Debate on the future of higher education

Madam, - Peadar Kirby (January 19th) defines a role for universities with which I do not agree

Madam, - Peadar Kirby (January 19th) defines a role for universities with which I do not agree. He claims they exist to "criticise orthodoxy. . .challenging dominant agendas and the power hierarchies they legitimise".

I agree with him that our purpose is to promote - even foment - critical analysis, but I would argue that such analysis must be exercised without fear or favour. We must pursue, even as we may never achieve, truth. We suffer in some sectors of higher education from a rather smug orthodoxy which argues that since the pursuit of truth through objective critical analysis is problematic, we should jettison both and simply engage with the society of which we are a part, creating a sort of revolutionary common-roomism. If that is the case, why should public money be spent on our endeavours as opposed to those of any political party, interest group or NGO that seeks to "exist in tension with the power brokers in society".

Dr Kirby's concern appears to be that universities will be re-engineered to serve interests of which he disapproves. I agree, not because I share his disapproval, but because if universities serve an interest they fail to perform their basic function.

Our universities are struggling to respond to a variety of challenges. Without leadership and resources we face the very real danger of Irish universities being left to regurgitate received wisdom, in the process creating privileged playgrounds for political militants or sterile training facilities for socio-economic élites. - Yours, etc.,

READ MORE

BEN TONRA, Dublin European Institute, UCD, Dublin 4.