论文部分内容阅读
国家教育部曾于2004年下发通知,明确要求:各高校应加强学生校外租房的管理,原则上不允许学生自行在校外租房居住。尽管该项“禁租令”遭到多方面的质疑,但还是在各高校中普遍实施。时隔一年后,教育部又在一项学生管理通知中回避了这项禁止性规定,于是人们便根据“法无禁止即自由”的逻辑推断出原先的“禁租令”已被解除。然而,富有戏剧性的是,2007年7月教育部又下发文件重申了2004年通知的精神,是为“禁租令”的复出。这前前后后的变化,激发了媒体和学界的兴趣。不过目前的讨论大凡流于时事性点评。我们应当进一步打开视野,联想到一系列类似现象(如许多城市禁止行乞、禁止燃放烟花爆竹,禁止街头摆设摊点等),发掘出现象背后的理念冲突、价值对立和多元利益的博弈。
In 2004, the Ministry of Education issued a circular clearly stipulating that all colleges and universities should strengthen the management of students’ renting houses outside of their school. In principle, students are not permitted to rent houses outside their own homes. Although the “prohibition order” has been questioned in many ways, it is still widely practiced in all colleges and universities. A year later, the Ministry of Education again avoided the prohibition in a student management notice, so that people would infer the original “prohibition order” based on the logic that “the law does not prohibit freedom” Has been lifted. What is dramatic, however, is that in July 2007, the Ministry of Education issued a further document reaffirming the spirit of the 2004 circular as a “resignation prohibition order.” This change has aroused media and academic interest. However, the current discussion generally flows in current affairs comment. We should further open our minds and think of a series of similar phenomena (such as prohibiting begging in many cities, banning the release of firecrackers and banning street stalls, etc.) and discover the concept conflict, the value opposite and the multi-interest game behind the phenomenon.