Dominic McGrath | Contributing Writer
When students march, College listens. When students shout together, their words echo for longer. This seems to be the rationale behind the recent decision to hold a referendum on the proposed – and controversial – student charges that the College hopes to implement. The idea that a referendum is an opportunity to vent our dissent is a powerful one, and on many issues, such as the upcoming same-sex marriage referendum, it is a very useful tool for determining the attitude of a population. However, with the wording of the referendum so convoluted, and the issue so multifaceted, there is a concern that this referendum could fail to achieve its desired results or polarise debate, and sideline those who feel that a calmer, less inflammatory debate is necessary.
At the meeting last year where the motion was passed to introduce these charges, Tom Lenihan, the former President of TCDSU, claimed to be the lone voice of dissent. With the new year, current president Domhnall McGlacken-Byrne took up the mantle of opposition, recently claiming the proposed charges are so “damaging in the here and now that they risk sacrificing a generation of students entirely”. These strong words capture how the SU, under McGlacken-Byrne, are attempting to mobilise the student body against these charges.
With the wording of the referendum so convoluted, and the issue so multifaceted, there is a concern that this referendum could fail to achieve its desired results or polarise debate, and sideline those who feel that a calmer, less inflammatory debate is necessary.
I have talked to many students who feel very strongly about the issue, and who have given me impassioned monologues on the sheer insanity of imposing an increased financial burden on students who are already struggling to make ends meet.
The candidates running for the SU Presidency are also unanimous in their opposition to the proposed charges. This opposition is ultimately inevitable, and it’s hard to imagine any campaign manager encouraging their candidate to come out as pro-student charges, an act that would probably be campaign suicide. However, I have also talked to many students who have no real understanding of the campaign to oppose the charges, or worryingly, had very little idea of what these charges would entail. This lack of information, and the so far muted discussion on the issue, risk being unable to rouse a student body who have already been inundated with campaigns for the SU elections.
I think it’s tempting to imagine a world where referenda are not the be all and end all, and are not the current vogue for measuring opprobrium or satisfaction. We’re all aware that they are a crude tool for measuring satisfaction on most issues nationally, and it’s unlikely that student turnout for this upcoming referendum will break any records. During this week, talking to people who have refused to become engaged by the SU elections, I’ve begun to wonder how sensible it is for the SU to attempt to force students to choose sides in a referendum that is infinitely more complicated and nuanced than choosing which candidate you want to become Ents officer next year.
I’ve begun to wonder how sensible it is for the SU to attempt to force students to choose sides in a referendum that is infinitely more complicated and nuanced than choosing which candidate you want to become Ents officer next year.
No one is going to argue that these student charges are not contentious. The proposed changes, such as the €75 fee for diploma and certificate and awards ceremonies, and the increase in the price of a student card from €6 to €20, are very difficult to stomach at first glance. It’s easy to see why some sections of the Trinity community are up in arms, while the SU has the right to feel aggrieved at the lack of consultation with the student body. However, is this wrestling match with the college over student charges really going to achieve anything?
Too often such an aggressive stance against the College is seen as necessary and principled, with the relationship between the College and the SU seemingly set at the default setting of antagonistic. This is undoubtedly a very important issue, with these increased charges likely to have a detrimental impact on a vast swathe of Trinity students. However, rather than total opposition, a much more radical step would be engagement with College by the SU .
The SU has a brilliant opportunity to show that it is not just going conduct the student body in a loud chorus of opposition, but will instead orchestrate a discussion and dialogue with all components of a student body over what we could see as an acceptable form of student charges. One of the key forms of power is agenda setting. This is what the SU must do, offering plausible alternatives to the proposed student charges, and showing that the SU is prepared to support the process in return for greater input into the future of the College.
This may not be the easiest route, but it could signal the birth of a new type of campaign. A campaign not for the hearts of Trinity students, but for their minds. A campaign that doesn’t divide students into clans and campaign groups, but one that provides scope for criticism and engagement.
Photo by Eavan McLoughlin for the University Times
