Recently I wrote about the pretence at rational planning that is the current state of Irish higher education reform. The official policy discourse gives the impression that the flurry of activity that sees the presidents of Institutes of Technology meeting each other, the production of guidelines on criteria for Technological University status (that not quite a ‘real’ university status that IoTs may be granted) by Simon Marginson, and update reports by the Higher Education Authority are somehow the stuff of deliberative democracy.
My claim is that they are nothing of the sort.
The reality is that as soon as the Hunt Report was published, with its well rehearsed arguments for institutional rationalisation (read budget cuts), Technological University status, and regional higher education clusters, ambitious presidents and registrars of IoTs quickly got into action.
Suddenly there were rumours of potential amalgamations between this IoT and another, of regional amalgamations. Month by month it seemed these rumours changed, morphed. What was a ‘definite’ love match one week was cast asunder the next.
It is important to note that all of this occurred in the absence of any real legislative framework. Indeed, it still does. It is an example of POLICY WITHOUT POLICY. Instead, the process on the ground has been driven by ambition. For all the attempt to put a rational gloss on things, the BIG players on the field call the shots their way. For instance, the long held ambition for a ‘university of the South East’ (a dream thwarted by the OECD report) has framed the actions of at least one institution. Others who may or may not come under the orbit of institutional merger in that region are bit players. Hardly deliberative democracy.
Similarly, the changing elements of a possible regional fix in the North West has, it has been privately reported, been partly driven by a mixture of personal ambition and antipathy.
In a climate of fiscal restraint – OK, let me be blunt about this, in a climate of raiding the public sector purse to pay for the criminal mistakes of the private sector, the running around trying to either get in on a bigger players act, or desperately trying to secure some presence in the new future for non-university tertiary education, has involved massive transactional costs. This is not just in the money (public money) spent on meetings, but the serious discontent amongst ordinary lecturers about their and their institution’s futures. This sees itself in petty actions and in ill-health. Ordinary lecturers are not participating in the discussions about their futures. These are held by those higher up the institutional food chain.
This could have been different. The HEA could have organised a more meaningful process. The relevant government minister could have sought to legislate in a way that actually asked serious questions about what kind of higher education system a small open economy and country like Ireland could have. But they didn’t. I don’t know why. Some might say it is the result of incompetence. Some might say it was political ineptitude. Some might say it was both.
What is clear, is that what is happening lacks any compassion. It is ethically moribund. It is a moral embarrasment.