When Excellence Is Questioned: A Response To Critics Of Prof. Stella N. Lemchi

The publication of my article, "A Woman's Touch: The Alvan Ikoku Transformation," has generated considerable reactions from various quarters of society. As expected in every democratic and intellectual environment, opinions have differed. Many distinguished academics, administrators, alumni, students, and members of the public reached out through calls, messages, and emails to commend the article and express agreement with my assessment of the remarkable strides being recorded under the leadership of the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Stella Ngozi Lemchi. Their responses were not merely emotional endorsements but reflections grounded in their observations of ongoing developments within the university.

However, a few individuals disagreed with my position. Among them was Mr. Nnamdi Chukwu, who questioned why a professor of my standing would choose to celebrate a Vice-Chancellor whom he believes is not performing. Others echoed similar sentiments, suggesting that my article exaggerated her achievements or overlooked certain challenges confronting the institution. While I respect their right to disagree, I believe it is necessary to respond, not out of personal interest, but in defense of fairness, objectivity, and truth. The first point that must be established is that scholarship demands intellectual honesty. A scholar is not obligated to criticize simply because criticism is fashionable, nor is he forbidden from praising because praise may be unpopular in certain circles. The duty of every intellectual is to identify merit wherever it exists and acknowledge it accordingly. The Greek philosopher Socrates taught that the unexamined life is not worth living. By extension, the unexamined opinion is not worth defending. Before condemning any leader, one must carefully examine the evidence.

History reveals that every transformational leader has faced opposition. No reformer has ever enjoyed universal approval. The great scientist Galileo Galilei was condemned for truths that later generations accepted. The philosopher Baruch Spinoza was rejected by many in his time. Even great political figures such as Abraham Lincoln and Nelson Mandela encountered fierce criticism while carrying out reforms. Therefore, criticism alone cannot be used as evidence of failure. The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once observed that people often resent those who rise above mediocrity because excellence exposes complacency. When institutions begin to move forward, those comfortable with stagnation frequently become uncomfortable. It is therefore unsurprising that visible progress within the university would attract resistance from certain quarters. My critics appear to assume that because I am a professor, I should refrain from publicly recognizing a performing administrator. Such reasoning is both strange and intellectually indefensible. Since when did academic status prohibit gratitude? Since when did scholarship become incompatible with appreciation? If a university leader is contributing positively to institutional growth, there is absolutely nothing wrong with acknowledging such contributions publicly.

The renowned management thinker Peter Drucker argued that leadership is judged by results rather than intentions. The question should therefore not be whether everyone likes Professor Lemchi. The real question is whether measurable progress has occurred under her administration. Any honest observer of the institution's recent trajectory will acknowledge significant improvements in administration, infrastructure, academic visibility, research culture, staff development, and institutional image. Aristotle maintained that justice means giving every individual what he or she deserves. If a leader performs poorly, criticism is deserved. If a leader performs admirably, commendation is deserved. To deny praise where praise is due is as unjust as offering praise where it is not deserved. Justice demands balance, and balance demands objectivity.

One of the most unfortunate tendencies in contemporary society is the habit of politicizing every achievement. Instead of celebrating progress, some individuals immediately begin calculating political advantages and disadvantages. The moment a leader receives recognition, critics emerge, not necessarily because the recognition is undeserved, but because they fear the implications of that recognition. The philosopher Hannah Arendt argued that genuine authority emerges from legitimacy and competence rather than force. Professor Lemchi's leadership continues to enjoy legitimacy because many stakeholders recognize the visible impact of her administration. Leadership cannot be sustained merely through titles. It is sustained through trust, credibility, and performance. Those who accuse me of exaggeration should remember that achievements do not cease to exist simply because some people refuse to acknowledge them. Facts remain facts irrespective of personal feelings. Buildings stand where they are built. Academic programmes function where they are established. Institutional reforms remain visible whether critics approve of them or not.

Karl Jaspers described the university as a community united in the search for truth. Truth requires evidence, not speculation. It requires observation, not envy. It requires reason, not emotion. Any evaluation of the Vice-Chancellor's administration must therefore be grounded in facts rather than personal preferences or political calculations. I find it particularly troubling that some criticisms appear motivated less by concern for the university and more by personal ambition. Let us be honest. Every institution contains individuals who aspire to leadership positions. There is nothing wrong with ambition. Ambition becomes problematic only when it transforms into bitterness against those currently entrusted with responsibility. The Roman philosopher Seneca wisely observed that envy is the tribute mediocrity pays to achievement. Throughout history, successful individuals have often attracted critics who contributed little to the achievements they criticize. Rather than focusing on their own preparation, such individuals devote their energy to undermining others.

To those already positioning themselves for future leadership within the university, I offer a humble piece of advice: prepare rather than attack. Build your academic credentials. Strengthen your administrative competence. Develop your vision. Cultivate your character. Leadership obtained through preparation is more sustainable than leadership pursued through resentment. The Bible reminds us in Ecclesiastes that there is a time for everything under heaven. There is a time to lead and a time to wait. There is a time to build and a time to inherit what has been built. Those aspiring to occupy the Vice-Chancellor's office in the future should remember that impatience has never accelerated destiny. The educational philosopher John Dewey argued that progress occurs when individuals work collectively toward shared goals. Universities are not battlefields for personal rivalries. They are communities dedicated to knowledge creation, intellectual development, and societal advancement. Every energy wasted on destructive competition is energy stolen from institutional growth.

Another important issue requiring emphasis is the significance of female leadership. Throughout history, women have often been subjected to standards far harsher than those applied to men. Achievements that would be celebrated in male leaders are sometimes questioned when achieved by women. This unfortunate reality continues to shape public perceptions in many societies. The French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir argued that many barriers confronting women are socially constructed rather than naturally determined. Professor Lemchi's success challenges those barriers and demonstrates that competence, intelligence, and vision are not the exclusive preserve of any gender. Her accomplishments serve as inspiration to countless young women aspiring to positions of leadership and influence. When a woman rises to prominence through hard work, excellence, and dedication, society should celebrate rather than resent her success. Bringing down a woman whom God has elevated contributes nothing to institutional development. Criticism should be based on evidence, not prejudice. Evaluation should be based on performance, not gender. Immanuel Kant insisted that human beings should always be treated as ends in themselves rather than as means to other people's ambitions. Those who attack Professor Lemchi merely because they desire her position violate this principle. Leadership should never be approached through character assassination or campaigns of resentment.

I also wish to remind critics that no administration is perfect. Every leader faces challenges. Every institution has limitations. Recognizing achievements does not imply claiming perfection. My article never suggested that every problem facing the university had been solved. Rather, it highlighted visible progress and acknowledged efforts worthy of commendation. The British philosopher Bertrand Russell once warned that many people would rather die than think, and in fact most do. Genuine evaluation requires thoughtful analysis rather than impulsive reactions. Before dismissing achievements, critics should carefully examine the evidence and ask whether their judgments are rooted in facts or emotions. The Chinese philosopher Confucius taught that the superior person seeks virtue while the inferior person seeks personal advantage. Universities flourish when members place institutional interests above personal ambitions. They decline when personal rivalries become more important than collective progress.

One cannot discuss leadership without discussing courage. It takes courage to make decisions. It takes courage to introduce reforms. It takes courage to confront institutional challenges. Those who have never occupied positions of responsibility often underestimate the complexity of leadership. Criticism is easy. Governance is difficult. Professor Lemchi's administration has demonstrated resilience in navigating the challenges facing higher education in Nigeria. At a time when many institutions struggle with funding constraints, infrastructural deficiencies, technological transitions, and increasing public expectations, she has continued to pursue a vision of institutional growth and relevance. The philosopher Hegel believed that history advances through the actions of individuals who respond creatively to the demands of their time. Every era produces leaders whose contributions become fully appreciated only in retrospect. It is often easier to recognize greatness after it has passed than while it is unfolding before our eyes. The responses I received following my article actually strengthened my conviction that the university is experiencing a significant moment in its history. The overwhelming support from many stakeholders indicates that numerous individuals recognize and appreciate the progress being made. While criticism remains valuable, it should not overshadow the broader reality of ongoing development.

To those who appreciated my article, I thank you sincerely. To those who disagreed respectfully, I equally appreciate your engagement. Intellectual disagreement is healthy when conducted with civility and evidence. It enriches public discourse and encourages deeper reflection. To Mr. Nnamdi Chukwu and others who share his concerns, I respectfully submit that my article was not written to please anyone, nor was it written to secure favour from anyone. It was written because I believe that excellence deserves recognition and that visible achievements should be acknowledged regardless of who accomplishes them.

As a matter of fact, history will eventually render its verdict on every administration. Time is the ultimate judge of leadership. Yet based on the evidence currently available, I remain persuaded that Professor Stella Ngozi Lemchi has made significant contributions to the advancement of Alvan Ikoku Federal University of Education. Those who aspire to occupy her position in the future should patiently prepare themselves for their own season of service. Let us not tear down a woman whom Providence has elevated. Let us instead celebrate merit, encourage excellence, support institutional growth, and remember that great universities are built not by envy and division but by vision, cooperation, and the courage to recognize achievement when it appears before us.