It seemed a very emotional campaign had suddenly erupted. Until then, a large majority of students had been quite pleased with me. Then, like a school of fish, they abruptly turned. Together.
There had been groupthink. And there had been social pressure. As one involved student later told me privately, students would have "hated" a student who refused to sign the complaints. Moreover, boys were obliged to sign to "show support for the girls."
This only happened to my Diplomacy and Law students. The English students were untouched by the campaign and remained as appreciative as before — many exhibiting scarcely restrained adulation.
My meeting with Wang Yan was supposed to produce an adjustment of my attitude. Normalcy was easily attainable. The students' fever had quickly subsided following their brief orgy of grievance. Everyone wanted to forget the complaints. Everyone was prepared to move forward.
Except me.
These future diplomats and lawyers had done something wrong. Placating them clashed with my principles. It would have taught the wrong lesson.
They had signed complaints against a teacher. They had to face what they'd done and either account for their charges or acknowledge error. Otherwise ... I wasn't really interested in teaching them anything else.
My principles, up against the group's will, was like the proverbial meeting of an irresistible force with an immovable object.
The courses I taught were called "Topical English." After my meeting with Wang Yan, I designated a new topic: the students' complaints about me.
The students detested this topic. They couldn't explain the complaints. They weren't even clear about what they had signed. No one could produce a copy. And what they were able to recall of the complaints seemed scarcely coherent.
But acknowledging error was, it seemed, an impossibility. Classes became open arguments between me and the students.
One day, during the break in a class with Diplomacy students, I was handed a letter that had arrived by mail. I decided to read it aloud to the class:
Dear Mr. Uriel Wittenberg,Do you know what we think of you? You have given us the impression of being a notorious rascal who is hostile towards our country and often harass the girl students. You can't imagine how we hate you. Please be warned that if you don't stop attacking on China and harassing the girls, you will be taught a good lesson. It is not a big talk that it is easier to disable you or kill you than to kill a dog.
Article comments
1 - Bing
As a Chinese student in UK, I feel ashamed by what happened to you. One thing you might have known is that most of those would-be diplomats have special backgrounds. They enter the Chinese Deplomacy System via nepotism and people like them are called "TaiZiDang" or Crown Princes in China. They domineer over Chinese who need help abroad. They think themselves the owners of Chinese embassies and consulates rather than civil servants. They are ugly scars of China.
Thank you for your work in China.
2 - Uriel
Hi Bing.
I have indeed been told that kind of thing about CFAU on several occasions by people in China.
Thanks kindly for your comment.
3 - Frank
At a diplomacy school, you should understand that these are the people that will learn to lie and deceive for their country.
If they were really smart they would be at Beida or Tsinghua, but since they have connections they are at the school for guanxi reasons.
Rest in the knowledge that these types will face the reality of a market oriented china dominated by the beida tsinghua types anyway.
4 - Uriel
Actually, some of them were pretty smart (as documented in the full version of my story).