On Thursday 12th February members of the Oxford Union passed an extensive set of electoral rules changes.

The debate on the proposed changes was originally scheduled for Thursday 5th February, but the protests outside the Union last week before Marine Le Pen’s speech resulted in the discussion being postponed.

The changes to the electoral rules include the introduction of slates, electronic campaigning, and the addition of a Re-Open Nominations (RON) option to each ballot for future elections.

The rules changes were proposed last term by then Union President Mayank Banerjee, and were initially passed in a poll on Thursday 13th November 2014 with an 89.6 per cent majority. However, this stimulated controversy, as there were claims that the method by which the rules changes were implemented was against the rules. Last term’s procedure also did not allow any amendments to be proposed.

At the time, former Returning Officer Ronald Collinson argued that Banerjee had not given enough time to advertise sufficiently the poll to Union Members, which would be a breach of Union Rule 67 (iv), which states, “The Standing Committee may decide that a particular proposed rule-change is of such importance that it should be brought to the special attention of Members.”

Collinson consequently invoked Rule 67 (v). Under this rule, he requested members to sign a requisition to delay the poll, which reached 80 signatories before the day of the vote. However, as the poll had proceeded regardless, the allegations of rule-breaking resulted in the reversal of the electoral rules changes.

During Thursday’s debate, in which the proposed rules changes were finally passed, six amendments put forward by Collinson were discussed, but only one was passed. 13 amendments were initially suggested, but over half of these were accepted as friendly by current Returning Officer Michael Flagg, and so passed without negotiation.

Amendment Six, the only debated amendment to pass, banned the formation of pacts between Union members and members of other societies, which the proposed rules changes would have legitimised.

The second amendment, to retain the ban on slates, divided Union members, being narrowly defeated, with 62 votes for and 71 against. In Collinson’s words, it was “painfully close” to passing.

Explaining his reasoning behind Amendment Two, Collinson told Cherwell, “In a nutshell, I think that the institutional logic of slates incentivises members of slates to lie to each other. People believe other members of their own slate to be wholly good, and members of the opposition to be evil and incompetent. The system encourages people to be dishonest to friends.”

However, Collinson admitted, “The majority opinion in the Chamber clearly differed from my own on a number of points, but I remain very glad that Union members have had a chance to have their say and debate these rules changes.

“While I think that some details of the changes remain problematic and may need to be revisited, I am very pleased that it passed and that candidates will now be able to campaign without hypocrisy and deceit.”

The Returning Officer, Michael Flagg, explained the effect the changes could have on members. “With the rules changes in effect, the average member shouldn’t notice too much, save for the fact that there will be more campaigning.

“Candidates are limited to communicating only a set number of facts, however, in any public statement. These facts will be scrutinised by myself and my deputies in order to affirm that they are true. Untrue statements will remain a form of electoral malpractice.

“Those running for any position will find new skills tested, with the ability to form a cohesive team becoming an incredibly useful skill, as it already is once elected. We may even see an improvement in the efficiency in the governance of the Union, it could be argued.”

Commenting on this term’s elections, Flagg continued, “I will be very interested to see how the rules changes affect the election. Hopefully, they should increase turnout. RON, specifically, was a good idea, ensuring that no candidate is elected unopposed. The will of the members, whether it was for or against the motion, is the measure of whether the rules should be implemented.”

Prior to the passing of the rules changes last night, Collinson praised the proposed changes, saying, “Enacting rules changes to liberalise campaigning is an excellent idea; the current situation [before the rules changes had passed], in which candidates are not allowed to campaign for themselves, is absurd. Indeed, it actually renders the rest of the rules unenforceable.

“However, the rules changes as currently drafted go too far in legitimating a noxious status quo. This opportunity should be used to create genuinely enforceable rules which will be able to give the members a real defence against bad an corrupt practices.” Flagg concluded, “We have now pursued democracy to its fullest extent and the will of the members has been legitimately heard.”

The rules changes become binding 48 hours after the passing of the motion, so will take effect from approximately 9.10pm on Saturday 14th February.

Union President Lisa Wehden did not respond to Cherwell’s several requests for comment.

OUSU confirmed late on Thursday night that members of the University Congregation had triggered a postal vote on a motion to remove the top floor of the Castle Mill accommodation complex.

Members present at the meeting on Tuesday 10th February had voted not to remove the top floor, with 210 (28 per cent) voting in favour of the proposal and 536 (72 per cent) against.

OUSU issued a statement, which read, “The officers at OUSU are disappointed that following a resoundingly clear decision from Congregation to prioritise student welfare and the wider Oxford community over aesthetics, a postal vote has been called.”

It went on to explain, “The decision taken by a small but sufficient number of people to unnecessarily bring the decision made on Tuesday into question serves as another threat to residents of Castle Mill, students, and other people living in Oxford who will be hit with further rent spikes if this resolution passes.

“OUSU will be continuing to campaign to save much needed accommodation for students, especially families and disabled students, from a minority of voices.”

Castle Mill, the graduate accommodation complex by Port Meadow, has been an ongoing source of controversy since planning permission was granted in February 2012.

Many, including permanent residents of Oxford and environmental groups, have been critical of the £21.5m development, which purportedly blocks out Port Meadow’s famous view of Oxford’s ‘dreaming spires’.

The motion to remove the top floor was originally proposed in January after an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report found that the buildings had a high “adverse impact” on Port Meadow, the Oxford skyline, the Thames, and St Barnabas Church. It suggested three options to rectify this. The University has previously preferred option one – in essence, to camouflage the buildings.

However, some members of the University Congregation argued that this did not rectify the problem. The motion, proposed by Diarmaid MacCulloch, Rev. Professor of the History of the Church at St Cross College and a TV historian, favoured option three: removing the top floor. This was estimated to cost over £12 million, would remove 38 bedrooms and require residents vacate the buildings for a year.

This motion was met with opposition from the University administration and OUSU, who raised concerns due to the cost, as well as the impact it would have on its graduate residents with families. On Tuesday, over 50 students attended a protest held outside the Sheldonian, where the vote was taking place, to demonstrate their disapproval with the proposed solution. The demonstrations were supported by OUSU after Council voted to “mandate all Executive Officers to attend the demonstration” and to “permit the expenditure of up to £50 from OUSU’s discretionary budget”. Various JCRs and MCRs, as well as OULC, also officially condemned the decision and sent members to the demonstration.

Nick Cooper, OUSU VP-elect for Graduates, told Cherwell, “I’m deeply disappointed that some members of Congregation have chosen not to respect the overwhelming view taken on Tuesday, and in doing so, once again failed to consider the devastating effect option three would have on future graduate students – especially families and disabled students – with insufficient housing for potentially years to come.

“The arguments in Congregation that this would ‘only’ affect a few hundred students – for the benefit of a view – completely failed to recognise the immense difficulties that would come with further reducing the poor amount of graduate housing available, with the extra kicks in the teeth that the cost will almost certainly raise Oxford rents and result in curtailing graduate scholarships, with graduate funding already such a critical problem.”

The Save Port Meadow Campaign commented that they were pleased with “the fact that at Congregation the University finally expressed regret for the terrible harm it has caused to some of Oxford’s most famous views. It was also heartening to note that even those opposing the motion to lower the flats did not seek to defend them. The tone was very much of shame and sorrow and a promise that this will never be allowed to happen again. However, until something very significant is done to mitigate the appearance of the flats, the damage to the views remains. We now all await the proposal that the University submits to Oxford City Council to right this wrong.”

CherwellTV covered the OUSU protest outside the Sheldonian on Tuesday 10th February. 

Cherwell has learned that Pembroke College currently hosts a £3,995 summer school, the Oxford Summer College, and its subsidiary, the Oxbridge Admissions Programme, which purports to aid “high-achieving students aged 16-18” with their Oxbridge applications. Both courses claim on their websites that “Oxbridge academics” are involved in the schemes, a claim which has been questioned by members of the University.

The two week Oxford Summer College costs £3,995 to attend, whilst the Oxbridge Admissions Programme, a four day residential course, costs £985. On its website, the Oxford Summer College states it “provides expert tuition from Oxbridge academics”. The Oxbridge Admissions Programme claims, “Top Oxbridge graduates and University tutors have designed our course.”

Greg Auger, a St John’s student who ran for OUSU VP for Access and Academic Affairs last term, told Cherwell, “This company is conning applicants. Their homepage consists of a video in which the first sentence claims their course ‘has been created exclusively by Oxbridge academics’. So you might be surprised to discover that James Gold, their founder and director, has no expertise beyond having graduated from Cambridge (though he does plug his MA where he can, despite the fact that this is just a title conferred on Cambridge BA holders after two years). Although I think Oxford could do more, the information needed to make a competitive Oxford application is available freely online. The natural implication is that companies selling application advice are conning applicants, mostly international applicants in this case.”

James Gold informed Cherwell, “Both programmes at the Oxford Summer College are designed and taught by our academic teaching staff. The team at the Oxford Summer College includes those who currently teach at Oxford or Cambridge University, Oxbridge graduates and current undergraduates.”

In #HongKong dreaming of UK education? Visit our seminar tomorrow at #UnitedCentre and boost your applications. https://t.co/LMsnExzMna

— OxfordSummerCollege (@OxSummerCollege) February 6, 2015

In response to the claim that Oxford academic teaching staff were involved in the paid summer school, Alan Bogg, Professor of Labour Law at Hertford College, commented, “I would be very surprised to learn that employed academics in the collegiate university are engaged in external paid employment in the provision of admissions guidance, where potential applicants are paying a fee for the privilege. Quite apart from the ethics of it, it would be an arguable breach of the implied duty of fidelity in the main contract of employment with the University. The University might also instruct its employees not to earn outside remuneration from activities that are fundamentally antithetical to its institutional commitment to outreach and principles of fair access. A failure to obey such an instruction would also be a breach of contract.”

A spokesperson for the University said, “Oxford University is aware that organisations approach our students and staff to work for them, and may use college premises (just as academic conferences and other summer events lease college rooms and facilities). The University does not endorse any commercial operations or publications offering advice or training on our admissions process, nor do we guarantee the accuracy of any such company’s information.”

Gold, the Director of the course, described the Oxford Summer College to Cherwell as “a not-for-profit company with the aim of expanding access to Oxbridge for students from non-traditional backgrounds”. He went on to say, “The first programme is a two-week course aimed at overseas students who want to experience studying in the UK. The focus of the programme is the academic study of two subjects although we do include some Oxbridge admissions advice for the minority of our international students who are thinking about applying to Oxbridge. Most of our international students will be considering applications to top universities globally and come on our course to help them decide if the UK is right for them. We offer scholarships to academically gifted international students from non-traditional backgrounds as we believe that access schemes to top universities such as Oxford and Cambridge should not just be limited to UK based students.

“The second programme is a four day course aimed at UK students who would like to apply to Oxford or Cambridge. Last year, at least half of the places available on this course were provided as full scholarships to students from non-traditional backgrounds and we will do the same this year. To support our scholarship programme we spoke at over twenty non-selective state schools last year as part of our outreach work to encourage more students from diverse backgrounds to apply to Oxbridge.”

Cat Jones, the OUSU VP-elect for Access & Academic Affairs and a student at Pembroke, commented, “I am aware of these summer schools and I agree that they are problematic. There are so many people within Pembroke and throughout Oxford that are working tirelessly to try and break the longstanding link between income and Oxford offers. I personally feel that this is undermined by schemes that claim to increase the likelihood of gaining an Oxford offer if you can afford the thousands of pounds for the course. As a former Pembroke Access Rep, and current Pembroke student, I am uncomfortable with Pembroke lending its facilities and therefore legitimacy to these summer schools.”

Pembroke has previously been criticised for its access record. Between 2011 and 2013, it had the lowest average of state school acceptances out of all Oxford colleges, awarding only 46.2 per cent of undergraduate places to students from a state school background.

When questioned about the summer school, a spokesperson for Pembroke College told Cherwell, “The Oxford Summer College is a client of Pembroke’s conference and events business. Facilities are hired by them under the same terms as apply to all other clients, and Pembroke College is not involved in the organisation of their programmes.”

Pembroke JCR President Ben Nabarro refused to comment, while OUSU VP for Access & Academic Affairs James Blythe had not provided comment by the time of print.

Exeter and Pembroke are a step closer to appointing JCR Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) representatives after JCR meetings held last weekend.

Exeter JCR passed a motion last Sunday proposing that BME drinks be held to gauge interest in creating a BME Representative, and to create such a position if there was sufficient demand. Charanpreet Khaira, a second year English student, proposed the motion.

Speaking after the meeting, Khaira told Cherwell, “There is a very obvious minority of students of colour amongst Oxford undergraduates, and I think that it’s important for colleges to show that they are aware of this and would like to change it by having a BME rep.”

Pembroke JCR also passed a motion to appoint a Racial and Ethnic Minorities Representative. The role would include liaising with OUSU representatives, as well as working in collaboration with the JCR LGBTQ, Gender Equality, and Disabilities representatives. As a constitutional motion, the matter has to be voted on again at the next JCR meeting before it can be enacted.

Anna Simpson, who proposed the motion, told Cherwell, “We believe that liberation and representation are essential components of every society and that JCR bodies should reflect that. The Pembroke motion mirrors our commitment to promoting these values throughout our undergraduate community, by making sure that everybody feels they have a voice that is listened to in college.

“The motion has already passed the first stage of voting and was met by overwhelming support from our students, proving that Pembroke remains an inclusive and welcoming environment for everyone to live and study in.”

The actions of Exeter and Pembroke JCRs are part of a University-wide effort to appoint BME representatives, encouraged by Nikhil Venkatesh, OUSU’s BME Officer. Speaking to Cherwell, Venkatesh said, “It was a pledge in my manifesto that I would do my utmost to ensure that all common rooms had properly resourced BME Officers of their own, and it is fantastic to see people across Oxford introducing these roles in their colleges.

“BME Officers can be an important voice to represent an often overlooked minority at Oxford, and also provide support to BME students who experience the problems of racism. Each common room will want to go about the process of introducing a BME Officer in a slightly different way, and anyone who wants advice and help in doing so should get in touch with me.”

According to OUSU, 12 JCRs and one MCR have official BME representatives. Jesus JCR President, Jessica Parker-Humphreys, told Cherwell, “As a college, we feel that the significance of having a BME rep is to demonstrate that marginalised voices should be and will be heard and listened to. It’s essential that these voices have platforms whereby they can voice concerns or share ideas that could improve BME students’ time in Oxford.

“I think that BME reps have a particularly vital role to play with regards to access, due to the fact that Oxford’s student body is overwhelmingly white.”

Corpus JCR has passed a motion of condemnation against unidentified students who tore down LGBTQ pride flags in the college on Saturday evening.
The incident provoked outrage within the Corpus community, especially among its LGBTQ members. Jem Jones, Equal Opportunities Officer, told Cherwell, “As a JCR and a community, we were shocked and angered by these events. That this would happen in Corpus, and in LGBT history month, honestly beggars belief. Whilst the perpetrators may not have any experience of being in a minority group, their opinions are clearly and thankfully in the minority in our JCR.”

An article in The Oxford Student stated, “The Abbotts [sic]… [were] accused of ‘offensive’ and ‘unacceptable’ behaviour after removing the flags”. However, Cherwell understands that there is as yet no sufficient evidence to condemn the all-male drinking society, The Abbots, and that the motion resolved to “condemn the individual(s) who removed the pride flags”, without speculating as to who this might be.

There was an Abbots event being held on the night in question, but it is unclear whether the event was still going on, or whether any members of the drinking society were in college at the time that the flags were defaced.

The defacing of the flags has also provoked a reaction from the wider LGBTQ community. Otamere Guobadia, President of Oxford University’s LGBTQ society, condemned the perpetrators, commenting, “Some belligerent wanker has actively decided to make a mockery of the attempts of a marginalised group to resist their oppression and celebrate the very difference that makes them targets of this kind of bullshit every day.

“I have no idea the extent of the society’s involvement in this stupidity, but frankly the patriarchal, overprivileged groups like these do tend to breed narrow-mindedness.”

The emergency motion, which was passed by a large majority in Sunday’s JCR meeting, also dedicated £75 for the purchase of new flags, as well as ring-fencing a third of Corpus’ annual charity budget for LGBTQ causes.
Many members of the college have praised the motion, and the general reaction of the Corpus community, as a highly positive step to ensure the safety and comfort of its LGBTQ students.

Speaking to Cherwell, Luke Mintz, Corpus’ LGBTQ rep, said, “The actions of this group were unacceptable and potentially very offensive to LGBTQ students. I am glad that Corpus JCR has sent out a strong message of solidarity with its LGBTQ community. I am currently working with our excellent Equal Opportunities Officer to get more pride flags around College during LGBTQ History Month.”

Sandy Downs, Corpus student and Secretary of Oxford University LGBTQ Society, was also very happy with the response of the JCR. She commented, “The queer culture here [at Corpus] is really special. The actions from last Saturday were unusual, and the response of giving £1,000 of our charity levy to an LGBTQ charity and a commitment to display more LGBTQ flags is great.”

Bethany Currie, JCR President, also emphasised that the College will continue to strive to be as LGBTQ-inclusive as possible. She commented, “What happened on Saturday has only stiffened our resolve to work even harder to make Corpus the place that its students believe and want it to be.”