Thursday 11th June 2026
Blog Page 872

More offers for women than men for first time

2

Oxford University has offered more places to women than men for the first time.
This year’s intake of freshers was made up of a total of 1,070 18-year-old women, compared to 1,025 men of the same age. Women not only gained a greater numbers of offers, but also applied in record numbers.

Catherine Canning, VP for Access and Academic Affairs at Oxford SU said: “It is important to recognise that Oxford has finally reached gender parity in its admissions for the first time in its 1000-year history.

“However, there are still significant disparities in admissions particularly around race and class.

“It is also important to recognise that access is more than an offer letter and Oxford University should be making sure all students feel welcome here.”

Colette Webber, Corpus Christi College’s women’s representative and first year student, said: “Considering that women weren’t even given degrees from Oxford until the 20s the active presence of women at the University is obviously an achievement that deserves to be celebrated – go on gals!

“But its also not an excuse in my opinion for anyone to pat themselves on the back and become complacent, we need to be looking at not only the male-female divide but who the women are that are being accepted.

“Other contextual information like class and ethnicity has to be as important and equally for the men.

“A statistic like that [more women than men] can be misleading in terms of diversity and development.”

The Polar 3 analysis, carried out by the Higher Education Funding Council, looked at the link between the socioeconomic status of an area and its residents’ participation in higher education.

The study found that students from the three wealthiest quintile areas were 10 times as likely to apply and almost 13 times as likely to be accepted at Oxford than those in the lowest quintile.

Jaycie Carter, the co-chair of Oxford’s SU’s Class Act Campaign told Cherwell: “Class Act believes that far more needs to be done by the University of Oxford and the government to reform systems and a culture that deter promising students from low socioeconomic backgrounds from applying and exacerbates these disparities in the application process.

“This should be done by improving education for those from the most deprived backgrounds to give a fair basis in which to start as well as top universities providing institutional support both in increased outreach work and ensuring these students are actually supported and at the university when they do get a place.”

Julia Paolitto, a spokesperson for the University, told Cherwell: “While more than ten times as many offers went to those in the highest quintile compared to the lowest, for those who did apply the offer rates were fairly similar.

“More importantly, once Ucas took into account the profiles of those applying from each group (including the subjects they applied for and the grades they achieved), students from the lowest quintile actually performed better than expected compared to those from higher quintiles.”

Oxford votes to strike

1

Oxford University staff have voted to join a nationwide strike by members of the University and College Union (UCU), after negotiations over proposed changes to academic pensions broke down.

Lectures, classes, and exams could be hit if UCU pushes ahead with industrial action, beginning with a two-day walkout next month.

The University has said it aims to “minimise any disruption” to students.

The umbrella group Universities UK (UUK) wants to change the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS), which covers pensions for academic staff in universities such as Oxford.

This would see academics’ retirement funds moved from a scheme that gives a guaranteed income, to one where pensions are subject to changes in the stock market.

Independent analysis of the proposals claim that a typical lecturer would lose £200,000 in retirement if the UUK plans were imposed.

Garrick Taylor, president of Oxford University’s UCU branch, and Bruce Shakespeare, the pensions officer, told Cherwell: “We share the national sentiment expressed by the UCU’s leadership that the decision to deprive our members of a decent pension after many years of hard & dedicated service is an appalling indictment of their trust.

“Following the outcome of the meeting with Universities UK at the Joint Negotiating Committee, we now face the real possibility that many of our local staff will lose a considerable part of their retirement income as a result of these talks.

“USS will now begin a consultation with fund members with a final decision made by the board at the end of June 2018. There are further negotiating meetings which will take place between now and June at which UCU will continue to fight the proposal to end the guaranteed pension.

“During this period the local branch of the UCU will support the agreed decision by the majority of its membership to take industrial action in support of staff who have been betrayed by the decision to significantly devalue their pension rights.”

UCU said the first strikes would likely start with a two-day walkout on 22 and 23 February. The action would then expand to three, four, and five day walkouts in future weeks.

The industrial action will also see members work to contract, refusing to cover classes or reschedule those lost to strike action.

In response to the strike ballot result, an Oxford University spokesperson told Cherwell: “The UCU has announced that it will call on its members to take industrial action in the form of days of national strikes in support of its dispute with Universities UK over proposed changes to the USS pension scheme.

“Oxford University is looking at measures to minimise any disruption arising from this action. Students should therefore attend as normal for any scheduled examinations.

“Teaching in colleges will not be affected but it is possible that some departmental teaching may be. Students should attend all teaching as normal, unless advised of alternative
arrangements.”

Oxford was one of 61 universities to vote in favour of the ballot. More than 85 per cent of Oxford University members called for strike action, with a turnout of just over 50 per cent.

Across the country, 88 per cent of members backed strike action.

Members at the seven universities that failed to meet the 50 per cent turnout threshold to allow them to take action will be balloted again.

Oxford SU told Cherwell they supported academic staff going on strike, though raised concerns about the negative impact on students.

They said: “We stand in solidarity with UCU in their strike, as we believe those working in higher education should be treated and remunerated fairly.

“However, it is regrettable that this proposed action could have adverse effects on the education of students. The strike action will affect teaching in departments and could potentially have other consequences such as slower feedback to students.

“We call on Universities UK and UCU to continue with talks, and urge that the University put increasing pressure on UUK, to reach a better resolution for those affected by the  pension reforms, before the scheduled strike.

“This is an ongoing situation, with possible developments in the coming weeks. As a student-led organisation, we want to represent student perspectives during this process, and will continue to consult with students, through Council and student representatives, as the situation evolves.”

Speaking to Cherwell, Lizzy Diggins and Keir Mather, chairs of Oxford University Labour Club, affirmed the academic staff’s right to industrial action.

They said: “We stand in solidarity with all academic staff in their struggle for fair treatment as regards to their pension dispute. OULC will always defend people’s right to organise in their own workplace for equality and just treatment.”

The dispute follows growing concerns over inequality in the university pay system, with recent revelations about vice chancellors’ pay-packets causing controversy. Meanwhile, average staff salaries have fallen 16% since 2016.

Sally Hunt, the UCU general secretary, said: “There is much talk of a crisis of leadership in higher education at the moment, especially after the recent vice chancellor pay and perks scandals.

“Now is the time for university leaders to recognise the scale of this problem, how angry their staff are and to work with us to avoid widespread disruption in universities.”

Oxford vice chancellor, Louise Richardson, was one of the university leaders whose pay came under scrutiny, after it was revealed she earned £410,000 a year including pension.

Defending her high salary, she said although her pay was high compared with that of less senior staff, “compared to a footballer or a banker, it looks very different”.

Last term, Cherwell also revealed that she had claimed almost £70,000 in expenses since she arrived at the University.

The vice chancellors of Warwick and Loughborough universities last week broke ranks to criticise Universities UK for failing to guarantee retirement incomes for USS members.

Salman Rushdie and Trump: Migration, modernity, and transformation

0

In the past year, artists of every medium have had to face the challenge of how to address, creatively, the era of Trump. One would imagine that there would be no paucity of material to work with. But the difficult question is how to package it, which angle to take, and how to make art that is both elegant and incisive out of a phenomenon whose vulgarity and appeals to the basest intellectual instincts complicates such sophisticated treatment. Even South Park, a show whose entire edifice is built on vulgarity and parody, said last February that they would avoid directly satirising Trump because the parody which was real and occupying the Oval Office was already such that no satirist could hope to improve upon it.

In Salman Rushdie’s thirteenth novel, The Golden House, published in September, Trump looms large in the background. He is imagined as a sort of grotesque comic book character named the Joker, “his hair green with luminous triumph, his skin white as a Klansman’s hood, his lips dripping with anonymous blood”, leader of a leering army of clowns and trolls who wreak havoc on the American landscape, which seems to have been turned upside down: truth is fiction, good is evil, knowledge is lies. But all of this takes place in the background. In the foreground, the novel tells the story of the Golden family, who have recently uprooted themselves from their home country, later revealed to be India, but also, it seems, from their past identities, and transplanted themselves to Obama-era New York. Here they come to inhabit a large house in Greenwich Village, which naturally comes to be known as the Golden House. The family, composed of the patriarch Nero, a construction tycoon, and his three sons, have all raided the storehouses of Greek mythology and Roman history for their new adopted names. All of them, furthermore, in a concerted effort to erase the past, refuse to speak of the country they have left and of who they may have been before coming to America. It becomes the mission of one of their neighbours in the gardens which the Golden House overlook, the aspiring young Belgian filmmaker René Unterlinden, to discover the mystifying story behind the Goldens’ transformation.

For any reader relatively well acquainted with Rushdie’s work, this latest novel treads some familiar territory. The theme of migration from East to West occupies the central position that has come to be reserved for it. The bustling plenitude and overcrowding of characters and stories that is Rushdie’s characteristic method for capturing the atmosphere of big cities within the pages of a novel is present too. But the theme that takes centre-stage in this novel is that of re-invention, transformation, or, if Kafka-fans prefer, metamorphosis. All of the members of the Golden family undergo a transformation when they come to America but one in particular is worked through and explored more extensively than the others. The subject is one that one might be forgiven for thinking it could be tricky for a septuagenarian heterosexual cis-gender male novelist of a different generation to adequately address. The youngest son, Dionysus, it emerges is transgender.

Arriving in Obama-era America where the identity wars are raging, Dionysus is positively encouraged by his girlfriend Riya, an employee at the Museum of Identity, and others to explore this rapidly expanding vista of identity, to find where within its proliferating lexicon of different word-combinations, he might accurately fit. The possibilities, it seems, are almost endless and made no easier by the highly politicised nature of every position one might adopt. It is through Dionysus’ story and his struggle to come to a clear understanding of what he is and what that might mean that Rushdie explores the gender debate that is currently raging.

A historian by training, he naturally begins his exploration of the gender-identity question with a tour of the pantheons of ancient gods and mythologies. He reminds his readers that the question of gender-identity is by no means new, but in fact is very ancient indeed. Perhaps, the reader is led to intuit, there are some lessons to be learned by considering how the subject was treated by the scribes and stories of the distant past. Despite the fact that I am no adequate judge of Rushdie’s treatment of this debate or at what level his education in the matter stands, I can say that what I found most touching about Rushdie’s attempt to deal with this difficult subject matter is his portrayal of Dionysus’ vulnerability and confusion. Coming to terms with one’s gender identity is an intensely personal process and something which cannot be decided by anybody but the individual concerned. What Dionysus’ tragic character shows is that in the midst of the identity wars, with people tugging this way and that, and with every position being fiercely politicised, this can be a very difficult thing to do.

Admiration is a poor place from which to begin a critique but I have to admit that I do admire Rushdie’s writing. The simple reason is that his work is rich with the kinds of things that readers of literary fiction like to find in a novel. His writing is filled with erudition and speckled with an abundance of allusions, from gaudy 80s Hollywood films to Hindu mythology, ancient history to modernist poetry, 60s folk music and modern linguistics. His tickling wordplay, his audacious story-telling acrobatics, and his formal hybridity all make for rather delightful and engaging literature. This novel, while still inferior in my view to his first three novels (not counting his debut Grimus which hardly anyone reads), is filled with all of the above qualities and on these grounds I would give it my recommendation.

We are on shakier grounds when it comes the novel’s treatment of modern topical issues, specifically the state of the American nation, or perhaps even the world, the question of truth in the present day, and the gender-identity debate. I cannot consider myself an expert in any of these questions but I can record my impressions as a reader of a novelist’s attempt to address them. The false equivalence of knowledge with elitism is dealt several contemptuous blows and the nobility of the truth-seeking enterprise – “knowledge is beauty” – is given welcome affirmation. Regarding the state of the nation, The Golden House makes an admirable attempt to chronicle the deviations and disjunctures that have brought America to such a perplexing state of affairs, but its diagnoses are neither revelatory nor particularly dramatic. The issue of race in Trump’s election, for example, which has been amply brought forth by writers and journalists like Ta-Nehisi Coates and Mehdi Hasan, is hardly explored. I might also have wished for more of this analytical forensic work on our recent history to have occurred in the foreground and in tandem with the plot. As it stands, the novel is composed of two tragedies, the sickness of American politics in the background, and the Golden family story in the novel’s action, and the two do not meet. 

It is always challenging to attempt to understand and give an objective representation of the very recent past and the present that is still unfolding. In The Golden House, Rushdie applies the keen eye of the historian with the descriptive and imaginative powers of the magical realist novelist to present a picture of our fraught, tumultuous and confusing times. It will be left to readers present and future to judge the veracity of this image.

5 minutes with…. Sophie Khan Levy, the solo star of Papatango’s Hanna

0

How did you first get involved in the process and how much input did you have in the development of the final product?

We did a day of workshopping with me involved but outside of that my involvement started with an audition and the script was pretty much in place before I was on board.

Is this the first time you’ve been involved in a one-woman show? How does it compare to being in a larger cast?

This is my first one woman show and I guess the main difference is that there feels like there is a lot more pressure on me but the nature of the piece means that I’m connecting with the audience every night so I don’t feel alone out there

What was the rehearsal process like? How did the dynamic between you and the director work when there was no-one else in the room?

We realised quite quickly that we’d have to do shorter rehearsal days because the process of working through bits, taking notes and learning lines isvery intense when it’s just one person so there’s no rest while someone else is working. I was lucky because I felt like George and I spoke the same language so it felt like we were both pushing in the same direction.

This is also obviously a piece of new-writing. Does that change the experience of putting on a show? Is it harder to get into character without the wealth of history that a Chekhov has for example?

The exciting thing about new writing is the opportunity to originate a part so it feels like putting on a new outfit rather a well-worn hand-me-down, that said, if anyone’s casting The Seagull I wouldn’t say no!

This play touches on a lot of important issues like race, class, and gender. How important do you think Theatre is as a tool for social change?

I’ve always believed that 99% of the time when people are confronted with another human being and their story they cannot help but empathise regardless of any prejudices they may hold. Theatre is a way to tell different stories and show people who might otherwise remain unaware how differently life can feel for someone else.

Do you think that enough stories about women and specifically about Mothers are told on stage? How do we encourage theatres to do more?

I do think there is a massive void of female stories and I think it is important to encourage women to be a part of every element of the creative process in order to readdress this imbalance. There is an argument for moving away from telling domestic female stories but I think it is important to tell all female stories. I also think that we might need to question the form we use as women to tell stories. For example the beginning middle end structure might not fit, possibly we need to have more fluid structures through which to examine the female story. I think that is something Sam Potter has done beautifully with Hanna, almost changing the form in order to tell this specific story.

What do you make of the responses you’ve encountered on the tour so far? And does the city you’re in effect the way that the piece is received?

I think this piece tells such a human story that the responses have been and will probably be quite similar for the whole of the tour.

In the play, the lead character talks about the surge of positive emotion and feeling mothers sometimes experience after having a child. Do you think if more mothers were in positions of power, we wouldn’t be in this mess?

I look at other mammals and more often than not they place females at the centre of their society with the males usually residing outside the pack and briefly making an appearance when they need to fight for territory or have sex… so that’s my working theory on the matter.

What’s the most inspiring piece of theatre you’ve seen in the last year?

I saw a homeless man in soho square reciting Rudyard Kiplings ‘If’. It was extraordinary.

Lastly, as a student publication, we’d love to know if you have any advice about getting into acting?

Remember it’s not personal and meditate.

Hanna is playing at the Northwall on the 25th January before continuing on a national tour.

Why does Marc Jacobs keep messing up?

0

From their lurid fetishisation of the female corpse to one of the most notorious instances of cultural appropriation in high fashion history, namely, the Spring 2017 show’s ‘dreadlocks controversy’, Marc Jacobs’ continuous self-sabotage begs questioning.  Why does one of the world’s most iconic and esteemed fashion houses continue to commit such faux pas? Having emerged relatively unscathed from both affairs, it was thought that their positive reception at New York Fashion Week might just have secured their auspicious comeback into the world of fashion. Alas, and quite predictably, ignorance has again failed them, and an ongoing legal battle with designer Katie Thierjung for Marc Jacobs’ alleged copyright infringement has once again left the brand teetering on the precipice.

Marc Jacobs is yet to face designer Katie Thierjung and two private companies, who, having taken to social media to publicly ‘out’ the brand for plagiarising their designs, have now filed a joint complaint with the Southern District of New York. They allege, “[the] Resort 2017 collection was not original: a number of the featured pins and patches were flagrant, unlawful copies of Plaintiffs’ popular original pins and patches.” The maison’s piracy comprised images of a pink-and-white parrot, a highball glass with a paper umbrella and lemon wedge, and a colorful margarita glass – all used without the designers’ permission, and appearing on clothes and bags as well as being sold individually.

Yet, these imitations should come as no surprise, since history has shown Marc Jacobs to be no stranger to plagiarism. In 2008 the brand was discovered to have copied a scarf design of Swedish designer Gösta Olofsson from the 1950s. This was a matter withdrawn from the public eye after a monetary settlement of an undisclosed sum was made towards the designer’s son. Whether buying silence with settlements is the choice remedy on this occasion remains to be seen, but what is certain is that Marc Jacobs’ credibility is hanging in the balance.

Few designers have possessed Marc Jacobs’ messianic power, so it would not be unjust to say that a fashion house as ubiquitous as theirs should know better than to normalise design plagiarism, a practice which assaults artistic authenticity. After all, this is a notion at the very heart of fashion. Plagiarism is fast becoming a problem endemic to the industry on two levels: intra-fashion house instances of plagiarism, think Balmain’s infamous rehash of a white suit from a 1997 Givenchy couture collection. Secondly, the more insidious practice of leading fashion giants ripping off the designs of smaller, independent designers, such was the case when Gucci was accused of using the aesthetic of a Central Saint Martin student’s work in their AW17 collection, and such is the case with Marc Jacobs now. It is this second strain of plagiarism, however, that is the more detrimental to the future of fashion, preventing lesser-known, smaller-scale designers from being brought into the fore. Incidentally is the delicious irony, of course, of Marc Jacobs’ most recent collaboration with one of his real-life bootleggers – their first fruit being a Marc Jacobes bootleg hoodie – marking a new trend giving bootleggers the carte blanche in return for a share of the profit.

It is difficult to reconcile the concepts of Marc Jacobs with feminism, too, when harking back to that Spring 2014 campaign. Whilst a beautiful, yet seemingly lifeless model poses dead next to her two ashen contemporaries in front of a dimly-lit backdrop, Marc Jacobs’ hyper-glamorisation of the female corpse – the apotheosis of female passivity – calls into question whether the brand really has a place in progressive fashion. As a brand that has prided itself on its preppy, street-sleek creations, this bizarre foray into dead-chic territory might just have cost the brand the some of its target market.

Compounding this is the flagrant cultural appropriation that accompanied Marc Jacobs’ Spring 2017 prêt-à-porter collection show, using predominantly white models sporting dreadlock wigs, which was met with a half-baked apology one whole year later after coming under fire. Prior to that, the namesake had stated, ‘funny how you don’t criticise women of colour for straightening their hair’. Although the line between cultural appreciation and cultural appropriation is a fine one, the cultural insensitivity evidenced by the brand casts doubt upon their integrity and is clearly out of step with the way the industry should be evolving.

Although the label has seen an unprecedented instability over the past couple of years –  reflected in a reshuffle somewhat akin to musical chairs – with Suhl’s exit and his replacement by Marechalle, the brand cannot be absolved from blame so readily for such fundamental errors of judgment. Having once been bestowed with a coveted spot in Time magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world, there is only so far that Marc Jacobs’ laurels can stretch.  If the brand is to avoid being upstaged by its rivals, then much, much more is needed than a quick shake-up in the atelier: a step away from appropriation, in all its forms, and the objectification of the female body, along with an ideological shift, is prerequisite.

Coywolves: humanity’s surprising legacy

When asked to consider the impact that humanity is having on the planet and its fauna and flora, it would be surprising if most people didn’t mention extinction. After all, we are constantly asked to donate money towards saving charismatic, cuddly species such as pandas or mountain gorillas (I wouldn’t recommend attempting to cuddle either), and it’s no secret that the planet is now facing its sixth mass extinction in its long history.

This one is different to the other five, in that species are not disappearing en masse due to a natural disaster (such as K-Pg) or a sudden, radical shift in climate (the ice age), but because of the impact of a single species: humans. This made headlines recently when scientists declared an end to the Holocene geological epoch, ruling that human impact has now altered the planet and the climate so much that it deserves recognition, and coining our new epoch, the Anthropocene.

But perhaps our legacy is more complicated than it would appear. After all, if we have changed the world enough to warrant geological recognition, maybe we are doing more than just wiping out species. This particular aspect of this brave, new, anthropocentric world is becoming increasingly apparent in North America, where wolves and coyotes have begun to occupy more of the same habitat. Obviously, in the animal world, there’s very little recognition of the superficial boundaries between countries, so animals such as wolves can move rather freely between the no-touching zone that marks the USA/Canada border. This, coupled with the increasing urbanisation of our wilderness, has started to force these once-distinct populations of wolf and coyotes together and led to species hybridisation.

There are plenty of examples of species hybridisation. I imagine the first to come to mind for most people are mules (a horse/donkey hybrid), or a liger (a lion/tiger hybrid), but most wild hybrids are inconsequential due to being infertile. This is where the wolf/coyote hybrids are different: they are fertile, and they are breeding.

What’s more, these hybrids (named coywolves) have a trait known as “hybrid vigour”, where they adopt the best traits from both parent species. Like most canids, they work well in family groups and hunt in packs, but their smaller size means that they don’t have to rely on the enormous prey (such as bison) that wolves tackle. Furthermore, their smaller size and more sociable instincts also make them adept at integrating into urban environments, widening their habitat range and giving them the chance to get food without hunting at all.

This is very much a special case, though not an isolated one. We ourselves are a hodgepodge of Homo sapiens and Neanderthal, with a smattering of other hominids thrown in for good measure, and we are arguably the most successful species to have lived.

So, while species hybridisation happens more often than one might think (both in and out of the laboratory), the production of fertile offspring from such encounters is rare, and hybrids with better prospects than either of their parent species is even rarer.

The reason why coywolves are fertile is because their parent species are very closely related. Recent genetic studies have shown that modern dogs and wolves share a common ancestor from approximately 27,000 years ago, before they diverged to form modern wolves and domestic dogs. This is much later than previous estimates. It seems that gene flow between “distinct” species of canids has continued, meaning that they can produce fertile offspring should they hybridise. So, just as you can create crossbreed dogs, it would seem that you can do the same with other canids. In fact, a recent genetic study has shown that the red wolf (Canis rufus) has been a coywolf all along despite being deemed a species in its own right.

So what does this mean for our understanding of species and our impact on biodiversity? Despite species hybridisation being a relatively familiar concept in zoology, it does pose an important question in terms of how we conserve and maximise the planet’s biodiversity in the light of climate change. After all, conservation funding only goes so far and many conservationists wouldn’t be blamed for wanting to stick to a “purist” approach of conserving the parent species, not the hybrid.

However, it’s not always as simple as that: the red wolf is considered critically endangered by the IUCN red list, and if the purpose of conservation is to maximise biodiversity, shouldn’t hybrid populations be included too? Or does this blur the lines between “true species” and “nonspecies” too much?

It’s not just a conservation question either: such hybridisation has also been noted in North American rattlesnakes, resulting in a hybrid with a completely new venom, which needs a completely new anti-venom to treat bites. If we are unable to recognise this biodiversity adequately, we cannot react to these changes, and that could negatively impact both humans and the animals we’re trying to protect and conserve.

Whatever the answer, it’s one that needs to be addressed soon if species hybridisation is set to be part of our legacy on this planet. Our population growth is reducing the habitats for these animals and increasing our interactions with them, whether they are urban coywolves or rattlesnake hybrids. The Anthropocene isn’t just changing the climate, it is changing how animals interact with each other and although it’s incredibly exciting, we need to be sure we do what we can to understand what our impact on them is.

SU boycotts National Student Survey

2

Oxford SU has voted in favour of a boycott of the National Student Survey (NSS), owing to concerns that it would lead to higher tuition fees.

Oxford SU is now mandated to campaign against the survey, and encourage other student unions to join the boycott. The motion was motivated by fears that the NSS will inform part of the government’s Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF), which critics say open up possibility of raising tuition fees at high ranking universities.

The motion was proposed by former Oxford University Labour Club co-chair Tom Zagoria, of St Anne’s College. The motion passed with 75 per cent in favour, meeting the two-thirds majority required for the motion to pass.

Many who spoke in favour of the motion cited that the survey would lead to differential fees for different universities, with fears those from lower socio-economic backgrounds would be discouraged from applying to higher-ranking universities, instead applying to those with lower tuition fees.

Speaking to Cherwell after the motion passed, Tom Zagoria said: “I’m very happy with the result. Obviously with a 75 per cent majority in the final vote, it is clear that there is a significant majority of Oxford students represented.

“I think Oxford students in general are going to be very pleased that we are going to be keeping up this fight to stop the marketisation of our education system.”

Concerns were raised at the meeting about the effectiveness of the boycott, compared to last year. Catherine Canning, Oxford SU vice president for Access and Academic Affairs, said the link between the TEF and tuition fee rises had been suspended until 2019.

She also noted that the weighting put on the National Student Survey in determining TEF score for institutions had been reduced to 25 per cent.

She wanted to seek the support of the National Union of Students (NUS) to find alternative means of campaigning against this “marketisation of higher education”, in part to avoid diverting resources away from Oxford SU’s other activities.

Canning proposed an amendment to this effect and to campaign against this “marketisation of higher education”, but it was voted down with 68% in opposition.

At the end of the meeting, Oxford SU President Kate Cole, while raising concerns about the boycott, said that the SU would campaign “unequivocally” for the boycott.

A spokesperson for Canning told Cherwell: “The purpose of student council is to ensure that the SU officers work on the issues that are most important for students.

“The debate and vote in council clearly showed that boycotting NSS is very important for the student body, and for that reason, we will of course prioritise the boycott of NSS.

“The SU has limited resources to deliver the boycott, but we are currently working to put together a plan that will allow us to use our resources as effectively as possible to ensure that we can deliver a successful boycott of NSS with a minimum impact on the other projects we are working on.

“In the debate, several members of the student body offered their time and labour to support the boycott, and we welcome this help and hope to work together with these students.”

The survey is run by Ipsos Mori and requires responses from 50 per cent of finalists in order to have any effect.

A similar University-wide protest last year led to Oxford being only one of four universities to be left out of survey results. Only 31 per cent of Oxford students completed the NSS in 2017.

Cambridge University Student Union (CUSU) has already boycotted the survey this year.

One of the later organisers of the campaign, Anastazja Oppenheim, told Cherwell last week: “The fight needs to continue and, building on the experiences of this past year, we can make the boycott in 2018 even more effective.”

Oxford University said in a statement: “In common with other UK universities, we write to our students every year to make them aware of the National Student Survey (NSS).

“This exercise is entirely unrelated to the Teaching Excellence Framework.

“The NSS allows students to tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their time at Oxford, giving us valuable feedback as we seek to improve the student experience.”

Oxford SU slammed for ‘incoherent’ free speech report

1

A pro-life group has attacked Oxford Student Union for giving “disingenuous” testimony to a government inquiry.

Oxford SU’s evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ investigation into free speech at universities was published earlier this week.

Their testimony focused on the government’s Prevent strategy and its allegedly negative impact on the free expression of BME students at Oxford. However, it failed to mention any of the accusations of free speech suppression against the student union.

Oxford Students for Life (OSFL) was critical of the focus of their report, which they saw as an attempt to divert away from the SU’s own record on free speech.

This came under recent scrutiny after the Oxford SU Women’s Campaign protested an ‘Abortion in Ireland’ event organised by OSFL.

The SU-organised protesters chanted inside the St John’s venue for almost an hour, making it impossible for the speakers to continue until the protesters were removed by police.

Oxford SU’s evidence failed to mention this incident, or any other accusations of free speech suppression against the student union.

OSFL told Cherwell: “We find it somewhat disingenuous that Oxford SU’s submission to the inquiry was devoid of any reference to no-platforming and other attempts to curtail freedom of speech in the university.

“The SU is right to interrogate the government’s position on freedom of speech: the inquiry invites them to do precisely that.

“But an inquiry on freedom of speech, especially in the context of universities with specific reference to student unions surely ought to invite the SU to reflect on their own role and what responsibility they may have for the stifling on free speech.”

Pointing out that other student unions had responded to criticisms of their free speech policies, OSFL concluded: “Oxford SU are very keen to point out the alleged incoherence of government policy, whilst appearing unaware of their own incoherence.”

 

Instead of responding to the criticisms against them, the SU’s evidence focused on an in investigation by Cherwell last year which detailed how Prevent was supposedly being used improperly against BME students.

This was in addition to a survey carried out by Oxford SU over the summer of 2017, which demonstrated “that a sizeable proportion of students, which comprised BME students here, were particularly uncomfortable and were unable to participate fully in university life, such as in hosting and organising student-run events.”

The full data from this survey was redacted to ensure individual students could not be identified.

The evidence submitted by OSFL to the enquiry, meanwhile, focused exclusively on Oxford SU WomCam’s protest last term.

An Oxford SU spokesperson told Cherwell: “Oxford SU submitted evidence to the Universities Freedom of Speech enquiry which is being run by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, with MPs and Lords. We think it is important that the freedoms of students and staff are protected and secured on campus.

“Oxford SU believes that peaceful protest has played a major role in bring about social and political changes and is reviewing its advice to campaign groups to support them to peacefully protest.”

Further events in Oxford attracted attention and featured in several other pieces of written evidence to the government committee.

Michael Wee, an education officer at a Catholic research institute in bioethics, submitted eye-witness evidence on the OSFL event disrupted by WomCam protestors.

The Alliance of Pro-Life Students (APS) also mentioned the event, describing it as a “key incident of the suppression of freedom of speech”. They also detailed the cancellation of a OSFL-organised debate between two journalists by Christ Church, due to the college’s fears that it would attract a large protest.

However, last week the APS redacted its claim that Cambridge SU’s Women’s Officer, Lola Olufemi, infringed upon their freedom of speech by refusing to meet with members of Cambridge Students for Life.

Josephine Jackson, an Oxford student who graduated in 2016 and former OSFL president, referenced other occasions where she believed the SU impacted on free speech during her time at Oxford.

These include an occasion in October 2014 where OSFL were asked to leave a freshers fair where they were running a stall.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights launched the inquiry to explore whether freedom of expression was being suppressed at universities and student unions and how best to deal with it.

It encouraged individuals and organisations to submit either written or oral evidence for their consideration.

The inquiry comes as the Office for Students (OfS) prepares to take on regulatory responsibility for the sector this April, with a duty to promote free speech at universities.

Dining al Desko review – ‘gently depressing but hilarious’

0

Dining al Desko consists of two back-to-back monologues delivered, rather un-dramatically, by a pair of workers in an open-plan office. Unfortunately, I was unable to see the second monologue as it was still in production so my judgment is only based on the first.

The first half of Dining al Desko is a narrative of decline and fall centred on Julie, a receptionist played by Julia Pilkington. She is a vivid character – paranoid, ambitious and totally at sea in the cut-throat world of office politics. Echoing Gordon Gekko, she boasts of the fact that she works through the lunch hour and is never seen away from her desk.

But her workaholic tendencies aren’t enough to prevent her from being displaced by Trish, her younger and savvier rival. First, Trish usurps Julie’s place at the annual audit. Then Julie finds herself saddled with dull proof-reading tasks and the daily coffee round. Finally, her desk is commandeered by Trish. Julie is confined to an increasingly marginal role as it seems clear to everybody except her that she is on the way out.

Julie’s awkward mannerisms and self-deceiving stoicism are well-portrayed by Julia Pilkington. At various points, we find her clambering under her desk, munching on a croissant, brushing off small snubs, pretending that she is in line for promotion and persuading herself of the merits of a desk-less existence.

She is a pathetic character but also a likeable one – a woman who hopes for more but doesn’t expect it. Alastair Curtis perfectly captures the humour and the pathos of her situation – his writing is wry, sharp and gently depressing. In fact, the writing carries the performance, sweeping forgotten lines and occasional missteps under the carpet.

I am told that the second half of the play is centered on Tom, the office’s finance manager, who is played by Christopher Page. He is briefly mentioned in the first half in connection with the annual audit and the action in the second half apparently concerns a financial scandal at the firm where he and Julie both work. The scandal turns the office upside down, and events take an increasingly absurdist turn. Given the quality of the writing in the first half, I am sure that the second half will be just as well-observed and wryly amusing as the first.

Dining al Desko has the seeds of a fascinating play. It’s amusing but not unserious; it is well-written and, from what I saw, well-acted. The play is only being performed once so it is perhaps understandable that the version I saw was incomplete – if you want to see the finished product then go along to the Old Fire Station on Gloucester Green at 7:30 next Thursday.

‘Citizen scientists’ discover rare star system

0

At the most recent meeting of the American Astronomical Society in January, researchers from Caltech announced the discovery of a fifth planet in the K2-138 star system. What could have been a fairly ordinary astronomical find, however, was made unique by the fact that it was discovered entirely by members of the public, looking at telescope data online.

The system’s five planets were discovered on Zooniverse, which is a website that allows researchers to crowdsource parts of their work which require very large amounts of data to be looked over. The researcher – in this case Jessie Christiansen and Ian Crossfield from Caltech and UC Santa Cruz – uploads a huge number of images to the site, and then the site’s visitors look at individual ones and try to determine simple facts about them, such as whether a star has a planet orbiting. Each picture is looked at by a large number of people, and the researcher who receives the results can see a score of how many viewers agreed on them, which gives a good idea as to exactly how reliable they are.

Using this site, Christiansen and Crossfield set the world’s ‘citizen scientists’ to the task of determining which of the thousands of stars viewed by the Kepler telescope had planets orbiting around them, and K2-138 scored very highly. The researchers have now verified that the system has five very likely planets and a possible sixth, making it the first multi-planet system ever to be discovered in such a way.

As well as this, the K2-138 system is interesting because it exhibits a fairly rare property called orbital resonance, which means that each planet’s orbit time is an exact multiple of the others’. This is due to the planets exerting a slight gravitational pull on the others as they go by, which brings them all into sync with each other. There are very few known star systems in which this occurs, and it is believed that in K2-138, the orbital chain formed very early – shortly after the planets took form.

Obviously, the discovery is a big win for citizen-driven science, which is becoming increasingly popular as researchers realise that they can use the enthusiastic non-specialist community to help out on really big projects. The technique is most commonly heard of when applied to telescope images, which record a massive number of stars that all require a human eye to analyse, but it’s also being put to use quantifying the variety of bird plumage, transcribing old handwritten texts and more.

In fact, you’ve probably done something similar yourself, as Google’s reCAPTCHA system, used widely to filter out computer programs that try to access websites, often shows street signs or words from books that they want a human to transcribe.

The success of projects like Christansen and Crossfield’s shows that the general public is very engaged by the world of science and eager to become a part of it – meaning that hopefully we can expect many more exciting discoveries like K2-138 in the future.