The Oxford Union today faces a leadership crisis, with both the positions of President and Treasurer left vacant.

In a meeting late last night, the Senior Disciplinary Committee ruled to uphold a decision against Roberto Weeden-Sanz, who was revealed last week to have technically resigned as President-Elect under Union rules, after missing three meetings.

In addition, it emerged that Antonia Trent, who had taken up office as Treasurer on Saturday of 8th week, had also missed enough meetings to have technically resigned, leaving a further position unfilled.

Under Union rule 23 (c)(ii)(2), “Any member of any Committee… having missed three ordinary meetings of that Committee without good reason in the same term, shall be deemed to have submitted his resignation from that Committee.”

This rule can be bypassed if there is considered to be ‘good reason’ for absence, “by two-thirds of those present at the first meeting held at least 168 hours after the absence”. ‘Good Reasons’ include sitting University exams, ‘disabling or infectious illness’, a ‘pressing and extraordinary engagement agreed to be unavoidable’ and ‘pursuit of service to the Society…of paramount importance’.

When the position of President becomes vacant, it is first offered to the Librarian, who has 72 hours to accept or reject the offer. The current Librarian is Stuart Webber. A vacant Treasurer’s position is offered first to the Secretary, currently Olivia Merrett. If the offers are declined, they are ‘passed down’ to other officers in order, and it is therefore difficult to predict who will fill the vacant positions.

One consequence of this is that candidates who unsuccessfully ran for Standing Committee in 7th week of Hilary this year will be offered positions without having been elected.

Daniel Johnson, Chair of the Senior Disciplinary Committee, told Cherwell that the Union will release a statement on these matters this weekend.

Roberto Weeden-Sanz and Olivia Merret have been contacted but declined to comment.

Ruskin College has confirmed its decision to cut its Women’s Studies MA programme, after an extended period of speculation and online pressure.

Speaking to Cherwell, Chris Wilkes, Ruskin College’s Principal, confirmed the decision to close the course was taken on Friday 13th March  and explained the financial difficulties facing the College.

He commented, “This academic year has seen a dramatic change in the College’s funding which has resulted in the removal of a substantial higher education subsidy… It is within this climate of funding cuts that the College has undertaken a comprehensive curriculum review.

“The College remains committed to its mission and this is reflected in the revised curriculum offer… The key themes of gender, class and race will be embedded within all our programmes. Looking forward, the College is aiming to maintain the number of women on our higher education programmes.”

Founded in 1899, Ruskin College originally sought to provide university-standard education for working class people to enable them to act more effectively on behalf of working class communities and organisations, including trade unions.

The College continues to specialise in providing educational opportunities to adults who are excluded and disadvantaged, describing itself as “providing educational opportunities for adults with few or no qualifications”. 

The College has promised to support those who have already enrolled in the programme if they wish to finish their degree.

A petition to avert the discontinuation of the course on change.org had reached 824 signatures at the time of writing. Comments made by signatories to this petition suggest that the Women’s Studies MA may not be the only course to close with little or no consultation, with concerns also raised in particular about the future of the College’s English degree.

Saskia Ritchie, Chief Executive of Cheshire without Abuse and a student on the course who started the petition, agreed that the College had not been transparent about the nature of the proposal.

She told Cherwell, “There has been no communication. When asked in another meeting how much consultation had taken place, the Vice-Principal said that six consultations were undertaken but could give no detail. In addition, when pressed, he agreed that consultation opportunities were available only to resident students. The MA is a part time course and has never had a residential cohort.”

Ritchie added, “Women’s Studies is a unique programme of study that allows me to use personal experience to explore political, historical, sociological, philosophical and academic understanding of my chosen field [domestic abuse]. My dissertation will both inform and be informed by my work, my life and my politics.”

According to its website, the programme, believed to be the only one of its kind in the country, “asks students to consider the ways in which gender intersects with other power structures… [it attempts to] explain the ways in which women have been made invisible in the world and to think about the ways in which activism can and does change the world.”

The course was notable for being one of the few graduate-level courses open to students without prior qualifications. Instead, it accepted candidates with a similar level of intellect or those who could show evidence of relevant experience in organisations such as trade unions and political movements.

A group of Oxford alumni has occupied a University building in protest at the University Council’s ruling to defer a decision on fossil fuel divestment.

Cherwell understands that the alumni entered the Clarendon Building on Broad Street, an administration building for the Bodleian Library, at 4.30pm today, occupying one of the offices. The administrative staff present left the premises and were replaced by a group of porters. The police were called. Among the protesters was John Clements, formerly the University’s Director of Finance.

Andrew Taylor, the Fossil Free Campaign Manager at People & Planet, an environmental student campaign network, said in a statement, “It is unacceptable that the University of Oxford is refusing to take urgent action and call out the rogue fossil fuel industry that is driving climate change. This is a needless delay by powerful decision-makers at the University of Oxford, while the citizens of vulnerable nations like Vanuatu face the consequences of inaction.”

The University’s decision comes after a protracted divestment campaign from a number of student groups. Within Oxford, the campaign has received support from 14 JCRs and 14 MCRs, representing roughly 8,200 students. A number of alumni, including solar energy entrepreneur Dr Jeremy Leggett and journalist George Monbiot, have promised to hand back their Oxford University degrees if the University does not commit to divestment from fossil fuels.

Worldwide, divestment campaigns are gathering momentum. The UN yesterday announced its support for divestment campaigns, while the Guardian today launched the ‘Keep it in the Ground’ campaign, urging the Gates Foundation and Wellcome Trust to divest from fossil fuels.

If the University does decide to divest, it will follow in the footsteps of leading universities including Stanford and Glasgow. Its endowment is estimated to stand at £3.8 billion.

A spokesperson for the University said, “Last October’s Oxford University Student Union resolution has raised an important and multi-faceted matter which requires thorough consideration. The University Council had a good discussion of the issues and agreed to consider the matter further at a future meeting.”

With regards to the occupation, Cherwell has yet to receive from the University a reply to its request for comment.

OUSU President Louis Trup was present at the meeting. In a statement, he said, “University Council has seriously considered the proposals and has decided it wants to get more information before making a final decision, most likely in May. I hope that in the time between then and now, students continue to make it clear that the university has a moral duty to the planet and to the Oxford University researchers who are leading calls to divest. My colleagues and I who sit on University Council will then be able to show that the significant student view and the undeniable scientific evidence must not be ignored.

“I also want to thank OUSU’s Environment and Ethics campaign for their work on this, which has proven that students can force the university to tackle these big issues.”

OUSU’s Environment & Ethics Fossil Free Campaign said in a statement,  “Today, Oxford University Council met to discuss proposals for fossil fuel divestment. We are disappointed that they have deferred this important decision until a future meeting. This deferral represents serious complacency towards the urgent need for action on climate change.”

It pledged to continue lobbying the University, adding, “We appreciate the University’s active engagement with the student body on this issue, and  strongly urge the University to make the right decision without delay.”

On Thursday, two students from St Catherine’s College intercepted a man in their staircase and chased him from the college, retrieving some of their valuables in the process.

Second-year Psychology student Jake Berger intercepted a man coming out of a neighbouring student’s room. After reportedly recognising the other student’s bag, Berger followed the man out of the staircase and confronted him, at which point the man fled.

Another student, second-year Mark Hamblin, was allegedly hit in the face by the man as he tried to obstruct him, sustaining a minor injury. The two then pursued the intruder down Manor Road as far as Holywell Manor, at which point the man dropped a bag which was found to contain two laptops, alcohol and other items. He was not caught, and is thought to have escaped with approximately £100 in cash and a bankcard.

Berger commented, “I had just come back from a meeting with the Master, so the sight of me chasing a thief down Manor Road in my gown must have been pretty disconcerting.

“I think [this incident] happening is a trade off for being as open a college as Catz is.”

Witnesses reported seeing an unidentified male sitting on a bench outside the staircase prior to the incident. He allegedly left a pair of gloves at the scene. The incident has been reported to the police who have spoken to the students whose rooms may have been entered.

Student Matthew Rose, whose money was taken, told Cherwell, “I think it’s a reality check. We’re not in an ivory tower – I almost lost my entire degree on my laptop because I assumed college was secure.”

Dean of St Catherine’s Richard Bailey said, “We take security extremely seriously and are looking in to ways to ensure we don’t have a repeat of this incident.”

JCR President Jack Hampton commented, “Yesterday at 2:15pm an unknown single man entered one of the Catz staircases, went through a number of student rooms, was interrupted in the act and ran, making off with a significant amount of cash.

“This is an isolated incident. As JCR President, I have no concerns about security at Catz. We trust college and the police to resolve this quickly and efficiently.”

In February last year, a spate of robberies from the Catz post room prompted the college to tighten security measures.

An extraordinary open meeting was held by St Catherine’s College JCR on Wednesday, due to a debate concerning an undemocratic poll on Facebook which would decide which newspapers should be stocked in the JCR.

The JCR voted on Saturday 7th March to reverse the decision made by this Facebook poll because it was deemed to have been made undemocratically, on the ground that the vote on the JCR Facebook page was not anonymous, did not include all JCR members and included members who no longer attend the college.

As a result of the debate earlier this week, the JCR President decided to hold an extraordinary open meeting in which two motions were proposed to around 80 students in light of the issue. The first addressed how the decision to stock tabloids in the JCR should be carried out and the second was in relation to stocking The Sun specifically.

The first motion noted, “A previous motion (Hilary Term Week 3, 2014) mandated the JCR to reduce spending on newspapers. This was conducted via a Facebook poll which was then decided to be unlawful and the results were reversed. We have reverted to all of our previous newspaper subscriptions.”

The motion resolved to conduct an anonymous poll on the College’s JCR website with a ‘yes’ to cut a paper, ‘no’ to not cut a paper and a ‘don’t mind’ vote, cancelling the JCR subscription to the newspapers which received more than 50% of ‘yes’ votes.

The outcome was an amendment to mandate the IT Representative to hold an anonymous poll on the JCR website, listing all papers from the current order with options to vote for ‘Keep’, ‘Don’t keep’ and ‘Abstain’ for each newspaper. Each paper which received more than 50 per cent of votes for the ‘Keep’ option would be ordered for Trinity term, and if fewer than six papers received 50 per cent of the ‘Keep’ vote, the six papers with the highest ‘Keep’ votes would be ordered.

This vote is to be repeated in 8^th week of each term in order to keep up to date with new members of the JCR and changing opinions. The amended motion passed 73 votes to one.

The second motion noted, “That ‘all national newspapers’ would include both The Sun and The Daily Star as options, newspapers which (among their myriad other examples of harmful attitudes & content) contain images that cause undeniable discomfort to a significant proportion of the JCR…The Sun’s Page 3 is currently the only widely legitimised form of female nudity in a society which otherwise deems it necessary that female breasts should be covered at all times (see, for example, Facebook/Instagram obscenity guidelines), thereby stating that the only acceptable naked female body is a narrowly sexualised one…The Sun and The Daily Star contained offensive content as well as controversial images with particular focus being placed on the female nudity of The Sun’s Page Three.”

The Sun was not included in the original Facebook poll intentionally due to the JCR’s past support of the NoMorePage3 campaign and The Daily Star was accidently missed off the poll.

The motion stated that by stocking The Sun in the JCR, Catz would be supporting the objectification of women and thus resolved for The Sun and The Daily Star to be removed from the poll as options until the sexualisation of the female body was removed from their content.

The proposition, made by members of Catz Feminist Society, argued, “The Sun is an ideological statement. We need to make a clear statement that Catz shouldn’t support this. It is a chance for Catz to make a really admiral statement. We need a binding motion, regardless of the newspaper ordering system.”

The speech in opposition then responded, “We are arching over what the JCR stands for. People have a right to vote on each individual paper. We shouldn’t censor the list. We remove the fundamental right for people to decide their own choices.

“To show how the JCR really feels, we need to poll beyond the people who are here today. The Sun is the most widely read paper in the country, reaching around ten million people. How can we construct opinions about The Sun without reading it ourselves? We need to continue to be aware of it. To only see broadsheets would have class implications. All papers should be treated the same to be truly democratic.”

The concluding opposition argument stated that the decision to not stock The Sun and The Daily Star should be voted by a poll rather than in the open meeting.

After a call for a secret ballot, 31 voted in favour of the motion to not stock The Sun, 61 voted against and three abstained.

Cherwell spoke to a student at St Catherine’s who was present at the open meeting. She commented, “The debate on the JCR Facebook page a few days ago clearly showed that there were two issues that people were conflating, that of the way we vote on papers and that of the JCR’s general stance on newspapers which feature Page Three-type content.

“I think students rightly feel very strongly about making sure they have a say in the types of newspapers the JCR orders. People feel strongly about Page Three for a number of reasons, one of which is that it is a very visible manifestation of the way women’s bodies are sexualized and objectified in the media – if it’s fair for the images in The Sun or The Star to be visible in the JCR, I should also be allowed to take my top off on Facebook without it violating obscenity guidelines – as it is, there’s a double standard.

“People also have strong views about anything that they feel censors the free press, so people were concerned that the second motion cancelled out the democracy of the first. The issues understandably became conflated, but the idea behind motion two was not to undermine the JCR’s vote on newspapers but rather for the JCR to make a stand and not consider The Sun and The Star as appropriate options until their Page Three images are removed.”

On the topic of the representation of the JCR at open meetings, she stated, “I think the attendance at last night’s meeting showed that people do attend meetings on the issues they care about, and the range of opinion showed that the meetings do represent a broad cross-section of views from across the JCR.”