OUSU Council has voted to hold a referendum in Trinity Term 2015 on the future of subfusc.

Council agreed to ask students whether subfusc should be worn for exams. The motion passed with 58 votes for, 10 against and 1 abstention.

An amendment was passed that there be two questions; one on the wearing of gowns and one on the clothing underneath.

In a 2006 referendum on this issue, 81 per cent of students voted to keep the tradition of wearing sub fusc to university examinations. ‘Sub fusc’ refers to the formal clothing worn under gowns, primarily to matriculation, university examinations, and graduation.

The Proctors’ statutes define sub fusc as “a dark suit with dark socks, or a dark skirt with black stockings or trousers with dark socks and an optional dark coat; black shoes; plain white collared shirt; a black tie or white bow tie.”

The proposer of the OUSU motion and Vice President for Access & Academic Affairs, James Blythe, told Cherwell, “While the last referendum was clear, it was also nearly ten years ago – I want to make sure I can effectively represent the current student view on this issue. I don’t want students to think that this motion has been brought because anyone in OUSU is proactively seeking to abolish sub fusc.

“I plan to remain neutral in the debate: all I want is a clear and recent steer from the student body on what to say when the University asks for the student view.”

Lindsay Lee, OUSU’s Disabled Students Officer and seconder of this week’s sub fusc motion, told Cherwell, “The mandate the referendum gave is now outdated. Much has changed at Oxford since then, for the better: campaigning and awareness around liberation group issues has increased and improved, and there is reason to believe that today’s students may have a different opinion about sub fusc than students had a decade ago.

“Our OUSU Council motion simply says that it’s time again that students weigh pros and cons and speak for themselves about the way forward.”

Merton College Academic Affairs rep, Andrew Macarthur, commented, “A referendum on the wearing of subfusc in exams sounds like a very sensible idea. The question was last put to the student population quite some time ago and it’s something that’s relevant to all of us. I think a strong case could be made to the University that the rules should be relaxed.

“I feel affection towards much of the tradition of Oxford, but I wouldn’t want my fondness for fancy dress to make other people’s exams more uncomfortable than they need to be.

“On the other hand, the end of exams would feel quite different if we abandon sub fusc: the romantic image of a celebratory punting trip (begowned, with Pimm’s and strawberries; a gentle breeze…) is a little bit Brideshead Regurgitated, but it will keep me going when I’m feeling tied to the library in Trinity Term.”

The University declined to comment on the OUSU motion.

Analysis: James Blythe argues why it’s time for a referendum on sub fusc

When I ran to be OUSU Vice-President (Access & Academic Affairs), I really didn’t expect to spend much time on, or in, that most peculiar aspect of Oxford life, academic dress. I certainly didn’t expect to be calling a referendum on the continued wearing of sub fusc, and I definitely have no vendetta against it. I’ve never knowingly opposed a fancy dress code in my life, and my personal experience of sub fusc was largely positive. I enjoyed having something to take my mind off the exam in the final moments alone in my room.

Nonetheless, I can also see plenty of arguments against sub fusc. In the days since my motion became public, I have heard students passionately argue that it is bad for access, that it worsens exam stress, and that it is more appropriate for ceremonies, not for the hard work of exams. Hearing strong and clear arguments from students on both sides, I plan to stay neutral in the debate.

I’m bringing this issue to a referendum because the University has signalled an intention to discuss the issue of sub fusc in exams (not ceremonies) in the next term or two. A group of examiners asked the Exams Panel to remove the requirement to wear full sub fusc. They argued that sub fusc was very different from their normal clothes, that it made them uncomfortable, and that it seemed anachronistic and put them off being examiners.

I thought those were reasonable points, but suggested that they might easily also apply to students. At this point I was told that students wanted to keep sub fusc – every academic on the panel was thinking of the 2006 referendum.

That referendum has sunk into the collective consciousness of the University in a really remarkable way: offered the choice by a progressive Vice-Chancellor, students opted by a huge majority to keep sub fusc. Possibly because it came as a surprise to people, that view has become ossified as the permanent student opinion, and I don’t think that a single vote, representing the view of students who are no longer here, should be regarded as the view of all current students.

It is clear to me that for many in the University, nothing except a new referendum could ever shift their view of what students think. That’s why, if OUSU is to engage in the debate in University committees on this question, we must hold another vote. I have no idea what the eventual outcome will be. What is clear is that we need to hear from Oxford students here today, not just those who were here in 2006.

I’ve already seen people who are actually arguing for a vote to keep sub fusc disagree with holding a referendum: my plea at the beginning of this debate is not to confuse the process with the outcome. I am confident that this process is just and necessary.

If you’re passionate on either side, please don’t get angry about the idea of a referendum. It’s got to happen. Get involved. Lead one of the campaigns, persuade your fellow students. It could be the most niche Oxford political debate in a long time, but it’s an important one. I won’t be shaping this debate – but you could

OUSU Council has passed a motion to mandate the VP for Access & Academic Affairs to include support for a reading week in the OUSU Education Vision, when the full proposals are brought to Council for approval at the start of Trinity.

The Education Vision will be a document setting out long-term goals for OUSU and aspirations of students with respect to all aspects of how learning happens at Oxford.

There is an ongoing debate in the student body both at Oxford and at Cambridge about the possibility of adding a reading week in the middle of term, creating two four week half terms.

The motion, proposed by James Blythe, OUSU VP for Access & Academic Affairs, and seconded by Nick Cooper, OUSU VP for Grads-elect, stated, “A reading week would be one way to mitigate the impact on student mental health of an Oxford degree”. It continued, “Such a week would enable students to read more diverse and enriching texts to support their academic development.”

The motion passed with four amendments, including to define reading weeks, to insert a clause demanding such a change would be cost neutral and to make clear that the Oxford workload more generally also affects mental wellbeing.

There were 41 votes for the motion and 14 against it, with five abstaining. Only 60 people voted; 70 people fewer than the number who voted on the anti-BDS motion.

Cooper commented, “James [Blythe] and I brought the motion to Council given the discussions that had taken place around reading weeks among students. A reading week could be a good way to allow students a chance to recuperate during the intensity of term time – this could be through catching up with reading, or if the student finds it more helpful for their wellbeing, as a chance to rest before a new 5th Week.

“Reading weeks are, though, a long term vision and are not a perfect solution: we hope bringing this motion will highlight the effects of Oxford life more generally, and encourage the University to pay closer attention to student welfare and workload.”

OUSU’s Disabled Students Officer, Lindsay Lee, commented, “The Oxford academic calendar currently is extremely demanding and very unorthodox. Oxford is demanding, as it should be, but it’s important to consider the health ramifications of this academic calendar for students, especially those with mental health issues.

“A reading week would reduce stress for everyone, but it could mean the difference between graduation and rustication for a student with a mental disability. For that reason, I’m very supportive of the motion.”

Louis Trup told Cherwell, “There is clearly a lot of interest in the issue of a reading week. It is something I mentioned when I was running for my job, but the increased debate on this now certainly merits a discussion in OUSU Council, where policy can be set. OUSU is probably the best place for us to make change in our university and I hope this change is something which students and the University seriously consider.”

The Oxford queer community has organised a kiss-in at The Cellar nightclub on Thursday 5th March, in response to homophobic abuse experienced by two gay students at last week’s hip hop night.

The two students, who have requested to be identified only by their first names, Sacha and Josh, were reportedly asked to leave by a bouncer, after they were seen kissing on the dancefloor. A man attending the club on the same night head-butted Josh, after yelling homophobic insults at the couple.

However, Tim Hopkins, the Venue Manager at The Cellar, denied allegations that a bouncer had asked the students to leave, telling Cherwell, “We are sorry this happened and disgusted at the homophobic man’s verbal abuse and alleged physical actions. We won’t tolerate this sort of attack. The great thing about The Cellar is [that] it’s for everyone.

“I would also like to make it clear the security didn’t ask them to leave. They did get the other man to leave. The homophobic incident was from a member of the public and not involving any Cellar staff. Yes, the security had to deal with the incident the best they could, and maybe mistakes were made.”

The Queer kiss-in was organised by the Oxford University LGBTQ Society Committee. Rowan Davis, the society’s Trans rep and member of its committee, explained, “Kiss-ins have a long and proud history in queer activism, allowing LGBTQIA people to occupy and control spaces otherwise denied to them. Clubs are a political space for marginalised groups and this event will allow us to stand in solidarity with those affected by anti-queer violence in Oxford.”

Davis continued in support of the kiss-in, “This is exactly the sort of participatory, non-violent direct action we should be encouraging, and I hope it sends a message loud and queer that the actions of those that oppress us are not going to stop us from being who we are and where we want to be.”

Sacha also spoke in support of the organised kiss-in, saying, “It’s a fun event, which will bring together many different people. It’s also a forceful response, but framed in a very friendly, gentle way. It’s quite ostentatious – but the point is not to hide. ”

He continued to praise the wider LGBTQ community’s reaction to the abuse he faced on Thursday 26th February, saying, “The people who responded to my Facebook post [on the LGBTQ reps Facebook group, recounting the homophobia in Cellar] have been extremely supportive. I always felt that my welfare was their priority. The LGBTQ community is made up of very different people, but it really felt very united in that moment.”

The incident has been reported to the police, who have documented it as a homophobic crime. They are conducting an investigations into Cellar’s policy, as well as the alleged assaulter. Cellar’s management has also met with the victims, and has stated its commitment to ensuring that both staff and clubbers are aware that The Cellar should be an inclusive space for all.

The Cellar has informed Cherwell that “the changes we are making to hopefully make The Cellar feel safe again for gay people” are to “reiterate our policy to all our Bar staff and security team” and to “install a better camera in the side bar”.

The Venue Manager further commented, “People are allowed to kiss in The Cellar no matter what sex they are. If anyone is homophobic, they should leave or keep their views to themselves. Staff should keep an eye and an ear out for this sort of abuse.”

The kiss-in was held on the same evening as student night Supermarket, co-run by Lu Williams and Annie Teriba. Teriba told Cherwell, “Being somebody who organises club nights at Cellar, I was saddened to hear what happened that evening. The rest of the team share the sentiment. We immediately contacted the manager at Cellar to talk about our future there, and had a meeting with him on Monday. We weren’t happy with the club’s response and stressed that Cellar have a duty to protect LGBTQ+ people from queerphobic abuse.

“He had barred the man who attacked the students and is speaking to security staff to make sure that there isn’t a repeat. We will push for Cellar to take up the Good Night Out pilot being put together by the LGBTQ Campaign and WomCam.

“Knowing what it feels like to be harassed and attacked for daring to defy what is expected by cis-heteropatriarchal norms, I’m really glad that the LGBTQ Society has organised a kiss-in which we will support in any way we can. [I] think this is a reminder that, while queer clubs are incredibly important for our community, we must continue to fight to make all clubs queer friendly. We will not accept being tucked away in a corner and we will not let our queerness be policed.”

The Oxford University LGBTQ Society President, Otamere Guobadia, commeted, “When we came up with this Queer kiss-in we envisioned it as romance meets resistance: a disruption of heteronormative status quo. I think that when we queer spaces like this we reframe the narrative about the presumed normality of straightness.

“I think that the incident speaks not only to the necessity of queering straight spaces and opening them up to difference, but to the necessity of queer spaces in general.

“We are not in a post-patriarchal world. Minorities are still very much prone to violence, and even in the most liberal of spaces, patriarchy pervades, and masquerades itself as inclusivity and neutrality. Yes, it is a powerful thing to disrupt and challenge heteronormativity in this way, but it is a wonderful thing to feel that ones love and expressions of romance can be depoliticised, that expressions of romance can just be. Queer spaces provide for normalisation of experience, an elimination of the violence and finger pointing, that queer people are not afforded in straight spaces.”

OUSU council on Wednesday evening rejected an attempt to force OUSU’s NUS delegates to vote against “any motion aligning the NUS with the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS) at the NUS national conference”.

The motion, proposed by Ben Goldstein and seconded by Adam Dayan, was proposed due to fears that full BDS might become an official NUS policy at the National Conference in April. The motion fell, with 30 votes for, 72 votes against, and 28 abstentions. This means NUS delegates now have a free vote on BDS.

BDS is a global movement to put political and economic pressure on Israel to agree to certain pro-Palestinian demands. These demands include an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, recognition of the equal rights of Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel and giving Palestinians a right to return to their original homes. BDS ranges from arms divestment to a full academic and cultural boycott from Israel.

The proposers of the motion disagreed with the methods of the movement. The motion argued that a wholesale boycott of Israel “puts at risk any British student relationships with all Israeli organisations”. It also contested that the BDS movement “alienates moderate Israelis and strengthens the right-wing ultranationalist narrative in Israel”.

Dayan and Goldstein told Cherwell, “The mood in the room was mixed and unfortunately discussion of procedural motions obscured a substantive debate on the issues of BDS. It’s a shame that many people weren’t able to represent their JCRs because the debate was cut short.

“We trust that our NUS delegates will take into account the many objections to the odious BDS movement raised by Oxford students.”

James Elliott, one of the leaders of the opposition to the motion, was delighted with the result, commenting, “It is very clear that Oxford students have profound concern for the colonial occupation of Palestine, and it is no surprise OUSU Council rejected this rushed, hyperbolic motion.

“This was all a proxy fight about the NUS’s existing support for BDS, a policy which I proudly seconded and continue to uphold. It turns out that students don’t think Israel is an illegitimate target beyond our criticism and action. The question is what we do to extricate ourselves from that complicity.”

The OUSU motion split opinion in many common rooms. The JCRs of Magdalen and St John’s both mandated their representatives to vote for the motion at OUSU Council, whilst Wadham, University, and St Peter’s JCRs mandated their representatives to vote against it.

In other JCRs, the motion provoked extensive debate, with Balliol JCR’s meeting lasting over three hours. It eventually decided to mandate two of its representatives to vote against the motion, and one in favour. At Hertford, an open letter supporting BDS was circulated, subsequently becoming the cause of much controversy within the College.

Meanwhile, the JCRs of Queen’s, Pembroke, LMH, New, and Jesus all conducted online polls of their members to determine how their representatives should vote.

The motion itself was subject to two attempted amendments during the course of debate.

The first amendment considered was an attempt by the original proposers to clarify what the motion meant. Representatives from Somerville were mandated to seek clarification on the meaning of ‘the BDS movement’, as the motion referred to it. Some students believed that it was unclear whether the motion referred to the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC), or the general principle of sanctions against Israel. Several mandated JCR representatives stated their opposition to the amendment on the basis that it was undemocratic, as it was not proposed with enough time for them to consult their respective JCRs. The amendment was defeated with 25 votes for, 78 votes against, and 25 abstentions.

The other amendment considered was one proposed by next year’s VP for Grads, Nick Cooper, which tried to mandate NUS delegates to abstain on all BDS motions, as opposed to voting against them. This motion also failed, with more than 100 people voting against it.

Second year Christ Church PPEist Jan Nedvídek, who spoke in support of the motion, was disheartened by the outcome of the vote, telling Cherwell, “I find it disappointing that OUSU failed to back the motion. OUSU and the NUS should be looking after student welfare, not passing motions on controversial geopolitical issues.

“Tonight, OUSU had a chance to say that, but decided not to. I guess it’s business as usual: the NUS pretending it’s the UN Security Council, rather than an institution representing the diverse student body in the UK.”

Barnaby Raine, one of the NUS delegates who would have been affected by the motion, commented, “I was surprised and heartened at the huge margin by which this motion was defeated – as I made clear in the debate before the vote today, I now plan on voting to boycott Israel at NUS conference.”

The Oxford Students’ Arab Cultural Society told Cherwell, “This evening’s vote at OUSU represents a success of student democracy in reflecting the views of the majority of the student body. Oxford students did not want to support a motion which attempted to rush through policy forcing NUS delegates to opposed Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions against Israel. Students objected to the undemocratic manner in which the motion was brought, placed on the OUSU council agenda without time for many common rooms to meet and discuss the issue.

“It was evident in the common rooms that were able to discuss the policy that Oxford students are concerned about the situation in Palestine and the role that our university plays. The University of Oxford, through its investments and research programmes, is invested in arms companies and companies that profit from the Israeli occupation.

“The vote tonight makes it clear that Oxford University students want to be able to discuss Israeli human rights abuses in their common rooms, and that our delegates should not be forced to vote against existing NUS policy which supports divestment from companies that profit from the occupation.”

OUSU President Louis Trup told Cherwell, “I respect OUSU Council’s right to mandate NUS delegates to vote in a certain way at the NUS conference. In this instance, they chose not to. I will, however, inform Council in 1st Week of Trinity how individual delegates voted.”

OUSU has announced that it will be launching a new scheme to provide sanitary products such as mooncups, sanitary towels, tampons, and panty liners to common rooms at or below cost price, in the same manner as the existing condom scheme.

The launch of the new scheme has been scheduled to coincide with International Women’s Day on March 8th, and the products will be available to buy through OUSU at the beginning of Trinity.

Women’s, Equalities, and Welfare Officers will now be able to order sanitary products directly through OUSU, in the same way that condoms are currently provided to JCRS. Although many colleges currently do provide subsidised sanitary products, they were previously purchased and reimbursed by college. This will absorb the tax on sanitary products, which is currently five per cent. This tax on sanitary products, which was lowered from the standard rate of VAT in 2000, has recently become a high-profile issue. A Change.org petition asking George Osborne to ‘Stop Taxing Periods. Period.’ has gathered almost 200,000 signatures.

Rachel Besenyei, a second year PPE student at Wadham who worked on rolling out the scheme, commented, “It’s really encouraging that the University are taking positive steps to make sanitary products more affordable for students. These items are necessities, not luxuries, so it seems only fair to make them available in a similar manner to condoms.”

One aspect of the scheme that its organisers are particularly keen to push is the provision of mooncups in all colleges. A mooncup is a small silicone cup used to collect menstrual blood. They can be re-used over many years, making them a much greener and cheaper alternative to traditional sanitary products. On average, a person who menstruates will use 11,000 sanitary items during their lifetime, spending around £90 a year.

Anna Bradshaw, OUSU VP for Women, told Cherwell, “The inclusion of mooncups in the scheme is related both to OUSU’s ongoing commitment to environmental sustainability and to a real demand for them in the student body, as reported to us by Welfare and Women’s Officers in Common Rooms.

“I’m particularly pleased that the University will reduce the cost of mooncups. Whilst incredibly environmentally friendly and more cost-effective than conventional sanitary products, these can be too costly for students to invest in. I hope the scheme encourages more students to see them as a viable (and indeed superior) alternative to disposable sanitary products such as tampons or pads.”

Although mooncups are subsidised in the same manner as other products, the organisers of the scheme also hope that colleges could introduce a system where colleges could provide a limited number of mooncups for free to students on a balloted basis.

Rose Lyddon, Wadham SU Women’s Officer, also welcomed the impact that the new system would have on those who require sanitary products in college. She commented, “The provision of sanitary items at Wadham has made a big difference to students, particularly people with disabilities, for whom getting to the shops is difficult. I’m really happy to see OUSU taking some of the burden off college SUs in funding vital services.”

A serious case review by the Oxfordshire Safeguarding Children’s Board (OSCB) has revealed that over 370 children may have been groomed and sexually exploited by gangs of men in the last 15 years in Oxfordshire.

The review into the abuse declared that there were “repeated missed opportunities” to stop years of sexual torture, trafficking, and rape, and that Thames Valley Police and Oxfordshire County Council made “many errors” in that case, although there was “no evidence of any wilful neglect, nor deliberate ignoring of clear signs of child sexual exploitation by groups of men.”

It stated, “The behaviour of the girls was interpreted through eyes and a language which saw them as young adults rather than children, and therefore assumed they had control of their actions. At times, the girls’ accounts were disbelieved or thought to be exaggerated.

“What happened to the girls was not recognised as being as terrible as it was because of a view that saw them as consenting, or bringing problems upon themselves, and the victims were often perceived to be hostile to and dismissive of staff. As a result the girls were sometimes treated without common courtesies, and as one victim described it by ‘snide remarks’.”

This report comes after seven men were convicted in 2013 of 59 counts of offences including rape, trafficking, and arranging or facilitating prostitution, following an inquiry called Operation Bullfinch.

In a statement at the press conference following the publishing of the review, the independent chair of the OSCB, Maggie Blyth, said, “There were repeated missed opportunities and many mistakes were made. The review concludes that the child sexual exploitation across Oxfordshire from 2005-2010 could have been identified or prevented earlier.”

She said the report outlines “an absence of acknowledgement amongst social workers, police officers, health staff and teachers that children were victims of child sexual exploitation by groups of men”.

Blythe coninued, saying, “The use of language by professionals that blamed the children for their plight” was one of the reasons for the delay in action and “systematic failing” in Oxfordshire.

In response to the serious case review, Chief Constable Sara Thornton said in a statement from Thames Valley Police, “We have contributed fully to the review and accept its findings. The independent review highlighted that agencies including Thames Valley Police could have identified the exploitation between 2004 and 2010 earlier than it did and many errors were made. The review acknowledges that we have been willing to learn and change. We have examined what went wrong and we are doing all that we can to put things right.

“We are ashamed of the shortcomings identified in this report and we are determined to do all we can to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again. Safeguarding and protecting vulnerable children and robustly and vigorously investigating those who prey on them, is the responsibility of every officer and member of staff in Thames Valley Police.”

Whilst speaking in the House of Commons, Labour MP for Oxford East Andrew Smith called on the government to set up an independent inquiry, insisting that “the 370 other children identified at risk, their families and the public, horrified that these crimes were allowed to continue unchecked for so many years are owed answers to crucial questions which this Serious Case Review could not address.”

Smith told Cherwell, “The public are rightly shocked that no one is really taking responsibility for these awful failures to protect children, and no one has been disciplined.”

Leader of Oxford City Council, Councillor Bob Price, commented, “The crimes inflicted on these young girls over several years were horrific and will have devastating life-long effects on the girls and their parents. This report shows very clearly that the girls were badly let down by the people and organisations that could – and should – have protected them.

“It also shows that concerns raised with the responsible authorities by some City Council staff were not listened to when they were reported. However, we are grateful that their persistence contributed to the recognition by those authorities of what was happening and to effective intervention, which eventually brought the criminals to court.

“The Bullfinch enquiry has led to a series of major changes in reporting and management processes. Now, there is much stronger collaboration and cooperation to make sure children and young people can live their lives in safety and security.

“The City Council has always been fully committed to supporting the County Council and the Thames Valley Police in delivering their responsibilities to protect young people.

“It is good news that since September 2014, the City Council’s role has been recognised and one of our Directors now sits on the Oxfordshire Safeguarding Children’s Board.”

St Edmund Hall has closed its gym following an incident which may have caused upwards of £1,000 worth of damage to the college gymnasium.

In an email sent by the MCR President, David Severson, to the MCR body, the reason behind the gym closure was elucidated to students. “College has decided to close the gym for two principle reasons:

“1. The ongoing issues of disregard for gym etiquette with specific reference to weights left scattered, equipment moved out of place without return, and exclusive behaviours such as changing within the gym.

“2. They see that this context provided the climate for a recent incident, whereby one of the newly established radiators installed with the recent renovations to the gym was knocked off the wall.”

The College Welfare Committee held a meeting where the incident, and the context referred to in the first point, were discussed at length. The result of the meeting was that JCR and MCR representatives were informed by the College that over £1,000 worth of damage had been done to the gym, and that the Domestic Bursar had received numerous complaints for etiquette misconduct.

The College Domestic Bursar, Jayne Taylor, and the College Dean, Robert Whittaker, responded to the damage caused by proposing that the gym be closed for one week, beginning Monday 2nd March.

In Severson’s email, the reason for this proposed closure was cited “as an incentive for gym members in our community to hold one another accountable for the behaviour and resulting incident [seen in the College gym recently]”.

Severson continued, “Both the JCR and MCR representatives were not in a real position to ‘combat’ the decision, as it were, given the information that was laid on the table.”

He requested that all gym users “work together to exercise proper gym etiquette, and call each other out when improper behaviour occurs in order to facilitate a more cohesive and comfortable environment in what is a very small space.”

Severson told Cherwell, “I do think the closure was unfortunate, but probably appropriate, as my understanding is that such measures have been implemented by other colleges in response to etiquette issues (the damage to our gym being extra cause) like Wolfson to great effect.”

Wolfson College confirmed that it closed its gym five years ago, but did not specify the precise reason for this closure.

A statement released to Cherwell by Claire Hooper, the Communications Officer for St Edmund Hall, said, “The Gym was closed for operational purposes to complete essential maintenance, and has now reopened.”

The St Edmund Hall JCR President declined Cherwell’s request for comment.

Oxford University’s Vice-Chancellor, Professor Andrew Hamilton, is the third highest renumerated university adminstrator in the UK, according to a study published by the University and College Union (UCU).

The report, published on Tuesday by UCU, analysed 155 higher education institutes. It found that university leaders enjoyed an average salary of £260,290 in 2013-14. However, 16 per cent of institutions contacted either didn’t respond to the union’s Freedom of Information request or exercised exemptions. Oxford chose to use an exemption over travel and passed on redacted minutes of its renumeration committee.

Nottingham Trent University’s Vice-Chancellor, Neil Gorman, was found to be the highest paid administrator, receiving £623,000, including all accrued bonuses. Andrew Hamilton was ranked third, earning a salary of £442,000. However, once Gorman’s five years of accrued bonuses and pension are stripped out, Hamilton enjoys the highest base salary of any UK Vice-Chancellor. The University did not release the size of Hamilton’s bonus.

A UCU spokesperson told Cherwell, “What concerns us most is the utterly arbitrary nature of pay increases in universities and the complete lack of transparency. Why should one Vice-Chancellor enjoy an inflation-busting double digit pay rise while others secure more modest releases? What we need to see is a far more open system of governance. We want student and staff representatives on the committees that set senior pay in our universities and full disclosure of the minutes of those meetings.”

The study also found that Oxford has 396 employees earning between £100,000 and £399,999. Of these, 274 were in the bracket £100,000 to £149,000 and a further 88 in the £150,000 to £199,999 region. Only UCL employed more high-earning staff, with 429 employees earning in excess of £100,000.

Fergal O’Dwyer, Chairman of the Oxford Living Wage Campaign, commented, “We deal regularly with the University’s lowest paid members of staff, and hear about how difficult it is for them to make ends meet. The disparity in pay, in quality of life, between these workers and those, like Hamilton, on the highest end of the University’s pay scale makes me embarrassed to be an Oxford student.”

Hamilton emerged as the fourth highest spender on air fares of all university Vice-Chancellors. In the year 2013-14, £34,210.71 was spent on flights for the Vice-Chancellor. The University did not provide information on expenditure on Business and First Class flights, nor their proportion in overall expenditure. The average spend on air fares for vice-chancellors was only £9,705.75 and the percentage of overall flight expenditure spent on business and first class flights during 2013/14 was 67.6 per cent.

A spokesperson for the University told Cherwell that Hamilton’s salary reflects the high standing of the university as the top in the country.

When questioned on the Vice-Chancellor’s air travel, the University responded, “Given that Oxford is one of the great international universities, overseas travel is an important part of the Vice-Chancellor’s role in maintaining the University’s globally competitive position.”