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.