Saturday 2nd May 2026
Blog Page 697

Flexitarians: Weird but OK?

0

Eating meat is harming our planet. This is a shame, as I love meat; however, with the UN branding it as the ‘world’s most urgent problem,’ it looks like we could all do with a change of diet.

Meat the ‘world’s most urgent problem’ Image Credit:  https://carnivorestyle.com/

Evidence for the UN’s claim is overwhelming. Humans eat approximately 230 million tonnes of meat a year, which is double the amount we consumed 30 years earlier. Intensive breeding of livestock places an enormous stress on ecological systems. In 2006 the UN calculated that livestock farming contributed to approximately 18% of greenhouse emissions worldwide. In context, this means that the demand for meat places more pressure on the environment than the combined contributions of planes, cars and all forms of transport.

David Attenborough: A prominent flexitarian

It is for this reason that David Attenborough expresses such a growing reluctance to consume meat. While undoubtedly sharing an affinity with the animals he has dedicated his life to, Attenborough claimed that it was the ‘state of the planet’ that motivated him to cut-back on the amount of meat he eats:

“I haven’t been a doctrinaire vegetarian or vegan, but I no longer have the same appetite for meat. Why? I’m not sure. I think subconsciously maybe it’s because of the state of the planet.”

Attenborough’s evasion of the labels ‘vegetarian or vegan,’ while still consciously cutting-back on his meat consumption fits him into the category of a ‘flexitarian.’ Also known less-memorably as ‘reducetarians’ or ‘lessertarians,’ the flexitarian diet is mainly plant-based, while allowing a degree of flexibility for the occasional incorporation of meat.

The appeal of such a diet is obvious. Many consider the complete eradication of steaks, hamburgers and Christmas turkey from their lives as too drastic a change, totally incompatible with their existing lifestyle. However, in offering a flexible approach to meat consumption, flexitarianism provides a manageable middle-ground between carnivorous gorging and a total reliance on plants. Rather than a ‘cold turkey’ elimination of meat altogether, the flexitarian diet offers a more encouraging and sustainable path towards vegetarianism, while acknowledging the gnawing withdrawal symptoms that often come with a radical change of diet.

Of course a big concern of anyone seeking to cut-back on their meat consumption lies in the question of where their protein will come from. The Dietary Reference Intake encourages consuming 0.8g of protein for every kilogram of body weight. This amounts to roughly 46g of protein per day for women, while men are encouraged to eat slightly more at 56g per day. Interestingly, research from Oxford University in 2010 found that meat eaters on average eat well above the recommended level of protein. As such, cutting back on meat is unlikely to trigger severe protein deficiencies, but rather regulate intake down to the recommended level.

Part of the reason for this over-consumption of protein may lie in its existence within foods that are not meat. For example, eggs and dairy products contain high levels of protein, with a single hard-boiled egg containing approximately 7g of protein, and 100g of cheddar cheese containing around 25g of protein. Greek yoghurt is another excellent source, with about 6g of protein contained within each 100g of yoghurt. As such, it takes less meat than many people believe for the human body to reach its recommended protein intake, which is reasonably attainable through a variety of alternative vegetarian foods.  

Eggs and Dairy: alternative sources of protein

For those seeking to remove all animal-sourced products from their diets, excellent plant-based proteins include grains such as oats, barley, rice and quinoa, all of which can be used to bulk out a meal and leave you feeling full. Similarly lentils, pulses and beans offer another hearty alternative to meat, with just 100g of boiled lentils containing around 9g of protein. Soy proteins such as tofu and soya beans also offer a low-calorie, high-protein alternative to meat, with 100g of tofu providing 8g of protein, and 100g of soy beans offering 15g. Proteins can also be easily incorporated into snacking, with nuts and seeds providing a healthy source of amino acids in between meals. Almonds, cashews, chia seeds and flax seeds are all popular snacks for maintaining protein levels throughout the day.

Alternatives to these natural sources of protein are the newly developed mycoprotein, an ingredient common to all Quorn products. While not vegan, mycoprotein offers a synthetically produced source of protein made through a process of fermentation of the fungus ‘fusarium venetatum.’ While this may not sound particularly appealing, the absence of cholesterol and trans fats that Quorn claim for their products makes them a healthier alternative to processed meats such as bacon, sausages, salamis and ham, all of which contain high levels of saturated fat and salt. Indeed, research from the World Health Organisation found that eating 50g of processed meat per day can increase the risk of colorectal cancer, adding individual health benefits to the wider environmental improvements that would be achieved by a reduction in meat consumption.

Ultimately, like any significant lifestyle change, the flexitarian approach advocates a gradual and consistent lessening of meat within one’s diet. The label acknowledges those aspiring towards vegetarianism or veganism, without alienating individuals from the all-or-nothing mentality often associated with vegetarians. Consequently in seeking to create a more sustainable world, flexitarianism offers the individual a more sustainable mentality in seeking to eliminate meat from their diet. That in itself cannot be a bad thing.

Image Credit:  https://carnivorestyle.com/

Oxford University Hospital privatisation row referred to Secretary for Health

0

The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has been asked to solve a dispute over the privatisation of key scanning facilities in Oxford hospitals.

The plans to privatise a vital part of the cancer treatment process in Oxford University Hospitals have been described as “opaque and murky”. NHS England proposed that the PET-CT scanning service be taken over by InHealth, a private medical company.

The decision was called into question when Doctors raised concerns for patient welfare, stating that the new deal would “damage patients’ health.” On the 4th of April, a 10,000 signature petition was also handed to the Health Overview Scrutiny Committee, opposing the plan.

Subsequently, the matter was referred to Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, by the Health Overview Scrutiny Committee. This followed a meeting last Thursday, held by the Oxfordshire Joint Health Committee, at which
Oxford University Hospitals gave evidence.

Speaking to The Guardian, NHS England announced that “Oxford Universities foundation trust and InHealth agreed to work together to deliver Pet-CT services across Thames Valley[…]”

“[…] which for NHS patients would mean services continuing to be provided from the Churchill Hospital in Oxford but also new local services for people in Swindon and Milton Keynes, providing more convenient scans as part of the NHS long term plan to improve care and save more lives.”

Professor of Medical Oncology at the University of Oxford, Adrian Harris, warned in a letter to Local MPs that “Patients … will have a two-tier system, one in hospital car parks with poor access machines – the Oxford patients [will get better scans] at the Churchill. The new scanners at Oxford are 10 times more sensitive than mobile ones”.

Nick Maynard, head of the cancer team at the OUH trust stated that “the patients of Oxfordshire will get inferior quality scans and what we believe will be a less safe service”.

The referral followed threats of legal action by NHS England against Oxford University Hospitals for libel. NHS heads threated to sue the trust if a legal case was mounted against the awarding of the PET-CT contract to InHealth.

As revealed in The Guardian, Sir Malcolm Grant, the then chairman of NHS England personally warned OUH’s Chief Executive of potential legal action in a telephone conversation. The move has been described by OUH as indicative of a recurring pattern of ‘bullying and intimidation’.

Cherwell believes this to be a unique event, with no other NHS trust having been threated with libel by their national overseers.

In response to the original plan to fully privatise the service, Layla Moran, the Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, told press “everything about this process has been murky and opaque, and that’s why I’m glad, after so much pressure, that the government is finally taking notice.

“I, alongside other Oxfordshire MPs, have stood strongly against this shambles of a process since some light was shed on it. Local residents, patients and doctors absolutely deserve to be in the know on such an important issue.

“With the secretary of state now getting a chance to step in, I fear it is too little too late, but I will be keeping up the pressure and writing to him as a matter of urgency.”

This article was updated on the 10th April to correct factual inaccuracies.

Police accused of “lying” about confiscation of boat race protesters’ banner

0

Oxford Climate Justice Campaign (OCJC) and Zero Carbon (ZC) have presented evidence which contradicts statements made by the Metropolitan Police in the aftermath of the incidents during Sunday’s Boat Race.

OCJC and ZC campaign for fossil fuel divestment at Oxford and Cambridge, respectively.

During the Boat Race on Sunday, an event which attracted a viewership in the millions, the organisations planned on dropping a twenty-metre banner reading “Oxbridge Come Clean” over Hammersmith Bridge as the men’s boats passed underneath. These plans were thwarted by police intervention.

In a statement to Oxford Mail, the Metropolitan Police said: “Officers became concerned about people in the crowded area potentially being in possession of fireworks and causing a safety hazard to those in the vicinity. A number of other individuals were also seen acting suspiciously.

“As a result, three men and four women were stop and searched under Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. No items were seized and no arrests were made.”

Despite the police’s claims, video evidence seen by Cherwell shows one of the near 20 police officers present on the bridge saying: “I just confiscated a very large number of zip ties.” The zip ties were not returned after the search.

Police filmed holding zip-ties, and threatening to seize an activist’s camera

In a joint statement, OCJC and ZC wrote: “Cambridge Zero Carbon Society and Oxford Climate Justice Campaign strongly condemn the lies about seized property issued by an official spokesperson of the Met Police. This messy attempt to hide the truth about police heavy-handedness demonstrates that even the Met’s own representatives are aware that officers were entirely unjustified in their repression of our peaceful, legal protest.

“Our intention was not to disrupt or to damage, and in fact our protest was meticulously planned not to disturb the racers. Rather, our goal was to use a public platform to call upon our universities to remove their untenable investments in fossil fuel companies.

“In impeding the free expression of this message, the police are complicit in upholding the damaging status quo. These revelations are deeply embarrassing for the police – who we call on to make a full apology for their actions, and subsequent misrepresentations.”


Police take the protesters’ banner

Though the Metropolitan Police have chosen not to comment on protester’s allegations, one video shows an officer explaining their reasons for intervening. The officer expressed worry that flares may hurt innocent bystanders, referring to their use at a similar protest during last year’s Boat Race. He also said: “Our concern is that the banner could drop down and hurt someone who is part of the race, and also that it could be used to do criminal damage to the bridge.”

That an item is made or adapted for doing criminal damage is one of the grounds on which it can be legally seized. The police did not formally confiscate the banner itself, with one clip showing an officer saying: “We can’t seize [the banner] from you, based on its size.”

However, one clip shows an officer searching the bag containing it and carrying it away from the owner. When asked on why he was taking it, he responded: “I am not taking it, I am just taking it off the bridge.”

The events described transpired around 3:15pm, just when the banner drop was scheduled. Protesters said that two members of the activist groups were searched, whilst three others were apprehended and brought onto the road in between crowds of onlookers. The protesters claim they were “aggressively separated from each other and surrounded on all sides”.

After what protesters describe as “20 minutes of intense questioning, including threats of charges and intimidating tactic”, any reasonable chance of protest was gone and they were allowed to leave the bridge. None of the activists was arrested.

The two organisations claim that this was not the first time climate activists were stopped that day. A spokesperson for Zero Carbon confirmed that at 11.30am, a police officer stopped them to ask questions and demand ID. The student claimed to have seen that the police officer had “Cambridge Zero Carbon Society, Hammersmith Bridge, Climate Protest” written in their notebook.

Protesters said that police presence on Hammersmith Bridge was concentrated in the 20m stretch where they had planned to drop the banner.

Two members who were stopped and questioned at 2pm were threatened with what protesters describe as ‘serious discipline’ if they did not provide their names, addresses, and a commitment to not being involved in any form of protest on the bridge.

The Metropolitan Police were contacted for comment.

Hybridity and gendered versatility are the way forward in fashion

0

I think it’s uncontroversial to claim that gender has been integral to fashion since it’s very creation. Garments have historically been essential expressions of ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ in order to fit contemporary standards of a ‘man’ or ‘woman’. In fact, the semiotic language of clothing has become so ingrained in society, a stick figure in a triangle skirt is enough to tell us which toilet to use. Yet, in a time where such binary categories of gender have come under intense scrutiny, why should clothes on a stick figure have the authority to dictate who can enter a bathroom?

If we were to take Judith Butler’s assertion that gender is a social performance, high fashion takes this performance to the catwalk and turns it into a fine art.

Femininity and masculinity are effectively determined by society (fashion perhaps being one of the most ritualistic means by which rigid gendered norms are constructed). Though often limiting the scope for gender expression, the backlog of gendered clothing makes for an interesting material history to play with. Fashion has the potential to disrupt all norms that have preceded directly because it also has the power to enforce them.

Charles Jeffrey is a pioneer of this innately rebellious attitude towards gender and its relationship to fashion. His brand ‘Loverboy’ (named after a night he hosted to fund his MA) pulses at its core with a high dose of queer culture and the freedom of unbridled nightlife–taking the playful gender dialogue from the club to the catwalk. Loverboy’s first collection propelled Jeffrey into the list of young British designers to watch (voted emerging Menswear Designer of the Year at the 2017 British Fashion Awards) and saw him swiftly absorbed into the plethora of cult brands featured at Dover street market. Last year, Topshop acknowledged the designer’s potential by inviting him to design a series of T-Shirts to celebrate LGBTQ+ month. The high-street giant even embraced the brands agendered vision and marketed the collection as a unisex. The T-shirts featured provocative artworks by contemporary artists with dialogues on the back including Jeffery’s musings on the ‘right to Gender recognition’. They sold out within weeks.

Evocative of early Westwood, Jeffrey’s creative voice distinctively reflects a generation unwilling to accept a characterless dress code of pink skirts for girls and blue trousers for boys. Despite being listed as a menswear brand, Jeffrey fully embraces the ‘co-ed’ runway–casting calls being put out to any ‘queer’ Londoner with a story. The eclectic nature of the clothes (ranging from oversized knitwear to Elizabethan pantaloons) in their costume like decadence are able to escape the constraints of normative and traditionally gendered fashion. The surrealism of proportion and shape creates the figure of a new sort of body which no longer serves the distinction of ‘male’ or ‘female’. The almost immediate success and popularity of Loverboy illustrates the thirst of both the industry and the consumer for designers who will toy with fashion through a playful disregard of conventional gender norms.

Yes, ‘Femininity’ and ‘masculinity’ as codified aesthetics are still integral to the fashion industry as a whole, but the intersections and cross overs between the two are becoming ever more apparent in high fashion. Under Jeremy Scott, Moschino is increasingly bringing this questioning attitude towards gender aesthetics onto the catwalk. Because of this, Moschino’s Fall 2018 runway was a triumph. Part of the novelty of Scott’s vision was its hybridity and gendered versatility–a feat successfully executed without resorting to minimalistic or agendered cuts. Debonair women strode alongside coquettish men and vice-versa.

The collection maximised the erotic power of hyper-masculinity and hyper-femininity, elevating gender beyond the conventional sex of the wearer and propelling it into a conceptual exploration of sexual and gendered tropes. With pinstripes, PVC, and leather–Scott cut up clothing’s gendered stereotypes and pieced them back together in the form of a suspender belt-cum-jacket to be worn effortlessly by both men and women. The powerfully erotic charm of the collection reflected how a combination of masculine and feminine aesthetics could result in something you just can’t envision by relying on the image of a single gender. The finale ‘tandem tux’ is the material realisation of this gender displacement: together a drag queen and trans non-binary activist prowl sultrily in their black stilettoes down the catwalk against societies binary gaze.

Yes, the intense homoeroticism of the collection added an overtly sexual tone to the show, but the gendered innovativeness of the collection partially lay in the presentation of sex on equal terms. Here, the female and male models are equally sexed subjects–latex dolls concealed under executive pinstripes. Each model casts a knowing gaze into the audience as if heading to a gathering we all wish we were invited to. It is incredibly refreshing to see sex and gender presented as something which becomes all the more sensual and powerful for combining the extremes of both feminine and masculine charm.

I find this the most exciting way in which fashion is currently exploring gender, through the assimilation and celebration of both masculinity and femininity. Yes, Calvin Klein’s clean and agendered runways radiate in their minimalistic attitude to gender, but isn’t it so much more interesting to revel in intense masculine and feminine fashion in a slick PVC power suit?

Inquiry finds St Hugh’s failed to take sufficient action over accusations of sexual harassment

0

Members of St Hugh’s college’s governing body have expressed “profound sorrow” after an independent inquiry has found that the college failed to take sufficient action against a fellow accused of sexual harassment.

The inquest was commissioned by the college in April 2018, after Professor David Robertson was accused of sexual harassment by two former students. Robertson taught politics at the college between 1982 and 1991, and died in 2017.

The author and crime writer Mel McGrath, published an article in The Pool, an online women’s magazine, accusing Prof. Robertson of “doing a Weinstein on me”. She went on to describe his behaviour, stating that he “held tutorials in his flat on college grounds and had an uncanny knack for scheduling a shower, at whatever time of day, just before I arrived”.

“He’d open the door – as if innocently – dressed in his bathrobe and, one time, in a tiny towel,” she wrote.

“For the next hour I would have to undergo the humiliating experience of reading my essay, on which I had laboured hard and with serious intent, while David sat opposite, half-naked and man spreading.”

St Hugh’s responded by praising McGrath for “the courage she has shown” and regrets “such conduct ever occurred”.

“We have assured her that the college believes her and accepts her account.”

The inquiry itself was lead by Alison Levitt QC, who also prepared the independent report into the Jimmy Saville scandal.

Cherwell has contacted St Hugh’s for comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Popping the all-boy bubble

In my time as a pupil at a private “boys’ school”, I don’t think I ever anticipated fully the extent to which moving out of my single-sex school would be as much of a culture shock as it became. The adjustment is something that, at one time not too long ago, students would never have had to make: most would graduate from an overwhelmingly male environment at school to an overwhelmingly male environment at university, slipping comfortably into an overwhelmingly male landscape in public life. The latter two have (to some extent) faced changes and while a decrepit yet dominant inequality persists in these spaces, us men are no longer entirely playing a man’s game.

As a student at a boys-only private school nestled in a comfortable part of London, I was aware that I might be on the verge of leaving a bit of a bubble without too much difficulty. While going to a “boys’ school” of course doesn’t prevent its pupils from befriending girls their own age it does at least guarantee that a sizeable majority of people a developing teenager gets to know best–the peers they interact with on a daily basis and are in some small, imperceptible ways moulded by–are teenage boys. A few people had no female friends their own age, growing up in a sheltered social sphere that could have seriously hampered their ability to mature into empathetic and understanding adults.

To be clear, attending a single-sex private school, while it may have disadvantages, is in general a great privilege; in many cases these schools have a wealth of brilliant teachers and cutting-edge educational resources. However, one has to think that the gender-exclusionary aspect of these schools reflects a world that is beginning to vanish. The structural shock of suddenly entering a mixed-sex environment is something that can be hard to properly acknowledge without it being felt.

It would be difficult for me to know the extent to which this warped social environment was responsible for the sniggering disdain that many (although certainly not all) students held for arguments about modern feminism or gender inequality, but such an attitude was very frequently left unchallenged. Attractive young female teachers were talked of in more complimentary terms than those older female teachers just as qualified and intelligent. It was always cringe-worthy to sit in an assembly about the state of women’s rights and watch as the hands of bolshie 16-year-olds in the audience shot up with a smug “Uh, I think you’ll find…” attitude behind them.

Again, I sincerely appreciate the opportunities that my all-boys school gave me and other pupils. I made friends with some fantastic people, I was privileged to be given access to so many extracurricular opportunities, and some of my favourite teachers inspired me to pursue the degree I’m studying today. None of this changes the damaging effects of limiting the student pool along the lines of gender, as the artificially-engineered bubble showed itself to be arbitrary at best. At worst it can be construed as an Edwardian relic that continues to warp the social sphere for many of its students.

Oxford Independent Group applies to become official student society

0

A group of Oxford students seeking to set up an Independent Group political club have applied to the Students’ Union for recognition.

The group is part of Young Independents, the youth wing of the Independent Group – Change UK (TIG-CUK), a new political party founded by former Labour and Conservative MPs to oppose Brexit.

Five committee positions were announced on the new website of group, officially called ‘Oxford Students for the Independent Group’. Corpus Christi’s Lily McDermott is listed as President, with Rhodes scholar James Norton as Secretary, Nicole Bussey as Treasurer, Somerville’s Joe Rattue as IT Officer and former Cherwell editor Libby Cherry as Communications Officer.

Speaking to Cherwell, McDermott outlined the group’s plans for Trinity term: “We are aiming to have a meeting at the beginning of Trinity term. From then we will be organising more events, and hope to have one of the TIG MPs visit Oxford.

“We have requested to take part in the Three Party Debate hosted by The Oxford Forum and are waiting to hear back on that front.”

McDermott declined to say whether the group would campaign in the upcoming local elections and how they would differentiate themselves from the Oxford University Liberal Democrats, who share CUK-TIG’s centrist and pro-European political positions. McDermott told Cherwell: “The hope is that we are moving away from tribal politics and wish to work with parties that support evidence-based progressive policies.”

The group’s mission statement reads: “The current political system is not working. The Conservative Party has been taken over by the extreme far right, and Labour is run by the hard left.

“British politics has become increasingly polarised in recent years, and has caused public discourse to stagnate in the same hackneyed narratives which are not only incapable of the pragmatic compromise necessary for government, as the Brexit Crisis demonstrates, but have also produced an increasingly hostile atmosphere which serves only to divide the UK.

“We call for a new kind of politics, a kind of politics which unites the people, ensures wealth and prosperity, and fosters diversity and equality.”

Take it and Run – Philanthropy, The Sacklers and You

0

Should a bad person be allowed to fund good things? Should we insist that they keep money we see as ‘icky’ for themselves, or take it in order to do enriching and real things with it? This is the crux of the debate around the money that the Sackler family – alleged architects of the Opioid Crisis – have given to a number of cultural and educational institutions through their foundation, most notably the National Portrait Gallery, which has recently refused their £1m donation. 

Be honest: if someone had asked if you knew who the Sacklers were three years ago would you have been able to answer? Would you have been able to name where they had donated to, or where might have had a museum wing named after them? As an Oxford student you might have been aware of the library that they help fund, but maybe not that the money comes from the profits of Purdue Pharma, accused by the LA Times of making their main product OxyContin deliberately addictive. It is this controversy that has led groups to call for their donations to be rejected, but to do so is simply virtue-signalling self-flagellation that ultimately harms our cultural heritage.

Opponents to these donations argue that the philanthropy of these families, firms, and individuals is simply what might be called ‘morality laundering’: a way to clean up their name and advertise their products, by associating with large cultural projects that they help to fund. But does this argument really hold? Let’s play a game: Can you name any of the sponsors or benefactors of your favourite museum? The National Gallery, the Ashmolean, or the Science Museum? And even if you knew, would that make you more likely to buy their products, or ignore their negative press? The average person would not – having seen that the British Museum has exhibitions sponsored by BP – say and sincerely believe “oh, BP fund history, maybe their oil spill stuff isn’t as bad as I thought?” 

And therein lies the crux: what these people might think they’re doing is buying some good press, but nobody in the real world actually cares. Barely anyone knows the sponsors, fewer know what these sponsors do, and fewer again are even in the position to buy from them or use their services. What is in fact happening is that these businesses are throwing their (plentiful) profits into funding galleries, museums, libraries, and the places we hold dear to our cultured society in return for… essentially nothing. Why then resist taking their money: So you can stop feeling an ‘ick’ about your Greek or Latin textbook?

However, as well as sponsorship, these ‘protested about’ individuals also occasionally act as trustees on the boards of these institutions. For those of you not au faitwith how these charitable institutions generally operate, essentially the people who become trustees have usually donated a LOT of money over time, and eventually are allowed to sit on the governing body to help with how it runs. What has brought trustees under the spotlight in recent years is the case of Warren Kanders – the Vice-President of the board of Trustees at New York’s Whitney Museum – who also happens to be founder of the arms business ‘Safariland’, leading to bouts of protests there last summer.

 Given the lack of publicity for the work that trustees do and even who they are, we can say neither that Kanders is doing this to rehabilitate his own image, or – especially given that it’s taken more than 10 years on the board for Kanders’ involvement with Safariland to become an issue – that of his company. Why then take issue with his involvement? If someone with lots of money and organisational experience wants to support cutting edge and subversive artists that otherwise might be left by the wayside, then let them – there is simply no avenue for them to take private gain from their charitable work, so no need to worry that by accepting it you are causing a greater harm elsewhere. To object to the help of trustees (financial and practical) too is therefore merely to reduce the effectiveness and quality of our artistic and educational bodies.

And this once more leads us to the one argument that therefore seems left: is a ‘bad person’ allowed to support ‘good things’ like art and education? Throughout history major advances and works have been completed with the support of autocratic rulers and ruthless plutocrats – even Da Vinci was financially supported by the Medici’s and Borgias – and yet what they’ve produced is objectively beautiful. 

There may be a case for refusing donations by those criminally convicted, but to not take the money of those just working in ‘morally questionable’ industries is to let those money-flush rich buggers become even richer for no good reason. Are we really going to insist that their somewhat morally ‘icky’ gains be kept in a Scrooge McDuck style swimming pool, or should it be used to fund cultural enrichment and academic progression as they currently are? 

But even then, another problem arises: which businesses are allowed to be philanthropic? If not arms manufacturers, then also not pharmaceuticals or oil. If not pharmaceuticals, then also not fast food or supermarkets. If not them, do we slide down a slippery slope only allowing auditors of charities to donate? The moral scale is a blurry one, and it may be difficult to stop saying no when we start turning down donations from people like the Sacklers.

If you truly believe that those donating to these organisations should have their money turned away, then you are simply virtue signalling in a way that eventually just denies the cultural sector the much-needed funds that they are simply unable to find elsewhere. These philanthropists have no real route to gain economic or publicity benefits from these donations, so to deny them the chance to donate is to only deny their right to cultural involvement, all while financially restricting these educational and artistic institutions from doing as much as they otherwise could. If you like your museums empty, your libraries deserted, and your galleries plain, then fine – enjoy your dull existence. But if you think the soul needs something other than food, drink and shelter to survive, then we have to accept philanthropy, even if it is from the Sacklers or BP. It might initially seem a little objectionable, but when examined clearly, it is most certainly for the best. 

My Cup Runneth Over

0

Such a sad tale prepare to hear

As draws from either sex a tear. 

A Moon Cup- meant to help provide

A green approach to the red tide-

I loathe to say, was doomed of late

Unto a dark and heinous fate. 

It boasts a flowery stem, and yet

This cup’s no shrinking violet;

While stream of Tampax seaward flows,

Refusing there to decompose, 

For years one Moon Cup may be kept

Each month to plumb the bloody depths.

Its snug fit forms a splash-proof seal 

To trap that cumbrous crimson yield

Which brings relief to those who daren’t, 

This month at least, become a parent. 

While some grab Kotex by the handful-

Condemn their liners to the landfill-

Those who want to save the earth

Must first contend with Moon Cup’s girth. 

Beware the sizing! Moon Cup yawns

As broad as silicone Don Juan.

The site warns ‘large’ had been designed

With those who’d given birth in mind. 

Once in, the Cup tenacious clings

More tightly than a liner’s wings;

And wedged securely in the breach

It sups as well as any leech. 

For umpteen hours in this pose

One Moon Cup to the challenge rose,

Resisting all attempts to boot

It from its wearer’s baby chute. 

For hours one can safely sport 

A rubbery chalice of this sort-

Alas, one wench misjudged her size

And could not wrest it from her thighs. 

‘Insert a finger, break the seal,’ 

Such wisdom did the website yield. 

But Moon Cup darted skittish back

From every digit’s bold attack:

At each touch fled, as though ashamed, 

Back to the depths from whence it came.

As hours passed, and terror rose,

Its wearer entered panic’s throes. 

Distressed by this and by exams,

Her cooch snapped shut like frightened clam. 

This tale’s conclusion hangs unknown:
Was e’er Cup from his seat dethroned?

’Tis rumoured she produced a spoon

To dig him from his bloody tomb; 

While there are voices, hushed, who say

The Moon Cup clings there to this day. 

But pay no heed to this my tale. 

Such fantasies should not prevail

O’er Moon Cup’s low-cost, waste-free way

Of coping with one’s Dolmio day. 

With time and practice, then with ease:

The cup can exit as you please. 

Disclaimer: menstrual cups can provide a sustainable alternative to single use sanitary products, but, like any medical device, should be used according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Direct any concerns to your health professional.