Oxford University has been chosen to host the New Zealand triathlon team for next summer’s Olympic games. The team will be based at the the Iffley Road sports complex during the run-up to the competition.

Competitors for the event have not yet been selected, but sources at the Iffley Road centre confirmed that around six or seven athletes, together with a support crew of eight or nine, will use the Rosenblatt swimming pool and the Roger Bannister athletics track, as well as nearby cycling routes. Jon Roycroft, Director of Sport for the University, welcomed the news, telling Cherwell, “Having these athletes here will be very exciting for everyone and we are delighted that the New Zealand triathlon team have chosen to use our sporting facilities.”

Helen Hanstock, President of the Oxford University Sports Federation, agreed. She said, “This is certainly an exciting opportunity for the University to showcase our current facilities – in particular the high quality Rosenblatt Pool and historic Iffley Road track.

“I hope that by successfully hosting a team of elite Olympic athletes that we may raise the profile of Oxford University as a successful sporting institution with constantly improving provision for sport.”

The University is currently fundraising for a £40m redevelopment of the sports facilities at Iffley Road, and both Hanstock and Roycroft hoped that the presence of an Olympic team would help their efforts towards this. Roycroft said, “We are proud that Iffley Road caters for student athletes, staff and Oxford residents, and we hope that the interest surrounding the Olympics will help our fundraising efforts as we seek to expand our provision of space for indoor sports and improve the grandstand at Iffley Road.”

Lydia Levy, a third year student at Pembroke and member of the women’s first boat, commented, “It’s very exciting that an Olympic team would consider the sports centre a worthy place to train. Obviously it’s not the first time that great people have trained there, but it’s always good to raise the profile of sport in Oxford.”

However, not all Oxford’s sportsmen were equally enthusiastic. Felix Neate, Captain of Coxes at Corpus Christi College, asked whether the New Zealand rugby team would be coming. When informed that they would not, he remarked, “Unless it’s a proper sport like rowing or rugby, I’m not interested.”

Thousands of protesters marched through the streets of London on Wednesday in a demonstration against the government’s White Paper on higher education.

Reports suggest that around 100 protesters travelled from Oxford to take part in the march which attracted all sorts of groups from students and trade union members to anarchists.  

The demonstration, organised by the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts, saw protesters set off from Malet Street in London’s university district and march through central London carrying banners and placards with slogans such as “Scrap Tuition Fees” and “Free education” and chanting “No ifs, no buts, no education cuts!”
 
As the march went through Trafalgar Square a small group broke away and attempted to set up tents at the base of Nelson’s Column but were swiftly moved on by Police. The official route of the march ended at London Wall at around 4pm.  

In an attempt to avoid the violence and disorder of last year’s higher education protest the Metropolitan Police had 4,000 officers on duty and were authorised to use rubber bullets on crowds if necessary although this eventuality was not required on the day. Reports of the number of protesters taking part in the march vary from 2,000 to 15,000 but the general consensus from eyewitness accounts suggests that there were about as many protesters as police officers.

Tristan Honeybourne, a PPEist from Magdalen who describes himself as a Conservative, commented “I’m glad that the protest passed without violence and disorder, and proud of a police force that went out en masse to ensure there wasn’t violence like last time.”

However, he also questioned some of the aims and views of the protesters, saying, “People are too quick to forget that Labour are in favour of £6000 fees, and to campaign against change to university funding is to take a view held by a minority in parliament.”

He added, “I believe that in an ideal world we would not have tuition fees, but given the state of the public purse and problems with a graduate tax, high tuition fees are the only way forward. It is better to charge those who will one day be better off than their peers -fees are in effect a progressive tax.”

Police have announced that 24 arrests were made on the day – three arrests were for public order offences, one was for possession of an offensive weapon, three were for going equipped and 12 were breaches of the peace.

BBC correspondent Mike Sergeant called the demonstration, “the most tightly controlled march through London that I have ever seen.”

Despite the relative peace compared with previous events, there remained some hostile feeling towards police from some protesters. A protester from Oxford who wished to be referred to only as ‘Dave’ commented, “The police response was heavy-handed, violent and irresponsible.”

He described a localised incident of violence, “The police tried to provoke people to react violently, and some people had to act in self defence against police attacks but we all supported one another and prevented the police from causing a riot. There was an incident where people were moving forward and the police wouldn’t let people go through. I was kneed in the balls, pushed over and punched in the back of the head by police. But I was saved from further beatings by other people.”

Education Activist Network member and 1st year History and Politics student, Nathan Akehurst, also told Cherwell about the “heavy presence” of the Police, saying, “undercover police snatch squads attacked and grabbed people from the demo, and an arrest was made on board a coach with the only apparent reason being that the student had a felt-tip pen.”

Akehurst commented, “Overall it was a lively and vibrant march, if rather long! The link-up with workers’ struggles on the same day sent a clear message- for a range of groups of people, this government has gone far enough. This can only be the beginning of putting a stop to a White Paper that would otherwise drive a wrecking-ball through higher education.”

Oxford students were subjected to homophobic abuse as they made their way home from a night out last week, with evidence linking the attack to members of Lincoln College.

The four students were walking along Turl Street at around 2am Wednesday morning, when a group of five or six began shouting at them, asking where they had been for their evening. When they replied that they had been at Baby Love, the group referred to the bar as “Gay love”, with one shouting that the group were “faggots” to the amusement of his friends.

Two of the students on the receiving end of the abuse lodged complaints with the JCR at Lincoln the next day, with suspicions that the attack had come from members of the College. 

Matthew Isard, a third year psychologist at Somerville and one of the victims of the abuse, explained why he chose to take this action. He said, “As I turned round after the comment, they were going into accommodation that was close to the Mitre. I’ve heard that those rooms are for Lincoln students.”

He added, “None of them were wearing college hoodies or anything, but the college officials seemed to accept the evidence we reported.” A Lincoln student later confirmed that the door off Turl Street leads to accommodation for second year students.

In response to the complaint, the Senior Dean of Lincoln emailed the JCR to inform them that such incidents would not be tolerated. He wrote, “It has been brought to my attention that earlier this week, Lincoln College students directed homophobic abuse towards a student from another college. This is an issue that the College takes very seriously and this type of behaviour is totally unacceptable.”

Lincoln College later issued a statement saying that they treated such allegations of harassment seriously and respectfully, emphasising that they would respond to any formal complaint made “to ensure that it remains a safe, comfortable and happy environment for all staff, students and visitors.”

There is, however, no evidence that the college has identified the culprits. Isard commented, “Sadly I can’t give a description as it was dark and they were too far away from us.”

Other students at Lincoln have reacted with sympathy but have been unable to help with this process. Fresher Anna Leszkiewicz expressed her confusion, saying, “I was completely unaware anything had happened until I got the email from the Dean, there weren’t any rumours flying around. It just doesn’t fit in with the nature of our college. Obviously it’s really disconcerting and disappointing.” 

The Lincoln community has expressed its shock at the incident. LGBTQ representative for Lincoln, Lewis Wingfield, told Cherwell that “Lincoln is a tight-knit, supportive community”, adding that he had never encountered anything similar to the events last week.

Wingfield went on to defend the college’s LGBTQ record, saying “Just because some abusive comments were made by a few drunk students this does not by any stretch of the imagination indicate that Lincoln does not protect its LGBTQ community. Further, I fail to see how College could control drunken comments made by its members.” 

Patrick Reid, a Lincoln second year qualified Wingfield’s statement, saying, “Being drunk does not make it acceptable to verbally assault other students.” Leszkiewicz added, “In whatever light you look at it, abuse is abuse and it’s unacceptable.”

Isard spoke of his disappointment not just with the one particularly vocal individual but with the whole group, commenting, “There was only one guy who was an issue, but the others laughed and didn’t seem appalled so they are not much better.”

Katie Colliver, the current LGBTQ Officer for OUSU, added, “Homophobic or transphobic abuse is not acceptable in any circumstance,” continuing, “Unfortunately, abusive language is often excused as ‘banter’. It is important that the perpetrators recognise not only that their behaviour isn’t funny, but that it could be reported to the police.”

Homophobic abuse is frequently not reported, so Colliver could not give accurate figures for such abuse cases in Oxford. However Thames Valley Police’s Homophobia Awareness Liaison Team received 15 reports of such abuse in the first half of this year, showing that last week’s incident was not unique. Isard commented, “I have had abuse in Oxford, more than I’ve ever got in London, but it has always (previously) been from people in the town, never students.”

Oxford’s Labour Club (OULC) has denied disunity after members of its executive have pledged their support to different OUSU president candidates.  Traditionally OULC has supported one candidate in the OUSU elections but this year members of their executive are running on different slates.

 One of the club’s co-chairs, Nicola Sugden, emphasised that it has been “many years since OULC officially supported any OUSU candidate” or ran an “OULC slate”. She commented that “there hasn’t been any formal discussion in OULC about who to back” and so it shouldn’t be surprising that members of OULC are running on different slates.

 Whilst Colin Jackson, OULC co-chair, pointed out that the last time OULC officially backed an OUSU presidential candidate was in 2008. However an OULC member highlighted that the club has conventionally stood for one slate, for example in 2010 when Martha Mackenzie received their support in her, ultimately, successful campaign.

Of the OULC executive, 9 of 12 are running for various positions; the majority divided between OUSU presidential candidates Jacob Diggle, David Railton and David Townsend. Notably, ex-OULC co-chair Jack Evans and current treasurer Chris Gray are running for vice-president position on opposing slates.

Nicola Sugden was insistent in stating that “there are no tensions within OULC”. She stated that no candidates had sought endorsement from OULC, nor had there been any formal discussion on the matter. Furthermore she highlighted that OULC’s focus this term “is based around policy discussion on contentious national issues, and weekly campaigning in East Oxford” rather than the OUSU elections.

In response to suggestions of disunity, Colin Jackson remarked that despite the perception of OULC as a student political powerhouse, it is “a large, diverse student society committed to the Labour Party cause in Britain and beyond”.  He noted that “the composition of our exec reflects the club’s diversity of opinion” and thus the divided support in the OUSU elections.

Both OULC co-chairs billed running in the OUSU elections as wider involvement in university life that didn’t necessarily relate to the Labour Club. Sugden commented that “I am incredibly happy that almost all of my exec are also active in their JCRs, give much time to other clubs and societies, and engage with OUSU”. Jackson concurred, saying most important is that OULC members are “getting involved and  serving as active and responsible members of the student union” .

Both OULC co-chairs are themselves running; Sudgen for vice president on the ‘Sugden and Fox 4 OUSU’ slate and Jackson is running in support of  Jacob Diggle’s presidential campaign. The elections manifestos have been submitted and voting is due to take place between 8am and 6pm on Thursday of 6th week.

Jackson rejected suggestions that the high number of OULC executive running meant being split across different slates. The OULC leadership emphasised again, however, that no formal discussion had taken place on OUSU support as took place in the run-up to the Labour Party Leadership Election. 

A planned ‘flash mop’ in the Social Sciences Library on Tuesday lunchtime as part of the Living Wage Campaign was cancelled this week following objections by members. The plan had been to assemble in a flash mob, but with members holding mops and buckets in a gesture of solidarity towards scouts.

Oxford’s most expensive doorstop, paperweight and missile may be under threat. 

OUSU met on Wednesday evening to discuss whether action should be taken to stop producing paper copies of the University’s Examination Regulations, or the “Grey Book”, as it is also known.

A copy of the weighty University Examination Regulations is given to most new Oxford undergraduate or postgraduate students at the beginning of the academic year.

The volume, published by OUP, has over 1000 pages and a retail value of £45. Many students believe the mass production of these copies is a waste of paper and money especially considering that an online version has been available on the University’s administration website since 2006.

An amendment to the original motion, proposed by Stephanie Jones, was passed. As such, OUSU representatives will meet with the University Education Policy Support Section to discuss reducing the number of copies printed and policy regarding their currently wide distribution. Jones stressed that “internet access in college, University and non-academic buildings, and indeed in almost any location in Oxford, is ubiquitous” and as such, a paper copy of the regulations is redundant.

Also arguing for the motion, Rob Noble of Linacre College told Cherwell how he “knew of people who were using it to make origami swans on the day they got it. On the upside, there are people who have sold theirs on EBay for £10.”

Similarly, as the regulations are subject to constant revisions, hard copies of the Grey Book become out-dated very quickly, while the online version is constantly updated. 

The University’s Central Administration department said, “Steps are being taken to substantially reduce the print run with a view to making the online version the principal source of information”. However, Stephanie Jones pointed out that this message has remained on their website since 01^st December 2010, so “it is not easily discernible exactly what ‘steps’ have been taken to reduce the quantity of the Grey Book print run in the last year.”

OUSU voted to ensure that officials raise the issue with Senior Tutors, who are responsible for deciding whether the freshers in their college receive a copy or not. Indeed, a few colleges do not give each student a copy even now: Kellogg College’s policy is simply to keep 10 copies in their library. 

The book lists all coursework and examination requirements. However, it is often seen as being exhaustive. It covers everything from University policy for the coincidence of religious festivals and holidays with the days of exams to the ‘Special Regulations’ governing postgraduate diplomas in Integrated Immunology. A tiny fraction of it is relevant to each individual student.

While many students admit the advantages of knowing the rules and regulations surrounding exams can be important at various stages during a degree, the book is famed throughout the University for having more useful daily applications, simply because of its weight and thickness.

Second year Archaeology and Anthropology student John-Louis Loewenthal, who is running for Environment and Ethics representative in the St Hugh’s JCR elections next week, feels very strongly about the amount of waste caused in the annual distribution of these Regulations. He told Cherwell, “In the age of the Internet, students are likely to make the online version their first port of call anyway. They should be able to request a copy if they wish, but the process of ensuring every student has one is a waste of money and paper, which could be put to better use.” 

“While students might be inclined to consult the regulations before their finals, you’re looking at a three or four year period in which a lot of the rules could have changed and others might have become invalid. If the University is going to keep the Grey Book at all, they should offer an updated version to every student at the beginning of every year, and this would be up to four times as wasteful.”

However, it appears that not every student would be sorry to see the back of the Grey Book. Second year Tom Moynihan expressed concern at the rapid advance of modern technology, saying, “This is the most recent chapter of the Kindle revolution. This is the Ocado of literature. This is the Facebook of books. How long will it be until our own bodies have URLs?”

Celebrated nightclub The Regal on Cowley Road is set to close at the end of this year after its owners agreed to lease the building to a church group. The Christian Life Centre, who are set to take over, already have premises in the nearby vicinity but feel that they have ‘outgrown’ this.

Popular crew date venue, The Big Bang, is returning to Oxford two months after its closure on Jericho’s Walton Street. This time around however, the bangers and mash eaterie will reopen on Oxford Brookes University’s Headington campus in Gipsy Lane, a bus ride away from the city centre. It will exist as a pop-up, sharing the same space as Brookes’ existing restaurant. This is already open to the public from noon to 2pm, allowing the Big Bang to have the space from 5pm to 11pm on from Thursdays to Saturdays.

 The Big Bang was one of a number of independent businesses forced to move from its Walton Street location this summer. An inpromptu street party marked its last night in Jericho.

Owner Maxwell Mason commented that he has “no idea” whether the increased distances will mean he will lose his popularity with Oxford students. He commented, “The Big Bang has been a much loved brand; I therefore hope that students will make the effort.” In a dream scenario Oxford University students would still come up the hill for crew dates and get a discount. The restaurant is not based on a specified contract at the moment, and so is completely reliant on its popularity.

“The more people come, the longer we can stay open.”

Mason looked positively towards the new venture, speaking of a “symbiotic relationship” between his restaurant and that of Oxford Brookes. He suggested that the sharing of space will reduce costs and therefore help both parties, calling Brookes “forward thinking and team playing.”

Mason also sees this as an opportunity to foster relations between the two universities. At the moment he sees “a slightly guarded relationship between the two. If it weren’t for the Big Bang you wouldn’t imagine Oxford students going to Brookes to eat.”

The restaurant has been open in this location since last Thursday, with Mason admitting that the first night was quite difficult in terms of adjusting to the new dynamic. Saturday showed a marked improvement however, in that the characteristic ambiance of the Big Bang was returning.

He plans to petition the Oxford Bus Company and Oxford Brookes buses to provide free transport to the restaurant. If this is unsuccessful however, he is aware that the fare is only £1.

President of Brookes Student Union Paul Mason expressed his anticipation to the Cherwell, “I used to be a very happy customer of Big Bang in Jericho and like many others I was very upset that this culinary delight was closing. Now I am super excited that it is returning and it is even better that it is coming to Brookes. I believe the students of Brookes that may not have ventured to Jericho will be fans of the Big Bang very quickly and old customers like me will be fighting them for tables!”

Vice President Ivy Migue agreed, stating that “although personally I have not been to the restaurant … I am looking forward to trying it out sometime this week. A few people I spoke to last week were very excited that it was opening on campus. I think it will be popular along the students.”

Oxford students are less than thrilled however, with one ex-social secretary suggesting that a crew date is all about a night out, “The Big Bang is great, you know you’re in a good place when the owner sconces you. It becomes unfeasible if we have to take a bus in the middle of the night though.”

Changes to the graduate accommodation policy, which deny them the right to have guests staying in their rooms, was overwhelmingly condemned by the OUSU Council this week through a motion which challenged the policy as “not a workable solution to any problem”.

The new policy greatly limited the freedom of students to have either guests to stay overnight, or even to have someone in their room in the middle of the day. It states that all tenants must sign a lease agreeing ‘‘not to take in guests or invitees’’, meaning that no guests are allowed at any time of day ‘‘with no exceptions.’’

The OUSU motion, proposed by Rob Noble and seconded by Jim O’Connell, stated that the rule ‘‘has the potential to cause, and already has caused, unnecessary tension between student tenants and the Accommodation Office’’, and that it is ‘‘an overreaction’’ as well as being “largely unenforceable.”

The motion suggests removing the new ‘‘no guests, no exceptions’’ rule and implementing a trial Head Residents system within this graduate accommodation. This would involve a certain number of students being appointed head residents, and having responsibility for reinforcing the old rules. This scheme would, according to the motion, ‘‘save time and money for the Accommodation Office because head residents would deal with most minor complaints’ and ‘‘have proven capable of resolving most issues by communicating with the students involved.’’ It added that head residents ‘‘can also improve social cohesion between tenants and organize rotors for recycling and other shared duties.’’

This motion had already been overwhelmingly passed by the MCR ‘Prescom’, and it has been noted that this is a system which works well in other universities and colleges in the UK.

Although the motion was passed overwhelmingly, there was a degree of skepticism. Alex Mayall, a student at St Catz, said that, ‘‘I don’t feel like someone in the house should be my babysitter, and I shouldn’t have to police them like I’m their mother.’’

However the point was made that these students would have volunteered for the position of head resident, and would receive a subsidy on their room. The motion stated that any loss of income to the university as a result of this subsidy would ‘‘be more than compensated for by improved tenant satisfaction and reduced workload for the Accommodation Office.’’

The reactions from students university-wide seem to be almost entirely in agreement with OUSU. Ben Hudson, at Regents College, doubted the effectiveness of the policy at all, ‘‘what a strange policy – I really can’t see it being followed at all.’’ He mentioned that ‘‘we have good relationships with the college authorities (the Principal lives at the end of our quad) so as long as people act with respect, which they do as a rule in the absence of these rather adversarial decrees, there are no problems.’’

However, there were some reservations from students who’d had difficult experiences with their accommodation. One St Anne’s student said, ‘‘I agree that this probably isn’t an entirely realistic policy, but I do know of people who push the limits. One girl on my corridor had her 38 year old French boyfriend around for a week and, from the sound of things, it seemed like he’d brought the Eurostar with him. Even worse his toddler stayed with them. He’d wake up every night screaming until they lullabied him to sleep. The system definitely needs tightening; I don’t think I’ll ever be able to listen to frere Jacques in the same way again.’’

He added, ‘‘rumour has it that one student even managed to hide Bin Laden in his en-suite for two days – it wasn’t until he took a girl back to see his weapon of mass destruction that he got found out. If that doesn’t motivate the need for reform I don’t know what does.’’ Cherwell has been unable to verify this statement.

Rob Noble, who proposed the motion, described the Acommodations Office as, ‘‘unusual for the extent to which it doesn’t communicate with students’’ and said that people who live in this graduate accommodation often feel, ‘‘no sense of community’’. Jim O’Connell said of the change in accommodations policy, ‘‘It’s patronizing…Graduates are often people who need to have overnight guests, for many different reasons. The Accommodation Office will only agree to [get rid of this rule] if there is some mechanism for making sure that in future people having overnight guests do not abuse that privilege, and head residents is the way to do that.’’ It was also stressed at the meeting that this is a trial scheme, to take place ‘‘in at least one large building before the end of Hilary Term 2012.’’

Geoff Nelson, the Hertford MCR Welfare Officer, said that, ‘‘Students should be allowed to bring guests into College rooms. It is what Oxford is mainly about – the collegial atmosphere, which includes hosting friends in College rooms for chats, the odd party, or a personal encounter. In return for this liberty, students should accept a measure of responsibility for their guests and their rooms. An outright ban is both unenforceable and an over-reaction to a very common problem.’’