Law finalists have expressed anger over missing materials in an exam on Tuesday.

Seven students in the extra-time room were asked to start their Tort exam without Tort Case Lists, which are meant to be one of the materials provided.

One student affected, who asked to remain anonymous, told Cherwell, “In the Tort exam this morning, we were originally given Contract Case Lists. When I brought it up, they took them away but didn’t send anyone to go and look for them for around 10 minutes, which put us past the start time of the exam.

“When I complained they said, ‘Do you even need them?’ They then tried to start the exam without us having the case list, and the whole room complained.

“It was at this point that they said, ‘We’re under just as much pressure as you are,’ which obviously caused the whole room to scoff. The cases turned up eventually, but they set us off writing one by one instead of all at once, meaning the people who received their exam papers last ended up getting less time.

“It seems like a frivolous complaint, but when you’re already nervous about the paper you’re about to sit and there are these sorts of problems, it really makes you panic and lose focus. It took me at least 10-15 minutes to calm down and refocus, so I’m hoping it hasn’t affected my grade.”

Benjamin Ong, a postgraduate Law student, said, “Having completed the same exams last year, I understand that materials provided for use during exams, such as case lists and statute books, can be very important to those who have prepared for their exams on the understanding that these materials will be readily available.

“It is no answer to say that candidates do not or should not need them. Firstly, candidates are, quite simply, according to the Examiners’ Edict, entitled to use them. Secondly, reliance on them is not a sign of being ill-prepared, for they serve the important functions of refreshing candidates’ memories and acting as checklists to make sure that answers address the appropriate range of issues.”

A number of students expressed their discontentment on Facebook group Overheard at Oxford Uni. Cherwell understands that a number of students are intending to submit official complaints.

A spokesperson from the University said, “The correct exam materials were quickly given to the seven candidates who did not have them. These candidates started and ended the exam ten minutes later than scheduled, so they lost no overall exam time.”

The Oxford Union has been criticised in motions passed by the JCRs of at least nine colleges following the ‘Colonial Comeback’ cocktail scandal last Thursday.

The Union held an open meeting on Monday morning to agree on an appropriate response, to which members of societies including Oxford University African and Caribbean Society, the Oxford University Africa Society, Rhodes Must Fall Oxford, the Oxford Pan-Afrikan Forum and the Black Students’ Union were invited to attend.

The meeting was chaired by President Olivia Merrett. Treasurer Zuleyka Shahin proposed a motion declaring that the Union was institutionally racist, which was passed by the Standing Committee, the Union’s highest governing body.

Meanwhile, Magdalen, Christ Church, Pembroke, New, Mansfield, Oriel, Corpus Christi, St Hilda’s and Worcester JCRs all condemned the Union’s actions publicly.

Corpus JCR resolved to contact OUSU President Louis Trup to request the Union be barred from using OSSL (the student email service run by OUSU), or failing this to request a list of “complaints and offences” be circulated alongside the Union’s advertising emails, as well as organising a protest for JCR Union members.

Corpus JCR President Bethany Currie told Cherwell, “Corpus JCR is appalled by the cocktail the Union served and advertised on Thursday evening… Oxford University is steeped in colonial thought and we have a duty to recognise that and actively work to dismantle it. We welcome the Union’s recognition of its institutional racism and its seeking out of racial awareness training… I hope that we all take this opportunity to raise race consciousness and awareness in our own communities as well.”

Mansfield passed a similar motion condemning the Union. JCR President Luke Charters-Reid told Cherwell, “We thought that multiple attempts at apologising by the Union were inadequate because they failed to acknowledge what was actually wrong with the cocktail and the poster.”

Christ Church and Pembroke also both passed a motion formally condemning the cocktail virtually unanimously. Magdalen JCR’s BME rep wrote an open letter to the Union stating, “The shockingly callous response from the Union has left the members of the college horrified and we believe that it is important that the Union take a stronger stance against racism and racial oppression.”

Another letter to the Union, signed by Worcester JCR’s President, Vice-President and Access and Equal Opportunities Rep, said, “We write this letter in solidarity with students of colour within the university, as we are aware of the alienating and damaging effect this could have on members of the Oxford community. We are also expressing our disapproval of the Union’s handling of these events.”

At the open meeting, the Union refused to name members of bar staff responsible for producing the posters for fear of prosecution and also said that it was not allowed to publicly detail any disciplinary measures that will be taken against employees, again for legal reasons. When Merrett was asked during the meeting if she would resign as president, she gave no response.

The Standing Committee went on to point out that there are weekly debate-themed cocktails, and drew comparisons to an incident in Michaelmas when there was a debate about anonymity for cases of sexual violence and a cocktail called ‘Dark Love’ was made. This was deemed “inappropriate” and vetoed by the then-President. Merrett resolved that “the Standing Committee has for too long not had control over these matters [such as the cocktail themes]. No students were involved in the making of these posters and we are looking to change this.”

The President of Oxford Africa Society Simukai Chigudu stated in the meeting, “We were delighted that the Oxford Africa Conference was held here the other week; it was a gesture of goodwill and we feel the cocktail scandal has undone all of this work.”

Members of Rhodes Must Fall Oxford were present at the meeting and said in a press release on Wednesday, “Rhodes Must Fall is pleased with the proceedings [of Monday]. The Oxford Union not only recognised its responsibility to address racism within itself, but also in the University and society as a whole. It further acknowledged that its initial apology was wholly inadequate failing to take into account the racist nature of the cocktail.”

BME Officer Esther Odejimi resigned after the incident, commenting that she felt marginalised as the President did not consult her after Thursday’s events. Yesterday, the Union issued a statement of apology towards Odejimi and all members offended by the cocktail, as well as resolving to strengthen the mandate of the liberation officers (BME, LGBTQIA+ and Women’s officers) and to host mandatory antiracism workshops.

Further motions of condemnation are expected to be proposed at Merton, Balliol and Somerville. When contacted, the Oxford Union declined to comment on the JCRs’ condemnation.

Students at St Benet’s Hall have claimed that they were “emotionally blackmailed” by the Master of the Permanent Private Hall (PPH) to cancel an emergency JCR meeting called to discuss a boycott of a student dinner to which HRH Princess Michael of Kent had been invited to attend.

St Benet’s Hall host a ‘common table’, where the Master, fellows of the PPH, the six Benedictine monks who reside in the Hall, and both graduate and undergraduate students eat together and have discussions.

HRH Princess Michael of Kent was invited by the Master, Professor Werner Jeanrond, to attend one such pre-paid dinner in St Benet’s Hall. However, students had spoken out against this invitation, as, according to one undergraduate at the PPH who wished to remain anonymous, “[HRH Princess Michael] has a history of publicly expressing appallingly racist, classist, and elitist views”.

The JCR called an emergency meeting to be held last Friday, where they planned to discuss a boycott of the dinner in protest against the PPH’s association with Princess Michael and to write and issue a statement clarifying the JCR’s opposition to her attending the dinner. This was intended to distance the undergraduate community at St Benet’s from the remarks Princess Michael has made on record about BME individuals.

However, before the emergency meeting was to take place on Friday evening, Professor Jeanrond allegedly threatened both his resignation, and the loss of the new building necessary for the admission of female undergraduates in future years, if it went ahead. The emergency meeting was subsequently cancelled.

A St Benet’s student, who wished to remain unnamed, explained, “The Master has informed us that if we are to speak out we will lose our new building and he will have to resign. We don’t believe that to be true. The Master said the Hall would lose all of its funding, we’d lose the new building, so women would be off the agenda, he’d have to resign, and Benet’s would have to shut down.”

Speaking on the day of the planned emergency meeting prior to its cancellation, one St Benet’s JCR member told Cherwell, “We feel that this [the meeting and its aims] is of significance because, due to some members of the Hall making it clear that [they] felt unwelcome and ill-fitted to the atmosphere of the Hall, we have recently (in a very controversial JCR meeting) instituted a BME position on the JCR committee.”

The student continued, “Furthermore, a significant majority of the JCR also want to move Benet’s towards being more progressive; we believe this move [inviting HRH Princess Michael to the PPH] significantly contradicts the Master’s publicly aired views, leading him open to accusations of hypocrisy, as he is reinforcing the toxic elitist image of St Benet’s, which so many of us who care about the image of the Hall want to address.”

Professor Jeanrond told Cherwell, “St Benet’s Hall prides itself for its hospitality at its common table. Every Tuesday evening in term time students and fellows suggest guest speakers from very different parts of society and culture to address our table for approximately ten minutes. A member of our JCR has suggested we invite HRH Princess Michael of Kent, an invitation which the Hall has supported.

“No member of the Hall has ever been coerced into dining. The decision on the admission of female undergraduate students to the Hall is entirely unrelated.”

The dinner to which HRH Princess Michael was invited as the Hall’s guest took place last Tuesday. Students were not allowed to bring phones or cameras into the hall, and security was hired for the evening.

Another controversial guest, Cardinal Raymond Burke, was welcomed to St Benet’s Hall on 28th May. Cardinal Burke’s attendance caused further anger amongst St Benet’s students, due to alleged homophobic comments he had made prior to his visit. Cardinal Burke was removed from the Vatican committee in 2013 for his “anti-gay” values, and in 2014 he claimed that children should not be exposed to same-sex couples.

Buckingham Palace declined Cherwell’s request for comment.

A member of St Benet’s JCR further explained to Cherwell why he believes the invited speakers to be problematic, commenting, “The Hall lobbied the University to remove the PPH opt out from the University admissions process, which probably means they should be more open to the greater diversity of students they’re going to get now people can’t elect not to be considered by a PPH.

“They said it created a bad impression. When you applied to Oxford, you used to get an email asking if you wanted to opt out of being considered by any PPHs.

“If the Hall campaigned to have the opt out removed so people could no longer chose not to be considered by a religious hall then they should have taken into account that people who would have previously opted out, for example gay people uncomfortable at the thought of attending a conservative Roman Catholic institution, would end up attending the Hall, and so should have made moves to provide welfare and a more inclusive atmosphere.”

St Benet’s has made steps towards becoming more inclusive, with a board of trustees of the PPH voting unanimously on Thursday to formally confirm the decision to admit female undergraduate students for the academic year 2016 to 2017.

Currently, St Benet’s has female graduate students, but no female undergraduates, as the six Benedictine monks that live and work in the Hall are not permitted to live with women. St Benet’s is the last PPH or College at Oxford that is not co-educational.

Professor Jeanrond commented on the future admission of female undergraduates, “This vote means the happy end of a process. Last year the St Benet’s Trust decided to admit female graduate students, and we were delighted to welcome the first female graduate student doing an MSt course in Jewish Studies last October.

“The reason why we are deciding now to admit undergraduate students has to do with our success in identifying a second building for St Benet’s. Our main site at St Giles houses a Benedictine community of monks. Therefore, the house offers male accommodation only.

“The new house offered to us to buy by the Sisters of the Sacred Heart in Norham Gardens would allow us to accommodate both male and female students. I am very happy indeed that we now have the opportunity to transform St Benet’s into a coed college community within the Benedictine educational spirit. And I am encouraging female students interested in the subjects we teach to apply now for admission in October 2016.

“My colleagues in Ampleforth Abbey, at St Benet’s Hall and I are actively engaged in fundraising to secure the funds for the acquisition of this new building. We hope to move into the new site already in October 2015.”