Think @chris_in_hk would have a field day with what's happening in the UK!
...well, one way that it's obviously different is that the school is nowhere near as explicit (that's another word for discriminatory) about the attributes of the person they're seeking to hire - The school want's someone from overseas to bring some international flair to an otherwise culturally homogenous learning experience a.n.d. they know that having that person be able to pronounce their words and sing their songs in an internationally recognisable form of English, rather than 'Chinglish' will bring a dimension that a 'non-foreigner' will not.
Dare we call non-foreigners Chinese? Or is that discriminatory? Because I can guarantee they would get far more complaints if they labelled their ad 'no Chinese' rather than 'no non-foreigners'
And herein lies the rub, the people who complain, typically complain about the language used; Not that local parents want their kids to communicate in English as though they went to school in California rather than in Causeway bay; that desire is perfectly acceptable, as mostexcellent has pointed out....
I just can't see that anyone who has a vested interest (the employer, the inegible candidates or the eligible candidates) in this, actually really care.
Attempting to the get the ad changed is a petty victory, it's still utterly reasonable to want a foreigner for the role. The ad as is, is just simply the best way to convey that message, any other variation of that language isn't as targeted nor as easy to understand. They pay their money to get the best response. Whenever you detract from the clarity of the message the response is diluted.
Naturally all of us, who are PR holders here will always be foreigners in HK... how does that square? Is it not a more accurate description of the basket you fit into than 'local' or HK'er? Does one crave a different label for oneself? if not, why not?
And Alan Zeman/Mike Rouse?