Tsing Hua president's 'curiosity' explanation sparks outrage among faculty

National Tsing Hua University President Kao Wei-yuan has drawn sharp criticism for seeking a position at a foreign university just three days after his reappointment on May 1st. After a 10-day absence from public view, Kao addressed the university community in a letter, explaining his actions as stemming from "curiosity." This explanation, however, has ignited further discontent among faculty and alumni.

“

If Kao Wei-yuan's actions were above board, why did he only explain them after 10 days, and why does his explanation seem to avoid the core issues?

In his letter, Kao apologized for the "trouble and unease" caused by the news and the subsequent public discussion. He cited the rarity of a Taiwanese university president being approached by a foreign institution as a factor that "aroused my curiosity." Yet, Tsing Hua University distinguished professor Chou Chuo-hui argues that the sentiment among the university community is not mere "unease" but rather disappointment and a feeling of betrayal.

“

For most Tsing Hua faculty, staff, and alumni, this incident has evoked not 'unease,' but disappointment, displeasure, and feelings of being let down or even betrayed.

Chou contends that the core issue is not the uncertainty of administrative continuity but the ethical question of why a president who expressed intent to continue at Tsing Hua would simultaneously participate in the selection process for another university's leadership. This, he states, is a matter of "trust" and "integrity," not simply personnel changes. Chou believes Kao's framing of the situation as causing "trouble and unease" fails to capture the true feelings of the Tsing Hua community.

“

The real concern for Tsing Hua people is not the uncertainty of the president's potential departure, but why a sitting president, who had expressed his intention to continue at Tsing Hua, would simultaneously participate in the selection process for another university's presidential position.

Furthermore, Chou criticized Kao's delayed response, suggesting that a prompt and open explanation would have been more appropriate than waiting 10 days. He also questioned the use of "curiosity" to explain a series of concrete actions, perceiving it as an attempt to downplay the seriousness of the situation. Chou emphasized that Kao, as a steward of a national university, should have provided a clear account of his actions, the reasons behind them, and whether relevant parties were informed, rather than offering a vague explanation.

“

Using 'curiosity' to explain a series of concrete actions inevitably gives the impression of avoiding the main points.