The University of Oxford has introduced a new requirement for undergraduate students of History to take at least one exam paper in non-European studies.

Options include the Civil Rights movement, Indian independence, and Middle Eastern and Asian history. The requirement will come into effect for students matriculating this Autumn.

The announcement comes after students throughout the country protested as part of the ‘Why is my curriculum white?’ campaign, which began at University College London, and aims to expose the lack of diversity in education. Last year, Oxford’s Oriel College refused to remove a statue of Imperialist Cecil Rhodes, which students protested is symbolic of colonialism.

However, a spokesperson for the University of Oxford told Varsity that the announcement was the result of a “University-led initiative, and was not a response to any kind of campaign or pressure.

“The History Faculty regularly reviews and updates its course curriculum to reflect the latest developments in the subject. After a number of years of discussion and consultation among ourselves and with students, we have decided to make a number of changes to the curriculum. Among these is a requirement that students study one paper (from a wide range of such options) in non-British and non-European History.”

They added,  “We are pleased to be modernising and diversifying our curriculum in this way”.

Several media outlets initially reported that the university intended to introduce compulsory non-White and non-European History modules for its students, overstretching the actual change which will simply require students to take one paper in non-British and non-European history from among a range of existing options.

The reports provoked criticism of the “deep inadequacies of the British press” from the Oxford campaign group Rhodes Must Fall. In a Facebook post, the group stated: “The step is in the right direction but the ways that it has been exaggerated have given good press to an institution [Oxford University] which still does not deserve any good press at all.”

Oxford’s Women’s Campaign Women of Colour representative Kanak Shah welcomed the move, saying: “Taking a concrete step to move away from such an institutionalised focus on white, British history is significant because it signals a realisation that in order to increase diversity, change has to happen at all levels of the university. Hopefully, many departments will continue to listen to all the students that are trying to work towards change, and courses will continue to develop to make sure that recognising the importance of diversity is compulsory.”

Students of History at Cambridge are expected to take two papers in British history, and one on European history, in Part I of the History Tripos. However, there are no requirements regarding non-British or non-European history.

Professor of Modern Cultural History at Cambridge, Peter Mandler, told Varsity that students took “a wide range of papers covering all the world’s histories. Non-Western history is a great strength to the Faculty and is very appealing to our students.” He thought that most students would study at least some non-European history over the course of their degree.

He also added that the Faculty has been “further extending” its coverage recently, citing plans to appoint a professor of Caribbean history in the near future.

Earlier this year, the University also finalised plans to establish the Jennifer Ward Oppenheimer Professorship of the Deep History and Archaeology of Africa at the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, to begin in August this year.

Howard Chae, a first-year History student at Magdalene College, expressed his support for the announcement by Oxford, telling Varsity that  “a similar move at Cambridge would certainly be a step in the right direction, and bring us closer to an inclusive and culturally sensitive curriculum.”

In a message posted on Facebook, President of the Cambridge University African Caribbean Society Ore Ogunbiyi indicated her “many reservations” about the announcement, stating that a  “gross lack of diversity in our curriculums” still remained. “But,” she concluded, “Cambridge, what’s good?”