The news that Nick Clegg had to cancel his proposed visit to Oxford due to “an unfortunate clash of diary commitments” – according to a spokesman for the Deputy Prime Minister – has been met with strong reactions from many students.

He had been scheduled to speak at the Oxford Union on Wednesday 17 November. Clegg’s spokesman said that the decision to cancel had “reluctantly” been made a few weeks ago.

He is the second senior Liberal Democrat to have postponed a talk in Oxford in less than three weeks, after Business Secretary Vince Cable pulled out over security fears.

The Liberal Democrat leader is currently facing criticism for breaking his pre-election pledge to “vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament”.

Clegg’s postponement has been viewed by many students as a means to avoid the hostility he may have met in Oxford.

Oxford University Labour Club President, Stephen Bush, told Cherwell that he was “not convinced” that the postponement was enforced by a timetabling clash.

“This proves that not only is Clegg’s tie yellow, his belly is too,” he said. Bush alleged that the postponement represented “just yet another falsehood from Nick Clegg”.

However Robin McGhee, Secretary of the Oxford University Liberal Democrats, refuted this particular attack on Clegg. “We don’t really know what happened,” he said. “He probably didn’t make the decision. Really. He probably didn’t even know what his diary was for this week.”

McGhee believes Clegg is locked in a “slavish bromance with David ‘ma bitch’ Cameron”, an iron embrace which is also illuminating. “The mankini of power constricts and reveals,” he noted.

According to the OULD Secretary, “To vote in favour [of tuition fees] is an act of monolithic stupidity, cowardice, and cack,” that Clegg “needs to justify to students in person”.

However, while it was a move that “should be attacked,” McGhee did not feel that an attempt by Oxford students “to beat [Clegg] into a jelly” by protesting would achieve anything in the face of the police presence that would accompany the Deputy Prime Minister.

Ben Lewy, a second year PPE student, echoed worries concerning the reception Clegg would face. “The best Clegg could expect…would be the kind of mob that scared away Vince Cable. The worst,” he predicted, “would be a fire extinguisher thrown from the Union balcony. I agree with Nick.”

Plans to protest, though, have gained renewed momentum since the talk was postponed. The Oxford Education Campaign, together with the anti-cuts group ‘Save our Services,’ plan to make their way, “with music and jest,” from the Union to the Lib Dem offices on the day intended for the talk.

“Cleggers…pulled out of his booking when we started protesting tuition fees and scared him shitless,” a Facebook event advertising the protest said.

“Bring a saggy yellow/orange jumper if you can as there will be training on how to morph yourself into a chicken for maximum piss-taking effect,” the organisers urged.

Some students consider this “piss-taking” unfair. Sam Stoll, a second year student at Balliol, expressed his sympathy for Clegg. “Why do people have to find hidden meanings in what’s happened?” he asked.
“Sometimes I say that I’m going to cotch in someone’s room at a certain time, but then, you know, I realise I’ve double booked, and I’m supposed to be cotching with some different homies elsewhere”.
Stoll was delighted to learn that one day Clegg might even be his “homie”, for, the Deputy Prime Minister, according to his spokesman, was “always very keen to engage with students and young people.”
In response to Clegg’s no-show, two Oxford campaign groups did a ‘chicken flashmob’ at the Liberal Democrat offices on Wednesday to protest against cuts to universities and other public services.
On the flashmob’s Facebook page, one student, Leo-Marcus Wan, wrote, “There is nothing as self-empowering as protesting through the medium of chicken suits.”

Another student, Kit Johnson, added, “Let’s show them what happens when they decide to feather their nests at our egg-spence.”
A statement from the Oxford Union expressed their regret that Clegg had “postponed his talk” and that they hoped to arrange an alternative date soon.

Cherwell can reveal that the University refuses to disclose which funds it has investments in despite releasing this information under the Freedom of Information Act in 2008.

When asked which funds Oxford University Endowment Management (OUEM) invests in by Cherwell on 12th October, the University’s response stated that disclosure would “breach the confidentiality provisions of a number of agreements” between OUEM and fund management companies “and would therefore be likely to prejudice their commercial interests.”

Information on University investments was previously obtained by Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) under the Freedom of Information Act in June 2008.

Their figures showed that the University invests over £6 million in UK and US arms companies, comprising about 1% of the University’s total investment.

Oxford University and its colleges collectively invest over £2 billion.
The decision made by the University to now consider the information “exempt from disclosure” has raised concerns over the lack of transparency in the investments which support the University’s teaching, research, and related activities, including bursaries.

“Staff, students and the wider public have a right to know where the University money is invested,” said CAAT representative Abi Haque.
“The information is commonly available at other universities and there should be no reason that transparency should be detrimental to Oxford University’s interests.”

Haque noted that other universities, such as SOAS, Bristol and Goldsmiths University of London have adopted “more transparent ethical investment policies.”

“It is difficult to imagine why Oxford University appears to be shrouding investment funds in secrecy unless funds have been invested in companies that could be considered dubious.”

William Liew, Deputy Finance Director for the Bristol University said, “We are open to give information out about our investments under the Freedom of Information; it’s public information and we have nothing to hide.”

Rachel Dedman, ex-president of Oxford RAG, said she felt “strongly” that Oxford University should adopt a more transparent policy on the issue of investment.

“All Oxford students are lifelong representatives of the university as alumni, and should therefore all have the right to know now how the university has invested its money, and have the opportunity to say if they do not agree.”

“Socially responsible investment should be a long-term goal for the University.”

Abi Haque noted that when CAAT issued FOI requests in October 2008, Oxford was “more challenging” than other universities to get the information from.

“It took a significantly longer amount of the time for them to reveal which funds they invested in. They appeared extremely cautious. I would say this was because they had invested in companies people don’t find particularly savoury.”

Oxford University Endowment Management is an investment office set up in 2007 to manage the University’s investment assets.

The University has said that although there is “a public interest in knowing how publicly funded bodies invest their money,” the money invested by OUEM are “not public funds and so the interest in knowing how these are invested is substantially weaker.”

“We believe that the weak public interest in disclosure is outweighed by… [our ability] to secure a good return on its investments.”

However Tim Davies, an Oriel graduate who now runs an independent research and consultancy organisation to promote social justice, thinks this justification is “misguided”.

Davies thinks that OUEM should be transparent about the source of its funds and investment profits because it is “investing on behalf of a public body”.

In February this year, the University’s Socially Responsible Investment Review Committee released documents saying that potentially providing arms to illegal regimes is not a “sufficiently compelling” reason to cease investment in weapons.

Yet Tim Davies commented, “the committee has failed to take into account University feeling”.

“This is the belief that arms investments, amongst others, are wholly incompatible with the progressive educational goals of a global leading University.”

The Oxford Socially Responsible Investment Campaign said that FOI requests made in 2006 show that University also invests in funds supporting “tobacco sales, manufacture of instruments of torture, and widespread environmental degradation.”

The Turl Bar at Lincoln is set to close after over 80 years of service, following a decision by the College to redevelop the site on Turl street for use as teaching and social space.

An application for planning permission was submitted last week. According to Lincoln college Bursar Tim Knowles, the site will be “extensively refurbished” and “sensitively restored” with the existing service yard being landscaped into a new courtyard.

The land the Turl Bar sits on has been owned by Lincoln college since 1467 but is currently leased to Whitbread, a hospitality company that also manages The Mitre on High Street.

A spokesman for Whitbread said that their decision not to renew the lease had been made “in conjunction with the college”. He explained that this decision came after Whitbread had decided that “this particular site no longer fits our long term strategy of running our own branded restaurants.”

A Lincoln press statement confirmed that, “The lease for the Turl Bar expired in 2005 and the tenant has not sought to renew it.”

However in the August 2010 edition of ‘Imprint’, the Lincoln news magazine, Professor Langford, the college Rector, wrote that the college had been “broadly planning for some years” to gain use of the Turl Bar’s facilities.

He alleged that the Turl Bar was “no longer a very salubrious place” and that “in evenings, especially on Fridays and Saturdays, (it) can give rise to noise, filth and sometimes criminality.”

Professor Langford called the Turl Bar a “disagreeably downfallen public house”, arguing that taking over the bar would make it “much more attractive” to the students living in college accommodation above The Mitre.

The decision to close the Turl has been met with discontent from some students. Chris Hayes, a second year PPE student at St John’s said that he spends “four or five evenings a week” drinking at the Turl, “either alone or with a friend. This decision will eviscerate my social life.”

However, some students at Lincoln are glad to see the Turl Bar close. Mike Price, a second year biochemist, said that the noise from the bar is “hugely disrupting”.

He said, “I live just above the Turl Bar, and to be honest, I don’t think it’s such a bad thing that it is closing.

“We get woken up every morning between six and seven when the first bottles are being thrown in the bin. The noise is literally ridiculous.”

When asked what she knew about the Turl’s closure, a Turl Bar barmaid said that there had been “an agreement dispute” before adding that “it’s an odd place but I like.”

The president of the lecturers’ union UCU, Alan Whitaker, has signed a letter supporting protesters who attacked the Conservative party HQ last week.

Following the protests on 10 November in London against government proposals to raise university tuition fees, fifty eight people are known to have been arrested, including at least one Oxford University student.

In the statement, signed by twenty four members of the UCU’s national executive, called for academics to “stand with those students who were arrested”.

This comes after a man was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder for throwing a fire extinguisher of the top of Millbank Tower in last week’s protests.

The action met with widespread condemnation from protesters inside Millbank, and shortly after the extinguisher was thrown, a chant went up of “Stop throwing shit!”

Frances Foley, a Philosophy and German student at Wadham, who had been inside Millbank, described how the action was “met with fury” from the crowd below, and how it prompted chanting “more deafening than any of the other slogans of the afternoon.” She said the moment was “shocking, but wholly unrepresentative of the tactics of the demonstrators”.

However, the statement signed by Whitaker, sub-titled “Great Start and No to Victimisations”, called for university staff to “rally behind all who were arrested for fighting to defend their education”.

This is at odds with the UCU’s official line, who had previously condemned the violence as “totally unacceptable”. When asked whether the union’s line had changed in light of its President’s support for the statement, the UCU press officer confirmed that it had not.

He stated that Whitaker had been “speaking in a personal capacity” and was “not endorsed by the union”.

He continued that the UCU “did not condone intimidation, violence, or damage of property.”

However, he did not believe that the conflict of views was an issue for the President. He said that “differences of opinion were not uncommon,” and that “we wouldn’t sack someone for their personal opinion, when the whole point [of UCU] was to fight to defend academics and free speech.”

Yet, the statement signed by the UCU president refused to side with those “who condemn the violence against windows and property but will not condemn or even name the long-term violence of cuts that will scar the lives of hundreds of thousands by denying them access to the education of their choice”.

Unions including the UCU have been criticised for their refusal to support the protesters. In a statement last week, lecturers at Goldsmiths distanced themselves from UCU, condemning “the divisive and, in our view, counter productive statements issued by the UCU and NUS leadership concerning the occupation of the Conservative Party HQ.”

The lecturers at Goldsmiths continued that “the real violence in this situation relates not to a smashed window but to the destructive impact of the cuts and privatisation that will follow if tuition fees are increased and if massive reductions in higher education funding are implemented.”

The government condemned the statement released by the Goldsmiths’ lecturers, saying “Praising violence over peaceful protest is frankly irresponsible.”

However, a feeling that the direct action of protesters at Millbank was justified has been echoed by students at the protest.

Foley argued that “what the Tories are planning for this country renders a few broken windows and a couple of rootless geraniums insignificant to the point of absurdity.”