The role of president of Trinity College Dublin Students’ Union (TCDSU) is less defined than the union’s other full-time positions. With candidates asked every year what kind of president they would be – a question that would be quite farcical to put to a candidate for education officer – the position offers more of a chance to inject one’s own beliefs and approach than any other.
But with that relative freedom comes a hard line to walk: that between personal beliefs and the variety of positions that the union will be asked to hold. The president is the chief campaigns officer of the union and the union, being the democratic organisation that it is, can and has been asked to hold a position on everything from Seanad reform to direct provision by students. The president has to realise that while they may support a cause, it’s a whole other issue to have a body that represents 17,000 students support it too.
The controversy that surrounds the decision of TCDSU President-elect, Kevin Keane, to speak against a motion that would see the union, among other things, support an academic and economic boycott of Israel, speaks to how important it is to get walking this line right. When questioned during the campaign as to whether or not he should support such a boycott, Keane was unwavering in his response. Yet it took him until 40 seconds before speaking at council, against the motion, to realise that a gap might exist between what he could promise as a candidate, what he might be able to support as a president and what he thought the union should and shouldn’t support.
In promising to support the pro-boycott movement, Keane was not committing to something he knew little about. As President of SUAS, he had organised an event to raise awareness of such an issue. To react to what students are telling you and to want to represent students’ views is admirable, but to so drastically change positions, and to choose to speak actively against rather than remain neutral in the debate, looks like hypocrisy.
The vote on the issue of an academic and economic boycott was controversial – many students might have preferred the union to support issues closer to home. The desire not to isolate students is one that presidents need to keep at the forefront of their mind. The problem comes when that thought process changes somewhere between candidacy and election.
