We are unwitting participants in of tyrannical structure, funded by our own money and gone unchallenged by a distracted populace by a myriad of events contributed to, if not caused by, the self-same tyrannical structures we support.

Reading this you probably think I’ve gone mad, but let me make the argument and you can decide for yourself.

Is it entirely implausible that students (sic: society) can and should have a greater role in deciding the affairs of their university? In Ireland are beginning to shift from a public mechanism of control to the historical private-education model, where wealth determines educational achievement. The Dept of Education reduced governmental funding by 4.2% shifting the cost to students via the Registration Fee, correctly known as the ‘Student Services Charge’.  Indeed the mutterings from some HEIs, and advice from the Dept of Education, is to increase ‘private contributions’ both from philanthropists and business (who undoubtedly get a say in what it is spent on) in order to ‘shift away from the Exchequer’.

The Universities, indeed all the HEIs, in Ireland are formulated as follows: there is a President who oversees the staff and the running of the Higher Educational Institute and sits on a plethora of committees whose function is to examine, report, make recommendations and rubber stamp those recommendations that relate to, or may have a possible relation to, the future of the specific HEI. These Presidents are not elected, even by the staff of the HEI, they are appointed following an interview and selection process by a select few within the HEI itself.

Yet recently in Irish society and media we have seen an increasing preferential ear being given to Presidents of HEIs on social issues, or issues affecting their HEIs, such as funding, Third Level Fees, what the Government should be doing etc. Two Presidents above all stick out; Prof. Ferdinand von Prondzynski of DCU, and Dr. Michael Murphy of our own UCC. Prof. Von Prond has received a large media attention for his opinions on, well, everything thanks to his over excitable use of his personal blog and Twitter account (@vonpron), various disputes over dismissing lecturers, and his call for 3^rd Level Fees to be re-instated.

Similarly Dr. Michael Murphy has gained widespread local and national media attention for controversial calls on the Government to re-instate 3^rd Level Fees. Of course, these are portrayed as personal opinions or ‘for the good of the College’, but undeniably they have huge social impacts. Presidents of HEIs are presented to the community outside of their HEIs as the public face of a homogenous whole- of staff and students alike. In UCC’s case that would mean that Dr. Michael Murphy represents 18,000 students and approximately 2,500 staff to the outside world, more than a Dublin TD. These people not only make political lobbies to groups like the Higher Educational Authority and the now-dissolved NUI, but the Government at large.

Is it accurate at all to say they are representative of the education community, or that they can act out of an all-knowing benevolent parentalism (‘they know best’)? Not in the slightest. There exists no way to mandate a HEI’s direction on an issue outside of a majority vote on all the major decision making bodies of that HEI. The implausibility of that occurring is easily evident by way of student representation on those same bodies within the HEIs. Taking UCC as an example: 2-3 students theoretically sit on each College Committee (S.E.FS, M&H, B&L, Arts) out of approx 100 lecturers, on Academic Council the same amount plus UCC’s Sabbatical Officers make up 15 out of 120+, on Governing Body (the highest authority) we make up 3/15- on which people as the Bishop of Cork and Ross sit.

Some people are undoubtedly saying ‘Well the Educational Minister can control the HEIs, because we pay them via taxes.’ Perhaps, but in a scenario where private interests were to invest money in a debt-laden college (currently any of them) to a significant amount comparing to government, who would you expect to cut the deal with? In fact it is this pragmatic viewpoint that has been the basis of the calls for 3^rd Level Fees and private donations from HEI Presidents and, bizarrely, the Government. Historically it has been this decrease in governmental funding leading to a scare in the quality of service provision that have led to the privatisation of various social goods; transport systems in Ireland and England are a easy example, with typically disastrous examples for social control of transport costs of people or goods.

For a population outnumbering the administration and academic staff 9:1, and at a contribution of €136,800,000 per annum ([Government Funding from Taxpayers: approx. €6,000 per student, Registration Fee: €1500 ps, Direct Fee to UCC via Capitation: €160 ps.] x 18,000 students), we really don’t get much of a say. When you factor in that Students’ Unions have been fighting nearly 8 years in many HEIs to get a detailed breakdown on how the Registration Fee is actually being spend on students, you really need to start thinking about how the show is run.

This predicament is self-evident in the language used in HEIs in relation to students; we are ‘stakeholders’ not shareholders. We do not get the entitlement of having votes via the money we invested (shares) or a guaranteed return; instead we have taken a risk. We’ve thrown the money in on a venture we have little or no control over and if we benefit by getting a degree and a job, well that’s fine then, right? However, being shareholders of education would entitle those with shares to call the shots. 18,000 students (and families) suddenly would have an entitlement to hold those investing their money to account, and the necessity of accountability would dramatically change the nature of the student-HEI educational partnership.

Contrast this with the Students’ Union structure: you pay €5 p.a. to the Union and at the click of a button or ringing the President you can demand pretty much anything. You can call a referendum to demand an action on an issue or to (re)-instate a policy; I was a great fan of ‘Naked Fridays’. It publishes accounts and actions regularly via SU Council which everyone is entitled to attend and/or run for, which also mandates the Union on issues. And everyone is entitled to run for Full-Time positions by way of majority PR voting, of which the entire student body is the electorate. It is completely accurate to say that the President of a Students’ Union, currently UCC’s Eoin Hayes, has; a) a greater representative role than a HEI President, b) greater responsibility for improving the socio-economic circumstances of students and potential graduates, and c) has a greater entitlement, if not right, in deciding the distribution and allocation of student financial contributions via the Reg Fee/ Student Services Charge. Sadly these are not seen as the reality.

We are equivalent to a factory where the workers pay the management and the bosses their wages yearly upfront, in the hope that by working and learning there for a number of years they will be more skilled to find better paid work elsewhere. When we leave the factory, and presumably find work, we pay those factories even more via tax in by way of thanks (via tax subsidies and funding), and to ensure other workers are up-skilled also. Instead of active participants and contributors, we are passive automatons unquestioning the lack of our control over our returns and working conditions. An active labour force could hold up the show with withholding production (strikes), but in our scenario we cannot. We’re afraid of losing our stake.

It is thus fair to return to my beginning statement: we exist in a tyranny of the unelected wealthy elite, who we pay to remain there.

Interestingly the father of capitalism, Adam Smith, stated that in any civilized society government would have to intervene to prevent the division of labour from making people “as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to be.” He would get on well with the post-Enlightenment socialist Bertrand Russell who stated the goal of education is to help create “wise citizens of a free community.” Both recognised the need for a democratic control of education in society by a citizenry, participating on equal terms, to achieve common goals that were democratically conceived.

Amazingly we are caught between the failures of both the social and private models of educational control. The social model’s central tenant is democratic control and active participation in how the education system is constructed and what we learn, my personal preference. The private model actually bequeaths a similar democratic control, via withdrawing capital (our money) and voting with our feet, but it’s based on the flawed presumption that all socio-economic (family income) and geo-economic (rent in Limerick vs. Cork/Dublin) factors are equal and therefore we have freedom of movement and choice.

I am not suggesting that students should be placed in sole control of the HEIs, but should certain staff, with particular emphasis on staff in representational roles, not be accountable to those who pay their wages?