

73

Student Rights andHuman Rights Education- Taiwan’s Experience
Chia-Fan Lin*H

uman rights are not just values deserving to be taught, but also principles
that should be put into practice. In the context of the school, human rights
can take the form of student rights.
promoting human rights education in termsof student rights in Taiwan. First, I explore
the idea of student rights as the realization of
constitutionally mandated human rights asapplied in the school context, where students
have traditionally been regarded as shedding
their constitutional protection as they enter
the school gates. I examine school authority,
including the authority of the teachers, not only
from the point of view of legislations but alsoof the Constitution, which binds the powers of
the state with human rights. Second, I argue
that human rights education is best promoted
in terms of student rights because the school
setting offers the better example for understanding human rights in action. Other settings may
appear alien to the students, and thus difficult
to comprehend. In addition, human rights
education focused on student rights can takea “critical” perspective insofar as it empowers
students against the possible abuses of powerby teachers or school authorities.
Third, I present the legislations for theprotection of student rights by central or local governments, and some initiatives taken
by schools, non-governmental organizations(NGOs), or local governments in Taiwan. I
introduce examples of co-operation between

Rights relate to action and not mere words.
Human rights are not just enshrined in theinternational agreements, but have to be implemented through national laws. Furthermore,they are best protected if they have been institutionalized into local systems that cherish theidea and provide direct and concrete steps topromote them. Schools constitute an example
of such local systems that are supposed to be
dedicated to cultivating the values of humanrights into the minds of the students.
However, dreams have never been easy to realize. Student rights are foreign to a land whereobedience to elders is regarded as essential value,
and the young are supposed to keep their ideas
to themselves and remain silent especially in thepresence of old people. Students hardly express
themselves, let alone claim their rights. Teaching human rights is difficult where the values ofhuman rights conflict with the traditional ones.
Nevertheless, for Taiwan as a young democracy
the ideas of human rights are being fought forand have been written into the Constitution. In
addition, human rights education is supposed
to be one of the main purposes of education
provided in Section Two, Article Two of the1999 Basic Law of Education.1
In this article, I share my experience in73

74  HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION IN ASIAN SCHOOLS

schools and NGOs on the one hand, and between schoolteachers and lawyers on the other,to illustrate the implementation of human rights
education focused on student rights from theperspective of both formal and informal curriculums in school. I also discuss the inclusionof legal courses in teacher training programin Taiwan so that teachers are better equippedto challenge the conventional ethics and oldpractices in school.

Do students have rights in the school?
In one criminal case in Taiwan,2 a secondary3 school teacher required the students in her
Chinese literature course to write a composition
about her (teacher) using only “good words”.4
Failure to follow this instruction meant that thestudents would not get good grades, or even getpunished and could not go home. Article 304of the Criminal Code states that anyone whocompels with the use of force a person to do
things of which he or she is under no obligation
to undertake shall be liable to penal punishment. The teacher was later charged in courtwith violation of the freedom of her students
in the class, and was convicted in 2003. Thisis an interesting case. The court explained thatstudents are supposed to follow the instructionsof the teachers in doing their schoolwork. But
if the teacher’s instruction is not for educational but private purpose, students are under
no obligation to follow it. Thus forcing thestudents to do the “school work” complained
against was deemed to be violating the freedomof her students. This is a good reminder about
the limitation of the teachers’ authority, whichshould recognize the students’ legal protection
against abuse even inside the classroom that isunder their responsibility or control.
The court decision in this criminal case does
not directly recognize the rights of students but
sanctions against the abuse of teachers’ authority. Traditionally, a school’s or teacher’s authority is not reviewed by administrative courts in

Taiwan because the relationship involved is notconsidered to be concerning the power of thestate against the people. Hence, it is doubtfulthat the human rights of students are protectedby the Constitution.
It is odd that students do not enjoy constitutional protection of their human rights whilein school, but once they step outside the school
premises they enjoy it. This makes the schools
the enclave of totalitarianism in a democracy. In
the 1969 case of Tinker v. Des Monies Independent Community School District, et al.,5 JusticeFortas of the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates wrote: “It can hardly be argued that either
students or teachers shed their constitutionalrights to freedom of speech or expression at
the schoolhouse gate.” (Raskin, 2000, 25) The
human rights of students should be protectedby the Constitution even inside school.
The Grand Justice Committee, therefore, incharge of constitutional review in Taiwan, rectified the situation on 23 June 1995 by issuing
Constitutional Interpretation No. 382 statingthat the stance of the administrative courts
against judicial review of school actions was a
violation of the constitutional protection of therights of students in school. Therefore, it is clearthat the human rights of students in school areprotected by the Constitution, and that administrative courts are obliged to review possible
abuses of these rights by school authorities.
In the cultural tradition of Confucianism,a teacher-student relationship is likened to oneof father and son. It emphasizes obedience ofthe young to the old. The normative language
prefers ‘obligations’ to ‘rights’. There is a hierarchical relationship in terms of status, whichsets the duty that one has to perform. The dutyof the young, i.e., students, is to listen to and tofollow instructions of the old, i.e., teachers inschool. The power of teachers over the students
covers a wide range of matters from students’hairstyles to the color of their socks or shoes.
Claiming the rights of students is out of thequestion because it will upset the hierarchicalrelationship and challenge the privileged posi-Student Rights and Human Rights Education—Taiwan’s Experience  75

tion of teachers.
However, the idea of human rights demands
equal dignity for all, which admits the equal
legal status of all. Although students do have tofollow the instructions of teachers, it does notmean that students cannot have an equal legal
status before the laws of the land. As the court
stated in the cited criminal case, the authorityof teachers cannot violate the limits set by thelaws and the Constitution. In other words,
teachers have to realize that they do have theauthority to instruct students, but only within
the legal and constitutional boundaries, andthat this authority is not granted by traditional
ethics based on Confucianism but by the laws
and the Constitution.
Teachers or school authorities do not haveabsolute authority over students, as their authority is subject to review by administrative
courts according to the Grand Justice Committee Interpretation No. 382. Furthermore,
the Grand Justice Committee Interpretation
No. 563 states that although universities enjoy
academic freedom and autonomy, including
setting rules on academic requirements of thestudents, they are asked to follow the principleof due process in adopting and implementing
the rules. To sum up, the rights of students inschools or universities are under constitutional
and legal protection.

Human rights education in terms ofstudent rights
We may refer to international human rights
instruments to teach about human rights standards to students, but they may be too abstract
or foreign to those who are young and haveno idea of what international organizations or
regimes are all about. However, introduction ofhuman rights ideas may start from local situations that are familiar to students. Therefore,
it is logical to discuss issues relating to student
rights in school, if we want students not just to
know human rights but also to practice them.

For example, in discussing freedom of expression, the best way for students to understandthe idea is to clarify the extent of the limits that
school authorities may set on expressing theiropinions.
In the Tinker case stated above, the US
Supreme Court pointed out that “personal
intercommunication among the students” – on
subjects that may not be officially approved – isas much a part of the educational process asformal classroom teaching (Price & Levine &Cary, 12). In other words, the right to freedomof expression is not merely grudgingly tolerated
in school, it is part of, and fundamental to, thetheory of education, especially human rights
education in a democratic country. For student
rights, human rights education has two important aspects: formal and informal curriculums.
In the formal curriculum, student rights are thebest examples to exemplify the ideas of humanrights. For the informal curriculum, student
rights are best institutionalized into the learning environment of students. According to theCouncil of Europe a human rights school is[W]here participation is encouraged, where views
can be expressed openly and discussed, where
there is freedom of expression for pupils andteachers, where there is fairness and justice (TheCouncil of Europe, 1985, reprinted in Osler andStarkey, 1996, 183).

The informal curriculum has to be especiallyaddressed for countries where the idea of humanrights is at odd with the traditional values, suchas Confucianism in Taiwan, to the extent thatthe dignity of students is treated differently,
i.e., in a lower status, from that of teachers.
Although Taiwan has gone through a processof democratization since 1987, Confucianism
is still not only being taught but also practiced
affecting the relationship between teachers andstudents. As a result, school administration has
become more authoritarian than democratic.
In this context, human rights education as empowerment (Meintjes, 1997) does not merely
have a literal but also practical meaning in the76  HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION IN ASIAN SCHOOLS

sense that students need empowerment. The
empowerment of students is then coupled withthe challenge to the privileged positions thatteachers enjoy.
Conventional relationships or practices are
not legitimated simply on the ground that they
form part of a particular culture, or even a traditional ethic. As Osler (2005, 9) rightly pointed
out, we have to acknowledge that “all culturesare subject to change and to evaluation, against
an agreed set of democratic and human rights
norms,” particularly when such values have been
written into the Constitution.
The empowerment of students takes various
forms such as lobbying for acknowledgment ofstudent rights in legislation, pursuing litigation,or direct action in school. Student rights cover awide range of issues such as the right to education, freedom of expression, freedom of religion,
personal appearance, discipline and due process,law enforcement, corporal punishment, tracking and competency test, students with physical disabilities, sex discrimination, pregnancy,
parenthood, marriage, school records, gradesand diplomas, and so on.
Different countries may have different systems of protecting student rights in terms oflegislation and litigation. However, the mostdirect protection has to come from the administrators and teachers in the school. Students
are subject to the control of school authorities
and teachers upon entering the school premises.
And when legal protection of student rights iseither non-existent or insufficient, school administrators or teachers have to initiate waysof protecting students rights or even empower
students in the governance of the institutions
via participation on committees, particularly
those that directly affect the students’ lives. For
example, in a school-based research project in
the United Kingdom, Anne Hudson (2005,
128) observed that amajor thrust for developing the school’s citizenship culture had been the development of student
voice particularly through the School Council. In
the absence of directly confronting the potentiallythorny issue of students’ and staffs’ rights, there
was little discourse addressing teachers’ concern
and expectations about this.

In addition, there are common misconceptions about students as minors who do not takeresponsibility when given the power to makedecisions. However, Hudson’s research (2005,
129) found that “in most cases the students
were keen to embrace the responsibilities thecitizenship agenda opened up for them” andthat “the interviews with students indicated thatsome of them had begun for the first time toconsider issues from the perspective of teachers
and to recognize the importance of other pointsof view.” Hence, the empowerment of students
also entails assumption of responsibilities. And
this does not mean that teachers do not need to
guide students’ decisionmaking. Empowerment
is not merely for the sake of being empowered,
but to support the education of students. It aims
to make them learn how to take responsibility
for their decisions and how to consider theperspectives of others including those of theteachers before making decisions.

Taiwan’’’ ’s experience
Student rights are protected by the legal
system in Taiwan. Following is a very brief
sketch of Taiwan’s experience on human rights
education in terms of student rights, though it
is not my intention to present an overall picture(Huang, 2006) of Taiwan’s human rights education experience. I focus on the following: first,
efforts of the central and local governments in
adopting legislations to protect student rights;
second, programs and actions taken by thegovernment and schools in promoting a friendly
learning environment for students (under the
informal curriculum); and third, initiatives ofNGOs and schools such as co-operation between teachers and lawyers regarding humanrights education in the formal curriculum.
Fourth, at the graduate level, legal courses

Student Rights and Human Rights Education—Taiwan’s Experience  77

including pre-service teacher training programthat discuss court cases of student rights. At
postgraduate level, courses in in-service teacher
training that require the study of the incorporation of legal materials in the teaching materials
and school curriculums for the study on humanrights and law-related education.

Legislations
Legislations can be effective means of changing social attitudes regarding old practices basedon traditional values. The 1999 Basic Law of
Education provides for the promotion of respectfor human rights as one of the main objectivesof education (Article Two). However, it focuseson the rights to education or learning and does
not cover other issues on student rights. A recent amendment of this law (December 2006)
includes a ban on corporal punishment6 inschool and asks the school to respect the rightsof students including the control of their own
body, and their freedom to develop their own
personality.
This recent legal change is significant inchanging the attitudes of teachers and school
authorities, who still think that it is legally
appropriate to control the personal appearance of students such as hairstyle for the sakeof their education. Earlier, on 24 July 2005, a
mass demonstration in front of the Ministryof Education, organized for the first time bystudents, called for the abolition of “hair codes”
in school, received support from the Ministerof Education (Mr. Cheng-Sheng Du) to thesurprise7 of many teachers and school officials.
The issue of hairstyle might seem trivial but interms of student rights it might be regarded as
an important step in the sense that if a teacher
cannot respect the physical appearance (suchas hair style) of students, how much more for
their ideas or thinking that reflect their innerpersonality.
Another important legislation that protects
student rights is the Gender Equality of Educa-tion Act 2004, which tackles issues of gender
discrimination and sexual harassment in school.
The law provides a number of measures such as
the following: schools shoulda.	Establish a gender equality education committee to investigate cases of sexual harassment, promote gender equality education,and establish gender equality campus environment.
b. Respect the gender temperament and sexual
orientation of students, faculty and staff.
c.	Not to discriminate prospective students andtheir admission in school on the basis of theirgender or sexual orientation.
d.	Not to discriminate students on the basisof their gender or sexual orientation in theteaching process, activities, assessments,
award and punishment, welfare and services.
e. Affirmatively provide assistance to students
who are disadvantaged due to their genderor sexual orientation in order to improvetheir situation.
f. Affirmatively protect the right to educationof pregnant students, as well as provide assistance where necessary.
Furthermore, the law requires the promotion of gender equality in terms of curriculum,
teaching materials, and instruction such asa. The compilation, composition, review andselection of course materials shall comply
with the principles of gender equality education.
b. The content of teaching materials shall present fairly on the historical contributions, life
experiences of both sexes, and diverse gender
perspectives.
c.	When using teaching materials and engaging in educational activities, teachers shallmaintain gender equality consciousness,eliminate gender stereotypes, and avoid
gender prejudice and discrimination.
d. Teachers shall encourage students to takecourses in fields that are not traditionallyaffiliated with their gender.

78  HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION IN ASIAN SCHOOLSThe law is probably the most comprehensive
legislation to protect student rights in campus,
which covers seven chapters, namely:- Chapter 1, General Provisions- Chapter 2, Learning environment andresources- Chapter 3, Curriculum, teaching materials and instruction- Chapter 4, Prevention and handling of
sexual assault and sexual harassment on
campus- Chapter 5, Application for investigation
and relief- Chapter 6, Penal Provisions- Chapter 7, Supplementary Provisions.
It established a regime for the promotionof gender equality from central and local government levels to the school level, which aims
not only at providing relief but preventing
damages from occurring as a result of genderinequality.
There are legislative efforts also at the levelof local governments. For example, the Taipei
Municipal Government has proposed a bill forthe protection of student rights in the Taipei
municipal schools. The Supervisory Committee of Student Rights and Obligations, whose
members are composed of law and education
experts, and representatives from various interest groups or NGOs such as those of students,
teachers, parents, school principals, and the local
education authorities, prepared the bill. The billincludes comprehensively the rights of students
to education and learning, personality, privacy,
equal protection, freedom of religion, freedomof expression, inviolability of body, and due
process. It has a much broader perspective on
student rights than the Basic Law of Educationas amended.
The bill also asks schools to modify theirschool codes or rules for compliance with therequirements for the protection of student
rights. In addition, it requires schools to adopt
a democratic process of adopting rules that may
affect student rights through the participationof representatives of students, parents, teachers,
and school authorities. The bill, expected to bepassed soon, will be the first legislation of its
kind in Taiwan solely dedicated to the protectionof student rights.

Informal Curriculum
Laws are necessary to give a clear normative
direction for the protection of student rights,
and to guide schools towards the establishmentof school environment governed by humanrights values. This is especially important for
countries such as Taiwan where ideas of humanrights are not indigenous, or even in conflictwith some traditional values. But while laws areable to protect students or prevent them from
suffering damage or to guide the change of social attitudes, they are not able to force people
to accept human rights values. In other words,
legislations by themselves cannot build thecultural environment of schools. If the schools
are willing to change or take action towards afriendly campus, then they can be acknowledged
as human rights schools. The process of building a human rights campus is itself regarded
as part of the informal curriculum of humanrights education.
In July 2005, the Committee for Human
Rights Education of the Ministry of Education
launched a three-year project called “Buildinga Friendly Campus towards a Human Rights
School.” Forty-six schools in 2005 and fifty-six
schools in 2006 (covering primary, junior andsenior secondary schools) voluntarily joined
the project. Each school has to propose a plan
to build a friendly campus, which can include
establishing a student council or a student court,
adopting school rules or student codes with theparticipation of students and parents, adopting acharter of student rights, reviewing school practices (especially regarding their violation of theprivacy of students), evaluating school practices
in terms of student rights, and so on.
Representatives of the project schools at-

Student Rights and Human Rights Education—Taiwan’s Experience  79

tended a three-day human rights education
workshop in the summer of 2005 and 2006
and consulted the experts or the members of theCommittee for Human Rights Education about
their respective plans. The Ministry of Education provided financial grants to the projectschools to implement their plans. In a two-day
workshop during the winter vacation period of2005 and 2006, the project schools presented
a mid-term report on their first-semester plan
and activities and shared their experiences.
The Committee for Human Rights Education
evaluated the mid-term reports and gave advice
on the future implementation of each plan.
Based on the reports, it selected the schools
with good results for further study during thesecond semester.
Under the project, the experts or the members of the Committee for Human Rights
Education visit the selected schools to checkthe results of the implementation of theirplans. Schools with good results will receive
prizes and awards, and their achievements will
be video-documented and broadcasted in the
Public TV channel and on the human rights
education website of the Ministry of Education.
The winning schools will be given additional
grants to hold seminars or conferences to share
their experiences with neighboring schools.
In addition, they will be invited to share theirexperiences in the workshops for the newcomers in the project. In 2005, ten schools received
prizes out of forty-six project schools.
One of the project schools is the ZhongZheng Senior High in Taipei, which has 214
teachers and 2,851 students. The school has aplan on protecting privacy in the campus. First,
they formed a team chaired by the school principal and composed of the heads of the school
administration to implement the plan. Second,
they invited experts to introduce the idea of privacy to the team, and to develop a checklist on
aspects of privacy to guide the various departments of the school in examining their practices,which might be invading the privacy of students. Third, they developed a questionnaire tosurvey the opinions of students, teachers, staffs,
and parents about invasion of privacy in campus.
Fourth, with the results of the questionnaire andthe checklist, the school principal held a meetingof the heads of the school administration, therepresentatives of various groups in school suchas those of students, teachers, parents, and law
and education experts to develop good practices
in terms of respecting the privacy of students.
Fifth, they produced a handbook called Student
Rights – the Protection of Privacy in Campus that
documents their efforts to protect privacy in thecampus, and contains a checklist of thirty-three
items ranging from the use of security cameras,
search of personal belongings, urine testing,handling of personal information, grades, records, and so on.

Formal Curriculum
Human rights education as formal curriculum in Taiwan’s schools started in September
1998, when the Ministry of Education adopted
a policy to include human rights topics in theschool curriculum through its General Guidelines of Grade 1-9 Curriculum of Elementary
and Junior High School Education. The general
guidelines constitute an important reform of
the curriculum of primary and junior secondary
schools, which delegated the decision-making
power to the schools to streamline the courses,
and replaced the previous system and its rigid
requirements with flexible principles. The curriculum reform was designed to improve thelink between knowledge and real life, break
the restrictions of each subject, and encourage
the freer use of teachers’ expertise. All these aremeant to result in diversified and democratic
courses. In other words, the state changed theirtight control of the contents of what students
learn in school through a rigid regime of fixedsubjects and textbooks. The general guidelines
signify the decentralization of the school curriculum, which opened up an opportunity forNGOs to cooperate with schools to develop80  HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION IN ASIAN SCHOOLS

teaching materials or to train teachers on undertaking human rights education in schools.
In Taiwan, human rights education focusedon student rights is closely related to legal
education because the latter offers good knowledge on how to protect student rights. There
are domestic mechanisms such as opinionsof the Grand Justice Committee, court decisions, laws and regulations, and ordinances of
local governments which directly relate to theprotection of student rights. The emphasis on
the protection of student rights also influenced
the development of legal education in Taiwan
towards human rights protection in the wholelegal system in contrast to the old concept offocusing on the prevention of crimes from thenarrow point of the view of criminal law. In
addition, legal education aims at teaching basic
ideas and legal values to students and the generalpublic such as justice, privacy, authority, andresponsibility that are closely connected withhuman rights values.
On 23 May 2003, the Chung Hwa Rotary
Education Foundation, the Taipei Bar Association and the Judicial Reform Foundation
respectively recommended three representatives to form the nine-member commission on
the project “Planting the Seed of Law-Related
Education in Taiwan”. The commission is responsible for raising funds and overseeing theimplementation of the project. In July 2006,
with a donation of twenty-three million New
Taiwan dollars, the commission was transformed into the Center for Legal Education of
the Judicial Reform Foundation. The missionsof the project are the following:(1) Initiate a proposal to the Government for the
inclusion of legal education into the projectof important national developments; integrate governmental and civilian resources
to form a non-profit and politically neutral“Foundation of Civic and Legal Education”
that will develop well-founded and distinctive legal education in Taiwan;(2) Promote a new kind of legal education rather

than a dogmatic one in order to prepare
youngsters to become enlightened andresponsible citizens who are committed tohuman rights and democratic principles andactively engaged in the practice of democracy in Taiwan.
(3) Translate and adapt the series “Foundationsof Democracy, Authority, Privacy, Responsibility and Justice” published by the Centerfor Civic Education (U.S.A.) as the key
curricular materials in the legal education
programs in the K-12 grades in school.
(4)	Seek partnership with schools that are willing to implement the programs and with thelocal Rotary Club that may fund the programs, create partnership with the local bar
association for the training of teachers who
are going to implement the programs.
By December 2006, the Foundations of
Democracy, Authority, Privacy, Responsibility andJustice series was already translated into Chinese
language and adapted to the K-3 and 4-6 gradesfor primary school. A total of 15,000 copies for
the K-3 series and 10,000 copies for the 4-6
series were printed. Two hundred forty-eightlawyers helped teachers become familiar with
the K-3 series. Twenty-nine schools and twelve
district educational authorities entered into partnership with the Center (or the Commission,
before July 2006) with 3,490 teachers trained
for the project. In addition, the Commissionin cooperation with the National Institute of
Educational Resource and Research made afilm documentary on the concepts of privacy
and justice of the K-3 series. It started the adaptation of the section for 7-9 grades for juniorsecondary and the section for 10-12 grades forsenior secondary by replacing American laws
and cases with Taiwanese ones.
There are good reasons to choose the Foundations of Democracy, Authority, Privacy, Responsibility and Justice series as the key curricularmaterials for the project. First, the series teachvalues that are important for democracy, rather

Student Rights and Human Rights Education—Taiwan’s Experience  81

than facts that the legal education in Taiwan
used to focus on. These values are taught indemocratic, rather than dogmatic, way, i.e.,through the participation of students in discussions, a teaching approach mostly lacking in
Taiwan’s schools. Second, because of its focus
on values, the series can be easily adapted or
integrated into the various courses of Taiwan’s
school subjects such as civics, social studies,
moral education, or even languages. Since theschools have more autonomy in implementing
the school curriculum under the General Guidelines, they can easily integrate the project into
their school programs. Third, the series contains
four concepts, which run through the fourphases of the school years from K-12 grades.
It is interesting to see how a concept is taught
as the grade goes up. In terms of meeting thedemands of various age groups, the series covers
ages six to eighteen, and levels from primary to
secondary schools.
The project is based on cooperation between
various social groups of teachers, lawyers,
NGOs and schools. By translating and adapting
the series into Chinese language and Taiwan’scontext, teachers and lawyers discussed thedifferent concepts such as cultural differences,putting values into actions, legal terms, school
contexts, court cases, and so on. Because ofthis, they formed a multi-disciplinary team thatcan develop teaching materials that translate
human rights values into school context using
Taiwan’s legal terms. In addition, the project
offers opportunities for the use of legal expertise in schools to help teachers understand theconcepts and course materials of the series. At
least twelve to sixteen hours of training for thispurpose are planned.

Teacher training programs
A department of the Civic Education andLeadership of the National Taiwan Normal
University trains qualified teachers on Civics

and Social Studies courses for junior secondary
schools, and Citizenship and Society course
for senior secondary schools which are directly
related to human rights and legal education.
Students of the department receive legal courses
such as The Constitution, Introduction toLaws, Civil Law I, Criminal Law I as requirements for pre-service teacher training. There arealso many selective legal courses such as Civil
Law II, Criminal Law II, Administrative Law,
Education Laws, Civil Procedure, Criminal
Procedure, Intellectual Property Laws, Environmental Laws and so on. In these legal courses,
court cases relating to student rights are often
examined and discussed to infuse knowledgeof human rights and legal protection into theteacher-training program.
Furthermore, the department has postgraduate legal courses such as Study on Student Rights, Study on Campus Laws, Studyon Juvenile and Children Laws, and so on.
These courses offer not only further study on
specific issues of student rights, but also act asa platform where the different disciplines oflaw and education can meet and interchange
views. Postgraduate students of the department
are often in-service teachers who have teachingexperience and are required to translate legal
materials into teaching materials or curriculumsin school. In other words, the study on humanrights and legal education can take on both
perspectives of law and education at the sametime, which often reflects the multidisciplinary
backgrounds of the members of the committees
reviewing the students’ dissertations.
The study by pre- and in-service teachersof student rights issues is important since conventional ethics in school are examined anddiscussed in terms of human rights and legal
protection, and human rights are taken seriously
because the protection of the equivalent of human rights (student rights) is based on domestic
legal system. In this way, teachers are better
equipped to challenge the old conventions andpractices in school.

82  HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION IN ASIAN SCHOOLS

Conclusion

References

Human rights education in schools is boundto student rights issues. It is odd for a school toteach human rights but not to recognize student
rights. School administrators and teachers canoffer direct and prompt action inside the campus
to protect student rights. In addition, we may
even conclude that the acknowledgement ofstudent rights is a necessary or the first step tohuman rights education. Human rights issues
certainly go beyond school gates, but student
rights offer easy and familiar concepts for students to comprehend than the abstract ideas ofhuman rights. Furthermore, the empowermentof students is essential for them to learn to takeresponsibilities, which is an important part of
the aims of human rights education.
Taiwan as a young democracy needs toconsolidate the ideas of human rights not only
into the legal system but also in the minds ofthe younger generations. However, despite thepolitical reforms, old social and cultural conventions are still hindering the practice of democracy
and the acceptance of human rights ideas. Human rights education in terms of student rights
offers a good way to channel the human rights
ideas into the school practices based on the
traditional values in the sense that they (humanrights ideas) do not appear remote or foreign but
immediate and local and need to be addressed
and taken action on in terms of legal protection.
In this way, therefore, human rights values canbe translated into practical actions, not as more
abstract words but real action for students.
Furthermore, human rights education interms of student rights has transformed the
law-related education in Taiwan’s schools fromdogmatic and authoritarian system to one ofprotecting human rights and democratic participation of students. There is no doubt thathuman rights education in terms of student
rights is difficult because of its direct challenge
to the power relations in school. But this isa right direction worthy of taking if Taiwan’s
experience stands for anything meaningful.

Huang, Mab. 2006. Human Rights Education in Taiwan:
Current Situation and Future Challenges, (in Chinese
language) presented in the International Conference on Human Rights Education in a Diverse andChanging Asia, 22-24 May 2006, Soochow University, Taipei. The edited English version of this paper
is included in volume 9 of this publication.
Hudson, Anne. 2005. “Citizenship Education andStudents’ identities: a School Based Action Research
Project,” in Audrey Osler, editor, Teachers, Human
Rights, and Diversity. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham
Books, 2005.
Meintjes, Garth. 1997. “Human Rights Education
as Empowerment: Reflections on Pedagogy,” inGeorge J. Andreopoulos & Richard Pierre Claude,
editors, Human Rights Education for the Twenty-First
Century. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1997.
Osler, A. 2005. “Looking to the Future: Democracy,
Diversity and Citizenship Education,” in Audrey
Osler, editor, Teachers, Human Rights, and Diversity.
Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
Osler, A. & Starkey, H. 1996. Teacher Education and
Human Rights. London: David Fulton.
Price, Janet & Levine, Alan H. & Cary, Eve. 1988.
The Rights of Students - The Basic ACLU Guide toa Student’s Rights, third edition. Carbondale and
Edwardville: Southern Illinois University Press.
Raskin, Jamin B. 2000. We the Students: Supreme Court
cases for and about students. Washington D.C.: CQ
Press.

Endnotes* Associate Professor, Department of Civic education and Leadership, National Taiwan Normal University (Taiwan). The author is a member of the Committee for Human Rights Education of the Ministry of
Education (2006-2007), a member of the Center for
Legal Education of the Judicial Reform Foundation(since 2003), a member of the Supervisory Committeeof Student Rights and Obligations of Taipei Municipal
Government (2005-2006).
1
Section Two, Article Two of the Basic Law of
Education states that: ‘The purposes of education are
to cultivate modern citizens with sense of national
identity and international perspectives by fostering thedevelopment of wholesome personality, democratic
literacy, ideas of rule of law, and humanities virtues,

Student Rights and Human Rights Education—Taiwan’s Experience  83
patriotic education, care for native land, and information capability; strengthening people’s physical healthas well as their abilities to think, judge and create; andenhancing respect for basic human rights, protection of
ecosystems and natural environment, and understandingof and concern for different countries, ethnic groups,
sexes, religions and cultures.’
2
The District Criminal Court of Kee-Lung, 2003,
No. 28.
3
In this article, “secondary school” means “highschool” in line with the language used to refer to thedifferent levels of education in this publication.
4
At that time, the teacher was under investigation
on charge of being unfit to teach. She would gain goodmarks in the investigation with her ‘popularity’ among
the students in her class. Therefore, she asked her students to write ‘good’ things about her in their writings
for the composition course.
5
The Tinker case was about the punishment of juniorsecondary students by the school authority for wearing
black armbands in school to protest the Vietnam War
in 1965. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1969 held thatstudents do not lose their right to free expression under
the First Amendment to the Constitution when they

enter the school. The court upheld the jurisprudence
that if an act does not “materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate disciplinein the operation of the school”, the students cannot be
prevented from expressing their views. See full court
decision in http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html
6Teachers unions in Taiwan always dispute theambiguity of the term ‘corporal punishment’, and theextent that teachers can use coercive power on students.
In passing the amendment to the Basic Law of Education, the Legislation Yuan added a provision statingthat the Ministry of Education should co-operate withteachers unions to clarify the issue by drafting groundrules on punishments in school.
7
Some teachers and schools were surprised at thisstance and argued that the Minister of Education should
not intervene in matters of school disciplinary measures,and should leave the issue to the individual school todecide through democratic process with the participation of students in it. But the Ministry of Education
replied that in matters of human rights the government
is obliged to require schools to conform to the laws andthe Constitution.