Provostial candidates faced a much more direct line of questioning today than they have at any stage in the campaign thus far, as members of the faculty of arts, humanities and social sciences (AHSS) grilled them on issues such as open-access research, infrastructure in the Arts Block and College’s treatment of people with disabilities.
In a hustings-style webinar chaired by faculty head Prof Gail McElroy, election candidates Prof Linda Hogan, Prof Linda Doyle and Prof Jane Ohlmeyer reckoned with issues with historically College’s most revered faculty, but in recent years, arguably its most neglected.
Early on, all three candidates made the somewhat-unsurprising observation that AHSS is holding up Trinity’s place in world rankings – several schools in the faculty are still in the top 50 in their field internationally, despite College overall tumbling down the list in the past decade.
Ohlmeyer and Hogan, by now, appear to be more focused on rankings than Doyle: the former is adamant that Trinity will be “playing on the world stage”, and the latter’s manifesto commits to a return to the top 50 universities worldwide.
It is unclear how this will play with the electorate – rankings do not appear to be high on their list of priorities, but the prestige of the university is naturally a point of pride for many.
But it’s impossible to separate the issues of international clout and College finances: more money means more research, as well as more staff, which will address the thorn in College’s side that is its staff-student ratio.
There was broad agreement among the three candidates that diversity of income streams will be key to recovering Trinity’s financial situation. “The tourists will come back”, Ohlmeyer said, before repeating a line she has used several times this week: “International student income was the ‘get-out-of-jail-free card’ during the recession … but we should never be treating international students as ATMs.”
Both Hogan and Doyle emphasised the importance of philanthropy, but this source of funding is as susceptible to failing during an economic downturn as any other. Doyle did note that the philanthropic model is changing, with a greater portion coming from social- and climate-justice activism. AHSS, she said, would be “well poised” to benefit from that.
Indeed, marketing the worth of arts and humanities was a common theme: Ohlmeyer used it to push her hopes for more inter- and multidisciplinary collaboration, particularly where climate change is concerned. “The arts, humanities and social sciences has a huge amount to offer to that very important conversation.”
When fielding two similar questions about access and respect for people with disabilities, none of the candidates showed an overly impressive understanding of the issues.
Granted, socioeconomic equity was lumped into the same question making it somewhat cumbersome, but each took a rather conglomerate approach to the subject. Indeed, none of the candidates grappled with the fact that there are many disabilities, all with their own nuances and requirements, and instead took a more broad approach.
Hogan and Doyle were generally positive about pre-existing attempts to make Trinity more accessible, citing the Trinity Access Programme (TAP) and the University of Sanctuary status, which Trinity recently earned, as examples. They wanted to, in the words of Hogan, “embed”, “extend” and “expand” such programmes.
Ohlmeyer, on the other hand, disagreed with their assessment, saying that she didn’t think the “structures and architecture is right” to foster equity – rather, it is “extraordinarily fragmented”. She acknowledged the success of TAP, but didn’t elaborate on whether she believes it should be expanded or remodelled. This was a surprising take, particularly in light of the recent news that TAP has spread to the world’s top two universities, the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge.
Slight differences emerged between the candidates on open access, a hot topic for many academics, who fear that allowing open access will be a death knell for smaller publications and journals. Doyle spoke briefly about her involvement with the push for open scholarship, but was quick to note that she – along with her colleagues – “have begun to address the threats”, and advocated for a “pool of funding for people to dip into for article processing charges”.
Hogan and Ohlmeyer took a less amicable tone on the subject. Hogan expressed her concerns about the damage open access could do to, in particular, AHSS journals and presses, saying that they “will never survive this wave of transformation”. Ohlmeyer echoed these concerns, and expressed concerns about “damaging an area that is so important for Trinity’s global reputation”.
Open access is a touchy subject, and AHSS and STEM academics will likely have contrasting views. Trying to toe this line will be tough, and Doyle’s involvement in open access initiatives could be a tricky obstacle for her to navigate around.
Perhaps the clearest insight into the differences between the three candidates came in the form of the final question of the forum: if elected, what would they not do?
Hogan appealed to the overwhelming desire of the electorate for less bureaucracy: “I am not going to initiate grand top down reform projects.”
Given that Hogan had earlier said that “at least the last two provost elections promised administrative reform”, and that College now has “greater difficulties rather than fewer difficulties” it seems that she would prefer to leave reform more to the faculties and schools.
Ohlmeyer riffed on the electorate’s concerns – as part of a survey, several academics told The University Times that they learned about developments and updates from this newspaper. “I am not going to communicate with colleagues via Twitter”, she said. Having earlier lauded her previous success at using weekly coffee mornings in the Long Room Hub to foster a sense of community, it’s clear she wants to position herself as the friendly candidate.
Doyle pledged transparency: “I’m not going to have consultations that are called consultations when they’re really not … any interaction will be real.”
Next up, the candidates will face questions from the faculty of health sciences at 12.30pm on Monday.
