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

columnistmagazine@gmail.com

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

columnistmagazine@gmail.com

facebook.com/columnistmagazine

@thecolumnistmag

www.

GE T INVOLVED! CONTACT US AT: