香港大學校長較早時給我回信，只是強調大學高層一致支持理學院院長作出艱難決定的權力（以及他的責任），原文：The senior management team unanimously
supports the Dean’s right (and indeed his obligation) to make difficult
decisions ….，把事情簡化為「權力」單一帶着法律味道的議題，不談任何原則性問題，例如大學的哲學、價值觀、管治等。
 |
| 校長來信只談權力，不講道理 |
今天給他寫了跟進信，指出：
- 香港的前途在科學，政府推動科學與技術，此時撤兩理科主修是逆潮流的和違背香港利益
- 院長在學院事務委員會和大學教務委員會開會討論此事件前自行宣布「決定」，不符既有程序，要求校長出示有關院長「權力」來源的大學規條
- 以英國帝國學院「物理+音樂」學位為例，顯示學生少不是撤主修的理由
- 大學高層應以大學和香港整體利益為前提，檢視理學院院長的「決定」
信件全文見下：
Dear Professor Mathieson,
Deletion
of the Majors of Astronomy and Mathematics/Physics
Thank you for
your letter dated 13 April 2017.
It is noted
that the complex subject was reduced to a single, legalistic issue, that of “the
Dean’s right (and indeed his obligations)”.
Silence prevailed over reason regarding key issues like university
philosophy, values, principles and governance.
That “obligations”
came in brackets after “right” is an apt description of the present case. The Dean is always emphatic about his power
and authority and less than enthusiastic in fulfilling his obligations to the
community and the academia. Such
behaviour is ill omen for HKU’s future.
Science we now
all know is THE future. The Government
is pushing for STEM. The Dean and indeed
all university colleagues are obliged
to expand, strengthen and enrich learning opportunities in science, to prepare
students to collectively serve society for its long-term sustainability. To cut study options at this point in time
is, as the Dean likes to put it, “simply” wrong because it is against Hong Kong ’s interest.
If “obligation” had been given due consideration alongside “right”, the
Dean should have strove to increase the number of Science Majors, not to reduce
it.
On “right”, it
would be appreciated if I and the university community could be shown the university statute which confers the
Dean the “right” to “notify” the Physics Department early in January 2017
about the “decision” to delete the two Majors well before any deliberation by the Faculty Board or the Senate.
The
introduction of even a course, not to mention Majors, requires Faculty Board
approval. It follows that their
cancellation requires at least Faculty Board approval. By the same token, important decisions
relating to Majors fall within the realm of the Senate. The Dean cannot unilaterally delete the two
Majors before Faculty Board and Senate approval.
While the
senior management may support the Dean in making certain personal decisions, it
has the obligation to ensure that
those personal decisions are put
through due process for transformation into institutional decisions. Otherwise it would become autocratic rule, at
odds with true university spirit and contemporary values. I imagine that you are aware of the law case
associated with Professor Evans during his time at Queen Mary University of
London.
I reiterate
that small enrolment number is not a sufficient reason to delete Majors. Imperial
College
I continue to
hope that the University has the wisdom to appreciate its responsibility to Hong Kong in terms of science education especially at
this juncture in the city’s development.
It should not let myopic views like “saving a few dollars today”
overshadow its fundamental, long-term education responsibility and
obligation. Senior management may choose
to support the Dean’s right to make
decisions, but it must not agree with the substance
of those decisions where it damages university and community interests. I still request that you review the substance of the “decision” to delete
the two Majors.
I shall take
up your suggestion of contacting the Provost and the Dean. But I shall also await the information on the
university statute mentioned above.
Yours
sincerely,
Lam Chiu Ying
