Wrong approach on centre of learning

Mike Seccombe was so right when he referred to the Ramsay Centre fiasco (“Competing schools of bought”, June 30–July 6) but it could have had a happier outcome had the proposal been presented differently to ANU. The concept of channelling funds to augment and popularise university classics and philosophy departments is a superb idea. Those departments are notoriously strapped for resources as they simply do not attract public funds as can disciplines such as medicine or astronomy. But, in terms of liberal arts education, the classics and philosophy have so much to offer in creating a more informed and thoughtful community. Having the proposal initiated by someone as divisive and inherently political as John Howard was an invitation for suspicion and disharmony. The proposal should have been crafted and proposed by someone non-political and highly respected within the academic community. When controversial industrialist John D. Rockefeller wanted to give funds to establish the University of Chicago, the philanthropy was initiated and administered by Frederick Gates, a theologian and educator, and not by Rockefeller directly. Through Gates as intermediary, the academic community was assured Rockefeller would remain hands-off. The university flourished and today is one of the world’s great centres of learning. In the case of the Ramsay Centre, by initiating the program through Howard, with intervention by Tony Abbott, everything was politicised from the outset and fiasco was inevitable. Politicians want control and that is just what universities abhor. As Howard–Abbott pushed one way; the National Tertiary Education Union rightly pushed back. What is sad is that something good could have emerged.

– Harry Melkonian, Vaucluse, NSW