The #tcdprovost campaign comes to an end tomorrow as the academics of #tcd meet to elect a leader to take them through the tough times ahead.  This is an event that occurs every ten years, and this is the first time I have had an interest – something to do with being a PhD student in that fine institution.

The whole election has been a strange one to me as a postgraduate.  I am a part-time student and cannot physically attend many Provost campaign events.  The final hustings on Wednesday night was the first event I could attend.  As such, I am very reliant on internet communications.  I am likely to learn little of a candidate if they chose not to tweet or engage in website communications.  A quick Google search shows there has been large variation among the candidates in this area.

PGs have a lowly weighted say in the election but the organisation of this was so poor it meant nothing.

  • We were told in an email by the GSU that we could vote for the candidates at such a time and place the following week.  This was very early in the election period and most people were still concerned with the general election (#ge11).  We were given almost no info on the candidates, nor many pointers as to where we might find any.  Most students had little insight into the candidates at that point and many including yours truly (I am ashamed to say) ended up not voting.
  • The candidates did try to send us manifestos and other documentation to inform us of their priorities …. until they were inexplicably informed not to by the GSU.  Why, oh why, did the GSU think it was in our interests not to engage with this election?
  • The University Times made approaches to take the GSU to task over their behaviour.  There was criticism of GSU personnel favouriting a particular candidate when they, of course, should be neutral.
  • The GSU personnel have 4 votes of their own which they can use at they wish i.e. they are not under an obligation to follow the preferences of the students they are purporting to represent.  This is a bizarre arrangement to say the least.
  • The GSU say they received few if any complaints.  Perhaps this is the case.  I discovered earlier this academic year on an unrelated matter how futile complaining to the current GSU is.

Back to the election – the final hustings on Wednesday night was my first opportunity to see and listen to all the candidates together up close.  It was an interesting experience.  I was more than impressed at how civilised and professional it all was.  There was no verbal punching among the contestants, there was no overt refutations of each other’s points, there seemed to be much mutual respect.  It made for an interesting and informative evening.

Jane Ohlmeyer and Colm Kearney seemed to me the most impressive candidates.  I was particularly taken by Jane’s strength of character, leadership, vision, and sheer enthusiasm for the job.  She strikes me as someone who is skilled and able in terms of large-scale fund-raising for the college through Government and more importantly non-Governmental (international) sources.

Now the end is nigh and it is likely most of the academics voting tomorrow have decided on their preference list.  May the best candidate win.

About these ads