Students in Oxford have started a Facebook campaign to “troll the NUS” by donating to the Liberal Democrats in response to the NUS’ #liarliar initiative, targeted at constituents of MPs who reneged on promises to scrap tuition fees. The NUS campaign in question is directed against 31 MPs who voted for an increase in tuition fees in 2010, despite promising either to vote against increases or to scrap fees outright. Out of these, 28 were Liberal Democrats.

The campaign includes billboards displaying the slogan, “Broken promises leave a permanent mark”, alongside an image of knuckles tattooed with “Liar Liar”, which have been put up in London, Manchester and Sheffield.
Vans carrying the advertisements and slogans are be driving through the constituencies of the “pledge breakers”, and adverts have been placed in national newspapers. In total, the costs will amount to £40,000, which the NUS said “is still less than the debt students will graduate with for the first time this year.”

The NUS has reinforced the campaign on the official NUS Connect site using recent polling statistics, which suggest that 54 per cent of the students asked believe the government’s tuition fee policy has failed, while 75 per cent say that lowering tuition fees should be the most important government policy.

In a statement on the NUS page, NUS President Toni Pearce said, “It’s payback time. I’d like to say directly to Nick Clegg that your apology won’t cover any of the £40,000 debt that students will graduate with for the first time this summer. They pledged to scrap tuition fees – they lied. We represent seven million students and are urging every single one across the country to vote against broken pledges.”

However, many Oxford students have questioned the wisdom of spending such a large amount on the campaign.

Eleanor Sharman, a third year at Oriel, told Cherwell, “I’m not sure what the NUS actually does for most students, but it could probably do more of it if it hadn’t wasted £40k on alienating a load of them.”

Sharman is one of the organisers of the “Troll the NUS” campaign on Facebook, encouraging students to donate to the Liberal Democrats on 21st April in order to “make the NUS executive think twice in future about pushing a Labour Students narrative,” which is “aggressively pushing an agenda that hasn’t been endorsed by the many it is meant to represent.”
Joe Miles, who created the Facebook event, said, “It’s a total waste of money. A social media campaign could be run at a lot less than £40,000. Not only that, but it’s blatantly partisan – note that one of the key destinations for the battle bus is Sheffield Hallam, a Labour-Lib Dem marginal.”

The Broad Street bookshop Blackwell’s has been subjected to criticism from the Oxford University Women’s Campaign for hosting the launch of actor Steven Berkoff’s book, Sod the Bitches!, amid claims that the book is “misogynistic” and “a sustained rant against women”.

Published by Urbane Publications, the book will be the first novel written by the 77 year old Steven Berkoff, widely known for villainous roles in films such as Rambo: First Blood Part II and, notably, General Orlov in the James Bond film Octopussy.

Details for the launch event on Blackwell’s website refer to the book as “powerful, divisive and honest”. 

A statement released to Cherwell by the Oxford University Woman’s Campaign committee explained, “WomCam is extremely disappointed that Blackwell’s has invited Steven Berkoff to launch his book in Oxford. Books like his, which appeal to a certain demographic of men, normalise and celebrate misogyny.

“The title of his book is offensive, and the novel itself is littered with slurs, and has rightly been called a ‘sustained rant against women’. There are many authors to be celebrated: Berkoff is not one of them. We condemn Blackwell’s for inviting him to Oxford and giving a platform to his hateful views, as well as encouraging people to buy this misogynistic book.

“We hope that in the future they refrain from inviting sexist speakers. It is a shame that Blackwell’s thinks that this book in particular is worth celebrating, but also that it thinks that such a speaker would receive an audience here in Oxford.”

Berkoff is known for being outspoken in his opinions. In a recent interview with London’s Evening Standard, he referred to Caitlin Moran as an example of “women saying things about men in a jokey, cynical way, [when] the reverse would be regarded as offensive”. In 2013, he was also fined £400 after being found guilty of knocking over a pedestrian while “driving without due care and attention”.

Zool Verjee, Deputy Manager of Blackwell’s bookshop, told Cherwell, “Blackwell’s hosts a vast range of events week in week out, a total of around 250 events per year encompassing just about every subject under the sun.

“We give platforms to a very wide spectrum of speakers with a variety of perspectives and viewpoints and wherever possible we don’t think it is right to censor or restrict speakers when they talk about their books, whether their works are fictional, as is the case here, or non-fictional.

“In this case, Steven Berkoff is a widely respected actor, director and playwright who has written a novel which we understand might be provocative but whose creative viewpoint we do not believe should be prohibited.”

Blackwell’s also came under fire last year for its ties to UKIP, as it was revealed by Channel 4’s FactCheck in 2013 that Julian Blackwell, owner of the Blackwell’s publishing group, was the second largest donor to UKIP since 2001, having donated a total of £175,000 in 2007.

In response to the disclosure of Julian Blackwell’s donations, the Oxford Activist Network organised a “Books not Bigots” protest on Broad Street in May last year. In a statement given at the time to the Tab Oxford, Julian Blackwell denied having donated any money to UKIP since 2010, telliing the Tab Oxford, “For the 2010 election I personally, from money I had made outside Blackwell’s, did support UKIP as I liked the then leader and believed in what UKIP was trying to do. I have given no further funds to UKIP since 2010.”

Steven Berkoff was unavailable for comment.

Members of the Morris dancing and folk community have defended their practice of using black facepaint against allegations of racial insensitivity amid concerns from students in Oxford.

The debate was sparked by the appearance of Morris dancers wearing black face paint in Oxford’s city centre last weekend as part of the annual Folk Weekend. Pictures of the dancers appeared on the Facebook page Skin Deep, a forum linked to the Oxford zine of the same name used for the discussion of race issues.

A number of students responded negatively to the practice. One commenter said, “It kind of doesn’t matter what their intentions are if the end result is something that looks, to all intents and purposes, like blackface.”

However, others defended the use of black face paint, arguing that the origins of this tradition are unrelated to race. According to one commenter, “Its origins are not completely agreed on, but it is widely acknowledged to have nothing to do with ‘blackface’.

“They come every year as part of Oxford folk weekend, and like most Morris dancers, love English tradition and working hard on learning the dances to travel round the festivals and perform. The two people in this photo would probably be incredibly upset about being demonised in this post, but unsurprised, as I’m sure they’re well used to explaining why they’re dressed the way they are.”

These comments were echoed by a spokesperson for Folk Weekend Oxford, who told Cherwell, “There is an awful lot of debate raging about the blackface tradition within the Morris world at the moment.

“Many, many people believe that it originated as a disguise, or relates to chimney sweeps bringing good luck, and there are sources from early texts which do support this argument, suggesting the workers blacked their faces with soot when they were dancing (and collecting money) as they would likely lose their job if their boss knew they were out begging.

“However, there is also an argument that (whether or not the origins lie here entirely) blackface didn’t really catch on in a widespread way until the time of the black and white minstrels.”

She added, “From my perspective as a festival organiser – we respect the right of individual sides to choose their own kit and costume, and are not going to discriminate against sides who choose to wear blackface, any more than we would discriminate against a group of visiting African dancers wearing white face paint.”

This debate comes in the wake of a similar controversy last year, after an article published in The Oxford Student on the same subject was taken down after complaints from the Morris dancing community about the sensitivity and balance of the reporting. Speaking to Cherwell at the time, the Morris Ring area representative for South Midlands said, “There are a number of different reasons for this and no one really knows where the tradition came from.”

The origins of the use of black face paint in Morris dancing remain unclear. Some research has suggested that it grew in popularity concurrently with minstrelsy, an entertainment that does use racially-motivated blackface, although a definitive answer has never been reached.

A motion to create a Full Time Officer (FTO) to represent transgender students within the National Union of Students’ LGBT+ Campaign did not pass at the 2015 NUS Conference, held this week in Liverpool.

Of 544 total votes cast in a secret ballot, there were 271 for the motion, 194 against, and 79 abstentions. Although a majority voted in favour of the motion, it did not achieve the two-thirds majority required.

The NUS currently has two paid full time LGBT+ officers. One space is reserved for a ‘self-defining woman’, while the other role is described as ‘open’, and may be filled by a person of any gender.

Motion 705 notes “that NUS LGBT+ campaign’s decision to have a designated women’s place LGBT+ Officer has increased the representation of women in this campaign”, and its proposers hoped that the introduction of a trans officer would similarly increase trans representation within the NUS.

The same motion was brought to the NUS LGBT+ Conference in March; again, while the majority of votes cast were for the motion, it did not achieve the two-thirds majority required. Concerns were therefore raised by some delegates at Conference that voting for a motion which had failed to pass at the LGBT conference would have failed to recognise the autonomy of the LGBT campaign.

However, the motion did pass with the required majority at the NUS Trans Conference, and other delegates stated that the autonomy of the NUS trans caucus should be given primary consideration.

The Conference’s failure to pass the motion has been heavily criticised by many members of the transgender community. Rowan Davis, second-year Wadhamite and OULGBTQ Society’s Trans rep, told Cherwell, “I am utterly appalled that, couched in the language of liberation, this year’s NUS National Conference completely failed to uphold trans autonomy and instead prioritised the voices of cisgender LGB people.

“The actions of cis delegates, including filibustering and blocking, made a mockery of the democratic procedures of the NUS and I would ask people that voted against the motion or abstained just to sit and think about how many more trans students will face the oppressive structures of transphobia because of their actions – they should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.”

At the time of going to print, the NUS Press Office said that its officers would be releasing a comment at a later date.

Students and faculty members have expressed outrage over the Bodleian’s handling of the proposed relocation of the Oriental Institute library in an effort to reduce costs by between two and three per cent. 

Under the proposal, the Oriental Institute library, which houses the majority of books used by Oriental Studies students, would be closed, and most of its books moved to the Sackler, which is the Classics faculty’s main library. The proposal is currently being considered by a number of committees, and the final move is expected to go ahead in summer 2016.

A document presented to the Committee on Library Provision and Strategy in Oriental Studies outlined the Bodleian’s line on using feedback from consultations, stating, “Further consultation may be required…but it is hoped that the outline proposal can be agreed soon so that necessary preparatory work can get under way.”

The document also stated, “Subject to further discussion and study, it is hoped that preparatory steps can start immediately (and indeed some are already agreed and under way) and continue steadily through to June 2016, with the major move taking place in July/August.” It warned of a possible curtailment of opening hours in the interim.

Professor Gillian Evans, a retired Cambridge professor and an outspoken critic of Bodleian management, told Cherwell, “What is happening now is a re-run of a lot of regrettable management practices we saw in 2012: secrecy, failure to consult all those affected in a timely way or at all, attempts to railroad a proposal onward in the teeth of extensive opposition, by the use of PR and ‘rewriting the story’, even constitutional shenanigans.”

Evans added, “This is coupled with a failure to work things out and cost them and timetable them properly in detail. Anyone who uses the Sackler or the Classics part of the LRR knows how short of seats Classics already is. If applicant numbers are rising as I hear they are in Oriental Studies, this is a recipe for a grim future of overcrowding.”

The Sackler currently has 250 reader spaces, and according to Bodleian statistics its average occupancy is 80, but the document did not contain data looking at peak-time occupancy, when the pressure on reader spaces would be most acute.

A spokesperson for the Bodleian stressed that student members had been present at all of the meetings of library committees where the proposal was discussed.

They added, “The proposal to relocate the Oriental Institute to the Sackler Library came about after pressure to make permanent cost savings from 2015/16. Consultation on the proposal has taken place and continues; a decision has not yet been taken and the proposal will go to the Curators of the University Library in 8th Week Trinity Term.

The suggested solution will not only generate cost savings but will also increase the opening hours of the Sackler Library/ the time that readers have access to the Sackler Library by more than a third.”

Tara Heuze, a Balliol Oriental Studies student, told Cherwell, “I frequent both the OI and the Sackler on a fairly regular basis. Both of these, when I go, happen to be packed with people, despite the space, and I often find that I have to get my books and scurry back to college if I am to study properly. If the seating availability is already in these dire straits at this point in time, when the two libraries are separate, I can hardly imagine what it would be like once the attempted merger goes through.

“Perhaps most importantly, the hypocrisy of the entire proceedings disgusts me. I heard rumours about the proposed move at least a month ago, but it is only now, when the decision is all but made, that the management have decided to ‘considerately’ send around an internet survey, which they’ll probably ignore anyway, but pretend that they didn’t, so that the entire procedure can have a (very) thin veneer of fairness.

“What surprises me the most is that the Classicists and the Art Historians, who will be as affected by it as us, do not seem to have been informed at all.

“It is disgusting, and would be shocking, if it weren’t so predictable, given the history of library moves in the past decade.”

The Oxford Union has backed out of an offer by Imperial Tobacco to sponsor a debate on the morality of the tobacco industry following an investigation.

This follows outrage and unhappiness from speakers invited to oppose the tobacco industry. They contacted Cherwell as they were concerned about the nature of the sponsorship, the fact that the tobacco industry was targeting student communities, and the fact that they had not been immediately informed when invited to speak that the debate might have a sponsor from the tobacco industry.

Imperial Tobacco had originally proposed to sponsor the Union’s debate, ‘This house believes the tobacco industry is morally reprehensible’, scheduled for Thursday of 3rd Week.

In their invitation to Deborah Arnott, Chief Executive of health charity Action on Smoking and Health, the Union said they had “confirmed speakers from Imperial Tobacco and FOREST”, but neglected to mention their ongoing negotiations regarding sponsorship with the tobacco company.

Arnott commented, “I am deeply concerned about the misleading nature of the invitation I, and many  others, were sent by the Oxford Union inviting us to speak in the tobacco debate. It made no mention that Imperial Tobacco was planning to sponsor the event in return for the opportunity to set up a recruitment booth at the venue. It’s disgraceful that the Oxford Union should have tried to pull the wool over people’s eyes.”

She added, “It’s shameful that it was only once the tobacco industry’s involvement was revealed that the Union accepted that such sponsorship was untenable.

This is an industry whose products kill when used as intended, and which has been judged in court in the US to have lied, misrepresented and deceived the public about the devastating health effects of smoking and environmental tobacco smoke to the public and the young people they avidly sought as ‘replacement’ smokers.

“Hundreds of children start smoking every day and 100,000 smokers die each year in the UK from this deadly addiction. The tobacco industry truly is morally reprehensible and I find it hard to believe that any students with half a brain could come to any other conclusion.”

In a statement, the Oxford Union commented, “The Oxford Union was approached by Imperial Tobacco with a proposal for sponsorship of a debate we were holding on the tobacco industry. As with all sponsorship proposals, The Standing Committee explored this possibility.

After consideration, the Union decided not to proceed with the discussions before a formal sponsorship agreement was made.

“All speakers who expressed an interest in speaking in the debate were informed of the possibility of sponsorship.”

The Union emphasised in their comment that “a formal sponsorship agreement” was not yet made at the time of speaking with Dr. Rees. The Union declined to commenton whether the Standing Committee are able – even if it is not common – to reject a sponsorship deal before  deciding to investigate further, as well as on whether all sponsors are allowed or obliged to have a recruitment stall at the event.

They likewise refused to comment on whether the decision to end negotiations was in any way due to the unhappiness of Dr Rees or other speakers regarding this idea of sponsorship by the tobacco industry.

Dr Vaughan Rees, a lecturer on Social and Behavioral Sciences at Harvard University, uncovered the sponsorship negotiations when he was called by the Union regarding the interest he expressed in the debate. He told Cherwell that “the status of sponsorship was unclear” following a second discussion by telephone.

Rees commented, “The concern from the tobacco control community is that the sponsorship was not made clear with the initial invitation, and that the sponsorship basically ‘bought’ a tobacco company an opportunity to engage directly with Oxford students.

“The Union initiated the second discussion to let me know that the plan for sponsorship had been abandoned and to see if I was willing to attend on that basis. I saw the Union’s plan to drop sponsorship more as a reflection of their desire to attract speakers who would not support a tobacco industry sponsored event, rather than a genuine response to concerns about taking money from a tobacco company (a policy held by Oxford University).”

Rees was also confused as to the terms on which sponsorship negotiations had ended, commenting, “As the call wrapped up, I told her that I intended to let others in the tobacco control and public health communities know what was going on, as deceptive industry behavior has been a concern for many of us.

“She asked that I wait because they were ‘still under contractual obligation’ with Imperial. I was incredulous because the whole discussion we had been having was based on the notion that she had abandoned sponsorship. When I challenged her on this, she said the decision had just been made in the past hour following a discussion with Imperial. I don’t know if they just needed time to formalise the plan to drop sponsorship, or whether they were trying to see if I would bite after hearing that no industry money would be involved.

“In my opinion, the Oxford Union was operating in such a manner as to limit the information they shared with invitees in order to favour the interests of a tobacco company. 

“The Oxford Union seems to be oblivious to the irony of their own rather reprehensible actions in light of their motion that the tobacco industry is morally reprehensible.” 

Dr Rees also expressed concern for the content of the debate, commenting, “The nature of the debate itself is deeply disturbing. The tobacco industry has a history of engaging in deceptive behaviour to further their interests while improving their public image. More recently, they have attempted to adopt principles of “corporate social responsibility” and I see this debate as part of that effort.

“Even a cursory consideration of social responsibility would confirm that an industry that knowingly sells a product that promotes addiction and kills consumers, has no claim for social responsibility. This industry is responsible for the deaths of some 100 million people in the twentieth century. Only a morally reprehensible industry would continue to operate with this knowledge.”

He continued to explain that “Oxford’s students will comprise a substantial proportion of future generation of leaders,” and therefore, “for obvious reasons, the tobacco industry is anxious to gain influence among these kinds of people”.

The Union and the University are separate institutions and therefore Oxford University did not comment. However, the University’s policy on tobacco is very clear, according to Arnott, who said, “The University’s ‘Committee to Review Donations’ does regard money that has come from tobacco as unacceptable.”

A spokesperson for Imperial Tobacco told Cherwell, “Imperial Tobacco, as a strong supporter of free speech, continuously seeks opportunities to promote quality, open debate in appropriate forums. As part of this, Imperial proposed an Oxford Union debate about the ethics of tobacco.

“Imperial offered to not only take part but also to meet the costs of the arranging the event. As discussions progressed, however, we were informed by the Union that invited tobacco control advocates were unhappy to take part in an event made possible with financial assistance from a tobacco company. As a result, the Union regrettably informed us that it would no longer be prepared to accept this assistance from Imperial.

“Imperial subsequently made it clear that it was prepared to take part in the proposed debate regardless of how event costs would be met. Ultimately, however, agreement could not be reached on our right to veto who would appear alongside the Imperial representative on our side of the debate and discussions ended. (We would never seek any restriction on the individuals invited to appear on the opposing side of the debate). As a supporter of quality debate we are pleased to note that, according to the Cherwell website, the event is still scheduled to take place – although it’s a pity that this will be without industry representation.”

Tobacco is the subject of the world’s first health treaty, the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which binds 180 countries to “denormalise…activities described as ‘socially responsible’ by the tobacco industry”.