@TheOxStu
Trinity Term, Week 1 | Friday 1st May 2026
OXFORD STUDENT The
The University of Oxford’s Student Newspaper, est. 1991
(Re)collections: what’s the point?
Palantir’s manifesto exposes the transatlantic tech divide
Read more on page 13
Who am I in other languages? Read more on page 18
Read more on page 16
Shadows on the Wall: Generative AI in the Ioannou and Beyond Samuel Berthon
I
Protests at the Radcliffe Camera. Credit: Cameron Samuel Keys
University accused of paying an intelligence firm to spy on students Saba Ahmadzadeh Noughani and Laila Nasher
T
he University of Oxford allegedly paid a private intelligence firm to monitor student protest activity, according to an investigation by Al Jazeera English and Liberty Investigates. The report names Oxford as one of twelve British universities that paid Horus Security Consultancy Limited to “spy” and gather intelligence on campus activism between January 2022 to March 2025. The investigation does not detail which Oxford students, if any, were specifically monitored. According to Al Jazeera and
Liberty Investigates, the firm, run by former military intelligence officials, scanned students’ public social media posts, compiled detailed reports on individuals who have expressed support for Palestine, and conducted counter-terror threat assessments on potential academic speakers. Horus was paid a combined total of £440,939 by the twelve universities. In March 2025, Liberty Investigates submitted a Freedom of Information request to the University. In its response, the University confirmed it had used Horus Ltd, and, argued that this
was “risk assessments for university events”. The University refused to disclose how much it had spent on Horus, citing commercial sensitivity exemption. Liberty Investigates then requested copies of all Horus briefings and email correspondence held by the University. The University confirmed it does hold such documents, but refused to release them, stating that disclosure would “prejudice the commercial interests of Horus Ltd” and damage “its relationship with a key supplier.” Continued on page 2
n 9th week the staircase leading to the mezzanine at the rear of the Classics faculty was redecorated. Thirty colourful posters now adorn its walls, the winners of an outreach competition for secondary-school children. The submissions were judged by Production Designer Arthur Max and Graphic Designer Rhiannon Fraser, who both have impressive filmographies ranging from Gladiator, via Game of Thrones and Paddington. Two of the winning posters may strike you as you ascend from the ground floor. They were clearly created entirely with generative AI, given away by their inability to depict complex objects in detail – hands, a globe, a wall of text. One has
the tell-tale gold-black AI-art colour scheme. Whether this is even a story, or a negative story, is up for debate. ‘Enterprising Youngsters Use New Technology to Win University Competition’. Or how about – ‘Labour of Love of Aspiring Classicists Replaced by Typing Text into a Box’. I reached out to the Classics Outreach team to ask whether AI was mentioned in the parameters of the competition. They replied that, in order to keep the competition as open as possible, no rules around the use of AI were set out. That the AI posters were chosen as winners to be displayed on the walls was down to the selection of the judges. Continued on page 3
When the City Council Oversteps: In Defense of Regent’s Park T. M. Brunel
A
s Hilary term was drawing to a close, Regent’s Park College announced its plans to convert a piece of property, including the Oxfam near the end of Pusey Lane into a new, improved MCR. The current MCR, tucked away in a basement near the storage closet, was fit for a smattering of ministerial and DPhil students present at Regent’s 20 years ago. Since then, the MCR population has grown by five times while the dark, sorry room that counts as their “MCR” has re-
mained the same. The winding stairs are the only route down, facing a massive accessibility issue. Thus, Regent’s is trying to address the problem with a massive investment, instead of simply deeming it an unfortunate historical reality. An uncontroversial project using the college’s funds designed for student benefit, right? Wrong. Local resident backlash ensued, defending the Oxfam location which currently stands on the property. Continued on
page 3