Oxford students and environmental campaigners have welcomed the University’s commitment this week to rule out any future direct investments in coal and tar sands.

In a decision on Monday by Council, the University’s executive governing body, it was revealed for the first time that Oxford currently has no direct investments in coal and tar sands, and has pledged to maintain this position in any future investment decisions.

Bill McKibben, founder of the climate campaign website 350.org, commented, “Oxford may be the greatest university on our planet, and if anyone thought its great age might keep it from shaping the future, this decision should prove them wrong. Today it has offered great leadership on the crisis of our time.”

The decision follows years of campaigning on the issue by Oxford students, academics and campaigners, with OUSU creating an official divestment campaign in Trinity Term 2013. In March of this year, a group of Oxford alumni occupied the University’s Clarendon Building in protest at Council’s decision to defer its divestment statement until this week. 41 college common rooms, representing both graduate and undergraduate students, have passed motions supporting the divestment campaign, whilst students and academics have signed open letters calling for divestment.

However, the victory for the divestment movement was only partial, as the University failed to divest from fossil fuels completely. Currently, around three per cent of Oxford’s £1.7 billion Endowment Fund is invested in the energy sector, with more than half of that proportion invested in energy exploration and extraction industries.

Andrew Taylor, a campaign manager at People & Planet, added, “If you live in the shadow of tar sand extraction and your baby [has] been air lifted to hospital after drinking the water after a spill, it doesn’t matter if under ten per cent of the culprit’s production comes from tar sands.”

The University of Oxford has also promised to incorporate for the first time a full breakdown of its sector exposure in its annual investment report, the latest of which is due to be released next month.

Critics point out that this does not go far enough as it will not disclose the specific companies Oxford invests in. In protest at Oxford’s decision not to opt for total divestment, 70 alumni plan to hand back their degrees this Saturday.

One such alumnus, Sunniva Taylor, commented, “With the decision today the University has taken a step forward, but not a big enough one. I, with others, have decided to hand back my degree, in protest.”

Vice-Chancellor Andrew Hamilton told The Guardian, “We see the main purpose of our investment fund as generating the financial resources to support our academic purpose. However, our investment managers take a long-term view and take into account global risks, including climate change, when considering what investments to make. The University believes that approach to be the right one and today’s decision reinforces it by encouraging greater engagement and reporting on this crucial issue to the environment and all of society.”

OUSU President Louis Trup welcomed the University’s decision, telling Cherwell, “I’m delighted that the University has taken a step in the right direction by pledging not to invest in coal or tar sands in the future. In the meeting, it was clear that the students who have been campaigning for this through OUSU’s Environment and Ethics campaign have changed the minds of some major critics. The work the campaign has done alongside Dan Tomlinson and Ruth Meredith [OUSU’s previous and current VPs for Charities and Community] over the past two years should be applauded.

“However, this is only the first step. Now that the University has committed to some form of ethical investment, it must continue to take further steps to ensure that its wider investments are not funding devastating environmental disasters. But all in all, today is a good day.”

A motion to stop gender-segregated curry evenings at Trinity College has failed to pass, although the JCR did decide to condemn the song ‘Chicago’ that is traditionally sung at men’s curry nights. 

Trinity undergraduates have a college tradition of separate male and female curry nights twice a term, starting from Freshers’ Week.

Controversy arose over the curry evenings due to the nature of their segregation and arguments claiming that there are sexist aspects to the song ‘Chicago’.  

The first motion stated that the JCR “would condemn the song ‘Chicago’ at any JCR-affiliated curry”, and passed with 63 votes for, 30 against and 11 abstentions. 

The Presidents of the Trinity Feminist Society jointly condemned the song to Cherwell as “a very clear manifestation of the toxic ‘lad culture’ that continues to disrespect and devalue women”.

They added, “‘Chicago’ may be ‘just a bit of fun’, but to some of the women who are hearing these songs chanted as they attempt quietly to eat a meal it can be a triggering reminder of an event they haveworked so hard to forget.”

In particular, some of the lyrics that have caused offence are variations of the refrain, such as “banged she got”, “screwed she got” or “shagged she got”.

One welfare rep told Cherwell, “I don’t see anything wrong with a bit of light banter, it’s just a joke, can’t these whiny feminists see that?”

The motion urging de-segregation, which stated, “this JCR would endorse only mixed-gender curries,” failed to pass with 32 votes in favour and 61 against. there were 11 abstentions.  

The debate over the motion focused on the concept of gender-split events and whether JCR events should be as inclusive as possible or whether JCR members preferred the atmosphere specific to the gender-divided curries.

The issue of the split was also questioned due to the problems or damage it could cause to someone of a non-binary gender. In the JCR meeting, Crawford Jamieson pointed out that he felt it was wrong to send the message to new students in Freshers’ Week that they must choose a gender in deciding which event to go to.

A member of Trinity FemSoc told Cherwell, “I think the concept of male/female curries is incredibly damaging. It reinforces the structural gender divide that hinders the progression of gender equality, and creates an ‘us vs them’ attitude that fuels sexist, cultish behaviour.

JCR President Eleanor Roberts commented, “The curries have long been a tradition at Trinity aimed at welcoming new students into a close-knit community, and providing an opportunity for people of different years and subjects to socialise together. They have been organised by the JCR in order to be as socially inclusive as possible.

“However, as the curry motions attest, recently there have been concern on two fronts, that the content and the structure of the curries may be exclusive and failing to provide the open social platform intended.

“The singing of the song ‘Chicago’ was a part of this issue. In light of these discussions, the curry motions were brought before the JCR to get a representation of the student opinion on the subject. As I have said, I can’t comment on the outcome of the motions, only that they are the result of this debate.”

Second year English student Thea Murray-Jones commented, “Whilst the existence of gendered curries may not be toxic in and of itself, it points to the existence of a culture of heteronormativity within College. I am therefore disappointed with the results of the JCR meeting last Sunday, because it led to the JCR continuing to lend its name to an event which embodies outdated and cisgendered notions about gender.”

Aliya Yule, OUSU Women’s Officer, commented, “WomCam stands in solidarity with Trinity’s feminism society’s president, and the proposers of the motions. That a welfare rep – who is in a position to care about the well-being of all Trinity students – would dismiss students’ concerns because ‘it’s just a bit of light banter’ is false, offensive, unacceptable, and jeopardizes the wellbeing of all women students at Trinity.

“Dismissing those who voice their disgust at a misogynistic song as ‘whiny feminists’ shows their disregard for the welfare of women students at the college. Moreover, gender segregated events are at serious risk of alienating trans students and reinforcing a damaging gender binary, yet alone encouraging a toxic masculinity of men students who sing the song ‘Chicago’.”

In an extraordInary open meeting held on Tuesday evening, St Catherine’s JCR declared itself independent from its college with 154 votes in favour, five abstentions and no opposition.

The motion to declare independence from the College stated, “This JCR believes that it is necessary for the Junior Common room to cease to be an incorporated body of the College to effectively protect its interests as a Student Union [as it is defined by the Education Act 1994].”

This followed a decision taken by the College at the end of Hilary, without consultation, to incorporate JCR financing into the College structure, giving the College the power to oversee and veto purchases.

This decision was made by the College on the basis of its responsibilities under the Education Act 1994 and the Charities Act 2006 to ensure proper financial accountability throughout the College.

St Catherine’s College argued that incorporating the JCR financing into the College structure was a necessary measure, owing to a period during the tenure of a previous committee in which records were shown not to have been properly kept by the JCR.

The JCR Committee responded that this was unnecessary, however, given that a change of practice within the JCR had been put in place since then and that there had not been any cause for financial concern “in years”.

JCR President Jack Hampton presented the case for independence to the JCR, stating at the meeting that the College had been “unreasonable” in the scale of the changes made and expressed a sentiment that the College “disregards” the JCR, having felt that “verbal notice made in passing to a committee member to be sufficient to communicate such a significant change to the JCR.”

He further argued, “Independence is necessary due to the College’s potential to overrule our actions, and to encroach into JCR business, should [the JCR] accept the changes enforced by the College which put the JCR under the financial arrangements of the Clubs and Socs system, which is impractical for out-of-hours purchases.”

The Clubs and Socs system is the method by which clubs and societies are funded. Students who are members of a club or society foot the bill of any society expenses themselves, and the College later reimburses them. However, expenses can sum up to several hundred pounds, and the College can take up to a month or longer to pay students the money.

By becoming independent from the College, the JCR funds cannot be controlled by the College under a Clubs and Socs style system. Independence will, in practice, mean becoming an ‘unincorporated association’ of the college.

The third resolution of the motion stated, “The Common room remains proud members of the College, and expresses its belief that independence is a normalisation towards the standard practice elsewhere in Oxford, and no way affects our commitment to the College itself.”

Hampton told Cherwell shortly after the meeting, “[this move] is a clarification [of the relationship] but I have no doubt certain parts of College will see it as a rebellion.” He added, though, that he was “ecstatic” with the decision and proud to have had “the highest turnout of his tenure” for any JCR meeting with almost half of all undergraduates present to pass the motion unopposed. Hampton informed the JCR of threats that the College had made should they opt for independence, including charging to use college space “presumably at conference rates” and ceasing to add the JCR levy to batells and pass it on to the JCR’s account.

He joked to those present at the meeting, “I’d like to see them try to stop us using the JCR.” When asked by Cherwell whether he thinks these threats will now be carried out by College, Hampton replied, “I reckon they won’t do anything.” While this move is likely to elicit a negative response from the Home Bursar and the Dean, Hampton reported that on Tuesday morning the Master of the College, then unaware of the later developments in the extraordinary open meeting, remarked that “that sounds perfectly reasonable” when informed by Hampton of what independence would involve.

Four other motions also passed by wide margins, including accepting loans from some or all of the 13 other JCRs which have offered such support in the last week (£500 each). Currently, the College is withholding a fee of £5,400, which was ue to have been paid to the JCR on Saturday of 3rd Week. The loans from other colleges will allow Catz JCR to continue to run as normal until relations with the College improve.

JCR Treasurer Saleem Akhtar told Cherwell, “The decisions made in the extraordinary open meeting were the beginning of a normalisation process which will bring the relationship between St Catz and the St Catz JCR in line with that of the rest of the University and indeed student unions nationwide. In my two year membership of the JCR, I’ve never seen its members rally around an issue quite like they did yesterday and that’s important; the JCR President certainly wasn’t exaggerating when he said this was the most important decision that the JCR has made in recent times.

“I think it’s important to remember that although a big step was taken yesterday, this is far from the end of our issues with the College. Alt hough t he JCR is now legally independent from the College, the College still has control of the JCR’s finances, which is why we’re very grateful that other colleges have shown solidarity in not only vocally agreeing with our cause but also actively helping us by offering interest-free loans – we’ll need these in the weeks to come to continue offering the services the Committee provides (including entz, welfare, publications and maintenance, among other things). The Committee will continue to fight to regain control of our finances until the end of our respective terms and probably even afterwards.”

A motion of confidence in JCR President Jack Hampton, proposed by first year PPEist Dominic Norcliffe-Brown, also passed unanimously and was greeted with cheers and applause. Norcliffe-Brown stated, “College has attacked Jack [Hampton] over his efforts in recent weeks and we should demonstrate that we are fully behind him.”

A further motion, which passed with 94 votes for and 11 against, resolved the JCR to “have collective mobilisation on this issue against College” in response to its “disregard for the JCR”. While no specific action was agreed or voted on, suggestions included occupying the SCR, blocking the bridge to the college and refusing to stand for the fellows at that Friday’s Hall. The action taken will be determined at a later date or by individual students’ own initiatives.

The final motion mandated the creation of a sub-committee to continue working on this constitutional issue and on relations with the College after the hand-over in Michaelmas following the JCR’s upcoming elections.

OUSU President Louis Trup said in a statement to Cherwell, “It was great to see Catz JCR make such a strong statement to the college. OUSU, as well as other JCRs in Oxford, will continue to support Catz JCR in achieving the demands they have made. Solidarity forever.”

The Dean of St Catherine’s and its Home Bursar both declined to comment.