177 Oxford academics have signed a motion “to communicate to the Government that the University of Oxford has no confidence in the policies of the Minister for Higher Education”. They join students in calling for the University to formally “express dissatisfaction” with government higher education policy.

The motion, submitted on Monday morning, will be debated in Congregation (Oxford’s ‘parliament of dons’ and the legislative body of the University) for amendments in 6th week and then 8th week for the resolution itself.

Colleges have been seeking mandates to lobby Congregation members to support the resolution, following the lead of Andrew Hood, New College JCR President, who called for the vote of no confidence in a speech to the Congregation last week.

Hood commented, “If the public see that the professionals concerned are not behind the Government’s plans they may be forced to reconsider”.

On Sunday evening, St John’s JCR unanimously passed a motion of “No Confidence in the Minister of Higher Education”.

David Messling, John’s JCR President said, “It’s really exciting that this resolution is coming from the academics, making it harder to pass off as just a student stunt.”

In an email sent out to St Catz students, JCR president Aidan Clifford asked students to “plead with your tutors to stand with us against this Government’s Higher Education policies, and get them to sign up!”

Bernard Sufrin, of the Oxford University Campaign for Higher Education (OUCHE!), which includes members of Congregation, commented, “It would be irresponsible of the sovereign body of Oxford – one of only two University sovereign bodies that can speak along the lines of this motion – to keep quiet about the very damaging consequences of the proposed changes to the HE funding arrangements.

“People who signed the motion have said that last week’s on-again, off-again policy initiatives decreased their – already meager – confidence in the HE policies of the Minister to vanishing point.

“When policy is made and then unmade within a day, there is a case for saying that those responsible for the policy-making are losing their grip. When this happens twice in three days, people can be forgiven for thinking that the grip has been lost completely”.

The level of support for the motion being put to Congregation has been described by OUCHE! members as “huge” and “unprecedented”, with the 177 signatures being collected in 3 days, 2 of which were at the weekend.

Those who met and discussed it were reportedly “unanimous about its wording”, “from a very wide range of academic disciplines” and “of all political persuasions”.

An OUSU press release stated that such a motion “is likely to be seen as following in the footsteps of the recent Nurses’ vote of no confidence in Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, which has dented the Government’s plans for a radical overhaul of the NHS”.

OUSU VP for Access and Academic Affairs, Alex Bulfin said, “I think for Oxford to step to the front of the debate on the future of higher education in this manner can only be a positive move. No matter your political stance, few can argue that the Government’s policy on higher education is not confused and contradictory, at best”.

Jack Andrews, a Mansfield first-year, commented that, “In the past I’ve always had to defend the Conservative’s actions to those around me”, yet the past “few weeks of terrible policy suggestions and embarrassing backtracking [show that] Willetts isn’t the right man (scapegoat or not) to lead Universities in the future”.

Co-chair of Oxford University Liberal Democrats, James King, placed much of the blame over “badly mishandled” universities policy on Mr Willetts, saying, “I don’t think that there are many Liberal Democrats who would be unhappy if he left the government. The fact that Oxford – one of the universities who might theoretically have gained most from reforms to funding – could well call for his head is frankly damning.”

However, King said, “We do not think that either this motion alone or other similar ones from other universities will affect the future of the Coalition, which the majority of Liberal Democrats continue to support.”

Lincoln Hill, Chair of Oxford University Labour Club, observed, “Even if such a motion were passed by other universities, only the Government’s public image, not their policy, would change.

“They are operating from Thatcher’s rulebook and have made up their minds to persevere through present unpopularity on all fronts until Mr. Osborne can hand out tax cuts”.

However, responses from various colleges show that the momentum behind the motion is not entirely widespread.

Students at Pembroke and St Hugh’s were not aware of the motion at all, while Balliol’s JCR president Stephen Dempsey told Cherwell that they were deliberately not canvassing opinion as the nature of topic is “very diversified” and so “do not feel comfortable in support or dissent”.

Nick Hyett, a second year PPEist at Christ Church, called the motion “a slightly extreme response”.

He added that there were, “some u-turns yes, but this surely is evidence that the government is listening and responding… [the] whole universities policy is not ridiculous – tutition fees are more or less fair”.

When Cherwell contacted Willetts a department spokesperson commented, “Under our policy, there are no upfront fees and graduates don’t make any repayments until they are in well-paid employment.

“There is a more generous maintenance package than now, as well as the National Scholarship Programme targeting prospective students from disadvantaged backgrounds.”

Oxford University has declined to comment at this stage.

An investigation by Cherwell has uncovered vast discrepancies between decanal punishments at different colleges.

Fines levied for offences in recent years range from an average of £62 per year at St Catz to a colossal £2,447 at St Edmund Hall.

The figures from the sample of colleges which replied to Cherwell’s Freedom of Information request suggest that cumulatively, undergraduate colleges across the University are likely to collect around £30,000 in fines over the current academic year.

By far the largest proportion of punishments relate to behavioural offences and setting off fire alarms.

University College’s records showed some particularly unexpected misdemeanours, such as a student who was punished in 2006 for having a bale of hay in their room.

The fine imposed was “£20 plus £58.07 for cleaning”. Elsewhere, a student received a warning for keeping “chickens in student accommodation”.

Fines for ICT misconduct are particularly steep, with Univ fining up to £200 a time for “the use of P2P software on the University network”, and charges related to file sharing accounting for 27% of the total amount raised in fines by Jesus since 2008.

Univ also gave out three warnings to different students for “improper comments” on the Facebook group, “Univ Incoming Class 2010”.

Illicit room parties also often result in a depleted bank balance or even an educational course. In February 2009, an “illegal party, excessive noise and smoking” resulted in one student from Univ being instructed to attend a “seminar with fire safety officer” and do “community service in the form of five sessions cleaning up the area around the recycling and rubbish bins outside the kitchen/works department.”

‘A student received a warning from the Dean for loud sex’

The student in question was told, “Specifically, you will next week report to the Hall Manager in time to obtain rubber gloves and aprons and begin cleaning at 8am. You will absolve this task for 5 days (Monday to Friday inclusive).”

Students looking forward to the tradition of “trashing” following exams this summer should also beware of severe penalties. Records showed that this can carry heavy fines, with some colleges regularly imposing £200 charges on students who flout the rules.

In an apparently unique case, one St Anne’s student reported receiving a warning from the Dean for “having really loud sex and trashing my room”.

Teddy Hall, the highest-grossing college of those surveyed admitted, “punishments are generally in the form of fines.”

The current Teddy Hall Dean, Professor Robert Whittaker, commented that, “The level of the figures may perhaps reflect inclusion of reparation costs alongside fines in the strict sense.”

He said, “Fines (in the broad sense, i.e. charges) go towards the costs incurred as a result of the action that resulted in the fine (e.g. replacing damaged fittings) and otherwise towards welfare.

“Welfare and disciplinary provision and issues are interrelated, and as Dean I am keen to reflect on issues that arise and to work with the JCR and MCR to find ways to avoid repetition of problems and to ensure a responsive welfare system within the college.”

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%3318%%[/mm-hide-text]

Graphics: Nick Taylor

Mary Kerr, Bursar of St. Hugh’s, which has been criticised in the past for its hefty financial penalties, told Cherwell, “We do not impose community service or other similar forms of punishment”.

At other colleges however, a policy of community service is popular. St Hilda’s said of their decanal system, “There is a community service element in place which is always preferable to monetary fines.”

Figures for St Catz show an average of 46 hours of community service a year given out as punishment since 2005. In a single year, 2005-06, 121 hours were doled out.

As a result, income from fines are low, although the Home Bursar notes that, “Administrative charges (connected with car-parking without permit, computer network misuse, damage to property) are not recorded, unless punitive.”

Offences at Catz include “misuse” of the car park, warranting 20 hours of community service, and “pranking another student”, which earned the culprit temporary exclusion from the bar.

Other incidents brought harsher consequences; in 2007, two students were caught “throwing eggs in residence” and, as repeat offenders, were given “10 hours community service, barred from Entz [and] denied privilege of choosing a room in the following year”.

Some students have said they would rather their college adopted a similar system of community service. One first year, who was fined for misbehaviour at another college and for mess, commented, “The financial punishments are unfair and extreme.’

‘I asked to do community service or another form of punishment but this wasn’t allowed. There was no other option than to pay the £100 fine each time.”

But some see fines as beneficial. Clifford Webb, Merton’s Finance Bursar, emphasised that money raised from student punishments was put to use. He said, “The College retains the income from fines that are imposed in respect to damage to College property.

“All other fines, including fines of a purely disciplinary nature, are made available to the undergraduate common room and may be paid to charities nominated by them.”

‘Illicit room parties and excessive noise often result in fines’

Elsewhere, the money goes towards bursary funds. Peter Mitchell, St. Hugh’s Dean, explained that, “All decanal fines at St Hugh’s are directed into the funds available to the College for student hardship cases.”

Despite this justification, one St Hugh’s student who was fined £150 for mess and £150 for an accidentally smashed window said, “I would have rather done community service than paid a fine, because £300 for me affected me more substantially than it would have done someone in a more stable financial position.’

‘My money went to a hardship fund but now I’m £300 out of pocket I’m suffering hardship.”

He added, “The college tries to make it seem like an official procedure, but it seemed to me that similar offences produce varying punishments.”

Similar confusion about what consequences to expect for a single offence is also evident at other colleges.

A spokesperson for Worcester said that decanal responses ranged from, “requests to send letters of apology, cost of repairing damage, fines, community service and requirement to improve academic standards”.

Few colleges said that they had a standardised system of punishments for specific misdemeanours, although some, such as Brasenose, make exact figures available. BNC’s Student Handbook details the penalties their students should expect should they break the rules. For example “kindling of naked flames” carries a fine of £100.

Even when outlined, college decanal systems are often inconsistent with one another. While Brasenose students can expect a £100 fine for climbing on college buildings, at Jesus in the academic year 2009-10, a student was left £150 poorer for the same offence.

Nick Seaford, a St John’s student, was fined £50 for tampering with a fire alarm, whereas St. Catz records a punishment of “1 hour community service, suspended, for removing battery from room’s fire-alarm”. In another incident, a St Anne’s student only received a £30 suspended fine for “setting off the fire alarm by cooking in my room”.

Seaford, a first year, said he thought it was “reasonable” for colleges to respond to incidents in different ways. He said, “I think it’s fair enough … it depends on the atmosphere and the ethos of the college”.

This is true of Mansfield, whose “progressive, informal environment” and “relatively small student body” makes punitive action a last resort. Dr Eleftheriadis, Mansfield’s Dean, said, “When things get very wrong, which is very rare, a fine will be the appropriate response.’

‘But I have found that our students are always reasonable. I have very rarely been called to intervene.”

He added, “There is no ‘community service’ or other ‘forced labour’ form of punishment, nor indeed any form of coercion. I try to resolve issues through discussion with the parties involved and by encouraging those involved to apologise or otherwise make up for their mistakes.”