Ti-Jean Martin argues that Oxford University’s party-aligned societies are not fit for purpose, while Elizabeth Millett contends that they remain effective within their intended roles.
Martin’s argument began with the experience of entering Oxford as a left-leaning student.
Information circulated through word of mouth and a Cherwell feature led to the impression that the university’s political societies resembled a drifting elite with few ideas.
That perception did not entirely undermine support for establishing a Green Party society, which was created at Michaelmas alongside a Reform UK-aligned group.
Martin acknowledged that these additions would broaden the range of party affiliations represented, but questioned whether they could transform the political society model or make Oxford’s political activity more relevant.
The potential of campus politics to produce wider change need not, Martin added, be traced back to 1968.
At Oxford, however, the possibility of political action producing tangible results appeared to have been neglected.
Members of the Oxford Labour Club, Oxford Social and Liberal Association and Oxford University Conservatives Association were portrayed as prioritising drinking and establishing Union connections over political activity.
Their reputation for producing future prime ministers was also described as an old-fashioned route to power based on networks among shared members.
According to Martin, this approach weakened an institution capable of developing future leaders and channelling generational disillusionment into different forms of politics.
It also reinforced Oxford’s image of an elite bubble detached from political issues of consequence.
The creation of two additional societies could not, in his view, resolve those concerns and could carry risks as well as potential benefits.
Questions had already arisen over the Reform Society’s affiliation with Reform UK, which has faced accusations of Islamophobia, and the safety of Muslim students at Oxford.
The society had also invited Nathan Cofnas, a self-described race realist, to speak at Oriel College in November.
The decision prompted Stand Up to Racism to announce a protest.
Martin said that the future membership of the Oxon Universities Reform Society remained uncertain, with some members potentially also holding cards from the Labour Club, Social and Liberal Association or Conservatives Association.
The same possibility was identified for the Oxford Student Greens, raising the question of whether broader partisan representation would come at an unacceptable cost.
The available routes for politically engaged students therefore appeared limited: joining one of the established three societies, described through the Cherwell feature as stand-up comedy clubs for a faded elite, or joining the new left- and right-wing groups, whose capacity for harm or benefit had yet to be established.
Abandoning party alignment was raised as another possibility.
The October Club offered a nominally left-wing but non-party-aligned model that could be copied across the political spectrum, although Martin noted that this approach had its own difficulties.
The Oxford Social Democrats, previously called the Left Society, had apparently struggled to establish a comparable environment.
His conclusion was that party-aligned societies would remain unfit for purpose unless they began engaging in substantive political activity.
Millett presented the opposite assessment, pointing to the long histories and notable alumni of Oxford’s political societies, including Clement Attlee and David Cameron.
Their contemporary reputation, however, also encompassed termly drinking socials and debates that Cherwell’s Stanley Smith characterised as being more concerned with personality than party.
Millett questioned whether this reputation undermined the societies’ fundamental purpose.
The establishment of Reform and Green Party societies has renewed debate about Oxford’s student political groups.
Although criticism of the expanding political scene has been understandable, Millett maintained that such objections often overlooked what these societies were designed to achieve.
According to the stated objective of the Oxford University Conservatives Association, written by its current president Harriet Dolby, the organisation exists to provide a forum in which students can discuss politics and policy and to promote open, rigorous debate among people holding different political views.
The Oxford Labour Club similarly emphasises the importance of ideas, meaningful argument and work towards a fairer society.
The recently formed Oxon Universities Reform Society has also declared an intention to provide a space for free speech.
Millett argued that student societies had been treated as more than spaces in which amateur participants explore and discuss their interests, even though recreational activity is part of their design.
University experience involves personal development and learning rather than producing a finished result.
Excessive pressure was placed on student groups to deliver term cards and socials capable of generating future leaders, an expectation influenced by the careers of a small number of exceptional predecessors who were not representative of the broader pattern.
Politics should not be dismissed as a pastime, and low-quality debate remains a legitimate criticism of these forums.
Nevertheless, the societies were considered capable of fulfilling their stated role by hosting passionate and engaged discussion.
The standard they achieve was a separate question from whether their purpose was valid.
Some features of the newer societies were recognised as troubling.
The Reform Society’s zero-tolerance terms and conditions for its fourth speaker event, featuring Nathan Cofnas, could reasonably cause discomfort.
Likewise, the Greens’ lemonade and leftism sessions were expected to lose some appeal when debate about nuclear energy and climate change took place among students already inclined towards similar positions.
Such dynamics illustrated the difference between a society functioning as intended and one that is consistently impressive.
The societies could disappoint in practice, with sessions occasionally becoming focused on networking and informal conversation rather than political discussion.
Millett’s conclusion was that uneven standards and inconsistent relevance did not make the organisations unfit for purpose.
Instead, they often fell short of the potential offered by frameworks they had already established.