President Obama tells CBS News: I’m going to call Republicans’ bluff on deficit — I want to see their ideas
The most discussed interview on Sunday morning television is bound to be President Barack Obama’s chat with Harry Smith on “CBS Sunday Morning.” It airs at 9 a.m. on WKMG-Channel 6 and continues on Monday’s edition of “The Early Show” at 7 a.m.
Obama discusses the war in Afghanistan, the resurgence of the U.S. auto industry and the Arizona immigration law, according to CBS News. But Obama’s thoughts about the economy will probably generate the headlines. CBS News released these excerpts this afternoon.
“We’ve put together a small business package that is as bipartisan a set of ideas as you can imagine,” Obama tells Smith. “And these are all what historically have been not just Democratic ideas but Republican ideas. And all we’ve been hearing is no from the other side in the Senate. I am stunned that you can’t get any Republican support for ideas that have been traditionally championed by not just Democrats but Republicans. And it’s a sign of how politics is getting in the way of good decisions that will put our country in a much stronger position.”
Obama adds: “We’re going to have to focus on our fiscal situation. We’ve got a lot of debt. We’ve got a lot of deficit. Now the Republicans have said that this is their No. 1 concern. I’m going to call them on their bluff. I want to see their ideas for how we’re going to deal with these issues. I’m going to have a bunch of ideas.”
On the Arizona issue, Obama says:
“We want to work with Arizona. I understand the frustration of people in Arizona. But what we can’t do is demagogue the issue. And what we can’t do is allow a patchwork of 50 different states, or cities or localities, where anybody who wants to make a name for themselves suddenly says, ‘I’m going to be anti-immigrant and I’m going try to see if I can solve the problem our self.’ This is a national problem.”
‘The View’ scores biggest audience ever with Barack Obama
Some pundits complained that President Barack Obama’s visit to “The View” was too frivolous.
But the folks at the ABC chatfest aren’t complaining in any way.
Obama brought the show its biggest audience ever: 6.59 million viewers. The previous peak was the day after the 2008 election, when 6.17 million tuned in.
Walters crowed in a release: “We were honored to have President Obama on ‘The View.’ The ratings indicate that our show continues to break new ground. ‘The View’ has proven to be an important stop for political candidates and is appointment television for our loyal audience who value our opposing views.”
Obama is shown with Walters, left, and Joy Behar in the AFP/Getty Images photo.
“The View” airs at 11 a.m. weekdays on WFTV-Ch. 9.
Wang Hui, Plagiarism, and the Great Bourgeois Academic Cultural Revolution
By Susan D. Blum
Another revolution is afoot in China, and it might even be considered cultural. But this one is about academic culture, as China’s slow-moving iceberg floats up against the glacial mass of “international” (read: Western) principles. The fallout is fascinating for observers, though in some cases tragic for the participants.
In recent months Qinghua University professor Wang Hui has been attacked for having committed academic misconduct in his dissertation in the 1980s (see coverage at Global Voices Online, China Beat, and Xinhuanet). Centenary College in New Jersey has shuttered a graduate business program in China because so many of its students plagiarized. China Daily has an article about “Academic Corruption Undermining Higher Education.” Philip Altbach writes a blog post in Inside Higher Ed about “Academic Fraud and the Academic Culture in China—and Asia.” Faculty in US universities write distraught responses to all this, detailing how many of their Asian (not just Chinese) students commit academic fraud or plagiarism. The Economist takes on academic misconduct in China.
What is going on?
Is this a moral panic—a sudden focus on a concrete episode or bit of conduct representing an outlet for more generalized anxieties, often about social change?
Is this a case of genuine cultural difference, in which ideas of authorship and educational efficacy, authority and deference, differ between nations?
Is this a case of China-bashing, of Westerners seizing upon a misdeed and generalizing, gleefully, from the tendency of a few within China to act improperly?
Is this a case of many individuals knowingly violating accepted and proper norms?
The answer to all these questions should be obvious: It depends.
I’d like to begin by reminding you that “plagiarism” has at least two meanings, one of which is inadvertently omitting citation or reference to a source (or doing so imperfectly), and the other of which is deliberately incorporating material from another’s work and passing it off as one’s own, knowing that this will mislead readers. Students are more likely to commit the former, and professionals the latter. These two types of plagiarism might be considered more appropriately “improper citation” and “deliberate plagiarism, or fraud.” These two types of misdeeds should be treated with different types of responses; the first is best addressed through education. The second perhaps should be punished, though it rarely is.
China is in the midst of a great upheaval in terms of higher education and intellectual work in general. Now second only to the US, China’s scientific research productivity is on track to be the highest in the world (see this article at the New York Times and this “Room for Debate” discussion for more on the topic). Chinese attendance in higher education has risen from about 400,000 in 1978 to almost 4.5 million in 2004 (and more since then), in large part at private, not public, institutions. Many students are trying to get through their student years however they can, knowing—or at least hoping—that their career prospects will improve if they have a degree. (Credentialism leads to fraud and corner-cutting in education everywhere.)
The number of universities and colleges in China has increased, and the number of faculty has more than quadrupled. The pressure to publish is extraordinary, and many faculty are obliging.
But they may not be writing exactly as their Western colleagues do, and nowhere is that more evident than in citation practices.
As late as the 1990s, attribution and citation were rudimentary; a seminal book might be nodded to, and the works of Marx-Lenin-Mao would be cited out of self-protection. A scholarly book might have a dozen or so citations, and rarely a bibliography. The entire scholarly apparatus that Western/US scholars take for granted was missing. Footnotes were few (See Anthony Grafton, The Footnote, 1999). There was an assumption that 1) experts would have read the same material and would be familiar with it and 2) ownership of and credit for ideas was in some sense a bourgeois relic.
The “Western” notion of academic conduct is the momentary constellation of centuries of events, from the growth of higher education to the birth of the idea of the Romantic author and individuality that stems from the Renaissance and other events. It would be possible to imagine an entirely different way of valuing contributions to teaching and researching, but we take for granted that our way is the proper way. (Many scholars of intellectual property, language, and literature/art question the possibility of originality to the extent that our intellectual property laws express, but we approximate them nonetheless.)
Of course, whether our ideas of intellectual credit are arbitrary or culturally constructed or whatever, like all social contracts (think of marriage!), we are obliged follow them. (Except when people don’t, which also happens in the West, of course.)
There is another value at play here: the goal of attaining desired ends by any means possible. I have written about the tendency to focus on the outcome of speech, its consequences, more than on its absolute value as “true” or “false” (Lies that Bind, 2007). This is evident here as well: by writing something and publishing it, good things are achieved. That the material is “someone else’s” in a certain framework is irrelevant.
In the last ten but especially five years, China has decided to “compete” with the West in terms of academic stature and value. This has entailed increasing support for higher education and increasing standards for quality, not simply increasing quantity.
But as all writers have noted, it is much easier to increase quantity than quality.
Wang Hui may have incorporated other people’s works without interrupting the text for footnotes in the 1980s, when this was standard practice. I can’t weigh in on the claim that Wang Hui’s position as a public intellectual has made him a tempting McCarthy-esque target.
But what I can say is that the times they are a-changin’ (that is a reference to Bob Dylan’s song from 1963/1964; it can be found here. But citing a popular song seems excessive, doesn’t it?). China is between several paradigms: one that says citation and attribution are optional; one that says winning is China’s or the individual’s right and imperative; and one that says intellectual work must be traced and credited.
Like all cultural change, there are winners, victims, casualties, and much righteous waving of slogans and placards, charging others with moral laxity and venal duplicity. Sometimes the accusations are apt; sometimes they are fabricated; sometimes they harbor old grudges; and sometimes those with plenty of sin cast stones.
Accusing someone of not following rules when they were not in play is absurd. Ignoring the shared rules that everyone has subsequently agreed to is a violation of convention. Scholars in China are slowly signing on, in their hearts and minds, to that slate of conventions. But like all cultural revolutions, we’ll find ambiguity and complexity enough to keep us busy analyzing for years.
Susan D. Blum is Professor of Anthropology at the University of Notre Dame and the author, most recently, of My Word! Plagiarism and College Culture (Cornell University Press, 2009).
‘American Idol’: Will Ellen DeGeneres’ departure help?
Did you think Ellen DeGeneres was all wrong on “American Idol”?
She thought so, too, and said so tonight in announcing she’s leaving the Fox singing contest after just a year.
Her statement read: “A couple months ago, I let Fox and the ‘American Idol’ producers know that this didn’t feel like the right fit for me. I told them I wouldn’t leave them in a bind and that I would hold off on doing anything until they were able to figure out where they wanted to take the panel next. It was a difficult decision to make, but my work schedule became more than I bargained for.”
She also revealed that “it was hard for me to judge people and sometimes hurt their feelings.”
What do you want to see happen next?
I’d like to see America’s most popular show return to three judges. The show has to pick a replacement from Simon Cowell, who rarely had trouble hurting people’s feelings. Three judges would mean less talk and a faster-moving show.
“Idol” has a chance to revamp the juding panel in a big way for the 10th season. The Associated Press’ Lynn Elber reports that Kara DioGuardi is not under contract for next season and Fox hasn’t announced if she’ll be back.
Why not a panel of Shania Twain, Randy Jackson and Justin Timberlake? Or Shania, Randy and Harry Connick Jr.? What do you say?
Questioning the “Chinese Model of Development”
A Critical Reading of Shengshi: Zhongguo 2013
By Zhansui Yu
Chinese, following Chairman Mao’s famous phrase, tend to use the expression “like a fire burning in the wilderness” [???? liaoyuan zhi huo] to describe the unexpected rise and popularity of something marginalized or rebellious. Since the literary explosion in the years immediately after Mao’s death, mainland Chinese literary circles have rarely witnessed such a “wild fire.” Recently, however, a fierce literary “fire” suddenly broke out and shocked the entire Chinese intellectual world. The spark that ignited this fire is Chan Koon-chung’s ??? political novel Shengshi: Zhongguo 2013 [????? 2013]. [1]
The novel is set against the surreal background of the year 2013, when China reaches the peak of its prosperity, and the whole nation’s people—except for a few—suddenly contract “collective amnesia.” That is, a month-long period has been erased from the memory of the entire population, and all are intoxicated with the feeling of happiness. The book is divided into two parts. Part one introduces the main characters, focusing on their personal experiences and fates in the ever-changing political surges. Part two tells the story of how Fang Caodi ???, one of several people who inexplicably have memories of the terrifying lost month, and the Taiwanese writer Old Chen ?? together cross half of China’s territory to look for Little Xi ??, who is both a potential witness to the lost month and Old Chen’s true love. During their long journey in search of Little Xi, the true face of a China with astonishing darkness behind its dazzling material prosperity unfolds before the two men. The story culminates with the truth-seekers kidnapping a high-ranking Chinese official named He Dongsheng ???, who is forced to tell the truth of the lost month. After learning that the Chinese “golden age” is achieved by cunning, deception, and terror, the characters decide to permanently leave this “prosperous, powerful, and happy” China.
It has become quite clear that the success of Shengshi: Zhongguo 2013 lies mainly in its political nature. What makes the novel unique is that it represents the first Chinese political novel which deals with the fundamental principles of the so-called “Chinese model of development” in a critical way. The intellectual strength of the novel can be summarized as follows: It exposes three problems, reveals three reasons, and raises three questions regarding the “Chinese model of development.”
* * *
In the novel, Zhuang Zizhong ???, a founder of the leading Chinese intellectual journal Dushu, lists ten major features of the “Chinese model.” They are: “democratic one-Party dictatorship, rule of law with social stability as its top priority, an authoritarian government for the people, a state-controlled market economy, fair competition dominated by the central government-owned enterprises, scientific development with Chinese characteristics, self-centered harmonious diplomacy, a multi-racial republic with sovereignty of one people, post-Occidental and ‘post-universal’ thought of the subject, and national rejuvenation of the incomparable Chinese civilization.” As readers might easily discern, almost each of the ten qualities is a combination of two incompatible elements such as “democratic” and “one-Party dictatorship,” “authoritarian” and “for the people,” “multi-racial republic” and “the sovereignty of one people,” etc. The novel exposes three major problems inherent in the Chinese model:
(1) The predatory nature of the model. As demonstrated by the life of Zhang Dou ??, a child slave, and the fate of a little village in Hebei province which has been pushed to the brink of extinction by lethal pollution from a nearby chemical factory, as well as many other similar cases, the astonishingly rapid accumulation of wealth on the part of the Party-state and a tiny minority of the privileged is actually achieved by preying on the most vulnerable members of society and by passing on problems to future generations.
(2) The collusion of varied elite groups in a monopoly of state power and in manipulating the people for their own purposes. The best example of this phenomenon is the “SS reading class” [SS ??? SS dushu ban]. The class is an organization composed of elites in every important aspect of society. It not only works as a conduit for information exchange among its members, but more importantly, it also serves as a hub to connect the whole nation’s elites. The primary task of the class is to inculcate in the younger generations its doctrine, which is essentially fascism in the guise of nationalism and patriotism. At the core of the doctrine is a philosophy proposing that hatred is the sole driving force for human activity, and that only after a nation is charged with hatred will it be energized and finally achieve wealth and power.
(3) Massive abuse of power on the part of the corrupt bureaucracy. The miserable experiences of Little Xi, a victim of and witness to the abuse, illustrate the regime’s surveillance over and persecution of its own people and the astonishing arbitrariness of the judicial system.
* * *
Exposure of the Party-state’s manipulation of popular memory and of historical truth and the disastrous consequences this brings to China is another pronounced theme of Shengshi: Zhongguo 2013. Taking Little Xi’s only son, Wei Guo ??, as an example, the author provides a convincing assessment of how deceptive propaganda, historical misrepresentation, and forced amnesia work together to severely distort the personality and mentality of China’s new generations. In tracing the causes for the distortion, the author points to three factors:
(1) The Party-state’s dictatorship. In the novel, the Party-state’s manipulation and control of the nation’s mentality are symbolically represented by the government treating China’s drinking water with a chemical which can change people’s moods. This is the secret behind the entire nation’s intoxication with the feeling of happiness.
(2) Chinese intellectuals’ abandonment of their role as “social conscience” and their complicity with the Party-state. In response to Old Chen’s question of “whether Chinese intellectuals are really willing to reconcile with the Party,” Zhuang Zizhong repudiates this as a pseudo-question. As he argues, “the real question is not whether the intellectuals are willing to reconcile with the Party but whether the Party is willing to forgive the intellectuals [for their trouble-making and disloyalty]” He asserts that “recognition by the Party” is the greatest success and honor possible for Dushu and for himself. It turns out that Chinese intellectuals are bought into the system through the material gains and social status granted to them by the Party.
(3) Acquiescence and indifference on the part of ordinary Chinese people. As the national leader He Dongsheng points out, though the Central Propaganda Department does indeed do a lot of work to cover up the truth of the lost month, it is the Chinese people themselves who choose to forget in the first place. As he argues, “If it were not that the Chinese people want to forget, it would be not possible for us to force them to do so.” He concludes that “it is the ordinary Chinese people themselves who voluntarily take the drug which causes the amnesia.”
* * *
Apart from exposing the pathology of the Chinese model and tracing the reasons for the historical and mental distortion in China, the novel also raises three philosophical questions regarding the Chinese model in particular and, more broadly, the modern nation-state:
(1) The first question targets the moral and political legitimacy of the regime’s rule in China. As confessed by He Dongsheng, the Party-state, in order to carry out its grand economic rescue plan, adopts Machiavellian-style strategies to rule the country, and treats its people as an uncivilized and irrational mob in the Hobbesian sense. It turns out that the Chinese “golden age” is actually achieved by cunning, deception, bloodshed, and terror. This is the very reason why the Party-state works so painstakingly to erase the people’s memory of the violence, cruelty, and horror of the missing month. The question is: Is it morally and politically legitimate for a nation-state which defines itself as founded on “people’s sovereignty” or “people’s democracy,” and whose constitution presents workers and peasants as its leading classes, to treat its people merely as slaves or mobs in the Hobbesian sense? Is a political system is a good one if it values only economic success and national interests while ignoring human rights and individual freedoms?
(2) A second question raised in the novel concerns international relations. He Dongsheng explains, and Fang Caodi sees firsthand, that the Chinese government adopts sheer utilitarianism, vulgar materialism, and the notion of the absolute superiority of China’s national interests as its guiding principles in its international relations. When the Chinese government deals with African countries, for example, it is only interested in those countries’ natural resources; it never cares whether or not those countries’ governments commit genocide or other human rights violations. As Fang Caodi states, “Chinese are not different from those old European colonists; they both collude with the corrupt local elite ruling groups to extort natural resources from the locality.” The question is: If a party-state which builds its moral superiority and political legitimacy on the discourse of anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism behaves exactly like the old imperialists and colonialists, how can it maintain both the credibility of its ideology as well as the source for its moral superiority and political legitimacy?
(3) Toward the end of the novel, in response to the truth-seekers’ accusation that the Chinese regime behaves like Fascists, He Dongsheng tells them that even if the current Chinese system can be considered fascism, it is merely at its primary stage. It could be upgraded to a much more advanced and therefore much more horrible form. At this point, we actually reach the most profound question posed in the novel: What are the consequences if a superpower is completely out of its people’s control? In some sense, we might say that all the descriptions in the novel actually aim at this single question.
* * *
A novel which has changed the way that Chinese define political fiction, Shengshi: Zhongguo 2013 is a groundbreaking work. It presents a truly critical and in-depth reflection on the Chinese model of development, especially concerning the real and potential negative consequences that it could bring about.
The novel can be read, from a social-political perspective, as a realistic presentation of the shocking darkness behind the dazzling economic miracle created by the Chinese model. It also proposes that China’s younger generations suffer from the consequences of collective amnesia and historical half-truths imposed by the Party-state. The book can also be read, from a philosophical perspective, as an allegory of the modern nation-state. Taking China as a case study, by questioning the morality and political legitimacy of the Chinese model of development, the novel is intended to lead us to the potential catastrophes that a modern nation-state may bring about if it is out of its people’s control. In this sense, this novel also represents a philosophical reflection on the fundamental principles of the modern nation-state and a warning against the blind belief in its absolute superiority.
[1] The title of the novel now has several translations. The author himself translated it as The Fat Years: China 2013. Paul Mooney, in an essay for the South China Morning Post, rendered it as The Golden Age: China 2013. Linda Jaivin, in a recent article for China Heritage Quarterly, translated it as In an Age of Prosperity: China 2013.
Zhansui Yu is currently a post-doctoral research fellow in the Institute for Asian Research at the University of British Columbia. He will teach Chinese as visiting assistant professor at Lehigh University starting September 2010. He conducts research on modern Chinese literature and thought.
‘America’s Got Talent’ gives NBC a couple of wins
Studio One Young Beast Society, an Orlando dance group, learned Wednesday night that it’s moving on to the next round of “America’s Got Talent.”
And a lot of people caught the news. The NBC talent contest drew the most viewers on broadcast television: 9.5 million.
NBC had the most viewers for the evening. And it tied Fox for pulling in the most young adults. Fox was bolstered by two hours of “So You Think You Can Dance.”
Here’s how the night unfolded:
At 8 o’clock, CBS’ “Big Brother” drew 6.6 million and was ahead of NBC’s “Minute to Win It” (5.9 million) and ”So You Think You Can Dance” (5.3 million).
At 9, CBS’ “Criminal Minds” drew 6.3 million and ran second to “America’s Got Talent.”
At 10, CBS’ “CSI: NY” drew 6.3 million and outpaced NBC’s “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit” (4.8 million) and ABC’s “Castle” (3.5 million).
Here are the prime-time averages: NBC with 6.7 million, CBS with 6.4 million, Fox with 5.3 million, Disney-owned ABC 3.8 million and The CW with 1 million.
Casey Anthony: Does Jose Baez’s foreclosure problem matter to Casey Anthony case?
Do Jose Baez’s “financial woes” matter to the Casey Anthony case?
WESH-Ch. 2 raised the issue tonight in what it billed as an exclusive report.
“My personal affairs are just that — personal,” Anthony defense attorney Baez said in a text message to WESH.
He may have a point: Don’t his lawyering skills matter more? What do you think?
WESH’s Bob Kealing reported that Baez is in danger of losing his Kissimmee home and that a foreclosure document shows that he owes $655,000. Creditor U.S. Bank claims Baez hasn’t paid the mortgage since Sept. 1, 2009, Kealing reported — a startling detail.
Baez said the foreclosure won’t affect his representation of Anthony, Kealing said.
Kealing turned to two attorneys for analysis:
Criminal defense attorney Jeff Deen said a complex capital case could strain a small defense firm like Baez’s. ”He has to use and maximize every single asset he has left,” Deen said.
Real estate attorney Matt Englett said Baez would be wise to default and move on rather than keep the house. (Englett, a familiar TV presence, makes that point in his TV commercials.) Englett said it’s likely that Baez will work a deal with creditors.
But how important is Baez’s mortgage to the Anthony case? She is charged with first-degree murder in the death of her daughter, Caylee.
Attorney Deen put the issue in perspective, telling Kealing that when the Anthony saga became a capital murder case, Baez should have asked: Am I qualified? Can I afford it?
In the report, Kealing recounted the money troubles of people associated with the Anthony case. Her parents, George and Cindy Anthony, have faced losing their home, too. Kealing reminded viewers that Casey’s $275,000 defense fund is gone. In a memorable visual, the words “275,000 Anthony defense fund” evaporated on screen.
WESH also reminded viewers that meter reader Roy Kronk, who found Caylee’s remains, will be deposed by the defense on Friday.
‘America’s Got Talent’: Orlando dance group ends show ‘on a brilliant high’
”America’s Got Talent” saved the best for last tonight. An Orlando hip-hop dance group, Studio One Young Beast Society, wowed the studio audience with an energetic performance. The judges responded with raves.
“You did bring it,” judge Howie Mandel said. “You really stepped it up.”
Piers Morgan agreed, describing the act as creative and saying the group ended the show “on a brilliant high.”
Sharon Osbourne said each of the eight dancers had a great personality.
Twelve acts performed tonight. The results will be announced at 9 p.m. Wednesday on NBC (WESH-Ch. 2 locally). Four acts will move to the next round.
Earlier in the show, host Nick Cannon described the Orlando group as “an electrifying dance group taking hip-hop to a whole new level.”
Here’s how the show unfolded:
The South Philly Vikings opened the show with an elaborate and frenetic dance number. Morgan buzzed to show his frustration and said they couldn’t dance.
CJ Dippa, who will be 12 next month, rapped and danced his way to judges’ raves. “Brilliant,” Osbourne ruled. Morgan praised the boy’s stage presence.
Harmonica Pierre charmed the judges, but Mandel wondered if playing the harmonica was big enough to carry him through. “It’s not up to us. It’s up to America,” Osbourne said.
Dancer Polina Volchek was a bore, Morgan ruled in buzzing her. Osbourne liked the fluid movements, and Mandel said she was ready for Las Vegas.
The Strange Familiar, a rock band that performed “Time After Time,” didn’t impress Mandel (“it wasn’t wow”) or Morgan (“20 seconds were great — the rest was mediocre”). Morgan even suggested that the lead singer, a beautiful woman, drop the band, even though she is married to one of the players. Morgan argued that she’s a solo act.
Robotic dancer Haspop wowed Mandel with his moves and production values. “Spectacular,” Osbourne said. She and Morgan agreed it was the best act on the show up to that point — six had performed.
Singer Luigi was very shaky, and old comedian Chipps Cooney bombed by stripping and wandering around the stage in his underpants.
The bellydancers Kaya and Sadie, however, left Mandel mesmerized and Osbourne raving (“fantastic”). The recently married Morgan found their bellies “extremely charming.”
Stunt bicyclist Jeremy VanSchoonhoven put on a blindfold and pulled off a difficult feat. “A natural showman,” Morgan said. But does he have enough pizazz for Las Vegas?
Singer Debra Romer is beautiful but she has a thin, breathy voice. Where was the tone? Even so, the judges praised her beauty and her growing confidence. Morgan proclaimed her a star. I think he was generous.
Who moves to the next round? I’ll predict VanSchoonhoven, Haspop, CJ Dippa and the Orlando group. What do you think?
More Questions Than Answers
Earlier this month, we ran an opinion piece by Peter Zarrow concerning the plagiarism accusations against Tsinghua University Professor Wang Hui, in which Dr. Zarrow explained why he had signed a letter of support organized by international scholars and sent to Tsinghua’s president. The essay was picked up and circulated by the MCLC listserv, where it generated a number of comments. One of the responses came from Michelle Yeh of UC Davis, and we asked Dr. Yeh if she would expand her remarks and share them with China Beat readers. She has done so in the essay below, and also provided a Chinese translation.
We welcome additional comments on this continuing matter. Short opinion pieces can be submitted by e-mail to thechinabeat[at]gmail[dot]com.
By Michelle Yeh
To be accused of plagiarism is a serious matter. To accuse someone of plagiarism is just as serious. When I catch a student plagiarize (which, unfortunately, has occurred a few times in my career), I turn the case over to the student judiciary affairs office at my university with supporting evidence. The office investigates it, holds a meeting with the student, reaches a conclusion and metes out punishment based on university policy. Although I have never personally witnessed a plagiarism case involving a professor, I would imagine that the procedure would be more or less the same. After all, we as professors not only expect our students to follow the rules, but we as tacit role models also have an obligation to do likewise.
That’s why when the plagiarism charge Professor Wang Binbin ??? initially made against Professor Wang Hui ?? in March has turned into a protracted debate, controversy, even scandal, I wonder what’s going on. Did the accuser present plausible evidence? If the answer is affirmative, why wasn’t it investigated right away by Tsinghua University, where Professor Wang Hui is employed? If the answer is negative, why wasn’t the case thrown out immediately, and why wasn’t Professor Wang Binbin subjected to investigation by the appropriate authority?
As a concerned observer, I read the letter signed by “more than eighty international scholars” that was submitted to the president of Tsinghua University on June 9th, as posted on Sciencenet. I also read the letter on Global Voices Online which had gone out previously to solicit “endorsements” from scholars outside mainland China. (Apparently, scholars in Hong Kong were considered “international” too, since several are among the signatories.) [Editor's note: the solicitation letter is posted by Oiwan Lam in the comment section of the page linked to above.]
The two letters add a new wrinkle to the ongoing controversy. The solicitation letter (for which Global Voices Online provides no date or signatory) states that Professor Wang Hui did nothing but “sloppy footnoting.” The letter submitted to Tsinghua University doesn’t even mention that, but simply says that all allegations of plagiarism lack “credibility.” However, without providing any objective evidence, the letter is just as “baffling” as what it claims to be an “organized attack” by the media. Here’s why:
1. Why do the letters repeatedly label the “media” (or “popular media”) as the villain? Wang Binbin is a professor, as are many others who have commented on the issue in print or on-line. Moreover, Professor Wang’s article was originally published in Literary Studies (???? Wenyi yanjiu), a leading scholarly journal in China. Why does the letter set up an artificial binary opposition of “academy” vs. “media,” “us” vs. “them”?
2. Isn’t this artificial binary opposition contradicted by what the letter later refers to as “ordinary cultural politics inside the university”? Which is it, an attack by the ignorant but evil media, or internecine politics among professors? If this were indeed just “ordinary cultural politics inside the university,” why would it have become “a mediatized frenzy” (quoted from the solicitation letter)?
3. Even IF the allegation had been initiated by the media (which it was not), why should it matter? The issue seems to be black and white: Is there verifiable evidence of plagiarism? There maybe exist varying definitions (or degrees) of plagiarism, but why shouldn’t documented allegations be investigated? Given the “baffling” situation surrounding the allegations, wouldn’t it be a good idea for the signatories to request a transparent, impartial investigation?
4. When the letter accuses allegations and critiques of Professor Wang’s plagiarism as “organized,” how would the same logic not apply to the defenses that have appeared since March? Isn’t the letter itself an example of “organized” defense?
5. The letter alludes to several Chinese scholars’ rebuttals in defense of Professor Wang Hui. What it doesn’t say is that these rebuttals have been rebutted too. The solicitation letter mentions: “[W]e are preparing a bilingual website that will give a chronology of the attacks and information from scholars living in China who have carefully studied the case and have declared the charge of plagiary to be a non issue [sic].” Why wasn’t the website available to the signatories before—not after—they signed the letter? More than a month later, is this website available now? Does it provide complete and factual documentation? For example, does it include further allegations of plagiarism related to Professor Wang’s recent work and the rebuttals, if any, that have been made?
6. The letter explains that “media attacks on the universities during times of extreme social and economic transition are common.” Isn’t one of the media’s responsibilities to be society’s watchdogs, to monitor and oversee public institutions? The U.S. media do this all the time. Why does it only happen in “times of extreme social and economic transition”? Could this be another example of Chinese particularism?
7. Why does the media’s publication of plagiarism allegations demonstrate their “contempt for research,” as the letter claims? Isn’t it exactly because the media care about scholarship and the institution of university that they bring the matter to the fore? What are the criteria for judging scholarship? What are the standards of professional ethnics? Doesn’t the letter itself, with its inflammatory language, show “contempt for research,” peremptorily accusing anyone who questions Professor Wang’s scholarship of “attacking” him out of political motivations?
8. Even if we leave aside the question of whether or not translators of Professor Wang’s work are the most impartial judges in this matter, wouldn’t it be logical for Professor Wang to rebut the original allegation as soon as possible? If one were wrongly accused of plagiarism, one would be upset of course, but one would probably find it laughable too—laughable because the allegation was so obviously fabricated and unfounded, as the letter suggests. Wouldn’t a brief, definitive statement from the wrongly accused clear it all up? At the very least, wouldn’t the wrongly accused demand a transparent, impartial investigation? Wouldn’t that be the best way to clear one’s name?
In my view, the “letter of more than eighty international scholars” did a disservice to Professor Wang Hui and to Chinese academia. Instead of providing textual evidence to counter effectively the allegations of plagiarism, it simply blames the “media,” a code word for anyone and everyone who questions Professor Wang. Instead of asking—and expecting—Tsinghua University to conduct an investigation of all the allegations, it simply attributes them to “normal cultural politics within the university,” as if falsely accusing one’s colleagues of plagiarism were a “normal” thing to do! Worst of all, the letter misleads both lay readers in China and scholars outside China into thinking this is how plagiarism charges are normally handled by American and Chinese universities. The fact is there has been more than one such incident in China in recent years involving a distinguished professor. In the earlier cases, investigations were conducted by the universities, and, when plagiarism was found to have been committed, the professors were given appropriate punishment. Only in Professor Wang Hui’s case do we see a group of “international scholars” rushing to intervene without providing any textual evidence. Would these “international scholars” have shown the same lack of faith in their own universities and the same kind of disrespect for university procedures? In short, the letter misses the opportunity to turn a crisis into a proverbial “teaching moment.”
I give Professor Wang Hui the benefit of the doubt in this ongoing controversy, not because he is a preeminent scholar—why should stature, fame, or influence override issues of professional ethics?—but because I am hopeful that Chinese academia will show, to China and the world, that it is capable of self-discipline, transparency, impartiality, and accountability. Was plagiarism committed or not? If it wasn’t, what would be the consequence for the accuser? If it was, what would be the consequence for the accused?
I am still waiting…
* * *
?“????????????????”???
???????—?????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????“????????”??????????????????????????????????“?????”?Global Voices Online?????????????????“??”?????????????????????“????”????????????????????????????????????????????“?????”????????????????????“????”?????????????????????????????????“???”?????????????????????????“????”???“????”???????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????“??”?“??”?“??”?“??”????
???????????????????“???????????”???????????????——?????????????????????????“???????????”???????????“??????”?????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????“????”????????????????????????????
????????????????????????“????”??????????????????????????????????????????“????”????
???????????????????????????????????????????????“???????????????????????????????????????????????”???????????????????——?????——??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????“?????????????????????????????”????????????????“???”????????????????????????????????“???????????”??????????????????
????????????????????????“??????”????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????“??”????????“??????”????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????“????????????????”???????????????????????????????????????????????????????“??”——????????????????——???——??????????????????????????“???????”????——?????????????“??”?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????“????”????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????“????”?a teaching moment?????
????????????????????????????????????????????——????????????????????????——?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????……
Michelle Yeh is Professor of Chinese at the University of California, Davis.
‘The Bachelorette’: Orlando’s Chris N. talks!
Ali Fedotowsky said she had no regrets about her experience on “The Bachelorette.”
Well, that’s one person.
She said she followed her instincts till the final day of the ABC dating contest. “And I am so glad I did,” she said. We learn her decision — choose Chris L., Roberto or no one — next week in the season finale.
Fourteen of the men who had been ejected returned for a reunion tonight.
We learned a bit more about Orlando’s Chris Nordhorn, who had been a mystery on the show. The other men nicknamed Chris N. “The Phantom,” because he kept popping up unexpectedly. (He is pictured with Ali in this ABC photo by Rick Rowell.)
For the reunion, Chris N. wore a T-shirt decorated with the words “The Phantom” and expressed his outrage at wrestler Justin for being “a fame whore” who “screwed over” the other contestants with his duplicity. (Justin left the series, and it was revealed he had two girlfriends at home.)
“I took a lot of time off from work, and I took this very seriously,” Chris N. said before the censor bleeped him. Chris N. said the first night of the dating contest was “intense.”
“I’m so stunned you’re talking so much,” host Chris Harrison said.
Harrison also described Chris N. as “one of the best characters we’ve ever had.”
Frank, one of the most controversial contestants, wasn’t at tonight’s reunion. But he will be on the special next week that follows the finale, Harrison said. Frank left the show to reunite with a former love.
Harrison spent a lot of time talking to Kasey, the strange dude who got a tattoo to show his devotion to Ali. During the contest, he sang — horribly. On the reunion, competitors described Kasey as crazy but also sincere and knowledgeable about the show. And Kasey had no hard feelings: He praised Ali for letting him go.
When he saw her on the reunion, Kasey sang her another song. He’s still a terrible singer.
Kirk, who made it to the final four, said he was serious about Ali and that she broke his heart. Kirk also said he resented Frank for going into the show despite having feelings for another woman. Seeing Kirk again, Ali praised him as a great guy.
The men were united in their hatred for wrestler Justin, who apparently wanted to use the show to promote himself.
Oh, the irony. A lot of people go on the “Bachelor” shows to gain fame.