It is with alarm, concern and disappointment that we, the undersigned, question the University’s decision to allow an anti-abortion stall set up at the SU Freshers Fair, and the Student Union’s failure to take a clear stance against this stall.
Our disappointment with the handling of this situation is two-pronged, towards both the Oxford SU and to the University. However, the focus of our statement is critical of the SU actions, as this organisation, not the University, is our point of contact. We are mindful of the fact that student representatives such as ourselves sometimes face immense difficulty in communicating feedback to the officials with which we work, and convincing them to take measures against harmful, intimidating behaviour. However, in this instance, we unfortunately do not believe the SU adequately explored possible solutions before the SU Freshers Fair started on Wednesday, 6th of October.
As the students of this University, we have demonstrated time and time again that we stand by each other and work together to fight for causes we believe in; we do not understand how the SU could not find a solution to this situation with the help of fellow students. It is for this reason we are concerned by the lack of communication from the SU prior to the event, which meant we were unable to protect our communities.
What is especially alarming to see is that according to their own statement, the SU has “to some extent anticipated” backlash about the existence of this stall. The SU does not stand alone in their representation of the student body: they are joined by the SU Campaigns, other registered student societies, the Junior and Middle Common Rooms across all Colleges, and countless wonderful and dedicated people who work either with or outside the mentioned committees to make sure that our community is a safe space for everyone. What we fail to understand is why they did not consult with any of the mentioned groups. As people who have voluntarily and enthusiastically taken on roles to support and represent our own respective groups, we would have been eagerly open to help the SU through this situation. If we were approached for advice, we could and would have made some of the following suggestions that include actions to be taken both before and during the Fair, list not exhaustive:
We understand the SUs desire to take time to address this issue with the utmost diligence, but do not believe the statement the SU released on Facebook around 3pm Thursday 7th October possesses a sufficient level of comprehensiveness; we do appreciate their attempt at apologising but we do not believe it was enough considering the gravity of the situation and the lack of proactivity. In short, we believe the SU failed to uphold their own principles and to fulfill their duty of care to their represented community at this instant, and we demand a more comprehensive apology and more diligence in the future.
There is a separate but equally important conversation to be had about why the University believed this to be a deplatforming issue in the first place. We understand the importance of freedom of speech, and we recognise that there are a wide variety of views within the student body. However, it is our belief that this goes beyond just freedom of expression. According to the Office of Students’ policy on Freedom of Speech, “There is no place for violence, intimidation or criminality on university campuses.” We argue that the activities this stall were carrying out at the Fair do fall under “intimidation,” especially with the pamphlets they were handing out and the whiteboard they had set up asking people to rate abortion of a disabled child on the axes of legal/illegal and moral/immoral. The University’s belief that this was a deplatforming issue rather than an infringement upon reproductive rights is concerning to us, and we would like to follow up on it to make sure we stand our ground in drawing the line between freedom of speech and protecting our community.
Our immediate concern is and always will be the safety and welfare of our fellow students, especially the freshers we are only just welcoming into our community. It saddens us that one of their first introductions to their SU was not as positive and comforting as it should have been. We sincerely hope both the SU and the University commits to keeping their own principles and the welfare of their students at the forefront of any future decisions they take regarding similar situations.
İrem Kaki
Brasenose JCR President, 2021
Olivia McQuaid
Brasenose JCR Women*’s Rep, 2021
Sadie Chamberlain
Merton JCR Gender Equality Rep, 2021
Shreya Kirpalani
Balliol JCR President, 2021
Ella Stadler
Exeter JCR President, 2021
Phoebe Mumby and Kitty Debieux
Exeter JCR Women’s Officers, 2021
Lewis Boyd
Lady Margaret Hall JCR President, 2021
Lydia Anderlini
Jesus College JCR President, 2021
Samuel Williamson
University College JCR President, 2021
Mina Purdon
St Hilda’s College JCR President, 2021
Raksha Raghuraman
St Hilda’s College JCR Women’s Welfare Officer, 2021
Rosie Seymour
Somerville College JCR Women’s Officer, 2021
Ying-Di Ying
Somerville College JCR President, 2021
Caroline von Lampe
Trinity College JCR President, 2021
Phoebe McCallum
Trinity College JCR Women and Women aligning people’s Representative, 2021
Eemil Moisio
Wadham College SU President, 2021
Annie Porter
St Catherine’s College JCR President, 2021
Cleo Murphy-Hogg and Jacqueline Hovell
St Catherine’s College JCR Women*’s Reps, 2021