A Keble Undergraduate ended up in the John Radcliffe Hospital earlier this week after his inability to remove an earring left him with pliers attached to the side of his head.

The student, who wishes to remain anonymous, explained to Cherwell that “a last minute and quite shoddy attempt to look respectable for a job interview the following morning backfired massively when I realised I couldn’t get my piercing out.

“After several failed attempts, I sought the assistance of [my friend] James who had some ‘big old pliers’ in the hope I could cut the bugger off.”

The friend in question, fellow undergraduate James Davies, elaborated, “The earring was a bead ring piercing, and supposedly could be removed simply by pulling the bead off. He tried all day and evening to remove it to no avail.”

Davies continued, “I tried for ten minutes to cut the ring to free his ear with no luck. Eventually, I got a safe angle and squeezed the handles very tightly until eventually they cut the earring and the bead fell off.

“I thought I had fixed it and told him it was sorted, but realised something didn’t feel quite right. I went to release the pliers but the handles just moved flimsily and it seemed the inner mechanism had completely snapped inside, jamming the pliers shut with the earring wire still jammed inside.”

He went on to explain his initial panic and then uncontrollable laughter on realising that his friend “literally had a huge multi-tool thing attached to his ear”.

A second friend of the “plier-ed” student then proceeded to call the Keble porters to seek their advice, as the realisation dawned that he had to leave for London in eight hours and he was stuck on the floor with a pair of pliers completely stuck to his ear.

Davies described to Cherwell how a Junior Dean arrived soon after to find the student sitting on the floor holding the pair of pliers to his head, as Davies sat on his chair with a coat over his mouth trying not to laugh.

“She phoned 999 as it was starting to bleed and we had no way of removing it.”

The injured undergraduate added, “[We] got a taxi to the JR, where police and other quite seriously injured patients seemed to forget their woes for a bit upon seeing a massive pair of pliers attached to my ear.”

The Accident and Emergency department at the John Radcliffe Hospital removed the pliers from the student’s head.

On the consequences of the event, the affected Keblite elucidated, “I did find it quite funny at the time, and a lot funnier now, but also had basically resigned myself to not going to my job interview and thereby messing up a potential career path, which, despite the hilarity of having pliers stuck to your head, is never great.”

The student suffered no lasting damage.

A motion has passed at Regent’s Park College to reverse the conversion of the only gender-neutral toilets on site into a male and disabled toilet.

The change comes following what certain members of the JCR called a “disappointing” decision by the college administration to make these toilets available only to male and disabled students over the Christmas holidays, which was not discussed with the undergraduate student body.

There was particular concern that the sign on the door discouraged disabled women from using the toilet, especially as it is the only disabled toilet in that area of the College.

Regent’s Gender and Sexuality Representative Will Tomsett told Cherwell that the initial decision by the college authorities was the result of a complaint by a male member of cleaning staff, who felt uncomfortable cleaning the unisex toilets whilst women were using them.

Tomsett, who proposed the motion, underlined the importance of gender-neutral toilets to the ‘welcoming and accepting body’ of the college.

He also underlined how they planned to tackle the issue that had caused the conversion in the first place, telling Cherwell, “At the meeting we discussed putting up a sign saying ‘These toilets are cleaned by male members of staff’, which would hopefully negate the awkwardness felt by the member of staff upon encountering women users of the facilities.”

The Welfare officer at Regent’s Park, Isobel Wilson, likewise expressed her satisfaction with the decision of the JCR, commenting, “Regent’s prides itself on its supportive and inclusive community, but to be so it is fundamental that we have a safe space for every member and guest of the college.”

“The toilets, which service the college hall, are deemed particularly important with the consideration of transgender guests who may be visiting the college for Formal Hall, as well as providing a safe space for any students of the college who are unsure or undecided of their gender.”

She went on to explain that she is now confident that the SCR will listen to the concerns of the undergraduate body over the issue and will reinstall the gender-neutral toilet with immediate effect.

JCR president Alex Rennison issued the following statement, “The reinstatement of the toilets as a gender neutral space will of course be a change for the better, with the JCR feeling strongly that a reversion to gender-binary use would be a step back for a community that prides itself on being welcoming to all students and guests alike.”

The motion could prove an important step to raising the awareness of the matters of sexuality across the university. Regent’s Gender and Sexuality Representative has expressed his hope that the decision acts as a stimulus for change and discussion.

He commented, “I’d like to see unisex toilets provided in other colleges as all too often it is easy to ignore the real issues that trans people are confronted with in the simple act of going to the toilet.”

“I welcome the recent survey conducted of college LGBTQ reps across the University relating to the provision of gender neutral toilets in colleges; creating a safe space for trans students and guests is a really important priority for JCRs to have, and I’m glad to see that this is being discussed across Oxford.”

An additional motion to turn the women-only toilets into gender-neutral toilets has also been proposed, but was yesterday rejected at the general meeting with the support of Tomsett.

Tomsett added, “I believe that to do so would be removing a safe space for female guests, as well as the fact that a number of female members of staff use these toilets to change into their work clothes at the start of the day.”

Second year English student Morgan Harries told Cherwell,“I am really glad that the JCR managed to pass the motion, especially as we were not consulted on the change in the first place. These gender-neutral toilets prove our our college’s attitude of acceptance and its inclusive environment.”

A new charitable social media craze that has been compared to the ‘Ice Bucket Challenge’ phenomenon was designed by two Oxford undergraduates, with a team of fellow students.

Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust’s #SmearforSmear campaign, which has been endorsed by a range of celebrities, from Stephen Fry to Rita Ora, is aiming to raise awareness and debunk myths about smear tests.

The charity is asking people to smear lipstick on their cheek, take a selfie and then upload the photo to Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

Pembroke linguist Marianna Spring and New College human scientist Katherine Tomsett designed the campaign during a Girls’ Day Schools Trust Young Leaders Conference in September 2013.

The Oxford students developed the idea with their team during the conference’s competition to design marketing campaigns for leading charities, including Jo’s Trust.

Inspired by the no make-up selfies that were circulating on Facebook and the connotations of the word smear with lipstick, the idea of #smearforsmear was devised.

Tomsett and Spring’s team’s idea went on to win the competition and left a lasting impression on the students and the charity.

Tomsett told Cherwell, “I am thrilled with the response the campaign has had online. Cervical cancer kills thousands of women each year, and leaves survivors infertile in a large number of cases.”

“The majority of the time, it can be prevented if it’s picked up early enough, so the importance of attending smear tests can’t be stressed enough. I’m just happy that something of which I was a part could potentially save lives.”

Surrey economics student Rebecca Waters collaborated with the two during the Young Leaders Conference.

She said, “Working with Jo’s Trust helped me learn about the cancer and the statistics that come with it, all of which shocked me.”

“We ultimately designed a great concept that I personally feel very proud of, which has now been developed and actually put in place by Jo’s Trust.”

Maddy Durrant, Communications Manager at Jo’s Trust, worked with the girls at the Young Leaders Conference and helped launch the current trend to coincide with Cervical Cancer Prevention week.

She commented, “After the conference, their idea was on my mind a lot and I kept mulling it over for a long time.”

“Their contribution sparked my imagination and lay the foundations for what followed. It was such a great idea and I always knew that we had to use it in some shape or form.”

Durrant hopes that the #SmearforSmear campaign will encourage more women to attend their smear test appointments, citing the fact that one third of women aged 25-29 fail to attend planned smear tests.

She commented, “Hopefully this campaign will push boundaries of understanding and ensure more women go for smear tests.”

French and Italian student Emma Obertelli, who had her first smear test last year, said, “I’m really glad I went. Once you’ve seen the doctor for one intimate thing it doesn’t seem like such a big deal to go again.”

Lady Margaret Hall’s start of Hilary term bop has provoked controversy amongst some students.

At the event, some students allegedly wore tea towels on their heads, which, according to critics of the theme, was an example of orientalism. After the bop had taken place, students also raised the issue on the JCR’s Facebook page.

The bop, which had the theme ‘Arabian Nights’, was held on Saturday 24th January. Arabian Nights is the title of the English translation of One Thousand and One Nights, a collection of folklore and tales from the medieval Islamic world. Organisers contended that students were supposed to dress up as characters from these stories.

Charlotte Sykes, a third year English student at LMH, had concerns about the bop’s theme, commenting, “The event provided a space in which people wore stereotyped one dimensional ‘Arab’ costumes – at a time when Islamophobia is on the rise throughout Europe.”

She continued, “Much of the writing following Charlie Hebdo has focused on the damage done to minority communities when those in positions of power characterise them as reductive ‘othering’ stereotypes.

“We need to be aware of these issues, and our positions of institutional privilege as Oxford students, and ensure we don’t replicate these oppressive dynamics.”

However, some students responded negatively to the criticisms from voices inside and outside the college. Aadit Shankar, the JCR president at LMH, defended the college’s handling of the events, “The bop theme last Saturday was announced five days in advance, and was intended to refer to the collection of folk tales, One Thousand and One Nights.

“The JCR Executive received no formal complaint about this theme prior to this event. The JCR Executive is always prepared to remove anyone from a bop who is dressed in a manner that may be deemed offensive.”

He continued in support of LMH’s attitude to diversity, “The JCR Executive is proud that LMH is home to people of all races, genders, sexualities and faiths.

“To this end, since the start of this academic year the Executive has sought to increase its representation of equality-related issues by creating a new Equalities Committee. LMH is proud to host ‘A World at LMH’ starting on February 20th – a weekend of events celebrating diversity at our College.”

He also extended an apology to those who were offended by the evening’s theme, saying, “I would like to apologise on behalf of certain members of the JCR, who misinterpreted the theme, to all those who were offended by some of the costumes.”

The LMH Social Secretaries declined to comment.

The Arab Cultural Society reacted with dismay to the theme, issuing a statement saying, “To make ‘Arabian Nights’ a bop theme is not to celebrate genuinely another culture, but instead to reduce a diverse group of cultures into costumes. – represented in a manner which mocks and demeans them.

“Oxford students should be aware that they stand in a historically and presently unequal power relation to the many peoples of the Arab world who do not have a voice in the West. This event is as inappropriate as a supposed black cultural event in which people black up or dress as ‘African tribals’.”

Annie Teriba, a second year History and Politics student at Wadham, commented, “At a University which has such consistent problems with diversity, where several students of colour have reported that they have been made to feel othered, it is disappointing to see a racialised bop them and, yet again, an inability to treat PoC [People of Colour] identities with the respect that they deserve.

“The role of cultural imperialism, the otherising and caricaturing of PoC identities and the justification of this as simply cultural exchange has played a central role in feeding the racism still experienced by Arabs and Muslims both in the West and on the other end of drone attacks.

“It seems like harmless fun, but costumes like the one I saw reproduce and normalise those images. As I said to the Social Sec, it’s likely true that no one involved is a bad person but intentional or not, the effect remains the same.”

Hertford JCR has voted to recreate the position of Women’s Officer.

A constitutional change was required for the proposal, with a two thirds majority required for the motion to pass.

The meetings did not go entirely smoothly, with an amendment tabled that caused a “heated debate”, according to a third year Hertford student. Though ultimately defeated, the amendment sought to alter the post to a ‘Gender Equalities’ role.

With 65 for, nine against, and eight abstentions, the proposal passed with a 79 per cent majority. This now allows for the election of a Women’s Officer. The role is yet to be filled.

Alice Vacani, who is chair of the OUSU Harassment Policy Working Group, carried out an anonymous survey of Hertford women that found the majority of women who have experienced harassment were in favour of recreating a Women’s Officer post.

She then proposed the re-introduction of the position, saying, “It was an important position that was currently not represented within the student body.”

With regard to the attempted renaming of the role to ‘Gender Equalities Officer’, Vacani says that such a title would have “simply confused members of the JCR as to the purpose of the rep” and that a Women’s Officer is required to lobby for women who are “still disadvantaged in many ways – from the finals gap to sexual violence, many issues disproportionately affect women compared to men”.

The Women’s Officer, according to the Hertford JCR constitution, is responsible for, amongst other things: lobbying for women’s right within ollege, ensuring policy is inclusive of women, liaising with the tutor for women and JCR Welfare Officers, and organizing consent workshops. The role can only be held by “an individual who identifies wholly as a woman or with a complex ender identity encompassing woman” and can only be elected by such individuals.

Aliya Yule, WomCam Officer, commented,“WomCam is so excited to hear that Hertford has introduced a Women’s Officer position in its JCR. It is vital that colleges introduce better liberation reps – including Women’s Officers, Disabled Students’ Officers, BME/ students of Colour Oficers, and LGBTQ officers – for better representation and to ensure that marginalised voices are listened to within the university.”

Helen Thomas, Women’s Officer for St Anne’s JCR, said, “I’m very pleased bout this great outcome for Hertford. Changing the title to Gender Equalities Rep would have done women at Hertford a disservice.

“It is really important for society to realise that discrimination which is levelled at men often comes about due to the systematic oppression of women,” she added.

Anna Bradshaw, the OUSU VP for Women, was present at the second meeting and commented, “The specific representation of women is essential in all common rooms, and I know that Women’s Officers and Reps in many colleges do some really fantastic work.”

Bradshaw informed Cherwell that New College MCR has also created a Women’s Officer role in their committee this term.

Analysis: Mary Reader argues that creating a Women’s Officer position should not be seen as “reverse sexism” 

We still live in a patriarchal society. University is no exception to this rule. 

The very institutional setup of Oxford, I believe, works to reinforce existing patriarchal assumptions and patterns of behaviour. Our society is still dominated by the idea of men as breadwinners and women as caregivers. Within academia, our adversarial style of discourse is generally catered towards self-aggrandisement rather than increased understanding. One of my friends was told by their tutor to “write more like a man” in their essays, because that’s the style of writing that achieves a First. 

No wonder 71.2 per cent of Philosophy academics are men. When women are mostly being taught by men, reading books written by men, and being told to write like men, it is hardly surprising that gender inequality exists in an academic context. 

This institutional sexism rests upon socially constructed gender roles. Patriarchal societal norms permeate all walks of life, affecting the way in which men treat women, the way women interact with one another, and the way women see themselves. 

It is undeniable that there is a ‘lad culture’ in Oxford – rugby crewdates, ‘sharking’ and sexual harassment – that requires active challenge.

When one in four women have had experience of sexual harassment at university in the UK, and a significant number of young people don’t understand the meaning of consent, it is absolutely vital that we educate people about these things, which disproportionately affect women. 

It is also imperative that we provide effective support that caters to the needs of those who are victims of sexual harassment, rape or intimidation.

This is why, given the fact that women are still structurally oppressed, we need Women’s Officers rather than the watered-down, less specific role of Gender Equalities Officers.

Some believe that by describing the position as a Women’s Officer entails a kind of reverse sexism. However, this is premised upon a misunderstanding of the aims of liberation movements; the idea of ‘reverse sexism’ is itself highly flawed. For sexism, like racism, is the result of both prejudice and power.

It is the same misunderstanding that causes men, and women, to refuse the label of feminist on the grounds that it means you somehow place women’s rights above those of men. In fact, intersectional feminism struggles for the liberation of all genders.

To a certain extent, we might ask ourselves “what’s in a name?” But so long as we live in a patriarchal society, having a specific ‘Women’s Officer’ in our colleges is a necessary measure to tackle gender inequality and oppression.

Merton and Keble JCRs have overspent their budgets from Michaelmas term 2014.

With an undergraduate body comprising around 300 students, Merton has a budget of £2,000 for their Entz each term, yet this full sum was spent on Freshers’ Week alone last October.

“A high demand of alcohol from freshers which we didn’t anticipate” was blamed for a near £1,000 overspend last Michaelmas term according to Merton’s JCR Treasurer, Maira Chowdhury. She said that providing free alcohol at their Freshers’ Week and Entz was “one of the major reasons we overspent”.

However, as Chowdhury went on to comment, “This is easy to control really – we should provide as much as we can afford to, not to satiate demand no matter how high it is. This shouldn’t be a problem for next Freshers’ Week.”

Keble College also over-spent last Michaelmas, exceeding a third of their annual budget. Keble JCR President Roseanna Petersen commented, “We give our officers budgets for the academic year. The Entz officers used more than a third of this budget last term, but some of this was on investments such as new lights which will continue to benefit the JCR for the foreseeable future.”

Merton undergraduates were keen to defend the expenditure in Freshers’ Week, with first year Italian and Philosophy student Alex Eperon telling Cherwell, “Freshers’ Week is one the most important times in university life; you meet new people and establish friendships that will last for years.

“Merton’s Freshers’ Week this Michelmas lived up to and surpassed expectations of that. I personally rusticated to change course so can say that it was better than last year’s already exceptional week.

“On the first night, the Entz reps hired out Mad Hatter’s Cocktail bar, which we didn’t have the year before. I think this was probably fairly pricey, but I think it was worth it, as the atmosphere was lively, and people were dancing, but as it wasn’t a club people could just chat and start to get to know each other a bit.”

When asked to comment on Merton bops, Edward Thomas, an Ancient and Modern History first year at the college, told Cherwell, “I quite enjoy them.” He added that Merton’s “no fun” reputation is “ridiculous”.

Merton’s total expenses in Michaelmas term last year amounted to £9,574.80. The total income from capitation fees to the JCR was £8,687.93, leaving the College with a deficit of £886.87.

Chowdhury explained, “Our budget’s just a bit tighter for the next two terms. We’re just cutting down spending a bit by Welfare and Entz to cover the cost.”

Having only discovered that they were overspending at the end of last term, she added that, in Hilary, “Entz are only running bops and events with zero cost, for example Karaoke night.”

Typical expenditure for Entz activities varies across colleges. Data collated during Cherwell’s investigation into JCR spending last term revealed that Oriel spends £3,000 on Entz in a year, with an additional £1,000 spent on Fresher’s week. Jesus College budgets £2,000 for Freshers’ week, and sets aside £2,500 for social events, whilst St. Peter’s College spent £1,000 on Freshers’ Week, and has a £1,000 Entz budget.

St. Catherine’s College, which has 469 undergraduate students, spent £1,600 last term on Entz organised events. Jack Hampton, JCR President for St. Catherine’s College, revealed to Cherwell however that the College is “in a perfectly good financial situation at the moment”.

He continued, “Our JCR in the past has regularly underspent its allotted budget, so this year we have had room to make some capital expenditure projects making use of our surplus.”

The Merton and Keble Entz reps declined Cherwell’s request for cmment. 

The Oxford Union’s Debate Selection Committee (DSC) has sparked controversy by planning to introduce a women’s quota for the Oxford debating team going to the European University Debating Championships.

The policy has been widely disputed within the debating community, with complaints being voiced about the way it was announced in an email. Some claimed that the Debate Selection Committee did not make enough of an effort to bring the issue to the attention of the wider debating community, nor sufficiently open up the topic for discussion.

The Debate Selection Committee is one of the several committees of the Union and is in charge of choosing debaters to represent the Union at external competitions.

Union debater Rex Betan told Cherwell, “As a general proposition I’m in favour of gender quotas. However, I recognise that this issue can be divisive and as a man I feel it is not my place to vote on such issues.

“I agree that having the vote buried within an email was undesirable, but I doubt it was intentional from the Debate Selection Committee. At least they are trying things and gender issues are on the agenda.”

Natasha Rachman, a world championship finalist and one of the Union’s foremost debaters, opposed the introduction of the quota. “Oxford has a comparatively strong history on the UK universities circuit of promoting and supporting female debaters, and is making excellent efforts to improve outreach.

“However, I think that implementing women’s quotas would be a step in the wrong direction. The initial move by the Debate Selection Committee to pass a women’s quota was, I feel, under-advertised, given that this would be a significant and contentious decision. However, following complaints, this was admirably swiftly rectified and I look forward to a productive and open consultation on the issue.”

In reply to indignation caused by the quota, Jamie Jackson, Chair of the DSC at the Union, sent an email to the Oxford debaters mailing list, saying, “It has come to my attention that, although it was mentioned on the email, some consider the issue of discussion about a women’s quota for the European University Debating Championship squad in the future more important than its placement suggested. I realise this is a significant move, and one that some of you will want to have a say on.”

He continued that he would “like to make it clear that anyone is welcome to find out more about the proposed move and share their thoughts” at a DSC meeting in 3rd Week.

Ben Allen, Union debater and St Benet’s third year, commented, “Though I recognise and agree that we have a problem of underrepresentation of women in debating, I do not support the introduction of quotas for one of the most important and largest championships as the way to solve this problem.

“I am much more open to the notion of implementing quotas for women in novice tournaments, and for the training squad in the Union. Even so, I am usually sceptical of quotas given that those selected under them – regardless of merit – may be viewed as tokens, and objects of blame should we underperform at competitions.

“Also – I would point out as well that on the Union noticeboard, the DSC meeting minutes are nowhere to be found (at least when I checked last night).”

This follows a similar motion in 2009, when the Union voted down a move to impose a quota of at least one woman on the DSC after some female debaters labelled the motion “insulting”.

Jackson told Cherwell, “I should stress firstly that this quota is still very much in the discussion phase – Debate Selection Committee has opened a consultation process in order to hear the views of all Oxford debaters on the matter. This means that the size and terms of the quota, alongside its existence, are yet to be determined.

“Ensuring equal participation and success for women in debating is a problem faced by every debating society around the world. Oxford, whilst a long way from ideal, is actually in a relatively good place at the moment comparatively (three of our eight debaters at the Worlds Championship were women).

“We want to ensure, however, that future squads continue this trend and that there is always an incentive for proactive measures to be taken to find and train up excellent female freshers. Unless you believe that women are intrinsically worse at debating, this should pose no threat to Oxford’s competitiveness at the most prestigious tournaments.”

American baptist minister Al Sharpton pulled out of a debate at the Union on Friday night, instead preferring to give a speech before the debate began. Originally scheduled to lead the proposition on the motion “This house believes the United States is institutionally racist,” the Reverend withdrew on short notice from participating in the main debate.

Mr Sharpton had previously been expected to join Black Panther leader Aaron Dixon and liberal blogger Mychal Denzel Smith in supporting the motion, against opposition from Fox News contributor David Webb, conservative commentator Joe Hicks and BBC radio host Charlie Wolf.

A statement on the Oxford Union website read, “Instead of the Emergency Debate prior to the US Racism Debate this evening, there will be an individual address by Rev Al Sharpton as a precursor to the main Debate.”

No further explanation was given and many attendees of the debate were disappointed not to hear Mr Sharpton participate in the debate itself. Instead of debating, Mr Sharpton delivered a wide ranging 45 minute talk at about 7pm.

Other participants in the debate were quick to condemn Mr Sharpton’s
actions. 

David Webb, billed as a “conservative commentator and contributor to Fox News” by the Union, attacked the MSNBC host. 

Speaking to the US news network Breitbart, Webb stated, “He [Sharpton] doesn’t want to be exposed for what he really is – a shakedown artist and racial coward. After years of conning people into giving him money by fanning the flames of racism, he’s just too afraid to have a civil, fact-based conversation about the issues of race in America.”

Al Sharpton is no stranger to controversy in the US. An informal adviser to both President Obama and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, his comments on the Ferguson shooting provoked criticism from the American Right.

In the debate itself, Webb condemned Sharpton as a “coward” for not speaking and the other opposition speakers expressed indignation for not subjecting his views to scrutiny. Outside the debate Webb stated, “It would be wrong to allow Sharpton to get away with just his usual thin, inflammatory rhetoric when this is supposed to be a substantive discussion.”

Student reaction to Sharpton’s decision to avoid the debate was mixed. Ben Evans, a first year PPEist at Univ said, “Given the weakness of the opposition, he wasn’t needed”.

First year historian Jack Edwards commented, ‘‘I was a bit disappointed not
to see him in head-to-head debate. However, his talk was very good and gave us a greater opportunity to question him directly. He was very good but it would have been better if he had spoken and debated.’’

There was some unhappiness from Union officials at Sharpton’s decision. A Union insider told Cherwell, ‘‘Listening to the debate, it became clear that the quality of the speakers wasn’t quite up to Union standard.’’

The Union could not be reached for comment.