Bold statement first: a Hong Kong university expelled a student after he advocated for accountability for a deadly fire, raising questions about academic freedom, disciplinary power, and how governments respond to dissent. But here’s where it gets controversial: should a university penalize students for expressing critical views or calling for independent investigations, even when those views touch on sensitive political topics?
A Hong Kong university student who publicly urged accountability for a fatal apartment-block fire has been expelled for disciplinary offences. Miles Kwan, a 24-year-old politics student, was detained for two nights by the city’s national security police last year on suspicion of “seditious intent” after distributing flyers calling for an independent probe into the blaze that killed 168 people in November. Following his bail release, his institution—the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK)—launched a disciplinary review and referred the case to a student discipline committee.
The committee, citing “multiple acts of misconduct,” voted to terminate Kwan from his studies on Thursday. CUHK confirmed in a Friday statement that it would not comment on individual cases, but noted that a student who accumulates three demerits through disciplinary actions may be expelled. Kwan contends the university did not penalize him for the arrest in November 2025.
Kwan says he received demerits for labeling the disciplinary process as a “kangaroo panel” and a “disgrace,” and for an earlier charge of “criminal damage” in 2023 related to placing stickers on lamp posts in 2022 to mark the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown. He had already completed his coursework and expected to graduate in March.
In a statement, Kwan criticized CUHK, saying, “It is shameful of CUHK to use graduation certificates to suppress its former students. You can take away qualifications, but you can’t take away dignity.”
Kwan was among several signatories to a petition issued after the fire at Wang Fuk Court housing estate, a high-rise complex where the November blaze became the world’s deadliest residential building fire since 1980. The petition urged government officials to be held accountable, called for an independent investigation into possible corruption, demanded proper resettlement for residents, and requested a review of construction oversight.
In response to the blaze, authorities in the Chinese city established a judge-led “independent committee” to investigate the tragic incident.
Controversy note: this case spotlights a clash between state security concerns, academic governance, and free expression. Some observers argue that universities must uphold the right to dissent and to demand accountability, while others contend that outspoken activists may cross legal lines or threaten social stability. What do you think: should universities discipline students for provocative or provocative-sounding political speech if it relates to public safety issues? Would the same standards apply to staff and faculty?
