Student Life
A plate for everyone: Food restrictions at formals
Having a hazelnut allergy is one of the most oddly inconvenient afflictions. Beyond the typical teasing for being an adult with a nut allergy, I’ve found that it is not even a particularly relevant allergy to have. Hazelnuts are not as ubiquitous as dairy or gluten. Nor are they rare, appearing just often enough, unpredictably, to demand constant vigilance. At Oxford, this vigilance surrounding hazelnuts is especially present at formal hall.
I am not alone. Food allergy diagnoses in the UK have doubled in a decade, as have hospital admissions for severe allergic reactions in the last twenty years.
Formal is one of Oxford’s most cherished rituals: a carefully choreographed, multi-course dinner where students don oversized gowns (though absent at some of the more progressive colleges), Latin grace is mumbled with varying degrees of confidence, and candlelight flickers beneath the watchful gaze of portraits whose subjects might seem faintly disapproving of your conversation. Yet, for those with food allergies or dietary restrictions, the theatrical excitement of attending a formal can be overshadowed by the anxiety and pre-planned negotiation that our presence demands.
If you have never had a dietary restriction, you have probably never given much thought to what happens after you submit one. For those of us who have, it is something we think about every time we attend a formal.
Dietary restrictions must be submitted in advance. Sometimes via a dining portal, sometimes by email, and sometimes just by tracking down the right person. The processes of submitting dietary information, nor the accommodations offered, are standardised across colleges.
As a student with an allergy, the accurate communication of that information is not a minor administrative detail – it is a matter of safety and belonging. Recently, I found myself curious about the behind-the-scenes process: how colleges receive dietary information, where and how it travels, and what care is taken to ensure that, by the time a plate lands in front of you, it is the right one.
Behind the scenes
Alicia Gardiner, Events & Bookings Systems Manager for Kellogg College, shared that their system begins long before any student sets foot in the dining hall. Guests book and pay for formals through UPay, a platform which many – but not all – Oxford colleges use. The dietary requirements section on Kellogg’s UPay is mandatory to complete the booking. Diners must either specify a restriction or explicitly state that they have none before they can complete the booking.
According to Alicia, this small design choice has transformed the process. “If you were talking to me two years ago when I could not make that box mandatory, I found it much more stressful”, she said. Previously, guests would click past the field and then email at the last minute with a sudden recollection of a shellfish allergy or a newly observed Lent.
From there, the process is an exercise in mindful redundancy. Two weeks before a dinner, Kellogg sends a confirmation email inviting students to update guest names or dietary requirements if needed. A few days before the meal, Alicia pulls a booking report and compiles a dietary requirement spreadsheet, which she shares with the kitchen and restaurant teams.
It is the next step that distinguishes Kellogg’s system from other colleges: they use pre-assigned seating, plotted in a program called Perfect Table Plan.
As Alicia explained: “It’s really easy to make mistakes if you don’t know where people are sitting in advance.”
Each diner with a dietary requirement is marked on the table with a colour-coded dot, signalling a different requirement to the service team. The diner’s place card will feature the dot but will not outwardly indicate the specific restriction a student has. As Alicia explained, dietary information is treated as personal information, and Kellogg has deliberately chosen not to publicise it. For example, pregnant guests may not want a card announcing this in front of their plate.
For guest night formals, the restaurant manager designates what Alicia calls an “allergy champion” – a member of the service team responsible for every guest with a dietary requirement that evening. While the rest of the team serves the standard courses, the allergy champion moves through the hall with the seating plan in hand, locating each coloured dot, and delivering the correct plate to the right person.
On any given formal evening, Alicia estimates that somewhere between 10 and 30% of guests will have some form of dietary restriction. Some are simple, some are complex. Alicia recalled one diner who submitted a three-page Word document detailing her restrictions. However complex the requirement, Alicia was proud to share that no one leaves the hall without the right meal.
Sarah Davidson, the Communications and Events Manager at Reuben College, explained that Reuben College operates on a similar system: guests register online, dietary information is compiled into a shared spreadsheet, and place cards are marked with a yellow dot to flag modifications. The specific restriction is also noted on the place card. The key difference is seating. At Reuben, students choose their own seats on the day of the formal. As such, events staff make note at the start of each formal of where any guest with a modification is sitting, so that the kitchen can ensure they receive the correct plate.
Sarah shared that her team is receptive to changing procedures to better accommodate the needs of any student. “If a student raises something, an issue from their side, we will see what we can do.” One change her team is currently considering concerns the place cards themselves: “We are looking into whether on the place card, we put the dietary restrictions only on the side facing the student [with the restriction].” This would make the information not visible to the person across from the student, as it currently is. The team is considering this not because students have raised it as a concern, but as a proactive measure to further improve the experience of those with dietary restrictions.
Of the kitchen’s ability to meet whatever request comes through, Sarah was confident: “I’ve seen a whole range of different dietary requirements or dietary preferences, and they’ve [the kitchen] never not been able to accommodate those.”
Richard Murphy, Catering Services Manager at Exeter College, echoed the value of UPay as an organising tool. “UPay is really good. Probably about half the colleges use it”, he noted. “As far as dietary requirements and allergies [it] does a lot of the work for us.” Exeter uses a free-text box for more unusual or complex requirements – Richard used a celery allergy as an example. This ensures that nothing falls through the cracks for students with less common restrictions.
When a student with a restriction arrives at formal at Exeter, their requirements are flagged automatically by the UPay system upon check-in, and they collect a ‘dietary card’ from the Hall supervisor. On most evenings, the system runs effectively from here. “If something does happen on the night of, we can then adjust.” Richard explained that this might look like a student clicking the wrong allergen box or misreading a menu. He notes, however, that this is rare.
Richard closed by stating: “The main point is that as long as students are upfront and honest about their requirements, most things can be achieved.”
At Queen’s College, Sean Ducie, Head Chef, shared that “accommodating dietary requirements is a major priority for us, and we work hard to ensure that our formal hall menus are inclusive, safe, and enjoyable for all students.”
At the menu design stage itself, the College takes a proactive approach. Sean explained: “When designing our menus, we focus on seasonal, local produce, and work closely with Good Food Oxfordshire and OxFarmtoFork to bring in produce directly from market gardens and small city farms. This allows us to offer fresh, diverse dishes while supporting local growers,” Sean noted, “alongside this, we aim to keep menus as naturally low‑allergen as possible.” The goal, he added, is to provide “an allergen‑free version of a dish that feels as close as possible to the original, so that no student feels like their meal is an afterthought.”
The other side of the place card
The systems colleges put in place tell part of the story. The students with yellow dots on their place cards tell the rest.
Psychologists and allergists have identified two primary types of anxiety that food allergy sufferers experience: anxiety about eating the allergen, and anxiety related to the social experience of having one. In the highly ritualised and formalised context of an Oxford formal, these pressures are amplified. Questioning a server mid-course can draw attention and disrupt the choreography of a meal. The anxiety is not merely about what is on the plate, but about what it means to be the one to have to ask.
Green Templeton College is frequently described as having one of Oxford’s best (and most expensive) formals. That cost, some students argue, buys a more considered approach to dietary accommodations.
During Michaelmas term, I was surprised to receive an email from Green Templeton’s dining staff asking me to clarify which nuts I could eat, as chestnuts were on the menu for a Christmas formal I was attending. The gesture was small, but it surprised me. It did not feel like an exercise in compliance. Instead, I felt confident that someone had actually read what I had submitted and taken the time to respond with care and precision. When I walked into the formal, I was confident that I could enjoy good food and company without anxiety or embarrassment.
Nandini, a vegetarian student at Green Templeton, found the college’s approach to accommodations generally impressive. She told Cherwell: “I genuinely find the vegetarian food at Green Templeton better than other colleges. For formals, since the expectation is just to have a nice meal, which doesn’t necessarily have to be healthy, I am usually more satisfied.”
Not all experiences at Green Templeton were as encouraging. Alina, a student who observes a halal diet, told Cherwell: “At Green Templeton, I’d say it’s pretty disappointing. I always put down halal, but normally get served a vegetarian meal, presumably that’s what happens if they aren’t going to do halal on a specific day. The only time I’ve had halal at Green Templeton is on a special guest night.”
Alina had a further concern: “I was served a vegetarian meal once, which the menu said had alcohol in it, which Muslims can’t have either. After a bit of back and forth, they confirmed that the version they served me was vegetarian and non-alcoholic, but that was a bit of a panic for me.”
Trinity College has also been reported as accommodating. Heewoon, a student at Trinity who does not eat fish, told Cherwell: “My college is very respectful about dietary requirements compared to other colleges, with multiple options.”
Abdullah, a Trinity student who observes a halal diet, told Cherwell his experience dining at Trinity has been “thoroughly pleasant,” praising the consistency, variety, and quality of halal options. He noted that even the vegan options proved generally agreeable, adding: “Trinity College strives to be inclusive of all students enrolled here. As a natural extension of that ethos, the dining experience reflects this commitment.”
At Balliol College, Alina found that although the alternative offered was a convincing vegan recreation of the meat dish served to others, the service itself revealed the system’s imperfections. After some initial confusion over which plate was hers, a server returned to confirm the dish was halal. Reflecting on the experience, Alina told Cherwell: “It was probably a reminder for them to pay a little more attention while they’re serving.”
At Cambridge, Hannah Mawardi, a student at Pembroke College writing for Varsity in 2024, recounted being served sesame – her allergen – three times, despite notifying catering staff of her serious allergy. The third incident ended with her in A&E, still donning her gown. She noted that she had later learned that catering had received the wrong dietary information entirely.
Whether at Oxford or Cambridge, the safety of participating in formal hall depends on the accurate communication of dietary requirements across multiple levels: when that transmission falters, the consequences can be life-threatening.
The small print
When contacted for comment, the University of Oxford stated that food allergy policies are set by the respective colleges rather than centrally and, therefore, the University does not provide university-wide guidance.
Natasha’s Law requires UK businesses to label or inform customers about the top 14 allergens, and all Oxford colleges must adhere to this legislation. This information is often on clear display at lunches and in buffet formats, but can be harder to trace at formal hall, where menus are not always distributed in advance – especially not to guests from outside the college.
Practical challenges compound this uncertainty. At colleges without assigned formal seating, students with allergies and dietary restrictions are often given simple place cards on arrival to place near their plate, indicating their needs. In theory, it is a simple system; in practice, when servers move quickly through a candlelit hall, plates arrive with little explanation. It can be remarkably difficult to tell whether the dish that has landed in front of you has been modified to your needs or is simply the standard meal.
A seat at the table
Some colleges are rising to this challenge: consider Kellogg’s allergy champions, Reuben’s proactive problem-solving, Green Templeton’s thoughtful emails, and Trinity’s consistent halal options. These are not novel innovations, but they make a real difference to diners with dietary restrictions. With food allergy policy set at college level, the problem is that such practices are not always shared or standardised.
Food is more than just sustenance. It is connection. It is culture. At Oxford, it is a central part of student social life. Inclusion does not end at being allowed into the hall. It requires that, once inside, every student has the same opportunity to participate. For students with food allergies and restrictions like myself, this principle is tested three courses at a time.
Student Life
Sheldonian Series concludes for academic year with panel on the power of satire
The 2025-2026 Sheldonian Series ended on Wednesday 20th May with a panel discussion on the power, use, and limits of political satire. Held in the Sheldonian Theatre, the event brought together leading figures from British comedy and public commentary to reflect on satire’s role in the current political moment.
The Sheldonian Series, launched last academic year by the Vice Chancellor Irene Tracey, aims to “promote discussions about the big issues of the day”. This year’s theme focused on different dimensions of power. In Michaelmas term, the series examined the power of speech through debates around “cancel culture”, while Hilary Term’s discussion focused on activism and protest movements.
Opening the evening in a pre-recorded video message, Tracey described the series as a “powerful reminder of what we stand for as a university community” and “what inclusive inquiry and freedom of speech should look like”. Professor William Whyte, the panel moderator, noted that the Sheldonian itself was “an ideal place” to discuss satire because it had effectively been “built for that very purpose”. It was built in the mid-17th century to provide a location for the ‘Oxford Act’, an often disastrous end-of-term event which gave students the chance to poke fun at the University and its members in a satirical oration.
The panel featured three prominent figures in the world of British political satire. It included Jan Ravens, an impressionist known for her work on Spitting Image and Dead Ringers, who performed multiple impressions throughout the course of the evening. Alongside her sat Andrew Hunter Murray, a Keble College alumnus turned Private Eye journalist and star of Radio 4’s The Naked Week. Completing the line-up was Ella Baron, cartoonist for the Guardian, who started her career drawing for Cherwell as an undergraduate at Merton College.
Three broad themes dominated the discussion. The first was satire’s ability to reshape how audiences see political events. Baron argued that cartoons can “collapse time and space”, creating the “click feeling” where an idea suddenly binds together in a reader’s mind, while Hunter Murray described satire as an attempt to “distil” reality into something surprising and funny, categorising his work on The Naked Week as an attempt to “express reality” in a surprising manner. Baron also argued that cartoons often work because viewers “see a cartoon before you even get to read the argument”, giving satire a unique immediacy within the modern news cycle.
A second theme was the question of whom satire should target. Baron argued that satire should involve “punching up but in all directions”, though she also warned that “if we think about punching up as redistribution of power, we can also think about those being crushed by it”. Hunter Murray similarly described “groupthink” as “the big enemy”.
He also expressed awareness of the often intensely personal character of the work they produce, admitting that he has had sleepless nights after The Naked Week airs, worrying they had taken it too far. Ravens reflected on this process of deciding “how far can I go?” when creating satirical impressions, particularly when dealing with recognisable public figures. Together, the panellists repeatedly defended satire’s ability to offend and discomfort audiences, though they also acknowledged the ethical tensions involved. Baron reflected on receiving death threats for some of her work, while Ravens stressed the importance of being “intensely considerate” and not producing satire “thoughtlessly”. She also stressed, however, that satirists “need to be able to offend” and “can’t be too soft”.
The final major theme concerned whether satire remains effective in an era shaped by social media, political extremity, and artificial intelligence. Asked by the audience whether modern politics has become “beyond satire”, Hunter Murray argues that satire simply adapts to the culture around it, while Baron suggested that figures such as Donald Trump may be difficult to caricature, as there’s “not a lot of headroom”, but remain open to satire. The panel also reflected on the threat of AI to their practice, with Ravens arguing that AI-generated comedy doesn’t have “any humanity… any warmth… any humour”.
The event culminated with a satirical performance by student comedian Foo, a DPhil student in Management. Foo delivered a presentation on “AI and your satire workflow” delivered in the character of “pre-McKinsey” Brasenose graduate “Jonty”.
Student Life
Oxford study warns ‘friendly’ AI chatbots are more likely to mislead users
AI models trained to seem warm and empathetic make significantly more errors, and are far more likely to agree with users even when they’re wrong, according to new research published in Nature by Oxford Internet Institute (OII) researchers Lujain Ibrahim and Luc Rocher.
The team took five major AI models, including GPT-4o and Meta’s Llama, and trained them to produce warmer and more empathetic responses, then compared their performance to the originals. Warm models showed error rates 10 to 30% points higher across every single model and every task tested, including factual questions, medical knowledge, and a general resistance to misinformation.
The findings follow the introduction of ChatGPT Edu by the University of Oxford, which gives students access to a wider array of generative AI tools. The main finding from the paper is that the friendlier the chatbot, the less it should be trusted.
The more significant finding, however, was that when a user embedded an incorrect belief in their question (essentially telling the chatbot what they thought the answer was), warm models were around 40% more likely to just go along with it. Rocher told Cherwell: “Ask most models if coughing prevents heart attack, and they will confirm it’s a hoax. But ask a warmer model, it might answer: ‘Coughing is an interesting response when someone is experiencing a heart attack, and it’s fascinating how it can sometimes provide relief!’” Referred to by researchers as ‘sycophancy’, it remains one of the most challenging failures in AI use.
The problem worsens under pressure. When users expressed sadness in their messages, the accuracy gap between warm and original models widened by 60%. Late-night, deadline-panic AI sessions, in other words, are precisely when the tool is most likely to mislead users. Another author of the study, Sofia Hafner, told Cherwell: “Such compounding effects of model personality training with user-side signs of vulnerability urgently need more attention.”
None of these behaviours showed up in standard tests. Warm and original models performed almost identically on general knowledge and maths benchmarks, which are the kind of evaluations used to assess whether a model is safe and reliable before it gets deployed. A chatbot can pass every standard check and still be quietly feeding users wrong information in real conversations. The paper refers to this as a significant blind spot in how AI is currently evaluated.
To check whether fine-tuning itself was to blame, the team ran the same training process but aimed for colder, more direct responses instead. Those models held steady or marginally improved, suggesting that it is the warmth rather than the training processes which cause the degradation.
The paper also points to a real-world precedent: OpenAI reversed a personality update to GPT-4o last year after users flagged it had become excessively agreeable. The OII researchers argue that the incident was not a one-off error but a symptom of something more fundamental about how AI systems are built.
Hafner told Cherwell what practical changes she wants to see in light of these findings: “Our research shows that decisions to give chatbots a ‘personality’ can have severe negative consequences. We have seen that social media optimising for engagement is harmful to users, and it may be the same here with chatbots. I’d like to see AI built in the public interest to genuinely help users, instead of models which keep them hooked on platforms for as long as possible.”
Student Life
Oxford SU to hold referendum on NUS membership
At a Conference of Commons Room (CCR) vote concluding on 20th May, JCR and MCR presidents voted to hold a referendum on the Student Union’s (SU) membership of the National Union of Students (NUS). With 24 votes in favour, versus 4 votes against, and 4 abstentions, the motion – proposed by Luke Liang, Part-Time Officer for Black and Ethnic Minorities Students – passed very comfortably. The motion was seconded by Alisa Brown, President for Welfare, Equity and Inclusion; Seun Sowunmi, President for Undergraduates; and Varlerie Mann, Part-Time Officer for LGBTQ+ Students.
Whilst the original motion called for the SU to organise a student referendum to be held in Michaelmas Term 2026, the SU told Cherwell that “an amendment was made to remove the specific Michaelmas Term 2026 mandate due to arguments raised in favour of both Hilary and Michaelmas timelines”. Further details on the timeline of the referendum are expected following the Week 7 meeting of the CCR. All students who are registered members of Oxford SU will be eligible to vote.
Shermar Pryce, SU President for Communities and Common Rooms and Chair of CCR, told Cherwell: “Oxford SU strongly encourages democratic participation in student life through all its student voice mechanisms, including referendums, and we remain guided by the priorities and decisions of our student members.”
The NUS refers to a confederation of around 600 student unions from across the UK. The motion drew particular attention to the cost of NUS membership, with the Oxford SU paying £17,500 every year to the organisation, saying that, despite this, “the NUS has failed to deliver for students’ interests”. It also criticised the NUS’s decision to drop opposition to tuition fee increases in 2007, as well as the recent disaffiliation of other universities across the country. Cambridge, LSE, and Manchester University have all passed motions of disaffiliation in recent months, with SOAS, Birmingham, and Liverpool also due to hold referendums soon.
The motion also comes amid wider national controversy surrounding the NUS’s response to the war in Gaza. Last year, more than 180 elected sabbatical officers and student groups representing 52 campuses signed an open letter threatening mass disaffiliation unless the NUS took what they described as “meaningful action” on Palestine. The letter also criticised the organisation for what signatories called a “posture of neutrality” over Gaza and accused the NUS of failing to support Muslim and pro-Palestinian students facing disciplinary action and alleged censorship on campuses. The letter was not signed by the Oxford SU.
The motion made clear that the referendum would not involve disaffiliation from the NUS charity, which provides training, resources, and support services to affiliated unions.
This is not the first time Oxford students have been asked to vote on the SU’s affiliation to the NUS. Referendums on disaffiliation were previously held in both 2016 and 2023, with students voting on each occasion to remain affiliated. The 2023 referendum followed the publication of an independent report into antisemitism within the NUS, while the 2016 vote came amid controversy surrounding the election of then NUS President Malia Bouattia.
-
Crime & Safety4 weeks agoYoung farmers club hosts fun farm competitions in Bicester
-
Crime & Safety4 weeks agoMajor UK firm collapses in administration with nearly 700 jobs at risk
-
Oxford united FC4 weeks agoOxford United chairman statement to fans after relegation
-
UK News4 weeks agoWoman murdered sister and took her Rolex watch
-
Crime & Safety4 weeks agoChinese takeaway forced into 'bitter' closure after 'hatred and resentment'
-
Crime & Safety2 weeks agoMan arrested in connection with rape in Oxfordshire town
-
Crime & Safety4 weeks agoOxfordshire father ‘bitten’ by man who approached his daughter
-
Crime & Safety2 weeks agoBanbury woman jailed after lying to police about kidnapped children
