The push for a rail link between Oxford and Cambridge has moved to the next level with high-level government officials pushing for the 67-mile line to be built as soon as possible.

Lord Adonis, chair of the National Infrastructure Commission, has received backing from Chancellor George Osborne for the funding to construct the line, which would link Oxford, Bicester, Milton Keynes and Cambridge.

Currently, “The only way of travelling ‘directly’ between Oxford and Cambridge is the X5, a four-plus-hour coach journey that will strip you of your will to live if it doesn’t strand you in Milton Keynes,” second-year Mertonian Olivia Williams said.

The renewed effort follows a report in 2014 pushing the idea of increasing connectivity between the two cities to unite their high-skilled, high-employment and highly-educated populations in order to foster technological growth and expertise stemming from the two universities and the people affiliated with them. As Lord Adonis told The Times, this was an opportunity to build “England’s Silicon Valley”. There hasn’t been a rail connection between Oxford and Cambridge since the Varsity Line closed in the 1960s, leaving students and travellers to use a four-hour coach to get between the cities.

While the government is invested in creating a technological centre for the country, students are mostly interested in the convenience.

In the current system, travellers can either take the X5 or a train to London Paddington and King’s Cross then to Cambridge, which is two-and-a-half hours. “that is, if the trains from Oxford to London and London to Cambridge are not delayed, which happen quite frequently.” said first-year Magdalen physicist Anson Yip, who makes the journey almost every weekend.

Because of these delays, “No plans for an evening in Cambridge are certain because I have to rely on the odds rather than my watch.”

Indeed, “A direct train would make the one time I am obliged to make the trip to Cambridge each year marginally less painful”, Williams said.

London architectural studio Gort Scott has been selected to design a new £10 million riverside extension to St Hilda’s College, planned to begin in July 2017.

Gort Scott’s design was selected by St Hilda’s from four other shortlisted designs from competing studios: DRDH, 6A Architects, Tim Ronalds Architects and Hall McKnight in a contest run by Malcom Reading Consultants. The extension is planned as part of the college’s 125^th anniversary celebrations in 2018, and the candidates in the competition were asked to interpret the concept ‘redefining St Hilda’s’ in their designs.

 In a press release, competition organiser Malcom Reading praised the success of Gort Scott in handling their given brief, “the five finalists each produced wonderful proposals and models – we would like to thank them all for their hard work and application.

“We were impressed that Gort Scott really engaged with the challenge and the wider site. It is an ambitious brief and it was a pleasure to see the dedication shown by the team in resolving some complex issues.”

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%13213%%[/mm-hide-text] 

The project will create a new entrance to the college from Cowley Place and includes a slender tower, conference spaces, academic and teaching rooms, rooftop gardens, a riverside pavilion, a common room as well as accommodation for students and fellows.

Claire Harvey, communications manager at St Hilda’s said that the way in which Gort Scott’s project addressed practical problems, combined with the aesthetic of their design made their entry stand out. She told Cherwell, “having considered five very strong designs from the short-listed architectural firms in our invited design competition, the Governing Body felt that Gort Scott’s concept design most suited St Hilda’s riverside location and the ‘feel’ of the College.

“The project is part of our long-term strategy to improve our students’ experience, by increasing the quantity and quality of accommodation. We are aware that we offer a lower provision of undergraduate accommodation than some of the other Oxford colleges and we wanted our students to have the option of living in College for the duration of their time here. This also responds to student feedback we have received over a number of years. In addition, the project will enhance the look and feel of the College, starting with the new entrance on Cowley Place. It will also improve our conference facilities.”

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%13214%%[/mm-hide-text] 

Jay Gort, the director of the winning Gort Scott studio told Cherwell, “this project is an exciting opportunity for us as it is quite rare to have a commission that offers this level of engagement with the river. I would say what stood out about our design in the competition was the use of materials, use of light and importantly the use of structure.”

He added that the design “fills the void” and “pulls the two halves of the college together, addressing the existing lack of identity and clarity we saw in the college.”

A meeting with the architectural firm and St Hilda’s college management will take place this week, with the following few weeks scheduled for refinement in the existing design.

Recent NUS conference agenda motions have called for LGBTQ+ societies to drop their position of a gay men’s rep, stating that “gay men do not face oppression as gay men within the LGBTQ+ community”.

The motivation behind encouraging LGBTQ+ societies to drop their gay men’s rep positions is a response to “misogny, transphobia, racism and bophobia [that] are often present in LGBTQ+ societies,” which is “unfortunately made more likely to occur when the society is dominated by white cis[gender] gay men,” the motion alleges.

Oxford’s LGBTQ+ Soc told Cherwell they supported the motion, saying, “Although we have a male welfare rep, as queer men suffer bigotry in wider society, and they need support, there is no problem within Oxford LGBTQ+ spaces for gay male representation. This is evidenced by our current committee being the first ever to have a woman president.

“We would also like to point out that our male welfare rep is not a ‘gay male welfare rep’ – the role encompasses bi, asexual and trans men as well as cis gay men. Therefore we do not see the NUS motion as a criticism to our society.”

Some students expressed concern that the motion would damage the balance within the LGBTQ+ community and the welfare of gay men. Jack Schofield, a second year Christ Church student, told Cherwell, “While I don’t deny that gay men are in many ways a comparatively privileged group within the LGBTQ community, for the NUS to advocate the abolition of gay men’s reps seems like an attack and a grave misunderstanding of the serious and multifaceted issues gay men face.

“Such a rep’s role is in any case largely a welfare role, so it is ridiculous and offensive that they should wish to deny gay men an optimal point of contact for advice for problems which affect them specifically as gay men, and I do not believe the NUS is acting in the best interests of its students at all in this regard.”

Bearing the title “Defending Safe(r) spaces and No Platforming”, motions 408 and 408a, submitted by “individuals”, also note the variety of existing definitions of “safe(r) spaces”. While the motion states that a “strength” of the term “safe space” is that it means different things to different communities and invdividuals”, it also states that these spaces are “essential to liberation” and that when “debated for academic ends” they undermine the concept, one that is “vital to the active participation of many students on campus.”

Responding to the NUS’ statement, Harry Samuels, NUS delegate for Oxford, told Cherwell, “I am highly disappointed by the passage of this motion which serves to further this false idea that LGBTQ societies are solely engines for liberation politics rather than social spaces as well. This motion’s passage gives the implication that gay men face no intolerance, or that the intolerance they face is somehow lesser, a pernicious but sadly continuing belief in certain circles.

“The existence of these reps is vital for representation and for gay men who may need someone to turn to for sexual and sexual health advice, or for welfare advice, and Oh Well, Alright Then condemns this motion in the strongest terms as an example of the privileged and ignorant activism of certain circles within the NUS which we stood for election to prevent.”

Adam Farrow, a graduate student at the University of Durham who first tweeted about the motion, told Cherwell, “This is a ludicrous statement. First, it presumes that the only purpose of gay men reps in LGBTQ+ societies is to further a political agenda, which is false.

“Many gay men are able to truly be themselves for the first time at university. This adjustment can be difficult for many, and so they seek the comfort of a representative who they know understands the position they are in. Second, the fact that the NUS no longer consider gay men oppressed enough to deserve representation seems to be nothing more than what the NUS usually refer to as ‘victim blaming’. Because gay men aren’t apparently oppressed as much as other LGBTQ+ groups, they should not receive ANY representation.”

Farrow highlights that “safe spaces are something the NUS fervently defend. According to motion 408, it is because ‘when [safe spaces] are debated for academic ends, a concept that is vital to the active participation of many students on campus is undermined’.

“This is categorically incorrect. It is not dangerous to discuss the idea of safe spaces in academic environments. It is dangerous to stifle debate about any issue, and particularly ones such as safe spaces and no-platforming. It’s offensive that the NUS think so little of the students that they represent that they want Student Unions to no-platform individuals on ‘ideological grounds’.”

Oxford students have organised a march protesting Donald Trump’s candidacy for President of the United States.

The event hopes to “let the world know our thoughts on Donald Trump, in a *peaceful* but *vocal* way”, calling him “an influential individual that is using his platform to inculcate bigotry, xenophobia, and violence”, according to the march’s Facebook page.

Already, there is a split on whether this event is a good idea, with some students commenting that they would definitely attend and supported the march. One commenter, however, finds it offensive for British students to attempt to affect an American election.

“This is a terrible idea”, St. Hilda’s Biological Scientist David Pearson wrote. “Who are we to tell citizens of another democratic state who they should vote for, or to pass judgement on their politicians? No matter how bigoted we might think Donald Trump is, he has every right to say what he thinks, that is democracy.”

This event follows some vocal criticism from all levels of British society, culminating in a debate in the House of Commons on whether to ban Donald Trump from entering the United Kingdom, a motion which ultimately failed.

The march will take place on May 1 at noon, and several hundred students have already expressed interest in attending.

The University of Oxford has risen to fourth of 117 universities in the newly released rankings of 2016 Times Higher Education Student Experience Survey, up one place from fifth last year.

Loughborough University tops this year’s survey, rising from second last year. New entrant Harper Adams University and the University of Sheffield take second and third places, respectively, with Sheffield retaining the same position as last year. Last year’s table topper University of Bath has dropped to fifth, while Cambridge has dropped five places to ninth.

The survey is entirely student-based. Over 15,000 undergraduates at 117 institutions took the survey, ranking their universities in 21 student-suggested attributes. These attributes range from quality of tuition and course structure to social experience, communal atmosphere and quality of facilities. 

Oxford has come first, or joint first, in several individual measures, namely “High quality staff/lectures”, “Helpful/interested staff”, “Good community atmosphere” and “Personal requirements catered for”. 

Some students believe that Oxford’s performance in the survey does it justice. A second-year Oriel undergraduate remarked that “there is something for everyone” in Oxford and that Oxford has “a good community atmosphere” and “amazing” tutors. 

Some others, however, think otherwise and feel that Oxford’s rather high ranking is not reflective of their experiences at Oxford. 

“Half of my tutors do not prepare for our tutorial[s] at all. Work is not marked and [those tutors] are clearly not familiar with the problem sheets [they give us]”, complained a second-year Christ Church Mathematics undergraduate. He also notably singled out the Iffley Sports Complex as being a “disappointing” facility with “poor ventilation and crowdedness”

“I’ve found Oxford to be extremely satisfying in terms of intellectual growth, but not as satisfying in terms of feeling as a part of the university”, said a Wycliffe Hall postgraduate. He attributed the lack of a sense of community to the “decentralized system of having separate colleges with their respective traditions”

A Magdalen postgraduate told Cherwell that while it is good to see that Oxford is perceived in the survey as having provided “a rich and nourishing student experience”, issues that cause some students to have “largely negative and even painful experiences of their times here” should not be overlooked.

The Media and Information Office of Oxford has declined to comment on Oxford’s performance, with its spokesperson telling Cherwell that the Office is “not in the habit of commenting on league tables, mainly because there are just so many of them.”

OUSU President Becky Howe and the Oxford branch of Student Minds, a prominent student mental health charity, were also unavailable for comment.

Vincent’s Club (or “Vinnie’s”) voted last Wednesday to finally allow admission of female members of the Oxford Blues sporting community as full members.

Previously, non-members had to be invited to use the clubhouse, though members of Atalanta’s Club – an equivalent society to Vincent’s for female Blues – nonetheless had access to the club’s facilities.

Ayowande McCunn, Vincent’s president, said, “On 9 March 2016 the resident members of Vincent’s Club completed a vote that removed the word ‘male’ from the Constitution of the Club. The effect of the change in the rules is that women are now eligible to be elected to membership of Vincent’s Club. A 2/3 majority was required for the resolution to pass and 85 per cent of resident members voted in favour of the change.

“The process leading to the change began in Michaelmas Term 2015 and involved a consultation of members during Hilary Term.”

The decision to allow for female membership comes only a year after the club rejected the same change. Though a majority at the time wished to strike the word “male” from the constitution, they did not constitute the two-thirds majority required for a constitutional change.

The new vote has proven more popular than last year’s, although some think it still comes too late.

Juliet Flamank, a first year athlete at Balliol, told Cherwell, “I think that it’s sadly too common that clubs such as these started off a male only clubs. Although it’s great for future generations that women are now allowed to be members, it’s a shame and rather ridiculous that its taken it this long.

“As a woman in sport I feel that my sporting achievements should be equally celebrated and I should have the ability to participate in all the ways that men in sport do. Vinnie’s says it stands for sporting excellence – well for a club more than 150 years old, I can’t believe that only now have they realised that women’s sporting excellence is also recognisable. It’s great this change has finally happened and I hope it encourages others like it.

“It’s just very late to the game.”

Eden Bailey, OUSU’s VP for Access and Academic Affairs-elect, expressed the same sentiment more succinctly.