847

Beaver

Issue 847 | 02.2.16

the

Newspaper of the LSE Students’ Union

Exam Timetables; Better Late than Never, but Never Late is Better Taryana Odayar Executive Editor

TWO THIRD YEAR LSE Undergraduate students have proposed that an EGM (Emergency General Meeting) be convened in order to push for the release of the 2016 Summer Term Exam Timetables two weeks in advance of the normal publication date, which usually falls within the last few weeks of Lent Term.

Joshua Ip and Nadia Taiwo believe that, “There should be no excuse in not being able to publish exam timetables at least two weeks earlier. The decision is causing distress across campus. It is costing LSE’s students’ satisfaction.” To this effect, they hope that their EGM will incite an effective response from the LSE Registry as well as Student Services in expediting the release of this year’s Summer Term Exam Timetables.

The EGM is a follow up to the UGM Motion, “Earlier Exam Timetable Release”, also proposed

by Ip and Taiwo, and which was passed on the 27th of November 2015 with 502 ‘Yes’ votes and 1 ‘No’. Having received an allegedly unsatisfactory response from LSE on the 28th of January 2016; two months after the passing of the UGM Motion, the proposers believe that, “The Registry Team should work over-time to achieve students’ demand for an earlier exam timetable release this year” and that, “The Registry should prioritise this task before anything else.”

In a statement released towards the end of last week, LSE SU Education Officer Jon-Rhys Foster, who has been engaged in continual correspondence and meetings with Director Craig Calhoun and Pro-Director Paul Kelly over the timetabling issue, provided an update on the planned release dates of the Summer Term Exam Timetables (http://lsesu.tumblr. com/post/138286639218/ update-on-exam-timetables-lsecommits-to-on-time). An excerpt of this statement has been

reproduced here; “…LSE Student Services has fully committed to publishing the exam timetable no later than 23 March 2016. It’ll be earlier if possible, and it’s already eight days earlier than last year.

Student Services’ statement on the timetable release explains: ‘It is not possible to meet the deadline requested in the UGM motion for publication by Lent Term Week 5, or by Week 7 at the latest. To do so, we would need to have implemented earlier deadlines in Michaelmas Term for course changes and programme transfers; and also to have curtailed – or to even have done away with altogether - course changes for taught Masters students in early Lent Term. We are reviewing all of these processes with a view to reaching a balance between student choice and earlier exam timetable publication for next year (without yet being in a position to offer a firm undertaking that it will be possible to do so). We will be consulting students and their departments as part of this review process.’

I imagine many students will notice that this does not meet the demand set out in last term’s UGM motion. The motion, which passed by an overwhelming majority, asked that the timetable was delivered before the end of Week 7…Despite this, in my opinion the confirmation is a positive step forward for us. Not only the fact that the timetable will be out eight days earlier than last year, but also the admission that a later delivery is unacceptable are both gratifying…The Registry have agreed to work with us on a review of the processes behind the timetable and its release. Through a combination of this, practical action and student consultation, I am confident that we’ll have an earlier exam timetable next year.”

The Beaver also contacted Cheryl Edwardes, the Deputy Head of Student Services, in order to verify the facts and obtain more specific information pertaining to

the exact status of exam timetables release for 2016. According to Edwardes, “Students have made clear to the School their wish for the exam timetable to be published earlier. In response, the Academic Registrar’s Division is reviewing the processes that sit behind the Summer Term exam timetable, which are many and complex.

The outcome of this review could result in earlier publication from next academic year i.e. the 2017 Summer Term exams, though we are not yet able to say how much earlier the timetable might be published. For the 2016 Summer Term exams, we will be doing all we can to publish the timetable as far in advance as possible of the current Lent Term week 11 deadline.

The current review is based on three scenarios outlining changes to the way students choose courses.

We are consulting students and Academic Departments about these scenarios via SSLC meetings and an online survey).

The student perspective is crucial to our planning. Once we have a better understanding of student preference, we will concentrate our review efforts on the relevant underlying processes.

We are working very closely with the Students Union Education Sabbatical Officer, Jon Foster. Myself, the Head of Student Services and the Academic Registrar have met with him on several occasions, and Jon has also held talks with Professor Paul Kelly (Pro-Director Teaching and Learning). We have kept Jon apprised of our thoughts and plans for moving forwards and have been open to his constructive views and input.”

Whether the impending EGM will sway the LSE Registry and Student Services in hastening the finalisation and release of the Summer Term Exam Timetables is yet to be seen, with the date and time of the EGM not having been confirmed at the time of print. The Beaver awaits further developments.

RAG Week kicked off with the Raising Street Festival last Monday. To read our RAG President’s account of RAG Week turn to The Union on page 12

Comment The City

LSESU Free Speech Society: Defending the Systemic abuse of the vulnerable right to expression or seriously misinformed? at Medway Pages 8-9 Page 24

Room 2.02, Saw Swee Hock Student Centre, LSE Students’ Union London WC2A 2AE Executive Editor Taryana Odayar

editor@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Managing Editor Vacant

Beaver

the

the

Beaver

Established in 1949 Issue No. 847 - Tuesday 2 February 2016 - issuu.com/readbeaveronline Telephone: 0207 955 6705 Email: editor@thebeaveronline.co.uk Website: www.beaveronline.co.uk Twitter: @beaveronline

managing@thebeaveronline.co.uk

News Editors Suyin Haynes Greg Sproston Joseph Briers

news@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Comment Editor Mali Williams

comment@thebeaveronline.co.uk

PartB Editors Kemi Akinboyewa Vikki Hui Flo Edwards

partb@thebeaveronline.co.uk

The City Editor Alex Gray

city@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Features Editor Alex Hurst

features@thebeaveronline.co.uk

The Nab Editor

nab@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Sport Editor Alex Dugan

sports@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Online Editor Vacant

online@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Collective Chair Perdita Blinkhorn

collective@thebeaveronline.co.uk

The Collective:

A Doherty, A, Dugan, A Fyfe, A Hurst, A Laird, A Leung, A Lulache, A Moro, A Qazilbash, A Ryzhonkova, A Santhanham, A Tanwa, A Thomson, B Phillips, B Sreejith, C Cogne, C Holden, C Loughran, C Morgan, C Hu, D Hung, D Lai, D Shears, D Sippel, D Tighe, E Arnold, E Wilkie, E Smith, G Cafiero, G Ferris, G Harrison, G Kist, G Linford-Grayson, G Manners-Armstrong, G Saudelli, H Brentnall, H Prabu, H Toms, I Plunkett, J Briers, J Clark, J Cusack, J Evans, J Foster, J Grabiner, J Heeks, J Momodu, J Ruther, J Wilken-Smith, J Wurr, K Budd, K Owusu, K Parida, K Quinn, K Yeung Goh, L Kang, L Kendall, L Erich, L Mai, L Montebello, L Schofield, L van der Linden, M Banerjee-Palmer, M Crockett, M Gallo, M Jaganmohan, M Johnson, M Neergheen, M Pasha, M Pennill, M Strauss, N Antoniou, N Bhaladhare, N Buckley-Irvine, N Stringer, O Hill, O Gleeson, P Amoroso, P Blinkhorn, P Gederi, P Grabosch, R Browne, R J Charnock, R Connelly-Webster, R Huq, R Kouros, R Serunjogi, R Siddique, R Uddin, R Way, S Ali, S Argyros, S Chandrashekhar, S CrabbeField, S Kunovska, S Povey, S Rahman, S Sebatindira, S Shehadi, S Taneja, T Mushtaq, T Odayar, T Poole, V Hui, Z Chan, Z Mahmod To join the Collective you need to have written for 3 or more editions of The Beaver. Think you’ve done that but don’t see your name on the list? Email collective@thebeaveronline.co.uk to let us know!

Any opinions expressed herein are those of their respective authors and not necessarily those of the LSE Students’ Union or Beaver Editorial Staff.

The Beaver is issued under a Creative Commons license.

Attribution necessary.

Printed at Mortons Printing

Taryana Odayar on taking the wheel as the new Executive Editor of the Beaver

From the Executive Editor HAVING WATCHED MY predecessors Jon, Alex and Ellen toil over the paper as Executive Editors, it has not been difficult to predict what being Exec will entail. It will mean spending every Sunday in the confines of the Beaver office, fleshing out the paper with single-minded resolve until getting unceremoniously kicked out of SSH by security at 10pm. It will mean giving up half of Monday to search with squinty-eyed concentration for libellous content, those infernal typos and pesky InDesign errata before the noon print deadline. It will mean being bombarded relentlessly throughout the week with a never-ending stream of emails, queries and the occasional passive-aggressive response to an article. And it will invariably involve neglecting a large chunk of one’s social life and degree, in order to bury one’s head in investigative story leads throughout the week, only to resurface at the weekend with satirical onehit wonders for the following week’s NAB. But it also means being granted the immense privilege of producing a 32 page, weekly student newspaper that is an amalgamation of the myriad array of issues, opinions and events of arguably the most active student body and SU in the UK. Since its inception, the Beaver has upheld a reputation for intelligent and fact-based journalism, which is honest and truth-seeking in intent, and characteristically tailored for the LSE student body. During my time at the Beaver (which, incidentally, is the same amount of time I have spent at the LSE give or take a week), one of the things that was deeply impressed upon me is that the Beaver is first and foremost the newspaper of the LSE Students’ Union; produced by students, featuring content submitted by students, and engaging with the issues that concern students the most. Every week, we aim to

publish content that provokes discussion and advances our readers’ knowledge, to report newsworthy events on and off campus quickly and objectively, and to reflect the diversity and interests of the student body.

This is and has always been the core mission of the Beaver and the foundation on which our credibility as a student newspaper stands.

Sitting in the Executive Editor’s swivel chair in the Beaver office, or as James Wurr rather dramatically calls it, “sitting in The Chair while its still war m from Wilkie”, I am reminded of how completely fulfilling being involved with the Beaver has been these past two years. I am also reminded of the languid pace at which construction work on Clare Market street is taking place given the unparalleled view I have of it from my seat in the office - but I digress.

Whether it was writing a copious number of articles for the paper during my first few weeks at LSE, or editing and sourcing articles whilst learning the ropes as Deputy Features Editor, to being elected Features Editor and conducting interviews with public figures and steering the direction of the Features section of the paper, I have thoroughly enjoyed every step along the way. The Beaver is already one of the best and most memorable aspects of my time at LSE, due to both the people and the work, and I highly recommend getting involved; either by writing for one of our sections, standing for a position in the upcoming elections, or by simply skimming through a copy of the paper online or in print in between classes.

Jon, Alex and Ellen’s time as Executive Editors has resulted in the paper looking the best it has ever been, and I am proud to have inherited a student newspaper in such fine health. Given the current condition of the print edition, I do not intend to make any significant changes to it, other

than considering the inclusion of a separate section for weekly interviews with high-profile personalities. However, I do intend to harness the power of social media to increase circulation of our news stories and articles, and revive our online presence. No newspaper works in just one medium any more, and digital journalism plays an integral role in raising the immediacy with which a story gets out, as well as immersing readers in the stories being reported, using video, audio, pictures and text. Making our writers feel valued and part of the team is also something we have always strived to uphold. Hence, it is important to ensure that the members of the Collective feel involved with the paper and that their contributions are being appreciated, as it is their content that is spread across the pages of our newspaper on a regular basis. Finally, with SU elections coming up later this ter m, I look forward to collaborating with the other media groups, namely Loose TV and PuLSE radio, as well as LSESU Elects, to provide comprehensive election coverage.

Given that this is the first issue of the paper for which I am responsible as Executive Editor, and the fact that we do not yet have a new Managing Editor elected, I feel a tremendous sense of responsibility towards ensuring that this paper gets sent to print without any hiccups. Fortunately, I have the privilege of working alongside a talented, lively, creative and gutsy Editorial board who make up a for midable team to be reckoned with. I truly believe that any publication’s strengths rest squarely on the shoulders of its Editorial board, and in this regard I look forward to working with them over the coming weeks on both the print and online editions.

That’s all from me this week – my first week, so enjoy the paper! Over and out.

TWEETS OF THE WEEK Harry Maxwell @HarryMaxwell Hello, its me Nona Buckley-Irvine @nonajasmine Just saw some sheep. I love travelling to NUS conferences. #WiL16 Craig Calhoun @craigjcalhoun Questioner: Is smoking Opium the inspiration for philanthropy?

Answer: Probably not, since the poor did most smoking. #LSEIndia2016 LSE Students’ Union @lsesu Celebrating LSE’s powerful women - Women in Sport week begins on 8th February on.f.me/1ZYZnmtpic. twitter.com/pDH7IBFQ James Wurr @JamesWurr I found 272 people do not follow me back (via whounfollowedme.org) Aysha AF @AyshaFekaiki free smoothies, bananas, yoga classes, mens health, and PhD de-stress class #Wellbeingweek @lsesu on.fb.me/Jlluh @LSEPEERSUPPORT Liam Hill @liamjhill To sit, to watch, for in that watching what tweets may come as we are dazed when puerile rambling illicits applause.

The Beaver is looking for section Editors to join our Editorial board! Positions up for grabs include: 1x Managing Editor 1x Sports Editor 2x Features Editors 1x Online Editor 2x Online Deputy Editors Please send in a manifesto for the position you are applying for to collective@ thebeaveronline.co.uk, outlining your relevant experience and ability to contribute towards your respective role by Wednesday 3rd February 12pm.

News | 3

Students Continue with Protest Against University Halls Costs Hamza Shoaib Undergraduate Student LONDON RENTS ARE notoriously expensive and have always been a major deterrent to students contemplating studying in the capital. In protest, students from LSE have asked for a freeze on rent increases. UCL’s Cut the Rent campaign has gone further, with students refusing to pay until their rents are cut by 40%. Students argue that, with the removal of student grants and rising prices, universities risk discriminating against students from poorer backgrounds who can’t afford to study in London. However, representatives from both UCL and LSE have defended rent increases, saying that their accommodation

still offers good value for money.

The Cost of Living campaign at LSE has already successfully frozen the price of shared rooms. However, LSE plans to increase hall rents for single rooms by 3% next year. Nona Buckley-Irvine, General Secretary of LSESU, says that if LSE is “genuinely committed to supporting students at university, they should reject this and implement a freeze as a minimum starting point.” She criticizes LSE for choosing “not to directly invest in halls works, and instead make students pay.” UCL students have also complained that high rents have forced students to seek employment at the expense of their education. They argue that high rents effectively discriminate against students on the basis of their financial backgrounds.

In response, LSE’s Residential Services point out that their “income and expenditure is ringfenced and maintenance and refurbishments are paid for out of our income.” In answer to a request for a freeze on annual rent increases, the LSE Residential Services said “We monitor annually, rent levels in London and we believe our halls still represent good value for money.”

This is supported by LSE’s student accommodation survey, in which 79% of residents felt that their residence offers good value for money – a percentage which has been steadily increasing since 2012.

Similarly a UCL spokeswoman hassaid “all of the money that UCL receives in rent is ploughed back into residences … we invariably spend more on residences than

we receive in rental income.” She points out that UCL “rents are far less than for comparable accommodation in the private sector.”

Some students have also expressed concern that rent freezes would require universities to subsidise rents, which would place an unfair burden on the majority of students who live in private accommodation as this extra expenditure may reduce standards elsewhere.

Student accommodation for LSE and UCL will inevitably be expensive due to its Central London location. As such, it is doubtful to what extent affordable accommodation can be provided for students.

Regardless of the outcomes of the students’ campaign, it is likely that accommodation prices will continue to be a contentious issue.

Section Editor: Suyin Haynes Greg Sproston Joseph Briers Deputy Editors: Bhadra Sreejith

Photo Credit: The Guardian

LSESU Publishes ‘Attainment Gap at LSE’ Report Janis Wong WLT President

relatability of academics. Opinions were mixed. Whilst some valued seeing role models leading academic discussions, others did not feel that it made a difference.

It was also highlighted that there is a significant imbalance between the racial representation of LSE’s academics and non-academic support staff. One of the attendees identified that, as a result of historical socio-economic inequalities, academic institutions had no intention for BME participation.

A Euro-centric curriculum may be a result of lack of sensibility on the effect a white curriculum may have on an extremely diverse body.

Others suggested that a culturally balanced curriculum can be encouraged through teaching by themes or concepts, as opposed to teaching by thinkers.

Attendees were also asked to share their own personal experiences being BME within classroom settings. Some found that, as the only BME student in the room, when learning about sensitive issues personal to their own race and culture, it was both difficult and intimidating to raise opinions which contradicted the majority. Moreover, some felt that for modules dedicated to studies beyond Europe, it was uninspiring to be taught by an academic who had never visited or physically experienced the culture themselves.

Others highlighted the difficulties in discussing significant issues of

race and societal attitudes within assignments because only certain historical dimensions were marked.

The evening was filled with thought provoking discussion, with more contribution from students as the session progressed. Conversations continued on even after the evening formally concluded.

Many indicated their interest in further action. There was clear indication that the BME attainment gap needed to improve. However, at such an early stage and without clear root causes, it is still unclear as to what we as the student body and the Union should do. Now with empirical data and student feedback, Mahatir and International Students’ Officer Damien Kemfack will present some of the policy recommendations mentioned in the next Equality and Diversity Consultative Forum.

If you want to share your policy recommendations or be involved with the campaign, please get in touch with su.campaigns@lse.ac.uk.

News

LAST THURSDAY, AS PART OF EMPOWERED, a programme set up for Black and Minority Ethnic students to get involved in and excel at LSE, LSESU shared the results of their ‘Attainment Gap at LSE’ report, with attendees sharing their own opinions, personal experiences, and input in regards to policy recommendations.

The report, which can be found on the LSESU website, was based on LSE data provided by the Data Management Unit. The data covered 5 years of awards starting from the 2009/10 academic year, with consideration between ‘home’ or international and undergraduate or postgraduate students. Even after accounting for factors such as whether English is a student’s first language, the information reflects a persistent disadvantage for BME students, with a lower percentage achieving a 2:1 or First class honours.

After introductions from Education Officer Jon-Rhys Foster, Community and Welfare Officer Aysha Fekaiki, Anti-racism Officer Jasmina Bidé and BME Officer Mahatir Pasha, students began to share their thoughts on what ‘institutional racism’ entails and possible reasons why the attainment gap exists. During the discussion, questions were raised regarding the umbrella term of BME,

and whether the term adequately reflects potential discrepancies within the BME community itself.

Although the reasoning behind the attainment gap for Chinese students may differ from that of African-Caribbean students, the report indicates that BME as a whole do worse than their white counterparts, with no single community skewing the results dramatically.

After brief questions were answered about the empirical data, open discussions began about personal experiences and whether these symptoms were issues indicating towards a greater problem at LSE. Some were critical of the LSE’s inability to retain women or BME academics, with many transferring to other London universities. It was also noted that different departments have very different experiences regarding discussion around BME topics. Whilst some courses and modules are more progressive, others fail to recognise lack of representation as an issue.

LSE prides itself as a global institution with the second highest percentage of international students in the world, however the academic staff and curriculum fail to represent this. Students shared their ideas regarding whether it was necessary that, for example, a black student should be taught by a black professor, and whether there is positive correlation between a student’s effort and the

The EMPOWERED events series continues with “BME Public Speaking Training”, 2nd Febraury 5-7pm, PAR.LG.03, and “BME Students’ Thinking of Standing for Elections Info Session”, 9th February 5-6pm, CLM.2.05 Go to www.facebook. com/lsesu/events to find out more about EMPOWERED

4

| Tuesday 2 February, 2016

Cross-Society Spoken Word Event Arrives Purvaja Kavattur Undergraduate Student

HAS PATRIARCHAL CAPITALISM got you down? Are you in need for a space which centres the voices of women and non-binaries? Or simply are you free tonight?

If you answered yes to any of the above then you’re in luck: because on Tuesday 2 February at 7pm in the first floor of SSH there is a spoken word night! Brought to you by the LSESU Intersectional Feminist society, Women’s Network, and Labour and Cooperative society – the evening promises to deliver poetry which dismantles the white-supremacist, capitalist, ableist, cissexist heteropatriarchy.

Pieces range from the deconstruction of western

colonialism to modern day LGBT+ activism to the racialisation of drug policy. To say the very least there will be an incredible line-up of speakers from both the LSE community and beyond.

Gracing us again from the last spoken word night are Ndeye Diobaye and Samantha Weya. Ndeye is an MSc Politics and Communication student. She uses her writing as a tool to explore the intersection of race, and sexuality and as a tool for the righteous representation of black women. She is inspired

by Tori Morrison, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, and Maya Angelou.

Sam is a final year student at the LSE studying Actuarial Science.

When she’s not studying statistics, she likes to get involved with theatre where she can – watching, directing, writing and acting. She has a passion

for using the arts as a tool to inspire positive social change.

Also performing from the LSE community are Laura Jensen, Nadia Violet Erlam, and Emily Wolff.

Nadia is an LSE alum, having recently completed her MSc in Gender, Policy and Inequality. Now she is the founder and coordinator of the Psychedelic Society of London, and is currently planning a series of events centred on gender, the racialisation of drug policy and the demonization of certain stigmatised mental landscapes. Emily is a final year BSc Environment and Development student from the Netherlands. Her activism and music hangs out left of centre where she hope to find answers and alternatives to the many questions posed by society. Laura Jensen is a General Course student who majors

in government and gender studies back home. Her work focuses on the intersections of gender, mental health, and violence, and she uses writing as a form of healing for her depression, anxiety, and eating disorder.

The IFemSoc is also pleased to announce that Siana Bangura and Tilly Mackintosh, from beyond the gates of LSE, will be performing as well. Tilly is an actress and spoken word poet based in South West London. Seeing the unity between activism and poetry, she tackles issues ranging from the gap year phenomenon and trainer addiction to white privilege, class and war.

Tilly talks at events and readings throughout the country. Siana is a writer, blogger, and freelance journalist from London. Siana has performed on stages and at events in

the UK and in Germany, including The Roundhouse; Poetry Meets Art at Passing Clouds; Underbelly; Rich Mix; The Junction; and festivals such as ClitRock, Fem Solidarity Fest, and Matchwomen. Through her poetry she centres and celebrates the voices of Black women living in the UK. The idea for the event was born from an article posted on Huffington Post about how for homeless people getting their period is one of their most difficult challenges, especially as tampons aren’t donated very frequently given societal stigma.

Hence this event is charged at 5 pounds, and all the profits will go towards buying sanitary napkins for the London homeless.

So if you’re interested in poetry infused with intersectional feminism – then come along and join us tonight!

Heteronormativity Labour Society Embark on Rejected in iFemSoc Political Engagement Week: Intersex Discussion Exploring the Labour Party of 2016 Pascalle Palmer iFemSoc Officer THIS WEEK THE LSESU Intersectional Feminist Society invited Suz Temko onto campus to speak on the matter of intersex recognition for the event ‘What is Intersex?’. Intersex people are those born with sex characteristics that do not conform with a binary understanding of gender.

Suz introduced attendees to XYSuz, an organisation that hopes to establish itself as an NGO. XYSuz is aiming to change the understanding of society as a whole, and in particular medical professionals regarding intersex.

Intersex people are often subjected to surgery mere days after their birth in order to ‘match’ their organs to the gender medical professionals choose for them as most suitable in their opinion, or are forced to spend childhoods conforming to such an identity.

XYSuz, alongside Intersex UK, is working against this with

the ultimate aim of banning ‘normalising surgery’ on children, a practice currently legal in the UK. During the question and answer session, Suz spoke of how the feminist movement must ensure it accommodates intersex people by giving them the visibility that is generally refused by wider society. With 1 in 1000 people falling into the category of intersex, Suz explained how the movement can assist by creating a space for people to speak on this matter and fight against the false conception that to be born intersex is highly abnormal.

If you would like to find out more about Suz, XYSuZ, and intersex issues visit www. xysuz.com. LSESU IFemSoc is committed to providing a space for all people whose voices are not heard by society. If you would like to raise any further issues concerning intersex or any other matters, please do get in touch or feel free to participate in their upcoming events.

Ollie Hill LabourSoc Chairperson THIS WEEK SEES THE LSESU Labour Society’s first ever Political Engagement Week, a series of events both within the LSE community and extending further abroad exploring the importance and relevance of the Labour Party in 2016.

Yesterday evening, a group of students hosted a discussion on the topic ‘‘What Being a Women in the Labour Party Means to Me’ at Westminster Hall, Parliament, exploring what role gender plays in the party and obstacles encountered with three female parliamentary speakers. Tomorrow evening sees the Society collaborate with IFemSoc in an evening of spoken word entitled ‘What’s LEFT of Politics?’ with speakers including LSE students and writer Siana

Bangura. Tomorrow evening sees the Society collaborate with IFemSoc in an evening of spoken word entitled ‘What’s LEFT of Politics?’ with speakers including LSE students and the external writer Siana Bangura.

Tickets cost £5 available via the lsesu.com website, the proceeds of which will go towards buying sanitary napkins for homeless women in central London.

On Wednesday 3rd February, an event with Lucy Powell MP will be taking place on the LSE campus open to all students.

Lucy will share her experiences in the party as a campaigner, MP and member of the Shadow Cabinet, before taking questions from the audience.

She is currently Shadow Secretary of State for Education and MP for Manchester Central, and was previously deputy chief of staff to Ed Miliband. The following evening on Thursday, there will be a motions meeting for the Labour Students National

Conference, where members are welcome to debate policy for the Society’s delegates to bring to the Conference at the end of February. If you are interested in debating a motion, please email it at least 24 hours in advance to su.soc.labour@lse. ac.uk. On the Friday night, head to LGBT+ Activism and British Politics - 2016: What’s Next? at 6.30pm in NAB 2.04 for a panel discussion featuring a number of LGBT+ politicians, activists and academics exploring the next steps for the LGBT+ movement.

If that wasn’t enough, the week actually finishes on Monday 8th February with the LSESU Labour Society Pub Quiz, starting from 7.30 in Tuns. With no niche rounds on obscure Labour facts and a wide range of subjects covered, join us for a night of hard questions by quizmaster Ryan Flack and friendly competition. Nonmembers welcome along too!

Question Time: SU Celebrity Edition Alina Ryzhonkova Deputy Editor THE STUDENT UNION (SU) Celebrity Edition of Question Time saw several former SU ‘hacks’ return to their old stomping ground and debate everything from national politics to student politics, to LSE politics, all in the name of charity. The event was chaired by Harry Maxwell, whose position as Governor and Student Representative to the Academic Board, as well as general involvement in all things ‘student life’, threatened to undermine his impartiality as chair; however, he managed to maintain a commendable level of neutrality throughout the night.

Joining him on both the literal and political ‘left’ hand side of the debate were former General Secretaries Alex Peters-Day (2011-2013) and Jay Stoll (20132014) , and former Community and Welfare Officer Jack Tindale (2012-2013). To the right were

former Disabled Students’ Officer Mark Malik (2014-2015), former Activities and Development Officer Hannah Richmond (20132014) and former Conservative Society Treasurer James Hanson (we didn’t know who he was either).

The combination of opinionated panelists and wellchosen questions led to heated debate right off the bat, especially as the topic of free speech on university campuses came up.

After an impassioned start by Peters-Day on the justification for banning The Sun, Stoll condemned the tendency to infantilize students by limiting free speech, while blaming ‘desperate journalists’ for blowing issues out of proportion in the quest for sensationalist headlines.

Journalists and the media were also blamed for shifting attention from issues that students actually care about to less important issues with more public appeal after an audience member asked “Can we not talk about things that matter?”

as a follow up to the free speech discussion.

From student politics, discussion moved on to British politics, which saw the panel members’ opinions diverge on several topics. Fueled by wine, crisps and strongly held beliefs, the debate ranged from Jeremy Corbyn to immigration and whether Britain should leave the EU or stay in it. The audience joined in the debate and follow up questions kept the panelists talking at such length on the issues that the chair had to start putting a time cap on everyone’s responses.

Unsurprisingly, the issue of hall rents came up; somewhat surprisingly, the panelists presented a fairly united front on the matter, agreeing that more needs to be done, that a rent freeze is a short term solution and that a rent strike is quite an extreme approach, though potentially effective. Adding to the discussion, Nona Irvine-Buckley, the current Secretary General, was in the audience and was able to comment on what is being done

at the moment to make hall rents more affordable. Unfortunately the discussion had to be sped through in the interest of time as the evening drew to a close.

The audience was also star studded with Buckley-Irvine’s 2014 contender for GenSec Sam Barnett taking a break from regulating energy to come along to the event; he was joined by former Beaver editor Dennis Mooney, who was outraged at the lack of Beaver live tweeting at the event. Rounding off the front row was satire-section favourite Josh Hitchens, and former Beaver editor Ellen Wilkie, both taking the opportunity to grill the panel at various points throughout the evening (perhaps in their respective future bids for sabbatical positions? Time will only tell).

The heated debate and need for some strict time keeping on the part of the chair are a testament to the quality of the event put on by the Conservative Society and the Politics and Forum Society.

LSE Academics Aid Colombia As The Post ‘War on Drugs’ Era Begins Jack Greenwood Undergraduate Student ON JANUARY 28TH, PIONEERING members of London School of Economics (LSE) IDEAS, the institution’s esteemed foreign policy think tank, touched down in Bogota, Colombia in order to provide assistance to the nation’s president Juan Manuel Santos on the topic of post-’war on drugs’ strategy. The Colombian Head of State has recognised the Institute of Global Affairs Centre’s extensive contribution to the academia surrounding the endemic issue.

Its work includes the May 2014 publication Ending the Drug Wars which was endorsed by 5 Nobel Prize Winning Economists, several Ministers of State and countless more respected academics. Two years prior, a similar report entitled Governing the Global Drug Wars drew fervent praise from the Colombian boss who labelled it “a valuable contribution to this healthy and necessary debate”, and it is clear that he values the work of the reputable LSE strategists very highly indeed.

Representing LSE Ideas at the South American conference last week were Professor Michael Cox and Dr. John Collins, each of whom are integral to the diplomatic project. In the Colombian capital, the two were eager to present the findings from their latest research probe, After the Drug Wars, to a welcoming audience comprised of a plethora of key

government ministers including the relevant heads of the departments of health, justice, defence and post-conflict.

Collins, asserted pre-conference that the report provides a platform to “move beyond the failures of the war on drugs era”.

He claims that it purports an “entirely new strategy…towards a new global approach grounded in sustainable development, public health, harm reduction of consumption and illicit drug markets, and rigorous social scientific experiments”.

The Colombian delegation have been particularly enthusiastic in their praise of Michael Cox, the world renowned expert on the Northern Ireland peace process, whose framework they employed in drawing the revolutionary armed rebel group FARC to the negotiating table. Cox is thought to have extensively detailed his methods re Northern Ireland to Bogota, but it remains unclear as to whether Santos will be able to mirror the success in his own country.

LSE IDEAS revelled in the 2015 appointment of Alaa Murabit (a postgraduate member of the team and founder of The Voice of Libyan Women), to the prestigious status of Sustainable Development Goal Advocate by the United Nations. World famous singer songwriter Shakira, 4-time Ballon d’Or champion Lionel Messi and academy award winning actor Forest Whittaker are among the 15 other nominated candidates for the position who

News | 5

London Uni Roundup The urban pariah that is the grey squirrel is in reality a scapegoated innocent according to new research

by Imperial College London. The invading ‘super-squirrel’ theory has been disproven by Imperial Italian PhD student Dr Lisa Signorile who insists that “grey squirrels are not as crazy invaders as we think – their spread is far more our own fault”.

Signorile claims that the squirrels received the most help from Herbrand Russell, the 11th Duke of Bedford, who released grey populations into Regent’s Park and gave them as gifts around the country.

“It was a time when we didn’t know invasive species could cause so much damage”, says Signorile, little did the Duke know he was contributing to the spread of the ‘red squirrel killer’ that has become one of modern Britain’s most environmentally and popularly reviled creatures.

UCL has released a damning report of BME promotion at the institution. The university was one of 30 that signed up to an initiative by the Equality Challenge Unit to research and provide potential solutions to academia’s race problem.

The results did not make a pretty sight for UCL officials. Professor Ijeoma Uchegbu, pro vice-provost, said that some of the numbers were “horrifying”. It was found that a black academic’s chances of promotion were approximately one third of those of their white colleagues. Uchegbu, speaking to the THE asked “looking at promotion, how can we defend a position where we recruit people because they are good enough, but they do not progress to the same extent?”

will look to harness their profiles to promote the SDGs as part of an ambitious and transformative plan to achieve them by 2030.

Interested observers will not discover the extent of the findings of After the Drug Wars until the scheduled public release on February 15th, although the peace mongering double act of Cox and Collins insist that work behind the scenes with the South American nation has already begun. Cox has affirmed that the

“historic discussions with President Santos and his Ministers will be vital in shifting the world onto a more sustainable path in its approach to these global issues.”

Ambitious claims indeed for an institution that seems to be at the forefront of international strategic discussion on the issue, one can only hope that similar steps forward are taken by LSE’s timetabling team in line with their publication deadline in the coming months.

Goldsmith’s is to be the new home of a full-time permanent cinema as of this week. In a deal with film giant Curzon, the university has built a 101-seater venue with state of the art projectors at its New Cross campus which will also provide Lewisham with its first cinema in 15 years. Goldsmith’s University Warden, Patrick Loughrey said ‘cinema has always been a vital part of Goldsmiths… from Oscar-winners to the use of film in research and teaching across the university, we have a rich screen heritage’. The first screening will be of Oscar-tipped The Revenant, tickets for students start from £5.50.

6

|Tuesday 2 February, 2016

A Magical Night At The Tuns First Men’s Health Panel To Be Held

By LSESU And AU Bhadra Sreejith Deputy News Editor

THERE ARE VERY FEW events which bring two hundred people to the Three Tuns. The Harry Potter Pub Quiz, which took place on 25 January at 6:30pm, was one of them.

The Three Tuns was buzzing with excitement long before the quiz began. One excited witch posted on the Facebook page that she had been there since 5:20 but had not been able to grab a seat.

Your loyal reporter arrived at 6 o’clock, in plenty of time, she thought, only to see the pub as crowded as it usually is on Saucy Fridays. There was nowhere to sit; people made do by sitting on the floor but were promptly told to get up because of “Health and Safety Hazards”. The event started on time, but there was a twist; due to the aforementioned “Health and Safety Hazards”, the number of people attending had to be cut in half, so half the teams would have to leave after the second round, which injected even more competitiveness into the proceedings.

Every team had to come up with a name; ‘Gringotts’ Summer Interns’ got booed, predictably, as the crowd was presumably present to forget about internships; ‘Neville Wears Prada’ got an appreciative round of applause (later in the night, they won the Best Team Name Award), while ‘Dobby Had It Coming’ was met with gasps and hushed silence. The first round concerned differences between the movies and the books, and was slightly easier than the second round

that was about Quidditch and its rules. Your reporter appreciated the attention to detail in ensuring that the quiz rounds had seven questions. Unfortunately, she had to leave after the second round, because her team score of 9.5 was a full point below the benchmark of 10.5 needed to make the cut.

“This is the generation that has grown up with Harry Potter,” commented Jayant Uppal, President of the LSESU Literature Society. “It has become a worldwide phenomenon. It just sucked you in, in a way that only a few books could. This has shown the lasting influence that this franchise still has. We wanted to have a generally fun pub quiz that would be quite laid back and relaxed. One of my main issues with LSE has been the lack of fun activities going on around the school, and it was good to see the big turnout and how other students actually did want to be involved in these activities.”

He commented on the turnout, saying “The turnout was pretty crazy, we had expected it to be popular but the turnout completely exceeded the expectations we’d had for it.” (They passed their OWL:Exceeds Expectations!) “We had originally booked for just 2030 people and then when the event went live and it exploded overnight, with everyone commenting and inviting others, we tried to find a different location. Unfortunately we couldn’t get a larger venue in the time left to us. We were told we could have around 100 people in there but on the actual day we got over 200 people which was amazing. However, due to safety risks we had to cut this number in half which necessitated the

elimination rounds.”

Jayant also mentioned what happened in the following rounds.

“Post the elimination round we had 3 further team rounds based on Spells & Potions, Who Said and Hogwarts: A History. This helped us establish the 3 team winners and then we had an extremely hard lightning round where each team nominated their best player to come up and compete for the individual prize. For the prizes, we had 5 magical notebooks with a wand for the first team, 5 harry Potter colouring books for the second team and 5 Harry Potter Leather Bracelets for the third team and the Harry Potter illustrated edition as the individual prize.”

The LSESU Literature Society will be hosting a Literary Festival for the last 2-3 weeks of Lent Term, with various collaborative events with different societies within LSE to present differing views on literature. The Harry Potter Pub Quiz is the first event in the path to the Literary Festival.

Credit must go to them for organising such a special event; it was a magical night.

James Clark Staff Writer WEEK FOUR SEES COMMUNITY and Welfare Officer Aysha Al-Fekaiki launch the Wellbeing Week for this academic year. On Monday 1 February, there will be a new event added to the line up; a Men’s Health Panel. Held in collaboration with the Athletics Union and their AU FOR ALL campaign, the event hopes to give people information regarding their Mental, Physical and Nutritional Health.

Guest Speakers attending the event include Russ Harris, a professional personal trainer from SIX3NINE; a training centre that focuses on health, strength and nutrition. With over 5 years of experience of working in central London, he is currently Head of Education for SIX3NINE, whilst studying for his MSc in Strength and Conditioning. Also attending

is LSESU Gym’s Ali Abas, who as a nutritional expert, is hopeful of giving some tips on how to look after your body and how this can affect both physical and mental health.

The panel will also include Ged Flynn, CEO of PAPYRUS; a charity working on the prevention of young suicide. Chosen as one of LSESU RAG’s charities for the year, its mandate is to build a society that speaks openly about suicide and provides resources to those who experience thoughts about suicide. Ged will give an insight into the mental health side of general health and providing information on resources about other mental health conditions.

Taking Place in 32LIF.LG.04 at 6pm, the event is one of many taking place in Wellbeing week, with others including Yoga, Crafternoons, Tea Parties and a screening of The Mask You Live in by LSESU’s Disabled Students Officer and Women’s Officer.

The Fight For Free Speech at LSE Alina Ryzhonkova Deputy News Editor

THE DEBATE ABOUT university ‘safe spaces’ and free speech has dominated national and international headlines, with a recent Free Speech University Ranking released by Spiked adding fuel to the fire. Within the ‘trafficlight’ ranking system, the LSE has earned an overall ‘red’ ranking, with the Students’ Union being deemed more stifling of free speech than the university itself. The accusation put forth by Spiked of the LSE creating a “hostile environment for free speech” rang true with some students who have decided to set up Speakeasy, a society aimed at bringing free speech back to the LSE. Speaking to the Evening Standard, the students expressed a desire to create a space where people are encouraged to discuss difficult ideas and engage in healthy debates about potentially

controversial issues. The need for the society is framed within the context of the LSE’s apparent over eagerness when it comes to banning things on campus. By allowing debate to happen around controversial issues, the students hope to improve free speech at the LSE and stop the school from becoming a “safe space bubble”.

The instances of the Student Union’s bans referenced by the founding members of the Speakeasy society, as well as the ones used by Spiked to support their claim of the LSE clamping down on free speech, include the Students’ Union stopping sales of The Sun in SU shops and the UGM motion which saw the song Blurred Lines banned by the SU. Accusations of censorship were quick on the tails of both of these bans, however, engaging in an open debate at the Union General Meeting and reconsidering the list of newspapers sold in SU shops can hardly be classified as clampdowns on free speech.

The Speakeasy society comes

at a time when freedom of speech occupies centre-stage on many UK university campuses, with Louise Richardson, the new vicechancellor of the University of Oxford, making headlines for arguing that “we need to expose our students to ideas that make them uncomfortable so that they can think about why it is that they feel uncomfortable”. Free speech and an ability to engage in open debate on any issue are integral aspects of higher education and should be protected at all costs.

However, extremes at both end of the spectrum are equally dangerous – oftentimes splashy headlines about university campus controversies have less to do with the controversial topics they purport to describe and more to do with related, but wholly different issues, such as procedure.

See pages 8 & 9 for more articles on the subject of Free Speech.

Photo Credit: The Mancunion

Students Go Barking Mad Discover Islam Week For RAG’s Puppy Day 2016 Comes to LSE James Thomas Bonner RAG Week Officer ON THURSDAY LAST WEEK Sheffield Street welcomed Maggie, Bertie and Charlie. These were the three puppies and dogs kindly brought by London-based charity All Dogs Matter for the much anticipated ‘puppy cuddling’ event organised by RAG in conjunction with LSE Peer Supporters.

After much wrangling and a lot of risk assessments (big shout out to Ciara in the ARC for all her help) the day finally arrived. Although, judging by the length of the queue when RAG arrived to set up it might be possible that some students beat them to it. The event itself was a huge success. Not only did word travel fast enough for students from

UCL and Kings to get involved but it managed to raise just under £500 for RAG charities and, most importantly, potentially rehomed or fostered six animals in need. £3 was the price for fifteen minutes with a dog and a hot drink. All Dogs Matter rescues dogs in need of care with the aim to ultimately find them a home. The stall also gave an opportunity for students to sign-up to volunteer with the charity.

What’s more, puppy cuddling only comprised one part of the RAG Week Volunteer day that happened last Thursday. The LSESU Student Action for Refugees (STAR), AIESEC, Enactus and Penal Reform Society joined the Volunteer Centre and Delete Blood Cancer in competing with Barclays to raise money for some great causes. Well done to all of them.

Shahnia Rahman Staff Writer BETWEEN 1-5 FEBRUARY LSESU Islamic Society will be holding their annual Discover Islam Week at LSE, with the theme of ‘Back to Basics’; helping students find out more about Islam and its practices.

Throughout the week, there will be amazing events on offer. There will be a lecture on the topic of ‘Who is Jesus?’ as well as a Question Timestyle panel event with renowned guests discussing various social issues such as domestic violence and what the Qur’an teaches us about these issues. There will also be a question and answer session after the event, so the society encourages students with any questions to come along and hopefully get the answer you’re looking for. There will also be a wonderful tea party with food and snacks for all to enjoy as a commemoration of Discover Islam Week.

Alongside these events, a stall will be set up outside the Saw Swee Hock Centre for the duration of the week.

All members of the LSE community are welcome to come along and find out more about Islam as well as take part in fun and exciting games.

Representatives of the LSESU ISoc will also be there to answer any questions you may have.

This is a fantastic week for everyone to come together and learn more about one of the world’s major religions. Even as organisers of the week, it is also an opportunity for the LSESU ISoc to learn more about Islam too along with the rest of the student body.

Maleeha Masood, Head of Discover Islam Week 2016, told The Beaver that “for me, the week is really about going back to basics and trying to understand what Islam is all about and what its main teachings are.

We’ve got lectures, stalls and a tea party in the faith centre all with the aim of engaging the wider student body and spread the beauty of our religion.”

For more information on events throughout the week, visit the Facebook page “LSE Discover Islam Week 2016”.

News Analysis: Reaction from the Capital’s Mayoral Debate Held at LSE Joseph Briers News Editor

THE CANDIDATE’S FROM the five major political parties touched swords for the first time on Thursday during the opening debate of the 2016 London Mayoral campaign. Labour’s Sadiq Khan and Conservative Zac Goldsmith headed into the debate with the former enjoying a reasonably comfortable lead over his opponent in the polls; with Green Sian Berry, UKIP’s Peter Whittle, and Lib Dem Caroline Pigeon also looking to gain points in the race for City Hall.

On the same night that Donald Trump ‘empty podiumed’ the Republican primary debate, there was a similarly conspicuous absence from an almost as controversial figure at the London debate as George Galloway was barred from joining the panel. Unsurprisingly, Galloway did not take to this news well and immediately took to twitter to attack the LSE.

One tweet read “maybe if, like Gaddafi, I had come bearing gifts, the doors of the LSE would not have been closed to me last night”. The Respect party candidate said on Friday that he would be writing to the Electoral Commission to ask whether the School had broken any electoral laws in excluding him. An LSE spokesperson said “the organisers used the last electoral indexing in London as a reasonable reference point on inviting candidates to the debate”.

The two frontrunners’ contrasting backgrounds are almost beyond British party political cliché.

Goldsmith, the heir to his father’s banking fortune, is thought to be worth an estimated £300 million, making the Richmond MP one of the wealthiest parliamentarians. A former editor of environmental journal the Ecologist, Goldsmith has rather impressive green credentials and has threatened to leave the Conservative Party should it consent to the building of a third runway at Heathrow.

Khan comes from slightly more humble beginnings. The son of a bus driver was raised on a council estate and became the first ever Muslim to serve in the UK Government when Gordon Brown appointed him Secretary of State for Communities in 2007. The MP for Tooting was originally a lawyer and spent much of his professional life as a human rights solicitor, as well as serving as chair of civil liberties foundation Liberty.

Yet, despite the obvious and profound ideological differences between both the candidates and their parties, the evening went off without any real furore. Indeed, it was eerily cordial. Especially, that is, when one thinks back to the animosity that characterised clashes between Boris and Ken. Even UKIP candidate Peter Whittle was relatively amicable, subdued even, drawing unexpectedly regular and, on occasion raucous, applause from the crowd. Whittle himself was surprised - “I mean this is the LSE!”.

Khan did occasionally attack his Tory counterpart directly, especially when it came to housing.

At one point he lambasted Goldsmith for his definition of an affordable home, arguing that the proposed £450,000 reflected a man out of touch with the realities of the London experienced by many. Goldsmith was typically serene, if a little meek, in his retort, failing to address the claim directly but agreeing that housing was undoubtedly the issue in this election. Given the recent rent strikes, it’s unlikely that London’s student population would disagree. There were also minor tiffs between Whittle and Pigeon over UKIP’s effort to leave the EU and the “insane” consequences for London’s economy, but the event was largely lacking in vim and vigour.

Admittedly, it is still relatively early, and, perhaps, we have been spoilt by the transatlantic debate antics of Sanders and Trump, but watchers of City Hall will hope that the race warms up before too long.

News | 7

News In Brief LSE commits to OnTime Release of Exam Timetables LSE Student Services has fully committed to publishing the exam timetable no later than 23 March 2016, which is eight days earlier than last year. A statement on the timetable release explains: “It is not possible to meet the deadline requested in the UGM motion for publication by Lent Term Week 5, or by Week 7 at the latest. To do so, we would need to have implemented earlier deadlines in Michaelmas Term for course changes and programme transfers; and also to have curtailed course changes for taught Masters students in early Lent Term.” However, this does not meet the demand set out in last term’s UGM motion, which passed by an overwhelming majority, and asked that the timetable was delivered before the end of Week 7.

Income inequality linked to inequality of life spans for first time High income inequality has been linked to inequality of longevity by new research from the LSE and the Vienna University of Economics and Business. According to the research by Professors Eric Neumayer and Thomas Plümper, greater income inequality before taxes and income transfers in a country results in greater inequality in the number of years people in that country live. In contrast, the greater the re-distribution of incomes via taxes and transfers, the greater the equality in life spans.

Two Men Jailed for Distributing ISIS Propaganda Two men have been jailed after distributing Isis leaflets on Oxford Street in June of 2014. The jury at the Old Bailey found Ibrahim Anderson, 38, and Shah Jahan Khan, 63, guilty of inviting support for a banned organisation and of ‘possessing information that could be useful to a terrorist.’

Handing down sentences of 3 and 2 years respectively the judge, Stephen Kramer QC, dismissed any notion that the two men were merely promoting Islam stating that although ‘the stall maybe have been there from time to time before...it’s also likely to have been no coincidence that it was there... when many people were leaving a Pro-Gaza event [nearby].’ The judge did not expand on what link he believed existed between ISIS and Pro-Gaza sentiment

8

|

Tuesday 2 February, 2016

Free Speech is Under Siege

How LSESU’s free speech society will protect the right to expression

LAST WEEK, THE BEAVER ran an article by deputy comment editor Nina Webb on the hot topic of freedom of speech.

Her criticism of far-left magazine Charlie Hebdo’s most recent antagonism - a depiction of Aylan Kurdi as a sex pest was particularly alarming. She not only failed to recognise the tongue in cheek nature of the satirical mocking of the European refugee moral panic, but she seemed completely dismissive of free press and free expression in general. This may be the norm from figures within the SU, but to see a member of LSESU’s press fail to defend freedom of expression proves just how endemic and damaging this disregard for free speech is becoming.

Those who ban and censor offensive, off-colour or unpleasant speech do us all a disservice.

Firstly, they normalise the gagging of dissenting ideas, which may be fine when the censors are on your side, but which will eventually come back to bite you when you find yourself on the wrong side of the rapidly changing sensibilities of the censori-

Comment

Section Editor: Mali Williams Deputy Editors: Nina Webb Dina Nagapetiants Hakan Ustabas

“Those who ban and censor offensive, off-colour or unpleasant speech do us all a disservice .”

ous elite. If it wasn’t for dissent at universities, and if it wasn’t for those who speak out against the status quo, we would all still believe the flat Earth orbits the Sun.

“Only through free debate and public discussion can evil views be shut down, while censoring them provides a glamour they don’t otherwise deserve.”

Secondly, they hinder the most effective way to combat the ideas of bigots, fascists and whoever else is denied a platform.

Only through free debate and public discussion can evil views be shut down, whilst censoring them provides them with a glamour they don’t otherwise deserve.

Those who would censor rather than debate unpleasant views assume the rest of us are too fragile, or too poorly equipped, to think for ourselves. Rather than robbing us of our autonomy, and our right to challenge beliefs we disagree with, it’s time student censors backed down and appreciated the historical significance of the right they so often pay lip service to, but so rarely defend.

If the ‘progressive’ censors of the 21st century actually considered the history of free speech, they would learn that freedom of expression was the right which brought about equality and al-

lowed the oppressed to fight back against their oppressors.

The original enemies of free speech spent their time silencing ‘blasphemers’ who dared to ‘offend’ by questioning religious orthodoxies. Then historical censors turned against ‘offensive’ homosexual literature and ‘offensive’ civil rights campaigners, amongst others.

When well-intentioned contemporary censors clamp down on views they find distasteful, they aren’t advancing an inclusive, progressive agenda – they are continuing a long tradition of silencing dissenters to make themselves feel more comfortable. In fact, a strong, progressive and compassionate argument can be made in defence of the right to free expression.

Defenders of free speech don’t believe in the views of everyone we defend. Characters like Donald Trump and the now defunct BNP are recognised throughout the UK as backwards idiots, but their unpleasantness doesn’t mean they have less of a right to a voice than the rest of us. When we trust others to decide what is allowed to be said and what isn’t we give them the immense power to draw the line wherever they see fit, and censor whatever they fancy – and this power is encroaching to the point where censorious student leaders threaten us all.

Free speech is a right which can only exist either for all, or for none. If you end your declaration of support for free speech with a ‘but’, then you are no defender of free speech at all. Now, after online magazine Spiked has slammed the LSESU for infringing routinely on our right to speak easy, and as this creeping insidious attitude perme-

“Speakeasy promises to stand unapologetically against the enemies of free expression, to foster adult debate and to incubate our fragile right to free expression as it comes under siege.” ates through the student body, a group of students has decided to take a stand in defence of free speech.

Speakeasy, LSESU’s free speech society, promises to stand unapologetically against the enemies of free expression, to foster adult debate and to incubate our fragile right to free expression as it comes under siege.

We represent a broad base of diverse students who are sick of the dismissive attitude towards free speech that has taken hold at LSE. Whilst we don’t believe in needless offense or pointless antagonism, we do believe in complete freedom to make our own minds up and to debate important questions without fear of censorship. Look out for our campaigns on campus, in the national media and at society events, and be sure to get involved and join the society on the SU website. It’s time to turn the tide and take a principled, ‘no ifs, no buts’ approach to our vital right to speak easy.

Credit: Flickr: Alex Indigo

George Harrison Publications Editor, LSESU Free Speech Society

Comment | 9

Motion: Banning the Anti-Ban Society Why we ought to debate banning the LSESU Free Speech Society in the next UGM Maurice Banerjee Palmer Undergraduate Student PERHAPS I AM AN enormous hypocrite: last year in these pages I wrote: ‘Banning things is neither a popular nor the most effective way of improving behaviour. Students’ Unions are becoming increasingly associated with banning opinions or things, leading to being caricatured as left-wing killjoys intent on enforcing their groupthink – not facilitators of a broad experience’.

And now I’ve put in a UGM motion to ban an LSESU society that accuses the SU of banning opinions to enforce groupthink instead of facilitating a broad experience. Right.

“Now I’ve put in a UGM motion to ban an LSESU society that accuses the SU of banning opinions to enforce groupthink instead of facilitating a broad experience.

Right.”

What happened? Have I undertaken Anti-Freedom February? Well to be honest – I don’t really want to ban the Speakeasy/ Free Speech society. But I want to make a point. That, and it would be hilarious if the anti-ban society was actually banned.

I think the Speakeasy/Free Speech Society is self-important and ill-informed. My focus is on their feature in the London Evening Standard because that piece of misinformation went out to three quarters of a million print readers and millions of online users, who have no other information to go on. I’ll outline the issues here but flesh it out over the course of the week online. I don’t deny that the current trend of what is being called ‘campus censorship’ ought to be debated. But let’s do it with a bit of accuracy and fairness.

Firstly, they are ill-informed.

At best Speakeasy/Free Speech seems to be naïve to the limits on freedom of expression. At worst they pretty much endorse hate speech (which is illegal). Moreover they don’t seem to have put any effort into understanding the rationale behind safe spaces, or their effect. And for a supposedly pro-debate organisation they don’t seem awfully keen on putting across the other side of the argument.

Secondly, they are self-important. The first thing I thought when I saw the article in the Evening Standard was ‘Who on earth

are these guys?’ Really, where have these crusaders been? Why weren’t they up on stage with me when I was fighting Meat Free Mondays? Why aren’t they sideby-side with Xiaoyuan Li and Peter Lyon lambasting the SU in The Beaver? Where are their posts on LSE Memes for crying out loud?! Instead of actually doing any debating, our three musketeers have decided to set up a society in the name of debate and get their faces in the papers.

The second half of their selfimportance is that they seem to fall into a group of people who don’t

like a perceived focus on women and minorities. They seem to be looking for a victim card to play and to ‘confuse a loss of advantage with an act of oppression’, to borrow Robin Ince’s phrase.

Justified or not, the maligned SU measures are aimed at solving a problem which they don’t seem to find serious and for which they explain no alternatives.

And the problem is serious.

In 2016, unfair discrimination is alive and well. Women are paid 14 percent less than men. Compared to the white British able-bodied Christian man, in general you’re

likely to be paid less if you’re part of an ethnic minority, disabled, a woman or non-Christian. Why? Well, we can start with the fact that you’re half as likely to get a response your CV if you have a foreign-sounding name.

And they have a silly name.

First they don’t seem to be clear about whether they’re called the Free Speech Society or Speakeasy. But ‘Speakeasy’? Really?

Not only is it reminiscent of a tacky bar in Shoreditch, it seems they missed the bit about ‘speakeasy’ being a word to describe the act of speaking quietly.

To BNOC, Or Not To BNOC?

In the weeks running up to the Lent Term SU elections, BNOC-mania heats up at the LSE Adam Crowther Undergraduate Student LSE IS FACING AN EPIDEMIC like no other. Hall rents? UGM attendance? Censorship? No, I’m talking about the Big Names On Campus.

Or, more accurately, the widespread boot-up of BNOC politics. As we enter Lent Term, it seems every other sentence contains at least a mention of the celebs, the memorable faces, the stars of the SU. At universities like Reading and Manchester nobody particularly sticks out of the crowd, much less is actively known by the majority of the student body. So what is it about this coveted status at LSE that means so many people seem to care about BNOCs? I think, in general at least, the answer to this question is because BNOC status transfers to elected positions. The usual LSE reasoning for this is valid; we’re a political university, and most students are passionate about elections, whether that’s the EU, the gener-

al election, or simply who’s going to get Gen Sec. LSE students, at least in comparison to other UK universities, are bothered about student politics. Additionally, the LSE is a small university, with some big societies; many involved in voting. We only need to look at the President’s of a number of prominent societies to identify some well-known students (Northern Society is a juggernaut in LSESU politics, I’m telling

“So what is it about this coveted status at LSE that means so many people seem to care about BNOCs?” you).

On the whole, the best known candidates win elections. Obviously, there are exceptions, and

other factors such as hustings performances play into it, but BNOCs have a good chance of winning elections by the very nature of their BNOC-ery and their popularity across campus. We’re a university made of high-achievers – our student body consists of the future world leaders and policy makers, the newest generation of big bankers and influential academics (you just know Harry Maxwell wants to put ‘LSE Graduate and BNOC’ on his CV). So, logically, how do you decide who should run our Students’ Union?

One of the best ways to excel in this environment is to be socially successful; to show the political flair that is, more often than not, achieved through being a BNOC. And, interestingly, BNOCs aren’t necessarily the loudest people, or the most aggressive at making friends (Jon-Rhys Foster is more of a cuddly bear than a grizzly bear). But it’s more complex than that. BNOCs are the ones who can work within the unique apparatus that is the LSESU. You can be witty or dry, you can be awkward or smooth,

“As the famous maxim goes: the personal is political, and on our campus it seems more true than ever.” you can be passionate or controlled, but to succeed you need to be able to make use of the multiple channels available to you.

For instance, a certain student newspaper is a great way of getting noticed, and achieving that elusive Big Name. I can almost

guarantee that those running in the Lent Term elections, whether that’s for a position on the Democracy Committee, Women’s Officer, or a full-time Sabbatical position, will write a number of articles on pretty much anything over the coming weeks (maybe we could play spot the candidate in this weeks edition).

Big Names on Campus quite literally need get those names out on campus (‘Nona-Nona-Nona There’s No Limits’ is still stuck in my head) and these names are sure to continually surface. As the famous maxim goes: the personal is political, and on our campus, it seems more true than ever. The BNOCs are gearing up, and I for one, am excited to see what BNOC banter this term brings.

Do you agree?

Tweet @BeaverOnline or email comment@thebeaveronline.co.uk

10

| Tuesday 2 February , 2016

Our Right to Privacy is Being Violated

Bulk data interception is disproportionate and a dangerous violation of our human rights Emilia Brown Undergraduate Student WHAT IF WE WERE TO TELL you that your right to privacy is actively being violated as you are reading these lines? Governments around the world are able to know your internet searches, who you’ve called, who you’ve emailed, where your phone has been located, and what internet games you’ve played, amongst a number of other surveillance measures they do not need.

With Theresa May’s proposed ‘Draft Investigatory Powers Bill’, nicknamed ‘Snooper’s Charter’, surveillance in the UK is set to be the most invasive in the democratic world. Not only does the collection of this bulk data treat us all like criminals, but if put into the wrong hands, could put us in serious danger. It is an abuse of our human rights.

The 299-page Draft Bill states that communications companies must store the internet browsing history of all their customers for a year. This will include cafes, libraries and even universities.

The United Nations has stated that the terms of the Bill ‘unduly interfere with the rights to

“Not only does the collection of this bulk data treat us all like criminals, but if put into the wrong hands, could put us in serious danger.” privacy, freedom of opinion and expression ... both inside and outside the United Kingdom’.

Strong criticisms have also come from companies such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo and Microsoft, while Apple has stated that the proposed law could lead to ‘serious international conflicts’.

Shami Chakrabarti, LSE alumna and director of Liberty, a leading human rights organisation, believes the Bill gives the state ‘a blank cheque’ to spy on citizens, and could threaten the ability of journalists to do investigative work. Liberty’s written evidence on the Bill says that this level of mass surveillance, which includes bulk interception, bulk

communications data acquisition, bulk hacking and the acquisition of Bulk Personal Datasets, is ‘unnecessary, disproportionate, counter-productive and a stain on our human rights record’.

Credit: Wikimedia Commmons

Not only is there a lack of transparency surrounding the acquisition and use of mass surveillance data, with only a handful of MPs knowing the extent of previous surveillance, but there is no real value for money. The Snooper’s Charter is likely to far exceed

the £240m estimated cost, and numerous phone companies have testified that each company could spend that amount alone on implementing the proposed law.

With the vast majority of data having no real use, it calls into question whether this money could have been better spent.

Commencing on 8 February, LSESU Amnesty International Society is launching an AntiMass Surveillance Campaign, where we call for our human right to privacy. This will start with a screening of Citizenfour, which tells the inspiring story of Edward Snowden, who in 2013 sacrificed the comfort of his life to uncover how governments are violating our privacy. On Wednesday 10th, we are then hosting a workshop on how to protect yourself and safeguard your personal data online. This will be run by Ed JohnsonWilliams, from the Open Rights Group, a digital campaigning organisation. On Thursday, we welcome speakers Anthony Glees, a professor of Politics at the University of Buckingham and director of its Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies, and Harmit Kambo, Director of Campaigns & Development

“With the vast majority of data having no real use, it calls into question whether this money could have been better spent.” at Privacy International, an organisation committed to fighting for the right to privacy across the world, to debate the issue.

This will examine the advantages and risks of mass surveillance. The panel will be chaired

by Andrew Murray, Professor of Law with particular reference to New Media and Technology at the LSE. We will also be handing out information and fundraising outside the SU on campus from Monday to Thursday. For more information, find us on Facebook at ‘Anti-Mass Surveillance Campaign, LSESU Amnesty International Society’.

Please join us as we call for more transparent surveillance laws, and our right to privacy.

Thoughts on the London Mayoral Debate Despite their differences, Sadiq Khan and Zach Goldsmith both led the debate at LSE

IN AN ELECTION WHERE both candidates are neck and neck in the polls, and 44% of voters are undecided, debates like the one at LSE a few days ago are critical for both Labour’s Sadiq Khan and the Conservative’s Zach Goldsmith.

But much like their figures in the polls, the debate seemed like a dead heat.

This can be explained: Sadiq and Zach’s similarities are as striking as their differences. Sadiq is a hard headed, working class man whose father was a bus driver, and who has had to work his way up the greasy ladder to where he is now.

Zach on the other hand, is the embodiment of privilege; the son of aristocrats, educated in Eton then Cambridge, spent his pre-political career working for his uncle’s newspaper, and inherited £200 million from his father when he died. Zach is from Venus and Sadiq is from Mars. Sadiq is a British-Pakistani and Zach is white, Sadiq is working class and Zach is an aristocrat, but tellingly, inside they are very much the same. Both can command a crowd, both are likeable, both are politically savvy, and both have a vision for London.

“It will be a close contest, but I’m hedging my bets with Sadiq.

Mainly because I have enough faith in humanity...”

Who will win will be decided on a two narrow themes. The first and biggest is housing. Sadiq halfway through the debate absolutely nailed Zach on his approach to housing, called his views of a £400,000 home ‘affordable’ as ‘out of touch’. Sadiq offered a clear positive alternative, in the form of a living rent linked to earnings, and a scheme to help regulate renting to the benefit of renters and small landlords. Zach was very much undermined by this and had no real alternative above piecemeal policies and empty rhetoric. On the other hand Zach came into his own in the second half of the debate, where he exceeded his 30 second time slot by 6 minutes with a charismatic push for a London-wide super-fast broadband. Zach’s policies really don’t amount to much, but

his quiet confidence and presentation is superb, embracing the personality politics which is the London Mayoral race, left as a legacy from Boris Johnson.

The debate also included token showings from the other parties, the Greens, UKIP and the Liberal Democrats. The Green candidate came across as well thought through, radical but pragmatic, and a very good choice is if wasn’t for the fact it would be a wasted vote. The UKIP candidate was very normal, sane even, a very surprising change from the party that is a Tory/BNP unholy alliance. He spoke a lot of sense in many areas, commenting on how the police should more be locally run and staffed, until he inevitably felt compelled to bring up immigration. He gave off the persona of a door to door salesman, selling a seemingly good product - until you look at the small print and find out he really dislikes immigrants. The Lib Dem candidate was as irrelevant as you expect someone representing that party to be. Her name was Caroline Pidgeon. She said something about ‘fair targeted fare reductions’. She was bland, useless, and isn’t even worth the awful joke I was going to write about there being ‘enough pigeons in London’.

So the candidates are neck and

neck, the other parties are in the background, who will undermine the other enough to slip across into a majority? It will be a close contest, but I am hedging my bets with Sadiq. Mainly because I have enough faith in humanity that voters are so affected by rent and housing prices that they will see no other option but to vote Labour.

But the polls don’t indicate it, and the public have voted for another

Conservative government completely against their own economic interest. So who knows. But what is a certainty is that students and Londoners need to organise locally against this purging of London through housing and conversion of it into a playground for the rich. Whoever is elected will have no choice but to listen to a strong, organised collective who are demanding their rights.

Credit: Twitter: LSE Public Events

Frank Morley Undergraduate Student

More Than ‘A Bunch of Migrants’

Comment | 11

These remarks demonstrate that David Cameron does not care about the plight of refugees Yllka Krasniqi Postgraduate Student

“This is certainly not the kind of language I want to be hearing from our Prime Minister.”

policies bare. Andy Burnham, the shadow Home Secretary, gave an interesting comment that it was Holocaust Memorial Day the day when Cameron made those comments. It is ironic and somewhat depressing to hear our Prime Minister, representative of the British people making these divisive comments as people remember the Holocaust – a dark time of divisiveness and hatred of the ‘Other’. It seems that history repeats itself in different ways, Jews and other persecuted people fled Nazi Germany as are the Syrians and other refugees being displaced from wars and conflicts in the Middle East.

Politicians making these comments only to serves to fuel hatred and promote division, and not aid these people in need.

Burnham also made a second comment that ‘Cameron’s

“It seems that history repeats itself in different ways, Jews and other persecuted people fled Nazi Germany just as are the Syrians and other refugees...” mask was slipping’, which is important to note as it suggests the more cynical side of politics. This throws light on the fact that many politicians are geared towards appealing to the electorate purely on the basis of winning support. This

career-driven politician is suppressed from view, and from the public gaze, by many politicians. Cameron seems to have shown this side of himself as the remarks he made ‘about a bunch of migrants’ were not only dehumanising, which remind us of the time he referred to migrants as a ‘swarm’, but also suggest his lack of humanity.

The fact that these so called ‘migrants’ are vulnerable people in need of our help is not important to Cameron. Instead, it may be argued that the fact that these ‘migrants’ are not a part of the electorate or have a voice in politics means that it does not affect or determine his popularity ratings.

Thus, the underlying current of nationalistic sentiments seem to be creeping into mainstream British politics.

Credit: Flickr: Irish Defence Force

WEDNESDAY IN PRIME Minister’s Questions, David Cameron referred to the refugees living in Calais as ‘a bunch of migrants’. This is certainly not the kind of language I want to be hearing from our Prime Minister. The man that is in charge of the government, presiding over an immense amount of power in foreign policy, foreign aid, and in housing refugees into Britain.

These comments made by Cameron are worrying. The context of his controversial remark came when he replied to Jeremy Corbyn, saying that the Opposition leader had met with the Argentinians and ‘gave them Falkland’, ‘met with a bunch of migrants in Calais’,

and was not ‘standing up for British people’.

By making these remarks, Cameron has clearly demonstrated what he actually thinks about people in desperation.

He does not care about these refugees and the fact that Corbyn had even met with them seems to have met with an underlying tone of ridicule.

Tearing back the soundbites and revised lines, these remarks have exposed Cameron and his

The Representation of Women in Politics In politics, should women only be represented by other women?

Saleha Malik Postgraduate Student IT IS UNIVERSAL knowledge that political representatives often symbolise the elite echelons of society. Even where representatives are selected through objective and democratic elections, it is frequently observed that legislative assemblies continue to be unrepresentative of specific groups.

The necessity for a greater amount of female representation in a legislature has been considered significant because it boosts the expanse of legislative attentiveness to female policy significances. Female politicians may improve external efficiency since their occupation in office proposes to the female populace that the government is effectively executing policies, particularly those that female citizens are concerned with. This conjecture is reinforced by research that advocates that women state legislators are policy frontrun-

ners with regards to women’s concerns. Female politicians are additionally regarded as more proficient on compassion matters such as healthcare and education, matters that are usually of greater value to female citizens.

According to many women, their gender has a more consultative method to politics as opposed to men, and that the equality and presence of more women in government will enhance the value of representa-

“Female politicians are additionally regarded as more proficient on compassion matters such as healthcare and education.”

tive democracy. It is probable that women rather than men will highlight domestic matters and matters that have the most direct influence on families.

For example, taking into account the US Congress, a large number of women comprising the Congress belong to the Democratic Party, whilst, the Republican Party in the US has much fewer women. Many researchers believe that it is due to the under representation of women in the Republican Party and thus, the US Congress, that leads to delays in passing congressional votes on important acts protecting women’s rights such as the Violence Against Women Act. It can be argued that a high proportion of women in both parties, in both the House and the Senate, could lead to these acts being passed more swiftly.

But does having a relation of identity really say anything about what the representative does?

To assume that women can only be represented by other

“Certainly for some women, winning and staying in office can be dependent upon moderating feminist views.” women puts forth the repercussion that it is, therefore, not possible for men to be represented by women. It also asserts that every woman representative symbolises all women, that too uniformly, regardless of their political views, race, ethnicity, or other dissimilarities. Hence, it can be argued that identity classifications like that of ‘women’ are intrinsically exclusive and aid to represent one dissimilarity while removing and concealing others. Also, it is not necessarily the case that women representatives preserve a feminist view on policies. Certainly

for some women, winning and staying in office can be dependent upon moderating feminist views.

Furthermore, communication between those represented and their representative is subject to change through time and from group to group. Historical situations can affect sufficient interaction between members of different groups, especially if one group is traditionally superior and the other traditionally inferior. A past of supremacy and subservience normally raises attention, even egotism, with regards to the superior group and suspicion with regards to the inferior group.

Lastly, such kind of representation could possibly weaken the bonds of concord across a nation, political party or movement as emerging institutions support citizens to acknowledge themselves more as part of a subgroup. Thus, encouraging subgroups could potentially undermine the overall unity amongst the citizens.

12| Tuesday 2 February, 2016

Lse has most successful rag week in the country James Wurr RAG President

The Union

THE LSESU RAG SOCIETY HAS just completed its most successful RAG Week in history and the biggest nationwide this academic year.

The final total is still being calculated as this goes to press but early estimates suggest that the week has raised a phenomenal £16,000.

What makes this effort even more impressive, is LSE’s relatively small student population compared to the huge populations of Warwick and Southampton, which outnumber us by almost three to one.

I have been incredibly impressed with the huge numbers of societies and clubs which have been involved with the week. Over 25 have either run a stall on Sheffield Street, been involved in a challenge or helped with the puppy stall. A huge thank you to all of you for making this week what it has been.

The week kicked off on Thursday 21st of January with the Beyond The Classroom: RAG Week launch event. Here four panellists from some of RAG’s chosen charities including St Mungo’s Broadway, Farm Africa and Breast Cancer Now, debated the topic of the Third Sector, answering the question of what the sector consists of, where it will go in the future and job opportunities.

The first Friday began with the launch of Jailbreak 2016 where 35 RAGlets broke free of the LSE prison and between them reached over 21,000 km. Four teams managed to get free flights including the incredible ‘London Heathrow’

who managed to get all the way to Bangkok courtesy of Thai Airways. Other destinations reached included Bucharest, Berlin and Malaga with £5,100 raised for Farm Africa. In the evening, the Drama Society performed their 24 Hour Play. The previous evening, titles, character names and play lines had been auctioned off all for RAG’s three chosen charities. The performances of ‘Jeremy Corbyn: Pet Detective?’ and ‘Dick Cheney Makes Money Off The Iraq War’ were well written and incredibly funny. A personal highlight was making a cameo in the now infamous Magic Wank Swap (check out YouTube.)

After a weekend of tracking Jailbreak, RAG Week kicked off properly the following Monday with the Raising Street Festival.

Here, the Vietnam, Nepalese and Baking societies combined with RAG and the Women’s Rugby Club to raise an amazing £800 for charities of their choice. On the other side of the street, the Sponge A BNOC event ensued. Hockey members broke the cardboard hula girl within 20 minutes and several buckets of water were thrown but our 10 BNOC’s raised £85 for their four hours’ work!

The Rowing Club took over the Tuesday daytime with their Rowathon to Paris which involved 60 participants who managed to row an unbelievable 458km in just 12 hours. In the evening, The Youth Funding Network set the week alight by crowdfunding over £4,000 for three student charities in just 25 minutes. A massive thank you must go to the YTFN team as

well as the Volunteer Centre and Santander for their hard work and matched funding.

RAG Week took a competitive turn on the Wednesday with the Society Football World Cup held in Shoreditch. Ten teams took part all aiming to win the RAG trophy with Jamaica crowned the inaugural champions. There was more competition in the evening with the Athletics Union running the Mr and Mrs LSE event. Four teams entered from clubs including Men’s Rugby, Women’s Rugby and Netball having to answer embarrassing questions mostly about their partner’s sex lives… At the end of the evening, Robyn and Liz were crowned the first Mrs and Mrs LSE and over £250 had been raised for Street Games.

Our second street festival kicked off on Thursday, with the Penal Reform and STAR societies, braving the intrusion from a well-known global and very uncharitable bank, selling cakes and pick ‘n’ mix and raising over £100. However, the main event of the day was most certainly the puppy therapy with All Dogs Matter who brought three very well trained dogs onto campus causing mass pandemonium.

Over 100 students enjoyed time with the dogs, raising £428.50 and six people even signed up to foster dogs from the charity. In the evening, six former LSE political hacks descended on their old stomping ground to debate the current Tory government and raised another £50 in the process.

Friday saw a bucket collection, musical performances, netball matches and the first ever

RAG Saucy. Beginning at 7am, 20 volunteers took over Liverpool Street Station to bucket collect for St Mungo’s Broadway raising over £1,000 in just 12 hours. At the same time, the Men’s Football and Rugby clubs were taking on the Netball club in charity matches. The Men were valiant in their performances, sadly losing out on four occasions but the real winners were Street Games who will receive over £250. LSE Chill also pitched in with some wonderful musical performances in Café 54 and London’s best student night was given a RAG twist with a charity shot bar raising over £350.

The end of RAG Week was marked by the incredibly hard Tough Guy challenge which 22 RAGlets took on in Wolverhampton. Tackling the freezing cold, 10km run and over 100 obstacles, all the participants finished in incredible times and raised over £2,500 for Street Games. Other events held this week included Live Below The Line where participants had to live for 5 days on under £1 a day and public lecture bucket collections which fundraised £550 for RAG’s charities of the year.

The final words of the week must be given in tribute to my wonderful RAG committee. This really would not have been possible without you and a special thanks must go out to Julia Lawson-Johns, James Bonner and Saaber Fatehi, the incredible RAG Week team.

1100 students, 25 clubs and societies, 40 events and over £16,000 raised. If Carlsberg did RAG Weeks, they couldn’t have done it better than us.

‘London Heathrow’ to Thailand - A Jailbreak Story Jessica Jourja ‘London Heathrow’

WHERE TO EVEN START? AFTER the amazing experience that Riana, Lynne and I had in the RAG Gets Lost challenge, we couldn’t wait to take part in the next challenge in the series, Jailbreak, and we were determined to take it further this time! Having read stories about students from other universities obtaining free flights to New Zealand and tickets from Virgin Airlines courtesy of Sir Richard Branson himself, we knew it was time for LSE to make its stamp on this extraordinary set of stories.

So we prepared early. I have to give Riana credit for this, who went crazy emailing any trail she could find – generic emails, emails to LSE Alumni, and emails to anyone we could find in the business. As expected, we received loads of rejections, or ‘Sorry, we would love to but…’. But then luck struck, when

a wonderful gentleman from Thai Airways who had crossed paths with our email offered to help.

Having initially been informed they would not be able to help us, we couldn’t believe it!

However, it was definitely not easy from there. Weeks of back-toback calls and emails ensued. Was it possible to get three free tickets to Thailand so close to the weekend of Jailbreak? Just hours after Jailbreak began, news hit that we might not be able to get onto the flight as it was completely booked.

Fortunately however, we did!

So the 36 hours of Jailbreak began to realise! After an afternoon spent worrying about a mix-up with the names on our tickets, it was not till we passed through security at Heathrow that evening that it hit us: We’re going to Thailand?

Proudly wearing our incredibly bright green t-shirts in support of Farm Africa – a charity which helps African farmers grow themselves out of poverty and end hunger for-

ever – as we queued to board, we were approached by a seemingly ordinary lady named Charlie, who after asking us what we were doing, admitted that she was the daughter of Farm Africa’s Chairman.

With almost 1,500 flights passing through Heathrow everyday, we couldn’t believe what a coincidence we were faced with! Tip: Always wear your t-shirts promoting your charity – you never know who might recognise you!

After an enjoyable flight with Thai Airways, and chatting to their staff who were eager to find out more about our fundraising, we landed in Bangkok! With only 30 hours in the Sun, we decided to make the most of it. Visiting shrines, taking advantage of all the Thai food, and even exploring the supermarkets of Thailand (when unfortunately, we were struck with a tremendous rain storm one point), the experience was surreal.

All in the midst of this, we also took every opportunity of Wi-Fi to

ask our friends online to donate to Farm Africa!

Regrettably, as LSE students, we had to cut the trip short for our Monday classes. Overall, we flew for 20 hours, however thanks to the incredible service of Thai Airways, the time flew by (pun not intended).

Once again, we send out a huge thank you to Thai Airways for allowing to spread the word about Farm Africa!

I would also like to give a quick shout out to RAG. If you are looking to create those ‘unbelievable’ university stories that you still recall forty years from now, take part in all the RAG challenges that you can! Not only will your experience be unforgettable, but it will all be for a good cause too!

NUS EXTRA: THE ESSENTIAL STUDENT DISCOUNT CARD Available to buy from the LSESU Shop and online: www.nus.org.uk/en/nus-extra

AND MUCH MORE

Photo

14| Tuesday 2 February, 2016

Photos clockwise from bottom left: James Wurr getting splashed at Sponge a BNOC during RAG week, RAG Jailbreak teams outside SSH, puppy therapy with All Dogs Matter, Rowing Club’s Rowathon to Paris, Drama Society’s 24 hour play.

PART B

16 | Tuesday 2 February, 2016

PARTB

ORIGINAL 14

SEHR TANEJA

HOW WILL YOU LIVE NOW? Skinny weakened “brown” bodies with bones peeking through; sunken eyeballs awaiting the awakening of their voices. A dark draping tremor of complete submission conflating all the citizens. Thuds of knives in the streets of Bengal and booms of bullets in the fields of Assam. The burn blanket of the British Raj. Infuriated. Aroused.

From emaciation to emancipation. Mahatma Gandhi’s Satyagraha and Bhagat Singh’s sacrifice. Thick wooden lathis (sticks) and wrought iron guns; piercing steel knives, till fire set on the sun. Ninety years till Simon went back.

1947: Nehru’s Tryst with Destiny; a promise to serve the new nation.

I come from a land that still resonates the terrors of the trauma, or perhaps, the traumas of the terror. 2014: My tryst with destiny. “Brown” and proud. A pledge to be grateful. So how then will I live? I will live to treasure the umbrella of the peacock.

I will live to protect the pride of my fighters, the pledge of my nation, the grief of the bereft and the errors of injustice. For every shot bullet I will shoot the rocket of knowledge. For every swung knife I will slice a golden mango for the hungry. And for every lost life, I will give life to a hopeless. And I promise my land that if ever the Gods grace her, I will embrace her guests, her Gods—clothe them in our soft orange saris, offer them our pure white water, and show them our gaping green fields.

So how then will I live? I will live for the colors of my country. I will live for the love of my motherland. I will live for the lives of her people.

If you would like to send us an original short story or poem please email partb@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Photo credits: Alfredo Miguel Romero, Flickr

part

B

PartB

Flo Edwards Kemi Akinboyewa Vikki Hui

editorial team fashion Jamie Lloyd Maria Maleeva music Rob Funnell Will Locke

film

food & lifestyle

literature

Sarah Ku Alexander Lye Camila Arias Tom Sayner Caroline Schurman-Grenier Buritica Sean Tan technology theatre visual arts Edward Tan

Noah D’Aeth

Hanna Lee Yo-en Chin

FILM

REVIEW

17

THE REVENANT (2015) Tom Sayner 4/5 STARS

OF THIS YEAR’S BEST PICTURE OSCAR NOMINEES The Revenant is definitely the strongest film. It was not without its flaws but was fundamentally a brilliant cinematic experience. Much of the hype surrounding the film focused on Emmanuel Lubezki’s cinematography and it is certainly breath-taking, one of the most visually rich and detailed films I have ever seen.

The tale begins in the rugged wilderness of North Dakota with a party of hunters on an expedition for fur pelts. This group includes Hugh Glass (Leonardo Dicaprio) and his son, Hawk, who is half Native American, a fact which some members of the group find distasteful. The men are attacked by a raiding party of Indians in a stunningly choreographed sequence which has a visceral intensity to it that blows most action movies out the water. After their retreat Glass is mauled by a bear leaving him near death, carried on a stretcher by the rest of the group. As the weather worsens Glass is considered to be too much of a burden and it is decided by Captain Henry (Domnhall Gleeson) that they should leave him. Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy), Bridger (Will Poulter) and Hawk (Forrest Goodluck) are tasked with staying with him and eventually burying him. Fitzgerald however considers this a futile task and decides to hasten Glass’s death. He underestimates Glass’s seemingly superhuman levels of endurance and his burning, pulsing, fanatical desire for revenge.

Revenge drives the narrative as we watch DiCaprio’s character endure agonising pain, brutal cold and human cruelty all to find Fitzgerald. The plot is thus fairly straightforward but thematically director Alexander Inarritu roams further than a simple meditation on the merits of revenge.

There is an exploration of religious belief in the Hobbesian world that Glass inhabits with Fitzgerald declaring that on the brink of starvation a squirrel is god because that sustenance is needed for the fulfilment of the most basic human motive - to survive. This theological motif is present even in the camera work with huge wide angle landscape shots encouraging that humble introspection that occurs when you see a beautiful night sky.

A subplot of the film which follows a group of Native Americans searching for a stolen clan member delves into the brutal treatment of natives by colonial settlers. There is a sense of righteous fury at the casual racism of the white Europeans and at their cruelty towards the natives. Indeed there is precious little mercy or kindness on display in the film. The stark black and whites of the film’s visuals further this impression of a morally binary world. Yet it is in this willingness to broaden the film’s intellectual outlook that I felt it became slightly confused. Revenge is the dominant theme of the film and the attempts to discuss other complex topics feel a bridge too far with a scarcity of original observations. The film thus has a running time of 156 minutes which was excessive. Epic films do not necessarily have to be long and The Revenant could have done with some more ruthless editing. Critiques of the film that suggest it lacks emotion go too far however.

The dynamic between Glass and his son feels genuine and DiCaprio conveys a wide spectrum of emotions throughout.

While the landscapes of the film linger longest in the memory the acting is also strong. DiCaprio is fully committed to the role and manages to nail both the more subtle scenes and more intense passages. The young British actor Will Poulter delivers a very impressive performance and Domnhall Gleeson is once again stellar. Tom Hardy is less assured and his accent varies wildly in quality. It is ironic for a movie which is about human survival that it is the natural world dominates. The mountain, rivers and forests of the wilderness are rendered in awesome detail with Lubezki’s refusal to use artificial light. The film is richly interwoven with long shots of the rugged environment indulging viewers with a visual spectacle of epic proportions. Despite some flaws the movie transports and moves you in the cinema ought to do.

In addition to film reviews, PartB also welcomes reviews of TV shows and non-review articles!

14

18

| Tuesday 2 February, 2016

VISUAL ARTS

WORLD PRESS PHOTO 2015

Yo-en Chin World Press Photo 15 showcased award-winning photojournalism throughout the year 2015. The photos exhibited at Southbank Centre portrayed the unique perspective these photographers have on world events, allowing us to delve into the world through their eyes.We often hear about disasters and horror stories but these photographs evoked so many emotions in me that I had to share them. Here are a few of my favourites: Darcy Padilla: ‘The story of Julie Baird and her family is a complex one: a story of poverty, AIDS, drugs and multiple homes, relationships, birds, deaths and reunion. By focusing on one woman’s struggle, I hoped to provide an in-depth look at social issues surrounding disadvantages and HIV, but I also wanted to create a record for Julie’s children of their mother’s story.’

(Below)

Jérôme Sessini captured a corpse in a middle of a field, a victim of the MH17 crash that landed by the Ukrainian countryside. All 298 people on board perished. (Above)

Pete Muller captured the outbreak of the deadly Ebola of which 2,758 in Sierra Leone have contracted and died from.

Arash Khamooshi: “Iran is thought to be execute more people than any country in the world. Hangings are frequently held in public, and sometimes a murder victim’s family may participate. Bala was to be hanged for murdering his friend, Hosseinzadeh. At the last minute, instead of pushing the chair, Hosseinzadeh’s mother slapped the Balal’s face in an act of symbolic forgiveness which stops the execution.’

VISUAL ARTS

19

A TALE OF TWO CITIES

SPOKEN WORD REVIEW Suyin Haynes IT WAS A RAINY SATURDAY NIGHT IN JANUARY, at Rich Mix in Bethnal Green; between the communities of Tower Hamlets and the financial district of the City.

The theme was London and the venue was full; of those affected by gentrification and those interested in activism against it, all coming together for a fundraising night of powerful spoken word and hip hop.

Organised by Take Back the City and Decolonising Our Minds, A Tale of Two Cities packed out Rich Mix’s main space to full capacity with performers and creatives from all over London uniting in a celebration of the city’s people and communities, and a condemnation of the political systems that threaten them. ‘Spoken word night’, ‘gentrification’ and ‘Shoreditch’ teamed together sometimes risk implying a pose-y, clichéd image; one of hipsters drinking Red Stripe in a dimly lit basement café, murmuring “yah, Brixton is actually fucking great these days you know, I’ve heard it’s meant to the new Dalston”.

This event brought something different, and different people altogether in one venue to fundraise for the Take Back the City organisation. A self described “growing group of disillusioned Londoners”, the activist network is campaigning to put the marginalised into the decisionmaking echelons of London’s political centre; working with community, youth, workers’ and migrant groups to collect views on what can be done to amplify the voices of London’s silenced masses. At the pinnacle of this campaign and representing this People’s Manifesto is

singer, teacher and Stratford native Amina Gichinga, who will be running in the area of City and East to win a seat in the Greater London Assembly; aiming to reflect the ethnic and cultural diversity of the city that has become increasingly oppressive and unaffordable for the majority of its everyday inhabitants. Helping the organisation of the event was the SOAS-based society Decolonising Our Minds, which has already been hugely successful in running a series of events aimed at the deconstruction of socialised remnant of colonial thought in modern society.

As we peered over the glass balcony overlooking the main stage, the spotlight started off shining on NW10 with an exploration of the St Raphael’s Estate led by Andre Anderson. Residents of the estate under threat from everencroaching, ominous glowing ‘F’ of the Foxtons logo came together to produce a book of poetry that Anderson presented on the night; describing themselves as “the arms and legs of the city, the people who scan your shopping, who clean your corridors”, often overlooked and undervalued but re-defining the stigma around those “coming from the estate” into positive action.

The inimitable Momtaza Mehri was up next, with her original poetry focussing on those living at the edges of the city metaphorically, not out of choice but out of oppression. “When did our city become a parasite?” she asks; pain in her voice as “the city marches over our bones to greet another lover”. Exploring the cartography of the high street, she stirred up murmurs of agreement from the audience as she told the suppressed historical narrative of this central element of London life, now indistinguishable

from borough to borough, overrun by Paddy Powers and Poundlands.

Perhaps the most powerful performances of the night came from the Six Weeks Collective members Caleb Femi, Josette Joseph and Lex Amor, who juxtaposed their potent words down to soulful, laid-back tracks. We loved Joseph’s dedication to her grandmother, wondering how the city has changed since the days when she first “answered the Queen’s call” in the 1950s. Femi’s love song to Peckham through the metaphor of hair elevated a simple part of life to symbolise the changing nature of his home town; once as magical as a Fela Kuti song but now ravaged by the cancer of urban renewal and social cleansing.

Hip hop vibes were provided by Oracy’s captivating flow and identifiable lyrics on the themes of unity and love in the city; Black/Other’s MC trio interspersing catharsis, salvation and revolution in the lyrics; and lastly the loveable J-Unity, a twin music due from North West London who silenced the house with their unique take on Drake’s Hotline Bling.

The event was a huge success not just in showcasing the creative talent of these audial artists, but in highlighting a hugely important issue that many of us tend to forget about as we make the daily trip into the Holborn bubble.

Take Back the City’s work highlights the struggle to survive in London, and the inequality between those in power and those they are supposed to represent.

To find out more about their work, visit www.takebackthecity.org.

FOOD

20 14 | Tuesday 2 February, 2016

EMBRACE YOUR INNER BREAKING BAD

AT ABQ LONDON

Caroline Schurman-Grenier WE ALL LIKE TO DRINK, RIGHT? Maybe not to the point of getting sick, but every once in awhile, we all enjoy a drink or two… or three.

The struggle in London is the following: where on earth can I satisfy such a craving?

Do I want to go to the generic pub down the street and have a few pints of tasteless beer and deplorably awful house wine, or do I want to go out and find something madly cool that all my friends back home will be jealous of ? I’m sure you’d choose the latter option.

I have just the place for you!

But first, I have a question to ask you: do you watch Breaking Bad? If so, you’ll definitely love this new place. If you don’t, it still doesn’t matter,because I don’t watch it and I still love this new place anyway.

How would you like to make your own cocktails with carbonated water, test tubes, cocacola caviar, steam and so much more? You’re kind of confused right now, aren’t you? Basically, ABQ London has turned Breaking Bad into a new cocktail bar in Shoreditch (obviously it’s in Shoreditch, where else in London would there be a Breaking Bad bar?) Located on a dark and empty street in

East London, the bar is in a big trailer park bus. You walk into the lovely sounds of hardcore rap music, waiters in yellow jumpsuits and gas masks, and subdued yet colorful lighting.

If this doesn’t make you think it’s the coolest place in town, I really don’t know what will.

You are then taken to be seated at a table where there are test tubes, spoons, bowls, and other tools that will help you make your cocktails. The choice on the list is short, but the cocktails are so varied that it doesn’t really matter. You’re not there to have a simple scotch on the rocks - nope! choices range from a vodka,

rosé, maple lychee, martini like drink, to vodka, lemon, cocacola, caviar concoctions. Each drink comes with a list of instructions as to how to prepare it; if you fail (which we did), the waiters are there to help. Sure, they help in a purposely rude and derogatory tone of voice, but I didn’t mind, it was all part of the experience.

If you think you absolutely want to try this place out, you’re not alone - there is a waiting list of about 45,000 people (yes, you read right). But you could get lucky - try and show up on a ‘not so mainstream’ night to try and get in without a reservation. Drinks

are less than 10 pounds each, which is pretty fantastic given the level of swag that this place has (did I just write swag? Yes I did, deal with it). You bring your own bottle of booze, and let the magic happen inside.

You won’t regret spending money on this place, trust me. Enter the world of Walter White and be amazed.

Find them here: ABQ, Cleve Workshops Boundary Street London, E2 www.abqlondon.com

FASHION

21

THE MANIFESTO...

OF A NEW FEMININITY Maria Mitroshina “I WANTED MY DRESSES TO BE CONSTRUCTED, molded upon the curves of the feminine body, whose sweep they would stylize,” Christian Dior proclaimed in his autobiography.

“So you have to be a doll to be beautiful, always the same.

That’s why I hate bias cut, everything that people think make women beautiful - I’m against that in principal from a personal and human point of view. The other reason I am against it, is because it is banal. I want to be more clever, or more difficult, or more complicated, or more interesting, or more new.” - said Miuccia Prada in an interview with Alexander Fury of The Independent.

These two quotes are not just formulating two different approaches to the understanding of femininity - between them spans the whole evolution of fashion in the last 60 years. The first quotation - confirmation of extreme femininity, which started in the post-war Europe, the second - the manifesto of a new femininity, revised traditional requirements for beauty and traditional gender roles.

The central idea of femininity ​​ is the idea of perfection. A woman and her dress should be flawless - to the extent that it’s almost impossible to believe in their physical existence.

These days, beauty is related to imperfection; there is beauty is in the errors, in the flaws, in the defects. Imperfection catches our eye, touches our soul and unlocks our imagination. The idea of ​​ imperfection began with Japanese deconstruction at the turn of 70th and 80th and was picked up by the Belgian deconstructivists in the 80s. They fiercely fought against traditional femininity and glamor - for them beauty started where perfect proportions end and their work was an open challenge and a demonstrative break from the femininity of the golden age of couture.

Miuccia Prada become the mother of the new femininity.

Prada dismantled the traditional clichés of femininity in more intelligent ways, her approach: the rejection of everything people think makes a woman beautiful, and a passion for ‘strange’ vintage outfit and uniforms - Prada’s ‘ugly chic’. Prada has shown that to be interesting is more important than being beautiful, that gender stereotypes do not exist for them to be followed,

but for them to be played with.

It expanded opportunities for women: it is not necessary to choose between the carefully stacked curls and backwards coat, and it is possible to put on a strange dress and feel good in it.

The next generation of designers, such as Stella McCartney and Phoebe Philo, have learned from Prada.

Especially Phoebe Philo, who after Miuccia Prada is our main cultural character. In Chloé she already made wonderful collections, in no way inferior to its predecessor, the famous Stella McCartney; but what she did in Céline was really important for this new femininity.

Philo combined the underlined minimalist style with elaborate luxury performance: volume, length, freedom of movement and design, leaving space between the body and clothing.

Nadège Vanhee-Cybulski is another key figure – no wonder after what she did in The Row, and then in Hermès. Turtlenecks, straight trousers, fisherman-style raincoats, wide overalls from glossy leather and dress uniforms made of suede - no decorations, only rigor and strength. Her clothes say personality and personal comfort are much more important.

The new femininity at the same time does not deny sexuality, it just sees it as a much more complex phenomenon than tight-fitting forms and mini skirts - all the banality that is understood by the word sexy. Along with the new femininity you can talk about a new sexuality - detached and even cool. Attractiveness is not an emphasis on secondary sex characteristics in the Kardashian style, but an androgynity and gender ambivalence.

All this could be hard to understand for women still under the influence of old school patriarchy. However, the essence of a new femininity is not to sacrifice their intellectual and human form for the sake of social and cultural clichés and traditional gender roles. We do not want to ‘adorn ourselves’ - we want to be ourselves. You are free to stay in the bandage dresses, if it is who you are, because the new femininity is not a struggle with the old, it’s a freedom from all sorts of clichés and prejudices for everyone.

“The central idea of ​​femininity is the idea of perfection.”

For our welfare Our campaign demands are: • LSE should reform its academic advisers system.

• LSE should end the session cap on the counselling service.

• LSE should reduce waiting time for the LSE Student Counselling Service.

Be part of the campaign, prove the demand bit.ly/LSESUWelfareSurvey

FIND OUT MORE AT LSESU.COM

NAB CareerHub

Details Title: LSE Graduate Internships - Timetabling Assistant [9 months] (025) Department/Division: Timetabling (Academic Registrar’s Division - ARD) Accountable to: Mr. Re Period: 9 months (February 2016 - December 2017)

Other information

Contract Type “Temporary”

Contract Hours Full Time

LSE is a world leading social science institution. The School’s centralised Timetables Office is alRemuneration legedly part of the Academic Registrar’s Division. It deals with the scheduling of all taught courses £24,491 pa (pro rata) and the booking of teaching rooms.

Commences The previous academic year saw a slight delay in the release of exam timetables. We are looking February 2016

to bring someone on board so that we can focus our efforts on not causing mass hysteria among Website the student body.

Essential Skills include: • An understanding of Einstein’s theory of nonlinear time • Disdain for Katie Budd and Jon-Rhys Foster • Having a long neck for burying in the sand • A driving license and own shovel • The ability to write a Donald Trump style apology Desireable Skills Include: • Excellent written and oral communication skills • Outstanding customer service skills • The ability to use initiative to solve day-to-day problems. These problems may include a manual system for booking rooms.

• An admiration of Kanye’s delayed Twitter comebacks, The Chilcot Report and Ben Carson’s speech patterns

Other Opportunities LSE Director Desirable skills include • Dictatorial tendencies • Owning a very efficient shredder • Questionable lecturing tactics • An allergy to Economy Class Flights • An ability to act like the anatomy of an Avacado • Lowly held in Academia • An ability to turn any institution into a money making machine • Alastair Campbell levels of Spin Salary: Exorbitant

LSESU General Secretary Desirable skills include: • Thorough knowledge of the Education Act 1994 • Be inspired by the likes of Mao and Fidel Castro • Loving the union above all other things in life • Enjoying the insufferable tendencies of others • Placing the interests of corporations above students • A perfect resting bitch face • No knowledge of limits Salary: Far too much (still can’t afford Maxwell)

https://careers.lse.ac.uk/students/jobs/detail/334544/lse-graduate-internship-timeta

Obligatory Job Adverts Goldman Sachs - Summer Intern Looking for an intern to work 22 hour days, 7 days a week. Candidate should be expected to sell their soul for a ten week period in the summer, leading to a life of depression.

McKinsey - Summer Intern Looking for a summer intern to work 21 hour days, six days a week. Candidate should not expect to understand what the point of management consulting is upon completion of this placement, leading to a life of depression.

Deliveroo - Delivery Guy (sorry, person) Looking for a keen cyclist to risk life and limb to deliver far too expensive food to lazy students.

Editor - The Beaver Desirable skills include: • The ability to withstand widespread hatred from the student body • The diplomatic knowhow to fix the IsraelPalestine issue • OCD (sorry, obsessive attention to detail) • An inability to let go of their position • A dwindling social life • A dwindling academic life • Irrational interest in the pay level of elected Student’s Union Officers Salary: Fuck-all.

24| Tuesday 2 February, 2016

Are Britain’s vulnerable children bearing the cost of prison outsourcing?

Hannah Portaway LSE Postgraduate and Ex-offender Life Coach

WHEN VULNERABLE children go to jail in England and Wales, society should expect them to be kept safe. However, in a recent BBC Panorama episode, culpable G4S employees are seen discussing their intentions and methods for harm, as vulnerable children are threatened, stabbed with forks, manipulated to become aggressive, systematically intimidated and physically restrained. They are almost always left alone in tears. Medway, where the documentary was filmed, is a Secure Training Centre (STC) in Kent that has capacity to hold 76 12-18 year olds.

In the fallout of the Panorama investigation, G4S have been accused of managerial failures in the recruitment and training of their employees. This is not the first time.

Last year, G4S lost their contract to run Rainsbrook STC after an OFSTED inspection found staff to be racially abusing children. The problem is not limited to G4S. A Howard League for Penal Reform audit in 2014 showed that for each private prison operator in England and Wales, there were high levels of violence, systemic failures, prevention of healthcare provision and overuse of unlawful child restraint.

The privatisation of the prison service, which has historically been managed exclusively by the state, is a byproduct of neoliberalist philosophy that has become hegemonic across the public sector. The Coali-

The City

Section Editor: Alex Gray Deputy Editors: Henry Mitchell

Systemic Abuse of Vulnerable at Medway tion and Conservative governments have used competition, outsourcing, privatisation and marketisation, concepts that were largely introduced by New Labour, alongside their comprehensive Spending Reviews to cut public expenditure and roll back state services in a bid to reduce the financial deficit. This focus is now being embedded across the entire criminal justice system.

From managing penal institutions themselves to prison vans, from running Community Rehabilitation Centers to electronic monitoring, the current criminal justice landscape in England and Wales has more private contracts than the rest of Europe.

“G4S employees are seen discussing their intentions and methods for harm, as vulnerable children are threateed, stabbed with forks...”

Serco, Sodexo, Capita, GeoAmey and most notoriously G4S have secured commissioning contracts by pitching competitive bids that claim both low running costs and high-risk management. With the annual average place in prison costing £36,000, and the annual cost of re-offending approaching £13 billion, prison is an obvious choice for cost-saving through out-

sourcing and privatisation. The end result is 14 for-profit jails in England and Wales, 2 of which are children’s Young Offender Institutions and 4 STCs, where performance is measured by cost reductions for the government and profitability for the business. It is debatable how much contracts that focus on cost saving take into account the standard of care for vulnerable children who, as seen in Medway, often have childhood trauma, mental health issues and learning difficulties.

In addition to these challenges, the contracts used for private prison providers can create perverse incentives for companies to under report harmful incidents to avoid paying fines. Panorama reporters uncover G4S staff, from mid to high management, discussing their systematic under-reporting of children fighting in order to avoid fines from the Ministry of Justice. Recent news shows that the government has paid G4S for operational costs at full capacity of 76 beds – when there are only 47 children currently living at Medway.

Through the public purse, G4S is paid £140,000 per young person per annum and has received a total of £206,000 since the investigation aired. There is clearly a problem.

The neoliberal push toward privatisation has also impacted on public sector penal institutions.

Pressures from National Offender Management Service (NOMS) to adopt private-sector practice to cut millions within state-run facilities has led to initiatives such as Payment

by Results, benchmarking, and ‘fair and sustainable’, which largely compare and restrict public expenditure

to match boasted private costs. This cost cutting has, at the least, contributed to overcrowding and capacity stress, dangerous levels of short staffing, 23 hour ‘bang-up’ and rates of violence, suicide and assaults at their highest in 10 years.

“The end result is 14 for-profit jails in England and Wales, 2 of which are children’s Young Offender Institutions and 4 STCs” The reoffending rate for young people within the first year of release from both private and public prisons is 67%. If the effectiveness of prisons is measured in cost savings and not a young person’s potential – for both a fulfilling future and social contribution – then the outcomes will be the same.

The continued failings of the private sector have led some academics, policymakers and practitioners to argue that private businesses’ ethos to create profit is fundamentally misaligned with the ethos of rehabilitation, ‘reducing reoffending’ and safety for people in prison, victims and the public.

Are cost savings more sacrosanct than vulnerable children and their futures? What does society value when it privatises a service? When it is this value that fails, does it matter whose name is above the door?

Tesco Under Fire, Yet Again

The City |25

Tesco has again hit the headlines for mismanagement and malpractice of its supply chain Chloe Mow LSE Undergraduate

TESCO HAVE AGAIN HIT the headlines, being fined for mistreating their suppliers and I think this is something that its worth writing about. What relationship should shops have with their supply chains? How could we ensure an equitable relationship? Should we care?

Since the launching of investigation in 2013 to regulate relationships between the 10 biggest retailers and suppliers, Tesco has been in the limelight for possibly breaching the Groceries Code Adjudicator (GCA), which acts as the industry’s code of practice.

Tesco’s investigation was the first and is expected to last up to nine months, covering specific sections of the GCA, such as part 4 of the code being no delay in payments, and more importantly, the reasoning be-

hind such an act as being intentionally done for profit increase or other reasons.

Tesco has been involved in an accounting scandal last September after irregularities was revealed by the new boss Dave Lewis, uncovering

“Tesco knowingly delayed paying money to suppliers in order to improve its own financial position” that the company was £263m short in profits, adding to recent investigations that those shortfalls were one of the reasons for delayed payments to suppliers. Tesco has claimed that they “have worked closely with the office of the Adjudicator since its creation to put in place strong compliance

processes [and that] following [their] announcement last September regarding commercial income, have worked with her (Ms Tacon the head of GCA) to identity any relevant GSCOP (code of practice) issues”, however if the investigation follows through and irregularities are found in the payments and other breached codes of the GCA, penalties will be made and other big retailer companies will be investigated even if they claim like Tesco has that “we are changing the way we work with suppliers and welcome the opportunity for our suppliers to provide direct feedback.”

Reactions from small business owners are positive in regards to investigations of bigger retail companies as John Allan, the national chairman of the Federation of small Businesses states that: ‘Late payment can have disastrous effects on a small firms’ cash-

flow and pushes many businesses to the brink. We’ve raised the issue to the highest levels and have called for a full scale”. In fact in a recent report written by Ms Tacon, the head of GCA on January 26, has revealed that “Tesco knowingly delayed paying money to suppliers in order to improve its own financial position, The sums were often significant and the length of time taken to repay them was too long” which is a strong claim that supports Tesco’s breaching the GCA codes of conduct.

From that, it is important to note that Tesco had in the report findings “eventually paid back [though over more than two years after the incorrect charging had begun.” and that this issue of breached codes raises questions about what relationship shops should have with their supply chains, as it is clear from Tesco’s ex-

perience that its not easy to always pay on time, even if its the right thing to do, rather there should be better communication between parties to ensure an equitable relationship.

In fact, transparency between companies should be essential to ensure future allegations being less severe.

However with that said, the severity of late payments is in fact high, and affects many people between the retailers and suppliers, such that those in lower rankings of companies will be affected deeper as they may have lack of information on what is happening, especially if they are “owed a multi-million pound sum”.

These issues need to be addressed seriously and Tesco’s coming investigation should act as a warning to other big retailers to either create transparency between their suppliers, or to simply pay accordingly and on time.

Anne-Marie Slaughter Public Lecture

The value of care: Are women in the City better equipped to achieving gender equality?

Janis Wong Women Leaders of Tomorrow President

‘PRIVILEGE REPEATS itself,’ Anne-Marie Slaughter says, demonstrating the significance of the first 5 years of care in a child’s life. In her LSE IDEAS public lecture last Monday, and book ‘Unfinished Business: Women Men Work Family’, Slaughter focuses on increasing the value of un-robotic, un-automated care as a key theme.

She emphasises that in only valuing ‘male’, often financial, success, we devalue the work that many women do on a daily basis. As a result of the structure of our economy and the way we measure goods and services, the value in household jobs or childcare is simply unaccounted for. Under this system, Slaughter states that women can’t have it all. Despite being in the public sector for most of her career, the institutions she worked for follow private sector structures. Her husband’s role as the principal homemaker played a significant role in Slaughter’s own unique position: a pro-

fessor at Harvard, a deanship at Princeton, Director of Policy Planning for the US State department under Hillary Clinton, a mother of two, and now CEO of the New America Foundation.

As a feminist, Slaughter focuses on the need for cultural change, shifting household powers from women to men and workplace authority from men to women simultaneously. Her theories seem to combine the two parties of Lean In and Her For She to talk about changing national policy in order for more flexible workplaces and accommodating social attitudes. Whilst Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg discusses how women can climb up the corporate ladder, Slaughter believes that leaning in isn’t enough. ‘We cannot have a halfway revolution,’ she rightly says, as both genders’ responsibilities have to change. If we believe that women are equally capable as men to reach the C-suite, we must also believe that men are equally competent in home care. At the same time, it must be recognised that men and women fulfil

these roles in different ways, each with their own merits.

National policy, cultural, and societal expectations need to be revised in order for everyone to benefit from infrastructures of care.

Slaughter was less impressive when challenged by the audience on intersectionality and the consideration of different racial, cultural backgrounds. She recognises that quotas and affirmative action, a system which she benefited from going into law school, is essential as a starting point to get more women to the top. Slaughter justifies her model of establishing more secure infrastructures of care with reference to a privileged America. Developing countries should still aim to attain more balanced gender ratios. That being said, the group of people who benefit from such system is likely to be much smaller.

To go a step further, only the privileged America, those already at the very top, will see this system as effective. There seems to be little opportunity or consideration for those of lower income classes, single parent households, and in-

dustries beyond the City.

No doubt is greater appreciation on care and changing gender roles important, but Slaughter’s model is limited to the elite few, where workplace environments allow for parental leave and where shifts from work to home are seen as sacrifices as opposed to burdens.

Much of Slaughter’s talk revolved around corporate structures, particularly household responsibility and income when further advancing in a career. I posed the question of how we can propel campus discussions regarding sharing responsibility and duty more evenly between the sexes. It is important we engage in such conversations early so that when answers are needed, we’ve already familiarised ourselves with the questions.

Slaughter suggested the need to ask the right specific questions with your partner. However, the topic of taking leave is difficult to grasp for graduates who are just entering the workforce.

From removing gender categorisation of toys to the This Girl Can campaign, the

public and private sectors are making slow improvements of sharing duties and responsibilities between everyone.

Even with progress, there is discrepancy to the extent of support provided for parents who leave work for home.

There is only so much faith we can place on ‘secret feminists’, who Slaughter describes as men with daughters, among us. Perhaps we should begin to better define ambition for girls. Being able to make a difference in the world should not be positively correlated income, levels of testosterone, or the colour of your skin. Girls need to know that they are fully (not just as) capable, powerful, and have the ambition to achieve anything. Sure, there are relatively fewer female role models, but that shouldn’t stop them from wanting to be the trailblazer.

Whilst Slaughter falls short on making her infrastructures of care more inclusive, she raises important questions on how our organisations must change and the national policy we need in order to make those changes happen.

26| Tuesday February 2, 2016

Is There Really Any Point To School?

The philosophical basis for educational institutions--and we keep going.

Muaad Abukar Postgraduate Student

Section Editor: Alexander Hurst

“The focus

on knowledge acquisition and free thought needs to be restated and brought back into the fore” Political theory aside, the proposition that schools serve to legitimate pre-existing inequalities has important practical implications. Realistically, this is hardly surprising. Whilst schools are held up as the primordial example of institutions free from political interference, the very reality is the complete opposite.

In this light, the romantic (almost quixotic) conceptualisation of the school as this hotbed of unfiltered knowledge - the perfect fertile ground for creativity and selfexpression – is, to put it quite bluntly, not entirely true. That is not to say you cannot be creative and selfexpressive within the confines of an educational establishment, but that the purpose of the school, first and foremost, does not (consciously or subconsciously) lend itself to those pursuits.

This post-structuralist assessment of schools gained traction within academic circles

in the late 1980s and 1990s. For Foucault, schools – alongside prisons and hospitals - were institutions of dominance and control. Thus, from a distinctively post-structuralist lens, school – as a machination of the state - is inherently problematic as it ‘disciplined pupils and normalised knowledge as subjects.’ More worryingly, within this poststructuralist analysis is that there are no alternatives to schools as institutions of surveillance.

According to Foucault, to “prophesy or propose solutions can only contribute to the determinate situation of power that must be critiqued.” In this context, institutional critiques of school post-Foucault “dispensed with the idea of progress and any idea of a specific agency of change.”

As a result, left-wing critiques of the 1970s and early 1980s that directed analysis on lines of race/ethnicity/sex/class took less prominence. In its place, postMarxist institutional analysis centred on the institution of ‘the school’ as a whole. For many, including Young, this was a welcome methodological departure, as leftwing analyses “rarely went beyond critiques and presented little idea of what schools might be like in socialist, non-patriarchal, nonracist societies.” The criticism being therefore that the leftwing analysis was too politicised, narrow and agenda specific in that, rather than really getting into the nitty-gritty of analysing the school as an institution, there was perhaps too much focus on highly specific issues (such as class/race/ gender). In this light, it was posited that analysis was constrained to criticism and devoid of practical or workable solutions. Thus, postsructuralist assessments provided a more ‘macro’ perspective as well as concurrently complementing the more ‘micro’ criticisms theorised by earlier left-wing commentators.

Moreover, the neo-liberal economic ‘agenda’ if you like -

promulgated by both the Tories and New Labour - had a huge transformative effect for schools.

The notion of the market dictating the economy has led to what Young terms the “dedifferentiation of schooling” – the government’s preoccupation of viewing education on a purely instrumental level. This almost utilitarian ends-based/outcomedriven approach has led to a kind of ‘mass vocationalism’ where education is reduced to a commodity - a service or product bought by the student consumer expecting a return on their investment. Arguably (or perhaps inarguably?) this has devalued the educational establishment particularly much post-secondary schooling - into a static relationship silently mediated and governed by instrumental gain; measured and valued in purely monetary terms.

Thus, the vital question is: What can be done? In answering that question the very function of a school must be probed. What is it for? What is its purpose? How can this be realised? Whilst these are complex political questions, I do not think they are intractable solutions can be found. First of all, the focus on knowledge acquisition and free thought needs to be restated and brought back into the fore. Also, what the institutional critiques of schools demonstrates is the way in which schooling has always been a highly politicised subject matter. In this light, whilst I agree (in part) with Ivan Illich’s observations of the sometimes corrosive effects of institutional learning, his even more radical proposal to abolish schools altogether does not, in my opinion, provide for a better solution.

There is something to be said about the school as a place of learning and personal growth.

However, as an institution of the state, the politicised nature of academia and learning in general is something we should all be highly vigilant of.

Photo credit: Stewart Buterfield

Features

Deputy Editors: Stefanos Argyros Daniel Shears Sebastian Shehadi

‘SCHOOL’ IS AN INSTITUTION that is as equally vital to individual growth as it is to collective societal progress. Or is it? There seems to be a common accepted perception that school is important, some might argue ‘vital’ for human flourishment. Many would extoll the virtues of ‘the school’ as a place where creativity is unleashed, individual attainment is realised and academic as well as personal accomplishment is met – a place in which we, to use the Maslowian term, ‘self-actualise’.

This preconceived idea of the school as being integral to personal and academic development is conceptually as well as historically interesting. Interesting first and foremost because it is taken as a foregone conclusion. We do it almost instinctively. Many of us would not seriously consider homeschooling our children in the future.

There seems to be this almost collective idea that interaction with others and (perhaps more unconsciously) disconnection from our family members is integral to personal growth. Whilst this is all well and good, a broader more institutional point gets lost in this preconceived idea that ‘school = good,’ which is the fundamental question: ‘What are schools for?’ The historical trajectory of political criticism of ‘the school’ is theoretically fascinating. Equally, the practical implications of this question are due some serious thoughtful consideration.

Left-wing academic criticisms of ‘the school’ as an institution were first articulated by educational sociologists in the 1970s. As Michael Young notes in What are schools for?, researchers overwhelmingly seized on the idea of school possessing a self-serving “primary role…to teach the working class their place in capitalist societies.” In this context, working-

class students who managed to narrowly escape the almost illfated familiar cycle of poverty and were ‘lucky enough’ to secure a place at university were seen - in Young’s analysis - as “legitimating the fundamental inequalities of the education system as a whole.” This view is not just exclusively held by Young. Educational sociologists and researchers such as Althusser (1971), Bowles and Gintis (1976), and Willis (1977), amongst many others, accept this neo-Marxist critique.

The Utopia Of A Universal Basic Income

Increasing automization has the potential to make all our lives better Daniel Shears Deputy Features Editor THE CONCEPT OF A UNIVERSAL basic income has been around for a while now, and has gained a new momentum in the wake of the technological advances of the 21st century. As jobs are increasingly able to be done by robots or machines (something which will only become more common as the years go by), the less work will need to be carried out by people, and the closer we seem to be to Keynes’s leisure economy (albeit not by the means he predicted). Proponents of the basic income point it as being beneficial because it allows for an unlinking of wages and labour, something which will become more and more necessary as our jobs become mechanised. With people safe in the knowledge that their basic needs will be met, regardless of employment, people will begin to re-think how and why we work, taking more risks and engaging in creative and innovative labour processes.

Critics of the basic income, who tend to be those of a conservative outlook, point to the loss of work incentive in the event of such a policy being implemented on a nation-

al scale. Interestingly though, the logic behind this capitalist thinking is that people are motivated to work based on fear of destitution; I don’t think this is the case, as it views humanity in “Hobbes-tinted” spectacles, assuming a deep, innate fear of death and desire to survive in a dog-eat-dog world driving us to seek employment, trading labour for capital.

The experimental data suggests this is not the case however. Trials conducted in Canada in the 1970s produced overwhelmingly positive outcomes. Mothers spent more time raising new-borns, educational achievement increased, students showed lower drop out rates, hospital visits dropped by 8.5%, and there was even evidence of reduced levels of domestic abuse.

Furthermore, on a more common sense level, providing basic needs does not disincentivise work, and the evidence for such a claim can be seen by our endless pursuit not of things we need, but things we want. Why do multi-millionaires like Warren Buffet keep on working when they have accumulated more than enough wealth to provide their basic needs for the rest of their life? Because everyone, regardless of status, desires to have more to live a life of luxury, hence

the rise of late consumer capitalism that has engulfed the industrialised Western world.

“As jobs are increasingly done by machines, the less work will need to be done by people, and the closer we will be to Keynes’s leisure economy.”

The allure of such a seemingly utopian system has prompted Finland to begin experimenting with a similar policy this year, and the proposition of a universal “citizen’s income” was included in the Green Party’s 2015 election manifesto. Although a seemingly leftist idea, the Universal Basic Income has support from libertarians too, such as classical economist Frie-

drich Hayek. This is because the UBI reduces the need for unnecessary government bureaucracy and allows citizens to live as free spirits, answerable to no-one and not tied down by economic restraints.

Essentially, the argument goes that the UBI is conducive towards individual liberty and agency. On top on this, the policy makes economic sense because it helps prevent families falling into poverty traps, unlike current European welfare systems which disincentivise seeking short term work for fear of losing benefit entitlement. Another element which should appeal to New Right conservatives is that the UBI eliminates the possibility of benefit fraud, because there is no way to “cheat” the system.

It seems then that there are far more reasons for the implementation of the UBI than simply a reaction to labour mechanisation and technological advancement. The appeal of such a policy across the political spectrum, its moral justification, practical applications and economics sense make it a policy that doesn’t have to wait until the robots have taken over, but one that could exist in the very near future, advancing human potential, individual liberty and economic wellbeing.

Kurdistan’s De Facto Independence?

Iraqi Kurdistan is digging a trench that could be its future border.

Capucine Cogné Undergraduate Student THE KURDISTAN REGIONAL Government has recently begun digging a ditch, which they claim will help protect the recently liberated areas of Northern Iraq from IS militants. This has sparked criticism from the Iraqi government and the Iraqi Turkmen Front, who are certain that the Kurds are simply digging in order to establish a de facto border between Iraqi Kurdistan and the rest of Iraq. The trench is planned to be nearly one thousand kilometres long, stretching from the northern areas of Mosul (near the Syrian border) to Khanaqin in Diyala province, roughly two metres deep and three metres wide.

The Iraqi government (led

by Haider al-Abadi) has fiercely protested against this move, accusing the KRG of using the IS threat as an excuse to separate from Iraq, whilst annexing various contested territories (between the Kurds and the Iraqi). In June 2014, following the IS invasion of Mosul, the army abandoned the disputed territories around IS-held areas. The Kurdish Peshmerga (Iraqi Kurdistan’s army) therefore gained control of these areas, declaring that

they will not withdraw. This has enabled them to carry out the digging of the trench, which has not only been criticised by the Iraqi government, but also by Iraqi Turkmen, most of whom live in the disputed territories claimed by both sides of the dispute.

However, the KRG’s response is that the trench has a clearly defensive purpose as it has left some of the contended territories outside the area enclosed. The most significant is Kirkuk, an oil-rich city that the Iraqi Kurds view as their capital, but that has also been dubbed the “capital of Iraqi culture” by the ministry of culture in 2010. The trench has been specifically created to stop Daesh’s most destructive weapon with regards to Iraqi Kurdistan: car bombs. These are most often armoured trucks filled with explosives, with a suicide bomber behind the wheel. The Kurds are particularly vulnerable to these, as they lack the sophisticated weapons that would enable them to destroy them.

Even though it is probably true that one of the Kurds’ intentions in digging the ditch is protecting the territory from IS, it was obvious that the move would irritate and provoke Baghdad.

Nevertheless, does this mean they should not have done it? The Iraqi constitution has promised

a referendum to the Kurds in the region since 2005, yet this has still not been attempted.

Granted, IS has altered the situation, but maybe that is why the Kurds feel they need to take their own initiative: whether it be IS or another government controlling the rest of Iraq, their independence does not seem to be any more likely. Is it unfair for them to, as the Iraqi government claims, “break the law”, just like Baghdad has done?

“Even though it is probably true that one of the Kurds’ intentions in digging the ditch is protecting the territory from IS, it was obvious that the move would provoke Baghdad.”

Although Iraqi Kurdistan has substantial autonomy, including its own president (Masoud Barzani), and own militia, and is to a certain extent currently has the most effective government within Iraq, the Kurds- including those also in Iran, Syria and Turkey have been wishing and

fighting for their independence since 1880. In fact, the Kurds have often been called ‘the largest ethnic group without a state’.

Iraqi Kurdistan’s autonomy was only given after over a decade of violence and hundreds of thousands of deaths. During the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s the regime implemented antiKurdish policies, which evolved into a genocidal campaign.

Called Anfal, it involved mass murder, ground offensives, mass deportation, chemical attacks, killing over 180,000 Kurdish civilians and totally destroying over two thousand villages. At the beginning, the oppressive measures were widely condemned by the international community, but never seriously punished, perhaps because Kurds were still seen as Marxists by the West.

However after the collapse of the Kurdish uprising in 1991, leading to many Kurds fleeing to Iran or Turkey, with an estimated 20,000 dying along the way, the UN passeda resolution condemning the repression of Iraqi Kurdish civilians (the first international document mentioning the Kurds). The Iraqi government was subsequently obliged to take measures to protect the Kurds. Therefore, after so much suffering for this autonomy, can we criticise the Kurds for wanting to reinforce it?

Features | 27

The Pocket Philosopher On how students can be more involved in philosophical conferences outside of LSE campus.

Edmund Smith Undergraduate Student IT IS A SURPRISING FACT that whilst undergraduates are rarely told about confåerences outside their university, philosophers at conferences are often interested in how to increase the number of undergraduates and masters students at conferences.

I am not sure quite why this discrepancy exists, and it may be that it is more idiosyncratic to my own experiences that I believe.

But while those questions are important, today it will suffice to make clear some of the ways in which undergraduates can engage in more philosophy.

First, it well worth adding oneself to the PHILOS-L mailing list. This list distributes information for (amongst other things) a sizeable fraction of the philosophy conferences and events in the world. It may be worth creating a new email account for dealing with the truly vast quantity of emails it sends out. It is also worth knowing that the British Undergraduate Philosophy Society does not always distribute information through PHILOS-L and one should check their website for information.

Within London, it is always a good idea to keep an eye on the Royal Institute of Philosophy (which does talks each Friday), the Institute of Philosophy, and the Aristotelian Society.

Most people find these talks too technical the first few times they go, but find that they make more sense if they attend a few every month for a little while.

28

| Tuesday February 2, 2016

LSE Shivers Under The Big Campus Freeze A postgraduate student does a temperature test, and asks, why are our buildings so cold?

Alina Ryzhonkova Avie Hochberg Undergraduate Students

AS STUDENTS CAMPAIGN FOR the LSE to ‘freeze’ hall rents, it is the temperature inside LSE buildings that has been dropping suspiciously close to freezing. Whether this is a genuine misunderstanding of student demands, or an elaborate plan by the administration to distract students from issues such as hall rents has yet to be confirmed.

The number of coats and oversized sweaters in the library is a testament to the desperation determination of the LSE’s deadlineridden knowledge-hungry student body. Still, as the administration seems intent on bringing a slice of Siberia to central London, we decided to ask students how they deal with the freezing cold temperatures: Reporter: “Do you have any tips for staying warm?”

Student: “ Yeah. Every morning I stand outside and spray an aerosol can into the air and pray that my efforts are helping warm things up.”

Reporter: “Dude...that’s messed up.”

really

Student: “I know. I cry every once in awhile when I think about the polar bears... wearing scarves helps too!”

Being the “social scientists” we are, we decided to put the “science” part our studies to use and see just how cold LSE really is.

(See mom and dad, my degree isn’t completely useless!) Equipped with

only a thermometer and an hours worth of food rations, the spirit of procrastination scientific inquiry guided us as we embarked into the cavernous tundra that is the LSE campus. Our first stop, LSE Library.

We began our scientific adventure in the deepest pits of

“For the sake of student productivity, LSE, please, turn the heating up a notch.

If not for us, then at least for the polar bears?” the library, the bottom floor. We assumed that the bottom would be the coldest because when hopes and dreams are crushed by the pressures of academia, gravity kicks in and brings the fragments of former dreams down where they pool at the bottom of the library. Also heat rises, so we figured the lowest floor would be the coldest...science!

We were surprised to find that some rooms were in fact 20*C (and above, but...margin of error...that’s science, right?). However, it is of our humble and very non-qualified opinion that the whopping 23*C was a result of the accumulation of student stress and anxiety compacted

into one place. It’s like the Danish practice of Hygge (hooga), where families come together to keep each other cozy and warm. Only replace the sense of affection and care induced communal warmth with anxiety-induced perspiration. Not as cute, but just as scientific....yay science!

While the idea of students taking part in the rather adorable-sounding practice of Hygge is, well, adorable in theory, in practice, there is nothing cute or practical about zombified, over caffeinated students clinging onto each other for heat. There is also nothing practical about wearing four sweaters and two cardigans.

While we all secretly aspire to be as cute as penguins, putting on multiple layers and resembling an oversized, immobile penguin is not conducive to work (save the penguin parties for your flats).

“It’s like the Danish practice of Hygge (hooga), where families come together to keep each other cozy and warm.”

So for the sake of student productivity, LSE, please, turn the heating up a notch. If not for us, then at least for the polar bears?

An Inflated Interest in Crises: Part 1

Features | 29

Pat Beck Postgraduate student THE BANK OF ENGLAND concluded a second round of stress tests on the domestic banking sector in December by declaring an end to the ‘post-crisis period’. It seems that changing institutional structures and a new regulatory environment in the financial industry have effectively addressed the problems of the recent financial crisis. Although making predictions can be risky, pardon me for remaining a bit skeptical. The thing with regulation is that it tends to overemphasize the proximate causes of the most recent mania to the detriment of addressing future risks, and institutions tend to remain rather path dependent.

Professor De Grauwe lectures that the institutional structure of the EMU and ECB was shaped by a Monetarist paradigm where price stability and, therefore, government budgetary concerns were held central.

LSE’s esteemed professor has also rightly indicated that the global financial crisis of 2007/08 was driven by an era of privatized Keynesian spending where household debt, financed via a US housing market bubble, became unsustainable. The subsequent burst rippled throughout global markets whereby governments responded with countercyclical spending, bail-outs, and a general increase in public debt.

This, in turn, wreaked havoc in the bond markets and brought focus back onto member states’ public debt sustainability.

Super Mario responded, albeit later than the US Fed, with

a quantitative easing program aimed at buying European bonds used to finance public debt. In line with normal human action, however, most of the regulation post-crisis addressed the initial cause of the latest crisis - namely private debt defaults - without adequately accounting for the impact that historically high public debt to GDP ratios will play in the not so distant future.

“The thing with regulation is that it tends to overemphasize the proximate causes of the most recent mania to the detriment of addressing future risks” It must be stressed that this regulatory reaction was to be expected lest Europe’s right and honourable technocratic elite find offense. Recent history displays that these seemingly universal propensities are not merely a European phenomenon, and this is precisely where our globally interdependent story gets tricky. Following the Asian financial crisis, brought about by currency fluctuations and large amounts of US dollar denominated debt, a number of Asian countries greatly increased their central bank reserves of foreign currency and government bond holdings in order to be able to stabilize

their currencies should the same panic arise again. Asian central bankers predictably responded to the crisis by employing tactics that would prevent the same sort of crisis from recurring.

Thus far, those initial efforts have been so successful that reduced currency fluctuation in the region and more domestically-denominated debt has refocused attention on another problem. The amassed savings glut requisite to maintain such high levels of reserves now pressure their managers to seek out better returns since the quantitative easing employed by the ECB has driven returns on many European government bonds into negative territory.

Other market makers and institutional investors, such as sovereign wealth funds, are also under intense pressure to seek out higher returns since slowing global economic growth has hit oil and other commodity prices quite acutely. Thus far, managers of these funds have begun to leave the bond markets opting instead for inflation-protected assets, like real estate. Lately, the Bank of Japan has joined Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, and the ECB by moving interest rates into negative territory as central bankers’ Keynesian response to the financial crisis has not produced the inflation Monetarists would predict; however, the aforementioned trends are worrisome.

Eurozone inflation, at around 0.4% is well below the ECB’s 2% target and is being hampered due to sluggish energy prices that reflect a glut in supply amongst OPEC producers, and a lack of demand from the world’s marginal buyer, China. Taking away

Photo credit:Wikimedia Commons

What’s in store for the Eurozone at a time of ‘lowflation,’ continued QE, and the reign of Super Mario?

depressed prices in the energy sector, the present inflation would increase to around 7%.

“Are European institutions geared towards fighting the last crisis and under prepared to deal with a public debt panic in the market exacerbated by a potential interest rate increase?”

Although Chinese demand is based on an economic slowdown, Russia and other OPEC nations have recently indicated a

larger willingness to potentially cut production than was present last year.

This all sounds like good news to the Eurozone which has been teetering on the edge of deflation for awhile now. A move towards or beyond the 2% inflation target would be welcome as it would give teeth to monetary policy.

The ECB would then be forced, by mandate, to refocus on price stability, refrain from OMTs and hike interest rates. Yet the yields on government bonds used to finance public debt, also hurting from the mass exit from the market due to present low or negative returns, will eventually force a rise in interest rates to incentivize savers to buy. This will increase the cost of financing public debt and place central the issue of public indebtedness again. The real question is whether European institutions are now geared towards fighting the last crisis and underprepared to deal with a public debt panic in the market exacerbated by a potential interest rate increase.

Photo credit: Martin Pettitt, 2014, Flickr

30 |

Tuesday 2 February, 2016

Actively Supporting LGBT+ Athletes The AU Ally Campaign Perdita Blinkhorn LGBT+ Alliance President

EVER SINCE I STARTED AT LSE, one of the things I have loved most about my experience here is my experience as part of a sports team and the AU. Sport is a fantastic way to keep yourself physically and mentally healthy, but more importantly it provides a person with a team, a community and above all a second family. This is why in my time as an LGBT+ activist it has greatly troubled me that so many gay, bisexual, trans and other nonheterosexual or cis students feel like they are unable to take part in it.

Sport has been perceived by many for a long time as a very heteronormative arena, meaning that no matter how welcoming and inclusive you think your club might be, many feel too intimidated to take part while being openly themselves. This is why when I became President of the LSE SU LGBT+ Alliance one of my aims for the year was to start the AU Ally training programme. It symbolises a move from sports team saying that they are open to all, to individuals actively taking steps to make themselves more informed and equipped with how let everyone at

LSE know they welcome and support you, no matter who you are.

To be an ally means to actively support members of the LGBT+ community and challenge discriminative behaviour when we see it, which is exactly what sport need more of.

This Friday will be the first of what I hope will be many training session to come in order to create more allies in the AU. It will include some information about exactly what being LBT means; while most people are aware of what homosexuality is, far fewer can recognise the issues surrounding asexuality or non-binary gender. We will also cover exactly what you as an individual can do to help support your teammates, as well as empower you to call out homophobia by equipping you with techniques you can feel comfortable using. The training won’t shy away from the more contentious issues either, as we will discuss the topic of “banter”- what makes good banter, and what needs to be called out as not ok.

The training is open to all, not just club committee members, but everyone who wants to be a part of making sport a more inclusive place for all. The Alliance is encouraging outreach officers and

Football Men’s 2s vs King’s College London 2swon 1-0 Men’s 3s vs Queen Mary 2s won 6-0 Men’s 6s vs Imperial College 6s won 5-2

club captains to ask every member of their club to attend if they can, as it’s key that everyone at every level of the club has the knowledge and skills we will be discussing. The club who has the most attendees will also be up for serious consideration for the Alliance’s nomination for the AU For All award, part of

the SU’s STARTS award scheme.

I hope that those who attend will not just leave having had a great free lunch, but also with a better understanding of the difficulties of being LGBT+ in a sports team, even if it can be quite a supportive one. The end aim of this project is to get more sign-up to clubs than

Netball Women’s 1s vs Royal Holloway 1s won 32-28 Volleyball Women’s 1s vs Middlesex 1s won 3-1

ever before next year from those who previously felt they couldn’t engage, and ensure everyone feels comfortable in the AU. The training will take place in the Venue on Friday 5th February 3-5p. Email su.soc.lgbt@ lse.ac.uk or message Perdita Blinkhorn for more details.

Table Tennis Women’s 1s vs UCL won 4-1 Men’s 1s vs Imperial 1s won 12-5 Men’s 2s vs Hertfordshire 1s won 17-0

Win, Lose or Draw, send your results to sports@thebeaveronline.co.uk

THEY SAY ALL GOOD THINGS come in pairs. Wallace and Gromit. Pornhub and Youjizz. Bill and Hillary. Ben and Casey. Ben and Matt. Ben, Matt and Casey! Exceptions are Good. But yeah, that rule, applicable to every system of life and kind of endeavour, proved once more to its numerous critics that it had indeed transcended yet another generation, against all odds, and is, it appears, as true now as it had ever been.

Hence, the long tradition of female objectification of the male form (power imbalance renders this

perMiss(us)ible, and I won’t have that left unsaid), was replaced by a mutual objectification, a chance to ridicule both sexes. Or! A chance to show the AU’s indiscrimination, in spite of the event’s name, to couples comprised of one gender, indeed any gender, Robbyng bigots of their chance to be anal, to Connotate human difference with the need for shame, because, Lesbi honest, binow, who really gives a fuck?

While not quite pabulum deserving of opprobrium, yes I did Latin and no I’m not sorry, the competition itself was an interesting affair. But, luckily, widespread inattention alone shouldn’t and didn’t detract from what were some truly painful rounds of reality theatre, with investigations into the relative levels of attractiveness of each partner abound.

Awkwardness aside, particularly from one jarringly concordant couple, agreeing on pretty much Er-

rrrithing, Validly or not, the show succeeded, and again we found ourselves tiptoeing back to our natural state of inebriation. The winning couple had a Lizt of reasons why they deserved victory as long as their future children’s surname, and, as was Seartain, the pair were named Mrs&Mrs LSE. With the crown-Jules having been affixed to the sweetest couple North-West of Kim&Kanye, what more fitting a honeymoon spot could be picked out than the Zoo. One man took partying like animals too literally, as mere Joshing ended with an overly enthusiastic head-tohead, so sinister that the assailant was instructed to Hitch a ride home, lest his temple do any more damage.

A footballer lay on the sofa Face down, and a lot of people worried he had actually died. He hadn’t, but a man he lives with almost did, not due to any physical ailment, like some contagion shutting down the

vital organs one by one, as if light switches on a hallway wall, just underneath a painting of a devastating moon, but rather due to emotional agony, caused by a friend’s abandonment of a duty the former believed was Owed to him, the unwritten rule Embodied in every friendship.

Next week most teams say farewell to the usual watering hole, and some say hello to Indian eateries further East, not that far East mind you, while others do a walking tour of cultural hotspots. What is sure, however, and what, the more I think about it, will always be a surety, is that reconvention at the Zoo Bar afterwards is not possible but probable, for, competitions aside, she will always by Mrs LSE. Got any gossip from The Jungle? Want to contribute to the Beverage Report? Send in your tips to sports@thebeaveronline. co.uk

Women in Sports Week A week to celebrate, empower and inspire female athletes at LSE! 8th–14th February Monday 8th February, 11am-12noon: Circuits 6th Floor Studio, SSH This circuit session lasts an hour and works at improving your core, leg and upper body strength and fitness, using your bodies only. Joey Callender-Wood, Athletics captain, will host this fun session. It's open to all levels as it's as hard as you’ll make it!

Thursday 11th February, 11.30am-12noon: Fitness Session 6th Floor Studio, SSH The fitness session will be a 30 minute high intensity interval training session, using exercises to work the full body, in addition to help your body continue burning fat for the next 48 hours.

The class will push you and show you that you don't need to be exercising a for along time to burn the extra pounds.

Monday 8th February, 6.30pm-8pm: Launch!

Room TBC The launch will officially open the week by celebrating some of the greatest female athletes on campus with the LSE AU Most Inspirational Sportswomen Award, as well as there will be a film screening of “This LSE Girl Can”-video. Danielle Sellwood, co-founder of the inspirational sports and fitness magazine dedicated to women, Sportsister, and currently working with Women’s Sport Trust’s empowering campaign, Sport is Beautiful, will come and speak at the event.

Thursday 11th February, 3pm-4pm: Thinking of Standing in AU Elections? NAB.2.06 Are you thinking about running for a position on the Athletics Union Executive? Do you want more information about the what the different roles entail? Come along to this session to talk to some of the current female AU Executive members in a casual and relaxed environment.

Tuesday 9th February, 11am-12noon: How to Include Weights in a Full Body Workout!

6th Floor Studio, SSH In this one-hour circuit class, personal trainer Grace Lindsey will teach you how to include weights in a full body workout!

Wednesday 10th February, 11am-11.45am: Healthy Eating Seminar, 6th Floor Studio, SSH If you are struggling to lose weight, or unsure of the types of foods to eat, or do you follow a diet and you not seeing any results? If any of the above sounds like you the seminar will give you an insight into what you could be doing to help you make the difference. Personal trainer Jae Phillips will host this seminar, which will last for 45 minutes, giving advice on the dos and don’ts of modern day diets and eating habits, and how simple changes to the way we eat can make a big difference.

Wednesday 10th February, 7.30pm until late: Galentine’s at Sway Bar! All self-identifying female club members are invited to this very exclusive Women’s Only pre-drinks at Sway Bar!

Thursday 11th February, 6.30pm-8pm: Women in Sports panel discussion, Room TBC Historically, sports have been a male dominated arena, where women have been excluded from taking part. Today, the numbers of female athletes are rising significantly, yet, women’s sports are highly underrepresented in the media, and female athletes earn considerably less than their male counterparts.

This panel debate will cover a wide range of topics relating sport to gender, disability, class etc., where our confirmed panellists thus far are Dr. Jayne Caudwell, Hayley Ginn and Laura Plant.

Friday 12th February, 11am-12noon: Boxing Session! Badminton Court, Old Building This training session will provide an introduction to boxing as a discipline in a fun and intense work-out from the LSE AU Boxing Club’s coach, Ian. Friday 12th February, 3pm-4pm: Netball vs. Women’s Hockey vs. Women’s Rugby Charity Netball Match, Lincoln Inn Fields Women’s Hockey and Women’s Rugby will field an unknown pitch as they play each other (and Netball!) in this charity netball game for the AU Charity of the year, StreetGames.

FIND OUT MORE AT LSESU.COM

Tuesday 2 February, 2016

Netball Take On The Boys Elin Harding LSE Netball Social Secretary

Section Editor: Alex Dugan Deputy Editor: India Steele

The highly anticipated Netball Charity match, which saw Netball take on FC and Men’s Rugby, promised “Chaos and Cake” and definitely did not disappoint on Friday afternoon.

The boys were a confident bunch with Men’s Rugby co-Club Captain, San Puri exclaiming that “of course we’ll be better at netball, we’re stronger and taller”. However, this confidence was exceptionally short lived, especially for the Rugby Club.

MRFC began the match by playing against the Netball Clubs 1st Team. This match saw the umpires, Taye Le Monnier and Amy Kowalska, blow the whistle more times than these boys have collectively been to Zoo Bar, mainly for obstruction and footwork, and usually aimed at Amy’s better half, Joe Emson who went wrong nearly every time he touched the ball. With the ending score of 140, things could only get better for the disappointed, and noticeably less confident, Rugby Club. Next, they took on the Netball 2nd Team, which was compromised of girls from the Clubs 2nd, 3rd and 4th Teams. Although in this match Rugby actually managed to score a goal, there was no less carnage involved. From Carwyn Evans’

throwing the ball through his legs, to Harry Maxwell’s clear inability to aim, to San Puri having to stop play because he got scared of a barking Jack Russell, not much was going well for the boys. Alex Clarke surprised all, and ally wasn’t half bad, coming up with a plan mid-match that the boys should throw the ball higher in the air, using their height advantage over the girls. This plan worked well, with them able to get the ball nearly all the way down the court, until they were required to throw the ball to San Puri whose height advantage over the girls is zero.

FC began the match by playing the Netball 2nd Team, and were determined to hold onto their title after last year’s sweet victory. The beginning of this game pretty much summed up the carnage of the entire match, with umpires Holly Turner-Flynn and Karishma Pepper being completely ignored when trying to implement the rules. Jack Greenwood was called up for obstruction by living up to his “Green Giant” nickname while defending GA Felicity Flynn and George Calder’s footwork left much to be desired. However, the dream team duo of Sam Gravatt, FC Club Captain, and Luke Tarrant playing GS and GA respectively proved crucial to the game, with Tarrant’s height giving

him the ability to catch the rebound of the few goals missed by Gravatt. This game also proved to be a test of relationships with both Roisin BennettOdlum, Netball Club Captain, and Georgia Poil defending their other halves. We are yet to establish whether this was a “make or break” situation.

This match ended with a score of 6-2 to FC, and left them in high spirits to take on the 1st Team. Although they didn’t do as badly as Rugby against the 1st, they still didn’t do great. With an ending score of 14-7 to Netball, the boys could be heard leaving the court discussing the skills of incredible 1st year Molly Tinker and GS Maisie Simmonds.

There was also a bake sale at the match led by Netball 6th Team Captain, Sara Watkins, which raised roughly £90 towards her London to Paris Cycle for Breast Cancer Now

and my Mount Kilimanjaro Trek in aid of Dig Deep. Proceeds from match entry, which raised roughly £150, will be donated to StreetGames, the AU charity that aims to help young people from disadvantaged areas access sport.

It is safe to say that this match was aw success. It raised money for charity while collaborating three AU clubs in a hilarious way. With shouts of “that’s not fair”, “that’s a stupid rule” and “I didn’t run with the ball” still ringing in everyone’s ears, we’ll still insist that Netball let FC win and maybe before next time the boys will finally learn the rules.

The Netball Club are hoping to hold more Charity matches throughout the term. If you would like to get involved please get in touch by emailing R.Bennett-Odlum@lse.ac.uk

Mr & Mrs LSE Wins Over The Tuns

Sport

32 |

Robyn Connely-Webster Women’s Rugby

LAST WEDNESDAY SAW THE first ever Mr. & Mrs. LSE held by the Athletics Union. A union hardly famous for its inclusivity, diversity, cue more buzzwords used each year predominantly during elections.

However, things took a surprising turn for, weirdly enough, the better. 3 brave (/stupid) couples took to the stage with talents and general knowledge about their other halves to the ready.

Numerous rounds saw intimate questions about bra sizes, a quiz using pints for paddles and a talent to finish. Talents of two of the final three couples were extremely well-received with a musical rendition using vocals and the often under-appreciated recorder and, then, a sultry striptease really got the audience going. Our talent was a complete copout and I apologise to all for my inability to not kiss Liz in the green room or at some other more acceptable and less exhibitionist time.

The whole contest seemed to be enjoyed by all. Although, unfortunately, it may have been enjoyed slightly too much by Liz and I who were passed out by 12 after I was forcibly removed from Tuns and consequently accused the bouncer of homophobia. Before I cause any

more trouble, that was quite clearly untrue and I retract any other similar claims I may have made that night. Sorry.

What I really wanted to apologise for, to everyone, was that I assumed the worst. I assumed that going up on stage with my girlfriend was a hugely bad idea to say yes to. I thought back to my first year and the chanting of ‘slut’ during Take Me Out, I remembered the rugby leaflet I’ve never quite been able to forget about and I genuinely thought: ‘Fuck, we haven’t really tested the AU on homophobia. Are Liz and me the guinea pigs here?’

Liz, on the other hand, a little less tainted by prejudices against the AU assured me that we should do things like this, that us shying away from events like this only contributes to the notion that somehow we aren’t just a ‘normal’ couple who love each other like our competitors.

Well, yes, maybe we were. But, I couldn’t have asked for it to go any better. We were told by everyone how brave it was to do it (although I think that goes for everyone, not just us) and happily encouraged to drink as much as we felt necessary to get on stage – which we did.

And, thankfully, we were helped out with our absolute copout of a ‘Our talent isn’t suitable for the stage’ one-liner by the wonderful CC of Women’s Rugby, Jess. And

then, finally, came the cheer we got at the end that marked the beginning of our reign as Mrs. And Mrs. LSE. It’s a shame that the evening is so blurry for me as I feel like it would have been great to actually experience all of this in real time.

However, all I can say is I’ve never felt that proud to be part of LSE until last week. I don’t think there are many places in the country, let

alone the world, where we could stand on that stage and feel absolutely no different to any other couple alongside us. It’s testament to how the AU has changed and how, more widely, opinions have changed and are changing. I hope that our somewhat still a bit alternative girl-girl relationship wasn’t the reason we won but, if it was, thanks for the positive discrimination. We appreciate it.