(This article first appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition on Jul 29, 2013)
Not long ago, a member of the Executive Council who is also a former vice-chancellor of a local university, met a few other incumbent vice-chancellors for a chat. He raised the issue of theft, pointing at the criminal nature of the act of stealing, and asked them whether they would protect any of their students if they had committed such an act.
Then he drew an analogy: if you found out your students had joined the Occupy Central movement, you should not have helped them since it was illegal. The lesson is simple: you should not help them, just as you would not help thieves who had stolen your property.
In the eyes of the law the act of joining the Occupy movement is an offence; whether it is criminal in nature is debatable. Even if it were, how a free and tolerant society should deal with it is still arguable. Protesters and thieves are not in the same category. It is questionable whether the analogy even holds up.
I am not interested in arguing the nature of the case from a philosophical standpoint, and you could make a moral case for theft under some special circumstances. What I am interested in is how educational institutions might deal with this in the present context.
We can look at this issue from different angles. During the Vietnam war there were campus protests across North America in public and private schools alike. At times, the students' actions were not entirely orderly - they occupied buildings and boycotted classes, among other things. Was the military draft legal at the time? Yes. Was the conduct of the students lawful? No. Yet, except for a few incidents which turned violent, the police were never called in. The only tragedy took place at Kent State University where the National Guard opened fire on unarmed students.
If we don't want to look at cases in far-off lands, let us look at China. Many have heard of the May Fourth Movement when, on May 4, 1919, close to 5,000 students from various Peking universities demonstrated on the streets. After a brief confrontation with the police, 32 students, mostly from Peking University, were arrested.
Upon receiving the news, Cai Yuanpei, the legendary president of Peking University, announced in the college auditorium that it was his responsibility to rescue those students. On the fifth, the authorities sought to kick out all the "troublemakers" from their respective campuses.
Fourteen university presidents headed by Cai took collective responsibility by submitting their resignations. A huge public outcry erupted across the country and, on the seventh, all students were released.
Cai was not the only one. In the 1930s, Mei Yi-qi was president of Tsinghua University. In February, 1936, after some student unrest incidents, police moved into the campus and rounded up some 20 students.
Mei, who opposed students participating in political activities, came out to rescue them, in his own words "to safeguard independence and university integrity".
In both cases, the students did commit "offences". They did something, at least according to the then government, that was unlawful. The presidents felt obligated to protect them.
For our case, there is something ironic, too. Shortly after that meeting, a few of those VCs stood up to proclaim their duty to safeguard students' right to freedom of expression. The one who conspicuously missed the event is the VC of the very same university from which the Exco member came.
On a different occasion, he also remarked that, as leader of a university, he'd do his best to protect the rights and safety of his students.
2013-07-01
On Selecting a President
(This article first appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition on Jul 1, 2013 with title "The big man on campus who isn't")
It was a ‘colourful’ event. Lingnan’ University was to select a new president, and the university council held a consultative meeting at which councillors were to choose a candidate. They endorsed Mr. Leonard Cheng in the face of student opposition. It was dramatic indeed. Behind all that noise, however, we should calm down, look at the facts, and ask ourselves some soul-searching questions. After all, it’s a university in our midst.
From statements of both sides where the public could well see, we may reflect on some issues that concern us all. Perhaps a note on American practice is in order. When an American takes up the presidency of a university, it’s a well-known ritual that he would give a speech to the university community. He would present his vision and his leadership that he believes could bring the school one step higher up, as we say. As president of the university, he is his own man, he takes orders from no one, not even the US president. If institutional independence and academic freedom mean anything, they mean at least this.
The president-designate of Lingnan, Mr. Cheng, said at the event that the Central authorities were not his boss, but Mr. Bernard Chan, the council chairman, was. That was on the record. Whether Mr. Chan has had experience in higher learning, or is familiar with university operation, and so on, is immaterial here. The point is whether the president—any president—of a university should have a boss, or claim to have one. Mr. Cheng is a business professor, he knows very well what people understand to be a ‘boss’. To say that you are my boss is to say that at the end, you call the shots. For an institute of higher learning, if the president cannot be his own boss, the institute’s independence is compromised. If it be said that he didn’t quite mean it, he was only saying that half-jokingly so to speak. Well, people could question his decency and intelligence. That was not an occasion for cracking jokes, was it?
As for the students, they didn’t do it quite properly either. If we look at how other (i.e. foreign) universities select a president, we’ll very likely find that, representatives of the student union are not allowed in the board of governors (or trustees) meeting. Even when they are, they have no say in the selecting of a president, or any university official for that matter. Administration is not the students’ business. Unless there is evidence that the board is illegitimate, otherwise why should an 18 or 20 year-old youngster assume that he/she is wiser, more mature, and more experienced than any member of the board?
For one thing, the candidate’s political views should not be an issue. The question is only whether he can honestly and effectively execute the terms of office that are required of him. In a free society, everyone has a right to decide on what politics he adopts. You can blame him for poor performance as the head person—that remains to be seen, you can’t blame him for his ideology. You cannot rationally assume his ideology must interfere with his office.
Universal value should be upheld, and justice and democracy are part of that value. Yes. But do democratic principles apply everywhere, regardless? If democracy be the trumping value in this case, why not have the whole university community come together to select a president? We don’t need any board or council, just let all students vote to choose. Is that rational? Should a college dean be chosen thus? Should a department head be selected by students and not by departmental colleagues? Should students decide on whom to hire whenever there is a professorship to be filled?
There is, of course, the ‘stakeholders’ question. And the stakeholder is the person involved in the matter, or whose interests are ‘at stake’, as it were. Let’s say, we have a family of 5, the parents and 3 kids. The parents want to take the kids to try different kinds of food. The kids vote for McDonald’s. Every time. All 5 are stakeholders. Is it rational to go by the vote? Your grandmother is to hold a birthday party. The whole clan of over 30 persons is invited. All have to participate and eat at the dinner, so all are stakeholders. Do they vote to decide on where grandma’s party is to be held, or does grandma decide herself?
It was a ‘colourful’ event. Lingnan’ University was to select a new president, and the university council held a consultative meeting at which councillors were to choose a candidate. They endorsed Mr. Leonard Cheng in the face of student opposition. It was dramatic indeed. Behind all that noise, however, we should calm down, look at the facts, and ask ourselves some soul-searching questions. After all, it’s a university in our midst.
From statements of both sides where the public could well see, we may reflect on some issues that concern us all. Perhaps a note on American practice is in order. When an American takes up the presidency of a university, it’s a well-known ritual that he would give a speech to the university community. He would present his vision and his leadership that he believes could bring the school one step higher up, as we say. As president of the university, he is his own man, he takes orders from no one, not even the US president. If institutional independence and academic freedom mean anything, they mean at least this.
The president-designate of Lingnan, Mr. Cheng, said at the event that the Central authorities were not his boss, but Mr. Bernard Chan, the council chairman, was. That was on the record. Whether Mr. Chan has had experience in higher learning, or is familiar with university operation, and so on, is immaterial here. The point is whether the president—any president—of a university should have a boss, or claim to have one. Mr. Cheng is a business professor, he knows very well what people understand to be a ‘boss’. To say that you are my boss is to say that at the end, you call the shots. For an institute of higher learning, if the president cannot be his own boss, the institute’s independence is compromised. If it be said that he didn’t quite mean it, he was only saying that half-jokingly so to speak. Well, people could question his decency and intelligence. That was not an occasion for cracking jokes, was it?
As for the students, they didn’t do it quite properly either. If we look at how other (i.e. foreign) universities select a president, we’ll very likely find that, representatives of the student union are not allowed in the board of governors (or trustees) meeting. Even when they are, they have no say in the selecting of a president, or any university official for that matter. Administration is not the students’ business. Unless there is evidence that the board is illegitimate, otherwise why should an 18 or 20 year-old youngster assume that he/she is wiser, more mature, and more experienced than any member of the board?
For one thing, the candidate’s political views should not be an issue. The question is only whether he can honestly and effectively execute the terms of office that are required of him. In a free society, everyone has a right to decide on what politics he adopts. You can blame him for poor performance as the head person—that remains to be seen, you can’t blame him for his ideology. You cannot rationally assume his ideology must interfere with his office.
Universal value should be upheld, and justice and democracy are part of that value. Yes. But do democratic principles apply everywhere, regardless? If democracy be the trumping value in this case, why not have the whole university community come together to select a president? We don’t need any board or council, just let all students vote to choose. Is that rational? Should a college dean be chosen thus? Should a department head be selected by students and not by departmental colleagues? Should students decide on whom to hire whenever there is a professorship to be filled?
There is, of course, the ‘stakeholders’ question. And the stakeholder is the person involved in the matter, or whose interests are ‘at stake’, as it were. Let’s say, we have a family of 5, the parents and 3 kids. The parents want to take the kids to try different kinds of food. The kids vote for McDonald’s. Every time. All 5 are stakeholders. Is it rational to go by the vote? Your grandmother is to hold a birthday party. The whole clan of over 30 persons is invited. All have to participate and eat at the dinner, so all are stakeholders. Do they vote to decide on where grandma’s party is to be held, or does grandma decide herself?
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)