Why both sides get Benny Tai’s case wrong
- His teaching of civil disobedience is perfectly justified but his firing is not about academic interference, rather it’s the fact that he has been criminally convicted
Tai was convicted and jailed for his part in the 2014 Occupy protests that he helped launch. But the drawn-out way university management went about with the firing has generated unnecessary controversy and allowed both sides – the yellow (anti-government) and the blue (pro-establishment) camps – to grandstand.
Let’s start with the blue camp. The standard argument is that Tai has no business teaching law to young people at the city’s oldest and most prestigious law school because he has been telling people and protesters to break the law, ostensibly to fight for greater democracy.
People who are committed to the rule of law must, first of all, follow it.
02:13
University of Hong Kong sacks Occupy leader Benny Tai
So far as I can tell, Tai has consistently advocated civil disobedience, rather than violent resistance. This means peacefully breaking laws or resisting a system that the activist considers unjust – in full knowledge that they face legal punishment, including jail.
I don’t agree with Tai and think his political-religious beliefs and agenda are seriously misguided. But I respect his courage and commitment. I think civil disobedience, both theoretical and practical, should very much be part of a legal education, or any education.
I actually wish last year’s protesters would have known more about it, instead of firebombing and beating people, including setting a man on fire and killing another one with brick-throwing.
As for the yellow camp, they have made a big fuss about how the university was interfering with Tai’s academic freedom. Actually, Tai himself claims, falsely, that his sacking spells the end of academic freedom at the university.
Benny Tai to challenge Hong Kong’s leader over university sacking
What nonsense! The opposition, including academic staff who ought to know better, falsely equates any sanction or adverse decision made against a student or lecturer as academic interference if they took part in protests, anti-government or otherwise.
But academic freedom means you are free to learn, teach and research on any subject you see fit, without being interfered with. Your political or any other activities are not protected by it even though you carry a university ID card.
The opposition’s use and abuse of “academic freedom” is deliberate and long-standing. It’s time to call them out.
