Suro Senen
Dozens of students and alumni from the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) have launched a petition demanding a public apology from economics professor Terence Chong over remarks made during a recent talk that many have decried as "sexist." The petition, which has garnered over 80 signatories from members of CUHK’s New Asia College, also calls for Chong’s suspension as associate college head and consideration for his permanent removal from the position. The controversy erupted following Chong’s presentation, titled "How to invest in your life?", at a bi-weekly college assembly, where he discussed what he termed "women fishing for a golden tortoise" – a Chinese euphemism for seeking a wealthy partner – and referred to women’s youth as "very precious."
Escalating Controversy Over "Cost-Benefit Analysis" of Marriage
The core of the controversy lies in specific advice Chong reportedly offered to female students. He is alleged to have suggested that women should reconsider pursuing PhDs, instead advising them to prioritize finding a wealthy husband while they are young. A slide presented during his talk, which has circulated widely online, starkly illustrated this point with the heading: "The cost-benefit [analysis] of girls fishing for a golden tortoise." This framing, which reduces complex life choices to a transactional financial model and promotes a narrow view of female ambition, ignited a swift and significant backlash.
Online, students and alumni voiced their strong disapproval, accusing Chong of espousing "old-fashioned social norms of gender roles" and "misogynistic beliefs." Critics further characterized his comments as "materialistic" and "sexist," arguing that such statements perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes and contribute to the objectification of women. The petition highlights that Chong’s remarks are seen as undermining decades of progress in promoting gender equality and challenging traditional, often restrictive, gender roles within society.
Petition Demands Accountability and Policy Changes
The petition, initiated by a concern group formed in the wake of the controversial talk, emphasizes that Chong has not acknowledged the sexist nature of his speech nor retracted his comments, which signatories deem "unacceptable." The document explicitly states, "His comments undermine years of efforts made by generations of predecessors to eradicate gender stereotypes and achieve gender equity." Beyond demanding a personal apology and disciplinary action against Professor Chong, the petition also calls for structural changes within New Asia College. Specifically, it urges the college to implement more robust vetting procedures for guest speakers, advocating for the inclusion of student representatives on committees responsible for curating the content of biweekly assemblies. This measure aims to ensure that future presentations align with the college’s values and foster an inclusive environment.
Professor Chong’s Response and University’s Stance
In the immediate aftermath of the online outcry, Professor Chong reportedly maintained that his remarks were not discriminatory, asserting that men can also seek wealthy partners. This defense, however, has done little to quell the outrage among students and alumni who view his perspective as fundamentally flawed and rooted in gender bias.
The Chinese University of Hong Kong, through New Asia College, has issued a statement acknowledging the backlash. The university indicated that the college has "reminded Chong to be mindful of speech and other people’s feelings." While this suggests an institutional response, the petition’s signatories appear to find this advisory insufficient, pushing for more concrete disciplinary actions and systemic reforms. The university’s official response, as reported, leans towards caution and internal communication rather than immediate punitive measures, reflecting a common approach in academic institutions when faced with such allegations.
Broader Context: Gender Equality Debates in Hong Kong Academia
This incident at CUHK is not isolated but occurs within a broader context of ongoing debates surrounding gender equality and feminist discourse in Hong Kong’s academic and public spheres. Universities, as centers of learning and intellectual exchange, are often at the forefront of these discussions. Critiques of academic freedom versus the responsibility of educators to uphold principles of inclusivity and non-discrimination are frequently raised.
The "golden tortoise" euphemism itself points to deeply ingrained societal expectations and pressures, particularly concerning marriage and economic security for women in many Asian cultures. While economic pragmatism is a valid consideration in life planning, framing it as a primary directive for female students, particularly in an academic setting, can be interpreted as a reinforcement of traditional gender roles that limit women’s potential and agency. The suggestion that women should forgo higher academic pursuits like PhDs in favor of marriage based on wealth can be seen as a regressive viewpoint that discounts the value of intellectual achievement and professional ambition for women.
Supporting Data and Socio-Economic Factors
Statistics on women’s participation in higher education and the workforce in Hong Kong provide a backdrop to these discussions. While Hong Kong has achieved high rates of female participation in tertiary education, with women often outnumbering men in undergraduate enrollments, persistent gender pay gaps and underrepresentation in leadership positions remain significant issues. According to various reports, including those from the Census and Statistics Department of the Hong Kong SAR Government, while women’s educational attainment is high, their average earnings often lag behind those of their male counterparts. This disparity can lead to a perceived need for economic security through marriage for some women, a sentiment that Chong’s remarks may have inadvertently amplified or legitimized.
Furthermore, the cost of living and the competitive job market in Hong Kong can exacerbate anxieties about financial stability, influencing life choices such as marriage and career paths. However, academic institutions are generally expected to promote critical thinking and empower individuals to pursue their full potential, irrespective of gender. Remarks that appear to steer students toward a single, economically driven path for women can be seen as counterproductive to this educational mission.
Timeline of Events
- Recent Week: Professor Terence Chong delivers a talk titled "How to invest in your life?" at a New Asia College assembly.
- During the Talk: Chong reportedly advises female students to prioritize finding a wealthy husband over pursuing PhDs, using the phrase "women fishing for a golden tortoise" and presenting a slide on its "cost-benefit analysis."
- Following the Talk: Online backlash erupts from students and alumni who accuse Chong of sexism and misogyny.
- Subsequent Days: A petition is launched by a concern group demanding a public apology from Chong, his suspension as associate college head, and potential permanent removal. The petition garners over 80 signatories.
- University Response: CUHK’s New Asia College issues a statement, indicating they have reminded Chong to be "mindful of speech and other people’s feelings." Professor Chong reportedly maintains he did not discriminate.
Implications and Future Considerations
The controversy surrounding Professor Chong’s remarks raises important questions about the responsibilities of educators and the prevailing social attitudes towards gender roles within Hong Kong’s academic community. The petition’s demands for institutional reform, particularly regarding the vetting of guest speakers, highlight a desire for greater transparency and accountability.
The incident underscores the continuing need for dialogue and education on gender equality, challenging outdated stereotypes, and ensuring that academic environments foster respect and empower all students. As the situation unfolds, the actions taken by CUHK and New Asia College will be closely watched, potentially setting precedents for how similar issues are addressed in the future. The broad support for the petition indicates a strong sentiment among students and alumni for a more progressive and equitable campus culture. The long-term implications may involve a re-evaluation of speaker invitation protocols and a renewed emphasis on diversity and inclusion training for faculty members. The focus now shifts to whether the university will take more decisive action beyond a simple reminder, and whether Professor Chong will offer a more substantive response to the concerns raised by the student body.
Lina Irawan
Nana
