George Abaraonye’s desperate bid to cling on to the presidency of Oxford’s 200-year-old debating society has now collapsed, with a disciplinary committee confirming his resignation and declining to overturn the no-confidence poll triggered by social media posts in which he appeared to cheer the shooting of Charlie Kirk – a man he had debated only months earlier.
The Oxford Union, which operates independently of the University, was thrown into turmoil earlier this term when Abaraonye, then president-elect, issued a series of posts appearing to celebrate the deadly attack on Kirk, the right-wing US commentator and founder of Turning Point USA. On Instagram he wrote, “Charlie Kirk got shot loool”. In a separate WhatsApp message to fellow students, he reportedly added, “Charlie Kirk got shot, let’s f***ing go.” Unsurprisingly, the comments provoked widespread condemnation, prompting several invited speakers to withdraw from forthcoming debates and the suspension of a £500,000 donation.
The delay in reaching a decision is explained, in part, by the fact that under the Union’s constitution and disciplinary policy, officers cannot simply be shown the door. Any finding of “serious misconduct” must be processed through formal procedures, with sanctions ranging from reprimand to immediate dismissal. In disciplinary and political matters alike, the Union likes to present itself as an institution governed by process rather than panic.
This time, though, events took an unusual turn. Before any member could table a formal motion or complaint, Abaraonye attempted to get ahead of the storm by submitting a motion of no confidence in himself. Under the society’s standing orders, a president-elect may be removed if two-thirds of voters support such a move.
On 21 October, members duly obliged. In the extraordinary ballot, 1,746 students and alumni cast votes, with 1,228 opting for no confidence – comfortably above the threshold required for removal.
Under the rules, Abaraonye was deemed to have resigned as president-elect with immediate effect. What might, in other circumstances, have been a straightforward act of political self-immolation quickly became mired in procedural dispute. Complaints were lodged about the conduct of the poll, particularly the counting process and the admission of proxy votes. The returning officer later reported that he had faced “obstruction, intimidation, and unwarranted hostility” during the count – hardly the backdrop one expects for a vote touted as a test of the Union’s democratic integrity.
Abaraonye, for his part, refused to accept the result. In a statement issued on his behalf, he insisted that he remained president-elect and 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”. He maintained that he had only lost because the poll was “compromised” after committee members allowed proxy votes from alumni rather than restricting participation to current students. Some of his supporters went further still, casting the entire episode as a “racist witch-hunt”.
In the end, his complaint was referred to the Union’s Senior Disciplinary Committee, which has now delivered its verdict. According to its report, it was “not satisfied that the complainants had proven that the result of the Poll of No Confidence in Abaraonye is unsafe”, and therefore declined to order a re-count or re-poll. It also confirmed that Abaraonye’s resignation stands and barred him from entering the president’s office.
The committee’s decision clarifies the legal and institutional position that has always underpinned this saga. Abaraonye’s remarks about Kirk, though distasteful to many, were plainly lawful, falling well short of the threshold for incitement to violence or for stirring up hatred under the Public Order Act 1986.
That distinction matters in the university context. Under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, universities are now under a statutory duty to secure freedom of speech “within the law” for staff, students and visiting speakers. 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 rule.
As a private debating society, however, the Union plays by different rules. It has no obligation to elect, or to retain in office, individuals whose conduct it regards as incompatible with its own standards, provided it acts within its constitution and standing orders. It may see itself, with some justification, as a bastion of robust, even unruly debate, but that self-image does not entail an obligation to entrust its highest office to someone who appears to condone political violence, nor does it confer a personal right to the presidency on any particular member.
Abaraonye remains free to express his views within the law. What he could never claim is an automatic entitlement to hold office in a society whose internal processes have found his conduct wanting.
The Union’s standing as a forum for open debate depends not only on its willingness to tolerate provocative expression, but on the confidence its members can place in the mechanisms by which it disciplines officers and resolves disputes. Allegations and counter-allegations of irregularities understandably left some members wondering whether those mechanisms were equal to the task.
In that context, the Senior Disciplinary Committee’s conclusion that the poll was not shown to be “unsafe”, and its decision to uphold the result, amount to a statement that, despite the rancour and procedural brinkmanship, the Union’s rules still mean something. Whether that will be enough to restore wider confidence in the institution’s ability to govern itself remains to be seen. But if the Oxford Union wishes to retain its reputation as a serious arena for argument rather than just another student political cockpit, it will need to show that its commitment to free speech is matched by an equally firm commitment to due process.
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.