Starting in the new academic year, history students at Oxford University will have to pass an exam on “non-British and non-European history” to complete their degree. The university has been quick to dismiss any connection between this move and the campaigns to decolonise academia that have swept across British universities in general and Oxford in particular. But make no mistake, this change is the fruit of Rhodes Must Fall, which sought to remove the legacy of colonialist Cecil Rhodes at Oxford, and the wider Why is my curriculum white? campaign.

The news comes amid other developments, including the University of Leeds’ module on black British history and my own institution, Birmingham City University, launching Europe’s first undergraduate degree in black studies. Student campaigners should be proud of the momentum for change they have built up but also wary as institutions begin to respond.

The news from Oxford tells us the scale of the problems in the university system. The fact it has taken until the 21st century for history students at Oxford to be required to learn about events outside Europe is inexcusable. It provides further evidence of the limited education that students are receiving in universities across the country.

This is not just an Oxford problem – and it goes far beyond just the subject of history. As much as we should welcome the move, we should also question why so little has been done so very late. Scholars such as Hakim Adi (the only black professor of history in the country) have been working for years to create meaningful changes in the discipline.

One significant problem is that the compulsory exam separates out anything British or European from anything that is not white. Topics such as British Black Power, the Asian Youth Movements or even the African presence on the British Isles that dates back centuries will still be neglected.

More importantly, the idea that you could possibly understand the history of Britain without seriously studying Africa, Asia and the Caribbean is a dangerous fiction. Britain’s place in the world is entirely dependent on the empire, which at its peak covered two thirds of the globe.

All the pivotal movements since then involved significant contributions from the colonies. The industrial revolution was fuelled by the enslavement of Africans; neither of the 20th century’s world wars would have been won without soldiers and support from the empire. Even the postwar welfare state, in particular the cherished NHS, relied (and still does) on labour from Africa, the Caribbean and Asia. We should have long ago put to bed the myth that there is any history of Britain that does not include the stories of the darker peoples from the colonies.

Truly decolonising the curriculum would entail deconstructing the Eurocentric basis for our study of history. Tinkering at the edges will not solve this crisis of knowledge. While the changes at Oxford are a step in the right direction, they are such a small one that they should stand as a reminder of all the work that remains to be done. Student activists should be proud of what they have been able to achieve but also dissatisfied with the slow rate of progress. As Frederick Douglass said, “power concedes nothing without a demand”, and there are many, many more demands left to be made.