CUHK Campus Lore: The Chung Gate Legend, the Goddess of Democracy, and the Student Press Controversy

⚠️ This article belongs to the campus-lore module (15 · campus lore · anecdote · speech). The "Chung Gate" graduation legend is marked as folk-sourced and checked against §6.6; the Goddess of Democracy and the 2007 student-press incident are supported by multiple news and academic sources. Content involving named living individuals is handled using "surname + Mr./Ms." or a title; highly politicised material from 2019 onward is not covered in this article (see module 18). For the naming history of the sculpture and its donor, see ju-ming-gate-and-pavilion-of-harmony.md.

---

A sculpture has been tangled up for decades in a legend about whether it can make or break your graduation. A replica statue — detained by police, its sculptor refused entry, then carried onto campus by protesting students under the university's "tolerance" — stood for eleven years before it was quietly removed on the eve of Christmas. A student publication's "erotic section" ended up as a case in the High Court. Three episodes, three different textures of campus memory — legend, symbol, speech — together form the most retold chapter of CUHK lore.

---

# I. The Beacon Tower (Chung Gate) — the graduation legend

# 1.1 The structure

"Beacon Tower" (烽火台) is the nickname CUHK students use for an installation standing outside the University Library (U Library). According to HK01's campus-culture report^※, its official name is "Chung Gate" (仲門, also rendered in English as "Gate of Wisdom"), created by the noted Hong Kong sculptor Ju Ming (朱銘), in the form of two tall, freestanding columns resembling a watching gateway. The work's year of creation, the donation by then-CUHK architect Szeto Wai (司徒惠), and the full history behind its 2006 renaming are covered in ju-ming-gate-and-pavilion-of-harmony.md; this section covers only the legend itself.

# 1.2 The graduation legend (⚠ folk-circulated)

According to the HK01 report^※, several versions of the student legend surround "Chung Gate":

• Version A: walking through "Chung Gate" from the direction of the Library toward the Science Centre will make you unable to graduate; walking the other way (from the Science Centre toward the Library) will supposedly earn you first-class honours.
• Version B (a later variant): walking through "Chung Gate" in either direction will make you unable to graduate.
• Version C (the sculptor's own response): Ju Ming is reported to have returned to campus around 2006 for renovation work on the sculpture and, upon hearing of the legend, renamed it "Chung Gate," with the English title "Gate of Wisdom," to signal that the work was originally meant to symbolise "success through passing a threshold" — that walking through it should bring good fortune, the opposite of the "cannot graduate" story. In December 2011, Ju Ming again shared his creative intentions at a CUHK lecture, once more setting his account against the legend.

The extent to which this legend has circulated is well documented (Hong Kong media have recorded it repeatedly), but its truth cannot be verified; it belongs to a typical strand of campus folk culture and should not be cited as fact. One point worth noting: even after the creator himself tried to "correct the record," the legend kept circulating on its own logic — which suggests that the staying power of a campus legend often has less to do with whether an "official account" exists than with whether it keeps being retold, and self-propagated, class after class of new students.

# 1.3 The 2008 near-demolition: the library expansion plan and the student defence

Beyond the legend, "Chung Gate" also went through a real crisis over whether it would continue to exist. According to the Wikipedia entry on "Chung Gate"^※, in 2008, as the four-year curriculum reform brought a larger student intake, the university planned to expand the University Library, and then-Vice-Chancellor Lawrence J. Lau (劉遵義) at one point proposed temporarily demolishing "Beacon Tower" to make room for the construction — news of which prompted strong opposition from CUHK students.

The student opposition ultimately had an effect: the sculpture was not demolished and still stands at its original site in front of the Library entrance today; a subsequent University Library document, titled "Beacon Tower retained intact," recorded this outcome. This episode is rarely folded into the "graduation legend" narrative, yet it is the only recorded instance in "Chung Gate's" campus history in which the sculpture's physical survival was actually at risk — compared with the fictional "cannot graduate" curse, a demolition proposal on an engineering blueprint was the one genuine brush with disappearance this sculpture has had.

---

# II. The Goddess of Democracy (2010–2021): a fraught "tolerance," then a quiet removal

# 2.1 From Tiananmen to Washington, to being detained on a Hong Kong street

According to the English Wikipedia article^※, a "Goddess of Democracy" statue once stood on the campus of The Chinese University of Hong Kong. It was a replica of the original Goddess of Democracy statue erected in Beijing's Tiananmen Square in May 1989 (the original, made of foam and papier-mâché, was destroyed on 4 June 1989), created by the Chinese-American sculptor Chen Weiming (陳維明):

• The statue stood about 6.4 metres tall and was cast in a bronze-imitation material;
• In 2008, the statue had been displayed in front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington;
• On 29 May 2010, Hong Kong police, citing suspected violations of the Places of Public Entertainment Ordinance, detained two replica statues (a 6.4-metre bronze-imitation figure and a 2.2-metre white one) at Times Square in Causeway Bay; on 1–2 June, police released the statues, citing a "gesture of goodwill," but when the sculptor Chen Weiming himself arrived in Hong Kong, he was refused entry — according to Hong Kong Democratic Party legislator James To (涂謹申), Immigration Department officers questioned Chen about the purpose of his visit and then「直接將其遣返」("simply sent him back").

The statue's "arrival" was troubled from the start — before it had even set foot on campus, it had already gone through both police detention and its sculptor's own refused entry.

# 2.2 CUHK's fraught path from refusal to "tolerance"

According to the sources, the statue's placement on the CUHK campus went through a clear sequence of "university refuses — students protest — university relents":

• On 29 May 2010, the CUHK Students' Union submitted an application to the university requesting permanent display of the statue on campus;
• On 1 June 2010, CUHK's Committee on Administration and Planning unanimously decided not to approve the request; the university stated publicly that it needed to maintain 「政治中立」("political neutrality") and avoid activities of a 「政治性質」("political nature");
• Following the refusal, student protest and public pressure followed;
• On the night of 4 June 2010 (the anniversary of 4 June), more than 2,000 CUHK students and members of the public escorted the statue onto campus after the candlelight vigil in Victoria Park — under this pressure, the university changed its position and tolerated the statue's placement, on a "temporary" basis, in the plaza near the University MTR station.

The weight of the word "tolerance": looking closely at the timeline, CUHK never actually "approved" the statue's permanent display — it first explicitly refused (1 June 2010), then, under pressure from an escort of thousands and public opinion, "tolerated" its temporary presence (4 June 2010). This back-and-forth of "refusal, then tolerance" is precisely the root of the statue's status remaining ambiguous for the following eleven years: from the outset it was never a campus exhibit approved through formal process, but a fait accompli "tolerated" under protest pressure. This same thread is consistent with the legal basis the university later cited for its 2021 removal ("never authorised"), discussed below.

# 2.3 Eleven years: from tolerated placement to a quiet disappearance

The statue subsequently stood on the CUHK campus for more than eleven years. According to the sources, on 5 October 2014, during the Umbrella Movement, demonstrators erected a male figure holding an umbrella beside the Goddess of Democracy statue, placed alongside it in a nod to the social movement of the time.

On the night of 23–24 December 2021, according to a report by Radio Free Asia (RFA)^※, the University of Hong Kong acted first, secretly removing the "Pillar of Shame" (created by the Danish artist Jens Galschiøt (高志活)), a memorial to 4 June, from its campus in the late night of 22 December to the early hours of 23 December; just one day later, on the morning of 24 December (Christmas Eve), CUHK sent staff to remove the Goddess of Democracy statue, which had stood on campus for more than eleven years — two universities' 4 June memorials disappeared within a span of two days, which public commentary regarded as sequential steps in the same wave of "clearing."

• CUHK issued a statement saying the university had never authorised the display of the statue on campus — according to the sources, the statement also noted that after receiving the Students' Union's 2010 application, the Committee on Administration and Planning had unanimously decided not to approve it, and that the removal was a "management act" concerning a fait accompli that had never been formally approved;
• After the removal, according to media reports, some students made small replicas of the statue in response, with organisers describing this as「一種反叛行為」("an act of rebellion") — because the university「從學生手中拿走了雕像」("took the statue away from the students");
• The near-simultaneous disappearance of HKU's "Pillar of Shame" and CUHK's "Goddess of Democracy" also brought a cross-border complication: according to reports, the sculptor of the Pillar of Shame subsequently entered a protracted dispute with HKU over the statue's fate, hoping it could be relocated to Taiwan.

# 2.3.1 The night of removal: three-way reaction and spontaneous mourning

Within hours of the statue's removal, multiple parties issued statements, with a speed and density beyond what is typical for the replacement of a campus facility:

• The CUHK General Union of Staff issued a statement that same night saying it was「深感愕然」("deeply astonished") and「深感不滿」("deeply dissatisfied") with the university's action. According to the union's statement^※, the union noted that the statue had been escorted onto campus in 2010 by more than a thousand staff, students, and members of the public, and symbolised freedom of expression and shared campus governance; the university had not consulted staff and students for consensus, chose to remove it during a campus break when foot traffic was sparse, and afterwards did not disclose the statue's whereabouts to staff or students — the union considered this action「並不尊重」("not respectful of") staff and student wishes;
• In the early hours of 25 December, according to a report reposted by the CUHK Student Press^※, fourteen student organisations across six institutions — including CUHK, HKUST, PolyU, Lingnan University, EdUHK, and Shue Yan — jointly issued the "Joint Statement of the Tertiary Student Sector on Various Institutions' Forcible Removal of 4 June Memorial Statues," calling on the universities to disclose the whereabouts of the statues; CUHK student groups separately issued a statement titled "Defend Campus Autonomy — Autocratic Rule by the Top Is Shameful," with both statements demanding the university publicly explain its decision-making process;
• The sculptor Chen Weiming responded that the university had never contacted him prior to the action, and criticised the university's choice to remove the statue at night as 「見不得人」("not fit to be seen");
• That night, members of the public spontaneously gathered at the statue's original site to mourn: according to a report by The Epoch Times^※, members of the public lit candles, laid flowers and photographs of the statue at the site, and left messages including 「哀我中大」("Alas for our CUHK") and 「民女去咗邊」("Where has the Goddess gone").

Though the parties' wording differed, all pointed to the same focal point: the statue's "tolerated" status was never formally established — which is both the legal basis the university cited for removing it as "never authorised," and precisely the point of contention the union and student groups raised in questioning the university's action as taken "without consultation." The same ambiguous status was invoked by both sides, and each drew an opposite conclusion from it.

The parties' positions, side by side:

Per the university's statement, the university never approved the display of the statue; the 2010 application was also unanimously rejected by the Committee on Administration and Planning; the removal was a management act concerning a fait accompli that had never been authorised;

Per students and supporters, the statue had stood for more than eleven years and carried significant historical and commemorative meaning; its removal amounted to suppression of historical memory, and the manner of removal — chosen for the early hours of Christmas Eve, without prior notice — drew criticism in its own right;

To date, neither side's position has changed.

# 2.4 Historical background and context (per §6.2 note)

The political background of the Goddess of Democracy statue — the 4 June 1989 events and the subsequent evolution of Hong Kong's political situation — is highly politically sensitive material. This article records only the statue's physical history at CUHK (how it arrived, how long it stood, how it was removed) and each party's publicly issued statements; extended discussion of the political situation from 2019 onward is, per this archive's rules, not covered in this article — see Module 18 · Source Directory.

---

# III. The 2007 CUHK Student Press "erotic section" controversy

According to the Wikipedia record^※, in May 2007, the CUHK Student Press (CUSP) drew widespread attention in Hong Kong society after publishing an "erotic section" that included sexuality-related surveys. This publication's institutional history (its 1967 origins as a joint publication of the three founding colleges, its 1971 affiliation with the Students' Union, and its 2021 reorganisation into the University Community Press) and its comparison with University Line are covered in student-media-and-press-freedom.md; this section covers only the timeline of this particular controversy.

Points of contention: the boundary of freedom of expression and press freedom, the university's responsibility toward student media, and media intervention into an autonomous student publication.

# 3.1 How the High Court ruled: a procedural question, not a verdict on content

According to the Wikipedia record^※, the matter originated when the Obscene Articles Tribunal, on 15 May 2007, provisionally classified the "erotic section" of the student press's February and March 2007 issues as Class II "indecent" material; the student press editorial board subsequently applied to the Eastern Magistrates' Courts for a review of the classification, and the case was heard on 6 July the same year. Counsel for the student press argued that the Tribunal's hearing procedure had violated due process, and the case was transferred to the High Court.

On 21 October 2008, the High Court judge ruled that the interim classification order was invalid and quashed the relevant classification applications against the CUHK Student Press and Ming Pao; both the student press and Ming Pao welcomed the ruling. Per the background set out in the judgment, the court's central focus was whether the classification procedure itself was lawful, rather than a direct ruling on whether the content of the "erotic section" was appropriate — which is also why this case is often cited as a Hong Kong freedom-of-expression precedent: what it established was a precedent on procedural legitimacy, not a "vindication" of the disputed content itself.

# 3.2 Disciplinary handling: an "undisciplined" case left unresolved

According to the CUHK official press release^※, CUHK's Senate Committee on Student Discipline reached its conclusion on this matter on 12 March 2008, handling the two consecutive editorial boards separately:

• Regarding the 37th editorial board (covering the April 2007 issue): the committee found the allegations against the then Editor-in-Chief, Mr. Tsang, not substantiated, and imposed no discipline;
• Regarding the 36th editorial board (covering the February and March 2007 issues): the committee noted that the editor concerned had already left the university for unrelated reasons during the 2007–08 academic year and was no longer a student, so the disciplinary committee no longer had jurisdiction to impose discipline, and the case was accordingly closed.

The official press release also quoted the committee's view that 「部分期數中『情色版』的部分內容，已逾越社會普遍接受的規範」("some content in the 'erotic section' of certain issues exceeded generally accepted social norms"). While the committee did not discipline any individual student, it nonetheless expressed reservations about the content itself. This stance of "disciplining no individual, yet not endorsing the content" is consistent with the university's earlier position of "not disciplining, yet refusing to withdraw the warning letter" — in the end, neither side was found to have "won" or "lost" outright in this dispute.

Positions of the parties: the university responded with the subtle stance of "no discipline, yet no withdrawal of the warning letter," preserving its authority to judge the boundaries of academic and expressive conduct; the student side maintained that autonomous publication should not be subject to university control; public opinion was divided, with some supporting freedom of expression and others holding that the content exceeded public decency norms. The High Court ruling stands as the final legal conclusion, but the disciplinary-level disagreement was not fully resolved by that ruling.

---

# IV. A common thread across three episodes: who gets to define "normal"?

Placing the Beacon Tower legend, the Goddess of Democracy, and the student press controversy side by side reveals a faint common thread: all three concern who has the authority to define the meaning of a thing.

• Beacon Tower: the "wisdom" meaning the artist assigned, and the "taboo" narrative the student body collectively imagined, have long coexisted, with neither displacing the other; the 2008 library expansion plan, which nearly led to its demolition and was ultimately reversed by student opposition, was the one time this contest over "whose account counts" actually reached the level of the sculpture's physical survival;
• The Goddess of Democracy: the Students' Union's application for "permanent display" and the university's insistence that it was "never authorised" remained in tension across eleven years of tolerance and eventual removal; the joint response from the staff union and fourteen student organisations on the night of removal shows that this contest did not end when the statue was carried away — it merely shifted from "whether the statue should be there" to "how the removal should have been done";
• The student press: the tension between student autonomy in editorial matters and the university's and public opinion's differing understanding of the boundary of "public decency" was ultimately left to the courts. But what the High Court resolved was whether the classification procedure was lawful; the disciplinary committee's stance of "no discipline, yet still expressing reservations" shows that the question of "whether the content was right or wrong" never truly reached a final resolution.

None of the three episodes has a single common adjudicator: the sculptor's attempt to set the record straight could not override the students' oral tradition; the university's management decision could not persuade the staff union and student groups; the court's procedural ruling did not settle the disciplinary-level disagreement either. This archive records only the factual threads of the three episodes and the statements made by each party — it does not render a verdict for any side.

Related reading: Ju Ming's "Gate of Wisdom" and New Asia's "Pavilion of Harmony," researched, CUHK's student media lineage, More landmarks: towers, malls, and lakes, Hill-city feng shui legends and campus taboos.

---