Swiss Ph.D student’s dismissal spotlights China’s influence
nzz.ch
nzz.ch
> 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.
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.
(I'm not making excuses for the---dire---state of our immigration policy as a whole. But I was happy to see that this particular case worked out in the end.)
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/8/27/incoming-freshm...
https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/02/denied-entry-united-states...
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...
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.
https://www.dw.com/en/china-gets-german-childrens-book-about...
There is of course also the distinct possibility that the professor was personally offended by the tweet (or imagined the offense taken) and made up the "emails from china" to make it seems more impactful.
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.
And this is the entirely predictable result.
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.
However there are definitely time limits. You would find it hard to be enrolled on a doctoral programme for 6 years or more especially if you aren't about to imminently graduate, and this is likely the main motivation behind the advice given the proposed 3 year break in China.
OT: How much? Undergraduates too?
Bachelors and masters pay fees according to: https://www.epfl.ch/education/studies/en/rules-and-procedure... or https://ethz.ch/en/studies/financial/tuition-fees.html
Tuition is definitely not free, but also not extortionate.
AFAIK, as long as you are registered as a PhD student, you have to pay the fees.
That's easy to pay if you are an ETH employee with a normal salary.
It might not be that easy to pay if you are in Wuhan university, with a Wuhan PhD student "salary".
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.
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
> 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.
If your priorities are power dynamics, that would make sense. But there are other priorities, such as freedom of speech and open inquiry, which are more important, on which research and knowledge and freedom itself are based.
If you choose to persue these opportunities, you must understand there are tradeoffs and conditions.
Understanding the situation is one thing; acquiescing to it, participating, and not trying to change it are another.
Their dedication to academic integrity is suspect.
> 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.
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.
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.
“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.”
[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.
Am I allowed to post cartoons about them? What about bears?
Are there a lot of those floating around?
In any case TFA deliberately made it hard for readers to form their own judgement.
Anyway, this jollybean poster apparently also doesn’t have a copy and posted in bad faith just to mislead people who didn’t actually read the article, or only read what the author intended to highlight. Really tried of this bad faith engagement.
I've never heard of such a thing. Could you give a specific example of these "lots of people"?
In other words, regardless of actually instances of discrimination, this framing looks chosen to try and create or sustain the so-called culture war.
I had a quick search and i only found one case - a Michael J Dale covered in various outlets alleging dismissal for MAGA support back in 2018. However, i cant find that the case actually went to court. It appears Michael has decided against testing his claim in court?
I can find some cases for the opposite - dismissal for criticising president Trimp:
Jeff Klinzman had his day in court and was awarded a payout.
Rob Rogers didn’t go through courts but former employer on record in the Guardian newspaper confirming reason for his dismissal was his criticism of trump.
Craig Silverman again didn’t go via courts but his previous employer confirmed the reason for his shows termination.
Allegations that don’t appear to have gone to court yet:
Dr. Bandy Lee (2020) Gabriel Noronha (2020)
Cases (as in court cases) are just the easily visible tip of the iceberg. We do not see the aggrieved who did not make their story public for whatever reason.
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?
Nothing here means you shouldn't criticize China. In fact, the premise of the research becomes moot if you cannot criticize China.
If you want to study the ‘damage’ that a country is doing, it seems like it would serve you well to avoid ruffling too many feathers so that you can do your work in peace and without being accused of bias.
it evidently is or else we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Everything in China is political which everyone knows who has ever interacted with Chinese institutions. (which you probably will if you study environmental damage in China).
It's really not that surprising that a professor is not going to associate with someone who posts vaguely racist cartoons to his ten followers on twitter if it costs them their visa.
If you really want a career that involves studying aspects of a foreign culture you better learn to navigate the waters or you won't have a career, that's not really a new thing. If you're an archaeologist you probably won't be one for long if you insult the governments that let you access your dig sites, is that really a scandal?
Huh? This is what the article says:
>> His research was in the field of environmental pollution.
The University’s New Loyalty Oath - https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-universitys-new-loyalty-oat...
It feels to me much more aimed at being able to fire people when controversy arrises than something used to actively screen new hires. Though perhaps the self-selection is also meant as a goal.
If you mean my speculation about political posts, then you're probably right. But if you mean the diversity pledge screening, then you couldn't be more wrong. From another article on the same subject:
> eight different departments affiliated with the life sciences used a diversity rubric to weed out applicants for positions. This was the first step: In one example, of a pool of 894 candidates was narrowed down to 214 based solely on how convincing their plans to spread diversity were.
https://reason.com/2020/02/03/university-of-california-diver...
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.
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.
Both BLM and MAGA are incredibly mainstream movements.
This is from the country responsible for the patriot act
There are countries in the world who do not have a patriot act or similar. They can argue in place of the USA that the government of the country discussed in the article is totalitarian.
Including a "They would not support the other side, would they?"
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.
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.
All you have to do, is make the threat known, and punish enough people, that everyone else falls in line.
In this case, the behavior was directly caused by someone being justifiable afraid of something that could happen to them.
This is known as a "chilling effect".
So, yes, the CCP absolutely has something to do with the culture of fear that they created, that causes people to take these actions.
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...
“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.
He’s not stupid, perhaps just naive. If only those with nothing at stake criticize a repressive regime then nothing would ever change.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"[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."
I'll keep it up in my comment because I despise it when ppl scrub clean what they wrote.
Either way, sorry for making it personal.
And I'm sorry if you had some bad experiences in grad school. Some of us, at least, are trying to be better.
Now you've also fabricated something about the journalist, their motive and character. Do you have any factual basis for that? What do you know about the journalist?
> Isn't eye-witness testimony considered evidence?
C'mon.
This is just a different aspect of the same facts.
What was nice about it?
> student showed his lack of self control on twitter
I don't see a lack of control on Twitter. The student wasn't talking to the professor, and there is nothing inappropriate about their Twitter comments as reported, beyond the cartoon which IIRC the advisor didn't cite.
"Losing temper" is quite vague; and evidently, it didn't warrant terminating the relationship until the tweets happened.
Let's not pretend the timing was a coincidence. The relationship was clearly terminated because of the tweets, which has nothing to do with the professor.
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.
> Although he received no response, he began tweeting in mid-March.
Note: Sometimes, silence is a very loud answer.
However this comment annoyed me:
"«I'm in Switzerland, not China,» Gerber replied. «I can say what I want here.»"
You can tell this kid grew up in the la-la land that is the West, particularly Europe. I find this comment to be an infuriating mix anivete and patronizing.
For the naïveté Switzerland is a landlocked country of 10 million people. Tough guys, great companies, great economy, sure. But a minnow. China can and does throw it's weight against people in countries like this.
For the patronizing part of the comment, it's the Western attitude of "this can't happen here", or "that will never get to be so bad" typical of people that are 70 years removed from tyranny (I'm Western myself, but my parents lived through a dictatorship).
This is the attitude that allows people in the West to compartmentalize all the known abuses (snowden leaks, NSA spying on European leaders, Big Tech squashing our rights, etc) and live in a permanent state of double-think.
"ARTICLE 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
It is not a fundamental law in scientific sense, i.e. it is not a natural property of any kind. You want freedom of speech, fine, but you have to fight to get it and keep it alive. Otherwise it becomes just another unenforceable legalistic quirk like beheading for insulting the Queen is today.
This needs to be said more often… rights cannot be reduced to a “declaration” or a “bill”. They are social constructs that wither away and die without constant social reinforcement, both formal and informal.
But, given that, natural rights can be violated and fail to be protected from those who would do so. So just because something is natural in nature does not mean it cannot be suppressed. It is natural and proper for human beings to speak, but speech can be suppressed. So yes, a society that stops protecting rights will see more violations of them. Declarations are magic incantations. You need power and authority to back them up.
(Also, w.r.t. freedom of speech, I am here not assuming unrestricted speech and "expression"; this has never existed and cannot exist and so on. Rights are not absolute: you can forfeit even your right to life by murdering another human being, for example. Thus rights must be understood in the context of justice.)
Are you saying that you have achieved perfect understanding of this? I think that implies a sophistication way beyond were we are as a species today.
"Article 36. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief..."
"Article 37. The freedom of person of citizens of the People's Republic of China is inviolable..."
"Article 49. Marriage, the family, and mother and child are protected by the state..."
Just meaningless words on a page. To be completely fair, the text does imply that the above isn't worth a wooden nickel in practice:
"Article 51. The exercise by citizens of the People's Republic of China of their freedoms and rights may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society and of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens."
The European Convention on Human Rights has a similar clause (which you quoted) that allows the state to eliminate one's rights "for the protection of health or morals". It seems that "human rights" are mainly there to make the state seem legitimate. They "protect" humans against the state for exactly as long as the state allows.
Switzerland has a lot of freedom, certainly compared to China and other European countries. It's without a doubt my favorite country, one I'd want to live in. But, as we're finding out, the "free speech protections" that we drone on about are only as good as we are willing to insist on.
"freedom of speech is protected in this country" is meaningless if it only restricts government from silencing its citizens. Companies and powerful interest groups can and do restrict the speech of people, and I don't see the Swiss government rushing to pass laws to force Google to stop censoring.
Anyway, freedom of speech protections in Switzerland are not that good compared to, say, the US. You can't, for example, criticize islam (I hate when people mock islam, btw).
From Article 261 of the Swiss Penal Code:
"Any person who publicly and maliciously insults or mocks the religious convictions of others, and in particularly their belief in God, or maliciously desecrates objects of religious veneration, any person who maliciously prevents, disrupts or publicly mocks an act of worship, the conduct of which is guaranteed by the Constitution, or any person who maliciously desecrates a place or object that is intend- ed for a religious ceremony or an act of worship the conduct of which is guaranteed by the Constitution, is liable to a monetary penalty.277"
So Charlie Hebdo (who are disgusting, btw) should have been fined in Switzerland. Btw, I'm pretty sure a Zurich museum would have no trouble displaying artwork depicting Mary as a whore. Not unless muslims, rightly, get upset about the depiction of the most revered woman in Islam.
But it gets worse:
"Any person who publicly incites hatred or discrimination against a person or a group of persons on the grounds of their race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation, any person who publicly disseminates ideologies that have as their object the systematic denigration or defamation of that person or group of persons, any person who with the same objective organises, encourages or participates in propaganda campaigns, any person who publicly denigrates or discriminates against another or a group of persons on the grounds of their race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation in a manner that violates human dignity, whether verbally, in writing or pictorially, by using gestures, through acts of aggression or by other means, or any person who on any of these grounds denies, trivialises or seeks justification for genocide or other crimes against humanity, any person who refuses to provide a service to another on the grounds of that person’s race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation when that service is intended to be provided to the general public, is liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty."
You can drive a Mac truck through that. What does "inciting discrimination" mean? Are the people campaigning to have the veil banned in Switzerland not inciting discrimination?
And, for the record, I despise people who mock any and all religions (although valid criticism is very important). But criminalizing mockery and claiming to believe in freedom of speech? That's rich.
Because I am a Pastafarian, and I can't stand the abuse and mockery anymore. I was thinking of emigrating to Switzerland.
But why would an atheist who likes to mock religion want to live in a country that criminalizes it?
Charlie Hebdo is indeed disgusting. They're nihilists from a cultural milieu that know no moral limits. There is a difference, as you say, between rational criticism of Islam and its mockery and charity is a pretty good way to distinguish between good and bad behavior (i.e., even assuming Islam is terribly flawed, it is uncharitable to mock it in this way given what it is, but charitable to criticize it).
> Btw, I'm pretty sure a Zurich museum would have no trouble displaying artwork depicting Mary as a whore.
You mean like what the Talmud says about Mary, the same Talmud that depicts Jesus boiling in excrement?
The same nihilistic cultural milieu hates Christianity most of all. You think the mockery of Islam was bad? Look at how they depict Christ in those comics. It's far worse as a matter of the kinds of things they depict as well as the subject of the depiction (Mohammad is just a prophet, Jesus is the incarnation of the Logos, of God Himself, thus we're talking about the difference between irreverent desecration and outright blasphemy and sacrilegious imagery). But hatred of Christianity has become normalized and made acceptable by this nihilistic cultural milieu and Christians have been intimidated into acceptance and spineless in their resistance which is why it persists with impunity. Muslims have been known to go in the opposite extreme.
> But criminalizing mockery and claiming to believe in freedom of speech? That's rich.
Freedom of speech was never unrestricted. It cannot be. The days of that libertarian anything-goes thinking is dead even among the same Mother Jones type lefists who wanted it back when they were still dope-smoking boomers. The question isn't whether you restrict speech, but how you restrict it and what you restrict and whether it is good. Without a specific case in mind, I would generally rather risk being a bit too permissive than being too restrictive, greater liberality in what is permitted and greater conservatism in how law is interpreted, but prudential judgement is key.
My problem with that is that criminalizing the provocation has lead in all liberal countries except the US into the criminalization of things that offend the sensibilities of the powerful.
I'd allow Charlie Hebdo to continue swimming in the cesspool of mediocrity it belongs, and I'll put up with blasphemy, if in exchange I have the full unrestricted freedom to argue for my conscience.
Suggesting these are on the same level is, at best, to show misunderstanding of what the words mean and how the government applies them.
My stepfather grew up Jewish in Germany in the early 20th century. He was 13 years old when Hitler became Chancellor. His family got out, and he made his way to the US. He told me very sternly "don't ever think that it can't happen here". Those words stuck with me, and seem now more relevant than ever.
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/prince-harry-calls-firs...
[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/free-sp...
Shocking!
I'm starting to think we Americans are going to have to overthrow the British monarchy to protect our rights!
> Even The Atlantic publishes its doubts about it.
Unlike the Prince Henry thing (who cares), I read this one.
The Atlantic says the exact opposite of what you say it does. It starts and ends firmly defending American style free speech. Full stop.
In the middle it talks about how European style free speech allows for suppressing hate speech, and that there are costs and benefits to that approach. He explains that calls for such restrictions here cannot be dismissed out of hand as insane but that they have to be contended with. He then does so, arguing against restrictions. "Free Speech isn't Free" is just pointing out the often overlooked costs to totally free speech.
I hesitate to call people bad-faith actors, but in general the "article says the literal opposite of what I claim it does" is a giant red flag.
(Edit: I went back and read the Prince thing. I dismissed it because "who cares", but then I figured if you misrepresented the Atlantic article that badly I should check it out. What he was talking about was American vs. British libel laws, not general free speech. In Britain, it is much easier to sue for libel to the point that celebrities often sue international publications there. This protection in Britain especially protects politicians and royalty. In the US, it is almost impossible to win a libel suit against a news organization, especially if the person suing is a public official. This is based on New York Times vs. Sullivan, a first amendment case. )
"Two events were wake-up calls. The first was Edward Snowden’s revelations in 2013 about the astonishing extent of secret U.S. government monitoring of digital networks at home and abroad. The U.S. government’s domestic surveillance is legally constrained, especially compared with what authoritarian states do. But this is much less true of private actors. Snowden’s documents gave us a glimpse of the scale of surveillance of our lives by U.S. tech platforms, and made plain how the government accessed privately collected data to serve its national-security needs.
"The second wake-up call was Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. As Barack Obama noted, the most consequential misinformation campaign in modern history was “not particularly sophisticated—this was not some elaborate, complicated espionage scheme.” Russia used a simple phishing attack and a blunt and relatively limited social-media strategy to disrupt the legitimacy of the 2016 election and wreak still-ongoing havoc on the American political system. The episode showed how easily a foreign adversary could exploit the United States’ deep reliance on relatively unregulated digital networks. It also highlighted how legal limitations grounded in the First Amendment (freedom of speech and press) and the Fourth Amendment (privacy) make it hard for the U.S. government to identify, prevent, and respond to malicious"
2) It's not a hot-take that titles don't agree with their article's contents. The solution to that is to fix headlines, not to plug our ears and only read headlines and claim nuance is impossible.
3) Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline... for widely known example of (2)
> No person ever has made the claim that free speech doesn’t have costs.
Considering the entire article was about how people kept responding to nuanced articles by claiming that free speech didn't have costs and that dismissive and wrong, I think people did in fact make that claim.
This concept of "it can't happen here" is so infuriating. So much hubris in so few syllables. I think it angers me, not only because there's an underlying sentiment of being better than everyone everywhere else, but because the sentiment itself opens the floodgates.
How exactly has big tech squashed your rights?
I am not from the West, and I do wonder if people bring up these just to be polite or to sound impartial.
Yes comparing the scales of the Chinese sensorship to googles deplatforming of uncomfortable topics is not nice.
But explaining how one can lead to the other also explains to people in the west why something is bad. Especially when people would readily sleep walk into enabling technologies that would enable state sensorship at a level that would concern everyone.
I'm just pointing out that this kid had a really naive attitude of where our rights currently stand in the West. And I think the story is the proof - the kid got canned.
But I didn't grow up in my parent's country. I grew up in the West. And I cherish very jealously my rights and refuse to trivialize cancel culture, blasphemy laws etc. And if we in the West had taken our rights seriously this kid wouldn't have been fired.
Patronizing: you know what's patronizing? The notion that this kid simply doesn't understand the realpolitik. Of course he does: it just punched him in the face. He's fighting it. I respect him for that.
Infuriating: you know what's infuriating? The person who claims to share the values this guy is standing up for but can't stop trash-talking him.
Naïveté: you know what's naive? Thinking that rolling over and accepting realpolitik bullying is going to make things better.
La-la land: you know where that is? It's right between cynicism and self-loathing. Of course things can get bad here! That's why we need to fight whenever they slide in that direction! Of course the West isn't a bastion of moral purity above all reproach! That doesn't excuse China's behavior, it doesn't make them the lesser evil, and it doesn't mean they aren't worth fighting!
Stop navel-gazing and stand up for what you believe in. At the very least, cheer on those who do.
I disagree. His Chinese girlfriend was begging him to stop, but he carried on. It’s either hubris or not realizing what China is willing to do to stop people from criticizing it. He was also enrolled in a Chinese university, and was undoubtedly warned about criticizing the government.
There was also no risk to his GF. At worst, the relationship ends - it's not like the CCP is going to go after her (she did ask him to stop).
This is not a reasonable assumption and once it's throw out it becomes clear this boy was endangering others as well as himself by doing something ill-advised and unplanned.
― Albert Einstein
> There was also no risk to his GF. At worst, the relationship ends - it's not like the CCP is going to go after her (she did ask him to stop).
I'm not sure why you think being so apparently reasonable is also something her government and its supporters care about?
Including Switzerland, it seems.
If his goal was to complete his studies at the Chinese university or maintain a relationship with his doctoral advisor who has ties to China, or to not make life for his girlfriend and her family difficult, yes.
I don’t agree with the methods of the CCP to silence dissent, but that’s reality. Nothing will change on account of this guy.
I'm under no illusions that something has to be done to contain the rising totalitarians around the world. But I won't send a delusional noob to fight it for me.
As to your comments about self-loathing. I love the West. I just don't think self-immolation through twitter is that effective. He's changed nothing for the better and lost everything.
But we agree on something. He just got punched in the face w/ realpolitik
It's important to report on this kind of thing once in a while, even if no individual instance is shocking. It builds up into a major problem.
The message of the article is that a renowned Swiss university cowardly bows to China's oppression instead of guaranteing their students (not legally, but morally their) their democratic rights. Cynics might say not suprising either. Switzerland is somewhat infamous for its silent Nazi support while formally neutral in WWII.
Of course they are. That's a big part of their job. Does that offend anyone? It's reciprocal: I assume if Biden calls Pelosi to talk about the weather almost every country is recording the call (assuming it's unencrypted).
Uff… reads like a paragraph from 1984 to me.
You tweet some stuff and you're life is destroyed. Simple. No warning or whatsoever, you just destroy your life because you angered China.
(The latter seems to also be very relevant to the student.)
In anecdotal form bestial behaviours ("I was forced to fire you having received pressure from a priest because you are kind to that boy of a different cult" - real example, probably not rare, of an episode of 50 years ago in Europe) have probably always been common, but today they seem to be less of individuals and more of groups ("that nobody in a costume in tinytown" vs "the assumedly respectable entity"), less exceptions and more norm ("it happened" vs "it happens").
The swiss are fiercely independent people that shun cultural misfits and people that don't respect tradition.
They certainly hold in contempt outsiders that go against established groups/ norms / traditions. This is evident in their rules for granting citizenship, which is at the discretion of each canton.
Some cantons are particularly fickle and will reject granting citizenship to foreigners living in Switzerland for decades...if the foreigner is "annoying" [1]. This means: a serial complainer, a bad neighbor that does not respect customs.
My thinking:
PHD student forgot they were part of the local academia community. This group was sensitive to china criticism. Whether this was subtle or not, we wont know. What we know is he went ahead and criticised china, thus becoming a bad neighbor. He was therefore cast out.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/sw...
Having done a PhD recently and knowing several who have, around the three year mark can be a difficult time for the student-mentor relationship. There is mention that his mentor claims the student had lost their temper with them prior to this happening, so I wouldn't be surprised if things were strained.
Another aspect is the natonality of his mentor. The mentor may have family in China or need to continue strong links with China to continue their career in the field. Regardless of actual Chinese influence, the mentor may simply have been concerned of the impact the student's tweets would have on their career. Obviously still not ideal, but reflects more a 'chilling effect' that comes with heavy handed censorship.
This is certainly an interesting view.
Who would do the transferring?
The writer accuses Gerber of a «racist attack on the Chinese people.» He was referring to a specific tweet: a cartoon that Gerber had posted in response to another user's tweet. 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. "
Nasty stuff.
Think about if you were in CS and a student of your would post some ISIS shit on the internet and you were threatened with a travel ban to the US. I think most people would think twice.
curiously, you mention "ISIS", and a practice like "If you have ties with people we dislike there will be consequences for you" is one of the few correctly attributed instances for the concept of terrorism.
"For the last eight years, St. Gallen has also been home to a «China Competence Center,» the aim of which is to «strengthen and deepen productive relations with China»."
(Frankly, this sort of content is being censored in the US by BigTech also, so...)
There needs to be more concerted effort.
If it was just one email, it could also be possible that she just wanted him to find a different advisor and didn't realize that breaking her advisory relationship with the student would leave him in the lurch and without a PHD.
All in all a really bad incident for the kid.
Shouldn't he have also taken into consideration that this "retaliation" could also be directed towards his girlfriend?
Generally, the article raises the feeling of "mistakes have been made". There you have a professor afraid of harming her career, which is understandable, and having the option to play a "is de-registered anyway"-card. Keeping him in the unofficial advisorship and tied to the university can be seen as a friendly, helpful gesture on the part of the university, surely also with the intention to be able to refer to him should he build a successful career. It was a weak point which he should have taken into consideration, yet it would have been difficult to anticipate that it would turn out this way.
Wasn't he planning to go back to Wuhan anyway? Why risk it?
Interesting, how Chinese people reacts to Winnie Pooh cartoons? Also as "racist attack" or "Nazism threat"?
Is it different or worse from the US foreign policy of "lets kill brown people half way across the world"?
The anti-China rhetoric has to stop somewhere.
China is not that place. It's not anti-Chinese rhetoric to point our reality. China is the place where people wonder when the authorities are coming to take you to the re-education camp, hopefully not to be sterilized.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/29/magazine/uyghur-muslims-c...
https://www.theatlantic.com/the-uyghur-chronicles/
https://dailycaller.com/2020/10/09/uighur-muslim-detention-c...
Hahaha.
> China is the place where people wonder when the authorities are coming to take you to the re-education camp, hopefully not to be sterilized.
You must be joking. Really. A link to NYT and theAtlantic? Stand up comedy might just be your thing.
John Mearsheimer opposed to these idiotic middle east wars and has been for a long time.
In his book, Mearsheimer
> readily acknowledges the inherent pessimism of offensive realism and its predictions because his world is one in which conflict between great powers will never see an end. [1]
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tragedy_of_Great_Power_P...
Fighting in the Middle East is evidence of a broken political process, not an inevitable outcome of Offensive Realism.
Then, if someone speaks up for India or the Indian society, they can all be called "Hindutva" and then the West can ban them from the Indology conferences and the academics can all rejoice for having banned the Swastika-worshipping "original" Nazis.
(sarcasm, yes, but everything noted above has happened in Indology. apparently, according to these worthies, Hindus are the original Nazis too - no I'm not kidding. explains the insidious anti-Hindu sentiment in the West.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/world/middleeast/professo...
We expect their influence to catch up with their size and be comparable with the US government. The US government has long reach and a strong grip (eg, Assange, Snowden, the general pretence that their ongoing aggressive military posture is legitimate, synchronisation of global norms for intellectual property to American interests, Hollywood, etc).
https://www.techspot.com/news/81644-harvard-student-denied-e... ("Harvard student was denied entry in the US over friends' social media activity")
discussed here at
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20816774
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20848359
One can only speculate how much worse the PRC's system is. The professor's fears are quite rational (I needn't say I wholeheartedly condemn her actions, and hope she's fired).
(Edit: Ismail was ultimately granted entry [1] but still shameful incident and disturbing that it could happen at all.)
[1]: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/9/3/harvard-student-...
Why is it not the same or worse? Now I suffer consequences for the totally legal actions of somone I know?
I would replace the terms used by Lopez, from "astounding disregard for the principle of free speech" to "astounding disregard for the principle of justice". (Which, I rant, has been devastated in many places in the past 18 months.)
Theoretically, though, I understand from some publications that there is an ongoing debate in national security agencies about the thresholds to be observed between false positives and false negatives. Meaning: not that the authorities believed such judgement sensible or fair, but they probably delegated their sense of fairness to a top-down mandate of "better safe than sorry". Which, in the encouraged alienation from good sense, creates these monstrosities.
In the report but often neglected. This is exactly the kind of student professors don't want. Obvious bias in the field of research, and what the heck honestly. If I were the professor I would not sponsor the reapplication either.
I think the student is well aware he has a weak case, otherwise if it's so obvious that it's because of government intervention, even if his own professor doesn't want to supervise him, it shouldn't be difficult to find a new one (there are plenty, I mean PLENTY, researchers critical of the Chinese government, it shouldn't be hard to find one really), the academic field is actually quite protective towards students when it comes to undue influence from the government in general.
Also, the institute he chose to apply to focus on "«strengthen and deepen productive relations with China»". It's not like they've made it unclear. It's quite clear they want to be 'productive' with China. There are plenty who don't, so why does this student applied there? It's like researching the adversary effect of CocoCola at a instutite 'promote understanding of the health benefits of carbonated drinks'. It's not like there is no choice.
What was the guy seeking in posting accusatory political opinions about the Chinese government on Twitter? Attention, that's what. The thing that everyone on Twitter wants. He got it, and now is unhappy with the result. He's not totally without some responsibility here.