If you think politics in the House of Assembly are rough, you should try politics in any institution of higher education.

Try the Bermuda College. It has had more than its share in the last few years.While looking backwards can result in seeing things through rose tinted glasses, the early years of the College did seem to have been marked by good internal relations under the leadership of first, Mansfield (Jim) Brock, and second, Dr. Archie Hallett.

Then too, the mission of the College was also clear. It was to be a community college in the North American style, offering a range of academic and technical subjects both to full-time students and to ?extension? students taking classes in the evenings and on weekends.

It was never intended to be a university. Those students who wished to pursue further academic training could do so after completing two years at the College and could transfer their credits to North American and British universities in good standing.

All of this could ? and still can ? be done at a bargain price.

Sometime during Dr. George Cook?s tenure as president, the College lost its way. There was a good deal of talk about becoming a ?university college?, a hybrid between a community college and a university.

The College?s internal politics also took a turn for the worse, with clear divisions arising between Dr. Cook and Vice President Donald Peters among other problems. Many hoped with the appointment of Dr. Michael Orenduff, that the College would find its way again and would put the rancour of the past behind it.

The College did seem to regain its focus and began to look for ways to become more educationally relevant as well.

Under the leadership of Dr. Orenduff and chairmen Jan Spiering and Raymond Tannock, the College also seemed to find its financial footing: the spin-off of the Stonington Beach Hotel took an albatross off the College?s back, even if questions still remain about the granting of the tender to hotelier John Jefferis.

In spite of all of that, internal divisions have once again arisen, mainly over a series of personnel disputes that have received a good deal of publicity in recent weeks.

These include the dismissal of lecturer Dr. Shaun O?Connell and the redundancy of Dr. Michael Bradshaw, the appointment of new president Dr. Charles Green and the redundancy of controller Jane Smith.

Then too there is the question of the earlier appointment of Dr. O?Connell?s accuser, Abdullah Ahad, whose academic credentials are now in question.

The College seems to have adequately answered questions over the redundancy of Ms Smith, who believed she was made redundant for questioning spending by College officials.

But the College has said that she refused to work with her superior. As for the spending questions, Dr. Orenduff?s explanations seem to be fair.

But major concerns over the other problems are still unanswered and these justify Opposition calls for an inquiry into hiring practices at the College.

Certainly, public confidence is at a low ebb and Dr. Green does not have an easy task ahead of him when he takes up the College?s reins.

But if he can ensure that the College?s hiring methods are fair then the focus can go back to where it should be ? on the College?s students and the quality of graduates the College is turning out.

And that?s the main point. The internal politicking at the College is taking the focus away from where it should be: on its students who more than ever need a first-class education in order to compete in today?s world.