向于宏碩教授進一言

看到今天明報教育版這則新聞: 中大調升6碩士生成績 教授賣樓覆核﹕捍評分自主無悔, 看了不禁唏噓, 講的是于宏碩副教授, 我以前為了她這件事也寫過兩篇(頒「售」學位及隔空對學者致敬)。明報有這段背景報導:

【明報專訊】兩年半前，中文大學商學院市場學系前副教授于宏碩指不滿大學在沒有向她提供合理解釋下，提高最少6名碩士課程學生的成績，向高等法院入稟申請司法覆核。兩年半以來，于宏碩賣掉物業及私家車，就事件一直上訴至終審法院，但今年9月被駁回。于宏碩指為了捍衛評分自主，從沒後悔花費心神及金錢作出司法覆核，只求中大給予一個合理解釋。她強調大學是教育質素及學術誠信的「守門人」，對中大的做法感到失望。

當上訴庭駁回她的上訴時, 我以為她就此罷休, 殊不知她再向上訴庭申請上訴至終院, 單是那一堂, 未計她自己的律師費, 已經要賠$300,000訟費, 之後再向終院申請, 卻已逾時, 也失敗了。這幾堂她就賠了過百萬, 自己請的律師花費還未算在內。為此賣樓賣車, 值得嗎? 她想得到公義, 但法庭不認同她的手法, 也不覺得應該介入干預, 法庭貶斥她的做法, 判辭講得頗不客氣:

22. Notwithstanding Ms Eu’s submission to the contrary, we agree with Mr Chan that the dispute on the handling of grade appeals in future is eminently suitable for resolution by the University’s grievance procedures. The email of 20 October 2014 from the former Dean and the email of 19 December 2014 from the Secretary of the Faculty showed that the University was willing to hear from the Applicant how the handling of grade appeals could be improved in the future. To that end, a meeting with the Vice-Chancellor had been arranged. It is unfortunate that the Applicant sent a copy of her draft Form 86 to the University and intimated that she would bring along her solicitor to the meeting. Understandably, such moves led to the cancellation of the meeting. In our judgment, if the real concern of the Applicant was to address how the handling of grade appeals could be improved, we do not see any basis to suggest that the same could not be canvassed by formal or informal grievance procedures.

(YU HUNG HSUA JULIE AND THE CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG CACV 270/2015) (Ms Eu 即代表于教授的余若薇資深大律師)

換轉是我, 就一定不會賣樓賣車去追尋這種公義, 都已向大學當局爭取失敗, 勢孤力弱, 唯有不服氣, 但不要和荷包鬥氣, 一般人根本就輸不起。大學要給學生加分放水, 就由他去吧。雖然大學不是在賣官鬻爵, 但除了學子, 還要照顧客仔, 不能畢業, 揾鬼讀咩!

時代不同了, 現在大學要鬥多人讀, 鬥多人畢到業才有人去讀, 多人去讀就可以爭取到資源, 增加聲勢。教授堅持原則當然應該, 但搞到樓都無埋就可能要瞓街邊, 質素低的學生咪一樣咁畢業。教授, 睇開啲喇。