Sir, - In his article in your edition of May 17th, Prof Ferdinand von Prondzynski takes issue with views aired by Prof John Kelly on the philosophy of university education. The main tenet of Prof von Prondzynski's argument is that universities should have a clearly defined purpose in a rapidly changing society: "Universities are not monuments but living institutions with a vital social purpose."
Newman's idea of a university, informed as it was by the legacy of Enlightenment humanism, stressed the inherent merit of disciplinary specialisation. Reason, within this tradition, does not solely aspire to training students within the restrictive paradigm of their future usefulness to the market. Prof von Prondzynski is correct in identifying Newman as a product of his time, but incorrect in concluding that the idea of knowledge which a university sets itself must, in today's world, be drawn pragmatically from the practices of the market economy.
To insist on the development of rational thinking which takes time and is the purpose of disciplinary specialisation is not to oppose technology or reject change. On the contrary, change can and should be the result of rational choice made by individuals who have gained an insight into the operations of the economy, the thought-systems behind politics, and the historical patterns underlying events. Far from having outgrown its usefulness with Newman, as is Prof von Prondzynski's inference, the university that teaches students how to think also teaches them not to blindly accept something that only appears to be unalterable.
The traditional university, with its insistence on thought, is accused by some of being opposed to change. Here one must return to the history books, since there is a fundamental historical and philosophical flaw in this argument. Critical thought is not stagnation, and gearing education to the short-lived experience of a very localised boom is not the answer to it. What is termed change in this context is in reality nothing more than the momentary dictates of a particular situation.
Change is something different: it involves not simply proceeding passively and pragmatically on the basis of what is, but of learning to differentiate what could be, and acting accordingly. To understand this takes time and, by all means, a range of disciplinary skills. But to tell the students of tomorrow that they do not need an outmoded style of education is to tell them that they have no choice but to accept the inevitable progression of society in a way that they neither understand nor have any say in. - Yours, etc.,
Dr Jeanne Riou, Pembroke Street, Irishtown, Dublin 4.