Student Life
Oxford’s new Reform UK society puts students like me at risk
“Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me”
-Excerpt from ‘First They Came’ by Pastor Martin Niemöller
I was too mentally exhausted to write this article, but I grew up watching my mother respond to every verbal harassment we faced on the street. When I once told her she could ignore it, she told me that they are relying on stereotypes surrounding Muslim women: they rely on us to be what they want us to be, silent and meek. It is our silence that emboldens them.
My heart dropped when I saw Cherwell’s headline: “Oxford Reform Society registers for Michaelmas”. This comes after Regius Professor Emeritus of Moral and Pastoral Theology at the University of Oxford, Nigel Biggar, defended the use of the N-word, and a few months after the Oxford Union hosted a debate on the motion “This House believes the West is right to be suspicious of Islam”. In the term prior, the former Oxford Union Librarian, Brayden Lee, was recorded making a string of comments targeting ethnic minorities, particularly those from Muslim-majority nations.
It’s clear that anti-Muslim hostility has not only passed the dinner table test, but has further infiltrated our student societies. But even at a time when a mosque in the UK is attacked every five days, I still refuse to make this article about my feelings or the British Muslim community’s fears about Reform UK. I am reminded of Muslim poet Suhaiymah Manzoor-Khan’s poem ‘This is not a humanising poem’, and I too refuse to defend my humanity or plead for empathy before my fellow Oxford students. To see us in this undignified position has been the cause of entertainment for many Oxford students, and has motivated many recent debates about our faith and background at the Oxford Union.
I do argue, however, that the Oxford Reform UK society will invite a breeding ground for anti-Muslim and anti-BME rhetoric on University grounds. Its existence only makes students like myself feel more at risk in our own University. Reform’s record of targeting Muslims and minorities speaks for itself.
In May 2024, Reform leader Nigel Farage said that “a growing number” of British Muslims “do not share British values”. In March 2025, the then-Reform Business and Agriculture Spokesman, Rupert Lowe (who has since been suspended after allegations of bullying and now leads the Restore Party), asked the government whether it would prohibit slaughter without stunning in order to ban halal meat, despite such a prohibition also applying to Kosher slaughter, which he did not call for banning. In January 2026, Sarah Pochin questioned the UK government’s definition of anti-Muslim hostility.
Reform also embraced Lee Anderson in March 2024, who was suspended by the Conservative Party for saying: “I don’t actually believe that the Islamists have got control of our country, but what I do believe is they’ve got control of [Sadiq] Khan and they’ve got control of London.”
Another Reform candidate, Paul Harrison, backed mass deportations and retweeted an AI-generated caricature of Muslim men with Pakistani flags. A post on candidate Howard Raymond Din’s social media called for the mass shooting of Muslims, and candidate Leo Fruhman adopted the slogan “Every Muslim Out of Europe” under his tweets, which include “don’t f**king bring your barbarism tho or we’ll kick you to where you came from”, and “yes I do have a problem with Muslims”.
Many articles in the national press argue that Reform is racist, misogynistic, and Islamophobic. I need not write to convince you of this. I simply argue that a political party with a record of anti-Muslim hostility should not be active, promoted, and legitimised, least of all at institutions where many Muslims like myself live and study.
Every student has the right to feel safe and welcomed in their university, especially when university grounds are where they call home. It is not unreasonable for a student from any vulnerable group to feel unsafe around other students who openly support a political party that repeatedly targets them. It is also not unreasonable for them to feel unsafe on college grounds that may be hosting a politician for a society event who holds such views.
While unregistered, the Oxon Universities’ Reform Society hosted a Restore/Reform debate as well as inviting David Starkey to give a talk – the very same David Starkey who said “so many damn blacks survived during slavery”.
Reform has had to address extremist views spiralling out of control in its own party. During the 2024 general elections, it was made to remove more than a dozen candidates over their racist comments. This included campaigner Andrew Parker, who described Islam, rather than organised religion in general, as ‘a cult’. He suggested that the army should “F**king just shoot them”, referring to asylum seekers, and said of Rishi Sunak: “I’ve always been a Tory voter, but what annoys me is that f**king [P-word] we’ve got in.”
A 2026 investigation found many more Reform candidates making Islamophobic and racist comments, only some of whom were suspended. Former candidate Caspar Thomas tweeted that we should “kick Muslims out of our country”. He has written that “Black peoples have such a cringe victim complex”, and that “Indians are nasty”. While some of these individuals have been removed by Reform, it begs the question: what is it about Reform’s policies that keeps, time and time again, attracting these circles to begin with?
If one truly studies Reform beyond the few examples mentioned in this article, they will quickly realise that the party is not truly concerned about immigration, integration, or British values, but only cloaks its moral panics and hostilities against Muslims and ethnic minorities behind these talking points. I do not expect students from different backgrounds to fully understand our experience of life. Non-British Muslims will also never understand the fears that dominate our lives. But it is further isolating to know that nobody will speak up or stand up for us, even outside the Reform event rooms.
Students at the University of York protested their Restore student society. But I don’t feel confident that Oxford students would react the same way to the newly formed Reform society. It is not only the society that worries me, but also other students’ indifference towards it. I grew up in Britain where an anti-Muslim rally is described as a “an amazing day out with the family” and men who spew hatred against Muslims are called “activists”. Unsurprisingly, I have not always felt safe walking down the road as someone who is visibly Muslim.
But now, with the new Oxford Reform society, I cannot say that I will always feel safe walking on college grounds, outside my dorm, in the JCR kitchen, or in any other shared space. Muslim and ethnic minority students should not have to navigate these spaces worried that the people close to us feel the same sentiments towards us that the student political society they belong to does.
Oxon Universites’ Reform Society was contacted for comment and told Cherwell that they share “concerns for the safety of all in Oxford”, with reference to a BBC News article from 2020 about grooming gangs in Oxford.
Student Life
Pro-Palestine march calls for University’s divestment from Israel
Pro-Palestine protesters marched from Cowley to the Weston Library on Saturday 31st October, demanding Oxford University’s divestment from Israel.
Around 120 people attended the protest, including groups such as Oxford Students for Palestine (formerly Oxford Schools for Palestine), Oxford Action for Palestine, Oxford City Green Party and Health Workers & Allies for Palestine.
The protest started with a speech about Oxford-educated administrators’ role in the creation of Israel, notably through the Balfour Declaration.
Green councillor Ahalya Bala also commented on the current situation in Palestine: “This is not a war. This is annihilation… The atrocities are still happening. It is just the pace that changes.”
“In the West Bank, forced displacement, seizures, neighbourhoods levelled to the ground, military raids, arbitrary detentions, torture, rape, executions, and land theft for Israeli expansionism and the cruel racial segregation and domination of Palestinians.”
A large banner at the centre of the gathering read: “Israel bombed 36 hospitals in Gaza and murdered more than 1700 healthcare workers. Targeting healthcare is a war crime. Arms embargo & Sanctions now!”
As protesters moved through Oxford, they chanted “blood money on your hands, show us your divestment plans”, “arms embargo right now”, and “Oxford University pick a side, justice or genocide”.
Two march attendees, Lisa and John, have been protesting for Palestine daily outside Carfax Tower. They spoke to Cherwell about the current state of the student movement for Palestine. Lisa, a current graduate student said that: “For students the consciousness is there and the willingness is there but people are afraid.” John added that Oxford’s prestige meant “there is a lot of power and opportunities to speak up concentrated here”.
Outside the Weston Library, protesters heard speeches from Nick Maynard, an Oxford alumnus and surgeon who has worked extensively in Gaza, and Haya Adams, an activist from the SOAS-liberated zone. Maynard, who went to Exeter College, said in his speech: “There are moments in history when silence becomes a form of complicity… More than 22,000 children have been killed in Gaza in the last three years.” He told the audience about individual patients he had seen in hospitals in Gaza, explaining that, on one occasion, his colleagues were stripped of critical supplies of baby formula by the Israeli military upon entering the strip.
Regarding the international treatment of Palestine, Maynard later told Cherwell: “We know it’s been failed by our governments, we know it’s been failed by our media, but it’s also being failed by our academic institutions… They have not given students a sufficient platform to talk about the genocide. Students have been fantastic. The university needs to give a much bigger platform to its students.”
Oxford Students for Palestine, one of the groups organising the protest, told Cherwell: “We wish to remind the University and others that Oxford city is extremely pro-Palestine, that we call for the end of the genocide and apartheid, and we call for every Palestinian to be liberated and have the right to return. We are twinned with Ramallah for a reason.”
The group added that “we’re calling on Oxford University and its colleges to disclose and fully divest from any Israeli investments, products, or banks like Barclays”. They also criticised the Oxford University Endowment Fund (OUEM) as “fundamentally resistant to disclosure and divestment”.
Adams, from the SOAS-liberated zone, told Cherwell: “The most basic and bare minimum thing that Oxford University can do is cut ties with genocide through their investments, through their partnerships. There really are ethical alternatives… Oxford University can also protect the right to free speech by allowing students to speak up for Palestine with no disciplinary action. They need to be held accountable for the arrests that happened during the time of the encampments.”
In response to a right of reply, Oxford University said: “Oxford is steadfast in its commitment to freedom of expression and to the right to peaceful protest within the law. At the same time, we have a legal and moral duty to uphold the rights, dignity and safety of every member of our community. When behaviour, including protest, causes serious disruption, harassment or safeguarding concerns, we will act in accordance with the law and our own established procedures.”
OUEM did not respond to our request for comment.
As the march ended, Oxford Students for Palestine reflected on how it fit with the global student movement. They told Cherwell: “The last thing we will say is that the students united will never be defeated, as we’ve seen across the world.”
Additional reporting by Stanley Arlidge and Freya Robson.
Student Life
Why the US midterms matter
How could the outcome of the US midterm elections ever affect an Oxford student? Well, the elections might affect the cost of your next Tesco or Sainsbury’s visit. This month, diesel prices surpassed £2 per litre. British grocery inflation also just ticked up to 2.5% from 2.3%. The two are not unrelated. Many attribute Britain’s inflation to the ongoing conflict between Iran and the United States in the Middle East. On top of this, the Trump administration has threatened a 100% tariff on UK goods if the country does not abandon its digital services tax.
For better or worse, US government policy can affect the world, and with President Trump’s party holding slim majorities in both legislative chambers, current US policy may be challenged or forced to change. While, strictly speaking, the midterm elections only involve voting for representatives and senators, many view them as a vote of confidence in the president. Historically, the election has generally reflected a lack of confidence in the president, at least within the House of Representatives. Since 1946, regardless of party, the incumbent president’s party has gained seats in just two midterm elections: 1998 and 2002. These elections stand out because 1998 was the year President Clinton was impeached and 2002 was the election following 9/11.
Making sense of the midterms
Let’s say you agree with the notion that the outcome of the midterms may affect your grocery spend or your travel spend between or after term time; how on Earth do you make sense of the US election? Why do some politicians appear up for election and others do not? How do you know if power has shifted and a debate will occur on issues that affect an Oxford student?
In the US, Congress consists of two elected legislative bodies: the House and the Senate. Every two years, the entire House and one-third of the Senate stand for election.
A representative serves a two-year term in the House. This means the entire House stands for election on a two-year cycle, which includes the presidential election and the midterms in between. Currently, the Republican Party holds a slim majority in the House, and the Democratic Party would need a net gain of 3 seats to take control.
A senator, on the other hand, serves a six-year term, and there are 100 Senators. Further, the Senate is divided into three classes, with about 33 Senators per class. Senate elections are staggered so that one-third of the Senate stands for election every two years. Like in the House, the Republicans hold a majority in the Senate, and the Democrats would need a net gain of 4 seats to take control.
What Congress can do
Now that we understand how the election works, how would a change of power in Congress affect an Oxford student’s daily life?
Congress was designed as a restraint on the presidency. Congress possesses extensive power in budgeting, defence, foreign policy, trade, and other matters which can be used to counter the president. If the opposition party, the Democrats, wins control of either or both chambers, then expect attempts to foil President Trump. This matters to students from the UK and abroad. As mentioned before, US global policy might increase our food bill, but even more, as petrol prices rise, so will prices for all travel and, in particular, air travel back home for international students.
The Iran war
So, what can Congress do? Congress has a variety of options to influence the Iran war, one of which is the War Powers Resolution. Under this law, Congress could force an end to hostilities by voting to instruct the president to begin withdrawing the US military from hostilities within 60 days. However, this would require a supermajority of Congress because the president would likely veto a War Powers Resolution on the Iran war.
Alternatively, Congress can take other steps to impede the war. This includes restricting the military’s budget, rejecting or not voting on nominees, holding hearings, forcing Department of Defense officials to testify, and more. If the Senate doesn’t confirm a nominee, the president is limited in whom he may select, and the ‘acting’ official tends to hold little political power. All of this pressure would go a distance in bringing an end to a conflict that has increased petrol in the UK by 16-30% on average and increased airline jet fuel globally by 20%.
Tariffs and the power of the purse
On tariffs, Congress could pass legislation to terminate specific tariffs or rescind the president’s authority more broadly. Much of the same congressional options that applied to the Iran war also apply to tariffs. The key difference is that if both chambers of Congress switch to the Democrats, there is a good chance legislation curtailing the President’s tariffs could override a presidential veto.
The congressional power of the purse should also not be underestimated. In 2019, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi refused to allow appropriations legislation to pass over a dispute to fund a border wall on the US-Mexico border, leading to a government shutdown. This can hurt the American public, as the lack of funding ceases or slows essential operations and functions like airports, issuance of small business loans, court proceedings, and heavily used public venues like national parks. Traditionally, this stalemate places great pressure on the party that appears unwilling to compromise and in 2019, President Trump found himself in that position. All of this puts the President’s 10% tariff on UK goods in jeopardy and diminishes the risks of new tariff threats.
The bottom line
So, today, take note of these facts if you attend a University of Oxford watch party. The election taking place 3,000 miles away may affect you more than you imagine, as it may affect the cost of what you eat, the cost of travel around Oxford, the cost of a flight home following term time, or even more; it may affect the global economy every Oxford student wishes to work in. Don’t stay up too late, but hopefully, if you watch the election, you will appreciate its significance, and it will also provide some entertainment.
Student Life
Oxford Union overhauls voting rules after election scandals
Two forms of identification will be required to vote at the Oxford Union following consecutive instances of electoral fraud involving impersonation. Voters will now need to provide their membership card and one additional form of identification, after the Standing Committee accepted a rule change earlier this week.
Union President Gareth Lim told Cherwell that the change aims to protect the accuracy and integrity of the electoral process, especially to avoid the impact of counterfeit and illicitly obtained membership cards. The proposal to the Standing Committee described the previous system as “open to abuse” and added that the new rules are written under the principle that “the election system should be fully defensible against attempted fraud”.
Impersonation and false membership cards disrupted the two most recent Union elections.
In Trinity Term 2026, the election count was suspended after a Returning Officer identified evidence of substantial interference before boxes were opened. CCTV showed individuals attempting to cast votes using membership cards which were not their own.
Similar electoral fraud occurred during elections in Hilary, as President-Elect Catherine Xu was removed after a separate Tribunal found she had distributed membership cards belonging to other people for voting.
After both elections, membership cards were seized, and those found guilty have been suspended from the Union.
Lim proposed the new double-identification system over the summer. The Standing Committee recommended the changes, and they were affirmed by the Union’s ‘house’ on Thursday.
When asked why these measures have only come under consideration after the second instance of attempted fraud, the President told Cherwell the rules follow suspected large-scale counterfeit voting in June, whereas the Hilary election was suspected to be the scheme of one individual at the time.
Guidance on what will be accepted as secondary identification has not yet been confirmed. Cherwell understands that student identification, including Bodleian cards, will be sufficient.
In addition to the changes to voter identification, the Union is also changing the process through which candidates are selected for standing committee. Starting from the elections in Hilary term 2027, candidates for Secretary’s Committee will require three unique nominators who are not candidates themselves to stand. The change is being introduced to “help reduce the unfair and unnecessary burden placed on electoral officials by the frivolous nomination of candidates with no interest or support in winning”.
A mock election to trial the new system will be conducted by the Returning Officers during the Union’s US Midterm Election event this evening. Attendees have been directed to bring both their government ID and Union card. The new rules will take effect for the next election on 27th November.
-
Oxford united FC4 weeks agoLIVE: Exeter City vs Oxford United – Jersey Mike's Trophy group stage
-
Oxford united FC4 weeks agoOxford United lose to Exeter City on penalties in Jersey Mike’s Trophy
-
Student Life4 weeks agoRhodes scholarships cut amid financial difficulties
-
Student Life3 weeks agoFrom Oxford to Cambridge: The 204-mile punt for Alzheimer’s
-
Oxford united FC4 weeks agoChris Gunter details Oxford United tactical adjustments
-
Oxford united FC4 weeks agoOxford United youngster opens up on ‘surreal’ Aaron Ramsey influence
-
Oxford united FC4 weeks agoOxford United win 2-1 at Notts County in League One return
-
Oxford united FC4 weeks agoLIVE: Exeter City 2-1 Oxford United – Grecians lead after Bradney debut goal
