Liberal Studies is now a mandatory subject for students aspiring to gain entry to universities. It is supposed to help students develop critical thinking and an open mind, and certainly deserves a place in the school curriculum. Unfortunately, perhaps because of a lack of good guidance, the outcome does not appear to be satisfactory.

I have noticed that many students these days are subject to two tendencies that really go counter to the spirit of liberal studies. These two tendencies seem so diametrically opposite to each other that their coexistence is truly paradoxical, and suggests that the liberal studies course has not achieved its intended purpose.

The first tendency is that instead of developing an open mind, many students think that looking at an issue from different angles means that there is no right and wrong.

It all depends on your point of view. They may state all the different arguments, but they dare not take a stand. They are so confused and so intimidated by the requirement of seeing an issue from different perspectives that they have lost any sense of direction.

The second tendency is the very opposite. Instead of developing a critical mind which requires careful and logical thinking and looking at different arguments and the evidence with an open mind, some students have become so arrogant that they think they are always right and others are always wrong. They mistakenly call this critical thinking, imagining that critically thinking means criticizing others' points of view.

The reason for these tendencies is pretty obvious. Many teachers have failed to set a good example!

Actually the basic tenets of liberal studies and liberal education in general are two: humility and open-mindedness. Humility means that we should always remind ourselves that our understanding of an issue may be wrong. Open-mindedness means that we should be ready to consider all the arguments even though they may appear disagreeable or alien to one's beliefs. At the heart of humility and open-mindedness is a deep respect for truth and for life.

In principle, if students and teachers have these basic qualities, then no issue is too controversial to be included in the liberal studies curriculum. Whether it is the planned "Occupy Central" campaign, or same-sex marriage, no subject should be out of bounds. The teacher, as a human being, is most likely opinionated, but this should not stop him from setting a good example by engaging those with different viewpoints in open-minded and respectful debates.

Unfortunately, instead of open-minded teachers espousing humility and critical thinking, we have seen highly opinionated teachers refusing to engage in open dialogues with others with a different point of view. Even the Hong Kong Professional Teachers Union (PTU), which is supposed to lead teachers in professionalism, failed miserably in this regard. This became all too clear in the movement against the government's proposal to introduce Moral and National Education in schools. Largely as a result of a poorly written pamphlet that was published with government funding, the government was criticized for attempting to brainwash students through the curriculum. With minds already made up, the not-so-badly written official Moral and National Education Curriculum Guide (Primary 1 to Secondary 6) was also considered to be problematic. But as far as I know there has not been a single occasion on which the PTU or the National Education Parents' Concern Group engaged those with a different point of view in an open dialogue. As an organizer of a forum on the subject, I was not able to succeed in inviting any of those who are opposed to the curriculum to participate as a panel speaker. I would have been most pleased if Wong Chi-fung, one of the key leaders of Scholarism, had accepted my invitation.

It is a pity that the PTU and the Parent Concern Group did not take advantage of the opportunity of Moral and National Education to educate students more about developments on the mainland. They had been worried about the government using the course to brainwash students, but the government had invited those who oppose it to oversee the development of the course. The government had also amended the curriculum by including "Democracy, Rule of Law, and Human Rights". Since the teacher is king in the classroom, and given that students will not be assessed as a requirement to gain entry into universities, where is the leverage for the government to brainwash, if brainwashing was in the hidden agenda? Educators in Hong Kong could have grasped the opportunity to encourage students to be concerned about development on the mainland, and to cultivate ideas that may eventually help their motherland develop into a more civilized and more democratic nation.

The point of this article is not to re-ignite the debate on Moral and National Education. It is just to urge for intelligent, open-minded exchange of ideas among people holding different viewpoints. It is sorely lacking, and educators should be reminded of the importance of upholding the spirit of liberal studies.

The author is director of the Center for Public Policy Studies at Lingnan University.

(HK Edition 07/16/2013 page1)