A chara, – The proposed legislation on university governance will shrink, not only the size of governing authorities, but will also serve to muzzle the voices of academic and administrative staff (News, January 3rd). As outlined, membership will be weighted in favour of external (including ministerially appointed) members. Far from guaranteeing more robust governance, the more likely outcome will be a further constraining of critical voices. – Yours, etc,
Prof EOIN DEVEREUX,
University of Limerick.
A chara, – Prof Neil Robinson's question as to why legislation does not require all universities to adopt Trinity's governance structures (given that the new Bill regarding university governance will make some accommodation of them) is timely (Letters, January 4th).
We might indeed ponder how the Irish universities as a whole have come to find themselves at the current juncture and what they, and broader Irish society, will gain from the new Bill, which essentially erodes academic autonomy and the excellence that ensues from such independence. It is indeed this independence that has benefitted Ireland over many years. The Government’s assertion that the new Bill will permit greater accountability is laudable but in reality a smoke-screen: it suggests that the universities have brought the Bill upon themselves whereas this is far from the case.
It is the failure of successive Irish governments to fund adequately the third-level sector (and to eschew its own accountability for this) which has led, quite logically, to the imposition of the Bill. In this regard the passivity of university presidents and their failure to challenge the move robustly is nothing short of breath-taking. The argument that we must “tow the line” as more funding will otherwise be cut is naive, lacking in courage and strategy, and a grave dereliction of duty.
The writing has been on the wall, in Trinity as in other institutions, for many years and on a daily basis: staff-student ratios have risen exponentially as fewer academics are employed but student numbers increase (and are set to rise to 22,000 in Trinity); the casualisation of staff has demoralised younger generations of scholars and rendered the educational structures precarious; international students inevitably perceive themselves as “cash cows”, their fees plugging (to a minor degree) the gaps caused by a shortfall in government funding; there is increased dependence on external investment (who has the luxury of refusing it from perhaps dubious moral sources?); essential administrative supports have dwindled as university budgets diminish; there is less time for research and teaching of the highest order. The consequence is manifest in the place of Irish universities in the latest world rankings: Trinity clings to its place at 101 when we used to be the equal of Oxford (one) and Cambridge (five).
Trinity’s governance model should indeed be a benchmark for other institutions to imitate: as it stands it permits representation of a wide variety of college constituencies (fellows, non-fellow academics, support staff, postgraduates, undergraduates) and is a far more democratic model than the one permitted under the new Bill.
Certainly it would benefit from more external advisers (as the new Bill proposes) but the emphasis should be on the term “advisory”. What the new Bill proposes (and it would seem to be a done deal by university presidents seeking something akin to appeasement) is a wholesale State ownership of the third-level sector. – Yours, etc,
Dr SARAH ALYN
STACEY, FTCD
French Department,
Trinity College Dublin,
Dublin 2.