Daniel O’Brien | Senior Staff Writer
I should begin by noting that this article in no way intends to minimize or dismiss the two female candidates in this year’s Leadership Race: Aleksandra Giersz for Ents and Katie Byrne for Education. Rather, these two candidacies help demonstrate the problem with using any single election’s candidates to draw broad conclusions or inform half-baked policy initiatives. The gender imbalance of candidates relative to the student population remains an important and empirically demonstrated issue, but the massive progress already made can help provide a framework for addressing female underrepresentation in the SU.
A quick comparison between this year and last hints at the randomness with which candidates are nominated (self-nominated actually, but more on that in a bit). This year the presidential candidates are all male, while last year the race was led two to one by females. The Ents race, meanwhile, is traditionally the territory of only the most laddish Fish Soc, BESS, or sports captain types (a largely tongue-in-cheek generalization coming from a writer studying Business and Economics). But this year Ms. Giersz stands a good chance of crashing the lads’ party, especially with competitor Ben Ó Mathúin struggling to shed his association with last week’s Coppers fiasco and facing strict EC sanctions. Such an outcome could be a positive step toward rehabilitating the image of the Ents office as complicit in a culture of student alcohol abuse.
“Going back to the 2010/2011 school year, the Ents and Education positions are tied for the fewest number of female candidates with one each”
Ms. Byrne is running unopposed in the Education and thus guarantees at least one female Sabbatical Officer next year in a post previously contested by three gentlemen. Going back to the 2010/2011 school year, the Ents and Education positions are tied for the fewest number of female candidates with one each, so this election’s developments should be cause for some optimism.
It is relevant here to point out that while long-term historical trends show a disproportionate number of male candidates in almost all positions, the election rate of female candidates almost perfectly matches their candidacy rate (all data courtesy of Education Officer Jack Leahy). Women have made up 11 of the 39 sabbatical office candidates since 2010/2011 (not including this year), for a rate of 28%. Welfare is the only position in which women have reached a 50% candidacy rate, but no other position is particularly close to mirroring the actual student body demographics.
Meanwhile, looking further back, since 1996/1997 women have been elected to 25 of the 90 sabbatical positions for an election rate of just under 28%. The Welfare office may upwardly distort this number, with 12 women elected compared to 6 men (but more women run for Welfare, so perhaps the trend still holds). Regardless, there appears to be no empirical barrier to women being elected to sabbatical positions. When female candidates run they seem to be judged equally with their male counterparts in terms of basic credibility. But therein lies the problem: the question has not for some time been why women can’t participate, but rather why more women don’t.
Even attempting to frame the problem in terms of “men” versus “women” is problematic, and ignores the largely personal factors that affect the decision to run. A survey of the most socially active and influential individuals in Trinity would likely turn up many recurring reasons for not running for SU: commitment to academics, the time, cost, and pressure of campaigning, or even just a lack of interest in student politics. What you would likely not get, from men or women, are complaints about more subconscious factors like the social stigmas attached to certain roles (not to say they don’t exist, just that they have less influence on conscious decision making). The largely nebulous reasoning that causes individuals not to run suggests that treating the causes of the gender imbalance may not be feasible in the short-run. The symptom, however, can and should be addressed.
“Regardless of how the practical details are worked out, an effective solution should be more aggressive than a simple “posters and pep talk” campaign”
The term “gender quota” may give pause to some (seriously, we need a less painfully bureaucratic term for this). But given the substantial evidence that female under representation initiates at the candidate level, such a solution may be worth considering. Requiring an equal number of male and female candidates would be one option, albeit one that may do more to exclude qualified male candidates than to encourage capable female ones. Regardless of how the practical details are worked out, an effective solution should be more aggressive than a simple “posters and pep talk” campaign that implies a lack of awareness or motivation on the part of Trinity’s female population. Ideally the SU elections should offer students the greatest possible number of candidates so that those who want to see more female candidates elected aren’t forced to vote for someone with whom they disagree or find unqualified.
However these upcoming elections turn out, the fact remains that Trinity’s females have been consistently under represented in SU sabbatical positions. Even if this imbalance produces no relevant differences at the policy level (which is unlikely), it is still a problem worth addressing if the SU claims to legitimately represent the entire student body. All available evidence indicates that the lack of female candidates should be the starting point of any solution. It is time for both the Students’ Union and its individual members to start showing some initiative.
