tim's experiment

The function of tragedy, according to Aristotle, is to inspire terror and pity. Recent goings on at Hong Kong University fill the bill nicely. The usual “search committee” settled on the idea that Johannes Chan should be a pro Vice Chancellor (PVC). Mr Chan was then subjected to a barrage of abuse — literally hundreds of articles — in the PRC’s poodle press. The University Council decided to postpone the matter while the question of who did what over donations to Occupy Central was clarified. This was done. Then the council found another reason, and postponed the matter again. This reason (wait for appointment of new Provost) having collapsed in a heap they tried another one. This week the excuses ran out and the council rejected the appointment altogether. The council has clearly taken leave of its collective senses.

Many years ago, owing to some quirks in the constitution of the University of Lancaster, I was a member of that university’s Council for a total of five years. Nothing remotely like this ever happened. There are good reasons for this.

Contrary to what some members of the HKU version apparently believe, it is not the job of the University Council to run the university. Power in universities is deliberately divided between the Senate and the Council. The Senate is an academic body whose members are engaged in teaching and research. These matters are the main purpose and function of the university and they are properly a matter for the Senate and its off-shoots. There are, however, matters involved in the management of a university which do not involve teaching and research as such. Scholars are supposed to be unworldly creatures who should not be left by themselves to deal with members of notoriously shady professions like building and banking. The purpose of the Council is to provide the input of lay people – who in academic terms are amateurs – on practical matters. It should ensure that the university is not bankrupt, is adequately housed, conforms to the law and responds appropriately to external conditions like the demand for particular kinds of graduate in the labour market.

The requirement that senior posts be endorsed by the council is supposed to ensure that the number of expensive appointments is not unreasonable in the light of the university’s needs and resources. It is not intended to allow lay members of the council to make their own personal assessments of the merits of individual candidates, and impose them on the university.

This is particularly the case when the search was presided over by the Vice Chancellor. The V-C is the full-time specialist administrator responsible for running the university and while I can recall Council members expressing misgivings about particular policies or ideas, I can recall no occasion when the V-C’s clearly expressed views were contradicted or ignored. Indeed this is so unusual that I am rather surprised the Vice Chancellor concerned has taken it so calmly. In such a situation many people would be considering resignation. If the council makes it impossible for anyone else to run the university without interference they will soon find that a “search committee” — supposing anyone is prepared to waste his time by sitting on it — is not finding anyone worth hiring.

The ensuing discussion of the veto has been illuminating, mainly because the student rep on the Council, one Billy Fung, decided that it would be of some public interest if he disclosed what was actually said in the meeting. This produced much huffing and puffing about confidentiality, but there is, as they say, a time and a place for everything. There have also been some disputes over the accuracy of Mr Fung’s recollections. So let us not go into exquisite details. Clearly, though, some of the discussion revealed more ignorance than enlightenment. They also revealed an interesting contradiction. If this is an academic appointment, requiring particular qualifications or a substantial research background, then that is not a matter for the Council. They are not themselves academics. The composition of the search committee should reflect the requirements of the job, and their view on the matter should prevail. If on the other hand this is an administrative post, then the matter of qualifications, experience and publications should not arise. There is no need for administrators to be scholars. When I was a student at Kings College London it was being run, with great success, by a gentleman whose previous appointment was as the General Commanding the British Army of the Rhine. Most administrators in those days had chosen it as a career after graduation, started as departmental administrators and worked their way up. They did not have PhDs. I think this is still the case in many places and I was rather surprised to find so many PhDs in university administration in Hong Kong. I do not think this has anything to do with the job requirements. Academics like producing PhDs because every research student is also a teaching assistant. So there is a surplus.

The other interesting revelation produced by Mr Fung’s indiscretion is provided by the diligence of reporters asking council members who voted against the appointment what they had to say on the matter. Quite a lot of “no comment”, of course. Arthur Li came out squirting venom – “This guy is a liar” – as is his personal habit. Also revealing a nasty side was Leonie Ki Man-fung, who combined her “no comment” with a vicious personal attack on Mr Fung, who apparently, among other sins, has “no integrity”. Coming from someone who can look back with pride on a long career in advertising and PR this is a bit rich.

What the councillors did not say was as interesting as what they did. Nobody, apparently, at any point mentioned the word “occupy”. Clearly they think we’re all very stupid…