Table of Contents

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION

"Meddling" or "Steering": The Politics of Academic Decision Making in Hong Kong

Philip G. Altbach and Gerard Postiglione
Philip G. Altbach is Monan professor of higher education and director of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College. Gerard Postiglione is professor of education at the Hong Kong University. Email: postiglione@hku.hk.

The latest flap in Hong Kong's contentious world of higher education concerns the unwillingness of the government-appointed Council of the Hong Kong Institute of Education to reappoint Paul Morris as president. The Hong Kong academic community sees this action as a severe violation of academic freedom—the latest in a number of high profile cases over the last decade where government authority has tried to limit academic freedom by putting pressure on the universities and their top leaders to silence or remove professors who were perceived as disconcerting or obstreperous. But is this case a matter of academic freedom? However loyal to President Morris the academic community may be—and however unwelcome the nonreappointment may be—it is nonetheless important to provide an accurate analysis.

Academic freedom, after all, relates to guarantees of free expression for professors and students. The original 19th century German definition of academic freedom was limited to such protection within the classroom and laboratory in fields of the expertise of the professor. It did not protect expression on other topics. In the early 20th century, Americans expanded the idea of academic freedom to guarantee expression on any topic and in any context. Academic freedom protected the jobs of professors. They could not be fired or disciplined because of their writings or expression, on campus or off. This expanded definition of academic freedom is by and large accepted everywhere—everywhere, that is, where academic freedom is respected. Academic freedom does not assure that professors will control the university, nor does it protect institutional autonomy. Academic freedom does not insulate either professors or institutions from accountability accessible to those who provide funding and who, through legal arrangements, control institutional decisions.

Thus, the charge of restricting academic freedom may not be justified. Morris has pointed out that he had to protect the autonomy of academic staff to express their views publicly. This differs from a Hong Kong University case in 2000 when an institutional head succumbed to government pressure and unsuccessfully (as alleged) set a process in motion to silence a professor.

The Morris crisis relates to the alleged desire of the government to merge the Hong Kong Institute of Education with the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Morris supporters attribute the nonrenewal of his contract to resisting a merger. The academic freedom of staff was not limited by government, and no member of the Hong Kong Institute of Education staff was fired or disciplined for expression of views.

An International Perspective
The government provides most of the funding for higher education in Hong Kong and has the legal power to determine broad policy directions. In Europe, such power is called "steering" and is subject to considerable debate. As European academic systems expanded, governments, which fund higher education, took increasing control over how these growing systems are organized. Internal academic management remains mainly in the hands of the academics, but demands for accountability for academic performance is slowly changing the equation. The United Kingdom is a good example of how a state has exercised increased authority—measuring academic performance, imposing increasing fees on students, and the like. The academic community has had little impact on these policies, often unsuccessfully opposing them.

In the United States, colleges and universities have always been subject to the control of boards of trustees or regents. In general these boards have no academics on them, which is why they are called "lay boards." These boards appoint presidents and other top administrators and determine institutional policy. Presidents serve, as the saying goes, "at the pleasure of the board." A year ago, Harvard's board, called the Corporation, lost confidence in President Lawrence Summers. He quickly resigned. This same group just appointed Harvard's first female president, Drew Gilpin Faust. The faculty did not remove Summers nor did they elect the new president. Most American universities have a system of shared responsibility for policy. Academics determine key internal matters, including having a voice in the appointment of top administrators. Lay boards, which in the public universities are generally appointed by government authorities, are the main arbiters of the direction of the institution.

Many in the academic community worldwide argue that academic staff should have a large measure of control over their universities. Academic institutions, before the age of mass higher education, did have a significant measure of institutional autonomy. But since massification, the power of the academic community to shape the destiny of their own universities and of higher education in general has been diminished. The impact of marketization, the expansion of universities into giant bureaucracies, demands for accountability, and related forces have revolutionized the internal management of universities and how decisions concerning the direction of academic systems are made.

Academic Freedom or Not?
Definitions make a difference. If this latest crisis in Hong Kong's academic life is in fact a matter of governance and control rather than academic freedom, the attention should be placed on what is the proper role of the Hong Kong government in "steering" the academic system. Should the academic community and the leaders of the institutions have a significant role in shaping academic policy? If so, how should a shared governance arrangement be organized? Alternatively, should universities and their academic staff be treated like the employees of any company or government? We are convinced that the pendulum has swung much too far in the direction of government authority and managerial power, to the long-term detriment of the strength of the system.

[Online] Available: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/Number47/p20_Altbach_Postiglione.htm