Students at Exeter, Pembroke, and St. Catherine’s have expressed disapproval over OUSU’s decision to demonstrate against Marine Le Pen’s talk last Thursday.

Pembroke’s JCR passed the motion, “This JCR resolves to condemn the disruptive actions of these protesters.” It criticised OUSU for not protecting the welfare and rights of students, arguing that extremism and intolerance is best countered by free debate and not through disruptive protests. However, they reaffirmed their support for peaceful demonstration.

Ryan Tang, who proposed the motion, told Cherwell, “I decided to propose my motion because it seemed that a lot of Pembroke students were not happy at the way OUSU is politicising itself and supporting disruptive protests without consultation. They all say that we elected them into office, but the reality is that it’s nearly impossible for us to keep tabs on what they decide and attending OUSU Council is not something that appeals to 99 per cent of Oxford students.

“By passing this motion, hopefully we can send a message to OUSU that they need to consult students a bit more when taking political stances instead of just listening to a handful of activists.”

Exeter College’s JCR also passed a motion strongly disapproving of OUSU’s stand, which they believe “took a party political standpoint against Marine Le Pen’s appearance at the Oxford Union and the Front National, an action that should not be in the remit of OUSU regardless of the popularity and validity of the party political views protested against.” They also expressed their disapproval of OUSU mandating the president to send out an email to all Oxford students about the protest.

Exeter JCR president Tutku Bektas told Cherwell, “We came to university to hear and engage with a plurality of views, even those which we may vehemently disagree with. After OUSU passed a motion that condemned Marine Le Pen’s appearance at the Oxford Union, we thought it important to send the message that there are still students that value free speech.”

St. Catherine’s JCR’s OUSU Representative, Christopher Casson, expressed his anger at OUSU’s actions in a blog post entitled ‘I now hate OUSU. Here’s why.’ He said, “We voted to condemn an organisation whose sole purpose is to encourage free speech and debate, for literally doing their job. It isn’t our [OUSU’s] place to start attempting to censor things that go on in the Union. We’re meant to be representing students, sure, but that includes the students that want to hear her talk.”

When asked if St Catz had any plans to disaffiliate, Casson stressed, “We do think that it’s important to be part of the organisation so that we can fight for the changes we want from the inside.”

Nikhil Venkatesh, who proposed the motion to OUSU, said, “I would encourage all common rooms to stick with OUSU. In a democratic system, there will always be some decisions some members disagree with, but the beauty o f OUSU is that anyone from any common room can get involved and change it. I don’t apologise for my motion, or for my participation in the protest. I feel it’s important to point out that the motion was not a motion of ‘no platform’.”

Less than half of all Oxford University students are registered to vote in the May General Election, according to data published by OUSU.

Only 44 per cent of students have registered to vote across all colleges, meaning that 11,420 university members will be able to cast a ballot in May. 19 colleges have fewer students registered than the University average and only seven have more than half enrolled.

These poor registration levels will have spurred OUSU on in its voter registration week at the start of February. The worst ranked college was Green Templeton, with only 13 per cent of students registered. Wolfson topped the enrolment table with 65 per cent. Worcester led the pack of colleges with JCRs, as 55 per cent of its students signed up. Other high enrolling colleges were Somerville, Merton, and New, each with 53 per cent.

Opposition politicians, student leaders, and higher education experts have all criticised the government’s registration reforms. Critics argue that the changes, requiring every student to self-enrol online or through the post, have disenfranchised the young. The new individual voter registration system came in after the May 2014 local election under the coalition government. Previously, all eligible voters had to be registered by the ‘head of the household’ in which they resided. Colleges would undertake this for students, guaranteeing 100 per cent registration.

A BBC study in December 2014 suggested that though 87 per cent of voters have been automatically transferred under the new system, of the 13 per cent who have not the majority are students. Oxford is one of the areas in the UK worst affected by this, with 60 per cent of voters in Holywell and 40 per cent in Carfax no longer registered to vote.

Nick Hillman, director of the Oxford-based Higher Education Policy Institute, told Cherwell, “Students have as much right to be on the electoral roll as everyone else. It would be a tragedy if the new registration system weakened their voice to a whisper. Some universities have built electoral registration into their enrolment processes and some have found ways around the requirement for students to provide a National Insurance Number when registering. Such initiatives need to be spread more widely.

“The new system has some advantages over the old one, but it would be terrible if it led to young people’s views being ignored.”

Andrew Smith, MP for Oxford East, stated to Cherwell, “The government moved too fast introducing single voter registration and the outcome has been a catastrophy, with over a million voters falling off the register. In my constituency of Oxford East, we have been especially hit as the seat has one of the largest student populations in the country. The government should have put in more provisions to prevent this disenfranchisement.

“In this climate, it’s especially important that students and young people make their voices heard. I encourage students to check they are registered, and if not, do so.”

Smith, a former Work and Pensions secretary, also recommended making student enrolment and registration concurrent.

Luke Miller, St Peter’s JCR president, told Cherwell, “The changes to the voter registration rules have had a terrible effect on students nationwide and it is a scandal that the government has cynically allowed this to happen. St Peter’s students have clearly been hit hard by the changes.”

OUSU VP for Charities & Communities Ruth Meredith said at the OUSU Student Awards, “Not being registered to vote and not voting keeps us quiet. It allows a minority to decide on what should be important, instead of hearing a diverse cacophony of voices.”

The government, though, remains committed to the reforms. A £10m fund was announced in December 2014 to tackle low student voter registration. The Cabinet Office told Cherwell, “It’s more important than ever that students take ownership of their own vote. If you want to vote in the constituency where you study, you will have to register at gov.uk/register-to-vote. The Government is working with the NUS and other student organisations to help spread the message about the importance of being on the register, and how to do it.”

A spokesperson for the Deputy Prime Minister told Cherwell that the data published by OUSU failed to take into account students who may have registered at home

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.