Wednesday 23rd July 2025
Blog Page 650

Trinity email leak exposes sensitive information to JCR

Eve Webster
-
0
Trinity email leak exposes sensitive information to JCR

Cherwellhas been alerted to a mishandling of information at Trinity College after a private e-mail discussing findings on the treatment of BAME students on campus was mistakenly made public.

The e-mail, which the Trinity JCR President accidentally sent to a mailing list of all JCR members rather than to the college President, disclosed the results of a poll issued to all undergraduates.

12 of the students surveyed identified themselves in the survey as either “Black/African/Caribbean/Black-British” or “Mixed/Multi-Ethnic”.

Of the 12 students, who would comprise approximately 4.1% of the Trinity undergraduate population, 9 reported having “faced any specific issues or incidents” at Trinity with regards race or ethnicity and 5 said that worries or issues about race have a detrimental effect on their mental health, the e-mail claims.

The e-mail also notes that a complaint was made by a member of the JCR to the president describing a specific incident taking place at Trinity and requesting that the encounter be on the record with the JCR committee.

The complaint has subsequently been sent to Trinity’s approximately 290 JCR members as a result of the mistake.

The breach was quickly noticed and unintended recipients of the e-mail were sent a follow-up apologising for the mistake and asking them to delete the message.

When asked to comment, the president referred to the incident as an example of “human error” writing: “What has happened was a human error in a private email context where an email was accidentally Trinity email leak exposes sensitive information to JCR sent to the wrong mailing list; this is very regrettable but not a voluntary breach of confidentiality.

“Gladly, no students were mentioned by name in this email. Additionally, the numbers from the survey cited in the email in question were inaccurate.

“This incident has sensitised the JCR committee, including myself, to be more careful with our email conversations. I have also urged the committee to turn on the “undo sending” option in outlook and have done so myself.

“It is top priority of Trinity College JCR that every student feels welcome and cared for at Trinity.

“To this end, we are surveying our members to understand how to better support them and feeding this information back to college in order to work together on improving the culture and support provision at Trinity.”

Speaking to Cherwell on the subject of inclusivity, the Trinity College Communications Department said: “As a small collegiate community, it is our top priority at Trinity to foster an environment in which everyone feels comfortable, welcome and respected.

“We want students to feel empowered to come forward if they encounter instances of behaviour that work counter to these values so that we can continuously work to ensure that every single member of our community feels warmly included and that Trinity lives up to its values.”

Record turn-out for SU elections

Libby Cherry
-
0
Record turn-out for SU elections

Anisha Faruk has been elected President of the Oxford University Students’ Union on a record turnout, with 4,792 ballots cast.

Faruk, former editor of the Oxford Student beat candidates Ivy Manning and Ellie Milne Brown to become President of the Students’ Union. She won the vote in a final round contest against Manning.

The new record beat the previous best set in the Michaelmas Term 2013 election, where 4,494 votes were cast.

Faruk’s slate, Impact, saw 3 of its 5 candidates for senior positions elected, with Neil Misra taking the role of SU Vice President for Graduates and Ray Williams taking SU Vice President for Access and Academic Affairs.

Amber Sparks and Roisin McCallion, both running on the Aspire slate, took SU Vice President for Women and SU Vice President for Welfare and Equal Opportunities, respectively.

The election was held to elect the SU President, 5 Vice Presidents, 3 Student Trustees, 6 NUS delegates, and RAG National and International Charities.

A number of independent candidates were elected to the SU. Matthew Judson was elected independently to be a student trustee while Zehra Munir, Jim Brennan, and Rashma Rahmany all won successful independent bids to become NUS delegates.

Kathryn Husband, Olivia Railton, and Arya Tandon were also elected as NUS delegates, while Alexander Kumar and Grace Davis have been announced as Student Trustee.

Oxford Gatehouse and KEEN Oxford were voted RAG national charities, and Meningitis Now and Beat (Formerly Eating Disorder Association) are RAG international charities.

‘No-platforming’ could be illegal, government warns

Ben van der Merwe
-
0
‘No-platforming’ could be illegal, government warns

New government guidance warns that universities may be in breach of their legal obligations if they cancel events due to protests.

The report, produced by the government’s Equality and Human Rights Commission, states: “[Universities] have a legal duty to protect freedom of expression for their members, students and employees and for visiting speakers.”

Universities that cancel speakers due to planned protests, on the grounds of security concerns, could be found in breach of the law if they cannot later show that they took all practicable steps to increase security.

The report also clarifies the legal limits of universities’ free speech duty, stating: “Freedom of expression can be limited by law if necessary, for example, to prevent crime, for national security or public safety, or to prevent unlawful discrimination and harassment.”

These exceptions are strictly qualified, applying only to speech likely to constitute a civil or criminal offence. Criminal speech includes incitement to violence, incitement of racial, sexual or religious hatred.

Speech may be exempted from protection if it constitutes harassment or discrimination. This includes speech that “has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that person.”

However, the guidance clarifies that such considerations must be weighed against academic freedom: “Students’ learning experience may include exposure to course material, discussions or speaker’s views that they find offensive or unacceptable, and this is unlikely to be considered harassment under the Equality Act 2010.

“Also, if the subject matter of a talk is clear from material promoting an event, then people who attend are unlikely to succeed in a claim for harassment arising from views expressed by the speaker.”

The new guidance also clarifies the duties that student unions (SUs) have towards free speech. Unlike universities, most SUs are not public bodies and therefore do not have any direct duty to protect free speech under British or EU law.

However, universities may be indirectly accountable for the actions of their SU, and in particular are expected to ensure that SU premises are not denied to any speaker because of their views.

The report follows a 2017 inquiry, prompted by media reports, into free speech on university campuses.

The inquiry found that “while restriction of freedom of expression was not a widespread issue, there were concerns around increased bureaucracy, and potential self-censorship from students on campus as a result of the Prevent duty guidance.”

The new guidelines focus heavily on the issues of ‘no-platforming’ and ‘safe spaces’, with just two pages of the 54-page report devoted to potential conflicts between Prevent duties and free speech.

NUS Vice President Higher Education Amatey Doku said: “The Joint Committee on Human Rights in Parliament found that there was no widespread problem with freedom of expression at universities, and issues such as regulatory complexity or bureaucracy and reported self-censorship arising from the Prevent Duty were as much of a concern as the small minority of cases repeatedly cited in the media.

“Students’ unions are required to ensure freedom of expression is upheld within the law: they are adept at doing so and support many thousands of events each year.

“However, as the guidance rightly notes, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute and students’ unions and universities must balance that right with other legal duties. We were pleased to input into the drafting process in order to help identify where confusion can arise and to dispel some of the common myths around students’ union activity.

“We hope that this guidance is read not only by universities and students’ unions but by anyone looking to understand or comment on freedom of expression in higher education – so that the future debate is informed and balanced, and ceases to be characterised by both misconception and exaggeration.”

President of the Oxford Union Daniel Wilkinson said: “The Oxford Union continues to affirm our commitment to free speech. In a moment of polarisation and an ever-increasing echo chamber effect, it is crucial to make sure that we are having the difficult conversations and engaging with the widest possible range of viewpoints.

“We at the Oxford Union are proud to have a history of holding space for speakers and debates which both challenge that which we take for granted and highlight the most pressing issues of our age.

“Creating a home for these discussions is the work we hold dear; it is our responsibility both as students and as citizens.”

Oxford SU VP Welfare and Equal Opportunity Ellie Macdonald told Cherwell: “Oxford SU is happy to see guidance that offers support on helping the safety of students on campus as well as promoting free speech.

“The guidelines encourages students to have their views challenged and scrutinised which is widely positive however we must not forget that a clear line that exists between rigorous academic debate and discrimination.

“Oxford SU would like to see clearer articulation of this in University policies moving forward.”

Sir Michael Barber, chair of the Office for Students, said: “I welcome this important and timely guidance. Freedom of speech is one of our most cherished values, and our higher education system should be at the forefront of its promotion and protection.

“A key part of a quality higher education experience should be that students confront and debate opinions and ways of thinking which may be different to their own.

“This guidance ensures that universities and student unions are clear on their responsibilities, allowing them to ensure that our higher education system remains a place where passionate but civil debate thrives.”

Alistair Jarvis, Chief Executive of Universities UK, said: “Although there is little evidence of a systematic problem of free speech in universities, there is a legal duty on the higher education sector to secure free speech within the law and it is important that universities continually review their approaches.

“This new guidance provides a useful tool that will help universities balance the numerous requirements placed upon them, including student safeguarding responsibilities, and supports their significant efforts to uphold freedom of speech.”

The university have been contacted for comment.

Union Slate-Gate!

Angus Brown
-
0
Union Slate-Gate!

Members of the Oxford Union have called for the impeachment of Librarian, Brendan McGrath, following calls for his removal by former Chief of Staff Ray Williams, who resigned on Thursday night in protest of the Union’s decision to overturn the trial ban of slates.

Slates, the groups in which members of the Union stand for election, were banned in Michaelmas this year after a lengthy campaign. They were reintroduced in 2015 as part of a package of sweeping changes to the Union’s electoral rules, and are banned in the Cambridge Union.

McGrath raised an objection to the Union’s RO last Friday, calling for a ruling on whether the trial slate ban was invalid because the manner in which the ban was enacted was not of significant seniority in the Union’s rule-making process to overturn the 2015 rule reintroducing slates.

On Thursday afternoon, the Union’s Returning Office, Liam Frahm, issued a ruling in which he said that: “On Friday 1st February, Brendan McGrath, the Librarian, officially requested a Ruling into the validity of the trial ban on electoral pacts from MT18.”
“Having investigated the Librarian’s allegations, I can firstly confirm that the MT18 Motion was passed without either Rule 67(b)(iv) or Rule 67(b)(v) being invoked.”

He continued: “Having consulted the MT18 Standing Committee Minutes and unequivocally knowing that no requisition was posted, this Motion did not have special attention applied to it.

“Therefore, the Motion holds executive seniority of (3) as special attention applied to it. Therefore, the Motion holds executive seniority of (3) as outlined in Rule 73(A).”
He therefore concluded that “Having established a conflict in the rules, Rule 73 requires that precedence is granted to the rule with greater executive seniority.

“Therefore, as executive seniority is determined by the method by which the Rule is introduced and the HT15 rule was passed with greater seniority than the MT18 rules change, Rule 73 requires that the HT15 rules change take precedence over the MT18 private business motion that introduced rule 33e is ruled invalid.”

Rule 73 says “In the event of a conflict over a decision concerning a particular policy or the implementation of a particular policy, or concerning amendments to the Rules or Standing Orders, and the Rules and Standing Orders are otherwise silent, the following shall take precedence in the following order of seniority:
(1) A Poll of Members as under Rule 47(f);

(2) A Private Business Motion at a Public Business Meeting to
which Rule 67(b)(iv) or Rule 67(b) (v) applies;

(3) Other Private
Business Motions at a Public Business Meeting or any Special Adjournment Motion, as under Rule 45;

(4) A Private Business Motion at a Private Business Meeting;

(5) The Returning Officer, for the purposes of their duty only, as defined in Rule 32(e) only;

(6) A motion of an Ordinary or Emergency Standing Committee;

(7) A motion of a Vacation Standing Commit-
tee.”

This means that the previous trial slate ban is no longer in place, and the changes made last term (including the provision for a poll of the members on getting rid of slates next term) are rendered invalid.

The Returning Officer also ruled that changes made to Rule 33 last term are also invalid, and that a number of rulings in response to the trial ban will now need to be reissued by the Returning Officer.

Williams, who was the initial proposer of the trial ban, earlier issued an objection to the Returning Officer’s ruling invalidating the ban, but this was rejected.

Ray Williams told Cherwell: “‘I would never criticise someone for merely running on or forming a slate in an election where that is legal and expected.

“The problem comes when someone tries to dupe everyone into following one set of agreed upon Rules and then blindsiding them. That’s neither fair play nor is it democratic and for me that was one dodgy Union move too far.”

In his resignation speech, Williams declared that “it had shocked me that our Librarian had seeked [sic] to subvert the express will of the membership, conning potentially dozens of other candidates to satisfy his desire for the presidency.

“I cannot continue to serve as Chief off Staff in these circumstances. I thus support the impeachment of the Librarian which is being brought before the Standing Committee as I speak.”

Williams then formally tendered his letter of resignation to the President, before exiting the chamber.

In Williams’ resignation letter, seen exclusively by Cherwell, he said “When you offered me this position, I was honoured to accepted, [sic] believing you to be, as I am, firmly committed to reform and progress in the Union.

“I had previously believe [sic] that the best way to bring about change was from the outside, but under your Presidency, I thought things would be different.

“However, the recent action of the Librarian, as reported to the press, does not only fly in the face of the democratic principles upon which the Oxford Union was founded, but also risk doing enormous damage to the Union as an institution; the relationship between its Committee and Membership; and its enduring reputation.

“I have always been a believer that slates, although not wrong in principle, in recent times at the Union have degenerated by ambition and betrayal, and have toxified our elections.

“Last Trinity, I was incredibly proud to serve as a Member of Standing Committee – elected on a manifesto pledging to push for the abolition of slates. After months of effort, we passed a trial ban last term – yet the actions of the Librarian have robbed the Membership of the promised Referendum that was due to occur.

“Given the circumstances, I cannot in good conscience continue to serve as Chief of Staff. Therefore, please accept my letter of resignation, effective immediately.

“I am confident that despite my departure the Standing Committee and Senior Appointed Officials will be more than capable with ensuring the smooth running of this term’s events, which the Membership deserve more than anything.”

The Oxford Union Brendan McGrath have been contacted for comment.

Numbers Review – commendable but difficult to feel nuance

Cesca Echlin
-
0
Numbers Review – commendable but difficult to feel nuance

CW/TW: Discussion of mental health problems and eating disorders. 

‘Jack has 931 friends on Facebook. He weighs 75 kilos, has a body fat percentage of 11 point 4 and the longest he’s gone without eating is eight and a half hours.’

Numbers by Alex Blanc is a piece of new writing on at the Pilch this week that explores the mental health of an individual through the ‘numbers’ that come to define us – our weight, height, calorie intake, amount of instagram likes or even the price of items we regularly purchase.

The plot follows Jack (Henry Waddon), who becomes increasingly absorbed in a rigorous gym and clean-eating regime. The first half of the play traces how Jack’s obsession turns toxic, and how in the process he pushes away close friends Brianna (Abi Harindra) and Darren (Hamish Venters). The second-half of the play paints a more hopeful picture of mental health, as Jack attempts to get himself back on track alongside the equally as problem-ridden Michael (Louis Cunningham).

Numbers draws attention to crucial issues. For a start, there are nowhere near enough narratives in popular culture that examine how mental health and masculinity intertwine, and in this way Numbers focuses on a pertinent topic. In line with this, I am glad to hear that the profits from Numbers will be donated to the hugely important mental health charity SANE. The play was particularly successful in its exploration of masculinity during a scene in which Jack recounts a story from the night before to his female friend, Brianna, and then to his male friend, Darren. The dialogue continuously switches back and forth between his conversation with Brianna and his conversation with Darren, and with these switches Jack’s tone shifts utterly from that of concerned vulnerability to laddish bragging. Staging at moments like these was effective, with Jack positioned in between Brianna and Darren, thereby pulled between these two conflicting sides of his identity. Later in the play we are reminded of the devastating effects of this clash between mental illness and masculinity, as Jack reminds us of the fact that, in the UK, suicide is the single biggest killer of men under 45.

Waddon provides a particularly compelling central performance as Jack, his performance studded with physical tics that reveal Jack’s consistent nervousness. A significant portion of the script consists of Jack addressing the audience directly, and Waddon did well to keep the audience engaged during monologues, displaying impressive variety in his acting. Harindra, Venters and Cunningham should also be commended for their supporting roles, providing unique counterpoints to Jack’s story and illustrating the fact that mental health affects everyone in totally different ways.

Numbers was extended by writer Alex Blanc from a ten minute piece to a two-hour play, and this becomes increasingly evident as the performance goes on. At times the narrative dragged a bit, and I believe the text could prove more effective if it were shorter. The main issue I had with the play was that it opened up multiple channels of thought, yet I was left with unanswered questions. What did Jack do for work? Where were his family? How old was he? These questions seem very literal – questions that needn’t always have answers provided by a two-hour play. Yet, issues arose because some aspects of the plot were more developed than others, which led to some confusion on my part. For example, Brianna’s situation at work was consistently touched on, but by the play’s end her emotional and mental decline felt barely explained. Equally, I had doubts about the function of Michael in the second half.

Ultimately, I think the script was too ambitious – it sought to do too much, and as such left the audience with loose ends. The script was at its best when it focused on Jack’s own journey, and I only wish we could have looked into his character’s background and personality with greater complexity. Amongst the barrage of numbers, it was difficult to feel the story’s nuance.

Numbers touches on intensely important issues. Whilst I commend Mercury Theatre’s production and encourage others to see it, I find myself wishing that it retained a sharper focus.

Fixed-term contracts disproportionately held by women and minority groups

Editor
-
0
Fixed-term contracts disproportionately held by women and minority groups

A greater proportion of women and those from BME backgrounds hold fixed-term contracts at the University.

In 2018, the proportion of women in fixed-term contracts was consistently higher across the academic divisions, with the sharpest disparities in the Social Sciences where 56% of women were in fixed-term contracts compared with just 45% of men.

In the Medical Sciences Division, 85% of those from BME backgrounds were found to hold fixed-term contracts in 2018 in comparison to just 68% of those who identify as white.

For Social Sciences the respective figures were 66% to 45%, and in the Maths, Physical, and Life Sciences, the figures were 74% to 43%.

Overall, the proportion of all those of fixed-term contracts has increased significantly from 2008 across all divisions apart from Medical, with the Humanities Division seeing the biggest increase in the use of fixed-term contracts, from 23% to 32%.

In 2018, just under 50% of staff from the Maths, Physical, and Life Sciences, Social Sciences, Medical, and Humanities divisions, were on fixed-term contracts.

The University’s policy on ending fixed-term contracts requires dismissal to be “fair and transparent.”

Employees are informed three months before the end of their contract is “at risk”. When it is not possible to extend or renew the contract, an employee will be informed of the fact a month before its termination.

A University spokesman told Cherwell: “Oxford is the UK’s most successful University in attracting external funding to support our world-leading research. The funding packages support jobs for researchers at every career stage, including fixed-term posts. The larger number of fixed-term contracts results from this increased funding success, opening more opportunities for the next generations of world-class researchers. We have had particular success in attracting talented women to progress their careers with us, including those areas of the sciences where they have been traditionally under-represented.

“We do recognise that fixed-term work can create uncertainties and practical difficulties. We make extensive efforts to support staff on these contracts, including through personal and career development opportunities.

“All staff at Oxford, whether on permanent, open-ended or fixed-term contracts, benefit from our generous employment packages and support for future development. We are also working hard on moving staff onto open-ended and permanent contracts wherever possible. A growing proportion of these contracts are held by women, while the proportion of all staff on open-ended contracts in the sciences is now growing faster than those in fixed-term posts.”

The University’s policy is to ensure departments are “keeping contracts under active review and transferring staff to permanent or open-ended contracts wherever funding permits.”

The proportion of staff working on open-ended contracts in the sciences is now growing faster than those on fixed-term contracts. For example, in 2008, 75% of staff in Medical Sciences were on fixed-term contracts and 4% on open-ended contracts; By 2018, fixed-term contracts had fallen to 72% and open-ended contracts risen to 8%.

The proportions of women in permanent and open-ended positions has increased in some sectors. In Medical Sciences in 2008, 45% of permanent contracts and 53% of open-ended contracts were held by women. By 2018, women held 52% of permanent and 57% of open-ended contracts.

However, in a 2016 report the UCU also included open-ended contracts within their definition of insecure contracts, because their “employment is dependent on short-term funding.”

Their report read: “Employers like to emphasise the degree of choice and agency available to workers on casual or as they like to call them ‘flexible’ contracts, but it is obvious that your enjoyment of choice and flexibility will be shaped by which category you are in.

“It’s simply impossible to imagine that a workforce of this magnitude is comprised entirely, or even largely of the people who conform to the employers’ caricature of the jobbing professional who relishes the flexibility.”

Oxford UCU representative Patricia Thornton told Cherwell: ”Regardless of whether the University wishes to accept the UCU’s calculation of the HESA data on precarious contracts or not, it’s clear that in many divisions, the numbers of staff on casualised contracts have been rising.

“It’s important to note here that “open-ended externally funded contract” staff, whilst sometimes not counted as casualised, effectively face the same level insecurity: their employment is terminated if and when the external source of the funding is withdrawn. The key difference here is that, whereas a fixed-term contract employee is given an end date at the point of hire, the staff member on an open-ended externally funded contract is not; which is arguably even less secure for the member of staff, whose employment can come to an end suddenly and without sufficient warning if the funding is withdrawn.”

Just under 5% of staff in the Medical, Maths, Physical and Life Sciences, Social Sciences, and Humanities cumulatively are in open-ended or externally funded contracts in 2018. The figure was just 2.3% in 2008.  

Thornton continued: “Casualised contracts not only create a two-tier workforce within the university, with casualised members of staff effectively carrying out many, if not all, of the same duties as their permanent counterparts on a day-to-day basis, paid lower salaries and afforded a greatly reduced level of protection (and fewer benefits), but they also magnify pre-existing inequalities within the workforce, like the gender pay gap and the persistent underpayment of minority ethnic staff.

“There is a significantly higher proportions of women than men in fixed-term contracts across the divisions, and, disappointingly, that proportion has actually increased marginally since 2008 in the Social Science and MPLS Divisions, and increased significantly in the Humanities Division.

“Equally disturbing is that, despite Oxford UCU’s persistently raising this issue with the administration, and despite various commitments that have been verbalised across the university, the percentages of staff on fixed term term contracts have instead risen since 2008.”

One representative of the ‘Academic Precariat’ group, pointed out that these figures fail to account for those that have already left the sector due to casualisation.

They told Cherwell: “There are plenty of us around, but very little data or interest in us. I left the sector for a range of reasons, but most of them related directly to insecure employment and its consequences: a two-tier system in which casual teaching and research staff undertake work that mainly just enables senior academics to bring in big money projects, lack of respect for intellectual ownership of teaching/research materials produced on these contracts, feeling and being utterly disposable, lack of investment and interest in supporting career progression (why should they, when to offer us more secure employment would be to remove the props fora system which values REF and big grant money above all else?).

“Another big factor in my decision to leave after my short-term postdoc was the minimal prospect of ever being able to secure a contract long enough to actually qualify for maternity pay in the near future.”

Review: Shostakovich 7 with the Oxford University Orchestra

Alice Williams
-
0
Review: Shostakovich 7 with the Oxford University Orchestra

Sitting squashed between the ribs of the Sheldonian I try and imagine the parental mind brave enough to take a young baby to hear Shostakovich 7. More than that, I marvel at the parent capable of keeping their child quiet for the full hour and a half, bar two impromptu crying-baby solos duetting the woodwind in the second and fourth movements. Parents of this child: I salute you.

The Oxford University Orchestra was similarly impressive, and (thankfully) rather different in acoustic output. This mammoth piece, conducted by Peter Stark, was crystal clear and slipped beautifully between the strange emotional contortions of Shostakovich’s score. The third movement was perhaps the highlight, combining loneliness, anger and ridged determination. I was repeatedly struck by the easy yet haunting warmth of the flute solos, which were some of the most beautiful moments in the performance.

The softer moments of anguished remembrance and forlorn song were more eloquent than the dramatic, combative fortissimos which, in the Sheldonian’s absorptive architecture, were sometimes so earth-shatteringly loud it was paradoxically difficult to hear, but then again there was something appropriate in that difficulty.

Shostakovich Seven is a piece that only really works in concert. Whilst many works have a dual life on the stage and the recording, I can’t imagine many people in their kitchen listening beginning to end to 90 minutes of suffering, pain, disturbing humour and joviality all rolled into one.  One of the piece’s most powerful characteristics is its severe ambiguity, its ability to morph between supposedly opposed emotions. The bassoon solo, for example, of the first moment (which was expertly played) achieves an unnerving stillness that should be at odds with the wriggling melody. And of course this same ambiguity allowed Shostakovich himself to escape the full force of Soviet denouncement. The OUO’s performance was a staggering feat that managed to find clarity in complexity and joy against deep pain.

On the way out I drop a pound into the collection for the orchestra’s upcoming tour to Japan, to do the same (maybe with more than a pound) visit http://ouo.oums.org/japan-project/

Union Chief of Staff resigns in protest

Angus Brown
-
0
Union Chief of Staff resigns in protest

The Union’s Chief of Staff, Ray Williams, has resigned in protest at the recent decision by the Oxford Union to overturn the trial ban on slates.

Williams, who was the initial proposer of the trial ban, earlier issued an objection to the Returning Officer’s ruling invalidating the ban, but this was rejected.

His resignation came at the end of his speech in the debate on whether “This House believes Thatcher was a working class hero“, and was followed by Williams’ exit from the Union.

In Williams’ resignation letter, seen exclusively by Cherwell, he said “When you offered me this position, I was honoured to accept, [sic] believing you to be, as I am, firmly committed to reform and progress in the Union.

“I had previously believed [sic] that the best way to bring about change was from the outside, but under your Presidency, I thought things would be different.

“However, the recent action of the Librarian, as reported to the press, does not only fly in the face of the democratic principles upon which the Oxford Union was founded, but also risk doing enormous damage to the Union as an institution; the relationship between its Committee and Membership; and its enduring reputation.

“I have always been a believer that slates, although not wrong in principle, in recent times at the Union have degenerated by ambition and betrayal, and have toxified our elections.

“Last Trinity, I was incredibly proud to serve as a Member of Standing Committee – elected on a manifesto pledging to push for the abolition of slates. After months of effort, we passed a trial ban last term – yet the actions of the Librarian have robbed the Membership of the promised Referendum that was due to occur.

“Given the circumstances, I cannot in good conscience continue to serve as Chief of Staff. Therefore, please accept my letter of resignation, effective immediately.

“I am confident that despite my departure the Standing Committee and Senior Appointed Officials will be more than capable with ensuring the smooth running of this term’s events, which the Membership deserve more than anything.”

The Oxford Union and Ray Williams were contacted for comment.

Union RO overturns trial slate ban

Angus Brown
-
0
Union RO overturns trial slate ban

Following a request last Friday for a ruling on the validity of the “Trial Slate Ban” introduced in Michaelmas 2018, the Union’s Returning Officer, Liam Frahm, has ruled that the trial ban is invalid.

In his ruling Frahm announced: “On Friday 1st February, Brendan McGrath, the Librarian, officially requested a Ruling into the validity of the trial ban on electoral pacts from MT18.”

“Having investigated the Librarian’s allegations, I can firstly confirm that the MT18 Motion was passed without either Rule 67(b)(iv) or Rule 67(b)(v) being invoked.”

He continued: “Having consulted the MT18 Standing Committee Minutes and unequivocally knowing that no requisition was posted, this Motion did not have special attention applied to it.

“Therefore, the Motion holds executive seniority of (3) as special attention applied to it. Therefore, the Motion holds executive seniority of (3) as outlined in Rule 73(A).”

He therefore concluded that “Having established a conflict in the rules, Rule 73 requires that precedence is granted to the rule with greater executive seniority.

“Therefore, as executive seniority is determined by the method by which the Rule is introduced and the HT15 rule was passed with greater seniority than the MT18 rules change, Rule 73 requires that the HT15 rules change take precedence over the MT18 private business motion that introduced rule 33e is ruled invalid.”

Rule 73 says: “In the event of a conflict over a decision concerning a particular policy or the implementation of a particular policy, or concerning amendments to the Rules or Standing Orders, and the Rules and Standing Orders are otherwise silent, the following shall take precedence in the following order of seniority:

(1) A Poll of Members as under Rule 47(f);
(2) A Private Business Motion at a Public Business Meeting to which Rule 67(b)(iv) or Rule 67(b) (v) applies; (3) Other Private Business Motions at a Public Business Meeting or any Special Adjournment Motion, as under Rule 45;
(4) A Private Business Motion at a Private Business Meeting;
(5) The Returning Officer, for the purposes of their duty only, as defined in Rule 32(e) only; (6) A motion of an Ordinary or Emergency Standing Committee;
(7) A motion of a Vacation Standing Committee.”

This means that the previous trial slate ban is no longer in place, and the changes made last term (including the provision for a poll of the members on getting rid of slates next term) are rendered invalid.

The Returning Officer also ruled that changes made to Rule 33 last term are also invalid, and that a number of rulings in response to the trial ban will now need to be reissued by the Returning Officer.

The Oxford Union and Liam Frahm were contacted for comment. Ray Williams and Brendan McGrath declined to comment.

Government announces new measures to improve access

Angus Brown
-
0
Government announces new measures to improve access

The government’s Universities Minister, Chris Skidmore, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster David Lidington have announced new regulations requiring universities to publish a record of their efforts to tackle ethnic inequality in the university admissions.

The new measures, organised by the Office for Students (OfS), will also hold universities to account on how they improve outcomes for underrepresented students.

Amongst the data which universities must now publish publicly are statistics on admissions and attainment, broken down by ethnicity, gender, and socio-economic background. League table providers will also be encouraged to take this data into account in future university rankings.

According to the OfS’ Race Disparity Audit, although record numbers of BAME students are attending university, only 56% achieve a First or 2:1, compared to 80% of their white peers, and that black students were the most likely to drop out of university.

David Lidington said: “I am determined that nobody experiences a worse outcome solely on the grounds of their ethnicity, which is why the Government is making a clear and concerted effort, alongside higher education partners to tackle these injustices.”

Meanwhile Chris Skidmore said: “I fully expect access and participation plans, which universities will be drawing up this year for implementation in 2020-21, to contain ambitious and significant actions to make sure we are seeing material progress in this space in the next few years.

“It is one of my key priorities as the universities minister to ensure that I work with universities to highlight examples of best practice in widening not only access, but also that we redouble our efforts to tackle student dropout rates.”

The Office for Students, which was formed in January last year, has previously threatened Oxford with sanctions if they fail to improve their access outcomes, making them one of just three higher educational institutions to have conditions placed on their registration with the OfS.

The University was contacted for comment.

1...649650651...2,515Page 650 of 2,515

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by James Ashley