Sunday, January 17, 2010
Some simple solutions
What has been described on this blog is such a break from normal
industrial relations (IR) that even the Irish Times has finally
published an article referring to it;
The Times, finally
It is worth noting that the Irish Times, uniquely among Irish broadsheet media, has not written anything critical about the colossal waste of taxpayers' resources involved in DCU management's attempt to get rid of academic tenure. In fact, it has refused several proposed articles and letters on this subject, and has allowed the main DCU management figure much space, including a regular column and a blog on their home page in the month leading up to the supreme court hearing.
There is the usual IT attempt to influence events with the focus on;
““Tenure” has a very definite meaning in the USA. It more or less equates with permanency in a university post and it is widely sought after. The same word does not necessarily, however, have that meaning in this jurisdiction. “
This means that, given the current state of Irish employment law, and the havoc wrought in this sad debacle, we staff have no choice but to re-insert in full the section that in 1995(see below) was illegally deleted in the 1985 agreement asserting tenure as a job until 65. That combined with the paragraph giving "academic freedom", again illegally deleted, reinstates our rights, coupled with the right to work from home that 1995 rescinds with the addition of a new section. This is in keeping with, for example, the Mella Carroll ruling on Sheehy versus Ryan, and secures our contracts again:
Carroll
So let's look at the mess that has been left and a set of solutions to deal with it. First of all, DCU has had a disciplinary statute on its books since 2001 that has been ruled illegal by the Irish supreme court. In November, 2002, after a Labour court recommendation, DCU undertook to change the statute to bring it into compliance with normal IR. It failed to do so, and it is not unfair to conclude that, had the supreme court adjudicated in DCU's favour, several dozen DCU staff would now be desperately – and in vain - trying to fight summary dismissal notices.
What should be done? In brief;
1.A staff association at DCU should retain legal counsel at SIPTU's expense to continue negotiations about the statute. Amateur hour is well and truly over, and DCU management will make use of expert legal advice at all times. Paul Cahill, wearing his hat as DCU's academic shop steward, can attest just how complex the legal landscape is, and should lead the negotiations on the staff side.
2.Negotiations should then continue, with a new mediator, as Senator white has failed in this role
3.The Cahill and Fanning judgements should be taken account of
4.Those responsible for this mess should be called to account.
And yet the above is the easy bit. All staff after 1995 have signed contracts on the basis of a non-existent “comprehensive agreement” with a closed-shop union, with the 3 paragraphs above unilaterally changed. The signatures were photocopied from the only valid such agreement, the 1985 one. A visitor needs to be appointed to DCU to sort this out. It is likely;
1.All these contracts need to be rewritten, and signed by both parties in their new form. This may require legal devices up to and including new legislation.
2.Those responsible for this mess should be called to account.
3.The statute has to take into account the position of “tenure” in this new dispensation
It is my belief that the notion of the “public university” in Ireland has suffered greatly from this mess, and the odd interpretation given the 1997 act in parliament. In fact, absent a retraction of the 2002-2003 claims by the government that the act put the universities outside the normal law of the land, it would be better simply to revert to the basic 1908 act that served us reasonably well while appropriate new legislation is being prepared.
On a personal level, people keep asking me about the effects of this whole process. My reply is that it not only destroyed my life and career – and that of Melanie and my students – but prevented Ireland from being the first country to have a human-computer interface integrating voice, gesture, and brain waves ; the loss is possibly immense, even in financial terms. Yet this process, which involved issues of academic freedom, the right of protection from summary dismissal, and the nature of the relationship of the public servant (indeed, the citizen) and the state, hinged from 2002 to 2007 on my case, but has now gone way beyond me. My main solace is knowing that it has been exposed to the point that perhaps the issues involved may get the attention that they deserve.
Seán Ó Nualláin Ph.D 17u Eanair 2010
PS Of course, the IT, 11 days and no doubt many legal threats later later ,had to correct its tendentious garbage;
Fri, Jan 29, 2010
A report on a legal judgment in the edition of January 18th last, concerning an appeal to the Supreme Court, had a headline ‘Professor’s dismissal from DCU did not observe fair procedures’ which should have said ‘purported dismissal’. The report stated that a year had elapsed between the purported termination (of Prof Paul Cahill) and the High Court hearing. While the judgment is not precise on the matter, the gap was less than a year and could have been two months.
Where errors occur, it is the policy of The Irish Times to correct or clarify as soon as practicable.
© 2010 The Irish Times
Other blog;
The truth hurts
The Times, finally
It is worth noting that the Irish Times, uniquely among Irish broadsheet media, has not written anything critical about the colossal waste of taxpayers' resources involved in DCU management's attempt to get rid of academic tenure. In fact, it has refused several proposed articles and letters on this subject, and has allowed the main DCU management figure much space, including a regular column and a blog on their home page in the month leading up to the supreme court hearing.
There is the usual IT attempt to influence events with the focus on;
““Tenure” has a very definite meaning in the USA. It more or less equates with permanency in a university post and it is widely sought after. The same word does not necessarily, however, have that meaning in this jurisdiction. “
This means that, given the current state of Irish employment law, and the havoc wrought in this sad debacle, we staff have no choice but to re-insert in full the section that in 1995(see below) was illegally deleted in the 1985 agreement asserting tenure as a job until 65. That combined with the paragraph giving "academic freedom", again illegally deleted, reinstates our rights, coupled with the right to work from home that 1995 rescinds with the addition of a new section. This is in keeping with, for example, the Mella Carroll ruling on Sheehy versus Ryan, and secures our contracts again:
Carroll
So let's look at the mess that has been left and a set of solutions to deal with it. First of all, DCU has had a disciplinary statute on its books since 2001 that has been ruled illegal by the Irish supreme court. In November, 2002, after a Labour court recommendation, DCU undertook to change the statute to bring it into compliance with normal IR. It failed to do so, and it is not unfair to conclude that, had the supreme court adjudicated in DCU's favour, several dozen DCU staff would now be desperately – and in vain - trying to fight summary dismissal notices.
What should be done? In brief;
1.A staff association at DCU should retain legal counsel at SIPTU's expense to continue negotiations about the statute. Amateur hour is well and truly over, and DCU management will make use of expert legal advice at all times. Paul Cahill, wearing his hat as DCU's academic shop steward, can attest just how complex the legal landscape is, and should lead the negotiations on the staff side.
2.Negotiations should then continue, with a new mediator, as Senator white has failed in this role
3.The Cahill and Fanning judgements should be taken account of
4.Those responsible for this mess should be called to account.
And yet the above is the easy bit. All staff after 1995 have signed contracts on the basis of a non-existent “comprehensive agreement” with a closed-shop union, with the 3 paragraphs above unilaterally changed. The signatures were photocopied from the only valid such agreement, the 1985 one. A visitor needs to be appointed to DCU to sort this out. It is likely;
1.All these contracts need to be rewritten, and signed by both parties in their new form. This may require legal devices up to and including new legislation.
2.Those responsible for this mess should be called to account.
3.The statute has to take into account the position of “tenure” in this new dispensation
It is my belief that the notion of the “public university” in Ireland has suffered greatly from this mess, and the odd interpretation given the 1997 act in parliament. In fact, absent a retraction of the 2002-2003 claims by the government that the act put the universities outside the normal law of the land, it would be better simply to revert to the basic 1908 act that served us reasonably well while appropriate new legislation is being prepared.
On a personal level, people keep asking me about the effects of this whole process. My reply is that it not only destroyed my life and career – and that of Melanie and my students – but prevented Ireland from being the first country to have a human-computer interface integrating voice, gesture, and brain waves ; the loss is possibly immense, even in financial terms. Yet this process, which involved issues of academic freedom, the right of protection from summary dismissal, and the nature of the relationship of the public servant (indeed, the citizen) and the state, hinged from 2002 to 2007 on my case, but has now gone way beyond me. My main solace is knowing that it has been exposed to the point that perhaps the issues involved may get the attention that they deserve.
Seán Ó Nualláin Ph.D 17u Eanair 2010
PS Of course, the IT, 11 days and no doubt many legal threats later later ,had to correct its tendentious garbage;
Fri, Jan 29, 2010
A report on a legal judgment in the edition of January 18th last, concerning an appeal to the Supreme Court, had a headline ‘Professor’s dismissal from DCU did not observe fair procedures’ which should have said ‘purported dismissal’. The report stated that a year had elapsed between the purported termination (of Prof Paul Cahill) and the High Court hearing. While the judgment is not precise on the matter, the gap was less than a year and could have been two months.
Where errors occur, it is the policy of The Irish Times to correct or clarify as soon as practicable.
© 2010 The Irish Times
Other blog;
The truth hurts
Monday, January 11, 2010
Reply to Ferdinand's published comment
Ferdinand,
This is an open letter.
You do not seem to realize that your behaviour speaks volumes. While you go to great lengths in your voluminous ramblings to portray yourself as a harmless reflective individual, your contemptuous attitude toward IR has resulted in your staff losing confidence in you, as expressed in their vote in late 2008.
Let us now take this, point by point
1.From
P's wiki page
“In his early work he argued for a disengagement of the law from industrial relations, taking the position that problems and disputes were better resolved through bargaining than through litigation.[4] The most elaborate expression of his views during this period is contained in his book Freedom of Association and Industrial Relations (1984).[5] He also co-authored the first academic textbook on Irish employment law.[6] However, from the later 1980s onwards his views began to moderate, “
Sure enough, instead of complying with a labour court directive, you used taxpayers' money and took a doomed case all the way to the supreme court where you lost. Instead of negotiation, the use of law as instrument against individuals having to use their own funds was chosen. You failed to win even with the state's resources on your side.
If the wiki page is an incorrect expression of your view – and events seem to suggest that it is correct – take some time off Twitter to change it
(2)From
Conferring address
“Ireland's native population could be in a minority by the middle of this century, the president of Dublin City University (DCU) will claim today. But large-scale immigration is still essential if we are to remain prosperous, Prof Ferdinand von Prondzynski will say.”
This cannot reasonably be read other than as an endorsement of the “ethnic minority” idea. There are those of us, like myself, who believe that Ireland has suffered greatly from clueless individuals from other ethnicities in high office. It also seems that the state ruse of mass immigration of Eastern Europeans to take blue-collar and service jobs at a time of massive unemployment is creation of a tinderbox with the near-certainty of race riots.
(3)I confess that I cannot stand the Irish times, particularly the line it took on the DCU tenure issues, and am not prepared to subscribe to it. However, I do have access to this much;
Times
“He says the goal of a modern, genuinely inclusive university has been obscured by the "emphasis on some Aunt Sally topics such as 'privatisation', which actually has fairly little objective meaning and is just being used to stir passions".
The context is your inveighing against the traditional collegial model, which is what every first rate academic believes in
I stand corrected on one point - aunt Sally appears explicitly here, though she is undoubtedly there in spirit in the justice theme
(4)Popular culture;
I run a rather successful (artistically, not yet commercially) music and media company that won RTE's first radio PPI award for some time in 2008; I have no choice but to be aware of popular culture, and attempt to mould a new listenership toward some of the higher achievements of the human psyche. This is quite different from an attempt to look trendy.
Since you have communicated , I again issue this challenge
(5)Substantiate your sworn evidence at the 2009 Tribunal that your father was arrested for his part in the “Valkyrie” plot and my resignation from DCU will be immediate; I will look for no financial compensation, and will apologise.
(6)It is my opinion that you need help; you are sufficiently dissociated that it will surprise you to read over some of your utterances and review your behavior patterns, which have inflicted so much damage to talented and sensitive individuals;
(7)Finally, it is clear that you were brought in as a dupe to implement a dismissal procedure . At least one of the other candidates, more qualified that you, refused the job before you took it.
While part of me is of course furious of what you ruined; not just my life and that of Melanie, but the careers of several brilliantly gifted students whose work with me resulted in Stanford developing an academic relationship with Ireland at the top level of its research and academic hierarchy, there is a certain grim satisfaction in knowing that even the miscreants who put you in the office that you have so abused are unlikely ever to trust you again.
None of the above is a remedy for the libel action that, as you know, I have initiated against you; likewise the “misfeasance in high office” charge you are likely to face, inter alia. In case you are unaware of the statute- and there are many who think at this point that your practical knowledge of the law is non-existent – here it is;
“Misfeasance in Public Office:
Misfeasance in Public Office’ is a term frequently used when a public official does his job in a way that is not technically illegal, but nevertheless he is mistaken or wrong.
Parliament intended that statutory powers were exercised in good faith and for the purpose for which they were conferred.
The tort of Misfeasance in Public Office was designed to target ‘the deliberate and dishonest abuse of power’ in the event of a person suffering loss or damage as a result of administrative action known to be unlawful or carried out with reckless disregard or indifference to the consequences.
The offence of ‘Malfeasance’ takes the reckless element a stage further and is when a public official intentionally does something either legally or morally wrong which he had no right to do. It always involves dishonesty, illegality, or knowingly exceeding authority for improper reasons. It is conduct in violation of the law.
The tort of Misfeasance in Public Office is an intentional tort that can be committed only by a public official and the core concept is abuse of power. This in turn involves other concepts, such as dishonesty, bad faith, and improper purpose.
Power is granted to a public official for a public purpose. It is an abuse of that power for him to exercise it for his own private purposes, whether out of spite, malice, revenge, or merely self-advancement.
If an act is done deliberately and with knowledge of its consequences the official cannot argue that he did not intend the consequences of his actions or that they were not aimed at the person who he knew would suffer loss.
In a legal system underpinned by the rule of law, administrative power must be exercised in good faith and not for ulterior or improper purposes. Where it can be shown that a body or official was not acting in good faith, liability in the tort of misfeasance in public office might exist.
The constituent elements of the tort of misfeasance are as follows:
1.That the act or conduct has been committed by a public officer.
2.The act or conduct must have been done by him in the purported exercise of his power as a public officer.
3.That the act or conduct must have been done either:
a.maliciously; or
b.knowing that the impugned act or conduct is invalid/unauthorised and knowing that it will probably injure the claimant.
4.The act or conduct must cause loss or harm to the claimant. “
Amen
Finally, debate such as this, robust as it is – and you will note I published your entire comment with its aspersions on my character- is how we resolve matters in this country. What a pity that you refused to engage with SIPTU about the statute, or with the CA4 class rep who had come to DCU from Waterford mainly because of science and society.
Seán Ó Nualláin Ph.D 10u Eanair 2010
Other blog;
The truth hurts
Ferdie's reply in full;
Sean, I don't think truth is a major concern of yours, but you said at the Tribunal you would always publish corrections: so here they are.
1. I have never ever anywhere argued that negotiations should end and be replaced by brute force. I have never used the expression 'maiden Aunt Sally sissy notions of justice', and I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.
2. I have never ever said it was desirable for the Irish to become an ethnic minority in Ireland - I merely pointed to research that was being done in London in 2004 (I think), without ever suggesting it was a good thing. To be fair, I do believe in the benefits of migration; but I have never said anything of the kind you suggest here.
3. On no occasion have I ever argued for the privatization of universities; indeed I would not be in favour of any such concept. I believe universities should always be autonomous not-for-profit bodies.
4. I do believe in understanding popular culture (as should you), but I have never suggested that a university president should not engage in 'high culture: I believe the arts and literature are vital ingredients of a civilised society.
I'm not wholly sure why I am bothering with this, as virtually everything you write is fantasy - usually malicious fantasy - but I have a few moments of time on my hands and so I thought I would see whether you are true to your word, at least in this one respect.
This is an open letter.
You do not seem to realize that your behaviour speaks volumes. While you go to great lengths in your voluminous ramblings to portray yourself as a harmless reflective individual, your contemptuous attitude toward IR has resulted in your staff losing confidence in you, as expressed in their vote in late 2008.
Let us now take this, point by point
1.From
P's wiki page
“In his early work he argued for a disengagement of the law from industrial relations, taking the position that problems and disputes were better resolved through bargaining than through litigation.[4] The most elaborate expression of his views during this period is contained in his book Freedom of Association and Industrial Relations (1984).[5] He also co-authored the first academic textbook on Irish employment law.[6] However, from the later 1980s onwards his views began to moderate, “
Sure enough, instead of complying with a labour court directive, you used taxpayers' money and took a doomed case all the way to the supreme court where you lost. Instead of negotiation, the use of law as instrument against individuals having to use their own funds was chosen. You failed to win even with the state's resources on your side.
If the wiki page is an incorrect expression of your view – and events seem to suggest that it is correct – take some time off Twitter to change it
(2)From
Conferring address
“Ireland's native population could be in a minority by the middle of this century, the president of Dublin City University (DCU) will claim today. But large-scale immigration is still essential if we are to remain prosperous, Prof Ferdinand von Prondzynski will say.”
This cannot reasonably be read other than as an endorsement of the “ethnic minority” idea. There are those of us, like myself, who believe that Ireland has suffered greatly from clueless individuals from other ethnicities in high office. It also seems that the state ruse of mass immigration of Eastern Europeans to take blue-collar and service jobs at a time of massive unemployment is creation of a tinderbox with the near-certainty of race riots.
(3)I confess that I cannot stand the Irish times, particularly the line it took on the DCU tenure issues, and am not prepared to subscribe to it. However, I do have access to this much;
Times
“He says the goal of a modern, genuinely inclusive university has been obscured by the "emphasis on some Aunt Sally topics such as 'privatisation', which actually has fairly little objective meaning and is just being used to stir passions".
The context is your inveighing against the traditional collegial model, which is what every first rate academic believes in
I stand corrected on one point - aunt Sally appears explicitly here, though she is undoubtedly there in spirit in the justice theme
(4)Popular culture;
I run a rather successful (artistically, not yet commercially) music and media company that won RTE's first radio PPI award for some time in 2008; I have no choice but to be aware of popular culture, and attempt to mould a new listenership toward some of the higher achievements of the human psyche. This is quite different from an attempt to look trendy.
Since you have communicated , I again issue this challenge
(5)Substantiate your sworn evidence at the 2009 Tribunal that your father was arrested for his part in the “Valkyrie” plot and my resignation from DCU will be immediate; I will look for no financial compensation, and will apologise.
(6)It is my opinion that you need help; you are sufficiently dissociated that it will surprise you to read over some of your utterances and review your behavior patterns, which have inflicted so much damage to talented and sensitive individuals;
(7)Finally, it is clear that you were brought in as a dupe to implement a dismissal procedure . At least one of the other candidates, more qualified that you, refused the job before you took it.
While part of me is of course furious of what you ruined; not just my life and that of Melanie, but the careers of several brilliantly gifted students whose work with me resulted in Stanford developing an academic relationship with Ireland at the top level of its research and academic hierarchy, there is a certain grim satisfaction in knowing that even the miscreants who put you in the office that you have so abused are unlikely ever to trust you again.
None of the above is a remedy for the libel action that, as you know, I have initiated against you; likewise the “misfeasance in high office” charge you are likely to face, inter alia. In case you are unaware of the statute- and there are many who think at this point that your practical knowledge of the law is non-existent – here it is;
“Misfeasance in Public Office:
Misfeasance in Public Office’ is a term frequently used when a public official does his job in a way that is not technically illegal, but nevertheless he is mistaken or wrong.
Parliament intended that statutory powers were exercised in good faith and for the purpose for which they were conferred.
The tort of Misfeasance in Public Office was designed to target ‘the deliberate and dishonest abuse of power’ in the event of a person suffering loss or damage as a result of administrative action known to be unlawful or carried out with reckless disregard or indifference to the consequences.
The offence of ‘Malfeasance’ takes the reckless element a stage further and is when a public official intentionally does something either legally or morally wrong which he had no right to do. It always involves dishonesty, illegality, or knowingly exceeding authority for improper reasons. It is conduct in violation of the law.
The tort of Misfeasance in Public Office is an intentional tort that can be committed only by a public official and the core concept is abuse of power. This in turn involves other concepts, such as dishonesty, bad faith, and improper purpose.
Power is granted to a public official for a public purpose. It is an abuse of that power for him to exercise it for his own private purposes, whether out of spite, malice, revenge, or merely self-advancement.
If an act is done deliberately and with knowledge of its consequences the official cannot argue that he did not intend the consequences of his actions or that they were not aimed at the person who he knew would suffer loss.
In a legal system underpinned by the rule of law, administrative power must be exercised in good faith and not for ulterior or improper purposes. Where it can be shown that a body or official was not acting in good faith, liability in the tort of misfeasance in public office might exist.
The constituent elements of the tort of misfeasance are as follows:
1.That the act or conduct has been committed by a public officer.
2.The act or conduct must have been done by him in the purported exercise of his power as a public officer.
3.That the act or conduct must have been done either:
a.maliciously; or
b.knowing that the impugned act or conduct is invalid/unauthorised and knowing that it will probably injure the claimant.
4.The act or conduct must cause loss or harm to the claimant. “
Amen
Finally, debate such as this, robust as it is – and you will note I published your entire comment with its aspersions on my character- is how we resolve matters in this country. What a pity that you refused to engage with SIPTU about the statute, or with the CA4 class rep who had come to DCU from Waterford mainly because of science and society.
Seán Ó Nualláin Ph.D 10u Eanair 2010
Other blog;
The truth hurts
Ferdie's reply in full;
Sean, I don't think truth is a major concern of yours, but you said at the Tribunal you would always publish corrections: so here they are.
1. I have never ever anywhere argued that negotiations should end and be replaced by brute force. I have never used the expression 'maiden Aunt Sally sissy notions of justice', and I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.
2. I have never ever said it was desirable for the Irish to become an ethnic minority in Ireland - I merely pointed to research that was being done in London in 2004 (I think), without ever suggesting it was a good thing. To be fair, I do believe in the benefits of migration; but I have never said anything of the kind you suggest here.
3. On no occasion have I ever argued for the privatization of universities; indeed I would not be in favour of any such concept. I believe universities should always be autonomous not-for-profit bodies.
4. I do believe in understanding popular culture (as should you), but I have never suggested that a university president should not engage in 'high culture: I believe the arts and literature are vital ingredients of a civilised society.
I'm not wholly sure why I am bothering with this, as virtually everything you write is fantasy - usually malicious fantasy - but I have a few moments of time on my hands and so I thought I would see whether you are true to your word, at least in this one respect.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Why destroy labour relations in Ireland?
‘The traditional perspectives of labour law, with their focus on workers’ rights and collective organisation are in urgent need of review…this new model may need to take a more explicit and positive view of employer interests, and more particularly of the desirability of promoting business success’.
Academic tenure is merely one relatively soft target, given the frankly gentle and unworldly nature of most of us academics. As the Irish state attempts to wind up or further disempower other institutions like the labour relations commission (to whom DCU did not hesitate to lie), it will meet altogether more powerful and aggressive opposition. It is unlikely that this government will survive a full-out confrontation with the very unions which its predecessors helped create and domesticate as stakeholders in the overall shape of the society.
This blog entry will feature my annual foray into the morass of F's psyche, distasteful though I find the chore. The single admirable feature I find in this person is that at least he has been honest about what he believes in (all of these viewpoints can easily be sourced in his conferring addresses, etc);
1.An end to negotiation in labour relations, to be replaced by brute power as business and the state use law as an instrument further to empower themselves, disregarding what F calls "maiden Aunt Sally" sissy notions of justice;
2.The desirability of the Irish becoming an ethnic minority on their own island;
3.Privatization of the universities, preferably with the taxpayer still picking up most of the tab through extravagant research funding a la the “private” universities like Stanford in the states
4.The president of a university should enthusiastically and very visibly engage in the popular culture, as distinct from the high culture, of his epoch
Ferdie is of about average intelligence, and is fully aware that ignoring the labour court was a risky step for normal labour relations. He bet all instead on very expensive litigation, which he lost mainly because he lost his temper with Paul Cahill. He is also bright enough to realise that he has effectively destroyed the ethos of public universities in Ireland, and it will take a lot of work to fix them (starting with recission of the 1997 universities act, which has proven both unworkable and a recipe for dictatorship)
At this point, it would be well worthwhile examining how such a wretchedly underqualified creature, who has to this day never worked at a top-ranked university and had neither business nor practical law experience, landed the quarter-of-a-million job (per annum, plus benefits) at DCU. It is not the only time this has happened in recent years in Ireland ; Burger of Medialab got over a million euro for an abysmal year which did massive damage to Irish software; his successor Jones lived out the colonial's fantasy as our software industry terminated its death rattle; SFI has had a series of quarter-of-a-million bosses, some with neither science qualifications nor business experience; the government's well-paid chief scientist was found to have a “bought” PhD. Not surprisingly, we end up with a country that loses 500 million a week.
To the matter at hand. I previously diagnosed F as seriously dissociated. One could for example cite the self-obsession, rivalling that of a pubescent girl, in his Facebook, twitter etc mania. Nor does he seem to understand why his staff don't like him, and has called their no-confidence vote invalid. Yet there is potential in him for hardened cynicism, particularly if the Irish state gifts him another sinecure with all power, and no responsibility.
One could appeal, perhaps, to Freud, and argue that F's progression from Labour agitator to Friedmanite is the result of coming to terms with some domestic issues. Yet even that does not quite get there; there has been a manic streak to his attack on the institutions that he wrote on as a younger mediocre academic. Indeed, I am reminded of Jorge Luis Borges;
Deutsches requiem
Borgesian heresy
The latter story refers to Borges' notion that Judas must have been the messiah, as the “sinless one became sin”; it is doubtful that Borges would have been popular with the Inquisition. The same paradoxical thrust is present in “Deutsches Requiem”; it follows the 1930's German characters in Thomas Mann's “Doctor Faustus” who argue that philosophy must now be about the justification of force. Specifically, “Deutsches Requiem” is the anti-confession of a Nazi torturer who insists that he has done no wrong;
"The world was dying of Judaism, and of that disease of Judaism that is belief in Christ; we proffered it violence and faith in the sword … There are many things that must be destroyed in order to build a new order; now we know that Germany was one of them … What does it matter that England is the hammer and we the anvil? What matters is that violence, not servile Christian acts of timidity, now rules … My flesh may feel fear; I myself do not."
The narrator, zur Linde, is an apologist for violence as an end in itself;
“Yet the true reason for ending the life of Jerusalem is pure destructiveness and cruelty for its own sake. Zur Linde is an intellectual who has not only read extensively but also has written on a variety of topics. He is neither a natural born killer nor a person who is mentally insane; he is rather a servant of Nazi ideology and a dutiful follower of its principles. “
Prondzynski, like zur Linde, has lost the war. Unlike him, he also has lost every battle. Yet that is not the point; the issue at hand is that forces in the Irish state allowed this war to be waged. If he fails to get another job with the media attention he so obviously needs, Prondzynski can justifiably be seen as some kind of perverse martyr. In his retirement, as he rethinks yet again his views on the workplace, perhaps reverting a la Wittgenstein to his first, gentler period, those of us who have just had our lives ruined by this lunatic will not quickly forget who let him loose.
Seán Ó Nualláin Ph.D 7u Eanair 2010
