Our Grade, Our Choice:
Black History Month
Is it time for Cambridge to stand up against tradition for tradition’s sake?
Vivienne Westwood:
Freedom. Love. You. The women of FLY
Clothes, tanks, and life as a ‘freedom fighter’
→ Comment, p.16
→Part 2, p.3
The
22 October 2015 Vol. 17 Michaelmas Issue 3 www.tcs.cam.ac.uk
Trinity’s land assets valued at £730m
Cambridge Student
Fear of being ‘gaslighted’ dulls debate on Assange Stevie Hertz News Editor
Exclusive: Gulf between colleges’ land holdings Anna Carruthers Deputy Investigations Editor
A
n investigation by The Cambridge Student comparing college land ownership has revealed significant disparities in acreage and income, with Trinity College reportedly owning over £700 million worth of land. However, their senior bursar, Rory Landman, has stressed that much of the income they get from the land is redistributed to other colleges. TCS has used a combination of college accounts (if available) and freedom of information requests to give a snapshot of land ownership. St John’s has the greatest total acreage at 14,700 acres. This land is located in Cambridge, elsewhere in Cambridgeshire, Kent, Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and Berkshire, and the estimated current value of the College’s agricultural and other land is around £80 million. This “agricultural and other land” does not include operational playing fields. St John’s College were unavailable for comment when contacted. However, Trinity’s land is of more value than St John’s. Trinity owns 13,335 acres of land, with an estimated current unaudited worth of £730 million. The latter figure does not include the value of the main site. Although direct comparisons are tricky, this is over nine times the value of St John’s land. Trinity does, however, contribute significantly to supporting the collegiate nature of the University. In the annual account of 30 June 2014,
→Part 2, p.9
Trinity declared that it contributed approximately £7 million a year in support. £4,962,000 was in donations and £2,102,000 in university contribution. The former was down from £5,035,000 in 2013 and the latter up from £1,983,000. Landman stated that “this represents about 25 per cent of the net income from Trinity College’s investments.” A further £4.4 million is spent on scholarships and awards (see page 3). Landman explained how Trinity’s considerable wealth affected its position within the University: “Trinity is pleased to support collegiate Cambridge as part of its long-term commitment to the University. Trinity College believes that the diversity in the collegiate system, a historical legacy, should be celebrated as it is one of the University’s great strengths. It leads to a friendly rivalry and competition between the colleges which motivates and encourages us all.” Aside from contributions to the University, Trinity also spends an average of £8 million of its income each year on maintenance and repair of its Grade I listed buildings. In 2014 only £5 million was spent in this area but Landman clarified that this was in anticipation of the recent refurbishment of New Court. For the year ending 30 June 3015, the gross income from property for Trinity was £45.3 million, down from £46.2 million in 2014. Continued on page 4 →
Editorial Comment page 15 →
The decadant view from a Trinity bathroom
The Cambridge Union Society yesterday held its debate on the motion ‘This house would host Julian Assange’. However, with fewer than 100 people in attendance and many of the speakers reiterating previous statements, the event was what one audience member labelled “uneventful” and another, “disappointingly peaceful.” In his opening speech, president Oliver Mosley stressed that this was the first such debate and referendum in the Union’s history and in itself hoped to encourage free speech. However, one speaker, James, argued that many people had chosen not to speak at the debate on Wednesday evening, for fear of being ‘‘gas-lighted”, or made to doubt their own experiences of oppression. James, among those the Union has asked to only be identified by their first names, spoke of an individual who had told him that “as a victim of abuse it makes me physically sick to have [Assange] there’’. None of the floor speeches came from women. Kate, who spoke for the proposition, said: “The actual act of hosting him is not something people are forced to engage in.” CUSU women’s officer Charlie Chorley was among those who chose not to speak at the debate, instead sending a statement to be read out, which called for members to abstain. Chorley reinforced the position of the Women’s Campaign saying that “by inviting Assange, the Union reveals its inability to attract new, diverse speakers. It demonstrates its skewed priorities which have, for years, alienated women and minorities.” However, despite the emotive language Chorley used, the debate was not the contentious affair that many expected, but rather more sedate, with little direct interaction between the speakers on either side. Continued on page 8 → Image: Anna Thomas