Pembroke’s JCR has passed a motion condemning the current system of college fines as a punishment for student misbehaviour.

The motion, which was passed in last Sunday’s JCR meeting, declared, “Pembroke College uses fines as punishments for bad student behaviour. This JCR believes that this is a discriminatory and unfair system of punishment, affects some students more than others, and is frequently an irrelevant punishment to the misdemeanour.”

It continued, “This JCR resolves to oppose this collegiate process and attempt to work with the college to have a new punishment system put in place.”

The proposer of the motion, Charlotte Vickers, told Cherwell, “Fines are an incredibly discriminative form of punishment – somewhat backwards in the world of Oxford, where equal opportunities for those from any financial backgrounds are encouraged – and Pembroke has given out a few very hefty ones in the past couple of months.

“Our JCR president is already working on alternative disciplinary procedures. Some we suggested were community service, spending a night with the porters or being ‘grounded’ from bops.”

Pembroke’s regulations state that “the Dean may fine any student a sum of up to £200 for the commission of any disciplinary offence.”

A Pembroke spokesperson told Cherwell, “A system of discipline which includes the proportionate use of fines is common across Colleges in Oxford, and any arrangement that effectively deters anti-social behaviour of a kind that is detrimental to the College community will, by its nature, be complex. At Pembroke, if payment of a fine causes genuine hardship or threatens to interrupt academic progress, the College works with students to find a payment schedule that alleviates the difficulty.”

Pembroke’s JCR president Ben Nabarro commented, “The JCR has been engaged in the issue for some time, especially as several incidents from last year exposed the clear inadequacies of fines, which, as a means of punishment, have proven to be neither fair nor effective.

“As long as the system remains fundamentally based on fixed fines, it will remain regressive, unfair, and with poorer students disproportionately affected.

“The passage of this motion has allowed the JCR to speak with a clear voice on this issue and it should provide us with good momentum.”

A Cherwell investigation in Trinity term of 2014 found that in the last three years, some colleges have charged their student bodies more than £10,000 in fines.

The most common offence to incur fines was alcohol-related misbehaviour. Other finable misdemeanours reported to C+ included smoking in a college room, file-sharing and unauthorised parties.

Oriel JCR President Kit Owens is penning a report on fines given to JCR members last term. Owens told Cherwell, “I presented [the report] to the JCR who voted to endorse it. This report has prompted a discussion with senior college members on the subject of disciplinary fines which is ongoing.”

A University spokesman commented, “The rules are quite clear and the Proctors’ role is to investigate possible breaches of University disciplinary codes and to bring charges against students accused of infringing those codes. A fine of up to £300 is one possible outcome.”

Analysis: Lucjan Kaliniecki argues that Colleges seem more interested in making money than their students’ welfare

We’ve all been there. From the 3am rave next door when you’ve got a 9am tute to the trashed staircase after Park End, sometimes we find it difficult to love our neighbours. Whilst we understand that we’re no longer at school and don’t expect to be treated as such, sometimes even the most tolerant of us want someone else to intervene in these disruptive situations.

Of course, no one is arguing that we shouldn’t have some form of disciplinary system for when things get a out of hand. Usually, getting deaned is a fair way of warning someone that they’re out of order. But imposing fines for similar misdeeds seems unnecessarily punitive.

At the very least, these measures would appear to be effective: you’re hitting the student where it especially hurts – the stereotype that all Oxford students have cash to splash isn’t exactly true. In cases involving the damage of property, fines do seem a fair punishment.

However, we must then consider what misdeeds are suited to imposing fines. I’d think that occasions when this form of punishment is appropriate are pretty rare. I’d like to know how it is decided whether an act of misbehaviour is bad enough that it warrants a fine. Is there even a threshold, or will the college just use the fine hammer for everything and anything? How much is this fine, anyway? And how will it correspond to the crime? While we all wish that queue-cutters in the canteen will receive their come-uppance in a fairly minor way later in the evening, I don’t think any of us would agree that a fine of up to £200 would be a fair response to this act.

It also doesn’t help assuage concerns that colleges care more about their finances than the wellbeing of their students. The campaign ‘Whose University?’ is gathering evidence about such behaviour. Students’ testimonies, posted on the group’s Facebook page, often accuse their college of being “far more focused on money” than their students, especially with accommodation.

It’s too much of a broad-stroke to suggest this system is purely discriminatory and regressive. Anyone can misbehave, so everyone should be punished. Where cases of misbehaviour are connected to deeper issues, these should obviously be taken into account, but then we get ourselves embroiled in a weird, complicated, almost means-tested system that makes you wonder why the college is bothering with this whole scheme in the first place. Is this an effective way of curbing bad behaviour, or just another money-making ploy?

The College’s role should be to ensure the welfare of its students and to discipline those who harass or disrupt. Monetary fines do not seem like an appropriate way of doing this, nor are they the only way.

The JCR’s suggestions look like a better solution, and could even be more effective when someone would much rather pay a fine than spend a few hours doing chores or volunteering. Colleges must consider the effect on the community of disciplinary actions, not just their pockets.

UCAS rule changes will allow UK students to use the service to apply to EU universities.

Under the new rules, this process would be easier, with universities from Germany, Finland, and the Netherlands, among others, all now being allowed to join the UCAS service.

Despite suggestions from Ian Fordham of The Education Foundation to The Telegraph that applications to UK universities could drop by up to ten per cent over the next couple of years, an Oxford University spokesperson insisted that Oxford would not be affected.

“Applicants to Oxford are a small and self-selecting group within the pool of UK university applicants; we will continue to do our best to attract bright students from all backgrounds but do not expect applications to Oxford to change substantially as a result of this UCAS decision.”

The change comes as the number of UK students applying to foreign universities is rising. A British Council survey of 2,500 students taken in April of last year found that 37 per cent would take up a degree overseas, a 17 per cent increase from 2013.

Lower fees at European universities could make them an attractive prospects for British sixthform students.

UCAS told Cherwell, “With more choice in the market, there is a need to ensure that student interests are protected.

“We want students who apply for courses through UCAS to be confident that they are applying for a verified qualification at an institution which meets the relevant quality standards. As a consequence, we have reviewed the criteria for access to UCAS services to ensure that they are fit for purpose in this changing environment. We will therefore consider requests from European higher education providers to use UCAS services if they can demonstrate that they meet equivalent standards to those in the UK.”

Maastricht University has not yet become a full member of UCAS, but Cherwell understands that it intends to use some UCAS services. Dr Michael Geary, Chair of Maastricht’s student recruitment team, told Cherwell, “Needless to say, we are very happy that UCAS will open the application system to non-British universities; it’s a very progressive move.

“We are the most international of the Dutch universities with one of the biggest UK student populations in Europe. British students come to Maastricht for a number of reasons. It’s not just about the money although we do have a far more competitive fee structure.

“In an ever competitive jobs market, students need to differentiate themselves through the educational choices they make. Studying abroad has a significant number of opportunities.”

A Government spokesperson for the Department of Business Innovation and Skills told Cherwell, “This is a matter for UCAS, a body independent from Government. We welcome the wider choice this will provide for students and UCAS’ rigorous scrutiny of European universities applying will ensure they demonstrate that they meet equivalent standards to those in the UK.”

Oxford University has imposed “unfair” contracts on students, a recent investigation has claimed.

The consumer association Which? investigated student contracts at universities across the UK. Oxford University requires every student to sign such a contract before matriculation. Which? found that one in five universities impose potentially illegal contracts on students, specifically concerning their powers to discontinue courses and increase tuition fees.

The investigation studied 131 higher education providers. The analysis was led by a team of consumer lawyers and found that over half of universities are using “unfair” contract terms. A further 20 per cent impose terms on students which contravene the Unfair Terms rules in EU and British Consumer Contracts Regulations.

The regulations define an “unfair” contract as establishing a significant imbalance between student and provider. The investigation found that some universities retained total power to vary courses. When the consumer rights group surveyed over 4,500 students they found this was the primary problem.

The report found 58 per cent of students had experienced changes to modules or locations of teaching and 12 percent had confronted rising tuition fees either mid-way through a year or at the end of the year. The contract for Oxford students states, “The University reserves the right to discontinue, merge, or combine options within programmes of study; and to introduce new options or courses.”

Oxford University was found to have “bad practice”, defined as offering contracts which fall within the law but are unfair. Which? particularly highlighted that the University reserves the right to alter student timetables, the course syllabus, and discontinue courses.

The University rejected these charges, however, saying, “Oxford University takes its responsibility to students as a top priority, and has taken steps to ensure that applicants and students are given full, accurate, and accessible information in all its communication with students. This includes offer letters to accepted students, student contracts, the University’s website, and the student handbook, as well as future University prospectuses. We are also undertaking work to address the evolving area of consumer protection, in light of draft guidance from the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and the Consumer Rights Bill.”

A University spokesperson also pointed out that this work on consumer protection predates the publication of the Which? report and stressed that Oxford was by no means alone in being singled out.

Which? told Cherwell, “The reasoning for Oxford University being included in the ‘bad practice’ category was due to terms or policies included in the University’s terms and conditions that gave them an unfettered discretion to make changes to courses, but some kind of remedy is offered to students when a change is made.”

Other top universities among the 31 per cent that have been accused of “bad practice” were Durham, Cambridge, Bristol, Edinburgh, Nottingham, Sheffield, Bath, and Oxford Brookes. Only five per cent were found to have “good practice”, with the University of York the sole higher education establishment to be awarded “best practice”.

Which? Executive Director, Richard Lloyd, said, “With tuition fees higher than ever before, we want universities to take immediate action to give students the protection they’re entitled to.”

Which? has submitted its findings to the CMA and want them to conduct a compliance check.

The CMA told Cherwell, “We are in the process of finalising guidance to universities which will be ready in the next few weeks. We are working closely with the Student Loans Company and others to put together some awareness raising work for students and to-be students on what they should be looking for at where they choose to study.”

When asked if they are going to carry out the compliance check that Which? has requested, the CMA stated, “it is a process. We are working with student unions and universities to help them comply with the law.”

James Blythe, OUSU’s Vice-President of Access and Academic Affairs told Cherwell, “I take the criticisms of University contracts from Which? very seriously indeed and will be asking the University for their response. With the Student Written Submission to the university regulator (QAA) coming up, there is an opportunity for students to voice these and related concerns to an external body through OUSU.

“If we believe such concerns relate to students’ academic experiences, we will endeavour to include these in the Education Vision we are writing with students’ input that will be brought to OUSU Council in Trinity.”

Oxford University has announced the names of the six people to receive honorary degrees in celebration of their achievements in their respective fields of study, subject to approval from Congregation.

The honorary degrees will be presented at Encaenia, the University’s annual honorary degree presentation, on June 24th.

This year’s awardees include eminent figures from the fields of engineering, medicine, history, literature, and music. The awarding of the degree is an honour bestowed in recognition of exceptional contributions to a specific field of study.

The six recipients of the honorary degrees are: Professor Sir Richard Evans, Dame Hilary Mantel, Professor Ruth Simmons, Professor Dame Ann Dowling, Professor Sir Magdi Yacoub and Ms Jessye Norman.

Evans is a prominent historian of modern Germany, and recently gave a talk at the Oxford Union. He is also the President of Wolfson College, Cambridge, and an Honorary Fellow at Jesus College, Oxford.

Dame Hilary Mantel is an author, whose most recent books on the career of Sixteenth Century Thomas Cromwell, Bring Up the Bodies and Wolf Hall, have been awarded the Man Booker Prize and have been adapted by the BBC. Mantel has also been awarded the Bodley Medal, and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature.

Professor Ruth Simmons was the President of Brown University from 2001 to 2012, and is currently a Professor of Comparative Literature and Africana Studies at the university. Professor Simmons was previously the President of Smith College, the largest women’s college in the US, where she introduced the first engineering programme at an all-women’s college. Previous accolades include the Fulbright Lifetime Achievement Medal.

Another honorary degree holder, Professor Dowling, is an engineer who is both Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Cambridge, and President of the Royal Academy of Engineering, as well as a Fellow of the Royal Society. Her work focuses on minimising carbon emissions and noise of cars through the study of combustion, acoustics, and vibrations.

Professor Sir Magdi Yacoub is a Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery at the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences and the Royal Society and pioneer of numerous complex heart operations, and is hugely involved in providing support for children with cardiac conditions in war-torn countries.

Operatic soprano Jessye Norman has performed at several high-profile events, including the 200th anniversary of the French Revolution and the opening ceremony of the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games. She has been awarded the Grammy Award for Lifetime Achievement and is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Professor Wallace Broecker, a climate change specialist, will also be presented with a degree in July, as he was unable to attend Encaenia last year.

Speaking on the honorary degrees awards, Annie Hazlitt, an Oriel undergraduate, said, “I feel that the degrees are a sign of respect to the incredible work of these individuals. As a History student, I am really happy for Richard Evans as his books on Germany are some of the best I have ever read.”

Queen’s student Ed Bithell concurred, commenting, “All the recipients have demonstrated that they are among the best in their specialities and should be recognised as such.”

The future of student-run charity OxHub is under threat due to the University’s refusal to continue core funding, leaving the charity short of about £70,000. Earlier this week, the OxHub executive committee set up a petition calling for the University to provide the organisation with a long-term sustainable source of funding.

The charity previously received approximately 40 per cent of its funding from the University, most of which came from the Van Houten Fund. However, funding for OxHub has never been part of the University’s budget, which is what OxHub is petitioning to change. Contributions in the past have instead come from various funding pots, but the money from the Van Houten Fund was limited to three years and ended in Michaelmas 2014. University cuts mean they have not been offered any other sources of funding.

Makena Löhr, the OxHub President, told Cherwell, “The Vice-Chancellor suggested last year that we should fall into the Academic Administration Division budget. However, despite protracted conversations, those budget holders have since informed us that we will not now be receiving core funding for our work. The Vice-Chancellor’s office has been unable to offer opportunities for funding elsewhere.”

OxHub is a student-led charity which, according to Löhr, seeks to “engage Oxford students in social and environmental projects both locally and globally”. 600 student volunteers are currently involved in projects run by the charity, including the Schools Plus programme, the Homelessness Action Group and OxGrow. In 2014, the charity was recognised with the Queen’s Award for Voluntary Service for its work over the last seven years.

With core funding in place from the University, the charity was able to raise 45 per cent of its funding externally. However, while this external funding goes towards project costs, the cut University funding was necessary for the charity to meet many of its core operating costs, such as staff time for processing expenses.

On Sunday 22nd February, members of OxHub’s student executive created a petition, calling upon “Oxford University to secure long-term core funding for the Oxford Hub”. At the time of press, the petition had received 224 signatories on Change.org.

Löhr told Cherwell, “We understand that the University faces budgetary pressures, and that savings need to be made. However, cutting Oxford Hub’s funding is damaging to the Hub’s future, and is thus retracting the University’s support of students, who despite all their time pressures and other commitments of their degrees, want to be drivers of positive social change.

“Furthermore, it undermines the University’s public role, in connecting with the local community outside of our University bubble. We don’t really think it is appropriate to pull out the support Oxford Hub provides across the city, given levels of social inequality and the needs of the local community. We would just like to reach a sustainable solution for the Hub that would then preserve the work that students carry out to support social issues across the city.”

A spokesperson for the University commented, “The OxHub is a great venture which we were happy to support as it got off the ground, but it was always made clear that this money came from funds that were strictly time-limited.”

The University spokesperson continued, “We also have to prioritise other areas of student support which have recently been subject to significant funding cuts, such as the UNIQ summer schools, teachers’ conferences, National Scholarship programme, and the Access to Learning Fund, as well as respond to projected reductions in the Disabled Students’ Allowance.

“In discussing this financial situation with the OxHub, we have stressed that there is now an opportunity for them to work closely with other areas, including the Careers Service and OUSU, to identify how a collaborative approach might reduce costs, particularly where there is a degree of overlap in services provided to students.

“This might reduce some duplication of effort and enable more limited resources to be focused on those areas with the greatest impact.”

Sonia Morland, a finalist at St John’s and a volunteer on the Schools Plus programme, was disappointed with the news, commenting, “The Hub is absolutely great for empowering students to volunteer in a wide range of schemes that help different parts of the Oxford community. The Hub facilitates a lot of great work – though in my experience it sometimes has difficulties in co-ordinating projects with the community in a way that maximises the impact of volunteers’ time.

“Like most charities, the Hub isn’t perfect, but it’s thanks to their programmes that I, and several of my friends, found a way to put our skills to use in the Oxford community. It would be a shame, both for students eager to volunteer and for all the projects which receive Hub help, if that came to an end.”

Oli Davies, next year’s joint-VP of Giving What We Can Oxford, told Cherwell, “Regardless of the effectiveness of the charitable programmes it runs, the role Hub plays in directing Oxford graduates into careers that enact good is invaluable. Resources such as OxFID are a powerful long term investment in terms of training students to do good in the long run – it seems inconceivable the University has anything better to spend that money on, both as a resource for students and just as its social responsibility.”