Controversy has arisen over the result of the recent Equestrian Varsity Match, with the Oxford team accused of altering the points system in their favour.

The match, which is widely considered to be one of the most prestigious equestrian events of the year, took place on Thursday 8th March.

At the time, the Cambridge team were ruled to have beaten Oxford after scoring highly in the dressage and show jumping and left the competition with medals and in jubilant spirits.

However, on returning home, they were greeted with an email informing them that owing to a change in the scoring, they were no longer the victors, and that the Oxford team had actually won by a single point.

In equestrian competitions it is usual for the home team, which was Oxford on this occasion, to decide upon the weightings for the scores each of the events. However the change in result was so drastic that the Cambridge team appealed to the Oxford Sports Federation and requested that the event be reviewed.

After further consideration from the Federation, the win was instead awarded to the Cambridge team.

A statement from the Oxford Sport’s Federation explained that the confusion was “understandable” as “the Equestrian Varsity Match, along with most Equestrian events has a complicated scoring system, which has been amended several times in recent years.”

They further explained that “some confusion” existed with regards to the scoring system which “couldn’t be cleared up on the day” as the Cambridge team were forced to leave “very soon after the event.”

They added that a discussion then ensued between the two captains, and it was decided that “as announced at the match, Cambridge were the overall winners.” Both captains agreed to devise a “definitive written scoring system” to prevent similar confusion in future years.

Despite this, several Cambridge players expressed a degree of frustration regarding the event. The Cambridge team captain, Charlie Flammiger, told the Cambridge student paper, the Tab, that “we played by their rules, and won by their rules. Like any other sport they can’t be changed after the event”. Flammiger admitted that the problem had been resolved but commented that “it’s a shame that the competition was soured by the confusion.”

Several Cambridge students claim to be angered by the confusion. A first-year student commented, “Oxford’s behaviour is awful sportsmanship and very childish; they should stick to the original scoring method and accept that the light blues won.”

Another member of the riding team described Oxford’s actions as “outrageously poor sportsmanship” and congratulated the Cambridge team on winning despite the fact that “the odds were stacked against us”.

However, Jack Gallagher, a first-year studying French and Arabic at Oxford commented, “Let’s be clear – I don’t like horses and I don’t like Tabs. Both are quite frankly jumped up beasts of burden. However in this case there seems to have been genuine confusion by the Oxford side. Any dispute they had should have been settled at the time; claiming victory does smack of bad sportsmanship. But we mustn’t let the rivalry that makes varsity matches so exciting lead us into accusations of cheating”.

A Cambridge student has been suspended for seven terms following his role in the peaceful protests that took place during a speech by David Willetts in November 2011.

Owen Holland, studying for a DPhil in English, was charged with “recklessly or intentionally impeding free speech within the Precincts of the University”, because of his reading of a protest poem which disrupted the speech. The sentence was passed on Wednesday by the Cambridge University Court of Discipline and has provoked widespread outrage and subsequent action from students and dons alike.

A ‘Spartacus’ letter written to the University Advocate was signed by 60 dons and students, admitting to their role in the protest and demanding that they be punished accordingly. A number of petitions have also been penned, including one by the Cambridge University Students’ Union (CUSU) which has already garnered almost 2500 signatures.

On Friday afternoon a mass demonstration comprising 350 students, staff and lecturers took place outside the Cambridge Old Schools. During the protest, which passed without incident, a statement was read out on behalf of Holland in which he commented, “I have been humbled by the level of support I have received these past few days”.

He continued, “I can tell you that I plan to appeal the sentence before a higher court, and I have every [confidence] that the seven senior members of this University will heed your calls for the sentence to be overturned.”

The general reaction amongst students has been one of indignation regarding the “excessive” suspension, and worries about the effects that this could have upon the protest movement as a whole.

Cambridge student Dominic Morris labelled the ruling as “disgraceful, disproportionate and discriminatory”, commenting that “regardless of the politics, the two and a half year sentence can only be seen as designed to silence peaceful protest.” 

Freddy Powell, a fresher reading Politics, Psychology and Sociology at Robinson College, responded similarly, criticising the “absurdly disproportionate response”. He observed, “rarely in recent times has Cambridge been so illiberal in its response to protests, a recognised part of student and academic life.”

Julius Handler, a student at Churchill, agreed, commenting, “at Cambridge we are encouraged to think and to engage in discourse, and it is this kind of gesture that suppresses all that Cambridge embodies.”

Oxford students voiced similar concerns regarding the impact of the suspension upon peaceful protest. Nathan Akehurst, a student at Lincoln, linked the “grossly unfair” suspension with “wider attacks on the right to protest, including the banning of occupations at Birmingham University and the ongoing trial of peaceful protesters at Fortnum and Mason”.

Ben Hudson, a student at Regent’s Park agreed that “brash though it is, this tactic is the only way to make evident the opposition to the government’s ideological drivel”. Notably, students uninvolved with and even opposed to protest movements have reacted similarly, with Samuel Lin, a member of Oxford Conservative Assocation, branding the suspension “excessive”.

A statement issued by the University of Cambridge following the ruling did not comment explicitly upon the sentence, but simply reasserted the right of the Court to make decisions as defined by statue law.

Some Cambridge students, however, supported the suspension. One History fresher at Murray Edwards commented that although the ruling seemed “harsh”, “a strong message did need to be sent out to the protestors, as they were expecting a fine which would have had little effect”.

A CUCA member, who also wished to remain anonymous, went further still, stating, “I totally believe that Holland got his just desert. Unrest is never the answer.”

Oxford Thinking, the fundraising campaign for the University of Oxford, has passed its initial target of £1.25 billion and now stands at almost £1.3 billion.

Launched only in May 2004, this marks the shortest time ever taken by a European university to reach such a target.

36% of the total came from alumni of the University, with 16% of all alumni contributing last year, the highest of any university in the UK. Oxford’s Vice-Chancellor, Professor Andrew Hamilton, commented, “We are enormously grateful to all those who have supported the campaign and who are helping us to secure Oxford’s place as a world-class university for generations to come.”

5.4% of the money raised has been donated by corporations, providing support for academic posts such as the KPMG Professor of Taxation Law and the Lovells Professor of Law and Finance. This has had mixed responses from students: some reacted positively, with a first year linguist commenting, “I approve of positions in the University being supported by big corporations. If it’s a means to an end, I think it’s a good thing.”

Others, however, were more sceptical: first-year classicist Jasmine Krishnamurthy-Spencer said that she doubted whether the donations really were “no-strings-attached money”.

A University spokesperson commented, “Corporate funders providing philanthropic support are treated the same way as any other donation. Donors who choose to support academic posts do not determine the direction or academic content of a chair — this is left to the University.”

23% of the money came as donations from those with no previous affiliation to the University, including major gifts from Russian-born US businessman Leonard Blavatnik and Mica Ertegun, the widow of Atlantic Records founder Ahmet Ertegun.

The University’s reliance on philanthropy has led some to question the sources of the money, but a University spokesperson commented, “All proposed donations over £100,000 are subject to formal scrutiny and review by the University’s Committee to Review Donations, whether from individuals or organisations.”

Results of the funding drive include the development of the UNIQ summer school programme and the provision of scholarships for graduate research, as well as the restoration of University buildings, notably the Ashmolean Museum and the Department of Earth Sciences.

Oxford has stressed that despite the increase in fees, the accompanying reduction in government funding will “to a large extent ‘cancel out’ the increased fee income” meaning that the university will still rely heavily on outside funding.

The Oxford system costs around £16,000 per student per year and “only around half the costs of that education have ever been met by the combination of fees and government funding.” The next stage of the campaign is said to have “a special focus on student support.”