Thursday 7th May 2026
Blog Page 718

Union Librarian Brendan McGrath avoids impeachment

Christopher Sinnott
-
0
Union Librarian Brendan McGrath avoids impeachment

Brendan McGrath, against whom a motion for impeachment was filed on Thursday 7th, has won his vote not to be impeached by 400 votes to 189.

A notice has been pinned on the Oxford Union noticeboard that reads “The Librarian remains in office. The Motion of Impeachment is unsuccessful”.

The 68% vote in favour of McGrath comes after the 12 hours of deliberation that an impeachment motion in the Oxford Union entails. On the day of the vote supporters and allies of McGrath mobilised a “Vote No” campaign on Facebook, posting social statuses that presented McGrath’s potential impeachment as symptomatic of ‘toxic politics’.

More on this story is expected to follow.

Skin a Cat Review – ‘rethinks simplistic sexual narratives’

Lucy Mcilgorm
-
0
Skin a Cat Review – ‘rethinks simplistic sexual narratives’

In the era of sex-positive successes such as the most recent Netflix obsession Sex Education, we might feel as though our yearnings for more diverse narratives about sex have been fully satisfied. Britomart Productions’ performance of Skin a Cat by Isley Lynn proves otherwise. The setting is familiar: the bedroom of a teenage girl (beautifully designed by Flora Clark). Her quest? To achieve ultimate sexual knowledge by losing her virginity. However, the outcome is entirely new, and the production dextrously and humorously articulates all the nuances of a far more complicated sexual awakening than the one we bargained for.

The play tells the story of Alana’s (Millie Tupper) journey towards self-acceptance – a journey which begins, crucially, at the instance of her first period. This opening immediately sets the tone for the production, with direct address to audience working wonders here as Alana’s mother (Martha Harlan) urgently enquires after a sanitary pad to the amusement of people in the front row. However, this uncomfortable beginning also constituted the small but painful seed that births much of the confusion and shame running through later parts of the play. Harlan wonderfully portrays the concerned yet evasive, even angry mother who by attempting an explanation of this experience to her nine-year-old daughter only instils further confusion, concluding curtly with “no more swimming” and “I’ll buy you a book.”

Such moments of shameful inarticulacy are immediately extinguished by the exhilarating frankness of the production itself. The actors revel in the vulgarity of the language which ranges from descriptions of period blood like “stringy aliens” to “trimmed cocks” and “peen in vagine.” The lack of self-consciousness and constant playfulness on stage is worthy of high praise for both the actors, and co-directors Kitty Low and Martha West. The sex scenes are portrayed with zero embarrassment (no, seriously, none), and skilfully towe the line between what seems to be genuine enjoyment and heightened teenage sexual performativity. This comfortability on stage allowed the audience to laugh freely and joyously.

The use of multi-roling was highly effective in portraying the different figures orbiting around Alana, our central focus, as she evolves and matures. Martha West and Harold Serero are particularly noteworthy for their transformations and the humour they brought to each role, yet both never slipping into caricature. Hannah Taylor delivered two standout monologues as Pete, which brought considerable depth and pathos to a role which could have read only superficially as an awkward-teenage-boy. The production in general plays on our fondness for the familiar tropes of teenage sexuality, like Alana’s frantic questioning “Where’s the DIAGRAM?” as she tries to insert a tampon or Pete and Alana hiring a hotel room for their “first time” because they “wanted it to be, you know, American.” However, all these expectations of sex are broken down by the idiosyncrasies of sexual experience and the unattainability of that elusive common denominator – “normal.”

Achieving ‘normality’ is Alana’s quest after she discovers her difficulty with penetrative sex is due to a psychosexual condition called vaginismus. Millie Tupper excellently portrays Alana’s increasingly shameful frustration – and this is not the dorky sexual frustration typical of our favourite high-school movies, but the genuine, tear-inducing, gut-wrenching frustration of reaching a milestone which is supposedly some universal moment – losing your virginity – and….it doesn’t work. According to Alana, her “cunt is broken”.

Low and West’s production, amidst much hilarity, cuts right through to the most vulnerable of feelings, and asks us to rethink the ways we contort ourselves to fit the simplistic sexual narratives we have been ingesting for so long.

Today’s Union impeachment vote: what you need to know

Angus Brown and Libby Cherry
-
0
Today’s Union impeachment vote: what you need to know

Today Union members will be able to vote to impeach the Librarian, Brendan McGrath. The poll will be open until 8.30pm.

The ballot reads: “We the undersigned hereby wish to impeach the Officer, Brendan McGrath (Librarian, Oriel College) on the following grounds: abuse of office, and the deliberate subversion of the expressed will of the Membership and the Rules of the Society, for his own electoral benefit and contrary to the fundamental principles of democracy upon which the Oxford Union was founded.”

The motion to impeach McGrath, which was brought following the resignation of Ray Williams as the Union’s Chief of Staff last Thursday, concerns McGrath’s decision to ask the Returning Officer, Liam Frahm, to review the validity of last term’s “Trial Slate Ban”. Frahm subsequently ruled the ban invalid, triggering Williams’ resignation.

In his resignation speech, given at the end of the debate “This House Believes that Margaret Thatcher was a Hero to the Working Class”, Williams said: “it had shocked me that our Librarian had seeked [sic] to subvert the express will of the membership, conning potentially dozens of other candidates to satisfy his desire for the presidency. I cannot continue to serve as Chief of Staff in these circumstances.

“I thus support the impeachment of the Librarian which is being brought before the Standing Committee as I speak.”

This triggered the impeachment process, beginning with a petition requiring the signatures of 150 members to move forward to a vote of the Union’s membership. The petition received the requisite number of signatures amongst allegations by McGrath that a number of signatures had been acquired through improper means.

McGrath now stands accused of having both abused his office in order to further his own ambitions within the society and of having sought to subvert the will of the membership in overturning the trial slate ban.  

The Union’s Senior Access Officer, Brian Wong, resigned earlier today on the grounds that the overturning of the slate ban was “yet another attempt to subvert the expressed will of the Members.”

In his resignation letter, he wrote: “Today, Members will be going to the Poll to reject the self-serving and undemocratic behaviours that have characterised the Society’s Elections for too long. They are our constituents, and should always have the final say. That’s the only fair solution. That’s the only fair procedure in line with the ethos of the Union – but perhaps incongruent with the zeitgeist of our times.”

In an open letter posted on Facebook, McGrath said: “Last term, a motion was debated to impose a trial ban on slates. Some rules, however, such as those governing slates, are entrenched such that they need to be debated at greater length and with more publicity than usual. The motion didn’t do this, so was procedurally invalid.

“This issue first came to my attention when one of last term’s Officers bragged to me about knowing that the slate ban was invalid, and, after significant research, I approached the Returning Officer, Liam Frahm, to request clarification.

“After his own independent investigation, the Returning Officer deemed the ban to be invalid, thereby overturning it.

“I have been shocked by the tactics the supporters of the motion have employed over this last week. I have seen a lot in my time at the Union, but never imagined that I would be subjected to personal attacks, humiliation and abuse for the sake of a student society.”

The entirety of the letter can be viewed on Facebook.

Students have come out in support of Brendan on Facebook, asking peers to “Stand up to Toxic Politics: Vote No.”

The results of the poll are expected to be announced this evening.

Restaurant Review: Peppers

Darius Parvizi-Wayne
-
0
Restaurant Review: Peppers

I’ve come to realise that a common trope in my reviews is a tendency to praise the simple, traditional, and altogether not overly obnoxious aspects of food in this city. Throw out your quinoa salad, deconstructed oysters, and tahini that you swear you got from Borough Market because you are just that cool. Ok, I may be going a bit over the top: I like Borough Market; quinoa doesn’t deserve its own Instagram page but it’s surprisingly tasty; and I can stomach oysters. But the attitude cultivated by social media seems to suggest that this is all we, so-called generation Z, eat: avocado, sourdough and maybe an egg if you’re really pushing the boat out. Not true: sometimes I, a guy as Z as it gets (is that right?), just fancy a really fucking big burger. There truly is only one place in Oxford such a desire can be fulfilled: Peppers.

Minus the heroin and Ewan McGregor’s hallucinogenic dreams, Peppers looks like something out of Trainspotting. Or perhaps more 1980s Brick Lane. Anyway, it’s a bruttish building, with ugly, red block letters emblazoned on the front. Good. No mood lighting designed for bloggers to peer over their meticulously constructed food is a welcome relief. The crowd is also different in Peppers. No yummy mummies – they’ll surely be in Opera Café having a latte with extra soy milk. Also there are few families – the homeliness of Mamma Mia or Branca will be far more suitable for them. Instead, Peppers attracts those with little time on their hands and big appetites. 

At this point you may be envisioning Peppers to be a sort of prison, beyond the realms of normal society. Well you’d be wrong. Peppers, in fact, embodies everything great about this little, funny city. Perhaps the finest thing is the level of owner-to-customer trust. In a time where turnover is paramount and communication is mostly virtual, nothing beats a genuine smile and a friendly exchange. In this respect, Peppers is in a different league compared to most restaurants in Oxford. Don’t have the immediate cash on you? Feel free to pop to a cash point while your burger is on the grill. Ordered a drink with your food? Slide beyond the counter and take your pick. I wouldn’t be surprised if you were allowed to grill the burger yourself. 

Peppers harks back to a lost era. An era when chefs would see their food eaten and could take real pride in the gratitude of the eater. Now, their work is probably manipulated into a ‘spread’ for an ‘influencer’s’ page, with 90% of the food left untouched, ordered solely for aesthetic motivations. Don’t get me wrong – food is art, and the visual element is certainly important. But when the foundation of the art appeals to the eyes more than the nose and tongue, something has gone seriously wrong.

No such problem here. Peppers couldn’t care less about presentation. Peppers probably doesn’t even know what presentation is. Instead, the first hint of upcoming delight comes from a smell of meat, vinegar and salt that smacks you upon entry, and then wafts among customers who squeeze into tiny chairs, often chatting amongst one another. Think school common room, with far superior food and less BO.

Then the food arrives and you know when it arrives because every element is gargantuan and comes wrapped up in paper in a rudimentary manner that no modern restaurant would dareto replicate. Indeed, you have to come to Peppers hungry. Really hungry. Think Five Guys offers a lot of chips? Think again. Then you bite into it and everything is perfect. Juicy, tender meat, a soft bun and crunchy lettuce and onions – fantastic. You can also choose any sauce you wish. I like sweet chilli and mint and yoghurt. Weird, I know. Nonetheless, it works: everything balances out and sets the stage for that enormous slab of meat. All this, with chips, and a drink, for £7.50 at lunch is beyond a steal.

So there you are, sauce dripping down your hands, surrounded by psychedelic posters, smiling because you forgot that in this strange, strange world, simple pleasure can still be found in a place like Peppers. 

Recipe: Sweet Nachos

Emma Hawkins
-
0
Recipe: Sweet Nachos

Ingredients
6 Small flour tortillas (diameter no more than
14cm)
2 tbsp Butter, melted
1 tsp Cinnamon
100g Caster sugar

For the toppings (all optional):
50g Mini marshmallows
50g Milk chocolate
50g White chocolate
35g Chopped hazelnuts
200g Double cream, whisked to soft peaks
50g Salted caramel sauce
200g Strawberries, hulled and chopped into
chunks
100g Raspberries
20g Popping candy

Method

  1. Preheat the oven to 180˚C. Brush a baking
    tray lightly with the melted butter.
  2. Place one tortilla onto a chopping board and
    brush lightly with the melted butter. Place
    another tortilla on top of the buttered one
    and brush it with butter. Continue with the
    others until you have a stack of buttered
    tortillas.
  3. Take a large knife and cut the pile in half.
    Then cut each half in half again, and repeat
    twice more so you have 8 tortilla stacks.
  4. In a bowl mix the cinnamon and sugar.
    Separate the tortilla stacks so that each chip
    is a single layer and arrange the chips on the
    buttered tray. Sprinkle the chips with the
    cinnamon sugar so each one is evenly coated
  5. Put the chips in the oven for 6-10 minutes,
    until they’re crisp and slightly brown.
  6. To check if the chips are done test the edges
    to see if they are crisp and dry. The middle
    may be slightly softer, but they’ll crisp up as
    they dry. Once the crisps are done place them
    to one side and leave them to cool.
  7. Meanwhile, break up the two chocolates into
    chunks and put into two separate heatproof
    bowls. Place each over a pan of water on a
    medium, heat and leave to melt gently.
  8. Begin to assemble the nachos by scattering
    half the chips on a plate or baking tray lined
    with baking paper (whatever you want
    to serve it on). Drizzle with a little of the
    chocolate, and scatter with nuts, strawberries,
    caramel sauce and marshmallows. Pile the
    rest of the chips on top in a pyramid shaped
    pile. Top with the rest of the marshmallows
    and strawberries. Dollop the cream in blobs
    around the stack, drizzle with the rest of the
    caramel and chocolate and top with the rest
    of the hazelnuts and popping candy. Serve
    with any ice cream or sorbet you wish.

Alternatives:
Tropical – Make the nacho chips the same way
as above, but without the cinnamon. Then top
with chopped mango, pineapple, coconut chips,
whisked vanilla cream, dark chocolate and passion
fruit.
Banoffee – Top the cinnamon chips with maple
syrup, whipped cream, chopped banana, chocolate
chips and pecan praline (made by mixing pecans
with caramel and adding a pinch of salt. Leave to
cool on baking paper and then break up into small
pieces).

The Power of ‘No’ Make-up

Sarah Williams
-
0
The Power of ‘No’ Make-up

Open up Instagram right now, and it isn’t necessarily clear that ‘no make-up make-up’ was the beauty trend of 2018.  From the ubiquitous summer festival panic over non-biodegradable glitter, to the classic ‘Love Island’ look –hair extensions, a tan,  and in some cases cosmetic surgery – looks that deviate from ‘natural’ are clearly here to stay.

So why have the mysterious phrases ‘glass skin’ and ‘serum layering’ crept into both our vocabularies and our feeds, to compete with the triple-cut-crease and the art of the contour? Why did designers from Brandon Maxwell to Tibi head for minimalist makeup on the Spring 2019 runways?

It could be a backlash against extensive, hour-long make-up routines. Not likely, though, when achieving the healthily-oily, luminescent ‘glass skin’ takes at least half an hour. Indeed, many skincare influencers, boasting cupboards overflowing with Mario Badescu, Glossier, and Egyptian Magic, have routines just as extravagant as many make-up gurus – Google ‘rose quartz facial roller’ for some simple evidence.

Some have suggested it’s about individuality –brands which sell the minimalist make-up look, such as Glossier and Flesh Beauty, both frequently refer to the consumer directly in their marketing: Glossier’s perfume is simply called ‘You,’ whilst Flesh Beauty, launched only in June 2018, boasts the tagline ‘Our favourite colour is you.’

In contrast to contouring kits and lip plumpers, these strategies promise us that we’re good enough just as we are. They help us not to build a new version of ourselves, but rather to make what we already are just that tiny bit better.

But there’s a catch. Sure, brands themselves are catering to diverse audiences – 40+ foundations is more the norm than the exception now, and I was overjoyed, as I expect many were, to finally find a drugstore foundation that actually matched my skin tone last summer.

I worry, though, about the nature of the minimalist make-up trend in general. Google is somewhat coy about what a trend actually is, defining it simply as a ‘fashion’, and the latter as’ a popular or the latest style of clothing, hair, decoration, or behaviour.’ But it seems to me that the defining feature of a trend is that it is something concrete, something we can point to and say ‘That’s it, that right there is what I want to have, to look like, or to do.’ There’s a sense in which this is always going to be exclusive.  A trend is necessarily one thing, not everything. And in the case of minimalist make-up, this trend is still encouraging us to look one particular way.

In the bigger picture, this is no better or worse than any other trend – simply, something that, for a time, if fashionable.  The minimalist make-up trend, just as much as the full face, is an invitation not so much to come as you are, but to come as you would rather be. That’s something which, in today’s perfection-demanding world, we ought to remember.

How To Make Friends and then Kill Them Preview – ‘promises to be entertaining and unsettling’

Jacob Ridley
-
0
How To Make Friends and then Kill Them Preview – ‘promises to be entertaining and unsettling’

Perhaps the most refreshing thing about Coningsby Productions’ How to Make Friends and then Kill Them is that, unlike so much student theatre, it avoids political posturing and trains the spotlight squarely on its three characters. Asked why he chose Halley Feiffer’s 2013 play (which has never been performed in Europe before), director Charlie Rogers drew attention to Feiffer’s claim that the play is feminist because it depicts women behaving awfully and viciously onstage in a way which is often only the province of male characters. The focus is duly on the behaviour and the interpersonal dynamic of the central trio – not the overblown canvas of recent American politics, or the play-hijacking hijinks of Brexit. Written for performance in a black-box theatre, How to Make Friends and then Kill Them is a natural choice for the Michael Pilch Studio, as Rogers also points out – and suitable for the unfussy minimalist treatment it receives at his hands, and those of set-designer, Deshna Shah.

The black comedy covers, in ten-minute snapshots, the lives of sisters Ada and Sam, from age 9 to age 27. Ada is an ambitious self-proclaimed beauty, obsessed with musical theatre and with herself; Sam is sensitive and draws pictures. Their permanently offstage mother is an alcoholic, and the resultant rot has set into the two girls some time before the play begins; Ada casually asks Sam to bruise her arm, but has a horror of hugging, and the other kinds of physical interaction that her lonely, needy sister is pining for. They play childish games, in which Ada’s self-centred lust for performance and Sam’s craving for personal contact are run against each other – and exposed as mutually exclusive. Ada meets a new friend, Dorrie, and begins to torment Sam with her preference for the newcomer; then she fails to make it into college with Sam and Dorrie, and crumbles. Sam, exploiting her new dominance persuades her sister to drink, begins to turn the psychological tables on her, and things start growing fascinatingly unpleasant. The fast-paced succession of scenes ensures the sequence of episodes keeps its momentum – which for the girls onstage, as they age in leaps and bounds, increasingly comes to seem fatal.

In some ways the play’s exploration of dysfunctional sisters resembles Marilynne Robinson’s wonderful novel Housekeeping (1981) – except her sisters weren’t as dysfunctional as these, and Feiffer pulls no punches in condemning a recognisably contemporary malaise. Her foul-mouthed schoolchildren slip into the language of broken modernity – ‘Stop asking me to validate you!’ Ada shouts at her sister more than once – and Dorrie is given the vocabulary of child therapy to describe her very funny roll-call of mental and physical (and probably invented) problems. Saraniya Tharmarajah, as Dorrie, particularly excels here. Her array of marvellously grumpy expressions and strange ‘therapeutic’ breathing noises are a virtuosic comic performance. Imogen Front is ideally cast as Sam, her small, sorrowful face conveying first crippling self-doubt and then a disturbing hardness; as Ada – the play’s nearest to a Blanche Dubois figure – Simone Norowzian exhibits maturity and charisma, and the deepening sense of damage which is key to this dark three-hander.

Rogers and his committed cast present this unusual play (produced by Lewis Roberts) with a sense of urgency but without gimmicks, in what promises to be an entertaining and unsettling European premiere.

Trinity email leak exposes sensitive information to JCR

Eve Webster
-
0
Trinity email leak exposes sensitive information to JCR

Cherwellhas been alerted to a mishandling of information at Trinity College after a private e-mail discussing findings on the treatment of BAME students on campus was mistakenly made public.

The e-mail, which the Trinity JCR President accidentally sent to a mailing list of all JCR members rather than to the college President, disclosed the results of a poll issued to all undergraduates.

12 of the students surveyed identified themselves in the survey as either “Black/African/Caribbean/Black-British” or “Mixed/Multi-Ethnic”.

Of the 12 students, who would comprise approximately 4.1% of the Trinity undergraduate population, 9 reported having “faced any specific issues or incidents” at Trinity with regards race or ethnicity and 5 said that worries or issues about race have a detrimental effect on their mental health, the e-mail claims.

The e-mail also notes that a complaint was made by a member of the JCR to the president describing a specific incident taking place at Trinity and requesting that the encounter be on the record with the JCR committee.

The complaint has subsequently been sent to Trinity’s approximately 290 JCR members as a result of the mistake.

The breach was quickly noticed and unintended recipients of the e-mail were sent a follow-up apologising for the mistake and asking them to delete the message.

When asked to comment, the president referred to the incident as an example of “human error” writing: “What has happened was a human error in a private email context where an email was accidentally Trinity email leak exposes sensitive information to JCR sent to the wrong mailing list; this is very regrettable but not a voluntary breach of confidentiality.

“Gladly, no students were mentioned by name in this email. Additionally, the numbers from the survey cited in the email in question were inaccurate.

“This incident has sensitised the JCR committee, including myself, to be more careful with our email conversations. I have also urged the committee to turn on the “undo sending” option in outlook and have done so myself.

“It is top priority of Trinity College JCR that every student feels welcome and cared for at Trinity.

“To this end, we are surveying our members to understand how to better support them and feeding this information back to college in order to work together on improving the culture and support provision at Trinity.”

Speaking to Cherwell on the subject of inclusivity, the Trinity College Communications Department said: “As a small collegiate community, it is our top priority at Trinity to foster an environment in which everyone feels comfortable, welcome and respected.

“We want students to feel empowered to come forward if they encounter instances of behaviour that work counter to these values so that we can continuously work to ensure that every single member of our community feels warmly included and that Trinity lives up to its values.”

Record turn-out for SU elections

Libby Cherry
-
0
Record turn-out for SU elections

Anisha Faruk has been elected President of the Oxford University Students’ Union on a record turnout, with 4,792 ballots cast.

Faruk, former editor of the Oxford Student beat candidates Ivy Manning and Ellie Milne Brown to become President of the Students’ Union. She won the vote in a final round contest against Manning.

The new record beat the previous best set in the Michaelmas Term 2013 election, where 4,494 votes were cast.

Faruk’s slate, Impact, saw 3 of its 5 candidates for senior positions elected, with Neil Misra taking the role of SU Vice President for Graduates and Ray Williams taking SU Vice President for Access and Academic Affairs.

Amber Sparks and Roisin McCallion, both running on the Aspire slate, took SU Vice President for Women and SU Vice President for Welfare and Equal Opportunities, respectively.

The election was held to elect the SU President, 5 Vice Presidents, 3 Student Trustees, 6 NUS delegates, and RAG National and International Charities.

A number of independent candidates were elected to the SU. Matthew Judson was elected independently to be a student trustee while Zehra Munir, Jim Brennan, and Rashma Rahmany all won successful independent bids to become NUS delegates.

Kathryn Husband, Olivia Railton, and Arya Tandon were also elected as NUS delegates, while Alexander Kumar and Grace Davis have been announced as Student Trustee.

Oxford Gatehouse and KEEN Oxford were voted RAG national charities, and Meningitis Now and Beat (Formerly Eating Disorder Association) are RAG international charities.

‘No-platforming’ could be illegal, government warns

Ben van der Merwe
-
0
‘No-platforming’ could be illegal, government warns

New government guidance warns that universities may be in breach of their legal obligations if they cancel events due to protests.

The report, produced by the government’s Equality and Human Rights Commission, states: “[Universities] have a legal duty to protect freedom of expression for their members, students and employees and for visiting speakers.”

Universities that cancel speakers due to planned protests, on the grounds of security concerns, could be found in breach of the law if they cannot later show that they took all practicable steps to increase security.

The report also clarifies the legal limits of universities’ free speech duty, stating: “Freedom of expression can be limited by law if necessary, for example, to prevent crime, for national security or public safety, or to prevent unlawful discrimination and harassment.”

These exceptions are strictly qualified, applying only to speech likely to constitute a civil or criminal offence. Criminal speech includes incitement to violence, incitement of racial, sexual or religious hatred.

Speech may be exempted from protection if it constitutes harassment or discrimination. This includes speech that “has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that person.”

However, the guidance clarifies that such considerations must be weighed against academic freedom: “Students’ learning experience may include exposure to course material, discussions or speaker’s views that they find offensive or unacceptable, and this is unlikely to be considered harassment under the Equality Act 2010.

“Also, if the subject matter of a talk is clear from material promoting an event, then people who attend are unlikely to succeed in a claim for harassment arising from views expressed by the speaker.”

The new guidance also clarifies the duties that student unions (SUs) have towards free speech. Unlike universities, most SUs are not public bodies and therefore do not have any direct duty to protect free speech under British or EU law.

However, universities may be indirectly accountable for the actions of their SU, and in particular are expected to ensure that SU premises are not denied to any speaker because of their views.

The report follows a 2017 inquiry, prompted by media reports, into free speech on university campuses.

The inquiry found that “while restriction of freedom of expression was not a widespread issue, there were concerns around increased bureaucracy, and potential self-censorship from students on campus as a result of the Prevent duty guidance.”

The new guidelines focus heavily on the issues of ‘no-platforming’ and ‘safe spaces’, with just two pages of the 54-page report devoted to potential conflicts between Prevent duties and free speech.

NUS Vice President Higher Education Amatey Doku said: “The Joint Committee on Human Rights in Parliament found that there was no widespread problem with freedom of expression at universities, and issues such as regulatory complexity or bureaucracy and reported self-censorship arising from the Prevent Duty were as much of a concern as the small minority of cases repeatedly cited in the media.

“Students’ unions are required to ensure freedom of expression is upheld within the law: they are adept at doing so and support many thousands of events each year.

“However, as the guidance rightly notes, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute and students’ unions and universities must balance that right with other legal duties. We were pleased to input into the drafting process in order to help identify where confusion can arise and to dispel some of the common myths around students’ union activity.

“We hope that this guidance is read not only by universities and students’ unions but by anyone looking to understand or comment on freedom of expression in higher education – so that the future debate is informed and balanced, and ceases to be characterised by both misconception and exaggeration.”

President of the Oxford Union Daniel Wilkinson said: “The Oxford Union continues to affirm our commitment to free speech. In a moment of polarisation and an ever-increasing echo chamber effect, it is crucial to make sure that we are having the difficult conversations and engaging with the widest possible range of viewpoints.

“We at the Oxford Union are proud to have a history of holding space for speakers and debates which both challenge that which we take for granted and highlight the most pressing issues of our age.

“Creating a home for these discussions is the work we hold dear; it is our responsibility both as students and as citizens.”

Oxford SU VP Welfare and Equal Opportunity Ellie Macdonald told Cherwell: “Oxford SU is happy to see guidance that offers support on helping the safety of students on campus as well as promoting free speech.

“The guidelines encourages students to have their views challenged and scrutinised which is widely positive however we must not forget that a clear line that exists between rigorous academic debate and discrimination.

“Oxford SU would like to see clearer articulation of this in University policies moving forward.”

Sir Michael Barber, chair of the Office for Students, said: “I welcome this important and timely guidance. Freedom of speech is one of our most cherished values, and our higher education system should be at the forefront of its promotion and protection.

“A key part of a quality higher education experience should be that students confront and debate opinions and ways of thinking which may be different to their own.

“This guidance ensures that universities and student unions are clear on their responsibilities, allowing them to ensure that our higher education system remains a place where passionate but civil debate thrives.”

Alistair Jarvis, Chief Executive of Universities UK, said: “Although there is little evidence of a systematic problem of free speech in universities, there is a legal duty on the higher education sector to secure free speech within the law and it is important that universities continually review their approaches.

“This new guidance provides a useful tool that will help universities balance the numerous requirements placed upon them, including student safeguarding responsibilities, and supports their significant efforts to uphold freedom of speech.”

The university have been contacted for comment.

1...717718719...2,584Page 718 of 2,584

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by Jamie Ashley