There has been much discussion about the norms of school life and how students should behave on campuses.
Feng Chia University raised the question of whether students should be allowed to wear sandals to class. Then, the Greater Taichung Government started to debate whether teachers at elementary and junior-high schools should be allowed to wear shorts to school.
The Ministry of Education asked whether teachers and students in schools below the senior-high level should be allowed to use cellphones on campus and, a few days ago, the president of National Taiwan University raised the question of whether university students should be allowed to skip class.
These questions sparked heated debate from all corners and made the defenders of traditional moral values quite angry.
These events made me think about my own experiences. In the four universities and medical colleges where I have taught, be they public or private, the most common question students have asked me — and this is the only question that students from all four schools have asked me — is: “Can I use a pencil?”
I imagine that the answer they received from their senior-high school teachers time and again was “no.”
However, it is obvious that these senior-high teachers did not help the students to understand the reasons why they said no. Without comprehending the reasoning, the seemingly trivial issue of whether students may use pencils is still unexplained and so often the first question first-year university students ask their professors is: “Can I use a pencil?”
When more than three people in one class ask me this question, I will loudly tell the class: “Yes, you can use a pencil.”
Then, I ask them why they did not ask me whether they can cheat. Normally, the students laugh out loud when they hear my question. I explain that although the answer to that question is “yes,” getting caught cheating has certain ramifications and, if they were considering cheating, they would need to think very carefully about what sort of benefits and drawbacks those actions would have and how their actions might affect their classmates.
This “yes or no” approach misleads those who are discussing these topics and seeking answers to their questions. It makes students believe that the crux of the matter lies in the answers, the “yes or no,” when some of the main considerations should be the possible ramifications of our actions and the freedom to make the choices that we really want to make.
In the Bible, Paul the Apostle gave a good explanation of this idea: “Everything is permissible — but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible — but not everything is constructive.”
Therefore, the answer to all of the questions mentioned here is “yes,” but what we should really consider is where these actions might lead and what their consequences on the individual and other people might be.
University students can only truly understand something by deciding for themselves “to do” or “not to do” it. This is the only way they can learn how to be responsible for their actions, and that is what gives our society the positive energy it needs to improve.
Would Benjamin Franklin have asked: “Can I go out into the storm to fly a kite to prove that lightning is electricity?”
Would Thomas Edison have asked: “Can I pull apart watches and sit down on eggs to see if they will hatch?”
Would George Leslie Mackay have asked: “Can I set up a college in Taipei and build a hospital?”
Would Albert Schweitzer have asked: “Can I go to Africa to preach and treat the ill?”
Would Albert Einstein have asked: “Can I say that Newton’s Laws of Motion are wrong?”
Would Bill Gates have asked: “Can I drop out of Harvard after three years?”
Would Steve Jobs have asked: “Can I defer my studies after just completing one semester?”
Would Lady Gaga have asked: “Can I dress up like a Catholic sister while I sing?”
If someone said “no” to these people, would they have obediently listened? If they behaved like Goody Two-shoes, would the world we live in today be as rich and colorful as it is?
Some might cite the German physicist, Georg Wilhelm Richmann, who was killed by lightning when re-enacting Franklin’s experiments and they might ask how we can let our students do such things.
The question is not “can I or can’t I?” but rather what benefits or harm will be brought about by a person doing a particular thing.
Each person should make their own decisions based on positives and negatives and take responsibility for their decisions.
Franklin and Richmann both made their own choices and took responsibility for their actions. Regardless of the results, they made contributions to the whole of humankind.
Our students will be the next generation of Franklins, Edisons and Mackays. We should encourage them to think for themselves, teach them how to make their own choices and show them how to take responsibility for their actions.
We should not allow our educational authorities to simply say “no” and stop our students from trying anything new altogether.
Tsai Cheng-chih is an associate professor at Mackay Medical College.
Translated By Drew Cameron
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath