Oxford is failing to provide enough affordable housing, a study by the charity Shelter revealed this week.

The housing charity claims that Oxford city council is only meeting 12% of the demand for affordable new housing.

Shelter’s Housing League Table was published this week. It shows that Oxford is ranked 226 out of 323 English local authorities, and has a shortfall of 1,547 new homes per year.

Shelter told Cherwell that the effects of the student population on the lack of affordable housing in Oxford is something which they would like to know more about. They feel that this would be an issue for the council to investigate, as Shelter does not hold data on privately rented housing.

Evidence from studies in other cities shows that short-term rental contracts, such as those usually leased by students, can inflate market rent prices.

There are currently over 30,000 students from both Oxford and Brookes universities living in private accommodation in Oxford.

Finding reasonably priced accommodation is also an issue for students who live out. The average rent for students in Cowley is £70 per week, close to the national average, but accommodation in Jericho can cost as much as £110 per week.

St. Anne’s undergraduate Vanessa Carr said, “looking for a property close to your college is unnecessarily stressful. The deposits are large and some estate agents’ queuing processes are unfair.”

This January some students camped outside North Oxford Property Services for two nights in snow and rain because of worries over the increasing demand for housing in the area.

CORRECTION:It was previously stated in this article that Shelter would urge the council to investigate the impact of the transient student pupulation on availability of affordable housing for locals. This is in fact untrue, as Shelter has no evidence of any effect, and was thus unable to comment on the matter. Cherwell would like to apologise to Shelter and to its readers for any confusion this may have caused.

The Chancellor of Oxford University, Lord Patten, has called for the cap on tuition fees to be scrapped.

In a speech at the Independent Schools’ Council annual conference in London, Patten said the current limit was “preposterous”. Removing the current cap for British students’ fees (£3,225 per year) would, he said, help meet the cost of teaching students, and help to maintain the world-class status of universities such as Oxford.

Patten remarked, “Speaking entirely for myself…I would be prepared to cap the present funding of our teaching grant if we were able as a result to set whatever tuition fee we wanted, provided that we could demonstrate that we were still guaranteeing needs-blind access with generous bursaries.”

Patten noted that teaching an undergraduate at Oxford costs approximately £16,000, about half of which is currently met by publicly funded teaching grants and tuition fees.

International students’ fees are not subject to a cap. For example, a student from overseas reading humanities or social sciences will have to pay £12,200 per year for 2010-11, as well as college fees. For sciences, the cost of tuition rises to £14,000 per year.

Removing the cap on tuition fees for home undergraduates would create a system in the UK similar to that which exists in the USA. For the current academic year, Harvard is charging $33,696 in tuition fees. Princeton is charging $35,340 for the same period.

Student reaction to Patten’s proposals has been mixed. Olly Richards, a second-year History student, reacted angrily. “I think it is a preposterous idea. The university is continually lambasted for not accepting enough state school students and this is a move which will further alienate this potential student base.”

Ellie Taylor, a second-year Modern Languages student, disagrees. “We still pay very little relative to the actual cost of university education, and if it means that I receive the highest possible quality education, I would be prepared to pay more, provided those who genuinely could not afford the increase were protected.”

An Oxford University spokesperson was keen to emphasise that Lord Patten’s views were not shared by the University, commenting, “The Chancellor was speaking in his own personal capacity. The University does not yet have a settled position on the fees question.

“Our initial submission to the Browne Review made clear that the University is faced with significant underfunding of undergraduate teaching. We are clear, however, that the gap cannot be addressed by fees alone. We are also clear that whatever happens with fees, access must be regardless of finances. Any increase in fees would have to be matched by bursaries serving to protect the principle of needs blind access for all students.”

Jonny Medland, OUSU VP (Access & Academic Affairs) commented, “We’re used to Lord Patten calling for the cap to come off fees but his ideas remain dangerous and irresponsible. An open market between universities risks deterring students from applying to the best institutions and undermining decades of work which Oxford has put into expanding access to the university.

“The students of Oxford have voted in support of a progressive graduate contribution to higher education – this should be based on the ability of graduates to pay, rather than on the risk that they’re willing to take aged 18. Both Oxford’s local MPs agreed to our agenda on funding within 24 hours of the Browne Review being announced.”

The Chancellor’s speech came in the same week as higher education institutions were told by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce) of the extent of cuts to their budgets. Oxford’s income will be reduced in real terms by 1 per cent from 2010-11.

David Lammy, the Higher Education Minister, said, “These changes come after years of sustained investment. Higher education funding is up by 25% in real terms since 1997. Like everyone in the current financial climate, institutions have to do their fair share of belt-tightening.”

Dr Steve Goddard, a University lecturer and Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate for Oxford East, reacted critically, commenting, “These cuts are a serious setback. Hugely important research may be hit and teaching budgets cut.”

An Oxford Professor accused of donating money to Hamas is making his first visit to America since his visa was revoked.

On the 8th of April, Professor Tariq Ramadan will speak at the Cooper Union in New York City, on the subject of “Secularism, Islam and Democracy: Muslims in Europe and the West”. This will be his first visit to America since 2004 when he was barred from visiting the country under the Patriot Act.

Professor Ramadan was accused of donating $1,300 to a charity that funnelled money to Hamas, which is viewed as a terrorist organisation in the United States. At the time he was working at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana.

Following this accusation, Ramadan’s American visa was revoked by the Department of Homeland Security. He subsequently resigned from his post at Notre Dame.

The Professor maintained that he did not realise where or to whom the money was going and sued for the reinstatement of his visa. In July 2009, a Federal Appeals Court reversed the ruling against him. In January 2010, the restriction against Ramadan was lifted, so that he could reapply for a visa.

Professor Ramadan is currently the Professor of Contemporary Islamic Studies at the Oriental Institute at St Antony’s College, Oxford. He was employed by one of Oxford’s academic departments in 2005, one year after being was barred from the United States.

The University Press Office declined to comment on the issue, stating “It is a matter for Professor Ramadan.”

The Editor of Oxford Today has been told that his job is under review.

Some members of the magazine’s editorial board now claim that the move comes as part of a drive to force the publication to take a more ‘corporate’ line.

Oxford Today is a termly magazine published by the University.

Members of the Editorial Advisory Board discussed the possibility of resigning to express their anger that the decision to review Editor Greg Neale’s position was taken without their consent.

The magazine covers all aspects of the life at Oxford and its colleges, as well as historical features about the University and its alumni. It is distributed to around 150,000 alumni worldwide.

Several members of the Advisory Board have expressed the opinion that the review is part of a wider scheme that would force the magazine to take a more corporate line, and become a platform for the University.

Traditionally it is an independent “Prospect style” magazine.

Neale has said he would not allow the alumni magazine to become a “puppet of the University”.

One member of the Editorial Advisory Board, who wished to remain anonymous, told Cherwell, “The editorial independence of Oxford Today is now on the line.

“The very members of the Editorial Advisory Board charged with protecting [Oxford Today‘s] freedom and determining its content are being told to look the other way while faceless people on shadowy committees all determine a new publisher, a new editor and a new direction for the magazine.”

In an uncharacteristically heated meeting last Tuesday, the majority of the 14-strong Editorial Advisory Board expressed their anger at Jeremy Harris, the University’s Director of Public Affairs. Harris, along with the Oxford Today Strategic Board, took the decision to review Neale’s position as Editor.

At one point Harris, rejecting any idea of censorship, reportedly pounded the table with his fists.

A member of the Board told Cherwell that immediately following this meeting, many of the Editorial Advisory Board held “an informal discussion” where “they agreed to consider their positions”.

Oxford University’s Chancellor, Lord Patten, shares the Board’s concern for the editorial independence of Oxford Today. At the Open Forum for alumni in September 2008, he said that “the last thing we want is some sort of North Korea Times.”

However, the University denies that the decision to review the editorship is a question of journalistic independence.

In a letter sent to the Board on 25th January, Harris said that the decision to select a new editor was necessary because of a “contractual arrangement” whereby the editor was employed by the publishers.

The current publishers, Wiley-Blackwell, will not be renewing their contract when it expires in the summer.

A University spokesperson said, “a new publisher is currently being appointed and in due course they will participate, as in the past, in the selection process of the editor, with whom they will sign a new freelance contract.

“This will again be by an open and competitive process, in which the present editor is of course fully in a position to take part.”

Many observers question the procedural necessity of asking Neale to competitively reapply for his job. One Board member suggested that the University was using the circumstances over the new publishing contract as “an excuse to oust Greg.”

There is, however, no evidence behind this claim, which Harris and the University have denied.

A senior member of the Editorial Advisory Board said, “Greg Neale has been an excellent Editor of Oxford Today. Many of the members of the Board strongly support him staying on as Editor.”

Many individuals on the Editorial Advisory Board feel that it is their responsibility to appoint an Editor, and are puzzled as to why the decision to review Neale’s position as Editor has been made elsewhere. The decision was taken by the Oxford Today Strategic Board.

Mary Dejevsky, Chief Editorial Writer at The Independent and member of the Editorial Advisory Board, said that during the meeting she “probed the question of what the Editorial Board was for.”

In a large online readership survey last year, 92% of readers endorsed Neale’s performance as editor of Oxford Today.

The main complaint to emerge from the survey was that the magazine was not independent enough from the University. Ten percent of respondents urged Oxford Today to become “less formal” and more “controversial”.

Neale has been editor of Oxford Today since Michaelmas 2007. Neale will be Editor of next term’s magazine, however the future of his position as Editor remains uncertain.