Professor Diarmaid Ferriter:

For those of us teaching history at third level, the issue of students coming into third level, having studied history at second level is not just a question of numbers. It is not just a question of the numbers who want to pursue the subject at third level. There is always going to be a big intake into arts programmes with history being one of the options. However, it would impact on the amount of people who would feel confident taking history at third level because they might feel that they did not have the necessary skills that come with studying the subject at second level. That, for me, is a more important issue than the numbers issue.

The skills that students of history at second level can amass and the confidence it gives them are critical, particularly the areas of analysis, methodology, evidence and proof. Having a sense of these and a sense of the broad sweep of history is essential. One of the difficulties at the moment, for which there is evidence in the UK, is that short courses lead to fragmentation. Students are looking at often unconnected fragments of history. That too would impact on their ability and confidence to take on the subject at third level. We need to be really conscious of what students who study history at junior certificate and leaving certificate level are getting and give them the opportunity to build on those skills at third level. My great fear is that if they lose the foundation block at second level, they simply will not feel remotely equipped to pursue the subject to degree level. That will cut them off from pursuing it even further.

I wish to link this issue to what Mr. Hogan said at the outset about the broader implications. I am glad the third level question has been raised. I do not teach history in a secondary school but I am concerned about the broader implications of what is being proposed, including for third level. It is important to reflect on this carefully. Reference was made to the fact that this is an issue for our public discourse and the greater impact that it will have, beyond the question of secondary students going on to third level. If it is fair to say that the present preoccupations of younger people are a fair barometer of future societal attitudes, then taking history away from them, as I feel will be the inevitable result of these proposals, will leave us in a very worrying situation in the future. This is not just about second and third level education. There is a broader societal impact.

There is also the question of whether future students will be equipped to effectively analyse the present. Reference was made to the importance of history in developing an understanding and greater awareness of public affairs, which is an issue of citizenship and of empowerment. Those questions are also connected to the themes of social and class divides. The issue is one of history being squeezed but also of who is getting access to the subject and who is not. The implications are hugely relevant across the sector.

We must also consider the question of who history is for.

It could ironically be said that I am here today because I believe history is far too important to be left to historians. I say that because that is another danger in these proposals, that history will become the preserve of an elite. There is a great sense of public ownership of history in this country and I do not accept the argument that curiosity is always natural. It often must be nurtured and encouraged. That is why the study of history is crucial and that everyone must have access to it. It is too important to be left to an elite, particularly an academic elite. I would also link it to the bigger questions that have been briefly touched on. I have been invited as a historian to join a Government appointed advisory group on commemorations and I am happy to accept the invitation. It seems to be a particularly cruel irony that at the same time as those sorts of initiatives, and all sorts of assertions of how seriously commemoration is being taken, that we would then have this proposal in front of us on what I consider the downgrading of history during that very commemoration period. The issue is then one of who steps in the breach. This is where people must be empowered with the knowledge of the history of the country. If they do not have that, others will step into the breach to use and abuse and distort history for their own ends.

I come back to the question of entitlement and empowerment. It is of particular relevance at present and I link that to the wider issue of heritage. We cannot compartmentalise these issues. I have been vocal in the past about some of the proposals for cultural institutions. All of these are connected so we do not to think in terms of either third level or second level, we must think of the connections between these areas.