Madam, - The agenda for Irish higher education set out by the president of NUI Maynooth, Prof John Hughes (Opinion, January 12th), is profoundly disturbing. I hope it does not represent the views of his colleagues in the Conference of Heads of Irish Universities (CHIU). For Prof Hughes's vague and benign language is nothing more than an echo of the agenda of official development agencies.
Is this the new role now being envisaged for our universities? At issue here is not one's judgment of today's dominant economic development agenda; rather, it is the added value that universities bring to society.
For the past 1,000 years, they have existed to criticise orthodoxy, to stand as the incubators of new knowledge, challenging dominant agendas and the power hierarchies they legitimise. It is in doing this that they have contributed to society's development. To be faithful to their essential role, universities must always exist in tension with the power brokers in society, whether economic or political.
This is as vital today as it ever was. Indeed, in an era when spaces for independent critical thought are far fewer than in the past, this role is essential for the future health of our society.
If the term "knowledge society" means anything, it means fostering the capacity for critical analysis throughout society. Yet, as used by Prof Hughes, it is a synonym for the term "knowledge economy", reflecting the widespread conflation of the two terms in State documents.
At stake here are two entirely different views of knowledge. Prof Hughes seems to see knowledge purely as a commodity, something to bring to the marketplace. Similarly, his view of innovation is taken from economic thought - the creation of such commodities.
By contrast, the language of educators understands knowledge and innovation in far wider, more critical and more socially responsible ways.
Prof Hughes is entirely wrong in suggesting that those of us who criticise the narrow economistic agenda do so out of some aversion to operating "in a marketplace or service context". Though I find the term "marketplace" singularly inappropriate, I suggest we operate in two marketplaces - that for students and that for ideas.
In terms of students, those of us who teach critical thought in the social sciences find far greater demand for our courses than do many other disciplines, so we are perfectly happy to be "competitive" in this marketplace. As to the marketplace for ideas, would that this really existed and that a serious debate was fostered on what sort of society we as citizens really want.
Instead of imposing on us a narrow agenda that runs the risk of destroying much that is of crucial value in what our universities offer Irish society, I hope the CHIU will take this opportunity to act as a neutral promoter of a wide debate on the future of Irish higher education. - Yours, etc.,
Dr PEADAR KIRBY, School of Law and Government, Dublin City University, Dublin 9.