On Friday night, the results of the Trinity SU Referendum rolled in and President Tom Lenihan, son of former Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan, was acquitted. Lenihan had stirred controversy amongst the student body for admittedly cheating in a law exam, during a time in which he states, he was depressed. He was caught with a note which he brought in, under a time of great stress as a short-minded decision, after which he was made to resit the exam with a 40% cap. He then took a leave of absence from his position. The vote was 63% in favour of keeping Lenihan, though the total tally of votes numbered only 2,730 last week.
Depression has of course, always been a muted subject and for his openness regarding this condition, we can only commend Lenihan. The morning in question, he suffered a panic attack owing to not taking his medication. To an extent, I amongst others must admit that this is not a regular case and that it should be observed in assessing the punishments undertaken in situations alike. To allow his continuance as SU President however seems to paint a bleak picture of the system we have placed our faith (and money) in. There was once a time (long, long ago) when we took our leaders to be moral exemplars but today, it seems they are above whatever laws and regulations they support. Personally, I cannot hide the fact that I think he should have stood down or been removed, to at least set a good example for others to follow but we are interested more in what the collective public thinks:
Does Lenihan's offence have relevance to his position as President? Did people vote based on his efforts as President? Why do you think he survived this impeachment? Is this as serious an issue as this article is making it out to be? Or is this simply a case of student politics mimicking government's?