The depoliticisation of CUSU and especially its autonomous Women’s Campaign has become a central issue in debates surrounding the upcoming Exec elections. And for good reason: representing a huge group of Cambridge students and second in size to CUSU itself, its autonomy deserves to be fiercely guarded, especially given that this autonomy enables it to do what it can do best: advocate for women on the political stage, create safe spaces for the sharing of ideas and experiences, and change society’s perception of what it means to be a woman in the 21st century.  Change in society requires activism in the political arena.

The commitment and passion of individuals involved with the Women’s Campaign should be applauded. Power to change society and institutions is rooted in committed people, even if there are only a small number, who join together to advance a common goal. An innovative vision, with radical goals, needs people with a commitment that is equally radical if it is to move forward. Without the work and courage of such women over the course of the last century, there would be none of us at Cambridge now. Sounds like a cliché, but it’s true.

We know that the Women’s Campaign should represent all self-defining women in Cambridge. This is the first statement on the Campaign’s website and it’s an obvious one to make – but extraordinarily difficult to fulfil. For those with differing political views, it may well be challenging to engage. I believe the key solution to the problem is for the Campaign to continue actively inviting the expression of politically diverse opinions, giving women more opportunities to offer those opinions freely and easily.

This, however, does not mean depoliticisation.

It means a re-think of how the Campaign relates to its members. It means more discussion forums in colleges, run independently by JCR Women’s Officers. It means more opportunities for women outside the Campaign team to be trained in advocacy through CUSU- run workshops. It means better publicity about the existing, less radical aspects of the Campaign’s work. We all read about the protests outside the Union over Assange and DSK. But how many of us really know about the Right to Light Campaign, which is so important not just for women but also for men in Cambridge? And are we aware of the invaluable work they have been doing on body image?

While safe spaces for women are absolutely essential and the provision of these by the Women’s Campaign is fantastic, I would love Cambridge to have a positive men’s discussion group about women’s campaigning. Gender equality goes beyond (vitally important) advocacy for women in big issues like consent, zero tolerance of harassment and equal pay. It’s also about encouraging constructive discussion between genders about the issues that face both men and women today. I have been impressed by recent articles in the student press, especially during Mental Health Week, when there was a refreshing and much-needed focus on issues like depression and eating disorders among men. While sometimes the Women’s Campaign work does require bold women-only action, gender equality campaigning does not have to always be so acutely polarised. The Campaign raises essential awareness about welfare, eating disorders, mental health and domestic violence (, to name but a few). These are issues that affect both men and women and I believe we can find common ground to campaign for each other. Surely this would be true gender equality?

The solution is not to separate the Women’s Officer’s role into two positions. It is not constitutionally defined to be pastoral. I believe, rather, that the Welfare and Women’s teams have a fundamental need to continue cooperating in their work so that advocating and campaigning for women continues effectively alongside the Welfare team’s pastoral support. We should be encouraging discussion and empowering women, regardless of their political views, to campaign passionately and effectively for themselves.

It isn’t the place of any CUSU President to impose an agenda, political or otherwise, on any autonomous campaign and I’m not attempting to do so. What is written here are my reflections as a woman, but primarily as a student, about the Women’s Campaign’s work: both said in praise of its positive impacts and also with suggestions of how it might achieve broader representation and better engagement from all of Cambridge’s women. 

Read the other candidates opinions on an issue that is important to them in Parts 2 and 3 of our Presidential debate series, where we talk to George and Greg