Demonstrators gathered outside the Oxford University Careers Services building on Tuesday to protest the beginning of disciplinary hearings against 13 students, who were involved in the occupation of university offices in Wellington Square last May. The protest is part of a growing campaign to get the University of drop the proceedings.
2024 saw many demonstrations against the ongoing conflict in Gaza, including protest encampments at universities across the country, and even some attempted occupations of administrative buildings. In every case, protesters demanded an end to institutional investments in Israeli companies or businesses associated with the state.
Oxford has been no exception, experiencing its fair share of protests from both students and outsiders. The actions extended into January of this year when protesters ‘occupied’ the Radcliffe Camera, temporarily renaming it after an alleged terrorist before being escorted out by the police. In photogenic fashion, some were even rappelled down the side of the building by officers before being arrested.
In slightly less dramatic scenes, student protesters took over one of the University’s administrative buildings located in Wellington Square last May. Police were called, the area was eventually cleared, and 16 of the would-be occupiers were arrested on suspicion of aggravated trespassing. Although they were all eventually released without charge, the University decided to instigate its own investigation and eventually to take disciplinary action against 13 of the students.
Scheduled to start on 10 June, these hearings have garnered criticism from students, academics, politicians, and the public. The group initially responsible for the protest and occupation in May 2024, Oxford Action for Palestine (OA4P), has organised an open letter, calling for the University to “drop the case”.
“As students, faculty, staff, alumni at the University of Oxford, as well as local community members and fellow academics, we stand firmly in support” of the 13 students, who “now face the threat of suspensions, fines, and formal disciplinary warnings”, the letter states. This is followed by further allegations against Oxford of lending “rhetorical, material, and military support to the zionist [sic] regime”, failing to “engage in good faith dialogue”, and inflicting “unprecedented police brutality” on protesters. This last claim might have raised a few eyebrows among the miners of Orgreave or the Southall protesters.
Nevertheless, the letter has received a lot of attention, amassing support from over 40 organisations and close to 1000 signatories according to the organisers. The number of signatories is difficult to verify, as the list includes several anonymous supporters and many who merely signed with a first name or just an initial. Even so, the list does include several hundred verifiable names of students and academics at Oxford.
Former shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott has joined in the debate, writing a letter to the University in support of the students. According to the BBC, Abbott has criticised the University’s leadership, saying that it was “neither fair nor reasonable” to take disciplinary actions against students for engaging in a “principled protest on urgent moral and humanitarian issues”.
The MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington went on to say that subjecting “students to formal sanctions” risks “undermining the core values of freedom of expression and academic freedom that universities ought to uphold”, adding that disciplinary procedures could have “long-lasting consequences on a young person’s future”.
While Abbott is right that universities ought to hold academic freedom and freedom of expression dear, these concepts do not offer protection for any behaviour expressive of beliefs. One of CAF’s three principles is that “Staff and students at UK universities should be free, within the limits of the law, to express any opinion without fear of reprisal”. However, trespassing and attempting to occupy private property to exclude people from their place of work is highly likely to be illegal, and is certainly against the University’s code of conduct. This does not change simply because the students were shouting slogans while doing it. There are plenty of spaces in Oxford, including on university grounds, where students and staff can protest any and all decisions made by their institution without risking disciplinary action.
Many of the University’s critics seem to believe that the topic of the protest is itself exculpatory, as if the rules cease to apply to you if only you have the right intentions. This is obviously not a workable policy. The rules of any institution must be the same for everyone. Would Abbot or the students at OA4P be criticising disciplinary proceedings against gender critical students who had occupied administrative buildings to protest trans-inclusive polices? Presumably not.
Every student has the right to legal protest, no matter his or her viewpoint. Likewise, no student has the right to trespass or occupy buildings, regardless of his or her viewpoint. These are simple principles that students at one of the world’s foremost universities can certainly be expected to grasp. As such, some form of punishment, a warning or perhaps even a fine, is certainly in order for the students who attempted a takeover of a university building last year.
Having said that, Abbott and the organisers of the Open Letter have a point in cautioning against too severe a punishment. It is worth remembering that young people (especially those at university for some reason) are very much in the habit of making poor decisions. Derailing the educational path of a 19-year-old for getting carried away during an emotionally charged protest is indeed “neither fair nor reasonable”.