We’ve got a Big Question for you! This is the 2024 Oxplore Video Competition for students at non-selective state secondary school across the UK.
We invite students from years 7-9 to submit a 3-minute video response and students from years 10-13 to submit a 5-minute video response to the question:
Should cars be banned in your region?
We encourage responses which approach these questions from a variety of perspectives – bring in Science, Law, Economics, Politics, Philosophy, Geography or any other subject or discipline. Just remember to answer the question!
All submissions should be emailed to oxplore@admin.ox.ac.uk by 11:59 BST on 10th May 2024. We recommend sending submissions in MP4 file format, though if we can access the video then it will be considered for marking! Please include your name, the name of your school and your school year.
Entries will be reviewed by our expert judging panel. There will be two age categories: years 7-9 (S1-S3 in Scotland) and 10-13 (S4-S6 in Scotland). The winners will receive £100 and the runners-up will receive £50 in Amazon vouchers.
Late entries will not be reviewed.
Getting Started…
Below is some guidance on the kinds of topics you could include in your response.
Air Pollution
Cars with internal combustion engines (ICEs) which burn petrol or diesel – that includes hybrids – release noxious chemicals into the air which affects everyone’s quality of life. Even electric cars cause air pollution, as particles are released from their tyres and breaks and from the roads that have to support two-tonne vehicles repeatedly rolling over them. Beyond the broader environmental impact of greenhouse gases, the release of small particulate matter into the local atmosphere has been linked to poor lung and heart health and ‘depression, anxiety, psychoses, and perhaps even neurocognitive disorders, such as dementia.’ In 2018, it was estimated that car-related air pollution cost the NHS £605 million in London alone. Does your local area suffer much from air pollution? Is banning cars the answer or can cars be changed?
Lifestyle
The widespread use of cars means that roads are unsafe for cyclists and pedestrians and large plots of land (often in the centre of towns and cities) are given over to parking spaces. It also encourages urban planners to arrange settlements in a way that’s convenient for car users but not for others. Think of where you live – is it possible to get to a school, a hospital, restaurants and a park easily and quickly without a car? Does ‘the rhythm’ of your local area ‘follow humans’ or cars? How does the use of cars stop people in your region from leading their fullest lives? On the other hand, much of the research and discussion on the effects of cars on local environments and communities focuses on the urban – in rural areas where amenities are, by definition, more spread out and comprehensive public transport coverage is less feasible and accessible, how do cars enable communities to thrive?
Fairness
It’s all very well saying that cars cause problems. But lots of regions have planned their infrastructure, residential accommodation, commerce and amenities around widespread car usage. Is it fair to change the law on how, when, where or even if people can use cars when they’ve moved to suburbs on the basis they can use one? How do business owners who rely on people driving to their sites view possible limitations on car usage? And, is everyone affected the same by banning cars? Who needs cars the most? Think about how you might find out people’s views on car usage and how it affects them – would a survey work best or an interview? Are there existing polls? Finally, it might be that there is no way for car usage or no car usage to be fair on everyone. You will have to decide whether what is fair to some is more important than what is fair to others.
What will I be marked on?
Upon watching the submissions, judges will be carefully assessing:
the relevance of points made to the question – to score highly on this it will be worth being precise with your terminology. To allow you to make the video you want to make, we have used the term ‘region’. ‘Region’ could mean somewhere as large as the South-West of England or Glasgow or as small as St Eval or Dennistoun. We hope this freedom allows you to tackle the subject of car usage at a scale you feel is most useful and interesting, but be careful to specify which region you are discussing in your video.
the development and structure of your argument, which considers multiple points of view and reaches a personal conclusion – originality will be rewarded, though not at the expense of logic and plausibility.
your inclusion of supporting evidence to build a persuasive account
your clarity of expression – sometimes simplicity is good, as is brevity! Graphics and editing can help to get across your point but we encourage entrants to consider whether they could transmit their research and opinions just as clearly by speaking to camera or recording footage.
your creative understanding of the title/task.
How do I submit my video?
We are quite flexible about how you can submit your video as long as it reaches us at oxplore@admin.ox.ac.uk. We will, however, require you and your parents or guardians to fill our consent form alongside your submission.Click here to access the form.
Do I need to include credits and will they be included in the video length?
If other people are included in the video, they must consent to being in it by filling our form. You may include citations to studies, book, articles or other research material either in the video, in a credits section or in a separate document sent alongside your consent forms and video. Any credits section will count towards the length of your video.
Who will be judging?
Good question! We will be announcing our expert judges over next few weeks – keep checking in here or on social media (Instagram, X, Facebook) for updates.
If you have any other questions about the competition or Oxplore.org in general, please feel free to send them to oxplore@admin.ox.ac.uk.
We hope you will enjoy exploring this subject. We cannot wait to see and hear what you discover and be persuaded by your viewpoint. Good luck!
The 29th February is here. The 366th day, without which we would slowly become unmoored from the familiar annual cycle of the seasons. It presents us with opportunities and problems. Those born on the leap day need to wait ‘til 1st March to vote, a happier fate and lesser inconvenience than Frederick in Gilbert and Sullivan’s Pirates of Penzance who realises belatedly that he is pledged to serve the pirates not until the age of 21 but until his 21st birthday, which shall come to pass when he is 84. As outlined here, the leap day can have less whimsical legal consequences, for example in the payment of commercial property transactions which provide for a ‘daily rate equal to 1/365th of annual sums.’ Still, an opportunity for lawyers to hash out the arcane.
The leap day is also an opportunity to mark Rare Disease Day. Understandably, it is celebrated every year, normally on 28th February, but on 29th (‘the rarest day’) in leap years. Rare Disease Day is ‘the globally coordinated movement on rare diseases, working towards equity in social opportunity, healthcare, and access to diagnosis and therapies for people living with a rare disease’ such as Turner Syndrome, Retintis Pigmentosa and Sickle Cell Anaemia. Events are held globally, helping raise awareness of rare diseases, by which three million people in the United Kingdom alone will be affected at some point in their lives. Rare Disease Day helps people to be accurately diagnosed and receive the care they need. It might in time lead to the eradication of rare diseases, if such a thing is possible.
In times gone by, spinsterhood was looked upon as akin to a disease. To be an unmarried woman as one’s thirties approached was a cause of severe distress to many women and their families. In societies where women were denied the agency to earn a living and lead independent lives while their social status was tied to their domestic and childbearing role, having no husband was thought to reflect poorly on women. A cure for this disease, thought to leave them vulnerable, bitter and unattractive, came in the form of ‘Bachelor’s Day’, 29th February. On this day, particularly in Ireland, Scotland and the United States, custom held that women could propose marriage to a man and receive compensation if their proposal was rejected. How the custom came about is shrouded in myth. Was it Saint Bridget appealing to Saint Patrick in 5th Century Ireland that women should be freed from waiting too long for menfolk to propose, only for Saint Patrick to be subject to her proposal immediately upon granting women the right to propose once every four years? Was it a five-year-old Queen Margaret of Scotland’s decree in 1288 that women could propose in leap years and receive a kiss or a silk dress if rejected, as Saint Patrick had given Saint Bridget upon his rejection of her centuries before? Or are these merely pseudo-historical fig leaves for reinforcing misogyny in 19th and 20th Century America?
Though ‘Bachelor’s Day’ retained a sense of whimsy and fun for some, in other senses it served to reinforce gender roles. After all, if women were only allowed choice in their choice of spouse once every four years, on a day which was a concession to irregularity in the name of order, then it merely highlighted that the purportedly ‘natural’ order was male agency and female submission. In early 20th Century America, millions of postcards were exchanged depicting women, ugly, aged, armed and aggressive, chasing and trapping hapless men. Or, by contrast, a girl telling a boy that she ‘would sooner be a Leap-yearette than a howling suffragette’; choice in one sphere could only be bartered for choice in any other. So: love, unrequited. Not such a happy fate for women in 20th Century America. It’s not quite so bad for you these days, but it’s still not a particularly healthy state.
What lessons to take from these peculiarities of date and time? Well, do not pledge allegiance to a band of pirates if born on a leap day, avoid signing contracts on a leap day, be thankful that there is help for people with rare diseases (of whom you may be one, now or later) and do not wait four years to tell someone you love them! Oh, also, check out Oxplore for fun and engaging content from world-leading academics; there are 365 other days (every year!) to discover something new.
We had high expectations at Oxplore this year for our first nationally open essay competition and we were not disappointed!
Thank you to all entrants; the care and effort which went into each essay was clear and their forthrightness and originality made them a joy to read. We would happily have chosen a vast number of submissions as worthy winners. Everyone who submitted an essay should feel immense satisfaction with their compositions.
Our expert judges were hence left with a difficult task to select winners and runners-up from a strong field. We are immensely grateful to them for lending us their time and expertise through a busy time of year here in Oxford.
It is so exciting to be able to announce our winners and runners-up and to share the winning entries in the Year 7-9 category and the Year 10-13 category. They are due special congratulations.
Year 7-9 category:
Winner – Tiancheng Liu
Runner-up – Orest Xhafa
Winner in the Year 7-9 category:
Discuss in detail the work of a charitable organization. In what ways have they succeeded? What could they have done better?
Disaster Emergency Committee (DEC) is a UK-based humanitarian organization that aims to respond to international disasters and crises. The DEC is composed of 14 leading UK aid agencies, including Oxfam, Save the Children, and the British Red Cross. Their main objective is to provide immediate and effective humanitarian aid to those affected by disasters, including natural disasters, conflicts, and health emergencies. In this essay, I will discuss the work of the DEC, particularly in the context of the Ukraine humanitarian appeal, and evaluate their successes and areas for improvement.
The Ukraine Humanitarian Appeal was launched in March 2021 by the DEC in response to the humanitarian crisis caused by the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine. The appeal aimed to provide lifesaving assistance, such as food, water, shelter, and medical care, to the most vulnerable people affected by the conflict. The DEC highlighted that more than 3.4 million people in Ukraine require humanitarian assistance, and many have been forced to flee their homes due to the violence.
The DEC’s response to the Ukraine humanitarian appeal was swift and effective. Within the first few days of the appeal, the DEC had raised over £4 million from the public and corporate donors. This allowed the DEC to provide immediate assistance to the most vulnerable people affected by the conflict. For instance, the DEC has provided food and hygiene kits to families in need, as well as winter clothing and blankets to those living in temporary shelters.
Moreover, the DEC’s partnership with local organizations has allowed them to provide effective and targeted aid to those in need. The DEC has worked closely with local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to distribute aid and help the most vulnerable communities in eastern Ukraine. By working with local partners, the DEC has been able to respond more quickly to the crisis and provide aid that is tailored to the specific needs of each community.
One of the DEC’s most significant successes in the Ukraine humanitarian appeal has been their ability to mobilize public support and raise funds. The DEC’s appeal has been supported by a range of high-profile figures, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, Prince William, and celebrities such as Benedict Cumberbatch and Keira Knightley. This has helped to raise awareness of the crisis and encouraged the public to donate to the appeal. Additionally, the DEC has utilized social media and other digital platforms to engage with the public and raise funds. This has allowed the DEC to reach a wider audience and raise more funds than ever before.
However, there are also areas in which the DEC could improve their response to the Ukraine humanitarian appeal. One of the main challenges facing the DEC has been the access and security issues in eastern Ukraine. The ongoing conflict has made it difficult for aid agencies to access some of the most affected areas and assist those in need. The DEC has worked to address this issue by partnering with local organizations that have a better understanding of the security situation and can provide aid more safely. However, the DEC could explore other ways to overcome access and security challenges, such as working with the Ukrainian government and international organizations to improve access for aid agencies.
Another area for improvement for the DEC is their communication and coordination with other aid agencies and organizations. The DEC is one of many aid agencies working in Ukraine, and coordination and collaboration between organizations are essential to ensuring an effective response to the crisis. The DEC could work more closely with other organizations to share resources, expertise, and best practices. Additionally, the DEC could communicate more effectively with other organizations to avoid duplication of efforts and ensure that aid is delivered to those who need it most.
In conclusion, the Disaster Emergency Committee’s work in the Ukraine humanitarian appeal has been successful in providing lifesaving assistance to those affected by the conflict. The DEC has raised significant funds and mobilized public support, allowing them to respond quickly and effectively to the crisis. Their partnership with local organizations has also been a key factor in their success, allowing them to provide targeted aid to the most vulnerable communities. However, the DEC faces ongoing challenges in addressing access and security issues, as well as improving coordination with other aid agencies. Nevertheless, the DEC’s response to the Ukraine humanitarian appeal has demonstrated their commitment to providing essential aid to those affected by disasters, and their efforts have undoubtedly made a significant difference in the lives of those impacted by the conflict. It is clear that the DEC will continue to play a critical role in responding to humanitarian crises around the world and providing essential support to those in need.
Year 10-13 category:
Winner – Harriet Anyon
Runners-up – Huda Malik & Keira Magee
Winner in the Year 10-13 category:
Discuss in detail the work of a charitable organization. In what ways have they succeeded? What could they have done better?
The Salvation Army is a Christian (Protestant) church, but it is also a non-profit organisation and charity. The charity operates in over 130 countries, split into five different zones – Africa, The Americas and Caribbean, Europe, South Asia, South Pacific and East Asia. Internationally the organisation is made up of over 1.7 million people who, as the Salvation Army website [1] states, have ‘been fighting against social inequality and transforming lives for more than 150 years.’ The website further states that the charity aims to ‘put our Christian faith into action and offer practical support and services to all who need them, regardless of ethnicity, religion, gender or sexual orientation’.
The Salvation Army was founded in 1865 by evangelist William Booth alongside his wife Catherine Booth in East London. The original mission of the couple was to take the Christian faith outside of the church and into the streets – where they believed those who needed it most resided. At the time of the Salvation Army’s founding, London was overrun with problems concerning mainly drinking and gambling, resulting in severe cases of poverty for many; William Booth had seen how many individuals were overlooked and discarded by wider society and acknowledged their struggles. The initial representatives of the Salvation Army preached a doctrine of practical Christianity labelled ‘soup, soap and salvation’, they believed this would encourage a ‘social and spiritual transformation among society’s most vulnerable and marginalised people’ [2]. The Salvation Army allowed for a place for vulnerable individuals to receive care for both physical and spiritual needs, shelters were started in order to provide a place for rehabilitation and recovery, when that was completed, Booth would then preach the gospel and of the love of God. This approach to Christianity is one that the organisation continues to exercise nowadays, but this is now carried out specifically through either the charity or church side of the organisation. The two elements of the organisation (church and registered charity) work interdependently, aiming to provide both practical Christianity and practical charity; motivated by their Christian values, the organisation strives to put these into action through the support and care they provide. These motives are summarised by William Booth’s mission statement ‘Heart to God & Hand to Man’, created when the organisation was founded.
In the 19th century, after the Salvation Army was founded, the organisation progressively expanded, moving out of the city of London, and spread around the UK. One of the purposes for founding the Salvation Army was to make church accessible to the lower classes and those affected by poverty, the founders realised that this was done effectively by having those who had once been in similar situations preach; as the Salvation Army’s outreach continued to expand, this became increasingly more important. A recurrently used refrain within the Salvation Army is ‘saved to serve’, expressing the belief that service is most effective when carried out by those who have been provided liberation themselves. This is a concept that the Salvation Army continues to practise. Many of the volunteers that aid and support the missions of the charity have been heavily affected prior to being helped by the organisation. Whilst this provides the charity with a positive and credible presence, it could be considered a strength as it minimizes chances of those who have been ‘saved’ from relapsing as such as they continue to fulfil the mission of the charity through their own personal work and efforts. It shows perfectly how the Salvation Army positively impacts the societies and communities around it, all through the use of individual citizens.
It is generally recognised that the Salvation Army is a successful and efficacious charity but, the definition of ‘successful’ is fairly subjective and could be interpreted in various ways. According to the Register of Charities [3], in the financial year (ending 31st March 2022) the organisation had a total income of £281,954,000 and an expenditure of £226,745,000, with £55.21 million ‘retained for future use’. Considering this, it would be reasonable to state that the Salvation Army is definitely a financially successful charitable organisation, but the question remains, what makes a charity successful? I would argue that if the rate of success for a charity were to be measured by financial accomplishment and profit, that would create a risk of the charity becoming financially motivated, consequently diverting from the original mission of the charity’s work. Moreover, it could be further argued that the more profit a charity generates, the less successful they are, as less amount of money is being spent on the charity’s mission. I believe it would be best if a charity’s success could be solely measured on the delivery and effectiveness of their charitable projects.
However, it isn’t difficult to find a news-article declaring that the Salvation Army is (for example) ‘upholding inequality’ or ‘harassing the poor’ [4]. It is often claimed that Christianity as a religion promotes a form of ‘Christian Capitalism’ through the idealistic principles of being laborious, self-denying, and charitable, and it could be reasoned that this organisation is no different. It could be stated that, although Booth recognised that the poverty which he sought to eradicate was stemming from the capitalist structure of society at the time, he didn’t seek to fight the ultimate cause and he only treated the symptoms as a result. It could be further argued that the organisation actually promotes the cause of poverty, with a ‘good’ Christian being one who ‘piously tend to the poor’ rather than working to eliminate the injustice within society ‘in the hope of transforming a society based on poverty for some people and profit for others’. I would argue that whilst this is a coherent – and to many extents veracious – argument, it is more accurate when discussing the earlier movements with the Salvation Army rather than the Salvation Army work within contemporary society. The Salvation Army in the UK has recently made many campaigns and policies in order to shape the decisions of various governments (of any political persuasion), these include (but are not limited to) campaigning against the governments approach to homelessness, the governments expansion of Universal Credit, and more recently, their campaign against the threat of the Illegal Immigration Bill being passed. These are just a number of examples of how the Salvation Army is currently tackling the root causes of social issues. So, while it is understandable that the Salvation Army hasn’t always been as active in changing society from the core, it is important to recognise that they are doing so currently. It is also equally important that this approach is supported within the organisation, as it could be considered the most essential element of an organisation such as the Salvation Army, whose entire ethos is centred around creating change in society.
The Salvation Army resolutely promotes a process which they have titled ‘integrated mission’. Through this concept, the charity wishes to reaffirm the strength that people have lost due to societal crises, achieving this through practising their Christian faith and values. The organisation is renowned for the provision of a variety of services to those in need. The Salvation Army prides itself on its ability to adapt their services to serve those found in economic and social crises, and claim on their website that ‘the services we offer are diverse and responsive to the realities of life in the communities we serve’; so, although the charity has main focuses centralised within their mission, it is not a charity with one particular focus, meaning that they are not restricted as to where they can direct their services and advocate for change. I would say that this is the charity’s greatest strength, as the diversity of their projects allows for a larger outreach and mission impact, in my opinion, making it a successful charitable organisation.
An example of both their effective aptitude to adapt and charitable ethos would be the recent support provided for those struggling with the cost-of-living crisis. It is inarguable that – with the exception of those who are accordingly financially advantaged – the majority of UK citizens will suffer from this recent crisis (albeit to varying extents), but for those who were already vulnerable and struggling, the effects of the cost-of-living crisis are having a devastating impact and are pushing these citizens further into an inescapable poverty spiral. Initially, the organisation launched a campaign to ‘uprate benefits in line with inflation’, which was successful, but they then released an article [5] stating what they believe could be done to further support those who are becoming increasingly more exposed to the brutal effects of the poverty crisis. Another strength of this charity is their ability to recognise where their work is made completely futile by the government’s ineffectual attempts to fix problems within our society. The organisation is impenitently vocal when it comes to calling on the Government to make further steps alongside their work. This is evidently shown in the cost-of-living article where they are asking for the Government to ‘combine emergency support with long term sustainable investment in deprived parts of the country that will tackle regional inequalities in jobs and wages to level up the UK’. They continue on to advise the government on what specific areas of support the charity believes would be beneficial to invest in. I would say that this use of authority as a well-received charity is another major asset to their work, without this capability, the majority of their work would be ineffective.
Nevertheless, whilst the charity’s mission is more flexible in comparison to other charitable organisations, there are many services in place which are constant and stable within the organisation’s priorities. An example of this is the support in place for homeless individuals. According to the Rough Sleeping Annual Snapshot [6], in autumn 2022 the number of individuals sleeping rough was 3,096, having increased in comparison to the previous 2 years. To combat these statistics the Salvation Army manages over 80 accommodation services – Lifehouses – within the UK territory. However, these services are not just an accommodation facility, they provide a wide range of support for those requiring support with housing, debt, or involvement with the criminal justice system, or those suffering with addiction, mental health, or spirituality. The charitable organisation acknowledges that whilst ‘solving someone’s immediate need for housing is a vital first step’, it is most likely not the final step. Whether that means providing support through their cost-of-living services or providing budget and debt advice, or referring them to external specialist support services, the Salvation Army recognises that services should be ran in a ‘person-centred way’. This means prioritising the individuals’ own needs in order for maximum provisions to be provided.
An important component of this support for those found homeless is the delivery of 22 debt advice centres across the UK. These centres provide practical guidance alongside pastoral treatment and support and, importantly, are regulated by the FCA (Financial Conduct Authority) to ensure that those requiring care receive maximal benefits available. For those who are unable to access the in-person centres, the Salvation Army provides online support through the use of emailing. The team running these centres are composed of debt advisors and volunteers to help people ‘develop debt repayment plans and negotiate with creditors’ [7] but they also minimise any chance of recurring debt in the future by providing classes and further education on handling finances individually. This prevents any chance of reliance on the charities services and ultimately establishing a new-found independence and self-sufficiency for individuals referred for aid.
In conclusion, the Salvation Army is undoubtedly an incredibly successful charitable organisation; it supports a vast range of disadvantaged groups within society by providing aid and support, whilst simultaneously searching for ways to fix long term solutions in place. In order to continue being the prevalent source of solace for their recipients that they are presently, it is vital that the Salvation Army is able to keep up with the needs of society and more importantly, speak up and call for social transformation on behalf of those who are marginalised and unable to.
Phil Mongredien writes in The Guardian that ‘how morally bankrupt a club’s owners are’ is of greater significance in determining the team against which he would root in today’s Champions League final than any traditional animosity based on location or play-style or personnel. While he subjects Inter Milan’s owners to relatively little scrutiny, he bemoans the extent to which football media delights in the quality of football played by Manchester City, or Newcastle United, without considering the impacts their owners have on football, but also the people they govern and the world they influence. Both Mongredien’s views and TV pundits’ illustrate a point on everyone’s lips last December – sport and politics are conjoined in a Gordian knot. Mongredien can only view sports through this entanglement, while pundits in the studio presumably see the knot and, recognising the impossibility of untying it, ignore it (Gary Lineker excepted).
Do sports and politics have to be entwined? And is it always bad that it is? Here are a few particularly resonant examples of sports and politics interacting, as well as recommendations on how to find out more.
Jesse Owens and the 1936 Olympics
Berlin was selected to host the Olympic Games in 1931, two years before the Nazi party came to power – it was not pre-ordained as a celebration of Hitler’s warped worldview. Nevertheless, the Nazis were quick to grasp the potential political symbolism and power of an Olympic Games. Nazism lionised youth and action (in ways which neatly aligned with militarism) alongside a belief both in the biological existence of different ‘races’ and the superiority of their chosen, ‘Germanic’ Aryan race. The Olympics were the prism through which, the Nazis hoped, this superiority would be proven once and for all.
Jesse Owens made sure that this did not come to pass. He was that Olympiad’s most successful Olympian, with four gold medals: in the 100m, the 200m, the long-jump and the 4x100m relay. The Berlin Olympics received unprecedented coverage, including through the new medium of television, the Nazis having wanted to trumpet the expected vindication of their racial pseudo-science and nationalism. Owens’ triumphs were therefore of immediate renown in Germany (where crowds cheered him in their hundreds of thousands and asked for his autograph), the United States (where he received a ticker-tape parade in New York) and around the world. The coverage was not always consistent – different sources record Hitler’s reaction, or lack thereof, to Owens’ victories differently – but the simple truth that Owens, a black man, had won at an Olympics designed to declare the inferiority of people with his skin colour (among others) was powerful.
A giant leap for man and mankind alike.
Were such a regime as Nazi Germany to host an Olympic Games today, hopefully more resistance, both to the event and to its intended message, would manifest itself than a mini-Panorama episode at the start of the coverage. In 1936, Owens was the symbol of resistance to Hitler’s message, by extension undermining white supremacy in the United States.
Not quite a raised fist, but a statement made nonetheless. Jesse Owens salutes his way atop the podium for the long jump competition at the 1936 Olympic Games.
For an in-depth view of Owens’ impact on race relations and politics in the United States, look here.
For a film outlining the broad story of Owens’ 1936, watch Race.
The 1995 Rugby World Cup
South African rugby union was associated with a particular demographic – white – and a particular politics – that of apartheid – through most of the second half of the 20th Century. Such was the strength of this association that the South African team was largely barred from playing by the mid-1980s, with their matches abroad frequently coinciding with large anti-apartheid protests.
Meanwhile, Nelson Mandela had learnt Afrikaans while imprisoned and mistreated on Robben Island, conversing with his guards. Unlike many of his fellow anti-apartheid activists and ANC members, he saw rugby as a means to reconciliation rather than a symbol of oppression. Upon his release in 1990, the international community had slowly begun to accept South Africa back into its fold. In 1993, the International Rugby Board awarded South Africa the right to host the next World Cup. A year later, Mandela was elected president in the first elections in which the black majority could vote.
South Africa remained a tense polity, with political violence frequent and distrust between communities rife. The Rugby World Cup was only one of many fora Mandela used to effect reconciliation, but it was one of immense symbolic significance. From the outset, he sought to define the Springboks as a team representing all of South Africa, not only its richer, but anxious, white minority.
President Nelson Mandela,with Francios Pienaar (captain), meets the South African rugby team after a pre-World Cup practice session. Pienaar and his teammates appear won over, but not all of Mandela’s supporters yet were.
South Africa’s path to victory in 1995 has its own controversies – a crucial try for France dubiously disallowed in the semi-final, suspicious rumours of food poisoning for the heavily-favoured New Zealand team just before the final. Most importantly, however, Mandela orchestrated the celebration of the Springbok victory to minimise controversy and maximise a common South African identity, appearing at the final (and eventually handing Springbok captain Francois Pienaar the trophy) wearing the green and gold South African shirt so associated for decades with oppression. In so doing, he allayed the fears of the white minority that the post-apartheid South Africa had no space for them or their customs while simultaneously giving the black majority agency in and ownership of South African success.
Pienaar receives the World Cup trophy from Mandela. The handshake and the smiles were even more potent symbols.
In 1979, the USSR invaded Afghanistan. Officially, Western governments did little but condemn. Jimmy Carter thought one form of condemnation would be particularly resonant – a boycott of the Olympic Games scheduled to be held in Moscow in 1980. The boycott was supported by several Soviet dissidents, who thought it could also be used as a condemnation of the routine subversion of Olympic rules on doping and amateurism by Eastern Bloc countries who sought to promote their Communist ideology through athletic prowess.
Before the Moscow Olympics could be boycotted, however, the Winter Olympics occurred in Lake Placid, USA. The USSR was sending a full complement of athletes, including their highly-rated (and low-key professional) ice hockey team. Amid rising tensions, directly related to the invasion of Afghanistan and the mooted consequent boycott of the forthcoming Summer Olympics, a very young US ice hockey team navigated their way to an Olympic semi-final against the Soviet Union.
Cold Warriors face off.
The US team was composed largely of college (university) players, cobbled together at relatively short notice. That they had reached the semi-finals, against sharp competition from Sweden and the Eastern Bloc Czechoslovakia, was considered noteworthy. Victory in a match with clear geo-political parallels was considered unlikely for the US team. Their dramatic late win was immortalised for an enraptured US audience by the commentator Al Michaels asking his audience:
‘Do you believe in miracles? YES!’
The boycott of the Summer Olympics which followed only gained significance in light of this result. Now it was a boycott led by a country that would have competed – it lent moral weight to the boycott and highlighted the (somewhat involuntary) sacrifice of would-be American Olympians who had trained for Moscow for years.
Détente’s impact on the Cold War is contentious, but it is incontestable that for Western condemnation of Soviet misbehaviour to reach a censored Soviet public sphere, it had to do so partly through conspicuous absence, itself contingent upon previous conspicuous presence (i.e. détente). The two Olympics of 1980 were an early message that the abuse of international norms and laws (be it invasion or professionalism in amateur sport) would not be rewarded by the international community. This was only reinforced by the immense success of the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles despite the retaliatory boycotts of the Eastern Bloc. Adherence to international agreement was, for historian Tony Judt, the unifying political motif used by anti-Communist dissidents in the Eastern Bloc in the run-up to the revolutions of 1989, as Communist regimes failed to respect international human rights agreements they had signed at Helsinki in the 1970s.
For a fun movie summary of the US ice hockey team’s 1980 adventure, watch Miracle.
Sport was only at the periphery of these developments. Nevertheless, it was there and it served a purpose.
Politics is always far too complex to be accurately reflected in sports and there are far too many examples of sports and politics interacting to draw any concrete lessons from their interactions. What is clear is that, as long as sport is taken seriously, it will be used for political ends and seen through a political lens. Greater awareness of this can only be a good thing – next time you sit down to watch a big-ticket sporting contest, consider how it might be used and by whom. You may not reach the same conclusions as Phil Mongredien, but at least you will be able to say why.
Rhiannon (pictured), a third year Archaeology and Anthropology student, shines a spotlight on a vital festival of Welsh culture.
Of all the wonderful things about Wales, the Eisteddfod is one of its best. Beginning in 1176 with Lord Rhys in his castle in Cardigan, it has become a staple in the Welsh calendar. In its simplest form it is the competition in all things arts whether that be dance, music, literature, poetry etc. Celebrations range from local intra-school competitions to a National Eisteddfod of Wales typically held in the first week of August. Almost like a sports day for the arts, each year groups are split into the four counties of Wales – Dyfed, Powys, Gwyneth and Clwyd – and compete across a range of categories. It serves not only to demonstrate the wealth of talent the Welsh have to offer but also to preserve heritage, especially the Welsh language. This year if you to want to be a part of this wonderful celebration here’s some information and resources on how to get involved:
Get to know Wales, its people and language
To start any Eisteddfod it is, first and foremost, important to appreciate the beautiful oddities of Welsh history. What better way to do so than reading Geoff Brooks’‘Welsh History: Strange but True‘. This factual book takes us across Welsh history from the discovery of Neanderthal teeth in 230,000 BC to tales of the Holy Grail in Cardigan in 1949. Along the way this accessible read delights its audience with captivating facts and engaging short stories that demonstrate the fascinating history of Welsh culture.
Decorative arch for the Eisteddfod in front of the Wales Millennium Centre, for the National Eisteddfod of Wales Cardiff 2018, by Dafydd Tomos. Used under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International License.
Not to mention it is vital to understand the Welsh language with its deep history and social significance. The Eisteddfod serves to remind us of the battles past generations fought to merely speak their own language faced with the ban on the Welsh language by the English in 1536. This was particularly prevalent in schools with the use of the ‘Welsh Not’ worn by any pupil caught speaking Welsh, with harsh punishment for the student wearing the knot at the end of the day. The impact of such rulings dramatically decreased the amount of Welsh speaking generations in Wales. However, the Senedd has been working to promote the learning and facilitation of the Welsh and aims to have one million Welsh language speakers by 2050.
Check out Visit Wales’ breakdown of the history of the Welsh language and some easy Welsh phrases.
Probably the most important competition of the Eisteddfod revolves around poetry and Wales is most certainly known for its poets. For example, the infamous poet Dylan Thomas was born in Swansea in 1914 and bases his work on the experiences of growing up in South Wales. He is most well known for his poem ‘Do not go gentle into that good night’ written in 1947 when Thomas began to deal with the declining state of his father. However, if you are interested in a lighter topic there is his 1952 ‘A Child’s Christmas in Wales’ which is a nostalgic reflection on Christmas as a young boy.
Find out more about Dylan Thomas’ poetry and life here.
Within the Eisteddfod itself plenty of talented poets have graced the stage. Notably Dilys Cadwaladr was the first woman to win the Crown (the top poetry prize) in the Rhyl Eisteddfod, 1953. The most recent woman to achieve the crown was Esyllt Maelor in 2022.
Music and Dance
The Ensemble Competition brass band final at the Urdd National Eisteddfod 2017 in Pencoed, Bridgend, by FruitMonkey, used under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International License
Wales is also well known for its brilliant singers, groups and choirs. If pop takes your fancy you cannot go wrong with a bit of Tom Jones, Catfish and the Bottlemen or even Stereophonics – all Welsh of course. Within the Eisteddfod you can check out the shortlisted 2021 albums by checking the link here.
But music in Wales also has historical significance. Male voice choirs are part of centuries old traditions stemming from the industry of the nineteenth century, particularly mining. Choirs like the Treorchy and Penydrus male groups are known worldwide, their singing is not merely for entertainment but pride for their country and its people.
Listen to the Treorchy Male Voice Choir’s rendition of ‘Myfanwy’ by following the link here.
If you desire a dance accompaniment to your musical renditions why not try your luck at folk dancing. Welsh Folk dancing is a style of Morris dancing from the Valleys normally involving around eight dancers in four pairs.
See the hwb’s page for more details on how to get started.
However you choose to celebrate make sure to reward a hard day’s work with a plate of fresh Welsh cakes, a recipe for which can be found here.
We are delighted to announce the launch of the 2023 Oxplore Essay Competition for students at non-selective state secondary school across the UK.
We are inviting students from years 7-9 to write an 800-word response and students from years 10-13 to write a 2,000-word response to one of the following essay questions:
Should the purpose of charities be to make themselves redundant?
Should billionaires be expected to engage in philanthropy?
Discuss, in detail, the work of a charitable organisation. In what ways have they succeeded? What could they have done better?
We encourage responses which approach these questions from a variety of perspectives – bring in History, Philosophy, Politics, Economics, Science, Law or any other subject or discipline. Just remember to answer the question!
All entries should be emailed to oxplore@admin.ox.ac.uk by 11:59 BST on 12th May 2023. Please include your name, the name of your school and your school year.
Entries will be reviewed by our expert judging panel. There will be two age categories: years 7-9 (S1-S3 in Scotland) and 10-13 (S4-S6 in Scotland). The winners will receive £100 and the runners-up will receive £50 in Amazon vouchers.
Late entries will not be reviewed.
Getting Started…
Below is some guidance on the kinds of topics you could include in your response – plus see our FAQs at the bottom of the page.
Should the purpose of charities be to make themselves redundant?
There are all sorts of charities with a wide range of functions and aims. You can find a list of the purposes a charity can have in the UK here. In the UK, these purposes are broadly considered to be of ‘public benefit’. Other countries may have different criteria for charitable institutions – be aware of this.
Where to start:
The Chief Executive of Oxfam GB states that ‘Oxfam’s job is to end poverty’. Do all charitable purposes have an end point?
To what tasks are charities best suited? As non-governmental entities, how are they more effective than state agencies, intergovernmental (e.g. United Nations) entities and businesses? The Ebola outbreak in 2014 provides an interestingcase study; can you think of other examples?
With what does the mere existence of charities provide society? Would our democracy suffer without charities? See more here.
Should billionaires be expected to engage in philanthropy?
When the super-rich give a portion of their wealth away, reactions range from praise of their altruism to suspicion of their motives and criticism of the way in which massive donations distort the awareness and ability to fundraise of other charitable institutions.
Where to start:
Do billionaires donate effectively given the significance of their donations? What is the most effective engagement in philanthropy? Can philosophyhelp us with this question? How does Effective Altruism fit into this?
Inevitably, large donations by wealthy entities grants those entities influence. Even more so if those entities set up their own charitable institutions or foundations. How comfortable are you about billionaires not merely donating money, but influencing government policy or local economies where they act? Is encouraging successful businesspeople to lead non-profit activity a good idea?
The dangers of philanthrocapitalism – what ulterior motives could there be for large donations? Remember, donations effect taxation and reputation. Equally, to what extent are major philanthropists merely alleviating or mitigating problems created or exacerbated by the practices which allowed them to accrue their wealth?
Should we all be expected to engage in philanthropy? When giving is the domain only of the very richest, how does that affect the charitable sector? Is it more incumbent upon billionaires to do so and, if so, why? Why not start here?
Discuss, in detail, the work of a charitable organisation. In what ways have they succeeded? What could they have done better?
The charitable sector is constantly in the news. As organisations reliant on donations and intended to provide ‘public benefit’ they are placed under intense scrutiny. Is the full story always told?
Where to start:
By which terms are you judging success or lack thereof? Remember, charities in the UK must have a ‘charitable purpose’. Consider their activities in light of those of charitable organisations working in similar sectors.
What sources are you using? A charity’s own literature will present a different picture to a newspaper’s – who is writing the source, for what audience are they writing it, why are they writing it? Examine statistics. Often the same set of statistics are used to contrasting effect.
How the charitable sector is influenced by broader society and politics. For example, when the economy is doing well, people are more generous. How does the way politicians and governments treat and regulate charities affect their purpose and function?
Our Judges
Sir Stephen Bubb
Sir Stephen is the Executive Director of the Gradel Institute of Charity at New College, Oxford. He is globally recognised as a leading voice in philanthropy, charity governance and leadership and corporate social responsibility. He has provided strategic advice to governments and businesses, usually at Prime Minister, Minister, Mayor and Chairman level.
Sir Stephen has taken part in numerous national and global events speaking on civil society, business and government relations, including at the British Cabinet, G7/G8 summits, Seoul Governance Conference and international investment forums. He was formerly Chief Executive of ACEVO (Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations) for 15 years, Secretary General of the European Third Sector Leaders Network, which was founded through his passion and drive and CEO of Charity Futures, which promotes NGOs’ governance and leadership. He was the Chair of Britain’s largest social investment organisation for a decade and oversaw investments of £400m.
Professor Roger Crisp
Prof. Roger Crisp was in the first male cohort at St Anne’s in 1979, admitted to read Lit. Hum. After a BPhil. and DPhil. in Philosophy, he was appointed to a College Fellowship in 1991. He was Findlay Visiting Professor at Boston University in 2010-11. Roger is currently a Professorial Fellow at the Dianoia Institute of Philosophy, Australian Catholic University. He chairs the management committee of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, and has close links with colleagues in Japan. His primary research interest is Moral Philosophy.
Dr Frank Prochaska
Frank Prochaska is an historian of modern Britain and the author of a number of critically acclaimed books.
He was born in America but has lived much of his life in Britain and has dual nationality. He has taught at universities on both sides of the Atlantic and in recent years taught British history at Yale. He moved to Oxford in 2010, where he became a member of Somerville and Wolfson Colleges. He has been a Research Fellow at the Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, London University, and a Visiting Fellow, All Souls College, Oxford. He lectures and reviews widely and contributes to media programs and the press in Britain on such subjects as contemporary social policy and the monarchy. He is an Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Historical Research, London University, and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society. As a scholar of Victorian social reform and ideas, he helped to establish the programme of work on the John Stuart Mill Library and its rich store of Mill annotations that is currently underway in Somerville. He is one of the foremost experts on the history of the voluntary sector and philanthropy.
What will I be marked on?
Upon reading the entries, judges will be carefully assessing:
the relevance of points made to the essay title
the development and structure of your argument, which considers multiple points of view and reaches a personal conclusion – originality will be rewarded, though not at the expense of logic and plausibility.
your inclusion of supporting evidence to build a persuasive account
your clarity of language and expression as opposed to inappropriate use of jargon – sometimes simplicity is good, as is brevity!
your creative understanding of the essay title/task.
How do I submit my essay?
We are quite flexible about how you can submit your essay as long as they reach us at oxplore@admin.ox.ac.uk. We accept Microsoft Word, PDF, and Apple page documents. Sending us a Google docs link is also fine, provided you’ve made sure that we have permission to download your file and can forward it to our judges.
Do I need to include a references list/footnotes and will this be included in the overall word count?
Although it’s not essential, it’s generally considered good practice to include a list of your sources. This is certainly something you will be required to do when writing essays at university. As the word count is quite tight, we’ve decided that footnotes and references won’t count towards it. This way you will have more space to make your points. Different referencing systems are taught at different schools, so we haven’t specified that you use a particular one. As long as your sources are clearly marked and the system is consistently used throughout your entry, we advise you to use the referencing system with which you feel most comfortable.
If you have any other questions about the competition or Oxplore.org in general, please feel free to send them to oxplore@admin.ox.ac.uk.
We hope you will enjoy exploring this subject. We are so excited to read what you think and be persuaded by your viewpoint. Good luck!
This evening, communities across the UK will congregate to observe bonfires, firework displays and the burning of effigies. Some of these effigies will be of figures who have drawn public ire recently, but the traditional 5th November effigy represents a bogeyman from four centuries ago.
Guy Fawkes Night began as a virulently anti-Catholic tradition, celebrating the capture of Guy Fawkes and, subsequently, his co-conspirators before they could blow up the House of Lords with gunpowder stashed underneath. Fawkes and co. were Catholics fed up with being treated as second class citizens, replete with constant suspicion cast their way. Many had harboured hopes that the newly crowned James I (VI of Scotland) would usher in policies and a culture more tolerant towards Catholics than Elizabeth I’s, but these hopes were disappointed.
In response, they plotted. The destruction of the Houses of Parliament, as a means of assassinating James, was but one aspect of the scheme: they also sought to install James’s daughter, Elizabeth, as a puppet queen and, in the process, bring about a return to Catholic supremacy within England.
When the scheme failed and Guy Fawkes was identified, he became a common reference for evil amongst the largely Protestant population of England. Hence his demonisation. We now taunt him with explosions the likes of which he was stopped from igniting.
Or do we? The United Kingdom no longer has laws imperilling and impoverishing Catholics. Nor does Britain’s culture view Catholicism as an existential threat to the health of the state and its occupants. Guy Fawkes himself is no longer a villain.
Alan Moore and David Lloyd wrote and illustrated the graphic novel V for Vendetta, serialised in comic form from 1982. In it, the anonymised character ‘V’ wears a stylised Guy Fawkes mask as he inspires popular revolt against a fascist regime in a dystopian England. Moore has related how, at the time Lloyd came to him with the idea (swiftly adopted) of ‘V’ wearing a Fawkes mask, ‘Guy Fawkes Night’ was being renamed almost universally as ‘Bonfire Night’. Just as the spectre of Fawkes the villain was fading away, Fawkes the hero emerged.
When V for Vendetta, a cult favourite graphic novel, was turned into a Hollywood movie by Warner, the Guy Fawkes mask acquired a mass culture notoriety. The mask itself had meaning.
Since then, it has been a symbol and a prop for protest movements the world over. Its appeal appears obvious. Not least, the mask’s likeness of Fawkes has a knowing smirk and an air of menace. For the protester wearing it, it serves to intimidate the oppressor with its faith in their defeat and belittle them for the futility of any efforts quash the protest movement.
Beyond this, the mask lends anonymity. This prompted its use by protesters against the Church of Scientology in 2008, who were worried the ‘church’ would seek retribution upon protesters – it had been known to follow protesters home and hire private investigators to elicit material with which to blackmail or discredit opponents. The use of masks provided a first defence against this, much as Guy Fawkes’ assumed identity of John Johnson obscured the threat he posed and thus lent him and his co-conspirators a layer of protection (Fawkes was known by name to England’s spymasters as a skilled soldier who had first fought for Spain and then unsuccessfully solicited their aid in dislodging Britain’s Protestant monarchy).
Since 2008, Guy Fawkes masks have been used as symbols or worn by protest movements and protesters campaigning for greater transparency (Anonymous), against tyrannical regimes in the Arab Spring of 2010-2012, against the impunity and accumulation of power of finance sectors and corporate entities (Occupy), for and against monarchy in Thailand, for and against Israeli occupation of Palestinian settlements and by rioters storming the Capitol in the US in February 2021, amongst myriad others.
It should come as little surprise Fawkes’ likeness has been appropriated by movements of all stripes. His beliefs were moulded by a world devoid of left and right (products of the French Revolution 180 years later) or most of the other prisms through which we view politics and society today. We would now consider it admirable to combat culturally and legally codified Protestant supremacy, but not so to hope to replace it with Catholic supremacy. Fawkes is an identity for movements more defined by hostility to a perceived evil than animated by hope for something better after the perceived evil’s removal.
The mask is the ubiquitous uniform of the self-identified underdog, of the victimised disruptor. It has also largely been the face of unsuccessful movements. Sometimes the aims of its progenitors come to be: Catholics are no longer systematically subjugated by Protestants in Britain. Moore wrote V for Vendetta in part as a warning against a possible evolution of Thatcherism – Thatcher was removed from office as Prime Minister without, as it turns out, any need for explosions under Downing Street.
Casting Guy Fawkes as a hero is problematic – neither his beliefs nor those of all who assume his identity in protest are to be adopted. But what we might take from the symbolism of Guy Fawkes is that change does sometimes come, just rarely as promptly or in the ways we envision. Even more rarely by virtue of explosions; indeed, explosions on the 5th November are about as timeless an activity as Britain has. When watching fireworks and bonfires with family and friends this evening, maybe we should not strip it of significance and leave it merely a spectacle. Certainly, we should not see it as an excuse for religious bigotry. Perhaps it is best viewed as a ritual of belief in righteous change without recourse to gunpowder, treason or plot. The question for us is: what change do we want to see?
As the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth gears up to celebrate Queen Elizabeth II’s Platinum Jubilee, we thought we would take a look at monarchs past who have left their mark on Oxford.
Quarrelling Kings, Difficult Siblings
The Eastern end of Beaumont Street is frequently packed with tourists, visiting the Ashmolean Museum or the Oxford Playhouse or staying at the Randolph Hotel. At its Western end is Worcester College, an Oxford architectural gem. It is not a street lacking in beauty or grandeur, but there is little hint that it once housed a royal palace. In fact, there is really only one little hint – a small plaque indicating that King Richard I and King John were born at the ‘King’s Houses’ which once stood there.
Nestled amidst overgrown foliage, an understated monument to ostentatious kings.
They were born (in 1157 and 1166 respectively) at Beaumont Palace. Sadly for those wandering the streets of Oxford hoping to soak in as much history as possible, the palace no longer stands. What is left of it was reused building parts of St. John’s College and Christ Church. Similarly, neither Richard nor John would stay in Oxford for long. Richard, known as the ‘Lionheart’, sailed to France as soon as his early childhood was survived. He would return to England sporadically, spending only six months of his ten year reign in England. The rest were spent fighting in France, fighting on crusade or trying to free himself from imprisonment so that he could more effectively fight. The historian of the crusades Sir Steven Runciman described him as ‘a bad son, a bad husband, and a bad king, but a gallant and splendid soldier’. Focusing on the latter trait, the Victorians raised a statue of him outside Parliament and generations of story-tellers portrayed ‘good King Richard’ as a supporter of Robin Hood. Although, maybe Richard was considered good only in comparison to the other king born at Beaumont Palace…
John spent rather more of his life and reign in England than his elder brother, but this did little to improve his popularity with contemporaries or his standing with historians. Having passed much of Richard’s absence fomenting rebellion and attempting to seize power, he then passed most of his reign attempting to seize as much silver as possible in taxes from his subjects to fund military campaigns in France, all of which were unsuccessful. Renowned for wickedness and cruelty, his reign did see the signing of Magna Carta. In 1215, it appears John and his rebellious barons saw it as a stop-gap peace treaty to a civil war which would kill the King a year later. However, it has since come to symbolise British parliamentary freedoms. It is considered a seminal constitutional document. Oxford’s brood of unruly Angevin kings left a considerable legacy – Beaumont Palace was the birthplace of a tyrant so tyrannical he inspired a pervasive symbol of democracy out of a glorified ceasefire.
Cavaliers in the Quad
John was not the only King linked to Oxford who fought a civil war. Indeed, for much of the English Civil War (1642-1651), Charles I lived in Oxford at Christ Church with the royal court and his military resources housed by other colleges. Oxford during this period was fortified, dramatically transformed by artillery bastions, earthworks and flooded meadow land. Such was the concentration of royal resources in Oxford that some of them were forgotten after Charles fled the city in 1646. In the 19th Century, large quantities of hay intended to feed the King’s cattle were found in the vaults of Christ Church cathedral!
Before civil war compelled Charles to decamp to Oxford, his likeness was already perched prominently in one of the university’s most beautiful quads. Facing one another from the Eastern and Western ranges of Canterbury Quad in St. John’s College are bronze statues of Charles I and his queen Henrietta Maria. Archbishop of Canterbury William Laud, a political ally of the king, had funded the construction of the quad, completed in 1635. While Charles was captured, tried as a traitor and ultimately beheaded in 1649, these statues have survived relatively unscathed, though the circumstances of their survival between Oxford’s fall to parliamentary forces in 1646 and the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 are murky. As the architectural historian Howard Colvin wrote: ‘According to one tradition they were taken down and buried to save them from destruction; according to another they were offered for sale by the Parliamentary authorities, but “were ignorantly refused, because not solid” and so survived, to be reinstated at the Restoration.’
Charles I, crown on head and head still very much on body.
Queens at Queen’s
Queen Philippa, making sure students are working.
Not all monarchs commemorated in Oxford were divisive figures in their own time and since, nor were they all kings. The Queen’s College, as the name suggests, was founded in Queen Philippa’s honour by her chaplain Robert de Eglesfield. Philippa’s interventions were crucial to the financial survival of the college, convincing her husband Edward III to grant it assets in Hampshire. There is a wooden statue of Philippa in the library at Queen’s, first documented in 1658. Another queen associated with the college was George III’s consort, Charlotte, who gave the college £1,000 (roughly £120,000 today) to rebuild its Front Quad after it was damaged by fire. Similarly to Philippa, she was honoured with a portrait in which she holds a picture of the college’s library.
However, no monarch occupies such a prominent place throughout Oxford as Queen Caroline – her statue stands in the cupola above the entrance to Queen’s on Oxford High Street. As well as being a capable political leader (she was frequently regent to George II when he was absent from Britain), Queen Caroline was a generous patron of the arts and learning, entertaining Alexander Pope, corresponding with Swift and supporting Newton and Halley. She also played a crucial role in vaccination becoming widely accepted in the UK – upon hearing of the results of successful inoculation attempts against smallpox carried out on prisoners at Newgate, she had her children receive the ground-breaking treatment – and they survived! This very active royal stamp of approval helped to pave the way for the life-saving impact later made by Edward Jenner’s vaccine. Her spelling was notoriously atrocious, but her intelligence undoubted. Her gift of £1,000 to Queen’s in the 1730s ensured the completion of its neoclassical Front Quad and her place atop it.
Queen Caroline perusing the High Street.
A Prince’s Education
Until 2011, Edward VII had been the longest-serving heir apparent to the British throne. This gave him a lot of time to travel and to study. He took courses at the University of Edinburgh and Trinity College, Cambridge, but spent the happiest part of his university education studying at Christ Church between 1859 and 1861. At Oxford, Bertie (as he was known to friends and family), previously a difficult student given to obstinacy, first enjoyed his studies and achieved respectable marks in his examinations. He even reportedly attended lectures – voluntarily!
Frewin’s Court, off Cornmarket Street, where Albert Edward, Prince of Wales, lived while studying at Christ Church. He would go on to become King Edward VII.
Edward would go on to leave a significant cultural legacy – he popularised the classic Sunday roast and played a central role in fostering Anglo-French friendship (formalised by the Entente Cordiale in 1904) to replace centuries of Anglo-French rivalry partly by frequently holidaying there, much like millions of Britons since. In addition, much like his Oxford-associated ancestor Queen Caroline, he played a crucial role in normalising a now-mainstream medical procedure by undergoing surgery on his appendix only two weeks before his coronation. Those with whom he interacted described him as charming, affable and learned – a marked difference from descriptions of him as a child. Oxford appears to have marked an inflection point for him. He certainly looked back fondly on his time in the city of dreaming spires, gifting the university a portrait of him standing on the landing outside Christ Church Hall in 1867. The portrait now forms part of the University’s collection and can be seen in the Examination Schools.
Not all representations of monarchy in Oxford are considered untouchable parts of the scenery. In June 2021, the graduate students of Magdalen College voted to remove a portrait of Queen Elizabeth II from their common room (the Middle Common Room, or MCR). Admittedly the portrait was brought into the MCR by graduate students in 2013 – this was no ancient piece of Oxford heritage. The students voted to remove the portrait in order to make the space more welcoming. It was felt that representations of monarchy had connotations of colonialism which would be exclusionary particularly to students from communities victimised by the British Empire. The portrait no longer hangs in the MCR, but is kept safely in storage.
The royal family’s popularity has suffered in recent years following scandal, controversy and greater scrutiny of the sometimes unsavoury source of its wealth – from a consistent high of 70 percent approval for most of the 21st Century, it has dropped to 60 percent with young people in particular less likely to see value in the continued privilege of the family. However, the Queen herself remains popular, with 75 percent approval ratings on the eve of her Platinum Jubilee, no doubt in recognition of her long service, her dignity in the face of difficult circumstances (her behaviour amidst the loss of her husband was irreproachable) and her faithful stewarding of the royal corgis.
The origins of April Fools’ are murky. It can be traced back to Chaucer or 16th Century France when a shift of calendar moved New Year’s Day from 1st April to 1st January – supposedly those who still celebrated New Year’s at the start of April were considered ready targets for being duped – among other theories.
Nevertheless, it is now an established tradition across the Western world. So much so, in fact, that the media has long taken April Fools’ as an opportunity for levity and a licence to play with or ignore the truth without damaging credibility. However, for this to be successful, it is necessary for the joke to be made clear to all before any consequential action is taken on the basis of falsehood. April Fools’ might have been much less funny had flocks of BBC television watchers spent significant sums on spaghetti trees sold by an enterprising con man in 1957.
For the joke to work, some must be fooled but the joke must be obvious to enough people that its effects are confined to 1st April. This high wire act has, on occasion, taken a little tumble.
Lei Feng, trans-Pacific hero?
Lei Feng is an officially-endorsed hero of the Communist Chinese state. Reputedly, he was a soldier with such altruism and faith in the people’s revolution that ‘Lei Feng is said to have stealthily washed his comrades’ socks’, donated fruit he received in rations to hospitals and ‘ceaselessly carry luggage, care for infants, find seats for elders, serve water and clean the windows’ when travelling by train[1], all anonymously.
Western commentators have frequently viewed these stories, and the multitude of high-quality, well-lit photographs used to back them up, with scepticism and ridicule. While many Chinese people consider the stories either totally true or comprised of enough truth to justify Lei Feng’s celebration, there is a significant minority (frequently younger and tech-savvy, with access to media not so strictly regulated by the Chinese Communist Party) who equally consider Lei Feng’s official story to be much more myth than history.
But Lei Feng’s legend is not a joke and was never initially attached to April Fools’. However, in 1981, eighteen years after Mao first proclaimed Lei Feng a national hero, a US news agency filed a wire story on 1st April suggesting that Lei Feng was afforded similar status at the United States Military Academy at West Point. His face was supposedly plastered across West Point, his selfless acts taught as the exemplary behaviour of a soldier. A Chinese journalist, Li Zhurun, unaware of the comedic intention of the original wire story, communicated Lei Feng’s veneration at West Point to a Chinese audience. Since then, it has become accepted as part of the canon of the Lei Feng narrative – official Chinese media would repeat stories of the Chinese hero as role model for West Point cadets until 2002. By 2003 Li had become aware of his error, publicising apologies for being duped, but such was the Chinese establishment’s attachment to the West Point story that important media figures reaffirmed the fiction as recently as 2015, suggesting Li was himself motivated now by deceit.
Meanwhile, efforts to save face in light of a potential nation-wide dupe have led to the demonisation of April Fool’s in official Chinese media, where it is considered a Western tradition of deceit and malicious rumour. An April Fools’ joke which contributes to the shunning of April Fools’ in a country of one and a half billion – that’s a joke gone wrong!
Square trees and furrowed brows
On April Fools’ 2008, New Hampshire Public Radio (NHPR) shared a story that the New Hampshire Forest Society had succeeded in growing a forest of square trees. The story was backed up by interviews with various local figures and representatives of New Hampshire conservationist groups (all in on the joke, of course!). NHPR were careful to include a multitude of clues that the story was a hoax in their website story on the square trees, before updating it after April Fools’ with an explicit disclaimer of its dubious veracity.
It was a success – the NHPR website, as well as those of the organisations they had roped in to give their story heft, received vastly increased hits. Radio listeners wrote in expressing delight, not a single one irritated or angry. So, what was the problem?
Much as the journalists and conservationists who cooked up the story were gratified to see it doing so well, they were bemused that its popularity so greatly outstretched their ‘serious stories’. The most viewed page on the NHPR was a hoax story, which was concocted much more quickly than real stories (‘none of that pesky fact-checking’[2]). Jack Savage, one of the brains behind the hoax, ruefully stated: ‘I pitch a story about protecting a thousand acres, that includes water supply for tens of thousands of people, and wildlife habitat and working forests and this that and the other, and I get ten seconds. I pitch a story about square trees, I get four minutes.’[3]
There was no catastrophe or significant misunderstanding resulting from the square trees story, but it highlighted the bloated appetite Western audiences can have for frivolity and entertainment over policy and information. As a society, if we reward joking, however good-naturedly, so much more than informing, can we be surprised that ‘fake news’ is prevalent? And if well-executed April Fools’ gags leave us questioning the nature of information exchange rather than giggling, has it gone wrong?
Current and currency
It’s not just news organisations which pull spoofs – companies looking to raise awareness have long mounted advertising campaigns in April Fools’. Last year, as March drew to a close, Volkswagen of America put out press releases claiming to be changing their name to ‘Voltswagen’ in light of a push to electrify their range of cars. Automotive and financial journalists were told repeatedly, on and off the record and by VW representatives of all seniorities, that this was no joke. After all, if it were, they would have announced the change on 1st April. Wouldn’t they?
Before April Fools’ had even arrived, VW America felt compelled to clarify that no rebrand would be taking place. Just-Auto Global News reported that officials at VW’s headquarters in Germany ‘scrambled to reach their colleagues at VW’s US headquarters in Herndon, Virginia, to pull the plug on the campaign’[4].
While the purported rebrand had generated ‘buzz’ for the introduction of the electric ID.4 model, it had also seen a steep rise in the value of VW shares on stock exchanges. As Elon Musk knows all too well, making false statements (even jokes) which dramatically change the value of your electric car company can land you in trouble with financial authorities such as the US Securities and Exchange Commission. Amidst mixed reception for the rebrand from established and social media, as well as a public wary of ‘fake news’ (unfounded efforts to discredit the results of the acrimonious US election in November 2020 were still prominent) and VW’s recent history of misleading regulators (having been found in 2015 to have repeatedly lied to emissions testers, resulting in VW having to pay billions of dollars in fines), Volkswagen America was forced to recant its ill-judged publicity campaign even before April Fools’ Day came around. April Fools’ jokes rely on playing with trust – using it to dupe, re-establishing it by revealing the joke. But financial markets and business do not respond well to trust being used as a toy, particularly when they are unprepared, as they would have been on any day other than 1st April.
Pressed for time
The Oxford English Dictionary is one of the most respected resources on the English language. Its inclusions, definitions and explanations carry weight. The first edition was completed in 1933, considered by many at the time to be definitive. Of course, languages evolve. This was reflected in the publishing of a new Oxford English Dictionary (OED2) in 1989 and ongoing efforts to publish OED3 by 2037. Between the publishing of new editions, constant research occurs – the second edition was the result of contributions made from 1957 while the OED3 project has been ongoing since 2000, with revisions being made available online.
There had been attempts to produce revisions in the 1930s. Deep within the corridors of Oxford University Press (OUP, the dictionary’s publishers), a small team of researchers and contributors worked from 1937 onwards. One of the words on which they decided to focus was ‘Spoof’, which had gained marginal popularity since 1900. Indeed, the inventor of the word had himself died just as the original dictionary was being published. There was little trouble settling on a definition (‘1. A humorous imitation of something, typically a film or a particular genre of film, in which its characteristic features are exaggerated for comic effect. 2. A trick played on someone as a joke.’), but debate broke out over its plural form.
The contributor who had brought the team’s attention to the necessity of ‘spoof’’s inclusion in the dictionary, Una St.Beleguce, argued that ‘spooves’ was the correct plural. Initially, project editor I.M. Joshing had regarded ‘spoofs’ as more proper, but was eventually swayed by St.Beleguce’s invocation of ‘hoof/hooves’ and ‘roof/rooves’. This debate started in mid-March 1938, but was so protracted that it was finally decided on the 1st April. As news of the conclusion filtered through Oxford circles on the day, it was widely regarded as a joke announcement. It couldn’t be a coincidence, could it? Journalists in Oxford’s student-run publications, Cherwell and The Isis, referred to the genteel humour of OUP in warm terms. Judy Schuss, writing in Cherwell, affirmed that she would continue to use ‘spoofs’. She was not alone.
Disheartened by this reception to their lengthy and serious debate, work by the team slowed down before various key members of the team were enlisted in the war effort in 1939 and 1940, bringing the curtain down on the first abortive effort to produce a second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary.
There is no better time to tease and prank that April Fools’ Day. However, as these examples show, there are limits to how reflexively we should resort to hoaxing or assuming mischief on 1st April. Be wary of your audience, how the success or otherwise of your jokes might impact your outlook and, lastly, how your reaction to serious news on this day of levity might damage the legacy of well-meaning and intelligent people.
[1] Gao, Z. and Bischoping, K., ‘The Communist hero and the April Fool’s joke: the cultural politics of authentication and fakery’, Social Anthropology (27:3, August 2019), p.438.
[2] Smith, M., ‘Arbiters of Truth at Play: Media April Fools’ Day Hoaxes’, Folklore (120:3, 2009), p.284.
Last Saturday was World Day Against Cyber Censorship. Observed by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and Amnesty International, it represents the forefront of free speech activism in the 21st century. The freedom to express oneself without sanction is considered a fundamental human right by the United Nations, yet many still find themselves imprisoned, exiled and worse for saying, writing or suggesting the wrong thing in the wrong place. In the UK, we have recently been exposed to snapshots of this through footage of protesters against war in Russia being detained. The nature of the suppression of free speech frequently makes it difficult to find in-depth representations of its significance to those for whom it is currently most fleeting.
Thankfully, there is a wealth of media which can provide us with an insight into how freedom of speech, and its absence, affects societies and individuals alike. They highlight the bravery of those who sought to protect freedom of speech, the dangers of its erosion and, equally, the pitfalls of an absolutist attitude towards this freedom.
The Lives of Others was praised as an authentic portrayal of life behind the Berlin Wall in East Germany and was awarded the Academy Award (Oscar) for Best Foreign Language Film in 2006, amongst a multitude of plaudits. It is unflinching, and therefore occasionally graphic, in showing the cruelties of the East German state. Its primary dramatic tension, however, is in the interplay between the actions of a prominent playwright (Dreyman) led reluctantly to dissidence by grief and a secret policeman (Wiesler) assigned to spy on him. Wiesler, disillusioned by the brutality and betrayal endemic to the systematic repression of free speech, finds himself protecting Dreyman as the playwright attempts to undermine the repression of the East German state of which Wiesler is purportedly an agent.
Lives is a study in the suffocating influence the absence of free speech can wreak on a society and, perhaps more importantly, how compassion and heroism can be found from the most unlikely sources. Cinematically it is exquisite. Its authentic representation of Cold War Eastern Europe lends it immense value as a teaching tool for history students (though we would recommend it for older students/sixth-formers – as mentioned, the film deals with mature themes and does so quite bluntly). More broadly, it illuminates the human cost of the repression of freedom of speech and the potency of freedom of speech – why would a regime go to such lengths to limit what a playwright could write if an individual’s free expression did not possess such potential power?
Orwell’s writing is a treasure trove for those seeking to understand the effects of totalitarianism, a form of regime which necessarily relies on limiting or removing the freedom of speech of its subjects. He witnessed first-hand such repression in the Spanish Civil War and faced censorship when trying to publish his seminal novel Animal Farm in 1944, when the British government feared alienating the Soviet Union, then a wartime ally. But 1984 is Orwell’s most fully-formed and influential portrayal of totalitarianism. It portrays the attempts of a civil servant (Winston) to understand the totalitarian regime he serves and the regime’s efforts to snuff out such curiosity and the resistance it might engender. The Party, led by the omnipresent Big Brother, seeks to ensure its total hegemony over the Oceania superstate by eliminating the possibility of dissidence. To do so, it not only strictly suppresses independent political communication, but also seeks to limit any form of communication which might improve working and living conditions for the general populace, for fear that anything which alters the status quo would precipitate the reduction of the Party’s power, or indeed its total removal. When discussing freedom of speech, familiarity with concepts such as doublethink and Thought Crime is useful.
Statue of George Orwell at Broadcasting House (CC BY-SA 4.0)
1984 is a discomfiting depiction of totalitarianism run riot, a crucial component of which is the loss of free speech. It is perhaps the foremost dystopian novel which places totalitarianism in its sights, but Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World is commonly considered a complimentary companion work in the genre (in fact, Huxley had once been Orwell’s French teacher). It similarly asks the reader to consider the effects of limited (self-)expression. Both books, in conjuring dystopias, are necessarily distressing, though Brave New World shies away from depicting physical torture so maybe more suitable for a more sensitive readership. Both books ask the reader to consider how little freedom of expression and speech they consider acceptable in the name of convenience and stability.
Bust of Sophie Scholl in the Walhalla memorial hall (CC BY-SA 4.0)
The White Rose resistance group is today a celebrated case of anti-Nazi resistance – their tale of fierce heroism captures the imagination 80 years after they were active. Sophie Scholl is a film adaptation of the story of White Rose’s most famous member, arrested for distributing pamphlets denouncing the Nazi regime’s systematic murder of Jews and its culpability for the ongoing Second World War. Scholl, along with her brother Hans and fellow White Rose member Christopher Probst, were given show trials. Both the Scholls act courageously when confronted by a judge bent on humiliating them. Sophie Scholl depicts the very real risks of speaking up and speaking out under a regime seeking to keep its worst behaviour quiet and willing to resort to extreme measures to enforce this. It also depicts a force of character and conviction, an example to follow; if Sophie, Hans, Christopher and the rest of the White Rose movement were willing to risk execution in exercising their freedom of speech, then those of us lucky enough to be not exposed to such a risk should cherish and exercise our freedom of speech in service of the humanity they embodied. For those who prefer reading novels to watching films, Hans Fallada’s Alone in Berlin draws heavily from a real-world story to bring a similar story of dissident resistance in Nazi Germany, confronting similar themes. Again, it asks the modern-day reader in the UK to cherish and protect extant liberties.
Anthills of the Savannah depicts the deterioration into oppressive authoritarianism of a fictional post-colonial state through the prism of conflict between three childhood friends: a military dictator-in-waiting (Sam), Sam’s Commissioner for Information (Chris) and a firebrand pro-democracy journalist (Ikem). As Chris finds himself losing faith in Sam’s benevolence as leader of the country, he attempts to protect Ikem and his work. It is beautifully written and all-the-more heart-breaking for it. Much media which considers free speech is set where the right to free speech has long been abrogated. By contrast, Anthills takes place as it is being dismantled, lending it a particular poignancy – what is being portrayed is not merely the exercise of free expression, but the fight to maintain it. The conclusion of the novel is not necessarily happy, but it does reaffirm the notion that ‘ideas outlive people’, from which freedom of speech draws its power. It allows the transmission of ideas, which are immensely more difficult to extinguish than the people who proclaim them loudest.
Freedom of speech is fundamental to ensuring other liberties are maintained. It is the bulwark against authoritarianism and totalitarianism. The free transmission of knowledge, belief and thought is also the mechanism by which advances in science, governance and culture occur – in short, freedom of speech makes our lives better. As the media listed so far evince, it is a right to be cherished.
But can freedom of speech go too far? The late John Le Carré, who spent most of his career crafting protagonists who swallowed their misgivings over the callousness of the espionage world to fight totalitarian regimes who repressed free speech in the Soviet bloc or to bring to light gross miscarriages of justice which Western governments might prefer to keep hidden, vociferously criticised Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses for what he perceived to be the unjustified mocking of Islam. Le Carré did not ask that it be banned (though others did), but suggested that Rushdie – who received death threats – should not be afforded sympathy or protection. Clearly freedom of speech is a complex issue.
Most Western states follow the United Nations’ lead in simultaneously enshrining the individual’s rights to free speech and to be protected from hate speech. Germany specifically outlaws Holocaust denial as a form of hate speech. Beyond hate speech, most democratic states limit the state’s ability to govern what can and cannot be said in order to ensure expression remains as free as possible. But beyond the state’s purview, freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom from the consequences of speech; in this context, should prominent speakers, writers and content-creators feel entitled to platforms provided by private entities regardless of their views? Should they expect to be immune from loss of income or status because of their views?
Telling Lies About Hitler is an essential account of Evans’ experience as a star witness in the libel case brought by David Irving against American historian Deborah Lipstadt, who had called Irving a Holocaust denier. Holocaust denial was not illegal in the UK, but Irving’s income had been reduced as his publisher’s ceased to publish his books due to the increasing infamy of his views. UK libel law required Lipstadt and her publishers to prove that Irving was a Holocaust denier. With the aid of various expert witnesses, of which Evans was one, they succeeded in doing so, thus establishing that while disseminating misinformation (however pernicious and insulting to common decency and humanity) was not illegal in the UK, nor was the disseminator to be protected from the potentially ruinous consequences. Evans’ prose might lean towards the academic and for those who would prefer to digest the story more quickly, there is an excellent film called Denial which depicts the court case. However, Evans’ account is forensic in its dismantling of Holocaust denial. Ironically, it is a perfect advert for freedom of speech – Irving’s horrible fictions provide perfect targets for Evans’ analysis. Free speech created a mechanism for a more concrete understanding of History, and by extension the lessons we might learn from it, to be formed and distributed.
As you can see, freedom of speech is a complex issue. Because of its fundamental effect on our lives and our societies, there is a wealth of media which considers and confronts freedom of speech, of which only a small selection has been highlighted here.
How would you react if your freedom of speech were threatened? How can you help those whose freedom of speech is threatened? Where would you draw the line between acceptable expression and damaging speech?
Oxford Digital Outreach Blog 
