A motion “condemning the actions of the Junior Librarian”  has been passed against presidential candidate Hasan Ali by the Union’s Standing Committee, followed by a motion which mandates the President to bring a disciplinary complaint against him.

The current Librarian, Ali, has been condemned for “failure” to host a guest speaker and providing “conflicting, contradictory and incompatible explanations of this failure to complete his official duties.” 

In Monday’s meeting of Standing Committee, multiple members, including  the Treasurer-elect, Cyrus Nasseri, demanded recognition that Ali had “not really been doing his job”. 

In an emergency meeting held on Wednesday, the Standing Committee passed a motion of no confidence in Ali, on grounds of “dereliction of duty”.  On Thursday, the Standing Committee met again and passed a motion which mandated the President, James Langman, to bring Ali in front of a disciplinary committee.  Ali was not present at either of these meetings.

The minutes of the original meeting on Monday, sent to Cherwell by multiple Union sources, lists a series of angry exchanges by members of the committee. Amid allegations that Ali has repeatedly failed in his role, Langman informed the current Librarian “you know full well that in your position you are responsible for the speakers of the society.” Nasseri asked why Ali was 24 minutes late in hosting Tony Benn, commenting, “It is the Librarian not really doing his job.”

On both sides of the debate senior Union officials were said to have become “aggressive.” Numerous members of Standing Committee questioned the competence of the Librarian, while Ali told Nasseri that he was an “idiot.” 

In response, a requisition was signed by six members of the committee demanding an emergency meeting to vote on the motion. One Standing Committee member, James Freeland, had previously emailed the President expressing concerns about the Librarian. 

A close and unnamed friend of Mr Ali’s has suggested it is no coincidence that this motion was passed just days before the Librarian stands for election. “It’s been passed by the people running against him

and the people who don’t like him. This isn’t condemnation, it’s Machiavellian.”

Ali himself declined the opportunity to comment.

Almost 700 Oxford academics have signed an open letter to the government to express their “dismay and alarm” at the haste at which reforms are being introduced into the UK’s higher education system.

The letter, addressed to Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, and David Willetts, the Universities Minister, comes just a week after the Coalition announced that a White Paper outlining how the new system would operate was being delayed until later this year. 

Despite this, universities are required to set outline tuition fee levels for 2012, when the new funding regime comes into force. 

“We note with dismay and alarm that universities are being forced to take major decisions, with unknown consequences, to a breakneck timetable,” said the letter. 

“We are being asked to ‘fly blind’ over matters of the utmost importance in respect to our ability to continue to deliver world-class education and research.” The letter notes that the proposed system will produce “random” outcomes, and as such a full investigation should be held into the impact the policy will have.

The letter called for an inquiry into the current situation.  It said, “We believe that a public commission of inquiry, properly and fully consultative, charged with the responsibility of examining these issues, is urgently required and ask you to set in motion such an inquiry.” The letter, published earlier this week, coincided with Willett’s planned visit to Cambridge.

This week the Oxford University branch of Amnesty International (OUAI) and Oxford Brookes AI endured the biting cold to spend all night on the lawn of Radcliffe Camera, as part of Amnesty’s nation-wide “Sleepout to End Destitution”   campaign.
Both OUAI and Brooks AI campaign to raise awareness of human rights abuses throughout the world. The current campaign aims to end the difficulties facing asylum seekers in the UK.
The National Audit Office estimates there to be about 283,500 refused asylum seekers in the UK; many of them come from countries notorious for human rights abuses. Their refusal of asylum leaves many of them stuck in the UK.
The demonstration is a part of a “national sleepout week” organised by Amnesty International UK and STAR, or Student Action for Refugees. They are National Audit Office estimates there to be about 283,500 refused asylum seekers in the UK.
OUAI claimed that refused asylum-seekers are not a part of the public awareness in the UK.
They stated on the website that as a result, “the Government is under no pressure to change its policies. We need to make people aware of this scandal and demand an end to destitution.”
The sleepout began at 9pm and those in attendance were supplied with soup and biscuits. As the event went on, the temperature swiftly dropped to 2  degrees Celsius.
Writer, activist and Oxford graduate Theresa Hayter spoke at the event.
She voiced her support for the Oxford groups and connected the struggle of refugees denied asylum to her campaign to close the Campsfield Immigration Centre.
Pascal Jerome, President of OUAI, spoke about the reasons for a nationwide campaign to speak against Government policy toward refused asylum seekers.
He said, “After they’re denied appeal, they have 21 days before they’re cut off. They’re thrown about £35 a week; £35 a week, that’s nothing.
“We know that the government can only provide a certain amount of housing, so right to work is the main thing.
“Allowing these people the right to earn a wage and provide for themselves, that’s what needs to happen.”
Amnesty also stresses that refused asylum seekers are not entitled to any NHS treatment except in cases of emergency as well as being met with major obstacles to acquiring legal advice.
As to the question of why the government is so unresponsive, Jerome said that many MPs might find it difficult to talk about this subject.
“They feel they’ll be tarred by bringing it up; it would be the sort of thing that The Daily Mail would hold against them, allowing these people into the country.”

Rivalry between Jesus and Exeter Colleges has been revived after the crown was stolen off the bust of Jesus College founder Queen Elizabeth I in their College hall. The crown has not been returned, nor have the perpetrators been identified, but students have theorised that the thieves attend Exeter College.

“The Exeter pranksters who have stolen the crown and who moved benches and threw towels around second quad in the last couple of weeks are being slowly honed in on through CCTV footage,” said a member of the JCR Health and Safety committee in an email to the JCR.

However, the JCR President has denied that there is any CCTV footage and has emphasised that despite allegations, “there has been no evidence to suggest that a student from that college is to blame for the missing crown”.

“We have a long-standing ‘banterous’ rivalry with Exeter,” explained JCR President Danielle Zigner.

It is believed that the theft took place in connection with the “Turl Street Dash”, an annual tradition in which Exeter and Jesus students race around the streets of Oxford on bicycles and consume copious amounts of alcohol. The event was banned in 2010, but still took place this year.

Students have speculated that the theft was premeditated, due to the assumed use of a screwdriver to remove the crown.

“These rapscallions probably thought they were carrying out the crime of the century, but it was hardly the Great Train Robbery – they could have gone for anything but made off with a rather perfunctory piece of wood covered in gold-leaf,” said Jim Waterson, a finalist reading History at Jesus.

“The crown was never my favourite anyway. If nothing else, ordering a replacement will allow us to modernise what is otherwise a rather dour piece of carving. Add a bit more bling to it, that sort of thing. Frankly, they can keep it.”

Some Jesus students, however, are less forgiving. “Maybe they should be put in their place with a spot of retribution, a giant flaming Jesus crest burning on first quad perhaps,” suggested Declan Clowry.

Brasenose’s latest JCR meeting has banned public displays of affection in the library. It has also apparently allocated £500 of JCR funds to a semi-fictional steak society.  </p>

One motion noted that “That the Library is a place for sobriety, self restraint and sexual deprivation” and “that the Library is not a human petting zoo in which members of the JCR partake in the rampant swapping of bodily fluid.”</p>

The motion further stated that, “some members of the JCR need to learn how to behave in a public place, especially in our College Library” and mandated the Academic and Library Rep to speak to the Librarian about the “salacious behaviour” in the library and to erect a “desexualized zone where JCR members could work with a sign that says something to the effect of ‘No Kissing / No Public Displays of Affection.” The motion was passed after some debate over whether such a sign would be allowed.</p>

Another motion was passed awarding the steak society a termly allowance of £500 to spend on “ingredients and any repairs or upgrades to the George Foreman.” The money was also for building a “steak house for the sole use of the dining society, where everything looks and smells like steak or traditional steak-accompanying food and drink”.</p>

Resentment was expressed towards the Boat Club, which reportedly  receives £1,000 every term and “have Brasenose-crested kits, use the chapel, have their own boat house, and have two hall closures per year.</p>

“The dining society brings at least as much aggregate joy into college life as the boat club. The boat club is a bit like the Jamaican bobsled team, only not very funny [and] totally lacking in rhythm and rhyme.”</p>

Ben Stafford and Ben Zelenka Martin said, “Several myths have been suggested regarding the foundation of this society that may, or may not, exist. All have been found to be missteaken in one way or another. The members have never been counted. Meatings steak place on Mondays.</p>

“[The Steak Society] brings wonder and joy to the lives of poor and oppressed students by ‘meating’ all of their protein-based needs.”</p>

The duo emphasised the prestige of the steak society membership. “Numerically, the dining society is the most exclusive in Oxford – indeed, probably in the world. We can neither confirm nor deny rumours of plans to introduce a rigorous selection process involving nudity, raw meat, and cattle prods.”</p>

JCR President Dan Wainwright assured Cherwell that the  motion was a joke and that “the reward for passing a joke motion is a crate of beer, but obviously the motion carries no weight.”</p>

The Steak Society stated, “our motion was not intended as a joke. We do not understand the basis of the assumption that it was.”

On Saturday, two days before ‘fair-trade fortnight’, activists from OUSU Environment and Ethics committee’s Buy Right campaign took to Radcliffe Square to spread their message. </p>

The Buy Right campaign aims to ensure that no clothes bearing the Oxford University brand are manufactured by workers in poor conditions with unfair pay.  </p>

Six campaigners set up a washing line, from which they hung spray-painted t-shirts, reading ‘buy right’ on one side, and ‘no sweat’ on the other. </p>

Nearly 100 people stopped to sign postcards, addressed to the Oxford-owned subsidiary Oxford Limited, petitioning the University to join the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC). The independent organisation monitors working conditions in sweatshops, and produces independent reports which allow the activities of these factories to be monitored in a bid to combat exploitation.</p>

The event was also an attempt  to actively involve the student community with OUSU’s efforts. Students have been able to sign or send postcards in College, and apply greater pressure on the University to alter its stance.</p>

The campaign, which is also encouraging colleges to be ethically aware when purchasing stash, was described by Buy Right campaign coordinator, Sean Robinson, as having a “complex message.” </p>

In response to fears that without sweatshops their workers will be left with no source of income, Robinson  and Buy Right campaigners are keen to spread a subtler message. </p>

Robinson stressed that this isn’t a campaign to boycott sweatshops. Rather, the aim is to get the University to sign up to the WRC, in a bid to ensure greater transparency in the supply chain, and guarantee humane conditions for workers. </p>

Although the University has said that it is in favour of ending exploitation, it is obstructing moves towards greater transparency for fear of jeopardising “commercial sensitivity.” </p>

As it stands, licensees are required to abide by a Code of Labour Practice, which is difficult to enforce. The campaigners feel that there needs to be an incentive for suppliers and licensees to actually change conditions. </p>

Robinson said, “If Oxford Limited is serious about the basic human rights of workers then they need independent inspections – we don’t let the fox guard the chicken coop. Secrecy and accountability are not compatible.” </p>

Robinson was also dubious about the financial arguments against greater transparency. Where it is argued that greater costs to suppliers will result in sweatshops being shut down, the campaigners insist that the cost to the suppliers will be negligible. </p>

Robinson added that the campaigners “are not slowing any time soon. We are not running out of steam.” </p>

Talks between Buy Right activists and Oxford Limited were set to continue as of Wednesday. As more universities sign up to the WRC, the expectation is that there will be a burgeoning incentive for suppliers of university-branded clothing to improve their standards.

A surprise vote of no confidence in St Anne’s JCR Treasurer Alexander Gallagher failed to remove him from the post, but last night Gallagher resigned anyway.

At Sunday’s JCR meeting, Gallagher was called upon to defend his position after a college-wide email sent by the JCR President proposed a vote of no confidence. 

Gallagher survived the vote as only 57 per cent of those present voted in favour failing to meet the required threshold of 66 per cent.

Gallagher reportedly failed to attend seven out of eight JCR Committee meetings this year.  According to the JCR constitution, missing more than three results in an automatic no confidence motion.

The motion also drew attention to instances in which members of the JCR Committee had not been reimbursed for outstanding expenses since Michaelmas.

It has also been reported that there were inconsistencies between Gallagher’s reasons for non-attendance to the JCR Committee and his defence on Sunday evening.

The meeting in which the motion was debated was very heated. Gallagher’s competence for the role and the handling of the matter by the JCR both came under fire.

As Gallagher was officially unaware of the vote until the college-wide email was sent this week, many claimed that the JCR acted “heavy-handedly”.  However, one St Anne’s student claimed, “While the JCR handled it pretty badly, he still should have gone”.

On Thursday Gallagher resigned, stating  in  an  email to undergraduates, “After recent events, I now feel unable to remain part of the committee”, and apologising for the delay in reimbursements.

Many of those who were at the JCR meeting wanted to stress that Gallagher was “a lovely guy” and that the no confidence motion failed was a reflection of this.