Coming to the defence of one's friends is admirable, but Dr Ed Walsh's defence of UCC head Dr Gerry Wrixon in last week's education pages must be challenged

It is understandable that Dr Ed Walsh would wish to support his UCC classmate and longtime friend Dr Gerry Wrixon. It is less easy to understand the account of his own stewardship at the University of Limerick with his denigration of UCC and its leadership, since his assertions with regard to the latter are demonstrably false.

It is a dangerous illusion for the head of any university to believe that they are solely responsible for the excellence of the institution, and that somehow all developments are due to them. The role of a president is to help attract excellent staff for teaching and research, and then to facilitate and provide the resources and environment, human and material, for excellence to flourish.

Dr Walsh's metaphor for managing a university - "herding cats at a crossroads" - shows simple disdain for the academic staff, the essential creative core of the university. They are to be prodded along the correct path by their omniscient great leader. It is a model of university leadership that involves control, centralisation and managerialism. There are other models, and most importantly other effective models, that involve openness, participation, respect and debate.

It is helpful to understand the structure of Dr Walsh's article.

His assumptions are sacrosanct, while opposing arguments are marginalised or dismissed and motives questioned. Inconvenient facts do not intrude. I will use the metrics he uses for UL and show at the outset that in his assertion that "Cork dawdled" facts do not matter to him.

Cork Dawdled? The Facts

Over the 10-year period 1989-1999 - the student numbers in UCC grew from 6,500 to 11,500; the total staff from 1,004 to 1,833; the annual recurrent budget increased from £30 to £80 million; research contracts jumped from £4 to £19 million per annum; capital expenditure was £70 million (less than half from the State); fundraising from private sources generated £30 million.

The total research income for the second five years was £75 million - far in excess of any other university in the State.

A review in 1998 of fundraising efforts of Irish universities, conducted on behalf of Atlantic Philanthropies, judged UCC to be the best. In a public sector review of salaries for university presidents, UCC joined UCD and TCD in the top tier, while UL was allowed to linger in a lower tier.

Some 25 acres of contiguous land, which includes the new Brookfield medical campus and the site of the proposed information technology building, were added to the traditional 45-acre land-locked campus.

Total space on campus for teaching and research was increased by over 50 per cent.

These are the obvious tangibles. Among the not so immediately obvious are the top class academic staff attracted to UCC to complement those already here. As a result, for the latter six of the 10 years, UCC was the highest research earner in the state. This carried through into the PRTLI and Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) research programmes, where UCC with TCD were the top beneficiaries. In contrast, UL propped up the bottom of the league table.

Given this factual record, it is difficult to understand how Dr Walsh and his colleagues could be so "pleased" with themselves. When Cork dawdles, beware!

Denigrating Critics

Now we come to the marginalisation of critics and assumptions about their motives. Among many examples of his comments are: ". . . he also disturbed those who enjoy cosy work practices and academic relations." "A small number were not amused. Their academic power balance was disrupted, old certainties confounded and academic alliances dislocated." "Scholarly research and teaching can be pushed aside in favour of politics . . . disgruntled academics, can skulk in the corridors."

Here Dr Walsh attributes motives to unnamed people with whom he does not agree, using only generalities and stereotypes. What is the basis for any of these remarks? It would seem that others do not have reasons or principles, just emotions and malign motives. His own assumptions are never questioned or argued - they are simply revealed truth.

Prof D Clarke, a member of the governing body of UCC, has produced a list of concerns with supporting documentation. This is ignored by Dr Walsh. Fundamental issues such as governance and integrity are thus waved aside with unsupported, facile and generalised statements. Again, the strategy is to assign and attack the prescribed motive of unnamed "cliques". Cliques are always on the other side.

Dr Walsh then turns to me personally. It seems I have "taken sides" and become "publicly embroiled" in the controversy. This is what I wrote: "Professor Clarke is a scholar of international repute . . . He is a person of the highest integrity and ethical standards. When he makes the statements as reported, they should be taken very seriously.

"University legislation provides a means of dealing with the situation now prevailing through the appointment of a 'visitor' by the Minister for Education. A visitor, an independent person of standing such as a High Court judge, could investigate the allegations and deliver a judgment." This, and a similar statement to RTÉ, are my sole public statements.

I made no comment on the substance of the concerns, and specifically declined to do so on RTÉ.

I had observed that anonymous spokespersons for UCC were spinning to undermine Prof Clarke's credibility. It was, and remains, my judgment that it is not in the long-term interests of UCC that the serious and documented issues raised by Prof Clarke and other members of the governing body should be marginalised and buried. They should be dealt with in an independent, objective process in which all of UCC's stakeholders can have confidence.

If Dr Walsh wishes to enter the debate about UCC he should first get his facts right, and then determine the real issues and address them with real arguments. He should respect the integrity of those who do not agree with his arguments, and resist the temptation to demonise them. Then, he might make a worthwhile contribution.

He likes to refer to "the world's greatest universities in the US". I hold a doctorate from one of these, the California Institute of Technology, and I can recall the Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman telling us to report all the data. Caltech's motto is "the truth shall make you free."

•Dr Michael P Mortell is president emeritus of University College Cork