A week is a long time in the life of the Hong Kong Institute of Education at the moment. Rhetoric, arguments and allegations are flowing fast and furious over the ousting of institute president Paul Morris, HKIEd's quest for independent university status and the merger issue. Last weekend this newspaper reported Professor Morris alleging that education secretary Arthur Li Kwok-cheung had been 'determined' behind the scenes when it came to selling the benefits of a union between the institute and Chinese University. That theme was picked up by a letter writer, who suggested resignations were called for, and was answered robustly by Professor Li, who said allegations about the government interfering in the affairs of HKIEd were 'groundless hearsay'. On Wednesday a story appeared in Ming Pao quoting an anonymous government source alleging that Professor Morris had promised to merge the institute with another university in order to obtain self-accrediting status and secure his job. That drew an immediate denial from Professor Morris. 'These claims are totally false and it is very sad that people in such position should resort to telling lies and character assassination,' he said in an e-mail sent to the press as well as HKIEd staff and students. 'Unfortunately, I am sure this will not be the last attempt to use such dirty tactics.' Later the same day the education secretary hosted a 'tea party' with a select group of editors from the Chinese language press. He had never and would never put pressure on institute managers to merge, he told them. HKIEd's students' union, meanwhile, is calling for a vote of no-confidence in council chairman Thomas Leung Kwok-fai over what Professor Morris has dubbed its 'serious governance issue', the fact that most council members are government appointees. And stepping into the fray this week are some of the world's most renowned education academics, claiming variously that Hong Kong's academic freedom is under threat, HKIEd's reputation is being undermined by the ousted president and merger sagas and commenting on the quest for university status. In many other countries the issue of academic autonomy alone would be enough to launch calls for an investigation. In Hong Kong, where accountability is high on the democrats' wish-list but low on the political agenda, on the other hand, it merely provokes letters to a newspaper. We learn this week that the Legislative Council education panel is set to discuss the university title issue at its meeting next month. Could we respectfully suggest that there is a compelling argument for more than just that one issue on the agenda?