CW: Sexual assault, homophobia, eating disorders.

In 2015, the American feminist scholar, Naomi Wolf, received her doctorate from the University of Oxford’s English Department. Wolf’s 2015 dissertation formed the backbone of her book Outrages: Sex, Censorship and the Criminalisation of Love, to be published in 2019. However, the book never reached American shelves; Outrages was recalled for “corrections,” according to Wolf’s US publishers, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Outrages’ factual inaccuracies first publicly came to light during a BBC Radio 3 interview with Dr Matthew Sweet, just four weeks before its expected publication. Wolf alleged that the 1857 Obscene Publications Act led to “several dozen men[‘s]” executions for sodomy, however, Sweet pointed out that Wolf had misinterpreted Old Bailey court records when she thought that “[Death Recorded]” signified the defendant’s execution rather than a judge-granted pardon. Death Recorded, first used in 1823, was the opposite of an execution because it allowed the judge to “record a sentence of death, as he was legally required to do, while at the same time indicating his intention to pardon the convict” said Robert (Bob) Shoemaker, a 19th Century history professor from the University of Sheffield.

Historian Richard Ward said that Wolf committed a “pretty basic error,” adding that “if all the people who were mentioned in the Old Bailey records as [Death Recorded] were subsequently executed, there would have been a bloodbath on the gallows.”

Sweet went on to point out that Wolf’s argument, that the 1857 law targeted “consensual male couples,” was based on far from consensual examples. 14-year-old Thomas Silver was not executed for an expression of LGBTQ+ love, as Wolf said in Outrages, but instead, due to leniency from the judge, received a Death Recorded statement and subsequently served a two-and-a-half year prison sentence for his assault of a six year old boy.

We can thank Sweet’s investigative journalism for preventing factually incorrect scholarship from going to press, however, it appears that Wolf’s mistakes were present even in her 2015 Oxford DPhil dissertation. After six years of being held under embargo, a process which hides a dissertation from Oxford affiliates as well as from the wider public, Ecstasy or justice? The sexual author and the law was released by the Oxford University Research Archive (ORA) last month, accompanied by its nine pages of minor corrections.

In Ecstasy or justice?, Wolf wrote “the same year twenty-year-old Robert Enstone was executed: “indicted for b—st—l—y.” He was found “GUILTY .— Death Recorded,” however, in her corrections, Wolf noted that her statement needed to be changed to “Robert Enstone was not executed.” Wolf’s corrections demonstrate her knowledge even in 2015 of misinterpretation of “[Death Recorded]”; Wolf wrote in direct response to her mistake “This phrase did not mean that these prisoners were executed but that judges were able to assign other sentences.” Throughout the nine correction pages, which were written in 2015, Wolf admitted to confusing Death Recorded for executed six times.  

In Sweet’s interview, he flagged that the discrepancies between Outrages and the Old Bailey court records that Wolf used presented a “big problem” to the integrity of her argument. In an article published in Higher Ed, Tim Hitchcock, professor of digital history at the University of Sussex, commented “if your major data source is ill used in this way, the whole argument needs to be rethought.” Hitchcock said Wolf’s DPhil represented a “failure of supervision and examining” and was “surprised to see the mistakes framed as minor corrections.”


An obvious question is, how did this happen. Wolf’s academic supervisors declined to comment due to GDPR requirements that prevent universities from speaking about previous students, however, the first thing we can look at, is why Wolf’s dissertation remained under embargo for so long.

According to ORA guidance, DPhil students can decide to send out their dissertation for immediate release, or place it under embargo for one to three years. Beyond three years, students need to apply for an embargo extension, which can granted if the dissertation contains copyrighted third-party material that is not permitted to be released online, if it contains confidential material such as patient records, if making it available would invalidate a patent application, if restricting access is required by an outside sponsor, or if the student has “another good reason,” as judged by the appropriate department and the Graduate Studies Committee. It is unclear why Wolf decided to embargo her dissertation beyond the normal time frame, and why the embargo needed to last two years beyond Outrages’ publication date.

Wolf’s dissertation passed with “minor” corrections. DPhil dissertations at the University of Oxford can pass, go through a minor or major correction stage before being passed, or they can fail. A spokesperson from the university’s administration services told Cherwell that “The categories of minor and major are indicative; minor corrections might be given where typographical or presentational errors need to be made, whereas major corrections might be given where the examiners judge that more time is needed to correct the thesis or conduct some additional, limited, research.”

When Wolf came to Oxford for her Dphil, she was already a celebrated author, but this was not her first time in the city. After graduating with a Bachelor of Arts in English literature from Yale University in 1984, she was a Rhodes scholar at New College. Her 1991 title, The Beauty Myth, which argues that beauty culture is the “last, best belief system that keeps male dominance intact,” was seminal for the third wave feminist movement, with Gloria Steinem saying that it was “‘a smart, angry, insightful book, and a clarion call to freedom. Every woman should read it.

However, despite public acclaim, Wolf’s previous books had been faulted for their accuracy. In a 1994 paper titled Who Stole Feminism?,Christina Hoff Sommers said that Wolf’s statistic in The Beauty Myth – that 150,000 women die from anorexia in the USA each year – was grossly exaggerated and that the actual figure for fatalities was around 100 to 400. Wolf accepted the error and changed the statistic in later editions. In a 1995 article in the Independent, journalist Joan Smith said that when she asked Wolf where she got her data, Wolf said “she’d worked it out herself, she said, after checking the percentage of patients with eating disorders at one clinic.” In a 2004 paper published in the academic journal Eating Disorders, Caspar Schoemaker compared multiple peer-reviewed epidemiological studies to conclude that 18 out of 23 statistics in The Beauty Myth were wrong, and that “on average, an anorexia statistic in any edition of The Beauty Myth should be divided by eight to get near the real statistic.”

When talking about controversial issues, Wolf is not helping feminism, LGBTQ+ or eating disorder awareness campaigns by “fudging facts,” said one post on the blog Science of ED. In fact, sharing incorrect claims about groups that already face discrimination causes active harm by reducing trust in further scholarship. Without being backed up by proper evidence, Wolf’s claims in Outrages that recorded crimes of bestial or underage sex were consensual only spread yet more misinformation about the already misunderstood topic of gay love.

According to an Oxford University spokesperson, “The University does not have a procedure for editing a thesis once it has been independently examined and deposited with the Bodleian Libraries, unless there is a finding of academic misconduct. Errors of fact do not in themselves amount to academic misconduct.” Wolf’s repeated research mistakes, and the University’s lack of action in preventing the spread of factual inaccuracy, shows that Oxford has not prioritised checking one’s facts as a requirement for being accepted into its DPhil programme, or of receiving a doctorate.


Until she was suspended from Twitter last month, Wolf had a growing platform of 140K followers where she posted primarily anti-lockdown, anti-vaccine tweets over 200 times a day.

“I can confirm that my entire family got sick, after not being sick for a year (!!!), after being in close proximity to a couple that had recently been vax’d.” Retweeted Naomi Wolf with no comment.

“I’ve experianced this, my female family members and friends after being around others who have been vd. Its not coincidence, women shouldn’t just start having a period every time around the same people. One 11 year old got her first p and hadn’t stopped in nearly a month.” Retweeted Naomi Wolf.

“I just interviewed a citizen leader, Luna Singer, in OR who helped lobby for Five Freedoms. She described a 60 year old woman she knows who started uterine bleeding post vaccination — and to date has not stopped. How do so many reports of untimely bleeding not warn re fertility?” Tweeted Naomi Wolf.

“I had a gyno appointment yesterday in NYC and decided to ask about the vaccine and fertility. A flip literally switched within my Dr. who then proceeded to tell me my life would be safer with the vaccine. She said there are no known issues for women’s health.” Naomi Wolf retweeted, adding “I think physicians are afraid of losing their licenses.”

“What’s terrifying about people having the choice to take an experimental gene therapy that they are censoring all information about? How is she “stupid” when she actually knows what’s in this poison and why it’s not fda approved and speaking out about it?” Retweeted Naomi Wolf.

“Millions of people are dead because of these ‘researchers’. Bring on the Nuremberg trials.” Retweeted Naomi Wolf.

“I blame every parent who does it. If I can get by this entire time not even masking my kids once, you can too. It just takes actual effort and sacrifice. It disgusts me how parents won’t even fight for their kids.” Retweeted Naomi Wolf.

“My heart is breaking from hearing stories from moms who don’t know what to say to 12 to 16 year old girls horrified by endless or aberrant menses post vaccination.” Tweeted Naomi Wolf.

“I can’t believe I’m asking @tedcruz to save us from this with his new vaccine passport ban bill, but I am.” Tweeted Naomi Wolf

The effect of Wolf’s former Twitter page was a litany of fear. Over the last 30 days of her account being open, Wolf cited concerns about masking children, vaccinating children, infertility caused by vaccination, death caused by vaccination, reproductive or respiratory illness from being in close proximity to a vaccinated person, restriction of personal freedoms, using COVID lockdown measures as an excuse for a political power grab, collation of data for medical tracking use, inequality based on vaccination status, and being controlled by China.

In the site’s ongoing struggle to balance social responsibility with freedom of speech rights, Twitter took the decision into their own hands that it was simply too harmful to allow Wolf’s fearmongering in the context of the ongoing global pandemic. In doing so, Twitter has shown themselves to be better arbiters of truth than Oxford University.

Twitter is a place of opinions. You don’t need a reading list, a lab experiment or even a spellcheck to send your thoughts out into the universe. At Oxford however, you do. At every step of admission, pedagogy and examination, universities seek to equip their students with the best possible tools to understand truth. Academics disagree, but they do this by sharing a common respect for the truth and using appropriate methods to show why their view is the closest to it.

Wolf’s status as a Doctor of Philosophy from Oxford is especially responsible for giving her Twitter conspiracy theories legs. Wolf’s Twitter account, under the handle “Dr Naomi Wolf,” directly benefitted from her Oxford Dphil. “Naomi, you are the Rhodes Scholar, that’s good enough for me … people mock what they don’t understand … thx for your courage to speak out & ask the questions! It’s ridiculous that we live in a world where that is frowned upon. We should all want truth & facts!” Retweeted Naomi Wolf.

Wolf also used her position as a feminist scholar to illicit a particularly vicious fear about the vaccine’s risk to female fertility by retweeting anecdotes about menstrual irregularity post vaccination, specifically in teens, and alleging that even being in a room with a vaccinated person could put a woman at risk of infertility. Given the previous wealth of feminist scholarship about how women have historically been valued for their reproductive abilities alone, Wolf should have been aware of the heightened emotive power that female infertility fears can cause.

Furthermore, vaccine hesitancy in vaccine-rich countries is prolonging the pandemic and increasing deaths. Despite an abundance of vaccines available, the US fell short of its July 4th goal of 70% of the adult population having at least one vaccine dose. Analysis from the Associated Press showed that 98% of American covid deaths this May were among unvaccinated people. There is also the worry that unvaccinated people increase the risk of variant mutation, which could result in more dangerous variants or variants that reduce existing vaccine efficacy. Vaccine hesitancy has focused on already hot button issues such as body autonomy, public liberty concerns or anti-autism sentiment. Wolf did not tweet about the potential risk of a covid vaccine to male fertility, nor did she emphasise on any other secondary health issues that vaccines could allegedly cause.

If every scholar’s work that had a mistake was removed from the shelves, there would be very few books in the Bodleian, however, Wolf’s repeat mass spreading of misinformation demonstrates a systematic failure to follow current adequate academic standards of proof and is ultimately, bad faith. We could chalk it up to the old adage, “Don’t believe everything you read on the internet,” but in an age of alternative facts, knowing what counts as sufficient evidence and checking your sources should be a requirement of getting an Oxford DPhil. The university must bulk up their graduate student teaching around standards of proof, remove unnecessarily long dissertation embargo times and consider a researcher’s poor methodology as evidence of academic misconduct. Otherwise, we will only see more Oxford-sanctioned inaccuracies sent out into the world.

Image Credit: sunset parkerpix/CC BY-SA 2.0

For Cherwell, maintaining editorial independence is vital. We are run entirely by and for students. To ensure independence, we receive no funding from the University and are reliant on obtaining other income, such as advertisements. Due to the current global situation, such sources are being limited significantly and we anticipate a tough time ahead – for us and fellow student journalists across the country.

So, if you can, please consider donating. We really appreciate any support you’re able to provide; it’ll all go towards helping with our running costs. Even if you can't support us monetarily, please consider sharing articles with friends, families, colleagues - it all helps!

Thank you!