Calls for migrants to learn English, supposedly for the purpose of ‘integration’, have formed a large part of immigration discourse in recent years. In 2022, Transport for London unveiled a new sign at Whitechapel tube station, written in Bengali. The initiative was intended to commemorate the contribution made to the London Borough of Tower Hamlets by the Bengali community, which comprises 35% of the borough’s population. However, just last year, MP for Great Yarmouth and leader of Restore Britain, Rupert Lowe, condemned the sign, writing that it “should be in English, and English only”, which in turn received a succinct “yes” in reply from Elon Musk.

The sentiment of Lowe and others demonstrates the fact that the English language is itself political. As a consequence of Britain’s imperial, mercantile, and often violent contact with communities across the globe, English has forcibly become the lingua franca of the modern world. The results of this, I believe, are twofold: large parts of the world do speak English, having either been colonised by the British or extensively traded with. But, some level of spoken or written English is now seen as a certain bet in all corners of the world, where it perhaps should not be. The expectation of migrants to learn English, while having no time or space made for their native languages, is a form of insidious hypocrisy. In turn, the expectation that English should be accommodated abroad is reflective of the entitlement that comes with being the historic beneficiaries of empire.

The reactionary outrage at Whitechapel station was perhaps outdone earlier this year by the controversy surrounding the Green Party’s decision to publish campaign materials in six different languages. The Oxford branch of the party posted their own promise of accessible communication to their Instagram in April, with the message translated into Arabic, Portuguese, Mandarin, and Polish. Yet, similar efforts in Leeds and Manchester were met with staunch criticism from the right. In the context of the high-profile by-election in Gorton and Denton earlier this year, GB News’ reporting describes the move as prompting “accusations of sectarianism”, and Ed West of The Spectator writes of the Green Party as “Britain’s sectional Islamist party” – essentially accusing the Green Party of privileging Muslims at the expense of an undisclosed and indeterminate group. Outrage in the media bleeds into legislation: Conservative MP for Hamble Valley Paul Holmes’ proposed amendment to the Representation of the People Bill, which would have banned the publication of campaign materials in foreign languages, was proposed and rejected in parliament on 16th April 2026.

Is this practice really ‘sectarian’? Or, is it a show of inclusivity to non-native English speakers, in an increasingly hostile political environment? Those who may not have British or Commonwealth citizenship, and therefore cannot vote, also still deserve to know what is going on in their area. Political language can often be full of jargon and unintelligible for even a decent speaker of English, and keeping all residents informed equally may only improve social cohesion. Fundamentally, the Green Party is much more welcoming of migration than any other major British party, and its campaign certainly reflects this.

As a city, Oxford is relatively progressive when it comes to accommodating migrants with little English – it has been a City of Sanctuary since 2025, meaning that it prides itself on the dignity and welfare it affords those seeking sanctuary, working with schools, local charities like Asylum Welcome, and further education colleges to provide low-cost or free ESOL lessons. Oxford is also twinned with seven cities, spanning from Italy to Palestine, and international students make up 43% of the University’s student body, contributing to a general atmosphere of open-mindedness amongst the numerous cultural societies offered. But while Oxford may be leading the pack in this sense, and may also benefit from the impassioned swathes of student activists, progress is not always linear – there have already been two protests this term by Oxfordshire Patriots, whose organiser reported to Cherwell that he doesn’t “believe Nazis seem very good, however, some of our views are the same…I don’t agree with everything they say”. In this month’s local elections, the head of the University’s Staff Immigration Team, responsible for providing “free and impartial advice on immigration matters to current and prospective University employees, visitors and their accompanying dependants”, ran unsuccessfully in Oxford’s Littlemore ward as a Reform UK candidate, representing a party that wishes to abolish Indefinite Leave to Remain and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The simple fact is that life is far more difficult when you do not speak the dominant language. Anecdotally, it can be anxiety-inducing to go to a foreign country and not know how to buy a bus ticket, ask for medicine, or order food. What’s more, learning a language is also a hugely difficult task, the obligation of which does not seem to apply to British people in this discourse: Britain is the least likely European country to speak a second language. And the very lack of obligation to do so harms sole-English speakers too – this also being a significant factor in the poor language teaching standards at British schools. Only 2.97% of 2024 A-Level entries were for a classical or modern foreign language. As a result, Britain ranks far behind other European countries in bilingualism (50% overall vs 30% UK).

It would be a lie to claim that speaking English presents an equal playing field, as Britain’s own problems with accent discrimination have been well-documented. Crucially, most migrants do speak at least a decent level of English: the University of Oxford’s Migration Observatory found that 90% of migrants residing in the UK self-reported as speaking a good level of English in the 2021 census, and that use of English only increases with time. Several studies have shown that migration patterns tend to align with historic ties to colonial powers – for example, a French speaker from Senegal may be more likely to emigrate to France – due to linguistic and cultural ties to the imperial centre (however, this may not always outweigh the economic factors which contribute to migration). While sensationalised reports may speak of one million migrants being unable to speak English, they neglect the nine million migrants who can speak English.

Ultimately, I think that history matters, and that the British government has a particular responsibility to accommodate all migrants actively welcomed into the country. From Windrush onwards, migrants were regularly employed in Oxford’s car manufacturing industry, an economic powerhouse with a rich history. Is it right to exclude from society those who do not have a perfect grasp of English, using the language as a barometer of how much one might ‘deserve’ a normal life in Britain, when the simple fact of the matter is that Britain’s colonial past has diversified the country? Should we force those with poorer levels of English to suffer the barriers to a good quality of life that English-only signage can pose? Why do we shudder at the thought of this, while expecting English to take us so far while abroad?

A protest took place outside Linacre College on Monday evening in support of a former kitchen worker who has brought an employment tribunal claim against the college over allegations of racism, bullying, and unsafe working conditions.

Around 60 people gathered outside the college from 5.30pm, holding signs reading “Justice for Joe” and “I stand with Joe”. Protestors also chanted “shame” towards the college. 

The protest followed allegations concerning a former employee, known as “Joe” for the tribunal, who worked at the college for 26 years. Joe has alleged that a manager referred to him using racist language, mocked his Caribbean accent, and attempted to force him out of his job. He also claims that he was required to wear unsuitable footwear, and alleges that this contributed to him developing gangrene, which ultimately resulted in the amputation of his leg. Joe also claims that a senior member of staff visited him whilst in hospital, pulled the sheet back from his leg and said, “I want to see if it is true that your leg has been amputated”. An employment tribunal is due to consider the case later this month.

Linacre College has strongly denied the allegations. In an email sent to college members ahead of the protest, and shared with Cherwell, Principal Dr Nick Leimu-Brown described the allegations as “extremely serious” but said that the College “rejects those allegations and disputes the claims that have been made”. Leimu-Brown also wrote: “The demonstration has been organised under the slogan ‘Justice for Joe’. Whatever views individuals may hold about the case, I hope we can all agree that genuine justice depends upon a fair and independent hearing of the evidence. I would encourage everyone involved to respect the legal process that is already underway. Justice is never served by heated argument on social media.” He added that the matter was subject to ongoing legal proceedings and that “the truth of the claims are for an Employment Tribunal to determine”. 

Linacre has also previously emphasised the College’s commitment to diversity and maintaining an inclusive working environment for all staff, which doesn’t tolerate racism or discrimination.

Several speakers addressed the crowd during the protest. One of the speakers was Professor Gus John, a race equality campaigner who studied at Oxford. Addressing the crowd, John described Joe’s alleged treatment as “a form of lynching” and argued that “racism kills and it kills instantly and it kills slowly”. He told protesters that Joe’s experience represented “a slow and deliberate lynching”. 

John also told Cherwell that it was “absolutely appalling that a university college could be treating an employee in this way” and argued that it was “absolutely essential that we understand how long we’ve been on this road in our struggle against racism”. He also called for campaigners to remain “committed for the long haul”.

The organiser, Dan, told Cherwell that the protest served two purposes: to show that “the community is behind you”, and to send a message that “the community is watching” the college. He added that Linacre should “acknowledge, apologise, and atone for the harm they have done to Joe” and provide compensation if the allegations are upheld.

Geoff Taylor, a retired teacher at St Clare’s in Summertown and UCU member, said he had attended because of the “abominable treatment of Joe”, and repeated the trade union principle that “an injury to one is an injury to all”. Carole Scott from Oxford Stand Up to Racism told Cherwell that campaigners “have to stand in solidarity with those who have suffered racist abuse”.

Multiple speakers also criticised the lack of action from Joe’s union, UNISON, in providing legal support in the tribunal. In his speech, Professor John described a lack of support for Black workers from parts of the trade union movement, labelling UNISON as “a disgrace” and arguing that it was “ignoring the humanity of it all”. Cherwell has been unable to verify these claims of incorrect handling of the case within UNISON and discriminatory treatment by the union. UNISON refused to comment to Cherwell, “as this is still an active case with ongoing proceedings”.  

Several attendees also said they planned to raise Joe’s case within their local branches. Peter Cann, a retired member of the National Union of Journalists and UNISON, told Cherwell that he would be calling on both his NUJ branch and local UNISON branches to condemn what he described as an “appalling act”, and said he would ask his UNISON branch to examine the role of union officials in Joe’s case.

The demonstration was also attended by multiple local councillors. Oxford City Councillor for Holywell (the ward that Linacre sits in), Dr Dianne Regisford, told Cherwell she was there to show “support and solidarity” and was calling for “a full investigation into the allegations”. Oxfordshire County Councillor for Linacre Emma Garnett also described the allegations as “absolutely horrific”.

Very few students were in attendance at the protest, but one told Cherwell that she was “standing in solidarity with Joe” and wanted to ensure that more students were aware of the issue and “how relevant it is to us as participants in the institution”. Otilia, a Linacre student attending the protest, told Cherwell that she hoped students within the college would consider what action they could take, adding that this case conflicted with Linacre’s public commitment to diversity. 

It’s been four years since England men lost to France at the quarter finals in Qatar. Since then, the women have won the Euros twice – in 2021 and 2025 – bringing football home for our success-starved nation: it would be amazing if England could repeat this success in this tournament too. 

However, when approaching the 2026 World Cup in North America, my thoughts don’t drift towards football. I’ve barely considered the players in our squad or our chances at success. In fact, the game itself has taken a backseat. Instead, the politics, headlines, and contentious issues that we’ve already seen in the build-up have dominated the discussion. With all these different factors at play, concern trumps any excited anticipation in the build-up to the tournament.

There are plenty of places to start when considering the disarray of this World Cup, but I think a relatively simple place to start would be with the fans. Supporters are the very essence of football. Whilst there can certainly be issues, the majority of fans merely want their team to win. For this reason, the ticket prices for this tournament are completely unfair to these loyal fan bases. Back in December, FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) announced that the cheapest tickets for the final would still cost over £3000. Naturally, this is completely unrealistic for many football fans, now left with no chance  to watch their team play. This doesn’t even consider their devotion in terms of flight, accommodation, and transportation costs. In fact, even the president himself said that he wouldn’t pay to watch the US play Paraguay in the group stage.

The frustration in terms of profit still runs even further. One of the new features in this year’s tournament is ‘Hydration Breaks’. In other tournaments, so that high temperatures don’t have a negative effect on players, time is allocated for athletes to rehydrate. However, these breaks have been introduced as a compulsory requirement for every match in this tournament, regardless of whether they are playing indoors or outdoors, in a conditioned or unconditioned stadium. This means that matches will only be played for 22 minutes before a break, which some have noticed aligns these games more closely with American football. 

On the face of it, these breaks may seem beneficial to the players. However, the Guardian has found that this offers FIFA more than 200 guaranteed slots for advertising. Naturally, more advertising allows for only more revenue. This brings into question, then, whether FIFA is truly concerned about the safety of the players, or simply just its own profit boost. Whilst the decision could, of course, be informed by both, it does suggest that FIFA’s goal in this tournament is to severely boost the revenue they receive, despite the rules of the sport and the loyalty of the fans. This is further endorsed when considering the high ticket prices.

Additionally, many stadiums have had to change their names temporarily for the tournament. Some originally had brands as their stadium names, such as the Mercedes-Benz Stadium. However, in order not to hand out free advertising to companies which aren’t sponsoring the tournament, the names have been changed to generic city names. Mercedes-Benz Stadium, for example, is to be known as the Atlanta Stadium for the duration of the World Cup this year. Though this may not have a direct impact on the game itself, it once again highlights that capital is premium in this tournament is decentralising and almost displacing the very essence of the game for wealth-snatching tactics.

Furthermore, the World Cup, for the first time, is taking place across an entire continent. Whilst that may be an exciting part of football history,  the sheer size of the continent also provides something of a logistical nightmare. The tournament will take place across four time zones, with some stadiums up to almost 3000 miles apart. Frustrating for fans, who want to see their teams once they’ve passed the group stage, the sheer cost of travel is something that won’t be easily managed – especially alongside the already extortionate ticket prices. Secondly, it’s a long way to go for the players, who will have to travel wide expanses to play their next match. Even if this may affect all players, it does add a degree of difficulty, considering that 104 games will be taking place across 39 days. The excitement of such international hosting is somewhat lessened when visualising the tricky logistics for both fans and teams.

Moreover, there remains an ongoing concern over ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) raids in the USA. Even back in January, the FSE (Football Supporters Europe) fan group expressed concern over such events. There have also been concerns, in light of these raids, over fans’ personal safety when travelling to the US. Supporters have no reason for their fears to be alleviated, as Todd Lyons (director of ICE) expressed that the enforcement group’s presence was a necessary part of the World Cup. With regular stories on the news and social media, it’s no wonder that fans – forced to constantly consider their own safety – are sceptical about the role that ICE will play in the tournament.

Concerns have also been raised over new security checks for fans entering the country. Back in December, President Donald Trump announced security checks that would involve checking tourists’ social media accounts. This affects 42 countries, one of which is the UK, in the interest of the safety of Americans. However, according to the Guardian, the FSE described the new measure as “profoundly unacceptable”. This is just another step in an already difficult journey to the US, possibly compelling fans to hand over access to their social media histories dating back up to five years. This could be seen not only as an invasion of privacy, but also as a policing of private lives – another deterrent to devoted fans.

According to BBC Sport, the American Hotel & Lodging Association (AHLA) has had up to 70% of FIFA-reserved rooms cancelled in major cities like Los Angeles, Boston, Dallas, and more. When considering all these factors, it can’t be a shock that reservations are being cancelled. This tournament no longer focuses on the game itself, removing the very passion of the sport and replacing it with a fear of the political and economic climate. Football is not the focus of this World Cup.

Yet, I hold some hope. Whilst writing this article, the England squads have been announced. This may not be relevant to everyone, but as a Three Lions fan, I was surprised to see some of the changes that have been made to the team. Greats from previous tournaments such as Foden, Maguire, and Alexander-Arnold are all missing out on the chance to bring football home in this World Cup. And whilst that may be a questionable move, it finally brings the discussion back towards football. On top of that, Shakira has released a promising official World Cup song once again, saving the day with ‘Dai Dai’. With her reappearance comes the return of the nostalgia of previous tournaments.

The fate of the World Cup is undecided. The atmosphere around the tournament is certainly focused on everything other than football, with political, economic, and social matters drawing away the attention of fans. However, we’re being gradually tugged towards the game itself, hopefully shifting the atmosphere towards a more positive, football-focused one. Whilst we don’t know what’s to come, I do know that fans will be brought together in the spirit of the game, and that’s what it’s truly about.