The Trinity College Dublin Students’ Union (TCDSU) has been ineffective this year while giving the veneer of being active. However, there has been a serious lack of engagement with the student body. The nature of the charge is frequently misunderstood by those who seek to refute it. The claim is not that the TCDSU is too political; on the contrary, the removal of the ‘anti-political clause’ has been one of the most significant successes of this year’s SU. The claim, rather, is that the SU has exchanged its genuinely political element for empty slogans and inscrutability, culminating instead in a vapid moralism. Furthermore, this year’s SU’s ‘campaigns’ have been distorted to evince a dizzying, unbroken string of victories.
Palestine Solidarity and the BDS Taskforce
Following the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) encampment and blockade of the Book of Kells in May 2024, Trinity agreed to divest from Israeli institutions and review its academic ties, establishing a taskforce to carry this out. One of the primary functions of TCDSU and BDS (which TCDSU is mandated by referendum to support) this year was to oversee this taskforce.
The history since then is one of failure and inaction.
In November 2024, Academics for Palestine stressed that the taskforce had published their membership and terms of reference after a 6 month delay. Such a delay throughout Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza was certainly immoral, and a sustained effort should have pressured the task force into action.
In January, a Freedom of Information request by Trinity BDS revealed that Trinity had formed new ties with Israel despite the work of the task force. This was a complete betrayal by Trinity of the agreement which ended the encampment, and ought to have received an escalatory response. A poster was taped to the Campanile façade saying ‘TCD still funds genocide!’ (that night, someone ripped the poster off). A banner dropped down from Regent House perversely read, “We are still watching.”
As of writing, there has been no direct action since organised by Trinity BDS. Their protests have consisted of Trinity BDS contingents within externally-organised demonstrations. The exact proceedings of the task force have been obscure. The ‘BDS Post-Encampment Updates’ section of the TCDSU website contains no new information since June 2024 (nothing during the current academic year). The college is surely breathing a sigh of relief.
The actions of BDS this year have been largely symbolic measures apparently organised within the SU and BDS leadership without calls to the student body at large. It is this trait especially that has made the call for ‘direct action’ in BDS Chair Patrick Keegan’s presidential campaign ring hollow.
In response, Patrick Keegan said: “Trinity’s bureaucracy moves very slowly, and we have continuously stressed the need for a sense of urgency concerning cutting ties with Israel.” He added that headway is being made with the taskforce, but that the College is acting carelessly in respect to cutting ties with Israel.
‘Direct action’ has become an idol of the age. After the efficacy of last year’s SU, no campaign can possibly dispense with this slogan: president-elect Seán Thim O’Leary has a campaign post about the success of direct actions which they themselves did not take part in. (It is true they have a long commute; nevertheless, most direct actions took place during the college hours). Everyone advocates direct action; fewer are willing to undertake the hard work of exciting the mass participation necessary to maintain pressure.
Echoing this complaint is Isobel Duffy, last year’s chair of BDS who took a leading role in the organisation of the Palestine solidarity encampment. “The taskforce agreement should have been used to further instigate direct action and confrontation such as to pressure the college to fully divest with Israel.” She further claims, “The work of the taskforce could have been finished by now, had BDS and the SU been more active, rather than being amicable with the college and trusting they would adhere to the agreement.” This ‘amicable’ communication is in reference to such statements as from SU President Maguire’s recent letter to Linda Doyle: “Trinity showed itself as a leader in maintaining peaceful and constructive conversations with protestors”.
The TCDSU themselves have not independently organised a disruptive action involving the student body this year, excluding the Green Week careers event two weeks ago. The protest for Health Science students and researchers on November 20th, 2024 was not disruptive. It was advertised via an email the day before with an image urging, ‘We will not be ignored’ (which they evidently were). Furthermore, the TCDSU campaigns group chats have fallen into disuse and the campaigns section of the TCDSU website is empty except for the word: ‘Soon \o/’, nor are there any press releases included from this year.
Such are the facts. One may object that there is positive work on the Israeli ties which we are not aware of; but this lack of awareness constitutes an indictment in itself. The college has not stuck to their promises, yet BDS has maintained an agreeable relationship with it for over two months since the new ties were discovered. With no evidence that the SU president-elect has attended or aided a BDS action (besides sending food to the encampment), one can assume that ‘direct action’ is being abandoned in favour of quiet negotiation.
It is not an accident. The taskforce was “designed to do nothing”, according to Academia for Palestine. The fear was that the taskforce was an instrument to neutralise political action; the ‘expansive remit’ of the taskforce and the lack of pressure by BDS has confirmed this. As researchers such as Busemeyer & Garritzmann have noted, ‘quiet politics’ is to the benefit of entrenched interest groups. Perhaps even the causes themselves are being abandoned.
The Overnight Guests Policy, the Rent Freeze, and Other ‘Campaigns’
The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy occurs when one assumes that because one event follows another, that means it was caused by that event. The TCDSU has abused this psychological bias to no end.
“We took a stand for one night stands and we won.” Thus read the TCDSU Instagram post after the college announced it would no longer cut off guest registration at midnight on-campus. Besides the framing excluding the numerous other (and perhaps more vital) reasons one might keep overnight guests, it also ignores the series of events which led to the revision.
In the previous academic year, former SU President László Molnárfi organised the Renters’ Solidarity Network. A case was brought, then, to the Residential Tenancies Board following a petition, arguing that Trinity was in violation of national tenancy law. Sit-ins and occupations were organised in tandem that year. The overturning of the overnight guests policy came in November 2024, following the decision by the Residential Tenancy Board. Action by this year’s SU is glaringly absent from this success, yet they claim responsibility for it themselves.
Regarding the rent freeze ‘campaign’ this year, events have been carefully misrepresented. On February 10th, SU President Jenny Maguire sent an unanswered letter to the Provost asking for a rent freeze. On February 28th, two people (including SU President Maguire) spray painted the short-lived remaining façade of the Campanile (described in an email as “TRINITY STUDENTS SPRAY PAINT CAMPANILE DEMANDING A RENT FREEZE”). Following this, a link to a WhatsApp group chat was sent out, gaining over 200 members.
On March 4th, the Provost responded that the college had no plan to increase rent for 2025/26. This is according to an email sent to the SU leadership, which SU President Maguire referred to as “an insincere framing”. Admittedly, one cannot prove that the college was not going to increase rents. However, last year the college adamantly asserted they would raise rents until the rent freeze was explicitly confirmed. This was only following a meeting with the finance committee after a blockade of the Book of Kells and a housing survey by the TCDSU. It thus may seem presumptuous that now the TCDSU Instagram has released a post claiming that a rent freeze was confirmed “following our direct action.” SU President Maguire commented, “When you bring a guest after midnight in your frozen rent trinity accommodation next year….think of me x.”
Outside of the rent freeze farce, the housing issue has been conspicuously absent this year, compared to the prominent place it had in the president’s campaign manifesto: “I will fight tooth and nail for rent to be 30% of the minimum wage.”
These two instances suggest undue credit for this year’s SU, but that is besides the point. The most damning indictment of the TCDSU this year is simply that these examples, when applied consistently, reveal how little has actually been accomplished compared to previous years.
It is unclear whether progress has been made regarding the new ties between Trinity and Israel. The Health Sciences protest formulated no specific demands. The removal of the overnight guests policy was independent of this year’s SU and whether the spray painting of the Campanile façade caused a rent freeze is highly questionable. The one major verifiable exception is the doubling of funding for period products (the original €22,000 of funding resulted from a petition by last year’s SU), as well as the opening of a PrEP clinic with college health. There has been no response regarding higher education minister James Lawless hinting at future increases to student fees.
In 2018, a three day occupation of the dining hall by the TCDSU and People Before Profit activists, among others, brought about the withdrawal of a proposed €450 supplemental examination fee. Last year, a week-long encampment and blockade of the Book of Kells secured economic divestment from Israel. It may seem startling that the widely-lauded achievements of the SU this year have been brought about by letters and sporadic actions with little participation of the student body as a whole. If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.
Public Relations
This has been a year of inaction. Every political organisation has slump years, where they are prone to theoretical reflection and reorientation. But this year has had neither reflection nor vision. Moreover, the TCDSU has fallen short in the critical task of maintaining pressure on the college’s Israeli ties, saving face with last year’s successes.
The achievements of the SU sabbatical team are dishonestly represented.
Egregiously, the president boasts that she, with the Oifigeach na Gaeilge, “pressured college successfully to double staff numbers in their Irish Language office.” This ‘doubling’ was the hiring of a second staff member, or a doubling of one to two. Per Communications Officer Beth Strahan’s week 10 email: “The college is hiring another member of staff for the Irish Language Office!! Well, I say office… it currently is only made up of one member of staff.” In fact, over four months later, the Irish Language Office confirmed to me that there is still only one staff member (they are in the process of recruitment).
In discussing the earlier version of this article, SU President Maguire accepted this criticism, saying, “I am PR-trained, I have a tendency to spin things.” Maguire declined to respond with a comment for this article
The Education Officer Eoghan Gilroy mentions, as an achievement, the organisation of the union’s class representative training at the Mount Wolseley Hotel, Spa & Golf Resort in Carlow–a four-star hotel boasting of amenities such as a jacuzzi.
Last year, class rep training was online to cut down on exorbitant spending. Education Officer Gilroy confirmed to me that the union spent €24,402 on hotel costs this year and €3,600 on the buses between the union officers and the 135 representatives (€28,002 total).
In response, Eoghan Gilroy stated that last year the training was hosted on campus “in which a total of approx 15 actual class reps showed up to”.
It is not possible here to give an exhaustive dissection of every officer’s record. Suffice to say, these cases exemplify the effort made to give the appearance of an active union.
A common tactic is to not publicise exactly what is demanded of the college; when lobbying achieves a modest concession, this is widely publicised as a victory. In some cases, the victories are built wholly or mostly on the work of last year. A lack of coherency and clarity was instrumental in ensuring that TCDSU never appeared to face any defeat or backsliding. But the flurry of successes are as false as the façade of the Campanile they have been written on.
This article is not a personal attack on any specific individual in the SU. It hopes to outline, however, the concrete characteristics which make up the ‘lack of engagement’ so many bemoan. Isolated actions while failing to mobilise students, ineffectual forms of ‘disruption’, and an embellished record all display in dramatic form the many difficulties which arise for a union when it loses its identity.
Ultimately, the question is: has the union been a weapon to fight for the interests of students, or a merely intermediary body masquerading as a radical organisation?
The removal of the anti-political clause gives hope that a return to struggle may be in the future of the union, but it will mean nothing if the union fails to self-organise, unconstrained from institutional limitations. For the sake of the union and the student body it represents, what is needed is a clarification and reassertion of the principles which guide it. Any response on this end would, of course, be welcome.
The problem of the union today is not one of specific personalities; the legitimacy of the union itself has been called into question. The Students4Change movement for student self-organisation outside of the SU, building on the staggering success of the RON campaign, has called for a more radical direction for student politics. (The RON campaign, incidentally, adds a shadow to the widely touted increases in sabbatical election voter turnout). If the union is not led with vision and principle, it risks a reversion into the inefficient and bureaucratic Students’ Representative Council, on account of which the TCDSU was formed, in 1968, as a replacement.
I doubt that my criticisms will be accepted, if only because they are violent to the sentiments of most people. But if the only objection is that they are unusual and unpleasant, there remains the possibility that they are true.
