Oxford students have hit out after being excluded from No HeterOx, a Facebook group created to give a platform to Oxford’s Queer and Trans community, allegedly because of their political views.

The Facebook group’s privacy has now been set to ‘closed’, meaning only members can see its content.  Accusations of anti-Semitism have also been levelled at some members of the group, due to the use of the terms ‘Zionist’ and ‘Zio’.

The No HeterOx Facebook administrators have now excluded several people while others have left voluntarily. The group describes itself as “a new print publication, acting as a platform of discussion and expression for Oxford’s Queer and Trans community…All, regardless of gender identity and sexual orientation, are welcome to contribute.”

An official statement, posted by one of the Facebook group’s administrators Tam Guobadia, stated: “Over the last couple of months it has become clear that this group has been more or less derailed from its original purpose which was to provide a space to amplify the voices routinely sidelined by a mainstream gay rights discourse more concerned with marriage than murder. Unsurprisingly, the endemic problem is one of white cis men, blissfully ignorant of their privilege, drowning out everyone else with their basic as hell politics.

“This group is not politically neutral: we are against assimilation and conservatism. As this seems to come up again and again and it seems some clarification is needed, Zionists are not welcome here. If you disagree with the fundamental attitudes of this group, that’s fine, but please leave. You are welcome to setup your own group that is more in tune with your ideology. Otherwise, you will be removed.”

Rowan Davis, another administrator of the group, commented on the post saying, “We share a radical politic that sees the root of the oppression of queer people not in the minds of individuals but in structural forces that will not be solved by making us more and more integrated into cis-het society but instead standing up and saying ‘we’re queer and the rest of you are going to have to deal with it’ – by directly intervening in the monotony of cisheterosexism.

“This group is anti-police, anti-prison, anti-heteronormative, anti-homonationalist, anti-colonial, anti-state, anti-corporate.”

Jan Václav Nedvídek, a 3rd year PPEist who was removed from the group, commented, “I don’t really mind I’ve been kicked out, I would probably have left anyway pretty soon. After white gays like myself were told to ‘shut the f*ck up’, it didn’t really feel like the most welcoming group on Facebook. I particularly felt very disappointed by the fact that people seem to think that white gays don’t experience any hardship – I invite those who hold that view on a short trip to Russia, which might make them change their minds. Being from Eastern Europe myself, I find this erasure most unfortunate.”

William Round, a PPE graduate from Brasenose, commented, “I left No HeterOx of my own accord within the last week because, as a gay man with moderate political views, I was tired of the effectively doctrinal insistence of administrators and dominant members of this page that discussion of LGBT issues should be conducted within a narrow, radical left-wing framework.

“A particularly disgraceful symptom of this malaise is the anti-white racism that permeates the group. Whatever liberationist mission statement the group claims to have, it is simply wrong to alienate a substantial proportion of LGBT people in Oxford from mainstream online discussion of LGBT issues across the university. How, for example, is ‘fuck privileged gays’ meant to aid constructive dialogue?

“It’s time to face up to the fact that this alienation has only happened through the way this forum has been managed. As we ourselves are trying to stand up for acceptance and tolerance for our community, we need to demonstrate willingness for bridge-building within our community first.

“Now I’ve left, my advice to future Oxford students is to show, in greater numbers, the courage to take on the narrative promulgated by certain individuals, and reclaim the real opportunity for free discussion for all students, and particularly for all LGBT students on LGBT pages.”

David Browne, who was also removed from the group, commented, “To be honest, I’m not surprised I was removed; I had dared to like comments by a Jewish member who felt uncomfortable with the open apologism for the use of the anti-Semitic “zio” slur, and my public criticism of the admins probably made me an obvious target for a purge based on the views of the admins.

“I think the mass removal of people based on politics (or even suspected politics in some cases) is extremely unhelpful; it plays into a false narrative that being LGBTQIA+ somehow inherently determines your political views. There is nothing about anyone’s sexuality or gender that dictates you must be anti-establishment, anti-capitalist, anti-marriage or anti-Zionist.

“Further, it’s extremely hypocritical of such a group to declare spaces ‘unsafe’ only insofar as it allows for abuse and marginalisation of those raising legitimate points about your own language; the difference between a call-out and thread derailment appears to simply be whether the admins agree with your concern, and to demand that no comment or discussion is passed on their statements while talking about identifiable people behind their backs.

“Perhaps, if the admins are serious in their acknowledgement that there is no one LGBTQIA+ community, they should retitle the blurb for the group from “a platform of discussion and expression for Oxford’s Queer and Trans community”, to something more accurate, perhaps: “a group for radical left-wing anti-Zionists, ideally Queer or Trans”.”

Tam Guobadia told Cherwell, “We the creators and admin’s felt an intervention was necessary for a variety of reasons: because the basic, quietist ultra conservative politics that this space was born of an abhorrence for; the kind of throw-everyone-under-the-bus that isn’t a white cis-man politics; the kind of politics that silence the resistance and disturbances of qpoc and trans women of colour as inappropriate; the kind of wait-for-your-turn, assimilationist politics that our liberation is not to be found in; aggressively statist-zionist politics that seek to justify the violences of a colonialist state by masqueraded behind queer identity-has become a dominant voice, holding back discourse, and supporting status quo’s that erase our queer experience under the banner of free speech and liberalism.

“This has never just been about offence: These “opinions” offend us because they oppress us- they make it easier to do violence to the most marginalised of our community. So we abhor the pink washing of the colonialist projects these politics uphold.”

Issue was also raised with the use of the term ‘Zionist’ in the official statement.

Jacob Brennan, who raised concern on the Facebook page over the use of the term, told Cherwell: “It was never my intention for this to become a defence of Zionism or to erase the highly damaging actions carried out under the banner of Zionism, which I find highly problematic as a Jew and someone on the left. It was merely to point out that it is a highly complex ideology that should be open to interpretation and discussion.

“Israel is definitely a colonial project, but Zionism is not purely colonialism. It is also a response to colonialism, the result of conflicting Jewish and Palestinian national movements, and in its early stages was greatly influenced by socialism, anarchism, religious prophecy and existential fears. My Zionism starts and ends with Israel’s right to exist within its pre-1967 borders.

“I believe that some of the responses to my viewpoint were overtly anti-Semitic: the original poster of the ‘Zio’ comment accused me of spreading Israeli propaganda (referring to me as ‘the above Zionist’ and repeating the word I had asked them not to use in a way which was overtly confrontational) in language which resembled an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. When another (non-Zionist) Jew called out their use of anti-Semitic tropes, no action was taken by the admins.”

When asked about the use of the word ‘zionist’, Guobadia commented, “We are anti-Zionist, because we are anti-colonialist; we are anti-empire; we are anti-manifest-destiny. A radically intersectional queer space is necessarily so, because we fundamentally abhor the segregation, violence, systematic dehumanistation and racism that all imperial and colonial projects are predicated upon. Regardless of nuanced, and complex relationships we all have with political ideologies, and our personal interpretations of them, they cannot be validated or severed from how they are violently enacted in practise.

“We stand with Jewish peoples against anti-semitism, but we cannot stand with a political ideology used to prop up a colonialist project – our refusal of Zionist ideology as peoples and people of colour all the result and living with all the trauma of colonialism projects, does not make us anti-Semitic.”

“I think there’s so much difficulty that is faced as a result of a lack of nuance, and I worry that we argue at cross-purposes, with everyone differing in their interpretation of Zionism, or rather what Zionism is shorthand for, which is confusing the discourse, and creating disputes where there is more overlap and consensus than disagreement. We accept the literal and abstract concepts of Zionism as interpreted by student Jewish youth, but also balance this with the realities of the enactment of this in Palestinian displacement/colonial violence, and Zionism in the sense we use it, is hard to sever from what is happening in actual tangible struggle.”

Annie Teriba, another No HeterOx group administrator, was reached for comment.

Read the full official statement by the group administrators here.

“Cisgender” is one of 500 new entries that have recently been added to the Oxford English Dictionary. It is defined as, “designating someone whose sense of personal identity corresponds to the sex and gender assigned to him or her at birth”.

The inclusion of the word has been seen by some as reflecting an increased public awareness of the issues of gender, and a growing understanding of the trans community.

Oxford undergraduate George Haggett, a trans man, told Cherwell that the inclusion of this word “represents a step away from harmful cisnormative ideals. The increasingly widespread use of the word “cisgender” is an acknowledgement that Trans people are not exceptions to the norm, but navigating gender in an equally legitimate way.”

Professor Charlotte Brewer, senior tutor and fellow in English at Hertford College and expert in the Oxford English Dictionary, commented that “words have to be clearly well established in the language, not fly-by-nights” to be included in the OED.

“When they think a word has got over the bar and is becoming established in the language, they will release an entry which shows the earliest usage they can find, with representative examples evidencing how usage has subsequently changed and developed.”

When asked how the inclusion of words such as “cisgender” and “twerk” reflects society, Brewer responded, “It is certainly the case that, reflecting society more widely, the OED is far more hospitable to a wide range of language than it was when the first instalment was published in 1884. Not surprising if you think of the social changes and changes in legislation since then: male homosexuality was illegal up to the 1967 Sexual Offences Act, and not till the Lady Chatterley’s Lover trial of 1960 could publishers be sure that they could publish words like fuck and cunt without fear of prosecution.

“So the 1^st edition of OED definitely had trouble with words relating to sex and the body – but since 2010 the revision has been as careful as it can to do away with euphemism or implicit homophobia in its definitions for such terms, and to be as accurate and descriptive as possible.”

The Oxford English Dictionary is widely considered to be the most comprehensive historical dictionary of the English language, and sets out to include as many words as possible in use from 1150 through to today.

The project currently exists online, and has not been printed in its full form since 1989, where it came to twenty volumes. The dictionary does not attempt to chart all recent changes to the English language; a word has to have been in widespread use for approximately five to ten years prior to its inclusion- the dictionary traces the first use of the word “twerk” to 1993 and “cisgender” to 1999.

There are approximately 70 full time lexicographers constantly on the lookout for the new words and the evolving definition of current words.

The OUSU LGBTQ representative was unavailable for comment.

Oxford University Student Union’s LGBTQ campaign has released an open letter to the organisers of last Saturday’s Pride Parade in which they “publically register [their] disgust at the corporatisation of the Pride in London”.

The open letter deals with several aspects of Pride in London’s conduct which the OUSU LGBTQ campaign regard as unacceptable. Their criticism centres on the inclusion of multinational corporations and financial institutions at the event.

These companies, it is claimed, “contribute to oppression to push liberation groups out of the picture”. The letter argues that “Pride should not be an advertising platform for multinational companies” or become about “selling out queer people”.

The campaign denounced the inclusion of Barclays at the event which it claimed is: “an organisation which had a dedicated tax avoidance branch and contributes to mass homelessness in the UK”. Barclays was 200 places in front of the Albert Kennedy Trust (AKT), a group that they state, provides “help and support to LGBTQ youth who are homeless”.

It further calls the decision to put Rainbows Across Borders next to BP Oil and Gas at the march “a disgrace”. The letter states that Rainbows Across Borders should not have been forced to share a platform with organisations like BP which “create the problems [Rainbows Across Borders] are trying to alleviate”.  

The letter concluded that Pride should be about “supporting and empowering those who are the most vulnerable” and “raising up trade unions and grassroots organisations”.

This year around 40,000 people took part in the London Pride parade, marching with charities, community groups, businesses and Trade Unions. This makes Pride London, according to the organisers, the biggest one-day event in the Capital.

Deputy chair of Pride in London, Stephen Ward, told Cherwell, “This [Pride] is a fantastic demonstration of the progress we have made and a perfect platform to continue to campaign for greater rights for the most disadvantaged and to ensure that we turn legal rights into genuine freedom for all of us”.

In response to the “corporatisation” of the parade, Ward stated that “keeping nearly 1 million people safe costs some £700,000 each year. £100,000 of that is supplied by the Mayor of London and the remainder must be raised in other ways. In the past it has proved very difficult to raise money from the community and so sponsorship is a good route. That sponsorship pays for the parade, the infrastructure in Trafalgar Square and the Women’s and Cabaret Stages in Soho and the Family Area in Golden Square as well as promotion of Pride in London and our festival of arts events and debates”.

Ward also commented, “The campaigners rightly point out that there are other events taking place in London this year for the community that do not require such significant funding, and I think it’s important to see Pride in London as part of that overall mix of diversity of events and campaigning approaches, just as Stonewall and the Peter Tatchell Foundation, Act Up and LGSM bring different approaches”.

Besides the issue of “corporatisation”, the open letter called the presence of the Metropolitan Police “unacceptable” due to the “deep-rooted and endemic racism, homophobia and transphobia of the police [that] propagate the active oppression of LGBTQ people.” The LGBTQ campaign stated that they feel “the presence of the police in the march actively stops Pride being a safe space for many people”.

In response, Stephen Ward commented “I cannot accept that there is any basis for the Metropolitan Police not being able to participate in the Parade. The Met is committed corporately to diversity and inclusion as an employer and in policing and are a hugely valued delivery partner for Pride in London events.

“As the campaign may be aware, there has been debate this year around the participation of UKIP and this has prompted us to ask the Community Advisory Board to help us develop clear criteria for participation in Pride in London. We expect that this will include wide consultation of all parts of the community that we serve.”

Ward concluded, “Like every other organisation, Pride in London is on a journey.  As we grow and become stronger we can make a bigger impact on attitudes towards LGBT+ people. For the journey to continue, we need to plan our growth carefully and work with the community as one small part of the incredible network of campaigning and support organisations that have brought us so far in the last 40 or so years and who will continue the work of liberation that the brave patrons of the Stonewall Inn began in 1969.”

OUSU’s LGBTQ campaign open letter can be found here.

Stephen Ward’s full comment can be found here.

A complaint has been made against the bus company Stagecoach Group regarding alleged incidents of Islamophobic discrimination along Cowley Road.

According to a complaint made against Stagecoach Group Muslim commuters were ignored on two separate occasions by company bus drivers on the number 10 bus route. The complaint was submitted to ‘Tell MAMA’ (Measuring Anti Muslim Attacks), a project that records anti-Muslim abuse in the UK.

On the first occasion, the complainant stated, a couple who “were obviously Muslim… tried to flag the bus down but the driver despite seeing them completely ignored them and continued to drive on.” In the second instance, a bus driver “deliberately chose to drive on” after “being flagged down by a group of people, one of whom was clearly wearing a Hijab and clearly identifiable as a Muslim.”

In a written response to the complainant, a Stagecoach employee apologised for the incidents, saying, “I can see the situations you described. I am at a loss to explain why the driver did not stop. I completely understand how these incidents have been interpreted. I give you my assurances that matters of this nature are treated very seriously. We are an equal opportunities employer who ensures that all customers, employees or job applicants are treated fairly and equally.”

Further assurances were also made, including a formal interview with the driver and an investigation “in line with the Company’s disciplinary procedure.”

In a statement to Cherwell, a spokeswoman for Stagecoach Group said, “We would be very disappointed to hear of any situation where a driver is found not to have stopped for passengers waiting at a bus stop. We have investigated the matter fully, including viewing CCTV and speaking to the driver involved.

“There was one occasion on which a customer remained inside the bus shelter as the vehicle passed the stop and did not appear to clearly indicate a desire to board that particular bus. There were a number of other buses in the area at the time. In addition, we have not found any evidence to suggest that the driver’s behaviour on this occasion was racially motivated.

“The welfare of our customers is of the utmost importance to us and we are very clear that anyone employed by Stagecoach should treat both customers and colleagues fairly and with respect and that we will not tolerate discrimination of any kind.”

According to Tell MAMA, transport is one area where victims of anti-Muslim abuse “consistently raise concerns.” The organisation was founded in February 2012 to record physical, verbal, written and online attacks against Muslims and provide support to the victims. In 2014-2015, 548 verified incidents were reported.

Kiran Benipal, Co-Chair of OUSU’s Campaign for Racial Awareness and Equality (CRAE), told Cherwell of her “horror and disgust” at the alleged incident, stating that “the racial tension which it highlights is particularly poignant at this time of the year – Ramadan.”

“Incidents such as this one and those similar have become all too commonplace, and are too rarely logged. Instead, they have become anecdotes for Oxford BME residents and students to share and momentarily reflect on, before they return to the reality of Oxford life as a ‘racial minority.’”

The University has pledged that a minimum of 30% of professorships and senior positions are to be filled by women by the end of 2020.

This is part of the United Nations’ ‘HeforShe’ campaign to increase gender equality. It is one of 10 universities and 20 world institutions to make this new commitment.

Vice-Chancellor Andrew Hamilton is quoted on the official HeforShe website as saying, “Addressing gender equality and ensuring that Oxford is a safe and inclusive space for all our students have been among my main priorities. We have already agreed targets for improving the representation of women in academic roles and we will now consider under the HeForShe Campaign how we can achieve greater equality for women across all areas of our work.”

When asked why 30% was chosen as the target, rather than a higher proportion, a University spokesperson told Cherwell, “We know that 30% is the threshold at which women achieve meaningful representation and it should be seen as the minimum we are seeking to achieve. Our overall aim is to create a larger pool of academic women who are able to serve in the University’s most senior leadership roles.

“The 2020 target is challenging, but realistic. Currently only 26 per cent of academic staff and 21 per cent of professorial staff are female. This is not out of line with many other UK universities and compares favourably with many British and international research-intensive universities. That said, we recognise that we must achieve more.

“The challenge over the next five years will be to diversify our leadership without imposing too many administrative roles on the relatively small number of senior women. 30 per cent may sound like a small target, but evidence from the 30 per cent Club, designed to increase the proportion of women on UK company boards, shows that this is the critical mass needed to achieve further positive impacts. So 30 per cent represents an important step.”

OUSU Vice-President for Women, Anna Bradshaw commented, “I am pleased to see the University commit to working for gender equality in such a serious way.  I am in particular pleased that OUSU has been able to work closely with the University on these commitments so that a number of the student-facing commitments relate directly to supporting OUSU work.

“Having said this, I do believe that there are a number of very serious problems with the HeForShe campaign, and I look forward to the University being able to offer constructive critique to the HeForShe campaign from their new position.”

As part of the campaign, the University has also announced an intention to make Undergraduate sexual consent workshops compulsory. They were first introduced in Freshers’ Week 2014 and attendance was encouraged but optional. Cherwell understands they will operate in the same manner this upcoming year, with the addition of ‘Race 101’ workshops, which aim to combat perceived cultural appropriation and racist micro-aggressions in the University.