Earlier this week I received the following message in an e-mail from a contact at UCD: "Like the general public... you (like the Times and the so-called Independent) seem to be completely uninterested in the demise of the notion of University in Ireland, writes Vincent Browne.
Just today at UCD, we were delivered new contracts, in which all previous reporting relationships (typically to a democratically elected Head of Department) were superseded (without our consent) by reporting relationship to the Head of School (a direct appointee of the President). In effect, Fascism has been imposed. This heralds the official end, in Ireland, of University as social institution. Unscrupulous Multi-nationals (& foreign political interests) and the politicians they support are now safe from open criticism, as Ireland's former Universities have now become (like-minded) corporate entities themselves. Congratulations. By your apathy and unwillingness to take a stand, you are a party to this. For shame."
I replied: "I do not understand how requiring lecturers to be responsible to the head of a school equals fascism, the end of university as a social institution and the intrusion of unscrupulous multinationals into academia. My failure to understand this accounts for my complicity."
This prompted the response: "I can tell from the tone of your response that you obviously have no concern about the notion of the social role of a University. To my way of thinking, a place which is merely somewhere for the wealthy to send their children for free job training, in order to perpetuate their advantage, is not a University."
I replied saying I still did not understand how making lecturers responsible to a school head instead of having them responsible to a democratically elected dean of a faculty ended the idea of a university as we have known it, or represented fascism.
It seems clear some lecturers at UCD are upset by changes being introduced by new president Hugh Brady. It also seems clear that some of those upset do not have good arguments against what is being done and resort to overstatement and hyperbole to make a case, probably favouring a vested interest.
The merging of faculties seems to me not to be in itself a crime against freedom of academic inquiry. Similarly the streamlining of bureaucracy and making lecturers and professors more accountable. I can see no reason why lazy, incompetent professors and lecturers should not be removed from their positions if found to be so - and there were many of these around UCD when I was there in the mid-60s. I can also see how making lecturers and professors more accountable could be skewed to enable academic staff who took unpopular positions to be removed, not for academic incompetence but for political or ideological reasons. But there must be a way of devising mechanisms of accountability to guard against that.
Behind the hyperbole, however, there are grounds for genuine concern: that universities will become servants of an economy, thereby forfeiting their role as an arena of free inquiry and cultural enrichment. The abandonment of, for instance, the disciplines of philosophy, classical studies and history would impoverish society generally. Any curtailment of the freedom of academics to inquire into sensitive areas of society would also be regressive.
But it seems to me that what is being proposed generally at UCD should be welcomed. The opening up of the university to life-long learning is great. The broadening of curricula to enable students in the sciences, for instance, to take courses in arts and vice-versa, is great. So, too, would be the sharing of teaching and other resources between the universities and institutes of technology in Dublin and other areas. I personally would welcome the extension of the remit of the equality studies department and a requirement on all students to take at least one course there could enrich society greatly - the calibre of the people in that department is outstanding. Yes, it is ideologically driven but the prevailing ideology could be challenged there if additional resources were made available.
But we should not be distracted by the shrill voices of discomfited academics, whose concern, while cloaked in the familiar guise of the public interest, are merely baying for the retention of their own privileges.
Whatever sensible reforms can be introduced at UCD - and the strategic plan completed last December seems to represent a reasonable programme of reform - should be implemented, to free-up time for teaching and academic research, improve accountability generally and save costs.
A terrible decision was taken by the Fianna Fáil-Labour government of Albert Reynolds in 1994 to abolish third-level fees. The result has been to make no difference to the participation rate of students from the lower socio-economic groups and to starve third-level institutions of financial resources.