Madam, - Brigid Laffan, in her explanation of the thinking behind the restructuring of UCD (January 3rd), chooses a rather easy target in rebutting the simplicities of Eddie Holt. She needs to do better than that.
She rightly points out that a university that receives only 4 per cent of its income from private sources is in no danger of being privatised. She might have gone on to regret that this figure is so low. What distinguishes the great private universities in the world is that they have money - private money - which enables them to pursue their academic goals to the highest levels. This money, by and large, comes from the benefactions of private philanthropists and alumni who demonstrate their affection for their alma mater by endowing it, as medieval princes endowed cathedrals and monasteries. The lesson for UCD may be to get its graduates to love it and to look back with gratitude and affection on their undergraduate experience.
She justifies the reduction in the number of academic units on the grounds that the previous proliferation of faculties and departments inhibited decision-making in the College. This is less than the complete picture of life in UCD over the years.
The governing authority is the ultimate master of the university and no president of the university has ever failed to dominate that body and to have it agree to his policies, so long as they were reasonably presented. (I speak with sad experience here, having tried to oppose different presidents at various times over the years.) What was needed in the past was leadership and, when that leadership was enlightened, the college flourished.
The new arrangements obviate the need for academic leadership skills - the ability to consult the academic community and its collective understanding and insight and to convince it of the wisdom of following a particular course of action. This is obviously convenient for academic administrators. What is in danger of being lost in the arrangements, however, is the particular contribution of the subject department to the health of the institution.
The traditional university department is the essential building block of the university. It is not just an administrative unit but, rather, a nucleus around which the collective wisdom of a group of scholars in the same field combines. The department has a loyalty to the academic standards of its discipline, to the collective wisdom of the world of scholarship in its discipline outside its own university, and to its students - both undergraduate and postgraduate. These multiple loyalties may make it difficult on occasions to get the department to be a part of a master plan for the university as a whole. The ability to do that is the mark of a good university leader.
To overcome this difficulty by abolishing departments and combining its members into larger amorphous units - schools or colleges - may lead to administrative "efficiency" but runs the risk of destroying the essential core of the university - its academic integrity. - Yours, etc,
PADDY O'FLYNN, Leinster Road, Dublin 6.