A child in secondary school has failed in his high court battle against the marking scheme for the Leaving Certificate Mandarin Chinese exam. The student took issue with the system, arguing it was biased towards users of simplified Mandarin characters, rather than traditional ones used in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau. The unnamed student, originally from Taiwan, alleged that the curriculum required answers to be in simplified Mandarin, common in Singapore, Malaysia and China predominantly.
The student’s lawsuit, pursued through his mother, claimed this method was discriminatory towards those who utilise traditional characters; he also alleged that the Education Minister had illicitly consulted with China’s Ministry for Education concerning the preparation of the curriculum. These accusations were refuted by the defendants, which included the Education Minister, the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, the State Examination Commissions of Ireland, and the Attorney General.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons dismissed the case, stating the student couldn’t prove any violations of the 1998 Education Act’s stipulations in the marking scheme. He ruled that while some test-takers might have an initial advantage based on their heritage, this did not equate to discrimination.
All candidates would have equal chances to prepare and their performances would be judged objectively based on the same syllabus and marking scheme. In his verdict, he criticised the manner in which linguistic experts offered evidence, rebuking them for assuming the role of advocate.
He also expressed disapproval of the volume of evidence presented by the plaintiff, stating that it exceeded the amount permissible under expert evidence regulations. One expert witness was specifically mentioned, who on several occasions deemed the marking scheme as discriminatory and exclusionary, indicating strong political beliefs about the choice of script system.
The judge suggested that the expert’s intense political positions diminish her impartiality as a linguistics expert witness. Therefore, her provided evidence in this capacity cannot be heavily relied upon in court.