The Cambridge Student’s Union (SU) is in a bad way. Last year, former undergraduate president Fergus Kirman stated that the institution was in “a pit” that they needed to get out of following a string of scandals. Fast forward 12 months and half of the Sabbatical team had resigned, one of its presidents was on hunger strike accusing the institution of “killing democracy” in Cambridge, multiple members of SU staff were claimed the institution fosters a culture of racism, corruption, and bullying, and an emergency meeting was called after a petition accused the SU of a “failure to adhere to its own constitution”. The pit had got a whole lot deeper.

The new presidents, Sarah Anderson (undergraduate) and Sumouli Bhattacharjee (postgraduate), aren’t shying away from this reality. “We obviously ran for our positions in February before Easter Term had happened, and things were obviously a lot different then,” Anderson states, acknowledging the strife that had come before her: “There were moments here were moments in Easter term where I was watching a sort of stuff coming out and being like, Oh my gosh, what am I getting myself in for? ,” she adds. The pair insist they were not put off by this mess however, with Bhattacharjee pointing out “the Job as an SU Sabb is not just another job right? [...] It takes a bit more conviction and sense of purpose,” that is needed in the role for them to make genuine change. He’s positive about the new team too, claiming that in “every single one of them [the Sabbs] you see that sense of purpose”.

“When discussing policy, there’s one thing that sticks out: student engagement”

Harmony between the Sabbs is something that Anderson is keen to emphasise too, noting how attempts to promote a “positive vibe” in the team has “come from the organisation realising it’s really important for the Sabb team to get along with each other”. The pair pick out a trip to a board games cafe and a game of “drawing chinese whispers” as an especially good memory, and Anderson praising the fact that the team have had so many “amazing bonding opportunities”. It’s nice to hear, and probably beneficial to students if there’s less mudslinging, hunger striking, and secretive Moroccan holidays from the Sabb team. And while this does take more than having a group that works together to be effective, it’s definitely an important starting point.

It hasn’t all been roses for the new team; Manjari Gupta, the women’s officer elect couldn’t join the team due to Visa issues, and disabilities officer Chalo Waya was unable to take up his post until recently due to a holdup on PhD funding. The presidents do seem confident that the new team will have a longer life expectancy than their predecessors, both nodding along with uncomfortable smiles when asked if they’re hoping to avoid the slew of resignations that coloured last term.

“It’s a really nice size of group. I think 6 people,” Anderson reflects on their situation, with Bhattacharjee claiming that what they lack in numbers they make up for in a “diverse,” group of skills that can help them achieve their priorities. “Summouli has had real life jobs, […] his knowledge, specifically ethical issues and divestment and all this kind of stuff that are really important issues for students right now, it’s valuable having someone who’s lived and breathed that for years of their life in the role”. Bhattacharjee has similar praise for Anderson’s skillsets noting how “she’s the student democracy expert on the team,” with the pair asserting how their backgrounds will help in reforming the SU.

When discussing policy, there’s one thing that sticks out for both of the Presidents: student engagement. Facing up to the issue is a positive step, especially since previous teams had tried to dismiss it, but they give themselves a pretty monumental task. The most recent SU election where both Presidents won their positions had a turnout of only 10%, and Anderson is happy to accept that most students don’t “even know the difference between the Union and the SU,” until a few terms at Cambridge.

“The SU regularly struggles to have a high enough attendance to pass motions — something even the offer of free pizza hasn’t alleviated”

Anderson describes getting students more involved in the SU as her “passion”, grinning, as she describes how “the thing that I am actually most excited for over this year is getting out there,” and reflects on how the team have been trying to introduce themselves to new freshers, meeting each cohort to provide “a proper coherent and comprehensive Introduction to the SU from day one,” where they can explain what the SU does: “This is your Sabb team and we provide free condoms, but also then this is what Council is – any student can submit something to Council.” Bhattacharjee chimes in too; discussing how Sabbs should focus on “being visible” so students see the SU as “not that the poster of the logo, but the individuals they can talk to, they can relate to”.

The team also have ambitious goals when it comes to making the SU’s inner workings more accessible too. The institution’s ongoing governance review, which aims to make the institution less dense and bureaucratic, is described as “incredibly exciting” by Anderson: “It’s a whole shake up of the way that we listen to students of how often council runs, what sort of other bodies we can have to consult students. [.] Hopefully there are some big changes coming this year that will mean that the SU is far more accessible for the everyday student”. It sounds like a welcome change; Student Council, the SU’s main body for legislating, is currently so marred in bureaucracy, confusion, and inefficiency that it’s little surprise it regularly struggles to have a high enough attendance to pass motions — something even the offer of free pizza hasn’t alleviated. Making the processes of the SU more accessible, and less confusing, to the “everyday student,” would definitely go a long way towards their goal of bettering engagement.

In trying to make the SU more accessible the team are also trying to be more “open and honest” about what actually goes on in the SU. Anderson comments on this approach, discussing how the team “had a very open and honest conversation about what had been happening over the last term […] if we can be open and honest within ourselves, it should be a lot easier to be open and honest with students as well.” There are limitations to this approach however; openness and honesty comes with an awareness of what can be shared. We can’t say everything. We can’t reveal everything. There is stuff that is confidential,” Anderson acknowledges.

However, at a time when the SU was recently forced to call an emergency meeting following a petition that accused it of “entrenched financial opacity and inconsistencies,” you can’t help but feel as though more could be done in terms of openness about the working of SU beyond the Sabbatical officers. When Anderson is quizzed on their relationship with the institution, the question is partially shut down; “It’s obviously difficult to say anything, remembering our member code of conduct – we can’t comment on staff,” referring to bylaws that state students should “refrain at all times from public comment on or criticism of members of Union Staff”. But when it is Union staff that face allegations of racism, bullying and corruption, you can’t help but feel a little more openness would be useful.

On the whole, the new presidents’ policies are a step in the right direction. They’re ambitious and want to tackle the problems of engagement and apathy that have plagued the SU since its inception. However, I can’t help wondering if they have the tools around them to be able to achieve what they’re aiming for.