The four candidates for the sabbatical position of CUSU President have opened up about their aims for CUSU in exclusive statements to Varsity.

With nominations closed and voting now underway for the various posts up for grabs in the CUSU elections, this year’s presidential hopefuls are former Newnham JCR President Katie Akers, King’s College SU Domus Leonardo Kellaway, Girton JCR Women’s Officer Priscilla Mensah and satirical candidate Milo Edwards.

Do you think a confederation of JCRs would be more efficient than the current CUSU structure? And if not why not?

Questions regarding the current structure of CUSU, as opposed to a possible confederation of JCRs, yielded predictable answers from Priscilla Mensah and Milo Edwards about the need to balance the (good) work of part-time college unions with the sabbatical work of senior CUSU officials, with Edwards emphasising a shift in focus away from the CUSU Council towards individual JCRs.

Mensah stated: “JCRs do an immense amount, but JCR members are also studying full time on demanding courses. I believe CUSU’s role at the intercollegiate level better recognises the significant demands already placed on JCRs and students as a whole.”

Katie Akers, on the other hand, drew attention to the need for “the central university to give unrestricted funds to CUSU”, thereby “empowering the union to make change”. Kellaway, the King’s candidate, simply stated that he did not believe a confederation system would be more efficient.

What point of discussion has, in your eyes, only been addressed by you and none of the other candidates?

Ironically, both Mensah and Kellaway brought up the point of CUSU engagement with students when asked about policies that made them unique. Kellaway plans to pursue the relocation of CUSU into a separate Student Union building, thus combatting student apathy for the university-wide union. Priscilla Mensah summarised the dilemma of student engagement with CUSU with the following statement:

"If CUSU is not materially impacting the student experience for the better, through new and insightful ways to deal with intercollegiate and departmental concerns, the problem of disengagement will persist."

Milo Edwards stated that his unique proposals include “more referenda, Wednesday afternoons off for sport and free tampons” before swiftly adding “also canals”. Akers was also eager to list the policies she believed to be solely hers, namely "council reform, a democratic budget, a sabbatical question time and a block grant”.

How are you going to counteract political apathy in Cambridge and what do you think of the relationship between CUSU and the various Cambridge media outlets?

The issues of student apathy and the relationship between CUSU and the student media were heavily addressed by all four candidates, all of whom recognised a need for change in this arena. Katie Akers and Milo Edwards both blamed the failed publicity initiatives of CUSU for a disconnect between the student body and the student union, offering, in the case of Edwards, to write a presidential column in one of the student newspapers.

In contrast to this, Priscilla Mensah focused on the length and location of current CUSU Council meetings as reasons for a lack of student engagement, because “students aren’t apathetic, they’re busy”. With regard to CUSU’s relationship with student media, Mensah simply said, “it needs to be better and more regular”. Kellaway, in contrast to the other candidates, once again blamed the lack of a central Student Union building for apparent student apathy in Cambridge, and thus sought to remedy this via the planned relocation of the CUSU offices in 4-5 years' time. 

What's your opinion on no-platforming?

All candidates responded rather diplomatically to the issue of no-platforming policies, which have been major talking points within the student body over the course of the last year. Candidates referred to the topic as “thorny” (Akers) and “tricky” (Kellaway), with Edwards and Mensah calling for a case-by-case analysis of ‘platforming issues’. Kellaway approached the issue cautiously, stating that “where possible it would be best to avoid no-platforming”.

Akers was the only candidate to come out as decidedly against no-platforming decisions due to the apparent need for active engagement with controversial opinions and the difficulty of enforcing no-platforming policies. According to Akers "you just can’t enforce a policy of no-platforming everywhere, particularly in the digital age. Surely, it’s preferable to actively challenge morally objectionable words and conduct in a forum that is mediated than in an unpoliced arena, where the vulnerable can still find themselves exposed to the vitriol”.

Do you think that CUSU-affiliated political campaigns are misled and naive?

Replies to questions about CUSU-affiliated campaigns unanimously claimed that each case should be judged on its own merits. The Living Wage Campaign is, according to the candidates, a worthwhile cause, however not necessarily indicative of all CUSU-affiliated programmes, and thus no candidate expressed their unreserved support for CUSU campaigns as a whole.

Kellaway summarised sentiments among candidates towards such campaigns with the following statement: “I think we'd have to look at the campaign on a case by case basis. I accept that, perhaps, at some point, campaigns may have the wrong target/strategy. But what is clear is that anyone that is involved in these campaigns is very well intentioned.”

Do you think joke candidates serve a purpose in the political system?

In response to Edwards’ nomination as a ‘joke candidate’ Kellaway and Akers gave their views on the necessity of such campaigns. Kellaway gave Varsity the following statement: “They (joke candidates) serve the purpose of engaging people that would otherwise not be engaged.”

Akers echoed such notions, however was quick to point out “the joke has been revoked, as it were. The ‘joke candidate’ [now] does not acknowledge themselves as such. This means we are now being asked to judge each candidate on their skills, experience and, yes, on how well researched and attainable their policies are.”

Edwards, who has been accused by the student media of imitating the current OUSU President by running as a joke candidate, defended himself with the following statement: “I wouldn't say that I'm a joke candidate, I'm a satirical candidate with some serious policies and I think that bringing a bit of humour to the elections has engaged far more people than usually vote. This way, whoever wins, they'll have a better mandate.”

Are you applying for this role with alternative employment set up in the case of an electoral defeat?

Of the four presidential candidates only Mensah has made alternative plans to CUSU presidency for next year. Mensah is currently thinking about “further study or Law”, thereby setting her apart from the other candidates who, in the words of Milo Edwards, “have nothing better to do. Literally nothing.”