A change to Oxford University Rowing Clubs’ (OURCs) Rules of Racing means that only athletes assigned female at birth may now row in a Women’s boat. This applies to boats entered in both inter-collegiate and university-level competitions. 

Several student boat club captains have condemned the new rule change, made on 26th April. OURC’s Captain’s Meeting minutes highlight that issues were raised about the process for verifying athletes’ gender identity, with students particularly raising privacy concerns: under the new rule, claims could be brought against athletes regarding gender verification. To bring a claim against an athlete, complainants would be required to submit evidence, likely involving private information about the complainee, to OURCs, where findings could be seen as ‘outing’ individuals. 

Towards the close of the Captain’s Meeting, an informal vote was proposed to gauge support for the changes to the Rules of Racing. Forty-nine votes were cast against the new rules, whilst only one vote was cast in their favour. Five of those present abstained from voting. Another informal vote asked captains whether they were comfortable competing in an event under the newly imposed rules. Twenty-four votes were cast against this informal motion, with only eight votes in favour of competing under the new rules.

Multiple boat clubs have since released official statements opposing the rule change. In a statement on Instagram, Wadham College Boat Club described the changes as “disproportionate, discriminatory, and impossible to enforce”, adding that they will continue “to fight for the previous rules to be reinstated”. Somerville College Boat Club similarly wrote that they were “deeply saddened by the recent rule change… which threatens our long-standing values of inclusivity and friendship”. Multiple students also told Cherwell of plans that Somerville Boat Club has to encourage all colleges to wear LGBTQ+ wristbands at this term’s Summer VIIIs, the University’s four-day intercollegiate regatta.

The rule change has also faced strong backlash from Oxford’s broader student body. On Instagram, the President of Oxford University LGBTQ+ Society has released a statement on the topic: “I am personally investigating the matter, and it is my top priority to resolve it by whatever means necessary.” The President also told Cherwell that “no contact was made with OULGBTQ+ prior to the change” with all meetings held “after the change was decided”. The President, who also holds the part-time role of LGBTQ+ Officer at the Student Union (SU), was not contacted in their SU capacity either. 

However, a University spokesperson told Cherwell: “The University has met with and engaged with the LGBTQ reps several times throughout the process to facilitate boat clubs meeting their obligations in relation to law & governing body requirements.” They did not specify that these consultations occurred prior to the change. 

Ahead of Summer VIIIs, Oxford University Rowing Clubs have been required by the University to align their policy on competitive eligibility with British Rowing, after previously only being encouraged to do so: in an update to University policy, introduced on 16th March 2026, the Director of Sport informed OURCs via letter that University policy now required clubs to align with NGB policy and asked that OURCs comply as soon as was practically possible.

Whilst OURCs has been aware of its requirement to update the Rules of Racing to align with national guidance as soon as practically possible, following a letter from the Director of Sport on 16th March 2026, the Captain’s Meeting minutes state that there had been an internal understanding between OURCs and Sports Federation that, should any changes be made, they would be done at the end of the academic year, after the competitive season was over. However, on 24th March onwards, a deadline for the rule change of 31st March was communicated to OURCs by the OURCs Senior Member, on behalf of the Proctors and Pro-Vice Chancellor for Sport. 

Given a number of OURCs’ constitutional clauses, holding that OURCs is bound to organise inter-college rowing competitions, conduct all activities in line with University equality policies, and conduct events within the bounds of conditions that the Proctors attach to the running of the event, OURCs has been required to make the rule change to fulfil its constitutional objectives. Summer VIIIs could not proceed without compliance with the rule change, given the club’s reliance upon the insurance provided by the University for the event. 

Subsequently, OURCs introduced a new power in the Constitution, authorised by the Proctors, permitting the Director of Sport to require changes to the Oxford University Rowing Clubs (OURCs) rules in compliance with the University of Oxford’s Diversity and Inclusion policy. OURCs is a student-run organisation which serves as a federation for the Oxford University Boat Club (OUBC) and all 36 Oxford college boat clubs.

Since September 2023, British Rowing policy has been that only people who are assigned female at birth will be eligible to compete in the Women’s category, whilst trans, non-binary, and all other individuals will be eligible to compete in the Open category.

Previously, OURCs’ Rules of Racing stated that, “trans people should be permitted to participate in their affirmed gender identity” at “less competitive levels”, including college-level rowing. Since January 2019, OURCs has allowed for self-identification in all divisions of Torpids and Summer VIIIs. 

On 8th October 2025, the Sports Federation updated its eligibility guidance, mirroring Cambridge University’s guidance update in September 2025, to advise sports clubs to align their Trans eligibility policies with their relevant National Governing Body. At this time, OURCs chose to delay alignment as British Rowing’s policies, which were (and remain) under review. This was possible as OURCs events are not run under the auspices of British Rowing. 

From this point on, Cambridge University Boat Club required oarspersons to self-declare their gender identification to their Captain before entering any Women’s Crew or Mixed Crew into a CUCBC event. If they did not meet British Rowing Women’s Category eligibility criteria from British Rowing’s “Trans and Non-Binary Competition Eligibility Policy and Procedures”, their captain must amend their entry to an event before its first heat (including the Getting on Race), removing and replacing any individuals who have declared that they are not eligible. This rule remains under review in accordance with British Rowing’s policy. According to minutes from the Oxford Captains’ Meeting, “it was made clear…that there was no choice but to comply with the request [made by the University to change the rule, in line with national guidance] and that failure to do so would result in OURCs’ deregistration as a University sports club and inability to run competitions, effective immediately”.

British Rowing’s policy claims that it is fully committed to “ensur[ing] Trans people can continue their participation in rowing whilst and after transitioning”. Their 2023 Competition Eligibility and Procedures policy, now being enforced by Oxford University Rowing Clubs, proposed two categories alongside the Women’s: an Open Category, where all individuals are eligible to compete, and a Mixed category, offered at any level of competition, providing 50% of the crew are eligible from the women’s category stated above. British Rowing encourages trans and non-binary participants to take part in “recreational activity” (non-competing) in the gender they identify as. 

Above college-level rowing, decisions regarding athlete qualification for Varsity competitions have previously been handled on a case-by-case basis, with joint input from both Oxford and Cambridge Directors of Sport. Registered University sports clubs and colleges’ sport organising committees are required to align their policies with the approach and criteria used by the relevant National Governing Body, including British Rowing, when considering the eligibility of transgender athletes.

The Student Union has stressed that it is essential that the University create an environment where all individuals “regardless of their gender identity, expression or sexual orientation, feel safe, welcome, and empowered to participate in sports and physical activities”.
A spokesperson for the University told Cherwell that it “remains committed to being an inclusive university”. The spokesperson also added that regarding competitive sports, “registered sports clubs and committees are required to follow the policies and eligibility criteria set by the relevant national governing body” as “this is necessary to ensure alignment with competition frameworks as well as compliance with the law”.

The Oxford Union has regularly been the subject of public outrage. From the 1933 ‘King and Country’ debate, upon which the Union, now, regularly looks back with pride, to the fracas surrounding a former presidential candidate’s comments on Charlie Kirk’s assassination, its financial model rests primarily upon attracting attention, an exchange of its establishment credibility and reputation in return for the heady fumes of public prominence. It is on those fumes that YouTube revenues and each year’s membership drives rest. So there is nothing particularly objectionable about the Union seeking speakers who will ignite that public debate and draw that attention, an even harder task in the modern media landscape.

However, with its invitations to controversial YouTuber and former UKIP candidate, Carl Benjamin, and to EDL founder and former BNP member Tommy Robinson, the Union has crossed a line. Benjamin’s invite has now been rescinded, but to invite one of Britain’s leading reactionaries, opposed to both feminism and Islam, to the Union would do nothing more than give him a chance to air his long-held views and gain credibility off the Union’s back. It took Benjamin five years to apologise to Jess Philips, an MP who has been a vocal campaigner against violence against women and girls, for saying he “wouldn’t even rape her”. This is definitive evidence that he is not some right-wing thinker or campaigner, but a provocateur of the lowest order, willing to sacrifice the well-being of others for the advancement of his own, narrow aims. Few have done more to promote the screed of anti-feminism online than his channel, Sargon of Akkad, and at a time when Oxbridge faces a reckoning with its own failure to protect students, his presence was nothing but a detriment to the University – sparking outcry from a number of student societies and organisations.

When contacted for comment, Carl Benjamin stated that, “my views are nothing more than the common-sense views of the average Englishman,” and that he, “appreciate[s] the flattery of the radicals who oppose me”. 

The invitation of Tommy Robinson – which still stands at the time of writing – is even more worrying. Again, like Benjamin, Robinson has been part of the steadily increasing right-wing extremist movement in this country, often targeting Muslims and immigrant communities. His rap sheet of criminal offences is long, and he was a prominent figure in the ‘Unite the Kingdom’ rally held last year, where Elon Musk spoke, saying: “Violence is coming,” and “you either fight, or you die”. This came after 2024’s protests in the wake of the Southport stabbings, for which Robinson publicly blamed immigrant and Muslim communities. His list of political affiliations is a who’s-who of the far right in the UK, from the BNP to UKIP, and now Advance UK. 

As I said earlier, there is nothing inherently wrong with the Union inviting right-wing or controversial figures; it is both how it has always functioned and how attention is captured. But there seems to be a double standard playing out in British public life, which the Union, as a centre of elite opinion, perpetrates. These extremist right-wingers, who actively promote violence against individuals and whole groups of people, are welcomed into these spaces with little challenge. Comparative figures on the left, or those who might actively challenge them, draw less attention; they don’t bring the same viewer counts and challenge the underlying social structures that maintain privilege. They were happy in 2007 to welcome Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP, and David Irving, one of the UK’s most notorious Holocaust deniers, and are more than happy to roll out the red carpet again.

These rightwingers are accepted into respectable institutions like the Union and given the thin sheen of legitimacy under the guise of ‘debate’. Anyone who has watched a Union debate knows there is little chance of these men experiencing a Damascene conversion on the Union’s benches and repenting for their wrongs, or genuinely engaging with the arguments put against them. They are simply there to spout their normal lines, receive polite applause from the besuited ranks of Oxford’s students, and further their dangerous, damaging campaigns.

It might be argued that they are simply speaking into the void – that there is no need for the student body, or wider public, to consider what they say as anything serious. But history would disagree with this blase stance, which could only be held by someone who hasn’t been targeted by these groups. Just a year ago, Robinson whipped up right-wing fury to attack hotels holding asylum seekers, inspiring a broader climate of fear for the UK’s BAME communities. Robinson founded the EDL, the spiritual successor to the National Front that terrorised Black and Asian communities in the 1970s and 1980s.

My own family were harassed by the National Front, my grandfather knocked to the ground whilst out shopping with family. The Union might be a forum of free speech, but this self-serving gratification serves only to deny that it has any role in defining the boundaries of debate in a respectable society. To the Union, the lives of working-class communities, of BAME communities, are fair game for a debate, for something to list on their executives’ CVs.

In a decade, they will likely not remember the debate, but those who have to shelter at home, afraid of the baying mobs on the street, or who feel like they have committed a crime simply by being born with a skin tone below sepia, will remember. Our increasingly fractious and divided society will remember, as institutions like the Union make it clear that if you are a minority of any stripe, they don’t think you matter. Their wellbeing, your livelihoods, can and will be sacrificed for views, for cash, for attention.

Formula One – F1 – is widely regarded as the pinnacle of motorsport, 22 feats of technical excellence racing around the world as drivers push their cars to the limit in pursuit of glory.

At least, that’s what F1 is supposed to be. Under the 2026 technical regulations, however, the sport has turned into a game of Mario Kart, with push-to-pass overtakes, computer programming deciding the outcome of qualifying, and teams turning to the age-old technical trick of ‘switching it off and on again’ when things go wrong.

It would be an understatement to say fans are divided on the new regulations. Even before the season began in Australia, there were concerns about the quality of the overtaking, the sound of the cars, and whether these regulations upheld ‘true’ racing.

And the ‘hybrid’ part is pertinent, as although F1 cars have had electrical boost since 2016 (the ‘turbo-hybrid era’), the 2026 regulations brought radical changes to the power unit. The removal of the MGU-H (a battery component which harvested power from the turbo) and the switch to a 50-50 split between electrical and internal combustion power meant a rethink of the way F1 operates, prompted by a desire to make F1 more sustainable.

Changes to a sport people love are never uncontroversial; imagine how football fans would feel if suddenly teams could score half goals. Historically, any changes to F1’s technical regulations (particularly concerning engines) have never gone down well. 

When V10s were abandoned, F1 fans missed the noise. When the V8 was swapped for the V6 hybrid engines, fans complained about Mercedes’ dominance. Similar complaints are being made now, but the concerns with these regulations stretch far deeper than what noise the car makes (although this is a worry). 

Chief among the problems is the safety risks posed by the way the cars harvest power, with potentially massive differences in speed causing some terrifying accidents, as evidenced by Haas’ Ollie Bearman, who had a heavy crash at the Japanese Grand Prix when approaching the much slower Alpine of Franco Colapinto.

If one driver is entering a corner, lifting and coasting, and the car behind is using ‘overtake mode’, where drivers can push a button to unlock an extra +0.5MJ (Megajoules) of power, the closing speed can be monumental. This was noted by McLaren Team Principal Andreas Stella before the season began, but it has only now been widely noticed due to Bearman’s crash.

Another problem with the F1 regulations is the inauthenticity of the racing, due to the supposed ease of overtaking. Although superclipping – a method of recharging the battery –  is a technical necessity due to the importance of the battery, it has a noticeable impact on racing. Halfway down a straight section of track, there is an audible ‘clip’ to the sound produced by the car as it reduces its speed in order to harvest power.

This has been widely criticised by drivers, with McLaren’s Lando Norris saying, “It still hurts your soul when you see your speed dropping so much – 56 kph down the straight.” Fans are equally unimpressed. Forcing cars to slow down is the opposite of what the pinnacle of motorsport should be promoting.

The new technical regulations also allow overtakes far more easily than previously, with cars passing and repassing each other on the same lap. “Honestly, [during] some of the racing… I didn’t even want to overtake Lewis”, described Norris. It’s just that my battery deploys… I can’t control it. So, I overtake him, and then I have no battery left, so he just flies past. This is not racing, this is yo-yoing.” The idea that drivers are not entirely in control of their cars has produced a ‘computer says no’ racing, where driver inputs do not align with the preprogrammed engine settings and battery deployment, leading to the car doing the opposite of what the driver was expecting. Ferrari’s Charles Leclerc, for example, saw his sprint qualifying lap in China ruined by the engine switching on to a different setting due to Leclerc momentarily lifting off the throttle.

All this aside, we must appreciate that these regulations are an attempt to make Formula One more sustainable. It is no secret that motor racing is not the greenest sport in the world. Flying to 20+ countries to host a motor race is never going to be an environmentalist’s dream. Switching to biofuels and generating 50% of the car’s power from electricity is a step in the right direction. But these regulations are not only designed to protect the future of the planet, but also the future of the sport.

It may seem on the surface that F1 is doing extraordinarily well: Drive to Survive brought a wider fanbase, and the sport is more popular than ever. But, going into the 2026 season, F1 were facing a situation where there could be only two engine manufacturers (Mercedes and Ferrari) in the sport. The 2026 technical regulations were a compromise resulting from discussions between many engine manufacturers, from Honda to Porsche, to Audi and Ford, removing the costly MGU-H and making a raft of changes to encourage more manufacturers into the sport.

Such are the issues with the 2026 regulations that a summit of F1’s teams has been convened to discuss: this includes potential modifications to the rules to solve many of the problems outlined above, particularly those concerning safety. The primary solutions which have been suggested are changing the amount of energy which can be harvested through super-clipping: increasing this to the same amount as that which can be harvested through lifting and coasting, there would be no need to slow down prematurely, which would prevent the gap in closing speeds.

Alternatively, F1 and the FIA are considering reducing the amount of power which can be harvested entirely, bringing the level of harvesting down to 250kW or 200kW. Doing so would slow the cars down, raising the question as to whether fans would prefer slower, better racing, or faster cars, leading to racing that resembles the chaos of Mario Kart.

In a sport where speed is everything, the fact that F1’s governing body is even considering a move which would drastically slow cars down (with reports of this change adding a second per lap to drivers’ laptimes) shows how fundamentally flawed these regulations are. Drivers are unhappy, teams are unhappy, and, perhaps most concerningly for F1’s future, fans are unhappy.