OX Place that aims to build 2,000 new homes. However, the Planning Inspectorate has rejected the Council’s aims because these goals are far higher than those set by the standard method for determining housing needs. The Council is thus currently trying to determine the appropriate approach.

The Oxford City Council leader Susan Brown said that while she is pleased by the overall positive view,  she acknowledges the housing crisis: “Everyone who lives or works in Oxford knows how bad the housing crisis is – we are all living through it every day. Building more affordable housing is my number one priority and one that we have been delivering on. Over the last five years, we have built or enabled 856 new affordable homes in Oxford.”

Overall statistics

The survey, conducted by the Oxford City Council annually, polled 899 residents who were selected to be demographically representative. 

Overall statistics are more positive. 70% of respondents were satisfied with their local area as a place to live, compared to 66% in 2023. Moreover, 54% were satisfied with the City Council’s decisions over the previous year, against 24% who were not. 

An overwhelming majority (90%) of Oxford’s residents feel safe in the city centre and residential areas during the day, compared to 70% feel safe at night. However, 43% say that the police and the City Council are not effectively addressing the problems of crime and anti-social behaviours.

Councillor Brown said: “What I most want to say to Oxford residents though is: we hear you. Oxford City Council will continue to fight to build new homes, create new jobs and seek fairer wages – and continue to deliver high-quality services to everyone in our city.”

Oxford professor resigns from Royal Society over Elon Musk’s fellowship

0

Dr. Dorothy Bishop, Emeritus Professor of Developmental Neuropsychology at Oxford University, resigned her post at the UK’s Royal Society over Elon Musk’s fellowship. Bishop says the honor of being a fellow of the Royal Society is diluted by the fact it is shared “with someone who appears to be modeling himself on a Bond villain”.

The Royal Society currently has around 1,800 fellows, and being appointed is considered a pinnacle of many scientists’ careers, a distinction Musk earned in 2018 for his contributions to the space and electric vehicle industries.

In August, a group of 74 other fellows had written to the President of the Royal Society proposing to revoke Musk’s fellowship over his comments on unrest in the UK. They raised doubts over whether he was a “fit and proper person” to hold fellowship. However, the Royal Society lawyer concluded Musk did not violate the organisation’s code of conduct. 

Bishop’s resignation was partly driven by frustration over the difficulty of removing a fellow from the Society. In her blog, she pointed out that no fellow has been expelled in the past 150 years, arguing that election to fellowship, “like loss of virginity, is something that can’t readily be reversed.” She believes the lack of action is partly due to the fact many fellows are not active on social media and therefore do not get a complete picture of Musk’s actions.

Bishop stated that Musk’s fellowship made her uncomfortable, calling it a “contradiction of all the values” of the UK’s national academy of sciences. Along with several other fellows, she gathered evidence suggesting Musk’s actions conflicted with the Royal Society’s Code of Conduct. This included social media posts that they argued offended the LGBTQ+ community and put members of the scientific community at risk. They also raised concerns about Musk’s work with Neuralink, claiming it failed to adhere to regulatory procedures for Good Regulatory Practice.

Additionally, Bishop criticized Musk’s promotion of anti-vaccine views, downplaying of climate change, and spread of deepfakes, which she argued ran counter to the Society’s principles. Musk also threatened legal action against a group of researchers whose work showed that hate speech on the platform X (formerly Twitter) has increased since his acquisition of the site.

She also noted that Musk’s fellowship made her unable to comply with the society’s code of conduct which calls for fellows to treat each other “collegially and with courtesy”.

Bishop called her decision a “gut reaction”. She admitted that her resignation probably would not have any real effect but that it brought her comfort to be disassociated with the organisation: “I didn’t really want to have anything to do with it”. Still, in her blog, Bishop referred to the Royal Society as a “venerable institution” and highlighted the important work it does in promoting science.

Report: Students should be able to view their exam scripts

0

A new report by the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) found that current restrictions on students being able to view and share their exam scripts reduces students’ opportunities to learn from past work and “undermines confidence” in the exam system. Currently, Oxford University students can access past exam scripts through a Subject Access Request, a process unfamiliar to most.

The report’s author Rohan Selva-Radov said that it reveals “a pressing need for greater transparency and consistency from universities.” Director of HEPI Nick Hillman concurred that “the issue of transparency in exams is not discussed within higher education as much as [HEPI] believe it should be.” 

The report found that GCSE and A Level boards are far ahead of universities on this issue, with all exam boards having functionality for the sharing of exam scripts, while only 52% of universities do so currently.

In response, the report recommends that all universities publish a policy regarding their approach to letting students see their exam scripts. It goes on to say that all universities should allow their students to view exam scripts as a default and that they should adopt technology that would allow students to do so easily.

Oxford currently allows students to access past exam scripts through a Subject Access Request (SAR). The process, however, is not straightforward, with students needing to email Data Protection to submit an official request. Moreover, most students are unaware that this process even exists. 

A PPE student who used SAR told Cherwell that “I learned about SAR from an Oxfess, so I was initially doubtful of it, especially as my tutor has never heard about SARs. But once I got my essay scores and comments I found it really helpful, so I wish there’s more clarity on how we can access our own academic information.”