Members of Corpus Christi’s JCR proposed a motion this week to create a position on their Equal Opportunities Committee to represent right-wing opinions.

The motion originally claimed, “Within this JCR, people who are politically to the right are often actively isolated, personally attacked, and made to feel unwelcome…  We have an equal opportunities committee with individuals on it to represent minorities in this JCR who are often perceived as being subject to prejudice from society”.

It resolved “to represent the conservative minority in the JCR on the Equal Ops Committee and to charge this committee member with ensuring that conservative views and opinions are free to be aired in the JCR.”

However, following opposition from JCR members, the motion was eventually amended so it instead read, “to mandate the Equal Opportunities President to ensure that people do not discriminate or name-call on the basis of political ideology in the JCR.”

30 JCR Members voted in favour of the amended motion, with 24 voting against. The Equal Opportunities Committee at Corpus has representatives for Black and Minority Ethnic, Gender, Spectrum (LGBTQ), and Disabilities.

Samuel Robberts, who proposed the motion, claimed, “Corpus JCR is, at its best, a friendly environment in which people are free to express themselves without hostility or personal rebuke. I felt that it was necessary to bring this motion in order to remind certain parts of the JCR that this freedom extends to all people, regardless of their views.

“There had, of late, been a series of incidents where people with right leaning political views were personally attacked for having said views and, as my motion stated, were accused of ‘hating the gays’, ‘being a rape apologist’, and being ‘ignorant’. They were told that their views are insulting or misguided and had their views and beliefs dismissed out of hand because they happened to be different to the majority.

“This motion was entirely JCR-specific,and I saw it more as a chance to raise awareness of the issue in the appropriate forum, rather than to effect substantive change in the way the JCR committee works. That the motion passed in an amended form is pleasing, provided that people appreciatethe issues raised.”

Henry Tonks, an OCA member and Corpus Christi student, commented, “I can sympathise with the feelings that lay behind this motion – I think there’s no question that the Corpus JCR as an institution goes out of its way to be seen as a liberal, open, maybe even permissive environment. This has ended up giving primacy to political correctness over a genuinely healthy tolerance and variety, and it is hard to feel comfortable in the JCR expressing conservative views.”

He added, “With all of that said, I can’t say that I am particularly happy with the motion, since it seems distinctly unconservative to rely on an arbitrarily designated institution to express the beliefs of an individual.”

Steph Cherill, JCR Equal Opportunities President, said, “As Samuel Robberts’ motion made dramatically clear, there has been a deteriorationin the attitude of several JCR members towards people who are right of centre. They by no means represent the mainstream opinion of Corpus JCR. It is my strong belief, not only as a conservative, but as Equal Opportunities President, that this poses a threat to this atmosphere of intellectual discussion as well as to the welfare of JCR members, who may feel victimised.

“I would add that [Robberts’] experienceis not unique among membersof the JCR who spoke in supportof the motion in the meeting. Discussion of the motion in itself has and will support my new mandate to protect against the discrimination in the complaint. I am confident that this will be the end of the problem.’

Kezia Lock, JCR President, commented in a personal capacity, “The basis of this motion was a number of isolated incidents between particular members of the JCR – almost all of whom hold a place on the JCR Committeeor sub-committee. Under my presidency I have tried to ensure thatthe JCR as a forum and representative body is apolitical. The JCR as a bodydoes not endorse any political party.”

“I am saddened to hear that the strong political views of these particular ‘lefty’ individuals have caused them to undermine their holding tolerance as a sacred virtue by being completely intolerant of ‘conservative’ views, and that this led to inappropriate personal attacks and intolerance.The motion very quickl yturned into an empty motion mandating individual JCR members to benicer to each other, to be enforced by the Equal Ops President.”

Rachel Dellar, a fourth-year biochemistat Corpus, commented, “I personally believe the original motion was inappropriate because allpositions currently on the Equal Ops committee are there to protect thewelfare of individuals who cannotchoose the fact that they are in a minority . Although political preferenceis a somewhat systemic issue and isobviously correlated with upbringing, there is a clear element of choicewhich makes it disparate from BME or Spectrum, for example.

“Whilst name-calling and completedisrespect are obviously inappropriate,I believe it is appropriateand healthy to engage in debate/criticism of wthe views we choose inorder to further understanding. It is also fine and should not be consideredoffensive if someone does notwant to engage in debate.”

She added, “I was opposed to themotion because in its amended form,it was just nonenforceable wordsto be added to the constitution. You can’t mandate all members to be friendly.”

Victory was called for Tom Rutland last night as the Jesus third year PPEist defeated his opponent Izzy Westbury to clinch the OUSU presidency. He will assume the role in 2013. 

Rutland, who is currently Jesus JCR President, led the ‘Tom4OUSU’ slate, receiving a total of 2179 votes, in comparison to Westbury’s 1232. He was elated by his win, telling Cherwell,“The first thing I want to do is thank all of our fantastic supporters, agents and candidates without whom we wouldn’t have won – I’ve been touched by how much they all put into it. I can’t wait to get going next summer and I know that it’s going to be a huge responsibility – so I’m going to work flat out to make OUSU stronger and more relevant. An excellent team of officers were elected last night and I look forward to working with all of them.”

Westbury, who was Oxford Union president in Michaelmas 2011, conceded, stating, “I really enjoyed running in this election and the people I’ve met and worked with along the way. Webrought in a few innovative ideas, and it’s just a shame we couldn’t convert the social media campaign to votes – too little too late it would seem!”

In the early hours of Wednesday morning, one of the TeamWestbury candidates, running for NUS Delegate, was caught soliciting a voter code from another student on Facebook.

After the Returning Officer had been informed at 12:05 am, he notified the candidate and TeamWestbury an hour later. At 7:30pm on Thursday, she voluntarily resigned her candidacy, half an hour before results were due.

The candidate told Cherwell, “Due to personal reasons, I was home in HK for all of 5th week. Hence I was under too much personal and academic stress to adequately contest in the election. Thus when I received an email from the Returning Officer that I may have allegedly infringed a rule, I chose to resign immediately rather than making a fuss. Congratulations to all the successful candidates!”

Jack Matthews, Lead Agent for TeamWestbury, said, “TeamWestbury regrets that one of our candidates acted in an inappropriate manner, out of ignorance of the Regulations. Upon realising this, they took the honourable decision to withdraw their candidacy.”

Turnout was 16 per cent, down from 19 percent last year. Serving with Rutland will be Tom4OUSU candidate Garlen Lo, who will be Vice-President (VP) Graduates, and fellow slate member Charlotte Hendy, who will be VP Welfare and Equal Opportunities.

Rachel Pickering, running with TeamWestbury, becomes VP Access and Academic Affairs, and non-slate candidate Sarah Pine is elected as VP Women.

Independent Daniel Tomlinson staged a huge upset by securing the role of VP Charities and Community, beating Beth Hanson-Jones, who campaigned with Rutland. Tomlinson’s victory was the first time an independent candidate had beaten an opposing candidate on the slate of the winning Presidential candidate, prompting one student to remark, “This marks a definitive change in the way OUSU campaigns are carried out.”

Graduate student and former VP Welfare and Equal Opportunities, Seb Baird had a word for the incomers. “OUSU is practically at breaking point. Despite achievements over recent years, OUSU doesn’t have the resources to communicate with and engage students. The organisation has to be better funded so that it can demonstrate its relevance to students.

The elections of Police and Crime Commissioners took place yesterday, Thursday 15th November. The elections are the first of their kind, in which the public elected 41 Police and Crime Commissioners across England and Wales. Oxford students voted for the Police and Crime Commissioner for the Thames Valley area, which is the largest non-metropolitan force in England and Wales. The area is split into 14 districts, covering an area stretching from Windsor to Banbury.

The role of Police and Crime Commissioner is a newly-created position which replaces the previously existing police authorities. The change was suggested in an attempt to tackle a perceived lack of accountability in the police force, and the innovation was supported by all three major parties in their manifestoes during the 2010 general election.

Six candidates battled it out for the Thames Valley area position: Anthony Stansfeld ran on behalf of the Conservative Party, Tim Starkey for Labour, John Howson for the Liberal Democrats and Barry Cooper for UKIP. Patience Tayo Awe and Geoff Howard ran independently.

Unsurprisingly, the contenders for the role were keen to stress the significance of the elections. Barry Cooper, the candidate for UKIP, explained to Cherwell that “I passionately believe that the more democracy the better and fully embrace this exciting opportunity to replace an unelected, unaccountable committee with an elected individual who must answer to the people.”

However, candidates were also keen to defend against concerns that the elections would lead to the infiltration of party politics into the police.

Ms Awe identified her “non-partisan” approach as significant, stating that “Policing transcends party politics. All political party candidates are insulting your intelligence by vying for this non-partisan Police and Crime Commissioner position. Survey result confirmed party politicians cannot be trusted and rightly so. They have made countless u-turns…They are out of touch. This non-partisan Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) initiative by the government could be the most significant democratic reform of policing in our lifetime.”

Tim Starkey, the Labour candidate, appealed to student voters, claiming that his priorities were to tackle drug addiction, improve sexual assault reporting, and to consult students when developing Oxford’s crime plan, especially with regards to safety at night. He pointed to a link between drug use and house burglary in Oxford, an issue of relevance to students.

Sam Hollick, a Green Party councillor in the Holywell ward, disagreed with a potential de-politicization of the police force, arguing that “police priorities are political. Why are none of the candidates talking about illegal tax evasion which costs the UK billions every year? How are they going to deal with institutional racism in the police, which results in disproportionate imprisonment of black people?”

Mr Hollick also voiced his concerns about the predicted lowturnout, stating that it “is a worry, and I’d urge people to go and vote just to keep out […] UKIP.”

Ben Harris, studying PPE at St John’s, mused that, “From my experience, there has been insufficient advertising of the upcoming election. Few people seem to know it is happening and even fewer know exactly what the role entails. This is partly down to apathy – I found the website on my voting card to be very useful, but I don’t know of anyone else who visited it – but there has also been a lack of engagement with the student body.”

Of course, some policies have been directed specifically at students: for example, John Howson stressed that he wants to “ensure student rooms and houses are as safe as possible.” Nevertheless, turnout for the elections was predicted to be poor: an Ipsos MORI poll published in late October found that 38% of those asked hadn’t heard about the elections at all, and only 15% of people said that they were certain to vote.

Laurie Pycroft, a third year undergraduate at Balliol, agreed that apathy would probably play a part in the result, stating “Will bored magistrate A win? Or will it be bored magistrateB? Who knows? Who cares?”

One student sent an email to Corpus JCR, claiming that at 1:20 pm, only 23 of the over 4,000 eligible voters in Holywell ward had voted. The results of the Oxfordshire Police Commissioner elections will be announced today.

A St John’s College bop was closed down on Saturday owing to the presence of a number of non-St John’s students and damage to ceiling panels outside the room in which the event was being held. 

According to various sources, the bop was shut down at half past midnight after the damage was reported. Normally run from 10pm until 1am, college porters are said to have entered the bop, switched on the lights and asked everyone to leave.

The damage has been described as affecting the wooden ceiling panels just outside the room but there are potentially serious ramifications due to the relatively new state of the bop venue. Since the opening of Kendrew Quadrangle in October 2010, St John’s JCR has been able to hold bops in a room built specifically for JCR use.

According to one third year student, “Its official name is the ‘Events Room’ and it is used for some other stuff, but it’s basically purpose built for bops.” The student also claimed that it is a substantial improvementon the previous location of college bops which, “used to be in a grotty basement.”

In tune with recent James Bondmania following the release of the latest film in the series, Skyfall, the theme of the bop was ‘The Spy Who Bopped Me – James Bond(age)’ with many students arriving in black tie in full James Bond style.

For two members of the JCR committee, Jessica Edge and Emily Fradd, the closing down of the bop had a substantially detrimental effect upon one of the few moments of relaxation that Oxford students have access to, due to the college’s actions interrupting their DJ set. “We were inconsolable following the cancellation of the bop, halfway throughour first ever set. As we understand it the reason for this disturbance was that our tunes were so bangin’ that it brought the roof down. Literally.”

There was a further concern by the JCR reps that there was a potentially more malicious reason for the bop’s closure than ceiling damage alone.“As the only female DJs of term we would hope that there is no truth in the rumours that there was an underlying sexist agenda at play.”

Andrew Kennedy, who also attended the bop, jokingly added, “St. John’s College Senior Dean Dr. William White is reported to have been seen racing along St. Giles’ on Saturday evening shouting: ‘Women DJing? WOMEN DJING!? No, no, no, no- not on your watch, Willy, not on your watch.’” However no other witnesses or evidence have come to light that can corroborate this claim.

Due to the outcome of this bop, one St. John’s second year has claimed that the future of college bops is at risk as the question of “whether our next bop will happen is up in the air.”

Last Friday evening between 150 and 200 students and lecturers protested against David Willetts, the Minister of State for Science and Education, and his role in the recent education reforms, particularly university cuts and the increase in higher education fees.

The protest began at 4.30pm and took place outside St Peter’s College, where Willetts had been invited to take part in a symposium along with Andrew Marr, Polly Toynbee and Gus O’Donnell on the subject of how language shapes political debate.

The protest lasted for approximately two and a half hours and David Willetts’ talk had to be stopped after ten minutes due to noise. Protesters from Oxford University, Oxford Brookes, Ruskin College and local schools held banners and chanted slogans that included, “No ifs, no buts, no education cuts” and, “Education for the masses, not just for the ruling classes.”

Protester Robin Handford from Ruskin College told Cherwell, “I’m here because I have a fundamental belief that education is a human right and the government is attacking that right.’

The protest also questioned why Willetts had been invited to speak at Oxford, despite the University’s vote of no confidence against the reforms last June. Arianna Tassinari, from St Anthony’s said, “I’m here to reinstate the view of no confidence because the reforms are elitist, incoherent and unsustainable.”

Former student Shaun Williams said, “It’s scandalous they’ve got away with what they have done. The issue has got to be kept in the public eye.”

One second year, who wished to remain anonymous, was more sceptical and commented, “I don’t think that it is terribly constructive to stand shouting ‘Scum’ to a prominent politician. If they want to make a point, they should do so more maturely.”

The University Press Office declined to comment. David Willett’s office told Cherwell, “We always respect students’ right to protest.”

Trenton Oldfield, the protester who disrupted the Oxford and Cambridge Boat race last year, has dropped his appeal to reduce his six month prison sentence.

The 36-year-old, who is from Australia but currently living in East London, sabotaged the race in April by swimming into the paths of rowers, causing it to be halted and restarted. The race, which was watched by millions on television, was won by Cambridge after being restarted.

In October, Oldfield was sentenced to six months imprisonment for causing a public nuisance, and ordered to pay £750 in costs. Judge Anne Molyneux said that he had acted dangerously, disproportionately, displayed prejudice and showed no regret for his actions, and that he had ruined the race for everyone. Although he was due to challenge his sentence in court this week, a Judicial Office spokeswoman has since confirmed that Oldfield has withdrawn his application.

Oldfield said he was protesting against elitism and government cuts, and saw the race as symbolic of issues around class. His supporters compare him to the Pussy Riot demonstrators in Russia and say that he has been treated unfairly. On the day of his court hearing his wife said that his protest was ‘a reaction to an increasingly brutal business, media and political elite.’

Although four-time Olympic gold medallist Sir Matthew Pinsent said that Oldfield could have been seriously injured, Oldfield suggested that as an Australian, he was used to dodging surfboards, rocks and boats, and so was not at risk.

Oldfield claims that government ministers lobbied the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to ensure that the original charge was altered to increase the likelihood that he would be sent to prison.

Alastair Billing, a student at Oxford Brookes, said Oldfield shouldn’t have to go to jail ‘I mean what he did was moronic but it wasn’t exactly illegal.’

Ryan Flanagan, a third year Balliol student commented, ‘Appealing in the first place shows how arrogant he is, dropping the appeal makes him even more arrogant.’

St. Annes ‘Carnival’ themed ball, set to take place this February, has been postponed due to ticket sale problems.

After a week of impassioned debate about the ball’s viability, St. Anne’s JCR Committee and Ball Committee released a joint statement that the ball would be postponed for a year. St. Anne’s ball is triennial, so finalists were particularly dismayed to hear that they would miss out on having a ball in college.

On Saturday of 5th Week, the 10th November, the JCR Committee decided by 12 votes to 3 to withdraw financial support for the ball. The JCR committee had voted the day before, but repeated the meeting due to a lack of Ball Committee representation and the absence of minutes for the first meeting. The announcement of the decision at a JCR meeting resulted in a call for a referendum to be held on Thursday of 6th week, calling for the JCR to again underwrite the ball. The referendum was withdrawn on Tuesday.

Concerns about the financial viability of the ball first arose in 3rd week of Michaelmas. A statement from the JCR Committee listed reasons for the decision including, “Tickets had not been put on sale, increasing the risk of having to underwrite the ball … A number of missed opportunities to combine active marketing with ticket sales … A lack of significant contact with St. Anne’s MCR.” The statement draws attention to the fact that tickets could not be sold at Freshers’ Fair or the ball launch, explaining, “This was due to the fact that an entertainment license for both guests and music was received only last Wednesday.”

The financial risk of underselling was highlighted by the statement, “Underselling by 100 tickets would require the JCR to underwrite £8,500 in payments; equivalent to its budget for this year.” The cost of postponing the ball was predicted to be £700.

Helen Robb, a finalist at St. Anne’s, said, “Our JCR budget is notoriously tight, and if there was a potential cost to the JCR which could have damaged budgets for welfare, charities, events, or any of the other JCR provisions, then it’s right that the ball was postponed. I think there was a divide over whether or not the JCR should have backed the ball, with some third year finalists annoyed not to be having a college ball during their time here.”

Though there was noticeably more outcry amongst finalists, there were mixed opinions within year groups as well. Cai Wilshaw observed that “Our JCR meeting last Sunday descended into essentially what was a shouting match between the 2nd and 3rd years. Most freshers at the meeting had no opinion either for or against the ball being deferred. I had a few heated discussions with others in my year about the issue, and there were quite a few outspoken first years who wanted the ball to remain this year. However, in general I felt there was a prevailing desire for sensible discussion on the issue and on the ball’s viability this year.”

JCR Secretary Xin Fan announced on Tuesday that the referendum on financially supporting the ball had been withdrawn. “As well as the proposer’s retraction, it is recognised that without the full support of the Ball Committee, the ball would be unable to proceed should the referendum pass. As voting for the referendum would be on faith that it could proceed, all parties considered it unwise to present the JCR with an undeliverable option.”

Ball President Libby Derbyshire also issued a statement. “We are disappointed to have to cancel the ball, but given the damage of the last week’s events, vital elements are under threat and we believe it is no longer the event it once was. At this stage we are in agreement with the JCR Committee and wholly support the 2014 ball.”

The decision to withdraw the referendum left some students feeling that the wider JCR had not been consulted on the issue. The motion for the referendum received 46 votes in favour and 15 votes against. Helen Robb said, “I think a lot of people were angry because they felt side-lined, and they probably would have agreed with the argument put forward by the JCR if they were given the opportunity to vote; but I think it could have descended into a lot of anger and crowded out some of the reasoning. Either way, by the point that a referendum was called it was too late to return to plans of a 2013 ball.” Ball President Libby Derbyshire agreed that the referendum had potential to be, “more divisive than decisive.”

One 2nd year who attended the meeting said, “With everything in place and some amazing entertainment, food and drink lined up, all the Ball needed was the JCR’s seal of approval and their commitment to financially underwriting it. The decision to postpone the ball is very conservative, especially considering the majority of those present at the meeting were strongly in favour of a ball this year.”

Another 2nd year added, “The ball arrangements sounded amazing, I think the JCR Committee were just too scared to back it.”