Tue, Sep 12, 2000 page4

• Universities debate campus election system

  BY DEGREES Changes in the law to promote democratic procedures in universities and to allow faculty members and students to choose their own president have been slow and muddled and have not been a success, some professors claim

  • By Lin Mei-chun / STAFF REPORTER
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  Universities are usually perceived as ivory towers free of politics, but the uproar surrounding presidential elections at National Chunghsing University (中興大學) has shattered that illusion.

  A dispute has been simmering for weeks over the appointment of Peng Tso-kwei (彭作奎), who is facing charges of plagiarism, and has stirred debate about election procedures at universities.

  As Taiwan's democracy matures, professors and students have been appealing for democratic reform at the nation's institutions of higher learning.

  While Taiwan was under martial law, university presidents were appointed by the central government so that a tight rein could be kept on academics.

  It was not until 1994 that university presidents were elected by school faculties in accordance with changes to the University Law. For years scholars had argued that universities should be autonomous and governed by professors.

  Occasionally, however, the well-intended law showed its shortcomings. According to Article 6 of the University Law, it states a university's search committee should hold a first round of elections to recommend two or three candidates to the Ministry of Education.

  Selection process

  From those candidates a new president is chosen by a committee of five to nine members at the education ministry.

  Controversy has arisen over election procedures at the schools and the composition of the committee formed by the education ministry. Some scholars are convinced that the Ministry of Education should not have a final say in the choice of university president.

  The initial election of a university president varies widely from school to school. Two systems are generally employed: The first method is election by popular vote by all full-time faculty members; the second is electoral voting, where a search committee is in charge of selection of the candidate.

  Individuals in favor of a popular vote say that it is the best way of representing popular opinion.

  "Only we professors know what's best for our school. The education ministry should respect the choice of professors by approving the candidate who gains the most ballots [in a popular vote]," said Wu Ming-ming (吳明敏), who is a professor in the department of agricultural marketing at Chunghsing.

  However, most professors interviewed by the Taipei Times said they had reservations about popular voting as it caused instability and fighting among factions.

  Vote-buying

  "Professors are not different from ordinary people. All the drawbacks of elections such as vote-buying or blackmail are frequently heard of during elections at school," said Chen Tung-sheng (陳東升), chairman of the sociology department at National Taiwan University.

  Wu Yen-hua (吳妍華), acting president of National Yang Ming University (陽明大學), backed Chen's view, adding that it was impossible to avoid factional conflicts during elections.

  "What does the highest vote count mean? The perils of populism should not be brought onto the campus," warned Peng Yun (彭芸), a professor at the Journalism Department of National Chengchi University (政治大學) -- a school that has adopted the popular vote system."Elections mean soliciting for votes, which is absolutely tied up with compromises between candidates and voters. The president's status tends to be undermined [by this system].

  "In addition, the election process is too time-consuming, with preparation requiring nearly half a year," Peng said. "During this period the campus is in disarray and teachers cannot concentrate on teaching. It's a real burden," Peng said.

  Minister without portfolio Huang Jung-tsun (黃榮村), once an active figure in the educational reform movement, said the criteria for selection of an academic leader should be stricter than in other fields, given the public expectations of professors.

  "The most suitable individual can not necessarily be elected by means of a popular vote," Huang said.

  He said a search committee election was a good alternative, as most scholars regarded popular elections as flawed. Under this scheme, he said, it is essential that an impartial committee be formed.

  Public trust

  Chen, Huang and Wu all said an essential attribute of a committee member was austerity. They also agreed all candidates should undergo public scrutiny.

  "There should be a transparent and just benchmark to vet suited committee members in the hope of earning the trust of the public," Huang said.

  When he was asked about the involvement of the education ministry, Huang said, "It is not time for universities to be totally independent on account of the fact that the quality of professors still leaves a lot of room to be desired.

  "I think the Ministry of Education's involvement is acceptable for now."

  According to Wu Yen-hua, "If the education ministry's search committee can win the trust of the public, their opinions should be respected.

  "It is actually a good idea for an outsider to be the referee of a game if he stays unbiased."

  Huang said that in the long term it would be best if the education ministry kept out of the election process.

  "The education ministry should not step in and choose presidents for schools.

  "It should merely play an assisting role and guide schools toward a sound scheme for them to establish a fair-minded search committee on campus. Only then can power be given to professors," Huang said.

  But first, professors should improve their tattered public image, but "I don't think it's time yet," Huang said.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Napoli’s title hopes shaken by late Genoa equalizer

  • 2

    Kane tastes first title as Bayern bid farewell to Mueller

  • 3

    Barcelona crowned champions

  • 4

    Taiwanese duos triumph in Taipei Open badminton

  • 5

    Entertainers questioned amid military service furor