UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG
21st May, 1937.
82
Your Excellency and Gentlemen,
It is hardly necessary to state that each member of the
professorial staff of this University has given every paragraph
of this important document his most careful and critical attention.
The report contains many recommendations with which we professors can whole-heartedly agree; there are others which we feel need de-
tailed consideration by other bodies in the University; but there
are again some statements which, to the professorial staff, seem
to be quite contrary to the traditions of British Universities.
We fully realise that members of the University (1937)
Committee have not arrived at their decisions lightly or
without the expenditure of an immense amount of time and thought; and we are pleased to hear from the Vice-Chancellor's speech
that we in the Senate and the several Faculties are to be accorded
that freedom of discussion which, to quote paragraph 68, "is as
vital as fresh air where a university is concerned."
Although we have not been in possession of this Report for a period long enough to permit us to embark on a discussion
of the sections in detail, we are of the opinion that, in fairness
to us and to the University, we should take this opportunity of
indicating certain of the points in this document from which
erroneous conclusions may be drawn by readers who are not familiar
with the academic life of our University.
We cannot think that this Court will allow to remain
on record a statement which can be construed as being derogatory
to the status of this University, namely the end of paragraph 73
which reads:-
"Further it is perhaps justifiable to
point out that Hong Kong does not obtain, and in fact, does not require the
university professor of such exceptional academic attainments as might claim emoluments on the scale paid for the leading professorial posts in the United Kingdom. "