One of the recent stories that caught my attention was that of George Abaraonye, the president-elect of the Oxford Union.
Beyond the troubling reports of his conduct, what stood out was the relentless focus on his A-level grades on social media. Political journalist Julia Hartley-Brewer asserted that we are “entitled to judge Abaraonye harshly” for his behaviour and questioned his suitability for Oxford, writing: “What I really want to know is how someone with such a lack of character AND two B grades at A level won a place on one of the most popular courses in one of the best universities in the world? Oxford requires a MINIMUM of three grade As at A level. So what’s he doing there at all?”
Predictably, these comments led to a torrent of online speculation alluding to Abaraonye’s mixed heritage and claiming he was a beneficiary of some form of positive discrimination or Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies.
The core of this allegation is that the student secured his place ahead of a white student because of his race. This got me thinking about how an equality lawyer or court would approach such an allegation of direct race discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
I must stress that this is a hypothetical case study; I am making no allegations and know nothing about the specifics of this situation. I’m using it purely as a thought experiment on how one should, in the field of Equality law, approach such an issue.
The hypothetical allegation is that a white student (let’s call him Steven) was treated less favourably because of his race. The “less favourable” part seems straightforward: Steven, with better A-level grades, didn’t get in, while George did.
The more challenging question is the causal link—the “because of” element required in Section 13 of the Equality Act. A key question for a lawyer is this: Are there alternative explanations for George getting a place other than his race?
First, are A-level grades the sole determining factor in securing a place at Oxford? A quick search reveals that Oxford’s admissions process includes application forms, entrance exams, and interviews. These components collectively determine who is offered a place. Notably, a few prominent individuals, such as Toby Young and the writer Lauren Shirreff, gained admission to Oxford without top A-level grades.
A publication titled “Mythbusting Oxford” confirms this, stating, “Oxford assesses places based on academic merit and potential only. If you impress the admissions tutors… with your UCAS form / written work / test result / interview, that’s all that counts.” It later adds that Oxford is “really interested in your ‘super-curricular,’ or your academic ability and potential, and so in your personal statement admissions tutors look for evidence of how you’ve developed within your chosen subject.” This implies that context and potential are also significant factors.
This is supported by Lauren Shirreff, who wrote a piece in the New Statesman advocating for contextual admissions and citing evidence that students who receive lower contextual offers are as successful in their degrees as other students.
So, as an equality lawyer, I immediately see other potential reasons George may have gained a place that are unrelated to his race. If Steven were to approach me with a claim of direct race discrimination, citing George as a comparator, I would need to gather evidence on their respective performance in every part of the application process—the application form, entrance exam, and interview. I would also need to examine any contextual information about both candidates and their potential.
This investigation would be necessary even before considering other defences, such as positive action.
When considering or making allegations of direct discrimination, it’s crucial to remember to look for any potential alternative explanations for the treatment in question.