Issue 78- Freshers 2021

The

Cheese Grater

Issue 78 - Autumn 2021 cheesegratermagazine.org facebook.com/uclcheesegrater A new academic year, a new normal.

Start your year off right by flipping through our latest freshers’ issue.

2nd Year Students

2nd Year Students

2nd Year Students

2 Autumn 2021 The Cheese Grater

News & Investigations

The Cheese Grater interviews Dr Michael Spence In February 2020, Sophia Robinson from The Cheese Grater Magazine interviewed Dr Michael Spence, UCL’s new Provost. Among other things, they discussed tuition fees, UCL’s mental health services, and LGBTQ+ rights on campus. Sophia also questioned Dr Spence on his opinions on freedom of speech – some of which he has previously come under fire for.

S: There’s been a significant increase in students from 2019-20 to 2020-21. And my understanding is that the previous Provost was quite interested in continuing to increase the intake of students. Is this something that you’re interested in maintaining, as especially with the construction of UCL East which would allow UCL to take in more students?

M: I think you’ve got to distinguish between student numbers this year, which are a result in part of the issues that there were with admissions and A-Levels during the pandemic, and the sort of long-term growth trajectory. In October, we’re going to be starting a conversation with the University, as a whole, about our strategy over the period 2022-27. One of the topics is going to be size and shape of the university and just how big the university should get what percentage of students should be international, what percentage should be domestic, what percentage should be postgraduate, what percentage undergraduate. Because I think many British universities have simply grown organically as a result of revenue pressures and you really need to think about how big is too big and what the right mix of students needs to be.

whether the increase of international students is happening and what the motivation behind that is. I think it’s not entirely unreasonable to interpret that as an attempt to increase revenue, because international student fees are higher. Is that a motivation at UCL or not really at all?

M: We don’t have a big endowment, so we are a university which is, in large part, funded by student fees, that’s true.

But I believe in international education, and I think it is a hugely important opportunity for our domestic students to be studying with people from 140 countries around the world. I think it’s great for Britain to have ambassadors all over the world who have been to university in the UK. One in four heads of states internationally were educated in the UK – an extraordinary contribution that British Universities make to the world. And I also think that one of the most important graduate attributes going forward is going to be cultural competence. And what better way than to practice that in classrooms with people from all over the world. So I really believe in international education, but obviously in any conversation about students, about [their] size and shape, there is a revenue dimension as well as a pedagogical dimension.

S: Speaking of money and fees, [...] what is your opinion on the call for tuition fee refunds and is this something that you are planning to engage with going forward?

M: I understand why students feel that they have not gotten their money’s worth, because they’ve paid their £9,000 pounds. They haven’t had an S: And I think that there is some on-campus experience and I completely discourse going around about understand that. But, what lots of whether increase of international students don’t know is that keeping

university teaching and research, but particularly teaching, going this year has cost us an extra £90 million. And so they’ve got a more heavily subsidised education than they would normally get this year. So in line with government advice, we are not talking about giving student fee rebates or reducing student fees. But I can understand why students feel that they haven’t gotten what they would normally get for £9k.

S: I wanted to also touch on the UCL brand. I’ve heard a rumour that you have some thoughts on the ‘sub-brands’ such as the Bartlett school and the Slade school and on abolishing those names and having it all under the UCL name umbrella. Is that the case?

M: [laughs] No, that’s not the case.

I think that UCL is the world’s great unknown university. UCL is a top10 institution and UCL should trip off people’s tongues just as quickly as Harvard or Oxford. That isn’t the case at the moment, and I think part of that has to do with the fact that we haven’t been as good at promoting that brand as we ought to have been. And we need to do some work in that space. But some of our sub-brands, you know, like Slade and Bartlett, they’re globally recognised brands themselves and we certainly wouldn’t want to kill those.

S: You have received a list of top priorities from the Student’s Union, and my understanding is that there was discussion about mental health funding. What are your views on mental health funding at UCL: does it need to be increased, and more generally, with regards to mental health services for students, what needs to be changed, improved, abolished? Or do you think it’s functional as it is right now?

News & Investigations

abolished? Or do you think it’s functional as it is right now?

M: Since joining UCL, I have been impressed by the mental health support that has been made available to students during the pandemic. The interesting question going forward is what the level and modalities of the provision of mental health support ought to be, and what we can do in partnership with the NHS. I think sometimes issues arise in the integration of university mental health provision and the provision that’s available in the health system more generally. And it’s really important that there’s a kind of tighter knit connection there and it’s something I’m very keen to explore.

S: This is a discussion that has been had, not just in terms of mental health, but disability support in general at UCL. I don’t know if you’ve been made aware or have had a chance to read it, but last year there was a report by the Disabled Students Network about disabled students’ experiences at UCL. It’s incredibly poignant and it really does shine a light on certain issues.

M: So I’ve seen that, and have also had the opportunity to be briefed by a student who lives with a disability about their experience at UCL. They’re a postgraduate student and interestingly, they were saying that they think UCL is sector-leading in its provision for disabled students, but also shared terrible stories about their experience at UCL. They knew partly from their own experiences elsewhere and partly from talking to other students that their experience would have been even worse at other British universities. So I think we have a way to go in the disability space and I’m very glad that after the Eugenics Inquiry, the disability group was set up and I think it needs to be an area of focus.

The Cheese Grater Autumn 2021 3

S: Now, I want to move on to slightly more, I suppose, controversial, topics. We are the Cheese Grater after all. There has been some discourse around your lack of support for the same-sex marriage referendum in Australia. And I believe that in the UCL podcast earlier this year, you expressed your opinion that as Provost, it’s not your place to advocate in public conversation or join the debate on political issues.

But I’m sure you can understand that for LGBTQ+ members of the community, there is some concern as to whether their needs are a priority and whether the leadership at the university believes in their needs and wants to advocate for supporting them and their protection in this space. Do you prioritise making UCL a protected community for LGBTQ+ students?

M: Yes, very much so. What I’ve always said about that is that while I don’t think that the university should be a participant in the public conversations about controversial issues as a university because it should be a forum for our staff, students and others to have those conversations. Nevertheless, the university does have to adopt positions in relation to the conduct of its own business. Clearly, that includes making sure that the university is a place where everyone can be their whole selves, and where LGBTQI+ staff are comfortable.

In Sydney, I was proud of the work we did on our Ally Network and with the Mardi Gras on the history of the Mardi Gras, and our participation in that activity and the work that we did across a whole range of issues in the LGBTQI+ area. But that was us as a university.

That’s different to us participating as an institution in a conversation where some of our staff and students were participating in the public conversation on one side of the debate, and other staff and students were participating in the public conversation on the other

side of the debate. That seems to me to be what a healthy university community should expect. And the university itself should be able to be a place that provides a forum for that debate.

S: Speaking of human rights, one of the human rights protected under the Human Rights Act 1998 here in the UK is the right to freedom of expression. I think that you have spoken about this as an important issue, and said that UCL is ‘deeply committed’ to freedom of expression. In your article in The Times you said that in a healthy university, academics and students should be fighting for causes they think are right, and where relevant, debunking ideas they believe are wrong. I really do agree that debate at university is an important thing. However, then there was the controversy regarding your radio interview, and the fact that you said if a Holocaust denier was invited to speak, you wouldn’t prohibit them from speaking. And I understand that in terms of - you’re a legal scholar, I’m not, so please correct me if I’m wrong - but my understanding is that if someone is invited to speak, it is not lawful to stop them from speaking unless that speech somehow infringes on other human rights. But, having read the EHRC guide on freedom of expression in Higher Education Institutions, the EHRC say that, whilst if someone is invited they are allowed to speak, the right to be invited isn’t extended necessarily in the same way. And then you did clarify in The Telegraph that you don’t think holocaust denial should be lawful.

M: The Holocaust denier thing was a bit of a red herring. It was a bit of a trick question. I come

4 Autumn 2021 The Cheese Grater

from a jurisdiction where it is just inconceivable that anybody would ever invite a Holocaust denier to campus, and I hope that’s also true at UCL. The trick question was that I had said that if an academic asked someone onto campus to speak, and their speech was lawful and was not going to give rise to public order problems, we would let them speak. And the interviewer said ‘Well, Holocaust denial is not unlawful in the UK, so would you have them speak?’ And I told him that our commitment to free speech is very deep. In fact, Holocaust denial is usually unlawful in the UK as inciting racial hatred. What I do think and I agree with the EHRC on, is that nobody has a right to be invited onto campus, so nobody can complain that I’m not asking x or y to speak. But the question was about the situation where an academic has invited someone to speak, and I don’t think that if an academic invites someone to speak, it is up to me to censor their speech if their speech would be lawful. I’m just not in the business of censorship. And I don’t think the university should be in the business of censorship.

Lama onto campus. Another group of academics said to me ‘we can’t have the Dalai Lama on campus, for all sorts of reasons’. I said, ‘if an academic invites someone to speak on campus, and their speech is lawful, they have to be heard’. So, I said ‘I’m not uninviting the Dalai Lama, we can have the Dalai Lama on campus, he can come to campus and speak’. The academics ended up organising a different version of the event which kept everybody happy.

This involved a seminar where people from the Dalai Lama’s office and people from the Chinese side would have conversations about important issues in the life of contemporary Tibet. A retired academic went to the press and said: ‘The Dalai Lama has been uninvited from campus by the Vice Chancellor’. That was just a lie, a straight-forward falsehood, and the story went global, because everybody loves a story about the Dalai Lama being uninvited. The academics decided that the best outcome was that the Dalai Lama should come and give his talk, and he came and gave his talk about education and life went on. But my participation in that was zilch, nought, zero, except for saying, S: I do understand that, of ‘I’m not going to uninvite him. course, and I do think that public An academic has invited him to debate is important because campus’.

I think that it helps inform opinions, or change minds, or S: Just to clarify the whole issue strengthen conviction. However, of free speech, because it’s a big there was the case in 2013 at the discussion, not just in the context University of Sydney, when a visit of you and UCL, but also with the by the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, government releasing their report the Dalai Lama, was moved off where there’s a much stricter campus. So what happened there? focus on freedom of expression.

I believe the government has also M: His holiness the Dalai Lama said something to the effect that has a marvellous publicity machine. there would be an opportunity They got a Tibetan student to for people to take legal action ask the Dalai Lama to talk about if they were no-platformed at a education because Sydney is a big university. I think what I would fundraising city for the Dalai Lama. like to get clarification on is that An academic then invited the Dalai there is certain speech that is

News & Investigations

permitted, theoretically, by law.

For example, to go back to our earlier discussion, Holocaust denial is not explicitly prohibited by law. And Hate Speech is not really a legal concept here, it’s a concept, but I suppose it’s not enshrined in the same way. I think you’ll agree with me when I say law and ethics are not necessarily one and the same, that just because speech is lawful doesn’t mean it’s ethical. Is there a point at which you would be comfortable platforming someone because even though their speech is technically lawful, it is profoundly unethical? Or would you allow that to happen regardless?

M: So there is a couple of things to say here. One is I’m very big on the promotion of the epistemic virtues in universities. I think part of the problem is that we don’t disagree well, we don’t disagree respectfully, and we don’t choose language with the goal of increasing understanding. And I’m very big on making sure that the conversation at universities is as measured and as reasonable as possible. And I think that’s a part of my job in creating a forum for conversation. I can know what speech is lawful and what speech is not lawful. But I can’t decide what speech is ethical and not ethical. I’m a Vice-Chancellor, I’m not the Pope. I think a university needs to be a place where people are able to express minority moral positions. Lots of things that were once regarded as offensive or as an anathema are now regarded as mainstream, for example, that people should be able to express their gender in whatever way they want to express their gender. In the example you raised, it’s a clear majority position that people should be able to marry whoever they like whether they identify as

News & Investigations

as a man or a woman. That was once a weird minority position. And if Vice-Chancellors in those days had silenced people on campus whose positions represented a minority, or they regarded these views as unethical, then we might not have had the progress and developments in the same-sex marriage conversation that we’ve had.

The Cheese Grater Autumn 2021 5

S: You’ve mentioned having a measured discussion, representation on both sides of the aisle, but what’s your opinion when it comes to scientific discussion? For example, climate change. The majority of the scientific community have a consensus that there is man-made climate change and that we are in a climate emergency. There are also people who deny climate change and are allowed to speak openly about that. But that is, first, a much smaller percentage of the population, and second, is not necessarily scientifically backed.

If we give equal time, literally equal time --

And so, I think it’s really dangerous when university officials get into the territory of deciding what conversation is ethical and not ethical. Now you’ve got to distinguish here between people that I or the university invite to an official university event (where I think we should be careful) and stopping academics and students M: I haven’t said anything about from inviting people. When I ask equal time. people, I do need to think whether I think their speech is going to S: No of course, I just wanted be ethical, but I don’t think I can to clarify. censor speech just on the basis that I think it’s unethical.

M: And I’m very happy for you to clarify. The only question about

Society Bitch

Well, well, well, if it isn’t your favourite drama queen back on campus.

Unfortunately, I’ll also be joined by two years’ worth of freshers, but I suppose it’s within their right to go to Ministry of Sound and get an STI. Speaking of STIs, UCL Men’s Rugby

are reportedly back after several years in the wilderness. Since they were originally disaffiliated from the SU following several incidents involving rampant homophobia and sexism, I certainly won’t be welcoming them home with open arms. Aside from their horrendous club culture, I’m also reluctant to welcome any society which uses words like ‘khoosing’ (?) and ‘frothing’ in their freshers’ event descriptions.

It’s not just Men’s Rugby who’ve had a tricky relationship with the SU. In an impressive breach of government regulations, UCL Hindu Soc faced disciplinary action last year after

whether I should censor people based on the fact that I think their speech is unethical. I don’t think I have to invite loonie climate change deniers or whatever to campus.

I’m not the BBC, there aren’t rules about equal airtime to everybody.

I think there is a rich conversation that goes on at campus which is conducted by staff and students. My job is occasionally to make sure that it’s civil if it gets out of hand and to make sure that people are free to ask whomever they want to speak.

S: Ok, thank you so much.

M: I’m an umpire, I’m not a participant. The university is not a participant in the conversation, it just provides the playing field and makes sure that people stick by the rules and don’t punch one another at public events, things like that.

S: Thank you so much for speaking with me today.

organising an intercollegiate football match during lockdown. Whilst they escaped the clutches of disaffiliation, let’s hope the committee members enjoyed organising a bi-election for a new President and General Secretary – an administrative task I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. Plus, we all know that bi-elections favour the opposition… wait, never mind, sorry Keir.

Lastly, it would be wrong not to celebrate the end of Zoom University with some Pi-bashing. To me, it seems that sponsoring your ‘apply to be on our committee’ Facebook posts is a little desperate, but who am I to judge…

Contributors to this issue: Sophia Robinson, Ella Ticktin-Smith, Jenna Ali, Alfred Pannell, Rusheen Bansal, Tania Tang, Mel Benedichuk, Emilie Mussbach, Maryam Badghisi, Jennie Howitt

6 Autumn 2021 The Cheese Grater

News & Investigations

UCL’s Role in Human Rights Abuses in the Middle East Jenna Ali In December 2012, the UCL Students’ Union (SU) voted to take steps to cease UCL’s complicity with the occupation of the West Bank, recognised internationally as Palestinian territory yet controlled

by Israeli authorities. Later, in March 2016, the SU voted to support ‘Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions’, a movement protesting trade with illegal West Bank settlements. Most recently, in May 2021, the Union released a statement condemning Israel’s attacks on Gaza. But, despite students’ consistent support for the Palestinian struggle, UCL’s financial decisions and affiliations render the institution indirectly complicit in human rights abuses not just in Palestine, but elsewhere in the Middle East.

including environmental degradation, armament sales to military regimes, human rights violations, institutionalisation of poverty through discriminatory market practices, racial/sexual discrimination, and tobacco production and manufacture”.

They went on to state: “We are confident that all our investments are in line with these commitments”.

However, it is difficult to discern how the commitment to human rights is being upheld.

Aside from the university indirectly profiting from violence against civilians, a more overt relationship also exists between UCL and arms companies. Indeed, a statement by a BAE Systems representative sat above the sponsors list for the Centre for Ethics and According to the office of the Law. It read: Provost, UCL invests £1.5 million in HSBC, a banking multinational “The UCL Centre for Ethics and responsible for investing in weapons Law is an innovative initiative companies such as Raytheon and allowing academia and business to BAE Systems. These corporations meet and discuss what ethics actually supply the arms that have been means in the business environment. wielded against civilians by both The results of that analysis will lead Israeli forces in Palestine and the the debate on ethics both on a business western-backed coalition in the war and on a personal level going forward.” in Yemen. As HSBC gains from - Joanna Talbot, Chief Counsel, these investments, so does UCL. Compliance and Regulation Yet, as UCL’s Media Relations UCL’s Centre for Ethics and Team said: Law purportedly “organises a programme of events for engaging “In regards UCL’s investment with and challenging business in HSBC (£1.5m) and all other and professional approaches to investments, UCL’s Policy for ethics.” But the Centre’s funding Socially Responsible Investment and endorsement by a business states that the university will adopt supplying weapons for war crimes investment strategies that seek to suggests a potentially dangerous minimise and ideally eliminate conflict of interest. irresponsible corporate behaviour,

UCL’s Centre for Ethics and Law is an internationally-respected body whose work on human rights and transnational corporations has been cited by the United Nations (UN). The fact that a corporation implicated in war crimes was, and may remain, the top sponsor of research used to guide UN human rights policy raises a multitude of serious ethical questions.

Some UCL students have attempted to address this matter. In an issue posted on Unitu, a platform where students can communicate concerns and suggestions to staff, they requested a statement from UCL explaining their investment and sponsorship decisions involving BAE Systems. A member of staff responded saying “The Students’ Union is probably best placed to help you with your campaign”.

Soon after, the Centre for Ethics and Law removed its sponsors list from public visibility, offering the explanation that they have no sponsors as of July 2021. They have been contacted and requested to provide further information.

According to the UCL Media Relations Team, “The Centre for Ethics and Law at UCL no longer has any sponsorship agreements in place, so does not receive any funding from sponsors.”

Of course, one might wonder why BAE Systems was determined to be an appropriate sponsor for the Centre for Ethics and Law in the first place. It is also worth noting that although the ICC report implicating BAE Systems in war crimes in Yemen was released in December 2019, the sponsorship

News & Investigations information was only removed from UCL’s website in August 2021, 20 months later.

With regards to other funding the university receives, a UCL spokesperson added: “Funding and sponsorship from external bodies are essential if we are to carry out vital research, helping us solve some of the most pressing challenges facing the world today, and ensuring excellence in both our teaching and student experience.

“We are committed to having the highest standards of research integrity across all of our activities and carefully consider all opportunities to ensure they are in line with our research funding ethics policy and consistent with our mission and values.

“All donations, grants, and sponsorships are subject to regular review and our research is entirely independent and academically driven.

We consider any donation or grant in the light of all the circumstances known at the time it is offered.”

In addition to the ethics department, UCL’s camaraderie with weapons manufacturers appears to spill into other sectors.

For example, the majority of the Industrial Advisory Board for UCL’s Centre for Systems Engineering are employees of weapons companies that have been implicated in the 2019 ICC complaint regarding war crimes in Yemen. This diverse selection of individuals includes employees of Leonardo, Airbus Defence and Space, BAE Systems, and MBDA. UCL’s apparent cooperation with, and indirect investment in, defence

The Cheese Grater Autumn 2021 7 companies complicit in war crimes in the Middle East has become a significant concern for its sizeable Arab student body. According to the student population statistics for the academic year 2020/2021, 1055 UCL students identify as Arab. Their issue with UCL’s links to weapons companies was recently expressed in a petition shared by the Arab and North African Society calling on the university to divest from Israeli war crimes. These students have been awaiting a response to their concerns for months, to no avail.

Demilitarise UCL, a “student activist group concerned about UCL’s links with the arms trade,” responded to these latest revelations.

“That a university like UCL which prides itself on being progressive and disruptive - should still be so heavily implicated in the arms trade is unforgivable.

We know that many of the students at UCL have been horrified to see the news coming from places like Palestine, Yemen and Afghanistan this year - especially those that have personal connections. For them to know that the university is not only receiving and sending money directly to the companies which have profited so heavily from the destruction, but are also actively partnering with them in ongoing research, just goes to show how out of touch our university really is with its own self-proclaimed values and the concerns of its students.”

When questioned about UCL’s ties to weapons companies implicated in war crimes and human rights abuses, the office of the Provost maintained that “we are confident that our investments are in line with these

[UCL ethical investment policy] commitments.” This exact response also appears under the ‘Investments in companies linked with Israel’ subsection of UCL’s ‘Freedom of Information’ page. Yet, the specific issues of BAE Systems’ sponsorship and UCL’s apparent connection to war crimes in Yemen have been neglected entirely. Instead, the only issue acknowledged on the page is that of UCL’s HSBC investment.

The Investments Committee secretary has been contacted along with the SU campaign manager and the Provost in an ongoing attempt to seek an explanation for UCL’s investments and sponsors. The Investments Committee has not yet responded whilst the SU has drafted a policy proposal titled “Lobby to end UCL’s relationship with arms companies,” due to be presented and discussed online on October 14th at 6pm.

Whilst the SU works to correct UCL’s problematic ties to arms companies, many questions remain. How did a relationship between a weapons company and an Ethics Centre come to be and why was it flaunted on the Centre’s website for so long? Why is the Systems Engineering Department still collaborating with members of companies implicated in war crimes? Is this ongoing involvement with human rights abuses the result of negligence and ineptitude or is UCL deliberately turning a blind eye to violence in the Middle East?

And, perhaps most importantly, why is student intervention required in what is a blatant conflict of interest and moral failure? UCL must now listen to its students and end all ties to arms companies.

Accommodation Survival: 5 Chaotic Pieces of Advice from a Chaotic International Student

8 Autumn 2021 The Cheese Grater Mel Benedichuk It’s not ideal that we, the not-sosecond-years, barely relate to most of the previous freshers’ experiences (yes, please tell me one more time about those ‘BT tower lights guiding us home’ after parties). But the one thing that no one could take away from us was the craze, the fun, and the grime of living in halls. Of course, two terms of remote studies didn’t give us much of a choice: if you wanted to entertain yourself, you either had university halls, socially-distanced supermarkets, or a closed campus.

Before moving in, I didn’t expect much, relying on the sheer power of just BS’ing it through like I usually do. I can now say that my few months of living in halls were some of the best of my life — and these few affirmations helped me feel more at ease.

at myself for getting lost on the way to Lidl that was just two streets away.

Laugh when in doubt! Hahaha!

2. Let coincidence lead you to your friends.

There’s pressure to find your ‘cool uni friend group’ during the first year, and it would be a lie if I said I didn’t worry about being liked, belonging, and fitting in. To ease my anxiety over new friendships, I just let fortune guide me — and I was 100% right. I met my entire friend group by accidentally knocking on the wrong door while looking for the friend I shared the kitchen with.

Two of my other friends met by having one’s orange juice drown the other’s veggies in the crowded fridge.

Yes, someone might have ruined your dinner, but it’s a small price to pay for Real Human Connection in a post-COVID world.

3. Don’t be afraid to ask for 1. It’s all a game and no one help and reach out to people. knows the rules.

Don’t take things too seriously.

Moving to halls was the perfect time to unleash my innate (if sometimes dormant) ability to find life hilarious.

I laughed at how heavy my suitcases were and how horrible it was that my 19th-century accommodation didn’t have an elevator. I laughed at my first failed student meal as I poured hot water into a pot of disgusting instant ramen. I laughed

Everyone at the accommodation is in the same boat. Really. It’s important to not be afraid to reach out for help, whether it’s to help you find the laundry room, open a can of coconut milk, or listen to your worries at 3 AM. Ultimately, your accommodation is like a family (albeit a slightly dysfunctional one), tightly knit by the shared chaos of adulting. I was never alone — and

Humour no one is.

4.

Decorate. Your. Room.

Uni room decorations were a necessity — I literally had to spend days in that box. Every ounce of prettiness counted, and my friends helped me out: one gave me Ghibli photo cards to hang on my board, and another inspired me to order a tapestry. I added fairy lights and whatever artifacts I could bring in my overloaded suitcases, and voilà! I’d created the dorm room of a typical white girl who’s totally having the time of her life.

5. Your schedule is likely to be a hot mess — and that’s okay.

During exam season, I woke up at 2 PM and went to bed at 4 AM. This sounds awful on paper, but I guess it worked — so long as you’re honest with yourself about how wrecked your sleeping pattern is.

Through all the ups and downs of uni, I consider myself lucky to have lived in halls. I found a ‘friend group,’ learned how to cook, avoided getting eaten by rats, and marvelled at the ability of some of them to pull all-nighters every night. Plus, even if you have the worst time living in halls, it’ll probably make for a good story at a party. You know, those things where people get together in a room and have ‘fun’.

Teenager X Teenager X, as written for an Besides, I have homework American high-school themed due tomorrow”, replies the oneTV show by a fully grown adult dimensional protagonist who just (sample script). moved schools.

“HEY! You wanna go to a fucking “Homework?”, *Teenager X* party???” responds perplexedly. “I haven’t done any homework in 8 fucking “I’m not very keen on parties. months. I fucking hate school, you

bitch”.

“Alrigh-“ “And you know what? Fuck this establishment in general.”

“Oh boy, here we go”, *the supporting character with a far

Humour

The Cheese Grater Autumn 2021 9

more intriguing past* says under their breath.

“I’m sick of this shit. Homework this, homework that. What about teaching us real-life stuff, huh?

Like doing taxes? What about the FUCKING taxes?!? School is a fucking waste of time. Fuck the ed-u-ca-tion system. Fuck this school.”, *Teenager X* shouts into *the passive student crowd that has incidentally gathered in the hall* proudly.

“They kinda have a point, I guess”, *the supporting character with a far more intriguing past* whispers to *the one-dimensional protagonist who just moved schools*.

“Now if you’ll e-x-c-u-s-e me: I’m gonna vape in the fucking school bathroom”, *Teenager X* announces. *The passive student crowd that has incidentally gathered in the hall* cheers.

“Ugh, I’m so over this”, *the supporting character with a far more intriguing past* scoffs before turning around to walk to their Algebra class.

Love Letter to Third Floor Student Centre Cafe

time I strolled into your premises, blissfully unaware that it would be a long, long time before I saw you again. God, I can picture it now: your verdant green chairs were *The one-dimensional protagonist basking in the sunlight, glistening who just moved schools* quickly like leaves in a summer breeze. turns to follow *the supporting character with a far more intriguing I always enjoyed the anticipation past* to the next lesson.

I felt as I proceeded towards you.

When I walked, using the three Pausing to look over their long flights of stairs as my daily shoulder warmly, *the one- exercise, it made me so eager to sit dimensional protagonist who just down. Other times, it would be moved schools* takes a moment to an extensive lift ride which would, catch a final glimpse of the one and more often than not, manage to only *Teenager X*. stop at every floor before the third (my dear: why do you tempt me this way?). Usually, the lift would Dear Third Floor Student Centre go down before it went up again – a Cafe, cruel metaphor for life, or COVID infection rates.

It’s been a while. How have you been? I still remember the last

You’ve always been such a beautiful location to sit down, either to unwind with friends or, if alone and sitting near to the right people, to overhear a delightful tale of drama and intrigue. If Coldplay were still at UCL, I’m sure they would have written about you, as they stood in line to get a deeply, deeply, expensive sandwich.

I hope you know that I haven’t been to a UCL cafe since you shut, and totally not at all because they all shut at the same time. I look forward to biting into a flavourless pasty bought at your premises again just to feel something.

See you soon, my love.

A UCL student.

10 Autumn 2021 The Cheese Grater

Humour

Spot the Difference: UCL’s Provosts White Man Spills Truth on Abortion *Possible trigger warning: This piece the anonymous forum on Texas Right for Life. Did I dob in my discusses abortion and r*pe.* neighbor, Mary Lou? Yes I did. One My name is Christian White day I saw her with a baby bump, the and frankly I think it’s about time next day, nothing. How was I supa rational male voice entered this posed to know she had eaten a pudding-full of Jesus delights? Anyway, whole abortion debate. that’s hardly the point. The point As a veteran of decorum in my is we should have the freedom to community, my voice, and only grass out our neighbors - that’s what my voice, represents the people of makes this the land of the free and America. That 70% of Americans not some Communist prison camp. who want legal abortions? They’re Let me explain this in other actually a minority. They’re not the real Americans making up this terms. God plans every decision. If country. True Americans are the a man rapes a lady and she becomes friendly folk in my white picket- pregnant, that’s not immoral behavfenced pure white suburbs. ior from a man – that’s what God intended. But when a lady murders Everyone needs to stop criticising that baby by having an abortion, it’s

not God’s will and it IS immoral.

See how obvious and clear it is. It’s only immoral when the lady has agency. Obviously.

Planned Parenthood spew all this propaganda about ‘contraceptive methods’ and you know what I say? If God wanted men to wear condoms he would have built them onto the penis. But he didn’t because the penis is the most sacred vessel of all. I think Moses said that. And anyway, if a lady really didn’t want to get pregnant she could just squeeze her cervix shut. What we don’t need in the Land of Freedom is all this sex education propaganda filling people’s heads with misinformation.

Humour

The Cheese Grater Autumn 2021 11

Silly suggestions like abortions come about when you let the ladyfolk take over. Thank the lord that Ruth Bader Ginsburg could be replaced in the Supreme Court by someone with the balls to straighten the moral backbone of this country.

Well, Amy Coney Barrett may not have balls but thankfully she is prolife. In fact, she’s so pro-life that she allows Texans to carry guns without

without permit so they can stop people being shot by guns. Forget racism, terrorism, and violence. The real threat to American society is the working class females without the resources to bring up a child; the females with abusive partners who won’t provide child support.

And 1 in 10 of these abortionaries are minors! Pah! It would be better if those unGodly young girls had

never been born at all if you ask me - with all the trouble they’re causing.

But there was no need to ask me.

No one did ask me. Yet I am always keen and ready to clear things up for you female-folk. Ultimately, all pregnancies are beautiful and sacred.

As long as the woman is a married, heterosexual virgin. Otherwise it’s pretty shameful.

This could be your next article.

12 Autumn 2021 The Cheese Grater

UCL Cheese Grater Magazine Society President—Maryam Badghisi president@cheesegratermagazine.org Editors-in-Chief—Ella Ticktin-Smith and Rusheen Bansal editor@cheesegratermagazine.org Investigations Editor—Alfred Pannell investigations@cheesegratermagazine.org Humour Editor—Tania Tang humour@cheesegratermagazine.org Online Editor—Stephanie Frank online@cheesegratermagazine.org

© Students’ Union UCL, 25 Gordon Street, London WC1H 0AY. Views expressed herein are not necessarily those of SU UCL or the editors.