Letter to the Chancellor of the University of California, Riverside on the Punishment of Sinologist Perry Link
（英文在下/ The English version follows）
北 明 · 郑 义
2024年12月22日
尊敬的Kim A. Wilcox 校长，
我们是中国流亡美国的作家，也曾是林培瑞教授在普林斯顿中国学社（Princeton China Initiative）的同事。几天前看到他被校方以“种族主义”-“歧视”论处，十分震惊。我们认为林培瑞所遭受的待遇违背了“多元、平等、包容”的精神。我们想对您表达下列我们的感受和认知。
首先，根据我们三十多年与他的交往和了解，他决不是种族的歧视者，相反，他是一位人类权利和少数族裔权利的捍卫者。一九八九年，当他在中共的红色恐怖中挺身而出，为中国著名的天体物理学家方励之争取权益的时候，就证明了这一点。他为此付出了后半生的代价——作为汉学家，他不再能够进入汉地进行实地考察、研究和教学。
其次，我们认为，林培瑞惹祸上身的那句话——“[候选人X] 活泼且有魅力——是的，他是黑人，这很好——但我认为他的成熟度和经验没有达到我们顶尖候选人的水平。”——体现了在专业所必须的水平上，不论什么肤色和种族一视同仁、不能偏向的想法，是“多元、平等、包容”的真精神。而为了某个族群的平等，无视或剥夺其他族裔的平等，这不是人人平等的平权affirmative ，这是特权privileges。这种特权在我们所熟悉的中共国社会无处不在，在那里，情形正如奥威尔在《动物庄园》中的描述：“所有动物都平等，但是一些动物比另一些动物更平等”，不同的是，那些“更平等”的人是以其官职而不是肤色获得特权的。这种所谓平等，形成的是社会不平等、不包容、不多元的现实。
第三，直到林培瑞被免去“教职招聘委员会” faculty search committee委员的职务，他都没有被告知他究竟说了或写了什么“令人不悦”（upset people）的话。作为被处罚的当事人，他被剥夺了知情权。这个细节让我们回忆起另一个雷同的细节：当年中共拒绝林培瑞教授入境中国的时候，中国当局就一直不告诉林培瑞拒绝的理由，最后他们给林培瑞的回答是：“你自己知道。”
第四，校方整肃林培瑞教授的依据是他说的一句话。这句话却不是他对校方说的，而出自他给一位同事的信函。林培瑞自己事先不知道自己信函内容成了自己的罪状，显然是有人瞒着林培瑞把他的话语报告了校方。这种“背后打小报告”的行为，在中国史无前例的、臭名昭著的“文化大革命”中非常普遍，大凡为了要整倒别人又不暴露自己，都会向有关上级部门告密。现如今，这种现象，受到官方鼓励，出现在中国课堂上，一些学生针对教师在课堂上讲授的不合中共规定的内容，告密老师。一些教授因此受到处罚：勒令停课，或开除教职。中国毕竟是没有学术自由的专制社会，而在中国民间，这种背后打小报告的行为普遍被人唾弃。我们很难想象在自由之地美国，在高等教育的教职员工中，竟会出现这种现象。
第五，在林培瑞教授被免去“教职招聘委员会”faculty search committee委员一职，并被院长达里尔·威廉姆斯Daryle Williams向“校内学术参议会”指控之后，校方负责纪律的副教务长菲尔•布里斯克（Phil Brisk）建议他与校方商议解决方案，可能办法之一是削减他一年工资的10%，否则他的案件将提交“指控委员会” Charges Committee调查。如果调查结果“有合理依据”，他的案件将进一步提交“特权与任期委员会” faculty Privilege and Tenure Committee，以便做 “纪律听证会”。林培瑞拒绝与校方协商，决定听候案件提交“指控委员会”，他还针对威廉姆斯的指控提出反诉，因为他在未说明指控的情况下就对他进行了处罚，剥夺了他的正当程序权利。然而，当“指控委员会”调查之后一致决定，林培瑞的行为不需要进一步向上提交并进行听证时，副教务长布里斯克先生竟然无视“指控委员会”的调查结论，破例将对林培瑞的指控上交了“特权与任期委员会”，同时他撤销了林培瑞对威廉姆斯的反诉。如此的违反既定程序，而且剥夺受罚人的申诉权，令人错愕。但这种违规在林培瑞的事件中并不是仅有的一次。当为期四天的类似审判的听证会（“他们准备了审判的所有程序——检察官、案情摘要、宣誓、证人、交叉质询等等。检察官是加州大学的一名律师，他将我的行为称为‘恶劣行为’，并说我是‘解雇’的候选人。陪审团由来自不同部门的三位教授组成。” ——林培瑞回忆，埃文·格尔（Evan Gahr）“加州大学河滨分校‘DEI 监护人’ 迫害反对种族招聘偏好的教授”，《加州环球报》2024年12月14日)结束，三位来自不同院系的教授组成的陪审团一致否定校方所有指控，做出林培瑞的行为“没有违反《教师守则》”的结论的时候，您，该校的校长，依然向林培瑞教授发出了一封谴责信。这种做法给人的印象是，不强迫林培瑞闭嘴，誓不罢休。这方式像极了我们所熟悉的共产党人的专制文化及其整人方式。我们了解一些专业机构近年来推行DEI价值，奉行“身份政治”政策，因此削弱了专业领域的专业水准，而反对的意见被吓得咽回了肚子里，但是这样的事情发生我们熟悉的、在国际汉学界拥有广泛信誉的教授林培瑞身上，依然令人震惊。
第六：且不说林培瑞案件被人为地升级以后，也就是针对林培瑞教授的打压将近一年之后，他才被告知导致他挨整的那句“冒犯言论”究竟是什么，令我们无比震动的是，在您的大学里，居然有如此强有力的DEI的机制和机构，一层接一层，一步接一步，为了一个常识，一句话语，一个不服从，就整了一个教授两年。去职、指控、减薪威胁、听证（庭审），最后还威胁受害人若对外泄露其经历，将“可能导致进一步惩罚”。打压到这种地步，我们怀疑在您领导的大学里，言论、思想、学术的自由是否还存在。
发生这样的事情让我们非常痛心：为了一种理念，治罪其他理念；为了一个种族，无视其他种族；为了一种肤色，忽视其他肤色；为了一种正确，牺牲其他正确；为了纠正历史错误，犯下新的错误。这不是多元，不是平等，不是包容。我们相信您是一位为黑人受歧视的历史抱不平的管理者，您希望改善这种状况，但是林培瑞事件让我们想到的是犹太人那句古老的谚语：“通往地狱的路也是好意铺成的。”
美国是我们敬仰的国家，她的自由理念和实践，一直影响着中国一代代知识分子，是我们学习的榜样，我们一直在利用各种方式告诉中国人民美国的优越和例外。163年前，为了解放黑人，美国人在自己的国土上跟自己的同胞打了一场战争；16年前，美国人民自己投票选了一位黑人做自己的总统，这位总统在任期四年之后再度当选。还有什么比这更有力地说明美国是一个多元、平等、包容的国家呢？但是过犹不及，偏离真理一步，就是谬误。林培瑞教授对黑人、白人、黄人一律以专业水平对待的态度，出于常识而实事求是；他反对并抗议对他的处罚，合情合理，他不应因此受到任何处罚。我们钦佩他捍卫自己的权利的做法。我们真心希望您，一位资深的、受人尊敬的美国学术管理者，能听到不同的声音，珍惜我们伟大的国家所拥有的自由，真正没有偏向地、平等、包容地对待所有肤色，一切人。
恭祝您圣诞快乐，新年好！
北明
郑义
2024年12月22日
北明（Bei，Ming）：作家、前自由亚洲电台中文部“华盛顿手记”和“北明非常识”节目主持人、前普林斯顿中国学社前《News Letter》杂志责任编辑。
郑义（Zheng, Yi）：作家、电影剧作家、前普林斯顿中国学社研究员、诺贝尔文学奖提名人。
《纽约书评》文章：https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2021...
《中国头号通缉犯》，方励之：https://us.macmillan.com/books/978125...
《没有敌人，没有仇恨》，刘晓波散文诗选：https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.p...
《汉语解剖：节奏、隐喻、政治》：https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.p...
《中国之旅：在人民共和国的日常生活》：https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781538123690...
有关 CSUSB 中国讲座系列的更多活动：https://docs.google.com/presentation/...
==========================================================================================
Dear Chancellor Kim Wilcox, Dec 22 2024
We are Chinese writers in exile in the United States, and we were also colleagues of Professor Perry Link at the Princeton China Initiative. A few days ago, we were shocked to learn that he was sanctioned by the university for "racism" and "discrimination." We believe that the treatment Professor Link received goes against the spirit of "diversity, equality, and inclusion." We would like to express to you our feelings and perceptions as follows.
First, based on our more than 30 years of interaction and understanding of him, Professor Link is definitely not a discriminator based on race. On the contrary, he is a staunch defender of human rights and minority rights. This was evident in 1989 when he stood up against the Chinese Communist Party's Red Terror to advocate for the rights of China’s renowned astrophysicist Fang Lizhi. He paid the price for this by sacrificing the second half of his life—As a sinologist, he was no longer able to conduct fieldwork, research, or teach in Mainland China.
Secondly, we believe that the controversial statement made by Professor Link—"[Candidate X] is lively and charming—and yes, Black, which is great—but I can't say that I found his sophistication and experience up to the level of our top candidates"—reflects the idea that all races and ethnicities should be treated equally at the professional level, without bias. This, we believe, is the true spirit of "diversity, equality, and inclusion." For the sake of equality for one racial group, ignoring or depriving the equality of other ethnic groups is not true equality. This is not affirmative action, it is privilege. Such privileges are rampant in the society we are familiar with in Communist China, where the situation is described in George Orwell's Animal Farm as: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." The difference is that those "more equal" people acquire their privileges based on their official status rather than their skin color. This so-called equality forms a reality of social inequality, intolerance, and lack of diversity.
Third, until Professor Link was removed from his position on the faculty search committee, he was never informed of exactly what he had said or written that "upset people." As the person being punished, he was deprived of his right to be informed. This detail reminds us of another similar incident: when the Chinese government refused Professor Link's entry into China, the authorities never told him the reason for the refusal. Eventually, they responded, "You know the reason yourself."
Fourth, the basis for the university’s actions against Professor Link is a sentence he made not to the administration, but in a letter to a colleague. Professor Link was not aware that his own words had become the basis for his punishment, and it is clear that someone secretly reported his comments to the administration. This kind of behind-the-back tattling, which was widespread and notorious during China's Cultural Revolution, was common when people wanted to ruin others while keeping their own identities hidden. Today, this practice is encouraged by the Chinese government, and it has even appeared in Chinese classrooms, where some students report teachers for teaching content that goes against Communist Party dictates. Some professors have been punished for this—suspended or even fired. China, after all, is an authoritarian society without academic freedom. Among the general public in China, such behavior of reporting behind someone’s back is widely despised. We find it hard to imagine that such a phenomenon would occur in a free country like the United States, within the ranks of university faculty and staff.
Fifth, after Professor Link was removed from the faculty search committee and after Dean Daryle Williams charged him before your campus’ Academic Senate, the university’s Vice Provost for Academic Resolution, Philip Brisk, suggested that he discuss a resolution with the administration. One of the possible solutions was a 10% reduction in his salary for the year, or else the case would be forwarded to the Charges Committee for investigation. If there was "probable cause," the case would be further submitted to the Faculty Privilege and Tenure Committee for a “disciplinary hearing”. Professor Link refused to negotiate with the university and chose to wait for the case to be forwarded to the Charges Committee. He also filed a countersuit against Williams, arguing that he was punished without being informed of the charges against him, depriving him of his due process rights. However, after the Charges Committee investigated and unanimously decided that Professor Link's actions actions didn’t warrant a disciplinary hearing but that Mr. Williams’s violation of due process did, . But Vice Provost Brisk disregarded the Committee's conclusion and forwarded the case to the Faculty Privilege and Tenure Committee anyway. At the same time, he dismissed Professor Link's countersuit against Williams. This blatant disregard for fairness and deprivation of the punished individual's right to appeal is shocking. But this inversion of faculty judgment was not the only one in Professor Link’s case. After a trial-like four-day hearing, where the prosecution, briefs, oaths, witnesses, cross-examinations, and more were all set up, the jury, consisting of three professors from different departments, unanimously dismissed all charges against Professor Link, concluding that his actions did not violate the Faculty Code. Yet, you, as the university chancellor, still sent Professor Link a letter of censure. This approach gives the impression that the university will not stop until Professor Link is silenced. This method closely resembles the authoritarian culture and tactics of the Chinese Communist Party. We are aware that some professional organizations have adopted DEI values in recent years, which adhere to "identity politics" policies that weaken professional standards in various fields. Dissenting opinions are silenced out of fear. However, it is still shocking that such a thing happened to the professor Perry Link， whom we know well and who has wide credibility in the international Sinology community.
Sixth, even if the case against Professor Link was escalated artificially—meaning, after nearly a year of pressure, he was finally told what his "offensive remark" was—it deeply shocks us that such a powerful DEI mechanism exists at your university, layer upon layer, step by step, for the sake of common sense, a single remark, or an act of noncompliance, a professor was targeted for two years. This punishment involved removal, accusations, threats of salary reduction, hearings, and the ultimate threat that if the victim disclosed his experience, it “may result in discipline.” Such a degree of suppression makes us wonder whether freedoms of speech, thought, and academic freedom still exist in your university.
What has happened is deeply disheartening: In the name of one ideology, other ideologies are condemned; in the name of one race, other races are disregarded; in the name of one skin color, other skin colors are overlooked; in the name of one truth, other truths are sacrificed; and in the pursuit of correcting historical wrongs, new wrongs are committed. This is not diversity, not equality, not inclusion. We believe you are a manager who is outraged by the historical discrimination against African American and that you wish to improve this situation. However, the Perry Link incident reminds us of the old Jewish saying: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
The United States is a country we admire, and its ideals of freedom have always influenced generations of intellectuals in China. It is a model we learn from, and we have always used various means to tell the Chinese people about the superiority and exceptionality of America. 163 years ago, in order to free Black people, Americans fought a war on their own land against their own countrymen. 16 years ago, the American people elected a Black man as their president, and after serving a four-year term, he was re-elected. What could be a stronger testament to America being a country of diversity, equality, and inclusion? However, excess leads to deficiency, and one step away from the truth is a step toward error. Professor Link's attitude of treating Black, White, and Asian candidates equally based on professional standards was driven by common sense and practicality. His protest against the punishment he received is both reasonable and just. He should not have been punished for this. We admire his stance in defending his rights. We sincerely hope that you, as a respected and experienced U.S. academic administrator, can listen to diverse voices and cherish the freedom that our great country possesses, treating all races and people with true equality and inclusion, without bias.
Thanks you for your time. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Bei, Ming & Yi Zheng
Bei,Ming: Author，Journalist，Former host of “Washington Diary” and “Bei Ming’s Uncommon Sense”, Mandarin Service, Radio Free Asia, Former Responsible Editor of the New Letter of the Princeton China Initiative.
Yi Zheng: Author, Film Dramatist, Former Fellow, Princeton China Initiative, Nobel Literature Prize Nominee.
