鬼子进村的工作方式——北大会商制度如何解决？

昨日看了大家的很多回复，让我感到有继续将会商制度讨论进行下去的必要，这是第三篇文章了。北大学工系统一直以来，秉行着一种非常彪悍的决策工作方式，便是所有与北大师生相关的决策，都不无需通过北大师生的批准，便可付诸实施。

Source: http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_78c7e7eb0100sz39.html

Working Like Invaders Raiding a Village: How Should PKU's Consultation System Be Fixed?

> By Justin Sun · 2011-03-28 · [Original link](http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_78c7e7eb0100sz39.html) (Chinese)
> Our translation from the Chinese original.

Having read many of everyone's replies yesterday, I feel there's a need to keep the discussion of the consultation system going; this is the third article.

Peking University's student-affairs system has all along adhered to a very fierce way of making decisions, which is that all decisions related to Peking University's teachers and students can be put into effect without not needing the approval of Peking University's teachers and students [Translator's note: the original reads 都不无需通过, a double negative, "without not needing"; the evident sense is "without needing"]. With this way of working going on for so long, the people of the student-affairs system have come to feel that even notifying Peking University's teachers and students has become a superfluous act; so later not only was the right of approval lost, but even the right to know gradually fell away. Of course, Peking University's student-affairs system also holds hearings and forums with the corresponding student representatives, but the only significance of these student representatives is to keep this fierce way of deciding from looking too simple and shabby.

The exposure of the consultation system caused an uproar in public opinion, and it was nothing more than the exposure of a fatal flaw in the student-affairs system's long-standing way of deciding. Peking University's students and teachers almost woke up overnight to learn, through newspapers all over the streets and news all over the screens, that the student-affairs system was preparing to put them into the experiment of the consultation system. Peking University has many well-known sad episodes, such as the collapse of the Yitahutu BBS [Translator's note: the original writes 塌杞, apparently a miswriting of 塌圮, "collapse"; 一塌糊涂 was a well-known Peking University BBS] and the destruction of the Weiming Triangle, all accomplished by this kind of rapid sneak attack close to Pearl Harbor.

The last time we saw this way of deciding on Chinese soil was in the later part of the 1930s and 40s of the last century, the main way the Japanese invading army ruled the North China Plain. To sum it up in the words of the local people: "the devils sneak into the village, no shooting". The villagers too woke up almost overnight to find they had already been Greater East Asia Co-Prospered. Of course, we know the devils had already consulted the local village representatives, and had been invited by the local village representatives. As everyone knows, in those years when the country was nearly lost, finding a few traitors wasn't too hard a thing.

At this point someone rebuts me: although everyone admits both of these are "sneaking into the village", their nature is after all completely different. The devils wanted to enslave the Chinese people, while Peking University's student-affairs system is doing it for everyone's good; there's an essential difference between the two. To this I express complete agreement. Back then Sanlu too, in order to make Chinese people strong and raise the protein content, added all that melamine; how could it have imagined that some babies couldn't withstand the potency and a tragedy would follow? Back then Foxconn too, in order to respond to employees' demands and let employees earn more for working more, set the outrageous working time of 100 hours a week; how could it have imagined that some employees' hearts were so fragile that they would actually jump from buildings to seek death? Gutter oil, poisoned rice and black-hearted cotton were also all to raise Chinese people's resistance to radiation. In short, they were all for our good.

Naturally I completely agree with all the above too. Toward this whole way of deciding, we should view it correctly and face optimistically the minor loopholes and problems in the student-affairs system's work. So, with a heart full of gratitude, I plan to talk about how the consultation system should next be resolved.

Actually, I know I'm just worrying needlessly; the people of Peking University's student-affairs system have long since reflected deeply on this: "The 'consultation-gate' incident has once again exposed Peking University's shortcomings in news releases and media public relations." (see "On Peking University's 'Consultation-Gate' Incident") It was the student-affairs system's lack of discursive power, its failure to seize the high ground of news truth, its loss of the news initiative, that brought about today's situation. Of course this is a very good suggestion. If Sanlu had known this earlier, Chinese babies' ability to fight kidney stones would have improved further; if Foxconn had known earlier, it could also have further raised Chinese laborers' resistance to beatings and their spirit of diligence, and advanced toward a working time of 150 hours a week. If the news media further raised their awareness, the Chinese people's ability to resist poison could also achieve a breakthrough.

But I always feel this suggestion has one biggest problem, which is that it denies the existence of news truth, denies that this world has unbreakable facts. This world seems to be one where whoever holds discursive power, what he says is truth; but often we know that the people who most vigorously trumpet this line often have hands covered in the mud of lies, because they always believe "a lie repeated ten thousand times is truth"; that no one believes a lie isn't because it's a lie, but because it hasn't been repeated enough times and the scope of propaganda isn't wide enough.

Of course we know China has never lacked PR talent. Doing PR well comes down to nothing more than two things, money and force (even violence). Truth is not invincible; it often breaks its halberd and sinks in the sand before these two. China's best PR talent was Chiang Kai-shek. Shen Bao was the Republic of China's biggest newspaper; it went through the Qing government and the Beiyang government undefeated (we can consider that these two didn't do their PR work well). Under Chiang Kai-shek, the Generalissimo first tried to buy it off with a heavy sum, and after the buyout failed, directly sent people to swiftly assassinate Shen Bao's head, Shi Liangcai, neat and clean. From then on the newspaper world was silent as ten thousand horses, and the Generalissimo's worry was removed. I wonder whether this is a good example of PR seizing the news high-low ground [Translator's note: the original writes 新闻高低, "news high-low", apparently a slip for 新闻高地, "news high ground"] and fighting for news discursive power.

If, seeing this, your hair stands on end, actually it's not that serious; the Student Affairs Department at most wants to cover up a few things and keep their pitiful official caps; they're usually gentle and lovable and wouldn't even dare kill a chicken. So-called PR is very simple: nothing more than buying off with money, or threats and warnings, using connections, or several at once; in short, letting yourself publish a few more articles and letting others publish a few fewer. Publishing two more articles on the home page of Peking University's official website also counts as seizing Peking University's news high ground, only it's a pity no one outside reads it; you'll have to think of something.

The second method I wasn't originally going to talk about, because I don't expect anyone will listen. It is that the student-affairs system sincerely holds a dialogue with Peking University's teachers and students, revises the consultation clauses, rebuilds Peking University's image, continues Peking University's good tradition of teachers and students solving problems through dialogue, and even restores Peking University teachers' and students' right to know, and even the right to speak, on matters of decision. Of course I know this is basically impossible. When the Japanese were talking about Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity, if I'd walked over and told them to withdraw from China, not only would no one have listened, I'd have been risking being tired of living.

I know the second method is playing the lute to an ox, so I've only written this much.

Actually, they know better than I do what should be done.

2011/3/28

At Peking University

The following words are for students at other universities: please keep paying attention to Peking University's consultation system, because we know we are all Chinese university students. Once Peking University's consultation system is established, it will be adopted by many universities like a prairie fire, and the consultation system will very possibly become a new form of student management universally implemented in Chinese universities. You share weal and woe with Peking University's students, and we advance and retreat together with the fate of the country and the nation.

When I posted the second article, I attached this sentence, and many university students across the country gave me feedback about similar "consultation systems" at their schools. At many schools it has already taken shape, or even been fully established. Doesn't this tell us not only that the situation at Peking University is not optimistic, but that the situation nationwide is the same? [Translator's note: the original writes 全国的形式, "the form nationwide", apparently a slip for 形势, "situation".] If you have more information, Email: [email protected]. Your information will be completely anonymous. As everyone knows, in our China reporting a situation has never been anonymous, but with me, it is anonymous.

Don't know what the consultation system is? Please see:

Come, Let Me Tell You What the Consultation System Is

http://blog.renren.com/blog/308446797/718709184?frommyblog

Peking University to carry out consultation for ten categories of students, including those with "extreme thinking"

http://news.163.com/11/0325/03/6VV9LSVK00014AED.html