Varsity Issue 775

The Independent Student Newspaper

Number 775 Friday 17th January 2014 Published in Cambridge since 1947

www.varsity.co.uk

The age of the self? Endemic narcissism or the ultimate fourth wave feminist act? Nina de Paula Hanika traces the history of the selfie.

Why Cambridge is at the forefront of exploring the Milky Way Science P13

Figures reveal that 905 staff are on zero-hours and casual contracts King’s comes out worst in table of colleges paying the living wage Phelim Brady News Correspondent 28 of Cambridge’s 31 colleges are failing to pay hundreds of staff a living wage, according to newly released figures which lay bare the extent of low pay and precarious employment at the University of Cambridge. In the same month that it was revealed the university’s vice-chancellor had received a £20,000 pay rise, records released under the Freedom of Information Act show that 1,089 college and university staff are receiving wages of less than £7.65 per hour. The living wage, which represents a £1.34 increase over the minimum wage, is said to be the minimum hourly wage on which a person can support themselves, and is calculated annually by the Centre for Research in Social Policy. The figures, which cover the month of November 2013, also reveal for the first time the widespread use of zerohours and casual contracts at the university, with more than half of all colleges involved. Some 905 staff across the university are working on the flexible contracts, meaning they have no guarantee of work, and may lack access to maternity and redundancy rights, and protection from unfair dismissal. There were calls

to outlaw the controversial contracts from some MPs and trade unions, after they were the subject of a House of Commons debate last October. The university itself reported employing 343 workers on zero-hours contracts and 83 staff paid less than £7.65 per hour. Among the colleges, King’s College led with 123 workers paid under the living wage, followed by Clare with 85, Churchill with 57 and Peterhouse with 53. Cambridge’s wealthiest colleges, Trinity and St John’s, reported 50 and 33 under the living wage respectively. Fiona Woolston, one of CUSU’s Living Wage Officers, said: “The living wage is about respect. It’s about acknowledging that every person who contributes to the success of this university should have the right to an appropriate standard of living for themselves and their family, or to be able to confidently save for such a future. “The Cambridge Vice Chancellor now earns £334,000, in contrast to the £14,789 earned each year by a member of staff on the living wage; however, many staff do not even receive this.” Homerton College and Hughes Hall were alone in reporting that they employ no staff paid below the living wage or on zero-hours contracts. St Catharine’s also pays all staff the living wage, but has 18 workers on flexible contracts. However, a number of colleges, including Trinity, Downing, Fitzwilliam and Peterhouse have suggested that in addition to their hourly wage, bonuses and benefits should be taken into account. Paul Warren, bursar at Clare College, said that “when bonuses and benefits at Clare are included we do not have a single permanent member CONTINUED ON PAGE 4

CHRIS WILLIAMSON

Over 1,000 paid below living wage

Student takes on gender segregation Chloe Clifford-Astbury Deputy News Editor

VIVA LA REVOLUCIÓN : “I’ll saunter into office”, joked Russell Brand on Monday at the Cambridge Union, before quickly adding: “But before I’m going to turn from ‘don’t ever vote’ to ‘vote for me’ we need to know exactly what it is that we’re voting for.”

Radha Bhatt, a first-year student at King’s College, has written a letter demanding that Universities UK (UUK) admits that its controversial gender segregation guidance is “unlawful”. In November, UUK issued guidance which said it could be acceptable for Muslim societies and other bodies to segregate their members by gender during public meetings on campus. This guidance was quickly withdrawn and put under review after widespread criticism. A spokeswoman for UUK emphasised that the institution was opposed to enforced segregation, but that where voluntary segregation was concerned, the law was less clear. Although not seeking to take legal action, Bhatt argues that the “discriminatory” values that might prompt gender segregation have no place in universities, which are “secular, neutral public bodies”. In addition, Bhatt seeks assurance that the guidance will not be resurrected. “These guidelines basically were the UUK capitulating to the views of extreme Islamist speakers”, she said. She also disputes UUK’s use of the term ‘voluntary’. “[Women] are going to be intimidated by their peers and the speaker themself to conform to what [the speaker] wants to happen.” “People say ‘voluntary segregation’ – that’s not even a thing.” Bhatt used the example of racial segregation to illustrate what she perceives as the absurdity of optional segregation. The UUK guidance prompted outrage from a number of quarters. The Equality and Human Rights Commission announced that the segregation that would be allowed by UUK’s decision contravenes gender equality laws, and a petition opposing the move garnered 8,000 signatures. Prime Minister David Cameron also criticised the guidance, saying that it “urgently” needed to be reviewed to avoid any kind of segregation. Bhatt has not yet received a response from UUK.

Interview: Former Varsity editor Patrick Kingsley on his exploits in Egypt (p. 12)