Madam, - It is heartening to see Education Minister Mary Hanafin taking a lead in reining in UCD president Hugh Brady from his staff-poaching activities. You deserve some praise yourself in this regard for your thoughtful Editorial on the subject (August 30th). However she, and you, should know that this is just one of the more extreme of the excesses being perpetrated by some of our third-level colleges under the guise of reform.
Judging by a recent statement the Minister made in an interview with your Education Editor, Sean Flynn (The Irish Times, April 14th), she may need some enlightenment as regards the "success" of the reforms involved - as may you, judging from the implicit praise in your Editorial for the reforms "pushed through" by Hugh Brady in UCD. A related news report in the same edition under the headline "UCD head alienating staff in poaching row - staff" suggests a different state of affairs there.
Here in Trinity College, there has been comment from senior figures regarding the apparent opposition to restructuring from some academics who, it is suggested, want to continue with the old ways. The impression has been created that those opposing the current restructuring process are opposed to change per se. Such views have been echoed by the Minister in her Irish Times interview, in which she said, of those pushing through the reforms she had praised, that they "came up against really strong opposition from 100-year-old practices and yet they managed to reform and are aiming towards much more student-friendly classes as well". Unfortunately, she has been misguided on all three points in that quotation.
Taking her last point first, I am not aware of any moves by the reconstructionists to aim towards "much more student-friendly classes". In fact, as noted in an earlier letter (May 10th, 2006), the structure of the new resource allocation model being imposed here means that this suggestion could not be further from the truth. Despite this, the reconstructionists flagrantly continue to promote this idea in their recently published Trinity College Dublin Strategic Plan Update 2006.
On the second point made by the Minister, that the reconstructionists "managed to reform", she clearly has not been made aware of the mess being made of the reform process in Trinity, with its chaotic, unmanaged emergence of faculties, schools and vice-deaneries, its creaking financial administration, with new and unwelcome surprises about available resources emerging all too frequently, and the "command and control" style of management, both at top levels and within schools. The latter has resulted in a serious erosion of staff morale, with suggestions that Trinity College is no longer a nice place to work in being heard all too often.
Referring to the Minister's first point, it is a slight on the vast majority of Trinity staff, both academic and non-academic, to suggest that opposition to the reforms, as currently imposed, is based on a desire to cling to the ways of 100 years ago. On the contrary, there is widespread acceptance among staff in Trinity College that reform is needed. Indeed, there are many instances of small-scale improvement projects throughout the college which rely largely on the energy and ingenuity of committed staff.
Under the leadership of the previous Provost, Tom Mitchell, a thorough academic review was conducted which involved exceptional effort by many staff members who spent almost a year tackling a series of core issues regarding the functioning of the college. The pity is that the resources needed to make the ensuing reform recommendations work were not forthcoming.
There is also a widespread acceptance that resource allocation needs reform.
Opposition to the current reforms is focused on their misguided nature and on the "command and control" style of imposing them, right or wrong. - Yours, etc,
Dr MICHAEL STUART, Department of Statistics, Trinity College, Dublin 2.
Madam, - Reading Iggy Ó Muircheartaigh's lengthy article (Opinion & analysis, August 31st) I was struck by the fact that the word "trust" wasn't mentioned until the last paragraph.
Trust is the foundation of the academic world - trust between colleagues, between teachers and students and also between universities and the communities they serve. All intellectual endeavours depend on personal integrity but nowhere is this more important than in the world of scientific research. Collaboration based on trust, as opposed to written protocols, is required so that society can benefit fully from academic endeavours in the confidence that they are the result of real collaboration between experts.
In his book Stewardship: Choosing Service over Self-Interest, Peter Block presents a model of partnership that empowers all members within an organisation. Block contends that stewardship springs from a set of beliefs that affirm our choice of service over self-interest, shown by a willingness to be accountable to or for the greater good. The successful stewardship of our educational institutions hinges entirely on partnership and trust between all members of those communities. When we choose service over self-interest we are serving the greater good and in doing so we are building the capacity of the next generation to govern themselves.
No number of signed protocols could possibly replace the apparently now outdated "honour system" in academia. - Yours, etc,
ANGELA SHORT, School of Business, Dundalk Institute of Technology, Dublin Road, Dundalk, Co Louth.