Varsity Issue 898

Page 1

FREE

A Black remedy to the male gaze

Take a copy

Slowly, I stopped seeing my blackness as a barrier to feeling beautiful Features 10

Varsity’s exclusive interview with Alt-j’s Gus Unger-Hamilton Page 14 ▶

No.898 Friday 4th February 2022 varsity.co.uk

he Independent Student Newspaper since 1947

Uni has no will to demilitarise, says campaign

Jesus donor in the dock Lorna Kimmins Deputy News Editor A consistory court hearing on the removal of a Tobias Rustat memorial opened in Jesus College Chapel on Wednesday (02/02). Rustat, a patron of the college, was a longstanding investor in several slave trading companies including the Royal African Company (RAC). Jesus College proposed to relocate the memorial in November 2020, following a recommendation from the College’s Legacy of Slavery Working Party (LSWP). he proposal was met with opposition from descendants of Rustat, as well as alumni of the College. Students calling for the removal of the memorial gathered outside the chapel on both days of the hearing so far, bearing banners such as “churches are made of people, not objects”. he irst day of hearings was dominated by debate over whether removing the memorial from the chapel was to erase Rustat’s name while continuing to beneit from his philanthropy. In their opening statement , the petitioners argued that removing the memorial would contextualise rather than erase who Rustat was, noting that Jesus did not plan on removing a window displaying Rustat’s coat of arms from the College dining hall. When Chaplain Reverend James Crockford took the stand, chief oppositioner Justin Gau asked why, if students were able to contextualise the image of Jesus Christ on the cruciix (“a dead and tortured man”) in the chapel, it would not be possible to contextualise Rustat’s life there too. Reverend Crockford said that the issue was with the size and “centrality”

Aoife Petrie Deputy News Editor

of the memorial, explaining: “If it was a small memorial, individuals could choose to engage with it or not… To enter or exit the chapel, any undergraduate would have to face the memorial”. he opposition also raised Jesus’s links with China. Gau asked Dr Véronique Mottier, Jesus Fellow and Chair of the Legacy of Slavery Working Party, about contemporary slavery in China and how much the College had received from China; Mottier was unsure. College Master Sonita Alleyne was also asked about the links between Jesus and China; when asked by Gau whether she would denounce the PRC, Alleyne said that “the situation in Xinjiang should concern us… [but] these issues are being conlated together.” She also said that since she became Master of the College, there had been “no substantive monies coming in from China or Chinese organisations.” The discussions also considered students’ views on the memorial. Alleyne said that taking the memorial out “would remove a barrier for students looking to this space, a religious space, for worship.” On day 2 of the hearing, Jesus College architect Paul Vonberg was questioned about the positioning of the memorial and whether moving it would depreciate its artistic value. Gau raised concerns that moving the memorial would mean it may not be possible to place it in a position of height, as it currently is in the chapel. Vonberg disagreed that it was necessary to place it at a height, saying: “As an architect, I can say that if you put something high, you are asking people Story continued page 7 ▶

▲ he Rustat memorial in Jesus College Chapel (TIMUR RAKHIMOV)

he Demilitarise Cambridge Campaign have accused Cambridge University of having the power, but not the will, to divest from companies that proit of wars and violence. At the Divestment Town Hall open meeting earlier this week (31/01), the Chief Investment Oicer of the Cambridge University Endowment Fund (CUEF), Tilly Franklin, and the Senior Associate and Sustainable Investments Oficer, Honor Fell, responded to questions about its sustainability programme. When asked why Cambridge University continues to proit of the “violence and destruction of wars”, and if the University plans to review their divestment from “controversial industries”, Franklin answered: “he individual investment decisions are made by our third party fund managers so we don’t have discretion over individual investment decisions”. Franklin continued: “If we had any ethical concerns about any of the companies that they invested in we would bring them up straight away and if they weren’t addressed then we would be able to withdraw the university’s capital from those funds”. he campaign claimed this statement “conirms that if the university saw a problem with investing in arms, they could simply withdraw their capital from the funds involved”. he inaction of the University was described by the campaign as “an insult to all the communities whose lives have been brutalised by imperial aggression and war”. In the view of Demilitarise Cambridge, “militarisation is baked into the climate crisis, imperial aggression is both motivated and fueled by the extraction of fossil fuels and natural resources. To say you will divest from one but not the other is to misunderstand the climate crisis.” Varsity contacted the University for comment.

Inside ● Caius Bar drunk dry Pg.2 ● An ode to Vois Pg.15 ● On being married to a political prisoner Pg. 18


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.