CW: Racism, death
Today, on Wednesday 11 November 2026, an extraordinary CCR (Conference of the Common Rooms) meeting was held to handle the ongoing controversies surrounding Nathan Cofnas’ invitation to attend an Oxford Reform Society event held at Oriel College on Tuesday 17 November.
The event began by continuing the discussion from the previous CCR meeting, with guests Lord Mendoza, Provost at Oriel College, Tim Soutphommosane, Chief Diversity Officer, and Gillan Kamnett, Clerk to the Proctors Office recapping the situation hitherto. They referred to the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, which highlighted the university’s responsibility to ensure free speech to all, noting that this didn’t extend to the incitement of racial hatred. Lord Mendoza also stated that, whilst the event was taking place in Oriel College, the college was ‘not responsible for the content’ of the talk.
The session then allowed for the representatives of the student bodies of each college to field questions. One of the big topics of conversation was the reliability of the risk assessment that the university has undertaken in response to controversy surrounding the event. Whilst the assessment couldn’t be shown due to security reasons, there was an emphasis that the event was thought “unlikely to be unlawful”, according to Hamnett. Throughout the meeting, there was an emphasis on the safety and lawfulness of the event.
There was also much controversy over whether an independent observer will be there to ensure the legality of the spoken content at the event. Regrettably, this has not been guaranteed. However, Soutphommosane stated that students involved in running the event have been advised that disciplinary action shall be taken if anything is deemed unsuitable by the university.
The university representatives of the event claimed that they couldn’t reject the use of Oriel for room booking, as they must ensure that everyone has freedom of speech. They suggested that lawyers have informed them that, on this ground, the event must go ahead. Mendoza later explained that the Oxford University Reform Society is an ‘excellent society’ but ‘we [Oriel] don’t endorse it’.
Soutphommosane then went on to praise the ‘challenging and scrutinising’ of the university policies, claiming that this was a sign of a ‘healthy’ university environment. This came after his claims that student societies are not held to the high standards that the university is when it comes to speakers, claiming that societies may not ‘meet the test of academic rigour’.
Notably, a representative of St. John’s College questioned the university’s policy if an antisemitic speaker were hypothetically invited to speak in a college. He commented that nothing has been learnt since Jason Arday’s death earlier this year, with him asking ‘Do you only care when I’m dead?’, and stating that ‘my [his] life is not treated equal’. Soutphommosane then responded with the general sentiment that the university treats all matters of diversity with the ‘utmost care and consideration’, which led to some laughter in the hall. This sentiment was later mirrored through the final question, which ended with ‘Do you need someone to die?’. There was a long pause before the reply.
The meeting then refocused towards the No Hate Speech at Oxford Motion, which urged several criteria from the university. This included the Student Union issuing a statement, student representatives being involved in decisions about controversial speakers in future, and mitigation processes for those living in Oriel College. There was also concern for those living in college accommodation near Oriel Square, as a protest will be held in the square at the same time at the Cofnas talk.
The CCR also revealed that there were a further three motions being planned, including amending room booking procedures, advocating for a national policy change, and launching a general survey of the experience of black students in Oxford.
The voting for the motion closes on Thursday 12 November at 12:30.
The minutes of the meeting should include responses from Kamnett to questions that were asked of her after she left.