The heavy punishment given to the student streaker who ran around athletic field naked after losing a bet with friends has received much media coverage and social criticism.
The punishment was handed down by Chang Gung University (
The student was punished with two major demerits, two minor demerits and "detention under surveillance" for streaking after the US NBA basketball team he had bet on lost the championship. I can't help but wonder about two age-old questions: What is a good university? What kind of students do we expect from outstanding universities?
After the student's punishment was announced, some university presidents said that it was unnecessary to make a big deal about this case, while others claimed the punishment was simply a result of different customs in Taiwan and abroad.
Perhaps the reason why some people are angry about the streaking incident is their discomfort about discussing nudity. But doesn't this thinking lack respect for people's autonomy over their own bodies?
The so-called school spirit being upheld at Chang Gung University is too abstract and ambiguous. What should constitute school spirit anyway? Shouldn't it be expressed by the student body and faculty? Or should it be decided by school donors, founders or even administrators?
Monied backers and the administration of a university should confine themselves to matters of ethics, not school spirit. The punishment, based on the reasoning that the streaking incident damaged the reputation of the university, highlights one thing -- that school administrators can hand down punishments to students arbitrarily, since the notion of school reputation is vague. This kind of school regulation reflects the unlimited power of university policy makers in deciding which kind of behavior is appropriate and which is not. It represents, traditional Chinese law, while the important modern legal concept of due process is often ignored in university disciplinary procedures. Those being punished do not know this, nor do they seek remedies for such a contradiction. Student groups at some universities do not support students punished by administrators, and do not work to safeguard their rights. That's why we saw the harsh punishment given to a repentant student intimidated by his school go unchallenged.
The ability to pressure universities to reform got weaker after the Council of Grand Justices ruled on the constitutional interpretation of university autonomy and academic freedom in 1995. Such demands for reform have been replaced by formalistic concerns such as tuition hikes and school rankings. The idea of university autonomy has become a protective shell that excludes calls for higher education reform. If an internal auditing mechanism is absent, school commissions may become mere rubber-stamping bodies while outsiders do not have a say.
At a time when university authorities are beginning to learn from European and US educational models, Taiwanese university administrators still function according to outdated power relations and traditional authoritarian disciplinary modes. This could not have been farther away from the university autonomy that was pushed for under the university reform declaration that was proposed in 1987 by a local student movement striving for university autonomy.
Huang Cheng-yi is a lawyer practicing in Taiwan.
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