冷靜討論停學處理 上綱上線有害無益

<轉載自2018年1月26日 明報 社評>

浸大「佔領語文中心」事件，兩名學生遭暫時停學，直至紀律委員會完成聆訊。有評論將事件扯上青少年道德水平下降，亦有人質疑校方藉機「政治打壓」、「未審先罰」。私視使目盲，私聽使耳聾，今次風波源於學生言行過火威嚇教職員，校方從學生紀律角度按照機制處理，是最恰當做法，各方不應上綱上線，將事件政治化，更要警惕各式謬論，不能習非成是。暫時停學處理是否恰如其分，浸大師生有權提出不同意見，最重要是以事論事，避免情緒化政治炒作，令校園成為政治鬥爭暴風眼。

處理未見違反程序 寬大程度可以商榷

浸大校方處理今次事件，爭議之處有二﹕一是涉事學生有否威嚇教職員；二是校方做法是否「不合程序未審先罰」。兩名涉事學生劉子頎和陳樂行堅稱當日沒有令老師受威脅，陳強調沒說粗言，亦沒與職員有肢體接觸，然而浸會大學校董王凱峰指出，有涉事教職員兩度表示受到威脅，其中一女士更哭着憶述事件。就像處理性騷擾一樣，看待這類語言暴力威嚇糾紛，必須考慮語境場合。舉例說，市井之徒傾談中夾雜粗口，不代表他們互相帶有惡意，然而換了另一語境場合，一句惡毒說話，不管有否夾雜粗口，都足以構成威嚇。

根據當日片段，劉子頎除了爆粗，部分言行亦頗為「大聲夾惡」，陳樂行則數度走近教職員，大聲要求對方交代考試安排。女職員身處狹小辦公室，面對十多名學生包圍，覺得劉陳的說話和身體語言是威嚇侮辱，不足為奇。就像很多性騷擾事件，現在問題不是被指控的一方堅稱沒有冒犯、只是當事人「太敏感」，而是受害一方確實感到威脅受辱。劉陳應該靜思己過，不是文過飾非。

至於「未審先罰」的問題，劉陳批評校方「跳過所有程序」，未經紀律聆訊便「罰」他們停學，阻止學生學習。校方是否應該更加寬大，可以商榷，然而難言不按機制辦事。

根據浸大《學生紀律處理程序》，如果確信學生對校內其他人構成危險，可暫停學生進入校園。今次校方根據《程序》第10.1條處理，在紀律聆訊完成前，對劉陳作出「暫時（停學）處理」而非「罰責」，論程序沒有問題，王凱峰亦表示不算未審先判，最大問題在於觀感。雖然紀律聆訊完成後，校方會為兩人提供輔導補課，減少對學業影響，可是對於不了解相關校規的人來說，紀律條文所說的停學「暫時處理」，看上去始終似是處罰。校方應盡快完成紀律聆訊，更要盡量說明暫時停課的性質，否則聆訊結束得出處分結論時，有可能惹來「雙重處罰」質疑。

對於劉陳暫時停學，多間大學學生會均表態聲援，指有關做法是「政治打壓」、「製造寒蟬效應」、「收窄言論空間」。審視事件緣起，是學生以口頭和身體語言威嚇侮辱教職員，事態與言論自由沾不上邊，校方處罰輕重可以討論，惟難言是政治打壓。過去半年，大學校園一再出現粗鄙惡毒的文字暴力，前晚深夜，中大港大民主牆也再出現粗口大字報，辱罵浸大校方高層。然而不管是浸大的粗言威嚇風波，還是民主牆上的粗口大字報，都應看作只是個別偏激學生所為，沒必要以偏概全，將事件上綱上線，扯到「青少年道德水平下降」。

是非對錯必須分清 勿戴有色眼鏡看待

浸大今次風波，無論是校內師生還是坊間輿論，都有一種觀點﹕社會上人間失格者比比皆是，為何有更嚴重的事情不去指摘、不去詰問高官誠信操守，卻來向年輕人找碴？有關觀點反映的是「比衰」思維，常見諸「小學雞」犯錯後申辯，總之「別人比自己更衰，為何不先去懲罰他們」。如果這種邏輯成立，絕大多數過錯都可以用它作為開脫藉口，統統大事化小、小事化無。

大錯與小錯，處理輕重應該有別，然而是非對錯必須分清。浸大應用倫理研究中心主任羅秉祥提到，今次是一宗「校園欺凌」事件，說明事態嚴重程度。高官權貴處事失當失德，若然證據充分，當然應該狠批，然而學生若有太過分的行為，各界也需要直斥其非。縱觀今次風波，學生惡言惡相是錯了，應該認真道歉及接受適當處罰，看不到有人想將涉事學生「置諸死地」踢出校門，硬要戴着政治有色眼鏡看待風波，並非平心常做法。

劉陳暫時停學後，浸大附近出現「不要普通話」塗鴉，再次突顯風波背後的「中港」矛盾因素。浸大學生會常強調，前年公投有「九成投票學生」支持取消普通話畢業門檻，然而該次公投投票率只得12.17％，難免令人質疑公投結果的代表性，若說「九成學生支持撤普」，更是明顯誤導。校方希望學生有足夠兩文三語能力，本是很平常的事，各方應避免讓任何紛爭都捲入「中港」矛盾的醬缸之中。

Reason needed when commenting on BU Putonghua saga

TWO students have been temporarily suspended following the occupation of the Baptist University's language centre, pending a hearing by the disciplinary committee. Some commentators have linked the incident with the general decline of moral standards of young people, while others have accused the school of "political suppression" and "meting out punishment without trial".

Two aspects have provoked debate in the BU administrators' handling of the matter. The first is whether the students involved threatened teaching staff, and the second is whether the university "meted out punishment before trial in breach of proper procedure". Lau Tsz-kei and Andrew Chan Lok-hang, the students involved in the incident, insist that they did not make the teachers feel threatened. Chan maintains that he did not use foul language or come into physical contact with the staff. However, as Roger Wong Hoi-fung, who sits on the BU council, has said, the two staff members involved twice said that they had been threatened, and one of them even recounted the incident later in tears. The treatment of verbal abuse, threats or arguments should involve the consideration of the context as in the treatment of sexual harassment. People in the street might intersperse their exchanges with swearing, but they do not necessarily do so with mutual malevolence. In a different context, though, a spiteful utterance could constitute a threat even if it does not contain foul language.

According to the footage filmed that day, not only did Lau use bad language, but he also talked and acted in a vociferous and aggressive manner. As for Chan, he bore down on the staff several times, demanding, in a loud voice, that they explain the arrangements for the examination. It is hardly surprising that the female staff felt threatened by Lau and Chan's words and body language when they were surrounded by a dozen students in such cramped conditions. As in many sexual harassment cases, what is important is not whether the accused maintained that they were not offensive or whether the plaintiffs were "too sensitive". What really counts is whether the victims really feel threatened or insulted. Lau and Chan should take stock of their wrongdoings instead of glossing over them.

Then the issue of "meting out punishment without trial". Lau and Chan criticised the school for "skipping all the procedures" and suspending them as a "punishment", preventing them from learning. It is debatable whether the school should have been more lenient. However, it is difficult to say that the mechanism was not followed. According to the university's Student Disciplinary Procedures, the school can deny a student's access to the whole campus if he or she is believed to pose a danger to the safety of other members of the University community. The BU administration has handled the matter in accordance with Article 10.1 of the procedures by temporarily suspending—instead of punishing—the students before a disciplinary hearing is completed. Procedure-wise, this is not wrong, with Roger Wong also agreeing that this should not be regarded as "meting out punishment without trial". The problem is public perception.

The student unions of many universities have shown their support for Lau and Chan after they were suspended, saying that their treatment is "political suppression", "creation of a chilling effect" and "curbing the scope of free speech". Now the matter originated from the students' verbal expressions and body language which they used to threaten and insult the teaching staff. Such being the case, the matter has nothing to do with free speech. The severity of the punishment is debatable. But it can hardly be called political suppression.

That the university wants students to be proficient in English, Cantonese and Putonghua is normal. It is not advisable for people from all sides to conflate any kind of disagreement with the issue of "Hong Kong-China" conflicts.

冷靜討論停學處理 上綱上線有害無益

浸大「佔領語文中心」事件，兩名學生遭暫時停學，直至紀律委員會完成聆訊。有評論將事件扯上青少年道德水平下降，亦有人質疑校方藉機「政治打壓」、「未審先罰」。

浸大校方處理今次事件，爭議之處有二﹕一是涉事學生有否威嚇教職員；二是校方做法是否「不合程序未審先罰」。兩名涉事學生劉子頎和陳樂行堅稱當日沒有令老師受威脅，陳強調沒說粗言，亦沒與職員有肢體接觸，然而浸會大學校董王凱峰指出，有涉事教職員兩度表示受到威脅，其中一女士更哭着憶述事件。就像處理性騷擾一樣，看待這類語言暴力威嚇糾紛，必須考慮語境場合。舉例說，市井之徒傾談中夾雜粗口，不代表他們互相帶有惡意，然而換了另一語境場合，一句惡毒說話，不管有否夾雜粗口，都足以構成威嚇。

根據當日片段，劉子頎除了爆粗，部分言行亦頗為「大聲夾惡」，陳樂行則數度走近教職員，大聲要求對方交代考試安排。女職員身處狹小辦公室，面對十多名學生包圍，覺得劉陳的說話和身體語言是威嚇侮辱，不足為奇。就像很多性騷擾事件，現在問題不是被指控的一方堅稱沒有冒犯、只是當事人「太敏感」，而是受害一方確實感到威脅受辱。劉陳應該靜思己過，不是文過飾非。

至於「未審先罰」的問題，劉陳批評校方「跳過所有程序」，未經紀律聆訊便「罰」他們停學，阻止學生學習。校方是否應該更加寬大，可以商榷，然而難言不按機制辦事。根據浸大《學生紀律處理程序》，如果確信學生對校內其他人構成危險，可暫停學生進入校園。今次校方根據《程序》第10.1條處理，在紀律聆訊完成前，對劉陳作出「暫時（停學）處理」而非「罰責」，論程序沒有問題，王凱峰亦表示不算未審先判，最大問題在於觀感。

對於劉陳暫時停學，多間大學學生會均表態聲援，指有關做法是「政治打壓」、「製造寒蟬效應」、「收窄言論空間」。審視事件緣起，是學生以口頭和身體語言威嚇侮辱教職員，事態與言論自由沾不上邊，校方處罰輕重可以討論，惟難言是政治打壓。

校方希望學生有足夠兩文三語能力，本是很平常的事，各方應避免讓任何紛爭都捲入「中港」矛盾的醬缸之中。