The Oxford Union has been plunged into turmoil after its president-elect, George Abaraonye, was removed in a vote of no confidence over comments he made on social media appearing to celebrate the shooting of Charlie Kirk, a prominent right-wing commentator and founder of the US youth organisation Turning Point USA.
The controversy stems from messages Abaraonye, an undergraduate studying Philosophy, Politics and Economics, posted in September, shortly after reports emerged that Mr Kirk had been shot and killed while speaking at a university event in Utah. On Instagram he wrote, “Charlie Kirk got shot loool” – an extended version of ‘lol’, meaning ‘laughing out loud’. In a separate WhatsApp message to fellow students, he reportedly added, “Charlie Kirk got shot, let’s f***ing go.” The comments provoked widespread condemnation within the society, prompting several invited speakers to withdraw from forthcoming debates and the reported suspension of a £500,000 donation.
The 200-year-old debating society, which is independent of the University of Oxford, does not have the power to summarily dismiss a president-elect. Under its disciplinary policy, however, any officer found guilty of serious misconduct can face sanctions ranging from formal reprimand to immediate dismissal.
In this instance, the Union’s membership did not have the chance to initiate action themselves. Before any formal disciplinary or political motion could be tabled, Abaraonye pre-empted his critics by submitting a motion of no confidence in himself. This mechanism, set out in the society’s standing orders, allows members to remove an elected officer if two-thirds support the motion.
The extraordinary ballot took place over the weekend. On Tuesday, the Union announced that 1,746 students and alumni had voted, with 1,228 in favour of no confidence – comfortably exceeding the threshold required for removal.
Following the result, a notice posted at the Union declared: “The motion of no confidence has been carried.” Abaraonye has declined to step down, however, claiming the poll was “compromised” after committee members allowed proxy votes from alumni. A statement issued on his behalf on Tuesday insisted that he had “the support of well in excess of a majority of students at Oxford, who voted to have a safe election and resist attempts to subvert democracy”. His complaint has been referred to the Union’s disciplinary committee, which will now determine whether the vote was conducted properly.
Because that process can take months to conclude, Abaraonye technically remains president-elect and could, in theory, still assume office in January if the dispute is not resolved.
Whatever its outcome, the case highlights the tension between the legal duties that bind public institutions like universities and the discretion enjoyed by private associations to govern their own affairs.
Abaraonye’s remarks, though deeply offensive to many, were lawful and fell far short of the legal threshold for incitement to violence or for stirring up hatred under the Public Order Act 1986. Under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, universities and colleges are bound by a statutory duty to protect such expression, however provocative, from institutional sanction. Baroness Amos, Master of University College, was therefore right to confirm that no disciplinary action would be taken against Abaraonye, explaining that while his comments were “abhorrent”, they did not contravene the college’s policies on free speech or any other relevant rule.
As a private debating society, however, the Oxford Union has the right to set its own standards of conduct and to remove an officer if it believes those standards have been breached, provided it acts within its rules. It may see itself as a bastion of free speech, and rightly so, but that does not oblige its members to entrust the presidency to someone who appears to condone political violence. Abaraonye remains free to express his views within the law, but he cannot claim an automatic entitlement to hold office in a society whose internal process has determined his conduct falls short of its expectations.
In that sense, the question is less about freedom of speech than about procedural integrity. Allegations and counter-allegations of irregularities – including the returning officer’s claim that he faced “obstruction, intimidation, and unwarranted hostility” during the count – have left members questioning whether the Union can be confident of a fair and transparent outcome. Its standing as a forum for open debate depends not only on protecting lawful speech but on maintaining, and being seen to maintain, confidence in the processes by which it governs itself.
This article forms part of the Committee for Academic Freedom’s monitoring of developments in UK higher education. To receive monthly updates and analysis on cases affecting academic freedom, click the link and subscribe to our newsletter.