港大校委會正式否決陳文敏的副校長任命，是一次可恥的政治打壓。校委會以保密為理由拒絕透露會議細節，意圖掩飾多名委員的各種荒謬藉口，偏偏欲蓋彌彰。
陳文敏專長於研究人權、憲制及行政法，曾被選為香港十大傑出青年，曾獲人權新聞獎，更是回歸後首位獲委任為名譽身份的資深大律師。但自從他參與四十五條關注組，批評二十三條立法起，便漸漸受到政府打壓（包括列入黑名單被拒入澳門）。他曾公開批評律政司司長袁國強在任大律師公會主席期間從未對捍衞法治議題表態，又越洋質疑特首應否兼任校監，因而被視為與梁振英政府唱反調。
其作為港大法律學院院長在戴耀廷收受匿名捐款一事上代表學院接收捐款；並多次要求港大公開有關事件的調查報告，更令他受到建制派猛烈抨擊，指他包庇戴耀廷，甚至在幕後支持佔中。
港大於2014年5月公開招聘副校長，遴選委員會於2014年12月一致推薦由陳文敏出任學術人事及資源副校長, 是物色委員會推薦的唯一人選。不過，當校委會於今年2月委任另外兩名新副校長時，卻沒有同時委任學術人事及資源副校長一職。當審議該職一事終於進入議程，校委會即一改常態，要求投「暗票」表決，先於6月30日及7月28日分別作出要「等埋首席副校長」的不尋常決定，最後在昨天（9月29日）以8票贊成對12票反對，否決了討論陳文敏接任副校長職務議程決定。
有關決定，不但違反以往的委任決議程序，更有侵害院校自主和學術自由之嫌。公民黨法律界議員郭榮鏗證實，從兩名法律學院的教授口中得悉特首和行會成員曾游說港大董事會成員不要委任陳文敏出任副校長。中央政策組顧問高靜芝也承認，可能在茶餘飯後與人討論過副校長人選這議題。
《基本法》第137條列明「各院校均可保留其自主並享有學術自由」，我們必須反思大學的管理架構、管理層間的關係和組成，以捍衛香港各高等院校的獨立性，保護校園內的研究人員以及莘莘學子在創造、傳播及學習知識之時不受政治干擾。
而港大校委會以「保密慣例」及「集體決定」等所謂程序隱瞞決策依據，正是政治打壓的標準手段，猶如之前行會否決港視牌照，乖離公義，必須受到社會公眾的嚴厲譴責。梁振英領導下的特區政府，視法治為無物；此等口講法治，實質上以法律和程序作為政治打壓工具的卑劣行為，正在社會不同層面擴散蔓延，全民除了警惕提防，更需要團結力量糾正歪風。
The HKU Council has formally vetoed the appointment of Prof. Johannes Chan Man-mun as pro-vice-chancellor. We hold that this decision amounts to a shameful act of political persecution. The council stated that details of the meeting will not be made transparent due to the confidential nature of the proceedings, yet this only betrays the council’s desperate attempt in obfuscating the public from scrutinising the ridiculous reasons raised by pro-Beijing councillors in vetoing Prof. Chan’s appointment.
Prof. Chan is an ardent scholar of Human Rights, Constitutional and administrative law. He received the JCI Hong Kong Ten Outstanding Young Persons award and the Human rights press award, and was the first person to be appointed as Honorary Senior Council after the turnover. However, since his involvement with the Article 45 concern group and his damning critique on article 23, he has experienced various level of political persecution (being denied entry to Macau). He has publicly criticised SJ Rimsky Yuen for his weak position on upholding the rule of law during Rimsky’s role as chairman of the bar association and have questioned whether CY Leung should continue his role as chancellor of HKU, as such is seen as being vehemently opposing the current regime. The pro-establishment camp has repeatedly accused Prof. Chan for supporting Benny Tai, when an anonymous donation was made to Benny Tai and he received it in his role as the faculty’s Dean, they made the leap in logic to accuse Chan of supporting Occupy Central from behind the curtains.
The University of Hong Kong openly recruited 5 pro-vice-chancellors in May of 2014. The Search Committee reached a unanimous decision on December 2014 to recommend Prof. Johannes Chan Man-mun to take up the post of pro-vice-chancellor in charge of overseeing academic staffing and resources. He was the only candidate recommended by the Search committee. However, when the HKU council appointed two new pro-vice-chancellors in Feb 2015 they purposefully omitted the appointment of the pro-vice-chancellor overseeing academic staffing and resources. When the deliberation of this appointment was finally on the meeting agenda, the council made a highly unusual decision of requesting the votes to remain hidden. During 30th June and 28th July the council coined the now infamous “wait-for-provost” motion and on September 29th with 8 for and 12 voting against the motion, Prof. Chan was not appointed as pro-vice-chancellor.
This decision is not only made in violation to established deliberation procedures, it is a direct assault on the self determination of HKU and has shaken the very foundation of academic freedom. Dennis Kwok, legislative councillor and Civic Party member, stated that he has received verbal confirmation from two professors from the faculty of law that the Chief Executive and Executive council members have persuaded the council not to appoint Prof. Chan as pro-vice-chancellor. Kao Ching-Chi Sophia, consultant to the Central Policy Unit, also admitted that she has “casually” spoken to certain people regarding the appointment of Prof. Chan.
Article 137 of the Basic Law clearly stipulates “educational institute … may retain their autonomy and enjoy academic freedom.” We must now reflect on the university’s governance structure, the background and relationship between members of its management. We must stand and safeguard the autonomy of our educational institutes; we must ensure that the students, the teachers and the researchers be free from political interference and other forms of gerrymandering by the establishment.
The HKU council ridiculous reasons in using “confidentiality” and “collective decision” to obfuscate details of the deliberation is further evidence that this is an overt act of political persecution. The SAR government led by CY Leung has repeatedly trampled on the rule of law; they have by degrading the law and making it a mere rhetorical device. They have even gone so far as to manipulate the law in persecuting those with a dissenting voice. We the people must take a stand before this virus is spread to all facets of our society.
全民反政治打壓運動參與團體（陸續更新）
1. 傘下爸媽
2. 學聯
3. 民陣
4. 文化監暴
5. 社民連
6. 保自聯
7. 617民間特首
8. 工黨
9. 公民黨
10. 撐傘落區
11. 港民領域
12. 職工盟
13. 拾念
14. Umdotdotdot
15. 民主黨
16. 基督徒社關團契
17. 社會主義行動