We must take a stand for free speech on campus

The recent Oxford Union debate on the motion “This House Believes Israel is an Apartheid State Responsible for Genocide” was a farcical failure that marked a sinister turning point in campus discourse.

Journalist Jonathan Sacerdoti, invited to speak against the motion, described the atmosphere as “mafia-like,” with constant interruptions and visible toxicity. Even the Union President — expected to ensure neutrality — spoke in favour of the motion, shattering any pretence of impartiality. The inflammatory wording of the motion set the tone for a night that glorified violence, with one speaker shockingly praising the terrorist acts of October 7, leaving Jewish students feeling unsafe and targeted.

This incident is symptomatic of the alarming deterioration of campus dialogue concerning Israel. Two years ago, former Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor addressed the Cambridge Union under similarly tense circumstances. Despite vocal protests, Meridor — a statesman of exceptional intellect and grace — engaged with critics constructively, offering nuanced, thoughtful responses to even the most challenging questions. His presence elevated the debate, embodying the respect and seriousness such topics demand.

The Oxford debate, in contrast, was dominated by provocateurs. On the one side, pro-Palestinian speakers indulged in inflammatory and even unlawful rhetoric. On the other side, some pro-Israel speakers seemed, at times, more focused on publicity than persuasion. The result was an inevitable shouting match in the chamber, bereft of intellectual rigour and incapable of addressing the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The loudest and most repulsive pro-Hamas voices thrive in these conditions.

This shift is alarming. Fringe activists who once chanted outside debate halls have now mainstreamed their hostility, derailing meaningful dialogue. Universities, once bastions of free and open discussion, are becoming battlegrounds where dissent is silenced, and complexity is ignored.

The need for well-informed, respectful voices on campus has never been greater. To win the generational battle of ideas, pro-Israel advocates must rise above provocations, holding themselves to the highest standards of patience, respect, and intellectual depth. Resorting to inflammatory tactics only mirrors the conduct of their opponents and undermines their cause.

We write as non-Jewish Cambridge students who recently visited Israel with the Pinsker Centre, an organisation fostering precisely the kind of engagement needed to address such challenges. During our visit, we met leaders and policymakers from both sides of the conflict, grappling with its complexities rather than reducing it to oversimplified narratives. The Pinsker Centre’s approach — hosting eloquent, high-calibre well-qualified speakers like Dan Meridor — shows how the toughest issues can be tackled constructively, fostering understanding rather than division.

But this approach requires resources and institutional backing. Rising protests and disruptions often force student societies to bear prohibitive security costs. When our student society invited Suella Braverman to speak recently, the university informed us it could not ensure safety, leaving us to arrange private security. With the help of the Pinsker Centre, the event went ahead. However, such incidents underscore the growing pressure on those defending free expression.

The stakes are high. Anti-Israel activism has evolved from fringe disruptions to mainstream hostility, often accompanied by antisemitism. The glorification of violence at Oxford and the overt hostility faced by Jewish students are dire warnings. But this fight transcends the Jewish community. The erosion of free speech and intellectual integrity on campus threatens everyone who values knowledge and debate.

Antisemitism is often described as the “canary in the coal mine,” signalling deeper societal issues. Today’s campuses, marked by intolerance, polarisation, and the silencing of dissent, are a microcosm of these broader dangers. Universities must recommit to fostering rigorous yet respectful debate, safeguarding the rights of all students while ensuring free speech is exercised responsibly.

Defending Israel’s legitimacy requires those who do so to lead by example. The antidote to toxic rhetoric is not more of the same, but a reasoned, principled approach that demonstrates moral and intellectual superiority. Only by fostering thoughtful dialogue and engaging with opponents in good faith can minds be changed and the broader battle of ideas won.

The Oxford Union debate is a cautionary tale but also a rallying cry. Institutions, alumni, and the wider public must support organisations like the Pinsker Centre – and student groups on the ground - which are already leading the charge against intolerance and anti-intellectualism. But they cannot do it alone. Without collective effort, the descent into hostility and division will continue.

The fight for free speech, respect, and intellectual honesty on campus is urgent. By taking a stand now, we can ensure future debates reflect the values of open dialogue and mutual understanding. The alternative is a bleak future where universities become echo chambers of hatred and division—a reality none of us can afford.

Szymon Sawicki is a 3rd year student and Chairman of Cambridge University Conservative Association

Ewan Woods is 3rd year student and Chairman-elect of Cambridge University Conservative Association