A petition calling for Prof Sarah Alyn-Stacey to be allowed to stand in in the upcoming Provost election, saying her disqualification was “undemocratic”, has gathered nearly 200 signatures.
A group of five PhD students – Alexandra Corey, Felix Frank, Louise Kari-Méreau, Ryan Alberto Ó Giobúin and Stefanie Sprong – launched the petition on change.org, which had 181 signatures at the time of writing.
The petition was circulated amongst Scholars and Fellows, who were encouraged to “give the matter serious consideration”.
“We believe that it is wrong to preclude a candidate who clearly meets the statutory requirements, on the basis of opaque rating criteria separate to those mandated by the Statutes and as yet unseen by the electorate,” the petition states.
“We deem the decision to bar a highly-qualified and renowned candidate, nominated by her fellow academics, from contesting a democratic election to be, by its very nature, undemocratic. We therefore request that the University reappraise its decision and allow Professor Alyn-Stacey to stand in the election.”
“We believe that the highly-educated academic electorate are best qualified to select whom they desire to be their next Provost from the full list of candidates.”
One of the petition’s authors, Alexandra Corey, also wrote an open letter published in The University Times condemning the disqualification of Alyn-Stacey from the Provost race.
The letter – endorsed by 23 Trinity postgraduate students and two Trinity alumni – argued that the basis upon which Alyn-Stacey was disqualified is “obscure and antidemocratic”.
Last week, this newspaper reported that Alyn-Stacey had been denied entry to this year’s Provost election, after a process that she said has “blurred” the distinction between an election and an appointment and given HR a “crucial role” in who will be the next Provost.
In a statement to her nominators – seen by The University Times – Alyn-Stacey alleged that the interview committee and HR “took it upon themselves to apply a different test from the statutorily-mandated prima facie test”.
One of the petition’s authors, Ryan Alberto Ó Giobúin, said in an email statement to this newspaper that the petition is not equivalent to an endorsement of Alyn-Stacey. Rather, it “states the belief that the electorate should be allowed the opportunity to select whom they deem to be the best candidate from the full list of candidates”.
“We are concerned that excluding someone from standing in the race artificially limits the democratic choice afforded to the electorate,” he said.
Today, Camilla Persello, the Secretary to the Scholars, sent an email to the Scholars and Fellows with the link to the petition, stating that it was brought to her attention and encouraging the Scholars and Fellows “to give the matter serious consideration”.
“I believe this to be of concern to Fellows and Scholars, as the oaths we took upon our election to Fellowship or Scholarship bind us to uphold the Statutes and protect the best interest of the College and its Community, hence including the responsibility of ensuring that the new Provost be elected through a fully democratic process,” Persello wrote.
In an email statement to The University Times last week, Tom Molloy, Trinity’s director of public affairs and communications, said: “While individuals are free to discuss their application for positions in college, the University is precluded from commenting on any individual’s application to a post in order to respect their privacy.”
In an earlier email statement to The University Times regarding Alyn-Stacey’s disqualification, Molloy said: “While it would be wrong to comment on any individual application, the University is completely satisfied that the process meets the necessary criteria.”
“The steering committee, appointed by the Board under the statutes and which is chaired by the Registrar, has closely scrutinised the process on behalf of college to ensure that the process is transparent, fair and fully compliant with the college statutes.”
“The process as laid down in the statutes includes an interview committee appointed by the Board. The interview committee conducted the process in accordance with the statutes. Candidates may appeal a decision of the interview committee to the appeals committee, also appointed by the Board.”
“Under the statutes, candidates may also take a case to the Visitors: the Chancellor Dr Mary McAleese and the Judicial Visitor, Judge George Birmingham.”
“Finally, HR’s expertise in managing senior appointments was naturally used in the process to ensure that the criteria listed in the statutes was reflected in the interview process.”
