Like most, if not all universities, Trinity has a student union. A body made up of representatives elected from among the students, who are trusted to work with the college to ensure the best possible experience for the whole community. They may organise events, stand up against dishonest grading practices, fund additional scholarships, campaign for better amenities on campus and so on. But the Trinity Student Union (TCDSU) decided that they wish to do more, that they wish to make political statements, to be political. One small issue stood in their way – the SU’s own constitution. Such roadblocks must be eliminated. Which brings us to the current referendum over chapter 1.5, previously chapter 1.4, of the constitution.
Chapter 1 of the current constitution serves as an introduction. It establishes that all students are members of the union, and that the union “shall represent all students” and is “answerable to its members”. In point 1.5 the Union singles out its objectives, which it ought to “pursue (…) independent of any political, racial or religious ideology”. The proposed change would change that for “The Union shall pursue these objectives independent of any political party or religious organisation”. This minor change is problematic for two main reasons.
This is nothing more than a change in semantics TCDSU wants to eat its cake and have it too. They have been criticised for breaking the constitution more than once over the last two academic years. We all remember the fiery email exchange between the previous SU President László Molnárfi and Provost Linda Doyle. But it seems that upon receiving this negative feedback, the Union chose to double down and change the constitution rather than their stance.
Under the current wording, TCDSU is obliged to avoid any ideology – be it political, religious, or racial. Some may argue that the word ‘ideology’ is misused in this context, because its vagueness makes the law hard to follow. TCDSU’s proposal aims to ground the constitution. An association with a political party or organisation is easier to spot than an ideological bias. But the vagueness of ideology ensures that there is no wiggle room to be political. The SU cannot excuse their actions by claiming that no political party shares these views and therefore the SU is independent from any particular party.
Students at Trinity are a large and diverse group, supporting various ideologies, parties, and systems of belief, and the Union ought to represent them all. We share only one necessary denominator – we study at Trinity. A Union which tries to satisfy any other condition, no matter how popular, will necessarily alienate some students. Even if the Union’s political stance is indeed widely held among students, the only way to be sure no one is misrepresented or alienated is to avoid politics altogether. This is the only way to “say no […] to division in our communities” – as the SU President Jenny Maguire puts on her X (formerly Twitter).
The Union’s representatives like to claim that the Union should be political as that’s what the student body wants. They say that the SU is only political in the way that being a student is political, and that the SU represents the views of the majority of students. To this I have two responses.
Firstly, even if the SU was representing the views of 90% of students, it would still alienate 10% of those, whom it claims to represent. And a Student Union which alienates any member while forcing everyone to be a member is a Union which lost its way. But secondly, if the Union really believes it represents the absolute majority view, and it upholds that a union ought to be political, then why won’t that be put to the test? The SU is to be “answerable to its members through referenda” so why won’t a referendum be held? If the Union is sure that it alienates next to no one and represents the absolute majority, the referendum should only be valid if a certain percentage, half, two thirds, or perhaps even 80-90%, of total students vote. Only then will the claim about representing all students have any value. In the last sabbatical elections, the current President won with an overwhelming majority of the votes. But an overwhelming majority of the students didn’t even vote. How can she claim then, that she speaks for all students? If the Union is confident enough in its position having general support it should allow for this support to be shown.
The TCDSU President argued in The University Times that “we need to look forward to a democratic university, in which the voice of students is not only listened to, but valued” – and I couldn’t agree more. But why should this approach be limited to student spaces and microwaves? Let us see if the SU really represents the politics of all students or if most students would prefer the SU to abide by its own constitution and be apolitical? Only then should amendments to the constitution be considered. As it is now, the SU forces us into a paradoxical situation.
On one hand SU membership is mandatory, and on the other, the SU shows a clear political bias while claiming to represent us all. These two facts are incompatible with each other. If the SU wants to be a political organisation, membership mustn’t be mandatory. It is easy enough for the President to claim full student support if the organisation she is making political is mandatory and she does not risk losing out on membership fees. Perhaps, if the Union’s confidence in their support is so high, they should put it to the test and allow students to opt out of their SU membership. As it stands now, the Student Union is failing to abide by its own constitution, failing to represent all students, and failing to actually show the overwhelming support they claim to have. And changing the constitution to fit their agenda is not the way out of this mess.