Student maintenance grants are to be scrapped, the Chancellor George Osborne announced today in the first Conservative-only Budget since 1996.

Under the Tories’ plans, maintenance grants, which are paid to students from low-income families, will be abolished from the 2016-17 academic year. The grants will be replaced by maintenance loans, which will begin to be paid back by students once they start earning over £21,000 per year. The maximum level of maintenance loan available will be raised to £8,200 under the new system.

Under the current system, students with a household income of less than £25,000 a year are eligible for a non-repayable maintenance grant of £3,387. The amount available decreases as household income increases thereafter, with an income cut off point for support of £42,620. Currently, all students are eligible for maintenance loans, but the amount received varies according to household income.

It was also announced that tuition fees will be allowed to rise with inflation above £9,000 per annum beginning in the academic year 2017-18 at universities that can demonstrate high quality teaching.

In relation to student maintenance, Osborne argued that there is “a basic unfairness of asking taxpayers to fund the grants of people who are likely to earn a lot more than them.” The Chancellor added that the cost of the maintenance grant system was economically unsustainable, and that “if we don’t tackle this problem then our universities will become underfunded and our students won’t get places – and I’m not prepared to let that happen.”

OUSU’s Executive Committee commented that they were “appalled to learn that the government is considering cuts to maintenance grants for students from low-income households. For many students, maintenance grants are a vital means to live, enabling them to access a university education, especially in a city as expensive as Oxford. A significant reduction in the support available to students from low-income households would be devastating to the work of the University to reach out and inspire young people from all backgrounds to apply to Oxford. We call upon the government to defend a vital element of access to higher education and reconsider this possible move.”

Jan Nedvídek, the President of the Oxford University Conservative Association, told Cherwell, “Of course in an ideal world, we wouldn’t have to scrap maintenance grants – as someone with low household income, I have myself benefited from them hugely. However, this government has had to make some difficult decisions, and as we saw at the most recent election, there is a feeling in the country that these decisions are sensible and necessary. Being careful with your finances is not mean, but a requirement of basic economic common sense.

“I’m acutely aware that students from poorer backgrounds are finding it difficult to cope with the costs of university. However, let’s be honest here: you only have to repay these loans if you earn above the national average, which you are much more likely to do with a university degree than without one. What’s fair about asking someone on low income to pay for my degree through their taxes? What’s fair about shifting the cost of my education to the next generation through borrowing?

“This budget introduces several great things, like a national living wage for those on the lowest incomes, and scrapping the non-dom status. And let’s remember – according to the Office for National Statistics, those with a degree earn on average 12k per annum more than those without one. This means that on average, your degree will earn you roughly half a million pounds over the course of your life. I think some contribution to the cost of your education is not unreasonable.”

However, Megan Dunn, NUS President, told Cherwell, “Cutting maintenance grants is going to be detrimental to hundreds of thousands of our poorest students who currently rely on them, and risks putting many people off applying to university. 

“We know that our poorest students are the most likely to be deterred by debt, but it could also affect where students choose to live and which courses to take. It will mean staying at home instead of moving into halls or shared accommodation and applying for shorter courses to reduce costs.

“More and more cuts are happening at a time when there is a cost of living crisis. NUS research has shown rent for halls has doubled in recent years, and there has long been a shortfall between average living costs and student support income.”

An Oxford University spokesperson told Cherwell, “Oxford University will work to ensure that any changes to the student funding system do not deter students from disadvantaged backgrounds from applying to or choosing to attend Oxford. In addition to government support, low-income students at Oxford will be eligible for the most generous no-strings financial support of any university in the country, including generous bursary grants and reduced tuition fees for those with the lowest household incomes.”

The Ashmolean announced this morning that it has raised enough money to purchase Joseph Turner’s painting ‘The High Street, Oxford’ (1810). The work is considered a major piece in Turner’s output. The museum previously had the piece on loan from a private collection. The piece had been offered to the nation in leiu of £3.5 million of inheritance tax, but the museum needed to raise a further £860,000 to permanently incorporate the painting into the museum’s art collection.

The fundraising target was met just four weeks after the museum announced their intention to purchase the painting. Donations came from a variety of sources, including the Heritage Lottery Fund, The Art Fund, The Friends and Patrons of the Ashmolean, with £60,000 worth of donations from the public at large. Dr Alexander Sturgis, Director of the Ashmolean, gave this comment: “The Museum has been overwhelmed by public support. With well over 800 people contributing to the appeal, it is clear that the local community, as well as visitors to the Museum from across the world, feel that this picture, the greatest painting of the city ever made, must remain on show in a public museum in Oxford.

“We are so grateful to the members of the public who have made donations; to the Heritage Lottery Fund and the Art Fund; and to the Friends and Patrons of the Museum. There are big plans for the painting once we acquire it. It will be lent to regional museums so as many people as possible from the surrounding area will be able to see it; it will be at the heart of a new series of educational activities for schools and young people; and, not least, it will have pride of place in the Museum’s Nineteenth Century Gallery which will be refurbished and reopened in early 2016.”

Stuart McLeod, Head of Heritage Lottery Fund South East England, expressed his satisfaction at the Ashmolean’s successful bid: “We’re delighted that the public and museum visitors have donated so generously and enabled the Ashmolean to meet their target so quickly – this just shows how important this painting is. Congratulations to everyone involved.”

Atalanta Arden Miller, an undergraduate studying at the Ruskin School of Art, emphasised the importance of the Ashmolean to art students at the university: “I hope this acquisition will encourage more students to come to the Ashmolean and explore the huge collection of his work held in the print room. The Ashmolean’s collection has always been inspiring to Oxford students. ‘The ashmolean print room is the most important tool in Oxford for an artist- working first hand from the drawings is like getting a one to one lesson from Michelangelo or Raphael.”

Over the summer, the painting will be available to view in the welcome space of the Ashmolean.

On 16th June, OUSU’s Board of Trustees (composed of the sabbatical officers, four external trustees, and three student trustees) passed by consensus an action plan to comply with Section 26 of the government’s Counter-Terrorism and Security Act. This section, part of the government’s controversial PREVENT strategy, places a duty on bodies such as universities (listed in the act as “specified authorities”) to have “due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism.” PREVENT defines extremism as “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy [and] the rule of law.”

Despite some opposition, OUSU has resolved to implement the contents of a document which specifies several key areas where students “at risk” of radicalisation might be identified. One key area cited in the document is “Pastoral care and student welfare”; the manager of the Student Advice Services (OUSU’s free and confidential advice, information and advocacy service) has now been trained by the Thames Valley Police to comply with PREVENT strategy and identify students who hold what the government defines as “extremist” views”. This training will also be delivered to all Advice Service staff and OUSU’s Sabbatical Officers over the long vac. Ultimately, OUSU’s strategy resolves to make its staff and officers “comfortable sharing concerns about radicalisation and extremism”, including referring students who are receiving pastoral support to the government’s Channel program, which assesses students deemed “at risk” and decides what intervention, if any, is needed.

Another potential site of “radicalisation” on campus identified in the document was “Events”. The action plan resolves to review and update the University’s free speech policy in line with PREVENT, and to develop a new “external speaker policy which acknowledges and navigates the full legislative framework” of the Bill by Michaelmas 2015. These shifts in policy appear to indicate that the University and OUSU will have greater control over the invitation of guests and external speaker events, as the government’s official duty guidance on PREVENT states that “radicalisation on campus can be facilitated through events held for extremist speakers.”

Marc Shi, Chair of OUSU’s Campaign for Racial Awareness and Equality, commented, “The language of ‘radicalism’ and ‘extremism’ has been used by a growing number of governments and institutions to disproportionately police and target people of colour. That the University of Oxford and OUSU has taken up this language and activities through the adoption of the Prevent policy, and furthermore has done so with no consultation of the OUSU BME Officer or the Campaign for Racial Awareness and Equality is deplorable, and further evidence for the lack of regard the University has for the experiences and perspectives of its students of colour. CRAE stands against the adoption and implementation of this policy, and urges all those who support the inclusion and representation of marginalized voices, particularly voices of people of colour, to do the same’.

The implementation of PREVENT strategy in UK Universities has drawn criticism from a number of student organizations. At this year’s Conference, the National Union of Students passed Motion 517, proposed by the NUS’ Black Students Committee, which resolved “to encourage Unions and institutions to not comply with or legitimize PREVENT and to develop guidelines for Unions on effective non-cooperation with the Act and its proposals.” Motions condemning PREVENT’s Higher Education policy have also been passed by Student Unions at UCL, LSE, Manchester, SOAS, Queen Mary’s and Cardiff. The legislation has also been condemned by a number of prominent UK academics, including the signatories of an open letter published in The Guardian.

Alasdair Lennon, VP Welfare & Equal Opportunities, and Emily Silcock, VP Charities and Community, commented, “In order to adhere to our legal obligations as trustees of the Oxford University Student Union (OUSU) and those obligations created by the ‘Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015’ we have had to implement the ‘Prevent Plan’. Politically, [we] disagree with this piece of legislation and a motion will be brought to the first OUSU Council of Michaelmas to condemn it.”

A spokesperson from the University told Cherwell, “New duties imposed by the 2015 Counter-Terrorism and Security Act are yet to come into force for universities. The University is awaiting the Government’s accompanying guidance to Act and the date for its implementation. Once these are received, the University will consider its detailed approach and the implications for existing policies.”

The Home Office declined to comment. 

A new dating site, chivalrynotdead.com, founded by an Oxford University graduate, has been criticised on social media for being old-fashioned, sexist and heteronormative.

English graduate Beth Murtagh, who completed her degree in 2007, founded the website both due to the high prices, and hence relatively low usage rates, of better-known dating sites, and as an antidote to what is perceived by some as the modern ‘hookup culture’ of apps such as Tinder, which appear to focus on one’s physical attributes. Speaking to Cherwell, Murtagh commented: “I thought there was a gap in the market for a site which was focused on romance and long-term commitment, as the sites which did do this were all affixed to religion. I wanted to make a site which was for all religions and those of no religion.”

The website, whose tagline is ‘good old-fashioned dating’ and which is currently free to use, requires men to browse through women’s profiles and send the first message to any women they wish to date. Women are forbidden from sending the first message, although they can wave a virtual handkerchief at men to ‘show their favour’.

Adam Roberts, an OUSU Presidential contender in the past academic year’s elections, who last month finished his final year reading PPE at Wadham, criticised the principles of the site, telling Cherwell, “Chivalry can mask a patronising and controlling attitude towards women: ‘chivalrous’ behaviours are more common in men who think women are incompetent, in need of protection, and in some way pure, and also correlate with traditionalism about gender roles and victim-blaming in the event of sexual violence.

“Chivalrynotdead.com is ‘old-fashioned’ in the same way that notions women are objects to be won, bought, cherished, guarded and owned are. The handkerchief motif is literally medieval, and alarm bells should be ringing if you think what the dating world needs is programmed restrictions on women’s agency.”

The site was also met with considerable scepticism and derision on the Oxford-based feminist Facebook group Cuntry Living, with a discussion of the site and its aims running to 54 comments. The group’s administrators, however, declined to comment, in seeking to protect the privacy of discussions which taken place in the group, which has ‘closed’ privacy settings, and none of those involved responded to Cherwell’s requests. Criticisms of the site appeared to focus on the old-fashioned and allegedly sexist nature of the site’s core values, the alleged appearance of a heteronormative culture, and derision of the notion of women waving a handkerchief to attract men’s sexual or romantic attention. Chivalrynotdead.com’s Twitter account has sought to highlight instances of feminist commentators stressing feminism and chivarly’s compatibility.

Murtagh continued: “I was also interested in ‘old-fashioned’ ways of dating as I found that taking things slowly allowed me to find out what the men I was dating were like and how they were likely to treat me in a relationship. The point is that it is an old-fashioned way of dating (my tagline is ‘good old-fashioned dating’), as I wanted to harness traditional values.” Alongside being a ‘traditional’ dating website, the site also contains relationship and dating tips for men and for women, though they are locked so that they can only be seen by the intended sex. The tips include ‘girls, find someone who will ruin your lipstick instead of your mascara’ for women and ‘guys, if you like her, tell her. Maybe she likes you too’ for men.

Although the site appears to be unique in the UK, the concept of a website which restricts the ability to make the first move to one gender is not unprecedented in Europe. In 2008, French site adopteunmec.com (translating to ‘adopt a guy’) was criticised in the French media for its mode of operation, in whichmen pay to upload profiles of themselves and women pay a significantly lower rate to be able to ‘buy’ men from different fashion-style collections, such as ‘muscular’ or ‘tattooed’.

Murtagh, however, defended the site. “It is a real shame that some men may have been put off being chivalrous in their dating lives for fear of being seen as sexist. I recall a study earlier in the year by Judith Hall in the US where no matter how men responded, they were labelled sexist, either due to displaying hostile sexism or by being ‘benevolently sexist’. Being ‘benevolently sexist’ included things such as smiling and being friendly. It seems that sometimes, men can’t win. To me chivalry means that a man respects, protects and cherishes the woman he is with because he understands her importance, not because she is weak. The site boils down to ‘treat women well’, which I think is a positive thing.” Murtagh also stressed that she is developing a sister site for gay and lesbian dating, stating “this is because the set-up I have where one sex is blocked from messaging the other is too complicated to have all sexualities using the same site model. This is from a programming point of view and not from any ideological one. I really can’t stress that enough!”

On the criticism her site has received, Murtagh responded: “I am a firm believer in freedom of speech and for the opportunity for people to express themselves however they wish. The site is intended to provide a space for those men and women who are disengaged with ‘hook-up’ culture and choose to meet likeminded people in a place which is suitable to them personally. I think that should be defended.”