"Access is crucial and you can live without your Union perks"Joe Robinson

Well, thank goodness for that. It would’ve been pretty embarrassing otherwise.
And I don’t mean just for CUSU, whose track record for getting people to participate in referenda and generally getting stuff done isn’t exactly premier. It would’ve been embarrassing for the entire student body if not enough people had cared about people with disabilities to vote, or, even worse, if people had actually voted no.

As you might be able to tell, I’ve been a strong supporter of the Yes campaign since the referendum was proposed. My reason for this was that there was no good reason not to be. How do you justify opposing an officer designated specifically to aiding and liberating some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged students at the university who, incidentally, make up 8.1 per cent of undergrads and 5.9 per cent of grads?

I suppose that the 336 people who opposed the motion did so based on how expensive it would be for CUSU to fund another full-time sabbatical position. But, to be honest, I can’t think of a better place for the money to go. What’s more important than enhancing the experiences and ability to succeed of those most likely to be overlooked? CUSU have said themselves that they may have to “cease existing activities”, which I can deal with because, you know, equality is more important than the Freshers’ Week pub crawl, and that they’re “looking to raise additional income” (which they’re always doing anyway, so no big deal).

So come on, you 336 no-voters. Get with the times. Access is crucial and you can live without your Union perks.

But, in all honesty, I didn’t find the success of the Yes campaign that surprising. Most people in Cambridge aren’t complete and utter wankers, regardless of the Daily Mail’s preferred angle and the impression given by the people who write for the Tab. From within my comfy left-leaning friendship group, it seemed to be a given that the motion would pass, and that enough people would recognise the need for a new kind of representation in our students’ union. For me, in the same obvious way that you try not to be racist, you also try to recognise the difficulties that people with disabilities face in their lives, and you automatically expect everyone around you to do the same.

But that’s quite clearly not the experience many disabled students have had during their time in Cambridge, considering that the petition triggering this referendum was signed by well over the required 350 people. It’s easily taken for granted that people with disabilities should just get extra support and that’s that. Let’s think for a moment, though, about the life-changing difference this vote is going to make for so many people. I remember just last year when Corpus finally voted to have a ‘gender equalities’ officer on our JCR (and we only voted yesterday on whether this should actually be called the ‘women and non-binaries’ officer). Taken for granted and considered an obvious choice by many from other colleges, this was actually a ground-breaking change.

Think about how much more significant a change it’ll be for those with disabilities to have a sabbatical officer representing them to the university. It’s one more protective layer that’ll hopefully stop people from slipping through the net into unmanageable difficulties. This isn’t just a ticked box for the liberals, another accolade to show how PC we are – this has the potential to have a hugely positive impact on many lives.

But that will only be the case if the individual who takes up this role actually manages to do something with it. At the moment, CUSU seems to be on a roll: the last presidential election was record-breaking in its turnout, just like this one, and this year’s sabbatical team seems to know how to make a big noise in their favour rather than winding everyone up. They might not have universal support yet, but at least people seem to know what they’re doing, and the President, Priscilla, even made it onto the Tab’s ‘Biggest Name on Campus’ shortlist this week. That list might be a disgraceful concept and an embarrassment to be associated with, but Priscilla’s presence on it does show that she has an audience. Which of her predecessors did?

So hopefully, the new full-time Disabled Students’ Officer role will help to further this trend of engagement and awareness. I hope that the visible support for disabled students is encouraging for those whom it personally affects; and I hope that the overwhelming landslide pushes everyone else to challenge the ableism that they encounter, from the girl who used horrific, outdated terms to insult people she didn’t like, to the non-wheelchair accessible stage that prevented a speaker from sitting alongside her fellow panellists. These situations are avoidable, but so far we haven’t done very well as a community in countering them. Voting for a sabbatical officer to spearhead these changes is the first step, so well done, Cambridge. Now let’s bloody well support whoever fills the role and make some equality happen around here.