By Gavin Mackintosh-
An overwhelming vote by Cambridge’s Student Council this week in favour of launching an inquiry into data concerns at Cambridge SU, has once again rocked Cambridge University.
Angry students at one of Britain’s top university were livid when they discovered that personal Information about students’ sexualities, gender identities, race and disabilities, were declared anonymously when voting in some SU-run elections.
The details were secretly given to committee members and electors running elections for other societies and J/MCRs — without the knowledge or permission of the students concerned.
The situation sparked controversy and led to a complain by students to the Information Commission Office (ICO) who concluded the act not to have been a data breach, sparking even more confusion about the entire fall out.
Cambridge University student paper Varsity was heavily criticised after it exposing the SU’s mis-handling of sensitive student data. The paper was accused of false reporting after they labelled the leak as data breaches’, before the Information Commissioner’s Office(ICO) ruled the leakage not to amount to a data breach.
Cambridge SU accused Varsity of “false reporting” on the ‘data breach’ and of using a “misleading headline … [which] could cause unnecessary panic among students, and lead to the false belief that the SU has had a malicious attack on its data, leading to students being outed”.
Postgraduate president Amelia Jabry, told the Student Council that the statement, which had been taken down before the meeting, has been “retracted and is under review”.
The Student Union “confirmed that this did not class as a data breach and that no further action was required”. It further accused Varsity of breaking the IPSO Editor’s Code and made false claims that our journalists do not receive training.
Post graduate President: Amelia Jabry Image:.cambridgesu.co.uk
However, the ruling of the ICO has itself been questioned by some members of the Student Union, who are due to debate and scrutinise the data regulator’s ruling on the matter.
University Councillor Sam Carling proposed a motion which was backed by LGBT+ Campaign President Louis Baxter which called the disclosure of student data “significant” and “of major concern to the student body”. It also accused the Student Union of publishing “erroneous” and inaccurate information, which it said “ may further damage trust in the SU.”
It is now being examined whether the sensitive data may have biased the admissibility of the votes themselves and potentially compromised the entire system
The motion passed with 79% in favour, meaning that an inquiry, whose committee cannot include SU sabbatical officers, must be set up to determine “the nature and full extent of the problem” and why “the incident occurred and was not resolved for over nine months after first being raised”.
The inquiry will also look into whether Cambridge SU’s ICO report was “a complete and accurate representation of the issue”, and make further reports if necessary, as well as determining whether a complaint should be made to the University.
With a number of students at the university have questioned the competence of the ICO judgement, other bodies at the university are also looking to join the assessment of the ICO’s competence in the matter.
One student telling The Eye Of Media.Com that ”students at this university are more than intelligent enough to assess the professional competence of the ICO who may not even be as efficient as they purport to be”
The act of divulging personal information including race and sexuality has been taking personally by many of the affected parties who say it should be their decision with whom information about them is shared.
A procedural motion proposed by Undergrad President Zaynab Ahmed (pictured)for trustees to be in charge of any investigation, failed after 75% of those present voted against it.
Ahmed, who is also chair of the Union’s board of trustees, and sits on 17 university committees, apologised for the “accidental disclosure of personal information”. She told Council that she did not want a student inquiry but rather “wants to follow the correct processes” , which she said should allow the trustees to conduct their own internal investigation.
Student members spoke against Ahmed’s motion, claiming that it would be “asking the trustees to investigate themselves”, and that the trustees have already had a year to deal with the issue.
The Student Union, which has a number of academic reps, and multiple other roles which provide students with a sense of responsibility and leadership, plans are trying to move on from the latest situation which caused a lot of drama.
Members of the union have been incredibly busy today, dealing with further recruitments and addressing numerous internal issues.
Both Varsity and The Student Union were contacted for comment.