In a column for The Sunday Times, the prime minister cited institutional racism as an issue he planned to combat under his administration.

Specifically, he called out Oxford for “[accepting] just 27 black men and women out of an intake of more than 2,500″ in 2014.

He wrote that he intends “to legislate to place a new transparency duty on universities to publish data routinely about the people who apply to their institution, the subject they want to study, and who gets offered a place. And this will include a full breakdown of their gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic background.

The University responded, however, to Cameron’s calls for more admissions information to be published by saying that much of his suggested reform was already in place.

Dr Julia Paolitto, media relations manager for Oxford, told Cherwell, “Oxford already publishes (and has done for many years) most of the information the PM is calling for, which is why we are saying we don’t feel legislation is necessary for our purposes. In fact, the figure Cameron cited in his op-ed piece for our 2014 BME intake he only got because it’s openly available on our website – along with a lot more data besides.”

A university spokesperson said, “We are constantly working to update what information we provide and although we do not see the need for further legislation, we would welcome discussions on what more information we could publish.”

The statement pointed out, “Our most recent statistics for British undergraduate students show that Oxford has made progress against a challenging backdrop of changes to the educational landscape and student funding. For entry in 2015 Oxford accepted 367 UK undergraduates students from ethnic minority backgrounds (a 15 per cent increase on 2010) – and its intake of British undergraduate students from black backgrounds alone has grown by more than 60 per cent since 2010 (from 39 to 64). Across our student body as a whole 24 per cent of students are from ethnic minority backgrounds, and our student mix is very much in line with other highly selective universities.”

In any case, the spokesperson added, “The effects of social inequality are already pronounced before children begin formal schooling, and universities, schools and government must work together to address their root causes effectively.”

The statement also included a link to admissions information provided by Oxford.

A series of motions criticising the actions taken by Oriel’s Governing Body over Rhodes Must Fall last week are set to be debated tonight by Oriel JCR.

Following a meeting of Governing Body last week, the College resolved not to remove the statue of Cecil Rhodes, despite having pledged in December to conduct a six-month ‘listening exercise’ scheduled to begin this month.

Four motions have been proposed by the JCR President:

“i. This JCR condemns Governing Body for failing to listen to the voices of students in relation to the issues surrounding the fate of the statue and plaque commemorating Cecil Rhodes and, in doing this, revoking the opportunity that was promised to students in the six month listening exercise.

“ii. This JCR condemns the College for failing to inform the JCR President that an unscheduled Governing Body meeting took place and for failing to brief the JCR President about it beforehand.

“iii. This JCR condemns the gross breach of trust that led to The Telegraph acquiring and publishing Governing Body papers relating to the statue and plaque commemorating Cecil Rhodes.

“iv. This JCR calls for Oriel College to create the position of ‘Tutor for Equality’, and to consult the student body at every stage of the creation and implementation of this position.”

Documents leaked by The Telegraph purportedly from the Governing Body meeting in question suggest that the College was faced with significant financial threats from donors opposed to the removal of the statue of Cecil Rhodes.

Rhodes Must Fall in Oxford (RMFO) held a press conference early Monday morning to layout its new objectives and agenda following Oriel College’s decision January 27 not to remove the statue of Cecil Rhodes that has come to epitomize the movement.

The movement placed significant focus on what they deemed the “dictatorship of a small number of donors” and such donors’ supposed coercive effect on college and university policy. They especially noted the reversal from the listening exercises Oriel promised in December.

They said in their statement, “It is clear that Oriel has been influenced significantly by the threats of donors keen to maintain symbols of Cecil Rhodes, as has been demonstrated by the threats of donors keen to maintain symbols of Cecil Rhodes, as has been demonstrated in a report written by Oriel’s development dictator.”

“Put simply, Oriel sold out.” the collective said. “It sold out when Cecil Rhodes first poured his blood money into the College. And it sold out again when it decided that the voices of wealthy alumni were more important than the voices of the students committed to their direction, protection and care.

This was part of an overarching critique of “the larger problem of the neoliberalisation of higher education which is exemplified by cuts in government spending on education.”

RMFO also emphasized its commitment to free speech and democracy, citing their participation in the Oxford Union debate on January 21 and saying, “We have debated, petitioned, discussed, and listened.” They claimed that motions passed in JCRs and MCRs were indicative of widespread student support for their demands.

RMFO also flipped a critique of their movement, which has argued that they are interested in avoiding uncomfortable debate. They said, “Our campaign has never been about safe spaces. But the Chancellor [Chris Patten] is clearly keen to carve out a safe space of his own, where debates about colonialism can be silenced and swept under the carpet.”

Most significantly, perhaps, the movement released seven demands going forward including a decolonized curriculum, payment for “the work of anti-racist students and staff”, and for the University to “cease public smear campaigns” of the movement.

The press conference continued after the statement with questions from the media. 

An uncomfortable moment arose when, pressed for details about other buildings that might be renamed, an organising member cited concern for democracy as a reason not to propose candidates for recontextualisation. 

It was also stated that RMFO sees that it has not lost as “the game wasn’t played fairly” and as a result would redouble their efforts.

After the conference, organising member Andre Dallas told Cherwell that, “The wider movement and curriculum changes seem pretty well-perceived. The statue is a more divisive. If after listening exercises, involving all the stakeholders and weighting their views fairly, it was seen as a good idea not to take down the statue, we would be open to that rather than the farce that occurred.”

When pressed, he said that “one of the main critiques of the statue is that it affects more impactfully descendants of those oppressed be colonialism. In my opinion, then, the opinions of those alienated by the icon should be weighted more heavily.

“It is more nuanced than a simple numbers game given that the space is so skewed. A majority of a colonized space ignorant of the crimes of colonialism”, he said, citing that the Provost of Oriel had been unaware of the extent of Rhodes’ crimes, “might not representative.”

Rhodes Must Fall in Oxford’s “manifesto”:

First, we want a reckoning. We want Oxford to acknowledge and confront its role in the ongoing physical and ideological violence of empire. This requires an apology and increased scholarships for black students from Southern Africa.

Second, we want a commitment to recontextualizing iconography celebrating figures of grave injustice. Murderous colonists and slaveholders belong in books and museums, not on the sides of buildings. This requires the removal and rehousing of statues and portraits, and the renaming of buildings.

Third, we want a decolonized curriculum. We want to hear the voices suffocated into silence by a Eurocentric academy. We want to study different systems of knowledge and explore the work of people who deviate from the white Western canon that we are forcefed.

Fourth, we want representation for people of colour at all levels of the university. This requires, amongst other things, blind marked applications and implicit bias training for all academic staff.

Fifth, we want an immediate end to the outright racism people of colour face on campus. We want effective recourse for students, academics and non-academic staff to deal with racist discrimination and harassment. This requires race workshops for all incoming student cohorts. This requires an effective system for students and staff to report incidents of racism, which acknowledges the intersectional way that oppression based on racism interacts with oppression based on class, gender disability, and other grounds.

Sixth, we want the University to take responsibility for the culture it perpetuates. We want the work of anti-racist students and staff to be recognised and institutionalised. This requires payment for our labour. This requires a specific sabbatical position for Race at the Oxford University Students Union and paid Tutor for Race positions at both college and university level.

Seventh, we want the University and all related bodies to cease smear campaigns, and private intimidation, of our movement and our members.

David Cameron criticised Oxford University and other British institutions in a column penned for The Sunday Times today, highlighting institutional bias against black and minority ethnic (BME) communities in Britain.

Cameron writes, “if you’re a young black man, you’re more likely to be in a prison cell than studying at a top university.”

The piece singles out Cameron’s own alma mater, saying, “It’s striking that in 2014, our top university, Oxford, accepted just 27 black men and women out of an intake of more than 2,500. I know the reasons are complex, including poor schooling, but I worry that the university I was so proud to attend is not doing enough to attract talent from across our country.”

The Sunday Times proffers Oxford’s defense, writing that an “Oxford spokesman drew attention to different figures, saying that in 2015 the university accepted 367 ethnic minority UK students, in line with other leading universities.”

Cameron does say that Britain has come a long way, for instance in the House of Commons, writing, “When I became an MP in 2001, I barely had a single colleague from an ethnic minority background. Today our MPs include the sons, daughters and grandchildren of Ghanaians, east African Indians, Iranian dissidents, Pakistanis and Indians.”

But his overarching concern is to highlight his “2020 agenda” concerning BME communities. He says he is determined to achieve, “Not just greater numbers at university, but many more jobs, apprenticeships and start-up loans. And I am determined to fix that stubborn problem of underrepresentation in our police and armed forces.”