Sir, - On September 30th last, following an academic career of 36 years in Trinity College and Queen's, I accepted early retirement from my post of senior lecturer in Queen's, and a part-time reappointment for one year.
In his inaugural address (January 28th) to some 1,200 members of staff in Queen's University, Belfast, the new Vice-Chancellor, Professor George Bain, outlined his vision of Queen's and stressed the importance of people. The reaction to his address ranged from "inspiring" and "professional" to the more cautious "let's wait and see". (Update, QUB Information Bulletin, February 5th).
Why did I accept the offer of early retirement? Was it to avail of the university's "extremely generous terms" (George Bain, Belfast Telegraph, September 28th)? Was it to retire on a full pension, as I would have done in 2002, my normal retirement date? No. My early retirement did not permit such luxury. On September 30th I abandoned financial opportunity and accepted a reduced pension. Did I retire because I am research-inactive and felt threatened by the university's current policy? Was it time to make way for a younger, more dynamic university teacher/ researcher?
No. I accepted early retirement because I was deeply hurt by the university's "offer" of early retirement. Is this surprising? Even Professor Bain "would be amazed if some of the staff who received the letter were not demoralised". In his official appraisal of me last January (the month in which Professor Bain took up his appointment as Vice-Chancellor in Queen's), the director of my School in Queen's wrote of my "dedication, enthusiasm and professionalism". Students' appraisals of my teaching, he recorded, "are as flattering as any in the School. There are clear signs of scholarship throughout Dr Lewis's work". Directors of Schools, the persons best able to assess a member's academic worth, were not consulted prior to publication of Professor Bain's academic restructuring proposal. Nor, on the latter's approval, were they informed of the names of targeted individuals.
In Professor Bain's invitation to targeted individuals (June 24th), there was no hint of acknowledgment of services given to the university. Yet Professor Bain now maintains (Update October 19th) that there are "some people among those who have received offers who make an exceptional contribution to the University in ways other than research, such as innovation in teaching, or in administration, and it would obviously be sound common-sense for us to retain them. This exercise (the Second-Stage Review) will ensure that they do not `fall through the net' ". Some already have! I, and my fellow targeted colleagues, have been assessed by bureaucrats, typified by those who "don't teach, don't meet students and don't do research." (Sean Barrett, FTCD The Irish Times, October 20th). "There's still conflict in Belfast"' was the heading on Yvonne Healy's interview with Professor Bain (Education & Living, September 15th). Results of a recent survey of Queen's staff (the Belfast Telegraph, October 22nd) confirm that the conflict continues.
Yvonne Healy questioned whether "the universities in the Republic have the courage to display such openness and clear thinking". Should such courage materialise, let us hope that their research into ways of maintaining or achieving balanced excellence be not subjected to such a suspiciously short time scale, and that it take into account the significant contribution to research and/or scholarship of unbalanced academics. Max Lewis Senior Lecturer in Biochemistry,
Queen's University, Belfast