Madam, - The role of the Irish language examination in the making of appointments at NUI Galway (NUIG) has received some airing in the media in the context of the recent High Court case taken by a senior lecturer against her employer, NUIG. Though various aspects of the case have been extensively reported on, the decisive role of the Irish language examination in all appointments within NUIG, which derives from the 1929 Act, has not in my opinion been adequately explained.
The assessment process in NUIG involves two interview boards. The main board assesses the suitability of the candidates for the position, i.e. declares them to be suitable or unsuitable, and ranks the candidates in order of preference. The Irish board assesses competency in performing the duties of the post through the medium of Irish. While the Irish language assessment is not mandatory, candidates who do not submit to it are required to sign a declaration that they are incompetent in Irish.
Passing the Irish examination may have a decisive role in influencing an appointment in the case of a candidate who is declared suitable by the main board. If, for instance, five candidates are declared suitable and only one of these passes the Irish examination, the University is obliged by statute (1929 Act) to appoint that person even if, as happens not infrequently, that person is ranked low in the order of merit.
Thus a candidate may be truly outstanding - even a Nobel Prize winner! - but in these circumstances will be passed over in favour of the candidate of possibly lesser ability but judged competent in Irish. A further irony is that the appointee may never subsequently, in the course of his or her duties, be obliged to use Irish within the university.
The university has, however, a way of circumventing this process: i.e., by declaring candidates who are likely to pass the Irish examination "unsuitable" and thus ineligible for appointment. It is widely held within the university that this practice is not infrequent.
The appointment system employed at NUIG, while serving a useful purpose in past times, is clearly long obsolete and completely inappropriate to modern Ireland. It engenders cynicism even among supporters of the Irish language. It is difficult to understand why senior management in NUIG has failed to reform an appointment system which is inappropriate to a university and which creates anomalies in appointments that have the potential to seriously undermine morale and inter-personal relationships.
Furthermore, "reforming" Ministers of Education have studiously avoided this issue and shied away from introducing urgently needed amending legislation.
The plaintiff may have lost the recent case but a public service has been done through bringing into the public arena indefensible appointment procedures. Surely it is possible to devise better mechanisms to ensure the position of Irish as a vibrant language within the university, a goal to which the vast majority of its employees whole heartily subscribe. - Yours, etc,
Prof MICHAEL O'CONNELL,
Department of Botany,
NUI,
Galway.