George Abaraonye is a graduate student at the University of Oxford. Most recently, he’s made headlines for his provocative remarks on the police shooting of right-wing commentator Charlie Kirk. In June, the pro-life Abaraonye was elected president of the Oxford Union debating society. In that forum, Coward subsequently made national headlines when he shared victorious comments to a private WhatsApp group just minutes after news of Kirk’s shooting leaked.
The remarks, which included phrases such as “Charlie Kirk got shot, let’s fucking go,” were quickly deleted but sparked outrage among students and the broader community. Abaraonye also later acknowledged that he had overreacted to the announcement. He went on to stress that his rhetoric did not align with his values.
Valerie Amos, the vice-chancellor of University College, Oxford – the master is the position’s title – spoke to the incident in her statement. Yet, she insisted, Abaraonye would not be disciplined. In response, she called his comments “abhorrent.” They certainly did not break the college’s policies against free speech or their policies regarding other relevant laws and regulations.
“Though Mr Abaraonye’s comments are abhorrent, they do not contravene the college’s policies on free speech, or any other relevant policy. Therefore, no disciplinary action will be taken.” – Valerie Amos
Abaraonye’s comments sonically ring within a larger critique he has offered on the state of our society and political climate. He has previously called to withdraw from long accepted provisions like the Civil Rights Act. On top of that, he’s being accused of doubling down on negative stereotypes towards LGBTQ and trans communities. Additionally, during a debate at the Oxford Union in May, he met Charlie Kirk, where discussions about toxic masculinity took place.
In the aftermath of his incendiary remarks, Abaraonye was met with overwhelming criticism, including an avalanche of racist insults and all-caps death threats. To the ensuing criticism, he doubled down, again focusing on how Kirk’s rhetoric made him react the way he did. He reminded the audience that Kirk had a track record of downplaying the plight of others. He went as far as to defend civilian deaths in Gaza by blaming them all for Hamas’s actions.
“At the same time, my reaction was shaped by the context of Mr Kirk’s own rhetoric – words that often dismissed or mocked the suffering of others. He described the deaths of American children from school shootings as an acceptable ‘cost’ of protecting gun rights. He justified the killing of civilians in Gaza, including women and children, by blaming them collectively for Hamas. He called for the retraction of the Civil Rights Act, and repeatedly spread harmful stereotypes about LGBTQ and trans communities. These were horrific and dehumanising statements.” – Valerie Amos
The Oxford Union reacted swiftly to clamp down. They reiterated that Abaraonye’s statements are only an articulation of his personal opinions, and in no way should be seen as a representation of the institution’s values. Further, they expressed a strong rebuke to the nature of his comments and continued to stress their mission of creating a climate for civil, reasoned debate.
In a last ditch effort to defuse and explain his position further, Abaraonye said he was sorry for the loss of Kirk’s family and friends. He said that nobody should fear being attacked with political violence or in their beliefs, even if they hold different views.
“Nobody deserves to be the victim of political violence … I extend my condolences to his family and loved ones.” – George Abaraonye
The incident has brought forward larger questions about free speech in the academic space as well as institutional accountability. Advocacy groups urge the government to protect freedom of expression. They note it shouldn’t shield someone from accountability for spreading false inflammatory statements.