Oxfordโs Student Union (SU) has passed a motion to cut financial ties with the Oxford Union, with 78.1% of those present voting in favour. This will likely prevent the Oxford Union from having a stall at the freshersโ fair and is likely to have an impact on new membership signups.
As the Oxford Union is not a student society, they are required to pay for a commercial stall at the SUโs annual freshersโ fair. According to the SU, this is โthe primary situation where the two organisations overlap and interactโ.
The motion resolved to “cease any and all commercial and financial relationships between the Oxford Union and SU” until the mandate expires in three years. The SU does have an Ethical Code of Practice for its commercial activities, according to which it โshould take all practically possible steps to ensure the organisations they engage with for commercial purposes are committed to minimising their negative impact on the environment and the communities they operate inโ.ย
The motion stipulates that the Student Council believes the Oxford Union should be able to โcarry out its principles without creating a toxic environment which seems to encourage bullying, harassment, racial profiling, and a systemic abuse of powerโ. However, since the Oxford Union is a Private Memberโs Club, it is not under the jurisdiction of the university and the SU is โunable to properly check Oxford Union mattersโฆ which affect studentsโ.ย
In areas where the SU lacks direct influence, the motion highlighted that โthey still have a duty to lobby for changeโ, or, if unsuccessful, take โnecessary actions to safeguard all members of the Oxford student communityโ. The passing of the motion mandates the VP Welfare & Equal Opportunities and VP Access & Academic Affairs to review the SUโs relationship with the Oxford Union.
The Union told Cherwell: โThe Union offers unique opportunities to its members, which range from meeting world leaders, to partaking in our debates, and joining us in our social events. The Universityโs compliance policy indicates that โfree speech is the lifeblood of a universityโ, a principle that is upheld by the Oxford Union.
โIt is unfortunate that many of the claims made on the motion are not factually accurate, and merely represent the views of a minority of the student body.”The possibility of turning the motion into a procedural motion was also discussed, which would have enabled all eligible members to vote, rather than just those present in person or online. A cause of concern, however, was that the list of eligible voters might be outdated, as the list was not updated since last term. Ultimately, 23 out of 29 present members (not including abstentions) voted against this.ย
Other concerns raised about the Oxford Union in the motion included the Oxford Unionโs reliance on unpaid โvac daysโ, which the motion described as โexploitativeโ. The high cost of membership was also described as โantithetical to the SUโs commitment to accessโ.ย
Clay Nash, the motion’s seconder, told Cherwell: “I hope that it sets a standard of accountability for the actions of Private Members Clubs, like the Oxford Union, who do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Universityโs regulatory bodies.”
According to the motion, whilst โstrong actionโ by the SU might โprovide an impetus for the Oxford Union to improve itself for its members in the Oxford communityโ, the exact actions will be discussed at a later date. Jade Calder, VP Access & Academic Affairs and the motion’s proposer, told the Student Council meeting she believes that โthe motion in itself, on a symbolic level, is a good startโ.