Conference Agendas

Date of Meeting:  

12th May 2026 6pm - 8pm  

Location:  

Earth Sciences Lecture Theatre, Department of Earth Sciences (South Parks Road)

Chair:  

Shermar Pryce (President for Community & Common Rooms)  

Deputy Chairs:  

JCR Deputy Chair – to be elected in room 

MCR Deputy Chair – Rhys Inward

Agenda  

Item A  

Introduction:  

• Introduction of TT W3 Conference of Common Rooms   

Item B  

Governance Matters:  

• Approval of CCR HT W7 Minutes  

Item C  

Matters Arising  

• Officer Updates  

• Officer Action Log  

Items for Discussion  

Need to submit an amendment?  

Please ensure that these are submitted no later than 10AM Monday 11th May 2026. 

Submit your amendment 

Item D  

Referendum to disaffiliate from NUS UK 

Proposed by: Luke Liang, Part-Time Officer for Black and Ethnic Minorities Students 

Seconded by: Alisa Brown, President for Welfare, Equity and Inclusion; Seun Sowunmi, President for Undergraduates; Valerie Mann, Part-Time Officer for LGBTQ+ Students 

Decision Type: Conference Mandate 

Presented by: Luke Liang, Part-Time Officer for Black and Ethnic Minorities Students 

Proposal  

Despite costing the SU £17500 every year, the NUS has failed to deliver for students' interests. This motion initiates the process for the SU to hold a referendum to decide whether the student body would like to remain affiliated with the NUS. 

Which of the following aims does your motion or proposal hope to achieve?  

• Provide the views of students and a position deemed to be representative of wider students at the University of Oxford 

Conference Notes:  

• That Oxford SU pays £17500 every year to NUS UK, a lobbying group formed from the agglomeration of around 600 universities from across the country. The Oxford SU pays extra fees for staff and student attendance of NUS conferences. 

• That the NUS has a historic record of activism "Boycott Barclays" campaign, which helped end Barclays' involvement in apartheid South Africa in 1986, but that it no longer serves this role. For instance, in 2007, the NUS dropped their opposition to tuition fee increases, which have since trebled. 

• That universities across the UK have recently disaffiliated from the NUS, with more tabling disaffiliation motions. SUs such as those in Cambridge, LSE and Manchester have disaffiliated, whilst referendums will be held in universities including SOAS, Birmingham and Liverpool. 

• That the NUS Charity provides important SU support and student-facing services, and that this motion does not seek to disaffiliate from it. 

• That Oxford SU would not be isolated upon disaffiliation: it is a member of other bodies such as the Russell Group Students' Unions network, and already has a strong relationship with Oxford’s MPs. 

Conference Believes:  

• Despite the NUS’s historical role in student activism and representation, the NUS UK no longer adequately represents students’ interests. For example, the NUS England conference saw no voting by student sabbatical officers, and no follow up on items discussed. The NUS also banned over 70 students, who signed an open letter urging the NUS to ‘condemn the plausible genocide in Gaza’, from attending conferences. 

• While there has been some positive campaigning around student loan reform, NUS campaigning has often been poorly organised and inequitable. Protests and meetings with MPs are often scheduled last minute, with sometimes less than 24 hours notice, which is especially inaccessible for SUs outside the South-East of England.  

• That disaffiliation sends a clear message that student unions will not subsidise a body that is ineffective to its members, and will compel NUS UK to reform. 

• That Oxford students' interests are better served by redirecting capacity towards bodies that demonstrably represent them, and redirecting funding to initiatives that support students, e.g: the community fund. 

Conference Resolves:  

• To mandate Sabbatical Officers to organise a student referendum on disaffiliation from NUS UK, to be held in Michaelmas Term 2026 

• To hold a referendum under the title “Should the Oxford SU disaffiliate from NUS UK” with responses being “Yes” or “No”. 

• To mandate Sabbatical Officers to report back to CCR at the second meeting of Trinity Term 2026 with a more specific timeline for referenda and potential disaffiliation. 

• To mandate Sabbatical Officers to strengthen alternative advocacy relationships, including with RGSU, in preparation for a potential disaffiliation. 

Equality Impact Assessment: 

• Stated as net positive impact for all listed demographics 

Item E  

College Library Access Motion  

Proposed by: St. Catherine's MCR 

Decision Type: Conference Mandate 

Presented by: Xiangyue Wang, St. Catherine's MCR  

Proposal  

The College Library Access Motion mandates the sabbatical officers to advocate at the Conference of Colleges and any relevant committee for the open access of college libraries to all University of Oxford students. 

Which of the following aims does your motion or proposal hope to achieve?  

• Provide the views of students and a position deemed to be representative of wider students at the University of Oxford 

Conference Notes:  

• Of the 66 libraries at the University of Oxford, 43 are college libraries open only to current members of their respective colleges. Oxford students generally cannot visit or borrow books from college libraries besides their own. 

Conference Believes:  

• Opening college libraries to all students will significantly enhance student experience by tripling the number of Oxford libraries they have access to. College libraries are unique in their history, architecture, and traditions. Giving students the chance to explore all college libraries will enrich their time at Oxford and foster cross-collegiate friendship. 

• College libraries, many of which hold unique collections and specialist subject matters, represent a wealth of scholarly resources that the whole University community could benefit from. Broadening access would allow these collections to fulfil their academic potential and serve the University's mission of advancing learning across all disciplines. Hence, opening college libraries to all students will greatly benefit Oxford’s academic environment. 

Conference Resolves:  

• Mandate the sabbatical officers to advocate at the Conference of Colleges and any relevant committee for the open access of college libraries to all University of Oxford students. 

• Mandate the sabbatical officers to advocate at the Conference of Colleges and any relevant committee for the facilitation of a reciprocal borrowing program that allows students to borrow from any college library. 

Equality Impact Assessment: 

• Stated as net positive impact for all listed demographics 

Item F 

University-Wide Term Card 

Proposed by: Luke Liang, Part-Time Officer for Black and Ethnic Minorities Students 

Seconded by: Alisa Brown, President for Welfare, Equity and Inclusion; Shermar Pryce, President for Communities and Common Rooms 

Decision Type: Conference Mandate 

Presented by: Luke Liang, Part-Time Officer for Black and Ethnic Minorities Students 

Proposal  

This motion would mandate sabbatical officers to lobby the university to promote university society events, an online database where societies can publicise their events across the student body. 

Which of the following aims does your motion or proposal hope to achieve?  

• Provide the views of students and a position deemed to be representative of wider students at the University of Oxford 

Conference Notes:  

• That Oxford has no single, publicly accessible listing of student events and activities across the University. 

• That students must navigate multiple college websites, mailing lists, and social media channels to find out what is happening. 

• That many societies and common rooms report low event turnout, to which poor discoverability is a contributing factor. 

• That the proctor’s office records and liaises with all registered societies. 

Conference Believes:  

• That support from the proctor’s office in promoting events would meaningfully improve student community and engagement across the University. 

• That the proctor’s office is well-placed to facilitate this. 

Conference Resolves:  

• To mandate Oxford SU officers to encourage the university to develop more ways to publicise events that are accessible to Oxford students. 

• To mandate the SU President for Communities and Common Rooms to present a progress update to CCR no later than Week 3 of Michaelmas Term 2026. 

Equality Impact Assessment: 

• Stated as net positive impact for all listed demographics 

Item G 

Opposition to Unethical Uses of AI 

Proposed by: St. Catherine's MCR 

Decision Type: Conference Mandate 

Presented by: Xiangyue Wang, St. Catherine's MCR  

Proposal  

This motion mandates the Sabbatical Officers to advocate at the University Council and any relevant committee to require all of its AI vendors to have a policy that forbids military and surveillance use of its products. 

Which of the following aims does your motion or proposal hope to achieve?  

• Provide the views of students and a position deemed to be representative of wider students at the University of Oxford 

Conference Notes:  

• In Michaelmas 2025, the University of Oxford becomes the first UK university to offer ChatGPT from OpenAI to all staff and students after a year-long pilot. The University also provides Copilot Chat through Microsoft’s Nexus365, and Gemini through the University’s Google workspace. 

• AI has been widely adopted for military use for both autonomous weapon systems and decision support systems in recent years, with deployment observed across a range of contemporary conflicts. These developments have had significant global consequences, including impacts felt within the Oxford community.  

• The AI research community has issued strong objections to AI’s use for mass surveillance and in autonomous weapons, especially without any current international law concerning the use of AI in warfare.   

Conference Believes:  

• AI’s extensive potential for military use makes it crucial that the University of Oxford requires ethical and responsible use of AI from its AI vendors.  

• The University of Oxford has an obligation to ensure that its AI vendors have a clear “no use for military and surveillance policy” such as the one OpenAI had prior to January 2024 or the one Google had before February 2025. 

Conference Resolves:  

• Mandate the sabbatical officers to advocate at the University Council and any relevant committee to require all of its AI vendors to have a policy that forbids military and surveillance use of its products.  

• Mandate the sabbatical officers to advocate at the University Council and any relevant committee to audit its current AI vendors and replace those that do not meet the requirements.   

• In the case that there isn’t an alternative for a particular use, mandate the sabbatical officers to advocate at the University Council and any relevant committee for the University to decide whether the use is necessary for academic research, and if so, to conduct a periodic review of alternatives. 

Equality Impact Assessment: 

• Stated as neutral/no impact for all listed demographics 

Trans, Non-Binary, Gender Diverse & Intersex Inclusion 

Proposed by: Valerie Mann, LGBTQ+ Officer 

Seconded by: Alisa Brown, President for Welfare, Equity and Inclusion; Shermar Pryce, President for Communities and Common Rooms   

Proposal: 

Mandate to Reaffirm Support for Trans, Non-Binary, Gender Diverse and Intersex Rights and Oppose Regressive Legal Interpretations  

Policy Statement  

Oxford SU reaffirms its full commitment to the rights, safety, dignity, and health and wellbeing of trans, non-binary, gender diverse and intersex (TNBI+) students across the University.  

The recent Trans Lives 2025 report highlights serious concerns about the rights of TNBI+ people in the UK, their access to healthcare, and general safety. This report was informed by a survey of over 4,000 people, shortly before the Supreme Court ruling on the Equality Act’s definition of ‘sex’ and prior to the EHRC’s proposed Code of Practice.  

Oxford SU continues to express deep concern about the ruling’s implications for TNBI+ inclusion, student welfare and institutional values. The ruling does not mandate the exclusion of TNBI+ people, nor does it require institutions to discriminate. If a university chooses to implement policies that restrict access to facilities based on sex assigned at birth, this is an active and discretionary decision - not currently a legal requirement. The University must take ownership of such choices and the harm they cause, rather than passively attributing them to legal constraint.  

Oxford SU is alarmed by the lack of clear statements from many UK universities which has illustrated a pattern of risk aversion over principled support for its own students and staff. As a globally influential institution, Oxford has a duty not only to lead the higher education sector in equity and student wellbeing, but also to uphold academic integrity by engaging critically with the legal and scientific claims underpinning this ruling.  

The British Medical Association (BMA) has already challenged the biological essentialism underpinning recent policy and legal discourse. The BMA has emphasised that biological sex is not a binary, immutable concept, and policies grounded in such assumptions lack both medical and scientific credibility. Oxford, as a centre of academic excellence, must reflect these realities in its institutional responses and policy frameworks.  

Furthermore, the ruling has direct consequences for the intersex community, who may not be easily categorised within binary sex classifications. Exclusionary interpretations based solely on sex assigned at birth risks reinforcing harmful practices such as sex assignment without consent and institutional erasure of intersex experiences. Oxford must resist any policies that rely on rigid sex definitions, which actively undermine the rights and dignity of intersex individuals.  

Policy Beliefs  

• Trans, non-binary, gender diverse and intersex (TNBI+) students are at heightened risk of discrimination, mental health challenges, and institutional exclusion.  

• The University has a commitment to supporting TNBI+ individuals (https://edu.admin.ox.ac.uk/transgender-policy). 

• The University must lead the sector in TNBI+ inclusive practices, not merely comply with legal minimums.  

• Gendered spaces can have a significant impact on how individuals interact with the world, in ways unique to each individual. They deserve to have the knowledge available to make informed choices, which includes knowing whether toilets are gendered or gender neutral. Situations vary greatly across colleges and departments, and there is currently no practical way to find out in advance whether a given location has gender neutral toilets or not.  

• TNBI+ students must continue to be able to safely access toilets, accommodation, and services aligned with their gender.  

• The availability of gender-neutral toilets is a basic matter of dignity, accessibility, and inclusion.  

• Gender-neutral facilities should be widely available as a default, not an afterthought, and we must critically reflect on how spatial design upholds or challenges normative gender boundaries.  

• Oxford SU has a responsibility to challenge any structural change that undermines the rights and wellbeing of TNBI+ students.  

• Oxford must be a leader in academic integrity and evidence-based policy, aligning with medical bodies, such as the BMA, in rejecting reductive and scientifically inaccurate definitions of sex. Policy Mandates 

Oxford SU and its Sabbatical Officers are mandated to:  

• Campaign across central and college levels for the protection and expansion of TNBI+ -inclusive policies and practices.  

• Work with the University to ensure that the Access Guide (https://www.accessguide.ox.ac.uk/), which already lists information about toilets, is updated to include details of gender-neutral toilet provision. While accessible toilets are gender-neutral, they are not one and the same. 

• Engage Common Rooms, governing bodies, and senior leadership to:  

• Ensure explicit protection of TNBI+ students' rights  

• Expand and signpost gender-neutral toilets across the University  

• Coordinate a University-wide campaign clarifying that Oxford will not adopt exclusionary interpretations of the Equality Act  

• Provide an annual Gender Expression Fund of up to £1,000 to help reduce the financial barriers associated with gender affirmation and improve the wellbeing of our students. Funding will be awarded on a case-by-case basis. 

• TNBI+ students should be able to apply for up to £50 per year, or up to £100 per year in exceptional circumstances. 

• This grant can be used to purchase gender affirming products such as clothing, binders, packers, breast forms and beauty products.  

• This grant can be used towards travel expenses associated with gender related medical or therapeutic appointments. 

• This grant can be used towards, although will be unable to cover the full cost of, gender related medical appointments. This may include voice/speech coaching, counselling, and assessments, but cannot include medication/prescription or surgery costs. 

• Support the LGBTQ+ Part-Time Officer in consulting student groups to better understand and advocate for the experiences of TNBI+ students. 

• Work with sports clubs, student groups and the Sports Federation to highlight open and mixed sports where all students can participate and advocate for a culture of fairness, respect, and belonging, where TNBI+ students know they have a place in sport. 

• Work with the Equality and Diversity Unit, LGBTQ+ Society, LGBT+ Advisory Board, and relevant University offices to:  

• Strengthen policy frameworks  

• Ensure guidance explicitly protects access to gender-appropriate and gender-neutral facilities  

• Report regularly to the Conference of Common Rooms on mandate progress with timelines and deliverables  

• Embed TNBI+ rights in all lobbying, policy work, and strategic planning  

• Publicly and internally oppose any attempt by colleges or departments to regress on current protections  

• Hold the University accountable for choices that compromise the safety, dignity, or inclusion of its students. 

Item I

SWSS Student Wellbeing and Mental Health 

*This has been co-written by SWSS staff and our three SWSS HT26 Student Micro-Interns: Cameron Tan, Henry Field and Channy Zhang 

The University is seeking insight into the experiences, needs, and concerns of the students you represent as we develop a new Student Wellbeing and Mental Health Strategy. We hope this discussion will help ensure that the strategy is grounded in the realities of student life across Oxford. 

Being at university presents meaningful opportunities for students to grow the skills that help them navigate life both during and beyond their course. In partnership with students, the University has identified key areas of personal development that students may wish to cultivate during their time at Oxford. These developmental changes are grounded in a strong evidence base linking them to improved long-term wellbeing.  

1. Ways of relating to ourselves: This includes how students understand themselves through identity, self-awareness, self-esteem and personal agency. 

2. Ways of relating to others: This includes relational skills, behaviours, and how students engage with other people and communities. 

3. Personal and self-management skills: This includes practical skills that help students navigate both personal and interpersonal development such as critical thinking, self-regulation, resilience and self-compassion. 

We recognise that students will arrive at Oxford from a variety of different backgrounds, responsibilities, and circumstances and with different priorities for growth. We also recognise that access to developmental opportunities is not equal, and that some students may face additional barriers to participating fully in university life or benefiting from the kinds of support and opportunities available. Considering this, we would like feedback on: 

• Which of these three areas do you think Oxford currently supports most strongly, and why?  Can you think of specific structures, spaces, or practices that contribute to this from your experiences?  

• Which of these three areas do you think Oxford currently supports the least well, and why? Are there any examples of gaps in support that come to mind? Are there any specific groups of students who find opportunities or forms of support less accessible? 

• Which area feels most important for long-term wellbeing for students in practice, and why? 

• Is there anything important that feels missing from this framework? 

We welcome your contributions in the meeting and/or via this Microsoft form, for those who would like to share more or would prefer sharing their thoughts in this format. 

Item J

To note:  

Reminder that we are currently conducting a CCR Pilot Review and would like your feedback. The Conference of Common Rooms (CCR) is a democratic forum where Common Room Presidents and Officers of the Students’ Union collaborate to amplify student voices at the University of Oxford. Introduced in Trinity Term 2025 as a pilot initiative, the CCR enables representatives from each college to discuss shared concerns, develop collective policies, and make decisions that reflect the wider student body's perspectives through consensus-building and voting processes. 

This survey should take 15-20 minutes to complete and aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the CCR pilot in informing genuine student representation. Your feedback will help us assess how well the current structure supports Oxford SU's primary purpose of representing students' academic interests to the University and will inform decisions about continuing or modifying this representative model. 
 

This survey will close Friday 15th May at 18:00.  
 
Each Common Room submission will be entered into a prize draw, with a chance to win £250 towards Common Room catering or another agreed activity. 
Data collected as part of this consultation will be reported to the Transformation Committee to evaluate the effectiveness of the CCR pilot.  
 

Below the Line  
These are items which will not be discussed unless requested.  
Members can request a discussion by request to the Chair (supresidentccr@oxfordsu.ox.ac.uk).  

The following motions did not pass at the previous Conference of Common Rooms due to not meeting quoracy. They will be submitted for CCR vote again without debate unless requested.  If we do not meet quoracy a second time the motions will be deemed to have fallen.  

Item K

Dark Skies 

Proposed by: Shermar Pryce, President for Communities and Common Rooms 

Seconded by: Alisa Brown, President for Welfare, Equity & Inclusion; President for Postgraduates, Wantoe Wantoe

Decision Type: Conference Policy  

Presented by: Shermar Pryce, President for Communities and Common Rooms 

Proposal  

To amend the Dark Skies motion to reflect a long-term commitment to the mandate. 

Which of the following aims does your motion or proposal hope to achieve?  

• Provide the views of students and a position deemed to be representative of wider students at the University of Oxford  

• Provide student-led direction for the Students’ Union work  

Conference Notes:  

• Oxford SU strongly opposes any reductions by Oxfordshire County Council to street lighting between 11:30pm–5:30am in rural areas and midnight–5:30am in urban areas. These reductions pose serious safety, accessibility, and wellbeing risks to students living, studying, and working across Oxford and surrounding areas.  

• In response to Oxfordshire County Council’s "Dark Skies" proposal for street lighting reductions, Oxford SU and Oxford Brookes Union issued a joint public statement opposing the plans. The unions raised concerns regarding the initial Equality Impact Assessment and engaged directly with local authorities and Thames Valley Police. Following these consultations, the County Council revised the proposal from a county-wide reduction to a community-led opt-in model. Under the updated framework, any local requests for lighting reductions are subject to police vetting, and major urban areas, including Oxford, will maintain their current street lighting provision. 

Conference Believes:  

• Street lighting is essential for student safety, particularly in residential areas and routes to hospitals, schools, and workplaces.   

• Reductions in lighting will negatively impact Oxford’s night-time economy and students’ access to it.   

• Students commuting late at night or early in the morning — including those on placements — are at increased risk in poorly lit environments.   

• The Council failed to adequately consult student communities, who are particularly vulnerable to such changes.   

• The Equality Impact Assessment does not sufficiently recognise the disproportionate effects on women, disabled students, and trans students.   

• Given that changes will be implemented upon community request, students must be equipped and empowered to prevent lighting reductions locally.   

Conference Resolves:  

• Oxford SU and its Sabbatical Officers are mandated to: 

• Campaign against any future proposed reductions to street lighting in areas affecting students and advocate for maintaining current provision. 

• Continue to work with Oxford Brookes SU to highlight student concerns and demand prioritisation and safety. 

• Attend relevant Oxfordshire County Council meetings and consultations to represent Oxford student interests. 

• Collaborate with Common Rooms and PTOS to identify areas where lighting needs improving for safety.