Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 May 1943

Vol. 90 No. 3

Committee on Finance. - Vote 70—Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.

Tairgim:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £11,500 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thíocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1944, chun Deontaisí d'Institiúid Ard-Léighinn Bhaile Atha Cliath (Uimh. 13 de 1940).

That a sum, not exceeding £11,500 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, for Grants to the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies (No. 13 of 1940).

I think that a situation well calculated to cause us real concern is beginning to develop in connection with the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. I recall that, when the proposal to establish this institute was before Dáil Eireann, I took a very strong line in supporting it. Some of my colleagues in the Fine Gael Party, to which I then had the honour to belong, differed from me and sounded a note of warning. They said that they foresaw in this enterprise something which one day might be a rival to the university, and might ultimately be designed to place the universities of the State in an inferior position, and to reserve to itself all the functions of higher learning and research which are ordinarily associated with centres of higher education. That apprehension was vigorously repudiated by the Taoiseach, who was then Minister for Education. I allowed myself to be persuaded by his emphatic protestations that nothing was further from his mind. I am not satisfied that my colleagues were not right, and that I was not misled.

I am being forced to the conclusion that there is a scheme on foot, slowly and insidiously, to create an atmosphere in which it will be generally accepted that the research and scholarship usually associated with the university, and the faculties of the university, are in this country the exclusive province of the Institute of Higher Studies, and that from henceforward any State benefactions for the promotion of higher learning or research in the special avenues of the Institute of Higher Learning — mathematical physics and Irish learning—are to be reserved for the institute as the superior body: that the university is to be set on one side as a kind of pedestrian institute for pass students, but that from it nobody in the future need expect that any work of real distinction or importance will emerge. Now, if this be the trend, if this be the mind of those responsible for the institute, then the institute is becoming a great danger to learning in this country and far from being an academic asset is a menace. It must be dragged into the open at the earliest possible moment and made realise that no conflict between it and our universities will be tolerated, and that its activities will in no way be allowed to harass or sterilise the work of the learned faculties of the university from which we will expect in the future, as we have in the past, the highest criteria of learning.

There can be no objection to the work of the institute provided its labours are carried on with a view to supplementing, and co-operating with, the learned activities of the university, but if it attempts to substitute itself for the university, and to relegate to the university nothing more than the function of pedestrian mass education, while reserving to itself all the functions of research and scholarship, I have no hesitation in saying that the institute, instead of being an asset to Irish learning, will be a menace and should be dealt with accordingly.

I shall be glad to hear from the Minister for Education if representations upon these lines have reached his ears. I shall be glad to hear from him if he is prepared, in the event of having heard nothing already, to make inquiries himself in informed circles as to the views that obtain in university circles, so that any existing misunderstanding may be cleared up, and so that a desirable atmosphere of collaboration and co-operation between this institution and other centres of learning may be restored and strengthened, because if mistrust, misunderstanding, and ill-will should be fomented by either side between the universities in this country and the institute, these bodies will become mutually destructive, and Irish learning in both these important spheres will suffer proportionately.

Now, so far as the Institute for Higher Studies was concerned with Irish generally, Deputies in this House will remember that it had my cordial goodwill and ardent support from the time that the proposal was first mooted. But I have heard with consternation recently that, as a result of the founding of the institute, certain admirable research activities carried out directly under the Minister's Department had been suspended, that the highly trained staff of four or five workers had been dispersed and that the work upon which they were engaged had come to an end. On learning this, I inquired why, and I was informed that it had been suspended because it was felt by the Minister that the work which this body was doing was work which might be properly done by the Institute for Higher Learning. Then I inquired if the Minister had satisfied himself that this highly skilled staff had been taken over by the institute, or if a substitute staff had been put on the same work, and if the Minister were satisfied that the work was going to be carried on. I gathered that the reply to that inquiry was, though I cannot claim that it was the Minister himself or his Department that made it, that all the Minister had decided was that this was work that the institute might do if it wanted to. The Minister had, apparently, decided before the institute was established that this was work that ought to be done.

He had provided the necessary facilities for getting it done; in fact, he had assembled under his general direction a most competent staff to do it. Valuable work has been done and is in progress of being done. A large field of research lies ahead for investigation, and to judge by the standard of work that has come forth up to now the body at present engaged in this field would do a splendid job, if allowed to proceed. Therefore, the whole work has been ended on no better ground than that it is a field of higher knowledge in which the Institute for Higher Studies should function. Without inquiring whether they wanted to enter that field or not, the Department's own work is stopped. In any technical branch of research—linguistic or folklore research, and more so in any sort of heterogeneous research which cannot be restricted to narrow scholarly channels—it may be extremely difficult to assemble the right sort of men and women to do the task in mind. Most fortunately, they had succeeded in this case in getting everything going like a wedding bell. Suddenly, everything is stopped in the Minister's Department, and nothing is begun in the institute.

I do not want to mislead the House. I do not want Deputies to imagine that half-completed manuscripts have been pigeon-holed. That is not true; a skeleton staff has been retained to wind up any piece of work that was in progress when the decision to suspend the general activity was taken; but, on the completion of the individual pieces of work that were in progress, this whole business is to stop, and we have no undertaking that the institute will carry it on. Doubtless, the Minister knows the work, and is better equipped to speak of it than I am. It is largely of a character against which time is running—the collection of records, stories and traditions, and miscellaneous work of that kind, vital elements of which may perish for ever with the passage of every year.

Surely, it is utter folly to allow this work to be brought to an end. Surely, the proper course is to address the director of the institute and ask him if he wishes to take this work over. If he signifies his desire to do so, and says that it fits in with some larger programme of research that he has in mind, by all means place it under his direction; but if he replies that, on account of the present state of his work, it is not possible for him to give his attention to this particular branch of learning for the time being, the work should be carried on as before, fixing the director with notice that if, at any later date, the wider programme of his activities would find a place for it, all he has to do is to get in touch with the Minister, who would then transfer the work to the institute, to be carried on by the director and such staff as he may call on to deal with it. I would earnestly urge the Minister to review his decision in this matter and to consider the alternative proposal I now make.

I now come to the last and, perhaps, the gravest matter that has arisen since this institute was established. Learning will not thrive or prosper except in the atmosphere of freedom. What may seem ignorance to one distinguished mind may appeal dramatically to another. Therefore, in the field of pure learning and research, anything savouring of censorship is to be condemned. There was a time when materialist scientists, in Great Britain, in the middle of the 19th century, would have laughed at any young scientist who had submitted the theory that the whole story of human creation and the evolution of the human race corresponded accurately with Divine Revelation. Darwin, Huxley, and the leading men of that day, would have described such a scientist as an incompetent ass and would have brushed him aside. Yet, 100 years later, Darwin and Huxley are beginning to look a bit moth-eaten and those who gainsaid them in their day are beginning to have their resurrection and their vindication. I understand that, recently, the lecturers and assistants in the Institute of Higher Studies have been presented with a new contract, which they are required to sign to enable them to continue service in the institute.

Part of the contract provides that any learned work they may desire to publish is the property of the institute and may not be published outside the institute's publications so long as they remain bound by their terms of contract with the institute. I think that is a wholly undesirable and dangerous document. It is based on the contention that these men are full-time workers in the institute and that, therefore, everything they do is the property of the institute. That is a complete departure from the well-established criterion of conduct in every learned institution in the world.

Every full-time professor in a university is the full-time servant of the university for which he works, yet no one would challenge his right to publish a learned paper in the Journal of Physiology or the Journal of Gynxcology or one of the germane publications on Irish learning, or the magazine Nature, or in any learned publication where he cared to publish the result of any bit of research. Naturally, a scholar would give due recognition, in any such publication, to the institute to which he belonged, whether a university or an institute of higher learning such as this; but it is monstrous to suggest that, because a man is working in an institute, he must submit to a prohibition on publications of that character, unless he is authorised by the director of the institute.

One may base the right of the director to forbid publication on the ground that all the products of the scholar who happens to be a lecturer are the property of the institute, but mark the contrary: if you give the director the right to control publication of learned material of that character, the time may come when a lecturer in the institute takes a view, in a scholarly subject, different from the director. He rightly prepares a paper sustaining his thesis and desires to communicate it to the proper learned jury, and is informed by the director that he will not permit him to publish it. It may be that the director thinks it is not of sufficiently high quality, or that he does not think the scholar should be wasting his time doing that kind of work.

The lecturer may be right and the director wrong, and the Institute of Higher Learning, instead of being a source of truth, instead of being truly an Institute of Learning, becomes an institute of obscurantism and of the suppression of truth. Though this may seem unlikely, let me give a case where the director recently published a monograph to prove that there are two Saint Patricks. It has been stated that the institute has so far succeeded in proving that there is no God but that there are two Saint Patricks. Whether that is true or not I do not know. I am not competent to follow Professor Schroedinger. But I do know that the professor of Celtic studies has proved to his own satisfaction that there are two St. Patricks, that the one in Armagh did not amount to much as compared with the other, and that it was through no very creditable activity on the part of the Chapter of the Diocese of Armagh that the wrong man got the credit, and for no disinterested reason. Professor O'Rahilly may believe that and, for all I know, it may be true.

But suppose some zealous soul in the institute, fired by desire to vindicate the St. Patrick to whom we have all been praying for the past 1,500 years, produces another piece of learning, directed to establish that there is only one St. Patrick, and that the right one, and submits it to the director, presumably, if the director believes in what he has made known to the public, he will be constrained to believe that the scholarship leading to the diametrically opposite conclusion must be in some regard defective; and if it is his function to restrain lecturers in the new institution from publishing work unworthy of the institution, is he not bound to say: "We cannot allow you to publish that as I have expounded the truth. If you expound what is diametrically opposite, one must be wrong and, if I am wrong, my whole scholarship is called in question. If you are wrong, it is my job to forbid you going wrong, or you will bring the whole reputation of the institute into disrepute." That, in my opinion, is an entirely wrong course to follow. In my opinion, the director, having made his case that there are two St. Patricks of widely differing qualifications for the position of National Saint in this country, anybody else who wants to make the case that there is only one should be free to do so.

It is a conceivable situation that somebody who had been appointed a lecturer in that institution would proceed to publish work in a learned journal of so disreputable a character that the director would feel constrained to disown it. If that should happen, the proper remedy is to dismiss the lecturer for cause stated, and if the cause stated is not sufficient, the lecturer has his remedy. But that situation is very different from proscription or prohibition from stating a case and setting his learning against that of the director.

The case I have just stated is a purely hypothetical one, as I have no reason to believe that the circumstances I have outlined have taken place or are about to take place. But, being struck by the director's work in connection with the two St. Patricks theory, I envisaged the possibility that I have outlined. I have, however, reason to believe that the following situation has taken place. I understand there is a publication called Eigse which is devoted to the assembly of miscellaneous matters in Irish learning which might be described as matter that does not fit precisely into the ambit of the Institute of Higher Learning's activities, nor yet into the Folklore Institute's activities, or indeed into the activities of any established academy publishing a journal, but which at the same time had a sort of contact with them all; material which would most readily come to the knowledge of persons engaged in various lines of highly specialised research. If the House will understand me, they will think of a scholar proceeding along some narrow specialised line and, in the course of his inquiry, coming on some interesting sideline which could not properly be brought into the particular investigation he is making, but which he feels should not be lost sight of in case another scholar should care to follow down the bypath on another occasion and pursue this interesting discovery to exhaustion. Eigse was designed for the reception of reports of such matters.

I understand the scholars associated with the institute were in the habit of communicating with that learned publication such miscellanea as I have described, and that they were recently informed that their work belonged exclusively to the institute, and might not be communicated to any other journal. Mark you, this was material for the inclusion of which the institute is publishing no journal. There is no journal published by the institute into which this material might properly find its way. The institute journal is designed for a very much more specialised type of precise research and miscellanea of that character has no place in it. If these scholars may not communicate this matter to other journals, it must for ever be lost until some other scholar happens to light upon it. Surely, that is a reactionary and obscurantist point of view.

I am not asking the House to travel too far in the other direction. I think it would be a reasonable stipulation that scholars who are full-time servants of this institute should have placed upon them the obligation of offering to the institute any research work they propose to publish for inclusion in the institute's journal, if the institute desires to publish it. The institute should be given the option of publishing it, and if the director declines to exercise the option within a reasonable period, they should be free to communicate it to the learned world through whatever publication may be available. There is a certain honourable competition between scholars. Perhaps a scholar in a highly specialised field will know that there is a German or American scholar working in the same field. There is an honourable competition as to who shall be the first to make known to the world some important discovery. It may well be that the particular communication they desire to make is not suitable to the institute publication.

Nevertheless, they may feel that, if they were unduly delayed in making it known to the world, some other scholar might discover the matter, and the glory of being the first to direct the attention of the world to this development of learning would be reserved to an American or German institute of learning, and that our own institute would be denied the honour and glory of their own scholar being the pioneer. In these circumstances, I think scholars should have the right to have a time limit fixed within which the director would publish their work, and that a reasonably limited period; but to give the director any further power of restraint upon the right of scholars associated with the institute to publish, I regard as a most retrograde step.

I say this most deliberately—if it becomes a permanent characteristic of the institute's constitution, then no reputable scholar will consent to being employed there. Any scholar who is prepared to surrender his liberty and freedom to communicate learning to the world according to the best of his ability for a dole from the institute has sold his soul, and when the full realisation of the implications of such an arrangement would dawn upon him, no reputable scholar in this country would consent to submit to terms of that character. It will be possible, of course, so long as salaries are payable, to get some kind of hodge-podge together who will be prepared to accept any condition in order to get the "screw," but I understand that the purpose of this institute is to enrol within its ranks only scholars of the highest standard, in whose minds material considerations will play a very minor part. I cannot imagine that the Minister for Education can envisage anybody of independent mind and scholarly tradition consenting to a contract of service which gives to another the right of censorship upon him.

I think the Minister must in his heart agree with me that, if such a contract were insisted upon and maintained, the standard of scholarship of the lecturers and associates of this institute must steadily decline, and I, therefore, have no hesitation in pressing upon the Minister that the terms of this contract should be instantly reviewed and that whatever contractual obligations are imposed upon the members of the staff, their complete intellectual freedom shall be held sacrosanct and that no kind of restriction will be placed upon them, except that so long as they remain full-time servants of the institute, they will be required to give to the director an option, strictly limited in time, on all their work and that, on the conclusion of that option, a scholar shall be as free as the air to publish whatever he deems to be true scholarship wherever, however and whenever he wants to publish it, leaving it to the world of learning to determine whether such material is worthy of the source from which it comes.

I make that demand—for it is in no sense an appeal; it is no more than justice—in the name of all those scholars who held the light of truth aloft when they were ridiculed and insulted by the pseudo-moralists of the 18th and 19th centuries in France and Great Britain, whose memory to-day is receiving a tardy vindication, who are emerging to-day as the true repository of intellectual learning, when the pundits of yesterday are dwindling into the dust from which they should never have emerged. I would never wish to have it said that we, by some foolish desire to impose unnecessary conditions on quasi-public servants, played the part of the quenchers of learning instead of its promoters, and my demand now is for freedom of learning in this institute. I have no hesitation in adding that, unless that demand is granted and the fullest freedom of intellectual independence restored, the sooner this institute is wound up and forgotten, the better it will be for Irish learning.

I want also to add that unless a relationship of collaboration, co-operation and genuine goodwill is successfully established between our universities and this institute, sooner or later we will be driven to our election as to whether we should keep the one or the other.

If that election has to be made, then our universities must be the citadel of learning and culture of the future and not this institute, because the day upon which higher learning becomes the prerogative of the few and a forbidden field to the many in this country is the day upon which higher learning in Ireland will begin to die. So long as we draw upon every source of our national resources for the learning which ought to do us credit, we have no reason to apprehend the future. If it is to become the restricted field of self-appointed pundits, it must die. Let the Minister be certain that sooner or later this House will see that it does not die, that sooner or later the House will see that the universities have the premier place in education in this country and that it will be preserved to them.

We can stop this contest, we can avoid this election, by prudent, discreet action now. I am in the happy position of being an independent Deputy. I involve no great Parties in responsibility for my words. If it be expedient for either side to repudiate them, on the ground that they are too grave for whatever situation obtains, they are very welcome to that face saving device. All I am concerned to insure is that, sub rosa or coram populo, the necessary measures will be taken to secure the proper and prosperous survival of this institute, to secure the existing and permanent premier position of our universities in the field of learning in this country and the due recognition of that by the Government and to ensure that this institute, if it does survive, shall provide conditions of contract for its employees which will be no clog on learning but rather a spur and stimulus to an even higher standard of production than that which has already characterised this institute's activities.

I have no intention of setting a precedent in undertaking the responsibility of arguing the merits or demerits of the internal affairs of the institute in this House. I do not know what information Deputy Dillon has that he professes to speak with such eloquence upon this matter. When the Bill setting up the institute was passing through the House, the Deputy, as he indicated in his opening remarks, made it very clear that he wished the institute to have the widest freedom possible from regulation by Government Departments. He said:—

"If it is a responsible body then it is very much more competent to determine how best these grants should be spent than is Dáil Eireann because, to my mind, it borders upon the ridiculous to bring before Dáil Eireann the details of the institute expenditure in matters relating to research and higher education, when not 5 per cent. of the Deputies of this House have the faintest notion of what it is all about, and are quite incompetent to judge of the appropriate expenditure that is to be undertaken."

Later on, he said, speaking of the Congested Districts Board:—

"... their work was very different and was specialised and that it was better to leave them wide discretion; under the circumstances that experiment——"

that is, the Congested Districts Board—

"——was a great success. I believe that highly technical and difficult as the work of that board may have been the work of this council is going to be infinitely more so."

The board referred to there was the Congested Districts Board. If the annual Estimate for this institute were not before the House, the Deputy could not have taken the opportunity to raise these matters. He stated in the discussion on the Bill that he was entirely against the financial investigation of the work of the institute being carried on here, but surely the investigation of questions of research is less to be considered. If the Deputy would have it that the House should give up its right to discuss items of expenditure in the institute, on the ground that we cannot possibly be au fait with the details in the way that they affect the work of the institute in its very technical aspects, surely there is far more reason for avoiding discussion about the actual work of the institute in regard to research and scholarship. I think this is not the place to discuss the matter.

The publication of work by members of the staff of the institute is obviously a matter that comes within the purview of the director and the boards of the different schools and I do not propose to go into that matter. I heard that the Deputy raised the matter in another place. I have no other knowledge of the question in which he is interested, regarding the publication of work, but, even if I had knowledge, I could not take up any other attitude than to say that it would be most regrettable indeed if we made it a practice to discuss the work of the institute here. I think, apart from the principle that the Deputy laid down, and from which he seems to me to be now clearly departing, it is most unfair to the persons concerned, to scholars of repute, who have been given definite responsibilities in this matter, to have their names bandied about the House. I do not propose to continue the discussion upon that particular matter.

As regards the question of collaboration with the university, that also seems to raise the issue of the internal working of the institute. I do not know what particular matter the Deputy has in mind there. If it raises the issue of the work of research and scholarship that is being carried out, then I certainly think we ought not to discuss it here. I can only say, with reference to the general matter of co-operation with our universities that, so far as I know, that co-operation has been forthcoming. The universities are well represented there by some of their most eminent men and, generally, there is an anxiety—I would be greatly surprised if it were otherwise—to cooperate in every possible way. They are scholars interested in the pursuit of learning and their only interest is in the advancement of scholarship. I would be greatly surprised if that co-operation were not forthcoming and if both sides did not recognise the necessity for it.

As regards the work which is being carried out under my Department, I should like to explain that it consisted exclusively in the editing and publication of modern Irish texts. Some of the manuscripts from which the texts were edited are now locked away and I understand it is rather difficult to continue the work in these cases. In any case, it was not intended that this scheme should be continued. The intention was that the work which it carried on should be carried on by the institute through the School of Celtic Studies, when that body began to operate. In fact, the work is specifically mentioned in the Act as part of the duties of that school, and I believe some of the staff have been employed by the institute since the work was discontinued. Deputy Dillon seemed to suggest in his speech that he spoke for all these scholars. I doubt if that is the case.

On a point of order. I spoke for nobody but myself.

That is a point of personal explanation, not a point of order.

Well, whatever it is. I merely spoke for myself and the Minister knows that damn well. He is trying to suggest that the scholars came to me. There is not a shadow of truth in that allegation, and the Minister knows it.

In any case, in his eloquence about the freedom of learning in this country and the attitude of the institute, he certainly gave the impression that somebody had made a case to him.

There is not a shadow of foundation for that suggestion, and it is maliciously made.

There is far less foundation for the suggestion that anybody having to do with the institute, either the director or the board, had any desire whatever except the advancement of learning. The Deputy has suggested that in some way there is a desire to restrict the work of the scholars there. I am sure there is no such desire—no desire to interfere with their giving their knowledge to the world. I would be greatly surprised if there were. If the Deputy is speaking only for himself I suppose, as often happens, he is probably speaking only from hearsay. It is rather unfortunate, from the point of view of the institute, that so much time should have been devoted in the House to this matter. I do not propose to continue the discussion.

The Minister forces my hand.

The Deputy is entitled to ask a question.

Is it true that the Minister inserted into this contract the condition of which I complain? Will the Minister answer that question? Is that true?

I am not pursuing the discussion.

You dare not, because it is the fact, and I will challenge a division on this Estimate.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 46; Níl, 16.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Brennan, Martin.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Crowley, Fred Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Fogarty, Patrick J.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McCann, John.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Mullen, Thomas.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Loghlen, Peter J.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Rice, Brigid M.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Walsh, Laurence J.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn.

Níl

  • Bennett, George C.
  • Benson, Ernest E.
  • Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
  • Coburn, James.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Keating, John.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Sullivan, John M.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and Morrissey; Níl: Deputies Dillon and Byrne (Junior).
Question declared carried.
Top
Share