On the A Yi “Crying Poor” Incident

7,464 characters2006.10.06

The so-called “Peking University associate professor crying poverty” incident has become quite a sensation lately; for the specifics, a quick search online will tell you.

The original blog post should be: http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/48dcce8e0100061k

The follow-up journalist interview can be seen at: http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/48dcce8e01000687

After reading these two pieces, I still have some sympathy for this associate professor. The fact that teachers’ pay is not high is indeed a problem, and from the current reform trend in the educational system—for example, the personnel system reforms causing such a fuss at Peking University—I do not see any obvious tendency for professors’ situation to improve. Professors’ income depends on moonlighting; professors’ professional titles depend on writing SCI papers. In short, university professors’ proper duty—“teaching”—can neither win them fame nor bring them profit. Whether professors devote their energy to teaching has nothing to do with the fame and profit they will obtain.

It is true that those who choose teaching as a profession cannot be too utilitarian, but that is also a question on the premise that they can keep their jobs.

As for that damned personnel-system reform stirred up by Zhang Weiying and the others, I will say no more. What truly needs reform are those university administrators who have eaten their fill and have nothing better to do than stir up trouble. Do universities really need that many administrative staff? Even cutting half would not be too many. How about transferring their salaries and expenses to improve professors’待遇?

Whenever the topic of university personnel systems comes up, it is hard not to get worked up, because these issues will in the future become practical matters that concern me personally. Of course, no matter how much the salary is, I am still going to do scholarship; but being indifferent is one thing, being dissatisfied is another. As a matter for me personally, of course I may take it with calm detachment; but for such a general situation, it is reasonable to express dissatisfaction from one’s own position. One should not bully the honest simply because professors have lofty ideals.

Some people will say: “An income of nearly 5,000 is already high enough—why cry poverty? Then what about the migrant workers?”—What is the logic in thinking of migrant workers the moment professors are mentioned? These are different issues. The question of migrant workers’待遇 is the question of migrant workers’待遇; the question of professors’待遇 is the question of professors’待遇. Of course one cannot expect Chinese professors’待遇 to catch up with the West (though since Peking University is shouting about being some kind of “world-class university,” shouldn’t it at least guarantee world-class待遇?), but low teacher待遇 is not only due to China’s backward economy; more importantly, it is because educational investment is insufficient and unreasonable.

It is said that in the new century, under the fine overall situation of comprehensively building a moderately prosperous society, China’s education expenditure still accounts for only 2% of the gross national product. Although the Education Law enacted in 1996 stipulates that national education expenditure must not be less than 6% of the gross national product, there has been no change in the past ten years; in fact, we should count ourselves lucky if it has not been slashed even more drastically. Two percent is one-third of the standard set by the United Nations, ranking near the bottom in the world, even lower than Uganda, a poor African country. As for the level of free compulsory education, it is far below that of a “backward” giant country like India.

Is “revitalizing the country through science and education” just an empty slogan? (I heard this slogan all the time when I was little; recently it seems to have been heard less often. Perhaps people do feel guilty when they cry lies with their eyes wide open…) Is so-called valuing education merely a matter of shouting other empty slogans, such as “quality education” and “strive to create world-class universities”? Does that count as valuing education?

Come to think of it, within China’s education expenditure, the share spent on higher education is indeed relatively high. However, I fear that the investment there has all gone into one vanity project after another, as well as the administrators who have eaten their fill and have nothing better to do, plus the countless research projects. How much is really left spent on “education,” on classroom teaching?

The reason why even the floor set in the Education Law has long failed to be implemented probably has something to do with the general atmosphere of impatience in contemporary China—there are two ways to measure “political achievement”: one is the “objective” standard—“numbers.” How much has GDP increased? How much has the employment rate risen? How much has poverty decreased? … But investment in education cannot immediately yield returns in numerical form—so-called “It takes a hundred years to raise a tree, but ten years to raise a man”; investment in education is like sinking a stone into the sea, and one can never see direct, objective results. Even indirect achievements can only be manifested after a whole generation has passed. Thinking of this, it is not hard to understand why China’s total education investment is miserably small, yet the proportion going to higher education is world-leading, because higher education is easy to produce results from! Put in funds, and papers can be produced immediately! The second method is a more subjective one: shout slogans, carry out reforms. As long as one shouts a set of pretty slogans, that is enough for this “political achievement” to be “recorded in the annals of history”; when evaluating political performance, one can write a few extra lines: “On such-and-such day, the important XX of XXXX was proposed.” As for carrying out reforms in a down-to-earth manner, that can even more count as political achievement. If nothing makes a stir, if one merely says, “It has quietly continued the work of the predecessor,” how can that show those people’s ability! So-called “new official, three fires”: whatever one does, in any case one must make some noise, so that the political-performance materials will be easier to write. Thus reforms are carried out year after year—especially educational reforms, which every year bring new actions, new slogans, new policies, new rules—yet why has the 2% education investment remained as motionless as ever for ten years running?

I think Ayi’s crying poverty is very well said, reminding people: do not keep bullying honest people just because teachers are “sacred” and teachers are “honest”! Some of those policy-makers do not regard teachers as gods at all, but rather as robots to be ordered about and made obedient and docile. Their attitude toward university professors is still rather decent; at most they treat them as “migrant laborers.” That is exactly what Peking University’s much-advertised personnel-system reform is. But the reform of primary and secondary education treats teachers even less like human beings, actually proposing some kind of teacher mobility mechanism: in order to abolish key schools once and for all and truly flatten the differences among schools, they even say teachers should be made mobile, scattered to teach here for a few years and there for a few years—teachers’ feelings toward their schools, and their feelings toward principals, colleagues, and students, are all unrelated to teaching; teachers are merely machines responsible for teaching… If salaries and待遇 are not improved, then they cannot wait to restrict teachers’ “side occupations.” University professors are still relatively better off; primary and secondary school teachers doing tutoring or private lessons is strictly forbidden. These restrictions on teachers are not in themselves objectionable, but since teachers are to keep to their proper profession, at least they should be able to settle their minds and do so! Salaries and待遇 are already low enough that those who are willing to become teachers are either people who can only manage to muddle through as teachers, or else truly people who love this sacred profession. Yet educational policy keeps disappointing those who love their posts and work conscientiously. It seems as though a teacher’s dedication to duty is taken for granted: dedication means being loyal and obedient to orders; beyond that, extra emotion and individuality must be eliminated.

October 6, 2006