A controversial motion that would allow OUSU sabbatical officers to run for multiple terms in office has been attacked by members of the student body.

Paul Dwyer, current Vice-President for Access and Academic Affairs, proposed the motion claiming that it would help the “long term future of OUSU”.

Oxford is currently one of only three student unions – the others being Warwick and Edinburgh – that do not allow sabbatical officers to run for re-election.

However, the motion has been met with suspicion throughout the University. Jim O’Connell, OUSU rep for University College, attacked the motion stating the he saw “no real rationale for the rule change” adding that it “would institutionalise rule by a narrow, self-perpetuating clique student”.

President Lewis Iwu supported the proposal, stating that “continuity can help the student’s union”, but has nevertheless acknowledged the potential danger of increased politicisation and the growth of cliques. He said,

“The decision OUSU council has to make is whether that outweighs the benefit of having someone with two year’s experience. If it does emerge that sabbatical officers are forming cliques and dominating OUSU then I think there would be a reaction against that…we should trust the electorate.”

However others have questioned the benefits of such political stability. Wadham JCR President, Will McCallum, expressed fears that the changes “will only serve to add to this image of a non-influential student body”. He stated,

“I believe that OUSU is about current students. University life does change year by year and having a student who has been two years out of Oxford is not necessarily a good idea.”

He argued that the motion would hamper progress in made in reducing the cliques of the Union, saying “OUSU is gradually becoming less and less cliquey at the moment, partly due to the recent Gaza motion, and it would be nice to see this continue, something this motion will not help.”

O’Connell too questioned the motivations behind allowing sabbatical officers to return in the name of stability, stating his belief that political ambition underpinned the rule change.

“Obviously the case here hinges on whatever ‘political continuity’ is supposed to mean,” he said. “No doubt Hugo Chavez in Venezuela has removed the ban on him being president for life in the name of ‘political continuity’. I can’t see a positive reason for it other than to allow certain people to perpetuate their careers in Oxford.”

Paul Dwyer said that the benefit of his proposal would be that officers “would actually have time to carry through more long term plans, which currently isn’t possible” and added that successful officers should be allowed to continue. He said, “If someone is doing a fantastic job in their position, I don’t think it a bad thing that they should have the chance to continue for another year.”

Both Dwyer and Iwu have denied that they want to run for an additional year in office.

The motion is proposed alongside concerns over a lack of interest in this week’s OUSU by-elections, despite attempts of the executive to increase student participation.

Two of the positions failed to attract a single nominee and four were uncontested.

Concerning the lack of candidates for some part-time positions on the executive, Iwu admitted, “In an ideal world we’d have people for those positions. We’re going to try hard to get people to run and advertise them again.”

He said apathy towards elected positions does not indicate any apathy towards OUSU as a wider student body. “When we assess people’s interest in OUSU the elections are just one small part of that. You’ve got to look at it as a whole and consider RAG, Target Schools and our grassroots campaign.”

OUSU Returning Officer Madeline Stanley said, “OUSU is stepping up its publicity in general and also seeing increased support and involvement from students not
necessarily on the executive.” She argued that by-elections for the part time executive would inevitably attract less interest than sabbatical elections, and stressed that OUSU had “just had some highly visible statutory elections for sabbatical officers which really engaged the student body with huge numbers of activists and voters.”

The lack of competition for the part-time vacancies means that only the only real competition in this week’s by-election was for the position of Academic Affairs Campaign Officer. The positions of Community Outreach & Charities Officer, Students with Disabilities Officer and Graduate Welfare Officer only had one

OUSU were unable to find a single candidate for the positions of Black and Minority Ethnic Students’ and Anti-Racism Officer, Mature Students Officer or LGBTQ Officer.

Oxford’s Vice Chancellor, John Hood, has received at least a thousand cards this Valentine’s Day, as students and University employees petitioned him to improve the University’s green credentials.

The campaigners presented Hood with a giant, heart-shaped, “Go Green” card made out of a thousand Valentine’s Day cards, which they draped across the entrance to the University offices.

One card read, “Dear VC, please listen to me, and hire a head of sustainability, To ensure this prestigious uni, Goes greener than a block of mouldy cheese! Loving thee.”

The Valentine’s Day cards, made from recycled paper and printed with vegetable based ink, were delivered to his office by the campaign committee, although the Vice-Chancellor declined to attend in person.

A spokesperson on behalf of the VC said, “the university has offered a meeting with the group at a mutually beneficial time to discuss what it will be doing.”

Campaigners have declared the occasion a success. The day before the cards were presented, the University announced it was planning to “make 2010 a greener year” by recruiting a Head of Sustainability and announcing that it is working towards a “comprehensive waste management strategy.”

The campaign urged the University to appoint a senior environmental manager, adopt a comprehensive waste management system, and implement an external environmental management system.

Sophie Lewis, campaign manager, said the committee were “very happy with the outcome.” But she expressed shock and dismay at seeing the “beautiful array of cards, festoon and petitions” removed from the office head quarters.

She commented, “the VC’s secretary has yet to explain where they went, and why.”

The spokesperson said, “I don’t know if the cards will be kept in storage, but even if they are not kept, the university offices recycle all of its card and paper. They won’t go to landfill.”

Some students have also expressed concern that the gesture itself was not environmentally friendly.

Trinity’s JCR environmental representative described the event as “publicly wasteful.” She commented, “while I admire the aims of the campaign, at the same time I think it’s important not to lose sight of the everyday things we can all do to help the environment, such as saving paper or turning off light.”

But Daniel Lowe, OUSU environmental and ethics officer, called the event “an incredibly effective way to get our message across.”

He said, “it involved 1,000 student, raising the profile of environmental concerns with them. If we continue to press for more efforts to be made, the university will become a more sustainable place.”

JCR environment reps have praised the University’s green efforts, but some stressed that individual colleges as well as the University as a whole need to do much more to help protect the environment.

Mae Penner, Magdalen’s Environment rep accused Oxford colleges of using words such as “tradition” and “prestige” to “justify actions which frivolously disregard the financial and ethical benefits of increased sustainability.”

Stephen Bush, Balliol’s Environment rep added that the “behaviour of some colleges is letting the university down. Some colleges won’t have paper recycling in students’ rooms, for example.”

He said the University should “think about its indirect effect upon the environment too; to look again at the impact of its investments upon the environment and the world generally.”

Environment JCR reps have also criticised OUSU for not doing enough to support and promote awareness of environmental issues among students.

One Environment rep accused the elected Environment and Ethics officials as being “often unresponsive to appeals for information or guidance”, which hindered students who are passionate about the environment from getting involved. She said, “in my experience, they often feel as if they are operating in a vacuum, without any effective Oxford-wide support.”

A seven foot statue has been erected on the roof of Exeter College, despite it lacking planning permission.

The £250,000 sculpture by Antony Gormley must be removed if the college fails to get permission.

The Lord Mayor of Oxford, Susanna Pressel, called the situation “regrettable.”

However, Exeter’s Home Bursar, Eric Bennett, expressed his determination for the statue, given to the college by an anonymous donor, to remain on the rooftop. He said, “we’ll appeal if the permission isn’t granted and we’re convinced that we’re going to win.”

Bennett has denied that the college did not follow the correct procedures. He said, “We’ve done everything they told us to do.”

“We were given a timetable to keep to – the council officers gave it to us. However, the councilors changed their mind and decided that the matter should be handled by the councilors themselves. This caused the delay.”

Pressel said, “it’s not against the law to apply for permission retrospectively.”
But she confirmed that if the permission is not granted, the sculpture will have to be taken down. She added, “in practice the applicants may well appeal against any decision to refuse permission, leaving the sculpture (as Antony prefers to call it) in place until the appeal is decided.”

A student at Exeter commented on the situation, saying, “I think the worst thing possible would be if the council demands that the statue has to be taken down. It would be extremely embarrassing and humiliating for the college.
I don’t see what any of the fuss is about regarding planning permission. If Exeter wants to put something on its own roof then it should be allowed to. That you need permission to it is far to bureaucratic.”

Antony Gormley himself attended the sculpture’s unveiling on Sunday. He said, “I’m very pleased with how it has been put together and he’s [the iron-cast man] in very good company up there.”

He added, “There are some fine regal types on top of the Sheldonian, and various other statues there to keep him company.”

Ed Moores, Exeter’s JCR President described the sculpture as “fantastic”. He said, “It is a great achievement for the college to have some high-profile art.”

Controversy has engulfed the Balliol and St Hilda’s balls, forcing St Hilda’s to change their theme at the last minute.

The issue arose after Balliol’s team revealed that they were planning a “Midsummer Night’s Dream” theme for their ball, the same theme as St Hilda’s.

But whilst Balliol have gone ahead with their “Midsummer Night’s Dream” theme, Hilda’s have had to change their theme to “Temptations.”

The college’s Ball Committee President, Joy Tuffield, said her team had had no option but to “rework many of the details of the ball.”

She said she was giving Balliol the benefit of the doubt in assuming that the overlap had been accidental, although she felt that it was unlikely to have been a complete coincidence.

She said, “the only plausible explanation I can think of is that someone heard the theme in passing, had not committed it to memory, and once it came to brainstorming for themes it came creeping back from deep in their subconscious. Or at least I sincerely hope that was the case.”

Tuffield said that there were “no hard feelings” about and that the last-minute shock had “injected a bit of excitement in the whole process.”

Tuffield’s counterpart at Balliol, Ball Committee co-President Sasha Roupell, denied that the incident had been in any way intentional, saying “I can’t see how that would work to our advantage. If there had been any connection between the teams this wouldn’t have happened.”

She said she believed that the co-incidence could be explained by a general trend. “All of the themes this year do seem to be sort of fairytale based – Alice in Wonderland, Midsummer Night’s Dream and so on.”s

Roupell said she knew that St Hilda’s had changed their plans for the ball, and that Balliol intended to stick with the theme.

Some students seemed reluctant to believe that the identical themes could have been chosen by pure chance. One St Hilda’s student said “I’m not suggesting they stole our idea but maybe they heard from somewhere. Balliol should have checked round before they started printing stuff.”

A motion by St John’s College to give JCR reps an advantage in the housing ballot has been defeated after arousing strong opposition from the college.

St John’s JCR President Jason Keen proposed that JCR Reps who serve for two terms or more should be given priority in the room lottery. The president and secretary are already automatically placed at the top of the ballot.

Keen argued, “reps carry out duties crucial to the smooth running of our JCR, but many people don’t know the positions even exist and consequently they are often difficult to fill.”

He added that housing priority was “a means of revitalising the reps system.”
Ollie Willmott opposed the motion, calling it “grossly unfair.” He set up a Facebook group asking for “just a simple vote of NO.”

He argued, “we all contribute to college life in our own ways. We don’t all do this in order to gain a direct reward. Indeed, most people don’t need a reward to do something they feel is worthwhile.”

Rep positions at St John’s include “Charties Pimp” and “PRAT” alongside more well known ones such as “rag rep” and “ethnic minorities rep.”

Amin Hamzianpour also opposed, describing the proposed changes as “completely unfair.” He also noted, “reps don’t make an important contribution to the college.”

Other John’s students have supported Keen’s motion. One commented, “some rep positions have beem really hard to fill in the past and there is a need for an incentive.

“For example, the post of Academic facilities rep is difficult to fill year on year as it involves the time-consuming task of checking that all printers in college are equipped with paper and ink.”

Students agreed that the opportunity to obtain a better room would be a motivation. St John’s second year Amin Hamzianpour argued, “while you don’t have to do much to be a rep, getting one of the best rooms is like winning the lottery. The best rooms have showers, kitchens and other rooms attached to them.”

The proposed system was for Exec members to have points subtracted from their room ballot prior to the randomisation of the ballot. This would increase their likelihood of being allocated a good room in the third year as those with lower points are drawn first.

Engineer Malcolm Begg suggested “it could have a massive difference. Having two points taken off for being a rep could move you up twenty to thirty places.”
He supported the changes arguing, “it’s a good principle because it doesn’t cost the JCR anything. This is why accommodation benefits are a better idea than a meal.” The estimated cost per head at the annual JCR committee meal is £40.

Jason Keen denied that students would take up rep positions just for rooms, “I think people’s motivation is secondary compared to if they properly devote their time to duties that benefit their fellow JCR members.”

He added, “by putting rewards in place we would be able to expect more from our reps, rather than the current system where they have no incentive to do their jobs whatsoever.”

Willmott refuted this saying, “I have never known a rep to be fired for doing a bad job and in any case, as suggested, most require minimal effort.”
A representative for the St John’s accommodation office said, “the JCR and MCR ballot procedures are chosen by them.”

A group of students marched through Oxford’s city centre today last Wednesday to protest against the University’s investment in the arms trade.

The students voiced anger over University’s investment in BAE systems, a defence company that supplies Israel with arms.

The protest was organised by a coalition of student societies, including Oxford Students’ Palestine Society, Socialist Worker Student Society and Stop the War.

Twenty-five students began the protest from Broad Street shortly after lunchtime on Wednesday. Most were dressed in sub-fusc and carrying banners bearing slogans such as “End Oxford arms investment now!”

They chanted “1, 2, 3, 4 arms investment no more; 5, 6, 7, 8 don’t invest in the Israeli state” and “Oxford’s £1.7 million helped to kill the Palestinians.”

Habiba Islam, a first-year student at Sommerville said that the University‘s investments in BAE implicates Oxford’s students and claimed that she was protesting to register her disgust at the way her tuition fees were being used.

She said, “we as students are indirectly responsible for the death of 1300 Palestinians, including 400 children. I for one do not want to have my tuition fees going to kill a 6-year-old child. I think that is a horrendous thing for our university to be involved in.”

Another student added, “we’re here to put pressure on the Uni. We don’t think they should invest in arms systems.”

The demonstration comes as Oxford University’s council is to review its arms trade investment on Friday.

Aidan Simpson, one of the protesters said, “we want to make clear to the council the students’ feeling on this.”

He added, “if people don’t do anything, nothing gets done…Me individually standing here doesn’t make much of a difference but the fact that people want to stand up and make a difference, yeah it is does.”

Currently, Oxford University invests £1.7 m in BAE systems and about £4.4 m in other arms trade corporations.

The University’s policy on socially responsible investment states that it is “committed to ensuring that it makes investment decisions responsibly and with integrity”. The Socially Responsible Investment Review Committee is responsible for ensuring compliance with this policy.

Ruth Collier, a spokesperson for the university stated that Oxford is “committed to free speech and supports the right to protest lawfully.” She also pointed out that “the University does not invest directly in individual companies, it invests in funds, which then spread investments from many different institutions across many different companies.”

One witness to the protest said, “the students seem very determined and passionate. You can tell they’re believing in what they’re doing and they want to put their point across. I think the sub-fusc catches attention”.

Habiba Islam concluded, “we demonstrated today to show that we passionately believe Oxford university should be an educational institution not a sponsor of destruction and should disinvest from all arms companies immediately.”