Exclusive: Cambridge Union committee members describe a ‘culture of fear’ among leadership

Anonymous but verified sources currently serving in senior posts at the Cambridge Union have spoken to The Cambridge Tab about a “culture of fear” within the society.

The individuals requested their identities be protected due to fears of retaliation from the union, so they are referred to as person one and person two.

Person one described the atmosphere inside the union as “distinctly toxic at present”, remarking: “I am actively trying to avoid the building wherever possible.”

They alleged: “There are incidents when I have been threatened but have not wanted to make a formal complaint”.

Speaking on their hesitation to escalate their concerns officially, they said: “This reluctance stems from institutional knowledge of how previous complaints have been handled as well as fear of consequences.”

“All in all, my time on Standing [the most senior union committee] has not been as I envisaged it,” they said. “My position has become a real burden on me mentally.”

Person two described a similar climate: “The vibe in the building has just gone off a cliff lately.”

“It’s felt incredibly tense and high-pressure behind the scenes for months.”

They said members were reluctant to speak openly. “I’m not going to get into specifics because I’ve seen what happens to people who talk. I’m staying anonymous for a reason — the culture of payback in there is very real.”

Person two went on to criticise the welfare system at the union. “Welfare is a joke, that’s not even a secret,” they said. “No one actually knows who the welfare officers are or what they do. […] It’s just a title on a list to make the union look good.”

via Wikimedia Commons

Last week, the union’s Debates and Executive Officer Pollyanna Greene-Wright resigned over what she called “consistent, protracted institutional bullying.”

Speaking to The Cambridge Tab, Pollyanna reflected on her experience, saying: “It was incredibly difficult to find happiness [at the union]. I’ve had people say that they feel numb, that they feel depressed, that they feel like there’s no point anymore.”

Pollyanna claimed much of her unhappiness stemmed from the actions of Vice-President Roberta Rennie, who she alleged used her power over internal investigations to target individuals. Pollyanna described the Vice-President as “the judge, jury, and executioner.”

Vice-President Roberta Rennie has denied all the allegations Pollyanna made against her, saying they present a “deeply misleading account of events.”

In a recording obtained by The Cambridge Tab, Vice-President Roberta Rennie paused a democratic election for the next Vice-President on the grounds of “anonymous” and “informal complaints.” She then suggested sanctions, including “recusal” from the right to vote, for those the complaints were about.

When asked by another union member “Is this your stance, or is it the Constitution’s stance?”, Vice-President Roberta Rennie replied: “This is my stance on this.”

Although the Vice-President acknowledged written records of complaints can impact members’ “future prospects” and “careers”, she suggested keeping records that “can be shared with people afterwards” if members of Standing did not act under her advice on the basis of informal and anonymous complaints.

Under the union’s complaints procedure, all formal and actionable complainants must be named.

During the recording, the Vice-President said she called “everybody who was still members of Standing to see […] if they had heard anything” about the informal complaints. One member of the committee felt this action was “shaping narratives” and “starting rumours.”

Vice-President Roberta Rennie denied she “acted outside the union’s constitution or misused [her] role in any way.”

Pollyanna claimed her confrontation of Vice-President Roberta Rennie over anti-constitutional behaviour contributed to her being targeted by senior figures and blocked from running in the presidential election.

Most Read

You can now watch Jeffrey Epstein’s disturbing private videos on ‘JeffTube’ – here’s how

The wages the Love Is Blind season 10 cast made in jobs before the show reveal biggest earners

Sorry in advance: Here are all the unhinged pics and clips of Beavo’s mum on OnlyFans

In messages seen by The Cambridge Tab, Pollyanna reached to the Vice-President in the days leading up to the judgement to “discuss the evidence further and provide more evidence defending myself.”

Despite initially indicating she would meet Pollyanna, Vice-President Roberta Rennie allegedly delayed the meeting, which never ended up happening.

Pollyanna said: “The next time I met with Roberta it was at the judgement meeting, and I was given no prior indication that this meeting would be the judgement delivery, so felt blindsided.”

However, in messages shared by Vice-President Roberta Rennie to The Cambridge Tab, the Vice-President reached out to Pollyanna offering her the opportunity to share her “perspective directly” with her.

Pollyanna complained Vice-President Roberta Rennie’s presence in meetings as both a welfare representative and leader of an investigation into her was a conflict of interest.

According to the Vice-President, Pollyanna specifically requested she act as her welfare representative.

Pollyanna launched a formal appeal against the decision, but said she failed to do so within the allocated 24 hour time window because she felt “totally incapacitated with the impact on [her] mental health.”

In correspondence seen by The Cambridge Tab, Pollyanna requested copies of the evidence against her. She said she received a file “with spelling errors,” omitting the evidence she had provided that she believed would prove her innocence.

Vice-President Roberta Rennie’s full statement to The Cambridge Tab reads: “The claims outlined above contain a number of factual inaccuracies and materially misleading characterisations of both my role and the constitutional procedures of the Cambridge Union. Officers must be able to discharge their constitutional responsibilities in good faith without being subjected to personal attacks or public mischaracterisation simply for carrying out the constitutional duties entrusted to them.

“As Vice-President of the society, I am bound by the union’s constitution and governing rules, which require neutral officers to respond when concerns or complaints are brought to their attention. In such circumstances, an officer’s responsibility is not to adjudicate personally but to ensure that the matter is handled through the appropriate constitutional processes. Any suggestion that I exercised unilateral authority over investigations or disciplinary outcomes is therefore incorrect. The union operates through defined independent procedural bodies and committees, and no individual officer has the authority to act as a single decision-maker in disciplinary or investigatory matters.

“In the appointment matter referenced, several individuals raised procedural and welfare concerns regarding Pollyanna Greene-Wright’s conduct. Consistent with my responsibilities under the society’s laws, the Vice-President asked to meet with Pollyanna in order to understand the circumstances and to ensure that any concerns raised were addressed through the appropriate constitutional procedures. The individuals who raised these concerns requested anonymity due to safeguarding risks, which is a legitimate and common feature of internal reporting processes where individuals may otherwise feel unable to come forward.

“Statements suggesting that I acted on the basis of a personal ‘stance’ rather than the constitution are also inaccurate. Officers of the society are required to act in accordance with the rules and obligations agreed to by members and volunteers, including those set out in the Volunteer Agreement. Any actions taken in the course of this matter reflected those constitutional responsibilities rather than personal discretion. The process was conducted confidentially to protect Pollyanna’s welfare and the safeguarding of all individuals involved.

“The approach taken was intended to address concerns at an early stage through discussion and internal resolution rather than escalating matters to higher disciplinary bodies, which have more serious consequences on students’ careers and long-term plans.

“Matters relating to electoral compliance fall within the separate jurisdiction of the returning officers, who operate independently under the constitution and electoral laws. Decisions relating to electoral eligibility are therefore made through those independent processes and not by individual officers.

“Pollyanna specifically requested that no decision be made until the Vice President was present, so that the Vice-President could ‘better advise’ and see the ‘human impact of the situation’. On Monday 23rd February at 8.50am, she ‘spoke to the Vice-President about the impact of the electoral matter,’ and the Vice-President assured her that the matter ‘would be holistically considered and that the returning officers did not take one singular account to be true.’

Pollyanna was supported throughout the conversation in the presence of senior independent union personnel who were not a part of the investigation. The Vice-President did not speak during the investigation interviews because Pollyanna requested that she [the Vice-President] act as her welfare representative.

“For reasons of confidentiality and fairness to all parties involved, it would be inappropriate to comment in detail on internal processes or communications. However, I reject the implication that I acted outside the union’s constitution or misused my role in any way. At all times, my actions were guided by the society’s governing rules (laws seven, eight, nine, 10) and by the responsibility placed upon officers to ensure that complaints, safeguarding concerns, and electoral processes are handled constitutionally.”

A Cambridge Union spokesperson said: “Decisions of electoral practice are made by independent officers and overseen by our independent review committee. We are entirely satisfied that the constitution has been applied correctly. It is a long standing precedent that the union doesn’t make procedural documents public. Candidates choose to do so of their own volition. Our standing committee supports the work of all our returning officers.”

Featured image via Wikimedia Commons