History of the Society Part 3:Recognition

2.1 The Interim Years: 1981 – 1988
Mick Hannigan succeeded me as SU Gen Sec in July 1981 and was very supportive of the GaySoc. But several of the members from the previous year had moved on. Donnacha had dropped out of college to pursue his dream of being a ballet dancer and became a member of the Irish National Ballet troupe then based in Cork. I’d moved to Dublin. Those still involved found there was a backlash of reaction in tune with the social conservatism gaining hold nationally.

Some time in the mid-80’s there was a referendum on the SU support for the GaySoc. Kieran Rose came to speak at a Philosoph debate in support of the GaySoc. When he was subjected to virulent anti-gay abuse he appealed to the Auditor to prevent the debate being used as a platform for homophobia. When the Auditor refused Kieran led a walkout.

By 1987/88 a new resurgence of student progressives was taking place nationally in the struggle against SPUC / Family Solidarity imposed censorship. In UCC Deirdre Mortell was elected as SU Rights Officer and began immediately to organise across a wide range of issues – including lesbian & gay rights. [Archive items 2.1; 2.2; 2.3; 2.4]

In November 1987 she helped revive the GaySoc by starting the UCC Lesbian & Gay Support Group – “formed with the aim of combating the isolation that most people feel gay or lesbian in UCC.” [Gazette 28 April 1988 p.3] [Archive items 2.5a; 2.6a-d; 2.7]

In an article reviewing the position of college gaysocs in 1988 it stated:
“This year’s Rights Officer, Deirdre Mortell, decided to form a gay group without even attempting to seek recognition from the authorities. ‘I decided there was a need for a gay group in UCC, which is quite an antigay college. I felt there was a lot of people out there feeling very isolated.’
Five people now attend the weekly meetings. Two of the members, including Deirdre and a friend, are straight. The other three want anonymity and are not prepared to even put up a poster in college.
‘This kind of fear reflects on the rest of the student population’ says Deirdre who claims that Cork is ‘the most backward of universities.’”
[Hot Press March 1988] [Archive item 2.12]

On 13 April 1988 the UCC Lesbian & Gay Support Group organised a public meeting. It was addressed by Geraldine McCarthy (Cork Lesbian Line), Deirdre Walsh and John Calnan. The report on the meeting goes on:
“Since first meeting last December we have grown steadily in number, strengthened our links with the lesbian and gay groups in the city and in other colleges, and generally attracted a lot of support within college.
Next year we hope to be even more active with the help of the new Rights Officer, Sandra Buckley, and the new President, who was himself Rights Officer last year, John Kelleher.
Thanks are due to many people for their help and encouragement throughout the year especially those who attended the open meeting. I would like to add a personal note of thanks to the individuals who make up the group, all of whom join me in paying tribute to Deirdre Mortell, this year’s Rights Officer. She went beyond the call of duty in offering her help, precious time, a willing ear and good humour to make this a very successful year for UCC’s Lesbian & Gay Support Group.
– Anne O’Donnell [Gazette 28 April 1988 p.14] [Archive item 2.5b]


2.2 The campaign for recognition – GCN Article Feb 1990

“Cork Pulls It Off!” – was the headline on an article published in Gay Community News in February 1990 (and written by Josephine O’Halloran & Dónal Sheehan?). The article describes the campaign for recognition from the inside……[Archive items 3.8.10; 3.8.11]


When in April 1989 the Governing Body of UCC voted by thirteen to seven to recognise the College’s “Lesbian and gay Support Group”, it became the first constituent college of the National University of Ireland to accept a lesbian and gay group as a legitimate student society. It ought to be incredible that a University would deny freedom of association and discussion to its lesbian and gay students, but the fact is that the first meeting of the group (in October ’88) agreed that there would be no point in even applying for recognition from UCC!

It had been eight years since the last application for recognition had been rejected and, although lesbian and gay groups had existed since then in various forms, none had sought official recognition. During the academic year ‘87/88 a lesbian and gay group had met regularly but its existence was not widely known in the college; a public meeting in April ’88 attended by about twenty people was the high point of its activities. The group did however develop links with lesbian and gay groups in Cork and in Dublin and had a good working relationship with the Students’ Union, particularly with the Welfare [sic] Officer, Deirdre Mortell, who had a serious commitment to the USI policy supporting Lesbian and Gay Student organizations.

In October 1988 a number of new members generated a much more assertive approach when the group re-convened after the summer break. It was decided to take a higher profile, advertise meetings widely and even (it seemed a radical step at the time) hold social events! The group’s meetings were advertised – omitting the venue from the poster. This meant that students had to enquire at the Students’ Union to find out where the meetings would be held. The danger that people would be harassed going into or leaving the meeting had to be balanced against the ordeal of asking a total stranger at the Students’ Union for the venue. Hundreds of flyers advertising the meetings were distributed in October and November but new members were slow to appear.
[Archive items 3.2a; 3.2b]

In early December an information stall was run outside the College Restaurant and on the 15th [December] a public meeting was held. The idea of looking for official recognition took shape around this time. Two prominent liberal academics took the initiative of approaching the group to offer their support for a recognition campaign. Both felt that there was a realistic prospect of success and appreciated the importance of the fundamental issues at stake for the College.

The group responded enthusiastically to the prospect of a recognition campaign. An application with the requisite 50 names and fee of £50 was lodged with the clubs and Societies Officer in early February. A representative of the group was allowed to address the Clubs and Societies Guild meeting which voted 9 – 1 in favour of the application with abstentions. The staff representatives played safe by either voting against or abstaining.

Their arguments were along the lines: ‘of course we sympathise with the plight of lesbian and gay students, admire your courage in making this application and support what you are trying to do but…the proposed society would only make matters worse. Young people could find their lives ruined by a rash involvement with the group. The interests of students will be best served by leaving this problem to be handled by the college’s existing welfare services.’ Contemptible as this sort of behaviour was it was also encouraging since it showed up the intellectual incoherence of the opposition.

In early March the Student Union executive voted unanimously to support the application. This was not a part of the formal process but was an important step in mobilising support for the campaign.

The next step in the process was the “Joint Board”. This has four student and four staff representatives (one of the staff places was vacant) and it was at this stage that the last application was defeated in 1981. A written submission arguing the case for the society was drafted by Josephine O’Halloran and edited by Professor Garrett Barden (a prominent college figure who actively supported the campaign) into a form he thought would be most effective. This was sent with a covering letter seeking their support to all the existing Clubs and Societies. [Archive items 3.3.1a; 3.3.2; 3.4.1; 3.4.2; 3.4.3]


Josephine also sought a personal meeting with each of the staff representatives and sent them the submission. One was in favour of the application, one refused to see her and the third, Michael Kelleher, the Finance Officer, was against. He was worried about AIDS, of the danger that naïve students might be induced to join the society, that the campaign was just ‘attention seeking’; he felt that problems like homosexuality (he compared it to deafness!) were best handled by the college chaplains and the welfare service; besides, think of the effect on the good name of the college! The vote went 4 – 2 in favour. Two staff voted against and one student rep. was absent.
[Archive items 3.5.1; 3.5.2; 3.5.3a; 3.5.3b; 3.5.3c]

During this period notices were posted and fliers distributed around college to keep people abreast of how the campaign was developing. A “Lesbian and Gay awareness Week” was held in April. The reaction of people around the college was generally supportive and tolerant. Minor incidents of abuse did occur but no serious opposition emerged. [Archive items 3.6.1]

The next step in the recognition process was a vote of the Academic Council, a 70 member body. If the proposal got the support of the AC the group felt they would have won the argument within college. The final vote, at the Governing Body, would include Bishops, County Councillors and other representatives outside College. It seemed unlikely that such a group would support the proposal.

All 70 members of Academic Council were sent a submission and also received a letter from Garrett Barden, who could not attend the meeting himself, arguing the case for recognition. Thirty potential supporters were lobbied personally by him, Prof. John Maguire and John Kelleher, President of the SU. [Archive items 3.6.3; 3.6.5]

In 1981 the argument that it could be illegal for the College to support a gay society because male homosexual acts were illegal had been persuasive for many of those who voted against the proposal. To diffuse this argument Garrett Barden got legal opinion on the existing state of the law in the wake of the Norris Verdict. Josephine also spoke to John O’Connor, the influential Dean of the Law faculty, who did not feel the legal situation was altogether clear bur supported the recognition proposal.
[Archive item 4.5]

The discussion of the proposal occupied over an hour of the AC meeting. Of the speakers not previously committed to supporting the group, the greatest impact was made by John A. Murphy’s speech in favour of the motion. The vote was 27 – 7 in favour. The President abstained the Vice-President voted in favour. John A. Murphy made a useful tactical contribution by asking that the members voting on each side be recorded, rather than just the outcome of the vote. [Archive items 3.6.7]

At this stage the group felt that a major victory had been won. The final step to full recognition, the vote of the Governing body, would be the most difficult.
[Archive items 3.7.1]

Again the submission was sent to all members and lobbying was concentrated on academic staff and the accessible councillors. John Kelleher of the Students’ Union was the main advocate of recognition at the meeting strongly supported by John A. Murphy.

The discussion was prolonged occupying most of the meeting. Many worries and questions were raised about the proposal but the only fixed opposition came from one councillor whose bizarre contributions served only to discredit the opposition case. The vote went 13 – 7 in favour. Eight members of the Governing Body were absent and the President voted in favour. [Archive items 3.72; 3.7.3; 3.7.4; 3.7.5]

The jubilation that followed the vote is understandable. No publicity had been sought for the campaign outside College because it might have served only to stimulate opposition. Now it was finally possible to blow the trumpet for an important step forward for lesbian and gay students and for personal freedom generally in our universities.
[Archive items 3.8.1; 3.8.6; 3.8.7; 3.8.8; 3.8.9]

Why the campaign in UCC should have succeeded where others have failed requires some analysis. Getting the issue on the agenda in the first place reflects the energy that went into the group during the first term when the idea of seeking official recognition had not yet arisen. Mick Quinlan’s arrival as a mature student certainly sparked off much of this activity.

The support group began to take a vigorous public profile within college, forcing people to think seriously about the issues and demonstrating to potential supporters within the college that a politically aware group did exist on which a recognition campaign could be based.

The work that had been done in previous years by the Students’ Union and USI provided the groundwork for this mini-explosion of action. Building close links with experienced college politicians like Garrett Barden was the next key step. The campaign could not have succeeded without the tactical skill to identify and lobby effectively the potential support that existed within the College.

The absence of any coherent opposition was the least predictable element in the mix. The fact that several of the main college offices were vacant at the time may have contributed to this. Nothing comparable to the current high profile campaign against the Students’ Union policy on abortion information happened in reaction to the Support Group’s campaign. Even the clerics and other conservatives entrenched in the College’s administrative and academic staff did not lobby against recognition; if they did, they were entirely ineffective.