Sir, In a personal capacity, it must be said that Sean Barrett's letter (August 6th), was regrettable to the extent that it was couched in quasi confrontational language, and cannot be in the interests of harmonious state/college relations. However, as regrettable as it was, it is infinitely preferable to petitioning external political influence.
As an economist, Dr Barrett will readily appreciate - being schooled in the science of materialism that everything in life has a price tag attached, and the grandiose concept of academic autonomy is certainly no different. In short, autonomy is a luxury Trinity cannot afford, and there is little point in carping from the sidelines on failing to win the day. It just isn't cricket!
It is a measure of the arrogance of university mandarins to kick up a stink when funding agencies demand a say in how the institution is run. The correlation between funding and influence should determine the degree to which an institution is autonomous.
The greater the disparity between them - multiplied by the degree of reaction against achieving equilibrium - will determine the level of arrogance prevalent. The state provides maximum funding, but has minimum influence in the affairs of TCD. This is intolerable!
Harking back to the good old days, when universities may have been state funded on a backslapping bonhomie basis, will not do. If it is necessary that university bureaucrats be dragged into the 21st century, so be it. The economics of reality dictate that the ball is over, and there is no such thing as a free lunch. The enthusiastic recipients of public funding should be prepared to do a merry dance. - Yours, etc.,
(Vice-president, SIPTU/TCD), c/o Arts Building,
Trinity College,
Dublin 2.