See Cherwell’s Twitter account for full coverage of this evenings events, below are selected key moments:

The Oxford Union is debating a motion of no confidence against its President Ben Sullivan tonight. Updates to follow pic.twitter.com/5ekfQp1xDu

— Cherwell (@Cherwell_Online) May 29, 2014

President Elect of the @OxfordUnion Mayank Banerjee is currently speaking #UnionNoCon pic.twitter.com/ZMyALioPEF

— Cherwell (@Cherwell_Online) May 29, 2014

Union chair calling for order after comments made by Joshua Burge #UnionNoCon pic.twitter.com/4bbZkO5jMd

— Cherwell (@Cherwell_Online) May 29, 2014

Lapwood brings procedural motion to cancel motion on grounds that it will affect fairness of Sullivan’s court case #UnionNoCon

— Cherwell (@Cherwell_Online) May 29, 2014

Everyone leaving the chamber to vote on whether to vote #UnionNoCon pic.twitter.com/PBj7ajkT4B

— Cherwell (@Cherwell_Online) May 29, 2014

Seems like the ayes are winning by our estimation. Some possibility the No Confidence motion will not be debated any longer #UnionNoCon

— Cherwell (@Cherwell_Online) May 29, 2014

To summarise, motion of ‘No Confidence’ will not be voted on tonight after 254 to 101 vote, after vote proposed by Lapwood #UnionNoCon

— Cherwell (@Cherwell_Online) May 29, 2014

It is unclear whether a move to vote on a motion of ‘No Confidence’ could be brought again #UnionNoCon

— Cherwell (@Cherwell_Online) May 29, 2014

Banerjee is objecting to motion to introduce ‘Reopen Nominations’ as an option in elections being debated now #UnionNoCon

— Cherwell (@Cherwell_Online) May 29, 2014

People objecting to the scheduled comedy debate at @OxfordUnion being delayed any further #UnionNoCon

— Cherwell (@Cherwell_Online) May 29, 2014

Comedy debate has now been postponed #UnionNoCon

— Cherwell (@Cherwell_Online) May 29, 2014

The @OxfordUnion has agreed to donate the amount of money raised at the debate last term #UnionNoCon

— Cherwell (@Cherwell_Online) May 29, 2014

The debate on the RON motion has also now been cancelled #UnionNoCon

— Cherwell (@Cherwell_Online) May 29, 2014

Christ Church students, some still in the middle of exams, face being removed from their rooms by college authorities over the weekend of the college ball.

In a JCR motion, it is reported , citing non-specific “security reasons”, that the college has ordered that students living in Meadows, Old Library and Tom Quad areas leave their rooms from the 21st June, barring their return until the following day.

The College previously stated that the restrictions would only last during the period the ball itself is being held.

However, as well as extending the ban period, students have accused the college of not making any specific dispensation for members with examinations.

In an emergency JCR meeting held on Sunday, a drafted motion claimed, “This lack of foreknowledge has limited the options of students living in affected areas and constitutes the ticket contract to now be unfair.”

It added, “This House is our house, and displacing members, but not alumni and non-students, from their residence on the basis they are a security risk is distasteful.”

However, Rachel Perham, PA to the Dean of Christ Church, insisted that students would not be barred from their rooms until the afternoon of the 22nd, as the JCR motion has suggested.

“As happens at many other colleges,” she said, “Undergraduates will vacate rooms within the ball perimeter from 12 noon on the day of the ball and be escorted back in groups after the ball between 6.30 and 7.30 am the following morning.”

Perham also refuted the suggestion that the college was working against the wishes of students, telling Cherwell, “These arrangements were proposed by the ball committee whose members are mainly undergraduate students, and are the result of lengthy negotiations with the JCR.”

In response to claims that the college had made “no specific dispensation” for members with examinations, the college has agreed to give “students with public examinations on the day of the ball or at the beginning of week 9 priority in allocation of alternative accommodation should they not wish to attend the ball.”

Perham stated that there would be “special arrangements for those who need to access their belongings after examinations on the morning of the ball.”

However, it would seem that claims by the students’ JCR motion for the college to “reimburse members for the cost of finding alternative accommodation” have been disregarded, with Christ Church college stating, “Undergraduate licence agreements cover the period until 9.30 am on the day of the Ball, and residence after this time requires special permission, […] there is no question of undergraduates being evicted from rooms.”

Meanwhile, Felix Goodman, a student at Christ Church, spoke in favour of the college’s decision, telling Cherwell that, “The Ball as it is is going to be a security nightmare”.

He further stated that he could, “completely understand the college’s desire to make their job slightly easier by shutting these rooms,” suspecting that, “the reason for closing many of these rooms on the night of the ball is to reduce the opportunity for sniper cover.”

Negotiations continue between the JCR and the college.
The JCR President was unavailable for comment when approached by Cherwell.

The campaign to make Oxford University ‘fossil free’ has gained extensive support from common rooms, ahead of a planned march on Oxford council and the University on Saturday 31st May.

19 common rooms have so far pledged support for the campaign, including nine JCRs and 10 MCRs.

A motion was also passed in support of ending the University’s fossil fuel investments at OUSU Council in January. ‘The Fossil Free Future’ demonstration currently has over 150 people attending the event on Facebook.

The rally is planned to begin at 11am by the Radcliffe Camera, with the demonstration proceeding through Oxford to Bonn Square. It seeks to bring together students, university academics and local activists.

The organisers have arranged several speakers for the event, including Dr Brenda Boardman, who is co-director of the UK Energy Research Centre.
The OUSU Environment and Ethics Campaign adopted fossil fuel divestment as its main project for the 2013-14 academic year, in Trinity term 2013.
The campaign believes a negative screening process should be applied to fossil fuel investments.

Campaigners are also calling for a list of the University’s investments to be published, in order to enhance transparency and student engagement.

In March 2014, the University’s Socially Responsible Investment Review Committee agreed to canvass the opinions of stakeholders on the question of possible divestment from companies ‘that participate in exploration for and/or extraction of fossil fuel reserves’.

The Oxford fossil free divestment campaign is part of an international effort to end investment in fossil fuels and invest in more sustainable business models.
Eleven US colleges and universities, including Stanford University, have so far committed to pursue fossil free divestment.

Michaela Collard, a DPhil student at University College, commented, “As students, we come to Oxford and hear from its academics about the devastating effects of climate change and the need for action. It is clear, though, that the people who hold the power to change how our energy system works, the fossil fuel companies and politicians, are failing to heed the scientific warnings.

“By divesting from fossil fuels, Oxford University can show true moral and intellectual leadership. It can signal to our political leaders the need to follow its example and tackle climate change head on. The alternative is we stay quiet and stick with the status quo until it really is too late.”

James Rainey, a second year Biologist at Balliol College, said, “By investing in an industry intending to exploit four times more fossil fuel reserves than can be burned ‘safely,’ our University is unintentionally undermining our future. Divestment is needed to protect the integrity of Oxford, and build political pressure to prevent the carbon budget from being exceeded.”

Pro-life charity LIFE has denounced OUSU Council’s decision to ban advertising of the charity and other similar organisations which provide “directive abortional advice”.

The motion, proposed by Sarah Pine, OUSU VP for Women, and seconded by Alasdair Lennon, St. Johns’ JCR President, referenced OUSU’s pro-choice policy, whereby they maintain the stance that the best person to make decisions around pregnancy is the person themselves.

It states that they, “deserve impartial and non-directional information and advice” and that “LIFE’s counselling and publicity is directive.” It mentioned in particular the LIFE statement that, “you can take the time, with our support, to work through all of your options and discover what is best for you whilst still being against abortion in all circumstances.”

The motion argued that these kinds of “anti-choice messages” could be upsetting and stated that “organisations that give misleading advice can be actively harmful.”

The motion passed but the second clause, stating that OUSU would never give a platform to any organisation which provides directional advice around abortion or campaign’s against women’s right to choose was removed.

LIFE spokesperson Anne Scanlan said, “OUSU is simply restating its pro-abortion policy instituted against LIFE many years ago. If the Union was truly pro-choice, as it claims to be, it would encourage greater access to all counselling services for pregnant women considering abortion such as the counselling and skilled listening services offered by LIFE which also provides accommodation and practical support to pregnant women who choose to keep their baby. Why would a truly pro-choice group want to deny them that?”

She continued, “OUSU’s policy that “the best person to make decisions around pregnancy is the person themselves”, is not in conflict with LIFE’s non-directive counselling service.

“The motion speaks of organisations offering advice. LIFE does not offer advice. It offers non-directive counselling or skilled listening. Counselling is a non-directive activity quite distinct from giving advice which does not happen in the counselling room. To imply that we are an organisation which gives misleading information which can be actively harmful is slanderous. OUSU should withdraw this statement immediately.”

President of Oxford Student’s for Life, told Cherwell, “While we opposed the entire motion, we’re very pleased that OUSU Council voted to defend free expression against an undemocratic no-platform clause.”

Pine and Lennon responded saying, “The LIFE motion proposed in OUSU Council passed with a democratic majority on 28th of May 2014. We are of the belief that LIFE’s mission and previous endorsement of abortion restrictions contradict its’ aims and activities. We are also of the belief that the presence of Life in OUSU publications and events can be triggering and as such may be harmful to women who have undergone an abortion. A student union has a duty of care to its members and should do its utmost to prevent them from harm.”

New College JCR is challenging its governing body’s proposal to stop offering Human Sciences.

Sparked by the upcoming departure of the current Head of Human Sciences, the place of the subject within the College is being reviewed. As set out in a JCR motion, one of the reasons it might be discontinued is that, over the last six years, four Human Sciences students have received 2:2s and so, “It has not boosted our Norrington Score as much as some other subjects.”

The point was raised by the JCR that ‘Norrington viability’ should not affect the diversity of subjects offered by New College. A member of the JCR also pointed out that two of the students who received 2:2s had previously rusticated on account of mental health issues.

Other reasons to discontinue the subject included the fact that it would be difficult to find a qualified enough replacement and that the college is looking to reduce the overall size of the JCR.

Andrew Wills, the JCR Academic Affairs rep, told Cherwell, “At the JCR meeting there were a few interesting points brought up such as the future of the course across the University if New College stopped offering it. The Norrington position was mentioned as a possible reason for College considering removing it, but I think that was more speculative rather than being based on any substantial evidence. We decided that we would let college know our opinion: that they shouldn’t cut the course (especially not for academic reasons); and that if they do decide to drop the course then we would quite like to know their reasoning for doing so. Personally, I don’t believe that the decision to bring this up now is at all influenced by the Norrington Table result; and I think that the JCR would be quite upset if it were as that isn’t at all what we as a college focus on.

“I’ve spoken to some long-term members of the SCR and they strongly disagreed that the Norrington table came into it. The reasoning is more along the lines of the Human Sciences tutor is leaving, so now is the natural time to ask the question of whether college continue to offer HumSci, as a course, or not.

“Apparently it’s a discussion that they have every time a tutor from a small course leaves. One of the fellows I talked to said that since we’re currently at the top of the Norrington Table there would be no need to do something as drastic as cutting courses to try and improve our position!”

New College students contacted also expressed concern that the proposal may negatively affect the performance of current New College Human Scientists, as a temporary head of Human Sciences may not be the best qualified for the position.

Human Sciences is a multidisciplinary course which studies the biological, social and cultural aspects of human life. It has an intake of 31 students per year across the University and New College is one of only 10 colleges to offer it as an undergraduate degree.
Mark Griffith, Senior Tutor at New College, told Cherwell, “Prof. Chan, UL in Sociology and the Tutorial Fellow responsible for Human Sciences, is leaving and the College is reviewing the future of his post and the future of Human Sciences here. Governing Body will address the recommendations of its Academic Strategy Committee in 8th week. The Committee is still considering the matter.

“Whatever the outcome, the College will ensure that teaching of the highest quality is provided for its existing Human Sciences undergraduates.”

Fruit flies think before they make decisions, according to Oxford neuroscientists.
The researchers, working at the university-based Centre for Neural Circuits and Behaviour, trained the flies to avoid one out of two concentrations of an odour placed at either end of a small chamber. The flies then had to decide which end that was.

According to the research, published in the journal Science, when the difference in the two odours was smaller, the flies made up for this by “gathering information for longer”.

Lead author of the study, Dr. Shamik DasGupta, told Cherwell, “The time for flies to make a decision to choose an odour depends on the difficulty of the task.” These times varied from 1.5 seconds for the easier tasks and up to 3 seconds for the more difficult ones. He also explained that they, “walk inside the chamber as the chambers are too small to allow flying”.

Moreover, the researchers discovered that fruit flies with a mutation in a gene called FoxP had reduced “speed and accuracy” in making decisions. It effectively slowed down how long it took the flies to reach a state where they were ready to make a decision. Significantly, said Dr. DasGupta, “Some mutations in human FoxP homologues results in cognitive defects”, suggesting that the research could provide insight into the human brain.

According to Dr. DasGupta, “Some mechanistic aspects of decision making are possibly conserved between flies and humans”. Additionally, the same model used by the neurosci- entists to map how fruit flies make decisions, “Has successfully been used to explain human decision making.”

A study by Oxford University psychiatrists has demonstrated that some mental illnesses can reduce life expectancy more than heavy smoking. Researchers have found that serious mental illnesses reduce life expectancy by 10 to 20 years. This is approximately greater, or equal to, the number of years of life lost if a person is a heavy smoker.

The psychiatrists who conducted the study say that it demonstrates that mental health should be considered a public health priority.

It is estimated that one in four people in the UK experience some kind of mental health problem during the course of a year. In comparison, around 21% of British men and 19% women smoke cigarettes.

The study, published in the journal of World Psychiatry was conducted by reviewing the most systematic clinical studies on the mortality risk for a range of mental illnesses. Twenty review papers, with information about over 1.7 million individuals and over 250,000 deaths were used. Each illness studied showed an increased mortality risk, although the extent of this rise varied greatly. It was found that the average reduction in life expectancy in people with bipolar disorder is between nine and 20 years, while it is 10 to 20 years for schizophrenia, between nine and 24 years for drug and alcohol abuse, and around seven to 11 years for recurrent depression.

Dr Seena Fazel of the Department of Psychiatry at Oxford University commented, “Many causes of mental health problems also have physical consequences, and mental illness worsens the prognosis of a range of physical illnesses, especially heart disease, diabetes and cancer. Unfortunately, people with serious mental illnesses may not access healthcare effectively.”

Fazel believes that the reduction in life expectancy associated with mental illnesses can be reduced. “All of this can be changed. There are effective drug and psychological treatments for mental health problems.”

Tom Posa, a first year at Balliol said, “This study just confirms something everyone involved in college welfare already knows: that mental health issues can pose a massive threat to those they affect.”

Experts speaking at a recent panel discussion on stalking and harassment at the Oxford Union were surprised to find only one student in attendance.

The event, held on Tuesday, was due to feature experts on the topic, led by Jennifer Perry, who has worked on e-crime since 2005 and wrote the UK Guidelines on Digital Risks for victims of domestic violence and stalking in 2012.

Among the other speakers was Dr. Emma Short, Director at the Cyberstalking Research Centre, and Harry Fletcher, a Parliamentary campaigner and ex-Assistant General Secretary of NAPO. Alys Key, a student at Somerville who was the only person to attend the event, said in a public Facebook status, “Sadly, due to a lack of attendees (I was the only person there), the event was cancelled at the last minute.

“I managed to chat to the speakers (who were having conciliatory refreshments at the Union’s expense).

“We ended up having an in-depth discussion about the problems facing women today in Oxford and beyond.”

She told Cherwell, “I think that the low attendance was due to a combination of factors. Firstly, there’s the obvious bad press around the Union at the moment which might have led some people to think it wasn’t really an appropriate space for this discussion.

“Then there was the organisation of the event itself; I only found out about it a couple of days beforehand from a Facebook Event. Only about 20 people had clicked ‘attending’ and looking through the names it was obvious these were all Union committee members.

“There was also the Guild-Union garden party going on at the same time, and use of other rooms in the building meant the panel discussion was to be held in the TV room – somewhere I’ve never been before and which feels quite out-of-the-way.

“When I actually found the event, I was the only person there and one of the speakers told me that they were going to have to cancel.”
She added, “I don’t think the poor attendance necessarily shows anything about Oxford students’ views on sexual violence, though one does have to wonder how much the poor turnout was due to the Union’s reputation at the moment.”

A spokesperson for the Union told Cherwell, “Due to a lack of uptake, the Union decided to reschedule the event for Michaelmas 2014.

“This was agreed by all parties involved –we remain committed to offering platforms through which we can combat issues of sexual violence, both within the University and beyond.”

This comes in a week where the OUSU Women’s Campaign has urged students wearing sub fusc for exams to wear a white ribbon, pledging, “never to commit, condone, or remain silent about violence against women, and to stand with the survivors of gender violence.”

The Oxford Chinese Students and Scholars Association (OXCSSA) has come under criticism from an anonymous whistleblower for a lack of democracy in the election of its senior members.

A translation of the Chinese language version of the society’s constitution, available on the OXCSSA website, reveals substantial differences between the Chinese and English language versions of the society constitution. In practice, the Chinese version appears to be the document by which the society is governed.

Article X of the Chinese language constitution specifies that “Ordinary members do not have the right to vote or stand for election”. The translation of a society newsletter confirmed that ordinary members, while able to attend the upcoming Annual General Meeting (AGM), are unable to run for election or vote.

An email translation suggests that the society, which has approximately 2,500 members, invited only around eighty to attend its AGM last year.

Such a state of affairs would be a potential violation of the Proctors’ rules on society affiliation, according to the pro-forma constitution for non-sport societies.

A University spokesperson confirmed, “Clubs registered with the Proctors are required to follow the rules laid out in the constitution.

The Proctors’ Office is happy to advise individual clubs on specific issues as necessary and to listen to feedback on the constitution. A review of the general oversight of clubs has been agreed and will commence shortly”.

The English language version of the OXCSSA constitution, which is understood to have been submitted to the Proctors’ Office in 2011, uses the template constitution for non-sport societies specified by the University website. In the English language version, all members of the society are eligible to vote, and are entitled to be informed of the Annual General Meeting at least two weeks in advance.

The Chinese version of the constitution also allows the President to appoint all the secretaries and the Treasurer, who in turn are allowed to vote in the society’s Presidential elections. In the University-approved English language version, Committee members are supposed to be elected at the AGM.

The Chinese language constitution also stipulates that the President of OXCSSA instead interviews candidates for positions on the Committee, which approximately eighty to ninety members sit on. Only members of the Committee are permitted to vote for the President.

The whistleblower commented, “it is so interesting that even for the Chinese people living on a western country’s soil, they are still using China’s model of ‘democracy’, by the way of cheating the University with a ‘western style’ constitution that has never been acted in accordance with.”

This is not the first time that a CSSA society has been criticized for a lack of democracy. In 2011 the Cambridge version was disaffiliated from the university after the President decided to continue for a second term without an election.

OXCSSA has been made aware of Cherwell’s investigation, but has not replied to the allegations.