Perspectives: Student protests betray a deep seated arrogance

City University once offered a master of arts (MA)-level course in the principles of Chinese culture. To ensure that students from the mainland participate, the department offered the course twice in two semesters - the first run in Cantonese and the second in Putonghua.

A few students from across the border enrolled in the first session, then demanded that the language of instruction be changed from Cantonese, which they said they did not understand, to Putonghua. Some local students disagreed, and a row erupted. The dean intervened and settled the dispute. What interests me is the educational phenomenon that this incident illustrates.

The protesting students argued that using Cantonese as the medium of instruction discriminated against them. Is this true? Under the circumstances, offering the course in both languages seems quite reasonable.

The students seemed to be concerned with more practical matters. Those wishing to graduate in the summer would need to have completed all of their academic requirements by the end of the second semester. In order to achieve this, they would try to complete as many courses as possible by the end of the first semester. While this would clearly benefit certain students working to a tight schedule, it would not be advantageous to all, and universities are not in the habit of changing their schedules to make life easy for the few, rather than the many.

If the university acted in a discriminatory fashion, we may well ask how far they would be expected to go to behave fairly? Should the school cancel all of its Cantonese classes and convert them to Putonghua? Would that be reasonable to the majority who do not speak Putonghua? (I am, of course, discussing this as a matter of principle, and not commenting on the relative worth of any language.)

Shortly after this incident, a university friend from Guangzhou said: "When in Rome, do as the Romans do," in relation to the affair. A cliché? Yes. But it makes sense.