A proposal to cease JCR funding for religious, political and charitable societies has caused uproar amongst Caius students this week.

The terms of a motion, submitted by the Caius Student Union (GCSU) President, would have rendered societies such as Amnesty International and the Christian Union ineligible for funding. After a heated campaign from members of both societies, the proposals have been revoked.

Amnesty fell into the category of societies “which do not directly benefit GCSU’s members”, rendering it beyond the remit of Union funding, according to the motion’s terms.

It was also viewed, by some, as running a political agenda which did not reflect the views of all students.

Religious societies such as the Christian Union (CU) were also excluded on the grounds that they were “not open to all members of the College”. Of the charitable organisations, however, RAG was allowed funding, on the grounds that it allocated its money “on a democratic basis”.

Fierce opposition from societies, however, questioned both the implied responsibilities of JCR funding and the specific classification of Amnesty as ‘political’. The GCSU have now retracted the proposal  and replaced it with a completely revised statement, issuing an apology for the motion which, they admit, was “badly thought through”.

Verity Trynka-Watson, who leads a Christian group at Caius and is also an Amnesty member, said the proposals exposed a “fundamental misunderstanding of neutrality”, although she did regard the intentions of the GCSU as “essentially positive”.

“Union does not mean uniformity, but the acceptance of diversity,” she said.

“Cutting off funding to political, religious and charitable societies suggests that the normative model is anti-political, secularist and non-interventionalist. Neutrality is maintained by considering all groups equally.”

The motion was proposed after students requested funding for charity squashes, leading to a need to clarify the Union’s responsibility for funding societies whose aims lay beyond a direct benefit for Caius students.

Correspondence between Society members and the GCSU is currently ongoing, and a model is being considered which takes into account both the importance of neutrality and the JCR’s role to fund opportunities for all students.

“The motion arose from concerns that students might feel that many societies were exclusive, or imposed ideas upon the rest of the student population,” said Sophia Parkinson, the GCSU secretary.

“With regard to this, societies with ideological positions represent a more dangerous kind of exclusivity.”

Members of both societies rallied in opposition at an open meeting on Sunday, but the discussions were pulled after concerns of unconstitutionality. The motion, released to the student body just hours before the meeting, would only be voted on by the JCR executive committee of 16 elected representatives, and was proposed by only one member, President James Polyblank.

The debate has revealed a profound difficulty in defining the roles of JCR funding, and the definition of a ‘political identity’ for societies. Although it is common for party-political groups to be excluded from Student Union funding, only four other Colleges extend the political classification to groups like Amnesty.

Representatives from Caius Amnesty stressed the inclusive and participatory nature of the organisation, and the fact that “human rights affect us all”.

“Caius Amnesty welcomes the GCSU’s efforts to achieve greater clarity with regard to the funding of societies” said society member Emma Johnston.

“Yet we must emphasise that Amnesty International is an apolitical, impartial organisation, independent of any government, political ideology or religious creed. Caius Amnesty is thus open to all members of the College, regardless of their political affiliation.”

Society representatives are currently in correspondence with Union representatives, and a reworking of the proposal is being put forward.

“We want to base funding on requests, but also allow students to be able to question funding decisions should they feel that funding is imposing certain views on students, or misrepresenting the College,” said Parkinson.

“Societies form because enough people are enthusiastic about their specialist interest to want to meet together,” Trynka-Watson added.

“This is equally true of all groups within College, and to see the political, religious, and charitable societies cut out would be a sad loss of many organisations which greatly enrich the lives of students.”