Lord Mendoza, Provost of Oriel College, confirmed that Nathan Cofnas’ event at Oriel will go ahead at today’s Extraordinary SU Conference of Common Rooms (CCR).
At the meeting, JCR and MCR representatives questioned Mendoza, alongside the Proctors’ Office Clerk Gillain Hamnett and the University of Oxford’s Chief Diversity Officer Tim Soutphommasane. Speaking on Oriel’s involvement in the event, Mendoza stated: “we want to live up to our statutory duty to protect free speech – free speech for the event and those to protest it.”
Mendoza also confirmed that the location of the event in Oriel has been changed to protect students.
Representatives from JCRs and MCRs as well as the SU representatives also debated a motion proposed by St Catherine’s College’s MCR president Xiangyue Wang, entitled: “No Hate Speech at Oxford”.
The proposed motion calls for a statement to be issued by the SU, pending voting from college representatives which is due to end tomorrow.
Further proposals include mandating the SU to spend £1,000 on diversity initiatives this term, for SU officers to ask the University’s proctors to attend the event in case of speech violating the 2010 Equality Act, and to support an independent review of the risk assessment and approval process for the event.
In the Q&A, students raised concerns that the content of Cofnas’s talk would not be lawful and could amount to harassment. The Ghent University academic is controversial for his role in publicising plagiarism allegations into Professor Jason Arday this July. Arday, who denied these allegations, resigned from Cambridge following media scrutiny and was later found dead.
The proposed motion notes that Nathan Cofnas is a self-described “race realist” who has previously said that without DEI (Diversity Equity and Inclusion), the number of black professors at Harvard would “approach 0%”.
One student asked whether the University considered race science and Eugenics an incitement to racial hatred. Soutphommasane responded by highlighting the University’s need to take students “in good faith” regarding the content of the events they plan to hold. Cofnas’s talk is publicised as a talk on whether DEI is “undermining higher education”.
Soutphommasane said: “I can tell you, as Chief Diversity Officer, these are questions I deal with every day. Having a debate with DEI is something that is not off limits for debate. I have to engage in these debates every day as a part of my job.”
A representative from St Antony’s College responded saying “it seems disingenuous to give [the speaker] the most generous benefit of the doubt given the broad range of things that could be said under the title [of the debate].”
Mendoza acknowledged the public outcry to cancel the event from students and staff across Oxford, saying “we don’t particularly want what, at best you might call a ‘controversial lecture’.
But free speech guidance is clear. However enraged you might feel, however much you might feel something will damage the reputation of the institution. All this guidance is irrelevant when it comes to the protection of free speech.” He confirmed that the College has consulted lawyers who unanimously maintain that “the event must go ahead”.
The speakers continually highlighted the duties placed on the University by the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. Following the implementation of the Act last year, both the University and Oriel have updated their Codes of Practice on freedom of speech to reflect the stronger legislative duty to protect lawful speech.
Under the Act, Universities and their constituent institutions, such as Oxford colleges, can be reported to a new Office for Students complaints scheme if they fail to protect the freedom of speech rights of visiting speakers and staff. The complaints scheme has the power to issue fines and mandate compensation to those affected.
Oriel’s new Code states that freedom of speech must be “robustly protected” and that cancellation of events is “undesirable and should be exceptional”. The code accepts that this means students will be “confronted with views that some find shocking, disturbing or offensive”. Mendoza also said that the code will likely be reviewed after the event, but that the policy is unlikely to change.
“This is a very serious moment for Oxford and its colleges,” Mendoza said. “This is not something we looked to take on, but we are fulfilling our duty. We are pleased to be an organisation that wants to protect freedom of speech.” He also noted Oriel’s strong support for DEI initiatives and its outreach work.
Hamenett confirmed that the Proctors are conducting an ongoing risk assessment to ensure the safety of students at the event. She said that society events are not approved in advance by Proctors and can only be cancelled by them pending a risk assessment assessing whether it is “safe and lawful”.
A representative from Nuffield College asked how the event could be approved if the assessment is still live. Hamnett said that the current situation is ongoing and “dynamic”, reassuring that there will be a cut-off period but “the decision, at the moment, is that nothing has come to light that would mean the event would be cancelled”.
St Catz MCR’s proposed No Hate Speech motion calls for the presence of the University’s Proctors or another independent supervisor at the event to monitor the event for speech potentially violating the 2010 Equality Act. Hamnett confirmed that the Proctor’s security officers, commonly referred to as “bulldogs”, would be at the event.
The CCR President, Roxana Rusu, explained that involving an independent body to supervise is “really crucial” and “something that we are really pushing for”.
Student representatives raised concerns about the Proctors’ role in the event, with one stating that “mitigations don’t make an event safe” and it is “disingenuous to say that this event is safe because the proctors are getting involved”.
Rusu explained that the Extraordinary CCR was called to ensure that measures decided at the meeting could be implemented as quickly as possible. “While we can only work with the structures we have previously,” she said “we really want to change them for the future, for the better”.
Oxford’s Reform society has previously defended the invitation on social media, noting: “since we are a student society registered with Oxford University, constituent colleges of the University are under a legal obligation to host events like ours by virtue of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023”. The statement goes on to say “Reform society is committed to hosting Nathan Cofnas, and allowing attendees at the event to engage in respectful dialogue with the same.”
The Free Speech Union has encouraged members to send emails congratulating Mendoza and Oriel for “standing firm” and for its “excellent” code of practice on free speech.
Common Room Presidents will be voting on the motion in the next 24 hours. If the motion is passed, a statement is expected to be issued tomorrow.
