- 5-
114
If
nothing in the file to suggest that the Senate ever
communicated to Edinburgh such a reply as is now
assigned to the University by Dr. Wang Chung-hui.
such a reply was ever communicated to Edinburgh it looks
as if this must have been done by the London Committee.
All I can say as regards that is that I have before me
the statement of the qualifications etc., required in
the new professor and the letter from the Pro-Vice
Chancellor to Sir Charles Addis the Chairman of the
London Committee. Not a word is said in either of
I
these documents about the exclusion of Chinese.
must, however, confess that the story of the incident,
so far as it can be told from the resolutions passed
in the Senate and in the Council, does suggest that the
London Committee was under the impression that a
Chinese professor would not be acceptable and that the
London Committee who advertised the post, was approached
on Dr. C.Y. Wang's behalf. How the Committee got
that impression, if it did get it, I can not say.
But the whole incident was most regrettable. Dr. C.Y.
Wang had excellent specialist qualifications; Dr. Parker
had none. Moreover Section 18 of the University
Ordinance enacts that: -
"No distinction of race or nationality shall be permitted, and no test of religious belief or profession shall be imposed, in order to entitle any person to be admitted as a member, professor, lecturer, teacher or student of the University. or to hold office therein or to graduate thereat, or to hold any advantage or privilege thereof."
However, as I have already said, the Council intervened
(how the Council got the information that Dr. Wang's
application had been ignored does not appear) and having
intervened, nothing was clearly allowed to stand in the
way of the best man being appointed, even though another
man had actually accepted the post.
11.