Radical Oxford students were evacuated from the Radcliffe Camera by police this afternoon, after occupying the Lower Camera for over twenty four hours.

Protesters, who had met at Carfax at 1 pm on Wednesday, marched down High Street, before turning into Radcliffe Square. Here, demonstrators halted, before overpowering a thin police cordon and storming the entrance of the Rad Cam.

The students issued a statement online from within the building, saying, “We – students and residents of Oxford – are occupying the Radcliffe Camera because we oppose all public sector cuts. We stand in solidarity with those who are affected by the cuts and those who are resisting them.”

Police were not allowing demonstrators through the gate into the Rad Cam. However, after some students jumped over, many more followed suit, taking a sound system and food in with them, and locking the main door against the police.

One student received a serious head wound in the stampede, after she fell headfirst onto the cobbles, and had to be taken to hospital.
The take over was premeditated, and some students had been stationed within the library since the morning. As the marchers from the protest entered the building, large banners reading “Fight the Cuts” were unfurled from the upper floor of the building. An anonymous student with a megaphone announced “This is now a public library. We are making history here.”

A protestor told Cherwell, “When we got inside there was a group studying. It was announced that the lower section of the building was part of an occupation, and if people wanted to continue working undisturbed, they should move upstairs. Some decided to continue studying downstairs, but the majority moved up. Then we bought the sound system in, started dancing, and the carnival atmosphere really took hold.”

After the initial party died down, students announced the start of a consensus meeting to fix their demands to the University. The meeting continued during the course of the afternoon, as students discussed why they were there, what it was exactly they stood for and what their demands were.

There were also classes and talks, workshops and poetry readings, all on the topic of protests, which carried on throughout the evening. This “teach-in” was part of the Oxford Free University movement. “Let’s reclaim this space for the education we deserve,” said one speaker.
Library staff inside the building tolerated and in some cases helped the occupation. The senior member of staff present, said it was frustrating but not inappropriate.

“It’s a library,” the senior staff member said. “This is stopping students from studying, but I can completely understand why people feel so strongly about it. It’s a really important issue. There isn’t really any anger from the library staff”.

The librarians announced that they would be staying in the Lower Camera, even after the library closed. A student recalled, “The librarians said they were staying there out of love for the library. There was a healthy relationship between librarians and protesters; the librarians were included in our discussions.”

Earlier, a Police Inspector had asked to enter the library to begin negotiations with the protesters, but he was told to wait until the meeting had finished. Meanwhile the police circled the building, chained up the side exits, posted mounted officers in the square and began searching and filming everybody who came out on suspicion of theft.
During the afternoon, police guarding the gate called the situation “ludicrous” and said that the occupation “had ruined it for everybody.”

One student said, “We had grand, lavish feasts inside. There was more food than I’d ever seen. People from outside were passing it through the windows all afternoon.”

There was an attempt at a surge to get more people in just after 7 o’clock, but this was repulsed by the police. A more successful break in took place in the early hours of Thursday morning, at around 1.30am, when a group of students broke police lines and joined the occupation downstairs. Students within the building explained how “at 1.30am there was a big bang at the door and suddenly a group of twelve people burst in to join us. They must have taken the police by surprise.”

The workshops and meetings continued the following morning. A student described the atmosphere overnight. “Everyone was still in with the plan and no one was getting cold feet. Some had to leave to go to their jobs and tutorials. But those that could, stayed.”

On Thursday, occupiers connected via Skype to other universities such as Edinburgh and UCL, who were also occupying buildings in their universities. Staff disconnected the internet, but people connected via USB wireless sticks and phones.

A student said, “We gave Edinburgh a tour of the Rad Cam and we both talked about what each other were doing and plans for the future. Throughout the night and second day the police kept reading out legal statements informing us that our actions were illegal and we were accountable to trespassing. They tried to push documents through the door to make us read them, but we pushed them straight back.”

The occupation of the Lower Camera continued during Thursday, until the police broke in.

“I heard the stack door suddenly being smashed at around 4.30pm. The police started battering down the door and stormed in. We realised there was no point in resisting and so we retreated upstairs as a group.

“The Senior Proctor came in a read out a statement about having to leave. There was a struggle; the police wanted us to leave one by one so they could search us, because of reports of a laptop and books being stolen.

“A lot of people were complaining about bruising to their arms. The police were very strict.”

The occupiers, consisting of Oxford residents and students from Cherwell College as well as Oxford University, also received messages of solidarity from the NUT National Executive and the Oxford Anti-Cuts Alliance. Some academics also declared their full support, including Dr John Parrington, the Senior Tutor in Medicine at Worcester.

“I came to the occupation earlier tonight to deliver a message of support,” he wrote, “but the police were denying entry. I fully support your action against the disgusting attacks on education currently being attempted by the government…students should continue their protests until we beat back these government attacks, and lecturers and other workers should support these protests.”

The reaction from students was more mixed. Carla Neuss, a second year English Master’s student at St Peter’s College, said she was frustrated that her work had been disrupted by the protest.
“All I want to do is read Walter Shilton’s ‘Mixed Life on Devotional Literature’,” she said, “and all I’m reading right now is ‘F**K FEES.'”

The statement which the demonstrators released online stated, “We believe that education should be public and free for all. To this end we demand that the University of Oxford reiterate its opposition to education cuts and commit to not increasing fees for any courses. This library is now open to all members of the public and we invite you to join us.”

A spokesperson from the University Press Office said, “The University of Oxford supports freedom of expression and the right to peaceful protest. This naturally includes protest about government spending plans for higher education. However, this was an unlawful occupation and one that caused considerable inconvenience and disruption for students wishing to pursue their studies.”

Cherwell can reveal this week that out of Oxford’s science students Chemists are the hardest working, while Mathematicians not only have the lightest workload, but take the most time off from their academic studies.

Our subject comparison survey also shows that among the arts students, Historians spend the least time working for their degrees, especially when compared to English and Law students.

The survey also demonstrates for the first time the extent to which students skip lectures that are integral to their courses.

Arts students claim that they attend far fewer lectures than they are supposed to. Although 51 per cent claiming that they should attend more than five hours of lectures a week, only 19 per cent actually do.
Over one in four Historians attends no lectures at all, while only one in ten PPE students say the same thing.

What’s more, over 50 per cent of Historians claim that they write only a maximum of one essay per week. 50 per cent also say that they take two or more days off per week from their academic work, more than any other arts subject.

Second year historian, Nick Worsley, defended his subject. “It’s all about self-discipline. We may write less than other subjects but we work hard and consistently,” he said.

However, another second year historian from St Hugh’s said, “I would go into more depth about why historians seem to do so little but right now I have too much work.”

Historians were not the only students to confess to not attending lectures. Lawyers claim that on average they should attend five lectures a week, but one in five lawyers admits to never attending a single one. This can perhaps be explained by the heavy workload of a Law degree, indicated by the survey.

Lawyers spend the most amount of time confined to the library out of all the arts students, with 10 per cent of lawyers saying that they spend over 50 hours a week inside a library and almost half of all essays taking over 24 hours to read and write for.

This contrasts with the average Arts student for whom a normal essay takes 18 hours.

Law student Natasha Hausdorff from Lincoln College accepted that lawyers worked hard, but said, “I think the great thing about this university is that the workload is always challenging. I wouldn’t have it any other way.”

Yet over 50 per cent of Law and Classics students say they find their workload too high “all the time” or “quite often.” Only 19 per cent of historians said the same thing.

As far as speedily reeling off essays goes, PPE has the highest proportion of last-minute essay writers. One fifth of PPE students claim that on average they read for and write each of their essays in under 10 hours, with only 5 per cent saying that they spent more than 30 hours on each essay.

Contrary to this, 15 per cent of English students say they spend over 30 hours on each of their essays while over one in three never take a day off from academic work.

Despite dedicating a relatively large amount of time towards their degrees, 38 per cent of English students say that they always feel guilty for not working more.

This may explain why English students are the most likely to forgo drinking heavily of all the arts students. Despite claiming to socialise as much as any other subject, nearly 50 per cent of English students never drink more than eight units of alcohol.

The same percentage of History students say that they drink this amount on two, three or four nights a week.

Arts students are also more likely to smoke than scientists. PPE students spark-up the most, with one in five admitting to smoking, while less than one in ten English students smokes.

As might be expected, science students tend to spend less time than arts students working independently, but have a large proportion of their time taken up by lectures and labs.

Within the science subjects, Cherwell’s subject comparison survey showed that Chemists have the heaviest workload while Mathematicians tend to spend substantially less time working, giving them a lot more free-time to socialise.

Chemists not only attend more lectures than other science students, but spend more time working in labs every week.

The average time spent on a problem sheet for a Chemist and Physicist is 12 hours, while Mathematicians spend an average six hours per sheet. As many as one in five chemists spend an average of 18 hours or over on every problem sheet.

With less time taken up by work, Maths students are able to spend far more time socialising than any other science, or arts, student does. 94 per cent of maths students claim to spend 3 or more nights a week socialising, compared to an average of 70 per cent of all scientists.
Despite socialising more, Mathematicians drink the least units of alcohol per week. 41 per cent say they never drink more than 8 units, compared to a 30 per cent average for other scientists.

Mathematician Mark Brierly, second year at St Anne’s, said, “Just because we have time off, doesn’t mean we get drunk all the time. I get away with not going to many lectures because all the notes are online.”

In contrast, Chemists, who have more work, take significantly less time off from their studies, with almost half not taking a single day off from their academic studies.

Despite this, they claim to drink the most, as the majority of Chemists consume more than 8 units of alcohol at least twice a week.

The increased workload of Chemistry, Engineering and Physics could be a reason for the fact that students studying these subjects feel their work load is ‘too high’. This is represented by 52 per cent, 54 per cent, and 30 per cent of students respectively saying that they felt work was too high ‘all the time’ or ‘quite often’. By comparison, only 23per cent of Mathematicians felt the same way.

St Hugh’s JCR President, Liam O’Connor, a third year Chemist, agreed with Cherwell’s findings that Chemists are the hardest working scientists. He said, “I would say that the rigid structure of the course, consisting of approximately 12 hours of lectures per week, approximately 10 hours of labs and up to two problem sheets a week definitely can cause a person to be over-worked.”

“I don’t think there is enough time to fully understand what we are supposed to be learning. When exams came round I felt like I was learning aspects of topics for the first time and I understand this is the case for other scientists, notably engineers.”

The high pressure of a Chemistry degree may be to blame for the fact that Chemists smoke significantly more than the average science student. 15 per cent of Chemists smoke, while only 3per cent of Physicists do, with the average for scientists being 12 per cent.

When it comes to lectures, scientists are more likely to attend all of the lectures that they are supposed to. 95 per cent say they should attend 5 or more lectures per week, and 82 per cent say they actually do, which contrasts strongly with the turnout for arts lectures.

O’Connor continued, “In comparison to an arts student, whose lectures I understand are not quite so vital, they can often succeed without attending a single lecture in their undergraduate life. From experience with friends on art subjects, they tend to be able to plan their working day out according to their own needs. As a scientist however, labs and lectures prevent students from doing this.”

In total, 625 students responded to this survey. The “science subjects” grouping was comprised of Chemistry, Physics, Maths and Engineer students, as these subjects provided the largest sample and were the most “pure” science subject results within the survey. The “arts subjects” was comprised of English, PPE, Classics, History and Law students as these subject fulfilled the same criteria.

St. Hugh’s College JCR has passed a motion appointing a new, unelected ‘College Monarch’ and Upper House this week.
Students voted in favour of the monarch and peer system, which it hopes will put the JCR more in line with British politics, since “Parliament has achieved a lot more than our JCR.”

The new monarch will be officially required to make a speech at St. Hugh’s Christmas Formal Hall and attend the openings of new buildings and departments, together with “referring to themselves as “one” or “we” and developing an interesting wave”.

JCR funds will be used to purchase a crown and scissors for the use of the new King or Queen.

Further changes to the JCR system would see an unelected Upper House made up of organ scholars, wealthy members of College and Lord Alan Sugar.

The monarch was randomly selected using a statistical programme devised by College Maths undergraduates.

Alex Bolton, who proposed the motion, advised that the crown will now be passed on through the monarch’s closest college relations, provided that boys and older children have preference, and Catholics are disallowed.

He also said the throne could be seized by anyone who killed the current monarch, although literal murder was not necessary.
Bolton explained, “If you can pin something on them to get them rusticated that’s fine.”

Bolton said he hoped there would be a space in the Upper House for those who had done favours to the JCR Committee, defining these as “money, sexual favours, whatever the JCR wants”.

In a further nod to the British parliamentary system, the written constitution of the JCR will be split into a collection of different documents to be held as scrolls in the college library.

These changes come in a week of extensive new proposals from St. Hugh’s JCR. One motion suggested that a naked statue be erected of Charities Representative James Barnard as recognition of his work for the JCR.

Another proposed that the former JCR President Liam O’Connor and Vice President Cameron Dobbs go on an official date. The proposer, Jacqui Machin, said, “We’ve mandated them to do a lot of things, and now they need to do some man-dating themselves.”

The most radical motion, however, suggested that the JCR Committee be disbanded altogether and its funds put towards a large annual “lash party”. The motion did not pass.

The week’s changes drew mixed reactions from St. Hugh’s students. One first year said, “We’ve held our referendum and I voted in favour of the creation of a St. Hugh’s monarchy as I feel that the College would benefit from an unelected authority to temper the more boring democratic JCR elections.

“I’m hoping for a Hugh’s royal wedding next year to rival Kate and Wills’. I’ve already bought my hat.”

David Griffiths, a second year student at the college, said, “The new monarch is going to be a terrific addition to the life of St Hugh’s and I hope in this time of economic hardship we can treat their children and grandchildren to a needlessly expensive wedding and send them off to build bridges with the UAE. Long live the King. Or Queen.”

St. Hugh’s JCR hopes to implement the system of monarchy and peers by next term. Concerns that a monarch will breach equality rules in the JCR constitution have so far been overturned, but the motion has not universally been received favourably.

One third year student described the motion as “seriously fucking lame”.

Balliol students were shocked to find this week that the college was proposing the introduction of an additional annual levy of £500 for each student.

The so-called ‘Domus Charge’ will not affect any current students, but is likely to be introduced in October 2011, meaning that next year’s freshers could be charged, despite not knowing about the extra fee when they chose to apply to Balliol.

The need for extra funding of between £300 and £500 per student has been accounted for by the financial crisis, the decline in public funding for education, the College’s need for refurbishment and its inadequate endowment.

Members of the JCR received an email from the College Master, Andrew Graham, on Saturday, which read, “I care deeply about Balliol. I also know that we exist to support and educate you, not to take money from you.

“At the same time if Balliol is to remain one of the best educational institutions in the world, the funding has to come from somewhere.”
Graham pointed out that “measured by endowment per student we are 13th in the list and easily outstripped by colleges such as Trinity, Corpus and University, not to mention Magdalen, Merton, Christ Church and St John’s.

“Yet we hear on the grapevine that even some of these wealthier colleges are currently considering comparable extra charges.”
He stated that the charge would fund “the general resources of the College,” and that it will be payable by both undergraduates and graduates, regardless of whether they choose to live in or out of College.

Students fear that such a charge will put off sixth-formers from applying to Balliol in the future. Simon Wood, JCR Admissions Officer, said it would be “naive” to think that the charge would not be a deterrent to applicants.

“College choice is largely arbitrary anyway and £500 is a large disincentive that becomes even larger the less well off you are,” he remarked.

Gross agreed, noting that “in schools with a low university participation rate, there exists a perception that Oxford is more expensive than other universities and this puts people off applying.”

“This charge would mean that Balliol would be a more expensive place to study than elsewhere, which has to have an impact on access.”

The Dean has said that the College would financially assist anyone who struggled to pay the charge, emphasising that Balliol has “a pledge- that so far we have been able to keep- that anyone we admit we keep, so no one has to leave because of their financial situation.”
Current JCR Treasurer, Greig Larmont, claimed that “not nearly enough has been done before asking students for money.

“Balliol prizes itself on its egalitarianism, and introducing a regressive up-front Domus Charge will have vast implications on access.”

However, not all students oppose the Domus Charge. JCR President Alastair Travis noted that the Master’s proposals had received a “mixed response”, with some feeling that the charge is “an obvious conclusion” to Balliol’s financial difficulties.

First year Classicist and incoming JCR Secretary, David Bagg, maintained that the charge would not have put him off applying to Balliol.

He commented, “I do not believe that new applicants from any background will be significantly deterred, since Balliol’s provision of financial aid is one of the most generous throughout the University.”
Bagg agreed that “obviously no-one wants to pay more money” but said it seemed reasonable that “students should shoulder some of the problems that affect not only the fellows, but the College as a whole.”
First-year Chemistry student Sam Ellis agreed, saying that if students “want to be able to study at a quality college that maintains a competitive position within the University and worldwide. Maybe £300 isn’t such a large contribution.”

The contentious issue will be dealt with by the JCR in its Annual General Meeting on Sunday, where a course of action is to be chosen.
The JCR Treasurer made it clear that the student body will challenge the introduction of the fee. He said, “I think it is fair to say that this will be fought hard, and no avenue of possible argument against it will be left unturned.”

Messages to Cherwell this week reveal a current member of Standing Committee acting in violation of Union rules.

Anthony Boutall, a student at St. Edmund Hall, has been canvassing support for the Union elections online.

The soliciting of votes, as well as campaigning by email, is considered electoral malpractice in Union elections.

In a Facebook message sent on November 22, Boutall asked people to ‘get down to the Union on Friday and bring a few friends along to vote the right way’.

Boutall wrote ‘I am running in the Union election for the position of Secretary on Friday this week’, emphasising that ‘this is against the rules to inform you, so PLEASE don’t tell anyone I told you!’

Boutall, who organised the Union’s ‘Acceptable in the 80’s’ Disco’ last Saturday, promised that as Secretary he would be in charge of organising the Union Ball next term, which ‘will be just as fun as Saturday but with about 8 times the budget!’

In other text messages sent earlier this month, he urged recipients to vote against the motion for the creation of a Librarian-elect position, which passed by 228 votes to 14.

In an earlier text message sent on October 22, stating that he is ‘not really allowed to ask’, Boutall goes on to say that if ‘youd [sic] sign the petition against librarian-elect, id [sic] very much appreciate it’.
In another message, sent on November 2, before the second vote for the Librarian-elect position took place, Boutall urged Union members to vote against the ‘wasteful, dodgy motion being put to a poll in the union tonight’.

‘The side of righteousness would very much appreciate it,’ he wrote.
‘Saying that, please dont [sic] tell anyone that i [sic] texted you.’

When contacted for comment regarding the correspondence, Boutall told Cherwell ‘I don’t know what you’re talking about.’

‘The Union takes any allegations of electoral malpractice extremely seriously,’ said a Union spokesperson.

‘The Returning Officer will be investigating any such allegations after the poll closes and invites any member holding evidence of wrongdoing to present it to him directly.’

St Catz student Camilla Turner has won Reporter of the Year at Guardian Student Media awards 2010.

Turner, a second year History student, was awarded the prize by a panel of judges including Alan Rusbridger, Editor-in-Chief of Guardian News and Media, and Jon Snow, Presenter of Channel 4 News.

The judges said, “A unanimous verdict on far and away the best entrant….Camilla writes in measured yet authoritative tone. We have no doubt we’ll see her byline again.”

Georgia Lindsay, Editor of Cherwell, said, “I am super super proud of her.”

The awards were announced at a ceremony in London on Wednesday night. Past winners have included high profile writers such as Andrew Rawnsley, Jonathan Freedland and Emily Barr.

Turner said, “I am so surprised and happy; I really didn’t expect to win.”