In recent days, a former doctoral student surnamed Yang from a college at Nankai University once again went viral online. This time, a media outlet from the “Southern camp” did its usual thing—the headline featured the word “kneeling,” quite the attention-grabber. I genuinely do not understand: what are the cultural roots of resorting to kneeling in an institution of higher learning to seek certain benefits?
Take the officialdom, for instance. Such behavior would be commonplace—after all, for a very long stretch of history, kneeling before officials was standard practice. Only by kneeling could one sincerely beseech the “wise magistrate” to take charge and perhaps have one’s wishes fulfilled. But historically, there seem to be very few cases of people kneeling to beg a teacher for a diploma. Confucius took on so many disciples, yet there’s no record of anyone crying and kneeling to beg to be accepted. Such behavior is truly rare in the world of education. The principle of “winning hearts and minds” that governed interactions among the literati seems to have vanished in modern times—even knowing a few characters and being able to write a few sentences would have qualified one as a member of the “shi” (scholar) class in ancient times.
Yang’s approach is highly inadvisable. The reporter’s writing is rather interesting—selectively ignoring many key factors. One has to wonder whether the reporter assumes all readers never went to school, or whether the writer himself never did. From the article, it becomes clear that the reporter wants to convey that the critical turning point in the escalating conflict was Yang going to Singapore for research, and that this was done without his supervisor’s approval. In other words, Yang went abroad for research without authorization, refused to communicate with his supervisor, and then his father went to the university behind his back to try to smooth things over. If my student dared to do such a thing, I would dismiss them too. Anyone who has been through an academic graduate program should know the consequences of such behavior. Yet this reporter did not present the gravity of the situation and even seemed to suggest that Yang’s overseas research was a good thing—or perhaps a demonstration of his superior research ability. This kind of obfuscating narrative is a common tactic among the anti-TCM crowd. It seems these media outlets haven’t changed their true colors—anything that can undermine China’s fundamental moral standards, they will undermine. They simply have too much time on their hands and are entirely untrustworthy.
The reporter also propagated a deeply misguided set of values, as if China’s higher education system were still riddled with “personal connections” and favoritism—like standing outside the school gates à la “Cheng Men Li Xue” (waiting in the snow at a master’s door), insisting on meeting with leaders to plead one’s child’s case in hopes of turning the tide, or perhaps offering bribes to leave some leverage. Such so-called unwritten rules are glorified in this reporter’s prose, as if everything were determined by human factors, and institutional regulations were merely used to rationalize the outcomes of personal connections. There is no doubt that this makes for good copy—after all, ordinary people still tend to believe that officials wield absolute power, and the natural impression created is that Yang suffered considerable unfair treatment at Nankai. Then comes the explosive revelation of “kneeling,” making the supervisor seem like a god holding the power of life and death, and Yang apparently having failed to offer sufficient tributes over the years, thereby offending divine authority, being forced to withdraw, and having no choice but to kneel for sympathy and to demand his degree back. It carries quite the air of “laying down one’s butcher’s knife and becoming a Buddha on the spot.”
Beyond this “provocation” of teacher-student ethics and “exposure” of hidden rules, the reporter also tried to challenge the fairness of the legal system. After finding that kneeling didn’t work, Yang sued the university. The judge was reportedly bewildered—such cases are uncommon—and because the statute of limitations had expired, the case was simply not accepted for review. Yet the word the reporter used in the article was “lost the lawsuit.” This is nothing less than a frame-up of the socialist legal system. A case that cannot be heard, that was never accepted—where does “lost the lawsuit” come from? Furthermore, the article quoted Yang’s mother as saying that court personnel privately told her the university was in the wrong. This kind of rhetoric, commonly seen in international politics, has been thoroughly exposed by the Trump administration. This reporter really ought to pay attention and learn a thing or two.
In reality, Yang’s case is quite simple: he went abroad for an internship without authorization, refused to communicate with his supervisor, and submitted fraudulent leave-of-absence documents, which ultimately led his supervisor to refuse to sign his reinstatement application. At any university in the world, such a situation would make normal graduation impossible. The kneeling was nothing more than a performance.
中文原文 / Chinese Original
近几日，南开大学某学院原博士生杨某同学在网上又一次火了，这次南方系媒体异常给力，题目中使用了”下跪”字眼，颇为吸引眼球。我着实不明白，在高等学府里依靠下跪来求得某些利益，他的文化根源究竟是什么？
举例来说，如果是在官场，这种事情可谓屡见不鲜，毕竟历史上相当长的一段时间内见了官都是要跪的，跪下了才能真心实意请求青天大老爷做主，才有可能让自己的愿望得以实现。但是，历史上似乎很少有跪求教书先生给个文凭的，孔子收了那么多徒弟，没听说哪个是哭着喊着跪着想要孔子收他为徒的，这种行为在教育界着实罕见。文人间攻心为上的交往原则似乎在现代都消失不见了，毕竟但凡认识几个字，会写几句话，在古代都能算上”士”这个阶层。
杨同学的做法是十分不可取的，记者的文笔很有意思，选择性忽略了许多关键因素，不知道是觉得天下读者都没上过学，还是写文章的人自己没上过学。从文章中可以清晰地发现，记者想传递出矛盾激化的重要节点是杨同学去新加坡做科研，而这个行为没有得到导师的认可，也就说是杨同学私自出国做研究，拒绝与导师联系，然后他爹在他反对的情况下私下去学校做善后工作，如果我的学生敢做这种事情，也得退学，任何一个读过学术型研究生的人都应该知道这种行为的代价和后果是什么。但是这位记者没有陈述其中的利害，似乎还觉得杨同学出国做研究是一件好事，或者说是他高超科研能力的一种体现，这样混淆视听的文字描述在中医黑群体中是常用手段，可见这帮媒体依旧本性不改，只要是能挑拨中国根本道德标准的事情必须挑拨，简直是闲的没事干，压根不值得信任。
这个记者还传递了一种非常不正确的价值观，就是仿佛中国的高等教育中还存在许多”人情关系”，比如见在学校门口程门立雪，非得跟领导见面陈述一下孩子的事情，试图扳回一局，或者贿赂贿赂留下个把柄啥的，这种所谓的潜规则在这个记者的笔下可为熠熠生辉，仿佛很多事情都是人为因素决定的，规章制度知识用来解释”人情关系”的结果罢了。毫无疑问，这是一个很好的卖点，毕竟老百姓还是觉得”官老爷”权力滔天，仿佛杨同学在南开受到了颇多不公平待遇一样，自然而然地就会挺身而出，又抛出了”下跪”这样爆炸性的行为，似乎导师就是一个手握生杀大权的神一般，杨同学一定是这些年上贡不足，触犯天威，被迫退学，只能靠下跪来博得同情，顺便要回学位，颇有放下屠刀立地成佛的架势。
除了以上对师生道德的”挑衅”和潜规则的”揭发”，这个记者还试图挑战法制公平。杨同学在发现下跪不管用之后就告发学校，法官表示很懵，这种情况不常见，但因为起诉的时间已经超过了法律时效，所以压根就没审理。但是，文章中记者使用的词汇是”败诉”，这简直就是对社会主义法制的栽赃陷害，一个无法审理的案件，没有受理的案件，何来”败诉”之说，此外在文中还引用了其母亲的观点，说法院人士私下说学校做的不对，这种在国际政治中常见的措辞方法已经被川普政府揭了个底朝天，这个记者得注意学习了。
其实杨某同学的事情非常简单，私自出国实习，拒绝与导师联系，提交虚假休学材料，最终用导致导师拒绝在其复学申请上签字，无论在世界上任何一个学校，这种情况都无法正常毕业，下跪只能是表演罢了。
发表回复