Yes – Victoria Morrison

A student recently commented that ‘the Union had done nothing’ for students. They are right to a certain extent. The Union is not the body that helps keep rent rises low, improves academic conditions or ensures strong welfare support, and never will be. However, with 70% of undergraduates members, the Union has served an important role in expanding opportunities for the students of Oxford University through debates, speaker events and social occasions.
The Union are currently the British, European and World Debating Champions, with all of these student debaters trained by the Union—an incredible achievement for a number of individuals. This year alone in excess of 200 members have been taught how to debate, been given high quality feedback by more experienced debaters, and sent out to compete throughout the country.
Equally, we have offered the chance to hear and meet some leading figures in public life: Martin Sheen, John Hutton, Ben Fogle, Helen Fielding, Alex Shulman, Alan Johnston, Jonathan Davies and Aaron Sorkin, among many others. The variety of speakers appeals to anyone and everyone, regardless of their particular interests.
The applications for dinners and drinks have been opened up to all, genuinely allowing any member the chance to meet with the speakers on a more personal level—an incredibly popular measure that has been widely taken up by members.
Our weekly debates have exposed members of the university to expert opinions on challenging political and moral issues. A particular highlight this term was the motion on Assisted Suicide. The speakers in proposition included Dr Michael Irwin, a former UN Medical Director who offered an insight into his thirty year campaign for a change in the law, proposing to legalise assisted suicide. In opposition spoke Baroness Finlay, a practising palliative care specialist who offered a personal account of patients she has treated and how the option of assisted suicide creates a burden on patients to take their lives. A difficult topic, but one that was widely engaged with by members. The chance to interact with experts on a range of issues is one of the many opportunities the Union offers.
This term has also been successful behind the scenes. We won the battle to ensure the Women’s Officer is an advisor to the governing body. This demonstrates our commitment to addressing the under-representation of women in the Oxford Union and is something that will continue to be addressed in future terms. Equally, the newly created position of Steward will allow us to maintain longer term contacts, establish greater continuity between terms and therefore further improve the quality of speakers we bring our members.
The Union is not an island. We continue to work successfully with a number of societies to ensure that everyone has the best access to high profile speakers and debate. The Presidential candidates running for election are all excellent and demonstrate a commitment to the future success of the Union. Regardless of who wins, the Union will only go from strength to strength.
I encourage all members to vote in the elections for next term’s Officers and Committees, held in the Oxford Union on Friday, June 12th.

No – Josh Rhodes

In 1993 the Deputy Leader of the BNP was asked whether the party was racist. With disarming honesty, Richard Edmonds replied, ‘We are 100% racist, yes.’ Whilst the party may have moved on a little bit, its all-white membership policy reveals that maybe people have a point when they say that Griffin-ite moderation is all smoke and mirrors.
Having a look at current membership, there’s a stunning proportion with serious criminal offences behind them. Picking a local organiser at random, the BNP boss in Leeds has five convictions behind him, including both Actual and Grievous Bodily Harm. This sits well with leader Nick Griffin’s comments when the BNP got their first councillor in 1993: ‘The electors of Millwall did not back a postmodernist rightist party, but what they perceived to be a strong, disciplined organisation with the ability to back up its slogan ‘Defend Rights for Whites’ with well-directed boots and fists. When the crunch comes, power is the product of force and will, not of rational debate.’
And there’s the real issue. I’m all for defending free speech—for the most part. I cherish my right to be a little bit rude now and then. However, allowing a serious political platform for a party with an openly racist and violent ideology is something else. As much as it hurts to do so, I can put up with a lot of offensive BNP behaviour. Shoddy revisionist history is unpleasant, but in itself, not overly damaging.
The reduction of all non-whites to ‘permanent guests’ rather than citizens on the other hand? That presents a problem and not just to the dignity of individuals and communities, but to the fabric of society in general.
National politics ought to seek to maximise the benefit of society for all its members, whether native or otherwise. Political parties that explicitly undermine this policy and what this country stand for simply do not have a place here. At this point they are more harmful to society as a whole, and this poses a more immediate problem than the defence of free speech. When convicted criminals are using the charade of a legitimate political organisation to preach racism and hatred – whether white supremacy or otherwise—it is undeniable that the benefits of the political platform are being abused. Any thug who wishes to whip up a fervour ought not be afforded the luxury of these benefits and this is why the BNP must not be permitted to operate.
They are not a delicate voice that needs nurturing and protection, but represent an attempt to stifle the values that have led us to defend free speech in the first place: liberty, individuality and most importantly of all, equality.

A student recently commented that ‘the Union had done nothing’ for students. They are right to a certain extent. The Union is not the body that helps keep rent rises low, improves academic conditions or ensures strong welfare support, and never will be. However, with 70% of undergraduates members, the Union has served an important role in expanding opportunities for the students of Oxford University through debates, speaker events and social occasions.
The Union are currently the British, European and World Debating Champions, with all of these student debaters trained by the Union—an incredible achievement for a number of individuals. This year alone in excess of 200 members have been taught how to debate, been given high quality feedback by more experienced debaters, and sent out to compete throughout the country.
Equally, we have offered the chance to hear and meet some leading figures in public life: Martin Sheen, John Hutton, Ben Fogle, Helen Fielding, Alex Shulman, Alan Johnston, Jonathan Davies and Aaron Sorkin, among many others. The variety of speakers appeals to anyone and everyone, regardless of their particular interests.
The applications for dinners and drinks have been opened up to all, genuinely allowing any member the chance to meet with the speakers on a more personal level—an incredibly popular measure that has been widely taken up by members.
Our weekly debates have exposed members of the university to expert opinions on challenging political and moral issues. A particular highlight this term was the motion on Assisted Suicide. The speakers in proposition included Dr Michael Irwin, a former UN Medical Director who offered an insight into his thirty year campaign for a change in the law, proposing to legalise assisted suicide. In opposition spoke Baroness Finlay, a practising palliative care specialist who offered a personal account of patients she has treated and how the option of assisted suicide creates a burden on patients to take their lives. A difficult topic, but one that was widely engaged with by members. The chance to interact with experts on a range of issues is one of the many opportunities the Union offers.
This term has also been successful behind the scenes. We won the battle to ensure the Women’s Officer is an advisor to the governing body. This demonstrates our commitment to addressing the under-representation of women in the Oxford Union and is something that will continue to be addressed in future terms. Equally, the newly created position of Steward will allow us to maintain longer term contacts, establish greater continuity between terms and therefore further improve the quality of speakers we bring our members.
The Union is not an island. We continue to work successfully with a number of societies to ensure that everyone has the best access to high profile speakers and debate. The Presidential candidates running for election are all excellent and demonstrate a commitment to the future success of the Union. Regardless of who wins, the Union will only go from strength to strength.
I encourage all members to vote in the elections for next term’s Officers and Committees, held in the Oxford Union on Friday, June 12th.

OUCA is no stranger to controversy, but the impact of this week’s revelations should not be underestimated. The consequences of racist jokes told at hustings will not be limited to merely those individuals directly implicated, but will effect both OUCA and Oxford Student Politics in general. The question is where OUCA should go from here.

It is clear that those responsible need to be held to account. Inevitably, the National Conservative Party have already taken appropriate measures by suspending those involved. OUCA President Anthony Boutall has pledged to take similar action pending the results of a disciplinary committee, yet to be held. However, it would be a grave mistake to focus entirely upon the individuals who made the remarks.

Like OUCA, Westminster is currently embroiled in a scandal. MP’s have acknowledged that the public perceive the expenses controversy as symptomatic of wider problems within Parliamentary culture. It would not have been sufficient for a few heads to roll; in order to survive, they have had to pledge to engage in reform of the system. OUCA should pay close attention.

It is clear, for a number of reasons, that the problem goes beyond those who have taken the flak so far. Firstly, there is the point that candidates were asked, in an institutional setting, to tell a racist joke. Cherwell understands that returning officers only halted proceedings mid way through the answers being provided. Why was the question allowed to receive a response in the first place? Damningly, many inside OUCA have suggested that far from being an exception, questions like these are ‘traditional’. People don’t tend make jokes if they don’t think they’ll be laughed at. Clearly, those making them must have thought they would be acceptable in the context of OUCA hustings. Few people will take these remarks in isolation-there is a widespread impression that such behaviour is endemic to the organisation’s culture.

Many within OUCA will be hoping that this all just blows over. Some will be happy to let those directly implicated take the fall, and carry on as usual. This is not the right approach. If there is not wholesale change, they can expect a repeat event. There are several immediate changes that should be made.

Firstly, OUCA should open up. Exclusivity is contrary to the purpose of political parties. OUCA currently prohibits all members bar the President from talking to the press. Given recent events, one can see why such a policy is in place-but it is a mistake nonetheless. OUCA should not operate from behind a veil of secrecy. Rather than attempt to draw a shroud over its members activities, OUCA might benefit from more transparency. Members probably would have been more reluctant to make racist jokes if they knew that it could be reported, on the record, to the press.  

Secondly, OUCA needs to reform both the culture and procedure of its hustings. Hustings do not need to be entirely serious affairs. Indeed, making hustings fun, amusing, and even slightly risqué can contribute to encouraging engagement, a point that is clearly taken to heart by many JCR’s. However, they seem to manage to achieve this without racist material.

Finally, OUCA needs stronger leadership on these issues. The response from Boutall has, frankly, been underwhelming. Throughout the emergence of the story, Boutall claimed to be ignorant of what had happened. In the best possible light, this shows him to be an ineffective leader-was it not his role to find out and deal with exactly such problems as these? 

OUCA has marginalised itself within Oxford politics. There are already moves afoot to exclude it from Freshers Fair, and prominent Conservatives have begun to dissociate themselves-Michael Howard has already withdrawn from OUCA’s post election dinner, which he had been due to speak at. Sanctioning those directly responsible for the current mess is a necessary, but not sufficient measure. If OUCA wants to regain whatever credibility it had, it will have to change.