Well, using the words "levy" and "corporate profits" in the same sentence is certainly one way of getting attention. Our low rates of corporation tax have sacred-cow status in Ireland. So one can imagine the reaction in Government circles to a recent Teachers' Union of Ireland (TUI) proposal, writes Breda O'Brien.
The TUI wants a dedicated 2 per cent levy on corporate profits, with the taxation revenue going to higher education. The TUI is not proposing to slaughter the sacred cow, just planning to give it a little nick, but the proposal is likely to be dismissed out of hand.
Why are we so averse to spending money on education in general, never mind higher education? As TUI president Paddy Healy pointed out during the week, there is plenty of money in the Government coffers, but the current priorities are roads, bridges and broadband.
Meanwhile, spending on education lags far behind other nations, with Ireland currently ranked 21st out of 27 OECD countries when it comes to spending on second-level education. Why not borrow for infrastructure needs? Improvements in infrastructure will benefit several generations, so it is fair to spread the cost over more than one generation. Why not spend current surpluses on education and health?
Where we spend our money reflects our priorities as a nation. Do we see education as important, and as a vital means of helping human beings reach their potential? Or do we see it as something that should operate primarily to meet economic criteria?
The values of the marketplace seem to hold sway in almost every arena in our society, and it seems that education is expected to fall into line, too. A recent OECD examiners' report suggests that higher education institutes (HEIs) should actively seek external sources of funding, that they should commercialise research, and that they should market themselves more energetically internationally.
Such is the dominance of the "education as another commodity" model that even the TUI, which is committed to a far broader vision of education, is forced to argue in economic terms for its proposed levy. It says that investment in education is warranted because "the corporate sector derives demonstrable, direct benefit from the availability in Ireland of a highly skilled graduate labour pool which is the product of extensive higher education provision".
In other words, the levy is justified because it will keep the economic wheels turning. Yet the core of the TUI argument is that education does not exist just to service the market. As one speaker commented at a TUI seminar during the week: "If you cannot study something 'useless' at university, where can you study it?"
Dr David Robinson of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, also a speaker at the TUI seminar, pointed out that the aims of research at third level are often at odds with the aims of the commercial world.
There has been a long-standing view that academic research should be open, collaborative and public. In contrast, commercial research is secretive, and primarily focused on the potential profit.
There are problems with private funding, for example, researchers being required to sign secrecy clauses, or the results of research being considered to be the intellectual property of the funding company, rather than the researcher. It is in stark contrast to the not-too-distant past, when patenting research breakthroughs was considered contemptible. For example, Jonas Salk never attempted to patent the polio vaccine he was instrumental in creating during the 1940s and 1950s.
There are also very serious questions about maintaining academic integrity. How easy is it to publish bad news about the company that funds you?
Dr Robinson told some horror stories, including that of Dr Nancy Olivieri. She signed a contract with a pharmaceutical company to do clinical drug trials on patients with a rare blood disorder, thalassaemia. She noticed that the treatment was having serious side-effects, including a build-up of iron in the liver.
Ethically, she felt she had to stop the trials, and to publish the reasons why. The hospital practically disowned her, the drugs company sued her and her university refused to support her. She eventually was reinstated by the University of Toronto, but only after suffering near-ruinous consequences.
Dr Robinson also said that private funding has more insidious effects. For example, there is no commercial benefit in researching prevention of disease. Commercial research tends to focus on minor modifications of existing drugs or medical devices, because that is where pharmaceutical companies can maximise profits.
There can be harmonious and beneficial partnerships between HEIs and industry. However, if HEIs are forced to depend more and more on funding from private sources, there is a great deal of research which will never happen.
Many of the changes coming about in education have not yet been adequately debated in the public arena. We can work up a head of steam, and rightly so, about school transport or Dickensian schools, but we seem to fall silent in the face of bigger questions. What is education for? Do we really want economic values to dominate?
A national education survey in the US in the 1960s asked third-level students what they thought was the purpose of higher education. Almost 60 per cent answered in terms of openness to ideas and being challenged to think in new and creative ways.
Some 20 per cent responded that it was to help them find a good job. More recent surveys have shown that the majority now think it is about finding a good job. It would be no different in Ireland.
Sadly, if education is about the transmission of values, the values we are transmitting seem to be supportive of the current obsession with money and possessions, rather than the value of education for its own sake. Like most other educationalists, people at third level feel beleaguered. It is not enough, however, to retreat into cynicism or petty politicking.
There is an important debate that we have not yet had in Ireland about the value of lifelong learning, and about genuinely creating access to higher education for students from all kinds of backgrounds.
The higher education levy idea may receive a swift despatch. However, if it provokes debate on what kind of education system we want, and how we should fund it, that in itself is a valuable contribution.