論現行大學英語畢業門檻的適法性——以政大法規為實例的論證

On the Legality of Taiwan Universities' English Graduation Benchmark Enforcement Rules: A Case Study of National Chengchi University

我國有上百所大學實施英語畢業門檻，對於少數學者的質疑，教育部與學界普遍認為大學訂定畢業門檻屬「大學自治」之範疇。司法院釋字第五六三號解釋明言：「大學自治既受憲法制度性保障，則大學為確保學位之授予具備一定之水準，自得於合理及必要之範圍內，訂定有關取得學位之資格條件。」學界一般偏重本號解釋認定畢業門檻屬大學自治範疇之結論，卻忽略了「合理且必要」的前提。循此見解，「大學自治」下之任何畢業門檻均應受憲法與行政法基本原則之拘束，不應違反比例原則或流於恣意。本文因此依一般行政法原則檢視我國大學英語畢業門檻之規定，並以政大相關法規為實例從學理面、公平面、法理面及實際執行面詳加檢視。本文認為，政大之相關法規與行政法「禁止恣意」、「公平原則」、「比例原則」等基本原則有所不符。此外，該畢業門檻「只考核卻不提供教育」，不僅與大學之教育精神不合，也不符合大學法第二十七條：「……學生修畢學位學程所規定之學分，經考核成績及格者，大學應依法授予學位」之規定：大學應為考核學生成績之唯一主體。況且，不提供教育只考核成績或是將考核之責委外的作法，正也辜負了憲法所賦予之「大學自治」精神。二○一一年一月十七日司法院釋字第六八四號解釋發布後，學生若受教育權或其他基本權利受到侵害，即使非屬退學或類此之處分，亦得提起行政爭訟。據上述理由，本文懇切籲請教育部與各大學儘速重新審視此一政策，以期回歸憲法賦予大學自治之本意與行政法之基本原則。

More than a hundred universities in Taiwan have implemented rules of English benchmark for graduation. The Ministry of Education (MOE) and most scholars contend that such rules are protected by university autonomy. Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 563 indeed states, Given that university autonomy is systematically protected by the Constitution, universities are entitled to set up reasonable and necessary requirements for the degrees conferred, in order to ensure the standards of such degrees. However, most commentators have only noted the part that recognizes universities right in implementing graduation requirements but have overlooked the prerequisite that such requirements be reasonable and necessary, which dictates that any graduation requirement still must obey the Constitution and the fundamental principles governing administrative laws. This paper discusses the legality of universities rules of English benchmark for graduation. In particular, we have chosen the National Chengchi University (NCCU) as a case study and systematically scrutinized its relevant rules from several perspectives: education, legality, fairness, and practicality. We demonstrate that these rules are incompatible with the principles of administrative laws, i.e., prohibition of arbitrariness, principle of fairness, and principle of proportionality. The reality is, the university need not offer the necessary English courses or administer the required exams, a practice that goes against not only the essence of education but also Article 27 of the University Act, … the university should by law confer the degree to students that have completed the courses required by the degree program and have passed its assessments. According to this article, the university should be the only legal entity that assesses its students. Universities that relinquish their right and obligation of educating and assessing their students to an external commercial organization have thus precisely betrayed the privilege of university autonomy granted by the Constitution. Given Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 684, announced on January 17, 2011, a university student is now able to bring the university to court for a violation of his/her right to education or any other fundamental right, expulsion thus no longer a precondition of such legal actions. We therefore earnestly urge the MOE and the universities to re-examine their policy of English benchmark for graduation with prudence.