Jesus College has been gripped by a mania of pie-throwing following the announcement of the official start of ‘Pie Week’ by JCR Social Secretary Chris Smith. Suspense has been high since the appearance of an enigmatically-worded event on the termly Jesus College Social Calendar.

The ‘Pie Week’ rules were outlined by Smith in an email sent to the JCR. Participants have to sign a register before being allowed to purchase the pies from the ‘Official Pie Stand’. Pies can only be thrown at those, and by those, who sign the register.

Other rules stated, “If one suspects they are about to be Pie-d they must shout “PIE” at the supposed Pie-er. If the accusation is true and the accused be guilty and has a Pie in hand, the failed Pie-er must self pie to the face. On the second occasion with the same hypothetical Pie-ee and failed Pie-er, the self-pie can be to the crotch (at the Pie-ee’s discretion). Pie-ing is an ancient sport of stealth and this rule ensures only Pie’s (sic) of style are successful; punishing the weak (at pieing).”

The pies cost 50p and consist of tin-foil trays filled with whipped cream. All money raised goes to charity. Chris Smith stated in the email, “This does mean with each pie you launch you are slowly becoming a better person.”

The event has not been uncontroversial. Chris Smith commented, “We were quickly banned from pieing in hall after a student’s aerial pie coated much of a table.”

Emilia Carslaw, a second year Classicist, told Cherwell, “it’s been an ex-cream-ly pie-olent few days in Jesus, full of pie-rannical pie-racy. We have all been living in fear, terri-pie-d of the moment the next attack will occur.”

All money raised goes to the charity Schistosomiasis Control Iniative (SCI).

Jesus College has begun charging student groups for the use of its rooms. Both OUSU and Jesus JCR were asked to pay for access to the newly constructed Ship Street Lecture Theatre, despite it not having been booked by any other organisation.

Last week, it was discovered that Jesus JCR’s ‘Everyday Sexism’ talk with Laura Bates was oversubscribed, and a larger room was needed. After negotiation, the Ship Street Lecture Theatre was hired by the JCR at a discounted rate of £100. Similarly, the OUSU Hilary term council was requested to be held there, but College authorities quoted room rental at an undiscounted rate of £300, which OUSU declined to pay.

Jesus JCR President Tom Rogers said “Although college does give us access to most of the meeting rooms for free, it’s a shame that students are being effectively denied the use of one of the best parts of their college, and being charged large sums of money for seemingly very little reason.”

“At the end of the day, students are being treated like just another customer in the conference trade.” Rogers continued “It seems pointless to leave a great venue empty when students want to use it for worthwhile events that show off the best of Jesus College.”

OUSU Academic Affairs Officer David Messling, told Cherwell that “most colleges will allow OUSU Council, for instance, to be held for free, given that all their students are OUSU members.”

OUSU president-elect Tom Rutland commented “Colleges should be welcoming student engagement with groups like ‘Everyday Sexism’ and involvement in their Student Union, not charging them to host these events. When new facilities are built off the back of donations from alumni and sold as ‘great for students’ it’s disappointing that in some colleges, students rarely get a chance to use them.”

He continued “If the rooms aren’t being used for something else at the time, it seems extremely unfair to charge the student body to use them. Jesus College prides itself on its commitment to equality and diversity, so to charge the JCR for an equalities event’s move simply because it was so popular is pretty disappointing.”

Jesus College declined to comment.

OUSU Council stands divided after Oxford delegates at last month’s NUS conference came under attack on Wednesday. Three NUS delegates received criticism after they voted in support of motion 701 – to introduce gender-balancing quotas – which went directly against the result of an earlier OUSU straw poll.

The results of the vote, conducted on the 20th of March, were seventeen in favour, forty four against, and eleven abstentions. OUSU President David J. Townsend said, at the time, that the “motion was deliberately phrased so as to have a discussion rather than end in a formally binding vote”, whilst VP for Access & Academic Affairs David Messling stated that the straw poll was conducted so that “when delegates attend they will take this into consideration.”

Townsend told Cherwell, “Questions were asked of those delegates who had voted against the wishes of OUSU Council, which represents the views of the common room presidents and others who comprise it.”

One member of the OUSU executive described how the participants in the discussion “went on and repeatedly expressed that they were disappointed in them, whilst others said that they were angry.” Helena Dollimore, one of the under fire delegates, described their reception as “hostile”.

NUS delegates Tom Rutland, Aled Jones and Helena Dollimore were criticised by the council at Wednesday’s meeting. Rutland, who is President elect of OUSU, defended his decision to vote in support of motion 701 by stating that, “At the Council where this was discussed it was made clear by David Townsend, the current OUSU President, that a ‘discussion’ took place rather than a ‘formally binding vote’ because such a vote would ‘render our delegates incapable of listening and taking into account arguments made at the conference itself’”.

Despite the informality of the straw poll, OUSU VPs David Messling and Chris Gray were outspoken in their condemnation of the delegates. Messling told Cherwell that the debate arose from a belief that it is “important that when Oxford’s students make a decision, their representatives listen to them.” 
Messling stated that “it’s now apparent that some delegates did not weigh Common Rooms’ views as seriously as was generally expected.”

Jack Matthews – who was Head Agent for TeamWestbury in Michaelmas’ OUSU elections – said that the delegates ought to be “disappointed in themselves”, and that it was simply “one line of procedure, which the delegates themselves neglected to add to the motion, that prevented this being a binding mandate. The students of Oxford have been let down.”

Jones and Dollimore were also keen to defend their position on the subject. Jones, who, along with Dollimore, is co-chair elect of OULC, issued a statement to be read at OUSU council. Jones said that he understood that “this vote was not a binding one upon delegates and not one which mandated us to vote in a certain direction”, and that he had been “elected by the students of this university and it is they who I feel most accountable to, the autonomy of our NUS delegates is something that I see as extremely important, specifically on motions that delegates feel strongly about.” Dollimore’s statement concurred with Jones’s.

The protocol for binding delegates to the results of the straw poll came under fire. Queen’s JCR Pres Jane Cahill spoke at the meeting and told Cherwell, “If the person who brought the discussion about gender quotas wanted to bind the NUS delegates then they should have had the courage to table it as a vote.”

Questions have been raised over whether the response from members of council was proportionate to the alleged transgressions of the delegates. A member of the OUSU executive, who wished to remain anonymous, said, “It was clear that many in the room felt strongly about how they’d failed to represent Oxford students. The discussion went on for a while and the world ‘scandalous’ was used.”

Jane Cahill confirmed this atmosphere, saying that there was a degree of “hounding the NUS delegates for their mistake”, but conceded that it “was not the case that everyone at OUSU Council was out for them.”

Despite this, Dollimore was particularly critical of the atmosphere at Wednesday’s council meeting, saying that the “borderline aggressive reaction of some members of council isn’t productive for OUSU and doesn’t help its reputation. It could be argued that kind of environment is exactly what keeps women out of student politics in the first place.”

To prevent a similar occurrence in the future, Rutland has said that “for next year, so that there is no confusion, any motions taken to Council will be ‘mandate’ motions rather than discussion ones which should ensure clarity both for Council and NUS delegates.”

Townsend confirmed that he has “proposed that a set of guidelines should be drawn up on exactly when OUSU Council has and hasn’t formally bound Oxford’s delegates, and that is what I will submit to the next meeting of OUSU Council for their approval.”

Messling, reacting to this news, said, “It’s encouraging that Council has decided to clear this up for the future, so that Oxford’s delegates will always travel to NUS Conference to represent the opinions of thousands of Oxford students, and not just their own.”