Outgoing Education Officer Takes a Swipe at the S.U and College Bureaucracy

Byron85

I found this pretty interesting I must say.


http://www.corkstudentnews.com/news/outgoing-education-officer-blasts-infighting-and-bureaucracy-in-farewell-address-21075

Outgoing UCCSU Education Officer Greg Higgins delivered a controversial parting address to colleagues and incoming officers convened for the annual Students’ Union crossover dinner at UCC last night.
Higgins, a former captain of UCC’s Cricket Club and an Economics and Politics graduate, began the usually uncontentious farewell address by describing the transition period following the announcing of the SU election results and the official ‘crossover’ night last night during which power officially changes hands as “drawn out”, adding that it left outgoing officers “feeling like redundant horses on the way to the glue factory,” before launching into a strongly-worded broadside against bureaucracy and red-tape at the students’ union and college itself.

“This Union has a problem. This university has a problem. For too long we have lived within a cocoon of appeasement and more worryingly we spend most of our time fighting each other simply to maintain the status quo. Schoolyard squabbling only to end up back where we started.”
“This Union has a problem, this university has a problem,” Higgins commented, before claiming that members were “living in a cocoon of appeasement” in which ” we spend most of our time fighting each other simply to maintain the status quo.”

The unusually critical remarks were followed by a critique of bureaucracy within the university itself, during which Higgins questioned whether existing governance structures were best serving the needs of students and society at large:

“We must address the internal UCC culture that sees well-meaning members of staff attempting to push a policy through all the hurdles of university governance and ending up with that policy being left so watered down that it becomes nothing more than a tokenistic empty formula,” he said.

Opining on the fee’s issue towards the end of his farewell oration, Higgins questioned whether the Union’s unquestioning and unequivocal anti-fee stance was based on sound logic, or whether it was the product of a strategy designed simply to make the Union’s policies seem appealing to the masses:

“My belief is that the fight [against fees] as currently waged is not a worthy one,” Higgins commented, adding, “I have yet to hear a progressive and logical argument in support of free 3rd level education for all.” The remarks followed close on an important announcement by Minister for Education and Skills Ruairi Quinn in which he left the possibility of an introduction of tuition fees open to speculation, despite an earlier pledge not to introduce them if elected to government,

Higgins closed his parting remarks by advocating that the Union should seek to ‘speak freely and openly’ on the central issue of fees in order to drive its agenda forward, before closing with a plea to students and SU officers to “move forward in that regard.”

I like to know what brought this on.

Seanconnery

I am ripped this off his Facebook wall. Brave lad. He is taking a lot of flack from students in the union because of it. Having known greg for years it is the sort of stuff that gets him out of bed in the morning though.

Good evening and welcome.

It is my invariable custom to say something flattering to begin with so that I shall be excused if by any chance I put my foot in it later on. With that I want to thank friends and colleagues both present and absent for putting up with me for the last twelve months. The vast majority of you have been marvelous…Even Keith.

I’m told that the key to effective public speaking is brevity. With that in mind it is impossible to thank everybody individually so I refuse to do so tonight. Not because I am a miserable begrudging bastard (Comedy cough) but simply for the fact that I will almost certainly forget people and I don’t intend strolling through that particular minefield this evening. Having said that, Daithi Linnane has reminded me to thank the string of attractive and sexually adventurous girlfriends that have helped me get through the last year.

The drawn-out procedure of SU Executive crossovers leaves us outgoing officers feeling like redundant horses on the way to the glue factory. However, I have one month left- and I fully intend to sign off in characteristic form and say goodbye to people individually. Remember ladies and gentlemen, it’s not over until the fat lady sings but unfortunately I left my ballroom dress at home.

I want to use my speech tonight to talk about the union, the university and where we are all going. Ladies and gentlemen we live in an era of compulsory consensus. On all issues we strive for agreement, in reality merely a makeshift agreement.

To me, consensus is the abandoning of all beliefs, principles, and values in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that need to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way forward.

Having ‘gone native’ to a degree, I understand why this is the case. But I ask you in all seriousness what great cause has ever been fought and won under the banner ‘I stand for consensus’?
This Union has a problem. This university has a problem. For too long we have lived within a cocoon of appeasement and more worryingly we spend most of our time fighting each other simply to maintain the status quo. Schoolyard squabbling only to end up back where we started.

Within the university we must ask if the existing structures best fit a modern university….(comedy hands) going forward. We must ask how a situation can arise whereby information and policy passed through cumbersome committees doesn’t reach colleges, departments and schools. We must ask why there is a disparity between application of rules and regulations between different colleges and departments in certain areas. We must ask how the President and members of UMTO and UMTS use their political clout to address the vitally important national issues surrounding the 3rd level sector. And more importantly we must address the internal UCC culture that sees well-meaning members of staff attempting to push a policy through all the hurdles of the university governance structure and ending up with that policy so watered down that it becomes nothing more than a tokenistic empty formula. UCC is a victim of makeshift agreements that benefit few. This must change.

Within the union there is much to be done. We need to have a hard and honest look at ourselves. We must look at our attitude towards the most existential issues on which this organization was founded and operates on. Are the structures of the Executive effective and efficient? Are there too many elected officers within the organization and as Con O’Brien would say are we ‘boxing clever’ across all stages.

Regarding the most sacred of all cows, fees. My belief is that the fight as currently waged is not a worthy one. I have yet to hear a progressive and logical argument in support of free 3rd level education for all. The reality is that we live in a situation whereby fees exist in all but name. The “concession based agreement” which resulted in the registration fee and now the student contribution, is in effect more draconian than any other options that have been mentioned as alternatives. To paraphrase Mr Haughey, as a university, not just as a country we are living away beyond our means.

Friends. We need to be courageous and we need to lead by an example. If this Union speaks freely and openly on this topic we can drive the agenda forward. We can bring about a situation whereby the sector is sufficiently resourced, we can improve the standards of undergraduate education, and more importantly bring those with the ability, but not the resources into this university. We just can’t continue to exist like this. We have got to stop selling ourselves short.

In such a situation it is worth reflecting upon the fearless words of Des O’Malley: ‘The politics of this would be very easy. The politics would be, to be one of the lads, the safest way in Ireland. But I do not believe that the interests of this State, or our Constitution and of this Republic, would be served by putting politics before conscience in regard to this.’

The reason I quote him here tonight is clear. The time has come for people in this university and in this Union to display true leadership.

Here, in this union are the future politicians, doctors, solicitors, journalists, academics and literate of Ireland. The people in this room tonight are the future of this country. The place of a university in society is to send people into the workplace, into the home and into society as smarter people, better people, and braver people. If we change the way that we do business, if we throw away the policy of makeshift agreement at all costs and if we take smart and clever decisions we really do have the ability to rebuild and reconstruct this Republic.

I urge you all to move forward in that regard.

Thank you.

Babyblessed

As a current UCC student I have to say he makes good points. Wish I'd been there to see that!

jreanor

I have to say I couldn't agree more with his opinions on fees.

Babyblessed

mmmm the fees thing is contentious. At what point should parents/students have to pay fees? I dont have a problem in principle but I cant decide on at what point (income wise) it is acceptable.

Eliot Rosewater

Whatever about his policies towards macro issues like the University and fees, I feel I must mention here that in terms of micro issues like dealing with students Greg Higgins, from my experience, was grossly incompetent. Members of my class had two reasons to approach him - two major issues at that. On both occasions Higgins said nothing could be done. On both occasions students tackled the issues directly and something was done.

Higgins' main role as education officer is to deal with such cases, and he failed to do this. When one of my class members involved posted emails relating to his case on Boards Higgins told him to take them down. Higgins is a public representative and any person who engages with him in that capacity is more than within his rights to disclose the correspondence publicly. But Higgins was clearly just trying to cover his ass.

As regards his commentary on the University, I am generally sceptical of any student who makes suggestions on University governance. However as far as student politicians go, Higgins is sensitive to the needs for quality education. Unlike, it would seem, most, Higgins is not willing to force free fees and the college-for-all agenda through at the expense of the quality of the University itself. (Though with the government pushing a bizarre policy of wanting 3/4s of all school-leaves in college (), he is in a small minority.)

So, whatever. I agree with him on macro issues. His position in the SU Exec was not primarily to push those macro issues. That's what the President is for. In his actual role he failed students. Thankfully those students had the sense not to listen to him, and sought a resolution themselves.

invinciblePRSTV

I heard that this chap spent a lot of his time locked in constant disagreement with the outgoing stoodent Prez which led to bad vibes permeating throughout this lots term. If he had such an issue with the SU/USIs position on fees then why didn't he do the honourable thing and quit his position when the SU was actively involved in the anti-fees campaign?

But oh no, he stayed put and pocketed the free money, then went on a little solo run when his term was up, pathetic really but makes it appear like this chap has a calling for a career in Irish politics ahead of him.

Feel free to respond if you're reading this Higgins - and we know you are if you're telling people to edit their boards threads - and set the record straight.

Eliot Rosewater

Ah crap, myself and invinciblePRSTV somewhat agree here ... better rethink my position :P :pac:

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

But oh no, he stayed put and pocketed the free money, then went on a little solo run when his term was up, pathetic really but makes it appear like this chap has a calling for a career in Irish politics ahead of him.

People sometimes say that the the younger generation will be better when they "inherit" the running of this country, but looking at the goings on in the SU and especially with Higgins it's clear that nothing's going to change. Favouritism, clientelism and spectacular mediocrity is here to stay.

invinciblePRSTV

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Ah crap, myself and invinciblePRSTV somewhat agree here ... better rethink my position :P :pac:

Surely it's a case of this boyo Higgins and yourself agreeing? This guy and yourselves share similar sentiments on fees, however the difference is you haven't spent a year in the paid employment of an organisation I generally understood to be prooffering the opposite viewpoint to the one Higgins now supports.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

People sometimes say that the the younger generation will be better when they "inherit" the running of this country, but looking at the goings on in the SU and especially with Higgins it's clear that nothing's going to change. Favouritism, clientelism and spectacular mediocrity is here to stay.

Tell us about this clientelism and favouritism you mention. Is there an allegation to be made against the the SU and/or its 2010/11 officers?

I'd like to hear from the elected SU reps, and hope they consider coming on here, engage with their electorate, and present their rundown of achievements and disappointments from the year just gone when their term ends. Like Higgins here who seems like he has a lot to say and where better to say it then here on boards.

Nothing special, just perhaps a post about what they did this year, and respond to queries if there any any.

Eliot Rosewater

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Surely it's a case of this boyo Higgins and yourself agreeing?

Yeah, I agree with telling students they can't achieve something when they can, and with staying in paid employment of a Union whose primary position you don't support. :rolleyes:

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Tell us about this clientelism and favouritism you mention. Is there an allegation to be made against the the SU and/or its 2010/11 officers?

Whatever you want. I've no doubt that in this particular case one of Higgins' friends would have been accommodated far better than the two non-Union types who were brushed aside because Higgins couldn't be bothered doing what he was elected to do.

invinciblePRSTV

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Yeah, I agree with telling students they can't achieve something when they can, and with staying in paid employment of a Union whose primary position you don't support. :rolleyes:

Of course I was alluding to how ye two guys appear to be singing off the same hymn sheet when it comes to the issue of student fees. Perhaps ye guys could arrange a get together and develop a students campaign to support the reintroduction of fees? It would be interesting to see how popular such a proposition would be amongst the student body, not very would be my assumption.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Whatever you want. I've no doubt that in this particular case one of Higgins' friends would have been accommodated far better than the two non-Union types who were brushed aside because Higgins couldn't be bothered doing what he was elected to do.

Nope, you alleged something, then when asked to back it up you've retreated to a position of supposition. It's one thing to be generally incompetent, as Higgins appears to be in his role, but either you provide something which suggests this Higgins chap is engaged in favouritism/clientelism or you should retract your previous post if you can't clarify it.

Eliot Rosewater

Congratulations invinciblePRSTV. I didn't think you could make this thread, where we have a similar point of view, a part of your long-running keyboard-warrior vendetta against me, but you did. A remarkable feat. Keyboard warrior of the year, without a doubt.

x43r0

So you two don't get along eh?





Back on topic....

With regards to the feeling that he should have resigned earlier in the year if he didn't agree with the SU's stance on fees I think that notion is a bit naive.

Its a matter of collective accountability. When you are in an elected position on a committee such as the one he is on, when a decision is made by the group and you don't agree with it or vote against it but the group decision doesn't go your way you still have a responsibility to show a face of solidarity along with the rest of the group as long as you are in that position.

The union were mandated by the students to oppose fees so each officer disregarded political feeling on the matter and conducted their protest as mandated.

I for one, applaud the education officer for showing the professionalism required by biting his tongue on the fees issue for so long

Eliot Rosewater

x43r0 wrote: »

I for one, applaud the education officer for showing the professionalism required by biting his tongue on the fees issue for so long

I think you're ignoring the fact that fees is the issue of the SU. It's what they're mostly about (or mostly seen to be about). If Higgins was not on the exec to promote his own views on fees, what was he doing there? What exactly was he trying to achieve? Any response to that question should also factor in his poor record with case work.

And one can ask: given that Higgins was not involved with the fees issue, would any other candidate have been better for the job as they could have gotten involved in organising stuff relating to it?

invinciblePRSTV

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Congratulations invinciblePRSTV. I didn't think you could make this thread, where we have a similar point of view, a part of your long-running keyboard-warrior vendetta against me, but you did. A remarkable feat. Keyboard warrior of the year, without a doubt.

Jeez guy relax. I make the point that both you and Higgsy share a similar viewpoint on issues of fees, which could be mutually beneficial to both of ye next year, seeing as both of ye are seasoned campaigners n' all....yet you jump down my threat shrieking of vendetta this and keyboard that.

x43r0 wrote: »

With regards to the feeling that he should have resigned earlier in the year if he didn't agree with the SU's stance on fees I think that notion is a bit naive.

Its a matter of collective accountability. When you are in an elected position on a committee such as the one he is on, when a decision is made by the group and you don't agree with it or vote against it but the group decision doesn't go your way you still have a responsibility to show a face of solidarity along with the rest of the group as long as you are in that position.

The union were mandated by the students to oppose fees so each officer disregarded political feeling on the matter and conducted their protest as mandated.

I for one, applaud the education officer for showing the professionalism required by biting his tongue on the fees issue for so long

This is laughable to be fair x43or. You applaud the guy for choosing to keep his head down, collect the wages and ignore the issue which is imo the dominant issue facing Irish students and one with which he disagrees with? Citing collective accountability is a cowards way of saying I disagree, but I don't disagree strongly enough to quit my role. If this were a minor issue then the collective accountability might work, but it's not.

What I'd like to know is when exactly did our pal Higgins start expressing doubts about the SU's position? throughout the previous 2 years it's been quite clear that the UCC student body was generally supportive of free fees. Yet our hero decided to go on a solo run right at the end of his term, how brave of him, if you're reading this Higgzy, can you outline what exactly swung it for you?

lostinsuperfunk

I like to know what brought this on.

Perhaps I'm being cynical, but usually what brings on these proclamations is an eye on a future career in mainstream politics, where (for example) support for increasing 3rd level fees isn't quite such an unpopular opinion to hold.