OUSU council has decided to reaffiliate to the NUS without holding another referendum.

The motion, proposed by Tom Rutland and Jack Matthews was passed by a significant majority at Wednesday’s council meeting.

It emerged earlier this term that over 1,000 invalid votes were cast in the original referendum, which tipped the balance in favour of the ‘NO’ campaign, with 1780 votes against 1652 votes to stay affiliated.

However, the decision was declared void by a Junior Tribunal which met after the irregularities were brought to the attention of OUSU. The complaint was first made by Jack Matthews, the leader of the ‘Believe in Oxford’ campaign in favour of disaffiliation, who suspected that the result was improbable.

The Junior Tribunal concluded, “We understand from Ms Falck [acting returning officer] that about 20 replacement codes were issued during the course of the election, the number of spare codes used to vote far exceeds this. This means that votes were cast using a significant number of codes which were never distributed to voters. On this basis alone the referendum result cannot stand.”
The irregularities in the vote led to the resignation of OUSU Returning Officer, Alex Walker.

However, once the invalid votes had been discounted, it emerged that 70% of students voted in favour of staying affiliated to the NUS, despite only 11% voter turnout.

It was explained to the council on Wednesday that voting in favour of staying affiliated did not prevent next year’s council from deciding to hold a further referendum.

Jack Matthews, while supporting the motion, argued that the issue was not settled, proposing an amendment under which OUSU would hold a further referendum in or before Trinity 2015.

The amendment was seconded by President-Elect, Louis Trup.
However, Tom Rutland, current OUSU President and leader of the ‘Yes2NUS’ campaign, questioned the purpose of asking a question that had already been answered by the true results of the referendum.

The amendment was defeated by 32 votes to 15, with 6 abstentions.

Students’ finals performances have been jeopardized by a string of exam paper errors, ranging from sources cited that were not on the syllabus, to an entire paper being reused from last year.

The University has admitted to “administrative errors” in the production of at least one paper, while a Microeconomics exam was so hard that it forced two students to rusticate.

Students who sat the PPE Politics in South Asia exam on Monday 2nd June found that the questions were exactly the same as used for last year’s exam.

Wadham’s Violet Brand told Cherwell, “The oddest thing about the paper was actually the front cover; it looked like a photocopy of an old paper with a box pasted over the area where the date and time are written.”

The University has blamed the mistake on the aforementioned “administrative error”. In a statement, a spokesperson explained that, “The Proctors’ Office and external examiners have been informed, and results will be scrutinised to ascertain whether any students were disadvantaged by this mistake.

“Those affected will be kept informed of developments, and a review of procedures will be undertaken to help ensure this does not happen again.”
Elsewhere, a Microeconomics exam on Friday of 5th week was so hard that two St Catz students rusticated immediately afterwards.

An anonymous economist told Cherwell “The problem questions at the start of the exam took up far too much time, while the essay questions were much harder to predict than usual. Many people were heard coming out of the exam saying things like ‘Oh my God, what was that?’”

Exeter’s Adam Baxter told Cherwell, “I think it was generally thought to be a difficult exam. The paper was generally more complicated than previous years, from what I can recall – although, in truth, I’m trying to block it out – and in particular the questions on binomial distributions and policy evaluation were certainly less broad and more technical than in the past.”

Another student who preferred to remain anonymous claimed that, while “Part A is normally 1 hour and Part B 2 hours, everyone I talked to spent over 1 hour on Part A. It was definitely tricky. But I wouldn’t say it was abnormally tricky – they can throw some tough questions in the economics exams.”

Elsewhere, there were also problems with at least two special-subject history papers. In the “Slavery and the Crisis of the Union” exam a gobbet of information was misattributed, while the “Politics, Art and Culture in the Renaissance” paper contained a quote that, according to Jesus’s Nathan Joss, was “from a source not on the syllabus.”

The History and Economics faculties have yet to comment.

A European Court ruling means the old rules of the internet will no longer apply, an Oxford Professor has warned.

A new European Union Court of Justice ruling which makes it easier for people to apply to have their personal data removed from the internet has sparked concern among some.

The ruling states that data deemed ‘irrelevant’ should be erased on request so that people may exercise their ‘right to be forgotten’.

Search engine giant Google, who deemed the ruling, ‘disappointing’, has appointed an Oxford Professor to work out how it should comply with the new law. Luciano Floridi, Professor of Philosophy and Ethics of Information and Fellow of St. Cross College, has said that the ruling will change the rules of the internet. He told The Independent that the ruling, “raised the bar so high that the old rules of the internet no longer apply.” He also said that if he was the chief executive of a reputation management company, he would be “laughing”, explaining, “They now have the power to ask for embarrassing information about their clients to be removed.”

Floridi’s remarks come as Google announced that on Friday 30 May, 12,000 requests were made from people across Europe, hoping to have their personal details removed. Of these, 1,500 are believed to have been from the UK and The Independent reports that one request came from a former MP seeking re-election.

The ruling has been made following a case brought by a Spanish man who argued that information concerning the sale of a property he’d made sixteen years ago to recover money he owed was available online and was an infringement on his privacy.

EU commissioner Viviane Reading called the ruling “a clear victory for the protection of personal data of Europeans”. However, the BBC’s Technology correspondent, Rory Cellan-Jones, said that Google was both “surprised and furious” at the outcome.

He said, “Can anyone who does not like an old story about them simply demand that it is wiped away? That does appear to be the case – the ruling says the rights of the individual are paramount when it comes to their control over their personal data, although there is a public interest defence when it comes to people in public life.”

A second year PPE student at Oxford told Cherwell, “I actually agree with the EU commissioner that the ruling is basically a good thing. It assigns utmost importance to the protection of individual liberties such as personal privacy which I think is a very positive step. It’s especially important in today’s world when we have ‘Big Brother’ governments and all-seeing supercomputers and search engines.”

Over 200 Hertford students have signed an open letter to the college Principal, Will Hutton, calling for the college to obtain Living Wage accreditation after he authored a piece in the Observer in which he lauded the success of Seattle’s recent implementation of a $15 per hour minimum wage.

The letter stated, “As students at Hertford, we want to know that the workers who empty our bins, cook our food and clean our buildings are paid enough for a decent standard of living in this city.”

It continued, “We invite you to publicly support our call for Hertford to become an accredited Living Wage employer, as an extension of your principled stand on Seattle.”

College authorities have stated that Hertford has paid the Living Wage for the past three years despite not yet obtaining official accreditation, however, senior figures within the JCR have expressed concern that the Living Wage has not been paid for the entire year, as it is subject to rise in line with inflation.

JCR President Josh Platt explained, “by November, when the Living Wage is increased, I suspect Hertford will be around 15 to 25 pence under the level of the new Living Wage. So in essence, it will be paying the Living Wage for approximately three to four months”.

Speaking to Cherwell, Principal Will Hutton commented that paying the Living Wage to college staff “has been my personal, now public, commitment ever since I arrived here and it would have continued with or without the letter from the JCR”.

He continued, “The Bursar and other members of governing body know I am committed to continuing to pay all our staff over eighteen the Living Wage. When the cycle begins again late this autumn with an expected further uplift in the Living Wage, we will incorporate that in the settlement for 2015 and 2016. Over this approach there are no dissenters.”

Cherwell understands that the JCR and college authorities have begun discussions concerning Living Wage accreditation. JCR President Josh Platt told Cherwell, “The preliminary meeting with college to discuss Living Wage accreditation was extremely positive. The JCR’s strong feelings about this issue were abundantly clear, and college office holders were left in no doubt that this is a very serious proposal.”

He continued, “We are still at an early stage in our discussions, and so naturally college did raise a number of practical and financial concerns which we will have to discuss in the weeks and months to come. I will be taking our views on Living Wage accreditation to other college committees this term and next, and I hope that we begin to take the steps which sees Hertford become the first college to entrench its commitment to a living wage for all staff.”

Principal Will Hutton told Cherwell that Living Wage accreditation “is not the prerogative of any single individual here, any more than at any other Oxford college.”

He added, “We will discuss this through our committees and in Governing Body in the next academic year. We’ll also be engaging with other colleges to see if we can proceed together. We remain committed to the welfare of all our staff, which includes but is not restricted to paying fair wages. And it’s good the JCR have lent their heft to the process.”

In order for an employer to become a Living Wage accredited employer, all staff and contracted staff must be paid the wage, and must then obtain an accreditation licence from the Living Wage Foundation. The Centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough University calculates the UK Living Wage, which is currently set at £7.65, and due to be readjusted in November.

Exeter students have voted emphatically in favour of removing the controversial catering charge introduced by College in a survey on alternatives to the non-redeemable £840 per annum that they currently pay.

In a survey conducted by the college’s Governing Body, 83.9% of students voted in favour of this option. 254 out of the 501 eligible students participated, representing a turnout of 50.7%.

The option removes the fixed catering charge but involves a 50% cut to four main college grants, including the vacation study grant. Rent increases will also contribute to making up the college’s deficit.

Richard Collett-White, the JCR President, told Cherwell, “In my opinion, it’s by far the best outcome. Fixed battels are going down and the burden of keeping Hall afloat will be shared more fairly between the student body and College.

“For the first time, College will be under pressure to encourage students to eat in Hall which will surely improve value for money. Most importantly, we will begin to see how much we’re really paying for our meals at till. I hope the majority of the JCR will be proud of the progress we have made — our efforts were not in vain! Perhaps others will be inspired by our example!“

Other alternatives included a reduction of the existing catering charge and a prepaid redeemable charge with an adjustment of rents and food costs.

Students within college ran a campaign in favour of this option, called ‘#Yes2Two’. A campaign poster in the JCR featured a picture of Desmond Tutu and the accompanying text, “A catering charge means you are forced to pay for the running costs of hall whether you choose to eat there or not. Current prices at the till are deceptive, they show less than half the real cost! With option 2, you will pay for hall when you choose to use it. So if you’d rather get a £3.30 Boot’s meal deal than a £4 meal deal from the bar, you won’t be losing out.”

It is not yet guaranteed that this change will be put in place. The results of the survey will be announced in ninth week to Governing Body, who will then decide what action to take.

The survey follows a protracted campaign by students. Last term, students staged a two and a half week hall boycott in protest at the charge and launched a popular “Hallternatives” scheme, which led to an open meeting between students and senior management and subsequent consideration by Governing Body.

Students contacted have expressed relief at the news. Ed Nickell, last year’s JCR President when the campaign began, told Cherwell, “Two years ago when I was President we started our campaign with an angry slogan (Fuck the Catering Charge). Now Richard can claim our first victory. Thanks to the protests and support of Oxford students, today there IS a Hallternative!

“I’m not sure which is more exciting – the end of finals or the cut in the charge! Both are the product of hard work and frustration.

“Students must continue to campaign on Oxford’s living costs; Desmond Tutu warns us to never be satisfied with the crumbs from the table: demand the full menu. In the words of Conchita Wurst, WE ARE UNSTOPPABLE!”

Tutku Bektas, JCR Secretary, who was involved in the catering charge negotiations commented, “Both students and Fellows put a lot of effort into these negotiations and it is really good to see that a healthy activist spirit fostered as a result of the protest and discussions. I know the JCR especially would like to thank all the other JCRs that showed support during last term’s Hall Boycott, whether in motions of solidarity or opening their halls to Exeter students”

Sam Whitely, former JCR Treasurer, commented, “I’m thrilled to see all of our hard work and activism bring positive change to the JCR. Here’s hoping that the JCR stays as active as it has been.”

However, some expressed concerns that an increase in food costs could have a detrimental social effect if Hall use declines. Ella Shallow, second year mathematician, said, “I voted for option 2 because it is the fairest option for the majority of students, but I think it’s a shame for college life that this will (in my opinion) result in a dramatic reduction in Hall use.

“Since the 40% rise was a condition of scrapping the catering charge, I don’t believe that College will reduce prices to compete with alternatives outside college; I will rarely go to Hall next year, whereas I’ve been eating there most of the time up to now.”

Update, 23/6/2014: Exeter College’s Governing Body has confirmed that it will enact option two as voted for by students. As a result of the change the average daily cost of food for Exeter students should be £8.71