Despite early worries about the lack of snow in Val Thorens, last week’s Varsity Ski Trip went ahead successfully. This year’s trip did not see a repeat of last year’s ‘Valley Rally’ which gained notoreity in the national press for the scandalous behaviour of students.

Students had expressed worries about the weather in the run up to the trip, as milder temperatures saw a distinct lack of snowfall in the week before departure. However, a last minute change in the weather meant that by the end of the week the snow depth had reached 130cm. Worcester College Varsity Trip Rep Matt Henshaw said that “as the coaches started arriving the whole resort was brown” but that despite being  “very fine cut … the snow situation ended up being awesome.”

There were still some issues with the weather with the heavy snowfall causing problems with visibility. Third year PPE student Oscar Hutchinson described the middle of the trip as “four days of whiteout”. Because of the bad snow conditions, some events, such as the Red Bull Homerun, were called off. Second year student, Matija Vlatkovic, who had wanted to compete in the crowded downhill race, described this as a “real shame”. 

However, weather trouble was unable to dampen enthusiasm for the social side of the trip. Oscar Hutchinson said that the weather conditions would have “mattered more if the focus had been on the skiing itself, but … there were lots of people around in VarCity and in the town so it wasn’t too bad.” Second year Univ student, Esme Hicks agreed, commenting, “Varsity is about both skiing and socialising so even with little snow, you’re bound to have fun.”

Students were treated to an entertainment line-up that included Ms. Dynamite, DJ Fresh, and Basement Jaxx, in addition to a Live Music Night, a Comedy Night, a Swap/Crewdate evening and a Silent Disco.

The Oxbridge trip also included several opportunities for the two universities to compete in sporting events. While the tabs triumphed in the main Varsity Ski Race the Cuppers competition was won by the team Trinity College, Oxford. Oriel fresher, Jamie Reid, who got the fastest Oxford time commented, ‘The races were a lot of fun. After falling in the first run I kissed goodbye to the overall individual cup, and frustratingly I got the quickest time on the second run.’ He added, ‘Next year and we’ll have them.’ 

Conspicuously absent from this year’s trip was the controversial “Valley Rally”. The challenge, which saw teams take part in “outrageous” tasks as they competed to win a free holiday, received bad publicity in the press last year.  Some students felt that this could have been part of the reason that this year’s Varsity Trip was without major scandal. An Off-The-Piste Rep who had assisted organising other university ski trips told one student that the Oxbridge trip was very sophisticated when compared to other universities from the UK, saying that “Oxbridge really is pretty boring.”

The Varsity Ski Trip had sold out in record time this year; with over 3000 Oxbridge students attending, it is the biggest student-run snowsports event in the world. 

Oxford University Press has decided to “immediately” reprint a controversial essay, after pressure from scholars and members of Oxford University.

OUP’s decision in 2008 to stop printing two books containing A.J. Ramanujan’s essay ‘300 Ramayanas’ coincided with certain groups in India looking into legal proceedings based on the claim that the essay was offensive to Hindu sentiments, with OUP India as one of the potential respondents. 

Members of the academic community in Oxford and abroad criticised OUP’s decision, with many claiming that it was detrimental to OUP’s reputation, and to Oxford University’s by extension. 

This had been reported on by Cherwell this term.

OUP claimed that its choice to stop printing the books was solely down to commercial factors, but this week changed their publishing decision, reprinting both books and a further book called Questioning Ramayanas, also on the topic. A spokesperson stated, “OUP has an important role to play in ensuring that the best scholarship is disseminated freely, and we hope the reprinting of these three important works will demonstrate our commitment in this regard.” The books will now be available in India and beyond.

Campaigners at Oxford University said they were “extremely glad that OUP recognised the importance of reprinting these books”.  The three organisers of an international petition to reprint the books issued a joint statement, stating “We whole-heartedly support this affirmation of OUP’s longstanding commitment to excellence in scholarship, to the broadest possible dissemination of knowledge, and to the right of scholars, writers, and artists to freedom of thought and expression everywhere.”

OUP also rejected allegations that they had “apologized” for publishing the essay and had not stood by their publishing decision. A letter sent in 2008 from OUP to the potential litigants apologized for offending the sentiments of Hindus, adding that OUP was not selling the book nor were there any plans to reissue it. OUP claims they have been “misinterpreted” and wish “to restate the fact that OUP does not and never has apologised for publishing any work by Ramanujan.”

The essay in question looks at different versions of the ‘Ramayana,’ a Sanskrit epic poem which is also a sacred Hindu text. One issue for the potential litigants in India was that one published version has the protagonists Rama and Sita as siblings, whereas they are husband and wife in Hindu tradition. The narrative is celebrated in the Hindu festival Diwali, and is part of Buddhist tradition.

The author of two of the books, A.J. Ramanujan was a distinguished historian who spent most of his career at the University of Chicago studying Indian culture and literature. He died in 1993. 

The Faculty of Theology will be re-titled “The Faculty of Theology and Religion” by October 2012, should the proposal be accepted by the Humanities Divisional Board and Council.

The name change is in part driven by the findings of the 2010 Review of Theology, which recommended that “the Faculty should consider changing its name to reflect more accurately its identity in the 21^st Century.”

Professor Sarah Foot, Chair of the Faculty Board, suggested that the change would make clear the breadth of study available in the modern Theology course whilst also appearing more attractive to potential students. She argued that the new name would attract applicants who wished to study religions other than Christianity and those interested in comparative study on the nature of religion, stressing, “Very few institutions now offer degrees in single-honours theology and we hope to compete better with programmes elsewhere by changing our name.”

This proposal comes alongside changes to the structure and nature of the course also being discussed. These include the suggestion that Prelims should happen in Trinity term rather than Hilary of first year and that there should be greater freedom in the Final Honours School. Currently students have to study four compulsory Christian-based papers for Finals but this could be relaxed to reflect the interests of future students.

Faculty members have welcomed the planned changes, in particular suggesting that a new name is necessary to reflect how the course had changed over recent years. Dr Timothy Bradshaw, a University Research Lecturer at Regent’s Park, argued that the alteration well reflects the current reality of the Faculty, stating, “Its world famous theology teaching and research has for years included philosophy, sociology, psychology ‘of religion’, plus ‘science and religion’, and non-Christian religions.”

This was also supported by Dr Bernard Green, of St Benet’s Hall, who argued, “The new name of the Faculty expresses more clearly its membership and research interests and what it offers as degrees at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels.”

However this positivity was not shared by several members of the undergraduate population. Sophie Giles, a first-year Theologian, stated, “I wouldn’t be as enticed to study ‘Theology and Religion’, probably because it reminds me of my R.S. classes at school where we learnt a few simplistic things about several religions.” Joshua Felberg, a second-year student of Theology and Oriental Studies, had the same concern, arguing, “Employers look at a degree in Religion as opposed to Theology negatively, considering one a classic academic pursuit [the latter] and the other something relative to a once a week GCSE half course.” He also expressed fears that the change could “damage the traditional nature of the University and the course.”

Answering these criticisms, Oxford can point towards statistics from Cambridge University. Despite offering a ‘Religious Studies’ programme, only 5.6% of students who graduated between 2007 and 2010 are still seeking employment. These figures left one second-year Theologian to comment, “It seems like you can get away with a crap name if the course retains the advantage of being linked to a top institution.”

Other students expressed anger that their views had not been taken on board regarding the change, especially since hostile reaction to the alteration had been registered as early as May of this year. Aidan Hampton, a first-year Theologian, stated, “I didn’t really feel part of the decision.” Another student claimed after reading the minutes of the Faculty meeting that “student opinion was ultimately seen as irrelevant” and that “those in charge of the department considered that they knew best.”

The decision was reached by the Faculty Board after a consultation period during Michaelmas this year and current students were informed of the plans in early December. The change, if it goes ahead, will only affect the title of the degree for students applying from 2013.  

Oxford University has revealed plans to drastically redevelop the existing science site in South Parks Road.

The move, set to increase the total spent on science buildings since December 2008 to over £1bn, will benefit students through improvements in lecture and teaching space. The current densely developed site surrounding the University Parks will be completely overhauled, with only the best of the current buildings being retained. The university has similarly promised to only commission leading architects, to ensure the proposals will “live up to the reputation of Oxford.”

Plans include eradicating car parking spaces and pedestrianizing the area, in a project which looks set to dwarf the transformation of the Radcliffe Infirmary site in size and cost. A university spokesperson emphasised that the new area would demonstrate Oxford “incorporating its sustainability strategy into the masterplan,” adding, “The redevelopment of the science area represents a huge transformation of the already world-leading research and teaching of science at Oxford University.”

He emphasised that the plans were necessary to maintain Oxford’s position at the forefront of scientific research, stating, “The new buildings will provide researchers with state-of-the-art facilities, allowing scientists to broaden the type and quality of their research and to continue [to] attract world class academics and talented students.”

Professor of Biomedical Engineering, Constantin-C. Coussios, welcomed the proposals, commenting, “The redevelopment of the science area as a site that encourages multidisciplinarity and communication between the basic sciences will undoubtedly enhance Oxford’s unique capabilities in translating basic research into clinical practice.” This is in contrast to the current situation, which he described as containing world class departments which have been “developed in a fragmented fashion” and are therefore ‘relatively isolated from each other.”

Science students also welcomed the redevelopment, with first-year Physicist Sam Thomas commenting, “Scientific research continually needs to adapt to meet new challenges and questions posed by experimental evidence. Continual investment is therefore the only way to keep our researchers at the forefront of scientific discovery.”

Phillip Oddie, a first-year Medic at Somerville, added, “We are living in difficult economic times. It is progress in Materials Science and engineering that will solve the energy crisis of the coming years and only investment in biosciences will fix the problem of our ageing population.” Oddie also welcomed the discrepancy between investment in science subjects and the arts, stating, “No matter what their cultural value, the arts don’t produce enough practical benefits. When was the last time that a thorough analysis of the metaphysical poets’ use of metaphor gave us a new treatment for prostate cancer?”

However, first-year French student Eleanor Halls expressed her disappointment concerning “the undeniable discrepancies in funding for science and funding for arts projects.” She claimed it was a “great shame” that arts subjects were “comparatively neglected,” adding, “£1bn is an incredible sum of money — I can only wish that a fraction of it was spent on the humanities.” This feeling was shared by second-year Classicist Emily Hinks, who added, “Whilst I fully appreciate the invaluable role of science in society, I am disappointed that a similar level of support is not given to arts subjects.”

However, such high spending was defended by the university, as a spokesperson explained, “The £1bn figure represents a number of individual buildings constructed over a large period of time, some of which have not been built yet. The money for buildings does not come out of government funding but from philanthropic donations and other sources of funding including University and departmental contributions. Building only starts on a project when funding is already in place.”

The plans come in addition to a £49m biochemistry building and a £28m earth sciences building recently constructed, and on the back of successful planning applications for a £165m chemistry department and a £34m physics building, for which construction is expected to begin next year.