Get your Vulture fix
FREE FREE Take a Take copy a copy
Interview with Heidi Safia Mirza Interviews 16 Behind the lens with White Lies Music 20
No. 884 Friday 13th November 2020 varsity.co.uk
Cambridge’s Independent Student Newspaper since 1947
Colleges urged to show compassion over Covid-19 guidelines Wiliam Hunter Deputy News Editor A motion was proposed during a Student Council meeting on Monday night (09/11) “in favour of Fair Enforcement of College Codes of Conduct in the Covid-19 Context”. The motion was proposed by Chloe Newbold, the Cambridge Students’ Union (SU) Women’s Officer, and seconded by Alice Gilderdale, SU Welfare Officer. The motion comes at a critical moment as Cambridge joins the nation in entering a second lockdown, expected to last at least until December 2nd, and colleges set out their own internal enforcement policies to ensure students stick to the guidelines. The SU has noted that “There is significant variation in the approaches taken by the 31 colleges towards the enforcement of Covid-19 discipline guidelines’ with some colleges adopting far more punitive measures than others.” The SU highlighted that “These punitive measures include threats to remove students’ access to housing”, which the motion contends would disproportionately affect those without stable or safe home environments and overseas stu-
Covid-19 47 Watch
positive symptomatic cases
23
positive asymptomatic cases
4.6
k
total number of students screened
dents. The motion also notes that these threats have led to increased anxiety among students and the creation of a “culture of blame” which has led to “members of the community testing positive for Covid-19 being ostracised for assumed breaching of behavioural guidelines.” King’s and Downing have even gone so far as to implement a fine based enforcement system meaning that students found to have broken guidelines face financial punishments The motion contests that this system disproportionately affects those from less privileged backgrounds and may allow wealthy students to break the guidelines without facing severe consequences. The motion also raises the ongoing issue of students who experience sexual abuse or misconduct while in breach of lockdown guidelines. No college has yet made it clear what the disciplinary procedure will be for students who make a report while in breach of guidelines but there is a growing concern that the punitive approach taken by some colContinued on page 2 ▶
▲ The motion called on colleges to fairly enforce “Codes of Conduct in the Covid-19 context” (LUCAS MADDALENA)
University formally adopts the IHRA definition of antisemitism Gaby Vides Senior News Editor The University of Cambridge has adopted the International Holocaust Remebrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition on antisemitism in full. The adoption of the definition was agreed upon at a General Board meeting on November 4th. A University statement describes the IHRA definition as “a useful tool for understanding how antisemitism manifests
itself in our society. It will be used as a test to establish whether behaviour that is in breach of the University’s rules is anti-Semitic.” The IHRA definition, a one-paragraph summary of antisemitism with 11 examples, was written in 2016 and has since been adopted by a number of institutions including the UK government. The IHRA defines antisemitism as a “certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations
of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/ or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” Examples given of contemporary antisemitism under the IHRA definition include “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel” and “applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”
The University has also included clarifications “to ensure that freedom of speech is maintained in the context of discourse about Israel and Palestine, without allowing antisemitism to permeate any debate”, as the University details is recommended by the Home Affairs Select Committee. The clarifications are: “It is not antiSemitic to criticise the government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest anti-Semitic intent” and “It is not anti-Semitic to hold the Israeli
government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest anti-Semitic intent.” Joel Rosen, External Affairs Officer for Cambridge University’s Jewish Society (CUJS), detailed in a press release CUJS’s support of the University’s decision, particularly referencing the incluContinued on page 3 ▶
Inside ● A reflection of the meaning of “home” Pg.12 ● Corsets for the 21st century Pg.24 ● Japanese Noh Theatre Pg.28