The dispute between six senior academics and the Baptist University administration raises a number of issues relevant to the governance of universities. It concerns, in particular, the nature of academic freedom and the sanctity of contracts.
Academic freedom, which is recognised in the Basic Law, is fundamental to the mission and integrity of every university. It is important for free intellectual and scientific inquiry and exchange within the academic community. Academic freedom is also important for society, as research, controversies and debates lead to the scrutiny of received wisdom, open up new perspectives on old problems and increase the store of knowledge.
It is generally agreed that the security of tenure of teachers and researchers is crucial to academic freedom. They must be able to conduct their business without fear of censure or punishment, whether from external sources - like the government or other powerful interests - or the university itself. The university authorities must ensure there is an environment in which free inquiry is encouraged and where staff are protected from unjustified external influence or attack.
Any proposals to change the terms of their employment is rightly scrutinised with great care. That now seems to be the situation at the Baptist University where the six academics were threatened with dismissal for refusing to sign new contracts of employment (the matter is now on hold). They were told that their refusal had 'caused genuine operational difficulties' for the university and, consequently, they could be dismissed with 'good cause'.
The phrase 'good cause' has become hallowed in the lexicon of academic freedom. It covers a number of situations, such as the abuse of a teacher's status by indoctrinating students, sexual harassment, plagiarism or serious neglect of duties. I am not aware that 'operational inconvenience' to the university administration has ever been admitted as 'good cause'.
If 'operational difficulties' is accepted as 'good cause', then it would seem that bureaucratic convenience is placed above academic freedom, and the principal objectives of the university are negated. This is certainly a strange claim to come from administrators who choose to serve a university. The six academics claim that the new system is not clearly defined and could be used to weaken academic freedom. And if staff can be sacked for the kind of reason given, then academic freedom can easily be violated.