Bulletin Autumn‧Winter 1981

Fulton made a preliminary visit to outline the considerations likely to weigh with the proposed commission; in 1960 Sir James Duff, Vice-Chancellor of Durham University, Dr. Kenneth Mellanby, who had been foundation Principal of a rapidly developing and distinguished university in Nigeria, Professor Foltz from USA and Mr. John Pearson, Librarian of the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, followed to help in the framing of future courses in Arts, Science and Business Administration and in Library development. Contacts were also arranged in the opposite direction; the Presidents of Chung Chi, New Asia and The United College visited British universities and three members of the administrative staffs of these colleges came to Britain to study the organization and working of university registries, especially in the federal context. As the IUC was involved in all these arrangements, I had the good fortune to become acquainted, before the Fulton Commission ever came to Hong Kong, with some of those who were destined to play key roles in the future of The Chinese University. For me, therefore, the opportunity to serve as secretary of the Fulton Commission was a welcome chance of renewing acquaintances as well as visiting a new part of the world. But it was also much more. It was a chance to help fashion a new and distinctive part of the tapestr y of university development which was rapidly taking shape Commonwealth-wide and to which the lUC was deeply committed. The timing was opportune as a glance at the contemporary university scene will show. In Britain the university system was under serious review; the Robbins Committee was about to recommend a great expansion of higher education and the regrading of colleges of advanced technology as universities; and the University of Sussex, of which Lord Fulton was vice-chancellor, was busily "drawing a new map of learning". Overseas in the Third World political development of a dramatic nature, incredible a few years earlier, was proceeding with startling acceleration, precipitating a proliferation of university patterns. In that setting of quickening tempo, massive expansion and progressive change, it was hardly surprising that the idea of a new university in Hong Kong, offering the prospect of higher education to a hitherto disadvantaged clientele, should strike the IUC as consistent with the spirit and trends of the time. There were, moreover, other features of the enterprise in Hong Kong which increased its peculiar interest for the IUC. First, there was the language aspect. Although some courses in Khartoum were taught in Arabic, this would be the first university with which the IUC was associated which would have a language other than English as the principal medium of instruction. What special problems would that create? And might it encourage similar developments elsewhere? Second, there was the as yet uncertain repercussion on, and relationship with, the existing university. Would financial problems o r undesirable tensions — or even stultifying rivalries — in the educational system ensue? There were unfortunately cogent contemporary examples elsewhere of difficulties created by the formation of a second university in a country. Third, there was the whole idea of associating various separate institutions under the umbrella of a single university. The Asquith Report, the lUC's original basic guidance document, had recommended against federal systems in principle and a delegation to Northern Nigeria on which I had recently served had rejected a federal solution, preferring to bring four specialist institutions into a unitary structure. On the other hand, events in other areas seemed to be calling into question the accepted antipathy towards federalism; the University of Malaya had adopted a federal constitution in 1959 (though it seemed unlikely to last) and in East Africa the governments had come out in favour of a similar arrangement. The organizational structure suggested was therefore a very topical subject. Finally, there was a comparative international aspect. Chinese, American and British educational traditions were each represented among the three selected post- secondary institutions. How could these different traditions be brought together harmoniously? This too was a topical issue elsewhere, at least in so far as the working together of British and American university practice and the proper recognition of indigenous culture were concerned. For all these reasons the task ahead of us was of considerable academic interest, with implications not only for Hong Kong but also elsewhere. During that summer of 1962 the IUC was involved in a great deal o f thinking about new university development overseas; there was the Tananarive Conference on higher education in Africa, a review of needs and priorities in East Africa, a preliminary study in Malawi and the negotiation of plans for a secular university to serve the three High Commission territories in Southern Africa. Would the findings of the Fulton Commission and all these other investigations coalesce to produce a viable strategy for the future? Certainly events in many countries seemed to be underlining the need for fresh, imaginative planning. For our task we had a carefully composed team with a shrewd mixture of nationality, discipline and 11