Students across Oxford are taking part in the national project ‘Live Below The Line’ which aims to raise money for charity and raise awareness about poverty.

Those involved in the campaign have to spend only £1 a day on food and drink for five days, including any ingredients you already have at home or gifts given from friends or family. The scheme in Oxford is running between Monday 29th April and Friday 3rd May.

The campaign was started in 2009 by Rich Fleming from the Global Poverty
Project and Nick Allardice from the Oaktree Foundation in Australia when they decided to live on $1.25 for three weeks.

Oxford students from across the university have signed up to the campaign, with groups from Brasenose and Hertford taking part  together. Working in groups allows people to pool their money, exploiting economices of scale and therefore making it easier to buy more food.

By Tuesday the campaign had nationally raised £462,000, with three more days to go until the end of the project. Donations close at the beginning of July.

Brasenose’s team have raised £1,244 so far, and has eleven members. Some Oxford students have taken part as members of ‘Just Love’ a new
organisation run by Christian students which encourages other students to engage with issues of social justice.

Tomas Christmas, a member of Just Love told Cherwell, “There are over thirty of us doing Live Below the Line this week, for the purpose of solidarity with the poor and to raise money for those who need resources most.

“There are so many injustices in the world, so many people who suffer while we live in relative comfort, and we want to actively take whatever steps we can to stand with these people and raise awareness of their situations. This was fundamental to how Jesus lived, and we want it to become fundamental in our lives today.

“By day 2 the challenge is already becoming very tough – and tomorrow will be worse as the rest of my college will be having roast duckling with
rissolee potatoes for dinner! (I’m not even sure what they are but they’re probably better than the everyday value bread I’ve been having.)”

He continued, “On the plus side, I’ve raised a bit of money for Malaria No
More, an incredible charity who have been greatly reducing malaria deaths
in sub-Saharan Africa.” 

Charlotte Weller, a student taking part as a team from Brasenose college also commented, “The goal is one thousand, two hundred pounds as a team by Friday. I think this week will make me realise exactly how lucky I am. It’s already been a lot harder than I expected it would be, all I seem to think about it food and prices. Ideally, I’d also like to make it to Friday without passing out.”

Another participant, Ruth Meredith, stated, “So far, it’s been a bit grim, but obviously nothing on the scale of being in perpetual poverty. While we’re struggling to get through the day, we know that come Saturday, we can eat what we like. We don’t have to deal with the reality of being permenetly in poverty, knowing that next week I’ll be as hungry as
this week, and as hungry as I was last week.

She continued, “Hopefully, we’ll raise awareness, and funds, for some
of the causes like UNICEF and Positive Women trying to tackle some of the problems.”

Participant Alice Newton-Fenner said, “This week is offering a glimpse
of the massive difficulty that something as simple as eating can present
to those without the resources we take for granted. Despite being
coerced into it by a friend, I really am getting to understand the actual value for money.”

Other Oxford students have also been receptive to the idea. Rupert
Tottman, a student at Balliol College opined, “I think it’s a good idea, especially if it’s raising money for charity. Hopefully it will also make people
more aware about poverty and make people like Iain Duncan-Smith think
when they say it’s easy to live on benefits.”

Sarah Santhosham, OUSU Vice President (Charities & Community) said,
“It’s good to see students across colleges joining together in a challenging initiative to help combat extreme poverty. Such fundraising initiatives are great not only for raising money for some of the leading development charities, but also for raising awareness of the plight of over a billion people.”

Hertford JCR has criticised college authorities after they failed to offer the Reach Scholarship, which offers free education to students from developing countries. A JCR motion mandated JCR members to send emails to Senior Tutor Alan Bogg, Principal Will Hutton, and Tutor for Admissions Peter Bull, expressing “deep concern” regarding their decision.

The Reach Scholarship programme is a university-wide scheme which offers financial support to a number of students from low income countries who, for political or financial reasons, or because suitable educational facilities do not exist, cannot study for a degree in their own countries. The scholarship covers university fees, college fees, a grant for living expenses and one return air fare per year.

A short-listing panel meets every year to recommend six applicants to the colleges that accept Reach scholars. This can result in applicants being offered a place in one college, while being awarded a scholarship in another, and therefore having to change college before coming up.

Hertford JCR adds a sum of £3 per term to every student’s battles payments which funds half of one Reach scholarship for an undergraduate at Hertford. However, this year college authorities decided not to accept such a scholar.

A representative for Hertford College told Cherwell, “The college is wholly committed to the Reach scheme. There was a communication gap between us and the JCR in this the first year of its operation, but after talks with the JCR we believe it will not be repeated. More broadly we share the same commitment to outreach and widening access as the JCR.”

Hugh Baker, Hertford College’s JCR President proposed the motion. He said the decision “completely goes against Hertford’s strong tradition of access work, and effectively denies strong academic candidates the chance to study at Oxford.”

The JCR argued “that the college’s decision not to accept a Reach Scholar for the coming year flies in the face of our access program” and “that the JCR should have had far greater influence on the college’s decision given that 50% of the funds for the scholarship come from the JCR.”

An amendment was made to the initial motion, which read, “the JCR resolves to urge the JCR President to strongly consider bringing this story into the public eye.”

Following the motion, over 120 emails were sent to College expressing dissatisfaction with the decision.

The proponent and seconder of the motion subsequently met with the Principal, the Tutor for Admission, and the Senior Tutor to discuss the decision over the Reach Scholarship. Following this meeting, Baker emailed the JCR saying, “The act of migrating a scholar from another college to Hertford was fraught with complications, and individual subject tutors’ decisions realistically had to be made mainly on academic grounds once the short-list had been compiled.”

Baker continued, “It is clear that college are completely supportive of the Reach scheme and have been trying to do the best they can in an essentially flawed framework for awarding the scholarship. The response of the JCR…has made it very clear of the strong moral views of the JCR surrounding Hertford’s access work.”

OUSU and the JCR have resolved to work with college and the university to make changes to the scheme.

A new sculpture, on loan to Mansfield College from artist Antony Gormley, has divided opinion among students.

The artist has continued his association with Oxford with the loan of the statue to Mansfield college, and depicts a human body erupting upwards from the head of another. Like most of Gormley’s work, it is made from cast iron.

Many Mansfield students are unconvinced by the artwork. One Mansfield student told Cherwell, “The statue itself is quite interesting but it is right in the middle of the quad and looks quite out of place.”

Other students criticised the lack of discussion with the JCR. One undergraduate commented, “I think it is bad that the JCR was not consulted about it at all and everyone had to find out through rumours or a nasty surprise at the beginning of Trinity term.”

Another Mansfield student remained unconvinced, telling Cherwell, “No matter what the meaning behind it, it’s absolutely hideous…Also the penis appears to defy gravity.”

One JCR member told Cherwell, “It might not be so bad, but it jars with the old architecture.”

Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, Principal of Mansfield College, defended the display of the sculpture. She told Cherwell, “The Governing Body of Mansfield College were absolutely delighted that [Antony Gormley] chose to lend the piece to the college because as an artist he was interested in the history of the college, its ethos and the plans to create an Institute of Human Rights here.”

She added, “We have greatly enjoyed his active participation with us in the erection and display of the work. The nature of art is that it should provoke and challenge us to think and imagine. It should give rise to debate and active discourse on the nature of art and on our humanity. Anyone who knows Antony Gormley’s work knows that he is very attentive to space and location. The idea of our sense of place as human beings and the state of our world is central to his work. We feel delighted to provide a locus for such a brilliant piece.”

Several students have praised the statue. One student said, “Everyone has come up with strange theories for what it is supposed to be, including a torture chamber in which someone has fallen foul of an electrical iron maiden and a freak gymnastic incident that has gone wrong.”

Students have speculated about the opinion of the college cat, Erasmus.One student told Cherwell, “He did a poop in the base of the statue. I think it is clear what his opinion of it is.”

John Simpson, editor of the Oxford English Dictionary, has announced his resignation after thirty seven years of service, which he described as a “great honour”. The fellow of Kellogg College will be replaced by Michael Proffitt, the current Editorial Project Director.

Simpson announced last week that he will stand down in October 2013.

Simpson is only the seventh Chief Editor of the dictionary, the first of whom was James Murray, appointed in 1879, and has held his post since 1993. An expert in slang, he has overseen vast changes to the OED. Since his appointment, there have been over 60,000 new additions, consisting both of new words and updated meanings.

Born in Cheltenham in 1953, Simpson was educated at York University and the University of Reading. He joined the OED in 1976, and was Co-Editor of the 1989 Second Edition. He became chief editor in 1993.

In addition to his work for the OED, he is a member of the Philological Society and is a founding member of  the European Federation of National Institutions for Language.

Before his retirement, Simpson commissioned the first comprehensive review of the dictionary that will review each word in turn. This began in 2000 and is unlikely to be completed for another ten to fifteen years, with over seventy editors working on the text. Updates are published on the internet every quarter, with a selection of words reviewed each time.

New words that have made it into the dictionary recently include the American political term ‘supermajority’, ‘boccia’ from the Paralympic sport, ‘dance-off’, and ‘podium’ as a verb.

Answering what must be for him, an FAQ (first entry in the OED, 2001), Simpson does not profess to have a favourite word, instead telling Cherwell, “Just now we’ve been working on blue, credit, friend, game, and gang – along with all of their compounds and derivatives – so I’d probably have to say they are my ‘favourite’ words at the moment. There’ll be another batch next month, though”.

Another of Simpson’s achievements was to upload much of the OED online in the past few decades, which he describes as a “step-change” in how it works.

Simpson told Cherwell, “It’s an established presence on the Internet (and people in Britain can access this via their public library system). The OED has broadened its audience while still retaining its scholarly personality; it is now a flexible, dynamic record of our changing language. And I’m proud of all of this.”

Simpson continued, “Unlike other dictionaries which remove archaic and little used words, the OED keeps them all in its full form. This culmination of material means that a print edition now would fill over forty volumes, double that of the last print edition.”

He explained, “The OED doesn’t eject words once they’ve fallen out of use. The dictionary just gets bigger, with all the old words and the new ones combined.”