The Student Union (SU) suppressed the editorial independence of The Oxford Student (OxStu) newspaper, in what a private letter from three former editors-in-chief called “overbearing censorship”, when it tried to publish the SU’s apology to a former president.
The paper is owned by the SU, which, despite publicly presenting the paper as independent, has used its position of ownership to prevent it from publishing an article that may damage the public image of the SU. Documents show an SU board member viewed OxStu as its ‘media piece’ and expected its support.
Tensions between the SU and OxStu came to the fore last year. On 28th October, the SU issued an apology to a former president and cleared him of the unfounded allegations that had led to his suspension. Immediately, OxStu then attempted to report on this apology but received pushback from the SU.
Emails between SU Trustee Board members viewed by Cherwell, reveal that the SU had tried to suppress certain information in the OxStu’s publication of the SU public apology. In response to the initial draft article, an SU board member wrote in a 30th October email asking OxStu to remove a line.
The email said: “you are not to publish the article in its current form. Failure to comply with this request will constitute a breach of the [Memorandum of Understanding] and will leave the Board with no choice but to suspend access to [OxStu] website and remove the planned print edition scheduled for release tomorrow.” Other board members expressed their support for this in emails sent later that day.
The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), a non-legally binding document, outlines the relationship between the SU and OxStu. It states that “the OxStu and SU are committed to ensuring freedom of speech and freedom of the press are upheld in all circumstances”, and that the OxStu should not be treated as the SU’s “newsletter”. The OxStu website claims that their constitution “grants [them] full editorial independence from the SU.”
However, sections in the MoU from Trinity Term 2024 appear to contradict this claim to independence. The agreement imposes limits on what the newspaper is able to publish when content may bring the SU into disrepute, stating: “personal and employment issues related to elected representatives shall not be printed, at the discretion of the Oxford SU” (section 3.i) and that “individual members of staff employed by Oxford SU are working under the instruction of the Oxford SU Trustee Board and CEO and should not normally be named, including role titles” (3.j).
The SU cited its legal responsibility for the OxStu as rationale for blocking publication of the article; however, the SU’s media lawyer later “conclud[ed] that they are not publishing libel” according to a 30th October email from the then-SU president.
The SU told Cherwell: “This was not a matter of libel law. This line was removed in accordance with matters of confidentiality and employment law. As you will appreciate, no employer should approve the publication of confidential, private information relating to either its employees or former employees to any newspaper.”
In the UK, there is an exception to the common law duty to protect confidential information when there is public interest in its disclosure. An independent paper is normally able to report on confidential information when doing so is in the public interest. Editorial independence means that a publisher or financier cannot stop the publication of articles even if they are of reputational damage to them (provided that they are not libellous). The BBC, for example, is funded by the government and regularly publishes stories that reflect negatively on the government.
Following the pushback, three former editors-in-chief wrote a letter on 29th October expressing their concern over what they described as “the overbearing censorship” of the SU in their handling of the situation. The authors of this letter did not send it to Cherwell; it was instead obtained alongside the other emails.
The letter expressed concern that SU staff could be able to veto articles that depicted the SU in a negative light. In particular, it said that “despite the OxStu having a media lawyer to consult in cases like these, the editors-in-chief have been instead put under pressure to show [the CEO] articles before publication.” The authors of this letter have since resigned or discontinued their work with the OxStu.
In response to the letter, the SU developed the Media Oversight Committee “with the objective of evaluating and establishing a more sustainable, transparent framework for the working relationship between OxStu and the SU going forward…It took the feedback onboard, engaged with the student journalists’ concerns and held collaborative conversations regarding a review into the paper”.
In the audio recording of a video call, a former editor-in-chief – who did not pen the above letter and continues to work with the OxStu today – repeatedly referred to OxStu as a “mouthpiece” of the SU. Similarly, one trustee wrote in an 30th October email: “In certain exceptional circumstances, Oxford Student is the only formal media piece of SU and needs to support SU accordingly.”
When approached for comments, OxStu denied that it is a ‘mouthpiece’ and said that “none of the current members of OxStu‘s editorial board believe it to be a ‘mouthpiece’ of the SU”. They noted that there have been several occasions – both before and since this event – in which OxStu has been able to publish articles that are critical of the SU, stating: “We have roundly critiqued, or reported on failings of, their structure, infighting, policies and scandals.”
In the aftermath of the apology story, internal SU documents show the organisation’s concern over OxStu’s “reputational or financial risk” to the SU, as well as the “legal risk”, which was the reason conveyed to the editors. In various emails and meetings concerning the future of the OxStu, the SU discussed the possibility of withdrawing funding for the newspaper. In the minutes for a 31st October meeting, one board member “suggested that the OxStu might operate better outside SU governance, allowing them editorial independence.”
The above quotes reflect the views of the staff or board member who suggested it, not necessarily of the SU as a whole.
A former OxStu journalist told Cherwell: “I definitely felt an existential anxiety about the paper’s future at the time, especially since its relationship with the SU had broken down over issues of editorial independence. It also seemed possible that the SU was trying to force OxStu into complete independence – i.e. not receiving SU funding – if it didn’t get its way on certain important issues.”
The SU added in response: “Whilst we are not at liberty to disclose confidential discussions amongst the SU Board with third parties, it is widely known at the University that the SU Board is working to find solutions to protect the future of OxStu and its editorial independence, in response to feedback from employees and students of both the SU and OxStu.”
Disclosure: Cherwell is owned by Oxford Student Publications Limited (OSPL), a student-run company. OSPL was set up to ensure the editorial independence of its publications from the University and the SU.
 suppressed the editorial independence of The Oxford Student (OxStu) newspaper){kind=link}