The Oxford History Faculty has introduced a new requirement that students take at least one non-British or non-European paper. However, Rhodes Must Fall (RMF) campaigners have criticised the media coverage of the course change.
In a Facebook post the Rhodes Must Fall campaign registered their dissatisfaction with the move. Though RMF admitted that “the step is in the right direction”, they maintained that “the ways that [the change] has been exaggerated have given good press to an institution which still does not deserve any good press at all”.
The post also claimed the Oxford history degree remained too Eurocentric, writing that: “There is still only one fifth of one paper, (a paper on imperialism and globalisation), in which study of Sub Saharan Africa, 1/5 of the world’s land mass, is available.
“There are seven different options on the history of the British Isles alone. The real question is, why up until 2017 non-European history was not compulsory on the syllabus of the world’s supposedly best institution.”
The University has also refuted claims in the national press that the move was in response to any kind of campaign or pressure. In particular, while many have sought to link the change to the Rhodes Must Fall (RMF) campaign, the University has denied this, and pointed out that the curriculum review began a couple of years before RMF had even formed at Oxford.
The Oxford History Faculty released a statement, saying that the Faculty “regularly reviews and updates its course curriculum to reflect the latest developments in the subject. After a number of years of discussion and consultation among ourselves and with students, we have decided to make a number of changes to the curriculum.
“Among these is a requirement that students study one paper (from a wide range of such options) in non-British and non-European history, alongside two papers of British History and two papers of European History.
“Students take eleven papers in total during their history degree, and many of our students already take at least one paper of non-European/British history.
“We are pleased to be modernising and diversifying our curriculum in this way.”
History and Politics student Henry Sasse told Cherwell: “It’s not a huge change … many people seem to take American or Asian or Middle Eastern history at some point by default and they aren’t forcing [students to] take any course in particular.”
Sasse also expressed appreciation for the fact that the move was not an introduction of a specialized course, saying that: “In some ways I applaud them for not cobbling together a new module that wasn’t indicative of the specialities and interests of the faculty as well as allowing everyone to follow their own interests”.
Earlier this year Cherwell reported on the controversy over the disparity between the Oxford’s History dissertation prizes for British and African research pursuits. Billy Nuttall, a history student at Magdalen, launched a crowdfunding campaign to make up a difference of over £400 between the prizes.
At the time, Nuttall criticized the fact the history syllabus contained “two compulsory elements of British history, two compulsory elements of European history” but “no African no Latin American, no Asian [compulsory elements]”.
In response to the recent change, Nuttall told Cherwell: “I’m really happy the faculty is making these changes, they seem to be really ahead of the trend here in Oxford in terms of the diversity of subject matter that will be available.
“[The faculty] seem keen to work with students to work towards improving teaching and I would encourage anyone with concerns to voice them with the faculty via college subject reps and the like, they are really keen for feedback.”
Some have been disquieted by the change to the curriculum.
Historian and former Oxford Professor Niall Ferguson told The Times that universities ought “not to stop teaching crucial subjects like the rise of the West or the world wars in the effort to make courses more diverse.”
However, Sasse pointed out that “we are so far off from that being a concern. The majority of courses still discuss those sorts of things and the world wars are certainly not understudied by Oxford history students”.
