Must Rhodes Fall - Debate at the Oxford Union - Jan 2016

"Rhodes Must Fall" protestors
in front of the disputed statue
 (see source article)

Should a statue of Cecil Rhodes on a private building, Oriel College, Oxford, erected over 100 years ago be relocated because it offends a special interest group within the community?

I agree with aspects of all points made by both sides, but most importantly:
Many statues, such as Rhodes', are a form of free expression by private citizens in private space. The current owners of this property, the trustees, are entrusted with a heritage to care for and interpret, and are the only people with the right to decide whether it stays or goes.

The current student population are tenants of the space as such have freedom of speech and opinion but no rights in the matter. Overwhelming community sentiment may influence owners to remove statues or erect explanatory plaques, but they should never have the power to force.

The arguments put forward by the Oxford University organisers or "Rhodes Must Fall" are summarised as:
1- the statue celebrates a man that committed evil acts i.e. Rhodes 2- the statue celebrates the bounty from evil policies i.e. white supremacy and colonialism 3- the removal of the statue would be a symbolic step in making Oxford university, Oriel College and the town of Oxford more welcoming and attractive to black african students and professors. 4- statues have been removed in many countries around the world in recognition of their conflict with current strongly felt political or moral viewpoints 5- the removal of the statue is supported by a substantial proportion of the current student body 6- the Oxford University organisers or "Rhodes Must Fall" stated that the removal of the statue has obtained media focus, but their aims are much wider (e.g. increasing black african student numbers, black african professor numbers, changing the current curriculum content, introducing increased focus on black african studies) The arguments put forward by those opposed to the removal of the statue can be summarised as: 7- statues have been erected throughout history for a wide range of reasons by a wide range of individuals and groups to express a wide range of emotions and attitudes. 8- statues are a form of free expression and should receive prima facie protection as such. 9- the Rhodes statue was erected to celebrate the most important past and current donor to the college 10- the Rhodes statue does not imply that the University or the College supports Rhodes actions or views, indeed many Rhodes scholars produce work that is highly critical of white supremacy, colonialism and Rhodes himself. 11- Provision of contextual material close to the statue could increase the awareness of complex historical links and would be a way of balancing free expression with additional free expression 12- removal of historical artefacts from public spaces when they upset the moral and political sensitivities of a special interest group could lead to the removal of many public historical artefacts 13- removal of historical artefacts from public spaces should only occur with the overwhelming support of the whole community The debate was very disappointing to me for a number of reasons: - the inarticulateness of most speakers with the exception of Drayton and Biggar. Other speakers gave rambling and sometimes incoherent speeches and responses. One would have expected better from the preparation of Oxford Union members, Rhodes Scholars and Professors. - the debate format focusses on winning and may have encouraged the use of polemic rather than rhetoric from a number of speakers. I would have suggested that a discussion or investigation would have encouraged the speakers to clearly articulate all considerations with a view to balancing them. A discussion can often lead to a recognition amongst opponents that they differ in the weighting of agreed issues rather than complete rejection of an opposing view.

Digitally altered image.  See source article

I though Drayton was the best speaker but his manner was arrogant and disrespectful and his arguments were disingenuous ("It doesn't actually matter what Rhodes said"). 

Biggar made some excellent points especially regarding the lack of quality research behind the points made by the rather rude Ntokozo Qwabe, the Rhodes scholar arguing opposite him.

The best point was made by a member of the audience:

I want to ask because as an outsider it seem hypocritical there are a number of Rhodes scholars sitting here after having benefitted from the Rhodes scholarship now denouncing Rhodes' work and his legacy.  Then again, I also want to ask "where do you draw the line".  That gentleman there with his bust in the Oxford union is Lord Curzon, responsible personally for perhaps 6.1 to 9.3 million deaths in India. We are in England. England is an imperialist nation responsible for many deaths worldwide. We are actually being hypocritical just by being here by interacting, by contributing to this nation.  Where do you draw the line ?  I feel that by denouncing Rhodes we are all actually doing a disservice instead of just getting on with it, and trying to contribute positively to the environments we find ourselves in.

It is a great pity that withdrawal of funding has been cited as the deciding factor in the retention of the statue (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/12128151/Cecil-Rhodes-statue-to-remain-at-Oxford-University-after-alumni-threatens-to-withdraw-millions.html)
I hope that the university can reveal a more intellectual basis for it decision soon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodes_Must_Fall#Oxford_University I have made a transcript of excerpts of the debate: http://digbyreferences.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/must-rhodes-fall-jan-2016-oxford-union.html