The Columnist Issue 3
-
Upload
columnistmagazine -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
1
description
Transcript of The Columnist Issue 3
32 Editorial
CURRENT AFFAIRS
3 Pieces of a Tsar
5 Inside the New European
Agenda on Migration
SOCIAL COMMENTARY
7 Hoping for the Homeless
8 What is University For?
CULTURE
11 Librotraficantes
12 Streaming Ahead: Classical
Music at a Crossroads
2
EditorialWelcome (back) to your magazine.It’s Freshers’ week - a time of confusion, discovery,
adjustment and flu. As old students come back
and new ones try to find their place, the Columnist
returns with a new issue, a special one. Introducing
a new, bigger and prettier editorial team, we have
decided to publish a freshers’ week issue to give
you a bit of a taste of what the Columnist has been
and what it is to become. We’ve chosen what we
considered the three best articles of last year, and
three of our editors have written brand new articles
as well.
We are also launching some new, exciting
initiatives. First, our ‘article of the week’ social media
campaign, in which we will comment weekly on
articles that we’ve found interesting. Like Daniel
Alarcon’s great piece on the wartime state in El
Salvador, recently published in the New Yorker, or
Kanye West’s recent bit for US president. Second,
our series of debates, which will complement and
expand some of the issues dealt with in our articles.
Keep an eye out for our upcoming debate on
‘What’s university for?’ next week.
But this is not all about us. The Columnist is your
magazine, and as such we want to engage with
you. Our aims are high and our vision is clear: giving
voice to student opinion, reducing editorial control
to the minimum, and providing a platform for
students involved in societies or similar to let others
know about their motivations. Have you been a
speaker in a public debate and would like to see
your opinions published? Have you just joined the
Swing Dance society and are amazed by the impact
of swing dancing on contemporary dance? This is
the place to make your opinions heard.
What we hope is clear is that this magazine really
is shaped by you. Engage with it. Let it make you
think. Have a reaction? Write it down, and send it
to us.
The Editors.
columnistmagazine.co.uk
facebook.com/columnistmagazine
@thecolumnistmag
www.
Proudly supported by
Printed by Edinburgh University Printing Services
http://www.ed.ac.uk/printing
CURRENT AFFAIRS The Columnist Issue 3 3
Pieces of a TsarBy Chris Belous
To call Vladimir Putin a tsar outright would be a
misunderstanding of the nature of the Russian
Empire’s tsarist autocracy up until 1917, but it is still
worth looking at the parallels between Russia then
and now to figure out what kind of leader Putin is.
Moreover, to understand Russia today, one cannot
overlook Russian history.
What makes a tsar a tsar? Historically speaking, the
tsar was the leader of the Russian Empire, ordained
by God, and the father of his peoples. tsars often
headed economically backward and politically
isolated, yet expansionist countries. They would
preside over actions which harmed minorities; they
led proudly lavish lives; freedom of expression and
assembly would often be supressed. Putin may
not call himself the father of his peoples, and he
certainly does not call himself ordained by God,
but there can be no doubt that his actions in recent
years have their similarities with tsarism.
Technically speaking, Russia today is a secular state.
Despite the fact that the majority of the population
identify as Russian Orthodox Christians, religion
is nominally secondary to politics. So, while the
tsar could claim his legitimacy from God, today’s
Russian leaders must claim their legitimacy from the
people, which Putin does well. Despite his party’s
lack of popularity, his personal approval ratings have
remained consistently high; the independent, non-
governmental Russian polling organisation Levada-
Center found them to be as high as 87% last August.
Putin has been able to keep his population happy in
spite of recent economic problems and oppressive
legislation, especially since his first presidency
saw high economic growth and an increase in real
incomes by a factor of 2.5, according to the Peterson
Institute for International Economics. Many Russians
seem to support his style of rule and look up to him
personally as a great leader, much like the attitude
often was to the tsars. Perhaps it may even be that
a lot of Russians favour Putin’s ‘hard’ ruling style
for being so tsar-like, with some finding security in
his firm, no-nonsense approach to diplomacy. For
instance, after Hilary Clinton’s comment that Putin
had “no soul,” his response was, “at least the state
figure should have a head.” The Russian leader has
a clear belief in practical over emotional politics,
which is something his public favour.
Of course, there are many dissenters in Russia, and
they are invariably punished for daring to speak out
against an oppressive regime, with journalists shot
and protesters imprisoned regularly. Indeed, freedom
of speech is a touchy subject today, a key example of
this being the legislation against ‘gay propaganda’,
passed in 2013 which in effect bans the distribution
of content related to LGBT+ culture. Under the tsars,
censorship was also enacted frequently, as in the case
of the suppression of Ukrainian-language materials
in the 1880s. Moreover, freedom of assembly has
been restricted under both Putin and the tsars. In
2013, Moscow courts enacted a ban against gay
pride marches for 100 years, and throughout the
CURRENT AFFAIRS4
early nineteenth century, formations of any private
associations were forbidden unless personally au-
thorised by the tsar. The similarities are there, even
if the focus of Putin and the tsars diverges.
Then there are the comparisons that can be made
between Putin’s presidential retreat (the extrava-
gant dacha he occupies outside Moscow) and the
Winter Palace, Saint Petersburg, in which the tsar
would reside. There is also the economic isolation
and the fall of the value of the rouble following
western sanctions in the wake of the ongoing
Ukraine conflict, which has some parallels with
the Russian Empire’s reputation for economic
backwardness. Finally, there is Russia’s ‘annexation’
of Crimea in March 2014, which is jarringly expan-
sionist for the twenty-first century and is really just
a continuation of the territorial policy, spoken or
unspoken, which Russia has always had regarding
the peninsula.
It is also important to consider Russia’s global
position. Despite Putin’s desire for the country to be
as strong and as independent as possible, a belief
shared with the tsars, Russia has nonetheless been
embroiled in international politics throughout its
history, whether as invader or ally. The Crimean
War was waged against Russia; both World Wars
were waged with Russia as an Allied Power; the
Cold War saw the USSR grow into the USA’s enemy
superpower. Russia has also
been consistently part of
talks ranging from the G8
(although their member-
ship is currently suspended
due to the Ukraine crisis)
to the 1814-5 Congress of
Vienna. Putin understands
Russia’s international status
and his foreign policy
reflects this, although he
is also not afraid to make
his own covert gains, as in
the case of Ukraine, where
his government has denied
Russian military involve-
ment despite this clearly
being the case.
Putin, then, is both a modern and traditional ruler,
picking and choosing western and Russian methods
as he sees fit, participating in international diploma-
cy but with an unapologetic eye on Russia’s agenda
at all times. His approach and image is tsar-esque,
but he adapts his approach to fit the demands of the
political moment, both inside and outside Russia.
Arguably then, Putin is a tsar for the twenty-first
century.
First printed in The Columnist issue two.
CURRENT AFFAIRS The Columnist Issue 3 5
Inside the New European Agenda on MigrationBy Maria Pabolaza Lacambra
On 19th April, a boat sunk 70 miles off Libya
claiming the lives of 700 people. The tragedy
represented a turning-point in public opinion,
not because an increase in migration during the
summer season was surprising, but because the
incident anticipated the challenges ahead. Now
the current migration crisis is without doubt the
greatest challenge facing Europe in 2015.
As a result of those tragedies, last May the European
Commission introduced the New European Agenda
on Migration, a comprehensive initiative that rests
on several pillars – it establishes new channels for
high-skilled migration, counters migrant smuggling,
strengthens the role of Frontex and Operation
Triton, sets the tone for long-term common asylum
policy and, most controversially, introduces a
relocation and resettlement mechanism for asylum-
seekers.
First, let’s get down with the relocation mechanism.
Over the next two years, this emergency initiative
seeks to redistribute 40,000 Syrian and Eritrean
nationals that have arrived at the shores of Italy
or Greece via a system of compulsory quotas on
the Member States. This proposal is surprising,
because it fundamentally changes the way the EU
approaches asylum-seeking. Previously, the Dublin
III Regulation maintained that the state through
which migrants first entered the EU was responsible
for processing its asylum-seeking application.
Although the Dublin Regulation has not been
overruled, the quota system recognizes that Italy
and Greece cannot realistically cope with this crisis.
It acknowledges that our current approach to
migration is far from unsustainable, setting the tone
and pushing for change.
Secondly, the resettlement mechanism is a favourite
of mine because it attempts to develop a long-term
strategy to migration. The Commission proposes
resettling in Europe 20,000 people who are
currently living in refugee camps outside of the EU,
also over the span of two years. It seeks to prevent
more tragedies, and recognizes that we need a
new way for refugees to cross the Mediterranean
without risking their lives. Without a fundamental
change in how migration is approached, more
people will continue to unnecessarily risk their lives.
The proposal received a mixed response – only
Italy, Greece, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, Austria,
Malta, the Netherlands and Cyprus agreed to it,
and hence it was not approved. Eventually, it was
agreed that the Member States would redistribute
32,256 asylum-seekers, and further talks about take
place in December to expand this figure. Moreover,
an agreement was reached to 22,504 refugees from
outside of the EU.
In principle, we are looking at a more generous
policy of asylum. So what’s the catch? The truth
is the New Agenda for Migration is no bastion of
European solidarity. The EU has tried to get member
CURRENT AFFAIRS6
states to accept those numbers by exchanging a
looser asylum policy for a more restrictive policy
in irregular migration. The Agenda increases
funding for security bodies, strengthens Frontex’s
legal ability to return migrants and establishes
new partnerships with key countries to accelerate
return processes. It is unclear to me what kind of
solidarity involves drafting a list of ‘safe countries’,
so that migrants from those countries are returned
immediately because their lives is not at risk
enough.
By acting tougher on irregular migration, the
EU perpetuates a dichotomy between refugees,
those worthy of sanctuary, and irregular migrants,
who need to be returned promptly. It is easier to
convince electorates and governments to take
in asylum-seekers because the very word
implies they did not ‘choose’ to leave
their country, but are fleeing
death. However, it ultimately
implies that migrants
are not worthy of
solidarity.
What we fail to consider then is – if some countries
are ‘safe’, why do people risk their lives crossing
the Mediterranean? What are the motivations that
drive someone to get inside a lorry in Austria, if not
a desire to fight for their lives? When the Agenda
puts the focus on Syrians and Eritreans, who are we
leaving behind? How much persecution and fear is
enough to be considered an irregular migrant or an
asylum-seeker?
Change is happening, but it may be small
and insufficient. The New European Agenda
for Migration changes the tone surrounding
discussions about migration, challenging the
Dublin protocol to open the door for a sustainable
way of characterizing arrivals and redistribution.
It is imperative that asylum-seekers find sanctuary
in Europe, but the focus needs to shift onto
the reasons behind the migration and
culminate with a more inclusive
understanding of migrants.
The Columnist Issue 3 7SOCIAL COMMENTARY
Hoping for the HomelessBy Maddy Churchhouse
Sat outside our door, there is somebody different
every day. It is a pretty good spot after all – a broad
step sheltered by an alcove, next to a shop exit
where people have spare change to hand. But the
guys (and occasional girls) do not always make the
£4 needed to stay in a night shelter. One man asks
for strong coffee. “I don’t want to fall sleep tonight”
he explains, eyes dull with apprehension and worse,
resignation, at spending the next twelve hours
isolated and vulnerable on the freezing Edinburgh
streets.
Listening to the stories of local rough sleepers makes
you realise that for those without strong networks of
family and friends, the border between security and
homelessness is one all too easily tipped over. Yet to
us, the homeless themselves can seem to exist on a
different plane.
Marginalisation is most obvious when it happens
directly, such as when private builders install
homeless spikes, and councils shunt rough sleepers
out of city centres. However, it also occurs indirectly,
as welfare cuts threaten the future of shelters
and force growing numbers of families to drift
between bed and breakfasts with no chance of
securing permanent accommodation. But there is
another, more pervasive obstacle that consistently
marginalises the homeless, one that is both
unthinking and largely unchallenged: that of our
own perception.
It is a natural reaction to try to avoid or ignore
situations that make us feel guilty, and it is
difficult to escape the twinge of discomfort felt
when walking past someone begging. However,
avoidance certainly does not make the problem go
away; rather, it makes it worse.
Every time we ignore someone our brains begin
to rationalise their inconsequence, and so, by
purposefully placing homeless men, women
and children beyond the boundaries of what we
perceive, we reduce them to invisibility.
The homeless are conspicuous in their absence
from our own engagement with the world
surrounding us, even as we walk inches past
them. This robs them not only of dignity but, most
crucially, agency. Denied the ability to participate
in or benefit from the social network which the
majority of us rely on for our wellbeing, the isolation
of the homeless becomes mental and emotional, as
well as practical and physical.
As students with potentially very little cash to hand,
it is easy to think that there is nothing we can do,
and it is arguably less embarrassing to pretend
you have not noticed someone than to refuse
them help. However, making the effort to say good
morning, to offer a hot drink, or to learn someone’s
name, is very much within the capabilities of all of
us. There is more than a little truth in the saying
‘fake it till you make it’; it is why making yourself
smile even on a bad day really does increase
happiness.
Even if your interaction is just to shake your head
and say no, sorry, not today, by responding to
someone’s existence, you give them back the power
to affect others through their actions. You have
acknowledged that they are a human being who is
SOCIAL COMMENTARY8
worthy of consideration, and you are creating one
small thread in what could become a network, and
potentially provide somebody with lifeline.
This is not the blanket assumption that ‘spread a
little kindness’ here, and the fleeting comfort of a
coffee there, will spontaneously provide the triggers
for rehabilitation. But it is a change in our behaviour
towards the homeless which is needed to reduce
the stigmas and misconceptions surrounding the
issue, and it is this change which will gear society
towards being more inclusive, and more effectively
able to tackle the problem.
Kindness alone is not going to get people off
the streets. But since the consideration of others
provides the basis for all constructive humanitarian
action, it is a pretty fundamental place to start.
First printed in The Columnist issue two.
What is University For?By Pablo Pérez Ruiz
When I first came to Edinburgh, my expectations of
university were mixed and my understanding of the
institution limited. Talking with others about what
uni meant to us, the ‘I’m just here for the piece of
paper’ was a recurring theme. Others argued that
attending university was a matter of access, both
to people and resources. For others, it was simply
the path to academia. Seeing people’s differing
expectations, I wondered whether university could
have a single purpose. Is University merely a ‘factory
of the middle class’, as US activist Staughton Lynd
puts it? Overall, I got the feeling that most of us
came to uni without really knowing why, viewing
it as another step in the ‘predetermined path’ of
life: you are born, go to school, go to uni, get a job.
Uni is seen as a means, something we go through
SOCIAL COMMENTARY The Columnist Issue 3 9
to rush down to London immediately afterwards
seeking the hottest internship.
After the divestment protests last May, I was struck
by my limited understanding of how the University
actually works. Who was deciding where to invest?
Why weren’t we taught about the bureaucratic
machine that the university as an institution
really is? The management and governance of the
university seemed completely alien to me, and a
little research made me even more confused as I
ended in a pdf on the General Council’s Mace. That
students usually spend an average of four years
at University means they are often seen to have
no long-term interests in the University, and are
thus excluded from much of
its decisions. This is closely
related to the ‘student as
consumer’ model of higher
education, associated with
high fees and an increasing
marketization of the
university. Productivism is the
University’s modus operandi:
economic growth, reputation,
and the reproduction and
integration of the labour
market. Is that all University
is for?
The ‘student as consumer’
model is not only reflected in
the University’s management
and governance but also
in its pedagogy. We’re still
stuck in the Freirean ‘banking
model’ of education, in
which the teacher is seen as
a god and the student as an
empty account to be filled
by the ‘knowledgeable’. If
education is to be a mechanism for social change,
the student must be seen as an active learner, a
producer of knowledge rather than a consumer
of information. Although this can be achieved to
some extent through student-run societies, back
in the classroom we are faced with the same old
structures of teaching and learning. If we want
university to be a place for questioning established
assumptions and structures, its functioning
(management, pedagogy, and governance) must be
fit for that purpose.
How should we imagine the University of the future
then? My vision is clear: co-operative.
SOCIAL COMMENTARY10
Look at the Edinburgh Student Housing Coop,
the SHRUB, the Hearty Squirrel. They are all
successful, alternative models of organisation.
They are at the same time sustainable, democratic,
accessible, and fair. Is their model unfit for the
massive institution that a University is? The people
at the Social Science Centre in Lincoln don’t think
so, and they’ve started a project based on the
concept of the Co-operative University. There are
precedents, such as Mondragon University in the
Basque Country, which is a real alternative to the
neoliberal university. The co-operative university
would confront the issues of property and worker
control, and would make us more aware of what
the University is, how it works, and what its
purpose should be. The change of governance and
management structures would also need a radical
pedagogical framework: the student would not be
a mere learner of skills, but also a contributor in the
production of knowledge within the University.
There are many ways in which the Co-operative
University could come about, but the most
interesting is that of dissolution. Dissolution
would mean that the different components of the
University would progressively turn into Co-ops,
and the result would be the University as a ‘co-op
of co-ops’. We have already started that process.
No more halls, but student housing co-ops. No
more EUSA shops, but more food sharing. No more
waste, but swapping and re-using with the SHRUB.
Why couldn’t also the different school departments
become workers’ coops? It would mean more
committed staff, and an overall organisational
character that put education at its centre by
lowering transaction costs. If academics value
solidarity and democracy, why don’t we put them
into practice?
What a university is for and how it works are
closely linked. Although students have different
expectations when they come to uni, promoting
social change should be the university’s main
priority. For this to happen, we need to rethink
the way we manage, govern, and teach at our
universities. Experimentation is necessary, and
the co-operative model has proven a feasible
alternative to mainstream models of organising.
Universities have always been at the forefront of
innovation, being places to imagine the future
and criticise the present. A Co-operative education
would be an emancipatory education, focused
in developing agency among workers (students
or otherwise). For it to happen, a change in both
expectation and beliefs is necessary, as some of the
practices are already out there and running and
functioning successfully.
Further reading: Joss Winn, Dan Cook, Stefan
Collini, http://ww.ed.ac.uk/chaplaincy/events/
whats-uni-for.
CULTURE The Columnist Issue 3 11
LibrotraficantesBy Natalia Baizán
On January 10, 2013 in Tuscon, Arizona books were
taken out of the hands of students taking part in
a state certified Mexican-American Studies (MAS)
course while the class was in session. While it may
seem to be an isolated if not extreme case, the
varied and heated responses prove that this action
extends well past the classroom. Arizona’s 2010
bill ARS-15-112 states that no school course shall
“... promote the overthrow of the United States
government, promote resentment toward a race or
class of people, [be] designed primarily for pupils
of a particular ethnic group, or advocate ethnic
solidarity…” and it is this very law that has been
cited repeatedly by Jan Brewer (state governor) and
her superintendents in defense of the initial event
and the subsequent suspension and banning of
Mexican American Studies in Arizona.
In a state where 60% of the student population
identifies as Mexican-American, it is difficult to not
see this as a deliberate attack on the state’s fastest
growing population and an attempt to erase its
historical and cultural importance in the name of
education, especially given that African-American
studies and Asian-American studies (5.6% and 2.5%
of the student population respectively) remain
intact.
Enter Librotraficantes - ‘Book smugglers’ in Spanish-
a group led by Houston writer and advocate Tony
Diaz who since 2013 have been doing just that,
smuggling banned ‘wetbooks’ back into Tuscon and
beyond.
The image itself is a romantic one- a
repurposed taco truck that amasses
books and then delivers them
every few months to ‘readeasies,’
small underground libraries
Librotraficantes have helped
create for the sole purpose
of giving communities
access to critical and
controversial books.
CULTURE12
Yet the issues themselves are much larger
than simply the striking of a few books from a
school curriculum, and it is to those problems
that Librotraficantes has begun to speak:
denying individuals the ability to read stories or
comprehend their own heritage in light of others is
not only unjust, but fundamentally opposed to the
purpose of public education.
What Arizona’s government misunderstands is that
Mexican-American studies is not a course solely
for Latino students. Yes, the majority of students
that take that course will claim Mexican-American
heritage, after all it’s one of the few courses that
speaks directly to some facet of their experience,
and yes, few students who are not Latino will opt
out. But that is more a reflection of the issues
within America’s educational system that values
one group’s contribution over another than an
issue with school boards that dare to teach a course
inclusive of 60% of its population.
As time has gone on, the fight has gotten bogged
down in the legal shuffle and bureaucratic mess
that defines these sorts of events. Currently a
group of students from the Unified School District,
those same students who saw their MAS course
suspended in 2013, are suing John Huppenthal, the
state superintendent in charge of public education,
for unlawful discrimination but they have yet to
make any real inroads in reinstating MAS in Arizona.
Nevertheless, the Librotraficantes still have plenty
on their hands and so have shifted strategies
accordingly. Most recently Texas senators have
attempted to pass multiple bills which delegitimize
Mexican American studies by not accrediting
those courses, once again ironic in a state that is
38% Latino. Perhaps the biggest obstacle facing
Librotraficantes is complacency- these fights take
years, and the newscycle as well as its readers are
quick to forget.
Nevertheless, Librotraficantes continue to fight
for MAS, having shifted to a less romantic and
more strategic position: the book van has been
retired and changed out for packets, reading
lists, and “MAS Toolkits” mailed out to educators
or community organizers who wish to kickstart
or revive student’s interest in the subject, and the
focus has shifted to maintaining underground
libraries rather than starting them. Now that the
dust has settled and the fate of MAS hangs in some
sort of limbo, is when Librotraficantes and their
demand for direct action need the most support
from any and all who view education as a complex,
multi-dimensional enterprise. The topics discussed
in Mexican-American Studies are not Latino-only,
and to present such a course as unnecessarily
‘radicalizing’ or ethnicity-specific is not only an
insult to those who dare to validate the Mexican-
American experience in the classroom, but indeed
to the state and the nation as a whole.
CULTURE The Columnist Issue 3 13
Streaming Ahead: Classical Music at a Crossroadsby Fiona Russell
The past few years have seen the ascent of digital
music libraries, with the advent of the iPod and
more recently, the increasing popularity of internet-
based streaming services such as Spotify which
allow people to browse, discover and share music of
every genre on almost any electronic device.
However, Spotify has been subject to a great deal
of controversy since its release in 2008, mainly due
to the way it affects artists in terms of royalties paid
out. Classical music particularly has been affected
by it due to the large number of performers often
required. And yet, when I polled fifty-odd students
at some of Europe’s top conservatoires, the majority
do use Spotify and acknowl-edge the part it plays in
their interest in classical music.
Jeremy Wilson wrote in The Telegraph last year that
“the loss of ownership cheapens our relationhip
with recorded music.” To an extent, this is true:
the nature of a one-click programme means that
one is less likely to listen to full works, but instead
to pick out highlights. A bit like reading a single
monologue instead of watching the whole of
Hamlet, which is designed to be experienced as an
entity; similarly, the experience of a sports game
isn’t as great if you only watch the winning goals.
But as young students, who travel and live off very
tight budgets, it is far more practical to stream your
music collection from the cloud. Not to mention
signifcantly cheaper. The social element and the
ability to publicise what you listen to allows for
much wider audiences. Suddenly, traditionally elitist
musical genres like classical or jazz are available to
all, as long as you have speakers and an internet
connection.
There is however an element of truth to the idea
that platforms such as Spotify are much better for
the listener than for the artist, especially where
classical music is concerned.
Spotify only takes 30% of their earnings from
subscriptions and advertising, which is the same
amount iTunes takes from downloads. Since its
foundation in 2008, the company boasts at having
paid out over $1 billion in royalties, $500 million
of which were in 2013 alone. But they received
considerable criticism earlier on this year for only
paying out $0.007 per play of a song directly to
record companies, and thence to the artists.
This is pretty abysmal, although it can be argued
that this will increase significantly due to the fact
that the streaming market is likely to continue to
grow, allowing them to have a bigger budget for
royalties. Also, in a world where music piracy is a
major issue, they at least ensure that artists are paid
something.
However, the royalties paid to classical music could
be considered an even greater issue.
CULTURE14
For example, imagine the Berlin Philharmonic
record a version of Wagner’s Ring Cycle, comprising
four operas which span approximately 18 hours,
played back-to-back. You need to account for the
immense cost of an orchestra of 100+ players,
conductors, directors, singers, producers. If you
were recording this to sell as a CD, the box set
would often cost £100. This is a large sum, but it
makes sense when you compare it to the cost of
recording a short album on an acoustic guitar in
a studio. Suddenly, earning 0.7 cents per play per
movement seems ridiculous and performers are at
a real loss.
The debate surrounding the ethics of Spotify and
other streaming platforms, such as Soundcloud,
Pandora and Google Play is therefore such a
grey area. While it encourages social sharing
and therefore increases listenership, it may
simultaneously be the demise of classical music
because of the financial instability with which it
presents its artists. That is unless these services
rethink the way in which they help artists.
For readers interested in using Spotify to explore
new and slightly lesser-known Classical music, I
have compiled a playlist entirely made up from
suggestions from musicians and music-lovers alike,
which can be found at http://
tinyurl.com/p7zy6na (Spotify
account required).
First printed in The Columnist
issue one.
15
Who we areAt the University of Edinburgh there is certainly no lack
of originality. You see it in tutorial discussions, during
extracurricular activities and (ironically) at the Big Cheese.
The problem that the editors of The Columnist saw was
that there was a very visible gap in our University’s sundry
student publications: there seemed to be no place for
short opinion pieces on topics relating to current affairs,
social commentary and culture.
The brief is deliberately encompassing. More than
anything this is a general interest magazine -- one we
believe is generally interesting. In our opinion, the ideas,
beliefs and grievances widely shared by students needed
a fresh outlet to spark debate in a more sustainable,
constructive way.
The Columnist aims to serve as a forum for these
discussions, creating a stage upon which the real
discourse can be engaged with, where the most
demanding topics of today -- more importantly, of
tomorrow -- can be tackled with equal precedence.
Contained in this edition of the magazine are an array
of human experiences, ponderings and reactions to
a variety of topics. As all articles are the opinions of
individual Columnists, and not those of the magazine,
there are things and subjects we naturally disagree upon.
They are relevant expressions nonetheless. Questions
are raised, some are answered. If you read this and feel
the need to shout at us, then good; that’s what we were
going for.
We urge you to join us. Comment, rant, draw, write—
whatever your talent is, share it with us.
Welcome to your magazine. Welcome to our magazine.
Let’s make our voices heard.
CHECK OUT OUR PREVIOUS ISSUES ONLINE:
Issue 1 Issue 2
Staff:Editor-in-Chief Pablo Pérez Ruiz
Deputy Editor Ross Devlin
Current Affairs Editor Mai Nghia
Social Commentary Editor Lucca Rolim
Culture Editor Natalia Baizán
Copy Editor Shona Warwick
Events and Funding María Pabolaza
Illustration Vivian Uhlir
Graphic Design Kael Oakley
columnistmagazine.co.uk
facebook.com/columnistmagazine
@thecolumnistmag
www.
GE T INVOLVED! CONTACT US AT: