Due to its format, this evening’s Council and Equality hustings suffered from a lack of joined-up thinking, with candidates having to jump between issues such as the Irish language, Islamophobia and back again. Answers were often stunted in their complexity and wholeness, lending a muddled atmosphere to the hustings as a whole.
Instead of organising questions by topic or candidate, the union’s Welfare and Equality Officer and Deputy STEM Convenor went candidate by candidate, reading out pre-submitted questions with no particular theme or grouping. As a result, candidates struggled to flesh out their ideas for promoting diversity and inclusivity in their respective remits.
President
Gabi Fullam and R. Kelly irretrievably diverged in their priorities tonight, and the presidential race could soon turn into a referendum on whether Trinity College Dublin’s Students’ Union (TCDSU) ought to be amicable or confrontational towards Trinity.
Nowhere was this fork more exposed than in their respective views the Irish language: Kelly was enthusiastic, albeit in a rather general sense, regarding the promotion of the language. “We need to make sure the Irish room is always accessible, increase the use of Irish around campus, and make an effort to have it spoken and heard.”
“I don’t speak Irish”, was Fullam’s opening gambit, which set the tone to her indifferent stance on the language debate. She did, however, note that despite her lukewarm sentiments towards the topic at hand, she had made the effort to translate her manifesto line by line in Irish – something several candidates have not yet done.
Both candidates again branched in opposing directions when asked whether Trinity’s Chaplaincy was an outdated concept, and whether more multi-faith service provision was required. Kelly spoke of the need to “give students what they need” – a sentiment that seems to be turning into a central tenet of her campaign.
“If what students want is more religious services, then we need to provide them with that”, she continued, in the neutrally agreeable vein that was characteristic of her answers this evening. Voters may buy it, but they’ll need to be convinced that she will be able to go against the grain and say no to people if she feels it’s in students’ interests.
Fullam, on the other hand, was more pointed in her response – and appeared more coherent for it. “My answer is very simple: yes.”
Fullam’s championing of ethnic minority voices – a pillar of any equality hustings – was as consistent as it was compelling, and a theme to which she returned throughout the evening.
Her support for this cohort of students was most lucidly embodied when both candidates were asked what tangible impact they had made in their current role in TCDSU council. “Individual complaints with casework, I’ve really put in a lot of work with that.”
Kelly’s list of achievements is not insignificant either: “I’ve been working with Ents in particular with anti-spiking strategies”, she explained, in what was arguably her most distilled and convincing response of the evening. “I’ve helped order in anti-spiking cup condoms and other anti-spiking devices so that you feel safer on a night out.”
Less convincing was her response to what she’d like to see amended within the constitution. “Further accountability”, was her somewhat non-confrontational response. “The new constitution needs to reflect how we’ve grown and how we would like to grow.”
Fullam displayed greater cogence here. “Things aren’t political, things are politicised”, was her initial response. “We need clear delineation of what requires a referendum and what doesn’t [require one], as the current system doesn’t do that.”
The two candidates waded into the water of activism versus bureaucracy this evening, but didn’t get further than knee-deep. A question addressed specifically to Kelly queried her lack of support for “grassroots groups” – namely Students4Change – and how she would support such groups as president.
Kelly carefully responded that “my stance was based on the political affiliation of the group”.
“It is not that I am against mental health, and in fact I’ve been working on support groups in that area”, she added. Fullam did not respond to this question, which is a shame, as her recent endorsement by Students4Change chair László Molnárfi could prove to be an interesting talking point on whether the union would revert to more radical politics under her stewardship.
This was an equality hustings where both candidates clearly delineated their respective priorities – and the respective tones in which they appear to be pursuing on their competing campaigns. It will be intriguing to see whether either Kelly or Fullam retain their differing approaches – general versus well-defined – in the coming media hustings on Thursday.
Education
If Zoe Cummins expected her uncontested race to be easy, she was in for an unpleasant surprise at tonight’s hustings. Quizzed primarily on issues concerning equality and diversity, Cummins was at times vague in her answers and repeatedly stepped away from directly taking on issues of race and discrimination due to a lack of personal experience. “I’m a white woman”, she said, “so I cannot empathise entirely with people of colour”.
Asked by the Muslim Students’ Association how she planned to incorporate anti-islamophobia sentiment into her policies, Cummins admitted that she “can’t represent everyone”, but veered into cliche when promising to work with Muslim students.
Regaining composure when answering a question from a previous ethnic minorities officer concerning how she intended to address her biases as a white person, Cummins said again that she intended to lead with consultation. Reiterating her pledge not to focus on “sexy” policies, she repeated: “I’m going to be on the ground.”
Later facing a similar question, Cummins demonstrated a knowledge of the effects of colonisation, but did not offer any concrete plans on how to begin the complicated process of decolonising the campus and its curriculum. She spoke warmly of the recently introduced Black Studies module she’d taken, and said she aspired to make what she learned available to all students, “not just students who take the class”. When asked, as the current president of SUAS, about its history engaging in voluntourism, she disavowed its past practices and said she didn’t engage with the programme until they reformed, stating: “That doesn’t happen anymore and I will ensure that.”
Cummins reverted to her manifesto when answering a question on proposed quotas and last year’s move online for the foundation scholarship exams (Schols), with the goal of making the opportunity more accessible to underprivileged students. While doing well to focus in on issues surrounding accessibility, by failing to answer the question on quotas, Cummins is opening herself up to gaps in a manifesto point she seems to want to highlight.
Cummins fared relatively well in the face of taxing questions: she’s well-read on her remit and quick on her feet. But if tonight is anything to go by, she won’t be afforded any less scrutiny just because of her lack of opponents.
Welfare and Equality
Unsurprisingly, the two welfare and equality candidates were faced with a blitz of questions heavily weighted towards the latter half of the title.
Cúnla Morris had a shaky start when they were questioned on their failure to mention equality in their manifesto and campaign materials. They defended this absence, noting their experience involved with other student organisations. “Equality is not necessarily present in my materials but it is very much a theme in terms with my experience and I’m going to be bringing the themes of equality from the committees as my time as LGBT rep and Disability rep.”
Chloe Staunton, on the other hand, was on steady ground when quizzed on the importance of accessibility on campus and what her main priorities are regarding accessibility. “It’s important to note that accessibility means a lot of things, it’s usually thought to be physical. Teach a Sé is a huge problem and needs to be addressed.”
Building on yesterday’s discussions of approachability, Morris was candid in their response that it is difficult “to take concrete steps when it comes to making yourself have approachable vibes”.
Staunton reiterated Morris’s point of engagement with students: “We need to be seen, we need to be seen out on the ground, at events, we need to have office hours in different places and just to be seen not as this mysterious person tucked away in an office.”
Both candidates seemed genuine on this, but given the high level of casework involved in the welfare and equality role, it’s hard to see either of them realising this presence on the ground in practice.
From the welfare team in Trinity Halls, the two candidates were questioned on how they will promote the campaign “access Irish for all” in regard to Seomra na Gaeilge in the union and on campus. Morris, who is a final year Modern and Early Irish student, answered this question in Irish before translating. “Irish is a matter of we have for things to be accessible for us as Irish speakers but we also know the spaces we have created for Irish speakers aren’t accessible for other spaces”.
Staunton said this problem was important to voice and “we need to be louder about this”. “I wasn’t fully aware of the situation of the Seomra but it’s something that I really want to fight for. We want to get more Irish across campus.”
Overall, Staunton fared better this evening, but as the more reserved of the two candidates, she may struggle to keep up momentum as the campaign develops.
Communications and Marketing
Julie Smirnova had an overall concise vision for her role in relation to equality this evening, never straying far from her manifesto. When asked about the fluctuating landscape of social media she irreverently declared “Facebook is dead”, while “Instagram is bigger and badder than ever”, which garnered laughs. However, if she’s considered the rapid rise of TikTok as a means of communication, she hasn’t mentioned it yet.
Her focus will shift to Instagram and Twitter in particular using retweets “to better reach an audience that doesn’t follow our account, spreading to an audience that might not necessarily be involved”. Seasoned social media users might raise eyebrows at this fairly mundane strategy, however.
In terms of inclusivity, Smirnova asserted both to questions by a past ethnic minorities officer and QSoc auditor “that platforming different voices is the only way that we can ensure inclusion on the socials”. However, in response to a query on how to involve ethnic minorities without tokenising them, she did not specify how this plan would avoid tokenising those she means to the platform so they can “talk about whatever they’d like”.
The bilingual student was on steady footing when questioned on how to consider those who speak English as a second language. She stated that “the answer to inclusivity a lot of the time is just to step back and make spaces for people who, say, speak Russian or Spanish or Chinese.” She suggested making translation a student-focused initiative: “A Japanese student might be interested in making something themselves.” If pressed on this, though, she could run the risk of appearing to want to offload the issue.
Smirnova continued her emphasis on her experience in her answer to how she will engage with College bodies to produce marketing materials, referencing her work as an assistant to the Provost’s Sustainability Advisor and work with Katie Byrne in Trinity Communications developing Instagram Reels and posters. However, she never addressed her future plans to use this experience, and voters may tire of the uncontested candidate resting on the laurels of her past experience, no matter how impressive. This expectation mirrors her approach to funding, resting on an expectation of current financial security.
Smirnov faltered during a final open question on working with mature students with the issues they face, echoing the points of the Ents candidates who responded before her and for some reason focusing on catering events to mature students as her role. She noted the importance of publicising these mature student-centric events on socials but didn’t acknowledge any broader issues in communication, given the Mature Students’ Officer’s assertion that they “are often forgotten”.
Smirnova overall had successful hustings but will have to spell out more specific plans on how she will step forward to really sell her commitment to equality and inclusivity amid a lack of competition for the job.
Ents
Clear differences are emerging in the Ents race – while outreach and inclusivity were common pillars for the three hopefuls tonight, the trio had markedly different attitudes to making student events welcoming for all. From the Irish language to mature students, each candidate is carving out niche visions for what Trinity Ents might look like under their tenure.
Ross Donnelly was once again keen to stress his wish for inclusivity, with his points pivoting around his plan to build a network of Ents volunteers across College. Unusually for the Ents race, communication featured heavily this evening, with Max Lynch focused more on liaising with part time officers in Trinity.
Nadia A gave a somewhat chaotic performance, possibly due to illness, which she mentioned repeatedly over the course of the night. Appearing to meander off script several times, she got a stony reception after declaring that: “I do encourage bilingual events because I’d say more people speak other languages than Irish.” She later doubled back on what she said, but she will likely have to work hard to win back the Gaeilgeoir vote after expressing this sentiment.
Facilitating the experiences of disabled students also featured heavily this evening. Lynch was able to play the consultation card, saying that he’d met Courtney McGrath, an intern in the Trinity Disability Service, to discuss what practical changes can be made to his planned events. Donnelly said he had had discussions on the issue too, but was less specific, saying he would draw on conversations with friends who had attended Ents events to ascertain what students with disabilities would need from venues to feel safe.
A had some novel ideas for accessibility at nights out, suggesting earplugs at events and holding silent discos. Effervescent but slightly aloof, the candidate is highly personable, which is never a bad trait for an Ents hopeful, but she came across as less willing than her opponent to burrow down into the pressing but unexciting issues plaguing Ents.
On including LGBTQ+ students, Lynch seemed to have the clearest picture of why queer students might feel isolated in a nightclub. Such students “just don’t want to see a load of rugby lads in red jackets”, he remarked. A, normally well-versed on this issue, was unusually vague: she mentioned Ents drag shows, but was unspecific beyond that. “I want to have so many more events that highlight the LGBTQ+ community.”
With Trinity Ents’ association with the venue Tramline being called into question recently for allegations of homophobia, this issue will certainly continue to crop up beyond equality hustings.
Donnelly was thrown a late victory when he was able to respond to a question from the auditor of An Cumann Gaelach Rebecca Coxton on Ents organising an event in collaboration with the Cumann, without notifying anyone in the Cumann. Donnelly said he was aware of this happening to DU Food and Drink as well. Lynch gave a decent answer about improving communication with societies, while A was completely caught off guard: “So did you, like, go?”, she asked Coxon incredulously.
With his down-to-earth manner, use of humour and concrete plans for improving the image and reliability of Trinity Ents, Donnelly came out on top tonight with a steady answer for every question and his confidence never faltering.
Editor of The University Times
Mairead Maguire was put through her paces this evening, with tough lines of questioning from various cohorts. Confronting the elephant in the room she has avoided thus far, Maguire pledged to “stop printing with the Irish Times”, following calls to boycott the paper by trans students. In something of a non-sequitur, Maguire added: “I think people need to be more conscious that there is a complete separation between news and opinion”, instead of expanding on her commitment to including trans people in the paper.
The practicalities behind Maguire’s proposed mentorship program for LGBTQ+ students was also brought under the microscope tonight. Asked how such writers would truly be included, and not tokenised, Maguire said her mentorship programme “would make sure they know how much we value their voices and their skills”.
In a moment sure to be disappointing for those excited about Maguire’s mentorship programmes, the candidate admitted she “won’t be able to take on an unlimited number” of applicants, but insisted that “it’s better to mentor five students than none at all”.
Maguire’s response to a question about the paper’s financials was solid, if appearing somewhat rehearsed. She pledged to “be persistent” in securing advertisements from businesses that “are important for students”. Given that revenue and sponsorship are not mentioned in her manifesto, she may be further grilled about the paper’s financial cost to the union as the campaign progresses.
Facing competition from a RON campaign, a question from the crowd on Maguire’s track record of maintaining journalistic integrity brought a tense atmosphere to the room. Asked if she believed she had acted “appropriately in your roles within The University Times thus far”, a clear reference to claims published by Trinity News that she had breached source confidentiality, her response did not address these allegations: “I’ve always held the highest journalistic standards. I take it very seriously. It’s a passion of mine and I really enjoy it, but it’s also a very serious job.” She has strenuously denied Trinity News’s allegations.
In undoubtedly the most dramatic moment of the night, Maguire received a question from the union’s current LGBT+ Rights Officer Jenny Maguire, concerning why the candidate had not responded to messages about issues of transphobia in the paper. Tense but steady, Maguire appeared to suggest that a line had been crossed by the officer contacting her on her personal Instagram account. “I don’t feel obligated to respond to personal messages always”.
With the LGBT+ Rights Officer leaving the auditorium visibly upset during Maguire’s defensive answer, Maguire had no choice but to trail off, stating simply that “I would be different as editor”.
At the end of the night, it was still hard to know whether Maguire will be able to deal with students’ various criticisms of The University Times effectively enough to focus on selling her manifesto points to voters.
Candidates will next face questions from the editors of The University Times and Trinity News at media hustings on Thursday.
Correction: February 27th, 2022
An earlier version of this article said that presidential candidate Rebecca Kelly worked with Trinity Ents to provide students with anti-rape condoms. In fact, she said she worked to provide anti-spiking “cup condoms”.
Jennifer Ní Chiara, Emer Tyrrell, Jody Druce, Charlie Moody-Stuart, Faye Madden, Seán Cahill, Maebh Gallagher, Ailbhe Noonan, Phoebe Pascoe and Sarah McCarthy also contributed reporting to this piece.
