That's the why

Parenthood is a dictatorship where we can only hope the dictator’s intentions are benign.  Debate can be suspended by the Gaddafi-like proclamation “because I said so”. As a parent, I think it very important to reason with my children, to give an explanation for what might appear to them as the unfair, arbitrary demands of the (titular) head of the family. We must I think be able to justify our decisions and actions to our children. And then, when that doesn’t work, I say “because I said so”. There was another phrase used on me as a kid – not by my parents – which also declared brutal finality to disputes: “because that’s the why”, as in “why can’t I walk in and out of the window of the sitting room for the next hour?” “because that’s the why”. I could never figure out what “the” and “that” referred to in this argument. It was a tautological nonsense, but very hard to argue with.  As adults we should be able to digest reasoned argument even if we don’t agree with it.  The clarity of the Minster for Education on the university issue in that context is welcome.  You don’t have to agree with him but at least he’s prepared to say why Waterford isn’t getting a university.  Waterford not getting a university isn’t new; we’ve not had a university forever.  Waterford has been asking for a university since the 1980’s and we haven’t had one since then either.  As a journalist, you report what people have to say on the issue and in Waterford everyone seems to say the same thing but until Ruairi Quinn’s statement in the Dail last week there was hardly anybody putting forward the opposite case.  But the opposite case does exist; every day Waterford doesn’t get a university someone somewhere is deciding that to be so. So instead of a debate on the issue, you get powerless people shouting their demand for a university into an unresponsive void of report gathering. Now you have a politician spreading the bad news: the country can’t afford a new university and upgrading is not necessarily a great idea, referring again to some sort educational doomsday in Britain when Ken Clarke upgraded the Polytechnics in 1992 (that’s not a universally accepted view by the way). It is perhaps a little frustrating that the Labour Party had promised the upgrade in their 2007 manifesto (though not in 2011).  But in explaining why, the minister didn’t resort to “because that’s the why”. You don’t have to agree with the Minister’s reasoning (not unlike Michael Martin’s position when he was Minister for Education), but any argument for a university has to take cognisance of these two objections. The counter point made by Deputy John Halligan remains undeniably an issue for the region, the migration of graduates out of the South East and the concentration of graduate employment elsewhere. But would a name change necessarily bring extra degree courses when the country is broke? Particularly those associated with the traditional universities such as Medicine and extensive Arts faculties (although WIT does offer some interesting BA combinations).  A name change won’t necessarily bring investment, investment doesn’t necessarily demand a name change.  So should the pressure remain for a university or should Waterford get behind WIT for what it is, an institution which has consistently topped the league in graduate employment, features the truly remarkable TSSG facility and where Business degrees are regarded by some as better than the Commerce degrees available in the traditional universities? And should parents and their children desperate to claim a place in a traditional university give more serious consideration to the degrees on offer on their doorstep? Why? Because that’s the why.