The Oxford Union was never about free speech

A private members’ club audacious enough to promote itself as the “last bastion of free speech”, the Oxford Union is the embodiment of Oxford exclusivity and elitism. Founded by a group of young white men in 1823, the Union’s self-professed object is to encourage rigorous debate, often about some of the most controversial topics of the moment. It occupies a bizarre space between the University and the public, affiliated to neither and mediating between both.

Though times have changed since the founding of the Union, its atmosphere and attitude remain outdated. Yes, there have been recent statements of the Union’s commitment to inclusion – such as its 2022 Policy on Equality, Diversity, Accessibility and Inclusion, which outlines the Union’s aim “to be an open, diverse, accessible and inclusive society in which all who meet the criteria for membership feel welcome irrespective of their legally protected characteristics or socio-economic background”. But words on a page can only do so much to eradicate a culture which has been compounding itself for 200 years, what with its extensive list of alumni Prime Ministers, mostly men, mostly white. Whatever provisions may be in place, the fact of the matter is the reputation and culture that are recognised as part and parcel of the Union. The stereotypes do the work of keeping underprivileged and underrepresented students well away, and discounted lifetime membership is by no means a panacea to this issue.

The image persists of the card-carrying Union member as a rich, self-righteous white man, waving the flag of free speech with a hand adorned in signet rings. But, in fairness, as part of their accessibility plan, the Oxford Union Society’s discounted membership for those from underprivileged economic backgrounds does max out at £137 off the full-priced lifetime membership, which currently stands at a hefty £343. As an independent society that receives no University funding, it is understandable that membership fees play a necessary role in sustaining its buildings, events, and speaker programme. However, despite these initiatives, the price of membership at all begs the question: how far can anyone be said to represent the virtue of free speech if this “free” speech is locked behind a paywall? Especially given the funds the Union is consistently able to raise through private room hire, social events, and termly balls. The numbers don’t matter, it’s the principle. This pompous attitude of self-aggrandisement is what many of us see behind the slogans, hacks, and prestige.

Even the concept of lifetime membership alone is enough to deter some from feeling that they have a place at the Union. Who is a lifetime membership really for? Lowly undergraduates who will return to the site of the Union for the sheer love of debate? Or is it for those students who go on to be the Boris Johnsons, Tony Blairs, or even the W. H. Audens of the future? Policymakers, famous faces, the rich. People who the Union can thrust forward as part of their longstanding historical tradition of prestige. Or, perhaps it is for those residential members, a token gesture to people who actually live in Oxfordshire but aren’t Oxford University students. But don’t be fooled, this isn’t a heart-warming gesture of solidarity with the general public. In the Union’s words, “Any person resident in or near Oxford whose admission would, in the opinion of the Standing Committee, benefit the Society, shall be eligible for election as a Residential Member”. However, to put it more bluntly, these memberships have to be approved, candidates have to be interviewed, and the number of residential memberships is capped annually at 100.

I found all the information here whilst reading through the Union’s 228 page rule document. Some of my favourite rules include Rule 5 (b), which orders that “Membership Cards shall remain the property of the Society”, and “All Members shall carry the Society’s Membership Card or other approved proof of their membership on their person whilst in the Society’s Buildings”. Another is Standing Order E3 (e), which reads “No poster or notice which is not an official Union publication shall be affixed to any wall, window, door, or similar structure in the Society’s Buildings, except with express permission of the President”. Ah, free speech. 

Whilst lingering on this topic of free speech, it might be worth considering who this free speech was originally for. The Oxford Union was founded in 1823, nine years before the 1832 Reform Act, which extended the British franchise to middle-class, propertied men. 1935 marked the year in which women obtained “Third Class membership” to the Oxford Union, allowing them the generous privilege of coming to the Union for tea if they so desired. It wouldn’t be until 1963 that there was a woman who was a full member of the Oxford Union, namely Judith Okely, who went on to become an anthropologist. However, there were notable examples of Union women who served careers in public office, such as former Union president Benazir Bhutto, who became Pakistan’s first female Prime Minister, and the Union’s first female Asian president. Recent presidents and officers have come from a broad range of backgrounds, including the current Oxford Union president, Arwa Elrayess, who has made history herself by being the first Palestinian, first Algerian, and first Arab woman to be president. While these are excellent, positive strides forward for the institution, they beg the question: why are such things still news in 2026? The Oxford Union itself was quite literally not built for most of us. And it seems to me that it is not for most of us still.

Whoever has been most unfortunate enough to encounter Union hacks barricading St Michael’s Street before elections will have surely noted both the demographic, and attitude, of the members representing the Union to University students. A friend of mine was passing down this street when one such member accosted her, questioning what she was even doing on St Michael’s if she wasn’t going to the Union. Still furthering this atmosphere of exclusivity and elitism is the sort of gated community the Oxford Union buildings themselves impress – with parties continuing well into the morning, blaring music, members making a raucous that can only be heard and not seen behind the tall barred gates. And so this idea persists, then, of the Oxford Union as loud, unabashed, and self-important, supposedly contained within its own four walls yet leaking out into Oxford society at large. 

In quite stark contrast to this is the Oxford Students’ Union, an institution which is frequently misconceived as one and the same as The Oxford Union Society. One might be forgiven for this mistake, granted the national media coverage of the Oxford Union, or even the inclusion of ‘Union’ in its title. While the Oxford Union’s purpose is to provide a forum for debate and discussion rather than to act as a representative body for students, even official bodies like Wadham Student Union are quick to iron out the popular misconception between the two institutions in the first sentence of their ‘short guide’ to the University-wide SU. Likewise, at the top of the Oxford University Student Union Wikipedia page, in italics it reads “Not to be confused with Oxford Union”, with a link to the debating society’s own page.  This begs the question: are we, as Oxford University students, united by the Oxford Union? It seems quite obvious that one of these Unions is not quite as interested in the University’s students as the other. 

This contrast can be summed up quite neatly by comparing the opening sentences of each institution’s ‘About Us’ section of their website. The Students’ Union proposes a clear aim of working for and in the interests of Oxford University students: “We exist to represent students’ academic interests, not just for better outcomes, but for a better, more equitable University experience”. The Oxford Union, on the other hand, introduces itself as “the world’s most prestigious debating society with a tradition of hosting internationally prominent individuals across politics, academia, and popular culture”. Perhaps it would be more fitting for the Oxford Union Society to drop the ‘Union’ from its title. I think ‘The Oxford Society’ gives an accurate enough depiction – although only if we are understanding ‘society’ in the Edwardian sense.

A pompous culture rooted in a history of exclusivity, whiteness, maleness, and richness keeps many at arm’s length from the Oxford Union. Locked behind a membership, distinct from both the University and from the public, it begs the question: who is the Union for? The answer, for now, can only be: for itself.