|
To be sure, it is very likely that Professor Dworkin enjoyed much more freedom of speech in China than his Chinese colleagues because of his ethnicity and nationality.But that is not Dworkin’s fault.It actually results from the Chinese government’s cautious discrimination.I am not sure whether Dworkin would have kept silent if he had been a Chinese professor without any privilege of a distinguished American guest.Actually, many native Chinese scholars are even bolder than Dworkin.They have demonstrated no less courage than what Dworkin showed in China.But anyway, I do not want to be bothered with this hypothetical question.I am more interested in what Dworkin should do in his current role if he must not appear to “possess more moral courage.”
Dworkin seems to have had many other options.He could have not taken advantage of this freedom and pretended that he did not perceive any disaster in China.He could have just showed up in these “inferior shows” for “social purpose.”Above all, red wine is much more interesting than “red corner”
in a Chinese banquet.Unfortunately, Professor Dworkin was so foolish as to take this right seriously.He came, complained, and criticized.This “spirit of Don Quixote” really made us uncomfortable.
In the shade of Dworkin’s false courage in “fighting”, Chinese people’s “compromising” and “tolerating” must be both forgivable and reasonable.As expected, Professor Fang continues to evaluate these “human natures” on which “authoritative politics are actually built,” thus pushing his domestic defense to a new level-not only is scholars’ “general discussion” a smart strategy, but most people’s choice to “wait passively” may also be a rational decision.
After justifying Chinese silence and impotence, Professor Fang goes further to challenge foreign criticisms.Regardless of the similarity between the opinion of Dworkin and that of many other Chinese insiders, Professor Fang thoroughly overthrows the foundation of foreign criticisms.
第 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] 页 共[8]页 |
