Dominic Gallagher | Contributing writer
At a recent Students’ Union Council a motion was brought forward that called for the SU to adopt a political stance on abortion. The argument in favour of keeping our current neutrality is that this is a political rather than a student issue. The Students’ Union is concerned with matters that affect us specifically as students eg. Fees, the library and education. It is not a political lobbying group for matters that affect everybody in our society eg. the economy, marijuana, abortion. We need to maintain neutrality in order to protect freedom of speech within Trinity. A member of the Gender Equality Society (DUGES) countered this argument, “asserting that the only way students could formally achieve their freedom of expression on the matter was through referendum” (University Times, 26/01/13)
I fail to see how this is the “only way” for students to achieve their “freedom of expression”. The Students’ Union can take only one position, that of the majority and this will result in the beliefs of the minority remaining silenced. A large number of students will have the Students’ Union lobbying in their name for a political stance that they do not believe in. The solution to this problem is college societies. If Trinity students want to campaign for abortion then they should do it under the banner of a pro-choice society and this applies equally to pro-life supporters. This way it is up to the choice of the individual student whether they will support a campaign. I find it strange that many vocal advocates of a political SU stance on abortion have neglected the personal choices of Trinity students in campaigning for the student body to take a unified stance.
At this moment there exist no pro-choice or pro-life societies in Trinity. Pro-life societies have been repeatedly rejected by the Central Societies Committee (CSC) and DUGES was refused a political mandate to campaign for abortion in November. It is on this issue that students should campaign for “freedom of expression”. Trinity students, like UCD and Queens students, should have the right to have pro-choice and pro-life societies. The CSC has without any constitutional basis singled out abortion as an issue upon which no discussion can take place. The CSC’s statement explaining its refusal to DUGES in November shows the CSC to be much like Dalila in Milton’s “Samson Agonistes”, in offering many reasons it shows that it has no real reason.
The first argument the CSC outlines against there being any pro-choice or pro-life societies is that “there is an inability for such societies to exist beyond a limited period of time surrounding national debates on the issue” (Trinity News, 20/11/12).
1. This is not the case. Abortion is both a moral and human rights issue. These convictions do not change regardless of governmental legislative decisions and hence these societies will always have support.
2. There are already societies who have been given political mandates in areas of a similar nature; The Animal Rights society, the Environmental society, Q soc (Trinity LGBT), The Pirate Party Society, Amnesty International.
3. Is this statement really suggesting that societies cannot be politically active on issues that are current? What politics exists except current politics?
The second argument is that there can be no political mandate for DUGES specifically because their 2006 constitution state that they “may not act as a conduit for external groups to operate within the college” (TN 20/11/12).
4. Why single out DUGES? Many other societies are directly linked to parent organisations. Eg. Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, Greens, Labour, Sinn Fein, Socialist Workers Students Society, Amnesty International. How is DUGES different?
The third argument put forward by the CSC is that since the Students’ Union was the “only representative body for all students in Trinity College” political advocacy “necessarily fell under their remit” (TN 20/11/12).
5. As mentioned above there are already societies in Trinity such as; The Animal Rights society, the Environmental Society, The Pirate Party Society, Amnesty International that operate politically in areas in which the Student Union is completely neutral.
6. The Students’ Union can only support one political stance, that of the majority. If Political advocacy is limited to the Student Union then there is no room for any minority political views to be held in Trinity. Surely the CSC does not support such a policy?
It is clear that the CSC is completely inconsistent in its refusal to allow pro-choice and pro-life societies. It has censored Trinity Students from having a real debate on this topic. It has not granted Trinity Students their “freedom of expression” as individuals but has instead pushed them towards a collective decision in which the minority view will be silenced. It is an outrageous contradiction that our Students’ Union can take a political stance which our college societies have been refused. Both UCD and Queens, two Universities that have allowed Pro-choice and pro-life societies, have a Students’ Union that is politically neutral on abortion. Pro-Choice (and indeed pro-life) supporters should be able to campaign for abortion legislation, but not in the name of all Trinity College students.
