The Oxford Conservative Association’s commitment to “change” has been called into question since their affiliation with the national Conservative Party at the beginning of term.

The affiliation supposedly drew a line under a racist scandal in Trinity. However, the move’s real constitutional status is unclear, and some members appear to be planning to restore the society’s independence in the near future. Furthermore their punishment by the proctors seems to have been undermined by their relationship with new Oxford conservative organisation The Bow Group.

It has been revealed that not all of OCA’s members were invited to the crucial meeting where the club decided to affiliate with Conservative Future, the youth branch of the Party.

OCA held an emergency meeting in -1st week following the racism scandal of Trinity term last year. The decision to join Conservative Future was passed by a standing order. The constitution states that emergency meetings may be called, but notice must be given to the full email list, which includes all of OCA’s members. Some OCA members claim they were not informed of the meeting.

One member said, “I was stunned when I found out that this affiliation motion had been brought to Council without informing the membership, thereby depriving us of our constitutional right to vote. Affiliation to the Party could turn out to be a positive move for the Association and it is bi

zarre that members were not even invited to vote on the issue. Calling Council in such a manner is in fact unconstitutional.

Returning Officer George Harnett confirmed the standing order had been “legally passed” and pointed out, “it can but is unlikely to be removed.” To overturn a standing order requires a two thirds majority at council, as is required with any other rule change.
Doubts over the change’s constitutionality will please members wishing to restore OCA to its former independent status.

At the time of the motion’s passing, Oli Harvey and Alexander Elias emphasised the significance of the unanimous support of those present. However, not all OCA members seem as committed as these exec members.

On a secret Facebook group called ‘OUCA – slate 2009’, Emmanuelle Efunbote wrote of his decision at the meeting, “I have indicated support for these changes for the time being, mainly because they provide us with a platform on which we can re-build our reputation, and to regain the independence which we have had historically, and so cherished”

On the group’s page, Aditya Balachander commented, “With affiliation I fear that we could become another OULC and lose the liberty that made us unique.”

Attention has also been drawn to the relationship between OCA and the recently established Oxford branch of the Bow Group, a think-tank associated with the Conservatives.

OCA was banned from the Freshers’ Fair this year following the incidents of last Trinity and the Bow Group displayed a copy of Cherwell with the headline “Tories back disgraced Oxford Conservatives” across which they had scrawled “not us”.

However, everyone who signed up to the Bow Group’s mailing list at Freshers’ Fair has since received emails promoting OCA’s events. Chair of the Bow Group, Oliver Lewis, insists the two organisations are separate however, and said the Bow Group was in “no way a face for OCA” at Freshers’ Fair, though he admitted he disagreed with the proctors’ banning OCA, saying it was “bad they didn’t have a chance to advertise.”

Lewis explained that the group was not established in response to the events at OCA last term saying, “It has been in the works since Easter this year to fill a gap in the market – the need for a forum which allows members to discuss Conservative philosophy and policy and to help members develop their own understanding of the issues that this country faces and to help develop (and advocate) their personal philosophy.”

Despite their apparent disassociation from OCA at Freshers’ Fair, Lewis told Cherwell that OCA and the Bow Group have a “brother” relationship.

Yet online speculation continues as to the true purpose of the Bow Group, such as one OCA member’s comment: “Is it true that there were a few gimps standing by a stall at the Freshers’ Fair with placards saying ‘We are conservatives with nothing to do with OUCA’? Subscript: (except losing in its elections).”

A spokesperson for the University said Oxford does not wish comment on the activities of OCA stating, “The behaviour of the OCA will be reviewed if or when they apply to be registered.”

Gender imbalance remains a concern for staff and students at Oxford. Women are still lagging behind men in key areas such as application success rates, finals results and representation in positions of responsibility.
Gender equality week is designed to bring the issues of gender imbalance to the fore, but what are the underlying causes and what are we doing to tackle them?

Women are underrepresented on JCR committees, where only nine out of thirty colleges have a female JCR president. Statistics also show that women fill a minority of roles on Oxford’s JCR committees. However, some colleges such as Corpus Christi and St John’s are reversing the trend by having more women than men on their JCR committees.

Preeti Dhillon, JCR President at Corpus Christi said, ” CR President is traditionally a male dominated position, and I think many capable women do not even think about running as they do not see it as an attainable post.”
It has also been questioned whether the atmosphere around events such as hustings can put off many candidates, not just women. Some JCR presidents have criticised the inherently masculine culture of many social and political events, suggesting their confrontational and competitive nature satisfies gender conventions of what male leadership should look like.

“From the finals gap, raw student numbers and leadership positions, Oxford is still very much a male-dominated institution”, says Jason Keen, St John’s JCR President.

Yet, despite widespread acknowledgement of the need for greater female participation, many JCR Presidents are reluctant to fly the feminist flag, citing an ignorance of its true definition as the reason. Feminism has become associated with images of bra-burning extremism, meaning many are unwilling to define themselves as feminists.

“Some see the word feminist as having negative connotations, which is a shame when considering that everyone should be interested in actively promoting gender equality”, said New College ex-JCR President, Matthew Ranger.

Evelyn Ashton-Griffiths of Christ Church said, “I would avoid calling myself a feminist as I don’t find the term particularly helpful. Personally, I often find feminism can be over-intellectualised and it therefore misses out those who need it most.”

JCRs are progressive in comparison to the University itself, where only 9.5% of Heads of Department or Professorships are taken up by women, half the national average of 18.7%. On the University Council, just five out of twenty-four members are women.

Fiona Caldicott, outgoing Pro-Vice Chancellor for Personnel and Equality, who heads up the Gender Equality Scheme Steering Group at Oxford University said, “We are committed to addressing the issues in areas where there isn’t gender equality.”

The task of the GES Steering Group is to ensure that the major issues surrounding gender inequality at Oxford are being tackled. Oxford University initiatives include Career Development Fellowships to encourage more women to apply for post-doctoral positions and Science outreach programs for girls in schools.

“At the very least, Gender Equality Week keeps talking about the issues and if we’re lucky by talking we’ll be changing some minds and attitudes as well”, according to Jesse Harber, St Hilda’s JCR President.

The disparity of emergency contraception provision across Oxford colleges has been scrutinised this wee

k as OUSU Council debated a motion on the topic.

The motion, proposed by the VP for Welfare, Dani Quinn and seconded by the VP for Women, Kat Wall, focuses on the inequality of sexual health and family planning services across Oxford colleges. They are seeking a minimum standard of sexual health provision and for CR Presidents and Welfare Officers to lobby their colleges for this minimum standard.

One specific inequality which is raised in the motion is the access to emergency contraception in different colleges. OUSU carried out a survey which has revealed that only twelve out of the twenty one colleges that have so far responded provide emergency contraception from the college nurse.

Dani Quinn stated that the motion had been prompted by Kat Wall’s election manifesto, where she had promised that she would “start a campaign to get a central sexual health clinic. Provision in Oxford is sparse and this is often deeply unhelpful to many students who require contraceptives, medical advice or support.” However, she has had to accept the political reality that the funding simply isn’t there for this. Instead, Wall and Quinn are seeking a “mandate to ensure high levels of provision, and to prevent there being a lottery for female students.” Quinn also focused on the welfare role that the college nurse can play, giving female students advice and monitoring those who repeatedly need emergency contraception.

The lack of college-based provision can be a problem for women as many have had negative experiences when attempting to purchase the morning after pill from shops in Oxford. Students have reported being quizzed in intimate detail in shops, with chemists “openly and publicly” asking who they were sleeping with and what contraception they were using. Two shops on Cornmarket were singled out for particular complaints.

Some colleges, such as Magdalen, will provide reimbursement if students have to buy emergency contraception on a Sunday, but the college nurse does not provide it. Laurence Mills, Magdalen JCR President, defended the college’s policy, stating, “Whilst I firmly believe that students should be able to get the morning after pill if necessary, and for free, asking the college nurse to provide this is not needed.” Mills said that the provision of emergency contraception from the college nurse was not an urgent issue in Magdalen because there had been no pressure from students to change the policy.

However, this view is not shared by the JCR Women’s Officer at Balliol, Signy Allen.

Balliol a different policy; the nurse will provide morning after pill but the JCR will not reimburse students for it. There is currently a move in the Balliol JCR to change this. Allen stated that she felt it was a priority because “members of Balliol JCR recognise that unwanted pregnancy concerns men as well as women, so while this is strictly speaking a question of women’s health, it’s clearly an important welfare issue for the entire JCR.”

Among the colleges that have a nurse who will provide emergency contraception was St Hilda’s. The JCR President, Jesse Harber, said, “We in the JCR are determined not just to provide whatever a student needs to guarantee their welfare – including emergency contraception – but to provide it nondirectionally, to let students make their own decisions about what they need and to support them with whatever they want to do.”

These views are echoed by Amelia Thompson, St John’s Women’s Welfare Officer, who says “The JCR have reimbursed for the morning after pill since I took over as women’s welfare officer at the beginning of Hilary.” She says that provision of emergency contraception was brought up when she was being elected and so she then introduced a motion at the JCR to allow students to be refunded if they had bought the morning after pill. The college nurse at St John’s will also provide the morning after pill on request.

Views among students suggest that many support the OUSU motion. First year English student Ashleigh Wheeler’s views reflected those of many female students when she stated that she felt the college should supply emergency contraception, and that the university as a whole should have a uniform policy. “College is a safe place to live, and that safety should extend to having a nurse that you can go to whenever you need her.”

Oxford is soon set to welcome two indigenous post-graduates as part of the new Charlie Perkins scholarship program, which will cover their tuition, living expenses and air travel.

Prospective applicants will apply to the University for admission and to the Charlie Perkins Trust separately for funding.

Perkins was the first Indigenous Australian to graduate from university in 1966 and spent his life promoting Aborigines’ interests. The Trust was founded in his memory to provide opportunities for talented Indigenous students to study at Oxford, as currently over 98% attend Australian tertiary institutions.

Jonny Medland, OUSU’s VP for Access and Academic Affairs commented, “The introduction of new scholarships is always welcome news. This is particularly true in this specific case – it’s very difficult for postgraduates to get funding to study at Oxford and especially so for international students.”

The programme will be launched in Oxford on the 9th of November at Rhodes House.

This week sees the long-awaited publication of The Historical Thesaurus of the Oxford English Dictionary by Oxford University Press.

The 3,952 page thesaurus has taken more than forty years to produce, has been staffed by 230 people who have dedicated 320, 000 hours of research and includes more than 800, 000 meanings and synonyms for words, some of which haven’t been used since 700AD.

Ironically, the word with the largest category is “immediately”.

Professor Quirk of UCL called the HTOED, “the single most significant tool ever devised for investigating semantic, social and intellectual history”… and will come handy if you wanted another word for deawwyrm, ædre or squinny and happened to have £275 to spare.

Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, two twins that sued the founder of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg, are part of Oxford’s squad for the 2010 Boat Race.

The twins, 28, are both members of Christ Church college and studying towards MBAs at Oxford’s Saïd Business School. This is a far cry from their performance at the 2008 Beijing Olympics, where they advanced all the way to the pairs’ final.

Sjoerd Hamburger, now president of the Blues, is very positive about the inclusion of the twins, asserting confidently that “they were not Olympic rowers for nothing.”

The boat race will take place on 3rd April 2010 and it will be aired on the BBC after a six-year absence.

The Oxford Union and the Oxford University Labour Club have come into conflict over a deal that would see OULC using University and Union-funded networks for political canvassing during the general election.

Ben Lyons, Chairman of the Labour Club, has asked to use Union Skype facilities for OULC’s upcoming telethon campaign as well as the rooms for the Policy Forums in exchange for hosting some of OULC’s events at the Union.

Many Union members expressed concern at this news. One second-year, who wished to remain anonymous said, “I paid a large amount of money to join the Union, and I am not a Labour supporter. I strongly object to my money being used to help the Labour party in any way.”

Lyons stated, “I don’t think it’s unfair, given the Union members would have been able to see speakers they would not have seen other

wise. I understand that non-Labour members could be uneasy with Labour events taking place at the Union, but I think more people are opposed to the continued presence of OCA.”

However, the deal has not been accepted by the Union. Many members of Standing Committee present at the meeting in 2nd Week expressed their feelings that OULC are not offering good enough terms. Although the proposal was rejected, the committee has mandated the president to keep liaising with OULC to try to work for a deal for now or the future.

In exchange for the use of the Skype facilities and rooms, OULC had offered to provide a cabinet member as a speaker for the no-confidence debate, to hold a Lib Dem vs. OULC debate at the Union,and to have an ex-Prime Minister of Denmark speak in the buildings. They also offered to buy drinks exclusively from the Union bar when using the rooms.

Many of those present at Standing Committee expressed strong views that this would not be a fair deal.
Corey Dixon, ex-President of the society, said that he objected to being offered “some random from Denmark who nobody wants to see”. Since this was discussed the event took place at Oriel College, and attracted a very low turnout.

Lyons, whose mother is Baroness Morgan of Huyton, a senior Labour Party politician, has already helped OULC to host Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell this term. He confirmed that James Dray approached him offering to co-host Peter Mandelson, but OULC declined his offer. Lyons claimed that this was because the society “wanted to be able to hold Peter Mandelson at his old college, allowing as many people as possible to see him but giving Labour people priority.”

In both cases the rooms used were not big enough to meet the demand, and many students were turned away or forced to watch from another room via a video link.
One fresher told Cherwell, “It was rubbish. We queued for over half an hour at St Catz to see Peter Mandelson, just to be shoved into the room next door and told we could only watch via video link. If I had wanted to watch him on TV, I could have stayed in my room. If the Union is big enough to fit everyone and they would have been happy to hold the event, I don’t see why it wasn’t held there.”

The Co-Chairs Elect of OULC have since apologised for the lack of space. Lyons added, “There is a long tradition of the Union offering OCA a room for their events and this continues despite their appalling behaviour at elections and Port and Policy.” OCA have free use of Union rooms for their Port and Policy meetings, on the understanding that they will co-host at least one of their speakers with the Union and that the event will be open to Union members as well as their own members.

A similar arrangement was in place with OULC last year but has failed to be agreed upon this term. Moreover, at the Standing Committee meeting the success of last year’s deal was called into question. Corey Dixon claimed that OULC “took us for a ride last term”. When asked to elaborate, he alleged that OULC had been offered Union rooms in exchange for the promise of hosting David Miliband, Tessa Jowell, and John Hutton at the Union. Of these three, only Hutton came to speak at the Union. David Miliband spoke in the Magdalen Auditorium.

Jamie Susskind, last term’s OULC Co-Chair, was keen to stress that this was not OULC’s fault. He said, “Tessa Jowell was due to speak but cancelled as she was too busy that week…Stephen Twigg, another one of our guests, also spoke at the Union.”

The Union’s relationship with OULC was the brainchild of Charlie Holt, President in Hilary last year. Tessa Jowell has been rescheduled to appear at the Union this term.

A house on Walton Well Road in North Oxford is being auctioned to raise funds for the Oxfordshire Animal Sanctuary.

The house was left to the charity six years ago, but legal complications means it can only now go on sale.

£90,000 has been raised towards the £100,000 needed to renovate the house before auction and it is hoped that it will attract around £350,000.

A long serving committee member of the Sanctuary said that it would give the charity a life-line of “twelve months”, but that it was still necessary for “people to support us by sponsoring an animal” in order to keep up with the £10,000 a month running costs.

The house goes on auction next month.

Recently published research from the University of Oxford will help in planning treatment regimes for diabetes.

Type 2 diabetes is a disease in which the patients become less able to regulate blood sugar levels as a result of insulin resistance. Poor regulation of blood sugar can result in many complications such as blindness and kidney failure.

The current treatment for the later stages is injections of supplemental insulin. However, the best time to take these injections was a source of controversy. A 3-year study by the Oxford Centre for Diabetes concluded that starting with a long lasting single injection in the morning, followed by subsequent mealtime injections (if needed) was the safest option.

“These results will help patients and healthcare professionals in routine clinical practice to decide which treatment is most suitable for the individual,” said Dr Andrew Farmer, an investigator from the Department of Primary Health Care.

An Oxford academic has criticised the leader of the British National Party (BNP) for misinterpreting his work on the origins of the British people.

Speaking on Question Time on BBC One last week, Nick Griffin claimed that Britain had an “indigenous” population – the English, the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh – who had been living in the country for the past 17,000 years.

Dr Stephen Oppenheimer, author of ‘The Origins of the British’, has claimed that Griffin has misrepresented scientific research in order to further his own agenda.

He said that the figure of 17,000 years was “obviously wrong” and in his view it would be more accurate to say that Britain has been continuously inhabited for up to 15,000 years. “17,000 years ago Britain was under ice – there was nobody here.”

Oppenheimer was also critical of Griffin’s use of the term “indigenous”. “He talks about ‘indigenous’ because he can’t talk about black or white.” He said that it was difficult to identify what ‘indigenous’ means in the context of the British population. “He’s missed the point of the genetics in terms of his perspective that he can determine who is indigenous British. All British people are immigrants.”

“As Bonnie Greer pointed out [on Question Time], the original Britons were Neanderthals. They were exterminated, then the Ice Age left a clean sheet. The modern population is essentially of north Iberian origin. So what’s British?”

Griffin, said Oppenheimer, had tried to frame the debate on his own terms. “You have to set a date line [before which the population can be called indigenous]. He’s drawn one to suit his own racial agenda. It is not a date chosen out of thin air. He’s making an artificial line.”

Asked whether he was concerned when doing research that people like Griffin would misinterpret or misrepresent it, Oppenheimer said, “It is a mistake to avoid asking a question in case someone misuses the answer. If you predicate your actions on the basis of what the BNP might say or do, you would be influenced by the BNP.”

Alice Brunton, a second-year linguist agreed. “We can’t go around censoring research due to possibly misplaced fear of future reactions by some crackpot racists!”

Hanns Koening, a PPEist, was of the same opinion. “I think scientifically sound research should always be published. Possible ambiguities should be made clear in the paper. If the academic thinks there’s a danger of the paper being misconstrued by journalists or populists, he can already write a response to that into the paper.”

The BBC’s decision to grant Griffin a platform on their flagship current affairs show was a controversial decision. During the filming of the programme, at least 500 people protested outside BBC Television Centre in London. There were also demonstrations outside the BBC’s studios in Oxford.

Oppenheimer criticised the BBC for not being totally honest about the reasons for selecting Griffin for the panel. “I don’t think the BBC had a valid reason for putting him on Question Time,” he said. “I think the BBC’s justification was disingenuous,” he continued, adding that he believed their decision to invite Griffin was based on potential viewing figures.

The programme was watched by an average of 7.9 million viewers. Mark Byford, deputy director general of the BBC, said, “This very large audience clearly demonstrates the public’s interest in seeing elected politicians being scrutinised by the public themselves.”