Oxford Union Rejects Mandatory Pride Flag Policy During Pride Month.

[Social Media]

 

Oxford Union Rejects Mandatory Pride Flag Policy Amid Controversy and Backlash

 

The Oxford Union has stirred heated debate and public backlash after rejecting a proposal to reinstate the mandatory flying of the LGBT flag during Pride Month. The decision came after a secret ballot vote on May 5, in which the motion was defeated by seven votes to four. The policy, which had previously required every union president to fly an LGBT flag prominently in the courtyard throughout June, had mysteriously vanished from the student-run standing committee’s rule book.

 

Union President Anita Okunde led the motion to restore the rule, arguing it was not a new proposal but simply a reinstatement of a previously existing order. She said the removal had occurred without transparency or explanation. “It had been part of the rules and standing orders for a significant number of years,” she said, asserting there had been no previous objections or requests for alternative flags during her tenure. “I’ve never heard of anybody being upset or requesting another specific flag to be flown to her knowledge.”

 

 

The proposed rule included provisions allowing the flag requirement to be waived during periods of national mourning, such as the death of the Sovereign or times when public buildings fly flags at half-mast. But opposition to the motion focused less on its content and more on its broader implications.

 

Samy Medjdoub, the third elected committee member from Keble College, warned that reinstating the rule could “open the floodgates” for demands to fly flags for various other causes. He described the move as “opening the Pandora’s box,” and suggested it might set a precedent difficult to manage. Medjdoub added that everyone on the committee supports the LGBTQIA+ community regardless of whether the flag is flown, and therefore “the motion should not be ratified.”

 

To avoid personal bias or backlash, the committee decided on a secret ballot, intending to keep the focus on the principle rather than members' individual stances on LGBTQ+ representation. Despite this, the decision has triggered intense online criticism, with many students expressing frustration and disappointment over what they see as a symbolic rejection of inclusivity.

 

One student commented, “The change is confirmation that the union is as bad as everyone thinks it is.” Another added, “To be fair, at least it keeps the LGBTQ+ community safe by giving a warning as to where they aren’t welcome. If the union wants to make it clearer, it could always vote on whether to have a sign reading: ‘Bigots within beware.’”

 

What remains unresolved is how the original rule was removed from the committee's records. According to Ms Okunde, who has served on the committee five times, there was no discussion or student notification regarding its deletion. Committee members admitted they found no explanation in prior meeting minutes. Some speculated that the order may have been accidentally removed alongside other changes.

 

Incoming president Moosa Harraj, who is set to assume leadership in the autumn term, called the unexplained removal “crazy” and has ordered an investigation into how it occurred.

 

Despite the failed vote, Ms Okunde affirmed her commitment to visibility and representation, stating she would “regardless fly the flag in her term.” 

 

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Times  2025-05-13