OU students’ virtual protests against genocide disrupt online uni’s recruitment
Students of the Open University (OU) have started a series of coordinated digital protests against the OU’s ‘partnerships’ with arms makers and other firms enabling Israel’s genocide. The ‘virtual protests’ are targeting the university’s online recruitment events.
The OU is the UK’s largest distance-learning university and is used by students from across the UK and around the world. Many of them choose online learning because of health conditions or caring responsibilities. But they are not letting this stop them from standing in solidarity with Palestinians facing Israel’s crimes and protesting against their university’s ties with arms companies.
Nancy, an OU student with disabilities who is taking part in the protests, said:
As a disabled student, my ability to take part in activism has often been limited by my health. Being involved in the BAE Systems event was the first time I could meaningfully engage in activism from my own bed. The OU Friends of Palestine group has given me the opportunity to be part of a movement I care deeply about.
In February 2026, BAE Systems hosted its annual online “Capture the Flag” event. This is a two-day careers programme focusing on cybersecurity. But the event did not run smoothly. Over 20 students affiliated with Open University Friends of Palestine (OUFP) registered to take part. They messaged around 170 participants to challenge the presence of BAE Systems and other death merchants at the university:
The students who took part said their actions were driven by the company’s role in supplying weapons to governments accused of human rights abuses, including in conflicts where civilians and infrastructure have been harmed. Colette, a military veteran who was removed from the event after speaking up, wrote about the experience:
I should know enough about this – I experienced PTSD symptoms because of my role in the illegal Iraq war. It is morally incomprehensible that the Open University is facilitating those profiteering from conflict, war, and genocide.
Participants say that event moderators removed those who raised pro-Palestinian or anti-war views, while allowing participants to express support for Israel or make offensive remarks — including a joke about ethnic cleansing using “bath bombs”. Some students have since filed a formal complaint with the university and are calling on members of the public to support them by writing to the institution using an email template they published online.
More Open University protests
On 18 February students also protested an Open University careers event hosted by Cisco, with help from current and former Cisco employees affiliated to the Bridge to Humanity campaign. The OU is described as one of the world’s largest ‘Cisco Networking Academy’ support centres. Students allege that the company provides infrastructure linked to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory and maintains operations in areas considered illegal under international law. As with the BAE event, protesters say organisers restricted critical discussion, disabling the chat and Q&A and removing participants who raised inconvenient questions.
Former Cisco employees supporting the protest have said these repressive actions mirror the way their concerns were handled internally by the company. They pointed to an open letter signed by more than 1,700 employees calling on the company to clarify and reconsider some of its contracts related to Israel.
One said:
Seeing Cisco silence Open University students for asking simple and reasonable questions came as no surprise to us Cisco employees. We experienced the same internally when over 1700 of us signed an open letter to our leadership asking for transparency.
OUFP is a student-led group made up of OU students and alumni, and affiliated to the university’s student union (OUSU) and its Palestine Solidarity group. It campaigns on issues related to Palestine and the arms industry and advocates for changes to the university’s partnerships and investment policies. The groups have opposed the Open University’s collaboration with Israel lobby pressure group UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) and are working to push for divestment from companies linked with Israel and the arms trade.
The group is now appealing to the public to write to the university supporting OUFP’s actions, using an online form on its website.
Featured image via the Canary
Comments 2
Leave a Reply
The Canary
PO Box 71199
LONDON
SE20 9EX
Canary Media Ltd – registered in England. Company registration number 09788095.
For guest posting, contact [email protected]
For other enquiries, contact: [email protected]
© Canary Media Ltd 2026, all rights reserved | Website by Monster | Hosted by Krystal | Privacy Settings
Good evening, I participated in this event as a player. Hardly any disruption was caused. Everyone who attempted to disrupt the event was swiftly removed. This information is completely false. Despite this, OpenSU encouraged this and the spread of misinformation about the OU and it’s partners during this event.
I’m a final-year BSc (Hons) Cyber Security student at the Open University and took part in the BAE CTF as a player. Reading this, there’s a clear gap between how this is framed and what actually happened.
The article presents this as disruption of BAE Systems, but by its own account the event still went ahead, and those raising issues were simply removed. That isn’t meaningful disruption of a major defence contractor – for them it’s business as usual.
The real impact was on students. Participants were placed into teams with activists who never intended to engage with the technical challenges. A CTF isn’t so much a “recruitment event” as it is a rare opportunity for collaboration, skills development, and peer learning, especially for distance learners, many of whom would never work for the defence industry on principle.
Within InfOUSec (the OU Cyber Security Society), we had made deliberate efforts to create both competitive teams and mixed-ability teams so newer students could learn from more experienced students. Activists would have therefore been assigned randomly to teams of mostly new students who were not aware of our society, so when their “team-mates” failed to participate in the technical challenges they would have had nowhere to turn to for support.
No doubt people will argue that the cause is more important. But if the protest tactics leave the intended target unaffected while sabotaging the educational experience of fellow students – and disproportionately harming those already at a disadvantage in terms of privilege and social capital – then it’s hard to view this protest as anything other than counterproductive.