The French Enlightenment thinker Voltaire said: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Striking a deep chord with many scholars, this eloquent defense of tolerance and freedom of speech has become the ethos of modern leading universities. Unfortunately, the Hong Kong detractors of national education are relentlessly trampling on this ethos at universities. They not only are disapproving of what national education says, but also denying to death anyone else's right to say it.

Earlier this month, the staff association of City University called on professors and students to join a marathon citywide hunger strike to press the government to completely scrap national education in schools. During their protest, some students held up a puzzling sign in Chinese which read: "Fighting for freedom of thought; fighting for academic autonomy; never giving in!" They claimed that the implementation of national education would deprive Hong Kong people of educational autonomy and academic freedom.

One of the protesters, who is a lecturer at Hong Kong Baptist University, accused his colleague, Professor Victor Sit, of editing a handbook on the "China Model". In this angry lecturer's eyes, this publication has surrendered academic freedom, thus tarnishing the image of the university.

This lecturer's accusation, as well as the students' slogan, are not only confusing, but also unreasonable. How can the implementation of national studies in schools curtail academic autonomy? How can the publication of a handbook on the China model stifle scholarly discussion at universities? Although provocative and even partial, Professor Sit's edited work should be tolerated in a pluralistic and open society.

In fact, it is the irrational students, who are pushing the government to disallow schools to offer national education, that are really curbing Hong Kong's educational autonomy. It is the narrow-minded scholars who are intending to silence the proponents of the China model at universities who really want to suppress academic freedom.

To my best knowledge, there are still many youngsters who are eager to learn about different academic interpretations of China's rise, including the "China Model". However, so ruthless are the detractors of national education that they would strip those who have interest in the subject of their right to learn about their motherland's role and influence in the world. A witch-hunt for proponents of the China model at universities has woefully stalled the development of China studies in Hong Kong.

An important fact which Hong Kong people have always overlooked is that the "China model" has become an influential school of thought in the West. Interestingly, it was some Western public intellectuals and scholars who took the lead in defense of this theory in the West. For example, in defiance of Jan Williamson's American centric notion of "Washington consensus", the former editor of Time magazine, Joshua Cooper Ramo, in 2004 published a seminal book called Beijing Consensus, to identify a unique China model of economic development.

In recent years, a number of Chinese scholars and thinkers who propound the idea of "the Chinese way" have been highly regarded on the global stage. Undeniably, their distinct views have drawn scathing criticism from many Western-centered scholars. But, unlike Hong Kong's, Western academic communities never attempt to stifle the pro-Chinese voice in the English-speaking world. This is probably because of the common belief that academic freedom is the essence of Western, pluralistic and democratic societies. But, more importantly, Western mass media is acutely aware that they cannot afford to be indifferent to Chinese scholarly perspectives in the midst of China's rise.

It is lamentable that Hong Kong's mass media and educators, insular and prejudiced as they are, are ignorant about the influence of the theory of the "China model" in the world. It is more deplorable that their prejudice and ignorance make our youngsters less knowledgeable about a significant school of thought.

The shame is not that our government is introducing patriotic national education to our students. The shame is how the detractors of national education are depriving us of academic freedom and educational autonomy. The shame is how they are constantly brainwashing our youngsters and making our society more mono-cultural, stifling and closed.

The author is a lecturer at Hong Kong Polytechnic University and a Yau Tsim Mong District Councillor.

(HK Edition 09/25/2012 page4)