HUGH BREDIN,
Sir, - I am responding to Prof McCormac's letter (July 1st) defending the decision by Queen's University to abolish the School of Classics. Prof McCormac asserts that this decision was adopted overwhelmingly by the university Senate. But word filtering out from the relevant meeting of Senate suggests that there was widespread hostility to the decision among Senate members, and that it would almost certainly have been rejected only for a ruling from the chair.
Prof McCormac also says that the study of classical texts in their original language will continue in Queen's, even though the languages in which the texts were written will be no longer taught. This is rather like saying that physics will be taught at Queen's even though mathematics won't. Or that palaeoecology will be taught without students having to learn about carbon dating.
Finally, Prof McCormac tries to absolve Queen's of any responsibility by saying that there is "absolutely no student demand" for these subjects (Latin, Greek, classics, classical studies, classical civilisation) - adding that the "fault" lies with the schools.
So far as student demand goes, members of the School of Classics have been patiently explaining to anyone who will listen that student demand is in fact quite healthy, and indeed better than in some subjects which are not being closed down. So far as student numbers are concerned, Prof McCormac has been badly misinformed, no doubt through no fault of his own.
The claim that the "fault" lies with the schools is rather insulting to those schools (at least 20 in Northern Ireland) which have flourishing classics departments, to the teachers who teach in them, and to the heads who go to some lengths to keep classics flourishing. It is regrettable that Prof McCormac should have written something like this, and I hope that he does not really mean to cast any slur on the schools in question. - Yours, etc.,
HUGH BREDIN,
Belfast, 9.