The race for University Times (UT) editor is one of the few races this year with a consistent polling majority. According to the Trinity News poll, Charlie Hastings has 245 first preference votes, 61%. Meanwhile, Sajal Singh has 124 first preference votes, placing her at 31%. RON has only 8% of the decided first preference votes.
Last year, Hastings led the race by a razor-thin margin in polling but was ultimately defeated, with current editor Brídín Ní Fhearraign-Joyce pulling in 1,105 votes to Hastings’ 957. In his manifesto, Hastings promised that he had “learned a lot” from his last campaign; his attempt to spin last year’s loss as a positive has clearly connected with voters. Given this year’s significant majority to Hastings, it now looks unlikely that he’ll lose out on the position a second time.
Students from the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences made up the majority of poll respondents, reflecting wider voting tendencies among the student vidy. Among those students, Hastings held the smallest majority – but still a comfortable one – at 58% of the vote. Meanwhile, he holds even larger majorities among the Health Sciences (HS) and Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) students, with 76% of the HS vote. However, students from these courses are a significantly smaller proportion of respondents to the Trinity News poll, and tend to turn out to vote in the elections less frequently.
Across every demographic, Hastings seems earmarked to win. The starkest differences can be found between different year groups and different self-reported political identities.
Hastings has the strongest majority among junior fresh students, with 73% of the vote to Singh’s 23%, but his weakest demographic is senior sophister students, the largest demographic of respondents by far, where he has only 51% of the vote. Perhaps this ties to his history with the paper, which was referenced – with some tension – at this week’s media hustings.
Discussing the paper’s setbacks in recent years, he recalled “significant tension between the editor and the staff” during his first year in the paper.
The following year, Hastings was one of four senior UT staff fired under former Editor Ailbhe Noonan, and made no bones about his current dissatisfaction with the paper at the Dining Hall Hustings this Monday. Discussing welfare within UT at the postgraduate and equality hustings, Hastings described being “kept laying out the newspaper for 36 hours straight” as a writer for UT. This history of conflict within the paper, which was visible at certain moments in last week’s media hustings could be contributing to his reduced numbers among more senior students, who might better remember these past conflicts. Interestingly, this tumultuous history with the SU’s paper hasn’t seemed to hurt Hastings among respondents who had held a position within the TCDSU in the past. Hastings maintained a similarly positive standing among both demographics, with 63% of the vote among those active in the SU, and 60% among non-SU respondents.
If Hastings is keen to present himself in opposition to the current Editor-in-Chief, that doesn’t make Singh the establishment candidate. Currently Features Editor, she has built her campaign around inclusion. Like Hastings, Singh hasn’t been shy to criticise UT’s current leadership during her campaign, telling voters at media hustings that minority communities are “not adequately represented within the paper”. She won laughter and applause at the hustings for criticising UT’s reporting efficacy: referencing the story that Ents officer Peadar Walsh was unhappy with the TBall lineup, she asked, “why didn’t University Times report it?”. Nonetheless, this attitude hasn’t translated to widespread support in the polls, where it seems like Hastings’ extensive history with UT makes him the more attractive candidate.
Both candidates made general assertions about expanding UT’s Irish language section, but veered in different directions when it came to improving staff welfare. Hastings’ manifesto promised meetings on mental health and Editor office hours, tangible benefits that have presumably struck a chord with voters. Meanwhile, Singh’s manifesto promises to deliver welfare through diversity. Her promise to introduce minority ethnic and LGBTQ-specific roles in UT seems to have helped her win over students on the left and centre-left, where she holds her highest proportion of first preference votes – but it’s still not enough to beat out Hastings. Within the centre-left aligned demographic specifically, she has 32% of the vote to Hastings’ 59%. Meanwhile, students who identified as being on the right and centre-right strongly preferred Hastings, at a majority of 73%.
Singh’s central concern seems to be a disconnect between UT and the general student body. She has promised to connect student journalists to the journalism industry, with “employability” being a major campus issue that she identified at media hustings. “People don’t know how to go ahead and do what they want to do after they graduate,” she said, promising to bring in alumni and educate students on future career opportunities.
Interestingly, the question of opportunities for the paper’s staff is one where Singh has far clearer answers compared to Hastings. These offers of mentorship and career support haven’t been enough to sway the steadfast support for Hastings; perhaps because this initiative benefit a very small number of students within the general population. Overall, Singh delivers specificity where Hastings doesn’t, but that hasn’t overcome her newcomer status, which seems to have put her at a significant disadvantage.
Singh said she had “great plans” to improve UT’s social media presence, and told voters at this week’s media hustings that she wanted to prioritise rapid reporting and “real life stories”. Accessibility is often a popular buzzword at the SU Elections, but it hasn’t helped Singh much in this race. She is currently trailing behind Hastings in every single demographic, pointing to a comfortable win for Hastings in his second run for Editor.
Editor’s note: A previous version of this article wrongly stated that Hastings cited “significant tension between the editor and the staff” as reason for his lack of involvement this year. This was in fact a response to a different question at the same event, and Hastings was referring to tension among staff in previous years, not the current year. Trinity News apologises for the error which has been amended.
