At least once a term, throughout my three years at this university, I have had friends and family members message me outraged at the Oxford Union. I have said “no, it’s not the student union” at least a hundred times. With a membership fee of £343, and an “access” membership free of £206 (yes, that’s their lowest rate), the Union does not come close to being representative of Oxford students. Yet anyone who is not intimately familiar with Oxford bases their opinions of Oxford on the Union. Even though my college voted to boycott the Union when Kathleen Stock was invited to speak, I am inundated with information about the Union against my will. Whether its the constant messages from hacks, (inaccurate) national news coverage, or the constant coverage by student newspapers, it feels impossible to escape.
Frequently, the Union has faced accusations of institutional racism, and recently, controversy has surrounded speakers Carl Benjamin (known as ‘Sargon of Akkad’ online) and far-right activist Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (better known as Tommy Robinson). Benjamin was uninvited due to having threatened sexual violence against MP Jess Phillips, prompting him to release a video explaining what his argument in the debate would have been, and essentially criticising the Union for uninviting him. A brief look at his comment section will tell you everything you need to know: the alt-right is already fairly anti-intellectual, and this can only have made it worse. For his followers, the rescinded invitation was a forfeit – a sign that Oxford students can’t debate Benjamin. It adds fuel to an anti-intellectual fire. Benjamin raises a valid point in his video (in my opinion, his only valid point): the Union did not need to invite him. A quick look at his Wikipedia page reveals Benjamin’s long history of misogyny. It should not have taken a joint statement from It Happens Here and Oxford Feminist Society to have brought this to the Union’s attention. Either, the Union knowingly invited a man who argued that modern feminism was to blame for misogynistic killings or they did not even bother to google the person they were inviting. Perhaps the Union were too dazzled by Benjamin’s 965k youtube subscribers to care.
Student societies barely got a chance to rest before it was revealed that Tommy Robinson had been invited to speak at the Union. Not only is Robinson violently Islamophobic, he has faced several defamation charges – which have previously prevented him from speaking at the Union, due to being recalled to jail. The Union calls itself a bastion of free speech; clearly this includes people who have been convicted of libel.
This is a valid question to be asked: what does free speech mean? There is, of course, the danger of creating an echo chamber by making the definition of free speech too small. However, I would argue hate speech should not be included in this definition. But don’t take my word for it. The Public Order Act 1986 banned racial hatred. The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amended this by also banning religious hatred (i.e. Islamophobia). The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 banned hate speech on the grounds of sexual orientation. Inviting right-wing speakers can be productive; inviting misogynists and Islamophobes is not.
Essentially what the Union cares about is sensationalism. It’s why they invite speakers with nothing to say, but high follower counts, like Brooke Monk, or figures on either side of the political spectrum who are best known for their controversy. It’s little more than an advanced version of ragebait: the Union drives engagement through stimulating controversy.
I want to believe that the Union is made up of good people. I want to believe that it’s engagement bait. Unfortunately, the Union is made up of people who view themselves as the elites of Oxford. The Union promises to change every term. It remains an echo chamber. No matter who is President, the Union continues to invite speakers who preach hate, and they call it free speech, because that drives engagement, and engagement inflates their egos.
It hasn’t always been like this: the Union has had incredible speakers and debates. Millicent Fawcett spoke at the Union in 1908; in 1960 the Union advocated for the implementation of the recommendations of the Wolfenden Report (to decriminalise homosexuality); in 1973 the Union advocated for women’s liberation. 1963 feels like far too recent for the admission of women as full members of the Union, but it predates mixed colleges by over a decade – and the election of the Union’s first female President in 1968 was, arguably, revolutionary. The 1975 debate “THW say yes to Europe” featured Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath, Liberal Party leader Jeremy Thorpe, and Labour ministers Barbara Castle and Peter Shore, and was held two days before the referendum on whether Britain should remain in the EEC (precursor to the EU). The Union was a bastion of free speech, and – importantly – a vehicle for change.
But now, all we get are termly scandals. Between the first draft of this article and its publication, the President-Elect was found guilty of election fraud. Whether it is election fraud, bullying, institutional racism, smear campaigns, or inviting violent misogynists, the Union is now overrun with people who care only about their sense of “power” and very little else. Personally, I cannot understand why anyone would want to engage with such an institution. Save your £343.