Sir, – The announcement of a ceasefire in Gaza after 466 hellish days is welcome. But for the hundreds of thousands whose loved ones were killed, or who were permanently maimed, orphaned or displaced from their homes during this barbaric conflict, it has come too late. For many of the hostages and their pain it is also too late. It was certainly too late for mother-of-seven Fidaa Ibraham, a project officer at Al Aqsa Sports Club, ActionAid Ireland’s partner in Gaza. Her husband and brother died an excruciating death when an Unwra school shelter the family were based in was attacked by Israeli military last May. Her children witnessed their father and uncle burning to death when the room the men were sleeping in went on fire after a bomb hit the building. “I have lost so much. What should have been a chance for relief feels like a cruel reminder of the lives we’ve been robbed of . . . the love we’ve been forced to let go,” Fidaa told colleagues on hearing of the ceasefire deal this week.
As the truce comes into effect, it is vital that all efforts immediately turn to addressing the staggering humanitarian need in Gaza where people are starving, children are freezing to death, and health services are critically poor. Aid – particularly nutritious food, clean water, shelter items, medicines and fuel – must be urgently sent into Gaza, while women and girls also need vital essentials like period products, as well as safe and private places to shelter.
Every international effort must be made to have the Israeli government revoke legislation to ban Unwra from Gaza, the West Bank and other parts of the Middle East. This legislation is due to come into force on January 27th and will prove disastrous to the aid effort if it goes ahead.
The risk of increased illegal appropriation of land and violence in the West Bank also now grows. At home the government must urgently enact the long-awaited Occupied Territories Bill. It is the least we can do, and an appropriate legal response to the appalling breaches of international law that have happened in Gaza and the West Bank over the last 15 months. The promise in the newly agreed programme for government to “advance” the Occupied Territories Bill is worryingly vague. A much firmer commitment and timeline is needed. The new Government must not be deflected by growing political and diplomatic pressure. The Irish public clearly want this.
I’ve seen all sorts of kids’ coaches – the good, the bad and the downright he’s-lost-the-plot
New Government wants to focus on disability issues but HSE warns of challenges in the coming year
Rich bosses’ isolation from poorer colleagues could come back to bite them
Eoin Burke-Kennedy: Davos has a Marie Antoinette problem
While the ceasefire agreement is a crucial step forward, there is still a very long way to go to achieve the justice and accountability that Palestinians deserve for the appalling atrocities that have been committed. – Yours, etc,
KAROL BALFE,
CEO ActionAid Ireland,
Dublin 1.
Sir, – Until Israelis understand the cause of the intense hatred that led to the October 7th atrocities, and until Palestinians understand the deep historical beliefs underlying Israel’s response, the two peoples will continue to fight over a patch of scrubby land at the eastern end of the Mediterranean. – Yours, etc,
ROGER BLACKBURN,
Naul,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – While a ceasefire in Gaza is welcome, the words of Tacitus describing the Roman Empire’s war policy can be applied to the Israel’s war on Gaza: “They make it a wasteland and call it peace.” – Yours, etc,
BRENDAN BUTLER ,
Dublin 9.
DEI and universities
A chara, – I have greatly enjoyed columns by Prof William Reville for many years, yet I must stick my head over the parapet and make some remarks about his recent one on the issue of gender discrimination in science (“Diversity, equality and inclusion programmes are inappropriate in university culture”, Science, January 16th). Prof Reville states that the greater number of male scientists in senior positions these days is due to “historical reasons” and that this imbalance will now right itself organically because more women are getting into science as a career these days. He cites some encouraging statistics to support this view, but I would simply like to respectfully register a degree of doubt. According to any scholar in the area of gender equality to whom I have spoken, discrimination against women is alive and well and sadly not something we can yet consign to the history books; science is not immune to this reality. Just because more women are getting into science, there is no reason to believe that more of them will become senior scientists without some sort of change in mindset or policy. In many classes I attended as a science undergraduate, there were as many if not more of us women; however, here I am 30 years on having worked in several science and academic jobs in which men were almost always in charge.
A common explanation for this is the pesky issue of motherhood, and Prof Reville suggests that this is the one area in which women deserve “special treatment”. It isn’t clear what that treatment should be; only that we need to do something about the fact that when women become mothers, they have gaps in their publication records as a result of maternity leave taken. However, is he suggesting that women in science who do not have children or have not taken maternity leave encounter no discrimination? The challenges of motherhood are only one small part of a complex story; as a female scientist still navigating a world overwhelmed by male seniority, the few years I took off to look after my children almost a decade ago are now the least of my worries.
Yes, some discrimination against women can thankfully be consigned to the history books, but as we all know, history has a nasty habit of repeating itself and we must be vigilant. I fully accept Prof Reville’s points that some policies around achieving gender equality in science generate new problems. The one he mentions is that to satisfy a gender quota, a woman might get awarded a grant when there is a better application from a man (or vice versa). This problem is real, and it is unfortunate, but in the past women were the only ones losing out – and simply because they were women. Isn’t it better that both genders now share the burden of the inherent inequality in our society? If we all work to end internalised and generational misogyny, we can then trust the system to fix itself and we won’t need quotas anymore. I will leave it to the learned scholars in those fields let us know when that state of utopia has been reached! – Is mise,
EMMA VERLING,
Corcaigh.
Sir, – Demanding that teams applying for scientific research funding are 50:50 male to female makes no sense when some disciplines are male dominated and some are female dominated. If this is considered an unsatisfactory situation, it needs to be addressed at a much earlier stage; it is too late at university level.
But what Prof Reville doesn’t mention is that “gender” in these situations does not mean “male” or “female”, it means whether a person identifies as male or female. This situation has come about partly due to the insistence of the Irish scientific organisations that provide research grants that the academic institutions are accredited by Athena Swan, a UK-based charity.
Athena Swan pivoted from the initial aim of supporting women in Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (Stem) to supporting “greater inclusivity for people in all roles, of all gender identities”. This in effect means universities accepting that people can change sex, which is something that anyone is entitled to believe, but it is scientifically false.
That this is all happening in the realm of science is deeply ironic, but we should also bear in mind that the source of this funding is our taxes. – Yours, etc,
E BOLGER,
Dublin 9.
Sir, – With Donald Trump’s inauguration fast approaching and the recent politicisation of diversity and inclusion programmes in the US, William Reville’s critiques of DEI initiatives underscore the need for more nuanced discussions about balancing inclusivity with academic excellence. Achieving this balance is crucial to ensuring the values of merit, fairness, and freedom coexist harmoniously.
In his most recent article, Prof Reville critiques DEI programmes in university culture, arguing they conflict with academic freedom and the pursuit of scientific excellence. He suggests that gender disparities will naturally resolve as participation in science becomes more balanced. While he raises some valid concerns, his arguments rely heavily on anecdotal evidence or isolated incidents without fully addressing the systemic inequities that DEI initiatives aim to mitigate as well as the glacial pace of change.
Prof Reville champions traditional meritocratic principles, claiming equity undermines fairness. However, this perspective overlooks how systemic barriers historically skewed “merit” in favour of privileged groups. For instance, gender bias has long influenced academic hiring and grant allocation processes. Studies, including Irish-specific research from the Higher Education Authority (HEA), reveal that female researchers often receive less funding than their male counterparts, not simply due to historical disparities in participation but because of ongoing biases in evaluation processes. DEI programmes seek to recalibrate opportunities, not to diminish merit, but to level a playing field that has long been uneven.
While Prof Reville acknowledges improvements in gender representation at senior academic levels, he underestimates the structural barriers that persist. In Ireland, recent Higher Education Authority data highlights that, while approximately 51 per cent of university staff are women, only 29 per cent of senior academic roles are held by women. Furthermore, Irish universities have been slow to adopt policies fostering greater equity in prestigious postdoctoral positions, which are vital stepping stones to academic leadership.
The educational benefits of diversity also deserve greater attention. Extensive research, including findings from European initiatives such as the Horizon Europe framework, demonstrates that diverse learning environments enhance critical thinking, cultural awareness, and collaborative problem-solving. In research, diversity promotes more innovative and comprehensive scientific outcomes by encouraging a broader range of ideas and methodologies.
Contrary to fears that DEI initiatives compromise academic rigour, fostering inclusive environments strengthens scientific inquiry. Ireland has already embraced frameworks like Athena Swan to advance gender equality in higher education and research, and these programmes have driven tangible progress. For example, several Irish universities have adopted policies aimed at eliminating biases in hiring and promotion. Expanding these initiatives is not about compromising excellence but ensuring that all talent is equitably recognised and nurtured. Rejecting DEI programmes outright risks perpetuating systemic inequities and undermining progress. While political and cultural backlash may have led to the decline of DEI initiatives in the US, Ireland must resist this regressive trend. By embracing and investing in DEI, we can create a fairer, more innovative society that values merit, inclusivity, and excellence in equal measure. Something that, in today’s divided world, would set a standard we can all aspire to. – Yours, etc,
ORLAITH ROSS,
Rialto,
Dublin 8.
Caring for children at home
Sir, – Lena Deevy’s excellent observations (Letters, January 15th) on the National Women’s Council’s letter (January 13th) seeking a public funded early childhood education and care system (ECEC) has highlighted a glaring failure by successive governments to support mothers who wish to care for their children at home in preference to creche or other publicly funded childcare systems.
Over many years, governments have attempted to keep mothers in the workplace for as long as possible, in order to sustain Ireland’s upwards economic trajectory, regardless of any negative effects on society that might arise. It came to a head recently when they discovered that they were remiss in failing to protect mothers’ constitutional right not to be forced to go to work out of economic necessity. Fearing possible legal action on this long-term failure, a campaign was initiated to get them off the hook by amending the Constitution, thereby removing the guarantee. Politicians spun the guarantee as an anachronism and an insult to today’s women. They got their answer sure enough. Unfortunately for them it was soundly defeated in the referendum when 73.93 per cent of voters shot it down. It seems the voters saw through the spin, regarded it as an attempt to hoodwink the population, and threw it out.
Now the politicians are on the horns of a dilemma. If they introduce a public ECEC without addressing the aforementioned constitutional guarantee to mothers, it will be seen as an egregious act of discrimination against a cohort of the population whose rights are already protected under law. It would most probably be successfully tested in the courts and backed up by the evidence of the referendum result being the clear wishes of the population. If they do finally recognise and adequately financially support the rights of families to care for their children at home, it will be a reversal of their policy to keep mothers at work for as long as possible. “Oh what a tangled web we weave ...” – Yours, etc,
BOBBY CARTY,
Dublin 6W.
Home care and policy
Sir, – It is misleading to say “there is no strategy to keep as many people in their own homes as possible” (Fintan O’Toole, “Five years after Covid, we scorn health workers, ignore vaccines and work in our offices”, Opinion & Analysis, January 14th ). Home care is in the process of several reforms. The key to revolutionising how we care for people in Ireland is the Statutory Home Support Scheme. This would introduce a legal right to home care (as exists for nursing homes), ensure a fairer service by standardising assessments, regulate home care providers and reform how home care is funded. We also await the outcome of the Commission on Care for older people and a new national disability strategy but the Government’s first priority should be to deliver on existing commitments like the Statutory Home Support Scheme, Sláintecare and Disability Action Plan.
The scheme has been promised by multiple governments dating back to 2017, and is included in the new programme for government, but has been delayed to the point that the original transformative intentions have almost been forgotten. This is its third feature in a programme for government; let’s hope third time’s a charm. – Yours, etc,
JOSEPH MUSGRAVE,
CEO,
Home & Community Care Ireland,
Dublin 7.
Remembering Denis Law
Sir, – I was very sad to learn of the death of the legendary Manchester United player Denis Law (“Manchester United and Scotland great Denis Law dies at 84″, Sport, January 17th).
In September 1968, when I was 11 years of age, I asked Denis Law for his autograph outside the Gresham Hotel where the Manchester United team were staying; the defending European Cup champions were in Dublin to play Waterford at Lansdowne Road in Dublin. He was in an obvious hurry and walked past me. My father consoled me saying he probably had a lot on his mind, including the match; so I forgave him. Manchester United went on to beat Waterford 3-1, Law scoring a hat-trick. I met Denis Law for the second time in 2008 at a dinner in Dublin’s City West Hotel at which the 1968 Manchester United team were the guests of honour. Having light-heartedly explained to him the disappointment I felt when I last met him, he put his arms around me and apologised so profusely for what had happened that I stood there astonished by his sincerity and warmth, as well as feeling embarrassed for mentioning it at all. When I left City West Hotel that night, I had an autograph, a photo of the pair of us, and the warm glow you feel when you get the chance to meet one of your heroes in real life and they turn out to be even greater than you ever imagined them to be. – Yours, etc,
CHRIS FITZPATRICK,
Dublin 6.