OUCA is no stranger to controversy, but the impact of this week’s revelations should not be underestimated. The consequences of racist jokes told at hustings will not be limited to merely those individuals directly implicated, but will effect both OUCA and Oxford Student Politics in general. The question is where OUCA should go from here.
It is clear that those responsible need to be held to account. Inevitably, the National Conservative Party have already taken appropriate measures by suspending those involved. OUCA President Anthony Boutall has pledged to take similar action pending the results of a disciplinary committee, yet to be held. However, it would be a grave mistake to focus entirely upon the individuals who made the remarks.
Like OUCA, Westminster is currently embroiled in a scandal. MP’s have acknowledged that the public perceive the expenses controversy as symptomatic of wider problems within Parliamentary culture. It would not have been sufficient for a few heads to roll; in order to survive, they have had to pledge to engage in reform of the system. OUCA should pay close attention.
It is clear, for a number of reasons, that the problem goes beyond those who have taken the flak so far. Firstly, there is the point that candidates were asked, in an institutional setting, to tell a racist joke. Cherwell understands that returning officers only halted proceedings mid way through the answers being provided. Why was the question allowed to receive a response in the first place? Damningly, many inside OUCA have suggested that far from being an exception, questions like these are ‘traditional’. People don’t tend make jokes if they don’t think they’ll be laughed at. Clearly, those making them must have thought they would be acceptable in the context of OUCA hustings. Few people will take these remarks in isolation-there is a widespread impression that such behaviour is endemic to the organisation’s culture.
Many within OUCA will be hoping that this all just blows over. Some will be happy to let those directly implicated take the fall, and carry on as usual. This is not the right approach. If there is not wholesale change, they can expect a repeat event. There are several immediate changes that should be made.
Firstly, OUCA should open up. Exclusivity is contrary to the purpose of political parties. OUCA currently prohibits all members bar the President from talking to the press. Given recent events, one can see why such a policy is in place-but it is a mistake nonetheless. OUCA should not operate from behind a veil of secrecy. Rather than attempt to draw a shroud over its members activities, OUCA might benefit from more transparency. Members probably would have been more reluctant to make racist jokes if they knew that it could be reported, on the record, to the press.
Secondly, OUCA needs to reform both the culture and procedure of its hustings. Hustings do not need to be entirely serious affairs. Indeed, making hustings fun, amusing, and even slightly risqué can contribute to encouraging engagement, a point that is clearly taken to heart by many JCR’s. However, they seem to manage to achieve this without racist material.
Finally, OUCA needs stronger leadership on these issues. The response from Boutall has, frankly, been underwhelming. Throughout the emergence of the story, Boutall claimed to be ignorant of what had happened. In the best possible light, this shows him to be an ineffective leader-was it not his role to find out and deal with exactly such problems as these?
OUCA has marginalised itself within Oxford politics. There are already moves afoot to exclude it from Freshers Fair, and prominent Conservatives have begun to dissociate themselves-Michael Howard has already withdrawn from OUCA’s post election dinner, which he had been due to speak at. Sanctioning those directly responsible for the current mess is a necessary, but not sufficient measure. If OUCA wants to regain whatever credibility it had, it will have to change.
