Oxford Rules O.K.
Oxford is an ancient institution, thriving on ancient customs and regulations, however it seems that these antiquated traditions all too often impinge on the lives of those of us living and working within the institution on a day-today basis. A lot has been said and written recently about plans to reform the university’s admissions system, a lot of which involves curbing college autonomy.
Whatever your views on these specific proposals, it seems there is a case to be made that the university constitution and statute book need to be updated and standardised. The major problem is that college independence can be and has been used in arbitrary ways. The typical example of this is the dean who decides that the college rule forbidding partners staying over in students’ rooms, which remains overlooked in almost every case, should be used in one specific case.
There are two clear examples that have occurred in my college, Wadham, over the time that I’ve been here. For anonymity’s sake I’ve been asked not to give names. The most recent of these involved a couple who by their own admission have been virtually co-habiting over the last couple of terms. Understandable, then, you might think, that college authorities should start threatening to charge co-occupancy rent should it continue.
Except that the college law states that couples simply aren’t allowed to share rooms. It would be perfectly easy and understandable to clarify the rule, giving a set amount of time for which couples were allowed to share before double-occupancy came into effect. However, by keeping the rule as it is, college officers are allowed to exercise the law entirely at their own discretion.
If, as happened in the first of the cases I mentioned, college takes a particular dislike to an individual or individuals involved, they are then able to fall back on this rule as and when they wish. At St Hilda’s meanwhile, students are allowed to sign in 2 guests from 11pm to 2am, one of whom, may stay all night as an 'overnight guest'. Apparently, threesomes are considered fine as long as they happen before 2am.
On top of this, a student can't have overnight guests more than three nights in a row - not long enough to warrant calling the arrangement double-occupancy. Perhaps they’re just taking measures too ensure that Hilda’s girls do not become too exhausted. How kind. Not that any of this actually matters though, given that in the words of one student, ‘All these rules are clearly pointless, as one of our night porters last term spent all his time asleep with the lodge door left open.
?? Part of the problem is that when students come to Oxford, they learn pretty quickly how such systems operate, where they need to be taken seriously and where not, and most importantly, how to work around them. In amongst the various pressures of academic, extra-curricular and social pressures, students here don’t feel the need or the inclination to fight to change systems into which they feel they’re slowly beginning to settle.
However, for many sixth-formers thinking of applying to the university, the image of colleges as mini-boarding schools ruled by eccentric personalities, shaping those colleges, as it were, in their own image, and doing so with a remarkable lack of scrutiny, can only be a turn-off. After all, most sixth form students already have a large amount of freedom and can come and go from their school or college when they please. Most people want and expect for their freedom to increase at university.
Those having no problem with such Oxford’s current image are usually those who have come from such institutions before, and while this remains the case, Oxford will remain disproportionately populated by students from a few top boarding schools.
Myths surrounding obscure university rules that have not been removed from the statute books abound, such as the one that states that a candidate is allowed to request half a glass of sherry during finals, but if anyone actually does so, they will be fined for not wearing the ceremonial sword. Another one states that if a student turns up in front of exam schools in full armour as evidence of their impending national service, they will be excused sitting the exams at all.
Though such myths often represent exaggerations or complete falsifications, in an institution where students still wear gowns, white bow-ties and mortar boards, and the university’s own Rules Committee is not even allowed to discuss matters pertaining to examination behaviour and attire, it is not surprising that they continue to be expounded. It could well be argued that such myths in no way damage student life here, and if anything, add to the eccentric charm of the place.
However, on top of the wearing of sub fusc, formal dinners and outdated college rules, they simply add to the alienation felt by many outside of the usual Oxbridge feeder schools. It would in no way change the elite nature of the institution to rid it of some of these absurdities, and would give it a welcome push into the new millennium.
It is time that the university realised that it no longer acts in loco parentis, and that students’ personal behaviour, as long as it is within the boundaries of the law, is really none of their concern. Its students are adults, with all the rights and responsibilities that come within that, and should be trusted to act in such a way.
We do not need the Big Brother style of governance that comes with the frequent checks of scouts (and make no mistake, that is a large part of their job), and with overbearing college constitutions keeping tabs on what we are doing and with whom. In case you think I’m being a cynical old hack, just take a look at the case involving Andrew Parkinson at Somerville last week. Parkinson and two friends were caught ‘frolicking’ around college after May Day celebrations and punished by decanal action.
Fair enough, you might think, except for the fact that the way in which the individuals were caught was by college monitoring their whereabouts using their college swipe cards. And you thought using the words ‘Big Brother’ was hyperbole. Many have argued that to force changes to the way in which colleges run themselves would be to turn the institution into something akin to a moderate sized business.
I do not advocate this, and welcome the continuing academic independence of every college and hall. However, while those happily ensconced in such institutions remain reluctant to take difficult decisions on bringing the university up to date with modern norms and values, open and fair access will continue to be something vaguely spoken about as an unachievable ideal.
19th May 2005