Letter to the Council 致香港中文大學校董會（2009年10月19日）

(This letter is in Chinese only.)

致　香港中文大學校董會

《大學條例》對「教師」的定義及導師地位問題

我們注意到大學校董會將決議通過修訂大學規程，其中包括「教師」定義的修訂。有鑑現時定義把為數甚多的導師排除在外，我們建議校董會趁此機會檢討定義，把導師納入定義之中，原因如下[1]：

1. 導師現時人數近五百人，佔整體教學人員的三份之一，是所有教學人員類別中人數最多的一群。

2. 導師負擔教學任務最重，任教班數及學生人數更遠高於全校的三份一。導師專職教學，《條例》不認導師作「教師」，實在名不符實。

3. 由於導師不是「教師」，由系務會到教務會，他們沒有成員資格，極其量只能獲允許列席，有時甚至不能發言。導師是接觸學生最多，最了解學生學習需要，教學經驗可能最豐富的一群。他們在學務決定上被迫缺席，是大學整體的損失。

4. 現時校方的建議修訂為：「"教師" （teacher）指職級屬副講師及以上的香港中文大學全職教學人員，而該人員為出任教授、副教授或助理教授等教師職系的職位的人士，或為接受由大學校董會不時決定委任或聘任為教師的職位的人士」（斜體為新增部份）。我們認為最後一句不能有效把導師納入定義中。導師人數之多，斷不能當作例外處理。

5. 我們了解現時的定義有其特定的歷史背景（例如當初制訂時未有導師這一類別）。既然現時教學人員的結構及組成已大大不同，大學應趁此機會，儘速矯正現定義的漏洞。

與此同時，我們亦呼籲校董會關注導師待遇問題，特別是合約化、薪酬比中學教師差及缺乏前景的問題。員工總會已經組織一個「導師地位關注小組」，長遠跟進以上事項，稍後將向校方作出改善建議。

香港中文大學員工總會
會長　吳曉真
2009年10月19日

[1] 現時大學尚有「teaching fellow」及「professional consultant」等主要工作為教學的職位，亦以導師的條款聘用。

教學是專業 導師要尊嚴

－導師正名及地位問題最新進展

(for English, please click open this post's comments)

大學校董會10月20日在員工的反對聲音下，一意孤行通過大學條例修訂，並將提交立法會立法，繼續把導師撇除在「教師」定義之外，直接剝削了導師在各級委員會參與學務，參與校政的權利。

我們重申，導師是中大教師負荷最重，教學經驗最豐富的一群。以工商管理學院為例，導師在本年度負擔了整個學院一半的班數(47%)及學生人次(48%，以學額計算)。

大學對導師的歧視，導致中大教學政策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。與此同時，大學對導師的歧視，說明了中大對教學及前線員工的輕視。

我們懷疑，這是否支付公帑的納稅人所願見到的。

在我們的壓力下，大學校董會承諾將會檢討導師的地位及待遇問題。但員工總會不會乾等校方「諮詢」。我們已開始聯絡立法會議員，向他們陳述中大導師正名及地位問題，要求他們提出修訂及催促中大改善導師地位及待遇。員工總會的「導師小組」亦將進行問卷調查及聯署行動。希望大學屆時積極參加！

Professional Consultants and Teaching Fellows

A colleague raised the issue of Professional Consultant in "Am I a Teacher" (see below). Indeed, Professional Consultant and Teaching Fellow should also be considered "teacher". And they are included in this campaign. I confirmed with the Personnel Office before that these two types of "(non) teachers" are employed under the same terms as Instructors, only that the titles they carry are different.

Just another thought: when part-time teachers can be called Adjuct Assistant Professor, why should the Univ be so mean with Instructors (and their equivalence)?

Emily
President, CUEGU

Career path of "instructor" (message from a colleague)

As a matter of fact, there are at least two types of “instructors” in this
campus:
(i) TEACHERS who spend most of their working hours in duties related to
teaching. However, they are not regarded as “teacher.” The university fails to
provide a reasonable justification for the difference in name and in reality.
(ii) TEACHERS who spend most of their working hours in teaching, and try to do
some research. They are mostly young scholars, who know the very truth that
research is important for their academic career. Unfortunately, their rank is
called “instructor,” which does not sound like a research position.
Consequently, they are neither regarded as “teacher” nor “researcher.”
Both kinds of instructors mentioned above deserve the name of “teacher.” The
university should also state clearly their career path, such as the criteria
for an instructor (TERM B) to be promoted to an assistant professor (TERM A) or
above.

Am I a Teacher?

Dear Union,

Many thanks for bringing up this issue to the University. In fact, many faculties in the University also employ "Professional Consultants". These Professional Consultants, like Instructors, are not treated as a "Teacher" or "academic staff" although their main duty is also teaching.

Cheap labor (message from a colleague)

Anonymous said...
Some instructors do high quality / impact researches that are recognized by peers in the mainstream of their expertise in the west. Yet, here at CUHK they are only regarded as cheap labor who have the lowest paid but heaviest (and ever increasing) workload. Why some people who make zero contribution in research are graded as "professor", while brilliant young scholars are kept in the instructor rank?

Discriminatory practice (message from a colleague)

Anonymous said...
I was not aware that CUHK was applying for revision of the CUHK ordinance. I was even more shocked when I found out that the University was NOT taking this opportunity to rectify the discriminatory practice that had existed for years. What did our university administrators have in mind?