House of Shards: The Leadership Problem at Trinity College

On February 28th at 1:09 am, students were surprised to see a dismal list of Heads candidates, in which four out of six positions were unopposed. These results exposed the leadership crisis that Trinity currently faces. A significant part of the admissions application relies on competent leadership experience. It is clear that there is no deficit of leaders in our community. Why is it that so many qualified individuals have become discouraged from running for senior leadership positions this year?

Week One Elections had a slew of their own problems, many of which have been attributed to structural problems at Trinity. According to Electoral Policy, limited campaigning for a 14-day period is allowed. Despite this, candidates are constantly heckled with “no campaigning” proclamations from policing community members. When every act of kindness is attributed to a campaigning strategy, it is no wonder that students fear the electoral scrutiny. Expressing interest in a Heads position before the electoral period can evoke similar criticism. In the Head of Non-Resident Affairs forum, Head of Non-Residence Affairs Elect Emily Brade stated, “not being able to express a desire to run for positions is perverse.” This attitude is an overall indication that our policy and our culture fail to encourage students to put their names on the ballot.

Once students do take the risk to put their names on the ballot, the electoral period is one of total valuation. Many claim this is merely politics, but the cultural standard of evaluating the morals, and education they are expected to know but have yet to receive through Heads training, is very atypical of a healthy participatory environment. Position papers this year were diplomatically written and hardly contentious, intentionally avoiding critique.

This inspired former Head of College Maha Naqi to create a Facebook group to ask Heads candidates more substantive questions. Questions about mental health, sexual assault, and even the disputed “Conversat-Gate” of 2015 appeared. While these questions all deserved an answer, the constant bombardment placed an unprecedented amount of anxiety on candidates, some claiming that they could not sleep thinking about when the next question would arise. An unnamed candidate even stated, “this is why people don’t run for Heads positions” when asked about the Facebook group. Headship is an undeniably challenging role that only the most qualified students are suitable for. However, at what point does skill testing become a disincentive for leadership? Only next year’s election season will tell if this enhanced answer period encourages or discourages students to run, although this negative trend is not promising.

Equity has been a primary theme of student politics this academic year. Considering this, it would be a significant oversight to ignore how inequitable Headship is as a whole, starting in the pre-electoral period. The unequal division of power at the College, wherein few students hold most positions, gives these individuals an unfair advantage to Headship straight out of first year. During the Female Leadership High Table, Head of Arts Victoria Reedman described this phenomenon. “It felt like the cream of the crop were groomed into their positions by upper years. If you weren’t a debater, a delegate, or an IB graduate, where was your place?” In an environment where your social worth is attributed to what positions you have under your belt, Headship is out of the question without these advantages.

Upper-year grooming is not the only factor that shapes electoral outcomes, so do social dynamics. Out of the already few candidates, many were from the same friend group. During his forum, Male Head of Non-Residence Affairs Elect Ben Horvath commented “the idea of running as a group scares people away.”

Our current institutions are set up to support this mentality: five out of seven TCM event Facebook pages featured parody images of Heads candidates and current Heads. When our governance structures indirectly make celebrities of students through pre-season campaigning, it is undeniable that these divisions of power are institutionally embedded. Popularity and elections go hand in hand, but this lack of social diversity is a testament to why most are unwilling to compete once they hear whispers of a popular student’s candidacy. With the recent electoral success by reopen nominations in the Male Head of College race, it is apparent that the Trinity community is challenging these divisions of power.

Democracy is what makes our political structure truly unique. However, how democratic are our institutions if people are discouraged from participating? These structural problems must be addressed, but policy change can only be accepted in the community after a cultural change occurs. This starts with changing the culture of competition and elitism to a culture of empathy and encouragement. Female Head of Non-Resident Affairs Candidate Alessandra Harkness accurately described this cultural temperament during her forum. “The mentality of when first years come in is belittling them. We should be encouraging people to run for things not because they look good on a resumé, but because they genuinely enjoy them.” Changes to traditions that counter this mentality are in discussion, but only the results of the Student Experience Survey can tell to what degree cultural change is on the rise.

It is clear that there are many disincentives to run, but outside of a resumé boost, are there enough incentives in the first place? Being a student head is almost a full-time job, yet the compensation is limited to a miniscule end-of-term bursary. The financial burden of being a head, from the credit card debt to the residence fees, can be addressed by adding a Heads levy. At Victoria College, the Student Administrative Councils’ President gets a salary of $8,000. Trinity is the only college lacking such financial incentives to leadership. By neglecting this, we are structurally enforcing that our Heads aren’t worth supporting, even when we expect them to give all of their free time to student needs.

For all those who risked the public scrutiny and evaluation of their character by running in this year’s elections, thank you for your dedication to the College. It is the job of our leadership to start implementing these changes. This is only a small part of the general question of student participation; a question that will not be answered within one term of headship. It starts with culture, policy, and a Head willing to make a change to the structures that brought them into power in the first place.