Sir, - Consider the following situation. The CEO of a large organisation decides to restructure the company. The plan involves terminating the employment of 107 staff because they are insufficiently productive and closing down four departments. Senior management approves the plan and targeted staff are offered severance terms. You would assume that, as surely as night follows day, the staff would react against such a plan with enormous uproar. You would expect to see enraged union representatives making passionate statements in the media. Whatever about the rights and wrongs of the arguments, such a reaction would be only natural.
Queen's University, Belfast plans to restructure and has targeted 107 academic teaching staff for early retirement/severence because they are insufficiently productive. Four departments are to be closed. A report by Andy Pollack and Yvonne Healy (The Irish Times, September 11th) explained that this plan was approved by the academic council and senate at Queen's with 80 per cent support. Nobody voted against the plan and, wait for it, the representatives of the academic union abstained on the vote, as also, I assume, did the heads of the four departments.
The vice-chancellor of Queen's, Prof George Bain, proudly proclaimed (Education and Living, September 15th) that 80 per cent of staff supported his restructuring plan. The only protests I have seen against the plan were a few letters from individual Queen's academics published in your columns in recent weeks. In such a letter (September 25th) Dr Paul Clifford claims that opposition to the restructuring plan is widespread amongst Queen's academics, but, for a variety of reasons, they are afraid to speak publicly about the matter.
Dr Clifford also points out that he has published 34 research articles in good international journals over 24 years, i.e. a publication rate of almost 1.5 articles a year. Nevertheless, the new broom that is sweeping Queens clean categorises him as "research inactive". If three papers every three years is inactive, I must confess I don't understand what active means.
Why would academics not speak out if they oppose the restructuring plan? Academic freedom, i.e. the freedom to hold and to teach unpopular ideas, is a cornerstone of academic life. But what is the practical value of this principle if fear can prevent academics from stating deeply-felt views? Also, where are all the campus critics who so frequently criticise the ills of society at-large?
I don't understand what is happening at Queen's. If there is a strong case to be made against the restructuring plan, why is it not being pursued with the same vigour that Prof Bain displays in pursuing his objectives? The whole thing is eerie. - Yours, etc., Dr William J. Reville,
University College, Cork.