In 2004 the University attempted to stamp out post-exam celebrations…
All dressed up and nothing to do: Officers don’t know the code
Finalists and their friends have been ignoring the Proctor’s Code of Conduct regarding celebrations after the end of exams, whilst Proctor’s Officers are unaware of what the Code permits and forbids. The Code of Conduct, which targets traditional post-exam celebrations, was revised earlier this year. In its new form the throwing of confetti is prohibited after Oxford City Council was forced to spend around £20,000 cleaning Merton Street last summer.
The code originally stipulated that students should not: "throw or spray any foods or fluids.” The change in regulations appears to have resulted in confusion over what was permitted. Although the Code of Conduct clearly states that students cannot “throw anything...(including confetti, glitter) which will cause litter”, Proctor’s Officers stationed outside of Exam Schools on Monday morning failed to prevent any students from doing so.
One officer, who declined to be named, said that he thought confetti was not banned, and that students were permitted to open bottles of champagne. The Code of Conduct, however, stipulates that students may “bring a bottle of champagne/fizzy drink BUT [can] NOT OPEN IT”.
He seemed convinced that silly string was also allowed, contrary to the Code, and neither he nor the other two Proctor’s Officers present at the celebrations on Monday morning made any moves to prevent students from throwing confetti or drinking champagne. He clearly stated that “Silly string is not specifically an offence because it doesn't damage clothing”.
He went on to say that: “We only want to stop people spraying fizzy drinks and champagne because it damages people's clothing, but they can drink it.” There is also evidence of students’ illegal festivities on Queen’s Lane, leading to the King’s Arms and the Turf Tavern. Feathers line the streets and the gutters; the consequence of pillow fights, and the tarmac is stained by eggs and flour.
A spokeswoman for the University argued that students themselves should take a more responsible approach to celebrations, as they “are made aware of what is permissible”: “[They] therefore have some responsibility to ensure they abide by the regulations or else face possible sanctions.” She was unable to comment on whether there had been a breakdown in communications over the Code of Conduct, “We are not able to discuss this particular allegation in detail with the University Marshall."
Lydia Booth and Harriete Luscombe, both third year Geographers from St Peter’s, condemned the Code of Conduct. Booth stated she felt it was a real shame. “This is what Oxford is, it’s what we’re about. We’ve worked so hard we deserve a real celebration, and it’s only for three weeks a year.” Luscombe added that the measures were counterproductive, saying: “Now they’ve forbidden it, it’s a case of asking ‘what can we get away with?’”.
A spokesman for traditional post-finals pub The Turf, which allows finalists to bring in champagne, but no other food or drink, said: “I was forced to throw two people out for spraying each other with ketchup. But it’s calmed down " when I finished, you could be pelted with anything!”
9th Jun 2005