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
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers