THE proposed reforms to the way Scottish universities are run have been controversial from the start, and while the underlying principles of transparency and accountability are sound, questions about how the system will work have persisted. The Scottish Government has still to fully answer those questions.
The latest controversy has been stirred by the chairs of the country’s 18 universities who have said the proposal to make their position an elected one is a threat to equality and diversity. In a letter to the Education Secretary Angela Constance, they say adversarial elections will discourage the widest range of candidates from applying.
Such concern about equality at the top of universities is welcome, but the idea of elections as a threat to diversity has to be balanced against the important principle of increasing democratic accountability. Institutions such as universities can only benefit by opening their decision-making to the scrutiny of those directly affected by it.
The other argument which has been advanced against elections is that they would amount to state control or threaten the effectiveness of universities. But the critics have not done enough to demonstrate why that might be the case.
Similarly, the latest argument about diversity lacks weight in the face of the potential benefits of the reforms and the fact an elected system could help secure the confidence of everyone who works in it. Where there is doubt is over how the elections would actually work, especially in relation to rectors, and who would be involved in the elections.
The critics of the reforms need to do more to explain why these changes are a problem, and why the principle of democracy amounts to such a threat to our universities. However, the Scottish Government also has a lot of work to do to explain how the new system will function. Perhaps then, confidence in the reforms will start to grow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here