Wadham SU has passed an emergency motion proposing to lobby the college for changes to the support systems for suspended students, allowing them access to college facilities.

The motion, which passed unanimously at Sunday’s SU meeting, was put forward by finalist Chloe Kane. It outlined plans to allow suspended students access to college grounds and services, and to guarantee accommodation until the end of the term in which the student rusticated, so as to allow them time to find alternative living arrangements.

A system was proposed whereby “students should have a key contact in college, who is designated as the special contact for suspended status students, who has undergone welfare training [and] can advise the student of their rights.”

Plans to provide “easily accessible information” about rustication were also put forward, and the motion stressed that the particular nature of each rusticatee’s case must be taken into account since “a blanket policy does not work well when each individual’s case and needs are different.”

Earlier this month OUSU announced changes to the University’s procedures for suspended students, under which those who rusticate will be allowed access to Oxford-wide facilities including faculty libraries, Nexus, and other services requiring a Bod card. However, under such proposals students would still excluded from individual college grounds, amenities, accommodation, and events.

One Wadham student described Sunday’s motion as “highlighting unfair treatment of rusticated students under the current system. Although at Oxford we’re told that our welfare is put first, our fantastic college-based services are off-limits to the most vulnerable at their most difficult time.”

Wadham SU President Anya Metzer stated, “College have independently expressed a desire to examine the Wadham policy on suspended students and after this motion passed unanimously we have a strong mandate to pursue the changes outlined in the motion. On the heels of OUSU’s recent triumph, students are engaging with this issue across campus, and I am keen to negotiate for the rights of suspended students as valued members of our community.”

The motion was submitted following a survey conducted through the Wadham SU Facebook page, which assessed the attitudes of Wadham students, both current and suspended, towards rustication. Of the 149 surveyed, 97 per cent felt they had received ‘little or no information on the issue of suspension’ and 92 per cent felt they ‘should have been better informed’.

Charlotte Cooper Beglin, Wadham SU’s Access Officer, commented, “Students most often suspend their studies for very difficult health or personal reasons, and they should still be seen as members of the college community and given the support they need.

“I’m glad we’re starting a conversation with college about it. Hopefully it will mean no-one feels ostracised as a suspended student and everyone gets equally good care.”

A recent clinical practice guideline by NICE, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, has been published recommending that doctors should halve the threshold for starting preventative treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD) from a 20% risk of developing these conditions over 10 years to a 10% risk following research by Oxford University.

NICE have reported that although death rates from CVD have halved since the 1970s, it is still the leading cause of death in England and Wales. In 2010, 1 in 3 people died from CVD.

CVD develops when fatty acid deposits, known as atheroma, build up in arteries and narrow them, leading to coronary heart disease and stroke. The risk of developing CVD is increased by lifestyle factors such as a high cholesterol diet and smoking. NICE recommends that people are assessed for their risk of developing cardiovascular disease using measurements of whether or not they smoke, their cholesterol levels, blood pressure and body mass index in order to calculate a percentage risk of developing CVD in the next 10 years.

Professor Mark Baker, Director of the Centre for Clinical Practice at NICE, said “The risk is measurable and we can substantially reduce someone’s chance of a heart attack, angina, stoke and the other symptoms of cardiovascular disease by tackling the risk factors. We also recommend that statins are now offered to many more people- the effectiveness of these medicines is now well proven and their cost has fallen.”

However, this guidance is by no means final. It is currently issued as a draft for public consultation until 26 March 2014. Baker has said “We now want to hear views on this draft guidance which recommends that people with a 10% risk of developing CVD within 10 years are offered statins.”

This decision comes after a 2012 Oxford University study published in the Lancet, which showed that even very low-risk patients benefited from statins with almost no side effects. Currently, 7 million people in the UK take statins, at an estimated annual cost of £285 million. Professor Rory Collins, from the Oxford University team, said that the number of people who would begin taking statins as a result “would be in the order” of five million.

Professor Collins maintained that taking statins “remains a choice for the patient, it’s not mandatory.”

Professor Colin Baigent, another member of the Oxford University team, calculated that five million more people taking statins “would save 2,000 lives and prevent 10,000 heart attacks or strokes every year.”

Of course, statins are most effective in conjunction with lifestyle changes.. Professor Baker said, “as well as taking statins, people with raised cholesterol levels and high blood pressure should reduce the amount of foods containing saturated fat they eat.”

Marco Narajos, first year medical student and Online Editor of Bang! Science Magazine, said, “I think it’s a good idea, especially if the risk of side effects are low. However, even if the probability is low, some people could still be affected by the few side effects such as headaches and insomnia, especially if a large number of people take the drug. Whatever decision is made, every effort should still be made to ensure that people exercise more often and eat a healthy diet low in saturated fats, salt, and sugar, especially from a young age. The old proverb ‘An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure’ definitely holds true, even today.”

St Peter’s College has attracted criticism after accepting a £5 million donation from Francois and Bertrand Perrodo, alumni of the college with senior roles in the controversal oil and gas company Perenco.

The donation is intended to go towards the renovation of quads and facilities in the college, and all members of the college will be consulted about the use of remaining funds.

Perenco is a major Franco-British company which produces 375,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day and operates in 16 countries. It has been criticised for its denial of the existence of uncontacted, indigenous peoples in the Peruvian rainforest, and was sued in 2010 by a Peruvian indigenous rights organisation, AIDESEP. A report published by Peruvian NGO CooperAcción last year criticised the company for failing to negotiate with indigenous peoples when planning a drilling operation, which included a proposed pipeline through the Pucacuro National Reserve.

The company has received further allegations of funding a military initiative in Guatemala that oppresses citizens who object to the energy projects, but this cannot be substantiated.

Navjeev Singh, JCR President at St. Peter’s, defended the decision. “The donation was reviewed and cleared by the university committee and subsequently accepted by the college. The allegations [against Perenco] have been strongly contested and flatly denied by Perenco as far as I know.

“From the point of view of the JCR and the college, we see it as Francois and Bertrand Perredo, both Peter’s Alumni, coming back and contributing to improve college life. I described the details of the donation during a JCR meeting (with over 50 members attending) last Monday and received no negative comment or any questions/comments at all about why our college is accepting the donation. The feedback was generally positive.”

The news comes after OUSU has formally requested that the university cease to invest in fossil fuels. James Rainey, OUSU E&E chair, said, “At the OUSU E&E campaign we’ve been focusing on how the University invests- particularly in relation to fossil fuel companies. Receiving donations is to some extent a different matter (so I can only comment at a personal level).

The university and many colleges have received controversial donations in the past, and it would seem sensible to implement some kind of screening process to ensure that groups linked to human rights abuses and serious environmental degradation cannot make donations in future- as doing so may validate the activities of such companies/individuals and damage the integrity of the uni/college.”

Cherry Jackson, Environment and Ethics representative, said, “We do need the money desperately. I remember in my first year having to deal with yellow water coming out of the taps in my room, and the money will be used to improve these conditions. Indeed, I participated in the Telethon last year because I know we need money to keep college running.

“The money will help college to become more environmentally friendly as well; with improved refurbishments, not as much heat will be lost and leakages of pipes etc will stop as much water being lost.

“However, personally I would not have accepted the donation given the track record of the company that the two alumni are linked with in destroying biodiversity and people’s lives amongst other atrocities. However, I am in a position to do so as I am a student here, not a staff member in the direct line of wondering how to sort out this or that problem that college has to cope with.

St Peter’s continues to support many charities, including environmental charities, especially with Fairtrade Fortnight commencing, we hope to show how green St Peters is.”

Francois and Bertrand Perrodo are alumni of St Peter’s and wish to express their appreciation for the time they spent here . The donation is very much theirs – and is supported by other members of the Perrodo family.  Perenco, one of Europe’s biggest oil companies,  is a family owned company and is their chosen vehicle for this gift.

The appropriate University body advised the donation was acceptable and it was then approved by the College’s Governing Body.

The investment vehicles used by St Peter’s are all interviewed about their ethical policies before selected to ensure that those policies are appropriate.

We take our environmental responsibilities seriously. Following a Carbon Trust Survey, we have regular energy audits , performed by an independent external company, to help us reduce energy consumption.  We have recently pioneered a water saving system.  We are part of the Carbon Reduction Commitment of Oxford University Colleges, which prescribes a strict set of rules including documentation and record keeping and we pay carbon credits annually.  We also took part in the 10:10 Campaign where we pledged and achieved a 10% reduction of carbon emissions.

St Peter’s is delighted to receive this important and generous donation. Many of the college’s buildings and spaces will be much improved – to the benefit of  students , Fellows and staff

Students at Wadham College awoke on Monday morning to find that expensive items of electronic equipment in their JCR had been damaged.

Wires in the TV and every console had been pulled with enough force to break, and a projector donated to the college by a Fellow rendered unresponsive. Several thousand pounds worth of damage is thought to have been done.

SU President Anya Metzer said of the incident, “On Monday it was discovered that various pieces of equipment in our JCR had been broken, including expensive new electronics. Thankfully, the dedicated and patient IT team, together with our Tech Officer Sam, were able to fix everything.

“The idea that this may have been external vandalism has not been ruled out, and I am working with the Dean and other College officials to try and get to the bottom of the matter. College have been sympathetic to the fact that even if this was caused by a student it is not reflective of the attitudes of the SU in any way.”

No culprits have yet been identified but college staff are reviewing CCTV footage to gain a clearer picture of who might be responsible.

One Wadham undergraduate, who wished to remain anonymous, speculates that those who did the damage “were probably just drunk, although there hadn’t been a bop or anything that night.”

In an email sent to the whole Wadham SU, Metzer urged students to consider the impact of misuse of communal property on relations with the college. She said, “The SU are in the middle of crucial negotiations about rent and the rights of suspended students. Acting like reckless and spoilt children makes lobbying College on these things extremely difficult; how can we urge the Domestic Bursar and Dean to take our views seriously, when we can’t be trusted with communal consoles and electronics.”

Wadham JCR is currently in the process of lobbying for the right of rusticated students to continue using college as well as faculty libraries during their suspension. Negotiations concerning living costs follow protests by Wadham students in 2008, led by then-president Leonora Sagan, who claimed that living costs at Wadham had risen 46 per cent in six years, “far out of line with national interest rates.”

Commenting on the trashing of equipment one Wadham student said, “It’s a shame, I wonder how can people be so irresponsible in a place like Wadham, when so many things are always available to you, for free.”

A second year at Wadham told Cherwell, “I think it’s disgusting that someone would do that, especially given that the projector was a gift.

“The JCR should be a space for all students to enjoy and it’s really selfish that someone would do damage to it like this.”

Andrew Smith MP has added his voice to criticisms of the charity LIFE after a counsellor for the pro-life group linked abortion to breast cancer in an Oxford advice clinic. Smith says in this week’s Cherwell that he has reported the charity to the Advertising Standards Agency for “giving the unrealistic impression that LIFE is offering impartial counselling.”

In a report by sexual health charity Brook, it emerged that the counsellor at the LIFE CPC (Crisis Pregnancy Centre) told an undercover reporter, “The only other thing that has been reported with quite strong evidence is the increase in the possibility of breast cancer following termination of the pregnancy.”

This is despite the fact that a 2008 report from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists concluded that, “induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.”

The same Oxford counsellor is also recorded as telling a woman, “It is possible that you will be on your own when you abort your baby, you know, possibly in the toilet, that’s what usually happens,” which Anne Scanlan, spokesperson for LIFE, has since described as “ill-advised,” adding, “if this counsellor was not asked about that and offered it up without prompt, then that is against our policy.”

CPCs such as the LIFE Oxford Centre, which has advertised on Oxford buses, are intended to only give advice and are independent of the NHS. Consequently they are unregulated by the same standards as the health services. LIFE themselves state on their website, in response to a Telegraph article that revealed many similar practices in CPCs, “There is a time and a place for discussing the potential health consequences of abortion… but this must be strictly evidence based.”

Simon Blake OBE, Chief Executive of Brook said, “It is simply immoral and unacceptable to masquerade as a service that helps clients make decisions through exploring choices, when the reality is – as this report based on young women’s experience shows – at some CPCs you will get a mixture of misinformation, coercion, and fright tactics”.

LIFE claims on their website that they give “as much practical, financial, and emotional support as is necessary to help them bring their pregnancy to term.” Although unregulated by health commissioners, they are still subject to the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy’s Ethical Framework, which states that, “Practitioners should not allow their professional relationships with clients to be prejudiced by any personal views they may hold.”

Sarah Pine, OUSU Woman’s Officer, pointed to other available resources in her response to the report, “Women are only free if they have control over their own bodies. Reproductive rights are crucial because they enable women to gain independence from their partners, and have a life outside of childbearing and rearing. Groups that intentionally mislead women in order to prevent them from accessing these services are making decisions for them. We can do better than that.

“OUSU’s Student Advice Service is completely non-directive, and so won’t tell anyone what is the best choice for them. If anyone is concerned about unplanned pregnancy, we can outline what the options are and how to go about them, and leave the choice up to the student. You can reach them at [email protected].”

LIFE told Cherwell, “We are investigating the incident and will take appropriate action.”

Brook has called for a full scale redevelopment of the CPC service.

The History Faculty has cut the number of Special Subjects open to the largest number of students. Only three subjects will be “24-capped”, offering up to 24 places, the maximum number for Special Subjects.

Special Subject options for historians are decided using a balloting process, where each student registers three choices for the paper, one of which must be a course with 24 places, the largest number available.

Dr Andrea Hopkins, History Faculty Administrative Officer, explained, “Because so many of the most popular subjects have a cap of 8 or 16, we have to hold a ballot to determine which students can study them. The students must therefore give two other alternate Special Subject choices in the event that they are unsuccessful in the ballot. One of these must be for a subject with a large cap – 24.”

However, the three Special Course options capped at 24 this year are all either ancient or early modern history. As a result, some students expressed concerns over being forced to choose a Special Subject option that falls outside their area of interest.

Dr Sue Doran, Senior Research Fellow in History at Jesus College, pointed out that the problem with uncapped subjects, “has been an issue for many years.”
Dr Robin Briggs, Senior Research Fellow and Lecturer in Modern History at All Souls, stated, “the situation would indeed be rather ridiculous, if the only available second choices were in a period very few students would naturally opt for.”

In addition, other Special Subjects were dropped altogether, although one option on Nazi Germany, for which some historians had been learning German in preparation, has since been reinstated by the History Faculty.

A historian at Exeter commented, “I luckily wasn’t one of the ones left in the lurch when the Nazi Germany paper was briefly called off, however there is a disappointing lack of choice in the so-called Special Subjects, and it is a shame that whole areas of history, such as gender, social and cultural, have been excluded from the capped subjects.”

Dr Briggs further commented, “The reason for the caps is simply that there are not enough tutors for some courses. That tends to vary from year to year as well, because particular academics take research leave, something that has become more of a problem now there are so many schemes for extended leave. So there could be particular bottlenecks in any given year.

Dr Hopkins also pointed out that, “in 2013-14, 215 students got into their first choice subjects, and 76 had to go into another subject.” She went on to say, “the percentage is that 74% got into their first choice subject.”

One second year historian said, “After your first and second choices you have to go through a reserve list of another three choices before you get left with your 24-capped option. That means you’ve got five chances before you have to do something you’re not particularly interested in. Although they’re called special subjects, they’re really just normal subjects. There shouldn’t be such a fuss.”

Exeter College students have begun a hall boycott after an emergency JCR meeting was held on Sunday to reaffirm the decision and discuss alternative eating options.

The JCR voted last week to hold a hall boycott to protest against the disproportionately high living costs faced by students compared to other colleges, particularly against the £840 annual catering charge that is paid by students living in.

In a piece written for Cherwell, Richard Collett-White explained the basis of the strike. He noted that students are required to pay £280 “simply for the privilege of setting foot in the only on-site eating place.”

He said, “JCR and MCR have passed motions calling for a hall boycott and regular protests, as a symbolic act of defiance.”

The strike follows a motion in the JCR and MCR passed last week seconded by over 100 students, which said, “the catering charge for students living in is ludicrous.”

It went on, “College did not negotiate properly on rent last year and are totally intransigent on the catering charge issue. Further discussion with College is futile until they start listening.”

Since Trinity, Exeter students have tweeting using the hashtags ‘#FTCC’ (‘Fuck the Catering Charge’) and #CTCC (‘Cancel the Catering Charge).

The college’s Rector, Frances Cairncross, told Cherwell, “We have already been in talks with our students and hope to continue to explore options. Meanwhile, we are sorry that they should boycott the College’s catering provision.”

A Facebook group called ‘Exeter College Hallternatives’ has organised eating options for the boycott by connecting Exeter students with other colleges. JCRs including Balliol, St. Hilda’s, Linacre, and fellow Turl Street colleges Lincoln and Jesus, have offered to take people for lunch and dinner. Balliol has offered students discount ‘Balliol Blues’, while Wadham SU has palso assed a motion of solidarity with Exeter. 

The catering manager for the ‘Hallternatives’ said, “Most people in college are totally behind the boycott, and we have received a lot of support from other JCRs as well. As far as negotiations with college go, we haven’t heard too much back, but it is early days.

This Wednesday saw a major day of action, with students from both the JCR and MCR marching through college and Turl Street holding banners. The protest was followed by a ‘Welfare Dinner’ organised by the JCR.

The initial proposal was to try and find a way to make hall more efficient, but the general consensus has changed with students now calling for the college to bare more of the loss hall makes, in keeping with other colleges.

One access volunteer and finalist at Exeter told Cherwell, “With one kitchen for 144 people, nobody took the decision to boycott lightly.

“Following Tom Rutland’s mention of the boycott in his e-mail, we’ve had loads of offers of help from students at other colleges, this is a fantastic display of student solidarity.

“Battels at Exeter are 20% above the median. That scale of variation is not healthy in a university, especially given Oxford already has a bad reputation for being too expensive for many students.”

According to information sent out by the JCR to students, Exeter has the highest catering charge in Oxford by a margin of £116 per term and according to recent OUSU statistics it is the second most expensive college for students living in. It is estimated that, with the catering charge factored in, the cost of eating in hall for someone living in is around £13 a day.

The JCR information also said that Exeter is ranked bottom in Oxford for Living Cost satisfaction according to the ‘Oxford Student Barometer’, making general satisfaction over 30% lower than the average.

Lucy McCann, a first year at Exeter said, “I’ve spoken to many Exeter students who’ve told me that had they known about the catering charge, they wouldn’t have applied to the college; I certainly wouldn’t have myself.

“Not only is the charge unfair, it’s a massive access issue for the college.”
The protests are expected to continue until the end of term.

Oxford Classics fellow Robin Lane Fox has sparked controversy for writing in a newspaper column that “a woman’s evening dress should look like an apparently stormable fortress.”

The comment was made in a gardening column reviewing an exhibition on the interplay between fashion and the floral for the Financial Times weekend supplement. Lane Fox’s choice of words has lead to condemnation by some students.

Lucy Delaney, WomCam Chair, said, “I feel that these comments are misogynistic and reflective of the view that it is acceptable for men to govern the way women dress for the sole purpose of their own sexual gratification. His negative reaction to the Valentino dress on the grounds that it seemed impenetrable or not ‘stormable’ is aggressive and unacceptable.”

When asked to clarify the meaning of his statement, Lane Fox claimed to have been misquoted. “I was echoing someone else’s remark… a famous designer. It should have read ‘apparently impregnable’, in actual fact,” he told Cherwell. In response to Cherwell’s inquiries, he added, “Your criteria for casual misogny are rather broad?”

Lane Fox is Emeritus Fellow of New College, Garden Master and Extraordinary Lecturer of both New and Exeter Colleges, and Reader in Ancient History for the University of Oxford. He has published major works on topics ranging from Alexander the Great to paganism, early Christianity and Islam under the Roman Empire, as well as writing and presenting documentaries for the BBC.
Other students defended Lane Fox’s remarks. “Taken in context, it’s not as bad as it sounds,” commented a female historian. “There are definitely a lot of professors here with antiquated views though – this kind of vocabulary doesn’t surprise me.”

Lane’s “apparently stormable fortress” remark refers to a dress made of fabric and wire by designer Valentino Garavani, about which he also commented, “It looks as though I would need secateurs… I hope she is wearing bunches of violets on her underwear, the flowers that keen gardeners best like to discover on the final layer.”

Helen Thomas, a member of WomCam, told Cherwell, “It is what keeps women underrepresented and subordinate… it’s lazy and cheap, and extremely damaging. The best way to fight sexism is to stand up to these unwitty utterances,” she said.

One Classics undergraduate remarked, “What a charmer. Although I understand the point he’s trying to get across, it’s phrased in too violating a way, such that it’s throwing out a whole load of connotations about male sexual dominance.”

The Financial Times editorial staff could not be reached for comment about the content of Lane Fox’s column.