By the time this is published, two full weeks will have passed since Oxford University issued an urgent communication to its members. The email expressed a deep and justified worry for students and staff “particularly affected” by racism and Islamophobia. The university’s stance against “racism, discrimination, or abuse,” was clear, “regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity”, and none other than the vice-chancellor signed off on it.
Yet, after the events of last year, this communication rang hollow. It felt like a cruel joke at the expense of Jewish students.
This last academic year, which started just two days after October 7, was marred by a climate of racial abuse and discriminatory behaviour directed at Jews. You could witness it in classrooms, where Israeli students were subjected to invasive interrogations by professors in front of their peers simply because of their nationality.
It was evident in student groups, where a student declared they “refuse to sit with Zionists”, a thinly veiled euphemism for Jews. It surfaced in colleges, where a mob mentality took hold, targeting Jewish students who dared to voice their concerns over motions laced with antisemitic undertones – which passed with little resistance.
And let’s not forget the faculty members who could barely contain their pride over Hamas’ violent actions, or the welfare officers who blamed Jewish students for feeling abused when they were called Nazis.
Some of these incidents were documented in an open letter to the university’s administration, which contains more than 100 instances of antisemitic behaviour.
But what the public may not realise is just how deeply ingrained racial bias is within that administration – a bias made glaringly obvious by the so-called “urgent” communication.
First, while the university has issued sporadic and vague statements condemning antisemitism, neither in official communications nor in its interactions has ever acknowledged the sharp and sudden rise in antisemitic rhetoric and behaviour at Oxford.
Imagine enduring an entire academic year in which Jewish students are openly targeted at other prestigious institutions – including your own – without a single word from your university acknowledging the prevalence or severity of the issue.
Second, even in those vague statements condemning antisemitism, whether in official letters about protests or about the war, it was never given the space to stand alone. Unlike the communication regarding the riots, antisemitism was always bundled together with Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian discrimination.
Anti-Israeli discrimination, which reached extreme levels throughout the year, wasn’t even acknowledged.
Despite this year marking a new high for antisemitism, the university only agreed to consider adding a few sentences about the issue, and even then, only if paired with mentions of Islamophobia and other forms of racism.
The university’s unwillingness to acknowledge antisemitism as a standalone problem renders its Jewish members invisible. Unlike Muslims, LGBTQIA+ individuals, women, and people of colour – groups that Oxford has rightfully supported – Jews received no such recognition or protection.
For a generation that has seen numerous vulnerable groups gain the acknowledgment and the institutional safeguards they deserve, it’s nothing short of an insult to witness your own community being denied even the most basic level of care and consideration.
Finally, note the swiftness with which the university issued its statement concerning the far-right riots – just a couple of days after they broke out. Meanwhile, Jewish university members spent an entire year advocating, attending weekly meetings, sending endless emails, compiling reports, filing petitions, investigating incidents, and writing open letters, to plead for help. None was forthcoming.
It’s worth keeping in mind that the communication regarding the riots was issued in response to events that occurred entirely outside the university’s context – and, as acknowledged in the email itself, beyond the boundaries of Oxfordshire.
Yet, when Jews were physically attacked in London or when their businesses were vandalised, the university remained silent. Even when incidents took place within Oxford itself but outside the campus, the university chose to stay quiet. For example, when a student group invited a speaker who openly praised terror attacks against Jews, when a student had their mezuzah torn from their front door, or when stickers bearing the phrase “by any means” alongside the image of Hamas paragliders from 7/10 appeared on campus streets. Given this track record, it is even more outrageous that, in the face of daily antisemitic abuse within Oxford’s own walls, an entire year has passed without so much as a specific message of support for Jews.
For an entire year, senior administrators conspicuously avoided showing any concern for a vulnerable minority that was openly subjected to relentless abuse.
Proctors either ignored or outright dismissed attempts to report antisemitic incidents, and knowingly exposed students to victimisation by their abusers.
Heads of houses were fully aware of the festering antisemitism simmering bellow their college offices yet did nothing. Everyone knew, but no one felt compelled to act.
Between those who hurled daily abuse at Jewish students and openly celebrated or justified acts of mass murder in classrooms, and those who stood by, refusing to intervene to guarantee their students’ safety and equality, we were left alone.
The university’s policy of safeguarding its members “regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity” is hypocritical when it comes to protecting Jews. Worse still, by ignoring the issue, the administration inadvertently fosters even more antisemitic behaviour.
On August 14, Vernon Bogdanor penned an article for the JC titled “If Jewish students wanted to sue Oxford, they’d have a strong case.”
We do have the strongest of cases. But all we ever wanted was to be scholars, researchers, students. Unfortunately, Oxford seems determined to deny us even that.
The author, a Jewish student at Oxford, has chosen to remain anonymous out of concern for potential repercussions
