Sunday 27th July 2025
Blog Page 539

Homeless community speaks out against ‘spiteful’ armrests on benches

0

This weekend two extra armrests were drilled onto an Oxford bench on Woodstock road to stop people from lying down. 

A photo of the bench, located inside a bus shelter, was uploaded to Twitter on Monday showing two new metal bars. The person who installed them is unknown and did so against Oxford City Council wishes. The bars have since been removed by the council. 

The action has been branded as ‘hostile architecture’, a design strategy which aims to restrict behaviour in public spaces to boycott ‘antisocial’ behaviour such rough sleeping. 

A number of individuals spoke to the Oxford Mail about their feelings on the issue, including members of Oxford’s homeless community. 

James Ellam, a 41-year old living on the streets, said: “It’s tough – you get moved on all the time. Police give you a hard time, everybody gives you a hard time. They put things in front of doorways so you can’t get some shelter.” 

Sam King, who has been living in sheltered accommodation run by the city council, commented: 

He said: “I think people can help us just by being nice. Not by doing things to benches.” 

“When you get trench foot you have to sit down or lie down because you need to rest, but when you do you get told off for sitting down on the pavement and people think you’re begging. 

“Sometimes you are begging, but not all the time.” 

He also said: “Begging is a life skill for homeless people – it’s needed for survival. 

“I feel really bad about doing it – I hate asking people for money and I always say sorry when I ask.” 

28-year-old Jason Dart,who has been sleeping rough in and around Oxford for nearly ten years, said: “What happens if an old man needed to put his feet up or somebody with mental illness needed to rest – it might not be a homeless person using that bench.” 

He added: “I sleep in the covered market ally bit – they move me on at about 7am, they’re really nice about it every day. Then I go and sleep on the gap doorway until about 9am – after that I just try and find places to be.” 

Oxford City councillor Shaista Aziz said: “It’s quite an aggressive approach. 

“You can’t have a city like ours that wants to move forward with homelessness and then do this – we are supposed to be making progress. 

“It’s really easy to demonise homeless people but they actually feel ashamed – and it’s exhausting to be homeless – you can see it just by looking at them. 

“Hostile architecture is unwelcoming. Public spaces are for everyone – whether they have a home or not, and whether they are rich or poor. What this is saying is that public spaces are being limited for certain people.” 

Ms Aziz shared the image on Twitter, writing: “I’m against all types of hostile architecture making it harder for people who are homeless to rest and take shelter from the rain and freezing cold.” 

Linda Smith, deputy leader and cabinet member for leisure and housing at the council, said in a statement: 

“These arm rests were not installed by Oxford City Council or Oxford Direct Services and we are removing them today. 

Arm rests on benches are part of inclusive design as they provide extra help for older people and people with mobility issues, making it easier for them to sit and stand up again. This bench already has three arm rests. 

We believe that nobody should have to sleep rough in Oxford and we’re doing more than ever before to tackle the national homelessness crisis.” 

The council has recently opened a new £1.9m homeless shelter on Floyds Row off St Aldates. 

Westgate car park blocked by school climate strikers

0

Striking school pupils frustrated drivers by blocking the entrance to Westgate Centre car park in a climate change protest last Friday.

The Oxford Youth Strike for Climate protesters began in Bonn Square at 11am, where they first held a one-minute silence to stand in solidarity with people affected by Australia’s wildfires. 

They then marched through Westgate to occupy the entrance to the car park on Oxpens Road. A group held a sign saying ‘Oxford Youth Strike for Climate’.

Some of the group were the ‘non-violence and de-escalation team’. Others sang chants and distributed flyers to blocked drivers.

Resulting queues of over 10 vehicles attracted the attention of Westgate security guards who asked the protesters to leave.

EJ, an 18-year old campaigner, told Cherwell: “The aim of the strike was to step up the level of disruption. So far we have done 12 strikes. Although we’d seen some change, a lot of people didn’t care because it didn’t have any sort of direct effect.

“Although a lot of the blame lies with governments and major corporations, it is also with consumers: what they are eating, how much they buy, whether they drive.

“If you live in a really rural area, and you absolutely have to drive, then okay. But if you live somewhere close like Abingdon, then driving to go shopping isn’t something you should be doing.”

Layla Moran, the Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, supported the strikers as they gathered in Bonn Square. She spoke at the rally, saying: “There was not enough climate action in that Queen’s Speech. And this is 2020. If we don’t solve this now, if we don’t solve this in this decade, there is a chance that we will be too late. And I am not going to let that happen.”

Moran told Oxford Mail: “This isn’t being done so that children can skip school – they are doing this because they feel passionately about the activism and they feel there is an emergency they need to address.”

Commemorative flames for 75th Holocaust Memorial Day

0

Oxford will commemorate the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau with 75 memorial flames. 

The flames will be lit as part of a service at Oxford Town Hall on Holocaust Memorial Day, Monday 27th January. 

Stand Together is the theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day, exploring “how genocidal regimes throughout history have deliberately fractured socities by marginalising certain groups, and how these tactics can be challenged by individuals standing together with their neighbours, and speaking out against oppression.”

The service will also mark the 25th anniversary of the genocides in Bosnia, Rwanda, Cambodia and Darfur. 

A Yahrzeit candle, a Jewish memorial candle, will be lit to reflect and remember the six million Jewish people murdered during the Holocaust, alongside the milions of other people killed under Nazi persecution and in subsequent genoicides around the world.

A reflection service, which will take place in the Old Library, it will be open to members of the public, City Council staff and councillors of any faith or none.

Councillor Craig Simmons, Lord Mayor of Oxford, will host the service which will also include an interview about the persecution of Jewish people in pogroms with Dr George Gilbert, Lecturer in Modern Russian History at the University of Southampton.

The service will also see contributions from the City Rector, The Reverend Anthony Buckley, Penny Faust of the Oxford Jewish Congregation, Jawaid Malik of the Oxford Foundation, and Anneliese Dodds, MP for Oxford East. 

Councillor Simmons said: “It is important we remember the horrors of the past to avoid them being repeated.

“Some of my own family came to the UK as refugees from the violent pogroms in Eastern Europe. One of my grandparents escaped from Vitebsk; the widespread massacres of Jewish people that occurred there in 1941 are well documented. Those family members who remained were certainly killed.”

The Holocaust witnessed the ideological and systematic prosecution and mass murder of millions of European Jewish, Travellers, the disabled, intellectual dissidents and homosexuals.

Council outlines new housing strategy

0

The Planning Inspectorate have approved Oxford City Council’s plan for the building of over 10,000 homes by 2036 to meet Oxford’s housing crisis. 

The Inspectorate concluded that Oxford faces ‘serious unaffordability in the housing market and unusually marked inequalities’. This justifies the Council’s estimated need figure of 1,400 homes a year until 2036. The plan that was initially submitted estimated a requirement of 8,620 homes in total, but this was modified to a minimum of 10,884 homes as the city’s needs became clear. 

According to the report, some of the housing ‘cannot be accommodated within [the city’s] boundaries and needs to be accommodated by Oxford’s neighbours’, requiring cooperation with other local authorities. There have already been large numbers of Oxford residents moving to nearby towns where house prices are far cheaper. In 2019, the average price of a property in Oxford was just shy of £400,000, around twice that of its counterpart in Swindon. The portion of the East-West railway connecting Oxford and Bedford due to be completed in the mid-2020s, will further encourage movement to neighbouring counties.

The housing proposals in accordance with a 2014 Strategic Housing Marketing Assessment study that called for more local authority building in the county amounting to a minimum of 24,000 a year in Oxfordshire. The South Oxfordshire District Council’s leader Sue Cooper suggested the SHMA findings had been ‘discredited … in some eyes’, as they may increase the pressure on rural local authorities outside the city. However, the certainty provided by the inspectors’ seal of approval was welcomed by all.

The Inspectorate has also stated that ‘the substantial level of affordable housing need in Oxford’ constitutes as ‘exceptional circumstances for the release of Green Belt’. This has been met with condemnation by several local campaign groups including the Campaign to Protect Rural England. They argue the ‘growth at all costs’ policy needs to stop, and their leader Helen Marshall told the Oxford Mail it was ‘a second-rate plan for what should be a first-rate city’.

However, the report contains provisions to ensure that ‘urban land is brought forward where possible’ and puts forward a modification for minimum housing numbers within site allocations. This would ensure that brownfield sites would be exploited to their full potential and hopefully prevent serious loss of the Green Belt. There have already been initiatives to this effect with the Council participating in the ‘Action on Empty Homes Week’ to address the 400 or so homes currently vacant in Oxford.

The plan was also modified to exempt affordable housing contributions on sites of less than ten homes and certain forms of student accommodation. Currently large student housing developments are required to provide some affordable housing, but this will not apply to housing on campus or redevelopment sites.

The current Cabinet Member for Planning and Sustainable Transport, Cllr Alex Hollingsworth, described the plan as ‘the culmination of a long period of work between the City Council and partners’ and looks forward to implementing it. Although recognising the compromises made to better provide affordable housing, he believes they have struck the right balance between conservation and development.

St Anne’s celebrates 100 years of women with unpaid fellowship

0

St Anne’s has been criticised for their creation of a non-stipendiary junior research fellowship to honour 100 years of women at the University. The fellowship, named after St Anne’s’ founder Annie Rodgers, is meant to “celebrate 100 years since women were formally admitted to the University of Oxford and first awarded Oxford degrees.”

However, in an article published in the Independent this week, an academic at Oxford criticised the move, saying: “The fellowships created by St Anne’s offer little by way of funding, so it is hard not to see them as exploitative, especially since the college is seeking applications from women and black and minority ethnic candidates to address their problems with under-representation.”

“A fellowship that actually funded the research of early career researchers would send a much stronger message about their support of women in higher education,”

St Anne’s has defended the post, and criticised the Independent’s publication of the story, telling Cherwell: “St Anne’s College is disappointed that The Independent chose to publish misinformed criticism of our Annie Rogers Fellowships, despite a telephone conversation with the journalist concerned and the provision of a press statement that clearly explained the positive nature of non-Stipendiary Junior Research Fellowships both for the individuals who are awarded them and for the College hosting them. The unprompted online comments under the article on The Independent website underline misunderstanding that underpins the concerns raised and the widespread, uncontroversial and constructive use of such Fellowships in many Oxford and Cambridge Colleges.”

The benefits of the fellowship to which St Anne’s refer are “to participate in the academic and social life of the College and support one or more of the aims and/or beliefs of the College.” The post also entitled fellows to free meals during term time, free breakfast and one main meal per day during the vacation, and hot-desk space at the College.

A research grant of £1,000 every three years is also available if the relevant research furthers the beliefs or aims of the college, and an extra £1,000 per annum can be made available if other research funding is unavailable.

The fellowship also requires a fee for the successful applicant’s membership of the SCR. These typically amount to around £35 per term.

Mertonian U-Turn: college changes its policy on trans intersectionality

0

Merton college has made a substantial U-Turn on its policy surrounding an upcoming discussion of “Perspectives on trans intersectionality”.

On Wednesday, the College withdrew a publicly available Code of Conduct for their “Equality Conversation 2020 Seminar”, which asked all attendees to “[be] respectful of all gender identities; avoid deliberately misgendering the speakers or other attendees (although it’s okay to make a mistake, apologise and move on); refrain from using language or putting forward views intended to undermine the validity of trans and gender diverse identities”, specifying that “By booking a ticket for the Equality Conversation you are agreeing to act in accordance with this code of conduct. ”

It was replaced with a statement outlining the college’s stance on academic freedoms and discrimination: “The University and College prioritise the protection both of academic freedom and of their members from unlawful discrimination.

“We seek to foster a culture of robust expression of opinion and debate that does not tolerate any form of harassment or victimisation.

“We and the University are committed to fostering an inclusive, diverse environment and to ensuring that all our staff and students, including LGBTQ members of the community, are able to thrive and realise their potential.”

The statement went on to say that the College wants to foster an “inclusive culture and a workplace” as well as a learning environment that “prizes academic freedom while being free from discrimination, harassment or victimisation”.

According to Merton College, the seminar “exists to enhance understanding of equality and diversity through constructive discussion”. Speakers at the seminar include Freddy McConnel, a transgender man, famous for his attempt to make his child the first with no legal father. Also speaking are Clara Barker (chair of the LGBT+ advisory group to Oxford University), and Sabah Choudrey (co-founder of Trans Pride Brighton).

Various academics had commented on the original Code of Conduct, with Oxford Professor Selina Todd describing it as a “dangerous precedent” that had left her “stunned”. She went on to say “I’m delighted that Merton College has upheld freedom of speech and the right to debate in accordance with College and University policy.”

Similarly, Professor Kathleen Stocker, a philosopher from Sussex University and self-described “gender critical” academic, responded to Merton’s decision, telling press “I’m really glad Oxford has responded so quickly to make sure the value of academic freedom is upheld, and legal duty complied with.

“If I give a talk criticising the idea of an inner feeling of gender identity, I expect the audience to be able to disagree – the same should apply to academic events supportive of the idea of gender identity.”

On the 21st January, Stock tweeted the following about the Code of Conduct “another day, another draconian attempt to suppress gendercritical thought at a British Uni – this time @UniofOxford no less. This is “Perspectives on Trans Intersectionality” at University of Oxford. Note in particular last two lines, as conditions of attendance / participation.”

Previous to this incident, the Sussex professor was part of a dispute with Oxford University Press, as she claimed in a separate tweet in December:

“Just been told that Oxford University Press (USA) dropped entire book of interviews with women in philosophy, after Holly Lawford-Smith & I were proposed as included in it. Our inclusion was judged “problematic”. This after Kate Manne withdrew for same reason. More when I know it”.

The book, Philosophy at 3:AM, was to be the latest in a series written by Richard Marshall, a freelance education consultant.

In response to dropping the book Oxford University Press stated, “Our editors consider a wide range of factors when reviewing the many hundreds of proposals we receive each year, to help us to decide whether or not we publish something. In this specific case, the submission was a collection of interviews—a format that we have found increasingly challenging to publish successfully in recent years. We also felt this contribution didn’t align to the other contributions for this publication, and so suggested other publishers where it could be a better fit.”

In contrast to Stock’s tweet, however, OUP does say “Scholarly integrity lies at the heart of OUP’s mission. We do not shy away from publishing works that could generate controversy or result in negative publicity.”

Further to this the company emphasises that “It’s worth noting that the book had not been accepted and was still at the proposal stage so was not dropped or abandoned while under contract in the publication process.”

Resignations at Academy following Ofsted inspection

0

The headteacher and governors of the Oxford Academy have resigned following the publication of an Ofsted Report which rated the School ‘inadequate.’

An Interim Advisory Board (IAB) has been put in place to replace recently departed staff. Andy Hardy, the now former headteacher of the Academy who had been in position since September 2018, left the school on December 31 due to ‘personal circumstances.’

Members of the governing board resigned explicitly over the Ofsted rating and the School being placed on special measures.

The Report, highlighting safety concerns for pupils at the School, stated: “Pupils do not get a good deal at this school. The behaviour of a growing minority of pupils has become unruly, unkind and unsafe. Bullying is not dealt with well enough. Many pupils rightly told us that they feel very worried about coming to the school. There is not enough support for pupils’ personal development and well-being. Serious safeguarding concerns have not been acted on promptly enough.

“Frequent behaviour incidents, in class and out, disrupt daily life. Many pupils are scared to use communal areas. Incidents of violence and abuse, including fights between pupils, are increasing. Many pupils use homophobic language. Leaders have failed to deal with the situation. The behaviour policy is not effective, and staff do not implement it consistently. Sometimes, low-level behaviour escalates to become much more serious. Several staff told us that they feel unsafe. They are frustrated and disheartened, because leaders do not support them effectively.”

The issues at the Academy have primarily been blamed on poor direction from the School’s upper hierarchy, explaining the departure of both the former head and the governors.

Ofsted inspectors explained: “Leaders are hugely overstretched. Many are inexperienced in their roles. Not enough priority has been given to the leadership of safeguarding and pupils’ well-being. Leaders lack a precise understanding of the serious scale and nature of behaviour incidents. Important signs that pupils need help have been missed, because of a lack of communication.”

The Report rated the Academy ‘inadequate’ in the areas of quality of education, behaviour and attitude, personal development, as well as leadership and management. Sixth-form provision was the only area that was rated above ‘inadequate,’ though it was still labelled under ‘requires improvement.’

These rating represent a marked departure from Ofsted’s previous inspection in September 2016, which rated the School ‘good’ for the first time in its 12-year history.

The new IAB that now controls the School comprises four members, David Terry, the interim head, Paul James, the chief executive of the River Learning Trust, Tony Wilson, Director of Education for the Oxford Diocesan Board of Education, and Adam White, a lecturer at Oxford Brookes University.

In a statement, the IAB said: “The IAB brings a wealth of experience in creating outstanding schools and steering schools through difficult periods. During the last six weeks the IAB has taken decisive action to make rapid and sustainable improvements at the school.

“Also, River Learning Trust (RLT) has agreed in principle to welcome The Oxford Academy into its family of secondary and primary schools. The trust is working closely with the Department for Education with the aim that The Oxford Academy can join later this academic year. However, in practice, the school is now receiving the levels of expert support from RLT that it can expect when it formally becomes part of the trust.”

The RLT is a multi-academy trust responsible for the administration of a number of academies in the area, and holding them to government standards.

Since taking over, the IAB has enacted a review of safeguarding in response to Ofsted’s concerns, taking action to improve safety issues. A new pupil behaviour management strategy is now in place, while leadership team responsibilities have been reviewed. Another senior leader has joined the Academy to focus on improving attendance and the provision for vulnerable pupils.

Mr Wilson, who also serves as the Chair of the Interim Academy Board, said “At the start of January we appointed an experienced interim headteacher, Mr David Terry, with a track record of school improvement, as well as an interim deputy head with expertise in behaviour, personal development and safeguarding”.

Tony Wilson, Director of Education for the Oxford Diocesan Board of Education and Chair of the Interim Academy Board, said: “We are delighted with the impact he has already made in a short space of time. Immediate action was taken last year in response to the concerns identified by Ofsted, and we have already carried out a thorough review of safeguarding. Improving attendance of our vulnerable pupils, and our provision for them, has also been a key focus.

“Additional teaching and support staff have been hired to fill vacancies in maths, English, PE, languages and technology, which means we have been able to reduce the number of supply teachers used. New staff and existing staff are being given extra training with a focus on safeguarding, behaviour and the quality of teaching. Some of the staffing issues we have had to resolve have stemmed from poor governance and past decisions relating to a financial deficit at the academy in excess of £1m. This deficit is reducing and we are working with the Department for Education to resolve the issue and ensure a positive sustainable future for the academy.”

Mr Terry, who has experience in schools on special measures, told the Oxford Mail: “To some extent the report reflects the school as it was, and we have definitely moved on [since inspection]. It’s a much calmer environment on site. We are focusing on behaviour and a better clarity of expected behaviours. We have just had to say ‘no’ and be assertive, but to say it with love and care.”

The IAB is only temporary, with the Academy looking to appoint a permanent headteacher by end of March.

As an academy, the School is directly under the supervision and funding of the government in Westminster, rather than local authorities as other schools are.

Writing to Nick Gibb, the Minister of State for School Standards, Anneliese Dodds, the Labour and Co-Operative MP for Oxford East, has criticised the government’s role in the development of the academy system and the failings at the Oxford Academy.

“I do believe that the departure of the previous leaders and governors will signal a change at the school, and it was right for them to leave and take some responsibility after a series of failings. I am sure that teachers who remain at the school are working hard to ensure that it is a safe environment for their pupils.

“However, I am incredibly concerned that this situation ever arose in the first place. I am concerned not only for the students at this school, but for what this signifies about the wider academy system which enabled such an enormous failure.”

Concerns over children’s safety at the School only became public after Oxfordshire County Council notified Ofsted of the issues in November.

A spokesman for the Council said: “We acted immediately by sending staff with safeguarding expertise to support the school. The safety and welfare of children and young people are of paramount importance to the county council.

“The county council has no direct responsibility for school performance. We believe the former school leaders and governors of the school are accountable for the findings in the Ofsted report.”

Wes Beckett on the Coronavirus

0

Hilary Term 2020, Issue 2

University ignore tribunal ruling on “discriminatory” retirement policy

0

Oxford University has this week announced that it intends to continue enforcing a retirement policy which was ruled “highly discriminatory” by an employment tribunal last month.

The policy, titled the Employer Justified Retirement Age (EJRA), allows the University to force senior academics to retire once they reach the age of 68. Exceptions can be made to the policy in certain circumstances as determined by the University.

Oxford says that the EJRA is intended to “safeguard the high standards of the university,” and “promote equality and diversity.” The policy was highly controversial following its introduction in 2011, and last month an employment tribunal ruled that Paul Ewart, an academic at the Clarendon Laboratory who had been dismissed under the policy, had been unfairly discriminated against based on his age.

The University is now beginning the process of appealing this decision.

The ruling made by the tribunal was highly critical of Oxford University’s policy, saying: “There can hardly be a greater discriminatory effect in the employment field than being dismissed simply because you hold a particular protected characteristic.”

Over the course of the hearing the University, represented by Mr S. Jones QC, acknowledged that the EJRA did amount to direct age discrimination, but argued that such discrimination was justified and proportionate in the pursuit of legitimate aims. These include promoting access to employment for younger people, and sharing out employment opportunities fairly between generations. However, it was noted by the tribunal that measures to achieve these aims must be both necessary and appropriate. Mr Ewart made the case that while the aims of the policy, to enable the employment of younger staff and to improve diversity across the University, were legitimate, the EJRA was an ineffective means of achieving these goals.

In an article published in the Oxford University Magazine, Mr Ewart argued that the EJRA in its current form could only have a minimal effect on the University’s ability to create new posts for younger academics.

The article summarises that: “[The EJRA] forces retirement on a relatively small number of active academics whilst making no significant progress towards achieving the aim.”

Paul Ewart told Cherwell: “The university’s decision to appeal is disappointing and a missed opportunity to revisit the controversial EJRA policy. The Tribunal decision follows two rulings, by very senior judges, in the university’s own Appeal Court that also found the policy to be unjustified and unlawful. The Tribunal in my case had the benefit of statistical argument and data to quantify the extent to which the policy could achieve its aims by creating vacancies. The university sought to have this evidence excluded from the Tribunal but the judge found it to be a crucial argument. It shows that the ‘heavily discriminatory’ policy could have only a ‘trivial’ effect on creating vacancies and therefore can never be proportionate. If it cannot be proportionate it cannot be lawful. The university succeeded in having this crucial evidence excluded from the case of Professor Pitcher. The university has adopted an inconsistent position. It accepted the Tracey report on the working of the EJRA in 2017 that told Congregation, without any supporting evidence, that the policy was making a ‘substantial contribution’ to achieving the aims. It then told both Employment Tribunals that it was too soon to tell if it was having any effect! This, in my opinion, is deeply dishonest. The university is insisting on carrying on with the policy for a full ten-year trial period to find some justification for it. The Tribunal, however, ruled that there is no provision in the Equality Act for operating a policy on an ‘experimental or trial basis’, it must be justified ‘right from the start’ – and the university has failed to do that. It is defying the law. It has so far spent in the region of one million pounds defending the EJRA both internally and externally. It is intent on spending more money by appealing. It will have to spend more as some other academics are currently in the process of making similar Employment Tribunal claims. One has to ask if this is a proper use of a Charity’s funds. The waste of money is one thing but the policy also wastes the valuable resource of active, world leading, academics who are dismissed when they could continue to contribute for the benefit of young and old.”

A spokesperson for Oxford University said: “The University has now reviewed in detail the Employment Tribunal decision regarding Professor Paul Ewart and Oxford’s EJRA policy. This decision followed an earlier Employment Tribunal, on a separate case but of equal legal weighting, which ruled in favour of the Oxford EJRA. The University has decided it does not accept the most recent tribunal’s ruling and will be appealing against it. The EJRA policy remains in place and will continue to be applied as normal.”

The result of Mr Ewart’s employment tribunal seemed to contradict the ruling made in a similar case brought by Professor John Pitcher, formerly an academic at St John’s College. The case, which was brought by Mr Pitcher in August 2019, was dismissed in an employment tribunal, as judges found that the enforcement of the EJRA was a proportionate means of the University increasing diversity in their workforce.

Only Cambridge University and St Andrew’s University operate similar EJRA policies in the UK, both forcing senior academics to retire before the age of 68. Cambridge’s policy applies to all University Officers, but makes an exception for the Chancellor, the High Steward, the Deputy High Steward, and the Commissary.

Dons throw toys from pram

0

Senior figures in Oxford admissions have criticised the University’s attempts to broaden access, alleging their efforts represent discrimination against candidates from more affluent backgrounds by making them less likely to receive an offer.

Criticism has centred on the University’s aim to increase their intake of disadvantaged students from the current 15% to 25% by 2023, as well as tutors being asked to interview more state school applicants.

A source high up in University admissions told The Sunday Telegraph: “The instructions we received were that we had to interview them as long as they met very basic standards – and some even failed those.

“My experience is that those candidates just don’t do very well. We call them to interview because we have to.

“They just do really badly and we reject them and it’s a waste of everyone’s time. But if this target of 25% is going to be met, we will have to start admitting some of these people.”

The source suggested that admitting students from disadvantaged backgrounds would mean students from upper- and middleclass background will be “unjustly discriminated against on the basis of their social class.

“This almost certainly will mean they will be let in at the expense of middle class students, who will have to make way for candidates who are not as academically talented as they are.”

The source said most colleagues “see no problem” with the University’s access drive, stating “almost everyone is willing to go along with it quite enthusiastically.”

Increasing criticism of the University’s admissions policy comes after last week’s announcement that Oxford made more than 69% of its undergraduate offers this year to students attending state schools, an increase of 4.6% on the previous year and a record high.

A spokesman for Oxford University rejected the criticism, saying: “Our admissions process is designed to identify academic potential and passion for a subject.

A highly academically talented student with enthusiasm for their chosen subject has every chance of getting into oxford, regardless of background, and will continue to do so.”

As part of future access initiatives, the University will start a new scheme in 2023 which will enable 250 state school students (including refugees and young carers) to receive free tuition and accommodation at Oxford during the summer.

Of these, 50 students will be eligible receive offers “made on the basis of lower contextual A-level grades, rather than the university’s standard offers.”

A second source in University admissions further emphasised that giving more offers to pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds would result in more middle-class candidates failing to gain a place, as the most affluent would still receive the same approximate number of places, an argument that the University rejects.

The source said: “The Vice Chancellor is on the hook now, she is really out on one with this pledge. It is pretty stark.

The dial has got to move quite a long way. We are not like Bristol and Exeter who can hit their numbers [of disadvantaged students] simply by expanding by about 500 places a year and worrying about beds later. “That’s not going to happen at Oxbridge, our system doesn’t work like that with the constraints on college size. It’s got to be done at the expense of the middle class kids.”

Independent school heads, allegedly, “can see the writing on the wall” are becoming increasingly worried over the University’s direction on access and admissions. “My biggest fear is we will end up polarised. We will still take them in heaps from the Etons and Westminsters. And what gets squeezed out in the middle, the heads who used to send us two or three a year get squeezed out.”

The University has remained steadfast against criticism, maintaining its push to broaden access for the foreseeable future. Strategies such as UNIQ, a programme targeted at lower income groups, will continue to expand, after 250 participants were offered places at Oxford this year.

For those who took part in last year’s programme, the offer rate stood at 33.6%, compared to 21.5% for applicants who had not participated. The University expanded participation in UNIQ by 50% last year, taking in 1,350 pupils.

Dr Samina Khan, Director of Undegraduate Admissions and Outreach at Oxford, said, following the University’s announcement on offers last week: “We know that students from some backgrounds are not as wellrepresented at Oxford as they should be, and we are determined that this should change.

“Having taught in state schools during my career, I know the wealth of talent that lies there. We wish the students every success in their studies, and hope they flourish at Oxford.”