Oxford students joined their colleagues across the UK earlier this week to protest against the sale of student debt to private companies, announced by the government in in June.

At noon this Wednesday, a small group of students and former students assembled outside the Clarendon Building on Broad Street to participate in an “open-air meeting” and demonstrate their discontent over the loan sell-off. Balliol JCR also passed a motion on Sunday condemning the government’s plan to privatise student loans and offering their support to the protesters.

The events were scheduled as part of a wider ‘National Day of Action’, organised by the Student Assembly Against Austerity (SAAA). Over twenty six campuses from across the UK, including Oxford, LSE and Sheffield, were involved in the protest. The privatisation of student loan debt was announced as part of the government’s attempts to raise £15 billion from the sale of public assets to private companies by 2020.

Xavier Cohen, who proposed the anti-privatisation motion at Balliol told Cherwell, “For me, it’s quite clear that the government’s plans to privatise our student loans are ideological. But what I think really convinced Balliol JCR students is the threat that privatisation will entail removing the cap on the interest rates we pay back on our loans. Even if such a policy was legally covered in the small print, realistically, this would mean retroactively increasing the interest rates that students were led to believe were capped.”

David Willetts MP, the Universities Minister, swiftly defended the plans. In a public statement issued by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills he said, “There will be no change to the terms of repayment so students shouldn’t be affected by the privatisation of their loans.”

Many students, however, remain sceptical about the Minister’s promises. Olivia Arigho-Stiles from Somerville said, “This is yet another attack on the accessibility of higher education to less well-off students in this country.” Wednesday’s protest-meeting passed off without incident. One student who attended the meeting said, “The programme of debt-privatisation is wholly ideological. It is being operated entirely at the expense of all students. Either we speak out or be bled dry.”

Other students, however, disagree with the protesters and the SAAA. One Keble second-year said, “The notion that there is still a clear-cut dichotomy between public and private debt is erroneous. All public debt held in US dollars and sterling becomes private debt at some point down the line by virtue of being constituted in private reserve currency… Objections raised over the ideological nature of privatisation are misplaced.”

Local Green Party City Councillor and recent Oxford graduate Sam Hollick attended the the protest outside the Clarendon Building. He told Cherwell, “If you’re going to privatise student loans, you open them up to companies who want to make profit out of them, and the only way to make profit is to put up the interest rates on our debts. So results of this could be a hike in fees for students, even for people who’ve already graduated.”

Asked whether he was disappointed by the very low turnout at the event – only a dozen students attended – Hollick replied, “I always think that it doesn’t take a huge number of people to change the world.”

A team of Oxford Academics have devised a method of ‘tagging’ sperm using nanoparticles, which could eventually lead to diagnosing causes of infertility currently unexplained by doctors.

The method uses a specific type of nanoparticle, synthesised by the University’s Department of Engineering Science, which attach to the sperm with no detrimental effects. The porous silica nanoparticles can be filled, or alternatively coated, with compounds to identify, diagnose, and perhaps even treat the causes of infertility. They are extremely small, at about 140nm- over 1/700 of the width of a human hair.

“An attractive feature of nanoparticles is that they are like an empty envelope that can be loaded with a variety of compounds and inserted into cells,” said Dr Natalia Barkalina, lead author of the study from the Nuffield Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Oxford University. “The nanoparticles we use don’t appear to interfere with the sperm, making them a perfect delivery vessel.”

The researchers successfully tested the method on boar sperm, showing how the nanoparticles associated well with the sperm whilst not causing any problems with sperm health. Dr. Barkalina remarked, “it seems to be a very simple and efficient method”.

Indeed, this method is not at all trivial. Senior author Dr. Kevin Coward commented, “Previous methods involved complicated procedures in animals and introduced months of delays before the sperm could be used. Now, we can simply expose sperm to nanoparticles in a petri dish. It’s so simple that it can all be done quickly enough for the sperm to survive perfectly unharmed.”

After this initial success the team intends to investigate whether they can fertilise eggs with tagged sperm in a model organism like the boar. Coward added, “We want to try and ‘probe’ or interfere with known biological systems to gain more information with respect to infertility. Eventually, we want to extend to look at the interaction between the human egg and sperm.

“Within a few years [we] may be able to explain or even diagnose rare cases in patients. In future we could even deliver treatments in a similar way.”

It is still early days, but the method seems to be a promising tool and has positive implications for infertile couples. The team observed, “this system should provide a swift and effective research tool which may lead to new understanding or new treatments.”

The work originally began in Spring 2011 and started life as a short project on the Msc in Clinical Embryology. Since then patent applications for the technique have been made by Isis Innovation, Oxford University’s technology transfer arm.

In a victory for proponents of greater equality at Oxford, Merton College has voted to reorganise the way in which disabled, female, LGBTQ and ethnic students are represented.

The motion, proposed by Tanvi Mehta and Will Bennett, was passed unanimously by the college’s JCR and completely overhauls the pre-existing structure for the representation of student minorities.

It removes the positions of Equal Opportunities Representative and International Students’ Representative from the JCR committee, replacing them with representatives for Gender Equality, Disabled Students and Ethnic Minority and International Students. They will collectively sit on a newly formed Equality Sub-Committee, with an LGBTQ Representative, and ensure equality of opportunity along with the prevention of all types of discrimination at Merton.

Tanvi Mehta, one of those who proposed the motion, stated her aim as making the college more inclusive. She said, “Merton is already incredibly open-minded and welcoming, so I feel like this motion only creates a more intuitive and clear structure to maintain that environment!

“I proposed the motion partly because it’s hard for a single Equal Opportunities rep to be involved in/attend all the relevant Equality Campaigns or meetings and it therefore makes sense to expand the team of people working on equality issues. But it’s also because we felt that a single individual isn’t really able to be representative of the various different groups that come under the purview of Equal Opportunities, because they sometimes don’t have an understanding of the issues that all these groups face.”

She added, “With the Equality Sub-Committee, we’re also aiming for better representation of different groups on the JCR committee, and by extension, better representation within the college and University.”

The motion has met with the approval of the college JCR president, Christian Ruckteschler, who took an active role in drafting it. He stated, “in my opinion this reform has the potential to greatly improve the effectiveness of equality representation and advocacy at Merton-both with respect to students and to college. The next few months will show whether this hunch was right”.

The other proposer, Will Bennett, was optimistic about its impact, commenting that it would achieve, “better representation of minority groups so that people who feel discriminated against know who to go to, and feel their voice matters. Merton and other colleges need to get more involved with these issues, seeing that although we are 900 years old, the issues that matter are the ones which are changing the dynamics of the student body today”.

However, he acknowledged that there might be some problems with the new arrangement, terming it “cumbersome”. He stated, “This need to maintain a fluid approach to the difficulties of representing a diverse student body is emphasised in the JCR’s minutes, which state that “maybe in 10 years, we’ll have to change the reps again to redefine them for that generation”.

Interest within the college did not match the proposers’ enthusiasm, however, with one Merton student commenting, “As a fourth year who’s never been particularly interested in the JCR, I can honestly say I couldn’t care less about any motion discussed in that most tedious of bodies.”

With the exception of this Merton dissenter the move has met with almost unanimous praise with Charlotte Hendy, the OUSU Vice President for Welfare and Equal Opportunities, stating “I fully support the motion brought by Merton JCR regarding changes to membership of the Equality Sub-Committee. Increasing the range of student representation on committees directly affecting student experience is always welcome. This move particularly so, as by allowing students with direct and relevant experiences to represent those with differing needs may mean that we are nearer to acknowledging the true nature and extent of diversity among the Oxford student body.”

In a move that may prove controversial with its literature fan subscribers, The Sunday Times has decided not to continue its nearly ten-year sponsorship of the Oxford Literary Festival.

After disagreements with its sister paper The Times over the coverage of last year’s Festival, The Sunday Times has pulled both its financial backing and its name from this year’s Oxford Literary Festival. The Festival takes place every March and is known for attracting novelists, poets, journalists, and academics from all corners of the globe.

The Times and The Sunday Times appear to have reconciled by agreeing to co-sponsor the Cheltenham Literary Festival, but the Oxford Festival has been left high and dry without a major newspaper sponsor until further notice. Fortunately for the local and international literary communities, the Oxford Literary Festival still retains over forty sponsors, including major corporate backers like Amazon, the Folio Society, and the Ashmoleon.

“It’s disappointing that such a distinguished newspaper, with a track record for producing consistently high quality cultural coverage, would place corporate interests above long-term values in promoting access to the arts,” said Will Humphries, a postgraduate English student. “The people who will suffer from this decision are not only the paper’s loyal readers, but the writers and academics for whom this institution is a valuable forum for their work.”

An undergraduate English student and former Times intern added, “I’d say this is typical of the paper, but this is really pretty shit.”

Despite this setback, the Oxford Literary Festival is still set to go ahead between the 22nd and 30th of March next year. Speakers will include philosopher A.C. Grayling and Alex Rider author Anthony Horowitz.

In one of the biggest upsets in OUSU history, Louis J Trup has been elected as President. Trup, running under the campaign #LJTrup4ousu4change, won the election by a landslide. He amassed 1685 first preference votes, compared to Cahill’s 975, Bartram’s 725 and Akehurst’s 587.

On discovering his victory in the Brasenose bar, Trup shouted, “What the fuck just happened?” as he was thronged by a mass of shouting supporters. In a speech to the bar, Trup congratulated other students that had been elected to OUSU positions, before saying, “Thanks everyone, it’s been really fun and let’s go really hard in Bridge tonight.”

Speaking to Cherwell, Trup assured students that he would indeed be taking up the position, commenting, “I think the people have spoken and we’re gonna make a fucking big change. I didn’t run on an incompetency platform, I ran on a platform of we need to engage people. We’ve done that, and we will continue to do that.”

In the run up to the election, Trup had been dismissed by many as a “joke” candidate, owing to his manifesto written in crayon, and support of policies such as a monorail to LMH and St. Hugh’s, an elimination of fifth week to relegate fifth week blues to history, and an amalgamation of all societies into one named ‘SocSoc’.

However, Trup began to emerge as a viable candidate, particularly after an article written by him for the OxStu displayed more serious intentions. In the article, he wrote, “I have had an insight into the surreal, insular world of OUSU politics and elections and quite frankly, I don’t like it. I decided to run for two reasons: Primarily because it is funny. Simples. Secondly, because I was pissed off. And now I’m even more pissed off.”

Trup also ran a hugely successful online campaign, with his election Facebook page receiving by far the most likes of all the candidates. Shortly after the announcement of his victory was made, Trup commented on the Facebook page with the message, “Hey guys, thank you for your support over this election. The sabbatical team is strong and I’m glad that the students of Oxford have had their voices heard. I will be writing something more substantial later on, but for now, have a good night and thanks again. See you all in Bridge!” The message had received 135 ‘likes’ within an hour.
Videos posted online by Trup also attracted a number of views. One showed Trup dancing to the 1996 hit “Three Lions”, draped in a Union Jack flag and being carted around the Oxford on a trolley.

In another, Trup re-enacted a scene from Braveheart as he addressed students outside the RadCam to the sound of a kilted piper.
In a flurry of Twitter action following the election result, Cherwell tweeted, “OUSU is set to have the second ‘J. T.’ President in recent history. LJT follows in the wake of DJT. Will he live up to the job?”, to which former OUSU President David J Townsend responded saying, “The way I see it, he’s already 2/3 of the way there without even starting yet. Loving his The Simpsons-style monorail!”

Although Trup’s popularity amongst Oxford students is apparent, his victory was received with a mixed response from the other candidates. Nathan Akehurst, who had run with the slate ‘Reclaim OUSU’, did not seem too disheartened by a defeat which saw him gain only 587 votes in his presidential campaign. He told Cherwell, “Louis Trup and I – I have spoken to him and I know he agrees with me on this – both of us stood not expecting to win but instead to make a point. It was a similar point about the OUSU bureaucracy, about the fact that OUSU is unpopular and the fact that it’s the second least popular student union in the country.

“The student union never changes, remains irrelevant because it refuses to confront the realities of the situation of the student population. As such, a victory for either Trup, as has now happened, or myself would have shown the same thing.”

Barnaby Raine, who ran on Akehurst’s slate and was elected as a student trustee with 291 votes, said, “Every vote for our slate was a vote for a transparent, accountable, democratic and most importantly of all a campaigning student union. I’m delighted that we won two out of five NUS delegates and I know they are going to fight for an NUS which actively fights the issues that matter to students. I’m also, of course, delighted that I was elected in order to fight as trustee to make sure that OUSU spends its money in ways the students will approve of.”

However, members of Team Alex were not so convivial. One Team Alex supporter described the election result as showing, “OUSU in crisis”, while th slate’s campaign manager Angus Hawkins said, “When asked if I was concerned about the ‘Trup Threat’ two weeks ago, I said, ‘no’. But now I realise that there will come a time when hobbits will shape the future of all.”
Alex Bartram, who achieved a total of 725 votes, went on to describe the feeling within his slate. He stated, “What an unbelievable election. I think the presidential elections sent out a pretty clear message about how students currently perceive OUSU elections, if not OUSU itself.

“It was a mixed result for Team Alex, but I’m over the moon that Chris Pike, our fantastic candidate for Welfare & Equal Ops won. Emily Silcock, Christina Töehnshoff, and Ed Nickell are other successes to highlight. We’ll see how things develop because everything’s a little unclear right now. Not least because of the whiskey.”

Pike, a Teddy Hall student who received 816 votes, narrowly beating Andrew Rogers of Jane4Change, seemed delighted with his victory. He said, “I’m absolutely over the moon that I’ve won. I was up against tough competition and I just can’t believe it happened! ”

David Bagg, head agent of Team Alex added that this had been an historic election. He was also keen to refute suggestions that it was the nastiest OUSU election in years, explaining, “Whilst it was a hard-fought campaign, the media stories about nastiness between slates are overblown. Although Helena [Dollimore, head agent for Jane4Change] and I have crossed swords a couple of times over complaints, she ran an excellent campaign and I wish her all the best.”

Of the Jane4Change slate, considered by many to have been the favourite throughout the campaign, four part time Executive Officers were elected, a student trustee and an NUS delegate. Of the five non presidential Sabbatical Offices, Jane4Change’s James Blythe was elected to Sabbatical Office, receiving 976 votes for the role of Vice President for Access and Academic Affairs, while Yasser Bhatti received 231 votes to become the Vice President for Graduates. The Jane4Change slate declined to comment.

Other noticeable election successes came from Anna Bradshaw, who ran for Vice President for Women and was elected to the post by 576 votes to the 260 of her rival, Trish Stephenson of Team Alex.

Lauren McKarus was asked to withdraw her candidacy when the realisation was made that visiting students are not currently eligible to vote in or run for positions in OUSU electoral campaigns.

It appears that McKarus was only allowed to run for the position of International Student Officer in the first place because Cooper did not realise that she was a visiting student. This is despite the fact that the process of submitting a nomination form involved McKarus presenting her Bod card, an enlarged copy of her Bod card and her manifesto to Cooper, all of which clearly stated that she was a visiting student.

McKarus explained, “All [the documents] were accepted by the Returning Officer, Nick Cooper. I was told by him that I was officially a candidate and in the running for International Student’s Officer.

“Since then, I have made copies of my manifesto and have distributed them around all of Oxford. I was also involved in the central hustings held at Corpus Christi on Wednesday 13 November (at which Nick Cooper was present) and told the Oxford students that I am a visiting student and presented my manifesto in the time allotted.”

However, upon noticing on Monday that she had not received a voter code, as had none of her visiting student friends, McKarus emailed Cooper to discover why. In return, she received a “very apologetic email” which stated that a far greater issue than voter codes was coming to light, and asked her to withdraw her candidacy.

As McKarus said in an email to Cherwell, “Not only are visiting students not allowed to vote (hence no codes) but we are also not allowed to run in OUSU elections. In his e-mail he [Cooper] admitted that it was an oversight on his part claiming that he didn’t even think to check if I was an actual student of Oxford because no visiting student has ever tried to run before. After being informed of this, I was asked to withdraw my candidacy.”

McKarus has since refused to do so, and her case will be discussed in a Junior Tribunal which will meet to decide her eligibility. She said, “I refused to withdraw my candidacy because I did not believe that I would be honouring the very reasons for which I ran if I backed down for not being considered a “real student” of Oxford and did not stand by my manifesto in that I want to represent ALL international students.

“The greater issue here is the lack of University wide representation of visiting students and hopefully this is only the beginning and will spark a change in the involvement and representation of visiting students at Oxford.”

Officers at visiting student programmes at Oxford have said that they were unaware that OUSU’s claim to represent “all Oxford students” did not extend to visiting students.

Nick Cooper told Cherwell, “We have, to our knowledge, never had a visiting student nominate themselves for election, and although it is indeed on Lauren’s Bod card, it is sometimes possible to miss things when you aren’t explicitly looking for them, which is what happened here.

“Our definition of ‘student’ comes from the university’s, and this excludes visiting students because they are not matriculated. I have a duty to make sure the election is properly conducted, and both called a meeting of Junior Tribunal and apologised to Lauren accordingly as soon as I became aware of this problem.

“Junior Tribunal will decide whether to remove Lauren from the ballot paper as this is beyond what I am permitted to do at this stage. This restriction will be made clear in next year’s Nominations Pack for candidates, as eligibility for running and voting is subject to the University’s definition of ‘student’.”

McKarus, who is originally from Sarah Lawrence College in New York, is studying Politics, Philosophy and Linguistics at Wadham College for this academic year. She decided to stand for the role of International Students Officer two weeks before the election nominees were announced.