Students at Teddy Hall have spoken out against recent reports of a hostile college atmosphere.

They have described claims of a ‘social crisis’ within the college, as reported by the Oxford Student, as ‘out of proportion’ and ‘exaggerated’.

The allegations arose at the termly college committee meeting, when the Dean, Stephen Blamey, and other senior members of the college, initiated a discussion with the JCR executive about the atmosphere in Teddy Hall.

Blamey claimed at the meeting that the college was ‘too divided into sports and music’, and that some members of the student body were uncomfortable with the college atmosphere.

However Blamey was informed that Teddy Hall student Philip Satterthwaite had bridged the gap by being both ex-rugby captain and a member of the Teddy Hall choir.

Two Teddy Hall students, who preferred to remain anonymous, reacted to the situation, saying,’Teddy Hall is a college with a diverse range of people and we feel that the Dean is fuelling the Teddy Hall stereotype.

‘The third years have been most offended as they have been portrayed as being completely against the first years, which is not the case.’

They denied that an official room divide had been imposed in the bar, saying, ‘When it comes to the supposedly ‘divided’ bar, there are indeed two separate rooms, one extremely rowdy and one quieter side.

‘It seems counter-intuitive that the ‘rowdy’ rugby team would be expected to divide into two groups, they are a ‘team’ after all.’

Harold Buchannan, an undergraduate at Teddy Hall said, ‘There are many people in college that feel that the Dean is perpetuating the problem and is pursuing a vendetta against certain members of the JCR.’

JCR President Charlie Southern commented on the alleged social tensions, saying, ‘The dean brought it to a welfare committee meeting at the beginning of term.

‘He had heard reports of people being unhappy with the atmosphere in college, and the questions at hustings being intimidating. He compiled it from talking to various students at Teddy Hall.

‘My position was to hear opinion from the committee, I don’t see that there is a divide in college. There are lots of different groups but I’ve never seen any real tensions at all.’

He added, ‘One side of the bar is much more raucous and the other is for people having a quiet drink. Everyone agreed it was quite a good thing. It wasn’t a massive separation at all.’

‘The Dean asked me to send the minutes to all the JCR, there was quite a lot of surprise as they hadn’t heard anything about this at all.’

Oxford colleges are missing out on millions in potential revenue in their attempts to raise money for cash-starved “annual funds.”

A Cherwell investigation has revealed that most colleges still rely on outdated methods of fund-raising that sometimes incur an overall loss.

Mass telephone campaigns, often staffed by students who take up room in rentable college accommodation during vacations, rarely provoke interest in those contacted.

Some colleges have even outsourced their “telethons” to external consultants. St Anne’s, Keble, St Catherine’s and LMH, have all paid generous sums to conduct campaigns, either to private companies or students.

Other colleges pay significant sums to their own students. Undergraduate students at Wadham College were offered free room and board in return for two weeks of telephone shift work in the Easter vacation.

Cornelia Carson, the college’s Alumni Relations Manager, said: “the campaign was slightly less successful this year, as only a small number of students agreed to undertake the work. However, we’ve found telephoning in general can be very effective.”

Carson continued: “the college is trying a more personal approach to fundraising, attempting to involve alumni in college life through our stewardship programme.

“We’ve found that hiring students to contact these individuals has a far higher success rate: they are able to talk personally about their experiences and fondness for Wadham, unlike a professional caller.”

However, a third-year student at the college, who had been involved with a previous telethon, told Cherwell that he “hardly raised a penny.”

He said, “it was good fun and interesting work, but the alumni didn’t respond to my enthusiasm that well. There’s always that background knowledge that the call has a financial point to it.”

Mail campaigns, which usually take the form of heavy, glossy brochures carrying high postage costs, have been even more unsuccessful.

A 2007 paper-based campaign by Mansfield, who have the smallest endowment of all Oxford colleges, raised £1200 pounds, but cost over £2000 to run.

One Magdalen alumnus, who left the college almost 30 years ago, described his college’s attempts to contact him by post as “fairly uninspiring.”

He said: “I received a letter from the college asking if I’d like to donate, and was told that I could – if I wished – be contacted by a current student who would talk me through the ongoing campaigns.

“I sent them an email in reply, pretty much saying “No, thanks.” I don’t mind being asked, though. I get such a lot of requests nowadays that I don’t feel bad about saying no. I think I’m a bit desensitised to it all.”

The alumnus says that Magdalen had been “in very patchy contact until the mid-1990s”, when letters and termcards began to appear.

“I prefer the invitations to college events, such as the Waynflete music forum in the summer; they don’t feel so pushy. I think the way forward is to get alumni more closely involved with day-to-day stuff.

“I read History, for example, and if the college was to say: ‘We’d like to buy these new books on the French Revolution for the library,’ I might be interested.”

A recent Christ Church graduate disagreed. He said, “trying to tailor the campaign to appeal to individuals doesn’t work for me. It’s so vulgar to pretend to be interested in getting in contact, when all you want is my cash.”

However, the statistics suggest that most alumni prefer the former approach. Mansfield College, which previously “scraped by on the back of large, infrequent bequests,” decided to change their fund-raising tactics for 2008.

Paul McCarthy, the college’s new Development Director, above, described their new approach. He said, “we dispensed with mail campaigns and telethons.

They had been in use for 15 years, since this office was opened, and they weren’t raising anything.

“Our main priority was to boost our endowment by getting regular donations to the annual fund. Donors are still free to specify where their money goes, but this way we discourage massive one-off investments, which leave us with an uncertain future.”

McCarthy continued: “nowadays we go to meet our alumni, instead of them coming to us. We might go down to London, for example, and meet a few of them for coffee, individually.

“We try to make proposals that are tailored to each person – so for example, suggest that an ex-rower might like to contribute towards getting our 1st VIII a new boat.”

“The figures speak for themselves. 80% of people we meet give some kind of donation. And they’ve all been extremely generous.
“Our office has had to change from getting monthly to weekly bank statements, since the monthly income went up from £1800 last April, to £95,000 this time around. And the numbers keep on rising.”

Wadham’s Alumni Relations Manager agreed with McCarthy that a one-on-one approach had great benefits. “Just as alumni can help us, we hope we can do something for them, too, on top of the good feeling they get from helping out their college.

“Putting old friends in touch with one another, for example, has proved very popular with old Wadhamites, whether or not they give.”

However, McCarthy conceded that this method was easier in a small college like Mansfield, where it was easier to keep in personal contact with leavers.

Nick Thorn, Corpus’s Development Director, insisted that “any sensible campaign always combines more than one approach. There’s clearly not enough time to see all our alumni – some have got to be contacted via mail.”

One Mansfield undergraduate, who did not want to be named, argued that other techniques had also been successful, even since the college instituted its new policy.

“We held a gala dinner a few months back,” the student said, “and one of my tutors raised a massive number of pledges from those attending. What you really need is someone persuasive. And a few glasses of wine.”

Most development offices agreed that it was important to build a culture in which donating is seen as the norm.

McCarthy said: “we want to start as early as possible, while recognising that students are unlikely to be in a position to give when they first leave. Last year, for example, leavers all contributed to getting a new bench for the gardens.”

He hopes the prospect of donation will be more natural for these students, once they have begun to earn a wage. “I have to admit, though, the bench was all their idea,’ he said.

“Maybe students are just getting more generous.”

OUSU have decided to employ four new part-time officers in an attempt to improve their track record on welfare.

A recent OUSU report states that the new positions are being introduced “in order to compensate for OUSU’s failings on Equal Opportunities issues.”

The four roles will cater for Black and Minority Ethnic Students (Anti-Racism), LGBT students, Mature students and Students with Disabilities.

The Student Advice Service Review Group, the report reveals, embarked upon such a task “following over 8 months of uncertainty regarding the future of the Service.”

Martin McCluskey, OUSU President, claims that there had been “big arguments” regarding welfare, and OUSU needed to “start again from scratch”, in order to have “one final say” on the welfare provision.

The report also mentions “some acrimonious and bitter debates in the previous academic year”, referring to the motion proposed in Trinity Term 2007 by then OUSU Vice President Imran Khan to have a referendum to abolish the position of OUSU Vice President (Women).

This motion failed, but a separate motion to “consider” the role of Vice President (Women) passed.

However, ten Common Rooms requested such a referendum, and one was held in 6th Week of Trinity Term 2007, and was conclusively defeated.

The Council continued to review the situation, but OUSU admits that the final report, the Welfare and Women Working Party Report, “came to no definite conclusions”.

McCluskey claimed that by Hilary 2008 it was time for OUSU to “tidy things up” with regards to welfare, and to ask themselves “is this the best use of resources?”

The Review Group even considered “abolishing the role of President” in the course of their discussions, questioning if resources could be better spent on employing a sabbatical officer with a specific task.

McCluskey denied that this was a serious consideration saying, “it was not realistic”, but rather “a matter of course”.

He did suggest, however, that OUSU would benefit from “more full time members of staff to reduce the workload” of the President, a role which the report admits is “rather ill defined and… a considerable amount of work.”

“Most worryingly”, the report states, “the role of President frequently compensates for the lack of professional support in other areas of OUSU”, giving examples of recruitment, and liaising with legal and financial advisers.

Despite McCluskey’s claim that this report should be the “final say” on OUSU’s Welfare, the report leaves some issues unsolved. The report suggests that the position of President, for example, “should be re-assessed in the future.”

The fate of motion to amend the constitution to incorporate the four new part-time officers, proposed by McCluskey and seconded by Louise Randall (Vice President Welfare& Equal Opportunities), will be decided at the 5th Week Council meeting this Friday.

This report which announced the new positions was entitled “Strengthening Welfare” and was published this month. It was compiled over the course of Hilary Term and the Easter vacation.

An Oxford graduate has launched an appeal to University students to aid victims of cyclone-devastated Burma.

Sara Clarke, who studied English at Keble College, graduated in 2007. An ex-president of Oxford University Free Burma Society, Clarke launched the open appeal to Oxford students because of its “historic links to Burma through Daw Aung San Suu Kyi (an Oxford alum and the only imprisoned Nobel Prize laureate).”

She has also indicated that students have multiple outlets to help “because [the University] has both the Oxford University Free Burma Society and the Oxford Burma Solidarity Group.”

Clarke began her efforts by creating the Facebook group, ‘Burma Cyclone Emergency Appeal’ and also making an open appeal through the Oxford Mail.

She has already facilitated Keble and University Colleges’ respective donations of £200 and £300 to the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for Burma.

“It is especially important to assist such local grassroots organizations at a time when the military government has been blockading attempts of some foreign aid and aid workers to reach the country,” Clarke said.

She added, “As privileged students who are able to enjoy the basic rights of freedom of expression and assembly denied to Burma’s students historically, [students] should feel motivated to use these liberties to assist the Burmese cause.”

She is appealing for funds on behalf of two organisations: the Disasters Emergency Committee, an umbrella organisation for 13 NGOs, and for the Civic Society Initiative, a small Burmese NGO in Yangon.

Current president of OU Free Burma Society, Hizami Mohd Iskandar, says, “Every bit counts, when the people you’re trying to help have their own government as the biggest stumbling-block towards recovery.

“The Burmese people need all the help they can get, with the military junta characteristically focusing more on keeping their power and control intact, rather than the plight of their own people, our contributions, no matter how small, do matter,” he said.

Niall Ferguson, a leading historian and a senior research fellow at Jesus College, has denounced the “proliferation of exams for school pupils” in English schools.

He said the result of the number of tests is, “an increasingly narrow, instrumental approach to education, in which pupils are coached to jump through the examiners’ hoops.”

He compared the system to the economy of the old Soviet Union, “over-complex plans are adopted, the bureaucracy churns out ever-changing targets, the workforce becomes more and more cynical.”

He stated that evidence for this could be found in A-Level grade inflation: “as in the USSR, statistics of increased output mask declines in quality.”

A spokesperson for the Department for Children, Schools, and Families defended the National Curriculum tests.

They said tests provided vital information for parents when choosing a school, and for children to measure their progress.

The spokesperson denied that the pressure could have a negative impact on children: “pressure is damaging if it is too intense or too prolonged: the impact of national curriculum tests should be neither.”

Ferguson, while maintaining his research post at Jesus, has numerous other positions in American universities. He is also a professor of history at Harvard and a professor of business administration at Harvard Business School. Educated at Magdalen, he is a prominent columnist as well as historian.

However, Christine Gregory, the external relations officer of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), agreed with Ferguson’s remarks.

She said that excessive testing, particularly in England, was creating a culture in which pupils were “afraid to fail.”

She said that the result was, “a huge amount of stress on teachers” and pupils learning simply “how to pass tests.” She claimed that this view was shared by most of the teaching unions.

Gregory also dismissed the value of exams in providing parents with a guide to the best schools.

She said exam results reflected influences like “parental input, family background, family expectations” and “aspiration poverty” rather than teaching standards.

Philip Parkin, General Secretary of Voice, a union for education

professionals, agreed that exams were too frequent.

He said, “tests have a place in education, but our pupils are currently over-tested. We start testing earlier. We test more frequently. We test more subjects in this country than elsewhere.”

He added that it was time for the Government to bring the excessive testing regime to an end, “We would like to see England follow the lead set by Wales and scrap SATs.”

He referred to a report on Testing and Assessment by The House of Commons Children, Schools and Families Committee, which was issued last Tuesday.

The report found, “the use of national test results for the purpose of school accountability has resulted in some schools emphasising the maximisation of test results at the expense of a more rounded education for their pupils.”

The committee recommended reform of the testing system “in such a way as to remove from schools the imperative to pursue test results at all costs.”

A teacher trainer, who wished to remain anonymous, also supported Ferguson’s claims. He argued that exams which were “little diagnostic events” designed to measure pupils’ progress, “wouldn’t be a big deal.”

Rather, the problem, he said, lies with exams that have “real outcomes” in terms of school funding and reputation.

This means that the result “is absolutely everything” and will cause teachers to teach to the exam. He said that because of this, “there isn’t any long span of time when pupils will be developing broader understanding.”

Parents’ attitudes to the exam system are mixed. One parent, whose children attend a state grammar school, agreed that society places “too much emphasis” on testing, but said that she had not found it to be a problem. This, she said, was thanks to the school’s policy of “not being an exam factory but [focusing] on the child’s complete growth.”

Another parent, whose children are educated in the private sector, suggested that the emphasis on exams is prevalent, “even more fervently and aggressively” here than in the state sector.

“From the time they are three, they are continually assessed,” she said, explaining that even nursery school entrance could be test-dependent.

She described how the 7-plus exams could be a “horrendous experience” for young children. She said, “my poor children are exammed up to their eyeballs.”

Kirsty Smith, a maths student taking part in the Undergraduate Ambassador Scheme, which allows undergraduates to work with teachers in local schools, also described her experience of exam-driven pupils.

She found that a class of bright pupils taking maths GCSE a year early, had a “really disappointing” lack of interest in the subject. She said, rather than being inspired, “all [the pupils] are interested in is where they are going to get the marks.”

A spokesperson for Oxford University declined to comment on the comments made by Niall Ferguson.

Mel Broughton, a Speak animal rights campaigner, will stand trial from 2 June accused of offences against Oxford University.

Broughton was arrested in November 2007 following a police investigation into a fire at Queens College sports pavilion the previous year, and the discovery of improvised explosive devices at Templeton College in February 2007.

A police statement said that he has been charged with, “two counts of possessing or controlling explosives with intent to endanger life or injure property and two counts of having an article with intent to destroy or damage property.”

Broughton, 47, is one of the founding members of Speak, which has protested against the recently-opened animal testing centre on South Parks Road for a number of years.

In November 2006 fire-fighters spent an hour putting out the blaze in the roof of Queen’s College sports pavilion. Bomb disposal experts were brought in after the discovery of devices at Templeton College in 2007.

Speak claims that it aims to “[challenge] the government… to accountability and openness.” The use of violent terminology to describe animal rights activists is, it says, an attempt “to divert attention from the real perpetrators of violence who thus become the implied victims.”

In 2005 Robert Cogswell, a Speak spokesman, told This is Oxfordshire: “We do not condone the ALF’s actions but we do not condemn them either.”

Speak continue to hold frequent marches through Oxford and remain vocal about their opposition to the University’s policies on animal testing for biomedical research. They also protest on Broad Street at University degree days.

The group grew out of the success of ‘Stop Primate Experimentation at Cambridge’ (SPEAC) which stopped the construction of the Huntington Life Sciences Laboratory in 2004.

Pro-Test was formed in January 2006 in an effort to counter the views of SPEAK and defend the advantages of using animals for biomedical development projects.

One of Oxford’s top donors is threatening to withdraw his support for the University after they did not accept his offer of a statue.

Zvi Meitar has branded the University’s actions “ridiculous” and “foolish” in an interview with The Times newspaper. He also suggested that he would be reconsidering further donations to the institution.

Meitar is an Israeli multi-millionaire who, along with his younger brother, is believed by Forbes to be worth around £250 million.

In the interview the 74-year-old lawyer commented, “There was a big future…Now the whole thing is in question.” He added, “I don’t think anybody [at Oxford] really cares about this. It’s sad.”

The statue he offered to the University was a four ton, 10ft monument of Tory MP Sir George Cooke and was carved in the eighteenth century by Sir Henry Cheere. It once belonged to Elton John, from whom Meitar is believed to have acquired it.

The University has claimed that the statue was rejected not as a personal slight to Mr Meitar but simply because there was no space for it. They have said that several potential locations were examined in order to determine their suitability as a home for the statue.

A spokesperson for Oxford University criticised The Times for misrepresenting the facts regarding Mr Meitar’s offer. They insisted that he is “a fast friend and supporter of Oxford” and will continue to work closely with University officials on matters of fundraising.

The spokesperson also suggested that Meitar enjoys cordial relations with the Vice Chancellor John Hood.

According to the University Press Office there were two barriers to accepting the statue.

Given the piece’s high value, adequate security provisions had to be provided, while its heavy weight meant that structural assessments were necessary to ensure it did not damage University property. None of the proposed sites were deemed suitable on these grounds.

This incident has thrown fresh light on the importance of Oxford University’s links with wealthy patrons who are willing to contribute massive sums towards the university’s upkeep and development.

To meet rising costs and steep competition from American universities, a new fund-raising campaign ‘Oxford Thinking: The Campaign for the University of Oxford’ will be launched later this month. Oxford currently lags behind equivalent institutions in America such as Harvard, whose endowment is in excess of £65 billion.

By contrast, Oxford’s endowment is valued at £3.6 billion.

‘Oxford Thinking’ will be launched next Wednesday by Chancellor Lord Patten and Vice-Chancellor John Hood with a star-studded event at the British Academy.

The University will seek to raise over £1 billion which will be used to refurbish a number of University sites, including the Radcliffe Infirmary site. The money will also be used to fund a new £29 million book depository, support an overhaul of the University Science area and allow remodeling of the New Bodleian Library.

In a continuing effort to attract students from poorer backgrounds, funds raised will also be used to support scholarships and grants. In addition to this there will be increased investment in teaching posts in an attempt to attract the best and brightest academics to Oxford.

The campaign hopes to appeal to successful alumni, businesses and philanthropists in an attempt to raise the funds. It is expected that it will take many years to reach the £1 billion target.

All Brasenose students have been sent a letter by the Dean warning them about bad behaviour and drug misuse in college.

In the letter, sent last Wednesday, Dr Giles Wiggs wrote, “It appears that the behaviour of some students in college is falling well short of what is expected and required.”

He added that he has advised the Junior Dean and the Porters to “take a strict zero-tolerance approach to any behaviour that is likely to cause disruption to those taking exams.”

In a move which has worried many students, Dr Wiggs also reminded students of the college drugs policy, referring them to “section G.7 of the Blue Book.”

These regulations set out the disciplinary procedure for dealing with students found to be involved in drugs.

He continued, “any student who misuses classified drugs risks being sent down permanently. Given evidence that has recently been reported to me some students can expect to be called to my office within the next few days to discuss the matter.”

Toby Shergold, a spokesperson for Thames Valley Police said, “Our University liaison officer is speaking to the college authorities about the issues raised. The letter was drawn to our attention and our officers will be getting in touch.”

However, students have expressed concern over the college clamp-down on drugs.

One second year student who wished to remain anonymous said, “Some people are a bit concerned that college will begin looking around rooms as we have heard that that has happened elsewhere.

“It feels as if everyone in Brasenose had become a suspect.”

Another second year student said, “This is an issue for the whole college. I don’t know anyone who’s been called to see the Dean, but I know some people who are worried about this.

“I wouldn’t say that drugs are a big problem in Brasenose, but I’m sure that there are a handful of people involved, but then that’s the same in every college.”

JCR President George Lambert refused to comment on the issue.

Dr Wiggs was unavailable for comment.

Police officers who entered a student house during a party last Saturday have been accused of acting unlawfully by a leading expert on drugs law.

A team of eight officers was patrolling in Cowley at around midnight when their drugs sniffer dog indicated that it could smell a substance in the house.

The officers then entered the house searching for drugs and formally searched one student. No drugs were found on guests or in any of the rooms.

The sergeant in charge of the team said on Tuesday that “the team were given permission to enter the house along with the drugs dog.”

However, the host of the party, a second-year student at St Hilda’s, said that she told the officers that they were not welcome to come in. She also said that she felt “victimized.”

“He asked if he had permission to enter the house and I said no,” she said, “that’s pretty clear.”

She says that police entered despite being asked not to.

“I said no, but they came forward anyway,” she added.

By law, police officers can only enter a home without a search warrant in very specific cases, such as if the property is controlled by an arrested person, or if somebody they wish to arrest is inside.

In all other cases, the police are bound by Code B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984, which requires consent to be gained in writing from the occupier of a residence “if practicable.”

The student who held the party claims that she was not asked to provide any kind of written consent.

She also says that she was not informed of the proposed extent of the search or warned that anything seized may be produced in evidence. These are both requirements under PACE Code B.

The sergeant leading the search said that the dog indicated one of the party guests “was either carrying or had recently been carrying drugs”. However, when he was searched, nothing was found.

The guest, an English student, denied that he had been near any substances.

“I wasn’t carrying any drugs and I hadn’t been in contact with any that night or for a long time. I’m not quite sure why the dog made that suggestion,” he said.

An expert on drug detection with dogs said that the search “appears to have been unlawful.”

Amber Marks, a lecturer in law at King’s College London and expert in olfactory surveillance, said, “The fact that no cannabis was found shows how unreasonable it is for the police to rely on canine intelligence.”

She continued, “The matter should be investigated and it sounds as if the occupier of the premises should make a formal complaint against the police. It is important to ensure that the police keep within the limits imposed upon them by the law.

“This is one of the worst cases I’ve heard of.”

The party’s host also questioned the efficacy of the drugs dog.

“The dog jumped on [the guest who was searched] and he doesn’t even smoke at all. The dog clearly doesn’t have a clue,” she said.

She also accused the police of heavy-handedness.

“There were four to six of them. The ones at the back were trooping in but didn’t seem to know what they were doing.

“It was ridiculous. One of the female officers said that they had so many people because they had to protect themselves. Do we look like junkies? They didn’t apologise for coming in.”

The sergeant who led the search said he was satisfied that the premises were entered “lawfully and with consent.”

A spokesman for Thames Valley Police said that “Police officers do have powers to further search and detain once in a property if they have reason to believe drugs are on the premises. In this case they did as the drugs dog made an indication that a person was, or had recently, been in possession of drugs.

“We do take complaints about our service seriously and do have a proper process for dealing with them. If anyone was not satisfied with the police action on this evening they should contact Thames Valley Police Quality of Service Unit.”

House searches: Your rights

The rights of police to enter a private residence are governed by Code B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Police can enter your house:
– If they have a search warrant
– If they wish to make an arrest
– If you or another occupier has been arrested

Otherwise, police may only enter with your consent. In this case, officers should, if practicable:

– Inform you that you are not obliged to consent
– Specify the proposed purpose and extent of the search, such as which parts of your house they intend to enter
– Warn you that anything seized may be produced in evidence
– Obtain your consent in writing

Police are excepted from these rules in certain circumstances. If in doubt, you should comply with police and register a complaint at a later stage.