1
Chapter 1
A history of CUSU 1964–2014
010
Students’ union origins
016
The fight for change
024
Action and activism
036
Access and diversity
046
The road ahead
CUSU has come a long way over the past 50 years, but at its heart remains the goal of providing students with a platform for representation. This chapter documents the origins of the students’ union, along with its subsequent struggles, successes and ongoing challenges
Students’ union origins Despite inertia and infighting from some quarters, the early champions of student representation at Cambridge gave voice to the call for progress
On a Wednesday evening in late January 1964,
years since the first attempt to found a student council had failed, the political
a seemingly mismatched group of 30 Cambridge
landscape in Cambridge had changed considerably; enough to suggest that a
University students gathered in a common room
new attempt would have a greater chance of success. A particularly important
in Christ’s College. Five of the group were JCR
development at that time was the gradual acceptance in Cambridge of the National
Presidents and the remainder were drawn from
Union of Students (NUS), which in turn led to the establishment in October 1963
the ranks of the Cambridge Regional Branch
of its aforementioned Cambridge regional branch, CAMNUS.
of the National Union of Students (CAMNUS), a
Crucially, CAMNUS was not a representative body, yet despite – or perhaps
number of student political clubs and the Union
because of – its political impotence, it became the driving force behind the
Society (Cambridge’s world-famous debating club).
conception and subsequent birth of a cross-campus student representative council
Their allegiances were varied, but they shared a
in Cambridge. In an article on the Oxford Student Council that appeared in Varsity
common cause: the establishment of a student
on 25 January 1964, CAMNUS’s General Secretary, Andrew Singer, put forward
council in Cambridge.
the case for establishing a similar student body in Cambridge. As Singer noted
Buoyed by the success of a similar student body
in respect to his own organisation: “We can never have the same authority behind
in Oxford, the idealistic young people who gathered in Christ’s that night were nevertheless aware of the obstacles and potential pitfalls that lay before them. A previous attempt to establish a student council in Cambridge had failed miserably just three years earlier, and the sense persisted among the university’s senior members as well as among much of the student populace that university-wide student representation was unnecessary in Cambridge. After all, each of the university’s constituent colleges – which at that time numbered 24 – boasted a Junior Combination Room (JCR) with a student-led committee that represented its members’ interests to the college authorities. What, the naysayers wondered, could a cross-campus student council do for Cambridge’s college-bound Right: The SRC receives
undergraduates that these JCR committees could not?
a show of hands in January 1964, Varsity
Student representation This question, and many related issues, had been
010
Opposite: The candidates
thrashed out in the pages of the student newspaper,
for Cambridge’s first student
Varsity, for several years, but the debate reached a
council, Varsity
new level of intensity in January 1964. In the three
us [...] It is very necessary that we should establish some sort of representative Student Council so that we can make effective the views and opinions of students in the running of their own university.” Four days later, on Wednesday 29 January, he drew together 30 of his Cambridge peers at that fateful meeting in Christ’s, and they were not only receptive to the idea of a student council, but also had the political drive and energy to make it happen. SRC is voted in The matter was discussed and debated at length that evening, and several dissenting views were expressed before the motion that a Student Representative Council (SRC) be convened in Cambridge was put to a vote. It passed unanimously with just two abstentions. A working committee was then formed comprising the JCR Presidents of King’s, Girton and Newnham, the President of the Union Society and three members of CAMNUS: Des Desforges, Gordon Heald and Andrew Singer. Having made clear the fact that he “personally would like the Union [Society] to have a connection with” the SRC, Norman Lamont – the then President of the Union Society and a future Chancellor of the Exchequer – was one of those chosen to serve on the working committee. Although Lamont was quick to point out that “I can’t speak for the rest of the Union”, Cambridge’s debating society proved to be particularly supportive of the new student group since it immediately provided facilities for SRC meetings within its own building and would later provide office accommodation for the council in its properties on Round Church Street. Indeed, as later developments would demonstrate, collaboration between the SRC
011
“
the src was increasingly seen to be out of step with the needs of those whom it sought to represent
”
and the Union Society would be a recurring feature of Cambridge
progress in the university.” Disappointingly, however, despite having
life in the first three decades of the new student body’s existence.
taken a huge step forward by both establishing and lending their
In contrast to the proposed 1961 student council, which would
support to the SRC, the majority of Cambridge students were so
have been formed exclusively of JCR presidents, the fledgling SRC
mired in tradition that they failed to recognise the benefits of having
comprised college representatives who were elected with the sole
university as well as college representatives on the new student
purpose of serving on the council. By mid-February 1964, every
council. Such was the level of opposition to the very notion of
college had agreed to consider sending a representative to the
university reps that no sooner had they been elected than it was
SRC and several had already elected their delegates.
decided that a referendum would be held to decide the future of these controversial roles. Unsurprisingly, when the referendum took
University reps
place in Lent term 1965, the SRC’s university representatives were
At the end of Lent term, however, the working committee adapted
voted out of existence.
the organisation’s evolving structure so that it would better reflect its cross-campus responsibilities. To this end, it was decided that in addition to the college delegates, the SRC should also include a number of elected representatives who would be chosen through a university-wide election. These university reps, as they were known, quickly became a source of controversy since, unlike their college counterparts, it was unclear what their role would be and where their allegiances would lie. It was feared, for instance, that their inclusion on the council meant that some colleges would effectively be represented twice. Questions also arose concerning the financing of elections to select these representatives and, added to these concerns, was the fact that many of the candidates Above: Cambridge students’
were left-leaning liberals, which was a most unwelcome prospect
union publications old and
in some quarters and left them open to the charge of being
not so old
unrepresentative of Cambridge students as a whole. In the end, 15 candidates stood for election on the university ballot in March
012
Right and opposite:
1964, and the six selected representatives, in order of their election,
The SRC’s replacement,
were Lisa Bronowski, Regan Scott, Sheena Matheson, Roy Carr-Hill,
the SRA, comes in for some
John Costello and John MacDonald.
The first proper meeting of the SRC took place towards the
stick from The Shilling Paper
The fact that three women topped the poll is indicative of the
end of Lent term 1964, by which time a draft constitution had been
in 1969
desire for real change in Cambridge at that time and a willingness
prepared and Queens’ representative Martin Adeney had been
to believe that the SRC could provide it. As Bronowski stated shortly
elected to the role of Acting Chairman. According to its provisional
after the count: “The SRC is a break with tradition in Cambridge
constitution, the SRC’s purpose was “to represent the students
and will provide it with a contemporary undergraduate voice. It will
collectively and individually in matters affecting their interests and in
ensure that tradition alone is not used as an excuse for hindering
consultation with senior members”. Recognising that the university
“has changed its character; students are coming up with different needs” and
student council on the grounds that it would simply end up duplicating the activities
that “new institutions are needed to match the new conditions”, the SRC aimed
of CAMNUS. Bibby’s concern was not seen as a major problem, however, since
to increase and improve relations between senior and junior members while
Andrew Singer and his CAMNUS colleagues imagined that, rather than replicate
“at the same time giving a more formal expression to the rights of students”.
their activities, “such a committee or council would be able to take over many
Accordingly, it set out to “promote the formation of student committees in
of what are now the functions of CAMNUS”.
each faculty”, to overhaul the proctorial system by establishing legal safeguards
As anticipated, within two years of its foundation, the SRC had absorbed
for students that would include “the right to witnesses and the right to appeal
CAMNUS and its various services into its structure. During these crucial first years,
to a higher judge” and to establish “a formal channel through which its own
it also set about expanding its business interests and range of services still further.
views may be communicated to the University Senate”.
In 1965, the council, together with the Union Society, established Cambridge
Four subcommittees were set up at that first official meeting, tasked
University Office Facilities for University Societies, otherwise known as CUOFFUS,
with investigating libraries, lodgings, discipline and mental health, and these
which made available at a cheap rate to society officers a number of typewriters
subcommittees – and others – would become one of the defining features
and mimeographing machines. Following a recommendation by one Vince Cable,
of the SRC. Indeed, like its Oxford equivalent, the SRC set about representing
the Fitzwilliam House representative from 1965 to 1966, the SRC also established
its members’ interests by producing a series of detailed reports based on the
and ran a thriving second-hand book and record stall in the lobby of the Union
findings of its various subcommittees.
Society building. Also in 1966, SRC President Ernest Brauch spearheaded the
As well as using these reports to help influence decision-makers within the
production of the SRC Guide, which, despite almost bankrupting the council
university, the new council was committed to communicating “its views to external
in its first year of printing, was the ultimately successful forerunner to CUSU’s
organisations with an interest in student conditions in Cambridge”. To this end,
various student-focused publications over the next five decades, including its
in December 1964, it set about preparing a memorandum to the University
enormously popular Alternative Prospectus.
Grants Committee (UGC) that would include evidence and recommendations on teaching and living conditions within the university, as well as on the institution’s organisational structure. In addition to this, Roy Carr-Hill – one of the SRC’s six university reps – was tasked with heading a committee to look into the feasibility and need for a central students’ union in Cambridge. Call for a central union This subcommittee was also mandated to prepare evidence for inclusion in the proposed submission to the UGC in October 1965. Subsequent to Carr-Hill’s findings, the SRC, in conjunction with the Union Society, submitted a request to the UGC for a grant of almost a quarter of a million pounds in order to establish a central union in Cambridge. The application failed, but the need persisted and, alongside the contentious issues of discipline and student representation, the challenge to find a suitable permanent home for itself would become one of CUSU’s most dominant and enduring concerns over the next five decades. At the meeting in Christ’s in January 1964, one of several dissenting views was put forward by Queens’ student John Bibby, who objected to the proposed
013
Yet while these enterprises helped to ensure the SRC’s financial
inertia and ineffectiveness of its predecessor, and it suffered the
viability and to maintain a visible presence within the university, they
consequences. Calls for an open union with an open-meeting
were not enough to guarantee its continued survival.
structure, in which students could vote directly on the issues that affected them, became louder and more persistent. Not only did
014
Call for political engagement
a group of left-wing activists and anarchists disrupt the SRA’s first
Rather, as the 1960s wore on and attitudes continued to change in
meeting, but also, through The Shilling Paper – Cambridge’s hugely
Cambridge, the SRC was increasingly seen to be out of step with
popular journal of the militant far left – they launched a concerted
the needs of those whom it sought to represent. Its many reports
media campaign against the new student body, mercilessly deriding
and numerous committees and subcommittees combined to
it in a series of news articles and cartoon images.
create an image of a stagnant and bureaucratic organisation that
Following the so-called Garden House Riot in February 1970,
lacked the initiative and energy needed to represent an increasingly
it was felt ever more keenly in Cambridge that a strong student
diverse and politically engaged student populace.
representative body was needed; one that was capable of standing
In the late 1960s, direct action by students in Paris, Berlin, Tokyo
up to the university authorities and of challenging injustice, by means
Top: A 1969 poster calls for
and the USA, and the brutality with which these global protests were
of direct action if necessary. Such was its desire to rid Cambridge
an open union
brought to heel by their respective governments, had an enormous
of the SRA that the “revolutionary left” devised a plan to destroy the
impact on politically engaged and socially conscious students in
assembly from within by getting one of their own number elected as
Above: A student council
Cambridge. In early February 1969, in the wake of an impromptu
its President. The Communist Society urged Queens’ history student
report from 1965, the likes
sit-in at the Mill Lane Lecture Rooms and a brief occupation of the
John Newbigin, a prominent member of the Socialist Society and a
of which were soon to be
Old Schools in support of protesting students in LSE, an open letter
regular contributor to The Shilling Paper, to stand against eight other
deemed out of step with the
issued by a group of Cambridge “radicals” called for the complete
candidates in the election held at the end of Easter term 1970.
mood of the day by many
reform of the SRC. In response, 23 of the council’s 24 representatives
With just 1,654 votes cast, the poll was undeniably small, but
resigned their seats and its chairman, Steve Hoddell, announced
Newbigin won by an overwhelming majority of first-preference
its dissolution.
votes: 942, compared to the second-placed candidate, the pro-
Much to the annoyance of Cambridge’s various far-left groups,
SRA John Cartledge, who secured a mere 222 first-preference
however, the SRC was replaced almost immediately by another
votes. Shortly after his victory, Newbigin made clear his intention
version of itself: the Student Representative Assembly (SRA), which
to radically transform student representative politics in Cambridge
appeared to differ from the earlier body only insofar as it boasted
by announcing that if the SRA could not “end its own miserable
a “parliamentary” executive of almost 200 student representatives.
existence, I’ll have to do it for them”. The militant left was finally
Led by an elected President, Dave Boggett, the new student
ascendant and Cambridge was on the cusp of a significant wave
assembly failed to distance itself sufficiently from the perceived
of change.
For the record
Lisa Jardine, née Bronowski SRC University Representative 1964
“
I came to Cambridge from a well-known private
I was an extremely active member of the
girls’ school, where girls were told they could achieve
Cambridge Labour Club, and as far as I recall
anything they wanted if they worked for it, and
my male friends there persuaded me to stand
that girls were intellectually equal to boys. I came
for election as one of the SRC’s university reps.
up to read mathematics, and already had a keen
I remember that a national newspaper came to
interest in Labour politics. What I found was an
interview me about it and published a photo of me
institution that was suffocatingly misogynistic,
reclining seductively on my college bed with a saucy
particularly in the sciences, and where the Labour
caption. It was my very first brush with the press
Club, too, treated women as second-class citizens
and it was a nightmare. I have never since allowed
– we typed the documents and made the tea.
myself to be posed in a compromisingly ‘feminine’
However, all of this had changed by my third
position for a media photograph.
year, which suggests that things like the SRC
I don’t really recall any details of the controversy
had helped to make a difference, or at least
concerning the university reps, although everything
been part of the process of change.
that involved me and my fellow reps was controversial
Cambridge University was just hopelessly
at the time, because we were politically active,
old-fashioned, and comfortable in its own outmoded
outspoken ‘lefties’. All of us challenged the university
ways. We were at the beginning of the so-called
structures on multiple occasions. Our greatest
Swinging Sixties, and we might as well have been
achievement was getting the SRC to exist at all.
in the Reform Club or the officers’ mess. There were
To most of our contemporaries it smacked of the
men’s drinking clubs in all the colleges and male
working classes and trades unions.
undergraduates hugely outnumbered female ones.
I don’t think my involvement in the SRC
A boys’ public school atmosphere pervaded the
influenced my life and career, at least not as far as
place, particularly the University Union, which
I am aware. Oh, except for not being photographed
was regularly and unashamedly offensive to the
reclining on a bed ever again. And maybe discovering
women present … actually, most women simply
that using political process could be as effective as
didn’t go near it.
agitprop and street protest.
”
015
The fight for change in its efforts to survive and thrive, the students’ union’s name, address and sense of purpose have all changed on several occasions over the past 50 years
016
Michaelmas term 1970 had barely begun when the newly elected
the Union Society open its doors to all students, and
President of the SRA, John Newbigin, announced his decision
the other is [that we] look for a different site and start
to reform the assembly and rename it the Cambridge University
from scratch”. In Newbigin’s opinion, the most sensible
Students’ Union (CUSU). Despite the failure of the SRA to attract
option was the first – a proposed merger between the
sufficient numbers of students to its open meetings in the previous
CSU and the Union Society – but this, he believed, was
year, Newbigin insisted that “open meetings can work” and set about
“out of the question until the Union [Society] resolves
drawing up a provisional constitution that held that the sovereign
its membership problems, ceases to be a private
body of the new union should be an open meeting with a quorum
society, and becomes part of a union genuinely open
of at least 200.
to all”. If these aims could be achieved, he argued, and
Newbigin’s vision was of a campaigning union whose open-
“if enough energy is put into it, a central union could
meeting structure was designed to achieve maximum participation, in
be established by the end of the year”.
contrast to the “parliamentary” system favoured by preceding bodies.
Unsurprisingly, Newbigin’s optimism and energy
Accordingly, he proposed that CUSU hold three open meetings per
were not nearly enough to get such an ambitious
term and that the new executive committee should consist of himself,
project off the ground. Philip Heslop, the Union
eight elected members and two members co-opted by the elected
Society President at the time, was vehemently
officers and the Senior Treasurer.
opposed to the idea, and without his support, Union
There was some controversy over the naming of the new student
Society officers who looked favourably on the
organisation, with opinion divided over whether it should be called
proposal were obliged to negotiate with the CSU
the Cambridge University Students’ Union or simply the Cambridge
in secret. Chief among the clandestine negotiators
Above: Former President of the Union Society
Students’ Union, with the latter term incorporating Homerton and the
were Arianna Stassinopoulos and David Powell for
Arianna Stassinopoulos (later Huffington)
Technical College, too. Although Newbigin favoured the first option,
the Union Society, while Charles Clarke and John
the organisation was rebranded the Cambridge Students’ Union (CSU)
Stewart represented the CSU. These movers and
Opposite: Varsity profiles the CSU’s first
less than a week after the announcement of the SRA’s demise and
shakers would soon rise through the ranks of their
President, Charles Clarke, in 1971
would not become CUSU until 1985.
respective organisations. Stassinopoulos – who is better known today as Arianna Huffington, founder
An open union
of The Huffington Post – was elected to the role of
With the change of name and constitution settled, Newbigin turned his
President of the Union Society in Michaelmas term
attention to the organisation’s place of business. Like the SRC and SRA
1971, with Powell elected at the same time to the
before it, the CSU was housed in 3 Round Church Street, a building
position of Vice-President. Similarly, Charles Clarke
rented from the Union Society that was entirely inadequate to meet its
– who would go on to a successful political career,
needs. A drive to find and fund a central students’ union in Cambridge
serving as Home Secretary in Tony Blair’s second
had been attempted in the mid-1960s, and Newbigin resurrected the
Labour government – took up office as the first
cause, making it one of the CSU’s primary concerns. Writing in Varsity
(if unofficial) sabbatical President of the CSU in July
in November 1970, he highlighted the two main directions the new
of that year. With these heavy-hitters throwing their
campaign for a central union could take. The first, he wrote, “is that
combined weight behind the proposal, a central
017
“
Despite mounting hostilities, Clarke refused to give up on the prospect of an open union
”
union and permanent home for the CSU seemed almost inevitable.
out-and-out condemnation of the Greek regime that Clarke and
Matters, however, were about to take a surprising turn.
a growing number of additional detractors demanded from her. Despite mounting hostilities between the two presidents, however,
Political controversy
Clarke refused to give up on the prospect of an open union.
In September 1971, Stassinopoulos courted controversy when,
In a letter to Varsity, published on 6 November 1971, the CSU
on holiday in her home country, she was photographed in a
President and his supporters reaffirmed their belief that “Cambridge
newspaper with a senior Greek government minister by her side.
requires a central students’ union open to all students”, that “this
During her visit, she also appeared in a programme that was aired
can be best achieved through cooperation between the Cambridge
on Greek television’s armed forces channel. She could not have
Students’ Union and the Union Society” and that “plans for opening
made a more risky move. Not only was Greece under the control
the Union Society building to all Cambridge students should be
of a junta, but the fraught political situation in her homeland had
expedited as soon as possible”. In issuing this letter, Clarke had the
incited the so-called Garden House Riot – a student protest in
support of a range of signatories including the whole CSU executive,
Cambridge the previous year that ended in violence and led to the
22 of the 23 JCR presidents, the students’ union presidents of
arrest and subsequent prosecution of 15 Cambridge University
Homerton and the Technical College, and three members of the
students. As if the political landscape in Greece wasn’t slippery
Union Society Standing Committee. Most controversially, in what
enough, almost as slick was the means by which Stassinopoulos’s
was interpreted by Stassinopoulos as an effective takeover bid, the
activities on her home turf ultimately came to light.
letter stated that “the Union Society building should be administered
According to a contemporaneous account, the whistle-blower
by Cambridge Students’ Union”.
was none other than Charles Clarke who, in early October 1971,
018
received a letter from a group calling themselves The Greek
Stalled progress
Committee Against Dictatorship. Not only did the letter alert the
Soon afterwards, when a motion to negotiate with the CSU was
CSU President to Stassinopoulos’s appearances in the media, but
passed by a small Union Society meeting, Stassinopoulos overruled
it also claimed that, in her capacity as President of the “Cambridge
the decision, declaring it out of order on constitutional grounds
Union”, her actions gave “considerable ground to the Greek
and refused to set up a negotiating committee. She also claimed
government to claim that the students of Cambridge support the
in an open letter to Varsity that no agreement had been reached
present regime in Greece”. In response, an outraged Clarke issued
between the Union Society and the CSU during the discussions
a lengthy public statement outlining the CSU’s position in relation
that had already taken place, and she dismissed entirely the terms
to this development and, more generally, in respect to the ongoing
put forward by Clarke and his supporters. Instead, she decided
political situation in Stassinopoulos’s home country. Crucially, he
to issue a questionnaire to Union Society members to determine
also made clear the fact that the Union Society “is a private club”,
their position in relation to the proposed open union. When the
which, unlike the CSU, was not representative of Cambridge
result of the survey was published in January 1972, it showed that
students as a whole.
the society’s members voted overwhelmingly against the terms
For her part, the Union Society President’s reaction to the
proposed by the CSU, with 1,247 against and 559 in favour of the
controversy was to “utterly reject the accusations”, which, she
proposed merger. For the time being, at least, Clarke and his
Opposite: A Varsity collage
said, were motivated by “short-sighted personal enmity”. Yet, while
supporters were forced to admit defeat.
conveys some of the internal
she insisted that her media appearances should not be perceived
Although it may have seemed otherwise, all was not entirely
conflicts of 1972
as a reflection of her political views, she failed to provide the
lost, however. The outcome of Stassinopoulos’s questionnaire was
019
“
The campaign for a central union was back on track and seemed unlikely to be derailed
”
published when her term as president had come to an end and former Vice-
student fee from the funds available to them. Similarly, the Union Society held
President David Powell had taken up office as the newly elected president in her
two polls on the matter, the first of which was carried by 730 votes to 703 and
stead. Powell, who had always been in favour of an open union, quickly devised an
the second by 743 votes to 687. In spite of overwhelming support for the proposal
alternative plan in which the Union Society and the CSU could retain their autonomy
in principle, however, and most frustratingly for all concerned, the scheme was
but share between them the centrally located Union Society building. In so doing, he
ultimately abandoned because of the lack of unanimous college or JCR support.
managed to sidestep two legal problems that had not yet been taken into account.
It is indeed ironic that, at a time when the dreamed-of central union was so
The first of these was that the Union Society building was subject to the
tantalisingly close to becoming a reality that Clarke and Carey could well have
terms of the Literary and Scientific Institutions Act of 1854. Under this act, if the
imagined it a done deal, the plan was scuppered by those who stood to benefit from
building ceased to be used as a debating society, its title would revert to the Estate
it most. After this highly charged period in CUSU’s affairs – a period punctuated by
of Sir Henry Peto, who had granted it to the original trustees more than a century
drama, intrigue and any amount of political posturing and preening – the continued
earlier. On top of this, successive trustees of the building had a duty to preserve
campaign for a central union in cooperation with the Union Society would strike
it for the use of the Union Society and did not have the power to approve its use
a more low-key and irregular note.
for any other purpose. Powell’s proposal made it possible for the Union Society to tackle its difficult financial situation by renting most of the building to CUSU while
Changing fortunes
retaining the debating chamber, rooms one to four, and its extensive collection
In 1974, an altogether different approach to the problem was undertaken.
of books exclusively for its own members’ use.
Rather than divide the Union Society building between the two organisations, it
Such was the plan’s appeal that it soon received the full backing of the
was proposed that a dedicated student centre be built at the back of the existing
university-appointed Plumley Committee, which, in its report of 24 February 1972
building. The Wolfson Foundation was approached and asked to finance the
recommended that the Council of the Senate support the proposed splitting of the
new building’s construction and to provide a charitable endowment to meet
Union Society building and, if economically feasible, provide a student centre open
the centre’s running costs. Both requests were turned down, however, and
to all Cambridge students, including those at Homerton and the tech. By the time
the prospect of a central union for Cambridge was once again placed on
Kevin Carey was elected President of the Union Society the following term, the
the back burner.
campaign for a central union was back on track and seemed unlikely to be derailed.
It would remain there, quietly simmering, until the late 1980s when the Union Society decided to sell for demolition and redevelopment its buildings
020
Considerable costs
on Round Church Street, including numbers 3 and 4, which housed the student
In May 1972, Clarke and Carey – the latter a vocal advocate for an open or central
union’s various offices and services. By this time, the CSU’s fortunes had changed
union – were invited by the Council of the Senate to serve on a committee set up
considerably. In 1980, the Regent House voted in favour of establishing a “working
to consider the financial and administrative implications of the proposed scheme.
relationship” between the university and the student organisation, and five years
According to their findings, the estimated annual running costs of a student centre
later, the newly named CUSU enjoyed formal recognition by the university for a
in the Union Society building would be in the region of £30,000. This was in addition
full year. Although they were owned by the Union Society, the buildings in Round
to any initial capital outlay needed. The major part of this expenditure would be met
Church Street had been leased by the university since 1981, and in light of plans
by the university and the colleges, with the latter bodies required to make an annual
to develop the site, the institution offered to accommodate CUSU temporarily in
contribution of at least £2 per undergraduate – a significant sum in 1972.
the Hawk’s Club, which was then located around the corner in All Saint’s Passage.
Referenda were held in most of the colleges and, as well as voting in favour of
Intent on finding a more suitable outcome to their respective predicaments,
the proposed student centre, a majority of JCRs committed to paying the requisite
however, CUSU and the cash-strapped Union Society had already begun to
Clockwise from top left: Former students’ union headquarters on Round Church Street; and Trumpington Street; and the union’s current Old Examination Hall home
021
Above: A glimpse inside the SRA’s “entirely inadequate” facilities on Round Church Street, Varsity
reconsider the possibility of sharing the Union Society building between them.
becoming increasingly concerned about the poor condition of its Trumpington
At a joint meeting between the two organisations in November 1987, it was
Street offices, as well as its distance from the centre of town. In 2004/05, Sabbatical
decided that if a central students’ union was to be situated in the Union Society
Officer Ed Shattock (Services) and part-time Officer Ben Wheeler (Communications)
building, it should be run by elected officers from a cross-campus ballot and
set about documenting conditions in Trumpington Street and produced from their
be headed by a representative council of “all concerned”. As for managing the
findings a report called ‘The Case for a Union Building: Building a Brighter Future
proposed students’ union, it was decided that a joint administrative committee
for Student Support, Representation and Services’.
(JAC) would be set up to oversee the administration and maintenance of the
In addition to the fact that its size was insufficient to accommodate the
building and to arrange for the provision of secretarial services. It was also agreed
various individuals and organisations that it was intended to house – which,
that – in compliance with the Literary and Scientific Institutions Act – the proposed
besides CUSU, included the two student newspapers Varsity and The Cambridge
students’ union would maintain an open debating society. It was envisaged,
Student, the student charity Contact and the Cambridge Rag Appeal – 11–12
furthermore, that the student union’s facilities would include a bar, food, CUSU
Trumpington Street was completely inaccessible to wheelchair users. Its small
offices, meeting rooms for other societies, a welfare office, childcare service,
corridors and narrow stairwells meant, furthermore, that students with less
printing space and provision for hosting events and entertainment. It would also
severe mobility problems were also effectively excluded from making use
include a shop, which would be separate from the rest of the building and could
it. Added to these drawbacks was the inescapable fact that the offices were
be opened and closed independently.
permeated by damp, which made for a particularly uncomfortable and unhealthy
A shop had been an important and profitable part of CUSU’s expanding
working environment.
range of services since 1975, and CUSU was understandably anxious to retain it.
Shattock and Wheeler conducted a survey of JCRs, MCRs (Middle Combination
Located at the top of a staircase above the Union Society kitchens at 3a Round
Rooms) and other relevant interest groups. Unsurprisingly, the results were “almost
Church Street, the CUSU shop was managed by one Mrs Charlesworth and
unanimously” in favour of a central “facility where students can seek advice and
supplied its customers with affordably priced stationery and handmade “third
representation, a venue where societies can hold meetings, a place to have a coffee
world goods”. CUSU’s proposed relocation to the Hawks’ Club meant that it
and chat with friends from other colleges”. In its report, CUSU called on the university
would lose this precious source of income – not to mention a vital part of
to guarantee that it would move the organisation to a central, accessible union
its identity – so the possibility of incorporating a shop into the new student’s
building within the next five years. As it turned out, it did so sooner than CUSU could
union made a deal with the Union Society a particularly attractive proposition.
have imagined since the organisation was moved to refurbished offices in the Old
As with every previous attempt to unite the two bodies, however, CUSU and
Examinations Hall in 2007. This new suite of offices, which CUSU continues to call
the Union Society blended like oil and water in the late 1980s. By 1988, when the
home today, is central and accessible but falls far short of the spacious, inclusive
proposed merger with the Union Society had once again fallen through, it seemed
and multifunctional central union imagined by successive CUSU presidents and
certain that the CUSU shop – and the valuable income it generated – would be
sabbatical teams.
lost. This prospect finally became a reality in 1990 following CUSU’s relocation
Just a short stroll away from its present location, past the colleges of
by the university to offices in 11–12 Trumpington Street, a location that it would
King’s, Trinity and St John’s, is the space where much of that imagining took
call home for the next 17 years.
shape over the years: CUSU’s birthplace in Round Church Street, which survived its planned demolition in the late 1980s. As a bricks-and-mortar reminder of
022
Not fit for purpose
CUSU’s origins and early life, the buildings’ resilience and survival against the
Another concerted effort to establish a centrally located students’ union in Cambridge
odds marks CUSU as a chip off the old block: still going strong and ready to
would not materialise until the new millennium. By the early 2000s, CUSU was
fight another day.
For the record
Charles Clarke President of the CSU 1971/72
“
I joined the King’s College Student Union executive
moment I became President of Cambridge Students’
in my first term at university because I believed –
Union. I worked with her a lot, and we had quite
as I still believe – that this kind of activity is very
a strange relationship. The Greek thing was a very
important for students. I was on the Left, somewhere
big issue to her, of course. It was suggested that she
between Labour and communist, and I didn’t actually
had financially improper relations with people who
join the Labour Party until I was leaving Cambridge.
were in the government, which I think was probably
I was part of a left-wing group that worked together
completely wrong. At the time, though, there was a
across the university at that time.
stand-off between us over this issue. Our personal
Every other university in the country had a
relationship broke down, but I don’t think her digging
students’ union that involved the whole of the
her heels in was all that significant because her term
student body, and I thought that that was what we
ran out at Christmas that year and she moved on.
should be trying to achieve in Cambridge. So I very
I still think we took the right course by trying
much supported the establishment of the Cambridge
to go down the path that we did. Perhaps we could
Students’ Union. I was in the group that founded
have been more intelligent in the way we went
it and I served on the first CSU executive.
about it, but we were young, and I don’t think
There was a whole string of issues that
we took particularly bad decisions. We just didn’t
concerned us. One was the very low rates of pay
succeed with them, and that was the shame.
for the people who worked in the colleges and the
Students’ unions are very, very necessary
almost feudal attitude to employment that existed
because of the general principle behind them, which
within the university. But the issues I remember
is the engagement of students in the governance of
most were about academic matters, getting
their universities. Of course, there’s an ebb and flow
representation on the university bodies, and the
with the extent to which they actually do worthwhile
establishment of a central university students’
things; sometimes they become very marginal.
union and an actual students’ union facility.
But fundamentally I think they remain very
The most important thing was our decision
important. Their activities and interests gradually
to try to turn the Cambridge Union Society into a
feed through into society as a whole, and that’s
central students’ union. It was a massive campaign,
a good thing. I don’t think students’ unions get
and we had a very hard task. Arianna Stassinopolous
a lot of credit for that. They’re part of the process
became President of the Union Society the same
of improving our society.
”
023 023
Action and activism During the early years of representation, student protest met with strict disciplinary action – a response that dimmed, but failed to extinguish, the desire for direct action
Fighting another day was certainly high on the Cambridge student
students, Page’s views were not entirely out of step with the local
agenda in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and it was from this
establishment, and it soon transpired that the city’s newspaper, the
cauldron of activity and agitation that the Cambridge Students’ Union
Cambridge Evening News, was planning a high-society dinner to
emerged. It was felt more and more strongly in Cambridge at this
promote Greek tourism in conjunction with the Greek Tourist Office
time that direct action was needed in order to bring about positive
in London and Cambridge’s Garden House Hotel. When Cambridge
change within the university, and it was becoming increasingly
travel agents also became involved in the planned soirée, the event
clear that the SRA was an ineffective vehicle for achieving this aim.
quickly grew into a week-long celebration of Greek culture dubbed
Neither, for that matter, was it effective at campaigning for change
“Greek Week”. The week’s festivities were to end on the night of
in the wider world.
Friday 13 February 1970 with an extravagant Greek banquet at the
As evidenced by the activities of the SRC and SRA, until the
Garden House Hotel.
late 1960s, student politics in the UK had been largely inward-
If the great and the good of Cambridge were licking their greasy
looking, focusing for the most part on dissatisfaction with the
chops in anticipation of the week’s revelries, Cambridge University
internal functions of individual institutions and on such student-
students had a licking of an altogether different kind in store for them.
centred issues as the quality of library services and university
In what was described by The Shilling Paper as a “casual happening”
accommodation. In comparison to their European and American
rather than a mass demonstration, on Wednesday 11 February
counterparts, socially and politically conscious British students
a group of around 100 students gathered outside Abbotts Travel
were relatively few in number, and their effectiveness was
Agency on Sidney Street. On entering the shop, they took hundreds
hampered still further by the fact that their attention was divided
of brochures and leaflets promoting Greek tourism from its shelves
between multiple competing causes. In addition to causes on the home front, such as the escalating Troubles in Northern Ireland, these causes included the apartheid system in South Africa, the war in Vietnam and the military Junta in Greece. In early 1970, however, the Greek problem became the most significant issue affecting British student politics, and Cambridge was right at the centre of the storm. Right: A “call to arms”
Greek Week unrest
from the back page of
For some time, The Shilling Paper – Cambridge’s militant left-
The Shilling Paper
wing student journal – had been running a campaign against the Greek Junta of the day. In October 1969, for instance, it
024
Opposite: Scenes from
revealed that Denys Page, Regius Professor of Greek and Master
the Garden House Hotel
of Jesus College, supported the military regime and regarded
protest in February 1970,
it as “a responsible government” that had “made very real and
Cambridge Evening News
positive achievements”. Although abhorrent to many Cambridge
025
Anti-proctor sentiment runs high at the CSU’s picket of a meeting of the Council of the Senate in 1970, Varsity
026
and burned them on the street outside. Later that same night,
The impact of the so-called Garden House Riot was far-reaching
student demonstrators exploded stink bombs in a city cinema that
and had consequences not only in Cambridge, but also throughout
was showing Greek films as part of the week’s promotional events.
the UK. According to some commentators, the event marked a
The highly charged atmosphere reached a tipping point
turning point in the history of British student politics as the arrests,
when, on Friday 13 February, there appeared on the back page of
prosecutions and sentences handed down had the effect of stifling
The Shilling Paper an effective call to arms; a notice that declared
student protest for years to come.
in large black letters: “Greek Fascists Hold Propaganda Party!
In Cambridge, the negative aftershocks included calls for the
All Invited! 7.30 pm Friday 13th Garden House Hotel”.
reintroduction of gating restrictions, which had been overhauled just a
Later that night, an estimated 400 student demonstrators
few years earlier. The event had the unfortunate effect of aggravating
gathered outside the Garden House Hotel just as the guests – the
the longstanding divisions between town and gown, and led, among
“lickspittles of Cambridge” – were sitting down to eat. Although the
other things, to a fall-off in the townspeople’s goodwill towards
protesters claimed that they intended nothing more than to picket
student initiatives, including charitable, student-run schemes such
the event and stop late-arriving guests from entering the building,
as the Cambridge Rag Appeal. In addition, The Shilling Paper was
the demonstration soon got out of hand. Around a dozen picketers
shut down temporarily when a local printer announced that it was
entered the hotel either by smashing or falling through a set of French
no longer willing to print the left-wing journal. There were positive
doors. A fire hose was turned on them, furniture was upended,
consequences too, however: although it took several months to
punches were thrown and a number of injuries were sustained before
achieve, by far the most constructive outcome of the whole affair was
the protest was finally brought under control. Although the violence
the demise of the SRA and the founding of the CSU later that year.
only lasted a few minutes, it caused more than £2,000 worth of damage to the hotel and had a hugely negative effect on public
Proctor involvement
attitudes towards, and the understanding of, the student movement.
While the events at the Garden House Hotel might have happened in any university town, what made the story unique to Cambridge
Consequences and impact
was the involvement of the proctors – mid-ranking academics who
Six of the university’s students were arrested at the hotel that evening,
were responsible for enforcing student discipline and were tasked
and several more were arrested and indicted over the course of the
with patrolling the streets at night in the company of special
next few days. In all, 15 were prosecuted, each of them charged
constables known as “bulldogs”. On the night of 13 February 1970,
with riotous assembly and several answering to a range of additional
the proctors had gathered in advance of the planned demonstration,
allegations including malicious damage, assault on police and
and having been telephoned directly by staff from the Garden House
carrying offensive weapons. In the end, seven of the 15 accused
Hotel, they went en masse to the venue to identify and discipline
students were acquitted on all charges due to lack of evidence, but
the unruly students. One of them, Dr Charles Goodhart, was injured
the remaining eight were convicted. Six of these received custodial
by a brick but commented shortly after the protest that “most of the
sentences ranging from nine to 18 months, and two were sentenced
people there didn’t intend anything so violent, but it finished in a
to lengthy terms in borstal. The presiding judge, Melford Stevenson,
most deplorable way”.
also recommended that two of the defendants be deported to their
In the days following the protest, Paul Fairest, the Senior Proctor
home countries of South Africa and Brazil upon completion of their
at the time, asked his colleagues to give full oral statements to the
prison terms.
police, who then compiled a list of more than 60 people – including
027
“
Where the src produced reports, the CSU was committed to bringing about change through direct action
”
028
academics – who had been present at the demonstration. This list
CSU call to action
was eventually whittled down to 15 students, 12 of whom were
While the CSU was drafting its statement and planning its campaign,
well-known members of the Cambridge Socialist Society (Soc Soc).
a Senate House subcommittee tasked with reviewing the proctorial
The proctors were subsequently called to testify at the trial, which
system in the aftermath of the Garden House Hotel affair was busy
exacerbated the already unhappy relationship between their office
constructing its own response to the incident. When it was finally
and the university’s junior members. Although the Senior Proctor
issued, it took the form of a statement requesting the proctors “to
later claimed that “none of us wanted to give evidence. We all
exercise their discretion not to be present at political demonstrations
disliked it intensely. I would never like to be involved in that sort of
except on university premises”. Students had not been consulted at
party again, and the sequel was a great deal more distressing than
any stage of the university’s review of the proctorial system, and in its
the affair itself”, student attitudes towards him and his colleagues
statement, the CSU and its demands did not even receive a mention.
became more vexed than ever.
Dissatisfied at the university’s wilful refusal to listen and engage with
As mentioned previously, most of those prosecuted at the
its junior members, students voted at a CSU open meeting to picket
Garden House trial were members of Soc Soc, and the CSU’s
the Council of the Senate the following Monday, 26 October.
President, John Newbigin, was a former member of the same
Anticipating violence and determined not to be caught out
political group. Now at the helm of the newly established students’
as they had been on the night of 13 February, Cambridge’s police
union, one of the first campaigns he launched in October 1970
force deployed heavy resources to the scene of the planned picket.
was the battle to abolish Cambridge’s outdated proctorial system.
At 9 am, large vans full of police officers pulled into West Road
His was anything but a one-man mission. Such was the strength of
and were joined later that morning by minivans containing police
feeling about this issue that an estimated 1,500 students attended
dogs and their handlers. Regular patrols passed between Trinity Hall
a CSU Open Meeting at Lady Mitchell Hall on Tuesday 6 October at
and Trinity Street along Senate House Passage, and plainclothes
which King’s undergraduate Stephen Amiel – one of those acquitted
policemen were positioned on top of Great St Mary’s Church, ready
at the Garden House trial – proposed a motion demanding the
to direct the officers positioned below to the most appropriate and
immediate abolition of the proctors. The motion was carried by a
effective locations. More plainclothes officers, it was rumoured,
majority of 758 to 38 and Cambridge was soon awash with placards
were stationed inside the Senate House itself waiting to arrest any
bearing the slogans “Goodbye proctors” and “Proktors [sic] out”.
protesters who dared to enter the building. With its doors and
Where the SRC produced reports – including one on discipline
windows locked against intruders, the Senate House could only
– the newly formed CSU was committed to bringing about change
be occupied by protesters if they broke the law by breaking and
through direct action and had clearly not been put off by the Garden
entering the building and, with the example of the Garden House
House Riot and its punitive consequences. Indeed, in launching its
trial serving as a deterrent, the university played hardball by issuing
campaign, CSU’s first act was to condemn outright “the actions of
flyers to its students that stated that “damage to property or the use
the proctors at the Garden House Hotel”. Among its demands to
of force against officers or employees of the university may result
Opposite: Graffiti from in
the university, in addition, was the abolition of “double jeopardy”
in proceedings in the civil courts”.
and around the university
whereby students could be disciplined by both the university and
Despite such dissuasive tactics, more than 800 students
in the early 1970s
the civil or criminal justice system.
attended the picket – which took the form of a CSU open meeting
029
Above: Mike Grabiner,
– but the protest passed off peacefully in the end, since the “standard
staff–student proposal for examinations reform, a CSU open
CUSU President 1972/73
of speeches was not high and no speaker was able to stir the crowd to
meeting voted overwhelmingly in favour of direct action, and on
vote for decisive action”. Instead, the protesters accepted an offer from
Thursday 3 February, more than 600 students forcibly occupied
Opposite: The occupation
the Senate Council to a discussion of the issue on a 5-5 basis, which at
the Old Schools. Examinations reform was not the sole focus of
of the Old Schools hits
least satisfied one of the CSU’s several demands. The gradual fizzling
the protest, however, and top of the CSU’s list of demands was
the front page of Varsity
out of the campaign to abolish the proctors signalled an effective
the right for junior members and non-academic employees of the
in February 1972
defeat for the CSU, but it also marked a portentous step towards
university to vote in the Regent House and on college councils.
the establishment of student representation on university bodies.
According to a report in Varsity, the two-day protest had been in the planning stages for more than a week and was extremely well
030
Student dissatisfaction
organised. Money was contributed by the CSU to provide food for
Two years earlier, in May 1968, the university had announced its
the hundreds of demonstrating students who had set themselves up
intention to appoint a “Consultative Committee of Resident Senior
with typewriters, a duplicating machine, a microphone and a record
and Junior Members of the University”, which would consider
player in the building’s East Room. Jim Pemberton, Chairman of the
“representations from the junior members on matters which are
Economics Students’ Committee, made it clear that the “sit-in is not for
the responsibility of the university rather than of the Colleges”.
fun – we have serious demands”, but it was apparent that the powers
The committee was headed by the Vice Chancellor and comprised
that be did not take those demands seriously. Although Professor
seven senior members, two graduate students and seven
Deer, the then Vice-Chancellor of the university, claimed that he had
undergraduates, four of whom were elected through the JCRs,
no objection in principle to the examination reforms proposed by the
with the remaining three appointed by the SRC. The committee
Economics Faculty, he described demands for student representation
recommended that students be allowed to participate in a number
as “bloody nonsense”.
of university syndicates, but did not recommend extending to them
The occupation ended voluntarily on Saturday 5 February.
the right to vote in any decision-making body. Apart from these
Shortly afterwards, three participating students were summoned
recommendations, no further progress was made by the university
to the university’s Court of Discipline, among them Mike Grabiner,
in respect to student participation in its internal governance.
President-elect of the CSU, who was charged with “not complying
Indeed, the Consultative Committee was disbanded, and though
with instructions given by an officer of the university and with failing
an attempt was made to replace it with a student affairs committee,
to state his name and college to a proctor”. Although Grabiner was
nothing came of this in the end.
ultimately cleared of these charges, the two other students received
The understandable sense among Cambridge students that the
fines of £5 each. An additional five students were sent letters by
university was not willing to engage with, and take on board, their
the proctors warning them that further breaches of discipline would
point of view led to increased levels of dissatisfaction and unrest,
be dealt with severely. In addition to these actions, the university
which finally reached a breaking point in early 1972. The straw that
held the CSU liable for damage caused to the structure and fabric
broke the proverbial camel’s back was the contentious issue of
of the Old Schools during the sit-in, the estimated cost of which
undergraduate examinations.
was £400. In what Grabiner described as “political blackmail”, the
When, in January of that year, the university’s General
university decided to retrieve this sum by freezing its allocation
Board effectively turned down the Economics Faculty’s joint
of funds to the CSU.
High Steward’s inquiry Over the course of the previous few years, Cambridge had become an increasingly hostile place. The threat of violence reached new and worrying proportions when, while campaigning for the position of President of the CSU, Mike Grabiner received a hoax parcel bomb in his college pigeonhole. Shortly before this incident, Charles Clarke warned that the number of students willing to use violence to achieve political ends was rapidly increasing while, at the same time, Varsity reported that a senior member of the university had been told by an unidentified source that his home and the homes of his colleagues could no longer be considered safe. It was against this background that the university announced its decision to invite its High Steward, Lord Devlin, to conduct an inquiry into “the circumstances leading to and the nature of the occupation of the Old Schools on 3 to 5 February”. Based on Devlin’s recommendations, the university hoped to be able to put in place appropriate methods for “dealing with such situations” in the future. Although the CSU was initially split down the middle in terms of its willingness to engage with the Devlin inquiry, the organisation ultimately encouraged its members to submit evidence and, as an institution, submitted substantial evidence of its own. The contributions made by the President of the CSU, Charles Clarke, were singled out by Devlin in his subsequent report as “remarkable for [their] clarity, brevity, and concentration on the point”. Indeed, despite the CSU’s concerns that the High Steward’s findings might be biased in favour of the university, Devlin’s recommendations were surprisingly favourable towards the student body.
031
“
So great was the strength of feeling that an estimated 1,000 students demonstrated in Cambridge city centre
”
Most importantly, he found that the university’s position on student
demonstration in London. This event was organised in protest against
representation was “unsatisfactory”, and he recommended that
cuts in the education budget and the planned increase in the cap
students be allowed to participate in senate discussions.
on tuition fees, which would see fees in some universities, including
This sanction opened the door to students participating fully
Cambridge, rise to £9,000. Writing in Varsity in October 2010, CUSU’s
in the workings of the university. Indeed, the university embraced
Student Support Officer, Morgan Wild, highlighted the positive impact
Devlin’s findings wholeheartedly. In its own report, for instance, the
of the 1972 occupation of the Old Schools and the benefits of Devlin’s
Senate Council responded to Devlin by stating that it accepted his
subsequent recommendations, and noted that “much, if not most, of
view that students had established the “right to be heard and that
the work that CUSU does today in representing students, lobbying the
effective means to that end must be devised” and implemented.
university, and securing change for its members would be impossible
According to the High Steward, the university would be wise to
without that initial victory”. Claiming that “the activist approach that
“go further” and “seek ways of integrating junior members” into
helped to achieve this victory is more relevant [today] than ever
its government because failure to do so would inevitably lead to
before”, Wild called for the newspaper’s readers to travel to London
frustration and occasional breakdown in relations between junior
to participate in the planned demonstration and to support an
and senior members.
approach that “combines direct action with the more traditional
Although the pace of change in the university continued to
tools of the student movement”.
be slow, such was the impact of Devlin’s recommendations that
So great was the strength of feeling in Cambridge on the
Cambridge now boasts more student representatives sitting on
issue of fees that not only did several busloads of local students
university boards than any other university in the UK. Devlin’s various
attend the rally in London but also, on Thursday 25 November, an
findings and recommendations instigated a significant change in
estimated 1,000 higher and second-level students demonstrated
the CSU’s relationship with the university and introduced a quieter
in Cambridge city centre. The following day, a group of university
and considerably less fraught period in the organisation’s history.
students and academics calling themselves Cambridge Defend
Over the past four decades, demonstrations and occupations of
Education (CDE) took control of the Old Schools and, with CUSU’s
the kind witnessed in the late 1960s and early to mid-1970s have
support, occupied the buildings for 11 days. During that time,
not occurred with anything like the kind of regularity or intensity
the group organised a series of talks, events and demonstrations.
that characterised the earlier period. Several issues, however, have
On Friday 3 December, one of these off-site demonstrations
continued to provoke widespread unrest among British students
meant that a large group of protesters left the building in order
over the years, leading to intermittent bursts of organised and
to participate in an hour-long “flash occupation” at the Guildhall.
sometimes violently disorganised protest. Of these, none has
Taking advantage of the temporarily reduced numbers in the Old
had quite the impact – or staying power – as the vexed issue of
Schools, the university moved in on the protesters. The Registrary,
university fees.
the University Marshall and a proctor, together with police and fire officers, entered the building and tried to remove its occupiers,
032
Opposite: Students gather
Fees protests
threatening them with criminal proceedings and the implementation
in London to protest against
The 1972 sit-in at the Old Schools and the subsequent Devlin report
of university disciplinary action. CUSU condemned this attempt to
tuition fees
were recalled in 2010 in the run up to the 10.11.10 national student
“force a legitimate and peaceful demonstration to end” and called
033
on the university to “respect the resolve and passion of the occupiers
times the required number – the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Sir Leszek
and engage in serious dialogue and negotiation with [them] and
Borysiewicz, refused to allow the Regent House to discuss and vote
with CUSU over their most important demand: that the university
on these issues.
use its considerable influence to resist the cuts to the higher
034
education budget and the increase of tuition fees to £9,000”.
Day of Action
Despite the collective demands of students in Cambridge
Expressing outrage at what it regarded as an undemocratic and
and elsewhere, on Thursday 9 December, Parliament approved,
unconstitutional move by the Vice-Chancellor, CUSU President
by a narrow margin, the raising of tuition fees. With the occupation
Rahul Mansigani announced a Day of Action to be held the very
of the Old Schools at an end and the battle against increased fees
next day, on 10 March 2011. Under the banner “24 hours to save
lost, the focus turned to securing for prospective students the
our bursaries”, CUSU quickly rallied its members into action, calling
best possible financial support package. CUSU set about achieving
on them to assemble at Great St Mary’s Church at noon the next
this aim through its Save Our Bursaries campaign, which was
day. More than 800 students participated in the demonstration,
formed in response to the university’s proposed changes to its
and the following Monday morning the university announced a
undergraduate bursaries.
significant change of direction. Rather than reduce the amount of
In order to help diminish the burden of increased fees for
its bursaries and instead provide fee waivers, they proposed to allow
future students, the university proposed to reduce the amount of
students to decide for themselves what form their individual financial
its bursaries from to £3,400 to £1,625 and to provide instead fee
support packages would take. Under these revised proposals, not
waivers of up to £3,000. CUSU objected to these plans, however, on
only would students be allowed to choose between taking their
the grounds that reduced bursaries meant less money in students’
Cambridge bursary in the form of a fee waiver or a cash sum,
pockets; an outcome that could only impact negatively on access
but also the most financially disadvantaged undergraduates
and widening participation. In order to try to block the university’s
would receive a further fee waiver of £6,000.
plans, CUSU sought to beat it at its own game. In the first instance, it
The university’s change of heart was a major victory for
sought support from members of the Regent House for its ‘Amending
CUSU and demonstrated the effectiveness of combining good
Grace’, which would allow it to seek a vote challenging the Grace put
old-fashioned lobbying with direct action. By demanding that
forward by the university. Secondly, it sought support from the same
the university adhere to established procedure, and by protesting
Above: Cambridge students
quarter for its ‘Initiating Grace’, which would allow it to submit a Grace
vocally and in great numbers when it failed to do so, CUSU helped
demonstrate against cuts to
of its own. CUSU called on its members to ask their tutors, lecturers
to ensure that the university upheld its commitment to widening
higher education funding in
and directors of studies to support their Graces. However, despite
participation and to making Cambridge a realistic prospect for
November 2010
CUSU having received 140 supporting signatures – more than five
bright students of all backgrounds.
For the record
John Newbigin SRA and CSU President 1970/71
“
I was very active in the Socialist Society, and I
whose names were known to the proctors. Those who
was also involved in The Shilling Paper, which was
had caused the most damage didn’t go to prison at
a platform for the Left. Most of the colleges had
all, which highlights the utter lunacy of the system.
Socialist Societies, and there was a loose federation
A lot of students felt that a real injustice had
of Lefties in Cambridge at the time. There was an
been done at the Garden House trial, and we used
emerging consensus among us that something needed
The Shilling Paper and the whole Socialist Society
to be done about the SRA. It was a toothless entity, a
infrastructure to attend to that injustice.
rather weedy consultative body, which lacked a focus
Once elected, I realised that we had to have some
and a sense of purpose because all that mattered
high-profile events, so I booked Lady Mitchell Hall
then were the JCRs. The university as an institution,
and held a meeting about what we were trying to do
then even more than now, didn’t have much of an
as a students’ union. At the first meeting, there were
existence as far as students were concerned; the
five or six hundred students. At the next there were
colleges were infinitely more important.
800. Then 1,500 attended. The last one was a huge
The Communist Party was very well organised
meeting, much bigger than anybody had anticipated,
in Cambridge, and they realised that in order to get
and there was a real buzz around.
something going at university rather than college
Of course, the danger with mob movements is
level the simplest thing to do was put candidates up
that they rise fast and die fast. For me, the issue
for election to the SRA on a platform of turning it into
had been the proctors and the medieval ethos they
a proper students’ union. They asked me to stand
seemed to encapsulate. Once that issue had died,
as the left-wing candidate for the SRA presidency.
I began to lose interest. Quite a lot of people who
Initially, I was quite reluctant because the SRA
had been instrumental in the growth of the student
didn’t interest me in the least, but I thought that the
Left and The Shilling Paper all graduated in 1970.
campaign to abolish the proctors was worth fighting.
The generation whose friends had been arrested and
Rod Caird and several of the other people who
sent to prison were gone, and the mood of the student
had gone to prison following the Garden House protest
movement post 1968 – post Paris, post Berkeley
were friends of mine, and the arbitrary nature of
– began to dissolve quite quickly. When my year
those arrests was quite astonishing. On the whole,
came to an end, I went and ran a youth club in
the people who wound up in prison were just people
Brixton. It was a real eye-opener for me.
”
035
Access and diversity The admission of women by the university has helped other under-represented groups gain a foothold at Cambridge, and cusu is at the forefront of today’s drive for access
Access has long been a contentious issue at Cambridge. Many of
movement with its emphasis on minority rights, civil resistance
the older colleges were effectively built as fortresses with Great
and consciousness-raising had filtered across from the USA,
Gates that could be barred against the outside world in the event
and the West was gearing up for a second wave of feminism.
of incoming hazards and threats. The social and economic factors
Despite Sutherland’s claim that “no other British university has
that for centuries perpetuated a clear distinction between town
exhibited such intransigence in the face of social change as
and gown helped to cement still further the university’s image
has Cambridge”, change was on the way, welcome or not.
as the preserve of the elite. For centuries, too, women who were
Shortly after it was established in 1964, the SRC acknowledged
lucky enough to have been born into a sufficiently high social
in its draft constitution that “the university has changed its character;
class for Cambridge to figure on the horizon, found that their
students are coming up with different needs” and “new institutions
gender precluded them either from gaining admission at all, or
are needed to match the new conditions”. The SRC was one such
from enjoying the intellectual freedom and academic rewards
new institution, and throughout its many changes of location,
that their male equivalents took for granted.
identity and focus over the years, its drive to meet the needs of an
Although the image of Cambridge as an exclusively white
increasingly diverse and rapidly changing student population has
university is historically accurate, exceptions to the rule have
persisted unabated. So, too, has its determination – in all its various
existed in the past. According to research conducted by Dr Sarah
guises – to transform Cambridge from an institution populated
Meer of the Faculty of English, the first black student at Cambridge
for the most part by privileged white men to a community that
for whom official university records exist was Alexander Crummell,
represents more faithfully the whole of our society.
an episcopal preacher and son of an American slave, who studied
036
at Queens’ College in the mid-18th century. Several other black
Women’s right to admission
students are believed to have preceded him, but no record of
The single most significant change that the university has undergone
their having studied at Cambridge survives.
in its 800 years of existence was the admission of women, a process
Unlike their black male counterparts, women of any race did
that began in the late 19th century but did not reach fruition for
not make an appearance as students of the university until the
another 100 years. Many important events affecting the position of
late 19th century, when the first women’s college was established.
women students within the university occurred during the 50 years
According to Newnham Fellow and historian Gillian Sutherland,
after the SRC was established, and most of these bore the traces
not only did the university resist the initial arrival of women and,
of the student organisation’s influence and energy. Throughout the
when they could no longer be ignored, keep them at arm’s length
mid- to late 1960s, for instance, the SRC campaigned vigorously in
in women-only colleges, but “Cambridge was the last of the old
favour of co-residence and, in 1969, produced an influential report
British universities to give full membership to women”, a privilege
on the matter, which was cited by the then Vice-Chancellor, Eric
it withheld from them until 1948.
Ashby, as a “sensible and useful” document. Interestingly, however,
In the 16 years between 1948 and the founding of the SRC,
while the SRC clearly supported co-residence, it recommended
Britain underwent a massive social transition. Immigrants from
in its report that during the first two years of mixed-sex living,
its former colonies began to arrive, the contraceptive pill had
the colleges should restrict the admittance of female students to
been launched and was now available on the NHS, the civil rights
undergraduate courses. Thereafter, the student council conceded,
Left: CUSU gets vocal with one of its recent Women’s Campaign flyers
037
“
Women students in cambridge lived in a society that was even more sexist than the everyday world
�
038
women could also be admitted to graduate courses provided the
the co-residence bandwagon”. According to the students’ union,
colleges select them from their own pools of female undergraduates.
the next colleges to switch to co-residence (Selwyn and Sidney
Outsiders, it seems, should be viewed with suspicion.
Sussex) would only be admitting women in numbers equal to
Although 1965 saw the establishment of the first mixed-sex
10 per cent of the student population, which meant that in the
institution in Cambridge, University College (now known as Wolfson
first year of co-residence at these colleges, women would make
College), it was not until 1972 that the university’s existing colleges
up as little as 3 or 4 per cent of the student body. As the CSU rightly
began to open their doors to women undergraduates. The first to do
observed, “the strain of living in such an unbalanced community”
so was Churchill, another of Cambridge’s newer institutions, which
would be extraordinary. Alarmingly, “being a woman” was cited as
announced in 1969 – shortly after the SRC published its report on
the third most significant risk factor in a list of predispositions to
co-residence – its intention to begin admitting women undergraduates
mental illness provided by the SRC in its 1965 book Student Mental
in three years’ time. Churchill’s announcement was followed almost
Health in Cambridge. According to the SRC’s research, “the higher
immediately by similar decisions on the part of both Clare College
susceptibility of women students has been widely noted and may
and King’s, and over the course of the next two decades all of
be especially severe in Cambridge where there is such imbalance
Cambridge’s exclusively male colleges finally became coed.
between the sexes”.
In fact, so recently was the transition completed that in
In order to ensure the welfare of the growing number of
November 2013, Magdalene – the last of the colleges to relinquish
women students arriving in Cambridge in the 1970s, the CSU’s
its claim to male exclusivity – celebrated a paltry 25 years since
Women’s Campaign began informally at that time. There were three
women students first numbered among its members. The admittedly
strands to the early venture: a “consciousness raising” group intended
low-key 25th anniversary celebrations at the college stand in sharp
to increase women’s understanding of themselves and their social
contrast to the mood in Magdalene in 1988, when the decision to
position by reflecting on their own experiences; a reading group
admit women undergraduates was finally made. On that occasion,
intended to help women to connect their experiences to feminist
Magdalene’s men are said to have expressed their outrage in a
theory; and a weekly lunch at which campaigns of interest to women
curiously melodramatic fashion: by donning black armbands and
were planned and organised. These campaigns included the Nursery
carrying a coffin through the city’s streets.
Action Group’s drive to establish a university nursery and a local offshoot of the national abortion campaign. The group also worked
Introduction of co-residence
hand in hand with a community-based Women’s Group, which
In its initial phase in the early to mid-1970s, co-residence was a
operated outside the university, with Cambridge’s Gay Women’s
Above: Students take to
difficult process not just for the colleges that had to change their
Group and with a group called Men Against Sexism.
the streets of Cambridge
centuries-old habits, but even more so for the young women
for Reclaim the Night
who broke the mould by taking up the places offered to them by
Nursery Action Group
Cambridge’s formerly all-male institutions. As noted by the CSU
Of these, the Nursery Action Group – or NAG as it was more
Opposite: CUSU puts its
in 1975, women students in Cambridge lived in a society that was
commonly known – was by far the most prominent, well
weight behind Amnesty’s
even more sexist and discriminatory than the everyday world, and
organised and effective. Established in 1972 with the aim of
Stop Violence Against
the pressure was even greater for “those who have come here on
lobbying the university to provide nursery and crèche facilities
Women campaign
039
for students, employees and academic staff with children, the group
Although the university refused to enter into discussions
quickly attracted a huge amount of grass-roots support within the
with NAG both before and during the occupation, it did take the
university and its colleges. In November 1974, for instance, a NAG
uncharacteristic step of arranging a meeting with the CSU. The move
petition for nursery facilities drew a phenomenal 4,500 supporting
was controversial, as it effectively placed NAG on the sidelines of its
signatures. Despite this, the university ignored their demands
own crusade. Moreover, despite the support the students’ union had
and refused to meet with the group’s representatives. NAG then
given to NAG’s campaign, the university’s decision to engage with
organised a protest march in February 1975 at which 400 people
the CSU rather than NAG’s own representatives angered the action
demonstrated their dissatisfaction with the university’s stance
group, not least because the CSU had voted against NAG’s motion
by marching through the city. The university continued to ignore
to occupy the Senate House.
their demands.
In a CUSU booklet called Nasty Forward Minxes (1998) – which
In April, the group produced a detailed report in which it
celebrates 100 years of women in Cambridge – the students’ union
made a strong and reasoned case in support of its aims. As was
is quick to claim the NAG occupation as an event of its own making.
Above: CUSU’s booklet
rightly noted in the report, the university offered no childcare
At the time, however, the CSU was deemed to have actively distanced
Nasty Forward Minxes,
“provision whatsoever. The only college to provide anything specific
itself from NAG’s endeavours in order to advance its own interests.
marking 100 years of
is Churchill, who allow a group of mothers to run a small informal
Of course, the dialogue between the university and the CSU marked
women in Cambridge
crèche in the college for part of the day”. Furthermore, NAG warned,
the beginning of a new and very welcome understanding between
the increase in both women and mature students throughout the
the two bodies in the post-Devlin climate. Yet if the CSU regarded it
Opposite and overleaf:
university meant that the already urgent need for childcare would
as a positive step forward on the road to recognition, the organisation’s
Students, faculty and
escalate in the years ahead. Its argument continued to fall on deaf
student members were not nearly so enthusiastic.
passers-by have their say
ears. Finally, on 3 June 1975, NAG voted to take direct action, swiftly
A report in Stop Press With Varsity had the following to say
in the “I need feminism
carrying out a dramatic occupation of the Senate House, which not
on the matter: “The occupation has shown how CSU is now
because ...” campaign
only succeeded in getting the university to finally sit up and pay
recognised by the university: the executive’s moderate attitude no
attention, but also drew the interest of the national press.
doubt impressed the authorities. That impression is not shared by many students – the union’s members, the executive’s electorate
040
Senate House occupation
– who saw CSU desert them at a time when their support was
Unsurprisingly, the latter represented the brief occupation as a
needed. The Progressive Alliance in particular has prostituted its
violent student riot. NAG, on the other hand, defended its actions
declared aims, its feeble-minded attitude running in the face of
by stating in its subsequent report on the sit-in that the “minor
earlier rhetoric about action and a campaigning union.”
skirmishes that we witnessed occurred because proctors […] tried
However much hostility the CSU’s actions may have provoked
by force to deny access to students attempting to join the sit-in
at the time, its negotiations with the university resulted in the
or to supply the occupants with food and water. Students, not
latter’s decision to set up a working committee to look into the
proctors, emerged much the worse from these encounters: one
possibility of establishing a full-time university nursery and crèche.
student had to be taken to the hospital for a leg wound sustained
NAG conducted its own feasibility study, putting forward a proposal
when a proctor tried to pull him out of a window over spiked
for a pilot scheme that would cost £10,000 per annum to run after
railings in the Senate House Passage”.
an initial outlay of £2,500. When the Working Committee issued its
041
042
own report a year later, however, it advised that the running costs of a university
Unfettered by the dictates of CUSU Council, they alone decide on
nursery would be £16,000 and recommended that the expense be met by a
the areas and issues upon which they wish to focus their attention,
university-wide JCR levy. The university rejected this proposal and instead opted
they alone determine the form and nature of their campaigns and
to provide grants for existing nurseries within the town, a measure that fell far
they alone decide on the individuals and groups to whom they wish
short of NAG’s vision of a large, centrally located nursery that would cater
to give a platform or with whom they wish to collaborate.
exclusively for university students, staff and academics.
Collaboration between the autonomous campaigns themselves
As recently as 2001, CUSU launched another campaign for a university
is part of the secret of their long-standing and continued success,
nursery citing the lack of such a facility as a key access issue since it prevented
as indeed is collaboration with like-minded interest groups outside
prospective students with children from taking up the offer of a university place.
the university. This is true of the Women’s Campaign in particular.
The lack of childcare facilities, in addition, made it difficult for existing student
In fact, one of the campaign’s most successful projects to date took
parents to participate fully in university life. An independent report published that
place just last year and was organised by the then CUSU Women’s
year and commissioned by the Student Childcare Committee criticised Cambridge
Officer, Susy Langsdale, and her team, in collaboration with Anglia
University for failing to reach the national standard. Since then, conditions for
Ruskin University’s Feminist Society. Taking the campaign staples
student parents have improved significantly. In 2004, a dedicated university nursery
of placards and slogans and presenting them in a fresh and original
for Cambridge students opened in the West Cambridge Site, and a year later,
manner, Susy, her team and their collaborators took to the city’s
a nursery funded by Churchill, St John’s, Girton and Trinity Colleges opened on
streets, challenging passers-by to complete the sentence “I need
Clarkson Road. Several other colleges run their own nursery schemes, and the
feminism because ...”.
university has created an office dedicated to maintaining a student-parent network
Over a period of three days in April 2013, more than 700 people
and advisory service.
participated in the campaign by writing a slogan on a whiteboard and posing for a photograph with it, either outside King’s College
Autonomous campaigns
or outside Anglia Ruskin University. The images were an immediate
CUSU has changed considerably since the early to mid-1970s, but the Women’s
hit on Facebook, achieving half a million shares in just two weeks.
Campaign remains both integral to, and separate from, it. The main difference
When 60 of them were edited into a Tumblr site, they were re-
between now and then, of course, is that it is now a formal campaign headed
blogged and re-tweeted around the world, ultimately attracting
by a dedicated sabbatical Women’s Officer; a role that CUSU introduced in 1993.
the interest of the mainstream press. The French newspaper
As one of five autonomous campaigns run by the students’ union – the others
Le Figaro translated a dozen of the slogans into French, The
being the Black Minority Ethnic (BME) Campaign, the LGBT+ Campaign, the
Huffington Post reported that the campaign had spread as far
International Students’ Campaign (or iCUSU, as it is more commonly known)
as Malawi and Australia, and Cosmopolitan magazine gave
and the Disabled Students’ Campaign – the Women’s Campaign is one of CUSU’s
the CUSU project its wholehearted support.
most active and dynamic components.
As Susy herself said of the campaign: “It helped to give voice to
All five of CUSU’s autonomous campaigns are tasked with representing and
different people and, in doing so, combated some of the lingering
advancing the interests of under-represented groups, and while each receives
ideas that feminism is outdated or elitist. It’s clear that people are
funding from the students’ union, they nevertheless operate as independent bodies.
feminists in all kinds of different ways and for all kinds of reasons,
043
“
No sooner had the colleges opened their doors to women students than they began to reap the rewards
”
whether because of their principles or their politics, or as the
oversubscribed, both by its Year 12 applicants and by its Cambridge
result of personal circumstances or experiences. We encountered
student volunteers. For instance, in 2013/14, the scheme’s 14th year,
a staggeringly wide range of people and opinions, but what they
CUSU received applications from more than 2,000 secondary
all had in common was a determination to improve the situation
school students. A little more than 350 of these were successful.
for women everywhere.”
Similarly, 600 Cambridge undergraduates volunteered their services to the scheme, but less than 300 of these were matched to successful
044
Widening access
Year 12 applicants.
Although there is still a very long way to go, improving the situation for
Competition for places is understandably fierce. This is partly
women within Cambridge University has had an enormously positive
due to the limited number of spaces available – a factor that
knock-on effect. No sooner had the university and, eventually, the
is dictated by the number of free rooms and meals that each
colleges opened their doors to women students than they began to
participating college can donate to CUSU during the period
reap the rewards of having a more diverse student body. Clare College,
in which the scheme operates. However, the scheme is also
one of the first to admit women undergraduates, has acknowledged
competitive because of the extraordinarily rich experience it
that the arrival of women resulted in an immediate boost to the
offers to potential Cambridge applicants.
college’s performance in university examinations, and other colleges
The real beauty of the Shadowing Scheme is that it enables
reported similar outcomes. More important, however, is the fact
prospective students from under-represented groups to get a true
that opening the door to women has meant that other categories of
impression of Cambridge life. The reason for this is that, unlike
student that have traditionally been under-represented in Cambridge
Cambridge’s several access summer schools, CUSU’s Shadowing
have also begun to trickle through the admissions process.
Scheme takes place in term time. As such, during their three-
When the Office of Fair Access (OFFA) was established in 2003,
day stay in the university, the “shadows” are housed in college
CUSU’s commitment to access and widening participation was second
accommodation and have the opportunity to sit in on lectures
to none. The organisation was at that time the only students’ union in
and supervisions, to access college and faculty libraries, to dine
the UK to employ a full-time sabbatical Access Officer, a position that it
in hall, to enjoy plays at the university’s student theatres and to
Above, from top: CUSU
had created in 2001. Not only that, but CUSU was also already running
sample as many of Cambridge’s other cultural and intellectual
LGBT’s termly magazine
one of the most comprehensive and wide-ranging student-led access
delights as possible.
No Definition; and the
schemes in the country. Its portfolio of access programmes was – and
Curiously, in what might amount to an unconscious
student union’s Little
is – designed to “dispel the myths about Cambridge, raise aspirations,
acknowledgement of CUSU’s own advancing years, the 2014
Black Book, which aims
and encourage applications from the most under-represented groups”,
Shadowing Scheme is particularly important because, for the
to raise awareness of the
and it includes such hugely successful initiatives as CUSU’s Shadowing
first time ever, mature students were eligible to apply for a place.
experiences of non-white
Scheme and its Target Schools campaign.
Only 20 such students applied, an impressive 13 of whom met
students in Cambridge
Harnessing the energy and commitment of Cambridge
with success, but the low numbers of mature applicants is
undergraduates, the Shadowing Scheme is one of the most effective
surely indicative of the need to raise aspirations and encourage
tools in CUSU’s access arsenal. Such is its success that it is vastly
participation in this significantly under-represented group.
For the record
Mary Beard Professor of Classics and Fellow of Newnham College
“
When I came up to Cambridge, I entered a wonderful,
a lot to try to make Cambridge a realistic prospect
eye-opening, slightly scary and very bloke-ish world.
for bright but economically disadvantaged young
Cambridge today is both massively different and
people and other under-represented groups.
reassuringly the same. Back then, it really did feel
My colleagues and I – both in college and in the
like a man’s university with a few women here and
faculty – spend hours and hours, days and days,
there. It doesn’t now, though I think there remains
encouraging wider participation. I get fed up
an issue about how many women get to the top of
with the politicians’ readiness to blame Oxbridge
the hierarchy and how many women’s portraits we
on this one. Educational disadvantage in this
see hanging in college halls.
country starts before kids go to primary school.
Women students have a fairer deal today
We all need to work together, not blame each
and there’s a real sense that our courses are now
other. Finger pointing doesn’t get us anywhere.
mixed, but I don’t think there’s a level playing field
Sometimes I think it might help if politicians
yet. Although I’m not sure that’s anyone’s fault.
accepted that there are other excellent universities
The university is very committed to its diversity
in this country besides Oxford and Cambridge.
agenda, but Cambridge is over 800 years old, and
Students have done a lot to bring about positive
for most of that time has been monastically male.
change in Cambridge, but I suspect they sometimes
It takes a while to turn the battleship around.
don’t realise us greybeards are on their side, too.
Another big difference is that there has also
The co-residence campaign was my thing when I was
been an extraordinary expansion in graduate studies.
a student, even though I’m still very pleased indeed
When I was a student, grads were a very small
for Newnham to be single-sex. Our slogan was
cohort who felt they didn’t much count. Not now.
‘We shall fight, we shall win, we shall let the women
Sadly, there’s the issue of fees, too. Most of us
in’. The odd thing is, I remember the results much
in the 1970s were on some form of grant. We were
more than I do the campaign. It has all become
– as I was told when I had my first interview with
rather blurred, I’m afraid. I think we were doing
my DOS [Director of Studies] – the equivalent
great things, but I don’t have any heroic memories
of public servants! I don’t know how we solve the
of it. That’s good in a way. It’s the next thing on the
university funding issues, but I think we’re doing
campaign agenda that we should be thinking about.
” 045
The road ahead The prospect of a new home is key to cusu’s future plans, which include addressing the changing concerns of students in Cambridge and beyond
046
In October 1965, SRC President Alfred Nock and the President of the
to finally establish a centrally located students’ union building in
Union Society Jeremy Burford submitted an application for almost
Cambridge that would be open to the entire student body and have
a quarter of a million pounds to the UK-wide University Grants
the facilities and space to cater for all its members’ needs. With its
Commission. The sum was intended to be spent on extending the
bright and spacious interiors, conference and catering facilities, and,
Union Society building to make it a “full social centre for the whole
crucially, its city-centre location, the University Centre seems like
university”. The ambitious plans included newsagent and stationery
the perfect choice for a dedicated students’ union building and has
shops, a travel bureau, a photographic dark room and an indoor
become CUSU’s prime target for new premises.
swimming pool. Unsurprisingly, given the immense scale and cost
As luck would have it, the Old Press/Mill Lane site, where the
of the project, the application was turned down – and so began
University Centre is located is also due to be redeveloped. It is
the decades-long search for a suitable home for the representative
expected that the university will transform this site into the hub of
body that would eventually become CUSU.
a renewed area that will also cater for tourists and other visitors
Although the dream of housing the student organisation in the
to the city, as well as students. For CUSU, it is hoped that a new
Union Society building would persist for more than 20 years before
space, within a burgeoning cultural and social area of Cambridge,
it finally expired, the Union Society’s home was not the only existing
will help it advance its mission as the representative body for all
structure to be considered over the years as a possible location for
students and provide a central, accessible-for-all, city-centre position.
a central students’ union. Another contender, at least since the mid-
Crucially, CUSU hopes to share this new space with other student-led
1970s, was the University Centre – or “Grad Pad”, as it is commonly
bodies, which it hopes will further improve student engagement and
known among Cambridge students – a large 1960s brutalist building
encourage new partnerships. While the University Centre appears the
situated on the riverfront next to the site of the former Garden
most suitable site, however, CUSU is not pinning its hopes solely on
House Hotel.
one space. Instead, it is communicating its expectations widely in the hope that the new offices, wherever they are located, will fulfil
On the move
the needs of a central students’ union.
By 2014, a full 50 years after the SRC was established and Cambridge
CUSU’s vision of a centrally located students’ union building
students first lobbied for a dedicated student centre in the heart of
involves a single space that is organised into a series of five student
Above: CUSU’s current
the city, little or no progress had been made on this issue. In its first
hubs, each one focusing on a key area of the organisation’s activities.
centre of operations,
half century of life, CUSU has led a nomadic existence, moving from
The Change Hub would consolidate the various opportunities that
the Old Examination Hall
Round Church Street to Trumpington Street to a semi-refurbished
CUSU offers for students to volunteer and campaign for social
building in a forgotten corner of the New Museums Site. Even this,
change, both within the university and in the wider community.
Opposite: 2013/14 CUSU
its most recent home, is in turn being consigned to history.
In particular, CUSU’s autonomous campaigns stand to benefit
team members (left to right)
The university has begun redeveloping the New Museums Site
enormously from the proposed new facilities. On a more practical
Lauren Steele, Dom Weldon,
and CUSU is required to vacate its offices to the rear of the site by
side, the Resource Hub would bring together CUSU’s various student
Flick Osborn, Sam Ruiz,
2016. However, the organisation’s impending homelessness presents
services, including photocopying, access to computers and design
Helen Hoogewerf-McComb
less of a problem than it does an opportunity: the opportunity
software, and room and vehicle bookings.
and Jia Hui Lee
047
Below: Twenty-four reasons to be cheerful, courtesy of CUSU
048
Hubs of activity It is anticipated that the Resource Hub will also house several new services – many of which will be directed at student societies rather than individuals – and a student shop, which it is hoped will be run in conjunction with the Graduate Union (GU). In addition to these areas, a Support Hub would be dedicated to the vital activities of CUSU’s Student Advice Service and would be separate from the other hubs, allowing for privacy and confidentiality. A Media Hub would support student media endeavours across the university. These activities currently include three student newspapers, two TV stations, a radio station and numerous other small publications, magazines and journals. The Media Hub will also feature small offices for each individual group, as well as a radio suite, a media suite and a computer space for students working in print and online journalism. Finally, the Facilities Hub would house the existing Grad Café, as well as CUSU’s proposed new Learning Lounge. The latter is imagined as a large, open space adjoining the café, and could include innovative learning and social facilities such as soundproof glass pods that could be used for both individual and small-group study. While the Learning Lounge would be accessible to both undergraduate and graduate students, an additional large event space would double up as a study room that would cater exclusively for graduates. This event space could also be used for conferences and symposia, thereby presenting a possible additional source of income for CUSU. So, too, would the several proposed commercial units of the building, which CUSU envisages leasing to selected retailers if the venture is approved. Historically, of course, CUSU has had no success in finding a suitable and permanent base from which to conduct its affairs. Perhaps in its 50th year the
049
“
CUSU has succeeded in breaking the college stranglehold that has existed for centuries
”
organisation will finally realise its founders’ aims by
Many of the challenges that faced the SRC in 1964
securing a visible, multipurpose and inclusive social
are still a cause for concern today. Of these, the need for
space for all Cambridge University students.
a permanent and suitable home for CUSU is obviously paramount, but so, too, is the organisation’s continued
050
The Strategic Plan
desire to meet the needs of a changing student
In Lent Term 2014, CUSU launched its first-ever
demographic and to adapt to the times. Although some
Strategic Plan, a visionary document that explores in
of the same problems and challenges persist today,
detail the organisation’s current position within the
progress has nevertheless been made on many fronts.
university community, as well as its projected role
At its most basic level, CUSU has succeeded in breaking
over the next three to four years. As noted in the
the college stranglehold that has existed in Cambridge
document, higher education in the UK and beyond
for centuries, while at the same time incorporating JCRs,
is undergoing a massive transition, with the current
MCRs and other student reps into its council structure,
strategic emphasis shifting away from undergraduate
working with them for the benefit of all Cambridge
teaching to postgraduate research. Far from immune
students. Ironically, the asset that the first Student
to this global trend, Cambridge is, for once, at the
Representative Council failed to recognise and utilise
vanguard of change. The university is investing heavily
effectively – namely its six university representatives –
in new infrastructure to maximise its postgraduate
is one of CUSU’s most valued strengths today, since
and postdoctoral research output, and it expects
the executive comprises six sabbatical officers who
to increase the number of postgraduate students it
represent the interests of students across the university,
admits annually by 2 per cent, a figure that is likely
irrespective of college affiliation.
to continue to rise over the coming years.
The years ahead look bright for CUSU. But key
Considering the scale of the transition already
to the union’s future success is ensuring that “central”
under way in the university, representation for students
does not mean “top-down”. In this respect, JCRs,
at graduate level is becoming increasingly important,
MCRs and peer networking across the centralised
as indeed is the need for more effective representation
union will form the representative fabric of the future.
for Cambridge’s many international students, the vast
As CUSU strives to work more closely with common
Above, from top: iCUSU’s annual
majority of whom are studying for a postgraduate
rooms and at college level, pushing for greater student
freshers guide; the students’ union
degree. In order to achieve these aims, CUSU is eager
involvement, it continues to build on its core value
promotes campaigns, societies
to strengthen its relationship with the GU so that it
and the reason a centralised union was sought
and representation with The Guide
can better serve the interests of the several thousand
50 years ago: to represent and connect with all
to Making Change at Cambridge
graduate students it is tasked with representing.
Cambridge students.
For the record
Flick Osborn CUSU President 2013/14
“
Having been involved with CUSU for more than two
here, but I’m hopeful that this is the right time for us
years, and having been JCR President at St John’s
to be moving and for the university to recognise our
prior to running for CUSU President, I’d experienced
long-term vision. The time feels right, and once we
and loved leading a group of student volunteers. I get
have bigger premises, the personnel and the space to
a lot of satisfaction out of seeing other people make
do more of what we’re good at, we’ll be able to expand
changes and reach their own goals. To me, the role of
and reach more students.
President is about empowering people. That’s what
The issues facing students are different now,
drew me to it.
and CUSU’s role is more important than ever since
It can be difficult with such a complex university
the increase in fees. In a collegiate university, it’s
structure to explain the political, representative side of
very easy for students to feel like their college is
what we do, and we try to do this as much as possible
their main community, and while that’s one of the
through council. CUSU really excels at representation.
most special things about Cambridge, it makes it
We have seats on most committees in the university,
difficult to look outside and to see on a national level
a good oversight of everything that’s happening and
the changes that are happening that have a huge
a team who are very good at communicating with
impact on the choices open to students. So, I see
one another so that everyone is aware of the changes
CUSU’s role now as being more national in its focus.
taking place across the collegiate university.
I’ve seen how, rightly or wrongly, when you say
The biggest change facing CUSU at the moment
that you’re from Cambridge University Students’
is our upcoming move. I think a lot of benefits will come
Union, it commands attention. It’s a real privilege,
from having a proper building, ideally the University
but there’s also pressure on us to use our position
Centre. We’d be more visible, more accessible, and
in a positive way, not just for students here but for
everything we do would be thrown wide open for people
students throughout the UK. For example, in relation
to come and see and get involved. We really need to
to a particular bill, all students’ unions were recently
maintain a strong focus on the building and we need
asked by the NUS to send letters to Lords connected
to get it right this time. We can’t end up in another
with their institutions. We received a list from the
back-of-beyond space like the Old Examinations Hall;
university that showed there are about 150 Lords
it would be so detrimental to CUSU’s aims and to the
connected with Cambridge. That was an amazing
interests of our members.
opportunity for us to use our connections and influence
I’m disappointed that the university didn’t invest
positively. We should always be looking outside
earlier in something that’s so crucial for students
Cambridge at problems affecting students as a whole.
”
051