At tonight’s activism hustings, presidential candidates were often forced to take a more defensive approach, unable to engage each other in debate as they trod tentatively through questions that might have tripped them up.
Hosted by journalist and activist, Dil Wickremasinghe, tonight might have been a welcome relief for the best-read candidates but candidates seeking to re-focus the union’s attention towards more local issues might have been left frustrated by the large-scale nature of the questions.
Facing specific questions before an audience of people who have spent much of their college careers campaigning for the rights of Trinity’s students and those further afield, candidates often appeared nervous of making a wrong move. Overall, however, they seemed to have done their homework on issues such as direct provision, feminism and environmental protection.
President
There was little in the way of clashes between the presidential candidates tonight, as often sweeping questions from Wickremasinghe meant discussions veered away from manifesto points, with candidates tested on everything from Palestine to sexual harassment.
Having performed strongly in the opening hustings of the campaign, Michael McDermott’s absence offered the three remaining candidates the chance to distinguish themselves, as well as clarify their stances on specific issues.
The three men struggled to find a niche as they went through national and local issues. Comparing the role of the president to that of an activist, each chose a different cause, reflective of the diverse range of issues a president has to deal with.
Paul Molloy again highlighted his experience with the Trinity Access Programme, promising as president “to look at students from disadvantaged backgrounds”. Both Shane De Rís and Sean Ryan referenced the extensive activism embarked upon by previous presidents, with Ryan praising the work of Lynn Ruane and Ivana Bacik.
With De Rís the best prepared, he delivered strong responses to the questions and demonstrated a level of knowledge about the issues presented beyond that of the other candidates. Clearly nervous at the beginning, he grew into the questions as the night progressed and appeared more personable as he departed from his previous reliance on his past experience.
For his part, Ryan’s answers were receiving their now customary positive response from his campaign team. However, yet again, he struggled at times under the questioning, failing to outline any firm policy on issues such as fossil fuel divestment and the possibility of a boycott and divestment of Israel. While Ryan’s promise to “become more educated” on the subject of Palestine was echoed to an extent by his opponents, both seemed better able to plot a course through an issue that troubled incumbent TCDSU President Kevin Keane last year.
Molloy’s performance was a curiosity, with his lengthy answers at times producing some poignant lines. “It’s Orwellian to me that women talk about harassment like ‘that was a bit weird’”, he said, when speaking on sexual harassment. Though not all his answers had the same resonance his response to sexual harassment awareness did, he contrasted heavily with De Rís and Ryan as the sole candidate to successfully elaborate on any firm ideas and policy.
Both De Rís and Molloy produced stronger performances tonight, though it is lamentable that at times all three candidates lacked opportunities to expand on their policies, a feature that has become all too common in this year’s race. Molloy delivered a more amiable performance, mentioning his agreement with Ryan in multiple answers, as well as observing that all candidates “have their hearts in the right place”, a notable difference from last night’s tense standoff with De Rís.
Communications and Marketing
Where the presidential candidates largely agreed with each other on the issues they were questioned on, the candidates for the role of Communications and Marketing Officer differed largely tonight on the extent to which the union should prioritise collaborations with ethical companies.
It is a question that has not cropped up in too much so far in the campaign, but in front of an audience of activists, candidates negotiated the tricky task of playing to the gallery while acknowledging, to differing extents, the harsh reality of the union’s need for sponsorship. This emphasis on sponsorship, though, meant candidates were not subjected to a particularly rigorous questioning on the strength of their manifestos.
The question of collaborating with ethical companies prompted a pragmatic response from McLean, with the candidate admitting that it was a “difficult one to answer”. Harty and Rynne took a different tack. While at times both answered stridently, criticising commercialisation and unethical collaborations, they both lacked clarity.
Rynne’s adoption of a pragmatic line on Aramark was an unusual decision given the crowd sitting in front of him, his biggest issue with the company being its pricing. It did, however, tally with the straight-talking persona he has attempted to curate throughout the campaign.
As the only STEM student in the race, Rynne was questioned on how he would encourage more engagement between STEM students and the union, a common theme in every year’s leadership race. Rynne’s cynicism towards the union has formed the basis of his campaign. He answered that the poor engagement from science students is due to their “massive amount of hours”. Rynne says he will campaign for “a bit of leeway” for STEM students on the “necessity to attend labs” – even if he seemed unsure he could achieve this.
In terms of the contracts currently in place, McLean seemed the most aware of the links the union currently has and the prospect of the union leaving them. Harty and Rynne’s inexperience came to the fore with both candidates openly noting their lack of union experience. Rynne said that the union “doesn’t need to be crawling to any company looking for money”. “We can be very very choosy in how we sign up for commercial partners”, he continued.
Overall, the candidates were not subjected to the grilling they faced last night, and they managed to navigate topical and challenging questions without relying too heavily on the theme of social media, as has been the case in previous hustings.
Entertainments
In what is emerging as one of the closest races of this election, both candidates fielded a variety of questions confidently. It was a night in which both Dundon and Flood hit their stride, and whilst both did retreat at times to the safety of their manifestos, neither showed fear in throwing out some bold and innovative ideas on how the role of Entertainments Officer can engage and facilitate student activism.
At several points, Dundon expressed his disagreement with some of Flood’s suggestions, focusing particularly on the feasibility of the events Flood suggested. Constantly keen throughout this campaign to reference his experience for the Entertainments role, Dundon argued “we need to be realistic, you might have great ideas but there is only so much time you can work with”.
Another point the candidates clashed on was the use of re-usable cups at events. Perhaps in light of the launch of the cup-deposit scheme in the Pav tonight, Flood offered his support for the expansion of the campaign. “I’d like to question the practicality of David’s last suggestion”, Dundon retorted.
While both candidates initially struggled in the face of a very difficult question about preventing sexual assault at Ents nights, it was Flood who offered the most insightful and comprehensive answer. Referencing the hashtag “#AskforAngela”, a code word for anyone feeling threated in a venue, Flood pointed out that as Entertainments Officer, this is something he will be “really looking to implement, especially in freshers’ week, so we can have the safest venue possible”.
After tonight’s hustings, students can be assured that union activism will be a priority for the Entertainments Officer next year. Echoing Flood’s comments that Ents should be a service for students, Dundon pointed out that the role of Ents is to be “a medium for political and social issues”.
Education
Sole education candidate Aimee Connolly came across as well-informed during hustings tonight. As Chair of DU Amnesty International, it could be argued that she was the best equipped of all the candidates to speak regarding activism, and she certainly fielded all questions thrown to her, but managed to avoid any mention of the Trinity Education Project yet again.
Connolly cited the importance of striking a balance between advocating for local and national issues within College. Mentioning higher education funding as a major topic she hopes to focus on next year, Connolly referenced the campaign’s stalling momentum and confirmed her complete opposition to the introduction of an income-contingent loan scheme.
The extent of her research came across when she replied to a question about the low retention rate of Trinity Access Programme students with a statistic that the retention rate was actually 92 per cent – a fact that was confirmed moments later.
While certainly knowledgeable, and seemingly more focused on the issue of higher education funding than any of the presidential candidates this evening, it is noteworthy that Connolly managed to get through the activism hustings without any mention of women in leadership, despite being one of only two women running for office.
Welfare
Cunningham’s fourth hustings appearance featured few surprises and he appeared relaxed as he was questioned on his role in supporting activism on campus, characterising his own activism as “providing welfare support for activists”. His performance was as smooth as ever, as he stuck consistently to his message of sourcing solutions from student activists, relevant clubs and societies, and outside organisations.
With a question about the inclusion of students from working-class backgrounds, Cunningham was well within his comfort zone, highlighting one of his key manifesto points in providing assistance to students struggling financially, as well as welfare support to ensure a welcoming and supportive atmosphere in Trinity.
Not unlike the experience of other candidates tonight and with no competition, the activism hustings may have come as another missed opportunity to press Cunningham on the specifics of his manifesto points.
From the start of Cunningham’s campaign, he has focused on day-to-day issues directly affecting the lives of students so tonight’s hustings, featuring issues affecting activism and campaigns on campus, could have thrown him. Nevertheless, Cunningham’s passion showed towards the end of his slot, when asked about involvement in marriage equality in Northern Ireland. He touched on his personal investment in ensuring that Northern Irish students in Trinity have the same opportunities as those in the South.
Editor of The University Times
Eleanor O’Mahony was pushed hard tonight, with Wickremasinghe posing several tricky questions about the newspaper’s record this year. Notably more passionate in the face of suggestions that the paper’s opinion section lacks different voices, O’Mahony insisted that “we have a variety of different voices in the paper”.
The paper’s editorial board, of which O’Mahony is a member as well as a former chair, was also questioned for its criticism of student activist exploits such as the Strike 4 Repeal campaign, but O’Mahony was persistent in her defence of the paper’s editorial decisions and objectivity in reporting.
With accusations of harsh coverage of student clubs and societies, O’Mahony emphasised the paper’s role in communicating accurate accounts of student exploits. “We are all volunteers”, she stressed.
O’Mahony also faced several difficult questions from the crowd gathered. Questioned on the number of resignations this year, as well as the paper’s record of holding students to account, O’Mahony responded that senior editors are always available to help people struggling.
Ciaran Molloy, Sophie Andrews-McCarroll, Joe Dudley, Blaithin Wilson, Aisling Marren, Aoife Kearins, Ellen McLean and Louise McCormack contributed reporting to this piece.
