為導師正名　為教育正名
──請中大開風氣之先

香港中文大學員工總會的「導師正名運動」在短時間內得到各方的關注，既成功遊說立法會拒絕通過中大對「教師」定義的修改，要求校方尋求校內共識，亦使校長主動承諾成立臨時專責小組檢討導師地位。這些發展一方面說明了院校歧視導師，輕視教學的趨勢已在大學社群間積累了很大的不滿，另一方面亦說明大學社群挺身發聲，能為大學管治帶來積極正面的效果。

校方承諾檢討，令人鼓舞。然而校方至今仍擔心，導師正名會令導師的權力突然擴張，引起「天翻地覆的改變」。這種說法反映了校方對導師的不信任。將「正名」想像為導師的一己之私，更是扭曲了我們的訴求。

中大現時有導師共四百多人，當中包括相應職系，即專業顧問(Professional Consultant)及特任導師（Teaching Fellow）等數十人。這四百多位專責教學的同事，有的是年輕學者，有的是教學多年，深受同學同事尊敬的老師。他們都是懷抱著對學問的熱情，對大學教育的抱負而加入中大的。因此，即使待遇比在中學任教要差，他們仍願意留在中大，為中大的教學使命作出貢獻。過去，大學能保持一優秀教學團隊，可以說是利用了這些同事的熱誠。現在，正是大學正視這些教學貢獻的時候。

我們重申，為導師正名，即為教育正名。重研究而輕教學，不只是中文大學獨有的問題。我們卻希望中大能真正成為院校之先，糾正多年來累積的失衡，把教學重新放在其應有的位置。

唯有給予教學人員應有的尊重，才能真正落實重視教學的理想。

具體來說，我們的要求有三：

1.「教師」定義
修改大學條例對「教師」的定義，把所有現時按人事政策列為「教學人員」 (teaching appointee / teaching staff)者歸入定義之中。具體建議為「"教師"（teacher）指香港中文大學全職教學人員」。專業顧問及特任導師亦屬導師職系，當在此類。至於有部門聘請導師而教學責任甚少者，即是大學有責任在擴大「教師」定義後再仔細處理的。因多年疏忽而糾結不清，不是大學不正視問題的藉口。

2. 代表權
根據以上的定義修改，按條例規定，正式把導師及相應職系，如專業顧問及特任導師等，納入各學務決策機關，包括系務會、學院院務會及教務會。在校董會新增的兩個教職員校董席位中，則導師及相應職系應計算在「教務人員」一組，而不是「非教務人員」一組。導師是教學任務最重，教學經驗最豐富，與學生接觸最多的一群。大學對導師的歧視，導致中大制定教學政策時未能有效吸納導師的寶貴教學經驗及意見，損失的正是學生。

以上兩點應在是次條例修訂中進行，大學必須儘快進行校內討論及決策程序。

3. 教學職系(Teaching track)檢討
就教學職系的架構、晉升階梯及薪酬待遇等，立即展開檢討。檢討應考慮以下各項：一、重新引入「講師」職系，為專責教學的同事正名，並提高教學職系的地位，正確反映教學工作的重要；二、教學職系與研究職系（Research/Professorial Track）間應有互相接軌的機制；三、開放校內研究資助及支援予教學職系的同事申請，使有興趣和能力從事研究的教學同事仍可在研究上作出貢獻，而教學職系中有研究成果的，大學亦應給予肯定。

各院校準備四年制的工作已如火如荼，為保留優秀教師及招聘人才，檢討及新制度的實行，應儘量在一年內完成。

我們深信，倘若校方能趁此機會正面處理問題，則近日種種發展對中大有極正面的作用。教學與研究間應如何取得合理平衡？導師正名是尋求平衡的關鍵一步。導師在教學方面的貢獻能得到制度上的承認，肯定有利中大未來進一步提升教學質素。

願中大能開風氣之先。

發起組織：香港中文大學員工總會
聯署組織：大學及專上院校工會聯盟籌委會
　　　　　香港城巿大學教職員協會
　　　　　香港浸會大學教職員工會
　　　　　香港教育學院教學人員協會
　　　　　（多個單位正加入聯署中）

__________________________________________________________________

Name Instructors Right, Give Higher Ed a Chance
──　CUHK should demonstrate its leadership in higher education

CUEGUs Proper Name for Instructors Campaign has drawn wide attention and solicited wide support in a short period of time. The Legco has turned down the Universitys proposal to amend the definition of teachers and urged the University to seek staffs consensus before submitting forth the proposal again. Soon after, the Vice-Chancellor promised that an Ad Hoc Working Group would be formed to review the status and treatments of Instructors. These developments show that the discrimination against Instructors and the trend to undervalue teaching have caused significant discontent within the higher education community. Yet, they also show that when we speak out as a community, constructive and positive outcomes can be achieved for university governance.

The Universitys promise for a review is indeed promising. However, the University is still worried that rectifying Instructors position will lead to a sudden surge of Instructors power; and that such a change would bring about changes to CUs future academic development and academic management that would turn the world upside down. Such is the Universitys distrust of Instructors. It also seriously distorts our demands when the University imagines that rectification is all about Instructors self-interests.

Currently there are well over four hundred Instructors at CUHK these include some dozens of Professional Consultants and Teaching Fellows. Among these 400-strong colleagues are young scholars, as well as, experienced teachers well respected by students and colleagues alike. They joined CUHK because of their passion for scholarship and knowledge, and enthusiasm for university education. Even though their compares unfavourably to that of teachers in secondary schools, they are still willing to be here and contribute to CUHKs mission for education.The University has managed to maintain a quality teaching team by taking advantage of these colleagues passion and aspirations. Now, it is time for the University to properly recognize their contribution.

We must reiterate that to name instructors correctly is to do the same for education. Favouring research over teaching is a problem that is not unique to CUHK. Yet, with good will, we hope that CUHK can truly show leadership this time, to correct this imbalance, and demonstrate how the higher education sector can put education back in its rightful place.

It is only when teaching staff are given their due respect that our ideal of putting emphasis on teaching can be realized.

Here, we have three specific demands:

1. Definition of Teacher
Amend the Statutes definition of Teacher to include all staff who now according to personnel policy are categorized as teaching appointees / teaching staff. Specifically, it is suggested that the definition should read: teacher (教師) means a member of the full-time teaching staff of the University. Since Professional Consultants and Teaching Fellows are hired under the same conditions as Instructors, they should be in the same category. As for some individual cases, where departments might have hired Instructors with few teaching tasks, the University has a responsibility to review and clarify the situation. Just because irregular cases have occurred due to the Universitys unclear guidelines is not an excuse for the University to avoid handling the issue.

2. Representation
In accordance with the Statute requirement, based on the above amendment of definition, Instructors and staff of the equivalent posts should be represented in all academic decision-making bodies, including the Department Board, Faculty Board and Senate. Of the two newly added seats in the Council, they should be in the category of academic staff instead of non-academic staff. Instructors make up the group with the heaviest teaching duty, with the most teaching experience and the most interaction with students. Because of its discrimination against Instructors, the University has failed to benefit from the valuable teaching experience of and views from the Instructors when making its academic policies. The students have been the ones to suffer.

These two points should be carried out in the current Statute amendment process. The University should begin the necessary discussion and policy-making process as soon as possible.

3. Review of the teaching track
A review on the structure, promotion ladder, terms of employment and remuneration of the teaching track should be commenced immediately. The review should take into consideration the following: 1. To re-introduce the Lecturer grade, so as to name teaching colleagues properly, to enhance the status of the teaching track and to correctly reflect the importance of teaching in CUHK; 2. To introduce mechanism for transition between the teaching track and the research/professorial track; 3. To open up certain internal research grants and supports for colleagues in the teaching track, so that those with research interests and ability can still contribute to research; meanwhile, those in the teaching track who have good research outputs should also be properly recognized.

As institutions are all avidly preparing for the four-year curriculum, the review and the resulting implementation should be completed within a year, so as to retain and recruit good teachers.

We believe that if the University can take this opportunity to approach the issue with an open attitude, then the recent developments will eventually lead to some very fruitful, positive outcomes. Rectifying the status of Instructors is a key step in achieving an ideal balance between teaching and research. We firmly believe that in the end, these will all contribute to enhance the quality of our education.

May CUHK demonstrate its leadership in higher education.

Initiating organization: The Chinese University of Hong Kong Employee's General Union
Participating organizations: University Education Concern Group
The Confederation of Tertiary Institutes Staff Unions (Prepration Committee)
City University of Hong Kong Staff Association
Hong Kong Baptist University Faculty and Staff Union
Academic Staff Association of the HKIEd
(More are joining...)