The press secretary of the newly appointed Archbishop of Westminster has apologised for verbally abusing a student during a meal at Blackfriars College.

The senior aide to Vincent Nichols, who was installed as Archbishop of Westminster yesterday, is alleged to have launched an unprovoked “foul-mouthed tirade” against Oxford student Matthew Tye after a dinner with Francis Campbell, British ambassador to the Vatican and former policy advisor to Tony Blair, at the Aquinas Institute at Blackfriars College, Oxford.

Mr. Campbell had delivered an open lecture on Faith and Foreign Policy before attending the dinner with other distinguished guests, to which Tye had been invited.

A masters student at Campion Hall, Tye claims that after “drinking heavily” at the dinner, a “plastered” Mr. Jennings – whom he had met once before while interning for a Catholic organisation at The Birmingham Oratory – launched into a verbal attack on him, repeatedly calling him a “sh*t”, concluding with “Nobody wants you, good riddance” as he made for the left the room.

“It was completely unprovoked… and quite unbelievable,” said Tye.

“There were guests who tried to calm him down but to no avail.”

He said that he was “in shock and dismay” at the incident, and he wrote to the Archbishop requesting an apology, in which he wrote, “I’ve never been subjected to such sustained verbal abuse in public in my entire life.”

The letter was leaked to the Mail on Sunday and the incident has subsequently been widely reported in the national press. On Monday the story featured on the front page of the online edition of Bugün Gazetesi, a major newspaper in Turkey, under the headline ‘Blasphemy scandal at Oxford’.

Although Mr. Jennings has issued an apology, Tye said that it was not sufficient, and was frustrated that neither Mr. Jennings – nor the Archbishop – had made any personal apology expressly to him.

“In his political apology, he made up the excuse that I’d brought up at dinner that he’d been sacked as spokesman of Birmingham Oratory,” he said.

“More than anything I’m appalled that someone in his position is lying and trying to spin his way out of trouble.

“His credibility is completely destroyed, and the political apology is a disgrace. I just want an honest and sincere apology, accepting what he did and apologising for the embarrassment caused to all the guests who were there,” he added.

He also remarked that he thought that Mr. Jennings would be “fired in a subtle way” once the storm had died down.

Mr. Jennings has referred to the scandal and subsequent press coverage as a “storm in a teacup, or rather a typhoon in a teaspoon”, and denied many of the allegations against him.

“I most emphatically was not drunk,” he insisted. “I probably used the derogatory term beginning with ‘S’, two, maybe three times.”

He also denied that Tye had he had failed to apologise to Tye directly, and refuted claims that the attack was unprovoked.

“I have sent Mr. Tye a letter of apology which he requested, but have had no acknowledgement of this. I would expect him to accept the apology; instead, he has not had the courtesy to reply.”

Asked whether Archbishop Nichols might make a statement or apology, Mr Jennings was resolute that he would make “none whatsoever.”

“I was not representing him at the time, I was invited there in a private capacity.

“Far more offensive is that the letter has been leaked to the Mail on Sunday. Someone has deliberately given them the letter… out of malice and mischief.

“But again, I do apologise for speaking out of turn.”

Mr. Tye, on the other hand, joked that “he should probably go and be spokesman for Al-Qaeda or something,” but insisted that he was trying to “laugh off the matter”.

The outburst was not the first in Mr. Jennings’ career. Last month, it was reported Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent for the Daily Telegraph, had been on the receiving end of a similar tirade following a discussion on the fact that Mr. Wynne-Jones had recently reported in the Telegraph “that a couple of Vincent Nichols’s colleagues were not particularly warm to the idea of him arriving in Westminster.”

“Considering Peter should have been celebrating given that his boss has just got the top job, I thought he might have been in a slightly better mood”, Mr. Wynne-Jones reported.

A controversial OUSU graduate tax motion was tabled for two weeks by the Council in order to allow for consultations with JCRs.

The motion proposed a graduate tax system as “the fairest way at present to fund higher education”. The system would introduce a tax on those who went to higher education and proceeds of the tax will then fund the universities. The amount of tax levied would be proportional to income.

The decision to put forward this motion comes at the time when the government reviews higher education funding. Currently, fees are capped at £3,145. According to vice-Chancellor John Hood, such low payments create a shortfall in Oxford University’s funding.

OUSU council will use the motion to lobby the National Union of Students. However, the discussion of the motion has thus far been restricted to the OUSU working group and last week’s Council. Magdalen OUSU rep Tom Meakin stressed the importance of engaging all students in the discussion.

“Although the student union has set up a working party, there has been little tangible engagement with students across the university”, he said.

Many were unhappy about the way the process has been carried out. Laurence Mills, Magdalen JCR President, spoke against the motion during OUSU council on the grounds that JCRs had not been adequately engaged. He has stressed the importance of involving JCRs in such important decisions, emphasising the need for a “bottom-up” process and states that “this issue is not one on which we can afford to bypass our common rooms”.

Others believed that the council should have made a decision on the issue there and then. Paul Fisher, JCR President of St Catz, argued that delaying the process would compound the view that OUSU is incapable of making decisions on behalf of the student body.

He said, “My largest concern was that we as a Council had avoided our responsibility as the sovereign body in the Student Union and decided once more to leave the issue until a later date. The reasons for doing this were very tenuous indeed- I thoroughly doubt that we will come back to the table any more informed as to how Oxford students approach the tricky issue of University finance.”

Some thought the motion has been unclear, as the confusion over what it means to support a ‘graduate tax’ has been widespread. Alex Bulfin, Univ JCR President commented, “the graduate tax has so many variables that it is difficult to say categorically whether you endorse it or not; it ranges from models that look remarkably like the current system to others which would be virtually unrecognizable and not all of these will appeal to all individuals.”

In principle, many supported the motion. Hannah Gomersall, the OULC secretary said, “OULC members voted overwhelmingly that a system of taxing graduates seemed the best way forward. We firmly believe that education at all levels should be accessible to everyone.”

However, the opposition to the practical implications of the idea have been widespread. One first year PPEist commented, “If I happened to earn a lot of money having been to a rubbish university, I would object to paying a higher graduate tax than some Oxbridge student who graduates and then does nothing with their life.  It is effectively just a hike in income tax. I would support it only if it was matched by a tax cut elsewhere.”

Other alternatives to graduate tax have been considered. However, there have been concerns that lifting the cap on fees would create a market for higher education. The motion states, “Oxford University will probably charge more than the average will reinforce the perception that Oxford is a more expensive place to study.”

Marius Ostrowski, Magdalen JCR Secretary added, “Even if the government and the University raise financial support limits completely proportionally to the increased cost of coming here, and also reform the effectiveness of the Access scheme to raise its profile, the angry tabloid headline will still read ‘Oxford and Cambridge raise fees to £7000′.”

The decision on the motion must now wait until the JCRs have been consulted. Paul Dwyer, VP for OUSU Access & Academic affairs commented, “I imagine that we will see a wide range of opinions reflected.” He added, “OUSU council would welcome amendments from common rooms, or new ideas to be put forward, so that our final policy can accurately reflect the will of the collective student body.”

The appalling state of college kitchens across Oxford University was revealed this week, after a Cherwell investigation uncovered more than 134 breaches of basic hygiene regulations.

Inspections carried out in 27 colleges exposed numerous violations of food safety laws, including dust and mould growth, damaged cooking equipment and “ingrained dirt.”

It unmasked a shocking picture for students, many of whom pay hundreds of pounds a year for food prepared in kitchens not fully up to Health and Safety standards.

The worst offending kitchen was that of Balliol College, after the Environmental Health Officer from Oxford City Council condemned the conditions as “unacceptably dirty.”

Meanwhile at Worcester College, staff were forced to work around a collapsed ceiling in the plate wash area, while tiles, shelves, the main catering unit and a dry goods store all desperately required repair.

Pest control was also a problem at Mansfield and Pembroke Colleges, with rats ravaging a rear yards full of debris. A mouse was also found feeding off food spilling from wheelie bins at New College, which was also criticsed for dirty work surfaces.

The offences were among many later exposed by Cherwell investigators in documents obtained using the Freedom of Information Act.

The biggest number of infringements was at Balliol, where inspectors found 18 breaches of hygiene regulations late last year.

In a subsequent letter to the college’s Domestic Bursur, the inspector warned: “I am concerned at the continued decline in the structural fabric of the premises.”

Among the violations he highlightered were evidence of dust and mould growth, “unacceptably dirty” doors to fridges, blistering paint and even the floor throughout the kitchen “starting to split and break up.”

The colleges are inspected regularly by Oxford Council Health Officers, usually every 12-18 months.

Not all college kitchens came in for criticism however, with Lincoln College receiving a glowing report from Health inspectors.

It was described in the report as having “excellent premises,” with a “beautiful traditional kitchen which has kept up all the original elements i.e. large fireplace, wooden beams and floors.”

It also reserved notable commendation for the “tight ship” run Head Chef, Jim Murden, who has been working in the kitchen for more than 35 years.

Merton also passed with flying colours and was described as “very well run” with kitchen and equipment in “very good order” and high standards of cleaning evident. Corpus Christi was also described as “a good example overall.”

Officials at colleges with less glowing reports responded to the revelations, with many stressing they were working to ensure the highest possible Healthy and Safety standards.

Many Balliol students remained completely unaware however of the conditions in which their food was cooked.

“I like the food we get a lot,” said student Isabel Thompson. “It always looks clean and safe and there’s no nails in the soup or anything, so I’m a fan.”

At Mansfield, the Food and Beverage Manager Lynn Partridge said that the college had endeavoured to improve their facilities since the report into conditions.

“The inspection brought to light several structural problems which have now been rectified,” she said.

“We have since be re-inspected and the Environmental Health Officer was completely satisfied.”

Despite these developments however, not all students at the college seemingly satisfied with the food on offer.

Melvin Chen, a second-year Economics and Management student at the college, said, “The food really is awful – I usually eat at the Business School instead.

“I had lunch there the other day and it really was terrible, so I feel justified in saying that.”

Another student, Beatrice Male said the food was remarkably expensive for what was on offer.

“The food is quite expensive, there is a two for one mark-up on everything,” she said. “You can’t even get a packet of mini-hobnobs for less than £1.”

New College JCR’s Food, Housing and Amenities Officer, Steve McGlinn, said he was very surprised by the safety breaches identified at his college.

He particularly pointed out that a survey last term found that members of the JCR rated food quality and service at 4.2 out of 5.

“Certainly, over the last year, we’ve seen a marked improvement in the food,” he said.

“Bringing in a new Head Chef has particularly made a difference. I know from working there that H&S is taken seriously, and so I, for one, am generally happy with how things operate.

“Over the past year, there’s been some repainting too, which is all the better.”

Balliol and Worcester, the colleges with highest number of contraventions, both have low food costs relative to other colleges. However, many students are paying more for the products of some of the catering facilities with the most infringements. Mansfield, for example, had 6 breaches of legislation, and yet the average lunch in Mansfield hall is over 70% more expensive than Balliol and a third more expensive than the college average.

At Pembroke and New College, the student buying lunch and dinner from hall every day of term can pay over £1,200. In contrast at Christ Church, the cheapest college in terms of food, it can cost as little as £764.

Lyn Partridge highlighted that the figures at Mansfield do not take into account different qualities of food. “I’m not aware that we are more expensive than any other college for the basic choice; however, students cannot expect items such as rib eye steak for the same price as sausages.”

The price of excellence is not necessarily high for the student however. While eating at Lincoln costs just above average, Corpus and Merton have some of the least expensive halls around, with lunches averaging about £2.55 and dinners about £3.20.

Worcester JCR has been forced to overhaul the format of its hustings following several complaints from college members. The new reforms have sparked a backlash among the students.

The new guidelines require an SCR member to be present at hustings after students voiced objections about last term’s hustings which saw female candidates for the position of secretary asked to drink half a bottle of wine each and perform a lap dance for the JCR President.

Other contenders were forced to “down dirty pints” in front of the attendees and to simulate sexual positions.

The observing SCR member will have to record tasks which “might contravene college standards,” whilst the JCR Secretary will record the names of the individuals making each request. The JCR President will also have to inform everyone present about the college policy on equal opportunities.

Students opposed to the rule change have set up an autonomous protest group called Worcester Students for Justice, to “make sure the SCR are clearly aware of the anger of Worcester students at the current state of affairs.” They proposed a motion at last Sunday’s JCR meeting to protest against a “dictatorial and aggressive SCR” that had “progressively destroyed” the “rights and liberties” of the Worcester JCR. The motion to campaign for a rule change was passed by a two thirds majority.

One first year stated that the SCR’s decision showed them “overstepping their mark”. She added, “I think people shouldn’t be allowed to ask questions which clearly humiliate a candidate, but it’s more a matter of judgement; a better solution would be to make sure the President did their role of vetoing inappropriate questions.”

David Barclay, Worcester’s JCR President, told the governing body that he was happy to draw up guidelines for future hustings, but requested that they “trust that we understand the importance of hustings and the terrible effects of harassment and intimidation.”

He admitted to Cherwell that some of the hustings had got “fairly rowdy” and had “alienated a minority and may have contravened equal opportunities legislation.” However, he added that many students feel “profoundly patronised” by the new move.

The controversy at Worcester has raised the question of appropriateness of hustings procedures within other JCRs. There is a concern among some that the culture surrounding hustings discourages students from running for JCR positions.

Maanas Jain, Worcester finalist, acknowledged a difficulty with hustings culture in the university. He said, “even if one member of the JCR doesn’t’t feel comfortable standing because of it, then there is something institutionally wrong with what’s happening.”

In an attempt to regulate the process, Rachel Cummings, OUSU VP Women, has produced a code of practice for hustings based upon the discussion among JCR Presidents.
The document recommends that the chair should disallow inappropriate questions at husts. It also proposes non-serious questions to be subject to a time limit. Among questions deemed inappropriate are those which include personal attacks, college gossip and sexual references. A ban on alcohol and nudity during hustings has also been suggested.

Many colleges are rethinking the structure of JCR hustings as concerns are pouring over the appropriateness of tasks to the positions.
St Peter’s has recently completed a major overhaul in the structure of hustings. JCR President Sanjay Nanwani explained that the college has “disallowed questions and tasks that may be deemed as humiliating, intimidating or unreasonable.”

However, despite the rule changes one second year student recounted, “Still, our entz rep candidate was asked by a third year ‘would you rather have sex with your dog whilst your dad watches, or with your dad whilst your dog watches?'”

Many have argued that the reason for livening up hustings is to encourage students to attend the meeting, which often suffer from a lack of interest. One Magdalen first year commented, “Our hustings are both uncontroversial and poorly attended”.

In St Anne’s college, the candidates for the JCR president have to fight to take each other’s shoes off. In last week’s St Catherine’s elections, those standing for the position of the president had to persuade staff at Oddbins to let them borrow a ladder. They then had to call the JCR President at another college to discover one controversial thing about them and about the current Catz President.

Roland Lasius, a candidate at St Catz for JCR President commented that such tasks “can play a healthy role in college politics”, yet warned that they “cannot become a merely entertainment commodity”. He said, “Good hustings would serve as the bedrock for an inviting, positive and productive JCR.”

Alex Bulfin stated that Univ JCR has sought to ensure that hustings are as “undaunting and as fun as possible”. He explained that the candidates for Bar Rep were asked to make, rather than down, cocktails for the rest of the JCR to sample.

Ruth Padel became the first female Professor of Poetry at Oxford University after she beat her only opponent Arvind Krishna Mehrotra in last week’s election.

Padel gathered 297 votes compared to Mehrotra’s 129 with 51 spoilt ballot papers.

The election took place between 10am and 4pm last Saturday, with the results being announced in the Divinity School at 5.30pm.

Padel said she felt “stunned” and “honoured” to accept the position. She commented, “I should like to thank the University, and the people who voted for me. I feel honoured and humbled to be given this responsibility, and shall try to carry it out as well as I can. My backers based their support for me on what they felt I could offer poetry and students. Now I shall do my best to fulfill their trust.”

Many onlookers were happy to see Padel winning. Nicholas Richardson, an Oxford graduate described her as “a good poet, good scholar and interesting scholar”.

Chair of the English Faculty Dr Sally Mapstone commented, “It is tremendous that May 2009 has seen the election of the first woman Professor of Poetry at Oxford and the first woman Poet Laureate. Ruth Padel will be a dynamic and distinguished Professor, and we are very pleased to welcome her.”

However, the event was overshadowed by Derek Walcott’s sudden withdrawal from the race four days earlier after sexual smear campaign.

Padel described the situation as “terrible, because it was nothing to do with me”.

“I didn’t know what to do. I hadn’t done anything wrong, and I always try to act morally”, she added.

Michael Henry, an Oxford graduate, said he was “disappointed at Walcott’s exclusion”.

He added that if the election had to be postponed, it “would have been more of a contest”, as more people would have put their names up.

Eloise Stonborough, the secretary of Oxford University Poetry society added, “I am of course disappointed that Padel did not take the opportunity to withdraw from the race and allow it to be postponed. This would have cleared her name of many of the rumours which are still circulating and allowed us to proceed on fair and honourable grounds rather than setting a precedent in which underhanded tactics are allowed to decide an election, whether or not either of the candidates had anything to do with it.”

Some thought the University made the right decision. “The election shouldn’t have been postponed”, said Bill Dutton, another Oxford graduate. “These things happen in elections. Ruth Padel should have won anyway.”

A proportionally high number of ballots were spoiled. Only 477 votes were cast, fewer than around 500 people who voted in the low-key election of Christopher Ricks in 2004. Some have suggested that this is a response to Walcott’s decision to remove himself from the contest.

Professor Hermione Lee, the campaigner for Derek Walcott confirmed these suspicions. She said, “I believe that many supporters of Derek Walcott either abstained, or spoilt their ballot papers.”

Stonborough confirmed, “I believe that most of the spoilt ballots were done in protest at Walcott’s treatment and at the progress of the race after his withdrawal. I am aware of many who wished to vote who didn’t turn up at all, and obviously 51 of those who did felt that their only avenue of protest was to spoil their ballot, an action which exposes the absurdity of the university’s refusal to postpone the race and how the race was tainted.”

Many thought Mehrotra was not famous enough to compete for the post. Although well-known in South-East Asian circles, he is relatively unheard of in Europe.

Michael Henry commented, “while he is very popular in his field, his poetry is not widely known over here.”

Padel has a long association with Oxford University. She was a classics student at Lady Margaret Hall and went on to write her PhD on Greek tragedy.

She has also been a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and Chair of the UK Poetry Society since 2003.

The post of the Oxford Professor of Poetry is held for 5 years. It comes with a salary of £6,901 per annum. The professor is required to give three lectures yearly and to provide the Creweian Oration, a declaration of thanks to the University’s benefactors. It is the only elected academic position.