18 editorial Head to Head: tony blair’s visit
Trinity News Est 1953 towards some revival of the collegiate spirit that modern conditions tend to discourage
t
centuries-old M.A. practice neither misled then nor now The ancient practice of receiving an M.A. from Trinity without further study was heavily criticised late last month in an article published by the Irish Mail on Sunday. The system as it stands allows those who have held a B.A. for at least three years to have an M.A. conferred on payment of a fee. In response to the article, written by a graduate of the university, leading political figures condemned the practice as “unfair” or “disgraceful.” On the basis of facts presented by the Mail on Sunday, these comments might be justified. In reality, however, things are a little less sensational. The Oxbridge and Dublin M.A. system (as this tradition exists in our sister universities Oxford and Cambridge) dates back to a time before any other Irish university existed, let alone awarded Master’s degrees. It is based upon seniority, not study, and in the past indicated a standing of experience, not qualification. It is, essentially, another of our traditions which we share with the finest universities of the UK, many of which are being eroded by the passage of time. Our Master’s students are awarded M.Phil or M.Litt certificates for their efforts at further study to avoid confusion; and as for the charge that the university is somehow attempting to “fool” prospective employers, one would hope that any HR professional would be familiar with university qualifications, and that we are producing graduates who would not deliberately mislead a smaller business where an M.A. is required for a position. Reactionary hysteria from opposition spokespeople seeking extra column inches should be taken with a pinch of salt; as should an attack on an established practice dating to the middle ages.
“Like him or loathe him, you ought to respect him – but don’t waste food” Ciara Finlay
t
A Long way from World Building of the Year The Long Room Hub has been shortlisted as World Building of the Year 2010. It is, apparently, inspired simultaneously by bee-hives, biological cells and cliff faces – an impressive broad vision, and one which the architects clearly had trouble expressing in just one building. While it might technically be considered a successful project considering the tight timeframe, controlled budget, and limited available space, these are not really important concerns when making a permanent addition to a 400-year-old university. Rather than learning from the mistake of the Arts Building, the brutal concrete silhouette of which dominates Fellow’s Square, the College decided to construct another building in a similar style. Why one would do this when the 1937 Reading Room or the Old Library would make far better templates, one can only imagine – thought the most likely answer by far is “expense.” College authorities need to be practical in their use of funds, of course. But in another 100 years, it is hard to imagine the Hub will be viewed as anything other than an architectural disaster. The €6 million building was officially opened earlier this month, after being officially “completed” during Trinity Week last. Amidst the fanfare, College officials waxed lyrical on the university’s commitment to the arts. We can at least hope that this was more than empty rhetoric, and that what goes on inside the building will be of more value than its outward appearance. Eagle-eyed readers will note the addition in this volume of a line of text below our newspaper’s name at the top of this page. In the first Trinity News editorial, on 28 October, 1953, Anthony Bolchover wrote “If in the process, and in the news we present, there results some revival of the collegiate spirit which modern conditions tend to discourage, the newspaper will have justified itself.”
according to the Melian Principle, “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”. This may be as true in life as it is often seen to be in politics. It is on this basis that two factions, of sorts, took to the streets in the heart of the city centre for former British Prime Minster Tony Blair’s visit to Ireland. Blair was in Ireland to promote the release of his memoir, The Journey, which is selling out in bookstores faster than the American troops went into Iraq. And it is on this basis that protestors outside Eason’s, where the booksigning took place, became, as it were, caught in a mosh. These protestors, many of whom looked as though they had gotten lost on their way to hang-out outside the Central Bank, chanted “Tony Blair, war criminal!” as they pelted the renowned politician with eggs and shoes. Furthermore, one of the protestors, Kate O’Sullivan, 24, from Cork, went to the extreme of attempting a citizen’s arrest, accusing Blair of “war crimes”. Perhaps one of the stranger aspects of this event was the verbal abuse with which those in the queue for the booksigning were bombarded. These included accusations that they were “West Brits”, an “insult” usually reserved for the special case of Trinity students. In this manner Blair’s previous relationship with Ireland was blanked like an embarrassing ex. After all this is the political champion of
the Labour Party who along with his opposite number, Bertie Ahern, helped foster the Northern Ireland peace process in the form of the Good Friday agreement. That is not to say that he was “right” per se to commit troops to Iraq, however the legality of the war itself is not a clear cut case. The Iraq war can at once be deemed to be legal based on the “revival” theory surrounding the Security Council Resolutions which originated in the First Gulf War. Conversely, this war can also be portrayed as an illegal act wherein Permanent Members of the United Nations chose to misrepresent the law in order to advance their own prerogative. In this manner the weak may have been called upon to suffer what they must at the hands of the strong. Nevertheless, freedom of speech is one of the core foundations of any democratic society and on this basis Blair is entitled to write his book, those keen readers who queued for hours are entitled to get the aforementioned book signed, and the protestors are entitled to protest. All that I suggest is that the latter group refrain from wasting food in this manner, and think twice about throwing away their shoes, it will make the walk of shame home much easier. After all, if they wished to share their views with Blair engaging him in debate is more suitable to creating the desired response. Like him or loathe him, you ought to respect him.
“It was pure cowardice to launch his autobiography in Ireland” Roisin costello
Much has been made of Tony Blair’s recent visit to Ireland. But before any other argument is ventured one question must be asked – why did Blair choose to launch his biography here? He is the first Labour Prime Minister to be reelected for a third consecutive term. Surely one would suppose him a figure of admiration, or at the least of respect in Britain? In fact quite the opposite is the case. He launched his biography here because he wanted to test the waters. The peace process in Northern Ireland was one of Blair’s greatest successes; surely it would stand to reason to begin here where he would be welcomed, where public opinion would still be in his favour. And here is where Blair, master of the media during his term in office, went wrong. To begin in Ireland – to use it as a political vehicle – a means of gauging public opinion served only to highlight Blair’s weaknesses. During his time in No. 10 Blair was a PR dream – he was part of the new brand of politics that made superstars out of political analysts and spin doctors. He was the epitome of the new, people-friendly politician that knew the mood of the public and managed to manipulate it to his advantage. Blair as envoy to the Middle East and existing in a kind of self-imposed foreign relations bubble no longer has the same insight he once did into mood of media or public, no longer seems to realise how to manipulate them to his advantage. And yet we might not have noticed
if he had not come to Ireland. By beginning in Ireland, Blair highlighted the dislike which still simmers in England for him; and, worse, he showed that he was scared of it. If he had begun his tour in England there would not have been flip-flops and citizen’s arrests. There would have been heavy, sensible shoes and possibly some kind of assault. It would have been bad. It would probably been so bad that a large portion of the public would have been outraged that a former PM would be thus treated. There may have been a growing feeling that the negative reaction was so strong as to be unreasonable and there would perhaps have been a great deal of rushing to the aid of Blair – now the beleaguered underdog. Blair’s visit to Ireland showed he failed to appreciate such a possibility and gave a focus to the negativity abroad thus re-enforcing the amount of negativity that must be present at home. Blair’s mistake was, ironically, a political one – in acting cautiously and starting in Ireland, he missed an opportunity to change the public’s perception of him. There are many arguments of why he should not have come, many I do not agree with. But the fact remains that Blair ran scared to Ireland at the start and everything after that just served to cement him in the role of a man whose greatest achievements have been forgotten and whose errors have not been forgiven.
TRINITY NEWS