For over seven years, Oxford University has been deliberating on changes to Statute XI, which governs student discipline. Now, as a final version is set to go before Council – the University’s executive governing body – in Trinity term 2025, discussions are reaching a fever pitch. These changes, aimed at making the statute clearer and more accessible, have reignited debate between students and the University about issues such as free speech, transparency, and the University’s handling of serious misconduct, particularly sexual offences.
Last Thursday, the Oxford Student Union (SU) hosted a forum alongside members of the Statute XI working group to address student concerns. With representatives from the SU, senior University officials, and students present, tensions seemed to flare over how far the proposed changes go—and whether they go too far in some areas while failing in others.
A Long Road to Reform
The push to amend Statute XI began in 2018 amid growing recognition that the current framework is outdated and fragmented. Currently, three separate disciplinary regulations govern student conduct, which has created confusion for students navigating the disciplinary process.
The University’s statement notes that the proposed revisions aim to unify these regulations into a single, streamlined framework, providing greater clarity. Additionally, the changes seek to address frustration with the existing policy on sexual misconduct. At present, the University typically declines to investigate serious incidents—such as sexual violence—unless the matter has first been reported to the police. This approach has often left students feeling unsupported during lengthy police investigations.
The revisions promise to shift this paradigm, enabling the University to investigate serious misconduct without requiring prior police involvement. This aligns with new regulatory guidance from the Office for Students (OfS), whose forthcoming regulations on harassment and sexual misconduct (Condition E6) will take effect in 2025.
The consultation process has been extensive, involving feedback from colleges, University committees, and students since 2022. However, many students feel that this drawn-out process hasn’t sufficiently addressed their concerns.
What Is Changing?
The revisions laid out in the consultation document and discussed in the open meeting would be changes to the legislation amendments proposed in the Gazette in Trinity term 2024. A number of concerns were raised about these, pertaining primarily to freedom of speech and potential authoritative over-reach. Many of the proposed changes were interpreted by students as being a reaction to protests and encampments taking place at that time. This proposal was then withdrawn, and a new proposal has been put forward, just as contentious, with several sticking points discussed below:
- Clause 3(1)(d): This clause removes the obligation to report behaviour to the Proctors if it does not constitute an offence under UK law. Students at the forum worry this could weaken the University’s ability to address serious non-criminal misconduct, while simultaneously requiring familiarity from students with UK law.
- Clause 3(2)(b): The introduction of the term “harm” as a threshold for disciplinary action has raised alarms. Many argued it lowers the standard compared to the current framework, potentially opening the door to overreach.
- Clause 3(2)(c): Concerns were raised about its ability to suppress whistleblowing, as it could be interpreted as discouraging students from raising concerns about systemic issues.
- Clause 4: This clause forbids students from encouraging or engaging in any prohibited behaviour. It initially included language such as “incite or conspire”, which was changed to “directly or indirectly,” last Trinity term, which students felt could lead to misinterpretation. While this wording has since been removed, lingering scepticism remains about the use of the words “encourage”.
- Clause 23(3): This clause gives the power to any person “having charge” of university facilities to ban a student for up to 21 days. Students felt that in practice this clause has penalised victims of sexual misconduct, as perpetrators are almost always readmitted after this period is over, and the victim has little agency over this timeframe.
Many students noted the lack of explicit measures addressing sexual misconduct beyond Clause 3(1)(d). One student emphasised that while the working group often hinged their justification for attempting to swiftly enact these changes on stronger protection from sexual misconduct, the proposed changes in fact fail to adequately protect victims or clearly articulate how disciplinary measures will be enforced in these sensitive cases.
The Student Dynamic: SU, Working Group, and Discontent
One of the most contentious points of the forum was the dynamic between students, the SU, and the University’s working group. Chaired by Freya Johnston, the group includes four senior University officials, student representatives, and members of Congregation. However, students at the forum questioned the transparency of its formation.
“The chair wasn’t elected—it was decided before the group even existed,” one attendee noted, reflecting a broader distrust among students about the group’s composition. Additionally, the relatively junior status of some members further undermined confidence. Students called for greater involvement from Congregation and demanded the release of meeting minutes to improve transparency.
The SU has aimed to take an active role in representing student concerns, however some attendees felt that the SU’s influence was limited by the constraints of working within the University’s framework, leaving student voices overshadowed. They also face the challenge of highly limited student engagement in this process, as demonstrated by a public of only 18 students last Thursday at the consultation which was open to all members of the university.
Balancing Clarity, Fairness, and Free Speech
Another critical issue raised during the forum was how the proposed changes might impact free speech and student protests. The University’s official statement asserts that the revisions “are not intended to create any fresh powers relating to lawful protest,” and that the University remains subject to UK laws on free speech and freedom of expression.
However, some students pointed to ambiguities in the revised text that could grant the Proctors’ Office excessive power. Questions were raised about whether putting up posters or writing chalk messages on walls might constitute a serious offence under the new framework. Multiple students also pointed out that clause 3.(2)(e) forbids students from engaging “in any dishonest behaviour (…) in relation to the University”, noting that this could affect all areas of students’ private lives. University officials clarified that these actions already fall under existing rules, but attendees remained uneasy about the potential for overreach.
Sexual Misconduct: A Frustrating Omission?
Sexual misconduct emerged as a flashpoint during the forum. While the University has framed the proposed changes as a step forward in handling such cases, many students felt that the revisions fall short of expectations.
One attendee asked why the statute doesn’t include a dedicated framework for addressing sexual misconduct, given its centrality to the revisions. The SU’s report on the consultation also noted student frustration with the lack of provisions supporting victims, particularly regarding agency in the disciplinary process.
The 21-day timeframe for risk assessments in Clause 23 was another sticking point. Critics argued that this narrow window might fail to account for the complexities of sexual misconduct cases, potentially disadvantaging victims.
What’s Next?
The consultation period closes in January 2025, with the SU planning to submit its formal response by the end of the month. If approved by various governance bodies and Congregation, the changes will take effect for the 2025–26 academic year.
University officials have emphasised that the revisions are necessary to meet regulatory requirements and better support students. However, the forum highlighted deep divisions over whether these changes will truly enhance fairness and transparency—or if they risk creating new problems.
As the University continues to refine its proposal, the stakes are high—not only for ensuring compliance with OfS guidelines but for rebuilding trust between students, the SU, and the administration.
Oxford students have until January 28 to share their feedback through the SU’s Student Consulation. If implemented, the changes to Statute XI will shape how misconduct is addressed at Oxford for years to come, defining students’ rights, responsibilities, and the protections they can expect from the University.
Response from the Student Union as received by The Oxford Blue
The Students’ Union exists to represent students on important issues to the University. Statute XI is an example of an issue where we believe it is imperative that every student has the opportunity to be properly informed and have their say. Over the past weeks, the SU has facilitated student voice on this important matter, providing both an online submission process to support the SU to properly represent as broad a spectrum of students in their position as possible, and an in person consultative forum to discuss the issues in a respectful and constructive manner.
Both the event and submissions process have been widely advertised, including in a direct email to all students on at least 2 occasions. As an independent representative body to the University, it is crucial that the SU is able to facilitate this type of representation and will continue to do so via the established frameworks in place to support student representation and voice. It’s not too late to give your input, we encourage students to contribute to our consultation by filling in the feedback form, available here:
https://app.onlinesurveys.jisc.ac.uk/s/oxford/statute-xi and on our website by end of day Tuesday, 28 January 2025.
All student testaments, responses, and comments are left unattributed within this article to protect the anonymity of the speakers.
Response from Oxford University as received by The Oxford Blue
“The proposed changes to Statute XI have now been reviewed by the Working Group set up by Congregation resolution in Michaelmas term and an amended proposal for changes to the Statute is currently the subject of consultation with staff and students throughout the collegiate University. Oxford SU is coordinating the student consultation process, including a forum to gather feedback and hear questions from students on the proposed amendments, as well as an online survey for students to provide their views. The consultation process remains ongoing, and the Oxford SU survey remains open until the end of the month. Once complete, all feedback will be consolidated to help inform the recommendations of the Working Group.”