EDUCATION Secretary Charles Clarke's speech at University College Worcester caused little fuss when delivered at the start of last month.

Yet this week it exploded into a political row between Mr Clarke and UCW on one side, and his many critics on the other.

Those who attended the lecture must be utterly bemused, as hardly anyone in the audience thought they had heard anything controversial. As a result, they were not surprised when it failed to warrant a mention in the next day's newspapers or bulletins.

So why did it suddenly emerge almost four weeks later - could it have been the work of mischievous union officials, perhaps?

The controversy centres on a report in the Times Higher Education Supplement, later picked up by the national media. The THES said Mr Clarke had used the UCW lecture to dismiss mediaeval historians as "ornamental" and had said the state should not fund them.

"I don't mind there being some medievalists around for ornamental purposes, but there is no reason for the state to pay for them," he is alleged to have argued.

The university establishment went mental. But Mr Clarke claimed he said no such thing. He said: "I am not in any way opposed to mediaeval studies (or for that matter Latin).

"I positively support the spread and development of both classical and medieval studies.

"What I have said on a number of occasions, including at Worcester, is that the 'mediaeval concept' of the university as a community of scholars is only a very limited justification for the state to fund the apparatus of universities. It is the wider social and economic role of universities which justifies more significant state financial support.

"My use of the word 'mediaeval' in this context has obviously been somehow transformed into a criticism of the study of medievalism in all its forms, which is not at all what I think."

He was backed by Professor David Green, principal of UCW, who pointed out there were plenty of academics at the lecture, including historians. "There would have been a storm if Charles had said what he is alleged to have said."

So why might it have been in the interests of a trade union to misinterpret (ever so slightly) what Mr Clarke had to say and tip off the THES?

I'm told the Association of University Teachers is less than keen on proposals - made by Mr Clarke - which would allow UCW to become a fully-fledged uni. Political sour grapes, perhaps?