Mansfield College has retroactively raised the prices of Formal Hall, sparking student outrage.

The price increase, of 30 pence on Formals, which take place on Wednesdays and Fridays, including special Friday ‘Formal Formals’ which occur three times per term, has been applied to those already attended this term, an increase which many students hold to be illegal, as the price is higher than was advertised at the time of sale.

The cost of normal twice-weekly Formals, which is now £12.75, is added to the battels of the following term. The increases had been discussed in Trinity 2015, but were never communicated to students.

In an email from the Principal of Mansfield, Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, students were told that “I am sorry you did not receive prior notice – it was a complete oversight caused by the departure of Neil, our Catering Manager, for personal reasons at quite short notice. The increase which was consciously kept as small as possible was agreed prior to the appointment of Peter and Lee in to the key catering roles and they did not realise students had not been informed.”

This followed a lengthy and impassioned thread on a post made in the ‘Mansfield College – Hall & Dining’ Facebook group Tuesday evening, which is run by Hall staff. A student had tagged the College in the post, stating, “I think the prices of our formals have increased after we booked/attended them. I’m not entirely sure this is legal. Why have the prices changed on our battels after we already booked and attended the formal? Can you explain why this is OK?”

Calls were then also made for the College Bursar, Allan Dodd, to resign, leading to additional comments in Kennedy’s email, that “On another note, I was very disappointed at the tone and language of the Facebook discussion on this subject. Personal comments about those who serve the needs of the college is unwarranted and unworthy of my students who are normally so considerate. Please don’t let that happen again.”

Speaking to Cherwell, JCR President Luke Charters-Reid stated that he fears such student comments have harmed the JCR’s bargaining position, but agreed that some comments had not been acceptable. Students are also concerned that comments made on the Facebook page are being used as a deflection technique.

The JCR President stated, “There is strong student reaction to this. I have urged students to stay calm and would like to see a speedy resolution to this,” while adding, “I don’t believe students have always been treated with respect by College in the handling of this matter.”

The JCR Treasurer, Claire Gibson, endorsed the JCR President’s statements to Cherwell and stated that she has been working actively with him towards finding a solution with the College that is agreeable to students.

An emergency JCR meeting took place Thursday evening to discuss the action the JCR wishes to take on this together. It was determined that there should be a “productive dialogue” with the College to resolve the matter in a “calm and timely manner”. Charters-Reid had added to Cherwell in advance of the meeting, “I don’t think it is appropriate to make a decision [on our way forward] before the meeting. I’m hoping for unified action.”

The JCR and MCR Presidents met with the Principal and other senior members of the College on Wednesday to attempt to find a resolution. The JCR and MCR Presidents proposed that the College agree to delay the increase until Hilary term, with one student asking them on the Facebook thread “[not to] settle for anything less than that.”

However, this was rejected by the College, and it was agreed that the matter would be discussed at further meetings. Kennedy laid out the College’s stance in her email to students that same day, writing “I think you should accept this low increase and the apologies of all concerned.”

To many students, however, it is not about the 30 pence increase, but the issue of legality and the principle of the matter, as Charters-Reid reiterated to Cherwell. The initial poster on Facebook, who wishes to remain anonymous, labelled it “stealing”, with another stating “any sum of money that is charged to us without our knowledge or consent is an unreasonable amount.”

A student has also confirmed to Cherwell that a query has been raised with the Chartered Trading Standards Institute as to the legality of the College’s actions.

Some Mansfield alumni who are still members of the page shared in their successors’ anger, raising previous incidences they deemed unfair, without one alumnus concluding “it seems Mansy is no longer the college where students are treated like equals.”

Additionally, online meal cost confirmations for previous Hall bookings now have a sentence underneath, stating that “This meal has been signed off by the catering department and no further changes will be applied to this booking.”

Mansfield College Bursar, Allan Dodd, has been contacted for comment.

Months after originally planned, renovations at the Ruskin School of Art’s new Bullingdon Road site have finished thanks to students helping out in a “wall building marathon”.

Over half of the university’s Fine Art students had been left for weeks without access to studio space. In order to speed up the creation of such work space, students were asked by the Ruskin administration to assist with the renovations themselves.

In an email from a member of staff , students were told, “You have been asking and asking for proper studio spaces and now the day is finally upon us…We really could use as many pairs of hands as we can get over the next two days to really get the studios properly up and running”.

The renovations took place over the summer and were originally scheduled to finish in September. The studio space was finally finished last Friday.

One Fine Art student, who wishes to remain anonymous, has told Cherwell, “It seems very unfair to the students, especially international students who are paying over a hundred pounds a day, that the Ruskin didn’t have studio space ready for students until Friday of Third Week.”

However, Angeli Bhose, a third-year undergraduate studying at the Ruskin, stated, “The new building was a hugely ambitious project – about two years passed between us first hearing about it and us moving in to the finished building.

“There have been some teething problems, as you could expect with any brand new purposebuilt building, but everyone has been working really hard to get everything up and running. As we all get settled in, we are excited to begin hatching some shows and events to invite the wider community in to see what we’re making using the new facilities and space!”

Another anonymous Ruskin student added, “There have been issues moving in (as you’d expect really – imagine shifting half the Bod libraries at once!) but the students, the staff and the University are all working on the same team to get it sorted, and to help us make up for the time we’ve lost.

“The new studio is world-class and the entire faculty have worked incredibly hard to get it made, so while it is disruptive to have these issues, we’re all working co-operatively – on the same side – to get the best solution.”

As well as providing new studio space, the 1,600 square-metre site can also accommodate the addition of a future master’s course.

The Ruskin School of Art declined to respond to Cherwell’s request for comment

Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA) and Oxford University Labour Club (OULC) have this week taken up their positions as student political societies ahead of the coming referendum on the UK’s continued membership of the European Union.

In a public statement released on Monday, OUCA President Jan Nedvídek and Political Officer George Walker announced, “In light of the forthcoming referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union, [OUCA] has thought it right to clarify what role we intend to play in the debate.

“Considering the variety of views which our members have on the question of EU membership, OUCA has decided not to support either the ‘In’ or the ‘Out’ campaigns. This stance is in accordance with the Conservative Party’s own position of allowing members to make up their own minds about the issue.”

OUCA’s stance means the society will not be campaigning for either side unless a future GM motion in favour of changing the society’s position were to be proposed and passed.

Meanwhile, OULC passed a motion on Monday night, with only five votes against, to “endorse UK membership of the European Union” and “to actively campaign in favour of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union in the coming referendum campaign.”

Noni Csogor, Co-Chair-Elect of OULC, who contributed to the motion debate, told Cherwell, “The EU has worked tirelessly and often unseen for the promotion of workers’ rights and international cooperation. It’s not perfect, but we need to have a voice in the EU to be able to push for its democratisation, which is why I’m really pleased that OULC voted by such a large margin to support the ‘Yes’ campaign. The labour movement is an international movement.”

Nedvídek added in a separate statement to Cherwell, “‘The issue of Britain’s place in the European Union is a divisive one in all parties except UKIP. I think it’s so important that we try to accommodate this diversity in the Conservative Party by not taking an official stance on the issue.”

“‘The Party, and OUCA, have always been broad churches, incorporating all types of different views. Rather than pointing at people who disagree with us and telling them to go elsewhere, I’m delighted that OUCA has made it clear that everyone is welcome.”

David Parton, who is at St Hilda’s and who proposed the motion to OULC, told Cherwell, “This [position] is in line with UK Labour Party policy…Labour’s values of internationalism, solidarity and cooperation shine through in our policy stance, and we find it indicative of how increasingly feral the eurosceptic Tory right is becoming that OUCA was unable to commit to anything.”

These developments follow NUS President Megan Dunn having taken up a position on the board of the national ‘In’ campaign ‘Britain Stronger in Europe’ last month.

OUSU also endorses Britain’s continued membership of the EU. In its Seventh Week meeting of Trinity 2015, a motion was passed, stating, “This council believes that Britain should remain a member state of the European Union.”

While no date has yet been set, the EU referendum must take place before the end of 2017, although it is speculated that it could be as soon as Autumn 2016.

Plans to reform the undergraduate History syllabus are entering into their final phase, with mixed responses from the student body.

The proposed reforms will see three major changes to the existing syllabus for History and Joint Schools. There will first be a requirement for all students to take one ‘World History’ paper during their degree; the menu of British and General History papers for finalists will be reduced to make way for ‘Theme’ papers, which examine a concept over a long period of time; the British History finals paper will be assessed by three submitted essays, rather than an exam.

Dr Benjamin Thompson, Coordinator for Undergraduate History, told Cherwell that the reforms would give “more diversity, thematically and geographically”. He continued, “The study of history changes all the time, as more history is made and new generations study it, and the curriculum has to refl ect that without following fashion…cautiously and slowly.”

In his view, the challenge is to “try to get the balance between core British history, with its wonderfully diverse history and sources, and more places in the world: to give undergraduates a chance to study Ottomans, Middle East, Native Americans and so on.”

Another aim of the changes is to address a gap in Finals performance between men and women in History. Catrin Prior, co-President of the Undergraduate History Assembly (UHA), informed Cherwell that, “Men consistently outperform women in history exams, for reasons no one is sure of.” She is confident that the proposed reforms will help “rectify the gender gap”, by making the syllabus less male-orientated and bringing in coursework for the paper with the greatest disparity in performance, British History.

She noted that, “Our statistics show that men and women perform similarly in coursework and dissertations, this module will be assessed in three essays rather than in one big exam. Hopefully this will go some way in ensuring that men and women have an equal opportunity to achieve a first at Oxford.”

Both Prior and Dr Thompson stressed that the proposals reflected student sentiment expressed in surveys and the UHA. Prior explained, “The results from the UHA’s surveys, and from general points raised in our meetings, have definitely gone into the faculty’s efforts to reform the syllabus and we’re extremely happy with some of the changes.”

Some students, however, seem apprehensive about the changes. One second-year historian thought the change to coursework “seems like a wonderful way to ruin Trinity for historians”, while a joint-schools student suggested it would, come Finals exams, “penalise joint school students who already take a lot more Finals exams than the historians”. There was also worry that the new ‘World History’ and ‘Theme’ papers were broad brush strokes and may not do the topics justice.

Asked about these concerns, Dr Thompson acknowledged that the balancing of detail and breadth in a History curriculum was “always a struggle”, but insisted that “[he doesn’t] think we’re giving up on detailed papers.” Dr. Thompson also had sympathy with students troubled by the potential workload, but laughed that, “Nobody said studying History at Oxford was easy!”

These proposals come at a time when a number of History and Politics students appear unhappy with recent changes to their syllabus. From the start of last academic year, first and second-year Politics students have been required to attend statistics classes at the ‘Qstep’ statistical analysis laboratory, but some History and Politics students feel this change has left them at a disadvantage.

One second-year History and Politics student complained to Cherwell, “The feeling amongst ‘HPol’ students is that the statistics module has been hoisted upon us and requires mathematical skills that many of us simply do not have.” Another explained that “We are expected to do the same syllabus as the PPEists in spite of the fact that most of us have a humanities background, whereas most PPEists have done A-Level Maths”; the same student said, “it seems like the department has just stuck two fingers up” to History and Politics students.

Professor Andrew Eggers, Associate Professor of Quantitative Methods in Comparative Government, defended the statistical elements of the course, arguing that, “We think this is useful at Oxford but it is definitely useful in lots of careers students might be considering. At the very least we want students to not be intimidated by numbers.

“I understand that students less inclined toward stats might feel slightly more lost in our labs, but we don’t assume any background so it should be accessible for everyone. Also (and perhaps more importantly), the point of these new lectures and labs is to help students deal with quantitative material that was already being assigned for their Prelims and core Politics papers, so we hope that if anything this helps students with less stats background than their peers.”

Nonetheless, support among many History and Politics students for the statistics requirements appeared to be fading rapidly. One message on the History and Politics Facebook page reported, “I know two people who dropped Politics altogether because of it”, while another student reports “widespread resentment”, especially from History and Politics students with a background in humanities.

This article was originally published in Cherwell on Friday 06/11/15 in advance of the Rhodes Must Fall protest.

A demonstration outside Oriel College has been planned by the Rhodes Must Fall In Oxford campaign for Friday to demand the removal of the statue of Cecil Rhodes visible from the High Street.

The demonstration will take place at 12pm, and protesters plan to give the Oriel Provost, Moira Wallace, until 2pm to come out publicly and accept the petition, which over 1,000 people have already signed in support of the statue’s removal.

The campaign argues, “The veneration of a racist murderer on our campus violates the University’s own commitment to ‘fostering an inclusive culture’ for its black and minority ethnic students. It is also an overbearing, visual reminder of the colonial apologism rife in one of the world’s most esteemed educational institutions. So long as these statues are allowed to stand, we as a society can never begin the process of recognising the violence of our past.”

So far, Mansfield JCR and Christ Church MCR have both passed motions in support of the removal of the Rhodes statue, and RMF is encouraging as many student bodies as possible to follow suit. The OUSU Women’s Campaign has also announced its support, stating, “WomCam stands in solidarity with Rhodes Must Fall In Oxford and we urge all involved with our campaign to attend RMF’s protest at Oriel on Friday afternoon.”

On Sunday the Oriel Provost made an address as part of the sermon at the annual commemoration of benefactors service, where she referenced the movement, saying, “Over the coming years, I think you will see Oriel continue to use its academic strengths to host and debate issues to do with Rhodes’ era, and the topic of colonialism and its consequences.

“In other words, we will continue to be true to our mission as an academic institution that is committed to learning, to rigorous research, to the study of history, to fair access, and to committed and ethical debate about how the future should be shaped.”

Criticism has also been directed at the campaign, questioning whether a protest is an appropriate measure. Anna Wawrzonkowska, a student at Oriel said, “Even though the college has already made multiple statements that agree in spirit with what the protesters are saying, no discussion has been started, and I can’t help but feel that the direct action which should be the last resort is used here as the first.”

Asked about the decision to protest, RMF told Cherwell, “We protest because we are outraged at the continued existence of a statue that deifies someone who committed crimes against humanity, participated in colonial plunder, and implemented systems of apartheid. We don’t think this should be controversial. Further, protest is a form of debate, and we have ignited important debate and discussion both inside and outside Oxford with this action.

“Those who suffer the legacies of colonial violence should be able to decide how they wish to confront their oppression.”

There has been further criticism from members at Oriel college regarding the tone of the protest. The protest event page called on protesters to “arrive prepared to BRING THE NOISE: come armed with whistles, drums, pots, pans, wooden spoons and your loudest chanting voice.” It also explains, “We will give the Oriel College Provost until 2pm to come out and publicly accept our petition.”

Some Oriel students have expressed concerns about the threatening tone of RMF’s statement and potential noise disruption. One student commented, “What if the Oriel College Master doesn’t emerge by 2pm? Sounds like a threat”.

RMF told Cherwell in reponse to accusations of intimidation that, “We think talk of ‘intimidation’ is a scare tactic to prevent people from actually engaging with our arguments. We don’t see why making demands to an institution that itself acknowledged the controversy associated with maintaining a statue of Rhodes should be seen as ‘intimidatory’.

“Our exact aim is to expose Oxford’s apparent ambivalence to the violence of people like Rhodes. We believe it is ‘dangerous’ and ‘intimidatory’ to condone intolerable colonial violence through public monuments, and that Rhodes has now become a global emblem for this kind of colonial denialism.”

On noise complaints, RMF explained, “Quite frankly, we find the concerns about ‘noise’ laughable. The relatively minor inconvenience of having to study in a diff erent library for two hours cannot reasonably be weighed against the right to protest against serious and persistent injustice.”

However, further concerns about intimidation have been raised over statements on the event Facebook page. One comment joked, “we should just stick dynamite in the statue and blow it up. Minimum disruption, job done.” RMF, in response, reiterated that the planned protest will be peaceful. Another Oriel student responded, “You know who lives in the Rhodes building? Freshers. How dare you, even as a pathetic joke, throw threats like that around.”

Reiterating its official position of non-violence, RMF stated, “In the run-up to Friday’s demonstration, we would like to reiterate that this protest will be peaceful. RMFO condemns wholly the use of violence and we find the recent comments alluding to violence made on our page completely unacceptable, whether made jokingly or not.

“Violence runs counter to the ethos of restorative justice that motivates our actions and call to protest.”

Oriel College has taken a stance on the RMF protest in a recent press release. The document states, “Oriel is happy to engage with the Rhodes Must Fall in Oxford movement on the important issues they have raised in their campaign.

“We absolutely support their right to a peaceful protest and are making arrangements to receive the petition on Friday. The College has offered to meet a group of representatives of the campaign in the weeks following their protest and we hope that they will take up this offer.”

Cecil Rhodes was a British Imperialist who drew controversy for alleged statements such as, “I prefer land to n*****s… the natives are like children. They are just emerging from barabarism…one should kill as many n*****s as possible.” He was a student at Oriel College in 1873 and became a major benefactor leaving Oriel two per cent of his estate. His estate went towards the now Grade II listed building at Oriel, which is fronted by the controversial statue.

In its recent press release, Oriel College stated, “The College draws a clear line between acknowledging the historical fact of Rhodes’ donation and in any way condoning his political views.”