Well, buried in the middle of this article is an important point:
> In fact, as of the fall 2019 semester, Gerber had been officially enrolled only at the university in China, not at St. Gallen.
So he was a Swiss person doing a PhD at a Chinese university. His relationship with the professor at the Swiss university was an unofficial one, so the word 'dismissal' here is pretty misleading. No information about what happened to his actual PhD program at the Chinese university that I noticed.
The actual evidence of chinese influence?
> She said she had received a message from a Chinese doctoral student doing research at a Canadian university.
So, it sure sounds like some people had their feelings hurt.
My totally made-up hypothesis on this article: honest reporter researched a story, realised it was pretty weak, then when they wrote it up shuffled things around a bit to give an exaggerated impact, but couldn't bring themselves to lie or leave out any facts.
There's information on his Swiss PhD program in the article. The Swiss University advised him to de-register so he could maintain years of eligibility or whatever, and the Swiss advisor continued to supervise him obviously. The University had told him that re-registering upon his return would be "no problem" with the support of the advisor. So he kind of got caught in a transitional stage where he has no options if a dispute with the advisor arises. Maybe it's not fair to criticize the University administration for this, but it's not accurate to simply describe him as unaffiliated and making up fake news or something.
As for the Canadian student, the quotes from the professor herself are what say the complaints came "from China". Perhaps she meant from the Chinese student in Canada, but if so that's her error, not the author's.
It does not pass the smell test. This is not an error one would make. Imagine one gets an email from Z, X-Y <xyz...@ucanuckistan.ac.ca>, then why would one describe this as "emails (ed: plural!) from China"?
My theory that fits the evidence given is that the professor is withholding the real "angry emails from China" because she thinks if those are published, then she definitely won't get a travel visum anymore and thus negatively impact her career.
And that's the whole point of this piece of misinformation. "Came from China" doesn't mean that the country of China was involved, but that people in China involved didn't want this or that. It could similarly be a problem with news that "came from Switzerland", or that "came from USA", but of course the media wants to play the game of China (the country) as a bad actor.
More along the lines, 'Even in Switzerland the political pressure of China affects the freedom of speech'.
The part that you leave out is that the university actually recommended to the student that he should terminate/suspend his enrollment in the first place. To me it looks like the university is using the fact that he wasn't enrolled anymore as some kind of damage control to distance itself from the events.
You are right, the actual facts are not very strong (in terms of legal action), but I think it is a good 'I have nothing to hide...' example.
The swiss university had advised the student to be enrolled only China in order to make it easier for him to complete his PhD at the swiss university afterwards. The swiss university is now evading their moral responsibility by hiding behind the convenient legal situation.
The professor explicitly cut ties with the student because she was afraid to lose her ability to get a visa for China. It's unclear how she came to this conclusion, but I don't see how she can conclude this just from a message she got from a student in Canada. Chinese authorities must have made it clear at some point that they are ready to punish either this or any slightest misstep like this. And it's really an insignificant incident: someone who is not officially her student, has basically no followers because he just created his account, tweets a little and deletes everything as soon as the professor finds a problem with it.
Also the following account of his experience in China, which certainly served as a greater pretext than the tweets of an account with 10 followers:
> A Chinese professor there told him that his Ph.D. topic was «boring» – a euphemism for being too critical of the government. As a part of his fellowship, he also had to attend classes, and says today he couldn’t believe how much censorship took place in the course of everyday university life. When he submitted an essay on reeducation camps, he received the lowest grade possible. In an email to his professor in St. Gallen, he wrote: «Maybe I've just been unlucky.»
I am deeply bothered by this totalitarian allergic reaction to criticism at even the lowest level. However as someone who is intimately familiar with life in the soviet union, this is not simply a case of bad luck if one takes actions that significantly increase one's radar signature to the censorship arm. If you are perceived as being "troublesome" by those who stand to lose much through being affiliated with someone openly critical of the regime, they may well take action to smooth out this political perturbance in their lives. They may do so whether they are staunch believers in the status quo or simply wishing to remain neutral at worst.
Now I am not saying he should not have done what he did, but he should have been more aware of the possible outcomes to avoid being so blindsided.
It would have been far more effective to relay his thoughts through more sympathetic channels. If the first person one's government criticism goes through is not a fan, that is a shaky start for one's efforts. A support network is needed. One can't shout into the void alone.
I wouldn't want to be his sponsor either. It just shows either a complete misunderstanding of the power dynamics of an outsider doing research in China, or poor judgement.
But unofficial relationships matter in science. For example, I am currently doing an unpaid internship in the hopes of getting a paper out of it. If the professor cancelled it, I might be left with nothing to show for months of hard work, similar to the guy in the story. That kind of thing is not uncommon at all at the PhD level.
> So he was a Swiss person doing a PhD at a Chinese university
He'd been advised by Gallen to deregister with a plan for how and when to re-enroll. It's pretty obvious in retrospect that they did this so they could have a trapdoor under him just in case something went bad in China.
Almost. Since the "Neue Züricher Zeitung" changed to their current editor-in-chief in - I wanna say 2015 - they have moved to towards a more politically right-wing, conservative position.
From how this position is expressed in germany-austria-switzerland, "china=bad, universities too liberal, someone think of my country!" is not an uncommon sentiment.
and certainly there's no reason why so many students from .cn, even .tw, do use, for instance, WeChat merely for 'clean', 'non-political', absolutely superficial messaging only but other Apps/Protocools speaking frankly -- ofc only to those whom they know and decided to trust
get out there : speak to students, any level, from any spot in .cn, be that .HK, or any mainland-.cn spot
if u succeed in establishing a bi-laterally trustet basis for discussion, well, then u achieved a lot in the first place
it was pretty different some 7-10yrs back, give or take; depended much more on where ppl originated from, where relatives/friends in .cn were stationed
it turned significantly worse -- from my pov, judged on the basis of experience of my real-life contacts -- i can pin-point the date : the day after that day when in .HK the Victoria Park got crowded peacefully for the first time and clips of it made top headlines, the other yr
there is no argument of whatever twisted nature which could whitewash what's been going on for some time : in the arts, for instance, we do not have a single contact in .cn who not yet experienced what suppression of the .cn-govt kind can amount to. in specific fields of neuroscience, i can speak of myself, it worsened dramatically, in particular, when all the paper-mills, fakes & fraud in sciences and faked-publications widely made news progressively
right now, as we speak, there are 3 ppl from .cn in that part only of the univ college bldg i'm currently in, who told me, that they perfectly well know what's expected from them not make their friends and relatives in .cn pay for their 'a-social' behaviour. on a regular basis they post some crappy pics to fb/ig but no personal comment other that 'happy b-day', or so.
their wording, in private, on this whole issue of soc-nets and what to do, more importantly, what not to do, is way more blunt and precise : suffering is the term most frequently employed
a very well-known artist, who sadly died the other month, spoke about his experiences in .cn when visting a friends art-circle in .cn for quite a few months. he was not the man to be easily scared. he'd worked a lot on what nazi-phekkers did, their ideology, their crimes. he had been attacked by french presidential candiates, amongst one not shy to send him her creeps to his doorstep interfering disturbingly with his installations & exhibitions [till they realised it boosted reception of his art but not their malicious intent]. as he did put it, to him too, there was no big difference in what it must have been like in the 3rd reich and what he experienced over there.
systems are much alike. badges, and brand names, may differ tho
techniques might have improved, aims and malicious intent not
Thank you! I am glad to see people are actually reading the articles. Last time this was published no one even bothered to note that there was no intervention from China whatsoever. Following the same logic a hotel worker losing their job because an American tourist complained can say that the United States got them fired..
The comments critical of the CCP in this thread prove that confirmation bias is alive and well. There are many things to critique about China obviously but this particular instance is not one of them.
Yes, there is no concrete intervention that the CCP did. Still, a supervisor broke off their contact with a promising student based on either the fear of retribution or personal feelings of nationalism. That culture is the product of CCP censorship and many people don't want it in the western world.
Some comments might be off the mark, but the article itself is completly honest about the fact that they cannot prove that any chinese officials were even involved in this mess.
The underlying criticism is more that the professor (and if you want to extrapolate swiss institutions as a whole) engaged in some "working towards the fuhrer" behaviour. She took very drastic steps (ruining this students career) on the basis of what would be in the interest of the CCP.
And I would argue that this behaviour is very much incentivized by the CCP. Take a look at how censorhip within the country works: The laws are often quite vague, but enforcement is draconian. This leads people and institutions to guess what the government would want and act (self-censor) accordingly.
This is an article spun to make controversy out of nothing.
The narrative is that a student tweeted something critical about China, and the CCP pressured his advisor into dropping him.
The reality is that the student published a tweet that "depicted a comic character that had been altered and had stereotyped Chinese features, with yellow skin tone and slit eyes". This understandably was perceived as racist by a Chinese student in Canada, who complained to the advisor. The advisor agreed and dropped her racist-seeming doctoral student.
The CCP wasn't involved. Nobody cared about his criticism of China. It was his racist-looking tweet that got him dismissed.
Edit: But yes, the CCP can have a chilling effect on free speech. See the Blitzchung controversy. This article is just a non-story.
The advisor who dismissed the student changed their story multiple times, didn't name the accuser, and contradicts the Ph.D. students records of his matriculation and attendance. Furthermore she has a motive, if she is truly under political pressure or is intimidated by the diplomatic consequences of being associated with a critic of CCP. She is a China researcher, so being barred from entering China could be a fatal blow to her career. Finally, the last thing she wants is a viral story in fairly reputable newspaper of record.
I cannot directly refute your claims, only call them into question. But I think that is the crux of the story here anyway, to question. What affect is the mass surveillance and blanket censorship of China having on Western institutions of open inquiry? Are the tendrils of the PRC police state stretching into places we assume will always be bastions of free speech? I don't think we can definitively answer these either way today.
Almost the entire article is spun telling only one part of the story, and only towards the very end do they, at least, reveal the other side, which shows that the student published a racist cartoon, and that it was just some random person who complained to the professor. It feels misleading and deliberate that, from the start, they mention that they've seen the emails which confirm the student's account, but withhold the rest of the information (the racist image; the deregistration affair) until near the end.
It's convenient to believe that your enemy is so fragile that they're threatened by a twitterer with a dozen followers. I don't see how that does one any good outside a feeling of smug superiority. China is building a frightening amount soft power through trade deals and building goodwill. That's what people should be talking about, not China supposedly censoring angry opinions that can be found anywhere else on the internet.
China is not at all worried about small Twitter followers. But if China shows they will shut down even the most inconsequential dissent. Then real dissent will know that, if they speak up, they will be shutdown very hard.
> It's convenient to believe that your enemy is so fragile
There is ample evidence that they are butt-hurt by the tiniest criticism – intentioned or not, real or imagined, by inclusion or by omission – which would not even count as an affront under most other circumstances. The psychic trauma that is amenable to a degree for this response unfortunately is deeply seated and difficult to shake loose.
Until I see it, I'm not going to believe that cartoon is racist. I mean seriously, Asian people have skin that is somewhat more yellow and somewhat narrower eyes. With the way the media manipulates anything, the lack of a photo is a pretty strong sign that the cartoon ISN'T significantly racist (just as the lack of race in the title in a act of police brutality is a strong sign that the victim is white).
The professor should be fired and the university punished (doubtful), but the student was also an idiot to do what he did. It’s not like he was some random guy who just tweeted at China, he lived in wuhan for years and has actual family there now, being critical of a totalitarian government in that scenario is the height of monumental stupidity. It’s ironic that the article paints him as methodological and thoughtful because he seems anything but in his actions.
But nominally, you can be a political fool in Switzerland without professional consequence.[a] It seems he is being forced to play by the social rules of China in Switzerland. It's fair to say his tweets could jeopardize his ability to return to China and secure a professorship or research position, but to suffer professional consequences in Switzerland, in the heart of Europe, for Chinese political incorrectness is unprecedented.
[a] For example, in America you can post on Facebook about MAGA or tweet about BLM and you will rarely if ever lose your job or doctorate candidacy.
Chinese government is of course far more authoritarian but it is wise to point out that things have been worsening in US academia over the last couple of years.
Only if the post praises BLM and criticizes MAGA... Lots of people have lost their jobs (and even dropped from public funded colleges) because of this. Not sure if you are really not aware of this, or if your comment is not in good faith.
from the context of the article it seems like he's getting his PhD in Chinese studies, and obviously that likely means you will have relations to China, which is what the professor in question was worried about.
It's a little bit like majoring in Iranian studies, insulting the Ayatollah and prophet on Twitter and then being upset when you get barred from the country and people start professionally ditching you. Like, when you pursue an academic career with close ties to a country with a very different political set of values I would assume you understand the kind of diplomatic issues you can run into?
As I said in another comment, in the U.S., if you’re an African American studies PhD student and you post a racist cartoon depicting black stereotypes, it’s not hard to imagine losing your doctorate candidacy.
He was getting a PhD from a university in China though? He was deregistered as a PhD candidate in his former university as well. If you're on a Chinese government scholarship and visa and your livelihood depends on that (as well as new family ties), why would you criticize the Chinese government? His research and life was tied to China. I would imagine you'd want to play by their social rules then.
Couple of professors who are unfriendly to black people got fired too, not saying its wrong, but its not that different in this case. Someone got offended, someone got fired.
You can definitely get in massive trouble in the US and put your job in danger. Your superiors just have to massively disagree, or you might be posting about sensitive topics like Israel or the military.
Both BLM and MAGA are incredibly mainstream movements.
Maybe not lose your job, but the University of California will prevent you from getting one, as they require all job candidates to commit to and have a history of advancing diversity. Conflicting political posts would probably harm your ability to pass this first step of the job application process.
The student partner was living in Wuhan. The partner beg them to stop, and they didn’t. Its partner is lucky not to be sent to a “re-education” camp.
We all agree that the fact that this can happen is wrong, but what the student did is not just wishful thinking, they put their loved ones at risk. That’s very disrespectful of other people lives.
A PhD proofs that one is capable of conducting independent research on some topic. This story proofs that they are definitely not capable of conducting and directing independent research on China, so it makes no sense for this student to be on a PhD program anyways. They should have known better, since they were “China experts”, but they didn’t.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
I think calling for the professors dismissal in this instance is completely unwarranted. Not only do we have only one side of the story here, we don't even know what those tweets were, or if there's anything else at play here, nor is the relationship very clear here (the supposed student was actually studying in china for 3 years? What exactly was the relationship with the Swiss professor then?) Additionally, it's just not acceptable to demand others suffer the consequences for fights you picked, no matter the justification.
I mean, there is clearly an argument that the funding, influence and prestige the Confucius institute grants also allows them influence, and that that influence is perhaps unwanted. But if that's the conclusion, we should demand a counter-pressure by parties that are better able to withstand chinese pressure, e.g. perhaps some coalition of European countries that reject the institute whole cloth. Unfortunately, I doubt the EU can do much here because it's already been infiltrated by governments that clearly appear to be under Chinese influence, such as Hungary, and it needs unanimity for most action; and of course Switzerland isn't even in the EU.
To put it another way: I have doubts a country like Switzerland would dare to pick this fight with China alone - but if so, how absurdly unreasonable is it to expect an individual professor to, without any kind of policy. The whole issue puts the wisdom of Switzerland's idea of independence at risk.
Also, I no matter how you reject China's actions, I think it's morally pretty questionable to put your partner's family at risk, even if you think you're in the right, even if you are.
The EU can take action against China and it has recently took soft action by updating its customs code¹. However, Germany is not particulary keen on picking fights with China, because they export vehicles to the Chinese market. Let's just say there is not enough political will to do anything like this at this time. There's also the separate issue of banning Huawei 5G network carrier equipment in the EU due to data being leaked to China.
Let us check it again: I understand it is more like "There exist operators in Swiss education who are in a weak position, e.g. for the need to obtain visa which could be critical to perform their job".
It is not that there is not an influence (it could be China as much as many other entities), but given the above it is transversal to the job.
Totally agree - he is studying china, lived in china, has a chinese girlfriend in china who advised him to stop the critical tweets…and he just kept doing it anyway???
“His girlfriend was shocked when she saw some of the tweets. Talking with him on the telephone, she begged him to stop. Not because she necessarily disagreed with anything. But because she was worried about retaliation by the Chinese government. «I'm in Switzerland, not China,» Gerber replied. «I can say what I want here.»
Sorry to sound harsh, but I would argue that level of naivety / ignorance pretty much should disqualify him from a PhD in anything related to modern day China.
The story goes: dude studies in china. Is in Switzerland bc of corona. Starts posting anti CCP on Twitter. Posts racist picture, some chinese PhD student in Canada sees it. Emails his supervisor. Supervisor sees it and decides that she doesn't want to work with someone who posts racist pictures (for the wrong reason not bc of the picture but because she fears she will get excluded if she publishes with him). This is all very plausible imo if one could actually see the picture which conveniently isn't included.
This is not saying anything about the CCPs control over research which is a very serious topic. As long as I don't see the relevant picture. It's a researcher not wanting to publish with a someone who posts racist stuff.
It is very convenient to only mention the racist picture and not also mention the accusation of the Chinese Coronavirus cover-up.
The latter is just as bad for the CCP and would also lead to the events we have seen.
But it's obvious that when you are doing Chinese studies paid by a Chinese university, then you're not free from repercussions when you tweet from a European country.
So yes, China is influencing European universities and the west appears to accept this.
Not sure what the timeline is here. TFA strongly implies it’s a tweet on March 21 inciting a response on March 28, but buries the lede about the racist cartoon posted at an unknown time that the professor claims to have received an email about.
I’m sure political factors play the leading role here, but it’s long past the point where you can casually post racist cartoons and act surprised when you’re hit by undesirable consequences. Imagine an African American studies PhD student casually posting racist cartoons depicting black stereotypes. People have been disciplined for much less (e.g. that professor who spoke a common Chinese phrase resembling the n word several times to caution students and later got suspended).
And before you accuse me of things, I’m a long time HN user and I’m not paid to comment. Using a throwaway for radioactive topics.
You're using a moniker 'casualracism' trying to exploit the notion of a cartoon which has 'Chinese Characters' as inherently racist, even though that's entirely likely to be a weaponized use of the term given the political context.
"If you criticized China, you are Racist" is bad form.
It's a very easy and common method of CCP duplicity to simply blow the 'racism' dog whistle and have 1/2 of Westerners immediately lose context and get distracted.
There's no way what the PhD student did should lead to anything other than someone being trite on Twitter and that would be the end of it.
TFA tried very hard to bury and brush off this detail but had to include
> It depicted a comic character that had been altered and had stereotyped Chinese features, with yellow skin tone and slit eyes. This drawing circulated on social media in the spring of 2020, and was deemed racist by some users.
The student reluctantly admitted
> In retrospect, I realize I didn't question the rendering of the Chinese person enough
Given TFA’s clear sympathy for the student and intentional omission of what the cartoon actually is, one simply has to assume it’s at least as racist as TFA claims (oh who am I kidding, it’s more racist). It’s clearly not a case of “the notion of cartoon which has ‘Chinese character’ as inherently racist.” Asking “have you read the article” is frowned upon on HN but this is a case where the question justified. It’s either that or you’re arguing in bad faith.
original tweets need to contained within articles like this. Timelines should be standard, before the body of the argument. Way too easy to spin a narrative for an audience hungry to believe.
>TFA strongly implies it’s a tweet on March 21 inciting a response on March 28, but buries the lede about the racist cartoon posted at an unknown time that the professor claims to have received an email about.
I continue to be amazed with how creative propaganda can be. It is a simple misdirection (but oh how effect, just read the comments here). There is a paper trail showing what tweet the pushback had been about but the article still takes the liberty to draw up a strawman, and concludes -- Criticising the CCP is supposed to be «Neo-Nazi» like? Hawww.....
One thing I have realized over time is that it is one thing to recognize deficiencies in an argument you are against, and a completely different thing to recognize the same in arguments for a cause that you do believe in.
Legally the university might have done nothing wrong. They had advised him to unregister to play tricks in order to avoid losing his study rights. A trick that is common if you study at more than one university. And works unless there is any kind of problem.
However, the message is: If you deal with China today, either don't think, be a coward or a liar. China is an authoritarian country that increasingly exercises its power outside of the country.
In Western democracies we are used that you can criticize. Strong democracies tolerate heavy criticism until you get into difficulties, others only weaker kinds. There is no doubt that China is very far from any kind of democracy.
> In the United States too, a quarter of the country’s Confucius Institutes have been shut down in recent years. Universities no longer wanted to give legitimacy to an institution that defended fundamentally different values.
Well, that makes a statement about the purpose of a university.
„The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.“
I think that summary misses out how much Popper argues should be tolerated. e.g. in the quote in the article, Popper writes:
> In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.
The university system developed inside the cultural western tradition, it didn't fall from the sky. It most definitely has to self-preserve. But i m curious what you think the purpose of a university is
As a faculty member and PhD advisor, let me offer my reading between the lines. The student and advisor did not get along already. The student went to China and found a girlfriend. The lockdown separated them. Hormones flared, exacerbating what was probably already a tense situation.
The student was increasingly a problem (note the screaming at the advisor mentioned in TFA). The advisor decided that it was no longer worth the effort to maintain the unofficial relationship and broke the promise of supporting the student's future re-enrollment. Dealing with unprofessional students sucks. It's very hard to "fire" grad students for unproductivity or workplace issues, unless they are egregious. In this situation the advisor had a convenient out and took it.
Well I got my PhD, so let me read between your lines ([1]).
Faculty have little fiefdoms and they expect students to live on salaries bellow minimum wage. If the advisor is sub-par (i.e. the university made a mistake hiring them) it's incredibly difficult to change advisors without poisoning the relationship with other faculty members.
Dealing with sub-par professors sucks. Some are not too bright. Others sexually harass the female students. All are protected by the moat the university builds around them.
[1] I'll admit it's a bit weird to see a professor that I'm assuming given the forum, is in a tech field "read between the lines" instead of engaging the facts.
You're entirely correct. Academia is broken is so many ways. A lot of my colleagues are wastes of space and some are indeed harmful. I don't think I'm a great advisor either. No one teaches us how to advise students.
My take is based entirely on facts of the article interpreted through an advisor's lens rather than that of a journalist trying to get clicks.
But the rest is entirely fabricated and ignores the clear statements of the advisor themself, which is that they didn't want to offend China and would for that reason terminate the relationship.
> the advisor had a convenient out and took it
How is it a convenient out? 'CCP pressure' doesn't sound like a convenient reason. The advisor could have pulled the 'you're no long enrolled' trick at any time.
Quote from the article: "The professor went on to explain that the relationship of trust had already been strained, because Gerber had «lost his temper» during a conversation a year earlier, and had told her that he no longer wanted to continue his doctorate at St. Gallen in any form, and no longer needed her as a doctoral supervisor."
Regardless of the merits of this case, I think it is interesting to also consider if the reverse could conceivably happen. Could a Chinese professor become worried about travel visa to the US because one of their students starts posting things critical of the US? I think for a Chinese professor the answer is perhaps not immediately obvious, but if you switch it to a professor from an Arabic country, I think the concern would definitely be valid. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if there is a lot of self-censorship like this going on already.
Edit: in fact, in a different thread, perihelions posted an instance of such a visa denial happening in the US.
I don't know how evident it is in the West, but what you mentioned for the US is very true, not just for Arab countries but also South Asian and African visitors. Around more than a decade back, when our school had planned for a trip to NASA, I remember the teachers and the visa guide aggressively asking all the students who had applied to scrub anything political off their social media and their public profiles elsewhere. The US visa officials are also the most hostile lot, and while I didn't experience much hassle during my interview (I guess because I worked in a white shoe firm which was sponsoring the visa), I was witness to seeing a Sikh family get intensely rattled and rammed during their process.
Readit News
> In fact, as of the fall 2019 semester, Gerber had been officially enrolled only at the university in China, not at St. Gallen.
So he was a Swiss person doing a PhD at a Chinese university. His relationship with the professor at the Swiss university was an unofficial one, so the word 'dismissal' here is pretty misleading. No information about what happened to his actual PhD program at the Chinese university that I noticed.
The actual evidence of chinese influence?
> She said she had received a message from a Chinese doctoral student doing research at a Canadian university.
So, it sure sounds like some people had their feelings hurt.
My totally made-up hypothesis on this article: honest reporter researched a story, realised it was pretty weak, then when they wrote it up shuffled things around a bit to give an exaggerated impact, but couldn't bring themselves to lie or leave out any facts.
As for the Canadian student, the quotes from the professor herself are what say the complaints came "from China". Perhaps she meant from the Chinese student in Canada, but if so that's her error, not the author's.
My theory that fits the evidence given is that the professor is withholding the real "angry emails from China" because she thinks if those are published, then she definitely won't get a travel visum anymore and thus negatively impact her career.
And that's the whole point of this piece of misinformation. "Came from China" doesn't mean that the country of China was involved, but that people in China involved didn't want this or that. It could similarly be a problem with news that "came from Switzerland", or that "came from USA", but of course the media wants to play the game of China (the country) as a bad actor.
More along the lines, 'Even in Switzerland the political pressure of China affects the freedom of speech'.
The part that you leave out is that the university actually recommended to the student that he should terminate/suspend his enrollment in the first place. To me it looks like the university is using the fact that he wasn't enrolled anymore as some kind of damage control to distance itself from the events.
You are right, the actual facts are not very strong (in terms of legal action), but I think it is a good 'I have nothing to hide...' example.
Deleted Comment
The professor explicitly cut ties with the student because she was afraid to lose her ability to get a visa for China. It's unclear how she came to this conclusion, but I don't see how she can conclude this just from a message she got from a student in Canada. Chinese authorities must have made it clear at some point that they are ready to punish either this or any slightest misstep like this. And it's really an insignificant incident: someone who is not officially her student, has basically no followers because he just created his account, tweets a little and deletes everything as soon as the professor finds a problem with it.
> A Chinese professor there told him that his Ph.D. topic was «boring» – a euphemism for being too critical of the government. As a part of his fellowship, he also had to attend classes, and says today he couldn’t believe how much censorship took place in the course of everyday university life. When he submitted an essay on reeducation camps, he received the lowest grade possible. In an email to his professor in St. Gallen, he wrote: «Maybe I've just been unlucky.»
I am deeply bothered by this totalitarian allergic reaction to criticism at even the lowest level. However as someone who is intimately familiar with life in the soviet union, this is not simply a case of bad luck if one takes actions that significantly increase one's radar signature to the censorship arm. If you are perceived as being "troublesome" by those who stand to lose much through being affiliated with someone openly critical of the regime, they may well take action to smooth out this political perturbance in their lives. They may do so whether they are staunch believers in the status quo or simply wishing to remain neutral at worst.
Now I am not saying he should not have done what he did, but he should have been more aware of the possible outcomes to avoid being so blindsided.
It would have been far more effective to relay his thoughts through more sympathetic channels. If the first person one's government criticism goes through is not a fan, that is a shaky start for one's efforts. A support network is needed. One can't shout into the void alone.
> Now I am not saying he should not have done what he did
We need to stand up and say, he should speak out, he should have spoken out, seeing injustice and oppression.
Deleted Comment
He'd been advised by Gallen to deregister with a plan for how and when to re-enroll. It's pretty obvious in retrospect that they did this so they could have a trapdoor under him just in case something went bad in China.
Dead Comment
From how this position is expressed in germany-austria-switzerland, "china=bad, universities too liberal, someone think of my country!" is not an uncommon sentiment.
get out there : speak to students, any level, from any spot in .cn, be that .HK, or any mainland-.cn spot
if u succeed in establishing a bi-laterally trustet basis for discussion, well, then u achieved a lot in the first place
it was pretty different some 7-10yrs back, give or take; depended much more on where ppl originated from, where relatives/friends in .cn were stationed
it turned significantly worse -- from my pov, judged on the basis of experience of my real-life contacts -- i can pin-point the date : the day after that day when in .HK the Victoria Park got crowded peacefully for the first time and clips of it made top headlines, the other yr
there is no argument of whatever twisted nature which could whitewash what's been going on for some time : in the arts, for instance, we do not have a single contact in .cn who not yet experienced what suppression of the .cn-govt kind can amount to. in specific fields of neuroscience, i can speak of myself, it worsened dramatically, in particular, when all the paper-mills, fakes & fraud in sciences and faked-publications widely made news progressively
right now, as we speak, there are 3 ppl from .cn in that part only of the univ college bldg i'm currently in, who told me, that they perfectly well know what's expected from them not make their friends and relatives in .cn pay for their 'a-social' behaviour. on a regular basis they post some crappy pics to fb/ig but no personal comment other that 'happy b-day', or so.
their wording, in private, on this whole issue of soc-nets and what to do, more importantly, what not to do, is way more blunt and precise : suffering is the term most frequently employed
a very well-known artist, who sadly died the other month, spoke about his experiences in .cn when visting a friends art-circle in .cn for quite a few months. he was not the man to be easily scared. he'd worked a lot on what nazi-phekkers did, their ideology, their crimes. he had been attacked by french presidential candiates, amongst one not shy to send him her creeps to his doorstep interfering disturbingly with his installations & exhibitions [till they realised it boosted reception of his art but not their malicious intent]. as he did put it, to him too, there was no big difference in what it must have been like in the 3rd reich and what he experienced over there.
systems are much alike. badges, and brand names, may differ tho
techniques might have improved, aims and malicious intent not
The comments critical of the CCP in this thread prove that confirmation bias is alive and well. There are many things to critique about China obviously but this particular instance is not one of them.
The underlying criticism is more that the professor (and if you want to extrapolate swiss institutions as a whole) engaged in some "working towards the fuhrer" behaviour. She took very drastic steps (ruining this students career) on the basis of what would be in the interest of the CCP.
And I would argue that this behaviour is very much incentivized by the CCP. Take a look at how censorhip within the country works: The laws are often quite vague, but enforcement is draconian. This leads people and institutions to guess what the government would want and act (self-censor) accordingly.
One of the original journalists published another article two days later that voices this criticism more clearly: https://www.nzz.ch/meinung/china-und-die-hsg-wo-die-angst-re...
The narrative is that a student tweeted something critical about China, and the CCP pressured his advisor into dropping him.
The reality is that the student published a tweet that "depicted a comic character that had been altered and had stereotyped Chinese features, with yellow skin tone and slit eyes". This understandably was perceived as racist by a Chinese student in Canada, who complained to the advisor. The advisor agreed and dropped her racist-seeming doctoral student.
The CCP wasn't involved. Nobody cared about his criticism of China. It was his racist-looking tweet that got him dismissed.
Edit: But yes, the CCP can have a chilling effect on free speech. See the Blitzchung controversy. This article is just a non-story.
I cannot directly refute your claims, only call them into question. But I think that is the crux of the story here anyway, to question. What affect is the mass surveillance and blanket censorship of China having on Western institutions of open inquiry? Are the tendrils of the PRC police state stretching into places we assume will always be bastions of free speech? I don't think we can definitively answer these either way today.
Almost the entire article is spun telling only one part of the story, and only towards the very end do they, at least, reveal the other side, which shows that the student published a racist cartoon, and that it was just some random person who complained to the professor. It feels misleading and deliberate that, from the start, they mention that they've seen the emails which confirm the student's account, but withhold the rest of the information (the racist image; the deregistration affair) until near the end.
I'm disappointed; I expect better from the NZZ.
There is ample evidence that they are butt-hurt by the tiniest criticism – intentioned or not, real or imagined, by inclusion or by omission – which would not even count as an affront under most other circumstances. The psychic trauma that is amenable to a degree for this response unfortunately is deeply seated and difficult to shake loose.
Even the student ended up saying if he had given it more thought, he would not have posted the racist image.
Dead Comment
[a] For example, in America you can post on Facebook about MAGA or tweet about BLM and you will rarely if ever lose your job or doctorate candidacy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Salaita_hiring_contro...
also, renowned foreign professors in the US are sometimes bullied and treated as badly as they are in China:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020...
Chinese government is of course far more authoritarian but it is wise to point out that things have been worsening in US academia over the last couple of years.
It's a little bit like majoring in Iranian studies, insulting the Ayatollah and prophet on Twitter and then being upset when you get barred from the country and people start professionally ditching you. Like, when you pursue an academic career with close ties to a country with a very different political set of values I would assume you understand the kind of diplomatic issues you can run into?
Both BLM and MAGA are incredibly mainstream movements.
The University’s New Loyalty Oath - https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-universitys-new-loyalty-oat...
We all agree that the fact that this can happen is wrong, but what the student did is not just wishful thinking, they put their loved ones at risk. That’s very disrespectful of other people lives.
A PhD proofs that one is capable of conducting independent research on some topic. This story proofs that they are definitely not capable of conducting and directing independent research on China, so it makes no sense for this student to be on a PhD program anyways. They should have known better, since they were “China experts”, but they didn’t.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
I mean, there is clearly an argument that the funding, influence and prestige the Confucius institute grants also allows them influence, and that that influence is perhaps unwanted. But if that's the conclusion, we should demand a counter-pressure by parties that are better able to withstand chinese pressure, e.g. perhaps some coalition of European countries that reject the institute whole cloth. Unfortunately, I doubt the EU can do much here because it's already been infiltrated by governments that clearly appear to be under Chinese influence, such as Hungary, and it needs unanimity for most action; and of course Switzerland isn't even in the EU.
To put it another way: I have doubts a country like Switzerland would dare to pick this fight with China alone - but if so, how absurdly unreasonable is it to expect an individual professor to, without any kind of policy. The whole issue puts the wisdom of Switzerland's idea of independence at risk.
Also, I no matter how you reject China's actions, I think it's morally pretty questionable to put your partner's family at risk, even if you think you're in the right, even if you are.
1. https://www.fonoa.com/blog/eu-imports-from-china-after-the-v...
It is not that there is not an influence (it could be China as much as many other entities), but given the above it is transversal to the job.
Dead Comment
“His girlfriend was shocked when she saw some of the tweets. Talking with him on the telephone, she begged him to stop. Not because she necessarily disagreed with anything. But because she was worried about retaliation by the Chinese government. «I'm in Switzerland, not China,» Gerber replied. «I can say what I want here.»
Sorry to sound harsh, but I would argue that level of naivety / ignorance pretty much should disqualify him from a PhD in anything related to modern day China.
Deleted Comment
He’s not stupid, perhaps just naive. If only those with nothing at stake criticize a repressive regime then nothing would ever change.
Including a "They would not support the other side, would they?"
This is from the country responsible for the patriot act
This is not saying anything about the CCPs control over research which is a very serious topic. As long as I don't see the relevant picture. It's a researcher not wanting to publish with a someone who posts racist stuff.
The latter is just as bad for the CCP and would also lead to the events we have seen.
But it's obvious that when you are doing Chinese studies paid by a Chinese university, then you're not free from repercussions when you tweet from a European country.
So yes, China is influencing European universities and the west appears to accept this.
I’m sure political factors play the leading role here, but it’s long past the point where you can casually post racist cartoons and act surprised when you’re hit by undesirable consequences. Imagine an African American studies PhD student casually posting racist cartoons depicting black stereotypes. People have been disciplined for much less (e.g. that professor who spoke a common Chinese phrase resembling the n word several times to caution students and later got suspended).
And before you accuse me of things, I’m a long time HN user and I’m not paid to comment. Using a throwaway for radioactive topics.
You're using a moniker 'casualracism' trying to exploit the notion of a cartoon which has 'Chinese Characters' as inherently racist, even though that's entirely likely to be a weaponized use of the term given the political context.
"If you criticized China, you are Racist" is bad form.
It's a very easy and common method of CCP duplicity to simply blow the 'racism' dog whistle and have 1/2 of Westerners immediately lose context and get distracted.
There's no way what the PhD student did should lead to anything other than someone being trite on Twitter and that would be the end of it.
> It depicted a comic character that had been altered and had stereotyped Chinese features, with yellow skin tone and slit eyes. This drawing circulated on social media in the spring of 2020, and was deemed racist by some users.
The student reluctantly admitted
> In retrospect, I realize I didn't question the rendering of the Chinese person enough
Given TFA’s clear sympathy for the student and intentional omission of what the cartoon actually is, one simply has to assume it’s at least as racist as TFA claims (oh who am I kidding, it’s more racist). It’s clearly not a case of “the notion of cartoon which has ‘Chinese character’ as inherently racist.” Asking “have you read the article” is frowned upon on HN but this is a case where the question justified. It’s either that or you’re arguing in bad faith.
I continue to be amazed with how creative propaganda can be. It is a simple misdirection (but oh how effect, just read the comments here). There is a paper trail showing what tweet the pushback had been about but the article still takes the liberty to draw up a strawman, and concludes -- Criticising the CCP is supposed to be «Neo-Nazi» like? Hawww.....
One thing I have realized over time is that it is one thing to recognize deficiencies in an argument you are against, and a completely different thing to recognize the same in arguments for a cause that you do believe in.
However, the message is: If you deal with China today, either don't think, be a coward or a liar. China is an authoritarian country that increasingly exercises its power outside of the country.
In Western democracies we are used that you can criticize. Strong democracies tolerate heavy criticism until you get into difficulties, others only weaker kinds. There is no doubt that China is very far from any kind of democracy.
Well, that makes a statement about the purpose of a university.
[1] https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/how_many_confucius_institu...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
First paragraph copied for your convenience:
„The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.“
> In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.
Dead Comment
The student was increasingly a problem (note the screaming at the advisor mentioned in TFA). The advisor decided that it was no longer worth the effort to maintain the unofficial relationship and broke the promise of supporting the student's future re-enrollment. Dealing with unprofessional students sucks. It's very hard to "fire" grad students for unproductivity or workplace issues, unless they are egregious. In this situation the advisor had a convenient out and took it.
Faculty have little fiefdoms and they expect students to live on salaries bellow minimum wage. If the advisor is sub-par (i.e. the university made a mistake hiring them) it's incredibly difficult to change advisors without poisoning the relationship with other faculty members.
Dealing with sub-par professors sucks. Some are not too bright. Others sexually harass the female students. All are protected by the moat the university builds around them.
[1] I'll admit it's a bit weird to see a professor that I'm assuming given the forum, is in a tech field "read between the lines" instead of engaging the facts.
My take is based entirely on facts of the article interpreted through an advisor's lens rather than that of a journalist trying to get clicks.
But the rest is entirely fabricated and ignores the clear statements of the advisor themself, which is that they didn't want to offend China and would for that reason terminate the relationship.
> the advisor had a convenient out and took it
How is it a convenient out? 'CCP pressure' doesn't sound like a convenient reason. The advisor could have pulled the 'you're no long enrolled' trick at any time.
Edit: in fact, in a different thread, perihelions posted an instance of such a visa denial happening in the US.