Prospective History students were late in being told whether they had interviews this year, after the History Aptitude Test examiners mixed up marks and candidate numbers.

The History Aptitude Test (HAT) forms part of the entrance procedure for History undergraduate courses at Oxford University. Andrea Hopkins, a representative for the History Faculty, explained to Cherwell that “errors [had] occurred where markers had incorrectly transcribed the candidate’s number,” upon entering each candidate number and corresponding mark onto a spreadsheet. Each examiner’s spreadsheet was then compiled to create a larger spreadsheet for all of the 1613 applicants.

Oxford University Press Office played down the incident, stating, “It should be noted that the error only affected a small number of students.” However the History Faculty acknowledged that “even if only one number was wrong, it would put the rest of the numbers below it out of sequence”.

The History Faculty revealed that HAT markers had not initially checked that every candidate number matched the right result. They accepted that errors had been made, telling Cherwell, “Of course what we should have done was devote several hours to checking every single candidate number and set of marks between the big spreadsheet, the markers’ spreadsheets, and the original script cover sheets, to detect these errors.”

An official at the History Faculty explained that HAT examiners must “somehow slot in roughly forty hours of marking on top of their normal teaching and research,” and “had two days less to do it all this year.” She went on to add, however, that, “We will of course always do a total check in future.”

A spokesperson from Oxford University Press Office said, “The History Faculty apologises for not identifying the errors more quickly, but felt that it was of utmost importance to ensure that all candidates’ scores were confirmed correctly.” He emphasised that the error did not cause too much inconvenience, stating that “the delay in notifying candidates for interview was no more than 24 hours.”

A current history student reflected on invitations to interview at Oxford, saying, “It’s better to come late than not at all.” He added, “Let’s hope these screw-ups in the History Faculty are a thing of the past.”

Another stated that the HAT mix-up was “Final proof that even the history tutors don’t give a shit about writing timed passages on American drainage ditches.”

University College undergraduate Thomas Cole remarked, “This is the biggest HAT scandal since Princess Beatrice’s outfit to the Royal Wedding.”

A senior Foreign Office civil servant is alleged to have made enquiries attempting to gain a place at Oxford for Saif al-Islam Gaddafi.

Gaddafi, the son of Libya’s recently ousted leader, wanted to study either for an MSc in Development Economics or the MPhil in Development Studies. However Oxford refused the proposal and Gaddafi instead went to the London School of Economics, whose links to the former Libyan regime are currently under scrutiny.

Lord Woolf’s Inquiry, commissioned by LSE to establish the facts of their previous involvement with Libya and to establish clear future guidelines, found that “approximately six weeks after Saif’s doctorate was confirmed he was asked to give a donation [to LSE].” The figure of £1.5 million was promised in July 2009, the same day as Gaddafi completed his PhD.

Oxford’s involvement in the event is revealed in a footnote to the LSE inquiry, with Professor Fitzgerald (Head of Oxford’s Department of International Development) revealing the initial approach from the Foreign Office to Oxford in Spring 2002.

The Foreign Office, he reported, were seeking help in admitting Gaddafi because “Libya was opening up to the West again.” However their approach was rejected, with FitzGerald revealing that the “bottom line was whether [Gaddafi] had adequate prior academic qualifications for entry.” He stated, “This is not only an issue of professional ethics, but also that under-qualified students struggle to keep up with the intense pace of Oxford postgraduate study.”

Upon hearing of Gaddafi’s academic qualifications FitzGerald told the foreign office that an application was unlikely to succeed, since he had no social science training and his prior degree did not meet the quality standard. His advice was accepted and Oxford had no further involvement.

Upon hearing of the request, St Hugh’s student Oliver Persey stated that the incident displayed “a lack of respect for the integrity of higher education establishments if the Foreign Office believes that a university will admit a student for any reason apart from academic ability.”

Danielle Bunting of Wadham concurred, arguing, “The government shouldn’t be allowed to attempt to give anyone a leg-up getting into university, let alone the son of an evidently very dangerous dictator, for the sake of building a few business links with the country.”

Pembroke’s Charlotte Tarr suggested that it was “an insult to the students who have worked exceptionally hard to get their places.”

Other students thought that Gaddafi’s application should have been rejected purely based on his background. Yajur Shah, from Keble, argued that “admission as a postgraduate at Oxford University should take into account your past activities, especially if they could have serious implications for other people in the world. A Master’s degree from Oxford could qualify someone to do a great deal of good or bad in the world and I’d personally prefer it if it were the first.”

An Oxford University representative reported that this was a one-off event and reiterated that admission policies had not been compromised, stating, “Admission to Oxford is based solely on academic considerations, and this is a very important principle. It would not be influenced by factors outside of academic ability and potential, of this or any other kind.”

Members of Oxford University plan to flood Oxford University Press with requests for one of its books ‘The Collected Essays of A.J. Ramanujan’. The petitioners hope to test the publishing house’s claim that they stopped publication of Ramanujan’s potentially controversial essay ‘300 Ramayanas’ solely due to commercial factors, and not because of pressure or possible litigation from right-wing pressure groups.

In 2008, OUP India decided to discontinue publication of the only two books containing this essay. This coincided with certain groups in India looking into legal proceedings based on the claim that the essay was offensive to Hindu sentiments, with OUP India as one of the potential respondents. The University members claim that OUP “have done a fair amount of damage to their reputation,” and that its actions appear to be apologizing for publishing the essay.

In addition to requesting the book, there is also an online petition making further demands of OUP. Anish Vanaik, a graduate History student at Balliol and one of the organisers of the petition, outlined what they were hoping to achieve, saying, “We want OUP to publically clarify a few things: Firstly, have they apologized for publishing the essay? Secondly, we want them to publically state their support of the author, about which there is some doubt. And thirdly, they should reprint the book.”.

The essay in question looks at different versions of the ‘Ramayana,’ a Sanskrit epic poem which is also a sacred Hindu text. One issue for the complainants is that one version has the protagonists Rama and Sita as siblings, whereas they are husband and wife in Hindu tradition. The narrative is celebrated in the Hindu festival Diwali, and is part of Buddhist tradition.

Mr Vanaik called Mr Ramanujan “a scholar of very high repute.” He also expressed the opinion that, “the essay is not controversial work; the controversy has been made up.”

Although the number of petitioners is small, Mr Vanaik claims that the fact that support is from many disciplines and from leading academics adds credence to their claims.

A spokeswoman for OUP stated “I am aware that a group of local students is planning to order the book ‘The Collected Essays of A.K. Ramanujan’ in large quantities. I can confirm that the book is available and we will be fulfilling any orders we receive.”

She continued, “OUP India has for many decades successfully fulfilled its role as a disseminator of the best scholarship in India, and it continues to maintain the highest levels of integrity.”

The civil liberties organisation, Big Brother Watch, has re-issued its calls for Oxford City Council to scrap its plan to introduce CCTV audio-enabled cameras into taxicabs in the city.

The plans were due to be implemented by April 2015, but there has been fresh opposition to them in light of a recent court ruling. A judge at Southampton Crown Court stated that, “it was not reasonably necessary to install audio cameras on a permanent basis in all taxis in Southampton.” Paragraph 71 of the ruling in the case of Southampton City Council versus Kevin May stated, “The condition does not correspond to a pressing social need, is not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and is not necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country.”

Following this judgment, the Director of Big Brother Watch, Nick Pickles, wrote to Oxford City Council, urging them to “abandon this invasive and unlawful policy without delay.” He commented, “I have written highlighting this ruling because the policy it lays out is very clear – such plans are unlawful, disproportionate and a clear violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

He went on to add that it would be “reckless for the Council to pursue such a policy, when it would clearly leave them open to legal challenges, as has been the case in Southampton. In times of spending constraints, this would needlessly put taxpayers’ money at risk.”

Oxford City Council claimed when the proposals were first made that they were concerned solely with the safety of both taxi drivers and passengers, following alleged assaults, mainly arising from arguments about fares in the city.

The Council’s plans have provoked mixed reactions amongst the student population in Oxford. One second year Geography student reflected, “Although they are run by private firms, taxis are, to a certain extent, a public entity – so if the installation of CCTV cameras increases safety, I can’t see that it’s a bad thing. What are people trying to hide?”

However, a second year Law student disagreed, saying, “It seems to me that there is little evidence to support the council’s plans; and now that this ruling has taken place in Southampton, it could set a precedent for similar cases, which might leave Oxford City Council in a tricky situation.’

A spokesman for Oxford City Council said that, in light of the developments, “We need to take the time to consider the ruling before we can make any decision regarding plans to introduce CCTV in taxis.”

Oxide was off the air for the last few days of Michaelmas as technical problems were compounded by the untidiness of the studio environment.

The student radio station faced severe equipment problems from Friday of 7^th week until Monday of 8^th but during this time there were concerns over how the studio, a small room within the OUSU building, was being treated. Reports of the room being found filled with rubbish (particularly empty alcohol bottles) added to fears that the expensive equipment was being treated carelessly. These concerns were heightened when the studio was further damaged on Wednesday and left completely unusable, leaving the Oxide managers with little option but to suspend the last two days of broadcasting.

Sara Pridgeon, who co-edits the Oxford Theatre Review and regularly produces content inside the Oxide studio, expressed her frustration with the actions of other presenters. She told Cherwell that the incident was not a one-off but a particularly bad example of a common problem, indicating that she was “never surprised” by the room’s condition upon arriving for her show, even when this included broken equipment or scattered rubbish. She added, “Everyone at Oxide needs to do a lot better – we can’t actually produce shows or be taken seriously if we don’t respect our studio.”

Tuesday night presenter Andrew Seaton commented that the events were a “real shame,” adding, “Oxide is poorly funded compared to a lot of other societies and [the radio station’s] committees have worked hard to balance the books while attempting to maintain a functioning student radio station.” He later indicated that “this [was] a real setback,” since “things seemed to be getting better – especially in the new OUSU building.” He pointed out that presenters were usually the only ones around during broadcasts so the studio upkeep was very much a matter of personal responsibility.

Oxide Programme Controller Maggie Lund supported the conclusion that the damage pointed towards the thoughtlessness of individual presenters rather than vandalism. She commented that the Oxide community were “all just sad that a minority of presenters seem to treat the studio so carelessly despite using it every week to put out their show that they work hard on and care a lot about.”