Introduction

Traveller's Tangent: Communication and Un

A software bug in my digital Timex watch makes the alarm fail to go off 1% of the time, and this morning is one of those times. But the limo waits patiently, and despite a late start I'm off to China. In the limo I get my first reminder of that vast land of vaster misunderstandings. Heading west on the 401, I verify with the driver: "You saw the sign ..."

"Yes, mmm hmmm, yes."

"Good.... Ummm, the sign saying the collector lanes are moving faster than the express ..."

"Yes sir, no problem."

The limo passes the turnoff for the collectors, remaining in the express lanes.

"See, these are the express lanes we are on. Those lanes moving fast, to our right? They're the collectors ...."

"Mmmm."

The Return

"Look into her eyes," I tell the young student serving as my interpreter. "Make sure she is listening to you. Tell her she will have to talk to the kitchen."

It is as if I never left. Here I am in a restaurant again, struggling for what should be the simplest thing in the world -- a plain fish without excess oil and sauces. But in Beijing. (See precedents at Western Teacher, Chinese College.)

No problem. Everyone understands me. They will serve us a fish as requested.

Some time later a fish is presented -- drowning in soya sauce. I glance at my student friend. He perceives nothing amiss; it is a perfectly ordinary fish.

I wag my finger in circles about the sauce. The light abruptly dawns, and he buries his face into his hands. "I apology," he says in his soft voice. He is only 18.

He had understood me. It is an issue of Chinese-to-Chinese communications.

Later I ask for cold water. Impossible, I am told, they have no cold water. I extend my arm horizontally, pointing straight before me to the fridge across the room from which I was given a bottle of cold water the day before.

Oh oh oh.

They bring a bottle of water.

After my respite in the West, I have a bit of renewed inclination to pursue these things. I put the simple question to my student friend: "How could the waitress say there's no cold water?"

"She misunderstood," he tells me.

"How could she? The restaurant sells cold water."

"I misunderstood you too," he says.

"How is it possible to misunderstand 'cold water'?"

"When we say 'cold water' we think of boiled water."

"But this is cold water," I insist, holding up the bottle. "How can 'cold water' not mean cold water? Is there a different word for this?"

"No ...."

He gestures hopelessly. The chasm is unbridgeable.

* * *

OK, forget the water. Why -- I'd just like to know -- does the young man at the door erupt in a shout as if a garrotting were taking place each time a new restaurant patron arrives?

Here my friend has the answer: "Because this is a simulation of a traditional Chinese restaurant."

I see.

Sometimes you just have to exercise some intuition, like when you dial a cellphone number and hear the message in Chinese from the cell service provider, followed by the English version: "Sorry ... the subscriber is out of." (Except the "t" in "out" is silent.)

Not to suggest the Chinese aren't working at getting things across to their alien guests. The effort can already be seen at the Beijing airport, where the washroom signs say "Automatic Faucet, Unnecessary Touching."

In restaurants it is not unusual to have a waitress whose English is sufficient to respond to a thank-you with: "It is my pleasure." (Where are they getting their textbooks?)

My guest at the restaurant is a 3'rd-year English major at Tsinghua, the university where I'm teaching this Fall. Tsinghua and Beijing University are by common consensus the top two universities in China. (Opinion varies as to which of the two is #1; but Tsinghua focusses more on the physical sciences, while Beijing U. is more oriented towards the social sciences.)

There are surprisingly few Western teachers of English here -- about six. To my consternation, I was asked to give a couple of lectures to the university community on Canadian culture -- because I'm Canadian, presumably. If anyone has suggestions, please email me urgently.

Teachers were asked to provide a self-description which will be circulated to students. Here's mine:

Uriel Wittenberg
English Teacher, Foreign Languages Dept.
Self-Description for Tsinghua Students

The United States is acclaimed by many, and reviled by many others, as the most influential and culturally hegemonic nation in today's world. My teaching generally focusses on selected readings that yield insights into American society. Through close textual study and analysis, my aim is to make you understand the readings as thoroughly as educated Americans do.

The selected readings are interesting and well-written, typically drawn from top-quality news and information sources like the New York Times. I also target readings that reflect ideas and controversies in American society, or that develop your understanding of some of the fundamental flaws and looming dangers of the American social system; for example, the dependence of politicians on wealthy contributors; the corruption of news and education by commercial interests; and the pernicious influence of the media on young people and on the society at large. These worsening problems are probably best appreciated and most often deplored by commentators within the U.S. itself, but it would seem that only radical solutions are viable, and none is under serious consideration.

I'm from Toronto but have spent years in the U.S., pursuing graduate studies in government policy analysis in Pittsburgh and working as a software developer on Wall St. in New York. I believe in and encourage dispassionate reasoning, critical thinking, logic, and debate. More information about me is available at http://urielw.com.

Clearly there's going to be far more intellectual freedom in my class here in China than is tolerated in certain Shakespeare courses in Canada.

As always, list members, your comments are welcome.

Back at the restaurant, I ask my student friend what he did during the summer.

"I read some books," he says.

"Did you read any English books?"

"Yes, English and Chinese books."

"Name an English book that you read."

"I only read the first 30 pages."

"So what book was it?"

"Assembly Language Programming."

I kid you not.

"But you're an English major."

"Yes, but it's still useful."

Chicago is a mere 13 hours away.

The university has given me a nice apartment, but it had not a few roaches. A colleague next door gave me a product that addresses the problem, drawing my attention to the English name on the box: "The Monarch of Genocide." Admittedly, one is not inclined to settle for half-measures in such matters.

A convenient nearby supermarket supplies the Monarch and other useful things. I begin to enter, but .... Whoahhh! A uniformed guard stops me. What's the matter? Ah, I am carrying a small plastic shopping bag. Do I have to check it somewhere? No, just roll it up. I roll it up. The guard smiles and permits me to proceed.

When I first arrived, a Chinese colleague from the university took me to my apartment, then showed me around campus a bit. We were walking and talking together and I wasn't paying close attention to directions. When we parted, close to my apartment, I thought I knew where I was -- but then I couldn't find the expected landmark. I walked further and further in each direction, getting disoriented, and it occurred to me that all I knew about which building I lived in was that a letter-size sheet of white paper in one of its ground-floor windows marked it as building #5. There are, needless to say, many building #5's on campus.

Moreover, I did not have anyone's phone number on my person. Except the number to the phone in my empty apartment. (Don't even dream of reverse lookup.)

Everyone here is happy to help. But I could not provide the essential information people would need to help me. I was like the piteous amnesiac whose photo appeared in newspapers a few days ago.

Visions flitted across my mind of tramping around in circles until Monday, when I could get help from the department office. It was then Saturday morning.

Relax, everyone. I found my way. But here's a tip: when you go out in China, carry your address with you.

* * *

China is also entirely unchanged, since my last stay, with regards to traffic. For vehicles and bicycles passing pedestrians (or each other), it is seen as the height of superfluity to leave a space of more than a hair's breadth. What's most impressive as one witnesses the continual near-maimings is the utter unconcern of the pedestrians involved.

Walking along a campus road with a Chinese colleague, I told him: "Here, let's walk on the other side of the street, less chance of dying."

I crossed so we'd be walking on the left side. He followed, displaying reluctance.

"This is the wrong side, people should walk on the other side," he said.

There are about six people in our immediate vicinity (all Chinese). Three of them, a short ways ahead, are walking on the left side just as we are. I point: "What about them?"

"They are going against the rule," he replies.

He can be a bit argumentative at times. He also occasionally reflects a tendency I've occasionally encountered of thinking that just because somebody is clueless about the Chinese language and habits of thought, that person is also generally clueless about everything in the universe. So I repay him by inquiring about the water body running alongside the road we are following. It's a canal type of thing, about 10 feet across and contained by cement walls, that runs through the Tsinghua campus.

"Is that the Yangtze River?" I ask with a straight face.

He takes it in earnest, protesting "No no no, the Yangtze is much much bigger ...." til I stop him to say I'm kidding.

Freedom of Speech

This mailing list has been me-only since its inception last year, mainly because I assumed this is what most list members would want, based on my generally disappointing experiences with online discussions (which are often abysmal).

But now that BILL DUNPHY has offered a thoughtful post [in response to American Culture -- A Warning for China, which was emailed to the list in 6 installments] praising my logic and advocating I be designated President for Life, it occurs to me that these restrictions might be preventing the dissemination of some excellent ideas. So I've decided to open things up, temporarily anyway.

To post a public message to all list members, you may send email to [...].

It would be nice if members would refrain from sending out lengthy anti-China diatribes to the list, as one member attempted last year. Surely this list is not needed as a vehicle for criticisms of Communism and the Chinese government, which can be readily found elsewhere. Of course, you're welcome to take issue with anything I've written -- in fact that would be the ideal focus for discussion; but I hope everyone can understand that my criticisms of the West do not imply endorsement of China policies.

Bill's post appears below. Please note that he is media, so you must naturally take into consideration his various biases.

From: Bill Dunphy
To: Uriel
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 10:17 AM
Subject: The Uriel Times - A warning to China

The Uriel Times (tm) e-mail Edition

Proud Upholder of the Twenty-Eighth Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, Unless they check first with Uriel - or someone equally blessed.

Dec. 9, 2001

The Great Leap Forward - Safely

Researchers have determined that fatal head injuries in children could be cut by over 70 % if children wore helmets 24 hours a day and so, yesterday, President for Life Uriel Wittenberg, sporting a shiny new helmet for the occasion, decreed that all children shall be required by law to wear helmets at all times - except while swimming.

"That would be stupid," Wittenberg explained.

Told that pools were often made from concrete, Wittenberg said he was not above accepting amendments.

"I'm not irrational, you know. Maybe we should ban swimming."

The eminently reasonable and always rational ruler said he had taken the unusual step of ordering researchers to research this crucial area because his own observations had led him to believe that increased helmet use would logically mean decreased injuries BUT he had noticed that no one was discussing mandating helmet use for kids.

"The reason for that that is probably the second greatest irony in the western world," Wittenberg explained in an all-too common refrain.

"Who benefits from childhood injuries but the hospitals, the drug companies, the doctors - in short the whole medical establishment. And who is the only people you will find writing in medical journals? The medical establishment of course. So the very people who should be protecting children from painful head injuries are ensuring that they continue unabated.

"Enough of that criminal medical conspiratorial stupidity. From now on all children will wear helmets or face periods of increasing confinement on a body board."

The Thin Skull Protection Act was approved by the upper and lower houses sitting in simultaneous session, something they are required to do by law when considering (i.e. passing) any reasonable, rational, obvious, law proposed by Our Rational Ruler.

Also In this issue*:

- Force Feeding Spinach: a rational necessity or a foolish Western luxury?
- Chinese Finally Learning to Grill Steak
- Free Speech Doesn't Mean You Don't Have to Pay The Consequences
- Entire Nation Cuts Off Nose To Spite Face - "It seemed the Logical Thing to Do" says bleeding Prime Minister
- Short List for Goebbels Prize Released

*Note: Only Government licenced journalists were employed in the production of this issue.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uriel

I finally read your last installment. This response will have to do for now - I will be delighted to offer a more detailed critique within a week or so. If you'd like to spark some discussion on your piece, why don't you send this along to your China list?

Bill

The Monster

Perhaps one or two of you will recall a lecture given at a few Chinese universities expressing some misgivings about TV and other media. (American Culture -- A Warning for China).

Apart from media person Bill Dunphy, who threatened (idly) to demolish my thesis, no one on this mailing list had a problem perceiving that Western democracy and culture are doomed.

While contemporary developments provide daily corroboration, I thought it worth calling your attention to two independent items recently appearing within days of each other in the New York Times. Excerpts below; full text at http://nytimes.com.

Cheers to all,

Uriel (currently travelling in Zhejiang Province, China)
--
http://urielw.com/tsinghua/

Fire, Alligators, Maybe 500 Flies: Stay Tuned

One program hooks contestants up to a heart monitor and asks questions while shooting off fireworks and hanging alligators above their heads. The other show locks contestants in a high-tech torture chamber and either bombards them with icy jets of water as the surrounding air drops to minus 10 degrees or suspends them upside down over a bed of flames as the temperature roars past 150 degrees.

The television game show never looked like this before.

In the two new shows, "The Chair" and "The Chamber," which both had promising ratings in their debuts last week, ABC and Fox are pushing to the next level of what the networks call alternative programming -- a genre that includes reality shows like CBS's "Survivor" and game shows like ABC's "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire."

.......

"The Chamber," in its opening on Sunday a week ago, threw around words like "steel hellhole" and "unbearable environment" and even what [Mike Darnell, the executive vice president for alternative programming for Fox,] called "the T- word" -- as in torture. "I wanted it to sound frightening," he said.

Asked if the Fox concept was more sideshow than game show, Mr. Darnell said he could not disagree. Mr. Darnell, whose more outlandish programming ideas tend to be unleashed whenever Fox hits ratings problems, described "The Chamber" as "pretty visceral stuff."

"I'm looking for visceral reactions in the contestants," he said. "I want to hear if they're in pain or are suffering."

Mr. Darnell is already achieving his goal, with contestants fastened spread-eagle in a chair and electrodes strapped to certain muscles to induce involuntary contractions. They are rotated over flames as if being roasted on a spit or forced to sit in tank tops in subzero cold, emerging either covered in ice or complaining of having their legs burned.

One production staff member called the show "a pig of a concept." The show's original host, Matt Vasgersian, walked off "The Chamber" set in disgust during a pretaping run- through, fearing permanent damage to his career as a sports announcer. (This from the man who announced games last year for the XFL.)

Although neither received much promotion, "The Chair" reached 12.4 million viewers in its first outing last Tuesday night at 8. "The Chamber," which played last Sunday night and last night before making a move to its regular spot on Fridays at 9 p.m., drew about 10 million. And both were potent among those precious younger viewers.

[Darnell] promised that "The Chamber" would only become wilder. If any contestant manages to master either the hot or cold chamber, "we'll retire it and bring on a new chamber," Mr. Darnell said. "We'll probably do an animal chamber if we get that far."

Mr. Darnell did not specify what an animal chamber might mean, but one production staff member said, "There has already been talk about opening the chamber and releasing 500 flies."

'Torture' on TV: It's Not Funny

To the Editor:

I was horrified when I read that major TV producers are mimicking torture as a form of entertainment ("Fire, Alligators, Maybe 500 Flies: Stay Tuned," Business Day, Jan. 21).

Over the last two decades, our clinical program has cared for thousands of torture survivors resettled in the United States or living abroad. Never once did we find the pain or humiliation of torture entertaining except in the minds of the perpetrators.

The blunting of our society's natural repulsion to torture by making fun out of the imitation of human cruelty is a dangerous direction. At this time Americans must be especially thoughtful as we decide on the proper response to terrorists like those imprisoned in Cuba.

RICHARD F. MOLLICA, M.D.
Boston, Jan. 23, 2002
The writer is director, Harvard Program in Refugee Trauma, Massachusetts
General Hospital.

Political Reform Has to Start on Television

By DON HEWITT
(executive producer of "60 Minutes" for CBS News)

The Enron story has brought into sharp focus the links between politics, business and campaign money. What they have in common is television.

It's a sad fact that what was hailed 42 years ago as television at its best became, a few short years later, politics at its worst. The pivotal event was the first-ever televised presidential debate. The year was 1960. The debaters were Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy. I was the producer.

...

We wouldn't have to live with money's grip on campaigns if America took a stand against political ads on TV as it once took a stand on tobacco ads.

I believe the founding fathers would turn over in their graves at the absurd contention, made by some, that it would violate the First Amendment to deny a federal office seeker the opportunity to buy what the 1934 law calls, without defining, "a reasonable amount of time." Unless you believe, that is, that the checks and balances they urged on us were cashier's checks and bank balances.

Bush to visit my university

Next week President Bush will be visiting Tsinghua University in Beijing, where I teach (http://urielw.com/tsinghua/), and he'll hold a question-and-answer session with students that will appear live on Chinese television.

Bush wrote in his 1999 campaign biography that on his last visit to Beijing, in 1975, "he was bored and depressed by a nation where all the bicycles looked the same" (as reported in New York Times, "Personal Touches to Highlight Bush's Asian Visit Next Week," February 15, 2002).

I can explain that.

At least some Westerners tend to think of this as a police state. In fact there is so little law enforcement that theft is rife -- bike thefts in particular. Students typically have a bike stolen 3 times a year. A few weeks ago my bike was stolen two days after I bought it.

The recommendation offered by knowledgeable locals: buy a crap bike that no one will want to steal.

My next bike wasn't stolen but only days after I bought it, after I'd already had the vendor fix other problems, the left pedal fell off. That was enough. I returned it and got my money back and am now riding yet another new bike. Also crappy, but hopefully the pedals will stay on.

Similarly, firecrackers and fireworks were banned in Beijing some years ago (for reasons of pollution). But as several Chinese have mentioned to me (and as I've been able to hear for myself), the law has been widely flouted during the current New Year's celebrations.

Silliness Pandemic

A top student in this top university, rebuked for his foolishness by my morose comment, "I can't understand why you students can't be more mentally awake," writes:

Yes,you are right,none of this makes sense,no explanations makes sense,but I must show my thanks,because you have pointed out my fault and so I can be mentally awake from now on.I haven't realized what I did is so blamed before.Thank you!

Here maybe a answer to your question----------"I just can't understand why you students can't be more mentally awake."
1, most students in Tsinghua just know study from they were very young,they only do study everyday.And what they do well in is just study.
2, in the teachers and parents' eyes,study is most important.so it doesn't matter whether their children is mentally awake or not.because most students in tsinghua do well in their studies,so maybe they have no time to be mentally awake.And no one teaches them how to keep mentally awake!

Here is China,we have to do a lot exercises everyday in the high school and aslo in tsinghua,100 maths problems plus 100 physics ones plus 100 chemistry ones plus some English readings! All these have to be done in one day! Do you think it's easy to do? And could most students that have been trained like this be mentally awake as you hope? Here is china,not Canada,not USA.

Sorry to be so mentally sillness.

The following exchange ensues:

Thanks for trying to explain, but I still don't understand. I would expect all this study to make students SMARTER. But you seem to be saying their studies actually make them SILLIER. Why? Doesn't exercise strengthen the mind, rather than weaken it?

>what they do well in is just study.

Why would students who are great at study be poor in real-life thinking? Do you mean they're resting whenever they aren't doing schoolwork because they're so exhausted?

Since your vacation began, you have not (I assume) been doing hundreds of exercises every day. Yet you were still silly. Does schoolwork cause lasting damages to students' minds?

--------------------------------------------------

I think if they do think when they are solving the problems,it will actually make them smarter. But in fact,most students don't use their heads,they never think why this problem should be worked out in this way,they just learn how to solve this problem by heart,they just learn the problems by heart.Then,when they meet a problem similar to this one,they know how to solve.And then they can get a good mark in the exam.
I think proper quantities of works will make them smarter but there are too many exercises to do,most problems they face are similar.This work is as dry as a chip.The students are easy to lose their interests.

> Do you mean they're resting whenever they aren't doing schoolwork because they're so exhausted?

No,I don't think they're so exhausted.In fact, a chinese high school student don't have any time that they aren't doing schoolwork.They have too many work to do.And ,what the teachers and parents think is that the only thing students should do is study,they must use up all their time to study!

>you were still silly. Does schoolwork cause lasting damages to students' minds?

I think the schoolworks' lasting damages is one reason,and the other one is that I don't know how to be mentally awake,even don't know what mentally awake is like.So I said I must show my thankfulness,it's you that let me feel what mentally awake is!
In fact,most chinese students do in vacation is PC games,is sleeping 12 hours a day,is TV.Even some students do hundreds of exercise every day.I don't think they could feel what mentally awake is in such life!

--------------------------------------------------

Your description makes Chinese education seem incredibly stupid. Is this how China thinks it will be ready for WTO and the 21'st century?

The whole point of education is to stimulate the mind and strengthen thinking ability.

--------------------------------------------------

I agree with you.

But,in CHINA,the whole point of education is to get good marks.That's true!

The Grade Grubber

Of my 280 students last semester, only one qualifies as a grade grubber. I want to emphasize he's atypical lest you get a distorted picture of Chinese students. I nonetheless want to quote my (edited) correspondence with him because -- is it just me? -- I find it interesting, revealing and amusing. It'd be less funny if he were older but the students are only about 20 and, in my view, not yet formed.

The correspondence began shortly after the Dec. 24 exam which prompted it:

Subject: Opinions From Student in [class X]

Hello, Sir,
    I'm [], one of your students in [class X].
    I have some opinion about your way of giving the final score. It is better for me to write to you to talk about this matter, for I cannot express my opinion perfectly in person.
    In class you said, it is unfair that you just mark people according to their current English level, because they may come from different places, including some with few foreigners.
    But, sir, I want to tell you that, even for me, a student from Chengdu, the capital of Sichuan province, where a lot of foreigners visits every year, have little opportunity to speak to them before entering university. And my oral English is also very bad two years ago. I'm not denying that there are some students from some big cities of Guangdong province with better English Skills, however, they make only a small fraction in Tsinghua. Most of us are not very good at English.
    However, we have so many opportunities to improve our spoken English.... the reason I was a better master of English is I spend much more time on it than most students. I went to the English Corner of Renmin Univ. , which is best in Beijing, once a week last year, to improve my oral English. It helped me a lot: in the oral part of Tsinghua English Proficiency Test 1, I get a score of 14, while the full score is 15, much better than most students. And I think I deserve that, 'cause when others are playing or studying some other things, I'm improving my English. I had a much large vocabulary than most students, because I spent over a year preparing GRE, which requires a extremely large vocabulary. And I get 2270 ( 2400 for full score) at last, 710 for verbal part ( 800 for full score). If you know this test, you will find this is a rather high score. And, still, I think I deserve it. In the 13 months' journey to GRE, I spent 5 to 6 hours working on it everyday, and meanwhile, I have to do all things that a normal Tsinghua students should. I really had a hard time in that period, almost had no time to have a rest. Happily, I get all my effort repaid: I ranked the top 4% for my GPA in my grade( my average score is 88), got a high score for GRE, and improved my English so greatly.
    ALL THIS HAPPENED AFTER MY ENTERING TSINGHUA. I wonder how others can not achieve this if they really want to! Sir, believe me, here for most students, if anyone is better in English, he or she must have done more for it than others. English is a language, and no one can really master a language unless he or she really care about it. We have equal opportunity here to improve it, but only the ones who are willing to pay achieve most.
    I do not agree that you mark us according to the 13 questions about the detail of the readings. Even if one can answer all the questions correction, it is meaningless. I've read all the articles, but I can't recollect all the details. Suppose, if I answers 3 or 4 questions wrongly, I will get a low mark. That would be funny: I am one of the most active students in class, I speaks most and best, and I get a low score for such a ADVANCED SPOKEN ENGLISH course just because I can't remember the details of some articles. Is it fair or not? That is why I advise you so many times not to mark our score according to the test you gave us. We come to your class to improve our spoken English and get acknowledged, now that this purpose is not satisfied, it is reasonable that valuation is not satisfying.
    If our score has nothing to do with what we have done for English, that will be unfair indeed. If so, no one will improve they English after class: simply memorize the article, no matter how bad your spoken English is, you will get a high score!
    Suppose one day I apply for a post, which requires extremely good spoken English, and the interviewer looks at my score list, pointing at the low score of your course, asking me: "why your score for spoken English is so low, while you had claimed that you were good at it?" What should I say, "I've done badly in such a test referring to the articles we have read"? That will be embarrassing and funny.
    I write so much because the score is very important for me. I am applying some universities in America, and the scores for my undergraduate courses will determine my destiny.
    There are some other very good students: Rainy, ER, etc. I don't know them, but they also deserve high scores.
    Please reconsider this matter.
    If I offended you, I'm sorry.
    Thank you.

--------------------------------------------------

You certainly haven't offended me, not at all. I welcome your ideas and am glad to hear them.

As you point out, it's possible to overcome different backgrounds through work. But my main point was that if I grade according to how well you speak, the grade will not reflect how much work you did, or how much you paid attention, in MY class.

>We come to your class to improve our spoken English and get acknowledged

Improving your spoken English is not the primary purpose of my course (although hopefully it's a tangential benefit).

It's true, I know, that your English is superior. And this means it would have been much easier for you than for other students to get a really high mark in the course. You probably should have been the top student.

But it seems as though perhaps you felt entitled to a high mark in my course without any work. My exam questions aren't about details. You should be able to get the correct answer if you read the readings (and perhaps reviewed them a bit before the exam) and understood the main points that were discussed and explained in class. If you don't agree, please cite the specific exam question you are objecting to.

My questions are designed so that without comprehension you get the wrong answer. Do you really think memorization alone could produce a high score?

--------------------------------------------------

> Improving your spoken English is not the primary purpose of my course (although hopefully it's a tangential benefit).

    Sir, you're wrong. This course's name, Advanced Spoken English, already determines the main purpose of it, or it should have another name. We ALREADY have many courses for logical thinking, western culture, reading, listening, etc. We choose this course just because its name tells us it will help us improving Spoken English, or we will not come. If the purpose of your class is not for improving our spoken English, you should tell the administrator of your apartment and change your course's name. We are misled.

    If you just mark us according to the last exam, I will not come at all except the last week. I will photocopy all the articles, and read them before the test. You've already seen some students you had never seen before come to your test. SO, IS IT FAIR FOR US, WHO COMES EVERY WEEK?
    Sir, you haven't forgotten the students who had been so active in class, have you? What they have done is useless just for your criteria of equal? I really regret it. And I was so disappointed.

> My questions aren't about details.

Please, give me the test paper, and I will cite it for you.

> The difficulty and challenge posed by the readings was comprehension.

Sir, you tested us with the article your taught with. If your teaching was successful, we had already comprehended it.

If I offended you this time, forgive me...
    But I really regret, I've done so much...forget it ...

--------------------------------------------------

Students with much worse English than you did the work ... and got higher marks. But you took the course to have what you already knew "acknowledged." It's remarkable that with your wonderful English you actually scored below average!

>This course's name, Advanced Spoken English, already determines the main purpose

>We ALREADY have many courses for logical thinking, western culture, reading, listening, etc.

Excuse me, I forgot, I was thinking you were in one of my Newspaper Reading classes. Nevertheless, as a student it's a bad idea for you to have a rigid idea based on course title of what the course should be about. You have to pay some attention to what the teacher is trying to teach. You're at Tsinghua to learn -- you're not so perfect yet.

For example: I remember your presentation on the Chinese educational system. You gave a big speech about how terrible it is. Then we had a class discussion. And the conclusion was that the system is pretty good, given the money now spent on it, and that there are no obvious ways to improve it without increased funding. You did not dispute this conclusion.

So how great is your thinking and logic?

Perhaps instead of carping about your score you should be grateful that you got a chance to improve your thinking ability -- which is even more important than English.

>Sir, you tested us with the article your taught with. If your teaching was successful, we had already comprehended it.

I don't blame myself for failure when students don't work.

--------------------------------------------------

> you registered on the assumption that you could get a high mark without work.

    Sir, what do you mean by "without work"? I don't think so. For learning English, I have done much more than most people! I think I have told you about it.
    I wonder why you thought we must do hard during your course but not other time. The problem is we do not always have so much time. So I choose to avoid paying too much time on English this term,(but I still paid at least more time than average, I will talk about it later), 'cause I have so many courses other than English. I took GRE at the beginning of this term and will take TOEFL next term. I nearly spent half of my spare time on English in the last two years.
    And you say I could get a high mark without work?? Nobody could, I think.

A successful test is to tell the good from bad, isn't it? So your test is a little unsuccessful. I never fail, or to be more accurate, get a score below average, in any English test. That is why I said I didn't benefit much in your test.
    Your test is indeed a test of memorization, not skill of English. I failed to recollect the details, so it's not surprising that I did worse than average.
    And, do you think your test has any connection with spoken English? In this aspect, it is a failure.

> it's a bad idea for you to have a rigid idea based on course title of what the course should be about.

    But the course's name is the only thing we can know about this course! I have the right to choose what I want to learn, but not decided buy my teacher. That is why we have such a course selection system!

> So how great is your thinking and logic?

    There is a big problem: communication. That is why you think my logic is poor.
    There are many problem in the Chinese educational system, and there are no obvious ways to improve it, but I NEVER said it is pretty good! Maybe some other students said that, but I didn't. I donot dispute just because this is not a debate course, we don't have to take the conclusion too serious.
    By the way, I have also taken a course for improving eloquence taught by Ms. Sun Haiyan. I am the top 3 students in it, and I won in the last debate match. I think I have little problem in my logic, the problem lies in communication.

    At last, I should say, I respect you, for you are so serious on giving everyone equal opportunities. And you are a good man who is very serious about his work (I saw this from your scoring method, there will be a great amount of calculation). If possible, I want to be a friend of yours, if you don't mind I was much younger than you.:)

    I still wish you to help about the score of this course. It is meaningless for most people in Tsinghua if they stay in Chinese, (the overall score will not include your course), but it is meaningful for me, because all the courses will be included in final score list if apply a foreign school.

    If possible, I want to have a short interview with you.

    I apologize to you if I have made some injustice.

[4 exam questions he objects to are quoted in attachment]

--------------------------------------------------

Let me be explicit: there will be no change in your grade. Clearly that would be unfair. But if you want to buy me a beer and have a talk that would be fine.

I'm sorry if your grade is a problem for you, but I must insist you recognize your own responsibility for your performance. You had a very sizeable advantage over other students, yet you scored below average. Kick yourself -- but don't complain to me.

>Sir, what do you mean by "without work"? I don't think so. For learning English, I have done much more than most people!

Surely you understand what I meant by "without work". Of course I was talking about your work IN THE COURSE -- not before.

>I choose to avoid paying too much time on English this term,(but I still paid at least more time than average, I will talk about it later), 'cause I have so many courses other than English.

If you worked more than average, then why, with your superior English, did you perform worse than average? I don't see how you can explain that.

Your theory that you would get a high mark based on what you knew BEFORE the course is a good example of what is called "denial." The truth was that you had to work for a high mark in this course because marks were based entirely on written tests. We discussed this in class and it was quite clear. I said explicitly in class that I wanted to avoid basing grades on the English level of students at the time the class began.

>A successful test is to tell the good from bad, isn't it?

If what you see in the world contradicts the theory in your mind, then you should change your theory. You knew what my objectives were for my tests.

>I have the right to choose what I want to learn, but not decided buy my teacher. That is why we have such a course selection system!

Again: believe what you see (and what you hear the teacher tell the class), not your internal theories. Tsinghua does not grant you so many rights. In my courses, I decide the grades, and you should have known how I was doing it.

>There is a big problem: communication. That is why you think my logic is poor. There are many problem in the Chinese educational system, and there are no obvious ways to improve it

Well, that is not very logical. If you say "many problems" that implies something is being done poorly and should be done differently. If it can't be improved, then there is nothing to criticize. Surely your point in your speech was that the system is doing a bad job.

>I donot dispute just because this is not a debate course, we don't have to take the conclusion too serious.

It's too easy for people to think "I'm right but I don't care about winning the argument." Any fool can tell himself that.

It seems to me this is more denial. If I can't give you the grade you want, perhaps my remarks will at least help you develop your maturity.

>I think I have little problem in my logic, the problem lies in communication.

You are not being very consistent. You have to decide: is your English good or not? You can't say it's good when arguing for an English mark, then say it's bad when defending your logic.

>If possible, I want to be a friend of yours, if you don't mind I was much younger than you.:)

Sure it is possible, I'd be happy to be friends.

I'll comment on just one of the exam questions you mention:

"If the TV networks had refused the government's request, the government would probably have passed new laws to stop them from showing more bin Laden messages. Y/N."

This touches on the fundamental point about the whole article. What was amazing about this news was that it seemed very close to something that's supposed to be unthinkable in America: government control of the news. As discussed in class, direct control is legally impossible because of the First Amendment.

--------------------------------------------------

Can we have a talk on 10th' evening, or 11th' morning, (I will have an exam on 10th's afternoon), before you deliver the list to the officials of your department?
    I think to talk with you in person is a better way to exchange our ideas.
    There are some other ways to make things more clear, I'm not asking you to help me to cheat, but to give me a proper score for my performance. I will prove that.
    I'm not claiming a very high score, just not to below my average score ( 88% ) too much. It is not fair. I am one of the students who had paid much time for your course, but please imagine the situation for me: I had just taken a exam of a 4-credit course in the 15th week and from the end of the 16th week on, I would have to take 5 big exams ( which add up to 17 credits) in 10 days. And during the 15th and 16th week we still had a lot of experiments to do, a bunch of reports and homework to do. This is the busiest period in my school life. If you know any person from [] department, you will know that these things really drive students mad. I really cannot find out time to review the articles, that is the main reason that I have done badly. If you have a look at the score of my first exam, you will know that. But that does not mean I didn't work hard, or I would not be able to answer your questions in class so many times ( I wonder who can, without reading the articles ).
    Please delay delivering the score list to the officials in your department.

    You may change my life, sir.

    My cell phone number is [], call me any time.

--------------------------------------------------

Your persistence, and audacity, are quite astonishing. Evidently my previous declaration was not sufficient. Let me quote myself:

>Let me be explicit: there will be no change in your grade.

You remind me of the Terminator. He can't be stopped, he just keeps coming back and attacking again.

I submitted the grades to the department on Monday. What will you ask for now -- that I go tell them there has been a terrible mistake?

We can meet Thursday 9 PM if you like. Did you say you would buy me a beer?

--------------------------------------------------

    Since you've submitted the score to the department, I will not talk about it any more.
    I just wanted to try my best to change my life in order that I won't regret doing nothing for it after years. This is my principle.

> Kick yourself -- but don't complain to me.

    I will not kick myself. I have done enough work for this course. I can only say that I am unfortunate.

> Your theory that you would get a high mark based on what you knew BEFORE the course is a good example of what is called "denial"

    I can face the truth, but I will try to change it.

> Tsinghua does not grant you so many rights. In my courses, I decide the grades

    The officials won't be happy to hear you say that, the school needs rules and orders. If every teacher do what they like, the school will run into disorder.

> If it can't be improved, then there is nothing to criticize. Surely your point in your speech was that the system is doing a bad job.

    I can be improved, but money needed. It is doing a bad job, it is so obvious that nearly the whole country is criticizing it. If you can read newspapers in Chinese, you will know that.
    Sir, you don't know china very much, you're just using your own logic without evidence. I think if more instances were brought to you, you will change your mind.

> It's too easy for people to think "I'm right but I don't care about winning the argument."

    Why not? I am so tired that I don't want to dispute any more, it's meaningless. Nothing would be changed even if I won.

> is your English good or not? You can't say it's good when arguing for an English mark, then say it's bad when defending your logic.

    My English is good when compared with my schoolmates, but not enough for debating with a native English-speaking teacher like you. It is so obvious that I think I don't need to say it.

    Did you still remember that in your [survey of students] that most students are not satisfied in your course? We held back some criticism, for we don't want to make our remarks too offending. I know this because we discussed you after class.
    I should remind you that it is us who decide whether you are a good teacher, not yourself. If you want to do a better job as a teacher next term, please take my advice a little more serious.

    I still would like to meet you, but I have an exam on Thursday afternoon. Can we make it on tomorrow evening or Friday morning?
    I still want to make friends with you.

We had our meeting. It was interminable. And he did not buy me a beer (we met in my office). Reconciliation was not achieved, but it was blunt and friendly.

After the meeting, he arose again in my inbox:

Dear Sir,
    Please give me the answer of the test, I want to check it.
    Thank you!

--------------------------------------------------

I must be crazy to do so much work for you. I think your fanaticism about your grade must be distorting my judgment.

B, AC, B, D, B, A, N, N, C, C, D, A, D

--------------------------------------------------

Thank you, sir.

--------------------------------------------------

No problem. I hope you have a pleasant vacation. (Don't think about your grades too much.) Maybe the vacation would be a nice time to review those interesting articles we did in class.

Me & the Students

Note re correspondence quoted above: I should have made clear it was edited purely for length, by removing material (except for a couple of minor insertions marked by brackets).

I scaled final grades so the average was 85 and the top grade 97 in each class. The average seems too high but I consulted the admin people and that is the normal average.

After posting final grades to my website (http://urielw.com/tsinghua/scores1.htm) I sent an email to my students to let them know, and to wish them well on their 6-week vacation (now nearing its end).

Naturally I didn't waste the occasion to offer some memorable good advice. I had asked them, on my anonymous survey at the semester's end:

What are your priorities in your undergraduate education? Indicate the relative importance of the following 4 goals by listing the keywords in sequence, from most to least important.

Keyword / Goal

Improve / Become a smarter, better, generally more educated person

Grades / Get high grades.

Job / Get a good job in the future

Interest / Study interesting things.

Most were right-thinking enough to put "improve" first, or at least "interest." But, as I told them in the email, that was inconsistent with their responses to another question:

Asked why you did not answer questions in class, many of you cited "shyness", "Chinese culture", the "Chinese education system", or "our bad habits". Again, this is clearly bad for your objective. Do you really want to become a better person? Lack of confidence is a problem that can obstruct your success all your life. Be brave; fight your fear. If you try, you can improve. But you have to try.

I summarized with a list of pointers:

Dare to be different

Think for yourself -- other people are often wrong.

Improvement means CHANGE. Be willing to reconsider all your habits.

Fight your own weaknesses.

And finally, some advice from Shakespeare:

     This above all: to thine ownself be true,
     And it must follow, as the night the day,
     Thou canst not then be false to any man.
     [Hamlet]

One of my top students, who is maybe a bit scatter-brained, and who is also relatively involved in extracurricular activities, offers a contrast to the grade grubber. She evidently never consulted my website after my email (nor very possibly read the email at all). Weeks afterwards, after getting her grades from the administration (apparently showing a failing 55 in my course because of an admin error, rather than the correct 95), she and I had this exchange:

I was shocked when I saw my score of your course. I believed that I had spent enough time and given good participation in your class. However, I even didn't pass the examination! Seeing the terrible 55, I really want an explanation from you.

Maybe I didn't do so well in the final, but I thought the score should also include the mid-exam, participation and involvement,scores in ordinary exams. So I sincerely hope that it would have been a mistake.

If unfortunately,My performance in your class was only worthy of that 55, I thought I would reflect myself carefully.

wait for your response.

--------------------------------------------------

Sorry you only got 55. I hadn't noticed your score before. Like the note at the webpage states, grading was based exclusively on test scores. I calculated grades without even looking at the students' names.

Does this mean your class participation was useless? No. You got the benefit of practicing your English and having more fun than your classmates. But it didn't improve your mark. Sorry.

Please check your test scores and let me know if you think there's any inaccuracy. The class average was 85, so if you got 55 you must have done terribly on the tests.

--------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your response in time. I get quite clear about the score you gave. I thought your explanation was satisfying. Although I didn't check my exam, I knew that your maths was good enough to give a correct mark for each student.
Unfortunately,I didn't do quite well in the final, as I didn't attend one class. However, the article given in that class was examed in the final, as a big percentage. It was a pity!
thank you for your lesson, I learnt a lot from it. Though I didn't pass it, I still thought I had done a good job at that class.
best regards!

(Later I checked her grade, found it was 95, and told her to get the admin to fix it.)

Another student actually claimed to have forgotten to come to the final exam. So he asked to write the final exam for another class, scheduled for later that week. All my classes had covered different material so this didn't seem a very promising avenue, but he said a friend from that class would help him prepare, and I said OK. Then he turned out, very improbably, to do better than average on that exam.

One thing that bothers me about last semester is that some students did succeed in cheating on my exams. The administration had turned down my request for help in preventing it (bigger exam rooms; proctors) and I hadn't had time for somewhat complicated counter-measures. But this fellow was being too audacious. I called him for a meeting and asked him to explain his answers. He was quite earnest, and he offered far-fetched explanations involving luck and test-taking strategies. None were based on comprehension of the material.

I thought about it a bit after the meeting. I could buy some of the strategy explanations (which offered food for thought for improving future questions). But overall it was unbelievable, so I gave him a zero for the exam. Within hours of my email announcing grades this exchange began:

Dear Teacher:

I can't accept that!My final score is 50!I have read most of the articles,and I were not absent for most of the classes,I have done what I can!But jusr because I missed the final exam,my score is so low!I think that's not just!

I can't understand!One student in our class was absent most of the times,but he got a higher score!Why?I need one reason,Sir!

You know, that is very important for me,so I beg you can think it over!

Best Wishes!

Yours sincerely:

--------------------------------------------------

Please don't beg. Passing a course is not a matter of a teacher's indulgence. You failed the course because you cheated.

--------------------------------------------------

Dear Teacher:

Since you have said so,I have nothing to say!But I just want to say I don't think it's just,I think it's unfair to me!But I can do nothing!

Still,thank you very much for letting me know so much in last term!Thank you!I learned a lot from you.

I wish I can become your friend!

Best wishes!!

--------------------------------------------------

I also like justice.

If you had succeeded in your efforts, then you would have gotten a higher grade than students who went to every class, learned more than you, and wrote the exam honestly. Is that justice?

Perhaps you should stop and think a little more carefully about what you are doing at Tsinghua, what you hope to achieve here, and what kind of life you want to live.

Cheers,

I haven't heard back from him.

Bush -- Remote Even On One's Doorstep

My day opened in a wash of relief as I learned that something is finally being done about the threat to snowmobiles in U.S. parks:

The Bush administration took another formal step today toward overturning the Clinton-proposed ban on snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks.

At the behest of the snowmobile industry, the Interior Department issued a supplemental environmental impact statement and offered three alternatives to the phaseout. The department will now solicit opinions on the alternatives.

This is the fifth time the department has solicited public comment on the question of snowmobiles in the national parks. Most of that comment has consistently favored a ban, largely because of engine emissions and noise. Pollution at the West Entrance to Yellowstone has become so intense that the National Park Service has had to pump fresh air into the booths staffed by park rangers there, and last week provided respirators for them as well.

Ed Klim, president of the International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association, was not available for comment, although he had said in the past that he expected the impact statement issued today to counter "inaccuracies and misinformation used to smear snowmobiles."

["Snowmobilers Gain Against Plan for Park Ban," New York Times, February 20, 2002]

Bushites, this is the world you have brought us. A world safe from those who would smear snowmobiles.

A world, also, whose beacon of freedom and justice weighs an open policy of telling lies to manipulate allied nations:

The Pentagon is developing plans to provide news items, possibly even false ones, to foreign media organizations as part of a new effort to influence public sentiment and policy makers in both friendly and unfriendly countries, military officials said.

The military recently created the Office of Strategic Influence. The small but well-financed Pentagon office was established shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Little information is available about the Office of Strategic Influence, and even many senior Pentagon officials and Congressional military aides say they know almost nothing about its purpose and plans. Its multimillion dollar budget, drawn from a $10 billion emergency supplement to the Pentagon budget authorized by Congress in October, has not been disclosed.

One of the office's proposals calls for planting news items with foreign media organizations through outside concerns that might not have obvious ties to the Pentagon, officials familiar with the proposal said.

General Worden envisions a broad mission ranging from "black" campaigns that use disinformation and other covert activities to "white" public affairs that rely on truthful news releases, Pentagon officials said.

"It goes from the blackest of black programs to the whitest of white," a senior Pentagon official said.

Another proposal involves sending journalists, civic leaders and foreign leaders e-mail messages that promote American views or attack unfriendly governments, officials said.

Asked if such e-mail would be identified as coming from the American military, a senior Pentagon official said that "the return address will probably be a dot-com, not a dot-mil," a reference to the military's Internet designation.

The new office has stirred a sharp debate in the Pentagon, where several senior officials have questioned whether its mission is too broad and possibly even illegal.

Those critics say they are disturbed that a single office might be authorized to use not only covert operations like computer network attacks, psychological activities and deception, but also the instruments and staff of the military's globe-spanning public affairs apparatus.

Mingling the more surreptitious activities with the work of traditional public affairs would undermine the Pentagon's credibility with the media, the public and governments around the world, critics argue.

"This breaks down the boundaries almost completely," a senior Pentagon official said.

Moreover, critics say, disinformation planted in foreign media organizations, like Reuters or Agence France-Presse, could end up being published or broadcast by American news organizations.

The Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency are barred by law from propaganda activities in the United States. In the mid-1970's, it was disclosed that some C.I.A. programs to plant false information in the foreign press had resulted in articles published by American news organizations.

Critics of the new Pentagon office also argue that governments allied with the United States are likely to object strongly to any attempts by the American military to influence media within their borders.

The Office of Strategic Influence will also oversee private companies that will be hired to help develop information programs and evaluate their effectiveness using the same techniques as American political campaigns, including scientific polling and focus groups, officials said.

["Pentagon Readies Efforts to Sway Sentiment Abroad," NYT, February 19, 2002]

Although the Pentagon and CIA can't legally wage propaganda domestically, there's no penalty, legal or political, for deceit from the commander-in-chief:

To the unwary, yesterday's pledge by the Bush administration to reduce "greenhouse gas intensity" by 18 percent may have sounded like a pledge to reduce greenhouse gases, the emissions (mainly carbon dioxide, released by burning fossil fuels) that cause global warming. In fact, that's the way it was reported in some news articles. But the extra word makes all the difference. In fact, the administration proposed to achieve almost nothing.

What is this thing called greenhouse gas intensity? It is the volume of greenhouse gas emissions divided by gross domestic product. The administration says that it will reduce this ratio by 18 percent over the next decade. But since most forecasts call for G.D.P. to expand 30 percent or more over the same period, this is actually a proposal to allow a substantial increase in emissions.

The main actual policy described yesterday was an array of tax credits for planet-friendly activities, such as installing solar power or capturing methane from landfill. It's not worth trying to analyze the specifics of this proposal.... The key point is that it's just too small to do the job. It offers $4.6 billion over the next five years. That's less than a penny a day per American. Do you really think that's enough to produce a major change in the way we use energy, or that it is an appropriate level of response to a major threat to the planet?

And that's the substantive part of the proposal. The other part is creation of a "registry": companies can, if they choose, report their emissions of greenhouse gases. If they show reductions in emissions, they will receive -- well, nothing. But future administrations might be pleased.

The real question is why an administration that clearly doesn't want to do anything about climate change feels obliged to put on this show.

The answer, of course, is that on environmental issues the administration is clearly out of step with the public. Its indifference to the fate of the planet would be quite unpopular if it were generally appreciated.

["Ersatz Climate Policy," NYT, February 15, 2002, By Paul Krugman]

And those 3 items are just in the past week.

I've just returned from tramping around this campus seeking a ticket to attend Bush's address here tomorrow morning. I'd been thinking the time is ripe for my 15 minutes of fame. I would just traipse down to the audience mike and say something like:

Welcome, Mr. President. My name is URIEL WITTENBERG. (Irresistible grin for the banks of cameras from every nation.) I'm an English teacher at this university. You know, the Chinese language is so different, my students' English is extremely awkward. So it's really a refreshing change to hear you speak.

That's not enough to be hustled off by security, is it?

Then my question: "Now that you've announced you will reduce greenhouse gases by 18 percent, are the tree-huggers finally going to cut you some slack?" And wait and see if he corrects me -- or implicitly endorses my misstatement.

The student assisting in my ticket quest led me to the university's "propaganda department" (what we'd call PR), located together with the university president's office among an elegant assortment of traditional buildings in a park setting. But they could not grant my petition. A representative of the university International Affairs office was summoned. She explained that the teachers who would attend had been selected by China's Foreign Ministry, and the students by the Students Office. So we all trooped to the Students Office to try them -- but in vain. Apparently, attendees were already selected a month ago (long before I heard of the visit).

I biked over to the building where the event will take place, just as they were putting up the big sign: "Welcome President George Bush to Tsinghua University." Thought I'd take a look inside. They've got the airport-style security entrance already set up but -- imagine! -- they wouldn't even let me in. The security man seemed higher-grade than the norm, his discreet smile suggesting he saw humor in my attempt to wander inside and mildly enjoyed it.

There were about 40 security people in the area. I weighed my duty to you all to generate thrilling and chilling experiences ....

Then I decided, nah.

Assault on freedom

"Ahhhh'm leavin' this place!

"Ahhhh'm leavin' cause ... I've discovered there's no freedom in China! No there isn't. There's no freedom of speech! None at all."

That's my opener at English Corner, the regular events where a Westerner is surrounded on arrival by one or two dozen young Chinese, eager for English practice and conversation.

The faces around me look a bit downcast or quizzical. I explain:

"I criticized someone ..."

Then I show by my expression that I've had the sudden stroke of asking them whom I criticized. I interrupt myself:

"Whodaya think I criticized?"

No one says anything. At last one of the students reluctantly volunteers: "The government."

"That's right!" I laud the student, beaming. But again, I'm abruptly seized by a second thought, and suspicion sweeps my face.

"Which government?" I want to know.

"The Chinese government," someone says immediately. Obviously.

I wheel on the respondent, my finger pointing:

"Wrong! The American government!"

The hook thus inserted, I reel them through the remarkable saga of how a rich and powerful American institution has misused its power and influence to stifle freedom of speech at China's top university.

Which university? Get this: the same one where President Bush delivered his speech urging American-style liberties upon the Chinese, during his China visit last February.

Behind the scenes -- at the same time, in the same place -- the Mormon Church was battling academic freedom. And winning. How many Americans or Chinese, watching the speech on the tube, realized that?

Whose academic freedom was being assaulted?

Mine, people. That's how I know about it. Most folks keep mum around here.

A full account of this story can in fact be had in: Wrongdoing by American Mormons in China.

The speech that excited this opposition was the very lecture you've already seen in previous mail from me: American Culture -- A Warning for China.