How is being an SU president at Cambridge different to other universities?

Matthew: The first thing is that it’s 800 years old and its system of governance has really changed over the years. As a result, it is complicated and it takes a lot of time to change anything. Nothing happens quickly, and no one has the power to change anything. The other thing is the college dimension and the level of separation in student representation. The JCRs and MCRs represent people to their colleges and the SU represents students to the University, whereas in other universities they only have one form of representative mechanism.

How are you combatting the falling student engagement over recent years?

Matthew: Firstly, it is not a Cambridge exclusive problem. This is something that is seen across universities, probably since the status of Students’ Union was changed so that they became charities. Before, they campaigned for whatever they wanted, and the student movement has historically been at the forefront of a lot of progressive social changes. As a result, people became quite disillusioned with the concept of a student voice. Our plan around that is to show students that student bodies can change things. And the election we were elected in was the highest turnout that the Cambridge SU in this form has ever had.

“The only resistance is institutional”

Augustin: In fact, one of the things we’re finding hard is to publicise and make it open about what we’re doing. No-one knows if you’re lobbying effectively, if you’re not creating relations for your future, maybe instead of advocating for what you need. I think that there’s suspicion there that’s not completely unwarranted. One of the ways of engagement will grow is by opening things up.

What progress have you made with divestment, which you both highlighted in your manifestos?

Augustin: The referendum we held earlier this year had somewhat of an impact. I think less for the student population, but more for the people who always believe that any ‘woke’ student is not expressing the views of the majority. And that has broken through completely, and now we hear people are completely accepting the position of the students. The only resistance is institutional. And in a way, that’s a hard problem, but it’s just a case of finding the tools we need.

Is there any hope of improving the SU facilities?

Matthew: Yeah, I still strongly believe that students would benefit from an SU bar, and having better facilities generally. The bar itself is downstairs in the University Centre. Sadly, about a week after we joined, the University decided it was going to reallocate that space to a different group, and, in that moment, killed the dream of the bar for some time. Yeah, it was poor timing. And sadly, at the time I got in, really, it was too late for me to do anything about it.

“I still strongly believe that students would benefit from an SU bar”

What else have you been doing to improve student welfare?

Augustin: I am working on improving justice for college supervisors and college supervisions. The campaign is looking to secure contracts with colleges, because currently supervisors do not have contracts. One of the issues that’s come up from undergrads specifically is that there is no recourse to say ‘this supervisor has not done a good job,’ because there is no standard to hold them to. And a contract will also be better for the research students who are supervising because it means paying them sick leave, for example.

How long did it take you to settle into the role and do you feel positive moving forward?

Matthew: One of the inherent difficulties of being a student representative is that you only get a year. And I feel like I only fully learnt how to do this job in about January. And then you get six months of feeling like you can do a job and you have to leave. In terms of progress, there’s not necessarily visible movement that you could find written down, but there is definitely a change in how students are heard at the top of the University.