Huang Kun-yan (黃崑嚴), responsible for assessing university medical colleges, has published six articles over the past few days. In these articles, he has put forward allegations that medical education in this country has strayed from its fundamental non-profit ideals and become commercialized. Huang argued that, faced with the risk posed by SARS, this development has rendered hospitals unable to fulfill their public responsibilities, instead causing them to collapse in their competition to shirk responsibility.
With this warning still ringing in our ears, we have seen the Cabinet rushing to approve a draft amendment to the University Law (大學法). Claiming to give public universities the ability to operate along business lines, it sets up a system that applies the directorial board system of private universities to public universities, and clearly stipulates that at least one half of the directors must come from outside the university. This introduces a major variable to the university environment.
Calls to turn public universities into "public legal persons" have been resurfacing since around the time other amendments to the University Law were approved in 1994. At that time, the reason university reform associations requested that universities get the same legal status as an individual was to make universities legal entities enjoying the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of academic freedom in an attempt at achieving complete financial independence and administrative autonomy.
Regrettably, the Cabinet's draft does not reflect the changing times by bestowing the status of legal person on public universities (in 98 percent of countries, universities operate as legal persons). It instead uses "administrative legal person" status as bait to be able to add various restrictions and thoroughly destroy the internal autonomous mechanisms in universities. Such an empty and meaningless status would only make the operations of universities more difficult. I can see nothing that would improve competitiveness.
First, according to the draft, administrative legal-person status would add several decision-making units to public universities. In addition to the board of directors not having to shoulder responsibilities proportionate to the great deal of power they would wield, the university president's powers would be expanded on the surface. But the president would, in fact, be demoted to the status of "general manager," with many of his powers curbed by the board of directors.
When it comes to adopting school development plans, for example, the president would require resolutions from the administrative conference and the newly added academic advisory council. Who can believe that a structure with such overlap would promote efficiency and flexibility?
Second, the draft stipulates that with administrative legal-person status, public universities must set up boards of directors either individually or by banding several universities together. This implies that a board could be made up of representatives from several different universities, and that it would be able to elect presidents for several different universities. These directors would become a major power behind the scenes.
I wonder how many university presidents and officials in the Ministry of Education about to retire are beginning to move already, trying to arrange a seat on such boards.
For a long time now, university presidents have voiced criticism against the administrative conference for being too big and for blocking efficient review of resolutions. Indeed, since the University Law lists both academic and administrative managers as natural members of the administrative conference, it cannot be made smaller.
Reforms should move in the direction of adjusting organizational structure, appropriately streamlining staff, improving representativeness among members and adding a standing committee to improve decision-making and quality instead of treating democracy in the school system as the cause of all troubles.
Universities need the freedom to apply their intellectual powers to the development of their research, teaching and services. Everything must therefore be done for the organization of universities to guarantee the spirit of autonomy.
If bestowing public universities with administrative legal-person status only serves to belittle universities into becoming empty structures but destroys academic freedom and university autonomy, it will be an example of retrogression where losses will outweigh benefits.
To summarize, a university is a joint community of teachers, students and staff. They should be given a dignified independent status. The amendment to the University Law must therefore consider strengthening the autonomous abilities of universities with legal-person status instead of tying them down with a contrived administrative-legal-person straight jacket.
The most worrying part is that if the status of public universities as public institutions is further weakened and their mission is further circumscribed, it may not be possible to remedy the undermining of public responsibility. Huang's nightmare will not be restricted to medical education only. In time, all academic disciplines must succumb to the logic of the market and the core values and ideals of universities will go up in smoke.
Can those in power really afford not to think twice?
Ku Chung-hwa is a professor of sociology at National Chengchi University and chairman of the Taipei Society.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Ursula K. le Guin in The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas proposed a thought experiment of a utopian city whose existence depended on one child held captive in a dungeon. When taken to extremes, Le Guin suggests, utilitarian logic violates some of our deepest moral intuitions. Even the greatest social goods — peace, harmony and prosperity — are not worth the sacrifice of an innocent person. Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), since leaving office, has lived an odyssey that has brought him to lows like Le Guin’s dungeon. From late 2008 to 2015 he was imprisoned, much of this