Safeguard Our Students, Safeguard Freedom of Expre...

Feed

Image 1 of 4

Author: Verdy Leung

Started: May 15, 2007, 4:14:35 am

Target: The Chinese University of Hong Kong & Hong Kong Government

Category: Education

Supporters:

103

Goal:

100,000

Goal Progress:

Status

Active

Background
(The Chinese University of Hong Kong Student Press, which has a long tradition of being a critical voice in the University, was accused of containing"indecent materials" by the Chinese University of Hong Kong and the Obscene Articles Tribunal of the Hong Kong government by publishing a section about gender and sexuality in their newspaper. The University ruled that its publication and distribution should be banned. The University also ruled to hold the two editors-in-chief responsible and warned of the possibility of disciplinary action. With the ruling of the Tribunal, the publication and dissemination of the Student Press will be restricted and the editorial team may be charged with a criminal offence.

This is obviously an infringement of freedom of expression in Hong Kong. Academics from Hong Kong and Taiwan have launched a petition to support the students and urge the University and the government to fullfil their duties to protect freedom of expression and academic freedom. The students need supports from people all over the world. We would like to invite you to join the petition and show support to the students.

Here are some websites which show the details of the incident (in Chinese):
http://www.xanga.com/cusp_07/
http://cusp.hk
http://cusp07.blogspot.com)

The Statement
To:
Professor Lawrence J. Lau, the Vice-Chancellor of CUHK
Professor Ching Pak-chung, Pro-Vice-Chancellor / Vice-President, Head of Shaw College.
Professor Leung Yuen-sang, Head of Chung Chi College
Professor Henry N.C. Wong, Head of New Asia College
Professor K.P. Fung, Head of United College
Professor Billy K.L. So, Registrar (Member & Secretary)
Professor Ho Puay-peng, University Dean of Students
the Senate Committee on Student Discipline of CUHK
Adjudicators & Staffs, The Obscene Articles Tribunal, HKSARs

We, the undersigned, are deeply shocked that, on May 10 2007, the Senate Committee on Student Discipline of The Chinese University of Hong Kong (the Committee) violated the University's own policy and procedure when they met and ruled on the controversies surrounding the CU Student Press (CUSP) in the absence of the accused.

We also find it regretful that in the said meeting, the Committee ruled that the content in the CUSP is vulgar and obscene and that its publication and distribution should be banned. In the same meeting, the Committee also ruled to hold the two editors-in-chief responsible and warned of the possibility of disciplinary action. The rulings were then stated in 'warning' letters sent to the two editors-in-chief and all other students on the CUSP editorial board right after the meeting. It is not hard to imagine the heavy burden this act of the University authority has added onto the students who are already facing a lot of pressure from a hostile media.

As educators and students, we are deeply distressed by the action and decisions of the University's senior management. We are particularly concerned whether the students have been treated fairly in the whole process. At the same time, we are equally disturbed that the Committee's ruling would further erode freedom of expression and academic freedom on campus.

University should be the guardian of Freedom of Expression

The core mission of a University is to create open space and provide adequate support for the free exploration of truth and knowledge development. In such endeavors, critical comment, bold imagination and /or controversial suggestions which run contrary to conventional wisdom or negate traditional beliefs may spring forth; giving rise to controversies and debates. Such controversies should be welcome and contested with openness and respect for diversity, not curbed with authority. Universities are exactly the place where debates and struggle of confronting ideas should be encouraged and supported, not prohibited. Indeed, most disciplines in the Sciences, Humanities and Social Sciences, to name a few, make advances in the midst of heated debates and breaking of norms and taboos. There would be no Enlightenment if discussion of unconventional topics or revolutionary ideas were curbed at its infancy.

We are therefore most alarmed that the University authority, instead of playing the role of the guardian of free exploration and expression as they should be, and act as role models for students and junior academic colleagues in initiating open debates and intellectual discussions in face of controversies, had instead chosen to condemn and punish the young and the powerless. We sincerely urge the senior management of The Chinese University of Hong Kong to retract their decisions, extend their concern and assistance to students in difficulties and fulfill their role as mentors and educators. .

Reservation on the objectivity of the Adjudicators

We also find it very disturbing that a member of the Obscene Articles Tribunal (OAT) publicly stated that it is very likely that the CUSP will be ruled as "indecent" almost immediately after the matter was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication We found this very worrisome as a verdict seemed to have been reached even before any deliberation took place.

Furthermore, on 12 May 2007, major press reported that the OAT has already ruled the CUSP as containing indecent contents and be given a "Class II - indecent" in its ruling.* Such a verdict, if true, would have serious consequences both on the students personally as they are liable to be criminally charged and on the freedom of expression in general. It will most certainly send a chilling effect to all student presses and further prohibit students' free venturing into unfamiliar territories for fear of being reprimanded. This curtailing of the inquisition and search for alternatives and new horizons are contrary to the very core of what tertiary education should be.

In particular, a survey asking questions about sexual subjects and sketches of human bodies exploring sexual desires were quoted by the press as the culprit for the OAT's ruling. If these were indeed the contributing 'evidence' leading to the CUSP eventually being ruled as "indecent", we need to raise serious questions on its implication for academic freedom in the academia. What the students suffer can very likely happen to academic staff too, leading to censorship of controversial research questions and /or unconventional teaching materials.

Our Requests

"Open debates lead to the uncovering of more truths". It is vital for tertiary institutions to provide leadership in the exploration of truth, facilitate the development of knowledge and encourage intellectual debates on matters of social concern and in so doing, contribute to the advancement of Hong Kong as a civil society. We earnestly call upon the CU University authority not to abandon its role in nurturing the young so lightly but to:

1) retract its verdict of obscenity on the CUSP and the decision to ban its publishing and distribution; support the CUSP editorial board to conduct an internal evaluation on their own, and assist them in carrying out their editorial responsibilities in the future;

2) withdraw all disciplinary action directed at the two editors-in-chief and/or any other editorial board members now or in the future;

3) initiate open platforms to facilitate in-depth discussion and reflection among students and University senior management to learn from the incident.

Last but not least, we also like to call upon the Obscene Articles Tribunal

4) NOT to bow to pressure of a negative press and unwittingly transfer undue pressure and criminal responsibility onto the students, that they
should take into consideration of the students' good intention in facilitating discussions among peers and ensure that a fair and non-prejudicial judgment be made.

* On 15 May 2007, the OAT has officially announced that it has ruled the CUSP as containing indecent contents and be classified as "Class II - indecent".