The University Times - Election Special 2012 by The University Times

Tuesday, February 14, 2011

The University Times 2012 ELECTION SPECIAL

www.universitytimes.ie

Aaron Heffernan, Trinityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s most successful joke candidate

Whereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s the change he believed in? Max Sullivan on the blank slates that run for election each and every year

The University Times 2012 Election Special | Tuesday, February 14 2011

SOUNDBITES

Come back 2011, all is forgiven Glancing at the cover of this special SU election edition, you’d be forgiven for thinking that maybe we haven’t quite gotten over the riches that were served up in 2011. Well, you’d be right. Within a day of this year’s elections kicking off, it was obvious that we wouldn’t be treated to creative stunts, videos with celebrity cameos or bitter rivalries. Things are tepid indeed when the most controversial bone of contention between the Presidential candidates is an ill-advised charge of policy plagiarism. Elsewhere there are mutterings of poll rigging (Communications) and poor understanding of job-specific issues (Welfare), but nothing particularly exciting. Of course, we don’t expect candidates to shoot themselves in the foot by negative campaigning from day one. But the lack of red blood in this year’s fare is in stark contrast with the name-calling, stoney faced competition of last year. So, why put Aaron Heffernan on the cover? Heffernan was a hilarious joke candidate and all indicators showed that he probably would’ve won the presidential race had he stayed in it last year. But Heffernan is on the cover this year because of the parting words he delivered in the Ed Burke theatre, at the end of his campaign. Flanked by his statuesque bodyguard, Heffernan issued a plea for more students to get involved in the SU. He urged students to start caring, to lift themselves out of apathy and make an impression on college life, as he had. It was rousing stuff for those of us who were there, and afterwards we were left hopeful that this year would throw up candidates with some of the charisma which Heffernan brought, married with the gravitas one yearns for in a contender for political office (particularly President). While this years candidates are all fine people, competent and likely to hold the ship steady for another year, they probably won’t have a vintage year and maybe they

don’t aspire to. But that’s not good enough. Running for a position in the SU, particularly President, should be seen as a calling, not the final promotion in a career of extra-curricular activity - a box ticked before one enters the real world. Of course, all of us are in college to advance our career prospects, but we do not think it’s too much to ask that a candidate present a more substantial vision for the Presidency of the Union than has been offered by this year’s field. And it does matter. On page 12, Dr Patrick Geoghegan writes about his monthly meetings with the Education Officer and his dealings with the President. Meetings in which the SU representatives lobby the College on our behalf. This lobbying is frequently successful. On the national stage, the President can play a hugely significant role in USI, if he/she is willing to play the politics inherent in that organisation. Cónán O’Broin showed the influence that Trinity can have when the President knocks on every door in Leinster House and works with the USI hierarchy. Will this year’s candidates have the same appetite to be a player on the national stage? I doubt it.

I don’t see why somebody should pay tax and then discover that when you want to avail of a thirdlevel resource like Trinity that you have to pay a toll charge at the gate of €2,000-€3,000. Joe Duﬀy on third level fees in Ireland.

Even though I had a number of issues with it, I would have been in favour of remaining within it. Senator Ivana Bacik on USI aﬃliation.

And it’s not good enough. Ronan Costello, Editor

CONTENTS

Page 3 The Presidential Race Ronan Richardson followed the Presidential candidates around last week and finds things heating up as we start the second week Page 4 The Welfare Race Emma Tobin was our correspondent with the candidates for welfare officer and reports on the tight race Page 5 The Communications Race Fionn O’Dea reports on another hotly contested three-way race Page 6 Ents Shauna Watson had the rather lonely job of reporting on Dave Whelan’s Ents campaign

While running as a Fianna Fáil candidate in the 2011 general election wasn’t exactly easy; it was a walk in the park compared to TCDSU elections! Senator Averil Power on TCDSU elections.

Page 7 Education and RON Jack Leahy keeps track of Dan Ferrick as he cruises towards victory. RON also gets a look

Page 11 Senator Averil Power The former SU President writes extensively about her time as SU President and the lessons she learned from student politics

Page 8-9 An Ideological Vacuum Max Sullivan is mad as hell and he’s not going to take it anymore. The focuse of his ire is directed at the ideologically impoverished candidates we’re faced with this year

Page 12 Dr Patrick Geoghegan The Senior Lecturer and Newstalk presenter writes about his dealings with SU officers and the role they play in College policymaking

Page 10 Q&A with Joe Duffy and Senator Ivana Bacik Jack Leahy talks to RTÉ’s Joe Duffy and Senator Ivana Bacik on their tenures as TCDSU President and their views on the modern student movement

Page 13-15 The USI Debate and Disaffiliation Deputy Editor Rónán Burtenshaw reports on the USI disaffiliation debate and makes a case for remaining affiliated. A long, thoughtful and well argued piece

R P

p s w t t d e

b p a u k h w t h a

h m b i r l c s i v p F h p

The University Times 2012 Election Special | Tuesday, February 14 2011

Dunne accuses Kelly of policy plagiarism »» Internship policies at issue as Dunne and Kelly tied in popularity with voters »» Tighe’s lacklustre campaigning leaves him marginalised in two-horse race Ronan Richardson Presidential Reporter

HE FIRST WEEK of campaigning has ceased around campus, and as the Pav fills and students start to relax for the weekend I’m left to brew over the days that saw a very interesting and divisive presidential campaign begin to emerge. Over the past week, it has become clear that polarised perceptions have developed amongst the student population. James Kelly is well known, and those who like him, really like him; those who don’t like him are slow to change their opinion of him; a divisive character by all accounts. In contrast, Rory Dunne has appeared to garner a more middle of the road backing with students seemingly reluctant to express radical views on him. In relation to John Tighe, in a recent question blog on universitytimes.ie, Tighe, though initially steadfast in his views that we would be happy to associate himself with FEE events; has said that he would not engage in FEE protests if elected and the

student body in Trinity did not provide him with a mandate to do so. In contrast to Kelly and Dunne; Tighe has not appeared to do as well in terms of candidate notoriety amongst the electorate. Though he has repeatedly maintained that he does not feel a need to canvass in the open for votes, this un-pressured electioneering has not gone down well with the students who aren’t sure of his campaign, policies, or personality. The week kicked off with the video debates which, though providing us with an excellent view of the Communication Officers kitchen sink and unwashed accoutrements, also gave the candidates a chance to show the student body what they stand for. Though initial reports showed huge convergence between Kelly and Dunne, this was not to remain true to form. In contrast to this, again, Tighe remained on the outside. His views, though unpalatable and extreme to some, perhaps illustrate the quintessential student activist. This form of left-wing politics is not high on the agenda of the average Trinity

John Tighe speaks at the Dining Hall hustings.

From left to right: Rory Dunne, James Kelly and John Tighe. student. It was evident in the early stages that Dunne and Kelly had micro rather than macro policies regarding the Students’ Union and how it provides for its members. Both focused on issues such as internships, college Internet and student directed services. Dunne also pledged to donate ten percent of his wages to the student hardship fund in a move that was viewed as populist by some. He maintains that it would set

Photo: Dargan Crowley Long

a priceless precedent when student leaders ask College officials to economise. However in the wider scheme of things, big differences began to emerge on the nitty-gritty of their policies. Kelly opted for courseintegrated internships whilst Dunne looked to involve students with a range of business organisations outside college. Students have argued that it is not feasible for Kelly to come through with his plans due to academic restrains, while concerns have also been raised that adding work experience to a degree program would lengthen its duration and affect international rankings. Kelly argues that there is no basis to these claims. Dunne provided evidence to this publication that KPMG, among others have shown interest in a Trinity-exclusive internship programme. In recent days, controversy has emerged regarding claims made against Kelly regarding policies. It has been claimed that Kelly has lifted his internship policy and altered it to make it look slightly different to what Dunne originally proposed in his UT profile before the election. Kelly flatly denies this charge, as does his entire

campaign team. The electoral commission have been aware of the accusations for a number of days, as discovered by a University Times staff member who made contact with its secretary on Wednesday. The University Times was informed by a member on Friday that an investigation was ongoing, though EC chair Siobhán Fletcher denied that this was the case on Sunday afternoon following the publication of the fifth installment of the daily election blog. If there really has been no investigation, it’s hard to imagine why the EC have not acted in accordance with their duty to ‘ensure the fair running of the sabbatical elections’ (Schedule 3 to the SU constitution, article 1a.) - one of either Kelly or Dunne is being cheated here and that’s not on. The EC insist that no formal complaint has been issued and therefore no investigation has taken place, but there is no article of the SU constitution that specifically requires a formal complaint to be submitted for an investigation to be brought about. Common sense would dictate that notification or awareness in any capacity of potential wrongdoings would bring about

Photo: David Cullinan such a process. If the EC were to observe a campaign poster outside of the designated campaigning zone, it’s hard to imagine that they’d wait for a formal complaint before they acted. Interestingly, although Tighe harbours the most controversial views of the three presidential candidates, his campaign has largely managed to remain controversy free. This in itself is perhaps due to two things. Firstly, Tighe’s indifference towards campaigning has meant that students are unaware of the man himself; secondly, students seem unwilling to engage in any manner with macro policies, which Tighe can purport to manifest. In this regard it shall be seen that the race for house six will be centred around Dunne and Kelly this week. Both candidates have devoted a large amount of time to canvassing on campus especially in the Arts Block and Hamilton. This will pay off. As ever, students will vote on the individual; not the policy- for the most part anyway. Though initial polls showed Dunne to be in the lead, Kelly very much rallied towards the end of the week and pushed ahead of his primary competitor.

The University Times 2012 Election Special | Tuesday, February 14 2011

to the Editor

Welfare race is the hardest one to call

Q C

Walker’s Woes

Emma Tobin Welfare reporter

F C

LETTERS Dear Sir, As the sabbatical campaigns progress, lots has been said and done, and lots is still to come. Candidates make promises and express opinions, though one has stirred concern amongst myself and a number of my friends. Apologies Emma, but though you seem like a very dedicated and thoughtful individual, it would seem that you still have a lot to learn about college services and mental health. Despite declaring no desire to compete with S2S, one cannot help but feel Ms Walker is attempting to reinvent the wheel with her proposed mentor/buddy system for first years. To this reader’s knowledge, I don’t think she has had any significant experience with the current mentor system, and appears indifferent to any desire to learn about it; declining on multiple occasions to meet with the committee or attend the open information night. It would seem somewhat ironic that despite this, next year’s welfare officer is mandated to be trained as an S2S Peer Supporter! Mental health support is of course a major role in any welfare officer’s job, and one would expect prospective candidates to have a basic idea of it first; declaring “mental health is a silent killer” as the centre-point of a campaign video betrays ignorance as to the real meaning of the term. Mental illness may be a silent killer, but one will not die from being healthy. It is clear more education is needed. I wonder if the amicable Ms Walker fully appreciates the nature of the position? Yours, Seán Maguire

Dear Sir, Having watched the latest Walker 4 Welfare video I’m a bit concerned that its content threatens to silence the conversation that has recently begun in this college surrounding mental health. The depression and loneliness that comes with college life (much as I hate that phrase) is properly harrowing. I’ll be the first to say that. But this video feels like a missed opportunity as far as articulating these feelings (much as I hate that word) is concerned. Firstly, defining mental health is a tricky proposition. But one thing it definitely isn’t is a ‘silent killer’. For my money, mental health is what we think of when someone asks ‘how’re you doing?’ It’s an index of how we manage life’s obstacles. Well. I say ‘life’s obstacles’. But we all know that life itself is nothing more than a series of obstacles. Secondly, there are no silent killers. Whatever else about the reasons as to why somebody takes they’re own life, they are not silent. They’re white noise: a deafening blare of static like you get from a broken television. They’re also sentences, but only if you can find someone to hear them. Someone to listen to you. Someone you can trust. Thirdly, this video is silent, and it’s not a peaceful silence. It’s a scared silence. But there’s nothing to be scared of. And not in the Ernest Hemingway joke way (‘What was the old man scared of? - Nothing’). Look: despair is a powerful electrical current, and it runs into everybody’s head. You can’t press the mute button. You sure as hell can’t change the channel - whatever’s on the screen, it’s all you’ll be looking at anyway. All you can do is direct it along a different path. That’s how it gets less scary. And the only way that can happen is if you talk. And only with someone who knows what they’re doing. Who knows that there is nothing to be scared of. Fear produces fear, and fear gets strong on silence. Turn off the mute setting. The conversation about mental health doesn’t obey the normal rules of conversation. If you start talking, someone will listen. And, eventually, other people will start talking too. Tim Smyth

T’S BEEN A stressful, but enjoyable week in the Welfare race. Students have been positive in their reception of Candidates Andy Haughey, Aisling Ní Chonaire and Emma Walker. Their similar platforms of increasing welfare awareness have started to make headway with students, with this reporter noticing an increasing awareness of the position of welfare officer as the week has progressed. The introduction of the welfare nominees and their manifestos went down well from day one, with each candidate’s campaigns being some of the most noticeable to students. After a first day of campaigning the candidates found themselves out in halls that night and consequently in apartments for tea and chats. This positive response from the outset was to be a defining feature of the week. The second day of campaigns was noticeable the most stressful for all candidates with a double bill of hustings, first in front of the general students body at the annual Dinning Hall Hustings, and then again for Q Socs own hustings. At the dining hall all three reaffirmed their manifestos (which can be found on their leaflets and also on their Facebook pages) and then opened themselves up to questioning. Ní Chonaire confirmed the feasibility of her plan for a welfare phone app and all three candidates expressed their disbelief that some students feel Welfare is a position for a female student, and a female student alone. The Q Soc husting proved to be more of a challenge, with Trinity’s LGBT community eager to learn more about the future officer they have the closet association with. Admiration was expressed by all candidates for the work done by Q.Soc for its members, with Walker citing their “introductions”

programme as something she would aspire to emulate if elected. Ní Chonaire stated her desire to include LGBT issues and awareness into her “Help a Friend” workshops, while Haughey expressed his desire to make a series of “It Gets Better”, aimed at Trinity students. The questions addressed to the candidates were harder hitting this time around. When asked about raising transgender issues and awareness in college, Walker stated the need to enforce in students that gender doesn’t define who you are, Haughey spoke of how sexuality should never be an issue, and Ní Chonaire said the need to feel comfortable is crucial. The expansion of Rainbow week was another issue raised. Haughey liked the idea of making it more inclusive of the rest of the student body, citing “Bring a Straight Friend Night” as a means to do so. Ní Chonaire spoke of learning from and expanding on the ideas put forwards by LGBT advocacy group BeLonGTo. Walker explained her desire to get all Sabbatical officers involved in the campaign. Issues related to Pink Training, a facility provided by USI to Trinity’s Welfare office and Q Soc were raised. While answers given on the night was accepted, we were to learn on Wednesday that should Trinity be disafffliate, we would be cut out of all USI programmes, including those related to Welfare, negating most answers given on Tuesday. We have yet to learn how the Welfare candidates will address this problem should it arise. After the hustings students seems happy and satisfied with the answers given by the candidates, though one student did say they were a bit disappointed by the lack of solidified policies, particularly in relation to transgender students. Wednesday saw the candidates up their game, with Walker unveiling her new campaign materials of

wristbands, business cards, and yes those were wedding balloons. Ní Chonaire began questioning her opponents manifestos. Haughey’s oneon-one campaigning technique continued to increase his profile.All three then engaged in a TFM Lunch time debate which saw more of the same citings of expertise, experience and manifesto promises. Thursday was a quiet enough day with more of the same campaigning, on and off campus. Students continued to think welfare was one of the more interesting races, but were growing disgruntled at the “constant pestering of people with fliers”. The last day of a week of intense canvassing can only mean exhaustion for our three, non-coffee drinking candidates. Despite their tiredness all three nominees spent the day hectically trying to fit in a much as they could, quite successfully at that. All three are happy with how the week went and say they have gotten fantastic responses on and off campus. Emma Walker spent a large amount of the day canvassing the Hamilton while Haughey returned to thr arts block. Ní Chonaire continued her one on one chats around the arts block. Ní Chonaire continues to impress almost every student she’s talked to and this reporter has yet to hear a single negative word uttered against her. She also has had a consistent presences across campus which has gone down well with sometimes neglected Hamlitonites. Haughey’s “ShiftMob” has become famous within college, with memes appearing on Trinity’s newest, greatest procrastination page. The “ShiftMob” was not only a brave stunt in the middle of rush hour in Arts, but was also a well received way to highlight his manifesto promise of increasing the profile of SHAG week.

s d o r t c w ‘ C c t t i p

t p H t e t C a d t

d o c i s s s i D o i p p s f L w g t

t e c a c D s n p h Th l

w p d

, g n s e e f , o

t e d e , -

f y r g r s y t

h y -

a e r s

o s d

s l d

” n s e , d e

The University Times 2012 Election Special | Tuesday, February 14 2011

Questions raised over online polling in Comms race, candidates debate the issues Fionn O’Dea Communications Reporter

HE FIRST WEEK of campaigning for Communications Officer suffered a slow start on Monday and ultimately petered out on Friday as candidates regrouped after a hectic interim and prepared for the chaos of polling week. The would-be Sabbats; Owen ‘Cabbage’ Bennett, Hannah Cogan, and James Hagan, focused much of their early attention on spreading around their manifestos and speaking to as many students as possible. As the week progressed, they migrated from the focal points of the Arts Block and Hamilton to Trinity Halls, the School of Nursing and even further afield to hustings at the Church of Ireland College of Education (CICE) as the affiliate college’s students became the first to go to the polls. Over the week, the candidates seized a number of opportunities to address crowds of students, each giving lecture addresses and speaking at various hustings sessions. All three performed solidly at the opening hustings on the Dining Hall steps on Tuesday, making it difficult to pick a stand-out performer. The same can be said for that evening’s LGBT hustings with all three eagerly impressing those in attendance. One issue raised from the floor that evening, however, proved divisive. The candidates were asked, with a question with shades of the current college-wide Irish Daily Mail ban, if they would support the banning of a newspaper in the wake of a personal attack such as the high profile incident that saw The Sun attack a transgender lecturer in the College. Bennett warned that while banning newspapers sets a negative precedent, he would support a ban

after “adequate consultation with the student body” and should the student body support it. Cogan rejected the idea as support for freedom of speech, saying ”this is a slanderous, personal attack. A criminal act. That’s the type of axe you bring down on them.” Hagan, giving his personal view on the matter, asked the audience “what’s more important: freedom of the press or having morals?” Further disagreement was evident with Tuesday night’s release of The University Times video debate. The candidates, in a spirited and well-contested debate, revealed their split views on USI membership, with Cogan and Bennett leaning towards disaffiliation, and Hagan remaining pro-membership. However, all three were quick to reassure students that such calls ultimately rest with the student body, and not with the Sabbatical Officers. Meanwhile, the candidates questioned the reliability of Tuesday’s online poll which seemed to give a distorted view of student opinion, with Cogan far off Hagan and poll-leader Ben-

their plans for The University Times during Thursday’s Trinity FM debate. Bennett hinted at an influx of writers from Trinity News/The Bull in the event of his election while Hagan confirmed that current News Editor Leanna Byrne would assume the role of his deputy should he become editor. Current Opinion Editor Cogan, meanwhile, admitted to not having given much consideration as to who will make up her editorial team. James Hagan has perhaps been most innovative in his pursuit of votes, his ever-visible mascot ‘Lobby Lobstar’ surpassing even the candidate’s ownfacebook page in followers while his campaign video ‘Shit Trinity Students Say’ garnered over 3,000 views in the 48 hours after it was uploaded. However, both at hustings and during the Trinity FM debate, Hagan was forced to deny that his lack of editorial experience puts him at a disadvantage for the

The candidates questioned the reliability of Tuesday’s online poll nett who noted the importance of “taking the results with a pinch of salt.” Despite his strong showing in the admittedly suspect poll, Hagan maintained that “there’s only one poll [he] cares about.” More recent data from face-to-face polling indicates that there is far less between the candidates than the initial poll implied, and that a significant portion of voters currently undecided are still to play for. The three discussed

position of editor of The University Times. Owen Bennett, who amused voters at CICE’s hustings with the tale of the origins of his nickname, claimed that his campaign had been gaining momentum as the week progressed and that he felt that he has been at his best in situations such as the “good, policybased discussion” that was the UT video debate. Hannah Cogan, who hopes to bring The University Times from “nearly there”to “perfect”, stated her desire to make her campaign more visible and to“really start bothering people” after Tuesday’s poll. She appears to have done that with a stronger recent showing and good performances at CICE hustings and the Trinity FM debate. It appears that the candidates are saving stunts for polling week with the intention of winning over undecideds and scrounging as many last-minute votes as possible. It is difficult to find much fault in any of the three campaigns, with no slip-ups or faux pas to report on. The results should be interesting.

Top: Owen Bennet speaks to students at the Dining Hall hustings. Above: Hannah Cogan. Below: James Hagan. Photos: Ronan Costello

The University Times 2012 Election Special | Tuesday, February 14 2011

Whelan cruising to victory against RON Shauna Watson Ents reporter

ORMER UCD ENTS officer, Jonny Cosgrove, imparting valuable advice to Trinity ents hopeful, David Whelan, has been the pinnacle of the first week covering the Ents race for the Elections 2012. Not only was Cosgrove supportive of Whelan, his manifesto and his campaign thus far, but also offered to have a personal brainstorming discussion with him about ideas that the Arts student was willing to share. It was advice that came at a crucial moment, the end of the first week of core campaigning ahead of the opening of polling stands the following week. Throughout week one, Whelan seemed a little bit out of his depth as he decided to abandon his status of Chris O’Connor’s right hand man in the Ents executive this year in order to take the prize of the full-time position himself. Although Whelan has a range of experience including the position as the Ents officer for both Dubes and Trinity Halls notched onto his ents C.V. but seems to lack the coordination and direction needed to manage an effective campaign against RON. Day one of the elections saw Whelan’s campaign in full force with a healthy facebook campaign leading the pack of candidates in the popularity rankings and confidence in his manifesto proposing the implementation of UK initiative of the Warehouse Project. Excitement levels increased during day two of the race as

The University Times learned that the ‘Whelan for Ents’ facebook page had been taken down by the EC during a two day ban after one of Whelan’s campaigners invited guests to a campaign party through the MadHaus page. In a statement, campaign manager Jack Cantillon reassured us that they hoped to “more than make up for an online absence with a great oncampus presence.” Despite the set back, Whelan had a successful day at the first hustings as the most questioned candidate throughout the afternoon, but nonetheless responded well to each query. As he teased about the potential trips to an industrial estate in Cavan to “have a big rave” he informed students that he wants to use the chapel building as a location to hold acoustic gigs. Whelan then addressed his proposal of Pre-drinks FM, referring to its style as “pirate” but not in fact pirate by nature explained by Whelan because “we’re Trinity Ents and we’re totally legit.” Whelan then went on to state that he doesn’t want to adopt the responsibility of the meal ‘deal of the week’ but wants to expand the deals to Ents activities including bring your own beer bowling, viking spash tours and claims that he has already been in talks with owners of Savoy and Screen cinemas to organize student cinema deals. Day three of his campaign and Whelan’s team not only organized a “Rock the Boat” flash mob in the arts block but also rocked out to Halls to secure the first years’ votes. During day 4 of the campaign there was no

sign of the “great on-campus presence” promised by Cantillon in either buildings on campus. Whelan clarified that their lack of campaigning presence was due to their focus on organizing Ents deals of the week for Trinity students and a struggle to motivate his campaign team in the race as an uncontested candidate fighting against RON. Hustings in affiliate college CICE was also a success for Whelan as students reacted positively to his proposal of a discount card to provide better offers for the students, particularly in Rathmines outlets, similar to that brought in during his reign as Ents officer for JCR halls. In The University Times video interview with Whelan released on Thursday of campaign week, Whelan emphasized the need for the ents officer in Trinity mainly to assist class reps in organizing nights out. It was also addressed in the Trinity FM election show, “They Want Your Vote,” that if the newly proposed constitution in UCD is ratified it will abolish the position of the Ents officer, implement a new Entertainments forum and leave Trinity the only remaining university in both England and Ireland to employ a full-time Ents officer on the students’ union, forcing the union to reconsider their system. Whelan was also adamant during the video interview that if elected, he would never consider taking profits from official Ents nights as seen by a number of officers in previous years. Overall, Whelan’s

Over 4,000 Facebook fans Over 1,400 followers on Twitter And over 120,000 monthly page views on univeristytimes.ie UT’s conversation is online. Join us.

Dave Whelan makes his case to the gathered crowd at the Dining Hall hustings. Photo: Ronan Costello campaign may have been left in the shadows whether it’s down to the uncontested nature of the ents election or because compared to Chris O’Connor’s campaign last year, it doesn’t step up to the

grade as a noticeable campaign. Regardless of how his campaign is being received by students, the man himself is edging closer to the position owing to a warm electorate reception with

the majority ‘feelin’ Whelan’ more than they’re yearning for RON.

The University Times

The University Times 2012 Election Special | Tuesday, February 14 2011

RON threat is minimal again Jack Leahy Elections Editor

G Dan Ferrick’s tshirts have been judged the best of the bunch in 2012.

Photo: Dargan Crowley Long

Ferrick win is a certainty »» Dan Ferrick to steamroll RON on his way to Education Officer victory Jack Leahy Elections Editor

AN FERRICK WAS not idle this week, despite his lack of competition. Widely respected by his peers in student politics and fellow students for his honest work-rate, Ferric has never been the type to allow complacency and the unwelcome attention it inevitably draws creep into his campaign to be education officer. As such, it’s been quite a quiet week on the campaign trail. Ferrick has been wellreceived wherever he has addressed lectures or attended hustings, and as it stands there appears to be few who would begrudge him a position that he is known to have desired for some time. The week began with the launch of some eye-catching campaign materials, with his face featured on the back of his campaign t-shirt and combining with his oldschool election poster and distinctive beard to make him the most identifiable candidate on campus. His clever use of the motorboard - the education officer’s branding- has been praised by hacks young and old. Aware that it would be a long week of much of the same itinerary, education

correspondent Clementine Yost spent the first full day of campaign season talking to students on the ground about the role of the education officer. Her canvassing revealed a startling lack of knowledge of what it is that students pay their education officer to do on their behalf, with one student hazarding a guess that the role primarily consisted of ‘helping disabled students’. That major concern aside, most of those who she asked indicated a willingness to vote Ferrick for education. A quiet second day was briefly dragged into controversy at the first ever LGBT hustings session. At a meeting of SU council in November, Ferrick proposed an amendment to a motion mandating ‘all [elected representatives] of the union to publicly and actively campaign for equal civil marriage rights for LGBT people’ on the grounds that it may be unconstitutional to mandate an officer to do something that impinges on personal rights or freedoms. When the subject was raised by the moderator, Ferrick insisted that the importance of the motion was such that he did not wish to see a technicality prevent its enactment before a member of the audience incorrectly suggested that the

motion had been deemed constitutional in advance of the meeting. That kind of ill-informed question can have a devastating effect on a campaign because it incorrectly paints Ferrick as an opponent on LGBT rights. With that in mind, I contacted the electoral commission for confirmation. Tellingly, their statement begins: The Electoral Commission was asked to make a constitutional interpretation by a member of Council after voting took place on a motion at SU Council 22/11/11. Sorted, so. After Council, not before. Earlier that day Ferrick had escaped unscathed from hustings on the Dining Hall steps, speaking briefly to a receptive audience before being allowed to retire without any questions. He then joined Trinity FM’s Dairne Black for a discussion in the studio, during which he was grilled on the expense intrinsic to class rep training. Ferrick insisted that even without the sponsorship that the event has attracted in recent years, the maximum cost per capitated student for the class rep service was 50c. I was present for that discussion and wanted to raise a point with Ferrick: his manifesto stresses the importance

of the education officer’s committee work while also advertising his current position within the Union as Faculty Convenor for Engineering, Maths, and Science (EMS). Part of the role of faculty convenor is a decent amount of committee work, and I felt that by not expanding the description of the position - because who really knows what it is apart from SU types? - he was doing himself an injustice. He concluded that more students should be encouraged to get involved in and understand Union activities. Having reluctantly gone home in the early afternoon on Wednesday to nurse an illness, Ferrick returned on Thursday with a whiteboard in his campaign design on which students were invited to answer the question ‘what do you you want your education officer to do?’. Copious novelty answers blended nicely with serious engagement with the office. A trip to St. James’ on Friday went down well, as has most of the campaign. A joke campaign to re-open nominations has failed to get off the ground and, while some will tick RON as a vague protest, expect this one to go according to the script.

IVEN THAT NO Trinity College Dublin Students’ Union election has ever declared a majority desire to re-open nominations (RON), it would be fair to say that good ol’ RON has effectively acted as a repository for an apathetic protest rather than a forceful tool of democracy. Technically based on the democratic principle that consent requires the ability to withhold consent in an election, in reality it is unlikely that anything but the most serious of election faux-pas could ever defeat an unopposed student political hack. Elections, both in the big boy world and in student politics, tend to operate on a relative basis; whenever a race is contested, we tend to consider which of the two or more candidates are the best of the options available rather than assessing whether or not any of those nominated to represent our interests are sufficiently competent to do so. The sudden burst of interest in the democratic right to elect RON observed when a candidate’s name is read aloud without an opponent is obvious: for one thing, if we’re going to pay someone to represent us then we damn well want them to prove that they’re worthy of the privilege. It is absolutely vital that we question an unopposed candidate to compensate for the scrutiny that an opponent would have otherwise provided. Something that I have noticed throughout this last week of canvassing opinion is that a number of students intend to vote to re-open nominations on the basis that only one candidate is running for the position, be it Entertainments of Education. This is not a unique occurrence; about this time last year, Aaron Heffernan had withdrawn from the race to be SU president, leaving Ryan Bartlett unopposed following the earlier

withdrawal of Seb LeCocq. Within hours of Heffernan’s declaration, an anonymous individual or group had created a Facebook event page entitled ‘VOTE RON FOR SU PRESIDENT’. In its description, it explained that the lack of alternative to Bartlett constituted a betrayal of democracy and exhorted all its readers to react by electing RON. Tom Lowe, alone in running for Communications in 2010, saw a similar campaign result in hundreds of RONs cast. While the campaign to reopen nominations has been limited to a perfunctory Ronald McDonald-themed Facebook page, it is important to note the inclination on the ground towards an inconsiderate protest vote. As they will no doubt have anticipated, Dan Ferrick (education) and David Whelan (Ents) have, by extensive observational analysis, been the brunt of such sentiment. While we should certainly push these candidates to prove their competency, it’s not their fault that no one else decided to run and that alone should not inform a vote against them. Being the sole nominee for a position does not entitle anyone to a position, but any such candidates do have the right to have their case considered irrespective of any other option – including RON. Casting a RON vote purely on the basis of a lack of opposition is just as much of a waste as voting for an unopposed candidate because there’s no one else. It’s your money funding the SU and your choice as to who it salaries. Scrutinise the candidates irrespective of everyone else, and decide whether or not they are suitable for the responsibility with which votes imbue them. If they don’t meet your standards, tick the box next to RON. But make sure some form of critical process informs whatever you choose to stick on that ballot sheet.

The University Times 2012 Election Special | Tuesday, February 14 2011

It’s an ideological vacuum Are this year’s candidates a bunch of blank slates? And does it matter if they are?

Max Sullivan

HATEVER THE QUALITY of the SU Sabbatical candidates, the past years have had a notable lack of ideological impetus. Battles have been fought tooth and nail over capabilities and experience rather than principles. Last year, Rachel Barry and John Cooney, candidates for the position of Eduction Officer, agreed on perhaps the most contentious issue, that of third-level fees, saying in different ways that they would base their policies on the result of a referendum during their term in office. In answering a question posed to him on The University Times website during his campaign, the only candidate for President in 2011 (not including joke candidate Aaron Heffernan), Ryan Bartlett, said he hadn’t heard of a viable solution to the issue of student fees and third-level funding, but would be open to suggestions. There was a palpable shift in Trinity students’ opinions regarding the legitimacy and efficacy of USI between the 2010 and 2011 USI rallies, and a sharp fall in attendees to the latter. Th is might have led you to believe that this year’s would-be sabbatical officers would be well primed for questions about their stance on fees and their opinions on USI disaffi liation. However, candidates this year have taken a hands-off approach much like their predecessors. In his interview with The University Times, the unopposed candidate for Education, Dan Ferrick, was non-committal on the issue of USI disaffi liation, reiterating what has becomes the safest line: that students should and will decide in the form of a referendum. “Is it value for money?”, Ferrick added, “That’s up to the students to decide.” The remainder of the interview focused on the candidate’s

ability to deliver on local issues like the expansion of the 24-hour study space, improved timetabling and cheaper hotel deals for Class Rep Training. Efficiency, the provision of local student services and a commitment to representing the views of the student population are the focus of every campaign. In the UT Communications debate, Owen Bennett was clearly reluctant to express his opinion on the issue of USI disaffi liation. “The personal opinion of each of us doesn’t really matter that much,” said ‘Cabbage’, “we shouldn’t be advocating our own views.” James Hagan and Hannah Cogan gave terse explanations of their stances, heavily qualified by their commitment to act in line with the views of students as indicated by a referendum. Cogan was extremely denunciative of USI, claiming it doesn’t particularly serve a function. James Hagan, who admitted to being personally satisfied with the value for money which USI provides, seemed to best understand the confl icted issue. He highlighted the choice students have between their voice being thrown in among others in a large, national union with more sway, or using our potentially more representative, but less influential, local union for national issues. However, in national politics, it isn’t really good enough to say that you don’t know what your electorate think, but that you’ll be sure to fi nd out and then represent whatever that is. If that was the case, Enda Kenny wouldn’t have based his campaign on carefully formulated policy, but on his capacity to process emails from his constituents into a coherent program for government. Students, like everyone, only have a limited amount of time and attention to

John Tighe, candidate for SU President and FEE representative is the most ideologically principled candidate this year. However, Tighes policies don’t seem to marry with the positions of Trinity students. Photo: Dargan Crowley Long

The University Times 2012 Election Special | Tuesday, February 14 2011

LGBT Rights Officer Darren O’Gorman speaking on behalf of James Kelly at the Dining Hall hustings. Kelly’s campaign is one based on pragmatic goals rather than strict ideological political beliefs. Photo: Dargan Crowley Long

dedicate to politics. It’s great that the candidates are open to students’ suggestions, but their emphasis on direct democracy would only work if we all had time to constantly inform our sabbats’ policy. It also gives the impression that representation has nothing to do with personal beliefs. However, an elected representative being mandated to do something they don’t personally agree with would dramatically reduce their ability to follow that mandate through with conviction. Why can’t we just vote for the people whose beliefs are in accord with our own? The referendum on USI affiliation may not come to fruition this term. The size of the electorate, should it happen, may be so low as to be considered only partially representative. Each candidate assumes that such a gauging of opinion would be entirely scientific, and would once and for all settle the issue, allowing them to directly translate the will of the people into effective policy. While each candidate defers their policy until such a time as consensus is found, there remains a plethora of issues which each candidate could

clarify in the coming week. In the event of disaffiliation from USI, do they believe that a similar national lobby group would need to be formed in order to represent the collective views of Irish students? What do they believe is the most effective means of effecting change – peaceful lobbying and negotiations (by and large the approach of USI) or direct action and civil disobedience (one approach of the organisation FEE)? Although each candidate dutifully attended last weeks’ debate between USI President Gary Redmond and opponent Dave Byrne, none of them have actively attempted to engage with the issues of such a discussion in their campaigns. It seems to me that in the event that Trinity students opt out of USI, TCDSU’s President and other sabbatical officers will be entirely unprepared to represent Trinity’s views to local and national politicians. Our sabbats have become highly accustomed to the hiring out of our stance on fees to USI, and although an emphasis on local concerns may lead to a reduction in the cost of doublesided printing by 1 cent (one of Nikolai Trigoub-Rotnem’s

achievements), an entirely different, larger focus may be demanded should the relationship between USI and TCDSU end. Rory Dunne, John Tighe and James Kelly diverged massively in opinion towards fees, but seemed unwilling to actually engage with one another over their differences. In the UT Presidential Debate, Tighe commented that education is a right and not a privilege, Dunne said that third level fees should be offset by a partial loan system, while Kelly doesn’t believe its realistic to expect the IMF to approve the funding needed for a loans scheme. There are ideologies behind these arguments. One may glean from Tighe’s political commitments that he might have more to say about the legitimacy of the Troika in dictating the form of Ireland’s austerity - but this isn’t something we’ve seen any sparring over. The SU President doesn’t hold sway in such massive issues, but the answer to the question of whether we should be affiliated with USI is intimately bound up with our stance on fees. That answer is in turn bound up in questions of how the State should negotiate its

relationship with the EU and its debt, and what the nation’s priorities are. The Presidential candidates’ brief comments on such contentious issues, and their virtual exclusion of such issues in their campaign material, except perhaps John Tighe, seem indicative of the SU’s ideological vacuity. The democratic disinterestedness of candidates in claiming to represent whatever the students tell them to represent, might reflect a different kind of disinterestedness, an uninterestedness, of the SU towards ideological issues. At the Town Hall meeting on fees, an ideologically charged gathering, the almost complete absence of Class Reps seemed at first astonishing, but was, after all, not really surprising. Class Reps as they currently exist are elected to facilitate the bonding of students in the same course through parties and class trips, not to divide them over political issues. While this is great in some ways, it makes consensus building on SU policy much more difficult. Deals of the Week, internships, WiFi. They’re important to many students, but ideologically vacant. One

might see an irony in the fact that the traditionally leftwing and socially revolutionary sphere of student politics has become so concerned with ensuring we are happy with our capitalist lot: Who needs the blood of bondholders and social justice when you can have better connected laptops, an internship in KPMG and mouthwateringly discounted food? I’m joking of course, but not entirely. There is an opportunity-cost implicit in all of the candidates’ promises, and we must recognise that there may be more important issues to grapple with. In the academic year of 1989/1990, TCDSU President Ivana Bacik was taken to court by the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child over her provision of information on abortion to women with crisis pregnancies. Bacik was represented in court by Mary Robinson, whose campaign in favour of access to contraception as a Senator was hugely unpopular among her political peers. Today, condoms do not symbolise Trinity’s courage, but are the most predictable feature of every society’s Freshers’ Week pack. That contraception is so

widely available is great - an achievement for which students are perhaps partially responsible. But what are we revolutionising about society today? Why aren’t we pushing the left-wing envelope any more? Why aren’t we pushing any envelope any more? The austerity Ireland suffers for her obedient repayment of debts has incensed some Irish people so much that they are permanently occupying a part of Dame Street almost within sight of Trinity’s Front Arch. The clamour for internships, WiFi for your iPhone, discounted nights out and discounted lunches doesn’t scream social revolution, but belie a lack of any political conviction. Do we have any concerns that aren’t selfserving? Do we believe in anything any more? And to the candidates for President: Beyond basic competency skills and a few neat day-to-day improvements, what can you offer the student politics? The best thing about last year’s election was Aaron Heffernan, because by lampooning so idealistic a President as Barrack Obama, he also revealed the tame lack of ideology indicative of every other campaign.

The University Times 2012 Election Special | Tuesday, February 14 2011

“If students don’t stand up to cutbacks, who will? Elections editor, Jack Leahy, talks to “Liveline” presenter and former TCDSU President Joe Duffy about the ongoing SU elections, his time as SU President and his thoughts on the modern student movement Here in Trinity we have three candidates for the presidency of the Students Union – two on a platform of student activity and one on a political platform. What for you makes a good SU President? He or she has to be active, energetic, enthusiastic, and passionate. They have to be someone who is prepared to deal with the big issues and the small issues. Wha do you make in the recent shift in the way in which students are represented on a national level – we’ve gone from your days of occupations and arrests to a more bureaucratic representation and then back to the occupations. Is that indicative of the situtation with which students are faced? I’m in no position to judge whether what anyone does is right or wrong; the student body does whatever it feels is appropriate at any given time. If a phonecall is needed, make a phonecall; if a meeting is need, arrange a meeting; if you need to call

attention to something and you think an occupation is what’s needed then go for it. But it’s about what’s needed – no one does occupations for the sake of it. I’m not a great believer in stunts, so I believe that people should be fairly serious about what they do. The issue of fees is critical – look what’s happening in the UK with fees of up to £9,000. Criminal. It’s obvious that the system needs to be reformed here one way or another because it’s no longer a system of ‘free fees’ – what kind of payment system would you advocate? Well there never was free fees because even when they would say that fees were free, there was a reigistration fee. I’d always argue that education should be free to access at all levels – I don’t see why somebody should pay tax and then discover that when you want to avail of a thirdlevel resource like Trinity that you have to pay a toll charge at the gate of €2,000€3,000. That completely

discriminates against less well-off people. The education system should be funded through the taxation system on the basis of what people earn. And I also think the Colleges themselves could be a lot more imaginative, and that instead of calling for the re-introduction of fees the heads of these institutions should be making a gesture in terms of opening up the colleges to night courses. Trinity’s in the centre of the city and should be a lot more open to its inhabitants. In terms of Trinity’s own student politics, there’s a lot of talk of holding a referendum on USI disaffiliation. How do you think it will affect Trinity students if they don’t have a national-level representation? There’s two sides to that: it’s not what you want the USI to do for you, what can you for USI that’s important. Trinity is one of the largest third-level institutions in the country, of course it should be part of a national student

body. It’s idiotic short-term stuff to say ‘oh, we’ll leave and it’ll save us X number of euros’ – you have to support the continuation of a vibrant representative body. You mightn’t have any interest in it yourself today but why not keep it going for students in four years’ time who’ll be under even more attack? Are you a fan of the current set-up within USI?

I’d be very keen on the fact that students are energetic, invariably young, and have different time resources. If students don’t stand up to cutbacks then who will? That’s why I ended in prison in a protest over the medical card. I was young and healthy so had never used mine, like the majority of students. The argument I made at the time was that if we didn’t stand up to it, who would be next? I still make the argument that issues big and small should be addressed.

Former TCDSU President and Liveline presenter, Joe Duffy. Duffy was a radical student activist.

It’s always going forward. The great thing about USI is that in its 52 or so years, it’s always gone forward and never gone back in terms of organisation. Yes some years are more difficullt to get onto the national stage than others but I think it’s a great organisation and long may it continue. It really is necessary.

Did it really have any effect on Ruairí Quinn?

Q&A: Senator Ivana Bacik Jack Leahy quizzes the former SU President Did you ever have many dealings with the USI in your tenure as TCDSU President and would you be a fan? I had many, many dealings with the USI and I’m amused that the question of affi liation is still on the agenda. It’s one of those questions that comes up annually. We were affi liated to USI when I was president and, even though I had a number of issues with it, I would have been in favour of remaining within it. The argument that Ryan Bartlett is making as TCDSU president is that Trinity is distinctly different to other

Colleges in terms of how its student politics operate, and that TCDSU is being sidelined by those differences. What do you make of the USI’s return to occupation tactics? I think it feels a bit like a return to the 80s when we did use occupations to oppose fee increases. I think Students’ Union tactics are different to other political tactics and USI maintains a tradition of direct action. There’s room for bureaucracy too and recently student politicians have become much more professional in their lobbying, which as a civil servant I appreciate. Every year they undertake a lobby of senators and TDs which

is very effective and I think it’s very good. They’ve gotten into more professional lobbying and I wouldn’t blame them for that, and equally I wouldn’t criticise legal direct action. Just to take things to a more local level - what makes a good student leader? That’s a tough question to answer - part of it is being at the right place at the right time, and being somebody that students can relate to in that they make a stand on issues that students believe in. When I was leading the SU in 1989 fees and emigration were the big issues on which

we fought, although the infrastructure is much, much better now. We’d never had a boom! Also, people seemed to prefer a student leader who was a little bit more radical and on the left. When the abortion information campaign arose it took up much of our year and students were very supportive of the stand we took. Trinity has a very proud record in that regard - myself and the welfare officer used to take 4 or 5 calls a day from distressed women and there was no outlet available to them. There was a huge information deficit and I’m proud to have taken a stand to address that.

The University Times 2012 Election Special | Tuesday, February 14 2011

“You can take to the streets. You can shout and roar. But it’s at the quiet meetings, out of the limelight, that the real work is done” Averil Power, former TCDSU Education Officer and President and now Senator for Dublin North East and Fianna Fáil Seanad spokesperson on Education and Skills argues that student representatives are right to see themselves as professional lobbyists

Senator Averil Power, a former Education Officer and President of TCDSU, fought for student causes at a local and national level.

T’S NOT SEXY. It won’t get you on the Six One News. And it certainly won’t guarantee you a place in Trinity folklore. But it’s at the quiet meetings, out of the limelight, that an effective modern-day SU Officer does their most important work. TCDSU has certainly had a colourful history. Joe Duffy was reportedly jailed for taking part in an occupation. Ivana Bacik was involved in one of the most famous legal cases of the past thirty years. And my immediate predecessor as SU President was deported from Prague after bringing the Union banner to an anti-WTO protest that turned ugly. My own experiences as SU Education Officer 2000-2001 and President 2001-2002 weren’t quite as remarkable. I did participate in protests - most notably as part of the successful campaign to

free a Trinity student from a Chinese labour camp. We also organised a successful boycott of all college catering outlets which led to planned price increases being abandoned. A major victory given how much students like their food! And we worked with SU officers from other colleges to mount a number of national education campaigns. But most of my work was done behind closed doors at long meetings with the college and national authorities. With uber-nerdiness, I researched issues for hours on end and typed up detailed proposals. And I sat down with anyone who would listen and tried to build as wide a coalition of support for those proposals as possible. In addition to Government ministers, we also briefed opposition spokespersons, including, incidentally, the then Fine Gael Spokesperson on Education, Enda Kenny TD. If I’d known then what I know now I probably wouldn’t have given him all our ideas! Slowly, we convinced people to address the issues facing students. I was particularly glad when a proposal I worked on with other SU Presidents to introduce tiered cut-off points for the maintenance grant was later adopted by the Government. Until then it had been all or nothing and many students just below the cut-off point were struggling to cope. I know from talking to more recent SU officers than myself that many of their approaches have been similar. Sometimes people lament the loss of “real student activism” - the good old days of frequent protests, occupations and arrests. But personally I think that increasing professionalism

in student politics is a good thing, especially in the current environment. Like every other group fighting for attention, students will only win public support if they can put forward well-researched and convincing arguments. That’s not to say that protests don’t have a role to play. I’m just home from addressing a rally for the residents of Priory Hall who have been forced from their homes in Donaghmede as a result of incompetence and greed. A few weeks ago, I attended a major protest outside the Department of Education against cuts to disadvantaged schools. Both events were vital shows of support for people who are under pressure and valuable opportunities to highlight their plight to the media and the powers that be. But the organisers of these, and other campaigns, know that their ability to persuade will ultimately be as important as their ability to protest. Thus, the Priory Hall residents are fighting for an opportunity to sit down with the Minister, the banks, Dublin City Council and others and work out a solution together. Similarly, the DEIS schools have put forward sensible proposals as to how cuts can be avoided by saving money elsewhere. To be effective, student leaders must adopt a similar approach. It is equally as important, in my view, for students unions to pick the right battles rather than trying to fight on all fronts. There has often been a tension between union activists who want to carry the SU banner at every protest in the

country and those who want to focus on a small number of core issues like student services, the cost of going to college and jobs. I would unashamedly side with the latter. It is great that students are interested in a wide range of issues offcampus. But the SU’s job, in my view, is to focus on those which directly affect students’ education. There are a wide range of societies in college with a campaigning focus, and many more outside the walls, that students can join if they want to fight for particular causes outside the bread and butter of SU politics. My two years as a Students Union officer flew by. When you’re only in a job for a short period you really have to hit the ground running. The work was so varied that it was a crash course in everything – in business, in running campaigns, in public speaking and in being heckled while public speaking! I also learned a lot about dealing with the media, something which comes in very handy in my current line of work. In fact, my time in TCDSU was an incredible introduction to the good and bad aspects of politics. On the good side, I saw how union officers and politicians can make a real difference for people, both by improving services for everyone and by helping individuals with personal issues. On the bad side, I also learned a few hard lessons – that you can’t please everyone and that election campaigns can often be nasty affairs. In fact, while running as a Fianna Fáil candidate in the 2011 general election wasn’t exactly easy; it was a walk in the park compared to TCDSU elections! I also saw how political

debates can sometimes turn bitter, when the Students Union was dragged into the fractious national debate on abortion in Spring 2002. When the Government announced a referendum on the issue, some union activists wanted the SU to campaign on the pro-choice side, inside and outside of college. Certainly previous SU officers had done this in times past. However, previous administrations had done so without ever balloting the student body as a whole on the issue. By taking sides now the Union stood to alienate a large part of its membership unnecessarily over a deeply emotional and divisive issue. I strongly believed that the SU should stay neutral while facilitating groups from either side that wished to campaign on campus. Ultimately, a vote of SU Council decided that the Union should not take sides on the referendum. Unfortunately, however, this was only after a lot of fraught and damaging tensions had built up and diverted the SU from other issues. I don’t know the candidates running in this year’s sabbatical elections but I wish them all well. And I congratulate all of them for having the guts to run. SU elections certainly aren’t for the faint-hearted. But what doesn’t kill you will make you stronger! Being a Trinity Students Union officer is a great privilege and I enjoyed it immensely. It was certainly never dull. Overall, I have great memories of my time in House Six – some of which I’ll only write about after I’ve left politics!

The University Times 2012 Election Special | Tuesday, February 14 2011

College relies on students to elect competent SU officers Senior Lecturer and Newstalk presenter Dr Patrick Geoghegan debunks the myth that SU officers have no effect on College policymaking

OES IT REALLY matter who are our elected student representatives? Since taking office as Senior Lecturer (a role that means effectively being a Dean of Undergraduate Studies, responsible for admissions and the undergraduate curriculum), on 1 September 2011, I have seen at fi rst-hand just how important the SU Officers are for the effective running of the university. Trinity College rightly prides itself on being a community of academic staff, administrative staff, and students. But we do not always get everything right. And we are not always alert to problems that are developing. That is why the SU Officers play a vital role. They are the ones with an elected mandate, similar to that which our Provost received last year, and it gives them an authority and a responsibilty to identify and articulate the hopes and concerns of our student body. My main dealings are with the SU Education Officer, and since September we have had regular meetings (a formal one at least once a month, but others as well whenever specific problems arise) to discuss student issues and responses, as well as larger challenges facing Trinity. One of these challenges

genuine innovation in the curriculum. Th is was recently discussed at a meeting of the Undergraduate Studies Committee, and the SU Education officer and I have been working on organising a series of faculty fora on assessments where we can discuss best practice across College, and opportunities to be innovative when designing modules and how they will be assessed.

is in the area of admissions, and whether it might be possible to escape the straightjacket of ‘the points race’ when it comes to identifying students with the academic ability, potential and motivation to thrive at Trinity. A working group on admissions was established to look into this whole area which includes the SU Education Officer and academics from across all three faculties, and Rachel has ensured that the student perspective and the student experience is at the forefront of our thinking. Another challenge is in the area of assessments. At present we have an emphasis on written exams in most subject areas – and a lot of written exams at that. There are other ways of assessing students, especially when we are meant to be developing a range of skills that are not easily assessed in a written exam. We have a commitment to developing the nine attributes of the Trinity graduate – producing graduates who are articulate, literate, numerate, analytical, and adaptable (and so on), ready to face the challenges of a rapidly changing world. But we have a rigid examinations structure, which can put incredible pressure on students, and which can work against having

of the Undergraduate Studies Committee. My own position is against semesterised exams, whether before or immediately after Christmas. Students should not feel under constant pressure to prepare for exams, and I would hate for the broader student experience to suffer because of it. But I respect the arguments in favour of it, and I appreciate the pressure that students can face. The

My own position is against semesterised exams, whether before or immediately after Christmas Of course, there is not always agreement between the SU officers and the College officers, and it is good that there is not always agreement. An SU referendum not so long ago showed an overwhelming majority of students in favour of having semesterised exams, and this was the focus of a carefully argued paper by the SU Education Officer which was discussed at two meetings

solution, I hope, is in fi nding innovative alternative methods of assessing students, and this is a time for us as a community to consider the whole area of the curriculum and the ways in which it is assessed. Students are under a number of pressures, and the recent fi nancial collapse has created even more stress. The SU Welfare Officer sees much of this fi rst-hand, and

lks dams ta Gerry A Reavey: ne to Euge e8 rofiled pag

E AGAIN

nd p AT TIM IT’S nTdHidates - confirmed a

2011

Year

BRUARY

: p2 k report

pe spa ew tN R en EB 2F tud Y, 2 hS DA ris ES

def

P or df no the ets yg

Centre Le vy

udent N ewspap er of the

TUESDA Y, 22 FE

e arn Ke

» Stud ent

Irish St

th clo

sh Ir i

ia,

ss Ru

Bartlet t beats RON,

r ive Un The

t ovie In S

e Univer sity Time s

ted fea de

ted r assaul i trippe

Rachel She arer cuddlers begs the Arts Blo to get a room: UT ck couch culture

llo oste r nC na dito A Ro ws E LE Ne T w E N st U D d la i ST trage the P ou le in on t tic ecial P SU Sp r b me te Se da The l, cia s wa ru

s of the of detail ay Inblicat ion Sund reer pu lt in the had cor , and oth assau SSC trip ent, he er stu depend wit h the oth of the DU ts.” ors m den ed r rat the n on the stu pet spond One of They Irish had bee the per morough. ts who . One of t his being at me r- den lel ski trip. aclly lef tim rbated also ral ro m du pa The vic - accidenta in the roo ire mastu gu rs.” fact one com in tea e l er relat Mr Ma that the bile ph DUSSC lef t me Tom Low au lt. He ised to ged up on that the ryy helpfu l the ass log knowled me showed t the added ver Editor d ing d and apo nds na es ine were eal an ne his frie that his e indicated tha his ITY Tim ealed mitte ghout her ord ution tur victim while or. Rónán Burtenshaw from h phon o In his IVERS re trib ou rev the do UN the we con thr s the A Deputy News Editor re m ey her aspect of s of thefied rators on ha some had reing “th s jeered fro per pet a group quali practic phone vestigati ers of troubl SSC ry,e say ing,ts, ber t group. howev DU D fac e, the er.thi mb s sto This is par-nd about thi studen from Ro si- ski trip ts on the absenc ticular that me 25 and 30 A University Times ly the wi hebook.com sou th casetoin light a cal l r Bu Sou Studen interv iews wit en - expan ceived /univer vate sion were so ofngits” gation into the bet weinvesti fi t yea g stuin recent , a firs the pri ock practice iofofusyears. sitytimes trip, in y Times, deng thiour is contin uti us pu Blackr Maguire Comp investi ing research grants whole o Dean alumn sch gation ed ski ools iversit tion our of and Junior tobli toesenior buy stownled us Th n out academ nkics d attend - The Un the behavi hic”, teaching has reveale invest iga in- ness Mo ha Du who C o t eak an describ d CB “mark wrough d pat wh d a worrySp ed a ibe ing trend of devaluCo llege, ducting as “socio ” beof allege place dent ock College. Times, scr increa Anvil le edSn ing under-off group ows-se” in teachi y ngies k ckr Mount buy-ou o “a ser graduate educat y the ing a “spend ckrock ich too ort in Bla nit y’s ts from tempoint Universit ion. and rary relief trip s wh ort on Tri Bla ied an to The r ski res to ent establi rep Academics in Trinity den al es me ing voc shed cid nu haColleg b’s an practic nts, e. rt guire two for from TrinDeux Alp of the Dube have always had Thetoquesti the sta Mr Ma ge of the eve wl- tween e rts Clu at Les on of who poto ers access D, in ts, on is ina fa- ek prior memb Sports ack no cility that allows studen one from UC they knowled the we volved in replacement teachi whichng rsity Snow he theminto ll as h use nch ing the money from resear which t centra Unive ity and g, as we l impor tance. alt houg ter m. is of lin Colt the Fre t fol low ch ofgrants e ar tha re stayin dents, inleast lege to compensate does comp athave ged tha for the te It is cle Club we a syste allednot see t ed ty stu

Do A Big Score

y Lev

ntain off mou tphone

email e in aten Ugnivers reTh it ceives th 16-pag y Times Ball editor re e supp lement Preview inside

es ytim rsit ive /un om k.c oo eb fac

w smar ent thro sees stud

s ise c R re Blo featu ps eft u s e L tive ro Th stiga ing g olitic 8 p w e inv left- ent page An the stud on ning efi red

nd-off” » “Spe

m roo No TCD in

iv Un The

www.universitytim es.ie

» Times

t den Stu

ytim rsit ive ies /un om en uld k.c oo n d wo eb fac roi SI Ó B ing U ees say ept f acc

face

Tale

e ntr Ce nt de Stu

m/u book.co

the rise

llo oste r nC na dito Ro s E w RT Ne PO c R E offi A uality Corm eq s Mc a po re is b the im r de e’s leg s. job mo w

by the Univer sity Times, the Vice-Provost Patrick Prendergast wrote that the Colleg es has “would propose to credit e or aca- individ uals with the time the spent pro- on the higher grade” . c secWhen asked if this was in o will contra vention of the Employr new ment Control fr

rsitytim

: @unive

twitter

T O I R N U R S Y O Unqualifi edK B C O R lecturers on Th A Cat’s

times niversity

e sk » Femal

cumvents HEA m on promotion s as nsifies between the over staff reducti ons

Email editor@universitytimes.ie »

TUESDAY, 19 OCT OBER 2010

Atbe ook ay “M aceb up F ow ’d or g” the foll you t din n ha s a ht en ” o “A oug r w d “Att ding y ing I th hea t an n a ten nt s vent, d to siden Cona ht eve this e reste Pre cer, t nig i to inte puty Offi y las hy, e r e sa : w s llo Ire t b SI D aig n ad to him refo oste r U mp , h in d sive we ts iden nC a ke in , s n s C na dito a ro de Pres enied ma me r Ro ws E O’B en I as sche es fo Stu d on Ne OF uty has isati ovwh re w rant ve fe to w p N n IO De roin orga the g rm the the g ’t ha on? iva B UN d of uldn ucati in pr n Ó t the es if refo roo B lan nán a t fe to s h e l e d e d “ o v er g th cep ed . Ó mak d g v Có e n n in c le re m y po the rop say uld a t ag yste den whe of res to t a p ke wo men nt s d to ent tor lsaid e ge ’ll ta ern g ra force tem crea o Co nt if w , we an ta the was is s an, o T eve otem Sulliv t th th ulliv al G ook e N in k afs n b ea ing x S ation ace d th orga at sp ke o c F Ma “N y ” tirise rch d th nt wa ia a e d a s the e D ma laim side in me nal h c leg hic 3rd Pre n io ftio ge U s - w ber USI CDS mis on a tpa vem d by er T e ad rsati hos n rm e th nve fees ty o t ise fo C d o n ie the d ma te c on Soc n se as ha priva ebate Law lliva ed rk d D’s Su a a ma C t. ter by U y las a ll ed esda ge to a Tu ess am

promoted demics to back pay

Irish Student New spaper of the Yea r

e Year er of th ewspap udent N Irish St 2011Eadaoin O RY A JANU talks to ’Flanagan AY, 25 Tr TUESD minder inity Cat’s on page 7

Patrick Geoghegan is the College’s Senior Lecturer. He can be contacted at senior. lecturer@tcd.ie

e llo th s oste s a w e ek n C lect w m na AY Ro or-E SD two ca g it U R of ction rnin Ed TH n le Retu an s e ST atio U e a L A lmin se S hen Cook it w tt cu inten g. W ley ults ar tle N of ig nin Ash e res an B RO U e pa cer d th t Ry k th CDS is Offi unce d tha bac e T Chr m no eale aten ecom and fro in rev d be to b ct me r g co ide ha re nt-ele ad outs eak in e sca side or h nk squ to b 41 Pre onn e ra e to aid by 1 O’C ing th rac McD cer tel, be Ents ine Offi Ho re, a the st Ela Ents lare Squ nt u C pa cted co t n ele s. Mon errio r the ecula m te M e fo sp fro lvo The n u m ff al o ven 8p dow e b t t jus s the om k ing as th d firs d an leane iwa d fr s lea om an n wa nt ro or ted re g s Ed ktio cou re s we ime quic r the we ions it y T and w it te ts lots pres ers we, U T T romp nt iv Lo im Un the s p cou g a ig by Tomted to we w the anin r (r no tor, ee t. Lo eave im le ay, fu of on tw ly oun d to g h oor w raps is O’C m ris tea acc aske av in e d y sc e h y s Ch n le th rl m n h ly m, aig SU re g a t c a e ea b ug mp roo thro ty pin tha som as Se nca the the t in usly tion was ma e y fore ied, dum igh rio rma ere e n ig n oon fe tall ren h info y. Th in th mpa hn C ’Kee ill refe tes d a o v wa ma ’s c en Jo ny O sp l al e stu dra cocq d th Dan nate e hote , Th mi an ner for tu f th chin n Le pro e o er b ag paig n un irs of his in a it r ff m ca k a e sta ent d o u s wa - c too w n th etrim car te ty r e ba hop t do the d to be bu g ce. the us to in c io r y n v ha bula 0pm an x wea siasti am By 1 w it h eir nthu e th d cke and ly pa g fuls endin un

om/universitytim es

FILTHY HIPSTERS SOCIAL NETWORK REVIEW TWO DOOR CINE MA CLUB INTERVIEW

I q Cs CO N, RO ats be ett rtl Ba

s e m i T The University TimThe University ca The SU

ott and cDerm Gavin M zcano meet s Ana Le busker Dublin’s

Write for us.

e streets

Hitting th

better. The longer you stay in Trinity the easier it can become to accept things as they are, to become fearful of the impediments to change, to hesitate and compromise. We can never forget that our primary responsibility as educators is to provide our students with a challenging and inspiring education inside the classroom, opportunities to grow and develop outside the classroom, and whatever supports are needed to make it all possible. We can never forget that we work for the benefit of our students – we do not arrange timetables and organise classes because they will suit us, even if it inconveniences them. We can never be afraid to question what we do, or ask whether we can do it better. Good student representatives are just one way of reminding us of our mission and ensuring that we never lose our connection with the voices of our students. They hold us responsible and demand that we do things better. Long may this continue.

a la O’F ity C 7 oin Trin age da Ea ks to on p tal nder mi

TRINITY’S “FIN ANCIAL BREAKING POIN T” Barra Roantree interv iews the Vice-Provost on p3

Drugs Survey of us take drugs. alk to users and ers on p5

has probably the toughest job of anyone in College, staff or student. We have been very lucky in who we have had this year, and I hope that we will continue to have officers of such courage and ability. As a College community we are determined to do whatever is necessary to protect our student body, and the SU Officers play a vital role in informing and shaping policy debates on that issue and many others. They sit on Council and Board, as well as various College committees, but their influence goes beyond that. They are respected as representatives of the student body – they are not the only student voices that are listened to, we value hearing comments from all over – but their elected mandate gives them a special role. As the Provost said to me recently, ‘Ever since I was Dean of Graduate Studies and later Vice-Provost, I have been impressed by the input of student representatives in the governance of the college.’ The best thing about dealing with the SU Officers, and apart from Rachel and Louisa I have also enjoyed working with the President and Communications Officer, is that they are not concerned with the obstacles to change, just about making things

The University Times 2012 Election Special | Tuesday, February 14 2011

n y e o . r d e s e r e

t f l r e o f n r e y -

The USI Debate and Why I Oppose Disaﬃliation Photo: George Voronov

USI President Gary Redmond argues the merits of remaining aﬃliated with USI.

Deputy Editor Rónán Burtenshaw makes the case for remaining affiliated with USI

n r e . e

ale sT at’

an ag s lan at’ O’F ity C 7 oin Trin age da Ea ks to on p tal nder mi

N WEDNESDAY TCD Students’ Union (SU) and the Philosophical Society combined to host a debate on TCD’s proposed disaffi liation from the Union of Students in Ireland (USI). The motion, “that this House would disaffi liate from the USI”, was proposed by Phil speaker David Byrne and opposed by USI President Gary Redmond. Opening the debate TCDSU President Ryan Bartlett noted that 2012 marked the ten-year anniversary of Trinity’s return to the USI after a ten-year absence. Bartlett himself initiated the process of a referendum on USI membership back in December. Criticising the USI-sponsored occupations that had taken place that month he questioned whether the organisation represented Trinity students and lamented its poor organisation. A long-standing critic of The 16

iew rev ll P e Ba sid es nt in Tim leme ty rsi upp ive e s Un -pag

pe pa ws Ne R nt de FEB Stu , 22 AY sh SD Ir i

rsi ive Un

the USI, he and then-Education Officer Ashley Cooke were keen to push for disaffi liation when Cónón Ó’Bróin was President in 2009/10. Th is time around Bartlett said he was prompted to raise the issue of a referendum when students asked him questions about USI to which he “wasn’t able to give answers”. The debate opened to an event audience easily three or four-times the size of that achieved by the SU’s townhall on their fees policy in 2011. David Byrne’s argument for disaffi liation went down well with the audience – eliciting laughter at the moments set-up for mockery and tutting disapproval at those meant to establish indignation. Presenting itself as “pragmatic” it was, on examination, deeply ideological. Paradigmatic of the right-wing arguments against unions it

criticised the USI as a “dilute” of interests where Trinity’s voice wasn’t represented (a point Bartlett had touched on in December when he talked about the college’s “different sentiment”.) The confederate member-unions of USI had “different demands”, Byrne said, while branding the USI’s tactics “frankly embarassing”. He urged the audience to turn their back on the “selfstyled Che Guevaras” of the USI – whose approach to fees he argued was unrealistic and intractible. Painting the USI officer-board as either deluded or romantic, depending on your interpretation of the following phrase, Byrne alleged that they were beholden to elements within the union who wanted to engage in “anti-state revolution”. Touching on the ideological argument against unions again he criticised USI’s

“monopoly” as a student representative body and advocated TCDSU’s independence as a “fresh voice of reason” within the student movement. Students should, he said, be arguing for some sort of a student loan or grant system. Although he never referenced it, it would appear that this was a hat-tip to Australian system - oft-quoted by Fine Gael and fi rmly in the political zeitgeist for higher education at the moment. There were troubling parts. A fl ippant remark disparaging other colleges was a sinister twist on an innocuous comment made earlier by Phil President Eoin Ó Liatháin about Redmond’s UCD background. It might be harsh to criticise this too strongly – it was said in jest and Byrne immediately suggested it be taken out of the video being made of the proceedings. It did, however, belie a commonality between

the argument he was making and the college’s superiority complex. The remark also dovetailed with the individualist theme of the speech. Trinity’s demographic profi le being more aﬄuent than other colleges the emphasis on the need to pursue our own interests, especially in the area of fees, played on the awareness present in the college community that Trinity students would be more able than most to afford fee increases and cuts to grants. Despite this, and occassional nods towards hyperbole and inaccuracy to be expected in the polemical style of a chamber debate, Byrne’s speech was well delivered and received. It articulated an apparently popular argument and, together with his rebuttal, drew almost no rebuke from the assembled audience. Whereas Byrne had

opened with a comment about the €77,000 paid annually by Trinity students to the USI, Redmond immediately framed this as “five euro up-front and three euro ancillary” per student. (Machiavellian politics isn’t just for grown-ups, y’know.) Disagreeing with Byrne’s argument that USI was a “talkshop” and site of “student hackery” Redmond stated that policy was set at Congress, “not by me”. The USI was not an entity to itself, he reminded the audience, rather “everything [it did was] sanctioned by membership”. Continuing with (much needed but rarely received or listened to) procedural wonkery he clarified that those decisions implemented were mandated by members – seeking to establish the organisation’s democratic bona fides. Moving on to the constitution, Redmond, who had

The University Times 2012 Election Special | Tuesday, February 14 2011

evidenced his professionalism in a string of media appearances before the Budget, made his first misstep. Ducking Byrne’s criticism for the pay-rise which re-elected officers may receive under the new constitution Redmond instead misleadingly diverted discussion to the fact that their pay was to be tied to the civil service. He also said (this figure is worth keeping an eye on) that officers could expect a €900 pay cut next year. Redmond then began the feel-good section of his speech – intended to inspire pride and togetherness in a student movement whose members today seem, in reality, to regard with neither of those things. His list of accomplishments, tied to TCD, was both noteworthy and judicious. Bringing up TCD and USI’s prominent (this must be emphasised because some students cast doubt upon it) role in the contraception campaign and USI’s role in getting Trinity Halls built, the funding of the TAP programme and the passage of the Student Support Bill for grant recipients was clearly aimed at evoking a renewed

commitment to the principles of collective action. A sharp, sarcastic and accurate repost from Byrne about the lack of difficulty in securing a tax break for property in the Celtic Tiger aside, the point stood well. As an example of that which had been achieved the increase in the funding of the Student Assistance Fund, too, was a strong case. When he talked about the new constitution, however, some of the USI’s failings became evident. I was at the USI Special Congress which voted on the consitution – and the debate was of a high standard. Yes, the constitution had been the result of a long process of consultation and the discussion of the new constitution had been going on for many years. This document was written by representatives from twelve colleges, Redmond said, and had gone out for consultation seven times. But I couldn’t help returning to something I thought on the day… How many students knew about any of this? The USI argues that the perception that it is outof-touch and cliqueish is inaccurate. It points to

interactions with its confederate unions. But, what happens when those unions are, to a degree, guilty of those perceived infractions? Democratic legitimacy and culture is based not on a set of structures or procedures but on the attachment to the power and workings of an organisation of its constituent members. USI might be a confederation but we each individually pay its dues, so its accountability is primarily to us. And, in this instance, far, far too few students knew about this constitution. I, as someone who worked in student media, had never been in a conversation about the document outside of the direct deliberative bodies of the SU or the Special Congress. (TCDSU were, incidentally, mandated to vote in favour of the document.) If policy-making in representative democracy is of a scale, with one end being bureaucrats making decisions amongst themselves and the other being plebiscite, there’s little doubt which end this constitutional process was closer to. Legitimate criticisms were also offered by speakers from the audience,

too, about the fact that the constitution document was not independently readilyaccessible to student members before the vote. There were some further interesting moments. David Byrne’s rebuttal criticised the “left-wing stuff” the USI did. Redmond, who had previous involvement with the youth wing of Fianna Fáil, responded that it was the first time he had been accused of being left-wing. His Deputy, Colm Murphy, has been connected with Fine Gael while the organisation’s Education Officer Aengus Ó Maoláin is a Labourite. Redmond, in a nod to Byrne’s earlier argument about utility maximisation, argued that Trinity being out of USI would mean that everyone’s interests but Trinity’s would be served. Although what distinct interests Trinity has, when national policy is centrally decided and college issues are the purview of TCDSU, was never appropriately clarified. There is a strong argument based in union theory that if we disaffiliate USI will continue to serve TCD students’ interests on major national issues (which are their chief responsibility,

let’s not forget) but TCD simply wouldn’t pay for this. This might be maximising our utility (we get €8) but ending up in this situation wouldn’t say much about us as a college. The €750 increase in fees, he conceded, was a failure. I asked a question at the end about this – to which I never got a response. In fairness Redmond was hit with a series of questions. He could never answer them all. But this bears repeating – so that’s what I’ll do. First, some context. At the USI Special Congress Aengus Ó Maoláin spoke about how the USI was the most widely respected student lobbying body in Europe. The USI’s relationship with the HEA and the Department, including regular meetings with the Minister, is certainly cosy. As someone who has tried (fruitlessly) to gain this kind of access for organisations before I can safely say it’s access Trinity couldn’t expect to get outside USI. But what does this mean? In the twenty years between 1995 and 2015 fees for higher-level will have increased 1,579%. From an adjusted figure of a shade

under €190 in 1995 to €3,000 (at least, one would imagine) in three years time. At €2,000 per annum our fees were the second highest in the EU and they’re to go up by half from that. This is not just a failure, but a spectacular one. I challenge the USI to find a comparable cost increase (1,579% over twenty years) in any sector of Irish life. Where there have been ones in higherlevel in other countries they have (with the exception of the USA) been accompanied by comprehensive loan and grant schemes that we do not have. In addition, this fee increase has not contributed to the better funding of our universities. As fees have risen the amount given to colleges has been cut. The result is the worst of both worlds: a comparatively emaciated thirdlevel system that costs students more for less. The worry that I raised related to strategy. (Incidentally UT Deputy Opinion Editor Max Sullivan produced a thorough dissection of the USI’s ‘Stop Fees, Save the Grant’ campaign recently. I don’t agree with all of it but has many valid points on strategy and organisation. USI can’t say there hasn’t

Should we stay or should we go?

The Phil’s Dave Byrne speaking at the USI Disaffiliation Debate last Wednesday. The motion “THW Disaffiliate from USI” passed. Photo: George Voronov

The University Times 2012 Election Special | Tuesday, February 14 2011

been critique of this.) Cooperation, engagement and bargaining was the USI strategy that culminated in the fees pledge signed by thenLabour Education Spokesperson Ruairí Quinn. Allied to this was the ‘I am a Vote’ campaign and protest, utilising the leverage provided by a general election. This was the 2010 strategy. 2010, though it wasn’t a bad strategy and it’s not USI’s fault they were lied to, failed. The question I would ask about 2011 is this: if more than 30,000 students marching months before a general election didn’t stop fee increases in 2010 why would we expect a third less marching five years before the next election (in a march and campaign that was less well organised) to do so? While 2010 achieved its immediate political goal in the pledge it didn’t succeed in stopping fee increases. And in 2011 we needed something else. And we got… Nothing, really. A fairly calamitous occupation and a sleep out no-one went to. Part of the reason why our fees have sky-rocketed is that the USI have been branding defeats as victories for years. And the government knows how to play this. You leak a higher figure a month beforehand to the press, the student movement picks up this number (as the USI dutifully did) and then you introduce smaller, incremental increases rather than immediate ones. It leads to the same situation in the end. And the protest march happening with such regularity and decreasing political potency that it becomes parade feeds into another problem: the government have seen this all before – they have factored it in to their political cost-benefit analysis when deciding to increase fees. When considering strategy, negotiation is a tactic and not an end. USI should not seek to be taken seriously as a lobbying group, as Ó Maoláin says they are, because it affords them some abstract notion of professionalism.

This is a mentality derived from a desire to be taken seriously by the big boys. They should do so because it gives them political capital. By all means negotiate – but do it from a position of strength. And take advantage of our distinctions from the political class, our proximity to the cultural zeitgeist, the youthful energy and new ideas student activism can provide. Why should we be seeking to play them at their game? The USI’s job, in defence of its stated policy of fighting fees, is to identify and act upon actual leverage. In 2010 it sought to do this, in 2011 it was just lost. On the evening itself some questions followed the debate. TCDSU Education Officer Rachel Barry spoke eloquently about the job the USI do training sabbatical officers. I think this well outlined the two roles of the student representative bodies. Above are some of the failings of USI’s in its role as a union – a political body fighting for the interests of its members. But SUs are also, moreso at local union level but USI does a deal of this too, a civil and public service for students. What Barry called an “invaluable” service provided to our sabbats shouldn’t be over-looked in the debate about disaffiliation. There were a number of questions asked to Gary Redmond on the assumption that USI’s position on fees was not supported by Trinity students. This is a widely held perception - but it’s actually wrong. In TCD politics the loudest voices can sometimes be taken as majority. TCDSU conducted a poll on student opinions about its lapsed anti-fees policy just before Christmas. It showed that 73.4% of the 1,063 undergraduate students polled found that the policy was “representative of their position”. That result was never published. The dialogue in political circles in the college had been so pro-fee that those making the assumptions shouldn’t be blamed. But it is a reminder that

Trinity has its own silent majority who need to be brought to voice by its student movement. And they are solidly anti-fees. This doesn’t mean that they oppose a grant or loan system – we don’t have numbers on that. But it’s worth mentioning that there is no chance of getting that in the short-term. The government’s interest now is not to put in place a fair, sustainable system for funding higher-education. Its interest is producing money upfront to pay its creditors. This makes any system of deferred payment unrealistic but also mitigates against a sensible, over-arching structure being put in place – do we really think this could be done optimally (or want this done) under such coercive conditions? I think this provides a strong argument for the fees issue being a battle, not a negotiation. In the increasing-

responsibility of the constituent unions to organise direct ballots on issues. But that, while partly true, simply isn’t good enough. This has become an existential problem for the organisation. It is seen by far too many (most?) as an anti-democratic bureaucracy. Its leaders disparaged as representatives of a social ladder and a wallet padder. It cannot democratise by force through its Congress, it has no power to do that. But its leaders have a pulpit to use to argue the case for a more democratic USI. If they make it a campaign – to be more directly accountable to the individual members – they could make headway with the confederate unions. And, if they don’t want Trinity to be just the latest in a string of disaffiliation referenda, this is something they’ve got to do. (FAO TCD students: This does not preclude us agitat-

USI have been branding defeats as victories for years. ly Hobbesian landscape of Irish politics those who organise best and fight hardest will be hit least. (There is another question here, though: is this what we want? Or do we want a student movement that takes a broader perspective – as the political voice of an emergent generation? Can we justify ‘out-competing’ primary school children, the elderly, the unemployed, the poor or the sick? These are debates the USI should be leading.) UT Opinion Editor Hannah Cogan then asked an important question: when was the last time a student-wide poll had been held on any issue by the Union of Students in Ireland. Redmond’s response: he “couldn’t remember”. USI’s argument, and it is not totally without substance, is that it is a confederation. It is the

ing here in college for a direct vote for our delegates at Congress.) The argument advanced against direct elections is largely cost-based. But lots of large unions regularly ballot their members. They do it because democratic legitimacy and mandates are worth it. They provide more power to a campaign than all the fliers and t-shirts that could’ve been bought with that money. Representative democracy exists to provide democratic political structures where direct democracy is impractical. If it is not impractical, and the structures are bureaucratic anyway, then it’s not democratic. Finance need not influence a direct election campaign either – I’ve seen it suggested that the person with the most resources will be able to attract most attention

TIMESOPINION

in colleges and that this will be a disadvantage. There are many ways around this. Placing limits on expenditure and managing accounts, central funding of campaigns or, even if less desirable in my view, a loan or grant system for students who are of disadvantaged backgrounds. Excuses won’t do here for the USI – not pulling this off will leave it disempowered without enough popular support to mount successful campaigns and at risk of mass exodus of confederate unions. Other issues worthy of discussion did arise at the debate. Could Trinity come together with fellow non or disaffiliate unions, like the University of Limerick, to produce a rival national union. This risks becoming a People’s Front of Judea. The time it would take to establish a new organisation could be better spent on democratising the USI. And what a disaster if we did end up with competing national unions. The government would use this as an excuse to interact less and play them off one another. And if you think hackery is bad now: what happens when the hacks have two rival clubs to partisan over? Then there was the question of whether our sabbats could handle the extra work entailed in representing Trinity on a national scale. They’ll have to argue that. I know Ryan Bartlett thinks he already spends his time doing it and Louisa Miller feels she doesn’t have it. Personally, I would say it’s unlikely that they would be able to add the job of running national campaigns or establishing new organisations to their current portfolios successfully. But they know better than me. And we need answers to the questions about how Trinity provides the sabbat training without the USI – it could be done but by whom, on who’s time and at what cost? The vote on disaffiliation on the night finished fiftynine in favour, thirty-two against and nine undecided.

I initially was undecided, but the more I think about it the more I oppose disaffiliating. Students are one of Irish society’s precariat: high emigration rates and those staying destined for unemployment with low job prospects. We’re paying more for less in universities that are underfunded. The part-time jobs necessary to tide many of us over aren’t there – and neither is the support from parents suffering cuts to wages, increased taxes and job loss. Those in power aren’t our age and our voices aren’t heard in the parliament, the board room or the media. We need a strong TCDSU that can provide services here in college and I worry disaffiliation will harm that. We need a strong national union to fight a battle that takes place on a national level – we’re stronger together than individually because the fundamental policy is decided based on us as a group. And we need a student movement that can provide us a voice. A way to exert ourselves as a new generation emerging into society – hopefully with some desire to change it. For that to happen it needs to be democratic, but also powerful and united. I don’t see any constructive outcome on those fronts from disaffiliation. If we can use the referendum threat to shake USI into action in the areas I outlined it mightn’t be a bad thing. But just taking out our anger at their failures by leaving begs the question: then what? The answer to that is that no-one knows. And when there is such an urgent demand for what a national union is supposed to provide - organised popular action - that is the last thing we need.

Got something to say? Email opinion@universitytimes.ie

This advertisement was paid for by Hannah Cogan, in line with rules set down by the Electoral Commission. It is not an endorsement.