tim's experiment

I realise that it is now compulsory for the selection of a new University Vice Chancellor to be followed by some sort of row, but current effusions from Hong Kong University are emitting a nasty smell. The new VC is Prof Peter Mathieson. Readers will effortlessly infer from this name that he was not, as it were, raised on congee. He is a Brit. This seems to be the main problem, although all the people who are complaining have managed to avoid stating this explicitly.

Clearest hint came from Prof Ying Chan, who told readers of her blog that the new recruit had “a complete lack of understanding” of Chinese society and history. Prof Chan had an interesting new hint for committees seeking new Vice Chancellors. She went on to say that “if a medical professor from the British city of Bristol, with a population of 430,000, is to parachute into Hong Kong to save our freedom, that’s a big joke.” Now I take it there is no objection to medical professors as such, or to people being parachuted into Hong Kong, as Prof Chan was herself. Nor does there seem to be anything about Bristol which should make it an objectionable source, except for its population. This can simplify the hunt for a new VC considerably. Applications can be rejected out of hand if they come from Cambridge (pop. 123,900) or Yale (New Haven, pop. 130,761). Alas, Europe’s oldest university doesn’t make the cut either. (Bologna, pop. 378,000). This also helps to explain how we got stuck with Prof Chan. She came from New York (pop. 8.3 million).

Prof Chan also questioned Mathieson’s “sincerity” in applying for the post because he had not “tailored his curriculum vitae” for the Hong Kong post. This is a puzzling complaint. After all a c.v. is a summary of your experience and achievements. Updating from time to time, persons with only one life need only one c.v. It is not supposed to be a piece of PR writing. Points specific to the job applied for can be made in the covering letter. Prof Chan seems to be complaining that Mr Mathieson is not dishonest enough for her.

Hong Kong U academics seem to be very preoccupied with c.vs though. The chairman of the Staff Association observed that he had heard from a Medical School colleague that the new VC’s c.v. was “mediocre”. This would have been more illuminating if some details had been supplied. Academics are a jealous bunch. C.vs are rarely assessed as more than “mediocre” unless mutual back-scratching is in progress. One c.v. problem was cleared up on Thursday when Prof Mathieson was open for questions at the university. The bit in his mission description about “helping Uganda” was not left over from an application for another job; he has a long-standing connection with Uganda. God knows it needs all the help it can get.

Other complaints continued to be rather unspecific. Professor Enoch Young, director emeritus (whatever that is) of HKU SPACE (money money money!) expressed “reservations”. Prof Cheng Kai-ming, a former pro vice chancellor, said the new VC “might be a good administrator, but that was just getting the job done. A university shouldn’t be like that.” And what, one wonders, does Prof Cheng think a university should be like? Well he’s an honourary professor at another eight. All of them are on the Mainland.

In a class of his own, though, was Prof Lo Chung-mau, head of surgery and a member of the selection committee. He described the new VC as “ignorant and incapable”, according to the Post. This is astonishingly rude for a piece of academic discussion. One gathers that Prof Lo wanted someone else and was outvoted. Very frustrating, no doubt. But still. Were we not urged by Kipling to “meet with triumph and disaster, and treat those two impostors just the same”? Gentlemen should be scholars. And scholars should be gentlemen.