Your editorial on the University of Hong Kong’s dismissal of former associate professor Benny Tai Yiu-ting (“ University challenge: HKU must work to restore its academic reputation ”, July 30) shows a lack of understanding of the concept of academic freedom as provided in Article 137 of the Basic Law, which states that: “Educational institutions of all kinds may retain their autonomy and enjoy academic freedom. They may continue to recruit staff and use teaching materials from outside the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Schools run by religious organisations may continue to provide religious education, including courses in religion.” As former judge of the Court of Final Appeal John Hartmann opined, in his judgment in Secretary for Justice and Commission of Inquiry on Allegations relating to The Hong Kong Institute of Education ( HCAL 108/2007 ), “Article 137 … recognises academic freedom as being vested not in all individual academics but rather in Hong Kong’s educational institutions; the autonomy of those institutions being a prerequisite of academic freedom.” As such, academic freedom under the Basic Law may be recognised as an “institutional” freedom rather than one that is “personal”. Given that an academic institution’s right to hire automatically includes the right to fire, HKU’s governing council cannot be seen as violating academic freedom in making a well-considered and independent decision to fire Benny Tai. The decision was adopted by the council after putting the matter to a vote and the decision to fire him was supported by 18 votes for versus two against. Even if Tai’s supporters were to apply for a judicial review to challenge the council’s decision, such a challenge is unlikely to succeed, given the seriousness of Tai’s offences and the adoption of a democratic process in coming to a decision. Tai’s allegation that the council’s decision was made by “external forces” via their “agents” is even more preposterous. The governing bodies of all universities invariably include members of the public representing different stakeholders in the university’s development. The structure of the HKU’s council is not dissimilar to that of the Board of Regents of the University of California, also a public university, in including appointed members, ex officio members, student members and faculty representatives. While an academic institution quite rightly has autonomy in managing its affairs and conducting teaching and research, it has a responsibility to the wider community and the views of its stakeholders must be heeded. Regina Ip, member, Executive Council, c/o Chief Executive’s Office, Tamar