Oxford University Student Union passed a motion supporting divestment from fossil fuel companies at the first OUSU Council of term this Wednesday.

Accordingly, OUSU is to make a formal request that the University “ceases to directly invest in fossil fuel companies”, with a ‘fossil fuel company’ being any company that participates in exploration and/or extraction of fossil fuel reserves.

The motion was proposed by James Rainey of Balliol. Its seconder is Dan Turner, Balliol JCR President and current OULC Co-Chair. Similar motions will be presented to JCRs and MCRs in coming weeks.

Amidst the general concerns about global warming, particular impetus for the motion came from an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report last September: the report stated that cumulative carbon emissions must stay below 800 gigatons to avoid a 20C global temperature rise. The motion noted that, “Over-shooting this by just 5% increases the chance of exceeding 20C to 50%. Over 500 gigatons have already been emitted.

Current fossil fuel reserves amount to nearly four times the remaining carbon budget. Therefore between 60-80% of reserves must stay in the ground.”
According to some estimates, the top 200 fossil fuel companies have spent close to $700 billion in the past 12 months on exploiting currently undeveloped reserves.

OUSU deemed the University to be implicated in this via investments in fossil fuel companies, which comprise around 5% of its endowment- roughly 2k per student.

However, some students feel that financial matters should be kept apart from ethics. Duncan Hegan, a second year Historian, commented, “[the University] invests in fossil fuel companies because they get a good return on their money, and that benefits the students. Well maybe not students, but I like to think it does somehow. OUSU is shooting itself in the foot.”

Yet OUSU council noted that there is a growing international campaign for fossil fuel divestment, with student-led campaigns in 20 UK universities including Cambridge.

Turner, who seconded the motion, explained, “even if it is just a symbolic gesture, it encourages others to follow suit. There was opposition on financial grounds, but when it comes to it we can’t really put on price on an issue like this. If we get it wrong, the stakes are so high.” 

New College biochemist Zain Sood echoed this sentiment, “It’s the socially responsible thing to do. The campaign needs the backing of global brands, like Oxford Uni, to keep gathering momentum.”

The motion also resolved to, “request that the University of Oxford releases a policy statement before the start of the new academic year setting out its view whether or not investment in fossil fuel companies can be considered ‘socially responsible’”. OUSU will request that the University “puts safeguards in place to ensure the Universitty does not indirectly invest in fossil fuel companies through any indirect investment channel.”

The University manages investments through its subsidiary Oxford University Endowment Management.

Several other motions were passed at OUSU Council. Students also voted for a university campaign for Fairtrade, to support local homeless charities, to condemn increased “marketisation” of Oxford. and to spend £700 attending a feminist conference.

The Thames Valley Police and Crime Commissioner Anthony Stansfeld has stated that Oxfordshire loses over £100 million a year in fraud and cybercrime, putting residents and firms at risk. According to comments made by Mr Stansfeld, Oxford’s fraud “is on the rise”.

Despite having himself been accused of scamming thousands of pounds worth of travel expenses last year, Mr Stansfeld argued that not enough has been done to tackle the issue of fraud, both in Oxfordshire and across the nation. He speculated that money sent abroad from stolen Oxfordshire businesses could vastly exceed conservative estimates, and in fact be up to £1 billion.
“I don’t think it is a very satisfactory system nationally,” he said. “We should be putting a lot of money into countering fraud nationally because the loss to the Treasury must be huge every year.”

The Governmental Action Fraud Centre recently lost nearly 2,500 fraud reports due to alleged computer errors, leaving those cases as of yet unsolved. Responding to complaints, Mr Stansfeld suggested the creation of a “full-time fraud investigation bureau with departments in every police force” as an alternative to the current UK-wide system.

He added that he believed Oxfordshire was at particularly high risk for fraud given its affluence as a county. Last May, a hairdressing salon in North Parade, Oxford had to replace their network after a cyber attack. The owners reported they lost £15,000 worth of business during the time they closed to recover their systems.

At present, fraud is thought to cost the UK as a whole over £50 billion a year. A majority of these crimes involve identity theft.
Common advice for avoiding fraud includes having a complex password, not clicking on suspicious links, and avoiding giving personal information to strangers online.

However, first year David Klemperer told Cherwell that basic common sense is not always enough to avoid fraud. “While logically one should avoid opening these messages, if you have a dozen or so emails to read, it’s very easy to make a mistake,” he commented. “Besides, human nature tends to be trusting of other people; that’s why fraud is so successful.”

Online fraud can easily affect unsuspecting students, even with university email filters in place to protect people from suspicious content. Examining the junk folder of one student’s Nexus, for example, reveals scam e-mails offering a chance to “earn easy money” with online football betting, “a nice girl looking for a man for a serious relationship”, and a request for a reader to “Write me, handsome!”.

One anonymous Oxford student who was victim of a fraudster’s e-mail told Cherwell, “After having accidentally clicked a link, my computer became infected and various adverts kept popping up whenever I used it. It was incredibly annoying and significantly delayed my work that week.”

Oxford legal academic Professor Andrew Ashworth recently made headlines by arguing that fraudsters should not go to jail. Instead, he suggested, they should receive community sentences and fines. Professor Ashworth stated, “We should be reserving our most severe form of punishment for our most serious types of offending. Should someone be sent to prison and deprived of their liberty for an offence that involves no violence, no threats, and no sexual assault?”

Professor Ashworth’s reasoning is that taking fraudsters out of prison would reduce problems of overcrowding. Crime Commissioner Stansfeld maintains a stern stance towards Oxford fraud. “This is not a victimless crime. It ruins people’s lives,” he said.

Oxford East MP Andrew Smith similarly urged caution, saying, “With more and more shopping and banking being done online and through mobile phone apps, online security is becoming nearly as important as locking your back door.”

Oriel JCR is reviewing their constitution after the results of their referendum on OUSU affiliation were disputed and a number of constitutional issues raised. 

In a referendum that was held in eighth week of Michaelmas term, 76 out of 125 voters were in favour of disaffiliating from OUSU, with 37 against and 12 abstaining. However, with only 60.8 per cent of the vote, the motion did not achieve the two-thirds majority necessary and was pronounced to have failed.

This week, concerns have been raised about how the abstentions were counted after students discovered that there has been an issue with the referendum results.

Reasons to disaffiliate which were put forward by the proposition include the observation that OUSU costs are disproportionate to its effects on student life, and Oriel JCR’s belief that OUSU does not adequately represent JCRs or student views. What worries many students is also that, since it is no longer financially accountable to the colleges, OUSU has had these issues for many years and has shown no signs of improvement. As such, Oriel students feel a review of the failed motion is necessary.

As the Oriel JCR President and Vice President jointly stated, “There were procedural issues stemming from a lack of concrete guidance in the JCR constitution, from which we are keen to move on in a constructive manner. In order to do so the JCR has asked an independent adjudicator to review the referendum and provide suggestions, which the JCR has agreed to accept as binding.”

The motion to bring in an independent adjudicator was passed through the JCR on Sunday, not without some controversy.

One third year criticized the idea, stating, “The JCR committee are basically just removing themselves from blame which isn’t what they are voted in to do. They were chosen to make decisions on behalf of students, not to off-load them onto members of college who don’t particularly care about the intricacies of student life.”

Members present at the JCR meeting raised concerns about deciding pre-emptively if the external adjudicator’s decision would be binding.
The independent adjudicator, identified to Cherwell only as a fellow at Oriel, will pull together an independent report. This will “look into the procedural issues surrounding the referendum with a view to providing formal recommendations“. Depending on the results of the report, it is still possible that Oriel JCR could have another referendum on their OUSU affiliation.

Oriel JCR has also passed a separate motion requiring the Vice President to formally review the constitution with the help of a focus group comprised of JCR-approved individuals. The recommendations put forward by the focus group would then be voted on by the JCR. This safety check is designed to “highlight any issues and oversights in the JCR constitution”.

Generally, the JCR welcomed this extra step for constitutional revision, with only three individuals voting against it. As a medic present at the meeting commented, “If our constitution cannot tell us what to do in the case of a referendum, then no doubt it is missing vital information in other areas as well.”

An undergraduate who seconded the original motion to have a referendum remains convinced that Oriel JCR should disaffiliate. They stated, “It’s an unspoken fact that we all know OUSU is dominated by certain political cliques who use petty factional politics to further their own ends. I’m surprised they think they’re fooling anyone when these people claim its legitimate democracy, or that we can change anything from participation, as you will just be shot down. They can do this all they want, but not in our JCR’s name.”

However, some questioned whether the original frustrations with OUSU had lost their focus and momentum. “A minor issue in the voting system has been blown out of proportion and the easiest option would simply be to re-run the referendum,” one first year commented.

OUSU President, Tom Rutland, was quick to point out that even if Oriel chooses to break links with OUSU, individual students remain affiliated with OUSU regardless of their JCR or MCR’s affiliation status.

“The common room affiliation model is largely outdated, and is a leftover of the age where OUSU was funded primarily by common room affiliation fees. These days, disaffiliation only results in that common room losing their votes at OUSU Council – thus silencing their members,” Rutland said.

“Given that OUSU Council’s voting membership is almost entirely made up of JCR and MCR representatives, the best way to effect a change in policy is to stay affiliated and have your members’ voices count at OUSU Council.”

Trinity is currently the only college disaffiliated from OUSU. Stuart Sander, JCR President at Trinity commented, “Trinity disaffiliated in 2007, during a period which saw a spate of OUSU disaffiliations. Following funding reforms which meant that OUSU affiliation did not directly cost JCRs money most of the disaffiliated colleges trickled back, so for the last few years Trinity has been the only disaffiliated JCR.

“By convention we hold a referendum each year on whether to re-affiliate and students have always voted against such a move. Last year the referendum took place in Trinity term and the result was 66% wanting to stay disaffiliated and 34% voting for re-affiliation, indicating that Trinity is happy with its disaffiliated status, which is a matter for the students to determine.”

Oxford students have reacted angrily to recent comments by a UKIP councillor in Henley, Oxfordshire. David Silvester asserted in a letter to his local newspaper that the floods recently hitting parts of Britain came as a result of the legalisation of gay marriage.

Silvester was defended by UKIP after writing the letter and reiterated his views on national radio, where he referred to being gay as a “spiritual disease”. He was subsequently suspended for not complying with party bosses’ requests to limit media appearances.

Dan Templeton, OUSU’s LGTBQ representative, said, “To hear such comments being made by what is now considered a ‘mainstream’ party is disheartening at best. This is made worse by the fact that David Silvester was only suspended from the party when breaching a request not to give interviews and in light of the resignation of Nikki Sinclaire”, a former UKIP MEP.

He added, “Though most have ridiculed Silvester’s outdated comments, they remain damaging to anyone struggling with their sexual/gender identity or seeking acceptance from society. LGBTQ-phobic views do nothing but harm the young and impressionable”.

A student at Exeter College told Cherwell, “I suppose this would be funny if UKIP weren’t posing as a serious alternative to mainstream parties. I hope people consider what the implications of a party that puts people like this into positions of power gaining any sort of influence would be.”

One Geography student used his meteorological know-how to dispute the logic of the claims, insisting that there were few documented connections between equality legislation and the weather. “Unless it featured in one of the lectures I slept through, I’ve never come across any evidence suggesting that allowing a large group in society to be happy would cause floods and chaos.”

Though Silvester referenced the Bible in his claims, one member of Oxford’s Inter-Collegiate Christian Union pointed to comments made by Colin Coward from the group Changing Attitude, a Christian network advocating the inclusion of LGBTQ people. “I don’t know where David worships, but clearly it’s in a sect, a church which is not mainstream in its Christian practice and teaching,” Coward said.

The councillor’s reasoning has hit social media and the national headlines this week. Twitter accounts mocking Mr. Silvester’s claims have proven popular, with the @UKIPWeather account gaining 80,000 followers in less than two days. A spoof shipping forecast recorded by actor Nicholas Pegg, in which he jokes that homosexual activities could have an influence on the climate, has also gone viral.

A member of Oxford University Labour Club wondered whether, “UKIP’s attacks on the left, women, homosexuals, immigrants and more were an attempt to leave no stone unturned in their quest to insult, belittle, and bully anyone who didn’t share their narrow, prehistoric, and alarming world view.”
In line with most of those spoken to by Cherwell, Jane Cahill said, “When the first same sex marriages happen in March, I will enjoy watching him flee to high ground.”

Magdalen LGBTQ reps James Stoke and Elsa Field told Cherwell, “We are heartened to see that UKIP has suspended Councillor David Silvester, as this shows clearly that, even on the fringes of mainstream politics, bigoted and scientifically ridiculous opinions are not supported.”

Cherwell’s requested a comment from Mr Silvester, but he declined.

In a statement, UKIP Oxford said, “The views expressed by the ex-Conservative town councillor are certainly not shared by UKIP. Cllr Silvester has, rightly been suspended from the party.

“We are a diverse and inclusive party with a thriving LGBTQ section. UKIP deal swiftly and decisively with inappropriate candidates or members – which, as the Lord Rennard scandal shows, cannot be said of all parties.”

On the other hand, Ed Nickell. a third year at Exeter, had an alternative explanation for Silvester’s behaviour. He commented, “Apparently there was a double rainbow over Oxford last week, maybe there is something to this.”

Members of the University and College Union (UCU) took part in a two hour strike yesterday in protest against what they see as a cut in real wages. The protests, which took place in Wellington Square and outside the St Cross Building, Manor Rd, follow on from a one-day strike last term.

Garrick Taylor, a post-doctorate researcher in biochemistry, explained his reasons for striking. “We’ve been given a pay-off of one per cent, a real term pay cut, which means in the last four years we’ve received a fourteen per cent real terms pay cut.

“For many, it means that we are simply paid less than other professionals. However, for some it means being on the breadline. This is especially true of newly-qualified staff who are often put on fixed-term contracts. They are being paid little and don’t even have job security.”

“I was a student not that long ago and I assumed that once I had a ‘proper job’ after qualifying, my money troubles would be over, but I now have a second job just to make ends meet.”

Terry Hoad, former President of the UCU’s National Executive Committee, pointed out that not everyone is experiencing such money troubles at Oxford. “The University have got money piling up in their reserves. This is clear in the pay rises they give to high-level staff such as the Vice-Chancellor who is currently on £380,000. Such moves are insensitive and insulting when you are telling others lower down the pecking order to stick with what they’ve got,” he said.

Others warned that pay discrepancies will have long-term impacts. One protester pointed out, “Universities are part of the job market and academics are intelligent people who can go and get other professional work. Bad salaries in academic positions only speed up the brain-drain away from our universities. The nature of the job market is that it is usually the best academics who leave to get better paid jobs elsewhere.”

Owen Maroney, an academic in philosophy, echoed these warnings. He said, “I moved here from Australia two years ago and I had to take a pay cut to do so. The fact is post-doctorate jobs in the UK are not well paid compared to international standards.”

The UCU are planning two more two hour boycotts during Hilary term. “The last thing we want to do is affect students,” Hoad stressed.

“However, an exam boycott, in which academics refuse to mark exams, is on the cards if the university refuse to negotiate.”

A spokesperson for the University of Oxford told Cherwell, “The University respects the right of individuals to take part in lawful industrial action.

“Contingency plans are in place aimed at minimising any disruption or inconvenience such action may cause to students, staff, and visitors to the University.” 

The lunchtime strike was not without consequences, however. The University spokesperson added, “Oxford University will be deducting two hours’ pay for a two-hour stoppage.”

Universities around the country participated in yesterday’s strike. However, eleven institutions have been criticised for “bullying” staff into not participating. Emails from universities including Oxford Brookes, the University of Leicester, Glasgow Caledonian University and University of Surrey were condemned by UCU for threatening to dock pay for an entire day and discouraging academics from striking at all. UCU criticised these universities’ “baffling willingness to increase disruption for students as a way of intimidating staff”.

Academics have never been “locked out” for an entire day for participating in unionised strike action before. UCU has threatened subsequent legal action against institutions such as Oxford Brookes University, as well as further industrial action if universities do not respond to concerns about pay cuts.

NUS President Toni Pearce urged a speedy resolution. She said, “We need to see the employers and unions getting round the table and negotiating a fair and sustainable pay settlement.”

Exeter faces criticism from its own student body after instating a new EU-only hiring policy for junior deans, which some students have described as “discriminatory”.

The policy, which took effect in Trinity 2013, states that applicants “must be eligible to work in the UK, within the confines of the EU Working Time Directive”. According to UK Border Agency regulations, non-EU international students can only work a maximum of 20 hours a week in the UK.

However, some students have challenged the necessity of this restriction, given that it excludes the roughly 40% of graduate students who live outside the EU.

“To have a citizenship criteria imposed on applications eliminates a lot of opportunities for internationals, given that many might not be fully funded for their degree,” said Esther Kwan, a Canadian Development Studies graduate student at Exeter. “I think that the college should give more assistance to international students who have more restrictions placed on them.”

Nikita Kaushal, president of Exeter House, a graduate accommodation building, cited Oxford and Exeter’s reputations for cultural diversity. “Having positions such as the Junior Dean available to all students irrespective of citizenship emphasises that every student has an equal opportunity to be a part of larger college life,” she said.

Exeter’s Rector Frances Caincross defended the college’s position, as well as the non-renewal of an Indian junior dean’s contract last Trinity term. “There is no case to answer about non-renewal because the junior dean at Exeter College was not due to have her contract renewed or continued,” Caincross stated.

“However, the UK Border Agency restrictions stipulating that international students work no more than 20 hours a week would apply to any future appointments.”

A 2013 Exeter HR study of junior deans’ work hours reveals that colleges do not share a standardised hiring policy, making Exeter’s citizenship requirements unique. Only one college in the study, Green Templeton, explicitly stated that their junior deans worked over 20 hours a week.

Exeter MCR President Challenger Mishra has questioned the validity of the hiring policy due to its basis in a 20-hour week work restriction. He acknowledged Exeter’s obligation to adhere to border regulations, but told Cherwell that the college currently only employs a Junior Dean and Assistant Junior Dean, which would raise the likelihood of junior deans working over 20 hours a week.

“Exeter should reopen these positions to international students and also look into the welfare of its Junior Deans by employing more people in such roles,” Mishra said.

Exeter’s restrictions appear to contradict the University of Oxford’s Policies and Guidance recommendation that full-time graduates on taught courses “do not undertake more than 8 hours’ paid work each week whilst studying”, and that working research candidates still be able to maintain 40 hours of academic work a week.

A 2012 study circulated with the consent of the Magdalen Dean of Arts surveying 89 junior deans further concluded that “it is estimated that the average role of a student dean demands 7.3 hours a week”.

The University declined to comment on Exeter’s specific case. “The role of junior dean and the hours they are expected to work varies across the different colleges,” a University of Oxford spokesperson told Cherwell. “The regulations introduced by the UK Border Agency will restrict employment opportunities offered to all non-EU students.”

Nevertheless, international graduate students in particular continue to oppose the new policy. Mishra told Cherwell that his MCR had voted against the “discriminatory” policy, but would continue communicating with Exeter to negotiate the restrictions.

“Lobbying in the University has not yielded tangible outcome because the University is not keen on meddling in a single college’s policy,” Mishra said in a statement to the MCR Presidents’ Committee last term.

“But this issue has the potential to escalate and could result in other colleges making similar policy changes, which would be far from ideal for international students.”