Issue 915 | MT Week 9
Newspaper of the LSE Students’ Union: Making Sense of LSE Since 1949
The Hotovely protest: peaceful or violent? INSIDE TODAY NEWS The great fire of Rosebery, page 3 LSE staff vote for strikes, page 4
FEATURES Special report: Inside the Hotovely event, page 7 Diversity in economics, page 8
OPINION Bora Bayram Features Editor Photographed by Bora Bayram On 9 November, the LSE campus hosted a protest against Tzipi Hotovely, the Israeli Ambassador to the UK. Allegations of antisemitism and intimidation ran abound the next day on national media.
The claims thrown around have left people asking: what actually happened that night? The Beaver was there to find out. In the 48 hours before the protest, strong reactions from various student groups set the stage. A statement released by the LSESU Palestine Society called
Hotovely “an avowed anti-Palestinian racist, islamophobe, and self-proclaimed ‘religious right-winger’”. The message was echoed by many, including the Middle East and North Africa Society, the Grimshaw Club, and even the Food and Cooking Society. They criticised the Debating Society, as well as LSE and
the SU, for allowing Hotovely to speak on campus, which they claimed was against LSE’s External Speakers Policy and the recently passed SU motion against apartheid. This was reflected in the protest, with students shouting “shame on you, LSE!” and “shame on you, LSESU!” Continued on page 6
The dangers of de-platforming, page 10
Scan to read and listen to The Beaver. Online.
& flip for
2
Meet the team
Executive Editor Angbeen Abbas executive.beaver@lsesu.org Managing Editor Gustav Brincat managing.beaver@lsesu.org
www.thebeaverlse.co.uk
The last dam word on Hotovely
News
Angbeen Abbas Executive Editor
LSE becomes first carbon neutral university in the UK
F
or a lot of us, the past two weeks on campus have been incredibly draining. From the Flipside Editor announcement of Tzipi Hotovely’s visit to LSE, to the protest itself, to Beatriz Silva the criticism we’ve faced as a comeditor.flipside@lsesu.org munity in the aftermath, it has felt like we ended up at the centre of the Beaver Editor deplatformving debate overnight. Jocelyn Tsang It’s been difficult, personally, to hear some of the statements that were editor.beaver@lsesu.org made during the event itself whilst covering it for The Beaver, as well Multimedia Editor as the hateful comments about our Vaneeza Jawad community by many who did not multimedia.beaver@lsesu.org even witness the protests firsthand. News Editors Aarti Malhotra Aysha Sarah Opinion Editors Sonja Belkin Edouard Chardot Features Editors Bora Bayram Jack Beeching Part B Editor Ambre Pluta Sport Editor Matt Sudlow Social Editors Alina Chen Sadia Sheeraz Review Editors Inayah Inam Vani Kant photos by Jack Love
I cannot feign impartiality as a Muslim student, and I don’t think that I should have to. Free speech is an important issue, but the way it is framed seems to centre the right to free speech for the representatives of repressive governments over that of students from marginalised ethnic and religious groups. I’m proud to be a part of a student body that is politically engaged and that came out in support of Palestine and in opposition to violent, unacceptable rhetoric on campus, knowing that they would be misrepresented by the mainstream press, and not really caring. At the event, both the speaker and moderator repeatedly talked about our bravery for attending. I think it is far braver to stand outside in the cold and stare down officers from the Met as you exercise your right to free speech and freedom of assembly for an issue we cannot
The past two weeks have been equally chaotic at The Beaver, as we’ve rushed to get everything together for this issue. We’re excited to publish an edition that is full of excellent reporting and analysis on the Israeli ambassador's visit to LSE, UCU strikes this December, diversity in economics, and internet access for all. Make sure to flip over to Flipside to read our review of Dune (shout out to our fantastic illustrator Charlie To for bringing it to life!), this edition’s Professor Beaver column, and Lily Whittle’s interview with photographer and filmmaker Julie Klottrupp on making and viewing art in the digital age. Lastly, I’m excited to welcome our new editors for this edition: Aysha Sarah for News, Sonja Belkin for Opinion, Vani Kant for Review, and Sadia Sheeraz for Social. They’ve really taken to helping us design our most challenging (but definitely best!) issue so far. All of us on The Beaver are very excited to see what they accomplish through the year.
been acquired by 100% renewable energy sources like solar and wind.
News Editor
I
n early November, LSE announced that it had been independently verified as carbon neutral for the 202122 academic year, becoming the first UK university to do so. According to an announcement on the School website, the global certification company BSI verified LSE as carbon neutral against the PAS 2060, the internationally recognised standard for carbon neutrality. Martin Townsend, Global Head of Sustainability at BSI, said in the announcement: “In becoming the first organisation in the UK to be verified by BSI against its latest scheme, LSE has successfully substantiated its carbon neutrality claims. This is an important and significant milestone. Reducing impacts on climate change is the most significant challenge we are facing today and LSE’s decision to verify its environmental claims positions the organisation as a true trailblazer.”
We hope you love Issue #915! Send us your thoughts at letters.beaver@ LSE explained that its carbon lsesu.org, to potentially have a letter emissions have reduced by 44 printed in our final issue of the year! percent since 2005. Moreover, since 2015, LSE has invested £4.8 million in various “energy efficiency measures” across campus and residence halls such as solar panels and LED light systems. The School also claims that since 2009, all the electricity on campus has
Additionally, LSE’s carbon credits portfolio focuses on forest conservation projects, a decision that was voted in by faculty and students. The School stated its next target is to become net zero carbon through its Sustainability Strategic Plan. Some of these plans are already in motion, such as the rollout of carbon impact food labelling on menus at LSE catering outlets. LSE Director Minouche Shafik issued a statement on the School’s achievement: “Becoming Carbon Neutral is a key milestone for LSE and reflects years of efforts and investment to reduce our carbon emissions. We will continue to follow a challenging carbon reduction pathway aligned with climate science, to support the transition to a net-zero world.” This announcement comes amidst the involvement of LSE’s Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment in the COP26 UN Climate Change Summit, as part of the COP26 Universities Network.
Crisis mismanagement? Gustav Brincat Managing Editor
O
ver the last fortnight LSE and its students have been dragged through the mud. All Cover design by Vaneeza Jawad manner of talking heads and political heavyweights assembled to comment on the Hotovely event protests, Any opinions expressed here- slamming students for anti-Semitism in are those of their respec- and anti-free speech cancel culture. tive authors and not necessar- However, protests against Israeli ily those of the LSE Students’ politicians aren’t, of course, inherUnion or Beaver Editorial Staff. ently anti-Semitic. And if the Sun political editor’s recommendation of putting student protesters “on a The Beaver is issued under a watchlist” were followed, the conCreative Commons license. sequences for free speech would be far graver than what any student protest could manage. The event and the protests are surely Printed at Iliffe Print, Cambridge both expressions of free speech.
WHAT’S ON
On paper, LSE and the SU did everything right to avoid the wrath of conservative media. But it all came crashing down with a video – that video – of the ambassador being hurried into a car by her security team. The video, which has now been viewed over 2.4m times, was shot by one of our own writers. Little did they know it would become such a hit.
Want to advertise your society events and socials with us? Email us now at editor.beaver@lsesu.org
Naturally, the Hotovely protests feature heavily in this issue. The special report pieces in Features are carefully researched and will be lasting examples of The Beaver’s excellent journalism. Elsewhere, Sharon’s review of Lana Del Rey’s new album was particularly enjoy-
Room 2.02 Saw Swee Hock Student Centre LSE Students’ Union London
afford to be apolitical about. The worst kind of fence-sitting involves not being brave enough to do either, and instead pontificating on Twitter. Aarti Malhotra
able, even to a non-listener like me, and it was great to find out more about Tilly in the Flipside interview. As usual, I copyedited most of the articles myself – saved only by Nicole Lim’s attentive eye in Opinion – so if you’ve got an attention to detail and enjoy the paper, please do send me an email to join the team. I hope you enjoy this issue and remain excited for our bumper Christmas edition in week 11.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Have something to say? For comments, insight, or just plain beef, email letters.beaver@lsesu.org
Charlie To Contributor
NEWS
News Editors Aarti Malhotra Aysha Sarah
3
news.beaver@lsesu.org
SU lobbies for online exams as in-person January exams confirmed Jessica Pretorius Staff Writer
O
n 29 October, LSE confirmed via a School-wide email that January exams will take place in-person. There has been a mixed response from students and departments alike. Following a survey of nearly 700 students that showed 94% of students preferring online exams, the LSE Students’ Union has been actively lobbying for exams to be moved online. The Beaver met with Josie Stephens, the LSESU General Secretary, to discuss the progress of their lobbying campaign. The issue of exam administration has been forwarded to LSE’s Senior Management Committee but, even then, the SU remains unsure about their campaign’s success. LSESU has based their argument on several factors. For one, students in the survey have reported that they do not feel properly equipped to take in-person exams after two years of online or cancelled exams (whether that be across LSE or in school) and believe they produce better-quality work during online assessments. Secondly, there are pedagogical concerns that in-person exams could widen the disa-
bility gap that online exams have proven to mitigate. Finally, there are safety concerns regarding Covid. Josie explained that the SU is concerned that, if students were displaying symptoms, it is quite possible that they would ignore these and attend exams regardless, due to the perceived high stakes of missing or deferring exams. Furthermore, they want to make sure students who need to isolate are not disadvantaged by having no choice but to defer their exams. LSE’s response to the above concerns varies by department. Cer-
tain departments, particularly qualitative ones such as the Department of International History, have conceded that online exams provide better quality work. The SU has been successful in campaigning for these departments to be able to choose their method of assessment. Campaigns outside the SU have also seen success. At the Law School, following sustained student backlash to plans for in-person exams, David Kershaw, the Dean, recently announced that second- and third-year undergradu-
Fire in laundry room at Rosebery Hall Aarti Malhotra News Editor Photo by Vaneeza Jawad
R
esidents of Rosebery Hall report that around 2.15pm on 15 November, the hall’s laundry room caught fire. The emergency services were called and residents were evacuated.
Rosebery Hall had sent an email to residents earlier this month informing them that the hall would be installing new dryers on 11-12 November and that the laundry facilities would reopen for use on 13 November. However, on 13 November, the hall announced that the reopening of the laundry room was delayed until the morning of 15 November.
According to a student who was in the laundry room when the fire broke out, the source of the fire was one of the newly installed dryers.
Students at the hall said they were evacuated and had to wait outside for approximately an hour while the fire rescue team worked to extinguish the fire and ensure safety.
The student said: “Our hall just installed new dryers and I was in there with two maintenance workers when the fire broke out in one of the dryers. The [fire rescue] response was thankfully really quick and there was an extinguisher there as well.” The student said that she evacuated the room once fire broke out while the workers tried to contain the fire with an extinguisher.
After residents were allowed to re-enter, the hall sent out an email, which thanked them for “promptly evacuating” the building. It also reminded them of fire safety procedures and that they were obligated to comply with the UUK code of practice, which binds all residents at the LSE halls of residence to certain responsibilities.
The morning after the fire, the hall warden sent another email to residents, stating that the London Fire Brigade had “praised” the way residents conducted themselves during the fire evacuation and that an investigation was underway to establish the cause of the fire. An LSE spokesperson said: “The incident was safely contained, nobody was injured and there was no damage to the building. Fire is an extremely rare occurrence in halls of residence and the safety of our residents is always our top priority. A full investigation is now underway.”
ates would sit 8-hour online openbook exams in the Summer Term. By contrast, quantitative departments such as the Departments of Economics, Accounting, and Finance, have pushed heavily for in-person exams, and the chances of their stances changing remains low. Following this, the SU has lobbied for a mock exam timetable, which would be run by LSE Life and take place in the last few weeks of the Michaelmas term. However, this policy has not yet been implemented.
As for Covid and disability gap concerns, LSE’s position remains unclear. The School suggested that students could take measures such as wearing masks during exams, but the uncertainty surrounding Covid has prevented the School from being able to confirm any measures. Although Covid remains the most persuasive argument for exams moving online, Josie explained the dilemma of lobbying for online exams on the grounds of health and safety without giving reason for social events to also be moved online. However, a key difference between the two situations is that students can decide for themselves whether to attend social activities whereas exam attendance is compulsory. To ensure isolating students are not disadvantaged, the SU is suggesting a second exam period in February, but this has yet to be confirmed. Josie reassures students that the SU is aware that exams are generally a stressful time and that this uncertainty only serves to exacerbate that. She encourages students to share their views and express any concerns to the LSESU Advice Service at su.advice@lse.ac.uk.
4 News
University staff vote for UK-wide strike action over pay and pensions disputes Aysha Sarah News Editor
U
niversities across the UK have voted in favour of strike action over disputes on pensions, pay, and working conditions. 58 universities, including LSE, will face three days of strike action between 1 and 3 December. Along with the three-day strike, union members will initiate additional forms of industrial action beginning 1 December. This includes adhering strictly to the terms of their contracts and declining any additional duties. This is expected to continue indefinitely for the five months during which staff are mandated to take industrial action, according to the University and College Union (UCU). Jo Grady, the General Secretary of the UCU, has also warned that more industrial action could take place in the spring if the row with employers remains unresolved.
Members of the UCU voted earlier this month to support strike action in two separate disputes, one over pensions and another over pay and working conditions. The UCU states that 76% of UCU members voted supported strike action in the ballot over pension changes while 70% of members voted in favour of strike action over pay and conditions. LSE was listed as one of the institutions published by the UCU to be affected whereby LSE staff will strike over both pay and pensions. LSE UNISON, an organisation dedicated to representing a number of staff members in the public sector, commented: “The university sector is worth tens of billions of pounds, but the uncomfortable truth is that this success is built on exploitation, with staff denied dignity in work and in retirement. “The loss in value of pay has resulted in [higher education] staff having less disposable income and facing increasing financial difficulties. The impact of the
cost of living rising so much faster than pay is that higher education staff have seen the value of their pay decline by 17.6% since 2009.” Furthermore, emphasising the disparate impact on women, they stated: “As around three-quarters of our members are women, and because the gender pay gap becomes a pensions gap in retirement, this is clearly a big issue for us. Changes to the state pension age have hit women particularly hard and cuts to public services have been shown to impact women much more than men.” A second-year student said: “University staff should feel appreciated, and this should be reflected in their pay. For some reason, we can afford frequent salary increases for management but not for university teachers, who form the backbone of the university experience.” When asked how these events could affect their learning at LSE, the student also stated, “This will have little effect on my learning
because the majority of lectures are pre-recorded and, if necessary, I can seek clarifications from my teachers during their contact hours following the protest.” An LSE spokesperson commented, “We are committed to providing an excellent education and experience for our students, supporting all LSE staff and en-
suring LSE is an inclusive place to study and work. This was our focus during the pandemic, and continues to be the priority this academic year, in partnership with our School community.” The Beaver is awaiting comments from faculty members and the LSE branch chairs of Unite and UCU.
Online harassment of conservative student raises issues of alleged censorship Chenoa Calacov Contributor
C
onservative student Reem Ibrahim tells The Beaver of online harassment experienced after debating for the privatisation of the NHS, and warns of increasing censorship on social media. On 28 October, the LSESU Conservative Society participated in an inter-collegiate ‘Port and Policy’ event at UCL, at which the LSE society took the ‘for’ stance in the motion “This house believes that the NHS should be privatised”. Following the Conservative Society’s victory, Reem Ibrahim took to Twitter to share her happiness: “Great fun at the Port and Policy last night, hosted by @UCLTories, @LSETories + @KCLTories. Very happy that we won the motion on privatising the NHS!” Immediately after, Ibrahim received a barrage of heated replies, some threatening violence and assault. She claims the “NHS Twitter cult” tweeted insults ranging from “comparisons to Judas, prayers calling for a roof to collapse over me, and hundreds of comments referencing my race, class, and gender”. One such comment stated: “I’d be
very happy to see you have a serious cardiac arrest and not have enough money to access private healthcare you absolute fucking rat.” Ibrahim’s tweet stirred further tension as Labour MP Alex Sobel used her tweet to comment on the future of the Conservative Party and political strategies, claiming that her tweet encapsulated “Future Tory MPs making future policy plans”. Ibrahim points out that this incident is not isolated, and in fact represents a small piece in the larger issue of attempted rightwing censorship. She expresses worries that other right-leaning students will be discouraged from discussing their own views online, in fear of the harassment she has experienced several times. She said: “My real concern is that the attacks on the mere debate of some issues – in this case the ‘sacred’ NHS – hinders our ability to engage with one another and prevents meaningful change. I am an ardent supporter of J. S. Mill’s ‘marketplace of ideas’ concept, in that the path towards finding the most optimal ideas depends on its free competition with other ideas. I do hope that those with ‘controversial’ views do not feel discouraged from expressing them
after seeing the online hate that myself and many others have received. Without the freedom to debate, we cannot expect to make any kind of meaningful progress.” Ibrahim’s concerns are echoed by LSESU Conservative Society president Kai Li. While he believes that discussion of such political topics is beneficial, the Conservative Society president remains troubled about the “ever-increasing polarisation” which hinders the ability to engage in productive debate. These divisions occur not just within the walls of universities, but rather as a consequence of the persistent attitude towards two-party system politics. Li also expressed solidarity with Ibrahim stating that all society members have a “right to express their views” and condemned the “threats and abusive language” used towards Ibrahim on Twitter. While Reem has made the decision not to alert LSE, an LSE spokesperson has indicated that the School will offer support to any student experiencing abuse online. An LSE spokesperson said: “Harassment, online abuse and threats of violence are completely unacceptable. We strongly encourage any student who has experienced
or witnessed any form of threats or harassment to report this. “Students can get in touch in a number of ways. They can report to LSE directly via our online, Report it Stop it form, speak to one of our Safe Contacts for information and support, or, for example, contact the Student Wellbeing Service or Advisor to women students. LSE has a new support map on the Student Hub to help stu-
dents access the support they need, no matter the circumstances.”
News
5
The Israel-Palestine event protests: a timeline Aarti Malhotra and Aysha Sarah News Editors •
6 November • • • •
•
Decolonising LSE, LSESU Middle East and North Africa Society release statements condemning the event. Committee members of the LSESU Debate Society receive online threats from anonymous accounts.
•
7 November
SU sabbatical officers issue a statement reaffirming the event should go ahead and call for additional safety measures. The statement has since been removed from the SU website. More than two hundred students, journalists and volunteers from external organisations protest in front of Centre Building. Trailed by a heavy police and security presence, the protest goes on until 40 minutes after the event ends. The event is held as planned at 32 Lincoln’s Inn, where the Israeli ambassador gives a talk and answers questions from the audience.
10 November
9 November •
A video capturing the ambassador exiting the event venue, amidst protesters booing and chanting slogans goes viral on Twitter overnight, viewed 2.4 million times within a week. The Independent, Evening Standard, Times of Israel, BBC, and other media outlets publish stories about the protests. MailOnline calls protesters “thugs”. UK Home Secretary Priti Patel tweets she is “disgusted” by the treatment of Hotovely and adds that police have her full support in investigating the incident. LSESU sabbatical officers release a follow-up statement: ‘‘LSE students will not face any disciplinary action for exercising their right to peacefully protest.’’ LSE for Palestine addresses the protest: “Hotovely did not ‘flee’ the university...we made our protest guidelines and safe space policy clear, stating we would not tolerate speech [or] behaviour... that incited any sort of prejudice or discrimination.” The event with the Palestinian Ambassador is postponed until further notice, LSE Debate Society stating that the Palestinian Mission requested to reschedule the event as the ambassador wanted to return
• • • •
• •
•
Hotovely states she will not allow “radical groups to shape the discourse in academia’’ in an interview with the Daily Mail. LSESU Jewish Society clarifies position on letters being signed around campus by Jewish students: “JSoc is a welcoming and inclusive society for Jews with different beliefs...There will be no political letter written by – or on behalf of – LSE Jewish Society.” In an interview with the BBC, LSESU Debate Society Vice President claims protesters were not anti-Semitic and that politicians are “mischaracterising” the event from the viral Twitter video: “[The ambassador] had a few uncomfortable moments getting into her car because people were booing but that’s just freedom of speech.”
•
11 November
•
12 November
•
LSESU General Secretary Josie Stephens releases a statement on Instagram: ‘‘...we [the sabbatical officers] were distraught by the distress, anguish and fear present within our community, and felt powerless in the face of misinformation and systemic racism...We also need to lobby LSE to offer more proactive support for students within marginalised groups and facilitate opportunities for an open dialogue between the directorate and students.’’
•
15 November
•
Around 60 students and staff gather at a solidarity assembly to “reclaim” their right to freely express their views on campus. Students discuss the handling of the events at a town hall organised by the LSESU, emphasising the need to ensure that students feel safe and marginalised voices are heard.
Decolonising LSE announces solidarity assembly: “We demand that the LSE issues a public statement affirming our students’ right to protest on campus without facing police investigation.” LSE UCU Branch Committee released a statement in response to the protest: ‘‘We reject attempts to smear student protests against a state or its representative as harassment or hate speech…Senior politicians have acted irresponsibly in making public accusations against students, and we are deeply concerned by suggestions that LSE will be reviewing its policies in response.’’
14 November
•
•
LSESU Debate Society announces the event “A New Era in the Middle East” hosting Israeli and Palestinian ambassadors. LSESU Palestine Society issues statement: “We are outraged by both the invitation extended towards a figure with a track record of anti-Palestinian racism and war crimes, as well as LSESU’s approval of this event.”
18 November
A group of Jewish LSE students and alumni publish an open letter in The Beaver: “Protesting against representatives of the Israeli state... is not antisemitic... students protested Hotovely’s presence on campus... not because she is Jewish, but rather because she is the ambassador of a state that routinely flouts international law and is committing grave human rights violations against Palestinians on a daily basis.”
6
FEATURES
Features Editors Bora Bayram Jack Beeching features.beaver@lsesu.org
Special Report: Tzipi Hotovely at LSE
Peaceful or violent? What really happened at the protests against the Israeli ambassador continued from page 1 Initially, the protest was concentrated around the Centre Building. However, once the location of the event, closely guarded until less than an hour before, was revealed, the protesters rushed to 32 Lincoln’s Inn Fields to disrupt it. In the end, Hotovely spoke for 90 minutes even with the protest of around 100 people outside. The protesters’ outrage was centred around giving Hotovely a platform. One student told The Beaver, “[Why are] politicians who have a record of passing policy that is 100% genocidal… given a platform to speak and spread that rhetoric among students?” “We believe these people don’t deserve a platform,” said another student. De-platforming was justifiable for one protester because “the Zionist side has a history of using academic platforms…to normalise the idea…that they have a right to ethnically cleanse Palestinians”. However, the protesters’ anger extended beyond the invitation of Hotovely to LSE. “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” the protesters chanted, with placards reading “End Apartheid Israel” and “Stop Israeli War Crimes” displayed above their heads. Their discontent towards Israel’s human rights abuses against Palestinians and the legitimacy of the State of Israel were evident. Groups represented in the protest were diverse and, at times, controversial. Students from universities across London such as UCL, King’s, and SOAS were at the protest, with many saying that they were notified by their university’s Palestine society. LSE Class War stirred the most controversy, posting on Instagram: “Whoever smashes the Ambassador[‘s] car window… gets pints. Let’s fuckin frighten her.” The threat was not followed through. It remains unclear whether they are a genuine student group or a fake account. The account was later banned from Instagram.
Non-student groups were also an important presence. Neturei Karta, a group of ultra-orthodox Haredi Jews who oppose Zionism, was one of them. “State of ‘Israel’ does not represent authentic Jewry,” said one of their placards in bolded, black text. One of their members, when interviewed, told us that “in the Jewish belief we are in exile by divine decree – going out of exile is rebellion against the Almighty”, reflecting the religious undertone underpinning their opposition to Zionism. Many protesters, including one who made her views known to The Beaver, were less than enthusiastic about their presence, however, characterising them as a “fringe” group supporting the Palestinian cause on purely religious reasons rather than humanitarian ones. Throughout the night, the chants coming from Neturei Karta were overwhelmed by the louder chants of the student organisers. As 7pm rolled around and the event was expected to end, the protest went into its third hour. It was then when the protesters, who had so far gathered in front of the main entrance to the building, split into two groups. One group circled the back exit
in anticipation of Hotovely’s departure. They were trailed by several police officers, who evidently seemed alarmed that the protesters blocked Hotovely’s likely exit. From inside the building, men in suits who appeared to be Israeli security guards took pictures of protesters, who promptly and uniformly responded with the middle finger. At 7.30pm, the wait was over – Hotovely exited the building through the disused back door. In the span of seconds, the police had formed a line between the protesters around the back exit and Hotovely’s exit. Boos and screams of “shame!” were heard from the protesters, as Hotovely, carrying flowers, was rushed into a car by her security guards and driven off, followed by a running security guard. LSE for Palestine claimed police “physically assaulted” them at this stage. That night, a video showing Hotovely’s exit went viral on social media. The reaction from the Government was as expected; cabinet ministers, including Priti Patel and Liz Truss, called it “appalling” and “unacceptable”. The former said that the police have her full support in investigating this “incident”. How-
ever, even figures from Labour, such as Lisa Nandy, condemned the protests, saying “freedom of speech is a fundamental right and any attempt to silence or intimidate those we disagree with should never be tolerated”. A few showings of support were seen, however, namely from leftwing figures such as Owen Jones. Right-wing media had a field day with the news. Within 12 hours, MailOnline claimed that the “hard-left crowd” was trying to intimidate the ambassador, characterising protesters as a “mob” and “thugs”. The Jerusalem Post said the ambassador was “almost attacked”. Writing for The Spectator, Jake Wallis Simons said that there were flags of Kata’ib Hezbollah, an Iraqi paramilitary group supported by Iran, a claim The Beaver can verify. While the group is not a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK, Hezbollah, the Lebanese ally of the group, is. Simons concluded, “Students, convinced in the righteousness of their cause, are being utilised by more sinister forces to further the agenda of Iran and its sympathisers.” It is true that Iran-affiliated groups were present at the protest. Press TV, an Iranian state-
owned network, was the only broadcaster reporting from the ground. Placards by Innovative Minds, a self-described “Islamic group campaigning for justice around the world through grassroots direct action” with close ties to Iran, were widely seen at the protest. Members of the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC), including its leader Massoud Shadjareh, were there as both supporters and legal observers. Shadjareh has in the past made statements such as “we are all Hezbollah” and called Ayatollah Khomeini “a torch of light for the whole of mankind”. However, at the same time, there is no evidence the person carrying the flag of Kata’ib Hezbollah, which is undeniably radical, or the presence of Iran-affiliated groups was representative of the wider opinion of student protesters. In fact, the protest guidelines from LSE for Palestine stated that they “will not tolerate any form of... anti-semitism” and there is no evidence the student organisers condoned the views of these groups. After the protest, LSE for Palestine tweeted that they “do not approve of any flags at the protest that were not Palestine flags”. The media frenzy around the protest represents the most intense scrutinisation of the LSE student body in years, with accusations of physical aggression towards the ambassador and anti-Israel sentiment pouring in. Given the protest was completely peaceful and clearly targeted towards Israeli’s policies and Hotovely’s views, however, it raises questions over whether the media is exaggerating the matter and looking for an anti-Israel narrative to fan public controversy. There may have been groups holding questionable views in the protest, but they came of their own accord. Students should not be blamed for peacefully exercising their right to free speech on their university campus.
Features
7
Inside the event: lots of deflection, not enough facts Angbeen Abbas Executive Editor To call Tzipi Hotovely a polarising figure is an understatement. Having faced opposition to her appointment as Israeli ambassador to the UK by left-wing groups, she has been criticised for her stances on Israeli human rights groups and the West Bank settlements, accusing Palestinians of being the “thieves of history”. Walking into 32 Lincoln’s Inn Fields and being scanned by a metal detector and patted down is a reminder of this. There are several members of Hotovely’s security team managing the crowd, alongside one or two members of LSE Security. While this is understandable due to the backlash after the event was announced, it creates an environment that is especially tense. As Hotovely enters the room, five representatives of societies including the Palestinian Society and MENA Society walk out and are guided by security, telling the rest of those seated to “have fun with a war criminal”. The moderator for the event was Lloyd Gruber, Assistant Professor in the Department of International Development and former Dean of LSE’s Institute of Public Affairs. Before the event begins, Gruber introduces Sunny, the Equity Officer of the Debate Society, as the safety officer for the event, as well as laying out how this will be a “principled space”, where critical questions can be asked to challenge the speaker. As a principled space, there would be opportunities for students to ask questions anonymously online, access support if they do not feel safe in the environment, and ask critical questions without fear of hostility from the speaker or other students. It is unclear what this contributed to the experience, as this sentiment was present in the rules and structure of the event that the Debate Society had already set. With members of Hotovely’s security team looking around at the audience and to each other from each side of the room, it feels as though this is a space too heavily surveilled to allow for everyone present to speak freely. Kicking off the event with a speech, Hotovely describes three key moments of her life and the history of Israel. Starting with when she was born, in 1978, she discusses the peace treaty with
Egypt, followed by the first Oslo Accord when she was a teenager, and then Israel’s disengagement from Gaza in 2005 as she was beginning her career in law. Focusing on the normalisation of relations between Israel and Gulf states such as the UAE and Bahrain, she makes the claim that Palestine, specifically Hamas, has refused all peace offers. This seems like an oversimplification: yes, Palestine has rejected recent peace plans, but it is worth mentioning that this is largely rooted in Israel’s unwillingness to honour some of the core conditions outlined over the years: the release of Palestinian political prisoners, right to return for Palestinian refugees, and a return to pre-1967 borders in Palestine. A few patterns emerge as students ask questions: Hotovely resolutely denies the consensus of a number of historians on the 1948 exodus of Palestinians, regularly defends the IDF’s history of human rights abuses whilst focusing on the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, and skirts any critique of views that she has publicly stated by arguing that these views are irrelevant to her role as the ambassador to the UK. One of the first questions asked during the event by a student was about the Nakba, the mass exodus and permanent displacement of a majority of the Palestinian people, a pivotal moment in Palestinian history. The right of return of Palestinian refugees has been a key point of contention during the peace process. Historians including Benny Morris, Ilan Pappé, and Shlomo Sand broadly agree that this exodus took place. Hotovely has called the Nakba “a made-up story” as recently as December 2020, only a few months into her term as Israeli ambassador to the UK. When asked about this by a student, she makes the claim that the displacement of the Palestinian people was a result of their refusal to accept the creation of the State of Israel. But what is even more confusing is her acknowledgement of a mass exodus in 1948 as a result of the creation of Israel while refusing to answer the question posed to her: “So you acknowledge that the Nakba happened?”, the student follows-up. Hotovely responds by making the claim that if violence had not been undertaken by Zionist groups, it would be tantamount to the mass extermination of the Jewish peoples that
would go on to make up Israel. Another fundamental question raised by both the chair and students is the systemic oppression of Arab-Israelis. When asked by the academic chair about her past experience as Deputy Foreign Minister and Settlements Minister, and whether some of the policies she supported were consistent with her claims regarding the importance of building community, she argues that her past claims are irrelevant because her work currently is to advance and support the Israeli government’s stances. She deflects criticism by talking about women’s rights in Israel, instead of addressing the question itself. Similarly, when asked a question about the discrimination Arab-Israelis face in Jerusalem, she makes the claim that this has nothing to do with race, and that even some Jewish neighbourhoods are very unequal, denying the existence of restrictions to Palestinian spouses gaining citizenship rights to live with their Israeli-Arab partners. While the Citizenship Law of 2003 expired this year, to imply that such inequality did not exist as recently as this July is to erase the impact of Israeli policy on its Arab citizens. Whether it is discrimination in schooling, or access to housing, the argument that there are no systemic barriers faced by Arab-Israelis is verifiably untrue – Hotovely herself did not back up any of these claims with factual evidence. Perhaps there is an argument to be made for how the work of a diplomat requires them to separate their own beliefs from the policies that they must promote. But this is difficult to believe when Hotovely is, in many ways, very willing to take a stance. When asked by a student why she so vehemently opposes Hamas while allowing far-right groups to speak in the Knesset (most likely referring to Lehava, a Jewish supremacist group in Israel that opposes Jewish-Arab intermarriage, whom she invited to speak in the Knesset in 2011), she argues for their right to freedom of speech. According to her, there is a distinction between being “radical” and being a “terrorist group”, even though many lawmakers in Israel have campaigned for Lehava to be classified as a terrorist group. What is disappointing is Hotovely’s (and largely, the chair’s) inability to shift the conversation
in a direction that may be less divisive and more relevant to her current role. The chair, perhaps because his academic specialisation does not lie in Middle Eastern politics or foreign policy, makes no effort to reorient the conversations towards more illuminating questions about Israeli foreign policy and its impact on the UK and the world at large. Even when asked pertinent questions by students, such as the consequences of Israel politicising its ties to America by favouring the Republican Party, she is unable to answer them adequately. Instead of engaging with a question that is crucial to understanding the government’s relationship with a key actor in its foreign policy, she chooses to answer in ambiguous terms, commenting on the need for strong ties with US governments without addressing the question itself. Perhaps the most controversial claim made by Hotovely, towards the end of the event, was that the IDF “never targets civilians, period”. In a video posted on Twitter, she makes the claim that the IDF is allowed to “target places that are the infrastructure of terror organisations’’ under international law. Whilst such intervention is arguably legal, the IDF has been criticised for international law breaches elsewhere:
this year the IDF was accused of war crimes by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. There has been extensive reporting on how Palestinians have disproportionately been killed and injured through the conflict, with the IDF having killed nearly 2,000 Palestinians who were not participating in terrorist activity since Operation Cast Lead, which ended in January 2009. As our student body takes stock of the event, perhaps this is a time to consider what debate fundamentally means to us. It is about opposing viewpoints, yes. But a debate where both parties are not equally engaging with each other’s arguments is not very different from simply speaking at a group of people. Hotovely crucially failed to do so at several stages, which raises questions about whether platforming her truly allowed the Debate Society to accomplish their goal of “encouraging discourse”. When our campus community is being described as “thuggish” and the Home Secretary makes claims of backing a police investigation into the protests against Hotovely, it may be worth considering whether events such as this truly centre debate and discussion, or serve to only create controversy on campus at the expense of minority groups.
8
Features
Diversifying economics – it’s more than the statistics Sheila Mutua Staff Writer
F
or many, it will be unsurprising to learn that Black people and other racial minority groups are significantly underrepresented in the field of economics. In October 2020, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) found that Black economists are 64% less likely to work in a Russell Group institution than their white counterparts, and those from ethnic minority backgrounds are 45% less likely to hold professorial or managerial roles. Whilst one’s institution does not dictate one’s status as an economist, research output from these universities is published and cited more often. Thus, there is an institutional barrier for Black and other ethnic minority academics. Is LSE an exception? Unfortunately not. According to Professor Francesco Caselli, Head of the Department of Economics, there is only one Black member of the Economics faculty. From his personal experience, the economists he has collaborated with in the past vhave also been predominantly white. Caselli openly acknowledges that “the predominance of white males is an obstacle to increasing diversity”. He says that it is very discouraging that “non-white potential economists see very few examples of suc-
cessful economists of their background, which is especially the case for black economists”, which could be deterring young minority students from studying economics beyond the undergraduate level. Notably, the study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that ethnic minorities were in fact overrepresented in undergraduate economics courses. In 201819, “37% of UK national undergraduate economists were from a non-white minority ethnic background”, compared with 23% and 22% in social sciences and STEM courses respectively. It would seem that there is a growing interest in the study of economics amongst young people, or that economics departments across the country are successfully responding to calls for increased diversity. Yet, a large majority of students use their degree as a stepping stone in their path towards a career in finance or consultancy. 45% of LSE BSc Economics graduates in 2018-19 went on to become financial professionals. Of those that progress to further study, ethnic minorities make up only 18% of economics PhDs in comparison to the 33% of undergraduate and master’s combined. The ‘economics pipeline’ also cannot be ignored in this conversation. The IFS discovered that 70% of British undergraduate econom-
ics students had studied economics at A-Level. Economics A-Level is not offered at as many state schools as independent and grammar schools. The ISC reported that the proportion of ethnic minorities at independent schools matched that of state schools (approximately 33%). However, this statistic encompasses the population of international ethnic minority students, who are wealthy enough to migrate to the UK for their education. This may suggest that even among the non-white economics students, ethnic minorities from working-class backgrounds remain largely underrepresented. As a result, they learn very little about the subject and decide not to pursue an economics degree. Even so, taking economics at A-Level does not always successfully persuade minority students to further their studies. A Black firstyear student studying International Social and Public Policy claimed that the BSc Economics course appeared “too maths-y”, therefore leaving little room for discussion about important economic issues that they had an opportunity to address at A-Level. They thought that a degree in policy would allow them to express their views on such issues in relation to their Black-African identity “more freely”. Professor Caselli warns students
against conflating the mathematical element of economics with the supposedly pro-capitalist ideology that underpins the teaching of the subject: “It is important to distinguish the methodology from the assumption.” He explained that mathematics is the methodology, which will remain largely unchanged as the field evolves. The concept of individual rationality is an assumption that is subject to change. The assumption an economist makes is a reflection of their own views: one can alternatively assume that economic agents are altruistic and collectivist and carry out the same mathematical methods to investigate the results from making that assumption. The issue LSE faces, like many other institutions, is that “the majority of economic research reflects the interests and assumptions of white people”, says Caselli, “so when non-white students are confronted with this body of knowledge, in some cases, they may feel that it is not relevant to them, which might discourage them from pursuing further study.” He adds that as a university that prides itself on its ‘research-led teaching’, LSE should work to deconstruct the monopoly of white perspectives that its teaching is founded on, to then “explore a broader set of theories of human behaviour, so that we have more competing theories”. Diversifying
the Economics Department is the first step towards achieving this. Caselli suggests that having a multitude of Black and other nonwhite economists will provide undergraduate economists with figures that they can both access easily and aspire to. Subsequently, a greater number of non-white students may feel encouraged to apply to postgraduate economic study and research programmes. More materially, the increased representation of minority communities in the Economics Department might allow new viewpoints to be shared in research and teaching. Caselli is unsure whether the rise in Black visibility in economic research will raise the number of ‘altruistic’ economists leading the conversation. However, he does believe that they may be able to provide a deeper insight into how to approach major economic issues – particularly those concerning global and domestic inequality: “I do think that we would benefit enormously from having a bigger range of life experiences represented so that we can write down the right assumptions.” He describes the universalised approach to predicting human behaviour “a major shortcoming” of the way economics is taught. Hopefully, as we see the non-white economist community grow, students will be introduced to updated ideas about how economic behaviour varies between different communities, facilitating the discussion that some Black students believe is missing from economics courses at LSE. As a leading institution in economic research, enacting this change could progress us towards finding more effective solutions to reducing economic disparity, taking into consideration the characteristics of different countries and ethnic groups as part of the assumptions that support the theory. We are already seeing this in action with the LSE Economics Applicant Mentoring Programme. The programme aims to help applicants from underrepresented backgrounds prepare their PhD applications by assigning them a current PhD student mentor in the Department of Economics. Still, these are the early stages of a long transformation process: will LSE’s commitment to diversifying the discipline endure?
Features
Students double-jabbed overseas still forced to self-isolate
9
Vanessa Huang Staff Writer During the ‘pingdemic’ earlier this year, as many as 689,313 users over a single week received self-isolation alerts through the NHS Covid-19 app. Consequently, self-isolation was scrapped on 16 August for fully vaccinated close contacts of a positive Covid case, who are now only advised to take a PCR test. Official guidance specifies, however, that “fully vaccinated” refers only to those who received Covid vaccinations under the UK’s NHS programme, provided 14 days have passed since their second dose. The exemption does not apply to people vaccinated overseas, including those that have received a vaccine approved by the MHRA for use in the UK. The Department of Health’s reasoning is that vaccines in other countries may have been administered to “different standards or protocols”. Despite this stance in domestic policy, the UK government continues to recognise vaccine documentation from a total of 139 countries and territories for the purpose of travel to England, meaning that travellers vaccinated in these countries are not required to quarantine on arrival. Many LSE students, whether coming to LSE for the first time or returning after spending the summer in their home country, received their Covid vaccinations overseas. Angel Wachirapichet, a second-year law student, received both doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine in Thailand before coming to LSE. As Thai vaccines are recognised for travel, her vaccine certificate was approved for an exemption from home quarantine. Yet within days of her arrival, NHS Test and Trace called to inform her that someone on her flight had tested positive for Covid and that she was legally required to self-isolate. Wachirapichet had no prior knowledge of this policy and was under the impression that vaccine recognition would be consistent across all policy areas. She only received clarification that overseas vaccinations did not qualify for exemption from self-isolation after numerous calls back and forth with the NHS hotline. Wachirapichet expressed her dissatisfaction with this devolved approach: “If this law is uniform across the government, then I would understand that maybe it’s
because they’re [unable to verify] the validity of vaccinations overseas. But since [the government] accepts it for travel, I really do not see why they could not synchronise that with the NHS.” Although LSE’s large international student population has been disproportionately affected by this policy, some UK citizens have been faced with the same predicament. One first-year student, who normally resides in England and holds UK citizenship, spoke anonymously about his decision to be vaccinated abroad over the summer, choosing to do so in order to be vaccinated before starting university. Having provided LSE with his vaccination information before arriving on campus, he believed vaccinations would be recognised regardless of where they were administered. Like Wachirapichet, he was only made aware of the discrepancy between UK and overseas-vaccinated individuals when he received his self-isolation order. Describing the system as “unjust”, he said: “I was called and informed I have to self-isolate but I argued that I [was] vaccinated abroad and it’s a valid vaccine. LSE Trace provided me with the information that it has to be UK-administered. That was
the only time that I was informed about such things taking place.” He was asked to self-isolate just after freshers’ week, noting that this had significant effects on his social life. “For the first few days, I felt like, ‘Oh, I’ll be perfectly fine. I can deal with being in my own company.’ But I think from day five or six onwards it hits you that [you] actually do want to socialise. You can only text or call so much. You really feel awful…The minute isolation ended, I was up through the door.” One anonymous American student called this policy “downright unfair” and added that on top of his decreased productivity with academic work during self-isolation, he had lost £350 from having to cancel a nonrefundable trip. Jason Liu, a General Course student from UC Berkeley, felt similarly frustrated by the sudden nature of his self-isolation notice. He stated: “Having to cancel everything I had scheduled for the next ten days… it completely wiped my social life.” Both students were ordered to self-isolate after members of their households in LSE halls of residence tested positive, despite each of them having no personal contact with said household members. As daily Covid case rates continue
to hover at around thirty to forty thousand in the UK, several students worry that they will be stuck in an endless cycle of self-isolation. Liu admitted that the prospect does cause him some anxiety. He added: “It made me seriously consider if I even want to come to the UK if I’ll just be stuck in my room the entire time. It definitely prompted me to think of alternatives, such as doing the General Course from America.” Although some departments at LSE are continuing to offer online options for students unable to attend classes for reasons relating to Covid, School-wide policy stopped mandating hybrid class provision after week 4 of Michaelmas Term. The aforementioned UK student stated: “[Since I’m] essentially paying for university I can’t allow myself to be stuck in my room.” He added, “If they’re not doing online classes, how am I meant to catch up? What am I meant to do?” In light of this uncertainty, he and a number of other LSE students, feeling that they have no other choice, have opted to “speed-run” a further round of vaccinations in the UK in order to gain fully vaccinated status. He elected to receive his first dose immediately after the end of his self-isolation and
is currently awaiting his second. Additionally, the potential of introducing a ‘winter plan B’ in England has started to emerge, which would include the enforcement of vaccine passports. Unless UK domestic policy recognises overseas-vaccinated individuals by that point, those without proof of NHS vaccinations could be barred from entering crowded indoor spaces such as nightclubs and music venues. Nadhim Zahawi, former vaccines minister, had previously promised that by the end of July individuals who had their vaccinations administered overseas would be able to “talk to their GP, go through what vaccine they have had, and have it registered with the NHS that they have been vaccinated”. Jonathan Van-Tam, deputy chief medical officer, has also been tasked with overturning this exclusion; however, changes have yet to be implemented.
10
OPINION
Opinion Editors Sonja Belkin Edouard Chardot opinion.beaver@lsesu.org
The danger of de-platforming at LSE Ela Heeley Contributor
W
hen the LSESU Debate Society announced their event “Israel’s Perspective: A New Era in the Middle East”, one could safely expect that the controversy between Israel and Palestine would attract healthy backlash and scrutiny. Some emotionally charged questions or a few strongly worded emails, perhaps. Instead, what ensued was an embarrassing showdown demonstrating the lamentable state of free speech on campus, contributing to the toxic notion of ‘no-platforming’ – the radical movement where groups or ideas are boycotted because they are deemed unacceptable and offensive, systematically destroying freedom of expression for academics and students. I want to unequivocally state that I do not agree with, nor endorse, the views of the Israeli ambassador to the United Kingdom, Tzipi Hotovely. I find her to be a blatant racist and Islamophobe, a jarring example of extremism in contemporary government. The views expressed here are not affiliated with any of the societies mentioned. Before I came to university, I would have thought it rare for students, who pay thousands of pounds a year to listen to renowned academics and politicians, to intentionally try to stop a debate. The very concept of ‘cancel culture’ in higher education seemed exaggerated. Reports of it looked, from afar, like a scare tactic pioneered by the far right to encourage disdain toward liberal millennials and Gen Z-ers. However, it took barely half of Michaelmas Term for the issue of free speech to arise. The Debate Society event was promoted as an “interactive session”, a chance to call out and oppose Hotovely on her views in an open public forum. It never claimed to support Zionism or the policy of the Israeli government and maintained political neutrality. And yet, in response, committee members were threatened, harassed, and intimidated by our own student body. People attending the event or leaving classes at 32 Lincoln’s Inn were yelled at and jeered. The Palestine Society, alongside LSE for Palestine, campaigned for complete event shutdown and, at the very least, the removal of secu-
rity measures and police presence on campus. It was abundantly clear that, for many, the desire to be sheltered from negative discourse took precedence over academic freedom and even physical safety. And this isn’t an isolated incident. Rather, it is one example of a pattern of students facilitating harmful speech restrictions. LSE Class War – who removed their Instagram account after making an Instagram story that threatened to smash Tzipi Hotovely’s car – notoriously fought (unsuccessfully) for the de-platforming of the Hayek Society back in July, citing its open dialogue around free-market economics as “outwardly call[ing] for the oppression of working class people”. More recently, our Conservative Society received a torrent of abuse after a post on a society debate concerning the privatisation of the NHS gained traction on Twitter. Social media users called for the silencing of such a debate due to the controversial subject matter. Some of the more colourful messages included stating LSE conservatives
quences you receive, whatever people may respond with. No human being should be penalised for who they choose to listen to, especially in an educational setting. Have we become so comfortable that we, as a world leading university in poli-
There has never been and will never be any defence for discrimination. It is one of the most abhorrent qualities of mankind and a substantial menace to society. But if it is not heard, it cannot be challenged. We allow it to persist and subsequent-
“There has never been and will never be any defence for discrimination. It is one of the most abhorrent qualities of mankind and a substantial menace to society. But if it is not heard, it cannot be challenged. We allow it to persist and subsequently refuse to learn from our wrongs.” “belong in a labour camp”, hoping the roof “spontaneously collapsed and buried them all”. Conservative committee member Natasha Bellinger commented: “I think no-platforming poses a massive problem to the LSE campus: encountering and challenging views you disagree with is an important part of education. As an education establishment I think it’d be foolish to give up on an opportunity [to] learn from other people’s opinions.” Here, I must agree. Whilst I completely empathise with the sensitivities of those who feel offended by certain speakers, I also believe there should be extremely few conditions to free speech. Provided nobody incites violence or causes physical harm, you should be able to say whatever you want. It is fair and just, because you are then responsible for whatever conse-
tics, cannot allow an interaction with diplomats we disagree with? What’s more, while the Israeli ambassador finished her discussion in its entirety, the Palestinian ambassador to the UK, Husam Zomlot, postponed his talk after the hostilities on 9 November. The official statement released by the Debate Society stated Zomlot “wishes to return to his alma mater when there is a healthier environment”. This is especially counterproductive as the protests were in support of the Palestianian cause. It has been rumoured that other societies have also had speakers pull out of events in the aftermath. In trying to de-platform someone they were at odds with, demonstrators only put a stop to political balance, and ironically stopped the side they were supporting.
ly refuse to learn from our wrongs. I commend the Debate Society for continuing to host the event despite the madness, and I equally respect all those who (peacefully) protested and continue to engage in open discourse concerning these debatable topics. However, what I cannot stand for is the suppression of the diversity of opinion at our university and in society in general. Note: I also contacted the Labour Society and the Liberal Democrats Society, however comments could not be given in time for the publication of this article.
Opinion
Charity is fostering complacency Vanessa Huang Contributor
F
aced with feeding the masses of people who have been laid off or had their pay cut during the pandemic, food banks have been placed under an extraordinary amount of stress. The images of queues snaking for miles outside of food banks pervade the internet, serving as a visual reminder of the economic devastation wreaked by the pandemic. I spent many of my evenings between the ages of 15 and 17 volunteering at a food bank. I collected unsold food from retailers and delivered this to the food bank’s warehouse, where it would be sorted and redistributed to people in need. I was utterly convinced that this was the solution we, as a global community, were looking for. If we could only scale this up, we could solve hunger. It seemed so convenient that we could divert surplus food from the landfill and feed people that would have otherwise gone hungry. But the reason this ‘win-win’ situation seems so beautifully easy is that charity has de-politicised inequality, on both a personal and political level. Rather than addressing why so many people lack access to sufficient meals every day, we can choose to circumvent policymaking and just hand poor people our scraps, maintaining an illusion of ‘making change’. Rather than mobilising and facilitating collective
accountable. When engagement is no longer demanded of leaders, these citizens become stuck in a state of limbo: able to access important services but lacking any kind of commitment from politicians towards long-term improvements in education, health or infrastructure.
action to solve problems, we make do with charities mitigating urgent symptoms. As American journalist and political pundit Anand Giridharadas says, our preference for quick and easy solutions is not unlike a doctor prescribing a magical cure-all pill without having carefully performed a diagnosis.
It is dangerous to prioritise our own desire for instant gratification over the needs of our community, and become distracted by the optics of giving. In doing so, we risk our governments falling idle and evading responsibility. Providing for basic needs becomes an act of patronage, placing recipients at our mercy. Sudden windfalls occur when we feel particularly generous, perhaps during the holiday season, but dry up with the fading of the twinkling Christmas lights.
Food insecurity will not be solved by simply providing more food, and food banks are not equipped to tackle the financial insecurity that gives rise to it. A food bank is an emergency resource, a life raft to stop us from drowning. We have taken this temporary quick fix and made it permanent. What was meant to be a last-resort safety net has now evolved into our main form of social protection. When we accept and normalise food banks as an adequate substitute for governmental policy, we reject institutional changes towards income, housing, employment, education, and health. When the responsibility for looking after its citizens shifts from the state to the individual, we internalise the idea that global issues can be solved by scaling up oneto-one interactions, rather than through governmental means. The dopamine rush we get when doing a charitable action reinforces our feeling that we are making a tangible difference, at the price of letting governments off the hook. Some point to nations with unstable governments, highlighting that without the charitable sector
11
Some point to nations with unstable governments, highlighting that without the charitable sector citizens would not be able to meet their basic needs. That may be true – many well-meaning NGOs and aid workers may arrive in a country and provide valuable services
to its citizens. Despite this rosy picture, the process of replicating public services can crowd out a government’s financial resources. This can also siphon away good governance through eliminating any means by which citizens previously held their government
Charities should be operated with the aspiration that they will one day become redundant. This is not an indictment of all charitable giving: if charities were to disappear tomorrow, scores of people all across the world would be worse off. But a balance needs to be reached between meeting the immediate needs of people today, and ensuring a sustainable future tomorrow. Unless our charitable giving is accompanied by a wider commitment to political change, we are just muddling along and maintaining the status quo.
Believe in inclusivity? Internet-for-all is necessary Henry Badger Contributor Illustration by Vaneeza Jawad
I
nternet access is not a resource that should be exploited or operated by private enterprises for profit – rather, broadband is a public good that should be recognised as a fundamental human right. The United Kingdom needs to guarantee universal broadband access to every household across Britain, effectively fostering a new cherished public institution that ensures jobs, equitable educational opportunities and increased productivity. This progressive policy is one of the next logical steps the government can take to alleviate inequalities across the country, and pave the way for a more inclusive society. Universal internet coverage is not a novel idea. In fact, the 2016 UN
General Assembly declared that internet access should be a human right, and the 2019 Labour Party manifesto committed to providing “full-fibre broadband free to everybody in every home”. These policy commitments emphasised the long-term benefits, including tackling regional income inequalities, providing thousands of new jobs for the UK economy through infrasvtructure investment and offering financial savings of, on average, £30/month per British household. Paying for the plan will be executed through taxing major technology corporations, such as Facebook and Amazon, who shamelessly dodged corporation taxes in 2020 despite receiving €44bn in European revenues. Unsurprisingly, Conservative politicians and business leaders, such as Boris Johnson and BT chief network architect Neil McRae, have condemned these internet-for-all proposals
as “broadband communism”. I believe that not only is internet access essential for engaging with secondary and higher education, but also for navigating through the increasingly competitive job market. A recent study by Ofcom determined that between 1 and 1.8 million children do not have access to a laptop or tablet at home.
Combined with the Covid-19 pandemic disproportionately affecting the most economically vulnerable, the importance of tackling income inequality is of utmost governmental importance. By alleviating some of the barriers to education and employment, investing in broadband infrastructure has the potential to alleviate
the digital gap for those citizens who have been ‘left behind’ by the rapid digitisation of the economy. Universal coverage for all is also necessary due to the private industry’s failure at managing the existing broadband network. Recent research commissioned by the government determined that
12 Opinion current broadband giants are neglecting nearly a quarter of the UK’s household market, by “ignoring rural areas that they consider unprofitable”. This makes sense: why would BT invest in laborious, expensive broadband networks in the Scottish Highlands when significantly more money can be captured in more densely populated cities? In addition, high barriers of entry and little to no regulations have made the UK broadband market an oligopoly of four providers, the largest being BT with a 34% market share. Privatisation has also accomplished little in terms of lower, more competitive prices: the UK ranks 21st out of 29 in Europe in terms of cost-per-megabit. Not only is the current model not fostering competition, but over ten
Opinion million customers have also been misled into paying more than required for their internet. Ofcom
establish a cherished British institution for generations to come, much like the National Health
and the National Health Service is one of Britain’s finest institutions – consistently considered one of
“The implementation of a nationalised, internet-for-all strategy will establish a cherished British institution for generations to come, much like the National Health Service... With majority public support, the next logical step is action.” has reported that the millions of customers are ‘sleepers’, unaware of when their contract ends, which often results in overpaying. The implementation of a nationalised, internet-for-all strategy will
Service. During Attlee’s 1945 Labour government, the founding of the NHS was initially not actively embraced. Prominent Tory MPs criticised the radical proposal for its “socialist tyranny” and “Hitlerian coercion”. Fast forward to 2021
the world’s best and most efficient health care systems in the world. The policy for internet access for all will similarly complement Britain’s national health institution, and provide every household with a fast, stable and enduring broad-
band network for free. According to a 2019 YouGov poll, six in ten people support free broadband, with only 22% unilaterally opposed. With majority public support, the next logical step is action. As the United Kingdom seeks to recover from endless governmental pandemic response failures, the growing inequality gap and the traumatic exit from the European Union, the country will need to embrace radical, generational policy to foster a more inclusive and equitable post-Covid future. Internet access for all will provide citizens with a new national institution which can redistribute some of this societal inequity, revitalise jobs, and rebuild an inclusive Britain for everyone.
#BeKind to student protesters Natasha Porter Contributor
O
nline civility is a topic that has been increasingly discussed by politicians and the media at larvge. In a world of Twitter pile-ons, hostile quote-tweeting, and online harassment, we are often reminded to #BeKind when interacting with others online. The backlash to Angela Rayner calling Tory ministers “scum”, combined with the government’s effort to pass the Online Safety Bill, would suggest a widespread effort to improve online discourse and ensure everyone is treated with respect and civility. However, online civility was seemingly abandoned by its high-profile proponents after the events on LSE’s campus on 9 November. The LSE Debate Society’s decision
protest based on a 39-second clip. What happened next was a bipartisan condemnation of the student activists. Home Secretary Priti Patel tweeted that she was “disgusted”, adding that “antisemitism has no place in our universities or our country”. Labour MP and Shadow Foreign Secretary Lisa Nandy described the protesters’ behaviour as “appalling” and accused them of trying to “silence” and “intimidate” Hotovely. Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer tweeted: “This is totally unacceptable. Intimidation and threats of violence will not be tolerated.” It was clear that politicians who often fiercely oppose each other managed to find some common ground when condemning a group of LSE students. Even more shocking than this cross-party consensus was the re-
“I cannot help but find unacceptable the hypocrisy displayed by some of the most powerful people in the country in using their platforms to smear LSE students while promoting values of free speech and online civility. ” to host the Israeli ambassador to the UK, Tzipi Hotovely, sparked protests on campus. The video of Hotovely exiting the event venue and rushing into her car to the sound of protesters booing and chanting “shame on you” has received 2.3 million views on Twitter. The viral video was almost immediately picked up by prominent journalists and politicians, who were eager to share their opinions on the
sponse of the media. The Jewish Chronicle described the demonstrators as a “Jew hunting mob” and the MailOnline referred to them as “thugs”. Mail on Sunday columnist Dan Hodges called the protesters “fascists” on Twitter and tweeted: “We need to start challenging the racism and extremism of the pro-Palestinian movement in the same way we do in organisations like the BNP and
the EDL.” Political Editor of the Sun, Harry Cole, called for protesters to be put on a “watchlist”. I have no desire to discuss the motivations of the demonstrators or the politics of free speech and de-platforming. However, I cannot help but find unacceptable the hypocrisy displayed by some of the most powerful people in the country in using their platforms to smear LSE students while promoting values of free speech and online civility.
Characterising these students as ‘aggressive’ and comparing them to violent extremists, despite the fact that the Metropolitan Police made no arrests at the protest and there were no incidents of note, shows a real lack of integrity from the politicians and journalists who spread this misleading narrative. There is clear irony in the way that members of the government who want stricter rules on harmful speech online eagerly participated in the demonisation of LSE students exercising their right to protest, leav-
COP26: did we make the most of our last chance? Lila McNamee Contributor
These generalized promises are combined with the fact that some countries are refusing to take full responsibility for climate change. In a leaked report from October 2021, just one month before COP26, countries including Saudi Arabia, Japan, and Australia made multiple requests to remove segments detailing the harm of fossil fuels and coal from a report by a committee of UN scientists. With these actions coming just before the most important climate conference yet to date, it begs the question if the commitments made by these countries are credible.
T
he effects of climate change are becoming more and more apparent: tropical storms are getting more frequent and violent, floods devastated European landscapes in the summer of 2021 and Madagascar is on the brink of experiencing the first climate-change induced famine. It thus comes as no surprise that expectations for this year’s COP26 were high, especially among younger demographics who will most likely be hit the hardest by the effects of climate change. Unfortunately, many were disappointed as governments are once again dragging their feet and hoping their greenwashing, or performative climate actions will be enough to keep constituents at bay. While leaders pledge their commitment to solving the climate crisis, in reality, domestic economic interests still seem to prevail. Take for example India and China’s reluctance to reduce their coal-generated energy. After two weeks of arduous negotiations, an agreement was finally reached. This was until Chinese and Indian leaders backed out, arguing that the language of one clause to “phase out” the use of coal should be changed to “phase down”. Negotiators caved-in, fearing that the agreement was too fragile to stand up to the two countries whose cumulative CO2 emissions represent 35% of the world’s emissions. World leaders tried to spin this adjustment by saying it is still the first time coal or fossil fuels have been mentioned in a climate convention agreement. However, leaders of climate-vulnerable countries as well as COP26 President Alok
Some justified themselves by citing threats of violence posted by LSE Class War, an anonymous Instagram page which has since been deleted. One threat of violence made by an anonymous account that is not affiliated with the organisers of the protest or the SU cannot be used to demonise hundreds of peaceful protesters expressing their solidarity with Palestine. Conflating them is dishonest at best, and irresponsible at worst. LSE for Palestine, the organisers of the protest, had even released protest guidelines that explicitly condemned any type of violence and discrimination before the protest took place.
13
Sharma expressed their frustration with the watered down agreement. COP26 has been defined by many scientists, journalists, and even some politicians as our ‘last hope’ to solve the climate crisis, yet all that came out of it are vague promises. After ten days, world leaders from 200 countries came up with a list of agreements, including returning back to the conference in 2022 with a stronger, more detailed plan to reduce carbon emissions, doubling aid to developing countries to help with the switch to renewable energy, and reducing methane emissions by 30% by 2030. While at first glance these pledges sound promising, the devil is in the details. Reducing the amount of carbon emissions is vital for protecting the environment. Scientists agree that reaching the net-zero mark by 2050 is essential in keeping glob-
al temperatures from rising more than 1.5C. Unfortunately, the only plan that was made to tackle this problem, is to make a plan. No strict guidelines have been adopted to reduce carbon emissions. The efficiency of such commitments can also be questioned. Plans to reduce carbon emissions and keep temperatures far below 2C were made at the 2015 Paris Climate Conference. Yet, from 2015 to 2018 carbon emissions increased and from 2018 to 2020 emissions plateaued at around 37 gigatonnes of carbon. Not until the beginning of the Covid pandemic did emissions decline before increasing again. Increasing aid to poor countries is crucial to decrease carbon emissions, but it is also a promise that has repeated itself from previous climate conventions. Twelve years ago the promise of providing $100 billion dollars of aid per year by
2020 was made at COP15. Terms such as “urge” and “request” were used in this agreement, but again, there were no specific budgets or proposals to make sure this number was reached. Unsurprisingly, developed countries have failed to reach that amount, leaving nations across the Global South especially vulnerable to the climate crisis. This comes, in part, at the cost of doing the Western world’s business. Carbon leakage, or the outsourcing of production from developed to developing nations has become very common. Environmental regulations in poorer countries are often much weaker and allow wealthy companies to continue harmful practices with fewer immediate consequences. At the same time, many of these developed countries are unwilling to reduce domestic levels of carbon emissions or properly compensate developing nations.
After hearing all of the news about the half-hearted commitments coming from COP26, I, for one, am concerned about the future. Seemingly everyday there are new calculations, like doomsday clocks, counting down the amount of time left before irreversible damage is done. And no matter how many times individuals are told to use reusable water bottles, avoid plastic straws, or recycle, significant changes will not happen until governments and corporations abide by much stricter regulations. There is hope for new effective policy as seen in President Biden’s Build Back Better plan which provides incentives and invests in the switch to renewable energy. There is also the EU’s European Green Deal which, through the European Climate Law, aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030. While I remain optimistic that these projects will be impactful and more countries will follow, performances like the COP26 only add to the worry that this problem will only continue to grow, until there is nothing more we can do.
Thanks for reading The Beaver. ing student protesters vulnerable to online harassment and abuse. The discussion surrounding online civility will continue as long as cyberbullying and online harassment campaigns exist. However, this civility has to be extended to everyone, not just the people who politicians agree with, and they should not be able
to use their platforms to smear our classmates and peers online.
flip for
12 Opinion current broadband giants are neglecting nearly a quarter of the UK’s household market, by “ignoring rural areas that they consider unprofitable”. This makes sense: why would BT invest in laborious, expensive broadband networks in the Scottish Highlands when significantly more money can be captured in more densely populated cities? In addition, high barriers of entry and little to no regulations have made the UK broadband market an oligopoly of four providers, the largest being BT with a 34% market share. Privatisation has also accomplished little in terms of lower, more competitive prices: the UK ranks 21st out of 29 in Europe in terms of cost-per-megabit. Not only is the current model not fostering competition, but over ten
Opinion million customers have also been misled into paying more than required for their internet. Ofcom
establish a cherished British institution for generations to come, much like the National Health
and the National Health Service is one of Britain’s finest institutions – consistently considered one of
“The implementation of a nationalised, internet-for-all strategy will establish a cherished British institution for generations to come, much like the National Health Service... With majority public support, the next logical step is action.” has reported that the millions of customers are ‘sleepers’, unaware of when their contract ends, which often results in overpaying. The implementation of a nationalised, internet-for-all strategy will
Service. During Attlee’s 1945 Labour government, the founding of the NHS was initially not actively embraced. Prominent Tory MPs criticised the radical proposal for its “socialist tyranny” and “Hitlerian coercion”. Fast forward to 2021
the world’s best and most efficient health care systems in the world. The policy for internet access for all will similarly complement Britain’s national health institution, and provide every household with a fast, stable and enduring broad-
band network for free. According to a 2019 YouGov poll, six in ten people support free broadband, with only 22% unilaterally opposed. With majority public support, the next logical step is action. As the United Kingdom seeks to recover from endless governmental pandemic response failures, the growing inequality gap and the traumatic exit from the European Union, the country will need to embrace radical, generational policy to foster a more inclusive and equitable post-Covid future. Internet access for all will provide citizens with a new national institution which can redistribute some of this societal inequity, revitalise jobs, and rebuild an inclusive Britain for everyone.
#BeKind to student protesters Natasha Porter Contributor
O
nline civility is a topic that has been increasingly discussed by politicians and the media at larvge. In a world of Twitter pile-ons, hostile quote-tweeting, and online harassment, we are often reminded to #BeKind when interacting with others online. The backlash to Angela Rayner calling Tory ministers “scum”, combined with the government’s effort to pass the Online Safety Bill, would suggest a widespread effort to improve online discourse and ensure everyone is treated with respect and civility. However, online civility was seemingly abandoned by its high-profile proponents after the events on LSE’s campus on 9 November. The LSE Debate Society’s decision
protest based on a 39-second clip. What happened next was a bipartisan condemnation of the student activists. Home Secretary Priti Patel tweeted that she was “disgusted”, adding that “antisemitism has no place in our universities or our country”. Labour MP and Shadow Foreign Secretary Lisa Nandy described the protesters’ behaviour as “appalling” and accused them of trying to “silence” and “intimidate” Hotovely. Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer tweeted: “This is totally unacceptable. Intimidation and threats of violence will not be tolerated.” It was clear that politicians who often fiercely oppose each other managed to find some common ground when condemning a group of LSE students. Even more shocking than this cross-party consensus was the re-
“I cannot help but find unacceptable the hypocrisy displayed by some of the most powerful people in the country in using their platforms to smear LSE students while promoting values of free speech and online civility. ” to host the Israeli ambassador to the UK, Tzipi Hotovely, sparked protests on campus. The video of Hotovely exiting the event venue and rushing into her car to the sound of protesters booing and chanting “shame on you” has received 2.3 million views on Twitter. The viral video was almost immediately picked up by prominent journalists and politicians, who were eager to share their opinions on the
sponse of the media. The Jewish Chronicle described the demonstrators as a “Jew hunting mob” and the MailOnline referred to them as “thugs”. Mail on Sunday columnist Dan Hodges called the protesters “fascists” on Twitter and tweeted: “We need to start challenging the racism and extremism of the pro-Palestinian movement in the same way we do in organisations like the BNP and
the EDL.” Political Editor of the Sun, Harry Cole, called for protesters to be put on a “watchlist”. I have no desire to discuss the motivations of the demonstrators or the politics of free speech and de-platforming. However, I cannot help but find unacceptable the hypocrisy displayed by some of the most powerful people in the country in using their platforms to smear LSE students while promoting values of free speech and online civility.
Characterising these students as ‘aggressive’ and comparing them to violent extremists, despite the fact that the Metropolitan Police made no arrests at the protest and there were no incidents of note, shows a real lack of integrity from the politicians and journalists who spread this misleading narrative. There is clear irony in the way that members of the government who want stricter rules on harmful speech online eagerly participated in the demonisation of LSE students exercising their right to protest, leav-
COP26: did we make the most of our last chance? Lila McNamee Contributor
These generalized promises are combined with the fact that some countries are refusing to take full responsibility for climate change. In a leaked report from October 2021, just one month before COP26, countries including Saudi Arabia, Japan, and Australia made multiple requests to remove segments detailing the harm of fossil fuels and coal from a report by a committee of UN scientists. With these actions coming just before the most important climate conference yet to date, it begs the question if the commitments made by these countries are credible.
T
he effects of climate change are becoming more and more apparent: tropical storms are getting more frequent and violent, floods devastated European landscapes in the summer of 2021 and Madagascar is on the brink of experiencing the first climate-change induced famine. It thus comes as no surprise that expectations for this year’s COP26 were high, especially among younger demographics who will most likely be hit the hardest by the effects of climate change. Unfortunately, many were disappointed as governments are once again dragging their feet and hoping their greenwashing, or performative climate actions will be enough to keep constituents at bay. While leaders pledge their commitment to solving the climate crisis, in reality, domestic economic interests still seem to prevail. Take for example India and China’s reluctance to reduce their coal-generated energy. After two weeks of arduous negotiations, an agreement was finally reached. This was until Chinese and Indian leaders backed out, arguing that the language of one clause to “phase out” the use of coal should be changed to “phase down”. Negotiators caved-in, fearing that the agreement was too fragile to stand up to the two countries whose cumulative CO2 emissions represent 35% of the world’s emissions. World leaders tried to spin this adjustment by saying it is still the first time coal or fossil fuels have been mentioned in a climate convention agreement. However, leaders of climate-vulnerable countries as well as COP26 President Alok
Some justified themselves by citing threats of violence posted by LSE Class War, an anonymous Instagram page which has since been deleted. One threat of violence made by an anonymous account that is not affiliated with the organisers of the protest or the SU cannot be used to demonise hundreds of peaceful protesters expressing their solidarity with Palestine. Conflating them is dishonest at best, and irresponsible at worst. LSE for Palestine, the organisers of the protest, had even released protest guidelines that explicitly condemned any type of violence and discrimination before the protest took place.
13
Sharma expressed their frustration with the watered down agreement. COP26 has been defined by many scientists, journalists, and even some politicians as our ‘last hope’ to solve the climate crisis, yet all that came out of it are vague promises. After ten days, world leaders from 200 countries came up with a list of agreements, including returning back to the conference in 2022 with a stronger, more detailed plan to reduce carbon emissions, doubling aid to developing countries to help with the switch to renewable energy, and reducing methane emissions by 30% by 2030. While at first glance these pledges sound promising, the devil is in the details. Reducing the amount of carbon emissions is vital for protecting the environment. Scientists agree that reaching the net-zero mark by 2050 is essential in keeping glob-
al temperatures from rising more than 1.5C. Unfortunately, the only plan that was made to tackle this problem, is to make a plan. No strict guidelines have been adopted to reduce carbon emissions. The efficiency of such commitments can also be questioned. Plans to reduce carbon emissions and keep temperatures far below 2C were made at the 2015 Paris Climate Conference. Yet, from 2015 to 2018 carbon emissions increased and from 2018 to 2020 emissions plateaued at around 37 gigatonnes of carbon. Not until the beginning of the Covid pandemic did emissions decline before increasing again. Increasing aid to poor countries is crucial to decrease carbon emissions, but it is also a promise that has repeated itself from previous climate conventions. Twelve years ago the promise of providing $100 billion dollars of aid per year by
2020 was made at COP15. Terms such as “urge” and “request” were used in this agreement, but again, there were no specific budgets or proposals to make sure this number was reached. Unsurprisingly, developed countries have failed to reach that amount, leaving nations across the Global South especially vulnerable to the climate crisis. This comes, in part, at the cost of doing the Western world’s business. Carbon leakage, or the outsourcing of production from developed to developing nations has become very common. Environmental regulations in poorer countries are often much weaker and allow wealthy companies to continue harmful practices with fewer immediate consequences. At the same time, many of these developed countries are unwilling to reduce domestic levels of carbon emissions or properly compensate developing nations.
After hearing all of the news about the half-hearted commitments coming from COP26, I, for one, am concerned about the future. Seemingly everyday there are new calculations, like doomsday clocks, counting down the amount of time left before irreversible damage is done. And no matter how many times individuals are told to use reusable water bottles, avoid plastic straws, or recycle, significant changes will not happen until governments and corporations abide by much stricter regulations. There is hope for new effective policy as seen in President Biden’s Build Back Better plan which provides incentives and invests in the switch to renewable energy. There is also the EU’s European Green Deal which, through the European Climate Law, aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030. While I remain optimistic that these projects will be impactful and more countries will follow, performances like the COP26 only add to the worry that this problem will only continue to grow, until there is nothing more we can do.
Thanks for reading The Beaver. ing student protesters vulnerable to online harassment and abuse. The discussion surrounding online civility will continue as long as cyberbullying and online harassment campaigns exist. However, this civility has to be extended to everyone, not just the people who politicians agree with, and they should not be able
to use their platforms to smear our classmates and peers online.
flip for
social
edited by Alina Chen & Sadia Sheeraz
Office hour with Prof Beav 2.0
by PROFESSOR BEAV & illustrated by VANEEZA JAWAD Dear Professor Beav, How do I make a move on the person I like a lot and I’m like 90% sure likes me back? He keeps complimenting my outfits and being generally flirty and things, but I’m very nervous about making the first move as we’re good friends and he might not actually reciprocate my feelings. Also I’m generally kind of anxious so feel like I need to be at least two pints in to bring it up – please help! Romantic Pumpkin Dear Romantic Pumpkin, This is such an exciting question, I squealed when I saw it. Is there anything more adorable than a ‘will they, won’t they’ unspoken fondness? It’s all so very dramatic and delicious – I love it! Now, I know nothing about you, or this guy, so I’m afraid I can’t offer any specific advice. Drinks-based suggestions, alcoholic or otherwise, are always a safe bet for a casual and conversational date. The benefit of such a low-key invitation is that you can choose to frame it as ambiguously or directly as you like. A coffee date can easily become a platonic hunt for a caffeine fix. A drinks date could become pints with a mate. As for the task of asking, I am a fiend for late evening texting people about plans I would like to make with them. In fact, a text invite to coffee, made after one pink G&T too many, is exactly how your Professor landed their last relationship. Note that alcohol is not a requirement for move-making, but it certainly helped! So, I decided to shoot my shot. What was the worst that could happen? We’re all grown ups. After all, you always regret the decisions you didn’t make, right? Typing under the table at Penderel’s Oak whilst out with friends, I constructed my message. “Hey. Wanna go for a coffee sometime?” Fucking genius. Drunk me had constructed just the perfect message, I’m sure of it. What you want to do is extend a hand, such a casual and relaxed one, that you can hide behind the ambiguity it offers. Sure, it could be a date. But you could also just be doing a nice thing with a friend. Chef ’s kiss. And guess what? He said yes! The day arrived, and everything went well. We spoke for a couple of hours, and when the shop closed we went to a nearby bar, where we had our first kiss surrounded by a loud crowd of pink-faced Holborn wankers in suits. Later, he wrapped his jacket around my shoulders, and we walked along the river back to my flat. And that was it, the beginning of a really nice year-long relationship, full of so many lovely experiences that I might never have had if I didn’t send that initial text. So, darling, no matter what you do, you definitely have to do something. If he’s a half decent person, he’ll take it as a compliment. There is nothing to lose – and potentially all to gain. Good luck!
My favourite kind of green: three must-visit parks by BEN HELME
I grew up in a small town in the Kent countryside; for me, spending time outside is essential. I also arrived in London at a time when going anywhere inside was largely illegal. As such, I’ve become very well acquainted with the squares, parks, gardens and hills. I’ve developed a few favourites. Here are the top six green places for any LSE student, to visit and recharge! 1. Lincoln’s Inn Fields: for convenience Yes, I know – this seems like an extraordinarily bland suggestion. I promise I have better insights than ‘go to that big bit of grass right next to LSE’. But you just can’t beat its accessibility. If you have a spare hour, and some reading you need to do for the next day, Lincoln’s Inn is the place for you. Even if you only go for a short period, you can lie on some grass and escape the concrete. I know it’s nothing special, but it’s perfectly good for a top-up of greenery, and it’s convenient enough that you can go often.
Gossip board
by SADIA SHEERAZ & illustrated by VANEEZA JAWAD and SADIA SHEERAZ
From all of us at The Beaver, good luck to second years – some of whom will be sitting their first in-person exams since GCSEs this January! You can find the Faith Centre on the second floor, across from our beloved Media Centre.
You’ll be able to pick up your copy of The Beaver with a brew in the Marshall Building come January, at the Beaver’s Brew cafe (Mariah Carey’s “Why You So Obsessed” plays in the background).
For those hitting different milestones at LSE, there are baby bibs available at the LSE merch shop – get yours while stocks last.
RIP Zoo, you and your sticky floors will be missed. The AU might move on, but we never will.
To the guy I overheard at Tuns by MISS GRUMPY
Hey, sorry I didn’t approach you that night. I guess I was choked up in a sort of visceral feminine anger. Maybe you would have thought I was being coy. Well, mate, it wouldn’t have gone the way you expected anyway. But I’m guessing you would have liked that nonetheless. Having a girl hit on you at Tuns? Just enough of an ego boost to last you till the end of the week. Oh get in! A spicy conversation starter with your mates. Of course, I know you were just having a laugh. Come on, it was a Wednesday night, pre-drinks at Tuns before everyone headed to Zoo. This is where we let loose, sink into the party spirit. Yeah, mate, chuck those pints down your throat, get messy! Oh, it was chaotic – people were saying all kinds of things they didn’t mean just for the sake of it. But the bottom line is: you said what you said. “Girls at Zoo are honestly so easy,” you slurred to your mates, with a smirk on your face. They seemed to find it amusing. Okay, maybe alcohol got the best of you and the words slipped out. But I found it disgusting. I don’t understand why you were shaming girls who are happy to get with you and perhaps sleep with you by the end of the night. Isn’t that what the both of you wanted? A half-decent person would simply take it as a compliment. Well, with a pinch of salt of course, because both parties are more than likely to be ridiculously drunk. Think about it. The misogyny and disrespect in your words is blatant. So what if a girl walks into a club and decides to shag someone by the end of it? She is acting with her own agency, out to have her own fun, not a passive subject in your twisted narrative. And to the girls who may feel somewhat put off by this – do what’s right for you and fuck those who wanna say otherwise. Especially those weird misogynists, fuck you. You can’t get laid anyway.
2. Primrose Hill: for views, evenings, and a great walk
3. Regent’s Park: for birds, flowers, and a secret garden
Primrose Hill, just north of Regent’s Park, is a famous spot for picnics and views. I swear to you, there’s nowhere better to watch the London sunset – or sunrise if you’re feeling hearty. It’s a rite of passage. Lots of people make the mistake of going on the tube. That way, you’re missing out on one of the best walks in central London! Instead, head up through Regent’s Park, climb Primrose Hill, then walk east along the canal path until you reach Camden. You can stop by the market, the garden centre or top up your strength at the Ice Wharf (the best London Wetherspoons). If you continue down the canal, you’ll reach Coal Drops Yard and St Pancras Square – both are architecturally exciting, romantic hangouts. Set aside a few hours for this walk – you won’t regret it.
This is the only central Royal Park that I don’t feel indifferent towards. Where Hyde, St James’ and Green Park feel over-landscaped and homogenous, Regent’s Park offers a collection of gems. On a first visit, you might notice the beautifully planted gardens, open-air cinema, world-famous zoo and expansive green spaces. Then there’s the lake, which hosts a fantastic array of birds – these include herons, geese, ducks, swifts, hobbies, coots and sandpipers. I basically lived in Regent’s Park last year, especially in St John’s Lodge, its perfect secret garden. It’s home to wonderful artwork and greenery – it’s all the more charming due to its seclusion and quietness. There’s not even a sign to announce it; you’ll feel like you’ve discovered something special.
review
edited by INAYAH INAM and VANI KANT
by TILLY MASON and JACK WOOD & illustrated by CHARLIE TO
Denis Villeneuve finally proves that Dune is not unfilmable. This version, which stays loyal to the severity of the plot in a way Alejandro Jodorowsky’s and David Lynch’s infamously denounced renditions did not, has successfully stood the test of a highly critical audience. No longer a poisoned chalice, Villeneuve successfully harnesses the historically recognised potential of Frank Herbert’s 1965 sci-fi novel through a committed ensemble of actors and expansive worldbuilding, which culminate in a very refreshing way. The film serves a coming-of-age story, beginning with troubled Paul Atreides (Timothee Chalamet) adjustment to his family’s transition to Arrakis, followed by the realisation that he may be the prophesied “Kwisatz Haderach” – a mind so powerful that it could bridge space and time. Chalamet confidently carries the weight of this ‘chosen one’ character, an impressive feat in a major A-list blockbuster. Rebecca Ferguson’s performance as Lady Jessica particularly stands out. She plays Jessica with a sensitivity to the duality between motherhood and her strict obedience to the Bene Gesserit, a spiritual order of witch-like women who have served as the guiding hand of history. This nuanced performance consistently builds tension throughout the film, in which Ferguson leaves the audience guessing where her allegiances lie. Comparatively, Oscar Isaac is less convincing as the benevolent Duke Atreides, falling into character clichés, such as the recurring use of the ‘fatal flaw’ device, a little too easily. The same can also be said of Jason Momoa as Duncan Idaho, the smug yet dutiful soldier, and Javier Bardem as Stilgar, the jaded Fremen rebel. Despite such clichés, Dune’s performances are highly enjoyable and delivered with maturity and precision. Without the colourful range of performances from the overall cast, Dune could easily become a drag, particularly during the film’s slower sequences. Dune is unmistakably a commentary on colonialism, as the two houses compete to seize power over spice production and subsequently exploit the Fremen population. Much like the original text, this allegory is made deliberately visible throughout the narrative and serves as part of the film’s core identity. Amongst Dune’s narrative complexities, the message here is appropriately understandable without feeling overly invasive to the fictional worldbuilding. As we see power becoming concentrated in the hands of an increasingly small number of elites, their excessive contribution to environmental degradation, and the racialised nature of those left behind by capitalism, the story of Dune is more potent now than ever. Through sound and colour, Dune offers a transportative experience. The desaturation and vastness of both desert and desert creature adds a desolate quality to the film, mirroring the planet’s unforgiving nature. These are deliberately contrasted with the sensory overload of Paul’s dream sequences, giving them an intense trance-like quality that makes the film so memorable. Hans Zimmer’s score enhances the grandeur of the set designs and continues to subvert expectations through unorthodox instrumentation choices, such as bagpipes and scraping metal. The sound design is equal parts gentle and harsh, remaining deeply immersive throughout as Villeneuve guides us through action, terror, tension, and beauty. However, it must be pointed out that much of this ‘wonder’ comes from Orientalist imagery: spitting as part of the Fremen’s culture (as explained by Duncan Idaho), and the overtly European Christian costume of the Bene Gesserit, despite its Islamic influence. This is heightened by the paradox of Villeneuve’s decision to cast no Middle Eastern actors, despite the rich imagery its culture provides. Overall, this leaves the film unable to contribute to changing dialogue in the film industry and only adds to the whitewashing of popular culture (literally – Spanish actor Javier Bardem plays Stilgar: the leader of the Fremen tribe). By ending the film with a tense, decisive moment for Paul, Villeneuve knowingly leaves the audience speculating on its sequel. Through Paul’s dreams and visions, the film teases the audience with what may or may not come next, engendering an ambiguity around the story to come. However, as noted by Chani at the end of Dune: “This is only the beginning.” We therefore eagerly await Villeneuve’s imminent return to Arrakis, to uncover how the hints left in this film may coalesce to build the second half of Dune.
The Laramie Project
Blue Banisters
by ANNA BERKOWITZ and BEN HELME
by SHARON ZHENG
Photo courtesy of the LSESU Drama Society
“I’ve never been to a more silent production”, said the woman sitting next to us during the interval. There wasn’t so much as a cough, shuffle, or sneeze from the rapt audience over the course of two and half hours. The LSESU Drama Society’s The Laramie Project is an emotionally affecting production that showcases an excellent cast in a story that is all too relevant, even 20 years after its debut. The play is based on over 200 interviews conducted over the course of a year by the Tectonic Theater Company in Laramie, Wyoming, following the brutal murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay student at the state university. Under the canny direction of Harri Compton and Hadrien Jacheet, the 12-person cast does an outstanding job of portraying over 50 different citizens of Laramie, all affected by the tragedy in different ways. The production was at its best when the cast used the space and props to their full advantage. Particularly striking were the flashing police lights, the use of black umbrellas during the scene depicting Matthew’s funeral, and the reporters’ volume changes. It’s wonderful to see queer narratives at the forefront of theatre, but the script of The Laramie Project is not without its faults. It is procedural, and documents everyone’s perspectives: from the police, to members of the queer community, to the virtriolic preacher Fred Phelps. While it achieves the impressive feat of exploring the perspectives of the entire community, it leaves something to be desired when it comes to Matthew himself. The play centralises him as an event, but sidelines him as a person. This is a stylistic choice - the play decidedly focuses on the community rather than the man. It’s worth looking him up, and affording him greater agency. However, in discussing Matthew Shepard’s case and the attention it received from the American public, the play emphasises themes that remain prescient today, such as the intersection of gay identity, gender presentation, and the stigma around HIV. It achieves impressive nuance as it moves beyond a blanket discussion of homophobia. The play could be misconstrued as objective due to its verbatim style, but it is opinionated and angry at the systems that fail queer individuals and the ugliness and danger of ‘live and let live’ sentiment. Critically, this production triumphs in portraying the tragedy and cruelty of the event. It was a highly emotional production, and we’ll never hear “Amazing Grace” the same way again. We also want to commend the society for donating the profits to LGBTQ+ supporting charities. From an American, the cast should be proud of their impressive accents throughout the production. It was a well-deserved standing ovation. We look forward to seeing what the Drama Society achieves next.
Lana Del Rey reawakens the vintage scene with Blue Banisters, picking up the cobblestones laid by Chemtrails Over The Country Club earlier this year. While Lana’s eighth studio album is the homeland of some of her most consummate poetry yet, the music itself evanesces without leaving an imprint. While Lana’s fragile, airy vocals provide appropriate brush strokes for the relaxed, countryside ambience coloured throughout, they err too much on the lackadaisical side and precipitate an unfinished sound. The production is analogously one-dimensional, hegemonised by pianos, strings, and drums that lack experimentation and verve. Songs like “If You Lie Down With Me” and “Beautiful” blend into one another like a homogenous acrylic solution and flounder to stand out independently. Conversely, songs like “Dealer” and “Interlude - The Trio” add an avant-garde edge, but glaringly stand out from the album’s musical texture, much like blistering paint. Blue Banisters is partly a compilation, sprinkling in unreleased tracks from previous albums, which explains why the album feels like a scrapbook. It harvests stylistic nuances from Lana’s earlier eras and roughly patches them together in one go. So even with uniformity of production, the album doesn’t feel sufficiently cohesive due to the number of anomalies which simply fall out of place. Blue Banisters opens with “Text Book”, whose chorus is the spitting image of Demi Lovato’s “Give Your Heart a Break” and whose verses emulate the sound on Lana Del Rey’s Honeymoon album without adding a contemporary flair. While the lyrical structure is a standard example of Lana’s iconic modus operandi of storytelling, it suffers from disarticulated rhymes which sound awkward in metre with the song. Quickly after, the title track reverberates the audio waves of Chemtrails too closely, causing it to wane into the album’s creatively deserted horizons. “Arcadia”, however, is a breath of fresh air, presenting an emotional bearing that underwhelms in many of the other tracks. String arrangements elevate the vulnerability of the song, and with lines like “All roads that lead to you as integral to me as arteries”, Lana paints a landscape full of Los Angeles metaphors and personal rumination. That being said, the song falters in vocal mixing as Lana’s vocals ring unbalanced in tone, key, and dynamics. Following the hip hop influenced interlude, “Black Bathing Suit” stirs listeners with a hypnotic chorus recalling the soundscape of Born To Die and Lust For Life. “Beautiful” is a fairly forgettable track, though exalted by the delicate chorus and the pre-chorus’ poetic mastery, with lines like “What if someone had asked Picasso not to be sad?” “Dealer” is the “White Dress” of Blue Banisters: an enigma of odd vocals, as Lana’s singing in the chorus is pretty much just screaming. While this stylistic choice is both charming and uninviting to the ears, it deserves applause for its novelty and risk-taking ethos. Without a doubt, “Thunder” is the aurora borealis of the album. Everything – from the old-fashioned setting to the wistful strings – is so cinematically special and the beat drop before the second verse is catharsis at its best. On “Living Legend”, Lana’s vocals sound restricted and sporadically off-key but nevertheless showcase her impressive feat of manipulating her voice between deep and breathy throughout tracks. In particular, Lana’s wailing echoes at the end double as a guitar riff, which is an innovative (and rare) artistic triumph. “Cherry Blossom” is an endearing lullaby that proves how minimalism can indeed work – if done with purpose. Blue Banisters is a respectable, but wildly predictable, artistic statement from Lana Del Rey whose descriptive lyrics float in beauty but whose music settles in the dust.
READ ONLINE: ALL TOO WELL (10 MIN VERSION) • ETERNALS • MACBETH • JARV IS AT THE ROUNDHOUSE
sport
edited by MATT SUDLOW
The time trial by MAX FERRANDINO
Saturday Morning, Carr-Saunders Hall. I wake up at around nine, later than usual, and get ready for the day. Today is my first race with the LSE Rowing Club. I joined a bit late so I don’t even have an LSE racing kit. I rush to have a quick breakfast in the cafeteria before catching the Victoria line to Vauxhall and the South Western Rail to Chiswick. From there, I walk the five minutes to the boathouse along tree-lined avenues, which are always so much quieter than the bustle and flash of Oxford Street or Tottenham Court Road. We then get ready for the race – getting boats out and prepared, getting oars down, and getting dressed. We launch and row down to the start line, preparing for the regatta ahead. We get onto the start line; we start, racing over the 3.7km course as fast as we can; and then we finish, exhausted. We paddle back to shore, get the boat back onto the racks, and cheer on the girls eight. After we’ve gotten everything away, we head to a nearby pub and are greeted with the tantalising aromas of burgers and pies. We sit and talk about the race and how well we felt it went, and then we all go off in different directions – back to halls Ultimately, I do not think my experience is particularly unique. Whenever or Halloween parties. Later that night, we found out that we had won. For me, I step into a boat everything else fades away; it is just you and your crew. coming off a year without rowing, I would say that that was quite an achievement. Sport generally has been a place to find community, not just rowing. If you know how to play a sport and enjoy playing that sport (even if you know Why could reading about my journey to a rowing race and the description of no one at the university), you will have a place to fall back on. If you play how we won be important to you? This article is not simply a day in the life of basketball or football the rules are basically the same in most parts of the a rower, but a description of how I found community in another country. Eng- country. You can connect with people over your general love of the sport. land and London, in particular, were and are foreign to me, and while I knew I could do it – I could handle the transition to LSE – I was worried about fitting in. Coming here for a year after Covid and all the transitions from in-perI have been rowing for six years, and while last year I took up sprinting, rowing has always been the sport I feel most comfortable in. As a General Course student, finding my fit was something I worried about before coming to London. I have always seemed to fit in rowing, and the LSE club is no exception.
son learning to online learning and back again has been a challenge for students everywhere. I came to LSE unsure of my place in the world and university generally, but I was able to find it within the halls and especially within the rowing club. I am thrilled we won, but I was just as happy to be back on the water again, finding my place in the LSE community.
Don’t worry, your Flipside Sport content doesn’t stop here! Visit thebeaverlse.co.uk for exclusive articles, and ones you may have missed, including: A White Man’s Game, Mastering Sport, and The Nationalism Paradox: Sport in China
BEAVER SPORT UPDATE LSESPN Beaver Sound’s brand new “sports” podcast Coming soon...
The men’s table tennis team had their first match of the season against Essex University cancelled after realising not even they cared about it.
Movember madness
by SACHIN JHANGIANI & illustrated by VANEEZA JAWAD If you see members of the AU wandering around campus with moustaches (or in some cases an attempted moustache) this month, don’t be surprised. No, moustaches are not suddenly trending and back in fashion – it’s just Movember!
get involved in the campaign. Gabby Clare, the captain of the netball team says that “the issue of men’s mental health has definitely been on the rise”. “It’s important to spread awareness,” she says. Their team has contributed by playing a game against the SU staff.
Movember is a movement in support of men’s health issues such as mental health, prostate cancer, and testicular cancer. Since originating in Australia in 2003, it’s become a globally popular movement, with celebrities such as Peter Crouch, Liam Payne, and Mo Farah having taken part in it. Our AU is no exception with clubs such as men’s rugby, men’s football, women’s netball, and women’s basketball participating, amongst others.
Several other sports in the Movember moustaches, which team, and crickclubs have taken up run 60km
Jamie Miller, captain of the men’s rugby team, acknowledges the importance of raising issues like this. “I’ve been close to people in my life who have suffered with bad mental health,” he says. However, Movember tends to look at “the harshest edge of the whole mental health issue”, given its focus on male suicide. He doesn’t think the Movember movement is a “great platform to deal with those conversations” but he is hopeful that it could be in the future.
clubs around LSE have been involved fundraising efforts. Apart from growing the men’s football team, men’s rugby et team have been doing, numerous the Move for Movember challenge: to in the month of November for the 60 men who are lost to suicide every hour. The Athletics Club also held a 24-hour relay to raise funds, while the Dance Society organised a fundraising dance session. Links to donate to these efforts can be found on the respective Instagram pages.
While Movember is mainly associated with men’s health issues, the women’s teams at LSE have also been keen to contribute and
Athletes and role models: to be or not to be? by SURYAANSH JAIN & illustrated by VANEEZA JAWAD
Athletes are extremely particular about what they put into their bodies. After all, the right diet, fluids, and medicines not only increase the longevity of their careers, but potentially alter match outcomes. From LeBron James spending a whopping $1.5 million annually to maintain his body, to Antonio Conte banning ketchup from the Tottenham Hotspur training facilities, athletes have always been willing to do whatever it takes to gain a competitive advantage. So, it should come as no surprise to us that when the time came to be vaccinated against Covid, some expressed their reluctance and disgruntlement. And as always, some expressed their outright opposition. In Wisconsin, USA, American football legend Aaron Rodgers has not only championed the cause of ‘my body, my choice’ but stepped it up a notch by spreading misinformation and unfounded anti-vaccine arguments. In a rant on the Pat McAfee Show, Rodgers declared that Covid vaccines “impacted fertility”, and questioned the efficacy of the vaccine by asking: “If the vaccine is so great, then how come people are still getting Covid and spreading Covid?” He also promoted the use of homeopathy and ivermectin as cures to the virus, despite no credible evidence in support. Ironically, Rodgers himself tested positive for Covid on 3 November 2021, despite earlier claiming to have been “immunized” against Covid. Rodgers claimed to have received “homeopathic treatment” from his personal doctor and appealed to the NFL for an exemption to play in the upcoming NFL games, but was denied after the treatment was ruled to be ineffective. While Rodgers claimed to be merely expressing his opinion and didn’t urge people to follow suit, conservative politicians and media in the US have cited his example while condemning vaccine and mask-wearing mandates
as government overreach. This brings up important questions to consider: do athletes have a social responsibility to the general public? Should athletes be considered as role models and, accordingly, be held to higher standards and ideals? Charles Barkley, a legendary American basketball player, famously launched an advertisement in 1993 with Nike titled “I am not a role model”, in which he argued that he did not want to be a role model and was simply an athlete paid to play sports. The advertisement was extremely controversial, with some agreeing with Barkley that parents were in a better position to influence their children, and others vehemently disagreeing, claiming that it was up to the athletes to determine how they want to use the platform they have been given. It seems in modern times, the latter view has prevailed, with athletes becoming increasingly vocal on political and social issues. Marcus Rashford and LeBron James are prime examples of how athletes have leveraged their status and connections to effect social change successfully. Yet as they acknowledge their power and privilege, their lives become increasingly scrutinised and there is a growing pressure on these individuals to lead ‘perfect lives’ and align their opinions and beliefs with what the public thinks is correct. Athletes like Aaron Rodgers would argue that this infringes on their ability to express their individual identity and effectively limits what athletes can do or say. At what point do an athlete’s words cease becoming an expression of their individuality and start becoming a political statement? Are athletes nowadays de facto spokespersons? Are athletes obligated to be role models, even against their wishes? These are pertinent questions that we, as a society, need to carefully consider and answer to better understand the role that athletes play and the influence they wield in the world.
part b
edited by AMBRE PLUTA
How has the digital age altered the way we view art? by LILY WHITTLE & illustrated by VANEEZA JAWAD The internet has transformed the way we interact with art and artists. There are now two perspectives to the world: online and ‘IRL’ (in real life). Art is no longer exclusively found in galleries: it is posted online every second. But how far will this go? Is digital art destined to replace traditional art? Nowadays, artists are using social media as a marketing tool, giving them access to a global audience. According to a study done by Artsy in 2015, 87% of surveyed art collectors looked at social media for new content twice a day. This figure must undoubtedly be much higher six years on.
JOIN PART B Do you write short stories? Do you paint, draw, or take pictures? Are you interested in arts and culture? Write for us! We are looking for contributors, both regular and one-off. We publish art (visual and text) and cultural commentary. Get in touch with our Part B Editor, Ambre, by emailing partb.flipside@lsesu.org
most like an evaluation. It’s distracting as hell but it’s also very useful.” Lily: “Do you think it has opened new opportunities to you?”
Photographer and filmmaker Juliet Klottrupp spoke to me about the way she believes social media has impacted her career. Juliet is the winner of BP’s Portrait of Britain award in 2020 and has worked with the likes of Barbour, Vice, and Nikon.
Juliet: “For me, 100%. It’s a levelling platform in some ways. You can have access to talks, contacts, people, without having to be in the same city or room! Over the last year whilst IRL contact has been down, the engagement over socials has been huge. It’s down to individual personal preference about how it fits with you as a maker.
Lily Whittle: “When you were starting out, how useful was social media to you?”
“I was working with a model recently who is very ‘successful’ – lots of followers, gets regular work and posts so much content. They said, ‘it’s not that deep’. It made me think: is that very laid-back attitude a contributor to their success on socials? That they’re not troubled by how they navigate it so it’s more organic? Which when we had socials down the other day you realise you can’t be dependent on it! It’s sort of fickle in the end.”
Juliet Klottrupp: “It was useful in that I was able to see more closely in the process of other creative practitioners I admired. You can see more BTS stuff, what cameras people are using; where they’re getting film developed etc... Also, for brands I was able to connect with them directly not via another agency but straight to their DMs.”
For Juliet the goal is still to get artwork out there in real life. Social media is a facilitator rather than a place for artwork. But what happens when artworks become digitalised? The rising production of non-fungible tokens, or NFTs, is changing the way we view online artwork. NFTs are digital artworks that are entirely unique (like an original painting) but exist only in the digital sphere. They are shaking up the way we understand art and art collecting, with big names such as Grimes selling a 50 second NFT video for $390000.
Lily: “Is ‘art social media’ a positive space for all artists?” Juliet: “Not all. For some of my creative peers they are against the infinite scroll of socials. The pressure they can feel to be seen, to be ‘busy’ or collaborating…or posting work or sharing work that’s in progress. They’ve opted out but have found engagement in their work harder away from socials.” Lily: “How has social media changed your relationship to your work?” Juliet: “I think it’s made me more organised when I’ve finalised a project to imagine it being wrapped up, posted online and shared on socials al-
With the introduction of virtual gallery tours during lockdown and artists posting more of their art online now than ever, it isn’t inconceivable that this could be the future. Even now, the way we interact with art has become digitalised. The recent Yayoi Kusama “Infinity Mirrored Rooms” exhibition received incredible attention on social media. This immersive installation drew in thousands of Instagram users who took the opportunity to snap a selfie. #yayoikusama now has over 960k posts attributed to it. It is unclear which direction the art world is going to take. But I believe it is clear that real-world art is going nowhere. The fickle nature of the internet means we will never be able to rely on it fully. A digital piece of art does not evoke the same feelings as seeing something in the flesh. No one can claim they’ve seen the Mona Lisa if they’ve googled a picture of it. The digital fatigue of lockdown has left us all hyper aware that the online world is nothing compared to real life. While artists will undoubtedly adapt to whatever is thrown their way, it is unlikely we will be seeing the death of the art gallery any time soon. After all, art is so much more than how it
On unrequited love by EMILY PETROU & illustrated by CHARLIE TO It’s one of those nights. The intervals of darkness which somehow spin my head infinite miles an hour Pierce my plagued brain with pillowy soft sentiments of reality, Incomprehensive to the eternal battle between the sweetest of distortion. The cigarettes of daydreaming impair clear vision; Heaps of puffy smoke scolding the tender waterline blemished; with day-old eyeliner, parched tears of unadulterated emptiness, jaded indifference.
everyone here can see your grief by SANA AGARWAL & illustrated by CHARLIE TO content warning: body dysmorphia, eating disorders, loss, self-harm take a seat, pass the tea around it’s past supper but it’s still tuesday and carrot cake never gets old conversations about how losing someone is an ache that doesn’t silence have been charting the halls, we never really move on from loss we just move forward with it something about broken cutlery and swallowing so hard that you choke on your food, broken first family later the room smells of lavender from the tea and maya from three houses down progresses to talk about how in middle school she’d puke more than she’d eat, how she’s still struggling to decipher which mirror she lost herself to and at that moment i think to myself how with time grief takes its course from a scream that doesn’t silence to lingering whispers. the cake calls for loud chumming and lousy small talk – heartbreak and something about pressing on wounds until fountains of blood spew out, scrubbing the blood clean for months to come
He reached into the clandestine chambers of my soul He stretched and spread and gripped When all he did was leave my heart sore from the acute snap of his puppet-master hands Singing the bittersweet redemption of a story abandoned at the prologue the gnaw of guilt nibbling my stomach in the place of carefree butterflies. He’s never loved me. The cigarettes of daydreaming unapologetically plastered their very intention on the puny box itself. “Smoking can cause a slow and painful death”. A whiff of intoxicating, barren hope lit by the hands of the boy that starred in my brightest of delusions. Another puff. Stubbing out the last trace of his enslaving warmth, it dawns on me; Skies frown and clouds spark in the awakening; There’s no death slower and more painful Than unrequited love.
i talk about how i can only always ever picture myself leaving and that i’m so far from knowing myself i can barely draw the periphery it’s dusky and warm outside, getting darker by the minute as we talk about how the more you breathe the more you gasp for air and some more about anger and guilt and all things human. take a seat everyone here can see your grief it’s much nicer, some solace to breathe nothing like banter and bonding after the battlefield, we’re all women that hurt and heal from lara the cat lady’s greying hair to the youngest one just hitting puberty we’re all humans. come sit take a seat everyone here can see your grief and so we talk brazenly on tuesday’s over tea something something about grieving and shattering and aching more so about comprehending and healing but most of all about camaraderie.
TAKING LONDON BY STORM A CONVERSATION WITH TILLY MASON
interviewed by BEATRIZ SILVA photography by ELIANA RADAELLI
Tilly is too cool for us. I was scrolling through Twitter on a Wednesday morning when I came across one of her tweets and immediately thought: “Dam (pun always intended)! I have to interview her.” If we are being honest here, interviewing Tilly for the cover of Flipside was an excuse for us to meet and have a proper conversation. We lived together in Passfield during our first year and lately she has been spending more and more time in the Media Centre as a contributor to Review. Tilly is a uncommonly multifaceted LSE student: she is the co-president of the LSESU Labour Society, actively involved in student campaigns such as Justice4Cleaners, a dedicated urban geographer, a guitar player (who had her own band), and she doesn’t miss a gig around London. I was bursting with questions, but let’s start from the top. When it came to choosing where to go to university, London was the clear choice. LSE is one of the few universities in the UK that offers a degree in geography focused specifically on human geography, which Tilly had a fixation on since GCSE. “Looking at the way that space and the environment affects people and communities, how people are affected by things beyond their control” is, in a nutshell, what drives her interest in the subject. Beyond this, London is a particularly stimulating place to be for someone who wants to pursue urban geography and look at how cities shape our day-to-day lives: “To me, all of these structural inequalities are built into the city we live in, our environment. They both produce inequality and inequality produces them. The streets we walk down every single day are built on colonialism and capitalism.” Tilly has been looking into how gentrification and the investment of money “in the wrong areas” of London creates spatial inequality: “We have fancy apartments being built at the same time as we have homelessness increasing.” This interest in the stark contrasts and structural inequalities within cities plays a bigger role in Tilly’s life, one that goes beyond her degree and academic interests. Joining Labour Soc when she arrived at LSE introduced her to the world of campaigning and activism. In her first year, she ran for the role of Women’s Officer on a whim, and won. This was at the end of 2019, just a couple of months before the general election. “I’d never been involved with Labour or campaigning or anything, so coming here was really formative. It’s sort of what brought me out of my shell, campaigning and actually doing things that I believe in.” This year, as co-president with Lola Fayokun, Tilly has found it difficult to navigate representing a party on campus that, in recent months, she herself has not felt represented by. “It’s difficult when Labour’s going through a bit of a rocky patch...to me, I see the Labour Society and the Labour party as two different things. There are MPs in Labour that I really like and I agree with...I don’t think we have to agree with the leader.” But some disagreements are difficult to ignore, especially when an issue that captures the attention of national media hits the student body so personally. “When all the Labour leaders said they supported the policy investigations...it was terrible.” Tilly, like hundreds of other students, was at the protests in solidarity with Palestine on the day the LSESU Debate Society hosted Tzipi Hotovely, the Israeli ambassador to the UK, for a discussion. The reaction of mainstream media to the peaceful protests was ruthless, with the original intentions of students being grossly distorted and misrepresented so as to frame the student body as anti-Semetic. “I was confused with how what happened completely snowballed out of control – I had never
witnessed something like that before...but there’s been good coverage of it as well.” Tilly thought it was good to debate, but students should be able to express their opinions on campus free from intimidation and false accusations when a controversial speaker is invited to speak at their university. As someone with experience in campaigning, she has seen first-hand how frustrating but also rewarding activism at LSE can be. Having been involved with Justice4Cleaners for over two years, a campaign organised by a group of LSE students and staff aiming at supporting the cleaners’ ongoing campaign for equality and respect, Tilly has attended town halls and taken part in protests. Although it does not seem like much has changed since she first started, the experience is worthwhile: “Before coming here I had no idea how to run a campaign or how to get people involved. I feel very comfortable doing that now.” When I asked her what she made of the fact that apart from campaign organisers and other activist voices on campus, sometimes it seems that most LSE students are disconnected to social causes, she said: “Normally when you actually talk to some finance-y people, like people do understand what is going on... Most people don’t get involved because of their time, and they are very much in that internship world...but especially issues on campus, I do think people care generally and they support the campaigns.” Last year, Tilly and other campaigners wrote a petition to change the LSE policy towards cleaners during the pandemic, which around 700 people signed. “That was nice. When it’s an easy action like signing a petition, people will actually do it.” Tilly also noted that she believes LSE is not entirely alienated by the “lefties on campus” and students that mobilise
frequently, but that it actually takes advantage of this: “That is appealing to some prospective students… which LSE knows.” Tilly and I both remembered how before joining LSE we quite enjoyed finding out that LSE students protested heavily when the LSE-Gaddafi affair rose to national prominence in 2011, or when UK universities, including LSE, raised their tuition fees to £9,250. With a smirk on her face, Tilly told me that she has the “London School of Exploitation” banner in her flat. So what makes LSE a great place despite its flaws? “The people on campus,” Tilly replied. This was the answer I expected. “We are very much a community that supports each other.” Here, surrounded by fellow campaigners and creatives who care about social justice and thinking imaginatively, Tilly learned more about herself and her interests, both in geography and outside geography. Experiencing life in London and going to gigs with friends has also been a formative part of her time at university. In relation to what happens next for activism at LSE, Tilly simply said: “I think it’s better than we think. Maybe I’m just optimistic about things.” And we do need Tilly’s optimism around campus. What students sometimes forget is that in order for us to be able to sign that petition, someone had to make the Google form. Someone took the time to create that WhatsApp group and sat down to write that letter addressed to Minouche Shafik and Dilly Fung. Tilly did that, and other campaigners like her. She did it while listening to Kagoule, one of her favourite alternative rock bands, working on her geography dissertation, and still managing to attend Flipside Review meetings and LSESU Album Soc events. Tilly is too cool for us.
ISSUE 915
MT WEEK 9 2021 REVIEW: THE LARAMIE PROJECT PART B: ON UNREQUITED LOVE
SOCIAL: THREE MUST-VISIT PARKS SPORT: THE TIME TRIAL
& TILLY MASON