（英文在下）
尊敬的Kim A. Wilcox 校長，
我們是中國流亡美國的作家，也曾是林培瑞教授在普林斯頓中國學社（Princeton China Initiative）的同事。幾天前看到他被校方以“種族主義”-“歧視”論處，十分震驚。我們認為林培瑞所遭受的待遇違背了“多元、平等、包容”的精神。我們想對您表達下列我們的感受和認知。
首先，根據我們三十多年與他的交往和了解，他決不是種族的歧視者，相反，他是一位人類權利和少數族裔權利的捍衛者。一九八九年，當他在中共的紅色恐怖中挺身而出，為中國著名的天體物理學家方勵之爭取權益的時候，就證明了這一點。他為此付出了後半生的代價——作為漢學家，他不再能夠進入漢地進行實地考察、研究和教學。
其次，我們認為，林培瑞惹禍上身的那句話——“[候選人X] 活潑且有魅力——是的，他是黑人，這很好——但我認為他的成熟度和經驗沒有達到我們頂尖候選人的水平。”——體現了在專業所必須的水平上，不論什麽膚色和種族一視同仁、不能偏向的想法，是“多元、平等、包容”的真精神。而為了某個族群的平等，無視或剝奪其他族裔的平等，這不是人人平等的平權affirmative ，這是特權privileges。這種特權在我們所熟悉的中共國社會無處不在，在那里，情形正如奧威爾在《動物莊園》中的描述：“所有動物都平等，但是一些動物比另一些動物更平等”，不同的是，那些“更平等”的人是以其官職而不是膚色獲得特權的。這種所謂平等，形成的是社會不平等、不包容、不多元的現實。
第三，直到林培瑞被免去“教職招聘委員會” faculty search committee委員的職務，他都沒有被告知他究竟說了或寫了什麽“令人不悅”（upset people）的話。作為被處罰的當事人，他被剝奪了知情權。這個細節讓我們回憶起另一個雷同的細節：當年中共拒絕林培瑞教授入境中國的時候，中國當局就一直不告訴林培瑞拒絕的理由，最後他們給林培瑞的回答是：“你自己知道。”
第四，校方整肅林培瑞教授的依據是他說的一句話。這句話卻不是他對校方說的，而出自他給一位同事的信函。林培瑞自己事先不知道自己信函內容成了自己的罪狀，顯然是有人瞞著林培瑞把他的話語報告了校方。這種“背後打小報告”的行為，在中國史無前例的、臭名昭著的“文化大革命”中非常普遍，大凡為了要整倒別人又不暴露自己，都會向有關上級部門告密。現如今，這種現象，受到官方鼓勵，出現在中國課堂上，一些學生針對教師在課堂上講授的不合中共規定的內容，告密老師。一些教授因此受到處罰：勒令停課，或開除教職。中國畢竟是沒有學術自由的專制社會，而在中國民間，這種背後打小報告的行為普遍被人唾棄。我們很難想象在自由之地美國，在高等教育的教職員工中，竟會出現這種現象。
第五，在林培瑞教授被免去“教職招聘委員會”faculty search committee委員一職，並被院長達里爾·威廉姆斯Daryle Williams向“校內學術參議會”指控之後，校方負責紀律的副教務長菲爾•布里斯克（Phil Brisk）建議他與校方商議解決方案，可能辦法之一是削減他一年工資的10%，否則他的案件將提交“指控委員會” Charges Committee調查。如果調查結果“有合理依據”，他的案件將進一步提交“特權與任期委員會” faculty Privilege and Tenure Committee，以便做 “紀律聽證會”。林培瑞拒絕與校方協商，決定聽候案件提交“指控委員會”，他還針對威廉姆斯的指控提出反訴，因為他在未說明指控的情況下就對他進行了處罰，剝奪了他的正當程序權利。然而，當“指控委員會”調查之後一致決定，林培瑞的行為不需要進一步向上提交並進行聽證時，副教務長布里斯克先生竟然無視“指控委員會”的調查結論，破例將對林培瑞的指控上交了“特權與任期委員會”，同時他撤銷了林培瑞對威廉姆斯的反訴。如此的違反既定程序，而且剝奪受罰人的申訴權，令人錯愕。但這種違規在林培瑞的事件中並不是僅有的一次。當為期四天的類似審判的聽證會（“他們準備了審判的所有程序——檢察官、案情摘要、宣誓、證人、交叉質詢等等。檢察官是加州大學的一名律師，他將我的行為稱為‘惡劣行為’，並說我是‘解雇’的候選人。陪審團由來自不同部門的三位教授組成。” ——林培瑞回憶，埃文·格爾（Evan Gahr）“加州大學河濱分校‘DEI 監護人’ 迫害反對種族招聘偏好的教授”，《加州環球報》2024年12月14日)結束，三位來自不同院系的教授組成的陪審團一致否定校方所有指控，做出林培瑞的行為“沒有違反《教師守則》”的結論的時候，您，該校的校長，依然向林培瑞教授發出了一封譴責信。這種做法給人的印象是，不強迫林培瑞閉嘴，誓不罷休。這方式像極了我們所熟悉的共產黨人的專制文化及其整人方式。我們了解一些專業機構近年來推行DEI價值，奉行“身份政治”政策，因此削弱了專業領域的專業水準，而反對的意見被嚇得咽回了肚子里，但是這樣的事情發生我們熟悉的、在國際漢學界擁有廣泛信譽的教授林培瑞身上，依然令人震驚。
第六：且不說林培瑞案件被人為地升級以後，也就是針對林培瑞教授的打壓將近一年之後，他才被告知導致他挨整的那句“冒犯言論”究竟是什麽，令我們無比震動的是，在您的大學里，居然有如此強有力的DEI的機制和機構，一層接一層，一步接一步，為了一個常識，一句話語，一個不服從，就整了一個教授兩年。去職、指控、減薪威脅、聽證（庭審），最後還威脅受害人若對外泄露其經歷，將“可能導致進一步懲罰”。打壓到這種地步，我們懷疑在您領導的大學里，言論、思想、學術的自由是否還存在。
發生這樣的事情讓我們非常痛心：為了一種理念，治罪其他理念；為了一個種族，無視其他種族；為了一種膚色，忽視其他膚色；為了一種正確，犧牲其他正確；為了糾正歷史錯誤，犯下新的錯誤。這不是多元，不是平等，不是包容。我們相信您是一位為黑人受歧視的歷史抱不平的管理者，您希望改善這種狀況，但是林培瑞事件讓我們想到的是猶太人那句古老的諺語：“通往地獄的路也是好意鋪成的。”
美國是我們敬仰的國家，她的自由理念和實踐，一直影響著中國一代代知識分子，是我們學習的榜樣，我們一直在利用各種方式告訴中國人民美國的優越和例外。163年前，為了解放黑人，美國人在自己的國土上跟自己的同胞打了一場戰爭；16年前，美國人民自己投票選了一位黑人做自己的總統，這位總統在任期四年之後再度當選。還有什麽比這更有力地說明美國是一個多元、平等、包容的國家呢？但是過猶不及，偏離真理一步，就是謬誤。林培瑞教授對黑人、白人、黃人一律以專業水平對待的態度，出於常識而實事求是；他反對並抗議對他的處罰，合情合理，他不應因此受到任何處罰。我們欽佩他捍衛自己的權利的做法。我們真心希望您，一位資深的、受人尊敬的美國學術管理者，能聽到不同的聲音，珍惜我們偉大的國家所擁有的自由，真正沒有偏向地、平等、包容地對待所有膚色，一切人。
謝謝您的時間。
恭祝您聖誕快樂，新年好！
北明
鄭義
2024年12月22日
北明：
作家、前自由亞洲電台中文部“華盛頓手記”和“北明非常識”節目主持人、前普林斯頓中國學社前《News Letter》雜志責任編輯
鄭義：作家、電影劇作家、前普林斯頓中國學社研究員、諾貝爾文學獎提名人
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,
