At the close of Trinity, Oxford was shocked, if not surprised, to discover that Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA) hustings had been blighted by racist behaviour. The story made the national news, prompting swift condemnation by the national Conservative Party and the University. The proctors, quite rightly, banned OUCA (now OCA) from Freshers’ Fair, and denied them the right to use the University’s name.
The question then, is what exactly has prompted the national Conservative Party to open their doors to a group that, in an official context, made jokes about ‘niggers’ and ‘lynching’? A group in which candidates for high ranking positions were asked to tell ‘the most racist’ joke that they know?
Let us remind ourselves that the Conservative Party quite explicitly stated at the time that ‘people who behave in this disgusting and reprehensible way have no place in the Conservative Party.’
What possible changes have occurred in the last three months, during which the Association was, to all intents and purposes, entirely dormant, that have somehow made it advisable to reward them with the official endorsement of what will presumably be the next government?
The obvious response is that those particular members responsible have resigned from the Association. However, as Cherwell argued at the time, this is a totally inadequate response to the problem. Anyone with a remote understanding of the Conservative Association is aware that the scandal last term was not the result of the wayward actions of a few rogue members, but the product of an endemic culture of elitism and inappropriate behaviour. As members themselves remarked, the sort of horrifically inexcusable questions asked were the continuation of a ‘tradition.’
It is not that every member of the Conservative Association is so ‘traditional’, but even the briefest of scan of their recent history reveals that OCA have been embroiled, to varying extents, in scandals of this sort every year since 1999 bar one. Add to this the fact that the Tories have done this despite the existence of a reasonable alternative. A breakaway reform group intent on modernising the Association was in negotiations over the vacation, but has presumably been shunned by the national party.
It might be argued that oversight by the national party will prevent further instances of inappropriate behaviour. Certainly, in the short term, that seems like it might be the case. The Conservative Association is on very shaky ground as it is, despite the boost from re-affiliation. However, it remains to be seen if Conservative Future will have any meaningful control over day to day OCA activities. Will they be sitting in on port and policy? The event, incidentally, continues as usual at the Union after a meeting in which 35% of those attending declared themselves to be OUCA members.
Cherwell believes that it would have been prudent for the Tories to observe OCA in its new form before integrating it with Conservative Future. That is exactly what the University, which has experience of dealing with the Conservative Association, has decided to do.
As it is, a disgraced organisation that has brought Oxford into disrepute and cast us all in a negative light appears to have, as it has done year upon year, emerged unscathed, and indeed, rewarded by those in a position to make significant difference.
It is possible that OCA will be different from OUCA. However, constitutionally appending the Association to the national party is no guarantee, and should have been a consequence of, not a precursor to, meaningful change. As it is, OCA is composed of the same members, with the same secrecy (the executive committee still has to seek official approval to even talk to the press) and the same outdated port and policy style traditions. One can only hope it has higher standards of humour.
