The executive committee of the LMH JCR has been embroiled in controversy after allegations of electoral malpractice resulted in a comprehensive inquiry into last term’s Vice-Presidential election.

The report, compiled by a JCR Election Committee Tribunal (ECT), suggested that two members of the JCR exec, Lauren Petrie and Richard Russell, “be asked to resign and be barred from standing in any subsequent JCR elections.”

The ECT noted that Russell (Sports Rep) and Petrie (Internal Affairs Officer) had behaved in an “unconstitutional manner.” Specifically they had failed to remain neutral during elections for a new JCR Vice President.

The tribunal investigated a number of incidents. The first suggested Petrie had instructed Mark Wilkinson, the eventual winner, to withdraw his application. JCR member Graham Wallace had originally stood for VP unopposed but was RON-ed, allowing Wilkinson to enter the contest.

Wilkinson told the committee that on 14th November 2011 Petrie ‘requested that, if it came down to it, would I be happy to stand in front of the JCR and inform them that I did not want to stand for Vice President.’ The committee accepted the validity of this evidence as it was confirmed by a third party.

The report commented that such actions had “created an air of hostility and vindictiveness in the run up to hustings and the elections.”

The ECT also investigated claims that Russell posted a status on Facebook prior to the ballot, stating, “Whatever you do don’t vote Graham Wallace for VP.” Two of the committee’s three members  had seen this status, so were convinced of its accuracy. The committee concluded that such a public comment “was intended to have an impact on the election.” However they noted that they could not assess how people were actually influenced and this was something for the JCR to consider.

Richard Russell also made a formal complaint on 1st December ‘regarding Lauren Petrie’s conduct during Husts,’ citing her ‘questions and general attitude.’ The ECT accepted that certain questions asked by Petrie had expressed a bias and that her behaviour was inappropriate as it did not maintain the expected neutrality of the Exec. However the ECT noted the election’s overall result demonstrated that her actions had not significantly influenced the way people voted.

The committee’s conclusions stated, “The JCR Constitution clearly states that Exec members must remain impartial during the course of husts and elections.

“Not only were the actions of both Exec members unconstitutional, the ECT believes that both Lauren Petrie and Richard Russell damaged the JCR’s confidence in the Exec and brought the JCR into disrepute.”

Petrie’s resignation was announced in JCR President George Barnes’ email to students at the beginning of this term, before the ECT had begun their investigation.

Russell remains a member of the exec. It is unclear whether he will follow the committee’s recommendations. Both Russell and Petrie declined to comment.

Vice-President Mark Wilkinson is set to retain his position. In the JCR meeting a vote was held to decide whether the election should be re-run. An overwhelming majority voted in favour of keeping the result.

One LMH undergraduate commented, ‘Perhaps such an important decision should have been made through more official means than a show of hands.’ 

He added, ‘What’s most worrying is that the finding of the ECT seem to have been largely ignored.’

However, another student argued that Russell had nothing to answer for, stating, “Richard Russell is well placed to develop LMH sport, which is far more important than petty constitutional sensitivity.”

Thousands of pounds worth of items have been stolen from the Oxford Union buildings.

Richard Mitchell, aged 36, of Luther Street, Oxford, and Marrion Cobraretti, aged 38, of Toot Hill Butts, Oxford, were both charged with one count of burglary non-dwelling following the break-in at the Union. 

The items allegedly stolen last Friday include an Apple Mac laptop, a Samsung digital camera, a Canon SLR camera, a Canon camera lens and a Rode video microphone. 

A spokesperson for Thames Valley Police commented, “The items are not listed as being recovered, but that doesn’t mean they haven’t been – any details like that will come out in court.” 

In response to the break-in, Lauren Pringle, President of the Oxford Union, told Cherwell, “The Oxford Union is a high profile institution, and as such will always be a target for thieves. The introduction of the gate on St Michael’s St has greatly improved security, and extensive CCTV acts as a further deterrent, but nevertheless tactics such ‘tailgating’ remain a potential issue.” 

She also encouraged members to be “vigilant” and to “report any matters arousing suspicion to a member of staff.”

When asked to whom the stolen items belonged, and whether or not there were plans to increase security at the Union, Pringle stated, “The Oxford Union cannot comment on a matter currently in the hands of the police. The Oxford Union wishes to state only that it is satisfied that all aspects of its security policy were properly followed in this instance, and is pleased that, following full cooperation with the police, the CCTV footage obtained has led to two arrests.”

Caspar Bullock, a first year student at LMH, commented, “As encouraging as it is to hear of the improvements the Union is making to its security arrangements, if problems such as tailgating remain an issue, surely a turnstile, rather than a card-reading gate, would have been a better idea?”

A second year student stated, “It seems a shame that the new security measures in place at the entrance to the Union do not seem to be having the desired effect.”

Physics and philosophy student at University College, George King, added, “The cost of union membership is itself daylight robbery. With all that money you’d think they could keep the place secure.”

Mitchell was additionally charged in relation to a burglary at a house in St Bernards Road, Oxford, between 7th and 8th January, where war medals, mobile phones and alcohol were stolen.

The accused will both appear at Oxford Magistrates’ Court on 1 May. 

The University of Oxford has not been following the trend of increasing numbers of female professors employed in British universities, which rose by 4% last year.

The proportion of women holding the title of professor at Oxford stands at only 9.4% (correct as of 2010). Across the UK women still only make up 20% of those in senior positions.

A particular disparity is apparent in the number of women employed as professors of science. Only 3.6% of Mathematical, Physical and Life Sciences professorships were held by women, and only 7.3% of those for Medical Science. The proportion of female professors in the departments of Social Sciences and Humanities, though higher, at approximately 13%, is still well below the national average.

Women are better represented in other academic positions at Oxford, comprising, for example, over a quarter of the lecturers in the university.

Dr Mark Griffith, Senior Tutor at New College, rejected the notion of sexist bias at Oxford, highlighting the increasing commitment of the university to gender equality in the last forty years. He told Cherwell, “In my time Oxford has changed a very great deal. When I was an undergraduate at Wadham in the late 1970s only five Colleges were mixed and the preponderance of them entirely male.”

He added,  “It’s taking time for women to percolate upwards to become professors, who tend to be appointed later in their careers. I think now that a majority of the academics in some arts faculties are women. I don’t detect any bias here – and it would be oddly selective if there were”.

When questioned, students were equally sceptical about Oxford’s dearth of female academics. Classics student Josephine Rabinowitz commented, “As has recently been made common knowledge by that great purveyor of modern feminism, ‘Who run the world? Girls’. Beyoncé was on to something. I for one have seen no evidence to the contrary at Oxford.’

Dom Foord, a first-year at New College, said he was similarly unaware of any discrimination, estimating the number of female academics in his department to be about a third. He commented, “As a mathematician, it’s difficult to tell if there are more women or men. I spend far too much time looking at my shoes to notice”.

Applications to Oxford for study beginning in 2012 have remained similar to those for 2011, despite a drop of almost 8 per cent in university applications across the country.

According to data released in December, before the final deadline for most UK higher education institutions, the amount of UK students applying to university has fallen by 7.6%, with 23,228 fewer people applying.

OUSU President Martha McKenzie commented, “it is incredibly likely that the increase in tuition fees has contributed to this deterrent effect, however this is partly because applications spiked so significantly in 2010. The extreme pressure to apply before the new funding climate has eased.”

Applications to Oxbridge however, have remained relatively stable. A spokesperson for the University of Oxford said that they had not published the exact figures for the number of applicants they received this year, but that the number of applicants has stayed “roughly the same”.

When asked why Oxford has managed to retain its share of applications, a spokesperson told Cherwell “Oxford will continue to work tirelessly to maintain its excellence in research and teaching, and make sure it is a very attractive option to students around the world.

“We continue to receive around five applications from extremely bright students for every undergraduate place.”

Lincoln student, Nathan Akehurst, said, “applications have dropped as a direct result of the raised fees; the correlation is too great to assume otherwise.” He added that “Oxford’s retention rate is due to its perceived prestige; people still feel it is “value for money” to be here, whereas they would not necessarily be willing to pay £9k/pa for a university lower down the league tables.”

Second year Classics and English student Ben Hudson agreed, saying that “the prospect of paying nine thousand pounds a year for tuition, plus ever-increasing living costs and limited loans has, as predicted, put off the poorest students from applying after all, while the richer demographic who tend to apply to top-rank universities are unaffected.”

However, a spokesperson for the University of Oxford defended the university’s approach to the fee increase, saying “Oxford continues to work hard to ensure that all those with the potential to succeed apply – regardless of background,” adding that “Oxford has the most generous financial support for the lowest-income students of any university in the country.’

The Student Union at Wadham has voted to lobby college to abolish Meat-Free Mondays.

Since 2010 only vegetarian dinners have been available in the Wadham dining hall on Monday evenings. This week the SU voted by a slender majority of 44 to 39 to withdraw their support.

Wadhamite Tristan Dobson, who proposed the motion, explained to the SU that attempts to improve the standard of the college’s food had failed. He linked this to the high proportion of vegetarian meals in hall, emphasising that this was not just a “lad-attack” on Wadham.

Dobson further argued that the supposed environmental benefit of Meat-Free Mondays was misleading. He suggested that vegetables were often sourced from providers further afield than meat suppliers.

The motion also noted that other colleges, including Christ Church, New College and University College, had previously dropped similar policies.

However other students described the motion as “vague” and suggested that the environmental concern was merely a “smokescreen.” Several students pointed out that Meat-Free Mondays only affected one meal each week. One student added, “Those in support of the motion did not give any evidence or statistics in their arguments, and they did not seem to have a problem with that.” They described the motion as a “farce.”

Students supporting the motion asserted people’s rights to eat meat. One student objected, however, that meat was not a fundamental right as many universities do not even cater for their students.

There was also anger that the Wadham football team mailing list had been used to encourage non-regular SU members to attend the meeting. This email stated, “Lads: TODAY AT 4 PM, I’m afraid to say, the vegan rainbow cake-loving wankers are gonna be out in force!! We need EVERYONE to come to the meeting today, as if it doesn’t pass now we’re gonna [be] stuck playing find-the-cashew-nut in our shit veggie meals every Monday!”

One Wadham student responded, “It’s sad that Wadham’s reputation as a friendly college is being compromised. We’re known for being inclusive.” She interpreted the reference to “vegan rainbow cake-loving wankers” as a reference to one JCR member.

English student Barbara Speed stated, “The whole thing seems to have been blown out of proportion – it should be about what the majority of students want to eat, not a war between two groups of students.”

The Student Union Committee must now take the request to college staff, with whom the decision rests.