For Caians, the recent decision from the college to not fly any flag but their own is deeply disappointing. Having flown the Pride flag (and later, the Progress Pride flag) consistently since 2016, this change in policy completely undermines the work and will of the student body, who constitute the majority of the college’s population.

The fact that this judgement comes just days after the Progress Pride flag was raised for LGBTQ+ history month is especially disappointing, and it undermines the college’s supposed commitment to inclusivity and diversity. It reflects the performative and tokenistic way in which countless institutions treat LGBTQ+ support and pride. Further, the argument that the Caius flag “unites all in the Caius community” essentially suggests the opposite of other flags, and, pointedly, the Pride flag. This implies that not everyone in the college community is accepting of equal rights for LGBTQ+ people, throwing into sharp relief the college’s claim that they are committed to making “everyone feel welcome”. How can LGBTQ+ people feel welcomed with the knowledge that their rights are opposed, or at the very least, considered less significant than protecting the college’s ‘politically neutral’ image?

This decision also disregards the tireless efforts of the GCSU and student body to achieve visible representation and support for the LGBTQ+ community. I witnessed first-hand the work of the current and previous LGBTQ+ officers: letters and papers were written, college council meetings attended, and panels contributed to over the course of a year. The neglect of their input into the matter raises the question of how receptive college truly is to student opinion. Elected to represent the student body, their time and energy is uncaringly wasted when ignored.

“These students have earned their places here and should have their rights honoured and protected by the college community”

Further, this is not the only current issue in which Caius has undermined the voices of minority students over concerns regarding political neutrality. The controversy surrounding the Fisher window has led to much debate about its future, with the LGBTQ+ Officer and BME Officer invited to organise and speak on a panel discussing Fisher’s legacy. Whilst it is important to have these students consulted, the insensitivity with which these issues are discussed is shocking. Certain members of the fellowship have expressed the opinion that Fisher’s ‘achievements’ should still be celebrated in some form. However, this view is emotionally exhausting for minority students to handle in their own reactions against Fisher as a proponent of eugenics. These students have earned their places here and should have their rights honoured and protected by the college community. They should not have to witness their college consider celebrating someone who saw them as racially inferior, merely for the sake of avoiding ‘cancel culture’. This, much like the removal of the pride flag, creates an inevitably hostile environment for students to navigate.

Indeed, the concept of contemporary ‘politics’ is being used to damage the case for flying the pride flag. The college’s response outlines the political nature of the flag as a concept as a chief reason behind this decision, citing it as not representative of the diverse views and identities held by members of the college. However, as Varsity’s own Sam Hudson argues on Twitter, neutrality is essentially impossible; “any choice here is political”. As the original instating of the flag was in indication of support, removing it indicates a loss of desire to display that support.

“In some ways, this week’s decision feels like a protest against this new freedom”

I cannot imagine that this decision is not at least somewhat informed by a negative reaction against us publicly displaying support for LGBTQ+ rights. Students were recently given permission to fly flags and posters from the inside of their windows following a massive impetus for the freedom of expression. In some ways, this week’s decision feels like a protest against this new freedom, doing nothing to subdue our dissatisfaction. It suggests that this initial change was allowed simply to allow college to justify not joining us in our expressions of support.

Despite offering to meet with students to explain this choice, there is a shared sense of alienation in the student body, especially from those LGBTQ+ identifying. While opening a dialogue is important, the student body has already taken every opportunity to express our desire to display these flags. For these fellows who argued for this decision to explain why they do not support flying the flag in spite of our dissenting expressions of opinion seems to rub salt in this open wound.

We can acknowledge that flags are important symbols which are frequently used politically. But supporting equal rights, as they are now enshrined in law, should no longer be a political act. Rather, the Pride flag has evolved into one of reflection and celebration that commemorates – hence its previous flyings on dates such as the start and end of LGBTQ+ history month – the progress we have made and the oppression we have overcome. The fact that in their statement suggests that these flags should not be flown so that they can remain neutral on “political questions” is a testament to how members of this college still view these rights as up for debate. Equal rights should not be reduced to something as volatile as a question. To do this feeds into the historical injustices forced onto LGBTQ+ people and is wholly damaging for both the community and Caius’ overall commitment to opposing discrimination and ensuring equality.