An inconclusive blurb on the ongoing CUHK Student Paper incident

While open discourse is valuable, especially in a university setting, fiasco is inevitable when it is intertwined with potential legal and, worse, bureaucratic battles. The incident of the CUHK Student Paper (SP) unfortunately became an opening can of worm; it is only a matter of time before a scapegoat is sacrificed for a crime it did not intend to commit.

As a curious observer/fellow HKer living thousands of miles away, I congratulate the SP for pushing the envelope, especially after reading their manifesto/open letter. After all, diversity is always good, a space for alternative voices is always good, and an open discourse on whatever topic (and in this case, sex) is always good. Or is it? I have some reservation about the published material as well as the editors’ underlying intention.

Perhaps few would fail to see the need and necessity for a platform for students to discuss and process issues, especially those stigmatized by the larger society. After all, it is through this kind of campus forum that many grass root movements gained their momentum and many positive societal changes were conceived (we need not look as far back as May 68, just recall June 89).

Sexuality has always been a highly polarized and tabooed topic in Hong Kong. Many of us still recall and lament the embarrassing one-hour long sex ed we received in P.6, which involved funny looking cartoon characters with odd looking body anatomy. That was the extent our teachers were willing to enlighten us about what we would eventually find out through distorted, and often violent, portrait of sex offered by various level of (foreign) provocative films. (The fact that I am reluctant to use the word pornography is perhaps a telling piece of evidence of the kind of oppression—if you will—we went through.) So a huge vacuum exists between the P.6 ETV and Form-whenever porn; who is to fill the gap, especially for those who do not fit into mold of the middle-class, heterosexual, able-body, Japan-philia male? Who is there to tell us that our fantasies and thoughts need not always elicit a sense of guilt or an urge to enact upon? Discovery Channel certainly comes to mind, but many would argue that the SP was exactly attempting to play that perfect rescuer?

Even many conservative critics praised the effort of the SP, but with the condition of grieving their inadequacy in fulfilling the noble goals. They say that there is an abyss between the objectives and the method used. The former is applauded but the latter (especially the content) made many uncomfortable and thus the paper should be subject to public scrutiny.

But isn’t the mission of the enlightened person (especially youth) to disturb the comfortable and comfort the disturbed? Isn’t providing a voice to the voiceless the calling of the activist? Shouldn’t a university provide a safe ground for students, budding leaders of tomorrow, to test out ideas and experiment with ideologies? Isn’t the young intellectual the promise for the fallen, corrupted, old world of the adults? Sure. These are all praiseworthy motives but do they not become problematic when one is fighting for fighting sake, arguing for arguing sake, being radical and controversial and vocal for sake of doing so? Perhaps a more fundamental question must be asked, who are the editors responsible for?

Obviously a student paper does not need to be responsible for the college administrators. Less obvious is whether or not a student paper needs to consider its legacy and its future and be responsible for the generation of editors/authors ahead and to come. As editors of a student paper hold office only for a transient period of time, should they be responsible and accountable for the “name” of the paper, for their predecessors or successors? What if the paper collapses altogether or looses its readership, will they be held responsible?

This seemingly tangential list of questions are relevant because the editors of the SP are entrusted to carry on something greater than themselves, with something they did not create in the first place. Besides being responsible for the paper, the editors must also be responsible for their clientele—their boss, in other words. On the other hand, CUHK students also should take on the responsibility of offering check and balance to their SP. They should make sure that their SP follows its mandate. If it is to be the voice of the student body, then it should be made sure that the paper is not only representing a minority few—be it sexual minorities or class minorities. If, on the other hand, the paper’s job is to allow various less vocal voices be heard, make sure it is doing so deliberately: Let the authors write about their opinion about sex and retell their fantasies, but also publish the, if any, disagreeing voices—whether it is from the college principal or from the freshmen student reading gender studies. Let the public be the judge and let the letter section be the evaluation tool. The ownership as well as responsibility of the SP should be made clear.

Push the envelope, aye, but nay if it is done irresponsibly and irrationally; aye to an open forum with the heart to serve, but nay to vanity and the personal glory.

Christian Chan
Cambridge, MA, USA
May 21, 2007