The Church of England has defended a tweet it posted offering “prayers for Prof Dawkins and his family” after Dawkins suffered a stroke. The post was retweeted, as thousands of Christians adopted the hashtag #PrayForDawkins.

Others, however, argued that the Church of England showed a lack of respect by offering prayers to Dawkins, who has spent his life campaigning against religion.

The Communication Director of the Church of England issued a statement responding to allegations from former politician Nikki Sinclaire that its comments were “ignorant and sarcastic” and that the tweet was a form of “trolling”.

Rev Arun Arora responded that “many recognized the tweet for what it was, a genuine tweet offering a prayer for a public person who was unwell”. Arguing that critics had misunderstood the purpose of the prayer, he wrote, “Some of the Twitter reaction assumed that

Christians only pray for other Christians. In fact Christians pray for all kinds of people. They pray for their friends and families. They pray for their community,” he wrote. “Poets write poetry, musicians play music, Christians pray. And they love,” Arora added.

Many Christians defended their use of the hashtag. “It’s a strange world where the Church of England has to ‘defend’ praying for someone,” one church member tweeted.

The Oxford Humanist society told Cherwell, “In the absence of any concrete evidence to the contrary, we assume that the call for prayers for Richard Dawkins is made out of genuine concern and for no other reason. Naturally we do not expect such prayers to have any effect on Professor Dawkins, but understand them as, ‘Best wishes for a speedy recovery’. We seek to make a better world for everybody based on the principles of reason and compassion, and believe that dialogue and co-operation with religious groups can further this aim. We do not represent Professor Dawkins, whose personal opinion regarding prayers for him may differ from ours.”

Dawkins has claimed that his stroke was brought on from the stress of his embroilment in a Twitter controversy, after he retweeted a video likening feminists to Islamists.

The previous Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University, Andrew Hamilton, was the highest single earner of university chiefs, according to a report issued earlier this month by the University and College Union (UCU.) The report, which investigated 159 institutions, found Hamilton received a salary of £462,000 in 2014-5.

This meant that Hamilton had the third-highest annual salary of university chiefs, but the two universities who paid higher wages had two heads each. University bosses received an average salary of £272,432, an increase of three per cent on the previous year and 6.7 times the average pay of their staff. The report shows that while Vice-Chancellors’ pay has risen 14 per cent over the last five years, staff pay has only risen by five per cent.

Sally Hunt, the UCU general secretary, stated, “The time has finally come for a frank and open discussion about pay and transparency in higher education. The huge disparities in the levels of pay and pay rises at the top expose the arbitrary nature of senior pay in our universities.”

When asked if the Vice-Chancellor pay at Oxford seemed justified, an Oxford spokesperson told Cherwell, “[Oxford] is consistently ranked among the handful of best universities in the world. The Vice-Chancellor’s salary reflects that.”

The spokesperson also highlighted an inconsistency, saying, “The UCU are saying that Professor Hamilton’s total package (including pensions) went up from £442k to £462k. They are not comparing like with like. The comparable figures are £454,000 for 2014 and £462,000 for 2015 – a total rise of 1.7 per cent.”

Oxford’s current Vice-Chancellor Richardson has stated, “The argument for the salaries Vice Chancellors are paid is that universities… have to compete globally if we are to attract the best university leaders. Compared to many university staff, Vice Chancellors are indeed very highly paid, but [not] compared to bankers and footballers.”

On Sunday evening, the Magdalen and Wadham JCRs each voted in favour of motions to donate £250 to Movement for Justice (MFJ) to support the organisation’s protest next month at the Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre. A similar motion was proposed at New College’s JCR meeting, although it was not passed.

The detention centre holds over 350 detainees, overwhelmingly women, who are awaiting either the approval of their asylum applications or deportation.

The centre has faced controversy since opening in 2001, including allegations of human rights abuses. Yarl’s Wood was burnt down during protests by detainees in 2002. In a report last summer, Nick Hardwick, chief inspector of prisons, described the centre as “a place of national concern”. According to the report, 15 of the detainees had been held without charge for over six months.

According to the Surround #YarlsWood demonstration’s Facebook event, Movement for Justice ‘‘Will be returning to Yarl’s Wood in force to demand that ALL the women are freed, Yarl’s Wood is SHUT DOWN and ALL detention Centres are closed once and for all!’’

MFJ goes on to describe the protest as ‘‘fighting to win the most basic of demands as human beings.’’ The JCRs’ donations are to be spent by the Movement for Justice on “coaches to the demonstration and advertising for the demonstration’’.

Ella Sackville Adjei, who proposed the Wadham JCR motion, described Yarl’s Wood as ‘‘A truly horrific institution, where people who have committed no crime are forced to endure prison-like conditions’’ and ‘a source of national shame’. Ms Sackville Adjei went on to tell Cherwell, “The money raised will go towards subsidising the Oxford coach, and paying for coaches from elsewhere in the country so that people who otherwise could not afford travel to the demo in Bedfordshire will be able to attend – it is vital that activist spaces are open to all, regardless of financial status, and I think it is really important that institutions with as much spare money as Oxford colleges help to facilitate this.”

Movement for Justice described the JCRs’ decisions as “so exciting”, telling Cherwell, “The donation from Magdalen means so much to us because it means we can continue to make getting ex-detainees and asylum seekers to the demonstrations seats – we want no one to feel they cannot come because of lack of money, these donations help make that happen.”

John Stephens of Magdalen, told Cherwell that at a talk earlier this month by Movement for Justice, students were “shocked by accounts of the conditions in Yarl’s Wood,” which included allegations of “withholding of vital medication and sexual assault by guards”.

In its motion, Magdalen JCR notes, “The demonstration aims to bring together activists, organisers and asylum seekers from across the country to help build a network of campaigners and create links between movements.

“It is also an opportunity for detainees (many of whom are not native English speakers) to contact campaigners and access legal counsel.”

In response to Cherwell‘s request for comment, A Home Office spokesman said, “Detention and removal are essential parts of effective immigration controls, helping to ensure that those with no right to remain in the UK are returned to their home country if they will not leave voluntarily. 

“We take the welfare of our detainees extremely seriously, which is why the Home Secretary commissioned the Stephen Shaw review which was published last month. We are now working on significant reforms in relation to mental health, how those “at risk” are considered and ensuring there is a stronger focus on removal so that people spend the minimum amount of time in detention before they leave the country.” 

Serco, the firm responsible for operating Yarl’s Wood, did not respond to Cherwell’s request for comment.