IT is disingenuous of the 18 chairs of higher education institutions (Letters, February 8) to raise the issues of equality and diversity in connection with the Higher Education Governance (Scotland) Bill, and in particular to claim that the Bill “will reverse the excellent progress that has been made towards achieving equality and diversity within this important role in HE governance”. This is made as a statement of fact with not one iota of evidence to support it.

It’s also a bit rich, since, with a few honourable exceptions, university courts have moved at a glacial pace to their present compositions, which are still heavily biased towards representatives from business and professional organisations. There is, of course, nothing intrinsically wrong with that but more diverse compositions are quite possible – how will the provisions of the Bill prevent this from happening?

The fundamental aspect of the bill which is entirely ignored in the letter is that of accountability. What staff and students are looking for is the chair of court, the top decision-making body in a university, to be accountable to them through an election process. It is already the case at Edinburgh University, so what is the big deal about extending it to all universities?

The letter cites examples where “public” elections have been either rejected (as in convenors of parliamentary committees) or unsuccessful (as in appointments to health boards). Neither of these examples bears any relationship to what is proposed in the HE bill. First, the elections will not be “public” – the constituency will be the two principal stakeholders in any university, the staff and students. Secondly, despite changes in management structures which have had a detrimental effect on the collegiate ethos in most universities, that ethos has not been entirely extinguished, and as institutions which are largely publicly-funded there should be an element of accountability at all levels, including court.

I would direct the signatories to the latest Times Higher Education University Workplace Survey which, in answer to the statement “The leadership of my university is performing well” nearly 60 per cent of academic staff either disagreed or strongly disagreed – hardly a ringing endorsement of how universities are currently being managed.

So, instead of addressing the issue of accountability the university chairs would prefer to be nominated through a process involving the great and the good, rather than putting themselves forward for election by the great unwashed. Fair enough, but they shouldn’t dress up their position on the spurious grounds of fears regarding diversity and equality.

Bill Stewart,

17 Benalder Street, Glasgow.