Sunday, July 21, 2013

Suzhou University's Open Letter to Fu Ping

Suzhou University has issued an open letter to Fu Ping today:
An Open Letter to Ms. Ping Fu by Soochow University 
July 21, 2013 
Ms. Ping Fu, 
We are writing you in response to the bizarre tales you told, in Bend, Not Break, of your undergraduate days with us in Soochow University (Suzhou University in pinyin). 
As firmly stated in our 1st and 2nd Statements, the many falsehoods you fashioned into the memoir, as well as a team of discrepancies in the many clarifications you offered and/or were asked to provide to media, have both unjustifiably defamed Soochow University and ruthlessly abused the personal feelings of your fellow students and teachers. Your persistent refusal to our request for a public apology for your misrepresenting Soochow University and your academic life there, in both the memoir and the press, manifests a “resilience” on you not to speak or seek truth. Worse still, you have presented yourself as a determined fighter against truth in talks with the press, particularly so when addressing the 2013 ALA Annual Conference. 
You have sullied the academic integrity of Soochow University by claiming to have taken BA and MA degrees from the institution. As is shown in our well-kept archives, you withdrew from us on March 16th, 1982, with neither diploma nor degree, not as a result of your facing any likelihood of your being “sent to remote China,” but that of your failing to finish required courses. Lies, however repeated, remain lies, no more and no less. 
Your so-called research on female infanticide in rural China was simply non-existent---- as evidence goes, never ever did you, while with Soochow University, conduct any research or publish any research finding on such a topic. Regrettably, by claiming that readers “made assumptions” on this matter, you all so conveniently dodged the questioning of whether or not you actually wrote it. 
Equally, your alleged experience of secret arrest as punishment for writing a “daring and controversial article” is not anywhere close to truth. Your “accounts” of persecution with, in particular, your depiction of how you got arrested and released, simply cannot pass facts’ scan for entry into truth. 
That, according to your “narrative,” Soochow University conducted intrusive physical checks on all female students’ periods, is a pure fabrication out of nothing. We have never heard of, let alone administering, these malpractices. This very story inflicts an insult not just upon yourself, but upon your fellow students and your alma mater, leaving the name of Soochow University being gravely defiled across the world. 
Whatever value you may have felt it free to assign to your memoir, its story of your learning life in Soochow University is proven unauthentic and short of validity, with a good part of it being outright falsehood. We agree with you that “democracy means everyone is entitled to freedom of expression;” but we would like to remind you that freedom of speech stands as a human right to uncover truth, not as a right to justify lies and liars. We agree with you that humanity has every need to reach out for forces that “unite” us, instead of for those that “divide” us; but we would like to remind you that “civilized contributions” to humanity requires, among others, every one to be a proponent of truth rather than a proponent of falsehood. 
We, Soochow University, have duly noticed your expressed wish to seek for a peaceful reconciliation with us. The words, however, have not been met with any substantive deeds. To actualize the wish, Ms Ping Fu, you are bound with an inalienable obligation to deliver a formal and open apology to Soochow University, your fellow students and teachers whom your memoir has caused to suffer, and exercise an immediate stop to any promotional activity for the memoir, either asking your publisher to recall the first edition of your memoir, or thoroughly correcting the falsehoods thereof to set to print, in the coming November, a truly authentic and valid story to readers and yourself, failure of which is sure to make us take legal actions.
 
致傅苹女士的公开信 

傅苹女士: 
你的回忆录《弯而不折,一段生命两个世界》所述你在苏州大学求学的经历严重失实,我校特致此一公开信函,以正视听。 
在已经发表的两个声明中,我校严正指出,你在回忆录中所虚构的事实,以及你在媒体上罔顾事实的解释,严重地损害了我校的声誉并对你的同学和老师造成了极大的创伤。迄今为止,你迟迟未能就此公开道歉,一再排拒事实、回避真相,并在随后的采访及在ALA的演讲中继续为自己的谎言狡辩。 
你声称,你在苏州大学获得了本科和硕士学位,此言损及我校学术声誉,意在何为?学校档案显示,你于1982年3月16日办理退学手续,未能获毕业证书和学位证书。退学的原因远非因为你担心被“派遣至边远地区工作”,而是因为你本人违反了学校学籍管理规定,无法毕业。要知道,谎言,哪怕是重复千遍万遍,依旧是谎言。 
你声称,你曾在苏州大学求学阶段从事了以中国农村地区杀害女婴为主题的研究。这纯属子虚乌有。据我校查证,在校期间,你从未从事过这一专题的研究,也从未以论文或文章形式发表过这样的研究成果。如此空穴来风实为主观臆想。面对读者的质疑,你不仅躲闪其辞,还指责读者“无端揣测”。 
你还声称,在校期间,你曾因某一文章的发表而被秘密逮捕。这也是无稽之谈。你对于所谓的你遭受迫害的“描述”,特别是你对于逮捕与释放的“叙事”,是完全没有事实根据的凭空捏造。 
你对于在校期间曾遭受强制性指检之害的“记事”,同样是无中生有的虚妄之词。如此侮辱人格之举,为我校闻所未闻,又何谈实施?这不仅是对你自己的侮辱,也是对你的同学和苏州大学的侮辱。这严重损害了苏州大学在国内外的声誉。
你尽可以在主观上给你的回忆录贴上任何标签,但铁的事实告诉人们,你的有关就读于苏州大学的故事严重失实,不少是完全的谎话。的确,“民主之意在于人人得言语之自由”;但是,我们不能忘记,言论自由,其目的在于发掘真相,追求真理,而不是用谎言来欺世,欺世以盗名。的确,人类理应拥抱那些能够将彼此“团结起来”的力量,而不是那些令彼此走向“分裂”的力量;而要在此基础上对人类作出“文明的贡献”,人就必须成为真理的捍卫者,而不是谎言的捏造者。 
傅苹女士,苏州大学已经注意到了你想与苏州大学达成和解的愿望, 但迟迟未见到有任何实质的行动。要使这一愿望得到实现,你必须向苏州大学、向因你的回忆录而受到伤害的同学和老师公开正式道歉,立即停止一切与你的回忆录相关的宣传活动,要求你的出版机构撤回第一版回忆录,或者在计划于今年11月出的新版中彻底改正原书中的不实之处,还读者以及你本人一个真实的故事。
如若不然,苏州大学将采取必要的法律手段。

苏州大学
2013年7月21日

1 comment:

  1. http://www.forbes.com/sites/russellflannery/2013/01/31/one-bold-and-controversial-lady-bend-not-break-author-ping-fu/?commentId=comment_blogAndPostId/blog/comment/958-5217-6798

    Jim ca
    4 days ago

    Let’s look at the recent development on Bend, Not Break controversy:

    1. June 11, 2013, Suzhou University 1st published their statement on deceptive behavior of Ping Fu;

    2. June 14, 2013, Suzhou University published 2nd official statement on deceptive behavior of Ping Fu indicating their readiness to have an open dialog with Ping Fu;

    3. June 20, 2013, Suzhou University had press conference on the same issue indicating its willingness to wait for Ping Fu’s response before taking any legal actions;

    4. June 29, 2013, Ping Fu attended ALA Conference 2013 anyway ignoring Suzhou University’s message to her and gave a speech anyway there using her fake life story;

    5. July 1, 2013, South China Morning Post interviewed Ping Fu in which she expressed her willingness to apologize to Suzhou University;

    6. July 2, 2013, Ping Fu “published” Joe Nocera’s Cultural Revolution Vigilantes on her Google+ site;

    7. July 21, 2013, Suzhou University published its 3rd statement along with evidence;
    i) Ping Fu’s student registration card which she filled out with her own handwriting indicating that
    a) She joined Chinese Communist Youth League in April, 1973;
    b) Ping Fu graduated from Nanjing Guanghuamen High School in 1976;
    c) Ping Fu served as monitor of her class;
    ii) The undergraduate program of Chinese Language and Literature was Ping Fu’s first choice;
    iii) Ping Fu was admitted to the Department of Chinese Language and Literature of Jiangsu Teachers’ College in September, 1978 (Jiangsu Teachers’ College was a formal name for Suzhou University);
    iv) Ping Fu withdrew from Suzhou University on March 16, 1982;

    8. Mid July, 2013, the response from FOIA request for grant #9200301 includes Ping Fu’s resume. On her resume submitted to apply for the federal grants, she had indicate that
    i) She earned a BA degree in Chinese Literature from Suzhou University in March, 1982 when in fact, she withdrew from Suzhou University on March 16, 1982 (confirmed by Suzhou University);
    ii) She was a lecturer at Nanjing Aeronautical Institute, China (1982 – 1983), during which time she claimed that she was doing her infanticide research and was arrested as written in her Bend, Not Break;
    iii) She also published a book called “Two minute stories”, Hebei, China, isbn 7-5353-0761-2, 1988, of which she claimed it was her own publication whereas in fact it was only translation of Mary Parsley’s children’s book;

    Using forged resume to gain federal grants is a serious matter. It hurts taxpayers like you and me, more importantly; it hurts America as a whole. Copyright infringement should not be taken lightly either. Do we know what credentials she used to get onto the President’s advisory board? Should the President of the United States be advised by such person with issues of integrity and honesty?

    With the mountain of evidence, should mainstream media still keep silence?

    ReplyDelete