Meltdown at the Oxford Union

The Abaraonye affair marks a spectacular low point in the history of Britain’s most famous debating society.

George Abaraonye (University of Oxford)

Harold Macmillan once described the Oxford Union as ‘the last bastion of free speech’. Perhaps this remark made sense when it was uttered back in the 1960s, but it reads today more like a mordant quip. The recent furore over George Abaraonye, the president elect, has all but obliterated the union’s credibility.

Everything we know about Abaraonye tells us that he is profoundly unqualified to lead such an institution. He openly celebrated the shooting of Charlie Kirk, posting on his Instagram account: ‘Charlie Kirk got shot loool’. In a WhatsApp group, he wrote: ‘Charlie Kirk got shot, let’s fucking go’, ‘Scoreboard FM’ and ‘It really writes itself, doesn’t it’ in response to a fellow student’s comment that ‘He was pro guns LMFAO’. This was in spite of the fact that Abaraonye had met Kirk in person only a few months previously, shaken his hand, and debated him in the chamber.

Such musteline behaviour tells us that this is not a man of strong character, but more objectionable still are his attempts at back-pedalling. Abaraonye might at least have acknowledged that it was a hot-headed moment in which he was childishly attempting to be edgy for his friends. But unable to muster the courage to take responsibility for his own words, he instead attempted to blame the victim, saying that his reaction was ‘shaped by the context of Mr Kirk’s own rhetoric’ and ‘My words were no less insensitive than his – arguably less so’.

Abaraonye has claimed that he has been on the receiving end of racist abuse and threats. I don’t doubt it. Any story that trends online to this extent will attract its share of trolls who have nothing but bile to add to the conversation. But Abaraonye should also be mature enough to acknowledge that the vast majority of his detractors are not in the least part motivated by racism and would be just as critical had the president elect been white.

But no. When he called the vote of no confidence in himself – a move described by Adrian Hilton in The Spectator as ‘sly’ and an effort to convey a desire for accountability in the guise of ‘false virtue’ – Abaraonye issued the following statement:

‘This is a chance for us to stand against the racism of the far right, and to stand up for the principles the Union has championed for 200 years. Two centuries later, the same people who claim to believe in the Union are now acting in stark opposition to the Union’s founding principles, by supporting a campaign of harassment, censorship and abuse. We will not be silenced.’

This attempt to position himself as a martyr confirms that he was never fit to be president of the Union. It is purest DARVO (Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender). In celebrating the murder of his political opponent, it is quite clearly Abaraonye who has acted ‘in stark opposition to the Union’s founding principles’. Nobody is justifying any of the abuse he has been subjected to, all of which must be condemned, but to take these outliers as somehow representative of his critics is dishonest in the extreme.

The drama hasn’t ended there. Abaraonye evidently believed that he could mobilise his supporters to win the no confidence vote, but he had not anticipated that it would be opened up to life members. The Spectator has reported that Abaraonye and his supporters then ‘moved a revenge motion of no confidence in the current president, Moosa Harraj, for allowing alumni to vote on Saturday’. Worse still, there have been allegations that the returning officer was subjected to intimidation and so the voting process was temporarily suspended.

In spite of these plot twists, the final result was conclusive. 1,228 voted in favour of the no confidence motion and 501 against (with 17 ballots spoilt). This met the required threshold of a two-thirds majority, and the motion has been carried. This amounts to an effective resignation by Abaraonye, but inevitably he is now contesting the result. He simply cannot accept that his conduct has undermined his legitimacy as president of the Oxford Union. He would apparently much rather hold firm to the delusional belief that this is a plot by the ‘far right’. The entitlement is off the scale.

As I have argued previously, it is simply unfeasible for a man who delights in the assassination of his political opponents to lead an organisation whose entire existence is predicated on the sanctity of free speech. Irrespective of the blindingly obvious incompatibility – somewhat akin to Ayatollah Khamenei taking charge of a synagogue – the Union has seen six-figure donations from alumni put on hold, and dozens of speakers cancelling their forthcoming appearances. This is simply not sustainable.

Abaraonye’s narcissistic inability to reflect on his own poor judgement is one thing, but perhaps the more pressing question is why such an individual would be lauded by his peers and elevated to such a prominent position in the first place. This entire carnival adds credence to the view that the prestigious institutions of higher education have become corrupted. Many students have succumbed to an ideological obsession with group identity over academic standards, an infantile conviction that ‘words are violence’, and are determined to live in an atmosphere of strict viewpoint conformity.

In such circumstances, perhaps the very notion of a renowned debating chamber that exists to promote the marketplace of ideas has become obsolete. If the Oxford Union was once ‘the last bastion of free speech,’ its ramparts now seem to have crumbled beyond repair.

---