Copyright 2015 by Stanford University

HE Xiaoqiang

v.

Huazhong University of Science and Technology,

A Case of a Refusal to Confer a Degree

Guiding Case No. 39

(Discussed and Passed by the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme People’s Court

Released on December 25, 2014)

CHINA GUIDING CASES PROJECT

English Guiding Case (EGC39)

September 15, 2015 Edition*

* The citation of this translation of the Guiding Case is: 《何小强诉华中科技大学拒绝授予学位案》(HE

Xiaoqiang v. Huazhong University of Science and Technology, A Case of a Refusal to Confer a Degree), CHINA

GUIDING CASES PROJECT, English Guiding Case (EGC39), Sept. 15, 2015 Edition, available at

http://cgc.law.stanford.edu/guiding-cases/guiding-case-39.

This document was primarily prepared by Vanessa Cao, Richard Jiang, Oma Lee, Mengnan Li, Haibin Ren,

Thomas Rimmer, Jeremy Schlosser, and Peiyu Wu. The document was finalized by Jordan Corrente Beck and Dr.

Mei Gechlik. Minor editing, such as splitting long paragraphs, adding a few words included in square brackets, and

boldfacing the headings to correspond with those boldfaced in the original Chinese version, was done to make the

piece more comprehensible to readers. The following text, otherwise, is a direct translation of the original text and

reflects the formatting of the Chinese document released by the Supreme People’s Court.

The following Guiding Case was discussed and passed by the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme

People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China and was released on December 25, 2014, available at

http://www.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2014/12/id/1524367.shtml. See also 《最高人民法院关于发布第九批指

导性案例的通知》 (The Supreme People’s Court’s Notice Concerning the Release of the Ninth Batch of Guiding

Cases), Dec. 24, 2014, available at http://rmfyb.chinacourt.org/paper/images/2014-12/26/02/2014122602_pdf.

2015.09.15 Edition

Copyright 2015 by Stanford University

2

Keywords

Administrative Litigation Degree Conferral Higher Education Institution

Academic Autonomy

Main Points of the Adjudication

1. A higher education institution that has the authority to confer degrees is

authorized to review an application for the conferral of a degree put forward by a degree

applicant and decide whether to confer a degree on him.1 Where an applicant is dissatisfied with

the higher education institution’s decision to not confer a degree on him and [thus] initiates

administrative litigation, the people’s court should accept [the case] in accordance with law.

2. Where a higher education institution formulates, in accordance with relevant

provisions of the Interim Implementing Measures of the Regulation of the People’s Republic of

China on Degrees and within the scope of [the institution’s] academic autonomy,2 standards

regarding the academic levels [necessary] for the conferral of a degree, and renders, pursuant to

these standards, a decision on whether to confer a degree, the people’s court should support [the

decision].

Related Legal Rule(s)

Article 4 and Article 8 Paragraph 1 of the Regulation of the People’s Republic of China

on Degrees

Article 25 of the Interim Implementing Measures of the Regulation of the People’s

Republic of China on Degrees

1 Translators’ note: “he”, “him”, and “his” as used in this Guiding Case are, unless the context indicates

otherwise, gender-neutral terms that may refer to “she” and “her”. 2 Translators’ note: the original text reads “学术自治” (“academic autonomy”). In China, an entity with

“autonomy” (“自治”) suggests that the entity, while not independent, has a greater degree of decision-making

power, as compared with similar entities without autonomy. China’s five “autonomous regions” (“自治

区”)Guangxi, Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, Tibet (Xizang) and Xinjiangare good examples. While they are not

independent, they are provincial-level administrative divisions of China, with a certain authority to formulate local

legislation that meets the regions’ unique needs.

2015.09.15 Edition

Copyright 2015 by Stanford University

3

Basic Facts of the Case

Plaintiff HE Xiaoqiang (何小强) was a graduate of the 2003 undergraduate program3 at

third-party Huazhong University of Science and Technology Wuchang Branch4 (华中科技大学

武 昌 分 校) (hereinafter referred to as the “Wuchang Branch”) with a major in

telecommunications engineering. The Wuchang Branch had legal person status as an

independent public institution, but did not have the eligibility to confer bachelor’s degrees.

According to the relevant provisions of the State on the conferral of bachelor’s degrees by

private higher education institutions and the stipulations in an agreement between [the Wuchang

Branch] and defendant Huazhong University of Science and Technology5 (华中科技大学),

[Huazhong University of Science and Technology] agreed to confer bachelor’s degrees on

graduates of the Wuchang Branch’s undergraduate [programs] who met the requirements for a

bachelor’s degree. [The defendant] also clearly recited the Detailed Implementing Rules for

Huazhong University of Science and Technology Wuchang Branch to Confer Bachelor’s Degrees

on Graduates of Undergraduate Programs [(hereinafter referred to as the “Detailed

Implementing Rules”)] in an appendix to the agreement. Article 2 of [the Detailed Implementing

Rules] provided:

Any graduate of the undergraduate [program] who has enrollment status at our

institution and meets the conferral requirements of the Detailed Implementing

Rules may apply to the Degree Evaluation Committee of Huazhong University of

Science and Technology for the conferral of a bachelor’s degree.

Article 3 provided:

[For any applicant] who meets the following level [of academic ability] and

requirements and [whose application] passes the examination of the Degree

Evaluation Committee, [the university] may confer on him a bachelor’s degree

[…] (3) [The applicant] has passed the National College English Uniform Test

Band 4.6

3 Translators’ note: in contrast to the common American practice of identifying an individual’s university

class by the year in which he graduated, in China an individual’s class is identified by the year in which he

matriculated. 4 Translators’ note: the name “华中科技大学武昌分校” is translated here as “Huazhong University of

Science and Technology Wuchang Branch” in accordance with the translation that was once used on the institution’s

website, at http://www.hustwb.edu.cn/. In May 2015, the institution was named “武昌首义学院” (“Wuchang

Shouyi University”). For more information about the institution, see 学校简介 (School Profile), available at

http://www.hustwb.edu.cn/xxjj.htm. 5 Translators’ note: the name “华中科技大学” is translated here as “Huazhong University of Science and

Technology” in accordance with the translation used on the university’s website, at http://www.hust.edu.cn/. 6 Translators’ note: the term “全国大学英语四级统考” (“National College English Uniform Test Band 4”)

likely refers to “全国大学英语四级考试 ” (the “National College English Test Band 4”), available at

2015.09.15 Edition

Copyright 2015 by Stanford University

4

In December 2006, Huazhong University of Science and Technology issued the Regulation on

Applications for Bachelor’s Degrees at the Wuchang Branch and Wenhua School, providing that

the passing of a National College Foreign Language Test Band 4 was one of the prerequisites for

applying for a bachelor’s degree for a student with a non-foreign-language major.

On June 30, 2007, HE Xiaoqiang obtained the Graduation Certificate of a Regular

Higher Education Institution awarded by the Wuchang Branch. Because he did not pass the

National [College] English Test Band 4 during his undergraduate studies, the Wuchang Branch,

pursuant to the aforementioned Detailed Implementing Rules, did not recommend him to

Huazhong University of Science and Technology for [receipt of] a bachelor’s degree. On August

26, HE Xiaoqiang put forward an application to Huazhong University of Science and

Technology and the Wuchang Branch to be conferred a bachelor’s degree in engineering. On

May 21, 2008, the Wuchang Branch issued a written reply, [stating that] because HE Xiaoqiang

had not passed the National College English Test Band 4, [he] did not meet the [degree] conferral

requirements and Huazhong University of Science and Technology could not confer on him a

bachelor’s degree.

Results of the Adjudication

On December 18, 2008, the Hongshan District People’s Court of Wuhan Municipality,

Hubei Province, rendered the (2008) Hong Xing Chu Zi No. 81 Administrative Judgment to

reject plaintiff HE Xiaoqiang’s litigation request that defendant Huazhong University of Science

and Technology be required to award him a bachelor’s degree in engineering. On May 31, 2009,

the Intermediate People’s Court of Wuhan Municipality, Hubei Province, rendered the (2009) Wu

Xing Zhong Zi No. 61 Administrative Judgment to reject the appeal and uphold the original

judgment.

http://www.cet.edu.cn/. The National College English Test is a standardized examination designed to ensure that

undergraduate students in China meet the required English levels as specified in the syllabus of the National College

English Teaching (“CET”). The National CET consists of three tests: the Band 4 (CET-4) test, the Band 6 (CET-6)

test, and the CET-Spoken English Test. Typically, a Chinese undergraduate student needs to pass the CET-4 test in

order to graduate with a bachelor's degree. For details, see http://www.cet.edu.cn/cet_concept4.htm#.

2015.09.15 Edition

Copyright 2015 by Stanford University

5

Reasons for the Adjudication

In the effective judgment, the court opined:7

The focal points of the dispute in this case

were primarily issues of whether the challenged administrative act was justiciable, whether [the

challenged administrative act was] legal, and the [appropriate] scope of judicial review.

1. The challenged administrative act was justiciable.

As authorized by laws and administrative regulations, including the Regulation of the

People’s Republic of China on Degrees, defendant Huazhong University of Science and

Technology had the statutory authority to review the conferral of bachelor’s degrees of regular

higher education institutions. Article 4, Paragraph 2 of the Interim Implementing Measures of

the Regulation of the People’s Republic of China on Degrees provides:

For graduates of an undergraduate program who have attained the academic level

of a bachelor’s [degree], a higher education institution that does not confer

bachelor’s degrees should let [its relevant] department present a list [of those

graduates] to the [higher education] institution. After the institution approves [the

list], the institution will recommend [those graduates] to a nearby higher

education institution [located within the recommending institution’s] system and

region that confers bachelor’s degrees. The relevant department of the [nearby]

higher education institution that confers bachelor’s degrees will conduct a review

and assessment of the graduates of the undergraduate [program] who are

recommended by the higher education institution that does not confer bachelor’s

degrees. If [the relevant department of the nearby higher education institution]

considers [a graduate] to have met [the requirements set forth in] the Interim

Implementing Measures and related provisions, it may nominate [the graduate] for

inclusion by the institution’s Degree Evaluation Committee in the list of recipients

of bachelor’s degrees.

According to [the above provision] and relevant provisions on State policy [aimed at] promoting

the establishment of schools by private higher education institutions, Huazhong University of

Science and Technology had the authority to confer, in accordance with its agreement with a

private higher education institution, bachelor’s degrees of a regular higher education institution

on those graduates of an undergraduate program at a private higher education institution whose

[qualifications] had been reviewed to meet [the university’s] bachelor’s degree conferral

requirements.

In this case, third-party [and] private higher education institution Wuchang Branch did

not have the eligibility to confer bachelor’s degrees. This institution and Huazhong University of

7 Translators’ note: the Chinese text does not specify which court opined. Given the context, this should be

the Intermediate People’s Court of Wuhan Municipality, Hubei Province.

2015.09.15 Edition

Copyright 2015 by Stanford University

6

Science and Technology signed an agreement for cooperation in running [the] school. [The

agreement] stipulated that the Wuchang Branch [would] recommend graduates of its

undergraduate programs who had attained the academic level of bachelor’s [degrees] to

Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and that Huazhong University of Science and

Technology [would then] conduct an examination to determine whether to confer bachelor’s

degrees [on those graduates]. According to the provisions of the Interim Implementing Measures

of the Regulation of the People’s Republic of China on Degrees and the agreement between

Huazhong University of Science and Technology and the Wuchang Branch for cooperation in

running [the] school, Huazhong University of Science and Technology had the statutory

responsibility to conduct a review of the current-year graduates of undergraduate programs who

were recommended by the Wuchang Branch and decide whether to award [them] bachelor’s

degrees.

HE Xiaoqiang, a graduate of the Wuchang Branch’s undergraduate program, initiated

administrative litigation at a people’s court [on the grounds that] Huazhong University of

Science and Technology did not confer on him a bachelor’s degree in engineering within 60 days

of its receipt of [his] application. [This administrative litigation was initiated] in compliance

with the provisions of Article 39, Paragraph 1 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s

Court on Several Issues Concerning the Enforcement of the “Administrative Litigation Law of

the People’s Republic of China”. Therefore, Huazhong University of Science and Technology

was a qualified defendant in this case. HE Xiaoqiang was dissatisfied with Huazhong University

of Science and Technology’s refusal to confer a bachelor’s degree on him and initiated

[administrative] litigation. The people’s court should accept [the case] in accordance with law.

2. Article 3 of the Detailed Implementing Rules for Huazhong University of Science and

Technology Wuchang Branch to Confer Bachelor’s Degrees on Graduates of Undergraduate

Programs, which were formulated by the defendant, was in compliance with the provisions of

[relevant] upper-level law.

Article 4 of the Regulation of the People’s Republic of China on Degrees provides:

A bachelor’s degree shall be conferred on a graduate of an undergraduate program

of a higher education institution whose academic results are excellent and who

has attained the following academic level: (1) has achieved relative mastery of the

fundamental theory, professional knowledge, and basic skills of his discipline…”

Article 25 of the Interim Implementing Measures of the Regulation of the People’s Republic of

China on Degrees [(hereinafter referred to as the “Measures”)] provides:

2015.09.15 Edition

Copyright 2015 by Stanford University

7

A degree-conferring entity may, based on this [set of] Measures, formulate the

entity’s detailed work rules on the conferral of degrees.

The Measures endows a degree-conferring entity with the authority and responsibility to

formulate standards for the conferral of bachelor’s degrees, on the basis that the basic principles

for conferring bachelor’s degrees as set forth in the Regulation of the People’s Republic of China

on Degrees are not violated and [the formulation is] within the scope of [the entity’s] academic

autonomy. Within the scope of this authority, Huazhong University of Science and Technology

linked the National College English Test Band 4 results with [the conferral of] bachelor’s

degrees. [This act] was within the purview of [its] academic authority.

A higher education institution’s exercise of [its] authority to make its own decisions on

how to teach in the establishment of specific regulations and requirements, on its own accord and

in accordance with law, concerning the education quality and the academic level required of

undergraduate students whom it has cultivated, is an [act that] refines the standards for the

conferral of bachelor’s degrees. This does not violate the principled provisions of Article 4 of

the Regulation of the People’s Republic of China on Degrees and Article 25 of the Interim

Implementing Measures of the Regulation of the People’s Republic of China on Degrees.

Because HE Xiaoqiang had not passed the National College English Test Band 4, [he] did not

meet the degree conferral requirements of Huazhong University of Science and Technology and

[thus] the Wuchang Branch did not recommend him to Huazhong University of Science and

Technology to apply for a bachelor’s degree. Consequently, there were no facts [showing]

Huazhong University of Science and Technology’s omission to act. HE Xiaoqiang’s litigation

request was not supported by the court.

3. Legality review is the principle for [conducting] judicial review of an education

institution’s act of conferring a degree.

Each higher education institution’s determination of its own measuring standards for the

requisite academic levels for bachelor’s degree conferral, in accordance with its teaching level

and actual circumstances and within the scope of basic statutory principles, is a specific

manifestation of the principle of academic autonomy in the running of higher education

institutions. On the premise that the degree conferral requirements as set forth in the laws and

regulations are met, [either] the setting of higher academic standards for the conferral of

bachelor’s degrees or the appropriate relaxation of the academic standards for the conferral of

bachelor’s degrees should be decided by each higher education institution on its own accord,

based on its own philosophy of how to run its school, actual teaching situations, and [its] pursuit

of the ideal of [achieving high] academic levels. Judicial review of the conferral of bachelor’s

degrees must not interfere with or influence the principle of higher education institutions’

academic autonomy. Legality review should be the basic principle for [determining] the scope

of judicial review in administrative litigation cases [involving] degree conferral.