Comment & Analysis
Editorial
Nov 6, 2016

The Idea of a Neutral Union Raises Important Questions, but the UCD Campaign Left Too Many Unanswered

For unions that see themselves as more than the providers of puppy rooms and condoms, the consequences of an apolitical union were unclear.

By The Editorial Board

University College Dublin (UCD) students voted decisively, if not overwhelmingly, this week to maintain their union’s pro-choice stance, with 3,000 students rejecting calls to make the union neutral on the issue of abortion.

These calls came from the group, UCD for Fair Representation, who argued that the union shouldn’t take a stance on the “divisive” issue. The group also promised to look at other areas where University College Dublin Students’ Union (UCDSU) was failing to fully represent students.

The yes side, arguing for neutrality, were not attacking the value of a union. Indeed, writing in this paper, one of the organisers of UCD for Fair Representation praised the work of the union in supporting students, and argued that it should instead focus on issues that affect students, such as “fees, the housing crisis, campus facilities and mental health”.

ADVERTISEMENT

The question of how political a union should be is a tricky one. Partly, this is because there is no clear line between what is and isn’t a student issue. How best to represent a population is a timeless question too. Ireland’s wrangling with referenda and citizens’ assemblies proves that.

The issue with the referendum was that neutrality was never properly defined. What would an apolitical union look like? Would the union’s role be limited to providing condoms and puppy rooms? The provision of condoms too, of course, was once a divisive issue – it was a mark of pride for unions to stock the illegal items. For those who see a union as a campaigning body, such a transformation to neutrality would prove heretical.

Even if a union was to not be apolitical, can a union ever be totally representative? Issues like fees and the housing crisis are certainly not straightforward. A funding model for higher education has no easy answer when even decisions on which campus facilities to spend money on require policy decisions that won’t please everyone, and how does a union represent students who would reject calls for more money for the sector. How might a union neutral on abortion advise a student facing a crisis pregnancy? Such questions did not receive adequate answers.

Neutrality is a tempting solution to address divisive issues, but it is not without consequences. Without a clear vision of what a neutral union might look like, voting for this option was always going to be daunting.