This week, The University Times reported that Chemistry staff were frustrated with Trinity’s implementation of new rules that mandate that in-person activities can only be a maximum of one hour and 45 minutes, meaning that those working in the same room cannot be deemed “close contacts” by the HSE.
Consequently, the School of Chemistry had to cancel their laboratory practicals. The disappointment felt by staff due to the cancellation of labs is understandable. During a year plagued by level-five restrictions, they have done well to keep cases associated with labs at zero. The efforts of chemistry staff to keep in-person teaching safe however, have come to naught.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the implementation of these new rules are not made purely in the interest of public safety, but rather so College does not have to classify students as close contacts. What really is the difference between being in a laboratory for an hour and 45 minutes and being there for two hours?
These guidelines also restructured the library’s booking system. In comparison however, labs are arguably much safer than the library. There is adequate ventilation in labs and given their nature, participants are required to undergo a number of safety precautions.
This Editorial Board has previously written that College needs to be consistent when dealing with laboratory practicals. But not only does it need to be consistent, it needs to be considerate too. The chemistry staff worked hard to ensure their laboratories were safe to work in and could provide students with much-needed practical experience. Now they have been stripped of all of that, because of, in their words, “arbitrary” rules.
A top-down decision with inadequate dialogue with those affected is always going to be problematic. Chemistry staff’s frustration with this blanket decision by College is no different. Trinity would do well to engage with those it is imposing restrictions on.
