Following “overwhelming” opposition and the cancellation of millions of pounds of donations, Oriel College has gone back on its commitment to run a “six-month listening exercise” on whether its statue of Cecil Rhodes should be removed. Now that it will remain in situ, it will become clear to what extent Rhodes Must Fall is about more than just the statue.
Discussion surrounding the British colonialist’s statue on Oxford’s High Street was largely confined to the student population until protesters presented a petition to Oriel in November, prompting a response from the College authorities and the promise of a consultation starting in February. Press coverage exploded in the following months, and a national debate about the statue, Rhodes’ legacy and Britain’s relationship with its colonial past ensued.
Thursday’s announcement that the statue will stand – alongside a clear explanation of its historical context – was informed by an “enormous” response, including a counter petition and over 500 written responses from students, academics and alumni. However, it was also influenced by the loss of £1.5m in charitable gifts and the threatened cancellation of over £100m more. This is indeed unfortunate, given that donations often fund bursaries and grants for underprivileged candidates.
Despite assurances that the decision was not chiefly influenced by financial considerations, the revelation has sparked accusations of Oriel bowing to pressure from donors. Evidently their influence was significant enough to force the College into an embarrassing climbdown, reframing its consultation as how best to contextualise the statue amid fears it would be plunged into financial turmoil.
It is disconcerting that a relatively small number of rich alumni wields such power over college politics. But in this instance, they clearly represent the majority. In a survey of almost 1,000 Oxford students conducted by Cherwell, 37 per cent supported the removal of Rhodes’ statue and 54 per cent opposed it. In a nationwide YouGov survey of over 1,700 participants, just 11 per cent supported its removal as compared to 59 per cent who opposed it.
Of course democracy often fails to represent the interests of minority groups. But to lump all BME students into the Rhodes Must Fall camp is lazy and inaccurate. Only 3 per cent more BME students in Cherwell‘s survey thought the statue should be removed than left standing, and over half felt it did not affect their experiences at Oxford.
The real success of Rhodes Must Fall so far has been generating renewed debate about Britain’s colonial history and, to a lesser extent, highlighting discrimination and the lack of diversity in curricula at Oxford. These are noble and worthwhile causes. However, its efforts have continued to focus on the statue itself, labelling it (and even Oriel’s innocuous initial response to its petition) as “violent”. To speak of the lasting structural effects of Rhodes’ actions is one thing; to lexically align the psychological and emotional responses of students to the statue with actual physical violence suffered by Rhodes’ victims in Southern Africa is quite another. Such rhetoric and other arguments like it are not only disingenuous, but have detracted from the real debate on improving education and non-discrimination at Oxford.
Now that the decision has been made, one can only hope that Rhodes Must Fall moves forward, reconstituting its efforts to focus not on the statue, but on these important ideals, which are supposed to be its raisons d’être.
