Student Life
Raising refugee rights: Oxford STAR and Campsfield House
“The Coalition and STAR are quite unique in the emphasis on trying to bridge the gap between students and the community”.
This is how Faye, the President of Oxford Student Action for Refugees (STAR), the university branch of an organisation that describes itself as “[t]he national network of students building a society where refugees are welcomed”, characterises the society’s support of the Coalition to Close Campsfield. Caught within the often insular Oxford bubble, where student concerns are easily geared towards their colleges, the existence of Campsfield House has seemingly been erased from the map.
A student campaign for the rights of refugees
“I think students at Oxford can be quite myopic at times”, said Faye. She wishes more would get involved with local causes, focusing on matters beyond student-related issues: “I think sometimes people can get caught up in trying to improve conditions in this kind of very narrow sense, for themselves and other people in their degree, rather than thinking about how we are in such a place of incredible privilege. Why do we get to benefit from that privilege, while those who face the disadvantages of that privilege?” Students face additional logistical barriers: the eight-week terms and academic workload mean missed meetings and protests. But members of Oxford STAR have put their books down in favour of active participation. With 39 groups across the country, Student Action for Refugees filed a joint petition with City of Sanctuary, VOICES Network & SolidariTee for university students, and staff in response to the Illegal Migration Bill.
As a student society, Oxford STAR brings unique advantages to the refugee rights movement. The society has been unafraid to exert pressure on the institution’s actions. Recently, they released an open letter condemning the University of Oxford’s Centre on Migration, Policy & Society (COMPAS)’s invitation to Sean Donnelly, Editor in Chief of Frontext, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, and Eddy Montgomery, Senior Director of Enforcement, Compliance and Crime at the Home Office. These events are a part of the “Immigration Enforcement in Practice” seminars convened by Rob McNeil. Written by a group of “current Oxford students and alumni, migrants’ rights campaign groups and academics”, they highlight the “much-needed critical commentary on border enforcement in the EU and UK” that is missing in COMPAS’ series of events. The intervention reflects a broader willingness among student activists to challenge not only government policy, but also the university’s relationship to institutions involved in border enforcement.
Awarded the University of Sanctuary status in 2023, Oxford joined a group of 25 Universities of Sanctuary. Founded by the City of Sanctuary UK, “this network has been developed through the integration of Article 26 Project resources with City of Sanctuary UK, and collaboration with Student Action for Refugees, Refugee Education UK, and others”, with the aim to “develop a culture and a practice of welcome within institutions”. Oxford appears proud of its University of Sanctuary status and its City of Sanctuary Organisation Pledge. The University “is committed to being a place of welcome for people who have been forcibly displaced around the world, and supports students and academics who have been forced to flee conflict or persecution”.
To satisfy the minimum criteria for a University of Sanctuary award, the institution must “support the establishment of a student-led awareness group on campus (such as a STAR group)”. On the University website, explicit support is indeed given to Oxford STAR: “We encourage our students to learn about sanctuary and to create an inclusive culture of welcome. As part of this, the University supports the Oxford branch of Student Action for Refugees in recruiting new members for the academic year.” In order to demonstrate sufficient support to “student-led awareness group[s]”, a member of the university must be in contact with the head office team at STAR. Examples listed on the application form include forms of logistical support, including the facilitation of meetings and financial assistance. This empowers Oxford STAR, Faye argues, with an “institutional leverage over the university where we are able to sit in on University of Sanctuary subcommittee meetings and talk to people in the university who are involved with the award.”
In the context of a growing far-right presence in the city, Oxford STAR has used their “pathway in the University” to focus on exerting their influence on the institution: “We do try to focus more on things that the University is doing that we can address, because we think that’s the advantage that we have as a student organisation, so that includes things like any kind of departmental talks that platform voices which we think are quite anti-immigration and contribute to this toxic environment.” St George’s and Union Jack flags erected by “Raise the Colours Oxfordshire” around St Aldates and the Headington roundabout, alongside protests by the Oxfordshire Patriots, speak to this “broader rhetoric and environment” that Oxford STAR resists.
Despite the society’s influence, there is a careful move to make space for the experience and three-decade-long history of the Coalition movement by the students: “I think by having this campaign that is led by local community members and having students kind of support them, rather than trying to lead the campaign themselves, I think that helps make a difference.”
Bill, a founding member of the Coalition in 1993, extends the same appreciation to the students who he deems are “more integral to the coalition than they have been in the past”. One example of the “energy and new ideas” of students includes public, visual statements. He recalls, for instance, in 2009, “when the statues of emperors’ heads outside the Sheldonian were masked to show how people in detention were silenced”.
Protest safety is another area where students can bring fresh perspectives and contribute to the Coalition. Just a few years ago, Faye remembers feeling “fairly safe” when volunteering to support refugee rights, but a more antagonistic climate has spurred growing anxieties.
Protesters at Campsfield are now more frequently met with counter-protests by far-right organisations: “There’s more cases where there’s threats of far-right protests right outside the centre”, observes Faye. “I’m an international student myself and a lot of other international students are involved in the protests…it’s just a more precarious situation where we don’t want to lose our student visas through protesting”. For international students in particular, political participation can carry risks extending beyond arrest or disciplinary action, including apprehension around immigration status and visa security.
Even with these fears, she emphasises the significance of “individual participation and contribution” that “makes movements like this so powerful”. Faye recognises the strategic impact of introducing protest strategies – such as masking up and hosting protest safety workshops – to local campaign members: “I think there’s been one quite big contribution from the student side, bringing this kind of protest safety to the Campsfield movement as well.”
This is particularly relevant to the shifting dynamics with the police. A current obstacle, Bill explains, facing the Coalition involves the location of their demonstrations: “There is an issue at the moment about our right to demonstrate at the gates of Campsfield as opposed to the road away from Campsfield, and we are trying to reestablish our right to demonstrate at the gate.” He stresses the non-violence of their action: “We’re quite happy without [the police] being there because we’re not actually cutting the fence…we’re just expressing an opinion.”
A spokesperson for Thames Valley Police told Cherwell: “We have a legal obligation to facilitate peaceful protest, but this must be balanced against the rights of others and the need to maintain access and safety. We will continue to work with partners and the local community to manage this appropriately.”
History of Campsfield House
As a former youth detention facility, Campsfield House was established in 1993 as an immigration detention centre. Campsfield was far from a ‘home’ despite its name. Here, asylum seekers and children have been held, immobilised within the secured walls, in a limbo of indefinite and uncertain detention. While immigration detention is often imagined through the imagery of U.S. border enforcement and ICE facilities, Campsfield represents a distinctly British system of confinement operating on Oxford’s doorstep.
Nearly 30,000 migrants were detained in Campsfield House before 2018. A history of resistance and abuse marked the centre’s 25 years before it closed. What was widely reported as riots and arson at Campsfield in 2007-08, alongside the escape of 26 detainees, exposed an internal history of revolt.
A language of criminality tainted the reporting of Campsfield House; yet, most detainees have committed no criminal offences. Between 2023-24, there were 834 cases of unlawful detention, forcing the Home Office to pay nearly £12 million in compensation. Although immigration detention is an administrative process rather than a criminal justice procedure, the conditions behind the barbed-wire fence were uncannily similar to those of a prison. The contradiction remains central to criticisms of the detention system: people are confined in prison-like conditions without a criminal conviction or a fixed sentence.
Condemned for its treatment of detainees and deplorable conditions by human rights groups, the centre’s history is marred by hunger strikes and suicides. In 2005, more than 30 Zimbabwean detainees went on hunger strike. With no judicial oversight, a man who had been denied bail and detained for over four months died by suicide in the same year. Under the threat of deportation to Iraq, further hunger strikes were undertaken by 13 Kurdish asylum seekers in 2008, which escalated to 60 participants. The same pattern continued in 2010, where over half of the centre’s inmates went on hunger strike over the inhumane conditions. A second suicide occurred in 2011, a man was found dead in the shower. Between 2012 an 2013, a 16-year old-child was held in detention for 62 days. Facing an unfixed sentence of detention, migrants in Campsfield Houseexisted in a prolonged state of uncertainty and suspension.
Campsfield House has been under the management of Mitie, a private-for-profit company, whose aim is “to treat those in our care with dignity, decency and respect, delivering a safe and healthy establishment which stands up to public scrutiny” since2011. Although 80% of the detainees found most staff were respectful, 41% of the detainees reported “feeling unsafe” in the centre in an inspection carried out in 2019. Further reports of use of excessive force and unsanitary conditions colour the centre’s history under the company.
The reopening of Campsfield House
“We thought it was a victory for us and the national movement against detention”, explains Bill, a founding member of the Coalition to Close Campsfield, when the centre was shut down following more than two decades of campaigning and monthly protests.
But when Boris Johnson announced an expansion in the government’s use of immigration detention facilities in 2022, this triumph proved to be temporary. Under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which facilitated the Rwanda Plan, the Home Office increased its use of detention centres. On 28 June 2022, they announced their decision to reopen Campsfield House.
The Home Office’s plan was met with fierce opposition. In a statement by AVID, Keep Campsfield Closed and Border Criminologies addressed to the former Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, 50 organisations were represented with 82 signatures. Such condemnation has also been expressed on an international level: the UN Refugee Agency is a vocal critic of the widespread use of immigration detention facilities, echoed by the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner. Opponents of Campsfield’s reopening, therefore, situate the issue within a broader international debate over the legality, ethics, and effectiveness of immigration detention.
The upwards trend of the detention of migrants since 2021 reflects an increasingly expansionist and hostile policy, fuelled by the Illegal Migration Act passed in July 2023. In 2025,22,661 people were detained, a figure up by 17% when compared to the previous year. When Campsfield reopened, Mitie received a new six-year contract worth £140 million. With plans of expansion, adding up to 400 new beds in the centre, Campsfield symbolises the national shift in immigration policy. For campaigners, the reopening is not an isolated local development but part of a wider hardening of Britain’s border regime.
Phase 2 of the development of Campsfield will be facilitated by a Crown Development Order. “This is a huge issue with central government overriding democratic procedure”, Bill explains. By using this order, the government bypasses local opposition, preventing the decision to be made by the local planning authority, Cherwell District Council. Demanding a public inquiry, this application is more than just an expansion strategy but also serves as “a challenge to democracy”, according to Bill.
Over time, the Coalition has in many ways become a unifying force. Bill told Cherwell: “It’s become much more, in some ways, deep-rooted.” The collaboration between Oxford STAR and the Coalition appears to have brought town and gown together. “The stance of opposition to Campsfield has spread throughout the community” to the students behind the limestone walls and spires.
Despite Oxford STAR’s work, Faye reminds us that “left-wing student organisations are vastly under-resourced in terms of just the kind of institutional capacity that [they] have”. Yet, “fruitful collaboration”, such as the creation of Oxford Student Social Action Coalition, uniting Turl Street Homeless Action (TSHA), Food Rescuers, and New College Curry Runners, can multiply the resources available. In spite of these barriers, Faye urges students to think beyond their colleges: “What I do hope for is that more students do try to engage with these kind of things, rather than staying limited within their colleges or their specific student societies, [so] that they do try to engage with these broader, local and potentially regional, national issues, and offer their efforts where they can.” It took 25 years of internal and external resistance and over three hundred demonstrations to close Campsfield House for the first time. All hope, however, has not been lost: “You’ve got to be hopeful, haven’t you? So I’m hopeful”, Bill told me.
There were 82,100 applications for asylum in 2025. By the end of 2024, over 123 million people were forced to flee their homes. As global conflicts increase, the need for student organisations like Oxford STAR is indispensable. “It is quite inspiring to see that there are still so many students every year who are willing to get involved”, Faye said. “I think that is something that keeps my spirits up.”
Student Life
St Edmund Hall unveils new eco-friendly accommodation
St Edmund Hall has opened new, sustainability-focused accommodation in Norham Gardens, one of Oxford’s most affluent neighbourhoods.
The College describes the buildings, which took three years to construct, as an “exemplar” of sustainability. Designed by architects Wright & Wright LLP, they are certified with a Passivhaus standard, widely regarded as the industry benchmark for energy efficiency, and were built using “sustainably sourced and low-embodied carbon materials”. According to a press release on the Teddy Hall website, the buildings will use 70% less energy than the typical modern building.
It contains 127 en-suite study rooms, split across three new buildings: Willis House, Ashton House, and Elliott House, on the nearly 50-year-old Norham St Edmund site. The buildings, which back onto University Parks, are powered at least in part by solar panels and are heated by air-source heat pumps.
The rooms include heated towel racks, big double beds, and dimmable lights. Despite the luxury, the College kept the nightly rate in line with the rest of its Norham housing. The College told Cherwell that it “recognises the need to keep rents as low as possible” and that its accommodation costs are “below the median of all Oxford colleges”. By that standard, tenants are expected to pay around £30 a night.
Rooms on the site will be reserved for Teddy Hall returning undergraduates. They will not be available to postgraduates and, by extension, not be offered through the Oxford University Collegiate Accommodation System, now in its second year of opening college rooms to students from other colleges. The accommodation will allow Teddy Hall to accommodate all undergraduates for their whole degree.
The development’s outdoor spaces are boasted as climate-resilient and biodiverse, with landscaped gardens and lawns. For budding geographers and biologists, the most intriguing feature may be an ecology pond.
Chancellor William Hague said in a press release: “Norham St Edmund is a world-leading blueprint for future student accommodation projects and sustainable building design, both in Oxford and beyond. I look forward to seeing it serve a thriving college community for generations to come.
Student Life
Summit calls for human rights safeguards on AI
Human rights experts called for stronger legal protections against the risks posed by artificial intelligence (AI) at an Oxford AI and Human Rights Summit, with speakers arguing that human rights standards must be embedded into AI governance and technology.
The summit was hosted at the newly redeveloped Rhodes House in Oxford and organised by the Institute for Ethics in AI. It built upon Professor Yuval Shany’s consultation on a white paper, published in 2025, on the need for and feasibility of an international AI Bill of Human Rights, which proposes ways to adapt existing human rights standards so as to better address some of the unique challenges posed by AI systems and their uses.
An opening video address from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk outlined how AI policy can keep pace with a fast-developing technology. He said that “great power demands responsibility on the same scale, and when the two don’t match, we have a problem”. Corporate control, he explained, means that AI policy stretches beyond existing national borders. He continued to praise this summit for bringing together leaders and representatives at the forefront of the discussion.
Speakers called on the UK government to establish legislation, recalling Labour’s manifesto commitment to an AI Bill of Human Rights. The panellists broadly agreed on the importance of human rights, but appeared less aligned on what enforcement should look like in practice.
In an exclusive interview, Michael O’Flaherty, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, told Cherwell that political short-termism Continued on pg. 2 risks undermining efforts to address the long-term consequences of AI. “We are infected across our societies with shorttermist responses to the great issue of our societies and politics,” he said, adding that electoral cycles make it difficult for politicians “to think beyond the next election”.
O’Flaherty also noted that younger generations no longer take the international human rights system for granted. “There is no longer an assumption that the human rights system is safe, that it will survive,” he told Cherwell. He argued that political leaders increasingly treat human rights selectively, saying: “Increasingly, leaders are treating human rights, if they are respected at all, as an a la carte buffet. We take those rights because they serve our goal. We’ll ignore others because they get in the way.
The summit also heard concerns about the effects of AI-generated misinformation on communities that may have limited access to, or awareness of, the technology itself. An audience question asked human rights experts to consider the impacts of AI on populations, such as those in India, who might be unaware of its existence. The focus on the impact of AI on populations in developing countries more vulnerable to the power of big tech was a key theme of the summit.
Eileen Carter from the South African Human Rights Commission warned that underrepresentation of African languages in large language models could exacerbate existing inequalities. She also raised concerns about the effects of misinformation and deepfakes on elections, referring to more than 360 deaths associated with unrest and the amplification of narratives.
The third panel, which offered a civil society perspective on promoting human rights in AI systems, offered some hope. Across all speakers, the potential for AI to transform the beliefs that underpin human rights, including the rights to water, education, and an interpreter, was debated. When asked about AI’s potential to unravel and alter the definition of human rights, such as what is included in the ‘right to education’ O’Flaherty told Cherwell: “The damage that can be done by AI has hit more dramatically and more visibly than perhaps any other sector within education through the phenomenon of cognitive loss, of cognitive transfer. We’re only beginning to realise the extent to which we have allowed education to be fundamentally undermined for an entire generation.
“It’s time to seize that now and engage it. I’m not sure that the classic understanding of the human right to education is particularly well-framed for this extraordinary development.”
In a discussion on different countries’ regulatory approach to AI, Suresh Venkatasubramanian, professor at Brown University and former AI advisor to US President Joe Biden, argued that AI systems should not be treated as inevitable developments beyond human control. “We continue, I think, to talk about AI as a thing that emerged out of nowhere that we just have to deal with,” he said. “We forget that these aren’t coming from an alien planet and they were built by entities that choose to build them in a certain way.” He called for pressure on technology companies to make different choices about how AI systems are developed.
Questions of accountability also emerged during discussions about AI’s potential to improve access to justice. Research presented by Philippa Webb said that only 10% of people who have access to a lawyer can get one while there are thousands of bookings for an interpreter in a court covering 150 languages. However, this progress is not cemented as “general-purpose chatbots hallucinate 58% of the time on a legal task”. The use of AI in moderating legal proceedings raised fundamental questions about humanity and authority. Thompson Chengeta from Liverpool John Moores University said that “human rights is the last line of defence so when we say we want a human rights based governance… human rights is not an idea, it is an obligation. There is a gap that can only be recovered by a legally binding instrument”.
The event culminated in a panel offering an industry perspective. Co-host Dr Caroline Emmer De Albuquerque Green questioned representatives from Meta, Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI. Michael Karimian, who works in digital diplomacy at Microsoft, discussed the role of private sectors in engaging with AI, defining corporate responsibility as something which “provides transparency and identified risks”.
All companies supported having formal programmes to ensure that they have an AI policy in place. Within their own companies, they suggested protective measures such as specialised training to ensure that policies, such as whistleblowing, are understood. Alexandria Walden from Google described how consultations with stakeholders could be used to identify when the product breached users’ boundaries. These assessments, according to OpenAI’s spokesperson, “feedback into tangible technical input” and “benchmark it”.
Fundamentally, understanding the rationale behind human rights is imperative, though lacking. Alexandria Walden from Google said: “Whether or not they understand human rights, they care enough to infuse it in their company… we might not always get it right, but it is something we care about.”
Where former panels discussed controls to ensure human rights are considered in the development and implementation of AI products, this panel focused on mitigation. A spokesperson from Google pointed out that technology is inevitably going to move faster, so multiple tools are needed. Companies, OpenAI’s representative noted, still encounter issues such as discrimination and free speech. Consequently, they regard this as an additional policy which companies have a structured model to deal with, but newer companies, and newer industries, haven’t learnt it yet.
In her concluding remarks, Green called for policy makers to “make the abstract actionable” at both governmental and corporate levels. She argued that, by framing the issues posed by AI as human rights issues, we gain a “foundation” for recognising AI’s many societal impacts.
Student Life
Oxford University launches Ebola vaccine trial in Uganda
Ugandan participants in a clinical safety study received an Oxford developed Ebola vaccine this week.
Researchers vaccinated the first participants on 6th October in Masaka, Uganda. The phase follows the launch of a first-in-human Phase I trial in the UK evaluating the same vaccine candidate.
They received the vaccine as part of an evaluation of the safety and efficacy of a ChAdOx-based Bundibugyo Ebola vaccine candidate developed by the Oxford Vaccine Group (OVG) and the Pandemic Sciences Institute at the University of Oxford.
Development for this vaccine began in May this year in response to the ongoing Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The research, led by OVG’s Professor Teresa Lambe and Professor Simon Drysdale, is funded by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). No licenced vaccine for the Bundibugyo strain of Ebola virus currently exists.
In a statement to Cherwell, OVG said its involvement includes collaborating with the Ugandan research team to support “the study’s scientific design, clinical trial coordination, safety oversight, and evaluation of vaccine safety and immunogenicity”. The Phase I clinical trial addresses a rare strain of Ebola virus affecting communities in the DRC since May. The phase is a collaboration between the Medical Research Council/ Uganda Virus Research Institute and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM).
Dr Nicole Lurie, CEPI’s Executive Director for Emergency Preparedness and Response, told Cherwell: “It [the Bundibugyo outbreak] remains the fastest-growing and second-largest Ebola outbreak ever recorded – and we currently remain without a licensed vaccine or treatment.” The Bundibugyo Ebola epidemic in the DRC has surpassed 8,600 cases, with almost half of infections proving fatal.
The outbreak was declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) by the World Health Organisation (WHO) in May.
OVG told Cherwell: “For more than a decade, the University of Oxford has performed many clinical trials of candidate viral-vectored vaccines. Some of the most promising vaccines used a modified chimpanzee adenovirus, a harmless version of a common cold virus. The Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) COVID-19 vaccine was approved for emergency use in the UK in December 2020 and was estimated to have saved six million lives during 2021 alone, and over 3 billion doses were used worldwide.” The adenovirus vector vaccine technology trialled in this study was successfully used worldwide as part of the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.
More funding is necessary to ensure the development and approval of the Ebola vaccine. Lurie told Cherwell: “Without sufficient additional funding, we are at risk of not being able to develop these promising vaccine candidates… CEPI urgently needs US$128M now to keep our Bundibugyo emergency R&D response moving. Without it, we are putting the DRC, and the world, at tremendous risk.”
-
Oxford united FC4 weeks agoChris Gunter steps away Wales role to focus on Oxford United
-
Oxford University3 weeks agoNew to the Oxford English Dictionary this September
-
Oxford united FC1 week agoLIVE: Exeter City vs Oxford United – Jersey Mike's Trophy group stage
-
Student Life3 weeks agoOxford partnership allows OpenAI to use rare Bodleian texts to train ChatGPT
-
Traffic & Transport2 weeks agoHow poor public transport policy is putting the brake on cities | Road transport
-
Traffic & Transport2 weeks agoWhy should I have to pay more for buses if I don’t use a smartphone? | Bus fares
-
Oxford united FC2 weeks agoNorthern Ireland fans laud Oxford United defender Ciaron Brown
-
Oxford united FC1 week agoOxford United lose to Exeter City on penalties in Jersey Mike’s Trophy
