With a track record this appalling, how can anyone trust the NUS to tackle anti-Semitism?

Upon resigning, she wrote of her most recent conference: “To my dismay, for all the talk about the values of equality, diversity and respect at last week’s NUS conference, in practice nothing could be further from the truth, in relation to anti-semitism.”

So these problems are not new. Jewish students within the NUS have noticed this malignant tumour spreading throughout the organisation.

From here, there are two questions that emerge.

1) Can you trust the NUS to combat anti-Semitism?

2) If the answer to this is no, can Cambridge achieve more in challenging anti-Semitism by remaining within the movement or do we make a bigger impact by stamping our feet and slamming the door on the way out?

One of the most pleasing aspects of the referendum in Cambridge has been the freedom Jewish students have been granted to define anti-Semitism for themselves. As I have demonstrated, this privilege is not extended elsewhere on campuses and certainly not within the NUS.

We are fortunate to be at Cambridge, a truly magnificent university. There are times that the responsibility can be a burden – the days we just want to get pissed and act like dicks on Jesus Green without cameras waving in our face spring to mind.

But there are also times that the responsibility should inspire us – the Cambridge student community should be proud that Jewish voices have been heard in this debate and disaffiliation could provide the national impetus that would compel the NUS to take anti-Semitism more seriously.

Cambridge students have already tried to change from within. At the recent NUS conference, Olly Hudson delivered an outstanding speech that called the organisation out on its anti-Semitism. Within hours, however, the room had elected a woman who only a fortnight earlier had received a signed letter of complaint from 57 Jewish societies across the country. On the day of the conference, nobody questioned her previous rhetoric. The sorry truth is that we are lone voices fighting a solitary battle.

The desperate reality is that not one major NUS figure has admitted that Malia’s rhetoric is anti-Semitic. Instead, her comrade and vice-President Shelly Asquith has described it as a ‘right-wing media attack’. This polemic has now received extensive coverage from The Economist, The New Statesman, The Guardian, The Independent and the BBC. You try telling that lot that they are a load of right-wing nuts.

Credit: Ben Brown

On a BBC Radio Four programme last weekend, the vice-President Richard Brooks said that if Jewish students have concerns, they should get involved. Sorry Richard, but in 2016, no minority group should be told that they must stand as a delegate or get involved in order to avoid oppression and discrimination.

The NUS will also tell you they are conducting an inquiry into institutional racism within the organisation. What they are rather more sheepish about is the fact this was first called by Malia herself and was targeted at BME discrimination primarily and was due to be concluded in January. They are now co-opting anti-Semitism into this and claim it will be finished in the summer. The details are murky, to say the least.

Richard also claims he will introduce a motion at the next NUS conference to restore Jewish representation on the ARAF committee. This is all very well, but can anybody trust a council that removed the Jewish representation in the first place and is not prepared to call out their new President’s anti-Semitism? And can we place our faith in a conference that just voted Malia in with more than 50% of the vote to reverse this decision?

These are the questions you must wrestle with before placing your vote.

In the coming days, you have the chance to make a statement against anti-Semitism. And it’s all about trust. Do you really trust the NUS to reform and become a welcoming environment for Jewish students?

Place your vote HERE.