On July 26, the Taipei High Administrative Court (台北高等行政法院) ruled that the expulsion of students by universities for misdemeanors or academic failure was a violation of the ROC Constitution. According to the ruling, since a student's right to education is protected by the constitution, expulsions should be based on laws passed by the legislature instead of school regulations. In the name of academic freedom and university autonomy, this ruling protects students' right to education to such a great extent that it in fact militates against academic freedom and university development.
The Council of Grand Justices' interpretation held that all mat-ters relating to students' studies, such as curriculum and course design, course content, student evaluation, examination rules and graduation requirements are matters covered by university autonomy.
To maintain educational standards as well as to promote their own special characteristics, it is necessary for universities to establish regulations regarding the subjects they offer, evaluation standards and students' behavior on campus. All regulations should, under Article 17 of the University Law, be respected and accepted by the court as the legal basis of a school's power to expel students if such regulations are jointly established or amended by school authorities and student representatives.
The court stressed that under the "rule by law" principle, as stated in Article 23 of the constitution, the rights and freedoms of the people may only be restricted in certain exceptional circumstances, and even then only by legislation. The court, however, has ignored the fact that universities are also subjects to be protected by Article 11 of the constitution, which states, "The people shall have freedom of speech, teaching, writing and publication."
University education cannot be placed on a par with primary and secondary education, which provide basic compulsory education; it is not part of that system. Whether universities operate a "half or two-thirds expulsion system" -- which allows the expulsion of students who fail to gain half or two-thirds of their credit points in a single semester -- any decisions to expel are made on the basis of the teachers' professionalism, educational responsibilities and each school's requirements. After all, these systems are more reliable and reasonable than a law drawn up by legislative haggling.
The court also suggested that the University Law be amended to enshrine in law the univer-sities' power of expulsion. By expressing the hope that the legislature would set up a universal standard for expulsions, the court is trying to restrict university autonomy. It is just like the 1995 amendment to the University Law, which called for standard general education courses for all universities and was later ruled by the Grand Justices to be a violation of the constitution.
Other advanced countries which emphasize the "rule by law" principle don't go to such extremes. Germany has never stipulated expulsion standards in its university law and has greatly respected the internal regulations of each and every university.
Another issue that arose from the ruling is whether universities should maintain the semester system or adopt a credit system. Under the former, students generally have up to four years to complete the coursework needed to graduate. Students who fail to gain a certain ratio of the required credit points in a single semester will fail.
Under the credit system, students must earn a certain number of credits to graduate, but there is no time limit. Under this system, students would not have to face the threat of a "half" or a "two-thirds expulsion system." They would be able to study freely for as long as they needed to. This could lead, however, to an in-crease in the average number of years taken to graduate, produce more mature students and create a burden on the education system.
I believe the credit system should be adopted. Students who pursue their studies for too long, however, should be charged higher fees. Under the semester system, many students are often on the verge of being expelled due to the schools' "half" or "two-thirds expulsion system," but teachers tend not to fail them out of compassion. This situation is conducive neither to the cause of university autonomy nor to the raising of the academic standards of local universities.
Dung Bau-tscheng is a professor of law at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
The cancelation this week of President William Lai’s (賴清德) state visit to Eswatini, after the Seychelles, Madagascar and Mauritius revoked overflight permits under Chinese pressure, is one more measure of Taiwan’s shrinking executive diplomatic space. Another channel that deserves attention keeps growing while the first contracts. For several years now, Taipei has been one of Europe’s busiest legislative destinations. Where presidents and foreign ministers cannot land, parliamentarians do — and they do it in rising numbers. The Italian parliament opened the year with its largest bipartisan delegation to Taiwan to date: six Italian deputies and one senator, drawn from six
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taiwan and India are important partners, yet this reality is increasingly being overshadowed in current debates. At a time when Taiwan-India relations are at a crossroads, with clear potential for deeper engagement and cooperation, the labor agreement signed in February 2024 has become a source of friction. The proposal to bring in 1,000 migrant workers from India is already facing significant resistance, with a petition calling for its “indefinite suspension” garnering more than 40,000 signatures. What should have been a straightforward and practical step forward has instead become controversial. The agreement had the potential to serve as a milestone in
China has long given assurances that it would not interfere in free access to the global commons. As one Ministry of Defense spokesperson put it in 2024, “the Chinese side always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight entitled to countries under international law.” Although these reassurances have always been disingenuous, China’s recent actions display a blatant disregard for these principles. Countries that care about civilian air safety should take note. In April, President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) canceled a planned trip to Eswatini for the 40th anniversary of King Mswati III’s coronation and the 58th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic
RSS