The Beaver - #911 by The Beaver

The Beaver Making Sense of LSE Since 1949

Newspaper of the LSE Students’ Union

beaveronline.co.uk

Issue 911

Tuesday 3 March 2020

BEEF OVER BEEF BAN:

Inside Today

Big Missteak or has the Voice of Justice Been Herd? Isabella Pojuner

Managing Editor 19’

n Thursday, 19 February, alongside motions to improve mental health support and reform LSE’s drug policy, the Students’ Union passed a motion to ban the sale of beef products across all LSE’s outlets, including LSE accommodation. 243 students voted in favour, while 170 students voted against the motion. The passing of the motion means Students’ Union now has a mandate to lobby the LSE to ban beef sales. The motion was proposed by Phoebe Woodruff and seconded by Sarah Nappi, and solely expressed concerns about the environmental and agricultural costs of animal agriculture, emphasising the particularly severe impacts of beef production. Woodruff, who is a campus representative for PETA and Campaigns Intern for PETA UK, told The Beaver, “No matter how you cut it, raising, feeding, transporting, and brutally slaughtering a cow for consumption requires far precious resources like land, water, and fuel than any other plant-based protein. All this for an unnecessary source of nutrition! “By banning beef and turning a critical eye to other animal-derived products, LSE would be putting its money where its mouth is and finally aligning its actions with its values.” The Committee on Climate Change, the advisory group to the UK Government, has recom-

mended a 20% cut in national consumption of beef, lamb, and dairy in order to meet their net zero target of 2050, amongst other measures. LSE’s official policy also includes a 2050 net zero target. The motion has faced unusually high levels of opposition relative to those SU motions proposed over the past couple of years. Notably, the LSESU Disabled Students’ Officer expressed concern that if LSE followed the call of the motion, it would be kowtowing to individualistic environmental narratives rather than systemic. Others have stated that the low turnout of voters in a university population of around 11,000 delegitimises the vote. At LSE’s Sustainability Consultation launch earlier that week, members of the Directorate suggested they had already considered outlawing beef sales, including a general reconsideration of food sales. This follows its installation of two exclusively vegan cafes on campus, decisions taken by Goldsmiths University and some colleges at Cambridge University to ban beef sales, and efforts taken by LSE Catering to improve its operations. LSE Catering states that since “2014 all meat served in halls is Red Tractor standard”, acknowledging the need for more “sustainable rearing practices”. While all four catered halls have a Silver Award from the Soil Association, LSE Garrick and the Shaw Cafe have only achieved a Bronze Award, with no detail on other outlets.

(Continues Page 2 )

29% of Economics Department Exams Contain Errors Morgan Fairless Executive Editor

Freedom of Information request by The Beaver has revealed potential concerns over a high rate of mistakes in exams given to LSE students. Whilst the average error rate accross all departments is 7%, some departments have a significantly higher exam error rate. The Department of Economics, the worst performer, had almost one third of exams with mistakes in 2019. LSE began taking into account

exam corrections with more detail in 2019, yet sources close to the matter have said that exam error rates have been a problem in the past. A meeting of the School Management Committee on 10 September 2019 noted that exam error rates “remain an issue”, despite the fact that error rates had improved from earlier years. The SMC is reportedly considering employing external reviewers to improve these shortcomings. (Continues Page 5 )

Features

Zulum on his Two Years as Gen Sec

Comment

The Beef Ban is Student Democracy at Work

News

UPR Speaker Event Elicits Uproar and Reflection Rhea Malviya Staff Writer

utcry ensued on social media following news that the Undergraduate Political Review (UPR) invited right-leaning LSE alum Professor Eric Kaufmann to speak on academic freedom at this year’s conference held on 18 February. While the event typically highlights the work of LSE undergraduate research projects, Kaufmann hogged much of the attention and curiosity from the student body. A Birkbeck College professor of politics and author of Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration, and the Future of White Majorities, Kaufmann has attained widespread critical attention in both national media coverage and academic articles for his

work. Students expressed outrage on Facebook towards the UPR’s decision to invite Kaufmann to speak on academic freedom. Still, Adam Hudson, UPR’s editor-in-chief, argued that Kaufmann’s salient position as a consultant to the new Tory government on the topic made him suitable to speak on the issue. “Academic freedom (and a ‘campus free speech bill’) was a key pledge in the recent Tory manifesto, and we understand that both Professor Kaufman and his co-author Tom Simpson (Oxford) are in consultation with the new government about such legislation being enacted,” wrote Hudson in an email. “In this way, his insider status makes him well placed to deliver one side of the academic freedom debate, and a side that could become UK-law.” (Continues page 3)

LSE: Tier 4 Students Cannot Legally Attend Spring Weeks

2U-LSE Partnership to Expand

Postgrad Invents Bot to Crack Loneliness at LSE

DON’T FORGET TO FLIP OVER FOR

FLIPSIDE

The Beaver

Tuesday 3 March 2020 | The Beaver www.beaveronline.co.uk

Established 1949 | Issue 911 | Newspaper of the LSE Students’ Union

Meet the team Executive Editor Morgan Fairless editor@beaveronline.co.uk Managing Editor James Boucher managing@beaveronline.co.uk Flipside Editor Christina Ivey flipside@beaveronline.co.uk Beaver Editor Lucy Knight beaver@beaveronline.co.uk Multimedia Editor Yasmina O’Sullivan Design Editor Colette Fogarty Editorial Assistants Ross Lloyd Dhruv Narayanan Will Tye Illustrators Rebekah Paredes-Larson Raphaelle Carmarcat Emma Duper Amelia Jabry Sebastian Mullen News Editors Laura Zampini Jeffrey Wang news@beaveronline.co.uk Comment Editors Grace Chapman Gustav Hagild Michael Shapland comment@beaveronline.co.uk Features Editors Marianne Hii Colin Vanelli Annabelle Jarrett features@beaveronline.co.uk Part B Editor Maya Kokerov partb@beaveronline.co.uk Review Editors Amber Iglesia Zehra Jafree partb@beaveronline.co.uk Sport Editors Seth Rice Gabby Sing sport@beaveronline.co.uk Social Editor Analía Ferreyra Sherry union@beaveronline.co.uk Any opinions expressed herein are those of their respective authors and not necessarily those of the LSE Students’ Union or Beaver Editorial Staff. The Beaver is issued under a Creative Commons license. Attribution necessary.

Printed at Mortons Printing Room 2.02 Saw Swee Hock Student Centre LSE Students’ Union London WC2A 2AE 020 7955 6705

The Beaver’s View on the Lent Term Elections: Achievable Politics, Transparency, and Accountability The Beaver Executive Team

efore the nomination period begins tomorrow, The Beaver’s Executive Team is publishing this editorial to lay out our perception of what changes the SU needs ahead of the Lent Term elections. We freely recognize the improvements the SU has made over the past year. It has added more employees and freed up existing staff following the dissolution of a tie-up with Arts SU. This change lets societies and AU clubs deal more easily with an SU that has more time for its constituents. The fact that this improvement is the result of a change in staffing, and not due to the democratic practices of the union, should be guiding candidates wishing to run this year. Other changes, like daily society drop ins, are widely reported to have improved relations between the SU and society heads, which have been fraught in the past. We welcome these changes and are eager to see the fruits of these necessary reforms. Problems remain, though. The Beaver has widely reported on SU shortcomings, including failures to provide sanitary products, flaunting of NSS rules, lack of transparency about elections, and more. What is more, enthusiastic student activism around mental health, sexual harassment, and the climate emergency point to the many live issues that face students, issues that the university needs to start treating as priorities. If the University is failing its students, so is our Union. We humbly share our views on what platforms voters should care about in the next election. The Beaver does not, and cannot, endorse candidates. As editors of this paper, we hear from engaged students every day. They come to us with stories, give us tips, or wish to publish their thoughts in our pages. This is not an exhaustive list of issues, and should not be seen as an endorsement of candidates in the future. Today’s student body is disengaged and disinterested. SU office hopefuls face an uphill battle to connect with students, fight institutional inertia, and make the SU a meaningful force in campus life. Three principles will help them. First, manifestos should be more realistic, next,

more transparent, and finally, more accountable. Take manifestos first. A general change of approach needs to occur. Candidates promise the world and cannot deliver, not because of their failures but due to the institutional difficulties of enacting changes in this decentralised university. Whilst officers are happy to attribute to themselves any changes in LSE policy, conversations with both LSE and Union insiders has often proven these claims to be more smoke than fire. Candidates should only promise things that are achievable in a year, programmes that work as proofs of concept, such as the support map trial, which LSE may buy. Next, more transparency in what the Union provides is also needed. As stakeholders, voters should be informed of what the Union does with students’ fees and in students’ names. Programmes the SU runs, like advice sessions, events, and so on should be shown to work and be used by students. This could be done by keeping closer tabs on demand for services, and publishing these every year. Information on the SU’s finances, liabilities, and plans should be easily and freely available; there ought to be no official secrets in a Students’ Union. Transparency would lead to the final improvement, accountability. The SU and its officers must pay more heed to the wishes of students, both during and after elections. SU rules show undue concern for candidate welfare, at the cost of proper scrutiny, as Morgan writes on page 8. Legitimate complaints about candidate behavior are kept hidden until after elections are finished; LSESU officials and staff should liberalise the electoral procedures. Further, a patronising approach reinforces the view that these elections do not matter much. If all candidates cleave to these three recommendations —realism, transparency, and accountability — the SU will be well on its way to becoming an active, healthy institution, efficiently serving an engaged student body.

Beef Over Beef Ban (continued)

ays after the motion was passed, the news went national, with multiple online outlets reporting the motion passing, many of which misreported the event, stating that the School itself had decided to ban beef, or that Student Union outlets had. Nigel Farage, ex-leader of UKIP, current leader of the Brexit Party, shared such an article with the caption: “This is eco-fascism. Very dangerous.” Woodruff told The Beaver, “the idea that this is an imposition of values stems from a failure to recognise the scientific consensus on animal agriculture and see that banning beef is actually in line with the principles our university has already affirmed.” She added: “What we’re interested in is appealing to those students who are amenable to suggestions on how they can reduce their personal emissions.” The President of LSESU Hayek Society, Max Marlow, told The Beaver, “My friends at the IEA and 1828 understood this to be the stuff of authoritarian bullying against members of LSE’s community, and I look to work with our community to bring about a referendum”, stating that a ban on beef “is fundamentally opposed to the ideas of Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism.” He added that while the society understood environmental and ethical arguments, decisions should be borne “out by consumers rather than a group of hyper-political students.” Nicholas Feil, President of LSESU Interna-

tional Development Society, was involved in organising the motion and told The Beaver, “Me and my friends are ready to fight a referendum, but people should respect the democratic process we already had. Every other motion passed by this student body has not had massive voter turnout. To only throw a fit for this one motion seems juvenile. They had the vote, they had access to all the information, and they did not make use of it.” He added: “I do not think his views are representative of the LSE student population.” Feil and others have recently launched ‘Food4Thought’ at LSE, part of a UK network of plant-based university campaigns driven by environmental and ethical arguments for transforming food production and consumption.

“Free Speech Fear Free” Documentary Viewing + Q&A with Director Tarquin Ramsay

4 March

CBG.1.08 at 6pm

Investigative Journalism with Kit Chellel, from Bloomberg Businessweek

6 March CBG.1.02 at 6pm

News

News Editors Laura Zampini Jeffrey Wang

Email us: beaver@thebeaveronline.co.uk

UPR Speaker Event Elicits Uproar and Reflection Rhea Malviya Staff Writer

(Cont. from front page)

udson also wrote that the event’s organising members felt the need to spark debate on the issue, one that they deemed uncharted until recently on campus. “This was the reason that we changed the style of the event from previous years with the addition of the talk from someone reasonably prominent in that area,” he said. “Out of the numerous members of LSE staff we spoke to about the event, and specifically Professor Kaufmann’s invitation, all expressed pretty much the same view,” he said. “This being one that can be summarised as: ‘oh yeah, he’s pretty infamous for his views on demographics and questionable methods to reach his conclusions’… does this mean we shouldn’t invite him? … ‘No – challenging him in person is something of significant value’.” An LSE spokesperson told The Beaver that the school” is committed to encouraging staff, students and visitors to engage in a free exchange of ideas, even on issues over which views may differ sharply, but this must always be in an atmosphere of mutual respect.” Three student attendees interviewed prior to the speech largely condemned Kaufmann’s views but sought to indulge the speaker with the same spirit of academic debate. “I don’t agree with a lot of what he says, but I don’t think that’s grounds for not having him come and talk; it’s up to people who disagree with him and think he’s wrong to come

and challenge him,” said one student. “Actually having someone [to whom] people can be like ‘no I don’t agree’ and actually getting them to defend their views is quite interesting,” said another. “But I agree I think there’s a fine line between when it starts to make people uncomfortable that he’s here.” Students also expressed concern over the potential lack of exposure to alternative viewpoints on campus. “If you don’t let him speak, you’re missing out on a proportion of society that does exist,” said one student. “If we graduate from LSE thinking that everyone thinks like everyone here then you’re not going to address the issues that exist.” Students who attended the event also commented on whether platforms should be given to academics who have been critiqued for the credibility of their research. “A lot of academics’ research is false generally; I think that there has to be something addressed in terms of equipping social scientists with a higher level of statistical education background to ensure that the research that they do is more thorough,” said one of the students. Kaufmann echoed concerns of ideological bias in academia in his talk by asserting that a majority of leftleaning academics in universities has led to an absence of challenges to their findings, which undermines academic freedom. “The problem here is that you’re not getting conservative academics,” he said. “This is a very important problem in many ways in terms of which questions are being asked.” Kaufmann illustrated his claims with a Policy Exchange study co-

authored by him, which surveyed 505 UK undergraduates and questioned students on their views on free speech versus emotional safety when confronted with specific cases of academic and cultural freedom. Results claim that a considerable population of students held prospeech or malleable positions and that, when confronted with prospeech rhetoric, undecided students were swayed accordingly. He also showed that all respondents claimed that right-leaning “Leave” students would feel less comfortable expressing their views in class; the study, however, only speculated on the actual views of respective left and right-leaning students from their responses. Kaufmann also conceded that his study’s small sample size is likely not representative of the UK student population as a whole. However, he generalised his findings to pose UK-wide policy recommendations, advocating for academic freedom scores within university rankings as well the creation of an external organisation monitoring academic freedom on campuses. When questioned on the emotional considerations of marginalised groups within debates, Kaufmann argued that the safety of these and all groups, in general, is largely socially-constructed. “My view is actually that this is much more about progressive ideology, and progressive ideology has used the category of safety and has socially constructed a lot of this sense of offendedness,” he said. “So people are being ideologically urged to be offended by things they probably wouldn’t be offended by; I think the ideology is encouraging people to weaponise emotions and

fragility.” Kaufmann remarked that he hopes for people to put their emotional reasoning to the side of rational debates for the sake of preserving the integrity of freedom from the complications of safety. “What I would like to prefer is to make people stronger, to feel more empowered, or feel more resilient to be offended, to disagree, etc.” he said. “I think that would be the healthier way to go rather than what some people seem to do which is to sort of smuggle in a kind of definition of emotional safety into the definition of freedom to say ‘well some people are less free because they don’t feel safe’.” Following the speech, Hudson urged that the debate validated Kaufmann’s presence at the conference and in front of students generally. “I think it is far more beneficial for people to hear the views of academics who express a controversial opinion or operate with potentially problematic methodology, than not allowing such individuals to be heard and crucially challenged,” he said. Hudson emphasised his willingness to continue the debate with students still unconvinced or threatened by this year’s choice of speaker. “If the feeling that violence [was promoted] as a result of last night’s event is genuine, then it would be wrong for me not to apologise to those people,” he told The Beaver. “I would, as I have said, encourage anyone who feels like this to reach out to me so that I can better understand this feeling. This is, after all, how we form well-reasoned views on complicated issues such as this.”

The News Team Cindy Ren Staff Writer

Raphaelle Camarcat Staff Writer

Meher Pandey Staff Writer

Eva Fernandez Staff Writer

Rhea Malviya Staff Writer

Angbeen Abbas Staff Writer

Kevin Morris Staff Writer

Thahmina Begum Staff Writer

Mary Ma

Staff Writer

Beatriz Silva Staff Writer

Zulum Set to Propose Motion to Address Homelessness LSESU proposes partnership with St Mungo's charity to tackle homelessness in the next 3 years

Beatriz Silva Staff Writer

t the upcoming UGM, to be held on 12 March, LSESU Gen Sec Zulum Elumogo will put forward an initiative to tackle homelessness. The goal of the initiative is to make the issue of homelessness a priority both for LSE and LSESU, and to ensure that concrete steps are taken towards tackling an issue that affect LSE students, faculty and staff. The motion proposes the launching of a Sustainable Strategic Partnership between LSE, LSESU and St Mungo’s in order to develop a collective strategy to effectively tackle homelessness is put in place for the next three years. St Mungo's is a charity founded in 1969 to help people experiencing homelessness in England. Additionally, the motion highlights the organisation of a ‘Skills & Careers Fair’ for rough sleepers. If the motion passes, the Fair will be held at least three times a year at LSE, with support from St. Mungo's. The first fair is set to take

place on 6 May. As underlined in the motion, homelessness in London increased by 165% since 2010 and the most acutely affected areas are the local councils of Westminster and Camden. Given that LSE's campus is located in both council areas, the motion suggests that currently uncoordinated efforts should be correctly channelled in order to optimise the school's capacity to play a role in alleviating homelessness. The motion refers to LSE’s founding principle “for the betterment of society” and emphasizes the critical role that the university can play in addressing local issues, particularly by partnering with an expert organisation such as St Mungo’s. The topic of homelessness has been prominent at LSE in previous years. In 2018, a petition launched by LSE students was signed by 66,000 people to immediately remove the “anti-homeless benches” on campus. New benches separated by handrails had been recently installed close to the LSE library, triggering claims that the school was participating in the establishment of anti-homeless architecture. This led LSE to set up a review of the benches at the time, but not much was done after that. When questioned on whether this time would be any different, and whether LSESU would be able to

Join the News Team! Join our News Team as a staff writer and help us report and investigate LSE news. For more information, visit beaveronline.co.uk/vacancies

successfully lobby LSE into adhering to this initiative, Elumogo stressed the fact that the motion is the result of a campaign organised by a Sabbatical Officer and that working with LSE's Estates Division has made this a meaningful and thought-through initiative. As LSE celebrates its 125th anniversary, Zulum calls the LSE community’s attention to the fact that “there is no better time to remind ourselves of our founding purpose than by establishing a cross campus initiative to help the local homeless

community”. According to Elumogo, if successful, this motion will become a leading priority for the SU, thus mandating the future General Secretary to continue the work already started. Students, as well as faculty and staff, will be encouraged to participate by volunteering, fundraising or providing research, he added. For now, anyone interested in getting involved in the first Skills & Career Fair can contact the General Secretary directly at su.generalsecretary@ lse.ac.uk.

Send us any tips to: news@beaveronline.co.uk

News

Tuesday 3 March 2020 | The Beaver

Concerns of Bigotry Rise as 2U-LSE Partnership to Expand Coronavirus Spreads Accounts of hostility towards East Asians rise at LSE due to Coronavirus

Thahmina Begum Staff Writer

s outbreaks of Coronavirus grow across Asia, Europe and, more recently, the Middle East, panic and, subsequently, instances of Sinophobia are spreading as quickly as the disease. With the virus advancing across borders and beyond Wuhan where it originated from, accounts of hostility towards East Asians has risen. On 31 January The Guardian reported on rising incidents of hostility towards Asian people in Italy, France, Canada and the UK. Many Chinese people, including students at LSE, have become cautious about how others interact with them. In the LSE Director’s Q & A session, on 11 February, students voiced their concerns regarding an increase in bigotry as a result of the outbreak. LSE Director Minouche Shafik reassured students that any mistreatment at the school is unacceptable and that LSE is taking a strong stance on the issue by ensuring all complaints are investigated thoroughly. Dolly Chan, a second-year Economics student, told The Beaver that although she and her friends had not experienced anything violent at university, they had been confronted with distasteful jokes and microaggressions at the height of the panic. “People have asked if we were from Wuhan, as a joke, and some people moved seats if we coughed in the library [...] one person even covered their face as they walked towards my friend on campus”, Chan explained. “The jokes, although passed off as light-hearted banter and not ill-intentioned, just feed into normalising casual racism towards the East Asian demographic, which is the problematic part,” she went on to say. LSE is renowned for its international diversity, with students from over 148 countries and approxi-

mately 32% of its student population from Asia. When asked whether she thinks LSE has done enough to reassure the Chinese student body about inclusivity in the university, Chan replied that she doesn’t believe it’s completely necessary for the School to write exclusively to Chinese students. “They’ve done a good job presenting their attitudes towards inclusivity”, she said, “and Minouche has been really clear about the School’s values and ethics code in her updates, which I appreciate and found reassuring.” In a series of email updates regarding Coronavirus in the UK, Minouche has reminded students of the School’s values: “As an institution, LSE is absolutely committed to equity, diversity and inclusion for all members of our community. We have clear codes of conduct as outlined in our Ethics Code and Student Charter that set out the values all of us have a duty to uphold. This includes treating all people with equal dignity and respect, ensuring that no one will be treated less favourably because of - among other things - their gender, ethnicity and race, religion or belief, sexual orientation, or social and economic background. Bullying and harassment will not be tolerated.” Most recently, Shafik addressed the LSE community to disseminate travel considerations and information regarding the virus. She ended the email by reminding students to respect "people’s choices in terms of how they look after their personal wellbeing" and "work together to create an inclusive, accessible and safe environment for all." For Chan, “the emails were clear and a nice contrast from most of the news headlines that drove the panic”. The university encourages all its students to report any instances of discrimination and use the Student Wellbeing services available at LSE.

2U partnership with LSE sparks concerns over transparency

Cindy Ren Staff Writer

igital education provider 2U and LSE have announced an expansion of their current online learning partnership. This will increase the number of courses that 2U, an educational technology company that offers online degree programs, offers at LSE. 2U and LSE will go from offering four undergraduate programs and nine short courses to seven undergraduate programs. Four of the seven online undergraduate degrees that will launch this year include the BSc Data Science and Business Analytics, BSc Economics, BSc Economics and Management, and BSc Business and Management. The online courses that 2U offers are completed entirely online. The programs, geared towards adult students, cost roughly £20,000 for overseas students and take up to four years to complete. This is significantly cheaper than current oncampus tuition fees, which stand at around £27,000 for domestic students and up to £65,000 for over-

seas applicants. This is not-withstanding the high living costs that students incur studying and living in London, one of the most expensive cities in the world, which the LSE calculates estimates at £1,100£1,300 per month. There are, however, concerns that larger cohorts completing the 2U affiliated courses may reduce the value of the online degree vis-a-vis on-site degrees. There are also concerns that 2U, a for-profit organization, would unduly profit off of LSE, which is an exempt charity regulated for charitable purposes by the Higher Education Funding Council of England. At previous academic institutions, 2U has been known to take up to 60% of tuition fees. Currently, the market for these online learning companies may be worth more than £6 million. The Beaver reached out to the LSE in regards to these concerns, and a spokesperson responded: “The courses are non-credit bearing and are designed to offer working professionals and others insights into key areas of social sciences and social science research. However, as with other ancillary programmes, they are subject to quality assurance. This governance is overseen by a committee of senior academics drawn from around the School who approve new course proposals and monitor outcomes/standards”.

Postgrad Invents Bot to Crack Loneliness at LSE like they were missing out on socialEvgeny Pavlov creates interface for students to make new izing with their classmates and people from the LSE because they just friends over coffee

Rhea Malviya Staff Writer

vgeny Pavlov, a postgraduate student in the Management of Information Systems and Digital Innovation course, has invented an LSE-exclusive interface for students to make friends over 'random coffee'. The LSE Random Coffee Bot utilizes Facebook's API coupled with Pavlov's own server and algorithm that he uses to match people with potential new mates based on shared interests. For Pavlov, the innovation spurred out of feeling relatively isolated as a new LSE student. Luckily for him, Pavlov doubled his LSE social circle thanks to the bot. The bot acquired praise from his course-mates in November when he launched the prototype and recently, more than 200 students signed up to the interface after its universitywide debut three weeks ago*. "I just found out that people were feeling just like me; they felt

hate going to pubs," he said. "But everybody has to do coffee or lunch; might as well just talk to someone." Amy Vatcha, Pavlov's coursemate who signed up for the debut bot, expressed that she was just curious to meet her other coursemates who she otherwise did not see outside of class. "My time is tight because I work part-time in addition to my studies but I would definitely carve out time to connect with other people when the opportunity comes up, which is why I signed up for the coffee chat bot," she said. Alex Korolchuk, another MISDI postgrad, wanted to use the bot to discover the diversity of LSE’s student body. "I was really excited to exchange my ideas or thoughts with these kinds of people to understand the global society better," he said. Pavlov claimed that the popularity of the bot is due to the inherent ease that software provides to initiating social interaction. "What the bot does is it basically takes out all the anxiety out of

the way so it basically just tells you this is the person who wants to meet you who you would like to meet as well," he said. "Also, it might feel weird to just ask someone out for lunch or coffee because people just don’t do that, but when software does this for you it basically eliminates this anxiety." Pavlov and his course-mates all expressed variations of feeling stifled socially by the culture and demands of LSE. Lack of time, an LSE networking culture, and unconscious apathy can all feed into inevitably lacking LSE friends. "I can’t imagine myself going to social and networking events with all of the deadlines coming up," said Pavlov. "The general perception I have for this School is that its environment is somewhat similar to an ‘office’ rather than a campus-type university, compared to my Bachelor’s degree in Newcastle," said Korolchuk. "The relationships that are formulated here are mostly based on networking and formal exchange of experiences, which makes them hard to maintain in the long-term." Pavlov is continually fine-tuning the interface, as evident with the

recent add-on of a feedback mechanism which Pavlov will use to respond to suggestions and concerns personally. When asked if dating opportunists might be a concern, Pavlov emphatically asserted the Bot's primary, singular, and sole aim: friendship. "I think that there are people who want to make new non-romantic connections either for networking or friendship, and this group is hugely underserved in the app space,” he said. Students have responded positively to the Random Coffee Bot's interface and the socializing opportunities it has afforded them. Korolchuk met five people from the bot and Vatcha met four, and they both said that all encounters thus far have been positive. "The bot works perfectly well, [and] ever since me and Evgeny discussed the issue of communicating with coursemates, the bot works perfectly well to match different people," said Korolchuk. "I am really proud of him to take this idea further and develop it on a larger, school-wide scale." As far as his future dreams for the bot, Pavlov is not interested in

Moreover, the spokesperson added that “The supplier for delivery of these courses was selected following a competitive exercise managed by the LSE procurement function. This partnership brings in resources to LSE while helping with the School’s strategy of promoting lifelong learning and widening our reach to nontraditional students.” Lastly, the spokesperson confirmed that “these courses do not take away resources from current students—indeed, they generate a financial return for the School to invest.” However, the LSE spokesperson did not address queries on the exact arrangement with 2U and claimed that information on ‘LSE’s cut of profit per online student’ and ‘2U’s cut of profit per online student’ is commercially sensitive.

monetizing it but is determined to have it embedded in LSE students' day-to-day lives. This is after he reaches his goal of 600 active users by the end of Lent Term, of course. "Ultimately, because I'm a postgraduate student here, I'm not going to stay here long, so I would like this to live on after I graduate," he said.

www.beaveronline.co.uk | @beaveronline

Email us: beaver@thebeaveronline.co.uk

29% of Economics Department Exams Contain Errors, Other Departments are Close Behind Morgan Fairless Executive Editor

(con. from front page) n a statement to The Beaver, LSESU expressed concerns over the matter: “We've approached LSE on this issue and we are aware that there are ongoing efforts to tackle this problem and good practice in some departments." “Yet, this data is a symptom of departmental autonomy at LSE. Without a clear accountability or sanction processes in place for poor practice, it will always be difficult to require powerful departments to act with urgency.” The Department of Economics has faced serious complaints over mistakes before. In 2018, the EC220 and EC221 summer term exams enraged students who were faced with “disorganised” exams. An article in The Beaver at the time, described the chaos: “The first surprise to the nearly 400 exam candidates was that the exam cover sheet stated that calculators were allowed, despite a Moodle post explicitly stating the opposite. Subsequently, after minutes of confusion, invigilators announced that calculators would indeed not be allowed, despite at least three questions in the exam requiring calculators in order for the answers to be accurate.” LSE issued a statement to The

Beaver on this investigation, saying, “We are working hard to reduce and remove errors in examinations, and have seen an overall drop in the error-rate in recent years." “Following analyses of error rates, we have subjected our examsetting arrangements to an internal audit, and tightened our quality assurance processes as a result. Actions taken include updating the instructions to examiners guidance and working with departments on the timely submission of exam rubrics. The Economics Department, in particular, has been working closely with its faculty to improve their local exam-setting processes.”

The 5 Worst Offenders

Department

Error Rate

Economics

29%

Accounting

21%

Statistics

20%

Mathematics

15%

School of Public Policy

10%

LSE: Tier 4 Students Cannot Legally Attend Spring Weeks UK government policy endagers Tier 4 students capacity to participate in Spring Weeks

Colin Vanelli Features Editor

SE students holding Tier 4 student visas will fall into legal jeopardy if they attend Spring Week schemes, the Student Services Centre (SSC) has warned. In an internal memo sent to department managers on 25 February and obtained by The Beaver, the SSC noted that due to changes in LSE’s term dates which place most Spring Week schemes within LSE’s official term time, “legally our students are not able to undertake” full-time Spring Week schemes which overlap with LSE term time. It was not immediately clear which specific schemes are affected. The notice noted that summer schemes were likely to be similarly affected but did not elaborate on such issues. The SSC indicated that the Home Office had refused to allow the School to resurrect an old agreement which had allowed students to be released early for internships. Alluding to the presence of increasingly hard-line forces within the Home Office, the SSC noted that “the Home Office now is a completely different animal to when we had this arrangement… in the past.” The changes are expected to primarily impact undergraduate

students—particularly first-year students—given the target demographics of such programs. 55% of LSE undergraduate students were classified as ‘overseas’ students in 2018/9 and the majority of these students hold Tier 4 visas, which limit fulltime students to working 20 hours per week during term time. Students from the European Union (EU) and European Economic Area (EEA) will not be immediately impacted, although the SSC noted that “the issue will also increase when EU/ EEA nationals are under immigration control,” after the UK formally leaves the European Union at the end of the year. The Beaver understands that some firms have asked students to obtain a letter from the School or from their departments indicating that they have been released early and are eligible to work full-time. However, the SSC noted that they do not provide such documents and warned departments that such documents were legally void: “[a]

SHOW UP. SPEAK UP. SWITCH lse UP.

letter from the department does not mitigate the legal risk for either the student or the School.” Asking students to obtain letters from the university mitigates legal risk for firms but does not protect students or the university—despite what students might assume when asked to do so by firms. Noting LSE’s mandatory reporting requirement in cases of Tier 4 violation, combined with the strict punishments imposed by the Home Office for visa violations—including visa withdrawal and bans on returning to the UK—the SSC concluded that “the long-term risks for a one week scheme to both the student and the School are likely to outweigh the benefits.” LSE acknowledged the importance of such schemes for many students, but noted that ultimately “our role is to protect the whole student body by not putting our Tier 4 sponsor licence at risk and sometimes this is to the detriment of the few.”

NOMINATIONS:

4th March - 12th March

CAMPAIGNING:

18th March - 26th March

VOTING:

23rd March - 26th March

RESULTS NIGHT: 26th March, 7pm

LSESU.COM/ELECTIONS

Comment 6

Comment Editors Grace Chapman Gustav Hagild Michael Shapland

Tuesday 3 March 2020

Email us: beaver@beaveronline.co.uk

The LSESU Election and the Chinese Population

Jeffrey Wang News Editor

Comment Writers

SE would not exist without its Chinese international students. The Chinese student population is large, and, while the average tuition fee for a domestic or EU student at LSE is £9250, the average tuition fee of an international student from China, Malaysia, or Singapore is double that at £21,570. In that sense, LSE is built upon Chinese students: its pupils are Chinese, its funding comes from the fruits of Chinese labour.

Christiana Ajai-Thomas Deputy Editor

Oliver Harrison Staff Writer

中国学生是LSE的重要组成部分。由于中国学生的学费远高于英国本地以及欧盟学生，中国学生在资金方面对LSE的建设提供了关键的支持。从这种意义上讲，中国人的努力以及资助很大程度上造就了 LSE今日的成就。

Sagal Mohamed Staff Writer

Jesse Horowitz

This leads to an interesting question: why is the LSESU so unrepresentative? Of the 16 student officer positions, not a single one is held by someone who can reasonably claim to be Chinese, either a citizen of the People’s Republic or an overseas compatriot.

“ If we

want to be noticed, then we must let them know we exist

“

然而在16个LSE现任学联部员中，却没有任何一个中国人或华侨。这不禁使我疑问：为什么LSE 学联如此的不具有代表性呢？ The severity of the situation goes further. Even the smallest of nations are represented in the LSESU; larger states such as the United States and Germany have their societies, as do smaller states like Japan and Canada. So why is it that we Chinese do

Staff Writer

not have our own society inside the SU? Why is it that the society which represents so many of us, the Chinese Scholars and Students Association, not a member of the SU? 几乎世界上所有国家--像日本，越南，加拿大等等的小国，或者诸如美国与德国等等的大国在LSE学联中都有属于自己的社团，那么为什么中国人自己的学联,CSSA却不属于LSE学联家族呢? It is because the SU does not represent us, though this is not really a fault of the SU. Is it any surprise that an institution elects White, Black, and Brown candidates if those that vote for them are also of the same heritage?

这是因为LSE学联不代表我们，然而这并不能归咎于LSE学联。各个种族的人都将选票投给同根同源的同胞们并不令人惊讶。

you must participate. If you do not wish to be taken advantage of, you must not meekly accept. Vote, run for office, campaign, do anything, so long as it is not nothing.

The Chinese population is an integral part of LSE, if not the most integral. We make up a plurality of the population and tuition base. It is beneath the dignity of a great people to be so shamefully underrepresented. It is not the institution that is shameful, but our own negligence. If we want to be noticed, then we must let them know we exist. Do not let them take £21,000 for nothing and pretend that we are irrelevant. Do not let them ignore a massive population without repercussions. If you want to make your voice heard, then

即便不是LSE最重要的一部分，不可否认的，中国学生也是LSE不可或缺的一部分。中国学生们也是我们学校最重要的生源以及学费来源之一。然而不幸的是，中国学生却在学联中面临严重的代表不足的问题。造成这种局面的不是学校，反而是我们中国学生自己对于这一问题的漠不关心。如果我们希望得到应有的重视，那么我们必须让大家意识到我们的存在。不要让他们白白拿走£21,000的同时把我们当作毫不相关的人。不要让他们忽视一个重要的群体的同时，不考虑这一行为会带来的恶果。如果你希

望你的声音被重视，那么你必须要加入这一行动。如果你不希望被利用，那么你一定不要逆来顺受。同学们，请不要对我们的处境坐视不理！行动起来，要么投票，要么参加竞选，做出我们任何力所能及的事，让人们听到我们的声音！

(The Su has asked The Beaver to clarify that there is a Chinese Society. There is no CSSA due to upheld complaints about their operations which led to a ban in 18-19) (Translation by Karl Zhangkaier Xing and Stella Yang)

So You Want to be a Gen Sec? Three Tips from Zulum “ 3 2

utgoing two-term General Secretary of the LSESU,Zulum Elumogo offers his top tips to aspiring candidates:

Be In It to Serve – Being Gen Sec is a fantastic opportunity to serve and support students to maximise their potential at LSE. Attending university is a transformative time for us all, and as Gen Sec you are one of the main architects of the student experience and LSE culture as a whole. It is a position of real influence and privilege — use it to serve

A great Gen Sec should have a clear vision, a genuine desire to see others flourish and the determination to make that into a reality

the student community and improve things for future generations of students. A great Gen Sec should have a clear vision, a genuine desire to see others flourish, and the determination to make that into a reality. It’s not a CV booster, it’s a vocation, something you feel called to. Candidates must sincerely care about and believe in the potential of this great community of people — you will find the role exhausting otherwise!

Keep an Open Mind – There will be innumerable opportunities to serve and deliver excellent results for students throughout your term. Whilst manifestos are important statements of intent, they are not legal contracts. The truth is that many of your ideas are likely to already be in progress somewhere in the community, so you would be better off endorsing and enhancing them instead of doing everything yourself. Focus less on “your” ideas and more on simply giving students what they deserve, wherever that may come from. Here’s an example: as Gen Sec you will be a member of the LSE Council (Board of Governors) and will have ample opportunity to shape policy at the heart of LSE. I was fortunate enough to be on Council during the drafting of LSE’s 2030 strategy

and there I was able to guarantee that LSE will cap overall student numbers at 12 000 until 2030. This means that as new buildings open, there will be more space per student than ever before. This was an unforeseeable opportunity when I initially ran for the role, but I was able to seize it for the betterment of the student experience. Keep an open mind so you’re ready to seize opportunities when the time arises.

less on “your” “Focus ideas and more on simply giving students what they deserve, wherever that may come from

“

LSESU Secretary General

“

Zulum Elumogo

Have a Collaborative Mindset – The creation and delivery of an outstanding student experience is a collaborative effort. Students experience LSE as one continuous journey and don’t really distinguish between the SU and various other LSE providers and divisions. Therefore, as Gen Sec, you will need to work frequently with academic departments and professional services teams such as the Estates division to get things done. The best example of this is the Welcome Steering Group (WSG), which the Gen Sec chairs alongside LSE’s deputy Chief Operating Officer. The WSG is an ambitious cross-LSE committee that is coming up with ways to improve the LSE welcome experience for new and returning students. Collaboration is the key to success.

The Beaver Elections

Executive Nominations open: 4 March until 9 March at Midday Positions available: Executive Editor

Managing Editor Multimedia Editor Flipside Editor Beaver Editor Any Beaver Society member can apply to these positions. But our constitution sets out the following: • Any elected editor can apply directly to these positions • Those who are not currently elected editors must be approved by a simple majority of the editorial board. We will do this based on your manifesto, screening for involvement and knowledge of our operations. This vote will take place on 9 March in the evening, we will release the official nominee list the following day.

Hustings and Voting will take place in person on 12 March at 18hs in CBG.1.03

Senior editorial positions will also be up for election, these elections will be online mid-march. We will send out more information on this through out social media.

Lobbying the Student Counselling Service: Wrong Priority, Potentially Harmful Disabled Students' Officer 14/15

don’t think that it should be news to anyone that LSE has a serious problem with mental health. As the recent UGM notes, the culture at LSE is liable to contribute to the deterioration of students’ mental health. This should not be surprising. There is medical theory and evidence to suggest that cities attract a disproportionate number of people predisposed to mental health problems, and that the various culture shocks that many LSE students experience on arrival are not conducive to good overall wellbeing.

2014/15, I was often lobbied to do something about the Student Counselling Service. Just as I did then, I believe that is the wrong priority – and may even be harmful to pursue. My experience was that students thought that the counselling service should be the primary option to address mental health issues. This is pure folly. As with any health issue, the first point of contact for a mental health issue should be the GP. There is a fantastic GP service available at St Phillips (so good that, even after graduating, I still ensure I live within the catchment area). The issue previously was that students tend to think that counselling can have an immediate impact on mental health. The truth is that if someone’s mental health has reached the point that they need

an intervention within a fortnight, then they are extremely unlikely to be in a state of mind where they can derive value from counselling or other talking therapies. In fact, counselling when in such a state may even be harmful.

“

As with any health issue, the first point of contact for a mental health issue should be the GP.

“

Mark Malik

I understand this more than most. Ten years ago I was in the grip of my first LSE depression. After that, my bipolar disorder spiralled out of control to the extent that my undergraduate graduation was delayed by three years. It was only due to the fantastic pastoral support that I received from both my Academic Advisor and Departmental Tutor that I find myself in the unusual position of writing for the Beaver as an alumnus rather than a dropout. It is fantastic news that the student community is engaged in mental health issues and that such issues are salient enough that motions concerning them can pass at UGM. However, I believe the recent motion may be emblematic of a deeper problem at LSE. When I was Disabled Students Officer in

I am not opposed to counselling as a treatment. I have used the Student Counselling Service several times. On some occasions it was helpful. Sometimes, I was too unwell to engage properly. This is neither a criticism nor an endorsement of the service. But it does un-

derline the fact that mental health issues must be addressed as part of a much wider approach and that there are no simple answers to this problem that is endemic at LSE. Obviously, (as any economist will understand) more availability for counselling services and better quality of counselling services can only be a positive. However, if the student body continues to focus on the Student Counselling Service as the primary response to mental health issues in the student community, then I fear that vulnerable students may not fully understand what services are available and get the support they need. Mental health issues are health problems. The appropriate people to deal with health issues are the health services. And we already have fantastic health services on campus.

8 Comment

Tuesday 3 March 2020 | The Beaver

‘Candidate Welfare’ Ruins SU Democracy T

he Students Union will launch into full election mode this March. 26 paid and voluntary roles will be up for grabs, with most attention going to the four Sabbatical roles elected in LT. These posts are coveted jobs as leadership positions within the union. Officers also bagg almost £30,000 per year. These are serious positions, representing almost 12,000 students and their inter-

“Candidates can only

campaign once the campaigning period starts - this includes asking for endorsements. This rule is constantly broken

“

@beaveronline

the SU buildings. Candidate welfare is something we should care about, and something we consider when covering elections here at The Beaver.

“

A clear example of this is the constraints to our reporting on elections, which the SU scrutinises deeply - much more deeply than all our other content throughout the year.

“

Executive Editor

ests. So, why does the SU allow for such little scrutiny of candidates when election time hits? These elections are managed by two groups of people: elected democracy committee members (there are three this year), and SU staff who take care of democracy and representation. All of these people are well-meaning and care about our democracy. However, some of the rules and procedures they chose in name of candidate welfare shield ill-behaving candidates from voter scrutiny. There are set procedures and rules guiding potential candidates and hopefuls which must be followed to ensure fair and equal elections. For instance, candidates can only campaign once the campaigning period starts — this includes asking for endorsements. This rule is constantly broken. The SU has a duty of care towards all its members. Running in an election, asking strangers to vote for you, are obviously scary. As someone who suffers from anxiety, I am glad to feel secure in the notion that if I ever ran in an election, someone would be looking after me. I have heard horror stories about candidates crying in

However, running for a job that pays almost £30,000 a year and represents almost 12,000 students should come with lots of scrutiny. When it comes to balancing protecting candidates from stress and making them face scrutiny, the SU errs on the side of candidate welfare. This is a mistake. A clear example of this is the

www.beaveronline.co.uk

constraints to our reporting on elections, which the SU scrutinises deeply, much more deeply than all our other content throughout the year. This year we have a much better working relationship with the SU, which promises improvements. Let’s hope we get to do our job this time. But there are many more policies that shield candidates from scrutiny and prevent information from reaching voters. For instance, complaints against candidates are filed to the returning officer, who decides whether the complaint will hold and assesses forms of punishment that address fairness. These complaints are only communicated to voters after voting takes place. They are not communicated in the media and are limp attempts at redressing fairness. Candidates who break rules– often knowingly – are punished by being “blocked” from campaigning for a certain amount of time. In last year’s election, for example, candidate for General Secretary Will Stein received four complaints across 10 days, all relating to him contacting societies before the campaigning period. Three of these complaints were

upheld, amassing to a warning and three total hours of being blocked from campaigning. Voters were not aware of these true and upheld complaints, and could not act on that information. This is not serious scrutiny. It is further not how democracy works anywhere in the “real” world.

“But there are many

more policies that shield candidates from scrutiny and prevent information from reaching vot-

“

Morgan Fairless

There are many things the SU could change to liberalise the way elections are run. A sign of willingness to change would be to update the complaints log throughout the campaigning period, trusting voters with the information. They won't do it this time, but hopefully next year things are different.

www.facebook.com/thebeaveronline/

Don't Be a Consultant Adam Solomons

Executive Editor 18/19

any of LSE’s most talented graduates are enticed by the generous endowments and comfort of the ballooning middle-management industry. They should be wary of its pernicious social implications. In a recent opinion article for The Atlantic magazine, Yale Law professor Daniel Markovits noted three specific observations (among many others) in his discussion of the consequences for society of an exploding sector of management consultancies: “Whereas a century ago, fewer than one in five of America’s business leaders had completed college, top executives today typically have elite degrees – MBAs as well as bachelor’s degrees – and deep ties to management consulting.” “Harvard Business School, which sent zero graduates to McKinsey prior to 1953, now regularly sends nearly a quarter of its graduating class into consulting, while Wharton graduates are 10 times more likely to work in consulting than in manufacturing.” And, lastly: “[McKinsey] continues to perform its own eliteness, with the application process involving famously rigorous analytic interviews – which test formal problem-solving skills but no substantive knowledge (certainly not of any concrete industry or business) – so that getting hired has in itself become a mark of accomplishment at top colleges.” Needless to say, it’s difficult to read Markovits’s piece without

thinking of the parallels on this side of the academic pond, and to LSE specifically. The School has contributed significantly to the ongoing ‘business school-isation’ of the UK’s higher education sphere, with fee insecurity and value-for-money considerations playing larger parts in the decision-making processes of students, faculties, and regulators than ever before. But the other, more pernicious consequence for LSE’s already career-obsessed culture has been the rapid multiplication of management consultancy firms, which have grown seemingly overnight to become a substantive – but damaging – force for labour markets both national and globalized. Equal parts a result of the generous early-career salaries and the UK’s strict rules for international students to remain in the UK after graduating, management consultancies have risen quickly in popularity among the LSE’s jobseekers, to become the third most popular destination for graduates, behind only the finance and government affairs sectors, according to recent data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency. What statistics are hardpressed to illuminate, however, is the true scale of labour market unrest and subsequent income inequality growth sown by the consultancy revolution. As Markovits explains, the so-called management function in American capitalism – the practice within firms of planning and coordination, rather than physical production or service provision – has undergone a slow and painful process of outsourcing to the largest consultancies. “Because complex goods and services require much planning and

coordination,” he notes, “management (even though it is only indirectly productive) adds a great deal of value. And managers as a class capture much of this value as pay.” Whereas in the early post-war years even relatively low-level employees of major companies used to take care of substantive technical management functions, reaping the financial rewards for themselves, by the mid-1960s the low and middle-paid had been deprived of those extra responsibilities. Management consulting, Markovits concludes wearily, “is a tool that allows corporations to replace lifetime employees with short-term, part-time, and even subcontracted workers, hired under ever more tightly controlled arrangements, who sell particular skills and even specified outputs, and who manage nothing at all." The centralisation of the management function culminated in another concept which served to harm the lower and middle classes: shareholder primacy. Combined with a decline in workers’ union memberships and a late twentieth-century renaissance in conservative fiscal economics, shareholding elites were finally able to wrest control of their companies from pesky middle managers who had previously earned incomes amounting to a high proportion of their own. Perhaps too high. By 1997, Markovits notes, the CEOs’ talking shop The Business Roundtable updated its mission statement to incorporate a new conception of shareholderfocused company management: “The paramount duty of management and of boards of directors is to the corporation’s stockholders.” Management consultancies may ultimately not have intended such

an outcome, but they have helped deliver significant and grave consequences for the global class system. LSE ought not favour consultancies with advantageous lobbying space at student fairs, nor tout them on its student-facing Careers guide to the sector. Courses in the departments of Economic History, Economics, Government, and Geography focusing overtly on structural changes to the labour market should pay closer attention to ongoing academic discussions about its social virtues and pitfalls. Finally, LSE100 should do more

than address the heady themes of global inequality and economic development without reference to the consultant class which has played such a sizeable, frequently adverse role in both processes. Most importantly, members of the LSE’s conscientious and socially minded student body should not aspire to become them.

www.beaveronline.co.uk | @thebeaveronline

Email us: beaver@beaveronline.co.uk

What’s Next? The Start of LSE’s Mental Health Journey LSE Freedom of Mind Festival

n Monday 24th October, Freedom of Mind LSE’s UGM motion to improve mental health support at LSE passed with 434 votes in favour. The motion sits in a wider movement of mental health-related campaigns that are a serious cause for optimism: for the first time, students are making genuine, university-wide progress towards improving support for students. But has enough been done? And if so, what comes next? Let’s start by discussing what’s changed in the last year. Since September, a wave of student-led ac-

“Will the SU’s three

new mandates lead to genuine, permanent change?

“

Will Banks

tivism has put mental health firmly on the agenda. Laura Goddard and Ella Holmes’ UGM motion to improve support for sexual assault survivors marked the start of a flood of positive change: the Hands Off LSE festival, the creation of the LSE Consent Collective, Jack Boyd and Sam Rowland’s Drug Policy Reform, and David Gordon’s support map to name but a few. We’ve even seen some initial concessions by the school to improve mental

health support and increase the number of safe contacts for sexual assault survivors. The Freedom of Mind team and I couldn’t be prouder to be a part of this wave of progress. But behind all of this progress, a sobering thought lingers: will the SU’s three new mandates lead to genuine, permanent change? There are many factors that may slow down progress. A reluctant school leadership with a tendency to prefer “working groups” to actual change, a need for constant monitoring of the SU to keep progress up, and the ambitious nature of students’ demands could frustrate the successful campaigns of 2019/20. How do we counter these obstacles? The first solution is for students

to keep the pressure on. Hands Off LSE and Freedom of Mind should both expand their activities next year to maintain and nuance ongoing conversations about support and services. The creation of the LSE Consent Collective is a promising step, but with many of its members graduating this year, there’s a real need for new student leaders to step forwards (you should sign up to their Facebook group if you’re interested!). Similarly, two-thirds of the Freedom of Mind team will be upping sticks next year, leaving room for the next generation of campaigners to step up. Whether this year’s progress is cemented, then, is in the hands of next year’s campaigners. Also crucial will be this year’s

Sabbatical Officer elections, which are just around the corner. Only one General Secretary candidate in last year’s elections had mental health at the top of their agenda, and he was dismissed as a protest vote. Candidates this year have a responsibility to do better: to not run on a mental health platform would be to ignore the strong tides of student activism in the last year. Our choice of Community and Welfare Officer will be just as crucial. Going forward, there’s cause for optimism; mental health support might genuinely be getting better at LSE, but the ball is now out of our court. It's down to next year’s elected officers and student leaders to keep setting the agenda for change, and to continue to aim higher and wider.

The Beef Ban is Student Democracy at Work Jakub Bokes LLB Law

he recent so-called 'beef ban' has raised concerns among sections of the student population about a “woke clique” imposing its views on the rest of the LSE community. Without a doubt, there is an argument to be had about the morality of animal agriculture. However, I wish to refrain from commenting on this matter here. Rather, the saga appears to go to the heart of what it means to engage in student democracy on campus. It would seem uncontroversial to suggest that the institution of the UGM, whatever its flaws may be in practice, exists to empower students to collectively decide on the policies that the SU should pursue to shape the School as a common environment. This, no doubt, is why many critics of the beef ban have been quick to praise the other two motions passed on

the same day. If the critics’ opposition to the beef ban stems from its effect on individual choice, their praise for the other motions seems, frankly, inconsistent. For instance, the motion on the improvement of LSE mental health services calls for a change to the current culture “that causes the deterioration of staff and student well-being”. The motion calls for a change that would affect also those who might not subscribe to the motion’s aims. Surely, it would be possible for motion’s signatories to lead a change in culture and see how many people want to follow? If enough people decided to join them, an aggregation of these individual preferences would have, eventually, led to an overall change in culture. Yet, their decision to pursue a more radical course of action has been met with praise from all sides. The SU constitution already regulates what motions can be submitted and, by extension, voted on and voted through. For instance,

the democracy committee reserves the right to disallow motions that would go against the SU’s by-laws. The problem with overregulating democratic action, though, is that it inhibits collective decision-making and leads to a hollowed-out, un-democratised environment in which the common space is shaped by an aggregation of individual preferences. Indeed, I would argue that this ‘democracy-in-name-only’ does not correspond to the notion of 'democracy' as generally understood in the SU’s constitution or, in fact, amongst LSE students. Finally, I wish to address two points that have been raised against the beef ban. First, it has been suggested by some that for a motion to pass with 243 votes, especially if its impacts are potentially far-reaching, is absurd. I am inclined to agree. However, this criticism should be directed at the SU, not the students who have put forward the motion. It is open to such critics to move to amend the SU's constitution to, for example,

increase the required quoracy for a motion to pass. Whether it should take 243, 1,000 or 5,000 students to ban beef on LSE’s campus is a debate to be had. However, this critique is a critique of the process, not of the principle that students should collectively have the power to shape their environment (e.g. through banning beef). The other argument raised against the beef ban is that its outcome will adversely affect people who (mainly for health reasons) cannot pursue a vegan/vegetarian lifestyle. However, this does not seem enough to inspire outcry. Had the motion attempted to implement fully vegan menus across LSE’s campus, an argument could no doubt be made that such measure should be blocked or at least mitigated in the interests of those for whom it would cause severe inconvenience. [Ed. Note: the motion does "set an aim to phase out all animal products"]. As it stands, however, the motion has merely banned beef. It escapes me how anyone’s health

condition would necessitate their consumption of beef on LSE’s campus, bearing in mind that they can still eat any non-beef products on campus, and any products off campus. As per the SU’s constitution, the beef ban has a democratic (albeit questionable) mandate. Any attempt to undermine or overturn the motion solely on its merits, as opposed to its unpopularity, would be to question the SU’s democratic processes; a debate about the merits of the motion was due before the voting. The beauty of democracy, however, is that it remains open to critics of the beef ban to organise and attempt, through democratic means, to cancel the effects of the motion. Their efforts, no doubt, will be frustrated by those who believe in banning beef from LSE’s campus. If we stay true to democratic principles, the end result will depend on which camp can amass greater support for its cause. In a democracy, the outcome is never certain in advance. Let’s make sure

What's the Fourth Estate? Everything MSc Global Media and Communications

t a time characterized by media convergence, where structural deregulation persists and reporting that posits partisan opinion as fact appear normalised, the place and reliability of the media seem to be questioned by a good many. Yet amid hazy news landscapes filled with bread and circuses, and everincreasing appetites incessantly begeting news where there is none, what is the hallmark of reliability? Who, or what, can be trusted? Today, the media, along with politicians and so-called experts, co-author information for the public’s consumption. The fourth industrial revolution has blurred the lines between producer and consumer, author and distributor, enacting a user-clientele capable of simultaneously editing and circulating. The result has been an unprecedented flow of mediated, albeit often unverified, transnational information. As people’s

perceptions of immediacy have expanded, as users have continued to understand the simultaneity of their own actions alongside those of peers both known and unknown, these flows have become increasingly difficult to untangle. This is certainly not alleviated by a growing appetite for the superlative: for whatever the latest scoop is, whatever is newest, whatever is best. As the primary coauthors of public information, this journalists' penchant for sensationalism is dangerous, impacting not just the nature of journalism, but the way producer-consumers deliberate and consider their place within an already exclusionary public sphere. Instead of journalism existing at the outskirts of the public sphere, users’ duality is such that the two have come to overlap, the result of which has been the prevalence of certain voices over others. The exacerbation of such rhetoric, while nothing new, has whetted our palate for the spectacular. And there are dangers inherent in dealing only in superlatives, constantly being bombarded with clickbait adages in the vein

of “Doctors HATE him!” These types of headlines are not solely confined to would-be culture sections; they’re readily visible in hyperbolic political coverage used to stoke polarization by altering regimes of knowledge such that a beige suit has become a political scandal while school shootings have become pedestrian. In an age when anyone can be a journalist through the click of a post button, discursive normalization has become all the more dangerous, when that harkens to countless videos of passengers being dragged off aeroplanes, with bystanders voyeuristically viewing the ordeal through their phones rather than intervening. Amid an inundation of push notifications and tweets, the race to break news, the tide of unverified information has continued to wax, enacting in today’s liminal user-clientele a compassion fatigue that has normalized draconian rhetoric within an ephemeral attention economy. While audiences are not as impressionable as many deem them to be, the normalization and re-privileging of certain types

of information have sewn a postStructuralist doubt, rearing an age of uncertainty where previously widely-held truths are called into question and conspiracy is king. It is perhaps because of the destabilization of truths that so far have been accepted that we need to examine everyday, mundane instances of media-related inaccuracy, both as they flow from institutions and as we produce/circulate them ourselves.

“ The power to record history as it is produced is not one that should be treated lightly.

“

Liam Reilly

Shifts in perception don’t happen overnight. To modernize a 231-year-old question: “What is the [Fourth] Estate? Everything.” The power to record history as it

is produced is not one that should be treated lightly. The evolutionary consequences of digital communications have become the metric by which history is recorded, and only the most visceral images manage to capture our collective imagination with all others fading into nonbeing. The invocation of the abbé Sieyès is not to imply that the fourth estate has historically been “Nothing,” but instead to note the dangers inherent in confusing the third and fourth estates, which has increasingly been the case in the 21st century. People must continue to be the producers of history, just as the media must strive to reflect this social weave. But if the blurring of lines is to continue, which it surely will, we must re-evaluate our methods of consumption and acknowledge the active role users play in propagating old and creating new flows of information.

Features

Tuesday 3 March 2020 | The Beaver

Features Editors Annabelle Jarrett Colin Vanelli Marianne Hii

Have Sabbs Stuck to Their Manifestos?

Renovate the Three Tuns Bar with student-led ideas & create a ‘People’s Playlist’ Get vending machines in the Library, beanbags on the 3rd and 4th floors & create a Study Space Directory Hold an Ideation Hackathon: “Modernising LSE” to improve the student community, wellbeing and integration & use these ideas to inform SU decision making Make information accessible by revamping the SU Website & adding SU Events on the LSE StudentHub App Work with LSE to organise a Summer Ball for summer 2020 Organise a stronger studentled social events schedule Lobby to make course residentials compulsory for departments i.e. Cumberland Lodge Establish an LSE homeless outreach: Work with LSE, Volunteer Centre, societies and local charities to develop a proactive mission to the homeless in local area Expand the BME mentorship programme Work with LSE to review mental health and counselling on campus

Reform the reimbursement system Make term based memberships more accessible Revamp Friday nights at the Venue More accessible fundraising opportunities Wednesday Afternoons off for postgrads Create an easily accessible Events Calendar for Societies and Clubs to prevent events getting crowded out Bridge the gap between the ARC and societies by introducing designated drop in times so you can find the people you need A kit deal that works - The deal with STC has not served students, now that it’s over I want to ensure that serves students’ needs Make STAR awards more representative of a society’s progress, achievements and the challenges overcome throughout the year, not just a meaningless checklist

LSE Support Map: clear information in one place about what is available and how to use it. Consent workshops that are worth attending for all LSE students. Hold the LSE to account on promised changes to guidance on inclusion plans. Wind-Down Wednesdays: Make use of Wednesday afternoons for LSE students outside of the AU to focus on self-care and meet each other over discounted events and activities on and around campus. Events throughout the year for post-graduate students, to build networks beyond their course mates. Wellbeing Week: A week that aligns education and careers with self-care through talks and workshops from leading people in industry about their experiences in and out of the corporate world. Improved training for club and society committees to empower them as influencers on campus, always striving for a more positive culture at LSE. Working with the PTO’s and students to deliver an improved student experience. Used to denote that The Beaver was not able to fully check or that the goal was partially achieved.

LSE Change Makers 2019/20 Implement LSE100 reforms Review of LSE Academic Code Support student groups with diversifying curriculum Improvement to student services processes Minimum standards HR document for student teachers More reforms to the course rep system ( Greater visibility and benefits) Postgraduate classification scheme Departmental Review Processes

www.beaveronline.co.uk | @thebeaveronline

Email us: beaver@beaveronline.co.uk

Zulum on His GenSec Legacy

Zulum Elumogo is at the end of his tenure as General Secretary of the LSESU. As nominations for SU positions open on Wednesday 4th March, he talks to The Beaver about his last two years in office.

Beaver Editor

ulum Elumogo became LSESU's first Black male General Secretary in Michaelmas of 2018, graduating earlier that year with an undergraduate degree in Social Policy and Government. Winning his second term in March 2019, he is now at the end of his tenure. "I definitely felt more established", he says about his second year, "you can just hit the ground running". He says that in his first term, he "probably only fully climatised by December''. In noting the changes to the student voice from his first to second year, he suggests the climate crisis played a crucial role: "Of course there were moments of ecoactivism happening during my first term", he says, "but this year's been on a different level". The Beaver has reported throughout the year on the ongoing climate crisis, from the Climate Collective's multiple open letters to LSE Director Dame Minouche Shafik in efforts to call a climate emergency, as well as recent UGM motions to ban beef on campus. It's obvious to assume that a lot of Zulum's work goes on behind the scenes, with the lobbying process happening without students knowing much about it, if anything at all. Zulum speaks of "interest convergence", saying that "usually there's a direction of flow, and you want to see where you can add value to that". He emphasises that "the student experience is all of our responsibilities – not just

the Students' Union’s". He references his work on establishing the Creative Network, a product of his second year, whereby students and creative societies have a space created for them to develop skills and clearer pathways into creative industries. He argues that the necessity for the Network is not born out of structural deficiencies on campus, such as the fact that LSE lacks artistic degrees: "it's about culture, and the framing of transferable skills and mindsets", he says. "You've got your dancers, choreographers, musicians… and then you have the creative application within your field, which is actually an amazing way to innovate, develop, and be distinct in your craft". After his second-term win, Zulum promised many things: a summer ball, SU reform, and an independently-staffed SU, as reported by the Beaver. However, Zulum stated that his "number one priority" for his second term was combatting local homelesness. He claimed in research conducted by the Beaver to be launching a Homelessness Mission Launch Event on the 12th February, which never came to fruition. Instead, Zulum told the Beaver that this event, now to be moved to the 30th March, "will be hosting employers that are seeking to build relationships and employ these rough sleepers". He adds that "we'll also be asking for volunteers to come and 'buddy-up' with these rough sleepers to dignify them as human beings, share their stories, encourage them, and perhaps deliver

some skill sessions". As of writing, this event for the 30th March is yet to be made public on the LSESU calendar and website. Arguably one of the largest issues students face on campus is support for mental health and wellbeing. The Beaver has reported that £1 million will be spent on the Disability & Wellbeing Service, to reduce wait times for counselling, and the numbers of counsel-

“

the student experience is all of our responsibilities - not just the Students' Union's.

“

Lucy Knight

we don't engage with enough students. In our elections we only see maybe 12-15% of the student population vote". He adds that "we don't want to just be talking to ourselves, and I'm sure every critique you have about us we have about ourselves too." In talking about his successes, Zulum notes one of his "most enduring achievements" to be the split from UAL. He also implemented a new Summer Ball, which is set to happen on the 13th June. "Some of my biggest accomplishments weren't even on my manifesto", he says. "I was very privileged to be part of drafting [LSE's 2030 strategy], and there's some very tangible wins from that". He notes that by capping the number of students at 12,000 until 2023, "there's more space per student than ever before". "You need to get the student experience right, if

you want to think about expanding", he says, "I quite like the size we are. It's good for now". In his final words to those wanting to run in the upcoming SU elections, he says "you want to see the community come alive and flourish, you know, localise amazing potential that there is in the various corners of the student community. And if you don't, no one else will". He advises to "be creative, of course, and don't be confined by what's happened before. Think broadly… never be dogmatic". In his plans after his final term ends, Zulum suggests that he wants to work in the music industry: "but from a more management corporate angle, I suppose… I think that's my calling. I can't see myself in a straight jacket in an office job."

lors available. Zulum commended Disability and Wellbeing Officer David Gordon, as well as his predecessor Faye Brooks Lewis. When discussing the investigation conducted by the Beaver about the treatment of LSE cleaners, Zulum admitted that he didn't know much about it, but states that he will become more involved with Justice For LSE Cleaners: "I'll do my reading before I go". In terms of widening engagements within the student body, Zulum says that "we're also looking to have a democracy review for next year as well, meaning that we want to overhaul the way the system works because we know

What’s Next for Student Wellbeing at LSE? Executive Editor

SE is set to unveil its Mental Health and Wellbeing Framework next week, as part of its London Wellbeing Week. The framework, reportedly based on the Students’ Union (SU) Wellbeing consultation of last year, sets out the path forward in terms of improvements. The results from statistics, student testimonies, and activism show that there is still much work to be done. The average number of counselling sessions per student at LSE has significantly decreased in the last few years, according to data accessed by The Beaver. This suggests that fewer students are taking counselling as a continuous measure to cope. Other difficulties, like the under-declaration of mental health difficulties and understaffing, mean that LSE faces challenges in improving on these issues. Meanwhile, a Senior Management Committee meeting noted, in October 2019, that “there has been an 80% increase in student demand for mental health advice (48% increase per Mental Health Adviser).” The disparity between increasing demand for mental health services and stagnating supply has long been a cause of concern within the student body. As reported and advertised, the

went to talk to Student Wellbeing about their mental health difficulties, they were advised to defer or interrupt their studies. An FOI request by The Beaver suggests that the number of interruptions due to health has doubled in the past decade. However, the fact that mental health is not tracked as a standalone category makes it difficult to reach further conclusions. According to individuals involved, concerns have also been raised about the lack of data transparency and availability when it comes to recording demand for mental health services in the past, with improvements shown in 2019/20. These students had concerns that their experiences reflect common practice at LSE. Additionally, there seem to be concerns that some students do

“

Staffing numbers suggest that the University faces an uphill battle

“

Morgan Fairless

School has been making efforts to improve its provision. Campaigns like Freedom of Mind LSE have placed student demands about wellbeing front and centre in the SU agenda. After an expansive consultation, Freedom of Mind released a number of recommendations to LSE. Their demands, which were approved in a UGM last week, include that “counselling waiting times are no longer than 2 weeks and 6-8 sessions are offered to all who need them by 2021/22. Up-todate information about wait times and uptake rates should be published and provided to the Student Union.” Additionally, since many academic advisor experiences have reflected a lack of ability to deal with mental health difficulties through academic advisors, they recommend that academic and pastoral care should be split. The average number of counselling sessions per student in 2014/15 was 4.1, down to 2.9 in 2018/19. The biggest drop was in the proportion of students taking more than 7 sessions; in 2014/15, 21% of students seeking counselling went for more than 7 sessions, that number is down to 7.5% for 2019. The proportion of students going for 1 or 2 sessions has gone up, from 52% to 64%. The Beaver talked to a number of students about their experience. They said that when they

not declare potential mental health difficulties. In email correspondence with the Student’s Union,

Head of Student Wellbeing Adam Sandelson flags the fact that whilst 545 students were seen by Mental Health Advisors, only 463 have declared mental health difficulties. He says that “the disparity may be explained as some students choose not to declare a known disability, whereas others seek help for MH difficulties or other forms of crisis support, without having had significant past difficulties/earlier contact with specialist MH services.” The staffing numbers suggest that the University faces an uphill battle. The number of Full Time Equivalent employees had oscillated around 4 for counsellors and 3 for mental health advisers,with yearly increases from 2014 stagnating around 1%. In an effort to rectify this, the School has hired what amounts to a large increase in FTE staffing for mental health provision. LSE has said “LSE has recently agreed a large increase in capacity for counselling and mental health support for students. We have already added 2.0 FTE counsellors, representing a significant increase (42.3%) in capacity for the student counselling service. “Three new counsellors have been in place from the start of January, and the School is also recruiting an additional 2.0 FTE Mental Health Advisers to further add to the existing support for students (this represents a 58.8% increase in capacity)”

Another concern raised by many students is the lack of clarity when it comes to getting help. Freedom of Mind LSE recommends that the University “should develop one clear webpage for students to access information and relevant contact details for all safeguarding and wellbeing services; including mental health, sexual assault, and disability support.” Community and Wellbeing Officer David Gordon has been developing a support map which helps signpost students to the appropriate sources of support. According to SU sources, LSE is in conversations with the Union about potentially purchasing this map, signalling that the University is eager to provide a better signposting service to its students. This would be a step in the right direction for what should be an important area of focus at LSE. An LSE spokesperson responded to the claims in this piece, saying “Student mental health and wellbeing is a strategic priority for LSE. Based upon student feedback, we’re focusing on better coordination of our existing initiatives to support student mental health and wellbeing and encouraging new ideas and activity. This is a long-term approach to create meaningful positive change and destigmatise mental health issues, and we’re taking this work forward in partnership with our community.”

12 Features

Tuesday 3 March 2020 | The Beaver

Behind the Scenes of the London Women's Strike 2020

The Beaver spoke to the Women's Strike Assembly ahead of International Women's Day on 8 March.

Features Writers Tom Prendergast Deputy Editor

Hayden Flannery Deputy Editor

Sophie Lamotte

Features Staff Writer

Heba Khalid

arch 8th is International Women’s Day, a day in which millions of people will gather across the globe to protest inequality, discrimination, and violence against women, to name a few of the key issues. What is it about, and what is so special about the London chapter? The Beaver spoke with Julia, a member of the Women’s Strike Assembly and organizer of the Women’s Strike to understand the ideas behind it and the organization process. The Women’s Strike Assembly understands that women’s liberation is intersectional and multi-layered - it cannot stand alone - and they need to build cross-issue connections. Pre-strike events covered topics from tackling rape culture to sex workers’ rights and climate change.

The main message “Our big focus has always been the idea of social reproduction,” explained Julia. In simple terms, this refers to the idea that delegating unpaid tasks such as cooking or caring for children to women is the basis upon which capitalism grows. The greatest conceit of capitalism has been to make us all buy into the idea that some of the most basic and necessary work can be relegated to the confines of the private home, and deserves no pay. “There is a huge amount of

Stephanie Cheung Deputy Editor

Natalia Hildebrand Staff Writer

Sophie Lamotte Staff Writer

Andres Gomez Staff Writer

Leah Park Staff Writer Photo: Socialist Appeal

labour that makes the world go around that is being ignored by the global economy and the way the world works, and that needs to be centred,” said Julia. The idea is that if women pause or ‘withhold’ this labor, the whole system collapses. At the same time, the domestic work women do cannot be dropped altogether, as it is often a question of their very survival. For that reason, the strike seeks to show the world how much this system relies on women. It is “more than just an event, it is a movement, a continuous and militant practice of feminist solidarity with communism at its core.” Even though the ideas behind the march are grounded in Marxist theory, Julia explained that “We are not here to push communism onto people, we are talking on a very practical basis: women are literally dying across the world, there are rampant amounts of sexual violence, austerity is making women’s lives miserable even more, women’s refuges are shutting down, most of us can’t walk home at night without being shit scared. Those are the things we talk about on a very practical level, then the way we try to talk about it is ‘What kind of world do we want to live in?’, and we don’t really have the answers.” She adds that “In the theoretical discussions we have we are aware there is lefty jargon but when it comes to our action, and in the outcomes that we have, it is not [overtly] communist.” Another major idea behind the strike is questioning the responsibility of the state for the issues women have been facing. This has become even more urgent in the wake of Brexit and a Conservative electoral victory in 2019. “The state having control over everything, having so much power, defining who can come in and who can’t with violent borders, that state needs to go.” It is also about “joining mil-

lions of women across the world, showing solidarity with different women’s struggles across the world and showing that as women we do have power,” said Julia. The Women’s Strike will be extended over two days, Sunday 8th and Monday 9th, in support of the University and College Union (UCU) strikes to protest unpaid as well as paid work. From pay inequality to the unequal division of care work, higher education is a hostile environment for women, queer people, and particularly trans people who face sexual harassment, racism, and other abuse. Higher education is also a space of precarious working conditions for workers – notably for cleaners here at LSE, for example. In that sense, the Women’s Strike is aimed at “starting a conversation about how we build an alternative world. I don’t think the revolution is going to come from the Women’s Strike itself, but we are creating a space to talk, experiment, and put into practice alternatives to the shitty system we live in right now.” With all activism, there is risk involved. Striking and public gathering is a democratic right, but Julia explained that “We are doing things that challenge and are pushing the boundaries, we are also very conscious that we can’t all be doing very risky actions because a lot of us are mothers, migrants that can’t risk deportation and things.” Clothing drive In the UK, different cities are having women’s strikes on the same day. Even though these are all organized by the Women’s Strike Assembly, “Assemblies and local groups have their own autonomy to decide on the narratives of things and the focus,” explained Julia. For example, women in Bristol will be doing the performance of ‘a rapist in your path’ and the focus will be on sexual violence, while in London, the Assembly organized a massive clothing drive with a free clothes exchange. This

“Where there is

power, there is resistance, and the Women’s Strike Assembly represents a true alternative to the top-down male-dominated world of politics.

“

Project grounded in theory The strength of the Women’s Strike in London is that it is entrenched and informed by larger structural theories that criticize capitalism, give perspective on the socialized feminization of women, and allow for the creation of farreaching connections that transcend borders, gender, and ideological divides. Largely influenced by Marxism, the strike is based on the idea of collectivity – the struggle of women in London is contingent on the struggle of women across the globe, on International Women’s Day, and every other day of the year. Organizers of the Women’s Strike understand it like this: on March 8th and beyond, women of the world unite. Eighty grassroots organization groups in the UK are working in collaboration to bring this event to life. Women across the board, referring to each other as ‘sisters in another city’ and ‘comrades’, seek not only to raise awareness about inequality and patriarchy, but to kick start a socialist revolution as well: “We have zero desire for an equality that promises nothing more than being equal to a wage slave; instead we are seeking to destroy altogether the system that – by its very design – divides, harms, and exploits us. We already know women’s liberation to be at the heart of the struggle.” The Women’s Strike Assembly takes complex theory and makes it intelligible to the public, showing women how each of their individual lives are part of a larger power structure.

Deputy Editor

will happen “on Oxford Street because we are trying to target this hyper-consumerist world… and try to think of what an alternative would be because the way we are consuming at the moment is not sustainable.” Oxford Street is the heart of a dystopian capitalist landscape. From there flows the major themes of the strike: a work strike but also a consumption strike, because consumption works to reinforce the unequal conditions that oppress women and benefit the capitalist system. The production of cheap clothes is also a form of (underpaid) labor that overwhelmingly employs women. Overconsumption also contributes to the climate crisis and the destruction of our planet. This also ties back to the idea of care work, as shopping is usually a task that is attributed to women – another form of unpaid labor. On International Women’s Day, the Women’s Strike Assembly calls on people who "self-identify as men" to volunteer to take

on this social reproductive work and do the free cooking and caring to support women who strike. A reproductive work team is also present at each meeting and event organized by the Women’s Strike Assembly – coming to a meeting is in a way a right of the privileged (those who have time to travel across London, find someone to take care of their kids, etc.) so Julia explained that “When it comes to practical things like providing child care, we do think about these things” and “by the nature of the work we do, it is very diverse and it reflects how diverse London is.” Women’s Strike Assembly The 8th of March Women’s Strike in London is organized by the Women’s Strike Assembly, which started in 2018 and counts roughly 60 women across the country and about 20 to 30 activists in London. “With London being London, a lot of us move in and move out,” explained Julia, with most activists being involved in different groups and initiatives throughout the year, most notably the Kurdish women’s liberation movement, decriminalization of sex work, and climate strike, while bringing contacts from their home countries. The Women’s Strike on the 8th of March also includes a Sex Worker’s Strike and is organized with various London-based grassroots organizations including trade union coalitions such as Feminist Anti-Fascist, Plan C, and the xtalk project among others. With causes overlapping and activists being well connected, collaboration across cities, countries, and with other grass root groups “happens quite organically,” says Julia. Where there is power, there is resistance, and the Women’s Strike Assembly represents a true alternative to the top-down male-dominated world of politics. The change they seek to implement will require a long-term struggle, but the logic and ideas behind the organizing show a strong basis and starting point for such change.

Email us: beaver@beaveronline.co.uk

www.beaveronline.co.uk | @thebeaveronline

London Mayoral Hustings at LSE Tom Prendergast

Features Deputy Editor

hustings was held for candidates for London Mayor at LSE on 13 February, ahead of the London mayoral election on 7th May. Expected attendees included Shaun Bailey (Conservative), Siobhan Benita (Liberal Democrat), Green Party candidate Siân Berry, and Rory Stewart (Independent). As the candidates took to the stage, the first thing that stood out was how few of them were actually on that stage. Incumbent mayor Sadiq Khan was nowhere to be seen, instead being represented by Waltham Forest Council leader Clare Coghill. Conservative candidate Shaun Bailey also neglected to make an appearance, sending Stephen Greenhalgh to take his place – a former right-hand man to Boris Johnson during his time in the mayoralty. The only widely familiar face in the whole group was that of onetime Tory leadership hopeful and renowned couch-surfer Rory Stewart, whose plan to build a new coalition of disaffected centrists as an Independent candidate has received some of the most significant press coverage of the race so far. Rounding out the line-up were longtime senior civil servant Siobhan Benita, representing the Liberal Democrats and Green Party candidate Siân Berry. LSE’s own Professor Tony Travers acted as moderator, leading the panel through discussions on hot-button topics in the upcoming election. As would be expected from a panel of people with their sights on his job, Sadiq Khan’s record on issues ranging from rising knife

crime, affordable housing, and his signature fares freeze was pulled apart in detail. Coghill, resultantly, was put in an unenviable position. As a representative of an incumbent, some degree of personal neutrality must be held while still supporting the current mayor’s decisions as much as possible, putting limits on the flexibility of reaction needed in a debate setting. Considering this, Coghill held her ground firmly, but persistent criticism from the rest of the panel, as well as constant highlighting of the mayor’s failure to attend the hustings, saw her often defending Khan from a corner. Benita and Stewart highlighted apparent financial mismanagement and under-delivery of promised housing as particular weak points of Khan’s administration. Opting for a slightly different tactic was Berry, who instead suggested that many of Sadiq Khan’s more popular decisions, such as added funding for youth services, in fact originated from Green pressure in the London Assembly – her claim was not that the electorate should vote for different policies, but that they should “cut out the middleman.” A deep, but far from positive, impression was made by Bailey’s representative Greenhalgh. In open emulation of his one-time boss Boris Johnson, Greenhalgh scoffed his way through many of the questions directed towards him and proudly claimed not to be aware of what his own candidate planned to do about them, stating that his one purpose on this panel was to “criticize Sadiq [Khan].” This did not stop him from supplying his own personal opinion on the topics at hand – on more than one occasion, his contributions began with varia-

tions on the phrase, “Well, I know what I would do about that,” with no information regarding what Bailey’s policy might be. In an illustrative moment, he revealed that he had not been briefed on any of his candidate’s potential transport fare policies, only to be informed of what exactly they were by Benita. Whether Greenhalgh’s former proximity to the current prime minister was what led to some of his mannerisms rubbing off on him, or their similarities were what made them so close in the first place, is unclear. What is for sure is that the trademark attitude displayed of late by many representatives of the incumbent government was on full display this evening. No issue is sufficiently complex to not simply be met with a joke, followed by an assertion that it has an obvious solution which their opponents have all been too busy “doing their homework” or fretting about being PC to notice. We should simply have our cake and eat it; ask questions later. Stewart started strong, benefitting from his recognizability and painting himself as a pragmatist above the partisan squabbles that blocked discussion between the main parties. But as the debate went on, his constant circling back to that same line raised concerns that he may have little concrete to offer. Despite repeatedly claiming that he was the only candidate who could be relied upon to “deliver” the promises being made on stage in practice, the audience was not presented with much substantial reasoning or evidence as to why they should believe this. Frequent references to his colourful past and the fact that he

pany did so in October 2019 following the resignation of legendary associate actor Mark Rylance in protest. Objections to BP’s sponsorship are not always based on the company’s general environmental record. Its financing of the June 2018 British Museum exhibit ‘I am Ashurbanipal: King of the World, King of Assyria’ was highly controversial for two specific reasons. Firstly, soaring oil prices following the 2003 allied invasion of Iraq increased BP’s profits by 42%. Iraqi economist Kamil Mahdi noted that this financial triumph had not yielded the anticipated benefits to Iraqi victims of the war, but instead devastated infrastructure and subjected millions of citizens to violence and inescapable poverty. Secondly, a number of artefacts in the exhibit were amongst over 15,000 items that were looted from the National Museum of Baghdad in 2003. 8,000 of these have been returned in a restitution process that began in August 2018. Despite BP’s controversial entanglements of this variety, it will not be sponsoring the British Museum’s upcoming exhibit ‘Arctic culture and climate’. At least corporate CEOs have a limited sense of irony. BP’s financing of the British Museum’s current exhibit, ‘Troy: Myth and Reality’, is an equally contentious matter. The show features an excerpt from the film ‘Queens of Syria’, a modern retelling of Euripides’ Trojan Women, played by a group of Syrian refugees in Jordan. Two women involved in the project wrote an open

letter to the Museum, in which they lamented that their work was being used to “artwash the impacts and crimes of BP.” They went on to assert that these environmental concerns were in conflict with their desire to “shine a light on the harsh realities” experienced by women in times of war. Their final imploration was for the Museum to divorce BP in solidarity with victims of the climate emergency. The content of this letter reflects the tension that all lovers of London’s metropolitan culture face; the conflict between an insatiable appetite for exquisitely curated exhibitions and plays, and (equally powerful) Greta Thunberg-inspired environmentalist tendencies. Of course cultural institutions should be well-funded. After all, their chambers open hearts and minds, educate people on regions and epochs otherwise inaccessible to them, and inspire communities to read, think, create, and explore. Nonetheless, it must be acknowledged that every trip to the British Museum, the Royal Opera House, or the National Portrait Gallery in some ways legitimises the unsustainable activities of BP and its highly problematic ethical history. BP doesn’t just finance the British Museum because, as its website claims, it “believes that access to arts and culture helps to build a more inspired and creative society.” Like all actors in a neoliberal economy, it makes financial decisions that benefit its shareholders. BP’s reputation as a noble patron of the arts cements its image as a socially

is “not a professional politician” (despite his previous ministerial positions) also saw Stewart embracing the current anti-politics moment to frame himself as a can-do outsider, in the tradition of the maverick mayors of cities like Paris or Barcelona. While initially effective, an invocation of former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg as a spiritual predecessor proved particularly tone-deaf, given how Bloomberg’s participation in the 2020 US presidential race has seen his history of racism, misogyny, and sexual harassment resurface. Appropriately, Bloomberg’s favoured policing tactic of stop and frisk (known as stop and search in the UK) proved to be one of the more hotly debated topics, prompted by a question from a concerned LSE student in the crowd. Much of the panel was in agreement that restricted, intelligence-informed use of the tactic could be an effective measure against rising knife crime, but that overzealous use of stop and search was only likely to create distrust between the city’s dis-

proportionately affected minority communities and the police. Leaning into the broader discussion on knife crime, Benita went further in highlighting the role of excessive school exclusions on youth violence and criminality, even suggesting a pilot scheme of legalizing cannabis in the city to limit opportunities for criminal gangs. On these points Greenhalgh diverged substantially, albeit this time fully in step with the declared intentions of his candidate – expansion of stop-and-search powers, along with the reinvigoration of the controversial “gangs’ matrix”, is among Bailey’s centrepiece policies. The productivity of these debates could only go so far, however. Without the two leading candidates, the chances for a meaningful assessment of the state of the mayoral race were slim from the beginning. For this, regrettably, we will have to wait for future debates and hustings. A full video of this hustings is available on the LSE Facebook page.

BP’s Bankrolling of the British Museum Natalia Hildebrand Features Staff Writer

ondon’s students are often unapologetically passionate about two things: culture and the environment. In a society where British Petroleum (BP) is financing the majority of the British Museum’s temporary exhibits, these two devotions are incompatible. BP’s sponsorship of the British Museum has sparked vociferous protest this year. On Friday 7th February, members of the activist theatre group ‘BP or not BP?’ dragged a thirteen-foot Trojan Horse into the Museum’s courtyard, catalysing a 1,500-strong mass protest (the largest in the Museum’s history) the following day. Notable public figures associated with the Museum have also expressed their discontent with BP’s activities. The Egyptian novelist and former trustee Ahdaf Soueif stated that it was “time to respond to the legitimate and pressing concerns of young people across the planet. It’s time to drop BP,” and resigned in July over the issue. Similar comments were made with regard to BP’s sponsorship of the National Portrait Gallery by the judge and artist Gary Hume. In a letter to the gallery’s director Nicholas Cullinan, Hume insisted on ending the relationship with BP to stop legitimising the company’s rate of greenhouse gas emissions. Certain public responses of this nature have effectively pressured cultural institutions into severing ties with BP; the Royal Shakespeare Com-

responsible corporation, which in turn (consciously or not) affects its perception amongst regulators and investors. The thousands of visitors that pass through these cultural institutions every day will see that little acid green logo at every corner and make positive associations with the letters ‘BP’. Market research conducted by the sponsorship specialist Havas demonstrates this point: they discovered that 38% of people aware of BP’s donations to the 2012 London Olympics believed that the corporation was becoming significantly more environmentally conscious. BP and companies like it are partaking in an ethical carte blanche transaction that is brokered by museums and their visitors. Consumers of London’s culture cannot sit on our intellectually imperious bottoms and whine about the evils of capitalism and big corporations when in part facilitate BP’s unsustainable activities. Boycotting London’s culture, however, does not seem like the right answer. A sharp decline in revenues of institutions like the British Museum will only heighten their search for corporate sponsorship and give companies like BP more leverage. Instead, we must urge our beloved institutions to seek funding from sustainable corporations. This is a totally reasonable goal; it is untrue that the quality of British Museum exhibits would decline in the absence of BP’s wealth. The facts and figures reveal this explicitly: in July 2016 BP announced a £7.5 million sponsorship deal to be paid over five years, divided

between four cultural institutions. The British Museum’s total fundraising in 2018-19 alone amounted to £22.8 million, suggesting that whilst BP’s funding is significant, it is not irreplaceable. Being the UK’s second most visited attraction after the Tate Modern, it surely has the capacity to captivate more ethical corporate donors. In fact, the Tate group ended its financial relationship with the equally controversial Sackler family (also donors to the British Museum) in March 2019. There are a number of specific actions students can take to urge the British Museum and other cultural institutions to drop BP. Readers can consider joining Extinction Rebellion for a day of flag-waving and civil disobedience. Students living in the Holborn and St Pancras constituency can write to their local MP Keir Starmer, urging him to contact the British Museum on behalf of local residents and tourists. Another option is to directly address the Museum’s administration as Soueif and the Queens of Syria have done, or to launch a crowdfunding campaign to raise money for exhibits by the people, for the people. As British Museum staff members of the Public and Commercial Services Union wrote in a statement on February 10th: “It is not true that we cannot afford to refuse BP’s oil money. In fact, we cannot afford to accept it.” Avid museum dwellers owe it to the planet to make our voices heard in the same spirit.

FLIPSIDE VOL. 25

MAR 3 FREE

SPORT: Racism alive and kicking in football

PART B: Parasite’s hold on our psyche

REVIEW: Zulum gives his thoughts on ‘Yummy’ SOCIAL: More bannings planned at LSE

MARIAM DA-

WOOD

MARIAM DA-

WOOD

ariam does it all: on top of being a part-time Masters’ student in the Department of International Relations, she is also a Labour Councillor for Manor Park, Newham and the co-founder of a new student-led IR magazine Gaze. Before coming to LSE, Mariam studied Liberal Arts at King’s College London, majoring in politics. She decided to study International Relations for her Masters because she felt like she “didn’t get to learn much about the international system” in her undergraduate degree. “I think it’s important in the world that we live in where so many issues – climate change, the rise of the far right – are all interconnected and global. It’s the challenge of the 21st century to tackle things present in the international.” During her undergrad at King’s, the prevailing stereotype of LSE students was that they all wanted to go into corporate careers. “Coming here I can see how people forget that it’s not just the London School of Economics, there’s also political science. A lot of the student body wants to make a difference to the world and that’s taken for granted.” She adds that “some people want to get involved in corporate economics in order to change it”. When Mariam stood for Labour Councillor, she was in her final year at King’s. “I was writing my dissertation in the months and days leading up to the election. My dissertation was due about three or four days after the election.” She grew up in Manor Park,

where she is now a Councillor: “a lot of local people knew me because I was an activist working on campaigns in the neighbourhood. I was lucky enough to have their trust.” Her day-to-day life as a councillor is hard to describe: “There’s never a day that’s exactly the same. One day I’m in Parliament for meetings, the next day I’m meeting local people or I’m debating policy in the council chamber. It keeps things very interesting.” Of course, I wanted to know how she maintained her work-life-school balance. She maintains that her secret to getting a lot of things done is waking up early. “Getting up at six in the morning isn’t the most fashionable thing to do as a student. But it means that I can get emails done, organise for my meetings and then go to work. Then I can come to LSE, take my classes and see family or friends in the evening.” Mariam also works on the weekends so “waking up early is seven days a week”. Her latest project, Gaze, is an international relations magazine that wants “shed light on narratives that are traditionally hidden from mainstream international relations.” Using art, the project aims to “decolonise the syllabus and centre critical theories such as feminist theory”, overcoming gatekeeping in academic spaces. Together with artist Maria Mahfooz, she has secured funding from LSESU to produce this magazine. They’re open to submissions from LSE students and the public and Mariam underlines that contributors will be paid for their work. Following this decolonial turn, we dis-

cuss Mariam’s involvement in Decolonising LSE. She’s quick to point out that she isn’t “a face of the moment”. Decolonising LSE is a collective trying to ensure “LSE works towards an anti racist, inclusive, equitable future”. The events put on by the collective have helped to inform her about a lot of issues by teaching “how our futures are interlinked.” She argues the most practical step LSE can onboard the aims of the collective is to ensure that we are “not just learning from a specific Eurocentric perspective all the time”. In her degree “most of the things that we learn about are theories that originate in Europe or the US”. She thinks “LSE has a duty to make sure that the power structures here in the university… are no longer asymmetric” I asked Mariam to weigh in on the recent UGM motion to ban beef. She supports it in principle but thinks “that in order to actually tackle the climate crisis that we’re in, we need structural change, you need systems of change – changes of government.” She thinks there needs to be a “Green New Deal” to ensure that people in polluting industries are given support to transfer into new professions. For example, “a farmer who’s been farming for years… would need some support from the government if they’re trying to dedicate their time to another profession.” Mariam’s social life is comparatively sedate. She lives with her family in her constituency and sees her friends “quite often”. She describes the time she spends with them as “sacrosanct”. She’s busy, but definitely enjoying it. interview: Christina Ivey photography: Sebastian Mullen

SPORT

Tuesday 11th February Editors: Gabrielle Sng and Seth Rice

VAR ruins Chelsea’s chance at a comeback Jacqueline Weitz Staff Writer

h Chels’. When I first came to London in September, promising articles were sprawled about the Blues all over the sports section of the Evening Standard. As an American, I was particularly enamored of Captain America, Christian Pulisic. The winger began his Premier League career with a stellar streak of games, including one hat-trick, before getting injured later in the season. But Chels’, you let me down and in my first live football game, no less! Or maybe I simply don’t know what it’s like to root for a team that’s not the New England Patriots (the American football team with 6 super bowl rings and a reputation for getting better when the stakes get higher). I saw Chelsea lose to Manchester United (0-2) on their first game back from the mid-season winter break. The game was primetime, on Monday Night Football, with a Champions League berth on the line for the Blues. Despite the stakes, the atmosphere at Stamford Bridge was calm. It was so relaxed that there were no metal detectors to enter the stadium. As an American, I personally cannot recall a major sporting event that didn’t use metal detectors in all of my life. In football, scoring requires a certain level of endurance when chances come so few and far between. To have not one, but two goals reversed based on VAR (Video Assistant Referee), is a disservice to competition, Chelsea, and football fans in general. Manchester United was no clear winner. The score may have been 2-0, but had VAR not been active, it would have been 2-2 and perhaps more exciting. The athleticism of the game was incredible to watch and it was a shame it was not more reflected in the results. Personally, I felt that the Chelsea fans were a tad too mellow, especially for a game in which our

team could have added serious weight behind their Champions League campaign. Maybe it’s the ban on alcohol in the stands that renders the fans so fatigued or maybe they’re just true fans of the game, their eyes glued to every step of each player’s footwork. There was a feeling of local pride going into the game; people weren’t crazy on the tube ride home – I actually saw someone pull out a book. Men hugged goodbye as they got off the tube and said nice things like “Text me when you get home safe, mate!” They were less friendly however to my friend and I, who remarked that when we have attended other sporting events, the people next to us always introduce themselves or interact when there’s an exciting play. Chelsea fans are a serious, tight-knit bunch. While Chelsea was able to secure a win against Tottenham last Saturday, they fell scoreless to Bayern Munich (0-3) on Tuesday night. This loss was considerably worse than the Manchester United loss as commentators stated that this just might be Chelsea’s Champions League exit. A promising first season under new manager and former Chelsea player, Frank Lampard thus far, even despite transfer period restrictions from a violation the previous year, has come crumbling down in less than a few weeks. Chelsea will have to try again to clinch their Champions League berth, and while I am absolutely no Premier League football expert, as a sports fan, a situation where a team can’t win at home against tough opponents towards the end of a season signifies a team that will not make it for the long haul. With new signings and returning players from injury next season, hopefully Frank Lampard can rebuild the same cohesion

Football Varsity Round-up Imperial College Women 2 - 0 LSE Women

Imperial College Men 0 - 2 LSE Men

Lineup: Inka Pearson, Kirin Mathias, Emma Willett, Araceli Perez, Olivia May, Mia Cura, Liz Ashcroft, Emily Menz, Karina Gattoni, Caitlin Morris, Carson Drake

Lineup: Quinn Kiernat, Patrick Savage, Jamie Ortega, Cem Kellucku, Dan Anderson, Raef Jackson, Gustav Dahl, Emiliano de las Fuentes, Louis Benoit, Daniel Di Lieto, Olly Walker

Player of the match: Inka Pearson

Player of the match: Dan Anderson Goalscorers: Raef Jackson, Dan Anderson

Racism is alive and kicking in football

Sam Taylor Staff Writer

t feels like every weekend a new story emerges describing how the ugly side of the beautiful game has once again reared its head. From the vile abuse Raheem Sterling received in Bulgaria back in October to the chants directed at Hueng Min Son and Antonio Rudiger during Tottenham Hotspur vs Chelsea earlier this season – the racism keeps coming. The latest high profile installment came in Portugal, during a league game between FC Porto and Vitoria SC last weekend. Moussa Marega, Porto’s black striker, was subject to racist chants from sections of Vitoria’s home support throughout the match. After scoring the decisive goal in the 60th minute, Marega departed the pitch alone in protest. In a collective act that has caused viral debate, his teammates decided to stay on the pitch and finish the game without him. The vein of the argument is that, by departing the pitch, he ultimately lets the racists win. This has naturally received widespread criticism from fans, pundits and icons across the game... But it begs the question – what is the best response? Each debacle further inspires a sense that the game has come nowhere since the abuse faced by the ‘Three Degrees’ back in the 70s and 80s. In some respects, it is regressed. On 6 February, a young fan in the UK was handed a three year stadium ban after he pleaded guilty to racist chants. Three years. Racist chanting – three years. When Sterling was last abused, back in October, the debate was triggered again. Should England have left the pitch in unison? The racism in this game ended with a lengthy delay as the teams and of-

ficials begged the fans to stop with the official invoking UEFA’s three step protocol. This doesn’t feel like enough but what’s the alternative? Pundit Gary Neville was quoted saying “maybe we have to empower the players to walk off the pitch and stop the entertainment while it is happening”, following the racism that Sterling received. But in all honesty, how can we empower the players to leave the pitch when all that the culprits receive is a light slap on the wrist? Since the Marega incident, several other pundits and stars, including Dutch icons Ruud Gullit and Ronald Koeman, have joined the argument and stated that players should depart from the pitch amidst racist chanting. In an ideal world teams would do this and the chanting would stop, but FC Porto have already indicated that not everyone believes this to be the optimum solution and we all know this isn’t remotely close to an ‘ideal world’. This incident was particularly controversial as Marega’s teammates tried to prevent him from leaving the pitch following the abuse he received. The isolation that he must have felt attempting to do so, only to be held back by disagreeing teammates, is a small example of the size of the problem on our hands. This was a prime opportunity to take a stand and make a change and it has unfortunately gone begging. It should be a fundamental right for a player to leave the pitch in the face of abuse and it shouldn’t have to be fought for. We have to do more. A half-arsed, fight-for-yourself approach as displayed by Porto simply isn’t good enough and more should be done to support players who feel

they’re being victimised. Within football, we are yet to find a solution that works. The three step protocol hasn’t worked, KickItOut campaigning, whilst constructive, is also yet to work. So where do we go next? Antonio Rudiger, says he “feels let down” after he spoke out about the alleged discriminatory abuse he suffered and says “society is losing the fight against racism”. It’s clear to see from this how much deeper this problem goes. This is less a fight within Sport, but within society. It’s a fight against the institutional racism embedded within it. Racism is alive and kicking. Sport is a wonderful thing and it has the power to unify nations and bring hundreds of millions of people together. It has the power to make a real change and influence so many people. That’s why I believe that if we can get it right in football, we can get it right in the wider world. There isn’t really an optimal solution, or at least one hasn’t been found yet – but more has to be done. As a football fanatic, it’s sadness that overwhelms me when I read yet another story about racism in the game. It happens too frequently and a sport with so many supporters and such a wide reach can do so much more to make a difference. This latest incident was the most painful as it was a real chance to stand up to racism. That being said, the protruding message I take from it, in line with all of the incidents that have come before, is that this topic is divisive and no one knows what to do. But whatever is done, it should be done in unison.

REVIEW Justin Bieber’s Changes – A lacklustre serenade

like Justin. His talent is undeniable, and not since Michael Jackson has an artist been so universally recognisable. Making popular music is difficult, yet JB seemed to have almost mastered it with his catchy hooks and playful falsetto. 2015’s Purpose was a triumph. The original 13 track album was expansive and dynamic in scope (see accompanying dance movie Purpose: The Movement) whilst tracks like Love Yourself, Where R U Now, and What Do You Mean? were some of the most memorable chart-toppers of the last decade. Purpose has something for everyone and its guest features enhance the album nicely. The likes of Travis Scott and Halsey thrive in their respective pockets as their vocals provide the sounds of Justin’s conscience. It even got a Grammy nomination. This was the return of pop’s prodigal son.

by Zulum Elumogo

But no. Instead we get 16 tracks of bloated ballads about his new wife. That’s cute and all, but a more thematic approach would’ve been appreciated. Changes is a monotonous mess and its features make little to no sense (who is Clever?). The lead single Yummy (with its seven videos, two remixes, autographed CD, online game and influencer reaction stories) is tiresome TikTok fodder and sorely lacks the sentimental gravitas of previous hits such as Sorry.

His new album is just not it. Bieber’s been away for a long time and so much has happened since: he’s found

Biebs, do better. Until then, I’ll be listening to Purpose.

hether because of his uncanny resemblance to Jesus, or his penchant for penning some of the most exciting music of the decade, Tame Impala’s Kevin Parker has come to acquire somewhat of a cult status. After the huge success of 2015’s Currents, it felt as if the world was waiting for a sequel. As of two weeks ago, the wait is over. The fruit of Parker’s labour - written, recorded, and produced at his reclusive family home in a small town on Australia’s West Coast - is The Slow Rush. In a near hour-long exploration of time and introspection, The Slow Rush marks a definitive step away from the psychedelic maximalism of Tame Impala’s first two albums, Innerspeaker and Lonerism, in favour of a smoother, sleeker sound.

Jesus, he’s found his wife, and he’s released the occasional A grade single/remix along the way (No Brainer, Despacito, Bad Guy, etc). With such a rich well of life stories, I was ready for an emotional expedition into JB’s psyche. I wanted to hear about his journey since he abruptly ended his world tour in summer 2017.

Overall, JB’s latest effort is sonically sleepy and poorly curated. Forgettable at best, irritating at worst - the man with the Midas touch has slipped up on this one.

A Very Biased Review of The Slow Rush

For some Tame Impala puritans, this shift toward pop – not to mention the headlining of Coachella, and Parker’s recent collaborations with big names like Travis Scott and Lady Gaga - may seem like a betrayal. If the hour-long queue outside the listening party at Shoreditch’s Dreambags Jaguar Shoes was anything to go by, the band have well and truly emerged from the obscurity of Australia’s (surprisingly abundant) psychrock scene, into the mainstream. But herein lies Parker’s genius: Far from succumbing to the mould (in both senses of the word) of 2020 chart-toppers, The Slow Rush is a study in controlled, intentional pop-ification. It feels commonplace to lament that today’s pop music doesn’t compare to the golden age of music, when Bowie and Hendrix and Jagger ruled the world. But The Slow Rush, with its groove-heavy basslines and catchy piano riffs, coolly and adeptly belies this disillusionment.

Dark Waters: a poignant attack on chemical giants and human greed ark Waters uncovers the DuPont scandal, where lawyer Robert Billot (Mark Ruffalo) sued American chemical giant DuPont de Nemours for putting 70,000 people at risk of being poisoned by the manmade chemical PFOA (Teflon – think the stuff on your non-stick pans). It follows how Billot’s acquired the title of ‘DuPont’s worst nightmare’ in Nathaniel Rich’s influential article in The New York Times in 2016.

– a call to arms. It effectively raises awareness of the DuPont scandal, reminding viewers of the health risks posed by synthetic chemicals, especially when those chemicals are in the hands of multinational chemical companies and are not meticulously regulated by states. Towards the end of the film, Billot heatedly and directly attacks the conduct of chemical companies and the human greed behind them:

Billot is asked for legal counsel by a cattle farmer from Parkersburg, West Virginia. While he is initially reluctant to help, he ends up paying a visit to the farm and is deeply disquieted by what he finds: the majority of the cattle have mysteriously died, their teeth are black and their insides distressingly rotten. With evidence pointing to the town’s biggest employer DuPont, Billot decides to investigate the case. Plunging into a gloomy landscape of cold, greenish colours, we follow Billot’s investigation as he delves deep into the case, uncovering shocking evidence while dealing with the company’s political intricacies and stratagems. Dark Waters is above all a poignant attack

“The system is rigged. They want us to believe that it’ll protect us, but that’s a lie. We protect us. (…) Not the companies, not the scientists, not the government. Us.”

While Billot speaks, the shot changes to looking out the window of a moving car. For a moment, all that is visible is a Shell logo in the darkness. An impressively brave move, with which the film not-so-overtly (but also not-so-subtly) warns us that scandals such as DuPont’s might be happening today, perhaps right under our noses. The Shell reference recalls the company’s oil spill controversy, which resulted in the Ogale community developing “strange illnesses” and dying “strange deaths”, as

denounced by the community leader, King Emere in an interview with The Guardian. Notwithstanding the power of its message, Dark Waters suffers from two major flaws: the first regards the length and pace of the film, the second its casting. The ending could have been shortened without losing the film’s essence. Furthermore, Dark Waters is first and foremost a Mark Ruffalo film. He features in most scenes, and despite his outstanding performance, the film would have benefitted from greater attention to the rest of the cast. Casting Anne Hathaway as Robert’s wife and reducing her to the role of a stay-athome-mum, undermines her talent. On the other hand, casting people directly involved in the scandal for minor roles, including the real Robert Billot and his wife, serves to increase viewers’ engagement. Despite minor flaws, Dark Waters remains an incredibly powerful film, making audiences feel outraged, disturbed, and will definitely make you throw away all your scratched pans.

by Jess Graham

While Parker’s new, upbeat sound shines throughout the album, the intricacy of his writing, and impeccable attention to detail in production, are a sure sign that his perfectionism has remained constant. One More Year is a stellar opener to the album, setting a theme of temporality that is cleverly – if not overtly – weaved throughout the album. The penultimate, disco-infused track, Glimmer is another highlight, as is Tomorrow’s Dust – probably the strongest reference to Tame Impala of old, with classic Parker falsetto and distorted synths. Borderline was released as a single last April, and has been edited and extended by Parker for the album version – a welcome update of what has already proven a hit. Ultimately, The Slow Rush’s seamless tracklist proves the versatility of the band - Parker is just as influenced by Supertramp (seen in the glorious keys of It Might Be Time), as he is comfortable penning a groovy psych-rock banger, in Breathe Deeper. Lyrically The Slow Rush may leave a little to be desired – the looping of lyrics ‘strictly speaking, I’m still on track,’ in On Track seems a slightly trite by-product the pivot to pop. Still, this is like a small price to pay for the sonic detail and superb production we receive in return. With the recent release of King Krule’s Man Alive!, Moses Boyd’s Dark Matter, and The Big Moon’s Walking Like We Do, The Slow Rush hopefully marks the beginning of what is sure to be a year of quality music infiltrating the mainstream. I can only hope that The Slow Rush gets the recognition it deserves in promulgating a brand of pop music based on perfectionist production, and genuine musical talent.

by Francesca Liberatore-Vaselli

Tuesday 3 March Editors: Amber Iglesia and Zehra Jafree

The Haystack: “We can’t find the needles, unless we collect the whole haystack.”

l Blyth’s debut play The Haystack at the Hampstead Theatre centres on two laddish workers at GCHQ. They are charged with the task of gathering intelligence of a leak which enables Guardian writer Cora to get hold of information regarding Middle Eastern politics. The play raises the question of what one would do if given 24-hour access to one’s flat, communications, phone calls, CCTV cameras, financial transactions, and constant GPS monitoring without their awareness. The originality of this espionage thriller triggered debate - a debate we should all be having. The sensitive issues are explored delicately in a way that combines a humorous yet committed narrative concerning the ethical issues of surveillance technology. It’s safe to say that the subject matter is bold, and Al Blyth does not hold back on revealing the intricate moral complexities technology triggers in a professional and personal capacity. I can safely say I have never before seen an espionage thriller which explores the moral issues of public safety, national security and surveillance on stage. This subject is a moral minefield, however Al Blyth successfully streamlines it to the paradoxical dilemmas that ensue, in a way which is tangible for a modern audience. There were moments that reminded me of Gavin Hood’s 2019 film Official Secrets which takes a decidedly more political stance, an aspect this play fails to address yet doesn’t feel wanting.

Things We Didn’t Talk About When I Was a Girl - Difficult to read – difficult to put down

by Amber Iglesia and Zehra Jafree

During the intermission we spoke about how it felt like the play was cribbed straight from the plot of a primetime BBC crime drama – neither of us had seen anyone attempt to pull a concept like this off on a stage. Perhaps there’s a reason for it. I question whether a thriller espionage can find its own theatrical form in a way that is as compelling as the results we are so used to on the big screen. The play heavily relies on technology and a stripped back but dynamic and moving set. This in itself is not an issue. When done purposefully, the prolific use of technology can elevate a piece to another dimension. Sadly, The Haystack didn’t quite meet that challenge. The use of screens and projections throughout are, off-putting and distracting at times. It feels as though they only serve to mask moments of lacklustre narrative. However, the desire to show the inescapability of digital surveillance is clear throughout the play and is portrayed effectively and consistently. The constant use of technology accentuates the melodrama, particularly towards the end. It serves as a reminder that, at the end of the day, this production is fiction and further extrapolation is not worth it. The use of technology wasn’t as purposeful as I would have liked: out-of-time queues and small mashups with the set made it hard to stay engrossed in the narrative. Speaking of which, whilst undoubtedly having a slow burner quality the stonking run time of 2 hours 45 minutes made me feel like there were a number of scenes in

the first half that could have been cut. Nonetheless, The Haystack is an incredible, important story. Audiences are forced to look inwards and question their own prejudices, conceptions, and thoughts on the value of their privacy. It is an exciting – albeit slow - 2 hours and 45 minutes and the cast often shines. It is rare to catch a thriller on stage which provokes considerable reflection on the state of society. While some of these debates are a bit close to comfort, the witty narrative and superb acting all-round makes The Haystack a promising start for Al Blyth. The Haystack is being performed at the Hampstead Theatre from 31 January to 12 March 2020. “It’s a classic base-rate fallacy. (Off her blank look.) A false-positive paradox… when you test a large population for a very rare condition – like, say, ‘being a terrorist’ – your test needs to be as accurate as the condition is rare. Otherwise, you’re guaranteed to get swamped with false positives.” “Which is why you’re going to improve the accuracy –” “It won’t make a difference. You’re searching for a few thousand terrorists, in a population of, what, sixty-six million people? If you even have a one-per-cent false-positive rate – which would be spectacular, by the way – you’ll end up falsely accusing sixty-six thousand innocent people, for every one terrorist you accurately detect. It’s worse than no test at all.”

Bangity Bang Part 2: Brent Faiyaz by Sebastian Mullen

by Amber Iglesia

The book doesn’t focus only on Vanesco’s experience of rape: it interrogates the ways in which women are taught to be silent. It is Vanasco’s contention that we can only challenge the culture surrounding rape and misogyny when we stop being silent. We currently don’t have the language to fully express and confront the problem. Only once we do can we better support survivors, comfort them, and reassure those who have suffered the same horrific experiences. One of the most disheartening sections to read is Vanasco’s interview reflections: While transcribing the audio of our phone conversations, I felt ashamed by how much I thanked and reassured him: “I really appreciate this” and “I hope this is somewhat helpful for you to talk about” and “I hope you know that I don’t hate you.”

n Things We Didn’t Talk About When I Was a Girl, Jeannie Vanasco achieves the extraordinary: She explores rape culture by using language to set herself free. Vanasco’s assailant is Mark, a friend she met at the age of thirteen. Years later, at a party, Mark and Vanasco were alone in his basement bedroom where he rapes her. In this book, Vanasco walks us through her desire to talk and interview him about that night. We discover how she forgave him, why he did it, what it meant, and how he feels about that night.

Throughout the novel, moments like these made me feel I truly understood Vanasco. I just want to give her a hug. We can easily slip into comforting others when we feel uncomfortable. It’s a testament to the longlasting psychological impacts of rape. There are many sections in the book when Vanasco doesn’t push very hard on Mark to answer. She doesn’t question him when she should, and she doesn’t attack him with questions that you can tell she really wants to ask. This reticence, this unwillingness to push gives contour to the painful space between forgiveness and revenge.

As a reader you feel her anxiety, her insecurities. You understand her need to constantly please others. This intimate engagement with the author is amplified by the prose: raw, undrafted thoughts. In reading Vanesco’s words, becoming closer to Vanesco herself, the reader understands why sexual assault is so difficult to put into words and talk about. By making you relive the nightmare with her, she challenges the limits of language and eloquently expresses how living without turning your experience into words enhances the feeling of entrapment. It’s the kind of book that I wish was required reading for men to understand the complex dialogue around sexual assault, which is never black and white. Yes, it will be a difficult read. But that’s besides the point. If you’ve been affected by any of the issues raised, please use the following links: Women’s Health government resource on sexual assault and rape https://bit. ly/39cD0Gj Report an incident (LSE) Rape Crisis UK In an emergency, for urgent medical care or police assistance, please call the emergency services on 999.

ife is funny sometimes: you spend a damn eternity picking out twenty songs for The Bang Playlist, and then Brent Faiyaz turns up with the sexiest album of 2020 – Fuck the World. Faiyaz’s latest album is a great option when considering tracks for your own bang playlist. While you can pick and choose your favourite songs from the tracklist, you can just as easily play the album from start to finish. The songs all exude the same vibe and fit within a specific atmosphere (bangity bang). The tracklist has no features and removes any potentially jarring transitions. If you have to choose specific songs from the tracklist, a few stand out. Skyline introduces us to Faiyaz’s album by bringing his voice to the forefront over slow-paced background vocals and instrumentals. Let Me Know best exemplifies the album as a whole, giving us some of the smoothest drums, vocals, and vibes (it sounds like if the song had been regularly applying lotion for several weeks at reasonable intervals). This may be the song you should start off with if you want to get a good grasp of the album as a whole. If I could have a redo of the Bang Playlist, there would certainly be some Brent Faiyaz on it. This album exudes sex. Fuck The World? More like Fuck ME.

PART B Why did Parasite capture our societal imagination? by Minsuk Kim

Lots of people are praising Bong Joon Ho’s film Parasite, and for good reason. Most critics talk about his depiction of the polarisation of modern society, the suffering of socially marginalised groups, and how the comical twists balance out a dark, allegorical plot. This is all true. All of Bong’s films address class, specifically focusing on the working class. Snowpiercer literally assorts people into first class, economy class, and third class on a train, while Host shows a marginalised family struggling to hold their lives together. Okja has a similar class theme, with greater emphasis on the environment and GMOs. But how does Parasite differ? Why has this film gained so much more attention and success in commercialising the topic of class? Bong Joon-ho is not Ken Loach. His film doesn’t blatantly try to bring attention to the desperate lives of the poor. Yet, he repeatedly highlights their poverty, sometimes through comical devices and other times through tragic realism. There are important subtleties, such as how the poor family drinks FiLite when unemployed – the equivalent to Sainsbury’s Basics lager, if you like – then change to Sapporo, something more akin to Stella Artois. Their comical search for a stable internet connection in order to take full advantage of a friend’s act of kindness suggests that the poor are the leeches of society who exploit the generous rich. The final act is the CEO’s attempt to save his family before Ki-taek kills him in anger since he wanted to save his own family. From a moral viewpoint, Ki-taek is definitely in the wrong rather than the rich. Hence, the title, Parasite. The poor are parasites of society. But it feels unsettling to come to a hyper-elitist conclusion that the poor should “keep [their] place” – a line from Snowpiercer. Sure, their qualifications were forged and their connections built on lies, but in the strictest sense of intentional actions, what have they done that’s so wrong? Ki-joeng took a bath in a fancy bathroom, Ki-woo read a book on a nice lawn and the parents took a nap on the sofa instead of in their shoddy flat. Daily actions that the elite can enjoy are luxu-

Tongue (and suspended belief) by Ash Layo

ries for the poor family. But, just like Ki-taek’s businesses that fell apart due to exogenous factors, the bunker incident leaves them stuck in the basement. This is where Parasite drastically differs from Bong’s other films. The ending is one of despair. Ki-jeong is dead, Ki-woo has no way of contacting his father and Ki-taek is stuck in the basement, potentially forever. They are not compensated, there is no evil to be punished, no justice to be spoken of, simply a bitter end like a good Black Mirror episode. There is no absolute evil nor good; the classic narrative of the bad rich and the sympathetic poor doesn’t hold. There is one critical line that many may have skimmed over: “They are not kind despite being rich, they are kind because they are rich”. I could talk about the elite family’s patriarchal nature, the Kim family’s habits or even the delicious looking Jjapaguri and its link to cultural omnivorousness. But for now, I want to concentrate on something perhaps more ‘boring’: the film’s humanist aspect. Yes, I know it’s a little cliché to label our modern consumerist society as materialistic, but maybe Bong wanted to show us we aren’t all so different after all. Existentially speaking, they have sex, they eat food, they want a home, and want the best for their family. Whoever they are – inside the bunker, the flooded home, or the mansion – they share basic needs and simple desires. Whether by luck or misfortune, some have a child tent that is waterproof while others have their lives ruined from flooding.

I can taste marijuana on the tip of his tongue. And his nose ring was cold form the Melbourne winter.

The film also shows the unrelenting nature of poverty: a state where no matter what you do, what you dream of, you are stuck. More and more films are depicting the frustrating life faced by low-income households, far from a revolutionary, Les Miserablesesque ending. Maybe this unique allegory of poor and rich is why Parasite won at the Oscars; it shows life as a continuous struggle without a happy ending.

exhibit. I stumble to find words to press out of my lips but he catches me off guard with a

To end with a line from one of Frank Turner’s songs “and it seems a little bit rich to me, the way the rich only ever talk of charity”.

I can trace ribcage under his skin, moving my finger across his tall stature like a pen that an artist pushes against the outline of a statue of a stick-man that stands as a skeleton in a modern art

“you’re cute,” and his weed-flavoured tongue locks with mine. And I try to hold instinct at the back of my throat. I question, in my head, how genuine his desire of my aesthetic could be, and if it were perhaps the spliff he had lit hours ago that was drawing a cloud of drug-induced disillusion. And I had been smoking disbelief since the day I knew what a mirror meant. And how I would fit inside it. And how it showed me a difference of what people saw of me. And how smoke married it to cast a trick on me, make me believe a distortion of me to be truth. And I still smoke that disbelief, to keep me in line, to keep me in place, so that I do not step in the path of Adonis, and the beauty he carries in his stature. Or so I do not cast a shadow on skeleton frames that defy gravity. Sometimes, I fear what my mirror shows me, and I shrink my thoughts, hoping my body would mimic. Other times, I learn to accept the image, and I smoke the disbelief on instinct when he tells me i’m cute. I cannot, or refuse, to grant him an acceptance of what he sees in me. And I expect ulterior motives to crawl out of his ribcage and skinny fingers, through his paper pale skin. I still taste marijuana on the tip of his tongue.

Tuesday 11 February

editor: Maya Kokerov

arts & culture

Paper Skin

Joker: A clown act you're unlikely to forget by Jennie Balaganeshan The origin story of Batman’s arch-enemy defies the usual conventions of a comic book adaptation. Laughing out loud would be the last reaction you would have when watching Todd Phillips’ masterwork. Phillips’ Joker doesn’t joke. Instead, Joker follows the story of mentally unstable loser-clown turned loser-stand-up-comedian Arthur Fleck. Arthur looks after his fragile mother who worked for the infamous Wayne family many years ago. He sees a therapist until scrapped state funds force the end of their meetings, which leads to him ceasing to take his seven types of medication. While complete chaos hasn’t ensued for Arthur just yet, Gotham City is a troubled place anyway. The city’s bleak atmosphere serves as a perfect example of pathetic fallacy. The rat-filled streets, the overflowing garbage on the grubby sidewalks, and the filthy subways compliment the depiction of Arthur’s life. Phillips, also the brains behind the comedy trilogy Hangover, colours Joker with darkness and the result makes for this compelling origin story of a superherovillain. However, the film also delves into a world that has more in common with Martin Scorsese’s Taxi Driver than with Christopher Nolan’s Batman. Nevertheless, Phillips does subtly weave in his forte of humour, though rather unexpectedly and not necessarily with any clear punchlines. Arthur’s clown acts are whimsical and you will likely crack a smile here and there at his

efforts to brighten the day of the city goers who pass him by. From the plot to the music, Phillips’ work contrasts greatly to the many superhero and anti-hero films produced in the last decade. The budget for Joker was much lower in comparison to DC Films’ Man of Steel, Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman, though a lower budget proved to be a blessing in disguise. Joker avoided regurgitating the all too familiar action-packed scenes and overboard use of CGI (you really do get sick of it). Interpretations of Batman’s most feared enemy have come a long way, from Jack Nicholson and Mark Hamill to the most superb Heath Ledger (Jared Leto who?). Adding Joaquin Phoenix to the mix did not disappoint and his bold performance of the troubled lead character was embodied without fault. Phillips reportedly had Phoenix in mind when writing Joker back in 2016, a short while after Phoenix’s award winning performance in Her where he also portrayed a character who had grown accustomed to isolation. Phoenix’s astounding weight loss in Joker, a whopping 52lbs over the span of 3 months, is truly incredible. The unbearable sight of his flesh and bone appears more haunting than that of the already frail physique of Arthur’s ill mother, Penny Fleck. Arthur emanates an aura of endless self-pity and abhorrence to life which is staggeringly evident in a close-up shot in the opening

scene, where a single tear rolls down his cheek, ruining his clown makeup. The infamous ‘Joker laugh’ Phoenix creates can only be applauded. His “ha ha has” go from husky and low to terrifyingly high pitched. As the plot progresses, so does Arthur’s descent into doom. Unable to find solace in a place where nobody listens to him - his own therapist even fails to do soArthur’s actions turn dark and heinous. He becomes sick and tired of the mistreatment he has endured his whole life and begins to seek vengeance. The music beautifully accompanies the film’s gloom. At a highpoint in the film, a few chords of jubilation are stuck as Gotham’s worst criminal is brought to life. Frank Sinatra’s classic ‘That’s Life’ becomes both Arthur/Joker’s song, and is unexpectedly played with an austere elucidation. When his comedy act finally does well amongst an audience, Arthur unexpectedly scores a guest spot on the Murray Franklin Show. This dark art house picture of a DC villain has never been seen before. Joker raises the debate of nature vs nurture: is Arthur a victim or a hero? The film’s ambiguity fails to provide a satisfying answer. Nevertheless, there is one thing that is certain: Phoenix deserves to win ‘Best Actor’ at the Academy Awards and if he fails, I will spark a riot the same way Arthur did in the film (minus the gun, this isn’t America).

by Ash Layo

wHistory tells us that continents were forged out of paper skin, and paper is the new blood that grew into the old blood that haunts the memories of my elders. Paper Skin is fair, like white phantom. It moves through walls seamlessly, it does not get obstructed. Instead, it is a forceful wind that holds the Night Sky in place. But it is so fragile. It is so fragile, it breaks with the ink of the Night Sky’s poetry. My blood is dark with the ink of ancestral nights whose shadows touched the first Paper, and with it turned a pale white. Paper blood is strong, flowing through the river’s nocturnal continents. The mysterious Lady Darkness, her brilliant stars are covered by parchment that is centuries old and centuries weak. I have stood by siblings who drink the water of such rivers, who’s docility is granted promises of paper skin. History remains changed yet similar. The Paper Skin that haunts me creeps up in my dreams still. But it is easily torn asunder.

The Rise of Skywalker proves there is no right way to extend a franchise by Nick Alipour There’s no ‘right’ way to extend a franchise with an established fan base, but after watching the final episode of the new Star Wars trilogy we can safely say that Disney did it the wrong way. Hiring different directors for each new story might have worked for the original trilogy but not in this instance.

To be clear, J.J. Abrams’ The Rise of Skywalker wasn’t entirely bad. Rey, Finn, and Poe’s continuing fight against the sinister First Order was fairly entertaining. The scenery, the main characters’ chemistry, the jokes – everything feels more spot-on than in Rian Johnson’s bumpy Episode VIII. But the movie was still disappointing overall – the plot covered tried to cover too much ground and became unnecessarily complicated. Structurally, it was basically just Episode VI all over again. But all that can be forgiven. What really hurt was the realisation that, despite a multi-million dollar budget, the production companies didn’t manage to meet the most basic requirements of a good franchise: a unitary story. Who didn’t pick up on some romantic vibes between Finn and Rey in Abrams’ Episode VII? Rian Johnson clearly didn’t because he had Finn smooch a new character, Rose Tico. “Boring” was one of the nicer, less racist comments online from the Star Wars community on Rose, who happens to be Asian. Unsurprisingly, just as Abrams takes over again, Rose is gone. Her total screen time in The

Rise of Skywalker felt like 10 seconds. Were any of them romantic moments with Finn? Nope. As for Rey: she got a five-second fling with someone utterly unexpected. This had barely even been implied before and played absolutely no role afterwards. This affair was even marked by an oddly incestuous twist in the last scene of the movie. It’s unclear whether this was just supposed to establish Rey’s promiscuity or was some kind of nod to the original trilogy’s incestuous antics. From Kylo Ren’s character development or Rey’s plot-twisting back-story, the number of implausibilities in Episode IX exposes them as cases of blatant dissent between the different people in charge. The movie feels like J.J. Abrams’ attempt to erase all the unfounded, new ideas that Johnson added in The Last Jedi and replace them with a bunch of new, unfounded ideas and cameos to appease fan-theory making, original-trilogy loving fans. The director’s policy not only made the story of The Rise of Skywalker look unsatisfactory, but blemished the whole saga in passing. According to NBC News, “‘Star Wars’ fans [are] upset Kelly Marie Tran’s Rose Tico doesn’t get much screen time.” The lesson to draw from this is that you can’t please everybody, so whoever you decide to please - for the love of the Force, please decide.

SOCIAL 1st year student has horrible feeling LSE100 might be rubbish

More bannings planned at LSE

C. Hewson

As LSE entered the second half of Lent Term, it emerged that a 1st year student, who asked to remain anonymous, had developed a horrible, sinking feeling that LSE100 might actually not be that good. LSE100, the university’s flagship interdisciplinary programme, aims to broaden students’ horizons by both giving those on qualitative degree programmes the chance to work with data and reminding the quants that real people with feelings exist. Just a few weeks into term, the undergraduate in question developed symptoms of what is described by medical professionals as ‘academic ennui’. Their hopes that LSE100 would be a valuable addition to their university experience were reportedly dashed against the intellectual rocks by the onslaught of half-baked worksheets and inhumane group activities. This is by no means an isolated case. In a recent poll, just over 80% of undergraduates responded saying

that they felt that their quality of life had declined ‘partially’ or ‘substantially’ as a result of the course. One second year Economics student described their disgust at being forced to spend extended periods of time ‘pandering to the naïve utopianism of sociologists’ and ‘reading words’. Sources from the private sector told us that employers are also less than impressed with LSE100, with one recruitment consultant saying: ‘if I have to read one more CV that lists Tableau as a skill, I will cry’. A study carried out by LSE’s Department of Psychology and Behavioural Science found that LSE100 was about as effective at increasing students’ transferable skills as making them listen to a ten-minute self-help podcast. LSE100 is, of course, no stranger to spectacle. In 2018, two class teachers had to be hospitalised for shock after their entire class actually did the assigned readings in what was described as a ‘freak accident’.

Breaking: Failure to maintain globe causes dirt-related diplomatic debacle at LSE Max Fucke The LSE Directorate had to move quickly late Friday as a custodial issue escalated into a minor diplomatic incident. Sources within the Estates Division confirm that the schedule for cleaning The World Turned Upside Down, commonly known as ‘The Globe’, was to blame. The sculpture, located mere seconds’ flight from prime avian nesting grounds in Lincoln’s Inn Field, needs to be regularly cleaned of bird droppings. News broke on social media that, amongst others, the Arabian Peninsula had borne the brunt of what has evidently been an insufficient cleaning regime.

praxis, bitch.” When your correspondent asked if this would be an isolated incident in light of understaffing, the employee responded, “The School keeps f-king around, they’ll find out.”

The region was fatefully chosen, with online discourse rapidly devolving into vitriolic mud-slinging fueled by tension, oil money, and geopolitical ramifications. As The Beaver went to print, Director Shafik had convened an emergency meeting of the School Management Committee after an as-yet unnamed Gulf state withdrew 90% of an academic department’s funding in protest.

Mr G. Juano, who is heading up the Estates Division’s official response team, was reached for comment: “Obviously the situation is less than ideal. We’re keeping all options on the table. Protecting funding sources is, of course, the School’s number one priority.” Mooted responses include freeing up staffing by permanently closing all Library bathrooms, described by Juano as “not a massive change from the status quo”, or erecting a protective barrier over the globe to prevent future besmirchments. Possible sponsors of the barrier have been reported to include Huawei and McKinsey; when asked if the canopy would protect other vulnerable regions, such as South America and Sub-Saharan Africa, school officials responded, “We must keep costs to a minimum.”

Some immediately linked the incident to reports of understaffing and other systemic problems facing LSE cleaners, a story recently broken in The Beaver. When reached for comment, a cleaner, who requested to remain anonymous in order to speak candidly, said of the incident, “That’s

Asked whether the cleaning schedule could be enhanced by hiring more staff and providing a better working environment, a spokesperson for the School commented, “I mean, or we could rotate the globe so a less-sensitive country is facing upwards. We don’t have donors from the Pacific islands, do we?”

Miles McCollum

The recent passage of a motion banning the sale of beef on campus has placed the university at the forefront of the battle against the climate emergency. Beef is distinguished by the high greenhouse gas emissions associated with its production, and the students of LSE were wise to this, voting in favour of the motion by a margin of 243 to 170. Given the ease with which this motion passed, it is clear that the student body can go much further in its attempts to combat climate change, especially by banning things. Already, there is talk of removing meat altogether: I spoke to one criminology student who said, “I think it’s really important that we grab the bull by the horns here, provided it does not harm the bull in any way, of course. If we ensure that the voting link on the motion is nearly impossible to find on the student’s union website, I’m sure that it will pass. This would really make LSE the dog’s bollocks in terms of confronting global warming. Or any animal’s bollocks for that matter – I don’t discriminate.” But the climate problem goes beyond meat consumption: the lifestyle of even the most conscientious student can breed the occasional environmental faux pas. That’s why two Maths students have put forward a motion banning reading weeks at LSE. “As we speak, students on their break are flying away for much-deserved holidays abroad, unnecessarily spewing out tonnes of harmful emissions into the atmosphere, while we stay here in the library all week, clean as a whistle. That’s not fair — on the planet. We’re hoping to hold a snap UGM while they’re all away so that this motion will pass.” These positive steps have so far been endorsed by the executive of the SU, who, as influential members of the student body, are free to give their opinions on how they think others should vote. This has been the case with another motion, intending to ban the taking of number twos on campus, citing the fact that our own emissions are not totally dissimilar to our distant, bovine cousins. One member of the executive said, “I’m personally going to vote for it because, if I ever do need the loo, I know that I can just hold it in, and there are a thousand other places to go nearby campus. There will, of course, be difficulties associated with enforcing this ban without infringing on student’s human rights, but nothing worth having in this life comes easy,

now, does it? We are working actively to find a solution. Assuming it passes. Which it will.” A popular point of criticism for these pieces of legislation is their real impact on a planet of over seven billion people. How is change in a place as small as LSE going to make a real difference to a global problem? The usual response to this argument is that any great cultural shift must have microfoundations somewhere in order to be realised. The General Secretary, on the other hand, has much greater ambitions: "Once I've passed my motion to ban other people running against me for the position of Gen Sec, I can consolidate my power as the head of this institution. From there, I will seek to expand the influence of the LSESU to shores far beyond just the LSE. My ultimate goal is to have these bans rolled out nationwide, so that the entire country can attain a higher standard of Gen Sec Living." However, not all students share the same vision of LSE as a bastion for progress. There are reports that the 170 students who fell on the wrong side of the motion which started all of this positive change have created a faction aimed at tearing it all down. They call themselves ‘The Beefeaters’. When I attempted to meet up with the leader of this group, an Economics student, he directed me to a building which he insisted on referring to as ‘Tower 2’. “These bans are getting ridiculous. Don’t those bloody qualitative students know that the market will sort this all out? The mere thought of banning anything chills us to the core, as it is a blatant infringement on freedom and liberty. That’s why we’re tabling a motion to ban tabling a motion to ban things.” Amongst all of this malcontent and disagreement, there are a rare few LSE students who do not bother to vote, comprising just 96.5% of the student population. How will this legislation affect them? Which side of the argument will triumph? I reached out to the 11,547 students for comment, but received no replies.

Tuesday 3 March editor: Analía Ferreyra

lifestyle/advice/satire

a bipolar blog: the wonderful world of friendship Christina Ivey

CW: disordered eating – paragraph 2, selfharm, vomiting – paragraph 7 On the first day of August, 2019, before I knew I was bipolar, I had a terrible serotonin-induced break with reality. I got through it with the patience of my lovely friends and a helpful paramedic. For my own dignity, I won’t detail the episode itself, but instead the toll it took afterwards on my body and mind: It was as if my mind could only manage one task at a time – I had to remember to breathe, to blink, to put one foot in front of the other. It took me a whole day to be able to walk in a straight line again. I spent most of the following morning crawling around my flat before slowly progressing to upright wobbly steps in the afternoon. I was fucked and I didn’t know what was happening to me, but my friends made it less scary. After that ordeal, the conclusion of an intensely hypomanic episode, I wallowed in depression for about two weeks. It was manageable at my day-job, but I found weekends excruciatingly lonely. Luckily, I had a good friend who came over and cooked for me — he knew I struggled with disordered eating —and allowed me to cry snottily into his chest for the rest of that summer. We were very good at having fun doing absolutely nothing, most weekends he came over and we took a bus to a green space and we lay about in the grass, basking in the sun. When we got bored we ate and walked around until we found other, nicer green spaces. Importantly, he also encouraged me to check in with my psychiatrist, which led to my bipolar diagnosis. Ours was not a perfect friendship. While whole-

some and nurturing when I was depressed, our friendship became ever so toxic when I was hypomanic. We truly brought out the worst in each other. I knew it, he knew it, other people knew it, and yet we persisted. He had a petty feud with one of my other guy friends at the time, both convinced that the other one was secretly in love with me when really, neither of them were. This did not help the grandiose self-image I adopted when I was hypomanic. After my diagnosis, I was hyper-fixated on the fact that he enabled many of my harmful hypomanic behaviours in the past. One day, I got mad at his entire being and cut him off for three months. I was still struggling with my diagnosis when I did it, but talking to other bipolar people helped me realise that my short fuse was not going to help me sustain friendships in the long-term. Around Christmas, I apologised. We’re friends again now, but we’re living on opposite sides of the world. I think the most important thing to have in a friendship with a bipolar person is patience. Guidance from Mind, the mental health charity, gives practical steps to take in caring for a bipolar loved one: being open about bipolar disorder, making a plan for manic episodes, discussing challenging behaviour, learning triggers and warning signs, trying not to make assumptions, and, most importantly, looking after yourself. I find the most challenging things to overcome in a friendship are discussing challenging behaviour and learning the triggers and warning signs. Usually, something that you would find challenging, like a friend being unreasonably

obstinate, is a warning sign of an impending episode. There’s usually nothing you can do to change their mind at that moment because there’s nothing you can do to alter their perception of reality. It’s best to let the situation de-escalate and try to resolve the challenge when your friend is in a healthier state of mind. It’s also important to know your friend’s triggers to avoid setting them off. The word ‘trigger’ has been bounced around a lot lately, but in this context there’s more to worry about than making your friend squirm a bit. When I am triggered, for instance, it can set my life back by two days or more. I will usually spend hours sobbing uncontrollably, vomiting, and contemplating self-harm, if not actually doing it. After all of that tires me out, I will need to sleep for a solid day to recover my bearings. It’s completely disproportionate to the scale of what triggered me, but my brain doesn’t care about that. It’s important for friends to know my triggers because while I can maybe manage if a stranger says something upsetting to me, my brain won’t let me do the same for friends. As I’ve outlined before, friends are absolutely crucial to my survival as a bipolar person. They mess up sometimes, but the things they do to help make a world of difference to how I experience my condition. I have had friends lend me a hand with errands like doctor’s visits and trips to the bank. I have had them give me a safe space to vent even when I’m being unreasonable. I have their kind words lift me up through my most confused, agitated, and anxious moments. It’s safe to say that without friends, I wouldn’t be here.

London Fashion Week Sucks London Fashion Week is anticlimactic, Every. Single. Year. With the millions of pounds spent to suffocate Aldwych with billboards, you would think that London had something up its custom-made sleeve. But no: same old suits, same old tired trench coats. I haven’t forgotten about parachute gowns being a sign of risky design. No wonder Anna Wintour moved to New York. We suck! This year was no different. From shirt collars complementing a dull alabaster blazer clinging for dear life onto skinny models, to gowns drowning models in seas of painful bright colours: the most adventurous we got was from Simone Rocha and Richard Quinn and their respective mask-dress combination. With the A-List supermodels ghosting London for Mi-

lan, I don’t think we’ve gotten the memo that it’s time to do something different. Maybe I’m being cynical for my hate of London Fashion Week. The three other cities have an abundance of the aforementioned too. The difference is that every city does a good job at reflecting their fashion values through their designs. New York balances the nitty-gritty life of hustle with the sophistication that comes with couture: exemplified by Pyer Moss with their joggers donned with a majestic fur coat and trainers. In comparison, both Paris and Milan exemplify elegance and often focus on form-fitting garments. With Paris being the epicentre for couture, it is clear why the two cities draw many similarities in style. Their respective histories are where one can make an effective point of comparison – Chanel and the Little

Allya Mormont Black Dress (1926) complemented postWorld War I’s attitude on female suffrage and many Italian fashion houses like Versace emulate extravagance and luxury as an ode to the Renaissance period of fashion in Italy. As for London…hmm…let’s take a sec. Well – uh – okay…maybe more than a sec. Perhaps an hour. A lifetime. Real talk, London has lost its touch. In the good old days (excuse the Brexit terminology), every fashion designer had their own respective style which made London Fashion Week iconic. In the 90s, each designer expressed their own interpretation of British culture: with Alexander McQueen’s racy and hypersexual collections, to

Vivienne Westwood parodying past eras in history. It’s extremely upsetting to be witness to London fashion’s decline. In 2020 we have a tendency for designers to either plagiarise each other or serve a collection that looks like it came from Versace’s rejection bin. Or better yet a collection so devoid of imagination that the models look like randomised sims (cough, cough Central Saint Martin). Underwhelming. London, we HAVE to do better. Bring back the passion, the creativity, the love for fashion. Stop embarrassing me.