On Wednesday, 22nd October, the College Historical Society (Hist) hosted a debate on the motion “This House has No Confidence in the Students’ Union”. The motion was originally “This House would Ban Politics from Social Media”, but it was changed a week ago. The Hist’s Auditor, Hazel Mulkeen, indicated that the Hist had already planned a Trinity College Dublin Students’ Union (TCDSU/AMLCT) motion for the Michaelmas term. However, the debate was pushed forward following calls for the resignation of current TCDSU/AMLCT President, Sean Thim, to keep discourse relevant to current student interests.
Speakers on both sides of the aisle gave impassioned speeches regarding the state of TCDSU/AMLCT, clearly passionate about its potential and failings. Both proposition and opposition speakers agreed on the framing of the debate, but differed in the direction for the future and whether or not the failings of the current and past few administrations and their leadership warranted losing faith in the Union. Given the topical nature of the motion, there was audible audience participation throughout, with shouts of “shame!” and “hear, hear!”. Nearly every speaker brought up the impending issue of Thim’s alleged inadequacy as President, but chose not to make it the focus of the debate, with agreements that the TCDSU/AMLCT is more than a singular sabbatical officer, even if they are the President.
The first speaker to open the debate was Isabella Hanlon, who framed the motion for the proposition. Her main argument was the lack of public-facing accountability, bringing up a sexual assault campaign involving effigies at the end of Jenny Maguire’s presidency, which resulted in neither resignation nor “real apology” from either Maguire or former Welfare and Equality Sabbatical Officer Hamza Bana. The most notable mention of Thim’s presidency was by Hanlon, who said they failed to fulfil campaign promises and breached their mandate as president. Still, Hanlon made mention of the previous administrations that made progress in student matters through vigorous campaigning, including microwaves in the arts block, divestment from Israel, and rent freezes. However, she argued, because the Union is still plagued by a lack of accountability, experience and ambition, the student body’s disillusionment towards the Union is warranted. Hanlon also argued that sabbatical officers must be held to account, given that student fees pay for their salaries.
The opening speaker for opposition was the chair of Trinity Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS), Harry Johnston, whose speech focused on the achievements of the Students’ Union in recent years. He underscored the disillusionment with O’Leary even from within the Union, arguing that the President, despite being the face of the Union, is not the sole actor of the Union. Johnston highlighted the successes of the BDS, ranging from the evacuation of over 60 students from Gaza to the divestment from Israel, and the recent walkout that recorded over one hundred regular students attending. Furthermore, Johnston, who was one of the leading figures from within the Union calling for O’Leary’s resignation, made the distinction between Thim’s presidency and the positive actions of the Union. He said that during the previous Union administration headed by Maguire, students were afforded new microwaves in the arts block, and Thim installed a new fridge and kettle in their own office. Johnston ultimately emphasised the success of direct action by the Union, which involved many part-time officers and sabbatical officers beyond Thim; the motion was a condemnation of the Union, which had, on the whole, displayed more successes than just the stated failures of the President.
The second speaker on the proposition was Johnathan Hoffman, who presented a divisive speech. Like Hanlon, Hoffman believed that the Union displayed a lack of accountability and direction. He argued that the lack of participation in union elections on referendums and the election of sabbatical officers made the Union an exclusive body rather than one that represents all students. In light of the discussion on the actions of the BDS arm of TCDSU/AMLCT since October 7th, he addressed the politicisation of the Union. Hoffman cited former President (2023-24) László Molnárfi’s alleged view on October 7th as a “liberat[ing]” event to shouts of “shame!” from the audience. Hoffman also addressed the failings of both class representatives, who he said usually only signed up for the opportunity to organise nights out. Hoffman also said class representatives rarely attended Comhairle or participated in actual union matters and student concerns. He also criticised the Union for being a bureaucratic hierarchy of Part-Time Officers. Hoffman also brought up the effigy campaign, which he classified as one of the greatest failings of the Union in recent years. Hoffman’s solution was 1) a call to action by the student body to participate in voting for the candidates they believed in, and 2) to vote in favour of the proposition.
The second speaker for opposition was Grace McNally, the Health Sciences Convener for TCDSU/AMLCT, who gave an impassioned speech about her role and place in the Union. She said her role offered her a channel and a chance to advocate for the welfare of health science students who are often neglected by the University and are isolated from the rest of the student body on the main campus. The crux of McNally’s argument was, like all the preceding speakers, to categorise the Union as an organisation beyond the President and the few Sabbatical Officers, highlighting instead how she found an outlet for change and student support in the Union and is proud to be supporting other health science students.
Proposition’s third speaker was Mia Craven, who began her speech with an imitation of Molnárfi, saying, “Chamber! We are seeing a trend within the student community of a minority of right-wing Zionist agitators who mislead students with populist rhetoric for a need to depoliticise the Union.” Craven argued that her lack of faith in the Union arose from the fact that while direct action in real-life politics has been successful, it still presents a distance from the majority of the student body, who are moderate and not as engaged in student or external politics. She described the radicalisation of TCDSU/AMLCT as a “spectre haunting the union”. Craven also took the most defensive stance towards the President, saying they ran and won on a platform of moderation with BDS and direct action entirely omitted from their manifesto, suggesting the student body’s disillusionment with Maguire and Molnárfi’s more radical management of TCDSU/AMLCT. Craven underscored this, pointing out that Patrick Keegan, who also ran for President on a platform based entirely on radicalism and direct action, received only 18% of the first preference votes. She argued that TCDSU/AMLCT politics are inaccessible to the general, bourgeois, and moderate student body.
Opposition’s third speaker was the Education Officer himself, Buster Whaley. Whaley set out by defining the Students’ Union as the entire student body on campus, reiterating notions of accountability and transparency. Whaley, in equating “this house” with the very same student body that made up the Union, made the bold claim that voting for opposition would be a declaration by the student body of a lack of faith in themselves to change the problems they saw themselves. Whaley said he hadn’t engaged with the Union until last year, when he became Education Officer: he said the Students’ Union offers “on a silver platter” the opportunity for students to step up and address any of their perceived issues.To vote proposition, to Whaley, seemed to suggest that the 22,000 students of Trinity had given up on themselves.
The fourth and final speaker for the proposition was Shane Burke. One of Burke’s first points was to disavow the points made by his fellow proposition speaker, Hoffman, accusing him of running the controversial Freedom for Students group, the organisation that is seeking to pass a referendum in the Union to make Union membership for the general student body optional. He also went back and forth between comparing his speech in a debate from two years ago under the motion “This House believes the Union should be apolitical”, where he argued vehemently for the politicisation of the Union and drew parallels in the current debate, claiming that his disillusionment with the Union was based on the idea that the Union isn’t political enough. Burke argued for a more politicalised union—Maguire and Molnarfi’s union—although flawed, still made more progress than the moderate union—Thim’s union—which, despite having the right idea, made no attempts at change, according to Burke.
The closing speaker for the opposition and the debate as a whole was Eoin Connolly, who has served in various positions on the Students’ Union, most notably in the Electoral Commission. Connolly ended the debate on an emotional note, firstly, addressing the difficulty and burnout associated with being in the Union while wanting to stick with it for the sake of participating in something greater. Second, Connolly brought up the Dublin Riots of 2023, which he said bore stark similarities to the Citywest protests on Tuesday, the 21st. Connolly described the harrowing yet optimistic scenes of students having to stay overnight on campus and collaborating with fellow students to keep people safe and fed overnight. Connolly compared this to the potential of the Students’ Union, calling it an organ of collaboration and optimism for students seeking all kinds of support.
The Opposition or “Nay”s won the debate, therefore this house DOES have faith in the Students’ Union.
—CORRECTION: Oct. 23, 2025, 6:03 PM—
An earlier version of this article incorrectly quoted Mia Craven as saying “…mislead students with communist rhetoric…” The word “communist” was an incorrect attribution and the word instead was “populist” directly quoting a previous speech form László Molnárfi, and the full quote as corrected is “Chamber! We are seeing a trend within the student community of a minority of right-wing Zionist agitators who mislead students with populist rhetoric for a need to depoliticise the Union.”
—CORRECTION: Oct. 24, 2025, 15:03 PM—
This article originally stated that Hoffman referenced the “greatest pogrom [against Jews] since the Holocaust” in regards to deaths of Israelis and Palestinian activism. While this was said, it was not in reference to Hoffman’s own views, rather reference to the alleged views of the former TCDSU President.
